If you have Apple's pile of cash, getting a fab is pretty damn easy. You just hire people who know exactly what they are doing. If you scramble, you can have blueprints and permits done in a month, all the POs and contracts can be signed by next month, and you can break the ground and go ahead. All it takes is focused people who know exactly what it takes in their discipline -- architects, process engineers, building site managers, etc.
Most factories also dont have official quotas either
That's what you said. Well, it's quite the opposite. Not only are there official quotas and deadlines, but the quantitative measures of productivity have been long since deployed outside of factories. Anyone who has ever worked in chain retail of any sort should know it full well.
No, the fix is to raise the bloody speed limit. Remember, those are commuter multilane arteries with flows measured around thousands of cars per minute. If you slow them down, the collective gas costs (and pollution) go up like nobody's business. You do not want to slow down a smooth flow of cars on a multilane freeway. You certainly do not want the torque converter bypass to disengage -- that happens between 40 to 45mph on most cars. You essentially pay for an automatic gearbox, in terms of reduced efficiency, when the torque converter is in-circuit. Once it's locked out, the automatic gearbox is pretty much comparable with a manual. It's not a big penalty, but multiply by tens of thousands of cars daily, and suddenly you're talking real emissions and real money.
I'd like to say that the induction-loop-based systems cannot in fact reliably detect if the car has stopped or not. The inductive loop signal conditioners provide discrete "car there/no car there" signals to the controller. There's usually only 2 or 4 loops in each right turn lane. There's no way to use 2 or 4 discrete signals like that to detect full stop. Only a video system or a Doppler system of some sort could detect a full stop reliably. The current implementations of ticket-on-no-stop-right-turn systems enforce, in fact, an arbitrary stop duration that has nothing to do whether you indeed fully stopped or not. The system merely looks for a constant pattern of discretes from the induction loops that persists for a certain period of time. Say, if you went far enough, that 3 of the loops are ON, the last one is OFF. As long as that patterns persists for x number of seconds, you won't be considered doing an illegal right turn. This has nothing to do with whether you did a full stop, since that is an instantaneous fact -- technically, your velocity needs to be 0 for an infinitesimally short length of time, unless local laws say otherwise.
The speed limits are there to deal with human driver limitations only. A self driving car, with its up-to-date mapping and roadway condition information, can calculate safe speed limits itself.
Sidebar: It's exactly the same with so-called software engineering. When you engineer a mechanical system, you do it in a particular way because the materials won't otherwise survive. In software, you engineer things certain way only because it's easier for humans to comprehend, there's no arbitrary physical limit as to why cohesion and decoupling are good things. So-called software engineers should be having good background in cognitive psychology, because ultimately that's what they have to deal with day-in, day-out.
Have you like actually computed anything with it before saying you don't get it?
Energy at 60mph is 4 times that of energy at 30mph (3600/900 = 4).
Energy at 96.6 km/h is 4 times that of energy at 48.3 km/h (9331.6/2332.9 = 4).
You're comparing relative energies. The value of the constant factor needed to convert velocity squared to absolute kinetic energy does depend on the units used for velocity, of course, but that constant doesn't come into play when you're comparing two energies -- then you only need to use same units for velocity.
I've seen studies that show beneficial effects of speed limit reductions
There's an inifnite number of ridiculous things we could do that have a beneficial effect of one sort or another. The key is not to go overboard, you know. There's only so far a law for public land/road can go before it gets over the top.
I'd be careful about pronouncing code violations. Do remember that the work has only to adhere to the code in place at the time the work was done. Nobody expects you to upgrade your entire house to current codes merely because you're renovating one room. Sure, when you do renovate that room, whatever you modify and have sufficient access to will need to be brought up to current code.
When all the motorists go at 20mph over the speed limit and it's a very busy metropolitan ring or diametral freeway, doing the speed limit would be showing no regard for other motorists. I've been to enough large U.S. cities where in-city interstate speed limits are ridiculous at 45 or 55mph, yet everyone is going around 70mph in fairly heavy traffic. You slow down and it's instant traffic jam.
The question is: why do we need separate laws aiming at reducing fatalities in a certain circumstance of driving only? Aren't there enough laws that get you imprisoned for murder, manslaughter and so on no matter where or how it happens? I think that the idea of speed limit enforcement is a bit unnecessary. Kill or injure someone while you're driving reckleslly, you'll go to prison, it's as easy as that. No need for traffic laws for that.
If you seriously think that factories don't have quotas, you must have never ever worked in manufacturing of any sort. Sure there are quotas, sometimes they are not called that but there certainly are. Any manufacturer has ship dates and quantitites to meet. They'll be in hot water if they don't. Heck, even chain retail usually has very tightly controlled productivity with tons of qunatitative metrics' goals that the managers strive to meet.
Alas, inspite of the police not having any official quotas, but they are expected to catch people "every once so often" -- it goes unsaid, but you'll be in hot water if you don't.
Lightning is not a big problem except for those radiation bursts. The real reason you stay away is that lightning comes with storms that come with turbulence so bad it may use up all of the fatigue life of the airframe in one flight, you can get into hail that will make the airplane a total loss if you're lucky to come out alive, and there may be strong down-moving columns of air that can get you on the ground in no time if you're low enough. A lighter GA plane has much flakier skin and is much more likely to get destroyed mid-air by hail and turbulence.
I, for one, quite enjoy the mid-range turbulence. It helps me sleep better on the plane. By mid-range I mean stuff that's strong enough to move things around on your table, yet not strong enough to accelerate the decline in airframe's fatigue life by a factor of 10. Assuming that a normal non-turbulence flight is affecting the fatigue life at "realtime" rate (no speedup), a flight with turbulence I find unacceptable would be equivalent, in terms of fatigue life use, to 10 normal flights of same duration. Someone with knowledge in aerospace structures could perhaps chime in as to whether the factor of 10 is a realistic one, or should it be a larger one.
As a new Computer Science Masters student, I have no clue which journals are rated at what level.
Dude/dudette, go read in the library and don't come back until you get a clue, mmkay? There, that was easy.
Personally, I never plan to submit anything to a journal which costs money and doesn't pay it's reviewers.
I don't know what planet you previously lived on, but there are I think zero mainstream science journals that pay their reviewers. I would like to be wrong on that one, but I just haven't heard of any.
Exactly. They do all the steps that you'd need done in a real scientific study, but they don't understand the underlying principles, so what they do merely quacks like a duck, but is just a videoclip.
I have looked at a few dozen of those fake journal websites and all I have to say is this: if you get taken by this, you must be senile. That's what grandpas and grandmas should be getting taken by, not younguns. End of story. That college age kids, or even their supervisors are so gullible as to be taken by those "journals" is hard for me to comprehend. All of the signs of a scam site are there, right in front of their eyes. I don't get what the outrage is about at all. If you have a modicum of intelligence, you'll file it right next to Weekly World News. Nothing to see here, just regular stupidity from of the checkout aisle and "pharmacy" site kind, move along. The fact that serious people pay attention to this and go as far as wasting time compiling lists of easy come, easy go scam sites is somewhat baffling. Guys, if your students are stupid enough to be taken by this shit, maybe it's a good lesson for them.
The problem with a lot of native controls is that they are hopelessly limited in what they can do. For example, on Windows the classic controls can't really be used outside of a classic application - not without a huge amount of kludgery. When you get to modern UIs on Windows, you get WPF and that doesn't reuse any native control code AFAIK. It just re-implements everything and the kitchen sink -- just like Qt does (correct me if I'm wrong, please).
With Qt, you can rather trivially render the controls offscreen, generate mock events for them, etc, all in a cross-platform way. With native controls, you're pretty much stuck with whatever functionality is there and there's no way to use them any other way. If the platform doesn't provide a blended rendering model for the UI, you can't get that functionality using native controls. If the platform doesn't provide for an easy way to decouple the controls from a physical screen under control of the OS apis, you can't use them on custom LCD screen attached via USB (a screen otherwise invisible to the OS as a screen).
Yes, it would be possible for Qt to do more to cleanly run native controls behind the scenes so that "arbitrary" changes in behavior would propagate. This would most likely be way too much work for the limited benefit it provides. It may well be that whatever services the OS provides behind native controls can be rather simply reproduced in Qt proper. Yes, it requires tracking the platform you claim to support:)
What they'll be doing is quite simple. You step on a large scale, with all your luggage next to you. The weight is multiplied by a factor based on distance, and that's your fare. Simple. I like it. I wouldn't mind legacy carriers doing the same.
Rivers have done the digging for us, on a scale that makes strip mines look silly. Baseload hydro storage will need more volume in the U.S. alone than all the world's strip mines that ever existed, combined. Oh, by a couple orders of magnitude, too.
I don't particularly think that lakes are that unsightly, even if capped with a dam. I'd hardly classify it as environmental destruction. Yeah, you submerge a bunch of natural vegetation and replace one ecosystem with another. Big deal.
You're a fool for needing to believe in a supernatural explanation for this -- if that's what you have implied. Utter fool. Sorry. Scientific person, my ass.
Hydroelectric generation is tapped out. Hydroelectric storage is nowhere near tapped out -- there simply hasn't been enough demand for it. Keep that in mind.
Slashdot Mirror
If you have Apple's pile of cash, getting a fab is pretty damn easy. You just hire people who know exactly what they are doing. If you scramble, you can have blueprints and permits done in a month, all the POs and contracts can be signed by next month, and you can break the ground and go ahead. All it takes is focused people who know exactly what it takes in their discipline -- architects, process engineers, building site managers, etc.
Most factories also dont have official quotas either
That's what you said. Well, it's quite the opposite. Not only are there official quotas and deadlines, but the quantitative measures of productivity have been long since deployed outside of factories. Anyone who has ever worked in chain retail of any sort should know it full well.
No, the fix is to raise the bloody speed limit. Remember, those are commuter multilane arteries with flows measured around thousands of cars per minute. If you slow them down, the collective gas costs (and pollution) go up like nobody's business. You do not want to slow down a smooth flow of cars on a multilane freeway. You certainly do not want the torque converter bypass to disengage -- that happens between 40 to 45mph on most cars. You essentially pay for an automatic gearbox, in terms of reduced efficiency, when the torque converter is in-circuit. Once it's locked out, the automatic gearbox is pretty much comparable with a manual. It's not a big penalty, but multiply by tens of thousands of cars daily, and suddenly you're talking real emissions and real money.
I'd like to say that the induction-loop-based systems cannot in fact reliably detect if the car has stopped or not. The inductive loop signal conditioners provide discrete "car there/no car there" signals to the controller. There's usually only 2 or 4 loops in each right turn lane. There's no way to use 2 or 4 discrete signals like that to detect full stop. Only a video system or a Doppler system of some sort could detect a full stop reliably. The current implementations of ticket-on-no-stop-right-turn systems enforce, in fact, an arbitrary stop duration that has nothing to do whether you indeed fully stopped or not. The system merely looks for a constant pattern of discretes from the induction loops that persists for a certain period of time. Say, if you went far enough, that 3 of the loops are ON, the last one is OFF. As long as that patterns persists for x number of seconds, you won't be considered doing an illegal right turn. This has nothing to do with whether you did a full stop, since that is an instantaneous fact -- technically, your velocity needs to be 0 for an infinitesimally short length of time, unless local laws say otherwise.
How long? Don't be silly. They'd pre-plan the PR campaign even before the new laws come into effect!
The speed limits are there to deal with human driver limitations only. A self driving car, with its up-to-date mapping and roadway condition information, can calculate safe speed limits itself.
Sidebar: It's exactly the same with so-called software engineering. When you engineer a mechanical system, you do it in a particular way because the materials won't otherwise survive. In software, you engineer things certain way only because it's easier for humans to comprehend, there's no arbitrary physical limit as to why cohesion and decoupling are good things. So-called software engineers should be having good background in cognitive psychology, because ultimately that's what they have to deal with day-in, day-out.
Have you like actually computed anything with it before saying you don't get it?
Energy at 60mph is 4 times that of energy at 30mph (3600/900 = 4).
Energy at 96.6 km/h is 4 times that of energy at 48.3 km/h (9331.6/2332.9 = 4).
You're comparing relative energies. The value of the constant factor needed
to convert velocity squared to absolute kinetic energy does depend on the units used
for velocity, of course, but that constant doesn't come into play when you're comparing
two energies -- then you only need to use same units for velocity.
I've seen studies that show beneficial effects of speed limit reductions
There's an inifnite number of ridiculous things we could do that have a beneficial effect of one sort or another. The key is not to go overboard, you know. There's only so far a law for public land/road can go before it gets over the top.
I'd be careful about pronouncing code violations. Do remember that the work has only to adhere to the code in place at the time the work was done. Nobody expects you to upgrade your entire house to current codes merely because you're renovating one room. Sure, when you do renovate that room, whatever you modify and have sufficient access to will need to be brought up to current code.
have no regard for other motorists
When all the motorists go at 20mph over the speed limit and it's a very busy metropolitan ring or diametral freeway, doing the speed limit would be showing no regard for other motorists. I've been to enough large U.S. cities where in-city interstate speed limits are ridiculous at 45 or 55mph, yet everyone is going around 70mph in fairly heavy traffic. You slow down and it's instant traffic jam.
The question is: why do we need separate laws aiming at reducing fatalities in a certain circumstance of driving only? Aren't there enough laws that get you imprisoned for murder, manslaughter and so on no matter where or how it happens? I think that the idea of speed limit enforcement is a bit unnecessary. Kill or injure someone while you're driving reckleslly, you'll go to prison, it's as easy as that. No need for traffic laws for that.
If you seriously think that factories don't have quotas, you must have never ever worked in manufacturing of any sort. Sure there are quotas, sometimes they are not called that but there certainly are. Any manufacturer has ship dates and quantitites to meet. They'll be in hot water if they don't. Heck, even chain retail usually has very tightly controlled productivity with tons of qunatitative metrics' goals that the managers strive to meet.
Alas, inspite of the police not having any official quotas, but they are expected to catch people "every once so often" -- it goes unsaid, but you'll be in hot water if you don't.
Lightning is not a big problem except for those radiation bursts. The real reason you stay away is that lightning comes with storms that come with turbulence so bad it may use up all of the fatigue life of the airframe in one flight, you can get into hail that will make the airplane a total loss if you're lucky to come out alive, and there may be strong down-moving columns of air that can get you on the ground in no time if you're low enough. A lighter GA plane has much flakier skin and is much more likely to get destroyed mid-air by hail and turbulence.
I, for one, quite enjoy the mid-range turbulence. It helps me sleep better on the plane. By mid-range I mean stuff that's strong enough to move things around on your table, yet not strong enough to accelerate the decline in airframe's fatigue life by a factor of 10. Assuming that a normal non-turbulence flight is affecting the fatigue life at "realtime" rate (no speedup), a flight with turbulence I find unacceptable would be equivalent, in terms of fatigue life use, to 10 normal flights of same duration. Someone with knowledge in aerospace structures could perhaps chime in as to whether the factor of 10 is a realistic one, or should it be a larger one.
As a new Computer Science Masters student, I have no clue which journals are rated at what level.
Dude/dudette, go read in the library and don't come back until you get a clue, mmkay? There, that was easy.
Personally, I never plan to submit anything to a journal which costs money and doesn't pay it's reviewers.
I don't know what planet you previously lived on, but there are I think zero mainstream science journals that pay their reviewers. I would like to be wrong on that one, but I just haven't heard of any.
Exactly. They do all the steps that you'd need done in a real scientific study, but they don't understand the underlying principles, so what they do merely quacks like a duck, but is just a videoclip.
To be fair though, I've never applied for Professor of Difficult Sums.
What are you waiting for, then? :)
I have looked at a few dozen of those fake journal websites and all I have to say is this: if you get taken by this, you must be senile. That's what grandpas and grandmas should be getting taken by, not younguns. End of story. That college age kids, or even their supervisors are so gullible as to be taken by those "journals" is hard for me to comprehend. All of the signs of a scam site are there, right in front of their eyes. I don't get what the outrage is about at all. If you have a modicum of intelligence, you'll file it right next to Weekly World News. Nothing to see here, just regular stupidity from of the checkout aisle and "pharmacy" site kind, move along. The fact that serious people pay attention to this and go as far as wasting time compiling lists of easy come, easy go scam sites is somewhat baffling. Guys, if your students are stupid enough to be taken by this shit, maybe it's a good lesson for them.
The problem with a lot of native controls is that they are hopelessly limited in what they can do. For example, on Windows the classic controls can't really be used outside of a classic application - not without a huge amount of kludgery. When you get to modern UIs on Windows, you get WPF and that doesn't reuse any native control code AFAIK. It just re-implements everything and the kitchen sink -- just like Qt does (correct me if I'm wrong, please).
With Qt, you can rather trivially render the controls offscreen, generate mock events for them, etc, all in a cross-platform way. With native controls, you're pretty much stuck with whatever functionality is there and there's no way to use them any other way. If the platform doesn't provide a blended rendering model for the UI, you can't get that functionality using native controls. If the platform doesn't provide for an easy way to decouple the controls from a physical screen under control of the OS apis, you can't use them on custom LCD screen attached via USB (a screen otherwise invisible to the OS as a screen).
Yes, it would be possible for Qt to do more to cleanly run native controls behind the scenes so that "arbitrary" changes in behavior would propagate. This would most likely be way too much work for the limited benefit it provides. It may well be that whatever services the OS provides behind native controls can be rather simply reproduced in Qt proper. Yes, it requires tracking the platform you claim to support :)
The problem is that we remove ourselves from the too-hot Earth -- that's not a goal we want, right?
What they'll be doing is quite simple. You step on a large scale, with all your luggage next to you. The weight is multiplied by a factor based on distance, and that's your fare. Simple. I like it. I wouldn't mind legacy carriers doing the same.
Rivers have done the digging for us, on a scale that makes strip mines look silly. Baseload hydro storage will need more volume in the U.S. alone than all the world's strip mines that ever existed, combined. Oh, by a couple orders of magnitude, too.
I don't particularly think that lakes are that unsightly, even if capped with a dam. I'd hardly classify it as environmental destruction. Yeah, you submerge a bunch of natural vegetation and replace one ecosystem with another. Big deal.
You're a fool for needing to believe in a supernatural explanation for this -- if that's what you have implied. Utter fool. Sorry. Scientific person, my ass.
Hydroelectric generation is tapped out. Hydroelectric storage is nowhere near tapped out -- there simply hasn't been enough demand for it. Keep that in mind.