With all that said, if "I can has" lolcat-speak hits mainstream speech I'm going to have to strangle someone. I'm in ur IRL. Speekin liek dis. (Well, I did just get bitched at by a cow orker for saying "stfu" in as many letters. God save the Queen's English!:( )
No. People are driving language now, as they always have. Technology just allows those people to express themselves differently. Admittedly, changing to primarily text-based and later, image-based (ytmnd, lolcats, whatever) communication has given people new opportunities to make up silly things, but it's still the people that have made those things up.
That's funny, because I used to have a hell of a time getting my car into second when coming up fast to corners (the gearbox is fairly heavy duty) until I heard an old Japanese guy (OK, ok, it was Keiichi Tsuchiya;) discussing double-clutching. Now my car goes into second gear from third as smooth as anything and my synchros love me for it. It depends on what you're trying to achieve - excellent car control at high speeds and during hard maneuvering, or commuting with a minimum of effort. I want the first, so I'm sticking with my car ('89 Toyota Supra, Aussie spec). If I wanted the second I'd get a new, automatic Camry.
As for ABS, I'm not fond of it (89 was the last year that Supras were manufactured without it), but I could live with it. Modern ABS is actually pretty good. Emergency brake assist is completely different and probably the thing I loathe most about new cars. I'm curious what these severe regulations are, because "It looks like you're trying to use the break pedal, would you like to perform an automatic emergency stop?" most certainly changes the way the car reacts, not to mention flicking the hazard lights on for you in an oh-so-friendly way as the car nosedives after you lightly tap the brakes, which really helps distract you when you're trying to merge on the freeway for the first time in a rental car and you don't know where the hazard light switch is yet.
When the wheel is spinning you use the static coefficient, when it is sliding you use the dynamic. Please recall Dynamics 102, Lecture 14: The Real World Is More Complex Than That.
Medium complexity: When the wheel's rim is (near-)stationary relative to the ground, at the contact patch, then you use the static coefficient of friction. When it's moving relative to the ground REGARDLESS of whether the wheel is rotating, you use the dynamic one. Under ABS, the wheel is still rotating but it's doing so slower than it needs to to be rolling, hence ABS braking comes under dynamic friction.
More complexity: The tyre is not a rigid object, and as such there's no sharp transition from static to dynamic friction. That's why empirically (which is the only measure that matters), for maximum traction, you want a small degree (a few %) of slip. That's why racing cars drift by a few degrees while cornering, and why in low- to mid-range drag racing you want a (very small) amount of wheelspin. (Obviously I'm not talking about top fuel where they do a burnout to lay fresh, hot rubber and heat the tyres. That changes the rules.)
Actually pretty much every study I have ever seen shows locked tire stops as the shortest on almost all surfaces, and almost all tires (not usually by much.) I'd be interested in seeing some of these studies. The result sounds reasonable, if you consider two things: 1) At higher speeds, locking a wheel leads to the contact surface melting, which then dramatically lowers your grip as well as flat-spotting your tyre (which ABS prevents, as you say, so it has an edge there, but braking studies usually don't test high-speed braking), and 2) ABS actually doesn't stop your tyres sliding, it just stops them from *locking*. So under ABS braking the tyre will be sliding more than gripping, even though it's still turning, hence the similarities (at speeds low enough to not actually soften/melt the contact patch).
Interestingly, limit braking is ingrained in me now to the point where if I get cut off, I'll find myself automatically doing it. Usually my conscious brain doesn't catch up until I'm already stationary, and I'm left thinking "wtf... wow that worked out well". I guess it's just because I often drive hard for fun, not just at autocross events.;) Well, that and always driving the same car (6.5 years and counting) lets you learn the car by reflex.
I appreciate ABS, you don't? No. The only part of ABS that I remotely appreciate is the fact that on wet roads, my (static) brake bias is too far forward, and the fronts lock too easily compared to the rares because I don't have enough traction to shift weight onto the fronts. That would be fixed by a dynamic brake bias adjuster thingy, you can get them, they're automatic, they're hydraulic, they just work. I'll probably get one when I upgrade my brakes, which is on The List.:P If I stomp full on the pedal, it's because I WANT to lock my wheels, because I have a damn good reason to do so. If I just want to stop fast I'll brake the way I always do, squeeze on rapidly but smoothly to allow weight shift, then sit on the limit. Limit braking is a skill that rapidly becomes automatic, and once you're used to doing it yourself, Yet Another Bloody Automatic System frigging with my rigging is just a pain.
When they first did performance tests of ABS, they discovered that experienced drivers stopped faster without than with, whereas inexperienced ones stopped faster with. Once the experienced drivers got used to the ABS and learned to just lean on the pedal and trust to Al Gorithm, they were OK, but I see no reason to reduce my level of control and relearn a different technique when there's no real advantage.
...when the planet is so overpopulated, that the one and only resource the moon has, space, will actually become valuable enough to justify the expense and trouble of living there. I dare say that, given that 2/3rds of the Earth's surface is covered by water, seasteading will take off long before permanent moon bases with appreciable population are built. Then again, if living in low gravity turns out to have health benefits, the desirability of lunar real estate may increase dramatically.
(believe me, been there done that) You're an astronaut? And you got lucky enough to be on one of the comparatively few missions with a woman on board? And you SCORED? *high fives!*;)
The objections you mention are actually covered briefly in Peter F. Hamilton's book Pandora's Star - he has his starship crew sleeping in padded 'cages' from which the captain gets a few bruises at one point.
Slippery slope, yes. Fallacy? He's pointed to a bunch of examples where similar devices' partial adoption has led to mandation. It's definitely not proof, as you point out - but it's a reasonable prediction that once the technology becomes widespread, insurance companies will offer substantial discounts to people with the device fitted, and if (not when, I concur;) a sufficient percentage of people have said device, the remainder will not be a significant market force.
Enter the classic car. Agreed 110%! My car's a good 18 years newer than your friend's Plymouth, and it does have some transistors in a box under the bonnet for the EFI and electronic ignition, but when it comes down to it, it's still electromechanical, not electronic. The only cars I've driven other than it have been newish (Y2k+ models) that have been choc full of electronics and friendly helpful features like the retarded 'assisted braking' where under certain conditions the car craps its dacks and ups the sensitivity of the brake pedal, ending in you coming to a screeching halt the moment you try and heel+toe a gearshift. The primary rule that I drive by is that there's only one driver. I don't care if it's me, someone else, or the car itself, but if it's me, then no way in hell will I put up with the car trying to guess what I meant. Modern electronics can go f**k themselves until they get to the point that I really *can* put on the cruise control and hop in the back seat for a nap.
...where you ruin the lives of your children by smothering them with attention and activities until they can't think on their own. I don't think it's possible to ruin your childrens' lives by giving them too much attention. Spoiling them and letting them get away with behaving like brats, yes. Attention, no. The problem with today's kids (fetch me my walking stick, young'un) is that parents opt out of actual parenting, deferring that onerous task to electronic babysitters like TV and computers. The answer is more active parenting, not less of it.
Our grandchildren are going to be the first generation to grow up with their parents constantly telling them "you don't understand me!" and "you don't know what it's like!":P
If you're in your twenties now, you're about twenty years younger than the folks who were first in line to play Mortal Kombat. And they, in turn, are twenty years younger than the folks who are running the country. By and large, high-up successful politicians are OLD.
Alternatively, if it IS the NO levels, nitroglycerine is dirt cheap in comparison to any new drug and may be just as effective. Nitroglycerine? Just make sure not to chew the tablet, and DEFINITELY don't exercise for half an hour afterwards!
I personally do not think that I would call what most video games produce as "roleplaying". Many simply give you control over a character's basic actions, not their intentions or personalities. I would consider that as a mere character, not an extension, manifestation, or interpretation of one's own being. I would argue that being given control over a character's actions, and then using that character to brutally kill another character, would qualify as playing the role of a killer. There's a fundamental difference between watching a third party kill a character, and using a puppet to kill that same character. You're pulling the strings, and the mental states that you use while killing someone in a game easily transfer into real life. Before anyone pipes up "but I'm just pressing back-back-forward-punch and making a hotspot collide with a hit rectangle" - what do you *think* when you do it? Do you think "back-back-forward-punch"? Or do you think "dragon punch! eat it bitch!"?
The only reason anyone (adult or otherwise) should be allowed to play violent video games is if they know the difference between games and real life, and that provides a barrier between the actions in game and the actions in the real world. Fortunately, that's most of us.
On a related note, third-person violence rapidly desensitizes you to itself. Think of the first time you saw someone get bashed in a movie, you were probably a little kid at the time - it most likely shocked you and made you feel sick. The same scene now wouldn't cause you to bat an eyelid. It would be interesting to see a study of whether first-person violence does likewise; let a test group play some game such as GTA or Manhunt, while a control group plays Tetris or whatever, then ask them all to play a game where you can progress equally easily by killing people and taking their stuff, or by solving logic puzzles. I'd put money on the Manhunt people going with the killing while the Tetris people go with the puzzles.
To horribly mangle a quote from an interesting book I read once ("The Flight of Mavin Manyshaped", Sheri S. Tepper), "If God wants to create the universe, I don't see any reason why he shouldn't use black holes and the laws of physics to do it."
The original quote was regarding God using deserts and glaciers to clear the smoke out of a chasm, I wish I could find my copy of the book.:/
Interesting, very interesting! So it's not the edge of the universe that's getting farther away, it's that space is going 'shoop!' into the middle of the universe, and we're shoop-ing faster than stuff further away. Even if it doesn't jibe with the latest observations, it'd make an awesome sci-fi story!:)
Reminds me of a theory I had that deals with the same phenomenon. I figured, what if there were some quasi-frictional effect, not measurable on any scale we can measure, that over millions of light-years slowly removes energy from photons. That would result in photons from further away being redder, which we then interpret as distant objects moving away from us, and thence to universe expansion.
There's no excuse, other than ignorance (which is the real reason in most cases), for not supporting color-blind people. How about... not caring? Anyone who reads Slashdot should be able to open up the resulting image in GIMP and remap the colours to make them easily differentiable, whatever your visual peculiarities.
Slashdot Mirror
No. People are driving language now, as they always have. Technology just allows those people to express themselves differently. Admittedly, changing to primarily text-based and later, image-based (ytmnd, lolcats, whatever) communication has given people new opportunities to make up silly things, but it's still the people that have made those things up.
This seems to be an appropriate time to link the Penny Arcade "The F Word" animation. But I can't find a link. :/
That's funny, because I used to have a hell of a time getting my car into second when coming up fast to corners (the gearbox is fairly heavy duty) until I heard an old Japanese guy (OK, ok, it was Keiichi Tsuchiya ;) discussing double-clutching. Now my car goes into second gear from third as smooth as anything and my synchros love me for it. It depends on what you're trying to achieve - excellent car control at high speeds and during hard maneuvering, or commuting with a minimum of effort. I want the first, so I'm sticking with my car ('89 Toyota Supra, Aussie spec). If I wanted the second I'd get a new, automatic Camry.
As for ABS, I'm not fond of it (89 was the last year that Supras were manufactured without it), but I could live with it. Modern ABS is actually pretty good. Emergency brake assist is completely different and probably the thing I loathe most about new cars. I'm curious what these severe regulations are, because "It looks like you're trying to use the break pedal, would you like to perform an automatic emergency stop?" most certainly changes the way the car reacts, not to mention flicking the hazard lights on for you in an oh-so-friendly way as the car nosedives after you lightly tap the brakes, which really helps distract you when you're trying to merge on the freeway for the first time in a rental car and you don't know where the hazard light switch is yet.
Medium complexity: When the wheel's rim is (near-)stationary relative to the ground, at the contact patch, then you use the static coefficient of friction. When it's moving relative to the ground REGARDLESS of whether the wheel is rotating, you use the dynamic one. Under ABS, the wheel is still rotating but it's doing so slower than it needs to to be rolling, hence ABS braking comes under dynamic friction.
More complexity: The tyre is not a rigid object, and as such there's no sharp transition from static to dynamic friction. That's why empirically (which is the only measure that matters), for maximum traction, you want a small degree (a few %) of slip. That's why racing cars drift by a few degrees while cornering, and why in low- to mid-range drag racing you want a (very small) amount of wheelspin. (Obviously I'm not talking about top fuel where they do a burnout to lay fresh, hot rubber and heat the tyres. That changes the rules.)
Interestingly, limit braking is ingrained in me now to the point where if I get cut off, I'll find myself automatically doing it. Usually my conscious brain doesn't catch up until I'm already stationary, and I'm left thinking "wtf... wow that worked out well". I guess it's just because I often drive hard for fun, not just at autocross events.
When they first did performance tests of ABS, they discovered that experienced drivers stopped faster without than with, whereas inexperienced ones stopped faster with. Once the experienced drivers got used to the ABS and learned to just lean on the pedal and trust to Al Gorithm, they were OK, but I see no reason to reduce my level of control and relearn a different technique when there's no real advantage.
...when the planet is so overpopulated, that the one and only resource the moon has, space, will actually become valuable enough to justify the expense and trouble of living there. I dare say that, given that 2/3rds of the Earth's surface is covered by water, seasteading will take off long before permanent moon bases with appreciable population are built. Then again, if living in low gravity turns out to have health benefits, the desirability of lunar real estate may increase dramatically.The objections you mention are actually covered briefly in Peter F. Hamilton's book Pandora's Star - he has his starship crew sleeping in padded 'cages' from which the captain gets a few bruises at one point.
Slippery slope, yes. Fallacy? He's pointed to a bunch of examples where similar devices' partial adoption has led to mandation. It's definitely not proof, as you point out - but it's a reasonable prediction that once the technology becomes widespread, insurance companies will offer substantial discounts to people with the device fitted, and if (not when, I concur ;) a sufficient percentage of people have said device, the remainder will not be a significant market force.
...where you ruin the lives of your children by smothering them with attention and activities until they can't think on their own. I don't think it's possible to ruin your childrens' lives by giving them too much attention. Spoiling them and letting them get away with behaving like brats, yes. Attention, no. The problem with today's kids (fetch me my walking stick, young'un) is that parents opt out of actual parenting, deferring that onerous task to electronic babysitters like TV and computers. The answer is more active parenting, not less of it.Our grandchildren are going to be the first generation to grow up with their parents constantly telling them "you don't understand me!" and "you don't know what it's like!" :P
Correction: Scary is like funny. It works differently for different people.
Well, what with the 2nd Amendment guaranteeing the Right to Keep and Arm Bears, it was all but inevitable.
The only reason anyone (adult or otherwise) should be allowed to play violent video games is if they know the difference between games and real life, and that provides a barrier between the actions in game and the actions in the real world. Fortunately, that's most of us.
On a related note, third-person violence rapidly desensitizes you to itself. Think of the first time you saw someone get bashed in a movie, you were probably a little kid at the time - it most likely shocked you and made you feel sick. The same scene now wouldn't cause you to bat an eyelid. It would be interesting to see a study of whether first-person violence does likewise; let a test group play some game such as GTA or Manhunt, while a control group plays Tetris or whatever, then ask them all to play a game where you can progress equally easily by killing people and taking their stuff, or by solving logic puzzles. I'd put money on the Manhunt people going with the killing while the Tetris people go with the puzzles.
Three pints? At lunchtime?
*looks at watch* Oh, look at the time, it's nearly lunchtime! wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
To horribly mangle a quote from an interesting book I read once ("The Flight of Mavin Manyshaped", Sheri S. Tepper), "If God wants to create the universe, I don't see any reason why he shouldn't use black holes and the laws of physics to do it."
:/
The original quote was regarding God using deserts and glaciers to clear the smoke out of a chasm, I wish I could find my copy of the book.
Interesting, very interesting! So it's not the edge of the universe that's getting farther away, it's that space is going 'shoop!' into the middle of the universe, and we're shoop-ing faster than stuff further away. Even if it doesn't jibe with the latest observations, it'd make an awesome sci-fi story! :)
Reminds me of a theory I had that deals with the same phenomenon. I figured, what if there were some quasi-frictional effect, not measurable on any scale we can measure, that over millions of light-years slowly removes energy from photons. That would result in photons from further away being redder, which we then interpret as distant objects moving away from us, and thence to universe expansion.
Does that mean that it won't want me to download updates every week that are bigger than the original install? That would be awesome. :/
Soggy? His Noodly Appendage Shall Not be Overcooked!
I BEG YOUR PARDON?