You are missing the answer here..... It is a fucking feedback loop.
Wow, no shit? I had no idea... it's not like I was depressed from 8 years old up until 23 or so, because my childhood fucking sucked, I hated my life, and I had no social skills whatsoever. It's not like I was the guy who got turned down by 3's and 4's and beat up in school because I was a nerdy little insecure asshole with few friends. Oh wait, that is what happened, and I did escape from it and improved myself through willpower and effort. If you can't do it, it's because you're a pussy. Sucks to be you, but it's no skin off my back. It's up to each and every man to help himself. If you are too weak to do what it takes to improve yourself, then the gene pool is better off without you buddy.
My signature underwent a similar transformation over the years. Fifteen years ago it was clearly legible cursive, and now it's just a squiggle. (Incidentally, joking about this phenomenon once caused me to laugh chocolate milk through my nose. Quite unpleasant.)
The problem is that 90% of people who consider themselves "introverts" are actually just nerds with no social skills. The reason they don't enjoy interaction with others is because they're not any good at it. The cure for this, of course, is to go out, socialize, meet people, and develop their social skills. Try telling them that, though; they'd rather sit at home and brood about life. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. Would love to stay and chat with you about how much life sucks, buddy, but I'm too busy out doing things, meeting people, getting laid, and having fun.
If a 35-40 year old is depressed because he just realized his life is meaningless, that IS his own fault. Oh, so you bought into the whole "get a cookie cutter job, work your ass off for 40 years, raise a boring family, buy a boring house in the suburbs just like all the other houses, drive a lame SUV just like everyone else" theory of the meaning of life? Sorry dumbass, that's your own fault. Some of us were intelligent and ambitious enough to want a real life instead the pitiful excuse for one promoted by the rest of clueless society. I guarantee *I* won't be having any regrets about opportunities missed or "what could have been" when I reach 40.
And yes, I was depressed for about 15 years, so I know exactly what it's like.
Long story short, far too many people drastically underestimate diesel potential while at the same time drastically over estimate gas' utility.
You are absolutely correct, and I agree with you on all points. Gasoline engines can't touch diesels when it comes to longevity and heavy workloads, and in all other areas (except weight and vibration) they also compare very well. I think you misunderstood my post. I wasn't ragging on diesels, but pointing out to the parent why diesel output tends to fall off quickly at higher RPMs (vs gasoline engines.)
Damns do more harm to the environment that you might expect.
Are we talking harm as in pouring X quarts of used motor oil on the ground, or maybe X kilograms of CO2 emissions? How many burning Libraries of Congress is this equivalent to? Also, what is the relative effect of other words like "fuck", "shit", etc? Thanks.
As for the 4/6-cyl "boy racer" comments... there is more than one way to skin a cat, and there is a lot to be said about performance (or economy) through light weight.
Agreed. I've owned many 4 cyl performance cars myself, my favorite being my '86 Mustang SVO. The thing is, you have all these 20 year old kids these days who have never driven a big block anything and who think a V6 is a big motor. They look at the horsepower specs for a 1976 big block car and think "wow, only 200 hp, must be a slow piece of shit." I'd take a "200 HP" big block over a 200 HP four cyl any day of the week, and odds are that big block will walk all over the four cyl, even if it's in a much heavier car, simply because it has SO much more torque and over a broader range.
These kids don't realize that the only reason the big block horsepower rating is so low is because it has a tiny camshaft, restrictive intake and exhaust, etc designed to haul granny around in comfort with boat loads of low end torque, rarely exceeding 4000 RPMs if that. Engines produce torque, and with RPMs make horsepower. Naturally aspirated four cyls have to rev to the moon in order to make any kind of appreciable horsepower and they sacrifice driveability, smoothness, etc in order to do so. Big V8s don't. Not only will that bone stock big block outrun car most four cyls in stock form, but if you bolt on a few parts and put it in a light car then it's going to take a REALLY strong turbo 4 to even come close. All this while running on 87 octane and being super simple and cheap to work on.
The problem with building high RPM diesels is getting it enough air. Thus why you see so many turbo-diesel engines.
Well, no. The problem with high RPM diesels is the fuel's limited burn rate, combined with the the huge bearing diameters needed which also decreases its efficient RPM limit. This results in an engine with high initial torque that tapers off at higher RPMs, thus yielding a lower total horsepower output. Turbochargers are used to increase the horsepower output.
Once again, how old are you? Any idiot can read SAE Net horsepower ratings off Google, along with 1/4 mile tests conducted on ancient bias ply tires by reviewers who didn't push the car too hard, and conclude that a car is slow. Yet if you were around back then and actually drove these cars you would know that late 70s cars weren't really much slower than early 70s/late 60s cars were. The change from SAE Gross to SAE Net power ratings in 1972 didn't change the actual engine output one bit. The Gross horsepower ratings were in many cases greatly exaggerated anyway. The only drop in power came from the reduction in compression ratios, which dropped a typical big block an actual 20-30 horsepower. Big deal.
60s/70s engines weren't about peak horsepower ratings, anyway. 5000 was a lot of RPMs back then. 60s/70s motors were about big displacement and big torque that starts at idle, a concept which is totally lost on today's boy racers with their pathetic 4 cyl and V6 engines.
Only the early 70s...the rest were anemic at best. The 1977 Trans Am 6.6L was only rated at 200hp.
No, the abysmally low horsepower ratings are simply due to the change from SAE Gross to SAE Net measurement in 1972. The engines' actual output didn't change at all, except when the compression ratios were lowered, which yielded a 20-30 horsepower drop in most cases.
Something about them being actually petrol engines modified for compression ignition, without realising that the compression ratios would typically be double, which was out of specification for the block.
No, the block was heavily reinforced.
ALL of the Olds diesel problems can be traced back to one idiotic design decision--the lack of a fuel/water separator. That, combined with the horribly contaminated diesel fuel in the late 70s/early 80s, is what led to the Olds diesel's demise.
I'm still driving a 1997 Hyundai Tiburon (stick) which gets 30mpg highway and hits 120MPH stock. I'm really surprised that no one has been able to improve a standard gas engine's efficiency in the last 12+ years.
A 98 Z28 or Trans Am also gets 30 MPG in good tune, yet while your Tiburon is struggling to make 120 the Z28 will blow your doors off on its way to 160. And the car is several hundred pounds heavier than yours as well.
Your Tiburon engine is NOT anything to brag about in terms of efficiency. Its "efficiency" is solely due to the use of a tiny engine in a light weight car. In the 12 years that have passed since your car was built, cars have only gotten heavier due primarily to Federal safety and emissions requirements. Yes, manufacturers DO continue to make improvements in efficiency, but that is constantly being counterbalanced by the heavier cars.
Do you know how to read? I already said that you don't take pictures of classified (i.e. restricted) information. I have a Secret clearance, I know what I'm talking about. I'm on a base in Afghanistan at this very moment and I can take as many pictures as I please, of anything I please, as long as it's not the airstrip or other sensitive areas/information.
And you know what else? If you ARE on a military installation legally, you CAN take as many pictures as you want and post it all to the Internet if you want, so long as the pictures do not contain classified information.
That's funny because I'm sitting in my tent in Afghanistan at this very moment, and it's equipped with an air conditioning unit just like all the other tents. I've been to some of the smallest, shittiest FOBs in this country and haven't yet seen one where the commander is so inhumane as to require his soldiers to sleep in a bare tent in 115+ degree weather. The other day the power went out when it was 100 degrees out and within a matter of minutes the heat inside was un-fucking-bearable.
We need to bulldoze the crufty pile of shit called Web 2.0 and start over with something new. HTTP and HTML were simply not designed to do what people are using the web for these days. AJAX, Javascript, and Flash are crufty hacks. Try using the web on a slow connection and you'll see what I mean. The simple, properly designed websites with no bullshit continue to work fine, while huge bloated AJAX/Javascript-filled monstrosities just won't fucking load. Try turning off Javascript and Flash in a vain attempt to simplify things, and it breaks the entire fucking Internet. I'm not an iconoclast; I like many of the ideas people are attempting to implement, I just don't think the tools they are using to do it are up to the task, and there are too many compromises and hacks being made. We need to start from scratch with a new HTTP and a new HTML that is designed for the web of the 21st century.
Mining on Earth is already dangerous and difficult even though we don't need to do it in spacesuits. On the Moon the vacuum will be a major killer because an accident that on Earth leaves you with a minor wound will puncture your spacesuit and you'll be dead as a mummy before anyone can pull you to safety.
Couldn't we just pressurize the mines? And of course you'd need pressure doors placed in strategic sections of the mine to protect the rest of the mine in the event of a sudden depressurization of one section.
Slashdot Mirror
You are missing the answer here. .... It is a fucking feedback loop.
Wow, no shit? I had no idea... it's not like I was depressed from 8 years old up until 23 or so, because my childhood fucking sucked, I hated my life, and I had no social skills whatsoever. It's not like I was the guy who got turned down by 3's and 4's and beat up in school because I was a nerdy little insecure asshole with few friends. Oh wait, that is what happened, and I did escape from it and improved myself through willpower and effort. If you can't do it, it's because you're a pussy. Sucks to be you, but it's no skin off my back. It's up to each and every man to help himself. If you are too weak to do what it takes to improve yourself, then the gene pool is better off without you buddy.
It takes quite a bit of work to break out of that, the middle stages are rough, and not everyone can do it unassisted. Some just can't do it period.
ANYONE can do it; it's only a question of willpower.
That's easy to get around; just send a box of bricks.
My signature underwent a similar transformation over the years. Fifteen years ago it was clearly legible cursive, and now it's just a squiggle. (Incidentally, joking about this phenomenon once caused me to laugh chocolate milk through my nose. Quite unpleasant.)
You must be a hoot at parties!
The problem is that 90% of people who consider themselves "introverts" are actually just nerds with no social skills. The reason they don't enjoy interaction with others is because they're not any good at it. The cure for this, of course, is to go out, socialize, meet people, and develop their social skills. Try telling them that, though; they'd rather sit at home and brood about life. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. Would love to stay and chat with you about how much life sucks, buddy, but I'm too busy out doing things, meeting people, getting laid, and having fun.
If a 35-40 year old is depressed because he just realized his life is meaningless, that IS his own fault. Oh, so you bought into the whole "get a cookie cutter job, work your ass off for 40 years, raise a boring family, buy a boring house in the suburbs just like all the other houses, drive a lame SUV just like everyone else" theory of the meaning of life? Sorry dumbass, that's your own fault. Some of us were intelligent and ambitious enough to want a real life instead the pitiful excuse for one promoted by the rest of clueless society. I guarantee *I* won't be having any regrets about opportunities missed or "what could have been" when I reach 40.
And yes, I was depressed for about 15 years, so I know exactly what it's like.
Long story short, far too many people drastically underestimate diesel potential while at the same time drastically over estimate gas' utility.
You are absolutely correct, and I agree with you on all points. Gasoline engines can't touch diesels when it comes to longevity and heavy workloads, and in all other areas (except weight and vibration) they also compare very well. I think you misunderstood my post. I wasn't ragging on diesels, but pointing out to the parent why diesel output tends to fall off quickly at higher RPMs (vs gasoline engines.)
And if that price is still too high for you, then just get it off The Pirate Bay for free... ;)
Damns do more harm to the environment that you might expect.
Are we talking harm as in pouring X quarts of used motor oil on the ground, or maybe X kilograms of CO2 emissions? How many burning Libraries of Congress is this equivalent to? Also, what is the relative effect of other words like "fuck", "shit", etc? Thanks.
As for the 4/6-cyl "boy racer" comments... there is more than one way to skin a cat, and there is a lot to be said about performance (or economy) through light weight.
Agreed. I've owned many 4 cyl performance cars myself, my favorite being my '86 Mustang SVO. The thing is, you have all these 20 year old kids these days who have never driven a big block anything and who think a V6 is a big motor. They look at the horsepower specs for a 1976 big block car and think "wow, only 200 hp, must be a slow piece of shit." I'd take a "200 HP" big block over a 200 HP four cyl any day of the week, and odds are that big block will walk all over the four cyl, even if it's in a much heavier car, simply because it has SO much more torque and over a broader range.
These kids don't realize that the only reason the big block horsepower rating is so low is because it has a tiny camshaft, restrictive intake and exhaust, etc designed to haul granny around in comfort with boat loads of low end torque, rarely exceeding 4000 RPMs if that. Engines produce torque, and with RPMs make horsepower. Naturally aspirated four cyls have to rev to the moon in order to make any kind of appreciable horsepower and they sacrifice driveability, smoothness, etc in order to do so. Big V8s don't. Not only will that bone stock big block outrun car most four cyls in stock form, but if you bolt on a few parts and put it in a light car then it's going to take a REALLY strong turbo 4 to even come close. All this while running on 87 octane and being super simple and cheap to work on.
Nope, the D block was still way beefier than the gasoline one.
illegal driving leads to deaths
[citation needed]
The problem with building high RPM diesels is getting it enough air. Thus why you see so many turbo-diesel engines.
Well, no. The problem with high RPM diesels is the fuel's limited burn rate, combined with the the huge bearing diameters needed which also decreases its efficient RPM limit. This results in an engine with high initial torque that tapers off at higher RPMs, thus yielding a lower total horsepower output. Turbochargers are used to increase the horsepower output.
Once again, how old are you? Any idiot can read SAE Net horsepower ratings off Google, along with 1/4 mile tests conducted on ancient bias ply tires by reviewers who didn't push the car too hard, and conclude that a car is slow. Yet if you were around back then and actually drove these cars you would know that late 70s cars weren't really much slower than early 70s/late 60s cars were. The change from SAE Gross to SAE Net power ratings in 1972 didn't change the actual engine output one bit. The Gross horsepower ratings were in many cases greatly exaggerated anyway. The only drop in power came from the reduction in compression ratios, which dropped a typical big block an actual 20-30 horsepower. Big deal.
60s/70s engines weren't about peak horsepower ratings, anyway. 5000 was a lot of RPMs back then. 60s/70s motors were about big displacement and big torque that starts at idle, a concept which is totally lost on today's boy racers with their pathetic 4 cyl and V6 engines.
Only the early 70s...the rest were anemic at best. The 1977 Trans Am 6.6L was only rated at 200hp.
No, the abysmally low horsepower ratings are simply due to the change from SAE Gross to SAE Net measurement in 1972. The engines' actual output didn't change at all, except when the compression ratios were lowered, which yielded a 20-30 horsepower drop in most cases.
Something about them being actually petrol engines modified for compression ignition, without realising that the compression ratios would typically be double, which was out of specification for the block.
No, the block was heavily reinforced.
ALL of the Olds diesel problems can be traced back to one idiotic design decision--the lack of a fuel/water separator. That, combined with the horribly contaminated diesel fuel in the late 70s/early 80s, is what led to the Olds diesel's demise.
I'm still driving a 1997 Hyundai Tiburon (stick) which gets 30mpg highway and hits 120MPH stock. I'm really surprised that no one has been able to improve a standard gas engine's efficiency in the last 12+ years.
A 98 Z28 or Trans Am also gets 30 MPG in good tune, yet while your Tiburon is struggling to make 120 the Z28 will blow your doors off on its way to 160. And the car is several hundred pounds heavier than yours as well.
Your Tiburon engine is NOT anything to brag about in terms of efficiency. Its "efficiency" is solely due to the use of a tiny engine in a light weight car. In the 12 years that have passed since your car was built, cars have only gotten heavier due primarily to Federal safety and emissions requirements. Yes, manufacturers DO continue to make improvements in efficiency, but that is constantly being counterbalanced by the heavier cars.
....or we could just use a damn nuclear reactor to provide 10x the power at 1/10th of the cost/complexity, and be done with it.
Seriously people, WTF?
Do you know how to read? I already said that you don't take pictures of classified (i.e. restricted) information. I have a Secret clearance, I know what I'm talking about. I'm on a base in Afghanistan at this very moment and I can take as many pictures as I please, of anything I please, as long as it's not the airstrip or other sensitive areas/information.
And you know what else? If you ARE on a military installation legally, you CAN take as many pictures as you want and post it all to the Internet if you want, so long as the pictures do not contain classified information.
LOL, dumb ass. "Most people" in Afghanistan live in mud brick dwellings. Hint--these buildings insulate a hell of a lot better than tents do.
That's funny because I'm sitting in my tent in Afghanistan at this very moment, and it's equipped with an air conditioning unit just like all the other tents. I've been to some of the smallest, shittiest FOBs in this country and haven't yet seen one where the commander is so inhumane as to require his soldiers to sleep in a bare tent in 115+ degree weather. The other day the power went out when it was 100 degrees out and within a matter of minutes the heat inside was un-fucking-bearable.
Who said it would be easy? It's not going to be, but it's absolutely necessary.
We need to bulldoze the crufty pile of shit called Web 2.0 and start over with something new. HTTP and HTML were simply not designed to do what people are using the web for these days. AJAX, Javascript, and Flash are crufty hacks. Try using the web on a slow connection and you'll see what I mean. The simple, properly designed websites with no bullshit continue to work fine, while huge bloated AJAX/Javascript-filled monstrosities just won't fucking load. Try turning off Javascript and Flash in a vain attempt to simplify things, and it breaks the entire fucking Internet. I'm not an iconoclast; I like many of the ideas people are attempting to implement, I just don't think the tools they are using to do it are up to the task, and there are too many compromises and hacks being made. We need to start from scratch with a new HTTP and a new HTML that is designed for the web of the 21st century.
Mining on Earth is already dangerous and difficult even though we don't need to do it in spacesuits. On the Moon the vacuum will be a major killer because an accident that on Earth leaves you with a minor wound will puncture your spacesuit and you'll be dead as a mummy before anyone can pull you to safety.
Couldn't we just pressurize the mines? And of course you'd need pressure doors placed in strategic sections of the mine to protect the rest of the mine in the event of a sudden depressurization of one section.