Assuming you manage to graduate despite the onus of that half-literate gibberish you're spewing, you're going to make a fantastic impression on your clients some day. Poor spelling and grammar is simply a sign of laziness, particularly at the university level.
Correct spelling and grammar is an important part of "experessing" yourself well. Don't assume you're so brilliant that the rest of us have any interest in slogging through the steaming mess you've written just to glean the dubious benefits of your self-proclaimed eloquence.
Spelling and grammar are part and parcel of the content of a post. Consequently, it is reasonable to take someone to task for a failing which should have been corrected around age ten. It is also reasonable to suspect that an intellect lacking in the comparatively simple skills of spelling and grammar may prove equally lacking in the ability to produce useful or interesting insights -- let alone the ability to relate those insights to others saddled with the considerable disadvantage of such grossly incompetent communication skills.
Rather than fly into some sort of barely-comprehensible rage, consider what I've written, read and learn from it, and please do not return until you can spell at least as well as a young child.
It's a shame, too. I did find your original post interesting. I considered responding to it. But it was such a disgusting example of near-illiteracy, I decided I preferred to avoid engaging you in conversation. In a way, I was embarassed on your behalf.
Good luck with whatever you end up doing. You're going to need it.
For the life of me, I can't figure out why your comment was modded "Funny", but thanks for the good idea. I used about:blank too, and I never think to check the APOTD site even though I always enjoy it when somebody sends me the link. Cool. Thanks.
To me all elevators cover more vertical distance than they are wide.
That might be what "elevator" means to you, but it doesn't mean that to the guys who designed the giant elevators used to move planes between decks on aircraft carriers. It seems likely there are many other examples.
Yes, for the same reason a sheet of aluminum foil weighs the same as that sheet wadded into a ball. You're just increasing the density. The mass is unchanged.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, but unlike the stereotypical Type R sticker, the Superbird features were highly functional. Back when NASCAR actually involved showroom-stock cars (instead of the dull cookie-cutter lopsided one-offs they race these days) there were production requirements. Dodge added the nose cone to improve aerodynamics (a fairly revolutionary idea for that level of racing at that point in time -- back then NASCAR was mainly a bunch of North Carolina hicks driving factory beaters) and the wing to improve tail-end downforce. It was so successful that NASCAR promptly outlawed it (as the France family is so fond of doing of any remotely interesting advance in racing technology).
I just don't see any commonality though, even among the few people I know who do both. Even in my own life, they're very separate things in my mind.
My personal opinion is that the car-guy side denies it because the car-guy side is simply a lot harder. I believe it requires a lot more skill and hard work to be a real car guy than it does to simply overclock a bunch of off-the-shelf parts. Yeah, you have to do some reading, but mostly it's jumping on line, running the Visa, and plugging everything in.
That's a far cry from figuring out how to make that Mustang T56 I just bought mate up with that Gen III Viper 505... not to mention the potential cost (in several respects) if I get it wrong.
I guess the point is to focus on the urge to increase speed, but having spent some time at very high speeds, I can't really equate the two concepts. Building the fastest computer I can is mostly a matter of convenience and economy. I'm interested in seeing how far I can push it, and I often spend a good chunk of change on it, but it isn't remotely like the same kind of kick that I get out of chasing a Mallet Vette at 160 MPH down the straight at Moroso.
The only thing I'd add to that is magazines are an awful source for quarter mile times. It's probably OK for comparison purposes, but for quoting a specific vehicle's performance, you'll almost always find that most cars perform signficantly better than what the magazines manage.
For example, a bone-stock 2001 Viper RT/10 turned 11.23 at Englishtown NJ. That's quite a bit better than the 12.07 time quoted for a 96 GTS, which most Viper guys will tell you is likely to produce quite a bit more power than an 01. Heck, it's better than the 11.77 time they quote for the SRT-10 with a slightly bigger and more powerful engine.
On the other hand, I think V8s are the sweetest sounding engines. I wonder if their unique engine notes are related to their relatively poor engine balance.
The characteristic V8 sound is due to it's uneven firing order (in terms of left bank / right bank). That firing order creates pulses which result in a fairly unique sound. So the answer is yes, it is related to their relatively poor balance.
The viper, for example, is supposed to be something of a dog at lower speeds.
I don't know where you're getting your information from, but that's completely wrong. The Viper was designed as a race car first, and as a street car second. Its handling characteristics are phoenomenal. It has the stiffest chassis of any production car in history, the suspension is fully adjustable and has a huge range of travel, and of course it has enormous brakes and, in stock form, a 52" contact patch. Quite a few Viper owners I know have switched to Vipers from Porsches and Ferraris after a Viper showed up at an open track date and handed them their asses.
Muscle cars don't handle. The ones that think they do are wrong.
I road race with a whole bunch of highly modified Mustangs and Camaros, as well as Vipers and Vettes which are closer to stock (or bone-stock) that regularly put the beat-down on all sorts of imports. Most track dates we see a few NSXs, WRXs, tons of Hondas, and the odd old Nissan or whatever. None of them are reomtely able to hang. About the only cars which beat us handily are the dedicated race cars -- 360 Challenges, Porsche GT2's and GT3's, and so on. We're generally pretty even with the modified BMWs and Porsches and the like, and we regularly beat the unmodified ones with a bit of effort.
So, in conclusion -- you're just wrong. I have many, many hours of track video that proves it. I've been passed by a variety of German and Italian makes, but I can't recall having ever been beaten by anything Japanese, and that includes in the twisties (which is really the fun part).
Just make that 4000lb monster car turn. F1 cars are only 3.5L for a reason. In most parts of the world, racing involves doing something besides driving in a straight line. A 2.2L engine can deliver 400 hp for a long time; the problem is when you get to rediculous levels of HP it isn't good for a whole lot outside of a drag strip. You can't put the power down.
Bring your four-cylinder-whatever to Sebring to the SAFE track date at the end of next May and I'll handily tear it up with my Viper all day long. That is, if your car keeps running all day long. I know mine will.
I do understand both -- I road race Vipers as a hobby, and I'm currently building a chopped and channeled 31 five-window coupe with a Gen III Viper engine under the hood for drag racing. I build all my own computers, and I write software for a living.
And never in a million years would I suggest that the two communities had much of anything in common except maybe fanatical obsession.
Every time this comes up, it looks like a sad attempt at the geek community to associate themselves with something cool. You certainly won't pick up a copy of "Muscle Mopars" to find an article about "Our Kinship With Clarence McNerdley: King of the Water-Cooled Athlons".
If you pull your head out of the gaming world at look at big companies -- the ones offshorint significant numbers of jobs -- you're going to find that the victory strongly favors your column A. Not very many of these companies are on the verge of going under.
What makes this especially hilarious is that in another thread, you throw a temper tantrum when you interpret another person's post as suggesting that the government should support them. Yet, here you are, a few pages later, laying out your grand new welfare state.
Europe hasn't strongly embraced free trade yet. It's coming, and they're not happy. Hell, just browse the past few month's worth of front-page stories on The Register.
I'm going out on a limb and guessing "the American middle class" gives a shit about the American middle class. And that's about 200 million people, a not-insignificant number. The US is not the only market in the world, but the rest of the world is awfully hell-bent on getting a piece of it, and only an idiot would argue that we aren't a very important market.
The problem is, the purchasing power of the average Chinese and Indian WON'T go up. American companies wouldn't be outsourcing all of this work if the labor rates were high enough to provide a useful, lasting boost to the economies of those countries. It isn't in the interest of American companies to improve the lot of those workers, and if it starts happening, we'll just send our work to the next dirt-poor country in line.
It isn't about anyone being "uplifted", and it's all about a whole bunch of people being dragged down.
Free clue: Manufacturing jobs are not considered middle-class work in a nation such as the United States. So, no, the middle class isn't threatened when manufacturing work is sent overseas.
The lower classes are threatened (or more accurately, they were fed through the grinder and came out in relatively poor condition), but the wisdom of that shift is a separate debate.
If you are going to have the government step in and protect your jobs, why shouldn't they protect the companies interests too and force you to buy their product? I mean they are both under the same ruleset aren't they?
The simple answer is: No.
A corporation is a legal entity which mainly exists as a way to protect individuals from excessive liability. The concept has expanded quite a bit since it was originally introduced, but that core concept is still there. It has nothing to do with extending the same protections to a business which are supposedly guaranteed to citizens.
That's all fine and dandy, but the simple fact is, your exact words were "They will NEVER intentionally screw the customer." Your emphasis.
I never said you won't get hits on "microsoft screwed". I never said Apple hasn't ever done anything good. Whether you consider the issues "small" or not, there are people who feel they were screwed by Apple.
I don't know what opponent you're referring to, but the bad guys in this war on terror aren't interested in "opening a dialog". They want you, and me, and the guy who wrote the parent post, and just about everyone else here DEAD. And that is why assclowns who make naive statements like "work to become teachable" are never taken seriously by anyone in any position to make a difference.
In this case, the terrorists aren't just misunderstood underdogs. They aren't just the powerless downtrodden. They are an organization who believes it is their duty -- authority granted to them by their god -- to kill us.
Your childish fantsy-land reinterpretation is the only thing worth being embarrassed about.
That would have been a much more reasonable post. I agree, the encroachment of our rights in the name of this "war on terror" have already gone too far, and I believe they'll only get worse, and in some respect that could be construed as a minor victory for the terrorists.
However, I have to say that your second post doesn't appear to follow as a logical conclusion from your original post. (And unless I missed something in the original article, I can't see where you might have simply been responding to something the article said.)
Slashdot Mirror
Ah yes, the "grammar is a straitjacket" argument.
Assuming you manage to graduate despite the onus of that half-literate gibberish you're spewing, you're going to make a fantastic impression on your clients some day. Poor spelling and grammar is simply a sign of laziness, particularly at the university level.
Correct spelling and grammar is an important part of "experessing" yourself well. Don't assume you're so brilliant that the rest of us have any interest in slogging through the steaming mess you've written just to glean the dubious benefits of your self-proclaimed eloquence.
Spelling and grammar are part and parcel of the content of a post. Consequently, it is reasonable to take someone to task for a failing which should have been corrected around age ten. It is also reasonable to suspect that an intellect lacking in the comparatively simple skills of spelling and grammar may prove equally lacking in the ability to produce useful or interesting insights -- let alone the ability to relate those insights to others saddled with the considerable disadvantage of such grossly incompetent communication skills.
Rather than fly into some sort of barely-comprehensible rage, consider what I've written, read and learn from it, and please do not return until you can spell at least as well as a young child.
It's a shame, too. I did find your original post interesting. I considered responding to it. But it was such a disgusting example of near-illiteracy, I decided I preferred to avoid engaging you in conversation. In a way, I was embarassed on your behalf.
Good luck with whatever you end up doing. You're going to need it.
For the life of me, I can't figure out why your comment was modded "Funny", but thanks for the good idea. I used about:blank too, and I never think to check the APOTD site even though I always enjoy it when somebody sends me the link. Cool. Thanks.
To me all elevators cover more vertical distance than they are wide.
That might be what "elevator" means to you, but it doesn't mean that to the guys who designed the giant elevators used to move planes between decks on aircraft carriers. It seems likely there are many other examples.
Yes, for the same reason a sheet of aluminum foil weighs the same as that sheet wadded into a ball. You're just increasing the density. The mass is unchanged.
But WAIT! That means these are the same Jawas that sold us R2 and 3PO!
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, but unlike the stereotypical Type R sticker, the Superbird features were highly functional. Back when NASCAR actually involved showroom-stock cars (instead of the dull cookie-cutter lopsided one-offs they race these days) there were production requirements. Dodge added the nose cone to improve aerodynamics (a fairly revolutionary idea for that level of racing at that point in time -- back then NASCAR was mainly a bunch of North Carolina hicks driving factory beaters) and the wing to improve tail-end downforce. It was so successful that NASCAR promptly outlawed it (as the France family is so fond of doing of any remotely interesting advance in racing technology).
I just don't see any commonality though, even among the few people I know who do both. Even in my own life, they're very separate things in my mind.
My personal opinion is that the car-guy side denies it because the car-guy side is simply a lot harder. I believe it requires a lot more skill and hard work to be a real car guy than it does to simply overclock a bunch of off-the-shelf parts. Yeah, you have to do some reading, but mostly it's jumping on line, running the Visa, and plugging everything in.
That's a far cry from figuring out how to make that Mustang T56 I just bought mate up with that Gen III Viper 505... not to mention the potential cost (in several respects) if I get it wrong.
I guess the point is to focus on the urge to increase speed, but having spent some time at very high speeds, I can't really equate the two concepts. Building the fastest computer I can is mostly a matter of convenience and economy. I'm interested in seeing how far I can push it, and I often spend a good chunk of change on it, but it isn't remotely like the same kind of kick that I get out of chasing a Mallet Vette at 160 MPH down the straight at Moroso.
There is just no relationship that I can see.
The only thing I'd add to that is magazines are an awful source for quarter mile times. It's probably OK for comparison purposes, but for quoting a specific vehicle's performance, you'll almost always find that most cars perform signficantly better than what the magazines manage.
For example, a bone-stock 2001 Viper RT/10 turned 11.23 at Englishtown NJ. That's quite a bit better than the 12.07 time quoted for a 96 GTS, which most Viper guys will tell you is likely to produce quite a bit more power than an 01. Heck, it's better than the 11.77 time they quote for the SRT-10 with a slightly bigger and more powerful engine.
But still, a good post with good points.
I thought the punchline was supposed to include something about going blind...?
On the other hand, I think V8s are the sweetest sounding engines. I wonder if their unique engine notes are related to their relatively poor engine balance.
The characteristic V8 sound is due to it's uneven firing order (in terms of left bank / right bank). That firing order creates pulses which result in a fairly unique sound. So the answer is yes, it is related to their relatively poor balance.
The viper, for example, is supposed to be something of a dog at lower speeds.
I don't know where you're getting your information from, but that's completely wrong. The Viper was designed as a race car first, and as a street car second. Its handling characteristics are phoenomenal. It has the stiffest chassis of any production car in history, the suspension is fully adjustable and has a huge range of travel, and of course it has enormous brakes and, in stock form, a 52" contact patch. Quite a few Viper owners I know have switched to Vipers from Porsches and Ferraris after a Viper showed up at an open track date and handed them their asses.
Muscle cars don't handle. The ones that think they do are wrong.
I road race with a whole bunch of highly modified Mustangs and Camaros, as well as Vipers and Vettes which are closer to stock (or bone-stock) that regularly put the beat-down on all sorts of imports. Most track dates we see a few NSXs, WRXs, tons of Hondas, and the odd old Nissan or whatever. None of them are reomtely able to hang. About the only cars which beat us handily are the dedicated race cars -- 360 Challenges, Porsche GT2's and GT3's, and so on. We're generally pretty even with the modified BMWs and Porsches and the like, and we regularly beat the unmodified ones with a bit of effort.
So, in conclusion -- you're just wrong. I have many, many hours of track video that proves it. I've been passed by a variety of German and Italian makes, but I can't recall having ever been beaten by anything Japanese, and that includes in the twisties (which is really the fun part).
Just make that 4000lb monster car turn. F1 cars are only 3.5L for a reason. In most parts of the world, racing involves doing something besides driving in a straight line. A 2.2L engine can deliver 400 hp for a long time; the problem is when you get to rediculous levels of HP it isn't good for a whole lot outside of a drag strip. You can't put the power down.
Bring your four-cylinder-whatever to Sebring to the SAFE track date at the end of next May and I'll handily tear it up with my Viper all day long. That is, if your car keeps running all day long. I know mine will.
I do understand both -- I road race Vipers as a hobby, and I'm currently building a chopped and channeled 31 five-window coupe with a Gen III Viper engine under the hood for drag racing. I build all my own computers, and I write software for a living.
:)
And never in a million years would I suggest that the two communities had much of anything in common except maybe fanatical obsession.
Every time this comes up, it looks like a sad attempt at the geek community to associate themselves with something cool. You certainly won't pick up a copy of "Muscle Mopars" to find an article about "Our Kinship With Clarence McNerdley: King of the Water-Cooled Athlons".
You were looking for a non-AC response, right?
And follow that up with:
Start -> Run -> debug g=c800:5 [enter]
(Hmm... I wonder if that still low-level formats? Probably not. Oh well.)
You don't see many new closed source Web servers being developed do you? How about any new SQL databases?
I also don't see many open source Web servers or SQL databases being developed.
And I certainly don't see many being completed.
If you pull your head out of the gaming world at look at big companies -- the ones offshorint significant numbers of jobs -- you're going to find that the victory strongly favors your column A. Not very many of these companies are on the verge of going under.
What makes this especially hilarious is that in another thread, you throw a temper tantrum when you interpret another person's post as suggesting that the government should support them. Yet, here you are, a few pages later, laying out your grand new welfare state.
Europe hasn't strongly embraced free trade yet. It's coming, and they're not happy. Hell, just browse the past few month's worth of front-page stories on The Register.
I'm going out on a limb and guessing "the American middle class" gives a shit about the American middle class. And that's about 200 million people, a not-insignificant number. The US is not the only market in the world, but the rest of the world is awfully hell-bent on getting a piece of it, and only an idiot would argue that we aren't a very important market.
The problem is, the purchasing power of the average Chinese and Indian WON'T go up. American companies wouldn't be outsourcing all of this work if the labor rates were high enough to provide a useful, lasting boost to the economies of those countries. It isn't in the interest of American companies to improve the lot of those workers, and if it starts happening, we'll just send our work to the next dirt-poor country in line.
It isn't about anyone being "uplifted", and it's all about a whole bunch of people being dragged down.
Free clue: Manufacturing jobs are not considered middle-class work in a nation such as the United States. So, no, the middle class isn't threatened when manufacturing work is sent overseas.
The lower classes are threatened (or more accurately, they were fed through the grinder and came out in relatively poor condition), but the wisdom of that shift is a separate debate.
If you are going to have the government step in and protect your jobs, why shouldn't they protect the companies interests too and force you to buy their product? I mean they are both under the same ruleset aren't they?
The simple answer is: No.
A corporation is a legal entity which mainly exists as a way to protect individuals from excessive liability. The concept has expanded quite a bit since it was originally introduced, but that core concept is still there. It has nothing to do with extending the same protections to a business which are supposedly guaranteed to citizens.
Cool. I'm like a moderation-point singularity...
That's all fine and dandy, but the simple fact is, your exact words were "They will NEVER intentionally screw the customer." Your emphasis.
I never said you won't get hits on "microsoft screwed". I never said Apple hasn't ever done anything good. Whether you consider the issues "small" or not, there are people who feel they were screwed by Apple.
Fact.
What's even more funny is some assclown blew a mod point just to knock my "LOL" down with an Overrated. Ah, slashdot, ya gotta love it.
I don't know what opponent you're referring to, but the bad guys in this war on terror aren't interested in "opening a dialog". They want you, and me, and the guy who wrote the parent post, and just about everyone else here DEAD. And that is why assclowns who make naive statements like "work to become teachable" are never taken seriously by anyone in any position to make a difference.
In this case, the terrorists aren't just misunderstood underdogs. They aren't just the powerless downtrodden. They are an organization who believes it is their duty -- authority granted to them by their god -- to kill us.
Your childish fantsy-land reinterpretation is the only thing worth being embarrassed about.
That would have been a much more reasonable post. I agree, the encroachment of our rights in the name of this "war on terror" have already gone too far, and I believe they'll only get worse, and in some respect that could be construed as a minor victory for the terrorists.
However, I have to say that your second post doesn't appear to follow as a logical conclusion from your original post. (And unless I missed something in the original article, I can't see where you might have simply been responding to something the article said.)