I happen to think that Fox can ask for any amount they want to carry their programming. I also think that Cablevision can refuse to pay this amount and simply stop carrying that programming. I think that Hulu can stream to people selectively if they wish, and people can choose to download available streams or not download them.
Free market principles.
Now Fox apparently feels that their programming is worth more than Cablevision thinks its worth. I do not think that this is in any way damning of either party, since they can both be right.
I will say this though. Cablevision had $7.77 billion in revenue at the end of 2009. Fox is asking for $150 million (1.9%) of this for the 12 channels that Cablevision was pulling from them, or about 0.16% of their revenue for each channel respectively. Also important is that Cablevision got into this same sort of fight earlier this year, twice, with Disney.
The same company that seems to have struggled since day one to remain solvent, always somehow being saved by a last minute injection of cash?
This company has spent more money on R&D for electric vehicles than other companies, which is where most of their net loss is located. It is not surprising that a company that spends a lot of money on R&D has "bad books" until they then sell the fruits of that R&D. Looking over their statements, it looks like the majority of the remaining loss (deducting R&D costs) this year was because of the purchase of a factory in California for $42 million in preparation for manufacturing the Model S (this purchase was nearly half of their revenue stream for the year.)
Obviously they will not recover the costs of the factory purchase until they start making vehicles in it.
This time last year they were turning a profit, so it looks to me like the loss you are speaking of is only a paper one (investment into future earnings), and that they have not been struggling since day 1 as you claim. This company has proven that they can make a profitable electric vehicle, and I fully expect the Model S to be even more profitable.
I think what a lot of people are forgetting is that oracle sells complete solutions. They don't just sell the database software.. they will deliver the hardware to run it on too, and give 24/7 support.
Oracle was using many of Sun's technologies prior to the buyout, including showcasing Solaris 10 as early as 2005 for their 64-bit platform, not to forget their heavy use of Java as well.
So oracle can go ahead and sell both ends of this stick.. OracleDB, MySQL, and oh look.. their BerkeleyDB is now SQL compatible.
But if YOU were also going to buy this book, and would have paid X to the bookstore..
When I read "ifs" like this one, I think "Imaginary People"
The postulation that someone will walk into the used book store and will buy this book is only confirmed in your complaint, that you don't like this specific persons reason for doing so when he does it. Everyone else you might dream up are imaginary with regards to this complaint. Nobody else walked into the used book store and purchased the book.
You have something I want and I have something you want. Maybe we will be allowed to trade without the intervention of assholes that use their imagination as justification from preventing the trade.
I mean this in all due respect. You sir, are stupid. Stupid meaning that you are not knowledgeable enough to draw the conclusions you are drawing (I know, because they are wrong.)
You claim that the pentagon could have had them remove important names, as well as enough unimportant ones. But they would also have to LEAVE some important ones, or else they are increasing the amount of sensitive information in the wild.
The end result of this line of thinking is that they would have to have them remove names COMPLETELY RANDOMLY, which is no better than removing NONE AT ALL from an information-increasing standpoint, but has the downside that IT PAINTS A BULLSEYE ON RANDOM PEOPLE.
Master all of these subjects (the last one is easy) and then shove your argument up your ass. People who argue endlessly about shit they dont know anything about make me fucking sick.
I don't trust Doubleclick ever, regardless of what else I allow.
Relying on NoScript to avoid connecting to DoubleClick doesnt seem like a foolproof method. Wouldnt it be superior to banish DoubleClick forever with your hosts file, or firewall, or any of the other ways that actually prevent all communication with DoubleClick? NoScript doesnt prevent communications with DoubleClick.. it just prevents scripts from being run, which doesnt seem to be your actual intention.
Extra level of nesting and not immediately obvious where the code will jump to. Like I say, it's useful, but there has to be a better way to do this.
For exception handling, I am not sure that there actually is a better way. You can maintain readability with self-control, by never handling exceptions more than one call backwards from where they happened. The alternatives are error singletons/globals or the classic BASIC On Error Goto/Gosub (which is actually a super-set of modern exception handling methods, strangely enough, less structured but more powerful because of it)
There is no other language that comes even close to C++ in terms of performance..
..sure, as long as you ignore the fact that most compilers for other languages are equal to or only slightly worse in performance that your typical C++ compiler (VC++, GCC).. basically as long as you ignore the evidence that says you are full of shit here, you are right.
There has still been a bit of refinement in the standard Structured+OO paradigm, with for example Generics (first seen in Ada in 1983, but not to hit mainstream languages until C#/Java, and as templates in C++)
Many programmers wouldnt want to go without some form of Generics today for any project of a significant size. All that research, when its proven useful, eventually makes its way into something more popular than the languages that pioneered them. The alternatives to generics are either re-inventing-the-wheel, inefficient-runtime-dynamics, or the complete-loss-of-type-safety. Thank you Jean Ichbiah (inventor of Ada!)
Opinions differ, but the main arguments you see here today are "Opera doesnt have NoScript" and "Opera has a weird interface"
The later one is asinine since its also one of the most configurable browser in regards to the interface. You can move buttons and menus pretty much anywhere, and so forth.
The former one.. well.. there are multiple Opera alternatives to NoScript, some built in and some in the form of UserJS.. The UserJS BlockIt certainly isn't as polished as NoScript, but it does have an extensive feature set (even blocking images and so forth, with per-element whitelists.. the whole 9 yards..) Personally I dont have a desire to be sp paranoid that I need that granularity.. I have JavaScript and plugins disabled by default and whitelist an entire site for JavaScript when I need it (either I trust the site, or I don't.. I'm not going to actually look at the scripts), and run plugins only on-demand.
We're both aware that Multiverse & Universe contain a lot more packages than what MS offers. Also, we're both aware that MS can fix more than one bug with one update. So yah, apples & oranges.
You want it to be apples to oranges when the sheer magnitude of the number of fixes to ubuntu are actually documented for you (you obviously didnt know that thousands of patches are needed every few months.)
Your attempt to belittle Windows because of "biggest patch tuesday ever" seems to have completely backfired for you. Thousands of patches for ubuntu in no more than 5 months. Thats *THOUSANDS*
I like linux but I dont like zealots that dont know what the hell they are talking about demeaning windows.
A detailed analysis if I ever saw one. As you are a fan of linking to lists for others to pick from, I'll be game: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem/thread.
Did you know that Ad Hominem's must actually be part of the argument, ie, attempt to (oh look, its in your link) link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise.
For example, calling you an ignorant dipshit is not an Ad Hominem. Saying that you are wrong because you are an ignorant dipshit would be an Ad Hominem.
Pre-Pay is The Way. Hell, my phone tells me how many minutes I have left, and this feature was enabled by default.
The mind-set of a pre-pay service is to tell the customer how many minutes they have left in order to induce them into buying more minutes, sooner. The last thing the pre-pay company wants is for you to run out of minutes, because when that happens you have to make the call on a different phone and thus they wont be making any money from you until you get around to paying for more time.
The mind-set of these other plans is to never willingly tell the customer how many minutes they have left, and then jump for joy as soon as your minutes are up.
This scene begins in July of 1992 when ATF agents began surveillance on a domicile suspected to contain 150 weapons, including AR-15's and M16's, and 8100 rounds of ammunition.
After watching for 6 months the ATF finally obtained a search warrant so in February of 1993, they received weeks of training by Special Forces out of Fort Hood specifically for this raid, and then prepared to move in to seize the weapons and arrest the owner.
The raiding party assembled at a staging area near the property, the convoy consisted of 80 vehicles that stretched over a mile long coming out of Fort Hood.
After being informed that the residence were tipped off to the raid, these Special Forces trained ATF agents who expected to face AR-15's and M16's proceeded cautiously. They used helicopters with armed men, as well as a large invasion force on the ground.
The ATF managed to lose 4 agents (Special Agents Todd McKeehan, Conway LeBleu, Robert Williams, and Steve Willis) before having to retreat from the property and call in even more firepower than the literal battalion of men they already had.
The location of this event was Waco Texas.
So no, we do not believe that some nerd FBI agent assigned to tag a vehicle with a tracking device, is going to somehow be a super-agent with more skills than the Special Forces trained ATF agents (veterans that routinely raid homes) that had their ass handed to them in Waco by a disorganized militia of religious nuts.
But I can figure out that if your hammer isn't big enough, you get a bigger one.
The translation of your ignorance is "then get one that weighs as much, is as big as, and uses as much fuel as the engines in current cars", defeating your entire point about a small generator providing enough power for a car while using less gasoline and running for hours on end.
That was your original point, right? That you somehow thought they could just drop in a small generator like the one you have, and run your car, for 18 to 20 hours.. right? Right?
Here, let me quote your dumb ass:
I have a generator that produces gobs of power (something like 1500 amps) for periods of 18-20 hours, using only 7 gallons of gasoline to do so. You could go an awful long ways on 18-20 hours of driving time.
First we find that (a) you dont know what power is, and (b) the actual power your generator produces (6250 watts) can only run a riding mower.
Later on, we find that (c) you didn't know that generators that produce 80000 watts, which is on the low end for typical car powering needs, weigh as much as the engines already in cars and use approximately the same amount of fuel as engines already in cars.
The absolute limit of chemical energy in gasoline is about 36,650 watts per gallon per hour, meaning several gallons per hour is the absolute idealized minimum you need to burn in order to generate 80,000 watts of power.
Isn't knowledge grand? Here is a tip. Stick to subjects you actually know stuff about, dont make declarations you can't possibly know are accurate, and when someone corrects you when you are standing on the thin ice of ignorance.. don't respond by calling them names.
So essentially, this clown has a long track record of making claims about subjects he knows pretty much nothing about? Hell, he doesnt even seem to ever know the terminology used in the fields he is pretending to know-for-a-fact about. Simply amazing.
Even the experts have a difficult time agreeing on what "electricity" is.
The experts don't agree that electricity is flowing charged particles? That a moving electric field creates a moving magnetic field, and vise-versa? Really?
I already stated I'm not an electrical engineer. I guess I should have gone further, and stated that I'm not a mechanical engineer, either, nor am I any kind of rocket surgeon.
We are talking about shit you should have learned in high school, or even if you picked up any of a number of pop-sci physics books. This is basic ordinary non-advanced physics.
I still believe that enough energy to power a house (not just lights, but window-unit air conditioners, a refrigerator, washer and dryer, the whole shebang) should be enough energy to power a car.
Why?
Power is Mass * Distance^2 / Time^3.
Note the Mass term. None of the things in your house moves items that are anywhere near as massive as your car. The amount of power required to spin that tank in your washing machine is nothing compared to the amount of power required for accelerating a multi-thousand pound vehicle.
Dunno how much you know about generators, but this one is small enough for a single person to lift, unaided.
If cars could be powered with such small internal combustion engines, we would be powering cars with small internal combustion engines. Instead, we power riding lawnmowers with such small internal combustion engines.
Ok, you made me actually go out to the garage and look. It's a 6250 watt Coleman Powermate. It ran a house, I'm pretty sure it could run [an electric] car. Now shove off.
No, 8 horsepower will not run a car. You could run a self-propelled lawnmower with a little to spare. The very first mass-produced car engines such as found in the Ford Model-T produced 3 times as much power as that generator you have.
As I said, you are an ignorant douche bag that doesnt know what the fuck he is talking about.
Just so you know, 1 horsepower = 745.7 watts. Yes, they really are interchangeable.
So you are apparently arguing that a generator that can produce at most 2 horsepower could run a car for many hours on only a few gallon of gasoline?
Your typical modern 4 cylinder internal combustion engine produces 90000 watts of power.
Besides, the "power" I was referring to was "electricity", you pedantic punk.
Pedantic punk? I only pointed it out because what you were saying didnt make any sense. Now that you know that a small 4 cylinder car engine produces 60 times as much power as that shitty generator you were so proud of, would you like to revisit why this conversation is happening?
Couldn't it be that this conversation is happening not because I am a pedantic punk, but instead because you are an ignorant douche bag that doesnt know what the fuck he is talking about? That you are making bullshit claims that have nothing to do with reality? Hmmmm.
Nevermind, I don't know what I was thinking there. This is slashdot, where people with nothing to say get to shout it at the top of their lungs.
Slashdot Mirror
Principles is a funny thing.
I happen to think that Fox can ask for any amount they want to carry their programming. I also think that Cablevision can refuse to pay this amount and simply stop carrying that programming. I think that Hulu can stream to people selectively if they wish, and people can choose to download available streams or not download them.
Free market principles.
Now Fox apparently feels that their programming is worth more than Cablevision thinks its worth. I do not think that this is in any way damning of either party, since they can both be right.
I will say this though. Cablevision had $7.77 billion in revenue at the end of 2009. Fox is asking for $150 million (1.9%) of this for the 12 channels that Cablevision was pulling from them, or about 0.16% of their revenue for each channel respectively. Also important is that Cablevision got into this same sort of fight earlier this year, twice, with Disney.
The same company that seems to have struggled since day one to remain solvent, always somehow being saved by a last minute injection of cash?
This company has spent more money on R&D for electric vehicles than other companies, which is where most of their net loss is located. It is not surprising that a company that spends a lot of money on R&D has "bad books" until they then sell the fruits of that R&D. Looking over their statements, it looks like the majority of the remaining loss (deducting R&D costs) this year was because of the purchase of a factory in California for $42 million in preparation for manufacturing the Model S (this purchase was nearly half of their revenue stream for the year.)
Obviously they will not recover the costs of the factory purchase until they start making vehicles in it.
This time last year they were turning a profit, so it looks to me like the loss you are speaking of is only a paper one (investment into future earnings), and that they have not been struggling since day 1 as you claim. This company has proven that they can make a profitable electric vehicle, and I fully expect the Model S to be even more profitable.
I think what a lot of people are forgetting is that oracle sells complete solutions. They don't just sell the database software.. they will deliver the hardware to run it on too, and give 24/7 support.
Oracle was using many of Sun's technologies prior to the buyout, including showcasing Solaris 10 as early as 2005 for their 64-bit platform, not to forget their heavy use of Java as well.
So oracle can go ahead and sell both ends of this stick.. OracleDB, MySQL, and oh look.. their BerkeleyDB is now SQL compatible.
But if YOU were also going to buy this book, and would have paid X to the bookstore..
When I read "ifs" like this one, I think "Imaginary People"
The postulation that someone will walk into the used book store and will buy this book is only confirmed in your complaint, that you don't like this specific persons reason for doing so when he does it. Everyone else you might dream up are imaginary with regards to this complaint. Nobody else walked into the used book store and purchased the book.
You have something I want and I have something you want. Maybe we will be allowed to trade without the intervention of assholes that use their imagination as justification from preventing the trade.
Dell reported in 2008 that "Our global reliability data shows that SSD drives are equal to or better than traditional hard disk drives we've shipped."
I mean this in all due respect. You sir, are stupid. Stupid meaning that you are not knowledgeable enough to draw the conclusions you are drawing (I know, because they are wrong.)
You claim that the pentagon could have had them remove important names, as well as enough unimportant ones. But they would also have to LEAVE some important ones, or else they are increasing the amount of sensitive information in the wild.
The end result of this line of thinking is that they would have to have them remove names COMPLETELY RANDOMLY, which is no better than removing NONE AT ALL from an information-increasing standpoint, but has the downside that IT PAINTS A BULLSEYE ON RANDOM PEOPLE.
Citrations:
Game Theory
Information Theory
Monty Hall Problem
Master all of these subjects (the last one is easy) and then shove your argument up your ass. People who argue endlessly about shit they dont know anything about make me fucking sick.
Just to nitpick a bit, Java's generics fall under "inefficient runtime dynamics" plus partial loss of type safety.
Didn't know that about Java's Generics, thanks!
I don't trust Doubleclick ever, regardless of what else I allow.
Relying on NoScript to avoid connecting to DoubleClick doesnt seem like a foolproof method. Wouldnt it be superior to banish DoubleClick forever with your hosts file, or firewall, or any of the other ways that actually prevent all communication with DoubleClick? NoScript doesnt prevent communications with DoubleClick.. it just prevents scripts from being run, which doesnt seem to be your actual intention.
Extra level of nesting and not immediately obvious where the code will jump to. Like I say, it's useful, but there has to be a better way to do this.
For exception handling, I am not sure that there actually is a better way. You can maintain readability with self-control, by never handling exceptions more than one call backwards from where they happened. The alternatives are error singletons/globals or the classic BASIC On Error Goto/Gosub (which is actually a super-set of modern exception handling methods, strangely enough, less structured but more powerful because of it)
Of all things I have seen languages become, C++ templates has got to be the single worst over-complication.
Pulling a figure out of my ass, I am guessing about 98% of templates are just implementing Generics.
The other languages that support Generics do so cleanly and simply, and then there is this C++ template monolith. Even BASIC has better generics now.
There is no other language that comes even close to C++ in terms of performance..
There has still been a bit of refinement in the standard Structured+OO paradigm, with for example Generics (first seen in Ada in 1983, but not to hit mainstream languages until C#/Java, and as templates in C++)
Many programmers wouldnt want to go without some form of Generics today for any project of a significant size. All that research, when its proven useful, eventually makes its way into something more popular than the languages that pioneered them. The alternatives to generics are either re-inventing-the-wheel, inefficient-runtime-dynamics, or the complete-loss-of-type-safety. Thank you Jean Ichbiah (inventor of Ada!)
Opinions differ, but the main arguments you see here today are "Opera doesnt have NoScript" and "Opera has a weird interface"
.. The UserJS BlockIt certainly isn't as polished as NoScript, but it does have an extensive feature set (even blocking images and so forth, with per-element whitelists .. the whole 9 yards..) Personally I dont have a desire to be sp paranoid that I need that granularity .. I have JavaScript and plugins disabled by default and whitelist an entire site for JavaScript when I need it (either I trust the site, or I don't.. I'm not going to actually look at the scripts), and run plugins only on-demand.
The later one is asinine since its also one of the most configurable browser in regards to the interface. You can move buttons and menus pretty much anywhere, and so forth.
The former one.. well.. there are multiple Opera alternatives to NoScript, some built in and some in the form of UserJS
NoScript? You mean like BlockIt, a UserJS for Opera that has all the features you detailed as requirements?
Some Linux users regularly do shit like 'sudo dpkg -i it_sounded_cool_when_i_downloaded_it.deb'
..or worse, follow the onscreen instructions to add a repository so that they can get that it_sounded_cool_when_i_surfed_here.deb
We're both aware that Multiverse & Universe contain a lot more packages than what MS offers. Also, we're both aware that MS can fix more than one bug with one update. So yah, apples & oranges.
You want it to be apples to oranges when the sheer magnitude of the number of fixes to ubuntu are actually documented for you (you obviously didnt know that thousands of patches are needed every few months.)
Your attempt to belittle Windows because of "biggest patch tuesday ever" seems to have completely backfired for you. Thousands of patches for ubuntu in no more than 5 months. Thats *THOUSANDS*
I like linux but I dont like zealots that dont know what the hell they are talking about demeaning windows.
A detailed analysis if I ever saw one. As you are a fan of linking to lists for others to pick from, I'll be game: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem /thread.
Did you know that Ad Hominem's must actually be part of the argument, ie, attempt to (oh look, its in your link) link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise.
For example, calling you an ignorant dipshit is not an Ad Hominem. Saying that you are wrong because you are an ignorant dipshit would be an Ad Hominem.
Zealots and their faulty logic. Simply amazing.
There's no benefit to doing unnecessary work as an engineer
Then why make them use infix? Did you not know that between postfix and infix, it is infix that requires unnecessary work?
Agreed 100%
Pre-Pay is The Way. Hell, my phone tells me how many minutes I have left, and this feature was enabled by default.
The mind-set of a pre-pay service is to tell the customer how many minutes they have left in order to induce them into buying more minutes, sooner. The last thing the pre-pay company wants is for you to run out of minutes, because when that happens you have to make the call on a different phone and thus they wont be making any money from you until you get around to paying for more time.
The mind-set of these other plans is to never willingly tell the customer how many minutes they have left, and then jump for joy as soon as your minutes are up.
This scene begins in July of 1992 when ATF agents began surveillance on a domicile suspected to contain 150 weapons, including AR-15's and M16's, and 8100 rounds of ammunition.
After watching for 6 months the ATF finally obtained a search warrant so in February of 1993, they received weeks of training by Special Forces out of Fort Hood specifically for this raid, and then prepared to move in to seize the weapons and arrest the owner.
The raiding party assembled at a staging area near the property, the convoy consisted of 80 vehicles that stretched over a mile long coming out of Fort Hood.
After being informed that the residence were tipped off to the raid, these Special Forces trained ATF agents who expected to face AR-15's and M16's proceeded cautiously. They used helicopters with armed men, as well as a large invasion force on the ground.
The ATF managed to lose 4 agents (Special Agents Todd McKeehan, Conway LeBleu, Robert Williams, and Steve Willis) before having to retreat from the property and call in even more firepower than the literal battalion of men they already had.
The location of this event was Waco Texas.
So no, we do not believe that some nerd FBI agent assigned to tag a vehicle with a tracking device, is going to somehow be a super-agent with more skills than the Special Forces trained ATF agents (veterans that routinely raid homes) that had their ass handed to them in Waco by a disorganized militia of religious nuts.
But I can figure out that if your hammer isn't big enough, you get a bigger one.
The translation of your ignorance is "then get one that weighs as much, is as big as, and uses as much fuel as the engines in current cars", defeating your entire point about a small generator providing enough power for a car while using less gasoline and running for hours on end.
That was your original point, right? That you somehow thought they could just drop in a small generator like the one you have, and run your car, for 18 to 20 hours.. right? Right?
Here, let me quote your dumb ass:
I have a generator that produces gobs of power (something like 1500 amps) for periods of 18-20 hours, using only 7 gallons of gasoline to do so. You could go an awful long ways on 18-20 hours of driving time.
First we find that (a) you dont know what power is, and (b) the actual power your generator produces (6250 watts) can only run a riding mower.
Later on, we find that (c) you didn't know that generators that produce 80000 watts, which is on the low end for typical car powering needs, weigh as much as the engines already in cars and use approximately the same amount of fuel as engines already in cars.
The absolute limit of chemical energy in gasoline is about 36,650 watts per gallon per hour, meaning several gallons per hour is the absolute idealized minimum you need to burn in order to generate 80,000 watts of power.
Isn't knowledge grand? Here is a tip. Stick to subjects you actually know stuff about, dont make declarations you can't possibly know are accurate, and when someone corrects you when you are standing on the thin ice of ignorance.. don't respond by calling them names.
Har Har Har.
So essentially, this clown has a long track record of making claims about subjects he knows pretty much nothing about? Hell, he doesnt even seem to ever know the terminology used in the fields he is pretending to know-for-a-fact about. Simply amazing.
Even the experts have a difficult time agreeing on what "electricity" is.
The experts don't agree that electricity is flowing charged particles? That a moving electric field creates a moving magnetic field, and vise-versa? Really?
I already stated I'm not an electrical engineer. I guess I should have gone further, and stated that I'm not a mechanical engineer, either, nor am I any kind of rocket surgeon.
We are talking about shit you should have learned in high school, or even if you picked up any of a number of pop-sci physics books. This is basic ordinary non-advanced physics.
I still believe that enough energy to power a house (not just lights, but window-unit air conditioners, a refrigerator, washer and dryer, the whole shebang) should be enough energy to power a car.
Why?
Power is Mass * Distance^2 / Time^3.
Note the Mass term. None of the things in your house moves items that are anywhere near as massive as your car. The amount of power required to spin that tank in your washing machine is nothing compared to the amount of power required for accelerating a multi-thousand pound vehicle.
Dunno how much you know about generators, but this one is small enough for a single person to lift, unaided.
If cars could be powered with such small internal combustion engines, we would be powering cars with small internal combustion engines. Instead, we power riding lawnmowers with such small internal combustion engines.
You remain a douche bag.
Your typical modern 4 cylinder internal combustion engine produces no electrical energy.
Energy is interchangeable. Did you not go to high school?
..this includes that voodoo "electrical energy" you keep referring to.
Power = Work / Time
Did you drop out of school?
Ok, you made me actually go out to the garage and look. It's a 6250 watt Coleman Powermate. It ran a house, I'm pretty sure it could run [an electric] car. Now shove off.
No, 8 horsepower will not run a car. You could run a self-propelled lawnmower with a little to spare. The very first mass-produced car engines such as found in the Ford Model-T produced 3 times as much power as that generator you have.
As I said, you are an ignorant douche bag that doesnt know what the fuck he is talking about.
Just so you know, 1 horsepower = 745.7 watts. Yes, they really are interchangeable.
1500 watts, then.
So you are apparently arguing that a generator that can produce at most 2 horsepower could run a car for many hours on only a few gallon of gasoline?
Your typical modern 4 cylinder internal combustion engine produces 90000 watts of power.
Besides, the "power" I was referring to was "electricity", you pedantic punk.
Pedantic punk? I only pointed it out because what you were saying didnt make any sense. Now that you know that a small 4 cylinder car engine produces 60 times as much power as that shitty generator you were so proud of, would you like to revisit why this conversation is happening?
Couldn't it be that this conversation is happening not because I am a pedantic punk, but instead because you are an ignorant douche bag that doesnt know what the fuck he is talking about? That you are making bullshit claims that have nothing to do with reality? Hmmmm.
Nevermind, I don't know what I was thinking there. This is slashdot, where people with nothing to say get to shout it at the top of their lungs.
Har Har Har.