law will be used for censorship of any number of things on the Internet that you Torries find 'objectionable'.
(re-emphasis mine)
Don't worry, left-leaning parties like Labour will do the exact same thing under the guys of protecting women from objectification and the evil male gaze.
Both political sides do the same shit, it's only the flavour of self-righteous justification sprinkled on the censorship turd that changes.
"We want the UK to be the safest place in the world to be online"
Says a lot when they consider information something the public needs to be kept "safe" from. And forget scams and computer viruses. No, it's genitals (and pugs) that are the real danger!
Nevermind all those kids who grew up around livestock for the thousands of years that humans have been farming, fully exposed to sights of the reproductive cycle. They have all proven to be serious threat to humanity!
In other news, UK kids suddenly became very tech-savvy regarding VPNs, torrent (as if they didn't already) and how to spell "pornography" in various foreign language slang.
The fact my post and the Parent's post asking for the legal are definition getting moderated as "Troll" (saying something that causes rage, causes people to become irrationally upset) pretty much proves my point.
People hold strong religious views over this so-called "hate speech" and in practice it has and still is used as a blasphemy law.
Blasphemy is not hate speech, fucktard. The concept is not even real, it only has meaning to religious nutbags.
Funny how your definition fits "hate speech" perfectly as well. Hate speech is not real and it only has meaning to religious nutbags from the cult of progressivism.
Hate Speech noun 1 : the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for Progressive God 2 : irreverence toward something considered sacred or inviolable
It's because a mechanical clutch pack on a freight train would melt, wear down, and/or explode under the required torque and a shifting gear box would have a similar issue.
And even when they got that to somehow hold up and work, it made maintenance too difficult. Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
They had 4 diesel engines, with 4 torque converters, 4x 1-way ratchet clutches, 3 differential gear boxes to drive the wheels, AND 2 more diesel engines just acting as superchargers for the 4 other diesel engines.
Compare that to one engine, one generator, some wires, and a bunch of electric traction engines.
It's also much easier to attach and coordinate 6 diesel-electrics together than if they had a mechanical drivetrain for very long trains.
Just adding: Rule of thumb is optimistically about 10% loss (90% efficiency) in the electric generator, another 10% loss in the electric motors (they're the same thing but used "backward"), those stay pretty consistent through their life (replace the bearings, brushes, and off you go). The motor controller system efficiency varies greatly.
So ignoring the controller system and wiring losses we're down to 81% (0.9 * 0.9) transmission efficiency, or 19% losses.
The were attempts at direct-drive diesels to increase efficiency. The added complexity wasn't practical in regard to reliability & maintenance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Steam engines at the end of their era were, and still are, more efficient (around 60%) than current diesels (diesel ICE is 45% efficient, that's BEFORE electric losses in a diesel-electric). For comparison gasoline ICE in car is 35% efficient in practical use.
The cost of maintenance, labor and downtime was the killer of steam, not efficiency. With proper combustion/fuel they're more eco-friendly than other engines. They don't really smoke like in the movies, that's just for show.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... (the diesel is just there to supply the passenger cars with electricity and brakes for safety, the steamer is doing all the pulling)
Like I said, it's not even that simple. It's the danger of making quick generalisations.
Small pickups (not large) can consume much less than a sedan, like the VW Rabbit pickup (It's a Golf/Rabbit front with a pickup rear end).
There's a similar issue with recycling: Some things are better NOT being recycled and our obsession with trying to blindly recycle absolutely everything can cause more harm than good. IIRC Paper has reached that point regarding carbon footprint (or close to, it's difficult to find non-politically motivated numbers and that's my issue here).
The problem is the amount of energy we'd be throwing at the batteries and the required size. Cars already struggle with the regenerative braking without catching on fire or prematurely wearing down the batteries making it practically a joke, it's a negligible amount of energy that is recuperated (supercaps would be great for this but we're not there yet).
They've experimented with air-oil compressors on city delivery trucks since that can handle a very quick "recharge", it's effectively an air spring that gets wound up when the truck stops and unwound to launch it again. Very efficient.
But that's for a "small" delivery truck, the tank would need to be huge to stock the energy of a long downhill drive on a double-trailer big rig hauling tree logs.
Batteries would also need to be ridiculously large, which would add their own weight, greatly reducing the amount of (profitable) freight a truck would be allowed to transport.
No improbable. My 1.2L 3cyl non-hybrid gasoline ICE gets about 50mpg avg on my commute in the summer. Roughly confirmed by gas tank fillup and some math.
The more recent hybrids firmware cycles the ICE when cruising between struggle-to-charge-the-batteries and completely off, the very first hybrids didn't.
I've been able to push my non-hybrid to 58mpg by driving "stupidly" efficient on the highway when no one was around: floor it in 5th (no downshift) to 75mph, let go and cruise down to 45mph, repeat. Kind of imitating what the hybrid firmware does to the engine but way more annoying:)
That said there's no point in doing that with a diesel engine. They don't have the intake throttle valve that cripples gasoline engine efficiency at low loads and diesels tend to run more efficient when quite a bit below maximum load for more complete combustion (less fuel, more air).
Diesels don't gain nearly as much from electric hybridisation. Diesel-steam however looks promising for long hauls. A potential 60%-70% fuel efficiency which may be worth the time spent to refill the water tank. Recuperates a good chunk of wasted energy from the exhaust heat.
Annoying to have to pay some "heavy truck road damage tax" when driving a car that's lighter than what, 70% of cars on the road?
And once a very well intended American trucker came running screaming & flailing at me "NOOOO! DON'T! THAT'S DIESEL FUEL!" as I was about to fill up my 96 Jetta TD in the United States.
I told him "Yeah, it's a diesel car." he just stood there dumbfounded for a good 10 seconds before saying "Really?".
They're not hybrid in the same sense as hybrid cars.
In fact, IMHO wouldn't call them a hybrid at all: The diesel never turns the wheel directly, the electrics motors never work without the diesel engine generating electricity, there are no batteries involved in the powertrain. Power always comes from the diesel engine.
It's a diesel engine with an electric transmission.
The electric part of a diesel-electric locomotive just replaces what would be the gear box & clutch / torque converter in a car/truck.
The diesel engines generates electricity which is fed directly to electric motors that drive the wheels because no clutch or torque converter as found on trucks and cars could survive launching an entire cargo train, they'd almost instantly disintegrate/melt/explode, and the gearbox would be impractically enormous to not wear down in seconds under the torque required.
They vary the "gear ratio" (if you will) by increasing or reducing the magnetic field on the electric generator to keep the diesel engine at the same ideal RPM range while changing the effective torque/power output.
And when diesel-electric locomotive brake using the electric motors they send all that energy to huge resistor banks, not batteries, just spewing out the energy as heat.
They don't stock and reuse the braking energy like an hybrid car because no batteries could handle the amount power being dumped when braking a freight train to be even worth trying to recuperate that energy.
Trucks do operate very close to or even at full throttle at highway speed (the laws of aerodynamics are a bitch for what is effectively a 12' high wall going 70mph) and he was first talking about gasoline engines which are very inefficient at anything but full throttle.
Diesel engines don't suffer from this issue owning to not having the throttle valve in the intake that gasoline engines have. Gasoline engines effectively have a brake put on the engine when they're not being floored to keep the air-fuel ratio correct for spark ignition. They're literally being choked to reduce the power, making them less efficient at anything but full duty.
Diesel engines don't have that problem they always get as much air as can flow in through the air filter and are controlled entirely by the amount of fuel injected.
That's why smaller gasoline engines are much more fuel efficient than a larger one (being always closer to full throttle than the larger engine) while engine size does not matter anywhere as much for diesel engines for efficiency.
Diesel-steam hybrids would make more sense for long-haul highway trucks and there's research being done into it right now.
New materials mean less boiler maintenance downtime which is part of what killed steam locomotives, along with the time it took to refill the water tank but that'd be less of an issue for a diesel-steam hybrid that can keep going without water, just less efficiently.
I'm concerned this focus (not the Ford kind) on cars and trucks ICE regarding pollution sounds more and more like an ideological crusade and/or some kind of misdirection/distraction.
It's like optimising code, you find and go for the hot spot but at some point it's not the hot spot anymore.
Between the lobbyists (farming, container ships, etc), ecological zealots (not the informed reasonable kind), and a bit of a sunny-California tech world somewhat disconnected from the rest of the world (FYI: Solar panels don't work when covered in snow or on cloudy coasts, guys. Neither are electric cars that get garbage range under -30'C practical.) I fear we're being manipulated/distracted into overlooking some lower hanging fruits for political convenience.
Even even looking at cars we need to take into account that electric cars are actually MORE polluting than traditional ICE cars in regions using coal-fired electric power plants.
That's not counting that they're more polluting to produce and recycle. It generates 8.8 tonnes of CO2 to make an electric car vs 5.6 tonnes for an ICE car, should we take the fight first over making cars last much longer? Keep in mind that's just the CO2 environmental cost for production, nothing said about all the other solvents and the recycling costs.
How can we make sure we're not taken for a ride (pun intended again, sue me:) ) by lobby groups who don't want us to look more closely at the pollution their industry is generating?
If they were given hashes by the government then they were acting at the request / hire of the government. That's probably where a at the very least a line should be drawn but it's not enough.
Because it's easy to get companies or people to "volunteer" along.
"it's a nice giant company you have here, would be a shame if laws were pushed that made your business more difficult... Btw, we have those hashes we'd like to run a search on."
Women need to be shown other women doing things. Because they have no initiative, no imagination, complete herd mentality. The only way to kickstart women doing anything is being told to by a man./sarcasm
It's like the special Olympics but with their genitals as the handicap. Gotta love all that progressive crypto-chauvinism.
In this 4K remastered edition the face hugger is acting purely in self-defence and they go after the xenomorph with walkie-talkies making noise that shoos it away.
Have people learning NOTHING about the world over the past century?
Yes, those sub-human animals should not be allowed to spew their nonsense. Better yet, we should send them back to the plantation, the DPRK work camps, Siberia, or wherever we send dissenting sub-humans only worthy of contempt.
Slashdot Mirror
s/guys/guise ... edit feature when?
law will be used for censorship of any number of things on the Internet that you Torries find 'objectionable'.
(re-emphasis mine)
Don't worry, left-leaning parties like Labour will do the exact same thing under the guys of protecting women from objectification and the evil male gaze.
Both political sides do the same shit, it's only the flavour of self-righteous justification sprinkled on the censorship turd that changes.
"We want the UK to be the safest place in the world to be online"
Says a lot when they consider information something the public needs to be kept "safe" from.
And forget scams and computer viruses. No, it's genitals (and pugs) that are the real danger!
Nevermind all those kids who grew up around livestock for the thousands of years that humans have been farming, fully exposed to sights of the reproductive cycle. They have all proven to be serious threat to humanity!
In other news, UK kids suddenly became very tech-savvy regarding VPNs, torrent (as if they didn't already) and how to spell "pornography" in various foreign language slang.
The fact my post and the Parent's post asking for the legal are definition getting moderated as "Troll" (saying something that causes rage, causes people to become irrationally upset) pretty much proves my point.
People hold strong religious views over this so-called "hate speech" and in practice it has and still is used as a blasphemy law.
You were so close to having an epiphany here:
Blasphemy is not hate speech, fucktard. The concept is not even real, it only has meaning to religious nutbags.
Funny how your definition fits "hate speech" perfectly as well.
Hate speech is not real and it only has meaning to religious nutbags from the cult of progressivism.
Yours dearly,
Tim Fucktard.
Hate Speech
noun
1 : the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for Progressive God
2 : irreverence toward something considered sacred or inviolable
https://www.merriam-webster.co...
We're bringing back religion into the criminal code and it's called "progress".
It's because a mechanical clutch pack on a freight train would melt, wear down, and/or explode under the required torque and a shifting gear box would have a similar issue.
And even when they got that to somehow hold up and work, it made maintenance too difficult.
Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
They had 4 diesel engines, with 4 torque converters, 4x 1-way ratchet clutches, 3 differential gear boxes to drive the wheels, AND 2 more diesel engines just acting as superchargers for the 4 other diesel engines.
Compare that to one engine, one generator, some wires, and a bunch of electric traction engines.
It's also much easier to attach and coordinate 6 diesel-electrics together than if they had a mechanical drivetrain for very long trains.
Just adding: Rule of thumb is optimistically about 10% loss (90% efficiency) in the electric generator, another 10% loss in the electric motors (they're the same thing but used "backward"), those stay pretty consistent through their life (replace the bearings, brushes, and off you go).
The motor controller system efficiency varies greatly.
So ignoring the controller system and wiring losses we're down to 81% (0.9 * 0.9) transmission efficiency, or 19% losses.
The were attempts at direct-drive diesels to increase efficiency. The added complexity wasn't practical in regard to reliability & maintenance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Steam engines at the end of their era were, and still are, more efficient (around 60%) than current diesels (diesel ICE is 45% efficient, that's BEFORE electric losses in a diesel-electric). For comparison gasoline ICE in car is 35% efficient in practical use.
The cost of maintenance, labor and downtime was the killer of steam, not efficiency. With proper combustion/fuel they're more eco-friendly than other engines. They don't really smoke like in the movies, that's just for show.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... (the diesel is just there to supply the passenger cars with electricity and brakes for safety, the steamer is doing all the pulling)
Like I said, it's not even that simple. It's the danger of making quick generalisations.
Small pickups (not large) can consume much less than a sedan, like the VW Rabbit pickup (It's a Golf/Rabbit front with a pickup rear end).
There's a similar issue with recycling: Some things are better NOT being recycled and our obsession with trying to blindly recycle absolutely everything can cause more harm than good. IIRC Paper has reached that point regarding carbon footprint (or close to, it's difficult to find non-politically motivated numbers and that's my issue here).
It's the danger of ecological dogma.
The problem is the amount of energy we'd be throwing at the batteries and the required size.
Cars already struggle with the regenerative braking without catching on fire or prematurely wearing down the batteries making it practically a joke, it's a negligible amount of energy that is recuperated (supercaps would be great for this but we're not there yet).
They've experimented with air-oil compressors on city delivery trucks since that can handle a very quick "recharge", it's effectively an air spring that gets wound up when the truck stops and unwound to launch it again. Very efficient.
But that's for a "small" delivery truck, the tank would need to be huge to stock the energy of a long downhill drive on a double-trailer big rig hauling tree logs.
Batteries would also need to be ridiculously large, which would add their own weight, greatly reducing the amount of (profitable) freight a truck would be allowed to transport.
No improbable.
My 1.2L 3cyl non-hybrid gasoline ICE gets about 50mpg avg on my commute in the summer. Roughly confirmed by gas tank fillup and some math.
The more recent hybrids firmware cycles the ICE when cruising between struggle-to-charge-the-batteries and completely off, the very first hybrids didn't.
I've been able to push my non-hybrid to 58mpg by driving "stupidly" efficient on the highway when no one was around: floor it in 5th (no downshift) to 75mph, let go and cruise down to 45mph, repeat. :)
Kind of imitating what the hybrid firmware does to the engine but way more annoying
That said there's no point in doing that with a diesel engine. They don't have the intake throttle valve that cripples gasoline engine efficiency at low loads and diesels tend to run more efficient when quite a bit below maximum load for more complete combustion (less fuel, more air).
Diesels don't gain nearly as much from electric hybridisation.
Diesel-steam however looks promising for long hauls. A potential 60%-70% fuel efficiency which may be worth the time spent to refill the water tank. Recuperates a good chunk of wasted energy from the exhaust heat.
Annoying to have to pay some "heavy truck road damage tax" when driving a car that's lighter than what, 70% of cars on the road?
And once a very well intended American trucker came running screaming & flailing at me "NOOOO! DON'T! THAT'S DIESEL FUEL!" as I was about to fill up my 96 Jetta TD in the United States.
I told him "Yeah, it's a diesel car." he just stood there dumbfounded for a good 10 seconds before saying "Really?".
I guess it's pretty rare in some states..?
They're not hybrid in the same sense as hybrid cars.
In fact, IMHO wouldn't call them a hybrid at all: The diesel never turns the wheel directly, the electrics motors never work without the diesel engine generating electricity, there are no batteries involved in the powertrain. Power always comes from the diesel engine.
It's a diesel engine with an electric transmission.
The electric part of a diesel-electric locomotive just replaces what would be the gear box & clutch / torque converter in a car/truck.
The diesel engines generates electricity which is fed directly to electric motors that drive the wheels because no clutch or torque converter as found on trucks and cars could survive launching an entire cargo train, they'd almost instantly disintegrate/melt/explode, and the gearbox would be impractically enormous to not wear down in seconds under the torque required.
They vary the "gear ratio" (if you will) by increasing or reducing the magnetic field on the electric generator to keep the diesel engine at the same ideal RPM range while changing the effective torque/power output.
And when diesel-electric locomotive brake using the electric motors they send all that energy to huge resistor banks, not batteries, just spewing out the energy as heat.
They don't stock and reuse the braking energy like an hybrid car because no batteries could handle the amount power being dumped when braking a freight train to be even worth trying to recuperate that energy.
Trucks do operate very close to or even at full throttle at highway speed (the laws of aerodynamics are a bitch for what is effectively a 12' high wall going 70mph) and he was first talking about gasoline engines which are very inefficient at anything but full throttle.
Diesel engines don't suffer from this issue owning to not having the throttle valve in the intake that gasoline engines have. Gasoline engines effectively have a brake put on the engine when they're not being floored to keep the air-fuel ratio correct for spark ignition. They're literally being choked to reduce the power, making them less efficient at anything but full duty.
Diesel engines don't have that problem they always get as much air as can flow in through the air filter and are controlled entirely by the amount of fuel injected.
That's why smaller gasoline engines are much more fuel efficient than a larger one (being always closer to full throttle than the larger engine) while engine size does not matter anywhere as much for diesel engines for efficiency.
Diesel-steam hybrids would make more sense for long-haul highway trucks and there's research being done into it right now.
New materials mean less boiler maintenance downtime which is part of what killed steam locomotives, along with the time it took to refill the water tank but that'd be less of an issue for a diesel-steam hybrid that can keep going without water, just less efficiently.
I'm concerned this focus (not the Ford kind) on cars and trucks ICE regarding pollution sounds more and more like an ideological crusade and/or some kind of misdirection/distraction.
It's like optimising code, you find and go for the hot spot but at some point it's not the hot spot anymore.
Between the lobbyists (farming, container ships, etc), ecological zealots (not the informed reasonable kind), and a bit of a sunny-California tech world somewhat disconnected from the rest of the world (FYI: Solar panels don't work when covered in snow or on cloudy coasts, guys. Neither are electric cars that get garbage range under -30'C practical.)
I fear we're being manipulated/distracted into overlooking some lower hanging fruits for political convenience.
Even even looking at cars we need to take into account that electric cars are actually MORE polluting than traditional ICE cars in regions using coal-fired electric power plants.
That's not counting that they're more polluting to produce and recycle. It generates 8.8 tonnes of CO2 to make an electric car vs 5.6 tonnes for an ICE car, should we take the fight first over making cars last much longer? Keep in mind that's just the CO2 environmental cost for production, nothing said about all the other solvents and the recycling costs.
How can we make sure we're not taken for a ride (pun intended again, sue me :) ) by lobby groups who don't want us to look more closely at the pollution their industry is generating?
If they were given hashes by the government then they were acting at the request / hire of the government.
That's probably where a at the very least a line should be drawn but it's not enough.
Because it's easy to get companies or people to "volunteer" along.
"it's a nice giant company you have here, would be a shame if laws were pushed that made your business more difficult... Btw, we have those hashes we'd like to run a search on."
Company offering remote-work oriented services (Google Drive, Google Docs, Google Mail, Google Calendar, ...) says remote work is great!
More at 11.
Women need to be shown other women doing things. /sarcasm
Because they have no initiative, no imagination, complete herd mentality.
The only way to kickstart women doing anything is being told to by a man.
It's like the special Olympics but with their genitals as the handicap.
Gotta love all that progressive crypto-chauvinism.
Spartans.
Worse: It'll fuel all the anti-vax conspiracy theories.
In this 4K remastered edition the face hugger is acting purely in self-defence and they go after the xenomorph with walkie-talkies making noise that shoos it away.
Trump isn't Congress.
Or did I miss the part where the 3 branches of U.S. Government got merged into two?
Legislative: Congress, Senate, House of Representative
Executive: President (Trump), Vice President, Cabinet
Judicial: Federal & Supreme Court
Have people learning NOTHING about the world over the past century?
Yes, those sub-human animals should not be allowed to spew their nonsense.
Better yet, we should send them back to the plantation, the DPRK work camps, Siberia, or wherever we send dissenting sub-humans only worthy of contempt.
Simple: Ads.
Gillette deleting comments on their man-bashing garbage advert?
I'm sure Dollar Shave Club would love to put ads between the Gab-Dissenter comments.