You know you can add that lake where your cabin is, OSM has some aerial imagery that you can use to trace it out in their online editor. I have added in the various trails though the woods on the public land where I hunt. There is a fairly extensive set of ATV and hiking trails that run through the public land up there. I add stuff all the time to OSM, mostly in my town but when I go places I bring my GPS and map out trails, roads, building, landmarks, etc then upload and get it added to OSM.
Strangely I get a lot of my food from local mom and pop type farms and they can compete with the large retailers and beat their prices easily even if I do have to pay for processing separately. For example my extended family purchases 1 head of cattle and 1 head of bison every from farmers that are friends of the family and then pay for processing then divide it up amongst the households. Last September the final cost for the beef was $3.21/pound and the final cost of the bison was $3.74/pound. That price includes everything: hamburger, sausages, chops, roasts, steaks, ribs, liver. You can't even buy the cheap crappy 75-25 ground beef at the store for that price, let alone any good cuts or bison. Also I know the conditions that those animals live in and what they have been eating and both are way better than any of the factory farms I have ever seen. The processor also is better than the mass market processors and has a wall full of butchering, health, and cleanliness awards to prove it. The processor also does wild game so that is where we bring the deer we get each year as they do a great job on them as well.
ICEs, especially ones in cars and trucks, are not at their maximum efficiencies yet. The main reason is emissions, we could dramatically increase their efficiency but would produce a bunch of nasty emissions. Here there is a tradeoff so we would need to decide if we want more CO2 emissions or more NOx emissions. The easiest way to increase their efficiency would be to up the compression ratio but that will lead to higher NOx emissions. Additionally there are marginal improvements to be had with better flow in to and out of the engine, as well as variable timing and intake duration and lift. Another couple of areas for improvement are in total engine reciprocating mass and internal friction both of which rob a fair amount of power. In the end we will probably see the end of the mobile ICE in my lifetime as we will go to electric of some form (fuel cell, battery, inductive, capacitors) but there is still room for improvement in the internal combustion engine.
Yes I have, I have even ridden in one. It was my buddies who had a 69 MG Midget where he had done a EV conversion on it and put in a 100HP electric motor hooked up to the existing 4 speed transmission with a pile of deep cycle led-acid batteries in the trunk. The car would smoke the tires but only got about 40 miles on a charge.
Depends on what you mean by minor conversion. For a auto manufacturer they would be minor conversions for new vehicles but to do a proper modification on existing gasoline vehicles would require some major effort. Things like the fuel tank need to be replaced or lined, fuel lines and hoses need replacing as will the fuel filter, and fuel pump (larger capacity and needs to be alcohol safe). Engine gaskets will probably need to be replaced, specifically the intake manifold gasket. Certain metals that are fine with gasoline, like aluminum and zinc, in the intake need to be replaced or coated for protection. The fuel/air ratio would need to be modified either by up jetting the carburetor, or putting in larger injectors (you might be able to do a software upgrade to increase the pulse width but you may end up well outside the duty cycle of your existing injectors) and also you will need to re time the vehicle. All of that would get you to a good conversion to running on methanol, but to maximize the benefit of running it you would also need to increase the boost on a forced induction vehicle or increase the compression on a naturally aspirated vehicle. I have seen a number of the "make your own ethanol fuel" and run your car on it articles where people think all you need to do is increase the fuel delivery (up jetting or larger injectors) and adjust the timing. That would get it so your vehicle would move under its own power but will cause problems. Also methanol burning vehicles fucking stink (seriously the do go to a drag strip, midget dirt track race, or world of outlaw spring car race) unless they added the lube that is scented.
I have looked into this extensively as my project car is going to be a supercharged alcohol burner and I actually want to do it correctly instead of the hill-billy or environmentalist half assed method. At the moment I don't know if I want to go with ethanol (E85) or go whole hog and run straight methanol because E85 is readily available in my area, but I can make more power with methanol. I am building for methanol which means I need only minor adjustments (adjust the fuel/air mixture and possibly timing) if I decide to go with E85 instead.
You probably said that in jest but the current method of producing industrial scale hydrogen is steam reformation of hydrocarbons, specifically natural gas but other feedstocks can be used which isn't what most people would consider clean.
There are even street vehicles in the states that are capable of running on ethanol, they are labeled as flex fuel. The problem with flex fuel vehicles like we have in the US is (Brazil also has this problem with their flex fuel vehicles) is they they aren't optimized for fully for either fuel so they have to strike a balance. As far as what it would take to get a vehicle to run properly on methanol it wouldn't take much more than was it currently being done to have a vehicle run on ethanol, except you need to do it to more parts. Basically the fuel system needs to be able to handle the corrosiveness of it so it will need a different pump, tank, and lines. Also certain types of rubber can be eaten away by methanol that aren't affected by ethanol, as well as some metals will need a protective coating (various nitride or teflon like coatings) to prevent corrosion. Then there is the timing, compression and fuel/air mixtures that need to be adjusted. The main issue with methanol (as well as ethanol) is it doesn't lubricate like gasoline does so additives would be needed to provide that. These are all solved problems as various racing organizations have had alcohol classes (using methanol) for years so people do know how to build an engine to handle it. Most of those engines aren't rebuilt after each race or even each season either as alcohol classes tend still be accessible to the amateur. Most people probably would be shocked the first time they filled up with methanol as they would realize just how bad of mileage it gets as it makes ethanol seem efficient by unit volume. The thing it excels at is producing a lot of power because for a given charge of air you can produce more power running methanol than you can running ethanol or gasoline, but you burn a whole lot more of it.
Also you can find the vote record here and here, but it looks like it was passed unanimously by one of the chambers with the other having only one no vote and one not voting.
A better way to view this is that your first amendment rights end when they infring upon someone else's first amendment rights. In this case you blocking the entrance to an office building prevents others from there right to exercise free association. Also in the case of offensive rallies the US Supreme Court has already up held a case much like the one use as an example. The case was The National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie in 1977 where a neo-nazi group wanted to march through a predominantly Jewish neighborhood. The National Socialist Party of America did win their case.
That isn't a perpetual motion machine. What you have invented is the perpetual stupidity machine which does not violate the laws of thermodynamics as it always increases entropy of the universe with each cycle.
I doubt that the cost will come into consideration. The case wasn't argued on the cost basis to insurance companies or doctors/providers. If it were up held because of cost concerns to change the regulation that would set a very bad precedent because then anything rule or regulation change that incurs a cost to an individual business or person could then be struck down.
The precedent of judicial review was something that the US Supreme Court created for its self in 1803 in the Marbury v. Madison case. Before this there was a fair amount of debate amongst the framers of the constitution as to whether this right should be granted to the court, but it was not one of the powers given to the US Supreme Court. One of the lesser known clauses in the constitution is that the congress has the ability to regulate the US Supreme court so it congress wanted they could in theory pass a bill that prevents the US Supreme Court for hearing it, and possibly even regulating how the court could rule on the law. This is spelled out in Article 3 Section 2 of the US Constitution. The specific line states:
In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
The justification there was that it would have an effect on the interstate (white, gray, or black) market and thus they could regulate it. This ruling wasn't that much different from the Wickard v. Filburn case in 1942 where the US government had established limits on the amount of wheat a farmer could grow but Filburn was growing more. He argued that the additional wheat he was growing was for his own use on his farm and thus was not entering the interstate wheat market thus could not be regulated. The court found that even if that is the case the excess wheat that was for his own consumption still had an effect on the interstate wheat market thus could be regulated. The case you are referring to is probably the 2005 Gonzales v. Raich case.
My usual retort to those kind of people is to ask them if they have ever seen a blacksmith working, this usually confuses them to no end as it doesn't fit with their world view. It doesn't take much heat to weaken standard steels to make them soft and pliable, it doesn't even have to be glowing to be easily workable but it helps.
I don't see how adding a different printed label onto the tub of movie theater popcorn would increase the cost as they wouldn't be using any more ink or other resources since typically theaters don't continuously use the same printed tubs but get different styles. If by increased costs you mean that people might actually think about buying the smaller bag thus cutting into the profits a theater takes in then it sounds like you are ready for politics where a cut means that the increase you saw wasn't quite a big as you wanted but still greater than inflation.
A gallon of fat and salt drenched popcorn probably has a lot of calories and everyone should know that but this is probably more political hay making, much like the light bulb ban.
/. long ago removed the "news for nerds stuff that matters" moniker. But even if it still existed this seems like it matters to at least the US readership.
I don't necessarily disagree that the court should be able to overturn legislation, but the ability to do that wasn't granted to the court by the US Constitution which was the point I was trying to make. I do think we need a more strict interpretation of the constitution, especially the commerce clause, but having a computer program do it wouldn't work as I don't believe that enough progress has really been made on processing non context free grammars to make this feasible let alone clarity on the issues that are brought up. Do you really think programmers wouldn't introduce their own bias into the system?
As I don't live in the UK I don't know how much editorializing the BBC does for "local" stories (I don't really bother reading the UK section unless there is a story that peeks my interest) but as they don't have a horse in the race here they tend to be more objective in their reporting. I actually don't have a problem with editorials so long as they are presented as being opinion pieces (I love to read Mardell's America) and not hard news but most us new has more editorial than news even in news stories, even my local paper does this for the major stories. As far as getting your "news" from the side you agree with I like getting it from the side I don't as well. I regularly listen to both right wing and left wing talk radio, but only selected hosts, as some are just too shrill (I'm looking at you Hannity, and most of what I have seen on MSNBC). Of course I am probably in the minority in doing that but I find it is an interesting way to see if my thinking stands up to criticism.
SCOTUS is not doing its job, hasn't been doing its job for over 100 years now, it's not defending the Constitution. Why is it important to defend the Constitution? Because that's the only thing that stands between YOU and government tyranny.
Actually it has been much longer than that, I would say over 200 years. According to the constitution the SCOTUS doesn't have the ability to decide if something was constitutional or not, but only as the court of last resort/appeal. The concept of judicial review started with the Marbury v. Madison case in 1803 when the court created that right for themselves. Interestingly the congress can regulate the SCOTUS and place limits on what they can and cannot do and is explicitly laid out in the US Constitution, so the congress could pass a law specifically stating that the supreme court couldn't decide if a law was constitutional (or if they could even hear arguments on a particular topic) but at this point I would think they would only get to do that once as people would riot in the streets and burn the whole place down, or we would see just how willing the court is to ignore the constitution and they all end up impeached.
I didn't know Bush was still the president and was still making judicial appointments. Granted the republicans are big on the get tough on crime bandwagon, but law and order liberals are just as bad and probably just as numerous.
Complain as you like about the BBC but count yourself lucky, their news coverage is better than most of the cruft here in the US. Their world news is far outstrips most if not all US new sources, and the coverage of the US is by far more in depth and less editorialized than our new sources. About the only place they lack is in their local US coverage but then I wouldn't expect them to cover that which is why I get my local paper.
I remember those days of doing a local price survey when I worked at a gas station. The one I worked for gave you a $1 a day gas coupon to cover your expense of driving around (gas was about $0.80-$0.90 a gallon at the time). My manager at the time would like to start a price war on the really hot days (middle of the day not during the morning or afternoon drive) because he could easily make up the difference and then some on inside sales of pop, Gatorade, bottled water, jerky, and cigarettes to construction workers. They would typically stop in during the day to fill up but there would be 3-5 guys in a truck who would all come in and buy the high margin stuff, so even though he would loose $0.50-$1.50 on the fill up he would get a bunch of inside sales. The sale of 1 or 2 big 44 ounce fountain drinks makes up for the loss on the gas sale and then add in the snacks and cigarettes and it is a solid net gain.
Slashdot Mirror
You know you can add that lake where your cabin is, OSM has some aerial imagery that you can use to trace it out in their online editor. I have added in the various trails though the woods on the public land where I hunt. There is a fairly extensive set of ATV and hiking trails that run through the public land up there. I add stuff all the time to OSM, mostly in my town but when I go places I bring my GPS and map out trails, roads, building, landmarks, etc then upload and get it added to OSM.
Strangely I get a lot of my food from local mom and pop type farms and they can compete with the large retailers and beat their prices easily even if I do have to pay for processing separately. For example my extended family purchases 1 head of cattle and 1 head of bison every from farmers that are friends of the family and then pay for processing then divide it up amongst the households. Last September the final cost for the beef was $3.21/pound and the final cost of the bison was $3.74/pound. That price includes everything: hamburger, sausages, chops, roasts, steaks, ribs, liver. You can't even buy the cheap crappy 75-25 ground beef at the store for that price, let alone any good cuts or bison. Also I know the conditions that those animals live in and what they have been eating and both are way better than any of the factory farms I have ever seen. The processor also is better than the mass market processors and has a wall full of butchering, health, and cleanliness awards to prove it. The processor also does wild game so that is where we bring the deer we get each year as they do a great job on them as well.
ICEs, especially ones in cars and trucks, are not at their maximum efficiencies yet. The main reason is emissions, we could dramatically increase their efficiency but would produce a bunch of nasty emissions. Here there is a tradeoff so we would need to decide if we want more CO2 emissions or more NOx emissions. The easiest way to increase their efficiency would be to up the compression ratio but that will lead to higher NOx emissions. Additionally there are marginal improvements to be had with better flow in to and out of the engine, as well as variable timing and intake duration and lift. Another couple of areas for improvement are in total engine reciprocating mass and internal friction both of which rob a fair amount of power. In the end we will probably see the end of the mobile ICE in my lifetime as we will go to electric of some form (fuel cell, battery, inductive, capacitors) but there is still room for improvement in the internal combustion engine.
Yes I have, I have even ridden in one. It was my buddies who had a 69 MG Midget where he had done a EV conversion on it and put in a 100HP electric motor hooked up to the existing 4 speed transmission with a pile of deep cycle led-acid batteries in the trunk. The car would smoke the tires but only got about 40 miles on a charge.
Depends on what you mean by minor conversion. For a auto manufacturer they would be minor conversions for new vehicles but to do a proper modification on existing gasoline vehicles would require some major effort. Things like the fuel tank need to be replaced or lined, fuel lines and hoses need replacing as will the fuel filter, and fuel pump (larger capacity and needs to be alcohol safe). Engine gaskets will probably need to be replaced, specifically the intake manifold gasket. Certain metals that are fine with gasoline, like aluminum and zinc, in the intake need to be replaced or coated for protection. The fuel/air ratio would need to be modified either by up jetting the carburetor, or putting in larger injectors (you might be able to do a software upgrade to increase the pulse width but you may end up well outside the duty cycle of your existing injectors) and also you will need to re time the vehicle. All of that would get you to a good conversion to running on methanol, but to maximize the benefit of running it you would also need to increase the boost on a forced induction vehicle or increase the compression on a naturally aspirated vehicle. I have seen a number of the "make your own ethanol fuel" and run your car on it articles where people think all you need to do is increase the fuel delivery (up jetting or larger injectors) and adjust the timing. That would get it so your vehicle would move under its own power but will cause problems. Also methanol burning vehicles fucking stink (seriously the do go to a drag strip, midget dirt track race, or world of outlaw spring car race) unless they added the lube that is scented.
I have looked into this extensively as my project car is going to be a supercharged alcohol burner and I actually want to do it correctly instead of the hill-billy or environmentalist half assed method. At the moment I don't know if I want to go with ethanol (E85) or go whole hog and run straight methanol because E85 is readily available in my area, but I can make more power with methanol. I am building for methanol which means I need only minor adjustments (adjust the fuel/air mixture and possibly timing) if I decide to go with E85 instead.
You probably said that in jest but the current method of producing industrial scale hydrogen is steam reformation of hydrocarbons, specifically natural gas but other feedstocks can be used which isn't what most people would consider clean.
There are even street vehicles in the states that are capable of running on ethanol, they are labeled as flex fuel. The problem with flex fuel vehicles like we have in the US is (Brazil also has this problem with their flex fuel vehicles) is they they aren't optimized for fully for either fuel so they have to strike a balance. As far as what it would take to get a vehicle to run properly on methanol it wouldn't take much more than was it currently being done to have a vehicle run on ethanol, except you need to do it to more parts. Basically the fuel system needs to be able to handle the corrosiveness of it so it will need a different pump, tank, and lines. Also certain types of rubber can be eaten away by methanol that aren't affected by ethanol, as well as some metals will need a protective coating (various nitride or teflon like coatings) to prevent corrosion. Then there is the timing, compression and fuel/air mixtures that need to be adjusted. The main issue with methanol (as well as ethanol) is it doesn't lubricate like gasoline does so additives would be needed to provide that. These are all solved problems as various racing organizations have had alcohol classes (using methanol) for years so people do know how to build an engine to handle it. Most of those engines aren't rebuilt after each race or even each season either as alcohol classes tend still be accessible to the amateur. Most people probably would be shocked the first time they filled up with methanol as they would realize just how bad of mileage it gets as it makes ethanol seem efficient by unit volume. The thing it excels at is producing a lot of power because for a given charge of air you can produce more power running methanol than you can running ethanol or gasoline, but you burn a whole lot more of it.
For those of you curious about the bill you can find it here.
The sponsors where:
VOGT
WILLIAMS
CAMPBELL
FANN
FARLEY
GOWAN
PROUD
SMITH D
TOVAR
Also you can find the vote record here and here, but it looks like it was passed unanimously by one of the chambers with the other having only one no vote and one not voting.
A better way to view this is that your first amendment rights end when they infring upon someone else's first amendment rights. In this case you blocking the entrance to an office building prevents others from there right to exercise free association. Also in the case of offensive rallies the US Supreme Court has already up held a case much like the one use as an example. The case was The National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie in 1977 where a neo-nazi group wanted to march through a predominantly Jewish neighborhood. The National Socialist Party of America did win their case.
That isn't a perpetual motion machine. What you have invented is the perpetual stupidity machine which does not violate the laws of thermodynamics as it always increases entropy of the universe with each cycle.
I doubt that the cost will come into consideration. The case wasn't argued on the cost basis to insurance companies or doctors/providers. If it were up held because of cost concerns to change the regulation that would set a very bad precedent because then anything rule or regulation change that incurs a cost to an individual business or person could then be struck down.
What are the odds and do the offer a odds on the split (5-4 constitutional, 5-4 unconstitutional, 6-3 constitutional, etc)?
In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
The justification there was that it would have an effect on the interstate (white, gray, or black) market and thus they could regulate it. This ruling wasn't that much different from the Wickard v. Filburn case in 1942 where the US government had established limits on the amount of wheat a farmer could grow but Filburn was growing more. He argued that the additional wheat he was growing was for his own use on his farm and thus was not entering the interstate wheat market thus could not be regulated. The court found that even if that is the case the excess wheat that was for his own consumption still had an effect on the interstate wheat market thus could be regulated. The case you are referring to is probably the 2005 Gonzales v. Raich case.
My usual retort to those kind of people is to ask them if they have ever seen a blacksmith working, this usually confuses them to no end as it doesn't fit with their world view. It doesn't take much heat to weaken standard steels to make them soft and pliable, it doesn't even have to be glowing to be easily workable but it helps.
Probably.
I don't see how adding a different printed label onto the tub of movie theater popcorn would increase the cost as they wouldn't be using any more ink or other resources since typically theaters don't continuously use the same printed tubs but get different styles. If by increased costs you mean that people might actually think about buying the smaller bag thus cutting into the profits a theater takes in then it sounds like you are ready for politics where a cut means that the increase you saw wasn't quite a big as you wanted but still greater than inflation.
A gallon of fat and salt drenched popcorn probably has a lot of calories and everyone should know that but this is probably more political hay making, much like the light bulb ban.
/. long ago removed the "news for nerds stuff that matters" moniker. But even if it still existed this seems like it matters to at least the US readership.
I don't necessarily disagree that the court should be able to overturn legislation, but the ability to do that wasn't granted to the court by the US Constitution which was the point I was trying to make. I do think we need a more strict interpretation of the constitution, especially the commerce clause, but having a computer program do it wouldn't work as I don't believe that enough progress has really been made on processing non context free grammars to make this feasible let alone clarity on the issues that are brought up. Do you really think programmers wouldn't introduce their own bias into the system?
As I don't live in the UK I don't know how much editorializing the BBC does for "local" stories (I don't really bother reading the UK section unless there is a story that peeks my interest) but as they don't have a horse in the race here they tend to be more objective in their reporting. I actually don't have a problem with editorials so long as they are presented as being opinion pieces (I love to read Mardell's America) and not hard news but most us new has more editorial than news even in news stories, even my local paper does this for the major stories. As far as getting your "news" from the side you agree with I like getting it from the side I don't as well. I regularly listen to both right wing and left wing talk radio, but only selected hosts, as some are just too shrill (I'm looking at you Hannity, and most of what I have seen on MSNBC). Of course I am probably in the minority in doing that but I find it is an interesting way to see if my thinking stands up to criticism.
SCOTUS is not doing its job, hasn't been doing its job for over 100 years now, it's not defending the Constitution. Why is it important to defend the Constitution? Because that's the only thing that stands between YOU and government tyranny.
Actually it has been much longer than that, I would say over 200 years. According to the constitution the SCOTUS doesn't have the ability to decide if something was constitutional or not, but only as the court of last resort/appeal. The concept of judicial review started with the Marbury v. Madison case in 1803 when the court created that right for themselves. Interestingly the congress can regulate the SCOTUS and place limits on what they can and cannot do and is explicitly laid out in the US Constitution, so the congress could pass a law specifically stating that the supreme court couldn't decide if a law was constitutional (or if they could even hear arguments on a particular topic) but at this point I would think they would only get to do that once as people would riot in the streets and burn the whole place down, or we would see just how willing the court is to ignore the constitution and they all end up impeached.
I didn't know Bush was still the president and was still making judicial appointments. Granted the republicans are big on the get tough on crime bandwagon, but law and order liberals are just as bad and probably just as numerous.
Complain as you like about the BBC but count yourself lucky, their news coverage is better than most of the cruft here in the US. Their world news is far outstrips most if not all US new sources, and the coverage of the US is by far more in depth and less editorialized than our new sources. About the only place they lack is in their local US coverage but then I wouldn't expect them to cover that which is why I get my local paper.
I remember those days of doing a local price survey when I worked at a gas station. The one I worked for gave you a $1 a day gas coupon to cover your expense of driving around (gas was about $0.80-$0.90 a gallon at the time). My manager at the time would like to start a price war on the really hot days (middle of the day not during the morning or afternoon drive) because he could easily make up the difference and then some on inside sales of pop, Gatorade, bottled water, jerky, and cigarettes to construction workers. They would typically stop in during the day to fill up but there would be 3-5 guys in a truck who would all come in and buy the high margin stuff, so even though he would loose $0.50-$1.50 on the fill up he would get a bunch of inside sales. The sale of 1 or 2 big 44 ounce fountain drinks makes up for the loss on the gas sale and then add in the snacks and cigarettes and it is a solid net gain.