Do you even have an iPod? The iTunes organization and syncing system is one of the few things that set the iPod apart from its competitors. And if you think you can write an app that does as many low-level things as iTunes does in pure Java, you're in for a surprise.
Which is great, but I thought we were discussing sports cars in general, not just supercars.
How does that work, then? Do these two cars have some mystical powers that render all your previous objections null and void if they are tested - but only on a dry track?
You seem to be arguing that a country's supercars define its entire car industry, so I was simply pointing out that there are some American supercars that they haven't tested. They did run a Corvette, but it was in the pouring rain, so the lap time is useless for comparison purposes, even more so than the rest of the cars listed.
As for the validity of Top Gear times in general, they can tell you stuff like an Enzo is faster than a Subaru, but that's about it. For example, the Murcielago and the 911 GT3 RS both generally beat the SLR McLaren around the Nurburgring, but the McLaren beats them both around Top Gear's track. So which is faster? Well, it depends where you drive it, apparently. You can't just reduce a car's performance to a single number and rank it on a list and expect to get much meaning out of it.
For further illustration, look at Top Gear's Porsche 911 times - the 911 Turbo pulls 1:31, the 911 Carrera S (a slower car) does it in 1:29, and the 911 GT3 (the souped-up, lightened racing edition) manages 1:27 but still gets beat by, among other things, a stock Cayman. That's right - Porsche's lowest coupe absolutely dominates the entire 911 lineup (except for the GT3 RS, which somehow ended up a full five seconds ahead of the base GT3). Now, I've heard the Cayman is a good car, but it's not that good. Top Gear's testing is just not a reliable measure of the performance of a car.
Skidding allows you to very quickly orient the car
Uh, no, it doesn't. When you're skidding you have almost no control over the direction of the car.
while reducing your forward momentum at a very quick rate
Controlled braking slows you faster than skidding, because the force of static friction on the contact patch of a rolling tire is greater than the force of kinetic friction on the contact patch of a skidding tire.
Most people have ears, and most cars make noise. If you're about to cross the road, and you hear a car coming around the corner, don't step into the road. It's really that simple. Yes, the driver ought be in control of his vehicle, but take some responsibility for yourself.
So Italy builds nice supercars. So what? Doesn't make Fiats better than Fords or Toyotas. And even Top Gear admits that their lap times aren't meant for serious comparison - a single lap of one track doesn't define a car, especially when cars are run in different weather conditions, often with different drivers. Besides, that list is meaningless until they test a Saleen S7 and a Corvette Z06 on a dry track.
ABS doesn't slow you down any better then non-ABS systems
Yes and no. The fastest way to stop any car is to brake at the limit of traction - so that the wheels are still rolling, but any more braking and they'd lock up. A skilled driver can do that in a non-ABS car, but most people can't - they just slam on the brakes and lock the wheels, causing a skid. ABS will make a normal driver stop faster by preventing that skid and braking at the limit of traction.
What it DOES do though is allow you to steer while under maximum breaking conditions.
Not quite. You can never steer under maximum braking conditions, because your tires only have limited traction and, if you're truly braking at the limit, there's no more traction left for turning. No ABS system can overcome that, it's just physics. What ABS does is let off the brakes slightly when you turn the wheel, so that you're no longer under maximum braking. This frees up traction for steering. A good driver would do the same thing, but most people don't have the presence of mind to let off the brakes in a skid, so ABS comes in quite handy.
ABS wasn't his problem. Locking the wheels by slamming on the brakes will always take longer to stop than controlled braking at the threshold of traction (which is what ABS does), because the force of static friction on a the contact patch of a rolling tire is greater than the kinetic friction on the contact patch of a skidding tire. The fastest way to slow a non-ABS vehicle is not to slam on the brakes, but to brake to the threshold of traction, where the tires are still rolling, and no further. Of course, most people don't have that level of braking control, which is why we have ABS to do it for us.
His new car may have taken longer to stop because it was heavier, or because it had crappier brakes, but not because of ABS. Slamming on the brakes with ABS will always lead to a shorter stopping distance than locking the wheels without ABS in an equivalent car.
Um, your Subaru has computer-controlled AWD, which shifts power dynamically to the wheels that need it. You can't turn it off, but if you could, I think you'd notice a huge difference.
Most cars have governors, but they're based on the car's limits, not highway speed limits. Normal cars are usually governed about 120ish, with SUVs usually being lower and sports cars higher. If governors were intended to keep you from speeding, then no American car would go above 75, because that's pretty much the fastest you can legally drive anywhere in the US.
Many people here display their real email addresses - anyone who puts my email address into Google can see all of my/. posts. Of course, if you're worried about that, you can turn off display of your address, but a lot of people don't think about that when they're creating accounts.
Since "Flash" is an actual word you can find in daily use, it can not be trademarked alone, it has to be trademarked together in a phrase with something else, or modified, for example "Phlash".
IANAL, but I think you're wrong. Everyday words can be trademarked in context with their field of use. It's fine if you want to name your band "The Windows" or whatever, but write an OS and call it Windows and MS is going to rape you in court, even though all you used was the simple, everyday word "Windows".
For another example, look at the current legal battle between Apple Computer and Apple Records - Apple is an everyday word, but it's still possible for infringement to occur if you're in the same market space (the music business, in this case).
I've never seen a player smaller than the equivilent HD iPod. You may not care about size (you obviously don't, because you bought a player that uses laptop drives), but a lot of people do. I've also never seen anyone take more than 30 seconds to figure out the interface, and once you do, it makes perfect sense.
As for price competition, take a look at this Newegg page. The 30GB iPod costs $289. The cheapest competition, the iAudio X5, is $259 (there is also, of course, more expensive competition). A 10% price premium over the bottom of its class does not constitute "extremely expensive", especially when the iPod is 30% slimmer than the iAudio.
The iPod is not the best MP3 player for everyone. It probably wasn't the best one for you, judging by your comments. But when I was looking for an MP3 player, I didn't want a giant beast that could could record live TV, play Doom 3 and solve complex equations. I wanted something that would organize my music library, play music, and not get in my way. And my iPod does that better than any competitor I've ever seen.
The problem with the Internet is that sometimes humor is just plain lost. I think I have a fairly good appreciation of humor and sarcasm, and reading over your original post, I still don't see it. Since you've been modded down, apparently most mods don't see it either. It seems the words you wrote don't effectively convey the idea you were thinking.
It's small, good-looking, has a great interface, and is fairly price-competitive. The only real reason to look at other HD-based players is if you really want a radio or recording capability, or if your entire music library is in Vorbis and you don't want to transcode.
Your parent was also talking about the iPod directory structure. iPods keep music in random-named hidden directories and use the iTunesDB file to sort it out. There are GPL programs (like gtkpod) to read and write iTunesDB files, but it's still more complicated than a simple mass-storage system.
You Say that mostly bands use myspace. Yes some do But not all nor is it most the profiles. Most profiles are of teens or people who can't seem to spell the simple word "you". Yes it's simple three letters.
Myspace is a huge site, with millions of profiles. It's possible to use it to connect with cool new bands and intelligent, thoughtful people. It's also possible (and a lot easier) to find profiles of random idiots who can't write and treat the site as a popularity contest. There are a lot of empty-headed dumbasses on MySpace, but that doesn't mean the site can't be useful - just avoid contact with those people.
As a violinist, I've never found any software that was particularly helpful as far as assisting practice goes. For tuning, you're far better off buying a dedicated tuner - you can buy combo tuner/metronome gadgets for $30 or less in most places. Other than that, your best resources are a good teacher, good exercise books, and a lot of persistance.
Depending on your goals as a musician, you may find notation software (like Sibelius) or ear training software (like the free Flash trainers at musictheory.net) to be helpful, but neither of those is going to help you with violin technique.
Speaking as a violinist who started when I was three, I would hesitate to recommend starting as an adult. It's never too late to start violin, but be aware that it has a huge learning curve for adults. There's something about the fine motor control that you need for good tone and intonation that seems to be developed much easier in children. I don't think most people have the patience to handle several years of hard practice before gaining any real facility - I know I wouldn't if I were starting now.
To be honest, I think guitar or piano are much better instruments than violin to learn as an adult. They're much more satisfying in terms of immediate gratification - you can be playing simple songs on your first day, and sound quite decent within a year. Because it's impossible to play out of tune on either of them, there's a lot more room for error. They're also chordal instruments, which leaves you with a better understanding of music theory as well as the ability to play/sing folk/pop/rock songs. And to cap it off, they're cheaper than violin, especially if you factor in the reduced need for lessons (which are a good idea, but not as necessary as with violin).
If you really want to learn violin, though, don't be afraid to call up a teacher and schedule some lessons (self-teaching violin isn't a good idea, it's too easy to develop bad habits). Teachers are usually happy to teach motivated adults; it gives them a refreshing break from the uncooperative brats they're used to dealing with. You can rent entry-level violins from most string music shops for $20/month or so, which is probably what you want to start out with.
Hydro electric power is pretty cool too. Wind is not as cool as it seems. Very variable and it disrupts weather patterns.
Wind disrupts weather patterns? Unless you're talking about curbing global warming, I've never seen a shred of evidence that wind turbines affect the weather. As for hydroelectric power, it's one of the environmentally worst types of renewable energy. Building dams destroys valuable farmland, floods priceless natural habitat, and screws up fish migration.
Hippie nonsense aside, I think that wasting energy via biodiesel and other direct plant to usable forms of energy is a damn good source of energy in my eye.
It's great in concept, and works on a small scale, but it's nothing to get excited about. It would take twice the land area of the entire US (assuming it was all usable farmland) to grow the soy to produce enough biodiesel to meet our heating and transportation needs. The same problem exists with ethanol and other plant-based fuels.
In the long run, the only sensible power source is solar. When you think about it, fossil fuels, wind, plants, and hydroelectric power are all indirect forms of solar energy. Man-made solar cells have the potential to be more efficient than any other form of solar energy, because they cut out the middleman. Currently that's not the case, but it's only a matter of time given sufficient research.
Slashdot Mirror
Nice rant, but what do the Camaro and M-16 have to do with focus groups? And what does your Linux server network have to do with a home media center?
Pretty much any interstate in the country, if there's little or no traffic and you're paying attention (i.e. no donuts or cell phones).
Why is that obvious? Maybe the guitar had served its purpose as a cheap beginner's instrument and he/she decided to move up to a better one.
Do you even have an iPod? The iTunes organization and syncing system is one of the few things that set the iPod apart from its competitors. And if you think you can write an app that does as many low-level things as iTunes does in pure Java, you're in for a surprise.
Which is great, but I thought we were discussing sports cars in general, not just supercars.
How does that work, then? Do these two cars have some mystical powers that render all your previous objections null and void if they are tested - but only on a dry track?
You seem to be arguing that a country's supercars define its entire car industry, so I was simply pointing out that there are some American supercars that they haven't tested. They did run a Corvette, but it was in the pouring rain, so the lap time is useless for comparison purposes, even more so than the rest of the cars listed.
As for the validity of Top Gear times in general, they can tell you stuff like an Enzo is faster than a Subaru, but that's about it. For example, the Murcielago and the 911 GT3 RS both generally beat the SLR McLaren around the Nurburgring, but the McLaren beats them both around Top Gear's track. So which is faster? Well, it depends where you drive it, apparently. You can't just reduce a car's performance to a single number and rank it on a list and expect to get much meaning out of it.
For further illustration, look at Top Gear's Porsche 911 times - the 911 Turbo pulls 1:31, the 911 Carrera S (a slower car) does it in 1:29, and the 911 GT3 (the souped-up, lightened racing edition) manages 1:27 but still gets beat by, among other things, a stock Cayman. That's right - Porsche's lowest coupe absolutely dominates the entire 911 lineup (except for the GT3 RS, which somehow ended up a full five seconds ahead of the base GT3). Now, I've heard the Cayman is a good car, but it's not that good. Top Gear's testing is just not a reliable measure of the performance of a car.
Uh, no, it doesn't. When you're skidding you have almost no control over the direction of the car.
while reducing your forward momentum at a very quick rate
Controlled braking slows you faster than skidding, because the force of static friction on the contact patch of a rolling tire is greater than the force of kinetic friction on the contact patch of a skidding tire.
Most people have ears, and most cars make noise. If you're about to cross the road, and you hear a car coming around the corner, don't step into the road. It's really that simple. Yes, the driver ought be in control of his vehicle, but take some responsibility for yourself.
So Italy builds nice supercars. So what? Doesn't make Fiats better than Fords or Toyotas. And even Top Gear admits that their lap times aren't meant for serious comparison - a single lap of one track doesn't define a car, especially when cars are run in different weather conditions, often with different drivers. Besides, that list is meaningless until they test a Saleen S7 and a Corvette Z06 on a dry track.
Every good racing driver does exactly that.
Yes and no. The fastest way to stop any car is to brake at the limit of traction - so that the wheels are still rolling, but any more braking and they'd lock up. A skilled driver can do that in a non-ABS car, but most people can't - they just slam on the brakes and lock the wheels, causing a skid. ABS will make a normal driver stop faster by preventing that skid and braking at the limit of traction.
What it DOES do though is allow you to steer while under maximum breaking conditions.
Not quite. You can never steer under maximum braking conditions, because your tires only have limited traction and, if you're truly braking at the limit, there's no more traction left for turning. No ABS system can overcome that, it's just physics. What ABS does is let off the brakes slightly when you turn the wheel, so that you're no longer under maximum braking. This frees up traction for steering. A good driver would do the same thing, but most people don't have the presence of mind to let off the brakes in a skid, so ABS comes in quite handy.
Um, unless you're blind or very stupid, there are quite a few cases where it's obvious that there is, indeed, no traffic.
His new car may have taken longer to stop because it was heavier, or because it had crappier brakes, but not because of ABS. Slamming on the brakes with ABS will always lead to a shorter stopping distance than locking the wheels without ABS in an equivalent car.
Um, your Subaru has computer-controlled AWD, which shifts power dynamically to the wheels that need it. You can't turn it off, but if you could, I think you'd notice a huge difference.
Most cars have governors, but they're based on the car's limits, not highway speed limits. Normal cars are usually governed about 120ish, with SUVs usually being lower and sports cars higher. If governors were intended to keep you from speeding, then no American car would go above 75, because that's pretty much the fastest you can legally drive anywhere in the US.
Many people here display their real email addresses - anyone who puts my email address into Google can see all of my /. posts. Of course, if you're worried about that, you can turn off display of your address, but a lot of people don't think about that when they're creating accounts.
IANAL, but I think you're wrong. Everyday words can be trademarked in context with their field of use. It's fine if you want to name your band "The Windows" or whatever, but write an OS and call it Windows and MS is going to rape you in court, even though all you used was the simple, everyday word "Windows".
For another example, look at the current legal battle between Apple Computer and Apple Records - Apple is an everyday word, but it's still possible for infringement to occur if you're in the same market space (the music business, in this case).
As for price competition, take a look at this Newegg page. The 30GB iPod costs $289. The cheapest competition, the iAudio X5, is $259 (there is also, of course, more expensive competition). A 10% price premium over the bottom of its class does not constitute "extremely expensive", especially when the iPod is 30% slimmer than the iAudio.
The iPod is not the best MP3 player for everyone. It probably wasn't the best one for you, judging by your comments. But when I was looking for an MP3 player, I didn't want a giant beast that could could record live TV, play Doom 3 and solve complex equations. I wanted something that would organize my music library, play music, and not get in my way. And my iPod does that better than any competitor I've ever seen.
The problem with the Internet is that sometimes humor is just plain lost. I think I have a fairly good appreciation of humor and sarcasm, and reading over your original post, I still don't see it. Since you've been modded down, apparently most mods don't see it either. It seems the words you wrote don't effectively convey the idea you were thinking.
What are you talking about? SOC participants get paid $4500.
It's small, good-looking, has a great interface, and is fairly price-competitive. The only real reason to look at other HD-based players is if you really want a radio or recording capability, or if your entire music library is in Vorbis and you don't want to transcode.
Your parent was also talking about the iPod directory structure. iPods keep music in random-named hidden directories and use the iTunesDB file to sort it out. There are GPL programs (like gtkpod) to read and write iTunesDB files, but it's still more complicated than a simple mass-storage system.
Myspace is a huge site, with millions of profiles. It's possible to use it to connect with cool new bands and intelligent, thoughtful people. It's also possible (and a lot easier) to find profiles of random idiots who can't write and treat the site as a popularity contest. There are a lot of empty-headed dumbasses on MySpace, but that doesn't mean the site can't be useful - just avoid contact with those people.
Depending on your goals as a musician, you may find notation software (like Sibelius) or ear training software (like the free Flash trainers at musictheory.net) to be helpful, but neither of those is going to help you with violin technique.
To be honest, I think guitar or piano are much better instruments than violin to learn as an adult. They're much more satisfying in terms of immediate gratification - you can be playing simple songs on your first day, and sound quite decent within a year. Because it's impossible to play out of tune on either of them, there's a lot more room for error. They're also chordal instruments, which leaves you with a better understanding of music theory as well as the ability to play/sing folk/pop/rock songs. And to cap it off, they're cheaper than violin, especially if you factor in the reduced need for lessons (which are a good idea, but not as necessary as with violin).
If you really want to learn violin, though, don't be afraid to call up a teacher and schedule some lessons (self-teaching violin isn't a good idea, it's too easy to develop bad habits). Teachers are usually happy to teach motivated adults; it gives them a refreshing break from the uncooperative brats they're used to dealing with. You can rent entry-level violins from most string music shops for $20/month or so, which is probably what you want to start out with.
Wind disrupts weather patterns? Unless you're talking about curbing global warming, I've never seen a shred of evidence that wind turbines affect the weather. As for hydroelectric power, it's one of the environmentally worst types of renewable energy. Building dams destroys valuable farmland, floods priceless natural habitat, and screws up fish migration.
Hippie nonsense aside, I think that wasting energy via biodiesel and other direct plant to usable forms of energy is a damn good source of energy in my eye.
It's great in concept, and works on a small scale, but it's nothing to get excited about. It would take twice the land area of the entire US (assuming it was all usable farmland) to grow the soy to produce enough biodiesel to meet our heating and transportation needs. The same problem exists with ethanol and other plant-based fuels.
In the long run, the only sensible power source is solar. When you think about it, fossil fuels, wind, plants, and hydroelectric power are all indirect forms of solar energy. Man-made solar cells have the potential to be more efficient than any other form of solar energy, because they cut out the middleman. Currently that's not the case, but it's only a matter of time given sufficient research.