Just for fun, I tried the same experiment on one of our DSPs, and it pulled in just over 64K. I think our library is generally leaner in the locale department. In fact, I didn't see any locale data linked in. Most of what it pulled in looks to be actual ios/istream/ostream stuff, basic_string<char> and basic_string<wchar_t>.

Fortunately, those who did use him as an inspiration to get a life/career were also well adjusted enough to have a good laugh.

For all practical purposes, you're probably within 40 feet of a door that can never be opened. Or let's go the other way - hey, given enough time, you could probably find a crane and a wrecking ball, and destroy the building you're sitting in. Therefore, games without fully destructible environments are frustrating to you, because in real life, you can destroy everything? That's a silly line of reasoning. You're marking the line between what is reasonable and unreasonable that is clearly out of whack with the majority of players who accept that some level of suspension of disbelief is required in order to enjoy a video game. Game design conventions and art design directly addresses the concerns you're laying out in the vast majority of games with visual cues as to which objects are interactive and which are not. Anybody can be obstinate about those conventions, but to argue the point without acknowledging that they are a standard part of game and art design is being utterly disingenuous.

The vacuous thing about the slippery slope argument is we can't drag you out in public and have you admit you were wrong a couple of years down the road.

We knew you'd say that.

Yes, imagine a world where the laws of thermodynamics don't apply.

The peak theoretical efficiency of an internal combustion engine is bounded by the efficiency of an equivalent ideal Carnot cycle, which if I remember my ME301 Thermo class, is a bit below 40%. Wikipedia backs me up on this, quoting a limit of 37% for a steel engine block. That jibes with what I remember learning in Thermo.

To get 80% efficiency out of gasoline would require a different method of releasing its energy than an internal combustion engine.

Interesting. It'd be funnier if it weren't so sad.

Does Gene Ray have a teenaged / twenty-something relative somewhere that's "into computers"? If so, I think he could be your troll. :-P

You are correct. I got my wires crossed. I actually have a 7805 replacement here in my "lab" that is an actual switching regulator. And for some reason I had mentally bucketed it with LDOs, which as you noted, are just low-dropout varieties of linear regulators. And yes, switching regulators like these are a little pricier, although I believe with the RECOM R-78xx series you're just paying for the convenience of swapping out a 7805 space heater without touching the rest of your circuit. :-P

LDOs aren't that expensive, and certainly wouldn't dissipate that much power.

As a matter of viewpoint, I see this quite differently.

I think science didn't actually reject the various religious ideas. They all get tolerated. They've all been tested. There's contrarian data.

I don't find it discriminatory to give something a chance, then learn from detail that it isn't correct.

I think science is actually wildly tolerant of bizarre ideas.

Because, when it comes to car commercials, ad agencies are bound by so many rules and regulations regarding depictions of reckless driving and such things that it becomes almost impossible tp create a cool car commercial without running the risk of going to court over it (both the ad agency AND car manufacturer).

And yet, this commercial had zero driving at all!