My response was about a performance car with an experienced driver was an entirely on topic response to a comment claiming that a guy CAN outperform a car's electronics.
For the average driver in a non-ABS car you might be correct. But today, it is a small percentage of drivers that don't have ABS. Most of those drivers are car enthusiasts, not average. Being a car enthusiast that regularly drives a car without ABS, I most certainly can feel which wheel locks up, especially in the wet. Nothing about my response is rapid or should be. Rapidly applying pressure to the brake pedal will horribly transfer weight in the car and more than likely make you lose control. Maintaining control of a vehicle in slick conditions requires experience to know which pedals to use and smooth application of inputs. Making rapid adjustments of just one pedal was a crutch for inexperienced drivers before ABS was available for them. That may have been the way you were taught, but most people are taught to do head checks when changing lanes, and to stop at yield signs too. That doesn't make them the ideal or even correct action.
He may not be full of it, and "pumping" is a horrible term to use for threshold braking even if you do mean the same thing. The reality is that braking is not something that gives you no feedback until you lock the wheels. You can progressively feel grip especially with a car that has good steering feedback, a stiff suspension, and good tires. Even without those things, most street tires make noise which give you information about the available grip of the tires. An experienced driver can and most certain does stop shorter in a straight line using threshold braking than ABS on dry pavement because the ABS system can't detect lockup until it occurs even if the response to the lockup is faster. A human driver can use the feel of the steering wheel, suspension, and sound to reliably predict and avoid the lockup threshold, maximizing available grip.
This is why ABS DOES pump the brakes. It just does it at a very fast rate. But the wheels are still skidding for fractions of a second before the system can respond. The major advantage of ABS over threshold braking is in low traction situations because in those instances it is more likely for a single wheel to skid while the others are still rolling. The ABS system can release braking pressure on that single wheel but a driver can only reduce braking pressure globally. This gives ABS a huge advantage in wet and snowy conditions, especially when steering is needed while braking.
Step 2 is a horrible idea. Instead of braking, you end up repeatedly not braking and skidding which is worse. Pumping the brakes is about the stupidest thing you can do in a car.
If you don't have ABS (which is very rare now) you should threshold brake where you apply pressure until you feel the tires start to skid and then let off the pressure again. You feel your way to maximum braking pressure without locking up.
Seriously. Time Warner shut off the internet to my fiancee's (now wife's) apartment on Christmas fucking day when the service was supposed to end January 2nd. I hated having to talk to a poor customer service agent that had to work on Christmas, but Time Warner... Just don't shut off service on a holiday and then you don't have to pay people to work on a holiday to restore service. We sure weren't going to sit in a half boxed up apartment with no internet for a full day when pretty much everything was closed.
Maybe I don't understand economics as well as I think I do. Explain to me how increasing the supply of educated workers without a change in demand doesn't result in lower worker pay... Or are you saying that the demand for educated workers is unlimited?
Well you can go live in the communities with the people who want free college and I'll happily keep my community. Calling me a simpleton and then outright refusing to accept that economics has anything to do with the discussion is kind of ironic if you ask me. But I'll just keep this note describing me as a simpleton next to my degree and professional engineering license.
Philosophy degrees (and many others) don't give anyone skills to invent or supply goods or services to benefit me. If they wanted to help me, they could have skipped college and became a skilled worker that is lacking in new labor like welding, plumbing, or electrician work. I hire those guys out all the time and the only good ones are ageing fast.
I would support free education for degrees that have an economic benefit to society. But those degrees are easy to pay off after college. The people who want free education are the ones going into majors that won't pay back the loans they are taking out or are so overcrowded with graduating majors that they have flooded the market.
No, no study has shown this. Yes there is a correlation between a wealthy society and high education. But it could just as easily mean that richer people can afford to educate. Rural poor in 3rd world countries aren't poor because they don't have an education. They don't have an education because they are poor. Educating them may improve their chances of moving up the economic ladder, but it sure isn't any guarantee.
So you mean me? The civil engineer who designs the pipes to get the shit out of your house? Yeah, I really want your life to be shit. Stop assuming just because people don't want to hand out free educations to people with no economic reason to get a degree that they are horrible people who want to shit all over your life. Fuck you and the horse you were handed out. I volunteer all the time and contribute when I see someone doing the best they can. I went to college. The people not able to pay back their loans were the lazy asses drinking and partying for 5 years to get a degree with no job prospects. No amount of philosophy degrees improve my life. But they have done a good job at raising the barrier of entry into a lot of jobs. It used to be that you only needed a high school education for a lot of entry level jobs that would raise people out of poverty. But now there are so many unemployed degree holding people out there that employers have raised the bar to requiring a 4 year degree with nothing to show for it.
Making a 4 year degree a benefit for everyone will just make a 4 year degree the new high school diploma except now the poor have another 4 years with no income before they can get a slightly above minimum wage job.
How do I profit from other people getting a degree? Since I'm not running a business that needs educated employees, more people with degrees just devalues my degree that I had to pay for.
That's why I stopped playing Battlefield games. I was tired of having to buy a new version and upgrade my graphics card to support it every 2 years. Plus when they started tracking you online and giving you upgrades with huge advantages over new players, it became obvious if you didn't buy it when you came out, you'd never enjoy it.
You'll have the grid connection, but you won't have a service agreement. The lights are plugged in, but there's no voltage on the line. The water pipes are hooked up, but the valve is closed. The people who control the gates can pretty much demand whatever they want to initiate service. There isn't a competitor.
When traffic is nearing capacity, passing is being done constantly. In an ideal flow situation, each lane further left is going faster than the one to the right of it, thus the middle lanes are constantly passing the right lanes and constantly being passed by the left lanes. The basic idea being is that if there is open space in the lane to your right, you should be in it regardless of speed or the number of lanes. If people are passing you on the right, it's because you didn't fill in that space with your car while not passing.
Once traffic gets dense enough that you can't get to the speed limit, it all becomes moot as it's more of a parking lot than a highway at that point. Which is a typical Atlanta rush hour.
No, the right lane is for driving. The remaining lanes are for passing. I might let you off the hook in Atlanta or another urban area where there are 5+ lanes and left exits. If people are getting on the highway, sure move over a lane to let them in and then get back right when there is space. If there isn't space to move over and if you don't want to get slowed down by entering traffic, speed up and pass the cars in the right lane.
Of course all this is theoretical in the US. In real Atlanta traffic, semi-trucks stay in lanes 3 and 4 of a 6 lane highway forming a nice rolling wall down the middle of the interstate that makes it hard to get between the exiting lanes and the passing lanes and an absolute misery with the inevitable asshole mentioned above is going 55mph in the left lane, causing a bottle neck that the semis have trapped you in.
I try to get out of it whenever possible. But for all practical purposes, you have no choice. For example, to set up natural gas service. You have option 1) providing your SSN which they will probably keep as insecurely as possible and also probably use for your customer number. Option 2 is putting down an excessively large deposit which must be done using cash at their office an hour away during "business hours" of 9-11AM or 1-3PM M-Th. Or I guess there is option 3 as well which is not heating your home or your water. Then again, the water company and the power company are going to pull the same shit, so I guess if you like living in a dark, cold home drinking bottled water and not showering sure, you have a choice of not providing your SSN.
No. You must have never been on the road before. You can ask my wife what I am most likely to yell at other drivers: "WHY ARE YOU BRAKING?!?!?" For some reason many people drive with their foot hovering over the brake pedal and will tap it repeatedly for no reason at all.
As long as they go slowly in the proper lane (the right one) it will be a huge improvement over the asshats who drive 15-20mph under the speed limit in the leftmost lane on a mutli-lane highway.
No, it's opposition to all development of any resources. Environmental folks think we are destroying the planet if we so much as dig things out of the ground and use them. It made sense when horrible, carcinogenic, radioactive, reactive, and poisons were dumped unprotected into pits. It doesn't make so much sense when CO2 is considered pollution.
Sadly, the PHMSA website's data access has changed recently and the new version is shit. I used to have a handy link to the number of pipeline releases with the quantities involved. Now they only focus on injuries, fatalities, and monetary damages.
I also can't link directly to the data on releases, but suffice to say, in 2014, only 22,911 barrels were lost across all onshore hazardous liquids pipelines. This is significantly lower than any of the multi-year rolling averages, so 2014 was a good year. If you weed down to just crude and refined products (excluding things like liquid CO2, biofuels, and other hazardous liquids), it's less than half of the lost barrels.
U.S. oil consumption was an estimated 18.77 million barrels per day in 2014. This all has to be transported twice (as crude and as products), but rather than double the number, let's assume only half of it (very conservative) is transported by pipeline. 18.77mbpd*365=6.85 billion barrels transported in 2014.
But I guess it depends on your acceptable loss rate as there will always be accidents in any network. In 2014, in petroleum liquids pipelines onshore, 10,202 barrels were lost out of 6,850,000,000. So a.00015% loss rate. I'd call that pretty darn safe, but maybe your acceptable risk is 0. I hope you never drip the nozzle when filling up your car.
Also, the citation comes from someone who happens to work in pipeline industry, but something tells me you wouldn't believe any evidence presented by someone with first-hand experience.
Canada is already in the works to make a pipeline to Vancouver to ship the crude directly to other countries. I guess opposition to the oil going through the US is that we don't want the tariffs for transporting it or the possibility of cheaper oil to refine in the gulf for our own use?
Slashdot Mirror
My response was about a performance car with an experienced driver was an entirely on topic response to a comment claiming that a guy CAN outperform a car's electronics.
For the average driver in a non-ABS car you might be correct. But today, it is a small percentage of drivers that don't have ABS. Most of those drivers are car enthusiasts, not average. Being a car enthusiast that regularly drives a car without ABS, I most certainly can feel which wheel locks up, especially in the wet. Nothing about my response is rapid or should be. Rapidly applying pressure to the brake pedal will horribly transfer weight in the car and more than likely make you lose control. Maintaining control of a vehicle in slick conditions requires experience to know which pedals to use and smooth application of inputs. Making rapid adjustments of just one pedal was a crutch for inexperienced drivers before ABS was available for them. That may have been the way you were taught, but most people are taught to do head checks when changing lanes, and to stop at yield signs too. That doesn't make them the ideal or even correct action.
He may not be full of it, and "pumping" is a horrible term to use for threshold braking even if you do mean the same thing. The reality is that braking is not something that gives you no feedback until you lock the wheels. You can progressively feel grip especially with a car that has good steering feedback, a stiff suspension, and good tires. Even without those things, most street tires make noise which give you information about the available grip of the tires. An experienced driver can and most certain does stop shorter in a straight line using threshold braking than ABS on dry pavement because the ABS system can't detect lockup until it occurs even if the response to the lockup is faster. A human driver can use the feel of the steering wheel, suspension, and sound to reliably predict and avoid the lockup threshold, maximizing available grip.
This is why ABS DOES pump the brakes. It just does it at a very fast rate. But the wheels are still skidding for fractions of a second before the system can respond. The major advantage of ABS over threshold braking is in low traction situations because in those instances it is more likely for a single wheel to skid while the others are still rolling. The ABS system can release braking pressure on that single wheel but a driver can only reduce braking pressure globally. This gives ABS a huge advantage in wet and snowy conditions, especially when steering is needed while braking.
Step 2 is a horrible idea. Instead of braking, you end up repeatedly not braking and skidding which is worse. Pumping the brakes is about the stupidest thing you can do in a car.
If you don't have ABS (which is very rare now) you should threshold brake where you apply pressure until you feel the tires start to skid and then let off the pressure again. You feel your way to maximum braking pressure without locking up.
Seriously. Time Warner shut off the internet to my fiancee's (now wife's) apartment on Christmas fucking day when the service was supposed to end January 2nd. I hated having to talk to a poor customer service agent that had to work on Christmas, but Time Warner... Just don't shut off service on a holiday and then you don't have to pay people to work on a holiday to restore service. We sure weren't going to sit in a half boxed up apartment with no internet for a full day when pretty much everything was closed.
Maybe I don't understand economics as well as I think I do. Explain to me how increasing the supply of educated workers without a change in demand doesn't result in lower worker pay... Or are you saying that the demand for educated workers is unlimited?
Well you can go live in the communities with the people who want free college and I'll happily keep my community. Calling me a simpleton and then outright refusing to accept that economics has anything to do with the discussion is kind of ironic if you ask me. But I'll just keep this note describing me as a simpleton next to my degree and professional engineering license.
Philosophy degrees (and many others) don't give anyone skills to invent or supply goods or services to benefit me. If they wanted to help me, they could have skipped college and became a skilled worker that is lacking in new labor like welding, plumbing, or electrician work. I hire those guys out all the time and the only good ones are ageing fast.
I would support free education for degrees that have an economic benefit to society. But those degrees are easy to pay off after college. The people who want free education are the ones going into majors that won't pay back the loans they are taking out or are so overcrowded with graduating majors that they have flooded the market.
No, no study has shown this. Yes there is a correlation between a wealthy society and high education. But it could just as easily mean that richer people can afford to educate. Rural poor in 3rd world countries aren't poor because they don't have an education. They don't have an education because they are poor. Educating them may improve their chances of moving up the economic ladder, but it sure isn't any guarantee.
So you mean me? The civil engineer who designs the pipes to get the shit out of your house? Yeah, I really want your life to be shit. Stop assuming just because people don't want to hand out free educations to people with no economic reason to get a degree that they are horrible people who want to shit all over your life. Fuck you and the horse you were handed out. I volunteer all the time and contribute when I see someone doing the best they can. I went to college. The people not able to pay back their loans were the lazy asses drinking and partying for 5 years to get a degree with no job prospects. No amount of philosophy degrees improve my life. But they have done a good job at raising the barrier of entry into a lot of jobs. It used to be that you only needed a high school education for a lot of entry level jobs that would raise people out of poverty. But now there are so many unemployed degree holding people out there that employers have raised the bar to requiring a 4 year degree with nothing to show for it.
Making a 4 year degree a benefit for everyone will just make a 4 year degree the new high school diploma except now the poor have another 4 years with no income before they can get a slightly above minimum wage job.
How do I profit from other people getting a degree? Since I'm not running a business that needs educated employees, more people with degrees just devalues my degree that I had to pay for.
On the bright side the liberals will make it free (as in someone else is paying for it)...
Actually, Harry Potter only sometimes needs a wand to cast spells. http://harrypotter.wikia.com/w...
That's why I stopped playing Battlefield games. I was tired of having to buy a new version and upgrade my graphics card to support it every 2 years. Plus when they started tracking you online and giving you upgrades with huge advantages over new players, it became obvious if you didn't buy it when you came out, you'd never enjoy it.
You'll have the grid connection, but you won't have a service agreement. The lights are plugged in, but there's no voltage on the line. The water pipes are hooked up, but the valve is closed. The people who control the gates can pretty much demand whatever they want to initiate service. There isn't a competitor.
Except the state would see that you do have services that you are refusing by not giving up your SSN.
When traffic is nearing capacity, passing is being done constantly. In an ideal flow situation, each lane further left is going faster than the one to the right of it, thus the middle lanes are constantly passing the right lanes and constantly being passed by the left lanes. The basic idea being is that if there is open space in the lane to your right, you should be in it regardless of speed or the number of lanes. If people are passing you on the right, it's because you didn't fill in that space with your car while not passing.
Once traffic gets dense enough that you can't get to the speed limit, it all becomes moot as it's more of a parking lot than a highway at that point. Which is a typical Atlanta rush hour.
No, the right lane is for driving. The remaining lanes are for passing. I might let you off the hook in Atlanta or another urban area where there are 5+ lanes and left exits. If people are getting on the highway, sure move over a lane to let them in and then get back right when there is space. If there isn't space to move over and if you don't want to get slowed down by entering traffic, speed up and pass the cars in the right lane.
Of course all this is theoretical in the US. In real Atlanta traffic, semi-trucks stay in lanes 3 and 4 of a 6 lane highway forming a nice rolling wall down the middle of the interstate that makes it hard to get between the exiting lanes and the passing lanes and an absolute misery with the inevitable asshole mentioned above is going 55mph in the left lane, causing a bottle neck that the semis have trapped you in.
I try to get out of it whenever possible. But for all practical purposes, you have no choice. For example, to set up natural gas service. You have option 1) providing your SSN which they will probably keep as insecurely as possible and also probably use for your customer number. Option 2 is putting down an excessively large deposit which must be done using cash at their office an hour away during "business hours" of 9-11AM or 1-3PM M-Th. Or I guess there is option 3 as well which is not heating your home or your water. Then again, the water company and the power company are going to pull the same shit, so I guess if you like living in a dark, cold home drinking bottled water and not showering sure, you have a choice of not providing your SSN.
No. You must have never been on the road before. You can ask my wife what I am most likely to yell at other drivers: "WHY ARE YOU BRAKING?!?!?" For some reason many people drive with their foot hovering over the brake pedal and will tap it repeatedly for no reason at all.
As long as they go slowly in the proper lane (the right one) it will be a huge improvement over the asshats who drive 15-20mph under the speed limit in the leftmost lane on a mutli-lane highway.
No, it's opposition to all development of any resources. Environmental folks think we are destroying the planet if we so much as dig things out of the ground and use them. It made sense when horrible, carcinogenic, radioactive, reactive, and poisons were dumped unprotected into pits. It doesn't make so much sense when CO2 is considered pollution.
Sadly, the PHMSA website's data access has changed recently and the new version is shit. I used to have a handy link to the number of pipeline releases with the quantities involved. Now they only focus on injuries, fatalities, and monetary damages.
https://hip.phmsa.dot.gov/anal...
I also can't link directly to the data on releases, but suffice to say, in 2014, only 22,911 barrels were lost across all onshore hazardous liquids pipelines. This is significantly lower than any of the multi-year rolling averages, so 2014 was a good year. If you weed down to just crude and refined products (excluding things like liquid CO2, biofuels, and other hazardous liquids), it's less than half of the lost barrels.
According to this site: http://www.nacsonline.com/your...
U.S. oil consumption was an estimated 18.77 million barrels per day in 2014. This all has to be transported twice (as crude and as products), but rather than double the number, let's assume only half of it (very conservative) is transported by pipeline. 18.77mbpd*365=6.85 billion barrels transported in 2014.
But I guess it depends on your acceptable loss rate as there will always be accidents in any network. In 2014, in petroleum liquids pipelines onshore, 10,202 barrels were lost out of 6,850,000,000. So a .00015% loss rate. I'd call that pretty darn safe, but maybe your acceptable risk is 0. I hope you never drip the nozzle when filling up your car.
Also, the citation comes from someone who happens to work in pipeline industry, but something tells me you wouldn't believe any evidence presented by someone with first-hand experience.
Canada is already in the works to make a pipeline to Vancouver to ship the crude directly to other countries. I guess opposition to the oil going through the US is that we don't want the tariffs for transporting it or the possibility of cheaper oil to refine in the gulf for our own use?
And your citation is?
And I bet you'd complain if he asked to see the calculations proving said asteroid was going to hit earth.