I've never driven a car that had a special park gear.
Sounds like you have only ever had manual cars. Automatic transmissions always (AFAIK) have a park position with which a mechanical sprag engages with a toothed wheel to prevent the propellor shaft (and hence the wheels) from turning. The arrangement is provided as the equivalent of the recommended practice of leaving a manual car in gear when parked - as a last resort in case the parking brake fails for some reason like its cable breaking. What is being discussed here is how that sprag is moved - by a direct lever or cable (ie mechanically), or via an electric actuator controlled by a microchip (ie by wire).
A similar argument to the Broken Windows Fallacy - that pointless activity is good for the economy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... How about instead : paying people to build homes (instead of a clock) and then maybe some of them put their money toward building even more homes? My own solution anyway is fewer people, not more houses.
One thing I see going for (some) Hyperloops is that they probably can be placed high above ground for cheaper than conventional trains - saving on the footprint and especially the need to build tunnels/overpasses needed to accommodate high-speed rail.
Do you seriously think that the Hyperloop can be built over land paying only for the few square feet that its pylon feet actually occupy? I don't know what country you are living in (the desert?) but Hyperloop will need to buy all the area it overhangs and a lot more too. Crops do not grow well in partial shadow (take a look under and around motorway viaducts, they are bare soil shitholes), and as for going over cities there will be a legal fight for every inch of the way.
As for saving the need to build overpasses, the whole Hyperloop is an overpass unless it is in a tunnel. There will need to be plenty of tunnels in hilly country and some spectacularly high viaducts, all expensive, because Hyperloop can only change direction gradually at the speed it is doing.
It doesn't take much engineering acumen to understand a Hyperloop requires a lot less energy than a plane.
Propulsion energy is only a small part of the cost of most transport systems. The capital required to build Hyperloops, and the cost of maintenance, will be enormous.
Pipelines can make abrupt changes of direction to avoid obstacles and hug the ground, and can go up and down steep inclines, so their supports are cheap. Hyperloop, at its speed, will only be able to make very gentle changes of direction. So budget for some long tunnels and spectacular viaducts. The pipeline analogy is BS.
Kilometres per hour... is nothing mysterious to the rest of the world, even when abbreviated as kmph.
As a European former railway engineer well versed in working in kph, someone writing "kmph" is a mystery to me as to why they should be so stupid. I have never seen "kmph" written or spoken before in my life, and the OP was right to poke fun at it.
Direct high speed transport can be effective like many of Japan and Euros high speed trains, but these share infrastructure with lower speed rail.
No high speed trains don't generally don't share infrastructure, but can when it is advantageous like getting into city centres instead of unloading miles away like airports do. In many cases the high speed routes are entirely new, in other cases there are quadruple (or more) tracks, two for lower speed trains and two for higher speed trains.
Indeed, but you are overlooking the American mindset that conventional railways cannot go at more than 40mph and the trains are constantly derailing. They don't have a clue. In fact Musk etc studiously avoid the word "railway" and if you want to stir things up, try suggesting that Hyperloop, Boring etc are types of railway.
Actually this makes more sense than people moving to me
It is called an outbreak of common sense. A similar is happening with Boring - initially it was to provide an underground railway* with "sleds" carrying cars lowered from the surface. A moments thought will reveal that the traffic jams at street level to get onto the ride would make it impractical unless it were restricted to a few billionaires like Musk himself. So Musk has now added that it would be for pedestrians and cyclists too - in other words a conventional underground railway.
They do learn - that they can get away with it, and that there is an endless supply of bent companies who want to hire them, and of suckers who let themselves be victims.
I knew someone was going to mention Solitare! So if you offer a free app in your OS, you are obligated till the end of time to enhance, update and include it free in all future versions of the OS? Especially something as irrelevant as a card game?
The OP said " turning off a previously free application or feature until the customer pays for it.. Solitaire was given as an example of that, which indeed it is whether you think it is important or not.
I would not have blamedf MS if they had simply dropped it as old hat or "irrelevant", or perhaps left it as an optional free download. But by starting to charge for it after all these years is petty money-grubbing typical of MS and shows they think nothing irrelevant if they can squeeze even a little bit of money out of it.
Somebody rifled my car over the weekend.... I suspect if I'd kept cash it would have disappeared.
I keep about 25 GBP in my car and would not care much about it if taken by someone who broke in. Have you any idea what it costs to repair a broken car window or door? The 25 GBP is at the noise level in the total. Insurance? - they'll get it back off you somehow.
As someone who uses a credit card in most places, I don't really understand why someone would prefer cash
1) It's quicker for me. Unlike some of the dipsticks being complained about here and by the restauranteurs, I generally know what I need to pay and get my cash ready while in the queue for the cashier or walking towards them. I carry an assortment of denominations and very often give the right amount straight off, or requiring only a penny change for those 4.99 type prices. I am talking about the smaller purchases here.
2) Again for smaller amounts it's cheaper for the shopkeeper. As I understand it in the UK at least, there is a minimum fee the shopkeeper pays to the credit card company. At least that's what a second-hand bookshop owner told a guy in front of me once in no uncertain terms when he offered a card for a book costing 3 pounds. They said the fee left them with no profit out of it.
3) It shortens my card statement by dozens of items so I don't need to spend so much time later checking through against the retained receipts in case someone somewhere has got my card details and is using my account. Perhaps you don't bother doing that.
Over the last decade I've really reduced my personal exposure to advertising. Now I think I'm down to just podcast ads and billboards.
I rarely even see any ads casually. I live in a rural part of the UK and my nearest town is historic and "picturesque" - no bill-boards or other large signs allowed - and I don't go in very often anyway. I never watch commercial TV except by pre-recording and skipping the ads. I don't take any paper media and I use an ad-blocker. I must sometimes see ads on the sides of lorries [trucks], and within shop windows, but I only go to shops with a list aleady of what I am going to buy.
The ads I see are when I deliberately look for them. For example if I want to buy a camera I look at camera makers' websites to see what they offer. I don't think anyone would object to that type of advertising. I would also look at review sites and photography forums. The hype from admen plays little or no part, except if anything to put me off.
I already black out or remove the branding on my monitors and other things if possible and buy clothes without branding on them.
That's crazy. I have no objection to companies putting their logo or name on what they have made, as long as it is not over-obtrusive, and that is not what we a talking about here.
It is useful to know who made your stuff : for example I buy a pair of walking boots and they fall apart after 3 months, so I check the maker's name and don't buy them again. OTOH another pair is lasting fine after a year (I use boots heavily) so I note the name and buy them next time. I'm not talking about big fashion brands BTW, this is utilitarian stuff.
Every time someone yells at you for blocking ads, calmly tell them "I'm not blocking ads, I'm blocking scripts" (or whatever verbiage you think would work best to get the point across....)
Great idea, and I'm sure they always provide a box for giving such feedback. I must look for it in future.
Facebook is treating people as users even if they have never joined it. Actually it is not news, we knew this already, but sounds like it might be news to you.
Cruise control is especially dangerous with rear wheel drive and powerful engines, like on a sports car or light truck. One wheel on a slick patch will cause the cruise control to open up the throttle and get the wheels spinning, when they finally find traction the vehicle might no longer be pointed in the desired direction of travel
Are you such an idiot as to sit back in cruise control doing nothing about it while your car is slowing, your wheels are spinning, your engine screaming, your direction wandering, and just wait for the wheels to grip again?
No but one of the interesting things about driving is that everybody thinks they are above average!
No they don't. I know several people who admit their driving limitations. My wife does not believe she is a particularly good driver, but in fact she is probably no worse than average, just more realistic.
It is a fact that both her and me are better than average in that neither of us has ever had an accident. Statistically, that is better than the average - if Mr Huang's accident were the only accident that had ever happened in the history of the world that would still undeniably true.
Slashdot Mirror
I've never driven a car that had a special park gear.
Sounds like you have only ever had manual cars. Automatic transmissions always (AFAIK) have a park position with which a mechanical sprag engages with a toothed wheel to prevent the propellor shaft (and hence the wheels) from turning. The arrangement is provided as the equivalent of the recommended practice of leaving a manual car in gear when parked - as a last resort in case the parking brake fails for some reason like its cable breaking. What is being discussed here is how that sprag is moved - by a direct lever or cable (ie mechanically), or via an electric actuator controlled by a microchip (ie by wire).
A similar argument to the Broken Windows Fallacy - that pointless activity is good for the economy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
How about instead : paying people to build homes (instead of a clock) and then maybe some of them put their money toward building even more homes?
My own solution anyway is fewer people, not more houses.
Basically, Branson is just a good salesman.
One thing I see going for (some) Hyperloops is that they probably can be placed high above ground for cheaper than conventional trains - saving on the footprint and especially the need to build tunnels/overpasses needed to accommodate high-speed rail.
Do you seriously think that the Hyperloop can be built over land paying only for the few square feet that its pylon feet actually occupy? I don't know what country you are living in (the desert?) but Hyperloop will need to buy all the area it overhangs and a lot more too. Crops do not grow well in partial shadow (take a look under and around motorway viaducts, they are bare soil shitholes), and as for going over cities there will be a legal fight for every inch of the way.
As for saving the need to build overpasses, the whole Hyperloop is an overpass unless it is in a tunnel. There will need to be plenty of tunnels in hilly country and some spectacularly high viaducts, all expensive, because Hyperloop can only change direction gradually at the speed it is doing.
Sorry, was thinking of the budget for California's High Speed Rail plan. I'm not sure what the cost for hyperloop would actually be
You answered that in your first post - trillions.
It doesn't take much engineering acumen to understand a Hyperloop requires a lot less energy than a plane.
Propulsion energy is only a small part of the cost of most transport systems. The capital required to build Hyperloops, and the cost of maintenance, will be enormous.
Pipelines can make abrupt changes of direction to avoid obstacles and hug the ground, and can go up and down steep inclines, so their supports are cheap. Hyperloop, at its speed, will only be able to make very gentle changes of direction. So budget for some long tunnels and spectacular viaducts. The pipeline analogy is BS.
Kilometres per hour ... is nothing mysterious to the rest of the world, even when abbreviated as kmph.
As a European former railway engineer well versed in working in kph, someone writing "kmph" is a mystery to me as to why they should be so stupid. I have never seen "kmph" written or spoken before in my life, and the OP was right to poke fun at it.
Hyperloop is a proven thing.
It won't be proven, as nothing is, until an example is working in service at full speed and with paying payload.
Direct high speed transport can be effective like many of Japan and Euros high speed trains, but these share infrastructure with lower speed rail.
No high speed trains don't generally don't share infrastructure, but can when it is advantageous like getting into city centres instead of unloading miles away like airports do. In many cases the high speed routes are entirely new, in other cases there are quadruple (or more) tracks, two for lower speed trains and two for higher speed trains.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-1...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Indeed, but you are overlooking the American mindset that conventional railways cannot go at more than 40mph and the trains are constantly derailing. They don't have a clue. In fact Musk etc studiously avoid the word "railway" and if you want to stir things up, try suggesting that Hyperloop, Boring etc are types of railway.
Actually this makes more sense than people moving to me
It is called an outbreak of common sense. A similar is happening with Boring - initially it was to provide an underground railway* with "sleds" carrying cars lowered from the surface. A moments thought will reveal that the traffic jams at street level to get onto the ride would make it impractical unless it were restricted to a few billionaires like Musk himself. So Musk has now added that it would be for pedestrians and cyclists too - in other words a conventional underground railway.
* "Subway" in the US I believe.
Thanks for the explanation - that a Hyperloop executive believes it will be five times cheaper. No further discussion is needed.
I assume you were after "Funny" mods.
It just gives me a blue rectangle. Is that right?
These people never learn.
They do learn - that they can get away with it, and that there is an endless supply of bent companies who want to hire them, and of suckers who let themselves be victims.
I knew someone was going to mention Solitare! So if you offer a free app in your OS, you are obligated till the end of time to enhance, update and include it free in all future versions of the OS? Especially something as irrelevant as a card game?
The OP said " turning off a previously free application or feature until the customer pays for it.. Solitaire was given as an example of that, which indeed it is whether you think it is important or not.
I would not have blamedf MS if they had simply dropped it as old hat or "irrelevant", or perhaps left it as an optional free download. But by starting to charge for it after all these years is petty money-grubbing typical of MS and shows they think nothing irrelevant if they can squeeze even a little bit of money out of it.
Somebody rifled my car over the weekend. ... I suspect if I'd kept cash it would have disappeared.
I keep about 25 GBP in my car and would not care much about it if taken by someone who broke in. Have you any idea what it costs to repair a broken car window or door? The 25 GBP is at the noise level in the total. Insurance? - they'll get it back off you somehow.
As someone who uses a credit card in most places, I don't really understand why someone would prefer cash
1) It's quicker for me. Unlike some of the dipsticks being complained about here and by the restauranteurs, I generally know what I need to pay and get my cash ready while in the queue for the cashier or walking towards them. I carry an assortment of denominations and very often give the right amount straight off, or requiring only a penny change for those 4.99 type prices. I am talking about the smaller purchases here.
2) Again for smaller amounts it's cheaper for the shopkeeper. As I understand it in the UK at least, there is a minimum fee the shopkeeper pays to the credit card company. At least that's what a second-hand bookshop owner told a guy in front of me once in no uncertain terms when he offered a card for a book costing 3 pounds. They said the fee left them with no profit out of it.
3) It shortens my card statement by dozens of items so I don't need to spend so much time later checking through against the retained receipts in case someone somewhere has got my card details and is using my account. Perhaps you don't bother doing that.
when you go to Bob's Fine Eatery, give them the email address Bob'sFineEatery@yourdomain.com
That's a bit of a givaway. Any spammer who knows his salt will know that anything@yourdomain.com will also get to you.
Over the last decade I've really reduced my personal exposure to advertising. Now I think I'm down to just podcast ads and billboards.
I rarely even see any ads casually. I live in a rural part of the UK and my nearest town is historic and "picturesque" - no bill-boards or other large signs allowed - and I don't go in very often anyway. I never watch commercial TV except by pre-recording and skipping the ads. I don't take any paper media and I use an ad-blocker. I must sometimes see ads on the sides of lorries [trucks], and within shop windows, but I only go to shops with a list aleady of what I am going to buy.
The ads I see are when I deliberately look for them. For example if I want to buy a camera I look at camera makers' websites to see what they offer. I don't think anyone would object to that type of advertising. I would also look at review sites and photography forums. The hype from admen plays little or no part, except if anything to put me off.
I already black out or remove the branding on my monitors and other things if possible and buy clothes without branding on them.
That's crazy. I have no objection to companies putting their logo or name on what they have made, as long as it is not over-obtrusive, and that is not what we a talking about here.
It is useful to know who made your stuff : for example I buy a pair of walking boots and they fall apart after 3 months, so I check the maker's name and don't buy them again. OTOH another pair is lasting fine after a year (I use boots heavily) so I note the name and buy them next time. I'm not talking about big fashion brands BTW, this is utilitarian stuff.
Every time someone yells at you for blocking ads, calmly tell them "I'm not blocking ads, I'm blocking scripts" (or whatever verbiage you think would work best to get the point across....)
Great idea, and I'm sure they always provide a box for giving such feedback. I must look for it in future.
Nobody forces you to use Facebook.
You need to catch up with some news :-
https://tech.slashdot.org/stor...
Facebook is treating people as users even if they have never joined it. Actually it is not news, we knew this already, but sounds like it might be news to you.
Cruise control is especially dangerous with rear wheel drive and powerful engines, like on a sports car or light truck. One wheel on a slick patch will cause the cruise control to open up the throttle and get the wheels spinning, when they finally find traction the vehicle might no longer be pointed in the desired direction of travel
Are you such an idiot as to sit back in cruise control doing nothing about it while your car is slowing, your wheels are spinning, your engine screaming, your direction wandering, and just wait for the wheels to grip again?
No but one of the interesting things about driving is that everybody thinks they are above average!
No they don't. I know several people who admit their driving limitations. My wife does not believe she is a particularly good driver, but in fact she is probably no worse than average, just more realistic.
It is a fact that both her and me are better than average in that neither of us has ever had an accident. Statistically, that is better than the average - if Mr Huang's accident were the only accident that had ever happened in the history of the world that would still undeniably true.