Electric with a gasoline generator is the best thing for high efficiency right now -- however, I sure as hell hope that GM has direct injection on that engine. Does anyone know the specs for the 1 liter gasoline engine?
If that engine is port injected and getting 50 mpg while running off gasoline, then if GM put DI on it they could cut the engine size to.7 liters and boost mpg to at least 60 mpg (probably more like 70-75 mpg).
A VAT is a bad idea because you end up paying multiple taxes on the same item. For example, with a VAT when the plastic for a tv is made you pay a tax on it (as well as a tax on the creation of the inputs to making that plastic) then you pay a tax on the materials for the screen, then a tax on every other part of it.
A sales tax (and ONLY a sales tax) is much better way of taxing consumption. There's actually a bill up in Congress proposing just such a thing called the Fairtax.
Seriously? He's complaining that they don't get a big enough cut of the profit for each subscriber? With an actual print newspaper, it costs money for each copy printed. However, with digital subscriptions the only cost is the time spent making the digital version (which probably isn't much since everything is done on computers in the first place, they just have to re-edit it) and the cost of sending it to Amazon (again, not much). As a result, profit increases MUCH faster as your customer base grows with digital subscriptions through Amazon than with print.
Not only does the WSJ make X% profit per Amazon subscription, but there was only a single one time cost to doing it! He's acting like it's still a print paper where total cost = cost per unit * units sold, when with digital distribution through Amazon (with Amazon soaking the small cost of data transfer to the users), the Amazon version of the WSJ has a cost function of total cost = cost per unit * 1.
The WSJ is a great paper, but Murdoch is a greedy little moron.
but nobody else in broadcast media working on an out-and-out agenda at the scale that Fox works.
I dunno, CNN normally has a pretty blatant agenda. However, in the last few months they seem to be doing a bit better......perhaps it's because Obama's had so many fuck ups that they knew they couldn't ignore them?
I assumed that, being a nerd, you'd at least upgrade every 6-7 years......the majority of people who think IE is "the internet" get a new system more often than that.
And yes, a 6-7 year old system should be able to run Windows 7.
What part of the midwest are you from? I'm from Ohio and have never come across any of the things you talked about. Sure, you get the mom / grandma going "when are you going to have kids" but everyone I've ever known never had a problem when they'd just say "We're not planning on it" or "We're not planning on it any time soon".
I have known people who got involved with girls like your second wife - but seeing as these were people who came from all over the country, it's more a matter of some people (guy or girl) being a controlling fsck than anything about marriage or regional culture.
It seems to me that all of your problems you had didn't stem from marriage or local culture, but from being with girls with unrealistic expectations, girls who were control freaks, or family / friends who just don't know how to mind their own business. I'm sorry that things went so badly for you (as a fellow nerd and man, I can say I've had plenty of girls screw me over), and I hope things go better for you in the future.
Use it on a high end system. I've run XP since it came out on various systems and it's been great -- however, you wouldn't believe how much more responsive Windows 7 is on the same system. The reason? My current desktop (which was XP until the Win 7 RC came out) is a quadcore and XP just doesn't do a very good job of load balancing across the cores. XP could say 25% of my total CPU power is being used while two cores are idle, one is at 10% and the other is at 70% (picking out numbers, I forget the exact numbers, but it was similar). On the same system running the same programs (and as close as I can make it with background processes) if Win 7 says 25% of total CPU power is being used, ever core is at 25% (or maybe one is 24% and another is 26%). It's much more responsive than XP and once the superfetch (or whatever it's called) learns what programs you use most and when you use them, programs launch noticeably faster.
I've promoted Linux to friends and family for a long time but always had Windows on my desktop because it's my gaming rig. However, I actually intend on buying Windows 7 when it comes out because it really is worth the money. In all the time I've been running Windows 7 on my laptop and desktop (sole OS on both systems) I've had a whole two crashes and that was when Win 7 was still the 7000 build beta - not the RC. Since the RC has come out I've had no problems at all -- even programs that wouldn't run under Vista run just fine under Win 7.
Try it before you bash it. For the first time in a long time (if ever) MS has finally done things right.
What "social weight" are you talking about? Being expected to treat your spouse well? Being expected to be honest with your spouse? Being expected to not ignore them? I'm being dead serious, I have no clue what "social weight" you could be talking about beyond the mere things that are expected of any healthy relationship (whether it's between a parent and child, friends, people who are dating, or people who are married).
My best guess at what you're really trying to say is that one of you (or both) put the opinions / desires of other people over the opinion / needs / desires of your spouse. I used to date a girl that was everything I could ever want in a girl and then some -- and she looked at me the same. However, there was one flaw - due to the way she was raised (large family living out in the middle of nowhere in the country so they pretty much only had each other to talk to), she would always put her parents and siblings first. I was actually relieved a bit after we broke up because I knew that if we had gotten married, she would still continue to put them before me, and you can't have that in a good relationship. The same thing ended up causing issues with her older sister who recently got divorced because she allowed her family to influence her as well.
So, to sum up: If you read this and respond, I'd really like to know what "social weight" you're talking about and one of the biggest screw ups people make in a relationship is putting hobbies / work / other people before their SO.
I did work hard in college and got a 3.5 while working to pay for school all on my own. I've also had great recommendations from every boss I've ever had - but too many people doing the hiring at companies are asshats like you who don't see "X number of years in Y industry" and automatically pass.
It's ridiculous that people like you and so many employers would rather have a shitty employee who can say "I had a job doing X for Y years" (even though it was a piss poor job and they were fired from it) than hire someone who is smart and hard working, but doesn't have some stupid sentence to put on a resume. People like you are why so many people lie on their resume's.
You obviously didn't read the part about how baby boomers will be retiring in droves over the next 10 years. Who will fill their spots if they refuse to hire new people and train them now? (Not saying that they should be hiring tons of them right now due to the economy, but really, there's typically SOME entry level work that's always needed in a company)
Too true. There has been a huge bias against recent graduates for a long time (well, except in certain fields where there's never enough students graduating to meet demand, such as Pharmacists). I haven't been out of college too long and unfortunately graduated when the economy was at it's worst. I spent several months apply for jobs and often was told within a week of the job being posted that the position was closed due to budget problems. Eventually, I stopped seing any new job postings on most job sites for anything other than sales (if you were looking for entry level positions).
*Side note* If companies don't hire anyone to MAKE a product / service, why the HELL do they need so many sales people? WHAT THE HELL ARE THEY SELLING?!
I ended up being contacted by my boss from the previous summer where I had done some short term contract work for an IT consulting firm and that's what I'm doing now (even though it's not my ideal job and has nothing to do with my degree). I'm still looking for a job I can actually use my degree in and that's less fickle than IT consulting and every time I see a low level position that there's no reason someone straight out of college can't do say "5-7 years experience required" I want to call up the people at the company and ask them how THEY got a job after college without those 5-7 years of experience. The people running companies are so quick to forget that they were in the same spot not long ago and someone gave them a chance.
I have a feeling that companies will lose this attitude in the next decade as we see a huge number of baby boomers retire and they realize that if they mantain their inflated requirements for an entry level job, they won't be hiring anyone to replace the people who left.
What about Obama messing up the oath of office? True, the person reading it did mess up -- however, Obama should've read over the oath and prepared beforehand to make sure that HE didn't mess up. Or, what about this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=leEcpFOrulY video which is just one of many instances that shows that Obama can barely form a coherent sentence if it's not scripted and already rehearsed? Then there's that incident you always hear of with Obama and the Irish PM where Obama thanks himself for coming because someone screwed up the teleprompter..... If you bother to look on youtube, you'll find plenty of instances of Obama looking like an idiot (better yet, you can even find one where he blatantly admits that his cap and trade plan will quote "cause energy prices to skyrocket"......yup, because that's what we need during a recession!).
I know plenty of people have dropped out of high school and are successful (have you ever looked at Hollywood?). My point is that on the internet, you can claim anything you want. I've learned (as I'm sure you have) to just laugh and go "yea, ok" every time you come across yet another person claiming to be insanely rich.
Fidelity statement. Also, I wouldn't be caught dead in a Tesla - it's an insult to the wonderful Lotus it's based on....and ridiculously overpriced to boot.
I'm not calling him a liar. Merely pointing out that on the internet, anyone can claim to be a millionaire. Hell, I could claim to be the guy who invented Mighty Putty.
Don't claim to be a millionaire on the internet and expect to be taken seriously unless you can offer proof.
Violence happens because there are too many assholes out there. Sometimes it's the asshole committing the violent act. Other times it's a decent person putting the asshole in their place who is committing the violent act. It's really not that hard to understand. Take your own life for instance - when you had the urge to punch / strangle / harm a person in any way, was it a nice person you wanted to hurt? No (unless you're a sociopath). The person you had the urge to hurt was an asshole.
Is my post elegant? No, but it gets to the heart of the matter.
Firstly, it is MAINLY members of one political party (in the US at least) who are advocating it. It is impossible to discuss global warming / climate change and NOT connect it with the Democratic party. No one ever gave a crap about it until one of their biggest politicians, Al Gore, started running around saying that the world was doomed. Yes, I'm sure that there are plenty of companies paying people to find evidence that global warming doesn't exist, but that doesn't change the fact that the largest number of scientists doing research on it are doing it on the payroll of liberals. Oh, and fyi, I despise both Republicans and Democrats.
As someone with an economics degree, I can tell you that all of their methods of fixing this supposed problem will severely damage our economy and way of life. Estimates are that, if Obama gets his cap and trade policy through, that it will cost the typical family another $1,500 - $3,000 a year for energy -- and that's on top of whatever the price of oil might go up to. Do you have another $1,500 - $3,000 to spend on gas / gasoline / electricity bills? I sure don't, nor do a great many Americans. IF the problem IS real and there is no choice, THEN yes it's a necessary evil to pass such policies. However, I reiterate - Take. Your. Time. Be absolutely 100% sure before you promote such policies. That is the biggest issue I have with this is that I've yet to see a single supporter of these things insist that they be 100% sure that it is in fact a real threat and that these actions are completely necessary.
The point was, just as all of those things were proven wrong, there's equally as good of a chance that in 100 years people will laugh at the fact that scientists were foolish enough to think that man could change the climate and then destroyed entire societies trying to combat this non-existent problem.
I'm not assuming that they're wrong because it's the majority, I'm assuming they're wrong because there's plenty of reason to question it and instead of actually having intelligent discourse on the matter and see who has the better evidence, they resort to oppression to silence the dissenters. Remind me where "silence those who do not agree with your views" comes in play in the scientific method? I also assume that they're wrong because instead of wanting to take the time to make 100% sure that they're right, they're urging people to quickly make changes to our economy / society that will be very detrimental to our well being.
As for principles, I have them, which is why I have the guts to speak my mind instead of being silenced by people like you. I've seen evidence from both sides, so far, what I've seen that this is a natural occurrence is much more convincing as is the evidence I've seen that, regardless of if it's man made or natural, it's nowhere near as bad as alarmists like Al Gore claim it is and will in fact mean very negligible effects.
Slashdot Mirror
Electric with a gasoline generator is the best thing for high efficiency right now -- however, I sure as hell hope that GM has direct injection on that engine. Does anyone know the specs for the 1 liter gasoline engine?
If that engine is port injected and getting 50 mpg while running off gasoline, then if GM put DI on it they could cut the engine size to .7 liters and boost mpg to at least 60 mpg (probably more like 70-75 mpg).
A VAT is a bad idea because you end up paying multiple taxes on the same item. For example, with a VAT when the plastic for a tv is made you pay a tax on it (as well as a tax on the creation of the inputs to making that plastic) then you pay a tax on the materials for the screen, then a tax on every other part of it.
A sales tax (and ONLY a sales tax) is much better way of taxing consumption. There's actually a bill up in Congress proposing just such a thing called the Fairtax.
Definitely agree -- the corporate world has changed a lot to where companies think that by working for them, they own you completely.
Seriously? He's complaining that they don't get a big enough cut of the profit for each subscriber? With an actual print newspaper, it costs money for each copy printed. However, with digital subscriptions the only cost is the time spent making the digital version (which probably isn't much since everything is done on computers in the first place, they just have to re-edit it) and the cost of sending it to Amazon (again, not much). As a result, profit increases MUCH faster as your customer base grows with digital subscriptions through Amazon than with print.
Not only does the WSJ make X% profit per Amazon subscription, but there was only a single one time cost to doing it! He's acting like it's still a print paper where total cost = cost per unit * units sold, when with digital distribution through Amazon (with Amazon soaking the small cost of data transfer to the users), the Amazon version of the WSJ has a cost function of total cost = cost per unit * 1.
The WSJ is a great paper, but Murdoch is a greedy little moron.
but nobody else in broadcast media working on an out-and-out agenda at the scale that Fox works.
I dunno, CNN normally has a pretty blatant agenda. However, in the last few months they seem to be doing a bit better......perhaps it's because Obama's had so many fuck ups that they knew they couldn't ignore them?
I know it's just a troll, but still.....one word - Thunderbird. Amazing email app and it's very customizable.
If they don't need to edit the file, use OO.org, save it as a pdf, and *bam*, problem solved.
It's SOP at my company to always send it as a PDF if they don't need to modify it.
I assumed that, being a nerd, you'd at least upgrade every 6-7 years......the majority of people who think IE is "the internet" get a new system more often than that.
And yes, a 6-7 year old system should be able to run Windows 7.
Are diamonds now a nerd's best friend?
What part of the midwest are you from? I'm from Ohio and have never come across any of the things you talked about. Sure, you get the mom / grandma going "when are you going to have kids" but everyone I've ever known never had a problem when they'd just say "We're not planning on it" or "We're not planning on it any time soon".
I have known people who got involved with girls like your second wife - but seeing as these were people who came from all over the country, it's more a matter of some people (guy or girl) being a controlling fsck than anything about marriage or regional culture.
It seems to me that all of your problems you had didn't stem from marriage or local culture, but from being with girls with unrealistic expectations, girls who were control freaks, or family / friends who just don't know how to mind their own business. I'm sorry that things went so badly for you (as a fellow nerd and man, I can say I've had plenty of girls screw me over), and I hope things go better for you in the future.
Use it on a high end system. I've run XP since it came out on various systems and it's been great -- however, you wouldn't believe how much more responsive Windows 7 is on the same system. The reason? My current desktop (which was XP until the Win 7 RC came out) is a quadcore and XP just doesn't do a very good job of load balancing across the cores. XP could say 25% of my total CPU power is being used while two cores are idle, one is at 10% and the other is at 70% (picking out numbers, I forget the exact numbers, but it was similar). On the same system running the same programs (and as close as I can make it with background processes) if Win 7 says 25% of total CPU power is being used, ever core is at 25% (or maybe one is 24% and another is 26%). It's much more responsive than XP and once the superfetch (or whatever it's called) learns what programs you use most and when you use them, programs launch noticeably faster.
I've promoted Linux to friends and family for a long time but always had Windows on my desktop because it's my gaming rig. However, I actually intend on buying Windows 7 when it comes out because it really is worth the money. In all the time I've been running Windows 7 on my laptop and desktop (sole OS on both systems) I've had a whole two crashes and that was when Win 7 was still the 7000 build beta - not the RC. Since the RC has come out I've had no problems at all -- even programs that wouldn't run under Vista run just fine under Win 7.
Try it before you bash it. For the first time in a long time (if ever) MS has finally done things right.
What "social weight" are you talking about? Being expected to treat your spouse well? Being expected to be honest with your spouse? Being expected to not ignore them? I'm being dead serious, I have no clue what "social weight" you could be talking about beyond the mere things that are expected of any healthy relationship (whether it's between a parent and child, friends, people who are dating, or people who are married).
My best guess at what you're really trying to say is that one of you (or both) put the opinions / desires of other people over the opinion / needs / desires of your spouse. I used to date a girl that was everything I could ever want in a girl and then some -- and she looked at me the same. However, there was one flaw - due to the way she was raised (large family living out in the middle of nowhere in the country so they pretty much only had each other to talk to), she would always put her parents and siblings first. I was actually relieved a bit after we broke up because I knew that if we had gotten married, she would still continue to put them before me, and you can't have that in a good relationship. The same thing ended up causing issues with her older sister who recently got divorced because she allowed her family to influence her as well.
So, to sum up: If you read this and respond, I'd really like to know what "social weight" you're talking about and one of the biggest screw ups people make in a relationship is putting hobbies / work / other people before their SO.
I did work hard in college and got a 3.5 while working to pay for school all on my own. I've also had great recommendations from every boss I've ever had - but too many people doing the hiring at companies are asshats like you who don't see "X number of years in Y industry" and automatically pass.
It's ridiculous that people like you and so many employers would rather have a shitty employee who can say "I had a job doing X for Y years" (even though it was a piss poor job and they were fired from it) than hire someone who is smart and hard working, but doesn't have some stupid sentence to put on a resume. People like you are why so many people lie on their resume's.
You obviously didn't read the part about how baby boomers will be retiring in droves over the next 10 years. Who will fill their spots if they refuse to hire new people and train them now? (Not saying that they should be hiring tons of them right now due to the economy, but really, there's typically SOME entry level work that's always needed in a company)
Too true. There has been a huge bias against recent graduates for a long time (well, except in certain fields where there's never enough students graduating to meet demand, such as Pharmacists). I haven't been out of college too long and unfortunately graduated when the economy was at it's worst. I spent several months apply for jobs and often was told within a week of the job being posted that the position was closed due to budget problems. Eventually, I stopped seing any new job postings on most job sites for anything other than sales (if you were looking for entry level positions).
*Side note* If companies don't hire anyone to MAKE a product / service, why the HELL do they need so many sales people? WHAT THE HELL ARE THEY SELLING?!
I ended up being contacted by my boss from the previous summer where I had done some short term contract work for an IT consulting firm and that's what I'm doing now (even though it's not my ideal job and has nothing to do with my degree). I'm still looking for a job I can actually use my degree in and that's less fickle than IT consulting and every time I see a low level position that there's no reason someone straight out of college can't do say "5-7 years experience required" I want to call up the people at the company and ask them how THEY got a job after college without those 5-7 years of experience. The people running companies are so quick to forget that they were in the same spot not long ago and someone gave them a chance.
I have a feeling that companies will lose this attitude in the next decade as we see a huge number of baby boomers retire and they realize that if they mantain their inflated requirements for an entry level job, they won't be hiring anyone to replace the people who left.
What about Obama messing up the oath of office? True, the person reading it did mess up -- however, Obama should've read over the oath and prepared beforehand to make sure that HE didn't mess up. Or, what about this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=leEcpFOrulY video which is just one of many instances that shows that Obama can barely form a coherent sentence if it's not scripted and already rehearsed? Then there's that incident you always hear of with Obama and the Irish PM where Obama thanks himself for coming because someone screwed up the teleprompter..... If you bother to look on youtube, you'll find plenty of instances of Obama looking like an idiot (better yet, you can even find one where he blatantly admits that his cap and trade plan will quote "cause energy prices to skyrocket"......yup, because that's what we need during a recession!).
I didn't know Al Gore was on slashdot!
Holy crap, I laughed pretty hard when I read that!
I know plenty of people have dropped out of high school and are successful (have you ever looked at Hollywood?). My point is that on the internet, you can claim anything you want. I've learned (as I'm sure you have) to just laugh and go "yea, ok" every time you come across yet another person claiming to be insanely rich.
Fidelity statement. Also, I wouldn't be caught dead in a Tesla - it's an insult to the wonderful Lotus it's based on....and ridiculously overpriced to boot.
I'm not calling him a liar. Merely pointing out that on the internet, anyone can claim to be a millionaire. Hell, I could claim to be the guy who invented Mighty Putty.
Don't claim to be a millionaire on the internet and expect to be taken seriously unless you can offer proof.
Now I'm 26 (going on 27) and am already worth enough to never have to work another day in my life (sold my company; started another one, etc).
[Needs Citation]
Violence happens because there are too many assholes out there. Sometimes it's the asshole committing the violent act. Other times it's a decent person putting the asshole in their place who is committing the violent act. It's really not that hard to understand. Take your own life for instance - when you had the urge to punch / strangle / harm a person in any way, was it a nice person you wanted to hurt? No (unless you're a sociopath). The person you had the urge to hurt was an asshole.
Is my post elegant? No, but it gets to the heart of the matter.
Firstly, it is MAINLY members of one political party (in the US at least) who are advocating it. It is impossible to discuss global warming / climate change and NOT connect it with the Democratic party. No one ever gave a crap about it until one of their biggest politicians, Al Gore, started running around saying that the world was doomed. Yes, I'm sure that there are plenty of companies paying people to find evidence that global warming doesn't exist, but that doesn't change the fact that the largest number of scientists doing research on it are doing it on the payroll of liberals. Oh, and fyi, I despise both Republicans and Democrats.
As someone with an economics degree, I can tell you that all of their methods of fixing this supposed problem will severely damage our economy and way of life. Estimates are that, if Obama gets his cap and trade policy through, that it will cost the typical family another $1,500 - $3,000 a year for energy -- and that's on top of whatever the price of oil might go up to. Do you have another $1,500 - $3,000 to spend on gas / gasoline / electricity bills? I sure don't, nor do a great many Americans. IF the problem IS real and there is no choice, THEN yes it's a necessary evil to pass such policies. However, I reiterate - Take. Your. Time. Be absolutely 100% sure before you promote such policies. That is the biggest issue I have with this is that I've yet to see a single supporter of these things insist that they be 100% sure that it is in fact a real threat and that these actions are completely necessary.
The point was, just as all of those things were proven wrong, there's equally as good of a chance that in 100 years people will laugh at the fact that scientists were foolish enough to think that man could change the climate and then destroyed entire societies trying to combat this non-existent problem.
I'm not assuming that they're wrong because it's the majority, I'm assuming they're wrong because there's plenty of reason to question it and instead of actually having intelligent discourse on the matter and see who has the better evidence, they resort to oppression to silence the dissenters. Remind me where "silence those who do not agree with your views" comes in play in the scientific method? I also assume that they're wrong because instead of wanting to take the time to make 100% sure that they're right, they're urging people to quickly make changes to our economy / society that will be very detrimental to our well being.
As for principles, I have them, which is why I have the guts to speak my mind instead of being silenced by people like you. I've seen evidence from both sides, so far, what I've seen that this is a natural occurrence is much more convincing as is the evidence I've seen that, regardless of if it's man made or natural, it's nowhere near as bad as alarmists like Al Gore claim it is and will in fact mean very negligible effects.