The fully charged batteries could be considered fuel.
They are definitely an energy source, so I'd accept them as fuel. But since I chimed in, and aimed at no one in particular, I'l go over the history of batteries and flight..
Batteries? We don't need no stinkin'batteries! Planes start by a strong back twirling the prop!
Batteries? They are for starting the engines! That's about it.
Batteries? They'll never power any flying vehicle. That's crazy talk!
Batteries? Sure they can power RC planes, but they'll never power a real plane!
Batteries? Hell sure they are powering a plane, but they're so damn expensive - never be practical!
Battery powered planes? they are so awesome, and it's a pity we had to fight those damn liberals so many years to get them!
If software stops adding new features for one damn second, the bugs in general begin to trend towards zero.
rinse and repeat this a hundred times. With the exception of the longstanding outlook bug, and flash, the short cycle and feature bloat is a great way to ensure your system isn't protected.
THere is a reason that conservative politicians spout about abusive porn. It's the type they like best.
We have family value politiciians who rail against homosexuality yet are found in airport bathrooms giving blowjobs to other guys, or family value preachers who likewise have sex with male hookers, or protectors of children who try to make dates with underage male interns or speakers of th ehouse who like to fuck high school wrestlers. Or people who won't issue marriage certificates for gays but have children out of wedlock and are serial bedders, or advisors to family values organizations that ll of the family values candidates pose with for piccys yet turn out fo pay hookers for sex, and turn out to be pedophiles.
The most immoral people I've ever met pretend have all day ot tell other people how sinful they are. Read into that as you will.
A story about the death of Prince is not remotely on topic for what slashdot used to be about. No, it doesn't matter that he was musician number 105 to dislike the Internet. The word Internet does NOT make a topic relevant for slashdot in 2016. Maybe in 1995 it was news if something happened with regard to the Internet, but not today.
Could you please try to post stories about science or technology again. And real stories, not something at such a low level that tabloid magazines might post the same story.
Thanks in advance!
And yet le allow you anonymous Cowards to post good morning from the golden girls, ATK your mother and your homoerotic fantasies.
So as a tradeoff, I'll take Prince news any day, and a whole lot less ouf your crybabying about what should or should not be on Slashdot.
If the predicted rise in sea level in that paper had happened, New York, Lousianna, heck, most of the coasts would be underwater by now. It did not happen.
All that means really is that our models just aren't very accurate yet.
I see no prediction of that in any reference you gave me. Since you appear to be playing me, TTFN!
You seem to underestimate the damage that porn is doing to people's lives. The only significant difference between being addicted to porn and being addicted to alcohol is that one can still watch porn and then drive without getting in trouble.
Well now, first off we have to define addiction I know of people who got ethanol intoxicted once, and decided they were an alcoholic, seriously you are a counselor, and equivocate porn with alcoholism?
As well with the definition, there are some spouses who consider looking at any porn as a betrayal equivalent to infidelity. Hell I was told by one of my confirmation instructors that masturbation meant you were a homosexual since you were stimulating a male genital to orgasm.
So while there are cases where it is plenty obvious, like a husband or wife who alllows their marriage to disintegrate while having plenty f time to spend watching porn, what of say, the woman who finds a playboy, considers it a betrayal, and demands that her husband go into treatment. Or those who consider any nudity as pornographic?
Or even bigger. In my area around 25 years ago, there was a "pornography awareness league" who defined pornography as anything that aroused a male sexually. Nudity? Oh only the beginning. They did include the lingerie section of the Sears and Penny's catalog. I dunno, I've looke dat those, and they do have some pretty nice ladies in them.
And while you might call that an outlier of no importance, our District attorney did, and went on a witch hunt of the porn shop 10 miles out of town.
The trial was of Scopish nature, and ended in a five minute recess where the jury declared him innocent, and had some words foro the DA as well.
Maybe the difficulty that you are having is that you are equating nudity with pornography. They are synonymous.
Did you men "Not" synonymous? As with so many of these things, it's interpretative. They did not go around putting fig leaves on ancient statues during victorian times because of the fig leaf advertising counsel. They considered any display of genitals as pornographic.
Videos that graphical show gang rape or exploitation of children.
Not to mention, illegal, at least in the case of children. That's an illustration of the problem. It tends to cast people into "being" kiddie diddlers if they enjoy looking at naked ladies.
A 20 year old, made up to look like she is sixteen and watching the high school baseball practice, whereupon she is then assualted by the team and coaches and has a baseball bat inserted in various orifices, is they type of pornography the governor is refering to, not somebody looking at Penthouse.
I do not believe that for a second. If he does, it will be the absolute first time I have ever seen an anti-porn crusader ever have such a limited agenda. Ever.
The latter may be obscene, but it is not pornographic.
Generally, anti-porn crusaders consider obscenity as pornography. In fact, most of us do. Your interpretation is completely backwards.
Pornography is rampant and extremely harmful to one's psyche and seriously impacts the life of those obsessed with it.
Of course, we must protect people at all costs.
Next we work on water intoxication. Did you know that people, somet9i9mes innocent children, get intoxicated by drinking copious amounts of water? People hae died from it,We must eliminate this evil substance and now, before any more of oour precious future is destroyed .
It's time for me to get a deep dark secret off my back. When I was young
What? The deficit was almost 100% from the Bush era tax cuts (Republican policy) and waging two wars (neo-Con Republican policy).
That's part of the strategy. Declare war as a economic stimulus package, and through the magic of emergency appropriations, move the payback to another administration.
Which for all of the dehumanizing of Democrats, all of the hardly veiled racist hatred of the Kenyan terror baby, What happened from 2008 to now is amazing.
The real estate meltdown, the credit card debacle, coupled with the two front war, waged on the layaway plan, and payoff day arriving - and we were poised to make the 1930's look like good times for all. It took smart, cool heads to avoid a US led greater depression.
I'm no Democrat, but I give credit where credit is due.
A hundred years from now, your statement will be considered the exact opposite of what you mean.
ahhhh... it brings back memories of being in a McDonalds, probably 2005 and Fox News was on the TV. They had a panel discussoin about how G.W. Bush was probably the best president of all time.
Still, where does it say that New York was going to be underwater today?
You claim specifically that New York was predicted to be underwater now, and your citations say not one thing about that.
Thanks for the paper. But after reading it, I cannot find any statements that New York was going to be underwater today, based on predictions made in 1999.
In all fairness, 70's era emissions controls often did ruin power, made manufactures cap away carb adjustments thereby making cars run like shit at altitude (burning too rich) without breaking the law by removing the caps, and further added complexity and common failure points (air injectors, coast rich systems, EGRs, and a spaghetti chase of vacuum hoses which became brittle and cracked under heat), often made cars commonly stumble and stall in traffic, AND to top all of that off, did have a measurable negative effect of gas mileage--during the oil crisis of all times.
Yes, those engines were a mess. I'm pretty sure the companies were pissed off at teh guvmint telling them what they had to do, in addition doing it in the cheapest way possible.
Your 4 cylinder Jeep that gets 30 mpg, puts out 156 bhp and 141 lb-ft. The only old school V8s with that little power and torque were the ones choked by early emissions control devices.
Way to not get the point. The point is that the concept of lower emmissions=lower gas mileage is not true. And I'm not certain that I ever claimed that my vehicle had more or less power than old V8's. Just that it keeps up with them. There was a time when if you had a four cylinder, you were paying a stiff performance price. Now you just drive them the same way. A drag race? Old V8 wins. Cruising down the interstate all day? No difference.
>
The problem with lead going away was that it was needed for the valves on older engines. Eventually hardened valve seats would eliminate the need but who had to pay for all of those engine rebuilds to install them.
There were a lot more problems created by keeping lead in the gasoline. Nasty expensive to society type problems. It's a pretty interesting story if you care to look it up.
Oh, what's the EPA fuel economy numbers for a 1985 Honda CRX HF? Almost 60 mpg highway. Twice what your Jeep that you are so proud of is rated at.
Yes, they did get pretty high gas mileage. I'm not certain what your point is here. A 1985 Honda CRX HF is not a drop in replacement for my vehicle. It's tiny and extremely light. I need 4WD and traction control and ground clearance, and some confidence that I'll make it out of the woods in the same shape I went in. That Honda was purpose built to get very high gas mileage. My vehicle is purpose built for different things, and the gas mileage is just icing on the cake. As well, there is a diminishing return on gasoline mileage. I think that you have been parsing my post for something to rail on, and forgetting that what I wrote was into direct reply to a person who said that Lower emissions =more fuel consumption.
Oh so emission standards is obamas fault? i don't recall him passing any. the last fleet economy standard update was likely under Bush. Oh and it's updated by congress not the president.
For some people, yes. You do know about the Tanks Obama movement. I thoght it was just a meme until was in a traffic jam with a guy once who spent the entire time blaming on Obama.
Everything is about climate change. If you don't think so, that just proves you don't properly understand the topic.
Funny - no, clever no, Merely an angry person with some sort of weird axe to grind. You make everything about AGW, not nthe rest of us. You're like the dum internet trolls og the early oughts that would turn a conversation about radio into abortion, then rant and rave.
And hey, did you get that response for me on the University of Miami research yet? I'm still waiting.
And if you say I already saw it again, you might as well admit - you got nothing.
I recall how in the eary 70's emmissions standard were going to destroy the automobile with engines getting terrible gas mileage, and no power.
And yet, here I am with a 4 cylinder Jeep that gets around 30 miles per gallon, and has enough ponies to keep up with traffic better than many old school V8's. And it's clean. Which by the way, is a lot better gas milage and power than a similar engine from before that time.
Somehow the deadly predictions didn't come true.
then again, what are ya gonna do - there are still people pissed off about them removing lead from gasoline.
Exactly. It's all a bunch of whining with no real impact at all. and honestly what they have to do to make them compliant is WORSE for the environment.
Slashdot Mirror
The fully charged batteries could be considered fuel.
They are definitely an energy source, so I'd accept them as fuel. But since I chimed in, and aimed at no one in particular, I'l go over the history of batteries and flight..
Batteries? We don't need no stinkin'batteries! Planes start by a strong back twirling the prop! Batteries? They are for starting the engines! That's about it.
Batteries? They'll never power any flying vehicle. That's crazy talk!
Batteries? Sure they can power RC planes, but they'll never power a real plane!
Batteries? Hell sure they are powering a plane, but they're so damn expensive - never be practical!
Battery powered planes? they are so awesome, and it's a pity we had to fight those damn liberals so many years to get them!
If software stops adding new features for one damn second, the bugs in general begin to trend towards zero.
rinse and repeat this a hundred times. With the exception of the longstanding outlook bug, and flash, the short cycle and feature bloat is a great way to ensure your system isn't protected.
I use DuckDuckGo, so I won't see this info I don't want to see. If I wanted schedule, I'd Goog^H^H^H^H^H^H^ search for it.
Million dollar porn.
Bionic?
Shemale midget scat porn.
We have family value politiciians who rail against homosexuality yet are found in airport bathrooms giving blowjobs to other guys, or family value preachers who likewise have sex with male hookers, or protectors of children who try to make dates with underage male interns or speakers of th ehouse who like to fuck high school wrestlers. Or people who won't issue marriage certificates for gays but have children out of wedlock and are serial bedders, or advisors to family values organizations that ll of the family values candidates pose with for piccys yet turn out fo pay hookers for sex, and turn out to be pedophiles.
The most immoral people I've ever met pretend have all day ot tell other people how sinful they are. Read into that as you will.
...what they found on the phone.
My guess....porn.
Million dollar porn.
Dear Slashdot,
A story about the death of Prince is not remotely on topic for what slashdot used to be about. No, it doesn't matter that he was musician number 105 to dislike the Internet. The word Internet does NOT make a topic relevant for slashdot in 2016. Maybe in 1995 it was news if something happened with regard to the Internet, but not today.
Could you please try to post stories about science or technology again. And real stories, not something at such a low level that tabloid magazines might post the same story.
Thanks in advance!
And yet le allow you anonymous Cowards to post good morning from the golden girls, ATK your mother and your homoerotic fantasies.
So as a tradeoff, I'll take Prince news any day, and a whole lot less ouf your crybabying about what should or should not be on Slashdot.
Which in my opinion is you. You're irrelevant.
If the predicted rise in sea level in that paper had happened, New York, Lousianna, heck, most of the coasts would be underwater by now. It did not happen.
All that means really is that our models just aren't very accurate yet.
I see no prediction of that in any reference you gave me. Since you appear to be playing me, TTFN!
You seem to underestimate the damage that porn is doing to people's lives. The only significant difference between being addicted to porn and being addicted to alcohol is that one can still watch porn and then drive without getting in trouble.
Well now, first off we have to define addiction I know of people who got ethanol intoxicted once, and decided they were an alcoholic, seriously you are a counselor, and equivocate porn with alcoholism?
As well with the definition, there are some spouses who consider looking at any porn as a betrayal equivalent to infidelity. Hell I was told by one of my confirmation instructors that masturbation meant you were a homosexual since you were stimulating a male genital to orgasm.
So while there are cases where it is plenty obvious, like a husband or wife who alllows their marriage to disintegrate while having plenty f time to spend watching porn, what of say, the woman who finds a playboy, considers it a betrayal, and demands that her husband go into treatment. Or those who consider any nudity as pornographic?
Or even bigger. In my area around 25 years ago, there was a "pornography awareness league" who defined pornography as anything that aroused a male sexually. Nudity? Oh only the beginning. They did include the lingerie section of the Sears and Penny's catalog. I dunno, I've looke dat those, and they do have some pretty nice ladies in them.
And while you might call that an outlier of no importance, our District attorney did, and went on a witch hunt of the porn shop 10 miles out of town.
The trial was of Scopish nature, and ended in a five minute recess where the jury declared him innocent, and had some words foro the DA as well.
Maybe the difficulty that you are having is that you are equating nudity with pornography. They are synonymous.
Did you men "Not" synonymous? As with so many of these things, it's interpretative. They did not go around putting fig leaves on ancient statues during victorian times because of the fig leaf advertising counsel. They considered any display of genitals as pornographic.
John Ashcroft disagrees with you as well http://usatoday30.usatoday.com... and http://unitedstatesgovernment....
And therein lies the problem.
Videos that graphical show gang rape or exploitation of children.
Not to mention, illegal, at least in the case of children. That's an illustration of the problem. It tends to cast people into "being" kiddie diddlers if they enjoy looking at naked ladies.
A 20 year old, made up to look like she is sixteen and watching the high school baseball practice, whereupon she is then assualted by the team and coaches and has a baseball bat inserted in various orifices, is they type of pornography the governor is refering to, not somebody looking at Penthouse.
I do not believe that for a second. If he does, it will be the absolute first time I have ever seen an anti-porn crusader ever have such a limited agenda. Ever.
The latter may be obscene, but it is not pornographic.
Generally, anti-porn crusaders consider obscenity as pornography. In fact, most of us do. Your interpretation is completely backwards.
Pornography is rampant and extremely harmful to one's psyche and seriously impacts the life of those obsessed with it.
Of course, we must protect people at all costs. Next we work on water intoxication. Did you know that people, somet9i9mes innocent children, get intoxicated by drinking copious amounts of water? People hae died from it ,We must eliminate this evil substance and now, before any more of oour precious future is destroyed .
It's time for me to get a deep dark secret off my back. When I was young
What? The deficit was almost 100% from the Bush era tax cuts (Republican policy) and waging two wars (neo-Con Republican policy).
That's part of the strategy. Declare war as a economic stimulus package, and through the magic of emergency appropriations, move the payback to another administration.
Which for all of the dehumanizing of Democrats, all of the hardly veiled racist hatred of the Kenyan terror baby, What happened from 2008 to now is amazing.
The real estate meltdown, the credit card debacle, coupled with the two front war, waged on the layaway plan, and payoff day arriving - and we were poised to make the 1930's look like good times for all. It took smart, cool heads to avoid a US led greater depression.
I'm no Democrat, but I give credit where credit is due.
I'm still hopeful.
It took a Jimmy Carter to get a Ronald Reagan.
Fingers crossed....
A hundred years from now, your statement will be considered the exact opposite of what you mean.
ahhhh... it brings back memories of being in a McDonalds, probably 2005 and Fox News was on the TV. They had a panel discussoin about how G.W. Bush was probably the best president of all time.
I agree. (Paypal from Illuminati received)
Of course! (wife kicks me in the ass)
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0102/earthpulse/ The bad part of the Internet is that history actually exists.
Still, where does it say that New York was going to be underwater today? You claim specifically that New York was predicted to be underwater now, and your citations say not one thing about that.
also this, slightly more peer reviewed: http://www.c2es.org/publications/sea-level-rise-global-climate-change-review-impacts-us-coasts
Thanks for the paper. But after reading it, I cannot find any statements that New York was going to be underwater today, based on predictions made in 1999.
Especially since the paper was written in 2000.
Or are you just having fun playing me?
There is typically a tradeoff in engine design between particulate emissions and NOx emissions.
This is true. As with anything else, there are tradeoffs
Moderated down for being a stalker
Sorry - I was just trying to get an answer to a question I've been asking for a week now. Thank you for your mod.
I was there, and I remember it too.
In all fairness, 70's era emissions controls often did ruin power, made manufactures cap away carb adjustments thereby making cars run like shit at altitude (burning too rich) without breaking the law by removing the caps, and further added complexity and common failure points (air injectors, coast rich systems, EGRs, and a spaghetti chase of vacuum hoses which became brittle and cracked under heat), often made cars commonly stumble and stall in traffic, AND to top all of that off, did have a measurable negative effect of gas mileage--during the oil crisis of all times.
Yes, those engines were a mess. I'm pretty sure the companies were pissed off at teh guvmint telling them what they had to do, in addition doing it in the cheapest way possible.
Your 4 cylinder Jeep that gets 30 mpg, puts out 156 bhp and 141 lb-ft. The only old school V8s with that little power and torque were the ones choked by early emissions control devices.
Way to not get the point. The point is that the concept of lower emmissions=lower gas mileage is not true. And I'm not certain that I ever claimed that my vehicle had more or less power than old V8's. Just that it keeps up with them. There was a time when if you had a four cylinder, you were paying a stiff performance price. Now you just drive them the same way. A drag race? Old V8 wins. Cruising down the interstate all day? No difference.
>
The problem with lead going away was that it was needed for the valves on older engines. Eventually hardened valve seats would eliminate the need but who had to pay for all of those engine rebuilds to install them.
There were a lot more problems created by keeping lead in the gasoline. Nasty expensive to society type problems. It's a pretty interesting story if you care to look it up.
Oh, what's the EPA fuel economy numbers for a 1985 Honda CRX HF? Almost 60 mpg highway. Twice what your Jeep that you are so proud of is rated at.
Yes, they did get pretty high gas mileage. I'm not certain what your point is here. A 1985 Honda CRX HF is not a drop in replacement for my vehicle. It's tiny and extremely light. I need 4WD and traction control and ground clearance, and some confidence that I'll make it out of the woods in the same shape I went in. That Honda was purpose built to get very high gas mileage. My vehicle is purpose built for different things, and the gas mileage is just icing on the cake. As well, there is a diminishing return on gasoline mileage. I think that you have been parsing my post for something to rail on, and forgetting that what I wrote was into direct reply to a person who said that Lower emissions =more fuel consumption.
Oh so emission standards is obamas fault? i don't recall him passing any. the last fleet economy standard update was likely under Bush. Oh and it's updated by congress not the president.
For some people, yes. You do know about the Tanks Obama movement. I thoght it was just a meme until was in a traffic jam with a guy once who spent the entire time blaming on Obama.
Everything is about climate change. If you don't think so, that just proves you don't properly understand the topic.
Funny - no, clever no, Merely an angry person with some sort of weird axe to grind. You make everything about AGW, not nthe rest of us. You're like the dum internet trolls og the early oughts that would turn a conversation about radio into abortion, then rant and rave.
And hey, did you get that response for me on the University of Miami research yet? I'm still waiting.
And if you say I already saw it again, you might as well admit - you got nothing.
Nothing
"Fixing" the problem reduces the fuel economy
I recall how in the eary 70's emmissions standard were going to destroy the automobile with engines getting terrible gas mileage, and no power.
And yet, here I am with a 4 cylinder Jeep that gets around 30 miles per gallon, and has enough ponies to keep up with traffic better than many old school V8's. And it's clean. Which by the way, is a lot better gas milage and power than a similar engine from before that time. Somehow the deadly predictions didn't come true.
then again, what are ya gonna do - there are still people pissed off about them removing lead from gasoline.
It's not supposed to be according to the predictions made in 1999.
Who's predictions made in 1999?
Agreed. Cars were advertised and sold as:
1. Performance: X 2. Mileage: Y MPG 3. Emissions: Meets General US and California specific emissions.
Right now, we have 1 and 2, but not 3. After the fix, it will have 3, but most likely neither 1 nor 2.
That's why God invented JATO.
Exactly. It's all a bunch of whining with no real impact at all. and honestly what they have to do to make them compliant is WORSE for the environment.
Explain?
Why isn't New York underwater today?
Because it's above sea level,