Neat concept, but as others have said, pretty useless in practice except for a very small minority of people who own the game, the right car, and live in the right place.
I'm still waiting for the smartphone app they advertised prior to release that was supposed to allow you to take a GPS track from driving around (or walking) and turn it into an in-game course; that seems a lot more useful to a lot more people. Of course, it would also require them to release some sort of course maker, which so far they have failed to do. It feels like they've pretty much abandoned GT6 in favor of working on a version for next-gen consoles - updates thus far have been few, and mostly very minor.
There seem to be a lot of misconceptions and outright ignorance about Common Core here. Common Core is basically just a restructuring of when different subjects are introduced, and how much emphasis is placed on each area at each grade level. For example, in mathematics where previously you might have an algebra class one year, then a geometry class another year, then trigonometry another year, etc., this might get reorganized so that material from each of these courses is introduced at different times in what proponents claim is a more logical structure that achieves better results (and there does seem to be a lot of evidence to support it). So instead of Algebra in 7th grade and Geometry in 8th, you might get some parts of what was in the Algebra class in 6th grade, a little more in 7th, some more in 8th, while also being introduced to Geometry earlier and having that spread across multiple years. You end up in the same place (well, hopefully on average you end up a little more advanced by the end), but at any given point in their schooling students will be ahead of where they would have been under the past system in some areas, and behind in others - by design.
However, this rearrangement of coursework opens a can of worms, which is where most of the fighting comes in. Because things are introduced at different stages and in a different order, an entirely new curriculum is required. It is left to the states to decide what curriculum to use, and there are a lot of choices - much of it produced by commercial entities, some of it good and some of it really, really bad. This isn't a function of Common Core, per se, but merely a function of lots of groups taking advantage of a major re-write to try to get their product included in what is selected at the state or local level.
Likewise, since the order things are introduced changes, all of the standardized tests are no longer relevant - children might be learning some of what falls into "algebra" in the current system in the 5th grade, so a standardized assessment test would need to take this into account. Opponents latch onto this and complain that too much is expected of the students, because they are being tested on something "too advanced". Likewise, something that students previously learned in the 4th grade might not be introduced until the 6th - and again, opponents latch onto this because the standards have been "lowered". It's easy to cherry pick examples that go either way (which this comment section is rife with), because compared to what most of us experienced, it will feel "off".
The vast majority of the arguments against Common Core aren't actually about Common Core, rather they are about some of the curricula that have been developed to meet Common Core's structure. Just like there can be a fight every time a new science textbook is chosen in Kansas (or anywhere else), everyone is arguing over what the curriculum should look like, and it is all happening at once. So, lots of people trying to get their own political slant into the new curriculum, which is the same problem as always - it's just happening all at once across pretty much every subject.
Now, there are certainly objections or questions to ask regarding Common Core. For one, are the benefits of the rejiggering of subjects enough to outweigh the costs of introducing the system? What do you do about students who started with one system - can you transition them to the new standards effectively, or will we have several years worth of students with glaring holes in their education? And last (and probably the biggest question, and the one that has driven many one-time supporters to oppose common core), how do we ensure that the curriculum chosen by my school district/state/whatever is going to be effective and not just an amalgamation of commercial offerings selected through a combination of ideology, lobbying, and kickbacks - the educational outcomes are dependent on the effectiveness of the curriculum, and there is no guarantee that new ones being developed and offered will achieve that (and, for the reasons mentioned, a lot of reasons they might not).
Actually, Beta is really good and it is just Slashdot's evil competitors paying shills to badmouth it that is convincing everyone it is evil incarnate. Shills, shills everywhere!
I do find that highly ironic, although probably unavoidable in this kind of thing. In showing that this training material exists, but without evidence of specific targets or operations, Greenwald's article is effectively following the guidance laid out there. Just look at this comment section - anyone who does not toe the party line will simply be accused of being a shill from here on out, with reference to these documents as "proof". No longer is there any need to pay attention to dissenting opinions (on either side of an issue) - anyone disagreeing with you can be dismissed as just another shill.
Radon is generally only an issue in poorly ventilated areas, usually cellars or basements where the radioactive gas can build up. These are rare in California in general, and unlikely on Treasure Island where groundwater is present at ~4-8 feet below the ground surface. Direct exposure to radiation, especially through inhalation or ingestion of radioactive dust, is probably a bigger issue.
The article, at least, is talking about hypersonic re-entry vehicles launched on ICBMs (as that is what China has tested recently). They are basically just "highly" maneuverable re-entry vehicles, designed to approach their target at a flatter trajectory compared to traditional warheads, with some limited maneuvering capability. The point being to avoid the problems of a ballistic trajectory that makes your impact point obvious to anyone looking, complicating interception. Again, the article at least isn't discussing low-level hypersonic missiles, as thus far no one has really had any luck making something like that work.
Actually, what IS new is the low level nature of the hypersonic missiles and the massively increased range. Air to Air weapons are pretty limited in range, the new crop of missiles that they are discussing are just faster versions of cruse missiles that have intercontinental range.
Actually, the hypersonic missiles that are anything other than drawing-board hopes and dreams at this point are more like ICBMs than cruise missiles. They look an awful lot like ICBMs at launch, but don't go as high and basically glide in at hypersonic speeds, taking a flatter trajectory on reentry rather than the near-vertical profile of a ballistic missile. Makes it harder to figure out where they are going to hit because they don't follow a ballistic trajectory (by following the launch and mid-phase of an ICBM you can pretty much tell where it is going to hit because it follows a ballistic profile - even an ICBM with a MIRV warhead can only hit targets within a relatively small area with its reentry vehicles), but they still launch high enough for relatively easy detection compared to cruise missiles, which stay entirely within the atmosphere, and generally stay quite low.
I don't see a whole lot of use for the gigabit speed right now, you're right. The biggest thing I see is the symmetrical connection, and significantly lower prices than competitors at similar speeds. 1000/1000 may not be all that useful in the vast majority of cases unless you have a lot of people sharing the bandwidth, but 100/100 for the same price as the 15/1.5 I'm limited to now would be huge. Online backup would be nearly transparent (it took about 3 weeks on my connection, and that was only backing up the "important" stuff - plus actually utilizing the 1.5 upstream brings the downstream bandwidth to a crawl on my Uverse connection, making it an exceedingly tedious process - can't stream netflix or even just browse the web without hiccups), it would no longer be a pain to upload videos or high-res photos to share with family and friends, etc.
I'd probably go with the gigabit service if it was available where I live, but I think the real impact of Google Fiber is the pricing pressure it puts on slower connections that are eminently usable right now (even if Google is currently cherry-picking places they can do things cheaply).
I guess, but he's only going from 7.5 seconds (1995 Civic Si) 0-60 to about 6.8 seconds (2013 Mustang V6 automatic), so only about a 10% improvement. I think the overall improvement from a HDD to a SSD is significantly more than that. Now if you said a mid-90s Civic LX to a new Mustang GT you might have a better point.
Yeah, the summary is inaccurate (surprise, surprise). Benefit to National Defense is one of several or statements, not a requirement for all NSF funded research. The whole thing is still really stupid and betrays a complete lack of understanding of basic research and the mission of the NSF, but that's to be expected of Lamar Smith (R-TX), nincompoop extraordinaire.
You can spot the downfall of Lucasarts when during the opening graphics of X-Wing vs Tie-Fighter between the iconic logo's, there was a silly little bi-plane animation of a the 3rd party studio that got involved. And while the game offered some intresting new features, it just couldn't hold a candle to the solid quality of its ancestors. Some more disasters followed until the company was reduced to ordering totally unrelated companies to produce mods for other peoples games.
X-Wing and Tie-Fighter were both developed by a 3rd party, Totally Games.
Battlefield was never a single-player game, so bad example. Oh, the first ones had a single player mode, but it was just a bot match on the regular multi-player maps. They shouldn't have even bothered with the single player "campaign" in BF3. The problem with the launch of BF3 was that they'd horribly under-provisioned Origin, which they still haven't learned from. I find it really bizarre that these companies don't make use of the abundant flexible computing resources available, and design their login servers, at least, to make use of them for rapid scaling - obviously it wouldn't make sense to build their permanent hosting system to deal with peak launch-day traffic, but it shouldn't be that hard to design it so they can temporarily run instances on AWS or whatever.
Of course, another problem was that they made it much more expensive to host a server for the game (compared to BF, BF2, etc.; I never played the Bad Company games, don't know about those), so there were also insufficient servers to play on, all of them concentrated with a few hosting companies that couldn't really handle the load (from what I've heard).
They already have processors that easily handle the processing aspect, so I don't think that's really it. No, this is actually aimed at improving the quality of the video recorded. When you use a whole bunch of tiny, high-sensitivity sensors, you get a lot of noise in low-light conditions. You just aren't getting enough photons hitting each sensor to create a good signal - highly variable, noisy images are the result. You can overcome this somewhat by averaging a bunch of sensors together, but you're basically averaging a bunch of known bad data in hopes of creating good data, and the outcome is often much less than satisfactory. This doesn't matter so much in still photography, where you can just keep the shutter open a little longer to collect more photons, but in video there are limits to how long you can open your shutter for each frame.
By using larger sensors, each one is intercepting a lot more photons and given the same sensitivity constraints it will create a much better signal. Anandtech recently did an article relating to this, although they were looking at cell phone cameras and one company that is deliberately decreasing MP in exchange for larger sensors in order to improve image quality for stills and video (though it is a presentation one of their writers gave, and doesn't go into a whole lot of the theory of why fewer, larger sensors can give better results than more, smaller sensors).
Well duh, everyone knows the CIA has been in a state of undeclared war with Australia for decades, and clearly the best way to bring Australia down is by protecting their environment. I mean, have you seen Australia's environment? I figure another decade, two tops, and the nation of Australia will crumble from within due to the unrelenting assault by their natural environment, and China will be free to sweep in and exploit their natural resources.
What, did you think the CIA was working for the U.S.? Sheep.
Oops, didn't realize university.edu was actually in use - trust a business school to buy up such a generic domain name. My earlier comment doesn't (as far as I know) actually apply to the actual university.edu.
At the university I previously studied at, they went through pretty much the same process when they decided that individual departments would no longer be permitted to have their own email domains. They set up a system to allow people transferring to the University-wide domain to specify their own name, with the limitation that it had to include at least one character from your first and last names (along with various other requirements). So if your name was John Smith, you could choose whether you wanted JohnSmith@university.edu or JSmith@university.edu or even ohmit@university.edu. Obviously your choices became more limited if there were other John Smiths at the university, but at least in that case you got to decide how to resolve it for your self. Presumably there was a list of banned strings, I'm not sure. In any case, I liked this solution because it allowed the user to decide what format they wanted to use and ensured that people were, in most cases, quite happy with their email address (though I'm sure some people with common names may have had some difficulty). After all, this is a university setting and there is no really convincing reason to make everyone use precisely the same format - standardizing on one format doesn't really gain you anything.
I usually don't use the area code when dialing a number within the same area code, so I'm fairly sure there's no requirement to use the area code. Of course, that's only for the handful of numbers I actually hand-dial rather than just picking from my list of contacts.
On another note - anyone know of a similar tool that lets you view the orbit/track in 3D? It would be cool to watch, and would give a much simpler to understand view of the eccentricity etc.
Looks like it is headed for S. Korea in about 10 minutes - this should be fun. Of course, it might have done that already and I just missed it; the orbit track only goes back about 1 orbit (~90 min).
Have you ever been detained pre-trial in a third-world prison?
Well, you kind of have to expect that possibility when you flee first world countries to avoid lawsuits/prison (the reason Mcaffee is in Belize in the first place).
"Buy your fuel on cold days, you get a *little* more for your $50 than you do on a hot day (hence airlines buy fuel by weight, not volume)."
Used to be more true than it is now. Most fuel station tanks in the USA are 2-3 ft underground, below the frost line, so the stored fuel temperature stays at a relatively constant 50 or 60-something degrees even on the hottest summer days. Sure, if it's a bloody hot day at a station that isn't used much, the fuel that's actually in the pump may warm up a little, but they retain very little gas.
Unless, of course, you lived in Centralia, PA. Then....then you have a very good point.
Surprisingly, even UST's have a pretty large temperature variation. Gas is usually refined, distributed and trucked above ground, so the fuel in a 10000 gallon UST at a station may not reach ground temperature before the next delivery of hot or cold liquid if it's selling fast enough.
But it still isn't really affected by air temperature. The tanker pulls its load from a very large above-ground tank that keeps a fairly stable temperature (a 40-90,000 barrel tank doesn't fluctuate very rapidly), which in turn is generally fed by underground pipeline from the refinery (where it was probably stored for a few weeks prior to delivery). Then the tanker drives it for perhaps a couple hours at most to your local station (maybe a little longer for very remote locations). Even on a hot day 8,000 gallons isn't going to warm up a whole lot in an hour or two, so you have relatively cool fuel going into the underground tank. Likely warmer than ground temperature a few feet down (so you're right, the temperature in the UST will fluctuate), but not really affected by ambient air temperature.
Slashdot Mirror
Neat concept, but as others have said, pretty useless in practice except for a very small minority of people who own the game, the right car, and live in the right place.
I'm still waiting for the smartphone app they advertised prior to release that was supposed to allow you to take a GPS track from driving around (or walking) and turn it into an in-game course; that seems a lot more useful to a lot more people. Of course, it would also require them to release some sort of course maker, which so far they have failed to do. It feels like they've pretty much abandoned GT6 in favor of working on a version for next-gen consoles - updates thus far have been few, and mostly very minor.
A quick search suggests you're wrong.
There seem to be a lot of misconceptions and outright ignorance about Common Core here. Common Core is basically just a restructuring of when different subjects are introduced, and how much emphasis is placed on each area at each grade level. For example, in mathematics where previously you might have an algebra class one year, then a geometry class another year, then trigonometry another year, etc., this might get reorganized so that material from each of these courses is introduced at different times in what proponents claim is a more logical structure that achieves better results (and there does seem to be a lot of evidence to support it). So instead of Algebra in 7th grade and Geometry in 8th, you might get some parts of what was in the Algebra class in 6th grade, a little more in 7th, some more in 8th, while also being introduced to Geometry earlier and having that spread across multiple years. You end up in the same place (well, hopefully on average you end up a little more advanced by the end), but at any given point in their schooling students will be ahead of where they would have been under the past system in some areas, and behind in others - by design.
However, this rearrangement of coursework opens a can of worms, which is where most of the fighting comes in. Because things are introduced at different stages and in a different order, an entirely new curriculum is required. It is left to the states to decide what curriculum to use, and there are a lot of choices - much of it produced by commercial entities, some of it good and some of it really, really bad. This isn't a function of Common Core, per se, but merely a function of lots of groups taking advantage of a major re-write to try to get their product included in what is selected at the state or local level.
Likewise, since the order things are introduced changes, all of the standardized tests are no longer relevant - children might be learning some of what falls into "algebra" in the current system in the 5th grade, so a standardized assessment test would need to take this into account. Opponents latch onto this and complain that too much is expected of the students, because they are being tested on something "too advanced". Likewise, something that students previously learned in the 4th grade might not be introduced until the 6th - and again, opponents latch onto this because the standards have been "lowered". It's easy to cherry pick examples that go either way (which this comment section is rife with), because compared to what most of us experienced, it will feel "off".
The vast majority of the arguments against Common Core aren't actually about Common Core, rather they are about some of the curricula that have been developed to meet Common Core's structure. Just like there can be a fight every time a new science textbook is chosen in Kansas (or anywhere else), everyone is arguing over what the curriculum should look like, and it is all happening at once. So, lots of people trying to get their own political slant into the new curriculum, which is the same problem as always - it's just happening all at once across pretty much every subject.
Now, there are certainly objections or questions to ask regarding Common Core. For one, are the benefits of the rejiggering of subjects enough to outweigh the costs of introducing the system? What do you do about students who started with one system - can you transition them to the new standards effectively, or will we have several years worth of students with glaring holes in their education? And last (and probably the biggest question, and the one that has driven many one-time supporters to oppose common core), how do we ensure that the curriculum chosen by my school district/state/whatever is going to be effective and not just an amalgamation of commercial offerings selected through a combination of ideology, lobbying, and kickbacks - the educational outcomes are dependent on the effectiveness of the curriculum, and there is no guarantee that new ones being developed and offered will achieve that (and, for the reasons mentioned, a lot of reasons they might not).
Actually, Beta is really good and it is just Slashdot's evil competitors paying shills to badmouth it that is convincing everyone it is evil incarnate. Shills, shills everywhere!
I do find that highly ironic, although probably unavoidable in this kind of thing. In showing that this training material exists, but without evidence of specific targets or operations, Greenwald's article is effectively following the guidance laid out there. Just look at this comment section - anyone who does not toe the party line will simply be accused of being a shill from here on out, with reference to these documents as "proof". No longer is there any need to pay attention to dissenting opinions (on either side of an issue) - anyone disagreeing with you can be dismissed as just another shill.
So, business as usual on the internet.
Radon is generally only an issue in poorly ventilated areas, usually cellars or basements where the radioactive gas can build up. These are rare in California in general, and unlikely on Treasure Island where groundwater is present at ~4-8 feet below the ground surface. Direct exposure to radiation, especially through inhalation or ingestion of radioactive dust, is probably a bigger issue.
Just toss it in the bay; with the radiation plume arriving from Japan, no one will ever notice!
The article, at least, is talking about hypersonic re-entry vehicles launched on ICBMs (as that is what China has tested recently). They are basically just "highly" maneuverable re-entry vehicles, designed to approach their target at a flatter trajectory compared to traditional warheads, with some limited maneuvering capability. The point being to avoid the problems of a ballistic trajectory that makes your impact point obvious to anyone looking, complicating interception. Again, the article at least isn't discussing low-level hypersonic missiles, as thus far no one has really had any luck making something like that work.
Actually, what IS new is the low level nature of the hypersonic missiles and the massively increased range. Air to Air weapons are pretty limited in range, the new crop of missiles that they are discussing are just faster versions of cruse missiles that have intercontinental range.
Actually, the hypersonic missiles that are anything other than drawing-board hopes and dreams at this point are more like ICBMs than cruise missiles. They look an awful lot like ICBMs at launch, but don't go as high and basically glide in at hypersonic speeds, taking a flatter trajectory on reentry rather than the near-vertical profile of a ballistic missile. Makes it harder to figure out where they are going to hit because they don't follow a ballistic trajectory (by following the launch and mid-phase of an ICBM you can pretty much tell where it is going to hit because it follows a ballistic profile - even an ICBM with a MIRV warhead can only hit targets within a relatively small area with its reentry vehicles), but they still launch high enough for relatively easy detection compared to cruise missiles, which stay entirely within the atmosphere, and generally stay quite low.
I don't see a whole lot of use for the gigabit speed right now, you're right. The biggest thing I see is the symmetrical connection, and significantly lower prices than competitors at similar speeds. 1000/1000 may not be all that useful in the vast majority of cases unless you have a lot of people sharing the bandwidth, but 100/100 for the same price as the 15/1.5 I'm limited to now would be huge. Online backup would be nearly transparent (it took about 3 weeks on my connection, and that was only backing up the "important" stuff - plus actually utilizing the 1.5 upstream brings the downstream bandwidth to a crawl on my Uverse connection, making it an exceedingly tedious process - can't stream netflix or even just browse the web without hiccups), it would no longer be a pain to upload videos or high-res photos to share with family and friends, etc.
I'd probably go with the gigabit service if it was available where I live, but I think the real impact of Google Fiber is the pricing pressure it puts on slower connections that are eminently usable right now (even if Google is currently cherry-picking places they can do things cheaply).
I guess, but he's only going from 7.5 seconds (1995 Civic Si) 0-60 to about 6.8 seconds (2013 Mustang V6 automatic), so only about a 10% improvement. I think the overall improvement from a HDD to a SSD is significantly more than that. Now if you said a mid-90s Civic LX to a new Mustang GT you might have a better point.
Yeah, the summary is inaccurate (surprise, surprise). Benefit to National Defense is one of several or statements, not a requirement for all NSF funded research. The whole thing is still really stupid and betrays a complete lack of understanding of basic research and the mission of the NSF, but that's to be expected of Lamar Smith (R-TX), nincompoop extraordinaire.
Company makes billions of dollars; wants more. Competitors not happy.
Translation: "They're doing what we would do, but they're a lot better at it than we are."
You never know how the EC will react, tho.
Of course you do. Their thought process goes something like this:
Hmm, is it a European company? No. Is there a European company that might, some day, in some form, offer a competitive product? Yes.
Complaint upheld.
if you can pull off all three at the same time, that grants you the power up of mega-Streisand
What would Brian Boitano do??
You can spot the downfall of Lucasarts when during the opening graphics of X-Wing vs Tie-Fighter between the iconic logo's, there was a silly little bi-plane animation of a the 3rd party studio that got involved. And while the game offered some intresting new features, it just couldn't hold a candle to the solid quality of its ancestors. Some more disasters followed until the company was reduced to ordering totally unrelated companies to produce mods for other peoples games.
X-Wing and Tie-Fighter were both developed by a 3rd party, Totally Games.
Battlefield was never a single-player game, so bad example. Oh, the first ones had a single player mode, but it was just a bot match on the regular multi-player maps. They shouldn't have even bothered with the single player "campaign" in BF3. The problem with the launch of BF3 was that they'd horribly under-provisioned Origin, which they still haven't learned from. I find it really bizarre that these companies don't make use of the abundant flexible computing resources available, and design their login servers, at least, to make use of them for rapid scaling - obviously it wouldn't make sense to build their permanent hosting system to deal with peak launch-day traffic, but it shouldn't be that hard to design it so they can temporarily run instances on AWS or whatever.
Of course, another problem was that they made it much more expensive to host a server for the game (compared to BF, BF2, etc.; I never played the Bad Company games, don't know about those), so there were also insufficient servers to play on, all of them concentrated with a few hosting companies that couldn't really handle the load (from what I've heard).
They already have processors that easily handle the processing aspect, so I don't think that's really it. No, this is actually aimed at improving the quality of the video recorded. When you use a whole bunch of tiny, high-sensitivity sensors, you get a lot of noise in low-light conditions. You just aren't getting enough photons hitting each sensor to create a good signal - highly variable, noisy images are the result. You can overcome this somewhat by averaging a bunch of sensors together, but you're basically averaging a bunch of known bad data in hopes of creating good data, and the outcome is often much less than satisfactory. This doesn't matter so much in still photography, where you can just keep the shutter open a little longer to collect more photons, but in video there are limits to how long you can open your shutter for each frame.
By using larger sensors, each one is intercepting a lot more photons and given the same sensitivity constraints it will create a much better signal. Anandtech recently did an article relating to this, although they were looking at cell phone cameras and one company that is deliberately decreasing MP in exchange for larger sensors in order to improve image quality for stills and video (though it is a presentation one of their writers gave, and doesn't go into a whole lot of the theory of why fewer, larger sensors can give better results than more, smaller sensors).
Well duh, everyone knows the CIA has been in a state of undeclared war with Australia for decades, and clearly the best way to bring Australia down is by protecting their environment. I mean, have you seen Australia's environment? I figure another decade, two tops, and the nation of Australia will crumble from within due to the unrelenting assault by their natural environment, and China will be free to sweep in and exploit their natural resources.
What, did you think the CIA was working for the U.S.? Sheep.
Oops, didn't realize university.edu was actually in use - trust a business school to buy up such a generic domain name. My earlier comment doesn't (as far as I know) actually apply to the actual university.edu.
At the university I previously studied at, they went through pretty much the same process when they decided that individual departments would no longer be permitted to have their own email domains. They set up a system to allow people transferring to the University-wide domain to specify their own name, with the limitation that it had to include at least one character from your first and last names (along with various other requirements). So if your name was John Smith, you could choose whether you wanted JohnSmith@university.edu or JSmith@university.edu or even ohmit@university.edu. Obviously your choices became more limited if there were other John Smiths at the university, but at least in that case you got to decide how to resolve it for your self. Presumably there was a list of banned strings, I'm not sure. In any case, I liked this solution because it allowed the user to decide what format they wanted to use and ensured that people were, in most cases, quite happy with their email address (though I'm sure some people with common names may have had some difficulty). After all, this is a university setting and there is no really convincing reason to make everyone use precisely the same format - standardizing on one format doesn't really gain you anything.
I usually don't use the area code when dialing a number within the same area code, so I'm fairly sure there's no requirement to use the area code. Of course, that's only for the handful of numbers I actually hand-dial rather than just picking from my list of contacts.
On another note - anyone know of a similar tool that lets you view the orbit/track in 3D? It would be cool to watch, and would give a much simpler to understand view of the eccentricity etc.
Looks like it is headed for S. Korea in about 10 minutes - this should be fun. Of course, it might have done that already and I just missed it; the orbit track only goes back about 1 orbit (~90 min).
Have you ever been detained pre-trial in a third-world prison?
Well, you kind of have to expect that possibility when you flee first world countries to avoid lawsuits/prison (the reason Mcaffee is in Belize in the first place).
"Buy your fuel on cold days, you get a *little* more for your $50 than you do on a hot day (hence airlines buy fuel by weight, not volume)."
Used to be more true than it is now. Most fuel station tanks in the USA are 2-3 ft underground, below the frost line, so the stored fuel temperature stays at a relatively constant 50 or 60-something degrees even on the hottest summer days. Sure, if it's a bloody hot day at a station that isn't used much, the fuel that's actually in the pump may warm up a little, but they retain very little gas.
Unless, of course, you lived in Centralia, PA. Then....then you have a very good point.
Surprisingly, even UST's have a pretty large temperature variation. Gas is usually refined, distributed and trucked above ground, so the fuel in a 10000 gallon UST at a station may not reach ground temperature before the next delivery of hot or cold liquid if it's selling fast enough.
But it still isn't really affected by air temperature. The tanker pulls its load from a very large above-ground tank that keeps a fairly stable temperature (a 40-90,000 barrel tank doesn't fluctuate very rapidly), which in turn is generally fed by underground pipeline from the refinery (where it was probably stored for a few weeks prior to delivery). Then the tanker drives it for perhaps a couple hours at most to your local station (maybe a little longer for very remote locations). Even on a hot day 8,000 gallons isn't going to warm up a whole lot in an hour or two, so you have relatively cool fuel going into the underground tank. Likely warmer than ground temperature a few feet down (so you're right, the temperature in the UST will fluctuate), but not really affected by ambient air temperature.