Is the statue the property of the sculptor, or was the sculptor paid for its work?
As a programmer, all my work belongs to the company that pays me. What if - let's say - Linus Torvalds would as people using the Transmeta processor money for its work in the project? What if the tuba player at the symphonic concert would ask the spectators money for its part in playing?
For appeal to common users, and also for appeal to producers.
Now, solar is limited by two big things: 1. total cost (panels are expensive, so few people buy them, so few people produce them, so they are more expensive than it could be) 2. the Return on Investment is low (extreme cases - 10 years, but typically more than 20).
If a cheap production method can be devised, this will open the market to many buyers (many people don't even consider buying a $25,000 solar panel system, but will buy in a heart beat a $2,500 solar panel system).
Also, a cheap production method will allow (hopefully) a quick panel production ramp up)
The duo car is much more aerodynamic than the solo - I suspect the Duo will have lower wind resistance than a single solo.
However, this only applies at higher speeds.
I wonder what happens to the wheels on the back - and what happens to the air pressure in the front wheels - one would need to increase pressure sharply if the Duo goes on only four wheels.
On the other hand, having steering wheels on both front and rear of the Duo will make it so much more manoeuvrable...
Just some pretty pictures there This shows how the car splits: http://www.solo-duo.hu/data/picture_news/62/0062/pic87.jpg
A back-to-back "link-up" with the rear end of the cars put separately. Will it have 6 wheels when connected? Or just four wheels, with the other (double) two wheels raised or totally removed?
And the "back" car has the seats backside-facing (unless the seats can rotate).
The three seats are side-by-side (the front seat a little advanced). Not a very friendly conversation place, as the passengers will talk behind the head of the driver.
Interesting idea, it's just that I think it has a bad implementation.
There are 40 work hours a week (and a total of 168 hours), and the free time is about 3 weeks a year. Add one week for other issues (medical leave,...) and you end up working about 48 weeks a year, or some 1920 hours a year.
20 hours of content a minute, 525000 minutes a year makes 10 million hours of content a year, against 2000 hours work a year makes 5,000 employees.
Now, what about all the pictures updated to all the picture sites?
Windows Vista forced an early upgrade (upgrade computers that are already working) - and new computers are energy intensive, so CO2 intensive.
Think of it this way: If I could have hold on my computer for 5 years, in 10 years I buy 2 computers. If I am forced to upgrade every three years, I must buy 3 computers in the same time.
Just like buying a new car can be more carbon intensive (and more expensive) than using the old car you already have.
It seems Microsoft wants the already planned, 6-lanes (of which 2 HOV) change, and does not want the (not yet planned) change to 2 HOV lanes, 2 general lanes and a rapid bus or light rail lane.
Then the solution would be Netrek - you can fly any ship (other than a starbase) from the beginning, it's PvP only - the issue is finding a place with many other people to play. The learning curve is somewhat steep, though.
Also, you could stay in high-security space and not fear being killed by other players (frankly, decided players in groups could kill any beginner even in the highest security space, but it's not worth the effort and loss).
You can fly a cruiser in less than two weeks (just ignore high level learning skills), and if you want to go battlecruiser route, it shouldn't take much more than that (less than half a year). To fly it well, that takes training (both in game skills and in your skills).
As for fun, frigate plus warp scrambler (to block the target from warping away) plus web (to slow down the target) is fun if you know what to avoid. Remember that some of T2 ships are actually weaker than T1 ships in a one-to-one fight, and there are some very powerful frigates there, which you could fly in a week (skills and money-wise)
Flying frigates can be really fun - if you know what you are doing (and usually if you are part of a group). There are frigate builds that can take on some cruisers and win - on the other side, with similar ships a new player is extraordinarily behind an experienced (skill wise) player, as the experienced player will have improved every skill that matters (5% here, 10% there, 15% there and so on). Longer range, improved accuracy, more energy, better armour, higher armour/shield regeneration. He could also have better things and could know how to use them better, not be lost in the rush of the fight and so on. http://go-dl1.eve-files.com/media/0903/learning_curve_of_eve.jpg
(these being said, I wanted to play a battleship but the time needed to be theoretically able to fly one was too long, not to mention the ISK or the beneficial skills needed)
Firing while crouched of laying in grass was possible - loading the muskets was not. It was not until the breech-loaders that one could load a gun from a position other than standing
Every new musket in the war was a rifled musket, and (according to Wikipedia) the South had bought some 400 000 rifled muskets before the war (or during the war).
As for trench warfare and fortifications... unlike the current weapons, one could have loaded a musket (rifled or not) only while standing up.
The Civil War started with the same weaponry used in the Napoleonic Wars.
The new thing was the use of Minie balls for muskets (allowing the use of rifling in muskets). Previous rifled muskets were slow to load, and despite their greater range and higher accuracy, a force of rifled musketeers would be at a disadvantage (trading an effective first volley and maybe a second volley against a force that would close and then hammer them three shots against one).
The unrifled musket fights were as much battles of morale as battles of attrition and killing, and
The troops used as much defence and concealment as possible - forts, stone walls, undergrowth, trees. However, most of the battles took place in areas that would allow troops to move easily (on plains). There were plenty of battles taking place in forests, but they were avoided if possible because of the possibility of fragmenting lines and "pocket fighting", not to mention logistic worries and limited capability to send orders (also, artillery was useless there, having no lines of sight and being able to engage enemy riflemen only from ranges where the artillerymen were targets).
The mines might break when moved, even if not actually exploding - and they might explode due to the changes in pressure (from 3 at at 30 meters to 0 at at surface - that's a 3kgf/cm^2 difference in pressure).
Working underwater with robots is hard enough as it is, exploding them is the cheapest option.
The best known highways are in Germany (maybe for their lack of a speed limit, maybe for other reasons) The best known airships are known as Zeppelins (from their builder, graf von Zeppelin). The "Nurnberg eggs" were the first pocket watches. One of the best known optics company is Carl Zeiss. While none of the record setting train engines I know of are german, their railway service is top notch (better than the American rail service any day, and probably comparable with the Nippon Railways) Germans actually produced fuel (from coal) - production of fuel is advancing now in baby steps in USA. The synthetic rubber produced in USA in World War 2 came from research of some German scientists. The Germans had the best missiles in the world (V-1, V-2), were (I think) the first to have remote-controlled gliding bombs, had the best submarines in both World War 1 and World War 2 (arguably, the USA prioritized on very-long-range submarines so it had a different set of priorities) The Germans had the first rocket and jet powered fighters.
My car (Volkswagen, built in Germany) is extraordinarily well built for a 17-years old car.
The Vasa was wooden, and I don't know how much of its metal survived. However, the Mary Rose (I think) ship dates to the 1600, and was preserved too (I don't remember how much of its iron content survived, but wood survived very well - including some longbows).
As a side note, I had recovered shiny nails from a bed of degraded leafs fallen into a well (the nails rusted quickly when exposed to air, though).
Slashdot Mirror
Is the statue the property of the sculptor, or was the sculptor paid for its work?
As a programmer, all my work belongs to the company that pays me. What if - let's say - Linus Torvalds would as people using the Transmeta processor money for its work in the project? What if the tuba player at the symphonic concert would ask the spectators money for its part in playing?
For appeal to common users, and also for appeal to producers.
Now, solar is limited by two big things:
1. total cost (panels are expensive, so few people buy them, so few people produce them, so they are more expensive than it could be)
2. the Return on Investment is low (extreme cases - 10 years, but typically more than 20).
If a cheap production method can be devised, this will open the market to many buyers (many people don't even consider buying a $25,000 solar panel system, but will buy in a heart beat a $2,500 solar panel system).
Also, a cheap production method will allow (hopefully) a quick panel production ramp up)
My 1992 Volkswagen Passat does this, and I think most of the current cars do this.
The duo car is much more aerodynamic than the solo - I suspect the Duo will have lower wind resistance than a single solo.
However, this only applies at higher speeds.
I wonder what happens to the wheels on the back - and what happens to the air pressure in the front wheels - one would need to increase pressure sharply if the Duo goes on only four wheels.
On the other hand, having steering wheels on both front and rear of the Duo will make it so much more manoeuvrable...
The same as without a car tailing him.
Good luck staying awake in long trips in a "lounge" car seat...
But I too would like something like the blue future car... maybe this?
http://digitheory.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/dymaxioncar1.jpg
http://www.solo-duo.hu/main.php?category=104
Just some pretty pictures there
This shows how the car splits:
http://www.solo-duo.hu/data/picture_news/62/0062/pic87.jpg
A back-to-back "link-up" with the rear end of the cars put separately. Will it have 6 wheels when connected? Or just four wheels, with the other (double) two wheels raised or totally removed?
And the "back" car has the seats backside-facing (unless the seats can rotate).
The three seats are side-by-side (the front seat a little advanced). Not a very friendly conversation place, as the passengers will talk behind the head of the driver.
Interesting idea, it's just that I think it has a bad implementation.
There are 40 work hours a week (and a total of 168 hours), and the free time is about 3 weeks a year. Add one week for other issues (medical leave, ...) and you end up working about 48 weeks a year, or some 1920 hours a year.
20 hours of content a minute, 525000 minutes a year makes 10 million hours of content a year, against 2000 hours work a year makes 5,000 employees.
Now, what about all the pictures updated to all the picture sites?
Windows Vista forced an early upgrade (upgrade computers that are already working) - and new computers are energy intensive, so CO2 intensive.
Think of it this way: If I could have hold on my computer for 5 years, in 10 years I buy 2 computers. If I am forced to upgrade every three years, I must buy 3 computers in the same time.
Just like buying a new car can be more carbon intensive (and more expensive) than using the old car you already have.
It seems Microsoft wants the already planned, 6-lanes (of which 2 HOV) change, and does not want the (not yet planned) change to 2 HOV lanes, 2 general lanes and a rapid bus or light rail lane.
Because the plates might be on a one-year replacement policy?
Not really - at least not in European time zones. However, there is a newsgroup, and Netrek clients are being actively developed
Then the solution would be Netrek - you can fly any ship (other than a starbase) from the beginning, it's PvP only - the issue is finding a place with many other people to play. The learning curve is somewhat steep, though.
Also, you could stay in high-security space and not fear being killed by other players (frankly, decided players in groups could kill any beginner even in the highest security space, but it's not worth the effort and loss).
You can fly a cruiser in less than two weeks (just ignore high level learning skills), and if you want to go battlecruiser route, it shouldn't take much more than that (less than half a year). To fly it well, that takes training (both in game skills and in your skills).
As for fun, frigate plus warp scrambler (to block the target from warping away) plus web (to slow down the target) is fun if you know what to avoid. Remember that some of T2 ships are actually weaker than T1 ships in a one-to-one fight, and there are some very powerful frigates there, which you could fly in a week (skills and money-wise)
Flying frigates can be really fun - if you know what you are doing (and usually if you are part of a group). There are frigate builds that can take on some cruisers and win - on the other side, with similar ships a new player is extraordinarily behind an experienced (skill wise) player, as the experienced player will have improved every skill that matters (5% here, 10% there, 15% there and so on). Longer range, improved accuracy, more energy, better armour, higher armour/shield regeneration. He could also have better things and could know how to use them better, not be lost in the rush of the fight and so on.
http://go-dl1.eve-files.com/media/0903/learning_curve_of_eve.jpg
(these being said, I wanted to play a battleship but the time needed to be theoretically able to fly one was too long, not to mention the ISK or the beneficial skills needed)
The M1 Garand could be reloaded before its clip was empty - but I think shooting the rest of the bullets and putting a new clip was faster.
Firing while crouched of laying in grass was possible - loading the muskets was not. It was not until the breech-loaders that one could load a gun from a position other than standing
Every new musket in the war was a rifled musket, and (according to Wikipedia) the South had bought some 400 000 rifled muskets before the war (or during the war).
As for trench warfare and fortifications... unlike the current weapons, one could have loaded a musket (rifled or not) only while standing up.
The Civil War started with the same weaponry used in the Napoleonic Wars.
The new thing was the use of Minie balls for muskets (allowing the use of rifling in muskets). Previous rifled muskets were slow to load, and despite their greater range and higher accuracy, a force of rifled musketeers would be at a disadvantage (trading an effective first volley and maybe a second volley against a force that would close and then hammer them three shots against one).
The unrifled musket fights were as much battles of morale as battles of attrition and killing, and
The troops used as much defence and concealment as possible - forts, stone walls, undergrowth, trees. However, most of the battles took place in areas that would allow troops to move easily (on plains). There were plenty of battles taking place in forests, but they were avoided if possible because of the possibility of fragmenting lines and "pocket fighting", not to mention logistic worries and limited capability to send orders (also, artillery was useless there, having no lines of sight and being able to engage enemy riflemen only from ranges where the artillerymen were targets).
The mines might break when moved, even if not actually exploding - and they might explode due to the changes in pressure (from 3 at at 30 meters to 0 at at surface - that's a 3kgf/cm^2 difference in pressure).
Working underwater with robots is hard enough as it is, exploding them is the cheapest option.
The best known highways are in Germany (maybe for their lack of a speed limit, maybe for other reasons)
The best known airships are known as Zeppelins (from their builder, graf von Zeppelin).
The "Nurnberg eggs" were the first pocket watches.
One of the best known optics company is Carl Zeiss.
While none of the record setting train engines I know of are german, their railway service is top notch (better than the American rail service any day, and probably comparable with the Nippon Railways)
Germans actually produced fuel (from coal) - production of fuel is advancing now in baby steps in USA.
The synthetic rubber produced in USA in World War 2 came from research of some German scientists.
The Germans had the best missiles in the world (V-1, V-2), were (I think) the first to have remote-controlled gliding bombs, had the best submarines in both World War 1 and World War 2 (arguably, the USA prioritized on very-long-range submarines so it had a different set of priorities)
The Germans had the first rocket and jet powered fighters.
My car (Volkswagen, built in Germany) is extraordinarily well built for a 17-years old car.
I'd say their engineering is top-notch.
The Vasa was wooden, and I don't know how much of its metal survived. However, the Mary Rose (I think) ship dates to the 1600, and was preserved too (I don't remember how much of its iron content survived, but wood survived very well - including some longbows).
As a side note, I had recovered shiny nails from a bed of degraded leafs fallen into a well (the nails rusted quickly when exposed to air, though).
Blizzard never released "pay to play" games... until World of Warcraft.
There is a start for everything.