If they flunk because they watch porn instead of paying attention that's their choice. If they watch porn during lectures and don't flunk, what the hell were the lectures for?
> It was only after they were called out on that they owned owned up to > shipping counterfeit units. Who knows the rational for that, maybe it was > just ignorance or whatever.
When they said that the junk was demos shipped by accident they were repeating what their supplier told them. Would have been better to have just said "We acknowledge that they are real will replace them, but we are still investigating" until they heard from Intel. Still, they handled it fairly well. The important point is that they did not at any point try to deny that there was anything wrong.
In the Army multifuels? IIRC the idea was that you could fill one up with whatever was handy: gasoline, diesel, jp4, avgas... I can testify from personal experience that one ran REALLY WELL on MEK. For about a minute.
I also know people who accidently filled their (older) diesel trucks up with gasoline, drove them a while, refilled with diesel, and saw no ill effects.
>...in that it's a diesel engine running on gasoline, which has been formerly > impossible.
Many diesels run fine on gasoline, though it may eventually attack some of their nonmetal parts, which may be made of materials not resistant to gasoline. In the 1960s I drove a multifuel Army truck that ran on diesel or gasoline.
> Small turbo diesels, for instance. If the majority of the country stopped > worrying about having the biggest damn SUV on the road to attack all those > off-road obstacles in yuppie suburbia, we'd have be a great start in the > right direction.
The off-road enthusiasts would love to have diesels (the yuppies really want station wagons). The problem is EPA particulate and NOX regulations, which are optimized for conventional gasoline engines.
> If it works as promised, the new technology would improve fuel economy by > far more than these other options, some of which can improve efficiency on > the order of 20 percent.
Thus the 20% number refers to other technologies (which not to say that the article may not be hype for other reasons).
>...what are you expecting them to say on official or semi-official channels?
"We are still investigating, but we will replace the defective units."
> Even if they could prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that it was willfully > fraudulent and a company-wide conspiracy at the distributor to screw over > Newegg and its customers, they'd still have legal fees and time wasted to > deal with it.
Nonsense. The distributor would be much too busy with Intel and the Feds to find time for fruitless libel suits. This isn't just breach of contract. It's criminal fraud.
Slashdot Mirror
> Imagine if we classified servers like we do countries that support terrorism?
Because that works so well...
BTW, has Apple filed suit yet for the unauthorized use of the letter "i"?
> A well run government often requires passing bills that voters would dislike
> for the good of the country (tax increases, spending cuts etc.).
It is up to the voters to decide on the good of the country.
> Fear of voting in line with your views and policies at both top and bottom
> levels results in a failure of democracy.
Voting your views rather than those of the people you purport to represent is not democracy. Do what your constituents want or resign.
...is not causation.
If they flunk because they watch porn instead of paying attention that's their choice. If they watch porn during lectures and don't flunk, what the hell were the lectures for?
> "We acknowledge that they are real will replace them, but we are still
> investigating"
Should read "We acknowledge that they are not real and will replace them, but we are still investigating"
I assume you are unaware of the fact that both rocket fuel and jet fuel are essentially kerosene: not something gasoline engines run well on.
Nitromethane, on the other hand, might be interesting. You can be the test pilot, though. I'll watch from the bunker.
That will only work if the supplier did not ship fakes mixed in with good parts.
> It was only after they were called out on that they owned owned up to
> shipping counterfeit units. Who knows the rational for that, maybe it was
> just ignorance or whatever.
When they said that the junk was demos shipped by accident they were repeating what their supplier told them. Would have been better to have just said "We acknowledge that they are real will replace them, but we are still investigating" until they heard from Intel. Still, they handled it fairly well. The important point is that they did not at any point try to deny that there was anything wrong.
Or reduce network reliability by reducing redundancy and introducing more critical choke points.
> So my question is, where can you go to find out if something is legitimate?
"apt-cache search " works for me, though you may prefer aptitude or synaptic.
You can, of course, trust the Ubuntu archive as well. Debian-multimedia is ok too, though it is unofficial.
> The new design may run at an efficiency of 50% of theoretical maximum, which
> is about 20% better than the current one.
It's about a 20% improvement over the current one. It could be argued that it is only 9% better.
> Doesn't oxidizing mean burning it ?
"Partially oxidizing" is what the reporter/PR person wrote. Who knows what the engineers actually said.
> Was the gasoline mixed with anything?
In the Army multifuels? IIRC the idea was that you could fill one up with whatever was handy: gasoline, diesel, jp4, avgas... I can testify from personal experience that one ran REALLY WELL on MEK. For about a minute.
I also know people who accidently filled their (older) diesel trucks up with gasoline, drove them a while, refilled with diesel, and saw no ill effects.
An increase from 20% to 30% might be described as a "50% efficiency boost".
> ...in that it's a diesel engine running on gasoline, which has been formerly
> impossible.
Many diesels run fine on gasoline, though it may eventually attack some of their nonmetal parts, which may be made of materials not resistant to gasoline. In the 1960s I drove a multifuel Army truck that ran on diesel or gasoline.
> Small turbo diesels, for instance. If the majority of the country stopped
> worrying about having the biggest damn SUV on the road to attack all those
> off-road obstacles in yuppie suburbia, we'd have be a great start in the
> right direction.
The off-road enthusiasts would love to have diesels (the yuppies really want station wagons). The problem is EPA particulate and NOX regulations, which are optimized for conventional gasoline engines.
From the article:
> If it works as promised, the new technology would improve fuel economy by
> far more than these other options, some of which can improve efficiency on
> the order of 20 percent.
Thus the 20% number refers to other technologies (which not to say that the article may not be hype for other reasons).
It is a diesel.
When is the two-cycle version coming out?
> Just a thought, how many people would use Internet Explorer if it didn't
> come with Windows?
Thousands. Probably even some who don't work for Microsoft.
Competition in telecommunications in the USA? Heresy!
> Organised Crime? I suppose that's a good a label as any for the Chinese
> Government...
It's as good a label as any for any government.
> I still don't understand why this accounts for where the 'missing' mass of
> the universe is.
It doesn't, and I don't see that the article claims that it does.
> ...what are you expecting them to say on official or semi-official channels?
"We are still investigating, but we will replace the defective units."
> Even if they could prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that it was willfully
> fraudulent and a company-wide conspiracy at the distributor to screw over
> Newegg and its customers, they'd still have legal fees and time wasted to
> deal with it.
Nonsense. The distributor would be much too busy with Intel and the Feds to find time for fruitless libel suits. This isn't just breach of contract. It's criminal fraud.
> I've dealt with professionally for the past several years has upon closer
> inspection proved to be a pathologically lying weasel.
All humans lie. All.
> ...the stuff we buy that actually works can't ALL be made in China now can
> it?
Ten to one these came from China. The Asian black market is probably full of them.