Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:A little naive perhaps? (Score 1) 112

by Wesley Felter (#47708785) Attached to: Netflix CEO On Net Neutrality: Large ISPs Are the Problem

run a business without paying the traditional costs in the field and socialize your costs. in this case he wants every internet customer to pay for his bandwidth whether they use netflix or not.

ISPs chose their flat-rate business model; Netflix didn't force it on them. If that business model no longer works, ISPs should switch to a different one.

Comment: Re: Autonomous cars can't use V2V (Score 1) 405

by bigpat (#47708697) Attached to: Google's Driverless Cars Capable of Exceeding Speed Limit
The "Here I am" message is insufficient for coordinating between vehicles. And as I mentioned localization using GPS, even differential GPS, is not reliable enough or fail safe enough for collision avoidance. ... Because some percentage of the time cars will be giving you bogus location messages. At some point message protocols for coordinating actions between vehicles does make sense. In addition to highway drafting, vehicles could use some protocol to more efficiently merge or change lanes. I just don't see transmitting absolute position and velocity being something good to base a system around. Autonomous vehicles need to be allowed to get established without V2V. As they are doing now. Don't hobble them by making them rely on a poorly conceived notion. Getting to a fail safe V2V for Here I Am messages is a very steep and expensive curve compared to a camera and proximity sensor based system which would be more closely following Moore's law.

Comment: Autonomous cars can't use V2V (Score 2) 405

by bigpat (#47705695) Attached to: Google's Driverless Cars Capable of Exceeding Speed Limit

I think the V2V proposal should be scrapped altogether. It would take decades to implement, be very expensive (at hundreds of dollars per car) and it won't actually make cars safer compared with relatively simpler collision avoidance using cameras and other relatively cheap proximity sensors that don't rely on everyone else having functioning V2V systems in their car.

Autonomous cars have cameras and other fail safe sensors they can rely on. GPS is for navigational way points and route planning. Just getting a signal from another car that it is at a certain position is not a sufficient replacement for actually seeing that car with a camera. In all cases I would program that car to trust the camera and distrust the V2V and if it didn't have a camera then the car should stop as safely as it can and not continue to try and drive automatically. GPS is better for navigational way points where precision on the scale of feet and inches is not as important. For collision avoidance in close proximity you want to rely on sensors.

Comment: Re:performance never measured in MHz (Score 1) 149

by iggymanz (#47705545) Attached to: Can Our Computers Continue To Get Smaller and More Powerful?

200K is one percent of 20M, and that 20M not from a single vendor as 1992 the year everyone and their uncle jumped into PC market as price plummeted

Did you know Apple was considered part of the PC market in 1992, and had whopping 19 percent share? That's wasn't an intel platform.

Comment: Re:Photographic law precedence (Score 1) 171

by DaHat (#47705067) Attached to: Phoenix Introduces Draft Ordinance To Criminalize Certain Drone Uses

You can't climb a ladder and take pics of some girl sunbathing in her backyard legally if she is behind a privacy fence that you had to go out of your way to see over, that includes using a drone to do so.

Who said a ladder is required? From the second floor of a house you can often see much of a neighbors yard when there is only a man sized fence.

Sometimes a bigger fence is required, just ask Todd Palin:

Biology is the only science in which multiplication means the same thing as division.