I have a low-end 600-class sportsbike (Suzuki SV650S). I'm not sure the EPA even rates such things, but with a tank size of less than four gallons and no indication of gas level beyond the trip-meter, you get very familiar with your fuel economy.
What I've found most interesting is the huge variance in mileage with riding style. I average about 40 mpg, but if I stay with low revs and keep accelaration more along the lines of what cars do, I can get 50-60 mpg. If I really push the bike with high revs and big acceleration, I've actually seen it go as low as 20-30 mpg. (Each style averaged over around 100-150 miles of driving.)
A month ago I mailed sonicblue support asking whether the Karma would work with Linux, FreeBSD, or MacOS X, what the technical details of the interfaces (USB, ethernet) were, and what kinds of DRM were supported. Their response:
Dear Customer
Following is the response to your query
Karma is not compliant with Linux or FreeBSD, but yes we are DRM compliant-
The Technical specifications for karma are as follows-
Signal Strength (mV): 1.0 V
Power per Channel (mW): 30 mW
Frequency Resp: 20 - 20000 Hz, +/- 0.5 dB
SNR+N, A-Weight (dB): >95 dB
Channel Sep @ 1 kHz (dB): > 95 dB
Dyn Rng A-Weight (dB): > 95 dB
THD+N (%): < 0.01%
We hope these recommendations solve your problem, but if for any reason you need further assistance, please get back in touch and we'll do our best to help you further.
Sincerely,
DNNA,
http://www.digitalnetworksna.com
So I sent a followup again requesting technical details. If their software didn't run on Linux or FreeBSD, then did the player at least offer USB mass storage support? Ethernet for ftp or http? The response:
Dear Customer
Following is the response to your query
We apologize for the late response and would like to assure you that this is not typical of our services. As for your queries, following are your answers.
Rio Karma supports WMA DRM for Windows Media Audio format.
Rio Karma is not designed to be accessed via a USB mass storage interface. It can only be interfaced through Rio Music Manager, Rio Music Manager Lite, Rio Taxi, and Windows Media Player. **In case of Windows XP the device may be accessed through Power toy plugins for Win XP.
Ethernet is interfaced as USB is for this player. Rio Karma does not offer http or ftp interface.
Supported OS: Windows 98 Second Edition or above / Mac OS X and above.
We hope these recommendations solve your problem, but if for any reason you need further assistance, please get back in touch and we'll do our best to help you further.
Sincerely,
DNNA,
http://www.digitalnetworksna.com
So what customer support can offer seems to contradict what the review says. At the very least, I think we have some answer to the question of how their customer support compares to Apple's...
"If parents don't vaccinate their children, the state takes them out of school. If a dog consistently attacks people, the authorities put it down. If someone commits three felonies, they are put away for life."
These are all good examples, and it's worth pointing out that in *none* of these cases does the "victim" get any special rights. One student can't kick another out of school even if the other hasn't been vaccinated. Someone who has been bitten by a dog does not have the right to shoot the dog. If a repeat offender steals your car stereo, you have no right to lock him in your basement for the rest of his life. The government-- both executive and judicial branches, each with many oversight systems in place-- is the *only* entity with a right to do any of these things.
Douglas Adams, self-described "radical atheist", wrote among the most lucid rants on this topic I've ever read, and it's reprinted in the new "Salmon of Doubt" compilation.
Adams writes that the moment he stopped believing in religion was the moment he realized that for some completely unfathomable reason, all the laws of debate, argument, and scientific enquiry somehow shouldn't apply to religion at all. All the structure of intellectual reason which has been developed since the Greeks sat down and starting mulling it over--in fact, most of the true intellectualism which separates us from lower animals--is meant to be applied in every arena of intellectual discourse other than religion. This realization makes it patently obvious that the burden of proof must fall squarely on the shoulders of those arguing *for* religion. If they are going to set all the rules for debate, all the rules for admissable evidence, and even the rules for deciding upon a verdict, then surely it is their job to actually speak instead of just trying to counterpunch with circular arguments.
Adams' main point here is that NOT ALL BELIEFS ARE EQUAL. His example is that I could claim the moon is made of rock. You could claim it's made of cheese. Neither of us has been there; neither of us has any direct experience supporting either argument. Yet my argument is based on huge bodies of data. It is predicated on comprehensive theories of astronomy which don't simply describe the way things are, but actually predict the way things will be. My argument can stand up to an abundance of counter-argument, which may force me to refine the theory (maybe it's not *all* rock, or something). The cheese theory can stand up to very few counter arguments. To defend it on the grounds that you believe it and that I only pose counter-arguments because I haven't successfully devoted myself to faith in cheese would be considered rather silly by anyone. Why does religion obligate us to argue in the same way?
One final point Adams makes is that long ago religion had a true value: it helped explain stuff. Most of the world was incomprehensible and people needed a framework for understanding. They invented rain gods and harvest gods and all the rest, and over time learned when the rain gods liked to come and what kind of planting and tending pleased the harvest gods. As people became more and more scientific about "pleasing the gods", the gods were discarded one by one. At this point in history we already have a robust and general framework for analysis which is flexible enough to be applied to anything. Most slashdot readers, at least, have come to accept that physics is the best tool for analysis of the stars, medicine for the analysis of health, and so on. Whether religious leaders like it or not, scientific methods are statistically much much more successful than religion even in the fields of psychology and morality--even churches now draw on the science more than sacred doctrine in terms of programs to improve quality of life and happiness (social and community programs) as well as criminal reform and moral lifestyles (based primary on modern psychology). Religion has become a solution in search of a problem, with people continuously trying to find cracks in science so that they can triumphantly exclaim, "Aha! Only Religion can help us here!", apparently in the hope that they will discourage science from invading that domain and providing more concrete answers.
Religion was invented by humans to justify to world, and now humans try to use to world to justify religion.
Slashdot Mirror
I have a low-end 600-class sportsbike (Suzuki SV650S). I'm not sure the EPA even rates such things, but with a tank size of less than four gallons and no indication of gas level beyond the trip-meter, you get very familiar with your fuel economy.
What I've found most interesting is the huge variance in mileage with riding style. I average about 40 mpg, but if I stay with low revs and keep accelaration more along the lines of what cars do, I can get 50-60 mpg. If I really push the bike with high revs and big acceleration, I've actually seen it go as low as 20-30 mpg. (Each style averaged over around 100-150 miles of driving.)
Mullen tries to draw a few parallels:
"If parents don't vaccinate their children, the state takes them out of school. If a dog consistently attacks people, the authorities put it down. If someone commits three felonies, they are put away for life."
These are all good examples, and it's worth pointing out that in *none* of these cases does the "victim" get any special rights. One student can't kick another out of school even if the other hasn't been vaccinated. Someone who has been bitten by a dog does not have the right to shoot the dog. If a repeat offender steals your car stereo, you have no right to lock him in your basement for the rest of his life. The government-- both executive and judicial branches, each with many oversight systems in place-- is the *only* entity with a right to do any of these things.
Why should computer worms be any different?
Douglas Adams, self-described "radical atheist", wrote among the most lucid rants on this topic I've ever read, and it's reprinted in the new "Salmon of Doubt" compilation.
Adams writes that the moment he stopped believing in religion was the moment he realized that for some completely unfathomable reason, all the laws of debate, argument, and scientific enquiry somehow shouldn't apply to religion at all. All the structure of intellectual reason which has been developed since the Greeks sat down and starting mulling it over--in fact, most of the true intellectualism which separates us from lower animals--is meant to be applied in every arena of intellectual discourse other than religion. This realization makes it patently obvious that the burden of proof must fall squarely on the shoulders of those arguing *for* religion. If they are going to set all the rules for debate, all the rules for admissable evidence, and even the rules for deciding upon a verdict, then surely it is their job to actually speak instead of just trying to counterpunch with circular arguments.
Adams' main point here is that NOT ALL BELIEFS ARE EQUAL. His example is that I could claim the moon is made of rock. You could claim it's made of cheese. Neither of us has been there; neither of us has any direct experience supporting either argument. Yet my argument is based on huge bodies of data. It is predicated on comprehensive theories of astronomy which don't simply describe the way things are, but actually predict the way things will be. My argument can stand up to an abundance of counter-argument, which may force me to refine the theory (maybe it's not *all* rock, or something). The cheese theory can stand up to very few counter arguments. To defend it on the grounds that you believe it and that I only pose counter-arguments because I haven't successfully devoted myself to faith in cheese would be considered rather silly by anyone. Why does religion obligate us to argue in the same way?
One final point Adams makes is that long ago religion had a true value: it helped explain stuff. Most of the world was incomprehensible and people needed a framework for understanding. They invented rain gods and harvest gods and all the rest, and over time learned when the rain gods liked to come and what kind of planting and tending pleased the harvest gods. As people became more and more scientific about "pleasing the gods", the gods were discarded one by one. At this point in history we already have a robust and general framework for analysis which is flexible enough to be applied to anything. Most slashdot readers, at least, have come to accept that physics is the best tool for analysis of the stars, medicine for the analysis of health, and so on. Whether religious leaders like it or not, scientific methods are statistically much much more successful than religion even in the fields of psychology and morality--even churches now draw on the science more than sacred doctrine in terms of programs to improve quality of life and happiness (social and community programs) as well as criminal reform and moral lifestyles (based primary on modern psychology). Religion has become a solution in search of a problem, with people continuously trying to find cracks in science so that they can triumphantly exclaim, "Aha! Only Religion can help us here!", apparently in the hope that they will discourage science from invading that domain and providing more concrete answers.
Religion was invented by humans to justify to world, and now humans try to use to world to justify religion.