Mechanical Engineer 3D Prints a Working 5-Speed Transmission for a Toyota 22RE Engine
Totally a lie.
As for the assembly workers at Foxconn, do you believe that they can explain the schematics of an iPhone? Do you believe that the people working on the assembly line at Ford can explain to you how the cars transmission works? Do you believe that the assembly line worker at the aircraft plant knows how the airplane flies?
Theories are tested. The testing either validates the theory, or doesn't. If it doesn't make a new theory that fits the known facts, and test some more. Do you have a problem with that? Or are you one of those religious nutters who claim that "it's just a theory" while you have nothing to back up your own beliefs? Because, based on the long history of religious nutters making the same claim, my theory is that you are one.
Congratulations - you've won the purposefully misunderstood moron comment of the day award. "Included material" (such as the Gospel of Thomas) can be ignored. As for everything else, no original text of any of the bible exists, so we're stuck with what we've got. Pick your version, and read the whole damn thing, or stop claiming that "the bible says..." when it doesn't, mkay?
<sarcasm> Yes, but don't forget, it's running everything through a web browser, so it NEEDS the beefier specs. </sarcasm>
Besides, their next version will be $17,000 and have a fake gold-ceramic housing. Give them credit, though - it'll still be more useful than an Apple watch.
Considering that he STILL doesn't understand how manual transmissions work, I'd say you've got it wrong.
"The transmission works exactly like most manual transmissions found in any car or truck,” explained Harrell. “However, I can barely explain how it works. It’s fairly hard to grasp unless you assemble one or see an animation of one opened up.”
He no more understands how a transmission works than someone assembling smartphone in Foxconn understands how an iPhone works.
People making extraordinary claims need to present extraordinary evidence. There is NO evidence. On the other hand, there IS evidence that the existence of a god would be incompatible with the basic rules of this universe, so no, as an atheist who makes Richard Dawkins look like a wishy-washy (and he really is an agnostic, not an atheist, btw), all the evidence to date points to god not existing.
Show me SOME evidence, some mathematical proof, and we'll talk. Until then, the numbers do not (and can not) add up.
Nevertheless, for someone who claimed to have a thick skin, she was remarkably thin-skinned over something she said herself was not intentional. It was a very poor example, and trivializes the real problems.
Most of the people who says "the bible says..." have never read the whole bible. In fact, even Mother Theresa never read the whole bible, and a survey of 4th-year theology students at Dallas Theological showed neither had they.
Considering this is only a scale model, I doubt that his plastic scale engine will generate even one-tenth that before it melts. And what would you use as the facing material on the clutch disk? Or the pressure plate? The thing is going to stink like a plastic bag caught on an exhaust pipe.
It's the same mentality that we see at the Oscars - men are asked all sorts of questions, women are asked about their dresses.
FTFA:
We have often seen such incidents which require a very thick skin to survive. As a journalist I have grown a thick skin, but not everyone wants that. We risk losing talented people because of the social nature of some communities. And that's where community members can make a huge difference. One bad apple should not rot the entire community.
Pintscher says, "When you see someone being a jerk, say something because this is not just about the two people directly involved - it is also about everyone else who is watching that conversation and making up their mind about contributing to the project or not. There are so many little things you can do that make things better overall."
She then recalls an incident from her past where someone's little act made a huge difference to her. "The most enlightening moment for me was years ago at a conference: I was standing with a group of guys and another guy joined. Someone introduced everyone. Everyone except me. I am sure they didn't mean any harm, but in a movement that so heavily relies on personal connections to get anything done this is a huge bummer. Someone else then quickly introduced me as well and all was good. You can be that someone. These little things make a huge difference."
So much for not having a thick skin. Maybe you weren't introduced because they thought you already knew the person? Or they didn't know your name and didn't want to say "and here's whats-her-name." People should wear name tags at such events because odds are if you're meeting 50 people, you've forgotten 45 of their names within seconds of being introduced.
"Standing up" is confrontational, and assumes offense where, as in this case, she admits no offense was even intended. The way to deal with this is particular case was to just introduce yourself.
Now, in the case of blatant, intentional moronic behavior, that's a different story. But this wasn't the case here, and to use it as an example was poor judgment.
There are huge problems with sexism in tech, but there are also more than enough blatant examples that we don't need to look for one that trivializes the whole issue.
Keep reading this kind of stories. But I wonder how the scientists come to a conclusion, about newer species and all the evolution that might have happened, and make people believe it... just based on theories.
1. You misunderstand what a theory is.
2. The current theory is testable, based on observations and hypotheses, and will be altered as evidence requires. It's certainly better than "God did it", which is not testable, has no observational basis, and the proponents refuse to alter their beliefs based on evidence to the contrary.
The article you quoted gave that as an example, so I debunked it. Not happy? That's not my problem. You set up a challenge under YOUR terms, I complied, and now YOU'RE all butt-hurt?
BTW:
Here's a thought - why don't YOU try to debunk part of it, by playing the devil's advocate.
Because I agree with it. To play devils advocate I'd have to engage in logical fallacies and sophistry for the sake of it. I have no desire to do that.
You refuse to engage in even the appearance of trying to find holes in your logic - they must love you at church, where you accept everything without question. But you'd fail any course in philosophy or critical thinking, or even debugging 101. And you'd get an F in science, since they all involve challenging your assumptions at one point if you're doing it right.
In other words, your argument is that of a pseudo-intellectual poseur. Have a nice day in your closed world.:-)
I already debunked the gets() argument. Maybe I'll do the others. Maybe not. It's not a priority of mine. For what it's worth, c isn't perfect either. Far from it. I've always said Java sucks as well, but that doesn't stop me from using it. Perl is line noise, but I use it as well. There are parts of c++ I like. But there's a god-awful ton of stuff that's been larded onto it that should properly NOT be shoved into the standard.
I really liked the 6809, but the 68B09E, along with the mmu that let you move 8k blocks of memory, and Microware OS9 and 512k of ram, multi-tasking was awesome for those days. Of course, now, with the flat memory model for x86, things make more sense. 3 floppy drives... a whole meg of disk storage! Peripherals for speech, home automation, touch pad. Assembler, c, and pascal compilers. Those were exciting times.
No, gcc did not correct itself. Stallman was forced, kicking and screaming, to dump it in favor of EGCS.
And my comment about RMS being more and more of a roadblock is not about GCC - it's about software in general. The GPL is one of the less free licenses out there; he has said many times (I used to link to the comments on FSFE) that he would rather you pirate software than buy it; his misogynist comments have made him persona non gratia at public events; his remarks at Steve Jobs passing were the last straw for many.
He has made it clear that he's in favor of choice, but only HIS choice. To him, you're immoral if you develop closed-source software. I'll return the Steve Jobs remarks in kind - when RMS dies, on balance nothing of value will be lost.
Here's a thought - why don't YOU try to debunk part of it, by playing the devil's advocate.
I have no problem using C++. I have a HUGE problem with templates, TR1, and the STL. Ever run into a programmer who claims a decade of C++ experience, but if it's not in the STL or a class available online, they're lost? These are the same jokers who can't figure out when to use inheritance and when to use composition/aggregation. They're painful to work with.
Just one example to start with. The gets() argument is bogus. You've always been free to replace it with your own implementation. Also, when it was created, it wasn't a problem because the input field from the terminal device wouldn't allow the user to input enough characters to overflow the buffer. Or you could use getc() and write into your own buffer. Or you could write your own terminal handler, since it's all serial anyway.
Too many people are focused solely on the "and pen testing" while ignoring the "security evaluation" part. Unless you can help mitigate the problems (which will often be in custom code) you'll embarrass yourself and your company on the first job. Which, since turds roll downhill, means you'll be out of a job, since your boss won't take any of the blame.
Your boss is clueless. Here's what you need to do
1. Agree with whatever he says
2. Use the time to find a new job
3. Result - Saved your Ass (which is a good kind of "profit').
Don't sweat it:-) Guns is a better Godwin than Hitler. With Hitler, everyone can agree that the only good thing he ever did was kill Hitler. With guns, there will never be any agreement in a large homogenous group. In the US, they quickly divide themselves into two camps - those who think anyone should have a gun, and those who think only certain special people - including themselves, of course - should have a gun.
Slashdot Mirror
Lisp is evil . Take that! (
Here is the headline from the actual article:
Mechanical Engineer 3D Prints a Working 5-Speed Transmission for a Toyota 22RE Engine
Totally a lie.
As for the assembly workers at Foxconn, do you believe that they can explain the schematics of an iPhone? Do you believe that the people working on the assembly line at Ford can explain to you how the cars transmission works? Do you believe that the assembly line worker at the aircraft plant knows how the airplane flies?
Theories are tested. The testing either validates the theory, or doesn't. If it doesn't make a new theory that fits the known facts, and test some more. Do you have a problem with that? Or are you one of those religious nutters who claim that "it's just a theory" while you have nothing to back up your own beliefs? Because, based on the long history of religious nutters making the same claim, my theory is that you are one.
I Have to agree. It was a real puff piece, short on hard questions.
Congratulations - you've won the purposefully misunderstood moron comment of the day award. "Included material" (such as the Gospel of Thomas) can be ignored. As for everything else, no original text of any of the bible exists, so we're stuck with what we've got. Pick your version, and read the whole damn thing, or stop claiming that "the bible says ..." when it doesn't, mkay?
<sarcasm> Yes, but don't forget, it's running everything through a web browser, so it NEEDS the beefier specs. </sarcasm>
Besides, their next version will be $17,000 and have a fake gold-ceramic housing. Give them credit, though - it'll still be more useful than an Apple watch.
Considering that he STILL doesn't understand how manual transmissions work, I'd say you've got it wrong.
"The transmission works exactly like most manual transmissions found in any car or truck,” explained Harrell. “However, I can barely explain how it works. It’s fairly hard to grasp unless you assemble one or see an animation of one opened up.”
He no more understands how a transmission works than someone assembling smartphone in Foxconn understands how an iPhone works.
People making extraordinary claims need to present extraordinary evidence. There is NO evidence. On the other hand, there IS evidence that the existence of a god would be incompatible with the basic rules of this universe, so no, as an atheist who makes Richard Dawkins look like a wishy-washy (and he really is an agnostic, not an atheist, btw), all the evidence to date points to god not existing.
Show me SOME evidence, some mathematical proof, and we'll talk. Until then, the numbers do not (and can not) add up.
Nevertheless, for someone who claimed to have a thick skin, she was remarkably thin-skinned over something she said herself was not intentional. It was a very poor example, and trivializes the real problems.
Ignorance is bliss.
Considering this is only a scale model, I doubt that his plastic scale engine will generate even one-tenth that before it melts. And what would you use as the facing material on the clutch disk? Or the pressure plate? The thing is going to stink like a plastic bag caught on an exhaust pipe.
For those who don't see the invisible sarcasm tags in the parent post ... It would probably be a good pretext to block google, amazon, and microsoft.
Exactly. I'm getting almost as tired of these bugus 3d printing articles as I am of the kickstarter ones.
It's the same mentality that we see at the Oscars - men are asked all sorts of questions, women are asked about their dresses.
FTFA:
We have often seen such incidents which require a very thick skin to survive. As a journalist I have grown a thick skin, but not everyone wants that. We risk losing talented people because of the social nature of some communities. And that's where community members can make a huge difference. One bad apple should not rot the entire community.
Pintscher says, "When you see someone being a jerk, say something because this is not just about the two people directly involved - it is also about everyone else who is watching that conversation and making up their mind about contributing to the project or not. There are so many little things you can do that make things better overall."
She then recalls an incident from her past where someone's little act made a huge difference to her. "The most enlightening moment for me was years ago at a conference: I was standing with a group of guys and another guy joined. Someone introduced everyone. Everyone except me. I am sure they didn't mean any harm, but in a movement that so heavily relies on personal connections to get anything done this is a huge bummer. Someone else then quickly introduced me as well and all was good. You can be that someone. These little things make a huge difference."
So much for not having a thick skin. Maybe you weren't introduced because they thought you already knew the person? Or they didn't know your name and didn't want to say "and here's whats-her-name." People should wear name tags at such events because odds are if you're meeting 50 people, you've forgotten 45 of their names within seconds of being introduced.
"Standing up" is confrontational, and assumes offense where, as in this case, she admits no offense was even intended. The way to deal with this is particular case was to just introduce yourself.
Now, in the case of blatant, intentional moronic behavior, that's a different story. But this wasn't the case here, and to use it as an example was poor judgment.
There are huge problems with sexism in tech, but there are also more than enough blatant examples that we don't need to look for one that trivializes the whole issue.
Keep reading this kind of stories. But I wonder how the scientists come to a conclusion, about newer species and all the evolution that might have happened, and make people believe it... just based on theories.
1. You misunderstand what a theory is.
2. The current theory is testable, based on observations and hypotheses, and will be altered as evidence requires. It's certainly better than "God did it", which is not testable, has no observational basis, and the proponents refuse to alter their beliefs based on evidence to the contrary.
BTW:
Here's a thought - why don't YOU try to debunk part of it, by playing the devil's advocate.
Because I agree with it. To play devils advocate I'd have to engage in logical fallacies and sophistry for the sake of it. I have no desire to do that.
You refuse to engage in even the appearance of trying to find holes in your logic - they must love you at church, where you accept everything without question. But you'd fail any course in philosophy or critical thinking, or even debugging 101. And you'd get an F in science, since they all involve challenging your assumptions at one point if you're doing it right.
In other words, your argument is that of a pseudo-intellectual poseur. Have a nice day in your closed world. :-)
If he had the url right in front of him, then he's stupid not to be able to get the spelling right.
I already debunked the gets() argument. Maybe I'll do the others. Maybe not. It's not a priority of mine. For what it's worth, c isn't perfect either. Far from it. I've always said Java sucks as well, but that doesn't stop me from using it. Perl is line noise, but I use it as well. There are parts of c++ I like. But there's a god-awful ton of stuff that's been larded onto it that should properly NOT be shoved into the standard.
I really liked the 6809, but the 68B09E, along with the mmu that let you move 8k blocks of memory, and Microware OS9 and 512k of ram, multi-tasking was awesome for those days. Of course, now, with the flat memory model for x86, things make more sense. 3 floppy drives ... a whole meg of disk storage! Peripherals for speech, home automation, touch pad. Assembler, c, and pascal compilers. Those were exciting times.
Interesting use of TypeScript, an entire rougelike
Really?
1. A postmodern fantasy where a modern feminist can face off against the suffocatingly chauvinist entities of make-up.
2. A misspelling of roguelike.
Even Sarah Palin knew the difference between Rogue and Rouge :-(
So what in the final analysis caused it to fail? As originally conceived, it was more like a federation.
And my comment about RMS being more and more of a roadblock is not about GCC - it's about software in general. The GPL is one of the less free licenses out there; he has said many times (I used to link to the comments on FSFE) that he would rather you pirate software than buy it; his misogynist comments have made him persona non gratia at public events; his remarks at Steve Jobs passing were the last straw for many.
He has made it clear that he's in favor of choice, but only HIS choice. To him, you're immoral if you develop closed-source software. I'll return the Steve Jobs remarks in kind - when RMS dies, on balance nothing of value will be lost.
Here's a thought - why don't YOU try to debunk part of it, by playing the devil's advocate.
I have no problem using C++. I have a HUGE problem with templates, TR1, and the STL. Ever run into a programmer who claims a decade of C++ experience, but if it's not in the STL or a class available online, they're lost? These are the same jokers who can't figure out when to use inheritance and when to use composition/aggregation. They're painful to work with.
Just one example to start with. The gets() argument is bogus. You've always been free to replace it with your own implementation. Also, when it was created, it wasn't a problem because the input field from the terminal device wouldn't allow the user to input enough characters to overflow the buffer. Or you could use getc() and write into your own buffer. Or you could write your own terminal handler, since it's all serial anyway.
Too many people are focused solely on the "and pen testing" while ignoring the "security evaluation" part. Unless you can help mitigate the problems (which will often be in custom code) you'll embarrass yourself and your company on the first job. Which, since turds roll downhill, means you'll be out of a job, since your boss won't take any of the blame.
Your boss is clueless. Here's what you need to do
1. Agree with whatever he says
2. Use the time to find a new job
3. Result - Saved your Ass (which is a good kind of "profit').
Don't sweat it :-) Guns is a better Godwin than Hitler. With Hitler, everyone can agree that the only good thing he ever did was kill Hitler. With guns, there will never be any agreement in a large homogenous group. In the US, they quickly divide themselves into two camps - those who think anyone should have a gun, and those who think only certain special people - including themselves, of course - should have a gun.