No, an Allison B300R has a transmission retard...er. Really awesome for doing hills in a bus. Takes about a gallon of fluid. We have one in front of a Cummins ISC (it's in a rear-engined chassis.) An EV has a gear reduction box, unless it's an unupdated Tesla Roadster. That's different from a transmission.
EVs don't have engines, radiators, exhaust systems, or transmissions,
They do have radiators, because they have cooling systems. Unless they're a Leaf, which sucks. But the new Leaf will have a cooling system, so it will suck less. It also lets you use waste heat to heat the cabin, which makes it cheaper to operate during periods where the weather is cold, and the battery is producing heat. Also, there are benefits to cooling not just the battery, but also the motor and even the motor driver, so they can potentially have a more complex cooling system than a basic ICE auto. The Model 3 has a coolant bottle under the hood with a liquid to liquid heat exchanger built into it!
With that said, there's a shitload of parts in the engine and in most transmissions, and getting rid of those is a massive win.
The Model 3 uses a lot of custom hardware instead of off-the-shelf parts, for example in the drivetrain. They thought it was essential to making a good, efficient EV, and to be fair it is still a market leader. But the competition is more than good enough, and crucially a lot cheaper.
Their new motor is better than everyone else's, and not much more expensive. The only major physical difference in construction between it and everyone else's designs is that it uses [constructed] monopolar magnets. Have they given away the patents on that yet?
Anything you can get into that can do DMA can get into the system if they misuse the IOMMU, but if they get that right, the wireless chip seems to be of little value. But maybe you could make it claim to be some other peripheral...
Nah, pod racing sounded awesome and produced a pretty fun video game (it was impressive on the N64, if not the PC.) Everything else was garbage, though. What percentage of the series was the pod race, and what percentage of the pod race do we have to subtract for child "acting"?
I can't think of any other fantasy movies that have gotten away with forgoing any coherent description of the universe or world that the story happens in.
I can't either, unless you include animated films. Then, it's most of them. The tendency is especially prevalent in anime, where it's actively unusual to explain the back story before just pitching right in. Perhaps that tradition stems from presumed familiarity with characters from manga, but it seems like there's usually no back story given. It's just sink or swim, which is something that I find entertaining.
Open source means more than just being able to see the source code.
It doesn't, either. The first commercial use of the term was under a license that basically didn't let you do anything but file better bug reports (you certainly couldn't build your own OpenDOS and use it) and the original meaning of the term among nerds was "you can get the sources". A lot of the original OSS didn't even have a license attached, we just traded it. Licensing came later. All that is why we needed (and have) the GPL.
STORY. Star Wars in the 1970s had a fantastic story arch. The current batch of Star Wars movie (sans Rogue One, and Solo) have had no heart and soul.
Yep, the last good SW story told was in KOTOR. Solo wasn't a horrible movie, though, which is an improvement over the other recent films (or really, everything since Episode VI.)
I didn't bother with Solo. Partly because of TLJ. But also partly because I had just seen a Star Wars movie and there was no anticipation or build up to wait for it.
Well, you can stream Solo now, and I can tell you that it's a drastically better movie than TLJ. I couldn't finish TLJ even by gaming while it was on, but I sat and actually watched Solo. I couldn't finish Episode IX either. I was so disgusted by the battle scene that I walked away. I don't go to theaters any more (just got tired of the whole hassle and expense, and I make better popcorn than they do) and the last SW movie I saw in the theater was probably TPM, which was definitely the right way to see that stinker (for the pod race.)
Solo was no Episode IV or V but it was easily of the same quality as VI, and IMO, far more enjoyable than literally any of the other films.
I think Star Wars was a product of its time, and what made it great was the lack of competition. These days, eye-popping special effects are a dime a dozen, and audiences are used to aliens and blasters. It had nowhere to go but down.
It definitely can't help that the Star Wars video games are there to sell microtransactions these days, either. Over half the American public plays video games, don't tell me it doesn't matter.
No, it's because human thinking is so random and individuated it us quite literally impossible to replicate.
You don't have to replicate it in detail, and in fact that would often be counterproductive. The purpose of having an algorithm is to make a decision. Humans tend to integrate all sorts of unrelated nonsense into their decision-making processes, algorithms only account for what they're programmed to account for. Misusing them leads to making bad decisions, but it's still not necessarily the algorithm's fault. A bad algorithm will never produce useful data (because if it works, it's by coincidence) but you can easily misuse the data from a good algorithm (which does what it says on the tin.)
Why is not having Google there to provide info better than having them there?
It isn't. Google should stay in China. It is better them to be there and be engaged.
If Google were a humanitarian organization, you'd be absolutely correct. But Google is a corporation whose entire reason for existence is collecting information about people, and making money with it. They also seem to be very good at that. If they stay in China, they will only help make China better at that, except China doesn't just want to make money with it. They want to target people for abuse. By staying, Google will only be assisting with abuse. It will not make the world a better place. It will in fact make it worse faster.
The definition that stuck with me from childhood is that they had to make some decisions for themselves. Therefore your car is robotic. You give it some minimal inputs that let it know what you want, but it decides how to best achieve what you're asking for.
Of course, that definition is slightly problematic when it comes to CNC. If a CNC machine has no feedback and it just controls the stepper motors in response to G-code, is it really making decisions, or is it just following instructions? Does that make an xyz plotter type CNC not a robot, but a delta type one because it decides how to get xyz from three Zs?
I read the article. It doesn't explain what I actually needed to know. See, there has been a lot of speculation as to how reliable our estimates of the ages of craters on the moon have actually been. What TFA doesn't mention is that these findings are the result of "using a new method to date craters on the moon". The Guardian simply didn't bother to explain how they actually figured this out. As usual on Slashdot, we get the worst possible link attached to the story.
You seem to overlook that these get more and more specialized and lose general applicability.
Nothing is lost, because all the other kinds of hammers still exist. And we're still inventing new hammers all the time, even for hand use, but mostly for power hammers. The last truly new kind of hammer I can think of having been invented was the plastic dead-blow hammer, but I'm not a hammer expert.
science, n. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
belief, n. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.
conviction, n. the act of convincing a person by argument or evidence.
Now, there are other definitions in the dictionary for these words, but the lovely thing about words is that they can have multiple meanings which are all valid depending on context. You can have a belief founded in faith, or you can have a belief founded in fact. They're both beliefs. Learn how the dictionary works before you decide to tell us what words mean. Maybe even consult one.
This arbitration shit has to stop, and it certainly can't be allowed to supersede applicable laws. Sorry, I'm not subject to the laws of the Netherlands, and your arbitration is bullshit designed to ensure you can just do what you like with no recourse.
Don't worry, contracts cannot supersede the law. If your law says you always have the right to go to court, then you do, whether the contract says that you have to go to arbitration or not. A court may look unfavorably on you if you do not at least attempt to solve your problem first through arbitration, but in theory they will still apply the law.
What would be nice, though, would be to make it illegal to pen a contract which contradicts the law. That is effectively the case sometimes. For example New Jersey law apparently prohibits a contract stating that local laws may apply. (I don't know what you're supposed to say instead, probably they only require more detailed verbiage.) And if you do, then you can be liable for $300 per instance if there are any actual damages...
law in the US does not recognize a contract with someone under the age of majority... usually 18 https://law.freeadvice.com/gen...
I note your citation itself cites nothing, which makes it... worthless. But that's no surprise, because free legal advice is worth every penny spent on it.
Eh, it's not my field of expertise, but I can think of reasons quite easily. Solar does not rely on large amounts of steel and concrete.
No, it depends on aluminum and glass. Concrete is made from stuff that is dug out of the ground or off a beach. Aluminum and glass are made from stuff that is dug out of the ground or off a beach. Steel is made in a big plant, using a lot of electricity. Aluminum is made in a big plant, using a lot of electricity. Etc etc.
Perhaps solar production facilities and nuclear facilities requires similar materials, but in that case your nuke plant is up and producing power by the time your very energy-hungry solar plant starts producing its first panel.
Probably not. They take years to construct, and before that, even more years to get approval.
Again, I'm not sure I can throw my support behind TFA, but the arguments seem sound. We aren't currently building enough solar and wind.
"I don't think creating a job that requires back breaking work in bone chilling cold or soul oppressing heat could be called giving a shit about humans."
Didn't I just get done saying that they don't care?
(In regards to the sibling comment, saying that corporations don't care is a perfectly acceptable figure of speech in the English language.)
"Almost every aspect of farming is back breaking work and the more that is automated, the better for everyone."
You're assuming a rational world with primarily benevolent actors. Stop that, we don't live in one of those. If the wealth is not distributed then it is provably not better for everyone if we automate their jobs away. Only in a fantasy world is everyone better off if we automate their jobs. Maybe that will eventually be the case, but the wealthy are not going to give up their avarice (Google autocorrected avarice to "Snapple" REPEATABLY on this Nexus 7 2nd, wtf is that about?) without a battle.
Slashdot Mirror
Is it better? It doesn't seem to be any more efficient than the Kia/Hyundai ones.
It's smaller for a given output, and it should be slightly more efficient based on its basic design.
An EV still has a transmission retard.
No, an Allison B300R has a transmission retard...er. Really awesome for doing hills in a bus. Takes about a gallon of fluid. We have one in front of a Cummins ISC (it's in a rear-engined chassis.) An EV has a gear reduction box, unless it's an unupdated Tesla Roadster. That's different from a transmission.
EVs don't have engines, radiators, exhaust systems, or transmissions,
They do have radiators, because they have cooling systems. Unless they're a Leaf, which sucks. But the new Leaf will have a cooling system, so it will suck less. It also lets you use waste heat to heat the cabin, which makes it cheaper to operate during periods where the weather is cold, and the battery is producing heat. Also, there are benefits to cooling not just the battery, but also the motor and even the motor driver, so they can potentially have a more complex cooling system than a basic ICE auto. The Model 3 has a coolant bottle under the hood with a liquid to liquid heat exchanger built into it!
With that said, there's a shitload of parts in the engine and in most transmissions, and getting rid of those is a massive win.
The Model 3 uses a lot of custom hardware instead of off-the-shelf parts, for example in the drivetrain. They thought it was essential to making a good, efficient EV, and to be fair it is still a market leader. But the competition is more than good enough, and crucially a lot cheaper.
Their new motor is better than everyone else's, and not much more expensive. The only major physical difference in construction between it and everyone else's designs is that it uses [constructed] monopolar magnets. Have they given away the patents on that yet?
Anything you can get into that can do DMA can get into the system if they misuse the IOMMU, but if they get that right, the wireless chip seems to be of little value. But maybe you could make it claim to be some other peripheral...
The prequels were 100% garbage.
Nah, pod racing sounded awesome and produced a pretty fun video game (it was impressive on the N64, if not the PC.) Everything else was garbage, though. What percentage of the series was the pod race, and what percentage of the pod race do we have to subtract for child "acting"?
I can't think of any other fantasy movies that have gotten away with forgoing any coherent description of the universe or world that the story happens in.
I can't either, unless you include animated films. Then, it's most of them. The tendency is especially prevalent in anime, where it's actively unusual to explain the back story before just pitching right in. Perhaps that tradition stems from presumed familiarity with characters from manga, but it seems like there's usually no back story given. It's just sink or swim, which is something that I find entertaining.
I try but I can't get past the atmosphere having zero oxygen and being at a temperature of many hundreds of degrees.
That's where I stopped watching.
Open source means more than just being able to see the source code.
It doesn't, either. The first commercial use of the term was under a license that basically didn't let you do anything but file better bug reports (you certainly couldn't build your own OpenDOS and use it) and the original meaning of the term among nerds was "you can get the sources". A lot of the original OSS didn't even have a license attached, we just traded it. Licensing came later. All that is why we needed (and have) the GPL.
1. Embrace
2. Extend
3. Extinguish
Wait, what was the question again?
That scene was possibly the worst scene I have seen in any movie, ever.
Finally, something we agree on. How do you feel about the lava battle in Episode III?
STORY. Star Wars in the 1970s had a fantastic story arch. The current batch of Star Wars movie (sans Rogue One, and Solo) have had no heart and soul.
Yep, the last good SW story told was in KOTOR. Solo wasn't a horrible movie, though, which is an improvement over the other recent films (or really, everything since Episode VI.)
Episode IX is not for another 11 months, so maybe the fact that it's not finished kept you from wanting to watch more.
VIII then. I skipped VII...
I didn't bother with Solo. Partly because of TLJ. But also partly because I had just seen a Star Wars movie and there was no anticipation or build up to wait for it.
Well, you can stream Solo now, and I can tell you that it's a drastically better movie than TLJ. I couldn't finish TLJ even by gaming while it was on, but I sat and actually watched Solo. I couldn't finish Episode IX either. I was so disgusted by the battle scene that I walked away. I don't go to theaters any more (just got tired of the whole hassle and expense, and I make better popcorn than they do) and the last SW movie I saw in the theater was probably TPM, which was definitely the right way to see that stinker (for the pod race.)
Solo was no Episode IV or V but it was easily of the same quality as VI, and IMO, far more enjoyable than literally any of the other films.
I think Star Wars was a product of its time, and what made it great was the lack of competition. These days, eye-popping special effects are a dime a dozen, and audiences are used to aliens and blasters. It had nowhere to go but down.
It definitely can't help that the Star Wars video games are there to sell microtransactions these days, either. Over half the American public plays video games, don't tell me it doesn't matter.
No, it's because human thinking is so random and individuated it us quite literally impossible to replicate.
You don't have to replicate it in detail, and in fact that would often be counterproductive. The purpose of having an algorithm is to make a decision. Humans tend to integrate all sorts of unrelated nonsense into their decision-making processes, algorithms only account for what they're programmed to account for. Misusing them leads to making bad decisions, but it's still not necessarily the algorithm's fault. A bad algorithm will never produce useful data (because if it works, it's by coincidence) but you can easily misuse the data from a good algorithm (which does what it says on the tin.)
Why is not having Google there to provide info better than having them there?
It isn't. Google should stay in China. It is better them to be there and be engaged.
If Google were a humanitarian organization, you'd be absolutely correct. But Google is a corporation whose entire reason for existence is collecting information about people, and making money with it. They also seem to be very good at that. If they stay in China, they will only help make China better at that, except China doesn't just want to make money with it. They want to target people for abuse. By staying, Google will only be assisting with abuse. It will not make the world a better place. It will in fact make it worse faster.
Aren't robots supposed to be autonomous?
The definition that stuck with me from childhood is that they had to make some decisions for themselves. Therefore your car is robotic. You give it some minimal inputs that let it know what you want, but it decides how to best achieve what you're asking for.
Of course, that definition is slightly problematic when it comes to CNC. If a CNC machine has no feedback and it just controls the stepper motors in response to G-code, is it really making decisions, or is it just following instructions? Does that make an xyz plotter type CNC not a robot, but a delta type one because it decides how to get xyz from three Zs?
Or maybe you should read the article.
I read the article. It doesn't explain what I actually needed to know. See, there has been a lot of speculation as to how reliable our estimates of the ages of craters on the moon have actually been. What TFA doesn't mention is that these findings are the result of "using a new method to date craters on the moon". The Guardian simply didn't bother to explain how they actually figured this out. As usual on Slashdot, we get the worst possible link attached to the story.
You seem to overlook that these get more and more specialized and lose general applicability.
Nothing is lost, because all the other kinds of hammers still exist. And we're still inventing new hammers all the time, even for hand use, but mostly for power hammers. The last truly new kind of hammer I can think of having been invented was the plastic dead-blow hammer, but I'm not a hammer expert.
The opposite of science is believe.
No, that's a total falsehood.
Now, there are other definitions in the dictionary for these words, but the lovely thing about words is that they can have multiple meanings which are all valid depending on context. You can have a belief founded in faith, or you can have a belief founded in fact. They're both beliefs. Learn how the dictionary works before you decide to tell us what words mean. Maybe even consult one.
This arbitration shit has to stop, and it certainly can't be allowed to supersede applicable laws. Sorry, I'm not subject to the laws of the Netherlands, and your arbitration is bullshit designed to ensure you can just do what you like with no recourse.
Don't worry, contracts cannot supersede the law. If your law says you always have the right to go to court, then you do, whether the contract says that you have to go to arbitration or not. A court may look unfavorably on you if you do not at least attempt to solve your problem first through arbitration, but in theory they will still apply the law.
What would be nice, though, would be to make it illegal to pen a contract which contradicts the law. That is effectively the case sometimes. For example New Jersey law apparently prohibits a contract stating that local laws may apply. (I don't know what you're supposed to say instead, probably they only require more detailed verbiage.) And if you do, then you can be liable for $300 per instance if there are any actual damages...
law in the US does not recognize a contract with someone under the age of majority... usually 18
https://law.freeadvice.com/gen...
I note your citation itself cites nothing, which makes it... worthless. But that's no surprise, because free legal advice is worth every penny spent on it.
Eh, it's not my field of expertise, but I can think of reasons quite easily. Solar does not rely on large amounts of steel and concrete.
No, it depends on aluminum and glass. Concrete is made from stuff that is dug out of the ground or off a beach. Aluminum and glass are made from stuff that is dug out of the ground or off a beach. Steel is made in a big plant, using a lot of electricity. Aluminum is made in a big plant, using a lot of electricity. Etc etc.
Perhaps solar production facilities and nuclear facilities requires similar materials, but in that case your nuke plant is up and producing power by the time your very energy-hungry solar plant starts producing its first panel.
Probably not. They take years to construct, and before that, even more years to get approval.
Again, I'm not sure I can throw my support behind TFA, but the arguments seem sound. We aren't currently building enough solar and wind.
aren't != can't
"I don't think creating a job that requires back breaking work in bone chilling cold or soul oppressing heat could be called giving a shit about humans."
Didn't I just get done saying that they don't care?
(In regards to the sibling comment, saying that corporations don't care is a perfectly acceptable figure of speech in the English language.)
"Almost every aspect of farming is back breaking work and the more that is automated, the better for everyone."
You're assuming a rational world with primarily benevolent actors. Stop that, we don't live in one of those. If the wealth is not distributed then it is provably not better for everyone if we automate their jobs away. Only in a fantasy world is everyone better off if we automate their jobs. Maybe that will eventually be the case, but the wealthy are not going to give up their avarice (Google autocorrected avarice to "Snapple" REPEATABLY on this Nexus 7 2nd, wtf is that about?) without a battle.