Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Tesla wasn't the target, it was China (Score 2) 244

by drinkypoo (#48211761) Attached to: Michigan Latest State To Ban Direct Tesla Sales

I have done enough super high mileage trips that it would require a second car permanently on stand by. That means double insurance, tax, storage and depreciation.

it means none of those things but storage cost. The insurance for the second vehicle is reduced, and often the insurance on your primary vehicle is reduced when you add another vehicle to your policy, even if you don't decrease the primary vehicle's mileage. And you get an older vehicle for the second car, and it costs you less to buy, less in depreciation, etc.

It still might not work out, but it doesn't cost twice as much.

Comment: Re:dumbass governors (Score 1) 244

by drinkypoo (#48211715) Attached to: Michigan Latest State To Ban Direct Tesla Sales

As a matter of fact, those states allowing fracking have reaped huge tax benefits and for the most part has helped out ordinary citizens of those states too.

in the short term, sure. But injecting refinery wastes into the ground was illegal before fracking for a reason, and that reason is that it's toxic waste.

Comment: Re:The Force is weak in this one (Score 1) 244

by drinkypoo (#48211705) Attached to: Michigan Latest State To Ban Direct Tesla Sales

Nonsense. Many people are not worth minimum wage. They are not worth anything at all as workers.

If you cannot find workers who are worth something as workers who will work for the wage that you're paying, then you're not paying enough. You don't need to pay less, you need to pay more.

Comment: Re:How hard is it to recognize a stoplight? (Score 1) 278

by drinkypoo (#48211661) Attached to: Will the Google Car Turn Out To Be the Apple Newton of Automobiles?

You need to compare the SDC to a fully aware human being, not a fully distracted one.

Why? A fully aware human being can also be aware while the car is driving. But most people drive in a state of at least partial distraction. You're setting the bar awfully high.

Comment: Re:Another stupid viewpoint from slate that is (Score 1) 278

by drinkypoo (#48211643) Attached to: Will the Google Car Turn Out To Be the Apple Newton of Automobiles?

If self-driving cars really start to hit the roads, cities would definitely mandate that all traffic lights show up in maps,

So what? they already mandate that the maps be correct, but roads are often shown going through (or not going through) when they don't (or do.)

Comment: No, because we already have one (Score 1) 282

by drinkypoo (#48211625) Attached to: Will Fiber-To-the-Home Create a New Digital Divide?

I live in the sticks. I have a shitty ISP that shits on my interactive sessions in favor of long-running connections like Netflix, and then tells me they don't do any shaping. But obviously they do shaping, because we have bandwidth limits. And it looks like shit. The traffic chart looks like a row of fenceposts because they flood me with packets, then send none, then flood me with more of them in order to limit my rate. This of course means that I can't do any meaningful queueing on my end, because the rate is totally inconstant.

But atop that, they offer me only an "up to 6Mbps" connection. That's not even enough to watch HD video reliably. A page full of images takes ages to load, especially since most people are still just spewing the images onto the page and they all load at once. And if that weren't enough, the connection goes down regularly, I often have to power cycle the CPE...

FTTH is not going to create a new digital divide. We already have one, and the only content lurking in the wings waiting to eat up all the bandwidth is 4k video. Most of us don't have a 4k set, so it's irrelevant.

Comment: Every troll dies, children. Not every troll truly (Score 1) 490

by drinkypoo (#48211595) Attached to: The Inevitable Death of the Internet Troll

Every troll dies, children. Not every troll truly lives.

This article is a troll. Trolling will remain alive and well unless we ban it. But if we eliminate anonymous speech (as wags like David Brin suggest) then we will harm free speech. The only way to solve this problem utterly is to change the way we feel about women, and if that could happen overnight, it probably would have done so already.

Comment: Re:Is this legal? (Score 1) 660

by drinkypoo (#48211581) Attached to: FTDI Reportedly Bricking Devices Using Competitors' Chips.

If you have evidence of their intent then it would be interesting to see that.

There's evidence presented in this thread, by people familiar with reimplementing their interface. I see you didn't bother to read the thread.

I didn't suggest that what they were doing was not illegal, just that I support it. It wouldn't be the only thing considered illegal that I support.

But in this case you're celebrating denial of service to a user who may have acted in good faith. That's a shitty thing to be happy about. Why do you like taking advantage of people?

They're good enough that their drivers are apparently able to support a wide range of hardware that they didn't build. I'd say that's doing a pretty decent job.

Only due to ignorance. The decent job was done by the people who make clone chips who implemented their interface. If they had written the driver to support disparate chips, that would have been a significant accomplishment. Writing a driver for their chip was not. In addition, software is expecting to see that driver.

What exactly are they bad at doing?

Ironically, writing drivers, and packaging them for versions of Windows with driver signing. It was literally years after the release of Windows 7 before they had a decent package of Windows 7 drivers that would reliably work with their hardware. But because applications expect to see their driver, the only option would be to write a driver which supported their driver interface. Microsoft proved in the past that chasing a software interface is a fool's game, because it can be updated periodically solely for the purpose of decreasing interoperability.

other companies want to leech off them and get support

Nobody is expecting anyone to contact FTDI for support, but now that they've done this to their driver, they will be contacted. So in fact, if their goal was to avoid support contacts, this was a staggeringly stupid move.

and technology

Necessary for meaningful interoperability.

from them without paying anything for it.

FTDI became a de facto standard, and they are reaping the results now. They are using copyright (AFAICT, no patents are involved, this is deeply old technology) as a bludgeon in a way that will harm users and achieve none of your stated goals. As the only thing they will accomplish is harm to users and the generation of ill will, the fact that you are pleased by these actions is unsurprising, at least to me. You seem to revel in such abuse.

Comment: Re:FUD? (Score 1) 660

by drinkypoo (#48211483) Attached to: FTDI Reportedly Bricking Devices Using Competitors' Chips.

FTDI will be able to quickly identify any users contacting them about fake chips and simply have to state that they do not provide support for fake chips or to the use of their drivers with fake chips. Problem solved

The problem is not solved, and merely claiming that is is doesn't make it so. All the customer knows is that they bought a device and something FTDI did broke it. If they actually manage to contact FTDI, FTDI will probably lie to them and tell them that the device doesn't work because it is a fake, but in truth the device doesn't work because FTDI broke it. (It's broken from the user's point of view.) And the main reason the problem is not solved is that a user can be trying to do the right thing, and actually specifying an FTDI chip when buying, but they can still wind up with a fake and FDTI can still disable their product. It's not their fault, they tried to do the right thing, it's not their job to track down copyright or trademark violations. They only need to act in good faith. Since the final price of a product is only loosely coupled to its production cost (it must be greater, but depending on how close you are to the supplier, it need not be much greater to show a profit) the user has no reliable way to know that they're getting what they're paying for.

FTDI is abusing customers who attempted to purchase their product in good faith, and that's why this is both a criminal act and also a very stupid idea.

In a consumer society there are inevitably two kinds of slaves: the prisoners of addiction and the prisoners of envy.