It is not a stupid statement. How can speed alone be responsible for an accident? Speed is involved in every accident, stationery cars don't crash. But speed alone? THINK
All your examples deal with a lack of vision, or more precisely excess speed for the conditions. My examples are trying to illuminate that speed alone is not the problem. 80mph on the freeway is safer than 80mph through Macy's parking lot. Same speed totally different risk level, so speed alone does not determine risk.
'Alive through luck alone' can be a deep philosphical question:-) So do you agree that all driving is dangerous? If you do then we are back to the question of risk, is 50mph safe, how about 51,52,53 etc,etc. 150mph is always more risky than 100mph but is it ever acceptable? I say yes you say no.
<sarcasm>Thank you for explaining dangerous I was under some totally different illusion as to what dangerous meant. </sarcasm> I tried to ignore the personal attacks and concentrate on the attacks on my point that speed != Dangerous driving, but that last one was just to much.
So we've now started using risk rather dangerous? This is fine an increase in speed involves an increase in risk. When does that risk become dangerous? My position is that any speed has the oppurtunity to be dangerous. But what I also argue and what causes most people to recoil is that speed is not the great evil it has been portrayed, rather speed in the wrong circumstances is the problem.
You still don't get the little comment about braking != stopping distance did you? I laid the formulas out so prehaps you can credit me with a little understanding about the forces involved.
If you are to reduce it to the force involved then should lighter cars have a higher speed limit? That's another can of worms that you can mull over, why is the speed limit for a large tractor/trailer the same as for a motorbike? Prehaps the speed limits are not to do with safety?
You're reaction time stays the same but the distance travelled increases.
It no more useful to say speed does kill or speeding is dangerous. Screw the speed limit, whenever you increase your speed you are increasing the risk. Going from 50 -> 70 mph increases the risk even if the limit is 90mph. But when does that increase become dangerous? Change that 'You're increasing' to 'We're increasing' every time we start a vehicle in motion.
To argue that speed alone is a problem is to be blind to reason.
I have asked a number of times for you to define dangerous, so far you have been unable to. When does speed become dangerous? Or to quote my original post Speed != Dangerous Driving.
Stopping distance = Reaction Distance + Braking Distance Reaction Distance = 1 ft for every 1mph (roughly) Braking Distance = MPH*MPH/20 (UK DOT)
You are consistently talking about braking distance but calling it stopping distance!
You make a blaise comment about all people who speed are impatient, not only is this not true it does not absolve those who drive slowly from also being impaitent. By a reasonable following distance I bet you're thinking of something around 2 seconds, at least. A better course of action is to have that distance but also escape routes already mapped e.g. hard shoulder, near side lane, catch fence etc.
Speed does not endangour lives, doing Mach II in Concord does not endanger your life does it? So speed alone is a piss poor definition of endangerment. If I'm travelling at 150 and you're at home in bed am I endangering you?
Driving at 150mph in a vehicle designed for those speeds, on a well kept road, with no traffic is not dangerous. Driving at 35mph past a school at closing time is bordering on pre-meditated murder.
By driving a car you are accepting risk, prehaps you think 50mph is safe or 70mph? Now where does it stop being safe and becomes dangerous, 100mph, 125mph, 150mph? Impossible to make the call, 70mph is safe but 71mph is dangerous, hardly.
How accurate is this going to be? Certainly not pin point.
I thought about making a toy similar to this, but a little more advanced. You've seen light guns for computers, well how about a gun you can target anything with, sorta. Look up 'Small Arms Trainer' e.g.
I built one of these for fun, yes it's a scream with a projecter, webcam and laser pointer.
But I want more, If you can work out were a gun is pointing and you know in advance where the targets are then you work out if they are hit. Simple huh? Well no, it's a real bear to locate something in 3d, it has to be accurate, way less than 1mm.
Of course I posted an ask slashdot but it was rejected, obviously way to technical.
Any ideas?
I didn't think LTSP used MOSIX? I thought it was just a stock Linux kernel.
The problem with your idea for HA is who watches the watchers? The process comparing the results must have a backup, so who checks that the checking process and it's back up are in sync? Quite quickly becomes a nightmare.
FYI, Tandem are the only company I know of with a fault tolerant intel server. They had to design their own mother boards as I recall. Lockstep of the processors was the way they went.
granularity, I'm tired of explaining this on/. but here goes.
There are two main typesd of cluster, High Performance and High Availability.
HPC tries to increase the power of the cluster by spreading jobs out over the whole cluster. HPC breaks the work down into blocks and farms this block out to the nodes. In the worst case a single node failure could cause the whole cluster to fail.
HAC tries to increase the uptime of the cluster by running the same job on more than one node. If a node fails then the job on the mirror node takes over. It's worth noting that no Linux cluster has 100% HA.
If a single node is going to fail 5% of the time what is the up time of a 100 node cluster?
I work in the commercial not the scietific world. HPCs bore me. HACs could be a god send.
Imagine if you will a cluster that automatically deals with node addition/subtraction. I have 1,000 users connected to this cluster using Xterms. I need more power, add more nodes. If any nodes fail the user never loses anyuptime as their work is switched to a mirrored node or nodes.
I did my BSc. (HONS) with the Open University. This has been going since the mid 1960s
In general I had an open book assesment every month, one week at 'Summer School' where most people tried to fit a year of student parties into a week and a final. Course grade 50% from assessment and 50% from exam, had to pass the final exam though to pass the course.
I found this an excellent way to study, I chose what was important etc. This is the reason I still can't do integral calculus:-)
I also emmigrated from the UK half way through my degree. Simply gave the OU my forwarding address and kepy mumm about where exactly the stuff was being forwarded:-) I took one exam in the US but flew back for a few others. In short the OU was very helpful.
In fact I'm probably going to do my masters with them as well.
Chasing numbers at 5.9? Get real, I'm a trad climber from the early 80s. The only place I've clipped bolts is Smith Rock, and even then I never went over 5.8 Most of my climbing is solo toprope. I sure as hell don't climb to impress others.
But I hate being told what is and is not acceptable. In fact I really detest being told what is and is not acceptable in climbing. I do not alter the rock in any way, unless you count the normal microscopic wear *EVERY* climber puts on the rock. How I choose to climb is my business so get lost with the purer than thou shit.
I don't bolt, but I'm glad some rap stations have bolts. I don't chip but if there's a chipped hold I'm damn well going to use it. I don't use chalk but hell if there's some chalk showing me a hold I'm on it. Hanging on gear, been there. You know what, I still enjoy climbing. I sure as hell don't worry about other peoples ethics.
Climbing has always evolved, seen what pin scars look like on granite? So we switched to clean pro. I've even got some clean bolts. This geko stuff will be used by climbers. I wonder how the self appointed style gurus are going to react.
Maybe we'll have to declare if we used it for a climb, like no one could guess if I send anything over 5.11. Maybe, it will be for emegencies only, like being late for dinner. Or maybe, just maybe, everybody can just carry on climbing how they choose.
Leave no trace is the only rule I will admit to following, but if I have a problem in the future I'll gladly leave day glow pink rap slings all the way down a climb.
In short enjoy the vertical. And if you happen to see a guy flailing up an easy 5.7, cheating at the crux and sucking wind on the anchor chains, feel free to scream, point and bitch, I really don't give a fuck:-)
What problems is Quantum computers good at solving?
They are not general purpose, so let's spend loads of money on a small range of problems. Or spend money on stuff that most future platforms are going to need.
Slashdot Mirror
It is not a stupid statement. How can speed alone be responsible for an accident? Speed is involved in every accident, stationery cars don't crash. But speed alone? THINK
:-) So do you agree that all driving is dangerous? If you do then we are back to the question of risk, is 50mph safe, how about 51,52,53 etc,etc. 150mph is always more risky than 100mph but is it ever acceptable? I say yes you say no.
All your examples deal with a lack of vision, or more precisely excess speed for the conditions. My examples are trying to illuminate that speed alone is not the problem. 80mph on the freeway is safer than 80mph through Macy's parking lot. Same speed totally different risk level, so speed alone does not determine risk.
'Alive through luck alone' can be a deep philosphical question
<sarcasm>Thank you for explaining dangerous I was under some totally different illusion as to what dangerous meant. </sarcasm> I tried to ignore the personal attacks and concentrate on the attacks on my point that speed != Dangerous driving, but that last one was just to much.
Sorta of like 80% of all statistics are made up on the fly by clueless losers?
The mice paid for the earth to be designed.
Slarty Bart Fast did a lovely job on the shoreline, glacier you know, wonan award he did.
Paradoxially, it's safer for other vehicles but not for you!
You car will impart much less force than a semi in an accident but the semi can take a hell of a lot more force than your car can.
So we've now started using risk rather dangerous? This is fine an increase in speed involves an increase in risk. When does that risk become dangerous? My position is that any speed has the oppurtunity to be dangerous. But what I also argue and what causes most people to recoil is that speed is not the great evil it has been portrayed, rather speed in the wrong circumstances is the problem.
You still don't get the little comment about braking != stopping distance did you? I laid the formulas out so prehaps you can credit me with a little understanding about the forces involved.
If you are to reduce it to the force involved then should lighter cars have a higher speed limit? That's another can of worms that you can mull over, why is the speed limit for a large tractor/trailer the same as for a motorbike? Prehaps the speed limits are not to do with safety?
You're reaction time stays the same but the distance travelled increases.
It no more useful to say speed does kill or speeding is dangerous. Screw the speed limit, whenever you increase your speed you are increasing the risk. Going from 50 -> 70 mph increases the risk even if the limit is 90mph. But when does that increase become dangerous? Change that 'You're increasing' to 'We're increasing' every time we start a vehicle in motion.
To argue that speed alone is a problem is to be blind to reason.
I have asked a number of times for you to define dangerous, so far you have been unable to. When does speed become dangerous? Or to quote my original post Speed != Dangerous Driving.
Stopping distance = Reaction Distance + Braking Distance
Reaction Distance = 1 ft for every 1mph (roughly)
Braking Distance = MPH*MPH/20 (UK DOT)
You are consistently talking about braking distance but calling it stopping distance!
You make a blaise comment about all people who speed are impatient, not only is this not true it does not absolve those who drive slowly from also being impaitent. By a reasonable following distance I bet you're thinking of something around 2 seconds, at least. A better course of action is to have that distance but also escape routes already mapped e.g. hard shoulder, near side lane, catch fence etc.
Speed does not endangour lives, doing Mach II in Concord does not endanger your life does it? So speed alone is a piss poor definition of endangerment. If I'm travelling at 150 and you're at home in bed am I endangering you?
Driving at 150mph in a vehicle designed for those speeds, on a well kept road, with no traffic is not dangerous. Driving at 35mph past a school at closing time is bordering on pre-meditated murder.
By driving a car you are accepting risk, prehaps you think 50mph is safe or 70mph? Now where does it stop being safe and becomes dangerous, 100mph, 125mph, 150mph? Impossible to make the call, 70mph is safe but 71mph is dangerous, hardly.
Speed != Dangerous Driving
How accurate is this going to be? Certainly not pin point.
I thought about making a toy similar to this, but a little more advanced. You've seen light guns for computers, well how about a gun you can target anything with, sorta. Look up 'Small Arms Trainer' e.g. I built one of these for fun, yes it's a scream with a projecter, webcam and laser pointer.
But I want more, If you can work out were a gun is pointing and you know in advance where the targets are then you work out if they are hit. Simple huh? Well no, it's a real bear to locate something in 3d, it has to be accurate, way less than 1mm.
Of course I posted an ask slashdot but it was rejected, obviously way to technical.
Any ideas?
Sailing, being a water baby it was only a matter of time until I started sailing nearly full time.
Aikido, really like the movement, still waiting for the love, peace and harmony stuff. At the moment it's pain, grimace and cry.
Rock climbing, multi pitch trad. I like the adventure not the grades. Clipping bolts is for steeple jacks.
I didn't think LTSP used MOSIX? I thought it was just a stock Linux kernel.
The problem with your idea for HA is who watches the watchers? The process comparing the results must have a backup, so who checks that the checking process and it's back up are in sync? Quite quickly becomes a nightmare.
FYI, Tandem are the only company I know of with a fault tolerant intel server. They had to design their own mother boards as I recall. Lockstep of the processors was the way they went.
Bollocks,
/. but here goes.
granularity, I'm tired of explaining this on
There are two main typesd of cluster, High Performance and High Availability.
HPC tries to increase the power of the cluster by spreading jobs out over the whole cluster. HPC breaks the work down into blocks and farms this block out to the nodes. In the worst case a single node failure could cause the whole cluster to fail.
HAC tries to increase the uptime of the cluster by running the same job on more than one node. If a node fails then the job on the mirror node takes over. It's worth noting that no Linux cluster has 100% HA.
If a single node is going to fail 5% of the time what is the up time of a 100 node cluster?
I work in the commercial not the scietific world. HPCs bore me. HACs could be a god send.
Imagine if you will a cluster that automatically deals with node addition/subtraction. I have 1,000 users connected to this cluster using Xterms. I need more power, add more nodes. If any nodes fail the user never loses anyuptime as their work is switched to a mirrored node or nodes.
Centralised computing rocks.
Yep,
all the above is true, bought the book, read the book, tossed the book.
Prehaps now they'll have enough time to get the DEC Tulip driver working 100%
Where as Compassionate Conservatisim does away with the tyrants and dumps the kids into mass graves anyway
I did my BSc. (HONS) with the Open University. This has been going since the mid 1960s
:-)
:-) I took one exam in the US but flew back for a few others. In short the OU was very helpful.
In general I had an open book assesment every month, one week at 'Summer School' where most people tried to fit a year of student parties into a week and a final. Course grade 50% from assessment and 50% from exam, had to pass the final exam though to pass the course.
I found this an excellent way to study, I chose what was important etc. This is the reason I still can't do integral calculus
I also emmigrated from the UK half way through my degree. Simply gave the OU my forwarding address and kepy mumm about where exactly the stuff was being forwarded
In fact I'm probably going to do my masters with them as well.
Downside it takes a while to get your degree etc.
Chasing numbers at 5.9? Get real, I'm a trad climber from the early 80s. The only place I've clipped bolts is Smith Rock, and even then I never went over 5.8 Most of my climbing is solo toprope. I sure as hell don't climb to impress others.
:-)
But I hate being told what is and is not acceptable. In fact I really detest being told what is and is not acceptable in climbing. I do not alter the rock in any way, unless you count the normal microscopic wear *EVERY* climber puts on the rock. How I choose to climb is my business so get lost with the purer than thou shit.
I don't bolt, but I'm glad some rap stations have bolts. I don't chip but if there's a chipped hold I'm damn well going to use it. I don't use chalk but hell if there's some chalk showing me a hold I'm on it. Hanging on gear, been there. You know what, I still enjoy climbing. I sure as hell don't worry about other peoples ethics.
Climbing has always evolved, seen what pin scars look like on granite? So we switched to clean pro. I've even got some clean bolts. This geko stuff will be used by climbers. I wonder how the self appointed style gurus are going to react.
Maybe we'll have to declare if we used it for a climb, like no one could guess if I send anything over 5.11. Maybe, it will be for emegencies only, like being late for dinner. Or maybe, just maybe, everybody can just carry on climbing how they choose.
Leave no trace is the only rule I will admit to following, but if I have a problem in the future I'll gladly leave day glow pink rap slings all the way down a climb.
In short enjoy the vertical. And if you happen to see a guy flailing up an easy 5.7, cheating at the crux and sucking wind on the anchor chains, feel free to scream, point and bitch, I really don't give a fuck
Did that on Saturday.
Hadn't watched TV for three months so sent the cable box back. Saves me $50 a month that I can spend on neat stuff.
Please elaborate how using this stuff could possibly be an ethical issue? I take it you climb in sticky rubber shoes not wing tips?
What problems is Quantum computers good at solving?
They are not general purpose, so let's spend loads of money on a small range of problems. Or spend money on stuff that most future platforms are going to need.
At last, I sick and tired of being stuck at 5.9
Are you nuts, expect AOL to use IE and get rid of any remaining Mozilla developers. It's a business not a charity.
Do not use MOSIX in a HA cluster. MOSIX is great for HP situations but for a terminal server, arghh
Linus would get his ass kicked. He'd probably need his wife to bail him out.
It was posted by Micheal.
/.
/. village idiot.
He really doesn't understand tech to well and therefore posts any old crap he thinks will generate page hits. Bit like Jon Katz, remember him?
The best laugh I have is when he posts a YRO, full of indignation and yet unable to see the irony of his position within
Think of him as the
Rather like a certain Mr. Edison.