Incidentally, I should point out that wind chill, as it's measured in the US, tries to incorporate effects other than just an increase in the rate at which the warmed air is swept away from something warm by the wind. Those effects, e.g. facts dealing with the fact that your skin is wet and the air is dry, will not apply to solar panels.
Wind chill does not affect inanimate objects. Yes they might cool down to the ambient temperature faster but they will never go lower than the ambient temperature regardless of the wind speed.
The second half of the second sentence doesn't imply the first sentence. If you have something heated to above ambient (e.g. a structure meant for living), a wind chill absolutely will cause you to spend more heating it.
"Wind chill won't cool thing below the actual temperature" is (almost) a solid statement. "Wind chill does not affect inanimate objects" is a BS way of overgeneralizing that into falsehood.
She was told 'no' because she went through a carefully thought out and vetted process designed to deal with a very limited supply of a very important item (an organ). The parents decided to escalate the issue and brought the courts in - which was completely inappropriate (if understandable). This was a 'think of the cute little child' moment and had nothing to do with 'death panels' or rationing.
Exactly. The courts got involved, and saved the girl's life. But what about the person who they thus killed who otherwise was going to get that organ? (Or maybe person #4 on the list, who was going to get the organ that #3 wound up getting because person #2 wound up getting the organ that #3 was going to get because #1 got the organ that #2 was gonna get because the girl got the organ that #1 was gonna get.)
If your example is meant to be illustrating how the courts were correcting the "death panels" taht set the guidelines by which she was denied... how does that not make the courts just the new death panels?
I'm not going to Bush's fault you. What I will say was that all the "omg death panels" nonsense was presented as if there was some change from the current status quo, or at least without saying "omg this moves the death panels from the companies to the gov't! oh noes!" It was presented as if the death panels were an argument against gov't health care, while that argument would then equally (or, arguably, more, as private health care has a direct profit motive and government health care can at least pretend to not) apply to "we should scrap the current system."
Two more pros: - Blind people can vote unassisted - Theoretically should have absolutely no tabulation error
Re:Games: Autosave is the devil
on
Goodbye, Ctrl-S
·
· Score: 2
I can hear some people saying "It forces suspense in the game! You don't know when the next safe place is!".
What I think would be an ideal compromise if you want to make a game that you can only save at checkpoints is to allow saves anywhere, but you can only ever load an arbitrary save once. It suffices for the "I need to take a break" use case while still preventing save scumming, which I'd argue can definitely have implications beyond personal well just don't save if you don't like it "ethics".
Re:Games: Autosave is the devil
on
Goodbye, Ctrl-S
·
· Score: 1
The question equally applies to games on any even remotely-recent console...
The energy costs are probably almost non-existent compared to the installation costs for the superchargers (IIRC, many or all of them need dedicated substations), Tesla has a lot of room to play with because of how expensive their cars are, and it's a nice sales draw to say "hey you don't even have to worry about the hassle of paying."
It's possible to have charging stops that are barely more inconvenient than fill ups.
"Much less than hours" is still a long way from "barely more inconvenient than fill ups." Even with superchargers, you're looking at multiple stops during a day's drive that are longer than any stop I make when on a road trip. Under harsh but realistic conditions, you could be looking at a 40-minute supercharge every 2 to 2 1/2 hours; that's downright bad.
To get to "barely more inconvenient than fill ups" I think that you either need battery swaps or you need charges that are (1) almost twice as fast as a supercharger, (2) placed better in certain cases*, (3) need to have a guaranteed low or no wait, and (4) need better coverage**.
* In particular, on toll roads they "need "to be accessible without exiting, which they are not, at least looking at my usual trip from WI to PA/NY.
** Even on Tesla's "end of 2015" planned locations on their website, there is no charging station along I-86 in southern NY. Stations in the plains states are widely-spaced. There's essentially no coverage away from interstates.
Insurance companies will protect us (selfishly) frmo this being taken too far.
Or they'll just raise rates by $100/6mth and what are you going to do... not have a car?
Though actually, if hypothetically CF is able to dissipate energy in a useful way better than crumpling metal, it could hypothetically reduce injuries enough that the total cost of accidents decrease even if lots of CF needs to be replaced. I'm a bit skeptical of that, but it's certainly true that it's not hard to rack up enough medical bills to make even a brand-new car look cheap...
One thing I'd be curious/worried about is cracking CF vs denting aluminum. In other words, suppose something happens that will cause some cosmetic dents in aluminum skin -- say dimples from hail. (This happened my car.) With an aluminum skin, I don't even need to get it repaired. I'll look silly, but as long as the car is mine that's the only ill effect I'll suffer.
But how much more would it take before that dent became a crack that would need to be repaired because otherwise it would let in rain, or perhaps even compromise the safety of the car in some way? And could it even be repaired as opposed to replacing the whole panel, as you mention?
The damages paid in the settlement are 1/30 as large as they should be
Well, as large as they hypothetically could(?) be if it went to trial and the plaintiffs won and the judge decided to stick it to the defendants. Not every trial does or should result in the maximum verdict.
The amount of money the companies have simply indicates that they would be able to pay the full amount, and that it doesn't make sense to settle for less
It also makes sense to settle as a risk management strategy. Defendants settle to avoid the risk of a guilty verdict* that will cost more, and plaintiffs settle to avoid the risk of a not guilty verdict that will at best get them nothing and at worst sic them with legal bills.
* I don't know if civil trials technically use the "guilty"/"not guilty" terms; probably they do not.
That's where I have been having personal issues lately - all engineering jobs are for creating worthless consumer crap; like the Segway.
Keep in mind that the technology behind the Segway wasn't invented for the Segway; it was invented for this wheelchair.
The Segway got the attention because it's something that had the potential to have a much broader market, considering that the population that can't walk is pretty small.
In addition to what the other reply said: chicken and egg.
Professors on tenure track want publications in highly-rated conferences and journals. Professors who have tenure want their students to get publications in highly-rated conferences and journals. So when they have a good paper, they want to submit to them.
The prof or grad student isn't directly paying the costs of closed journals, so why would they take the risk of submitting their best work to a journal that at best is untested when they think they can get it into one that is highly-respected?
For people to submit good papers to it, the open-access journal needs to be well-respected; to be well-respected it needs to publish good, impactful papers; to publish good, impactful papers people need to submit said papers to it.
Probably we'll get there one day as the quality of papers submitted to open-access journals gradually increase (because while there is little incentive to submit to them, many people will consider little to not be zero), but it'll take time.
However, unlike preventing flying-mammal-caused motorcycle deaths for a couple of years, preventing all polio deaths for a couple of years means we may never have to worry about it ever again.
I've done some very light investigation of cars recently (mine blew its timing belt with an interference engine and I was trying to determine if it was worth repairing), and from what I can tell, that's still true.
For example, from cars.com, selecting an automatic transmission Civic or Accord adds $741-800. An automatic transmission Jetta TDI adds $1,100. An automatic transmission Miata adds $2,200. An automatic transmission Focus adds $1,095.
Now, those are the prices if you order a custom car, not necessarily what you could get from your dealer. But still, at least coming out of the factory, stick shifts are still cheaper.
We lost "control" decades ago with the advent of vacuum/RPM spark advance, it's been down hill from there.... If they had just a little bit of an idea about how cars worked, they'd be a whole lot safer...
Actual evidence disagrees with you. Those things that have made it possible to not know as much about what your car is doing, which you say have contributed to a lack of safety, have been a contributor to an impressive decline in automotive deaths and injuries.
That's not to say that things couldn't be better than they are... but you're full of it if you think the situation was better when cars were less complicated.
Nah, everyone who believes in homeopathy knew the truth right away: you just have to wait a while for the plane to diffuse around, and then even a teaspoon of ocean water will contain enough black box information to solve the mystery. That the "disappearance" hasn't been solved yet is just continuing evidence of the establishment's biases against reality.
Lots of mine (actually, almost all) had assigned paper readings, but now that you can get almost any CS paper you want free on the web collecting said papers into something that your students pick up explicitly is a lot less important than it was 20 years ago. I wouldn't count that anyway -- by "textbook" I really mean, well, a textbook. An attempt to write up of lots of existing, widely-accepted knowledge into a coherent presentation aimed at a "broad" audience. (Broad here is relative of course; I just mean not "here's what we put together for CS #### at Awesome State University.")
I feel like most of what you said is true is true of my program, except that the proportion of people who leave with an MS is a majority. And in my case, I had 3 grad-level classes (compilers, PL, and algorithms) that broadly speaking worked like advanced undergrad classes -- no substantive research portion. Like I said, we didn't use texts either -- but I feel we could have easily. Other classes (with research projects as a large portion of the class) also could have, but had us reading actual papers instead -- presumably in large part to give PhD students practice.:-)
I also wouldn't say that a classes-only MS program would be more specialized, unless you mean "better aimed at someone who wants to work in industry." (But in that case, in some ways a PhD program would be much more specialized than that!)
That being said... I'm not sure any of my grad-level classes had textbooks. I don't think so.:-)
But I still stand by my statement for the following reasons: 1.) There were at least a couple classes where we easily could have 2.) In my grad-level math classes, we used texts 3.) Grad students take more than grad classes (almost always, anyway) 4.) There will be background knowledge in books not covered directly by your classes that will nevertheless be useful.
Slashdot Mirror
Incidentally, I should point out that wind chill, as it's measured in the US, tries to incorporate effects other than just an increase in the rate at which the warmed air is swept away from something warm by the wind. Those effects, e.g. facts dealing with the fact that your skin is wet and the air is dry, will not apply to solar panels.
The second half of the second sentence doesn't imply the first sentence. If you have something heated to above ambient (e.g. a structure meant for living), a wind chill absolutely will cause you to spend more heating it.
"Wind chill won't cool thing below the actual temperature" is (almost) a solid statement. "Wind chill does not affect inanimate objects" is a BS way of overgeneralizing that into falsehood.
Exactly. The courts got involved, and saved the girl's life. But what about the person who they thus killed who otherwise was going to get that organ? (Or maybe person #4 on the list, who was going to get the organ that #3 wound up getting because person #2 wound up getting the organ that #3 was going to get because #1 got the organ that #2 was gonna get because the girl got the organ that #1 was gonna get.)
If your example is meant to be illustrating how the courts were correcting the "death panels" taht set the guidelines by which she was denied... how does that not make the courts just the new death panels?
I'm not going to Bush's fault you. What I will say was that all the "omg death panels" nonsense was presented as if there was some change from the current status quo, or at least without saying "omg this moves the death panels from the companies to the gov't! oh noes!" It was presented as if the death panels were an argument against gov't health care, while that argument would then equally (or, arguably, more, as private health care has a direct profit motive and government health care can at least pretend to not) apply to "we should scrap the current system."
Two more pros:
- Blind people can vote unassisted
- Theoretically should have absolutely no tabulation error
What I think would be an ideal compromise if you want to make a game that you can only save at checkpoints is to allow saves anywhere, but you can only ever load an arbitrary save once. It suffices for the "I need to take a break" use case while still preventing save scumming, which I'd argue can definitely have implications beyond personal well just don't save if you don't like it "ethics".
The question equally applies to games on any even remotely-recent console...
I am not sure. It's possible there aren't any competing cars that are compatible with the Tesla. They could easily enough put into place some DRM-style stuff.
Yes.
The energy costs are probably almost non-existent compared to the installation costs for the superchargers (IIRC, many or all of them need dedicated substations), Tesla has a lot of room to play with because of how expensive their cars are, and it's a nice sales draw to say "hey you don't even have to worry about the hassle of paying."
There are Tesla superchargers frequent enough along all of I-80. You're still going to make mediocre time, but it is doable without spending weeks.
"Much less than hours" is still a long way from "barely more inconvenient than fill ups." Even with superchargers, you're looking at multiple stops during a day's drive that are longer than any stop I make when on a road trip. Under harsh but realistic conditions, you could be looking at a 40-minute supercharge every 2 to 2 1/2 hours; that's downright bad.
To get to "barely more inconvenient than fill ups" I think that you either need battery swaps or you need charges that are (1) almost twice as fast as a supercharger, (2) placed better in certain cases*, (3) need to have a guaranteed low or no wait, and (4) need better coverage**.
* In particular, on toll roads they "need "to be accessible without exiting, which they are not, at least looking at my usual trip from WI to PA/NY.
** Even on Tesla's "end of 2015" planned locations on their website, there is no charging station along I-86 in southern NY. Stations in the plains states are widely-spaced. There's essentially no coverage away from interstates.
Or they'll just raise rates by $100/6mth and what are you going to do... not have a car?
Though actually, if hypothetically CF is able to dissipate energy in a useful way better than crumpling metal, it could hypothetically reduce injuries enough that the total cost of accidents decrease even if lots of CF needs to be replaced. I'm a bit skeptical of that, but it's certainly true that it's not hard to rack up enough medical bills to make even a brand-new car look cheap...
One thing I'd be curious/worried about is cracking CF vs denting aluminum. In other words, suppose something happens that will cause some cosmetic dents in aluminum skin -- say dimples from hail. (This happened my car.) With an aluminum skin, I don't even need to get it repaired. I'll look silly, but as long as the car is mine that's the only ill effect I'll suffer.
But how much more would it take before that dent became a crack that would need to be repaired because otherwise it would let in rain, or perhaps even compromise the safety of the car in some way? And could it even be repaired as opposed to replacing the whole panel, as you mention?
Well, as large as they hypothetically could(?) be if it went to trial and the plaintiffs won and the judge decided to stick it to the defendants. Not every trial does or should result in the maximum verdict.
It also makes sense to settle as a risk management strategy. Defendants settle to avoid the risk of a guilty verdict* that will cost more, and plaintiffs settle to avoid the risk of a not guilty verdict that will at best get them nothing and at worst sic them with legal bills.
* I don't know if civil trials technically use the "guilty"/"not guilty" terms; probably they do not.
Keep in mind that the technology behind the Segway wasn't invented for the Segway; it was invented for this wheelchair.
The Segway got the attention because it's something that had the potential to have a much broader market, considering that the population that can't walk is pretty small.
In addition to what the other reply said: chicken and egg.
Professors on tenure track want publications in highly-rated conferences and journals. Professors who have tenure want their students to get publications in highly-rated conferences and journals. So when they have a good paper, they want to submit to them.
The prof or grad student isn't directly paying the costs of closed journals, so why would they take the risk of submitting their best work to a journal that at best is untested when they think they can get it into one that is highly-respected?
For people to submit good papers to it, the open-access journal needs to be well-respected; to be well-respected it needs to publish good, impactful papers; to publish good, impactful papers people need to submit said papers to it.
Probably we'll get there one day as the quality of papers submitted to open-access journals gradually increase (because while there is little incentive to submit to them, many people will consider little to not be zero), but it'll take time.
However, unlike preventing flying-mammal-caused motorcycle deaths for a couple of years, preventing all polio deaths for a couple of years means we may never have to worry about it ever again.
Yeah, it'll make the car smell funny as you're crashing. :-)
I've done some very light investigation of cars recently (mine blew its timing belt with an interference engine and I was trying to determine if it was worth repairing), and from what I can tell, that's still true.
For example, from cars.com, selecting an automatic transmission Civic or Accord adds $741-800. An automatic transmission Jetta TDI adds $1,100. An automatic transmission Miata adds $2,200. An automatic transmission Focus adds $1,095.
Now, those are the prices if you order a custom car, not necessarily what you could get from your dealer. But still, at least coming out of the factory, stick shifts are still cheaper.
Actual evidence disagrees with you. Those things that have made it possible to not know as much about what your car is doing, which you say have contributed to a lack of safety, have been a contributor to an impressive decline in automotive deaths and injuries.
That's not to say that things couldn't be better than they are... but you're full of it if you think the situation was better when cars were less complicated.
...then you missed the entire point of his post.
Nah, everyone who believes in homeopathy knew the truth right away: you just have to wait a while for the plane to diffuse around, and then even a teaspoon of ocean water will contain enough black box information to solve the mystery. That the "disappearance" hasn't been solved yet is just continuing evidence of the establishment's biases against reality.
Lots of mine (actually, almost all) had assigned paper readings, but now that you can get almost any CS paper you want free on the web collecting said papers into something that your students pick up explicitly is a lot less important than it was 20 years ago. I wouldn't count that anyway -- by "textbook" I really mean, well, a textbook. An attempt to write up of lots of existing, widely-accepted knowledge into a coherent presentation aimed at a "broad" audience. (Broad here is relative of course; I just mean not "here's what we put together for CS #### at Awesome State University.")
I feel like most of what you said is true is true of my program, except that the proportion of people who leave with an MS is a majority. And in my case, I had 3 grad-level classes (compilers, PL, and algorithms) that broadly speaking worked like advanced undergrad classes -- no substantive research portion. Like I said, we didn't use texts either -- but I feel we could have easily. Other classes (with research projects as a large portion of the class) also could have, but had us reading actual papers instead -- presumably in large part to give PhD students practice. :-)
I also wouldn't say that a classes-only MS program would be more specialized, unless you mean "better aimed at someone who wants to work in industry." (But in that case, in some ways a PhD program would be much more specialized than that!)
That being said... I'm not sure any of my grad-level classes had textbooks. I don't think so. :-)
But I still stand by my statement for the following reasons:
1.) There were at least a couple classes where we easily could have
2.) In my grad-level math classes, we used texts
3.) Grad students take more than grad classes (almost always, anyway)
4.) There will be background knowledge in books not covered directly by your classes that will nevertheless be useful.