Re:Rootkit? WTF are you talking about?
on
Review: Spore
·
· Score: 1
When someone can convince me that a video game was designed to intentionally allow unauthorized users access to my computer I'll accept that it's a rootkit. Otherwise, it's simply poorly designed.
Re:Rootkit? WTF are you talking about?
on
Review: Spore
·
· Score: 1
You may be correct that my usage of privilege escalation is improper here. Technically, I don't think privilege escalation is proper when opening a root back door to a user who has no access to the system to begin with.
Yes, in this case it would be a scientist doing it intentionally, rather than it occurring by chance in the primordial soup, but it shows that in principle it is possible.
I'm not a big fan of the "Chance" line of reasoning behind evolution. Much like the term "theory," it is very easily abused to confuse people.
What is improbable on a small scale becomes almost inevitable when we look at the kind of time periods and the amount of opportunity available in 5 billion years. It's not unreasonable to believe that the formation of life on earth isn't only probable, but virtually assured.
Here's a great example: It's improbable that either of us will die in a car accident. Possible, but not so likely. But, if you look at slash dot as a whole, it's almost inevitable. Expand that to humanity, and for all practical purposes it's assured to be a common phenomena. Now, expand a small probability over 5 billion years, and by the number of proteins in the ocean and the formation of life starts seeming like less a matter of random "chance."
The only real question is what are the exact odds, and what truly is required...
Re:Rootkit? WTF are you talking about?
on
Review: Spore
·
· Score: 1
Don't get me wrong... I'm no fan of DRM. The only games I've pirated in recent memory have been games that are so obsolete as to no longer available for sale through retail stores.
However, I still use cracks. All my disks go away somewhere safe. I generally crack my legitimate software to avoid having to get the CDs out of storage. I find DRM to be far too much of a hassle for day to day use.
Regardless, calling DRM a rootkit is eye catching at first, but in the long run it tends to dilute the meaning of "rootkit."
Re:Rootkit? WTF are you talking about?
on
Review: Spore
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Any application that you run on your computer has the ability to launch code that it feels like using. In your linked article, I see no mention that SecureROM phones home, other than when you are using protected software. And what pretty much fucking defines a rootkit is that the software package intentionally allows non-authorized users to obtain escalated privileges. I've seen no evidence that SecureROM permits that kind of access.
Again, you should NOT abuse industry terms to promote your agenda. My feelings on DRM are irrelevant on this one.
Rootkit? WTF are you talking about?
on
Review: Spore
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Seriously, WTF are you talking about?
A rootkit is a piece of software that modifies your computers behavior to allow back-door access to unauthorized users and hide traces of activity. DRM is designed to prevent you from copying other people's data. I'd take DRM over a root kit any day.
Do NOT bastardize computer industry terms in order to sensationalize your agenda. It undermines the terms, and makes you look like a tool to anyone who understands their meaning.
I don't see how allowing a player to immerse themselves by having their own unique experiences within an alternate world invalidates the idea that games are art. If anything, I feel like it promotes the idea.
To me, art provides an alternative way of expressing and exploring thoughts that people may be uncomfortable approaching directly. Sometimes the art is designed to shock, other times it's designed to break through barriers of faith, tradition, or social normality. One of the great things about art is it allows the viewer to find their own meaning in the work it's self. To see the authors ideas, and to combine it with their own experience in order to understand something about themselves.
I think in that regard, open ended games like GTA (while not horribly creative) or Fallout might be quite artistic in their own way.
I would really like to see ID focus on team based play a bit more than they have.
I've always considered ID to be an engine development house first, and a game developer second. They've had a lot of amazing successes in the retail market, but their true strength seems to be in developing the game engines that other developers use to push game-play boundaries.
I've always enjoyed the games that ID has created, but off the top of my head, I can't think of anything they've produced in-house that sparks a revolution in gameplay since the original Wolfenstein 3D.
I know this was meant as a statement with a sense of humor, but it brings up an honest quote:
"Freedom does not exist as an external truth. It exists inside men, and those who wish to be free are free." - Paul Ernst
I believe that we have never been free, or we have always been free, depending on how we look at it. We are always limited, and always restricted. Even with total social freedom, we are bound by the laws of physics. Freedom is not about being able to do whatever we want, freedom is about choosing weather we want to make your own decisions, or weather we'll submit to the will of others. If you live in fear of the law, in fear of the terrorists, in fear loosing everything you have, fearing for the children, then you were never really free (no matter what liberties or rights your country might offer you.)
The freest man in the world is the man who's pissed off, and has nothing left to loose. That man could ignite a revolution.
But we had no idea why he claimed to believe the Earth was flat. To this day, I'm still not certain if this was real, tongue-in-cheek or yet another creative teaching methodology. He did put most of the students on the spot to defend why we believed the Earth was round. Almost none of us had any other answer than things like "but... but... people have gone up and taken pictures". None of us could explain how for several millenia all educated folk have known the Earth was round based a few obvious things such as the way a ship disappears over the horizon, the fact that the shadow of the Earth on the moon is always round and things like certain constellations going out of sight as folk travel north or south. This was well before the Google age where someone in the classroom could have found all that in a couple of minutes on the web.
It sounds like he was challenging you to question your preconceptions. It's one thing to know that the earth is flat based on your education, it's quite a different thing to know that the earth is flat by examining the evidence, questioning it, and setting out to prove it to yourself.
If you know that the earth is flat because that's what you've been told all your life by people you respect, how are you different than someone who knows that god watches them masturbate when they've been told it all their lives by people they respect?
I encounter a lot of this in my motorcycling. The vast majority of riders believe that gyroscopic forces stabilize their bike, but I've learned though a lot of research, thought, and experimentation that it's a secondary force to the effects of caster (trail.) Yet, gyroscopic balancing is taught by the majority of high school and college physics teachers, by many respected members of the community, and by a lot of motorcycling instructors. (How many people here believe that gyroscopic procession balances your bicycle?)
Question all belief, even what you know is true. You probably won't prove 'round earth theory' to be wrong, but you will learn a hell of a lot in the process.
Most of the time the person who is drunk and naked at a frat party isn't the one posting pictures on the internet. It would be impossible to count the number of times an ex-boyfriend post a passionate private video to an online porn site, or a passerby post a youtube video of an embarrassing moment.
Of course, people need to be careful about where and when they get drunk and stupid (never?) and who they allow to video them doing the nasty (no one,) but that doesn't make it right to post private moments, nor does it mean that the victims of that kind of invasion of privacy deserve the consequences.
If anything, I think it's a problem with our society that we are so ready to ostracize someone for being human. Most of us have done some stupid things we regret. Those that have not are either lieing or boring as hell. Few of us were caught on video doing it.
That's very true. But there is a difference between producing weapons to defend ourselves, and producing weapons to conquer other nations. For example: there is no valid argument that the most recent Iraq war was a defensive action.
I would go so far to argue that conquering an independent nation is ultimately a drain on the economy. Is the benefit gained really worth the costs of occupying the country and putting down an insurgency? England certainly wasn't able to hold together it's empire.
Violence is an option best avoided, because violence almost always costs both parties. There is no economic value in producing a weapon. It does not enrich anyone's lives. It does not improve living conditions. There is no return on investment. It's merely a tool to destroy something. It certainly has it's place, and there is a need to be able to defend ourselves from other people's weapons. But it is not an ideal way to spend our money.
Likewise, you don't have to negotiate with a man when his swing is mid flight to your face. But it's important to negotiate before things reach that point. You are a fool if you think that there is any absolute procedure to handle all situations - politics is an art, not a science. But there are still many important concepts to understand and apply.
One other thought:
Ultimately, even the smallest infraction (a speeding ticket?) is backed up by deadly force.
- If I get a ticket, I can choose to ignore it, and to continue speeding. The state will suspend my license, and issue a warrant for my arrest. - If an officer tries to arrest me, I can run. The state will eventually setup trans, and a roadblock. - If I'm pulled over, I can refuse to submit. The state will use physical force to subdue me. - If I fight, I can be shot.
Many places I've worked end up with a Lord-of-all-IT situation simply because they haven't got anyone who can replace him* or back him up, or weren't willing to pay for backup/additional/experienced staff.
Or because they can't afford to have him properly document everything, or take the time to produce a reliable network, rather than a patchwork of hack jobs...
I learned a long time ago that there is more value in producing a simple, robust, reliable, and reproducible environment than spending all my time and energy milking 10% more out of a configuration that no one else will be able to understand or maintain.
If your system is so complex that someone of half your ability couldn't be trained to maintain or operate it it, you are incompetent. Experience is knowing the best way to support the long term goals of your environment. Experience is not about being able to make an environment that you will be stuck maintaining for the rest of your life.
Racism is about denying people equal opportunity based on the color of their skin. Acknowledging the fact that we are different, physically and culturally is not racism.
Acknowledging that many Chinese natives are crappy drivers in the US is not racist (even if white people often see it that way.) Most of my Chinese friends agree that there are a lot of bad Asian drivers out there. Assuming someone is a bad driver because they are Chinese, and treating them like a bad driver before seeing them drive is racist. Denying someone a license because they are Chinese would be racist.
Driving in China or Taiwan is very different than driving in the US. Someone who learned over there will suck over here. Likewise, most US drivers couldn't handle driving in Taiwan. Are they inferior because of it? Nope. They are just different.
There are only 'consequences' of actions if you do something wrong or get caught. Kids have to make mistakes and take chances in order to grow. If you parents are so over protective, how are you going to learn....and being young is the time to be a little reckless and have fun. You get to be 'resposible' and adult acting soon enough...
My cousins had extremely over-protective parents. They learned by being reckless and wild as soon as they moved out to college. The problem is, once you turn 18, that recklessness has real world, life long consequences.
The result is that one of them dropped out of college, and lost $40,000 in scholarships. The other completely turned his back on his strict religious upbringing. Neither are walking the straight and narrow the way their parents had hoped.
1. Ethanol has a lower energy density than gasoline, meaning that all other factors being equal, you will never go as far on a gallon of ethanol.
It's worth noting that the power produced by an engine is actually limited by the amount of air sucked / pushed into the cylinder rather than the amount of fuel injected. If you add more fuel than is appropriate for a given amount of air, both power and fuel efficiency suffer. The ideal ratio is called the synchromatic ratio. For best fuel economy and emissions, most cards add a little less fuel than ideal in order to burn all the fuel. For best power, we add a little more gas than ideal, in order to burn all the air.
Even though ethanol has a lower energy density than gasoline, it has a closer synchromatic ratio: more fuel is needed for the same amount of air. So, power doesn't suffer, but as you can see from what I've written, MPG does suffer.
Note that this does not mean Ethanol pollutes more for a given amount of power. Less energy density means less hydrocarbons for an equal volume of fuel. This is offset by the fact that you burn a larger volume of fuel for the same amount of power.
The biggest two issues this raises is that an ethanol vehicle looses range, and that the price per gallon of fuel between the two fuel sources is not directly comparable.
E.g.: If ethanol costs $40c per gallon less, will the average consumer know which is a better deal at the pump, given the difference in fuel efficiency?
2. The CCXR takes advantage of the properties of ethanol by running more supercharger boost. More boost means more air in the cylinders, which means more fuel is injected, which results in more power and lower fuel efficiency. Some performance tuning consumes more fuel, some doesn't.
Free power:
Increasing the ignition timing advance produces "free" power by igniting the air fuel mixture in the cylinder sooner. This produces more cylinder pressure, and produces it closer to top-dead center. The increased pressure means more power, even though no extra air or fuel is needed. The downside is that the cylinder runs at a higher temperature. Ignition advance is limited by gasoline octane rating, because when the cylinder becomes too hot, the gas spontaneously ignites, causing at a minimum pinging, and at worst pre-ignition and a broken engine. Since ethanol has a higher octane rating than gasoline, this is much less likely to be a problem.
One nice thing is that ignition timing is computer controlled. So, it's possible for a flex fuel vehicle to tune it's self for ethanol, enjoying the increased efficiency, without loosing the ability to run lower octane gasoline.
Another way to improve engine efficiency, is to increase the compression ratio of the engine. As I recall, compressing the air fuel mixture to a greater degree improves the air/fuel dynamics for a better burn. Another major advantage is that the flame front inside the cylinder travels faster, producing higher cylinder pressures given the same amount of fuel. The disadvantages are again, increased temperatures possibly resulting in pre-ignition. Another disadvantage is that compression ratio cannot be computer controlled, and so the engine must be tuned either for gasoline, or for ethanol.
Personally, for a gasoline powered car, I prefer an engine tuned for higher octane fuel. The free power (which equates directly to fuel efficiency) produced by tuning the engine in this manor more than compensates for the slight difference in gasoline prices. These tweaks can easily produce a 10%-15% improvement in performance / efficiency at the cost of a few cents per gallon at the pump ($.40 more for fuel priced at $4.50 a gallon vs, 15% increase efficiency. You do the math.:)
So, to reply to your comment... Yes, it is possible to tune for ethanol fuel efficency, but because of the nature of the fuel, the MPG figures aren't likely to exceed that of gasoline.
As an interesting side note... Lead is a major octane enhancer. Leaded gasoline usually has an octane rating above 110. Old V8s used to run super high compression ratios for this reason.:)
Slashdot Mirror
When someone can convince me that a video game was designed to intentionally allow unauthorized users access to my computer I'll accept that it's a rootkit. Otherwise, it's simply poorly designed.
You may be correct that my usage of privilege escalation is improper here. Technically, I don't think privilege escalation is proper when opening a root back door to a user who has no access to the system to begin with.
But, that is kind of nit picking. :)
Yes, in this case it would be a scientist doing it intentionally, rather than it occurring by chance in the primordial soup, but it shows that in principle it is possible.
I'm not a big fan of the "Chance" line of reasoning behind evolution. Much like the term "theory," it is very easily abused to confuse people.
What is improbable on a small scale becomes almost inevitable when we look at the kind of time periods and the amount of opportunity available in 5 billion years. It's not unreasonable to believe that the formation of life on earth isn't only probable, but virtually assured.
Here's a great example: It's improbable that either of us will die in a car accident. Possible, but not so likely. But, if you look at slash dot as a whole, it's almost inevitable. Expand that to humanity, and for all practical purposes it's assured to be a common phenomena. Now, expand a small probability over 5 billion years, and by the number of proteins in the ocean and the formation of life starts seeming like less a matter of random "chance."
The only real question is what are the exact odds, and what truly is required...
Don't get me wrong... I'm no fan of DRM. The only games I've pirated in recent memory have been games that are so obsolete as to no longer available for sale through retail stores.
However, I still use cracks. All my disks go away somewhere safe. I generally crack my legitimate software to avoid having to get the CDs out of storage. I find DRM to be far too much of a hassle for day to day use.
Regardless, calling DRM a rootkit is eye catching at first, but in the long run it tends to dilute the meaning of "rootkit."
Any application that you run on your computer has the ability to launch code that it feels like using. In your linked article, I see no mention that SecureROM phones home, other than when you are using protected software. And what pretty much fucking defines a rootkit is that the software package intentionally allows non-authorized users to obtain escalated privileges. I've seen no evidence that SecureROM permits that kind of access.
Again, you should NOT abuse industry terms to promote your agenda. My feelings on DRM are irrelevant on this one.
Seriously, WTF are you talking about?
A rootkit is a piece of software that modifies your computers behavior to allow back-door access to unauthorized users and hide traces of activity. DRM is designed to prevent you from copying other people's data. I'd take DRM over a root kit any day.
As far as I know, there has only been one major instance of DRM installing a rootkit.
Do NOT bastardize computer industry terms in order to sensationalize your agenda. It undermines the terms, and makes you look like a tool to anyone who understands their meaning.
So kudos to EA!
My guess is this is the second least common statement on slashdot next to "I just got laid last night".
Queue posts from all 3 Slashdotters who have girlfriends.
I kid... I kid.
Plenty of slashdotters have wives and girlfriends. They are just too busy taking out the trash, and rubbing feet to post.
So, you're suggesting that if we eliminate corporate taxes, the cost of goods would be reduced by the same amount?
Are you suggesting that if we eliminate the 15% Social Security tax employers are required to pay, salaries would go up by 15%?
What fantasy world do you live in, and are they accepting new citizens?
I don't see how allowing a player to immerse themselves by having their own unique experiences within an alternate world invalidates the idea that games are art. If anything, I feel like it promotes the idea.
To me, art provides an alternative way of expressing and exploring thoughts that people may be uncomfortable approaching directly. Sometimes the art is designed to shock, other times it's designed to break through barriers of faith, tradition, or social normality. One of the great things about art is it allows the viewer to find their own meaning in the work it's self. To see the authors ideas, and to combine it with their own experience in order to understand something about themselves.
I think in that regard, open ended games like GTA (while not horribly creative) or Fallout might be quite artistic in their own way.
I've always considered ID to be an engine development house first, and a game developer second. They've had a lot of amazing successes in the retail market, but their true strength seems to be in developing the game engines that other developers use to push game-play boundaries.
I've always enjoyed the games that ID has created, but off the top of my head, I can't think of anything they've produced in-house that sparks a revolution in gameplay since the original Wolfenstein 3D.
I know this was meant as a statement with a sense of humor, but it brings up an honest quote:
I believe that we have never been free, or we have always been free, depending on how we look at it. We are always limited, and always restricted. Even with total social freedom, we are bound by the laws of physics. Freedom is not about being able to do whatever we want, freedom is about choosing weather we want to make your own decisions, or weather we'll submit to the will of others. If you live in fear of the law, in fear of the terrorists, in fear loosing everything you have, fearing for the children, then you were never really free (no matter what liberties or rights your country might offer you.)
The freest man in the world is the man who's pissed off, and has nothing left to loose. That man could ignite a revolution.
It sounds like he was challenging you to question your preconceptions. It's one thing to know that the earth is flat based on your education, it's quite a different thing to know that the earth is flat by examining the evidence, questioning it, and setting out to prove it to yourself.
If you know that the earth is flat because that's what you've been told all your life by people you respect, how are you different than someone who knows that god watches them masturbate when they've been told it all their lives by people they respect?
I encounter a lot of this in my motorcycling. The vast majority of riders believe that gyroscopic forces stabilize their bike, but I've learned though a lot of research, thought, and experimentation that it's a secondary force to the effects of caster (trail.) Yet, gyroscopic balancing is taught by the majority of high school and college physics teachers, by many respected members of the community, and by a lot of motorcycling instructors. (How many people here believe that gyroscopic procession balances your bicycle?)
Question all belief, even what you know is true. You probably won't prove 'round earth theory' to be wrong, but you will learn a hell of a lot in the process.
I prefer the interpretation: WordsCrapper.
Most of the time the person who is drunk and naked at a frat party isn't the one posting pictures on the internet. It would be impossible to count the number of times an ex-boyfriend post a passionate private video to an online porn site, or a passerby post a youtube video of an embarrassing moment.
Of course, people need to be careful about where and when they get drunk and stupid (never?) and who they allow to video them doing the nasty (no one,) but that doesn't make it right to post private moments, nor does it mean that the victims of that kind of invasion of privacy deserve the consequences.
If anything, I think it's a problem with our society that we are so ready to ostracize someone for being human. Most of us have done some stupid things we regret. Those that have not are either lieing or boring as hell. Few of us were caught on video doing it.
That's very true. But there is a difference between producing weapons to defend ourselves, and producing weapons to conquer other nations. For example: there is no valid argument that the most recent Iraq war was a defensive action.
I would go so far to argue that conquering an independent nation is ultimately a drain on the economy. Is the benefit gained really worth the costs of occupying the country and putting down an insurgency? England certainly wasn't able to hold together it's empire.
Thank you. You make an important point, and clarify my writing a little. A drain on the economy is exactly what I was looking to say.
Violence is an option best avoided, because violence almost always costs both parties. There is no economic value in producing a weapon. It does not enrich anyone's lives. It does not improve living conditions. There is no return on investment. It's merely a tool to destroy something. It certainly has it's place, and there is a need to be able to defend ourselves from other people's weapons. But it is not an ideal way to spend our money.
Likewise, you don't have to negotiate with a man when his swing is mid flight to your face. But it's important to negotiate before things reach that point. You are a fool if you think that there is any absolute procedure to handle all situations - politics is an art, not a science. But there are still many important concepts to understand and apply.
One other thought:
Ultimately, even the smallest infraction (a speeding ticket?) is backed up by deadly force.
- If I get a ticket, I can choose to ignore it, and to continue speeding. The state will suspend my license, and issue a warrant for my arrest.
- If an officer tries to arrest me, I can run. The state will eventually setup trans, and a roadblock.
- If I'm pulled over, I can refuse to submit. The state will use physical force to subdue me.
- If I fight, I can be shot.
All for a speeding ticket.
Or because they can't afford to have him properly document everything, or take the time to produce a reliable network, rather than a patchwork of hack jobs...
Exactly!
I learned a long time ago that there is more value in producing a simple, robust, reliable, and reproducible environment than spending all my time and energy milking 10% more out of a configuration that no one else will be able to understand or maintain.
If your system is so complex that someone of half your ability couldn't be trained to maintain or operate it it, you are incompetent. Experience is knowing the best way to support the long term goals of your environment. Experience is not about being able to make an environment that you will be stuck maintaining for the rest of your life.
Racism is about denying people equal opportunity based on the color of their skin. Acknowledging the fact that we are different, physically and culturally is not racism.
Acknowledging that many Chinese natives are crappy drivers in the US is not racist (even if white people often see it that way.) Most of my Chinese friends agree that there are a lot of bad Asian drivers out there. Assuming someone is a bad driver because they are Chinese, and treating them like a bad driver before seeing them drive is racist. Denying someone a license because they are Chinese would be racist.
Driving in China or Taiwan is very different than driving in the US. Someone who learned over there will suck over here. Likewise, most US drivers couldn't handle driving in Taiwan. Are they inferior because of it? Nope. They are just different.
My cousins had extremely over-protective parents. They learned by being reckless and wild as soon as they moved out to college. The problem is, once you turn 18, that recklessness has real world, life long consequences.
The result is that one of them dropped out of college, and lost $40,000 in scholarships. The other completely turned his back on his strict religious upbringing. Neither are walking the straight and narrow the way their parents had hoped.
There's two reasons for the lower fuel economy:
1. Ethanol has a lower energy density than gasoline, meaning that all other factors being equal, you will never go as far on a gallon of ethanol.
It's worth noting that the power produced by an engine is actually limited by the amount of air sucked / pushed into the cylinder rather than the amount of fuel injected. If you add more fuel than is appropriate for a given amount of air, both power and fuel efficiency suffer. The ideal ratio is called the synchromatic ratio. For best fuel economy and emissions, most cards add a little less fuel than ideal in order to burn all the fuel. For best power, we add a little more gas than ideal, in order to burn all the air.
Even though ethanol has a lower energy density than gasoline, it has a closer synchromatic ratio: more fuel is needed for the same amount of air. So, power doesn't suffer, but as you can see from what I've written, MPG does suffer.
Note that this does not mean Ethanol pollutes more for a given amount of power. Less energy density means less hydrocarbons for an equal volume of fuel. This is offset by the fact that you burn a larger volume of fuel for the same amount of power.
The biggest two issues this raises is that an ethanol vehicle looses range, and that the price per gallon of fuel between the two fuel sources is not directly comparable.
E.g.: If ethanol costs $40c per gallon less, will the average consumer know which is a better deal at the pump, given the difference in fuel efficiency?
2. The CCXR takes advantage of the properties of ethanol by running more supercharger boost. More boost means more air in the cylinders, which means more fuel is injected, which results in more power and lower fuel efficiency. Some performance tuning consumes more fuel, some doesn't.
Free power:
Increasing the ignition timing advance produces "free" power by igniting the air fuel mixture in the cylinder sooner. This produces more cylinder pressure, and produces it closer to top-dead center. The increased pressure means more power, even though no extra air or fuel is needed. The downside is that the cylinder runs at a higher temperature. Ignition advance is limited by gasoline octane rating, because when the cylinder becomes too hot, the gas spontaneously ignites, causing at a minimum pinging, and at worst pre-ignition and a broken engine. Since ethanol has a higher octane rating than gasoline, this is much less likely to be a problem.
One nice thing is that ignition timing is computer controlled. So, it's possible for a flex fuel vehicle to tune it's self for ethanol, enjoying the increased efficiency, without loosing the ability to run lower octane gasoline.
Another way to improve engine efficiency, is to increase the compression ratio of the engine. As I recall, compressing the air fuel mixture to a greater degree improves the air/fuel dynamics for a better burn. Another major advantage is that the flame front inside the cylinder travels faster, producing higher cylinder pressures given the same amount of fuel. The disadvantages are again, increased temperatures possibly resulting in pre-ignition. Another disadvantage is that compression ratio cannot be computer controlled, and so the engine must be tuned either for gasoline, or for ethanol.
Personally, for a gasoline powered car, I prefer an engine tuned for higher octane fuel. The free power (which equates directly to fuel efficiency) produced by tuning the engine in this manor more than compensates for the slight difference in gasoline prices. These tweaks can easily produce a 10%-15% improvement in performance / efficiency at the cost of a few cents per gallon at the pump ($.40 more for fuel priced at $4.50 a gallon vs, 15% increase efficiency. You do the math. :)
So, to reply to your comment... Yes, it is possible to tune for ethanol fuel efficency, but because of the nature of the fuel, the MPG figures aren't likely to exceed that of gasoline.
As an interesting side note... Lead is a major octane enhancer. Leaded gasoline usually has an octane rating above 110. Old V8s used to run super high compression ratios for this reason. :)
Don't worry about it. It's a rare pleasure to receive a grammar lesson from someone with a sense of tact. Thank you for posting!
-- Chris
It is threatened by the lack of < signs, however. That's supposed to read: /tmp/delta.txt
rm <
Psudo code, because my geekhood isn't threatened by petty things like the need for debugging and syntax checks:
tar tf archive.tar > /tmp/archive.txt /tmp/tree.txt /tmp/archive.txt /tmp/tree.txt > /tmp/delta.txt /tmp/delta.txt
ls dir1 dir2 file1 file2 file3 >
diff
rm