Close . It is entirely possible to be elected in the US without getting the popular vote without there being any unfaithful electors in the electoral college. In most states whoever gets the highest percentage of votes receives all of the state's electoral college votes. So discounting the various 3rd party candidates (most never get above 1%) if the D or R candidate gets 50%+1 votes they get all of the electors for a state. It is quite easy to win the popular vote but loose in the electoral college if the candidate that wins the most electors barely won (closer to the 50%+1) in states they carried but the runner up won by a much larger margin in the states they carried. This is basically what happened in 2000 where Bush was close in the states he won (lets assume he won Florida by the narrow margin that was the official count as that is it's own discussion) but Gore had won by a larger margin in the states that he carried. Granted Nader was the spoiler for democrats in that election, but in 1992 and 1996 Perot was the spoiler for the republicans. The purpose of the electoral college now is to basically create a sense of unity as it usually will magnify small differences in the vote. The most striking example of this was the election of 1984 where Regan got a huge majority of the popular vote but won 49 of the 50 states getting all but 13 of the 538 electoral college votes.
Unfortunately too few. He seemed to actually be for smaller government instead of big government that he liked as well as being for more individual rights unlike most in office. I also like this quote from him:
You don't need to be 'straight' to fight and die for your country. You just need to shoot straight.
My biggest beef with him was his rather hawkish stance with foreign policy by comparison the latter Bush seemed sane.
This is why I am seriously starting to consider rigging up some very high power IR LEDs. From what I have been reading most of these new automated license plate readers are designed to work in the IR range, which is why a lot of states' license plates are being redesigned. I am not sure what would be better, illuminating the plate so it is overexposed or illuminating some other part so it under exposes the plate. Either way I think it would be best to pump out enough power to leave a permanent ghost image in the sensor. It is not like it would be that much of an additional load since a most car alternators are capable of putting out 80+ amps at 12 volts so 100W from IR LEDs wouldn't even be noticed. This is less power than having the high beams on in your car as those by law can draw up to 55W each and are designed as such. From previous suggestions it may be better to force the camera to underexpose the plate as you could legitimately state the you were not obscuring your plate like you would be if you over illuminated it.
Most of the methanol that is made in today is not made from wood but is actually made from natural gas, so it is still a fossil fuel. Given that we could probably run our vehicles on it. As far as engines running on nitromethane you could make a engine that would last that runs on it it is just top fuel funny cars and dragsters view the engine as a consumable part as well as the transmission. But the fact that they are producing above 7,000 horse power from engines that are around 500 cid is rather impressive and is really what shortens the engine life.
Actually the highest performance engines run on nitromethane and will typically run at a 1:1 fuel air ratio (top fuel dragsters). While that alcohol fuels are great race fuels they do come with their own problems as you mention. The rubber, plastic, and certain metals being eaten by the fuel is a solved problem, but converting an existing vehicle is a rather extensive process (I am doing this with my project car). The use of the alcohol fuels in race engines does provide a number of benefits, the biggest is that you can produce more power for a given charge of air than you can with gasoline when running at the stoichiometric ratio (or other comparable ratios) even if you are running at the same compression ratio. Now toss in that most alcohols have an octane rating close to (methanol) or above (ethanol) race gasoline (basically 100LL avgas) and you can produce some real power. Given that most racers in the alcohol drag racing classes run methanol it would seem that it still generates more power for a given charge of air than ethanol even though ethanol has a higher octane rating. I have also seen a number of racers who run with superchargers that suck the air through the carb (instead of push it through) and they like to use ethanol as it has a much higher latent heat so it will actually cool the air charge down substantially, on humid days their carbs will have a nice coating for frost after a run.
Even with modern sensors and fuel injection (not the direct injection they are using) octane only gets you so much. One way to avoid preignition is to dump in slightly more fuel and run it richer which is what most modern vehicles do as well as back off the timing as you mention. Still you will start running into problems once you get much past a 15:1 compression ratio.
Specifically it was those diesels that Oldsmobile made that got put into passenger cars that were crap. As you mention the VW, Mercedes, and Volvo diesels were wonderful engines but most people never bought them.
It isn't just the emission stuff that makes a diesel engine more expensive. Manufactures also have to build an engine that can handle the additional stresses that a diesel engine generates. Detonation is a bitch on parts so they need better valves, heads, pistons, cylinder walls, and crank shafts so that the engine doesn't just blow up.
The majority of the price difference between gasoline and diesel is because of supply and demand. It is more profitable (because they sell more of it) to make crude oil into gasoline. Also there is the spike in diesel prices each fall/winter because of increased demand for fuel oil which is basically diesel with a different additive package.
Basically it is the cost per mile and that most people have had bad experiences with diesels here in the past. When the cost per mile is higher (because of taxes and supply/demand) people generally don't want to get them. There is less supply of diesel in the US because it is more profitable to make gasoline instead and add in the spike in diesel prices that happens every year when fuel oil is also needed and people tend to shy away from it. At the gas station where I purchase fuel gasoline was $3.62/gallon the other day, diesel was $4.03 which basically wipes out any savings per mile and there isn't much if any demand for fuel oil at the moment. Also diesel vehicles are more expensive to make as they required better parts to handle the additional stress so people generally don't want to pay that premium, event though the engines do tend to last longer. There was also the awful diesels that Oldsmobile made in the 80s that were complete crap that soured people on them in passenger cars.
If you want fun driving go get your self a SCCA solo license or club license and go drive on a road track or out on an air strip with cones setup and beat on your vehicle there. It is fun as hell and did it for several years and then I got a job with too much travel and later had kids so that is on hold for now. It is much safer than doing that crap on the streets and they even teach you how to do it right. I had the solo license and you had to go through 2 driving school session to get and to stay current participate in a couple of events a year (maybe it was 2 events in 2 years) but let it expire as I just didn't have time for it.
Not really a miracle, although I doubt the claim of 50% increase but still substantial gains are there to be had by increasing compression. Performance gasoline engines have long used higher compression to get a greater power output from a given amount of fuel and air. The main problem they faced is that not long after reaching a 15:1 compression ratio the engines start to suffer from preignition as the air/fuel charge are brought in to the cylinder at the same time, otherwise know as detonation. By compression a diesel engine will run at compression ratios of 22:1 or greater. Direct injection gets around the preignition issue by compressing the air charge only and then injecting the fuel directly into the cylinder when you want it to ignite. At higher pressures, like in a diesel the fuel won't deflagrate like it does gasoline engines, but will detonate instead. There are other problems that I doubt they have fully sorted out since running a higher compression ratio also increases various emissions that even though can be dealt with are rather expensive and increased emission would probably shorten the life of the 3 way catalytic converter on your vehicle.
when it come to arguing about healthcare I like to use the following:
You have a right to healthcare but you don't have a right to have me pay for your healthcare.
This at least is logically consistent with the other rights that have been enshrined in our constitution in that it doesn't impose any obligation on any one else. I can stand on the street corner all day long and exercise my first amendment rights but that in no way imposes an obligation on your to listen to my rantings. My right to keep and bear arms does not impose any obligation on you to purchase them for me. I happen to believe that the current healthcare affordability act (aka Obamacare) is probably unconstitutional because of the individual mandate. A single payer system would have at least stood up to that test as congress does have the power to tax and spend.
I have a different take that I have been kicking around.:
1. We create a 3rd chamber for the congress but they are not elected but randomly selected.
2. The new chamber is 1% of the voting population (registered voters).
3. They serve a 1 year term
3. They remain at home and either submit their votes electronically or by mail (choice made when they start)
4. They do not get to introduce legislation but only vote up or down on legislation
5. They vote only after the House and Senate have voted
6. If an individual doesn't vote it is counted as a no vote
Hey those cars are good once they have been through a full frame off restoration with a full engine rebuild. Also it doesn't hurt to get all aftermarket electrical components and not even bother reusing any of the original stuff. It isn't just Austin and Rove, you also need to include BMC, Leyland, Jaguar, Morris, MG, Triumph, Sunbeam, etc.
Yes. Apparently the parent isn't aware of the various Lucas Prince of Darkness jokes, or the world of British car humor. Although I am not sure who has the reputation for being worse at making a car, the British or Fiat?
You while that would be true if there weren't any barriers to entry standing up a high volume solar cell plant seems that would be able to compete on the open market with ones from China seems like a fairly large one to me. It takes time to build and once built what would stop the Chinese from simply dumping their product on the market until the new company went bankrupt.
I wouldn't mind if my state legislature wasted it's time on those kind of laws. Maybe if they wasted enough time on them they wouldn't have the time to buy professional sports teams new stadiums.
So it sounds like he is a actual investor instead of a gambler. I like the free market but a lot of the massive churn we see now isn't market participation but gambling, as such we should tax it like gambling
It isn't just technology that managers seem to be incompetent with. My dad works in a hospital as one of the techs who fix and maintain the machines and the managers he has had are just as worthless. He has had ones who never bother to keep up to date on status reports and complain about how far behind they are on PMs but the report the manager was looking at was 2 weeks old. One complained that they needed to cut costs since their department wasn't showing a profit and asked the question "Do we really need to keep ordering this much anesthesia machine hose?" Another one didn't want to have his department spend the $700 to repair a $16,000 machine as the department that the machine belonged to could have replaced it and spent their money instead.
Problem is that not all of their rulings have been as good as those. One of the biggest was the Citizens United case where they seem to have produced the correct ruling for the individual suing, but screwed the nation. Yes they should have been able to produce and release their moved but rights granted to corporations is where they went wrong. In looking and reading about the case it seems to have gone wrong when Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm L. Stewart arguing for the Federal Elections Commission stated: [quoting from wikipedia]
the government would have the power to ban books if those books contained even one sentence expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate and were published or distributed by a corporation or union.
This just seems like a sure fire way to get something struck down by the court which is probably why we got the ruling that we did.
Slashdot Mirror
Close . It is entirely possible to be elected in the US without getting the popular vote without there being any unfaithful electors in the electoral college. In most states whoever gets the highest percentage of votes receives all of the state's electoral college votes. So discounting the various 3rd party candidates (most never get above 1%) if the D or R candidate gets 50%+1 votes they get all of the electors for a state. It is quite easy to win the popular vote but loose in the electoral college if the candidate that wins the most electors barely won (closer to the 50%+1) in states they carried but the runner up won by a much larger margin in the states they carried. This is basically what happened in 2000 where Bush was close in the states he won (lets assume he won Florida by the narrow margin that was the official count as that is it's own discussion) but Gore had won by a larger margin in the states that he carried. Granted Nader was the spoiler for democrats in that election, but in 1992 and 1996 Perot was the spoiler for the republicans. The purpose of the electoral college now is to basically create a sense of unity as it usually will magnify small differences in the vote. The most striking example of this was the election of 1984 where Regan got a huge majority of the popular vote but won 49 of the 50 states getting all but 13 of the 538 electoral college votes.
You don't need to be 'straight' to fight and die for your country. You just need to shoot straight.
My biggest beef with him was his rather hawkish stance with foreign policy by comparison the latter Bush seemed sane.
This is why I am seriously starting to consider rigging up some very high power IR LEDs. From what I have been reading most of these new automated license plate readers are designed to work in the IR range, which is why a lot of states' license plates are being redesigned. I am not sure what would be better, illuminating the plate so it is overexposed or illuminating some other part so it under exposes the plate. Either way I think it would be best to pump out enough power to leave a permanent ghost image in the sensor. It is not like it would be that much of an additional load since a most car alternators are capable of putting out 80+ amps at 12 volts so 100W from IR LEDs wouldn't even be noticed. This is less power than having the high beams on in your car as those by law can draw up to 55W each and are designed as such. From previous suggestions it may be better to force the camera to underexpose the plate as you could legitimately state the you were not obscuring your plate like you would be if you over illuminated it.
I'm sure Al-Qaeda is shaking in their boots. "Please don't audit me!"
If he worked for the IRS than that would truly be a terrifying prospect.
Most of the methanol that is made in today is not made from wood but is actually made from natural gas, so it is still a fossil fuel. Given that we could probably run our vehicles on it. As far as engines running on nitromethane you could make a engine that would last that runs on it it is just top fuel funny cars and dragsters view the engine as a consumable part as well as the transmission. But the fact that they are producing above 7,000 horse power from engines that are around 500 cid is rather impressive and is really what shortens the engine life.
Actually the highest performance engines run on nitromethane and will typically run at a 1:1 fuel air ratio (top fuel dragsters). While that alcohol fuels are great race fuels they do come with their own problems as you mention. The rubber, plastic, and certain metals being eaten by the fuel is a solved problem, but converting an existing vehicle is a rather extensive process (I am doing this with my project car). The use of the alcohol fuels in race engines does provide a number of benefits, the biggest is that you can produce more power for a given charge of air than you can with gasoline when running at the stoichiometric ratio (or other comparable ratios) even if you are running at the same compression ratio. Now toss in that most alcohols have an octane rating close to (methanol) or above (ethanol) race gasoline (basically 100LL avgas) and you can produce some real power. Given that most racers in the alcohol drag racing classes run methanol it would seem that it still generates more power for a given charge of air than ethanol even though ethanol has a higher octane rating. I have also seen a number of racers who run with superchargers that suck the air through the carb (instead of push it through) and they like to use ethanol as it has a much higher latent heat so it will actually cool the air charge down substantially, on humid days their carbs will have a nice coating for frost after a run.
Even with modern sensors and fuel injection (not the direct injection they are using) octane only gets you so much. One way to avoid preignition is to dump in slightly more fuel and run it richer which is what most modern vehicles do as well as back off the timing as you mention. Still you will start running into problems once you get much past a 15:1 compression ratio.
Specifically it was those diesels that Oldsmobile made that got put into passenger cars that were crap. As you mention the VW, Mercedes, and Volvo diesels were wonderful engines but most people never bought them.
You do know how a catalytic converter on a car works right?
It isn't just the emission stuff that makes a diesel engine more expensive. Manufactures also have to build an engine that can handle the additional stresses that a diesel engine generates. Detonation is a bitch on parts so they need better valves, heads, pistons, cylinder walls, and crank shafts so that the engine doesn't just blow up.
The majority of the price difference between gasoline and diesel is because of supply and demand. It is more profitable (because they sell more of it) to make crude oil into gasoline. Also there is the spike in diesel prices each fall/winter because of increased demand for fuel oil which is basically diesel with a different additive package.
Basically it is the cost per mile and that most people have had bad experiences with diesels here in the past. When the cost per mile is higher (because of taxes and supply/demand) people generally don't want to get them. There is less supply of diesel in the US because it is more profitable to make gasoline instead and add in the spike in diesel prices that happens every year when fuel oil is also needed and people tend to shy away from it. At the gas station where I purchase fuel gasoline was $3.62/gallon the other day, diesel was $4.03 which basically wipes out any savings per mile and there isn't much if any demand for fuel oil at the moment. Also diesel vehicles are more expensive to make as they required better parts to handle the additional stress so people generally don't want to pay that premium, event though the engines do tend to last longer. There was also the awful diesels that Oldsmobile made in the 80s that were complete crap that soured people on them in passenger cars.
If you want fun driving go get your self a SCCA solo license or club license and go drive on a road track or out on an air strip with cones setup and beat on your vehicle there. It is fun as hell and did it for several years and then I got a job with too much travel and later had kids so that is on hold for now. It is much safer than doing that crap on the streets and they even teach you how to do it right. I had the solo license and you had to go through 2 driving school session to get and to stay current participate in a couple of events a year (maybe it was 2 events in 2 years) but let it expire as I just didn't have time for it.
Not really a miracle, although I doubt the claim of 50% increase but still substantial gains are there to be had by increasing compression. Performance gasoline engines have long used higher compression to get a greater power output from a given amount of fuel and air. The main problem they faced is that not long after reaching a 15:1 compression ratio the engines start to suffer from preignition as the air/fuel charge are brought in to the cylinder at the same time, otherwise know as detonation. By compression a diesel engine will run at compression ratios of 22:1 or greater. Direct injection gets around the preignition issue by compressing the air charge only and then injecting the fuel directly into the cylinder when you want it to ignite. At higher pressures, like in a diesel the fuel won't deflagrate like it does gasoline engines, but will detonate instead. There are other problems that I doubt they have fully sorted out since running a higher compression ratio also increases various emissions that even though can be dealt with are rather expensive and increased emission would probably shorten the life of the 3 way catalytic converter on your vehicle.
That would be an interesting venn diagram I would love to see.
when it come to arguing about healthcare I like to use the following:
You have a right to healthcare but you don't have a right to have me pay for your healthcare.
This at least is logically consistent with the other rights that have been enshrined in our constitution in that it doesn't impose any obligation on any one else. I can stand on the street corner all day long and exercise my first amendment rights but that in no way imposes an obligation on your to listen to my rantings. My right to keep and bear arms does not impose any obligation on you to purchase them for me. I happen to believe that the current healthcare affordability act (aka Obamacare) is probably unconstitutional because of the individual mandate. A single payer system would have at least stood up to that test as congress does have the power to tax and spend.
I have a different take that I have been kicking around. :
1. We create a 3rd chamber for the congress but they are not elected but randomly selected.
2. The new chamber is 1% of the voting population (registered voters).
3. They serve a 1 year term
3. They remain at home and either submit their votes electronically or by mail (choice made when they start)
4. They do not get to introduce legislation but only vote up or down on legislation
5. They vote only after the House and Senate have voted
6. If an individual doesn't vote it is counted as a no vote
Hey those cars are good once they have been through a full frame off restoration with a full engine rebuild. Also it doesn't hurt to get all aftermarket electrical components and not even bother reusing any of the original stuff. It isn't just Austin and Rove, you also need to include BMC, Leyland, Jaguar, Morris, MG, Triumph, Sunbeam, etc.
Yes. Apparently the parent isn't aware of the various Lucas Prince of Darkness jokes, or the world of British car humor. Although I am not sure who has the reputation for being worse at making a car, the British or Fiat?
You while that would be true if there weren't any barriers to entry standing up a high volume solar cell plant seems that would be able to compete on the open market with ones from China seems like a fairly large one to me. It takes time to build and once built what would stop the Chinese from simply dumping their product on the market until the new company went bankrupt.
I wouldn't mind if my state legislature wasted it's time on those kind of laws. Maybe if they wasted enough time on them they wouldn't have the time to buy professional sports teams new stadiums.
So it sounds like he is a actual investor instead of a gambler. I like the free market but a lot of the massive churn we see now isn't market participation but gambling, as such we should tax it like gambling
It isn't just technology that managers seem to be incompetent with. My dad works in a hospital as one of the techs who fix and maintain the machines and the managers he has had are just as worthless. He has had ones who never bother to keep up to date on status reports and complain about how far behind they are on PMs but the report the manager was looking at was 2 weeks old. One complained that they needed to cut costs since their department wasn't showing a profit and asked the question "Do we really need to keep ordering this much anesthesia machine hose?" Another one didn't want to have his department spend the $700 to repair a $16,000 machine as the department that the machine belonged to could have replaced it and spent their money instead.
Isn't that how all governments operate, especially when it comes to debt and spending.
the government would have the power to ban books if those books contained even one sentence expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate and were published or distributed by a corporation or union.
This just seems like a sure fire way to get something struck down by the court which is probably why we got the ruling that we did.