As I said, I do not doubt that you can brake from the speed of hockey player and I do not doubt that you can brake in a nice gentle decelration. But you cannot do anything close to an emergency brake down from 35 mph.
I would not even need a demonstration to be convinced, just show me the math.
I do not think that this is compatible with physics for any speed faster than fast walking: the force from decelerating will be so strong that the vehicle will lean forward. There is no way how a human can counter this by just shifting weight (that force is ridiculously small compared to quickly braking a couple of dozen or even hundred pounds of mass down from 35mph to a stop. Even if the vehicle could look into the future and would automatically lean back as far as possible before initiating the break, the deceleration forces for anything but a very gentle stop would be too big to not make the vehicle turn around the point where the wheels touche the ground and topple over forward.
yes.. the video talks about the "never crash" idea and explains that for this reason, there is no bumper or airbag. Sounds quite naive to me... even if these vehicles only operate in totally isolated lanes where no child, dog, or damaged vehicle can ever appear and nothing can ever drop on the driveway, I am not sure if people would want to drive in them given this kind of "safety".
Should not some math have been enough to calculate the amount of available energy and figure out if, for typical efficiencies of solar cells, it is enough? Also, the idea of using light to recharge the battery would either require see-through pockets and bags (because the pockets and bags cell phones normally are in during the day, are pitch dark) or that the sun shines during the night (when cell phones are usually less used and being recharged).
nothing of substance will happen, simply because there is no way to solve the main problem: an increasing hunger for energy from an increasing number of people.
Microsoft employing lawyers instead of developers again. Keep the crappy software and on some systems, old software or no software at all but bully and make money from anyone who wants to improve that pathetic situation.
I know a lot of people who are disappointed and disillusioned about the puritan, anal way of how Google+ is regulated and controlled. No family members under 18 may join, no pseudonyms allowed and even people with unconventional real names getting harrassed and blocked, pictures with nipple slips getting censored by Google and other ways of just being stupidly over-controlling and uncool. Add this to the fact that Google already knows magnitudes more about you than Facebook does, and that Google has publicly admitted to passing on user data of non US users to US government agencies. Why would somebody want to switch to Google with all this? I can have the same crap on Facebook but with more people I know already there, including my younger family members.
we will have exterminated most of ourselves long before we will find find (if at all) the technical ability to get even close to harming any planet other than our own. If there are aliens and if they are intelligent they probably know that already.
So the only threat we could face is aliens who want to exterminate us for the sheer fun of doing it.
Anyone who has ever programmed just a little knows that programmers invent algorithms every day and reuse somebody else's algorithm every minute. It is just a greed-fuelled idiocy to patent random bits of what programmers invent as part of their work. It is like patenting a mathematical proof or a law of physics. Then there is another matter: when are two algorithms identical? When the code is exactly the same, including the naming of variables? No matter the variable naming? When they generate the same machine code on some machine? When they compute the same results (but this is undecidable formally)?
Software patents are a stupidity to make lawyers richer and to make the life of developers more miserable.
Maybe that is what meinstream users want, but there seems to be an obsession with totally irrelevant little appearance tweaks, eye-candy, catching up with cool-looking competition and other aspects of looking cute.
How about fixing some of the bugs that are still open after years, some after decades? How about finally streamlining the rendering engine? How about working on the documentation? How about improving security of addons? How about finally getting isolated multiprocessing tabs to work?
I do not give a fuck if the URL bar is there or not but I do care about the fact that more and more often I have to fire up Chrome when I want a page to render correctly, be responsive or play nice with plugins.
I think the real complication is that every politician is just too scared to add or increase fuel taxes because people are too stupid to react in a non-emotional way to higher fuel prices.
just increase the tax on gas instead: by that not only do you tax cars by the mile, but you actually have fuel efficiency included in the tax and an actual incentive for drivers to use more fuel efficient cars. And thus an incentive to avoid unnecessary CO2 emission. Also, if the gas or diesel is taxed directly, large trucks will automatically pay more tax per kilometer, which relates nicely to the bigger damage they cause on highways.
It is ridiculous: math in school is still taught to a large part as if computers would still not exist and in exams one has to show how well one can perform tedious and completely useless calculations a computer can do millions of times faster. This goes for simple arithmetics just as for stuff like solving quadratical equations or performing calculations with polynoms. Most of what is asked in exams does not help to show if a student understands what mathematical thinking is all about. Given some exercise and and algorithmic memory an average student can pass these exams without even understanding what she is doing.
Instead, math education should be about teaching how mathematical insight is gained, how to think in a mathematical way, how to find interesting problems and find proofs for them etc.
I believe that what makes math boring or hated by many students is exactly that attitude that students have to learn how to become little computers like monks calculating endless logarithmic tables in past centuries.
Why do some people insist to discuss the question if a screwdriver or a hammer is the better tool? I browse this site in a GUI and I perform complex file operations using pipes with a CLI. There is no way how either can replace the other fully without the overall usefulness of the system going down. This is just silly: there are thousands of tools and dialogs for doing stuff in a GUI and there are thousands of commands and features and options for doing stuff on the command line.
In addition, a system that allows to do most important things thought the CLI in addition to the GUI has several advantages: typical tasks can be written down, copy-pasted and automated easily while you still can achieve it in the more intuitive and easy to remember graphical way too.
There are three major issues, two are more technical and one is political: The technical issues: transportation of goods ( by ship, airplane or trucks) and intensive farming. Both rely practically to 100% on oil-based technology and there is no strategy and no technology in sight how to change this, or change it quickly enough.
The other, perhaps more important issue is political: the only way to have the solutions available when we need them is to start pumping money into them now, or even better, yesterday. However, companies that want to make a profit will not pay more than necessary for this now and will stick to oil-based technology as long as that is cheaper. And governments, especially neo-liberally influenced ones, cannot invest the huge amount of tax-payer money either (which will give countries like China a huge long-term advantage in this area). Maybe the best argument to motivate countries like the US to invest more into this is that practically all their war-technology is based on oil too: tanks, jets, missiles, even the rockets launching satellites are driven by fuel that is made directly or indirectly out of oil.
So, the real effort will just start to happen when the prize for oil really goes up. Unless we can buy the technology from China then, this will get rather unpleasant.
why does music have that effect? It's nice to have science approve scientifically of what everyone already knew from experience for thousands of years, but it would be even nicer if science would finally tell us what makes us so crazy about music, or to put it in their terms, why music does stimulate the dopamine flow.
it's easy: for opting in, just purchase the special adult plus package and get the securi-fap chip card for a nominal fee! Of course we will have to raise the basic fees too so we can pay lots of 3rd party companies for the this super family friendly child protecting technology! Note: for your safety and security, all your faps will be logged.
Slashdot Mirror
As I said, I do not doubt that you can brake from the speed of hockey player and I do not doubt that you can brake in a nice gentle decelration. But you cannot do anything close to an emergency brake down from 35 mph.
I would not even need a demonstration to be convinced, just show me the math.
I do not think that this is compatible with physics for any speed faster than fast walking: the force from decelerating will be so strong that the vehicle will lean forward. There is no way how a human can counter this by just shifting weight (that force is ridiculously small compared to quickly braking a couple of dozen or even hundred pounds of mass down from 35mph to a stop.
Even if the vehicle could look into the future and would automatically lean back as far as possible before initiating the break, the deceleration forces for anything but a very gentle stop would be too big to not make the vehicle turn around the point where the wheels touche the ground and topple over forward.
yes .. the video talks about the "never crash" idea and explains that for this reason, there is no bumper or airbag. ... even if these vehicles only operate in totally isolated lanes where no child, dog, or damaged vehicle can ever appear and nothing can ever drop on the driveway, I am not sure if people would want to drive in them given this kind of "safety".
Sounds quite naive to me
and that is what I thought. So who would want to buy a flawed design like this?
that is more or less what I thought ...
If that is so blatantly obvious that even I can see it, why are they still working on it?
the physics of doing an emergency break with two parallel wheels when going 35 mph?
They so understand the internets.
Should not some math have been enough to calculate the amount of available energy and figure out if, for typical efficiencies of solar cells, it is enough?
Also, the idea of using light to recharge the battery would either require see-through pockets and bags (because the pockets and bags cell phones normally are in during the day, are pitch dark) or that the sun shines during the night (when cell phones are usually less used and being recharged).
nothing of substance will happen, simply because there is no way to solve the main problem: an increasing hunger for energy from an increasing number of people.
Microsoft employing lawyers instead of developers again. Keep the crappy software and on some systems, old software or no software at all but bully and make money from anyone who wants to improve that pathetic situation.
I know a lot of people who are disappointed and disillusioned about the puritan, anal way of how Google+ is regulated and controlled.
No family members under 18 may join, no pseudonyms allowed and even people with unconventional real names getting harrassed and blocked, pictures with nipple slips getting censored by Google and other ways of just being stupidly over-controlling and uncool.
Add this to the fact that Google already knows magnitudes more about you than Facebook does, and that Google has publicly admitted to passing on user data of non US users to US government agencies.
Why would somebody want to switch to Google with all this? I can have the same crap on Facebook but with more people I know already there, including my younger family members.
we will have exterminated most of ourselves long before we will find find (if at all) the technical ability to get even close to harming any planet other than our own.
If there are aliens and if they are intelligent they probably know that already.
So the only threat we could face is aliens who want to exterminate us for the sheer fun of doing it.
Anyone who has ever programmed just a little knows that programmers invent algorithms every day and reuse somebody else's algorithm every minute. It is just a greed-fuelled idiocy to patent random bits of what programmers invent as part of their work. It is like patenting a mathematical proof or a law of physics.
Then there is another matter: when are two algorithms identical? When the code is exactly the same, including the naming of variables? No matter the variable naming? When they generate the same machine code on some machine? When they compute the same results (but this is undecidable formally)?
Software patents are a stupidity to make lawyers richer and to make the life of developers more miserable.
Maybe that is what meinstream users want, but there seems to be an obsession with totally irrelevant little appearance tweaks, eye-candy, catching up with cool-looking competition and other aspects of looking cute.
How about fixing some of the bugs that are still open after years, some after decades? How about finally streamlining the rendering engine? How about working on the documentation? How about improving security of addons? How about finally getting isolated multiprocessing tabs to work?
I do not give a fuck if the URL bar is there or not but I do care about the fact that more and more often I have to fire up Chrome when I want a page to render correctly, be responsive or play nice with plugins.
that should actually be easier to accomplish and would benefit more people.
... to measure stupidity in general and religion-induced stupidity in particular.
The question remains why Texas seems to have such an unusually high percentage of religion-induced stupid people?
but not necessarily unchangable.
I think the real complication is that every politician is just too scared to add or increase fuel taxes because people are too stupid to react in a non-emotional way to higher fuel prices.
just increase the tax on gas instead: by that not only do you tax cars by the mile, but you actually have fuel efficiency included in the tax and an actual incentive for drivers to use more fuel efficient cars. And thus an incentive to avoid unnecessary CO2 emission. Also, if the gas or diesel is taxed directly, large trucks will automatically pay more tax per kilometer, which relates nicely to the bigger damage they cause on highways.
It is ridiculous: math in school is still taught to a large part as if computers would still not exist and in exams one has to show how well one can perform tedious and completely useless calculations a computer can do millions of times faster. This goes for simple arithmetics just as for stuff like solving quadratical equations or performing calculations with polynoms.
Most of what is asked in exams does not help to show if a student understands what mathematical thinking is all about. Given some exercise and and algorithmic memory an average student can pass these exams without even understanding what she is doing.
Instead, math education should be about teaching how mathematical insight is gained, how to think in a mathematical way, how to find interesting problems and find proofs for them etc.
I believe that what makes math boring or hated by many students is exactly that attitude that students have to learn how to become little computers like monks calculating endless logarithmic tables in past centuries.
Its easy. Enigmail and Co have been there for ages.
Why do some people insist to discuss the question if a screwdriver or a hammer is the better tool? I browse this site in a GUI and I perform complex file operations using pipes with a CLI. There is no way how either can replace the other fully without the overall usefulness of the system going down.
This is just silly: there are thousands of tools and dialogs for doing stuff in a GUI and there are thousands of commands and features and options for doing stuff on the command line.
In addition, a system that allows to do most important things thought the CLI in addition to the GUI has several advantages: typical tasks can be written down, copy-pasted and automated easily while you still can achieve it in the more intuitive and easy to remember graphical way too.
There are three major issues, two are more technical and one is political:
The technical issues: transportation of goods ( by ship, airplane or trucks) and intensive farming. Both rely practically to 100% on oil-based technology and there is no strategy and no technology in sight how to change this, or change it quickly enough.
The other, perhaps more important issue is political: the only way to have the solutions available when we need them is to start pumping money into them now, or even better, yesterday. However, companies that want to make a profit will not pay more than necessary for this now and will stick to oil-based technology as long as that is cheaper. And governments, especially neo-liberally influenced ones, cannot invest the huge amount of tax-payer money either (which will give countries like China a huge long-term advantage in this area).
Maybe the best argument to motivate countries like the US to invest more into this is that practically all their war-technology is based on oil too: tanks, jets, missiles, even the rockets launching satellites are driven by fuel that is made directly or indirectly out of oil.
So, the real effort will just start to happen when the prize for oil really goes up. Unless we can buy the technology from China then, this will get rather unpleasant.
So this is jut like hanging from a crane boom mounted on a boat, just much more expensive, using much more energy and not as safe?
Brilliant.
why does music have that effect? It's nice to have science approve scientifically of what everyone already knew from experience for thousands of years, but it would be even nicer if science would finally tell us what makes us so crazy about music, or to put it in their terms, why music does stimulate the dopamine flow.
it's easy: for opting in, just purchase the special adult plus package and get the securi-fap chip card for a nominal fee! Of course we will have to raise the basic fees too so we can pay lots of 3rd party companies for the this super family friendly child protecting technology!
Note: for your safety and security, all your faps will be logged.