Erm, you're confused. A live rear axel doesn't refer to the power being directed to the rear wheels... it... well, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Live_axle
Contrast that with an independent rear suspension (IRS) setup. The IRS will corner drastically better. A live rear axle is really meant for one thing... laying down power on the drag strip.
No sir, you are confused. A "live rear axle" specifies both the drive type and the axle type. The first sentence of your link proves this: "A live axle is a type of beam axle suspension system that uses the driveshafts that transmit power to the wheels to connect the wheels laterally so that they move together as a unit." Your use of the adjective "rear" specifies that the powered axle is the rear one.
With the appropriate suspension and tires, a live axle setup can be effective on the curves and kick ass on the drag strip for a more modest price than an IRS setup.
Only some of the time. It's not hard to throw a FWD car into a rear wheel drift via weight shifting. Simply accelerate hard into a corner then, as you near the limits of your traction, quit accelerating (but don't engine brake... although that makes it simple easy); let the rear springs unload and you'll shift the weight to the front. Your rear wheels will then come free, you'll still have traction on the front, and you get to have fun. (just don't overcompensate and start fishtailing)
For an average driver driving a car normally, FWD is a safer setup in slippery conditions. I'm sure you don't throw your car into rear wheel drifts on normal roads in traffic. Obviously a skilled driver can make any car do what they want, including cornering in a Mustang.
Dell gives themselves an out in the small print of their website, but it is still false advertising.
They are offering a product for sale on their website for a specific price and then reneging on it. If you buy something in a store and then the owner realized he made a mistake on the price... it's too late. Dell doesn't feel that they need to be held accountable for mistakes that cost them money, and they don't feel that they need to make sure their website is correct either. That's the problem.
And why in the heck did you pick the Mustang for your example? You do realize that it is, in no way, a cornering machine? It's made to go (kinda) fast in a straight line and that's it. Hell, it has a live rear axel!
Physics. It's a wonderful thing.
You were doing so well until you got to here. Rear wheel drive cars typically do better in cornering. Maybe the POS $15,000 Mustangs you've been racing can't handle the curves, but if you get in one with a real suspension you will find they handle better than front wheel drive cars. This is why most sporty sedans including BMWs, Mercedes, etc... are typically rear wheel drive.
Front wheel drive only offers the advantage in slippery conditions because the front of the car will lose traction before the rear. Although most modern cars are set up to always lose traction in the front regardless of what type of drive they have.
This is all based on physics. It's a wonderful thing.
In your analysis, you make the incorrect assumption that I was proposing to recycle only 75-year-old bodies. I was, in fact, thinking of starting with all politicians and then moving on to the lawyers. After that, I figure recycling entire Middle Eastern population, Texas and maybe China would also help.
Also, remember that every person eaten would no longer consume meat, increasing the amount available for the rest of the population. Since you're such a wiz with the numbers, I'll let you solve the ODE for the break-even point.:)
The reality is that we don't have enough planet for everyone to be a meat-eater, at least not in the American sense.
Technically, we do have enough planet for sufficient meat production if we were to switch to soylent green. This would also free up graveyard space for more crop fields.
This isn't revolutionary. If you cut yourself, your body tries to heal the wound. If you practice an activity that you are awkward at, your body learns to do it more efficiently. Organisms that most effectively adapt to adversity are naturally selected. This has been naturally selected to happen at every level in an organism due to natural selection.
The organism isn't "controlling" its evolution as the article says. Evolution has selected the organisms that has a protein structure that can deal with an adverse situation. The ones that can't respond favorably were bred out of existence before the experiments even started.
It just looks like Princeton is trying to give themselves an award for something we all learned in fourth grade. I guess that's why the article is on the princeton.edu website though.
One of the main problems with kids being crushed by debt is that they are not given realistic economic advice. If you spend $500K to get a B.S. or B.A. in a job that will pay $40K a year (advanced degrees aside), you might not be so happy. On the other hand, if you are going to be making $100K, maybe that Ivy League education was worth it. There's no right decision, it is up to the individual to decide on their lifestyle. Of course, you have to commit to that decision at the wise age of 18.
Personally, I started college interested in Astronomy until I took my first economics class... then I decided to major in Engineering.
The scientists using the shiny new state of the art collider are sitting back in their offices, just getting disembodied data that they haven't really connected with, and don't understand on a gut level like their colleagues using the "inferior" equipment do.
Feynman knew then he was going to happy at the new school.
The thing is, as a research scientist in today's economy you just can't spend too much time doing hands on work. Spending all day in the lab works great in grad school when you have no other responsibilities and can spend all night reducing data and writing, but if you want to be a professor or a senior researcher you have to train your people well and then let them do the experiment prep and data collection for you. You can participate too, but the more time you spend working on the hardware, the less time you have for data analysis, writing papers and getting funding... which is what drives labs nowadays and keeps your students and researchers employed. Throw in a spouse and kids and you have even less time to spend screwing things together.
Of course, if you are a freaky genius like Feynman, you may operate a little more efficiently and be able to do everything. The rest of us have to compromise however.
Plus, at the retail end, anything the requires a key to sell requires, if not a manager, at least a senior employeed who has been vetted more throughly than the average cahsier.
It is questionable if it is acceptable to do so if they are end-term on a horrific disease, due to the chance of recovery.
The girl in India thought that she was at the end-term of humanity with zero chance of recovery. According to what she knew, even your definition makes her suicide acceptable.
The girl was 16 and her parents tried to convince her it wasn't true. It sounds like she had other problems and the LHC was just an excuse.
I get a kick out of her mentality though, some act of nature might kill me, so I kill myself first... Natural selection for the win there, IMO.
I thought, we call it "Silicon Valley" — and it didn't need government sponsorship to come into being...
Yes, Silicon Valley's software has done so much for us... now I can search for porn with google, play better video games, watch Pixar movies, and try to sort out how the personalized Oracle system my company uses managed to fuck up my paycheck again.
Did I mention that I can do all of this in English and in relative freedom because the Los Alamos scientists figured out how to make the atomic bomb before the Germans and Japanese did? You may not be Jewish, disabled, or gay and thus find it amusing to quote hitler.org, but I am pretty sure he wouldn't have approved of the creativity and freedom that flourished in Silicon Valley... unless it was being done by little blond boys bent on world domination. Ummmm, wait a second...
I'd say that in at LEAST 2/3rds of the conversations I've ever had with Americans about the 2nd amendment, they bring up the idea that a well armed populace will keep the government from doing illegal things, because the populace will call them to account.
You need to stop talking to people you meet in Walmart.
Most Americans don't buy guns to fight the government, they buy them to protect themselves and their family for the 10+ minutes it can take the government to respond to a life threatening situation. Or they buy them to go target shooting or hunting.
As long as American Idol is still playing, and Walmart is still selling clothes for cheap, the vast majority of the American people seem unwilling to risk their own comfortable lives over things like the contitution, their rights or more particularly, the rights of others.
I believe you need to review American history. It doesn't take a "vast majority" of people to be willing to risk their lives. It only requires an inspirational few to motivate and lead the crowds.
A starting math teacher in Massachusetts makes $33K. Even if you extrapolate that salary to cover the whole year, it is $44K.
If you are graduating with a master's degree in mathematics or engineering, would you rather teach overloaded classes for $44K or make $60K working for an engineering firm?
The current system pushes good teaching candidates into other fields. Only the ones who can't get higher paying jobs, want more time off, or really really want to teach get teaching jobs. That's the problem right there.
I apologize if this is a stupid question, but what law says that it is illegal to guess someone's password and read their email? I'm not being snide, I actually want to know.
I am asking because I have friends who have had their yahoo accounts hijacked. Of course, yahoo was less than helpful recovering their account and no federal indictment resulted from their situation. I'm sure that was just a small oversight on the Justice Department's behalf though.
Darn tootin' right she won! Of course, it's a Pyrrhic victory when the criteria for "winning" is that you don't make yourself look like too much of a moron on international issues AND you have to study for a week to pull that off.
Say it ain't so Joe.
At least Putin didn't rear his head into the debate.
I do like the idea of electric vehicles btw, I just think a standard truck is a dumb place to start. Though the Ford F150 was the best selling vehicle in the US for 23 years, so in a way trucks are a good place to start - but not with current models IMO. They would need to make them lightweight (but still strong, obviously) to get the best efficiency. Electric motors have good torque too so they'd be good for hauling, as long as they have enough charge..
You may think that a truck is a dumb place to start, but I am betting you never any serous offroad driving. Alison is an extreme skier. I'll bet she enjoys having more than 5 inches of ground clearance when she drives offroad and more weight when she tries to get her car moving in the snow.
Not everyone buys pickups and trucks just to look cool and waste gas. Some people actually use them for serious offroad driving and hauling large loads. Those of you who think that high clearance vehicles are a waste of gas should try moving somewhere where all of the roads are not paved and it snows a lot.
And BTW, I don't own a truck and drive a sedan that gets 29 mpg, so I am not a truck convert myself, but there is definitely a need for these vehicles in the more rural areas of the US.
Seriously, is there anything a device like this can do that's either more useful or less invasive than a human watching people walking past and profiling/screening them on what they can see?
Maybe you have the special ability detect higher than normal skin temperatures and breathing rates, but the average TSA employee doesn't have the ability to see into the infrared spectrum.
So yes, it is more useful then a human watching people in the same way that a lie detector is, if you agree with that technology.
It may also be more invasive than being watched by the TSA, but it's less invasive than taking your shoes off or getting flown into a highrise building at 600 mph.
This is sensationalist reporting at its best. An electrical component broke and got quickly replaced, whoopty-doo. Yes, it takes big transformers to cool a 27 km long collider. Yes, they breakdown. It's not a scandal or coverup, it's experimental science.
If the science AP writers would actually write about science instead of failed transformers and beer cans in the tunnel, the general public might actually learn something useful. But then I guess they'd have raise the level of all of their articles.
If Mozilla produces a mobile browser then more power to them, but they have to provide a benefit over what's already in place in order to get people to switch and quite frankly I don't see it happening on a handset.
I bet people would switch if Mozilla's mobile browser would efficiently show them all the parts of the internet.
Google's riduculously high stock price amounts to a gamble on the part of its investors. I wonder how many investors knew this was coming and were smart enough to short this stock.
What it needs is a big fat Surgeon General's warning on the side saying, "This product WILL make you go deaf." Of course, then they'd get sued by people who didn't go deaf claiming the product didn't perform as advertised.
And don't forget the blind people! They won't be able to read printed warnings. They'll need some kind audible warning to be superimposed over the actual music so that they can remain safe.
Slashdot Mirror
Erm, you're confused. A live rear axel doesn't refer to the power being directed to the rear wheels... it... well, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Live_axle
Contrast that with an independent rear suspension (IRS) setup. The IRS will corner drastically better. A live rear axle is really meant for one thing... laying down power on the drag strip.
No sir, you are confused. A "live rear axle" specifies both the drive type and the axle type. The first sentence of your link proves this: "A live axle is a type of beam axle suspension system that uses the driveshafts that transmit power to the wheels to connect the wheels laterally so that they move together as a unit." Your use of the adjective "rear" specifies that the powered axle is the rear one.
With the appropriate suspension and tires, a live axle setup can be effective on the curves and kick ass on the drag strip for a more modest price than an IRS setup.
Only some of the time. It's not hard to throw a FWD car into a rear wheel drift via weight shifting. Simply accelerate hard into a corner then, as you near the limits of your traction, quit accelerating (but don't engine brake... although that makes it simple easy); let the rear springs unload and you'll shift the weight to the front. Your rear wheels will then come free, you'll still have traction on the front, and you get to have fun. (just don't overcompensate and start fishtailing)
For an average driver driving a car normally, FWD is a safer setup in slippery conditions. I'm sure you don't throw your car into rear wheel drifts on normal roads in traffic. Obviously a skilled driver can make any car do what they want, including cornering in a Mustang.
Dell gives themselves an out in the small print of their website, but it is still false advertising.
They are offering a product for sale on their website for a specific price and then reneging on it. If you buy something in a store and then the owner realized he made a mistake on the price... it's too late. Dell doesn't feel that they need to be held accountable for mistakes that cost them money, and they don't feel that they need to make sure their website is correct either. That's the problem.
And why in the heck did you pick the Mustang for your example? You do realize that it is, in no way, a cornering machine? It's made to go (kinda) fast in a straight line and that's it. Hell, it has a live rear axel!
Physics. It's a wonderful thing.
You were doing so well until you got to here. Rear wheel drive cars typically do better in cornering. Maybe the POS $15,000 Mustangs you've been racing can't handle the curves, but if you get in one with a real suspension you will find they handle better than front wheel drive cars. This is why most sporty sedans including BMWs, Mercedes, etc... are typically rear wheel drive.
Front wheel drive only offers the advantage in slippery conditions because the front of the car will lose traction before the rear. Although most modern cars are set up to always lose traction in the front regardless of what type of drive they have.
This is all based on physics. It's a wonderful thing.
-Er "why should they", not "why they".
Actually genius, he probably meant to type "while they send an e-mail" instead of "why they" but I think it's pretty clear what he is trying to say.
If you are going to take the time to correct someone, make sure you are actually correct.
In your analysis, you make the incorrect assumption that I was proposing to recycle only 75-year-old bodies. I was, in fact, thinking of starting with all politicians and then moving on to the lawyers. After that, I figure recycling entire Middle Eastern population, Texas and maybe China would also help.
Also, remember that every person eaten would no longer consume meat, increasing the amount available for the rest of the population. Since you're such a wiz with the numbers, I'll let you solve the ODE for the break-even point. :)
The reality is that we don't have enough planet for everyone to be a meat-eater, at least not in the American sense.
Technically, we do have enough planet for sufficient meat production if we were to switch to soylent green. This would also free up graveyard space for more crop fields.
This isn't revolutionary. If you cut yourself, your body tries to heal the wound. If you practice an activity that you are awkward at, your body learns to do it more efficiently. Organisms that most effectively adapt to adversity are naturally selected. This has been naturally selected to happen at every level in an organism due to natural selection.
The organism isn't "controlling" its evolution as the article says. Evolution has selected the organisms that has a protein structure that can deal with an adverse situation. The ones that can't respond favorably were bred out of existence before the experiments even started.
It just looks like Princeton is trying to give themselves an award for something we all learned in fourth grade. I guess that's why the article is on the princeton.edu website though.
It depends on if you have an internet connection too.
Priceless... The thread is titled "Is Windows 7 Faster Just Smarter?" and people are talking about Apple.
Poor Microsoft just can't get any attention!
One of the main problems with kids being crushed by debt is that they are not given realistic economic advice. If you spend $500K to get a B.S. or B.A. in a job that will pay $40K a year (advanced degrees aside), you might not be so happy. On the other hand, if you are going to be making $100K, maybe that Ivy League education was worth it. There's no right decision, it is up to the individual to decide on their lifestyle. Of course, you have to commit to that decision at the wise age of 18.
Personally, I started college interested in Astronomy until I took my first economics class... then I decided to major in Engineering.
The scientists using the shiny new state of the art collider are sitting back in their offices, just getting disembodied data that they haven't really connected with, and don't understand on a gut level like their colleagues using the "inferior" equipment do.
Feynman knew then he was going to happy at the new school.
The thing is, as a research scientist in today's economy you just can't spend too much time doing hands on work. Spending all day in the lab works great in grad school when you have no other responsibilities and can spend all night reducing data and writing, but if you want to be a professor or a senior researcher you have to train your people well and then let them do the experiment prep and data collection for you. You can participate too, but the more time you spend working on the hardware, the less time you have for data analysis, writing papers and getting funding... which is what drives labs nowadays and keeps your students and researchers employed. Throw in a spouse and kids and you have even less time to spend screwing things together.
Of course, if you are a freaky genius like Feynman, you may operate a little more efficiently and be able to do everything. The rest of us have to compromise however.
Plus, at the retail end, anything the requires a key to sell requires, if not a manager, at least a senior employeed who has been vetted more throughly than the average cahsier.
Like condoms for example?
It is questionable if it is acceptable to do so if they are end-term on a horrific disease, due to the chance of recovery.
The girl in India thought that she was at the end-term of humanity with zero chance of recovery. According to what she knew, even your definition makes her suicide acceptable.
The girl was 16 and her parents tried to convince her it wasn't true. It sounds like she had other problems and the LHC was just an excuse.
I get a kick out of her mentality though, some act of nature might kill me, so I kill myself first... Natural selection for the win there, IMO.
I thought, we call it "Silicon Valley" — and it didn't need government sponsorship to come into being...
Yes, Silicon Valley's software has done so much for us... now I can search for porn with google, play better video games, watch Pixar movies, and try to sort out how the personalized Oracle system my company uses managed to fuck up my paycheck again.
Did I mention that I can do all of this in English and in relative freedom because the Los Alamos scientists figured out how to make the atomic bomb before the Germans and Japanese did? You may not be Jewish, disabled, or gay and thus find it amusing to quote hitler.org, but I am pretty sure he wouldn't have approved of the creativity and freedom that flourished in Silicon Valley... unless it was being done by little blond boys bent on world domination. Ummmm, wait a second...
I'd say that in at LEAST 2/3rds of the conversations I've ever had with Americans about the 2nd amendment, they bring up the idea that a well armed populace will keep the government from doing illegal things, because the populace will call them to account.
You need to stop talking to people you meet in Walmart.
Most Americans don't buy guns to fight the government, they buy them to protect themselves and their family for the 10+ minutes it can take the government to respond to a life threatening situation. Or they buy them to go target shooting or hunting.
As long as American Idol is still playing, and Walmart is still selling clothes for cheap, the vast majority of the American people seem unwilling to risk their own comfortable lives over things like the contitution, their rights or more particularly, the rights of others.
I believe you need to review American history. It doesn't take a "vast majority" of people to be willing to risk their lives. It only requires an inspirational few to motivate and lead the crowds.
A starting math teacher in Massachusetts makes $33K. Even if you extrapolate that salary to cover the whole year, it is $44K.
If you are graduating with a master's degree in mathematics or engineering, would you rather teach overloaded classes for $44K or make $60K working for an engineering firm?
The current system pushes good teaching candidates into other fields. Only the ones who can't get higher paying jobs, want more time off, or really really want to teach get teaching jobs. That's the problem right there.
I apologize if this is a stupid question, but what law says that it is illegal to guess someone's password and read their email? I'm not being snide, I actually want to know.
I am asking because I have friends who have had their yahoo accounts hijacked. Of course, yahoo was less than helpful recovering their account and no federal indictment resulted from their situation. I'm sure that was just a small oversight on the Justice Department's behalf though.
Darn tootin' right she won! Of course, it's a Pyrrhic victory when the criteria for "winning" is that you don't make yourself look like too much of a moron on international issues AND you have to study for a week to pull that off.
Say it ain't so Joe.
At least Putin didn't rear his head into the debate.
My point is that trucks are not a stupid place to start electric conversions since they are a significant percentage of vehicles in the United States.
She took a car that works for her lifestyle and adapted it to have better fuel efficiency with current technology. Kudos to her.
I think that it is ignorant to criticize her efforts to reduce her fuel usage simply because you do not like her vehicle choice.
I do like the idea of electric vehicles btw, I just think a standard truck is a dumb place to start. Though the Ford F150 was the best selling vehicle in the US for 23 years, so in a way trucks are a good place to start - but not with current models IMO. They would need to make them lightweight (but still strong, obviously) to get the best efficiency. Electric motors have good torque too so they'd be good for hauling, as long as they have enough charge..
You may think that a truck is a dumb place to start, but I am betting you never any serous offroad driving. Alison is an extreme skier. I'll bet she enjoys having more than 5 inches of ground clearance when she drives offroad and more weight when she tries to get her car moving in the snow.
Not everyone buys pickups and trucks just to look cool and waste gas. Some people actually use them for serious offroad driving and hauling large loads. Those of you who think that high clearance vehicles are a waste of gas should try moving somewhere where all of the roads are not paved and it snows a lot.
And BTW, I don't own a truck and drive a sedan that gets 29 mpg, so I am not a truck convert myself, but there is definitely a need for these vehicles in the more rural areas of the US.
Seriously, is there anything a device like this can do that's either more useful or less invasive than a human watching people walking past and profiling/screening them on what they can see?
Maybe you have the special ability detect higher than normal skin temperatures and breathing rates, but the average TSA employee doesn't have the ability to see into the infrared spectrum.
So yes, it is more useful then a human watching people in the same way that a lie detector is, if you agree with that technology.
It may also be more invasive than being watched by the TSA, but it's less invasive than taking your shoes off or getting flown into a highrise building at 600 mph.
This is sensationalist reporting at its best. An electrical component broke and got quickly replaced, whoopty-doo. Yes, it takes big transformers to cool a 27 km long collider. Yes, they breakdown. It's not a scandal or coverup, it's experimental science.
If the science AP writers would actually write about science instead of failed transformers and beer cans in the tunnel, the general public might actually learn something useful. But then I guess they'd have raise the level of all of their articles.
If Mozilla produces a mobile browser then more power to them, but they have to provide a benefit over what's already in place in order to get people to switch and quite frankly I don't see it happening on a handset.
I bet people would switch if Mozilla's mobile browser would efficiently show them all the parts of the internet.
Google's riduculously high stock price amounts to a gamble on the part of its investors. I wonder how many investors knew this was coming and were smart enough to short this stock.
Apparently some people saw it coming!
What it needs is a big fat Surgeon General's warning on the side saying, "This product WILL make you go deaf." Of course, then they'd get sued by people who didn't go deaf claiming the product didn't perform as advertised.
And don't forget the blind people! They won't be able to read printed warnings. They'll need some kind audible warning to be superimposed over the actual music so that they can remain safe.