I doubt anyone who's stood in a British railway station watching a diesel locomotive idling at the platform spewing out black clouds of particulates could really consider them 'green.'
Remember kids: Pollution you can see is 5x worse for the environment than pollution you can't see.
I'm not sure if the article is incorrect (I haven't read it yet,) or if you're misunderstanding the terminology... Most public roads, with a few exceptions (such as alleyways) are considered highways. State highways are generally better funded, but most are still legal for pedestrian and bicycle traffic.
A freeway, which you seem to be thinking of, is a completely different beast. Freeways must be divided, access is only permitted from designated on-ramps, and bicycle and pedestrian traffic are prohibited.
I can think of quite a few highways that are completely unsafe for pedestrian traffic (In the California bay area, many parts of Highway 9, and all of Highway 17 come immediately to mind.)
Does C4 require oxygen? I thought it was triggered by an electrical current.
C4 is triggered by heat and pressure, and can only be detonated by a blast cap. In fact, it's stable enough that if you light it with a match, it can be used as a heat-source (that releases some nasty chemicals.)
As far as I know, only fuel explosives (fireballs) rely on external oxidation. Most explosives (such as C4) will explode in almost any environment.
The difference between an explosion and a burn is that all the energy of the explosive is released over a very small period of time. Something that burns (like a camp-fire) releases the same amount of energy, but it's rate of release is limited by the exposure of the material to fresh oxygen.
For instance, gasoline normally just burns. But in a car engine, it's aresolized (atomized) and compressed, permitting the mixture to ignite quickly and completely. If you were to pour raw gasoline into an engine, the gas would not explode, and the engine would stop (this condition is known as flooding an engine.)
Likewise, flower (as in, stuff ground from wheat) can explode like a gasoline fireball in the right concentrations.
Generally, something that requires external oxidation will burn but not explode outside of specific conditions. Conversely, anything that can burn can produce a fireball if exposed to enough oxygen, either by using pure oxygen, or by finely grinding the flammable material and dispersing it in the air.
Fireballs are generally produced by strapping explosives (such as C4) to buckets of gasoline. The explosives aerosolize the gasoline, and ignite it, producing a fireball.
This is also part of the reason you should never pour water on a grease fire. The grease is so hot that the water will instantly convert into steam. The steam will throw the oil all over the room, and the fire will ignite it, producing a huge fireball.
Keep in mind that while fireballs are generally considered explosions, they are incredibly slow explosions. A real explosive releases it's energy much faster.
..one person actually cares about the patients health. Is it the one who made an appointment to go through an uncomfortable examination because they felt like something was wrong, or the one trying to squeeze as many credit ca... people through his business in an hour as possible?
That argument only holds water if you can show me examples of doctors who aren't overloaded.
If your doctor is *voluntarily* accepting more patients than he or she can handle, while other doctors are being under-utilized, then yes, you could argue that your doctor is greedy.
However, if all doctors are overloaded (as would be suggested by your comments,) then there really are only two alternatives: turn away patients, which will not receive any medical care, or attempt to fit as many patients as possible into the available time.
The quality of care will suffer, but everyone will be seen.
You can argue about whether or not that method is the best way to provide medical care, but you really can't make the argument that the system exists out of greed.
I'd be very surprised to find that Doctors themselves like the way the system is currently operating.
Fair enough, but I'd argue that the computer you're describing isn't an ECU any more than an ignition computer could be described as an ECU.
Interesting that they have a separate computer for the odometer... Most of my maintenance these days is on motorcycles, where there is generally just one computer and the instrument cluster. It doesn't leave a lot of places to hide the mileage counter.
Most of the old electronic ignition engines still used a distributor, but were reliant on the ignition computer for timing. Really, I can't imagine anyway to have electronic timing advance without making the engine dependent on the timing computer.
I watched the video, and one question was not answered... Is this effectively a clutch, or is it effectively a transmission?
This is a very important distinction. A transmission is a torque multiplier. At ratios below 1:1, you get more torque out of the transmission than you put into it. This is very important for cars, since they often need 10 times more torque at the wheels than is produced by the engine in order to start moving, or to haul a heavy load up a steep hill.
A clutch (or torque converter) works differently... It permits the engine to slip against the wheels. This is important, since the engine must spin, even when the vehicle is stopped. It must slip in order to start the vehicle from a complete stand still.
When this transmission is operating with one of the shafts unlocked, is it multiplying the output force, or is it simply wasting energy?
I'm going to call shenanigans on this post. There has never been a vehicle where you could remove the ECU and expect it to run.
A little history... The introduction of computers to vehicles has happened in many stages.
The first stage was the introduction of electronic ignition computers in the late 70s. These systems replaced the vacuum ignition advance on older cars. The signal from the distributor literally ran through the ignition computer. Removing the computer means that there is no connection between engine timing and plug coil. With the ignition computer removed, you have no spark, and the engine cannot start.
The next major step forward was the introduction of electronic fuel injection. This computer was responsible for controlling the fuel injectors. No ECU, means no fuel in the cylinders, which means no running vehicle. Power for the injectors literally comes via the ECU. Without the ECU, the injectors are literally unplugged.
Later vehicles used more computers in more components of the vehicle, to the point that a computer controls the brakes on my motorcycle.
But, there was no time where you could remove an ECU and expect the vehicle to still run.*
* Yes, it is possible to disconnect a lot of the sensors on an electronically fuel injected vehicle, and it will still run. But the ECU must still be in place.
Seriously Slashdot... You call yourself geeks, and you fall for this kind of stuff? Shame.
If you permit rogue DHCP servers on your network, you have bigger problems than PXE.
The correct solution is to block DHCP response packets from unauthorized ports at the switch level, and make it a policy to smash the knees of anyone who connects a 'home router' to your corporate network.
You touched on it at the end of your comment, but my preferred solution is improved technology: is there a way to design roads and cars that can be safely navigated at the speeds people want to drive? Can we make a highway and a car both safe at 100 MPH?
Speaking as someone who regularly drives in excess of 100 miles per hour legally (I race,) the answer to your question is yes in theory, and a definite 'maybe' in practice.
My experience has been that accidents are most common in situations of congestion, and situations where heavy lane changing occurs (such as intersections, and off-ramps.)
I've found that when drivers are permitted to drive as fast as they feel comfortable, everyone tends to focus on traffic, rather than becoming lost in distractions. If you combined training, with enforcement of rules of the road (such as lane usage, use of signals, passing, and merging rules) you could drastically increase the safe speed permitted on the freeway.
Of course, while these efforts will reduce the frequency of accidents, they will not reduce the severity of accidents. Significant improvements in roadway engineering could somewhat offset the increased impact forces associated with high speeds.
In practice, I think some of our infrastructure would support high speed travel, but that a huge cost would be associated with the engineering, enforcement, and training requirements of a significant high-speed roll-out.
Taking a couple of examples...
US 101 between Morgan Hill and San Jose can support relatively high speeds, and it's very common for traffic speeds to near, or even exceed 100 miles per hour (I'd place average speeds around 75MPH.) US101 between San Jose and San Francisco could not support that kind of speed, due to the traffic levels, road quality, ramp design, and the tendency for traffic to suddenly stop.
Of course, the unlimited speed sections of the German Autobahn are another great example of relatively safe high speed transportation.
In racing, the number one rule of safety is 'Be predictable.' The rule works. I race a 1993 Suzuki GS500 (~50 horsepower, top speed of 115,) and practice alongside modern liter-bikes (~180 horsepower, top speed nearing 180 MPH) Typically, the vast difference in speed down a straight is not a problem, because everyone understands that rule.
Why should most people care about vibration caused by adjacent drives if most people only have one drive.
Some of the largest consumers of hard disks are enterprise companies with network attached storage, storage area networks, and RAID equipped servers.
These companies have a very high density of hard disks, and spend a lot of money for high performance. It's not unheard of for such a company to purchase a huge array, not for capacity purposes, but for seek time and throughput.
Honestly, I would rather my senetor spend his time in the Senate looking at pictures of pretty girls than voting or cramming pork into every bill he can find.
If you're like most constituents, what you actually want is for your senator to continue cramming pork into bills, while every other senator looks at porn.
One flaw in the design of the RMBK reactor is that hitting the red button momentarily increases the rate of reaction while the control rods were inserted.
The operators hit the button, and doing so is part of what turned a 'meltdown' into a 'radioactive explosion.'
That's what I mean about 'Inherently Unsafe'. The RMBK reactors operate with a Positive Void Coefficient, meaning that without external intervention, a meltdown *will* occur. Many systems can be put in place to keep the reactor stable... In this case external intervention would include automated safety systems...
Inherently safe designs operate with a negative void coefficient, meaning that a meltdown will only occur with significant external intervention. A meltdown is still possible in the latter case, but it is significantly less likely.
I agree with you that operator actions were a primary contributor to the Chernobyl disaster. But, as we both know from our computing experience, the best design is one that fails safe, despite the actions of the operator.
I always like how posts like this start out with 'Parents should' instead of 'My kids...'
I'm not a parent myself, but I've spent years working with them, teaching children. The reality of raising a child isn't nearly as simple as you make it out to be.
The value of an item is what people are willing to pay for it, not the retail cost or KBB value. Retail and blue book values are starting places, designed to reflect and perhaps control the market... But they are not the last absolute say on value.
Consider the console market: In December of 2006, a Sony PS3 was worth $1200, despite the fact that the retail cost was $599 for the 60 GB version.
Judging the entire Muslim culture by the actions of some extremists is about the same as judging the entirety of Christianity (or even the entirety of America) by the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the meta logic is more interesting... 'emptiness and fullness is a crappy way to compare vehicular efficiency.'
I doubt anyone who's stood in a British railway station watching a diesel locomotive idling at the platform spewing out black clouds of particulates could really consider them 'green.'
Remember kids: Pollution you can see is 5x worse for the environment than pollution you can't see.
if you're running trains on a regular basis all day long you can pretty much guarantee that most will be half-empty.
...as opposed to the car, which, based on my observations as a commuter, is typically run 4/5ths empty?
I'm not sure if the article is incorrect (I haven't read it yet,) or if you're misunderstanding the terminology... Most public roads, with a few exceptions (such as alleyways) are considered highways. State highways are generally better funded, but most are still legal for pedestrian and bicycle traffic.
A freeway, which you seem to be thinking of, is a completely different beast. Freeways must be divided, access is only permitted from designated on-ramps, and bicycle and pedestrian traffic are prohibited.
I can think of quite a few highways that are completely unsafe for pedestrian traffic (In the California bay area, many parts of Highway 9, and all of Highway 17 come immediately to mind.)
no matter what you do some bed-wetting crybaby is going to bitch about it, so just ignore them and continue with what you want to do.
Rather than ignoring them, it's usually better to take advantage of the free exposure in order to promote your show.
Lesson: Pick your fights.
Does C4 require oxygen? I thought it was triggered by an electrical current.
C4 is triggered by heat and pressure, and can only be detonated by a blast cap. In fact, it's stable enough that if you light it with a match, it can be used as a heat-source (that releases some nasty chemicals.)
As far as I know, only fuel explosives (fireballs) rely on external oxidation. Most explosives (such as C4) will explode in almost any environment.
The difference between an explosion and a burn is that all the energy of the explosive is released over a very small period of time. Something that burns (like a camp-fire) releases the same amount of energy, but it's rate of release is limited by the exposure of the material to fresh oxygen.
For instance, gasoline normally just burns. But in a car engine, it's aresolized (atomized) and compressed, permitting the mixture to ignite quickly and completely. If you were to pour raw gasoline into an engine, the gas would not explode, and the engine would stop (this condition is known as flooding an engine.)
Likewise, flower (as in, stuff ground from wheat) can explode like a gasoline fireball in the right concentrations.
Generally, something that requires external oxidation will burn but not explode outside of specific conditions. Conversely, anything that can burn can produce a fireball if exposed to enough oxygen, either by using pure oxygen, or by finely grinding the flammable material and dispersing it in the air.
Fireballs are generally produced by strapping explosives (such as C4) to buckets of gasoline. The explosives aerosolize the gasoline, and ignite it, producing a fireball.
This is also part of the reason you should never pour water on a grease fire. The grease is so hot that the water will instantly convert into steam. The steam will throw the oil all over the room, and the fire will ignite it, producing a huge fireball.
Keep in mind that while fireballs are generally considered explosions, they are incredibly slow explosions. A real explosive releases it's energy much faster.
Although I'll grant that it isn't really shenanigans if the OP confused an 'Electronic Control Unit' with an 'Engine Control Unit.'
Again, I'd point out that it isn't really a 'Engine Control Unit' unless it actually controls the engine.
That argument only holds water if you can show me examples of doctors who aren't overloaded.
If your doctor is *voluntarily* accepting more patients than he or she can handle, while other doctors are being under-utilized, then yes, you could argue that your doctor is greedy.
However, if all doctors are overloaded (as would be suggested by your comments,) then there really are only two alternatives: turn away patients, which will not receive any medical care, or attempt to fit as many patients as possible into the available time.
The quality of care will suffer, but everyone will be seen.
You can argue about whether or not that method is the best way to provide medical care, but you really can't make the argument that the system exists out of greed.
I'd be very surprised to find that Doctors themselves like the way the system is currently operating.
Fair enough, but I'd argue that the computer you're describing isn't an ECU any more than an ignition computer could be described as an ECU.
Interesting that they have a separate computer for the odometer... Most of my maintenance these days is on motorcycles, where there is generally just one computer and the instrument cluster. It doesn't leave a lot of places to hide the mileage counter.
Most of the old electronic ignition engines still used a distributor, but were reliant on the ignition computer for timing. Really, I can't imagine anyway to have electronic timing advance without making the engine dependent on the timing computer.
I watched the video, and one question was not answered... Is this effectively a clutch, or is it effectively a transmission?
This is a very important distinction. A transmission is a torque multiplier. At ratios below 1:1, you get more torque out of the transmission than you put into it. This is very important for cars, since they often need 10 times more torque at the wheels than is produced by the engine in order to start moving, or to haul a heavy load up a steep hill.
A clutch (or torque converter) works differently... It permits the engine to slip against the wheels. This is important, since the engine must spin, even when the vehicle is stopped. It must slip in order to start the vehicle from a complete stand still.
When this transmission is operating with one of the shafts unlocked, is it multiplying the output force, or is it simply wasting energy?
I'm going to call shenanigans on this post. There has never been a vehicle where you could remove the ECU and expect it to run.
A little history... The introduction of computers to vehicles has happened in many stages.
The first stage was the introduction of electronic ignition computers in the late 70s. These systems replaced the vacuum ignition advance on older cars. The signal from the distributor literally ran through the ignition computer. Removing the computer means that there is no connection between engine timing and plug coil. With the ignition computer removed, you have no spark, and the engine cannot start.
The next major step forward was the introduction of electronic fuel injection. This computer was responsible for controlling the fuel injectors. No ECU, means no fuel in the cylinders, which means no running vehicle. Power for the injectors literally comes via the ECU. Without the ECU, the injectors are literally unplugged.
Later vehicles used more computers in more components of the vehicle, to the point that a computer controls the brakes on my motorcycle.
But, there was no time where you could remove an ECU and expect the vehicle to still run.*
* Yes, it is possible to disconnect a lot of the sensors on an electronically fuel injected vehicle, and it will still run. But the ECU must still be in place.
Seriously Slashdot... You call yourself geeks, and you fall for this kind of stuff? Shame.
If you only have need for 187 aircraft, then 187 F-22s can easily replace 800 F-15s.
If you permit rogue DHCP servers on your network, you have bigger problems than PXE.
The correct solution is to block DHCP response packets from unauthorized ports at the switch level, and make it a policy to smash the knees of anyone who connects a 'home router' to your corporate network.
Speaking as someone who regularly drives in excess of 100 miles per hour legally (I race,) the answer to your question is yes in theory, and a definite 'maybe' in practice.
My experience has been that accidents are most common in situations of congestion, and situations where heavy lane changing occurs (such as intersections, and off-ramps.)
I've found that when drivers are permitted to drive as fast as they feel comfortable, everyone tends to focus on traffic, rather than becoming lost in distractions. If you combined training, with enforcement of rules of the road (such as lane usage, use of signals, passing, and merging rules) you could drastically increase the safe speed permitted on the freeway.
Of course, while these efforts will reduce the frequency of accidents, they will not reduce the severity of accidents. Significant improvements in roadway engineering could somewhat offset the increased impact forces associated with high speeds.
In practice, I think some of our infrastructure would support high speed travel, but that a huge cost would be associated with the engineering, enforcement, and training requirements of a significant high-speed roll-out.
Taking a couple of examples...
US 101 between Morgan Hill and San Jose can support relatively high speeds, and it's very common for traffic speeds to near, or even exceed 100 miles per hour (I'd place average speeds around 75MPH.) US101 between San Jose and San Francisco could not support that kind of speed, due to the traffic levels, road quality, ramp design, and the tendency for traffic to suddenly stop.
Of course, the unlimited speed sections of the German Autobahn are another great example of relatively safe high speed transportation.
In racing, the number one rule of safety is 'Be predictable.' The rule works. I race a 1993 Suzuki GS500 (~50 horsepower, top speed of 115,) and practice alongside modern liter-bikes (~180 horsepower, top speed nearing 180 MPH) Typically, the vast difference in speed down a straight is not a problem, because everyone understands that rule.
Some of the largest consumers of hard disks are enterprise companies with network attached storage, storage area networks, and RAID equipped servers.
These companies have a very high density of hard disks, and spend a lot of money for high performance. It's not unheard of for such a company to purchase a huge array, not for capacity purposes, but for seek time and throughput.
I'm sure they care.
Honestly, I would rather my senetor spend his time in the Senate looking at pictures of pretty girls than voting or cramming pork into every bill he can find.
If you're like most constituents, what you actually want is for your senator to continue cramming pork into bills, while every other senator looks at porn.
One flaw in the design of the RMBK reactor is that hitting the red button momentarily increases the rate of reaction while the control rods were inserted.
The operators hit the button, and doing so is part of what turned a 'meltdown' into a 'radioactive explosion.'
That's what I mean about 'Inherently Unsafe'. The RMBK reactors operate with a Positive Void Coefficient, meaning that without external intervention, a meltdown *will* occur. Many systems can be put in place to keep the reactor stable... In this case external intervention would include automated safety systems...
Inherently safe designs operate with a negative void coefficient, meaning that a meltdown will only occur with significant external intervention. A meltdown is still possible in the latter case, but it is significantly less likely.
I agree with you that operator actions were a primary contributor to the Chernobyl disaster. But, as we both know from our computing experience, the best design is one that fails safe, despite the actions of the operator.
We could build Nuclear Reactors much safer back then, as well. The Russians simply chose to build a reactor based on an inherently unsafe design.
Actually, you're right. I missed that part.
I always like how posts like this start out with 'Parents should' instead of 'My kids...'
I'm not a parent myself, but I've spent years working with them, teaching children. The reality of raising a child isn't nearly as simple as you make it out to be.
The value of an item is what people are willing to pay for it, not the retail cost or KBB value. Retail and blue book values are starting places, designed to reflect and perhaps control the market... But they are not the last absolute say on value.
Consider the console market: In December of 2006, a Sony PS3 was worth $1200, despite the fact that the retail cost was $599 for the 60 GB version.
Judging the entire Muslim culture by the actions of some extremists is about the same as judging the entirety of Christianity (or even the entirety of America) by the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church.