>Heh I've moved down from a 929cc missile down to a more sensible 650cc with 1/3 of the horse power..
I assume you're talking about a motorbike?
Even a "sensible" 650cc bike will leave almost all cars apart from high end supercars for dead at the lights so on a day to day commute I doubt you'll notice much difference:o)
.... arn't the best solution. If they're so underpowered or peaky - like a lot of the new generation coming along - then people will tend to drive with their foot flat to the floor a lot mroe often which hammers fuel consumption and doesn't do the mechanicals any favours. Whereas with a bigger engine this is less of the case and you can get equivalent mpg except with a less stressed engine that isn't going to blow a seal after 75K miles because of components being worked to their limit to make up for the idiotically small capacity.
Of course left to their own devices no manufacturer would be dumb enough to put a 1.0L engine in a 1.5 ton car but EU regs now require silly emissions targets being met in these unrealistics tests so the manufacturers have no choice.
I think you're being optimistic. Diesel might have better fuel economy per unit volume than petrol or avgas, but diesel fuel is somewhat denser and therefore heavier than both.
Airships get their bouyancy for free. An aircraft has to drag its weight up into the sky using fuel so the last thing you want is a heavy engine with poor hp/ton ratio.
Its also very heavy and less efficient than pure diesel. The only reason its used in railway locomotives is that having an electrical connection to motors in the bogies (trucks to americans) its a LOT simpler and more reliable than mechanical linkages + gearboxes or compressor + hydraulic lines + hydraulic motors.
In most large programs I've worked on the majority of heap resources were global because they're used in a multitude of areas, not just down one particular code path, so freeing them was done ah-hoc. C++ requires RAII because of the obsession with some people of using objects all the time regardless of whether its necessary: eg std::string instead of char*, vector instead of an array even if the max size is already known beforehand. And so on. They don't seem to realise that constant allocation and deallocation of memory absolutely cripples performance. Perhaps they think allocators are magic memory pixies who do it all with fairy dust and it takes no time at all.
Even conspiracy theory morons can figure them out and this is the result. There should be a mandatory IQ test before anyone is allowed to use any technology or access the internet.
Unless everything is on the stack or use the STL for everything you have to manually manage resource anyway in the con/destructor so its not that a big deal. As for exceptions - they're worse than gotos. Used and abused by people too lazy to do proper value checks. "What will happen? Who cares, just let it throw". Bah.
"If templates in C++ couldn't be used to write awful abominations of undecipherable blobs of code they would be really great"
Agreed. I'm also not a great fan of operator overloading unless its absolutely necessary since it can lead to some extremely hard to follow code unless you have a clever IDE.
The only true advantage of OO in as far as C++ is concerned is that you don't have to manually manage arrays of function pointers in a struct for inheritence. Other than that, its just a slightly cleaner syntax. Most of the other advantages are overstated and usually advocated by people who can't program in any other way.
Its probably some simple equation that could be written in 3 lines of code but unless someone knows how to do it I doubt they could figure it out, at least not in the few minutes required in an interview.
I know it was unintentional, but scientific vehicle or not, its now just more scrap sitting at the bottom of the sea polluting it (battery chemicals, polymers etc). There should have been a contingency plan for an implosion - hardly an unexpected event at that depth.
Everyone steers away? Sure , so long as there isn't a concrete divider or 100 foot drop or oncoming vehicles or pedestrians for the cars at the edge to worry about. And this only works if all the cars are computer controlled because if only one is being driven manually then there'll be a massive pile up.
"So we can only make it better"
For simple collisions maybe, for anything more complex forget it. These are vehicles in the real world, not balls on a pool table.
On a highway those 2 other cars are probably in turn surrounded by further cars and so on. You'd end up with a cascading reaction that in the end may cause more harm than good and may take so long to work out the best case scenario that by the time the computers have agreed on the best outcome its too late to do anything about it because physics gets in the way. We're talking fraction of a second here.
Joking aside , it does seem the nano engineers are somewhat taking liberties with the chemical naming system since graphene isn't an element - its an allotrope. You might as well say diamond oxide which would be equally non sensical.
When I work on other peoples code - you know, like in a "job" - then the odds are someone has used pretty much all of the features somewhere in it especially if they're some just out of uni grad who's out to impress his peers and thinks using every obscure language feature and design pattern construct he can find in even the smallest program is the way to do it.
Sorry, but I just can't be fucking arsed with it anymore. A programming language is there to SOLVE a problem, not BECOME the problem.
And then spend weeks testing and debugging it. It all evens out in the end. Even the most prolific coder would have trouble writing a million lines of code in this sort of time period. Maybe over the course of an entire career perhaps.
Who says executing him was wrong? Thats just your opinion. Or were you just going for Cliche of the Week? And there's nothing wrong with revenge either - a perfectly normal human emotion. No doubt in your mind you're occupying some moral high ground but from where I'm looking you waist deep in a load of liberal shit and its stinking the place up. Honestly, people like you must have your brains wired differently to normal people, thats the only explanation.
The system is there to PUNISH too. Now you can call it Karma in a hand waving dismissive way if that makes you feel superior but you're just dishing up the same tired old argument that the system is simply there to keep criminals away from the public. No, it isn't - its more than that. There is a natural justice that most normal people (ie not feeble minded metro-liberals) feel needs to be carried out with regards to heinous crimes since seeing that done is one of the foundations of a stable human society.
Slashdot Mirror
>Heh I've moved down from a 929cc missile down to a more sensible 650cc with 1/3 of the horse power..
I assume you're talking about a motorbike?
Even a "sensible" 650cc bike will leave almost all cars apart from high end supercars for dead at the lights so on a day to day commute I doubt you'll notice much difference :o)
.... arn't the best solution. If they're so underpowered or peaky - like a lot of the new generation coming along - then people will tend to drive with their foot flat to the floor a lot mroe often which hammers fuel consumption and doesn't do the mechanicals any favours. Whereas with a bigger engine this is less of the case and you can get equivalent mpg except with a less stressed engine that isn't going to blow a seal after 75K miles because of components being worked to their limit to make up for the idiotically small capacity.
Of course left to their own devices no manufacturer would be dumb enough to put a 1.0L engine in a 1.5 ton car but EU regs now require silly emissions targets being met in these unrealistics tests so the manufacturers have no choice.
I think you're being optimistic. Diesel might have better fuel economy per unit volume than petrol or avgas, but diesel fuel is somewhat denser and therefore heavier than both.
Airships get their bouyancy for free. An aircraft has to drag its weight up into the sky using fuel so the last thing you want is a heavy engine with poor hp/ton ratio.
Its also very heavy and less efficient than pure diesel. The only reason its used in railway locomotives is that having an electrical connection to motors in the bogies (trucks to americans) its a LOT simpler and more reliable than mechanical linkages + gearboxes or compressor + hydraulic lines + hydraulic motors.
Uh huh. Listen , why not go off and have a beer with your loser buddies and argue about how they faked the moon landings from behind the grassy knoll.
In most large programs I've worked on the majority of heap resources were global because they're used in a multitude of areas, not just down one particular code path, so freeing them was done ah-hoc. C++ requires RAII because of the obsession with some people of using objects all the time regardless of whether its necessary: eg std::string instead of char*, vector instead of an array even if the max size is already known beforehand. And so on. They don't seem to realise that constant allocation and deallocation of memory absolutely cripples performance. Perhaps they think allocators are magic memory pixies who do it all with fairy dust and it takes no time at all.
Even conspiracy theory morons can figure them out and this is the result. There should be a mandatory IQ test before anyone is allowed to use any technology or access the internet.
Unless everything is on the stack or use the STL for everything you have to manually manage resource anyway in the con/destructor so its not that a big deal. As for exceptions - they're worse than gotos. Used and abused by people too lazy to do proper value checks. "What will happen? Who cares, just let it throw". Bah.
"If templates in C++ couldn't be used to write awful abominations of undecipherable blobs of code they would be really great"
Agreed. I'm also not a great fan of operator overloading unless its absolutely necessary since it can lead to some extremely hard to follow code unless you have a clever IDE.
The only true advantage of OO in as far as C++ is concerned is that you don't have to manually manage arrays of function pointers in a struct for inheritence. Other than that, its just a slightly cleaner syntax. Most of the other advantages are overstated and usually advocated by people who can't program in any other way.
Its probably some simple equation that could be written in 3 lines of code but unless someone knows how to do it I doubt they could figure it out, at least not in the few minutes required in an interview.
I know it was unintentional, but scientific vehicle or not, its now just more scrap sitting at the bottom of the sea polluting it (battery chemicals, polymers etc). There should have been a contingency plan for an implosion - hardly an unexpected event at that depth.
How about you stick to commenting on things you have a clue about?
Everyone steers away? Sure , so long as there isn't a concrete divider or 100 foot drop or oncoming vehicles or pedestrians for the cars at the edge to worry about. And this only works if all the cars are computer controlled because if only one is being driven manually then there'll be a massive pile up.
"So we can only make it better"
For simple collisions maybe, for anything more complex forget it. These are vehicles in the real world, not balls on a pool table.
On a highway those 2 other cars are probably in turn surrounded by further cars and so on. You'd end up with a cascading reaction that in the end may cause more harm than good and may take so long to work out the best case scenario that by the time the computers have agreed on the best outcome its too late to do anything about it because physics gets in the way. We're talking fraction of a second here.
Nice to have you back. Hows the anal canal, still retentive? You should really get that looked at.
Oh right. So whats dihydrogen oxide then?
"Only if you really oxidize it, good and hard"
Yes - its called fire!
Joking aside , it does seem the nano engineers are somewhat taking liberties with the chemical naming system since graphene isn't an element - its an allotrope. You might as well say diamond oxide which would be equally non sensical.
Graphene oxide is CO2 FFS.
When I work on other peoples code - you know, like in a "job" - then the odds are someone has used pretty much all of the features somewhere in it especially if they're some just out of uni grad who's out to impress his peers and thinks using every obscure language feature and design pattern construct he can find in even the smallest program is the way to do it.
Sorry, but I just can't be fucking arsed with it anymore. A programming language is there to SOLVE a problem, not BECOME the problem.
BS. Back under your bridge.
And then spend weeks testing and debugging it. It all evens out in the end. Even the most prolific coder would have trouble writing a million lines of code in this sort of time period. Maybe over the course of an entire career perhaps.
Who says executing him was wrong? Thats just your opinion. Or were you just going for Cliche of the Week? And there's nothing wrong with revenge either - a perfectly normal human emotion. No doubt in your mind you're occupying some moral high ground but from where I'm looking you waist deep in a load of liberal shit and its stinking the place up. Honestly, people like you must have your brains wired differently to normal people, thats the only explanation.
The system is there to PUNISH too. Now you can call it Karma in a hand waving dismissive way if that makes you feel superior but you're just dishing up the same tired old argument that the system is simply there to keep criminals away from the public. No, it isn't - its more than that. There is a natural justice that most normal people (ie not feeble minded metro-liberals) feel needs to be carried out with regards to heinous crimes since seeing that done is one of the foundations of a stable human society.