So that's approx. 1100 gallons PER ACRE. Twice than in climates where two crops can fit in a year.
(You had me until this point. At which time I conclude your source is full of condensed dog poop.)
Re:It was never worth it to begin with
on
Is E85 Dead Now?
·
· Score: 1
Hmm.
I'll buy that you may be getting 13% less from E-85, unlike those people who claim 25% less from E-10.
I still want to know why. I distill my own Ethanol (with license) from corn grain and mix to E-85 with gas. Doing comparisons over the same driving routes, I seem to see a slight improvement in mileage with Ethanol. My guess is that what you get from the big distillers, is not the same, with the caveat that I'm not "scientific enough" to really know.
Otherwise-- how much are you getitng off from E-85? Last I saw it at the pump it was about 50 cents off (when gas was about 2.10!); today the value ratio may not be enough. Self-producing from low-grade corn (I'm scraping leftovers that can't be sold, but I hear non-edible grade from Mexico is also cheap) is another matter.
Re:10% Ethanol mileage loss claim-- CALLING BS
on
Is E85 Dead Now?
·
· Score: 1, Informative
>My car is relatively newer and I *hate* when gas stations are forced to use E10 (10% ethanol, ie. Winter fuel). My mpg drops by 10% - 15%.
That's bullshit. You're only adding 10% of a *FUEL*. If you added 10% water, and it still ran, you'd expect an approx. 10% loss in efficiency. You could mix in kitchen oil (which will burn) and if you could get it past the injectors, you wouldn't expect a loss anywhere near that.
Even if E-10 were 25% less efficient than gas (it's not), at 10% blended in you'd see an approximate 2.5% loss.
Damn, people are stooopid. It's math and science, people, not whatever prejudice you've majnaged to convince yourself of. Just measure the amount you drive and the gallons of fuel consumed, and divide-- and be suspicious of extraneous factors, such as warming up or using more gas due to bad weather in winter.. It's *so* simple.
Heh. You're kidding, right? A representative from Tennessee threatened to sodimize transvestives (after ripping a hole to do so) this week; I don't see any FBI or TBI agents taking notice. Now, say that you don't like the governor's tax policy, that's another thing, you'll have 20 agents monitoring your email and Slashdot posts...
Boobs? Di dyou say "with boobs?" They don't get too many "terrorists" with boobs down in Gitmo, but I'm sure the boys from LeJeune will enjoy the extra accessories. Please stand by; two guys on a motorcycle will be by to place you on a special flight, shortly...
There's a guard in Gitmo from Camp LeJeuene, just waiting to take you up on this offer of sexual submission. Please just step off US soil... as an added bonus, he'll be giving you a golden shower afterwards...
Actually, I'd say that if you want to establish a totalitarian regime, excuting dissidents is just far too blunt and unsubtle. What you want to do it, manipulate language and perception so that any precursor to dissence, is delegitimized, either as illness (mental etc) or just plain quackery. Such "newthink" will be much, much more effective than brute force.
That's STAZI, and in fact, I suspect the DHS is far more effective in establishing totalitarian control. The STAZi (and equivalents) built an apparatus that monitored the daily activities and thoughts of those *outside* its organization. In the case of DHS (and the history of the FBI, etc; see above) the vast majority of the "threats" are actually agents employed/deployed by the security agency. That's far more sinister, in terms of "security theatre."
>The old joke that there were more CIA agents in the Communist Party at one point than communists.
Well, that's perhaps the joke. The simple reality is that there *were* more FBI (NSA, etc-- CIA could not operate on US soil, and most of the actual time period was pre-FBI/NSA etc) paid informants in the Communist Party, than actual non-paid members. Go figure:).
>You don't. You put a bullet in their brains. Hitler knew this. Stalin knew this. >All great tyrants of the past, and all the little tyrants today (local drug dealers, political bosses etc) know this. >But no, shoot a few people and suddenly the word "genocide" is screamed out, >because our "civilized" culture is perfectly willing to make people suffer a long drawn out death out of sight through economic sanctions and incarceration, >rather than a quick death via purges.
Wow, that's some ignorant racist BS you're spouting.
Hitler practiced genocide, the systematic and organized murder of peoples. This did not mean merely killing people politically or otherwise opposed to him, whether in purges or in war. It meant total committment to exterminating the Jewish, Slavic and many, many other peoples from Europe.
To equate US or any other contemporary military or social policy, much less the very small number of prisoners held in Guantanamo, to the rise of German totalitarianism is entirely intellectually vacid. Sanctions against Iraq, Iran or any other country may cause great suffering and loss; they are simply not designed to exterminate the Iranian people and erase them from the Earth.
Whatever one may think of the US' imperial policies, which you oddly seem to be supporting ("you put a bullet in the towel-heads brains, that's all you can do with them") this is a critical difference.
Most of the world, including the third world, lives in conditions that rival or exceed the wealth and comfort available to kings and queens just a few centuries ago. Bathe daily? Live with more than a few square feet to yourself? (Ever visited Versailles?)
Equally, most of those involved in terrorism (not to mention the Saudis involved in 9/11, who were plain rich) come from families with a reasonable amount of material wealth, if not security. The are not "people on the edge with nothing to loose," as much as you and some of your respondents would like to think.
The causes for terrorism (and let's remember organizations such as Lehi in Israel, shall we) and opposition to the US, are simply much more complex.
Think nothing of it. Print it and put it in your walls, and then you'll be insulated from it. Until it rains, at which point you may find yourself irritated by it again. At which point, you'll have some insulting filler.
Well, there are a variety of fiber, composite and other materials with higher R-factors per volume, but that's beside the point.
Newspaper as in processed recycled newspaper bought as insulation from Home Depot or the equivalent is one thing. Stuffing newspapers into your wall after receiving them in the post and reading them (a common practice) is quite another. The latter retains moisture and can lead to mold, rotting and structural damage, just to start with the most obvious problems.
>Google has a long history of scraping other websites and then dropping them lower in search in favor of their own sites. > They have been doing this for ages with hotels, restaurants and similar information. > They're also trying to do it with flights information [mashable.com]. All of these practices will net Google enemies and most likely antitrust issues. >But Google doesn't care - they know how important timing is and they will abuse their position whenever they can to get there. > It's a long term goal and Google has managed to get the position where no one can really touch them even if they misbehave. > Seriously, they were also found out polluting search engines with paid links [searchengineland.com]. >After that they blame someone else and try to seem like a good guy. >The most hilarious thing is that most geeks believe them just because they use open source (while ironically their products are all proprietary).
>And note that this isn't just Google's Kenyan office misbehaving. >They also received calls from Google's Indian call centers engaging in similar practices, so this is a practice accepted from Google's HQ. >On top of that, EPIC has said they will try to get antitrust investigation [techcrunch.com] into Google's introduction of Google+ into search results. > People are finally starting to wake up to see how bad Google is and how it abuses other companies.
This is utter crapola.
When Google aggregates information and then their aggregated page appears higher in the search results than a bunch of poorly done mom&pop-ola, because it better matches individuals' needs, that's not manipulation of results, that's good service.
Your searchengineland example is poor. Some subcontractor purchased sponsor trash, and when it was discovered, Google killed it. Big deal. The rest of your links are similar FUD. Google Kenya contracts with a Google India call center, and you think corporate headquarters knew about it? C'mon.
Google is a big company. Some little unit out in Kenya decides to go off on its own and pull some crap. Google finds out about it, reins them in (or fires them all). Pretty normal happenings. Or have you ever had to manage disparate units?
>do you really want to have Slashdot become the equivalent of the Superbowl ad segments, or the set of political ads that happen during an election year?
>You might want to, but to me it's just trying to yell over noise. I have better things to do.
That would pretty much describe the Slashdot of the past 12-18 months for me, yep.
Are you so sure of that? Or does he merely claim he has IP logs, etc. etc.?
This is Kenya, not Nebraska; it might as well be Nigeria. Right now it's status is simply a rumor posted on a blog, nothing more. If proof really emerges, it'll be something else, but experience cautions that such claims are to be taken with a grain of salt.
This seems to have attached to your fairly informative post (which is one of the ones I would point people to) and not to one of the high-rated "No, it's not a crime in the UK, the police state is taking over / bending over to the US" posts, I was trying to gouge. Sorry, though (FWIW) I think there's been a little more case law definition of linking's status, at least in the US (as presented here on/.).
Slashdot Mirror
>Approximately 50 gallons of ethanol are produced per acre of
corn.
What.. the.. fuck....
You can produce approx. 8-10 gallons of ethanol per BUSHEL of corn. (Hey, a bushel is big).
The first link I found on Google says that average corn production is 115 bushels per acre. http://www.ontariocorn.org/growing/cost.html
So that's approx. 1100 gallons PER ACRE. Twice than in climates where two crops can fit in a year.
(You had me until this point. At which time I conclude your source is full of condensed dog poop.)
Hmm.
I'll buy that you may be getting 13% less from E-85, unlike those people who claim 25% less from E-10.
I still want to know why. I distill my own Ethanol (with license) from corn grain and mix to E-85 with gas. Doing comparisons over the same driving routes, I seem to see a slight improvement in mileage with Ethanol. My guess is that what you get from the big distillers, is not the same, with the caveat that I'm not "scientific enough" to really know.
Otherwise-- how much are you getitng off from E-85? Last I saw it at the pump it was about 50 cents off (when gas was about 2.10!); today the value ratio may not be enough. Self-producing from low-grade corn (I'm scraping leftovers that can't be sold, but I hear non-edible grade from Mexico is also cheap) is another matter.
>My car is relatively newer and I *hate* when gas stations are forced to use E10 (10% ethanol, ie. Winter fuel). My mpg drops by 10% - 15%.
That's bullshit. You're only adding 10% of a *FUEL*. If you added 10% water, and it still ran, you'd expect an approx. 10% loss in efficiency. You could mix in kitchen oil (which will burn) and if you could get it past the injectors, you wouldn't expect a loss anywhere near that.
Even if E-10 were 25% less efficient than gas (it's not), at 10% blended in you'd see an approximate 2.5% loss.
Damn, people are stooopid. It's math and science, people, not whatever prejudice you've majnaged to convince yourself of. Just measure the amount you drive and the gallons of fuel consumed, and divide-- and be suspicious of extraneous factors, such as warming up or using more gas due to bad weather in winter.. It's *so* simple.
Heh. You're kidding, right? A representative from Tennessee threatened to sodimize transvestives (after ripping a hole to do so) this week; I don't see any FBI or TBI agents taking notice. Now, say that you don't like the governor's tax policy, that's another thing, you'll have 20 agents monitoring your email and Slashdot posts...
Boobs? Di dyou say "with boobs?" They don't get too many "terrorists" with boobs down in Gitmo, but I'm sure the boys from LeJeune will enjoy the extra accessories. Please stand by; two guys on a motorcycle will be by to place you on a special flight, shortly...
There's a guard in Gitmo from Camp LeJeuene, just waiting to take you up on this offer of sexual submission. Please just step off US soil... as an added bonus, he'll be giving you a golden shower afterwards...
See above:
1) Kidnap said person on US territory;
2) rendite them to non-US soil;
3) arrest;
4) detain indefinitely.
Rinse wash repeat as necessary. // CIA cannot operate on US soil, so it "never happened."
P.S. Isn't it beautifal that the CIA can't legally operate on US soil, so, of course, foregoing kidnapping and rendition "never happened?" :P
Ok fine.
Kidnap citizen, resident alien (etc); rendite to non-US soil. Arrest forementioned person.
Done.
Actually, I'd say that if you want to establish a totalitarian regime, excuting dissidents is just far too blunt and unsubtle. What you want to do it, manipulate language and perception so that any precursor to dissence, is delegitimized, either as illness (mental etc) or just plain quackery. Such "newthink" will be much, much more effective than brute force.
That's STAZI, and in fact, I suspect the DHS is far more effective in establishing totalitarian control. The STAZi (and equivalents) built an apparatus that monitored the daily activities and thoughts of those *outside* its organization. In the case of DHS (and the history of the FBI, etc; see above) the vast majority of the "threats" are actually agents employed/deployed by the security agency. That's far more sinister, in terms of "security theatre."
>The old joke that there were more CIA agents in the Communist Party at one point than communists.
Well, that's perhaps the joke. The simple reality is that there *were* more FBI (NSA, etc-- CIA could not operate on US soil, and most of the actual time period was pre-FBI/NSA etc) paid informants in the Communist Party, than actual non-paid members. Go figure :).
'We had no Nazis here in our village.
They all came from outside.
Perhaps there were some Nazis in the next village, I don't know."
-- Translation, from an interview during the American occupation of Germany
A suggestion. Learn a bit more about the Second World War, before you post again.
>You don't. You put a bullet in their brains. Hitler knew this. Stalin knew this.
>All great tyrants of the past, and all the little tyrants today (local drug dealers, political bosses etc) know this.
>But no, shoot a few people and suddenly the word "genocide" is screamed out,
>because our "civilized" culture is perfectly willing to make people suffer a long drawn out death out of sight through economic sanctions and incarceration,
>rather than a quick death via purges.
Wow, that's some ignorant racist BS you're spouting.
Hitler practiced genocide, the systematic and organized murder of peoples. This did not mean merely killing people politically or otherwise opposed to him, whether in purges or in war. It meant total committment to exterminating the Jewish, Slavic and many, many other peoples from Europe.
To equate US or any other contemporary military or social policy, much less the very small number of prisoners held in Guantanamo, to the rise of German totalitarianism is entirely intellectually vacid. Sanctions against Iraq, Iran or any other country may cause great suffering and loss; they are simply not designed to exterminate the Iranian people and erase them from the Earth.
Whatever one may think of the US' imperial policies, which you oddly seem to be supporting ("you put a bullet in the towel-heads brains, that's all you can do with them") this is a critical difference.
Actually, your premise is pretty bogus.
Most of the world, including the third world, lives in conditions that rival or exceed the wealth and comfort available to kings and queens just a few centuries ago. Bathe daily? Live with more than a few square feet to yourself? (Ever visited Versailles?)
Equally, most of those involved in terrorism (not to mention the Saudis involved in 9/11, who were plain rich) come from families with a reasonable amount of material wealth, if not security. The are not "people on the edge with nothing to loose," as much as you and some of your respondents would like to think.
The causes for terrorism (and let's remember organizations such as Lehi in Israel, shall we) and opposition to the US, are simply much more complex.
Think nothing of it. Print it and put it in your walls, and then you'll be insulated from it. Until it rains, at which point you may find yourself irritated by it again. At which point, you'll have some insulting filler.
Well, there are a variety of fiber, composite and other materials with higher R-factors per volume, but that's beside the point.
Newspaper as in processed recycled newspaper bought as insulation from Home Depot or the equivalent is one thing. Stuffing newspapers into your wall after receiving them in the post and reading them (a common practice) is quite another. The latter retains moisture and can lead to mold, rotting and structural damage, just to start with the most obvious problems.
If you have newspaper or other similar material in your walls, which wasn't processed and designed as insulting filler, I have one word for you: mold.
You'd better know.
>Google has a long history of scraping other websites and then dropping them lower in search in favor of their own sites.
> They have been doing this for ages with hotels, restaurants and similar information.
> They're also trying to do it with flights information [mashable.com]. All of these practices will net Google enemies and most likely antitrust issues.
>But Google doesn't care - they know how important timing is and they will abuse their position whenever they can to get there.
> It's a long term goal and Google has managed to get the position where no one can really touch them even if they misbehave.
> Seriously, they were also found out polluting search engines with paid links [searchengineland.com].
>After that they blame someone else and try to seem like a good guy.
>The most hilarious thing is that most geeks believe them just because they use open source (while ironically their products are all proprietary).
>And note that this isn't just Google's Kenyan office misbehaving.
>They also received calls from Google's Indian call centers engaging in similar practices, so this is a practice accepted from Google's HQ.
>On top of that, EPIC has said they will try to get antitrust investigation [techcrunch.com] into Google's introduction of Google+ into search results.
> People are finally starting to wake up to see how bad Google is and how it abuses other companies.
This is utter crapola.
When Google aggregates information and then their aggregated page appears higher in the search results than a bunch of poorly done mom&pop-ola, because it better matches individuals' needs, that's not manipulation of results, that's good service.
Your searchengineland example is poor. Some subcontractor purchased sponsor trash, and when it was discovered, Google killed it. Big deal. The rest of your links are similar FUD. Google Kenya contracts with a Google India call center, and you think corporate headquarters knew about it? C'mon.
Oh Lord King David!
Google is a big company. Some little unit out in Kenya decides to go off on its own and pull some crap. Google finds out about it, reins them in (or fires them all). Pretty normal happenings. Or have you ever had to manage disparate units?
Update 2 of this article states Google has taken some responsibility:
http://techcrunch.com/2012/01/13/facing-another-pr-disaster-google-accused-of-fraudulently-undermining-a-kenyan-startup/
More details still need to emerge.
>do you really want to have Slashdot become the equivalent of the Superbowl ad segments, or the set of political ads that happen during an election year?
>You might want to, but to me it's just trying to yell over noise. I have better things to do.
That would pretty much describe the Slashdot of the past 12-18 months for me, yep.
Are you so sure of that? Or does he merely claim he has IP logs, etc. etc.?
This is Kenya, not Nebraska; it might as well be Nigeria. Right now it's status is simply a rumor posted on a blog, nothing more. If proof really emerges, it'll be something else, but experience cautions that such claims are to be taken with a grain of salt.
Hmm.
This seems to have attached to your fairly informative post (which is one of the ones I would point people to) and not to one of the high-rated "No, it's not a crime in the UK, the police state is taking over / bending over to the US" posts, I was trying to gouge. Sorry, though (FWIW) I think there's been a little more case law definition of linking's status, at least in the US (as presented here on /.).