This then suggests a simple fix for global warming - we just need to move Earth into a slightly higher orbit. A few hundred well-placed nuclear bombs ought to do it.
It's encouraging that such a minor obscure bug makes a supposedly newsworthy article. That's progress. Back in the day almost anything could crash a Mac (or any other PC), including just leaving it on for a sufficiently long period, so the fact that a crash of this type makes news today shows how much progress we've made.
The "web we lost" is all still there, more or less, in that nothing about the underlying technology of the web has changed. But no-one is interested in the old ways of doing things, and 'modern' services like Facebook are what people obviously want. In other words, like government, we get the web we deserve.
Even worse, what about something with nearly 100x the energy density? I mean, imagine how dangerous an automobile would be with that amount of energy on board, in the hands of clueless idiots who can't drive?
Except one believes in one flavour of invisible sky-fairy, and the other believes in another. As we know, that perfectly reasonable grounds for war, and bad behaviour of all kinds generally.
I'm not sure how being lighter will make too much difference, since electricity is already at least twice as cheap as gas. Ultra-streamlined? I think the 0-60 in 4 seconds is good enough for anyone;)
E=0.5mv^2. If your energy is limited, you can get more v(elocity) by reducing m(ass). The streamlining is not about acceleration, it's about the power needed to push the air aside at a steady speed. That goes as the cube of v, and turns out to be by far the dominant factor once you get up to highway speeds. A reduction by 0.01 in Cd can easily translate into another 20 miles on the range, the difference between making it to the next recharge station or not.
OK, the retrofitting angle is a good point. But otherwise, I'm not seeing it. Electric motors give max torque at 0 rpm, just where you need it to get moving. Diesel-Electric series systems have been used for locomotives for 50 years, which suggests that it is a viable approach for heavy vehicles. In fact, such a drive train might even revive the gas-turbine truck, explored in the 1960s, which failed mainly due to the problem of coupling it mechanically to the wheels.
i've *done* the analysis and the designs (http://lkcl.net/ev) and if EVs are to be the success that people really really WANT them to be, then they have to be ultra-efficient (350kg) ultra-streamlined (Cd 0.15) parallel diesel hybrids
You mean a SERIES hybrid. Parallel hybrids (e.g. Prius) are a dead-end, overcomplicated and unnecessary.
I largely agree with the discussion on the site you link. A personal 1-seater vehicle weighing under 500kg all-up with the sorts of power discussed there (15kW) is a very feasible design. If everyone had one, it would be great, but I think the mix of existing SUV-sized heavies with these could be a recipe for trouble for the time being.
I'm working on a design along these lines myself, though the performance focus is on speed and acceleration (i.e. the fun factor) rather than range. With a top speed of 130 kmh, 0-100km time of 5 seconds and a worst-case running time of 1 hour, this translates to a super light (300kg all up) aerodynamic vehicle with 15kW motor and 15kW/hr of LiFePO4 storage. I hadn't considered a hybrid design but your link has got me thinking about it.
It's a long known observation that the more you know about something, the more errors you will see in someone else's version of that thing, e.g. news stories about something that happened to you or a friend.
Accurate technical detail is usually too boring or irrelevant to most of the audience - look at Top Gear's version of The Sweeney car-chase with Clarkson's insistence on getting the technical detail correct that the Jag's traction control needed to be disabled and that in turn required holding down a button for 10 seconds. By showing what a movie would be like if they stuck to such facts, the showed (in an amusing way) why it is a very, very bad idea.
No, the Republicans will spend the next four years obstructing anything and everything in order to make the government look dysfunctional and Obama look bad, just to improve their chances of winning next time.
I'm afraid you're right. Nothing like lifting eyes to the horizon and trying to make a better nation. Instead just fiddle while Rome burns, and the empire fades away.
Young programmers don't usually have a full grasp of how things work, and haven't the experience to apply the correct solution to a problem. What they do have, much more than older programmers, is energy. They can turn out a LOT of code (and usually do, most of it irrelevant to the problem) in a given time and work long hours. They're cheaper too. An effective team is therefore an older programmer that can guide and mentor the younger productive units.
Class C RF power amplifiers can be ~90% efficient, because they drive a tuned load. That's been known for most of the 20th century. Is the problem that these need to be wideband amps? Perhaps there is a clever way to reconcile those needs, though I'm not seeing it.
David Hockney has been making art by slicing together stills to create the impression of a motion event for years. And frankly, his results are a lot more "artistic" that this mechanised and rather dull-lloking technique.
Starck is the very embodiment of style over substance. His products often look kinda striking or eye-catching, but they function incredibly poorly. The man is a charlatan who threw out the first rule of design: form follows function. A great artist might just about be able to get away with that, but the only person who puts Starck in that category is Starck.
He's no genius, just an egomaniac with the ability to fool a surprising number of people at least some of the time.
I wouldn't be surprised if this thing is sunk in the first rough seas it encounters, if its design is anything like as poor as his laughable lemon squeezer.
Slashdot Mirror
And some effectual hardening against spam.
But optical?
This then suggests a simple fix for global warming - we just need to move Earth into a slightly higher orbit. A few hundred well-placed nuclear bombs ought to do it.
In other news, the price of wax cylinders is set to rise this year.
Do you know how hard it is to make a stable 400 millihertz oscillator?
It's encouraging that such a minor obscure bug makes a supposedly newsworthy article. That's progress. Back in the day almost anything could crash a Mac (or any other PC), including just leaving it on for a sufficiently long period, so the fact that a crash of this type makes news today shows how much progress we've made.
Sounds utterly pointless, tedious, narcissistic and unnecessary. I'm sure it'll be a huge hit.
full quality
For some definition of "quality" that by and large does not correlate with mine. Loudness wars and all that.
I won't be happy until I can get the full 24 track raw unmixed tracks at 96kHz and mix it myself....
This is another nail in the coffin of the American Empire. Seriously... think about it.
Winning friends and influencing people since 1983.
Seriously, who'd put up with this crap? There are nicer ways to make ones way through life.
Mac OS has had transparency effects since the mid 1980s. That doesn't mean there isn't any prior art, but it won't be on a common-or-garden PC.
Think Quantel Paintbox or Crosfield systems - remember those?
The "web we lost" is all still there, more or less, in that nothing about the underlying technology of the web has changed. But no-one is interested in the old ways of doing things, and 'modern' services like Facebook are what people obviously want. In other words, like government, we get the web we deserve.
Even worse, what about something with nearly 100x the energy density? I mean, imagine how dangerous an automobile would be with that amount of energy on board, in the hands of clueless idiots who can't drive?
Oh, wait...
Except one believes in one flavour of invisible sky-fairy, and the other believes in another. As we know, that perfectly reasonable grounds for war, and bad behaviour of all kinds generally.
As the father of two children I'm saying assume the worst of every man.
OK, I'll assume the worst of you. Have you stopped fucking your children yet?
I'm not sure how being lighter will make too much difference, since electricity is already at least twice as cheap as gas. Ultra-streamlined? I think the 0-60 in 4 seconds is good enough for anyone ;)
E=0.5mv^2. If your energy is limited, you can get more v(elocity) by reducing m(ass). The streamlining is not about acceleration, it's about the power needed to push the air aside at a steady speed. That goes as the cube of v, and turns out to be by far the dominant factor once you get up to highway speeds. A reduction by 0.01 in Cd can easily translate into another 20 miles on the range, the difference between making it to the next recharge station or not.
OK, the retrofitting angle is a good point. But otherwise, I'm not seeing it. Electric motors give max torque at 0 rpm, just where you need it to get moving. Diesel-Electric series systems have been used for locomotives for 50 years, which suggests that it is a viable approach for heavy vehicles. In fact, such a drive train might even revive the gas-turbine truck, explored in the 1960s, which failed mainly due to the problem of coupling it mechanically to the wheels.
i've *done* the analysis and the designs (http://lkcl.net/ev) and if EVs are to be the success that people really really WANT them to be, then they have to be ultra-efficient (350kg) ultra-streamlined (Cd 0.15) parallel diesel hybrids
You mean a SERIES hybrid. Parallel hybrids (e.g. Prius) are a dead-end, overcomplicated and unnecessary.
I largely agree with the discussion on the site you link. A personal 1-seater vehicle weighing under 500kg all-up with the sorts of power discussed there (15kW) is a very feasible design. If everyone had one, it would be great, but I think the mix of existing SUV-sized heavies with these could be a recipe for trouble for the time being.
I'm working on a design along these lines myself, though the performance focus is on speed and acceleration (i.e. the fun factor) rather than range. With a top speed of 130 kmh, 0-100km time of 5 seconds and a worst-case running time of 1 hour, this translates to a super light (300kg all up) aerodynamic vehicle with 15kW motor and 15kW/hr of LiFePO4 storage. I hadn't considered a hybrid design but your link has got me thinking about it.
It's a long known observation that the more you know about something, the more errors you will see in someone else's version of that thing, e.g. news stories about something that happened to you or a friend.
Accurate technical detail is usually too boring or irrelevant to most of the audience - look at Top Gear's version of The Sweeney car-chase with Clarkson's insistence on getting the technical detail correct that the Jag's traction control needed to be disabled and that in turn required holding down a button for 10 seconds. By showing what a movie would be like if they stuck to such facts, the showed (in an amusing way) why it is a very, very bad idea.
No, the Republicans will spend the next four years obstructing anything and everything in order to make the government look dysfunctional and Obama look bad, just to improve their chances of winning next time.
I'm afraid you're right. Nothing like lifting eyes to the horizon and trying to make a better nation. Instead just fiddle while Rome burns, and the empire fades away.
iOS is still BSD Unix, you idiot.
Young programmers don't usually have a full grasp of how things work, and haven't the experience to apply the correct solution to a problem. What they do have, much more than older programmers, is energy. They can turn out a LOT of code (and usually do, most of it irrelevant to the problem) in a given time and work long hours. They're cheaper too. An effective team is therefore an older programmer that can guide and mentor the younger productive units.
Class C RF power amplifiers can be ~90% efficient, because they drive a tuned load. That's been known for most of the 20th century. Is the problem that these need to be wideband amps? Perhaps there is a clever way to reconcile those needs, though I'm not seeing it.
David Hockney has been making art by slicing together stills to create the impression of a motion event for years. And frankly, his results are a lot more "artistic" that this mechanised and rather dull-lloking technique.
Starck is the very embodiment of style over substance. His products often look kinda striking or eye-catching, but they function incredibly poorly. The man is a charlatan who threw out the first rule of design: form follows function. A great artist might just about be able to get away with that, but the only person who puts Starck in that category is Starck.
He's no genius, just an egomaniac with the ability to fool a surprising number of people at least some of the time.
I wouldn't be surprised if this thing is sunk in the first rough seas it encounters, if its design is anything like as poor as his laughable lemon squeezer.