I know someone who uses this in China and apparently it's fantastic. Faster than commercial VPN services even for streaming video. Not sure how that'll work out in the long run if it gets more users than providers.
The concept sounds quite insecure but apparently it only allows HTTPS connections so it's delegating encryption to that instead of doing it itself.
While this is true, it only works where cameras are present, and adding a significant number of cameras costs time and money.
COTRAVELER[1] is much easier and costs almost nothing. Just having a cellphone in a car (either in the driver's pocket or "OnStar") - which only needs to be on and giving presence notifications to the local tower - is enough to get very accurate near-realtime tracking information. The only costs are read-only access to the tower logs and a few SQL JOINs.
It's funny how blind people are to the same thing happening today. Most employers openly refuse people based on their nationality and we are perfectly accepting of that, even enforcing it with the law!
I wonder if people in another 100 years will think it's wrong to discriminate against people because of who their parents were.
I mean not allowing foreigners to work, even when they live in the country. Ironically, the public's distrust of the Irish and other foreigners has led to the law disallowing them at the border rather than individual employers at the job application. We don't allow Irish to freely enter the US and work today.
Right but that's not because they hate immigrants or think they are inferior or whatever. It's because they don't want them to compete for jobs with Americans. It's an attempt at protectionism of labor and preventing a race to the bottom. Your accusations that it's racist or discrimination is just not correct.
Yeah, but that's about non-Americans. It's already legal for US Border Patrol agents to shoot from American soil across the Mexican border and kill Mexicans, because there's no (US-)Constitutional right to life for non-Americans.
Yea points sound nice in a way but I like to just replace the specified nationality with "black" and see if it still sounds OK. "There's a points system to allow the most successful blacks to work among regular citizens."
It wasn't till after I graduated that I started to realize the enormous volume of books arts majors had to read. And I don't understand why their information is presented in such an inconvenient format.
If the book is making an argument with a lot of discrete points and interconnections. Why isn't it a diagram or some kind of interactive hyperlinking thing? Why don't the individual points at least have a box around them so you can separate them visually from the other stuff without having to actually read it all?
Arts text books and essays just don't make sense to me. I can understand text format if it gives the reader motivation to understand that a soul-less diagram might not, but it sounds like most of this writing doesn't do that either. So I guess my question is, is this information really too complex to structure in an obvious way, or are the authors too lazy to design such a structure, or is it simply an ingrained culture that nobody can break free of?
It's not easy to tell how smart someone is by meeting them. That tends to bias you towards social abilities. IQ tests help to level the field by testing abilities that we can't easily observe just by knowing someone. Not that IQ tests are accurate at all either. But I just mean to say that feeling that someone is smart can just mean they're smart at appearing smart and may not have the same abilities at a broad range of thinking skills as someone with a high IQ.
I had a cab driver a couple of weeks ago. We got talking, and I said I am a developer. He said he knew some c#. He seemed slow but I humoured him - asked how he got into it. He then started talking about machine code programming on the c64 and showed an encyclopedic knowledge of the sprite system, the way to build event loops and different approaches to laying out large programs.
Cab drivers are really some of the most interesting people. I've spoken to a cab driver that claimed to have been a refugee from a country in Africa- told me how he missed how brightly the stars shone in comparison with the light pollution of the American city. He was a reporter that got in trouble with his government and had to get out.
That's pretty awesome! Reminds me of a conversation I had with my grandfather last year - he told me did a few years of programming on IBM mainframes with punch cards in his 20s, before switching and becoming an accountant.
Some people with high IQ are smart enough to say "I want to be a cab driver", and do it. They probably are happier in their jobs, than many others who just do whatever "is expected" of them.
Yes, and when what's expected is starting a start-up, you get HN crowd, where someone who never tried like me often feels that starting a start-up is really overrated here. For instance, I wouldn't bet a lot on Larry Page or Mark Zuckerberg being much happier in their lives than your average immigrant taxi driver.
Relevant anecdote: I used to do some programming for my job, and have an incredible vocabulary and am fluent in Chinese; I'm extremely "smart". But, sbout a year and a half ago, I was in a terrible motorcycle accident in which I was knocked off by an SUV and went into a coma, suffering a massive amount of neural damage to various areas all around my brain. Unfortunately, because of this brain damage, it is now incredibly difficult for me to learn some new things (specifically the logistical complexities involved in programming or advanced math/physics, for example). Also, my short-term memory is now awful. Many a time, in recent months, I've figured out how to do some kind of little software trick on my PC or phone, but then I'll forget how I did it, and have to spend hours re-learning it. Am I not "smart" anymore? Conclusion: sometimes how you appear and the things you say can't completely represent one's capabilities. "Smart" is a very broad, and possibly ambiguous term.
Side note: have you tried memory systems like Anki (spaced repetition)? As I've gotten older, it's been a godsend: my ability to pick up memory on the fly is shot, but Anki helps a lot. You're in a different, unfortunate situation, but it's worth a shot.
Ha! That's actually how I feel all the time. Learning something new is hard. If I don't use it I start to forget it. I do have two degrees: Engineering and computer science. I always thoguht this was normal. Maybe I'm stupid and never realized it? Iwonder...
I used to love carburetors. Now there was technology you could understand: little needles and valves and levers and jets and gaskets, and if anything went wrong, you could just get a rebuild kit, tear the carb down down, clean it out, and put it back together with the new parts.
In fact, rebuilding the carburetor on a friend's VW Beetle gave me the confidence I needed to take the next logical step: rebuilding her whole engine!
I didn't have all the right tools, so we took the VW down to the Briarpatch Cooperative Auto Shop on Park Blvd. in Palo Alto. [1] [2]
This was like a TechShop for cars: You could get a membership and take your car there to work on it using their tools or your own. Or you could have one of their mechanics help you with the work.
I got the engine torn down, all the parts laid out on the floor, and started to think about how to clean it up and put it back together.
Then I realized I was in way over my head and called the resident mechanic over to see if he could finish it for me.
He did, but only after shaking his head sadly and saying, "This is the worst way to get a job."
Modern cars are very locked-in with computer systems. So fixing many aspects of modern cars is no longer possible for most car owners like it used to be.
This seems like a neat site for people with older cars. Although, if you are owning a vintage car, then surely one should know a bit about maintaining that car without having to resort to such a site, but personally, it's nice to know it is there.
I mean, its articles on break systems, suspension and steering are useless to me, because I own old Citroëns, but it's nice to know there is a site to go to if I am curious, because I definitely intend to own more older cars (they tend to be more interesting than modern cars).
Modern cars are very locked-in with computer systems. So fixing many aspects of modern cars is no longer possible for most car owners like it used to be.
So true. And so frustrating. I grew up in a household where my dad built and raced stock cars, and was always building hot rods for street racing (sssshhhh, don't tell) and so I grew up working on cars, and for a big chunk of my life I did my own repair work. But as you say, newer cars are so much more challenging. It's not just the computerized bits either, it's the tighter clearances / less space in the engine compartment, the way you often have to disassemble half the car to even get access to the think you need to touch, the specialized tools you need for some jobs, etc.
Coincidentally my truck (a 2000 Ford Expedition) died Wed. morning. I am thinking about just going on Craigslist, finding an old 1974 Chevy C10 pickup, or something of that ilk, and buying that. I can do everything on a truck like that myself, all the way down to pulling and rebuilding the engine if need be.
because I definitely intend to own more older cars (they tend to be more interesting than modern cars).
They certainly can be, in their own way. I mean, I like both, but old cars definitely have a certain special appeal to them.
I'm not sure how true this is anymore. An OBD scanner makes the computer work for you. Modifications are certainly more difficult, but repair is easier IMHO. It is vastly easier to go replace the one bad fuel injector on a 2005 than rebuild a carb on a 1983.
Of course it's easier to replace than rebuild. I doubt I would be keen on rebuilding a fuel injector, even an old one. But replacing a carburettor on a 1983 is trivial.
"Old tech" often just works. Flawlessly. I have a dumper truck I borrow from next door. Crank handle, diesel. It just works. Starts every time. No battery, no crap to go wrong.
"new tech" is often designed to last 5 or 10 years maximum. After that is anyones guess as to whether it'll work.
Incidentally, mechanical diesels are also immune to EMP. All they need is fuel and air. Not true of newer electronically controlled ones, which is done mainly to reduce emissions.
You've a bit of survivor bias. Old tech that is still running is likely to last a while more. But all of the old tech that was designed with planned obsolescence in mind doesn't work any more, so you don't think of it. That is, "old tech" was once "new tech." There's also the old tech that wasn't designed to last long, like adobe mud walls.
Some old tech doesn't work flawlessly. Steam power vehicles, like locomotives, cars, and tractors, require more maintenance than their new tech replacements.
Look at sewing machines though. They used to be made of cast iron and wood. They were built properly, and it shows. They still work 50 or 60 years later.
Modern day sewing machines are made of cheap plastic and flimsy metal. They last 5 years.
Yeah there's some survivor bias, but the materials used to make things in the olden days was just better material. On the down side, sewing machines used to cost a months wages or something.
Some materials in "the olden days" were indeed better. We don't have the old growth timber to make cheap, high-quality wood like we did.
But not all materials are better. Celluloid is the first thermoplastic, and the first material used for movie films, but it's highly flammable and has been replaced by acetate film. Celluloid was also used to replace ivory in billiard balls, which was better than the clay and wood balls used earlier. All of those materials are worse for professional play than modern billiard balls made from composite plastics.
You brought up sewing machine. Sewing machines were made in the hundreds of millions. What you see are the ones that weren't trash and were maintained. Here's a page complaining about people complaining about people selling old sewing machines that mostly useful as "boat anchors" http://runningstitches-mkb.blogspot.se/2012/08/open-letter-t... . Quoting one example, "I'm not impressed when you tell me your 1950 Singer has "only been used twice to sew on patches" (note: I am not making this up!) If this machine has been sitting unused in an attic for half a century, it is most likely frozen or seized up."
Quite clearly a lot of old sewing machines do not "still work 50 or 60 years later."
A Singer 201, which is widely considered the classic sewing machine, cost 6 months wages, not the 1 month you think it was. See http://www.sewalot.com/singer_201k_sewalot.htm . (Also, Singer switched from cast iron to aluminum a bit over 60 years ago, so your timeline is a bit off.) There are a lot of crappy modern sewing machines in the <1 week's salary range. But that's hardly a fair comparison, is it? Plus, how many of those have an original motor that's been in use for 60+ years without wearing out?
My Mom has a cast iron Singer 201. Which she loves even though it only does straight stitches. She also has several other sewing machines. She still uses her Bernina from the 1980s. So at least some modern (less that 50 years old) machines can and do last longer than 5 years.
Finally, there are plenty of sewing machines on eBay from the 1950s and early, for cheap. What is the reason that they aren't scooped up if they are of significantly higher quality than modern machines?
Speaking of old diesel tech that just works and will be here forever, if you're in the U.S., it's still possible to pick up an M35A2 on the cheap (like ~$2000 cheap), and they'll run just about any fuel (multi-fuel Hercules diesel FTW), and are almost indestructible by normal means. They are also far less temperamental than many older trucks. You just need anchor arms to steer it and the ability to drive stick shift.
To add to your last statement, it seems like cars are engineered for the length of a typical lease. Afterwards, nondeterministic electric gremlins start showing themselves.
Even if all carburetors disappear from the face of the earth, it's still good to know they once existed, what purpose they served, and when and how they started being replaced.
Extreme example: I once read a fascinating article about middle aged technology, where they commented on, among many things, how a high-quality cart wheel would have a hard, dense wood on the axis, another kind of wood in the spokes that was flexible, and a border made of a very stiff wood. I'm searching for it but I don't seem to be able to find it, alas.
The last carburetors in the US were in 1994 ISUZU trucks. [1] Some motorcycles still use them for simplicity and the last NASCAR season with carburetors was 2011.
And anyway, why are we still teaching people how a CPU without branch prediction works? When will we let go of old technologies?
> And anyway, why are we still teaching people how a CPU without branch prediction works? When will we let go of old technologies?
Fuel injection systems have replaced carburators. Branch predictors haven't replaced anything, if you want to compare them with any engine that would be turbo chargers (i.e. they're optional).
I'm not sure comparing CPUs with engines makes a lot of sense though.
You can find them in the inboard motors on many not-so-old boats. My 10 year old Mercruiser uses one (although I think the newer Mercruisers have all shifted to EFI). I found the site to be very instructive. I'm always interested in learning more about how the engine in my boat works in case there's anything I can repair at home instead of taking it to the shop. I think a lot of the information on the site is transferable seeing as how mine is essentially a GM produced 'car-engine' mounted in a hull (minus a transmission and some other things).
Just search ACM for branch prediction papers at ASPLOS or similar conferences and look for corporate affiliation. IBM, Intel, and others routinely publish this stuff. It's usually patented first, so you can also check the USPTO.
Good for you! I will never understand the mostly American tradition of buying a new car every few years? Cars that are so complicated; the owner is forced to bring it to the shop for every hiccup. A lot of cars/and trucks from the late 80's to around 2008, are pretty easy to work on, and with the proper maintence can last 300,000 miles. And if your not afraid of getting your hands dirty--you will never have to pay a mechanic $120/hr to work on your vechicle. These newer vehicles are so complicated--a lot of shops do a lot of learning on your dime. (I have a Toyota with a 22R engine. It has one 350,000 miles and it's never seen a mechanic--except for smog checks, and never failed once. Actually it did fail once, but it was due to an error in a Motor Emmission publication. If you have an older car, and need a
Smog check; make sure your smog shop has access to Mitchell manuals online(OnDemand5). They are highly accurate!
My dad gave me some good advice years ago. He told me to buy a year specific service manual for every automobile you ever buy.
would be interesting to see vehicle age by geography. I suspect all the rural farmers are the ones skewing the average (it's not unusual to have a 20-30yr old truck out on the farm.. You can fix them with the same tools as your tractors).
It's due to the perceived wisdom that every car suddenly becomes a lemon after hitting 100k miles. The "low social status" attributed to driving an older car is also at play.
Here in Europe, it's not uncommon to see cars in good shape which have over 400k miles on the clock. If you think about it, a European or Japanese mid 90's car with no rust and a rebuilt engine will give you more trouble-free miles, for a fraction of the money.
For all those who have not liked my post: I rebuilt my first carb about 40 years ago, sitting on my fathers lap (age 5). He was a mechanic, I was a mechanic until I was 20. After that I spent the next 10 years selling tools and diagnostic equipment, as well as fixing a lot of cars - especially problem cars.
I have worked on thousands of carburetors. I can re-jet the 2 carbs in my race bike in about 5 minutes (main jets only). Carburetors are indeed in use on millions of engines. I understand Bernoulli's principle, and I also understand that a carburetor is lousy at part throttle metering. What does that mean to you?
Part throttle is anything that is not full throttle. Some people have a hard time believing that a fuel injected engine offers no full throttle advantage in total horsepower - it is the barely open part that matters. Fuel injection is massively more efficient and clean than carbs at part throttle. The part throttle issues cause all the emissions problems, cause all the pollution, cause all the smell when following behind a carb'd car.
The electronic carbs of the 80's were a real nightmare. Take a mechanical device, put some dozen vacuum lines on it, each controlled by a solenoid, give it a dumb computer that you can't talk to, and no tech information anywhere. Not even at the dealer. Caveman tech, dressed up with bunch of patches and cruft. It was done to save a buck, not because the better way wasn't known. And the systems are horrible and should be sent to the crusher. It is fuel metering in the worst way; adding miles and wear just makes all the problems even worse,
The EEC-IV systems used by Ford from 87-95 only had a 60 pin connector on them, the same number of pins that a Beagle Bone Black has. I have be thinking about how to use that as a basis to replace existing systems with an open source system that would be better and cheaper.
But carburetors need to die. They are not great new, and get worse with age.
Yeah, it's getting dated now and I'm planning on creating some new content shortly. That said, it's still highly relevant for most classic car owners, and large amounts of the developing world.
The old content is awesome and is never going to stop being relevant. I think the key to address the criticisms would be
1) Navigation - perhaps some sort of timeline that accompanies each article so that you can easily see the context that technology is in (e.g. direct injection <- fuel injection <- carburetor).
2) Edit the copy to ensure that old technology isn't identified as new. A quick glance turned up examples like: "Some high-performance engines do not have carburettors...".
It will be even more dated when electric vehicles take over and internal combustion engines become as niche as steam engines. But then they still make manuals for those: http://www.haynes.co.uk/thomas/
Don't dating sites have an 18 year age limit despite different states having different ages of consent, etc? It's just easier than making a fine grained filter.
Not sure. Although I have seen many sites and companies have contests where it's not applicable to certain provinces or states. Also I think states vs countries is a bit different. Why not then just apply the saudi standards to our content as well?
American companies also support their own government's efforts to imprison people for visiting the wrong websites (gambling, piracy, child porn, etc). Isn't it a bit arbitrary to accept that in America but not other countries? You may think free political speech is important, but it can cost a lot of lives if it leads to a civil war or widespread riots. Not all countries are stable enough to cope with those risks.
Just wondering what value the singleton provided if you only obtain it once. Isn't the purpose so you can obtain it whenever you want? If you just use a regular object, you run the risk of accidentally making another instance somewhere else, but you always have that risk with any regular object anyway.
It's kind of OK to use, as long as you don't call it all over the place and render your code untestable such that it can't be mocked out, but I'm not a huge fan of it. It's really a matter of opinion at that point.
The concept sounds quite insecure but apparently it only allows HTTPS connections so it's delegating encryption to that instead of doing it itself.