Re:Magnusson Moss Warranty Act
on
Hack Your Car
·
· Score: 1
You have 16" brakes inside of 17" wheels? not much room for a caliper in there.
And those are damn skinny tires for that much power, it would seem to me.
Re:Magnusson Moss Warranty Act
on
Hack Your Car
·
· Score: 1
A lot of supercars use P Zero Rosso Pirellis, they're not THAT much money. In fact, you can get very high speed rated tires for less than $200 each.
The reason that some cars (ferraris) come with amazingly expensive tires is that they are designed for a very specific suspension geometry and handling for that particular car, not because they're rated for super-high speeds.
And a lot of people drive sportscars on the road, as well as track events, particularly porsches, so there *is* a reason for the car to be insanely "over" powered.
Re:Magnusson Moss Warranty Act
on
Hack Your Car
·
· Score: 1
Actually the both have V10s, not 12s. But you're right, they were tuned for different situations.
However, you can definately wear out a car modifying stock ECU programming. Just run the car lean (too little gas) and kiss your headgasket byebye.
As far as 'underclocked' cars go, there are LOT of auto makers that detune their cars. It's very very common, all in the name of marketing.
That might be a minor point to some people, but I think the number of people that actually CHOOSE to run linux is far far less than people that choose a Mac. Very few people say "hey, I'll get a new PC, I think I'll run linux." Most of the wins in the linux market are from installations where people have no choice... enterprise and business accounts.
They've stated a number of times that they paid full price for them. Plus, they traded these machines back to Apple for Xserves, so they're not making a profit in the getting-a-check-from-Apple sense of the word.
I believe refurb products have a 90 day warranty from Apple.
"massive wear and tear" is also known as "verified reliability"' to some people.
I got the impression that his post was "what if the computer was like a real ferrari."
Which makes a lot more sense, given all his little bullet points.
"When it's old, it's no classic, it's slow and out of date and looks lame compared to some cheap POS."
This one is true for laptops, but hardly for Ferraris. There are very very few Ferraris that are NOT classics.
It's very sad for me to see what's happened to Real. I worked there for over a year recently, and I really wish they could turn things around move back to what they did well back in the day.
They need to: 1) fire the entire marketing team. They're horrible 2) lose any of the quick-money things they do (ads, tricking people into paying for the Plus player or *pass accounts) and focus on rebuilding a quality user base. 3) Throw away all the 325 million customer records they have, and stop the spam. 4) Own up to the fact that most people hate them, and the only users that don't have a problem with Real are the ones that don't know them well enough yet. You can only burn so many users until they come back to burn you.
The saddest thing is that the people who work there genuinely care. They are really talented, and they all know what they SHOULD be doing in order to succeed. Especially the people that work on the actual player. But things can't change until the word comes down from the top. Rob needs to have an epiphany and turn the ship around fast, otherwise they'll be selling what's left to Sony and AOL.
I agree that they are frequently easier to read, especially at a glance. But ease of use (and reading) has little to do with intuitiveness. Once you've learned how, it's very easy, but that learning how is the tricky part.
This is all a little silly, since learning to tell time with either kind of clock is a very basic skill that most everyone learns. If you can't read, not being able to read a clock quickly is the LEAST of your worries.
Come on now... I agree it's more intuitive for illiterate or dyslexic people, but that's a pretty small minority.
Wit someone down with an analog clock who has never seen one before, and tell me how intuitive it is. How did you learn which hand was the hours? Did you know that the first time you saw one? How did you know how the hands moved? How did you know that they moved at all?
Your logic that it's graphical, therefor intuitive is flawed. I can make lots of graphic representations of time... but I doubt you'll understand them without me explaining them.
You know, at first that seems extreme to fire someone like that, but then I started to think about it.
Imagine walking on to base with a digital camera, laptop computer, and cell phone. All of them strapped to your chest so you could take pictures and send them instantly. And all of them small enough to easily hide from anyone.
I wouldn't rely on ANY outsourced firm for that kind of work, much less one half way around the world that doesn't speak my language. It's not a matter of them being Indian, Jewish, Chinese, French, or Dutch, it's a matter of them not being able to communicate with me on the same level as someone in my own company, or at least someone I can meet with in person and have a easy conversation with. It's hard enough to explain ideas about design to someone you know in person who speaks your language. Trying to communicate that to someone far away who doesn't is harder. And that hardship is rarely worth the savings I might see in what I pay them.
That's the kind of thing that shows itself in the end. Outsourced software is of lesser quality because of the communication gaps, not because of the quality of the code that the people in other countries write. There are ways around it, but they are expensive, which is exactly what the outsourcing tried to avoid in the first place.
I think there's a bit of everything in that; some actual bad code, some poor communications, some just about everything.
Bingo. The quality of software has little to do with the quality of some basic chunks of code. It's about how that's put together, designed, and implemented. If outsourcing is managed badly, and you rely on people outside of project management to tie it all together, it's probably going to suck, even if all the routines and algorithms are flawless.
It depends so much on the type of product, it's almost not even worth talking about. Would I rely on an indian firm to write thousands of math and science routines? Yeah. Would I rely on them to design the whole product, interface, integration, and human interaction? Not likely.
"bad code" makes very little difference compared to "bad management and design" when it comes to most large products.
afaik, the patent office does not look for prior art, they look for prior patents. It would be nearly impossible for them to scour the world for general prior art in each patent they grant, but they can easily look over other patents.
I believe it is up to other inventors to bring up their prior art when disputing a patent.
Applications (running or not), and minimized windows: bring up the window
What window? If the application isn't running, it doesn't have a window. And even if it is running, it might not.
So dragging the window out of the dock should do the same thing as clicking on it? Yet dragging an application out moves it? And how do you get rid of the icon in the dock without moving the application? And like I said before, the desktop isn't always visible, you can't move an application into a document window.
It's only straightforward until you start thinking about all the different ways this change would affect things. Making actions performed on icons in the dock affect the actual file/application is a slippery slope, and very very dangerous.
Correct. They are simply very very large TIFFs.
The UI in general is based on display PDF, so parts of it could very well be vector based (fonts, of course.) but the icons are not.
I think you missed my point. I wasn't complaining about the dock. (I like the dock) I was pointing out the problems with the paradigm of "dragging something off the dock moves it to the desktop" that the original poster suggested... and giving examples of all the things you can drag off the dock... and why moving them to the desktop was not possible.
If dragging some things moves them, yet dragging other things doesn't... and some things can't be dragged at all? that would be a useability nightmare. Right now it's consistent. drag it out... it's not in the dock anymore.
The problem with that is the dock icons can represent at least five different things:
Running applications, non-running applications, folders, files, and open windows (minimized.)
So by moving things to the desktop... what are you asking it to do? Move the application? create an alias? move a window to the desktop (can't really do that.) move a document to the desktop? a folder?
Also, you can drag a dock item off to somewhere other than the desktop, such as a document or application window.
A fundamental idea of the dock is that it's not the actual file/program/window. It is just a representation of it, manipulating the dock icon of an object does not actually move, delete, edit, etc. the object. making the dock affect the actual item makes it dangerously powerful.
Slashdot Mirror
You have 16" brakes inside of 17" wheels? not much room for a caliper in there. And those are damn skinny tires for that much power, it would seem to me.
The reason that some cars (ferraris) come with amazingly expensive tires is that they are designed for a very specific suspension geometry and handling for that particular car, not because they're rated for super-high speeds.
And a lot of people drive sportscars on the road, as well as track events, particularly porsches, so there *is* a reason for the car to be insanely "over" powered.
However, you can definately wear out a car modifying stock ECU programming. Just run the car lean (too little gas) and kiss your headgasket byebye.
As far as 'underclocked' cars go, there are LOT of auto makers that detune their cars. It's very very common, all in the name of marketing.
That might be a minor point to some people, but I think the number of people that actually CHOOSE to run linux is far far less than people that choose a Mac. Very few people say "hey, I'll get a new PC, I think I'll run linux." Most of the wins in the linux market are from installations where people have no choice... enterprise and business accounts.
I believe refurb products have a 90 day warranty from Apple.
"massive wear and tear" is also known as "verified reliability"' to some people.
I got the impression that his post was "what if the computer was like a real ferrari." Which makes a lot more sense, given all his little bullet points.
"When it's old, it's no classic, it's slow and out of date and looks lame compared to some cheap POS." This one is true for laptops, but hardly for Ferraris. There are very very few Ferraris that are NOT classics.
Not to mention the giant MS ad breaking up the slashdot article. So yes, they do.
It's very sad for me to see what's happened to Real. I worked there for over a year recently, and I really wish they could turn things around move back to what they did well back in the day.
They need to:
1) fire the entire marketing team. They're horrible
2) lose any of the quick-money things they do (ads, tricking people into paying for the Plus player or *pass accounts) and focus on rebuilding a quality user base.
3) Throw away all the 325 million customer records they have, and stop the spam.
4) Own up to the fact that most people hate them, and the only users that don't have a problem with Real are the ones that don't know them well enough yet. You can only burn so many users until they come back to burn you.
The saddest thing is that the people who work there genuinely care. They are really talented, and they all know what they SHOULD be doing in order to succeed. Especially the people that work on the actual player. But things can't change until the word comes down from the top. Rob needs to have an epiphany and turn the ship around fast, otherwise they'll be selling what's left to Sony and AOL.
This is all a little silly, since learning to tell time with either kind of clock is a very basic skill that most everyone learns. If you can't read, not being able to read a clock quickly is the LEAST of your worries.
Wit someone down with an analog clock who has never seen one before, and tell me how intuitive it is. How did you learn which hand was the hours? Did you know that the first time you saw one? How did you know how the hands moved? How did you know that they moved at all?
Your logic that it's graphical, therefor intuitive is flawed. I can make lots of graphic representations of time... but I doubt you'll understand them without me explaining them.
How would you fire a visitor? Fire at a visitor I can understand.
Imagine walking on to base with a digital camera, laptop computer, and cell phone. All of them strapped to your chest so you could take pictures and send them instantly. And all of them small enough to easily hide from anyone.
Doesn't seem so extreme anymore, does it?
I wouldn't rely on ANY outsourced firm for that kind of work, much less one half way around the world that doesn't speak my language. It's not a matter of them being Indian, Jewish, Chinese, French, or Dutch, it's a matter of them not being able to communicate with me on the same level as someone in my own company, or at least someone I can meet with in person and have a easy conversation with. It's hard enough to explain ideas about design to someone you know in person who speaks your language. Trying to communicate that to someone far away who doesn't is harder. And that hardship is rarely worth the savings I might see in what I pay them.
That's the kind of thing that shows itself in the end. Outsourced software is of lesser quality because of the communication gaps, not because of the quality of the code that the people in other countries write. There are ways around it, but they are expensive, which is exactly what the outsourcing tried to avoid in the first place.
Bingo. The quality of software has little to do with the quality of some basic chunks of code. It's about how that's put together, designed, and implemented. If outsourcing is managed badly, and you rely on people outside of project management to tie it all together, it's probably going to suck, even if all the routines and algorithms are flawless.
It depends so much on the type of product, it's almost not even worth talking about. Would I rely on an indian firm to write thousands of math and science routines? Yeah. Would I rely on them to design the whole product, interface, integration, and human interaction? Not likely.
"bad code" makes very little difference compared to "bad management and design" when it comes to most large products.
Didja not read the article? Do you not know how DNS works? Are you being sarcastic? Paranoid? Stupid?
I believe it is up to other inventors to bring up their prior art when disputing a patent.
I thought the comment was about filling up the whole drive.
1TB = 1,000,000 MBs
USB 1.1 = (real world rate for data copy) 1MB/sec.
that's 1 million seconds to fill it with USB 1.1. 16000 minutes... 266 hours. 11 days.
Hello? Did you not read the other comments in this entry at ALL? they are defining it as 1,000,000 MB.
Not to mention that USB1.1 is probably more like .8MB/s in the real world.... TWO weeks.
Applications (running or not), and minimized windows: bring up the window
What window? If the application isn't running, it doesn't have a window. And even if it is running, it might not.
So dragging the window out of the dock should do the same thing as clicking on it? Yet dragging an application out moves it? And how do you get rid of the icon in the dock without moving the application? And like I said before, the desktop isn't always visible, you can't move an application into a document window.
It's only straightforward until you start thinking about all the different ways this change would affect things. Making actions performed on icons in the dock affect the actual file/application is a slippery slope, and very very dangerous.
No, I really appreciated it too. Funnier than any of the typical slashdot cliches.
Correct. They are simply very very large TIFFs. The UI in general is based on display PDF, so parts of it could very well be vector based (fonts, of course.) but the icons are not.
I think you missed my point. I wasn't complaining about the dock. (I like the dock) I was pointing out the problems with the paradigm of "dragging something off the dock moves it to the desktop" that the original poster suggested... and giving examples of all the things you can drag off the dock... and why moving them to the desktop was not possible.
If dragging some things moves them, yet dragging other things doesn't... and some things can't be dragged at all? that would be a useability nightmare. Right now it's consistent. drag it out... it's not in the dock anymore.
The problem with that is the dock icons can represent at least five different things:
Running applications, non-running applications, folders, files, and open windows (minimized.)
So by moving things to the desktop... what are you asking it to do? Move the application? create an alias? move a window to the desktop (can't really do that.) move a document to the desktop? a folder?
Also, you can drag a dock item off to somewhere other than the desktop, such as a document or application window.
A fundamental idea of the dock is that it's not the actual file/program/window. It is just a representation of it, manipulating the dock icon of an object does not actually move, delete, edit, etc. the object. making the dock affect the actual item makes it dangerously powerful.