The british law version of the 5th is somewhat different, and that's borne out in the statement that the police read to you if you are arrested. Instead of simply having the right to remain silent, we "do not have to say anything, but it may harm [our] defence if you do not mention, when questioned, something which you later rely on in court. Anything [we] do say may be given in evidence." The key being that "it may harm your defence if you do not mention, when questioned, something which you later rely on in court". You can keep quiet –but keeping quiet may well harm you just as much as it harms the prosecution.
You're assuming that the force that the head experiences while the helmet is collapsing is the same as the force the head is experiencing after the helmet has collapsed.
In the case of the styrofoam helmet (actual numbers made up on the spot), it's entirely plausible that while the helmet absorbs some of the impact, the head experiences 20g acceleration. However, because the helmet does not absorb as much force, the head then hits the "immovable" object rather harder and experiences the 230g cited in the article.
In the case of the cardboard helmet, however, the head may experience 70g for the entire time that the helmet is collapsing, slowing it much more in the same distance. Now, at it's lower velocity, when it finally hits the immovable object, it only experiences the 70g cited in the article.
More absorbant *does not* require more distance, it simply requires that the absorbing material exerts a greater force.
Another reason why you failed to sanity check –if your assertion was true, a car's crumple zone's construction would not matter at all, as anything that collapsed the same distance would work equally well. The sad fact though is that we can not simply attach some pillows in their place (which likely would in fact collapse more than the crumple zones), because said pillows do not exert as large a force, and hence do not absorb as much of the impact.
No, the socket overheated and smoked, and then set on fire, not the connector. The solution is to replace the wiring, and socket in the house. However, this solution can only be carried out if you actually know that it's faulty. Thus, by installing a heat sensor in the connector, detecting the fault, shutting down safely, and notifying the home owner, you improve the situation, even though the connector was not at any point at fault.
Why would you assume that absorbing energy more slowly implies that it's thicker? Simply absorbing more energy per unit time would do this too (as it would rapidly slow the deceleration, and hence extend the period of movement).
That would be, unusually high resistance in the socket that the connector plugged into. That is, exactly the fault that the fire service fingered in this case.
No, I did RTFA, unlike you, who RTFS. The issue being pointed out here is with the house's wiring. The wiring that is custom installed for the car, but is not installed by Tesla. The charger is merely protecting against potential faults in that wiring.
Because the new ones protect against faults in house wiring, as well as working correctly like the old ones did, and because that gives him great publicity, and return customers?
Alternatively... it could be exactly as he said, the car was not fire prone (as borne out by the stats showing it had lower fire rates than other cars, and better outcomes when they did happen), and that the fire department agree that it was not caused by the charger.
Instead, it could simply be that even though they're working fine, there's way to mitigate the risk of other faulty things causing problems, and it's nice to do something towards that.
Honestly, I hate this aspect of the modern world –no one is allowed to improve something without implying that something was broken before hand, or that it was their fault that something else was broken.
No, this *is* you being personally held liable. It just happens that you insured yourself against this circumstance, and the insurance company agreed to pick up the tab if you were found liable.
I'm not convinced that's true. My Skoda Fabia from 10 years ago stated in its manual that it's peak efficiency came at 3/4 of top speed in 5th gear (which works out to 84.75mph). My VW Jetta 2014 also states a similar number. I've never known a car which has stated less than 70mph as it's peak efficiency speed.
No, he got a new car because when lots of little things start to pop up like this, they continue to pop up like this, and the on going cost of maintaining 100000 corroded metal and plastic parts is higher than the one time cost of getting a new car.
Except engines aren't the things that cause you to buy a new car. The chassis rusting through, or the plastic components all rotting simultaneously, or the suspension beginning to go, or a whole bunch of small things adding up... These are the kind of things that cause you to buy a new car.
So what you're saying is that as a good programmer, it's frustrating having to ignore a bunch of stuff that's private, and makes the code harder to read, while for a bad programmer, it makes it easy to rely on things that make them bad.
The point is that a header file neatly separates this out, making it much easier to read "this is the API, this is what you're allowed to use", without any implementation detail being visible (assuming the library author was competent).
The point is that AA algorithm *can not* be a configurable parameter, because different hardware simply does it in different ways. It's impossible to implement FXAA efficiently on nVidia hardware, and it's impossible to implement CSAA efficiently on AMD hardware. This is the point, efficient implementation of graphics *must* be sufficiently weakly specified that it can be efficiently implemented. The result of that is that it can not be sufficiently strongly specified that all platforms behave the same, and you can get benefit from having a nice abstracted cross platform API.
No, he's assuming that the existence of one cross platform library for one well specified task means that another task can be well specified in a way that it can be efficiently implemented on all platforms. That's not true of graphics. This isn't even true of different implementations of graphics drivers on one platform, let alone across platforms.
Slashdot Mirror
The british law version of the 5th is somewhat different, and that's borne out in the statement that the police read to you if you are arrested. Instead of simply having the right to remain silent, we "do not have to say anything, but it may harm [our] defence if you do not mention, when questioned, something which you later rely on in court. Anything [we] do say may be given in evidence." The key being that "it may harm your defence if you do not mention, when questioned, something which you later rely on in court". You can keep quiet –but keeping quiet may well harm you just as much as it harms the prosecution.
You're assuming that the force that the head experiences while the helmet is collapsing is the same as the force the head is experiencing after the helmet has collapsed.
In the case of the styrofoam helmet (actual numbers made up on the spot), it's entirely plausible that while the helmet absorbs some of the impact, the head experiences 20g acceleration. However, because the helmet does not absorb as much force, the head then hits the "immovable" object rather harder and experiences the 230g cited in the article.
In the case of the cardboard helmet, however, the head may experience 70g for the entire time that the helmet is collapsing, slowing it much more in the same distance. Now, at it's lower velocity, when it finally hits the immovable object, it only experiences the 70g cited in the article.
More absorbant *does not* require more distance, it simply requires that the absorbing material exerts a greater force.
Another reason why you failed to sanity check –if your assertion was true, a car's crumple zone's construction would not matter at all, as anything that collapsed the same distance would work equally well. The sad fact though is that we can not simply attach some pillows in their place (which likely would in fact collapse more than the crumple zones), because said pillows do not exert as large a force, and hence do not absorb as much of the impact.
Score: -1 Not Sanity Checked
If this was true, then wrapping your head in a steel bell of the same thickness as a styrofoam helmet would be just as effective.
No, the socket overheated and smoked, and then set on fire, not the connector. The solution is to replace the wiring, and socket in the house. However, this solution can only be carried out if you actually know that it's faulty. Thus, by installing a heat sensor in the connector, detecting the fault, shutting down safely, and notifying the home owner, you improve the situation, even though the connector was not at any point at fault.
In such high speed crashes, you would die wearing a styrofoam helmet anyway, so it's rather a non-issue.
Why would you assume that absorbing energy more slowly implies that it's thicker? Simply absorbing more energy per unit time would do this too (as it would rapidly slow the deceleration, and hence extend the period of movement).
Because you know... you can't apply a waterproof coating. We don't use paper to wrap up all kinds of wet things, like milk, or orange juice.
Yes, FTA, this absorbs 4 times more energy in a typical collision than a styrofoam helmet.
Michael Schumacher is probably the best demonstration of why you want a helmet on your head when doing about 30mph ;)
You can do that with gmail too. your.name+anything@gmail.com gets redirected to your.name@gmail.com.
That would be, unusually high resistance in the socket that the connector plugged into. That is, exactly the fault that the fire service fingered in this case.
No, I did RTFA, unlike you, who RTFS. The issue being pointed out here is with the house's wiring. The wiring that is custom installed for the car, but is not installed by Tesla. The charger is merely protecting against potential faults in that wiring.
Because the new ones protect against faults in house wiring, as well as working correctly like the old ones did, and because that gives him great publicity, and return customers?
Alternatively... it could be exactly as he said, the car was not fire prone (as borne out by the stats showing it had lower fire rates than other cars, and better outcomes when they did happen), and that the fire department agree that it was not caused by the charger.
Instead, it could simply be that even though they're working fine, there's way to mitigate the risk of other faulty things causing problems, and it's nice to do something towards that.
Honestly, I hate this aspect of the modern world –no one is allowed to improve something without implying that something was broken before hand, or that it was their fault that something else was broken.
No, this *is* you being personally held liable. It just happens that you insured yourself against this circumstance, and the insurance company agreed to pick up the tab if you were found liable.
I'm not convinced that's true. My Skoda Fabia from 10 years ago stated in its manual that it's peak efficiency came at 3/4 of top speed in 5th gear (which works out to 84.75mph). My VW Jetta 2014 also states a similar number. I've never known a car which has stated less than 70mph as it's peak efficiency speed.
Actually, every road car I've ever owned has stated that it's peak efficiency is around 75mph in the manual.
No, he got a new car because when lots of little things start to pop up like this, they continue to pop up like this, and the on going cost of maintaining 100000 corroded metal and plastic parts is higher than the one time cost of getting a new car.
Except engines aren't the things that cause you to buy a new car. The chassis rusting through, or the plastic components all rotting simultaneously, or the suspension beginning to go, or a whole bunch of small things adding up... These are the kind of things that cause you to buy a new car.
So what you're saying is that as a good programmer, it's frustrating having to ignore a bunch of stuff that's private, and makes the code harder to read, while for a bad programmer, it makes it easy to rely on things that make them bad.
The point is that a header file neatly separates this out, making it much easier to read "this is the API, this is what you're allowed to use", without any implementation detail being visible (assuming the library author was competent).
Right, which means that all the moron programmers in the world get to see your underpants pulled down and start to rely on what's behind them.
To be fair, the hole in the ozone layer only stopped growing because we actually succeeded in not pumping out CFCs.
The point is that AA algorithm *can not* be a configurable parameter, because different hardware simply does it in different ways. It's impossible to implement FXAA efficiently on nVidia hardware, and it's impossible to implement CSAA efficiently on AMD hardware. This is the point, efficient implementation of graphics *must* be sufficiently weakly specified that it can be efficiently implemented. The result of that is that it can not be sufficiently strongly specified that all platforms behave the same, and you can get benefit from having a nice abstracted cross platform API.
No, he's assuming that the existence of one cross platform library for one well specified task means that another task can be well specified in a way that it can be efficiently implemented on all platforms. That's not true of graphics. This isn't even true of different implementations of graphics drivers on one platform, let alone across platforms.
In C++, certainly, headers tend to contain way more than it would be nice for them to. That's one of the reasons I don't like C++ much.