Re: Tesla semi?
Brake. Not break.
754 posts • joined 17 Aug 2009
Brake. Not break.
"So maybe my uncle (who owns a trucking business, though he's close to retiring now) could consult for them. Or any OTHER experienced driver that understands electricity and mechanical engineering, for that matter."
Do you actually, seriously, believe that Tesla have developed this without input from the trucking community?
"...out of deferens..."
"It's not a problem, it is how redirection should work."
When I visit a webpage and am redirected by 3rd party content which I didn't ask for, that's not how 'redirection should work' - it's abusive and Google is right to put a stop to it.
Google articulates known problem.
Google fixes problem for you (and them).
What’s your point?
@John Smith 19
"Sorry not really impressed... ...People were doing 50 layers for mainframes in the early 80's..."
Just a slight bit of difference between 50 layers in a mainframe the size of a family saloon car, and 20 layers in a single PCB less than 1mm thick. Also, a 1980s IBM System/36 5360 CPU was manufactured with a 405nm track width on a 16" x 24" board, as opposed to the Apple A11 Bionic's 8nm track width, on a board less than 1.5" x 0.75", and then 20 layers deep.
Sounds slightly more impressive when put like that, doesn't it.
Aaaaaand that would be bullshit, bullshit and more bullshit. On a roll there, AC!
Nokia 8800 Scirocco was $1000 at launch as well. It's not an Apple thing, it's a Fashion thing.
Why do people keep making out that ridiculously expensive fashion phones are a 'new' thing? The Nokia 8800 Scirocco cost $1000 at launch, that was for the 'normal' model and that was way back in 2007.
It's a fashion phone. You don't need it, nobody does. It's $300 for the phone, and $700 for the image - and some people are happy to pay that.
A replacement screen for the Galaxy S8 costs between $200 and $300 depending on where you get the repair done. Expensive OLED screens are expensive. Natch.
My money’s on Dave.
One of my favorites ;)
@AC I was a contractor at IBM 1995-2001 (Based in Hursley but spent most of my time in Bedfont Lakes), with a 1-year secondment to a business partner in 1999. I moved across to the same partner in 2001. I now work for myself, but am still involved in the IBM ecosystem; and yes an awful lot has changed. In fact, when my partner secondment ended in 2000, I almost didn't recognise the company I came back to.
I still stay in touch with a lot of current and ex-IBMers, and they tell me the company is changing now faster than ever. From the people I talk to, IBMers are divided into 3 groups; the old guard who remember how it used to be (they're eternally disappointed in the company as it exists today), the new joiners who came on board in the last 5 years or so (they're generally positive, although they don't feel any loyalty and only stay as long as their compensation package remains viable), and managers. Managers tend to be one of two types; Excellent (usually those that came out of the field and worked their way up), or catastrophically bad. I don't recall any 'average' managers.
Innovation is an interesting one. Deep down I believe IBM still does innovation; some of the fintech/healthtech/blockchain stuff is really interesting and Watson is starting to show some real potential in the deep learning/cognitive arena, but in general IBM innovation is either massively undersold (nobody knows it exists) or massively oversold (a 'decent' product in alpha/beta form is presented as completely finished, world-changing and revolutionary, which inevitably disappoints).
If that's all that comes to mind, then I'm sorry for you. I spent a good few years working with and around IBM, it's a truly gigantic company with good parts, great parts and crap parts. Like pretty much every other Gigantocorp. One thing I do remember is that the people at ground level were amazing; I never met an IBMer I didn't respect or couldn't get on with.
IBM was also, unlike it's peers at the time, willing to change and learn. You told them something was crap, and they're move heaven and earth to make it better. Didn't always work, but if it didn't it wasn't because they didn't do their damnedest to fix it.
Fond memories here.
@AC You're either unwilling or unable to grasp basic concepts of how coding works in modern systems, and I don't get paid enough to teach you. So I'm out of this discussion now, and I'll just leave you with these wise words from Col. Nathan R Codemonkey, Senior Programmer, Guantanamo Software House, Cuba.
Senior programmer: I'll answer the question. You want answers?
Junior Programmer: I think I'm entitled to them.
Senior programmer: You want answers?!
Junior Programmer: I want the truth!
Senior programmer: You can't handle the truth!
Son, we live with software that has holes, and those holes have to be found and closed by men with serious skills. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Anonymous Coward? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for the state of software security, and you curse those who spend their lives trying to harden it. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that software vulnerabilities, while tragic, are inevitable in complex software; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, makes it as safe as it can be.
You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you WANT me scanning your code -- you NEED me scanning your code.
We use words like “Token,” “Fuzzing,” “Exploit.” We use these words as the backbone of a life spent in penetration testing. You use them as a punch line.
I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who downloads porn and watches cat videos under the blanket of the very protection that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it.
I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a keyboard and stand to post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think you're entitled to!
"So by this point I've already proven that either your code makes a "hello world" program look complex, or your code has bugs. You may get most of them before shipping, but unless your code is very trivial you're stuffed."
"And also true there are managers who want products shipped as soon as possible, however repeat business comes from having a product that's good enough - if your customers really hate what you're doing then you're not getting them back."
And ^ This.
"Actually no, I think the few people out there like you are the problem. Really, you can, on your own, code an entire OS, plus application suite, plus build the computer - and all of this non-trivial and secure and bug-free?
And most definitely ^ This.
Kiwi gets it. One point I would add (and then I really need to get off this discussion and do some work) is that even if code is written 100% bug-free, that doesn't necessarily make it secure - it only means it will do what it's designed to do when all parameters are as-expected. A hacker isn't interested in what code should do, he's interested in what it can do - e.g. what happens when it (or the sandbox, or the OS, or the abstraction layer) is fed bogus or unexpected parameters which cause the code to flip and open up a hole. This is what makes fuzzing such a useful technique.
I’ve been at a conference where they held a ‘Hack the (Hello) World’ competition; to do exactly what you suggest. Used a buffer overrun and a memory injection attack via the graphics card - I still have the presentation somewhere. Needed physical proximity to the target device plus knowledge of the internals, but did end up printing rude words to the screen whilst reporting back to the program that it said ‘Hello World’.
”" the idiotards are out in force today"<br/><br/>
Classy! Perhaps youtube is more your kind of thing?“
You’re right. My apologies. Spent the day dealing with ‘challenging’ users yesterday and allowed my frustrations to boil over into this discussion. Won’t happen again.
"Doesn't always work - especially in heavily-proxied corporate environments."
Well, I would guess that if you're in a heavily proxied corporate environment then you have an IT department who can presumably deal with the issue for you - in our case, that would typically mean they give the user a new laptop from stock and reflash/zero the old one at their leisure.
"False. It doesn't as a company is not only likely to offer BS, it's economically bound to offer BS as it's the cheapest they can get."
Fuck me, the idiotards are out in force today. Go and study Economics 101; a product needs to be of some kind of quality in order to sell at all - if it's complete shit, nobody will buy it and the company that makes it will go out of business.
Profitability is always a balance between what the customer will pay, and what the company needs to spend in order to convince them to part with their wedge. It needs to be just good enough - and yes, that involves fucking security.
Your answer to (b) doesn't make any kind of sense in any universe.
E-, must try harder.
"Companies are in it for profits and your security isn't even on the list of items to consider."
Security is always a component of the profit equation. A product which is unsatisfactory in terms of security (in the consumer's eyes) will not sell as well as one which is satisfactorily secure, hence reduced profits, hence the company will care enough just enough about security to make sure the product sells. It's true that a company will not invest more money in security than is strictly necessary to continue to sell the product, but to claim security isn't even on the list of items to consider is patently absurd.
"The less secure you are, the more company can demolish your privacy to collect juicy tidbits about you to sell"
You're conflating security and privacy. Violating your privacy may be considered an acceptable tradeoff (usually in exchange for a 'free' product, see Android), vicariously violating your security means they'll lose all their customers and ultimately go out of business. What a mind-blowingly daft statement.
"There is no guarantee whatsoever..."
There never is. Who suggested there was?
From a statistical probability perspective, my reasoning stands. For any given product (Smart TV, IoT, Operating System, Car...) of any significant complexity, you're far more likely to be better off if that code is written by a company that has (a) the resources to do a good job of hardening it, and (b) the customer base to make them care. One person writing one-off code from scratch (and thinking they can do it better than every TLA or miscreant out there) - now that's simplistic and naïve.
"My code has never been exploited and has never needed any updates, this simply because it was bespoke i.e. different for each customer and all written with the old computing definition of security in mind."
Your arrogance will get you killed, son. Well, your code anyways.
Generally speaking, code written from scratch by one individual will be less secure than commercial code written by a large software house. Large companies have the time and resources to dedicate to security, and the customer base to make fixing bugs worth their while -as opposed to simply moving on with the next
So explicitly choose it.
"That assumes the recovery partition hasn't been affected."
On Macs from 2012 onward the recovery partition is Internet-based - downloads a live environment direct from Apple and doesn't touch the HDD/SDD at all during boot.
”I always seem to misread Windows 10 Fail creators update.“
How is that misreading?
In Europe you have a mandatory 2 year guarantee on purchased electronic goods. No excuses, no exceptions. See http://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/shopping/guarantees-returns/index_en.htm.
EU law also mandates 'Fitness for Purpose' under the Consumer Rights (Statute of Limitations) Act 2015, which means that for electronic devices costing more than GBP1000 the product should work acceptably for a period of six years from purchase. You would need to prove that the defect was not your fault, but for a failed laptop screen that shouldn't be a problem. With a bit of luck, if you still have your MBP you could still make a claim.
Dont know why you got downvoted, it was a good post. I think I recognise the vendor you’re talking about - and if I’m right their proprietary locked-down approach to hardware nearly killed that part of their business.
”If people only knew how high the risk was that some solder joint would give up, etc, then prices wouldn't be so inflated.“
Products are worth exactly what people will pay for them - no more and no less. The fact that Apple products continue to hold their value so well means that on average, people consider the risk to be acceptable - otherwise as you say they’d have a shoddy reputation and nobody would buy them.
So does yer mum. Lol.
I’m confused too as to why you’d piss around soldering bits on a product rather than Exchanging/returning it, unless you bought it second hand in which case there’s no telling what it might have been through.
With you on the G5 though. Nice bit of kit.
Must admit I really really wanted to refute your arguments. But I can’t. You’re right.
Nothin says ‘priority level zero’ like three years without a refresh; despite protestations to the contrary. Judge by behaviour not words. What I could imagine is an unholy hybrid of AppleTV and Mac Mini at some point in the future; the ATV4 has enough processing grunt to run a full OS, so I could see them adding Safari+Productivity apps, bundling a keyboard and mouse and letting that loose on the market; might be just the niche the ATV needs to gain traction.
”Answering a loyalist's email, the supply-chain-man-turned-Steve-Jobs-corporate-heir said the iPhone giant still has plans...“
No Idiot Tax reference!!! Color me impressed, surprised and happy. Thanks Shaun.
”Once the botnet's malware was on the camera, it proceeded to attempt to infect other equipment on the internet. Any subsequently hacked devices also cruise up and down the information superhighway for more vulnerable gizmos to hijack.“
One word. Borg.
Fair point Alistair. I was looking for a country with parallels to the US - tinpot dictator with delusions of grandeur, rule of law long since superseded by gestapo policing, more firearms than people, 99% of the wealth concentrated in 0,03% of the population, and so on.
But a Pacific island is good too - until the US decides they want it for nukular testing or somesuch...
"...last free country in the world ..."
Well, I'm not UKian, and I still think that when Trumpet was circumcised they threw away the wrong bit
Wasn't that the old joke about Brexit?
UK: "Can't believe we just voted to leave the EU. Stupidest decision ON. THE. PLANET. Nobody can top that."
US: Hold my beer.
Not sure about rolling over like a dead cat, but in Russian ”Svernut'sya, kak mertvaya koshka“ means ‘rolled up like a dead cat’ - i.e. something can be easily moved out of the way.
”This post has been deleted by a moderator“
Aww dammit, I wanted to read what the ФСБ and their Trumpettes thought would be a witty retort!
Mods can we let their comments through please, just this once? It’s a boring Wednesday afternoon and I could really do with a laugh...
Maybe the Kremlin's paying by the word now...
2 dickheads found it necessary to downvote the OP for daring to ask a question. Sigh.
"...but then I don't have Wifi on this machine either!"
Good for you. I'd suggest you're definitely in the minority though...
It depends what’s been contracted. I’ve been a software dev and a photographer, and in both cases I generally contracted with clients to give them a finished product; but explicitly not the sourcecode (for software) or digital negatives (for photos). I retained the rights to these. Occasionally a client wanted the full code/negatives including the rights, this was discussable but cost a hell of a lot more than just the finished product; because I was giving up stuff that I could have used for other clients.
iOS10 was around 1.1GB installed, iOS11 is closer to 2GB: primarily because your definition of ‘unneeded’ and ‘bloat’ is not the same as everybody else’s. Such is the price of progress. Full-disk encryption and other high-overhead processes are now the norm, and given that 32bit OSen and apps were superseded more than a decade ago dropping support now is more than understandable.
Your argument is the same as whining that car manufacturers no longer factory-fit a cassette player. Sure there are a few people who’d like to play a tape, but there are millions more who couldn’t give a shit. And trying to build in literally every feature ever invented would mean the car weighs 10 tons, accelerates like Stonehenge and has enough room for the driver - as long as he sits on the roof.
So in short, stop whining, downvote me and get on with your life. 32bit is history, and it’s not coming back.
"Bullshit. OSX and Windows both do backwards compatibility. iOS has no excuse at all, especially with such a large established userbase."
Your comparison is flawed.
Neither OSX nor Windows need to support devices with 1.3GHz processors and 1GB RAM - highly restricted operating conditions by today's standards. Holding 32bit and 64bit libraries in memory here is likely not possible if the OS is to have any semblance of responsiveness.
Windows 10 Mobile and Windows RT would be the equivalents in the restricted-capacity device market, both were 32bit only, suffered from poor performance and support, and as a result failed miserably in the market.
Or until your phone manufacturer removes the headphone port...
”...they've effectively turned many devices into paperweights (including my iPad Pro) “
I’m sorry, I don’t follow your logic here. Your iPad Pro is still 100% supported and is absolutely not a paperweight - what are you on about?
Also, it’s 2017 FFS. Apple dropping legacy 32bit on a phone/tablet OS is a totally legitimate move; sorry. If people are affected by their favourite poorly coded, unsupported app not being supported, then that’s regrettable; but not reason enough to swallow the security, performance and cost implications of continuing to support an architecture that was already on it’s way out of the door back in 2006.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017