No. Think again.

The atom *is* the indivisible unit of matter. You have atoms of some element... let's use Fe. Once you divide an iron atom you no longer have iron, but *subatomic particles* which no longer comprise matter, neutron stars and bose-einstein condensates notwithstanding.

Did anyone pause to just look at the numbers?

it's mostly fat and sugar. Neither of them are detrimental, of course, but one 100 g chocolate bar has something between a third and a quarter of daily calories. Do people realize what does that mean?

and more interestingly, at least for the ritter sport i happened to have checked earlier today, the 73% cocoa variety has *more* calories than the 50% one. Initially one might be excused to think that it is weird... it is more bitter, how can it be less "healthy"? Doesn't take long to think that 1) it is cocoa *butter*, which is *fat* 2) you won't need to eat as much to satisfy your tastebuds. The 73% one is 100 g portioned into 64 pieces. That's less than 2 grams per piece. Tiny piece, yes, but they pack a punch and they are less than 20 kcal.

Recently i've started noticing that to eat properly healthy is very expensive and time consuming if you are preparing only for yourself. Certainly, as one finds tricks and combinations, to save time and money.

Don't read this as gloating, but where i live i have access to really high quality foodstuffs and i consider myself lucky that i am not in the UStates. I'd sell my granny for a proper texas burger tho... Wendy's and mcdonalds don't really count, do they?

... the foot-shooting, that is, for what? Ten years? For as long as i can remember on /. , that's what we always say. Yet they are still here...

Anyone got any hard data to determine whether they are gaining or losing from all the foot-shooting?

it can not be "solved"

it's not a matter of ingenuity

if the process allows offerring the product to the rightful consumer then it can be copied.

can't get around the idea that you can set one bit the same as another bit, which is the basis of everything digital.

holy shit

a three-digiter

quick, where's my bug-net, before it flies away

scope and complexity say absolutely nothing about the quality of code

why did you choose those two words instead of "[...] programs far better than almost [...]" ?

You can write good code and bad code in any mainstream (just so that exercises like brainfuck, malbolge or dis are excluded) language.

Android is just horribly written. They make monumentally bad engineering decisions. Remember one of the major flaws of os/2 4? Yeah. Same thing. Horribly designed UI? Yup. hidden meat interface, interactive elements moving around on their own, windows popping up and disappearing, no deadzone between buttons... But ok that's not coding, that's UX design.

Android is a clusterfuck of bad decisions on every single point and i say that as a proud owner of about a dozen of the blasted things (x10 mini pro, x10 mini, xperia arc, z ultra, z1, milestone, etcetcetc).

but it sure is pretty! look at all those animations! "material design" they call it these days?

"It's one of the big reasons why Android underperforms iOS, why it's never been so smooth in operation."

no, there is only one reason: shitty coding.

> And would be so ridiculously dangerous, you would have a death every other race.

you mean like isle of man motorbike racing?

google brushless motor efficiency, look at images if you don't fancy reading.

i said rarely. consider that in f1 the clutch is to be operated 4-5 times. once at the start, two or three for pit stops and one left over for emergency/unforeseen events.

once again, you don't need a clutch for an electric motor, whether it is mated to a gearbox or not

Yes... Don't see your point? The gearbox is necessary so that the motor operates near peak efficiency as often as possible. Considering f1 cars rarely stop, it's not a significant problem to forgo a clutch

A clutch isn't really necessary, i'd guess.

and it will get floated every couple of years until they figure out how to make it worthwhile

the whole "max torque from 0 rpm" phrase that is thrown around is quite misleading. While true that a motor exerts its maximum torque at zero rpm (and drops linearly as rpm increases), it also has the worst efficiency. maximum power draw (it's a short circuit!) and minimum power output (it's not moving is it?). peak efficiency is at a specific rpm, thus a gearbox is needed *for efficiency*.