It's all relative. I'd assume relative to what would normally be the "floor" of the cabin. If not, relative to the other observer (but hopefully not a relative of the observer). You always have to establish some point of reference for direction, which I'd assume would be done sometime well before you tried to get freaky in space.:)
It would be dumb luck. Something that existed somewhere else in the universe that thrived, can handle living in space, and could infect those pesky mammals that think they own the earth.
If the panspermia theory is correct, that wouldn't be all that questionable. Well, if across the span of the entire universe, a rock happened to be tossed into space, that happened to have a virus, that happened to be able to survive to the earth, that happened to infect a mammal host before it died off.
I think we have bigger concerns than space viruses, unless it's for the plot of a scifi movie/show/book.:)
There are an awful lot of people that can't imagine being so far away from anything that they can't see a building, person, or at least hear a car in the distance.
Myself, I love places like that. The only car for 100 miles is the one I parked to go for a walk. The funny part about that is, I still lock the doors and set the alarm.:) It's a good idea to let someone know your starting GPS coordinates, and when you're expected to check in, and a set time to call for a search party. When you're 100 miles from anything, it can be a fun hour drive, or a 10 day walk, assuming you have enough food and water to keep you going. People don't consider that, when there's always a building within a few hundred feet of them.
I don't recall the NASA married couple, but I do remember reading that the Soviet Union did quite a few mixed-sex missions to see what could happen.
I'm still waiting for the 0-G Kama Sutra to come out. I don't care if it's in Russian, I'd just be using it for the pictures anyways.:) "Hey sweetie, we haven't tried this position yet. Float upside down, and....."
The 1700 to 2200 RPM number I gave was from reading up on how hypermilers are getting their best mileage. I don't participate in their forums though. It's not really fair for me to say I want to play their games, and have a V8 muscle car.:)
I know different vehicles perform differently. It's all the same basic curves though. Down at the bottom near idle, they struggle to put out any power. That's why it's easy to stall a car at idle by letting off the clutch, even if it's capable of over 400hp at it's peak RPM. Somewhere around the indicated range, you'll pass the point where efficiency and power cross. As you go up, efficiency will drop, and power will rise, until you reach the top of the power curve. Beyond that, you're just wasting your time. A car that can spin up to 6k rpm will likely have it's peak power at 4000 to 5500 rpm. In mine, when I'm racing, I shift at 5500 rpm, but in the lower gears it passes through that so fast, it's a small fraction of a second that I have to toss it into the next gear. Mine has a rev limiter at 6000 rpm, and sometimes I bump that, if I'm not quick enough. Usually I'll toss it from 1st to 2nd at 5500 rpm, and the engine will still spin up to 6000 rpm as I'm dumping the clutch.
That's probably all stuff you knew. I'm writing it for the entertainment of everyone else.:)
4.11's in the rear of that would be huge. It'd be great for 0-50 though.:) Just kidding, it would be dependent on other factors, like the transmission gearing.
I know diesels like to stay low. They're generally large bore long stroke motors with huge compression ratios, that make for great slow engines, but don't take kindly to high RPMs. They are great for making lots of torque though, which translates through the drivetrain very nicely to pull almost anything you want. I have a bus that I'm converting into an RV, that's rated to something like 35,000 pounds. It's a 6v94T, 6 cylinder 552ci turbocharged and supercharged diesel. It doesn't have a tach, but if I recall correctly, they'll only spin up to 2500 rpm. Even at that, it puts out 300hp and something like 1000ft/lbs torque. It's more than happy to move very gracefully. The stock gearing only let it get to 60mph in 3rd gear (it's a 3 speed auto). If you hold 60mph, it'll burn up fuel very quickly. One of the strongly suggested mods to get better mileage and bring it up to drive at highway speeds was to swap out the differential gears for a shorter set. I don't remember the ratio, but after the upgrade, I had it up to 85mph with my car in tow (3500lbs car and 500lbs trailer). It doesn't accelerate like my car, but it's very comparable to the performance of a small 4 cyl car. Not bad for a V6.:) The downside is that it only will get about 10mpg on the highway. Of course, you can bring a months worth of supplies and a dozen friends with you with that.:) My state requires a chauffeur's license if the vehicle is seated or is carrying 15 people. If it's less, and the vehicle has at least two of the three, gas, electric, and water, then it's an RV, regardless of what it started life out as. That's much more comfortable and efficient than taking 5 or 6 cars (estimate based on carrying passengers and a month worth of supplies), unless all the vehicles could get 60mpg while carrying a load.
The only thing I can think when I see this story is, WTF? Why does Slashdot.jp get UTF-8, and regular Slashdot gets ISO-8859-1? I know I've tried to post foreign characters before, as others have, and they just get ignored.
I figured they were too lazy to implement it into Slashcode. Now it's obvious that they're avoiding it.
Mirrors are an underrated tool in avoiding tickets. I've spotted more cops speeding up behind me than I care to remember. I slow and move out of their way, so they can go get someone else.:) I'm amazed how many people don't ever look in their mirrors.
I was carrying cargo in my car last night, and was very annoyed that I couldn't see one of my mirrors. I felt crippled, which made the long drive that much worse.
I went looking around for the coefficient of drag for our cars. I had found a good resource once, but I can't seem to find it today.
When people ask me how to get better mileage, I tell them to drive between 1700 to 2200 rpm in their highest gear. Sometimes that's a very disappointing speed. My answer still remains the same. Do that speed. A friend has a BMW Z3, and if I remember right, that's around 60mph. In my car, I'd still be in 5th gear (mine's a 6 speed).
I used to have one, but found it pretty much useless. When they're using a trigger on the radar gun (which most do), there's no warning unless they checked a car ahead of yours. Attentive driving works a lot better, and it's a lot cheaper, since my eyeballs were installed before birth, and rarely need upgrades.:)
I removed the air dams in the nose, which effectively blocked the ram air. I don't show a notable manifold pressure difference with that change, but I'm sure it lets cold air in more efficiently.
The lower air dam is required, because of the layout of the cooling system. There is no air coming in from the front to cool the radiator. It is all scooped up by the lower air dam.
Ya, I was really disappointed in not seeing a new model Trans Am, and likewise disappointed when Pontiac folded entirely, so there won't be another Trans Am again. It may be possible that they resurrect the name at some point, but I doubt it. Right now, I don't know what I'd get as a "new" car, if I had to. I'm not completely delighted with any of the current choices. Time and finances permitting, I may go an alternate route, with a completely custom LSx powered sand rail. I'd still want pesky features like air conditioning and windshield wipers, but by building a lighter car with better collision and rollover protection, it may be worth it.
For those that don't believe in the collision protection, have a look at some of the survivable NASCAR crashes. Some of those are in excess of 200mph, where the driver can walk away from it. Now just try to picture a regular consumer car that you could even hope to survive that in. NASCAR vehicles are just a tube chassis with sheet metal riveted to it, a lexan windshield, a seat bolted in with a harness holding the driver in. It's less comfortable than a passenger car, but it's quite a bit more survivable. With a good tube chassis, a rollover accident means the driver and passengers have to unbuckle and fall out, and then they can just push the car back on it's wheels and continue driving.
When this happened the people in my neighborhood made a point of having a presence on the streets at all hours and of checking up on our more vulnerable neighbors. We weren't carrying weapons and didn't need them (thankfully) but we all had easy access to them and could have armed ourselves in short order if it had been required.
A lot of times, that is all that is necessary. Displaying your arms isn't necessary. An area where it's obvious that it is being observed can be just enough deterrent to send folks with bad intentions elsewhere. One kid on a bicycle screaming "help" could bring out a dozen armed men.
I hope I never live to see that happen. I would like to believe that a majority of our troops wouldn't carry out such an order (I believe 60% or so said as such on that survey?) but even a small minority willing to carry out such an order could do extensive damage before being brought under control.
Troops generally follow orders. That's their job. It's up to their superiors to know why it needs to be done. That's not to say troops are stupid. The stupid ones don't survive in a conflict. The smart ones do. If 1000 troops were deployed in that situation, that means 600 would likely do as they were told. That number would shift rapidly though, and that's where splintering of the military would occur.
I thought long and hard about it. Lots of what if scenarios. If there were a government versus people revolution, since I'm not in the military I would obviously be on the side of the people. My standing orders would be to capture and disarm the enemy with no casualties. Disarmed POW's would be returned quickly and safely, with the option of remaining on our side. Basically, "You're free to go. You may stay if you'd like. If you go, tell the others that we have no intention of hurting anyone." When the enemy isn't the a nameless faceless evil enemy, but a friendly peaceful (yet well defended) group, the stop being the "enemy". If your 60% number is correct, it would quickly become 50%, where half the military wouldn't want to act against the civilians, or would act on their behalf.
I was really worried that a government versus people revolution was going to happen under Bush. I know I wasn't alone in that concern either. We're not as close to that any more. I don't believe Obama would ever have similar intentions. The largest threat that I see out there is by misguided civilian groups.
The difference comes from the engine RPM's. Most cars are most efficient between 1700 to 2200 RPM. At 55mph, I'm below that range. My best cruise speed would be somewhere between 95mph to 105mph, but I'm not quite sure where the curve would drop over from the aerodynamic drag.
I think it'd be tough to explain to a cop "oh, I was testing for my maximum fuel efficiency, and you just messed up my test." or better yet "I'm doing the speed which is most economical for this vehicle."
Of course, I'd like to continue testing higher, to see where it actually drops off.:) I'd pretty sure it's around 100, but it does cruise very happily at over 130mph. I've only ever done it for a few miles, but those miles go by a lot quicker than at 55mph.:) Those runs have never been long enough to accurately calculate fuel economy.
Their numbers are under controlled circumstances. They vary by driver, conditions, and modifications.
My car, a 2000 Pontiac Firebird TransAm WS/6 with a 6 speed manual, is rated for 16/25.
In my own long term testing, I get 25mpg at 55mph, which increases to 26mpg at 65mph, 27mpg at 75mph, and 28mpg at 90mph. I've never felt comfortable doing long term tests over 90mph.:) All of the highway speeds are the normal cruising speed during the test. It does not include the acceleration and deceleration periods, which are very similar (and insignificant) compared to the length of a test. A test was at least 3/4 tank of gas (12 gallons).
55mph = 300 miles
65mph = 312 miles
75mph = 324 miles
90mph = 336 miles
A few times, tests used the full tank (16 gallons) due to limited access to gas stations. At 55mph, I'd get 400 miles. At 90mph, I'd get 448 miles. That 48 miles is a huge difference, if I suddenly had to walk to the next gas station 30 miles away.
If the EPA number was accurate, I would have never driven a 425 mile leg of a trip, which I've done quite a few times.
Tests which involved mixed traffic or uneven terrain (i.e., mountains) are excluded from my results.
In city driving, I get about 20mpg, which I have seen fluctuate between 18mpg to 22mpg. When I do a lot of city driving, I use 20mpg to estimate my range.
In racing, my numbers are much lower, as can be expected.:)
Well, the 2nd amendment right to bear arms is for the citizenship as a whole, and protects the individuals rights. You have to consider the context for which it was written. The people of the colonies stood up against the English rule. Our founding fathers recognized the fact that the day may come when the government of the United States may become so corrupt that even through the structure they laid out, the people wouldn't be able to correct the problems. (i.e., severe corruption throughout all three branches of the government) At that time, when the people themselves had recognized that something needed to be done, they were still empowered to make a change against their own government.
The 2nd amendment wasn't a mistake that opened the ability for a civil rebellion, it is there by design.
I am not advocating taking arms against the government. I've worked through all the possible scenarios, and none of them are without severe losses to both sides.
But, in a SHTF scenario, no the lone soldier would never make it. Well organized groups would be the survivors. Those organizations will likely not even form until the scenario begins, but with the people armed for their own defense and proper leadership, they will be the survivors.
I know in apocalypse movies and tv shows, there's always some lunatic fringe group with a chaotic leader. Most normal people wouldn't follow someone like that, but it would be up to strong good leaders of equally or better armed groups, to protect against such things. In that, I'm not saying the police or military, although they'd likely align with friendly peacekeeping civilians. In all out chaos, you have to look for help anywhere you can find it. Even in a situation where the government turns on the people, internal conflict will splinter their ranks. This has been brought up before.
The U.S. government declares a ban on the possession, sale transportation, and transfer of all non-sporting firearms. A thirty (30) day amnesty period is permitted for these firearms to be turned over to the local authorities. At the end of this period, a number of citizen groups refuse to turn over their firearms. Consider the following statement: I would fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the U.S. government.
If that situation occurred, it would divide not only the enlisted men, but their officers as well. How many US citizens on US soil, following the laws as established by the US Constitution (et al), would be killed before a substantial number of troops refused their orders. Unfortunately, I wouldn't expect it would be significant numbers in the first days or even weeks, and that would be an actual civil war.
I haven't watched Jericho. Well, I have seen parts of a couple episodes, and got bored very quickly. Maybe I just watched the wrong episodes.
Not to go all religious on you or anything, but God didn't write the book. As the story goes, it is a collection of writings, which were handed down over generations, transcribed countless times, until they were collected into written books. Those books were then modified quite a few more times, translated, and rewritten. Select books were then compiled into the "bible".
So, if you wanted to cite a line by "God" from a Christian bible, it would be something along the lines of
"And then I destroyed all I had created." God, [this version] Bible
It has become customary to include the book, chapter, and verse, such as Revelation 21:8. Speaking of which, that specific verse kinda damns anyone who has a cross, or other religious statues or paintings. God takes that whole idolatry thing pretty seriously. Well, if you believe in such mythology. That makes me safe on two counts.:)
Well, the quote could be good if attributed to George Orwell's 1984. If it's attributed to a person and rank (i.e., John Nobody, POTUS) rather than character and publication (John Nobody, POTUS, in Joe Author's book Last Dynasty of America), then that's a misrepresentation of the person and their authority.
No, but you're missing the point. If you're quoting Shakespeare, you would do the following
"To be or not to be..." --Hamlet, Hamlet by William Shakespeare
and not
"To be or not to be..." --Hamlet, Prince of Denmark
The first identifies it as a line said by a fictional character, and includes the actual author. The second places the fictional character of Hamlet in a non-fictional context.
Then it really doesn't matter, does it. If he does it properly, he'd now hold a gun and knife, and I'd be dead. Failure to kill your opponent in such a situation leaves an adversary who can and will come back to kill you. Well, or an adversary who runs away scared, but I don't fall into the later category.
If such a situation were to arise, and I don't have a lot of faith other than the humor value that 2012 will be the end of the world, I wouldn't be alone, and our camp would have a well guarded defensive perimeter. It's only in movies that you will see a lone man carrying a knife breach a camp and kill all of the opposing forces as they sleep. A good perimeter would have not only guards with overlapping fields of view of the hostile area, but clear visibility of each other. If one man were to go down, no less than two other guard posts would be able to neutralize the threat, and ensure that position was repopulated with reinforcements.
Effective range for a.45 ACP = 150 to 300 feet
Effective range for a 30-06 >= 2400 feet
These numbers vary by the shooter. I've seen people who can't hit a silhouette target at 10 feet. They also shouldn't be put into a guard post, unless they are bait (and expected not to survive their shift).
Ideal guard posts would have 50 feet or less separation, with visibility of one to two guard posts in each direction. Each would have no less than two guards, so downed positions could be repopulated quickly (approximately 7 seconds for a soldier to run to the unoccupied post, after instructed to do so).
Tactics don't just involve bringing a gun to a knife fight. They ensure when a man is lost, integrity of the operation is not compromised.
If it is quoted frequently, and others have said exactly what I said, maybe there is some truth behind it. I've never replied to anyone using that quote before.
Fictional characters don't say anything worthy of quoting. The author of the work being performed is worthy of being quoted for having a character saying it though. Using the rank and/or honorable position of the fictional character to show authority and knowledge in their field is inappropriate as the character nor the author. You may as well quote Doctor Nick as practical medical advice.
But the article you linked argues for both sides. Should I take an argument of the state of the world from a random computer geek, or from a well educated and respected world leader? While both may say the same thing, the expert in his field would tend to know more in that field. I also prefer legal advice from a lawyer, and not a Slashdot poster who prefaces his statement with IANAL.
Slashdot Mirror
It's all relative. I'd assume relative to what would normally be the "floor" of the cabin. If not, relative to the other observer (but hopefully not a relative of the observer). You always have to establish some point of reference for direction, which I'd assume would be done sometime well before you tried to get freaky in space. :)
It would be dumb luck. Something that existed somewhere else in the universe that thrived, can handle living in space, and could infect those pesky mammals that think they own the earth.
If the panspermia theory is correct, that wouldn't be all that questionable. Well, if across the span of the entire universe, a rock happened to be tossed into space, that happened to have a virus, that happened to be able to survive to the earth, that happened to infect a mammal host before it died off.
I think we have bigger concerns than space viruses, unless it's for the plot of a scifi movie/show/book. :)
There are an awful lot of people that can't imagine being so far away from anything that they can't see a building, person, or at least hear a car in the distance.
Myself, I love places like that. The only car for 100 miles is the one I parked to go for a walk. The funny part about that is, I still lock the doors and set the alarm. :) It's a good idea to let someone know your starting GPS coordinates, and when you're expected to check in, and a set time to call for a search party. When you're 100 miles from anything, it can be a fun hour drive, or a 10 day walk, assuming you have enough food and water to keep you going. People don't consider that, when there's always a building within a few hundred feet of them.
I think I saw that on the SciFi channel (err.. syfy) a while back. :) Well, except they didn't have iPads.
I don't recall the NASA married couple, but I do remember reading that the Soviet Union did quite a few mixed-sex missions to see what could happen.
I'm still waiting for the 0-G Kama Sutra to come out. I don't care if it's in Russian, I'd just be using it for the pictures anyways. :) "Hey sweetie, we haven't tried this position yet. Float upside down, and ....."
The 1700 to 2200 RPM number I gave was from reading up on how hypermilers are getting their best mileage. I don't participate in their forums though. It's not really fair for me to say I want to play their games, and have a V8 muscle car. :)
I know different vehicles perform differently. It's all the same basic curves though. Down at the bottom near idle, they struggle to put out any power. That's why it's easy to stall a car at idle by letting off the clutch, even if it's capable of over 400hp at it's peak RPM. Somewhere around the indicated range, you'll pass the point where efficiency and power cross. As you go up, efficiency will drop, and power will rise, until you reach the top of the power curve. Beyond that, you're just wasting your time. A car that can spin up to 6k rpm will likely have it's peak power at 4000 to 5500 rpm. In mine, when I'm racing, I shift at 5500 rpm, but in the lower gears it passes through that so fast, it's a small fraction of a second that I have to toss it into the next gear. Mine has a rev limiter at 6000 rpm, and sometimes I bump that, if I'm not quick enough. Usually I'll toss it from 1st to 2nd at 5500 rpm, and the engine will still spin up to 6000 rpm as I'm dumping the clutch.
That's probably all stuff you knew. I'm writing it for the entertainment of everyone else. :)
4.11's in the rear of that would be huge. It'd be great for 0-50 though. :) Just kidding, it would be dependent on other factors, like the transmission gearing.
I know diesels like to stay low. They're generally large bore long stroke motors with huge compression ratios, that make for great slow engines, but don't take kindly to high RPMs. They are great for making lots of torque though, which translates through the drivetrain very nicely to pull almost anything you want. I have a bus that I'm converting into an RV, that's rated to something like 35,000 pounds. It's a 6v94T, 6 cylinder 552ci turbocharged and supercharged diesel. It doesn't have a tach, but if I recall correctly, they'll only spin up to 2500 rpm. Even at that, it puts out 300hp and something like 1000ft/lbs torque. It's more than happy to move very gracefully. The stock gearing only let it get to 60mph in 3rd gear (it's a 3 speed auto). If you hold 60mph, it'll burn up fuel very quickly. One of the strongly suggested mods to get better mileage and bring it up to drive at highway speeds was to swap out the differential gears for a shorter set. I don't remember the ratio, but after the upgrade, I had it up to 85mph with my car in tow (3500lbs car and 500lbs trailer). It doesn't accelerate like my car, but it's very comparable to the performance of a small 4 cyl car. Not bad for a V6. :) The downside is that it only will get about 10mpg on the highway. Of course, you can bring a months worth of supplies and a dozen friends with you with that. :) My state requires a chauffeur's license if the vehicle is seated or is carrying 15 people. If it's less, and the vehicle has at least two of the three, gas, electric, and water, then it's an RV, regardless of what it started life out as. That's much more comfortable and efficient than taking 5 or 6 cars (estimate based on carrying passengers and a month worth of supplies), unless all the vehicles could get 60mpg while carrying a load.
Well, it should be faster than his C64. :)
Both users should be very impressed.
And ya, it's not flamebait. Silly mods.
Nice. The Encyclopedia Dramatica page renders backwards. :)
The only thing I can think when I see this story is, WTF? Why does Slashdot.jp get UTF-8, and regular Slashdot gets ISO-8859-1? I know I've tried to post foreign characters before, as others have, and they just get ignored.
I figured they were too lazy to implement it into Slashcode. Now it's obvious that they're avoiding it.
Mirrors are an underrated tool in avoiding tickets. I've spotted more cops speeding up behind me than I care to remember. I slow and move out of their way, so they can go get someone else. :) I'm amazed how many people don't ever look in their mirrors.
I was carrying cargo in my car last night, and was very annoyed that I couldn't see one of my mirrors. I felt crippled, which made the long drive that much worse.
I went looking around for the coefficient of drag for our cars. I had found a good resource once, but I can't seem to find it today.
When people ask me how to get better mileage, I tell them to drive between 1700 to 2200 rpm in their highest gear. Sometimes that's a very disappointing speed. My answer still remains the same. Do that speed. A friend has a BMW Z3, and if I remember right, that's around 60mph. In my car, I'd still be in 5th gear (mine's a 6 speed).
I used to have one, but found it pretty much useless. When they're using a trigger on the radar gun (which most do), there's no warning unless they checked a car ahead of yours. Attentive driving works a lot better, and it's a lot cheaper, since my eyeballs were installed before birth, and rarely need upgrades. :)
Which air dam? :)
I removed the air dams in the nose, which effectively blocked the ram air. I don't show a notable manifold pressure difference with that change, but I'm sure it lets cold air in more efficiently.
The lower air dam is required, because of the layout of the cooling system. There is no air coming in from the front to cool the radiator. It is all scooped up by the lower air dam.
Ya, I was really disappointed in not seeing a new model Trans Am, and likewise disappointed when Pontiac folded entirely, so there won't be another Trans Am again. It may be possible that they resurrect the name at some point, but I doubt it. Right now, I don't know what I'd get as a "new" car, if I had to. I'm not completely delighted with any of the current choices. Time and finances permitting, I may go an alternate route, with a completely custom LSx powered sand rail. I'd still want pesky features like air conditioning and windshield wipers, but by building a lighter car with better collision and rollover protection, it may be worth it.
For those that don't believe in the collision protection, have a look at some of the survivable NASCAR crashes. Some of those are in excess of 200mph, where the driver can walk away from it. Now just try to picture a regular consumer car that you could even hope to survive that in. NASCAR vehicles are just a tube chassis with sheet metal riveted to it, a lexan windshield, a seat bolted in with a harness holding the driver in. It's less comfortable than a passenger car, but it's quite a bit more survivable. With a good tube chassis, a rollover accident means the driver and passengers have to unbuckle and fall out, and then they can just push the car back on it's wheels and continue driving.
A lot of times, that is all that is necessary. Displaying your arms isn't necessary. An area where it's obvious that it is being observed can be just enough deterrent to send folks with bad intentions elsewhere. One kid on a bicycle screaming "help" could bring out a dozen armed men.
Troops generally follow orders. That's their job. It's up to their superiors to know why it needs to be done. That's not to say troops are stupid. The stupid ones don't survive in a conflict. The smart ones do. If 1000 troops were deployed in that situation, that means 600 would likely do as they were told. That number would shift rapidly though, and that's where splintering of the military would occur.
I thought long and hard about it. Lots of what if scenarios. If there were a government versus people revolution, since I'm not in the military I would obviously be on the side of the people. My standing orders would be to capture and disarm the enemy with no casualties. Disarmed POW's would be returned quickly and safely, with the option of remaining on our side. Basically, "You're free to go. You may stay if you'd like. If you go, tell the others that we have no intention of hurting anyone." When the enemy isn't the a nameless faceless evil enemy, but a friendly peaceful (yet well defended) group, the stop being the "enemy". If your 60% number is correct, it would quickly become 50%, where half the military wouldn't want to act against the civilians, or would act on their behalf.
I was really worried that a government versus people revolution was going to happen under Bush. I know I wasn't alone in that concern either. We're not as close to that any more. I don't believe Obama would ever have similar intentions. The largest threat that I see out there is by misguided civilian groups.
Well, it's a very aerodynamic car. :)
The difference comes from the engine RPM's. Most cars are most efficient between 1700 to 2200 RPM. At 55mph, I'm below that range. My best cruise speed would be somewhere between 95mph to 105mph, but I'm not quite sure where the curve would drop over from the aerodynamic drag.
I think it'd be tough to explain to a cop "oh, I was testing for my maximum fuel efficiency, and you just messed up my test." or better yet "I'm doing the speed which is most economical for this vehicle."
Of course, I'd like to continue testing higher, to see where it actually drops off. :) I'd pretty sure it's around 100, but it does cruise very happily at over 130mph. I've only ever done it for a few miles, but those miles go by a lot quicker than at 55mph. :) Those runs have never been long enough to accurately calculate fuel economy.
Their numbers are under controlled circumstances. They vary by driver, conditions, and modifications.
My car, a 2000 Pontiac Firebird TransAm WS/6 with a 6 speed manual, is rated for 16/25.
In my own long term testing, I get 25mpg at 55mph, which increases to 26mpg at 65mph, 27mpg at 75mph, and 28mpg at 90mph. I've never felt comfortable doing long term tests over 90mph. :) All of the highway speeds are the normal cruising speed during the test. It does not include the acceleration and deceleration periods, which are very similar (and insignificant) compared to the length of a test. A test was at least 3/4 tank of gas (12 gallons).
55mph = 300 miles
65mph = 312 miles
75mph = 324 miles
90mph = 336 miles
A few times, tests used the full tank (16 gallons) due to limited access to gas stations. At 55mph, I'd get 400 miles. At 90mph, I'd get 448 miles. That 48 miles is a huge difference, if I suddenly had to walk to the next gas station 30 miles away.
If the EPA number was accurate, I would have never driven a 425 mile leg of a trip, which I've done quite a few times.
Tests which involved mixed traffic or uneven terrain (i.e., mountains) are excluded from my results.
In city driving, I get about 20mpg, which I have seen fluctuate between 18mpg to 22mpg. When I do a lot of city driving, I use 20mpg to estimate my range.
In racing, my numbers are much lower, as can be expected. :)
Well, the 2nd amendment right to bear arms is for the citizenship as a whole, and protects the individuals rights. You have to consider the context for which it was written. The people of the colonies stood up against the English rule. Our founding fathers recognized the fact that the day may come when the government of the United States may become so corrupt that even through the structure they laid out, the people wouldn't be able to correct the problems. (i.e., severe corruption throughout all three branches of the government) At that time, when the people themselves had recognized that something needed to be done, they were still empowered to make a change against their own government.
The 2nd amendment wasn't a mistake that opened the ability for a civil rebellion, it is there by design.
I am not advocating taking arms against the government. I've worked through all the possible scenarios, and none of them are without severe losses to both sides.
But, in a SHTF scenario, no the lone soldier would never make it. Well organized groups would be the survivors. Those organizations will likely not even form until the scenario begins, but with the people armed for their own defense and proper leadership, they will be the survivors.
I know in apocalypse movies and tv shows, there's always some lunatic fringe group with a chaotic leader. Most normal people wouldn't follow someone like that, but it would be up to strong good leaders of equally or better armed groups, to protect against such things. In that, I'm not saying the police or military, although they'd likely align with friendly peacekeeping civilians. In all out chaos, you have to look for help anywhere you can find it. Even in a situation where the government turns on the people, internal conflict will splinter their ranks. This has been brought up before.
If that situation occurred, it would divide not only the enlisted men, but their officers as well. How many US citizens on US soil, following the laws as established by the US Constitution (et al), would be killed before a substantial number of troops refused their orders. Unfortunately, I wouldn't expect it would be significant numbers in the first days or even weeks, and that would be an actual civil war.
I haven't watched Jericho. Well, I have seen parts of a couple episodes, and got bored very quickly. Maybe I just watched the wrong episodes.
Not to go all religious on you or anything, but God didn't write the book. As the story goes, it is a collection of writings, which were handed down over generations, transcribed countless times, until they were collected into written books. Those books were then modified quite a few more times, translated, and rewritten. Select books were then compiled into the "bible".
So, if you wanted to cite a line by "God" from a Christian bible, it would be something along the lines of
"And then I destroyed all I had created." God, [this version] Bible
It has become customary to include the book, chapter, and verse, such as Revelation 21:8. Speaking of which, that specific verse kinda damns anyone who has a cross, or other religious statues or paintings. God takes that whole idolatry thing pretty seriously. Well, if you believe in such mythology. That makes me safe on two counts. :)
Well, the quote could be good if attributed to George Orwell's 1984. If it's attributed to a person and rank (i.e., John Nobody, POTUS) rather than character and publication (John Nobody, POTUS, in Joe Author's book Last Dynasty of America), then that's a misrepresentation of the person and their authority.
Someone else posted this excellent example.
Then it really doesn't matter, does it. If he does it properly, he'd now hold a gun and knife, and I'd be dead. Failure to kill your opponent in such a situation leaves an adversary who can and will come back to kill you. Well, or an adversary who runs away scared, but I don't fall into the later category.
If such a situation were to arise, and I don't have a lot of faith other than the humor value that 2012 will be the end of the world, I wouldn't be alone, and our camp would have a well guarded defensive perimeter. It's only in movies that you will see a lone man carrying a knife breach a camp and kill all of the opposing forces as they sleep. A good perimeter would have not only guards with overlapping fields of view of the hostile area, but clear visibility of each other. If one man were to go down, no less than two other guard posts would be able to neutralize the threat, and ensure that position was repopulated with reinforcements.
Effective range for a .45 ACP = 150 to 300 feet
Effective range for a 30-06 >= 2400 feet
These numbers vary by the shooter. I've seen people who can't hit a silhouette target at 10 feet. They also shouldn't be put into a guard post, unless they are bait (and expected not to survive their shift).
Ideal guard posts would have 50 feet or less separation, with visibility of one to two guard posts in each direction. Each would have no less than two guards, so downed positions could be repopulated quickly (approximately 7 seconds for a soldier to run to the unoccupied post, after instructed to do so).
Tactics don't just involve bringing a gun to a knife fight. They ensure when a man is lost, integrity of the operation is not compromised.
And as you found out, he wasn't a video game character. He was simply a figment of my imagination. :)
If it is quoted frequently, and others have said exactly what I said, maybe there is some truth behind it. I've never replied to anyone using that quote before.
Fictional characters don't say anything worthy of quoting. The author of the work being performed is worthy of being quoted for having a character saying it though. Using the rank and/or honorable position of the fictional character to show authority and knowledge in their field is inappropriate as the character nor the author. You may as well quote Doctor Nick as practical medical advice.
But ... he is ... Captain ... James T ... Kirk ... :)
But the article you linked argues for both sides. Should I take an argument of the state of the world from a random computer geek, or from a well educated and respected world leader? While both may say the same thing, the expert in his field would tend to know more in that field. I also prefer legal advice from a lawyer, and not a Slashdot poster who prefaces his statement with IANAL.