given the American auto industry's reactionary and disingenuous attitude towards eco-vehicles, i think Tesla would be better off allying itself with a foreign company such as Honda or Toyota, both of which have shown a genuine interest in meeting public demand for environmentally friendly vehicles.
besides, foreign car companies have been doing much better than American auto companies in recent years. this is at least partly because they're more technologically innovative. Japanese auto makers seem more willing to research and develop new technologies than American car manufacturers. the Tesla Roadster would likely just go the way of the EV1 if put in the hands of Ford or GM.
eh, did you bother to read that article? the Tesla Roadster is the Electric Elise. Tesla Motors licensed the Elise chassis from Lotus to build their roadster on. that choice was made probably based, not just on the aesthetics of the design, but also because Lotus has a tradition of making light-weight cars with extremely high performance and great handling characteristics. so this was a rational choice for the starting point of the Tesla Roadster.
with any public program there will be some people against its funding. so does that mean we do away with public schools, roads, mail system, police, fire departments, libraries, and all forms of public infrastructure and government?
a democratic society makes decisions based on public good. most people would agree that funding the arts and sciences is in public interest. if you are really against public research, you can try to petition the government to cut scientific funding (this has happened recently). if that is not enough, you can move to a country where the government doesn't fund any scientific research (i'm sure there are a few out there).
living in a society with other people means making compromises, that is part of the social contract which allows a civil society to exist. a free society doesn't mean everyone gets everything that they want even when it conflicts with the interests of the majority. thinking that you should always get what you want regardless of the good of the whole is a rather self-centered and immature attitude to take.
by that logic we should all drive tanks so that when we get in accidents our cars survive but we die (crumple zones are designed so that the car absorb the energy from a collision rather than passengers). your attitude is more suited to destruction derby than road safety.
ICE engines are a technological anachronism no matter how you slice it--both environmentally and in terms of energy efficiency. so what you feel is based on irrational beliefs. the only reason hybrids are useful now is because we haven't yet built the infrastructure for plug-in electric vehicles to completely replace ICE vehicles. it's an intermediate phase. it would not make sense to have hybrids if electric propulsion did not have advantages over ICE propulsion.
but all forms of progress, whether technological, cultural, social, or political, there will be a strong rearguard reaction to overcome. therefore it's important to disseminate information and encourage people to take a rational approach to the issue rather than falling victim to knee-jerk responses based on ignorant reactionary attitudes. luckily there are companies out there working to dispel false negative perceptions of electric vehicles as a lot of people still associate environmentally-friendly with poor performance.
i don't really see trikes as a trend with electric vehicles. there are trike gas-powered vehicles as well, just as there are electric bikes, quads, cars, and trucks.
i think companies that sell/develop electric vehicles tend to be more innovative and like to experiment with alternate vehicle designs/technologies. so perhaps that's why you've seen more electric trikes in proportion to four-wheel electrics than with gas-powered vehicles. but there's no direct link between electric propulsion and three-wheeled vehicle layouts. those are two completely unrelated design choices.
also, your generalization of safety based on wheel layout is also flawed. trikes are at least more stable than bikes, so why not complain about 2-wheel vehicles? obviously each wheel layout has its advantages and disadvantages, and it's good that the public has many design choices to choose from whether they want to get an electric vehicle, gas vehicle, or a hybrid.
that's technically true. but XHTML requires all tags to be closed. that's why it's better to write line breaks as <br/> and to close paragraph elements with an end tag. this ensures that your code will be future-proof.
to quote the W3C:
The XHTML family is the next step in the evolution of the Internet. By migrating to XHTML today, content developers can enter the XML world with all of its attendant benefits, while still remaining confident in their content's backward and future compatibility.
besides, closing non-empty elements you make the code more organized/legible.
while i can't comment on the technical merits of Enlightenment, i strongly disagree with you that a lightweight window manager or desktop environment is irrelevant these days. if anything, lightweight GUI toolkits are more relevant now than ever before. with the rapid growth of the mobile computing market and rise of smart devices like smartphones, portable media players/entertainment devices, netbooks/sub-laptops, internet tablets, etc., there is an ever-growing need for lightweight software platforms--especially open source ones.
it's easy to see how wireless internet access is poised to change the consumer computing paradigm as public wireless access becomes more and more ubiquitous. increasingly, the internet/web is being integrated into the daily lives of ordinary individuals. people want to keep in touch with their friends/associates via IM or e-mail. web services like google maps, wikipedia, gmail, flickr, etc. are becoming indispensable tools for everyday life. and more and more people are seeing the benefits of having access to the web, and all of the information it contains, at all times via information appliances. such smart devices have essentially become an accessory to life.
this has not only pushed more and more portable devices to include wireless & web browsing capabilities, but it has also made them smarter & more powerful. naturally, more robust software platforms need to be developed to match the advances in portable hardware. just compare the first generation iPod firmware to the iPod Touch's operating system.
obviously Elementary isn't meant to run on conventional computing platforms like desktop PCs or laptops; it's clearly designed for sub-laptop devices like smartphones and information appliances. this is an emerging market that will only grow even faster as wireless internet access becomes a basic public infrastructure, especially as more and more cities roll out municipal WiFi/WiMax networks. and people will not want to run Windows Vista on their portable devices.
absolutely. U.S. ISPs continue to justify overselling while complaining about "power users" using too much bandwidth and overloading their network.
when will they realize that packet shaping and other intrusive network filtering/monitoring technologies such as this generate more overhead and are a waste of resources. instead of trying to manipulate/control subscribers, they should be upping bandwidth supply to meet the growing demand. then perhaps the U.S. wouldn't be left in the dust both in terms of average broadband speeds as well as cost of broadband.
you don't employ mandatory property searches to combat child pornography. not only would it be ineffectual, but even if it did it still wouldn't be worth the encroachment of our civil liberties. frankly, idiots who use the banner of fighting child pornography to pass stupid laws to destroy our democratic freedoms or strip away the rights of individuals are a much greater threat to society than someone who just downloads child pornography. those are the real sociopaths IMO.
if you want to protect children, give them free access to health care. give them free access to high education. create outreach programs to at-risk youth. employ social workers at school to watch for warning signs of abuse and provide counseling services at school for victimized children. narrow the disparity in education between the rich and poor so that poor children have equal opportunity to succeed in life.
you don't protect children by creating a fascist society around them.
if large clouds of gas (nebulae) can float around in space, then why can't smaller pockets of gas? and a photo captures a split-second view of an event, so even if the oxygen escaped very quickly, it could still combust before it becomes too dispersed.
and since smoke is just a cloud of very fine particulates (solid, liquid, and gases) it would probably behave the same way as comet comas & tails, which are composed of similar physical particles. if there was a significant amount of smoke, it would surely be visible in space. it just wouldn't be disperse by wind like it would in an a gaseous atmosphere.
that's only for apps distributed through the Android Market. i'm assuming this functionality is so that Google can immediately remove bad apps which violate licensing agreements or can potentially damage the phone (or contain major security holes) from all handsets that have purchased the app through Google.
presumably this will not affect non-Android-Market-installed apps. so if you want to install your own apps on the phone via another source you don't have to worry. is it a necessary feature? maybe not, but i can see why Google would reserve that ability.
it really shouldn't be all that surprising. if you break Google's developer distribution agreement, then of course they're going to remove your application. so if you don't want to be restricted by Google's distribution agreement, don't distribute your application through their site.
why? so you can save.025 seconds by not reloading an index or menu?
there's no good reason to use frames or even iframes in a modern site. it's bad for search engine indexing, and it's bad for usability. that is why major API documentation sites like those for the YUI Library, MySQL, PHP, and even MSDN do not use frames in their layout.
even if there were a need to keep persistent layout elements, you can use AJAX to simulate all of the desirable behaviors of frames/iframes without the drawbacks.
why don't you close paragraph breaks? both HTML and XHTML require paragraphs to have end tags.
line breaks don't need to be closed with a separate tag. in XHTML you simply write <br/> just like you would close other empty tags.
it's not hard to follow conventions that are universal across all browsers. there's no reason to break open standards other than a.) ignorance (which clearly is not the case here since you know you're breaking standards) or b.) your site needs to render on a browser that does not follow web standards.
i mean, what is achieved by intentionally flouting web standards? saving a couple bytes on your source code?
i don't know much about closures but that's just what i've read while researching closures in PHP. in what kind of situation would you specifically need to use closures? couldn't you still create bound variables through nested or recursive functions? or do closures serve a more explicit purpose that cannot be achieved any other way?
also, what language would you recommend for web development that are more robust than PHP?
use the build number. it'll be a nice and high number and equally meaningless to the user.
the only versioning system you _require_ is one that reflects the actual development cycle. if you start screwing with version numbers for marketing then you might as well just toss out versioning altogether. the actual developers will still go by their build/revision numbers, and those will be the only figures that really mean anything at that point.
seriously. anyone who makes their software choices based on which product line has the higher version number at the moment is a moron and should be fired.
software version numbers should indicate release cycles, different revisions, and development stages (e.g. alpha, beta, etc.), and that's all. when you let marketing decide how to version a product then the version number loses all meaning. personally, i wouldn't trust a company that tries to manipulate consumers by giving delegating the versioning of their software to their marketing department.
if your product's target consumers are gullible or naive end users, then you might get away with something like this. but i imagine most tech savvy consumers would be turned off by a company that puts so much weight on marketing rather than focusing on their development process (which such manipulation of the versioning system undermines).
i don't know about space, but shouldn't the lower air density not be as much of a factor as the colder temperatures on high elevation mountains? i mean, the thin air on Mt. Everest doesn't seem to have any difficulty sucking the heat out of people who climb it. so i'm sure there's a point at which the air becomes much too thin for efficient heat exchange, but that point is probably far above any mountain peaks on Earth.
i think this was a prudent policy when portable electronics and wireless devices first became popular. planes were operated by complex & high tech machinery, and they had not been tested against such EM interference. it would have been foolish to allow such devices to be operated on a plane before studying the interaction between these devices and airplane equipment.
however, it's now 2008. the "we don't know what might happen, so let's just ban all electronic devices" attitude is no longer acceptable. FAA or NTSB should have conducted research into the safety of using such devices on planes. flight equipment regulations should have been updated to ensure safe operation in an environment with active wireless/electronic devices. and if needed, cellphone, laptop, and other wireless device manufacturers could be required to test the EM output of their products to determine whether they pose a significant risk of interfering with other electronic equipment.
these studies have to be done eventually, and frankly they've been put off for much too long already. there's absolutely no reason why we can't determine once and for all whether consumer electronics pose a threat to passenger planes.
i agree that it's stupid to charge for this feature (really stupid), but the point of this is to provide a convenience to the subscriber, not to restrict their actions. this isn't like one of those court-ordered car breathalyzers that are meant to safeguard against poor judgment or deter stupid behavior.
chances are, if someone has this service enabled on their phone, they intend on using it. if they choose to ignore it, that's their business. it doesn't detract from the inherent usefulness of this service for those who don't want to be distracted while their car is moving.
frankly, i think legally requiring cellphone carriers to offer this type of service would be much more productive than the current state law in California requiring people to use hands-free headsets while driving--which is proven to be just as distracting as holding a phone to your ear. it's the act of engaging in a phone conversation while driving that causes accidents, not the fact that you're holding a phone with one hand. but i bet makers of hands-free headset are real happy about the government endorsement of their product.
actually, that's what i do usually. i still get a shock, but it's fairly mild compared to when i get shocked on my fingertips. it's still rather annoying, though.
maybe Asus should sell a Don't-Touchscreen Eee Desktop.
just design the monitor so that any direct physical contact with the LCD display area produces a mild (or not so mild) electric shock--the greasier the finger, the higher the current.
perhaps they can even license the technology which Honda has apparently built into my car door. every time i get out of the car and grab the metal frame of the door to shut it, i get a nice jolt of static electricity. it's gotten to the point where i'll only put my hand on the glass window pane, or i'll just shut the door with my butt.
hey, you can say that you were in a top level management position and oversaw a quarter of all company operations & personnel, or that you were personally responsible for a prodigious 25% increase in office productivity as soon as you joined the company.
Slashdot Mirror
given the American auto industry's reactionary and disingenuous attitude towards eco-vehicles, i think Tesla would be better off allying itself with a foreign company such as Honda or Toyota, both of which have shown a genuine interest in meeting public demand for environmentally friendly vehicles.
besides, foreign car companies have been doing much better than American auto companies in recent years. this is at least partly because they're more technologically innovative. Japanese auto makers seem more willing to research and develop new technologies than American car manufacturers. the Tesla Roadster would likely just go the way of the EV1 if put in the hands of Ford or GM.
eh, did you bother to read that article? the Tesla Roadster is the Electric Elise. Tesla Motors licensed the Elise chassis from Lotus to build their roadster on. that choice was made probably based, not just on the aesthetics of the design, but also because Lotus has a tradition of making light-weight cars with extremely high performance and great handling characteristics. so this was a rational choice for the starting point of the Tesla Roadster.
with any public program there will be some people against its funding. so does that mean we do away with public schools, roads, mail system, police, fire departments, libraries, and all forms of public infrastructure and government?
a democratic society makes decisions based on public good. most people would agree that funding the arts and sciences is in public interest. if you are really against public research, you can try to petition the government to cut scientific funding (this has happened recently). if that is not enough, you can move to a country where the government doesn't fund any scientific research (i'm sure there are a few out there).
living in a society with other people means making compromises, that is part of the social contract which allows a civil society to exist. a free society doesn't mean everyone gets everything that they want even when it conflicts with the interests of the majority. thinking that you should always get what you want regardless of the good of the whole is a rather self-centered and immature attitude to take.
by that logic we should all drive tanks so that when we get in accidents our cars survive but we die (crumple zones are designed so that the car absorb the energy from a collision rather than passengers). your attitude is more suited to destruction derby than road safety.
ICE engines are a technological anachronism no matter how you slice it--both environmentally and in terms of energy efficiency. so what you feel is based on irrational beliefs. the only reason hybrids are useful now is because we haven't yet built the infrastructure for plug-in electric vehicles to completely replace ICE vehicles. it's an intermediate phase. it would not make sense to have hybrids if electric propulsion did not have advantages over ICE propulsion.
but all forms of progress, whether technological, cultural, social, or political, there will be a strong rearguard reaction to overcome. therefore it's important to disseminate information and encourage people to take a rational approach to the issue rather than falling victim to knee-jerk responses based on ignorant reactionary attitudes. luckily there are companies out there working to dispel false negative perceptions of electric vehicles as a lot of people still associate environmentally-friendly with poor performance.
i don't really see trikes as a trend with electric vehicles. there are trike gas-powered vehicles as well, just as there are electric bikes, quads, cars, and trucks.
i think companies that sell/develop electric vehicles tend to be more innovative and like to experiment with alternate vehicle designs/technologies. so perhaps that's why you've seen more electric trikes in proportion to four-wheel electrics than with gas-powered vehicles. but there's no direct link between electric propulsion and three-wheeled vehicle layouts. those are two completely unrelated design choices.
also, your generalization of safety based on wheel layout is also flawed. trikes are at least more stable than bikes, so why not complain about 2-wheel vehicles? obviously each wheel layout has its advantages and disadvantages, and it's good that the public has many design choices to choose from whether they want to get an electric vehicle, gas vehicle, or a hybrid.
that's technically true. but XHTML requires all tags to be closed. that's why it's better to write line breaks as <br /> and to close paragraph elements with an end tag. this ensures that your code will be future-proof.
to quote the W3C:
besides, closing non-empty elements you make the code more organized/legible.
while i can't comment on the technical merits of Enlightenment, i strongly disagree with you that a lightweight window manager or desktop environment is irrelevant these days. if anything, lightweight GUI toolkits are more relevant now than ever before. with the rapid growth of the mobile computing market and rise of smart devices like smartphones, portable media players/entertainment devices, netbooks/sub-laptops, internet tablets, etc., there is an ever-growing need for lightweight software platforms--especially open source ones.
it's easy to see how wireless internet access is poised to change the consumer computing paradigm as public wireless access becomes more and more ubiquitous. increasingly, the internet/web is being integrated into the daily lives of ordinary individuals. people want to keep in touch with their friends/associates via IM or e-mail. web services like google maps, wikipedia, gmail, flickr, etc. are becoming indispensable tools for everyday life. and more and more people are seeing the benefits of having access to the web, and all of the information it contains, at all times via information appliances. such smart devices have essentially become an accessory to life.
this has not only pushed more and more portable devices to include wireless & web browsing capabilities, but it has also made them smarter & more powerful. naturally, more robust software platforms need to be developed to match the advances in portable hardware. just compare the first generation iPod firmware to the iPod Touch's operating system.
obviously Elementary isn't meant to run on conventional computing platforms like desktop PCs or laptops; it's clearly designed for sub-laptop devices like smartphones and information appliances. this is an emerging market that will only grow even faster as wireless internet access becomes a basic public infrastructure, especially as more and more cities roll out municipal WiFi/WiMax networks. and people will not want to run Windows Vista on their portable devices.
absolutely. U.S. ISPs continue to justify overselling while complaining about "power users" using too much bandwidth and overloading their network.
when will they realize that packet shaping and other intrusive network filtering/monitoring technologies such as this generate more overhead and are a waste of resources. instead of trying to manipulate/control subscribers, they should be upping bandwidth supply to meet the growing demand. then perhaps the U.S. wouldn't be left in the dust both in terms of average broadband speeds as well as cost of broadband.
you don't employ mandatory property searches to combat child pornography. not only would it be ineffectual, but even if it did it still wouldn't be worth the encroachment of our civil liberties. frankly, idiots who use the banner of fighting child pornography to pass stupid laws to destroy our democratic freedoms or strip away the rights of individuals are a much greater threat to society than someone who just downloads child pornography. those are the real sociopaths IMO.
if you want to protect children, give them free access to health care. give them free access to high education. create outreach programs to at-risk youth. employ social workers at school to watch for warning signs of abuse and provide counseling services at school for victimized children. narrow the disparity in education between the rich and poor so that poor children have equal opportunity to succeed in life.
you don't protect children by creating a fascist society around them.
if large clouds of gas (nebulae) can float around in space, then why can't smaller pockets of gas? and a photo captures a split-second view of an event, so even if the oxygen escaped very quickly, it could still combust before it becomes too dispersed.
and since smoke is just a cloud of very fine particulates (solid, liquid, and gases) it would probably behave the same way as comet comas & tails, which are composed of similar physical particles. if there was a significant amount of smoke, it would surely be visible in space. it just wouldn't be disperse by wind like it would in an a gaseous atmosphere.
that's only for apps distributed through the Android Market. i'm assuming this functionality is so that Google can immediately remove bad apps which violate licensing agreements or can potentially damage the phone (or contain major security holes) from all handsets that have purchased the app through Google.
presumably this will not affect non-Android-Market-installed apps. so if you want to install your own apps on the phone via another source you don't have to worry. is it a necessary feature? maybe not, but i can see why Google would reserve that ability.
it really shouldn't be all that surprising. if you break Google's developer distribution agreement, then of course they're going to remove your application. so if you don't want to be restricted by Google's distribution agreement, don't distribute your application through their site.
why? so you can save .025 seconds by not reloading an index or menu?
there's no good reason to use frames or even iframes in a modern site. it's bad for search engine indexing, and it's bad for usability. that is why major API documentation sites like those for the YUI Library, MySQL, PHP, and even MSDN do not use frames in their layout.
even if there were a need to keep persistent layout elements, you can use AJAX to simulate all of the desirable behaviors of frames/iframes without the drawbacks.
why don't you close paragraph breaks? both HTML and XHTML require paragraphs to have end tags.
line breaks don't need to be closed with a separate tag. in XHTML you simply write <br /> just like you would close other empty tags.
it's not hard to follow conventions that are universal across all browsers. there's no reason to break open standards other than a.) ignorance (which clearly is not the case here since you know you're breaking standards) or b.) your site needs to render on a browser that does not follow web standards.
i mean, what is achieved by intentionally flouting web standards? saving a couple bytes on your source code?
we're not monkeys. we're taxonomically classified as apes though (i think).
isn't PHP supposed to include closures soon?
i don't know much about closures but that's just what i've read while researching closures in PHP. in what kind of situation would you specifically need to use closures? couldn't you still create bound variables through nested or recursive functions? or do closures serve a more explicit purpose that cannot be achieved any other way?
also, what language would you recommend for web development that are more robust than PHP?
why? because he showed a 3-year-old internet post that contains the exact story posted by the OP?
parent seems like a textbook case of Freudian projection to me.
use the build number. it'll be a nice and high number and equally meaningless to the user.
the only versioning system you _require_ is one that reflects the actual development cycle. if you start screwing with version numbers for marketing then you might as well just toss out versioning altogether. the actual developers will still go by their build/revision numbers, and those will be the only figures that really mean anything at that point.
seriously. anyone who makes their software choices based on which product line has the higher version number at the moment is a moron and should be fired.
software version numbers should indicate release cycles, different revisions, and development stages (e.g. alpha, beta, etc.), and that's all. when you let marketing decide how to version a product then the version number loses all meaning. personally, i wouldn't trust a company that tries to manipulate consumers by giving delegating the versioning of their software to their marketing department.
if your product's target consumers are gullible or naive end users, then you might get away with something like this. but i imagine most tech savvy consumers would be turned off by a company that puts so much weight on marketing rather than focusing on their development process (which such manipulation of the versioning system undermines).
i don't know about space, but shouldn't the lower air density not be as much of a factor as the colder temperatures on high elevation mountains? i mean, the thin air on Mt. Everest doesn't seem to have any difficulty sucking the heat out of people who climb it. so i'm sure there's a point at which the air becomes much too thin for efficient heat exchange, but that point is probably far above any mountain peaks on Earth.
i think this was a prudent policy when portable electronics and wireless devices first became popular. planes were operated by complex & high tech machinery, and they had not been tested against such EM interference. it would have been foolish to allow such devices to be operated on a plane before studying the interaction between these devices and airplane equipment.
however, it's now 2008. the "we don't know what might happen, so let's just ban all electronic devices" attitude is no longer acceptable. FAA or NTSB should have conducted research into the safety of using such devices on planes. flight equipment regulations should have been updated to ensure safe operation in an environment with active wireless/electronic devices. and if needed, cellphone, laptop, and other wireless device manufacturers could be required to test the EM output of their products to determine whether they pose a significant risk of interfering with other electronic equipment.
these studies have to be done eventually, and frankly they've been put off for much too long already. there's absolutely no reason why we can't determine once and for all whether consumer electronics pose a threat to passenger planes.
that's your option. some people might want to minimize unnecessary distractions while they're driving. it's an opt-in service so just don't opt-in.
i agree that it's stupid to charge for this feature (really stupid), but the point of this is to provide a convenience to the subscriber, not to restrict their actions. this isn't like one of those court-ordered car breathalyzers that are meant to safeguard against poor judgment or deter stupid behavior.
chances are, if someone has this service enabled on their phone, they intend on using it. if they choose to ignore it, that's their business. it doesn't detract from the inherent usefulness of this service for those who don't want to be distracted while their car is moving.
frankly, i think legally requiring cellphone carriers to offer this type of service would be much more productive than the current state law in California requiring people to use hands-free headsets while driving--which is proven to be just as distracting as holding a phone to your ear. it's the act of engaging in a phone conversation while driving that causes accidents, not the fact that you're holding a phone with one hand. but i bet makers of hands-free headset are real happy about the government endorsement of their product.
actually, that's what i do usually. i still get a shock, but it's fairly mild compared to when i get shocked on my fingertips. it's still rather annoying, though.
maybe Asus should sell a Don't-Touchscreen Eee Desktop.
just design the monitor so that any direct physical contact with the LCD display area produces a mild (or not so mild) electric shock--the greasier the finger, the higher the current.
perhaps they can even license the technology which Honda has apparently built into my car door. every time i get out of the car and grab the metal frame of the door to shut it, i get a nice jolt of static electricity. it's gotten to the point where i'll only put my hand on the glass window pane, or i'll just shut the door with my butt.
hey, you can say that you were in a top level management position and oversaw a quarter of all company operations & personnel, or that you were personally responsible for a prodigious 25% increase in office productivity as soon as you joined the company.