well i said a bit about it, but nearly all manufactures were cranking out EVs in the late 90's and early 00's. Honda has an EV to.
GM hasn't gone to far with gas electric hybrids because they have been heavily going fuel cells. I would hardly say honda is spanky anyone with their "hybrids" they shouldn't even be called that seeing they are so lame far as hybrids. The toyotas are great. Good chance GM will launch something with them seeing their long time partnership. Acualy I think the VUE will be a hybrid soon. Also Toyota didn't create their system, its a seperate company that did and they are working with other companies.
It's not car companies saying EVs arn't viable. It the entire engineering and science community. You can't change physics and thermodynamics. Much the same you can't change the laws of batteries. Differant chemistries have got us better batteries. But your basic lead acid battery has barely improved in 100 years when it comes to storage. And it's not for lack of trying with battery technology.
Hybrids are the future. They use the benifits of both conventional and EV and apply them most effectively. This is the main reason companies have ditched EV research. Hybrids are just so much better there is no point in messing with EVs
yeah, i'm having a problem with this claim to. Better AC motors like are in the mid 90s % efficancy. So I'm not seeing how he's coming up with a 80% power reduction. Maybe 80% less loss, so if we were at 95% now they have moved up 80% of 5% more.
Sorry this is completely wrong. GM spent 1 billion dollars on the EV1 and leased about 500 of them in 2-3 states. THe reality is EVs are not practical. They are ok for when you cannot have any emissions out of a vehicle, and good for short trips. But they are not practical in the big picture. Your idea of who needs what is wrong. For one the numbers arn't right, and too who are you to say what people need.
Now to the more important issue. EVs are not the answer. Like I said they are fine if you can't have any emissions from the vehicle, like inside a manufacturing plant, or in a dense urban environment. Not that the later matters since emmisions from else where will just drift in. What so many people miss is the power generation and so forth. From a well to wheels model (the greet model) that factors in all energy use from start to finish to move a vehicle such as makeing fuels and electricity and so forth EVs come out poorly. Infact Diesel engine vehicles come out on tops since the fuel takes very little energy to produce and few emissions plus the engine is very efficent. EVs are oen of the dirtiest forms of vehicles. Furthermore many think that a central power plant is cleaner, well aside from a nuclear plant or other no emissions plants this is not true. Most our power comes from fossil fuels. Powerplants are not high efficency do to safety. Also they simple are not very clean. The modern internal combustion engine is one of the most efficent forms of power generation we have. It's also one of the cleanest. If you own a LEV (low emmissions vehicle) in Los Angles the air coming out the exhaust is cleaner then the air that went into the engine. Our cars are now cleaning the air in highly poluted cities. There was also far less losses involved.
EVs have their place but it is limited. The EV1 was only leased for liability issue. GM wanted to make sure things like the battery pack were properly handled. Also think of it this way. The EV1 had a range of 60-100 miles from it's 1200 lbs battery pack. A car like a ford focus that is much bigger can go 100 miles on 21lbs of gas ( ~3 gallons). The energy wasted to haul that battery pack is insane. Lithium ions help but don't make it practical. A pack that would have the storage of the EV1s battery pack ~90 Amp hours or so (trying to remember off hand) would cost roughly 75,000 bucks in lithium ion. This is based on a smaller battery pack for a hybrid vehicle I work on, compaired to the EV1 we have for a seperate project. GM gave the EV1s to universities after they were recalled, they were recalled do to a fire issue. EVs are not practical as full purpose vehicles. It is not an issue of conspiracy. People need to get over this. If the car companys had high mileage cars people would want they would sell them in a heart beat since they would make a ton of money.
If you want EVs to happen. Invent a box roughly 1ftx1ftx2ft that holds as much energy as a gasoline tank the same size and weighs the same or less. Then they will be more possible. Also get fusion power working so we have a clean abundant energy source for EVs.
And on a slightly differant note, when you come off as you did, no one will listen, because you sound like a crack pot. You have to have a open and logical mind for people to even listen. There is a small market for EVs, and it's pretty well used right now. Auto makers make EVs, but there is little market because there isn't many applications where they truely work. All EV pickups and minivans the big 3 made the last few years are out of production. I think the EV Rav4 may still be out there.
Not that I accept Bush's Economic sense one bit. Frankly he shouldn't be allowed to touch a budget.
But, for this one, it might not be the worst thing. If all the money for this was spent within the US it would create a large flow of money through the system. The gov spending lots of money isn't a bad thing, as long as it's not flat out wasted and isn't thrown out of the country. This project would involve a heck of a lot of people (new jobs) and fuel a new tech boom. The moonshoot was huge to a lot of companies, (think about how much it boosted the entire computer industry). So it wouldn't be the a completely bad thing.
Spending money is always better then a tax cut which is pure flushing money down the drain and doesn't help anyone. Having a big project that people could get behind with optimissim and give lots of people jobs for a decade would be a plus. But that doesn't mean go crazy throwing money at mars. Make a lot of the focus on how to do it cheaply and maybe make it worthwhile would be key.
No, I'm ok with the default, But I usualy set it to silver. When it first came out I made fun of it for a bit, then I used it and started to like it alot. I personaly can't stand classic mode. That looks like total ass. "hey it's 2004, I have my computer set to look like 1995".
I find it funny that so many who diss Luna probably have the most ass looking KDE or Gnome setup one can dream up. I have yet to see a theme for KDE that looked better then Luna, A few Gnome themese are very spiffy though.
Though I have to say this is completely pointless. No one has seen what longhorn will look like, Avilon or whatever it is called has been shown to no one yet. MS has very clearly stated that what is seen in the betas is not what longhorn will look like. They system that runs it isn't out either. Nothing someone makes today would work. The new GUI is all DirectX based.
If you look up the history of Soccer and American Football, you will find that American Football came first. What we refer to as football has the right to the name first. Calling soccer football is stealing the name. American Football was called football before Soccer existed. Though it's only by a few years.
Why not call maintance and have them come check it out and fix it. I hope they got the extended warrenty and undercoating on the ISS. Who's got the receipt?
I've seen these before in the auto industry, one company had a building with a couple of them so they could store several hundred cars indoors, but they didn't have to run them indoors (which was important for the application)
I agree Highspeed trains will be nice. But even the fastest trains still are far slower then getting on a airplane to go cross country. Also the US is simpley huge. Think of how long Europe has been working on their train networks, both slow and highspeed. Now think of the US which barrly has any train network, and then finaly remember the US is bigger then all of Europe. It could take 100 years to get close to what other countries have. Also to be effective it needs to get to every town, which is really hard to do when everything is so spaced out. In areas where one city bumps into the next they work much better.
No the flip side, trains are great expecialy if they come by all the time and you can just go down and buy a ticket and get on. That would be great. Also since I hate planes I would love them. I'm a mechanical engineer, I just can't deal with planes. All the way through college everything seamed to be about how airplaces fail, and riding in them I over-think ever sound they make. So I would love trains, the price has to be right though. I saw something saying a Acela (sp?) train ticket from DC-Boston was like 280 bucks, (note this could be wrong, it was something like that). Thats crazy. I would expect it to not be more then 30 bucks or so. If trains arn't dirt cheap it won't work. It shouldn't cost the same as a airplane ticket.
Now here is something else. Planes have numbered days unless they come up with something. Planes need fuels like Kerosene and Diesel, that is, heavy hydrocarbons. Without such energy dense fuels they can't get off the ground. There is a limited supply of fossil fuels. It's projected to run out at any moment in the next 20-400 years (yes thats was making fun of dooms day predictions). Without such fuels airplanes are screwed. You can make fuel like Fisher Tropes Diesel, but that takes a lot of energy and isn't very clean to produce. It's hard enough to make the cost number works for planes as is, double the cost of fuel and hell really breaks loose.
So as it stands now planes are screwed in the future, thus why most things talking about the future don't mention planes. You can't make an electric plane that would go very fast. And to power it you'd need a nuclear reactor up there. This makes you wonder what we will do for trans-ocean travel.
So even though trains will be a bitch to move to and take a long time, they might just happen do to no other good answer.
you nailed it on that one. their is little point to move to other things when oil is cheap, when i say point i mean incentive. I personaly want a nuclear world, but thats not going to happen to soon. Look at how the US looks at Iran, as Bush said "why do they need nuclear power when they have all the oil they can use" or something very close to that. That shows the idiocy around. Iran does get it (asuming they truely are going for energy) they are smart anough to sell the oil and develope more long term plans. But as long as oil barrons are around logic gets trampled.
On the good side though. If we do suddenly run out of oil, which could happen at any moment in the next 20-400 years the drive for nuclear and other smarter energy sources will really go out. So using lots of oil now could be good if it forces us to think smarter faster.
I think he ment things like fuel cell cars. Yes they exist, but they still arn't practical, and probably never will be. Since the whole fuel cell car idea is flawed. IE it's not freedom from fossil fuels since the practical way to get hydrogen is from fossil fuels. And even then that takes a lot of energy. They also arn't that efficient, 60% peak and thats not factoring the energy used to make the hyrdogen.
Fusion power does even come into play, since the only true break from fossil fuels and to make it renewable is from splitting water. And that means we need a super clean, cheap and massive amount of power. Hense fusion, and even then you are still wasting energy making hydrogen, just means we have clean energy, even though making the hyrdrogen and then running the fuel cell puts us at a loss. So we can't really expect the promise of fuel cell/ hydrogen economy to come true till fusion gets up and running.
Also far as hydrogen fuel cell cars they were promisied long ago, first 2000, then they all said 2004, now they say end of decade. Having worked on hybrid cars for years I and most anyone I know who works on hybrids and fuel cells agree fuel cell cars arn't going to happen. Especialy since a hydrogen IC engine beats a fuel cell in about all ways. Sure there is prototypes, and very complete ones at that, (fuel cell ford focus) and even some test fleets, but they are still nothing practical.
For now the hydrogen economy is a nice fun thing for people like George Bush to throw out there. Make it sound good, oil companies love it, it's all good.
The future for fuel cells are in laptops and cell phones were you by a small hydrogen cartrige. For uses where portable power is needed, and it must be clean. Things like stationary fuel cell powerplants are the silliest things ever. Since they need powerplant to make the hydrogen to power them.
I think he made good comparisons and was right on. I wish more people would catch on to things like he mentioned about the locking of chips. The groups that think some company is conspiring against them are as he says insignificant. Probably at best 1% of people overclock, and even then it just means better chance Intel and AMD will get to sell this person more chips since the person fried theirs. This same concept can be expanded to most any conspiracy their people come up with, especialy the ones thought up by many people here.
Then again, such groups of people never seam to catch on that they don't matter.
This isn't a troll, just a point, so many people come up with these ideas about companies doing this or that to block linux, or saying linux has so much influence, but the reality is, it is such a small share that companies just don't care. MS may worry about linux in server space, but could care less on desktops. For any move that may seam like something they or any other company does to counter linux can better be explained by non-linux theories. Really it's an over thinking of linux's place that hurts it. It you accept it being small and having no effect you have more the right mindset to change that. If you think it's everywhere and a big force you are blind to it's flaws and less likely to do things to improve it's place. This goes past linux and applies to so many things. People who think everyone overclocks their chips are blind to the fact everyone does not, and thus don't get the fact that the Chip makers don't care about what they do.
You do realize that many people find the dead space left from the ad more anoying then the ad itself. Ad blockers are for people who are really crazed, for most it's just pop ups that bother them. Normal ads are fine, aside from the ocasional super flashy one. And sometimes you might find them useful. Also I prefer to still have ads make websites money. I don't want to have to start paying to visit every website out there because everyone has ad blockers so sites need new money streams.
Yep, I haven't seen a chimp turn into a human lately either. Infact no one has ever seen this. Infact no person who understands evolution has ever said this would happen either. I don't know what belief system you are thinking of where animals change into other types of animals. Closest I know of is female frogs becoming male frogs.
But then, the offspring of one animal being differant then it's parents is pretty common. Come to think of it I have never seen the offspring of one animal being identical to it's parents. I don't think anyone has ever seen to parents produce a animal identical in all ways to it down to the DNA. But childern being differant is real common, sometimes more differant thing simple looks, sometime they have differant colored parts, sometimes they have less then the normal ten fingers, sometimes more (i know a decent number of people born with 6 fingers per hand or 6 toes per foot), maybe they have the wrong number of teeth, I only was born with 22 permenant teeth. Some people i know are missing parts like spleens from birth. I'm sure thats just normal, I mean if every generation of offspring in something was just slightly differant for a few million years, i'm sure the end generation would be exactly the same as the first generation.
You need to get over it and accept evolution as a fact, it typicaly takes millions of years, but for simplier things it happens very fast, bacteria and virus's evolve all the time, year to year. Other things like fruitflies have become whole new species in short observable time spans.
It's impossible for things not to evolve, since to members of a species cannot reproduce and have an exact copy of them both in one animal, it will be differant. Only cloning can do this, and that involves only one parent, thus doesn't happen in nature. Evolution just means change, every generation is differant from the previous, in time the differances will show up. Just look at human over the last few hundred years, look at things like height, or general looks. If you took a sample of humans today, and a sample of humans from 1000 years ago and stripped them naked to remove all evidance giving away their timeframe it would be obvious who came from which time. Expand this over millions of years and out ape ancestors gradualy started to look like us.
Evolution does not mean becoming "better" it might just cause you to like sex more thus create more young. Or maybe you give birth to more offspring and thus their is more of your species then another "superior" one and they can't compete and die out. Evolution in many aspects has been haulted in the modern world. Today if you are born with 6 fingers, society shuns that and wants to see them removed. Also they probably don't help you much. But millions of years ago in a tree, it may have made you a better climber or food gatherer. That made you stronger and the chicks digged it, they matted with you, and some of your kids had six fingers, and they had an advantage, over time their were more 6 finger people because they were more sucessful. Today such things don't happen, if you are not a classic human people shun you. being born with 6 asses is not likely to help you or give you any chance at matting.
You also don't see much change in higher order land animal because we have become so much stronger and supress them. We kill them off to. As other animals have got smarter and adapted to our life we kill them off since we find them anoying, like bears living in cities living a new life from they did in the woods. Or we start seeing a change, say frogs with more legs, we set out to cure them, we asume its because of something we did. But there is a chance they are just evolving.
If darwinism was classified as supernatural then the award would have been claimed long ago, not much of a prize there then. If you didn't get the idea of it, the point is the things eligible will never win. Some of them do have a long shot chance, but arn't very likely. But things that we allready know to be true would be pretty dumb to make eligible.
what sony did was huge, I know people who had a PS/2 but only a couple games ment for the PS/2 for a good while. Being able to play their old games and have all the latest features and be able to buy new games was huge.
No backwards compatibility is only ok for people like me who have never owned any form of a consol in my life, so i have no games. But at the same time being able to run a older game would be very nice.
A timex indiglo watch doesn't make too bad a light either. Good for getting through a dark house at night, especialy if it's not your house. Amazing how forign ones parents house can become when you don't live there.
Mine was the same way, thomas finney 9th edition. Horrible book though, full or mistakes and just plain awful to learn from. This was one of the few things that seamed right in some ways though. My school didn't change the book constantly, they kept it for at least 3 years if not more. Then they got stupid and when to a "special edition" that was specific to our university. Those versions of text books need to be banned! There is no gains to having a few problems reworked to insert ones university info into homework problems. No one can sell the things online.
My biggest problem is when a course uses a differant book every semster, not so much new but differant. I had a class I dropped twice, every semster the course used a differant book, and not even both teachers for one semster would use the same book. This was just plain crazy.
I got screwed one semster when I didn't sell a book back cause a freind was going to take the same class, the book was new the semster i bought it, he used it the following and then they came out with a new edition. A edition should not last 1 year. So then I got stuck with it.
In my experiance if it's a book that you won't want to keap, or have no use for post the class you won't be able to sell it back. The books you intend to keap you could sell back. I have books that are 5 years old i could still sell back. But i'm not going to since they are actualy useful. They were also some of my less expensive books. So books they know you will keep they don't worry about screwing you with cost or versions, but if they know they are ones people sell back they be sure to screw people over.
I'm aware it has happened at differant speeds. I would like to know how it compairs to other cars. Anything I have seen on the problem has shown ford has changed things like 3 times to try and make it better but still have problems. Most agree there is nothing about the design that is bad, it just happens. Fuel tanks rupture on any car. 30 deaths in a decade doesn't seam to high. Though anything greater then zero isn't good. But thats not realistic. Also you figure ford designed that platform and tested it and nothing came up. Once it's in production your rather limited in changes you can make. I think so far they changed a bolt, maybe moved a panhard rod, and i think now have added a extra plat to protect it. Ford hasn't seamed to ignore the problem at all, just haven't come up with a good solution. The fuel tank is going in the position its in, there isn't anyplace else to put it. For every solution comes another problem, they could re-enforce the tail of the car, but then the riders get more wiplash or snapped necks. They could make the tank smaller maybe but then the car is less useful. As long as there is fuel tanks in cars there is the fire potential. I think one of the big things that makes thing alarming is it's police cars, so it's more high profile. We all want to see car companies make cars safe as possible but we all have to accept there is danger in all things and no amount of design will eliminate that. Also no matter how many things you factor into the design and crash senario's reality will always out do you. Reality is a bitch
" Don't forget about other Ford products which blow up, like the Crown Victoria (killed more than the Pinto) and the Mustang. Sure, it's the old 1960s Mustangs, but from what they should've learned with that (don't put the fuel tank behind the rear axle), the Pinto and the Crown Vic wouldn't be deathtraps.
Ford with the roll-over SUVs is another problem but they slacked most of the blame on Firestone for their tires instead of coming to terms with that. I
s there another car company that sells more deathtraps than Ford?"
Well, you seam to just have a beef against Ford. The mustang was just the car safety nuts latched onto. The reality of it is that most all cars of the 60s and early 70s have basicly the same fuel tank design of the mustangs, didn't matter the company. The mustang was just very popular so it made it a easy target to attack.
The crown vic issue is much differant. 50% of all crown vics are for police use, and by their nature they will experiance a large amount of wrecks at high speed. Nearly any car that gets hit hard in the back can have such issue. But as it is most cop cars are crown vics. So it really looks like there is an issue, and theres not. Its a fucking car, not a tank. You rear end it at 150 mph it isn't going to do so well. if there were more models out there for cruiser duty you would see high numbers on them. It's just the simple matter most cop cars are crown vics and most crown vics are cop cars.
You should look into how many cars have gas tanks behind the axle by the way. Would you prefer it outside the frame rail on the side like GM pickups of the 70-80's. Or in the cab like 50s trucks?
And the Explorer was proven countless times to have nothing to do with the roll overs. Infact it was shown to be one of the safest vehicles in it's class for a blow out. Numerous test showed you would have to actively try to wreck the vehicle in a blow out to stand any chance of wrecking. The closest group to getting a explorer to roll over just from a blow out was a group that did it on a bumping dirt road at high speed, basicly a situation that they driver shouldn be doing. Most test showed that you could be going 65 with your hands off the wheel during a blow out and nothing would happen. People wrecked because of extreme situation and they just plain were idiots who couldn't drive and did everything wrong like "oh my god my tire blew out" and pulled a massive lane change into a truck cause they thought they had to get to the side of the road imediatly and never looked. Many people go into massive idiot mode during a flat. Being in a explorer or not would still get many of them into problems.
The reason things seamed hight with explorers was once again simple numbers. There are more explorers out there then all other SUVs combined, or close to it, so chances are allready higher for it to look bad. Then on top of that the firestones were standard equipment on the explorers where most other vehicles they were optional. All othe vehicles with the firestones had problems. It was just the simple fact that there were so many explorers out there and so many more of them with firestones on them then other makes that made things look high.
ford settled some lawsuits just to get it over with, and i think they may have got hit some on having firestones on there vehicles (some dumb issue) but they were completely cleared by NHTSA. The problem was clearly all firestone, they had a bad batch of tires do to bad quality control. I have firestones on my car now and don't worry, but it's a shame ford got a bad image for something they were a victom of.
If you go and look up saftey history you would probably find ford as being one of the safer companies for their history. First with saftey glass, first standard seatbelts and some other things. GM would probably have a much worse history. All car companies have bad cars in there time. Some car companies haven't been around long enought to have as many. Stick around for 100 years and have a bizzilion models, see if a car company can maintain as few issues as a 30 year old company with 6 models.
Re:Well I can say this for one..
on
Build Your Own PVR
·
· Score: 2, Informative
"MCE is a buggy piece of crap (surprise)"
well you say you built a machine for this, which means you used a ilegal copy of it. Did you even use real MCE or the hacked tablet edition? And MCE is designed for specific hardware, if you didn't meet it's requirements to a tee it will be bad. But if you have a proper machine MCE is very solid by all acounts.
Even powered hubs don't always cut it. I have 2 of them differant brands and neither can handle much power. I get errors saying to much power draw, disconnect a device.
Further more, hubs suck and add to the wire mess. Mobos really need to come with 20 USB2.0 ports on the back, on seperate channels so USB1.1 devices don't slow things.
I think the apps for stuff on earth are java, the code on the rover is not. If you look at the command center you will see SUNs around, and lots of the engineers sitting around with apple powerbooks, so I can see the apps for it being java.
of course it sagged, solids bend, everything bends.
Nothing is not flexible. If you walk on a bridge that can hold hundreds of semi-trucks, and you are the only thing on it you have bent the brigde. Just a very small amount. Even the bridge sitting there will bend some over time. Look at beams and pretty much any solid, they bend. They have to. If nothing bent everything would shatter. Dimonds don't bend very well, they just shatter.
Slashdot Mirror
well i said a bit about it, but nearly all manufactures were cranking out EVs in the late 90's and early 00's. Honda has an EV to.
GM hasn't gone to far with gas electric hybrids because they have been heavily going fuel cells. I would hardly say honda is spanky anyone with their "hybrids" they shouldn't even be called that seeing they are so lame far as hybrids. The toyotas are great. Good chance GM will launch something with them seeing their long time partnership. Acualy I think the VUE will be a hybrid soon. Also Toyota didn't create their system, its a seperate company that did and they are working with other companies.
It's not car companies saying EVs arn't viable. It the entire engineering and science community. You can't change physics and thermodynamics. Much the same you can't change the laws of batteries. Differant chemistries have got us better batteries. But your basic lead acid battery has barely improved in 100 years when it comes to storage. And it's not for lack of trying with battery technology.
Hybrids are the future. They use the benifits of both conventional and EV and apply them most effectively. This is the main reason companies have ditched EV research. Hybrids are just so much better there is no point in messing with EVs
I can't read the article but haven't picked up anything talking about an engine.
But you are right, and otto cycle gasoline engine is ~30% efficent and a diesel ~40% truely wacked out labratory engines are in the mid 40s.
yeah, i'm having a problem with this claim to. Better AC motors like are in the mid 90s % efficancy. So I'm not seeing how he's coming up with a 80% power reduction. Maybe 80% less loss, so if we were at 95% now they have moved up 80% of 5% more.
Sorry this is completely wrong. GM spent 1 billion dollars on the EV1 and leased about 500 of them in 2-3 states. THe reality is EVs are not practical. They are ok for when you cannot have any emissions out of a vehicle, and good for short trips. But they are not practical in the big picture. Your idea of who needs what is wrong. For one the numbers arn't right, and too who are you to say what people need.
Now to the more important issue. EVs are not the answer. Like I said they are fine if you can't have any emissions from the vehicle, like inside a manufacturing plant, or in a dense urban environment. Not that the later matters since emmisions from else where will just drift in. What so many people miss is the power generation and so forth. From a well to wheels model (the greet model) that factors in all energy use from start to finish to move a vehicle such as makeing fuels and electricity and so forth EVs come out poorly. Infact Diesel engine vehicles come out on tops since the fuel takes very little energy to produce and few emissions plus the engine is very efficent. EVs are oen of the dirtiest forms of vehicles. Furthermore many think that a central power plant is cleaner, well aside from a nuclear plant or other no emissions plants this is not true. Most our power comes from fossil fuels. Powerplants are not high efficency do to safety. Also they simple are not very clean. The modern internal combustion engine is one of the most efficent forms of power generation we have. It's also one of the cleanest. If you own a LEV (low emmissions vehicle) in Los Angles the air coming out the exhaust is cleaner then the air that went into the engine. Our cars are now cleaning the air in highly poluted cities. There was also far less losses involved.
EVs have their place but it is limited. The EV1 was only leased for liability issue. GM wanted to make sure things like the battery pack were properly handled. Also think of it this way. The EV1 had a range of 60-100 miles from it's 1200 lbs battery pack. A car like a ford focus that is much bigger can go 100 miles on 21lbs of gas ( ~3 gallons). The energy wasted to haul that battery pack is insane. Lithium ions help but don't make it practical. A pack that would have the storage of the EV1s battery pack ~90 Amp hours or so (trying to remember off hand) would cost roughly 75,000 bucks in lithium ion. This is based on a smaller battery pack for a hybrid vehicle I work on, compaired to the EV1 we have for a seperate project. GM gave the EV1s to universities after they were recalled, they were recalled do to a fire issue. EVs are not practical as full purpose vehicles. It is not an issue of conspiracy. People need to get over this. If the car companys had high mileage cars people would want they would sell them in a heart beat since they would make a ton of money.
If you want EVs to happen. Invent a box roughly 1ftx1ftx2ft that holds as much energy as a gasoline tank the same size and weighs the same or less. Then they will be more possible. Also get fusion power working so we have a clean abundant energy source for EVs.
And on a slightly differant note, when you come off as you did, no one will listen, because you sound like a crack pot. You have to have a open and logical mind for people to even listen. There is a small market for EVs, and it's pretty well used right now. Auto makers make EVs, but there is little market because there isn't many applications where they truely work. All EV pickups and minivans the big 3 made the last few years are out of production. I think the EV Rav4 may still be out there.
Not that I accept Bush's Economic sense one bit. Frankly he shouldn't be allowed to touch a budget.
But, for this one, it might not be the worst thing. If all the money for this was spent within the US it would create a large flow of money through the system. The gov spending lots of money isn't a bad thing, as long as it's not flat out wasted and isn't thrown out of the country. This project would involve a heck of a lot of people (new jobs) and fuel a new tech boom. The moonshoot was huge to a lot of companies, (think about how much it boosted the entire computer industry). So it wouldn't be the a completely bad thing.
Spending money is always better then a tax cut which is pure flushing money down the drain and doesn't help anyone. Having a big project that people could get behind with optimissim and give lots of people jobs for a decade would be a plus. But that doesn't mean go crazy throwing money at mars. Make a lot of the focus on how to do it cheaply and maybe make it worthwhile would be key.
No, I'm ok with the default, But I usualy set it to silver. When it first came out I made fun of it for a bit, then I used it and started to like it alot. I personaly can't stand classic mode. That looks like total ass. "hey it's 2004, I have my computer set to look like 1995".
I find it funny that so many who diss Luna probably have the most ass looking KDE or Gnome setup one can dream up. I have yet to see a theme for KDE that looked better then Luna, A few Gnome themese are very spiffy though.
Though I have to say this is completely pointless. No one has seen what longhorn will look like, Avilon or whatever it is called has been shown to no one yet. MS has very clearly stated that what is seen in the betas is not what longhorn will look like. They system that runs it isn't out either. Nothing someone makes today would work. The new GUI is all DirectX based.
If you look up the history of Soccer and American Football, you will find that American Football came first. What we refer to as football has the right to the name first. Calling soccer football is stealing the name. American Football was called football before Soccer existed. Though it's only by a few years.
Why not call maintance and have them come check it out and fix it. I hope they got the extended warrenty and undercoating on the ISS. Who's got the receipt?
I've seen these before in the auto industry, one company had a building with a couple of them so they could store several hundred cars indoors, but they didn't have to run them indoors (which was important for the application)
I agree Highspeed trains will be nice. But even the fastest trains still are far slower then getting on a airplane to go cross country. Also the US is simpley huge. Think of how long Europe has been working on their train networks, both slow and highspeed. Now think of the US which barrly has any train network, and then finaly remember the US is bigger then all of Europe. It could take 100 years to get close to what other countries have. Also to be effective it needs to get to every town, which is really hard to do when everything is so spaced out. In areas where one city bumps into the next they work much better.
No the flip side, trains are great expecialy if they come by all the time and you can just go down and buy a ticket and get on. That would be great. Also since I hate planes I would love them. I'm a mechanical engineer, I just can't deal with planes. All the way through college everything seamed to be about how airplaces fail, and riding in them I over-think ever sound they make. So I would love trains, the price has to be right though. I saw something saying a Acela (sp?) train ticket from DC-Boston was like 280 bucks, (note this could be wrong, it was something like that). Thats crazy. I would expect it to not be more then 30 bucks or so. If trains arn't dirt cheap it won't work. It shouldn't cost the same as a airplane ticket.
Now here is something else. Planes have numbered days unless they come up with something. Planes need fuels like Kerosene and Diesel, that is, heavy hydrocarbons. Without such energy dense fuels they can't get off the ground. There is a limited supply of fossil fuels. It's projected to run out at any moment in the next 20-400 years (yes thats was making fun of dooms day predictions). Without such fuels airplanes are screwed. You can make fuel like Fisher Tropes Diesel, but that takes a lot of energy and isn't very clean to produce. It's hard enough to make the cost number works for planes as is, double the cost of fuel and hell really breaks loose.
So as it stands now planes are screwed in the future, thus why most things talking about the future don't mention planes. You can't make an electric plane that would go very fast. And to power it you'd need a nuclear reactor up there. This makes you wonder what we will do for trans-ocean travel.
So even though trains will be a bitch to move to and take a long time, they might just happen do to no other good answer.
you nailed it on that one. their is little point to move to other things when oil is cheap, when i say point i mean incentive. I personaly want a nuclear world, but thats not going to happen to soon. Look at how the US looks at Iran, as Bush said "why do they need nuclear power when they have all the oil they can use" or something very close to that. That shows the idiocy around. Iran does get it (asuming they truely are going for energy) they are smart anough to sell the oil and develope more long term plans. But as long as oil barrons are around logic gets trampled.
On the good side though. If we do suddenly run out of oil, which could happen at any moment in the next 20-400 years the drive for nuclear and other smarter energy sources will really go out. So using lots of oil now could be good if it forces us to think smarter faster.
I think he ment things like fuel cell cars. Yes they exist, but they still arn't practical, and probably never will be. Since the whole fuel cell car idea is flawed. IE it's not freedom from fossil fuels since the practical way to get hydrogen is from fossil fuels. And even then that takes a lot of energy. They also arn't that efficient, 60% peak and thats not factoring the energy used to make the hyrdogen.
Fusion power does even come into play, since the only true break from fossil fuels and to make it renewable is from splitting water. And that means we need a super clean, cheap and massive amount of power. Hense fusion, and even then you are still wasting energy making hydrogen, just means we have clean energy, even though making the hyrdrogen and then running the fuel cell puts us at a loss. So we can't really expect the promise of fuel cell/ hydrogen economy to come true till fusion gets up and running.
Also far as hydrogen fuel cell cars they were promisied long ago, first 2000, then they all said 2004, now they say end of decade. Having worked on hybrid cars for years I and most anyone I know who works on hybrids and fuel cells agree fuel cell cars arn't going to happen. Especialy since a hydrogen IC engine beats a fuel cell in about all ways. Sure there is prototypes, and very complete ones at that, (fuel cell ford focus) and even some test fleets, but they are still nothing practical.
For now the hydrogen economy is a nice fun thing for people like George Bush to throw out there. Make it sound good, oil companies love it, it's all good.
The future for fuel cells are in laptops and cell phones were you by a small hydrogen cartrige. For uses where portable power is needed, and it must be clean. Things like stationary fuel cell powerplants are the silliest things ever. Since they need powerplant to make the hydrogen to power them.
I think he made good comparisons and was right on. I wish more people would catch on to things like he mentioned about the locking of chips. The groups that think some company is conspiring against them are as he says insignificant. Probably at best 1% of people overclock, and even then it just means better chance Intel and AMD will get to sell this person more chips since the person fried theirs. This same concept can be expanded to most any conspiracy their people come up with, especialy the ones thought up by many people here.
Then again, such groups of people never seam to catch on that they don't matter.
This isn't a troll, just a point, so many people come up with these ideas about companies doing this or that to block linux, or saying linux has so much influence, but the reality is, it is such a small share that companies just don't care. MS may worry about linux in server space, but could care less on desktops. For any move that may seam like something they or any other company does to counter linux can better be explained by non-linux theories. Really it's an over thinking of linux's place that hurts it. It you accept it being small and having no effect you have more the right mindset to change that. If you think it's everywhere and a big force you are blind to it's flaws and less likely to do things to improve it's place. This goes past linux and applies to so many things. People who think everyone overclocks their chips are blind to the fact everyone does not, and thus don't get the fact that the Chip makers don't care about what they do.
You do realize that many people find the dead space left from the ad more anoying then the ad itself. Ad blockers are for people who are really crazed, for most it's just pop ups that bother them. Normal ads are fine, aside from the ocasional super flashy one. And sometimes you might find them useful. Also I prefer to still have ads make websites money. I don't want to have to start paying to visit every website out there because everyone has ad blockers so sites need new money streams.
Yep, I haven't seen a chimp turn into a human lately either. Infact no one has ever seen this. Infact no person who understands evolution has ever said this would happen either. I don't know what belief system you are thinking of where animals change into other types of animals. Closest I know of is female frogs becoming male frogs.
But then, the offspring of one animal being differant then it's parents is pretty common. Come to think of it I have never seen the offspring of one animal being identical to it's parents. I don't think anyone has ever seen to parents produce a animal identical in all ways to it down to the DNA. But childern being differant is real common, sometimes more differant thing simple looks, sometime they have differant colored parts, sometimes they have less then the normal ten fingers, sometimes more (i know a decent number of people born with 6 fingers per hand or 6 toes per foot), maybe they have the wrong number of teeth, I only was born with 22 permenant teeth. Some people i know are missing parts like spleens from birth. I'm sure thats just normal, I mean if every generation of offspring in something was just slightly differant for a few million years, i'm sure the end generation would be exactly the same as the first generation.
You need to get over it and accept evolution as a fact, it typicaly takes millions of years, but for simplier things it happens very fast, bacteria and virus's evolve all the time, year to year. Other things like fruitflies have become whole new species in short observable time spans.
It's impossible for things not to evolve, since to members of a species cannot reproduce and have an exact copy of them both in one animal, it will be differant. Only cloning can do this, and that involves only one parent, thus doesn't happen in nature. Evolution just means change, every generation is differant from the previous, in time the differances will show up. Just look at human over the last few hundred years, look at things like height, or general looks. If you took a sample of humans today, and a sample of humans from 1000 years ago and stripped them naked to remove all evidance giving away their timeframe it would be obvious who came from which time. Expand this over millions of years and out ape ancestors gradualy started to look like us.
Evolution does not mean becoming "better" it might just cause you to like sex more thus create more young. Or maybe you give birth to more offspring and thus their is more of your species then another "superior" one and they can't compete and die out. Evolution in many aspects has been haulted in the modern world. Today if you are born with 6 fingers, society shuns that and wants to see them removed. Also they probably don't help you much. But millions of years ago in a tree, it may have made you a better climber or food gatherer. That made you stronger and the chicks digged it, they matted with you, and some of your kids had six fingers, and they had an advantage, over time their were more 6 finger people because they were more sucessful. Today such things don't happen, if you are not a classic human people shun you. being born with 6 asses is not likely to help you or give you any chance at matting.
You also don't see much change in higher order land animal because we have become so much stronger and supress them. We kill them off to. As other animals have got smarter and adapted to our life we kill them off since we find them anoying, like bears living in cities living a new life from they did in the woods. Or we start seeing a change, say frogs with more legs, we set out to cure them, we asume its because of something we did. But there is a chance they are just evolving.
If darwinism was classified as supernatural then the award would have been claimed long ago, not much of a prize there then. If you didn't get the idea of it, the point is the things eligible will never win. Some of them do have a long shot chance, but arn't very likely. But things that we allready know to be true would be pretty dumb to make eligible.
what sony did was huge, I know people who had a PS/2 but only a couple games ment for the PS/2 for a good while. Being able to play their old games and have all the latest features and be able to buy new games was huge.
No backwards compatibility is only ok for people like me who have never owned any form of a consol in my life, so i have no games. But at the same time being able to run a older game would be very nice.
Anyone who was able to read the manual for a pet rock is to smart to own a pet rock
A timex indiglo watch doesn't make too bad a light either. Good for getting through a dark house at night, especialy if it's not your house. Amazing how forign ones parents house can become when you don't live there.
Mine was the same way, thomas finney 9th edition. Horrible book though, full or mistakes and just plain awful to learn from. This was one of the few things that seamed right in some ways though. My school didn't change the book constantly, they kept it for at least 3 years if not more. Then they got stupid and when to a "special edition" that was specific to our university. Those versions of text books need to be banned! There is no gains to having a few problems reworked to insert ones university info into homework problems. No one can sell the things online.
My biggest problem is when a course uses a differant book every semster, not so much new but differant. I had a class I dropped twice, every semster the course used a differant book, and not even both teachers for one semster would use the same book. This was just plain crazy.
I got screwed one semster when I didn't sell a book back cause a freind was going to take the same class, the book was new the semster i bought it, he used it the following and then they came out with a new edition. A edition should not last 1 year. So then I got stuck with it.
In my experiance if it's a book that you won't want to keap, or have no use for post the class you won't be able to sell it back. The books you intend to keap you could sell back. I have books that are 5 years old i could still sell back. But i'm not going to since they are actualy useful. They were also some of my less expensive books. So books they know you will keep they don't worry about screwing you with cost or versions, but if they know they are ones people sell back they be sure to screw people over.
I'm aware it has happened at differant speeds. I would like to know how it compairs to other cars. Anything I have seen on the problem has shown ford has changed things like 3 times to try and make it better but still have problems. Most agree there is nothing about the design that is bad, it just happens. Fuel tanks rupture on any car. 30 deaths in a decade doesn't seam to high. Though anything greater then zero isn't good. But thats not realistic. Also you figure ford designed that platform and tested it and nothing came up. Once it's in production your rather limited in changes you can make. I think so far they changed a bolt, maybe moved a panhard rod, and i think now have added a extra plat to protect it. Ford hasn't seamed to ignore the problem at all, just haven't come up with a good solution. The fuel tank is going in the position its in, there isn't anyplace else to put it. For every solution comes another problem, they could re-enforce the tail of the car, but then the riders get more wiplash or snapped necks. They could make the tank smaller maybe but then the car is less useful. As long as there is fuel tanks in cars there is the fire potential. I think one of the big things that makes thing alarming is it's police cars, so it's more high profile. We all want to see car companies make cars safe as possible but we all have to accept there is danger in all things and no amount of design will eliminate that. Also no matter how many things you factor into the design and crash senario's reality will always out do you. Reality is a bitch
" Don't forget about other Ford products which blow up, like the Crown Victoria (killed more than the Pinto) and the Mustang. Sure, it's the old 1960s Mustangs, but from what they should've learned with that (don't put the fuel tank behind the rear axle), the Pinto and the Crown Vic wouldn't be deathtraps.
Ford with the roll-over SUVs is another problem but they slacked most of the blame on Firestone for their tires instead of coming to terms with that. I
s there another car company that sells more deathtraps than Ford?"
Well, you seam to just have a beef against Ford. The mustang was just the car safety nuts latched onto. The reality of it is that most all cars of the 60s and early 70s have basicly the same fuel tank design of the mustangs, didn't matter the company. The mustang was just very popular so it made it a easy target to attack.
The crown vic issue is much differant. 50% of all crown vics are for police use, and by their nature they will experiance a large amount of wrecks at high speed. Nearly any car that gets hit hard in the back can have such issue. But as it is most cop cars are crown vics. So it really looks like there is an issue, and theres not. Its a fucking car, not a tank. You rear end it at 150 mph it isn't going to do so well. if there were more models out there for cruiser duty you would see high numbers on them. It's just the simple matter most cop cars are crown vics and most crown vics are cop cars.
You should look into how many cars have gas tanks behind the axle by the way. Would you prefer it outside the frame rail on the side like GM pickups of the 70-80's. Or in the cab like 50s trucks?
And the Explorer was proven countless times to have nothing to do with the roll overs. Infact it was shown to be one of the safest vehicles in it's class for a blow out. Numerous test showed you would have to actively try to wreck the vehicle in a blow out to stand any chance of wrecking. The closest group to getting a explorer to roll over just from a blow out was a group that did it on a bumping dirt road at high speed, basicly a situation that they driver shouldn be doing. Most test showed that you could be going 65 with your hands off the wheel during a blow out and nothing would happen. People wrecked because of extreme situation and they just plain were idiots who couldn't drive and did everything wrong like "oh my god my tire blew out" and pulled a massive lane change into a truck cause they thought they had to get to the side of the road imediatly and never looked. Many people go into massive idiot mode during a flat. Being in a explorer or not would still get many of them into problems.
The reason things seamed hight with explorers was once again simple numbers. There are more explorers out there then all other SUVs combined, or close to it, so chances are allready higher for it to look bad. Then on top of that the firestones were standard equipment on the explorers where most other vehicles they were optional. All othe vehicles with the firestones had problems. It was just the simple fact that there were so many explorers out there and so many more of them with firestones on them then other makes that made things look high.
ford settled some lawsuits just to get it over with, and i think they may have got hit some on having firestones on there vehicles (some dumb issue) but they were completely cleared by NHTSA.
The problem was clearly all firestone, they had a bad batch of tires do to bad quality control. I have firestones on my car now and don't worry, but it's a shame ford got a bad image for something they were a victom of.
If you go and look up saftey history you would probably find ford as being one of the safer companies for their history. First with saftey glass, first standard seatbelts and some other things. GM would probably have a much worse history. All car companies have bad cars in there time. Some car companies haven't been around long enought to have as many. Stick around for 100 years and have a bizzilion models, see if a car company can maintain as few issues as a 30 year old company with 6 models.
"MCE is a buggy piece of crap (surprise)"
well you say you built a machine for this, which means you used a ilegal copy of it. Did you even use real MCE or the hacked tablet edition? And MCE is designed for specific hardware, if you didn't meet it's requirements to a tee it will be bad. But if you have a proper machine MCE is very solid by all acounts.
Even powered hubs don't always cut it. I have 2 of them differant brands and neither can handle much power. I get errors saying to much power draw, disconnect a device.
Further more, hubs suck and add to the wire mess. Mobos really need to come with 20 USB2.0 ports on the back, on seperate channels so USB1.1 devices don't slow things.
I think the apps for stuff on earth are java, the code on the rover is not. If you look at the command center you will see SUNs around, and lots of the engineers sitting around with apple powerbooks, so I can see the apps for it being java.
of course it sagged, solids bend, everything bends.
Nothing is not flexible. If you walk on a bridge that can hold hundreds of semi-trucks, and you are the only thing on it you have bent the brigde. Just a very small amount. Even the bridge sitting there will bend some over time. Look at beams and pretty much any solid, they bend. They have to. If nothing bent everything would shatter. Dimonds don't bend very well, they just shatter.