Wikipedia is so full of shit it's laughable. I'd take Google search results over Wikipedia any day.
Note that that does not mean I think Wikipedia is worthless, nor that I trust Google search results completely (or even significantly). I just think the idea that Wikipedia is this great and wonderful thing when there are so many shenanigans at every level of their leadership simply ludicrous. I don't trust Wikipedia for information about anything even remotely controversial.
In my opinion, every good deed is done for selfish reasons.
In your example above, the stereotypically good person is tipping because it makes them feel good. It either gives them a "warm fuzzy" to do such a thing, or it assuages some guilt they feel about poor waiters or waitresses. Either way, it's a selfish reason.
The most laudible selfish reason to do a good deed is because it simply makes you feel good. It's the epitome of selfishness, yet I don't think anybody would call you evil for doing something good for such a selfish reason.
Other selfish reasons that are not thought to be evil are fulfilling a sense of duty (family, friends, community, etc), building friendships, and improving relationships in general, among others. Even doing good because you feel guilty isn't considered bad, though I personally feel that is the absolute worst reason to do a good deed - if there is such a thing as a bad reason to do something good!
Why are these selfish reasons considered good (in fact, most don't even see them as selfish, though they definitely are), while others, like making a profit or gaining status and influence, are considered evil? If I can help you with something you need and help myself by making a profit, where is the evil? If I did it because it made me feel good instead, why is that better? If everyone benefits either way, why does it matter exactly how I benefit from the good deed?
I think people confuse the practice of doing genuinely good deeds for profit with the practice of doing deeds that are apparently good, but in fact are not. If a deed is ultimately a bad one, it should be considered evil no matter why you did it.
Because you can't just replace a good algorithm with a different algorithm, you must replace it with a better algorithm.
Nobody has figured out a better way to do search, so we are where we are.
You can bet your ass it's a problem Google and Microsoft are both furiously working on (as well as a few minor "left field" players), though I think Google is a bit better at it than MS.
Just FYI, all the old search engines - Excite, Altavista, etc. - are still around. They still suck so bad nobody uses them. It's impressive that Microsoft has managed to improve their search engine to the point where it can actually compete (though still get beaten, mostly in mind-share) by such a dominating search engine as Google. Google left every search engine on the market in the dust ten years ago, and Microsoft has managed to basically catch up in the last few years with Bing. There is still a wide gap between them and the rest of the search engines.
I think a lot of people, the OP especially, forget what the internet was like in the 90's. Yes, advertisements are ubiquitous today, but they are nowhere near as obtrusive as they were 10 years ago. Yeah, overlay adds suck. So do embedded videos with sound that cannot be muted or stopped (my personal pet-peeve at the moment). But it's nothing, nothing compared to the popups and redirects and flashy banner adds of the 90's.
Besides, Google adds are always labeled as such, and are usually very unobtrusive. Frankly, if people are getting confused by a section that says "Ads brought to you by Google", I don't give a shit. I have absolutely no problem with them, and I wish everybody would use unobtrusive Google-esque advertisements. I wish all the remaining popovers and floating ads and banners would be replaced by simple text ads on the side of the web page. That is my internet dream.
The parents have already been determined to be not responsible. They can't sue the parents.
However, it they win against the child, then they can sue the parents as responsible for the child's debts.
In other words, they have to win two lawsuits in order to get a dime out of the family, the second easier than the first, but the first one is a doozy.
I think it's a pretty dirtbag thing to do, myself, and I hope their community vilifies the family suing a child.
You obviously have no idea how the system works, then. There is always an appeal to a higher authority, even when you are up against the supreme court (of course, getting a constitutional amendment is one hard-ass appeal to win, but we've done it 17 times in the past, not including the BoR).
Frankly, an insane judge's decision is going to be overturned on appeal. If it isn't overturned on appeal, then at the very worst it was borderline, on the sane side.
Actually the judge is there to adjudicate the matter according to the law. That's his sole purpose. In minor cases (low level civil cases and things like traffic tickets) he can decide guilt or innocence, but for anything larger he does not. He only manages the trial according to the law.
It really is just like a very complicated clerical position (granted, one with a lot of authority, but the concept isn't far off).
According to the law, if the plaintiff can prove that the 4 year old knew exactly what she was doing when she ran into the 87 year old lady, that she did it on purpose and maliciously, and that she intended to cause some sort of damage, then the 4 year old can be held responsible as a reasonable person. If that can be proven, even I am ok with it (and I think the suit is ridiculous).
Frankly, the plaintiff has their work cut out for them. It's going to be extremely difficult to convince a jury that this was anything more than a complete accident, or that the child understood that running into an 87 year old could cause a lot more harm than running into their daddy would cause, or even that harm can be caused by running into someone in the first place. I've dealt with a lot of 4 year olds, and frankly, most of them can barely understand the concept of being nice to others. They get it later though, so obviously it's a problem with their level of development.
I don't think this is the judge's fault here, I think he has to allow it. I think it's pretty stupid, but if the plaintiffs can prove their case then it obviously isn't stupid. I very much doubt that they can though. The idea is ludicrous. That would have to be one hell of a mature 4 year old!
Fortunately the US never ratified it, which according to the Convention means it does not apply in the US (obviously, how could it?). Most countries that have ratified it generally ignore it anyway. It's a whole lot of bullshit fluff, and not much substance.
Even so, according to a more informed slashdotter, most jurisdictions have a sliding scale of responsibility between 4 and 12 - at 4 the prosecution must prove that the child was aware of the consequences of what they were doing, and at 12 the defense must prove that the child was not aware of the consequences. Both of these are a very tall order, and everything in between falls somewhere in between. After 12 children are fully responsible for their actions.
It falls within the letter of the Convention of Children's Rights, and illustrates why such conventions are so useless. Seriously, the Convention technically allows a government to set the age of responsibility at 1 minute old. There is nothing there that prevents such a thing. What's the point of saying "there must be a minimum" if it's perfectly OK for the minimum to be "zero"?
Most things out of the UN are like this, and it's the reason a lot of people in the US believe the UN is a complete waste of time. I mean, what are the consequences for not ratifying the convention? Nothing. Nadda. Zip, zero, zilch. What are the consequences for ratifying and then violating the convention? Nothing. Nadda. Zip, zero, zilch. So what's the point of even bringing up such a useless piece of trash?
We're talking about HTTP, not HTML. Just because they are often used together doesn't mean they are the same thing. In fact, they couldn't be more different; one is a communications protocol, the other is a markup language - I hope to god you can figure out which is which from that much.
But HTML is a terrible mess of kludges that doesn't work very well, too. It's just that most people on Slashdot consider it to be superior to Flash, even though it lacks a lot of Flash's basic functionality, and lacks all of the nice development tools that Flash has. Most of this stems from security paranoia (legitimate, but overblown in 99% of cases) and its tendency to crash (more significant issue, IMO, and also legitimate - also the cause of much of the security paranoia).
That's because it's just a description of the network structure, not a protocol in itself. It's only a specification in the sense that it accurately describes how networks must be layed out. It is in fact implemented everywhere. It has to be, or a network connection does not exist. The specific protocols don't matter, the OSI model doesn't care about them beyond describing which layer they fall into.
Layer 1 is your physical connection - any medium over which data is transmitted (coax, microwave, fiber, radio, etc) falls under this layer.
Layer 2 is the data link layer - your MAC address is part of this layer, along with the switch/router your machine connects to. Also here is PPP, SNAP, ethernet DLC, etc.
Layer 3 is the network layer - ARP, ICMP, IPX, IP, etc all fall under this layer.
Layer 4 is the transport layer - TCP, UDP, SPX, NSPDNA, ADSP, etc all fall under this layer
Layer 5 is the session layer - DAP, NetBEUI, RPC, etc all fall under this layer
Layer 6 is the presentation layer - LPP, XDR, NetBIOS, etc fall under this layer
Layer 7 is the application layer - DHCP, HTTP, NFT, RFA, X Windows, FTP, NTP, NFS, etc all fall under this layer
A few protocols span multiple layers (not many), and some layers are skipped (anything that is sessionless and presentationless doesn't need the fifth and sixth layer, for example), but everything needs up to at least the 4th layer and anything in user land must have a protocol in the 7th layer in order to communicate.
It's a description (like all specs), and it is well used today in networks everywhere.
One of the main problems with HTTP is it is sessionless - it really needs something between TCP and HTTP to handle sessions, but instead cookies were hacked on by browsers (thank you Netscape) to give some semblance of sessions to a sessionless protocol. Cookies have since been expanded and further bandaided and completely mis-managed by the http protocol, leaving us with piss-poor implementations of cookies some 15 years after their creation.
The only reason the implementations in browsers suck is because HTTP is such a hack-job of a protocol (it wasn't originally, but then it was not originally designed to do what it does today). The browsers are left dealing with issues which the HTTP "specification" (which isn't even fully documented, btw) either completely ignores or recommends practices that are completely unrealistic.
One example from the article: the HTTP spec recommends a minimum of 80kb for request headers (20 cookies per user, 4kb per cookie). However, most web servers limit request headers to 8kb (Apache) or 16kb (IIS) in order to prevent denial of service attacks. It is very important that they limit the headers - not doing so leaves them wide open to attack. The HTTP recommendations are completely unreasonable in this regard and fly in the face of good security practice. They are also completely ignored in this and many other cases, because they are so unreasonable.
If the protocol were simple, clear, well designed, and well defined then the browser implementations wouldn't have to suck. It's HTTP that has caused this problem, not the other way around.
It was a very limited protocol that became way too popular, and now we're stuck with a bunch of hacks to get it to work with modern web technology.
They have a claim with evidence, in order for you to say it is wrong YOU need to offer some evidence to refute their claims.
You don't have to believe them, that's fine, but you have no basis to demand proof for your non-belief when your non-belief has absolutely no substance at all.
You might as well have said "Jesus lives on Jupiter. Prove me wrong."
Which is funny, because the article is about some really cool batteries.
(Since you probably still don't get it, you trickle charge the batteries, then quick-charge the car from the batteries. No nuclear power plant required.)
But then your house likely doesn't have a 5,000 gallon underground double walled gasoline storage tank and a pump in the garage to fill up either.
No shit right?
They didn't say you could charge it in 6 minutes at your house, they simply said it is possible to charge it in 6 minutes.
The first time a reasonable person started crunching the numbers they should have simply said "Oh, they obviously aren't talking about charging it at home here". They should have then realized that those same cables they were saying couldn't possibly work for a 6 minute charge would work just fine for a 3-6 hour charge, no problem.
But, unfortunately, this is Slashdot. We've finally got something that would make an "Electricstation" practical and it's just going over most Slashdotter's heads.
What is really iron is that this guy is decrying how people don't pay attention to the risks they are taking, while he himself tells the world that he has committed about 30-40 felonies in a single night.
Maximum jail time is 200 years (obviously he'd never get that), minimum if convicted of 30 counts of felony is 30 years.
Who's not paying attention to the risks here?
What a dumbass. I sincerely hope he goes to jail for it. Maybe then these idiots can gain a little perspective (probably won't though, the community is full of these self-righteous idiots).
I've seen this too, it is quite flabbergasting. Totally different field, but I know of an engineer who knows literally everything about the system he works on. He's been with the company for decades, and is a downright brilliant engineer, so good in fact that he is a non-manager at a manager's pay grade. There is nobody else who understands the system as well as he does.
The company recently decided that managers, and only managers, can be at that pay grade. So his options were to become a manager, which he is not suited for and does not want, or take a pay cut. He took option three, and is retiring. Decades of knowledge gone because someone decided non-managers shouldn't make that much money. It's pure stupidity.
But these things happens in big bureaucracies, and Oracle is definitely a big bureaucracy, so it's not surprising to see this sort of thing. It seems to happen when the underlings understand their own value, and their bosses do not.
Not half as much as a steel that is strong enough to have the same strength to weight ratio.
You need 700 MPa steel to match the strength to weight ratio of 400 MPa titanium (not quite pure). If you go with a titanium alloy the strength to weight is even better (it tops out at 1400 MPa in alloy form, while maintaining the very low density). You need steel around 2500 MPa to match that strength to weight ratio, and that's about as good as steel is going to get. The reason titanium is so difficult to work with is because of its high tensile strength. Iron is about half as strong, and much easier to work with, same with aluminum. So now you're going to replace it with something that has twice the tensile strength and is probably more expensive in bar form to boot?
Nah, you just make the frame out of very high strength steel.
Of course, that steel is more expensive than titanium or aluminum, is more difficult to machine, and will therefore cost you quite a bit more for something that will give you something that is just as good as a titanium or aluminum bike.
But steel is what we should be using for everything, right?:P
Slashdot Mirror
No they didn't, and no they haven't.
Wikipedia is so full of shit it's laughable. I'd take Google search results over Wikipedia any day.
Note that that does not mean I think Wikipedia is worthless, nor that I trust Google search results completely (or even significantly). I just think the idea that Wikipedia is this great and wonderful thing when there are so many shenanigans at every level of their leadership simply ludicrous. I don't trust Wikipedia for information about anything even remotely controversial.
In my opinion, every good deed is done for selfish reasons.
In your example above, the stereotypically good person is tipping because it makes them feel good. It either gives them a "warm fuzzy" to do such a thing, or it assuages some guilt they feel about poor waiters or waitresses. Either way, it's a selfish reason.
The most laudible selfish reason to do a good deed is because it simply makes you feel good. It's the epitome of selfishness, yet I don't think anybody would call you evil for doing something good for such a selfish reason.
Other selfish reasons that are not thought to be evil are fulfilling a sense of duty (family, friends, community, etc), building friendships, and improving relationships in general, among others. Even doing good because you feel guilty isn't considered bad, though I personally feel that is the absolute worst reason to do a good deed - if there is such a thing as a bad reason to do something good!
Why are these selfish reasons considered good (in fact, most don't even see them as selfish, though they definitely are), while others, like making a profit or gaining status and influence, are considered evil? If I can help you with something you need and help myself by making a profit, where is the evil? If I did it because it made me feel good instead, why is that better? If everyone benefits either way, why does it matter exactly how I benefit from the good deed?
I think people confuse the practice of doing genuinely good deeds for profit with the practice of doing deeds that are apparently good, but in fact are not. If a deed is ultimately a bad one, it should be considered evil no matter why you did it.
Because you can't just replace a good algorithm with a different algorithm, you must replace it with a better algorithm.
Nobody has figured out a better way to do search, so we are where we are.
You can bet your ass it's a problem Google and Microsoft are both furiously working on (as well as a few minor "left field" players), though I think Google is a bit better at it than MS.
Just FYI, all the old search engines - Excite, Altavista, etc. - are still around. They still suck so bad nobody uses them. It's impressive that Microsoft has managed to improve their search engine to the point where it can actually compete (though still get beaten, mostly in mind-share) by such a dominating search engine as Google. Google left every search engine on the market in the dust ten years ago, and Microsoft has managed to basically catch up in the last few years with Bing. There is still a wide gap between them and the rest of the search engines.
I think a lot of people, the OP especially, forget what the internet was like in the 90's. Yes, advertisements are ubiquitous today, but they are nowhere near as obtrusive as they were 10 years ago. Yeah, overlay adds suck. So do embedded videos with sound that cannot be muted or stopped (my personal pet-peeve at the moment). But it's nothing, nothing compared to the popups and redirects and flashy banner adds of the 90's.
Besides, Google adds are always labeled as such, and are usually very unobtrusive. Frankly, if people are getting confused by a section that says "Ads brought to you by Google", I don't give a shit. I have absolutely no problem with them, and I wish everybody would use unobtrusive Google-esque advertisements. I wish all the remaining popovers and floating ads and banners would be replaced by simple text ads on the side of the web page. That is my internet dream.
Apparently you have no idea what a lawsuit is.
You may want to look it up. I have a feeling you may discover that it has absolutely nothing to do with criminal law.
The parents have already been determined to be not responsible. They can't sue the parents.
However, it they win against the child, then they can sue the parents as responsible for the child's debts.
In other words, they have to win two lawsuits in order to get a dime out of the family, the second easier than the first, but the first one is a doozy.
I think it's a pretty dirtbag thing to do, myself, and I hope their community vilifies the family suing a child.
You obviously have no idea how the system works, then. There is always an appeal to a higher authority, even when you are up against the supreme court (of course, getting a constitutional amendment is one hard-ass appeal to win, but we've done it 17 times in the past, not including the BoR).
Frankly, an insane judge's decision is going to be overturned on appeal. If it isn't overturned on appeal, then at the very worst it was borderline, on the sane side.
Actually the judge is there to adjudicate the matter according to the law. That's his sole purpose. In minor cases (low level civil cases and things like traffic tickets) he can decide guilt or innocence, but for anything larger he does not. He only manages the trial according to the law.
It really is just like a very complicated clerical position (granted, one with a lot of authority, but the concept isn't far off).
According to the law, if the plaintiff can prove that the 4 year old knew exactly what she was doing when she ran into the 87 year old lady, that she did it on purpose and maliciously, and that she intended to cause some sort of damage, then the 4 year old can be held responsible as a reasonable person. If that can be proven, even I am ok with it (and I think the suit is ridiculous).
Frankly, the plaintiff has their work cut out for them. It's going to be extremely difficult to convince a jury that this was anything more than a complete accident, or that the child understood that running into an 87 year old could cause a lot more harm than running into their daddy would cause, or even that harm can be caused by running into someone in the first place. I've dealt with a lot of 4 year olds, and frankly, most of them can barely understand the concept of being nice to others. They get it later though, so obviously it's a problem with their level of development.
I don't think this is the judge's fault here, I think he has to allow it. I think it's pretty stupid, but if the plaintiffs can prove their case then it obviously isn't stupid. I very much doubt that they can though. The idea is ludicrous. That would have to be one hell of a mature 4 year old!
I hope the girl's family counter-sues.
Fortunately the US never ratified it, which according to the Convention means it does not apply in the US (obviously, how could it?). Most countries that have ratified it generally ignore it anyway. It's a whole lot of bullshit fluff, and not much substance.
Even so, according to a more informed slashdotter, most jurisdictions have a sliding scale of responsibility between 4 and 12 - at 4 the prosecution must prove that the child was aware of the consequences of what they were doing, and at 12 the defense must prove that the child was not aware of the consequences. Both of these are a very tall order, and everything in between falls somewhere in between. After 12 children are fully responsible for their actions.
It falls within the letter of the Convention of Children's Rights, and illustrates why such conventions are so useless. Seriously, the Convention technically allows a government to set the age of responsibility at 1 minute old. There is nothing there that prevents such a thing. What's the point of saying "there must be a minimum" if it's perfectly OK for the minimum to be "zero"?
Most things out of the UN are like this, and it's the reason a lot of people in the US believe the UN is a complete waste of time. I mean, what are the consequences for not ratifying the convention? Nothing. Nadda. Zip, zero, zilch. What are the consequences for ratifying and then violating the convention? Nothing. Nadda. Zip, zero, zilch. So what's the point of even bringing up such a useless piece of trash?
We're talking about HTTP, not HTML. Just because they are often used together doesn't mean they are the same thing. In fact, they couldn't be more different; one is a communications protocol, the other is a markup language - I hope to god you can figure out which is which from that much.
But HTML is a terrible mess of kludges that doesn't work very well, too. It's just that most people on Slashdot consider it to be superior to Flash, even though it lacks a lot of Flash's basic functionality, and lacks all of the nice development tools that Flash has. Most of this stems from security paranoia (legitimate, but overblown in 99% of cases) and its tendency to crash (more significant issue, IMO, and also legitimate - also the cause of much of the security paranoia).
That's because it's just a description of the network structure, not a protocol in itself. It's only a specification in the sense that it accurately describes how networks must be layed out. It is in fact implemented everywhere. It has to be, or a network connection does not exist. The specific protocols don't matter, the OSI model doesn't care about them beyond describing which layer they fall into.
Layer 1 is your physical connection - any medium over which data is transmitted (coax, microwave, fiber, radio, etc) falls under this layer.
Layer 2 is the data link layer - your MAC address is part of this layer, along with the switch/router your machine connects to. Also here is PPP, SNAP, ethernet DLC, etc.
Layer 3 is the network layer - ARP, ICMP, IPX, IP, etc all fall under this layer.
Layer 4 is the transport layer - TCP, UDP, SPX, NSPDNA, ADSP, etc all fall under this layer
Layer 5 is the session layer - DAP, NetBEUI, RPC, etc all fall under this layer
Layer 6 is the presentation layer - LPP, XDR, NetBIOS, etc fall under this layer
Layer 7 is the application layer - DHCP, HTTP, NFT, RFA, X Windows, FTP, NTP, NFS, etc all fall under this layer
A few protocols span multiple layers (not many), and some layers are skipped (anything that is sessionless and presentationless doesn't need the fifth and sixth layer, for example), but everything needs up to at least the 4th layer and anything in user land must have a protocol in the 7th layer in order to communicate.
It's a description (like all specs), and it is well used today in networks everywhere.
One of the main problems with HTTP is it is sessionless - it really needs something between TCP and HTTP to handle sessions, but instead cookies were hacked on by browsers (thank you Netscape) to give some semblance of sessions to a sessionless protocol. Cookies have since been expanded and further bandaided and completely mis-managed by the http protocol, leaving us with piss-poor implementations of cookies some 15 years after their creation.
The only reason the implementations in browsers suck is because HTTP is such a hack-job of a protocol (it wasn't originally, but then it was not originally designed to do what it does today). The browsers are left dealing with issues which the HTTP "specification" (which isn't even fully documented, btw) either completely ignores or recommends practices that are completely unrealistic.
One example from the article: the HTTP spec recommends a minimum of 80kb for request headers (20 cookies per user, 4kb per cookie). However, most web servers limit request headers to 8kb (Apache) or 16kb (IIS) in order to prevent denial of service attacks. It is very important that they limit the headers - not doing so leaves them wide open to attack. The HTTP recommendations are completely unreasonable in this regard and fly in the face of good security practice. They are also completely ignored in this and many other cases, because they are so unreasonable.
If the protocol were simple, clear, well designed, and well defined then the browser implementations wouldn't have to suck. It's HTTP that has caused this problem, not the other way around.
It was a very limited protocol that became way too popular, and now we're stuck with a bunch of hacks to get it to work with modern web technology.
God I hope so!
That's not the way it works.
They have a claim with evidence, in order for you to say it is wrong YOU need to offer some evidence to refute their claims.
You don't have to believe them, that's fine, but you have no basis to demand proof for your non-belief when your non-belief has absolutely no substance at all.
You might as well have said "Jesus lives on Jupiter. Prove me wrong."
It's just as moronic.
Somebody never heard of "batteries".
Which is funny, because the article is about some really cool batteries.
(Since you probably still don't get it, you trickle charge the batteries, then quick-charge the car from the batteries. No nuclear power plant required.)
But then your house likely doesn't have a 5,000 gallon underground double walled gasoline storage tank and a pump in the garage to fill up either.
No shit right?
They didn't say you could charge it in 6 minutes at your house, they simply said it is possible to charge it in 6 minutes.
The first time a reasonable person started crunching the numbers they should have simply said "Oh, they obviously aren't talking about charging it at home here". They should have then realized that those same cables they were saying couldn't possibly work for a 6 minute charge would work just fine for a 3-6 hour charge, no problem.
But, unfortunately, this is Slashdot. We've finally got something that would make an "Electricstation" practical and it's just going over most Slashdotter's heads.
That and it's just a hell of a lot simpler to generate AC and convert to DC than the other way around.
Ahem.
"WOOOOOSHHH!!"
Because they're cool.
Cool shit costs lots of money.
They aren't cool in Asia any more, so they are cheap.
Duh. ;)
What is really iron is that this guy is decrying how people don't pay attention to the risks they are taking, while he himself tells the world that he has committed about 30-40 felonies in a single night.
Maximum jail time is 200 years (obviously he'd never get that), minimum if convicted of 30 counts of felony is 30 years.
Who's not paying attention to the risks here?
What a dumbass. I sincerely hope he goes to jail for it. Maybe then these idiots can gain a little perspective (probably won't though, the community is full of these self-righteous idiots).
It also happens to be completely false.
Who says you have to write your Java tools in Java? Java isn't even written in Java. If you're stuck on that, you're an idiot.
Guess what JVMs are usually written in. (I'll give you a hint: it starts with an "O" and ends with an "bjective-C")
I've seen this too, it is quite flabbergasting. Totally different field, but I know of an engineer who knows literally everything about the system he works on. He's been with the company for decades, and is a downright brilliant engineer, so good in fact that he is a non-manager at a manager's pay grade. There is nobody else who understands the system as well as he does.
The company recently decided that managers, and only managers, can be at that pay grade. So his options were to become a manager, which he is not suited for and does not want, or take a pay cut. He took option three, and is retiring. Decades of knowledge gone because someone decided non-managers shouldn't make that much money. It's pure stupidity.
But these things happens in big bureaucracies, and Oracle is definitely a big bureaucracy, so it's not surprising to see this sort of thing. It seems to happen when the underlings understand their own value, and their bosses do not.
Not half as much as a steel that is strong enough to have the same strength to weight ratio.
You need 700 MPa steel to match the strength to weight ratio of 400 MPa titanium (not quite pure). If you go with a titanium alloy the strength to weight is even better (it tops out at 1400 MPa in alloy form, while maintaining the very low density). You need steel around 2500 MPa to match that strength to weight ratio, and that's about as good as steel is going to get. The reason titanium is so difficult to work with is because of its high tensile strength. Iron is about half as strong, and much easier to work with, same with aluminum. So now you're going to replace it with something that has twice the tensile strength and is probably more expensive in bar form to boot?
Yeah, that's going to save you a ton of money.
Nah, you just make the frame out of very high strength steel.
Of course, that steel is more expensive than titanium or aluminum, is more difficult to machine, and will therefore cost you quite a bit more for something that will give you something that is just as good as a titanium or aluminum bike.
But steel is what we should be using for everything, right? :P
Sorry the scuba portion was directed at a poster below, my bad.