Vanilla 1 is no longer supported or maintained. If you need a copy, you can get it here.
HackerOne users: Testing against this community violates our program's Terms of Service and will result in your bounty being denied.

Urgh, worst implementation of Vanilla ever!

blizeHblizeH ✭✭
edited August 2006 in Vanilla 1.0 Help
Yup, the site (falsely imho, but it's still a very nice idea and I'll be keeping a close eye on it) that claims to of found a truely efficient and self-maintaining power source uses Vanilla: Not only have they removed all of the Lussumo links, it also looks bloody horrible when you go onto the discussion pages!


  • Options
    It's just the standard theme running fixed width isnt it? Wierd really since the rest of the site is pretty nice. And being a physicist I'm strongly of the belief that the conservation of energy principal is really rather robust since if it wern't then the vast majority of situation modelling which has been taking place for years would never have worked (which it does) - but then again stranger things have happened and for everything in physics there are always people who dispute it. So while my initial reaction is 'bullshit'; if they can do it then hats off to them. Realistically though, they would have been better off not claiming over 100% efficiency. If they'd have claimed 90% (which is still considerably better than any other energy source i'm aware of) I suspect they'd have a couple more followers.
  • Options
    I take it back, it's actually pretty nice (and standard) - the background image wasn't loading for me so everything was grey and ugly.
  • Options
    nothing more worse than a nark (i'm telling on you) lol
  • Options
    I'm more concerned by the content (none) than by the design :)
    Steorn embarked on a process of independent validation and approached a wide selection of academic institutions. The vast majority of these institutions refused to even look at the technology, however several did. Those who were prepared to complete testing have all confirmed our claims; however none will publicly go on record.
    They have confirmed but they haven't? Hu?
    In early 2006 Steorn decided to seek validation from the scientific community in a more public forum, and as a result have published the challenge in The Economist.(...)Steorn has decided to publish its challenge in The Economist because of the breadth of its readership.(...)we want to make the general public aware that this process is about to commence and to generate public support, awareness, interest etc for what we are doing.
    As logical as asking on a TV show for Nobel Prize laureates support. Without this article in The Economist, what else to say? A website filled with vacuum searching for publicity?
This discussion has been closed.