Back in Year 9 and 10 we had a good system for certain subjects.
Like for Maths there was: 4 categories. Further Maths, Mainstream Maths, Enrichment Maths and Special Maths. So those who were bad at Maths did the Further Maths, which focused on a curriculum that allowed them to get into the Year 11/12 stream of Further Mathematics (Victorian Certificate of Education subject which is the lowest out of all the State-wide standard subjects). Mainstream Maths and Enrichment Maths covered the same topics, however the latter covered higher level stuff, and they aimed to go into Mathematical Methods (VCE subject). Finally Special Maths did Year 11 Mathematical Methods, such that they could do Year 12 Maths Methods in Year 10, and then follow up with Specialist Maths the subsequent year. Of course, students weren't limited to this model and could transfer down/up if they wanted.
It was a good model. The 'not so smart' students got special attention, and the 'really' smart students got special attention. Of course, this was at a private school, so they did have the funding to do this. I originally went to a public High School and they just put everyone in a common Maths. But this is a good model that satisfies everyone.
Not too sure about that particular job, but from what I know of working in the Australian Government sector yields: 1. Low pay 2. Crappy working conditions 3. Too much bureacracy 4. Low respect (Like, say on your CV) 5. Incompetent colleagues (Because the government tries to avoid firing anyone)
I'm not sure about video cards, but most high-end mobos these days come with various things which both lower heat production and power consumption.
For instance I have the Gigabyte EX38-DQ6 and the main function that matter are: - EIST function - Multiplier runs at 6x while idle, then goes to 9x when under load. - Auto voltage function - Mobo controls the voltage dynamically based on how much it thinks the CPU needs to be stable. The only thing is, this always seems to be *higher* than what I've tested stable. =/ - Dynamic Energy Management - Probably the fanciest feature of this mobo. I don't use it 'cause I'm an overclocker, but it's a software controlled variable power thing. My mobo has 10 phase power, and it can turn them off based on CPU usage. To make things even more smooth running you can put on dynamic FSB, which once again, changes it based on FSB. It tells you exactly how much energy (well, it lables it as power) you've saved.
Considering that software based overclocking software for graphics cards is hugely abundant, I'm sure there's one that can dynamically change teh clock speed and voltage based on usage.
Sorry for your BSOD but that's not the device's problem, has nothing to do with USB or Firewire. Linux and Macintosh do not have ANY issue with hot swapping firewire. Yeah look, fair enough there. But it is the way Firewire is treated in Windows (quite different to the way USB is treated) that can cause these issues. Eg, quite often in Premiere, if you're capturing a file and pull out the cable while it's sending something, you get a BSOD. This seems to happen across all my mates computers too, so it's not just my installation.
My former IT teacher back at school also said he has seen Firewire devices having their 1394 chips fried when hot swapping. Dunno how they get a power surge, but apparently they can. And I'm not referring to putting it in the wrong way. =/
Though, could these problems be caused by a bad quality mobo? Ie, when the extra current is removed, the rest of the system gets a power surge? Like if you rip out the molex connector from one of your internal devices?
You can really pull out a USB whenever you want to. Oh sure, you might get a bit of corrupted data if you don't go "Safely Remove Hardware", but overall it's fine to rip it out whenever.
With 1394, sometimes ripping it out at the wrong times can give you a BSOD, or even worse, damage your device. I think a lot of manufacturers of 1394 interfaces even suggest to boot the computer *with* the device plugged in.
Too much skepticism can also be a bad thing. Especially when people don't apply the same skepticism to all things. Ie, beliefs they *wish* were true, they tend to be have less skepticism than beliefs they wish weren't true. Or beliefs they've already been told are 'stupid'. It's all about applying it equally.
Skepticism is also mistaken for closed-mindedness. What's best is an open-minded skeptic. Someone willing to *consider* all ideas and thoughts, but applies skepticism to them before accepting them. No one likes a closed-minded skeptic.
Even earlier. In fact, I'd argue development halted in late Imperialistic China. They refused to accept globalism or trade with foreign entities with (at the time) superior technology.
Actually it was during the early days of Mao's regime and the KMD's control of China when China was modernized for a bit, then of course, stopped. Afterall, Imperialistic China barely even had factories, while during the KMD's rule, there was a brief industrial boom. Mao did try boosting industry, but of course, backyard furnaces in the GLF were a complete failure.
Yeah, what is it with Slashdotters? I only ever hear "I am running a Pentium II 500MHz Processor" or "I'm damn happy with my 386 Linux desktop". For a 'tech site' we certainly seem to be in the stoneage. =P
I'm typing this from a Q6600 @ 3.8GHz (1.5v) btw. =)
I'd imagine as long as it was kept *non* public, and there was some kinda tracking system to who edits what, this could be really useful. That way if people spam crap, you can find out who they are.
But in general, it means people who might pick up bits and pieces of things here and there, and might usually even discard it seeing it as unimportant, will be more likely to potentially link that into other bits of information via this. Discussion and 'debates' over intel and the way it fits could also mean everyone gets a 'bigger picture' view by being able to see what other people know. Not only making their own intel better, but being able to know what ot look for in the future.
Well, once you get into the modifying car scene, you learn anything is possible (and quite often people throw the 2L K20 engine into the 1990s EG to EK series chassis which are built to house the 1.6L D16/B16 engines). But it does cost money. And yes, it'd be considerably more effecient. Hell, why even go K20? You could take a modern 1.4L engine and it'd happily give the required torque to move the 1984 chassis.
But due to all of this, the price of that 1984 Civic would increase. Do you really want to pay more for a 'newly converted' 1984 modernized Civic without ABS, airbags, a good entertainment system, air conditioning, etc when you could buy a second hand 1998 EK Civic for cheaper?
That's my point. To go 'green' there's always a cost. Sometimes its horsepower, sometimes its increase in the cars price and sometimes its losing features.
Cars are becoming progressively heavier, but half of that is due to features. Not many people are willing to buy a car without airbags, without good sound dampening, without big comfortable seats, without a sound systems/radio, without an air con, etc etc. All of these are things race-car drivers tend to rip out, but face it, cars are becoming considerably heavier every year due to more and more features being thrown in. Decking the car in carbon-fibre isn't really gonna help if in 5 years the cars are twice as heavy as they are now.
For instance a Honda Civic from 1984 weighed 865kg. In 1993 it weighed 1013kg (carsales.com.au). In 2007 it weighed 1310kg (autoweb.com.au). Despite the materials being used becoming lighter, the car itself is being riddled with bigger passenger cabins, safety featuers and luxury features which are weighing it down. And yeah, I don't think people (apart from serious track enthusiasts) are going to be ripping all that stuff out any soon. And carbon fibring everything only saves so much.
What I cannot wait for is 32-bit-per-channel colour (HDR) monitors.
In 8-bit-per-channel colour space, you have white and black. R=255 B=255 G=255 and R=0 B=0 G=0 respectively.
In 32-bit-per-channel colour space, you have varying levels of white and black. So for instance, you take a photo of the sky. Obviously the cloud and the sun are both white. On a 8bpc camera, they'll come out the same colour. On a 32bpc camera, the sun will retain the information that even though its also white, it's a considerably 'whiter' version of white.
At the moment the only reason you would work in 32bpc is for editing. For instance, if you wanted to darken an image, or mess around with its colouring, in 8bpc it looks 'wrong'. Ie, The clouds would darken at the same rate as the sun. In 32bpc, the clouds would darken considerably faster while the sun would keep its intensity. Another reason you might do this is for motion graphics where the way the light interacts with the movie looks more realistic with 32bpc (for instance, motion blurring). A really cool video tutorial that covers how to use HDR colour in After Effects and Photoshop is here.
So currently editing, input and rendering in 32bpc/HDR is only useful for lighting effects. But when we get monitors that are not limited by 8bpc, we will start being able to tell the difference between different whites and blacks on the screen - very cool.
In Australia, I have noticed nothing but an increase in MP3 downloads. It's just such a common thing. Why pay when you can get it for free?
I mean I do buy the occassional album if it's a smallish metal band I love, and who do actually reap most of the profits, but really, even with the RIAA's ridiculous amount of lawsuits, it's still a tiny percentage of the whole 'music piracy' community.
Oh look, fair enough. I'm sure there are many small cars that are safer in collisions than SUVs. It's mainly the way SUVs don't crumple well and don't absorb that energy that is transferred to the cabin. Yet at the same time, more of than energy is lost in the opposing car crumpled.
I mean, I saw the aftermath of an SUV which crashed into a small coupe. The small car was literally crushed while the bullbar of the SUV protected it. Apart from a few scratches it was fine. The cabin was fine too. Of course, if the SUV crashed into something rigid, the energy would be lost in places like the cabin and more abrupt acceleration would probably put more strain on the passenger.
But yes, just like in all genres, there are SUVs which suck in crashes and small coupes which are uber safe in crashes. It's all to do with the designs and methods that the manufacturer has gone to prevent passenger injury.
It's generally recognized that most SUV's are lethal for the person inside. They have a huge tendency to roll over and the roof isn't really strong enough to protect you from getting crushed by your own car. I was more referring to collisions, where SUVs come out intact and the other car comes out as a crashed block.
As for rolling, well, you've got to wonder what people are doing cornering at speeds that roll the car over. A friend of a friend actually did this. Flipped over his mate's sister's uninsured car. He maintains the 'car couldn't corner for shit'. I maintain that 'he couldn't drive for shit'. He was driving a Mitsubishi Verada the same way he drove his Subaru Forester - different cars have different limits and need to be driven differently. The Verada was Front Wheel Drive, the Forester was AWD. He came into the corner at the speed he would on his AWD car.
SUVs may have a tendency to roll over - if you're driving them at the same speed you would your lower sedan/coupe. I don't think if someone was driving it at a normal safe speed they'd roll it. So yeah, I still blame the drivers. A decent driver should be someone who can drive based on the limits of the car they have.
So when your "choice" translates into higher prices, more demand, more pollution, and ultimately is the root cause of our meddling in the affairs of other nation states and the deaths of our sons and daughters under the guise of "national security"... Oh god, you actually link the "deaths of our sons and daughters" to "Buying SUV's". Didn't think I'd see that kinda crap on Slashdot, but maybe I'm wrong. Hyperbole much?
If you are going to put the blame on my Dad's SUV for the 'deaths of our sons and daughters', well, you deserve to bitchslapped.
If you really want to go as far as calling car choices are the cause of wars, well, look again: Globalism, the jump in technology, capitalism, education, the social structure, media, etc. I'm sure those things play a hellova lot more in the current state of the 'war on terror' than SUVs ever did mate. Anyone can pull bullshit extreme and ultimately worthless comments out of their ass, and some may even believe it, but on Slashdot, I'd expect people are a bit smarter than that.
But by the way you're putting this blame onto me and people like me, I'm sure you live in the most perfect way possible right? You don't use electricity that doesn't make use of renewable energy sources, you don't use anything which runs on any type of fuel with a carbon footprint, you recycle *everything*, hell, you probably don't even live in the city. You probably grow your own products and trade them in a farmers' market too yes? You must if you can sit there blaming everyone for causing the 'deaths of our sons and daughters'.
The strawman you setup is that any efficient car is one that must be despised. Which is far from the case. Umm...sorry...what? I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. It sounds like you just wanted to use the term "strawman" to sound smart...
Please stop posting pointless *crap*, ~Jarik
Re:And may I be the first to say...
on
The SUV Is Dethroned
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
A fair enough point. That way, in addition to the additional fuel people are required to pay for in running their car, they have to pay tax for enviromental damage. Fair enough....Except most of the replies to this article seem to be lacking that much insight. All I see is posts, like the one I quoted, which seem to be nothing more than pointless flames with all slashdotters unanimously acting like anyone who chose to drive an SUV is some moron.
And as much as people say people who drive fancy cars do so to 'compensate for their small penis', I think it's not. Afterall, if they wanted to do that, why are they driving an SUV? Why aren't the hell aren't they driving that new sports car/grand tourer? I think those generally work better in terms of "Wow, check out my new car!" than a family SUV. My Dad's Toyota Kluger is hardly a head turner, but for the price he got it for, $55,000AUD he could've bought a FPV GT, or a HSV Clubsport, or a Subaru WRX STi. All practical somewhat 'large' cars that sure as hell beat the big fat boring SUV in terms of 'penis compensation'. Not everyone who drives an SUV is driving a Hummer.
And yeah, admittedly an exponential tax on cars' petrol usage would potentially get rid of a largish band of people who buy those cars, forcing them onto lower priced wagons.
But in that case do we tax older cars too? Older cars spit out a hellova lot more crap than newer ones. A 1980s 2.0L engine probably uses more fuel than modern 3.5L engines. Do we tax them too?
~Jarik
Re:And may I be the first to say...
on
The SUV Is Dethroned
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
Oh great, SUVs are the new Microsoft. You know that when the parent who says a grand total of:
And may I be the first to say...good riddance. Gets modded +3 Insightful. I don't particularly see what is insightful about that - just extremely *redundant*.
As for Slashdot's hate against SUVs. I can certainly see the points against it - Unsafe for *other* drivers (It's certainly safer for the person in it), rising petrol prices, lowering value and actual vehicle expense. And sure, there are enough people who have an SUV who don't NEED one. But honestly, you act like there is absolutely NO reason to get an SUV.
Putting purebred off-roading SUVs like Land Rovers and whatnot to the side, you can't deny that proper SUV's give you something other cars don't. Boot space. We've got a 3.3L Toyota Kluger that we wouldn't be able to live without. It comfortably fits our German Shepherd, plus whatever we need to take wherever. Sure, a lot of the times the boot remains empty and wasted (apart from our dog), but then again, there's the family vacation where it can take a full boot full of stuff as well as luggage on the roof. We don't need to hire another car to take us there.
"So get a wagon you say!" - but a wagon is gonna struggle with a family of 5 and luggage. 500Nm of torque certainly gets it happily up that mountain we're driving to for our vacation. Of course, the thing you sacrifice is the money you have to play for that 16L/100km of petrol.
But honestly speaking. You're doing well and have enough money. You have a family and need a large vehicle with lots of boot space. Now does it really make sense to get that wagon which is gonna struggle up that hill everytime you drive it fully packed? What's wrong with getting what you pay for?
Next Slashdot readers are gonna say everyone needs to get 1.4L VW Golf's because it makes sense financially. If you really can't understand why the car market ranges between cheap cars and Ferrari's, well...You're paying a lot of money for a product. One you're probably going to be using a lot. Do you want one that you despise to get into and drive, or do you want to pay an extra bit of money so that you enjoy driving it, and find it very comfortable.
It's the same reason I'm currently buying a 1994 Prelude VTiR instead of a 1989 Corolla beater for my first car. I want something I want to get into drive, not something I despise.
I'm sure people question why we would want the server box with the 1000W power supply when we could do it just as well with half that. Why we would buy a new processor instead of run on our old Pentium 2s for years back. A mix of 'requirements' and 'if I'm spending money, I want it to go *well*'.
That being said, I *do* think that a lot of people buy SUVs without even thinking twice about the running costs of one. While that is stupid, it's also annoyingly bigoted to act like all SUV drivers are morons and it "serves them right". C'mon Slashdot.
So whining about yourself on your own blog is good for you. But writing about something of interest to others isn't.
Well, it explains the success of Myspace. I wouldn't call MySpace a blog. Technically it is, but c'mon, if you have a look at it and compare it to any other blog, can you really say they're the same? While MySpace has blogging features, its primarily a social network which completely changes the way users tend to use its blogging feature.
For example, lets ignore tech blogs, or anything with useful information.
Normal blog: "Today I went on a holiday with my friends. It was rather fun, however it made me think about." 2 comments - probably self-replied corrections by the author.
MySpace: "LOLZ i went 2 da bch wif ma matez lol im so hot1111 look @ my fotos lolllll" 56 comments of either spam or "yes ur fotos r hot1"
As is obviously apparent, while both are blogs about meaningless stuff no one could care less about, MySpace does actually attract attention due to it being a social network, however, seems to achieve this by lowering the intelligence of the blog post by a rather large amount.
But yeah, seriously. I'd imagine blogs are a good way for people to organise their thoughts - c'mon, we all have a good rant sometimes - and it usually does improve our thoughts on certain things, or organise them. One good thing is that rather than doing the same rant to 10 different people, you just link them to one page and thus can avoid extra typing/talking. =P
Pre-internet, an idiot would ask an expert for help. What would an expert do? He'd go and consult his reference manual.
Someone who is smart isn't someone who can remember everything. It's someone who knows enough of the fundamentals and the *way* to find out the information he or she wants. How many times have we told lazy idiots "Just google it?".
Take a computer error in some obscure application. I don't think we're meant to be able to memorize that, rather, via Google we can quickly be presented with an answer. But I'd like to note that we still need some fundamental knowledge to find out that information. To be able to use Google properly, you still need to have those fundamentals.
Take a computer issue. The average user will go to Google and type "Computer won't turn on" and probably find nothing, then give it to a technician. What will the technician do? He'll probably go to Google and type something like "Computer POSTS but freezes" or someting like that. He or she knows enough that they can be more specific and narrow in on the information he or she needs.
As the parent mentioned, a smart person uses Google as a reference, leaving more mind space for the interpretation and analysing of information.
Another thing. How often have people like us gotten information about completely irrelevent information (stuff we'd never know other wise)? You sit on wikipedia looking up something you know. YOu see an interesting link and go read that. Or you google one thing, find something else, but find it interesting so read it anyway. I'd argue this is pumping us with new information we wouldn't otherwise have.
I started off with XvT and XWA. Great games. There was a massive modifying scene back then and you could unlock all the standard ships, then download all the ships from the EU (which was good fun. Playing as a Tie Defender from the EU was great fun. Damn agile those things - with great deflector shielding too!). There were maps and missions you could download and I used to play with a gameplay mod which made everything faster (Lot more fun when playing multiplayer - lot harder too!).
Even ignoring the modifying scene. The storyline of the campaign was awesome and all. Now its a bit dated in terms of graphics, but hell, hyperspacing to different maps was so damn cool on missions!
I'd love to see another flight simulator (in the original trilogy setting or even post Return of the Jedi...or both original trilogy and new trilogy). Of course, their other 'flight simulators', while really fun, weren't true flight soons. Of course, I'm talking Rogue Squadron, Rogue Squadron II: Rogue Leader, Battle for Naboo, etc. All fun games - especially the first two were great fun, but not really a true simulator (Ie, you were super strong and never seemed to die =P).
With modern internet connections they could make the multiplayer more of a focus too. =)
Slashdot Mirror
Back in Year 9 and 10 we had a good system for certain subjects.
Like for Maths there was: 4 categories. Further Maths, Mainstream Maths, Enrichment Maths and Special Maths. So those who were bad at Maths did the Further Maths, which focused on a curriculum that allowed them to get into the Year 11/12 stream of Further Mathematics (Victorian Certificate of Education subject which is the lowest out of all the State-wide standard subjects). Mainstream Maths and Enrichment Maths covered the same topics, however the latter covered higher level stuff, and they aimed to go into Mathematical Methods (VCE subject). Finally Special Maths did Year 11 Mathematical Methods, such that they could do Year 12 Maths Methods in Year 10, and then follow up with Specialist Maths the subsequent year. Of course, students weren't limited to this model and could transfer down/up if they wanted.
It was a good model. The 'not so smart' students got special attention, and the 'really' smart students got special attention. Of course, this was at a private school, so they did have the funding to do this. I originally went to a public High School and they just put everyone in a common Maths. But this is a good model that satisfies everyone.
~Jarik
Not too sure about that particular job, but from what I know of working in the Australian Government sector yields:
1. Low pay
2. Crappy working conditions
3. Too much bureacracy
4. Low respect (Like, say on your CV)
5. Incompetent colleagues (Because the government tries to avoid firing anyone)
This applies at the higher levels too.
~Jarik
I'm not sure about video cards, but most high-end mobos these days come with various things which both lower heat production and power consumption.
For instance I have the Gigabyte EX38-DQ6 and the main function that matter are:
- EIST function - Multiplier runs at 6x while idle, then goes to 9x when under load.
- Auto voltage function - Mobo controls the voltage dynamically based on how much it thinks the CPU needs to be stable. The only thing is, this always seems to be *higher* than what I've tested stable. =/
- Dynamic Energy Management - Probably the fanciest feature of this mobo. I don't use it 'cause I'm an overclocker, but it's a software controlled variable power thing. My mobo has 10 phase power, and it can turn them off based on CPU usage. To make things even more smooth running you can put on dynamic FSB, which once again, changes it based on FSB. It tells you exactly how much energy (well, it lables it as power) you've saved.
Considering that software based overclocking software for graphics cards is hugely abundant, I'm sure there's one that can dynamically change teh clock speed and voltage based on usage.
~Jarik
My former IT teacher back at school also said he has seen Firewire devices having their 1394 chips fried when hot swapping. Dunno how they get a power surge, but apparently they can. And I'm not referring to putting it in the wrong way. =/
Though, could these problems be caused by a bad quality mobo? Ie, when the extra current is removed, the rest of the system gets a power surge? Like if you rip out the molex connector from one of your internal devices?
~Jarik
USB is also better for hot-swappability.
You can really pull out a USB whenever you want to. Oh sure, you might get a bit of corrupted data if you don't go "Safely Remove Hardware", but overall it's fine to rip it out whenever.
With 1394, sometimes ripping it out at the wrong times can give you a BSOD, or even worse, damage your device. I think a lot of manufacturers of 1394 interfaces even suggest to boot the computer *with* the device plugged in.
~Jarik
Too true. I think once you set up an ethernet cable, never pull it out lest you want to lose your plastic thingy.
I have around 5 ethernet cables in front of me that are sticky taped to their various NICs, wall sockets and switches. =/
~Jarik
Story posted
The fucking article unread
Slashdot spam
Get Downloading Soldier!
Too much skepticism can also be a bad thing. Especially when people don't apply the same skepticism to all things. Ie, beliefs they *wish* were true, they tend to be have less skepticism than beliefs they wish weren't true. Or beliefs they've already been told are 'stupid'. It's all about applying it equally.
Skepticism is also mistaken for closed-mindedness. What's best is an open-minded skeptic. Someone willing to *consider* all ideas and thoughts, but applies skepticism to them before accepting them. No one likes a closed-minded skeptic.
~Jarik
Even earlier. In fact, I'd argue development halted in late Imperialistic China. They refused to accept globalism or trade with foreign entities with (at the time) superior technology.
Actually it was during the early days of Mao's regime and the KMD's control of China when China was modernized for a bit, then of course, stopped. Afterall, Imperialistic China barely even had factories, while during the KMD's rule, there was a brief industrial boom. Mao did try boosting industry, but of course, backyard furnaces in the GLF were a complete failure.
~Jarik
Yeah, what is it with Slashdotters? I only ever hear "I am running a Pentium II 500MHz Processor" or "I'm damn happy with my 386 Linux desktop". For a 'tech site' we certainly seem to be in the stoneage. =P
I'm typing this from a Q6600 @ 3.8GHz (1.5v) btw. =)
~Jarik
I'd imagine as long as it was kept *non* public, and there was some kinda tracking system to who edits what, this could be really useful. That way if people spam crap, you can find out who they are.
But in general, it means people who might pick up bits and pieces of things here and there, and might usually even discard it seeing it as unimportant, will be more likely to potentially link that into other bits of information via this. Discussion and 'debates' over intel and the way it fits could also mean everyone gets a 'bigger picture' view by being able to see what other people know. Not only making their own intel better, but being able to know what ot look for in the future.
~Jarik
Well, once you get into the modifying car scene, you learn anything is possible (and quite often people throw the 2L K20 engine into the 1990s EG to EK series chassis which are built to house the 1.6L D16/B16 engines). But it does cost money. And yes, it'd be considerably more effecient. Hell, why even go K20? You could take a modern 1.4L engine and it'd happily give the required torque to move the 1984 chassis.
But due to all of this, the price of that 1984 Civic would increase. Do you really want to pay more for a 'newly converted' 1984 modernized Civic without ABS, airbags, a good entertainment system, air conditioning, etc when you could buy a second hand 1998 EK Civic for cheaper?
That's my point. To go 'green' there's always a cost. Sometimes its horsepower, sometimes its increase in the cars price and sometimes its losing features.
~Jarik
Cars are becoming progressively heavier, but half of that is due to features. Not many people are willing to buy a car without airbags, without good sound dampening, without big comfortable seats, without a sound systems/radio, without an air con, etc etc. All of these are things race-car drivers tend to rip out, but face it, cars are becoming considerably heavier every year due to more and more features being thrown in. Decking the car in carbon-fibre isn't really gonna help if in 5 years the cars are twice as heavy as they are now.
For instance a Honda Civic from 1984 weighed 865kg. In 1993 it weighed 1013kg (carsales.com.au). In 2007 it weighed 1310kg (autoweb.com.au). Despite the materials being used becoming lighter, the car itself is being riddled with bigger passenger cabins, safety featuers and luxury features which are weighing it down. And yeah, I don't think people (apart from serious track enthusiasts) are going to be ripping all that stuff out any soon. And carbon fibring everything only saves so much.
~Jarik
What I cannot wait for is 32-bit-per-channel colour (HDR) monitors.
In 8-bit-per-channel colour space, you have white and black. R=255 B=255 G=255 and R=0 B=0 G=0 respectively.
In 32-bit-per-channel colour space, you have varying levels of white and black. So for instance, you take a photo of the sky. Obviously the cloud and the sun are both white. On a 8bpc camera, they'll come out the same colour. On a 32bpc camera, the sun will retain the information that even though its also white, it's a considerably 'whiter' version of white.
At the moment the only reason you would work in 32bpc is for editing. For instance, if you wanted to darken an image, or mess around with its colouring, in 8bpc it looks 'wrong'. Ie, The clouds would darken at the same rate as the sun. In 32bpc, the clouds would darken considerably faster while the sun would keep its intensity. Another reason you might do this is for motion graphics where the way the light interacts with the movie looks more realistic with 32bpc (for instance, motion blurring). A really cool video tutorial that covers how to use HDR colour in After Effects and Photoshop is here.
So currently editing, input and rendering in 32bpc/HDR is only useful for lighting effects. But when we get monitors that are not limited by 8bpc, we will start being able to tell the difference between different whites and blacks on the screen - very cool.
~Jarik
In Australia, I have noticed nothing but an increase in MP3 downloads. It's just such a common thing. Why pay when you can get it for free?
I mean I do buy the occassional album if it's a smallish metal band I love, and who do actually reap most of the profits, but really, even with the RIAA's ridiculous amount of lawsuits, it's still a tiny percentage of the whole 'music piracy' community.
Most people at this age are like that.
~Jarik
~Jarik
Oh look, fair enough. I'm sure there are many small cars that are safer in collisions than SUVs. It's mainly the way SUVs don't crumple well and don't absorb that energy that is transferred to the cabin. Yet at the same time, more of than energy is lost in the opposing car crumpled.
I mean, I saw the aftermath of an SUV which crashed into a small coupe. The small car was literally crushed while the bullbar of the SUV protected it. Apart from a few scratches it was fine. The cabin was fine too. Of course, if the SUV crashed into something rigid, the energy would be lost in places like the cabin and more abrupt acceleration would probably put more strain on the passenger.
But yes, just like in all genres, there are SUVs which suck in crashes and small coupes which are uber safe in crashes. It's all to do with the designs and methods that the manufacturer has gone to prevent passenger injury.
~Jarik
As for rolling, well, you've got to wonder what people are doing cornering at speeds that roll the car over. A friend of a friend actually did this. Flipped over his mate's sister's uninsured car. He maintains the 'car couldn't corner for shit'. I maintain that 'he couldn't drive for shit'. He was driving a Mitsubishi Verada the same way he drove his Subaru Forester - different cars have different limits and need to be driven differently. The Verada was Front Wheel Drive, the Forester was AWD. He came into the corner at the speed he would on his AWD car.
SUVs may have a tendency to roll over - if you're driving them at the same speed you would your lower sedan/coupe. I don't think if someone was driving it at a normal safe speed they'd roll it. So yeah, I still blame the drivers. A decent driver should be someone who can drive based on the limits of the car they have.
~Jarik
If you are going to put the blame on my Dad's SUV for the 'deaths of our sons and daughters', well, you deserve to bitchslapped.
If you really want to go as far as calling car choices are the cause of wars, well, look again: Globalism, the jump in technology, capitalism, education, the social structure, media, etc. I'm sure those things play a hellova lot more in the current state of the 'war on terror' than SUVs ever did mate. Anyone can pull bullshit extreme and ultimately worthless comments out of their ass, and some may even believe it, but on Slashdot, I'd expect people are a bit smarter than that.
But by the way you're putting this blame onto me and people like me, I'm sure you live in the most perfect way possible right? You don't use electricity that doesn't make use of renewable energy sources, you don't use anything which runs on any type of fuel with a carbon footprint, you recycle *everything*, hell, you probably don't even live in the city. You probably grow your own products and trade them in a farmers' market too yes? You must if you can sit there blaming everyone for causing the 'deaths of our sons and daughters'. The strawman you setup is that any efficient car is one that must be despised. Which is far from the case. Umm...sorry...what? I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. It sounds like you just wanted to use the term "strawman" to sound smart...
Please stop posting pointless *crap*,
~Jarik
A fair enough point. That way, in addition to the additional fuel people are required to pay for in running their car, they have to pay tax for enviromental damage. Fair enough. ...Except most of the replies to this article seem to be lacking that much insight. All I see is posts, like the one I quoted, which seem to be nothing more than pointless flames with all slashdotters unanimously acting like anyone who chose to drive an SUV is some moron.
And as much as people say people who drive fancy cars do so to 'compensate for their small penis', I think it's not. Afterall, if they wanted to do that, why are they driving an SUV? Why aren't the hell aren't they driving that new sports car/grand tourer? I think those generally work better in terms of "Wow, check out my new car!" than a family SUV. My Dad's Toyota Kluger is hardly a head turner, but for the price he got it for, $55,000AUD he could've bought a FPV GT, or a HSV Clubsport, or a Subaru WRX STi. All practical somewhat 'large' cars that sure as hell beat the big fat boring SUV in terms of 'penis compensation'. Not everyone who drives an SUV is driving a Hummer.
And yeah, admittedly an exponential tax on cars' petrol usage would potentially get rid of a largish band of people who buy those cars, forcing them onto lower priced wagons.
But in that case do we tax older cars too? Older cars spit out a hellova lot more crap than newer ones. A 1980s 2.0L engine probably uses more fuel than modern 3.5L engines. Do we tax them too?
~Jarik
As for Slashdot's hate against SUVs. I can certainly see the points against it - Unsafe for *other* drivers (It's certainly safer for the person in it), rising petrol prices, lowering value and actual vehicle expense. And sure, there are enough people who have an SUV who don't NEED one. But honestly, you act like there is absolutely NO reason to get an SUV.
Putting purebred off-roading SUVs like Land Rovers and whatnot to the side, you can't deny that proper SUV's give you something other cars don't. Boot space. We've got a 3.3L Toyota Kluger that we wouldn't be able to live without. It comfortably fits our German Shepherd, plus whatever we need to take wherever. Sure, a lot of the times the boot remains empty and wasted (apart from our dog), but then again, there's the family vacation where it can take a full boot full of stuff as well as luggage on the roof. We don't need to hire another car to take us there.
"So get a wagon you say!" - but a wagon is gonna struggle with a family of 5 and luggage. 500Nm of torque certainly gets it happily up that mountain we're driving to for our vacation. Of course, the thing you sacrifice is the money you have to play for that 16L/100km of petrol.
But honestly speaking. You're doing well and have enough money. You have a family and need a large vehicle with lots of boot space. Now does it really make sense to get that wagon which is gonna struggle up that hill everytime you drive it fully packed? What's wrong with getting what you pay for?
Next Slashdot readers are gonna say everyone needs to get 1.4L VW Golf's because it makes sense financially. If you really can't understand why the car market ranges between cheap cars and Ferrari's, well...You're paying a lot of money for a product. One you're probably going to be using a lot. Do you want one that you despise to get into and drive, or do you want to pay an extra bit of money so that you enjoy driving it, and find it very comfortable.
It's the same reason I'm currently buying a 1994 Prelude VTiR instead of a 1989 Corolla beater for my first car. I want something I want to get into drive, not something I despise.
I'm sure people question why we would want the server box with the 1000W power supply when we could do it just as well with half that. Why we would buy a new processor instead of run on our old Pentium 2s for years back. A mix of 'requirements' and 'if I'm spending money, I want it to go *well*'.
That being said, I *do* think that a lot of people buy SUVs without even thinking twice about the running costs of one. While that is stupid, it's also annoyingly bigoted to act like all SUV drivers are morons and it "serves them right". C'mon Slashdot.
~Jarik
Well, it explains the success of Myspace. I wouldn't call MySpace a blog. Technically it is, but c'mon, if you have a look at it and compare it to any other blog, can you really say they're the same? While MySpace has blogging features, its primarily a social network which completely changes the way users tend to use its blogging feature.
For example, lets ignore tech blogs, or anything with useful information.
Normal blog:
"Today I went on a holiday with my friends. It was rather fun, however it made me think about
MySpace:
"LOLZ i went 2 da bch wif ma matez lol im so hot1111 look @ my fotos lolllll" 56 comments of either spam or "yes ur fotos r hot1"
As is obviously apparent, while both are blogs about meaningless stuff no one could care less about, MySpace does actually attract attention due to it being a social network, however, seems to achieve this by lowering the intelligence of the blog post by a rather large amount.
But yeah, seriously. I'd imagine blogs are a good way for people to organise their thoughts - c'mon, we all have a good rant sometimes - and it usually does improve our thoughts on certain things, or organise them. One good thing is that rather than doing the same rant to 10 different people, you just link them to one page and thus can avoid extra typing/talking. =P
~Jarik
Agreed.
Pre-internet, an idiot would ask an expert for help. What would an expert do? He'd go and consult his reference manual.
Someone who is smart isn't someone who can remember everything. It's someone who knows enough of the fundamentals and the *way* to find out the information he or she wants. How many times have we told lazy idiots "Just google it?".
Take a computer error in some obscure application. I don't think we're meant to be able to memorize that, rather, via Google we can quickly be presented with an answer. But I'd like to note that we still need some fundamental knowledge to find out that information. To be able to use Google properly, you still need to have those fundamentals.
Take a computer issue. The average user will go to Google and type "Computer won't turn on" and probably find nothing, then give it to a technician. What will the technician do? He'll probably go to Google and type something like "Computer POSTS but freezes" or someting like that. He or she knows enough that they can be more specific and narrow in on the information he or she needs.
As the parent mentioned, a smart person uses Google as a reference, leaving more mind space for the interpretation and analysing of information.
Another thing. How often have people like us gotten information about completely irrelevent information (stuff we'd never know other wise)? You sit on wikipedia looking up something you know. YOu see an interesting link and go read that. Or you google one thing, find something else, but find it interesting so read it anyway. I'd argue this is pumping us with new information we wouldn't otherwise have.
~Jarik
I started off with XvT and XWA. Great games. There was a massive modifying scene back then and you could unlock all the standard ships, then download all the ships from the EU (which was good fun. Playing as a Tie Defender from the EU was great fun. Damn agile those things - with great deflector shielding too!). There were maps and missions you could download and I used to play with a gameplay mod which made everything faster (Lot more fun when playing multiplayer - lot harder too!).
Even ignoring the modifying scene. The storyline of the campaign was awesome and all. Now its a bit dated in terms of graphics, but hell, hyperspacing to different maps was so damn cool on missions!
I'd love to see another flight simulator (in the original trilogy setting or even post Return of the Jedi...or both original trilogy and new trilogy). Of course, their other 'flight simulators', while really fun, weren't true flight soons. Of course, I'm talking Rogue Squadron, Rogue Squadron II: Rogue Leader, Battle for Naboo, etc. All fun games - especially the first two were great fun, but not really a true simulator (Ie, you were super strong and never seemed to die =P).
With modern internet connections they could make the multiplayer more of a focus too. =)
~Jarik