And they didn't subtract the sell value. I had a civic hybrid for 4 years and when I sold it it went for almost $4k more than an equivalent used gas only version. so the extra $2200 i paid was more than made up for in the resale.
Or, he's thinking of the long term rather than short term. If his buying a hybrid kicks in to the car companies that they should make hybrids and they do, then in the long term it will create much more efficient cars everywhere rather than just his one bike trip back and forth to work and the store.
it was shortened the original proof he was working on was 10Pt !=(or Not) 12Pt font. The journalist shortened it to P!=NP. The rest of the text is meaningless other than to illustrate the difference.
So your argument is that if you use oil to do something try not using it to do that and you wont be able to? If I used heating oil I could just switch to a wood burning stove, electric furnace or heat pump. Sure oil just happens to be the best thing to power cars currently, but there have been plenty of attempts to do this in other ways, or you could ride a bike, take the electric subway, walk, run, skate, or any number of other tings that get you from point a to point b. Your argument is identical to saying, "Try riding a bike without a bike."
Ok, so just the guy that puts the computer into the car, the manager that told him to and the engineer that designed it wrong should be held responsible. Got it. Thanks for clarifying that for me.
WalMart is somewhat uniq in that they are the opposite of a monopoly. They are nearly a single buyer when it comes to their ability to distribute stuff. It's actually called a Monopsony. There are many manufactures competing to get Walmart to distribute their goods. Walmart pretty much gets to set the buying price.
"You could get into a whole different form of energy (like solar), but now you're creating a new industry, not competing in an existing, mature industry."
This is quite possibly the most ridiculous analysis of competition I have ever read. Oil is part of the energy Industry creating another energy that competes with oil is competition.
In some ways you are right, but if a president/CEO/Owner sets a policy of make this unsafe, then he should be held responsible. If he says get this done and make sure it is safe and some lower level manager ignores the make it safe part then it is that lower level manager that needs to be held responsible. There should be pressure on the top level to do something about the lower level but there shouldn't be liability in his lap.
So when a car is found to have a problem of sudden acceleration and starts killing people we should throw the guy putting the tires on these cars in jail along with everyone else? What about the janitor? Receptionist? The factory tour group that saw it all happening? Maybe we should just throw everyone in jail within a 12 mile radius of the factory.
I think there should be a government program of Universal flat-screen TVs for everyone. Think of all the poor people this would help. You know how much it sucks to be unemployed and have to watch a crappy 27" CRT?
Debian's definition of stable isn't as much "Doesn't crash" as much as "Doesn't change"
It is stable because if you install it and patch update it will be nearly exactly the same environment throughout it's entire life cycle.
So if you tell the Debain community, "It crashes when I do this." They'll say, "Don't do that." And maintain that functionality, or lack there of, until the next release.
I ran Debian unstable for about 8 years with few problems, testing actually seems to have more problems then unstable does. I think it's the point where they try to force desired features with existing code, whereas unstable is just getting existing code to work with existing core. You do have to follow the planned updates though and watch for major changes and avoid them for a month or two.
Wasn't his silly tirade over the fact that the actually IT policy was that he can only give the passwords to the Mayor or something? I thought the reason this was such BS was that he was just following a, stupid but formal, rule that they didn't like for what ever reason.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't like the conclusions either so they must be false. Let's go make some studies that prove oil is bad, MmmKay.
I don't know if it's still offered but when I bought my Civic in 2003 it had a 10yr unlimited mileage warranty on the battery.
You'd think that'd be the case, yet KBB proves otherwise.
Yes, mine came with a 10yr unlimited miles warranty so it was factored into the cost of the vehicle. Still only $2200 over the equivalent gas version.
And they didn't subtract the sell value. I had a civic hybrid for 4 years and when I sold it it went for almost $4k more than an equivalent used gas only version. so the extra $2200 i paid was more than made up for in the resale.
Or, he's thinking of the long term rather than short term. If his buying a hybrid kicks in to the car companies that they should make hybrids and they do, then in the long term it will create much more efficient cars everywhere rather than just his one bike trip back and forth to work and the store.
"Greed: Ain't it fun? You can ruin almost anything with it."
For everything else there's Government.
Over 50% more.
I thought this was news for nerds, not news for murderous, abusive rapists???
shouldn't that be
1) unhook bra
2) ???
3) loss (child support, alimony, daycare, etc...)
but step 2 was fun.
I have it figured out, I am just trying to understand others opinions on the subject.
it was shortened the original proof he was working on was 10Pt !=(or Not) 12Pt font. The journalist shortened it to P!=NP. The rest of the text is meaningless other than to illustrate the difference.
I do understand how in your opinion these must be facts.
So your argument is that if you use oil to do something try not using it to do that and you wont be able to? If I used heating oil I could just switch to a wood burning stove, electric furnace or heat pump. Sure oil just happens to be the best thing to power cars currently, but there have been plenty of attempts to do this in other ways, or you could ride a bike, take the electric subway, walk, run, skate, or any number of other tings that get you from point a to point b. Your argument is identical to saying, "Try riding a bike without a bike."
Ok, so just the guy that puts the computer into the car, the manager that told him to and the engineer that designed it wrong should be held responsible. Got it. Thanks for clarifying that for me.
WalMart is somewhat uniq in that they are the opposite of a monopoly. They are nearly a single buyer when it comes to their ability to distribute stuff. It's actually called a Monopsony. There are many manufactures competing to get Walmart to distribute their goods. Walmart pretty much gets to set the buying price.
"You could get into a whole different form of energy (like solar), but now you're creating a new industry, not competing in an existing, mature industry."
This is quite possibly the most ridiculous analysis of competition I have ever read. Oil is part of the energy Industry creating another energy that competes with oil is competition.
In some ways you are right, but if a president/CEO/Owner sets a policy of make this unsafe, then he should be held responsible. If he says get this done and make sure it is safe and some lower level manager ignores the make it safe part then it is that lower level manager that needs to be held responsible. There should be pressure on the top level to do something about the lower level but there shouldn't be liability in his lap.
So when a car is found to have a problem of sudden acceleration and starts killing people we should throw the guy putting the tires on these cars in jail along with everyone else? What about the janitor? Receptionist? The factory tour group that saw it all happening? Maybe we should just throw everyone in jail within a 12 mile radius of the factory.
Corporatism is another non-freemarket government sponsored entity.
I think there should be a government program of Universal flat-screen TVs for everyone. Think of all the poor people this would help. You know how much it sucks to be unemployed and have to watch a crappy 27" CRT?
Debian's definition of stable isn't as much "Doesn't crash" as much as "Doesn't change"
It is stable because if you install it and patch update it will be nearly exactly the same environment throughout it's entire life cycle.
So if you tell the Debain community, "It crashes when I do this." They'll say, "Don't do that." And maintain that functionality, or lack there of, until the next release.
I ran Debian unstable for about 8 years with few problems, testing actually seems to have more problems then unstable does. I think it's the point where they try to force desired features with existing code, whereas unstable is just getting existing code to work with existing core. You do have to follow the planned updates though and watch for major changes and avoid them for a month or two.
Wasn't his silly tirade over the fact that the actually IT policy was that he can only give the passwords to the Mayor or something? I thought the reason this was such BS was that he was just following a, stupid but formal, rule that they didn't like for what ever reason.
I haven't seen a system yet that can't be reset to factory defaults and access regained.