Um, well I use W2000 8 hours a day 5 days a week, for Excel, ADAMS and emailing and web stuff. I'd guess I've had to reboot maybe twice in the last two years, other than when switching the machine off. He reckons he has to reboot unexpectedly daily.
My NT4 machine at home is perhaps slightly more impressive. It has never locked up and needed a reboot in eighteen months, apart from when I deleted the boot sector (deliberately and unwisely) earlier this year.
So, despite never having worked for MS, I daily use computers that are better set up than his, using older OS's, and, no doubt, crappier hardware.
Re:Took mine apart
on
Old Toy Modding?
·
· Score: 4, Informative
That would still give you problems on different surfaces, which affect the degrees turned per unit time or whatever very substantially, due to slip between the wheel and the carpet. The only way of doing it properly, I think, is to install a compass or equivalent.
The only sensors I have that are useful for this are the infra red radar trick, and a parking radar kit which has more range but eats batteries and is rather ugly.
In my case, at every search (when looking for paths by spinning round), if it finds 1 feature in roughly 360 degrees I use that to set the effective turn time step. I could add some sort of pattern matching algorithm for more complex cases, but life is too short.
- Simpson Brilliant, osmetimes even now - King of the Hill I'd rather go to the dentist - Everyone Loves Raymond I'd rather pull my teeth out myself - Steifeld Seinfeld? Brilliant - Married with Children Dull - Cheers Sporadically brilliant, usually good - M.A.S.H. Sporadically brilliant, usually good - Golden Girls Interesting choice. A bit formulaic, but the performances were good and the script writing, if not the stories, was excellent.
There again even the worst of these (Raymond) shines out like a diamond among the sea of crap that is Australian TV, which I currently watch for just 6 hours a week.
When I trashed my NT installation (my own fault, I deleted a Linux dual boot without uninstalling lilo first), I used a Knoppix cd to get back online and figure out exactly how stupid I was.
The recommended course of action on the Microsoft web site involved some Byzantine complexity using Norton Disk Doctor. I (a) don't have NDD and (b) didn't believe a word of it.
Fortunately some random googling reminded me about FDISK/MBR. Which worked fine, even off a DOS 5 disk.
The irony is that the reason I had deleted the Mandrake installation was I wanted to replace it with the Knoppix one.
Yes. I've just spent a week of evenings designing and building a PC controlled battery charger. It'll allow me to investigate the optimum charging regime for NiMH cells, but, ultimately, I could have bought a purpose designed battery charger for about what this one cost me in parts, never mind labour and writing the programs.
Even before this one is built I've been designing the Mk 2 version which will have fully controllable charge and discharge currents, rather than just using fixed currents. Practically it won't tell me much more than the Mk 1, it just seems... neater!
I don't agree, but then I like the mystical nonsense.
All you have done by putting a detector by each slot is to move the wave collapsing function back by one step of instrumentation. I realise this is an unprovable argument, but I think yours is as well. After all, I am not denying that you can take a photo of an interference pattern. You seem to argue that I am denying that.
But the observer is a passive receptor (in our case). I entirely sympathise with the objection - why is a human's retina the defining absorber, whereas those photons that strike other absorbing surfaces do not collapse the wave function.
As it happens I am a super-Copenhagen believer, that is, our function, as conscious entities, is to observe the many possible universes and 'select' the real one.
1) reformers are 80% efficient. Fuel cells are 80% efficient. Fuel cells are slow to react to changes in operating conditions, so in town they will have to use stored energy in a battery to cover accelerations etc. So, assuming a 50% round trip efficiency for energy into the batery and out again, your oh so efficient fuel cell car is down to.8*.8*.5=32% efficiency in some conditions. This is rather less than a decent turbo diesel, or even, say, the internal combustion engine in the Prius (36% at typical accelerations).
2) Waste heat from the fuel cell is at 80 degrees C, so the size of radiator will have to be about 40% greater than if the waste heat were at 100 degrees C, assuming an ambient of 25 degrees. This means the drag of the vehicle will be worse than you were expecting.
3) weight. Reformers, motor, battery pack and fuel cells altogether weigh rather rather more than an ICE.
4) packaging. I haven't seen a picture of a mobile reformer that is any smaller than the engine it replaces. The fuel cells are large plastic assemblies about 3 feet long, 4 inches thick, and 2 feet wide (by eye). They will not fit in a conventional engine bay.
Reforming is a duff technology. I agree that hybrids are an interim fix, but I don't think a reformer based solution is much better.
Ooh snippage crime. That is a very selective quotation from my post. You (or the GP) did ignore state taxes in the USA, and I pointed out that businesses don't pay GST.
Of course businesses buy from Harris, but they also buy from cheap places as well. Comparing some best in the USA price vs Harris is silly. I can walk for 200m from my house and beat Harris on their special offer (80 Gb HDD + Windows XP Pro for 359) - and that is in the suburbs of hick town, VIC.
Ooo er, it all depends why you want the downforce. At very high speeds the problem is keeping the car on the road going in a straight line. For this, ballast is fine. However if you want to brake, or turn, then the mass is counterproductive.
"Top speed is only limited by three things: drag, power, and gearing." and yaw stability.
As the car accelerates the centre of lateral drag moves forward. This tends to make the car unstable in yaw as speed increases. If you add a fin at the back then it will increase the speed at which it occurs, but this adds drag.
As the car accelerates the understeer/oversteer curve also tends to move towards oversteer (ref Gillespie or Milliken and Milliken) this also tends to flip the car sideways. This can be got around by tuning the steering to give terminal understeer, but this is not a very popular choice with drivers.
Wouldn't give you 5g. Your tyres probably saturate at probably 2g, and locked wheels are even worse. F1 get several g because they use aero to clamp the car to the road, and tyres that do not saturate so quickly as load increases. Therefore the MASS can be accelerated by a big FORCE without needing the WEIGHT to hold the car down to generate the FORCE. Caps for emphasis, not shouting.
Ah, but at high speed mass gives you the downforce for free (apart from the rolling resistance, which is about 1.5%). The aerodynamic downforce will cost you about 20%, typically.
Therefore the heavy car with no downforce should a higher top speed than the light car with downforce. Working out which would accelerate more quickly at high speeds is not a no-brainer, unlike at low speeds.
OK, that's a nit pick, but the grandparent was making quite an interesting point as well.
I am reasonably skillful at maths, and a somewhat successful engineer (leastways I enjoy it and get good appraisals). For most of my career I have been involved in Noise and Vibration, which meant I had to eat Fourier transforms for breakfast. FTs are one of the few 'advanced' maths concepts I regard as easy.
There are a lot of people around who have a good feel for stuff that I tend to analyse, but often I analyse it because its fun, not necessary. I have had some technicians working with me who could not have described an FT, let alone worked one out, who still managed to do very good work.
Now I work in a field where a basic knowledge of Hamiltonians is helpful (suspension/mechanisms analysis/non linear dynamics), but, I have a strong suspicion that many engineers in my field don't use them or understand them. Doesn't seem to hold them back.
The Concorde operation was profitable once they were purchased for a pound, or whatever it was. The fuel capacity of concorde was 96 tonnes and it carried around 100 passenger, each of whom paid about $10000 for return trip.
We were on about 5000 pounds a year, each, fresh out of uni, one year into our careers. Our neighbours would have been 30-40 year old senior engineers, supervisors or managers, with mortgages and families.
Guessing that the relativity between wages still held true then (I see no reason why not, within 3 years I doubled my pay), that would have put them on at least 2 to 2.5x as much as us.
You can argue with me taking foreign holidays, fair enough can't prove it. I took them. I had the TR4. Housemate Paul had a Lotus Eclat. Can't remember what the other two had, not very interesting.
Slashdot Mirror
Um, well I use W2000 8 hours a day 5 days a week, for Excel, ADAMS and emailing and web stuff. I'd guess I've had to reboot maybe twice in the last two years, other than when switching the machine off. He reckons he has to reboot unexpectedly daily.
My NT4 machine at home is perhaps slightly more impressive. It has never locked up and needed a reboot in eighteen months, apart from when I deleted the boot sector (deliberately and unwisely) earlier this year.
So, despite never having worked for MS, I daily use computers that are better set up than his, using older OS's, and, no doubt, crappier hardware.
That would still give you problems on different surfaces, which affect the degrees turned per unit time or whatever very substantially, due to slip between the wheel and the carpet. The only way of doing it properly, I think, is to install a compass or equivalent.
The only sensors I have that are useful for this are the infra red radar trick, and a parking radar kit which has more range but eats batteries and is rather ugly.
In my case, at every search (when looking for paths by spinning round), if it finds 1 feature in roughly 360 degrees I use that to set the effective turn time step. I could add some sort of pattern matching algorithm for more complex cases, but life is too short.
Frasier?
tedious, obvious, I really don't get it.
- Simpson
Brilliant, osmetimes even now
- King of the Hill
I'd rather go to the dentist
- Everyone Loves Raymond
I'd rather pull my teeth out myself
- Steifeld
Seinfeld? Brilliant
- Married with Children
Dull
- Cheers
Sporadically brilliant, usually good
- M.A.S.H.
Sporadically brilliant, usually good
- Golden Girls
Interesting choice. A bit formulaic, but the performances were good and the script writing, if not the stories, was excellent.
There again even the worst of these (Raymond) shines out like a diamond among the sea of crap that is Australian TV, which I currently watch for just 6 hours a week.
When I trashed my NT installation (my own fault, I deleted a Linux dual boot without uninstalling lilo first), I used a Knoppix cd to get back online and figure out exactly how stupid I was.
/MBR. Which worked fine, even off a DOS 5 disk.
The recommended course of action on the Microsoft web site involved some Byzantine complexity using Norton Disk Doctor. I (a) don't have NDD and (b) didn't believe a word of it.
Fortunately some random googling reminded me about FDISK
The irony is that the reason I had deleted the Mandrake installation was I wanted to replace it with the Knoppix one.
Yes. I've just spent a week of evenings designing and building a PC controlled battery charger. It'll allow me to investigate the optimum charging regime for NiMH cells, but, ultimately, I could have bought a purpose designed battery charger for about what this one cost me in parts, never mind labour and writing the programs.
Even before this one is built I've been designing the Mk 2 version which will have fully controllable charge and discharge currents, rather than just using fixed currents. Practically it won't tell me much more than the Mk 1, it just seems... neater!
's cat.
I don't agree, but then I like the mystical nonsense.
All you have done by putting a detector by each slot is to move the wave collapsing function back by one step of instrumentation. I realise this is an unprovable argument, but I think yours is as well. After all, I am not denying that you can take a photo of an interference pattern. You seem to argue that I am denying that.
or truthful
But the observer is a passive receptor (in our case). I entirely sympathise with the objection - why is a human's retina the defining absorber, whereas those photons that strike other absorbing surfaces do not collapse the wave function.
As it happens I am a super-Copenhagen believer, that is, our function, as conscious entities, is to observe the many possible universes and 'select' the real one.
This defines consciousness, by the way.
for your excellent interview. You can safely ignore these idiots.
Let's see,
.8*.8*.5=32% efficiency in some conditions. This is rather less than a decent turbo diesel, or even, say, the internal combustion engine in the Prius (36% at typical accelerations).
1) reformers are 80% efficient. Fuel cells are 80% efficient. Fuel cells are slow to react to changes in operating conditions, so in town they will have to use stored energy in a battery to cover accelerations etc. So, assuming a 50% round trip efficiency for energy into the batery and out again, your oh so efficient fuel cell car is down to
2) Waste heat from the fuel cell is at 80 degrees C, so the size of radiator will have to be about 40% greater than if the waste heat were at 100 degrees C, assuming an ambient of 25 degrees. This means the drag of the vehicle will be worse than you were expecting.
3) weight. Reformers, motor, battery pack and fuel cells altogether weigh rather rather more than an ICE.
4) packaging. I haven't seen a picture of a mobile reformer that is any smaller than the engine it replaces. The fuel cells are large plastic assemblies about 3 feet long, 4 inches thick, and 2 feet wide (by eye). They will not fit in a conventional engine bay.
Reforming is a duff technology. I agree that hybrids are an interim fix, but I don't think a reformer based solution is much better.
You almost had me going until you listed Robinson. And who's Hamilton? (Rhetorical, I'll find out myself).
If they've been holding their breath since Gates became CTO then your advice that they can stop now is redundant.
It isn't installed, but if you look around on the CD it is there, qbasic.ex_ at a guess. Leastways, it is on my NT 4.0 CD.
Ooh snippage crime. That is a very selective quotation from my post. You (or the GP) did ignore state taxes in the USA, and I pointed out that businesses don't pay GST.
Of course businesses buy from Harris, but they also buy from cheap places as well. Comparing some best in the USA price vs Harris is silly. I can walk for 200m from my house and beat Harris on their special offer (80 Gb HDD + Windows XP Pro for 359) - and that is in the suburbs of hick town, VIC.
Ooo er, it all depends why you want the downforce. At very high speeds the problem is keeping the car on the road going in a straight line. For this, ballast is fine. However if you want to brake, or turn, then the mass is counterproductive.
"Top speed is only limited by three things: drag, power, and gearing." and yaw stability.
As the car accelerates the centre of lateral drag moves forward. This tends to make the car unstable in yaw as speed increases. If you add a fin at the back then it will increase the speed at which it occurs, but this adds drag.
As the car accelerates the understeer/oversteer curve also tends to move towards oversteer (ref Gillespie or Milliken and Milliken) this also tends to flip the car sideways. This can be got around by tuning the steering to give terminal understeer, but this is not a very popular choice with drivers.
Wouldn't give you 5g. Your tyres probably saturate at probably 2g, and locked wheels are even worse. F1 get several g because they use aero to clamp the car to the road, and tyres that do not saturate so quickly as load increases. Therefore the MASS can be accelerated by a big FORCE without needing the WEIGHT to hold the car down to generate the FORCE. Caps for emphasis, not shouting.
Ah, but at high speed mass gives you the downforce for free (apart from the rolling resistance, which is about 1.5%). The aerodynamic downforce will cost you about 20%, typically.
Therefore the heavy car with no downforce should a higher top speed than the light car with downforce. Working out which would accelerate more quickly at high speeds is not a no-brainer, unlike at low speeds.
OK, that's a nit pick, but the grandparent was making quite an interesting point as well.
Ah, businesses reclaim GST, and your exchange rate is whack. You are ignoring state taxes in the US, so I think it is reasonable to ignore the GST.
The real equivalent price is 829*10/11*0.7347
ie $553
And I think you can do much better than buying from Harris
I am reasonably skillful at maths, and a somewhat successful engineer (leastways I enjoy it and get good appraisals). For most of my career I have been involved in Noise and Vibration, which meant I had to eat Fourier transforms for breakfast. FTs are one of the few 'advanced' maths concepts I regard as easy.
There are a lot of people around who have a good feel for stuff that I tend to analyse, but often I analyse it because its fun, not necessary. I have had some technicians working with me who could not have described an FT, let alone worked one out, who still managed to do very good work.
Now I work in a field where a basic knowledge of Hamiltonians is helpful (suspension/mechanisms analysis/non linear dynamics), but, I have a strong suspicion that many engineers in my field don't use them or understand them. Doesn't seem to hold them back.
I occasionally ran the (real time) strategy for our solar car on my TI81. It wasn't ideal, much better on a spreadsheet, but it was usable.
I wouldn't do it again, since laptops are now ubiquitous, but that was not the case 12 years.
I'm a big fan of graphing, in general, and I like the way the TI does it. But, frankly, apart from the solar car thing I've hardly ever used it.
Possibly, however you said " it was a failure because of the enormous fuel consumption per passenger,"
I took a few minutes to demonstrate that the cost of fuel was not, in itself, an especially large component of the running cost of the aircraft.
ALso, BA's accounts show that the Concorde operation was profitable prior to the crash.
The Concorde operation was profitable once they were purchased for a pound, or whatever it was. The fuel capacity of concorde was 96 tonnes and it carried around 100 passenger, each of whom paid about $10000 for return trip.
Fuel costs about $400 per tonne plus taxes.
You do the maths.
Absolutely. We are paid about 75% of the pay of our American counterparts. Our cost of living is about 60% of theirs.
You do the math.
I was talking from personal experience.
We were on about 5000 pounds a year, each, fresh out of uni, one year into our careers. Our neighbours would have been 30-40 year old senior engineers, supervisors or managers, with mortgages and families.
Guessing that the relativity between wages still held true then (I see no reason why not, within 3 years I doubled my pay), that would have put them on at least 2 to 2.5x as much as us.
You can argue with me taking foreign holidays, fair enough can't prove it. I took them. I had the TR4. Housemate Paul had a Lotus Eclat. Can't remember what the other two had, not very interesting.