An engine is most efficient at a particular power output and RPM, yes. Of course, the entire model of a moving car is different: it takes very little power (something like 20hp for a 4 door Sedan, 45hp for bigger cars is generous) to cruise at 60mph. The time spent cruising being much greater than the time spent accelerating, cruising at 20hp on high-charged battery and 45hp to drive the alternator harder when your battery is below i.e. 70% would simply avoid gearing down on the gas engine and burning fuel.
The idea isn't so much to run the ENGINE efficiently as it is to use the least amount of fuel to go the largest distance; a gas engine can probably generate well more than enough power to keep the batteries fully charged gently cruising on the highway, much less hauling ass at peak power. So do I want to kick up the engine to dump 200-400 ftlb of torque on the wheels for passing power; or do I want to roll that up with the electric motor and then recharge the batteries while cruising near idle?
The issue is you have to do one or the other, or you have to switch to a proper gas generator with electric transmission like a train. The problem changes when you can just kick in a diesel engine at peak efficiency and recharge the batteries, relying on the electric motor for 100% of the power; when you want to get torque from the engine itself, you start running into weird engineering concepts and things that don't make sense.
It's better than taking it and going, "Oh, thanks. Well, this is nice and I'll keep it but it's really not so good, so I think I'll just send you on your way." They took stuff, they paid, and they told everyone else "well we didn't think this out completely, so let's not do that anymore."
Google paid out for those poor results, too; and then said they're not doing that anymore. They stood by their offer; however they've decided to modify the terms going forward. Retroactive modification is irritating; otherwise it's just every day life.
They just need a small scale MEC like in the Varia suit. It'd scrape atmospheric dust and use antimatter chain reaction annihilation to generate heat from the complete destruction of matter (i.e. 100% matter-energy conversion). Then you use a thermocouple or heat engine.
The passphrase is no the ecnryption key. The passphrase is simply used to ID valid users.
Each session generates a unique session key. If you and I are connected to same wifi hotspot w/ WPA2 and "free" as the passphrase you can't decrypt my traffic and I can't decrypt yours.
How is that session key exchanged? What secret key is already known between Alice and Bob (Authenticating Client and Hotspot) that isn't known by Eve (third party eavesdropper) to do the initial set-up? Exchanging an RSA public key first is not secure; see EtheRape for examples of shit that makes you talk to it instead of the hot spot, MitM style.
No this is the dumbest idea ever. Encryption U Key == Plaintext. Now we'll just have sniffers automatically trying the WPA key 'free' to decrypt-- oh that works. Cool. Even if everyone gets a session key, you just wait for someone to re-authenticate and listen in on the handshake; or someone new to come along at least. You now have a smaller attack window-- or you can de-authenticate someone somehow, which is doable.
all I want out of people is a game of Go. And a hug. And serve me a hamburger and don't charge me $3.95 for it; it's a damn hamburger, why is it so expensive?
Eh, I give up on everything I start out of boredom. Including talking to my friends. I'm not really interested in a social life; I require solitude or I'll go insane.
There is a logical fallacy between people being obligated to do something and people having a moral imperative to do something. An obligation is contractual (laws are an obligation as contractual to your continued citizenship in this country; if you don't like it, move somewhere with different laws). A moral imperative is something you should do, but can't be accused of not doing in any way other than academically: sure, you don't give every hobo you see food, but that's not going to get you arrested.
My taxes pay for food stamps. If I don't pay my taxes, I am refusing to buy hobos food; thus I am now being arrested for refusing to buy hobos food.
Social services are valuable, at least it can be argued they are. Raising taxes and taking more money because "There's Still Hungry People" to continue to try to solve everyone's problems by making them everyone else's is walking fail.
One to ten thousand? Really, or not really? Are you sure it's not actually 15:1 in the other direction? That's what I would guess if I, like you, were pulling numbers out of thin air.
You haven't seen the place I live. When I moved, I went to the liquor store the first saturday after I had my apartment. Got out of my car around 1pm, some guy walks up to me and yells from about 20 feet away asking if I wanna buy some crack. A week in, somebody got shot to death. Hell, I have a dent in my car from someone who hit it and ran a red light I was waiting at... people were firing bullets across the back of my car at the time. They weren't shooting at me, so I don't see why I have to care, so I just waited for the light to change.
People don't raise their kids here. The kids hit 5th grade and can't read. You know, those things, books? They can't do anything with them. Maybe wipe their asses.
Yes, I'm pretty sure I'm living in a failed welfare state.
But, I guess you chose Option 2: fuck that kid, it ain't his fault, but fuck him anyway.
Can't save everybody. The term "reasonable attempt" doesn't mean "spend 30 seconds getting the room clean, and 6 hours on your knees trying to scrub that last speck of dust out from the corner." Our society has the reverse problem though: we start on the little speck in the corner and obsess over it while the rest of the room rots.
I guess, in this democracy, I can't join you in telling that kind that he should fuck off and fail in life. Still, I'm glad that we have distilled our political differences to this clear difference: you say fuck that child, I say don't fuck that child. Okay. Happy voting, I hope people like me outnumber people like you.
That's reasonable. Of course, I'm equally entitled to tell you you're wrong, for above cited reasons and with above analogy.
I have a natural talent for math, for learning languages, and apparently for singing and playing instruments. I never practice, really. I'm 25 and just discovering that all this shit comes insanely easy for me if I devote an hour a week to it... I might devote 10 minutes every 2-3 weeks.
You know, maybe I should set some time aside to not only improve my game of Go; but also set my foundation for Algebra and Geometry, for the guitar and piano, and for 6 or 7 languages. I have a good German foundation I've built up pretty much lazily over a couple months; if I read a book in German (with dictionary) I should be set. I started a Japanese course and in 6 days I had a better basic grasp than some teenage girl that's been studying for a month and a half... half hour a day of study.
If I did that, maybe I'd be a fantastic person poised to gain much more social popularity and perhaps even a better job (or a wide selection of different kinds of jobs) rather than a loser with a boring desk job any moron can do. Oh, I approach my desk job skillfully and artistically, not just brute forcing my way through simple problems but elegantly, quickly, and efficiently toppling them in ways that give me tools for future use (knowledge, shell scripts, better educated coworkers because I turn a semi-simple task into a team effort with a skillful approach...). But it's still a simple job.
It seems obvious to me that I was born better than most people I meet since most tasks they find difficult are simple to me. It's also obvious that I never bother to try, though, so I fail at just about everything. So who IS better? Why am I envying people that obviously can't compete with me?
There are no perfect models for the world. Attempts often lead to more damage. Arguments in this vein often draw counter-arguments that, while valid, are special cases; there are a lot of unfortunate single moms where I live, in a city full of drug dealers and criminals and people that are just plain old fuck-ups. So for every 1 single mom here there's 10,000 4th-generation welfare con artists that never even tried to dig their way out of their shit situation. I would rather sacrifice the 1 single mom than subsidize the 10,000 fuckups.
Connect the one argument to the other. Saying "I don't have a PC, I have a Mac" is technically incorrect but contemporarily understood; saying "I have a PC" is understood to mean "I don't have a mac."
Also.
In contemporary usage, the term democracy refers to a government chosen by the people, whether it is direct or representative.[77] The term republic has many different meanings, but today often refers to a representative democracy with an elected head of state, such as a president, serving for a limited term, in contrast to states with a hereditary monarch as a head of state, even if these states also are representative democracies with an elected or appointed head of government such as a prime minister.[78]
The Founding Fathers of the United States rarely praised and often criticized democracy, which in their time tended to specifically mean direct democracy; James Madison argued, especially in The Federalist No. 10, that what distinguished a democracy from a republic was that the former became weaker as it got larger and suffered more violently from the effects of faction, whereas a republic could get stronger as it got larger and combats faction by its very structure.
What was critical to American values, John Adams insisted,[79] was that the government be "bound by fixed laws, which the people have a voice in making, and a right to defend." As Benjamin Franklin was exiting after writing the U.S. constitution, a woman asked him "Well, Doctor, what have we got—a republic or a monarchy?". He replied "A republic—if you can keep it."[80]
So you are telling me that some people stride proudly from their mothers' vagina to join the workforce and supply useful labor to society?
You are not making a logical argument. What person has ever been born that wasn't completely defenseless; completely useless; and completely incapable of caring for themselves?
But you are arguing that there's no moral imperative to help people that need help. That's not a position argued by any major organization.
No, I'm arguing that there's no moral imperative to rob Peter to buy food for Paul. Put your own money up or shut up; don't decide that I'm not nice for hoarding my riches and you need to take them away from me and give them to other people. Robin Hood was a bandit and a crook.
If you drew a venn diagram of Mac vs PC, you'd find that Mac is completely inside the PC circle. You'd still be an idiot for responding to "I have a Mac, not a PC" with "U R DUM, U HAS A PC LOL."
Equal != identical. If you are born to a rich black family, you are as poor and worthless as a poor white infant. You come out of your mother's vagina covered in goop, screaming, and unable to do any damn work. People are not "quite different" when they're born; they all come out "quite the same." They're different later, at which point we should stop calling them "equals."
The second viewpoint says: "I work, I have acquired skills that are useful, because of market conditions I am in demand, I get money, I buy my own stuff. You don't work, you have skills that apply well in an over-saturated market, thus you get paid less and you have trouble finding a job, as you are too lazy to acquire a new skill-- unless you're just too lazy to work in general. Don't touch my money, it's mine."
The first viewpoint says, "Hey, you can afford a shiny Ferrari. You don't NEED a Ferrari. Ferrari cars are shitty anyway! Buy a used Toyota instead! Give me your money, because I NEED it! My needs are more important than your wants!"
Assuming that you need something and thus this is important enough to forcefully (as in against their will and desire) deprive someone of something they rightfully own is called "entitlement." You need to eat, you have a right to live; but does that mean that people around you NEED to give you food if you can't afford it yourself? Such an assumption also implies that you can be thankless and, indeed, that anyone who gives you food when you are starving deserves zero credit because they're obligated to anyway, so why does this make them a better person?
A rich lawyer or CEO is NOT the equal of a McDonalds burger flipper that studied liberal arts in college. The rich lawyer has a job, the CEO has a job, and they are both rich; the burger flipper cannot argue a court case reliably or run a company (or gracefully drop it if it's destined to fail-- some CEOs are repeatedly hired by companies that are winding down to make this process graceful; others just suck at their jobs). Likewise the lawyer probably would need some training to flip burgers; though this is a lot less training and a LOT less upkeep than entering and staying in the legal profession.
Men are born equal. Naked, ugly, screaming, and completely dependent on someone else's charity. Even kings. They don't stay that way, one way or another; even a shitty king will occasionally get his head cut off.
We live in a representative democratic republic. The united states is a republic of state representatives: it's individual states (meaning "countries") under one larger governing body, just like the European Union. The de-facto meaning of "democracy" is "direct democracy," where individuals represent their opinions; instead, we elect representatives to govern our states and to present our political stance to the federal governing body.
It's like saying I have a Mac and you saying I have a PC. Yes, a Mac is a PC. And yes, you are an idiot for making the argument.
Slashdot Mirror
An engine is most efficient at a particular power output and RPM, yes. Of course, the entire model of a moving car is different: it takes very little power (something like 20hp for a 4 door Sedan, 45hp for bigger cars is generous) to cruise at 60mph. The time spent cruising being much greater than the time spent accelerating, cruising at 20hp on high-charged battery and 45hp to drive the alternator harder when your battery is below i.e. 70% would simply avoid gearing down on the gas engine and burning fuel.
The idea isn't so much to run the ENGINE efficiently as it is to use the least amount of fuel to go the largest distance; a gas engine can probably generate well more than enough power to keep the batteries fully charged gently cruising on the highway, much less hauling ass at peak power. So do I want to kick up the engine to dump 200-400 ftlb of torque on the wheels for passing power; or do I want to roll that up with the electric motor and then recharge the batteries while cruising near idle?
The issue is you have to do one or the other, or you have to switch to a proper gas generator with electric transmission like a train. The problem changes when you can just kick in a diesel engine at peak efficiency and recharge the batteries, relying on the electric motor for 100% of the power; when you want to get torque from the engine itself, you start running into weird engineering concepts and things that don't make sense.
Stupid design. Should be using electric to accelerate (instant torque) and gas to cruise (geared up high, near idle).
a diesel gas turbine (i.e. fuel oil turbine) is more efficient than your typical diesel generator. It's effectively a jet engine.
It's better than taking it and going, "Oh, thanks. Well, this is nice and I'll keep it but it's really not so good, so I think I'll just send you on your way." They took stuff, they paid, and they told everyone else "well we didn't think this out completely, so let's not do that anymore."
Google paid out for those poor results, too; and then said they're not doing that anymore. They stood by their offer; however they've decided to modify the terms going forward. Retroactive modification is irritating; otherwise it's just every day life.
They just need a small scale MEC like in the Varia suit. It'd scrape atmospheric dust and use antimatter chain reaction annihilation to generate heat from the complete destruction of matter (i.e. 100% matter-energy conversion). Then you use a thermocouple or heat engine.
+samusaran
Moreover, top 100? Who goes past page 1? If you don't see it immediately, you're searching wrong.
The passphrase is no the ecnryption key. The passphrase is simply used to ID valid users.
Each session generates a unique session key. If you and I are connected to same wifi hotspot w/ WPA2 and "free" as the passphrase you can't decrypt my traffic and I can't decrypt yours.
How is that session key exchanged? What secret key is already known between Alice and Bob (Authenticating Client and Hotspot) that isn't known by Eve (third party eavesdropper) to do the initial set-up? Exchanging an RSA public key first is not secure; see EtheRape for examples of shit that makes you talk to it instead of the hot spot, MitM style.
No this is the dumbest idea ever. Encryption U Key == Plaintext. Now we'll just have sniffers automatically trying the WPA key 'free' to decrypt-- oh that works. Cool. Even if everyone gets a session key, you just wait for someone to re-authenticate and listen in on the handshake; or someone new to come along at least. You now have a smaller attack window-- or you can de-authenticate someone somehow, which is doable.
all I want out of people is a game of Go. And a hug. And serve me a hamburger and don't charge me $3.95 for it; it's a damn hamburger, why is it so expensive?
Eh, I give up on everything I start out of boredom. Including talking to my friends. I'm not really interested in a social life; I require solitude or I'll go insane.
There is a logical fallacy between people being obligated to do something and people having a moral imperative to do something. An obligation is contractual (laws are an obligation as contractual to your continued citizenship in this country; if you don't like it, move somewhere with different laws). A moral imperative is something you should do, but can't be accused of not doing in any way other than academically: sure, you don't give every hobo you see food, but that's not going to get you arrested.
My taxes pay for food stamps. If I don't pay my taxes, I am refusing to buy hobos food; thus I am now being arrested for refusing to buy hobos food.
Social services are valuable, at least it can be argued they are. Raising taxes and taking more money because "There's Still Hungry People" to continue to try to solve everyone's problems by making them everyone else's is walking fail.
Yeah I had BetterSearch doing this since forever.
One to ten thousand? Really, or not really? Are you sure it's not actually 15:1 in the other direction? That's what I would guess if I, like you, were pulling numbers out of thin air.
You haven't seen the place I live. When I moved, I went to the liquor store the first saturday after I had my apartment. Got out of my car around 1pm, some guy walks up to me and yells from about 20 feet away asking if I wanna buy some crack. A week in, somebody got shot to death. Hell, I have a dent in my car from someone who hit it and ran a red light I was waiting at... people were firing bullets across the back of my car at the time. They weren't shooting at me, so I don't see why I have to care, so I just waited for the light to change.
People don't raise their kids here. The kids hit 5th grade and can't read. You know, those things, books? They can't do anything with them. Maybe wipe their asses.
Yes, I'm pretty sure I'm living in a failed welfare state.
But, I guess you chose Option 2: fuck that kid, it ain't his fault, but fuck him anyway.
Can't save everybody. The term "reasonable attempt" doesn't mean "spend 30 seconds getting the room clean, and 6 hours on your knees trying to scrub that last speck of dust out from the corner." Our society has the reverse problem though: we start on the little speck in the corner and obsess over it while the rest of the room rots.
I guess, in this democracy, I can't join you in telling that kind that he should fuck off and fail in life. Still, I'm glad that we have distilled our political differences to this clear difference: you say fuck that child, I say don't fuck that child. Okay. Happy voting, I hope people like me outnumber people like you.
That's reasonable. Of course, I'm equally entitled to tell you you're wrong, for above cited reasons and with above analogy.
I have a natural talent for math, for learning languages, and apparently for singing and playing instruments. I never practice, really. I'm 25 and just discovering that all this shit comes insanely easy for me if I devote an hour a week to it... I might devote 10 minutes every 2-3 weeks.
You know, maybe I should set some time aside to not only improve my game of Go; but also set my foundation for Algebra and Geometry, for the guitar and piano, and for 6 or 7 languages. I have a good German foundation I've built up pretty much lazily over a couple months; if I read a book in German (with dictionary) I should be set. I started a Japanese course and in 6 days I had a better basic grasp than some teenage girl that's been studying for a month and a half... half hour a day of study.
If I did that, maybe I'd be a fantastic person poised to gain much more social popularity and perhaps even a better job (or a wide selection of different kinds of jobs) rather than a loser with a boring desk job any moron can do. Oh, I approach my desk job skillfully and artistically, not just brute forcing my way through simple problems but elegantly, quickly, and efficiently toppling them in ways that give me tools for future use (knowledge, shell scripts, better educated coworkers because I turn a semi-simple task into a team effort with a skillful approach...). But it's still a simple job.
It seems obvious to me that I was born better than most people I meet since most tasks they find difficult are simple to me. It's also obvious that I never bother to try, though, so I fail at just about everything. So who IS better? Why am I envying people that obviously can't compete with me?
So much for not being born equal.
Volunteer YOUR money.
There are no perfect models for the world. Attempts often lead to more damage. Arguments in this vein often draw counter-arguments that, while valid, are special cases; there are a lot of unfortunate single moms where I live, in a city full of drug dealers and criminals and people that are just plain old fuck-ups. So for every 1 single mom here there's 10,000 4th-generation welfare con artists that never even tried to dig their way out of their shit situation. I would rather sacrifice the 1 single mom than subsidize the 10,000 fuckups.
Connect the one argument to the other. Saying "I don't have a PC, I have a Mac" is technically incorrect but contemporarily understood; saying "I have a PC" is understood to mean "I don't have a mac."
Also.
In contemporary usage, the term democracy refers to a government chosen by the people, whether it is direct or representative.[77] The term republic has many different meanings, but today often refers to a representative democracy with an elected head of state, such as a president, serving for a limited term, in contrast to states with a hereditary monarch as a head of state, even if these states also are representative democracies with an elected or appointed head of government such as a prime minister.[78]
The Founding Fathers of the United States rarely praised and often criticized democracy, which in their time tended to specifically mean direct democracy; James Madison argued, especially in The Federalist No. 10, that what distinguished a democracy from a republic was that the former became weaker as it got larger and suffered more violently from the effects of faction, whereas a republic could get stronger as it got larger and combats faction by its very structure.
What was critical to American values, John Adams insisted,[79] was that the government be "bound by fixed laws, which the people have a voice in making, and a right to defend." As Benjamin Franklin was exiting after writing the U.S. constitution, a woman asked him "Well, Doctor, what have we got—a republic or a monarchy?". He replied "A republic—if you can keep it."[80]
So you are telling me that some people stride proudly from their mothers' vagina to join the workforce and supply useful labor to society?
You are not making a logical argument. What person has ever been born that wasn't completely defenseless; completely useless; and completely incapable of caring for themselves?
But you are arguing that there's no moral imperative to help people that need help. That's not a position argued by any major organization.
No, I'm arguing that there's no moral imperative to rob Peter to buy food for Paul. Put your own money up or shut up; don't decide that I'm not nice for hoarding my riches and you need to take them away from me and give them to other people. Robin Hood was a bandit and a crook.
If you drew a venn diagram of Mac vs PC, you'd find that Mac is completely inside the PC circle. You'd still be an idiot for responding to "I have a Mac, not a PC" with "U R DUM, U HAS A PC LOL."
Equal != identical. If you are born to a rich black family, you are as poor and worthless as a poor white infant. You come out of your mother's vagina covered in goop, screaming, and unable to do any damn work. People are not "quite different" when they're born; they all come out "quite the same." They're different later, at which point we should stop calling them "equals."
I don't know, it makes sense to me.
The second viewpoint says: "I work, I have acquired skills that are useful, because of market conditions I am in demand, I get money, I buy my own stuff. You don't work, you have skills that apply well in an over-saturated market, thus you get paid less and you have trouble finding a job, as you are too lazy to acquire a new skill-- unless you're just too lazy to work in general. Don't touch my money, it's mine."
The first viewpoint says, "Hey, you can afford a shiny Ferrari. You don't NEED a Ferrari. Ferrari cars are shitty anyway! Buy a used Toyota instead! Give me your money, because I NEED it! My needs are more important than your wants!"
Assuming that you need something and thus this is important enough to forcefully (as in against their will and desire) deprive someone of something they rightfully own is called "entitlement." You need to eat, you have a right to live; but does that mean that people around you NEED to give you food if you can't afford it yourself? Such an assumption also implies that you can be thankless and, indeed, that anyone who gives you food when you are starving deserves zero credit because they're obligated to anyway, so why does this make them a better person?
A rich lawyer or CEO is NOT the equal of a McDonalds burger flipper that studied liberal arts in college. The rich lawyer has a job, the CEO has a job, and they are both rich; the burger flipper cannot argue a court case reliably or run a company (or gracefully drop it if it's destined to fail-- some CEOs are repeatedly hired by companies that are winding down to make this process graceful; others just suck at their jobs). Likewise the lawyer probably would need some training to flip burgers; though this is a lot less training and a LOT less upkeep than entering and staying in the legal profession.
Men are born equal. Naked, ugly, screaming, and completely dependent on someone else's charity. Even kings. They don't stay that way, one way or another; even a shitty king will occasionally get his head cut off.
We live in a representative democratic republic. The united states is a republic of state representatives: it's individual states (meaning "countries") under one larger governing body, just like the European Union. The de-facto meaning of "democracy" is "direct democracy," where individuals represent their opinions; instead, we elect representatives to govern our states and to present our political stance to the federal governing body.
It's like saying I have a Mac and you saying I have a PC. Yes, a Mac is a PC. And yes, you are an idiot for making the argument.