"Direct current requires larger gauge wiring than AC power,"
No it doesn't. Its the voltage that matters, not the type of current. It just so happens that most industrial DC applications - eg metro trains - use lower voltages that their AC equivalent which means higher currents for the same power delivery and hence thicker cabling.
Its the voltage that matters when transmitting over long distances, not the type of current. In fact DC is slightly more efficient for a given voltage though you'd have to ask a physicist why.
"You forgot the step where you added the magic pixie dust to power the induction points"
What do you think powers the street lights and buildings right next to the road? And the source of that power is not relevant to this discussion.
Also induction might be inefficient but so is charging a battery.
"Also, how do you charge the people for charging?"
Who cares? I'm talking about the technology , now how beaurocrats will charge for its use.
"And cutting loops in roads make the roads wear out faster. Also the induction loops will break because roads expand and contract due to heat/cold and cars breaking on them."
What , like all those traffic light detection loops in the roads? Yeah , I really noticed a huge breakup of roads around those.
To really get decent performance from electric cars putting induction chargers in the road would be best because the car could drive along and pick up power as it goes and when stopped probably charge its battery just as is proposed for new wireless charging stations.
And before anyone says thing of the disruption - well think of the disruption when new water mains, gas pipes, cable TV is being installed. The induction points would only need to be on main roads and highways , not down every little back street where the cars could run on battery power alone.
Yes it would cost a lot but how much does oil exploration - and cleanup - cost now?
"It is called auto-reconfigurable FPGA. Look at Xilinx ones, for example"
My mistake, I need to get back up to date!
"some slightly more biologicaly plausible than others"
I'm not convinced the brain has to be simulated exactly to produce the same result. After all, robots can now walk like a human but they don't use exact facsimilies of human muscles - they use hydraulics or electric motors to achieve the same effect. No doubt there are parts of neurons operation and the brains overall architecture that are simply evolutionarily good-enough rather than being the fastest or most efficient given the biochemistry available.
Ok , you can do this with a FPGA but this requires something external to the gate array to reset the logic gates - the array can't rewire itself. Biological neural systems can rewire themselves and not only that - they can do it *while they're running*. Obviously you could have this on the fly rewiring in a software simulation but thats orders of magnitudes slower than using hardware so I don't think we'll see computers simulating human brains in real time anytime soon.
"Games are not primarily a visual medium at all, they're an emotional medium. They invoke in you a set of feelings through any methods or dirty tricks they can use"
By that definition any form of media is emotional which makes your whole point meaningless. Emotions are what make people watch TV, listen to the radio, read a book , read the news etc etc.
Newsflash - a videogame isn't a book. Its a visual medium and generally the "feelings" of the characters arn't crucial the the gameplay. You know its not real, right?
Until photo realistic graphics and realistic movement comes of age not to mention other forms of user "input" then sex in a videogame will remain funny rather than erotic.
The West is already on its way out as a manufacturing and innovation base , most of which has headed east. Soon the chinese will be doing most of the science too and the west will be free to degenerate back into superstition and ignorance once more.
"Prison in the USA (or many other nations) is a neverending regime of torture"
Yeah , whatever...
"That person could potentially be useful to society if we actually tried to help them instead of putting them into the rape box."
There are plenty of unemployed who could be useful to society. We don't need to involve prisoners who deserve punishment. And don't start wittering on about rehabilitation, that comes after the punishment.
"Killing someone just lets them off the hook. They don't suffer like survivors suffer. Meanwhile, the dead do not suffer."
Thats a valid point of view , but I think losing your life is worse than spending time behind bars unless the prison includes torture as part of its daily regime and I don't think anyone would advocate that.
"Are you serious? Go kill yourself, then try to make that comment again."
I assumed you meant harmful to society. Of course its harmful for the person who's executed, thats the whole point.
"I feel victimized for having to listen to your nonsense, and I think you should get the death penalty for spouting it. If I want you to have the death penalty, you should get it. My argument is every bit as rational as yours since nothing gets better if you murder a murderer."
Oh dear, getting a bit silly and desperate now arn't we. The punishment has to fit the crime.
"Since there is no evidence that killing helps anyone,"
Well it prevents reoffending, it gives closure to the victims relatives and it means the state doesn't have to waste money keeping someone in prison for decades. Other than that , sure , it doesn't help anyone.
"but there is plenty of evidence that killing is harmful"
You were talking about the threat of punishment. You didn't limit it to murder. And was OJ Simpson poor (we know he's guilty)? What about those rich boy terrorists?
"Justice is subjective."
Of course its subjective , its not a law of physics, its a human desire. And if the victims family wants the death penalty for a murder they should get it.
"Killing helps no one."
Really? Got anything to back that up with or are you just resorting to vague handwaving now?
"When you have to resort to Ad Hominem then it's clear you have no argument worth making. Thanks!"
"Studies have shown that the threat of punishment does not, in fact, stop crime, especially when you fail to address social inequality that produces it."
Social inequality my arse. A huge proportion of crime is white collar such as fraud or hacking or tax evasion or even street violence and is commited by middle class types. So wheres the inequality my friend? Your argument is just the standard issue left wing nonsense trotted out to explain why their liberal prison policies don't work.
"You want an excuse to satisfy your bloodlust. You will find none here."
There we go , hyperbole again. Its not about bloodlust, its about justice for the victims. Something sorry little bleeding heart hand wringers like you have no concept of.
Thats why it should require a higher standard of proof than incarceration and why theres a huge wait before conviction and execution in a lot of places in case more evidence comes to light.
Doesn't it? So people who are executed re-offend then do they? The thought of being executed doesn't make some people hold off the violence compared to the through of 20 years in prison?
You see, this is the spurious logic people like yourself work by. Its all bullshit.
Ghandi. And with all due respect to the man if that were the case then winning the 2nd world war against Hitler was a waste of time. Its easy to rattle off a nice pithy, superficially profound statement like that , but when you did deeper you generally find they're BS.
"He called himself Jesus!"
And? I'm not religious, I couldn't care less what he said.
Yes, I'm really going to believe a webpage that is clearly anti death penalty.
"And yes, death penalty is a neanderthal throwback."
Care to explain why or is it just for the usual spurious "it makes us no better than them" or its "state murder" or whatever other drivel people like yourself dish up to try and explain your point of view?
Slashdot Mirror
"Direct current requires larger gauge wiring than AC power,"
No it doesn't. Its the voltage that matters, not the type of current. It just so happens that most industrial DC applications - eg metro trains - use lower voltages that their AC equivalent which means higher currents for the same power delivery and hence thicker cabling.
Its the voltage that matters when transmitting over long distances, not the type of current. In fact DC is slightly more efficient for a given voltage though you'd have to ask a physicist why.
"You forgot the step where you added the magic pixie dust to power the induction points"
What do you think powers the street lights and buildings right next to the road? And the source of that power is not relevant to this discussion.
Also induction might be inefficient but so is charging a battery.
"Also, how do you charge the people for charging?"
Who cares? I'm talking about the technology , now how beaurocrats will charge for its use.
"And cutting loops in roads make the roads wear out faster. Also the induction loops will break because roads expand and contract due to heat/cold and cars breaking on them."
What , like all those traffic light detection loops in the roads? Yeah , I really noticed a huge breakup of roads around those.
To really get decent performance from electric cars putting induction chargers in the road would be best because the car could drive along and pick up power as it goes and when stopped probably charge its battery just as is proposed for new wireless charging stations.
And before anyone says thing of the disruption - well think of the disruption when new water mains, gas pipes, cable TV is being installed. The induction points would only need to be on main roads and highways , not down every little back street where the cars could run on battery power alone.
Yes it would cost a lot but how much does oil exploration - and cleanup - cost now?
... is vi, strace and gdb. Not all of us need a cutesy GUI interface to be able to program effectively.
... is how old Carmack looks now! I still remember him from the Doom days and I haven't seen a picture since. Came as a bit of a shock.
"It is called auto-reconfigurable FPGA. Look at Xilinx ones, for example"
My mistake, I need to get back up to date!
"some slightly more biologicaly plausible than others"
I'm not convinced the brain has to be simulated exactly to produce the same result. After all, robots can now walk like a human but they don't use exact facsimilies of human muscles - they use hydraulics or electric motors to achieve the same effect. No doubt there are parts of neurons operation and the brains overall architecture that are simply evolutionarily good-enough rather than being the fastest or most efficient given the biochemistry available.
Ok , you can do this with a FPGA but this requires something external to the gate array to reset the logic gates - the array can't rewire itself. Biological neural systems can rewire themselves and not only that - they can do it *while they're running*. Obviously you could have this on the fly rewiring in a software simulation but thats orders of magnitudes slower than using hardware so I don't think we'll see computers simulating human brains in real time anytime soon.
Can't say I've ever heard of him though. I use to play against someone called Polly but shes gone now.
Aww bless, look , a little troll has come out to play! But isn't it past your bedtime? Won't mummy troll be worried about you?
Just keep making purely random choices and the computer can only ever draw.
"Games are not primarily a visual medium at all, they're an emotional medium. They invoke in you a set of feelings through any methods or dirty tricks they can use"
By that definition any form of media is emotional which makes your whole point meaningless. Emotions are what make people watch TV, listen to the radio, read a book , read the news etc etc.
Newsflash - a videogame isn't a book. Its a visual medium and generally the "feelings" of the characters arn't crucial the the gameplay. You know its not real, right?
"Grow up."
*boggle*
Until photo realistic graphics and realistic movement comes of age not to mention other forms of user "input" then sex in a videogame will remain funny rather than erotic.
The West is already on its way out as a manufacturing and innovation base , most of which has headed east. Soon the chinese will be doing most of the science too and the west will be free to degenerate back into superstition and ignorance once more.
Given the strange way you capitalised dodo one has to wonder how much you actually learnt at school.
"Prison in the USA (or many other nations) is a neverending regime of torture"
Yeah , whatever...
"That person could potentially be useful to society if we actually tried to help them instead of putting them into the rape box."
There are plenty of unemployed who could be useful to society. We don't need to involve prisoners who deserve punishment. And don't start wittering on about rehabilitation, that comes after the punishment.
"Killing someone just lets them off the hook. They don't suffer like survivors suffer. Meanwhile, the dead do not suffer."
Thats a valid point of view , but I think losing your life is worse than spending time behind bars unless the prison includes torture as part of its daily regime and I don't think anyone would advocate that.
"Are you serious? Go kill yourself, then try to make that comment again."
I assumed you meant harmful to society. Of course its harmful for the person who's executed, thats the whole point.
"I feel victimized for having to listen to your nonsense, and I think you should get the death penalty for spouting it. If I want you to have the death penalty, you should get it. My argument is every bit as rational as yours since nothing gets better if you murder a murderer."
Oh dear, getting a bit silly and desperate now arn't we. The punishment has to fit the crime.
"Since there is no evidence that killing helps anyone,"
Well it prevents reoffending, it gives closure to the victims relatives and it means the state doesn't have to waste money keeping someone in prison for decades. Other than that , sure , it doesn't help anyone.
"but there is plenty of evidence that killing is harmful"
Cite.
"Who's hurt? I'm only filled with pity for you."
Well let me tell you, the feelings mutual.
"So now we're talking about white collar crime?"
You were talking about the threat of punishment. You didn't limit it to murder. And was OJ Simpson poor (we know he's guilty)? What about those rich boy terrorists?
"Justice is subjective."
Of course its subjective , its not a law of physics, its a human desire. And if the victims family wants the death penalty for a murder they should get it.
"Killing helps no one."
Really? Got anything to back that up with or are you just resorting to vague handwaving now?
"When you have to resort to Ad Hominem then it's clear you have no argument worth making. Thanks!"
Truth hurts?
"Studies have shown that the threat of punishment does not, in fact, stop crime, especially when you fail to address social inequality that produces it."
Social inequality my arse. A huge proportion of crime is white collar such as fraud or hacking or tax evasion or even street violence and is commited by middle class types. So wheres the inequality my friend? Your argument is just the standard issue left wing nonsense trotted out to explain why their liberal prison policies don't work.
"You want an excuse to satisfy your bloodlust. You will find none here."
There we go , hyperbole again. Its not about bloodlust, its about justice for the victims. Something sorry little bleeding heart hand wringers like you have no concept of.
Thats why it should require a higher standard of proof than incarceration and why theres a huge wait before conviction and execution in a lot of places in case more evidence comes to light.
Doesn't it? So people who are executed re-offend then do they? The thought of being executed doesn't make some people hold off the violence compared to the through of 20 years in prison?
You see, this is the spurious logic people like yourself work by. Its all bullshit.
"Someone once said"
Ghandi. And with all due respect to the man if that were the case then winning the 2nd world war against Hitler was a waste of time. Its easy to rattle off a nice pithy, superficially profound statement like that , but when you did deeper you generally find they're BS.
"He called himself Jesus!"
And? I'm not religious, I couldn't care less what he said.
Yes, I'm really going to believe a webpage that is clearly anti death penalty.
"And yes, death penalty is a neanderthal throwback."
Care to explain why or is it just for the usual spurious "it makes us no better than them" or its "state murder" or whatever other drivel people like yourself dish up to try and explain your point of view?