Given that they actually came 4th in their category for effeciency and were beaten by a hydrogen car doing 804km/l (1891mpg) and one doing 1246km/l (2930mpg), they should be able to do better with hydrogen.
TFA says they won 3rd most effecient vehicle at the eco-marathon, which is BS on two counts. They were 4th according to Shells results page, and that 4th is only for their category. The prototype results are even more impressive with the winner getting 3771km/l (8869mpg) for gasoline and the 2nd place getting 3549km/l (8347mpg) for hydrogen.
You guess wrong. If I was the AC, I would either have continued posting AC or not posted AC at all.
I happen to agree strongly with the AC who posted. Saying "burn down the entire fucking BT HQ" because of a story that does not even affect you (Yeah, that's right, iPlayer is not even available outside the UK) is for fucknuts.
Any "idiot" who has ever used the word fuck usually does not say something along the lines of "I want to fuck your sister in the ass. Paying for bandwidth I can't use pisses me off" and then claim to have not actually meant anything to do with your sister.
I guess that explains your poor grasp of some basic english words then. Words such as "entire".
1: having no element or part left out : whole
2: complete in degree : total
3 a: consisting of one piece b: homogeneous, unmixed c: intact
30% of a comment does not constitute the whole or total.
You also mention that some of your words are irrelevant and say that I am off topic.
Irrelevant:
having no bearing on or connection with the subject at issue;
Off topic:
Not related to the matter under discussion
In case you did not notice, the topic at hand in this little thread is your post about burning down a building and then your claims of being misunderstood and slamming an AC when they disagree with you. If you can't defend your posts against contradictory viewpoints without complaining that people are off topic or ignorant, then blogging might suit you better than forums.
They work through resellers like Aquiss, ADSL24, UKFSN, Freeola, Seriously, Vivaciti and others. They sell plans by the peak allowance amount, with massive limits during off-peak and don't try to limit what software or protocols you use.
Let's burn down this building because....
Burn down the building, really?
NO! You misunderstood me!
The comment about not being able to use the service you paid for made up less than one third of your post and you did in fact say that the building should be burnt down because they had pissed you off.
If you feel that you have been misunderstood and did not intend for arson to be your main point, perhaps you should consult a doctor about Alien Hand Syndrome
P.S. Despite the criminal charge of incitement having been aboloshed in the UK last year, it was replaced with 3 new offences of encouraging or assisting. Would it not have been wise to use the AC tag yourself?
Wrong. This is not being looked at because google are a brilliant company who love everybody, this is being looked at because the deal is f'king shady.
The authors guild wants to sell monopoly rights to google. Rights which are not theirs to sell, if they even exist at all.
The exclusive right to scan and sell any orphaned book, which might very well contradict copyright laws.
The exclusive right to decide what constitutes an "out of print" work, and republish it.
There are others, those are just the two I can recall off the top of my head.
Google would be released from the legal obligation to seek permission of copyright holders first, whether the holders are members of the authors guild or not. As you can probably imagine, there's no way in hell the authors guild has the legal capacity to grant that permission for all authors (including foreign authors).
So google and the authors guild are trying to create an illegal monopoly.
So ''Open Source'' can refer to Free Software, but it can also refer to software not meeting the criteria above. It is also at times used to describe a particular software development model, although some parts of Free Software are developed in closed development models, and proprietary software is increasingly experimenting with open development approaches. This makes the term ''Open Source'' highly ambiguous, and indeed difficult for all areas that depend on precision in their language, such as science, law and politics.
So, on the one hand they are trying to say "there is no difference between free software and open source", and on the other they are pointing out that open source does not always mean the same thing as free software.
If they cannot even unify what they are saying with what they have said, what hope is there for them to unify developers?
With the DOJ and possibly the EU looking into googles book settlement for antitrust reasons, consumers will not be better off if the settlement is allowed to stand. They never are when dealing with a monopoly.
If google enters the market as a fair competitor to amazon, then sure, it should lead to lower prices and more choice, but I don't think google is even remotely interested in fair competition.
If an article is protected, you can still go edit some other article. It doesn't stop the whole thing being editable.
If you've gotten yourself banned for something you did in your edits, then you already had your chance at editing.
Maybe if the hook was "The encyclopedia anyone can continue to edit, forever".
Your statement that people suffering from PTSD should die however does have some historical precident. You'd have been great at executing "cowards" and "traitors" I would work on your idea of modern though.
You should only diagnose disorders you can treat without drugging them.
The bad news is that we can't remove your brain tumor.
The absolutely brilliant news is that we've withdrawn the diagnosis. Officially, you have no tumor. Now quit whining and get on with life.
once you've experienced cold-hearted cruelty, you've experienced something most people never will, and it destroys some or all of your innocent cheerfulness and spontaneity.
Cruelty is not something most people have no experience with, it's part of growing up.
You got bullied for wearing glasses, I got crap for having hearing aids, other kids I knew got it because they were fat while others were bullied for being skinny, some were too short, some too tall, some too rich, some too poor, some had permanent snotty noses, one kid got it because his dad was a policeman. It happens to everyone.
The things you've listed as having lost all or part of are lacking in most adults.
Smiling all the time and announcing "Hey, it's tuesday, let's all go to the beach" do not really work beyond the age of puberty.
Are they insane? Yes, they are.
These are the same people who claim that playing TV or radio in public requires a license, even when there is no charge to view or listen, despite that section 72 of the copyright, designs and patents act says otherwise. They then attempt to sue police stations among others for breaking their fictitious interpretation of the law.
So which part don't you believe? The turning people into salt part, or the invisible being part?
If it's the second, then I'd say the words "we" and "us" are not the words you are looking for and you should maybe look for a new religion that doesn't involve invisible beings.
In small and medium shops, cameras are there to provide evidence to the police after something has happened or so the shopkeeper can see the back of the store. No analysts are required.
In bigger shops, and police/council networks, 1 person may be in charge of upwards of 20 cameras.
Not only is it not logistically impossible to have millions of cameras in the UK, but even the CCTV User Group says there's more than 1.5 million not including corner shops. All the takeaways on my road have at least 2, one corner shop has 3 and the other has at least 5. Those numbers add up.
As for the comment that anyone who doesn't want cameras everywhere has never lived in a bad neighbourhood, being mugged once when you were 9 in an "upper middle class" area is classed as bad? Personally, I've been stabbed, beaten with a baseball bat and seen my block of flats set on fire in the past few years. This area is nowhere near as bad as where I grew up. There, being mugged as a child was a weekly occurence.
Funnily enough though, I still don't like having CCTV record my every move. Maybe it's because CCTV does not prevent crime and is easily defeated with a hood or bandana. Or maybe it's because of the slippery slope. Something happens outside of CCTV coverage, then CCTV must be placed there. Eventually there is not a single inch of private space left in the country.
As the world's leading publisher of science and health information, Elsevier serves more than 30 million scientists, students, and health and information professionals worldwide.
We are proud to play an essential role in the global science and health communities and to contribute to the advancement of these critical fields. By delivering world-class information and innovative tools to researchers, students, educators and practitioners worldwide, we help them increase their productivity and effectiveness.
That's why Elsevier partners with leading experts to publish the most authoritative and reliable information so scientists and health professionals can make critical decisions that advance scientific discovery and save lives.
At best, they were duped into lending any credibility they have to a sham. At worst, they knew that the thing was fake and went against their mission statement, yet published anyway because the money was too good to pass up.
It's perfectly sensible in the same way that describing Demigod as a game for rapists is. After all, the dictionary definition of rape includes "violent seizure", and the definition of a rapist is one who commits rape.
If someone said "if you play Demigod, accept that you're a rapist and quit rationalizing it any other way.", would that be acceptable or sensible to you?
The word "rapist" is generally reserved for those who commit the other type of rape, the one described in legal dictionaries as forced sexual relations. Just as the word "thief" is not generally used to describe someone winning a game through luck, or moving stealthily but is used to describe those who deprive someone of their own property.
Slashdot Mirror
Given that they actually came 4th in their category for effeciency and were beaten by a hydrogen car doing 804km/l (1891mpg) and one doing 1246km/l (2930mpg), they should be able to do better with hydrogen.
TFA says they won 3rd most effecient vehicle at the eco-marathon, which is BS on two counts. They were 4th according to Shells results page, and that 4th is only for their category. The prototype results are even more impressive with the winner getting 3771km/l (8869mpg) for gasoline and the 2nd place getting 3549km/l (8347mpg) for hydrogen.
I communicate with the voices in your head!
I should know as I'm Schizophrenic myself.
Yes, but are you paranoid?
You guess wrong. If I was the AC, I would either have continued posting AC or not posted AC at all.
I happen to agree strongly with the AC who posted. Saying "burn down the entire fucking BT HQ" because of a story that does not even affect you (Yeah, that's right, iPlayer is not even available outside the UK) is for fucknuts.
Any "idiot" who has ever used the word fuck usually does not say something along the lines of "I want to fuck your sister in the ass. Paying for bandwidth I can't use pisses me off" and then claim to have not actually meant anything to do with your sister.
Anyways, I'm bored with this shit.
1: having no element or part left out : whole
2: complete in degree : total
3 a: consisting of one piece b: homogeneous, unmixed c: intact
30% of a comment does not constitute the whole or total.
You also mention that some of your words are irrelevant and say that I am off topic.
Irrelevant:
having no bearing on or connection with the subject at issue;
Off topic:
Not related to the matter under discussion
In case you did not notice, the topic at hand in this little thread is your post about burning down a building and then your claims of being misunderstood and slamming an AC when they disagree with you. If you can't defend your posts against contradictory viewpoints without complaining that people are off topic or ignorant, then blogging might suit you better than forums.
I use entanet and I'm pretty impressed by their stance on certain issues.
Their CTO on iplayer
Enta against Phorm
They work through resellers like Aquiss, ADSL24, UKFSN, Freeola, Seriously, Vivaciti and others. They sell plans by the peak allowance amount, with massive limits during off-peak and don't try to limit what software or protocols you use.
Let's burn down this building because....
Burn down the building, really?
NO! You misunderstood me!
The comment about not being able to use the service you paid for made up less than one third of your post and you did in fact say that the building should be burnt down because they had pissed you off.
If you feel that you have been misunderstood and did not intend for arson to be your main point, perhaps you should consult a doctor about Alien Hand Syndrome
P.S. Despite the criminal charge of incitement having been aboloshed in the UK last year, it was replaced with 3 new offences of encouraging or assisting. Would it not have been wise to use the AC tag yourself?
Wrong. This is not being looked at because google are a brilliant company who love everybody, this is being looked at because the deal is f'king shady.
The authors guild wants to sell monopoly rights to google. Rights which are not theirs to sell, if they even exist at all.
The exclusive right to scan and sell any orphaned book, which might very well contradict copyright laws.
The exclusive right to decide what constitutes an "out of print" work, and republish it.
There are others, those are just the two I can recall off the top of my head.
Google would be released from the legal obligation to seek permission of copyright holders first, whether the holders are members of the authors guild or not. As you can probably imagine, there's no way in hell the authors guild has the legal capacity to grant that permission for all authors (including foreign authors).
So google and the authors guild are trying to create an illegal monopoly.
Not just keyboards.
So ''Open Source'' can refer to Free Software, but it can also refer to software not meeting the criteria above. It is also at times used to describe a particular software development model, although some parts of Free Software are developed in closed development models, and proprietary software is increasingly experimenting with open development approaches. This makes the term ''Open Source'' highly ambiguous, and indeed difficult for all areas that depend on precision in their language, such as science, law and politics.
So, on the one hand they are trying to say "there is no difference between free software and open source", and on the other they are pointing out that open source does not always mean the same thing as free software.
If they cannot even unify what they are saying with what they have said, what hope is there for them to unify developers?
Trade secrets should cover that.
With the DOJ and possibly the EU looking into googles book settlement for antitrust reasons, consumers will not be better off if the settlement is allowed to stand. They never are when dealing with a monopoly.
If google enters the market as a fair competitor to amazon, then sure, it should lead to lower prices and more choice, but I don't think google is even remotely interested in fair competition.
If an article is protected, you can still go edit some other article. It doesn't stop the whole thing being editable.
If you've gotten yourself banned for something you did in your edits, then you already had your chance at editing.
Maybe if the hook was "The encyclopedia anyone can continue to edit, forever".
Psychosomatic heart disease in american civil war soldiers? Preposterous!
Post traumatic stress in the 1800's? Not on your nelly!
Your statement that people suffering from PTSD should die however does have some historical precident. You'd have been great at executing "cowards" and "traitors"
I would work on your idea of modern though.
Which european countries would this be?
From personal experience, it can't be the UK.
You should only diagnose disorders you can treat without drugging them.
The bad news is that we can't remove your brain tumor.
The absolutely brilliant news is that we've withdrawn the diagnosis. Officially, you have no tumor. Now quit whining and get on with life.
A pill to cure cynicism will cause people to misquote? That is a bad idea!
once you've experienced cold-hearted cruelty, you've experienced something most people never will, and it destroys some or all of your innocent cheerfulness and spontaneity.
Cruelty is not something most people have no experience with, it's part of growing up.
You got bullied for wearing glasses, I got crap for having hearing aids, other kids I knew got it because they were fat while others were bullied for being skinny, some were too short, some too tall, some too rich, some too poor, some had permanent snotty noses, one kid got it because his dad was a policeman. It happens to everyone.
The things you've listed as having lost all or part of are lacking in most adults.
Smiling all the time and announcing "Hey, it's tuesday, let's all go to the beach" do not really work beyond the age of puberty.
Are they insane? Yes, they are.
These are the same people who claim that playing TV or radio in public requires a license, even when there is no charge to view or listen, despite that section 72 of the copyright, designs and patents act says otherwise. They then attempt to sue police stations among others for breaking their fictitious interpretation of the law.
All the bios passwords in the world wont prevent anything when the battery can just be pulled.
So the correction should read:
They'd literally have to pull the battery before doing anything they want with your system.
My impression of the argument over whether tables may be used for layout
I think the fact that tables have been used for many years for layout proves that they may indeed be used for layout :-P
So which part don't you believe? The turning people into salt part, or the invisible being part?
If it's the second, then I'd say the words "we" and "us" are not the words you are looking for and you should maybe look for a new religion that doesn't involve invisible beings.
In small and medium shops, cameras are there to provide evidence to the police after something has happened or so the shopkeeper can see the back of the store. No analysts are required.
In bigger shops, and police/council networks, 1 person may be in charge of upwards of 20 cameras.
Not only is it not logistically impossible to have millions of cameras in the UK, but even the CCTV User Group says there's more than 1.5 million not including corner shops. All the takeaways on my road have at least 2, one corner shop has 3 and the other has at least 5. Those numbers add up.
As for the comment that anyone who doesn't want cameras everywhere has never lived in a bad neighbourhood, being mugged once when you were 9 in an "upper middle class" area is classed as bad? Personally, I've been stabbed, beaten with a baseball bat and seen my block of flats set on fire in the past few years. This area is nowhere near as bad as where I grew up. There, being mugged as a child was a weekly occurence.
Funnily enough though, I still don't like having CCTV record my every move. Maybe it's because CCTV does not prevent crime and is easily defeated with a hood or bandana. Or maybe it's because of the slippery slope. Something happens outside of CCTV coverage, then CCTV must be placed there. Eventually there is not a single inch of private space left in the country.
http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/intro.cws_home/ataglance
As the world's leading publisher of science and health information, Elsevier serves more than 30 million scientists, students, and health and information professionals worldwide.
We are proud to play an essential role in the global science and health communities and to contribute to the advancement of these critical fields. By delivering world-class information and innovative tools to researchers, students, educators and practitioners worldwide, we help them increase their productivity and effectiveness.
And from http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/intro.cws_home/mission:
That's why Elsevier partners with leading experts to publish the most authoritative and reliable information so scientists and health professionals can make critical decisions that advance scientific discovery and save lives.
At best, they were duped into lending any credibility they have to a sham. At worst, they knew that the thing was fake and went against their mission statement, yet published anyway because the money was too good to pass up.
It's perfectly sensible in the same way that describing Demigod as a game for rapists is. After all, the dictionary definition of rape includes "violent seizure", and the definition of a rapist is one who commits rape.
If someone said "if you play Demigod, accept that you're a rapist and quit rationalizing it any other way.", would that be acceptable or sensible to you?
The word "rapist" is generally reserved for those who commit the other type of rape, the one described in legal dictionaries as forced sexual relations. Just as the word "thief" is not generally used to describe someone winning a game through luck, or moving stealthily but is used to describe those who deprive someone of their own property.