Not a world record, didn't do it twice, not a "production vehicle". Tesla is more interesting because you can actually buy one. The Hennessey is a limited run that looks to be all sold out. You can only get one used, not go out and buy an available new model. When Hennessey makes 500+ of them, give us a call.
Elecrtic vehicles are 100+ years old. Though the second coming of them is much more interesting. The Tesla would replace the primary car in most US households without them hitting limitations on a regular basis. When I was younger and owned an unreliable vehicle, I rented a car for a cross-counrty trip. Why does everyone assume that's a dumb idea? So many places have unlimited miles, rent something better suited to a once-a-year or less event. If we accept that, then the Tesla is a very interesting vehicle. One of the few commercially successful electric cars. Not like the EV1, that was expected to be a failure, so it was never "sold", or so many hybrids they try to hint at the electricness of.
Your standards are low. Americans own over 1.2 cars per driver. So a 2-driver house has 2.4 cars, or about half of all 2-driver households have 3 cars.
With the statistics as they are, it seems you are the one that's out of touch.
Distracted/bad driving is already illegal. The point of these laws is to make it easier for lazy police to enforce the law. Like DUI, where you are breaking the law having an empty can of been on the floorboard of your back seat when you are sober, they make more regulations to make every possible distraction explicitly listed, as it's too hard to make the general laws stick in court.
The laws aren't about safety anymore. We'd be better off abolidhing all traffic laws and treating crashes as criminal acts (negligence, attempted murder, or whatever). Not that I'm recommending it, but that it's better than what we have now.
That's the point. If a company has both Architects and Developers there is an EXPLICIT role definition of decision maker and decision executor. Sure the Architect WAS a developer at one point, but isn't any longer.
Yes, but no. The architect should make guiding decisions, and developers should be able to decide how to implement the guiding decision. A developer who wants to make decisions should work up to being a Jr Architect/developer. Or just be happy that he gets to select which sort to use, and not focus on the "architectural guideline" that all inputs must be checked for the following input errors...
I'm glad I'm not the only one that noticed. An Architect is there to guide the whole, while the developers are there to make their pieces work.
Car Analogy: Bigger tires are cooler (cars going to 20" rims in some cases, from 13" being "normal" 20 years ago). So if you are a tire developer, do you try to make the best darned tire/rim decisions you can? What happens when there are other concerns? The developer should be in on all the decisions on brakes? The developer should be in all the meetings on body? The developer should be in all the discussions on suspension?
No, they just focus on their part, and if an architect says "minimum 15in rim, maximum diameter 26in, offset of +2in" then you take it and work with those "decisions" made. It doesn't matter if the minimum is picked because of the brake size, and max from fender/aerodynamics, and offset from suspension decisions. Yes, the architect should allow the designer to pick 4 or 5 lugs, but many decisions will be handed/inherited.
most of the decisions are made by architects as oppose to developers
Sounds like you either want to be an architect, but are unqualified, or you don't know what an architect does (or is supposed to do).
Skill up and move to architecture, that sounds like what you want to do. But you should probably stop hating on them before you become one of them. If you were a better developer, you'd have more respect for them. So maybe you should work on your skills for what you do now, first.
You'll find about a dozen people in this thread that are gonna say "follow your heart".
Those people are wrong.
Nope, you are wrong. Your mental health is more important than a little money. When you are happier, you family will be happier. If you don't like where you are, then you don't like it. Often, when it becomes such a chore, it will harm your personal life in other ways.
Many consider college to be a "base" education these days. So are you asserting that you and you alone get to determine what you think "base" is and who should get what money? And why are you equating "mandatory" with "base"?
I actually had the opposite where I grew up poor but my family at the time was very thrifty and tried to save and not spend all the time. We did get government assistance but learning about delayed gratification and how to enjoy the simple thing was important and has helped out immensely. Later in my childhood my parents got a divorce and my mother remarried to a better off individual and they were well into the upper quintile but spent every cent they made and then some so now they don't have a pot to piss in
Based on my experience with my wife, she didn't have any control of the money in the first marriage. and "delayed gratification" was "binge spend as soon as she could". And it was your father that controlled the finances and had the self control.
I guess the lesson is that being good with money is a personality trait, not a conscious choice, and you can come from upper or lower and still end up with either view on money.
The most "efficient" system for an electric car would be a heat-pump system. The problem is that they have peak efficiencies in a more narrow range, so the -40 performance of them is greatly reduced. No idea what they'd be for cost or weight for the demands of a car. Maybe with more insulation and some cooling/heating when the car is parked would reduce peak demand, but that has drawbacks as well.
The winter mix helps only a handful of cities, but the whole nation is subjected to it to help prevent local price spikes in the transition periods. Go read up on MTBE. Lots of people want that eliminated, and it's a main difference in winter fuel.
Automatics still shift. Either too often, or not often enough. The shifts can cause loss of control in very low grip situations (accelerating on ice, the 1-2 shift can cause a spin, and you don't have a good way of controling the smotheness of delivery of power, while a CVT would be smooth and linear in power delivery. And with a manual, you have complete control over the clutch and throttle and shift to take responsibility for it yourself.
The winter blend works more reliably in the cold but is not as efficiently burned.
It's not that it works more reliably, but that cold air holds the pollution better, leading to more "bad" days. So putting in things that reduce mileage, but improve emmissions was picked as a "good thing". Though the studies I saw on it didn't indicate that they took the deceased mileage into account when measuring the benefits.
When the combustion chamber is "cold" (as in cold starts) the coldness of the edges will lead to incomplete combustion. Also, oil that's too cold will increase parasitic friction losses. But even in "cold" for a person conditions, an engine that's been on for 30+ minutes will get warm enough inside the chamber. Also, friction losses outside the engine often increase with lower temperatures (transmission, bearings and such operate better in warmer temperatures), but that's a smaller effect.
But yes, they operate better in the cold because of the denser air and greater temperature difference pre/post combustion. So there are plusses and minuses to cold for both. Yes both. Electricity flows more efficiently at lower temperatures. It's the chemical storage that suffers. As battery technology changes, electric could become the premier cold-weather driver. Cold is better for gasoline right now because people like warm cabins, and waste heat from internal combustion is good at doing that with minimal additional "cost".
"Dad!!! Dad!!! the ice cream man is coming!! Can I buy an ice cream?"
He would just whip out his wallet and hand me a few dollar bills, without counting them, without ever expecting to be paid back.
That was nice at the time, but to this very day I have a problem with binge-purchasing.
My eldest is 7. I give him enough money for lunch for the week on Monday. He can buy treats with that money. If he buys more than one treat a day, he gets no lunch the last day. He's learning, though he still gets a packed lunch on Fridays if he ends up short. Hopefully he's learning to hold without spending to save for things he wants.
When I was 11, my mother would hand me her ATM card and have me run to the bank to get her cash. Sure, sometimes it would be for things like grabbing cash for the delivery pizza on the way, but it was a trust to get hold and be "safe" with money. The trick is spending when you need to, not when you want to.
My wife grew up poor. If you had $1, you spent it. Her spending expands to absorb all available funds. It drives me crazy. I have to hide money from her so she thinks we are poor, or she'd spend it all. Yes, she's made us miss a payment because she saw so much in the account she bought things we didn't need, taking us below the necessary house payment.
And do you think that elementary age students are "owed" an education on someone else's dime? Or should we just fund lower education through loans as well?
And there you go again: asserting that there should be a feature to allow some people to drive drunk.
That's the law..05 is legally drunk..10 is illegally drunk.
You're doing a good job of moving the goalposts carefully and slowly--and in multiple directions--but it doesn't work when the Internet has such a long memory.
I've never moved the goalposts. That you've deliberately misinterpreted older statements, even after being corrected indicates you are argumentative, not that I have the opinion you assert. I didn't anticipate some jackass tearing apart a casual sentence with the intent of proving me wrong without even bothering to understand what I meant. Yes, as you note, this is the Internet, and I should have presumed such jackassery. I only brought up alcohol because it's an easy sell.
Sleepy driving is a much bigger problem now. And an app like I describe would save lives, whether it's from pointing out drug driving to someone who didn't realize that the pills were that strong, someone who is driving too late and just wants to make it a couple more miles, or someone who is borderline drunk (near the legal limit), who gets confirmation of an impairment doesn't matter to the point. Measuring impairment is a much better way of gaging impairment than measuring a chemical in the blood or braeth and guessing what level the impairment would be.
Whether you presume that's because he doesn't like the tower is a matter of your opinion, not fact.
Whether *you* (bluefoxlucid) presume anything is based on opinion, as you have neither the training nor facts to come to any other conclusion. You've agreed with that. But have spent paragraphs trying to explain how agreeing with me isn't an agreement.
You also don't understand acting. And yes, I have acted professionally, and you *can* smile genuinely when lying. It doesn't matter if you have electrodes directly wired to the muscles to sense whether they are being triggered. It's possible to summon an emotion unrelated to your current thoughts and actions. Good actors can do that at will. Psychopaths do it better than others, as they don't have conflicting emotions. So I'd presume a CEO (likely a psychopath), would be able to do it better than you.
No, I'm asserting that your assertion that it is not possible to discern the CEO's motives--or probable motives--is false.
I made no such claim. I responded to someone else who indicated he had some insight into the matter. Anyone with any such insight is likely not legally able to discuss it at the moment, so I made the logical and correct assumption that he didn't have the ability to act on the theoretical he was asserting was trivial.
I think it would be good for sending back HE3 canisters from the moon
to power HE3 fusion reactors like the one at University of Wisconsin.
Are you sure we shouldn't have a treaty with the Moon banning any and all railguns? It would seem to just be an invitation for disaster, given the history of fiction involving rail guns on the moon pointed at the Earth.
So are you asserting that you have enough training and facts bout this to make some judgement in this case? If not, then you are just agreeing with me in a most disagreeable manner.
Slashdot Mirror
Not a world record, didn't do it twice, not a "production vehicle". Tesla is more interesting because you can actually buy one. The Hennessey is a limited run that looks to be all sold out. You can only get one used, not go out and buy an available new model. When Hennessey makes 500+ of them, give us a call.
Elecrtic vehicles are 100+ years old. Though the second coming of them is much more interesting. The Tesla would replace the primary car in most US households without them hitting limitations on a regular basis. When I was younger and owned an unreliable vehicle, I rented a car for a cross-counrty trip. Why does everyone assume that's a dumb idea? So many places have unlimited miles, rent something better suited to a once-a-year or less event. If we accept that, then the Tesla is a very interesting vehicle. One of the few commercially successful electric cars. Not like the EV1, that was expected to be a failure, so it was never "sold", or so many hybrids they try to hint at the electricness of.
Are the ones discussing the fires "slasvertising"? If that were happening, wouldn't the stories be more favorable?
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/ve...
Your standards are low. Americans own over 1.2 cars per driver. So a 2-driver house has 2.4 cars, or about half of all 2-driver households have 3 cars.
With the statistics as they are, it seems you are the one that's out of touch.
CR is paywalled. Have to subscribe to read the full report.
In most cases, that was dictated to them by golf deals mady by the CIO/CFO.
Distracted/bad driving is already illegal. The point of these laws is to make it easier for lazy police to enforce the law. Like DUI, where you are breaking the law having an empty can of been on the floorboard of your back seat when you are sober, they make more regulations to make every possible distraction explicitly listed, as it's too hard to make the general laws stick in court.
The laws aren't about safety anymore. We'd be better off abolidhing all traffic laws and treating crashes as criminal acts (negligence, attempted murder, or whatever). Not that I'm recommending it, but that it's better than what we have now.
That's the point. If a company has both Architects and Developers there is an EXPLICIT role definition of decision maker and decision executor. Sure the Architect WAS a developer at one point, but isn't any longer.
Yes, but no. The architect should make guiding decisions, and developers should be able to decide how to implement the guiding decision. A developer who wants to make decisions should work up to being a Jr Architect/developer. Or just be happy that he gets to select which sort to use, and not focus on the "architectural guideline" that all inputs must be checked for the following input errors...
I'm glad I'm not the only one that noticed. An Architect is there to guide the whole, while the developers are there to make their pieces work.
Car Analogy: Bigger tires are cooler (cars going to 20" rims in some cases, from 13" being "normal" 20 years ago). So if you are a tire developer, do you try to make the best darned tire/rim decisions you can? What happens when there are other concerns? The developer should be in on all the decisions on brakes? The developer should be in all the meetings on body? The developer should be in all the discussions on suspension?
No, they just focus on their part, and if an architect says "minimum 15in rim, maximum diameter 26in, offset of +2in" then you take it and work with those "decisions" made. It doesn't matter if the minimum is picked because of the brake size, and max from fender/aerodynamics, and offset from suspension decisions. Yes, the architect should allow the designer to pick 4 or 5 lugs, but many decisions will be handed/inherited.
most of the decisions are made by architects as oppose to developers
Sounds like you either want to be an architect, but are unqualified, or you don't know what an architect does (or is supposed to do).
Skill up and move to architecture, that sounds like what you want to do. But you should probably stop hating on them before you become one of them. If you were a better developer, you'd have more respect for them. So maybe you should work on your skills for what you do now, first.
You'll find about a dozen people in this thread that are gonna say "follow your heart".
Those people are wrong.
Nope, you are wrong. Your mental health is more important than a little money. When you are happier, you family will be happier. If you don't like where you are, then you don't like it. Often, when it becomes such a chore, it will harm your personal life in other ways.
Many consider college to be a "base" education these days. So are you asserting that you and you alone get to determine what you think "base" is and who should get what money? And why are you equating "mandatory" with "base"?
Yup, but not a lunch he decides. If he wants to choose the lunch, he must save.
I actually had the opposite where I grew up poor but my family at the time was very thrifty and tried to save and not spend all the time. We did get government assistance but learning about delayed gratification and how to enjoy the simple thing was important and has helped out immensely. Later in my childhood my parents got a divorce and my mother remarried to a better off individual and they were well into the upper quintile but spent every cent they made and then some so now they don't have a pot to piss in
Based on my experience with my wife, she didn't have any control of the money in the first marriage. and "delayed gratification" was "binge spend as soon as she could". And it was your father that controlled the finances and had the self control.
I guess the lesson is that being good with money is a personality trait, not a conscious choice, and you can come from upper or lower and still end up with either view on money.
The most "efficient" system for an electric car would be a heat-pump system. The problem is that they have peak efficiencies in a more narrow range, so the -40 performance of them is greatly reduced. No idea what they'd be for cost or weight for the demands of a car. Maybe with more insulation and some cooling/heating when the car is parked would reduce peak demand, but that has drawbacks as well.
The winter mix helps only a handful of cities, but the whole nation is subjected to it to help prevent local price spikes in the transition periods. Go read up on MTBE. Lots of people want that eliminated, and it's a main difference in winter fuel.
Automatics still shift. Either too often, or not often enough. The shifts can cause loss of control in very low grip situations (accelerating on ice, the 1-2 shift can cause a spin, and you don't have a good way of controling the smotheness of delivery of power, while a CVT would be smooth and linear in power delivery. And with a manual, you have complete control over the clutch and throttle and shift to take responsibility for it yourself.
The winter blend works more reliably in the cold but is not as efficiently burned.
It's not that it works more reliably, but that cold air holds the pollution better, leading to more "bad" days. So putting in things that reduce mileage, but improve emmissions was picked as a "good thing". Though the studies I saw on it didn't indicate that they took the deceased mileage into account when measuring the benefits.
When the combustion chamber is "cold" (as in cold starts) the coldness of the edges will lead to incomplete combustion. Also, oil that's too cold will increase parasitic friction losses. But even in "cold" for a person conditions, an engine that's been on for 30+ minutes will get warm enough inside the chamber. Also, friction losses outside the engine often increase with lower temperatures (transmission, bearings and such operate better in warmer temperatures), but that's a smaller effect.
But yes, they operate better in the cold because of the denser air and greater temperature difference pre/post combustion. So there are plusses and minuses to cold for both. Yes both. Electricity flows more efficiently at lower temperatures. It's the chemical storage that suffers. As battery technology changes, electric could become the premier cold-weather driver. Cold is better for gasoline right now because people like warm cabins, and waste heat from internal combustion is good at doing that with minimal additional "cost".
"Dad!!! Dad!!! the ice cream man is coming!! Can I buy an ice cream?" He would just whip out his wallet and hand me a few dollar bills, without counting them, without ever expecting to be paid back. That was nice at the time, but to this very day I have a problem with binge-purchasing.
My eldest is 7. I give him enough money for lunch for the week on Monday. He can buy treats with that money. If he buys more than one treat a day, he gets no lunch the last day. He's learning, though he still gets a packed lunch on Fridays if he ends up short. Hopefully he's learning to hold without spending to save for things he wants.
When I was 11, my mother would hand me her ATM card and have me run to the bank to get her cash. Sure, sometimes it would be for things like grabbing cash for the delivery pizza on the way, but it was a trust to get hold and be "safe" with money. The trick is spending when you need to, not when you want to.
My wife grew up poor. If you had $1, you spent it. Her spending expands to absorb all available funds. It drives me crazy. I have to hide money from her so she thinks we are poor, or she'd spend it all. Yes, she's made us miss a payment because she saw so much in the account she bought things we didn't need, taking us below the necessary house payment.
And do you think that elementary age students are "owed" an education on someone else's dime? Or should we just fund lower education through loans as well?
0.5 is not illegal per se; it is illegal if you're pulled over for driving weird.
So you've never heard of DUI checkpoints?
And there you go again: asserting that there should be a feature to allow some people to drive drunk.
That's the law. .05 is legally drunk. .10 is illegally drunk.
You're doing a good job of moving the goalposts carefully and slowly--and in multiple directions--but it doesn't work when the Internet has such a long memory.
I've never moved the goalposts. That you've deliberately misinterpreted older statements, even after being corrected indicates you are argumentative, not that I have the opinion you assert. I didn't anticipate some jackass tearing apart a casual sentence with the intent of proving me wrong without even bothering to understand what I meant. Yes, as you note, this is the Internet, and I should have presumed such jackassery. I only brought up alcohol because it's an easy sell.
Sleepy driving is a much bigger problem now. And an app like I describe would save lives, whether it's from pointing out drug driving to someone who didn't realize that the pills were that strong, someone who is driving too late and just wants to make it a couple more miles, or someone who is borderline drunk (near the legal limit), who gets confirmation of an impairment doesn't matter to the point. Measuring impairment is a much better way of gaging impairment than measuring a chemical in the blood or braeth and guessing what level the impairment would be.
Whether you presume that's because he doesn't like the tower is a matter of your opinion, not fact.
Whether *you* (bluefoxlucid) presume anything is based on opinion, as you have neither the training nor facts to come to any other conclusion. You've agreed with that. But have spent paragraphs trying to explain how agreeing with me isn't an agreement.
You also don't understand acting. And yes, I have acted professionally, and you *can* smile genuinely when lying. It doesn't matter if you have electrodes directly wired to the muscles to sense whether they are being triggered. It's possible to summon an emotion unrelated to your current thoughts and actions. Good actors can do that at will. Psychopaths do it better than others, as they don't have conflicting emotions. So I'd presume a CEO (likely a psychopath), would be able to do it better than you.
No, I'm asserting that your assertion that it is not possible to discern the CEO's motives--or probable motives--is false.
I made no such claim. I responded to someone else who indicated he had some insight into the matter. Anyone with any such insight is likely not legally able to discuss it at the moment, so I made the logical and correct assumption that he didn't have the ability to act on the theoretical he was asserting was trivial.
I think it would be good for sending back HE3 canisters from the moon to power HE3 fusion reactors like the one at University of Wisconsin.
Are you sure we shouldn't have a treaty with the Moon banning any and all railguns? It would seem to just be an invitation for disaster, given the history of fiction involving rail guns on the moon pointed at the Earth.
So are you asserting that you have enough training and facts bout this to make some judgement in this case? If not, then you are just agreeing with me in a most disagreeable manner.