Basically, they used a metric their engine is well suited to winning... and won!
Electric engines have a huge amount of torque, which helps you get off the line faster. I would be impressed if this car could do this, and still be usable later.
It impresses no one if you race someone at a light, then have to pull in to a station for a recharge.
Plus, it looks like this thing is just an Ariel Atom... which I believe already beats those other cars anyway
pretty obvious that people who own the current generation of any of the above console iterations would be revenously expecting it's next-gen counterpart.
If the study came back saying console group X preferred console Y, someone would post saying "that's obvious, X sucked, I own it and am looking forward to Y"
Yeah, instead of this they made each application a double click-able folder so all needed elements are contained therein. That way uninstall just means 'drag to trash'. What were they thinking?
Slashdot will fall to the story voting model, oh, and it will be so funny when it does.
You know, I used to think the exact same thing. Then I started going to digg frequently. My opinion changed after seeing how many factually false or misleading articles get voted up. This is also combined with rather childish typos. I'm not saying the editors are much better... but it does pay to have someone sitting there to take a step back and judge the quality of the submission.
Then again, I run my own digg clone link-aggregator... so I obviously believe in the model
a locked tire will slow you down faster than ABS in many circumstances.
I'm pretty sure many only means 'ideal'. In most adverse weather conditions your dynamic friction is much much lower than your static, so ABS helps by not allowing your tires to skid over the ice. Perhaps on dry concrete ABS will stop further, but being able to steer makes up for that in terms of accident avoidance.
We hear of people driving into things on wet grass at 5 mph because the brakes would not come on.
This is an honest question: Do you know how ABS/traction control works? It isn't just: the breaks don't come on. What they do is give just enough brake so that traction is still held and the car doesn't slide. The point being it will slow you down in the absolute fastest way. In your wet grass example, if you really wanted to lock up the wheels,then you'd slide into something at 5mph. It doesn't make a difference whether I slide or roll into something at 5mph.
For your steering example, the system will let you steer the car while sliding, and keep braking throughout the wheels, so that they are all rolling evenly. I don't see how that would cause the car to rotate.
I could be wrong, but I just have never seen what your described in your post.
No car company would be allowed to sell a $3000 rattletrap with no seat belts and no air bags and an engine in the passenger seat, even if they required purchasers to sign a safety waiver. I think this can be counted as "progress", though the more Libertarian folks out there might disagree.
FYI: those cars are sold... they are used. So people that want 3k cars get crappy old ones, instead of what would naturally be better new cars. Just pointing out that because you make something illegal doesn't mean the desire goes away. This is what Libertarians make a fuss about.
But someone dying in a 3k less safe new car is a tragedy. Someone dying in a used 3k car is normal, so we tolerate it.
We always have to find a happy medium for things like this when it comes to safety. You might as well ask: if F1 racers can slam into a wall at 100mph and have the driver walk away... why don't we require all cars to be able to do that? (hint, F1 cars cost millions)
Ok,
So obviously, if you install beta software which repartitions your drive, without backing up... your fault.
We're obviously going to hear a lot of that
A more interesting question: Is Google to blame?
Before everyone jumps on me, I mean this: Most people don't know the history of the term 'beta'... so their first exposure to it is through Google (where it is primarily used as a marketing term). To most people, in its context, it is just interpreted as 'new'.
However, the Republicans are doing the right thing by their constituents by allowing the maximum freedom to these broadband providers and only seeking legal recourse if there is proof of anti-competitive actions.
I agree... but this philosophy only works when there is competition. The reason this thing is so bad, isn't because AT&T is going to go off and do something dumb... its because AT&T is going to go off and do something dumb, and the market can't punish them by allowing their customers to switch. For 99% of broadband customers, they only have one high-speed choice.
This is something, sadly, today's Republicans forget. They believe the solution to every problem is "the free market" when they forget that includes "competition".
but instead we're stuck with the same parties (even though they stand for completely different things than they did before).
This argument is over, you've just contradicted yourself. You've basically shown your true problem with the US system, and why you think it's 'broken': the names of the parties stay the same. I've consistently shown that I don't care about what the names of the parties are. I simply care that the political will of the moderates are represented. In your own words, you've shown this to be true, so this debate is over, I've won. As American poltical views have changed, so have the views of the parties that represent us. I'm sorry the names of those parties have stayed the same... really, we should tear down our government in order to rectify this problem.
Of course, you like to resort to ad hominem attacks on me instead of refuting my arguments. I haven't said anything about my political beliefs, other than I think that having two parties perpetually in power is a bad thing.
Again, wrong. I just shows how they can be unseated if they grossly misrepresent the populace. They are just smart enough to represent their population. This means excluding radical elements. So I'm sorry, that's how it works, its not a bug, its a feature.
P.S. "ad hominem " means I say your arguments are wrong because of a flaw with you. What I've done is shown how your arguments are wrong, and then shown why your flaws led you to make such arguments. It is a different thing.
And in the process, prevents anyone who isn't in one of the two major parties from ever getting into office. Why is this a good thing?
This is really getting old. There are only so many times I can explain this:
1) It is a good thing because it moderates the parties, and gives moderates more power. That's my point, really simple.
2) You are wrong, study your history. The Republicans were a third party
Basically, your persistence that 'the system is broken' only serves to prove my point: you are a person with largely radical political beliefs. Under this system you have disproportionately smaller political power than you would under another system. That's why you think its broken: because it doesn't work for you. It works quite well for most folks.
Your entire first paragraph is incorrect. I never said that 'our system is the best', and that I believe 'everything is just fine and dandy'. I merely pointed out an often overlooked advantage of a two party system. The advantage being it emphasizes the political power of those voters in the center of the population. That's it.
Your party affiliation is obvious: you're a Republicrat, or a Democan
Wrong, actually I vote 3rd party. This is because 3rd parties do have a purpose in the US system. They show the major parties which way they should lean in order to grab more swing voters. In my case, if I vote Libertarian, along with many other people, the Republicans or possibly Democrats will adopt a more Libertarian stance in order to appeal to me... which serves my purposes.
So, you got it wrong, let me try you:
You are young, intellectually immature, or both. This is the type of person to whom "Republicrats" sound clever. To most people it just shows that you lack the ability to discern nuance. This is most likely due to the fact that your political leanings are so far to one side that both parties, although very different, appear the same to your distant view. Since you aren't a fascist, I can easily assume you are some sort of radical left leaning socialist. This is confirmed by the fact that you share a trait which is sadly common to most liberals (and the reason why they loose elections lately): self loathing. Anytime anyone mentions that *gasp* America does something right, they are berated. Everyone should just know and accept that America should apologize for all evils of the world, join the EU, and let Brussels order us around in atonement for our sins. That sound close enough?
I agree 100%. It is like math... people have asked me to do math before, but I hold up a problem I did 20 years ago, and got wrong. My answer now sounds correct, just like it sounded correct when I did it wrong last time. Therefore math is a lie
People like him make Americans like me ashamed to be American
Please, just because I understand, and can compare the pros and cons of various government types, you are ashamed? His statement was that the US system is kept 2 parties by the two parties in charge. I refuted, with evidence. Please see my other post for more information.
it seems that Americans like him are more and more in power.
Where in any of my posts are any political leanings shown?
1)
I most certainly did answer your statement. This statement was:
And it remains that way precisely because neither of the two big parties would have anything to gain from real change
I pointed out that it "remains this way" not simply because both parties "have no incentive to change", but because the underlying rules of the voting system favor two parties. This is when a strong third party does emerge, they replace the weaker of the two current parties. This is exactly what happened when the Republicans replaced the Federalists.. Now, it is true that the two parties do not have any incentive to change, but this is not the 'because'.
2) Please define ad hominem, then show where I made an attack against you as a person in this text. I did repeat your argument back in a childish manner in order to make the argument seem childish, but I did not attack you
3) Read my #3 again. I said everyone is confusing one simple thing: When I say the US system moderates the politics, it does not move America's politics to the center of the political spectrum. Moving America's politics to the center would undoubtedly move it in a more liberal direction as America is typically more conservative than most Western countries. Do you agree with that?. My point is that the US political system finds the political center of its citizens, by giving more political power to those in the center of the population, rather than those at the fringes. In a parliamentary system, those at the fringes have more power as they have to be bargained with in order to gain a coalition.
4) I thought my ad hominem reply was pretty clear as humor, apparently I have to lay it on thicker, but I don't know that's possible.
Sorry, you've failed to make a consistent point, and failed to read my posts without inserting your own assumptions about what I said, or about Americans.
1) I did reply to your statement that the US system is not democracy. My point was that change is difficult, does not allow for 3rd parties, but has the benefit of moderating the two parties in charge, and therefore the laws that are passed.
2) I did not do ad hominem. I simply summarized your argument in an unflattering manner in order to attack it. ad hominem is when you attack the person, but perhaps your too stupid to understand that.
3) The biggest problem with everyone who's responded, is that they see moderate and think that means 'more center politically' which to them means 'more liberal'. My point is that the US system does a better job at finding the political center of the population.
Requiring a supermajority for any law change would have a similar effect.
Wrong, because some larger party will always have to court a smaller party for votes, and give into some of their demands. Therefore the total legislation becomes more 'radical' than if the majority moderate party could simple pass laws on its own.
And it remains that way precisely because neither of the two big parties would have anything to gain from real change
Wrong. It has to do with the rules of the game, and how they were set up. It is like in game theory: the rules of the game lead to an optimal way of playing. In our system, the natural outcome is for two large parties. It is this system that moderates people however... since voting for a more radical party on either side actually gives an advantage to the moderate party that you oppose (ie. Green help Republicans)
Sorry, that's called Democracy, you don't get your way, deal with it. So basically you are pissed that the politicians are acknowledging something that is understood by anyone with a basic understanding of government?
Slashdot Mirror
Electric engines have a huge amount of torque, which helps you get off the line faster. I would be impressed if this car could do this, and still be usable later.
It impresses no one if you race someone at a light, then have to pull in to a station for a recharge.
Plus, it looks like this thing is just an Ariel Atom... which I believe already beats those other cars anyway
No, actually it isn't.
If the study came back saying console group X preferred console Y, someone would post saying "that's obvious, X sucked, I own it and am looking forward to Y"
real windows-style "uninstall" functionality.
Yeah, instead of this they made each application a double click-able folder so all needed elements are contained therein. That way uninstall just means 'drag to trash'. What were they thinking?
You know, I used to think the exact same thing. Then I started going to digg frequently. My opinion changed after seeing how many factually false or misleading articles get voted up. This is also combined with rather childish typos. I'm not saying the editors are much better... but it does pay to have someone sitting there to take a step back and judge the quality of the submission.
Then again, I run my own digg clone link-aggregator... so I obviously believe in the model
I'm pretty sure many only means 'ideal'. In most adverse weather conditions your dynamic friction is much much lower than your static, so ABS helps by not allowing your tires to skid over the ice. Perhaps on dry concrete ABS will stop further, but being able to steer makes up for that in terms of accident avoidance.
This is an honest question: Do you know how ABS/traction control works? It isn't just: the breaks don't come on. What they do is give just enough brake so that traction is still held and the car doesn't slide. The point being it will slow you down in the absolute fastest way. In your wet grass example, if you really wanted to lock up the wheels,then you'd slide into something at 5mph. It doesn't make a difference whether I slide or roll into something at 5mph.
For your steering example, the system will let you steer the car while sliding, and keep braking throughout the wheels, so that they are all rolling evenly. I don't see how that would cause the car to rotate.
I could be wrong, but I just have never seen what your described in your post.
FYI: those cars are sold... they are used. So people that want 3k cars get crappy old ones, instead of what would naturally be better new cars. Just pointing out that because you make something illegal doesn't mean the desire goes away. This is what Libertarians make a fuss about.
But someone dying in a 3k less safe new car is a tragedy. Someone dying in a used 3k car is normal, so we tolerate it.
We always have to find a happy medium for things like this when it comes to safety. You might as well ask: if F1 racers can slam into a wall at 100mph and have the driver walk away... why don't we require all cars to be able to do that? (hint, F1 cars cost millions)
We're obviously going to hear a lot of that
A more interesting question: Is Google to blame?
Before everyone jumps on me, I mean this: Most people don't know the history of the term 'beta'... so their first exposure to it is through Google (where it is primarily used as a marketing term). To most people, in its context, it is just interpreted as 'new'.
To most people, does beta now just mean 'new'?
Actually, no one is arguing that... they are arguing only one is science.
New title:
Slashdot shocked to learn Wal-Mart does to gaming industry, what it does to every other industry
Nothing to see here, please move along.
nit pick: Schadenfreude doesn't imply the joy is from learning from their mistakes, but taking joy in the fact that the mistake happened.
I agree... but this philosophy only works when there is competition. The reason this thing is so bad, isn't because AT&T is going to go off and do something dumb... its because AT&T is going to go off and do something dumb, and the market can't punish them by allowing their customers to switch. For 99% of broadband customers, they only have one high-speed choice.
This is something, sadly, today's Republicans forget. They believe the solution to every problem is "the free market" when they forget that includes "competition".
This argument is over, you've just contradicted yourself. You've basically shown your true problem with the US system, and why you think it's 'broken': the names of the parties stay the same. I've consistently shown that I don't care about what the names of the parties are. I simply care that the political will of the moderates are represented. In your own words, you've shown this to be true, so this debate is over, I've won. As American poltical views have changed, so have the views of the parties that represent us. I'm sorry the names of those parties have stayed the same... really, we should tear down our government in order to rectify this problem.
Of course, you like to resort to ad hominem attacks on me instead of refuting my arguments. I haven't said anything about my political beliefs, other than I think that having two parties perpetually in power is a bad thing.
Again, wrong. I just shows how they can be unseated if they grossly misrepresent the populace. They are just smart enough to represent their population. This means excluding radical elements. So I'm sorry, that's how it works, its not a bug, its a feature.
P.S. "ad hominem " means I say your arguments are wrong because of a flaw with you. What I've done is shown how your arguments are wrong, and then shown why your flaws led you to make such arguments. It is a different thing.
This is really getting old. There are only so many times I can explain this:
1) It is a good thing because it moderates the parties, and gives moderates more power. That's my point, really simple.
2) You are wrong, study your history. The Republicans were a third party
Basically, your persistence that 'the system is broken' only serves to prove my point: you are a person with largely radical political beliefs. Under this system you have disproportionately smaller political power than you would under another system. That's why you think its broken: because it doesn't work for you. It works quite well for most folks.
Your party affiliation is obvious: you're a Republicrat, or a Democan
Wrong, actually I vote 3rd party. This is because 3rd parties do have a purpose in the US system. They show the major parties which way they should lean in order to grab more swing voters. In my case, if I vote Libertarian, along with many other people, the Republicans or possibly Democrats will adopt a more Libertarian stance in order to appeal to me... which serves my purposes.
So, you got it wrong, let me try you:
You are young, intellectually immature, or both. This is the type of person to whom "Republicrats" sound clever. To most people it just shows that you lack the ability to discern nuance. This is most likely due to the fact that your political leanings are so far to one side that both parties, although very different, appear the same to your distant view. Since you aren't a fascist, I can easily assume you are some sort of radical left leaning socialist. This is confirmed by the fact that you share a trait which is sadly common to most liberals (and the reason why they loose elections lately): self loathing. Anytime anyone mentions that *gasp* America does something right, they are berated. Everyone should just know and accept that America should apologize for all evils of the world, join the EU, and let Brussels order us around in atonement for our sins. That sound close enough?
I agree 100%. It is like math... people have asked me to do math before, but I hold up a problem I did 20 years ago, and got wrong. My answer now sounds correct, just like it sounded correct when I did it wrong last time. Therefore math is a lie
Please, just because I understand, and can compare the pros and cons of various government types, you are ashamed? His statement was that the US system is kept 2 parties by the two parties in charge. I refuted, with evidence. Please see my other post for more information.
it seems that Americans like him are more and more in power.
Where in any of my posts are any political leanings shown?
And it remains that way precisely because neither of the two big parties would have anything to gain from real change
I pointed out that it "remains this way" not simply because both parties "have no incentive to change", but because the underlying rules of the voting system favor two parties. This is when a strong third party does emerge, they replace the weaker of the two current parties. This is exactly what happened when the Republicans replaced the Federalists.. Now, it is true that the two parties do not have any incentive to change, but this is not the 'because'.
2) Please define ad hominem, then show where I made an attack against you as a person in this text. I did repeat your argument back in a childish manner in order to make the argument seem childish, but I did not attack you
3) Read my #3 again. I said everyone is confusing one simple thing: When I say the US system moderates the politics, it does not move America's politics to the center of the political spectrum. Moving America's politics to the center would undoubtedly move it in a more liberal direction as America is typically more conservative than most Western countries. Do you agree with that?. My point is that the US political system finds the political center of its citizens, by giving more political power to those in the center of the population, rather than those at the fringes. In a parliamentary system, those at the fringes have more power as they have to be bargained with in order to gain a coalition.
4) I thought my ad hominem reply was pretty clear as humor, apparently I have to lay it on thicker, but I don't know that's possible.
Sorry, you've failed to make a consistent point, and failed to read my posts without inserting your own assumptions about what I said, or about Americans.
yeah, I laid it on pretty thick, but apparently the guy didn't get it, and thought I was serious
They have a price matching + 1 policy.
1) I did reply to your statement that the US system is not democracy. My point was that change is difficult, does not allow for 3rd parties, but has the benefit of moderating the two parties in charge, and therefore the laws that are passed.
2) I did not do ad hominem. I simply summarized your argument in an unflattering manner in order to attack it. ad hominem is when you attack the person, but perhaps your too stupid to understand that.
3) The biggest problem with everyone who's responded, is that they see moderate and think that means 'more center politically' which to them means 'more liberal'. My point is that the US system does a better job at finding the political center of the population.
What's the difference between sounding clever but saying nothing, and saying nothing....
Wrong, because some larger party will always have to court a smaller party for votes, and give into some of their demands. Therefore the total legislation becomes more 'radical' than if the majority moderate party could simple pass laws on its own.
And it remains that way precisely because neither of the two big parties would have anything to gain from real change
Wrong. It has to do with the rules of the game, and how they were set up. It is like in game theory: the rules of the game lead to an optimal way of playing. In our system, the natural outcome is for two large parties. It is this system that moderates people however... since voting for a more radical party on either side actually gives an advantage to the moderate party that you oppose (ie. Green help Republicans)
Sorry, that's called Democracy, you don't get your way, deal with it. So basically you are pissed that the politicians are acknowledging something that is understood by anyone with a basic understanding of government?
Me too,
I'm waiting for web 3.1