Because in the locking case, you overcome static friction *once* and are now working with the lower value kinetic friction. In the other case, you lock, release, lock, release, etc; you must overcome static friction each time. This means you lose more momentum.
I think GP was talking about the wheels locking (without ABS) vs. the wheels not locking, not about ABS vs. the wheels not locking.
With ABS, you only have brief moments of skidding. The control system clamps and releases the brakes repeatedly. During the clamped periods, you have tire skid. During the released periods, you have no skid.
ABS is not meant for shortening your stopping distance. It's entirely possible that your stopping distance will be shorter with locked wheels than with ABS. The point of ABS is that you are still able to steer the car, because your wheels keep rolling so that you can avoid any obstacles. When your wheels lock you're sliding and it's impossible to change the direction of the car.
Dynamic friction (skidding) is lower than static friction.
That makes no sense. There's no fundamental difference. In the one case the tyre is skidding over the asphalt, in the other case the brake bad is skidding over the brake disk. It's just a question of different materials and different pressures. No fundamental difference which would explain why one is more efficient at stopping the car than the other.
I still refuse to buy French products 10 years after the nuclear testing in Mururoa Atoll
I'm sure you've also refused to buy American products for all the 60 years after the murder with atomic bombs of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians? That'll show those present-day bastard cotton farmers and wine growers for letting that happen!
BTW if anybody is interested in exactly what it was like to be walking on the moon in the 60's and 70's I recommend they have a look at the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal
and/or go see Magnificent Desolation in your nearest IMAX theater. I've seen it and it's very impressive.
Ugh- I always get beat up for saying this, but in my opinion, each of us should be judged on gallons per commute or gallons per week, not miles per gallon.
What you're not taking into account is that the guy in the SUV produces much more pollutants, because he's accelerating a lot more (relative to his total driving time) and operating the engine at inefficient RPMs a lot more than the guy who drives 500 miles per week (very likely mostly over highways).
One problem with that is: how do you find out whether you've got the right passphrase? There's no way to tell from looking at it which one is "correct". You can decrypt the secret key with any passphrase, and the secret key is just a random collection of bits, so after decrypting it there's no way to see whether it is in fact the right key. The only way to check is to then use the decrypted secret key to decrypt the encrypted volume (also possible with any key), and then check whether the decrypted volume contains a valid filesystem. All this takes a lot of time and hugely increases the time to brute-force the passphrase.
> But more importantly: because it's the wrong response! It's playing into the terrorist's hands.
But openly criticizing the government and emboldening the attackers doesn't paly into their hands?
Criticizing the government is not the same as emboldening the attackers. If anything, it points out the strengths of a democracy (the fact that you are allowed to, and can actually work to improve the situation as a citizen) and in doing so weakens the position of the attackers. So no, I don't think criticizing the government plays into the terrorists' hands.
> And its disadvantages (alienating an enormous group of people) far outweigh its advantages
Then the reverse is true concerning the governments response. The advantages to a target country of requiring the finger printing and picture taking far outweigh the disadvantages to the individual.
See, it goes both ways. <snip> Either way there are advantages to one group and disadvantages to another.
That's only a valid point if there actually are real advantages, but like I said I don't believe that that is the case for the US fingerprinting and taking pictures of foreigners. Terrorists will find new ways anyway. And in the mean time there are real disadvantages (to the country), such as loss of goodwill (which the US doesn't have too much of already) and loss of income from tourism and international business.
Looks like a no win situation. Guess that's the whole point about terrorism.
I don't agree that there's no way to win. I think politicians should be making it clear by their words and actions that terrorism is a relatively minor problem (which it is, compared to things like regular crime, poverty, traffic deaths, heart disease, etc., which kill hundreds of thousands each year), and at the same time take measures which will actually improve the safety of the people such as making sure the intelligence services cooperate better and are properly funded (not saying that that isn't happening, just that that should be the focus as opposed to window-dressing such as hassling foreigners).
The government should be working to reduce the level of fear and internal tensions of the people, and what they're doing now only increases those, IMHO...
why all this attack on the US government's response with little attack against the criminals that triggered this response?
Two reasons:
Because it's self evident that the original attacks by criminals which triggered all this were morally wrong. It's not necessary to criticise them explicitly in public forums because any reasonable person can be expected to agree they were wrong.
But more importantly: because it's the wrong response! It's playing into the terrorist's hands. It's doing exactly what they want the politicians to do: increase the people's fear by reminding them constantly of a greatly exagerated threat, while not actually increasing their safety because all the safety measures are easily circumvented by actual terrorists but greatly inconvenience and infringe on the human rights of ordinary people.
Instead of complaining about you bing pictured and finger-printed, why not indicate you would have no problems with profiling of middle-eastern visitors?
Because I do have a problem with that! That's what already happens, and it's blatant discrimination. And its disadvantages (alienating an enormous group of people) far outweigh its advantages (maybe possibly catching the very tiny percentage of that group who intend to do harm).
I remember crossing the "Iron Curtain" back when we were supposed to be permanently 5 minutes away from nuclear war with the countries on the other side of it.
The guards would just glance at my passport and wave me through. Same coming back.
So why is it any different now?
Because they don't just glance at your passport and wave you through. I just came back from a visit to New York, and I've never felt so unwelcome in my life (which may be exactly the point of course; perhaps the US simply doesn't want anyone visiting them anymore). I had to wait in line for an hour, and then had to have my mugshot taken, and give two fingerprints. And be interrogated about my intentions. Not to mention the dozen security checks where I even had to take of my shoes. They really do their best to make you feel like a criminal, instead of a welcome guest. But that's OK, I can take a hint. I'll be a long time before I visit the US again...
I block ads because I hate advertising with a passion. I can't wait for the whole "business model" where the customer is the product to die a painful death. The person who came up with the idea of no longer catering to the customer's wishes and charging them for the content but catering to some random company's wishes instead should be hung, drawn and quartered, right after the one who thought it would be a good idea to interrrupt television programs to shove tampons down my throat.
Not only is advertising annoying as hell, but because it creates a conflict of interest it also greatly deteriorates the quality of anything it touches with its greasy tentacles. I use Adblock relentlessly on the Internet (even on sites like Slashdot and for those "unobtrusive" Google ads), and I almost never watch live TV. Usually I use MythTV, which automatically skips the ads. If that deprives them of income, tough. Maybe they'll move to a better business model some day. I'm prepared to put my money where my mouth is and pay for content I'm interested in.
I think gaint squid are interesting. That being said, I think maybe the submitter needs to get out more and enjoy some human companionship if his heart skips a beat at the thought of squid. Either that or his ex-girlfriends must have been really monstrous.
There must be a way to tie this in with the tentacle hentai thread...
...I load up Slashdot, see this story briefly, only to have the Network Solutions banner at the top expand into an ad that takes up about 1/4 of the browser window on mouseover, thus covering it up.
I don't think so. I think sex bots are a long way away, due to the uncanny valley. People are not going to want to have sex with something that looks almost, but not quite, human, but they won't mind if something that looks vaguely human-like cleans their house. Also, I don't think there are that many people who would want a sex bot, when there are much simpler and cheaper devices which are good enough. Most of what makes sex with a real person better than with a toy is the emotional connection, which a sex bot would not be able to provide.
Slashdot Mirror
Because in the locking case, you overcome static friction *once* and are now working with the lower value kinetic friction. In the other case, you lock, release, lock, release, etc; you must overcome static friction each time. This means you lose more momentum.
I think GP was talking about the wheels locking (without ABS) vs. the wheels not locking, not about ABS vs. the wheels not locking.
With ABS, you only have brief moments of skidding. The control system clamps and releases the brakes repeatedly. During the clamped periods, you have tire skid. During the released periods, you have no skid.
ABS is not meant for shortening your stopping distance. It's entirely possible that your stopping distance will be shorter with locked wheels than with ABS. The point of ABS is that you are still able to steer the car, because your wheels keep rolling so that you can avoid any obstacles. When your wheels lock you're sliding and it's impossible to change the direction of the car.
Dynamic friction (skidding) is lower than static friction.
That makes no sense. There's no fundamental difference. In the one case the tyre is skidding over the asphalt, in the other case the brake bad is skidding over the brake disk. It's just a question of different materials and different pressures. No fundamental difference which would explain why one is more efficient at stopping the car than the other.
The French violated their treaty agreements.
Oh OK. Well that makes it alright then I guess...
I still refuse to buy French products 10 years after the nuclear testing in Mururoa Atoll
I'm sure you've also refused to buy American products for all the 60 years after the murder with atomic bombs of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians? That'll show those present-day bastard cotton farmers and wine growers for letting that happen!
BTW if anybody is interested in exactly what it was like to be walking on the moon in the 60's and 70's I recommend they have a look at the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal
and/or go see Magnificent Desolation in your nearest IMAX theater. I've seen it and it's very impressive.
You wouldn't want to say "Ajax sucks most of the time" too loudly in Amsterdam. You're likely to get your ass kicked... :-)
Original article.
At least it's an aqueous solution.
Thank you, you just made my day!
Embed me please! I want never again to have to manually pay for anything, prove my identity, or set my TiVo to my preferences. Thanks.
Baja Beach Club BarcelonaI just don't get why people do it when they have a perfectly good CD collection they could use.
Because the carrier forgot to tell the sheeple they could do that...
You're on Slashdot. You're the target market for precious few companies...
Ugh- I always get beat up for saying this, but in my opinion, each of us should be judged on gallons per commute or gallons per week, not miles per gallon.
What you're not taking into account is that the guy in the SUV produces much more pollutants, because he's accelerating a lot more (relative to his total driving time) and operating the engine at inefficient RPMs a lot more than the guy who drives 500 miles per week (very likely mostly over highways).
Too cynical? Too bad.
Dude, you watch too many X-Files reruns...
One problem with that is: how do you find out whether you've got the right passphrase? There's no way to tell from looking at it which one is "correct". You can decrypt the secret key with any passphrase, and the secret key is just a random collection of bits, so after decrypting it there's no way to see whether it is in fact the right key. The only way to check is to then use the decrypted secret key to decrypt the encrypted volume (also possible with any key), and then check whether the decrypted volume contains a valid filesystem. All this takes a lot of time and hugely increases the time to brute-force the passphrase.
> But more importantly: because it's the wrong response! It's playing into the terrorist's hands.
But openly criticizing the government and emboldening the attackers doesn't paly into their hands?
Criticizing the government is not the same as emboldening the attackers. If anything, it points out the strengths of a democracy (the fact that you are allowed to, and can actually work to improve the situation as a citizen) and in doing so weakens the position of the attackers. So no, I don't think criticizing the government plays into the terrorists' hands.
> And its disadvantages (alienating an enormous group of people) far outweigh its advantages
Then the reverse is true concerning the governments response. The advantages to a target country of requiring the finger printing and picture taking far outweigh the disadvantages to the individual.
See, it goes both ways. <snip> Either way there are advantages to one group and disadvantages to another.
That's only a valid point if there actually are real advantages, but like I said I don't believe that that is the case for the US fingerprinting and taking pictures of foreigners. Terrorists will find new ways anyway. And in the mean time there are real disadvantages (to the country), such as loss of goodwill (which the US doesn't have too much of already) and loss of income from tourism and international business.
Looks like a no win situation. Guess that's the whole point about terrorism.
I don't agree that there's no way to win. I think politicians should be making it clear by their words and actions that terrorism is a relatively minor problem (which it is, compared to things like regular crime, poverty, traffic deaths, heart disease, etc., which kill hundreds of thousands each year), and at the same time take measures which will actually improve the safety of the people such as making sure the intelligence services cooperate better and are properly funded (not saying that that isn't happening, just that that should be the focus as opposed to window-dressing such as hassling foreigners).
The government should be working to reduce the level of fear and internal tensions of the people, and what they're doing now only increases those, IMHO...
why all this attack on the US government's response with little attack against the criminals that triggered this response?
Two reasons:Instead of complaining about you bing pictured and finger-printed, why not indicate you would have no problems with profiling of middle-eastern visitors?
Because I do have a problem with that! That's what already happens, and it's blatant discrimination. And its disadvantages (alienating an enormous group of people) far outweigh its advantages (maybe possibly catching the very tiny percentage of that group who intend to do harm).
I remember crossing the "Iron Curtain" back when we were supposed to be permanently 5 minutes away from nuclear war with the countries on the other side of it.
The guards would just glance at my passport and wave me through. Same coming back.
So why is it any different now?
Because they don't just glance at your passport and wave you through. I just came back from a visit to New York, and I've never felt so unwelcome in my life (which may be exactly the point of course; perhaps the US simply doesn't want anyone visiting them anymore). I had to wait in line for an hour, and then had to have my mugshot taken, and give two fingerprints. And be interrogated about my intentions. Not to mention the dozen security checks where I even had to take of my shoes. They really do their best to make you feel like a criminal, instead of a welcome guest. But that's OK, I can take a hint. I'll be a long time before I visit the US again...
Almost right:
> On Saturday, Mars' orbit will bring it 69.4 million kilometers away from Earth, with its closest pass scheduled for 15:25 UTC.
Or is that too 21st century?
Not only is advertising annoying as hell, but because it creates a conflict of interest it also greatly deteriorates the quality of anything it touches with its greasy tentacles. I use Adblock relentlessly on the Internet (even on sites like Slashdot and for those "unobtrusive" Google ads), and I almost never watch live TV. Usually I use MythTV, which automatically skips the ads. If that deprives them of income, tough. Maybe they'll move to a better business model some day. I'm prepared to put my money where my mouth is and pay for content I'm interested in.
Should be: Two people disagreeing is not called hypocrisy.
Should be: Hypocrisy vs Different opinions.
Can you spell irony? ;-)
I think gaint squid are interesting. That being said, I think maybe the submitter needs to get out more and enjoy some human companionship if his heart skips a beat at the thought of squid. Either that or his ex-girlfriends must have been really monstrous.
There must be a way to tie this in with the tentacle hentai thread...
There are ads on slashdot?
Warning: Don't ever turn your back to this robot.
Or do.
I don't think so. I think sex bots are a long way away, due to the uncanny valley. People are not going to want to have sex with something that looks almost, but not quite, human, but they won't mind if something that looks vaguely human-like cleans their house. Also, I don't think there are that many people who would want a sex bot, when there are much simpler and cheaper devices which are good enough. Most of what makes sex with a real person better than with a toy is the emotional connection, which a sex bot would not be able to provide.
Please!
SELECT * FROM mysql INNER JOIN sco ON mysql_forces = sco_forces