the full sized cases will provide greater resistance to all the spoooge...
Yeah, except for the fact that the front is covered in a mesh of holes, with fans sucking air through them. Maybe that's why you can see clear plastic hanging down in some of the photos.
When he referred to the statement that speed kills, he meant that if you take the statement literally. Go over 100 mph, you die. Simple as that.
I doubt that, because it's so obvious. I think he meant that people think that speeding is a major cause of accidents, and that if that was the case, there would be many more people dying at races, since they travel a lot faster (coicidently, there are usally plenty of crashes at races).
Speed does not kill, stupidity and speed do.
I don't care if you race F1s for a living. If someone else hits you, you're worse off. Also, roads and conditions can still catch people off guard, and people still make mistakes, no matter how good you are. When you are speeding, the consequences of those mistakes go up dramaticly, increasing you chance of dying. Hence the phrase "speed kills".
Part of the problem is that everyone who goes fast, thinks they're skilled. Most are not.
He also went on to compare US public roads to English and German public roads. So, in that regard, your argument is utterly ridiculous.
Not really, because I was only replying to that point.
Do you have the same stats for fatal accidents? I think you will see a large jump in speed being a cause.
You can use stats to say anything in your favor if you use them in missleading ways. Most acccidents are probably just fender benders, which isn't really what we are talking about here.
a) Speed does not kill. If it killed then people would be dieing all the time in F1 and World Super Bikes.
1) Those drivers are more skilled.
2) Traffic is going one way, and it's predictable.
3) The tracks are simple and have been practiced on many times.
4) The tracks are clear of obstacles, and have been designed to slow down and take impacts.
5) The driver wears far more safety gear, and in the case of a car, the car is much more safe aswell.
Saying that speed isn't a problem on public roads because it isn't a problem on the track is utterly ridiculous.
We [NZ] may not be the number one country in terms of wealth and power, and I do sometimes worry when our country does something that pisses the US off, which doesn't do any favors for our economy. But in general, I'm glad we seem to have more freedom (or should I say a more fair government?), even if we do have to pay shitloads for electronics etc.
As long as Labour stays in parliment, I don't think NZ is going to be adopting US-like policies as quickly as Australia is.
Ha. The img tag was probably the best thing to happen to the web. Just because you only enjoy plan text. Some of us like the fact that we don't have to piss around downloading files etc just to view an image.
Please, if you're going to complain, atleast aim it in the right direction--that being bad designers.
I'm sorry if you're forced to endure badly designed sites. But not all of us have to (or have to as oftern, I should say).
But what if someone decided to make a light-weight browser, with options to use plug-ins created using standards? EG, someone might make a GLP SVG plug-in. Exactly what do plug-ins and embedded objects have to do with proprietory code and bad useability?
Many people here think that it's good to have absolutly no way to embed objects, simply because they don't like Flash. That's completely short sighted.
Slashdot is the last place were I would expect to see someone supporting silly patents instead of looking for a proper solution to a problem.
No. The EFF doesn't support copyright infrinement. But they think that being sued and put in jail is far too harsh considering that it's just people shareing music for private use. The punishment should fit the crime as they say. The EFF are also annoyed because the RIAA aren't really looking for proper solution (ala iTunes) to their obvious problem.
Actually, Alan Gibbs was working on prototypes in NZ until 1995 when he left. Not sure where he went from there. I don't think the inventors are solely based in any particlular country.
I don't think you even know what prior art means. This is new, and it's innovative because it can achive the same thing as the other type of motors at a lower cost. Did you even read the aritcal? They're not trying to patent the electric motor you know.
I think you have completly missed the point. The whole point of this is that the focusing system would be very small and doesn't take up much electricity. Even a normal foacusing system in a compact camera dosn't take up much compared to all the other things like doing processing to show a live view of the camera, and the screen/backlight of course.
Moderators: This comment is not interesting or insightful. It's overgeneralising and worthless. We have head this stupid rant before aswell, and it adds absolutly nothing of value to the artical, since it isn't even specificly about cameras on cellphones.
First off, nice cut'n'paste. Secondly, if exploiting people over in some 3rd world country is cheaper that using robots, then capitalists are still going to be using human labour.
Anarchism on the other hand, where the goal is to reduce labour in favor for more creative work, robots would be a good option, even if they do cost more.
Whenever someone says "that's why capitalism is so great" they need to stop and think if what they are talking about is going to be better for society, or if it is going to make someone more money. Unless it makes more money, it ain't going to happen in a capitalist society because it's goals are indervidual profit, not benifiting society.
What happens when 5% of your laundry says "warm" and the rest says "hot"
You've got to be kidding me. Obviously it would set it to warm, or it will tell you that you have mixed items. Perhaps you should ask yourself what would normaly happen if a human was doing this manually? Then perhaps that is what would happen here. Surely this is blindingly obvious?
I'm not commenting on how good nuclar energy is. In fact I'm not the biggest fan of it myself. And more has come from atomic research that just nuclear energy and weapons.
When Rutherford split the atom, he said that the amount of energy that you'd get out of it would be so little, that it wouldn't be worth it. Plus I don't think the idea of X-ray machines popped into his head straight after he split it either. Both X-rays and nuclear energy came after, by differnt people. At the time the atom was split, it probably didn't mean much to anyone, there were no immediate benifits, some people probably saw it as pointless research.
How the fuck is splitting an atom going to help anyone?
You see, science is not about only making big breakthoughs on things in you direct field of interest. A lot of it is small discoveries, that are used down the road in ways that people didn't think of when they made the discovery.
There are some things that are just plain clunky to do server-side. Maybe programmers don't understand the value of client-side scripting--obviously you don't, but users (as long as you have a noscript alternative) and sysadmins certinaly do.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, if you order about 1000 of them, I'm sure they'll move you up on the priority list :P.
Yeah, except for the fact that the front is covered in a mesh of holes, with fans sucking air through them. Maybe that's why you can see clear plastic hanging down in some of the photos.
I doubt that, because it's so obvious. I think he meant that people think that speeding is a major cause of accidents, and that if that was the case, there would be many more people dying at races, since they travel a lot faster (coicidently, there are usally plenty of crashes at races).
Speed does not kill, stupidity and speed do.
I don't care if you race F1s for a living. If someone else hits you, you're worse off. Also, roads and conditions can still catch people off guard, and people still make mistakes, no matter how good you are. When you are speeding, the consequences of those mistakes go up dramaticly, increasing you chance of dying. Hence the phrase "speed kills".
Part of the problem is that everyone who goes fast, thinks they're skilled. Most are not.
He also went on to compare US public roads to English and German public roads. So, in that regard, your argument is utterly ridiculous.
Not really, because I was only replying to that point.
You can use stats to say anything in your favor if you use them in missleading ways. Most acccidents are probably just fender benders, which isn't really what we are talking about here.
1) Those drivers are more skilled.
2) Traffic is going one way, and it's predictable.
3) The tracks are simple and have been practiced on many times.
4) The tracks are clear of obstacles, and have been designed to slow down and take impacts.
5) The driver wears far more safety gear, and in the case of a car, the car is much more safe aswell.
Saying that speed isn't a problem on public roads because it isn't a problem on the track is utterly ridiculous.
Fair enough. But do you really think that he deserves a life sentence? Rapists and murderers get less than that.
As long as Labour stays in parliment, I don't think NZ is going to be adopting US-like policies as quickly as Australia is.
Australia?
Please, if you're going to complain, atleast aim it in the right direction--that being bad designers.
I'm sorry if you're forced to endure badly designed sites. But not all of us have to (or have to as oftern, I should say).
Many people here think that it's good to have absolutly no way to embed objects, simply because they don't like Flash. That's completely short sighted.
Slashdot is the last place were I would expect to see someone supporting silly patents instead of looking for a proper solution to a problem.
No. The EFF doesn't support copyright infrinement. But they think that being sued and put in jail is far too harsh considering that it's just people shareing music for private use. The punishment should fit the crime as they say. The EFF are also annoyed because the RIAA aren't really looking for proper solution (ala iTunes) to their obvious problem.
All you need is some light (and not the flash), and to spend a bit of time in photoshop/gimp tidying up the image. Most people just don't bother.
Actually, Alan Gibbs was working on prototypes in NZ until 1995 when he left. Not sure where he went from there. I don't think the inventors are solely based in any particlular country.
However, I'm sure they have a way, I'm sure it's fairly simple to, but it escapes me.
That's why you make the tube out of opposite pairs/aternating pairs etc. Half would go one way, half would go the other way.
I don't think you even know what prior art means. This is new, and it's innovative because it can achive the same thing as the other type of motors at a lower cost. Did you even read the aritcal? They're not trying to patent the electric motor you know.
I think you have completly missed the point. The whole point of this is that the focusing system would be very small and doesn't take up much electricity. Even a normal foacusing system in a compact camera dosn't take up much compared to all the other things like doing processing to show a live view of the camera, and the screen/backlight of course.
-1 Redundant IMHO.
Anarchism on the other hand, where the goal is to reduce labour in favor for more creative work, robots would be a good option, even if they do cost more.
Whenever someone says "that's why capitalism is so great" they need to stop and think if what they are talking about is going to be better for society, or if it is going to make someone more money. Unless it makes more money, it ain't going to happen in a capitalist society because it's goals are indervidual profit, not benifiting society.
You've got to be kidding me. Obviously it would set it to warm, or it will tell you that you have mixed items. Perhaps you should ask yourself what would normaly happen if a human was doing this manually? Then perhaps that is what would happen here. Surely this is blindingly obvious?
Please see this post.
When Rutherford split the atom, he said that the amount of energy that you'd get out of it would be so little, that it wouldn't be worth it. Plus I don't think the idea of X-ray machines popped into his head straight after he split it either.
Both X-rays and nuclear energy came after, by differnt people. At the time the atom was split, it probably didn't mean much to anyone, there were no immediate benifits, some people probably saw it as pointless research.
You see, science is not about only making big breakthoughs on things in you direct field of interest. A lot of it is small discoveries, that are used down the road in ways that people didn't think of when they made the discovery.
There are some things that are just plain clunky to do server-side. Maybe programmers don't understand the value of client-side scripting--obviously you don't, but users (as long as you have a noscript alternative) and sysadmins certinaly do.
They were probaly around then. But nobody seems to know what thiers' is in my experience, probably 'cause they're optional.