I didn't see anyone else mention it, but there's a decent low-budget sci-fi movie about the first manned mission to Europa where they're looking for life under the ice: Europa Report. I thought it was quite good.
My favorite argument on that list was over the issue of whether the article Exploding Whale should contain the phrase "the blast blasted blubber beyond all believable bounds."
Well, you know what they say... It's all fun and games until someone grows an extra eye.
Yup. Sheesh, I even proofread it.
that should be "multiple tasks in progress"
Well, there's this one, but by "multitasking" one generally means "switching between multiple tasks is progress" rather than "simultaneous attention to different tasks," and the study indicates women may be better at the former.
What really gets me is this part, quoted from a neuroscientist:
We know that there is no such thing as 'hard wiring' when it comes to brain connections. Connections can change throughout life, in response to experience and learning.
So the brain connections men and women develop from their experiences happen to reflect the roles we tend to nudge men and women into.
It can be both, and it wouldn't surprise me if genetics and environment both play a significant factor in this type of neural development. There may even be environmental feedback that amplifies the genetic tendencies. Divides in STEM etc. may be partially due to genetics as well as other factors.
Just to be pedantic: the wiring is not science; our understanding of it is. So the GP's point is that science (in general an ordered body of knowledge, in this case empirical and deduced knowledge about the physical world) comes to reflect some aspect of society present for millenia.
Which is not of course to make a moral argument, just [paraphrasing] an observation that society has been traditionally structured in a way that utilizes the biological strengths of the sexes. Which I'm sure will not be a controversial statement at all.
Doesn't the same rule apply (only more so) for FWD? If your rear wheels start to slip and you step on the gas, you transition weight off the front wheels, while simultaneously increasing the torque on them, making it more likely they'll spin? Honest question, I've never really pushed a FWD car on a track before, partly because their handling is just counter-intuitive to me.
If you're spinning out, it's because the rear tires lose traction when the front wheels still have it. If you shift weight off the front wheels, it has to go to the rear wheels, which although they may be sliding along the lateral axis, are not sliding along the direction of travel. Since they're rotating, adding weight (force) may cause them to cease sliding laterally since the friction will increase.
So yes, you're correct that the front wheels will start to slip. If you're cornering near the limit at a constant speed, adding throttle will cause your line through the corner to widen. Lifting the throttle will tighten it up.
Contrast this behavior with a RWD car, where if the rear tires are sliding laterally, adding throttle may cause them to slide in the direction of travel as well, completely breaking traction; while lifting the throttle may reduce the force on the tire in the direction of travel, allowing it to regain traction as it rotates. Lifting too much, however, can cause the drag of the engine and drivetrain to exert too much force in the other direction, causing "lift-throttle oversteer."
This means RWD cars potentially can exit a corner faster, because the weight transfer can add traction to the drive wheels, but too much causes a spin. In a FWD car, the weight transfer away from the drive wheels means too much throttle leads to oversteer. Safer, but potentially slower.
Racing FWD cars is fun, and probably demands less skill than RWD cars. The proper reaction to a spin is reversed, and catches a lot of people off guard. I think after 9 races I'm finally getting it.
Besides the Carrera GT is an iconic car and should be kept on a pedestal and not driven on the edge on the roads.
No! Sacrilege! Supercars are made for driving! The should be driven to the track (safely), thrashed/hooned/enjoyed, and then driven home (safely).
The car is only unforgiving when trying to drive it at the limit. When driving under normal street conditions, it's perfectly safe. Cars in this category are designed with performance driving in mind, with the assumption being that if you want to experience the full potential of the car, you'll take it someplace where it's appropriate to do so, such as a racetrack. Unlike pure "track cars," though, they also include the features required to be safe and comfortable for road use.
If you read the linked articles, the reviewers actually indicate the car is actually very easy to control under normal driving, only when you're trying to push it does it become a challenging car to control.
Exactly. I race a Festiva (don't laugh (okay, go ahead and laugh)), and like all performance cars you use the throttle to change the car's behavior in the corners, by transferring weight front to rear like you describe. The biggest difference between the Festiva and the Carrera GT (besides about 500 HP) is that the Festiva is front-wheel drive, so if the back end gets loose you stomp on the gas, which adds rear grip and pulls the car in the direction the front wheels are pointing.
If you're cornering a RWD car at the limit, and the back end starts to get loose, adding throttle may just hasten the spin. And in high-performance lightweight cars like the Carrera GT, things like this happen very suddenly. High performance tires also tend to transition from gripping to sliding much more quickly.
The rule of thumb is that getting the most out of a high performance car requires driving it right up to the limit of its capabilities. But obviously this should only be done in an appropriate venue, such as a racetrack.
Porsche's first car with Porsche Stability Management was the 911 Carrera 4 in 1998. And car electronics were quite good in 2004. I think the Carrera GT is like the Dodge Viper - designed to be a driver's car that takes skill to drive competently at the edge, contrasted with the Nissan GTR (yes I know it came later), in which the electronics take care of that for you.
The key is that the Carrera GT on public roads at legal speeds will be far safer than most cars, because of its far superior handling, grip, and brakes.
Follow-up: the caveat in the above is that you're sitting at the same distance. The recommended distance for TVs is twice the diagonal, which would be about 3 feet for the 19" and 6 for the 39", which would again halve the angular pixel pitch. I don't think someone using this as a monitor would be that far away, however.
I think he's referring to pixel density, which he probably assumed (as did I) would be so fine you wouldn't notice the increase. However, after actually calculating it, here's a comparison:
1280x1024, 19": 86.27 px/in
1920x1080, 24": 91.79 px/in
3840x2160, 39": 112.97 px/in
Which is only 23% finer than the 24" HD monitor, and 31% finer than the uber-common 5:4 19" LCD. So I think you'd notice an improvement, and with proper DPI adjustment would be quite nice.