True, but FLOPS have not been the bottleneck for a long time. When was the last time you had to up your CPU speed or used all your CPU? But people always need RAM and disk I/O to be faster. This gets worse every year. At giant supercomputing facilities, this is well known. I wonder when it will start hitting the consumer level?
it makes me wonder at your critical thinking skills
You might wonder at his critical thinking skills, while I wonder at your listening skills. The idea that one should be more concerned about the privacy policies of one's own government than of the Chinese is a perfectly valid viewpoint. Perhaps he's more concerned about the policies of the US because
a) They actually impact him personally
b) They are something he can actually do something about
Another central feature is the idea that conversation histories from multiple sources and different forms of communication can be integrated through Facebook, so that you no longer have to separately root through IM logs, SMS logs, old emails, etc., to see old correspondence. (Users will have the ability to delete these, should they desire...
... yes, and should they have a Master's in computer science and ask personal permission of Mr. Zuckerberg.
I'm not debating morality -- that's always a lost cause, because morality is very subjective. I'm just saying that in your case, I'm pretty sure your car is at least 3 years old -- make your own part, because the patent on your gadget has expired in my world anyhow. Whether its weird shape is patentable should be the call of the Patent Office, which from what I can tell is full of people too busy to actually do their job or something, so they give patents to anything and then you have to sue to enforce it, a very inefficient system.
Your scenario I would argue is where their intellectual property rights should hold up. If people are making their stuff for a profit, then that should be illegal. Of course, IP rights should expire in like 3 years to reflect the pace of innovation. The current laws are made to reflect innovation rates and methods of the early 20th century. Fucking lawyers need to be whipped. Sorry, that last part is my legal Turet's kicking in.
The hell with parties -- parties have little effect on public opinion -- they just game opinion so they can stay in power. People vote for what they fear and what they want. In some areas, it seems significant that their guy screws hookers, especially if they are married. In some areas, it does not. If districts were not gerrymandered to protect incumbents, maybe we could even find out what really matters to people.
Morality is entirely subjective, although it often seems objective to the individual. So hoping for moral consistency is a pipe dream. Why even bring it up? A politician with a call girl is not really thrown out due purely to morality reasons -- voters make a judgment about their ability to lead them and whether they trust them to make good judgments and be the kind of person they want to have lead them, which are not moral judgments.
bviously, if the cart were moving faster than the wind, then in it's reference frame the wind would be going against it. How can you get positive acceleration from a negative force?
That sounds reasonable, but the cart is also mechanically connected to the ground, so it seems possible to me that it is able to in a sense use the relative velocity of the wind to the ground to propel itself even though the relative velocity of the wind to the cart is low or even a headwind. Again, I have not see the math involved. I was just convinced by the treadmill experiments.
If it's a hoax, it's quite a good one. I have not built one myself, has anyone else on this list?
OMG, we are going to hear all the same arguments here as have been posted elsewhere. Clearly the machine is going directly downwind faster than the wind. Look at the flags on the cart -- the are blowing first forward then backward. There is no gearing trickery. It's really happening. There are many videos, and you can build one yourself. I have not heard anyone build one and say it does not work except Mr. Platt and the inventors claim he built it wrong.
What's interesting to me is that argument that at a nonzero angle, "of course" this is possible, but not directly downwind. I note that the blades of the propeller are angled at a nonzero angle -- is this a factor? I really don't understand that part.
5-speed sequential gearbox (race gear: shifting without the clutch)
Why does it need this? It should be possible to put the drive motors in the wheel hubs...
I think the idea was to use a stock car basically off the shelf and fill the existing engine compartment. Electric motors at each wheel probably did not fit into the existing body and it was easier to just use a transmission. So a total redesign would yield even more benefits.
Translated from this page: http://adacemobility.wordpress.com/2010/10/26/das-wunder-von-berlin/#more-744
"Technical Data Audi A2 DBM *
* Subject
Empty weight (including driver) 1260 kg
Perm. Total weight 1600 kg
Battery lithium-iron-polymer (260 Ah/380 V) cell voltage of 3.8 volts
Battery weight about 300 kg
Charging time about 4 hours due to mains phase current in the household (380)
battery requires 6 minutes (future solution)
Life time 2500 charge cycles (without loss of capacity)
= Service life target: 500,000 km
Top speed 160 km / h
5-speed sequential gearbox (race gear: shifting without the clutch)
E-motor 300 Nm torque"
So, the 6 minute charge is future/theoretical limits of the battery. The actual time is 4 hours; which is still very impressive.
Sincerely, Neil
The pattern here is a valuable one to recognize and simplicity itself. When many proponents of something display that kind of denigrating personal offense when you question the purpose or usefulness of that thing, and resent that you question it rationally at all, it should be a red flag. I've rarely or never seen anyone do that when the object in question is an inherently good or useful thing that can stand on its own merits. The regret you express can be described as a lesson about popularity, trend, and bandwagon appeal and the unwarranted power these can have over your decision-making.
At the risk of being a Troll and Flamebait, I must say you have described organized religion rather well there. Intentional?
I think the flaw with saying 1 == 1.000...0001 is that it doesn't in fact. LOL. Your parent's posting, is in effect claiming that 0.000...001 + 0.999...999 = 1.0. This would only be true of 0.999...999 did not equal 1.0, or perhaps if 0.000...001 (which I don't think exists) were equal to zero.
No, the real problem, as described in the paper to my understanding (IANAM), is that the definition of the term 0.9999.... is ambiguous to many, so our intuition is that it falls short of 1 when in fact it is in some sense defined not to.
Hmm, Google announced it, eh? Kind of cancels the "secretly" part of the typically overhyped headline, doesn't it? I hate journalists about half as much as I hate lawyers. LOL
IIRC, the big trouble is that the solar winds are not right next to the earth. You have to go very far away to another spot and then the beaming back problem becomes even bigger. So this just won't work with current technology. As usualy, it's something for 30 years from now.
"No running servers" is not quite what they say. A server is anything that opens up a listening port. They say you cannot run a *business* server, like a for-profit website with lots of users hosted off your private desktop. They don't want you becoming an ISP within their domain without paying for it.
I just have to think -- when was the last time a large corporation was fined $1 billion for anything? This has to be just because he had a crappy lawyer or something. Justice quality depends on personal resources in America, no doubt about it.
Slashdot Mirror
True, but FLOPS have not been the bottleneck for a long time. When was the last time you had to up your CPU speed or used all your CPU? But people always need RAM and disk I/O to be faster. This gets worse every year. At giant supercomputing facilities, this is well known. I wonder when it will start hitting the consumer level?
"Seems like Moore's law is safe again!"
That's great, but if memory and I/O speeds don't keep up, the extra FLOPS are becoming more and more worthless....
it makes me wonder at your critical thinking skills
You might wonder at his critical thinking skills, while I wonder at your listening skills. The idea that one should be more concerned about the privacy policies of one's own government than of the Chinese is a perfectly valid viewpoint. Perhaps he's more concerned about the policies of the US because
a) They actually impact him personally
b) They are something he can actually do something about
Another central feature is the idea that conversation histories from multiple sources and different forms of communication can be integrated through Facebook, so that you no longer have to separately root through IM logs, SMS logs, old emails, etc., to see old correspondence. (Users will have the ability to delete these, should they desire...
People, just answer his effing question. He is just looking for ideas about what would be useful, not ideas about how to write his PhD thesis.
I'm not debating morality -- that's always a lost cause, because morality is very subjective. I'm just saying that in your case, I'm pretty sure your car is at least 3 years old -- make your own part, because the patent on your gadget has expired in my world anyhow. Whether its weird shape is patentable should be the call of the Patent Office, which from what I can tell is full of people too busy to actually do their job or something, so they give patents to anything and then you have to sue to enforce it, a very inefficient system.
Your scenario I would argue is where their intellectual property rights should hold up. If people are making their stuff for a profit, then that should be illegal. Of course, IP rights should expire in like 3 years to reflect the pace of innovation. The current laws are made to reflect innovation rates and methods of the early 20th century. Fucking lawyers need to be whipped. Sorry, that last part is my legal Turet's kicking in.
The hell with parties -- parties have little effect on public opinion -- they just game opinion so they can stay in power. People vote for what they fear and what they want. In some areas, it seems significant that their guy screws hookers, especially if they are married. In some areas, it does not. If districts were not gerrymandered to protect incumbents, maybe we could even find out what really matters to people.
Morality is entirely subjective, although it often seems objective to the individual. So hoping for moral consistency is a pipe dream. Why even bring it up? A politician with a call girl is not really thrown out due purely to morality reasons -- voters make a judgment about their ability to lead them and whether they trust them to make good judgments and be the kind of person they want to have lead them, which are not moral judgments.
bviously, if the cart were moving faster than the wind, then in it's reference frame the wind would be going against it. How can you get positive acceleration from a negative force?
That sounds reasonable, but the cart is also mechanically connected to the ground, so it seems possible to me that it is able to in a sense use the relative velocity of the wind to the ground to propel itself even though the relative velocity of the wind to the cart is low or even a headwind. Again, I have not see the math involved. I was just convinced by the treadmill experiments.
If it's a hoax, it's quite a good one. I have not built one myself, has anyone else on this list?
OMG, we are going to hear all the same arguments here as have been posted elsewhere. Clearly the machine is going directly downwind faster than the wind. Look at the flags on the cart -- the are blowing first forward then backward. There is no gearing trickery. It's really happening. There are many videos, and you can build one yourself. I have not heard anyone build one and say it does not work except Mr. Platt and the inventors claim he built it wrong.
What's interesting to me is that argument that at a nonzero angle, "of course" this is possible, but not directly downwind. I note that the blades of the propeller are angled at a nonzero angle -- is this a factor? I really don't understand that part.
I don't think we at the US should get a vote until we switch from the stupid Imperial system.
5-speed sequential gearbox (race gear: shifting without the clutch)
Why does it need this? It should be possible to put the drive motors in the wheel hubs ...
I think the idea was to use a stock car basically off the shelf and fill the existing engine compartment. Electric motors at each wheel probably did not fit into the existing body and it was easier to just use a transmission. So a total redesign would yield even more benefits.
Translated from this page: http://adacemobility.wordpress.com/2010/10/26/das-wunder-von-berlin/#more-744
"Technical Data Audi A2 DBM *
* Subject
Empty weight (including driver) 1260 kg
Perm. Total weight 1600 kg
Battery lithium-iron-polymer (260 Ah/380 V) cell voltage of 3.8 volts
Battery weight about 300 kg
Charging time about 4 hours due to mains phase current in the household (380)
battery requires 6 minutes (future solution)
Life time 2500 charge cycles (without loss of capacity)
= Service life target: 500,000 km
Top speed 160 km / h
5-speed sequential gearbox (race gear: shifting without the clutch)
E-motor 300 Nm torque"
So, the 6 minute charge is future/theoretical limits of the battery. The actual time is 4 hours; which is still very impressive.
Sincerely, Neil
The pattern here is a valuable one to recognize and simplicity itself. When many proponents of something display that kind of denigrating personal offense when you question the purpose or usefulness of that thing, and resent that you question it rationally at all, it should be a red flag. I've rarely or never seen anyone do that when the object in question is an inherently good or useful thing that can stand on its own merits. The regret you express can be described as a lesson about popularity, trend, and bandwagon appeal and the unwarranted power these can have over your decision-making.
At the risk of being a Troll and Flamebait, I must say you have described organized religion rather well there. Intentional?
I think the flaw with saying 1 == 1.000...0001 is that it doesn't in fact. LOL. Your parent's posting, is in effect claiming that 0.000...001 + 0.999...999 = 1.0. This would only be true of 0.999...999 did not equal 1.0, or perhaps if 0.000...001 (which I don't think exists) were equal to zero.
No, the real problem, as described in the paper to my understanding (IANAM), is that the definition of the term 0.9999.... is ambiguous to many, so our intuition is that it falls short of 1 when in fact it is in some sense defined not to.
Hmm, Google announced it, eh? Kind of cancels the "secretly" part of the typically overhyped headline, doesn't it? I hate journalists about half as much as I hate lawyers. LOL
Having a patent granted by our ineffective, bumbling Patent Office means nothing.
Oh, there's an article? LOL. Yes, that's what I meant by "not right next to earth."
IIRC, the big trouble is that the solar winds are not right next to the earth. You have to go very far away to another spot and then the beaming back problem becomes even bigger. So this just won't work with current technology. As usualy, it's something for 30 years from now.
"No running servers" is not quite what they say. A server is anything that opens up a listening port. They say you cannot run a *business* server, like a for-profit website with lots of users hosted off your private desktop. They don't want you becoming an ISP within their domain without paying for it.
I just have to think -- when was the last time a large corporation was fined $1 billion for anything? This has to be just because he had a crappy lawyer or something. Justice quality depends on personal resources in America, no doubt about it.
Wow, so Ballmer did not promise a Microsoft tablet by Christmas?
OK, so what is this article about? And don't go pestering me to RTFA. It ain't gonna happen. LOL