Well, four of those cars have really loud canon mufflers, so you can hear when the engine is still running with fuel. You still get a loud rumble. =/
That's how I know...
Anyways, it's strange if it's an American thing. o.O
I know 100% sure definitely that my Honda Prelude doesn't. I drive it often and I gear down to stop - the engine is still running. And trust me, I can hear my irritatingly ridiculously loud muffler droning as it slows down. =/
Assuming you're right (which I'm still highly doubtful of), then what cars in specific 'feature' this?
The manual cars I've driven have been: 1994 Honda Prelude VTiR (My car) 1994 BMW 323i E36 1994 Subaru Liberty GX 1998 Honda Civic VTi 2001 Mitsubishi Magna Sports TJ 1992 Toyota Sprinter Trueno GT Apex AE101 1998 Subaru Impreza RX 1986 Toyota Supra Mk III MA70 and more...
*None* of them cut fuel input while rolling in gear.
So how 'modern' are we talking then? Only engines made in the last few years? Give me models.
I know what you're saying and I will admit, I don't know the answer either. As to why petrol engines would need fuel and diesel don't - it doesn't seem to make much sense. But I have yet to drive, or see a car which cuts petrol intake while rolling.
But remember that the amount of air running through the throttle body past the O2 sensor is proportion to the amount of fuel put into the car. The amount of fuel injected into the car is dependant on the air flowing through it - hence, your throttle controls the amount of fuel entering the engine per cycle.
Flooring it at top gear, while keeping the rpm low, will be at 100% throttle - that is, highest rate of fuel intake going into the engine. The fact it's in a high gear will mean lots of air and fuel will be going through the engine for a long time.
On the other hand, flooring it in a lower gear will mean that while rpm increases briefly (a higher rate), speed is achieved quicker and thus less fuel is needed.
And finally, putting 20% throttle and shifting up every 20km/h will keep you below 3000rpm, *and* keep the fuel intake low.
I don't know if it's some special feature in some exclusive modern fuel-injected petrol systems, but it's certainly not a standard one across the board.
Petrol fuel-injected systems need to continue to inject fuel into the engine to keep the 4-stroke pattern working properly. It needs to continue that cycle of intake, compression, ignition, exhaust, and so on.
Diesel's are different. Since diesel's simply combust due to compression, fuel can probably be halted or started any time. I confess I'm not too familiar to the inner workings of diesel.
Do a test. Jump into a manual petrol car - not a diesel one. Rev up nice and high. Now, let go of the throttle. Notice that unlike your diesel, it does not go silent. Instead you get a loud, booming drop in revs as only the momentum of the car keeps it going - but fuel is still being put into the engine, hence the loud exhaust note.
If you're getting confused with the sound of an automatic petrol car, that's because in an automatic car, the speed of the revs are not directly proportional to wheel speed, due to the torque convertor.
http://www.carbibles.com/fuel_engine_bible.html
Have a read of that if you've got time. It's a pretty good and in depth description to how different engines work.
I've been trying to find something to cite my evidence on, but I'm in a bit of a rush now...if you really still hold to your point, I'll try to dig some evidence up. If you're still stubbornly sticking to your point - I'd suggest you do to.
Yes, this is the case. It's a very, very audible difference. I'm driving a car with a diesel engine, and when I take my foot off the accelerator when going downhill the engine is silent (no diesel knock). If I touch the accelerator, I hear the typical diesel engine sound.
Well, that explains EVERYTHING.
You have a DIESEL ENGINE.
They work completely different to petrol engines and yes, do stop fuel injection during zero throttle.
You should have mentioned that before, and also be aware that diesel engines work on completely different theory to petrol engines. At the most fundamental level even - working on combustion under compression as opposed to combustion caused by spark plugs.
Yes, but when teh car is being turned from the wheels (momentum, as you said), the engine is at idle throttle and low fuel air ratios. It doesn't stop fuel intake completely.
If it wasn't, you wouldn't hear your engine running at all. Just the sound of the road, which of course, is not the case.
Push starting your car works on this exact principle. That once your crankshaft turns, the cycle starts.
Most cars make their best fuel economy somewhere between 1800 to 2200 rpm. Ah ha! My car has a 6 speed stick. If I'm in 6th gear it's turning about 2000rpm at 85mph.
It depends on your throttle position too.
Like, 4000rpm at 10% throttle in a lower gear is probably better than 90% throttle at 1500rpm on a higher gear.
That's why I always downshift before I hit hills, brake, etc. Even if your car can easily do it, doing a hill in a higher gear but with your throttle to the floor is stupid.
As the parent, said it should be clear who it is aimed at.
If you've got a whole bunch of completely illiterate people who struggle to install a program, then programming will probably go way over their head.
Likewise, if your audience is a bunch of people who have a firm grasp on the very basics, the right mindset and are eager to push it one level further, then the basics will bore them.
[quote]such as Corsair's 2.133MHz DDR3 Dominator RAM, which needs 2V to run at its full speed with 9-9-9-24 timings."[/quote]
Please forgive me if I'm missing something...but isn't that RAM well, not great?
Various benchmark tests on the web show that RAM running at anything more than a 1:1 ratio (well, 2:1 if you consider that it's Double Data *Rate*) with the FSB doesn't increase performance at all. At this point, timings become important.
But 9-9-9-24 is pretty bad right? Lower is better right? For $90AUD I've got semi-budget performance RAM that has 4-4-4-12 timings. That's over double the latency timings.
So for the Corsair Dominator RAM to be worth it...you'd need to be running an FSB of 1.0665GHz. Meaning you'd need to have your CPU running at 4.266GHz FSB for it to be better than a slower RAM with better timings. Unless you're lowering your multiplier considerably, I don't see that as hugely attainable. And the loss of performance in timings is just too great.
Like the Corsair memory mentioned in the summary. My Corsair C4 RAM requires an extra 0.3V over stock (1.8V normal, 2.1V it's designed for) for it to run properly at its designated timings (4-4-4-12).
Furthermore, most performance motherboards, such as an DQ series Gigabyte, or Asus' Formula branded mobos, boast their OCing abilities considerably.
C'mon, as if the sarcasm wasn't blatant enough! I get modded down troll and that other guy actually argues against a point I was mocking...what the hell is up with slashdot!?
If your original Hebrew disagrees with my original King James --- your original Hebrew is wrong. If your original Hebrew agrees with my original King James, your original Hebrew is right.
AV1611VET, Christian Forums [Comments (147)] [2006-Jul-20] Submitted by Ash
[quote]I guess by your type of assessment, Catholicism is a fringe Christian group and Eastern Orthodoxy doesn't even exist. There is a whole world outside of the U.S. In some parts of it, they even speak languages other than English.[/quote]
No, you're wrong.
While some Christians may speak another language, English has to, and is, the main language of every God-fearing man. For the correct version of the Bible is the King James Version and it is written in English. While some so-called Christians might claim to read the Hebrew and other translated versions, they must realize that there can be some inaccuracies in translation and hence, should learn English to read the Word of God in its raw, uncorrupted form.
While normal people only have to worry about going and earning money, taking care of their family, having a relationship with a girl and all that easy stuff...gamers have so many more stressful, and hard things to worry about! Like, running a WoW guild, or training for the upcoming CS tournament, or having to go through Aeris's death in FFVII.
Traditionally the best treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder [PTSD] -- being raped, narrowly escaping the collapse of the Twin Towers, or witnessing a buddy die on the battlefield -- is to have the person relive the trauma using his or her imagination.
Uh oh.
Are they going to force rape victims watch rape-hentai now?
What's sad is that in Melbourne we do have bicyclist cops. Yes, they ride around on bicycles in groups of 3-5. It's the most hilariously ridiculous thing I've ever seen.
>Reading the rest of your post it seems to me that you think the video games are not actually bad for kids, they are just not as good a way to spend your time compared other activities. If that is what you are trying to say, you really shouldn't say games are bad, that would be like saying that playing footbal is bad for kids because they could be spending that time reading and learning, and that reading stuff like the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is bad for children because they could have been reading a more educational, non-fiction book instead.
Actually, you make a very good point. Sorry, I worded it badly. Video games aren't inherently bad.
>Junk food isn't going to harm you if you eat it once in a while. Watching the news and firefly isn't going to melt your brain (well, the former might). Things usually aren't either 'good' or 'bad' for you, but something in between. To suggest otherwise is usually a gross oversimplification.
What is bad is, as you said, the way that video games attract kids. Arguably good parenting is putting limits on the amount of time that can be spent on video games, and limiting it thus. As you said - junk food,watching TV, etc - aren't bad either. It's all about doing it to excess. The nature of course is that such things are addictive such that it's really easy to do it to excess.
>Have you considered that your brother might be different from you? You base your opinion (that games are bad) mostly on the behavior of a single individual (don't go suggesting that your brother (and probably his friends, if any, who are likely to have similar interests) doesn't have a huge influence on your perception of 'today's kids'). Maybe your brother is just lazy and boring.
As for my brother being different, I'd like to disagree there. When I was young, I was the little gamer who played more games than any of my friends. I had all the cool computer games and whatnot. I was the little computer gamer nerd. But what I'm saying is that most people at that age and that time *didn't play much video games*. In fact, half of my mates didn't even have computers or consoles at all! So we'd organise more meet ups, hang outs and all that.
My brother is the opposite of that. He's really sporty (Top soccer player in his school team, he also plays in a superleague club as one of their top strikers - as well as being pretty good at basketball and australian rules football), etc. Yet, when he isn't at soccer training, or soccer matches, all he does is play computer games. Now, I was a very unsporty person, and even when I was younger, all my friends would invite me out to play sport. All his friends invite him to play CS wars.
My point is that years ago, there were less video games, there were no online video games, and our computers couldn't handle that much. Less people played video games too. Because of that, the norm was to go out and hang out with friends.
My brother and his age group - his entire year level at school - all they seem to do is play computer games. The extent of 'meet ups' are LAN parties and Xbox parties. This coming from a guy who is very sporty compared to me.
>Dude, you're 19. Don't go all 'our childhoods' on us.
Hn. Yes, I'm a bit young for that. But you can't deny that the last 10 years has shown a huge change in the video game industry. From a focus on singleplayer games, to a industry hugely focused on the multiplayer industry. Multiplayer games are definitely more addictive. And I can tell you that, compared to when we were young (When gamer geeks went on bike rides, played with sport and lego) to when my brother was young (where even sporty kids only actually play sport on weekends and at school - but not in their free time) things have changed.
I'm 19 years old - so I'm hardly biased here, but IMO, video games *are* bad for kids. That being said, so are a lot of things - kids still need their leisure time. A lot of things are probably bad, but we do them anyway for enjoyment - eating junk foods, watching TV, etc.
But that being said, I remember when I was young. Me and my friends used to go on bike rides together, we'd play with lego and do all these fun things. Hell, I remember we even went through a woodwork phase where we built shit. My brother just sits on the computer and plays games.
Hell, back when I Started using the internet a decent amount. We still had dial up, and I couldn't afford to buy games. Instead of just playing games, I was doing more constructive stuff on the internet. Once again, my brother spends almost as much time on the computer as I do, but he doesn't get any smarter.
I'm not saying we should ban video games. What's worse is not letting a kid have his fun - I'm just saying the general existance of video games means that instead of playing sports, going out and playing, or picking up a constructive hobby, most kids just play games. It's all they want to do.
By no means ban them from playing, but you can't argue that today's kids seem to have relatively...dull lives compared to our childhoods.
[quote]No, you'll land at a bash prompt. And then what? You won't know the commands necessary to get to the control system software, and, even if you did, you'd only be able to randomly tinker with magnets. This will either have no effect whatsoever, or will be prevented by the machine protection system.[/quote]
The LHC is really that idiot proof?
I'm sure there's lots and lots of protection systems, but surely there's ways of fucking it up regardless.
I'm afraid to say I've only seen the movies (Yes yes, I know, I'm a failure). Gandalf does call Isengard and Barad-Dul the "Two Towers". But yeah, probably a movie thing. You're probably right.
But if you're ordering stuff online (which is what I was comparing it to), wouldn't that kinda be similar? I mean, you decide what you want to buy first, then you order. That's the kinda thing you do at MSY too. You plan online, then order. Surely US must have an MSY model somewhere...
That being said, when I was in US they had something so much cooler. I was in San Jose and got to visit one of the Fry's Electronics Computer Superstores. *drool*. A superstore on the Bunnings Warehouse magnitude, except aimed at people like us - stock for every single possible model out there, at decent prices too!
Slashdot Mirror
Well, four of those cars have really loud canon mufflers, so you can hear when the engine is still running with fuel. You still get a loud rumble. =/
That's how I know...
Anyways, it's strange if it's an American thing. o.O
I know 100% sure definitely that my Honda Prelude doesn't. I drive it often and I gear down to stop - the engine is still running. And trust me, I can hear my irritatingly ridiculously loud muffler droning as it slows down. =/
~Jarik
Assuming you're right (which I'm still highly doubtful of), then what cars in specific 'feature' this?
The manual cars I've driven have been:
1994 Honda Prelude VTiR (My car)
1994 BMW 323i E36
1994 Subaru Liberty GX
1998 Honda Civic VTi
2001 Mitsubishi Magna Sports TJ
1992 Toyota Sprinter Trueno GT Apex AE101
1998 Subaru Impreza RX
1986 Toyota Supra Mk III MA70
and more...
*None* of them cut fuel input while rolling in gear.
So how 'modern' are we talking then? Only engines made in the last few years? Give me models.
I know what you're saying and I will admit, I don't know the answer either. As to why petrol engines would need fuel and diesel don't - it doesn't seem to make much sense. But I have yet to drive, or see a car which cuts petrol intake while rolling.
~Jarik
But remember that the amount of air running through the throttle body past the O2 sensor is proportion to the amount of fuel put into the car. The amount of fuel injected into the car is dependant on the air flowing through it - hence, your throttle controls the amount of fuel entering the engine per cycle.
Flooring it at top gear, while keeping the rpm low, will be at 100% throttle - that is, highest rate of fuel intake going into the engine. The fact it's in a high gear will mean lots of air and fuel will be going through the engine for a long time.
On the other hand, flooring it in a lower gear will mean that while rpm increases briefly (a higher rate), speed is achieved quicker and thus less fuel is needed.
And finally, putting 20% throttle and shifting up every 20km/h will keep you below 3000rpm, *and* keep the fuel intake low.
~Jarik
I don't know if it's some special feature in some exclusive modern fuel-injected petrol systems, but it's certainly not a standard one across the board.
Petrol fuel-injected systems need to continue to inject fuel into the engine to keep the 4-stroke pattern working properly. It needs to continue that cycle of intake, compression, ignition, exhaust, and so on.
Diesel's are different. Since diesel's simply combust due to compression, fuel can probably be halted or started any time. I confess I'm not too familiar to the inner workings of diesel.
Do a test. Jump into a manual petrol car - not a diesel one. Rev up nice and high. Now, let go of the throttle. Notice that unlike your diesel, it does not go silent. Instead you get a loud, booming drop in revs as only the momentum of the car keeps it going - but fuel is still being put into the engine, hence the loud exhaust note.
If you're getting confused with the sound of an automatic petrol car, that's because in an automatic car, the speed of the revs are not directly proportional to wheel speed, due to the torque convertor.
http://www.carbibles.com/fuel_engine_bible.html
Have a read of that if you've got time. It's a pretty good and in depth description to how different engines work.
I've been trying to find something to cite my evidence on, but I'm in a bit of a rush now...if you really still hold to your point, I'll try to dig some evidence up. If you're still stubbornly sticking to your point - I'd suggest you do to.
~Jarik
Yes, this is the case. It's a very, very audible difference. I'm driving a car with a diesel engine, and when I take my foot off the accelerator when going downhill the engine is silent (no diesel knock). If I touch the accelerator, I hear the typical diesel engine sound.
Well, that explains EVERYTHING.
You have a DIESEL ENGINE.
They work completely different to petrol engines and yes, do stop fuel injection during zero throttle.
You should have mentioned that before, and also be aware that diesel engines work on completely different theory to petrol engines. At the most fundamental level even - working on combustion under compression as opposed to combustion caused by spark plugs.
~Jarik
This survey is stupid.
People prefer the BMW cause it looks sleek, a tad aggressive and exclusive.
People don't like the Toyota Prius because it looks *retarded*. I don't know what this is about 'nice'. It just looks stupid.
Your comparing a car built for stylish and luxurious look to a car that looks like it was put together in two seconds.
A better comparison would something in the similar level of class as a BMW, but with that more 'nice' look. Such as a Porshe 911, or a Mini Cooper S.
~Jarik
Yes, but when teh car is being turned from the wheels (momentum, as you said), the engine is at idle throttle and low fuel air ratios. It doesn't stop fuel intake completely.
If it wasn't, you wouldn't hear your engine running at all. Just the sound of the road, which of course, is not the case.
Push starting your car works on this exact principle. That once your crankshaft turns, the cycle starts.
~Jarik
Most cars make their best fuel economy somewhere between 1800 to 2200 rpm. Ah ha! My car has a 6 speed stick. If I'm in 6th gear it's turning about 2000rpm at 85mph.
It depends on your throttle position too.
Like, 4000rpm at 10% throttle in a lower gear is probably better than 90% throttle at 1500rpm on a higher gear.
That's why I always downshift before I hit hills, brake, etc. Even if your car can easily do it, doing a hill in a higher gear but with your throttle to the floor is stupid.
~Jarik
Parent scored 5 informative!? Come on!
Unless I'm missing something, engines will never turn off. If fuel stops going into the engine, it'll stall!
0% throttle just means the fuel entered into the engine per cycle is idle fuel.
Obviously this'll be more than idle overall since the car is at higher rpm, but not nearly as much as anythnig under throttle.
~Jarik
What are your audience?
As the parent, said it should be clear who it is aimed at.
If you've got a whole bunch of completely illiterate people who struggle to install a program, then programming will probably go way over their head.
Likewise, if your audience is a bunch of people who have a firm grasp on the very basics, the right mindset and are eager to push it one level further, then the basics will bore them.
~Jarik
[quote]such as Corsair's 2.133MHz DDR3 Dominator RAM, which needs 2V to run at its full speed with 9-9-9-24 timings."[/quote]
Please forgive me if I'm missing something...but isn't that RAM well, not great?
Various benchmark tests on the web show that RAM running at anything more than a 1:1 ratio (well, 2:1 if you consider that it's Double Data *Rate*) with the FSB doesn't increase performance at all. At this point, timings become important.
But 9-9-9-24 is pretty bad right? Lower is better right? For $90AUD I've got semi-budget performance RAM that has 4-4-4-12 timings. That's over double the latency timings.
So for the Corsair Dominator RAM to be worth it...you'd need to be running an FSB of 1.0665GHz. Meaning you'd need to have your CPU running at 4.266GHz FSB for it to be better than a slower RAM with better timings. Unless you're lowering your multiplier considerably, I don't see that as hugely attainable. And the loss of performance in timings is just too great.
Or am I missing something fundamental?
~Jarik
A lot of performance RAM *requires* overvoltage.
Like the Corsair memory mentioned in the summary. My Corsair C4 RAM requires an extra 0.3V over stock (1.8V normal, 2.1V it's designed for) for it to run properly at its designated timings (4-4-4-12).
Furthermore, most performance motherboards, such as an DQ series Gigabyte, or Asus' Formula branded mobos, boast their OCing abilities considerably.
~Jarik
There's that, but what about boot times of devices for other uses?
Media PCs, car PCs, etc etc.
~Jarik
Of *course* it's a joke.
C'mon, as if the sarcasm wasn't blatant enough! I get modded down troll and that other guy actually argues against a point I was mocking...what the hell is up with slashdot!?
For your information, I was parodying http://www.fstdt.com/fundies/top100.aspx?archive=1this.
[continuing his hard-on for the KJV]
If your original Hebrew disagrees with my original King James --- your original Hebrew is wrong. If your original Hebrew agrees with my original King James, your original Hebrew is right.
AV1611VET, Christian Forums [Comments (147)] [2006-Jul-20]
Submitted by Ash
~Jarik
Wow, I think you *completely* missed the point of the blatant *sarcasm* in my post. o.O
And here I thought it was obvious enough. I was taking the piss out of fundamentalist who swear by KJV idiot.
[quote]I guess by your type of assessment, Catholicism is a fringe Christian group and Eastern Orthodoxy doesn't even exist. There is a whole world outside of the U.S. In some parts of it, they even speak languages other than English.[/quote]
No, you're wrong.
While some Christians may speak another language, English has to, and is, the main language of every God-fearing man. For the correct version of the Bible is the King James Version and it is written in English. While some so-called Christians might claim to read the Hebrew and other translated versions, they must realize that there can be some inaccuracies in translation and hence, should learn English to read the Word of God in its raw, uncorrupted form.
~Jarik
Well, of *course* they're more depressed.
While normal people only have to worry about going and earning money, taking care of their family, having a relationship with a girl and all that easy stuff...gamers have so many more stressful, and hard things to worry about! Like, running a WoW guild, or training for the upcoming CS tournament, or having to go through Aeris's death in FFVII.
~Jarik
Traditionally the best treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder [PTSD] -- being raped, narrowly escaping the collapse of the Twin Towers, or witnessing a buddy die on the battlefield -- is to have the person relive the trauma using his or her imagination.
Uh oh.
Are they going to force rape victims watch rape-hentai now?
~Jarik
What's sad is that in Melbourne we do have bicyclist cops. Yes, they ride around on bicycles in groups of 3-5. It's the most hilariously ridiculous thing I've ever seen.
~Jarik
>Reading the rest of your post it seems to me that you think the video games are not actually bad for kids, they are just not as good a way to spend your time compared other activities. If that is what you are trying to say, you really shouldn't say games are bad, that would be like saying that playing footbal is bad for kids because they could be spending that time reading and learning, and that reading stuff like the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is bad for children because they could have been reading a more educational, non-fiction book instead.
Actually, you make a very good point. Sorry, I worded it badly. Video games aren't inherently bad.
>Junk food isn't going to harm you if you eat it once in a while. Watching the news and firefly isn't going to melt your brain (well, the former might). Things usually aren't either 'good' or 'bad' for you, but something in between. To suggest otherwise is usually a gross oversimplification.
What is bad is, as you said, the way that video games attract kids. Arguably good parenting is putting limits on the amount of time that can be spent on video games, and limiting it thus. As you said - junk food ,watching TV, etc - aren't bad either. It's all about doing it to excess. The nature of course is that such things are addictive such that it's really easy to do it to excess.
>Have you considered that your brother might be different from you? You base your opinion (that games are bad) mostly on the behavior of a single individual (don't go suggesting that your brother (and probably his friends, if any, who are likely to have similar interests) doesn't have a huge influence on your perception of 'today's kids'). Maybe your brother is just lazy and boring.
As for my brother being different, I'd like to disagree there. When I was young, I was the little gamer who played more games than any of my friends. I had all the cool computer games and whatnot. I was the little computer gamer nerd. But what I'm saying is that most people at that age and that time *didn't play much video games*. In fact, half of my mates didn't even have computers or consoles at all! So we'd organise more meet ups, hang outs and all that.
My brother is the opposite of that. He's really sporty (Top soccer player in his school team, he also plays in a superleague club as one of their top strikers - as well as being pretty good at basketball and australian rules football), etc. Yet, when he isn't at soccer training, or soccer matches, all he does is play computer games. Now, I was a very unsporty person, and even when I was younger, all my friends would invite me out to play sport. All his friends invite him to play CS wars.
My point is that years ago, there were less video games, there were no online video games, and our computers couldn't handle that much. Less people played video games too. Because of that, the norm was to go out and hang out with friends.
My brother and his age group - his entire year level at school - all they seem to do is play computer games. The extent of 'meet ups' are LAN parties and Xbox parties. This coming from a guy who is very sporty compared to me.
>Dude, you're 19. Don't go all 'our childhoods' on us.
Hn. Yes, I'm a bit young for that. But you can't deny that the last 10 years has shown a huge change in the video game industry. From a focus on singleplayer games, to a industry hugely focused on the multiplayer industry. Multiplayer games are definitely more addictive. And I can tell you that, compared to when we were young (When gamer geeks went on bike rides, played with sport and lego) to when my brother was young (where even sporty kids only actually play sport on weekends and at school - but not in their free time) things have changed.
~Jarik
I'm 19 years old - so I'm hardly biased here, but IMO, video games *are* bad for kids. That being said, so are a lot of things - kids still need their leisure time. A lot of things are probably bad, but we do them anyway for enjoyment - eating junk foods, watching TV, etc.
But that being said, I remember when I was young. Me and my friends used to go on bike rides together, we'd play with lego and do all these fun things. Hell, I remember we even went through a woodwork phase where we built shit. My brother just sits on the computer and plays games.
Hell, back when I Started using the internet a decent amount. We still had dial up, and I couldn't afford to buy games. Instead of just playing games, I was doing more constructive stuff on the internet. Once again, my brother spends almost as much time on the computer as I do, but he doesn't get any smarter.
I'm not saying we should ban video games. What's worse is not letting a kid have his fun - I'm just saying the general existance of video games means that instead of playing sports, going out and playing, or picking up a constructive hobby, most kids just play games. It's all they want to do.
By no means ban them from playing, but you can't argue that today's kids seem to have relatively...dull lives compared to our childhoods.
~Jarik
[quote]No, you'll land at a bash prompt. And then what? You won't know the commands necessary to get to the control system software, and, even if you did, you'd only be able to randomly tinker with magnets. This will either have no effect whatsoever, or will be prevented by the machine protection system.[/quote]
The LHC is really that idiot proof?
I'm sure there's lots and lots of protection systems, but surely there's ways of fucking it up regardless.
~Jarik
Hmm, maybe.
I'm afraid to say I've only seen the movies (Yes yes, I know, I'm a failure). Gandalf does call Isengard and Barad-Dul the "Two Towers". But yeah, probably a movie thing. You're probably right.
~Jarik
Scientists say an understanding of how the Twin Towers collapsed will help them develop the materials needed to build fusion reactors.
For a second there I was ready to applaud Frodo for taking down Bara-Dur and the Ents for taking Isengard in the interests of science.
Then I realized it was "Twin Towers" and not "Two Towers".
~Jarik
Fair enough.
But if you're ordering stuff online (which is what I was comparing it to), wouldn't that kinda be similar? I mean, you decide what you want to buy first, then you order. That's the kinda thing you do at MSY too. You plan online, then order. Surely US must have an MSY model somewhere...
That being said, when I was in US they had something so much cooler. I was in San Jose and got to visit one of the Fry's Electronics Computer Superstores. *drool*. A superstore on the Bunnings Warehouse magnitude, except aimed at people like us - stock for every single possible model out there, at decent prices too!
~Jarik