Excellent analysis of the hipster type
However a few points I believe are wrong.
1: All hipsters do is spend their parents money, hipsters generally never do anything to actually earn money themselves -- hipsters don't have jobs
Because they don't work, you can't have hipsters working as UI designers.
You have to replace these parts anyway when building an engine.
Because US emissions were specifically designed to choke small cars, the US versions only made 130 HP, but the euro ones made close to 200.
I've had a few PRVs apart, it's actually a good basic design -- free flowing heads, hemi comb chambers, decent bottom end.
All they need is to use the euro cam, and modern high comp pistons and exhaust.
The euro ones never had an issue with power, just use euro spec bits and you're good
The PRV is actually a rather well designed engine, it just castrated to death by US emissions regulations (these were created by big3 lobbyists to kill high efficiency small foreign cars and choke them to death with NOx restrictions, which are no problem for super low compression, gas guzlng V8s, but very hard on high efficient, high compression foreign 4 cylinders).
Anyway, it's trivial to get a good 200-250 HP out of a PRV V6:
Just crank the compression back up to 10:1, put a decent cam with some overlap, and use a modern magna flow catalytic converter.
No need for any engine swap, just fix the PRV V6
Its a normal standard thing to change the color, why should we thing everybody like the same color, especially with such a horrid default theme.
Windows let you change color and font since I think Windows 1.0, which was what 1990? How come Microsoft could figure out how to let users change color 25 years ago, but Gnome still can't figure it out.
What is so insanely hard about making a standard control panel pane to do this. Why does it have to be a separate download. What kind of impression do you think this gives users? Think about it, somebody's been using Windows for a while, and they try Linux/Gnome, and they want to do something insanely trivial like change a wallpaper or font, and they then need to try to figure out how to use a package manager for that???
No wonder nobody uses desktop Linux.
I'm sorry if this sounds like a rant, I'm a Gnome user, have been for a long time, I just want them to provide some basic features that users expect without having to download 3rd party add ons.
Then why is there ZERO integration with it? Why is it some python scripted separate app instead of being a normal control panel pane, like changing color is in every other operating system on the planet. Why do you have do a separate download. Thats it just utterly crazy that it does not have the ability built in to change color.
Why isn't there a normal standard control panel pane to change basic things like color or font, like Windows 3.0 had 20 years ago. Why do I have to find and download a frankly crap application (gnome tweak tool) to change basic settings that every user would want to change.
Windows and OS X have had this ability since the beginning, how hard could it possibly be to have built in control panel page to change color and font like Windows.
I use Gnome, but I think one of the most truly ludicrous, flipping insane ideas is you need a freaking 3rd party app (gnome tweak tool) to change basic things like color or font.
Whats even worse is the 3rd party app is some python scripted crap.
Hello, I mean Windows 3.0 let you change colors and fonts, we're living in 2016 and Gnome still won't let you do what Windows could in 1993?????
Whats so insanely hard about having a built in control panel pane that lets you configure basic things without having to download a 3rd party app.
Sound insulation tends to hold in heat as well, so now you need the weight of extra cooling as well.
You need to think like an engineer. You can't add things in isolation. Every one thing you change has effects that cascade and change a dozen other things. It could be that all the necessary changes would make it too heavy.. Or make it too large... Or make it use too much energy... Or the expense of everything added and the studies needed to recertify it were prohibitive.
I don't sound like an engineer, Mr anonymous coward troll, FYI, PhD in Engineering Physics from Purdue right here, and I've been wrenching on engines since I was 5.
Its not a hard problem to make things quiet. Boston Dynamics solved the DAMNED HARD problem of walking, stability and self-guidance. Compared to these problems, adding a bit of quiet is trivial. Its clear from the videos that these are prototype mules, final versions would have had paneling, and would have used probably a more specialized engine. My guess is they just grabbed some farm equipment engine off the shelf to get a prototype together and didn't pay much attention to noise at this early stage, noise is an easy problem to deal at a later stage. Done right, a better muffler, some sound deadening panels would maybe add 20 lbs at most, and you construct the panels such that the dampen noise, but still provide path for heat exchange. Dealing with noise is a very standard and well worked out engineering problem, and its nothing compared to the problems that Boston Dynamics has overcome.
Yeah, the engine's themselves are loud when you're in the engine room, but the motor mounts are designed to isolate any vibration from the hull, the engine room is designed with all sorts vibration isolation and sound proofing. None of this is very technical or difficult. Like a previous post said, look how quite Honda generators are, you can barely hear them running, and all it took was some good motor mounts, a good muffler, and if you ever take one apart, you'll see Honda engines have double layer valve covers, where there are two steel stampings on the outside which sandwich a rubber type layer in between them. This is a super effective sound proofer and is also very cheap and simple.
The point I was trying to make is that all it would have taken was a few hundred dollars in a better muffler, motor mounts and maybe some shielding. You'll also notice that the mule looked very much like a prototype with a bare frame and everything, I'm sure a finished one would have had covers over the engine, and actually used a muffler. My guess is they just took an off the shelf farm type engine, which tend to be noisy. Its an easy fix to make it quiet.
I mean, seriously, its NOT THAT HARD to quiet an engine, they've been making diesels on subs quiet for 100 years now. Literally all you need is a better muffler, and add some sound proofing covering around the engine, maybe adds 10lbs at most.
Or, better yet, go with a small gas turbine, they're nearly silent, especially with a muffler, and can burn just about anything, diesel, gas, kerosene, you name it.
That's pretty damned idiotic throwing away a $30 million program because you didn't want to spend another few $100 on a muffler and some padding.
I sure as hell don't, all I want is a big tach right in the middle, a speedo, gas, temp and boost gauges off on the side. I just want manual heat/ac controls and nothing else. Basically all I want is a lightweight car with no crap on it, manual gearbox, rear wheel drive, multi link suspension, low center of mass, lots of power, good sounding exhaust, and good looks.
I've got no use for tarting a car up just for the sake of tarting it up. I drive a Honda S2000, and I think I might have literally turned the radio on once since I've owned the car, when the exhaust sounds this good with the top down, who needs a radio.
A half assed attempt is far worse than no attempt at all. If you are not going to do something seriously, than don't do it at all. I for example don't have the time to develop quality, native window versions of our apps, so I don't do it at all. When I can devote time to doing Windows versions correct, meaning 100% Windows native, following all of the Microsoft HIG, I will. But I won't write a half assed warmed over port that is not a native app, and does not provide a 100% native user xperience.
Think how important impressions are. If a user downloads you app, runs it, and it looks like a shit half assed port of an app designed for a different OS, it will leave a very bad impression on the user, and they will then be left with a very negative view of your products. So, even if at a later date, you write native versions, the damage has already been done, and users will never try it again.
Plus, if I don't write a native app, someone who has the time can come along and do it right, their is much more motivation for someone to come along and do it right where there is no app at all.
Last time I tried wine on OS X was 3 or 4 years ago, and it wanted me to install X11, and I said screw this, I'll just run Windows in parallels.
If you're not even going to make an attempt at writing a normal native app on OS X, then seriously, don't even bother, all you're doing is embarrassing yourselves and pissing off users by giving the false impression you've actually spent more than 5 seconds in OS X.
Sure, I can spend who knows how much time trying to get it to compile myself and install it my home dir, but then I can't ship binaries compiled with clang.
And I've never had much luck getting clang to compile using gcc c++ stdlib and link against the gnu c++ libs. I suppose I could just statically link against c++ stdlib though.
That's basically exactly what I was thinking, that's how mathematica does it.
I'm not keen on the dollar signs, but I could easily have the syntax do thing like c = a:union: b or c = a:U: b. I like the words spelled out as its much easier to read.
And then, there could either be a tool that goes back and forth between text and unicode, or a special editor could display the unicode chars after you type the character sequence.
I'm actually designing a new language, syntactically based on python but adds rule based programming and many operators for tensor calculus and constructive solid geometry.
My question is how do people feel about typing non-ASCII characters.
For example, the union of two spatial domains, should it be "c = union(a, b)" or "c = a \{insert big U symbol here\} b", or how about lambdas, or better yet, circle plus for tensor operations.
I realize most people here probably don't do much involving many mathematical operations, but what do you guys think about non-ascii characters in programming languages.
What I'm thinking about is having an operator system such that you could type in the statement "c = union (a, b)" in a plain text editor, but the operators would be define such that they would include some sort of pretty print or symbolic form, so that when viewed in a special editor, they could be viewed as full unicode glyphs.
That's a great country, have lots of guns, random militias are in charge, and no government to speak of.
If you don't like Somalia, then lots of other politically similar countries in Central Asia, Mid East and Africa
Yes, shared memory for data transfer is the fastest, no copying and nothing goes through the kernel.
I'm looking into what would be the fastest in terms of lowest latency for notifications, i.e. signaling another process. I'm kind of surprised that there's not a lot of benchmarks of posix messages vs unix domain sockets vs pipes out there.
The reason I'm interested is we're developing an agent based modeling language which makes very heavy use of IPC messages, so low latency and low overhead is super critical.
Currently on OSX, it used Mach messages which works extremely well, I'm porting the system to Windows, and I'm using Windows ALPC messaging, http://www.zezula.net/en/prog/...
Which is also working very well, it's actually very similar to Mach messages. Makes sense, as both OSX and Windows are hybrid micro/monolithic kernel OSs so it makes sense to have a fast messaging system.
I'm going to port the system to Linux, but still need to research what is the lowest latency IPC system to use there.
From my testing, Mach messages are faster on OSX than named pipes, I'm not sure how Linux sysv messaging compares to named pipes yet.
Flash performance is apocalypticly horrid, whenever I try to watch a freaking flash vid on cnn, cpu usage goes to 400% and the fans start blaring. But a higher res YouTube vid is only around 5-10% max.
Plus, everything the God damned flash plugin loads, this freaking Adobe update bullshit pops up and tries to hound me into updating flash.
flash so so so needs to die!
Slashdot Mirror
Excellent analysis of the hipster type However a few points I believe are wrong. 1: All hipsters do is spend their parents money, hipsters generally never do anything to actually earn money themselves -- hipsters don't have jobs Because they don't work, you can't have hipsters working as UI designers.
You have to replace these parts anyway when building an engine. Because US emissions were specifically designed to choke small cars, the US versions only made 130 HP, but the euro ones made close to 200. I've had a few PRVs apart, it's actually a good basic design -- free flowing heads, hemi comb chambers, decent bottom end. All they need is to use the euro cam, and modern high comp pistons and exhaust. The euro ones never had an issue with power, just use euro spec bits and you're good
The PRV is actually a rather well designed engine, it just castrated to death by US emissions regulations (these were created by big3 lobbyists to kill high efficiency small foreign cars and choke them to death with NOx restrictions, which are no problem for super low compression, gas guzlng V8s, but very hard on high efficient, high compression foreign 4 cylinders). Anyway, it's trivial to get a good 200-250 HP out of a PRV V6: Just crank the compression back up to 10:1, put a decent cam with some overlap, and use a modern magna flow catalytic converter. No need for any engine swap, just fix the PRV V6
Its a normal standard thing to change the color, why should we thing everybody like the same color, especially with such a horrid default theme.
Windows let you change color and font since I think Windows 1.0, which was what 1990? How come Microsoft could figure out how to let users change color 25 years ago, but Gnome still can't figure it out.
What is so insanely hard about making a standard control panel pane to do this. Why does it have to be a separate download. What kind of impression do you think this gives users? Think about it, somebody's been using Windows for a while, and they try Linux/Gnome, and they want to do something insanely trivial like change a wallpaper or font, and they then need to try to figure out how to use a package manager for that???
No wonder nobody uses desktop Linux.
I'm sorry if this sounds like a rant, I'm a Gnome user, have been for a long time, I just want them to provide some basic features that users expect without having to download 3rd party add ons.
Then why is there ZERO integration with it? Why is it some python scripted separate app instead of being a normal control panel pane, like changing color is in every other operating system on the planet. Why do you have do a separate download. Thats it just utterly crazy that it does not have the ability built in to change color.
Why isn't there a normal standard control panel pane to change basic things like color or font, like Windows 3.0 had 20 years ago. Why do I have to find and download a frankly crap application (gnome tweak tool) to change basic settings that every user would want to change.
Windows and OS X have had this ability since the beginning, how hard could it possibly be to have built in control panel page to change color and font like Windows.
I use Gnome, but I think one of the most truly ludicrous, flipping insane ideas is you need a freaking 3rd party app (gnome tweak tool) to change basic things like color or font.
Whats even worse is the 3rd party app is some python scripted crap.
Hello, I mean Windows 3.0 let you change colors and fonts, we're living in 2016 and Gnome still won't let you do what Windows could in 1993?????
Whats so insanely hard about having a built in control panel pane that lets you configure basic things without having to download a 3rd party app.
Sound insulation tends to hold in heat as well, so now you need the weight of extra cooling as well.
You need to think like an engineer. You can't add things in isolation. Every one thing you change has effects that cascade and change a dozen other things. It could be that all the necessary changes would make it too heavy.. Or make it too large... Or make it use too much energy... Or the expense of everything added and the studies needed to recertify it were prohibitive.
I don't sound like an engineer, Mr anonymous coward troll, FYI, PhD in Engineering Physics from Purdue right here, and I've been wrenching on engines since I was 5.
Its not a hard problem to make things quiet. Boston Dynamics solved the DAMNED HARD problem of walking, stability and self-guidance. Compared to these problems, adding a bit of quiet is trivial. Its clear from the videos that these are prototype mules, final versions would have had paneling, and would have used probably a more specialized engine. My guess is they just grabbed some farm equipment engine off the shelf to get a prototype together and didn't pay much attention to noise at this early stage, noise is an easy problem to deal at a later stage. Done right, a better muffler, some sound deadening panels would maybe add 20 lbs at most, and you construct the panels such that the dampen noise, but still provide path for heat exchange. Dealing with noise is a very standard and well worked out engineering problem, and its nothing compared to the problems that Boston Dynamics has overcome.
Yeah, the engine's themselves are loud when you're in the engine room, but the motor mounts are designed to isolate any vibration from the hull, the engine room is designed with all sorts vibration isolation and sound proofing. None of this is very technical or difficult. Like a previous post said, look how quite Honda generators are, you can barely hear them running, and all it took was some good motor mounts, a good muffler, and if you ever take one apart, you'll see Honda engines have double layer valve covers, where there are two steel stampings on the outside which sandwich a rubber type layer in between them. This is a super effective sound proofer and is also very cheap and simple.
The point I was trying to make is that all it would have taken was a few hundred dollars in a better muffler, motor mounts and maybe some shielding. You'll also notice that the mule looked very much like a prototype with a bare frame and everything, I'm sure a finished one would have had covers over the engine, and actually used a muffler. My guess is they just took an off the shelf farm type engine, which tend to be noisy. Its an easy fix to make it quiet.
A better muffler and some sound padding weighs maybe 10 lbs, the muffler on my Jetta Diesel weighs less than 10 lbs.
I mean, seriously, its NOT THAT HARD to quiet an engine, they've been making diesels on subs quiet for 100 years now. Literally all you need is a better muffler, and add some sound proofing covering around the engine, maybe adds 10lbs at most.
Or, better yet, go with a small gas turbine, they're nearly silent, especially with a muffler, and can burn just about anything, diesel, gas, kerosene, you name it.
That's pretty damned idiotic throwing away a $30 million program because you didn't want to spend another few $100 on a muffler and some padding.
I sure as hell don't, all I want is a big tach right in the middle, a speedo, gas, temp and boost gauges off on the side. I just want manual heat/ac controls and nothing else. Basically all I want is a lightweight car with no crap on it, manual gearbox, rear wheel drive, multi link suspension, low center of mass, lots of power, good sounding exhaust, and good looks.
I've got no use for tarting a car up just for the sake of tarting it up. I drive a Honda S2000, and I think I might have literally turned the radio on once since I've owned the car, when the exhaust sounds this good with the top down, who needs a radio.
A half assed attempt is far worse than no attempt at all. If you are not going to do something seriously, than don't do it at all. I for example don't have the time to develop quality, native window versions of our apps, so I don't do it at all. When I can devote time to doing Windows versions correct, meaning 100% Windows native, following all of the Microsoft HIG, I will. But I won't write a half assed warmed over port that is not a native app, and does not provide a 100% native user xperience.
Think how important impressions are. If a user downloads you app, runs it, and it looks like a shit half assed port of an app designed for a different OS, it will leave a very bad impression on the user, and they will then be left with a very negative view of your products. So, even if at a later date, you write native versions, the damage has already been done, and users will never try it again.
Plus, if I don't write a native app, someone who has the time can come along and do it right, their is much more motivation for someone to come along and do it right where there is no app at all.
If so, then it's a total non-starter period.
Last time I tried wine on OS X was 3 or 4 years ago, and it wanted me to install X11, and I said screw this, I'll just run Windows in parallels.
If you're not even going to make an attempt at writing a normal native app on OS X, then seriously, don't even bother, all you're doing is embarrassing yourselves and pissing off users by giving the false impression you've actually spent more than 5 seconds in OS X.
Sure, I can spend who knows how much time trying to get it to compile myself and install it my home dir, but then I can't ship binaries compiled with clang.
And I've never had much luck getting clang to compile using gcc c++ stdlib and link against the gnu c++ libs. I suppose I could just statically link against c++ stdlib though.
That's basically exactly what I was thinking, that's how mathematica does it.
:union: b or c = a :U: b. I like the words spelled out as its much easier to read.
I'm not keen on the dollar signs, but I could easily have the syntax do thing like c = a
And then, there could either be a tool that goes back and forth between text and unicode, or a special editor could display the unicode chars after you type the character sequence.
I'm actually designing a new language, syntactically based on python but adds rule based programming and many operators for tensor calculus and constructive solid geometry.
My question is how do people feel about typing non-ASCII characters.
For example, the union of two spatial domains, should it be "c = union(a, b)" or "c = a \{insert big U symbol here\} b", or how about lambdas, or better yet, circle plus for tensor operations.
I realize most people here probably don't do much involving many mathematical operations, but what do you guys think about non-ascii characters in programming languages. What I'm thinking about is having an operator system such that you could type in the statement "c = union (a, b)" in a plain text editor, but the operators would be define such that they would include some sort of pretty print or symbolic form, so that when viewed in a special editor, they could be viewed as full unicode glyphs.
That's a great country, have lots of guns, random militias are in charge, and no government to speak of. If you don't like Somalia, then lots of other politically similar countries in Central Asia, Mid East and Africa
Just waiting for the systemd rants.
Yes, shared memory for data transfer is the fastest, no copying and nothing goes through the kernel. I'm looking into what would be the fastest in terms of lowest latency for notifications, i.e. signaling another process. I'm kind of surprised that there's not a lot of benchmarks of posix messages vs unix domain sockets vs pipes out there.
The reason I'm interested is we're developing an agent based modeling language which makes very heavy use of IPC messages, so low latency and low overhead is super critical. Currently on OSX, it used Mach messages which works extremely well, I'm porting the system to Windows, and I'm using Windows ALPC messaging, http://www.zezula.net/en/prog/... Which is also working very well, it's actually very similar to Mach messages. Makes sense, as both OSX and Windows are hybrid micro/monolithic kernel OSs so it makes sense to have a fast messaging system. I'm going to port the system to Linux, but still need to research what is the lowest latency IPC system to use there. From my testing, Mach messages are faster on OSX than named pipes, I'm not sure how Linux sysv messaging compares to named pipes yet.
How exactly are Mach messeges different from sysv messeges in Linux? I've used Mach messeges before, but sysv messeges look pretty similar
I seriously can't believe modern hardware does not have hardware RNGs
Ha, my wife works for dept of defense, and she still has to use IE6!!
I guess half the internal sites she has to use will only work with IE6
Flash performance is apocalypticly horrid, whenever I try to watch a freaking flash vid on cnn, cpu usage goes to 400% and the fans start blaring. But a higher res YouTube vid is only around 5-10% max. Plus, everything the God damned flash plugin loads, this freaking Adobe update bullshit pops up and tries to hound me into updating flash. flash so so so needs to die!