Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror

Comment Re:The Model 3 starts at $40k (Score 1) 259

by BovineOne (#59736568) Attached to: Tesla Teardown Finds Electronics 6 Years Ahead of Toyota and VW

The base RWD available on their website is a Standard Range+ (SR+) that includes basic autopilot for $40k. The additional $7k is for full self-driving (FSD), which most people don't get much added benefit (besides Navigate-on-AP, parking assist, and summon) quite yet since the full FSD functionality is still pending release.

You can still order the off-menu Standard Range (SR) over the phone for $36.2k (up slightly from the original $35k), but that does not include even basic autopilot or traffic-aware cruise control. Although federal rebate for Teslas have been phased out, you can still get state rebates (depending on which state you live in) to bring that price down, possibly to $33k or lower.

I do agree that the article is wrong to say that the base price starts at $33k. Tesla has never claimed the Model 3 had a starting price lower than $35k.

Comment Re:Question (Score 3, Informative) 162

by BovineOne (#53540371) Attached to: Tesla Updates Autopilot To Make It Follow the Speed Limit On Roads

Each update must be acknowledged and scheduled for installation by the user, although theoretically there might be a backdoor way for them to remotely install updates without user consent. If you ever go a Tesla Service Center you'll need to remember to tell them not to install software updates for you (since they will commonly do that as a courtesy).

However, there will also be a point where features in the older software versions may no longer be supported and capabilities may degrade, particularly if Tesla's server-side communications specific to those older versions are discontinued, particularly around the navigation features. The Tesla Service Center may also say that they are logistically unable to fix or support some issues without upgrading to a current version.

Submission + - Ask Slashdot: How to deal with persistent and incessant port scanner

Submitted by jetkins
jetkins writes: What would you do if your firewall was being persistently targeted by port scans from a specific group of machines from one particular company?

I run a Sophos UTM9 software firewall appliance on my home network. Works great, and the free Home Use license provides a bunch of really nice features normally only found on commercial-grade gear. One of those is the ability to detect, block, and report port scans, and under normal circumstances I only get the occasional alert when some script kiddie comes a-knocking at my door.

But in recent months I have been getting flooded with alerts of scans from one particular company. I initially reported it to my own ISP's (RoadRunner's) abuse desk, on the assumption that if they're scanning me then they're probably scanning a bunch of my neighbors as well, and any responsible ISP would probably want to block this BS, but all I ever got back was an automated acknowledgement and zero action.

So I used DNS lookup and WHOIS to find their phone number, and spoke with someone there; it appears that they're a small outfit, and I was assured that they had a good idea where it was coming from and that they would make it stop. Indeed, it did stop a few days later but then it was back again, unabated, after another week or so. So last week I called them again, and was once again assured of a resolution. No dice, the scans continue to pour in.

I've already blocked their subnet at my firewall, but the UTM apparently does attack detection before filtering, so that didn't stop the alerts. And although I *could* disable port scan alerts, it's an all-or-nothing thing and I'm not prepared to turn them off completely.

This afternoon I forwarded the twenty-something alerts that I've received so far today, to their abuse@ address with an appeal for a Christmas Miracle, but frankly I'm not holding out much hope that it will have any effect.

So, Slashdotters, what should I do if this continues into the new year? Start automatically bouncing every report to their abuse address? Sic Anonymous on them? Start calling them every time? I'm open to suggestions.

Comment Re:Don't modern plans almost fly themselves? (Score 1) 421

by BovineOne (#41977703) Attached to: Airlines Face Acute Pilot Shortage

Although commercial planes do fly on autopilot for most of the flight once they are in cruise, you still need the pilots that are fully capable of controlling the plane and landing it when the autopilot suddenly drops offline because the pitot tubes freeze, wings ice over, a gyro fails, or an engine catches on fire. The routine flights can indeed be handled by most any low-time pilot, but the unusual circumstances are where you need pilots with sufficient experience.
Wireless Networking

A Real-World Test of the Verizon MiFi 118

Posted by kdawson from the cool-things-in-small-packages dept.
uninet writes "Over the course of a few days last week, I was able to spend a good deal of time with Verizon's amazing little MiFi 3G router. It admirably performed its task of providing speedy Wi-Fi Internet to other devices via an EvDO Rev. A connection. Ironically, the device even improved the experience of using the iPhone, making it usable for surfing where its native network (AT&T) doesn't even connect."

Comment Re:Here's a proposal for the developers (Score 1) 150

The top 100 most often played missions at the end of every month are guaranteed to be played by the developers or GMs or player volunteers, and officially rated. Those that are good get awarded manually and a form of in-game badge next to them.

There is already a "Dev's Choice" and "Hall of Fame" category for missions that have been officially played by staff. Those missions receive special recognition and will reward players with standard item drops, rather than tickets.

Now you could go slightly further by changing things so that missions have not been approved do not receive tickets or experience at all. This has been discussed in their forums and many vocal users indicated that would not have any motivation to create or play (legitimate non-farm) architect missions if that were the case.
Mars

Mars Lander's Robot Arm Shuts Down To Save Itself 214

Posted by kdawson from the doctor-it-hurts-when-i-do-dat dept.
Cowards Anonymous passes along a PCWorld article that begins, "The robotic arm on the Mars Lander found itself in a tough position over the weekend. After receiving instructions for a movement that would have damaged its wrist, the robotic arm recognized the problem, tried to rectify it and then shut down before it could damage itself, according to Ray Arvidson, a co-investigator for the Mars Lander's robotic arm team and a professor at Washington University in St. Louis."

Comment Southern California Edison already does it (Score 2, Informative) 503

by BovineOne (#22021402) Attached to: California Utilities to Control Thermostats?
Old news. Southern California Edison has been offering the ability to do this for awhile by adding an external device on the outside compressor... http://www.sce.com/RebatesandSavings/Residential/_Heating+and+Cooling/SummerDiscountPlan/Details/default.htm

As others have noted, this is also done by other utility companies throughout the U.S. too. For instance, Austin Energy (in Texas) also offers a radio controlled thermostat program: http://www.austinenergy.com/Energy%20Efficiency/Programs/Power%20Partner/index.htm

Comment Failure? (Score 2, Interesting) 401

by Leroy_Brown242 (#19273357) Attached to: Firefox 3.0 Makes Leap Forward
Has firefox completely failed to meet it's original goal if I am contemplating a bribe to some developer friends to compile a stripped down version of firefox so it doesn't use so many damned system resources?

Left running for 24 hours, with google homepage and gmail up, I am looking at about 1GB of memory used.

This just does not seem reasonable to me, but I'm a minimalist.

Feed Arcane Senate Rule Helps Preserve Antiquated Senate Practice (techdirt.com)

From feed by techdirtfeed
Back in February, we pointed to a story about the absurd system that Senators use to disclose their campaign contributions. Unlike their counterparts in the House, Senators don't have to file their contributions electronically, and instead file them using a tortuous process that involves needless photocopying and hand entry of the data. Not only is this time consuming, but it also costs taxpayers $250,000 per year. That's not a whole lot by government standards, but since it's a total waste it's still depressing. It looked like the Senate was all set to scrap the old system, but just as it was set to come to a vote, another arcane Senate rule came into play as Senator Lamar Alexander stood up and announced that on behalf of an anonymous Senator he would block the vote. Yes, the Senate has a rule that allows an anonymous coward, as we'd call them around here, to block any vote. So at this point it's not clear if or when electronic disclosure will be adopted in the Senate. It's lovely how democracy works, isn't it?

Slashdot Top Deals

"It is better to have tried and failed than to have failed to try, but the result's the same." - Mike Dennison

Close