infopop.cc · Domains · Slashdot Mirror

Re:Should really be "President Elect Trump" or... by Maxo-Texas · 2016-12-01 13:54 · Score: 1 · on Destructive Hacks Strike Saudi Arabia, Posing Challenge to Trump (bloomberg.com)

Interesting article on that here
http://www.mediaite.com/online...

Looks like the shift is occuring during the last few years.

It's still not correct according to the major manuals of style.

http://thegrammarexchange.info...

"Hereâ(TM)s what the New York Times Manual* states at the entry president:

â âoeIt is President Lamm(without a given name) in a first reference to the current president of the United States. In later references President Lamm; the president; Mrâ¦.Lammâ

This style is seen in todayâ(TM)s New York Times, as in the example in this article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01...

The order of mention is this: âoeBarrack Obama, President Obama, Mr. Obamaââ¦..âPresident George Bush, Mr. Bushâ

As you see, though, the Times sometimes goes against its own rules, citing the first name, too, as in this example.

â President Barack Obama moved quickly on Wednesday to lay some touchstones for the âoemore responsible, more accountable governmentâ he has promised, ordering a salary freeze for senior White House staff, tightening rules on lobbyists and establishing what he said was a new standard of greater government openness. âoeHowever long we are keepers of the public trust, we should never forget that we are here as public servants,â Mr. Obama said at a swearing-in ceremony for staff members in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building.
_______

So, in answer to your question, I think it is correct for the first mention of the president to be President (Barack) Obama, and for subsequent mention to be Mr. Obama.
The style may be different in different publications or in different situations. I like this particular style.

There is something else to be considered: you could leave out the honorific President or Mr., as well as the first name, and use only Obama. Some newspapers use this style. I find it jarring and rude in a newspaper, but in a personal letter, it would be acceptable.
"

But I'm not going to loose my cool over it.

C8H18 by GMontag · 2007-01-31 18:59 · Score: 0 · on Biology Could Be Used To Turn Sugar Into Diesel

Well, most sugars have enough basic ingrediants to make octane, I suppose.

Perhaps it will be even more popular than soylent diesel?

Energy Bullshit by 146lily · 2007-01-05 22:50 · Score: 1 · on How ExxonMobil Funded Global Warming Skeptics

ExxonMobil moneys (along with much more from other sources i suspect) has been effectively used to suppress the green movements fight against global warming due to the use of fossil fuels.

On a local level in the UK the bullshit related to global warming is intense, we see the Irish and US airlines (BA is not to bad, well maybe!) picked on by a UK government minister in the recent news. However airlines contribute approximately 3% to global CO2 emissions (double that due to the high level at which they are released as a factor of safety) while transport and power generation contribute 50%. Cars are without doubt an area where huge CO2 cuts can be made.

Many unmodified cars can run on biodiesel which is a fuel which recycles CO2 from the Earths atmosphere. Hence it does not release 'fossil fuel CO2' which was stored underground millions of years ago. But biodiesel is totally discredited in the eyes of the public. Motor mechanics pass comments like 'don't use that shit' on the basis of passed experience with poorly made fuel (see link http://biodiesel.infopop.cc/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/449 605551/m/7321092461 ), which might not even be biodiesel. It is difficult to buy biodiesel which has been made to adequate standards with good quality control and making it yourself (it's a bit like homebrew) does entail fire risks. In the UK biodiesel is heavily taxed and in fact has just had a 'green tax' increase of 1.25p per litre
(see link http://biodiesel.infopop.cc/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/449 605551/m/6761043771). Our farmers need work and could produce much biodiesel if these taxes where removed.

Biodiesel is not an answer to all are energy problems, however used as part of a well constructed energy policy it can be of great help in sustaining the future of humanity.

ExxonMobil and other oil companies are responsible for much of the corruption at all levels in our world.

Energy Bullshit by 146lily · 2007-01-05 22:50 · Score: 1 · on How ExxonMobil Funded Global Warming Skeptics

ExxonMobil moneys (along with much more from other sources i suspect) has been effectively used to suppress the green movements fight against global warming due to the use of fossil fuels.

On a local level in the UK the bullshit related to global warming is intense, we see the Irish and US airlines (BA is not to bad, well maybe!) picked on by a UK government minister in the recent news. However airlines contribute approximately 3% to global CO2 emissions (double that due to the high level at which they are released as a factor of safety) while transport and power generation contribute 50%. Cars are without doubt an area where huge CO2 cuts can be made.

Many unmodified cars can run on biodiesel which is a fuel which recycles CO2 from the Earths atmosphere. Hence it does not release 'fossil fuel CO2' which was stored underground millions of years ago. But biodiesel is totally discredited in the eyes of the public. Motor mechanics pass comments like 'don't use that shit' on the basis of passed experience with poorly made fuel (see link http://biodiesel.infopop.cc/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/449 605551/m/7321092461 ), which might not even be biodiesel. It is difficult to buy biodiesel which has been made to adequate standards with good quality control and making it yourself (it's a bit like homebrew) does entail fire risks. In the UK biodiesel is heavily taxed and in fact has just had a 'green tax' increase of 1.25p per litre
(see link http://biodiesel.infopop.cc/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/449 605551/m/6761043771). Our farmers need work and could produce much biodiesel if these taxes where removed.

Biodiesel is not an answer to all are energy problems, however used as part of a well constructed energy policy it can be of great help in sustaining the future of humanity.

ExxonMobil and other oil companies are responsible for much of the corruption at all levels in our world.

Re:Too bad by ncc74656 · 2006-12-01 10:37 · Score: 1 · on Americans Drove Less in 2005

I didn't realize your pickup was representative of the average vehicle in 1981. Guess what: it's not. First of all, that company was known as Datsun in 1981 so unless you're in some country other than the USA (that apparently uses MPG instead of km/l) I call BS. Second, the gas version got about 25-30 highway so I doubt you got an entire 10 MPG more on the diesel.

I don't know that his numbers are all that unreasonable. It would've had a tiny little 4-banger, of about the same size that you'd find in a VW TDI Golf or Jetta that gets 45-50 mpg (or more). Even larger diesels offer substantial improvements over gas engines of similar size. For something in about the same timeframe as the OP, consider the Chevy 6.2L truck-diesel V8. In 1982, it delivered fuel economy in the low-to-mid-20s, in a package that was at least twice as heavy and that offered much more hauling capacity as the OP's truck. On another page, a poster describes an Olds 350 diesel tweaked to deliver ~34 mpg, though in stock form mid-20s would've been more typical (compare that to the mid-teens that the gas Olds 350 in my Cutlass Supreme delivers). If you can get 30+ mpg from a diesel V8, 40 mpg from a 4-cylinder engine with maybe a third of the displacement doesn't sound unreasonable.

Re:One more sale for Apple today :) by Anonymous Coward · 2006-08-21 11:47 · Score: 0 · on New Apple Bootcamp Released

The lack of way to right-click using the trackpad...

Is this good enough?

Re:Nothing new by bhtooefr · 2006-05-12 05:40 · Score: 2, Informative · on Bio-diesel Made from Sewage

Biodiesel that has been properly produced (that means drying it after washing it) does NOT contain water.

It IS hygroscopic (attracts water), but an additive will take care of that - and, so is regular petroleum diesel, for that matter. Using it quickly, or not letting it sit in a container that air can get in, solves that problem, as well.

BTW, fuel tanks on most diesel cars are plastic. Even on my Jetta, which is a 1985, I have a plastic tank.

Check the following sites:

http://www.biodieselnow.com/
http://biodiesel.infopop.cc/
http://forums.tdiclub.com/forumdisplay.php?f=52 (centric to modern VW diesels)

Diesel by sipmeister · 2004-06-29 21:51 · Score: 1 · on EPA Fuel Economy Myth: Too High, Too Low?

Others have posted about Diesel cars before, but here are my 2 cents.

I've been driving VW Turbo Diesel cars since 1984 and can really recommend them. My current model is a Jetta TDI Wagon, which we bought in Texas (since the dealers in California all wanted "markup") and drove all the way to the Bay Area, getting 52 MPG, going around 80 miles with the AC all the way up.

When we filled it up at truck stops we were able to use the higher pressure truck diesel pumps, and of course the Diesel was considerably cheaper than gas. Fuel efficiency and lower price really add up, especially when you have a long trip or commute.

The modern TDI engines are great, they have tons of torque and are very responsive (TDI = Turbo Diesel Injection). Now I'm looking forward to the 310hp 5.0l 10 cylinder VW Touareg TDI coming out soon :-) (553lbs.-ft. of torque!)

I haven't looked into using Biodiesel yet, but it seems to pick up more and more. It would certainly alleviate the residual bad conscience due to the particle emmissions from the Diesel. Just read an amazing story about a family driving from the Bay Area to Argentina on biodiesel picked up along the way. Actually worthy of a /. post!

Liem and Canon are gay! Fuji S2 forever! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-01 21:45 · Score: -1, Flamebait · on Canon Digital Rebel Hacked Into A Pseudo-10D

Canon may advertise is a pathetic usage of cheerleaders, their shooters are all major fags.

Why else would they bend over and take what canon gives them right up the butt?

The D60 was killed less than a year after it was produced. Replaced by the 10d because the d60 had so many flaws. The d60 should have been fully recalled and had the focusing, and metering systems replaced.

The Fuji S2 on the other hand, was released at the same time as the D60, and it still better than the d60, 10d, and when ever new upgrade canon will put out next! It has even kept its price and resale value higher than a NEW 10d. Why? superior design.

Also, the S2 has had not one need for a firmware upgrade in almost 3 years. None! And the BEST in camera jpg.
On canons, you are forced into using the horrid digic processor which just kills color tones in jpg.

You know why canon shooters tout raw so much? Because their jpg output sucks!

Oh, and the whole crappy cmos so they have to patch it with an overly strong lopass filter. Gives the shots a lovely blue cast from being UV accepting, but blocking too much red/IR.

But, I digress... buy a fuji s2. And get the results you want, right from the camera!

Time is money, processing all those raws because you have no choice is time. Raw and canon equal wasted time and money!

Want more info?

Fuji S2 VS Canon 10d comparison, worst and harshest possible lighting conditions

4way comparison, Canon 1d Mark II, Canon 10d, Fuji S2, Nikon d2h

Fuji wins again! It is the onbly camera of all the DSLR with REAL TTL metering, even with a flash. Not iTTL, eTTL, dTTL, but REAL TTL METERING! Look at the fill flash photo. What a joke.

Quack!