[Please read comments carefully before posting.]
I stated the fact that many suspensions attain desirable negative camber while turning as a consequence of body roll. That cars are set up for neutral camber when driving straight is not at issue. The interesing part is that this Mercedes rolls the opposite way, and I wonder what changes were made to suspension geometry to account for this.
On the contrary, body roll is, in my admittedly subjective experience, quite noticeable. I drive two cars, a typical family car and a sporty two seater. The difference is night and day. One can easily feel the family car "sway" into and out of turns.
Cars can gain traction in turns if body roll results in negative tire camber (especially on the outside wheel). I wonder if Mercedes has engineered a sort of reversed suspension to take advantage of this property. Or is that what they mean when they say the design is "not
200 steps per rotation is normal for motors. However, the drivers everyone is using do 16x microstepping, good for 3200 steps per revolution. Accurate steps per revolution. That's better then 4096 +- 2 steps.
No, those motors are not good for 3200 accurate steps/rev: Motor accuracy here is likely to be +/-5% (10% range), so ideal accuracy will be closer to 2000 steps/rev, but real world accuracy drops with increased microstepping resolution due to varying load and detent torques, stiction, etc.
The good news is that this level of motor accuracy is irrelevant here. All you really need to do is beat the required positioning resolution (likely on the order of a few mils). A 20tpi lead screw and 200 step/rev motor easily beat this without microstepping. You probably still want a microstepping driver, though, since it can prevent mid-band resonance in addition to other features.
What's illegal about it?
That's what. (Disclaimer: IANAL and therefore don't know what I am talking about).
The synopsis completely misses the qualification, made in the first sentence, that TFA is discussing "concurrency, parallelism (manycore), and, of course, Big Data". Purely functional programming eliminates some significant issues in this type of programming (while introducing its own set of limitations). Meijer's point is that mostly functional programming is not really better than imperative here
For other types of programming, mostly functional style (using multi-paradigm languages) can be very nice. At least that's my position.
What would constitute the "engine timing" on an all electric car?
Timing in this case would be the phase of the variable frequency drive that powers the motor.
F# and C# are both multi-paradigm languages, and are both built on top of the CLR type system. Functional style is more natural in F#, but C# has first class functions (and lambda), too. F# has loops and assignment, but nothing as powerful/abuse-inviting as the C-style for loop. Neither approach is the one true style.
If you believe the proverb, "library design is language design" [from Bell Labs? Was it Stroustrup?], then F# is a much different language from other ML variants as it has native access to Dot Net/Mono libraries.
According to this, the difference in the US is that recreational model aircraft are covered by FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 91-57, while Unmanned Aerial Systems require either a Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA) or Special Airworthiness Certificate in the Experimental Category (SAC-EC). Operation in restricted airspace is another matter. In all cases, a pilot in command must maintain control of the aircraft (which I take to mean line of sight is required).
The other agency US unmanned aerial systems (UAS) have to contend with is the FCC. There are frequencies available for recreational RC use, and amateur radio bands, but last time I checked there was nothing for controlling a commercial UAS.
]You can read about Java as the Internet security menace in the link above, but first you need to enable Java Script to read the article.
That, or disable CSS (e.g. View/Page Style/No Style in Firefox).
I'm just going by reviews that use superlatives like "insanely quiet". Apple claims an impressive 12bDA at idle, which is going to be hard to hear even with the unit on top of a desk, but it is easy to turn the fans off at idle. I am assuming that the unique thermal design is really being exploited to minimize fan noise.
I disagree that about the competition being "very quiet". Quiet in a relative way, sure, but not as quiet as I would like. For reference, consider the recent Xeon powered HP workstation (non-liquid-cooled) under my desk for reference. It is actually quite nice compared to the screaming hair dryer fans of old, but, under load, the whooshing of air through it is plainly audible even with a gas fireplace fan blasting away 2m from my ears. Turning off the HP under these circumstances gives me a sense of relief from its noise. Compare that with this description: "during an Apple demo, a high-end Mac Pro, complete with upgraded processor and graphics cards, was live-rendering multiple 4K videos, and we couldn’t hear the fan over the normal room noises."
I guess if
What hard drive? These come with SSDs.
Personally I don't like anything about it except for the dual-gpu support.
By all means choose a computer with the features you want. For my part, I think I've finally found a serious computer without distracting fan noise.