It isn't about the driver noticing the pedestrian, it is about the pedestrian noticing the car. If you are blind, at an uncontrolled intersection, and cars are silent, then you have no fricken clue when it is safe to cross. Any time you crossed the street there would be a significant likelihood that you would be killed. Basically, no sane blind person would be able to get around without a seeing-eye dog, or someone else to escort them.
Suposedly, the PS3 uses 380 watts when fully under load, so:
380*24*365*2 = 6,657,600 watt hours = 6,657.6 kwh.
At say $0.10 per kwh, that means you payed $665.76 total or $27.74 per month to run folding@home.
Personally, I'd rather spend my $27.74 on something else, but I suppose it is for a good cause. Don't think you can claim the cost on your taxes though.
this is getting off-topic, but to respond to the comment on Top Gear being publicly funded: that doesn't necessarily mean that Clarkson, Hammond, and May cannot be bought / bribed. Though if anyone confirmed that one of them accepted a bribe, it would probably be the end of the show.
Why would tidal locking be unlikely at sun-earth L1? (mind you, L1 and L2 are not quite stable, so it would be unlikely that a large object would be there at all) But there is no reason that such an unlikely object could not be tidally locked with the earth. (and sun)
But I think what you were getting it is that an object that is residing in the L2 point, and is tidally locked with the earth would have a far side that never sees light from the earth or sun, and thus could be very cold.
No it wasn't a typo. You may not know that Mormons abstain from drinking alcohol. "Earthshine" was a play on the word "moonshine". (home-made corn whiskey).
The problem is that the L2 point isn't quite stable like the L4 and L5 points. You need a little bit of fuel to course correct and stay there. Thus anything in the L2 point will eventually leave it. No stable objects.
"plus" could be quite large. If the asteroid were large enough... say, the size of Texas, and moving fast enough, the impact could release enough heat to boil the oceans and sterilize everything on the surface. The surface of the earth would be uninhabitable for at least thousands of years, but probably permanently (at least for humans) due to the atmosphere being significantly changed. People in bunkers, no matter how deep they are, would not survive that.
So what if you ARE an aerospace engineer. That doesn't necessarily mean that you know much of anything about orbital mechanics. You might just be good at designing combustion chambers for thrusters, or avionics, or jet engines. Aerospace is a big field, get over yourself.
Mantis shrimp can also differentiate the polarization of light. And not just in two directions, they can also differentiate circularly polarized light.
Did you know that it is possible to get an idea of the true color of the sky? (the sky is actually blue-violet rather than blue-white) You just have to overload your blue cone cells a bit... stare at a blue object that is brightly lit, such as a slip-n-slide or blue kiddie pool sitting in the sun, and after 20-30 seconds, look up at the sky. It will now appear to be a shade of blue-violet instead of blue-white.
No you are confusing direct injection with HCCI. HCCI is homogeneous charge, compression ignition. And it doesn't work exactly the same way as a diesel. In a diesel, the air is compressed to high temperatures before any fuel is injected, and the fuel burns on injection. But this produces a lot of soot. If we were to build a diesel cycle gasoline engine, it would indeed be more efficient, but it would still produce a lot of soot. And since gasoline has less energy per unit volume, it still wouldn't be as efficient as a diesel. In HCCI, the fuel is injected with the air, and thus allowed to mix fully. When the mixture is compressed, the heat of compression causes the air/fuel mixture to ignite. Being fully mixed, combustion is clean, very efficient, and doesn't produce much soot. This difficulty in this is that it isn't easy to get the mixture to ignite exactly when you want it to, and this makes it hard to run an engine the way that we do in a automobile. (at a variety of speeds and power output)
Direct injected engines inject the fuel into the cylinder just after or as the air enters. The evaporating fuel cools the air charge, which allows the engine to use a higher compression ratio. (cooler air/fuel mixture means less threat of knock) This provides more power per stroke while keeping the same displacement. You could use it to increase efficiency if you then used a smaller displacement engine, and thus got the same power out of a smaller engine, but in this case they used it to increase power output.
FYI, the Nissan VQ37VHR engine is direct injected as well, and does have 5% more displacement. It also has a better variable valve setup. Without that greater displacement it would make around 311 hp vs the fords 350. This just tells you that the ford engine isn't using very much psi, and if you are into tuning, you could probably easily get this car to around 450.
And yes, you can tune small engines to produce amazing max hp numbers, but they almost always achieve that by using oversized turbos that push the power band into the very high end of the rpm range. Those cars can also be rather difficult to drive in a normal way. In the low rpms you have the power of a 2L... and then all of a sudden the turbo spools and you are fighting to maintain traction. That's fine if it is just a drag car, but not so great if you are just trying to merge on the interstate.
For your information, I've read the foundation series, where the radioactivity is mentioned but never actually explained. I haven't read the robot series yet. Perhaps I should have read the robots books first, but at the time I didn't know they took place in the same universe. Sure, I could have started reading Asimov when I was in second grade, but I didn't. Neither did you I suspect, so stop being such an ass.
I'm not a farmer, but I grew up on a farm. While some of that bio-waste might end up as roughage, it does end up back in the field, in the form of manure, and proper crop rotation can help to avoid disease. You also never addressed the fact that almost all of our fertilizers are petrochemical based. If the plan is "harvest everything above ground level and use it to make fuel" then you are removing lots of vital compounds from the soil. Those have to be replenished or eventually the only thing that will grow are things like desert grasses that don't need very much from the soil. If you are replenishing them via commercial fertilizers, then you are just using oil/natural gas in a round-about way, rather than directly.
Yes, there are lots of sources of bio-matter, such as the dead trees you are talking about, and the grasses that catch fire every year or so. But those play a part in the natural scheme of things. Even when burned, the ash helps to fertilize the soil and support further plant and animal life. If we remove all of that grass/brush/dead trees, then we remove those nutrients from the environment and less is able to grow in that place. Look at those rain forest farmers you mention. They burn down the forest to make room for fields and to fertilize the soil, farm the fields to death (until their crops won't grow anymore) and then burn down more forest. The exact same thing would happen here if it weren't for commercial fertilizers.
Biofuels will more than likely play a small part in the future, but I stand by my claim that they are not the answer for energy independence.
Personally, I believe the answer is nuclear. Using modern reactor designs, we have enough nuclear fuel to power the world for thousands of years at the very least. We can use surplus power from nuclear reactors that are built a little larger than necessary to create fuels from air and water. No need to use up vast tracts of land, and the power/fuel plants provide high paying jobs. The waste that is generated by the reactors is short lived, thus much less dangerous than waste from the old 1970s era technology we use now. Nuclear is the future.
Ford's point is that it gets better mileage than would the same car if it had a v8. This doesn't matter to you, because you don't care about performance that much. But if you were someone who values performance, having a bit better (though still not great) fuel economy is a plus.
Newsflash!...The Taurus SHO wasn't designed for you. This is the high performance variant of the Taurus. Fuel economy is secondary. You have the fuel efficient version of the S class. in that case, performance was secondary to economy. Not a fair comparison.
No. The new EPA guidelines changed for all cars. I have a mazda 3, which had 1 or 2 mpg better (on the sticker) before the switch. It was pretty much the same for all cars.
The Taurus SHO weighs 4400lbs vs the 3669lbs of your escape. Plus the SHO has a 3.5L V6. Given those numbers, 17mpg city isn't that crazy. Granted, a 4400lb car is a little nuts.
Of course your s-class get's better mileage! It is a diesel 3.0L engine in a car that weighs about 3500lbs, vs a 3.5L gasoline engine in a car that weighs 4400lbs.
I would say that the vast majority of accidents are caused by a combination of the following:
- Not paying attention to driving / not paying attention to cars around you.
- Drivers doing things that other drivers don't expect.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it is a chance you are willing to take to have quiet cars. Adding a sound to an otherwise quiet car does not hold back technology.
It isn't about the driver noticing the pedestrian, it is about the pedestrian noticing the car. If you are blind, at an uncontrolled intersection, and cars are silent, then you have no fricken clue when it is safe to cross. Any time you crossed the street there would be a significant likelihood that you would be killed. Basically, no sane blind person would be able to get around without a seeing-eye dog, or someone else to escort them.
Hows your electric bill?
Suposedly, the PS3 uses 380 watts when fully under load, so:
380*24*365*2 = 6,657,600 watt hours = 6,657.6 kwh.
At say $0.10 per kwh, that means you payed $665.76 total or $27.74 per month to run folding@home.
Personally, I'd rather spend my $27.74 on something else, but I suppose it is for a good cause. Don't think you can claim the cost on your taxes though.
Did you get it fixed? What was the cause?
this is getting off-topic, but to respond to the comment on Top Gear being publicly funded: that doesn't necessarily mean that Clarkson, Hammond, and May cannot be bought / bribed. Though if anyone confirmed that one of them accepted a bribe, it would probably be the end of the show.
Why would tidal locking be unlikely at sun-earth L1? (mind you, L1 and L2 are not quite stable, so it would be unlikely that a large object would be there at all) But there is no reason that such an unlikely object could not be tidally locked with the earth. (and sun)
But I think what you were getting it is that an object that is residing in the L2 point, and is tidally locked with the earth would have a far side that never sees light from the earth or sun, and thus could be very cold.
No it wasn't a typo. You may not know that Mormons abstain from drinking alcohol. "Earthshine" was a play on the word "moonshine". (home-made corn whiskey).
The problem is that the L2 point isn't quite stable like the L4 and L5 points. You need a little bit of fuel to course correct and stay there. Thus anything in the L2 point will eventually leave it. No stable objects.
Even a dinosaur killer plus...
"plus" could be quite large. If the asteroid were large enough... say, the size of Texas, and moving fast enough, the impact could release enough heat to boil the oceans and sterilize everything on the surface. The surface of the earth would be uninhabitable for at least thousands of years, but probably permanently (at least for humans) due to the atmosphere being significantly changed. People in bunkers, no matter how deep they are, would not survive that.
Ugh... so tired of you folks. Please go somewhere else.
So what if you ARE an aerospace engineer. That doesn't necessarily mean that you know much of anything about orbital mechanics. You might just be good at designing combustion chambers for thrusters, or avionics, or jet engines. Aerospace is a big field, get over yourself.
What are you talking about?
Mantis shrimp can also differentiate the polarization of light. And not just in two directions, they can also differentiate circularly polarized light.
Did you know that it is possible to get an idea of the true color of the sky? (the sky is actually blue-violet rather than blue-white) You just have to overload your blue cone cells a bit... stare at a blue object that is brightly lit, such as a slip-n-slide or blue kiddie pool sitting in the sun, and after 20-30 seconds, look up at the sky. It will now appear to be a shade of blue-violet instead of blue-white.
No you are confusing direct injection with HCCI. HCCI is homogeneous charge, compression ignition. And it doesn't work exactly the same way as a diesel. In a diesel, the air is compressed to high temperatures before any fuel is injected, and the fuel burns on injection. But this produces a lot of soot. If we were to build a diesel cycle gasoline engine, it would indeed be more efficient, but it would still produce a lot of soot. And since gasoline has less energy per unit volume, it still wouldn't be as efficient as a diesel. In HCCI, the fuel is injected with the air, and thus allowed to mix fully. When the mixture is compressed, the heat of compression causes the air/fuel mixture to ignite. Being fully mixed, combustion is clean, very efficient, and doesn't produce much soot. This difficulty in this is that it isn't easy to get the mixture to ignite exactly when you want it to, and this makes it hard to run an engine the way that we do in a automobile. (at a variety of speeds and power output)
Direct injected engines inject the fuel into the cylinder just after or as the air enters. The evaporating fuel cools the air charge, which allows the engine to use a higher compression ratio. (cooler air/fuel mixture means less threat of knock) This provides more power per stroke while keeping the same displacement. You could use it to increase efficiency if you then used a smaller displacement engine, and thus got the same power out of a smaller engine, but in this case they used it to increase power output.
FYI, the Nissan VQ37VHR engine is direct injected as well, and does have 5% more displacement. It also has a better variable valve setup. Without that greater displacement it would make around 311 hp vs the fords 350. This just tells you that the ford engine isn't using very much psi, and if you are into tuning, you could probably easily get this car to around 450.
And yes, you can tune small engines to produce amazing max hp numbers, but they almost always achieve that by using oversized turbos that push the power band into the very high end of the rpm range. Those cars can also be rather difficult to drive in a normal way. In the low rpms you have the power of a 2L... and then all of a sudden the turbo spools and you are fighting to maintain traction. That's fine if it is just a drag car, but not so great if you are just trying to merge on the interstate.
For your information, I've read the foundation series, where the radioactivity is mentioned but never actually explained. I haven't read the robot series yet. Perhaps I should have read the robots books first, but at the time I didn't know they took place in the same universe. Sure, I could have started reading Asimov when I was in second grade, but I didn't. Neither did you I suspect, so stop being such an ass.
I'm not a farmer, but I grew up on a farm. While some of that bio-waste might end up as roughage, it does end up back in the field, in the form of manure, and proper crop rotation can help to avoid disease. You also never addressed the fact that almost all of our fertilizers are petrochemical based. If the plan is "harvest everything above ground level and use it to make fuel" then you are removing lots of vital compounds from the soil. Those have to be replenished or eventually the only thing that will grow are things like desert grasses that don't need very much from the soil. If you are replenishing them via commercial fertilizers, then you are just using oil/natural gas in a round-about way, rather than directly.
Yes, there are lots of sources of bio-matter, such as the dead trees you are talking about, and the grasses that catch fire every year or so. But those play a part in the natural scheme of things. Even when burned, the ash helps to fertilize the soil and support further plant and animal life. If we remove all of that grass/brush/dead trees, then we remove those nutrients from the environment and less is able to grow in that place. Look at those rain forest farmers you mention. They burn down the forest to make room for fields and to fertilize the soil, farm the fields to death (until their crops won't grow anymore) and then burn down more forest. The exact same thing would happen here if it weren't for commercial fertilizers.
Biofuels will more than likely play a small part in the future, but I stand by my claim that they are not the answer for energy independence.
Personally, I believe the answer is nuclear. Using modern reactor designs, we have enough nuclear fuel to power the world for thousands of years at the very least. We can use surplus power from nuclear reactors that are built a little larger than necessary to create fuels from air and water. No need to use up vast tracts of land, and the power/fuel plants provide high paying jobs. The waste that is generated by the reactors is short lived, thus much less dangerous than waste from the old 1970s era technology we use now. Nuclear is the future.
Cars absolutely do have significantly different stopping abilities. Drive a greater variety of vehicles and you will realize this.
Aren't we supposed to have direct-injection turbo gas engines by now?
BTW, the SHO does have a direct injection turbocharged engine.
Ford's point is that it gets better mileage than would the same car if it had a v8. This doesn't matter to you, because you don't care about performance that much. But if you were someone who values performance, having a bit better (though still not great) fuel economy is a plus.
Newsflash! ...The Taurus SHO wasn't designed for you. This is the high performance variant of the Taurus. Fuel economy is secondary. You have the fuel efficient version of the S class. in that case, performance was secondary to economy. Not a fair comparison.
No. The new EPA guidelines changed for all cars. I have a mazda 3, which had 1 or 2 mpg better (on the sticker) before the switch. It was pretty much the same for all cars.
The Taurus SHO weighs 4400lbs vs the 3669lbs of your escape. Plus the SHO has a 3.5L V6. Given those numbers, 17mpg city isn't that crazy. Granted, a 4400lb car is a little nuts.
Of course your s-class get's better mileage! It is a diesel 3.0L engine in a car that weighs about 3500lbs, vs a 3.5L gasoline engine in a car that weighs 4400lbs.
Not a fair comparison.
I would say that the vast majority of accidents are caused by a combination of the following:
- Not paying attention to driving / not paying attention to cars around you.
- Drivers doing things that other drivers don't expect.