try fasting for a week, then see how bad it tastes. some people do this regularly, its called being poor. do i choose to eat Taco Bell, not often. some would never have gotten ANY exposure to i, Robot or LOTR if it werent for the movies, again using that tool called intelligence one can be moved to say, "eh, the movie was ok, it was a good concept i wonder what the original story was here" and then read the book. thats what i did. i had never read i robot nor LOTR before seeing the movie, but the movies made me _want_ to read the books where before i had little interest in Tolkiens quirky language nor Asimovs dry, emotionless writing.
perhaps that makes all the difference that i saw the movies first (and i'm ok with admitting that) perhaps i'm truly open minded to others opinions. whatever the case i find the juxtaposition of copyright freedoms vs. fanboy prejudice quite ironic on this site, and i'm not talkin Alanis style neither
how does that indicate that nobody else should? again, had he not wanted any derivative works to be created he likely would have stipulated this in his will. from what little i know of Asimov he didnt seem too self righteous or self obsessed to think this way. really the question of authors intent requires that you look at the author, not what you would do if you were the author. in this case i feel that Asimov really lacked the pretentious quality for this type of caluse in his will.
i suppose it would be different if they were publishing it AS Issac Asimov, that would be disrespecting the life of a dead man, using his name and position to convey your own thoughts. using a title of a book as a way to honor the guy aint so bad. i really doubt the author of the new books is rubbing his hands together over a cauldron laughing maniacally over how he will destroy Asimovs creations.
maybe he was just out of ideas for robots, ever think of that one? i mean hell even Da Vinci didnt think of _everything_ sure Asimov had intentions, but had he intended that nobody use his works for anything he would have stated that in his will, respected or otherwise his posthumous were never clearly stated. for anyone to surmise those intentions based on hop-scotch logic seems to me like bending your own thoughts to fit the facts. reminds me of Colbert Logic (tm)
FWIW i choose to use my intelligence when considering an adaptive work of any sort, be it a movie based on a book or a book based on a book.
its like this: if i'm from Brooklyn and go to Pizza Hut i'd be a FOOL for expecting the pizza to taste the way it does at home, if i'm from Texas and go into Taco Bell expecting tex-mex i should be shot for stupidity, so why then would any reasonable person go see a movie adapted from a book and expect it to be faithful to their own imagination or even the original authors storyline? Taco Bell isnt bad food, as long as you take it for what it is neither is Pizza Hut. Personally i enjoyed both the Asimov stories as well as the iRobot movie, but i just know what to expect from each.
also, i dont see anyone roasting Timothy Zahn for his star wars novels. personally i think many of those are better than Return of the Jedi, and definitly better than Lucases last three 'epics' if thats anything to go on, i'm glad Asimov never wrote another robot book, it could haev been worse than Danielle Steele
i was thinking that an aluminum or titanium "drum" would probably be sufficient if it were reinforced properly along its vertical axis. 600G or 1600G is really not all that much. compared to what people can withstand, sure, but for a container... not really.
the point of the crash test is not to determine which car would last 50 years, its obvious that a unibody car wont likely last, but the point is to show how much safer the new cars are tahn the old ones.
i disagree that a head on collision would benifet the bel-air. the frame has already failed in this test and as you can see there is already engine to engine contact, in wich the malibus motor doesnt move significantly. the motor mounts in the malibu are obviously much stronger and rather than getting 'pole-axed' the engine would not abosrb the energy but become a projectile into the passenger compartment.
you people really chap my ass. its ONE damn car. we're not talking about a Deusenberg for Gods sake, its a Chevy. i'm a car enthusiast and i think its GREAT that they demolished this thing. sure i love classic cars, and i've worked on restoring some _very_ rare ones. i'm about ready to slip into a tirade about how SEMA lobbied to have the C4C program limit cars to a certain year because they didn't want 'classics' getting junked. how stupid is that? if its a 'classic' car its worth more than the C4C program would have offered, instead people turned in perfectly decent cars that had a ton of usable life left, cars that perhaps _would have been_ classics if there weren't siliconed to death. if you were a classic car enthusiast you'd be thankful for this video; because you know what, they dont build em like they used to and i'm damn glad for that.
the reason newer cars are heavier isint because of the materials they're made of. compare the weight of a fender from a 1930's anything to a modern car, it weighs significantly more. the reason modern cars tend to weigh so much is because the ammount of crap (read: technology) we put in them. ABS, Climate control, power windows power locks power seats, heated seats, power mirrors, satellite navigation, surround sound system, airbags, traction control, etc etc etc etc. the list of crap we have these days that didnt exist back in 1959 is very long. all that crap takes weight, its not just the computers that run it but there are mechanical bits too. theres been extensive leaps and bounds in weight saving materials, such as aluminum heads and engine blocks, thinner glass, thinner sheet metal, fiberglass, unibody construction and so on. a modern vehicle of a given market segment gets substantially better fuel mileage than the one of yester-year. also better design has allowed for more usable interior space. most vehicles today do not HAVE a frame rather a unibody composite structure where the body panels are reinforced and connected with other panels eliminating the need for a frame. many trucks still use body on frame construction for its towing advantages and higher gross vehicle weight limits, but it is a much heavier approach.
having worked with RoHS boards myself i can attest to this. Additionally the paste tends to be more difficult to work with, the formulations i've used dry out faster and when producing large batches of product you can end up with cake-y paste that doesn't adhere well to the contact pads on the boards when they're applied via stencil. Also Different formulations of RoHS paste tend to reflow differently requiring a different temperature model. I can see it would be very easy for there to be consistency issues.
BGAs (the aforementioned Ball Grid Arrays in the GP) are definitely more finicky than your typical IC, the smaller contact area requires a better pass when being stenciled fresh paste is definitely a must for BGAs. i do find it surprising though to see this leve of failure with the Xbox and the Play Station. in the time that i spent making PCBs we had some very sophisticated tools to verify paste volume on each pad before reflowing to curtail these issues (especially with BGAs) so that the board could be wiped and re-printed. we used x-ray after the boards were reflowed and washed to ensure the joints were solid, and then there was electronic testing as well. and we were a fairly small operation that did mostly prototype stuff in small batches, not one of these large producers.
naaah, FarCry still looks good and it has a broad system support spec. i think a large chunk of the industry is still at that stage. its not bleeding edge but good gameplay doesnt require that. lets face it, a good game written on CryEngine1 would probably do just as well as one written for CryEngine2.
who cares? WMDs are not a valid excuse for war. the US has WMDs and only the US has ever been stupid enough to use nuclear weapons in war. pretty much every first world country has some sort of weapon that could be classified as a WMD. saber rattling is nothing new, the Soviets and the US provoked each other for decades without a single bullet being fired. the excuses laid out for the war in Iraq were arbitrary.
note that the story doesn't state that they HAVE a gun, but rather, that they motioned in a manner that indicates they did. chances are that they did not have a gun, security guards are trained to CYOA first, they will seek safety in the presence of presumed lethal force, this guard appears to have done just that. my guess is he ran to the back office where the panic button is.
why not, its worked for EAs madden franchise since 1989. you feed people bullshit long enough and they start to like it, not because its bullshit but because its all they can remember eating, to them its food.
this reminds me of the childrens books with the sound buttons for farm animals. it looks fairly tacky, not the way i'd imagine. its does not appear to be flexible, it looks like an lcd that got slipped into a folded piece of paper with a window cut out on one side. i'm not saying i could necessarily do a _better_ job, but i think i could do at least as good a job with a cell phone screen and construction paper
an EA employee claimed that the failure rate of Xbox 360 consoles at his studio was in the range of 30 to 50 percent, although MS denied this account. And more recently, we heard from another video game studio (that wished to remain anonymous) claiming that out of about 200 Xbox 360s, roughly 35 percent had died.
in Sept 2008. Game Daily reported that a journalist and author, Dean Takahashi, was reporting failure rates as high as 68%
Incredibly, 68 out of every 100 Xbox 360s made by Microsoft's Chinese manufacturing partners were not working properly. Even more unbelievable is that when the first batch of the console's three-core CPUs was produced, a woeful 16 percent were functional.
just to clear up some misinformation. the new PS3 _slim_ will lack the linux support. As i understand it the regular (big shiny) PS3 will still have this feature.
Slashdot Mirror
try fasting for a week, then see how bad it tastes. some people do this regularly, its called being poor. do i choose to eat Taco Bell, not often. some would never have gotten ANY exposure to i, Robot or LOTR if it werent for the movies, again using that tool called intelligence one can be moved to say, "eh, the movie was ok, it was a good concept i wonder what the original story was here" and then read the book. thats what i did. i had never read i robot nor LOTR before seeing the movie, but the movies made me _want_ to read the books where before i had little interest in Tolkiens quirky language nor Asimovs dry, emotionless writing.
perhaps that makes all the difference that i saw the movies first (and i'm ok with admitting that) perhaps i'm truly open minded to others opinions. whatever the case i find the juxtaposition of copyright freedoms vs. fanboy prejudice quite ironic on this site, and i'm not talkin Alanis style neither
he chose not to, so?
how does that indicate that nobody else should? again, had he not wanted any derivative works to be created he likely would have stipulated this in his will. from what little i know of Asimov he didnt seem too self righteous or self obsessed to think this way. really the question of authors intent requires that you look at the author, not what you would do if you were the author. in this case i feel that Asimov really lacked the pretentious quality for this type of caluse in his will.
i suppose it would be different if they were publishing it AS Issac Asimov, that would be disrespecting the life of a dead man, using his name and position to convey your own thoughts. using a title of a book as a way to honor the guy aint so bad. i really doubt the author of the new books is rubbing his hands together over a cauldron laughing maniacally over how he will destroy Asimovs creations.
Hey, I know money makes the world go round. But can we at least spin it with a little dignity?
No... or at least there has never been a point in human history where that has been the case.
maybe he was just out of ideas for robots, ever think of that one? i mean hell even Da Vinci didnt think of _everything_ sure Asimov had intentions, but had he intended that nobody use his works for anything he would have stated that in his will, respected or otherwise his posthumous were never clearly stated. for anyone to surmise those intentions based on hop-scotch logic seems to me like bending your own thoughts to fit the facts. reminds me of Colbert Logic (tm)
FWIW i choose to use my intelligence when considering an adaptive work of any sort, be it a movie based on a book or a book based on a book.
its like this: if i'm from Brooklyn and go to Pizza Hut i'd be a FOOL for expecting the pizza to taste the way it does at home, if i'm from Texas and go into Taco Bell expecting tex-mex i should be shot for stupidity, so why then would any reasonable person go see a movie adapted from a book and expect it to be faithful to their own imagination or even the original authors storyline? Taco Bell isnt bad food, as long as you take it for what it is neither is Pizza Hut. Personally i enjoyed both the Asimov stories as well as the iRobot movie, but i just know what to expect from each.
also, i dont see anyone roasting Timothy Zahn for his star wars novels. personally i think many of those are better than Return of the Jedi, and definitly better than Lucases last three 'epics' if thats anything to go on, i'm glad Asimov never wrote another robot book, it could haev been worse than Danielle Steele
i was thinking that an aluminum or titanium "drum" would probably be sufficient if it were reinforced properly along its vertical axis. 600G or 1600G is really not all that much. compared to what people can withstand, sure, but for a container... not really.
probably but you just dont know. look at the edsel.
the IIHS wasnt around in 1958 2009 is their 50 year anniversary. need a calculator?
the point of the crash test is not to determine which car would last 50 years, its obvious that a unibody car wont likely last, but the point is to show how much safer the new cars are tahn the old ones.
i disagree that a head on collision would benifet the bel-air. the frame has already failed in this test and as you can see there is already engine to engine contact, in wich the malibus motor doesnt move significantly. the motor mounts in the malibu are obviously much stronger and rather than getting 'pole-axed' the engine would not abosrb the energy but become a projectile into the passenger compartment.
the idea was to compare 50 years of the IIHS 1959 to 2009... a 58 woulda defeated the purpose.
you people really chap my ass. its ONE damn car. we're not talking about a Deusenberg for Gods sake, its a Chevy. i'm a car enthusiast and i think its GREAT that they demolished this thing. sure i love classic cars, and i've worked on restoring some _very_ rare ones. i'm about ready to slip into a tirade about how SEMA lobbied to have the C4C program limit cars to a certain year because they didn't want 'classics' getting junked. how stupid is that? if its a 'classic' car its worth more than the C4C program would have offered, instead people turned in perfectly decent cars that had a ton of usable life left, cars that perhaps _would have been_ classics if there weren't siliconed to death. if you were a classic car enthusiast you'd be thankful for this video; because you know what, they dont build em like they used to and i'm damn glad for that.
the reason newer cars are heavier isint because of the materials they're made of. compare the weight of a fender from a 1930's anything to a modern car, it weighs significantly more. the reason modern cars tend to weigh so much is because the ammount of crap (read: technology) we put in them. ABS, Climate control, power windows power locks power seats, heated seats, power mirrors, satellite navigation, surround sound system, airbags, traction control, etc etc etc etc. the list of crap we have these days that didnt exist back in 1959 is very long. all that crap takes weight, its not just the computers that run it but there are mechanical bits too. theres been extensive leaps and bounds in weight saving materials, such as aluminum heads and engine blocks, thinner glass, thinner sheet metal, fiberglass, unibody construction and so on. a modern vehicle of a given market segment gets substantially better fuel mileage than the one of yester-year. also better design has allowed for more usable interior space. most vehicles today do not HAVE a frame rather a unibody composite structure where the body panels are reinforced and connected with other panels eliminating the need for a frame. many trucks still use body on frame construction for its towing advantages and higher gross vehicle weight limits, but it is a much heavier approach.
Gentlemen! you cant fight in here, this is the War Room!
having worked with RoHS boards myself i can attest to this. Additionally the paste tends to be more difficult to work with, the formulations i've used dry out faster and when producing large batches of product you can end up with cake-y paste that doesn't adhere well to the contact pads on the boards when they're applied via stencil. Also Different formulations of RoHS paste tend to reflow differently requiring a different temperature model. I can see it would be very easy for there to be consistency issues.
BGAs (the aforementioned Ball Grid Arrays in the GP) are definitely more finicky than your typical IC, the smaller contact area requires a better pass when being stenciled fresh paste is definitely a must for BGAs. i do find it surprising though to see this leve of failure with the Xbox and the Play Station. in the time that i spent making PCBs we had some very sophisticated tools to verify paste volume on each pad before reflowing to curtail these issues (especially with BGAs) so that the board could be wiped and re-printed. we used x-ray after the boards were reflowed and washed to ensure the joints were solid, and then there was electronic testing as well. and we were a fairly small operation that did mostly prototype stuff in small batches, not one of these large producers.
naaah, FarCry still looks good and it has a broad system support spec. i think a large chunk of the industry is still at that stage. its not bleeding edge but good gameplay doesnt require that. lets face it, a good game written on CryEngine1 would probably do just as well as one written for CryEngine2.
My point is, the treat of a gun will probably be treated as a gun even if there was not one present.
wow you must have gotten the best gifts as a child... or the worst beatings.
who cares? WMDs are not a valid excuse for war. the US has WMDs and only the US has ever been stupid enough to use nuclear weapons in war. pretty much every first world country has some sort of weapon that could be classified as a WMD. saber rattling is nothing new, the Soviets and the US provoked each other for decades without a single bullet being fired. the excuses laid out for the war in Iraq were arbitrary.
note that the story doesn't state that they HAVE a gun, but rather, that they motioned in a manner that indicates they did. chances are that they did not have a gun, security guards are trained to CYOA first, they will seek safety in the presence of presumed lethal force, this guard appears to have done just that. my guess is he ran to the back office where the panic button is.
why not, its worked for EAs madden franchise since 1989. you feed people bullshit long enough and they start to like it, not because its bullshit but because its all they can remember eating, to them its food.
marketeer? is that like a mouseketeer?
color me pedantic, but technically that's three words:
three dimensional chips.
just sayin.
this reminds me of the childrens books with the sound buttons for farm animals. it looks fairly tacky, not the way i'd imagine. its does not appear to be flexible, it looks like an lcd that got slipped into a folded piece of paper with a window cut out on one side. i'm not saying i could necessarily do a _better_ job, but i think i could do at least as good a job with a cell phone screen and construction paper
seriously?
lets look back in time, shall we?
in 2006. from EA. they claimed their design studio saw failure rates of 30-50%
http://www.gamedaily.com/articles/features/microsoft-admits-to-higher-failure-rate-with-x360-launch-units/69469/?biz=1
an EA employee claimed that the failure rate of Xbox 360 consoles at his studio was in the range of 30 to 50 percent, although MS denied this account. And more recently, we heard from another video game studio (that wished to remain anonymous) claiming that out of about 200 Xbox 360s, roughly 35 percent had died.
in Sept 2008. Game Daily reported that a journalist and author, Dean Takahashi, was reporting failure rates as high as 68%
http://www.gamedaily.com/articles/news/report-xbox-360-failure-rate-was-as-high-as-68/?biz=1
Incredibly, 68 out of every 100 Xbox 360s made by Microsoft's Chinese manufacturing partners were not working properly. Even more unbelievable is that when the first batch of the console's three-core CPUs was produced, a woeful 16 percent were functional.
it was in local news.... _LOCAL NEWS_ in the NYC metro area in 2007... thats 2 full years ago
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/13/technology/13iht-13halo.7093255.html
just to clear up some misinformation. the new PS3 _slim_ will lack the linux support. As i understand it the regular (big shiny) PS3 will still have this feature.