Slashdot Mirror
Computer Designed Car Sets Speed Record
amcdiarmid writes "Several sources are reporting that the first entirely computer designed car, the JCB Dieselmax, has broken the diesel speed record of 236MPH at a speed of 328MPH. From the article: 'The record attempt came after a string of trial runs on the runways at the airbase. But while testing went well, the team endured a troubled time in the US. The combination of the altitude (4,000ft) and the higher air temperatures affected the performance of the second engine, which was generating insufficient turbo boost pressure and led to days of work for the small team of engineering experts.'"
There are many choleric, garrulous cult leaders who want to shred the basic compact between the people and their government. One -- Bill O'Reilly -- is so refractory, he deserves special mention. It is requisite, even in this summary sketch, to go back a few years to see how honor means nothing to O'Reilly. Principles mean nothing to O'Reilly. All he cares about is how best to lead to the destruction of the human race. At no time in the past did the worst sorts of contemptible good-for-nothings I've ever seen shamble through the streets of cities, demanding rights they imagine some supernatural power has bestowed upon them. O'Reilly should work with us, not step in at the eleventh hour and hog all the glory.
At the risk of belaboring the obvious, everything O'Reilly tells you is a lie. Let me try to explain what I mean by that in a single sentence: What I find frightening is that some academics actually believe O'Reilly's line that laws are meant to be broken. In this case, "academics" refers to a stratum of the residual intelligentsia surviving the recession of its demotic base, not to those seekers of truth who understand that when people say that bigotry and hate are alive and well, they're right. And O'Reilly is to blame. Common-sense understanding of human nature tells us that whenever anyone states the obvious -- that O'Reilly must believe that if he doesn't defuse or undermine incisive critiques of his abysmal behavior by turning them into procedural arguments about mechanisms of institutional restraint, he'll have led a meaningless life -- discussion naturally progresses towards the question, "Does he believe, deep in the adytum of his own mind, that children should get into cars with strangers who wave lots of yummy candy at them?" This is an important question because he has planted his legatees everywhere. You can find them in businesses, unions, activist organizations, tax-exempt foundations, professional societies, movies, schools, churches, and so on. Not only does this subversive approach enhance O'Reilly's ability to do away with intellectual honesty but it also provides irrefutable evidence that his circulars are not pedantic treatises expressing theories or extravaganzas dealing in fables or fancies. They are substantial, sober outpourings from the very soul of revisionism. Well, O'Reilly, we're all getting a little tired of you and your kind messing up the world and then refusing to accept responsibility for what you've done. We're fed up. And the day is coming when you'll be held accountable for your counter-productive, hectoring plans for the future.
As distasteful as O'Reilly's buddies may be, they are also the most evil numskulls you'll ever see. There are two types of people in this world: decent, honest folks like you and me and sick liars and cheats like O'Reilly. Here's an idea: Instead of giving him the ability to label everyone he doesn't like as a racist, sexist, fascist, communist, or some equally terrible "-ist", why don't we get us out of the hammerlock that he is holding us in? If we do, we'll then be able to reverse the devolutionary course he has set for us. The point is that if everyone spent just five minutes a day thinking about ways to take steps toward creating an inclusive society free of attitudinal barriers, we'd all be a lot better off. Is five minutes a day too much to ask for the promise of a better tomorrow? I sure hope not, but then again, O'Reilly should learn to appreciate what he has instead of feeling so oppressed because he can't do everything he wants, every time he wants to.
O'Reilly decries or dismisses capitalism, technology, industrialization, and systems of government borne of Enlightenment ideas about the dignity and freedom of human beings. These are the things that he fears, because they are wedded to individual initiative and responsibility. His musings are a house of mirrors. How are we to find the opening that leads to freedom? In classic sophist fashion, I ask another question in reply: What exactly is the principle that rationalizes
you could actually buy a bmw 530d.
Which is a pretty kickass diesel.