Fujitsu CTO: We'll be 3D-printing tech execs in 15 years Fujitsu’s CTO slapped down the net neutrality dogmatists yesterday, saying the flood of data due to the emergence of the internet of things meant society would force a new pricing model. Joseph Reger, Fujitsu cto, with his 3D-printed doppelganger Joseph Reger, Fujitsu CTO, with his 3D-printed replica Joseph Reger told a …
This post has been deleted by its author
Motorcycles don't steer by leaning.
No, really, they don't. The experiment has been done:
http://www.superbikeschool.com/machinery/no-bs-machine.php
Not that I'd want to ride mine under autonomous control, anyway. Happy to get into an automated car, but I see no point at all for bikes.
GJC
If you read the article you cite again, more carefully this time, you will see he is referring to wide tyred "superbikes", and admits that narrow tyred motorbikes can be steered by body shifting. In fact his caveat is:
"nothing I would consider steering. In other words, something that could be used in an emergency maneuver or to aggressively flick the bike into a corner or through a set of esses." He is defining "steering" in such a way as to exclude mass shift steering, which doesn't produce "aggressive" cornering..
I do know how motorbikes steer, in fact I used to demonstrate it to people using a trials bike. You can ride one of these a considerable distance down a non-straight road hands off, and in fact can initiate steering by whacking one handlebar to initiate countersteering, then following through with mass shift (I advise doing this on a private road with no trees and grass verges to begin with.)
Also, mass shift isn't leaning. Nor is simply transferring weight to one or other footpegs. It is necessary to shift the CoG by a bum shift or, if standing on the saddle, by raising a leg outwards. Again, I have done the experiment often enough but do not advise anybody to try it without suitable precautions.
"For autonomous vehicles to work, there should be nothing on the road that can behave bizarrely."
Autonomous-only roads are simply not going to happen, not until after a long, long, *long* period of mixed autonomous/manual traffic. Autonomous vehicles that can blindly run over a kid that any human driver would have avoided are also not going to happen. So, I'd say instead that for autonomous vehicles to work, they need to be able to handle bizarre behaviours by other objects on the road.
I seriously doubt that. Once autonomous vehicles are available, the insurance premiums for them will be tiny. In a short period of time, possibly less than 5 years the cost to insure a manually operated vehicle will sky rocket to the point virtually no-one can afford it. Unless you and I have a different interpretation of *long* periods of time.
I also doubt autonomous vehicles will get extensive (meaning costly) extra development to be able to cover rare situations. Autonomous cars do not need to be perfect. They just need to be better than humans and that's not all that hard. It's a powerful message to be able to say you saved 20000 lives. To spend an extra few million in development to maybe save 20001 just isn't something that happens in the real world.
I generally agree, though this is a huge cultural shift so I believe autonomous cars will have to demonstrate very good safety performance. But as you said, the great saving of human lives and insurance money, *AND* vehicle and petrol cost reduction will be overwhelming factors in bulldozing their adoption. Around 5 years away, like all the automakers say.
Finally, there is the terrific and generally ignored power of networked sensors on vehicles. An auto vehicle will likely have 3-4 complementary systems for navigation and safety. But the biggest safety improvement, at least on fast and/or busy roads, is the hundreds or thousands of sensors working together to avoid conflict and tragedy. That means cars will talk with cars, with roadside sensors, with pedestrians' (especially children's and pet's) wearable sensors and smart logic, and all that will work together to make driving as safe as it can be.
When that coordinating software and hardware is mature enough, the revolution will begin. I, for one, welcome our...
...(Mine's the one with the Lewis Hamilton patch.)
@FlatSpot
"... its unlikely to be serious on a mountain road unless its somehow a motorway up there."
That is pretty much Interstate 40 as it goes through the Smoky Mountains!! Around mile marker 7 (the NC side) there are rock-slides that can, on occasion cause fatal accidents.
Autonomous vehicles will revolutionize travel making it much safer...
what will we do with all that extra time?
The beer icon, obviously...
P.
I dont understand how prioritising traffic at ISP level is better than setting up your own QoS.
Surely it should be upto the consumer how they prioritise their bandwidth?
The electric company doesnt prioritise my TV over my kettle for me...
This whole net neutrality thing baffles me.
Is the concern for $corp that there simply isnt enough infrastructure or that they dont want to have to keep reinvesting to improve the infrastructure?
Id be outraged if they ever made me pay more to use what is already there. We're only just on the cusp of rubbish fair use policies being phased out.
Surely it should be upto the consumer how they prioritise their bandwidth?
Piffle! I'm pretty sure giant faceless multinational corporations know better than *you* what you want.
In all seriousness though, I have been making this argument for a while myself. It's no good to let Comcast and/or Google decide how fast I can stream from Netflix - it should be *my* decision. Give me XXMbps and let me carve it up however I please, with the default being equal priority for all sources.
The reason they don't do this already is that there's no way to make money from it. If you give control to the ISPs, they can charge both you (the end-user) and also stick it to Netflix (et al.) who currently get a "free ride" (from the ISP's point of view.) Though it's not like this was a surprise or something invented by OTT services; the Internet has always (RFC 791 not withstanding) treated traffic equally. You knew what you were getting into when you signed up all those thousands of customers with promises of fast connections and streaming video. It's a bit like joining a conservative political party and then complaining they're not liberal enough.
The electric company doesnt prioritise my TV over my kettle for me.
It does, however, meter your usage where-as ISPs generally do not. So you self prioritize or end up with a large electric bill. I suspect if we end up keeping Net Neutrality then we'll start to see metered Internet as a result.
Actually, our usage is metered in one aspect and that is the speed. I pay for a 7/24 connection at 10Mb per second. I expect to be able to use that whenever I choose to. If the ISP doesn't have the back end able to handle all of the customers they sold to, I would consider that fraud, or at the very least a misleading sales job.
Note that I expect to pay a fair price for the service that I buy. If the ISP is honest and not overselling capacity, then we are good. No need for metering-I'm happy with my service and the ISP is making a profit If the ISP needs to do upgrades and the price rises accordingly, I'm fine with that (assuming again that this is an honest ISP.)
I agree with the QOS being decided by the end user.
As for net neutrality baffling you, I would guess that you are not a USian and your ISP is not a content provider. I don't want my ISP to decide what I can and can't access on the Internet. Here in the U.S. many ISPs have started providing content. For now, the biggest conflicts are with video. But they provide other services, e.g. email. Would you like gmail, yahoo, outlook.com etc. to be throttled or dropped? Mail accounts are provided free by ISPs here (free as in part of what your account pays for,) at least in my area, so there hasn't been any contention that I am aware of. But it is the same principle.
Why someone like an exec at Fujitsu would bring up net neutrality in this context is what is baffling. Maybe he has stakes in the game that I am not familiar with so he is joining the misinformation campaign?
"Fujitsu’s CTO slapped down the net neutrality dogmatists yesterday, saying the flood of data due to the emergence of the internet of things meant society would force a new pricing model."
Don't buy into IoT and wearables, and the old pricing model survives!
Aren't IoT devices the kinds of things that would work well with Bluetooth and 2G? Some "flood"...
>>>>>"Certain services might need to have a priority," he continued. "But that you go out and just make a profit according to your own will, that is something that needs to be discussed.”
Reasonable traffic management to say, reduce packet loss from those functions that are more likely to have an impact I don't think is a "breach" of network neutrality. Thats just reasonable network management.
> the flood of data due to the emergence of the internet of things
Smart meters may result in the utility company receiving a flood of data but my house is sending a trickle. Connected fridges or other appliances may result in Sainsburys receiving a flood of data, but my house is still sending just a trickle.
Compared to a family downloading movies and playing on-line games, IoTs data is small beer, and will always remain so.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
