Not the Commanding Officers. I too was put off by how young Kirk looks - it turns out Chris Pine is 28, but he looks 22 in the photos. You can check out the COs of US carriers and subs online - they tend to be in their upper 30s or in their 40s (graduated or received commissions in early to mid 1980s).
FTA: "The issue has nothing to do with JavaScript...", "Javascript is not required to exploit this....", "The exploit requires DHTML." Anyone care to educate me on these seemingly contradictory statements? (and yes, I know DHTML could utilize a different, non-JS scripting language). What else is DHTML but HTML, scripts that run in the browser's scripting engine, and CSS?
I don't know about emission surcharges, but car manufacturers made building and selling SUVs a priority because of the loophole in the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards. SUVs are classed as light trucks, and this class of vehicle was not required to attain as high of miles-per-gallon as regular cars. A manufacturer's fleet of cars had to average at least 27.5 mpg, while their light trucks needed only to average 21 mpg.
The result was that the industry concentrated on marketing quasi-trucks as the family vehicle of choice, to escape from having to invest money in raising fuel economy. Had this loophole not been available, we would today have more choices in efficient cars, instead of praising a car that gets 24 city, 30 highway as being a fuel-sipper.
The old full-size station wagon got horrible gas mileage as did all other full-size cars at the time. Car makers could have kept the concept while improving the efficiency and driveability. But they instead chose to repackage it into something taller, heavier, with often less interior space but similar exterior dimensions*, that were prone to rollover, hard to see past, caused more damage to others in crashes, and had poor gas mileage. But hey, they gave the impression of the rugged outdoor sporty life!
As for stowing extra stuff on trips - a minivan is better than an SUV, and what's wrong with using roof racks and cargo carriers for those few occasions you're carrying extra stuff? Better to have removable cargo carrying devices than every single day be moving around big empty space.
Anyway, I think the SUV represents great marketing of a poorly designed compromise. You happen to like the concept. With gas prices going the way they are, people are going to have to make adjustments. I prefer bikes to cars anyway.
* Ford Explorer 4-door wheelbase: 111 inches. 1970's Chevy Malibu wagon wheelbase: 108 inches.
That's what I've been saying. And how did people drive in snowy climes, etc. etc? Is Montreal full of SUVs like our posters from Michigan and Buffalo portray their SUV-requiring states?
When I was a kid, our family of 2 adults and 4 kids had one vehicle, a Chevy station wagon. Of course, back then you had bench seats even in front, and no way could you have a middle passenger in the front seating row these days. We kids also rode in the back cargo area, another no-no, but at least some station wagons today have jump seats back there (Volvo, Mercedes). I think vehicles like the Mazda 5 and Kia Rondo are going to be more popular, although even they don't have great fuel economy. Wish we had more diesel options in the USA.
Everyone in this thread seems to assume that I am against certain types of vehicles (I am not) or that I think there is no use for them under any circumstances (again not true).
But... you sir, are an idiot for using a defense of trails with thick roots and muddy fields. Who the hell is facing this in getting their kids to school or dance practice? I don't advocate using Toyota Corollas for plowing fields, nor do I advocate using them for what your uses seem to be. Maybe you should come down from your muddy root-covered trail someday to my urban neighborhood in the Washington DC region, where SUVs large and small, but mostly large, are used to drive to the shopping mall 8 miles away on flat paved roads.
Did people in Michigan have no families prior to the SUV? Did they stay in all winter? There were 4x4 trucks back then, but most people in America who didn't face severe conditions or tow boats, etc, didn't buy them to get to the office.
The prevalence of truck-like cars for use as the main vehicle in America stems mostly from marketing savvy, not usefulness. Add to that the fuel economy standard loophole that allowed them to be gas pigs. While I don't subscribe to the believe that a certain type of car should be mandated to everyone or certain types outlawed, that latter fact - the fuel economy loophole - was a crock.
Yes, they are. Poorly designed station wagons with less interior space. As said earlier in the thread, the reason these vehicles are "truckified" is for the owner to save face and present him/herself as not a dweeb. Station wagons used to be THE family vehicle in the 60s and 70s. Minivans took that spot later. But they announce that you've gone soft, you don't take risks. So the industry beefed vehicles up to look macho, to make the owner look sporty, daring... all those adjectives they can't get out of a plain family/grocery hauler.
Government exists to serve and protect the people. All of them. I suggest you get over yourself and get used to it. With the consent of the governed.
And the prevailing view of the governed in the USA is more along the lines of the poster you replied to. So I guess the governed need to get over themselves and get used to whatever the government decrees and takes.
I actually am in line with your sympathetic nature, but conservatives could easily counter that the proper avenue of assisting society's less fortunate is through voluntary charity, not government-enforced redistribution.
Interesting... I also respect McCain and I'm a Democrat (although an independent one, not beholden to party loyalty above all else).
I very well may vote for McCain, although I'll have to hold my nose in order to associate myself with the GOP, Karl Rove, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, GW Bush, et al. It's tough for me to cast my lot with them. On the other hand, I've witnessed the Obama fans behave in exactly the same manner of vitriol, name calling, and "you're either with us or you're a moron" attitude!
I'd love to vote against the Republican party and deny them any victory after all they've done. But my conscience says that McCain is better for the country than Obama is.
I don't know what other people are posting on their Facebook profile, but I wonder about the long-term consequences of the government knowing I was mowing my yard on Thursday, and I like Johnny Winter.
Peter Paul is the equivalent to the Washington DC lawyer who sued his dry cleaners for $50-some million for a suit. Each time I read someone's comment "look out, Peter Paul is going to sink the Clintons" I laugh. Anyone who's curious, go read about Peter Paul and his history of crime and fraud.
I haven't looked into it, but I'm certain the writers of Family Guy are around my age (early 40s) and watched the same entertainment as I did. The cultural references thrown in often seem just for me - from "The Incredible Hulk" TV show closing music, with Stewie on the road hitchhiking, to Peter being a game character in Tron. I love it.
So when I read they are spinning off Cleveland's character (whom I don't really care for, BTW), my first thought was of "All in the Family" begetting "The Jeffersons".
How on earth could this obvious concept be patented? In life, we refer to it as people wearing multiple hats. Web app tools like Zope (I mention it because that's what I'm most familiar with) make it dead-easy to implement a single user having multiple roles, and different roles in different contexts. Each role has its own set of permissions. I'm scratching my head on this ruling.
I interviewed with Blackboard when they were a Perl shop (2000). I haven't had experience with their products, but judging from the comments here, I'm glad I didn't get that job.
That's it exactly. The chef was not advocating that Koreans alter their food to suit non-Koreans (nor was I). The point is that there are existing Korean dishes that non-Koreans would likely find delicious more so than kimchi.
Ok, where do I nominate this for "best of Slashdot"?
Re:I pity the poor astronauts.
on
Kimchi in Space
·
· Score: 1
Kimchi soup, anyone? My wife often spoons the kimchi out of the jar and into a saucepan, then boils it. This makes my eyes water and the entire house will smell. Love may be blind, for me, it must be olfactory dysfunctional.
I recently read an article about a famous western chef who spends a lot of time in Korea, who tries to popularize Korean cuisine and use its influences in his cooking.
He was blunt about kimchi, stating that Koreans need to stop touting kimchi as their finest example of cuisine and westerners' first introduction to Korean food. Instead, they should focus on other Korean delicacies that are more likely to be agreeable to western palettes. If kimchi is the first Korean thing westerners eat, many will stop there and won't bother trying Korean food again. I know Koreans really love their kimchi, but it really is a very different taste for Americans. Nothing like a bowl of garlic and onion kimchi for breakfast, yum... Not!
Slashdot Mirror
Not the Commanding Officers. I too was put off by how young Kirk looks - it turns out Chris Pine is 28, but he looks 22 in the photos. You can check out the COs of US carriers and subs online - they tend to be in their upper 30s or in their 40s (graduated or received commissions in early to mid 1980s).
News for nerds. Stuff that matters - to nerds.
Oh, do you think so?
(sorry ;)
Firstly lastly hated plug-ins.
FTA: "The issue has nothing to do with JavaScript...", "Javascript is not required to exploit this....", "The exploit requires DHTML." Anyone care to educate me on these seemingly contradictory statements? (and yes, I know DHTML could utilize a different, non-JS scripting language). What else is DHTML but HTML, scripts that run in the browser's scripting engine, and CSS?
I did, wondered if Adobe was coming out with something like this.
Actually someone else did the actual BICYCLE, and it is much more like the real thing.
I don't know about emission surcharges, but car manufacturers made building and selling SUVs a priority because of the loophole in the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards. SUVs are classed as light trucks, and this class of vehicle was not required to attain as high of miles-per-gallon as regular cars. A manufacturer's fleet of cars had to average at least 27.5 mpg, while their light trucks needed only to average 21 mpg.
The result was that the industry concentrated on marketing quasi-trucks as the family vehicle of choice, to escape from having to invest money in raising fuel economy. Had this loophole not been available, we would today have more choices in efficient cars, instead of praising a car that gets 24 city, 30 highway as being a fuel-sipper.
The old full-size station wagon got horrible gas mileage as did all other full-size cars at the time. Car makers could have kept the concept while improving the efficiency and driveability. But they instead chose to repackage it into something taller, heavier, with often less interior space but similar exterior dimensions*, that were prone to rollover, hard to see past, caused more damage to others in crashes, and had poor gas mileage. But hey, they gave the impression of the rugged outdoor sporty life!
As for stowing extra stuff on trips - a minivan is better than an SUV, and what's wrong with using roof racks and cargo carriers for those few occasions you're carrying extra stuff? Better to have removable cargo carrying devices than every single day be moving around big empty space.
Anyway, I think the SUV represents great marketing of a poorly designed compromise. You happen to like the concept. With gas prices going the way they are, people are going to have to make adjustments. I prefer bikes to cars anyway.
* Ford Explorer 4-door wheelbase: 111 inches. 1970's Chevy Malibu wagon wheelbase: 108 inches.
That's what I've been saying. And how did people drive in snowy climes, etc. etc? Is Montreal full of SUVs like our posters from Michigan and Buffalo portray their SUV-requiring states?
When I was a kid, our family of 2 adults and 4 kids had one vehicle, a Chevy station wagon. Of course, back then you had bench seats even in front, and no way could you have a middle passenger in the front seating row these days. We kids also rode in the back cargo area, another no-no, but at least some station wagons today have jump seats back there (Volvo, Mercedes). I think vehicles like the Mazda 5 and Kia Rondo are going to be more popular, although even they don't have great fuel economy. Wish we had more diesel options in the USA.
I couldn't agree with you more. Like you said, real off road vehicles, for when you need to really go off road. Not gentrified suburb cruisers.
Everyone in this thread seems to assume that I am against certain types of vehicles (I am not) or that I think there is no use for them under any circumstances (again not true).
But... you sir, are an idiot for using a defense of trails with thick roots and muddy fields. Who the hell is facing this in getting their kids to school or dance practice? I don't advocate using Toyota Corollas for plowing fields, nor do I advocate using them for what your uses seem to be. Maybe you should come down from your muddy root-covered trail someday to my urban neighborhood in the Washington DC region, where SUVs large and small, but mostly large, are used to drive to the shopping mall 8 miles away on flat paved roads.
Did people in Michigan have no families prior to the SUV? Did they stay in all winter? There were 4x4 trucks back then, but most people in America who didn't face severe conditions or tow boats, etc, didn't buy them to get to the office.
The prevalence of truck-like cars for use as the main vehicle in America stems mostly from marketing savvy, not usefulness. Add to that the fuel economy standard loophole that allowed them to be gas pigs. While I don't subscribe to the believe that a certain type of car should be mandated to everyone or certain types outlawed, that latter fact - the fuel economy loophole - was a crock.
Yes, they are. Poorly designed station wagons with less interior space. As said earlier in the thread, the reason these vehicles are "truckified" is for the owner to save face and present him/herself as not a dweeb. Station wagons used to be THE family vehicle in the 60s and 70s. Minivans took that spot later. But they announce that you've gone soft, you don't take risks. So the industry beefed vehicles up to look macho, to make the owner look sporty, daring... all those adjectives they can't get out of a plain family/grocery hauler.
And the prevailing view of the governed in the USA is more along the lines of the poster you replied to. So I guess the governed need to get over themselves and get used to whatever the government decrees and takes.
I actually am in line with your sympathetic nature, but conservatives could easily counter that the proper avenue of assisting society's less fortunate is through voluntary charity, not government-enforced redistribution.
Interesting... I also respect McCain and I'm a Democrat (although an independent one, not beholden to party loyalty above all else).
I very well may vote for McCain, although I'll have to hold my nose in order to associate myself with the GOP, Karl Rove, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, GW Bush, et al. It's tough for me to cast my lot with them. On the other hand, I've witnessed the Obama fans behave in exactly the same manner of vitriol, name calling, and "you're either with us or you're a moron" attitude!
I'd love to vote against the Republican party and deny them any victory after all they've done. But my conscience says that McCain is better for the country than Obama is.
I don't know what other people are posting on their Facebook profile, but I wonder about the long-term consequences of the government knowing I was mowing my yard on Thursday, and I like Johnny Winter.
Peter Paul is the equivalent to the Washington DC lawyer who sued his dry cleaners for $50-some million for a suit. Each time I read someone's comment "look out, Peter Paul is going to sink the Clintons" I laugh. Anyone who's curious, go read about Peter Paul and his history of crime and fraud.
Thank you, thank you for that, mister or missus Coward. That really made my day, and I'm just partway through the first link.
You know, I clicked the story link solely to check just how far down in comments a line like that would be. And there it is at the top! Bravo.
Black ink, or red ink?
I haven't looked into it, but I'm certain the writers of Family Guy are around my age (early 40s) and watched the same entertainment as I did. The cultural references thrown in often seem just for me - from "The Incredible Hulk" TV show closing music, with Stewie on the road hitchhiking, to Peter being a game character in Tron. I love it.
So when I read they are spinning off Cleveland's character (whom I don't really care for, BTW), my first thought was of "All in the Family" begetting "The Jeffersons".
How on earth could this obvious concept be patented? In life, we refer to it as people wearing multiple hats. Web app tools like Zope (I mention it because that's what I'm most familiar with) make it dead-easy to implement a single user having multiple roles, and different roles in different contexts. Each role has its own set of permissions. I'm scratching my head on this ruling.
I interviewed with Blackboard when they were a Perl shop (2000). I haven't had experience with their products, but judging from the comments here, I'm glad I didn't get that job.
That's it exactly. The chef was not advocating that Koreans alter their food to suit non-Koreans (nor was I). The point is that there are existing Korean dishes that non-Koreans would likely find delicious more so than kimchi.
Ok, where do I nominate this for "best of Slashdot"?
Kimchi soup, anyone? My wife often spoons the kimchi out of the jar and into a saucepan, then boils it. This makes my eyes water and the entire house will smell. Love may be blind, for me, it must be olfactory dysfunctional.
I recently read an article about a famous western chef who spends a lot of time in Korea, who tries to popularize Korean cuisine and use its influences in his cooking.
He was blunt about kimchi, stating that Koreans need to stop touting kimchi as their finest example of cuisine and westerners' first introduction to Korean food. Instead, they should focus on other Korean delicacies that are more likely to be agreeable to western palettes. If kimchi is the first Korean thing westerners eat, many will stop there and won't bother trying Korean food again. I know Koreans really love their kimchi, but it really is a very different taste for Americans. Nothing like a bowl of garlic and onion kimchi for breakfast, yum... Not!