I don't post anonymous, especially not to go after someone. Karma is here for a reason, and personal attacks are not my point of being on slashdot. Grow up buddy, the world is not out there to attack you or whatever histrionic ideas you are fostering.
Oh, and congrats. You just made an enemy of someone who has no clue who you are before now.
Wow, you got really lucky. By chance did you start to develop a gasket leak or oil burning from the engine after having done so?
I must say it's half retarded half sad that people somehow imagine that the form of accidental engine braking you mentioned would be used in commonplace causing wear and tear. You'd think people realize that even automatics perform the same equivalent to engine braking as a manual does, and that it is one of the reasons why you still have limiting to 1st and second gear as an option. Oh well.
You sidestepped the major issues and questions resolving thin clients and related setups:
The first question is: for your supposed all-around solution, what exactly is it intended to be used for?
The second is: Why could said solution in the first not be solved by people having computers in the first place, albeit cheap ones if stuff is so minimal it can be done on thin client?
Engine braking is not like brake braking, genius. You will not wear out the engine in any fashion doing engine braking in any gear. Unless you plan on shifting into first and engine braking while you're going 65+, in which case you will be driving over your transmission as fast as you shift into gear. Engine braking is simply what will happen if you're not giving your car gas, as a simple answer. The final result of engine braking is that your engine will starve for gas and stall, if you engine brake at a low enough speed.
Diesels specifically do it for longevity and safety when going down steep hills, as well.
how did this guy get modded insightful? It was incorrect information.
Go read the original comments to my post and you can see all these people humorously defending Qantas...apparently logic is the devil when it comes to slashdot.
Also, I actually didn't do the testing, but I quoted the guy and read the test report of what we did for the guy. This was the testing for the electrical situation where the grounded the planes. Can't say results either, obviously. Gotta say that I'm not a fan of the possibility of having a million people talk on the plane, but the reality is people don't talk that much in a public location (think of the guy on a cellphone on a bus/train idea - not hard to have a "use cellphones here" booth equivalent on a commercial plane).
However, remember, it must be the wireless, can't be the pilot at all! Lastly the US people always have the most idiotic comments, mostly because they don't understand that over the US there isn't anywhere near as much turbulence as over the ocean (great lakes no exception)./did the "surf the aisles" during a pretty hefty unexpected turbulence on a flight from US -> israel...good thing for good pilots I guess?
They test for both. I happen to have just finished reviewing a test report specifically regarding electric tolerance and interference, as well as voltage variance for the FAA a few months back. Yes, I recognize the difference. Yes, radio can interfere with things in rare cirumstances. Note the phrase: RARE.
Umm, they test a wide range of frequencies and devices. Any device irregardless of broadcast strength and frequency is not going to affect an electrical connection, pretty much guaranteed. There are electrical standards for this, and they are very detailed. The FAA doesn't fuck around with this stuff, as much as airline corporations do however.
Planes are not sensitive like they "used to be". People learned from those errors in about 2 years. It's been what, 35+?
Nothing is banned, because you cannot control devices coming on or off a plane. Screeners are trained to look for bombing/hostile devices, but ordinary electronics are not banned nor can realistically be controlled. So don't make shit up. A radio frequency could certainly disrupt the communications with other pilots or theoretically disrupt radar, but the latter has been compensated for and I'm sure the former can be as well.
Example: if you have your cd player in your bag during takeoff, they aren't going to know or stop you because they won't even see it. Is the plane going to crash? Well, you tell me. As an individual example, I've been flying for 20 years doing as such, and I haven't heard pilots complaining of malfunctions or "OMG TURN THAT OFF" either.
In the US, airplane components are tested (privately with confidential results of course) to ensure that nothing "wireless" will interfere with the devices. Needless to say, nothing wireless does interfere with the devices, and neither do things such as voltage issues or sudden electric surges. Remember, they protect airplanes from lighting strikes on the outside best they can and inside from sudden surges on their own, as well.
If Qantas manages to have a plane interfered with via either RF or Bluetooth, then they obviously need to come up with a better excuse next time. Maybe terrorism!
Uh no. Not "the dock" that they're claiming here hasn't.
Features such as magnification and zoom were not around back then I would suspect (but not 100%)
I am sure plenty of them predate the mac's "dock" in this case....they're claiming the new doc plus unrelated features that are really just desktop components....they took the concept of "hey, this is the mac doc style" and turned it into "we're patenting the graphic and functional nature of the OS"
MythTV, or just get the thing to take the video feed from cable to your PC and record away (they're like 50$ cards IIRC). Infinite recording, and no monthly fee. Why pay Tivo to do it free?
This is why people make home theatre pc's anyway...and given you are an intelligent slashie I'm sure you know how to do that.
Locking the wheels will stop you as fast as your car can, with no exception. Tapping the brakes, no matter how fast (ABS or not), will add time where you skid, instead of just slow down. "The idea of ABS is not to prevent an accident, it is to avoid the accident altogether." (quoted from an official ABS spokeperson when I was selling cars).
However, people's typical nature is to slam brakes during emergencies - thus you shouldn't have ABS. Without ABS in those scenarios you can possibly stop an accident. With ABS in those scenarios you can definitely cause one.
Guaranteed death = hitting concrete at high speeds.
Above 65 if you hit concrete, you're a goner too, or crippled most likely. Please don't let me hear this speed preaching garbage. 65 was forced by the feds (support it or lose our funding) and we all know that the 85/15 rule shows that it's absolute crap. Above 30 straight at concrete can very easily kill, because that's what they test for AND still has rollover warnings. Slow driving (aka disruption of traffic) can and will cause accidents.
If there's one thing I can tell people with highway accidents, it's that hitting another car is safer than hitting concrete. If your choices are concrete or another car, choose another car (say, sideswipes/etc). Concrete is not made to be safe to be hit by cars.
So lighten up francis, people take risks when they drive. We all know that. Being a helicopter parent is not an excuse for those same parents to be ignorant.
You should know that the NHTSA and other organizations do a bare minimum collision safety test, because anything more would fail too many manufacturers. The speeds are low, and the impacts are not (as someone says below) designed for SUVs, because SUV's do not follow the regulated requirements for bumpers. If they were, they would fail. This has been tested previously. Also, there is a large difference between a 2000lb car (focus/compact) going 35 mph and a 4000lb car.
Almost all cars typically make the 4 or 5 star rating because it's ridiculously easy to do at 30 mph collisions assuming the other car is not even moving , simply because of the framing of most vehicles (a column/b column/etc). However, real world examples would lead people to understand that is not true. All cars have serious material failures of all forms continually, it just doesn't get reported as a recall until it reaches critical mass (I believe its still 500 failures on a specific make/model for that in the US).
Crumple zones are a feature up to a point. After that, the engine is in your lap and you die. Engines are designed to slide downward and then back, so that they don't immediately go back towards you (which killed people in accidents prior to the 80s I believe), but enough forward impact will do exactly that.
Actually no. Traction control will not stop you from having to rock the car out. What do you think it is, a floatation tool?
maximum traction and traction control, are not related. You do realize what traction control actually does right? During overspin it stops tires from spinning or cuts their power (most non SUV vehicles are not built to be capable of simply transferring power from one wheel to another). Thinking traction control provides traction is as dangerous as thinking that ABS decreases your stopping distance. Both are fatal flaws in driving philosophy. Both do the opposite, and that is exactly what they are intended for.
Now lets think further. We're talking a car that is extremely light, therefore will need to rock out of even small amounts of snow to get moving. How small?
How about snow you just DROVE through, but now you're at a stoplight. Suddenly, you're stuck. Wow, traction control sure helps here, that is, until you can't get out because it won't let you rock the wheels fast enough to get out. Think this doesn't happen? Try living somewhere with actual snow.
Rocking your car out of the snow requires absence of traction control. If you can't turn it off, good job Ford!
Ford focuses are also notorious deathtraps. The cars crumble more than any other car in their market. Engine will drop at the slightest of frontal impacts (we're talking bumper dent equivalent).
Meanwhile, this is just an inch towards doing it for the "police" for your "Safety".
This round of change problems came around with Nixon, not with Clinton. Similar sounding name, but diff. When corporations began to be unaccountable and stop having to report things, a number of almost immediate changes took place. Not over months, but days. Noerr Pennington doctrine in 1972 is where they decided "it's legal to use money to influence political power". It's where "felony interference of a business model" came around. After that Reagan, Bush Sr, they all kept it going even worse.
I am familiar with S3 being more common, but remmeber: there are more users on old hardware than on new hardware. Not many use S2. So what are we left with? S1.
I prefer S4 aka HIBERNATE, as I mentioned myself. How can I be only familiar with S1 if I mentioned hibernation? (facepalm). I can has critical reading?
Yes, but everyone in court has abused trade secrets so often that if I had a penny for every time I'd certainly be a billionaire. Remember the radar guns were claiming "trade secrets" too.
You know, sleep does a number on your pc. It sounds like a nice power saving feature, but it's not "off". Fans are still on, hard drives are sometimes on (depending on configuration), and other things too. I'm sure you know this.
For non sleep, why not just use hibernate? Even linux supports that.
Wow, some anon went nuts on you. I read between the lines and got what you said, but the truth is the games mean more than the system:)
However, the bigger screen thing can make a huge difference if battery life is not compromised. If they find a way to make it touchscreen, nintendo will have some competition. Otherwise, it's an awesome looking MAME device basically. Also, see the other person below's response: it doesn't need to be #1 now, but success now will set it up to be #1 later.
You are naming systems, yet the company that did better in each comparison, made far better games.
That has nothing to do with the processing power.
However, the resolution difference with pandora is huge enough that this is like enabling all gamers to play in HD without buying a HD tv. Ask anyone who games in HD, and they'll tell ya, it makes a big diff. Eye candy, power means nada.
Pandora doesn't shove advertising down their viewer's throats. Also, pandora has a ton more listeners
Additionally, Myspace has yet to put this out there, and has yet to put prices out there. Just wait to see how much they charge and then people will start talking. Remember that if it's anything more than apple's 99cents it will be thrown aside as uncompetitive.
Also, since people are purchasing the songs on the same site they listen on, I suspect myspace some kind of way to weasel out of getting charged for the fees (they're not legal fees btw), that Pandora is being charged.
Lastly, Pandora doesn't sell the music themselves. They sell it through others.
Slashdot Mirror
uh what?
I don't post anonymous, especially not to go after someone. Karma is here for a reason, and personal attacks are not my point of being on slashdot. Grow up buddy, the world is not out there to attack you or whatever histrionic ideas you are fostering.
Oh, and congrats. You just made an enemy of someone who has no clue who you are before now.
Wow, you got really lucky. By chance did you start to develop a gasket leak or oil burning from the engine after having done so?
I must say it's half retarded half sad that people somehow imagine that the form of accidental engine braking you mentioned would be used in commonplace causing wear and tear. You'd think people realize that even automatics perform the same equivalent to engine braking as a manual does, and that it is one of the reasons why you still have limiting to 1st and second gear as an option. Oh well.
Hmm, you mean, like one of those laptop things? /snicker
You sidestepped the major issues and questions resolving thin clients and related setups:
The first question is: for your supposed all-around solution, what exactly is it intended to be used for?
The second is:
Why could said solution in the first not be solved by people having computers in the first place, albeit cheap ones if stuff is so minimal it can be done on thin client?
Engine braking is not like brake braking, genius. You will not wear out the engine in any fashion doing engine braking in any gear. Unless you plan on shifting into first and engine braking while you're going 65+, in which case you will be driving over your transmission as fast as you shift into gear. Engine braking is simply what will happen if you're not giving your car gas, as a simple answer. The final result of engine braking is that your engine will starve for gas and stall, if you engine brake at a low enough speed.
Diesels specifically do it for longevity and safety when going down steep hills, as well.
how did this guy get modded insightful? It was incorrect information.
Go read the original comments to my post and you can see all these people humorously defending Qantas...apparently logic is the devil when it comes to slashdot.
Also, I actually didn't do the testing, but I quoted the guy and read the test report of what we did for the guy. This was the testing for the electrical situation where the grounded the planes. Can't say results either, obviously. Gotta say that I'm not a fan of the possibility of having a million people talk on the plane, but the reality is people don't talk that much in a public location (think of the guy on a cellphone on a bus/train idea - not hard to have a "use cellphones here" booth equivalent on a commercial plane).
However, remember, it must be the wireless, can't be the pilot at all! Lastly the US people always have the most idiotic comments, mostly because they don't understand that over the US there isn't anywhere near as much turbulence as over the ocean (great lakes no exception). /did the "surf the aisles" during a pretty hefty unexpected turbulence on a flight from US -> israel...good thing for good pilots I guess?
Uh what?
They test for both. I happen to have just finished reviewing a test report specifically regarding electric tolerance and interference, as well as voltage variance for the FAA a few months back. Yes, I recognize the difference. Yes, radio can interfere with things in rare cirumstances. Note the phrase: RARE.
Only when they test intentionally old components, do they see a consistent issue.
Umm, they test a wide range of frequencies and devices. Any device irregardless of broadcast strength and frequency is not going to affect an electrical connection, pretty much guaranteed. There are electrical standards for this, and they are very detailed. The FAA doesn't fuck around with this stuff, as much as airline corporations do however.
Planes are not sensitive like they "used to be". People learned from those errors in about 2 years. It's been what, 35+?
Nothing is banned, because you cannot control devices coming on or off a plane. Screeners are trained to look for bombing/hostile devices, but ordinary electronics are not banned nor can realistically be controlled. So don't make shit up. A radio frequency could certainly disrupt the communications with other pilots or theoretically disrupt radar, but the latter has been compensated for and I'm sure the former can be as well.
Example: if you have your cd player in your bag during takeoff, they aren't going to know or stop you because they won't even see it. Is the plane going to crash? Well, you tell me. As an individual example, I've been flying for 20 years doing as such, and I haven't heard pilots complaining of malfunctions or "OMG TURN THAT OFF" either.
In the US, airplane components are tested (privately with confidential results of course) to ensure that nothing "wireless" will interfere with the devices. Needless to say, nothing wireless does interfere with the devices, and neither do things such as voltage issues or sudden electric surges. Remember, they protect airplanes from lighting strikes on the outside best they can and inside from sudden surges on their own, as well.
If Qantas manages to have a plane interfered with via either RF or Bluetooth, then they obviously need to come up with a better excuse next time. Maybe terrorism!
fanless setups are louder/more expensive? Considering they are about $200-300, or 500$ up front with no subscription fees?
Of course median home user is not. If they were, Tivo wouldn't be in business. However, this is slashdot.
Uh no. Not "the dock" that they're claiming here hasn't.
Features such as magnification and zoom were not around back then I would suspect (but not 100%)
I am sure plenty of them predate the mac's "dock" in this case....they're claiming the new doc plus unrelated features that are really just desktop components....they took the concept of "hey, this is the mac doc style" and turned it into "we're patenting the graphic and functional nature of the OS"
MythTV, or just get the thing to take the video feed from cable to your PC and record away (they're like 50$ cards IIRC). Infinite recording, and no monthly fee. Why pay Tivo to do it free?
This is why people make home theatre pc's anyway...and given you are an intelligent slashie I'm sure you know how to do that.
no, it's not safer.
Locking the wheels will stop you as fast as your car can, with no exception. Tapping the brakes, no matter how fast (ABS or not), will add time where you skid, instead of just slow down. "The idea of ABS is not to prevent an accident, it is to avoid the accident altogether." (quoted from an official ABS spokeperson when I was selling cars).
However, people's typical nature is to slam brakes during emergencies - thus you shouldn't have ABS. Without ABS in those scenarios you can possibly stop an accident. With ABS in those scenarios you can definitely cause one.
Guaranteed death = hitting concrete at high speeds.
Above 65 if you hit concrete, you're a goner too, or crippled most likely. Please don't let me hear this speed preaching garbage. 65 was forced by the feds (support it or lose our funding) and we all know that the 85/15 rule shows that it's absolute crap. Above 30 straight at concrete can very easily kill, because that's what they test for AND still has rollover warnings. Slow driving (aka disruption of traffic) can and will cause accidents.
If there's one thing I can tell people with highway accidents, it's that hitting another car is safer than hitting concrete. If your choices are concrete or another car, choose another car (say, sideswipes/etc). Concrete is not made to be safe to be hit by cars.
So lighten up francis, people take risks when they drive. We all know that. Being a helicopter parent is not an excuse for those same parents to be ignorant.
You should know that the NHTSA and other organizations do a bare minimum collision safety test, because anything more would fail too many manufacturers. The speeds are low, and the impacts are not (as someone says below) designed for SUVs, because SUV's do not follow the regulated requirements for bumpers. If they were, they would fail. This has been tested previously. Also, there is a large difference between a 2000lb car (focus/compact) going 35 mph and a 4000lb car.
Almost all cars typically make the 4 or 5 star rating because it's ridiculously easy to do at 30 mph collisions assuming the other car is not even moving , simply because of the framing of most vehicles (a column/b column/etc). However, real world examples would lead people to understand that is not true. All cars have serious material failures of all forms continually, it just doesn't get reported as a recall until it reaches critical mass (I believe its still 500 failures on a specific make/model for that in the US).
Crumple zones are a feature up to a point. After that, the engine is in your lap and you die. Engines are designed to slide downward and then back, so that they don't immediately go back towards you (which killed people in accidents prior to the 80s I believe), but enough forward impact will do exactly that.
Actually no. Traction control will not stop you from having to rock the car out. What do you think it is, a floatation tool?
maximum traction and traction control, are not related. You do realize what traction control actually does right? During overspin it stops tires from spinning or cuts their power (most non SUV vehicles are not built to be capable of simply transferring power from one wheel to another). Thinking traction control provides traction is as dangerous as thinking that ABS decreases your stopping distance. Both are fatal flaws in driving philosophy. Both do the opposite, and that is exactly what they are intended for.
Now lets think further. We're talking a car that is extremely light, therefore will need to rock out of even small amounts of snow to get moving. How small?
How about snow you just DROVE through, but now you're at a stoplight. Suddenly, you're stuck. Wow, traction control sure helps here, that is, until you can't get out because it won't let you rock the wheels fast enough to get out. Think this doesn't happen? Try living somewhere with actual snow.
Rocking your car out of the snow requires absence of traction control. If you can't turn it off, good job Ford!
Ford focuses are also notorious deathtraps. The cars crumble more than any other car in their market. Engine will drop at the slightest of frontal impacts (we're talking bumper dent equivalent).
Meanwhile, this is just an inch towards doing it for the "police" for your "Safety".
Sorry, but I need to correct you.
This round of change problems came around with Nixon, not with Clinton. Similar sounding name, but diff. When corporations began to be unaccountable and stop having to report things, a number of almost immediate changes took place. Not over months, but days. Noerr Pennington doctrine in 1972 is where they decided "it's legal to use money to influence political power". It's where "felony interference of a business model" came around. After that Reagan, Bush Sr, they all kept it going even worse.
I am familiar with S3 being more common, but remmeber: there are more users on old hardware than on new hardware. Not many use S2. So what are we left with? S1.
I prefer S4 aka HIBERNATE, as I mentioned myself. How can I be only familiar with S1 if I mentioned hibernation? (facepalm). I can has critical reading?
Yes, but everyone in court has abused trade secrets so often that if I had a penny for every time I'd certainly be a billionaire. Remember the radar guns were claiming "trade secrets" too.
You know, sleep does a number on your pc. It sounds like a nice power saving feature, but it's not "off". Fans are still on, hard drives are sometimes on (depending on configuration), and other things too. I'm sure you know this.
For non sleep, why not just use hibernate? Even linux supports that.
You mean lin-dex. Penguin(tm) brand?
Wow, some anon went nuts on you. I read between the lines and got what you said, but the truth is the games mean more than the system :)
However, the bigger screen thing can make a huge difference if battery life is not compromised. If they find a way to make it touchscreen, nintendo will have some competition. Otherwise, it's an awesome looking MAME device basically. Also, see the other person below's response: it doesn't need to be #1 now, but success now will set it up to be #1 later.
You are naming systems, yet the company that did better in each comparison, made far better games.
That has nothing to do with the processing power.
However, the resolution difference with pandora is huge enough that this is like enabling all gamers to play in HD without buying a HD tv. Ask anyone who games in HD, and they'll tell ya, it makes a big diff. Eye candy, power means nada.
Pandora doesn't shove advertising down their viewer's throats. Also, pandora has a ton more listeners
Additionally, Myspace has yet to put this out there, and has yet to put prices out there. Just wait to see how much they charge and then people will start talking. Remember that if it's anything more than apple's 99cents it will be thrown aside as uncompetitive.
Also, since people are purchasing the songs on the same site they listen on, I suspect myspace some kind of way to weasel out of getting charged for the fees (they're not legal fees btw), that Pandora is being charged.
Lastly, Pandora doesn't sell the music themselves. They sell it through others.