There have been observations of Mars accurate enough to determine the day on Mars since Cassini, or 1666. You can google them, they show the ice caps existed, but not in high detail.
Honeré Flaugergues, 1813, starts tracking the melting cycle of the ice caps, and also can see the dust storms. That is a lot more detail than "blurry indistinct features on the tiny visible orb".
The canals were not a case of them not being there, it was a case of misinterpreting the lines that are clearly there, caused by natural features. There is even some debate over the meaning of the original Italian report, which used a word that does not mean man made, just a "channel". His drawings look more like channels in a delta, the "straight" line stuff came later. Actual daguerreotypes made in the mid-1800 show the white caps, so they are there.
100x magnification gets you an image of Mars roughly the apparent size of the moon with the naked eye. Such telescopes have been around for 3 or 400 years.
Mars Ice Caps have been recorded since Newton's time by many early scientists, and of course current probes and high resolution telescopes. Certainly longer than Earths, and better sizing data as we could see the entire extent of the planet and the icecaps, something we on Earth have only been able to do in the last half of the century with satellites.
And guess what? They are shrinking. No human input. And no volcanic activity, either.
So there is your control, and it is behaving the same way as the "experiment"
cycling for one hour at 15 mph burns north of 800 Kcal if you are at 180lbs. Better than anything but swimming, but try doing laps for a full hour... it is a bitch.
At my correct BPI, 205 lbs, it is more like 1000 KCal.
A bicycle calibrated heart rate monitor like one from Polaris will help you accurately track how many calories you burn and keep your heart rate in the right zone.
Because of the torque created at the moment of ignition. Nothing to do with the actual ignition system, I said "at ignition", meaning the fuel air mixture burning and creating energy. All the power the engine is going to produce is made in that instant, and it is distributed through the stroke until the exhaust valve is opened, or exposed in the case of a 2 stroke Vespa.
The cush drive dampens it, but there is lossage, although not enough to care.
Downshifting it does reduce some of the lash as you re-engage the clutch and momentum from rear wheel tries to drive up the RPMs of the engine.
But hey, you read the internet, I just rebuild Vespa engines for a hobby and have access to people that do it for a living.
And I have never heard of a crush drive either.
From a physics point of view: Unsupported springs act like 2 equal mass balls in a vacuum attached by a spring. If you load the spring and let go at the same instant, the two masses will oscillate, but the center of mass will not move, thus no work is actually done. Eventually the masses will stop oscillating from entropy (heat) created in the spring.
Fix one of the masses against an immovable object and now the spring will do work.
Since the Vespa, nor the bicycle, is a mass in vacuum, the springs do push against either the wheel side of the drive, or the engine. But the energy returned is nothing like the energy used to compress the springs.
Want to get rid of the dead spot? Round out your stroke.
Learn to scrape your foot, as if wiping dog poo of your shoe on the curb, at the bottom of the stroke, and then actively pull up on the backstroke.
You won't actually provide any power on tht backstroke, but it keeps you from pressing down, thus fighting the work the downstroke leg is doing.
Oh, and ride a fixed gear bike regularly, it will round out and smooth your stroke, or you get your nuts thrashed by the seat. Pain is a great teacher.
The muscle memory will carry over to the freewheel bike and you will get all the dubious benefits of this crank for real, because you actually improved the weak link: the human piston driving the crank.
Springs only return power when there is one fixed point, like a pogo stick.
With the crank and piston setup, springs don't return the energy, they dampen it.
That is why motorcycles have something called a Cush drive, it is a spring or rubber buffer loaded gear that helps reduce the kick/lash produced at ignition from thrashing the gears and rider.
This is especially important in a 2-stroke Vespa, the Christmas tree style transmission is exceptionally prone to shattering teeth if the Cush drive springs break.
No, there is no inherent loss of leverage at tdc in the crank, the loss of leverage is in the piston (leg) That is turning reciprocating motion into circular motion.
It is the position of the crank arm to the piston (leg) that gives the flat spot in power.
If I replaced the piston (leg) with an electric motor who's axis matched the bottom bracket, then made and arm that reached out to attach to the pedel, there would be no loss at Tdc or anywhere else.
It would look stupid and require a fixed point to mount the motor on, but I hope you see my point, it is the tdc of the piston, not the crank, that makes the tdc flat, and that does not change with a whacky crank shape.
Captain Renault moved to China after the fall of Vichy France?
Rick: How can you close me up? On what grounds? Captain Renault: I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here! [a croupier hands Renault a pile of money] Croupier: Your winnings, sir. Captain Renault: Oh, thank you very much.
From a Systems Architect point of view, if you write your code on a modern multi-chip hyper threaded OS/system (Like, say, !Windows and !Pentium 3) and your code is not parallel capable, you are clubbing someone to death with a loaded Uzi, as someone once said.
If your linear process blocks processing of the thread, when it could have spun it off and released resources and/or executed other non-related processing requests, such as in a multi-user Java app, then it is, system wide, slower than the thread safe version.
The thread safe version took twice as long, granted, but during that time the engine continued to process other requests, resulting in the "most efficient" leveraging of resources and increased throughput in exchange for the "most efficient" bit of code.
Even if it is 10x less efficient but lets me service other user requests in a non-blocking execution architecture, I win on any platform with more than 10 threads. I win big on a Cell or T4 chip set with potentially several hundred cores.
I am a Data Center Relocation Architect and an UNIX SA by trade.
Means I gotta live with all the crap code and try to make it production supportable and portable when you all never intended to make it portable. Requiring millisecond communications with the NAS device because of a crappy file search and retrieval algorithm? I mean really, could you not have threaded it take advantage of the multi-threaded I/O? Same with DB access, why do you need less than a 20ms round trip or your code goes tits up? Why does the web server have to be in the same datacenter as the app tier? Why is everything so damn linear? Why does it block on fetching a stupid jpg?!
Why the fuck did you lock the table when all you do is read the damn thing?
And to the point above, why the fuck is it all in a custom version of fileinputstream(), when you could have used fileinputstream()?
At least it pays well and is interesting work. If you all did it right, I would be bored and eating Ramen.
IF he is good enough to take my stupid test and shove it up my ass for wasting his time but without refusing the request, he is the kinda of guy I want one or two of my team. Or more. My boss is this guy, I am this guy, half the rest of the team is like this guy.
Those guys are the kind of guys you can give a "Letter to Garcia" to and know it is going to get there without much intervention on your part.
And those are the sort of guys that make complex datacenter migrations/refits successful, even if you have to provide air cover because some PM tried the same stupid trick and he shoved the test up their ass and they did not like it.
It does not say any of the things you just said, it says: without using the reverse() method, reverse an array of numbers containing 1,2,3,4,5 in the most efficient way possible.
You are implying that they were "supposed to reverse the array in-play" the way "reverse() does".
Unless you are implying that is the most efficient way to do it, period.
One could also presume that the way reverse() does it is wrong, inefficient or "broken" in some way for this use case, or why the fuck are you wasting my time refactoring reverse()? Use reverse()!
Personally, the whole test stinks of: If you were too stupid to look up reverse(), how would you hack around the problem?
Slashdot Mirror
An asteroid *is* a Death Star for all intents and purposes.
You are going to have to alter the path of these asteroids to mine them effectively, which means you can slam them into Earth as well.
Who needs the full operational Battlestation, when you can slam a Chicxulub sized rock into the earth as a "dirty Death Star"?
Put down the talking points:
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2003/07aug_southpole/
There have been observations of Mars accurate enough to determine the day on Mars since Cassini, or 1666. You can google them, they show the ice caps existed, but not in high detail.
Honeré Flaugergues, 1813, starts tracking the melting cycle of the ice caps, and also can see the dust storms. That is a lot more detail than "blurry indistinct features on the tiny visible orb".
The canals were not a case of them not being there, it was a case of misinterpreting the lines that are clearly there, caused by natural features. There is even some debate over the meaning of the original Italian report, which used a word that does not mean man made, just a "channel". His drawings look more like channels in a delta, the "straight" line stuff came later. Actual daguerreotypes made in the mid-1800 show the white caps, so they are there.
100x magnification gets you an image of Mars roughly the apparent size of the moon with the naked eye. Such telescopes have been around for 3 or 400 years.
Actually, there are.
Mars Ice Caps have been recorded since Newton's time by many early scientists, and of course current probes and high resolution telescopes.
Certainly longer than Earths, and better sizing data as we could see the entire extent of the planet and the icecaps, something we on Earth have only been able to do in the last half of the century with satellites.
And guess what? They are shrinking. No human input. And no volcanic activity, either.
So there is your control, and it is behaving the same way as the "experiment"
The rumor is they are hiring Steve Ballmer to give the response.
Apple employees are hiding their Herman Miller chairs, just in case.
What a useless test.
Tells you nothing about what is suitable for your requirements.
Head south to California, you will pay it there, unless it is for a business.
Head north, you will pay it there:
http://dor.wa.gov/Content/FindTaxesAndRates/RetailSalesTax/Exemptions.aspx#producer
No, it is more like the Gillette model: Lower the price of the razor, stick them for the blade.
Which is why a safety razor costs around $35. but the blades cost as little as 5 cents.
True true... But then they fund panty raids, not suicide bombers with the profits.
Stop calling me Shirly.
You don't know enough then.
There is a fixed tax per gallon, and then the normal scaling sales tax, now at 8.75%.
So they do rake in more at the state level when prices go up.
Just for reference,
cycling for one hour at 15 mph burns north of 800 Kcal if you are at 180lbs. Better than anything but swimming, but try doing laps for a full hour... it is a bitch.
At my correct BPI, 205 lbs, it is more like 1000 KCal.
A bicycle calibrated heart rate monitor like one from Polaris will help you accurately track how many calories you burn and keep your heart rate in the right zone.
And why is there that shock?
Because of the torque created at the moment of ignition. Nothing to do with the actual ignition system, I said "at ignition", meaning the fuel air mixture burning and creating energy. All the power the engine is going to produce is made in that instant, and it is distributed through the stroke until the exhaust valve is opened, or exposed in the case of a 2 stroke Vespa.
The cush drive dampens it, but there is lossage, although not enough to care.
Downshifting it does reduce some of the lash as you re-engage the clutch and momentum from rear wheel tries to drive up the RPMs of the engine.
But hey, you read the internet, I just rebuild Vespa engines for a hobby and have access to people that do it for a living.
And I have never heard of a crush drive either.
From a physics point of view:
Unsupported springs act like 2 equal mass balls in a vacuum attached by a spring. If you load the spring and let go at the same instant, the two masses will oscillate, but the center of mass will not move, thus no work is actually done. Eventually the masses will stop oscillating from entropy (heat) created in the spring.
Fix one of the masses against an immovable object and now the spring will do work.
Since the Vespa, nor the bicycle, is a mass in vacuum, the springs do push against either the wheel side of the drive, or the engine. But the energy returned is nothing like the energy used to compress the springs.
Meh, I would have modded him down for unnecessarily inventing the word innecessarily.
Those gold plated connectors do improve the quality of the singnal!
Problem is, they are improving signal in a system that is not sensitive to quality of signal past the I Have A Signal threshold.
Extra crisp waveforms on your 0s and 1s don't do shit for you.
And if he won't listen to his Wyse friends, they should DEC him.
Want to get rid of the dead spot? Round out your stroke.
Learn to scrape your foot, as if wiping dog poo of your shoe on the curb, at the bottom of the stroke, and then actively pull up on the backstroke.
You won't actually provide any power on tht backstroke, but it keeps you from pressing down, thus fighting the work the downstroke leg is doing.
Oh, and ride a fixed gear bike regularly, it will round out and smooth your stroke, or you get your nuts thrashed by the seat. Pain is a great teacher.
The muscle memory will carry over to the freewheel bike and you will get all the dubious benefits of this crank for real, because you actually improved the weak link: the human piston driving the crank.
It is really kinda sad.
Even an average bike with decent bearings is 95+ efficient, with a little loss to the inefficiency of the freewheel and friction in the bearings.
A high quality bike pushes that higher, and a fixed gear bike with no freewheel and no variable gearing reaches 98.5 percent efficiency.
Getting at that last 5% is hard, you are better off improving your form or your aerodynamics if you want more efficiency.
Springs only return power when there is one fixed point, like a pogo stick.
With the crank and piston setup, springs don't return the energy, they dampen it.
That is why motorcycles have something called a Cush drive, it is a spring or rubber buffer loaded gear that helps reduce the kick/lash produced at ignition from thrashing the gears and rider.
This is especially important in a 2-stroke Vespa, the Christmas tree style transmission is exceptionally prone to shattering teeth if the Cush drive springs break.
More simply: the TDC is a function of the piston, not the crank. The piston(leg) has not changed, so tdc does not change.
No, there is no inherent loss of leverage at tdc in the crank, the loss of leverage is in the piston (leg) That is turning reciprocating motion into circular motion.
It is the position of the crank arm to the piston (leg) that gives the flat spot in power.
If I replaced the piston (leg) with an electric motor who's axis matched the bottom bracket, then made and arm that reached out to attach to the pedel, there would be no loss at Tdc or anywhere else.
It would look stupid and require a fixed point to mount the motor on, but I hope you see my point, it is the tdc of the piston, not the crank, that makes the tdc flat, and that does not change with a whacky crank shape.
Captain Renault moved to China after the fall of Vichy France?
Rick: How can you close me up? On what grounds?
Captain Renault: I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!
[a croupier hands Renault a pile of money]
Croupier: Your winnings, sir.
Captain Renault: Oh, thank you very much.
Captain Renault: Everybody out at once!
From a Systems Architect point of view, if you write your code on a modern multi-chip hyper threaded OS/system (Like, say, !Windows and !Pentium 3) and your code is not parallel capable, you are clubbing someone to death with a loaded Uzi, as someone once said.
If your linear process blocks processing of the thread, when it could have spun it off and released resources and/or executed other non-related processing requests, such as in a multi-user Java app, then it is, system wide, slower than the thread safe version.
The thread safe version took twice as long, granted, but during that time the engine continued to process other requests, resulting in the "most efficient" leveraging of resources and increased throughput in exchange for the "most efficient" bit of code.
Even if it is 10x less efficient but lets me service other user requests in a non-blocking execution architecture, I win on any platform with more than 10 threads. I win big on a Cell or T4 chip set with potentially several hundred cores.
You are correct.
I am a Data Center Relocation Architect and an UNIX SA by trade.
Means I gotta live with all the crap code and try to make it production supportable and portable when you all never intended to make it portable.
Requiring millisecond communications with the NAS device because of a crappy file search and retrieval algorithm? I mean really, could you not have threaded it take advantage of the multi-threaded I/O?
Same with DB access, why do you need less than a 20ms round trip or your code goes tits up? Why does the web server have to be in the same datacenter as the app tier? Why is everything so damn linear? Why does it block on fetching a stupid jpg?!
Why the fuck did you lock the table when all you do is read the damn thing?
And to the point above, why the fuck is it all in a custom version of fileinputstream(), when you could have used fileinputstream()?
At least it pays well and is interesting work. If you all did it right, I would be bored and eating Ramen.
And I probably would hire him.
IF he is good enough to take my stupid test and shove it up my ass for wasting his time but without refusing the request, he is the kinda of guy I want one or two of my team. Or more. My boss is this guy, I am this guy, half the rest of the team is like this guy.
Those guys are the kind of guys you can give a "Letter to Garcia" to and know it is going to get there without much intervention on your part.
And those are the sort of guys that make complex datacenter migrations/refits successful, even if you have to provide air cover because some PM tried the same stupid trick and he shoved the test up their ass and they did not like it.
It does not say any of the things you just said, it says:
without using the reverse() method, reverse an array of numbers containing 1,2,3,4,5 in the most efficient way possible.
You are implying that they were "supposed to reverse the array in-play" the way "reverse() does".
Unless you are implying that is the most efficient way to do it, period.
One could also presume that the way reverse() does it is wrong, inefficient or "broken" in some way for this use case, or why the fuck are you wasting my time refactoring reverse()? Use reverse()!
Personally, the whole test stinks of: If you were too stupid to look up reverse(), how would you hack around the problem?