SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the elites-with-flawed-data-making-choices dept.
El Reg reports
With digital reaching its audience targets, the government set a 2017 date for the death of analogue FM radio in [Norway].
[...]However, the Norwegian Local Radio Association disputes the communications ministry's figure, pointing instead to Norwegian Government Statistical Bureau data that "listening to DAB radio is presently limited to 19% on a daily basis."
In an e-mail sent to Vulture South [El Reg's Australian operation], the association says the Minister of Culture's announcement swept up DVB-T and Internet radio to claim that "digital listening" had hit the 50 per cent target that triggers an FM switch-off.
The association also notes that an all-DAB nation would provide a lot less service to motoring tourists without digital radios in their cars. "This proposed change means that most visitors will not be able to listen to national channels or public radio for emergency alerts, traffic or other important information", the group said in a media release e-mailed to El Reg. It claims that a focus on large broadcasters would leave FM investments by community radio stranded.
The local broadcasters are backed by the Progress Party, a partner in the coalition government in Norway, [as well as by] the Greens.
Related: Norway to be First Nation to Switch Off National Analog FM Stations
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Tuesday April 28 2015, @06:24PM
In other words car development is going the involution path. It works - wreck it! ;)
Car slot better be DIN or the manufacturer can go and f-ck them self. (any good suggestion to make bad car design painful for the manufacturer?)
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Tuesday April 28 2015, @06:58PM
Car slot better be DIN or the manufacturer can go and f-ck them self.
So I guess you're never going to buy a car older than 1995 or so, for the rest of your life?
Not only that, but you can't expect stereo makers to keep making DIN-size stuff when cars aren't using that standard any more.
These days, what'd be better, since everything is going to software anyway, is to have modular components hidden inside the dash, connected to a car PC, running Linux with mostly open-source software (at least for the basic software stack; the "apps" don't have to be). This way, you can modify it yourself, or buy other modules or software components from other vendors and plug them in. The new Mazdas have a Linux PC with touchscreen in them, and people have already figured out how to hack in (root password is "jci", for Johnson Controls Inc., the vendor that makes it) and modify things and even make their own new apps for it. As long as they keep the entertainment system separate from, say, the engine and braking systems (or at least make it so the entertainment system can read from those and give you diagnostic information, but it can't write to them and modify them easily), this shouldn't be a safety concern for the carmaker.
(Score: 1) by Fauxlosopher on Wednesday April 29 2015, @02:13AM
I am indeed strongly considering having my next vehicle(s) built from parts. While I do appreciate anti-lock brakes, increased fuel economy, and increased reliability, I'm at the point where I'm willing to trade that away for not having to put up the consequences of driving around in a crappy, vulnerable computer with wheels on it.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday April 29 2015, @12:18PM
Cars from the 90s almost all had ABS; that really shouldn't be a concern. The big losses will be fuel economy, and even worse, crash protection. (A 90s Honda fully rebuilt shouldn't have any reliability problems, though I guess some of the new-old-stock parts could have limited lifetimes.) Today's cars will protect you far better than anything of that era in a crash.
And what do you mean by "vulnerable" anyway? We haven't seen any instances I can recall of anyone "rooting" a car and doing anything dangerously mischievous. Maybe it's possible to easily mess with an entertainment/navigation computer like in the Mazdas I mentioned earlier, but that isn't going to cause you to crash unless maybe you're one of those people who blindly does exactly what the GPS says, even if it tells you to turn into oncoming traffic. I would hope no one on this site is that dumb :-)
(Score: 1) by Fauxlosopher on Wednesday April 29 2015, @04:57PM
Defensive driving and plain old seatbelts are all the crash protection I want. I've removed airbags from my vehicles, as I don't want an explosive device of any sort sitting in front of my face. I accept the risks and dangers of road travel, and don't need any nannies enforcing choices for me at gunpoint (as government agents do with vehicle manufactuerers).
Granted, I am unaware of anyone "rooting" a car in the wild (though such has been demonstrated [arstechnica.com] as a proof-of-concept [today.com]). Increasing numbers of new vehicles are coming standard with the ability for a private company (OnStar) to remotely make your ride stop working at any time. Then there's the matter of data collected by your car's computer(s) being treated as government property [rt.com] instead of properly obtaining a warrant for a search of private property. Such problems are still relatively low-impact today, but do you see the situation improving in terms of respect for due process of law and/or sanctity of private property ownership? I don't.