Slip angles have nothing to do with it. Control and traction through the corner will be carried by all eight wheels, with two additional steering surfaces in the center of the wheelbase.
Rolling resistance is not my engineering problem. I doubt it significantly alters overall performance. Incidentally, 2x wheels means 2x axles on which to recharge batteries on downhill slopes.
Only 1.5x suspension pieces because there's only one extra major axle. And anyway, you're stretching it. The real implication is a far smoother and better-managed suspension. You have an extra axle on which to balance the weight and roll of the vehicle.
Incidentally, the extra suspension pieces further reduce dive/squat. The suspension geometry of this vehicle -- according to the page -- completely eliminates dive/squat.
Yes, it's a benefit. If you stop and think, I'm sure you can work out one or two reasons why.
Oh, hell, I'll give you some answers. One, if you live in the Third World you may be subject to violence on the streets (South Africa comes to mind). Two, if you are a police department, your vehicles may be subject to heavy punishment at times (riots and high-speed chases come to mind). Three, if you are a taxi or bus service you cannot afford costly breakdown times. Four, it may be desirable for many reasons to have broken wheels serviced professionally, in which case the car can be driven to a service center and user-replaceable parts can be kept to a minimum.
To begin with, as the page explains, it means no dive or squat during braking or acceleration. It also means smooth cornering. It means, as your other respondent mentions, 8 motors with power evenly distributed to each wheel. It means that the car can lose wheels and continue to operate normally. It means the vehicle prototype can be adapted into limousines, trucks, buses, and other large vehicles.
Basically, it's completely kickass, and you call it "laughable" because it's not what you're used to. Good job, man.
The great thing about Slashdot
on
Gaim For Windows
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
Is that we get to find out that Jeff "Hemos" Bates still doesn't care for instant messaging clients, but that he thinks GAIM is a sweet program.
Yes, that's a contradiction. No, we don't give a flying shit what Jeff "Hemos" Bates thinks. What the fuck is wrong with this world?
There wouldn't be any point in a B/W LCD because it probably wouldn't be any less expensive to produce. You'd have to develop and build a separate process and manufacturing line, the materials cost wouldn't be much lower, and for all that you might as well be making color displays at practically the same cost but getting higher margins.
The company is offering an amazing array of new features, and it's becoming extremely influential. Those are the two main points in the article, and the conclusion Katz draws is that this is a problem.
Katz is unbelievable. Nobody -- including Microsoft -- has ever used FUD to such an outrageous extent. There's nothing in the article which argues that Microsoft is anything but a brilliant and powerful competitor, creating new products, solutions, and value for voluntary customers. But the conclusion Katz wants you to draw is that Microsoft should seem scary and threatening.
In other words, Microsoft is doing exactly what we would hope free-market companies would do... and Katz is totally against it.
I'm afraid that when it comes to "teacher having a hard time" versus "children not raised and disciplined effectively" I know where to cast my vote for priorities. Apparently fewer and fewer people agree.
Ironically, both problems share causality in complex ways. Teachers have difficulties with poorly-raised children. Teachers' unions usurp more and more parental responsibilities. Vicious cycle continues.
Parents, take your children back from the public education system. If you love them.
So sad that this response is a common one. People who think that teaching discipline and responsibility means being harsh and "tough on crime" are wrong... I think they really need to think it through a little more. It's just too pat and easy to claim that more punishment is needed, especially when it's other people who get the prescription.
Imprisonment is a horrible punishment. If you've never been to jail before (even for a day) you really can't imagine how it feels. It's not just depressing; it creates despair and despondence. The prospect of spending time in jail is terrifying, and for a 13-year-old it's simply ridiculous.
The schools obviously hadn't communicated the entire sitation to the parents, which is classic in our current public education system. The public educators want to parent your children your place. That they fscked it up in this case is the least surprising part of this story.
The right thing to do in all cases of misbehavior is to teach the criminal to respect the consequences of his actions. That respect can only be taught by forcing the subject to repay the damaged party. If the school suffered from his intrusion he should have been made to make restitution. Simply threatening him and leaving him no ability to "make it right" and recover his good standing was exactly the *wrong* way to discipline a child. There is no such thing as a "debt to society"; the child should have been faced by the damaged party and asked to apologize and given the opportunity to make restitution.
Sadly it's probably the most common method of "parenting" used by schools and prosecutors. After all, it's not *their* kid... why should they demonstrate care for his well-being? Sensitivity for his age? Credit him for being a hard worker and a fast learner? Those are for Real Parents, after all... bureaucrats couldn't care less.
You're absolutely right that coddling takes place, and that it prevents a productive work ethic. But you should hesitate to replace coddling with an equally-destructive policy of nasty threats and shaking fists. Are you a father? I'd think that any father could understand this.
Dot-coms failing because of poor business models have absolutely nothing to do with the work ethic of IT professionals. Using the dot-com bust as a general-purpose sledgehammer to beat on everyone who has more creativity and technical expertise than yourself is a bad way to go about making friends. And money.
Every time someone suggests that creative, motivated, and flexible people are an asset, there's some wanker like you to stand up and shout "Somebody's gotta pay the fuckin' bills." Thanks, Captain Obvious, and apologies for having interrupted your masturbation session in front of Quicken 2000.
A "hip neo-fascist thug intellectual"? I don't think so. You practice some fucked-up economics, my poor refuge from the 18th-century. Don't protest that "modern tools of taxation" make you somehow more advanced than your brethren in the failed imperialistic regimes of yesteryear -- there is nothing "modern" about Keynesian, demand-side economics, save its growing reputation as a worthless model that has left countless nations impoverished.
You *are* a selfish ass, and I never had responsibility for you or anyone else in the first place. If you knew any better you'd applaud the wealthy for the national assets they are; your quality of life has been markedly improved by many of them, even during your lifetime.
Ask your parents for a better economics textbook for Christmas. The one you're using sounds like it was written by a gang of retards, even worse than the average demand-side economist today.
Why, exactly, are the numbers required? If lowering the tax rate increases revenue (as it did in the 80s under Reagan), then the tax rate should continue to be lowered until the revenue peaks. Theoretically, it's a simple economics experiment.
Practically speaking, it's even simpler. We already have a surplus to work with. Lower the tax rate immediately and observe the results over the next five years with regard to revenue. There's nothing complicated about this whatsoever.
* At 0% tax rate the tax revenue is -- wait for it -- 0 dollars.
* At 100% tax rate the tax revenue is -- guess -- 0 dollars.
If tax revenue is nonzero in between those tax rates, it must be a curve. And the maximum at which that curve peaks: that's the point of -- surprise! -- maximum tax revenue.
When Reagan lowered taxes in the 80s, TAX REVENUES INCREASED. The deficit has absolutely nothing to do with that, since spending ALSO increased. The 80s proved that the American tax rate was right of the Laffer Curve. PERIOD. You cannot argue with the facts. Now go shove your whiny objection up your ass and eat a bag of dicks, you ignorant fuckhole.
As usual, poor economics on the left stem from mercantilistic notions of wealth.
In case you're confused, let me make something clear: wealth is not a zero-sum game. Wealth accumulation does not impoverish anyone. 'Large slices of the pie' do not make your slice smaller. And wealth distribution is absolutely irrelevant. Rich people owe you nothing, and you have no claim on their money.
I don't say you're stupid, because I frankly have no idea. But you are phenomenally ignorant.
Are you saying that the Laffer Curve is wrong, or are you just creating a strawman for obfuscation? I ask because I didn't recognize a single coherent argument in your post.
Slashdot Mirror
Slip angles have nothing to do with it. Control and traction through the corner will be carried by all eight wheels, with two additional steering surfaces in the center of the wheelbase.
Rolling resistance is not my engineering problem. I doubt it significantly alters overall performance. Incidentally, 2x wheels means 2x axles on which to recharge batteries on downhill slopes.
Only 1.5x suspension pieces because there's only one extra major axle. And anyway, you're stretching it. The real implication is a far smoother and better-managed suspension. You have an extra axle on which to balance the weight and roll of the vehicle.
Incidentally, the extra suspension pieces further reduce dive/squat. The suspension geometry of this vehicle -- according to the page -- completely eliminates dive/squat.
Yes, it's a benefit. If you stop and think, I'm sure you can work out one or two reasons why.
Oh, hell, I'll give you some answers. One, if you live in the Third World you may be subject to violence on the streets (South Africa comes to mind). Two, if you are a police department, your vehicles may be subject to heavy punishment at times (riots and high-speed chases come to mind). Three, if you are a taxi or bus service you cannot afford costly breakdown times. Four, it may be desirable for many reasons to have broken wheels serviced professionally, in which case the car can be driven to a service center and user-replaceable parts can be kept to a minimum.
Just some reasons off the top of my head.
And seriously, whats with the 8 wheel design?
To begin with, as the page explains, it means no dive or squat during braking or acceleration. It also means smooth cornering. It means, as your other respondent mentions, 8 motors with power evenly distributed to each wheel. It means that the car can lose wheels and continue to operate normally. It means the vehicle prototype can be adapted into limousines, trucks, buses, and other large vehicles.
Basically, it's completely kickass, and you call it "laughable" because it's not what you're used to. Good job, man.
Is that we get to find out that Jeff "Hemos" Bates still doesn't care for instant messaging clients, but that he thinks GAIM is a sweet program.
Yes, that's a contradiction. No, we don't give a flying shit what Jeff "Hemos" Bates thinks. What the fuck is wrong with this world?
No, Minority Report didn't kick ass. Sorry to have to disabuse you.
There wouldn't be any point in a B/W LCD because it probably wouldn't be any less expensive to produce. You'd have to develop and build a separate process and manufacturing line, the materials cost wouldn't be much lower, and for all that you might as well be making color displays at practically the same cost but getting higher margins.
The company is offering an amazing array of new features, and it's becoming extremely influential. Those are the two main points in the article, and the conclusion Katz draws is that this is a problem.
Katz is unbelievable. Nobody -- including Microsoft -- has ever used FUD to such an outrageous extent. There's nothing in the article which argues that Microsoft is anything but a brilliant and powerful competitor, creating new products, solutions, and value for voluntary customers. But the conclusion Katz wants you to draw is that Microsoft should seem scary and threatening.
In other words, Microsoft is doing exactly what we would hope free-market companies would do... and Katz is totally against it.
Katz, you're a buffoon.
I'm afraid that when it comes to "teacher having a hard time" versus "children not raised and disciplined effectively" I know where to cast my vote for priorities. Apparently fewer and fewer people agree.
Ironically, both problems share causality in complex ways. Teachers have difficulties with poorly-raised children. Teachers' unions usurp more and more parental responsibilities. Vicious cycle continues.
Parents, take your children back from the public education system. If you love them.
So sad that this response is a common one. People who think that teaching discipline and responsibility means being harsh and "tough on crime" are wrong... I think they really need to think it through a little more. It's just too pat and easy to claim that more punishment is needed, especially when it's other people who get the prescription.
Imprisonment is a horrible punishment. If you've never been to jail before (even for a day) you really can't imagine how it feels. It's not just depressing; it creates despair and despondence. The prospect of spending time in jail is terrifying, and for a 13-year-old it's simply ridiculous.
The schools obviously hadn't communicated the entire sitation to the parents, which is classic in our current public education system. The public educators want to parent your children your place. That they fscked it up in this case is the least surprising part of this story.
The right thing to do in all cases of misbehavior is to teach the criminal to respect the consequences of his actions. That respect can only be taught by forcing the subject to repay the damaged party. If the school suffered from his intrusion he should have been made to make restitution. Simply threatening him and leaving him no ability to "make it right" and recover his good standing was exactly the *wrong* way to discipline a child. There is no such thing as a "debt to society"; the child should have been faced by the damaged party and asked to apologize and given the opportunity to make restitution.
Sadly it's probably the most common method of "parenting" used by schools and prosecutors. After all, it's not *their* kid... why should they demonstrate care for his well-being? Sensitivity for his age? Credit him for being a hard worker and a fast learner? Those are for Real Parents, after all... bureaucrats couldn't care less.
You're absolutely right that coddling takes place, and that it prevents a productive work ethic. But you should hesitate to replace coddling with an equally-destructive policy of nasty threats and shaking fists. Are you a father? I'd think that any father could understand this.
The original Mac OS was tweaked continiously for 17 years.
Yes, every time you installed an extension you were tweaking the OS. Cute little system.
Sorry, when I posted before I missed the fact that you were trolling. My bad, you've got the right idea.
Dot-coms failing because of poor business models have absolutely nothing to do with the work ethic of IT professionals. Using the dot-com bust as a general-purpose sledgehammer to beat on everyone who has more creativity and technical expertise than yourself is a bad way to go about making friends. And money.
Every time someone suggests that creative, motivated, and flexible people are an asset, there's some wanker like you to stand up and shout "Somebody's gotta pay the fuckin' bills." Thanks, Captain Obvious, and apologies for having interrupted your masturbation session in front of Quicken 2000.
That's the idea. Spend (taxpayer) money first, then get people excited later to justify expenditures. A perfect description of government spending.
"The nexus between moral posturing and greed in America"?!
That's fuckin' great.
Insects (arthropods) do have an open hemocoel in most of the body cavity, but there is also a proper circulatory system, with heart and arteries.
Insects only have one heart, a tubular muscle that pumps blood forward into the head, whence it diffuses into the other bodily tissues.
MJP
Does anybody know what the hell happened to PrivacyX?
A "hip neo-fascist thug intellectual"? I don't think so. You practice some fucked-up economics, my poor refuge from the 18th-century. Don't protest that "modern tools of taxation" make you somehow more advanced than your brethren in the failed imperialistic regimes of yesteryear -- there is nothing "modern" about Keynesian, demand-side economics, save its growing reputation as a worthless model that has left countless nations impoverished.
You *are* a selfish ass, and I never had responsibility for you or anyone else in the first place. If you knew any better you'd applaud the wealthy for the national assets they are; your quality of life has been markedly improved by many of them, even during your lifetime.
Ask your parents for a better economics textbook for Christmas. The one you're using sounds like it was written by a gang of retards, even worse than the average demand-side economist today.
MJP
Why, exactly, are the numbers required? If lowering the tax rate increases revenue (as it did in the 80s under Reagan), then the tax rate should continue to be lowered until the revenue peaks. Theoretically, it's a simple economics experiment.
Practically speaking, it's even simpler. We already have a surplus to work with. Lower the tax rate immediately and observe the results over the next five years with regard to revenue. There's nothing complicated about this whatsoever.
MJP
The Laffer Curve is *realllll* simple. Watch:
* At 0% tax rate the tax revenue is -- wait for it -- 0 dollars.
* At 100% tax rate the tax revenue is -- guess -- 0 dollars.
If tax revenue is nonzero in between those tax rates, it must be a curve. And the maximum at which that curve peaks: that's the point of -- surprise! -- maximum tax revenue.
When Reagan lowered taxes in the 80s, TAX REVENUES INCREASED. The deficit has absolutely nothing to do with that, since spending ALSO increased. The 80s proved that the American tax rate was right of the Laffer Curve. PERIOD. You cannot argue with the facts. Now go shove your whiny objection up your ass and eat a bag of dicks, you ignorant fuckhole.
Kind regards,
MJP
As usual, poor economics on the left stem from mercantilistic notions of wealth.
In case you're confused, let me make something clear: wealth is not a zero-sum game. Wealth accumulation does not impoverish anyone. 'Large slices of the pie' do not make your slice smaller. And wealth distribution is absolutely irrelevant. Rich people owe you nothing, and you have no claim on their money.
I don't say you're stupid, because I frankly have no idea. But you are phenomenally ignorant.
Are you saying that the Laffer Curve is wrong, or are you just creating a strawman for obfuscation? I ask because I didn't recognize a single coherent argument in your post.
Except that reducing taxes actually *increases* tax revenue when the tax rate is beyond the point of maximum return on the Laffer Curve.
We now return you to your regularly-scheduled fact-free program.
Can't believe I read every single one of this dope's books. What a thoughtless dipshit.
In the context of cellphone emissions, SAR stands for "search and rescue".
MJP
Mod this up!