Saturn was a subsidiary of GM from the day it opened its doors to the day it closed them. Their whole purpose for existence was to establish and benchmark different manufacturing methods. What was successful, they rolled into their other factories. Saturn cars were never really strong sellers in the market, so they eliminated the brand. They eliminated Hummer and Pontiac about the same time.
Their current US brands are Chevrolet, Buick, Cadillac and GMC.
Their international brands include Opel, Vauxhall and Holden. (English-speakers will likely be familiar with these.) They also own some Chinese and Korean brands.
Hyundai is at least doing the honorable thing and reimbursing all customers who bought the affected vehicles for the difference between the new EPA ratings and the original ones, for the life of the vehicle.
Honorable? They're trying to avoid being charged with fraud. They may be charged anyway.
We could report it in dBmicroliters/lightyear and that would also be the same information. Sometimes the value of information depends on how it is presented.
It's the same information presented in an easier to use form, because it's easier to multiply in your head than to divide. Also, if you live anywhere but the USA and your fuel is sold in liters and your odometer reads kilometers...
In the USA, I contend we would be better off to report fuel economy in gallons per hundred miles.
I'm in the US and the MPG figures are not perfect, but they seem to be a little pessimistic. I can beat them by 5 or 6 percent, typically, for both city and highway driving. Of course, if you drive more aggressively, you can also see the opposite result. But I've never owned a car where I couldn't beat the EPA estimates.
I have noticed that even when you adjust for the gallon size difference, the UK/EU testing cycle gives much more optimistic results for the same vehicle compared to the US testing cycle. So when comparing, one has to adjust both for that, and the gallon difference.
They are intended to be typical for most drivers, not the best you can get. There are many factors that affect it: driver habits, the routes you drive and the traffic on those routes, your altitude, climate, etc.
Argument by punishment (a behavior is wrong because it will be punished) is clearly fallacious. Not that I'm defending Apple, but find a better argument.
Some things are wrong just because they're stupid. Defying a judge goes in that category.
It could go much farther than that. I don't know how large a fine the court is allowed to impose for contempt, but I imagine it's pretty large.
And if the court it more interested in the apology being viewed, they could required Apple to post ads on buses and trains, buy advertising time on television and post the apology in large letters across every website and on the marquis of all their UK Apple stores. They could specify the exact wording, location and size of the ads. They could make them put it in an obtrusive place on every page and piece of paperwork their customers see -- for as long as they want.
To be fair, Romney had one of the better close loopholes proposals I've heard.
rather than fight about this or that, he wants a cap on deductions. I can't think of a better way eliminate massive deductions without picking and choosing (which is political suicide).
I think Romney's plan won't work, and I won't vote for him, but I appreciate that small step to a better tax system (his limit was high enough that it would absolutely only effect the upper class)
What do you mean plan? He talks like he has a plan but he won't tell us what it is.
Not exactly. This guy isn't a news source. He's some commenter on a blog. Somebody tipped the one of the attorneys or the judge that the commenter might have been a jury member and they are trying to ascertain whether that's true. If it is true, the juror is guilty of perjury and the trial is a mistrial.
Put this in your pipe and smoke it: If they denied the subpoena it would be tantamount to saying some random dude's right to post shit anonymously on a newspaper blog is more important than the defendant's right to a fair trial.
How about we refuse to accept the obvious ``this will never work'' and assume that ``some clever engineering will make it work''? Wireless power transmission is not impossible... heck, lightnining is pretty damn destructive, and manages to push a ton current through the air (a pretty damn good resistor under normal circumstances)---and somehow manages to avoid that whole square-of-distance thing (once arc is established).
But efficient wireless transmission with small receiving antennas is impossible. It all comes down to geometry.
Even directed beams drop off with distance squared once you get outside the near field. A directed beam is a lot more efficient than an omnidirectional beam, but for any given directional beam, power will drop off with distance squared, and narrowing the beam will require larger antennas setups.
Yes, that can be done. But the collectors are very large if you want to catch most of the power. And they also suffer large efficiency losses compared to a wire and low frequency.
The article does say that the kids were illiterate, in fact, "In an interview after his talk, Negroponte said that while the early results are promising, reaching conclusions about whether children could learn to read this way would require more time." It doesn't take much reading between the lines on your or my part to say that if the kids had learned to read from the laptops without teachers, Negroponte wouln't be saying that. He'd be shouting from the rooftops that they did.
Also, you may have missed this in TFA: "The devices involved are Motorola Xoom tablets—used together with a solar charging system, which Ethiopian technicians had taught adults in the village to use. Once a week, a technician visits the villages and swaps out memory cards so that researchers can study how the machines were actually used."
In other words, the kids had access to adults who had been trained how to use the computers. That opens the question of who modified them, customized them and taught the kids what programs to run. It might have been the adults, IN WHICH CASE THE CHILDREN HAD TEACHERS
Well, we do know some of it because plenty is admitted by both sides.
Assange and the government admit that Wikileaks got hold of a ton of classified documents and published them on the internet.
Everybody understands that the publication of those documents embarrassed the USA, many of its allies and foreign governments. Those who think realize that this kind of action erodes the trust that is the basis for sincere negotiations between countries. If you can't trust that the USA or any other country can keep what you tell them in confidence quiet, it means you won't tell them anything sensitive.
And that means there will be more friction between governments and more suspicion.
In Colorado, a legalization measure is on the ballot. The Democratic current governor and the Republican former governor are doing ads together to oppose legalization. Tom Tancredo, a libertarian and otherwise nuts, is about the only high-profile politician on record as supporting it.
Necessary because of guys like Aldrich Ames, Jonathan Pollard and dare I mention Bradley Manning. And by the fact that so many hackers idolize jerks like Julian Assange.
>> People who claim to be Creationists are almost always ignorant of evolution.
I'm not sure the good doctor has this one right. In my experience, creationists have been exposed to the general theory of evolution, but have found one or more reasons in the telling (often an intentionally injected reason) to reject it. Look up "straw dog" to see how this is often done on a number of topics.
I have always found when talking to creationists about evolution that they are profoundly ignorant of what it is and how it works. I think he is spot-on with regard to most creationists, but I think there is a minority that is outright dishonest about the subject.
Slashdot Mirror
Saturn was a subsidiary of GM from the day it opened its doors to the day it closed them. Their whole purpose for existence was to establish and benchmark different manufacturing methods. What was successful, they rolled into their other factories. Saturn cars were never really strong sellers in the market, so they eliminated the brand. They eliminated Hummer and Pontiac about the same time.
Their current US brands are Chevrolet, Buick, Cadillac and GMC.
Their international brands include Opel, Vauxhall and Holden. (English-speakers will likely be familiar with these.) They also own some Chinese and Korean brands.
The EPA randomly checks a couple hundred models every year. If cheating were widespread, they would know it.
Hyundai is at least doing the honorable thing and reimbursing all customers who bought the affected vehicles for the difference between the new EPA ratings and the original ones, for the life of the vehicle.
Honorable? They're trying to avoid being charged with fraud. They may be charged anyway.
We could report it in dBmicroliters/lightyear and that would also be the same information. Sometimes the value of information depends on how it is presented.
It's the same information presented in an easier to use form, because it's easier to multiply in your head than to divide. Also, if you live anywhere but the USA and your fuel is sold in liters and your odometer reads kilometers... In the USA, I contend we would be better off to report fuel economy in gallons per hundred miles.
I'm in the US and the MPG figures are not perfect, but they seem to be a little pessimistic. I can beat them by 5 or 6 percent, typically, for both city and highway driving. Of course, if you drive more aggressively, you can also see the opposite result. But I've never owned a car where I couldn't beat the EPA estimates.
I have noticed that even when you adjust for the gallon size difference, the UK/EU testing cycle gives much more optimistic results for the same vehicle compared to the US testing cycle. So when comparing, one has to adjust both for that, and the gallon difference.
They are intended to be typical for most drivers, not the best you can get. There are many factors that affect it: driver habits, the routes you drive and the traffic on those routes, your altitude, climate, etc.
Argument by punishment (a behavior is wrong because it will be punished) is clearly fallacious. Not that I'm defending Apple, but find a better argument.
Some things are wrong just because they're stupid. Defying a judge goes in that category.
It could go much farther than that. I don't know how large a fine the court is allowed to impose for contempt, but I imagine it's pretty large.
And if the court it more interested in the apology being viewed, they could required Apple to post ads on buses and trains, buy advertising time on television and post the apology in large letters across every website and on the marquis of all their UK Apple stores. They could specify the exact wording, location and size of the ads. They could make them put it in an obtrusive place on every page and piece of paperwork their customers see -- for as long as they want.
The point here is: don't mess with the judge!
True in the UK. True everywhere.
That's right. They should goosestep to the demands of the state. All hail Britannia! I love you sheeple.
If you think you're above the requirements the government lays on you, you could be in for a rude awakening.
Do you really think Apple's UK employees really give a damn?
They should. The court can destroy their jobs.
To be fair, Romney had one of the better close loopholes proposals I've heard.
rather than fight about this or that, he wants a cap on deductions. I can't think of a better way eliminate massive deductions without picking and choosing (which is political suicide).
I think Romney's plan won't work, and I won't vote for him, but I appreciate that small step to a better tax system (his limit was high enough that it would absolutely only effect the upper class)
What do you mean plan? He talks like he has a plan but he won't tell us what it is.
Not exactly. This guy isn't a news source. He's some commenter on a blog. Somebody tipped the one of the attorneys or the judge that the commenter might have been a jury member and they are trying to ascertain whether that's true. If it is true, the juror is guilty of perjury and the trial is a mistrial.
Put this in your pipe and smoke it: If they denied the subpoena it would be tantamount to saying some random dude's right to post shit anonymously on a newspaper blog is more important than the defendant's right to a fair trial.
This sounds like old technology. They have been doing what sounds like the same thing in audio for years.
There's some context that was not printed.
Not when they are criminal evidence of a crime.
How about we refuse to accept the obvious ``this will never work'' and assume that ``some clever engineering will make it work''? Wireless power transmission is not impossible... heck, lightnining is pretty damn destructive, and manages to push a ton current through the air (a pretty damn good resistor under normal circumstances)---and somehow manages to avoid that whole square-of-distance thing (once arc is established).
But efficient wireless transmission with small receiving antennas is impossible. It all comes down to geometry.
Not needed. What you need is a high-gain antenna, and dishes work better than anything else for that.
Even directed beams drop off with distance squared once you get outside the near field. A directed beam is a lot more efficient than an omnidirectional beam, but for any given directional beam, power will drop off with distance squared, and narrowing the beam will require larger antennas setups.
Yes, that can be done. But the collectors are very large if you want to catch most of the power. And they also suffer large efficiency losses compared to a wire and low frequency.
What does God need with a starship?
That depends. Jefferson or Cobra?
The article does say that the kids were illiterate, in fact, "In an interview after his talk, Negroponte said that while the early results are promising, reaching conclusions about whether children could learn to read this way would require more time." It doesn't take much reading between the lines on your or my part to say that if the kids had learned to read from the laptops without teachers, Negroponte wouln't be saying that. He'd be shouting from the rooftops that they did.
Also, you may have missed this in TFA: "The devices involved are Motorola Xoom tablets—used together with a solar charging system, which Ethiopian technicians had taught adults in the village to use. Once a week, a technician visits the villages and swaps out memory cards so that researchers can study how the machines were actually used."
In other words, the kids had access to adults who had been trained how to use the computers. That opens the question of who modified them, customized them and taught the kids what programs to run. It might have been the adults, IN WHICH CASE THE CHILDREN HAD TEACHERS
Well, we do know some of it because plenty is admitted by both sides.
Assange and the government admit that Wikileaks got hold of a ton of classified documents and published them on the internet.
Everybody understands that the publication of those documents embarrassed the USA, many of its allies and foreign governments. Those who think realize that this kind of action erodes the trust that is the basis for sincere negotiations between countries. If you can't trust that the USA or any other country can keep what you tell them in confidence quiet, it means you won't tell them anything sensitive.
And that means there will be more friction between governments and more suspicion.
In Colorado, a legalization measure is on the ballot. The Democratic current governor and the Republican former governor are doing ads together to oppose legalization. Tom Tancredo, a libertarian and otherwise nuts, is about the only high-profile politician on record as supporting it.
Necessary because of guys like Aldrich Ames, Jonathan Pollard and dare I mention Bradley Manning. And by the fact that so many hackers idolize jerks like Julian Assange.
>> People who claim to be Creationists are almost always ignorant of evolution.
I'm not sure the good doctor has this one right. In my experience, creationists have been exposed to the general theory of evolution, but have found one or more reasons in the telling (often an intentionally injected reason) to reject it. Look up "straw dog" to see how this is often done on a number of topics.
I have always found when talking to creationists about evolution that they are profoundly ignorant of what it is and how it works. I think he is spot-on with regard to most creationists, but I think there is a minority that is outright dishonest about the subject.
Abner Doubleday is God? Or is it Alexander Cartright? Only to those who believe that the sacred prophesy of Cricket has already been fulfilled!