It's been over a decade since I've played *any* arcade game. I'm trying to remember... I think the two games I played with that control mechanism were "Cyber Sled" and "Mech Warrior". Cyber Sled was the only arcade game I could routinely beat with a single pay in single player mode, and which I had never had a competitor beat me in two player mode (I remember at times giving people quarters so they'd keep playing against me after they ran out;) ). And I only ever played the Mech Warrior game once, but still hadn't died once when I had to leave 10-15 minutes later (I think it was in the lobby of a movie theater, and my movie was about to start) .
That control mechanism just feels so natural, and gives so many options for maneuverability.
Yes -- safety-critical systems in vehicles *must* be redundant. Same applies to things like brake-by-wire. This generally means having multiple sensors and multiple processors in a "voting" system.
I'd love the *two* joystick control mechanism, like some arcade games use.
L-up, R-up: Go foward L-down, R-down: Go backward L-left, R-left: Go left L-right, R-right: Go right L-up, R-down: Pivot right L-down, R-down: Pivot left
And so on. I always loved (and was very good with) that control mechanism.
As for the single joystick control mechanism -- otherwise known as a tiller -- it's already used in some vehicles.
Notice I said "over the A-pillar" and "under the moulding"? Unless your A-pillar is bare painted metal (mine sure isn't), I don't see what's wrong with my statement.
And as mentioned, there's a dozen other places it could go. Unless your car has an entirely metal exterior (including, say, the bumpers), there's somewhere you can put it.
The "little impact" is 10-20% (depending on the model), and that's for steady-state (i.e., not considering the heat load of having to cool it down to begin with). Which is what the regulations are all about.
The ideal warm-weather windshield: reflects UV (and anything higher), transmits visible, reflects near-IR, and transmits mid/far-IR. The ideal cold-weather windshield: reflects UV (and anything higher), transmits visible, transmits near-IR, and reflects mid/far-IR. The ideal general-purpose windshield: reflects UV (and anything higher), transmits visible, reflects near-IR, and reflects mid/far-IR.
UV: Generally bad. Not much heat (and needed for vitamin D synthesis) but causes skin cancer and ages many (if not most) materials. Visible: What you can see. Obviously, you want as much of this as you can. Near-IR: A significant amount of solar energy that you can't see but will still heat up your car significantly. Mid/far-IR: Heat radiating from surfaces on Earth (i.e., the inside of your car losing heat)
First off, what your car emits, I have to breathe.
Secondly, the reason they're mandating this is because the EPA doesn't take into account the energy to cool down a car that's been sitting in the sun when it assigns MPG ratings, so manufacturers have little incentive to reduce that problem, even though you have to burn a lot of extra energy to cool the car down when you get in.
Why not just mount the antenna under the moulding over the A-pillar? Or about a dozen other places in the car? This regulation isn't about retrofitting old cars; it's about new cars. Heck, they don't even make Oldsmobiles any more.
While some of the other complaints may be valid, concerning radio, it seems a pretty dumb complaint.
The thing is, Jeep (and others, like GEM) are appealing to CARB for a waiver, and will probably get one. It was an oversight, not something deliberate.
To elaborate: in my testing, I took a couple of random tracks (two Coulton rock tracks and two classical Christmas tracks, both FLAC), and encoded them at 96k, 128k, 160k, and 192k ogg vorbis, then played them each into their own wav file, then distributed the re-encoded wav files and a wav generated straight from the flac (all with randomized filenames) to the people who wanted to take part in the test. There was a statistically significant (although not universal) recognition that the 96k was the worst. There was a correlation on the 128k track, but not a statistically significant one (I may want to do this again with a larger sample size). And the 160k, 192k, and original tracks were as good as random.
Most people hear 128k and think, "How can a person possibly not get *that*?" But that's really a stereotype from the olden days. There's a huge difference between a 128kbps fixed-bitrate mp3 and a 128kbps VBR ogg. VBR makes a *huge* difference.
(although not as low as 46kbps) and reached the same conclusion. Most people vastly overestimate their ability to distinguish tracks encoded at different bitrates. And I've seen study after study that backs this up. This includes self-professed audiophiles, the original authors of particular tracks of music, and so forth.
In what manner? The killer is the 250 mile drive to Cimarron because there are no nearby airports. They booked the most direct flight possible -- one from my regional airport to a central hub (Chicago), and from there to Amarillo (one of the closest airports).
One of the nice things about rail, in terms of providing service, is that a plane can't just stop and pick more people up along the way -- not without a ~1-2 hour delay (when you include the reduction in flight speeds during landing/takeoff and the time spent on the ground) and generally a significant detour. So even with our *very* limited rail corridors, they still provide pretty reasonable coverage.
-1 not doing your research. Perth, Western Australia (IATA: PER) is one of Australia's smallest cities, 1.8 Million.
1.8 million. Vs. perhaps 200,000 scattered across a rural countryside. You honestly don't see the difference here?
40 KM is nothing
Again, I don't know why you're focusing so much on the trip from my house to the airport so much, when it's the 400 kilometer trip on the other end that's the killer. Or did you want me to leave out certain parts of the trip out of fear that you'd decide to use them as straw men?
A localised problem. I can get on a high end airline (Singapore Airlines) for A$1000 to Phuket (4800 KM from Perth) with a short stop in Singapore.
Well, yippee for you. That doesn't do a damned bit of good for those of us who don't have $900 to spend on a plane ticket or live in an area that can't support such large planes.
what I described was SAL's economy seating.
At first class prices, so what's the difference? You know what sort of 4,800 km train ride you can get for $900? You can get a *private bedroom* with free meals, two beds, armchair and sofa, private sink, vanity, private toilet, private shower, electrical outlets, climate control, garment rack, fold-down table, turn-down service and other "room service", a daily newspaper, etc.
You're choosing luxury and acting shocked that everyone doesn't have the budget to do so.
I dont have unlimited money so I plan ahead
You can afford to buy $900 USD plane tickets, and you act like everyone lives in a situation where being in a city of 1.8 million is a small town. Most people don't live in cities of at least 1.8 million people. Or anywhere remotely close to that. And to most people, nearly $1000 USD is a lot of money.
Wow, your experience with trains is totally different than mine (a few trips in California and three weeks spent travelling across Japan on trains). I've found them to be clean, quite, comfortable, and relaxing.
40 KM, you are complaining about 40 KM. any decent city planning will have an express-way or rail line to the airport. 40 KM is less then an hour on a freeway and the middle of the day (10:00-15:00) is not peak hour.
Typical big city tunnel vision. I live in eastern *Iowa*. The airport is between a city of 60,000 and a city of 100,000. And that's pretty much it in the area apart from small towns, corn, soybeans, and hog farms. There are usually three active gates at the airport. There is no practical "peak hour".
Sit in a comfortable seat with individual IFE in the seat back plus laptop and USB power.
A seat like that costs ~$600-$900 cross-country, and wouldn't be available for my first leg at all. Who do you think you are, criticizing me for not taking the red eye and then talking about your first-class style seating? Not taking the red-eye is just a matter of booking well in advance and not insisting on direct flights. Perhaps you have unlimited money, but most of the world doesn't.
Air travel is not a public mode of transportation.
Commercial aircraft are glorified flying buses.
And despite your assertion of how great air travel works with our system, I can assure you, it certainly sucks in terms of getting to where I'm trying to get to. And flying these days is, as mentioned, a rather miserable experience, while train travel is relaxing.
My parents are bringing our whole family to Cimarron, NM for Christmas, and already booked flights. To get there, I'm going to have to leave my home in the middle of the day and drive 25 miles to the airport. I'll have to get there an hour early and go through an intrusive security check. They'll also make me pay more for my bags at the airport. I'll then have to walk to the gate and wait there, then board in a line, then settle into my cramped seat and wait on the tarmac. I'll have to keep my electronics off until we reach cruising altitude. We'll then have to fly to the hub in Chicago, doing all of the previous stuff in reverse for landing and disembarkment, layover, and re-boarding. We'll then fly to Amarillo and do everything in reverse. I'll be landing in Amarillo after dark. Then I'll have to get a hotel because it'll be too late to reach Cimarron. So the next day I'll then be renting a car and driving 250 miles to Cimarron (no sizable airports near it) and get there in the afternoon. On the return trip, all of this will happen in reverse.
Well, I decided to check, and sure enough, there's an Amtrak stop 85 miles from my house and another 40 miles from Cimarron, with a direct line between them. So instead, I could leave my house at shortly before 6 in the evening, get on a train at around 7:30 with almost no waiting at the station, settle into whatever comfortable seat I want (I find rail travel to be *much* more comfortable than air travel), have a power outlet for my laptop, recline way back and sleep from 11 to 9 AM, get off at 11:30 AM, and get to Cimarron just after noon. With all costs added in, significantly cheaper, way more comfortable, saves six hours of driving, no hellish airport experiences, and faster. And way less environmental impact.
This may be an extreme case, but most people don't ever bother thinking to check to see whether a train can get them to their destination reasonably. A lot of people use the argument that as a less population-dense country, the US can't support rail. Well, population density arguments apply to *every* mode of public transportation, including air. Less population dense areas means fewer airports and fewer flights.
I loved riding the rails around Japan. Back in the US, get the speeds up and add more tracks, and at least I personally will ride them most places I go.
Perhaps if he wants to be successful, he shouldn't spend his weekends "partying in Las Vegas and New York" and instead spend it on development and marketing. I've heard a wacky rumor that can help.
Slashdot Mirror
It's been over a decade since I've played *any* arcade game. I'm trying to remember... I think the two games I played with that control mechanism were "Cyber Sled" and "Mech Warrior". Cyber Sled was the only arcade game I could routinely beat with a single pay in single player mode, and which I had never had a competitor beat me in two player mode (I remember at times giving people quarters so they'd keep playing against me after they ran out ;) ). And I only ever played the Mech Warrior game once, but still hadn't died once when I had to leave 10-15 minutes later (I think it was in the lobby of a movie theater, and my movie was about to start)
.
That control mechanism just feels so natural, and gives so many options for maneuverability.
Erm:
L-down, R-up: Pivot left
Yes -- safety-critical systems in vehicles *must* be redundant. Same applies to things like brake-by-wire. This generally means having multiple sensors and multiple processors in a "voting" system.
I'd love the *two* joystick control mechanism, like some arcade games use.
L-up, R-up: Go foward
L-down, R-down: Go backward
L-left, R-left: Go left
L-right, R-right: Go right
L-up, R-down: Pivot right
L-down, R-down: Pivot left
And so on. I always loved (and was very good with) that control mechanism.
As for the single joystick control mechanism -- otherwise known as a tiller -- it's already used in some vehicles.
Plus, they want a neutral party, and 2D entities are generally rather basic.
Notice I said "over the A-pillar" and "under the moulding"? Unless your A-pillar is bare painted metal (mine sure isn't), I don't see what's wrong with my statement.
And as mentioned, there's a dozen other places it could go. Unless your car has an entirely metal exterior (including, say, the bumpers), there's somewhere you can put it.
The "little impact" is 10-20% (depending on the model), and that's for steady-state (i.e., not considering the heat load of having to cool it down to begin with). Which is what the regulations are all about.
Indeed
Basically:
The ideal warm-weather windshield: reflects UV (and anything higher), transmits visible, reflects near-IR, and transmits mid/far-IR.
The ideal cold-weather windshield: reflects UV (and anything higher), transmits visible, transmits near-IR, and reflects mid/far-IR.
The ideal general-purpose windshield: reflects UV (and anything higher), transmits visible, reflects near-IR, and reflects mid/far-IR.
UV: Generally bad. Not much heat (and needed for vitamin D synthesis) but causes skin cancer and ages many (if not most) materials.
Visible: What you can see. Obviously, you want as much of this as you can.
Near-IR: A significant amount of solar energy that you can't see but will still heat up your car significantly.
Mid/far-IR: Heat radiating from surfaces on Earth (i.e., the inside of your car losing heat)
Bizarre accident that leaves the passengers critically injured but doesn't break the windshield...
First off, what your car emits, I have to breathe.
Secondly, the reason they're mandating this is because the EPA doesn't take into account the energy to cool down a car that's been sitting in the sun when it assigns MPG ratings, so manufacturers have little incentive to reduce that problem, even though you have to burn a lot of extra energy to cool the car down when you get in.
Low-E glass was introduced in 1979. I.e., any patents that may have been around for it at the time no longer exist.
There probably are "newer, better" types of Low-E glass that are still patented, but Low-E glass in general is not.
Why not just mount the antenna under the moulding over the A-pillar? Or about a dozen other places in the car? This regulation isn't about retrofitting old cars; it's about new cars. Heck, they don't even make Oldsmobiles any more.
While some of the other complaints may be valid, concerning radio, it seems a pretty dumb complaint.
The thing is, Jeep (and others, like GEM) are appealing to CARB for a waiver, and will probably get one. It was an oversight, not something deliberate.
To elaborate: in my testing, I took a couple of random tracks (two Coulton rock tracks and two classical Christmas tracks, both FLAC), and encoded them at 96k, 128k, 160k, and 192k ogg vorbis, then played them each into their own wav file, then distributed the re-encoded wav files and a wav generated straight from the flac (all with randomized filenames) to the people who wanted to take part in the test. There was a statistically significant (although not universal) recognition that the 96k was the worst. There was a correlation on the 128k track, but not a statistically significant one (I may want to do this again with a larger sample size). And the 160k, 192k, and original tracks were as good as random.
Most people hear 128k and think, "How can a person possibly not get *that*?" But that's really a stereotype from the olden days. There's a huge difference between a 128kbps fixed-bitrate mp3 and a 128kbps VBR ogg. VBR makes a *huge* difference.
(although not as low as 46kbps) and reached the same conclusion. Most people vastly overestimate their ability to distinguish tracks encoded at different bitrates. And I've seen study after study that backs this up. This includes self-professed audiophiles, the original authors of particular tracks of music, and so forth.
In what manner? The killer is the 250 mile drive to Cimarron because there are no nearby airports. They booked the most direct flight possible -- one from my regional airport to a central hub (Chicago), and from there to Amarillo (one of the closest airports).
One of the nice things about rail, in terms of providing service, is that a plane can't just stop and pick more people up along the way -- not without a ~1-2 hour delay (when you include the reduction in flight speeds during landing/takeoff and the time spent on the ground) and generally a significant detour. So even with our *very* limited rail corridors, they still provide pretty reasonable coverage.
Yeah, that's pretty much all Cimarron is known for these days, isn't it? :) My uncle has a vacation house in view of the Tooth of Time.
-1 not doing your research. Perth, Western Australia (IATA: PER) is one of Australia's smallest cities, 1.8 Million.
1.8 million. Vs. perhaps 200,000 scattered across a rural countryside. You honestly don't see the difference here?
40 KM is nothing
Again, I don't know why you're focusing so much on the trip from my house to the airport so much, when it's the 400 kilometer trip on the other end that's the killer. Or did you want me to leave out certain parts of the trip out of fear that you'd decide to use them as straw men?
A localised problem. I can get on a high end airline (Singapore Airlines) for A$1000 to Phuket (4800 KM from Perth) with a short stop in Singapore.
Well, yippee for you. That doesn't do a damned bit of good for those of us who don't have $900 to spend on a plane ticket or live in an area that can't support such large planes.
what I described was SAL's economy seating.
At first class prices, so what's the difference? You know what sort of 4,800 km train ride you can get for $900? You can get a *private bedroom* with free meals, two beds, armchair and sofa, private sink, vanity, private toilet, private shower, electrical outlets, climate control, garment rack, fold-down table, turn-down service and other "room service", a daily newspaper, etc.
You're choosing luxury and acting shocked that everyone doesn't have the budget to do so.
I dont have unlimited money so I plan ahead
You can afford to buy $900 USD plane tickets, and you act like everyone lives in a situation where being in a city of 1.8 million is a small town. Most people don't live in cities of at least 1.8 million people. Or anywhere remotely close to that. And to most people, nearly $1000 USD is a lot of money.
Wow, your experience with trains is totally different than mine (a few trips in California and three weeks spent travelling across Japan on trains). I've found them to be clean, quite, comfortable, and relaxing.
drive 25 miles to the airport.
40 KM, you are complaining about 40 KM. any decent city planning will have an express-way or rail line to the airport. 40 KM is less then an hour on a freeway and the middle of the day (10:00-15:00) is not peak hour.
Typical big city tunnel vision. I live in eastern *Iowa*. The airport is between a city of 60,000 and a city of 100,000. And that's pretty much it in the area apart from small towns, corn, soybeans, and hog farms. There are usually three active gates at the airport. There is no practical "peak hour".
Sit in a comfortable seat with individual IFE in the seat back plus laptop and USB power.
A seat like that costs ~$600-$900 cross-country, and wouldn't be available for my first leg at all. Who do you think you are, criticizing me for not taking the red eye and then talking about your first-class style seating? Not taking the red-eye is just a matter of booking well in advance and not insisting on direct flights. Perhaps you have unlimited money, but most of the world doesn't.
Air travel is not a public mode of transportation.
Commercial aircraft are glorified flying buses.
And despite your assertion of how great air travel works with our system, I can assure you, it certainly sucks in terms of getting to where I'm trying to get to. And flying these days is, as mentioned, a rather miserable experience, while train travel is relaxing.
Certainly didn't happen in Japan. Train travel over there is still a dream -- even after the Aum Shinrikyo sarin gas attacks.
You know, like, such as.
(Slow Down Cowboy! It's been 38 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment)
My parents are bringing our whole family to Cimarron, NM for Christmas, and already booked flights. To get there, I'm going to have to leave my home in the middle of the day and drive 25 miles to the airport. I'll have to get there an hour early and go through an intrusive security check. They'll also make me pay more for my bags at the airport. I'll then have to walk to the gate and wait there, then board in a line, then settle into my cramped seat and wait on the tarmac. I'll have to keep my electronics off until we reach cruising altitude. We'll then have to fly to the hub in Chicago, doing all of the previous stuff in reverse for landing and disembarkment, layover, and re-boarding. We'll then fly to Amarillo and do everything in reverse. I'll be landing in Amarillo after dark. Then I'll have to get a hotel because it'll be too late to reach Cimarron. So the next day I'll then be renting a car and driving 250 miles to Cimarron (no sizable airports near it) and get there in the afternoon. On the return trip, all of this will happen in reverse.
Well, I decided to check, and sure enough, there's an Amtrak stop 85 miles from my house and another 40 miles from Cimarron, with a direct line between them. So instead, I could leave my house at shortly before 6 in the evening, get on a train at around 7:30 with almost no waiting at the station, settle into whatever comfortable seat I want (I find rail travel to be *much* more comfortable than air travel), have a power outlet for my laptop, recline way back and sleep from 11 to 9 AM, get off at 11:30 AM, and get to Cimarron just after noon. With all costs added in, significantly cheaper, way more comfortable, saves six hours of driving, no hellish airport experiences, and faster. And way less environmental impact.
This may be an extreme case, but most people don't ever bother thinking to check to see whether a train can get them to their destination reasonably. A lot of people use the argument that as a less population-dense country, the US can't support rail. Well, population density arguments apply to *every* mode of public transportation, including air. Less population dense areas means fewer airports and fewer flights.
I loved riding the rails around Japan. Back in the US, get the speeds up and add more tracks, and at least I personally will ride them most places I go.
Perhaps if he wants to be successful, he shouldn't spend his weekends "partying in Las Vegas and New York" and instead spend it on development and marketing. I've heard a wacky rumor that can help.