Unfortunately the marketing for diesel cars, at least in Europe, failed to sell the point of the diesel car, hence a bunch of eejits deciding that illegally removing the particle filter would be a good idea: Diesel cars are great for long journeys! If you use them to go to the shop, never exceeding 60km/h and with the engine barely reaching the optimum temperature, it'll clog the particle filter on the long run. But no, people still were following the other sheep because "diesel is better" (which is debatable, depending on your usage pattern of a car).
Ok genius, I bought a (VW) diesel some years ago, before dpfs. Here is my usage pattern for the past lifetime of my current car but obviously past returns are no guarantee of future performance etc.
1. initially 1 or 2 200 mile round trips per week, working away, staying away. 20k miles per year approx 2. then changed job. 10 mile urban commute, 5 days a week 3. changed job again. mix of long journeys to work on customer site, sometimes over 1000 miles per week, and sometimes whole months office-based with 10 mile urban commute 4. swap cars with wife for a year, car now doing 5 mile rural commute 5. swap cars again, car is now doing 70-140 miles a day, over 400 miles a week
As I understand it, 1, 5 and sometimes 3 I would want a diesel, while 2 and sometimes 3 and possibly 4 will kill the dpf on a modern diesel.
So, I am _not_ following the sheep, I _am_ considering my usage pattern, what do I buy when this car dies? I just want a new medium sized 5 door that gives as good fuel economy and reliability, i.e. stupid filter isn't going to die) on the usage pattern above as the one I bought over 10yrs ago. I don't think that is too much to ask given 10yrs of technical improvements in fuel economy. Current car gets high 50s mpg real world (tank to tank), getting 60+ at the moment (will go down as it gets colder in winter).
Petrol or diesel, I'm all ears - because I'm ****ed if I can work it out, other than stick with what I've got because all new cars are actually worse than we used to build a decade or so ago. But they do better on the tests of course...
Nope. IME, most _employers_ will take pdf, most _recruitment agencies_ want.doc/.docx. This is, in fact, so they can edit it. Some of them will even kind of admit it "we need to ensure it goes out with our logo" etc., but in reality there are two reasons:
1) removing your contact details so the agency doesn't get cut out of the loop 2) editing your skills and experience to be buzzword-compliant for the opportunity
Sometimes for extra fun they do (2) without understanding what the technical words mean, leading to a massive waste of everyone's time.
Retaliation for the whole emissions standard thing.
Not that either is ok: neither should VW have cheated, nor the U.S. automakers ever have been so lax w/r to crash safety.
more likely the VW emissions thing was a pre-emptive strike designed to bury this news - and it mostly worked. There are rumours that various govts knew about the emissions test issues for years...
It sounds like they've been shielding it against external fields including the Earth's magnetic field but how do you shield it from gravity. I hope they can do an experiment in space ASAP.
Because in space you are shielded against gravity ???
Recently built a new gaming desktop for my son, I wasn't expecting vast improvement in boot times from previous machines (with ssd) but with 8.1 cold boot is around 3secs (yes three) and from hibernate is faster. To get into the bios usually takes two goes because you have to work fast and blind, normally by the time the monitor has synced up you are at login screen. Essentially full boot is as fast as restart from sleep on my laptops.
Quick - define "hate speech" in a completely objective way.
Hate speech is speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as gender, ethnic origin, religion, race, disability, or sexual orientation.
And is that a _perceived_ attack or an _intended_ attack, and how do you tell ? Physical attacks are identified by their effects or the effects they would have had if successful (e.g. shooting at someone and missing). Speech attacks are defined... how ?
Is accurate factual speech an "attack" or does it have to be lies ? Is reading from religious holy books an attack, or would it rather be hate speech on religious grounds to criticise someone preaching from their holy book ? Could you be arrested for quoting from the bible or the koran, or would those who accuse you be arrested for attacking you, with an accusation of hate speech, verbally on the basis of your religion ? Or both ? Or neither ?
Turns out the most usual definition is that someone feels attacks, or offended. As a believer in free speech I find it terribly offensive when others suggest that speech should be curtailed merely to ensure that others do not take offence, even if none was intended. I do not try to ban such speech, but I do point out that it is offensive to me, usually only to be told not to be so silly, that no offence was intended and I shouldn't be so easily offended.
Hundreds of people who do this for a living (they're called records managers), and have done for many years, have worked long and hard to come up with a standard format for exactly this. Doesn't do everything, but what does, but it does ensure that it will still do it in 50yrs if not longer.
Caveat 1: OP doesn't mention editing, if he needs it editable then don't convert, or store original and PDF rendition for preservation
Caveat 2: There is a trade off between doc size (OP mention compression) and digital preservation - PDF/A mandates embedding of fonts, which ensures readability in 50yrs at the expense of larger documents. If the OP doesn't need things to be readable beyond 10yrs (say) then PDF/A may be overkill. On the other hand, storage is cheap and getting cheaper, it is managing it that is expensive.
The Alcubierre warp drive is mathematically possible but practically somewhat difficult due to requiring planetary sized amounts of energy and/or stuff like negative mass.
The EmDrive is a bunch of microwaves in a tin can that for some reason we don't understand produces thrust without propellant.
The connection is that laser interferometer measurements of the EmDrive in operation apparently show space time distortion consistent with an Alcubierre warp drive. If confirmed, that would indeed be a WTF moment. We can all stop looking for negative mass or dilithium crystals because all you need for a warp field is a microwave in a specially shaped tin can. It would also neatly explain why no one has ever built and marketed a conical microwave oven, because you'd have to nail it down.
If this was only spotted recently in "lab testing" (and why was it being tested now, and not before flight... what prompted the testing...) then it was known / not documented that overflow of this counter would cause shutdown. Some future revision could easily be to increase the precision, at the expense of range, or persist the counter across reboots, and that might not be considered a problem because the system was thought to handle the counter overflowing because no one documented that it didn't.
That is why I think the AD is there - to ensure this issue is known when this software is messed with in future.
Yet when they happen on Windoze it's because the OS is insecure...
Real story is that Linux is the target for the payload, possibly in addition to Windows or instead of. Linux has parity, at least, with Windows in the commodity web server space and as a result: a) it is a target just like Windows b) there are now clueless Linux admins just like Windows admins c) Linux turns out to be vulnerable in the same way.as Windows (see above) d)...and people will blame the OS
Bingo - they are no more job offers than the 30 emails I get every week from allegedly beautiful young Russian women who have "seen me online" and would really like to meet me and want me to look at their pictures (in the attached.zip file or the included.ru link).
If efficiency is emissions per passenger mile, then it is the right thing to compare - it tells you the relative emissions for moving the same number of people between the same points by different means of transport.
If you want to just compare emissions, then you'll find that can make a much bigger difference by not going at all than by changing how you go - and indeed plenty of greens will argue that we should just travel less. This tends to miss the point that most people travel for a reason rather than just for the hell of it.
On average, buses are far worse than cars for energy efficiency because of the low average load factor.
On what data is this assertion based? I spent a few minutes seeing if such data exist. I could not find data to support your claim that buses are far worse.
Actually they are about the same - given an average car and average loading - but if your car is more eco than average or you carry more people it _will_ be a lot greener than bus.
You can get complete data for calculating carbon footprint from here: http://www.ukconversionfactors... - choose all scopes and "business travel land" and "passenger vehicles" to get bus and car relative data. There are links to the methodology papers on that site as well - explains what data backs the figures e.g. https://www.gov.uk/government/...
Average local bus (not london) by these figures is 0.11 and average car is 0.18 - but the bus is per passenger per km, and the car is per vehicle. Take an average car occupancy of 1.6 - see e.g. https://www.gov.uk/government/... - and the car is near enough the same as the bus per passenger km.
Now, if you have a more eco car than average or carry more than 1.6 persons on average then your figure may vary. I have a 7 seater which is 170 g/km, to which (according to the methodology links) I should add 15% for the mfrs cheating the tests (actually it gets closer to spec than that) so say a round 200. That car is mostly used to carry at least 5 people, and almost always more than 1, so take a conservative load average of 3 and you have 66g/km or 0.066 vs 0.11 for a bus. That's a lot less. Many new small cars will be less than a bus even with single occupancy.
Thought the fuss about "glassholes" was bad - we ain't seen nothing yet. Combine stuff like this with ability to record - possibly for assistance with memory problems - and replay through the eyes, or send elsewhere.
Might be interesting to see what the US cops do, probably forcibly confiscate and destroy people's eyes for looking at them funny...
I would add the low-end Lumias to that as well - seem to be rock solid and good for the price. We bought a 520 for one kid on the basis that it was about the cheapest available smartphone (and he had to have a smartphone...), on the strength of good experience with that have since bought a 630 too. Having mapping and navigation apps that work without data connection is a big plus.
I still say that classic Blackberrys are as good as you get for stability, starting to worry that mine is showing its age because I've had to reboot twice in 6months... but I have no idea what to replace it with - all I need is good email/contacts/calendar management, maps and maybe navigation, news/weather, bit of social networking, bit of web browsing, and I hate touchscreen keyboards (so that's another blackberry then?)
Calc still has hard row/column limits similar to ten year old excel.
Writer still has no outline view (or draft view) similar to Word 2000 or earlier - bug report / feature requests outstanding since 2002 I think, and at least second most highly voted feature across all that time.
Those decade lags _do_ imply real problems - in each case the underlying architecture cannot cope with the wanted features.
What makes people _think_ fewer FLOSS projects fail is that people only look at the successful ones because they are the most visible. Commercial failures are very visible because of the amount of money lost, people do post mortems, studies to "make sure we don't make the same costly mistakes again". With FLOSS no one cares about the failures, they just move on to something else.
IT is not alone in this problem, take construction / civil engineering, we judge by the failures: "this bridge has cracks, there are bits falling off this skyscraper, these houses are subsiding". We want impossible success rates: "why with all our building standards and fancy technology do we still get these problems". Then we look at, say, medieval cathedrals and say "see, those medieval stone masons had none of our fancy technology, they didn't have computers to calculate stress and strain, and yet they built all these beautiful cathedrals that have stood for centuries".
Why can't we be as successful as medieval stone masons / FLOSS projects ? Answer: you can. Just be sure to clear up the piles of fallen stone and above all do not document or dwell on your failures, move on and they will be forgotten.
You're missing the point - you can get a prosthetic limb on the NHS but it won't be delivered by f***ing Iron Man will it? And when it breaks, will Iron Man fly in through you roof to fix it, and then depart through your wall, leaving holes you'll treasure forever ? - no, thought not. This isn't boring old extract money from your taxes to pay for health care stuff, this is _Hollywood_, it's the all American exciting and fun way to extract money from your wallet for the same shit you watched last year in order to pay for one kid to get a new arm.
Only one kid gets an arm, of course, because provided you make sure he looks good on camera, you can just reuse the shots again and again. Sucks if you aren't the one, but hey that's Hollywood, ya shouldn't have been ugly or a loser...
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunately the marketing for diesel cars, at least in Europe, failed to sell the point of the diesel car, hence a bunch of eejits deciding that illegally removing the particle filter would be a good idea: Diesel cars are great for long journeys! If you use them to go to the shop, never exceeding 60km/h and with the engine barely reaching the optimum temperature, it'll clog the particle filter on the long run. But no, people still were following the other sheep because "diesel is better" (which is debatable, depending on your usage pattern of a car).
Ok genius, I bought a (VW) diesel some years ago, before dpfs. Here is my usage pattern for the past lifetime of my current car but obviously past returns are no guarantee of future performance etc.
1. initially 1 or 2 200 mile round trips per week, working away, staying away. 20k miles per year approx
2. then changed job. 10 mile urban commute, 5 days a week
3. changed job again. mix of long journeys to work on customer site, sometimes over 1000 miles per week, and sometimes whole months office-based with 10 mile urban commute
4. swap cars with wife for a year, car now doing 5 mile rural commute
5. swap cars again, car is now doing 70-140 miles a day, over 400 miles a week
As I understand it, 1, 5 and sometimes 3 I would want a diesel, while 2 and sometimes 3 and possibly 4 will kill the dpf on a modern diesel.
So, I am _not_ following the sheep, I _am_ considering my usage pattern, what do I buy when this car dies? I just want a new medium sized 5 door that gives as good fuel economy and reliability, i.e. stupid filter isn't going to die) on the usage pattern above as the one I bought over 10yrs ago. I don't think that is too much to ask given 10yrs of technical improvements in fuel economy. Current car gets high 50s mpg real world (tank to tank), getting 60+ at the moment (will go down as it gets colder in winter).
Petrol or diesel, I'm all ears - because I'm ****ed if I can work it out, other than stick with what I've got because all new cars are actually worse than we used to build a decade or so ago. But they do better on the tests of course...
Nope. IME, most _employers_ will take pdf, most _recruitment agencies_ want .doc/.docx.
This is, in fact, so they can edit it. Some of them will even kind of admit it "we need to ensure it goes out with our logo" etc., but in reality there are two reasons:
1) removing your contact details so the agency doesn't get cut out of the loop
2) editing your skills and experience to be buzzword-compliant for the opportunity
Sometimes for extra fun they do (2) without understanding what the technical words mean, leading to a massive waste of everyone's time.
Retaliation for the whole emissions standard thing.
Not that either is ok: neither should VW have cheated, nor the U.S. automakers ever have been so lax w/r to crash safety.
more likely the VW emissions thing was a pre-emptive strike designed to bury this news - and it mostly worked. There are rumours that various govts knew about the emissions test issues for years...
Either way politics and TTIP are behind it all
> That's why you will really need mandatory filtering in the UK, soon.
> Won't anyone think of the children?
There already is mandatory filtering precisely because people were thinking of the children...
It sounds like they've been shielding it against external fields including the Earth's magnetic field but how do you shield it from gravity. I hope they can do an experiment in space ASAP.
Because in space you are shielded against gravity ???
Along with the obvious solution - add more struts, lots more, can't have too many struts...
(to be fair, most if not all, ksp players have crashed and burned way more often than SpaceX)
Recently built a new gaming desktop for my son, I wasn't expecting vast improvement in boot times from previous machines (with ssd) but with 8.1 cold boot is around 3secs (yes three) and from hibernate is faster. To get into the bios usually takes two goes because you have to work fast and blind, normally by the time the monitor has synced up you are at login screen. Essentially full boot is as fast as restart from sleep on my laptops.
Quick - define "hate speech" in a completely objective way.
Hate speech is speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as gender, ethnic origin, religion, race, disability, or sexual orientation.
And is that a _perceived_ attack or an _intended_ attack, and how do you tell ? Physical attacks are identified by their effects or the effects they would have had if successful (e.g. shooting at someone and missing). Speech attacks are defined... how ?
Is accurate factual speech an "attack" or does it have to be lies ? Is reading from religious holy books an attack, or would it rather be hate speech on religious grounds to criticise someone preaching from their holy book ? Could you be arrested for quoting from the bible or the koran, or would those who accuse you be arrested for attacking you, with an accusation of hate speech, verbally on the basis of your religion ? Or both ? Or neither ?
Turns out the most usual definition is that someone feels attacks, or offended. As a believer in free speech I find it terribly offensive when others suggest that speech should be curtailed merely to ensure that others do not take offence, even if none was intended. I do not try to ban such speech, but I do point out that it is offensive to me, usually only to be told not to be so silly, that no offence was intended and I shouldn't be so easily offended.
More worrying is what the hell kind of rodent they have created where you need a 95m needle to inject into the brain...
Really ? You should tell AIIM, LIbrary of Congress, etc. - they've all been doing it wrong for years with PDF/A.
+2
Hundreds of people who do this for a living (they're called records managers), and have done for many years, have worked long and hard to come up with a standard format for exactly this. Doesn't do everything, but what does, but it does ensure that it will still do it in 50yrs if not longer.
Caveat 1: OP doesn't mention editing, if he needs it editable then don't convert, or store original and PDF rendition for preservation
Caveat 2: There is a trade off between doc size (OP mention compression) and digital preservation - PDF/A mandates embedding of fonts, which ensures readability in 50yrs at the expense of larger documents. If the OP doesn't need things to be readable beyond 10yrs (say) then PDF/A may be overkill. On the other hand, storage is cheap and getting cheaper, it is managing it that is expensive.
PDF/A is the ISO standard format for document archiving, as well as printing.
Apart from the interferometer readings...
Correct but also wrong.
The Alcubierre warp drive is mathematically possible but practically somewhat difficult due to requiring planetary sized amounts of energy and/or stuff like negative mass.
The EmDrive is a bunch of microwaves in a tin can that for some reason we don't understand produces thrust without propellant.
The connection is that laser interferometer measurements of the EmDrive in operation apparently show space time distortion consistent with an Alcubierre warp drive. If confirmed, that would indeed be a WTF moment. We can all stop looking for negative mass or dilithium crystals because all you need for a warp field is a microwave in a specially shaped tin can. It would also neatly explain why no one has ever built and marketed a conical microwave oven, because you'd have to nail it down.
Bingo.
If this was only spotted recently in "lab testing" (and why was it being tested now, and not before flight... what prompted the testing...) then it was known / not documented that overflow of this counter would cause shutdown. Some future revision could easily be to increase the precision, at the expense of range, or persist the counter across reboots, and that might not be considered a problem because the system was thought to handle the counter overflowing because no one documented that it didn't.
That is why I think the AD is there - to ensure this issue is known when this software is messed with in future.
Yet when they happen on Windoze it's because the OS is insecure...
Real story is that Linux is the target for the payload, possibly in addition to Windows or instead of. ...and people will blame the OS
Linux has parity, at least, with Windows in the commodity web server space and as a result:
a) it is a target just like Windows
b) there are now clueless Linux admins just like Windows admins
c) Linux turns out to be vulnerable in the same way.as Windows (see above)
d)
Welcome to mainstream...
Bingo - they are no more job offers than the 30 emails I get every week from allegedly beautiful young Russian women who have "seen me online" and would really like to meet me and want me to look at their pictures (in the attached .zip file or the included .ru link).
If efficiency is emissions per passenger mile, then it is the right thing to compare - it tells you the relative emissions for moving the same number of people between the same points by different means of transport.
If you want to just compare emissions, then you'll find that can make a much bigger difference by not going at all than by changing how you go - and indeed plenty of greens will argue that we should just travel less. This tends to miss the point that most people travel for a reason rather than just for the hell of it.
On average, buses are far worse than cars for energy efficiency because of the low average load factor.
On what data is this assertion based? I spent a few minutes seeing if such data exist. I could not find data to support your claim that buses are far worse.
Actually they are about the same - given an average car and average loading - but if your car is more eco than average or you carry more people it _will_ be a lot greener than bus.
You can get complete data for calculating carbon footprint from here: http://www.ukconversionfactors... - choose all scopes and "business travel land" and "passenger vehicles" to get bus and car relative data. There are links to the methodology papers on that site as well - explains what data backs the figures e.g. https://www.gov.uk/government/...
Average local bus (not london) by these figures is 0.11 and average car is 0.18 - but the bus is per passenger per km, and the car is per vehicle. Take an average car occupancy of 1.6 - see e.g. https://www.gov.uk/government/... - and the car is near enough the same as the bus per passenger km.
Now, if you have a more eco car than average or carry more than 1.6 persons on average then your figure may vary. I have a 7 seater which is 170 g/km, to which (according to the methodology links) I should add 15% for the mfrs cheating the tests (actually it gets closer to spec than that) so say a round 200. That car is mostly used to carry at least 5 people, and almost always more than 1, so take a conservative load average of 3 and you have 66g/km or 0.066 vs 0.11 for a bus. That's a lot less. Many new small cars will be less than a bus even with single occupancy.
Thought the fuss about "glassholes" was bad - we ain't seen nothing yet. Combine stuff like this with ability to record - possibly for assistance with memory problems - and replay through the eyes, or send elsewhere.
Might be interesting to see what the US cops do, probably forcibly confiscate and destroy people's eyes for looking at them funny...
I would add the low-end Lumias to that as well - seem to be rock solid and good for the price. We bought a 520 for one kid on the basis that it was about the cheapest available smartphone (and he had to have a smartphone...), on the strength of good experience with that have since bought a 630 too. Having mapping and navigation apps that work without data connection is a big plus.
I still say that classic Blackberrys are as good as you get for stability, starting to worry that mine is showing its age because I've had to reboot twice in 6months... but I have no idea what to replace it with - all I need is good email/contacts/calendar management, maps and maybe navigation, news/weather, bit of social networking, bit of web browsing, and I hate touchscreen keyboards (so that's another blackberry then?)
Calc still has hard row/column limits similar to ten year old excel.
Writer still has no outline view (or draft view) similar to Word 2000 or earlier - bug report / feature requests outstanding since 2002 I think, and at least second most highly voted feature across all that time.
Those decade lags _do_ imply real problems - in each case the underlying architecture cannot cope with the wanted features.
What makes people _think_ fewer FLOSS projects fail is that people only look at the successful ones because they are the most visible. Commercial failures are very visible because of the amount of money lost, people do post mortems, studies to "make sure we don't make the same costly mistakes again". With FLOSS no one cares about the failures, they just move on to something else.
IT is not alone in this problem, take construction / civil engineering, we judge by the failures: "this bridge has cracks, there are bits falling off this skyscraper, these houses are subsiding". We want impossible success rates: "why with all our building standards and fancy technology do we still get these problems". Then we look at, say, medieval cathedrals and say "see, those medieval stone masons had none of our fancy technology, they didn't have computers to calculate stress and strain, and yet they built all these beautiful cathedrals that have stood for centuries".
Why can't we be as successful as medieval stone masons / FLOSS projects ? Answer: you can. Just be sure to clear up the piles of fallen stone and above all do not document or dwell on your failures, move on and they will be forgotten.
You're missing the point - you can get a prosthetic limb on the NHS but it won't be delivered by f***ing Iron Man will it? And when it breaks, will Iron Man fly in through you roof to fix it, and then depart through your wall, leaving holes you'll treasure forever ? - no, thought not. This isn't boring old extract money from your taxes to pay for health care stuff, this is _Hollywood_, it's the all American exciting and fun way to extract money from your wallet for the same shit you watched last year in order to pay for one kid to get a new arm.
Only one kid gets an arm, of course, because provided you make sure he looks good on camera, you can just reuse the shots again and again. Sucks if you aren't the one, but hey that's Hollywood, ya shouldn't have been ugly or a loser...
Top Bloke?
See aforementioned "unhealthy sexual practices"...