Why must this guy be a felon? Now unable to leave the country, unable to vote in most places, unable to own a firearm.... all for something stupid that, he is unlikely to ever do again.
Because it is a felony to do what he did and he is an adult. If you don't think it should be a felony, then I suggest you lobby to get the laws changed. In the mean time, the sentence is the sentence and if that means 30 months of hard time, then it's 30 months in jail. I'll bet that it *won't* be anything close to 30 months when it's all said and done he's going to be a few nights in the big house and a whole lot of probation/community service.
I don't get this, "wow that sentence seems too long!" argument. If the sentence really is too long per the law, then it will be appealed and overturned. If that happens the judge will get his knuckles rapped or if elected regularly less likely to be elected. He did the crime, he is of age and now he is a felon and nothing will change that.
Actually we are legalizing weed because it has real medicinal benefits, despite what they taught you in your 6th grade D.A.R.E. class.
So why not require a prescription for using it? Oh wait... Most Doctors don't think there are enough medical benefits to using or there would be derivative medications sprouting up like, um... Weeds out there so big drug makers could make a buck or two...
I'm sorry, what they told you in DARE classes about weed was and is generally true and the medical use of it is vanishingly small dispute what you think.
Then how about you spin up a board that is better? Or better yet, get the NDA agreement with Broadcom in place so you can help fix the issues. It is easy to throw rocks at the dirty glass building, but it's harder to grab the glass cleaner and help fix the problem.
Where I don't exactly like the NDA requirements of Broadcom, it seems a reasonable compromise to meet the cost goals. I suspect that a lot of the issues you have with your Pi have work arounds or are being worked if they are known. I suspect that you could easily EBay your working Pi if you really want to get rid of it, and I'll bet it won't cost you all that much overall.
I think Pi has struck a pretty good balance between cost and functionality. I'd love to have more RAM, multiple cores and faster CPU clock, but you are simply not going to be able to do that for $35. The Pi is obviously *cheep* but mostly works, and given the cost constraints a rather good deal.
They where *above* 10,000 feet where the sterile cockpit rules do not apply... Of course, somebody should be monitoring the plane and listening for ATC at all times so they got busted for neglecting their primary duty. When at cruse on autopilot, there is not all that much for pilots to actually do but watch, so staying awake and alert becomes more of an issue. Having a lively discussion is helpful and makes the time pass quickly, apparently too quickly in this case.
Commercial pilots, Under 10,000 feet are expected to remain focused on *flying* your aircraft because there is a LOT to do in a very short time and forgetting or doing something at the wrong time along the way could lead to serious problems. So you eliminate all the distractions you can for safety. If you go flying with me (private pilot) I'm going to pretty much ignore you during departure and approach. During preflight I usually tell passengers to expect me to ignore them at times, that I'm sorry in advance but my responsibility is to fly the plane first. I've had some passengers who tried to discuss something on short final get a bit upset with me, but I'd rather be safe and deal with interpersonal issues later.
Cell phone where banned long before TWA 800 (not 900) departed the ground. Also, the proposed spark was likely generated by static charge buildup common on aircraft as they move though the air.
Actually, IF somebody actually knows of such a rules violation, they really should report this hot shot pilot who's landing a 737 while on his cell phone. In fact, the other guy in the cockpit would need to report this highly dangerous activity.
I know pilots that have cellphone conversations while landing a 737.
Since 1981 this has been illegal. I'm guessing you don't know a pilot who really does this..
FAA Sterile cockpit rules make doing this illegal as all conversations must be limited to essential conversations during departure and landing. You can't discuss anything not directly related and essential to the current flight. Commercial pilots would be in serious trouble if they are on the cell phone while landing a 737. You cannot discuss work schedules, what you did last night, what you want to do later, where the aircraft is headed to next, what the weather is going to be in a few hours or what it was last week. You may only say things that are essential for flying the aircraft when below 10,000 Feet (generally). All other conversations are forbidden and thus phone calls are prohibited.
This is about the ONLY reason to even consider higher bit rates. Transcoding and mixing are good reasons to have higher bit rates. Because most folks simply cannot physically hear the differances.
Yes, I can hear the difference. When working in a small sound recording studio, I trained my ears to pick up on fine details. There was one day in particular I remember listening to a track, and wondering what the strange noise in the background of it was. I realized that I was hearing the audio artifacts from the mp3 compression.
Not sure how Mr. Young figures that a CD is only 15% of the master, though. A CD is pure uncompressed audio. If you recorded and mixed in 44.1k audio, then your cd is an exact copy of your master.
Congrats, you have excellent hearing... Or the MP3 compression was *REALLY* high..:)
I'd wager that less than 1% of people will be able to accurately identify MP3 compressed material over the so called "high def" version of the same in all but the most ideal situations or really high compression rates. Further, I'd stipulate that nobody would be able to tell for some of the pop music I hear today which is mixed for radio play in the first place and highly compressed heavy metal would likely sound better....
Doesn't matter, the audiophile market is not rational (kind of like the wine market). After a certain quality threshold, say 256kbps mp3 or $100 bottle of wine, nobody can tell the difference in a blind test. Yet suckers keep paying money for $500 speaker cables and $1000 bottles of wine. Just stoking ego at that point.
Yea, the audiophile market is full of snake oil sales men too. I laugh when I listen to your average sales person even at a high end store explain why system A is better than B or why your home system is all wrong. Then they resort to the "side by side" test and I can almost ALWAYS guess what "sounds better" before they demo it by looking at the type of speakers. Ported speakers will usually win because they are louder and have more base so switching from A to B and not changing anything louder "sounds better" to most. Problem is, usually the less sensitive speakers are better so suspended speaker designs (without ports) will actually produce better results, you just need more gain/Power in the amp.. Sales guys don't understand *any* of this usually they are just looking to get a fool to part with his money.
This "can you hear a difference" reminds me of past audiophile debates. Tube amps over solid state ones, where the tube guys swear their amps are better and more 'mellow" than that harsh solid state.. Or analog over CD recording where analog just sounded better than that harsh digital stuff. Now we are debating Codecs, sample bits and sample rates in areas where it is generally ridiculous to think *anybody* could hear the difference.
In reality, what you can and cannot hear and what is "good enough" to listen too is probably a lot less quality than you imagine. Unless you have unusably good hearing, do this for a living, have excellent equipment installed in really good acoustically designed listening environment you are unlikely to know the difference between an MP3, CD or High Bit Rate recordings until the compression rate gets pretty high. You might be able to hear a difference, but I doubt you can identify the higher quality material in a double blind test. Just like I bet I can get you to pick the junkiest pair of speakers in the place as the best sounding if you let me "adjust" between the side by side tests.
you're either *very* innocent about how the world works or utterly and completely clueless.
I don't think the proper word is "or" but "and".... Very naive AND completely clueless.. Victimless crimes, shesh, Just because you cannot point to a single person or small group that is a victim does not mean the crime is somehow less or that ripping off a large corporation is somehow better than stealing grandma's life savings.
Wrong is wrong and unethical behavior is unethical even if you don't have a clear victim you harmed.
Same as when banks started having to report transactions of a few thousand dollars to the feds, because it could be "money laundering".
And you would expect something different for BitCoin over Western Union money orders?
Nothing is really different here. If you don't use some institution that is subject to the reporting rules or physically move money over national boundaries, you are free to make transactions anyway you choose. Want to spend $100K as stacks of $20's and buy something you can (assuming somebody is willing to sell what you want to buy). Same with BitCoin.
What's really changing is that when you buy or sell BitCoin from a currency exchange house, they are required to report transactions over a set value (assuming they are subject to US laws in the first place). The rule simply puts BitCoin on the same playing field as other ways to move currency.
If they are justified with the current reporting rules, then including BitCoin is justified too... Actually, I don't understand how these rules would really help much in stopping one from using BitCoin to import and export wealth or launder money, as long as you keep transactions under the reporting limits when you convert to hard currency...
By the way.. Big Brother is *already* here and has been here for a LONG time....
Consider the physics of how diesel works over gasoline. A cold diesel engine will suffer from compression loss because of the cold metal parts being different sizes than when they are hot and the cold cylinder walls and head will tend to absorb heat from the air being compressed in the cylinder. The physics pretty much dictate that a diesel engine simply must be turning at a minimum speed, or it cannot start or stay running. Remember you must have a minimum temperature to get the diesel to burn so the engine can run and that is harder to achieve when everything is cold. Injecting fuel into a air that is not hot enough to burn, is doing exactly nothing and generates zero power.
The physics of burning gasoline is not as dependent on the temperature of the air/fuel mixture or the speed of the engine because it is ignited by a spark. Once you get the air/fuel mix into the cylinder and the piston is far enough along the compression/power strokes, the spark causes the fuel to burn creating power. There is not a minimum compression ratio or rate necessary to get power out of gasoline. All that is required is that you get a combustible mixture into the cylinder and hit it with a spark at the right time. It is much easier to do all this with gasoline under cold conditions that with diesel.
Manufacturers have designed around some of diesel's limitations by providing glow plugs, bigger batteries, stronger starter motors and other features, but this does not change the physics. It will always be easier to design a way to start a gasoline engine when it's cold over a similar sized diesel under the same conditions. Simple physics dictate that.
Perhaps I haven't, but they are not as available in the US in the price range and vehicle types I generally drive. Not that I'm opposed to owing one, I'd love to have a manual transmission diesel. If properly maintained, diesel engines literally run for ever compared to gasoline due to much better lubrication of the engine internals, get better fuel economy (measured in MPG/Cost per mile), better low end torque, can burn easily obtained bio-fuel (cooking oils and such), are generally more reliable due to the lack of high voltage (high failure rate) electronics and a host of other advantages.
Your experience may vary based on how old and how well maintained your various vehicles are, the status of your batteries and a whole host of things. I'm saying that *in general* diesel engines are harder to get started than gasoline engines. In fact, I've seen large engines that where designed to run on both fuels, where you would start it on gasoline to get it turning and warmed up, then switch to diesel fuel, because it was easier to get running that way.
I never said diesel doesn't work when it's cold, only that it is generally harder to get a diesel running as the temperature drops mainly due to the physics of how they work. Gasoline engines have a little easier time of it given the physics involved. Manufacturers put in heavier batteries, glow plugs and things to keep the fuel flowing in order to make their vehicles usable in harsh conditions (thankfully) but all this doesn't change the physics. So if something is not in top shape, glow plugs, injectors, fuel jelled or solid, battery marginal or your compression starting to fall off, you are more likely to have trouble starting a diesel.
Your mileage and experiences may vary...
By the way..... Modern gasoline engines don't usually need spark plugs replaced or gapped until nearly 100,000 miles, if then. As an integral part of the emission control system they are required to last as long as the rest of the emissions systems (at least in the US). So you might have to change the plugs once in the normal lifetime of a vehicle, twice if you really drive it into the ground. I don't imagine glow plugs are important to emission controls, mainly being there to make the vehicle useable when it is cold.
Shesh... Winter Diesel helps keep the fuel flowing when it is being sold..... But there is a minimum cranking speed needed to get enough heat in the cylinder to burn the fuel. Cold engine parts and batteries conspire to make this minim speed more difficult to obtain. Gasoline engines suffer from cranking slower, but the combustion is started by a spark so cranking speed is not as important. Diesel engines are simply harder to start and when it is cold it is even more difficult. Gasoline engines start easier in difficult conditions. That's all I'm trying to say..
I'll point out that a lot of Europe's weather comes over the Atlantic Ocean which circulates clockwise, bring warm water off shore of Europe in the path of the weather coming ashore. The Northern parts of the US, once you get over the coastal mountains in the west has nothing but barbed wire between them and the north pole. I'm not saying Europe doesn't get cold in places at time, I'm saying that the weather does not have as much variance in temperature.
For instance, take London. If it went to 20F below, this would be a SERIOUS issue with people dying right and left, but South Dakota is about the same distance from the north pole and it reaches this temperature regularly during the winter.
The use case for a truck is a bit different than a car. A truck is costing you money if it isn't running down the road putting miles behind it with freight. That means, trunks usually run for hours on end and are not often left sitting. Your average automobile is routinely driven for 30 min or less, then sits for 8 hours or more on a daily basis. On the weekends they can go 48+ hours without being run.
The difficult thing with diesel fueled engines is getting them started when things are really cold once they are running there isn't much of an issue. Cold Diesel doesn't flow as well, Cold Engines are harder to turn because the oil is thicker and parts are smaller, cold batteries don't produce as much power.
I found it interesting to see that because of bad previous experience, Americans have a huge biais against diesel which is common in Europe. Meanwhile, because of bad previous experience, European have a huge biais against automatic gear shifting which is common in the US.
I guess everybody is just as biased:)
I'm not ready to agree with you on why diesel and manual transmissions are more popular in Europe than the US.
Diesel fueled cars are less affordable and harder to get in the US because of EPA regulations and weather. This conspires to put a heavy damper on diesel sales, making them more expensive. Diesel is not a suitable motor fuel for a large part of our population due to temperatures in the winter. Lower temperatures makes diesel more problematic than gasoline. In the large population centers of the north east, even gasoline cars can be difficult to start on the colder winter days. Diesel cars would be hopeless at -20F without special attention or a heated garage, where a gasoline engines generally work at lower temperatures than Diesel. Things are a bit colder here than in Europe.
The manual transmission thing perplexes me though. I grew up driving manual transmissions and quite enjoy driving them. I love the extra few MPG you gain by shifting yourself and because I generally drive my cars until they drop I like that a manual transmission usually outlasts an automatic many times over. They are simpler, lighter, cheaper to build and more durable. I also find I have better control of a vehicle when I'm controlling the gears when things get slippery. Why folks in the US insist on automatics is beyond me, but I guess there is a host of new drivers who wouldn't know what to do with another peddle and a shifter any more. I wonder if they should require driver's testing to be done without automatic transmissions sometimes...
I'm guessing that manual transmissions are more of an efficiency thing for Europeans. They face much higher fuel costs, so the MPG increase of a manual would be a bigger advantage, plus the reduction of the vehicle price really lowers the TCO. I suspect that if fuel prices start to rise at a rate higher than inflation, they may see a resurgence in the USA starting in the lower "economic transportation" market. Higher mileage standards may also encourage the sales of manual transmissions, but I'm not holding my breath on that.
No, they are really really really sure that something is really really different now. They have noted two orders of magnitude changes in their measurements so they are in a different, rather well delineated region, that doesn't match their expectations but is clearly not the same as what they saw when they where clearly inside the solar system.
Of course... It could just be the space craft starting to malfunction... Or some alien life form has taken it over and has decided to mess with our minds... I'm sure there will be conspiracy theories abounding on this... But it seems pretty clear to me, YES Voyager 1 has passed into some new region of space...
They are totally correct, this article is generally just FUD. The standards being quoted are "DRINKING WATER:" standards! Why is a waste water treatment plant being dinged for not meeting drinking water standards on what it discharges? We don't require them to meet the drinking water standards, so they don't.
Sometimes the gas producers dispose of this fracking wastewater by sending it to treatment plants that deal with sewage and water from other industrial sources.
And Here I thought I heard that they *usually* just dumped it down their unused wells... In fact, that was where MOST of this horrible liquid waste ended up, a few miles down..
Like I said, if you can get solar panels with a ROI of 5-7 years looking at total cost of ownership (price + installation + maintenance) then I suggest you invest in them.
Problem is, photovoltaic generation is *not* a cost effective solution for most of the US yet. Panels are too big for the power they generate and the systems are too expensive for a reasonable return on your investment and the sun doesn't shine all the time. You are still going to pay more per watt hour than you would just going out and buying it retail when looking at 5-7 year costs. In the southwest where the sun shines a lot, we might be getting to a cost point that when you include tax incentives it starts to pay you back sooner than 10 years, but that's in ideal conditions.
Slashdot Mirror
Why must this guy be a felon? Now unable to leave the country, unable to vote in most places, unable to own a firearm.... all for something stupid that, he is unlikely to ever do again.
Because it is a felony to do what he did and he is an adult. If you don't think it should be a felony, then I suggest you lobby to get the laws changed. In the mean time, the sentence is the sentence and if that means 30 months of hard time, then it's 30 months in jail. I'll bet that it *won't* be anything close to 30 months when it's all said and done he's going to be a few nights in the big house and a whole lot of probation/community service.
I don't get this, "wow that sentence seems too long!" argument. If the sentence really is too long per the law, then it will be appealed and overturned. If that happens the judge will get his knuckles rapped or if elected regularly less likely to be elected. He did the crime, he is of age and now he is a felon and nothing will change that.
Actually we are legalizing weed because it has real medicinal benefits, despite what they taught you in your 6th grade D.A.R.E. class.
So why not require a prescription for using it? Oh wait... Most Doctors don't think there are enough medical benefits to using or there would be derivative medications sprouting up like, um... Weeds out there so big drug makers could make a buck or two...
I'm sorry, what they told you in DARE classes about weed was and is generally true and the medical use of it is vanishingly small dispute what you think.
Then how about you spin up a board that is better? Or better yet, get the NDA agreement with Broadcom in place so you can help fix the issues. It is easy to throw rocks at the dirty glass building, but it's harder to grab the glass cleaner and help fix the problem.
Where I don't exactly like the NDA requirements of Broadcom, it seems a reasonable compromise to meet the cost goals. I suspect that a lot of the issues you have with your Pi have work arounds or are being worked if they are known. I suspect that you could easily EBay your working Pi if you really want to get rid of it, and I'll bet it won't cost you all that much overall.
I think Pi has struck a pretty good balance between cost and functionality. I'd love to have more RAM, multiple cores and faster CPU clock, but you are simply not going to be able to do that for $35. The Pi is obviously *cheep* but mostly works, and given the cost constraints a rather good deal.
They where *above* 10,000 feet where the sterile cockpit rules do not apply... Of course, somebody should be monitoring the plane and listening for ATC at all times so they got busted for neglecting their primary duty. When at cruse on autopilot, there is not all that much for pilots to actually do but watch, so staying awake and alert becomes more of an issue. Having a lively discussion is helpful and makes the time pass quickly, apparently too quickly in this case.
Commercial pilots, Under 10,000 feet are expected to remain focused on *flying* your aircraft because there is a LOT to do in a very short time and forgetting or doing something at the wrong time along the way could lead to serious problems. So you eliminate all the distractions you can for safety. If you go flying with me (private pilot) I'm going to pretty much ignore you during departure and approach. During preflight I usually tell passengers to expect me to ignore them at times, that I'm sorry in advance but my responsibility is to fly the plane first. I've had some passengers who tried to discuss something on short final get a bit upset with me, but I'd rather be safe and deal with interpersonal issues later.
Cell phone where banned long before TWA 800 (not 900) departed the ground. Also, the proposed spark was likely generated by static charge buildup common on aircraft as they move though the air.
Actually, IF somebody actually knows of such a rules violation, they really should report this hot shot pilot who's landing a 737 while on his cell phone. In fact, the other guy in the cockpit would need to report this highly dangerous activity.
I know pilots that have cellphone conversations while landing a 737.
Since 1981 this has been illegal. I'm guessing you don't know a pilot who really does this..
FAA Sterile cockpit rules make doing this illegal as all conversations must be limited to essential conversations during departure and landing. You can't discuss anything not directly related and essential to the current flight. Commercial pilots would be in serious trouble if they are on the cell phone while landing a 737. You cannot discuss work schedules, what you did last night, what you want to do later, where the aircraft is headed to next, what the weather is going to be in a few hours or what it was last week. You may only say things that are essential for flying the aircraft when below 10,000 Feet (generally). All other conversations are forbidden and thus phone calls are prohibited.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterile_Cockpit_Rule
MOD PARENT UP!
This is about the ONLY reason to even consider higher bit rates. Transcoding and mixing are good reasons to have higher bit rates. Because most folks simply cannot physically hear the differances.
Yes, I can hear the difference. When working in a small sound recording studio, I trained my ears to pick up on fine details. There was one day in particular I remember listening to a track, and wondering what the strange noise in the background of it was. I realized that I was hearing the audio artifacts from the mp3 compression. Not sure how Mr. Young figures that a CD is only 15% of the master, though. A CD is pure uncompressed audio. If you recorded and mixed in 44.1k audio, then your cd is an exact copy of your master.
Congrats, you have excellent hearing... Or the MP3 compression was *REALLY* high.. :)
I'd wager that less than 1% of people will be able to accurately identify MP3 compressed material over the so called "high def" version of the same in all but the most ideal situations or really high compression rates. Further, I'd stipulate that nobody would be able to tell for some of the pop music I hear today which is mixed for radio play in the first place and highly compressed heavy metal would likely sound better....
Doesn't matter, the audiophile market is not rational (kind of like the wine market). After a certain quality threshold, say 256kbps mp3 or $100 bottle of wine, nobody can tell the difference in a blind test. Yet suckers keep paying money for $500 speaker cables and $1000 bottles of wine. Just stoking ego at that point.
Yea, the audiophile market is full of snake oil sales men too. I laugh when I listen to your average sales person even at a high end store explain why system A is better than B or why your home system is all wrong. Then they resort to the "side by side" test and I can almost ALWAYS guess what "sounds better" before they demo it by looking at the type of speakers. Ported speakers will usually win because they are louder and have more base so switching from A to B and not changing anything louder "sounds better" to most. Problem is, usually the less sensitive speakers are better so suspended speaker designs (without ports) will actually produce better results, you just need more gain/Power in the amp.. Sales guys don't understand *any* of this usually they are just looking to get a fool to part with his money.
This "can you hear a difference" reminds me of past audiophile debates. Tube amps over solid state ones, where the tube guys swear their amps are better and more 'mellow" than that harsh solid state.. Or analog over CD recording where analog just sounded better than that harsh digital stuff. Now we are debating Codecs, sample bits and sample rates in areas where it is generally ridiculous to think *anybody* could hear the difference.
In reality, what you can and cannot hear and what is "good enough" to listen too is probably a lot less quality than you imagine. Unless you have unusably good hearing, do this for a living, have excellent equipment installed in really good acoustically designed listening environment you are unlikely to know the difference between an MP3, CD or High Bit Rate recordings until the compression rate gets pretty high. You might be able to hear a difference, but I doubt you can identify the higher quality material in a double blind test. Just like I bet I can get you to pick the junkiest pair of speakers in the place as the best sounding if you let me "adjust" between the side by side tests.
you're either *very* innocent about how the world works or utterly and completely clueless.
I don't think the proper word is "or" but "and".... Very naive AND completely clueless.. Victimless crimes, shesh, Just because you cannot point to a single person or small group that is a victim does not mean the crime is somehow less or that ripping off a large corporation is somehow better than stealing grandma's life savings.
Wrong is wrong and unethical behavior is unethical even if you don't have a clear victim you harmed.
Same as when banks started having to report transactions of a few thousand dollars to the feds, because it could be "money laundering".
And you would expect something different for BitCoin over Western Union money orders?
Nothing is really different here. If you don't use some institution that is subject to the reporting rules or physically move money over national boundaries, you are free to make transactions anyway you choose. Want to spend $100K as stacks of $20's and buy something you can (assuming somebody is willing to sell what you want to buy). Same with BitCoin.
What's really changing is that when you buy or sell BitCoin from a currency exchange house, they are required to report transactions over a set value (assuming they are subject to US laws in the first place). The rule simply puts BitCoin on the same playing field as other ways to move currency.
If they are justified with the current reporting rules, then including BitCoin is justified too... Actually, I don't understand how these rules would really help much in stopping one from using BitCoin to import and export wealth or launder money, as long as you keep transactions under the reporting limits when you convert to hard currency...
By the way.. Big Brother is *already* here and has been here for a LONG time....
Consider the physics of how diesel works over gasoline. A cold diesel engine will suffer from compression loss because of the cold metal parts being different sizes than when they are hot and the cold cylinder walls and head will tend to absorb heat from the air being compressed in the cylinder. The physics pretty much dictate that a diesel engine simply must be turning at a minimum speed, or it cannot start or stay running. Remember you must have a minimum temperature to get the diesel to burn so the engine can run and that is harder to achieve when everything is cold. Injecting fuel into a air that is not hot enough to burn, is doing exactly nothing and generates zero power.
The physics of burning gasoline is not as dependent on the temperature of the air/fuel mixture or the speed of the engine because it is ignited by a spark. Once you get the air/fuel mix into the cylinder and the piston is far enough along the compression/power strokes, the spark causes the fuel to burn creating power. There is not a minimum compression ratio or rate necessary to get power out of gasoline. All that is required is that you get a combustible mixture into the cylinder and hit it with a spark at the right time. It is much easier to do all this with gasoline under cold conditions that with diesel.
Manufacturers have designed around some of diesel's limitations by providing glow plugs, bigger batteries, stronger starter motors and other features, but this does not change the physics. It will always be easier to design a way to start a gasoline engine when it's cold over a similar sized diesel under the same conditions. Simple physics dictate that.
Perhaps I haven't, but they are not as available in the US in the price range and vehicle types I generally drive. Not that I'm opposed to owing one, I'd love to have a manual transmission diesel. If properly maintained, diesel engines literally run for ever compared to gasoline due to much better lubrication of the engine internals, get better fuel economy (measured in MPG/Cost per mile), better low end torque, can burn easily obtained bio-fuel (cooking oils and such), are generally more reliable due to the lack of high voltage (high failure rate) electronics and a host of other advantages.
Your experience may vary based on how old and how well maintained your various vehicles are, the status of your batteries and a whole host of things. I'm saying that *in general* diesel engines are harder to get started than gasoline engines. In fact, I've seen large engines that where designed to run on both fuels, where you would start it on gasoline to get it turning and warmed up, then switch to diesel fuel, because it was easier to get running that way.
I never said diesel doesn't work when it's cold, only that it is generally harder to get a diesel running as the temperature drops mainly due to the physics of how they work. Gasoline engines have a little easier time of it given the physics involved. Manufacturers put in heavier batteries, glow plugs and things to keep the fuel flowing in order to make their vehicles usable in harsh conditions (thankfully) but all this doesn't change the physics. So if something is not in top shape, glow plugs, injectors, fuel jelled or solid, battery marginal or your compression starting to fall off, you are more likely to have trouble starting a diesel.
Your mileage and experiences may vary...
By the way..... Modern gasoline engines don't usually need spark plugs replaced or gapped until nearly 100,000 miles, if then. As an integral part of the emission control system they are required to last as long as the rest of the emissions systems (at least in the US). So you might have to change the plugs once in the normal lifetime of a vehicle, twice if you really drive it into the ground. I don't imagine glow plugs are important to emission controls, mainly being there to make the vehicle useable when it is cold.
Shesh... Winter Diesel helps keep the fuel flowing when it is being sold..... But there is a minimum cranking speed needed to get enough heat in the cylinder to burn the fuel. Cold engine parts and batteries conspire to make this minim speed more difficult to obtain. Gasoline engines suffer from cranking slower, but the combustion is started by a spark so cranking speed is not as important. Diesel engines are simply harder to start and when it is cold it is even more difficult. Gasoline engines start easier in difficult conditions. That's all I'm trying to say..
I'll point out that a lot of Europe's weather comes over the Atlantic Ocean which circulates clockwise, bring warm water off shore of Europe in the path of the weather coming ashore. The Northern parts of the US, once you get over the coastal mountains in the west has nothing but barbed wire between them and the north pole. I'm not saying Europe doesn't get cold in places at time, I'm saying that the weather does not have as much variance in temperature.
For instance, take London. If it went to 20F below, this would be a SERIOUS issue with people dying right and left, but South Dakota is about the same distance from the north pole and it reaches this temperature regularly during the winter.
The use case for a truck is a bit different than a car. A truck is costing you money if it isn't running down the road putting miles behind it with freight. That means, trunks usually run for hours on end and are not often left sitting. Your average automobile is routinely driven for 30 min or less, then sits for 8 hours or more on a daily basis. On the weekends they can go 48+ hours without being run.
The difficult thing with diesel fueled engines is getting them started when things are really cold once they are running there isn't much of an issue. Cold Diesel doesn't flow as well, Cold Engines are harder to turn because the oil is thicker and parts are smaller, cold batteries don't produce as much power.
I found it interesting to see that because of bad previous experience, Americans have a huge biais against diesel which is common in Europe. Meanwhile, because of bad previous experience, European have a huge biais against automatic gear shifting which is common in the US.
I guess everybody is just as biased :)
I'm not ready to agree with you on why diesel and manual transmissions are more popular in Europe than the US.
Diesel fueled cars are less affordable and harder to get in the US because of EPA regulations and weather. This conspires to put a heavy damper on diesel sales, making them more expensive. Diesel is not a suitable motor fuel for a large part of our population due to temperatures in the winter. Lower temperatures makes diesel more problematic than gasoline. In the large population centers of the north east, even gasoline cars can be difficult to start on the colder winter days. Diesel cars would be hopeless at -20F without special attention or a heated garage, where a gasoline engines generally work at lower temperatures than Diesel. Things are a bit colder here than in Europe.
The manual transmission thing perplexes me though. I grew up driving manual transmissions and quite enjoy driving them. I love the extra few MPG you gain by shifting yourself and because I generally drive my cars until they drop I like that a manual transmission usually outlasts an automatic many times over. They are simpler, lighter, cheaper to build and more durable. I also find I have better control of a vehicle when I'm controlling the gears when things get slippery. Why folks in the US insist on automatics is beyond me, but I guess there is a host of new drivers who wouldn't know what to do with another peddle and a shifter any more. I wonder if they should require driver's testing to be done without automatic transmissions sometimes...
I'm guessing that manual transmissions are more of an efficiency thing for Europeans. They face much higher fuel costs, so the MPG increase of a manual would be a bigger advantage, plus the reduction of the vehicle price really lowers the TCO. I suspect that if fuel prices start to rise at a rate higher than inflation, they may see a resurgence in the USA starting in the lower "economic transportation" market. Higher mileage standards may also encourage the sales of manual transmissions, but I'm not holding my breath on that.
No, they are really really really sure that something is really really different now. They have noted two orders of magnitude changes in their measurements so they are in a different, rather well delineated region, that doesn't match their expectations but is clearly not the same as what they saw when they where clearly inside the solar system.
Of course... It could just be the space craft starting to malfunction... Or some alien life form has taken it over and has decided to mess with our minds... I'm sure there will be conspiracy theories abounding on this... But it seems pretty clear to me, YES Voyager 1 has passed into some new region of space...
Looks like two orders of magnitude change in measurements (100 times). At least that's what the article I found here says: http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/03/20/voyager-1-leaves-solar-system/?intcmp=features
Mod Parent UP!
They are totally correct, this article is generally just FUD. The standards being quoted are "DRINKING WATER:" standards! Why is a waste water treatment plant being dinged for not meeting drinking water standards on what it discharges? We don't require them to meet the drinking water standards, so they don't.
http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/current/index.cfm
These Anti Fracking nut cases need to go argue with the EPA and get the law changed if they are going to argue this is not safe for some reason.
Move along... Nothing to see here but FUD...
Sometimes the gas producers dispose of this fracking wastewater by sending it to treatment plants that deal with sewage and water from other industrial sources.
And Here I thought I heard that they *usually* just dumped it down their unused wells... In fact, that was where MOST of this horrible liquid waste ended up, a few miles down..
Apparently this is a slow news day...
Last week... Opioid medications require picture ID to pick up.
Like I said, if you can get solar panels with a ROI of 5-7 years looking at total cost of ownership (price + installation + maintenance) then I suggest you invest in them.
Problem is, photovoltaic generation is *not* a cost effective solution for most of the US yet. Panels are too big for the power they generate and the systems are too expensive for a reasonable return on your investment and the sun doesn't shine all the time. You are still going to pay more per watt hour than you would just going out and buying it retail when looking at 5-7 year costs. In the southwest where the sun shines a lot, we might be getting to a cost point that when you include tax incentives it starts to pay you back sooner than 10 years, but that's in ideal conditions.