a F-16 can perform a flat turn. This is where the aircraft does not bank at all before turning left or right.
No, it cannot.
Uhh, shouldn't ANY plane with both a rudder and ailerons be able to do this? Granted, it's sub-optimal and not going to be a tight turn, but it should be possible. It might take a mile or two to effect a meaningful change of course, but I think it is possible.
And of course, there's always the kind of flat turn you don't *want* to do - the kind from a bad stall.
The only way to obtain 10 G's dropping into a chair is for it to be over with *VERY* fast, or to be dropping into it from a large distance up. From a standing position your butt has less than 1 meter to fall to reach the chair. Even if you literally dropped into the chair, without letting yourself down easy, with 1 meter of drop you'd be going about 4.4 meters per second when you hit the chair. Since g ~ 9.8m/s^2, just 1/2 a gee would be enough to stop you in under a second. 10 Gee's would stop you in an instant.
And the article clearly stated that the 5.6 Gee limit was for periods of over 1 second in length.
What's my point? The comment about how this is absurd because you sustain 10 gees falling into a chair is ignoring the fact that they stipulated that it must last at least a second. That phrasing makes it clear to me that the person who wrote this law *did* take into account the fact that in normal conditions objects receive quick impulse accellerations that are very high, and that those aren't a problem.
More than likely the reason for the law, by the way, was NOT the limits the human body can take, but how much frequent inspections and maintenence such a high-gee ride would need to be kept structurally sound. Under those forces, the fear is, the ride itself would rip apart some vital connections somewhere because nobody noticed they needed replacing.
Even though you are correct that there is a normal ping sound generated by correct operation of the coaster, it was premature to belittle the poster by presuming that the ping he was referring to must have been this particular type of ping. Many different things can make a metal ping sound.
All the alleged downsides you mention about open source are downsides of BOTH open and closed source. With closed source you can also end up being stuck with software with no identifiable developer - when the company that made it isn't around anymore, or isn't supporting the product anymore. The difference is the size of the set of people who are allowed to fix the problem. With open source, the size of that set is the population of the earth. With closed source, the size of that set is zero.
Which would you rather have? A lack of a guarantee that your problem will get fixed (open source) or the existence of a guarantee that it WON'T (closed source)?
Pi was about insanity. And it had almost nothing at all to do with science. (Math != science). Was it unique? Yes. Did I like it? No. It was painful to watch the character going through yet another headache attack again and again when I'd much rather they spend that wasted screen time on something useful, like letting the audience in on what the heck the movie is actually about. And the cheezy numerology business with the religious folks didn't help it at all. You know that scene where the main character's mentor is giving a speech to him, telling him to give up the pursuit of Pi because that way lays insanity? I'd wished he'd given that speech to the scriptwriter so I didn't end up wasting my time watching the movie.
I'm fully aware that he didn't know if he would get to do the series - which is why he should NOT have used the title for the whole series to name just one movie.
The point is that a lot of other people *can* even if you *can't*, and that does give you value in the end. You benefit from more eyeballs looking at the code even if those eyeballs aren't yours. The fact that one doesn't have to work for General Motors in order to be able to do maintenence on my car causes there to be more information about my car out there, more choices of mechanics to go to, and lower prices for repairs. These are benefits even though *I* don't know how to fix my own car.
I don't consider it good logic to put "not allowed" in the same category as "not possible". In a society of laws, there are numerous things that are possible but not allowed, like driving through the intersection when the light is red.
The problem is the double-standard. IE also has some older versions that don't fit the newest standards. But do people dare attempt to ignore THOSE browsers? Hell no - they bend over backward to support whatever legacy stuff IE does, whether it's the latest standard or not. But if NS4 doesn't support a new standard, people ignore it because it's got a small enough marketshare that it's safe to do so. In the end the result is that only if a browser has small marketshare do people start bandying about accusations of non-standards compliance and telling others to stop supporting it
But why wasn't it just called "A New Hope", leaving off the "Star Wars" instead of calling it "Star Wars" leaving off the "A New Hope"?
That's my point. If you are going to have both the title of the series and the title of the one part you are viewing now, put the title of the part you are looking at now FIRST. On the other hand, if you are only going to have one title - use the title of the part you are actually seeing, not the title that you meant for the whole series.
Awareness that "Lord of the Rings" is a set of books does not tell someone that:
The story was originally published as
be one long volume, not a trilogy, so
it was not written with a climax in
mind for the end of the first "book".
The first book is called "Fellowship of the Ring" and therefore a movie called "Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring" is probably just the first book. Knowing it's a trilogy doesn't tell you what the titles of the parts are.
In one version, the history is that whales are gone. In the other, they are not. That extinction is an event that occurred in the HISTORY of the show, not the present of the show.
In the un-modified version of the world, whales die out and there aren't any left. In the modified version, some are sent forward in time to after the wiping out, so that they are not wiped out anymore. Since this resulted in stopping the uber whalesong transmission (kinda silly, really) that was ruining civilization as we know it, that's a pretty damn big alteration of history.
Fellowship of the Ring made a major (in my opinion) blunder by NOT being marketed explicitly as the first in a three part series. Heck, even the title was a problem. Note you called it "LOTR" not "FOTR". That's how the movie was marketed. The movie we watched is not LOTR. It's a third of LOTR, of course, and in my opinion shouldn't have been named the way it was. There were a lot of people not familiar with the book who were dissapointed in the "ending" of the movie. I think they would have liked it better if they had known not to expect a wrap-up. (Notice how much people liked Empire Strikes Back even though it doesn't have a nicely wrapped-up ending. It's because they all knew going in to it that there was more to come in the future.)
LOTR:FOTR had the same mistake Star Wars IV made. It should have been "A New Hope: (Star Wars Episode IV)" rather than the other way around, and this movie should have been "Fellowship of the Ring: (Lord of the Rings part 1)" instead of the other way around (and they didn't even mention that it was a "part 1" anywhere in the title, which I think also would have helped a lot.
B5 wasn't so much a soap opera as a long term *planned* plot, and that's what made it so good. In a soap opera, do you really think the writer(s) know in season 1 what the major underlying plot of seasons 2,3,and 4 will be? A soap opera is more random than B5 was. A soap opera is where people stay in the same situation, but their interpersonal relationships will change a bit over time. In that regard, I see the Rick Berman junk (Voyager, new Enterprise) as being closer to soap operas than B5 ever was. Which is really a shame, because Enterprise has the potential to be very interesting - seeing many first contacts, seeing the infancy of the earth fleet, seeing people deal with things for the first time that have become common practice later. But they waste the screen time on pointless touchy-feely junk (including an entire episode trying to find out what one crewman's favorite food is, for crying out loud) and don't follow up on any of the new stuff they encounter. If Enterprise was written like B5, with a long term overall plot in mind that can be revealed in small pieces to the audience, then it would have been tolerable and I'd still be watching it.
And, NO B5 did not have technology as "more of a backdrop" than Star Trek did. B5 didn't have "TECH" sprinkled all over the scripts. Instead they made up a series of rules to the tech of the universe and consistently re-used them - for example the fact that hyperspace gating takes such enormous equipment that you either use stationary jump gates to do it for you, or you have to take along a giant capital ship big enough to hold the machinery to do it itself. The fact that some of the aliens had more advanced tech that let them make unassited jumps in smaller ships was one of the ways the show demonstrated that the aliens' tech was a bit ahead of the Earthlings.
And most importantly, when they broke a major rule of physics in the show, they *knew it* and at least tried to offer a consistent explanation for it. For example, it's too expensive to film episodes where everyone is weightless, so they envision a rotating station to explain the gravity, and once they do that they *stick with it* and follow through to some logical conclusions, like mentioning that gravity is stronger in the outermost ring (called "downbelow"), and mentioning that different species tend to prefer living quarters in different rings, closely matching their homeworld gravity, and putting a transport tube through the middle, where the gravity is negligable. Technical stuff was more than just a backdrop to the show. Much of the plot of season three revolved around how to overcome the super tech the "shadows" had.
Granted, I can see calling all that tech stuff "only a backdrop", since it was a bit vague, and still had many unexplained bits. But not when comparing to Star Trek, which has tech that is far more vague and unexplained. If you were comparing it to something like a Robert L Forward novel, then sure, that would be a valid point.
Saying "It won't work" and saying "It won't work because..." are equally strong assertions. Adding the explanation doesn't soften the boldness of the assertion one bit. And it was that boldness that made it false. Saying, "I don't want to do it that way because the other way is easier/better/faster/etc" would have been a true statement. Saying "I don't want to do it that way because it cannot work." is not.
I wasn't merely complaining that they broke backward compatability. I was complaining that they did it FOR NO GOOD REASON. I recognize that there will be cases where it's just not possible to XML-ise HTML and retain backward compatability, but this didn't have to be one of them.
So in other words, NO it's not HTML. That's what I thought. They could have just as easily gotten around the problem in a way that works in BOTH HTML and XHTML renderers, but they chose not to.
Is that the fault of people who still want to support old browsers? No. It's the fault of people who deliberately made a spec that breaks old browsers for no good reason. In that regard, I actually see "<br></br>" as a less ugly way to XML-ize HTML than "<gr/>".
I wasn't trying to claim it was easier or better to use a regex. I was debunking your implication that it won't work to use search/replace. Saying it won't work is a stronger statement than just saying it is sub-optimal.
Hmm - it seems Slashdot didn't literalize my < and > even though I said I was posting in plain text. This is my second attempt, using < and > instead:
What the heck is "<br/>" supposed to mean, and why is it valid HTML? (And why is "<br/>" valid either for that matter?) The slash doesn't fit the pattern of:
keyword[=value]
Where value is either a single-tick quoted string, a double-tick quoted string, or a bareword
One thing is clear. The world has never seen laissez-faire capitalism.
Only in the same sense that the world has never seen Communism, or Democracy, or Socialism. It's convenient for your argument for you to set the bar so high that even the slightest deviation from the theoretical ideal makes the example not count. It's just like when modern-day Communists try to claim that the Soviet Union was never Communist.
Big companies like Enron are only possible with support from the government.
If I lived in the alternate universe where that was true, I might start believing the Libertarian position. But here in the real world, big companies with questionable practices do get there without the help of the government. All it takes is a product line where the subject matter is complicated enough that it's impossible for the majority of the marketplace to be informed (i.e. computer operating systems.) Microsoft does not have to use copyright law to get where it is. It got there by simply cutting deals with the suppliers of OS'es that removed choice from the eventual end-user - all perfectly within the ideals of lasseiz-faire capitalism, but not the law. Microsoft doesn't need to throw the copyright book around to make it impossible for a competitor to take over their market. Developers can't get Wine 100% functional. It happens naturally because they are facing a moving target that is undocumented. It takes longer to reverse-engineer software than it does to develop it, and that's why Wine doesn't work fully, and never will (in my opinion).
In a high-tech world, it's not possible for the marketplace to be informed. It takes too much time for an individual to become informed on just one type of product alone. Each person is an informed consumer in only a minority of areas, but is an uninformed consumer in many more areas. People buy cars, houses, computers, software, food, furniture, and appliances, but nobody can be an expert on cars and houses and computers and software and food and furniture and appliances all in the span of a single lifetime.
Lasseiz-faire capitalism functions to keep a check on corruption only in those environments where the majority of consumers are able to be knowlegable. In other words, products that are simple enough to understand that every Tom, Dick, and Harry understands everything about how they work. Everyone knows how a knife, fork, and spoon operate, so if a company tried selling shoddy utensils for more than they're worth, that company wouldn't survive. Everyone would be able to tell the company is screwing them. The same can't be said for modern high-tech products.
Slashdot Mirror
And of course, there's always the kind of flat turn you don't *want* to do - the kind from a bad stall.
And the article clearly stated that the 5.6 Gee limit was for periods of over 1 second in length.
What's my point? The comment about how this is absurd because you sustain 10 gees falling into a chair is ignoring the fact that they stipulated that it must last at least a second. That phrasing makes it clear to me that the person who wrote this law *did* take into account the fact that in normal conditions objects receive quick impulse accellerations that are very high, and that those aren't a problem.
More than likely the reason for the law, by the way, was NOT the limits the human body can take, but how much frequent inspections and maintenence such a high-gee ride would need to be kept structurally sound. Under those forces, the fear is, the ride itself would rip apart some vital connections somewhere because nobody noticed they needed replacing.
Even though you are correct that there is a normal ping sound generated by correct operation of the coaster, it was premature to belittle the poster by presuming that the ping he was referring to must have been this particular type of ping. Many different things can make a metal ping sound.
Which would you rather have? A lack of a guarantee that your problem will get fixed (open source) or the existence of a guarantee that it WON'T (closed source)?
These two statements are not contradictory:
1 - Math is the lingua franca of science.
2 - Math is not science.
Pi was about insanity. And it had almost nothing at all to do with science. (Math != science). Was it unique? Yes. Did I like it? No. It was painful to watch the character going through yet another headache attack again and again when I'd much rather they spend that wasted screen time on something useful, like letting the audience in on what the heck the movie is actually about. And the cheezy numerology business with the religious folks didn't help it at all. You know that scene where the main character's mentor is giving a speech to him, telling him to give up the pursuit of Pi because that way lays insanity? I'd wished he'd given that speech to the scriptwriter so I didn't end up wasting my time watching the movie.
I'm fully aware that he didn't know if he would get to do the series - which is why he should NOT have used the title for the whole series to name just one movie.
The point is that a lot of other people *can* even if you *can't*, and that does give you value in the end. You benefit from more eyeballs looking at the code even if those eyeballs aren't yours. The fact that one doesn't have to work for General Motors in order to be able to do maintenence on my car causes there to be more information about my car out there, more choices of mechanics to go to, and lower prices for repairs. These are benefits even though *I* don't know how to fix my own car.
I don't consider it good logic to put "not allowed" in the same category as "not possible". In a society of laws, there are numerous things that are possible but not allowed, like driving through the intersection when the light is red.
The problem is the double-standard. IE also has some older versions that don't fit the newest standards. But do people dare attempt to ignore THOSE browsers? Hell no - they bend over backward to support whatever legacy stuff IE does, whether it's the latest standard or not. But if NS4 doesn't support a new standard, people ignore it because it's got a small enough marketshare that it's safe to do so. In the end the result is that only if a browser has small marketshare do people start bandying about accusations of non-standards compliance and telling others to stop supporting it
But why wasn't it just called "A New Hope", leaving off the "Star Wars" instead of calling it "Star Wars" leaving off the "A New Hope"?
That's my point. If you are going to have both the title of the series and the title of the one part you are viewing now, put the title of the part you are looking at now FIRST. On the other hand, if you are only going to have one title - use the title of the part you are actually seeing, not the title that you meant for the whole series.
In one version, the history is that whales are gone. In the other, they are not. That extinction is an event that occurred in the HISTORY of the show, not the present of the show.
In the un-modified version of the world, whales die out and there aren't any left. In the modified version, some are sent forward in time to after the wiping out, so that they are not wiped out anymore. Since this resulted in stopping the uber whalesong transmission (kinda silly, really) that was ruining civilization as we know it, that's a pretty damn big alteration of history.
Fellowship of the Ring made a major (in my opinion) blunder by NOT being marketed explicitly as the first in a three part series. Heck, even the title was a problem. Note you called it "LOTR" not "FOTR". That's how the movie was marketed. The movie we watched is not LOTR. It's a third of LOTR, of course, and in my opinion shouldn't have been named the way it was. There were a lot of people not familiar with the book who were dissapointed in the "ending" of the movie. I think they would have liked it better if they had known not to expect a wrap-up. (Notice how much people liked Empire Strikes Back even though it doesn't have a nicely wrapped-up ending. It's because they all knew going in to it that there was more to come in the future.)
LOTR:FOTR had the same mistake Star Wars IV made. It should have been "A New Hope: (Star Wars Episode IV)" rather than the other way around, and this movie should have been "Fellowship of the Ring: (Lord of the Rings part 1)" instead of the other way around (and they didn't even mention that it was a "part 1" anywhere in the title, which I think also would have helped a lot.
B5 wasn't so much a soap opera as a long term *planned* plot, and that's what made it so good. In a soap opera, do you really think the writer(s) know in season 1 what the major underlying plot of seasons 2,3,and 4 will be? A soap opera is more random than B5 was. A soap opera is where people stay in the same situation, but their interpersonal relationships will change a bit over time. In that regard, I see the Rick Berman junk (Voyager, new Enterprise) as being closer to soap operas than B5 ever was. Which is really a shame, because Enterprise has the potential to be very interesting - seeing many first contacts, seeing the infancy of the earth fleet, seeing people deal with things for the first time that have become common practice later. But they waste the screen time on pointless touchy-feely junk (including an entire episode trying to find out what one crewman's favorite food is, for crying out loud) and don't follow up on any of the new stuff they encounter. If Enterprise was written like B5, with a long term overall plot in mind that can be revealed in small pieces to the audience, then it would have been tolerable and I'd still be watching it.
And, NO B5 did not have technology as "more of a backdrop" than Star Trek did. B5 didn't have "TECH" sprinkled all over the scripts. Instead they made up a series of rules to the tech of the universe and consistently re-used them - for example the fact that hyperspace gating takes such enormous equipment that you either use stationary jump gates to do it for you, or you have to take along a giant capital ship big enough to hold the machinery to do it itself. The fact that some of the aliens had more advanced tech that let them make unassited jumps in smaller ships was one of the ways the show demonstrated that the aliens' tech was a bit ahead of the Earthlings.
And most importantly, when they broke a major rule of physics in the show, they *knew it* and at least tried to offer a consistent explanation for it. For example, it's too expensive to film episodes where everyone is weightless, so they envision a rotating station to explain the gravity, and once they do that they *stick with it* and follow through to some logical conclusions, like mentioning that gravity is stronger in the outermost ring (called "downbelow"), and mentioning that different species tend to prefer living quarters in different rings, closely matching their homeworld gravity, and putting a transport tube through the middle, where the gravity is negligable. Technical stuff was more than just a backdrop to the show. Much of the plot of season three revolved around how to overcome the super tech the "shadows" had.
Granted, I can see calling all that tech stuff "only a backdrop", since it was a bit vague, and still had many unexplained bits. But not when comparing to Star Trek, which has tech that is far more vague and unexplained. If you were comparing it to something like a Robert L Forward novel, then sure, that would be a valid point.
Saying "It won't work" and saying "It won't work because..." are equally strong assertions. Adding the explanation doesn't soften the boldness of the assertion one bit. And it was that boldness that made it false. Saying, "I don't want to do it that way because the other way is easier/better/faster/etc" would have been a true statement. Saying "I don't want to do it that way because it cannot work." is not.
I wasn't merely complaining that they broke backward compatability. I was complaining that they did it FOR NO GOOD REASON. I recognize that there will be cases where it's just not possible to XML-ise HTML and retain backward compatability, but this didn't have to be one of them.
So in other words, NO it's not HTML. That's what I thought. They could have just as easily gotten around the problem in a way that works in BOTH HTML and XHTML renderers, but they chose not to.
Is that the fault of people who still want to support old browsers? No. It's the fault of people who deliberately made a spec that breaks old browsers for no good reason. In that regard, I actually see "<br></br>" as a less ugly way to XML-ize HTML than "<gr/>".
I wasn't trying to claim it was easier or better to use a regex. I was debunking your implication that it won't work to use search/replace. Saying it won't work is a stronger statement than just saying it is sub-optimal.
This is my second attempt, using < and > instead:
What the heck is "<br/>" supposed to mean, and why is it valid HTML? (And why is "<br
keyword[=value]
Where value is either a single-tick quoted string,
a double-tick quoted string, or a bareword
What the heck is "
" supposed to mean, and why is it valid HTML? (And why is "
" valid either for that matter?) The slash doesn't fit the pattern of:
keyword[=value]
Where value is either a single-tick quoted string,
a double-tick quoted string, or a bareword
In a high-tech world, it's not possible for the marketplace to be informed. It takes too much time for an individual to become informed on just one type of product alone. Each person is an informed consumer in only a minority of areas, but is an uninformed consumer in many more areas. People buy cars, houses, computers, software, food, furniture, and appliances, but nobody can be an expert on cars and houses and computers and software and food and furniture and appliances all in the span of a single lifetime.
Lasseiz-faire capitalism functions to keep a check on corruption only in those environments where the majority of consumers are able to be knowlegable. In other words, products that are simple enough to understand that every Tom, Dick, and Harry understands everything about how they work. Everyone knows how a knife, fork, and spoon operate, so if a company tried selling shoddy utensils for more than they're worth, that company wouldn't survive. Everyone would be able to tell the company is screwing them. The same can't be said for modern high-tech products.