speedy4500

I have to wonder if there would be a large enough market for a new physical medium designed solely for Hi-Fi audio playback. Something that captures the essence of analogue sound but addresses the difficulties in set-up, handling, and maintenance of vinyl. The advances in nanotech in the past 10 years makes me believe that something could be created that has the sound of vinyl with the durability and ease of use of a CD or magnetic drive. Thoughts?

My condolences to you, your family, and your dog for having to deal with this terrible disease. My family lost their BMD to histiocytosis last October. One week things are fine, the next week they stop eating, and soon enough you just stand there helpless as they deteriorate. There's really nothing that can be done except make them as happy as possible for the remaining time. BMD are a tough breed to own, susceptible to so many illnesses, but every day you spend with one is a joy.

You shouldn't limit yourself to one way or the other. Variety will give you the best benefit. Short intense bursts will force your lungs and body to be efficient in oxygenating blood which is of course necessary for endurance. Longer easier sets will help the body learn to shuttle waste products out better, another important factor for endurance. Under intense activity, cells will utilize anaerobic respiration for 60-90 seconds, at which point they move on to the aerobic process until they have a chance to rest and refill local carb stores. Basically that means that you don't have to crank out an hour of exercise to see results--I rarely go for more than about 40 minutes, and often only 20-30 minutes. Sometimes my worksets (after warmup) I'll go hard for 500m-1000m-1500m-1000m-500m taking a rest for a bit in between each. Other times I might just crank out a couple 5km or 10km sets. You could also do time intervals-- row hard for 30 seconds, then easy for 30 seconds, for 10-15 minutes. Sometimes I might set the rower to the power reading and try to keep my power output above a certain threshold for a certain time period, perhaps doing 250 watts for a minute, then 200 for a minute, then 150 for a minute, and then repeat several times. You could even combine any of the above. Also, the good rowers should have built in programs that you could follow.

I highly recommend rowing to everyone. It is the most under-rated cardio exercise out there. Rowers generally have the highest absolute VO2Max of any athlete because the motion requires full body effort on each stroke. Some studies put rowing at up to 50% more efficient than running--that is, rowing 1 mile in 8 minutes has equivalent energy expenditure to running 1.5 miles in 8 minutes. It is also VERY good for joints; low impact, but high range-of-motion. That being said, the physics and dynamics of agitating water in a closed system (as in a water-rower) just isn't ideal for creating consistent feel and effort stroke to stroke. Agitation and turbulence can create all sorts of weird effects in water-rowers. This. Concept2 is regarded amongst competitive rowers as the best in terms of carry-over to a real boat. It's also much less complex than a water-rower so should require less maintenance and have fewer problems. Pretty much every crew practice facility has several (or dozens) Concept2 rowers. Also, the BodyCraft VR500 is highly regarded. Similar in design and construction to the Concept2, but targeted more towards the consumer sector and so has a design and features with that in mind. It costs a couple hundred more than a Concept2 but isn't any more expensive than a water-rower.

No, content on the internet is not and will not be regulated as a result of the Net Neutrality ruling. Simply the idea that an ISP cannot charge a consumer extra to access specific content at a higher speed. I'm hardly someone who supports regulation, but what the ISPs were pushing for probably would have resulted in a lot of wrangling in the courts between consumers and the ISPs only after customers got screwed for a while. In reality, the Net Neutrality ruling will mean the internet essentially remains as it is. Basically, without net neutrality, the ISPs could have a basic internet package which allows you to access low-bandwidth websites. If you wanted to see websites that have lots of pictures, you'd pay a little more. And if you wanted to stream netflix, hulu, and amazon, you'd pay for the premium package. The thing is, we already do this by selecting higher-speed connection packages if we want to access a lot of data. Furthermore, the ISPs only provide the connection from the internet backbone to your house. You're not paying the ISP to connect you directly to Netflix or LP, you're just paying for them to connect you to the backbone, where ALL traffic moves around equally. If you're paying for a connection at a certain speed, you're already paying for a certain amount of data per time, and net neutrality says that the ISPs cannot charge you based on the content of that data. Frankly, the ISP business is far from a free market anyway. It would be nice for a truly free market solution to arise, but as it stands the ISPs have been granted local monopolies by governments (which obviously was a big mistake, surprise) and so the typical methods for consumers to hold a business accountable have been long gone in the world of internet access. Which leaves government action, unfortunately, really as the only way to deal with these issues.

The thing that bothers me about that talk and demonstration is that the guy on stage inherently trusts the presenter because it's a TED talk. There's no way you'd get me (or most people for that matter) to let a stranger on the street be that "friendly." Sleight of hand is a bit easier when the target lets their guard down because they trust you. And without trying to spoil it for anyone else.... I actually noticed the "surprise" while he was introducing the poker chip to the fellow on stage. But then I have always been more observant than most. I did have to go back to see exactly when the "surprise" occurred as I was curious to see how quickly I noticed. Although to be fair, it's tough to say whether or not I would have noticed if he hadn't drawn attention to it earlier.

This is key. Coming to terms with the fact that you might have a 50% chance of being alive after the next 3 weeks is tough for a lot of people, and I think that in developed countries that fear and denial is greater than in tribal Africa. While I don't think it will gain much traction in developed countries, it relies on a population that recognizes the disease, acknowledges the risk and willingly carries out the appropriate actions in response. So many people are saying "stop being paranoid, there's nothing to worry about, we don't need mass chaos." There's a difference between paranoia and chaos. Chaos is a complete disorder and confusion... we certainly don't need that. Paranoia on the other hand is being hyper-aware of situations.... and frankly I don't think that's a bad thing here. I would rather have anyone who thinks they might have it to voluntarily admit themselves to high-level medical care long before a family member or coworker has to call an ambulance because they're bleeding through skin lesions and blowing infected fecal matter out their rear end. There are tests for the virus, which are much easier than dealing with a symptomatic patient and anyone who may have been exposed by him. People being paranoid about contracting the disease should promote awareness and safer practices, which is what is needed to stem the tide of this thing.

The problem I have with a lot of "experts" with PhD and MD (as someone who deals with them doing scientific research) is that they have HUGE egos. They truly believe that they know a solution for everything and they can control everything. They get pleasure from challenging nature, but nature is just too powerful and unpredictable. In doing this, they tend to base their thoughts and solutions on ideal situations and assumptions which make a complex problem easier to understand. But reality is far from ideal, so they like to conform a problem to fit a solution they already know. They will place blame on everything else before admitting it is their own concepts that are flawed. Sadly, the number of times I have to inform these people that they are wrong about something doesn't seem to dissuade that attitude. I fear that those experts involved with the decision to bring known Ebola carriers to the US will learn in time that their ideas on the virus were wrong. I can only hope that it is my own fears that turn out to be wrong.

Just about 100 years ago the RMS Lusitania was destroyed. What's that saying... "those who cannot acknowledge the past are condemned...." something like that.

I believe that this is in line with what the founding fathers realized about government. They knew that true progress was the result of individuals acting together under free-will, and at best the government would be along for the ride. At worst, the government would interfere with those natural interactions of free people to advance society and would cause big problems. Realizing these things, they tried to limit the power of government so that it wouldn't work against an ambitious and productive society. Unfortunately, voters have been convinced that government power and decision-making is better than the power and liberty of individuals, and so have willingly handed over freedoms to a bunch of miserable, selfish, cold-blooded morons. Yes, it is an opportunity... to get more voters on the Democratic Party rolls.

Just my 2c... People seem to grasp easily just how large the universe is. It's really really really massive. However, what people seem to not grasp so easily is just how ridiculously special and unique life is. Let alone advanced, sentient, intellectual life. That life on Earth happens so abundantly and repeatably is just an astronomical achievement. Suppose DNA randomly forms in some mixture of heavy elements. Then what? DNA on its own is pretty useless. You need other complex molecules to form around the DNA, to use it, to produce other complex molecules. And this must be done repeatably, for a long LONG time. It is so much more likely for a bunch of DNA and proteins to destroy itself than to become even just a prokaryote, yet bacteria flourish. Then you have multicelled organisms that repeat this process thousands to millions of times daily? It's estimated that the universe contains 70 sextillion stars. 70 sextillion = 70 x 10^21 = 70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0 00,000. It is safe to assume that there are fewer habitable planets than that, but lets say that there is one habitable planet per star. Then we have one single animal cell which contains about 10^15 atoms, and not just any atoms, but things like carbon and nitrogen and oxygen and sulfur. These "heavy" atoms alone are exceedingly rare in the universe. If you assume random permutations (which is not a very good assumption, since things like electronegativities and such influence how atoms bind), the odds of 10^15 atoms organizing themselves in any single specific way is for all intents and purposes zero. 0. Nada. As in, you'd probably need billions of universes for it to ever happen even once. But like I said, that's not a good estimation. However, we can say it is reasonable that the odds of 10^15 "heavy" atoms organizing themselves in the exact manner as they are for an animal cell is far greater than the 10^6 orders of magnitude difference between that and the number of potentially habitable planets. Add in further details like the fact that DNA and proteins require rather specific conditions to work properly (ionic concentrations, pH, temperature), and the need to repeat this with minimal errors, and you see it becomes absolutely mind-boggling that life exists as we know it. To me, the existence of life as we know it is MORE insane that the vastness of the universe. Granted, this is not a very thorough or detailed analysis, just something I'm putting up off the top of my head, but the intent is to illustrate just how insanely rare it is for life to exist as we know it. Personally, I won't rule out other life in the universe, but I wouldn't be surprised if there is none either.

Agreed. I would even say that Apple is "easier to use" is a myth now. Honestly, my 65 year old mother thought Windows Phone 8 was easier to learn/use than iOS, and modern Android is incredibly easy. And for a power user who really wants to make his device exactly how he wants, Apple iOS is absolute trash compared to Android. The reality is that Apple is still the master of marketing. They've convinced people that what Apple gives them is all that the user wants and needs. The one big edge that Apple has is that its software runs only on its hardware. Apple doesn't have to account for a dozen different SoC, screen resolutions, batteries, etc... thus they can really optimize their OS for the hardware and vice versa. This extends to the apps as well. Android can't do this, but it is making big strides in efficiency and compatibility and there really aren't many issues anymore. It's actually pretty damn impressive that Android performs so well on so many different devices. I find that Apple developed software, aside from iOS, is usually garbage. Google is great at getting stuff to work well. It's the difference between having a company run by creative people vs a company run by engineers. One is designed from the outside in and will look and feel great, the other is built from the inside out and will work great. Google Maps/Nav, Google Drive/Docs, Google Now, Google Translate, Chromecast, etc.... as far as I am concerned, are so much better than any Apple counterpart at just getting the task done well. Last point, and I don't know if I'm alone on this, but Apple designs are no longer cutting edge. Honestly, the new iPhones and iPads look dated the day they came out. Then I see most people take an ugly iPhone and put it in an even uglier case that makes the whole thing massive, completely negating the "thin" and "clever" design that Apple seems to think they produce. It really seems that for the majority of people, the iPhone ends up nothing more than a thick and heavy social media device.

aka: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Monument_Syndrome

MAYBE just a design statement... or MAYBE just a technology demonstrator.... and MAYBE it will actually see "mass" production.... who knows. But it looks pretty damn good, and has some serious mechanical bits underneath. "The Icona Vulcano brings together different skills and expertise of a very Italian tradition. The powertrain is the work of well-known Claudio Lombardi (AIPA), former powertrain technical director of Ferrari and mastermind of numerous world champion cars: a front engine V12 two-door two-seater car, reaching up to 900 horsepower through a masterful combination of combustion engine and electric motors. The top speed will be around 350 km/h, and 0-200 km/h will be under ten seconds." http://www.iconavulcano.com/ http://www.autoblog.com/2013/04/20/icona-v...-shanghai-2013/

SV prototype Center lock wheels look awesome.

Interestingly, the supply of bitcoins is limited in time.... once they're all made, no more will exist. This bodes VERY well for the currency for two reasons: it secures value over long-term, and it incentivizes people to get into the game earlier rather than later. More people involved means more stability and usability, which acts as positive feedback to get even more people involved. I don't think security or insurance are that big of a problem, since it is decentralized your bitcoins are not being stored at a "bank" that use the funds in other ways and may possibly lose it, but your bitcoins just simply exist. Rather than giving your money to a place to store it, the bitcoins take on your ID. So bitcoins never really change location, they just become assigned to different people. And it would take a hell of an effort to hack the logs and bring the whole thing down. I mean, no computer based system or functionality is 100% secure, but then most of our money is electronic now anyways. Really, I think the biggest threat to bitcoin success is the government. Who knows how or why or when they decide to get involved, but eventually the government will either want a cut of the action or start to see real problems from currency competition.

This is what I don't get. The Veneno's biggest difference is the hybrid powertrain that the P1/918/LaF have, and I wouldn't say that's a bad thing at all. Aside from that, in the grand scheme of things, they all have similar approaches to a super sports car, but with just a few differences particular to the brand's identity. Lambo goes for extreme in every sense; Ferrari goes for the F1 imitation; the 918 goes for the Teutonic techie approach; and the P1 is going for the LeMans inspiration. I'm sure they'll all go like balls, and only a few select people in the world have the ability to run them all at 10/10ths, the level at which their differences would become truly evident. There is a market for each one, and frankly I'm glad that they all exist. Furthermore, I'm also glad that a true enthusiast like RaginBull is lucky enough to be one of those who will be able to experience the Veneno and give feedback on it. If anything, it seems now that Lambo is hitting on passion and capturing the emotional aspect of supercars moreso than Ferrari, that were for a long time the brand that persisted on passion. Also, I don't know whether it's a good sign or a bad sign that a car with 750hp, 7 speed paddle-shift gearbox, AWD, braking and aero that rival full-on race cars, and performance capabilities that are above and beyond what 99% of people could ever dream to utilize.... is, from the perspective of a few people, somehow considered pathetic in the world of sports cars. The idea that dual-clutch and DI are absolutely NECESSARY for a supercar is just bizarre to me. If Lambo can achieve the desired customer-pleasing end-product without needing such things, what's the problem? The truth is there are race cars with MUCH LESS impressive technology that could perform on-par with any of the newest supercars. Are people more concerned with specifications than actually with how it drives and makes them feel? Are people's expectations so insane that anything other than the absolute latest and greatest "NASA/F1/Military-derived" technology is worthless (even if that tech is at the expense of other things)? Or are we all spoiled because there are 4-place saloons and avants (and maybe even SUVs) that can out-run Lamborghini and Ferrari's finest from not too long ago, that we now demand systems that are not tremendously advantageous primarily for the mental perception of it? Also, the LaF in those pictures looks downright awful. I hope in real life it doesn't appear so bloated and flat.

I saw this earlier and I think it looks great! I'm not sure what kind of off-road chops it has, given that it is based on the Gallardo platform, but this is the sort of spiritual successor to the LM002 that Lamborghini should build. It wouldn't take a lot of R&D to make this a reality; just make sure it's tough enough to blast through some dunes and climb some moderate rocks.

I think people are focusing on the gadget too much, rather than the interface. A good touch-free interface, voice activated only, is incredibly difficult to perfect. Getting computers to understand human language and interpret it correctly is no small feat, and it currently requires a massive supercomputer to parse human expression. That's really the big advance here, having a voice-only interface that (presumably) works rather well. The hardware itself is already outdated. Things like retinal implants already exist and could be used as the display tech some day. In fact, the lead engineer for the Google Glass project has also done work with contact lenses that have displays embedded in them, so you can guess where this is headed in the next 5-10 years. Taking such a big leap would be difficult to get people to warm up to it; the Glass project is a small step towards device implants and perfecting the voice interface. Besides, when the iPhone first came out, everyone said people looked silly holding up a glass and metal slab to their face. Now, nobody gives it a second glance. I'd imagine most people would agree that the ability to draw information about your surroundings is incredibly helpful, and doing it in a way that requires minimal invasive interaction with the device is even better. Having the information displayed in front of your eyes, regardless of where you're looking, is so much safer and easier than having to hold a device in your hand and look down at it. I'm also imagining an extension such as blind-spot detection for people, where cameras or IR detectors pick up moving objects and alert you if there's a possible collision. The Google Glass project is really about designing a better METHOD for devices to interact with the user and the surroundings; actual hardware implementation is less important.

Some of the comments are completely uncalled-for, you all should spend some time in his shoes before judging him. I just hope he has a good lawyer, I'm sure the police will hold his feet to the fire when they question him.

My guess is that Audi is quoting a 3.9 0-60 time for the RS6 so as not to supersede the S8 which is also quoted as 3.9s to 60. Don't want ignorant folks disregarding the flagship sedan due to a 0-60 time in the brochure. However since the RS6 has more power (+40bhp and +30tq) and less weight than the S8, there's little doubt that it should hit 60 in under than 3.9 seconds. Less than 3 is a little hard to believe, but I could see 3.3-3.4. Disregarding that, however, I think this is one of the most badass cars ever created--appearance, performance, utility-- and makes me wish I had taken that job in Switzerland last year so I might have a chance to get my hands on one.

ConEd substation transformer explosion

USPS loses $3.2B in quarter ($16B in two years), government doesn't want to change the way it runs. JPMorgan "loses" $2B in quarter (yet still remaining profitable), government deems it too risky and need of more oversight on how it functions.

I won a stuffed kangaroo toy at the dentist's office when I was 8. Other than that, raffles/drawings/luck based games have never gone my way. Even poker screws me over more often than not.... you don't know the bitch that is Lady Luck until you flop a straight flush only to have someone hit runners for a higher straight flush.

Not a big fan of 70s/80s Ferraris, but this 308 GTB Vetroresina with Gr4 Stradale mods looks mean.