Why is everybody talking about robots? AI and robots aren't the same thing.

I've been checking this guy's diary out here and there for a while [http://www.templeos.org/Wb/Accts/TS/Wb2/Rants/TAD/TADRants.html]. To me this seems more like an NSA-created fictional character designed to discredit the Open Source community. Yes, they actually do that [https://firstlook.org/theintercept/] Go read the diary, search for three-letter organizations, and observe the context. Pretty interesting.

Can I find this bar?

Without having even read the summary, I had to ask myself if the "she" you referred to was Dianne Feinstein.

...that more slashdotters don't "get" the rotary. I would think this would be a community that would be very sad to see such an interesting and unique piece of technology die out.

You might say it died out because it "wasn't as good" as modern piston engines, but if you did say that, you would be wrong. It was different.

It had plenty of weaknesses, but the fact is that most are exaggerated for a number of reasons. Even with those exaggerations, it's amazing that this motor performs as well as it does in a modern market, given the considerably smaller amount of development attention that it received over the past 45 years.

At least in its current incarnation, the rotary's real strength is in racing -- it's light, real light. Mazda is the only Japanese car manufacturer in history to win the LeMans, in 91, with, you guessed it, a 4-rotor. The next year rotaries were banned from the race.

In naturally aspirated form a rotary will take a beating for many tens if not hundreds of thousands of miles more than a piston engine -- because there is NO VALVE TRAIN and the mechanical motion in a rotary is smooth and cylindrical, not violent and jerky.

Some of the major reasons rotaries have received a bad reputation include the following:

1. They are most identified with the RX- line of sports cars. 'Ever heard of a sports car being unreliable? 2. The most popular of those cars, 3rd generation RX-7 (the "FD") used a 2-rotor sequential turbo system. Using an NA 3-rotor would have maintained the same weight distribution, would have provided better torque, and would have been enormously more reliable, but having an NA motor doesn't sound as cool for marketing purposes as having a "twin turbo." This was a big mistake on Mazda's behalf. Rotary engines are notoriously difficult to tune when boosted. A small malfunction in the vacuum system could blow a motor, or more commonly, a anxious and naive performance enthusiast would install one-too-many aftermarket parts, leading to a lean fuel mixture, and BAM goes the motor. This is not a problem you see in piston engines, and unfortunately many people did not understand this difference. 3. General dislike for anything different -- as I'm sure man of us have noticed, car people are notoriously judgmental of other brands and setups. The rotary motor is a prime target for such unfounded scrutiny.

Really, I'm just sad to see such an interesting technology with so much potential disappear... but the Rotary engine attracts a very unique crowd of the engineering-type, and we're not likely to go anywhere anytime soon.

Where are all the C++ jokes?

Here's a relatively detailed and interesting discussion about laser laws on the community forum: http://laserpointerforums.com/f44/arrests-64774.html

I want a pair of them shoes!

...you're doing it wrong.

Just a thought, but your entire post is based on a technical assumption.

I never really understood this viewpoint. Sure it's fun to joke about the social skills of us nerds, and indeed many of us are severely lacking, but there is nothing wrong with being a computer scientist in and of itself. I am proud to tell ladies that I am a programmer, and it's usually well received. Just use some confidence, know it's cool, and they will think so, too. Disclaimer: There are some r-tard women out there that you simply can't win this battle with. But in my experience, these people generally aren't worth much to society anyway, if you now what I mean.

Check out Tesla's new Model S interface. It's pretty cool. Coincidentally, I interviewed with them today to work on the project. They shot me down like a bad of bricks. Tough cookies, those ones.

The idea of fragmentation is definitely important, whichever side of the debate you may be on. But, I don't think your particular argument holds much weight. Now, I can't cite any examples off the top of my head, but it seems quite reasonable to assume that a given iOS game could determine which device it's running on, and adjust its rendering settings appropriately. This, in more ways than one, could be seen as an advantage over user-adjustable settings. For example, there are a relatively small set of iOS devices available, and you know exactly what each's capabilities are -- your game can be made run exactly as intended on each, and the (potentially retarded) user doesn't have to know the first thing about 3D rendering, or change any settings.

Thousands of us are thrilled, huh? Where did you get that figure? It's really not a big deal. For any bitmap images, include a second version with "@2x" appended before the file extension. The Cocoa Touch API will automatically use that version when appropriate. Done. Most developers will have vector, or at least high-resolution sources available for their image resources. There is nothing hard, expensive, or time-consuming about it. I, for one, would welcome [don't say it] a double-resolution iPad display. The iPhone 4's screen is damn nice.