Seriously, who remembers a 12 Mhz processor first-hand?
I do. I remember 4.77MHz processors and less than that. I'm not even that old.
I could replace that Motherboard with a P4 mobo and not have to buy a single part to get equal or better performance, for just $59.
Today, one finds P-IV's in the dumpster. Fully functional, in a nice case. You just need to reinstall the OS, because that's usually what is "defective". My best find was an AMD64 3000+, for free in a dumpster, sure, someone had raided the RAM in it, but I did have some DDR RAM at home. Alas, I'm banned from dumpster diving now at the recycling centre:-(
Actually, I am impressed. You qualify as a Greybeard, but that's probably one of the reasons you don't get contacted. Someone finding your resume is going to assume that you're too expensive. Heck, I only have 10 years of experience and I'm regularly told that I'm too expensive even though I don't ask more than what I currently earn.
Well, I have my cv online too and I didn't even bother hiding my personal details. However, you'll notice that I do write French, so if you want a French translation, I'd be glad to help.
Re: coasting in neutral vs coasting in gear
on
The SUV Is Dethroned
·
· Score: 1
Okay, I understand your reasoning. However, your board computer is ill suited for the task and it's mainly because of the unit you use: miles per gallon. As you say yourself, at 99mpg it goes offscale. In my part of the world, we measure "consumption", not mileage. The unit is l/100km. From 99mpg on you cannot see the difference anymore. On my board computer that translates to 2.4 l/100km. When my car is idling, it does about 2,0l/100km. However, when I'm coasting in gear this drops to a whopping 0.0l/100km. Now just assume my car at that point is actually consuming 0.04l/100km (which rounds to 0.0l/100km), that's 5 880mpg....
The wear on the clutch comes from shifting gears, not from staying in gears. Oh, and coasting in neutral is in many countries illegal. It's dangerous. It might not be where you live, check the law.
Sure, it isn't significant compared to the accelerating/braking parts of driving, but I was talking about saving as much as possible.
You end up having to put your foot down further to accelerate at all, and then you have to keep it there longer to get up to speed.
No, that's bad practice. You end up, shifting back to a higher RPM and then accelerating. Just pushing down the gas pedal is indeed dumb in that situation, but you've got control over your gears, so use them.
The 'puter says I do better when I use a lighter foot and stay in a lower gear a bit longer, shifting in the high 2000's rather than the low 2000's (2.3l 4 cyl, 5sp manual)
Mine says the inverse, but I know why: I have a 1.8l Turbo 4 cyl, 6sp manual. See that Turbo? That's why in higher RPMs my car uses more gas. The turbo kicks in... You have an atmospheric engine, no turbo in high RPMs, less gas used. It does seem to depend on the car, indeed.... If your car computer says so, by all means, drive that way.
Ehm, just in case you didn't realise... I don't shift down from 3rd to 2nd at 3000RPM.. You do that at 2000RPM, which is pretty much the point you'd do it when you push down the clutch at 3000RPM and switch gears.
Brakes are by definition a converter of kinetic energy in heat energy. You want to avoid that as much as possible.
But unless you're racing, use the engine as a brake but not the clutch.
Unless I have not been clear: I didn't say that.... You do not go from 5000RPM in gear 5 to 7000RPM in gear 4. That's insane (unless racing). I'm talking about pretty much never ever exceeding 3000RPM.
I don't call you dumb. Just consider this: your gas pedal is in essence a "choke" (Sorry, not the right term, but English isn't my mother tongue). When you do not touch the gas pedal, it will not let any gas through. Touching the gas pedal lets gas through and as such lets you accelerate.
The exception is when you push the clutch. At that point the car "knows": "Hey, my engine needs to keep on running, better let in some gas". That is why, when you push down the clutch the car will use up gas.
If you keep in gear, while slowing down, (it's not really coasting: coasting is in neutral) your car will remain in the RPM it was (and diminish) but without using any significant gas. This is because the momentum of your car is transferred by the transmission to the engine. No gas (or very very little) gas is needed to keep the engine rolling.
If you don't believe me, try the inverse: put your car in 1st gear, and pull it with another car.... it will start (provided you put it in neutral when it does, otherwise it will stall again). The energy of the pulling, will "suck" just enough gas to start the engine. Not more not less.... In neutral, it will inject gas to keep it running and that's usually at 1200RPM.
I first thought like you, but then I started trying it out with my car-computer. Staying in gear ended up in 0.0l/100km and getting in neutral was beteen 0.8l/100km and 1.2/100km.
Okay, I said "Roadster" because I didn't want to say which car I have, mmkay?;-) Starting in second gear is possible, but I don't know if it's economical. I do try to keep it in second in stepwise traffic. Not always possible because it "accelerates" too fast.... in idle.
if you arrive at that thought, then the big bang is easily understood as a stop gap measure
Yes, true... However, until a better explanation comes, the big bang is the accepted theory.
and a poor, old testemant derived one at that
Old testament derived? *blink* It is not derived from the old testament, it is based upon observation and experimentation. No old book was involved, only physics. Yes, some day the big bang theory might be discredited. I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.
I'm now going to stop wasting my time with you because you don't even listen to reason. I keep telling: "yes, the big bang theory might one day be falsified", you're right at that. However, just speculating (what you did in the original post) doesn't bring us anywhere. That's just blah-blah, just as the rest of your comments.
Why would I do that? I have told you exactly what to do to do real science. Nowhere I have said that science is static. Actually by pointing out the scientific method, I have pretty much shown you that science is a *process*.
What I said is that the big bang theory is currently the accepted standard. Science is open to new theories and explanations, but you need to come with evidence and testable predictions. That's all.
Science is far from static.... In my original post I might have sounded a bit dogmatic, but that's because I assume that on a site like slashdot, people already know about the scientific method. My bad.
I got my license in April 1995. In my country they already explained that back then. Still, I often have the impression that many people have forgotten those lessons.
In the users manual of all cars I had (a Seat Ibiza, and two Audis) these tips were in the users manual. Usually, a little "flower" icon preceded those tips. The oldest car I ever had was an Audi 80, built in 1989 and, yes, it included those "tips".
Okay, let's formulate it this way: for now the evidence at hand supports the big bang theory very well. That's the correct scientific way of saying it.
You are free to come up with alternative theories, but to make it scientific, please include predictions that can be tested. No predictions? No possibilities to test? That means: it isn't science but pure speculation.
Yes, it is indeed driving like an old man. I drive a roadster and people apparently find it funny that I drive that way, but it did get my mileage down from a bit under 10l/100km (23.5mpg) to a bit under 9l/100km (26mpg). Still not stellar, but since the car is paid off, replacing it would result in extra expenses on itself.
Okay, well... The problem with my car is that if I floor it will want to go at once to 6000rpm. I usually, shift at 2500 to 3000rpm when accelerating. Smooth in my definition didn't mean "slow", it meant constant.
My car is a roadster, so it does behave a bit different than most gas cars.;-)
Re:...and the rest is technique
on
The SUV Is Dethroned
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Oh, and what would those tricks exactly be? I can tell you, because I drive that way...
No sudden acceleration, nice and smooth up to speed.
Try to keep a constant speed.
Anticipate stopping... Just slow down instead of braking like a madman.
To slow down, don't use your brakes. Use your engine to slow down. Just stop applying the gas pedal, and roll on while being in gear. Shift down as needed. Do not put in neutral: in neutral the engine needs to be kept alive, in motion, the motion does that for you.
Turn off your engine (once the engine is warm) when you're standing at a stoplight. It really doesn't take much more time to turn it back on and drive off than to just drive off.
Turn off your engine if you're in a traffic jam.
Keep to, or a bit under, speed limit.
Shift up early (yeah, I drive a "stick" like most Europeans)
Do not haul around extra unneeded weight.
Remove car racks if they are not used.
Turn off air conditioning when not needed
Did I miss any? Probably. I do all of the above, except for turning off the air conditioning. It's a fully automatic one and if I turn it off, there is no air circulation at all. There is an "Eco" setting, which is supposed to turn off the compressor. It's just impossible to set as default (as far as I've seen)
Besides, the above list has been repeated over and over by the government in the country I live, while I did my driving license and even in my car manual many of these "tips" are mentioned.
So, if I missed any crucial one, please tell me, I would gladly save another few litres of gas.
Well, considering that our big bang started our time and space and everything "outside" cannot be observed, it's pretty much irrelevant if there are other universes, or if this universe is the 5th incarnation of its kind. We just can't know.
The main problem with his post was that he mixed both a literal "centrism" with an abstract "centrism". This leads to confusion, and doesn't really bolster his argument.
I understand what he means, but it's wild speculation. For all we know, the big bang was God farting.
Yup, most people don't make that calculation. I don't have a SUV, but I have a roadster (25mpg) and gas prices aren't fun either. The thing is: it's paid off, it's 100% mine. To get a new fuel efficient car, I'd have to take a new loan and try to sell my 8 year old roadster (good luck with that!)
I'll probably drive it until it falls apart or until it costs more to fill the car than I earn in two hours work a day. (Single way: 20 minutes by car, 1h20min by public transportation. I tried.)
One man on the Internet (youtube) has discovered how to make seawater burn by applying high frequency radio waves to it. Now that is a solution.
Solution? I think not... "Could salt water fuel cars?. The most important part is on the second page, but I'll spoil it for you: energy input is greater than energy output. Thermodynamics is a bitch.
Europe here also, and ~51k EUR/year living in a 80sqm 2-bedroom apartment. Just to give you an idea. I'm not a pauper, but it's not always easy. However, that's not why I write.
so that I can save up some money and buy a really nice place when I finally meet a nice girl and settle down.
Pick your girlfriend well, because my 80sqm 2-bedroom apartment (which you claim to be sufficient for 2 people) became cramped once she moved in. Women take an ungodly amount of space. I threw out so much of my stuff (even all my Audio CD's!) and I now have pretty much 1 cupboard with books and a small space for my computer.
I just want to warn you, you may fare much better.
If I want kids, I'll pretty much have to buy or build a house. Of course, a small house here starts at 720kEUR, so with my salary I'm not going anywhere. (My wife does earn substantially more, but still...)
Slashdot Mirror
I do. I remember 4.77MHz processors and less than that. I'm not even that old.
Today, one finds P-IV's in the dumpster. Fully functional, in a nice case. You just need to reinstall the OS, because that's usually what is "defective". My best find was an AMD64 3000+, for free in a dumpster, sure, someone had raided the RAM in it, but I did have some DDR RAM at home. Alas, I'm banned from dumpster diving now at the recycling centre :-(
Actually, I am impressed. You qualify as a Greybeard, but that's probably one of the reasons you don't get contacted. Someone finding your resume is going to assume that you're too expensive. Heck, I only have 10 years of experience and I'm regularly told that I'm too expensive even though I don't ask more than what I currently earn.
Well, I have my cv online too and I didn't even bother hiding my personal details. However, you'll notice that I do write French, so if you want a French translation, I'd be glad to help.
The wear on the clutch comes from shifting gears, not from staying in gears. Oh, and coasting in neutral is in many countries illegal. It's dangerous. It might not be where you live, check the law.
Sure, it isn't significant compared to the accelerating/braking parts of driving, but I was talking about saving as much as possible.
No, that's bad practice. You end up, shifting back to a higher RPM and then accelerating. Just pushing down the gas pedal is indeed dumb in that situation, but you've got control over your gears, so use them.
Mine says the inverse, but I know why: I have a 1.8l Turbo 4 cyl, 6sp manual. See that Turbo? That's why in higher RPMs my car uses more gas. The turbo kicks in... You have an atmospheric engine, no turbo in high RPMs, less gas used. It does seem to depend on the car, indeed.... If your car computer says so, by all means, drive that way.
Thank you Anonymous Coward. You said it better than I could ever hoped to.
Well, actually, you're right pointing it out. I wasn't clear enough in my original post. Glad you stopped eventual misunderstandings.
;-) We'll keep our nice cars.... If they're dead we'll buy eco-friendly ;-)
Ehm, just in case you didn't realise... I don't shift down from 3rd to 2nd at 3000RPM.. You do that at 2000RPM, which is pretty much the point you'd do it when you push down the clutch at 3000RPM and switch gears.
Brakes are by definition a converter of kinetic energy in heat energy. You want to avoid that as much as possible.
Unless I have not been clear: I didn't say that.... You do not go from 5000RPM in gear 5 to 7000RPM in gear 4. That's insane (unless racing). I'm talking about pretty much never ever exceeding 3000RPM.
I don't call you dumb. Just consider this: your gas pedal is in essence a "choke" (Sorry, not the right term, but English isn't my mother tongue). When you do not touch the gas pedal, it will not let any gas through. Touching the gas pedal lets gas through and as such lets you accelerate.
The exception is when you push the clutch. At that point the car "knows": "Hey, my engine needs to keep on running, better let in some gas". That is why, when you push down the clutch the car will use up gas.
If you keep in gear, while slowing down, (it's not really coasting: coasting is in neutral) your car will remain in the RPM it was (and diminish) but without using any significant gas. This is because the momentum of your car is transferred by the transmission to the engine. No gas (or very very little) gas is needed to keep the engine rolling.
If you don't believe me, try the inverse: put your car in 1st gear, and pull it with another car.... it will start (provided you put it in neutral when it does, otherwise it will stall again). The energy of the pulling, will "suck" just enough gas to start the engine. Not more not less.... In neutral, it will inject gas to keep it running and that's usually at 1200RPM.
I first thought like you, but then I started trying it out with my car-computer. Staying in gear ended up in 0.0l/100km and getting in neutral was beteen 0.8l/100km and 1.2/100km.
Okay, I said "Roadster" because I didn't want to say which car I have, mmkay? ;-) Starting in second gear is possible, but I don't know if it's economical. I do try to keep it in second in stepwise traffic. Not always possible because it "accelerates" too fast.... in idle.
I'm now going to stop wasting my time with you because you don't even listen to reason. I keep telling: "yes, the big bang theory might one day be falsified", you're right at that. However, just speculating (what you did in the original post) doesn't bring us anywhere. That's just blah-blah, just as the rest of your comments.
Why would I do that? I have told you exactly what to do to do real science. Nowhere I have said that science is static. Actually by pointing out the scientific method, I have pretty much shown you that science is a *process*.
What I said is that the big bang theory is currently the accepted standard. Science is open to new theories and explanations, but you need to come with evidence and testable predictions. That's all.
Science is far from static.... In my original post I might have sounded a bit dogmatic, but that's because I assume that on a site like slashdot, people already know about the scientific method. My bad.
I got my license in April 1995. In my country they already explained that back then. Still, I often have the impression that many people have forgotten those lessons.
In the users manual of all cars I had (a Seat Ibiza, and two Audis) these tips were in the users manual. Usually, a little "flower" icon preceded those tips. The oldest car I ever had was an Audi 80, built in 1989 and, yes, it included those "tips".
Oh, fun... Ad hominem attacks, how wonderful.
Okay, let's formulate it this way: for now the evidence at hand supports the big bang theory very well. That's the correct scientific way of saying it.
You are free to come up with alternative theories, but to make it scientific, please include predictions that can be tested. No predictions? No possibilities to test? That means: it isn't science but pure speculation.
Read up on The scientific method.
Yes, it is indeed driving like an old man. I drive a roadster and people apparently find it funny that I drive that way, but it did get my mileage down from a bit under 10l/100km (23.5mpg) to a bit under 9l/100km (26mpg). Still not stellar, but since the car is paid off, replacing it would result in extra expenses on itself.
Right... That one is also put on the list. Sorry, it's flash...
Well, they say "check pressure regularly". Alas, overinflating tires also has a security impact, since you reduce the contact surface of the tires.
Okay, well... The problem with my car is that if I floor it will want to go at once to 6000rpm. I usually, shift at 2500 to 3000rpm when accelerating. Smooth in my definition didn't mean "slow", it meant constant.
My car is a roadster, so it does behave a bit different than most gas cars. ;-)
Did I miss any? Probably. I do all of the above, except for turning off the air conditioning. It's a fully automatic one and if I turn it off, there is no air circulation at all. There is an "Eco" setting, which is supposed to turn off the compressor. It's just impossible to set as default (as far as I've seen)
Besides, the above list has been repeated over and over by the government in the country I live, while I did my driving license and even in my car manual many of these "tips" are mentioned.
So, if I missed any crucial one, please tell me, I would gladly save another few litres of gas.
Well, considering that our big bang started our time and space and everything "outside" cannot be observed, it's pretty much irrelevant if there are other universes, or if this universe is the 5th incarnation of its kind. We just can't know.
The main problem with his post was that he mixed both a literal "centrism" with an abstract "centrism". This leads to confusion, and doesn't really bolster his argument.
I understand what he means, but it's wild speculation. For all we know, the big bang was God farting.
Yup, most people don't make that calculation. I don't have a SUV, but I have a roadster (25mpg) and gas prices aren't fun either. The thing is: it's paid off, it's 100% mine. To get a new fuel efficient car, I'd have to take a new loan and try to sell my 8 year old roadster (good luck with that!)
I'll probably drive it until it falls apart or until it costs more to fill the car than I earn in two hours work a day. (Single way: 20 minutes by car, 1h20min by public transportation. I tried.)
Solution? I think not... "Could salt water fuel cars?. The most important part is on the second page, but I'll spoil it for you: energy input is greater than energy output. Thermodynamics is a bitch.
I think you need to watch this.
P-IV 2.6GHz HT with 2Gig RAM. About a minute from cold boot. Windows XP SP2, installed in fall 2005. (I do have propper Admin/User separation though)
Hardware problems are pretty much ruled out, since he claims Gentoo runs rock-solid. Driver problems it is.
Europe here also, and ~51k EUR/year living in a 80sqm 2-bedroom apartment. Just to give you an idea. I'm not a pauper, but it's not always easy. However, that's not why I write.
Pick your girlfriend well, because my 80sqm 2-bedroom apartment (which you claim to be sufficient for 2 people) became cramped once she moved in. Women take an ungodly amount of space. I threw out so much of my stuff (even all my Audio CD's!) and I now have pretty much 1 cupboard with books and a small space for my computer.
I just want to warn you, you may fare much better.
If I want kids, I'll pretty much have to buy or build a house. Of course, a small house here starts at 720kEUR, so with my salary I'm not going anywhere. (My wife does earn substantially more, but still...)
It all makes sense now, thanks for clarifying. Oh, and at the risk of sounding AOLish: Me Too!!! (As in: "I want such a board!")