I have heard that a modern engine would only smother you with carbon dioxide, long before killing you with carbon monoxide. I haven't noticed that a new gasoline car these days smells bad at all so I don't think they are producing much besides CO2 and water.
While that single example may be true, fleet mileage has gone up. Cars are, as a whole, more efficient than in the 1980s. Things have gotten better, not worse.
I have always gotten worse mileage than the EPA ratings. However, I had a 1992 Civic that would get 36-38 mpg overall, not highway. My 2012 Civic is consistently right around 30 mpg for the same mix of driving in the same area. The '92 had a lean-burn engine that presumably couldn't be made clean enough for modern standards.
Fleet mileage improving doesn't mean that cars within a class have necessarily improved.
I assumed that the core was far enough down that the probe would 'float' in the dense gas.
Even when hydrogen is compressed to millions of atmospheres, plutonium is still hundreds of times denser. So it seems to me that the remnants would keep sinking until they hit the rocky core and not float or disperse. That would be very, very deep indeed, since the core is thought to only be about twice the size of Earth.
I have a hard time believing you actually pay people $5 an hour to deal with data that's important to you. If your time is worth $100/hr, then spending 15 minutes QA'ing the work means you're paying $30 an hour anyway.
There is a huge component of trust in programming - it's very difficult to evaluate performance but also performance is so widely variable.
"Software development tools will soon understand what you mean versus what you say".
Ok, so we are going to get better results from writing vaguer instructions and putting it into smarter tools? Hasn't he been in a corporate environment where people every day request one thing and expect the program to do something different because what they mean is not what they wrote? Ever since Babbage, people have expected computers to read their mind, and there's no magical method of doing so that's around the corner.
Joel Spolsky's article on "The Law of Leaky Abstractions" (http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/LeakyAbstractions.html) says it all. Using other people's abstractions is not difficult, when those abstractions work as expected, but being a programmer means dealing with leaks, just like being a plumber. That's why you don't gain experience quickly.
That's completely incorrect. The whole point of a destination charge is that it's equalized for all cars regardless of how far they were shipped. And GM doesn't manufacture all its cars in the US, BMW doesn't manufacture all its cars in Germany, and Toyota doesn't manufacture all its cars in Japan. And the cost of shipping from overseas is not included.
http://www.kbb.com/car-advice/...
Slashdot Mirror
I have heard that a modern engine would only smother you with carbon dioxide, long before killing you with carbon monoxide. I haven't noticed that a new gasoline car these days smells bad at all so I don't think they are producing much besides CO2 and water.
While that single example may be true, fleet mileage has gone up. Cars are, as a whole, more efficient than in the 1980s. Things have gotten better, not worse.
I have always gotten worse mileage than the EPA ratings. However, I had a 1992 Civic that would get 36-38 mpg overall, not highway. My 2012 Civic is consistently right around 30 mpg for the same mix of driving in the same area. The '92 had a lean-burn engine that presumably couldn't be made clean enough for modern standards. Fleet mileage improving doesn't mean that cars within a class have necessarily improved.
I assumed that the core was far enough down that the probe would 'float' in the dense gas.
Even when hydrogen is compressed to millions of atmospheres, plutonium is still hundreds of times denser. So it seems to me that the remnants would keep sinking until they hit the rocky core and not float or disperse. That would be very, very deep indeed, since the core is thought to only be about twice the size of Earth.
By "not much", you mean not much in terms of percentages. But Saturn is kind of large in an absolute sense.
I have a hard time believing you actually pay people $5 an hour to deal with data that's important to you. If your time is worth $100/hr, then spending 15 minutes QA'ing the work means you're paying $30 an hour anyway. There is a huge component of trust in programming - it's very difficult to evaluate performance but also performance is so widely variable.
"Software development tools will soon understand what you mean versus what you say". Ok, so we are going to get better results from writing vaguer instructions and putting it into smarter tools? Hasn't he been in a corporate environment where people every day request one thing and expect the program to do something different because what they mean is not what they wrote? Ever since Babbage, people have expected computers to read their mind, and there's no magical method of doing so that's around the corner.
Joel Spolsky's article on "The Law of Leaky Abstractions" (http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/LeakyAbstractions.html) says it all. Using other people's abstractions is not difficult, when those abstractions work as expected, but being a programmer means dealing with leaks, just like being a plumber. That's why you don't gain experience quickly.
That's completely incorrect. The whole point of a destination charge is that it's equalized for all cars regardless of how far they were shipped. And GM doesn't manufacture all its cars in the US, BMW doesn't manufacture all its cars in Germany, and Toyota doesn't manufacture all its cars in Japan. And the cost of shipping from overseas is not included. http://www.kbb.com/car-advice/...