No, half the weight does not mean half the fuel usage. Windage losses do not scale with weight, as passenger size does not scale with vehicle weight. Highway driving in particular is dominated by windage losses (after engine Carnot efficiencies of course). A half weight vehicle will see only modest highway MPG improvements not double, and will not be able to scale the engine size down by fully half either due to the horsepower requirements for reasonable highway performance not scaling down by half. So sadly, a half weight frame and body does not let you continue to scale the rest of the weighty vehicle down by half, which does not result in a doubling of MPG or range.
Yes, many poor stations with low viewership would go into a death spiral that would result in far fewer channels. On the other hand, these remaining channels would be ones people actually watched. I see this as a win-win-win for the consumer, fewer better channels with an overall lower average bill.
People learn differently. I am like you, I learn best taking very sparse notes, mostly just following the lecture. Occasionally jotting down key equations or highlights. I almost never used my note afterwards, just a way to cement certain things in my head.
I can get extra keys for both our care for a few bucks each. Replacement RFID fobs are horribly overpriced from most dealers, and some require you to re-key the car.
The new generation of cars these days is doing a good job of showing that less can be more. Less crap to break. After all, I generally just want to get to work and back, and don't need an infotainment system, or even power windows. But I am an unabashed Luddite.
After Vista, they owe use a decent amount of time to get onto the next decent OS. Windows 7 counted as decent, and has been out 3 years. It is quite fair for folks to have been getting new boxes with XP until a good alternative came out and proved itself to be stable, and to not have to upgrade those machines for several years at least. The current cutoff feels tone-deaf compared to the POS that Vista was.
We have a couple iPads in our house, and I find myself resentful of the price to upgrade, so we haven't. The competitors are nearly as good, and cost half as much. The price points for more memory in particular outrages me. Why is anyone shipping a premium tablet starting at 16 GB of non-upgradeable storage these days!? How can you justify another $100 just to get to 32 GB?! 64 GB should be the starting point for tablets in Apple's target premium price range.
Earlier on I could understand the premium price, as the competition was simply nowhere near the polish and functionality. But the extra bells and whistles Apple has added just are not keeping pace compared to the premium they are still charging.
I long ago realized I was not in their target demographic for phone and PC sales, and now I think my next tablet is not likely to be an Apple one. Somehow they feel they are exempt from following the steady march downwards of electronics prices.
Heck I'd even be interested in shelling out extra for an iMac, but every time I check they are still not upgradeable, and come with rather underwhelming processors/memory/GPU considering the extreme markup.
I know it is getting comical to ask, but shouldn't the CEO's that are still alive face jail time? Same for the heads of HR that went along with this crap?
These same sort of clauses are showing up at demtists, doctors, and other places. You can't get a lot of services nowadays without signing away a lot of your rights to redress. It is an erosion that I am not sure how to fight.
The design was flawed, using an elastomer connection to the keyboard, resulting in death either over time, or from modest impacts. I loved that thing otherwise. I ponied up for a later 38GX or some such, and the buttons were crap. I now use app emulators of the 48G on my phone and ipod touch as my calculator. It is not the same, but better than that 38GX POS.
I'll take nasty coal ash over old fuel rods, ton for ton, in my backyard ANY day.
Till someone shows me a significant percentage of the 29 kilotons of spent crap done away with in some reasonable fashion, I just don't see more nuclear reactors being the answer.
You can point at the crazy US all you want, but I have not heard of ANY country who has gotten it figured out beyond the current "store and pray" approach.
Doesn't matter where you stick them, I have yet to see a good and permanent waste solution. I expect that at some point (maybe hundreds of years from now) we will have our Lucille Ball moment where we just can't figure out where to stick new waste once enough accidents at existing "permanent" dumps render them unsafe for further dumping, and steadily more wary residents go all NIMBY over future plans.
Maybe I missed the moment where we figured out how to really neutralize the spent crap and not just bury it for the next guy to figure out?
Given other renewable options, I would rather see fossil fuel taxed more to capture their negative externalities, and nuclear's true subsidies removed so there could be a fairer fight for other solutions (more molten salt storage, more solar, more wind, more proper grid design, more innovative load leveling, etc).
Shortly after starting my first job I calculated I would need 4 Million to retire, and pretty much the day I got there I could retire regardless of how old I was (conversely, I really can't retire till I get there). A dozen years later I re-ran numbers with new assumptions (having forgotten my old ones), and came up with 3.5 Million. At the pace I am at I might be able to retire in my early 60's at best. Sadly, even if I crank up my contributions I make little change in that date, thanks to compounding interest.
My goal now needs to be to start saving more into things that can be cashed out before 59.5 without penalties to hedge my bet.
It is NOT survival of the "fittest", but survival of the "fit". The distinction is a key misunderstanding that a lot of people have about evolution.
If you are not fit to survive long enough to procreate, or if your genes cause you to have a below average number of surviving progeny your genes die. If you are fit enough to that you and a reasonable number of your progeny survive to keep procreating, your genes live on. Nothing about evolution says that "better" or "more fit" is a required natural result. It just says that if you are un-fit you die, and such a basic insight explains so much, while "survival of the fittest" fails to explain the patrons I see inside Walmart.
If the objective is to reduce traffic congestion, then the incentive disappears when it is effective. If traffic is not congested, there is no benefit to be in the carpool lane.
It is a conundrum that has always entertained me.
Tax gas/miles/vehicles heavily and people will drive less and the roads will be congested less. Or, build more lanes to reduce congestion. Carpool lanes are great for the eco-snob set to be able to stroke their own egos, but are not really that effective at reducing emissions or congestion (and may hurt overall, IMO).
Agreed, there are so many ways to retain employees without flagrantly breaking the law. I am amazed that more people in HR didn't speak up, they surely knew their marching orders were illegal.
Contracts, retention bonuses, stock options, and more could have all been employed to keep teams together. Arrogantly treating people as property was not necessary in the slightest.
Case in point, we had 2 layoff rounds where we cut citizens and green card holders, but kept our H1B. He took over for one of the first guys laid off, so you can't argue he had some special skills. He does however work evenings and weekends for free, as well as leave a trail of destruction in the lab.
Social security is regressive, and once you make over about 130k you stop paying on your further income, which would apply to the stated 200k+ example the previous poster noted.
I won't jump onto the free software bandwagon (it frankly is not that great on the whole from my experience), however lets look at MS Office all on its own for a moment.
Since they went to the almighty Ribbon it has been an atrociously miserable tool to use. The interface got dumbed down by hiding a lot of stuff, or just plastering over features that were once pretty common to use to the point where I can't even find them at all. I find that their interface first, functionality second approach has made MS Office something I dread using at work. If it were free at home I would likely only install it for being able to natively read other peoples files on the occasions I have to, which is pretty rare.
Sadly for MS, I find Libre Office just as usable (maybe slightly more so) for my purposes. The warts of being less polished, less mature, and inheriting some of the poor MS features it had to are made up for by the severe drawbacks of the stupid Ribbon dumb down on the MS side.
With hindsight Zuckerberg made no mistake. But for every Zuckerberg who drops out and makes Billions anyway, there many more with equally good ideas that tried a similar path, and through worse luck ended up going bust. Anecdotes are not data.
In my case, my wife has epilepsy. Her meds are generic and not too expensive, and she has things very much under control. But on the open market we would never been able to get her reasonably insured, especially coverage that would have covered her for the off-chance that her epilepsy reared its head in a more serious way. Before the ACA it was a given that I would never be able to strike it out my own despite a couple interesting opportunities. She would have had to go back to work just to get insurance to allow me any sort of chance at a non-corporate job, and we'd rather have someone be stay-at-home with our kid for the first couple years.
Anyone in their 40's or older has a high likelihood that they have been to the doctor for something that then counts as a pre-existing condition, even if it is taken care of and no longer an issue. The ACA gets the pre-existing condition part very right. I'd rather have single payer for the country, but on the whole the ACA is a far better option than what we had before.
Once you count all the meetings that are not duplicated, 60 hours a week at my full productivity would yield more output than 2 guys doing 40 hours. Loads of meeting distract as well as displace productive ouput.
Slashdot Mirror
No, half the weight does not mean half the fuel usage. Windage losses do not scale with weight, as passenger size does not scale with vehicle weight. Highway driving in particular is dominated by windage losses (after engine Carnot efficiencies of course). A half weight vehicle will see only modest highway MPG improvements not double, and will not be able to scale the engine size down by fully half either due to the horsepower requirements for reasonable highway performance not scaling down by half. So sadly, a half weight frame and body does not let you continue to scale the rest of the weighty vehicle down by half, which does not result in a doubling of MPG or range.
Yes, many poor stations with low viewership would go into a death spiral that would result in far fewer channels. On the other hand, these remaining channels would be ones people actually watched. I see this as a win-win-win for the consumer, fewer better channels with an overall lower average bill.
People learn differently. I am like you, I learn best taking very sparse notes, mostly just following the lecture. Occasionally jotting down key equations or highlights. I almost never used my note afterwards, just a way to cement certain things in my head.
I can get extra keys for both our care for a few bucks each. Replacement RFID fobs are horribly overpriced from most dealers, and some require you to re-key the car.
The new generation of cars these days is doing a good job of showing that less can be more. Less crap to break. After all, I generally just want to get to work and back, and don't need an infotainment system, or even power windows. But I am an unabashed Luddite.
The article had no thesis, and really was just mindless rambling.
Why is there no similar rant about New York, Malibu, or many other very expensive places? New york may be more expensive yet.
After Vista, they owe use a decent amount of time to get onto the next decent OS. Windows 7 counted as decent, and has been out 3 years. It is quite fair for folks to have been getting new boxes with XP until a good alternative came out and proved itself to be stable, and to not have to upgrade those machines for several years at least. The current cutoff feels tone-deaf compared to the POS that Vista was.
My $0.02.
We have a couple iPads in our house, and I find myself resentful of the price to upgrade, so we haven't. The competitors are nearly as good, and cost half as much. The price points for more memory in particular outrages me. Why is anyone shipping a premium tablet starting at 16 GB of non-upgradeable storage these days!? How can you justify another $100 just to get to 32 GB?! 64 GB should be the starting point for tablets in Apple's target premium price range.
Earlier on I could understand the premium price, as the competition was simply nowhere near the polish and functionality. But the extra bells and whistles Apple has added just are not keeping pace compared to the premium they are still charging.
I long ago realized I was not in their target demographic for phone and PC sales, and now I think my next tablet is not likely to be an Apple one. Somehow they feel they are exempt from following the steady march downwards of electronics prices.
Heck I'd even be interested in shelling out extra for an iMac, but every time I check they are still not upgradeable, and come with rather underwhelming processors/memory/GPU considering the extreme markup.
Oh well.
I know it is getting comical to ask, but shouldn't the CEO's that are still alive face jail time? Same for the heads of HR that went along with this crap?
These same sort of clauses are showing up at demtists, doctors, and other places. You can't get a lot of services nowadays without signing away a lot of your rights to redress. It is an erosion that I am not sure how to fight.
I'm told that it is not nearly as lame on the other side of the Atlantic, but I have my doubts.
It is one of the most amazing looking beers out there, and yet tastes alarmingly close to water. So sad.
The design was flawed, using an elastomer connection to the keyboard, resulting in death either over time, or from modest impacts. I loved that thing otherwise. I ponied up for a later 38GX or some such, and the buttons were crap. I now use app emulators of the 48G on my phone and ipod touch as my calculator. It is not the same, but better than that 38GX POS.
I'll take nasty coal ash over old fuel rods, ton for ton, in my backyard ANY day.
Till someone shows me a significant percentage of the 29 kilotons of spent crap done away with in some reasonable fashion, I just don't see more nuclear reactors being the answer.
You can point at the crazy US all you want, but I have not heard of ANY country who has gotten it figured out beyond the current "store and pray" approach.
Doesn't matter where you stick them, I have yet to see a good and permanent waste solution. I expect that at some point (maybe hundreds of years from now) we will have our Lucille Ball moment where we just can't figure out where to stick new waste once enough accidents at existing "permanent" dumps render them unsafe for further dumping, and steadily more wary residents go all NIMBY over future plans.
Maybe I missed the moment where we figured out how to really neutralize the spent crap and not just bury it for the next guy to figure out?
Given other renewable options, I would rather see fossil fuel taxed more to capture their negative externalities, and nuclear's true subsidies removed so there could be a fairer fight for other solutions (more molten salt storage, more solar, more wind, more proper grid design, more innovative load leveling, etc).
Shortly after starting my first job I calculated I would need 4 Million to retire, and pretty much the day I got there I could retire regardless of how old I was (conversely, I really can't retire till I get there). A dozen years later I re-ran numbers with new assumptions (having forgotten my old ones), and came up with 3.5 Million. At the pace I am at I might be able to retire in my early 60's at best. Sadly, even if I crank up my contributions I make little change in that date, thanks to compounding interest.
My goal now needs to be to start saving more into things that can be cashed out before 59.5 without penalties to hedge my bet.
YMMV.
It is NOT survival of the "fittest", but survival of the "fit". The distinction is a key misunderstanding that a lot of people have about evolution.
If you are not fit to survive long enough to procreate, or if your genes cause you to have a below average number of surviving progeny your genes die. If you are fit enough to that you and a reasonable number of your progeny survive to keep procreating, your genes live on. Nothing about evolution says that "better" or "more fit" is a required natural result. It just says that if you are un-fit you die, and such a basic insight explains so much, while "survival of the fittest" fails to explain the patrons I see inside Walmart.
"Entirely" apparently now means "mostly'ish".
Just meh.
If the objective is to reduce traffic congestion, then the incentive disappears when it is effective. If traffic is not congested, there is no benefit to be in the carpool lane.
It is a conundrum that has always entertained me.
Tax gas/miles/vehicles heavily and people will drive less and the roads will be congested less. Or, build more lanes to reduce congestion. Carpool lanes are great for the eco-snob set to be able to stroke their own egos, but are not really that effective at reducing emissions or congestion (and may hurt overall, IMO).
Agreed, there are so many ways to retain employees without flagrantly breaking the law. I am amazed that more people in HR didn't speak up, they surely knew their marching orders were illegal.
Contracts, retention bonuses, stock options, and more could have all been employed to keep teams together. Arrogantly treating people as property was not necessary in the slightest.
Case in point, we had 2 layoff rounds where we cut citizens and green card holders, but kept our H1B. He took over for one of the first guys laid off, so you can't argue he had some special skills. He does however work evenings and weekends for free, as well as leave a trail of destruction in the lab.
Social security is regressive, and once you make over about 130k you stop paying on your further income, which would apply to the stated 200k+ example the previous poster noted.
I won't jump onto the free software bandwagon (it frankly is not that great on the whole from my experience), however lets look at MS Office all on its own for a moment.
Since they went to the almighty Ribbon it has been an atrociously miserable tool to use. The interface got dumbed down by hiding a lot of stuff, or just plastering over features that were once pretty common to use to the point where I can't even find them at all. I find that their interface first, functionality second approach has made MS Office something I dread using at work. If it were free at home I would likely only install it for being able to natively read other peoples files on the occasions I have to, which is pretty rare.
Sadly for MS, I find Libre Office just as usable (maybe slightly more so) for my purposes. The warts of being less polished, less mature, and inheriting some of the poor MS features it had to are made up for by the severe drawbacks of the stupid Ribbon dumb down on the MS side.
With hindsight Zuckerberg made no mistake. But for every Zuckerberg who drops out and makes Billions anyway, there many more with equally good ideas that tried a similar path, and through worse luck ended up going bust. Anecdotes are not data.
This.
In my case, my wife has epilepsy. Her meds are generic and not too expensive, and she has things very much under control. But on the open market we would never been able to get her reasonably insured, especially coverage that would have covered her for the off-chance that her epilepsy reared its head in a more serious way. Before the ACA it was a given that I would never be able to strike it out my own despite a couple interesting opportunities. She would have had to go back to work just to get insurance to allow me any sort of chance at a non-corporate job, and we'd rather have someone be stay-at-home with our kid for the first couple years.
Anyone in their 40's or older has a high likelihood that they have been to the doctor for something that then counts as a pre-existing condition, even if it is taken care of and no longer an issue. The ACA gets the pre-existing condition part very right. I'd rather have single payer for the country, but on the whole the ACA is a far better option than what we had before.
Once you count all the meetings that are not duplicated, 60 hours a week at my full productivity would yield more output than 2 guys doing 40 hours. Loads of meeting distract as well as displace productive ouput.