All this talk of engine or transmission wear on modern cars is I think a bunch of fairy tales. On a car with automatic transmission I don't think there's anything that you can do besides proper maintenance that would have any effect on the longevity of the drivetrain. Never mind that even if there was a small effect - who cares? If you need an engine overhaul at 750k miles when doing grandma driving, but will need one at 600k when driving hard - does it truly matter? Will you have the car that long, and if you do, will you care?
"I don't want my car to downshift three gears just to try to keep the car going the same speed up a large hill." What else would you want it to do? Set yourself up for being rear-ended? Downshifting when going uphill is precisely what you need to do, so I don't see what you're after, really.
My car is quiet, there's little enough vibration that I seriously can't tell. By the time there's wind noise I'm sure to be going too fast:) If everyone is going 15mph over the speed limit, I wouldn't know. Seriously. Sure I can tell within +/-15mph, but that's way too imprecise. I need to be within 1mph of the target speed.
OK, we can solve that with a HUD. How does that relate to cruise control?
It's already solved. There's no reason to keep the human in the loop for speed control. None.
So you've now got to find the cruise control cancel, possibly in an unforeseen emergency.
I drive with my left foot on the brake and right foot on the accelerator at all times. I don't even know where the cruise control cancel is, frankly said. I never use it.
False [nih.gov]. Learn to internet, bro.
I don't care about results with people who drive with their feet off the pedals, as is usually done with CC, and when they are not in a learned, trained and periodically tested external scan pattern at all times. I've learned to treat the road out there as if everyone was hostile and unpredictable. It pays dividends:)
I've also yet to see a simulator that provides anything remotely approaching the experience of driving a real car. Usually, all sorts of minor and important things are wrong. Contrast and luminance isn't what you normally get, the display gains are wrong (the image doesn't move the same visual angle as the simulated car does), etc. Every time I drove in high-end simulators, I had to readapt to driving in the real world. I'd tend to think that such studies, when done on real drivers who then have to get in their own car and drive home, are actually dangerous and subject to too little IRB scrutiny.
Copyright and trademarks are different concepts, with different laws applying to each. Most trademarks are ineligible for copyright protection, for example. Oh, and trademarks can be registered in the U.S. for a particular purpose only. Feel free to read what is the scope of Disney's mickey mouse trademarks.
I disagree. Having to look at the speedo just to keep your car going at a certain speed is a distraction. I'd much more likely be looking out the windshield while I drive, instead of on the instrument cluster. Cars aren't planes. I use cruise control down to 20mph in the school zones and consider the "wisdom" not to use it at low speeds or in city traffic to be at odds with reality. There's nothing sedating about regular cruise control. It lets me focus on the road ahead and on the other cars instead of pretending to be a fucking speed servo.
If only most of the internet wasn't delivered by terrestrial fiber... Satellites, they are useful for many things, but not for internet for the most of us, not really.
"My point was that you should already know your data types." And you do. And the compiler does. It's somewhat silly to have to repeat yourself and type in the type twice. A literal has a fixed, known type, by definition. Types are also known and fixed in other circumstances, such as function return types. This becomes especially handy when a method returns a parametric type that may be hard to write. I've personally written expression template code where the specialized concrete type is a few lines long.
Do you really claim you'd rater write [4 lines of type] foo = bar(); instead of auto foo = bar()? Even for shorter types, it can be arduous.
This for (std::vector::const_iterator a = b.begin(); a != b.end(); ++a) vs for (auto a = b.begin(); a != b.end(); ++a)
Even then that's an infinite set, since one orbital parameter (a.k.a. the orbital slot) is free. An orbit isn't a path in the sky, it's a vector in the space of orbital parameters. You can't ignore the orbital spot and pretend that all geostationary orbits are the same - all those satellites would sit on each other, then:)
I did generalize it, assuming that any orbit with a 24h period is geostationary. Perhaps that was ill advised:)
I'm sorry, you're a moron. Sure it's arbitrary, since two orbital parameters are free and the term geostationary refers to an infinite set of orbits. Yet everyone understands that it's about the radius. Perhaps the title should have said "within the geostationary orbital radius".
They don't come from a lawyers office just because there's a lawyer's signature on them. The entire fucking document is forged, how hard is that to see? The legal firm had as much to do with them as the court did. It's entirely a fabrication, using some real names.
It doesn't matter anyway, since the number for a name/word is counted by adding the letter values (hebrew and greek both have them) together. The number for www is 18, not 666. In ancient times, if you were jewish, and your sweetheart wanted to say in code that he/she loved you, the line would be "I love the person whose number is 140". 140 is your number (K=20, M=40, P=80 in Hebrew). This tradition does in fact carry forward in interesting ways - I distinctly remember that we had a similar system going in the elementary school. Someone came up with value assignments for all letters of the roman alphabet. At some point every literate kid in the building had those assignments memorized. It was a shortlived fad, even though it was good to get the kids doing some addition exercises and decomposition ("decoding") of integers into sums.
"Getting rocket software right is difficult precisely because there is no way to do a live test." There is. You do hardware-in-the-loop tests where the inertial and other inputs come from simulators. I have seen testing of a jet engine controller done without an actual jet engine attached to it. There was a beefy server that was simulating the physics of a jet engine, though, and providing sensor readings.
What kind of cars do they sell in UK, for crying out loud? I'd expect anything from a major manufacturer and not from Detroit to be pretty much worn-in at the 100k mark, and ready to go another 200k at least without needing a new engine nor a new transmission. Heck, I'd expect a manual transmission to easily outlast any automatic (yes, the clutch is a maintenance item).
Slashdot Mirror
All this talk of engine or transmission wear on modern cars is I think a bunch of fairy tales. On a car with automatic transmission I don't think there's anything that you can do besides proper maintenance that would have any effect on the longevity of the drivetrain. Never mind that even if there was a small effect - who cares? If you need an engine overhaul at 750k miles when doing grandma driving, but will need one at 600k when driving hard - does it truly matter? Will you have the car that long, and if you do, will you care?
"I don't want my car to downshift three gears just to try to keep the car going the same speed up a large hill." What else would you want it to do? Set yourself up for being rear-ended? Downshifting when going uphill is precisely what you need to do, so I don't see what you're after, really.
My car is quiet, there's little enough vibration that I seriously can't tell. By the time there's wind noise I'm sure to be going too fast :) If everyone is going 15mph over the speed limit, I wouldn't know. Seriously. Sure I can tell within +/-15mph, but that's way too imprecise. I need to be within 1mph of the target speed.
OK, we can solve that with a HUD. How does that relate to cruise control?
It's already solved. There's no reason to keep the human in the loop for speed control. None.
So you've now got to find the cruise control cancel, possibly in an unforeseen emergency.
I drive with my left foot on the brake and right foot on the accelerator at all times. I don't even know where the cruise control cancel is, frankly said. I never use it.
False [nih.gov]. Learn to internet, bro.
I don't care about results with people who drive with their feet off the pedals, as is usually done with CC, and when they are not in a learned, trained and periodically tested external scan pattern at all times. I've learned to treat the road out there as if everyone was hostile and unpredictable. It pays dividends :)
I've also yet to see a simulator that provides anything remotely approaching the experience of driving a real car. Usually, all sorts of minor and important things are wrong. Contrast and luminance isn't what you normally get, the display gains are wrong (the image doesn't move the same visual angle as the simulated car does), etc. Every time I drove in high-end simulators, I had to readapt to driving in the real world. I'd tend to think that such studies, when done on real drivers who then have to get in their own car and drive home, are actually dangerous and subject to too little IRB scrutiny.
Nobody is on such path. As in, nobody who needs the money badly enough to spoof their IPs to pull off scams worth peanuts.
There's no such thing as IP spoofing on TCP/IP traffic. Get real.
Copyright and trademark aren't the same thing. Don't mix them up. It makes the argument sound silly.
Copyright and trademarks are different concepts, with different laws applying to each. Most trademarks are ineligible for copyright protection, for example. Oh, and trademarks can be registered in the U.S. for a particular purpose only. Feel free to read what is the scope of Disney's mickey mouse trademarks.
I disagree. Having to look at the speedo just to keep your car going at a certain speed is a distraction. I'd much more likely be looking out the windshield while I drive, instead of on the instrument cluster. Cars aren't planes. I use cruise control down to 20mph in the school zones and consider the "wisdom" not to use it at low speeds or in city traffic to be at odds with reality. There's nothing sedating about regular cruise control. It lets me focus on the road ahead and on the other cars instead of pretending to be a fucking speed servo.
Sorry, I had a brain fart :/
If only most of the internet wasn't delivered by terrestrial fiber... Satellites, they are useful for many things, but not for internet for the most of us, not really.
"My point was that you should already know your data types." And you do. And the compiler does. It's somewhat silly to have to repeat yourself and type in the type twice. A literal has a fixed, known type, by definition. Types are also known and fixed in other circumstances, such as function return types. This becomes especially handy when a method returns a parametric type that may be hard to write. I've personally written expression template code where the specialized concrete type is a few lines long.
Do you really claim you'd rater write [4 lines of type] foo = bar(); instead of auto foo = bar()? Even for shorter types, it can be arduous.
This for (std::vector::const_iterator a = b.begin(); a != b.end(); ++a) vs for (auto a = b.begin(); a != b.end(); ++a)
Just write a function that checks the argument types and does what you wish.
Even then that's an infinite set, since one orbital parameter (a.k.a. the orbital slot) is free. An orbit isn't a path in the sky, it's a vector in the space of orbital parameters. You can't ignore the orbital spot and pretend that all geostationary orbits are the same - all those satellites would sit on each other, then :)
I did generalize it, assuming that any orbit with a 24h period is geostationary. Perhaps that was ill advised :)
Ahh, you think that most obscure tapes (think electrical tape) are IR-transparent? You're nuts.
I'm sorry, you're a moron. Sure it's arbitrary, since two orbital parameters are free and the term geostationary refers to an infinite set of orbits. Yet everyone understands that it's about the radius. Perhaps the title should have said "within the geostationary orbital radius".
They don't come from a lawyers office just because there's a lawyer's signature on them. The entire fucking document is forged, how hard is that to see? The legal firm had as much to do with them as the court did. It's entirely a fabrication, using some real names.
Whatever. It doesn't work in Greek, either.
It doesn't matter anyway, since the number for a name/word is counted by adding the letter values (hebrew and greek both have them) together. The number for www is 18, not 666. In ancient times, if you were jewish, and your sweetheart wanted to say in code that he/she loved you, the line would be "I love the person whose number is 140". 140 is your number (K=20, M=40, P=80 in Hebrew). This tradition does in fact carry forward in interesting ways - I distinctly remember that we had a similar system going in the elementary school. Someone came up with value assignments for all letters of the roman alphabet. At some point every literate kid in the building had those assignments memorized. It was a shortlived fad, even though it was good to get the kids doing some addition exercises and decomposition ("decoding") of integers into sums.
Yet SIL 4 is still hardwired :)
"Getting rocket software right is difficult precisely because there is no way to do a live test." There is. You do hardware-in-the-loop tests where the inertial and other inputs come from simulators. I have seen testing of a jet engine controller done without an actual jet engine attached to it. There was a beefy server that was simulating the physics of a jet engine, though, and providing sensor readings.
Ah, I see you've been to Soviet Union, then, comrade. They always did 150% of the norm!
I hoped so.
What kind of cars do they sell in UK, for crying out loud? I'd expect anything from a major manufacturer and not from Detroit to be pretty much worn-in at the 100k mark, and ready to go another 200k at least without needing a new engine nor a new transmission. Heck, I'd expect a manual transmission to easily outlast any automatic (yes, the clutch is a maintenance item).
Huh? My S80 has 1/4 million miles on it, all engine seals are original, no leaks.