Slashdot Mirror

That is the way the ratchet shifter worked. Click up a gear or down a gear but the actual position of the shifter remained in the center. If you were a real gearhead you had the indicator functioning correctly, but if you hacked it, the way most of my greasy friends and I did it, you had to always be aware of which gear you were in, kind of like a dirt bike or older motorcycle, forget where you were and things could get messy quickly.

http://ls1tech.com/forums/gear...

So let me get this straight: They made his statement *simpler* than possible, surrendering the adequate representation?
Oh the ironing!

Let me make a new quote for you: Everything should be made as EFFICIENT as possible.
(*Efficiency* is the sweet spot between limiting complexity and limiting simplicity. It can only be improved with more *emergence*. The definition of *elegance*.)

Stanley owns Mac and Irwin. Most Craftsman hand tools are made by Danaher (now APEX). Both Stanley and Danaher make most of their hand tools in either China or Taiwan.

Craftsman tools in Canada have long been made in SE Asia, so it's only a pretty recent development that you can walk into a Sears store in the USA and see wall after wall of imported Craftsman branded tools. Stanley has been making tools overseas for decades under their own brand. In any case, it's becoming increasingly difficult and expensive to find tools that aren't made in SE Asia. Oh well.

as far as I know it's the only element that'll burn in pure nitrogen, as well as oxygen/atmospheric.

Not magnesium?

Magnesium, as in pure magnesium, is highly flammable and easily ignited when it is in powdered form, and less when in shavings. It corresponds to how much surface area of the metal is exposed to an oxider which is generally the oxygen in air. Magnesium will also burn without oxygen, it can burn in pure nitrogen gas or in carbon dioxide.

It was actually a Fairmont.

http://www.ls1tech.com/forums/attachments/vehicles-wanted/172653d1238176562-wtb-78-82-ford-fairmont-futura-mercury-zephyr-fairmont-futura.jpg

From the Crappy Days of the american auto industry. I think it was built on a Friday :-)

little off your rocker with rage now aren't we?

110KB for the StreetFire page, sure blast me for it if you want. Just shows you aren't a very competent designer. Rather than evaluate a web application based on what a user needs, you would rather dictate your own needs as a designer on what is and is not needed. Again Elitist, and shows a lack of business sense.

What is StreetFire? It's a high bandwidth VIDEO STREAMING site. Site design in based on USER NEED, not not the DESIGNER'S NEED. StreetFire's main page could be two megs and my 40,000/users a day wouldn't give a rip, because the first thing they do is watch, on average, watch 15MB of video each. They could give a flip about a 110KB page. Thus it's not a requirement. (BTW we average 75MBps on our 1GBPS Internet Pipe, and run on average 150-200 simulataneous 400Kbps Video streams). These are not low bandwidth types using brail browsers. The site popularity would suffer if it was designed that way.

Second, and you obviously missed this point as well. StreetFire is one of many Video portals I manage from the same code base. 90% of my customers have HTML 1.0 Level skills. Case in point, http://www.ls1tech.com/ just signed with us, with their 60,000/user per day site. In less than 10 min we were able to get their video portal up http://video.ls1tech.com/ (and populate it with 300+ videos relevant to their portal). We have the capability to be that responsive because we don't rebuild their site to the latest greatest code base. Heck their users don't even want that, they want the same old same old site.

Did they care what HTML standard we used? Nope. As a matter of fact I have to write my code to fit their need of reusing their site style. Had I used a Sexy DOM site with no nested tables, etc, I would have to rebuild their entire site to fit my standard. Simple as there site is, that's more work for me (and/or them). Thus, the requirements for my application dictate that when I get a customer with a complicated site, such as http://www.crossroadvideos.com/ I can depreciate my code base to fit their site, rather than re-write their site to fit my code.

Program to your user's need, not your need to feed your ego with "sexy code" forcing your customers (or yourself) to reinvent the wheel every time the W3C farts.

little off your rocker with rage now aren't we?

110KB for the StreetFire page, sure blast me for it if you want. Just shows you aren't a very competent designer. Rather than evaluate a web application based on what a user needs, you would rather dictate your own needs as a designer on what is and is not needed. Again Elitist, and shows a lack of business sense.

What is StreetFire? It's a high bandwidth VIDEO STREAMING site. Site design in based on USER NEED, not not the DESIGNER'S NEED. StreetFire's main page could be two megs and my 40,000/users a day wouldn't give a rip, because the first thing they do is watch, on average, watch 15MB of video each. They could give a flip about a 110KB page. Thus it's not a requirement. (BTW we average 75MBps on our 1GBPS Internet Pipe, and run on average 150-200 simulataneous 400Kbps Video streams). These are not low bandwidth types using brail browsers. The site popularity would suffer if it was designed that way.

Second, and you obviously missed this point as well. StreetFire is one of many Video portals I manage from the same code base. 90% of my customers have HTML 1.0 Level skills. Case in point, http://www.ls1tech.com/ just signed with us, with their 60,000/user per day site. In less than 10 min we were able to get their video portal up http://video.ls1tech.com/ (and populate it with 300+ videos relevant to their portal). We have the capability to be that responsive because we don't rebuild their site to the latest greatest code base. Heck their users don't even want that, they want the same old same old site.

Did they care what HTML standard we used? Nope. As a matter of fact I have to write my code to fit their need of reusing their site style. Had I used a Sexy DOM site with no nested tables, etc, I would have to rebuild their entire site to fit my standard. Simple as there site is, that's more work for me (and/or them). Thus, the requirements for my application dictate that when I get a customer with a complicated site, such as http://www.crossroadvideos.com/ I can depreciate my code base to fit their site, rather than re-write their site to fit my code.

Program to your user's need, not your need to feed your ego with "sexy code" forcing your customers (or yourself) to reinvent the wheel every time the W3C farts.