The manufacturers have actually been quite open that the current tests, designed long before hybrids existed, tend to overstate the mileage for hybrids even more than they overstate mileage for regular cars. However, the EPA has not revised the tests, and the manufacturers are stuck with the mileage ratings from the government-specified tests.
I don't know specifically about hybrids, but in Canada the MPG rates are used quite openly with all models to brag about their better efficiency compared to their competitors.
When I failed to match the MPG announced for my Smart, all that the technical consultant from Mercedes had to say was that these MPG rates are unrealistic and are not to be taken seriously.
So I'm not inclined to pity the poor manufacturers for failing to have a realistic rating.
In my case, I was wondering if somebody would mention if the lack of a "permanent" energy source like the Sun would spell the death of our planet anyway, if the dying, expanding Sun didn't get rid of it first after all.
- For 10 years, the R&D departments of companies A, B and C would not touch technology X due to its patented situation since the individual or company who owned the patent did not want to license it or the license made the investment prohibitive. [hinder example]
or
- Companies A, B and C did not fret to develop over patented technology X, creating innovations 1, 2 and 3. [no effect example]
or
- Company A came up with technology Y one year after technology X, previously patented by company B, developing over the idea behind X with a much better approach. It did so because it did not want to deal with the patent behind X. [innovation example]
Wouldn't such examples, provided they can be proved beyond reasonable doubt, be non anecdotal?
Yes, and patents have existed this entire time. And look at where we are now. IF we were still using punch cards, then you'd have a good argument that software patents stifled innovation. But we aren't. You're agreeing with my point - software has advanced incredibly far over the past 40 years, so any claim that software patents stifle innovation has a really high bar to jump.
If I understand your argument well, you're saying that because software advanced so much in 40 years with patents, then patents must be great for innovation of software.
If that's the case, how come other patentable things like car parts didn't advance as much? WHERE IS MY FLYING CAR?
Seriously though (wait, was I joking? Anyway...), I can't help but imagine two situations:
First, if we were still using punch cards and/or software had not advanced as much as it did but still advanced, how would we be able to tell that it could not have advanced much more without patents?
Then, how to tell if all this advance we did have would not have happened in 20 years instead of 40 if there were no patents?
Maybe it's time to do some real science and show examples where patents helped or hindered innovation so that the argument can continue.
And voters in Canada, who finally put those funny guys in majority power, are doing what exactly?
Except for Quebec voters, which broke their long tradition of voting for their own local interests and went massively for the NPD, the rest of the country clearly chose the government they have today.
And there's no excuse of the "I didn't know" sort. This same government which is now majority has been announcing all what it's doing now in the past minority-years. It's going exactly according to its promises.
It's bad business model to support everything forever. It makes each new version more expensive than any predecessor due to the extra validation, maintenance and support. What customer wants to buy new software that costs ever more than the predecessor?
Show some successful companies that keep support for everything they ever made as API, or please stop trying to win the "discussion" by repeating the same thing over and over until we agree just to stop the torture.
Hmm... that's not what I understood from the summary. That is, I didn't understand that the article talked about how galaxies with closer arms rotate faster than galaxies with stretched arms and why.
Instead, what I understood is more like when you stretch your arms, they keep your elbows and hands rotating around you with the same orbital velocity, regardless of this common velocity being faster or slower for the entire body. But since there are no real arms linking the galaxy's elements, the orbital velocity of an object far from the center should be slower than that of a nearer object, I guess making galaxies look like discs instead of stretching arms. Yet, that's not how they look.
The article then tries to explain it with gravity from faraway objects as opposed to dark matter.
For some reason, I don't get the impression that someone going through the trouble of polling all this money for such a bogus treatment will ever realize their mistake. I bet the quack thinks the same.
So it comes down to this: what do you believe? Here are some options:
God and the bible: it says that it's all true (Self-fulfilling). If you don't believe it you're a heretic. Never mind if it doesn't match reality.
Documentaries: they tell you their point of view and show you sensationalist arguments to convince you. They don't tell you to search for certain key words on Google, but that would be too bothersome for you anyway.
Politicians: they need your vote. They'll do their best to pass their message in a way that makes you give it, even if it means not passing the message at all.
Scientists: they want to find breakthroughs. They need money for their research. Real scientists work according to the principles of science. Others are actually pseudo-scientists.
Science: it's based on some principles which are very easy to understand: (1) state your hypothesis, (2) show your data, (3) if it can't be replicated (peer review), it's not true. Unfortunately, to be able to understand some scientific articles you may need to be a scientist yourself.
My point is that it's not the moral code which is open for debate, it's the goal.
People can't maximize humanity's potential by killing off people as they like: they'd be removing potential subjects from the pool and provoking waste of energy in (1) people worrying if they will be next and (2) people trying to put the killers out of business.
If, in the other hand, the goal is to maximize your own individual potential with zero regard for others, then you're sure to kill whoever is in your way, as long as you're sure to not be caught.
If the goal is to shove a certain set of religious beliefs down as many people as possible and that's all, there will probably be another quite well defined set of moral codes to go with that.
To me, it's a little shallow to stop at "there's no absolute moral".
Looks pretty fresh, so that would explain the lack of coverage. Also, the DNS cache poisoning don't seem to be confirmed yet, only the home router cracking. And the guy who went to jail for being paid to change DNS settings is from a small (?) country town, so the reach of this damage might be negligible country-wise.
Slashdot Mirror
The manufacturers have actually been quite open that the current tests, designed long before hybrids existed, tend to overstate the mileage for hybrids even more than they overstate mileage for regular cars. However, the EPA has not revised the tests, and the manufacturers are stuck with the mileage ratings from the government-specified tests.
I don't know specifically about hybrids, but in Canada the MPG rates are used quite openly with all models to brag about their better efficiency compared to their competitors.
When I failed to match the MPG announced for my Smart, all that the technical consultant from Mercedes had to say was that these MPG rates are unrealistic and are not to be taken seriously.
So I'm not inclined to pity the poor manufacturers for failing to have a realistic rating.
In my case, I was wondering if somebody would mention if the lack of a "permanent" energy source like the Sun would spell the death of our planet anyway, if the dying, expanding Sun didn't get rid of it first after all.
After what I saw on X-Men 3 I considered myself sufficiently warned and thought people who cared about the comics would be too.
I would expect something in the likes of:
- For 10 years, the R&D departments of companies A, B and C would not touch technology X due to its patented situation since the individual or company who owned the patent did not want to license it or the license made the investment prohibitive. [hinder example]
or
- Companies A, B and C did not fret to develop over patented technology X, creating innovations 1, 2 and 3. [no effect example]
or
- Company A came up with technology Y one year after technology X, previously patented by company B, developing over the idea behind X with a much better approach. It did so because it did not want to deal with the patent behind X. [innovation example]
Wouldn't such examples, provided they can be proved beyond reasonable doubt, be non anecdotal?
Yes, and patents have existed this entire time. And look at where we are now. IF we were still using punch cards, then you'd have a good argument that software patents stifled innovation. But we aren't. You're agreeing with my point - software has advanced incredibly far over the past 40 years, so any claim that software patents stifle innovation has a really high bar to jump.
If I understand your argument well, you're saying that because software advanced so much in 40 years with patents, then patents must be great for innovation of software.
If that's the case, how come other patentable things like car parts didn't advance as much? WHERE IS MY FLYING CAR?
Seriously though (wait, was I joking? Anyway...), I can't help but imagine two situations:
First, if we were still using punch cards and/or software had not advanced as much as it did but still advanced, how would we be able to tell that it could not have advanced much more without patents?
Then, how to tell if all this advance we did have would not have happened in 20 years instead of 40 if there were no patents?
Maybe it's time to do some real science and show examples where patents helped or hindered innovation so that the argument can continue.
They must be taking Steve Ballmer as role model...
Screw it, I'm going to Mars.
And voters in Canada, who finally put those funny guys in majority power, are doing what exactly?
Except for Quebec voters, which broke their long tradition of voting for their own local interests and went massively for the NPD, the rest of the country clearly chose the government they have today.
And there's no excuse of the "I didn't know" sort. This same government which is now majority has been announcing all what it's doing now in the past minority-years. It's going exactly according to its promises.
The only problem with this line of thought is that Kyoto is expiring ANYWAY. It doesn't need to be sabotaged to be replaced.
In the mean time, Canada puts itself next to the countries which chose to be part of the problem instead of the solution.
Clem has made anti-semantic remarks
You mean, like "you're a grammar-nazi"?
It's bad business model to support everything forever. It makes each new version more expensive than any predecessor due to the extra validation, maintenance and support. What customer wants to buy new software that costs ever more than the predecessor?
Show some successful companies that keep support for everything they ever made as API, or please stop trying to win the "discussion" by repeating the same thing over and over until we agree just to stop the torture.
Hmm... that's not what I understood from the summary. That is, I didn't understand that the article talked about how galaxies with closer arms rotate faster than galaxies with stretched arms and why.
Instead, what I understood is more like when you stretch your arms, they keep your elbows and hands rotating around you with the same orbital velocity, regardless of this common velocity being faster or slower for the entire body. But since there are no real arms linking the galaxy's elements, the orbital velocity of an object far from the center should be slower than that of a nearer object, I guess making galaxies look like discs instead of stretching arms. Yet, that's not how they look.
The article then tries to explain it with gravity from faraway objects as opposed to dark matter.
I could of course have misunderstood it entirely.
Does it matter?
Only if it's dark.
For some reason, I don't get the impression that someone going through the trouble of polling all this money for such a bogus treatment will ever realize their mistake. I bet the quack thinks the same.
Thank you for your contribution. I wish you a bright future with a more mature mind.
So it comes down to this: what do you believe? Here are some options:
God and the bible: it says that it's all true (Self-fulfilling). If you don't believe it you're a heretic. Never mind if it doesn't match reality.
Documentaries: they tell you their point of view and show you sensationalist arguments to convince you. They don't tell you to search for certain key words on Google, but that would be too bothersome for you anyway.
Politicians: they need your vote. They'll do their best to pass their message in a way that makes you give it, even if it means not passing the message at all.
Scientists: they want to find breakthroughs. They need money for their research. Real scientists work according to the principles of science. Others are actually pseudo-scientists.
Science: it's based on some principles which are very easy to understand: (1) state your hypothesis, (2) show your data, (3) if it can't be replicated (peer review), it's not true. Unfortunately, to be able to understand some scientific articles you may need to be a scientist yourself.
Silly, you don't want the pills to go faster, you want the patients to feel better! You have to paint smileys on them!
My point is that it's not the moral code which is open for debate, it's the goal.
People can't maximize humanity's potential by killing off people as they like: they'd be removing potential subjects from the pool and provoking waste of energy in (1) people worrying if they will be next and (2) people trying to put the killers out of business.
If, in the other hand, the goal is to maximize your own individual potential with zero regard for others, then you're sure to kill whoever is in your way, as long as you're sure to not be caught.
If the goal is to shove a certain set of religious beliefs down as many people as possible and that's all, there will probably be another quite well defined set of moral codes to go with that.
To me, it's a little shallow to stop at "there's no absolute moral".
Read the link attentively. That's BBC, not "a homeopathy site". Plus, it doesn't advertise homeopathy, just explains all sides of the subject.
Except that these patients bring a lot of people to hand out the money for their delusion.
Moral is only relative if the goal for moral is relative.
Specify the goal (for example, to maximize humanity's potential) and you will end up with a moral code that accepts little variation.
You mean his clinic's PR posing as a lawyer.
Do your own homework instead of not thinking.
FTFY
And those heretic scientific books! Don't forget the books!
Here.
Looks pretty fresh, so that would explain the lack of coverage. Also, the DNS cache poisoning don't seem to be confirmed yet, only the home router cracking. And the guy who went to jail for being paid to change DNS settings is from a small (?) country town, so the reach of this damage might be negligible country-wise.