Of course, if you solve the problems of getting eyeballs safely down to that depth then you've automatically solved the problem of getting a camera down there (the reverse is not necessarily true).
Weirdly I actually read is as America in the post title and was trying to figure out how the hell an old woman in Georgia could take out US internet (not being from the US I made the connection with Georgia as former USSR rather than the US Georgia).
Playing devil's advocate, she was out digging up cables. If she's capable of digging she's capable of finding food, they have huge, largely unguarded fields full of food called "farms" where you can engage in this behaviour.
This is likely just a mechanism to lock consumers into their store - I can't imagine it will allow you to buy and play games from anyone other than Gamestop (I'm happy to be proven wrong, but I suspect this will follow the PSPGo model, high prices due to vendor lock in). It's early days yet to start thinking this will be a net win for the customer, although I guess just having more competition in the market will be positive.
We can refine this still further to "Governments don't like..." and "The people don't like their government as they are only working for large corporations now". I find it equal parts amusing and sad that governments in the West are standing up for the rights of those in Africa and the Middle East to protest, while over here they're introducing ever more draconian laws to prevent their own populace protesting.
That's not even counting trivial social engineering hacks - someone calls a company claiming to be from the government department responsible for data retention and asks for a list of user accounts, by law said company knows they have a duty to provide them, it's down to the initiative of the individual employee to determine if the caller is genuine. Considering a lot of those employees are the same ones who open random.EXE attachments in emails, that's a pretty big gaping hole they just opened.
How do you provide a plain text password if you're storing it as a hash? The law might not explicitly prohibit hashing of passwords, but it's pretty blatant that that's the intention (unless you store the password both ways, which makes very little sense).
It would be nice if sites had some level of certification for things like password storage, perhaps as part of the SSL certification, so as a user I can see at a glance how secure/insecure a particular site really is (and if they tell me they're storing an enecrypted/hashed password but it's actually cleartext there should be serious legal/financial consequences).
And good luck proving all of the above, since the assumption seems to be that if you have a TV in the house you must be using it. The house I used to rent had a TV that was physically incapable of receiving a signal, but even then we eventually had to wrap it in plastic and dump it in the garage to stop getting hassling letters from them.
It doesn't matter if it fits your world view or not, it appears that handheld devices are going to overtake the desktop as the primary computing device for most people's uses in the very near future. Once you can hook your handheld device up to a keyboard, mouse and monitor so you have a better UI for doing the kind of tasks you'd traditionally do on a desktop, there's no reason to think they won't replace desktops in a lot of homes where you don't need a dedicated computer set up 24/7. At that point you have a big switch from Windows to Linux in the average user's home and there's little MS can do about it. Maybe the trend will reverse but I can't see any reason it would. Availability of software is still the real sticking point, how far these devices can go in replacing the Office suite is likely to be a key factor.
I want to love Linux on the desktop - god knows I've tried, I have it on so many other embedded devices/servers in my life, but GP is right and I've been stung with the "newer versions are much better" argument one too many times (probably four or five times in the last 12 years I've tried to go Windows free on the back of such assurances, only to run into issues with drivers or lack of software). Having said that, I'm hopeful that we'll see more support on the desktop as Linux use becomes more widespread on handheld devices (or rather, as more and more of people's daily computer needs are served by handheld devices) - people will naturally want to run the same system on their home machine that they do on their tablet/phone/etc.
Although there's no reason you can't individually offload small, high value cargo and then just dump the container overboard. It's a lot more work, but if you have a buyer and the price is right it might still be worth it. What do 30 tons of iPads go for on the black market?
Oh I dunno, I found the Google Motion stuff mildly amusing - especially their representation of how to create pie charts by having three people position their arms in sync to create the slices. That and the "easy" flowcharts that require you to bust a move on the desk.
Personally, I'd care far more about my breaks failing due to a blown fuse than a little range anxiety. The Streisand Effect here is not that they're bringing attention to what they claim is misleading information about range, but that they're going to put the much bigger, scarier issue of failing breaks back in the public spotlight. That and the fact that TG will now poke fun at them for the rest of the show's life are two reasons this seems like a big misstep.
Well I suspect it wouldn't really help their case if they claimed nobody had ever mentioned the episode to them, of course they're going to say they're sick of people asking about it. In reality I should think they'd be happy if the episode was sending potential customers their way with questions they can address, companies usually pay a lot of money to have sales leads dropped in their laps like that. I can't believe anyone would seriously use a show where they tried to launch a car into space or set a pedestrian on fire with a converted combine harvester mounted flamethrower as the basis of their research to buy a £100k car, though.
You're massively underestimating how much of an issue range, charge times and availability of charge points are for people considering electric cars. With petrol it's almost a non-issue these days, if you run out you walk a few hundred yards to the nearest petrol station, or you call your car breakdown service and they come give you enough to drive home, or you get a friend to drive out to you with a can - mentioning that cars can run out of petrol isn't necessary in a review (unless it's a car with a ridiculously low MPG rating, in which case they often do make a point of that too), mentioning the charge issue in an electric car review, on the other hand, is a key factor.
Apparently, I'm crazy for thinking the power-laps and the car reviews weren't scripted in advance, and any problems that crop up legitimately crop up.
It's more likely a mix of the two. I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't spend some time during the week driving the cars, then they take all of their thoughts and findings and script them into a segement where they recreate any issues they may have had. For instance, if the test car broke down twice while they were trialling it, they'll mention that it broke down twice and recreate it breaking down in the film. I don't really have an issue if that's the case, they can't have a full camera crew following them around all the time while they're testing, shooting schedules are far too tight, it makes more sense to take time doing the review then script it up into a tight filming slot on the day, that's not really misrepresenting their findings.
So the basis of their claim is that some random journalist presenting a TV show should be able to produce data consistent with a team of dedicated electronic motor engineers? Seems to me that they're possibly asking a little too much of a light entertainment show if that's the case.
People even in this thread are suggesting they're suing because they're trying to cover up real issues with the vehicle - especially since what they're asking for is that the episode be pulled, which instantly sounds like they're hiding something (even if that something is in fact a lie, the human brain is irrational and will often see conspiracy where none exists). They'd probably gain far more goodwill by staging some kind of event that disproves Top Gear's claims without going down the lawyer route. They could even invite TG along to verify (that way they either regain the lost cred or they can say "We invited TG but they declined... I wonder why...").
Yes, it seems core to Tesla's argument that, under non-aggressive driving conditions, the Tesla does have a greater range. I don't think TG ever claimed to test cars by driving them "non-aggressively". Aggression is integral to the show, every shot is some car spinning it's wheels or drifting or flooring it from a dead stop. If Jeremy had said "I drove this over the weekend and noticed the range was poor" then fair enough, but it's pretty clear the car was thrashed around and it's under those circumstances that the range was low. So, the conclusion is don't buy a Tesla if you intend to powerslide your way to the office. And on that bombshell...
I'm pretty sure they're doing this knowing full well that they will be sued. They must also feel that they have a pretty strong case or they wouldn't be exploring the idea. If money buys laws then Amazon should be able to at least afford a nice juicy exemption.
Good point, and of course, from RIAA's perspective it's practically impossible to determine whether the file someone uploads is a digital copy from elsewhere or a CD rip (having the distinction in the first place is stupid, it's all just data, but it was 2000 I guess, it's expecting a bit much that a judge would understand such concepts...)
Amazon aren't a single mom or an elderly grandparent, though. They have their own deep pockets and pack of rabid lawyers. They're also a major distribution channel for the very labels that are complaining. This definitely won't be the usual **AA steamroller campaign, whichever way it falls (and as far as I can see, it has to go Amazon's way if cloud based content delivery has any kind of future).
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, if you solve the problems of getting eyeballs safely down to that depth then you've automatically solved the problem of getting a camera down there (the reverse is not necessarily true).
Weirdly I actually read is as America in the post title and was trying to figure out how the hell an old woman in Georgia could take out US internet (not being from the US I made the connection with Georgia as former USSR rather than the US Georgia).
Playing devil's advocate, she was out digging up cables. If she's capable of digging she's capable of finding food, they have huge, largely unguarded fields full of food called "farms" where you can engage in this behaviour.
This is likely just a mechanism to lock consumers into their store - I can't imagine it will allow you to buy and play games from anyone other than Gamestop (I'm happy to be proven wrong, but I suspect this will follow the PSPGo model, high prices due to vendor lock in). It's early days yet to start thinking this will be a net win for the customer, although I guess just having more competition in the market will be positive.
So long as it doesn't appropriate the FBI to come raid my house and take away all my computing equipment as "evidence".
We can refine this still further to "Governments don't like..." and "The people don't like their government as they are only working for large corporations now". I find it equal parts amusing and sad that governments in the West are standing up for the rights of those in Africa and the Middle East to protest, while over here they're introducing ever more draconian laws to prevent their own populace protesting.
That's not even counting trivial social engineering hacks - someone calls a company claiming to be from the government department responsible for data retention and asks for a list of user accounts, by law said company knows they have a duty to provide them, it's down to the initiative of the individual employee to determine if the caller is genuine. Considering a lot of those employees are the same ones who open random .EXE attachments in emails, that's a pretty big gaping hole they just opened.
How do you provide a plain text password if you're storing it as a hash? The law might not explicitly prohibit hashing of passwords, but it's pretty blatant that that's the intention (unless you store the password both ways, which makes very little sense).
It would be nice if sites had some level of certification for things like password storage, perhaps as part of the SSL certification, so as a user I can see at a glance how secure/insecure a particular site really is (and if they tell me they're storing an enecrypted/hashed password but it's actually cleartext there should be serious legal/financial consequences).
And good luck proving all of the above, since the assumption seems to be that if you have a TV in the house you must be using it. The house I used to rent had a TV that was physically incapable of receiving a signal, but even then we eventually had to wrap it in plastic and dump it in the garage to stop getting hassling letters from them.
It doesn't matter if it fits your world view or not, it appears that handheld devices are going to overtake the desktop as the primary computing device for most people's uses in the very near future. Once you can hook your handheld device up to a keyboard, mouse and monitor so you have a better UI for doing the kind of tasks you'd traditionally do on a desktop, there's no reason to think they won't replace desktops in a lot of homes where you don't need a dedicated computer set up 24/7. At that point you have a big switch from Windows to Linux in the average user's home and there's little MS can do about it. Maybe the trend will reverse but I can't see any reason it would. Availability of software is still the real sticking point, how far these devices can go in replacing the Office suite is likely to be a key factor.
I want to love Linux on the desktop - god knows I've tried, I have it on so many other embedded devices/servers in my life, but GP is right and I've been stung with the "newer versions are much better" argument one too many times (probably four or five times in the last 12 years I've tried to go Windows free on the back of such assurances, only to run into issues with drivers or lack of software). Having said that, I'm hopeful that we'll see more support on the desktop as Linux use becomes more widespread on handheld devices (or rather, as more and more of people's daily computer needs are served by handheld devices) - people will naturally want to run the same system on their home machine that they do on their tablet/phone/etc.
Although there's no reason you can't individually offload small, high value cargo and then just dump the container overboard. It's a lot more work, but if you have a buyer and the price is right it might still be worth it. What do 30 tons of iPads go for on the black market?
Oh I dunno, I found the Google Motion stuff mildly amusing - especially their representation of how to create pie charts by having three people position their arms in sync to create the slices. That and the "easy" flowcharts that require you to bust a move on the desk.
Personally, I'd care far more about my breaks failing due to a blown fuse than a little range anxiety. The Streisand Effect here is not that they're bringing attention to what they claim is misleading information about range, but that they're going to put the much bigger, scarier issue of failing breaks back in the public spotlight. That and the fact that TG will now poke fun at them for the rest of the show's life are two reasons this seems like a big misstep.
Or that there is a consistent problem with the battery charge indicators on Teslas :)
Well I suspect it wouldn't really help their case if they claimed nobody had ever mentioned the episode to them, of course they're going to say they're sick of people asking about it. In reality I should think they'd be happy if the episode was sending potential customers their way with questions they can address, companies usually pay a lot of money to have sales leads dropped in their laps like that. I can't believe anyone would seriously use a show where they tried to launch a car into space or set a pedestrian on fire with a converted combine harvester mounted flamethrower as the basis of their research to buy a £100k car, though.
You're massively underestimating how much of an issue range, charge times and availability of charge points are for people considering electric cars. With petrol it's almost a non-issue these days, if you run out you walk a few hundred yards to the nearest petrol station, or you call your car breakdown service and they come give you enough to drive home, or you get a friend to drive out to you with a can - mentioning that cars can run out of petrol isn't necessary in a review (unless it's a car with a ridiculously low MPG rating, in which case they often do make a point of that too), mentioning the charge issue in an electric car review, on the other hand, is a key factor.
Apparently, I'm crazy for thinking the power-laps and the car reviews weren't scripted in advance, and any problems that crop up legitimately crop up.
It's more likely a mix of the two. I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't spend some time during the week driving the cars, then they take all of their thoughts and findings and script them into a segement where they recreate any issues they may have had. For instance, if the test car broke down twice while they were trialling it, they'll mention that it broke down twice and recreate it breaking down in the film. I don't really have an issue if that's the case, they can't have a full camera crew following them around all the time while they're testing, shooting schedules are far too tight, it makes more sense to take time doing the review then script it up into a tight filming slot on the day, that's not really misrepresenting their findings.
So the basis of their claim is that some random journalist presenting a TV show should be able to produce data consistent with a team of dedicated electronic motor engineers? Seems to me that they're possibly asking a little too much of a light entertainment show if that's the case.
People even in this thread are suggesting they're suing because they're trying to cover up real issues with the vehicle - especially since what they're asking for is that the episode be pulled, which instantly sounds like they're hiding something (even if that something is in fact a lie, the human brain is irrational and will often see conspiracy where none exists). They'd probably gain far more goodwill by staging some kind of event that disproves Top Gear's claims without going down the lawyer route. They could even invite TG along to verify (that way they either regain the lost cred or they can say "We invited TG but they declined... I wonder why...").
Yes, it seems core to Tesla's argument that, under non-aggressive driving conditions, the Tesla does have a greater range. I don't think TG ever claimed to test cars by driving them "non-aggressively". Aggression is integral to the show, every shot is some car spinning it's wheels or drifting or flooring it from a dead stop. If Jeremy had said "I drove this over the weekend and noticed the range was poor" then fair enough, but it's pretty clear the car was thrashed around and it's under those circumstances that the range was low. So, the conclusion is don't buy a Tesla if you intend to powerslide your way to the office. And on that bombshell...
I'm pretty sure they're doing this knowing full well that they will be sued. They must also feel that they have a pretty strong case or they wouldn't be exploring the idea. If money buys laws then Amazon should be able to at least afford a nice juicy exemption.
Good point, and of course, from RIAA's perspective it's practically impossible to determine whether the file someone uploads is a digital copy from elsewhere or a CD rip (having the distinction in the first place is stupid, it's all just data, but it was 2000 I guess, it's expecting a bit much that a judge would understand such concepts...)
Amazon aren't a single mom or an elderly grandparent, though. They have their own deep pockets and pack of rabid lawyers. They're also a major distribution channel for the very labels that are complaining. This definitely won't be the usual **AA steamroller campaign, whichever way it falls (and as far as I can see, it has to go Amazon's way if cloud based content delivery has any kind of future).