Diesel engines have a higher compression ratio so hit peak power and torque at the low-end of their RPM range. That's great for cruising and accelerating from a stop, not so great for accelerating at highway speeds. This is why they're so common in tractor trailers - it's OK if the truck takes a long time to accelerate at highway speeds, but you want good power and fuel efficiency during cruise. Since the diesel engine's peak torque and power happen close to cruise, they're a lot easier to optimize for fuel efficiency.
This isn't true.
Diesel engines have a low peak torque because they're turbocharged. Try driving a naturally aspirated diesel engine and you will learn just how gutless they really are.
You get the same effect if you turbocharge a petrol. That's why a 3 cyl 1.0L FiST (Fiesta ST) hits peak torque at 1750 RPM. A variable geometry turbo ensures that its torque curve if pretty flat.
Also diesel engines lose power much earlier than petrols, even with the same variable geometry turbos as the FiST. An NA petrol will have 4-7000 usable RPM. A turbo diesel will have 2-4000 before you have to shift up. This is why diesels are not overly represented in motorsports or really at all outside of enduro.
Sorry. I hear it's surgically removed when you become an SJW.
As amply demonstrated by the SJWs who down-modded my comment.
No, your comment was downmodded because using the term "SJW" demonstrates you're a complete and total idiot.
Being called an "SJW" simply means you aren't a jerk. Honestly, when the worst insult you can come up with is "Social Justice Warrior" that demonstrates both a lack of a point and a severe lack of creativity on your part.
Still, I did hear a really funny left-wing joke the other day:
"An Englishman, an Irishman and a Scotsman walk into a bar."
"SEXIST!"
That joke isn't funny.
I hope you appreciate the irony here considering you accused others of having to have their sense of humour surgically removed. It's a good thing when I think about it though, you could use a sense of humour implant and it appears there are donors that can help you.
Also I have 15 mod points, I chose to post rather than mod you down. Now if you would excuse me, I've got to take a course on shipbuilding, it's going to be riveting.
I don't think the article is paying attention. Apple already has a system of censorship on IOS, it's one of its core features. They just need to adjust it to Chinese requirements.
Oh your car chose to kill a kid on a bike instead of hit an old person crossing the road?
What? Why do you think that a car would be programmed to hit "obstacle B" when "obstacle A" appears in front of it?
Instead, wouldn't the car be programmed to avoid ALL obstacles and apply the brakes with maximum efficiency?
You make it sound like all collision are avoidable.
But arguing over which object it will choose to run into is pointless. We already know because we have these things called "road rules" and "safety procedures" already for meat based drivers. The fact that most meat based drivers have no clue what they are is not withstanding.
If someone cuts off an automated car and emergency brakes, yes it will run up the arse of it because that is the safest procedure (nose-tail accidents have the least severe injuries). No point in arguing that there is a Nobel laureate one car and someone who is actually important in the other. The car doesn't know and the car doesn't care because that has no factor on minimising injury.
Volvo is offering to indemnifying individual owners against flaws in the self-driving system. Of course, you'd have to prove somehow that the self-driving system was responsible, and do it by going up against a massive corporation's legal department.
This.
The first reaction of any warranty or liability claim is to find a way to blame the user. The most infamous of these in recent memory is Apple's Antennagate. More related to the Auto industry, look at how long GM ignored the ignition issue, it had to kill a dozen people before GM stopped denying it was even a problem.
Any acceptance of liability is going to be conditional, even though I'd trust Volvo far more than any other car company when it comes to safety (an old 240 is safer than some new cars, the B pillars are so strong you can rally in those things without fitting a roll cage, I'd still fit the roll cage though) this is still going to come with an 800 page document of legalese around the term "accept".
Yes. They omitted the diesel exhaust fluid (urea) injection system. I heard it saved about $400 per car.
Plus support costs. Sure the actual urea injection system may only be $400, but it'll end up being $1200 per car after you factor in all the externalities (design, testing, warranty repairs, spare parts, manufacturing complexity).
Beyond this, urea injection requires a consumable (commonly called AdBlue). Given that diseasels are marketed on their low fuel usage to tight fisted people (which is a false economy, but that's besides the point), being able to advertise that your diseasel doesn't need AdBlue gives you a huge edge in the tight as a ducks arse market. This is a huge factor in VW practically owning the passenger diesel market in the US (even though it's only 3% of cars, 70% of those are VW's).
thats why the poor CEO quit, even though it clearly was not his fault...
Martin Winterkorn only received $32 million in severance pay. You can help CEO's like martin, please give generously to the Make a Fortune appeal so that Martin does not have to downsize his mansion.
If the kids moved it to the parents cars, the parents would be livid with their kids over their horrible driving.
And considering most teens learn to drive from their parents, the irony will be lost on these helicopter parents that they are responsible for their precious little snowflakes bad habits.
Do these people honestly not consider that their kids are watching them speed, failing to indicate, aggressively tailgating and talking on the phone whilst driving and thinking that this is perfectly perceptible behaviour.
Sorry for answering my own question, but of course not. See: Dunning-Kruger. We need a large campaign of public service announcements that begin with the words "Parents, you are not as good at driving as you think you are".
Not "eSports", that's really just a money making thing like World Series of Poker. I can understand that perfectly well.
I mean collage athletics, why does it even exist.
I'm from Australia, if you want to go into sports you apply to attend a sporting institution (such as the Australian Institute of Sport) or start playing in local leagues and work your way up. If you go to a collage or university, you're going there to use your brain.
Having college athletics/sports only takes valuable spots and resources away from educating people who can use that.
I have to wonder how many collage football players fail to make it into any kind of league. They're left with no education and likely end up in a dead end job, meanwhile they occupied a collage placement that could have been given to someone who wanted to learn a practical skill in science or even liberal arts that would have given them better job prospects.
In Australia, sports in collages and universities are more of a hobby. Students who are studying or staff will generally form their own teams and practice/play after hours. It doesn't make sense to use an educational institution to train sports people, surely a dedicated sporting institution would be a better idea (and use of resources).
Honestly, if bridge and chess are considered sports, why not video games?
It defies what most of us think of as 'sport', but apparently it's a more nuanced thing, and there are already precedents for this.
I don't know, I've never seen an Olympic Bridge match?
That is kind of the gold standard when it comes to sports. Not everything that is competitive can be considered a sport, not even motorsport which despite the connotations, is actually pretty physically demanding (yes it is, you may think it's easy as you swan about in your automatic mum-tank SUV, but spend 2 hours in a manual rally car or even a track car and see how it is).
That's what Android Marshmallow will partially fix with changes in permission handling. It supposedly won't ask you for microphone until you click the voice command button.
And, if you say "no", hopefully it won't turn around and delete the app.
Not worried about that, it isn't Apple we're talking about here.
Mixed feelings: Porsche (do want) with nanny controls( don't want). Sort of like watching your Ferrari going over a cliff driven by your mother-in-law.
However people who drive performance cars often do want to know a lot of information about them including throttle position, coolant temp (everyone should want to know this, but sigh), oil pressure, boost pressure, oil temp, intake pressure and a heap of other stats... Especially if they're a tuner... and what kind of a car buyer buys a Porshce over a Mercedes?
Yeah. This is useful for lots of automated diagnostics functions.
Also, SOME of that data (not all of it) is highly beneficial for augmenting navigation systems (most notably, vehicle speedometer and steering position). Google even explicitly mentioned how this data would be used by Android Auto in a presentation somewhere (I don't have the link to it now...) It's hinted at a bit past one minute in to https://www.youtube.com/watch?... but I'm fairly certain I saw a presentation somewhere explicitly stating that vehicle GPS, steering position, and wheel speed would be used for location sensor fusion.
Yeah, everyone wants minute by minute logging of their Coolant Temperature and Throttle Position.
Think about the kind of cars porsche make and are famous for then think about the kind of people who'd choose a porsche like that over a Mercedes or BMW sedan (would be approx the same price).
Then tell me they wouldn't want second by second logging of vital statistics.
If that was Apple, Slashdot's Apple-Haters would be setting the Internets on fire with the hate-posts.
If you could abandon your hopeless fanboyism for a moment, you'd realise how ridiculous you sound.
Europe is a large place, so making massive generalisations like that is very likely going to make you wrong. As I have had excellent taxi service across Europe, I can't agree with your claims, and I guess my anecdote disproves your assertion.
Much like Uber paying for articles like these, I'm also convinced Uber tells its shills exactly what to complain about when trying to rubish regular taxis.
I've travelled across 5 of the 6 populated continents. I've certainly seen rude, incompetent and expensive taxis but they are definitely not the norm in western countries. 95% of taxi's I've gotten in Australia, the US, UK and Ireland, Hong Kong, Singapore and Japan have been nothing but polite, knowledgeable and clean. I'd include Germany and France but I'll admit I speak neither German or French. Taxi's in Oz are a bit on the expensive side (yep, but what in Oz isn't) however Uber isn't any cheaper. To get a taxi from my house to the Perth domestic airport is $55-60 by using a normal taxi, it's $55-60 by using UberX. The difference is with a legal taxi company I'll get a midsized to large car that'll fit 3 adults and luggage, with UberX I'll get a small car that wont fit three adults. This distinction is important when going to an airport.
The only places I've been to with consistently bad taxis are places with no taxi regulations (or no effective taxi regulations). Places where they refuse to even turn on the engine unless you pay that countries minimum wage... and that is just for turning on the engine.
Bangkok is a demonstration of this contrast, a meter taxi will take you from the international airport to the city centre (35 KM) for 400 baht and that is leaving the driver with a small tip (I usually chuck another 20-50 B on top unless the driver was a complete maniac, 450 THB is still under A$20/US$15), meter taxi's are heavily regulated. The problem with Bangkok is you need to know where the meter taix's are because there area a lot of touts in the arrival hall charging 700-1000 B for the same trip in a private hire car (meaning some Thai bloke with a small sedan or maybe a Camry).
just because some people like the business model doesn't mean that Uber should be breaking the law.
You make it sound like whatever is legal is moral, and whatever is illegal is immoral. If only the world were that simple.
Yeah, blah blah, Uber fans always trot this out. Was Rosa Parks wrong to break the law about where black people sat on a bus? No, therefore anyone can break any law they disagree with.
Counter the Rosa Parks argument with the Timothy McVeigh argument.
Timothy McVeigh thought it was right to bomb an oklahoma government building even though it was illegal. Therefore using Uber fan logic, Timothy McVeigh was correct.
The question is, is Uber comparable to a Minicab service. And if it is, how come the drivers do not have to pass the same checks as other minicab drivers? Looks like a Minicab service to me.
First, the background checks are meaningless, and Uber also does meaningless background checks, so they have parity there. They also get logged via the Uber app, so there is the digital equivalent of "a paper trail allowing them to be located quickly if they are involved in crimes".
The background checks that English mini-cabbing companies have to do aren't meaningless.
But you're right about the Uber ones. Uber outsource all their background checks in Australia through a company in Barbados. Considering it's illegal for the government to give out sensitive personal information to foreign companies I have no doubt the background checks Uber are doing have been completely falsified.
Brick and Mortar mini-cabbers on the other hand have to get their background checks from the UK government, same as brick and mortar taxi companies here in Australia.
How do you hijack a truck that's constantly remotely monitored and controllable?
Feed them false data?
But why bother, all you need to do is jam the signal so they cant send new commands.
If all you want is the cargo, pick somewhere where there wont be any responders for at leas half an hour (not like there will be many spots like this), order the truck to stop (it will have half a dozen safety protocols designed to do this, you'll just have to trip one and chances are you wont need to have the authority to issue commands to the truck to do is).
So the theft is simple:
1) Trick the trucks sensors into stopping (make it think there's a log or deer on the road... or actually use a deer, lo-tech works just as well).
2) Jam the signal to prevent new commands from being received (Off the shelf cellular jammers are available from any tech bazaar in a number of developing countries, presumably UHF and VHF can be found just as easily).
3) Help yourself to the contents of the back of the truck.
4) ????.
5) Profit.
No. Do you have a problem with people pointing out logical inconsistencies, mixed premises, and hypocrisy?
Not at all.
And I'd like to start by pointing out that your comparison of vehicles to firearms is completely logically fallacious and the above quoted statement is extremely hypocritical.
First off, a vehicle is a method of transportation, not a weapon. It is designed for the duty of conveying people from point to point faster than they can walk, not intended to do bodily harm and just because it can be used for that purpose does not mean that it is any way equivalent to a firearm which is expressly designed to do bodily harm. It would be like saying a gun is a can opener because it can be used to open a can, it is utterly incorrect that it is a can opener because that is not the purpose it was designed for nor is it particularly good for that purpose, which leads me to my second point.
Secondly, cars are terrible at killing people. Seriously, every feature on a modern car is designed to minimise harm to the occupants an the people they hit. They make terrible killing devices just like a gun makes a terrible can opener.
Thirdly, there are far more cars than guns. Going by deaths per 100,000 vehicles to deaths per 100,000 guns the car is a positive haven of safety even in the hands of terrible drivers.
Forth point, cars are used far more than guns. So we add add frequency of usage to deaths per vehicle, the risk of cars compared to firearms is minuscule.
Fifth point, We dont let people near cars who 1) aren't trained to operate them or; 2) have demonstrated they will operate them in an unsafe manner. We license drivers, register and test cars, we charge and even imprison drivers who break laws and make themselves a danger to other road users, drivers who are dangerous have their licenses taken off them. Considering that guns are more dangerous than cars, why aren't the same measures taken with firearms?
Finally, if you want to improve road safety, there's plenty you can do. Begin by becoming a motor vehicle instructor. Start teaching people how to use the manual transmission (this teaches novice drivers how the car works and forces them to start thinking ahead of what they're doing) start teaching defensive driving. Stop speeding, learn what an indicator does, don't drink and drive, stay off the phone when in the car. I can give you a million suggestions and yes, I'm a licensed MVDIL (Motor Vehicle Driver Instructor License) in Western Australia, so I find your comparison laughable and your hypocrisy insufferable.
Are you trying to cleverly imply that since the presence of the law doesn't stop people from breaking it, the law should go away?
No, he's pointing out that people who want to kill other people for notoriety are going to do it, laws or not. The laws are there so that there's a mechanism by which to punish people who do such things, should they be apprehended. The laws don't actually stop evil little shits from being evil little shits.
Nine-tenths of any crime is opportunity.
Put people in an environment that glorifies violence, has a strictly enforced hierarchy based on physical dominance and then give them ready access to guns and what do you expect is going to happen?
The first and most effective step is to remove the ready access to firearms. Like it or not, this will stop the mass shootings that are prevalent in the United states but rare events in other western nations.
However unless you also take steps to fix the causes (glorifying violence and strictly enforced hierarchy) you'll just be turning murder-suicides into plain old normal suicides.
I've cabbed in Vegas a lot over the years, and I've always found the cabs to be clean and in good shape, the drivers (with one exception out of a long list) to be polite and capable, and the fares consistent. I've never been taken on a long ride, and I've actually gotten a lot of good information from the drivers about going-ons in the city.
This.
The only places I've been to that regularly have dirty taxis with poor drivers are places that don't regulate their taxi industries.
This is why I cant buy the "dirty taxi's, bad drivers, harassment and so forth" excuses from the Uber crowd. Every one parrots the same tired old myth about taxi's that just flat out aren't true. I have to wonder if Uber themselves are writing these complaints for them and people are just parroting them.
I've taken taxis in 5 continents and dozens of cities. The taxi's that stand out as the cheapest and best were in very well regulated environments, more specifically Bangkok, Thailand and Medellin Colombia although Vegas rates highly with me also. Contrast this with areas that have little to no regulation (or no enforced regulation) such as Phuket, Thailand. To get from Bangkok airport to Bagkok city centre (a distance of 35 KM/20 miles) you're paying around 400 Baht for a meter taxi and you're leaving the driver with a 20 or so Baht tip. Just to go 5KM/3 miles down the road in Phuket costs you that much, the Tuk Tuk Mafia wont even switch on the engine for less than 200 baht and to put that into perspective the minimum wage in the Phuket province is less than 300 Baht per day. The Tuk Tuk Mafia also use violence and threats to prevent any municipal bus service (known as a Baht bus), this is the reason we call them a mafia.
In my own city, Perth, Western Australia, which is a very expensive place to live UberX is marginally cheaper than a licensed and insured taxi. To get from my house to the airport is A$55-60 by using a regular taxi, it's A$50-55 using UberX by their fare estimator. With a regular taxi service I know I'm going to be getting a Camry Hybrid, Ford Falcon or Holden Commodore sedan or wagon. With UberX I'm not so sure but given my experiences in Perth it's likely to be a small car like a Hyundai Getz or Kia Rio. If you've got more than 1 person with luggage it's a no brainier to get the normal taxi. Beyond this, taxi drivers are mostly Australians and most know how to avoid traffic hot spots. They pretty much have to because driving a taxi is such a low paying job if they waste time sitting in a traffic jam they're bleeding money. Taxi drivers in Perth have taught me a few good tricks for avoiding traffic. Uber on the other hand has taught me that 3 fully grown men wont fit easily into a Toyota Yaris.
Slashdot Mirror
Diesel engines have a higher compression ratio so hit peak power and torque at the low-end of their RPM range. That's great for cruising and accelerating from a stop, not so great for accelerating at highway speeds. This is why they're so common in tractor trailers - it's OK if the truck takes a long time to accelerate at highway speeds, but you want good power and fuel efficiency during cruise. Since the diesel engine's peak torque and power happen close to cruise, they're a lot easier to optimize for fuel efficiency.
This isn't true.
Diesel engines have a low peak torque because they're turbocharged. Try driving a naturally aspirated diesel engine and you will learn just how gutless they really are.
You get the same effect if you turbocharge a petrol. That's why a 3 cyl 1.0L FiST (Fiesta ST) hits peak torque at 1750 RPM. A variable geometry turbo ensures that its torque curve if pretty flat.
Also diesel engines lose power much earlier than petrols, even with the same variable geometry turbos as the FiST. An NA petrol will have 4-7000 usable RPM. A turbo diesel will have 2-4000 before you have to shift up. This is why diesels are not overly represented in motorsports or really at all outside of enduro.
For the sake of the mental health of people like me, please stick with the .bro extension.
umad.bro
Damn feminists, grow a pair!
Or just buy one at the shops, if you want one it'll be faster than planting a tree.
Sorry. I hear it's surgically removed when you become an SJW.
As amply demonstrated by the SJWs who down-modded my comment.
No, your comment was downmodded because using the term "SJW" demonstrates you're a complete and total idiot.
Being called an "SJW" simply means you aren't a jerk. Honestly, when the worst insult you can come up with is "Social Justice Warrior" that demonstrates both a lack of a point and a severe lack of creativity on your part.
Still, I did hear a really funny left-wing joke the other day:
"An Englishman, an Irishman and a Scotsman walk into a bar."
"SEXIST!"
That joke isn't funny.
I hope you appreciate the irony here considering you accused others of having to have their sense of humour surgically removed. It's a good thing when I think about it though, you could use a sense of humour implant and it appears there are donors that can help you.
Also I have 15 mod points, I chose to post rather than mod you down. Now if you would excuse me, I've got to take a course on shipbuilding, it's going to be riveting.
I don't think the article is paying attention. Apple already has a system of censorship on IOS, it's one of its core features. They just need to adjust it to Chinese requirements.
What? Why do you think that a car would be programmed to hit "obstacle B" when "obstacle A" appears in front of it?
Instead, wouldn't the car be programmed to avoid ALL obstacles and apply the brakes with maximum efficiency?
You make it sound like all collision are avoidable.
But arguing over which object it will choose to run into is pointless. We already know because we have these things called "road rules" and "safety procedures" already for meat based drivers. The fact that most meat based drivers have no clue what they are is not withstanding.
If someone cuts off an automated car and emergency brakes, yes it will run up the arse of it because that is the safest procedure (nose-tail accidents have the least severe injuries). No point in arguing that there is a Nobel laureate one car and someone who is actually important in the other. The car doesn't know and the car doesn't care because that has no factor on minimising injury.
Volvo is offering to indemnifying individual owners against flaws in the self-driving system. Of course, you'd have to prove somehow that the self-driving system was responsible, and do it by going up against a massive corporation's legal department.
This.
The first reaction of any warranty or liability claim is to find a way to blame the user. The most infamous of these in recent memory is Apple's Antennagate. More related to the Auto industry, look at how long GM ignored the ignition issue, it had to kill a dozen people before GM stopped denying it was even a problem.
Any acceptance of liability is going to be conditional, even though I'd trust Volvo far more than any other car company when it comes to safety (an old 240 is safer than some new cars, the B pillars are so strong you can rally in those things without fitting a roll cage, I'd still fit the roll cage though) this is still going to come with an 800 page document of legalese around the term "accept".
First rule of leadership: Everything is your fault.
First rule of Bosshood, everything that goes wrong is someone else's fault.
Anyone want to guess whether Michael Horn is a leader or a boss?
Yes. They omitted the diesel exhaust fluid (urea) injection system. I heard it saved about $400 per car.
Plus support costs. Sure the actual urea injection system may only be $400, but it'll end up being $1200 per car after you factor in all the externalities (design, testing, warranty repairs, spare parts, manufacturing complexity).
Beyond this, urea injection requires a consumable (commonly called AdBlue). Given that diseasels are marketed on their low fuel usage to tight fisted people (which is a false economy, but that's besides the point), being able to advertise that your diseasel doesn't need AdBlue gives you a huge edge in the tight as a ducks arse market. This is a huge factor in VW practically owning the passenger diesel market in the US (even though it's only 3% of cars, 70% of those are VW's).
thats why the poor CEO quit, even though it clearly was not his fault...
Martin Winterkorn only received $32 million in severance pay. You can help CEO's like martin, please give generously to the Make a Fortune appeal so that Martin does not have to downsize his mansion.
More likely managers ordered the engineers to do it because of pressure from higher up.
Bosch has openly said that they warned VW about the code in their ECU's being illegal in 2007. The VW management don't get to plead ignorant on this.
If the kids moved it to the parents cars, the parents would be livid with their kids over their horrible driving.
And considering most teens learn to drive from their parents, the irony will be lost on these helicopter parents that they are responsible for their precious little snowflakes bad habits.
Do these people honestly not consider that their kids are watching them speed, failing to indicate, aggressively tailgating and talking on the phone whilst driving and thinking that this is perfectly perceptible behaviour.
Sorry for answering my own question, but of course not. See: Dunning-Kruger. We need a large campaign of public service announcements that begin with the words "Parents, you are not as good at driving as you think you are".
Not "eSports", that's really just a money making thing like World Series of Poker. I can understand that perfectly well.
I mean collage athletics, why does it even exist.
I'm from Australia, if you want to go into sports you apply to attend a sporting institution (such as the Australian Institute of Sport) or start playing in local leagues and work your way up. If you go to a collage or university, you're going there to use your brain.
Having college athletics/sports only takes valuable spots and resources away from educating people who can use that.
I have to wonder how many collage football players fail to make it into any kind of league. They're left with no education and likely end up in a dead end job, meanwhile they occupied a collage placement that could have been given to someone who wanted to learn a practical skill in science or even liberal arts that would have given them better job prospects.
In Australia, sports in collages and universities are more of a hobby. Students who are studying or staff will generally form their own teams and practice/play after hours. It doesn't make sense to use an educational institution to train sports people, surely a dedicated sporting institution would be a better idea (and use of resources).
Honestly, if bridge and chess are considered sports, why not video games?
It defies what most of us think of as 'sport', but apparently it's a more nuanced thing, and there are already precedents for this.
I don't know, I've never seen an Olympic Bridge match?
That is kind of the gold standard when it comes to sports. Not everything that is competitive can be considered a sport, not even motorsport which despite the connotations, is actually pretty physically demanding (yes it is, you may think it's easy as you swan about in your automatic mum-tank SUV, but spend 2 hours in a manual rally car or even a track car and see how it is).
Fun fact: Driving too slow could get you fined, indeed. (Though you would have to drive slow enough to obstruct others)
Fun Fact: the above law is rarely enforced in most countries that have it on the books (looking at you Mr doing 20 under in the passing lane).
That's what Android Marshmallow will partially fix with changes in permission handling. It supposedly won't ask you for microphone until you click the voice command button.
And, if you say "no", hopefully it won't turn around and delete the app.
Not worried about that, it isn't Apple we're talking about here.
Mixed feelings: Porsche (do want) with nanny controls( don't want). Sort of like watching your Ferrari going over a cliff driven by your mother-in-law.
However people who drive performance cars often do want to know a lot of information about them including throttle position, coolant temp (everyone should want to know this, but sigh), oil pressure, boost pressure, oil temp, intake pressure and a heap of other stats... Especially if they're a tuner... and what kind of a car buyer buys a Porshce over a Mercedes?
Yeah. This is useful for lots of automated diagnostics functions.
Also, SOME of that data (not all of it) is highly beneficial for augmenting navigation systems (most notably, vehicle speedometer and steering position). Google even explicitly mentioned how this data would be used by Android Auto in a presentation somewhere (I don't have the link to it now...) It's hinted at a bit past one minute in to https://www.youtube.com/watch?... but I'm fairly certain I saw a presentation somewhere explicitly stating that vehicle GPS, steering position, and wheel speed would be used for location sensor fusion.
Yeah, everyone wants minute by minute logging of their Coolant Temperature and Throttle Position.
Think about the kind of cars porsche make and are famous for then think about the kind of people who'd choose a porsche like that over a Mercedes or BMW sedan (would be approx the same price).
Then tell me they wouldn't want second by second logging of vital statistics.
If that was Apple, Slashdot's Apple-Haters would be setting the Internets on fire with the hate-posts.
If you could abandon your hopeless fanboyism for a moment, you'd realise how ridiculous you sound.
Europe is a large place, so making massive generalisations like that is very likely going to make you wrong. As I have had excellent taxi service across Europe, I can't agree with your claims, and I guess my anecdote disproves your assertion.
Much like Uber paying for articles like these, I'm also convinced Uber tells its shills exactly what to complain about when trying to rubish regular taxis.
I've travelled across 5 of the 6 populated continents. I've certainly seen rude, incompetent and expensive taxis but they are definitely not the norm in western countries. 95% of taxi's I've gotten in Australia, the US, UK and Ireland, Hong Kong, Singapore and Japan have been nothing but polite, knowledgeable and clean. I'd include Germany and France but I'll admit I speak neither German or French. Taxi's in Oz are a bit on the expensive side (yep, but what in Oz isn't) however Uber isn't any cheaper. To get a taxi from my house to the Perth domestic airport is $55-60 by using a normal taxi, it's $55-60 by using UberX. The difference is with a legal taxi company I'll get a midsized to large car that'll fit 3 adults and luggage, with UberX I'll get a small car that wont fit three adults. This distinction is important when going to an airport.
The only places I've been to with consistently bad taxis are places with no taxi regulations (or no effective taxi regulations). Places where they refuse to even turn on the engine unless you pay that countries minimum wage... and that is just for turning on the engine.
Bangkok is a demonstration of this contrast, a meter taxi will take you from the international airport to the city centre (35 KM) for 400 baht and that is leaving the driver with a small tip (I usually chuck another 20-50 B on top unless the driver was a complete maniac, 450 THB is still under A$20/US$15), meter taxi's are heavily regulated. The problem with Bangkok is you need to know where the meter taix's are because there area a lot of touts in the arrival hall charging 700-1000 B for the same trip in a private hire car (meaning some Thai bloke with a small sedan or maybe a Camry).
You make it sound like whatever is legal is moral, and whatever is illegal is immoral. If only the world were that simple.
Yeah, blah blah, Uber fans always trot this out. Was Rosa Parks wrong to break the law about where black people sat on a bus? No, therefore anyone can break any law they disagree with.
Counter the Rosa Parks argument with the Timothy McVeigh argument.
Timothy McVeigh thought it was right to bomb an oklahoma government building even though it was illegal. Therefore using Uber fan logic, Timothy McVeigh was correct.
The question is, is Uber comparable to a Minicab service. And if it is, how come the drivers do not have to pass the same checks as other minicab drivers? Looks like a Minicab service to me.
First, the background checks are meaningless, and Uber also does meaningless background checks, so they have parity there. They also get logged via the Uber app, so there is the digital equivalent of "a paper trail allowing them to be located quickly if they are involved in crimes".
The background checks that English mini-cabbing companies have to do aren't meaningless.
But you're right about the Uber ones. Uber outsource all their background checks in Australia through a company in Barbados. Considering it's illegal for the government to give out sensitive personal information to foreign companies I have no doubt the background checks Uber are doing have been completely falsified.
Brick and Mortar mini-cabbers on the other hand have to get their background checks from the UK government, same as brick and mortar taxi companies here in Australia.
How do you hijack a truck that's constantly remotely monitored and controllable?
Feed them false data?
But why bother, all you need to do is jam the signal so they cant send new commands.
If all you want is the cargo, pick somewhere where there wont be any responders for at leas half an hour (not like there will be many spots like this), order the truck to stop (it will have half a dozen safety protocols designed to do this, you'll just have to trip one and chances are you wont need to have the authority to issue commands to the truck to do is).
So the theft is simple:
1) Trick the trucks sensors into stopping (make it think there's a log or deer on the road... or actually use a deer, lo-tech works just as well).
2) Jam the signal to prevent new commands from being received (Off the shelf cellular jammers are available from any tech bazaar in a number of developing countries, presumably UHF and VHF can be found just as easily).
3) Help yourself to the contents of the back of the truck.
4) ????.
5) Profit.
Do you have something wrong with your brain?
No. Do you have a problem with people pointing out logical inconsistencies, mixed premises, and hypocrisy?
Not at all.
And I'd like to start by pointing out that your comparison of vehicles to firearms is completely logically fallacious and the above quoted statement is extremely hypocritical.
First off, a vehicle is a method of transportation, not a weapon. It is designed for the duty of conveying people from point to point faster than they can walk, not intended to do bodily harm and just because it can be used for that purpose does not mean that it is any way equivalent to a firearm which is expressly designed to do bodily harm. It would be like saying a gun is a can opener because it can be used to open a can, it is utterly incorrect that it is a can opener because that is not the purpose it was designed for nor is it particularly good for that purpose, which leads me to my second point.
Secondly, cars are terrible at killing people. Seriously, every feature on a modern car is designed to minimise harm to the occupants an the people they hit. They make terrible killing devices just like a gun makes a terrible can opener.
Thirdly, there are far more cars than guns. Going by deaths per 100,000 vehicles to deaths per 100,000 guns the car is a positive haven of safety even in the hands of terrible drivers.
Forth point, cars are used far more than guns. So we add add frequency of usage to deaths per vehicle, the risk of cars compared to firearms is minuscule.
Fifth point, We dont let people near cars who 1) aren't trained to operate them or; 2) have demonstrated they will operate them in an unsafe manner. We license drivers, register and test cars, we charge and even imprison drivers who break laws and make themselves a danger to other road users, drivers who are dangerous have their licenses taken off them. Considering that guns are more dangerous than cars, why aren't the same measures taken with firearms?
Finally, if you want to improve road safety, there's plenty you can do. Begin by becoming a motor vehicle instructor. Start teaching people how to use the manual transmission (this teaches novice drivers how the car works and forces them to start thinking ahead of what they're doing) start teaching defensive driving. Stop speeding, learn what an indicator does, don't drink and drive, stay off the phone when in the car. I can give you a million suggestions and yes, I'm a licensed MVDIL (Motor Vehicle Driver Instructor License) in Western Australia, so I find your comparison laughable and your hypocrisy insufferable.
Are you trying to cleverly imply that since the presence of the law doesn't stop people from breaking it, the law should go away?
No, he's pointing out that people who want to kill other people for notoriety are going to do it, laws or not. The laws are there so that there's a mechanism by which to punish people who do such things, should they be apprehended. The laws don't actually stop evil little shits from being evil little shits.
Nine-tenths of any crime is opportunity.
Put people in an environment that glorifies violence, has a strictly enforced hierarchy based on physical dominance and then give them ready access to guns and what do you expect is going to happen?
The first and most effective step is to remove the ready access to firearms. Like it or not, this will stop the mass shootings that are prevalent in the United states but rare events in other western nations.
However unless you also take steps to fix the causes (glorifying violence and strictly enforced hierarchy) you'll just be turning murder-suicides into plain old normal suicides.
This.
The only places I've been to that regularly have dirty taxis with poor drivers are places that don't regulate their taxi industries.
This is why I cant buy the "dirty taxi's, bad drivers, harassment and so forth" excuses from the Uber crowd. Every one parrots the same tired old myth about taxi's that just flat out aren't true. I have to wonder if Uber themselves are writing these complaints for them and people are just parroting them.
I've taken taxis in 5 continents and dozens of cities. The taxi's that stand out as the cheapest and best were in very well regulated environments, more specifically Bangkok, Thailand and Medellin Colombia although Vegas rates highly with me also. Contrast this with areas that have little to no regulation (or no enforced regulation) such as Phuket, Thailand. To get from Bangkok airport to Bagkok city centre (a distance of 35 KM/20 miles) you're paying around 400 Baht for a meter taxi and you're leaving the driver with a 20 or so Baht tip. Just to go 5KM/3 miles down the road in Phuket costs you that much, the Tuk Tuk Mafia wont even switch on the engine for less than 200 baht and to put that into perspective the minimum wage in the Phuket province is less than 300 Baht per day. The Tuk Tuk Mafia also use violence and threats to prevent any municipal bus service (known as a Baht bus), this is the reason we call them a mafia.
In my own city, Perth, Western Australia, which is a very expensive place to live UberX is marginally cheaper than a licensed and insured taxi. To get from my house to the airport is A$55-60 by using a regular taxi, it's A$50-55 using UberX by their fare estimator. With a regular taxi service I know I'm going to be getting a Camry Hybrid, Ford Falcon or Holden Commodore sedan or wagon. With UberX I'm not so sure but given my experiences in Perth it's likely to be a small car like a Hyundai Getz or Kia Rio. If you've got more than 1 person with luggage it's a no brainier to get the normal taxi. Beyond this, taxi drivers are mostly Australians and most know how to avoid traffic hot spots. They pretty much have to because driving a taxi is such a low paying job if they waste time sitting in a traffic jam they're bleeding money. Taxi drivers in Perth have taught me a few good tricks for avoiding traffic. Uber on the other hand has taught me that 3 fully grown men wont fit easily into a Toyota Yaris.