Subtraction is just addition using negative numbers. Why not skip subtraction altogether and just do addition? And hey, multiplication is just addition done over and over, and division is just subtraction done over and over, so we could simplify all those operators down to just one.
We don't do that, not because we're too stupid, but because it's terribly inconvenient to work everything out in terms of addition alone. We pick the notation that's most convenient for the given purpose.
Doing the faction in terms of volume-over-distance is better in comparing fuel efficiency because it makes it obvious where to focus efforts in efficiency increases.
This particular report doesn't specify causes. It just goes over the temperature data and factors directly related to it (like humidity and glaciation). Even if the deniers could pick out one of these datasets and show that's its problematic, there would still be 9 others going the other direction--a textbook case of the Strawman.
Anthropogenic factors are proven out in other studies. There isn't a legitimate debate about that anymore, either.
The debate that's left is in the exact effects and what we can do about it. Low levels of extra CO2 in the atmosphere may actually be beneficial, but we've almost certainly blown way beyond that. Then there are large scale geoengineering projects (like putting a solar shield at L1), which are both expensive and may have unknown consequences. They're being discussed because there aren't a lot of better ideas.
Rick Clark, CEO of Aptare Inc., said most companies can reclaim large chunks of data center storage capacity because it was never used by applications in the first place. . . . Aptare's latest version of reporting software, StorageConsole 8, costs about $30,000 to $40,000 for small companies, $75,000 to $80,000 for midsize firms, and just over $250,000 for large enterprises.
In other words, the whole thing is an attempt to get companies to spend tens of thousands of dollars for something that could be done by well-written shell script.
It would be more effective to pass legislation to end the local monopolies that are granted to service providers . . .
Good luck. Those agreements are a combination of federal, state, and local laws. Taking the Nuclear Option would create havoc for years, and isn't something you want to do in an economy that's barely recovering as it is. Disentangling it piece-by-piece would be less disruptive, but would also take years and make it easy to overlook something.
I'm afraid that the status quo will need to be worked around rather than replaced. One thing that can help with that is that whenever an ISP says "those are our lines, bought and paid for, and we have the right do whatever we want with them", don't believe them. If a tea partier says "net neutrality is a communist conspiracy", call them out as the straw-manning idiot that they are.
He's a professor of Spanish, which isn't really a scientist, and is a degree that probably came with a light load of mathematics courses.
He doesn't attempt to correct for any other factors that may have led to a drop in pedestrian fatalities. All he's proven is a very casual correlation.
The original NHTSA has a more credible methodology:
It concluded that hybrids like the Toyota Prius were involved in pedestrian crashes at a rate of 0.9 percent, half again as high as the 0.6 percent rate for gasoline vehicles. Hybrids were also twice as likely to have hit cyclists, at a rate of 0.6 percent versus 0.3 percent.
The main problem with the above is that data on VIN numbers are only available from 12 states.
Net neutrality means nothing of the sort. Net neutrality tells the providers that they can't charge for tiered access, something they already do.
There's two different ends to that tiering that are being conflated here. There's the end-user tiering, where they charge different prices for different speeds. This is perfectly fine and expected, and Net Neutrality advocates don't suggest changing it.
The other end is where they tier access coming in from the rest of the Internet, i.e. throttle Google down because Bing paid them more. This goes right up against the whole concept of Common Carrier and would turn the Internet into the "gated community" style of networks (like AOL or CompuServe) that it displaced over a decade ago. The Internet is interesting precisely because of its egalitarian nature, and there's no sense changing it just to enrich the pockets of a few regional monopolies.
Statistically speaking, no. Most software isn't sold on retail shelfs. Most software isn't even sold outside the company. For all practical purposes, it's protected by contract law, not copyright or any other IP law. If copyright was stricken tomorrow, the vast majority of programmers would be unaffected, no matter what Microsoft and Adobe say.
Does Sweden have that sort of system, though? Isn't the civil/criminal distinction specific to legal systems based on English Common Law?
In any case, I guess you could theoretically start a Pedo Party, but you'd first have to get elected to Swedish Parliament, and then could only do it within Parliament itself.
Some of those design elements may not be plug-and-play. Different battery technologies have different requirements in terms of charging, and that will affect the software that manages charging (either from a plug or from regenerative braking). Batteries that weigh differently (no matter if its more or less) will also require some suspension tweaking.
Then there's a list of consumer safety tests. A lead-acid cell that could spew acid all over the pavement in a crash deserves some scrutiny (of course, these are on the way out for many reasons). There are issues with lithium cells, too, like if they can overheat and explode (though this is an issue of specific types of Li cells, not all of them). More generally, if the battery is a structural member of the car, then there are a list of crash tests to go through.
In short, nothing is easy once lawyers are involved.
Sometimes, you just have to go with what you got. Cars take years to design and certify for road use. If a better battery was invented tomorrow, it would take at least 5 years before it made its way to a production car. For now, working around it with a better business plan is a good option.
To nitpick, I'm not quite sure if Apollo 13 should be counted as a "success" or not. Nobody died, but only just.
OTOH, if you want to count the entire Saturn series, then you have 32 launches with the only astronaut deaths in the program being Apollo 1, which never actually launched. Even the unmanned ones have a perfect track record.
NASA won't close. No matter how things pan out otherwise, it'll almost certainly keep it's robotic deep space missions and also do advanced aeronautics research.
There's no way a production car will lose traction at proper speed and proper maneovering on a road.
By definition, no car will ever over/understeer when you drive it at the proper speed, no matter the age, drive train, suspension type, tires, conditions, or whatever electronic gee-whizzery your car provides. This is not a particularly enlightening statement, since we haven't put any limits on what the "proper speed" really is. It could be 5 mph.
We would like it very much if:
The car is setup so that it steers neutral in as wide a range of conditions as possible
When it does go outside those bounds, the car behaves predictably so the driver can correct it
This is just plain good engineering, and has been the way of things ever since live axles disappeared from all production cars for ever and ever (*ahem*). It prevents people from dieing due to simple mistakes, and makes it easier/faster/funner to use on the track.
Another source is Top Gear 01x07, where Jeremy drives the Lotus Elise. Normally, I wouldn't reference Top Gear on an issue of factual correctness, but in this case, the information is coming directly from a Lotus engineer.
During the road test, Jeremy notes some bad understeer through some corners. Then a Lotus engineer comes out and demonstrates that you can get it to oversteer with the right technique.
It's hard to make out what he's saying over the tire squeal (Top Gear's production values weren't quite as tight back then), but he does seem to say that they've done this specifically because they wanted to enlarge their market.
Back in the studio, the engineer also says you can get the front tires matched up with the back to make it stop doing that.
Right, in that case, the rear tires need traction, so they need to stop spinning so much. The better AWD systems can shift power to the front, but a pure RWD will need to let off, countersteer, then smoothly get back on.
There's no regular road driving conditions that would make any car in the market for the last 40 years to either under or oversteer, so your argument is moot.
Then you've never driven on ice.
"Not surprisingly, manufacturers tend to setup cars from the factory in ways that tend to make it understeer, such as putting on oversized tires in back."
I think that's the literally the stupidest thing I read in years.
It's the correct solution in general, though the specifics will change. Of course, you can't think through all the engineering details of what's going on while you sit there. It has to be done intuitively.
As a rule, oversteer is the result of insufficient speed through a turn, so the solution is more throttle.
FWD may correct oversteer just using throttle. RWD will often need countersteer in addition to throttle. If your car has enough torque and you can hit it just right, a RWD car can even sustain oversteer into a drift. Theoretically, it can keep going until your tires or gas run down.
Slashdot Mirror
Subtraction is just addition using negative numbers. Why not skip subtraction altogether and just do addition? And hey, multiplication is just addition done over and over, and division is just subtraction done over and over, so we could simplify all those operators down to just one.
We don't do that, not because we're too stupid, but because it's terribly inconvenient to work everything out in terms of addition alone. We pick the notation that's most convenient for the given purpose.
Doing the faction in terms of volume-over-distance is better in comparing fuel efficiency because it makes it obvious where to focus efforts in efficiency increases.
Full writeup on the subject.
This particular report doesn't specify causes. It just goes over the temperature data and factors directly related to it (like humidity and glaciation). Even if the deniers could pick out one of these datasets and show that's its problematic, there would still be 9 others going the other direction--a textbook case of the Strawman.
Anthropogenic factors are proven out in other studies. There isn't a legitimate debate about that anymore, either.
The debate that's left is in the exact effects and what we can do about it. Low levels of extra CO2 in the atmosphere may actually be beneficial, but we've almost certainly blown way beyond that. Then there are large scale geoengineering projects (like putting a solar shield at L1), which are both expensive and may have unknown consequences. They're being discussed because there aren't a lot of better ideas.
FTA:
Rick Clark, CEO of Aptare Inc., said most companies can reclaim large chunks of data center storage capacity because it was never used by applications in the first place. . . . Aptare's latest version of reporting software, StorageConsole 8, costs about $30,000 to $40,000 for small companies, $75,000 to $80,000 for midsize firms, and just over $250,000 for large enterprises.
In other words, the whole thing is an attempt to get companies to spend tens of thousands of dollars for something that could be done by well-written shell script.
Flying squirrels don't really have wings, in the sense of being able to generate meaningful lift. It's more like a parachute than a wing.
But yes, it would be the most hilarious apocalypse ever.
What if squirrels had wings and shot cruise missiles out of their tail? That's about as grounded in reality as Oracle buying up everything.
It would be more effective to pass legislation to end the local monopolies that are granted to service providers . . .
Good luck. Those agreements are a combination of federal, state, and local laws. Taking the Nuclear Option would create havoc for years, and isn't something you want to do in an economy that's barely recovering as it is. Disentangling it piece-by-piece would be less disruptive, but would also take years and make it easy to overlook something.
I'm afraid that the status quo will need to be worked around rather than replaced. One thing that can help with that is that whenever an ISP says "those are our lines, bought and paid for, and we have the right do whatever we want with them", don't believe them. If a tea partier says "net neutrality is a communist conspiracy", call them out as the straw-manning idiot that they are.
He's a professor of Spanish, which isn't really a scientist, and is a degree that probably came with a light load of mathematics courses.
He doesn't attempt to correct for any other factors that may have led to a drop in pedestrian fatalities. All he's proven is a very casual correlation.
The original NHTSA has a more credible methodology:
It concluded that hybrids like the Toyota Prius were involved in pedestrian crashes at a rate of 0.9 percent, half again as high as the 0.6 percent rate for gasoline vehicles. Hybrids were also twice as likely to have hit cyclists, at a rate of 0.6 percent versus 0.3 percent.
The main problem with the above is that data on VIN numbers are only available from 12 states.
Who poses the greater risk to pedestrians?
The one that's more likely to be tweeting while driving.
Net neutrality means nothing of the sort. Net neutrality tells the providers that they can't charge for tiered access, something they already do.
There's two different ends to that tiering that are being conflated here. There's the end-user tiering, where they charge different prices for different speeds. This is perfectly fine and expected, and Net Neutrality advocates don't suggest changing it.
The other end is where they tier access coming in from the rest of the Internet, i.e. throttle Google down because Bing paid them more. This goes right up against the whole concept of Common Carrier and would turn the Internet into the "gated community" style of networks (like AOL or CompuServe) that it displaced over a decade ago. The Internet is interesting precisely because of its egalitarian nature, and there's no sense changing it just to enrich the pockets of a few regional monopolies.
Sometimes, you shouldn't bother fighting stupid. Instead, give up and take their money.
It's a good thing we have ultra-conservative legislators like Russ Feingold opposing these things.
Hmmm, sure he's the one that should get out? I suspect you're thinking of the wrong SF series.
Statistically speaking, no. Most software isn't sold on retail shelfs. Most software isn't even sold outside the company. For all practical purposes, it's protected by contract law, not copyright or any other IP law. If copyright was stricken tomorrow, the vast majority of programmers would be unaffected, no matter what Microsoft and Adobe say.
Does Sweden have that sort of system, though? Isn't the civil/criminal distinction specific to legal systems based on English Common Law?
In any case, I guess you could theoretically start a Pedo Party, but you'd first have to get elected to Swedish Parliament, and then could only do it within Parliament itself.
Some of those design elements may not be plug-and-play. Different battery technologies have different requirements in terms of charging, and that will affect the software that manages charging (either from a plug or from regenerative braking). Batteries that weigh differently (no matter if its more or less) will also require some suspension tweaking.
Then there's a list of consumer safety tests. A lead-acid cell that could spew acid all over the pavement in a crash deserves some scrutiny (of course, these are on the way out for many reasons). There are issues with lithium cells, too, like if they can overheat and explode (though this is an issue of specific types of Li cells, not all of them). More generally, if the battery is a structural member of the car, then there are a list of crash tests to go through.
In short, nothing is easy once lawyers are involved.
You lefties blame everything on conspiracies . . .
Unlike the birthers, who are clearly calm and rational people.
Sometimes, you just have to go with what you got. Cars take years to design and certify for road use. If a better battery was invented tomorrow, it would take at least 5 years before it made its way to a production car. For now, working around it with a better business plan is a good option.
To nitpick, I'm not quite sure if Apollo 13 should be counted as a "success" or not. Nobody died, but only just.
OTOH, if you want to count the entire Saturn series, then you have 32 launches with the only astronaut deaths in the program being Apollo 1, which never actually launched. Even the unmanned ones have a perfect track record.
NASA won't close. No matter how things pan out otherwise, it'll almost certainly keep it's robotic deep space missions and also do advanced aeronautics research.
And if cell phones were several times more powerful than they actually were, the head-in-the-microwave experiment would mean something.
There's no way a production car will lose traction at proper speed and proper maneovering on a road.
By definition, no car will ever over/understeer when you drive it at the proper speed, no matter the age, drive train, suspension type, tires, conditions, or whatever electronic gee-whizzery your car provides. This is not a particularly enlightening statement, since we haven't put any limits on what the "proper speed" really is. It could be 5 mph.
We would like it very much if:
This is just plain good engineering, and has been the way of things ever since live axles disappeared from all production cars for ever and ever (*ahem*). It prevents people from dieing due to simple mistakes, and makes it easier/faster/funner to use on the track.
Another source is Top Gear 01x07, where Jeremy drives the Lotus Elise. Normally, I wouldn't reference Top Gear on an issue of factual correctness, but in this case, the information is coming directly from a Lotus engineer.
During the road test, Jeremy notes some bad understeer through some corners. Then a Lotus engineer comes out and demonstrates that you can get it to oversteer with the right technique.
It's hard to make out what he's saying over the tire squeal (Top Gear's production values weren't quite as tight back then), but he does seem to say that they've done this specifically because they wanted to enlarge their market.
Back in the studio, the engineer also says you can get the front tires matched up with the back to make it stop doing that.
Right, in that case, the rear tires need traction, so they need to stop spinning so much. The better AWD systems can shift power to the front, but a pure RWD will need to let off, countersteer, then smoothly get back on.
There's no regular road driving conditions that would make any car in the market for the last 40 years to either under or oversteer, so your argument is moot.
Then you've never driven on ice.
"Not surprisingly, manufacturers tend to setup cars from the factory in ways that tend to make it understeer, such as putting on oversized tires in back."
I think that's the literally the stupidest thing I read in years.
It is stupid, but true.
It's the correct solution in general, though the specifics will change. Of course, you can't think through all the engineering details of what's going on while you sit there. It has to be done intuitively.
As a rule, oversteer is the result of insufficient speed through a turn, so the solution is more throttle.
FWD may correct oversteer just using throttle. RWD will often need countersteer in addition to throttle. If your car has enough torque and you can hit it just right, a RWD car can even sustain oversteer into a drift. Theoretically, it can keep going until your tires or gas run down.