Look, I really appreciate your making a valid point. The things you have said were true. 10 years ago.
I've actually run statistics on the data. It's available for free download, you know. I made sure to use a low-pass filter to account for the 11 year solar cycle. I didn't do any massaging of the data at all, no special selection, or anything else like that. I used the dataset which had been "doctored".
And it shows that, for all of the global warming that man supposedly caused, we couldn't keep it from returning to its 1900 - 1910 levels.
Ten years ago, we really were on an upswing. But the past decade has experienced a cooling trend, which - according to the leaked emails, "we can't explain".
Now, I'll admit climate change is complex stuff; there's a lot going on, and a lot of potential interactions, feedback loops, etc. But we now know that the claims made by the politicians were overstated and sensationalized. Granted, some scientists did behave badly, but anyone who actually read the IPCC report or followed the science as it developed would not have made such grand doom-and-gloom, unsupported claims.
It's not the science to which people objected. Very few people want to destroy the environment. But when it comes down to making changes whose known cost is in the trillions of dollars, versus inaction, you need to have a degree of certainty that just wasn't in the data we had at the time. To make matters worse, politicians and pundits exaggerated the situation, making an honest assessment of climate change nearly impossible. Scientists had to choose sides based on political considerations, or risk losing funding. People objected to the political railroading going on much more than the temperature record.
Um, how exactly does this those folks downloading content off the net?
Oh, wait. It doesn't. Instead, it gives me one less reason to use an STB, and one more reason to ditch cable.
With every passing year I consume less and less commercial content. Hollywood's most effective DRM to date has been their adversarial attitude toward their customers; they can't seem to figure out that I'm not going to pay for what I can't enjoy. Funny, that.
Yes, but the problem is that the overwhelming majority of life lives in the upper 10 meters of the ocean. Contaminate that and the volume below is hardly relevant. Heck, as soon as the oil layer on the top stops the absorption of oxygen into the water below, the fish will die. I know I'm not an expert, but I could see even a millimeter film curtailing the O2 exchange enough to kill the fish.
And yes, I hope you're right about it not being cataclysmic, but I'm smelling crude oil fumes in Chicago. It's hard for me to imagine that this isn't going to kill everything in the Gulf.
And I'm a little skeptical of acidification of the oceans being a large problem. CO2 has a tendency to form insoluble carbonates with various minerals. Again, I'm not an expert, but I can't imagine the harm of the oil in the ocean being less than it would cause being burned for fuel.
You might have heard of this thing called *corporate politics* where merit means nothing and technical considerations be damned when it comes to someone's career. All the expertise in the world means nothing if HP manages Palm the way they've managed their other failures *cough* ipaq *cough*.
Let's face the facts, here. Ever since the merger with Compaq, they've been on the downhill slide. Just the other day, I had to download drivers from HP's website because, while they can ship a workstation with a Windows Vista DVD, they can't seem to figure out that they also need to ship the drivers with it. So I'm stuck with this high-end HP workstation running at 800 x 600 with no network connection. Had I not had a corporate network, it would have remained no more useful than a doorstop.
And my laptop is no picnic either. Yes, it's made by HP, and has the unenviable distinction of frequently being unable to figure out which display to use (HINT: when I'm not connected to a monitor, you should turn the LCD on. For some reason, HP can't figure this out. Worse, when it can, it often resets the display resolution to something like 800 x 600, instead of the native 1440 by 900.) In the last year or so, HP has really dropped the ball on quality, and it's starting to show. When I can discover major flaws within a few hours of use, it's clear their QA department isn't being allowed to do their job.
But I digress. I've found that companies that make awful products do so not because the engineers are idiots, but typically because technical decisions are made for political reasons. Palm's expertise in this area is irrelevant, because the corporate culture at HP seems to hinder whatever innovation Palm would have brought to the table. Just look at how the ipaq flopped.
And this really doesn't bring anything to the crappy-computer market HP seems intent on cornering. Palm devices actually work well, are intuitive, easy to use, and not all that expensive. I'm not sure how HP will manage to incorporate a well-built, well-designed product into their line of decidedly mediocre products. People will buy crappy computers if they can save a buck, but Palm buyers tend to expect their devices to work, and work well. Palm buyers tend to be more sophisticated than HP users, so I'm not sure how well HP will market to them.
The idea of a cruise missile is that you don't have to be anywhere near the carrier battle group - as in, out of fighter range. Look at the range of an F-18 sometime - getting 1000 miles out on a CAP is really pushing it. A missile with a 2000 mile range (just hypothetically speaking) would put the cargo ship well out of the carrier groups defenses
The US has developed cruise missiles with the ability to evade radar, and it is very likely Russia could do the same, if it hasn't done so already. Against such a missile, the radar-tracked Phalanx would be of little use.
But back in the old days, shuffling the offending priests off to different diocese, and quietly denying that any wrongdoing took place was enough to keep the matter buried.
I suppose the alternative - announcing the names of the victims with a trumpet - would be more compassionate? Perhaps in the effort for justice we should likewise publicize the names of rape victims, too? I mean, information wants to be free, right?
So often people forget that real life circumstances are often much more complicated than the average AP reporter can grasp. How often do we bemoan the fact that science and tech reporters get it wrong? Doesn't it occur to people that the press gets it wrong more often than not - that if they're ignorant of the basics of science, that they're probably just as ignorant of the machinations of the Church?
As someone fairly close to a priest accused of abusing boys, I have a uniquely personal insight into the matter.
In the late 80's, the parish priest who baptized me was accused of abusing young boys.
The alleged victims sued, hoping to gain a substantial windfall. You see, in rural areas, jobs are hard to find, and - though the supposed victims couldn't even remember the abuse - they felt entitled to some of the Church's money. They found a psychologist who claimed that through hypnosis they had "recovered memories" of the abuse. The case didn't even make it to trial - it was dismissed by the judge.
But when the Chicago Tribune later reported the story - nearly 2 years after the case was resolved, they reported only that he'd been accused, *not acquited*.
But by this time, the Church had already reacted. For years the Catholic church had insisted that homosexuality was just another sin - that with counseling, it could be cured. Hence, they put "cured" priests back in charge of children. But now they were facing a scandal they couldn't deny - the abusers were overwhelmingly homosexual. The Catholic Church had to change its position with respect to the priesthood: homosexuals would no longer be allowed. They simply couldn't risk the scandal of child abuse.
And now you know why homosexuals are no longer allowed to be priests. Not because the Catholic Church didn't want them, but because they had to admit that homosexuals represented too great a risk of abuse to children. The media frenzy and constant public attention had forced them to act. They had to take measures to stop the abuse, and the single largest common factor in the abuse cases was homosexuality.
And the next time you hear of homosexuals being unjustly discriminated against, remember, that it started with the free press, the unregulated flow of (dis)information. The media, in an attempt to libel the Church, exaggerated and lied about the Church. And now the Church, which had long railed against unjust discrimination against homosexuals, now had to cease hiring homosexuals, lest it be found liable for their actions.
Instead of using Political Mathematics, they could have used Corporate Project Management Mathematics, where:
The vote passes because the project manager personally promised to deliver the final.33 votes the day after the election.
After a more formal review, including the project lead and business managers, it was decided the additional.33 votes needed to pass could be de-scoped and deferred to the next election (iteration).
The business team contacted the key customers and renegotiated the contract to omit the final.33 votes in exchange for an extended service contract and on-site support.
So, if I understand you correctly, you're refuting your original point that Islam never had an Enlightenment moment.
subsequent reactions against it have, unequivocally, been steps backwards.
So, I guess ignorance is cyclical then. Did the flame of the Enlightenment go out? Or, did society (as Islam teaches) forget the good?
The fundamental problem with the Enlightenment was that its key principles had already been put forth nearly 3 millenia before its existence. The notions of liberty, equality, and brotherhood had already been well established by a certain set Hebrews who would go on to change the way the entire world thought about God and morality. So how was the Enlightenment different?
It changed the political structure of Europe. Democracy had already been done by the Greeks and the Romans. Freedom was already well articulated in the Gospels. The concept of egalitarianism, of the rights of man, had already been mentioned 700 years prior in the Magna Carta. To most Frenchmen, the Enlightenment changed nothing - except instead of being wary of the nobility, they now had to be wary of Jacobins. And within a century, France would suffer yet another bloody revolution.
For all its bloodshed, the French Revolution brought only the notion of progress - that our material standard of living must somehow improve from one generation to the next, that we must become, as a society, progressively "better" with time. Yes, this notion survives to this day, but it is a curious notion.
Curious because, even though the Vatican had condemned slavery in the 16th century, the United States was founded by slaveholders. Clearly, liberty didn't extend to blacks, equality was withheld from women and Indians, and brotherhood was extended only to your land-owning neighbor. And, in some states, Catholic Mass was illegal, a condition that would persist even as late as the 20th century.
So where did the Enlightenment go wrong? Was progress such a bad notion? Or was it just naive to expect everyone to "behave as they should, instead of according to their best interests" all of the time? Or, perhaps people came to realize that continuous improvement in standard of living was unsustainable, that political philosophies didn't solve the fundamental problem that mankind was *tempted* to do evil, in spite of knowing better.
For almost 1400 years, the Catholic Church reigned in Europe. Enlightenment's reign was hardly a twentieth of that. And yet, in spite of its abysmal failure politically, people continue to whitewash the atrocities committed in the name of progress as if 18th century France was a land overflowing with milk and honey.
In France, it produced a bloody revolt which killed anyone suspected of treason. Which at the time could have something as simple as expressing the notion that the Revolution was not quite as good as imagined.
The Enlightenment mentality, or the notion of "progress" continues to serve as a faithful companion of the popular sociopath, the Politician. Surely, surely, your rights are being oppressed in some way; if you're not content with your current station in life, there's someone who will point to those better off than you and insist - that if you just give him absolute power - he'll rectify this horrible situation. If you aren't better off than your parents' generation; if you don't make as much money as you'd like; if -- GOSH! -- you can't afford health care, then there's surely someone richer than you to blame, and in the name of progress, the politician will take it away from THAT person, and promise it to you.
And we have plenty of examples. Hitler and Stalin both played the progress card. The Democrats are playing the progress card in the name of raising taxes and health care costs. Surely, if you don't have what think you deserve, there's someone else to blame. There always is.
And progress must occur! We can't ever, EVER, get there. Sure, we can eliminate racism and sexism and classism and just about every kind of ism there is, but progress must occur. We're always just a little shy of the goal, and with the *right* people in power, it's sure to be just around the corner.
Funny thing is, though, human nature hasn't changed in our entire recorded history. Today, nearly three centuries after the Enlightenment, we still have what is referred euphemistically as the Business Cycle, where every decade or so, about one in ten lose their jobs, and frequently their houses. Granted, they have no fear of the aristocracy, because they can't figure out that, regardless of their so called freedoms, they're still under the thumbs of the rich. But of course, the rich are capitalists, so that makes it okay. Sure, they can *theoretically* free themselves, but only by foregoing most of the amenities in life their colleagues consider essential, including owning their own house.
But hey, it's Progress! Does anyone really care if the promised improvements in standard of living are eternally almost there; if the promised freedoms can be subverted by the Executive Branch if it so much as "has a good faith belief" that something naughty is going on; if the threat of lawsuit prevents anyone but the rich from exercising their rights?
Islam appeals to many people because it contains absolute rules by which to live. This, people can deal with. They know what they can expect; it is binding on rich and poor alike; and it isn't subject to the whims of whomever is in power at the moment - that is, the religion and its interpretations are not subject to the local elected politicians, but to the imams. In the US, the President can wage his own private war; in Iran, only the Ayatollah can. Imagine for a moment if the US had to acquire Vatican approval before shipping troops off to war.
Now this isn't to say that Islamic world doesn't have its share of problems, but it already had its Enlightenment moment prior to the Crusades. During which time it contributed greatly to the world; we have algebra because of Islamic scholars. The next logical step - Calculus, wouldn't occur for another half-millenia. But Islam found the Enlightenment lacking, and returned to its authoritarian roots. The reason why is left as an exercise for the reader, but to understand why is a very illuminating experience.
When it takes 220 years for a government institution to figure out that a book is overdue, does anyone really think it would be a good idea to let them run a health care system?
I know its humorous because this is just a library book, but it serves as a striking example of how government bureaucracies can depart from the supposed intentions of their founders. Consider:
How many other library patrons got to keep their books for so long overdue without adverse consequences? Clearly, the library believed that all patrons were created equal, just some more equal than others.
And why is it that ordinary New Yorkers have to pay a fine when their items are a mere few weeks overdue, but if you are a certain *Virginian*, you get to keep the book for as long as you wish, and should you bother returning it, the library isn't even interested in collecting a fine? Talk about corruption!
And when it comes to corruption, is there anyone who does it better than New York? These guys are still offering favors to politicians *even after they're dead*. In Chicago, hey, the dead vote, but we don't offer them favors!
Perhaps the library isn't a den of corruption. But if so, isn't it troubling that the people we trust with our literary treasures took more than two centuries to recognize a book was overdue?
Ok, this is kind of a half-hearted jest, but I think there are some real points to be made about the way the government works more for the people in power than for the interests of the average citizen.
You know the saying about having a single point of failure, all of the eggs in the same basket, etc... Have enough cash on hand to see you through the time it takes to get something like this resolved. An 8 to 12 week supply is probably prudent, as well as a reasonably robust safe to keep it.
CDs are also useful, though someone could conceivably take those as well.
Ok, you don't declare a device you could have snuck past customs.
Now you have the problem that said device interferes with military radar, and now you have IDF at your door (if you're lucky. You might get Mr. Hellfire instead).
Me, I'd rather declare and be declined than deal with IDF. Of course, YMMV.
Without the skill and experience that actual spacecraft operation provides, the USA is far too likely to be on a long downhill slide to mediocrity.
Hate to break it to you, Neil, but we've been on the long downhill slide to mediocrity in the USA for quite some time now. It's nothing short of a miracle that NASA has resisted this for so long.
In almost every major technical and intellectual endeavor, we're worse now (relative to other developed nations) than we were 20 years ago:
The first to go was our education system.
Followed, consequently by our legal system. Never before had legal reasoning rested on "penumbras of rights" but it would soon become the norm that the strict constructionist view of the Constitution only applied to the laws which prohibited evil acts. Those which diminished our freedoms of speech, of movement, of privacy were all considered well founded, while those which restricted the power of Government or Corporations suspect.
And not soon afterward would we lose our industrial leadership to the Chinese.
And then we lost our technological dominance to India.
And now we are losing our space leadership to the Russians.
And Obama is doing his part to encourage this long, downhill slide into mediocrity.
The problem with Chicago Schools is not merely a matter of funding, but of culture.
No, it doesn't help that some parents don't care about their children's education. Yes, their kids drag the testing averages down. But they are not the primary problem.
Nor is the lack of funding the primary problem. Yes, there are things that could be taught if the schools had the money, but the really core, fundamentals do not require lavish cash outlays. Consider, for example, that even during Russia's leanest years, they managed to produce the best hackers, chess players, and mathematicians. Teaching math requires a pencil and paper, and English, a library card. And computer science? A computer - and who doesn't have one of those in the home?
The real problem is cultural. Chicago *politicians* don't value education. CPS doesn't value education. Throwing money at the problem won't help when there's a culture of intellectual mediocrity embedded in the key positions in the CPS. From time to time they throw out ideas - like 5 year terms, school uniforms, extending the school year, etc... to distract from the real problem: CPS doesn't care about your child's education. CPS seems to be a political reward for friends of the mayor.
Consequently,
Teachers in CPS are paid a third of their suburban counterparts.
Teachers who try to actually teach, by doing things like enforcing classroom discipline, grading standards, and the like are drummed out by those who favor a more liberal curricula emphasizing self esteem and social promotion over actual ability.
Parents who try to change the system are demeaned as "elitist" or racist. There's little, if any, effort made to remove teachers who can't (or won't) teach, because the board believes the problems with children failing to learn are the fault of the parents. To some degree, it's believable - Chicago does have problems with drugs and gangs. However, the failure to remove teachers is largely a result of the adversarial attitude of the board, and the problems with finding a replacement to work for a third of what they could make in the suburbs.
Now, I have to qualify the above with the fact that this is all personal knowledge gleaned from the rumors of the teachers I know; I've got three in the family, and none of them work for CPS (thankfully). But they'll all tell me how and why CPS schools are so bad. While financial problems do exist, and there are disinterested parents, the root cause of the failure is largely political. Adding a 5th year to high school, or creating a brainiac high isn't going to address the fundamental problem that hundreds of thousands of CPS students are getting a substandard education because Mayor Daley wants it that way.
After all, districts with good schools tend to elect Republicans. If Chicagoans really understood how the Democratic party has locked the inner city into poverty through a combination of corruption, high taxes, low education funding (bad schoools), and empty promises (there's always "urban renewal" going on, but strangely, the city as a whole never gets better), we might have better schools and more businesses locating in Chicago.
But then again, Daley won't let that happen. And everyone in Chicago knows that what he says, goes. Those who don't like it move to the suburbs.
A game both original and fun to play is hard. It's a risky undertaking for a studio.
Because he's independent, he has no deadline, no schedule pressure, indeed, no income pressure. He can do things which improve the art of game making as a whole. It isn't so much that a clone would be a waste of talent, but that he's in a position to do something much more revolutionary than copying someone else's idea. He should take advantage of that.
So you played this game. You thought it was cool. You want to give others that cool experience that you liked so much.
Instead of copying the game concepts, invent something new. Go a level beyond the original. Give other people that "Wow - this is really cool new game" experience, not the "Wow - this is a really cheesy knockoff of ${GAME}".
I understand that learning to write games well without copying someone else's game is like learning to play guitar without _Stairway to Heaven_. That's fine; we've all got our Asteroids copies wasting bits on our hard drives. But copying games doesn't really bring anything new and good to the community:
If it looks like a copy, it will be compared to that other game, and no matter how good you make it, there will be people who pan it because ${GAME} did X, and yours doesn't do X, or does Y instead and they liked X better.
Even a poorly implemented or incomplete game will garner interest if it is NEW and INTERESTING. If you plan to open source this ever, and want to take it beyond the initial stages, it will be helpful to have a community supporting you, i.e. submitting bug reports and patches. Trust me, no one's going to even care to submit a bug report for a Yet Another Tetris Clone.
Originality is good. Seriously, we have too many games which are essentially copies of each other with different texture maps. Do something that will challenge other game developers to rethink their gameplay.
If game writing is your passion, do it well. The big studios are not going to produce the creative, fun-to-play kind of games that an independent developer can. You are not competing with them - you have a range of freedom the professional game developer can only dream about. Use it. Be a blessing to other gamers, not the studios.
And for all you job hunters out there, if you put "C/C++" on your resume, I guarantee my first technical question is going to be, "What's the difference between C and C++?"
Ahem! Every C coder worth their salt knows that C++ is just one better than C.
A really knowledgeable C coder would point out that because of the order of operations, assigning a C++ coder to a C++ position might not give the results you want. Consider:
C_Coder C;
c_plus_plus_position = C++;
In this example, c_plus_plus_position is actually filled by C, not C++, because the postfix ++ operator increments after the assignment. Many HR folks get caught up by code such as this. (For example, consider how many JavaScript programmers got interviews for Java positions...)
One of the tests I like to give C++ programmers is to ask them what is wrong with this code:
char * password = "password";
... more code...
printf("Enter your password:");
scanf("%s",&password); ...
verify_password(password);
Most C programmers spot the mistake immediately; they aren't distracted by printf() and scanf(). A few C++ coders might recognize that password isn't private! Any hacker who runs a "HEX EDITOR" on your code can see your password!
Unbelievably, most of the C++ coders miss this point! Some try to rewrite it with cin and cout - as if that would fix the problem! Still others mention some gobblygook about stacking dishes and overflowing the sink, or something like that. What they don't realize is that C++ - using information hiding - can hide the passwords in your code from prying eyes. They even have a keyword for it - private - which means that hackers can't see it.
It's amazing to me to see how many C++ programmers don't understand the better security of C++.
Okay, I have to write this to get past the lameness filter. But listing too many languages is likely to get you a very experienced engineer, not a bad programmer.
I've dealt with things like this before with my bank. The worst I had to do was sign an affidavit that stated I didn't make the fraudulent transaction, and the problem "went away".
Here's something interesting: about 5 years ago, I was called up by someone claiming to be an insurance company, trying to collect a debt that I supposedly owed for a hit and run accident with my "red truck". I do have a red truck. But I had never, as they claimed, been involved in a hit and run accident with it, two years prior to the call.
To make a long story short, the insurance company paid out for someone's totalled car in an accident. The accident report listed the other vehicle as a red Dodge pickup, license plate unknown. The insurance company then sold its "debt" to a collection agency, which then acquired the registrations (via the state DMV, no less) for every red truck registered in Illinois. In spite of the fact that mine was a Chevy, and the accident report was for a Dodge, they called me, trying to get me to pay up. Basically, they were cold-calling truck owners in the hope that someone would admit to the crime.
They called back a few times. Imagine, for a moment, if I had died and my wife had answered the phone. She could have been defrauded into paying a debt which she didn't owe, simply because she didn't know any better. These collection agencies are borderline fraudulent operations. Yet they enjoy legal status.
It's interesting that banks try to pass the cost onto the consumer. But ultimately, it would take very little to show in a court of law that:
The bank had a duty to affirm the identity of the borrower.
The bank failed that duty, and
As a consequence, you lost time/money correcting the situation, therefore,
The bank is responsible for your lost time.
Most IT professionals can get between $50 and $100 per hour for there services. Should a bank require me to settle a case of fraud with anything more than a signed affidavit, you can bet I'll be sending them an invoice. After all - they'll charge you an hourly fee for balance reconciliation when you're at fault; therefore, they should expect likewise treatment.
If you wouldn't call NASA a bunch of idiots because of the occasional mistake (leaving off units), why would you imply that about a./ poster? I'm sorry if don't triple check my posts, but nobody's going to die because I make a typo in an online forum.
Really. It's akin to calling a person an idiot for making a typo. It happens, it might get corrected, but everyone pretty much understands what is going on.
And I'm not going to reply any more to this thread. I've said what I wanted, proven my points, if you disagree - fine. The evidence is out there, and I don't think anything more needs to be said. I honestly didn't want it to go this far, but I simply couldn't put it all in one post.
Anyway, good troll. Sometimes the debate is needed to debunk the crumple-zone believers. I remember the first time I heard about them in a dealer showroom - on the Corolla, no less. I didn't have at that time the data I needed to prove him wrong, but now there's a wealth of accident information out there. I just hope no one buys a smaller car thinking the crumple zones will effectively mitigate the safety disparity between them and larger vehicles.
Okay, so I have time to continue this. Actually, I find it interesting that you came to the same conclusion that I did, namely, that 90 mph is about the upper survivable limit for an accident. Didn't it occur to you that I chose 90 mph for a reason? Surely it was just coincidence that it was just beyond the 80g limit?
Now, let's revisit the truck-vs-corolla accident which killed a father and his four children. The truck was going 85 mph. So, if this had been something like, say, a crown victoria, and the truck had smashed in a meter's worth of the trunk, all of the occupants could have survived. Furthermore, for the corolla to have mitigated the impact enough for the occupants to survive would have required a 1 meter long crumple zone. If you look at the crumple zones on most small cars, getting a full meter of crush space is really pushing it. Such a deformation is more likely to push the engine block into the passenger compartment. The problem with crumple zones isn't their existence, but rather that most are too small to mitigate the shock of a severe accident. The evidence presented below bears this out - larger cars are safer than smaller cars, with minivans being among the safest.
Anyway, you'd probably be interested in this report, which confirms the things I've been saying. It studies accident data over the last 20 years. But to save you from reading it, here are some key highlights:
"Fatalities in truck-to-car collisions increased dramatically"
Compact cars and subcompact cars are among the riskiest to the driver. In order of driver risk, the categories fall, from most dangerous, to safest:
sports cars
subcompact cars
pickup trucks
compact cars
SUVs
midsize cars
large cars
Minivans
Luxury cars
Of particular note, they find that "Quality of vehicle design a better predictor of risk than weight"
Even more interesting, the find, "Very high risk to others from pickups associated with chassis
stiffness and height", and
High risk to drivers of pickups and SUVs from their propensity to roll
over.
People think this is an argument against crumple zones; it's not. It is an argument that the reduction in mass (and consequently, weight and size), left cars more dangerous than before. As the above example shows, even a perfectly designed, perfectly uniformly deforming crumple zone smaller than a meter in length *cannot* - even theoretically - make a 90mph head on collision survivable. Could manufacturers have added crumple zones to full frame cars? Sure. But that would have increased weight, and consequently reduced fuel economy. With a federal surcharge (Google CAFE) for low fuel economy, manufacturers chose to reduce weight. Granted, they improved design in the process, but had they not been required to reduce weight and size, the cars of today could be even safer than they are. The above list correlates very well with fuel economy.
CAFE cost American lives. It's that simple. Some people would rather make that trade, would rather drive a more agile, fuel efficient vehicle. That's fine. But the safety impact of smaller vehicle design is undeniable.
Look I understand that you "thought" you became the owner when you forked over the cash. But that's not how corporate America works these days. For a given amount of green, you get to place a Sony-owned piece of hardware in your living room, and play it until Sony decides it's obsolete. You then get to put it in the garbage, give Sony some more money, and replace it with another box with even less features. And to top it off, you rebuy all of the games you liked to play.
I know it sounds cynical, but this is how the console market works. Unless you're using FOSS on open hardware, you don't really own it anymore. There are EULAs to contend with, the DMCA and DRM, and the ever-increasing term of copyright.
If you don't want the pitfalls of proprietary hardware, don't buy it.
Look, NASA crashed a probe into mars because of a difference between ft/s^2 and m/s^2. If we want to be complete, there's a third measure commonly used for acceleration, Gs.
Look, most of us manage to figure it out without whining about the details. Let's use your insistence on m/s^2 as an example. Suppose, for example, that an object goes from 0 meters per second to 100 meters per second in 4 seconds. What is the acceleration?
Hmmm... let's see, acceleration is m/s^2, so, therefore:
100 meters divided by ( (s = 4)^2 = 16) = 6.6
Which, of course, is a spectacularly wrong answer. I know the physics world prides itself in misstating physical realities in mathematical terms, but to use m/s^2 only shows a misunderstanding of both math and physics. I know it has been used as shorthand by textbooks and TAs for years, but it is technically incorrect. Normally, it doesn't present a problem because most people who understand physics understand that acceleration is a speed delta, for which only the units, either Gs or m/s need specifying. However, you seem as if you'd get lost if someone didn't specify the superscript.
I'm sorry if I've confused you, as I didn't realize you wouldn't know the difference. I hate to harp on it, but this really is a fundamental misconstruing of Newtonian mechanics. m/s^2 does not convey the same meaning as meters *per second per second*. Now, we all like to harp on how the average person doesn't understand science, and makes seemingly ignorant conclusions because of it. But part of it is the fault of the sciences, which for the sake of a convenient shorthand, completely mangles the terminology. If you don't understand the conceptual underpinnings of acceleration - that is, that it is a speed differential measured over time - the misrepresentation as m/s^2 is only going to further bamboozle you. Acceleration is a delta, for which a speed difference of 800 m/s in one second has a definite value and meaning.
But to the more general point, I'd like to ask you - since you know so much about this - a more applicable question:
If a car traveling at 90 mph came to a complete stop in the distance of one meter, could the occupants survive, assuming no intrusion into the passenger compartment, and that the average human being can survive a deceleration of 80g?
I actually worked this out in my head during Mass while an angry child was in time out. I'd like to know if you came to the same conclusion, and if so, have the humility to post it.
Yes, they are. My example clearly shows that. But please, don't bother actually working out the acceleration numbers for a vehicle moving at 85 mph coming to rest in the distance of two meters - about the size of a Toyota Corolla.
Now, I realize you're not much of a nerd, but please - nitpicking over m/s verses m/s^2? Is there anyone here who doesn't know that acceleration is measured as a rate of speed difference over time? Do I have to list this explicitly?
But nevermind that. You should be able to show at what speed the crumple zone ceases to provide protection to the occupants because the impact would subject them to an acceleration in excess of what a human can endure. And you should be able to show that a full frame vehicle (that is, a heavier vehicle) experiences greater acceleration than a lighter one with crumple zones only. Be sure to account for the relative mass of the vehicles in the collision, and that a full frame will add about 800 pounds to the weight of a vehicle. Also, you should elaborate on the energy difference required to crush a full frame vehicle, versus that of a unibody, and how much of a speed/mass difference it makes.
I must admit, I don't expect that from you, because you've become convinced that anyone who disagrees with you is ignorant of the evidence and can't be convinced otherwise. I would not at all be surprised if you can't even conceive of the possibility that you are wrong, or to learn that you hold your opinion in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I posed a simple query - that I would like to see the evidence in favor of crumple zones, versus crumple zones and a full frame - and you have not responded with any reasonable analysis, but rather, insinuations of ignorance. You don't add anything to the discussion this way, and you aren't changing anyone's mind or educating anyone. No one who makes up their mind on evidence will be convinced your opinion is the correct one, and indeed, even I'm tempted to think that the concept of "crumple zones" was just ignorant marketing hype, with no real basis in safety engineering whatsoever. Lucky for me, I know the professional engineering community better than that. But my point stands, and you haven't written anything which would change the mind of an otherwise disinterested observer.
I understand electronic countermeasures are cheaper than chaff, but cheaper still are electronic counter-counter measures. They're fighting an uphill battle because:
Processing power is cheap, which makes:
Encryption cheap.
Advanced recognition algorithms cheap.
Advanced interception techniques cheap.
Active countermeasures cheap.
Ever since the Hellfire missile was reprogrammed to arc above a target and strike downward (as opposed to track-beam-to-target), the sophistication of software on weaponry is the real arms race. Consider, for example, the following sequence of advances in technology:
Radar guided missiles which track to the jamming radar when they detect a jamming signal.
A disposable, super-cap powered radar jammer ejected away from the plane when incoming missile is detected.
A multi-sensor missile which uses radar to locate a target, and combination of IR, visible, and radar techniques to track to kill.
A radar jammer which transmits stronger "bounce" signals of a higher/lower frequency to fool a missile radar into thinking the target is closer or farther away.
A missile radar which uses a PRNG generator to fool the radar jammer. It transmits at random intervals - and if it receives a ping when it did not expect one, rejects it as a jamming signal and continues on track.
An anti-missile radar system on aircraft and tanks which tracks and kills incoming missiles (think small scale CWIS).
Palestinians defeating such systems (like Torch) by spray-painting rpgs with radar-absorbent paint. Or using the radar transmitter on the missile to detect the tracking radar and transmit waves of opposite polarity to fool the tracking radar. Repeat with doppler shifts, etc...
Missiles which can actively track and avoid incoming counter-missile fire.
Reusable SAMS which can return to base, land, and refuel in the event of a miss, which essentially reduces the cost of an airplane kill to that of a single SAM, plus the fuel. Much cheaper than firing a handful to ensure a single hit, and losing all in the process.
Intelligent cruise missiles which can detect and route themselves around radar installations on their path to a target.
Slashdot Mirror
Look, I really appreciate your making a valid point. The things you have said were true. 10 years ago.
I've actually run statistics on the data. It's available for free download, you know. I made sure to use a low-pass filter to account for the 11 year solar cycle. I didn't do any massaging of the data at all, no special selection, or anything else like that. I used the dataset which had been "doctored".
And it shows that, for all of the global warming that man supposedly caused, we couldn't keep it from returning to its 1900 - 1910 levels.
Ten years ago, we really were on an upswing. But the past decade has experienced a cooling trend, which - according to the leaked emails, "we can't explain".
Now, I'll admit climate change is complex stuff; there's a lot going on, and a lot of potential interactions, feedback loops, etc. But we now know that the claims made by the politicians were overstated and sensationalized. Granted, some scientists did behave badly, but anyone who actually read the IPCC report or followed the science as it developed would not have made such grand doom-and-gloom, unsupported claims.
It's not the science to which people objected. Very few people want to destroy the environment. But when it comes down to making changes whose known cost is in the trillions of dollars, versus inaction, you need to have a degree of certainty that just wasn't in the data we had at the time. To make matters worse, politicians and pundits exaggerated the situation, making an honest assessment of climate change nearly impossible. Scientists had to choose sides based on political considerations, or risk losing funding. People objected to the political railroading going on much more than the temperature record.
Um, how exactly does this those folks downloading content off the net?
Oh, wait. It doesn't. Instead, it gives me one less reason to use an STB, and one more reason to ditch cable.
With every passing year I consume less and less commercial content. Hollywood's most effective DRM to date has been their adversarial attitude toward their customers; they can't seem to figure out that I'm not going to pay for what I can't enjoy. Funny, that.
Yes, but the problem is that the overwhelming majority of life lives in the upper 10 meters of the ocean. Contaminate that and the volume below is hardly relevant. Heck, as soon as the oil layer on the top stops the absorption of oxygen into the water below, the fish will die. I know I'm not an expert, but I could see even a millimeter film curtailing the O2 exchange enough to kill the fish.
And yes, I hope you're right about it not being cataclysmic, but I'm smelling crude oil fumes in Chicago. It's hard for me to imagine that this isn't going to kill everything in the Gulf.
And I'm a little skeptical of acidification of the oceans being a large problem. CO2 has a tendency to form insoluble carbonates with various minerals. Again, I'm not an expert, but I can't imagine the harm of the oil in the ocean being less than it would cause being burned for fuel.
You might have heard of this thing called *corporate politics* where merit means nothing and technical considerations be damned when it comes to someone's career. All the expertise in the world means nothing if HP manages Palm the way they've managed their other failures *cough* ipaq *cough*.
Let's face the facts, here. Ever since the merger with Compaq, they've been on the downhill slide. Just the other day, I had to download drivers from HP's website because, while they can ship a workstation with a Windows Vista DVD, they can't seem to figure out that they also need to ship the drivers with it. So I'm stuck with this high-end HP workstation running at 800 x 600 with no network connection. Had I not had a corporate network, it would have remained no more useful than a doorstop.
And my laptop is no picnic either. Yes, it's made by HP, and has the unenviable distinction of frequently being unable to figure out which display to use (HINT: when I'm not connected to a monitor, you should turn the LCD on. For some reason, HP can't figure this out. Worse, when it can, it often resets the display resolution to something like 800 x 600, instead of the native 1440 by 900.) In the last year or so, HP has really dropped the ball on quality, and it's starting to show. When I can discover major flaws within a few hours of use, it's clear their QA department isn't being allowed to do their job.
But I digress. I've found that companies that make awful products do so not because the engineers are idiots, but typically because technical decisions are made for political reasons. Palm's expertise in this area is irrelevant, because the corporate culture at HP seems to hinder whatever innovation Palm would have brought to the table. Just look at how the ipaq flopped.
And this really doesn't bring anything to the crappy-computer market HP seems intent on cornering. Palm devices actually work well, are intuitive, easy to use, and not all that expensive. I'm not sure how HP will manage to incorporate a well-built, well-designed product into their line of decidedly mediocre products. People will buy crappy computers if they can save a buck, but Palm buyers tend to expect their devices to work, and work well. Palm buyers tend to be more sophisticated than HP users, so I'm not sure how well HP will market to them.
But back in the old days, shuffling the offending priests off to different diocese, and quietly denying that any wrongdoing took place was enough to keep the matter buried.
I suppose the alternative - announcing the names of the victims with a trumpet - would be more compassionate? Perhaps in the effort for justice we should likewise publicize the names of rape victims, too? I mean, information wants to be free, right?
So often people forget that real life circumstances are often much more complicated than the average AP reporter can grasp. How often do we bemoan the fact that science and tech reporters get it wrong? Doesn't it occur to people that the press gets it wrong more often than not - that if they're ignorant of the basics of science, that they're probably just as ignorant of the machinations of the Church?
As someone fairly close to a priest accused of abusing boys, I have a uniquely personal insight into the matter.
In the late 80's, the parish priest who baptized me was accused of abusing young boys.
The alleged victims sued, hoping to gain a substantial windfall. You see, in rural areas, jobs are hard to find, and - though the supposed victims couldn't even remember the abuse - they felt entitled to some of the Church's money. They found a psychologist who claimed that through hypnosis they had "recovered memories" of the abuse. The case didn't even make it to trial - it was dismissed by the judge.
But when the Chicago Tribune later reported the story - nearly 2 years after the case was resolved, they reported only that he'd been accused, *not acquited*.
But by this time, the Church had already reacted. For years the Catholic church had insisted that homosexuality was just another sin - that with counseling, it could be cured. Hence, they put "cured" priests back in charge of children. But now they were facing a scandal they couldn't deny - the abusers were overwhelmingly homosexual. The Catholic Church had to change its position with respect to the priesthood: homosexuals would no longer be allowed. They simply couldn't risk the scandal of child abuse.
And now you know why homosexuals are no longer allowed to be priests. Not because the Catholic Church didn't want them, but because they had to admit that homosexuals represented too great a risk of abuse to children. The media frenzy and constant public attention had forced them to act. They had to take measures to stop the abuse, and the single largest common factor in the abuse cases was homosexuality.
And the next time you hear of homosexuals being unjustly discriminated against, remember, that it started with the free press, the unregulated flow of (dis)information. The media, in an attempt to libel the Church, exaggerated and lied about the Church. And now the Church, which had long railed against unjust discrimination against homosexuals, now had to cease hiring homosexuals, lest it be found liable for their actions.
Instead of using Political Mathematics, they could have used Corporate Project Management Mathematics, where:
So, if I understand you correctly, you're refuting your original point that Islam never had an Enlightenment moment.
subsequent reactions against it have, unequivocally, been steps backwards.
So, I guess ignorance is cyclical then. Did the flame of the Enlightenment go out? Or, did society (as Islam teaches) forget the good?
The fundamental problem with the Enlightenment was that its key principles had already been put forth nearly 3 millenia before its existence. The notions of liberty, equality, and brotherhood had already been well established by a certain set Hebrews who would go on to change the way the entire world thought about God and morality. So how was the Enlightenment different?
It changed the political structure of Europe. Democracy had already been done by the Greeks and the Romans. Freedom was already well articulated in the Gospels. The concept of egalitarianism, of the rights of man, had already been mentioned 700 years prior in the Magna Carta. To most Frenchmen, the Enlightenment changed nothing - except instead of being wary of the nobility, they now had to be wary of Jacobins. And within a century, France would suffer yet another bloody revolution.
For all its bloodshed, the French Revolution brought only the notion of progress - that our material standard of living must somehow improve from one generation to the next, that we must become, as a society, progressively "better" with time. Yes, this notion survives to this day, but it is a curious notion.
Curious because, even though the Vatican had condemned slavery in the 16th century, the United States was founded by slaveholders. Clearly, liberty didn't extend to blacks, equality was withheld from women and Indians, and brotherhood was extended only to your land-owning neighbor. And, in some states, Catholic Mass was illegal, a condition that would persist even as late as the 20th century.
So where did the Enlightenment go wrong? Was progress such a bad notion? Or was it just naive to expect everyone to "behave as they should, instead of according to their best interests" all of the time? Or, perhaps people came to realize that continuous improvement in standard of living was unsustainable, that political philosophies didn't solve the fundamental problem that mankind was *tempted* to do evil, in spite of knowing better.
For almost 1400 years, the Catholic Church reigned in Europe. Enlightenment's reign was hardly a twentieth of that. And yet, in spite of its abysmal failure politically, people continue to whitewash the atrocities committed in the name of progress as if 18th century France was a land overflowing with milk and honey.
In France, it produced a bloody revolt which killed anyone suspected of treason. Which at the time could have something as simple as expressing the notion that the Revolution was not quite as good as imagined.
The Enlightenment mentality, or the notion of "progress" continues to serve as a faithful companion of the popular sociopath, the Politician. Surely, surely, your rights are being oppressed in some way; if you're not content with your current station in life, there's someone who will point to those better off than you and insist - that if you just give him absolute power - he'll rectify this horrible situation. If you aren't better off than your parents' generation; if you don't make as much money as you'd like; if -- GOSH! -- you can't afford health care, then there's surely someone richer than you to blame, and in the name of progress, the politician will take it away from THAT person, and promise it to you.
And we have plenty of examples. Hitler and Stalin both played the progress card. The Democrats are playing the progress card in the name of raising taxes and health care costs. Surely, if you don't have what think you deserve, there's someone else to blame. There always is.
And progress must occur! We can't ever, EVER, get there. Sure, we can eliminate racism and sexism and classism and just about every kind of ism there is, but progress must occur. We're always just a little shy of the goal, and with the *right* people in power, it's sure to be just around the corner.
Funny thing is, though, human nature hasn't changed in our entire recorded history. Today, nearly three centuries after the Enlightenment, we still have what is referred euphemistically as the Business Cycle, where every decade or so, about one in ten lose their jobs, and frequently their houses. Granted, they have no fear of the aristocracy, because they can't figure out that, regardless of their so called freedoms, they're still under the thumbs of the rich. But of course, the rich are capitalists, so that makes it okay. Sure, they can *theoretically* free themselves, but only by foregoing most of the amenities in life their colleagues consider essential, including owning their own house.
But hey, it's Progress! Does anyone really care if the promised improvements in standard of living are eternally almost there; if the promised freedoms can be subverted by the Executive Branch if it so much as "has a good faith belief" that something naughty is going on; if the threat of lawsuit prevents anyone but the rich from exercising their rights?
Islam appeals to many people because it contains absolute rules by which to live. This, people can deal with. They know what they can expect; it is binding on rich and poor alike; and it isn't subject to the whims of whomever is in power at the moment - that is, the religion and its interpretations are not subject to the local elected politicians, but to the imams. In the US, the President can wage his own private war; in Iran, only the Ayatollah can. Imagine for a moment if the US had to acquire Vatican approval before shipping troops off to war.
Now this isn't to say that Islamic world doesn't have its share of problems, but it already had its Enlightenment moment prior to the Crusades. During which time it contributed greatly to the world; we have algebra because of Islamic scholars. The next logical step - Calculus, wouldn't occur for another half-millenia. But Islam found the Enlightenment lacking, and returned to its authoritarian roots. The reason why is left as an exercise for the reader, but to understand why is a very illuminating experience.
When it takes 220 years for a government institution to figure out that a book is overdue, does anyone really think it would be a good idea to let them run a health care system?
I know its humorous because this is just a library book, but it serves as a striking example of how government bureaucracies can depart from the supposed intentions of their founders. Consider:
Ok, this is kind of a half-hearted jest, but I think there are some real points to be made about the way the government works more for the people in power than for the interests of the average citizen.
You know the saying about having a single point of failure, all of the eggs in the same basket, etc... Have enough cash on hand to see you through the time it takes to get something like this resolved. An 8 to 12 week supply is probably prudent, as well as a reasonably robust safe to keep it.
CDs are also useful, though someone could conceivably take those as well.
Ok, you don't declare a device you could have snuck past customs.
Now you have the problem that said device interferes with military radar, and now you have IDF at your door (if you're lucky. You might get Mr. Hellfire instead).
Me, I'd rather declare and be declined than deal with IDF. Of course, YMMV.
Without the skill and experience that actual spacecraft operation provides, the USA is far too likely to be on a long downhill slide to mediocrity.
Hate to break it to you, Neil, but we've been on the long downhill slide to mediocrity in the USA for quite some time now. It's nothing short of a miracle that NASA has resisted this for so long.
In almost every major technical and intellectual endeavor, we're worse now (relative to other developed nations) than we were 20 years ago:
And Obama is doing his part to encourage this long, downhill slide into mediocrity.
The problem with Chicago Schools is not merely a matter of funding, but of culture.
No, it doesn't help that some parents don't care about their children's education. Yes, their kids drag the testing averages down. But they are not the primary problem.
Nor is the lack of funding the primary problem. Yes, there are things that could be taught if the schools had the money, but the really core, fundamentals do not require lavish cash outlays. Consider, for example, that even during Russia's leanest years, they managed to produce the best hackers, chess players, and mathematicians. Teaching math requires a pencil and paper, and English, a library card. And computer science? A computer - and who doesn't have one of those in the home?
The real problem is cultural. Chicago *politicians* don't value education. CPS doesn't value education. Throwing money at the problem won't help when there's a culture of intellectual mediocrity embedded in the key positions in the CPS. From time to time they throw out ideas - like 5 year terms, school uniforms, extending the school year, etc... to distract from the real problem: CPS doesn't care about your child's education. CPS seems to be a political reward for friends of the mayor.
Consequently,
Now, I have to qualify the above with the fact that this is all personal knowledge gleaned from the rumors of the teachers I know; I've got three in the family, and none of them work for CPS (thankfully). But they'll all tell me how and why CPS schools are so bad. While financial problems do exist, and there are disinterested parents, the root cause of the failure is largely political. Adding a 5th year to high school, or creating a brainiac high isn't going to address the fundamental problem that hundreds of thousands of CPS students are getting a substandard education because Mayor Daley wants it that way.
After all, districts with good schools tend to elect Republicans. If Chicagoans really understood how the Democratic party has locked the inner city into poverty through a combination of corruption, high taxes, low education funding (bad schoools), and empty promises (there's always "urban renewal" going on, but strangely, the city as a whole never gets better), we might have better schools and more businesses locating in Chicago.
But then again, Daley won't let that happen. And everyone in Chicago knows that what he says, goes. Those who don't like it move to the suburbs.
A game both original and fun to play is hard. It's a risky undertaking for a studio.
Because he's independent, he has no deadline, no schedule pressure, indeed, no income pressure. He can do things which improve the art of game making as a whole. It isn't so much that a clone would be a waste of talent, but that he's in a position to do something much more revolutionary than copying someone else's idea. He should take advantage of that.
So you played this game. You thought it was cool. You want to give others that cool experience that you liked so much.
Instead of copying the game concepts, invent something new. Go a level beyond the original. Give other people that "Wow - this is really cool new game" experience, not the "Wow - this is a really cheesy knockoff of ${GAME}".
I understand that learning to write games well without copying someone else's game is like learning to play guitar without _Stairway to Heaven_. That's fine; we've all got our Asteroids copies wasting bits on our hard drives. But copying games doesn't really bring anything new and good to the community:
If game writing is your passion, do it well. The big studios are not going to produce the creative, fun-to-play kind of games that an independent developer can. You are not competing with them - you have a range of freedom the professional game developer can only dream about. Use it. Be a blessing to other gamers, not the studios.
And for all you job hunters out there, if you put "C/C++" on your resume, I guarantee my first technical question is going to be, "What's the difference between C and C++?"
Ahem! Every C coder worth their salt knows that C++ is just one better than C.
A really knowledgeable C coder would point out that because of the order of operations, assigning a C++ coder to a C++ position might not give the results you want. Consider:
C_Coder C;
c_plus_plus_position = C++;
In this example, c_plus_plus_position is actually filled by C, not C++, because the postfix ++ operator increments after the assignment. Many HR folks get caught up by code such as this. (For example, consider how many JavaScript programmers got interviews for Java positions...)
One of the tests I like to give C++ programmers is to ask them what is wrong with this code:
char * password = "password";
... more code ...
...
verify_password(password);
printf("Enter your password:");
scanf("%s",&password);
Most C programmers spot the mistake immediately; they aren't distracted by printf() and scanf(). A few C++ coders might recognize that password isn't private! Any hacker who runs a "HEX EDITOR" on your code can see your password!
Unbelievably, most of the C++ coders miss this point! Some try to rewrite it with cin and cout - as if that would fix the problem! Still others mention some gobblygook about stacking dishes and overflowing the sink, or something like that. What they don't realize is that C++ - using information hiding - can hide the passwords in your code from prying eyes. They even have a keyword for it - private - which means that hackers can't see it.
It's amazing to me to see how many C++ programmers don't understand the better security of C++.
Some people here could fill that job!
And....
Okay, I have to write this to get past the lameness filter. But listing too many languages is likely to get you a very experienced engineer, not a bad programmer.
I've dealt with things like this before with my bank. The worst I had to do was sign an affidavit that stated I didn't make the fraudulent transaction, and the problem "went away".
Here's something interesting: about 5 years ago, I was called up by someone claiming to be an insurance company, trying to collect a debt that I supposedly owed for a hit and run accident with my "red truck". I do have a red truck. But I had never, as they claimed, been involved in a hit and run accident with it, two years prior to the call.
To make a long story short, the insurance company paid out for someone's totalled car in an accident. The accident report listed the other vehicle as a red Dodge pickup, license plate unknown. The insurance company then sold its "debt" to a collection agency, which then acquired the registrations (via the state DMV, no less) for every red truck registered in Illinois. In spite of the fact that mine was a Chevy, and the accident report was for a Dodge, they called me, trying to get me to pay up. Basically, they were cold-calling truck owners in the hope that someone would admit to the crime.
They called back a few times. Imagine, for a moment, if I had died and my wife had answered the phone. She could have been defrauded into paying a debt which she didn't owe, simply because she didn't know any better. These collection agencies are borderline fraudulent operations. Yet they enjoy legal status.
It's interesting that banks try to pass the cost onto the consumer. But ultimately, it would take very little to show in a court of law that:
Most IT professionals can get between $50 and $100 per hour for there services. Should a bank require me to settle a case of fraud with anything more than a signed affidavit, you can bet I'll be sending them an invoice. After all - they'll charge you an hourly fee for balance reconciliation when you're at fault; therefore, they should expect likewise treatment.
If you wouldn't call NASA a bunch of idiots because of the occasional mistake (leaving off units), why would you imply that about a ./ poster? I'm sorry if don't triple check my posts, but nobody's going to die because I make a typo in an online forum.
Really. It's akin to calling a person an idiot for making a typo. It happens, it might get corrected, but everyone pretty much understands what is going on.
And I'm not going to reply any more to this thread. I've said what I wanted, proven my points, if you disagree - fine. The evidence is out there, and I don't think anything more needs to be said. I honestly didn't want it to go this far, but I simply couldn't put it all in one post.
Anyway, good troll. Sometimes the debate is needed to debunk the crumple-zone believers. I remember the first time I heard about them in a dealer showroom - on the Corolla, no less. I didn't have at that time the data I needed to prove him wrong, but now there's a wealth of accident information out there. I just hope no one buys a smaller car thinking the crumple zones will effectively mitigate the safety disparity between them and larger vehicles.
And trolls they were, but of a fell race...
Okay, so I have time to continue this. Actually, I find it interesting that you came to the same conclusion that I did, namely, that 90 mph is about the upper survivable limit for an accident. Didn't it occur to you that I chose 90 mph for a reason? Surely it was just coincidence that it was just beyond the 80g limit?
Now, let's revisit the truck-vs-corolla accident which killed a father and his four children. The truck was going 85 mph. So, if this had been something like, say, a crown victoria, and the truck had smashed in a meter's worth of the trunk, all of the occupants could have survived. Furthermore, for the corolla to have mitigated the impact enough for the occupants to survive would have required a 1 meter long crumple zone. If you look at the crumple zones on most small cars, getting a full meter of crush space is really pushing it. Such a deformation is more likely to push the engine block into the passenger compartment. The problem with crumple zones isn't their existence, but rather that most are too small to mitigate the shock of a severe accident. The evidence presented below bears this out - larger cars are safer than smaller cars, with minivans being among the safest.
Anyway, you'd probably be interested in this report, which confirms the things I've been saying. It studies accident data over the last 20 years. But to save you from reading it, here are some key highlights:
People think this is an argument against crumple zones; it's not. It is an argument that the reduction in mass (and consequently, weight and size), left cars more dangerous than before. As the above example shows, even a perfectly designed, perfectly uniformly deforming crumple zone smaller than a meter in length *cannot* - even theoretically - make a 90mph head on collision survivable. Could manufacturers have added crumple zones to full frame cars? Sure. But that would have increased weight, and consequently reduced fuel economy. With a federal surcharge (Google CAFE) for low fuel economy, manufacturers chose to reduce weight. Granted, they improved design in the process, but had they not been required to reduce weight and size, the cars of today could be even safer than they are. The above list correlates very well with fuel economy.
CAFE cost American lives. It's that simple. Some people would rather make that trade, would rather drive a more agile, fuel efficient vehicle. That's fine. But the safety impact of smaller vehicle design is undeniable.
Honestly. It's their hardware.
Look I understand that you "thought" you became the owner when you forked over the cash. But that's not how corporate America works these days. For a given amount of green, you get to place a Sony-owned piece of hardware in your living room, and play it until Sony decides it's obsolete. You then get to put it in the garbage, give Sony some more money, and replace it with another box with even less features. And to top it off, you rebuy all of the games you liked to play.
I know it sounds cynical, but this is how the console market works. Unless you're using FOSS on open hardware, you don't really own it anymore. There are EULAs to contend with, the DMCA and DRM, and the ever-increasing term of copyright.
If you don't want the pitfalls of proprietary hardware, don't buy it.
Look, NASA crashed a probe into mars because of a difference between ft/s^2 and m/s^2. If we want to be complete, there's a third measure commonly used for acceleration, Gs.
Look, most of us manage to figure it out without whining about the details. Let's use your insistence on m/s^2 as an example. Suppose, for example, that an object goes from 0 meters per second to 100 meters per second in 4 seconds. What is the acceleration?
Hmmm... let's see, acceleration is m/s^2, so, therefore:
100 meters divided by ( (s = 4)^2 = 16) = 6.6
Which, of course, is a spectacularly wrong answer. I know the physics world prides itself in misstating physical realities in mathematical terms, but to use m/s^2 only shows a misunderstanding of both math and physics. I know it has been used as shorthand by textbooks and TAs for years, but it is technically incorrect. Normally, it doesn't present a problem because most people who understand physics understand that acceleration is a speed delta, for which only the units, either Gs or m/s need specifying. However, you seem as if you'd get lost if someone didn't specify the superscript.
I'm sorry if I've confused you, as I didn't realize you wouldn't know the difference. I hate to harp on it, but this really is a fundamental misconstruing of Newtonian mechanics. m/s^2 does not convey the same meaning as meters *per second per second*. Now, we all like to harp on how the average person doesn't understand science, and makes seemingly ignorant conclusions because of it. But part of it is the fault of the sciences, which for the sake of a convenient shorthand, completely mangles the terminology. If you don't understand the conceptual underpinnings of acceleration - that is, that it is a speed differential measured over time - the misrepresentation as m/s^2 is only going to further bamboozle you. Acceleration is a delta, for which a speed difference of 800 m/s in one second has a definite value and meaning.
But to the more general point, I'd like to ask you - since you know so much about this - a more applicable question:
I actually worked this out in my head during Mass while an angry child was in time out. I'd like to know if you came to the same conclusion, and if so, have the humility to post it.
People aren't killed by intrusion
Yes, they are. My example clearly shows that. But please, don't bother actually working out the acceleration numbers for a vehicle moving at 85 mph coming to rest in the distance of two meters - about the size of a Toyota Corolla.
Now, I realize you're not much of a nerd, but please - nitpicking over m/s verses m/s^2? Is there anyone here who doesn't know that acceleration is measured as a rate of speed difference over time? Do I have to list this explicitly?
But nevermind that. You should be able to show at what speed the crumple zone ceases to provide protection to the occupants because the impact would subject them to an acceleration in excess of what a human can endure. And you should be able to show that a full frame vehicle (that is, a heavier vehicle) experiences greater acceleration than a lighter one with crumple zones only. Be sure to account for the relative mass of the vehicles in the collision, and that a full frame will add about 800 pounds to the weight of a vehicle. Also, you should elaborate on the energy difference required to crush a full frame vehicle, versus that of a unibody, and how much of a speed/mass difference it makes.
I must admit, I don't expect that from you, because you've become convinced that anyone who disagrees with you is ignorant of the evidence and can't be convinced otherwise. I would not at all be surprised if you can't even conceive of the possibility that you are wrong, or to learn that you hold your opinion in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I posed a simple query - that I would like to see the evidence in favor of crumple zones, versus crumple zones and a full frame - and you have not responded with any reasonable analysis, but rather, insinuations of ignorance. You don't add anything to the discussion this way, and you aren't changing anyone's mind or educating anyone. No one who makes up their mind on evidence will be convinced your opinion is the correct one, and indeed, even I'm tempted to think that the concept of "crumple zones" was just ignorant marketing hype, with no real basis in safety engineering whatsoever. Lucky for me, I know the professional engineering community better than that. But my point stands, and you haven't written anything which would change the mind of an otherwise disinterested observer.
I understand electronic countermeasures are cheaper than chaff, but cheaper still are electronic counter-counter measures. They're fighting an uphill battle because:
Ever since the Hellfire missile was reprogrammed to arc above a target and strike downward (as opposed to track-beam-to-target), the sophistication of software on weaponry is the real arms race. Consider, for example, the following sequence of advances in technology:
It's just your classic arms race, folks.