While the Epley maneuver is effective, it does not actually cure the problem. The problem is that sometimes particles form in the inner ear and can disturb the nerves that senses changes in balance. The maneuver only moves them to a different location where they don't cause problems. The particles are still there. They occasionally can get back into a place where they can cause problems. I've had it for 10 years and it comes and goes. However, it still is better than nothing.
Not all cars have emergency brakes that are operated by hand. Some requires the use of your foot and releasing a lever under the dash. That sure is a lot easier to use while trying to steer and get out of the parking spot. It's easier to just left foot brake.
Unfortunately there are situations where you do need both the engine and the brakes at the same time. Try getting out of a parking spot on a steep hill without hitting the car behind and in front of you. It's a balancing act. Clearly not necessary in Kansas.
I'm sure if they determine that an emergency braking condition is occurring, to enforce a fixed state until the brake is released or some other positive action is taken such as shifting into neutral or killing the engine. Another reason to move to electrically powered accessories. None of my posts should be taken as a serious, formal and exhaustive proposal. Clearly more thought, work and setup needs to be done before actually moving any further.
In a lot of cases, even with the stock brake systems, its not very difficult to lock up the tires. Increasing the braking torque would naturally need increased traction capabilities. Both upgrading the brakes and the tires are a lot more costly than implementing some kind of sensor and/or logic to evaluate if there is an error condition.
Almost all cars generate braking forces far in excess of whatever the engine is capable of putting out. Adequate brake torque isn't the problem here. If the brakes have to resist the the torque input, then their effectiveness will obviously be diminished.
The proposal of having engine power being cut off when the brakes are applied seems to be sensible, however there are certain situations where you will need both the engine power and brakes on at the same time. Such as starting from a stop on a hill. So the solution isn't that simple. The easiest thing would be to either install an switch that trips past an certain amount of brake travel, or to sense the line pressure. They can use that data and determine how hard the operator is trying to brake, along with the vehicle's current state, is it stationary, or moving, and if so, how fast? They can use that to generate parameters to decide when and if to cut out engine power. At high brake pressures, and moving at high speeds, one would not be expect to continue to accelerate. At low to moderate pressures and being stationary or barely moving, engine power should not be cut off.
Another thing they could do is install a sensor and determine if a foot is present on the accelerator or not, specifically in non-cruise conditions.
Some people apparently had trouble shifting into neutral, but that should not happen at all. I don't know if it's an issue with the transmission trying to block that action, or if it was not able to mechanically disengage due to the engine accelerating. In either case, they should change the shifter from an mechanically controlled operation to an electronic one. Being controlled electronically also makes it easier to move the shifter. If the car is shifted into neutral, that's a fairly clear indicator that the ECM should override the pedal and drop to idle, and shift into neutral.
I think it would help if there was a verbal and textual feedback system to aid the driver along with a command system.
It's not dangerous as long as it's purple. When was the last time you saw an dangerous carnivore in purple? See, now just relax and sing along with Barney!
Yeah, especially if you consider the following quote from the summary, "and use rudimentary knowledge of body anatomy to estimate where hands or other body parts are even when they can't be seen by Natal"
The physics for this does not work out. They can't hit 54 MPH in the space of 35 feet when being dropped with earth's gravity. They'd need to drop it from almost 100 feet to attain that, ignoring wind friction of course. I hesitate to wonder what a networking journal is doing reporting on NASA's activities, especially given the apparent lack of background expertise.
I bought a Mac Mini when they first came out to use as an server. That turned out to be a bad idea. It was significantly slower than the older PowerPC based system that it was going to replace. It took forever to do anything, and we maxed out the configurable equipment. So we had to return the Mini. I think the hard drive was the primary bottleneck.
I see that this comes with 5400 RPM hard drives which are not exactly quick, not quick enough IMO. The latency sucks, and throughput will not be as good as a bigger unit. It may be okay for the personal server market, but I do not have high expectations for it.
It IDLES at 16w. Full power will naturally be higher than that, a more meaningful metric. Oh you mean you just let it sit on your desk as a shiny ornament? Might as well actually do something for the environment, unplug it and save the 16 watts.
While I understand your point, I also have to point out the sorry condition that a number of our roads and bridges are in, and it's not getting any better. Who's to say that the an publicly owned system will be as diligent in not only maintaining itself, but upgrading itself as better technology becomes available? Who determines what and when it's time to upgrade? What's the reasonable price and number of years for the next investment?
The problem is that there is no express mandate to upgrade equipment; and a monopoly delays progress while the company attempts to extract the most value from their investment. Opening up the lines to competition and abolishing multi-year contracts will help quite a bit. The insidious thing is that some of those existing contracts are set up to auto-renew when they expire so if you don't cancel it, you're locked into another term. I think a private, and separate company or a non-profit organization could set up standard access fees for ISP's and manage the last mile connections. They could work out deployment plans for new technology, estimate upgrade costs and so on. Their fees would be dictated by the upgrade time line and maintenance costs.
No, the tractor is not the only reason. Increased output from the other methods like you said, reduces the amount of land required to farm. Which in turn reduces manpower needed even if it's just using the tractor to work the land. It's a cumulative effect from other factors, not just the tractor itself.
As someone living in CA, I agree that it's a nuisance (San Diego seems to be much better about this than LA), however, the left lane is NOT a passing lane in CA as it is in other states. All lanes of traffic are free for general travel, and it is expected that faster traffic moves left. In some states it is illegal to stay in the left lane, but not CA./quote.
It's not only expected, it's also the law. Ever seen one of those signs that says "SLOWER TRAFFIC KEEP RIGHT". That's the law right there. The bad thing is that it's not enforced as often as one would like. It's also more difficult to enforce in high volume traffic.
I would expect that it can get hot enough to become self cleaning, just like spark plugs. Use a spark plug in the wrong heat range, and you WILL have driveability issues if not complete failure in short order. It sounds like they are putting out more energy per pulse. So even though it may not at the right focal point, it should still be able to burn things off.
In order to convict someone of perjury, you need evidence that they actually lied. What they are lacking for that conviction is that evidence which he conveniently didn't turn over. So while they could have charged him, they don't have the evidence to convict him for lying.
Well just compare the typical road to a runaway. The runaway isn't as bumpy to reduce stresses on the landing gear. Also, the landing gear needs periodic service and replacement. Cars last much longer than that.
Stephen Hawking would generally be expected to have something to back up his statements. People don't just come up with stuff out of thin air. They do research, experiment, formulate hypotheses and test them. That becomes the body of evidence on which Hawking would base his statements. What kind of evidence does Nielsen have to back his remarks? Polls? Focus groups?
Nielsen is essentially recommending that usability should trump security which is not necessarily the right answer. Now if he wants to recommend redesigning the authenication system, then I suggest that he collaborate with security experts and come up with a new authenication method then that is both user friendly, and secure.
I wonder if Nielsen's research considered instances where people forgot or entered the incorrect password. Cases in which, seeing the password in cleartext would not help. The easy answer is to look at the keyboard and see what you're pressing if you cant tell what you're pressing.
What makes you think that just kelvar fabric alone will be sufficient to protect their heads? Have you seen the effects of a bullet on the human body, as it impacts the bulletproof vest? It can leave bruises, or even crack ribs, etc. Now how will that affect the head which is mostly just a thin covering of skin over a bony structure. Chances are, you're not walking away if a bullet manages to miss your face, and hits your kelvar headwrap.
Because it was released 6 years ago. It was a novel game for it's time. A lot of original elements in the game. The mechanics of it were pretty fun. Unfortunately the game had tons of problems, bugs, class balance issues, and severe lag also. Large scale combat would frequently overload the servers and make it impossible to do anything. At most probably only 100 players per side was sort of okay. But at that time, it was fairly common for battles to have upwards of 200-300 people, per side. That was due to the formation of alliances among guilds, and some guilds managing to attain a large membership, over a thousand players. Once people had been driven away by all the bugs, exploits and other issues, the game never recovered. I came back years later and it was pretty much empty. Another victim of an "early" launch. A few more months, and more testing and it could have been much better.
#3, not necessarily true. Some cars depending on the engine, gearing and aerodynamics get maximum fuel consumption at higher speeds. Those variables are not nice, linear formulas that provides predictable real world results.
All engines produces maximum fuel efficiency at it's peak torque. That is the maximum amount of work extracted for a given amount of fuel.
The vehicle's gearing can help position the engine where it's able to work most efficiently, or not. Automakers tend not to always make good gearing selections, frequently emphasizing 0-60 performance, etc rather than choosing it based on powerband compared to speed.
And lastly, aerodynamics. Face it, that aerodynamic brick of a SUV isn't gonna net better mileage at higher speeds compared to, say a 2006 Accord (28-30 MPG at 75 MPH with a V6 and A/C even, and before you ask, I get 25ish at 55).
Flawed analogy. Those two examples have different engines. As well as different purposes. Earth movers rely on diesel motors which produces a lot more torque. The kind of torque necessary to actually do what it needs to do. It only produces it at a lower RPM so the HP figure is deceptively lower. If you were to try and use a gasoline engine, it would need to reach a higher RPM to produce the necessary torque, and thus might not even be able to move from rest. Not to mention it's hard on the clutch. That's why people can go with diesel motors in their trucks if they frequently haul heavy loads. But with certain exceptions, it's generally not good for high speed performance. Because of the characteristics of the fuel, diesel engines have a much lower maximum RPM. So there is less work being done per minute. Each has their uses, but are not necessarily the good basis for a comparison.
Slashdot Mirror
While the Epley maneuver is effective, it does not actually cure the problem. The problem is that sometimes particles form in the inner ear and can disturb the nerves that senses changes in balance. The maneuver only moves them to a different location where they don't cause problems. The particles are still there. They occasionally can get back into a place where they can cause problems. I've had it for 10 years and it comes and goes. However, it still is better than nothing.
Not all cars have emergency brakes that are operated by hand. Some requires the use of your foot and releasing a lever under the dash. That sure is a lot easier to use while trying to steer and get out of the parking spot. It's easier to just left foot brake.
Unfortunately there are situations where you do need both the engine and the brakes at the same time. Try getting out of a parking spot on a steep hill without hitting the car behind and in front of you. It's a balancing act. Clearly not necessary in Kansas.
I'm sure if they determine that an emergency braking condition is occurring, to enforce a fixed state until the brake is released or some other positive action is taken such as shifting into neutral or killing the engine. Another reason to move to electrically powered accessories. None of my posts should be taken as a serious, formal and exhaustive proposal. Clearly more thought, work and setup needs to be done before actually moving any further.
In a lot of cases, even with the stock brake systems, its not very difficult to lock up the tires. Increasing the braking torque would naturally need increased traction capabilities. Both upgrading the brakes and the tires are a lot more costly than implementing some kind of sensor and/or logic to evaluate if there is an error condition.
Almost all cars generate braking forces far in excess of whatever the engine is capable of putting out. Adequate brake torque isn't the problem here. If the brakes have to resist the the torque input, then their effectiveness will obviously be diminished.
The proposal of having engine power being cut off when the brakes are applied seems to be sensible, however there are certain situations where you will need both the engine power and brakes on at the same time. Such as starting from a stop on a hill. So the solution isn't that simple. The easiest thing would be to either install an switch that trips past an certain amount of brake travel, or to sense the line pressure. They can use that data and determine how hard the operator is trying to brake, along with the vehicle's current state, is it stationary, or moving, and if so, how fast? They can use that to generate parameters to decide when and if to cut out engine power. At high brake pressures, and moving at high speeds, one would not be expect to continue to accelerate. At low to moderate pressures and being stationary or barely moving, engine power should not be cut off.
Another thing they could do is install a sensor and determine if a foot is present on the accelerator or not, specifically in non-cruise conditions.
Some people apparently had trouble shifting into neutral, but that should not happen at all. I don't know if it's an issue with the transmission trying to block that action, or if it was not able to mechanically disengage due to the engine accelerating. In either case, they should change the shifter from an mechanically controlled operation to an electronic one. Being controlled electronically also makes it easier to move the shifter. If the car is shifted into neutral, that's a fairly clear indicator that the ECM should override the pedal and drop to idle, and shift into neutral.
I think it would help if there was a verbal and textual feedback system to aid the driver along with a command system.
It's not dangerous as long as it's purple. When was the last time you saw an dangerous carnivore in purple? See, now just relax and sing along with Barney!
welcome our new wet computing overlords.
Yeah, especially if you consider the following quote from the summary, "and use rudimentary knowledge of body anatomy to estimate where hands or other body parts are even when they can't be seen by Natal"
It just might come true after all...
Trecares
The physics for this does not work out. They can't hit 54 MPH in the space of 35 feet when being dropped with earth's gravity. They'd need to drop it from almost 100 feet to attain that, ignoring wind friction of course. I hesitate to wonder what a networking journal is doing reporting on NASA's activities, especially given the apparent lack of background expertise.
Trecares
So is there any other option that works well for e-commerce websites? I don't know what else is good?
I bought a Mac Mini when they first came out to use as an server. That turned out to be a bad idea. It was significantly slower than the older PowerPC based system that it was going to replace. It took forever to do anything, and we maxed out the configurable equipment. So we had to return the Mini. I think the hard drive was the primary bottleneck.
I see that this comes with 5400 RPM hard drives which are not exactly quick, not quick enough IMO. The latency sucks, and throughput will not be as good as a bigger unit. It may be okay for the personal server market, but I do not have high expectations for it.
It IDLES at 16w. Full power will naturally be higher than that, a more meaningful metric. Oh you mean you just let it sit on your desk as a shiny ornament? Might as well actually do something for the environment, unplug it and save the 16 watts.
While I understand your point, I also have to point out the sorry condition that a number of our roads and bridges are in, and it's not getting any better. Who's to say that the an publicly owned system will be as diligent in not only maintaining itself, but upgrading itself as better technology becomes available? Who determines what and when it's time to upgrade? What's the reasonable price and number of years for the next investment?
The problem is that there is no express mandate to upgrade equipment; and a monopoly delays progress while the company attempts to extract the most value from their investment. Opening up the lines to competition and abolishing multi-year contracts will help quite a bit. The insidious thing is that some of those existing contracts are set up to auto-renew when they expire so if you don't cancel it, you're locked into another term. I think a private, and separate company or a non-profit organization could set up standard access fees for ISP's and manage the last mile connections. They could work out deployment plans for new technology, estimate upgrade costs and so on. Their fees would be dictated by the upgrade time line and maintenance costs.
No, the tractor is not the only reason. Increased output from the other methods like you said, reduces the amount of land required to farm. Which in turn reduces manpower needed even if it's just using the tractor to work the land. It's a cumulative effect from other factors, not just the tractor itself.
As someone living in CA, I agree that it's a nuisance (San Diego seems to be much better about this than LA), however, the left lane is NOT a passing lane in CA as it is in other states. All lanes of traffic are free for general travel, and it is expected that faster traffic moves left. In some states it is illegal to stay in the left lane, but not CA./quote.
It's not only expected, it's also the law. Ever seen one of those signs that says "SLOWER TRAFFIC KEEP RIGHT". That's the law right there. The bad thing is that it's not enforced as often as one would like. It's also more difficult to enforce in high volume traffic.
I'll be happy when they finally automate driving.
I would expect that it can get hot enough to become self cleaning, just like spark plugs. Use a spark plug in the wrong heat range, and you WILL have driveability issues if not complete failure in short order. It sounds like they are putting out more energy per pulse. So even though it may not at the right focal point, it should still be able to burn things off.
In order to convict someone of perjury, you need evidence that they actually lied. What they are lacking for that conviction is that evidence which he conveniently didn't turn over. So while they could have charged him, they don't have the evidence to convict him for lying.
Well just compare the typical road to a runaway. The runaway isn't as bumpy to reduce stresses on the landing gear. Also, the landing gear needs periodic service and replacement. Cars last much longer than that.
Stephen Hawking would generally be expected to have something to back up his statements. People don't just come up with stuff out of thin air. They do research, experiment, formulate hypotheses and test them. That becomes the body of evidence on which Hawking would base his statements. What kind of evidence does Nielsen have to back his remarks? Polls? Focus groups?
Nielsen is essentially recommending that usability should trump security which is not necessarily the right answer. Now if he wants to recommend redesigning the authenication system, then I suggest that he collaborate with security experts and come up with a new authenication method then that is both user friendly, and secure.
I wonder if Nielsen's research considered instances where people forgot or entered the incorrect password. Cases in which, seeing the password in cleartext would not help. The easy answer is to look at the keyboard and see what you're pressing if you cant tell what you're pressing.
That's not Klingon. It looks like Latin. Plugged it into a online translator, but only got a partial translation.
Trecares
What makes you think that just kelvar fabric alone will be sufficient to protect their heads? Have you seen the effects of a bullet on the human body, as it impacts the bulletproof vest? It can leave bruises, or even crack ribs, etc. Now how will that affect the head which is mostly just a thin covering of skin over a bony structure. Chances are, you're not walking away if a bullet manages to miss your face, and hits your kelvar headwrap.
Trecares
Because it was released 6 years ago. It was a novel game for it's time. A lot of original elements in the game. The mechanics of it were pretty fun. Unfortunately the game had tons of problems, bugs, class balance issues, and severe lag also. Large scale combat would frequently overload the servers and make it impossible to do anything. At most probably only 100 players per side was sort of okay. But at that time, it was fairly common for battles to have upwards of 200-300 people, per side. That was due to the formation of alliances among guilds, and some guilds managing to attain a large membership, over a thousand players. Once people had been driven away by all the bugs, exploits and other issues, the game never recovered. I came back years later and it was pretty much empty. Another victim of an "early" launch. A few more months, and more testing and it could have been much better.
Trecares
#3, not necessarily true. Some cars depending on the engine, gearing and aerodynamics get maximum fuel consumption at higher speeds. Those variables are not nice, linear formulas that provides predictable real world results.
All engines produces maximum fuel efficiency at it's peak torque. That is the maximum amount of work extracted for a given amount of fuel.
The vehicle's gearing can help position the engine where it's able to work most efficiently, or not. Automakers tend not to always make good gearing selections, frequently emphasizing 0-60 performance, etc rather than choosing it based on powerband compared to speed.
And lastly, aerodynamics. Face it, that aerodynamic brick of a SUV isn't gonna net better mileage at higher speeds compared to, say a 2006 Accord (28-30 MPG at 75 MPH with a V6 and A/C even, and before you ask, I get 25ish at 55).
Flawed analogy. Those two examples have different engines. As well as different purposes. Earth movers rely on diesel motors which produces a lot more torque. The kind of torque necessary to actually do what it needs to do. It only produces it at a lower RPM so the HP figure is deceptively lower. If you were to try and use a gasoline engine, it would need to reach a higher RPM to produce the necessary torque, and thus might not even be able to move from rest. Not to mention it's hard on the clutch. That's why people can go with diesel motors in their trucks if they frequently haul heavy loads. But with certain exceptions, it's generally not good for high speed performance. Because of the characteristics of the fuel, diesel engines have a much lower maximum RPM. So there is less work being done per minute. Each has their uses, but are not necessarily the good basis for a comparison.