In their testing so far, the students found that in a 6-shock heavy truck, each shock absorber could generate up to an average of 1 kW on a standard road.
The total insolation at the equator is about 1kW per square meter, so if your solar cells are 20% efficient that's the equivalent of 30 square meters of solar panels.
("up to an average", though... wtf does that actually mean? Oh well, your solar cells only get "up to an average" of 1kW too...)
Re:Do they have a real vi compatible mode?
on
Vim 7.2 Released
·
· Score: 1
How did you type new text in vi?
With a paper tape punch, scissors, and masking tape, as god intended.
1. Don't connect without asking me, thanks. 2. Don't connect without asking me, thanks. 3. Don't connect without asking me, thanks. 4. Corporate policy and internal firewalls prevent me from bypassing the PAC file for my browser, if you can't handle PAC files, let me set a proxy for you manually. 5. Don't connect without asking me, thanks. 6. Really don't connect without asking me. I mean it.
I open it up and what do I get, about 6 dialogs telling me it can't connect to servers.
1. Don't connect without asking me, thanks. 2. You apparently can't connect until I can set my network settings, I guess you don't use the OS proxies. 3. You don't have any place to set the proxies.
Oh, and by the way, ActiveX itself is not a "bargehole" - or rather it's as much of one as Mozilla/Netscape plugins are.
Except that you had to explicitly install Netscape plugins, using a database maintained by Netscape. ActiveX provides a mechanism for an untrusted site (that is, any site) to request the installation of an unsandboxed component. It is not possible to prevent this from at the very least bringing up a dialog asking the user (who has no idea whether it's safe or not) to make a technical decision they are not, in general, equipped to make, without making IE and much of the rest of Windows so unpleasant as to be nearly unusable.
As for the relationship between IE4 and Netscape, I simply don't agree. IE5 or 5.5, maybe, but not IE4.
b) You think there's something fundamentally wrong with using products made by Apple, no matter what the reason.
I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, and assuming that you actually had a rational reason for your comment, by picking option (a).
And yes, music sounds much worse on an ipod than a creative zen x-fi
Which iPod? There's a huge difference between the quality of my old iPod Shuffle and my daughter's iPod Mini.
And in any case, if you're listening to it in a typical public place, through any headsets that are discreet enough to wear in a public place, the difference between a good iPod and anything else is going to be lost in the noise. Literally.
Do they have a real vi compatible mode?
on
Vim 7.2 Released
·
· Score: 1
News for the vim people, these days "vi compatible" means "nvi compatible". KTHX.
Early versions of IE were far worse than Netscape, and yet IE completely dominated the market long before the first decent versions came out. And even at the peak of IE's strength, the advantages of IE over Netscape were marginal. The main reason people at work wanted exceptions to my "no IE" rule wasn't because Netscape didn't work, it was because they needed to use crappy "IE Only" websites that deliberately broke anything but IE.
That's not because IE was better, it's because IE was already dominant. Because of bundling.
And mozilla has always been fundamentally more secure than IE because it hasn't have the ActiveX bargehole.
The embedded CPU on the drive is a lot slower than the computer's own CPU, so how is it doing encryption more efficiently? There's no magic that makes software in the CPU slower or less reliable than software on the drive... in fact it's a lot faster than any CPU they can put on the drive... and my experience with encrypted drives (flash based, but the principle is the same) has been pretty damn awful. Encryption slowed it down, and any kind of unexpected power loss was almost certain to trash the partition and brick the drive. They have been "notoriously unreliable" for this.
Yes, how awful that their backend systems will interoperate with the tens of millions currently deployed devices (both for Google and the people that own the devices).
Yes, that's the argument that Microsoft apologists always use in favor of using Microsoft proprietary protocols instead of open ones, until their ox gets gored and all of a sudden they're wondering how they got stuck with an orphaned product they can't get support for.
A company as big as Microsoft cannot be completely evil.
Licensing a suite of proprietary interfaces and protocols lest Google implement their own and promote open source and open systems is not an example of Microsoft not being "ebil".
"Fair and Reasonable" means "terms that only a large company like Google can afford". If you're an open source project, you can suck Microsoft's exhaust.
"Fair and Reasonable" is a term Microsoft uses to fight off any responsibility for letting open standards pollute their precious proprietary protocols.
After my experience with ActiveSync on my iPaq... to hell with it. I won't use any product that uses ActiveSync, even if it's got Theo, RMS, Linus, Steve Jobs, and the whole FreeBSD core team recommending it.
I banned IE and any other application that used the Microsoft HTML control on untrusted content from 1997 to 2003, and required all our uses use Netscape.
We were the ONLY division of our company to not suffer from a single outbreak of worms or viruses in that period.
IE may have had more features, but those features were (and many still are) so poorly implemented that they were appalling security holes.
Slashdot Mirror
This is pretty good.
In their testing so far, the students found that in a 6-shock heavy truck, each shock absorber could generate up to an average of 1 kW on a standard road.
The total insolation at the equator is about 1kW per square meter, so if your solar cells are 20% efficient that's the equivalent of 30 square meters of solar panels.
("up to an average", though... wtf does that actually mean? Oh well, your solar cells only get "up to an average" of 1kW too...)
How did you type new text in vi?
With a paper tape punch, scissors, and masking tape, as god intended.
1. Don't connect without asking me, thanks.
2. Don't connect without asking me, thanks.
3. Don't connect without asking me, thanks.
4. Corporate policy and internal firewalls prevent me from bypassing the PAC file for my browser, if you can't handle PAC files, let me set a proxy for you manually.
5. Don't connect without asking me, thanks.
6. Really don't connect without asking me. I mean it.
Thanks, that explains things a lot better.
Yeah, it does more than your cordless phone.
I would never have guessed that a product that cost more, did more. That's amazing.
Would it help if we used words with fewer syllables?
It would help if you could recognize sarcasm.
No, but it doesn't cost you ~$300 a year, either.
Your home internet service is free? Must be nice.
I open it up and what do I get, about 6 dialogs telling me it can't connect to servers.
1. Don't connect without asking me, thanks.
2. You apparently can't connect until I can set my network settings, I guess you don't use the OS proxies.
3. You don't have any place to set the proxies.
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?
We;ve seen leaprog attempts lead to delays before. If this means AMD gets 45nm before Intel gets 32nm, doesn't that give AMD a performance window?
So you're saying it's NOT "just like" the cordless phone sitting on the charger at home after all?
I'm sorry, I'll try to keep up, can try not changing direction so often?
Yeah, like the cordless phone you have sitting on the charger at home.
Does it also cost $30.00 with two handsets and extra charging station?
Oh, and by the way, ActiveX itself is not a "bargehole" - or rather it's as much of one as Mozilla/Netscape plugins are.
Except that you had to explicitly install Netscape plugins, using a database maintained by Netscape. ActiveX provides a mechanism for an untrusted site (that is, any site) to request the installation of an unsandboxed component. It is not possible to prevent this from at the very least bringing up a dialog asking the user (who has no idea whether it's safe or not) to make a technical decision they are not, in general, equipped to make, without making IE and much of the rest of Windows so unpleasant as to be nearly unusable.
As for the relationship between IE4 and Netscape, I simply don't agree. IE5 or 5.5, maybe, but not IE4.
It sure is nice that Slashdot just came up with an article entitled "you are not a lawyer".
Read it.
The only thing I can see, still, is either:
a) You don't like the appearance of the products.
b) You think there's something fundamentally wrong with using products made by Apple, no matter what the reason.
I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, and assuming that you actually had a rational reason for your comment, by picking option (a).
And yes, music sounds much worse on an ipod than a creative zen x-fi
Which iPod? There's a huge difference between the quality of my old iPod Shuffle and my daughter's iPod Mini.
And in any case, if you're listening to it in a typical public place, through any headsets that are discreet enough to wear in a public place, the difference between a good iPod and anything else is going to be lost in the noise. Literally.
News for the vim people, these days "vi compatible" means "nvi compatible". KTHX.
YES, THAT IS MY POINT.
They have SyncML support, so they don't need to license ActiveSync from Microsoft unless they actually intend to use ActiveSync.
Early versions of IE were far worse than Netscape, and yet IE completely dominated the market long before the first decent versions came out. And even at the peak of IE's strength, the advantages of IE over Netscape were marginal. The main reason people at work wanted exceptions to my "no IE" rule wasn't because Netscape didn't work, it was because they needed to use crappy "IE Only" websites that deliberately broke anything but IE.
That's not because IE was better, it's because IE was already dominant. Because of bundling.
And mozilla has always been fundamentally more secure than IE because it hasn't have the ActiveX bargehole.
The embedded CPU on the drive is a lot slower than the computer's own CPU, so how is it doing encryption more efficiently? There's no magic that makes software in the CPU slower or less reliable than software on the drive... in fact it's a lot faster than any CPU they can put on the drive... and my experience with encrypted drives (flash based, but the principle is the same) has been pretty damn awful. Encryption slowed it down, and any kind of unexpected power loss was almost certain to trash the partition and brick the drive. They have been "notoriously unreliable" for this.
I expect they made their own "two way" sync product for google that does not interoperate with active sync, maybe?
Why on earth would they license ActiveSync instead of using SyncML in that case? Particularly when they already have support for SyncML?
Yes, how awful that their backend systems will interoperate with the tens of millions currently deployed devices (both for Google and the people that own the devices).
Yes, that's the argument that Microsoft apologists always use in favor of using Microsoft proprietary protocols instead of open ones, until their ox gets gored and all of a sudden they're wondering how they got stuck with an orphaned product they can't get support for.
Won't happen to you? Remember Plays For Sure?
Isn't industry moving to SyncML?
With Microsoft, Google, and Apple behind ActiveSync, apparently not. Who's using SyncML?
And with this step, it *is* the de-facto standard.
Instead of any open standard, a proprietary protocol controlled by Microsoft is now the standard for syncing.
Thanks a whole hell of a lot, Google and Apple.
A company as big as Microsoft cannot be completely evil.
Licensing a suite of proprietary interfaces and protocols lest Google implement their own and promote open source and open systems is not an example of Microsoft not being "ebil".
"Fair and Reasonable" means "terms that only a large company like Google can afford". If you're an open source project, you can suck Microsoft's exhaust.
"Fair and Reasonable" is a term Microsoft uses to fight off any responsibility for letting open standards pollute their precious proprietary protocols.
After my experience with ActiveSync on my iPaq... to hell with it. I won't use any product that uses ActiveSync, even if it's got Theo, RMS, Linus, Steve Jobs, and the whole FreeBSD core team recommending it.
Let alone mere Google.
I banned IE and any other application that used the Microsoft HTML control on untrusted content from 1997 to 2003, and required all our uses use Netscape.
We were the ONLY division of our company to not suffer from a single outbreak of worms or viruses in that period.
IE may have had more features, but those features were (and many still are) so poorly implemented that they were appalling security holes.