Yes. I've been reading about the Skyactiv X engine and in the US it would only have a ratio of 13:1 . It's not the first attempt at such a high ratio, there have been other projects but this time it appears to succeed.
Mazda's engine achieves a compression ratio of 14 to 1 which I think is spectacular for a road going car. It's the same as their diesel which has evolved in the other direction.
Racecars can get higher compression but their idle is very high, which avoids low rev knocking and they use higher octane.
Come on guys, is nobody interested in the mechanics of this thing?
Spoken like someone who has not sat behind the wheel of a decent sportscar... But you do have a point.It's very easy to underestimate how Tesla's drive. They weigh a lot but a Panamera has the same weight and it can handle pretty well.
That does look like a good criterium though with such a frontal assault one wonders what counteractions would have followed. And now look whose protection Trump can count on for his survival: the Pentagon. Without it he'd never be able to hang on. He manages without the CIA but they only started mobilizing after the election.
Trump did say things that were definitely anti-interventionist: he said it was possible to get along with North Korea and with Russia and he wanted to get out of Afghanistan. I don't think those were lies. Totally unreliable but real opinions that fit a certain strain of conservative isolationist thinking.
In fact I've heard a lot of people in the CIA as well as military families voted for Trump because he threatened to stray off the US track record with anti-interventionist promises. Unfortunately those claims quickly were overturned and now he even digs in in Afghanistan.
This is not how it works. Facebook represents a lot of internet traffic and if you can control that it means power. The idea that critical people don't use Facebook is nonsense. A large part of control is directing attention. That is not directly about believing claims but about believing where to look, what to look at. Of course the same way most people don't look behind headlines it is often enough to point to a claim in order to make people believe in it. Critical thinking is mostly about evaluating whatever your attention is drawn to. It is often weak at directing attention. If you allow someone to direct your attention to whatever supports his case it becomes likely that you'll end up agreeing to some extent even if you area very critical person
I don't have facebook or twitter but I follow a few twitter accounts. I trust these twitter feeds to direct my attention.
Okay, they don't see abuse of social media as a major threat to human existence. I can understand they want to include climate change because it's commonly considered a major threat. Independent of how solid that claim is I wouldn't have done that because indeed, mission creep. They moved from nukes to general threats and it dilutes the message.
I even take in account that Russia itself considered joining NATO. I Suppose if Canada and Mexico started piling up Russian missile systems against the US that would not be a problem as long as they did it voluntarily.
Ever taken a look at the map where nato was 20 years ago and where it is now? Oh that doesn't count. Let's not forget,the US has DEFENSE forces, so it's not aggressive . So if for instance it now officially starts pumping weaponry into Ukraine that's not aggressive. By definition,right? 'comrade' is clueless in two ways. one, the spectrum of people who would agree with me includes political realists like Walt and Mearsheimer. Second, current government in Russia is rightwing, not communist. Oh the few communists who are still around somewhere might well take russia's side, because they're anti imperialist.
I'm not sure that's a good comparison. Trump is currently bluffing , that's his style. He's not afraid of raising the tension and it doesn't mean he won't negotiate. He may well make a shift to negotiations later on, but there is considerable risk that things escalate in the meantime unintentionally. There is far too much confidence.
This is clueless. A modest nuclear war say between India and Pakistan can cause a nuclear winter which leads to a worldwide famine which by itself can decimate the world population in a short time without all the conflicts and the structural desintegration which result from that. It would be very hard to contain.
The danger of a war with North Korea is of course in the first place that there would be millions of dead over there, and maybe a fraction of that in the US. If everything remains contained. But for things to remain contained you need an awful lot of competence and a lot of luck.
Ukraine and Crimea have "calmed down" in the sense that nobody in the USA cares anymore.
. And that is how you measure the danger. That's just the public perception. The main reason these doomsday people aren't taken serious is because the public is now completely clueless.
The danger in Ukraine is increasing, not decreasing. The danger of an unintentional war between Russia and the US has increased massively. Much shorter warning times because the US is on Russia's border (and to much smaller extent the opposite is also true) and an aggressive US policy which feels safe because 'it didn't go wrong before' and a US decision system which is out of control.
If that is true it's very unfortunate. I don't know how knowledgeable these people are but I consider the chance of terminal nuclear war pretty high. All unintentional of course. Maybe a Korean conflict can be contained, but India/Pakistan is less clear and the US seems to be completely in control of warmongers or reckless tensionmongers who are to stupid to know where to stop. It's full of useful idiots who are only there to make money for others. These days nukes are considered 'a jobs program'.
i don't think your case is representative. The problematic usage of internet is when you're not living in isolation at all but give priority to the screen over the person next to you.
Slashdot Mirror
Which ones need preheating? racing engines or the Mazda engine? The latter uses spark ignition on cold start but I don't know about preheating.
Yes. I've been reading about the Skyactiv X engine and in the US it would only have a ratio of 13:1 .
It's not the first attempt at such a high ratio, there have been other projects but this time it appears to succeed.
But Putin slyly avoided to specify which Chartreuse! The yellow or the green one?
Mazda's engine achieves a compression ratio of 14 to 1 which I think is spectacular for a road going car. It's the same as their diesel which has evolved in the other direction.
Racecars can get higher compression but their idle is very high, which avoids low rev knocking and they use higher octane.
Come on guys, is nobody interested in the mechanics of this thing?
Spoken like someone who has not sat behind the wheel of a decent sportscar...
But you do have a point.It's very easy to underestimate how Tesla's drive. They weigh a lot but a Panamera has the same weight and it can handle pretty well.
That does look like a good criterium though with such a frontal assault one wonders what counteractions would have followed. And now look whose protection Trump can count on for his survival: the Pentagon. Without it he'd never be able to hang on. He manages without the CIA but they only started mobilizing after the election.
Trump did say things that were definitely anti-interventionist: he said it was possible to get along with North Korea and with Russia and he wanted to get out of Afghanistan. I don't think those were lies. Totally unreliable but real opinions that fit a certain strain of conservative isolationist thinking.
Close enough.
That's easy to say but do you expect these people to vote Clinton instead?
http://www.theamericanconserva...
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/new...
What, no lizards in tin foil hats?
to send the missiles?
In fact I've heard a lot of people in the CIA as well as military families voted for Trump because he threatened to stray off the US track record with anti-interventionist promises.
Unfortunately those claims quickly were overturned and now he even digs in in Afghanistan.
This is not how it works. Facebook represents a lot of internet traffic and if you can control that it means power. The idea that critical people don't use Facebook is nonsense. A large part of control is directing attention. That is not directly about believing claims but about believing where to look, what to look at. Of course the same way most people don't look behind headlines it is often enough to point to a claim in order to make people believe in it. Critical thinking is mostly about evaluating whatever your attention is drawn to. It is often weak at directing attention. If you allow someone to direct your attention to whatever supports his case it becomes likely that you'll end up agreeing to some extent even if you area very critical person
I don't have facebook or twitter but I follow a few twitter accounts. I trust these twitter feeds to direct my attention.
Insurers getting their hands on your data and 'optimizing' their policies to it.
Okay, they don't see abuse of social media as a major threat to human existence. I can understand they want to include climate change because it's commonly considered a major threat. Independent of how solid that claim is I wouldn't have done that because indeed, mission creep. They moved from nukes to general threats and it dilutes the message.
I even take in account that Russia itself considered joining NATO. I Suppose if Canada and Mexico started piling up Russian missile systems against the US that would not be a problem as long as they did it voluntarily.
Nonsense. 'this' is a void pointer that I can make point anywhere I want, including towards itself.
Ever taken a look at the map where nato was 20 years ago and where it is now? Oh that doesn't count. Let's not forget ,the US has DEFENSE forces, so it's not aggressive . So if for instance it now officially starts pumping weaponry into Ukraine that's not aggressive. By definition,right?
'comrade' is clueless in two ways. one, the spectrum of people who would agree with me includes political realists like Walt and Mearsheimer. Second, current government in Russia is rightwing, not communist. Oh the few communists who are still around somewhere might well take russia's side, because they're anti imperialist.
That's the bonus question.
Let the nerdiness of this comment be an example to all.
In a general sense I think you're right. The US sees much less reason to talk than 50 years ago but that's independent of Trump.
I'm not sure that's a good comparison. Trump is currently bluffing , that's his style. He's not afraid of raising the tension and it doesn't mean he won't negotiate. He may well make a shift to negotiations later on, but there is considerable risk that things escalate in the meantime unintentionally. There is far too much confidence.
This is clueless. A modest nuclear war say between India and Pakistan can cause a nuclear winter which leads to a worldwide famine which by itself can decimate the world population in a short time without all the conflicts and the structural desintegration which result from that. It would be very hard to contain.
The danger of a war with North Korea is of course in the first place that there would be millions of dead over there, and maybe a fraction of that in the US. If everything remains contained. But for things to remain contained you need an awful lot of competence and a lot of luck.
.
And that is how you measure the danger. That's just the public perception. The main reason these doomsday people aren't taken serious is because the public is now completely clueless.
The danger in Ukraine is increasing, not decreasing. The danger of an unintentional war between Russia and the US has increased massively. Much shorter warning times because the US is on Russia's border (and to much smaller extent the opposite is also true) and an aggressive US policy which feels safe because 'it didn't go wrong before' and a US decision system which is out of control.
If that is true it's very unfortunate. I don't know how knowledgeable these people are but I consider the chance of terminal nuclear war pretty high. All unintentional of course. Maybe a Korean conflict can be contained, but India/Pakistan is less clear and the US seems to be completely in control of warmongers or reckless tensionmongers who are to stupid to know where to stop. It's full of useful idiots who are only there to make money for others.
These days nukes are considered 'a jobs program'.
i don't think your case is representative. The problematic usage of internet is when you're not living in isolation at all but give priority to the screen over the person next to you.
. I have no idea, I don't know Korean.