Yeah, and the "wiser" 9/11 morons only claim that "we need a new investigation",
What a trollish post. The simple fact is, 9/11 was already investigated. The problem is, for 9/11ers, no amount of investigation is enough unless they believe it sides with them. Factually, all evidence clearly indicates 9/11ers are full of shit. For 9/11, the majority of the require information was fairly easy to find, document, and analyze.
On the other hand, all credible UFO investigations consistently show more study is required. Its credible enough even the USAF has officers specifically designated to deal with such reports - as does most of the world's industrialized countries.
I'm sorry, but your argument makes you out to be an idiot because its not the least bit sound, reasonable, or supported by available facts.
That's a very narrow view. Science is a process, not only conclusions. Reputable testimony certainly isn't proof, but having proof and opening your mind to possibilities are two different things. The latter is necessary to allow the former to be examined. It's likely that private researchers will at some point in the future be able to afford such sensors. But why would they ever bother without proof, right?
I wish more people would understand reality and deal with the truth of what you're saying here. I'm not taking sides in your exchange, but the simple fact is, your statement is extremely profound.
The established in the church of science (sure which scientology wasn't already taken) have been doing lots of harm to science by failing to understand and follow the scientific method. Its easy to look around and find lots of examples where these idiots, well known idiots in fact, are actively preventing the scientific process because it offends their ego. Cold fusion is just one such example.
Scientists didn't always embrace such idiocy. Ironically, even a hundred years ago and back, scientists openly engaged the public for ideas as much as education. These days, such openness is considered pompous or weak minded. The fact education, debate, and discussion is classified as such, a sign of sickness within the community.
Now, scientists believe only they have any idea what's worth researching and literally, science and especially funding, is distributed based on a judgement (frequently without any information on which to base such judgement - typically referred to as ignorance) call rather than the merits of available study. Worse, ignorance is frequently preventing even the most basic of study. In some cases, they go out of their way to destroy careers to prevent the most basic of exploration.
Yes, some good science still takes place. Yes, science hasn't completely broken down. But very clearly, many extremely prominent scientists absolutely are not following their most basic and fundamental principals. And its not just me saying so. Such voices are becoming louder and louder even from other scientists and physicists.
The majority of the world population, by far, has seen a UFO. Contrary to popular ignorance, that doesn't mean its aliens.
On my soapbox-
I really, really, really, really, really, really, really, wish people would stop purposely conflating UFO to mean alien. The former is a fact, they absolutely do exist, while the later is extremely improbable. People who conflate the two sound like raving idiots. When these idiots then attack those who do believe in aliens, saying UFO to mean alien completely undermines their argument as they sound dumber than those who claimed they were probed the night before.
If you don't know the difference between a factual, real-world object, or even a visual phenomenon, and an alien, you have absolutely no credibility to provide anything topical to such a discussion about such matters.
So please people, get it through you tiny fucking heads - UFOs factually do exist. Factually, the majority of the world has seen a UFO. Period. That does not, in any way, mean people have seen unworldly vehicles or aliens.
Actually, UFOs have been pretty consistent throughout all of those eras. There are references to them in the bible even. They are depicted in Renaissance artwork and recorded by prominent historical figures. They are even on cave walls before recorded history. Basically, for as long as man has recorded events in some form or fashion, they have been depicted.
So to correct your statement, along side a steady stream of UFO depictions throughout history, demons, beasts, witches have also been noted.
The current myth-of-the day is UFO's.
There is absolutely nothing current about this mythos. In fact, its about the only truly consistent mythos known to man throughout the entire world. In fact, the only thing "current" about UFO mythology is people seem to ignorantly believe the mythos is the least bit modern.
I said its fixed in next generation hardware? You point to people complaining about current and previous generation hardware? How is your post the least bit topical?
Your reading comprehension skills seem to be a bit lacking.
WTF? You're attacking a sincere, neutral, informative, contextual post?
You said:
Honeycomb is down to a 45ms requirement that hardware manufacturers have to meet.
Honeycomb is a specific version of Android. Furthermore, you attributed a specific latency to Honeycomb which simply doesn't exist. Thusly me pointing out the common confusion which you now seem to be compounding. So factually, your statement is completely wrong. To address your factually incorrect statement, I said:
That's a misrepresentation and a common misconception. The truth is, all 2.x and 3x, versions of Android are capable of competing with iOS's latency measurements.
So since factually your statement is wrong and my statement is correct and I specifically corrected your statement with additional details which explains why your statement is wrong and your complaint is being addressed, I fail to see why my comprehension skills are the least bit questioned. Perhaps its not my comprehension skills which require correction?
From here, you then take a completely unrelated turn in the same paragraph...which is not to say I'm a grammar Nazi - believe me, I'm not - its just that its confusing since it has absolutely nothing to do with your original assertion that my factually accurate and completely topical statements somehow prove a comprehension issue. This is especially true since you then continue to make an issue of something which I specifically address and yet insist its an issue when clearly its not. Which seemingly further suggests the comprehension issue is squarely between your monitor and chair.
You said:
The problem is with not being able to enforce strict hardware requirements on a plethora of different hardware.
To which I had previously said:
Those standards have already been set and are being met. They are on par with what Apple offers and likely will be offering for some time to come. The next generation of Android hardware will all meet the required specifications.
Perhaps, "comprehension skills seem to be a bit lacking", doesn't mean what you think it means.
This is not a troll. Yes, its completely off topic. Nonetheless, its a serious question. Every time I ask, I get troll bombed to hell and never see a reply.
What is the appeal of Minecraft? I've repeatedly tried to understand its appeal but I completely don't get it. It reminds me of a lego world on an old Atri 2600 for people who miss the 2600's graphics. Seriously, why is anyone interested in Minecraft? Why are you, specifically, interested in Minecraft? What's the appeal?
That would be an application bug. Any application which fails to scale is either extremely purpose centric addressing a specific niche or flatly not even trying to comply with developer guidelines.
Its been pretty clear for a while now, featured apps don't always get that visibility based strictly on the published guidelines. I've seen many a featured app which was garbage. Likewise, I've seen many which should be a featured app, including many others saying the same thing, which are completely ignored.
I don't proclaim to understand exactly how it works but its pretty clear it doesn't work the way Google has published and repeatedly claimed.
Those standards have already been set and are being met. They are on par with what Apple offers and likely will be offering for some time to come. The next generation of Android hardware will all meet the required specifications.
iOS has a 4-5ms latency, Honeycomb is down to a 45ms requirement that hardware manufacturers have to meet.
That's a misrepresentation and a common misconception. The truth is, all 2.x and 3x, versions of Android are capable of competing with iOS's latency measurements. The problem is, its not guaranteed by the OS and the hardware and associated drivers never made any effort to meet such requirements. Samsung hardware in particular is known to have absolutely horrible drivers and/or hardware with extremely high latency. Thusly, what people blame on Android is actually driver and hardware issues. Some Android devices actually can compete with iOS' latency but they are few and far between.
With the next generation of Android hardware, all devices will meet or beat iOS' latency requirements.
And that is why my insurance premiums went up 20+% last year.
No! Your premiums went up last year so that sock puppets would believe they were related. Realistically, your premiums could be cut in half with Obamacare in place and the Insurance companies would be making the same income.
The problem is, no one cares about waste or fraud and its strangling the system. Insurance companies don't want to be held accountable for fraud and waste. The public doesn't want to be held accountable for it. And the government sure as hell doesn't want to be held accountable for it because that fraud ultimately pays them back.
If you're angry at higher premiums and you're blaming Obamacare, you're been played.
Sorry for second reply but I just got to the last post in the linked thread.
I had my 2.0 Roadster on a 1.5 mile road course near Detroit MI. I started with 190 ideal miles on a performance charge. I drove 15 miles to the track. Track time during the afternoon consisted of four, 5 lap sessions. I then drove back the 15 miles back and arrived at my charge point with 85 ideal miles. Estimated miles was down around 35, due to my "non-green" driving on track. Sorry my numbers aren't more precise this took place 6 months ago.
Just to further support for 4x race factor: That works out to be 15x2 for coming and going. Plus, 1.5 miles times five lapse. Providing for a x4 factor for the track distance we wind up with (1.5*5*4) + 15*2, which equals 60 miles. He started out with 190 miles of juice and finished with an estimated 85 miles. The calculation allows for 130 miles of juice. So in his case, the track time was actually more than a factor of four. It seems a factor of ten, for that guy, is more accurate. At any rate, as you can see, track driving has significantly higher demands than does typical economy driving or even sporty driving.
Also, looking around the internet for actual experience, Top Gear's numbers sound a lot closer to accurate than Tesla's, even on Tesla's own message board:
Actually, they don't, and that's entirely the point. There is a huge difference between sports car and race car. People are often confused by the difference, but the difference is profound.
The last one states that he got 30 track miles and 30 road miles, an that the range said he had 35 miles left (based on the combined usage.) If you assume that the track miles use twice as much battery power as the road miles (and this is an estimate that is extremely in Tesla's favor, most cars are much worse,) the track range works out to just over 50 miles.
Actually, track running cuts power by roughly a factor of four. Your typical sports car driver cuts it roughly in half. That's a big difference. That means your typical sport driver will get something like 100 miles per charge. And given its targeting sporty commuters, it absolute fits the niche they specifically claim to address.
You need to keep in mind, the number of sports cars which ever see a track is something less than 1%. Thusly, REAL sports cars are not run on tracks. Period. Race cars, on the other hand, do run on tracks. Extremely few production cars can withstand the punishment of a racetrack. Even extremely high end vehicles require tons of maintenance after a single race. In fact, in many motorsports, the engine is completely rebuilt after a race. Likewise, brakes are replaces, so on and so on.
Attempting to hold a sports car to race car standards is very much comparing apples and oranges.
The engine overheated.
Doesn't mean what you think it means. For a Tesla Roadster, overheated means maximum power threshold has been lowered. That's not the same thing as being stuck on the side of the road, as the show clearly implied.
The brakes broke.
Something which was never addressed is if they broke, or if they "broke". The later is not terribly uncommon for the show.
I dunno man.. It still would have needed to be written in assembly, and that's no more a problem now than it was then.. But again, my point is that he was at least above-average for a developer. He's not in the same category as Linus or Woz or anybody of that nature, but he was a computer geek, and that counts for something.
That's a position I can at least acknowledge. And despite my hyperbole, that's entirely my point. Gates is constantly presented as a technology and business super genius when reality is, he wasn't. He a spoiled brat from a wealthy family who got extremely, extremely, extremely, lucky. He is somewhat tech savvy but far, far less than modern tech celebs known today. What made his company grow doesn't that he was a super genius, its that he replayed the IBM playbook and was a super sociopath which allowed him to rapidly corner the market (much because IBM was legally prevented [look up their law suite which still binds them] from knee-capping him before he could effectively leverage it).
So yes, he's a super genius in that he's a sociopathic prick, who was extremely lucky, in a market where competition was extremely light and those who could have stopped him, were prevented from doing so by court order. This means the world is full of super geniuses. And in a world of these kinds of super geniuses, Gates is a moron. Literally, if it were not for extreme luck, no one would have a clue who the fuck Gates is today.
The reality is extremely well documented and all of it clearly shows Gates to be technology idiot. Almost every cool technology people associate with Gates had absolutely nothing to do with Gates except for the fact he purchased and marketed it. Furthermore, most of the technology championed by Gates were complete failures. Again, Marketing is Gate's most brilliant attribute. Even to this day, Microsoft is a so-so technology company (having gotten much better since his departure - contrary to market performance). And what's really hurt Microsoft in recent times is the lack of their marketing direction to maintain market share and the fact that Gate's sociopathic history has come home to roost (which has created their competition; specifically Apple and Linux).
Sure, so long as we're revising history, the South and Germany both won.
His smarts were in marketing - exactly as I originally asserted. The business he created was only possible, not because of his awesome prowess, but because of IBM's misstep (as I originally stated), which allowed anyone other than a complete fool to advance. And given the market at the time, that's all almost any fool needed. The fact his excelled at marketing and a lack of general competition, is what allowed is massively shitty products to corner the market.
I'm sorry, but you imaging a different world than reality doesn't make it so. The fact I'm having to spell this out to you underlines how little you actually understand of the actual subject. Perhaps you should bother to evaluate the actual market rather than take their own, biased, views o the subject.
Absolutely I understand the difference. That's why I pointed it out.
Also, you seem to to have missed the biggest difference of all. I was not assigning blame. I was simply pointing out to you and others, you playing the dumb blame game when its convenient to do so because it makes the other party "guilty." The reality is, both parties are idiots for idiots and until people stop playing these imaginary games, things will never improve.
The truth is, both parties play these games and party parties are as corrupt as hell. Its like arguing my blue eyed Satan is less evil than your green eyed Satan.
Writing a BASIC interpreter is pretty easy.. Writing one that resides in 8KB of memory and is functional on late 70's technology is at least a little hard.
No, its not. You're using a modern perspective to evaluate what was common then.
I'm fully aware of Microsoft's background, which is why I wrote an informative post, to which you replied.
To say that Gates didn't have technical skill is completely ignorant.
My comment was very much hyperbole but the point remains valid. Gates is extremely low on the tech savvy scale and nothing near the skill what he's constantly attributed. He wrote, with assistance, an extremely low end basic interpreter. That skill level is easily achieved by anyone who achieves a degree in computer science.
Actually his reasoning is extremely well founded in medical fact.
The fact is, his philanthropy didn't really start until he got married; or roundabouts. Chances are extremely high, his charitable efforts have everything to do with his wife and his deeply rooted need to appear normal for her. Such behavior is extremely common for sociopaths. And as have several studies shown, the majority of fortune 500 are in fact, run by sociopaths.
Not in the least. Gates is a complete douche bag and always has been. He's never shown much smarts when it comes to matters of technology. Period. People have always attributed technological and business prowess where little actually exists. His business position has always been one of luck, usually by the ineptitude of others (cough, IBM) more so than any genius for business. Gate's real ability is in marketing and unethetical, cut-throat behavior. Its always been true. I can't help but look down on any and all who idolizes Gates.
The sooner people understand Microsoft for what it is, the sooner they'll be able to grasp Gate's real ability. Gates is a technological idiot. He's not a genius in business, contrary to what is constantly put forward. His true genies is in marketing. Microsoft sucks as a technology company. They always have. What has always set them apart is their willingness to be cut-throat and extremely unethetical at every turn combined with good marketing fundamentals. In fact, if anything, Gates was smart enough to learn everything he knows from IBM - literally.
Yes, you got that right. Almost everything Gates did while at Microsoft, was to walk through IBM's evolution of business. Hell, IBM even went through the same anti-trust prosecutions for the same unethetical and anti-competitive behavior long before Microsoft was a gleam in Gate's eyes.
Ignorantly, when people point to the genius of Gates, they are actually talking about everything than made IBM what it is today. Gates just read from the same playbook; most of which is well documented, including, but not limited to, court transcripts.
Please stop shouting you don't understand how government works. If it comes across the table, the President can veto it. All laws originate outside of the Presidential office. Its up to the President to veto or accept it. By most accounts, a failure to veto is an acknowledgement of sorts.
So while I honestly don't care who president endorsed it, the fact remains, your attempt to lure people from the truth is dishonest or ignorant.
Well, don't get upset yet. It isn't strength alone which makes kevlar so attractive. There are other materials which meet or exceed kevlar's strength but are not as desirable because of other traits. What makes kevlar so attractive is its strength in combination with its light weight, flexibility, and elasticity. Without that combination, kevlar wouldn't be attractive for what its most commonly used for; bullet proof vests and composite construction.
Unless this product can truly rival kevlar, this is yet another material which has some, but not all, of kevlars properties. That makes it interesting, but not a true rival. As such, unless it can truly rival kevlar, chances are, at least for now, its not likely to strain the food supply.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, and the "wiser" 9/11 morons only claim that "we need a new investigation",
What a trollish post. The simple fact is, 9/11 was already investigated. The problem is, for 9/11ers, no amount of investigation is enough unless they believe it sides with them. Factually, all evidence clearly indicates 9/11ers are full of shit. For 9/11, the majority of the require information was fairly easy to find, document, and analyze.
On the other hand, all credible UFO investigations consistently show more study is required. Its credible enough even the USAF has officers specifically designated to deal with such reports - as does most of the world's industrialized countries.
I'm sorry, but your argument makes you out to be an idiot because its not the least bit sound, reasonable, or supported by available facts.
"reputable people" means shit in science.
There's idealism and reality. Ideally, you're absolutely right. In reality, reputation is everything; frequently to the detriment of science itself.
That's a very narrow view. Science is a process, not only conclusions. Reputable testimony certainly isn't proof, but having proof and opening your mind to possibilities are two different things. The latter is necessary to allow the former to be examined. It's likely that private researchers will at some point in the future be able to afford such sensors. But why would they ever bother without proof, right?
I wish more people would understand reality and deal with the truth of what you're saying here. I'm not taking sides in your exchange, but the simple fact is, your statement is extremely profound.
The established in the church of science (sure which scientology wasn't already taken) have been doing lots of harm to science by failing to understand and follow the scientific method. Its easy to look around and find lots of examples where these idiots, well known idiots in fact, are actively preventing the scientific process because it offends their ego. Cold fusion is just one such example.
Scientists didn't always embrace such idiocy. Ironically, even a hundred years ago and back, scientists openly engaged the public for ideas as much as education. These days, such openness is considered pompous or weak minded. The fact education, debate, and discussion is classified as such, a sign of sickness within the community.
Now, scientists believe only they have any idea what's worth researching and literally, science and especially funding, is distributed based on a judgement (frequently without any information on which to base such judgement - typically referred to as ignorance) call rather than the merits of available study. Worse, ignorance is frequently preventing even the most basic of study. In some cases, they go out of their way to destroy careers to prevent the most basic of exploration.
Yes, some good science still takes place. Yes, science hasn't completely broken down. But very clearly, many extremely prominent scientists absolutely are not following their most basic and fundamental principals. And its not just me saying so. Such voices are becoming louder and louder even from other scientists and physicists.
The majority of the world population, by far, has seen a UFO. Contrary to popular ignorance, that doesn't mean its aliens.
On my soapbox-
I really, really, really, really, really, really, really, wish people would stop purposely conflating UFO to mean alien. The former is a fact, they absolutely do exist, while the later is extremely improbable. People who conflate the two sound like raving idiots. When these idiots then attack those who do believe in aliens, saying UFO to mean alien completely undermines their argument as they sound dumber than those who claimed they were probed the night before.
If you don't know the difference between a factual, real-world object, or even a visual phenomenon, and an alien, you have absolutely no credibility to provide anything topical to such a discussion about such matters.
So please people, get it through you tiny fucking heads - UFOs factually do exist. Factually, the majority of the world has seen a UFO. Period. That does not, in any way, mean people have seen unworldly vehicles or aliens.
Actually, UFOs have been pretty consistent throughout all of those eras. There are references to them in the bible even. They are depicted in Renaissance artwork and recorded by prominent historical figures. They are even on cave walls before recorded history. Basically, for as long as man has recorded events in some form or fashion, they have been depicted.
So to correct your statement, along side a steady stream of UFO depictions throughout history, demons, beasts, witches have also been noted.
The current myth-of-the day is UFO's.
There is absolutely nothing current about this mythos. In fact, its about the only truly consistent mythos known to man throughout the entire world. In fact, the only thing "current" about UFO mythology is people seem to ignorantly believe the mythos is the least bit modern.
Thanks for taking the time to answer. I can at least understand the appeal of an open ended world. I had no idea about the monster aspect.
What is it with comprehension issues?
I said its fixed in next generation hardware? You point to people complaining about current and previous generation hardware? How is your post the least bit topical?
Your reading comprehension skills seem to be a bit lacking.
WTF? You're attacking a sincere, neutral, informative, contextual post?
You said:
Honeycomb is down to a 45ms requirement that hardware manufacturers have to meet.
Honeycomb is a specific version of Android. Furthermore, you attributed a specific latency to Honeycomb which simply doesn't exist. Thusly me pointing out the common confusion which you now seem to be compounding. So factually, your statement is completely wrong. To address your factually incorrect statement, I said:
That's a misrepresentation and a common misconception. The truth is, all 2.x and 3x, versions of Android are capable of competing with iOS's latency measurements.
So since factually your statement is wrong and my statement is correct and I specifically corrected your statement with additional details which explains why your statement is wrong and your complaint is being addressed, I fail to see why my comprehension skills are the least bit questioned. Perhaps its not my comprehension skills which require correction?
From here, you then take a completely unrelated turn in the same paragraph...which is not to say I'm a grammar Nazi - believe me, I'm not - its just that its confusing since it has absolutely nothing to do with your original assertion that my factually accurate and completely topical statements somehow prove a comprehension issue. This is especially true since you then continue to make an issue of something which I specifically address and yet insist its an issue when clearly its not. Which seemingly further suggests the comprehension issue is squarely between your monitor and chair.
You said:
The problem is with not being able to enforce strict hardware requirements on a plethora of different hardware.
To which I had previously said:
Those standards have already been set and are being met. They are on par with what Apple offers and likely will be offering for some time to come. The next generation of Android hardware will all meet the required specifications.
Perhaps, "comprehension skills seem to be a bit lacking", doesn't mean what you think it means.
about updates to Minecraft
This is not a troll. Yes, its completely off topic. Nonetheless, its a serious question. Every time I ask, I get troll bombed to hell and never see a reply.
What is the appeal of Minecraft? I've repeatedly tried to understand its appeal but I completely don't get it. It reminds me of a lego world on an old Atri 2600 for people who miss the 2600's graphics. Seriously, why is anyone interested in Minecraft? Why are you, specifically, interested in Minecraft? What's the appeal?
That would be an application bug. Any application which fails to scale is either extremely purpose centric addressing a specific niche or flatly not even trying to comply with developer guidelines.
Its been pretty clear for a while now, featured apps don't always get that visibility based strictly on the published guidelines. I've seen many a featured app which was garbage. Likewise, I've seen many which should be a featured app, including many others saying the same thing, which are completely ignored.
I don't proclaim to understand exactly how it works but its pretty clear it doesn't work the way Google has published and repeatedly claimed.
Real time low latency audio is one example.
Those standards have already been set and are being met. They are on par with what Apple offers and likely will be offering for some time to come. The next generation of Android hardware will all meet the required specifications.
iOS has a 4-5ms latency, Honeycomb is down to a 45ms requirement that hardware manufacturers have to meet.
That's a misrepresentation and a common misconception. The truth is, all 2.x and 3x, versions of Android are capable of competing with iOS's latency measurements. The problem is, its not guaranteed by the OS and the hardware and associated drivers never made any effort to meet such requirements. Samsung hardware in particular is known to have absolutely horrible drivers and/or hardware with extremely high latency. Thusly, what people blame on Android is actually driver and hardware issues. Some Android devices actually can compete with iOS' latency but they are few and far between.
With the next generation of Android hardware, all devices will meet or beat iOS' latency requirements.
And that is why my insurance premiums went up 20+% last year.
No! Your premiums went up last year so that sock puppets would believe they were related. Realistically, your premiums could be cut in half with Obamacare in place and the Insurance companies would be making the same income.
The problem is, no one cares about waste or fraud and its strangling the system. Insurance companies don't want to be held accountable for fraud and waste. The public doesn't want to be held accountable for it. And the government sure as hell doesn't want to be held accountable for it because that fraud ultimately pays them back.
If you're angry at higher premiums and you're blaming Obamacare, you're been played.
Sorry for second reply but I just got to the last post in the linked thread.
I had my 2.0 Roadster on a 1.5 mile road course near Detroit MI. I started with 190 ideal miles on a performance charge. I drove 15 miles to the track. Track time during the afternoon consisted of four, 5 lap sessions. I then drove back the 15 miles back and arrived at my charge point with 85 ideal miles. Estimated miles was down around 35, due to my "non-green" driving on track. Sorry my numbers aren't more precise this took place 6 months ago.
Just to further support for 4x race factor:
That works out to be 15x2 for coming and going. Plus, 1.5 miles times five lapse. Providing for a x4 factor for the track distance we wind up with (1.5*5*4) + 15*2, which equals 60 miles. He started out with 190 miles of juice and finished with an estimated 85 miles. The calculation allows for 130 miles of juice. So in his case, the track time was actually more than a factor of four. It seems a factor of ten, for that guy, is more accurate. At any rate, as you can see, track driving has significantly higher demands than does typical economy driving or even sporty driving.
Also, looking around the internet for actual experience, Top Gear's numbers sound a lot closer to accurate than Tesla's, even on Tesla's own message board:
Actually, they don't, and that's entirely the point. There is a huge difference between sports car and race car. People are often confused by the difference, but the difference is profound.
The last one states that he got 30 track miles and 30 road miles, an that the range said he had 35 miles left (based on the combined usage.) If you assume that the track miles use twice as much battery power as the road miles (and this is an estimate that is extremely in Tesla's favor, most cars are much worse,) the track range works out to just over 50 miles.
Actually, track running cuts power by roughly a factor of four. Your typical sports car driver cuts it roughly in half. That's a big difference. That means your typical sport driver will get something like 100 miles per charge. And given its targeting sporty commuters, it absolute fits the niche they specifically claim to address.
You need to keep in mind, the number of sports cars which ever see a track is something less than 1%. Thusly, REAL sports cars are not run on tracks. Period. Race cars, on the other hand, do run on tracks. Extremely few production cars can withstand the punishment of a racetrack. Even extremely high end vehicles require tons of maintenance after a single race. In fact, in many motorsports, the engine is completely rebuilt after a race. Likewise, brakes are replaces, so on and so on.
Attempting to hold a sports car to race car standards is very much comparing apples and oranges.
The engine overheated.
Doesn't mean what you think it means. For a Tesla Roadster, overheated means maximum power threshold has been lowered. That's not the same thing as being stuck on the side of the road, as the show clearly implied.
The brakes broke.
Something which was never addressed is if they broke, or if they "broke". The later is not terribly uncommon for the show.
I dunno man.. It still would have needed to be written in assembly, and that's no more a problem now than it was then.. But again, my point is that he was at least above-average for a developer. He's not in the same category as Linus or Woz or anybody of that nature, but he was a computer geek, and that counts for something.
That's a position I can at least acknowledge. And despite my hyperbole, that's entirely my point. Gates is constantly presented as a technology and business super genius when reality is, he wasn't. He a spoiled brat from a wealthy family who got extremely, extremely, extremely, lucky. He is somewhat tech savvy but far, far less than modern tech celebs known today. What made his company grow doesn't that he was a super genius, its that he replayed the IBM playbook and was a super sociopath which allowed him to rapidly corner the market (much because IBM was legally prevented [look up their law suite which still binds them] from knee-capping him before he could effectively leverage it).
So yes, he's a super genius in that he's a sociopathic prick, who was extremely lucky, in a market where competition was extremely light and those who could have stopped him, were prevented from doing so by court order. This means the world is full of super geniuses. And in a world of these kinds of super geniuses, Gates is a moron. Literally, if it were not for extreme luck, no one would have a clue who the fuck Gates is today.
The reality is extremely well documented and all of it clearly shows Gates to be technology idiot. Almost every cool technology people associate with Gates had absolutely nothing to do with Gates except for the fact he purchased and marketed it. Furthermore, most of the technology championed by Gates were complete failures. Again, Marketing is Gate's most brilliant attribute. Even to this day, Microsoft is a so-so technology company (having gotten much better since his departure - contrary to market performance). And what's really hurt Microsoft in recent times is the lack of their marketing direction to maintain market share and the fact that Gate's sociopathic history has come home to roost (which has created their competition; specifically Apple and Linux).
Sure, so long as we're revising history, the South and Germany both won.
His smarts were in marketing - exactly as I originally asserted. The business he created was only possible, not because of his awesome prowess, but because of IBM's misstep (as I originally stated), which allowed anyone other than a complete fool to advance. And given the market at the time, that's all almost any fool needed. The fact his excelled at marketing and a lack of general competition, is what allowed is massively shitty products to corner the market.
I'm sorry, but you imaging a different world than reality doesn't make it so. The fact I'm having to spell this out to you underlines how little you actually understand of the actual subject. Perhaps you should bother to evaluate the actual market rather than take their own, biased, views o the subject.
And this is why I hate /. these days...
Absolutely I understand the difference. That's why I pointed it out.
Also, you seem to to have missed the biggest difference of all. I was not assigning blame. I was simply pointing out to you and others, you playing the dumb blame game when its convenient to do so because it makes the other party "guilty." The reality is, both parties are idiots for idiots and until people stop playing these imaginary games, things will never improve.
The truth is, both parties play these games and party parties are as corrupt as hell. Its like arguing my blue eyed Satan is less evil than your green eyed Satan.
Writing a BASIC interpreter is pretty easy.. Writing one that resides in 8KB of memory and is functional on late 70's technology is at least a little hard.
No, its not. You're using a modern perspective to evaluate what was common then.
I'm fully aware of Microsoft's background, which is why I wrote an informative post, to which you replied.
To say that Gates didn't have technical skill is completely ignorant.
My comment was very much hyperbole but the point remains valid. Gates is extremely low on the tech savvy scale and nothing near the skill what he's constantly attributed. He wrote, with assistance, an extremely low end basic interpreter. That skill level is easily achieved by anyone who achieves a degree in computer science.
Couldn't of said better.
Actually his reasoning is extremely well founded in medical fact.
The fact is, his philanthropy didn't really start until he got married; or roundabouts. Chances are extremely high, his charitable efforts have everything to do with his wife and his deeply rooted need to appear normal for her. Such behavior is extremely common for sociopaths. And as have several studies shown, the majority of fortune 500 are in fact, run by sociopaths.
Does it surprise anyone...
Not in the least. Gates is a complete douche bag and always has been. He's never shown much smarts when it comes to matters of technology. Period. People have always attributed technological and business prowess where little actually exists. His business position has always been one of luck, usually by the ineptitude of others (cough, IBM) more so than any genius for business. Gate's real ability is in marketing and unethetical, cut-throat behavior. Its always been true. I can't help but look down on any and all who idolizes Gates.
The sooner people understand Microsoft for what it is, the sooner they'll be able to grasp Gate's real ability. Gates is a technological idiot. He's not a genius in business, contrary to what is constantly put forward. His true genies is in marketing. Microsoft sucks as a technology company. They always have. What has always set them apart is their willingness to be cut-throat and extremely unethetical at every turn combined with good marketing fundamentals. In fact, if anything, Gates was smart enough to learn everything he knows from IBM - literally.
Yes, you got that right. Almost everything Gates did while at Microsoft, was to walk through IBM's evolution of business. Hell, IBM even went through the same anti-trust prosecutions for the same unethetical and anti-competitive behavior long before Microsoft was a gleam in Gate's eyes.
Ignorantly, when people point to the genius of Gates, they are actually talking about everything than made IBM what it is today. Gates just read from the same playbook; most of which is well documented, including, but not limited to, court transcripts.
Please stop shouting you don't understand how government works. If it comes across the table, the President can veto it. All laws originate outside of the Presidential office. Its up to the President to veto or accept it. By most accounts, a failure to veto is an acknowledgement of sorts.
So while I honestly don't care who president endorsed it, the fact remains, your attempt to lure people from the truth is dishonest or ignorant.
Well, don't get upset yet. It isn't strength alone which makes kevlar so attractive. There are other materials which meet or exceed kevlar's strength but are not as desirable because of other traits. What makes kevlar so attractive is its strength in combination with its light weight, flexibility, and elasticity. Without that combination, kevlar wouldn't be attractive for what its most commonly used for; bullet proof vests and composite construction.
Unless this product can truly rival kevlar, this is yet another material which has some, but not all, of kevlars properties. That makes it interesting, but not a true rival. As such, unless it can truly rival kevlar, chances are, at least for now, its not likely to strain the food supply.