> One of the challenges with creating a transmission for a high power > electric motor is that the massive amount of torque generated creates too > much stress on a traditional friction based automatic transmission (or a > friction based clutch).
The torque can be limited electronically.
> That's why the Tesla roadster doesn't even have a transmission.
It doesn't have a transmission because it doesn't need one. It has full torque (which can be limited electronically to the maximum the drive train can withstand) at zero speed and reasonable torque and efficiency up to the maximum safe motor speed. With adequate controls a transmission adds nothing but weight and frictional losses.
> That said, it is still probably cheaper, lighter, and more efficient to do > that electronically in the speed controller, rather than mechanically in a > variable gear box.
Not yet. Machinery still has the edge. Give us carbon-nanotube hyperconductors, though...
>...those who can be charged because they had some form of knowledge and > intent (as evidenced by things like separating their own funds from the > funds they were handling).
Except that such separation is merely common (and prudent) business practice. If it isn't your money why would you not keep it in a separate account?
> As the original article says, the majority of mules know they are doing > something slightly shady.
Perhaps, but the stated "evidence" merely indicates that they know they are doing something slightly risky, as in "Maybe this is legit, or maybe these guys have some scheme to rip me off. I'll open a separate account just to be safe."
> When pressed as to why they did this, if they're honest most will say they > weren't sure about the whole arrangement and wanted to protect their > investments just in case their employers turned out to be less-than-honest.
That doesn't mean that they thought the money was stolen: just that they thought their "employers" might be intending to try to swindle them by cleaning out their accounts. They may have suspected that the money was hot but you can't conclude that just because they took precautions.
> What we need to make sure is that those TOS and agreements are not just > some legal stuff to make the whiners go away, and it's in their enlightened > self-interest to make sure we can verify it.
Since I have no Google accounts I have no contract with Google and therefor those agreements are irrelevant to me [1]. Since I have no contract with Google any information they gather as a result of my viewing their Web pages is theirs to do with as they will. Therefor I see to it that they gather no non-public information about me. If I were to decide open a Google account I would, of course, read the contract. If I didn't like it I would simply not open the account, not do so and then whine indignantly about my "rights".
[1] No, viewing a Web page does not, in and of itself, create a contract.
They own the part you did after. However, they cannot distribute the combined work without your permission. If the program includes any GPL code written by anyone else they cannot distribute the program without either complying with the GPL or getting the author's permission. If the program links to any GPL libraries (not LGPL) they cannot distribute it without complying with the GPL.
> Again, since we haven't detected any gravitational waves, using either > Occam's Razor or Sherlock Holmes' comment about eliminating the impossible > and whatever is left, no matter how improbable, must be the truth...
One of the things that is left is that our detectors are not yet sensitive enough.
> It's unlikely to be due to the reflectivity, if it was the case, a coated > cube would be enough.
It is coated with gold, probably primarily for reflectivity.
> I guess they were choosed because the vacuum inside the ships isn't > expected to be perfect (as a second tought, duh, it's inside a ship, so it > can't be)...
It is inside a special chamber inside a spacecraft. It will have the best vacuum possible.
>...and they don't want the cubes to absorb the gases around them.
There won't be any. However, the gold coating will help minimize the amount of gas adsorbed before the chamber is evacuated.
> And Kagan got an opportunity to showcase her feelings on intellectual > property when the US Supreme Court asked her, as US Solicitor General, to > weigh in on the big Cablevision case.
Not her views. She was repersenting the adminstration. He personal views may or may not be the same as those she presented on behalf of her employer.
> Their first of three stated goals is "making Firefox super-duper fast".
Eh. The speed of everything I do with Firefox is limited by either the bandwidth of my DSL service or the speed of the server (probably because I block all ads and most scripts). I don't give a damn about speed.
> The spacecraft absorbs the solar wind or other outside forces while > measuring any change in relative position to the test mass and using micro- > thrusters to keep itself centered on the mass and thus in the same > free-fall drag-less orbit.
That method could be used to test the Pioneer Effect. You would, of course, need to keep the center of mass of the spacecraft near the center of mass of the test mass, not merely keep the test mass from touching the walls of the chamber.
Slashdot Mirror
> One of the challenges with creating a transmission for a high power
> electric motor is that the massive amount of torque generated creates too
> much stress on a traditional friction based automatic transmission (or a
> friction based clutch).
The torque can be limited electronically.
> That's why the Tesla roadster doesn't even have a transmission.
It doesn't have a transmission because it doesn't need one. It has full torque (which can be limited electronically to the maximum the drive train can withstand) at zero speed and reasonable torque and efficiency up to the maximum safe motor speed. With adequate controls a transmission adds nothing but weight and frictional losses.
> That said, it is still probably cheaper, lighter, and more efficient to do
> that electronically in the speed controller, rather than mechanically in a
> variable gear box.
Not yet. Machinery still has the edge. Give us carbon-nanotube hyperconductors, though...
> Show me a dry clutch as used on most cars that outlasts an automatic
> transmission.
any that is being operated by someone who knows what the hell he is doing.
Tractors don't use torque converters. There's a reason for that.
> ...but the horizon itself is not a solid object and likely somewhat boring.
It is, in fact, invisible and imperceptible to an observer crossing it.
> ...those who can be charged because they had some form of knowledge and
> intent (as evidenced by things like separating their own funds from the
> funds they were handling).
Except that such separation is merely common (and prudent) business practice. If it isn't your money why would you not keep it in a separate account?
> There may be crimes against such laundering...
The crime is "money laundering", one of many deliberately vaguely defined crimes.
> As the original article says, the majority of mules know they are doing
> something slightly shady.
Perhaps, but the stated "evidence" merely indicates that they know they are doing something slightly risky, as in "Maybe this is legit, or maybe these guys have some scheme to rip me off. I'll open a separate account just to be safe."
It is not a crime to be prudent.
> The FBI has far better things to put their time into with these smart
> criminals who destroy nations and wreak economies for profit...
Yes, but they wouldn't get anywhere prosecuting the politicians they work for.
> When pressed as to why they did this, if they're honest most will say they
> weren't sure about the whole arrangement and wanted to protect their
> investments just in case their employers turned out to be less-than-honest.
That doesn't mean that they thought the money was stolen: just that they thought their "employers" might be intending to try to swindle them by cleaning out their accounts. They may have suspected that the money was hot but you can't conclude that just because they took precautions.
> Is that now all the people who spend their time watching reality TV all day
> will be out in public interacting with others..
Not necessarily. It may just lead to an increase in the rate of murder, divorce, and child abuse.
> What we need to make sure is that those TOS and agreements are not just
> some legal stuff to make the whiners go away, and it's in their enlightened
> self-interest to make sure we can verify it.
Since I have no Google accounts I have no contract with Google and therefor those agreements are irrelevant to me [1]. Since I have no contract with Google any information they gather as a result of my viewing their Web pages is theirs to do with as they will. Therefor I see to it that they gather no non-public information about me. If I were to decide open a Google account I would, of course, read the contract. If I didn't like it I would simply not open the account, not do so and then whine indignantly about my "rights".
[1] No, viewing a Web page does not, in and of itself, create a contract.
They own the part you did after. However, they cannot distribute the combined work without your permission. If the program includes any GPL code written by anyone else they cannot distribute the program without either complying with the GPL or getting the author's permission. If the program links to any GPL libraries (not LGPL) they cannot distribute it without complying with the GPL.
> Again, since we haven't detected any gravitational waves, using either
> Occam's Razor or Sherlock Holmes' comment about eliminating the impossible
> and whatever is left, no matter how improbable, must be the truth...
One of the things that is left is that our detectors are not yet sensitive enough.
> It's unlikely to be due to the reflectivity, if it was the case, a coated
> cube would be enough.
It is coated with gold, probably primarily for reflectivity.
> I guess they were choosed because the vacuum inside the ships isn't
> expected to be perfect (as a second tought, duh, it's inside a ship, so it
> can't be)...
It is inside a special chamber inside a spacecraft. It will have the best vacuum possible.
> ...and they don't want the cubes to absorb the gases around them.
There won't be any. However, the gold coating will help minimize the amount of gas adsorbed before the chamber is evacuated.
> Wouldn't a lump of lead work as well...
No. Platinum is much denser and also much harder. The cube is plated with gold because it is highly reflective and inert.
> You've obviously never met a theoretical physicist. Many are of a deep
> seated belief that reality is but a mere shadow of their maths.
They are right.
> Her name is on the Bilski brief submitted by the Obama administration:
So what? She's a lawyer. He job is to advocate what her employer tells her to advocate.
> And Kagan got an opportunity to showcase her feelings on intellectual
> property when the US Supreme Court asked her, as US Solicitor General, to
> weigh in on the big Cablevision case.
Not her views. She was repersenting the adminstration. He personal views may or may not be the same as those she presented on behalf of her employer.
> Their first of three stated goals is "making Firefox super-duper fast".
Eh. The speed of everything I do with Firefox is limited by either the bandwidth of my DSL service or the speed of the server (probably because I block all ads and most scripts). I don't give a damn about speed.
> Having to memorize keyboard shortcuts to do anything is for shit.
Not everyone finds learning a few keystrokes an insurmountable task.
> Google should instead build upon its already successful Android platform
> and provide a system that offers local applications.
Google doesn't want anyone to run local applications.
> Where 'field-testing' may be done in your kitchen sink, if possible.
Or, if you are a theoretical physicist, by somebody else.
> The spacecraft absorbs the solar wind or other outside forces while
> measuring any change in relative position to the test mass and using micro-
> thrusters to keep itself centered on the mass and thus in the same
> free-fall drag-less orbit.
That method could be used to test the Pioneer Effect. You would, of course, need to keep the center of mass of the spacecraft near the center of mass of the test mass, not merely keep the test mass from touching the walls of the chamber.
A gravitational wave is a "ripple in space-time".
No. To prevent legal copying of movies. See Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc.