There's really only one reason to use Intel's compiler -- for performance. It's well known that Intel's compiler generates code that vastly outperforms everything else for the same platform (namely Microsoft Visual C++ 6/7 and gcc -- everyone else (Watcomm, Borland) has long since been relegated to "also ran" status).
For a site trying to dispel myths, it has some rather sketchy ideas regarding physics. Take this explanation of the different types of radiation:
There are three types of radiation that are found in fallout. Alpha particles, beta particles, and gamma rays. As the first two names indicate, they are particles. They are minute (too small to be seen) pieces of atomic matter that attach themselves to the fallout (bits of dust that may or may not be large enough to be seen).
In any case, these particles may be simply washed off many types of foods that have a natural covering, such as eggs, bananas, potatoes, oranges, etc., or off well sealed foods such as those in vacuum packed cans. Foods such as grains (rice, dry cereals, etc.) that are in partially used packages that have been opened should be viewed with suspicion. Fallout dust may have crept in.
I can hear the concerned mother scolding "don't eat that, Billy, it's probably covered with helium nuclei"
I also like the way he quotes from a political journal regarding the danger of post-apocalypse nuclear winter. Not saying the findings are wrong, just it's an interesting source to rely on.
The difference may be that prior to the increased accessibility of these fields of endeavour you might never have had a chance to throw your hat in the ring even if you _were_ very strong.
I'd recommend reading the book, as he gives all sorts of tips about how to genuinely warm to people and to have them warm to you.
It's ages since i read it... so some tips off the top of _my_ head (FWIW)
Start by trying to smile more with people you like. Watch for when they smile and reciprocate (it really is kinda infectious, like yawns).
Try to work out when you're happy and what it is that makes you happy/smiling at those times. Try to find bits of this in interactions with other people.
I'm pretty sure that part of Carnegie's advice was to find redeeming qualities in pepole. Even if you've a big problem with somebody, you can still tolerate, even like, parts of their personality and character. Try to find these things in people and focus a bit more on that and appreciate them for it. This really costs you nothing, but most people find it very unusual and winning. And he makes a firm point that you do not set out to do this to "get things from people", but mostly because it's a good thing to do (you'll feel better, and other people will share in that).
He gives the example of presenting to a group of people on dealign with people (he taught a lot ofpublic speaking too). The anecdote he told was of dealing with a ticket clerk who was very hurried and brusque. He decided to pay the guy a compliment and told him he'd a great head of hair or something. The guy was made up and they exchanged a couple of sentences and he was on his way. Someone in the audience asked "what were you trying to get out of the guy?", and Carnegie was apalled. He said that if we could not pay a compliment for the simple kindness (and pleasure) of doing so, then we were in a very bad way.
Anyway, don't concentrate on fakign smiles, if you want to follow Carnegie's advice just try to be a bit warmer and more receptive with people. And later on (end of day/week) reflect back on when you did well, when you didn't, and what you might change (he recommended keeping a notebook)
Listen, just read the book if you're going to comment on it. It's been in print long enough, have a look in a second hand bookshop.
It's not about putting on a plastic face or faking people. Mostly it's about being a little bit more thoughtful and reflective. And this effort is not an exercise in navel gazing but rather is aimed at being a better person to be around.
What your saying makes sense, but it doesn't relate to the book very well, so it's a bit rich to throw around accusations of sophistry.
Well, my laptop power supply is rated at 65W. It takes about as long to charge the battery (while still using the computer) as to exhaust the battery so i'd imagine the power consumption of the laptop itself is about half this.
Regarding the mobile phone. My charger has a rating of less than 7W, and i usually need to charge it for about 2.5 hours every 3 days. This is very manageable with solar cells (you have 72 hours to accumulate 21 watt-hours of energy).
If a lecturer sets an assignment that gives universally fail-grades, and there's nothing exceptionally bad about his class, then he really does not know his job very well.
The whole point of the grade is to let the teacher see how well the class have learned, to give feedback to the students and to give a measure that the college/outside-agencies can use to judge the academic accomplishments of one student against another.
The grade is pointless if everybody gets a fail. It's as dumb (and it IS dumb, even though Bernstein's a smart man) as using a metre-stick to measure the thickness of a sheet of paper. The measured quantity disappears entirely and the measurement is almost useless (well, i suppose in my analogy, you could say that we know a sheet of paper is much less than one metre thick).
IF Bernstein refuses to readjust his marking scheme to allow a proper distribution of marks (and it _is_ an "if"), then he's failing twice. First by having no idea of what was an appropriate assignment to give to his class, and secondly (and more seriously) by not reflecting on this failure and looking for ways to address the problem.
Finally, talking (as the previous commenter does) about grade obsession "disgusting" him/her is a bit foolish (IMHO). Personally, I always studied the material first, and looked at the exam second. But, it is entirely rational to focus on the examinations and on marks. The marks students get can have a real effect on their lives, in particular when looking for their first job. To see their behaviour, in focussing on this aspect, as disgusting is very hard for me to understand. If we don't want students to do this, the simplest way to stop it is to stop giving marks.
And as for giving reduced grades to whiners, to suggest this shows no concept of the role of the lecturer/teacher. What it does show is a fondness for power-tripping. As a lecturer, you're not there to give -1 because people disagree with you and complain. If you're intimidated, call the police, otherwise you should be strong enough to put your case and, if needs be, close your door on objections. But you CANNOT dock marks because people whine (and if you disagree you'll surely get the chance to trash out the finer points of the argument in court and may even find things go full circle when you get docked a not inconsiderable wad of cash).
I offer these opinions based on one year of lecturing, giving 6 semester long modules and examinations to 3 classes including 300 students in all.
I don't know about AMD, but I know for sure that Intel owns and operates fabrication facilities.
They have a large facility in Ireland, which I've visited, and they certainly do chip fabrication there.
Also a friend and colleague of mine did a PhD that was sponsered by Intel. This research was entirely concerned with details of the fabrication process (using some data/input from the actual process being operated in Dublin).
The parent post is maybe not so far off the mark, though i'd like to posit a slightly different way of looking at things. I believe the situation would be clearer (for once!) if we wrote GNU/Linux instead of Linux.
Linux is just a kernel. Another child post mentioned it has good hardware support compared to solaris, i'm sure there are some other good points (e.g. a lot of architectures supported, embedded apps, a formidable base of experienced open-source developers, etc.,) that could mean Linux wouldn't just die if Solaris became free/Free.
But what most people think of as Linux, and what is in fact the largest part of, GNU/Linux is the set of userland tools we use. From the basics like bash, tar, grep, sed, awk, etc., to the compilers (gcc, etc.,), and up to the desktop level tools (KDE-family, Gnome-family, mozilla, openoffice, and so on).
Many of these tools can/are(!) ALSO be used on Solaris systems as appropriate/preferred.
If the Solaris licence is as free as the parent post hypothesizes, then this future is great! We can have a GNU/Solaris system if we want, Debian could offer a Debian-Solaris option (in the same vein as the Debian-NetBSD port), we can use bits of Solaris to improve Linux... All grist to the Free-Software mill.
> I also want less pseudo-science scare mongering > with half baked statistics that do not stand up > to critical thought
Well, we would all like this, but you still insist on posting, don't you?
If you want to accuse the authors of publishing "half baked statistics", then by all means look at their methodology and critique it using your doubtlessly immense statistical know-how. The result is may be that we will get a better understanding of their data, or propose better methods for gathering data in the future.
Perhaps you should write a letter to Nature, berating the editors for not taking this customary step themselves before publishing the article.
As for the pseudo-science part, well "nature" isn't "science" but i doubt the editors of either publication would agree with your comments.
Does anyone else find it depressing that US services personnel seem to be increasingly buying their own equipment?
I had already heard stories of soldiers' families investing in flak-jackets/body armour to give them additional protection, and i believe i recall even from Gulf War I that soldiers were bringing their own GPS kit.
Now they're putting together their own, affordable, bomb-disposal robots. I admire the initiative, but deplore the circumstances that make it necessary. Especially since the fact that a soldier/marine and his/her family can invest in the equipment means it is relatively inexpensive. If many soldiers buy it, it's *probably* useful too. So how come the government doesn't provide it?
Putting on a cynicism hat, i wonder if it is because they'd rather spend high-margin-megabucks on a few robots from InsertHugeSupplierHere, than divert a fraction of that to buy larger volume cheaper alternatives.
The point is valid, but in some situations this may not be such a big problem.
Reading the article, the intention of the designers is to come up with a robot that will drop some explosives on an enemy's bomb/mine so as to destroy it. Before doing this, everybody will have to have "retired to a safe distance", at which point it might not matter so much whether an electromagnetic transmission/lump of C-4 does the detonating.
However, your point still stands in so far as an unpredictable detonation due to stray radio waves gives you less control of the situation than would a more controlled explosive intervention.
the human practices you describe are an evolutionary adaptation. Depending on whether these are successful or not (relative to the demands of the environment, and the development of other species and of other practices), the organisms involved will prosper or suffer.
If you strip society right back to the most basic life one can imagine for humans, you still have to have adults caring for young for probably at least 10 years, longer if the environment is harsh. This means we don't "filter" so strongly by the hardiness of children since adult care can protect a weaker child. When you look at something like a frog, where the young hatch and are immediately independent, then you have a creature where the young has to survive the environment solo from day one. This difference is really not so different from the further development that has allowed us to protect weaker (though perhaps only temporarily) individuals from the rigours of the harsh environment by the construction of more gentle environments.
To see this as an absence of evolution is really to display a lack of imagination or vision.
I know someone who used to work as a radiographer (medical imaging technician in the new jargon). This reminds me of story she told about a doctor (not a radiologist of course) looking at an X-Ray of a clearly pregnant individual and asking whether it was of a man or a woman.
On spotting fractures, i'm surprised the tech didn't spot yours or your mom's since he/she would look at xrays all day. Often (perhaps not in these cases) some fractures can be hard to see, but a few days later they are much clearer due to the visibility of the healing response that goes on wherever bones are damaged.
well I've never tried it myself, but the data in the page i linked to are based on experiments so i would give them some credence. As the article says, the time duration and the dynamic response of the organs in question are very important to the outcome.
Additionally, the direction of the acceleration is important, so you can withstand a far greater front/back acceleration than an up/down one (such as in an aircraft ejector seat). Sideways accelerations are particularly dangerous.
Warren Ellis's comic series Transmetropolitan featured this technology "maker".
You'd have to feed it matter to make stuff, and not all matter was equal (might lack some elements I suppose), so free garbage wouldn't work out so well.
And you had to put a "lock" on your maker or it would spend all day using up your raw materials making drugs for itself. I liked that idea:-)
> Unfortunately, anybody in the car at the time > would be dead due to internal injuries. No amount > of safety cages, seat belts and air bags will stop > your guts from going splat internally when > decelerating from 70mph to 0 in about 1 meter.
Are you sure about that?
say we start at 70mph, which is u=70*1800/(60*60)=35m/s.
Assume the deceleration is uniform, then we can say v^2=u^2+2as, now say that the final velocity, v, is zero, and the displacement s is 1.0m, the acceleration a works out as a=(35**2)/(2*1.0)=612m/s^2 or about 62g
The duration of the impact will be (70*1800/3600)/612=0.06s
Table 2.6 gives tolerable x direction accelerations of 45-85G depending on whether it is +x or -x direction with times between 0.04 and 0.1s. the earlier charts give similar information.
So even if we do come to a dead (hopefully not literally!) stop from 70mph in one metre, it is very severe, but it is in the range of accelerations that can be survived. The difference between survival and death is likely to be down to the quality of the restraint system "safety cages, seat belts and air bags".
according to a prof I know who works in the area of automotive engineering, the real death of diesel in america was the raft of substandard diesel cars rushed onto the american market during the oil crisis. These machines were very badly thought out and ran poorly, and rather than blaming poor design the market associated these problems with diesel.
The current generation of diesels are very good vehicles indeed, and although the purchase cost is higher than a petrol model, you get more miles per gallon and (at least in Ireland) each litre of fuel is cheaper too. A problem in the US is that it's probably pretty hard to find diesel pumps to refill from, and this will hold back adoption of the fuel even if people realise the cars are good.
In fact you're most likely to be killed by a head-injury rather than "bouncing around". I think the term bounce is a bit misleading, if you watch some crash tests you might bet a bit better idea:
crash test videos showing large-vehicle/smart car impacts.
with regard to motorcycles, i think the problem is not the mass of the motorcycle, but rather the fact that the driver is completely exposed to impact.
Slashdot Mirror
What about the pathscale compilers:
http://www.pathscale.com/products.html
They are supposed to be very fast, and have a heritage going back to SGI's compiler development.
I can hear the concerned mother scolding
"don't eat that, Billy, it's probably covered with helium nuclei"
I also like the way he quotes from a political journal regarding the danger of post-apocalypse nuclear winter. Not saying the findings are wrong, just it's an interesting source to rely on.
irony?
well, it's like goldy and bronzy, only it's made of iron
(quoting Baldrick from Blackadder III)
The difference may be that prior to the increased accessibility of these fields of endeavour you might never have had a chance to throw your hat in the ring even if you _were_ very strong.
A joke so funny they modded it +5
:-)
d =11964310
twice
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=142797&ci
I'd recommend reading the book, as he gives all sorts of tips about how to genuinely warm to people and to have them warm to you.
It's ages since i read it... so some tips off the top of _my_ head (FWIW)
Start by trying to smile more with people you like. Watch for when they smile and reciprocate (it really is kinda infectious, like yawns).
Try to work out when you're happy and what it is that makes you happy/smiling at those times. Try to find bits of this in interactions with other people.
I'm pretty sure that part of Carnegie's advice was to find redeeming qualities in pepole. Even if you've a big problem with somebody, you can still tolerate, even like, parts of their personality and character. Try to find these things in people and focus a bit more on that and appreciate them for it. This really costs you nothing, but most people find it very unusual and winning. And he makes a firm point that you do not set out to do this to "get things from people", but mostly because it's a good thing to do (you'll feel better, and other people will share in that).
He gives the example of presenting to a group of people on dealign with people (he taught a lot ofpublic speaking too). The anecdote he told was of dealing with a ticket clerk who was very hurried and brusque. He decided to pay the guy a compliment and told him he'd a great head of hair or something. The guy was made up and they exchanged a couple of sentences and he was on his way. Someone in the audience asked "what were you trying to get out of the guy?", and Carnegie was apalled. He said that if we could not pay a compliment for the simple kindness (and pleasure) of doing so, then we were in a very bad way.
Anyway, don't concentrate on fakign smiles, if you want to follow Carnegie's advice just try to be a bit warmer and more receptive with people. And later on (end of day/week) reflect back on when you did well, when you didn't, and what you might change (he recommended keeping a notebook)
Listen, just read the book if you're going to comment on it. It's been in print long enough, have a look in a second hand bookshop.
It's not about putting on a plastic face or faking people. Mostly it's about being a little bit more thoughtful and reflective. And this effort is not an exercise in navel gazing but rather is aimed at being a better person to be around.
What your saying makes sense, but it doesn't relate to the book very well, so it's a bit rich to throw around accusations of sophistry.
Gorilla Arm Syndrome (consequence of touch-screen use)...
m l
Here it is in the jargon file:
http://catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/G/gorilla-arm.ht
Well, my laptop power supply is rated at 65W.
It takes about as long to charge the battery (while still using the computer) as to exhaust the battery so i'd imagine the power consumption of the laptop itself is about half this.
Regarding the mobile phone. My charger has a rating of less than 7W, and i usually need to charge it for about 2.5 hours every 3 days. This is very manageable with solar cells (you have 72 hours to accumulate 21 watt-hours of energy).
Maybe they could have started submitting some "updates" to open source software projects (ideally something less than active)
then "find" some neat exploitable vunlerabilities
If a lecturer sets an assignment that gives universally fail-grades, and there's nothing exceptionally bad about his class, then he really does not know his job very well.
The whole point of the grade is to let the teacher see how well the class have learned, to give feedback to the students and to give a measure that the college/outside-agencies can use to judge the academic accomplishments of one student against another.
The grade is pointless if everybody gets a fail. It's as dumb (and it IS dumb, even though Bernstein's a smart man) as using a metre-stick to measure the thickness of a sheet of paper. The measured quantity disappears entirely and the measurement is almost useless (well, i suppose in my analogy, you could say that we know a sheet of paper is much less than one metre thick).
IF Bernstein refuses to readjust his marking scheme to allow a proper distribution of marks (and it _is_ an "if"), then he's failing twice. First by having no idea of what was an appropriate assignment to give to his class, and secondly (and more seriously) by not reflecting on this failure and looking for ways to address the problem.
Finally, talking (as the previous commenter does) about grade obsession "disgusting" him/her is a bit foolish (IMHO). Personally, I always studied the material first, and looked at the exam second. But, it is entirely rational to focus on the examinations and on marks. The marks students get can have a real effect on their lives, in particular when looking for their first job. To see their behaviour, in focussing on this aspect, as disgusting is very hard for me to understand. If we don't want students to do this, the simplest way to stop it is to stop giving marks.
And as for giving reduced grades to whiners, to suggest this shows no concept of the role of the lecturer/teacher. What it does show is a fondness for power-tripping. As a lecturer, you're not there to give -1 because people disagree with you and complain. If you're intimidated, call the police, otherwise you should be strong enough to put your case and, if needs be, close your door on objections. But you CANNOT dock marks because people whine (and if you disagree you'll surely get the chance to trash out the finer points of the argument in court and may even find things go full circle when you get docked a not inconsiderable wad of cash).
I offer these opinions based on one year of lecturing, giving 6 semester long modules and examinations to 3 classes including 300 students in all.
I don't know about AMD, but I know for sure that Intel owns and operates fabrication facilities.
They have a large facility in Ireland, which I've visited, and they certainly do chip fabrication there.
Also a friend and colleague of mine did a PhD that was sponsered by Intel. This research was entirely concerned with details of the fabrication process (using some data/input from the actual process being operated in Dublin).
The parent post is maybe not so far off the mark, though i'd like to posit a slightly different way of looking at things. I believe the situation would be clearer (for once!) if we wrote GNU/Linux instead of Linux.
Linux is just a kernel. Another child post mentioned it has good hardware support compared to solaris, i'm sure there are some other good points (e.g. a lot of architectures supported, embedded apps, a formidable base of experienced open-source developers, etc.,) that could mean Linux wouldn't just die if Solaris became free/Free.
But what most people think of as Linux, and what is in fact the largest part of, GNU/Linux is the set of userland tools we use. From the basics like bash, tar, grep, sed, awk, etc., to the compilers (gcc, etc.,), and up to the desktop level tools (KDE-family, Gnome-family, mozilla, openoffice, and so on).
Many of these tools can/are(!) ALSO be used on Solaris systems as appropriate/preferred.
If the Solaris licence is as free as the parent post hypothesizes, then this future is great! We can have a GNU/Solaris system if we want, Debian could offer a Debian-Solaris option (in the same vein as the Debian-NetBSD port), we can use bits of Solaris to improve Linux... All grist to the Free-Software mill.
> I also want less pseudo-science scare mongering
> with half baked statistics that do not stand up
> to critical thought
Well, we would all like this, but you still insist on posting, don't you?
If you want to accuse the authors of publishing "half baked statistics", then by all means look at their methodology and critique it using your doubtlessly immense statistical know-how. The result is may be that we will get a better understanding of their data, or propose better methods for gathering data in the future.
Perhaps you should write a letter to Nature, berating the editors for not taking this customary step themselves before publishing the article.
As for the pseudo-science part, well "nature" isn't "science" but i doubt the editors of either publication would agree with your comments.
Does anyone else find it depressing that US services personnel seem to be increasingly buying their own equipment?
I had already heard stories of soldiers' families investing in flak-jackets/body armour to give them additional protection, and i believe i recall even from Gulf War I that soldiers were bringing their own GPS kit.
Now they're putting together their own, affordable, bomb-disposal robots. I admire the initiative, but deplore the circumstances that make it necessary. Especially since the fact that a soldier/marine and his/her family can invest in the equipment means it is relatively inexpensive. If many soldiers buy it, it's *probably* useful too. So how come the government doesn't provide it?
Putting on a cynicism hat, i wonder if it is because they'd rather spend high-margin-megabucks on a few robots from InsertHugeSupplierHere, than divert a fraction of that to buy larger volume cheaper alternatives.
The point is valid, but in some situations this may not be such a big problem.
Reading the article, the intention of the designers is to come up with a robot that will drop some explosives on an enemy's bomb/mine so as to destroy it. Before doing this, everybody will have to have "retired to a safe distance", at which point it might not matter so much whether an electromagnetic transmission/lump of C-4 does the detonating.
However, your point still stands in so far as an unpredictable detonation due to stray radio waves gives you less control of the situation than would a more controlled explosive intervention.
the human practices you describe are an evolutionary adaptation. Depending on whether these are successful or not (relative to the demands of the environment, and the development of other species and of other practices), the organisms involved will prosper or suffer.
If you strip society right back to the most basic life one can imagine for humans, you still have to have adults caring for young for probably at least 10 years, longer if the environment is harsh. This means we don't "filter" so strongly by the hardiness of children since adult care can protect a weaker child. When you look at something like a frog, where the young hatch and are immediately independent, then you have a creature where the young has to survive the environment solo from day one. This difference is really not so different from the further development that has allowed us to protect weaker (though perhaps only temporarily) individuals from the rigours of the harsh environment by the construction of more gentle environments.
To see this as an absence of evolution is really to display a lack of imagination or vision.
I know someone who used to work as a radiographer (medical imaging technician in the new jargon). This reminds me of story she told about a doctor (not a radiologist of course) looking at an X-Ray of a clearly pregnant individual and asking whether it was of a man or a woman.
On spotting fractures, i'm surprised the tech didn't spot yours or your mom's since he/she would look at xrays all day. Often (perhaps not in these cases) some fractures can be hard to see, but a few days later they are much clearer due to the visibility of the healing response that goes on wherever bones are damaged.
well I've never tried it myself, but the data in the page i linked to are based on experiments so i would give them some credence. As the article says, the time duration and the dynamic response of the organs in question are very important to the outcome.
Additionally, the direction of the acceleration is important, so you can withstand a far greater front/back acceleration than an up/down one (such as in an aircraft ejector seat). Sideways accelerations are particularly dangerous.
Warren Ellis's comic series Transmetropolitan featured this technology "maker".
:-)
You'd have to feed it matter to make stuff, and not all matter was equal (might lack some elements I suppose), so free garbage wouldn't work out so well.
And you had to put a "lock" on your maker or it would spend all day using up your raw materials making drugs for itself. I liked that idea
> 70-0 mph in less than 0.2 of a second is not easy to support by the human body...
o n.html
Not so hard really,
acceleration is velocity change over time:
70*1800/(60*60)/0.2=175m/s^2
put that in terms of g and we get about 17.8g
then if you look up some crash data:
http://www.vnh.org/FSManual/02/03ImpactAccelerati
(table 2.6) turns out it's unlikely to cause a whole lot of injury (as long as you're supported well)
> Unfortunately, anybody in the car at the time
o n.html
> would be dead due to internal injuries. No amount
> of safety cages, seat belts and air bags will stop
> your guts from going splat internally when
> decelerating from 70mph to 0 in about 1 meter.
Are you sure about that?
say we start at 70mph, which is u=70*1800/(60*60)=35m/s.
Assume the deceleration is uniform, then we can say
v^2=u^2+2as,
now say that the final velocity, v, is zero, and the displacement s is 1.0m, the acceleration a works out as
a=(35**2)/(2*1.0)=612m/s^2
or about 62g
The duration of the impact will be
(70*1800/3600)/612=0.06s
Now, to judge how deadly this is, we look at some data:
http://www.vnh.org/FSManual/02/03ImpactAccelerati
Table 2.6 gives tolerable x direction accelerations of 45-85G depending on whether it is +x or -x direction with times between 0.04 and 0.1s. the earlier charts give similar information.
So even if we do come to a dead (hopefully not literally!) stop from 70mph in one metre, it is very severe, but it is in the range of accelerations that can be survived. The difference between survival and death is likely to be down to the quality of the restraint system "safety cages, seat belts and air bags".
You can see an offset collision between a smart and an s-class here:. avi
http://www.off-road.com/mbenz/videos/Sclass_Smart
according to a prof I know who works in the area of automotive engineering, the real death of diesel in america was the raft of substandard diesel cars rushed onto the american market during the oil crisis. These machines were very badly thought out and ran poorly, and rather than blaming poor design the market associated these problems with diesel.
The current generation of diesels are very good vehicles indeed, and although the purchase cost is higher than a petrol model, you get more miles per gallon and (at least in Ireland) each litre of fuel is cheaper too. A problem in the US is that it's probably pretty hard to find diesel pumps to refill from, and this will hold back adoption of the fuel even if people realise the cars are good.
with regard to motorcycles, i think the problem is not the mass of the motorcycle, but rather the fact that the driver is completely exposed to impact.