What's the advantage of Maglev here? It is just using energy to do something that a wheel would do perfectly well without expending energy. The small frictional advantage doesn't seem to be something worth adding all the extra complexity and energy expenditure for.
Lots of sneering from motorcyclists, that's to be expected. But in fact this type of design has been attempted for many years (it's called the "feet forwards" or FF motorcycle) and the rationale for it is pretty sound: a small, efficient, personal transport that is as nimble as a motorcycle but has the comfort of a car.
The main problem with attempts made to date has been the one of staying upright when stationary. Some designs had open sides so you could use your feet, but that obviously compromises bad-weather comfort. Others have pop-down stabilisers but that's inelegant and difficult to make work at the right moment. If this has solved that problem and truly allows an enclosed cabin, they might have actually finally done it. I think this could well have a significant market, but probably not one with existing die-hard motorcyclists. I like it; it's pretty cool and I wish them well.
While batteries are at the energy densities they are, this size of vehicle makes a lot more sense than an SUV-sized behemoth. I've done the maths, and excellent performance and range are perfectly doable with LiPO4 technology, 20kW of power at a gross vehicle weight of 400kg. I think it definitely has a future.
True, but that's because humans do it by hand, and are not necessarily aware of all the changing variables, let alone be in a position to do anything about them. In theory a machine that does have the appropriate sensors would always do a better job as a result.
And there, in a nut, is why the USA is nose-diving into oblivion. If you believe it can't be improved, it won't improve. Rampant capitalism is NOT the answer to every need, and Sweden proves it. By treating internet access as a piece of necessary national infrastructure, instead of just letting "the market" fight it out, you arrive at a far better end point far sooner. It's got nothing to do with idealism, all you need to do is compare the actual results.
Then we can put them on light poles and get good high-resolution courts-evidence-quality images of the people who are running out of nowhere to attack you, beat you senseless, and stealing your $500 bicycle when neighborhood is quite 100% gentrified yet.
Your "vision" of the future is one I find creepy and chilling. It's what's already happening, and on the face of it (your argument) seems reasonable. Until the wrong people are fingered and framed, the fact that you cannot move without your every step being filmed and tracked, you get a knock-on-the-door-in-the-night from the goon squad because you were caught on camera dropping litter. It's a very very slippery slope. Personally I'll take my chances with the muggers and bike-stealers (in real terms, crime is lower than it has ever been at any time in history per head of population), if it means that we don't build such a nightmare panopticon.
I can understand the taxi drivers' alarm but they're like Hansome cab drivers in the 18th century - change will come, sorry. But how about getting upset about something more important, everyone? Like the constant erosion of your freedom and privacy by the state? By the constant erosion of your wealth and societal benefits by bankers and other sundry plutarchs? Protest about something that matters, while you can.
Anything that has to lift itself against gravity will need to expend energy to do so. Wheels on the other hand, don't expend energy just keeping the vehicle off the ground (ignoring small effects like rolling resistance). It doesn't make sense to replace a passive lifting device like a wheel with something that will need a ton of extra fuel before it even moves from A to B. It is OK for aircraft since the distances, speed and number of people moved per flight makes it worthwhile, but for a ground-based vehicle it makes no sense whatsoever. We already have roads, and the best lifting device to use with them are wheels. For the same reason Maglev trains are unlikely to succeed - it just doesn't add up to a gain replacing wheels with magnetic levitation.
It doesn't make any difference whether the TT is passed 'legitimately' or by 'tricking', the point is that if the test is valid (which is obviously a huge debate in itself), then a trick sufficiently sophisticated to pass it must be considered just as intelligent as passing the test legitimately. What difference does it make?
Real intelligence is nothing but a sophisticated trick pulled off by having a sufficient density of firing neurons. We're all performing that trick constantly. Some better than others actually - there are plenty of people I meet that couldn't pass the Turing Test.
But it doesn't justify the mass surveillance being put in all over our public spaces. It can't even be justified on the cost, but far worse is the erosion of your freedom to go about your business without being tracked and monitored permanently. It might catch the odd transgressor, but that is not an acceptable enough reason to piss away all our privacy.
Oh but you have nothing to hide, so what? Well, it was Joseph Goebbels who first made that pithy remark about having nothing to fear, and look where that ended up - many perfectly innocent people had everything to fear.
The only reasonable response to mass CCTV is for everyone to wear a balaclava. Once the system is rendered useless, they might reconsider spending taxpayer's money on it. And it sends a strong message that we simply don't want to be tracked, even if we are not criminals.
Don't buy peacetime designs - they are never great. The urgency of war forces designers and engineers to act quickly, with well-defined briefs and no extraneous "nice to have"s; peacetime designs are the opposite - bloated, every Tom Dick and Harry involved wants his pet add-on, and no pressure to get it out the door.
All the great military aircraft ever built have been produced in wartime for the jobs needed doing right then. And I include Vietnam and the Cold War among them. The post-soviet skirmished the west has got involved in don't seem to need fighter planes at all, and in the meantime, the bloated F-35 slithers along, as unpopular as Jabba the Hut.
Surely you mean you couldn't care less? But yeah, good for you, having a gas guzzler that drinks fuel wastefully, pollutes the planet, is a hazard to other road users, pedestrians, and even you. Fuck the rest of the world, you have every right (you believe) to be as damn selfish and entitled as you want. Or, you know, grow up.
The square brackets [ ] and colons : just hurt my mental debugger
Your example doesn't get to the point and power of Obj-C syntax, which is clarity of intent. Source code is for humans, so make it bloody obvious what you mean.
In the C code, what the hell are all those parameters, what do they mean? I need to look up some external reference to find out. In the Obj-C case, it's obvious, the parameter names are part of the name of the function, so when writing and reading code, the intent is clear. The square brackets are really not an issue once you've used the language for more than 5 minutes, and actually these days they're not even needed for simple properties - you can use the familiar dot notation if you want. Looks like Swift retains the explicit parameter naming, albeit within round brackets, so it's a bit of a hybrid. I'd hate to see named parameters disappear, they really are an invaluable aid to productivity and above all, understanding of a piece of code.
Wrong. The body was made from waste cotton fibre bonded with phenol resin. It's a great material - light, strong, reasonably eco-friendly, non-corrosive. It's not a million miles from carbon fibre or even what this article is talking about. The rest of the Trabant was a conventional spot-welded steel monocoque.
It's lazy stereotyping to mock the Trabant without actually looking at how it was made. Sure, the design was dated and yes, the engines were terrible, but they were reliable and cheap, and actually a much more efficient car than most of the gas-guzzlers made in the west.
My main gripe about the Trabant's build quality was the poor panel fit, but that's not an inherent drawback of the materials it was made from, just a side-effect of somewhat old-fashioned tooling.
NOT saving is an active choice
on
Goodbye, Ctrl-S
·
· Score: 1
What autosave seems to miss is that deliberately NOT saving something is an active choice at times. If I have a document - a graphics file say - and I want to just try a quick experiment but don't intend to permanently change the file, then that's my active choice. But autosave subverts that, making the 'experiment' far from quick, and a lot more long-winded. You have to duplicate the file or open a copy, or else undo or back out the change afterwards. It's much more work.
An app we develop (Mac) provides a preference so that you can opt-out of the system's standard autosave and do it manually. It's proved to be an extremely popular feature.
This guy could do with learning about Gerald Ratner. Never heard of him? Google will help. He's not saying the cars are 'crap' of course, but it certainly seems like a very odd way to promote his brand.
The Concorde was most definitely NOT a failure. In scheduled service for 27 years? Almost 50,000 flights at supersonic speed? That's not a failure - plenty of "classic" aircraft have not flown anywhere near as long. Concorde's main problem was that the USA took against it out of spite, because they didn't like to be beaten in aerospace technology. (which is weird, because Britain and Europe certainly admired the contemporary achievements of Apollo, and the 747, etc). That meant that it wasn't the economic success it should have been, but it was and remains a technical triumph.
The real problem wasn't the shape of the windows (which were NOT rectangular, they had rounded corners), but the thinness of the skin combined with a stress point. The skin was thinner than typical because the jet engines of the day were not very powerful, so the weight had to be shaved down to the minimum that would work safely. Unfortunately they got that wrong. If it had been built with the same skin thickness as those pressurized Boeing/Convair/Douglas piston-engined aircraft, the windows would not have failed. But then the plane would have been too heavy to fly. By the time Boeing caught up 5 years later, jet engines were already much improved in power, making the weight saving unnecessary. Remember the Comet first flew in 1949 - that's very early, even pressurization wan't very mature, let alone jet power. Boeing's 367-80 which led to the 707 first flew in '54.
Slashdot Mirror
natural moron blur
Nah, that's just too much tequila.
What's the advantage of Maglev here? It is just using energy to do something that a wheel would do perfectly well without expending energy. The small frictional advantage doesn't seem to be something worth adding all the extra complexity and energy expenditure for.
"Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig".
Likewise, I expect this produces terrible music and not very good code.
The headline should change 'in' to 'as'.
lack flash
Seriously? Flash is dying if not already dead. HTML5 supports video, so every site potentially has video.
Lots of sneering from motorcyclists, that's to be expected. But in fact this type of design has been attempted for many years (it's called the "feet forwards" or FF motorcycle) and the rationale for it is pretty sound: a small, efficient, personal transport that is as nimble as a motorcycle but has the comfort of a car.
The main problem with attempts made to date has been the one of staying upright when stationary. Some designs had open sides so you could use your feet, but that obviously compromises bad-weather comfort. Others have pop-down stabilisers but that's inelegant and difficult to make work at the right moment. If this has solved that problem and truly allows an enclosed cabin, they might have actually finally done it. I think this could well have a significant market, but probably not one with existing die-hard motorcyclists. I like it; it's pretty cool and I wish them well.
While batteries are at the energy densities they are, this size of vehicle makes a lot more sense than an SUV-sized behemoth. I've done the maths, and excellent performance and range are perfectly doable with LiPO4 technology, 20kW of power at a gross vehicle weight of 400kg. I think it definitely has a future.
Welding is an art.
True, but that's because humans do it by hand, and are not necessarily aware of all the changing variables, let alone be in a position to do anything about them. In theory a machine that does have the appropriate sensors would always do a better job as a result.
And there, in a nut, is why the USA is nose-diving into oblivion. If you believe it can't be improved, it won't improve. Rampant capitalism is NOT the answer to every need, and Sweden proves it. By treating internet access as a piece of necessary national infrastructure, instead of just letting "the market" fight it out, you arrive at a far better end point far sooner. It's got nothing to do with idealism, all you need to do is compare the actual results.
Then we can put them on light poles and get good high-resolution courts-evidence-quality images of the people who are running out of nowhere to attack you, beat you senseless, and stealing your $500 bicycle when neighborhood is quite 100% gentrified yet.
Your "vision" of the future is one I find creepy and chilling. It's what's already happening, and on the face of it (your argument) seems reasonable. Until the wrong people are fingered and framed, the fact that you cannot move without your every step being filmed and tracked, you get a knock-on-the-door-in-the-night from the goon squad because you were caught on camera dropping litter. It's a very very slippery slope. Personally I'll take my chances with the muggers and bike-stealers (in real terms, crime is lower than it has ever been at any time in history per head of population), if it means that we don't build such a nightmare panopticon.
The problem with trying to USE Van der Waals forces for anything is that in order to stick together, both surfaces must be microscopically smooth
Better not tell Geckos about that, they'll die out once they hear.
I can understand the taxi drivers' alarm but they're like Hansome cab drivers in the 18th century - change will come, sorry. But how about getting upset about something more important, everyone? Like the constant erosion of your freedom and privacy by the state? By the constant erosion of your wealth and societal benefits by bankers and other sundry plutarchs? Protest about something that matters, while you can.
Anything that has to lift itself against gravity will need to expend energy to do so. Wheels on the other hand, don't expend energy just keeping the vehicle off the ground (ignoring small effects like rolling resistance). It doesn't make sense to replace a passive lifting device like a wheel with something that will need a ton of extra fuel before it even moves from A to B. It is OK for aircraft since the distances, speed and number of people moved per flight makes it worthwhile, but for a ground-based vehicle it makes no sense whatsoever. We already have roads, and the best lifting device to use with them are wheels. For the same reason Maglev trains are unlikely to succeed - it just doesn't add up to a gain replacing wheels with magnetic levitation.
It doesn't make any difference whether the TT is passed 'legitimately' or by 'tricking', the point is that if the test is valid (which is obviously a huge debate in itself), then a trick sufficiently sophisticated to pass it must be considered just as intelligent as passing the test legitimately. What difference does it make?
Real intelligence is nothing but a sophisticated trick pulled off by having a sufficient density of firing neurons. We're all performing that trick constantly. Some better than others actually - there are plenty of people I meet that couldn't pass the Turing Test.
Maybe he deserved this, sounds like it.
But it doesn't justify the mass surveillance being put in all over our public spaces. It can't even be justified on the cost, but far worse is the erosion of your freedom to go about your business without being tracked and monitored permanently. It might catch the odd transgressor, but that is not an acceptable enough reason to piss away all our privacy.
Oh but you have nothing to hide, so what? Well, it was Joseph Goebbels who first made that pithy remark about having nothing to fear, and look where that ended up - many perfectly innocent people had everything to fear.
The only reasonable response to mass CCTV is for everyone to wear a balaclava. Once the system is rendered useless, they might reconsider spending taxpayer's money on it. And it sends a strong message that we simply don't want to be tracked, even if we are not criminals.
Don't buy peacetime designs - they are never great. The urgency of war forces designers and engineers to act quickly, with well-defined briefs and no extraneous "nice to have"s; peacetime designs are the opposite - bloated, every Tom Dick and Harry involved wants his pet add-on, and no pressure to get it out the door.
All the great military aircraft ever built have been produced in wartime for the jobs needed doing right then. And I include Vietnam and the Cold War among them. The post-soviet skirmished the west has got involved in don't seem to need fighter planes at all, and in the meantime, the bloated F-35 slithers along, as unpopular as Jabba the Hut.
Surely you mean you couldn't care less? But yeah, good for you, having a gas guzzler that drinks fuel wastefully, pollutes the planet, is a hazard to other road users, pedestrians, and even you. Fuck the rest of the world, you have every right (you believe) to be as damn selfish and entitled as you want. Or, you know, grow up.
Your example doesn't get to the point and power of Obj-C syntax, which is clarity of intent. Source code is for humans, so make it bloody obvious what you mean.
In the C code, what the hell are all those parameters, what do they mean? I need to look up some external reference to find out. In the Obj-C case, it's obvious, the parameter names are part of the name of the function, so when writing and reading code, the intent is clear. The square brackets are really not an issue once you've used the language for more than 5 minutes, and actually these days they're not even needed for simple properties - you can use the familiar dot notation if you want. Looks like Swift retains the explicit parameter naming, albeit within round brackets, so it's a bit of a hybrid. I'd hate to see named parameters disappear, they really are an invaluable aid to productivity and above all, understanding of a piece of code.
This still seems baffling. But WWDC is next week, so maybe that will shed some light on the real story.
And here are the results: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=182AepOJjMs I guess he wasn't that good after all. Actually if you look into the story here it's really tragic.
Wrong. The body was made from waste cotton fibre bonded with phenol resin. It's a great material - light, strong, reasonably eco-friendly, non-corrosive. It's not a million miles from carbon fibre or even what this article is talking about. The rest of the Trabant was a conventional spot-welded steel monocoque.
It's lazy stereotyping to mock the Trabant without actually looking at how it was made. Sure, the design was dated and yes, the engines were terrible, but they were reliable and cheap, and actually a much more efficient car than most of the gas-guzzlers made in the west.
My main gripe about the Trabant's build quality was the poor panel fit, but that's not an inherent drawback of the materials it was made from, just a side-effect of somewhat old-fashioned tooling.
What autosave seems to miss is that deliberately NOT saving something is an active choice at times. If I have a document - a graphics file say - and I want to just try a quick experiment but don't intend to permanently change the file, then that's my active choice. But autosave subverts that, making the 'experiment' far from quick, and a lot more long-winded. You have to duplicate the file or open a copy, or else undo or back out the change afterwards. It's much more work.
An app we develop (Mac) provides a preference so that you can opt-out of the system's standard autosave and do it manually. It's proved to be an extremely popular feature.
This guy could do with learning about Gerald Ratner. Never heard of him? Google will help. He's not saying the cars are 'crap' of course, but it certainly seems like a very odd way to promote his brand.
The Concorde was most definitely NOT a failure. In scheduled service for 27 years? Almost 50,000 flights at supersonic speed? That's not a failure - plenty of "classic" aircraft have not flown anywhere near as long. Concorde's main problem was that the USA took against it out of spite, because they didn't like to be beaten in aerospace technology. (which is weird, because Britain and Europe certainly admired the contemporary achievements of Apollo, and the 747, etc). That meant that it wasn't the economic success it should have been, but it was and remains a technical triumph.
The real problem wasn't the shape of the windows (which were NOT rectangular, they had rounded corners), but the thinness of the skin combined with a stress point. The skin was thinner than typical because the jet engines of the day were not very powerful, so the weight had to be shaved down to the minimum that would work safely. Unfortunately they got that wrong. If it had been built with the same skin thickness as those pressurized Boeing/Convair/Douglas piston-engined aircraft, the windows would not have failed. But then the plane would have been too heavy to fly. By the time Boeing caught up 5 years later, jet engines were already much improved in power, making the weight saving unnecessary. Remember the Comet first flew in 1949 - that's very early, even pressurization wan't very mature, let alone jet power. Boeing's 367-80 which led to the 707 first flew in '54.