Graduate first. Then go for your dreams. Because if you fail and you have to fall back on normal employment, dropping out has just put you all the way back to the end of the line, behind all the unemployed educated people.
You can waste a few years after college in dead-end attempts. You can explain that in an interview, it might be a positive (because you're entrepreneurial, and because you've failed and won't be running off again soon). But if you didn't graduate, you aren't likely to get the interview in the first place.
Considering the drought in many parts of the US, any accident which causes more dangerous (hotter, longer-lasting) sparks then steel does is bad news.
The advantage of the current version is that the batteries rarely burn, and always in a contained environment, usually on pavement. If the new version throws sparks 10m away after every shock, it's worse for anyone except the car owner...
My argument on the turbo point was that, while the turbo gives you more engine power, it doesn't output it itself. I honestly don't know what the actual energy usage of the engine component "turbo" is, but it's a fraction of the "80HP for 10s". And that energy is not delivered via mechanical linkage straight to solid wheels, it's compressing air. Therefore saying that a turbo turns 5x faster is a false equivalency, because the amount of stress on the components, and therefore the required care and maintenance (the original point), is orders of magnitude different.
1969 is before the fractional second correction at the end of 1971, so the moment you try to convert, you're off. How far are you? I don't know, because they also changed the definition of a second, so you don't get the same time if you count seconds up from 1969 than if you count down from 1970 or 1972...
The heavier the car, the more energy there is to store when you stop. So you add a device to store the energy for later. BONUS: you just made the car heavier, which means you have even more energy to store. So now you can restart from scratch easier using the stored energy, unless you didn't have energy stored and have to restart a heavier car. But you can't have bad performance when starting, so you need a bigger engine. BONUS: you just made the car heavier again So you add a few more bars to protect you in case of a crash, what with all these heavy vehicles on the road, you know... BONUS: you just made the car heavier yet again, man do you have a lot of energy stored in that bigger flywheel that you put in to better recover the bigger energy of the heavier car! You're definitely saving a lot of gas, in stop-and-go traffic, compared to the other huge cars!
On the other hand, an econobox will get you from the same point A to the same point B for 3l per 100km (or over 60mpg) and cost a quarter of the price.
Of course, we can trust the average Joe to properly maintain a piece of hardware designed to rotate at 60000 RPM, right? I'm looking forward to cars just blowing up when they come to a stop because unmaintained flywheels explode and shrapnel likes gas tanks, according to hollywood.
After deciding to stop building stuff unless it's designed to blow someone up, you too would have to find alternate resource streams to buy junk from China.
1) mantle convection simplified 2) The word "dilute" in step 3. If you have a thousand tons of U235 surrounded by 5km of rock and melt it all, how much U235 can find an updraft toward a volcano, since you were dumb enough to drill next to an active volcano?
If Apple updates their laptops it's news. If Apple looks like they may potentially hint at having a glance at wearable something, it's front page news. Free advertising, if you're convinced enough journos that you're "cool"
1) Chose a subduction zone, 2) bury $Stuff_we_don't_want right next to it, a few km below the local ground surface. 3) wait for mother nature to push it down and dilute it in billions of tons of molten rock. 4) profit? nah, it's expensive... but at least don't worry about it.
The moment the prisons became a very profitable business, you could be sure that the cops and judges would get the money they need to keep getting convictions. Tolerance and prevention policies don't bring quite as much cold hard cash and jobs.
Slashdot Mirror
I apologize for not having mod points.
There's a severe shortage of programmers with 25 years experience in Java, gimme more H1B.
Graduate first. Then go for your dreams.
Because if you fail and you have to fall back on normal employment, dropping out has just put you all the way back to the end of the line, behind all the unemployed educated people.
You can waste a few years after college in dead-end attempts. You can explain that in an interview, it might be a positive (because you're entrepreneurial, and because you've failed and won't be running off again soon).
But if you didn't graduate, you aren't likely to get the interview in the first place.
Are they trying to go around the (few) GCHQ monitoring limits by going straight into NSA-friendly territory?
Because it works. Check the incumbent election rates.
next question?
Considering the drought in many parts of the US, any accident which causes more dangerous (hotter, longer-lasting) sparks then steel does is bad news.
The advantage of the current version is that the batteries rarely burn, and always in a contained environment, usually on pavement. If the new version throws sparks 10m away after every shock, it's worse for anyone except the car owner...
My argument on the turbo point was that, while the turbo gives you more engine power, it doesn't output it itself. I honestly don't know what the actual energy usage of the engine component "turbo" is, but it's a fraction of the "80HP for 10s". And that energy is not delivered via mechanical linkage straight to solid wheels, it's compressing air.
Therefore saying that a turbo turns 5x faster is a false equivalency, because the amount of stress on the components, and therefore the required care and maintenance (the original point), is orders of magnitude different.
> Doesn't exist
Moon... finger... see other reply
or go get a motorcycle
>Turbochargers don't explode all the time, and they spin at even faster speeds (around 5 times)
Educate me. Are turbochargers designed to provide "80HP for 10s" (through a mechanical linkage), as another poster put it?
I my point invalid if I write 4l (essentially 60mpg) or 5l (~50mpg)?
I point at the moon-sized battlestations driving by, don't stare at my finger
It's flawed from the first second.
Really...
1969 is before the fractional second correction at the end of 1971, so the moment you try to convert, you're off.
How far are you? I don't know, because they also changed the definition of a second, so you don't get the same time if you count seconds up from 1969 than if you count down from 1970 or 1972...
Sure, let me give it a try:
The heavier the car, the more energy there is to store when you stop.
So you add a device to store the energy for later.
BONUS: you just made the car heavier, which means you have even more energy to store.
So now you can restart from scratch easier using the stored energy, unless you didn't have energy stored and have to restart a heavier car.
But you can't have bad performance when starting, so you need a bigger engine.
BONUS: you just made the car heavier again
So you add a few more bars to protect you in case of a crash, what with all these heavy vehicles on the road, you know...
BONUS: you just made the car heavier yet again, man do you have a lot of energy stored in that bigger flywheel that you put in to better recover the bigger energy of the heavier car!
You're definitely saving a lot of gas, in stop-and-go traffic, compared to the other huge cars!
On the other hand, an econobox will get you from the same point A to the same point B for 3l per 100km (or over 60mpg) and cost a quarter of the price.
Of course, we can trust the average Joe to properly maintain a piece of hardware designed to rotate at 60000 RPM, right?
I'm looking forward to cars just blowing up when they come to a stop because unmaintained flywheels explode and shrapnel likes gas tanks, according to hollywood.
"I didn't microwave the cat, a hacker did"
After deciding to stop building stuff unless it's designed to blow someone up, you too would have to find alternate resource streams to buy junk from China.
1) mantle convection simplified
2) The word "dilute" in step 3. If you have a thousand tons of U235 surrounded by 5km of rock and melt it all, how much U235 can find an updraft toward a volcano, since you were dumb enough to drill next to an active volcano?
People being reasonable and fixing their issues rather than endlessly griping about them would be the death of the Web2.0.
Dude's got a blog to write, and you want him to not put a "Tesla has a problem" post?
If Apple updates their laptops it's news. If Apple looks like they may potentially hint at having a glance at wearable something, it's front page news.
Free advertising, if you're convinced enough journos that you're "cool"
But... if it's not creeping, how will you regen in traffic jams by hitting the brakes?
"the best defense against change is making sure people believe they have something to lose"
We already had that discussion...
1) Chose a subduction zone,
2) bury $Stuff_we_don't_want right next to it, a few km below the local ground surface.
3) wait for mother nature to push it down and dilute it in billions of tons of molten rock.
4) profit? nah, it's expensive... but at least don't worry about it.
Agreed, now switch it to "England burnt down the white house"
Get my point?
Their 20% net margin and $50,000,000,000 cash reserves beg to differ with your armchair analysis...
"the network is the computer" Sun
"We'll make megaclouds" Cisco
Canada burnt down the White House. Your point?
The moment the prisons became a very profitable business, you could be sure that the cops and judges would get the money they need to keep getting convictions.
Tolerance and prevention policies don't bring quite as much cold hard cash and jobs.
Since he's 100% overhead, think we need to replace him with an H1B
Where's that old Onion article about the CEO outsourcing himself?