You realize that the only reliable way to generate an EMP is with a nuclear weapon right?
You watch too many movies.
A person can back-load an old portable generator into a transformer and create an EMP that will theoretically immobilize all electronics within a 3-block radius.
For more directed attacks, you can find plans for HERF (High Energy, Radio Frequency) guns all over the internet, and build one out of a microwave oven.
I've learned from the news that cars are dangerous!
No, you learned that idiots with tools can be a danger to other people.
I'd think that's something we all should have learned a long, long time ago.
Side note: The good news for your buddy is, parts for those old bugs are a dime a dozen. And, worst come to worst, he could always turn it into a Baja Bug!
It was said that a failure in the steering fluid may have contributed to the crash.
Was it said to whomever made that statement that they're stupid and shouldn't talk about shit they obviously no nothing about? Because in almost 30 years of building, fixing, driving, and racing cars of all makes, models, and types, I have never seen anyone crash because of "a failure in the steering fluid."
Especially in a modern car, since they tend to have fail-safe mechanisms on the steering and braking systems.
It should be pretty easy to tell: the difference between MR (Mid-engine, Rear-wheel-drive) and RR (Rear-engine, Rear-wheel-drive) is whether the engine is before or after the rear axle. If it's in front (such as with a Ferrari or De Tomaso Pantera), MR; if behind (like in old VW Bugs and Chenowth dune buggies), RR.
As for the S660, from what I can see in the pictures from this article, I'm guessing it's MR, considering how close to the valance the rear wheels are. Unless the engine is itty, there's no way you're sticking it behind that axle.
I've thought about it, I've read books about racing and traction and most important I've used it sucessfully on a race track.
You can read all the books in the world, and tell every anecdote ever, but neither of those things makes you right and the laws of physics wrong.
Why are all four wheels sliding? The answer is because they aren't getting traction.
Wrong again. If they weren't getting traction you would be off the road. The traction is being split between forward and lateral forces. Using it all for lateral traction (cornering) means you aren't using all you can for forward traction. Think vector forces. The more the back end swings out and is still being powered that directional force is towards the center of the corner thereby increasing the corning force.
That's just silly - a tire spinning wildly on top of the pavement in no way gets the same or better traction than one that is not slipping. "Vector forces" be damned, that's just not how physics works, dude. Not to mention, any positive gain made by swinging the back end out is lost the second you need to swing it back in straight after the bend.
Watch closely next time you see formula 1 cars racing. Every car drifts almost every corner. The drift isn't very obvious on the fast corners but is quite noticeable on the slower, sharp corners.
You should either read more or less racing books, because you're confused.
F1 cars are notoriously unstable at low speeds; it's a consequence of how they're made, and the special slicks they use. Just a gnat's hair too much throttle at low speed and you're looking at your own ass end.
Go watch Top Gear (U.K.) Series 10, Episode 8 if you actually want to understand. There's a great segment where Hammond drives (well, tries to drive) an F1 car, and you can see just what I mean about the lack of traction at low speed.
So yea, they "drift" every low-speed corner, but not by choice, and definitely not for any speed advantage.
When you are steering using just that right touch on the throttle it's a thrill like no other. And you get to pass all those other amatures who haven't figured it out yet.
Yea, and enjoy all those "amateurs" laughing their asses off as they load their still-in-one-piece cars on the trailer, while watching yours get removed from that ditch bit by bit.
Just because you haven't run afoul of Murphy yet doesn't mean you never will.
this really depends on what type of racing you are doing. In certain classes of race, it might be required to be in a controlled skid ( 4 wheel drift ) in order to line up with turn. Most likely this type of racing has a lack of down force in the car design, but I am not sure.
I'm talking more about the physics of it: if the tires are sliding across the top of the pavement, then they aren't transferring the engine's power with maximum efficiency, and thus "drifting" is not the fastest way through a corner. Were you to take the same curve in the same car, but with nice, grippy racing slicks, I guarantee you'll come out of it faster than you would if you were sliding through on all-weathers.
I worked at a shop once that had a Metro for a runner car - most days, I hated that thing.
I will say, though, it was kinda fun to jam it in second gear and hold the pedal to the floor on some of the twistier back roads around here. Not as much fun as my ol' Trans Am, but entertaining nonetheless.
No, the problem is the only qualification needed to drive one is having the money to afford it.
UInless you want to operate it on a public street, in which case you'd also need a driver's license.
Anyway, what's the problem? If I, say, owned my own private track, then why shouldn't I be able to go buy a half-million-dollar deathtrap and try and kill myself in it?
"Oh, but you could take it on a public street!"
Yea, so? If I have a driver's license and operate the vehicle in a legal manner, who the fuck are you to say what kind of cars I should or shouldn't be allowed to drive?
Hell, for that matter, I could down a fifth of scotch before getting behind the wheel of any car, but I doubt anyone would accept that as a legitimate reason to ban cars on public streets.
Face it, parent was right: The driver was, as in most fatal crashes, the reason it happened. He failed to operate the vehicle in a safe, legal manner, and killed himself and his buddy as a result.
And while skidding is fun there are better and faster ways of handing a turn.
Actually no. Sliding all four wheels through a corner, known as a four wheel drift, is the fasted way through a corner.
No it's not.
Think about it: Why are all four wheels sliding? The answer is because they aren't getting traction.
And if your tires aren't getting traction, they aren't propelling the vehicle forward at an increasing rate. At least, not as efficiently as they would if they were getting traction.
However 4-wheel drifting is fun, and pretty cool to watch.
That is incorrect. There was never a reason to ban an aid that allows a vehicle to go faster, it is racing after all, the point is to go faster.
No.
In racing the point is to win.
Case in point, there are motorsport leagues where they race Geo Metros and "classic" minivans. "Fast" doesn't even come into play, it's all about skill (and swappin' paint).
Seriously, the weight of air-con is a factor in not having it in a race car?
Yes. Like I said, every gram counts. And an air-conditioning system (Compressor, dryer, exchanger, 1/4 mile of steel tubing, etc.) is fuckin' heavy.
How about the fact it drains horsepower?
That actually less so - there are aftermarket A/C units that use an electric pump instead of a belted one, which almost completely eliminates the engine drag from using it. You see them in a lot of modernized muscle cars; Well, I do, but I spend a lot of time around them.
I also highly doubt that the weight of a stereo is a factor in not having radios in race cars,
Then you don't know very much about professional racing. Or amateur racing. Or maybe you aren't considering just how much that pile of speakers, wire, and big-ass magnets really weighs.
try more like driver focus, with a stereo blaring the driver is less focused on driver, it's a distraction that he/she doesn't need.
Not really; depending on the person and the song often times it can increase focus; I'm sure, if someone actually looked, they could probably find a study that supports this.
How many people actually do that? To be honest I haven't even heard of anybody doing that, not on XDA or other hacking forums, and they're the ones who would be most likely to.
Furthermore, WHY would they do that? What purpose does it serve?
Yea, it's pretty much unquantifiable... but a variable that does affect the result.
Which leads me back to my earlier points that A) there's not enough data in this set to reach an intelligent, factual conclusion, and B) really, what the fuck does it matter who shops with Android and who shops with iOS?
So, then, we need to put a "rights exist" guy and and "rights don't exist" guy in a cage match to the death, and whoever wins, that's how we know what's true.
*For bob's sake, please look up the word before replying with the standard Slashdot anti-animal-sentience nerd rage.
Per Wikipedia:
Sentience is the ability to feel, perceive, or to experience subjectivity.
Studies have shown that even plants are capable of communication, and in some instances have been shown to cry out when cut, as if in pain.
So, by the Wikipedia definition, plants are sentient beings as well; do you have the same protective spirit over, say, your lawn, as you're showing for the more 'breathy, bleedy' forms of sentient life?
Personally, I don't care what other think; certain animals and plants are quite tasty, and I'm going to continue killing and devouring them to my heart's content. Don't like it? Then don't accept my invite to chow. Otherwise, mind your own fucking business, please and thanks.
If you can find an actual percentage (which I doubt is even possible), feel free to post it, otherwise you're just as guilty of wild speculation as you seem to think I am.
I think you're confused as to the context of my question, so I'll re-word it:
I get why it's useful to track online purchases made from mobile devices (from a marketing stance, anyway), but why does it matter which mobile platform people use to shop online?
Really, I think that's less an OS limitation than it is a matter of website coders not considering that someone would view the site with a (non-iOS) screen smaller than 7".
Heard of webkit?
Heard of? Yes.
Know virtually nothing about because I'm not a web designer? You betcha.
I do know how to remove, tear down, rebuild, and re-install an automatic transmission in less than 2 hours. Does that help?
Slashdot Mirror
Great, now I have to go buy myself an old car with a carburetor. Of course, at this rate, soon it'll be illegal to use it...
Make sure it has a points-type ignition as well.
Would really suck to go through all that effort just to have your electronic ignition system screw you.
You realize that the only reliable way to generate an EMP is with a nuclear weapon right?
You watch too many movies.
A person can back-load an old portable generator into a transformer and create an EMP that will theoretically immobilize all electronics within a 3-block radius.
For more directed attacks, you can find plans for HERF (High Energy, Radio Frequency) guns all over the internet, and build one out of a microwave oven.
Long enough, and enough times.
However, no special licensure or racing experience is necessary to know that you're wrong.
Just a basic understanding of elementary physics.
I've learned from the news that cars are dangerous!
No, you learned that idiots with tools can be a danger to other people.
I'd think that's something we all should have learned a long, long time ago.
Side note: The good news for your buddy is, parts for those old bugs are a dime a dozen. And, worst come to worst, he could always turn it into a Baja Bug!
More Toyota Camrys are involved in fatal accidents each year, than the total number of Carrera GTs involved with fatal crashes, ever.
By your "logic," a Toyota Camry is unsafe, for a street car.
It was said that a failure in the steering fluid may have contributed to the crash.
Was it said to whomever made that statement that they're stupid and shouldn't talk about shit they obviously no nothing about? Because in almost 30 years of building, fixing, driving, and racing cars of all makes, models, and types, I have never seen anyone crash because of "a failure in the steering fluid."
Especially in a modern car, since they tend to have fail-safe mechanisms on the steering and braking systems.
Ever.
It should be pretty easy to tell: the difference between MR (Mid-engine, Rear-wheel-drive) and RR (Rear-engine, Rear-wheel-drive) is whether the engine is before or after the rear axle. If it's in front (such as with a Ferrari or De Tomaso Pantera), MR; if behind (like in old VW Bugs and Chenowth dune buggies), RR.
As for the S660, from what I can see in the pictures from this article, I'm guessing it's MR, considering how close to the valance the rear wheels are. Unless the engine is itty, there's no way you're sticking it behind that axle.
Think about it
I've thought about it, I've read books about racing and traction and most important I've used it sucessfully on a race track.
You can read all the books in the world, and tell every anecdote ever, but neither of those things makes you right and the laws of physics wrong.
Why are all four wheels sliding? The answer is because they aren't getting traction.
Wrong again. If they weren't getting traction you would be off the road. The traction is being split between forward and lateral forces. Using it all for lateral traction (cornering) means you aren't using all you can for forward traction. Think vector forces. The more the back end swings out and is still being powered that directional force is towards the center of the corner thereby increasing the corning force.
That's just silly - a tire spinning wildly on top of the pavement in no way gets the same or better traction than one that is not slipping. "Vector forces" be damned, that's just not how physics works, dude. Not to mention, any positive gain made by swinging the back end out is lost the second you need to swing it back in straight after the bend.
Watch closely next time you see formula 1 cars racing. Every car drifts almost every corner. The drift isn't very obvious on the fast corners but is quite noticeable on the slower, sharp corners.
You should either read more or less racing books, because you're confused.
F1 cars are notoriously unstable at low speeds; it's a consequence of how they're made, and the special slicks they use. Just a gnat's hair too much throttle at low speed and you're looking at your own ass end.
Go watch Top Gear (U.K.) Series 10, Episode 8 if you actually want to understand. There's a great segment where Hammond drives (well, tries to drive) an F1 car, and you can see just what I mean about the lack of traction at low speed.
So yea, they "drift" every low-speed corner, but not by choice, and definitely not for any speed advantage.
When you are steering using just that right touch on the throttle it's a thrill like no other. And you get to pass all those other amatures who haven't figured it out yet.
Yea, and enjoy all those "amateurs" laughing their asses off as they load their still-in-one-piece cars on the trailer, while watching yours get removed from that ditch bit by bit.
Just because you haven't run afoul of Murphy yet doesn't mean you never will.
this really depends on what type of racing you are doing. In certain classes of race, it might be required to be in a controlled skid ( 4 wheel drift ) in order to line up with turn. Most likely this type of racing has a lack of down force in the car design, but I am not sure.
I'm talking more about the physics of it: if the tires are sliding across the top of the pavement, then they aren't transferring the engine's power with maximum efficiency, and thus "drifting" is not the fastest way through a corner. Were you to take the same curve in the same car, but with nice, grippy racing slicks, I guarantee you'll come out of it faster than you would if you were sliding through on all-weathers.
I worked at a shop once that had a Metro for a runner car - most days, I hated that thing.
I will say, though, it was kinda fun to jam it in second gear and hold the pedal to the floor on some of the twistier back roads around here. Not as much fun as my ol' Trans Am, but entertaining nonetheless.
No, the problem is the only qualification needed to drive one is having the money to afford it.
UInless you want to operate it on a public street, in which case you'd also need a driver's license.
Anyway, what's the problem? If I, say, owned my own private track, then why shouldn't I be able to go buy a half-million-dollar deathtrap and try and kill myself in it?
"Oh, but you could take it on a public street!"
Yea, so? If I have a driver's license and operate the vehicle in a legal manner, who the fuck are you to say what kind of cars I should or shouldn't be allowed to drive?
Hell, for that matter, I could down a fifth of scotch before getting behind the wheel of any car, but I doubt anyone would accept that as a legitimate reason to ban cars on public streets.
Face it, parent was right: The driver was, as in most fatal crashes, the reason it happened. He failed to operate the vehicle in a safe, legal manner, and killed himself and his buddy as a result.
Period.
And while skidding is fun there are better and faster ways of handing a turn.
Actually no. Sliding all four wheels through a corner, known as a four wheel drift, is the fasted way through a corner.
No it's not.
Think about it: Why are all four wheels sliding? The answer is because they aren't getting traction.
And if your tires aren't getting traction, they aren't propelling the vehicle forward at an increasing rate. At least, not as efficiently as they would if they were getting traction.
However 4-wheel drifting is fun, and pretty cool to watch.
That is incorrect. There was never a reason to ban an aid that allows a vehicle to go faster, it is racing after all, the point is to go faster.
No.
In racing the point is to win.
Case in point, there are motorsport leagues where they race Geo Metros and "classic" minivans. "Fast" doesn't even come into play, it's all about skill (and swappin' paint).
Seriously, the weight of air-con is a factor in not having it in a race car?
Yes. Like I said, every gram counts. And an air-conditioning system (Compressor, dryer, exchanger, 1/4 mile of steel tubing, etc.) is fuckin' heavy.
How about the fact it drains horsepower?
That actually less so - there are aftermarket A/C units that use an electric pump instead of a belted one, which almost completely eliminates the engine drag from using it. You see them in a lot of modernized muscle cars; Well, I do, but I spend a lot of time around them.
I also highly doubt that the weight of a stereo is a factor in not having radios in race cars,
Then you don't know very much about professional racing. Or amateur racing. Or maybe you aren't considering just how much that pile of speakers, wire, and big-ass magnets really weighs.
try more like driver focus, with a stereo blaring the driver is less focused on driver, it's a distraction that he/she doesn't need.
Not really; depending on the person and the song often times it can increase focus; I'm sure, if someone actually looked, they could probably find a study that supports this.
Weight.
In a race car, every fraction of a gram counts. Hence the reason why real racing cars don't have things like stereos and air-con.
How many people actually do that? To be honest I haven't even heard of anybody doing that, not on XDA or other hacking forums, and they're the ones who would be most likely to.
Furthermore, WHY would they do that? What purpose does it serve?
Yea, it's pretty much unquantifiable... but a variable that does affect the result.
Which leads me back to my earlier points that A) there's not enough data in this set to reach an intelligent, factual conclusion, and B) really, what the fuck does it matter who shops with Android and who shops with iOS?
So, then, we need to put a "rights exist" guy and and "rights don't exist" guy in a cage match to the death, and whoever wins, that's how we know what's true.
Right?
Perhaps, perhaps not.
But hey, at least we'd be entertained!
And zoos.
"Which we like to refer to as 'buffets!'"
- Nibbler, Sgt. Schlock, and Ted Nugent
I think they're just confused as to which side of the debate GP is arguing.
"abolitionist vegan" = suicide for plants?
Perhaps they smuggle carrots via the Underground Safeway
*For bob's sake, please look up the word before replying with the standard Slashdot anti-animal-sentience nerd rage.
Per Wikipedia:
Studies have shown that even plants are capable of communication, and in some instances have been shown to cry out when cut, as if in pain.
So, by the Wikipedia definition, plants are sentient beings as well; do you have the same protective spirit over, say, your lawn, as you're showing for the more 'breathy, bleedy' forms of sentient life?
Personally, I don't care what other think; certain animals and plants are quite tasty, and I'm going to continue killing and devouring them to my heart's content. Don't like it? Then don't accept my invite to chow. Otherwise, mind your own fucking business, please and thanks.
Damn, beat me to it.
Maybe if you didn't drive it so god-damn fast...
I think 5% is massively optimistic.
"I think " != quantifiable evidence.
If you can find an actual percentage (which I doubt is even possible), feel free to post it, otherwise you're just as guilty of wild speculation as you seem to think I am.
I think you're confused as to the context of my question, so I'll re-word it:
I get why it's useful to track online purchases made from mobile devices (from a marketing stance, anyway), but why does it matter which mobile platform people use to shop online?
Really, I think that's less an OS limitation than it is a matter of website coders not considering that someone would view the site with a (non-iOS) screen smaller than 7".
Heard of webkit?
Heard of? Yes.
Know virtually nothing about because I'm not a web designer? You betcha.
I do know how to remove, tear down, rebuild, and re-install an automatic transmission in less than 2 hours. Does that help?