there was a study done recently which showed that the difference in attention payed to traffic between drivers that were using hands-free phones and hand-held phones negligible. In other words it really doesn't make that much difference whether you're using hands-free or not (except for the law off course)
I bet that if he would have been allowed to compete some athletes would have been tempted to have certain parts of their bodies amputated and replace with more efficient artificial parts.
The deficits are causing interest rates to soar, they are tipping the country into recession
US interest rates are like what? 4-6% ? hardly what I call soaring. One of the main reasons the usa is heading for a recession is that the interest rates were/are so low, they made ninja (no income, no job, no assets) loans too hard for financial institutions to resist and now they're stuck with the mess.
not disputing that planes use more fuel but just wanted to point out that wings are actually quite efficient lift/drag ratios can be as high as 20/1 for modern planes. (for example a boeing 787 wing http://www.lissys.demon.co.uk/samp1/polarb.png) Also heat (and especially jet/turbine) engines are much less efficient than electrical motors. (off course a turbine is usually involved in production of electricity but things tend to get more efficient as they get larger)
look at modern cars; Are engines becoming more efficient? yes they are. Are the constructive aspects of the cars more efficient? yes they are. Are the materials being used becoming lighter? yes they are. But do cars today consume less fuel than 10 or 20 years ago? No they don't... Why? because the average car is much heavier and thus needs a larger engine; people want the car padded with airbags, power everything (including ashtray covers) steel beams for side impact protection, etc. etc. and they still want the car to accelerate like a sports car. Moral of the story, when technology advances it is used for more comfort, not for more efficiency.
hmm, well it goes it the name I guess. It's yet another geeky name for some open source/linux app. Linux is never going to conquer the desktop of the majority of people if its apps have geeky names that aren't appealing to non-geeky people.
that's a strange system you have indeed but the alternatives you are proposing don't sound much better to me. The system that makes sense to me is taxing based on wear caused to the road/environment. Therefore taxing according to the weight of the vehicle makes much sense since a heavier car will cause more wear to the road. (off course you can always find expceptions to which the system doesn't make sense)
Gee, I hate to break it to you but you most likely drive a car that developed mostly in software.
This really depends how you look at it, the basic design of a car predates computers. Look at a car from the 50's and compare it to a modern car, see the similarity? Whilst I agree that computers are used extensively to optimize car design the basic concept is still a matter of engineering experience. Bottom line is that it is a mistake to think that a computer expert could design a car because "cars are designed with computers".
This may be true for some fields but I can easily use 50 years old textbooks for introductory courses in mechanics/mathematics etc. Unit conversion is really not such a problem, when doing problems you only really need to convert the final answer (btw, unit conversion is a very handy skill to have and it also makes you double check if your units are indeed correct). I've used US unit textbooks (I'm european) and had no trouble learning from them. The changes in many of the introductory engineering textbooks I've seen are basically in the page numbers and some pictures/colors etc. At an introductory level not that much has changed in engineering.
Do you even realize what those numbers represent? Man, every time someone mentions violence and videogames in one sentence the whole of slashdot goes crazy trying to claim that videogames are completely benign.
if the ants walk further when they had "longer" legs and not as far when they had "shorter" legs it doesn't depend on the amount of energy spent since it should be different for those two cases.
University researchers may have limited funding but a lot of researchers at large corps (oil/med/etc) don't have much trouble getting funds for their research, bear in mind also that not everything is research, for instance engineers may simply want to run some large numerical models etc. I have personally seen parallel processing on windows clusters implemented at a large corp, plenty of funding there.
Measurement data used by engineers/scientists often has more than 65k records and it doesn't make sense to have datasets in data-bases as the data can't be moved around as easily (it's a lot easier for the average user to copy/paste an excel file from the network to his/her laptop than it is to copy from one db to another). Personally I prefer csv files to excel files but that's another topic.
Slashdot Mirror
you probably mean "misunderestimate"
there was a study done recently which showed that the difference in attention payed to traffic between drivers that were using hands-free phones and hand-held phones negligible. In other words it really doesn't make that much difference whether you're using hands-free or not (except for the law off course)
I bet that if he would have been allowed to compete some athletes would have been tempted to have certain parts of their bodies amputated and replace with more efficient artificial parts.
Wonder what type (or equivalent) they are. In any case, wondering if he does "guitar amp tubes" like 12ax7, el34/84 and 6L6.
ever heard of a porsche 911?
the point is that the mileage increase could have been much greater if the car hadn't become so much heavier.
maybe they have slightly, compare the fuel consumption of an entry level vw golf for example;
1974 golf fuel consumption
petrol (1093 cc, 750 kg) 8.5l/100km
diesel (1588 cc, 820 kg) 6.7 l/100km
2003 golf fuel consumption
petrol (1390 cc, 1164 kg) 6.8 l/100km
diesel (1588 cc, 1227 kg) 5.3 l/100km
The consumption has gone down a bit but in more than 30 years you'd expect a bit more.
not disputing that planes use more fuel but just wanted to point out that wings are actually quite efficient lift/drag ratios can be as high as 20/1 for modern planes. (for example a boeing 787 wing http://www.lissys.demon.co.uk/samp1/polarb.png) Also heat (and especially jet/turbine) engines are much less efficient than electrical motors. (off course a turbine is usually involved in production of electricity but things tend to get more efficient as they get larger)
look at modern cars; Are engines becoming more efficient? yes they are. Are the constructive aspects of the cars more efficient? yes they are. Are the materials being used becoming lighter? yes they are. But do cars today consume less fuel than 10 or 20 years ago? No they don't... Why? because the average car is much heavier and thus needs a larger engine; people want the car padded with airbags, power everything (including ashtray covers) steel beams for side impact protection, etc. etc. and they still want the car to accelerate like a sports car. Moral of the story, when technology advances it is used for more comfort, not for more efficiency.
hmm, well it goes it the name I guess. It's yet another geeky name for some open source/linux app. Linux is never going to conquer the desktop of the majority of people if its apps have geeky names that aren't appealing to non-geeky people.
tom tom is dutch, not belgian.
isn't denmark considered a part of scandinavia?
that's a strange system you have indeed but the alternatives you are proposing don't sound much better to me. The system that makes sense to me is taxing based on wear caused to the road/environment. Therefore taxing according to the weight of the vehicle makes much sense since a heavier car will cause more wear to the road. (off course you can always find expceptions to which the system doesn't make sense)
This really depends how you look at it, the basic design of a car predates computers. Look at a car from the 50's and compare it to a modern car, see the similarity? Whilst I agree that computers are used extensively to optimize car design the basic concept is still a matter of engineering experience. Bottom line is that it is a mistake to think that a computer expert could design a car because "cars are designed with computers".
he gave them a bomb filled with old pinball parts in return?
Those are not Linux problems, they are Sony problems
Somehow this reminds me of how people would make fun of MS by saying Those are not software problems, those are hardware problems/i>
This may be true for some fields but I can easily use 50 years old textbooks for introductory courses in mechanics/mathematics etc. Unit conversion is really not such a problem, when doing problems you only really need to convert the final answer (btw, unit conversion is a very handy skill to have and it also makes you double check if your units are indeed correct). I've used US unit textbooks (I'm european) and had no trouble learning from them. The changes in many of the introductory engineering textbooks I've seen are basically in the page numbers and some pictures/colors etc. At an introductory level not that much has changed in engineering.
How much will /. pay?
Do you even realize what those numbers represent? Man, every time someone mentions violence and videogames in one sentence the whole of slashdot goes crazy trying to claim that videogames are completely benign.
if the ants walk further when they had "longer" legs and not as far when they had "shorter" legs it doesn't depend on the amount of energy spent since it should be different for those two cases.
University researchers may have limited funding but a lot of researchers at large corps (oil/med/etc) don't have much trouble getting funds for their research, bear in mind also that not everything is research, for instance engineers may simply want to run some large numerical models etc. I have personally seen parallel processing on windows clusters implemented at a large corp, plenty of funding there.
Measurement data used by engineers/scientists often has more than 65k records and it doesn't make sense to have datasets in data-bases as the data can't be moved around as easily (it's a lot easier for the average user to copy/paste an excel file from the network to his/her laptop than it is to copy from one db to another). Personally I prefer csv files to excel files but that's another topic.
"Virtual killing is not the same as killing a real live flesh and blood person"
How would you know unless you had killed anyone?