Neither of those says anything about Toyota selling MR2 chassis to Lotus unless I'm missing something. It's possible since I'm running NoScript, but it didn't look like it to me.
According to Wikipedia, "Toyota engines used have a Lotus ECU with their own fuel mapping, with the frame based on Toyota designs for US safety specifications." Interesting, and a closer connection than I had heard of before, though there's no source listed, it's not very specific and still not by any means claiming it's an MR2 frame.
So far I haven't found anything browsing Google results to indicate that the Elise uses an MR2 chassis. So unless you can present some evidence for that claim, I for one am considering it debunked.
You said that Toyota supplies MR2 chassis to Lotus for the Elise. I haven't seen you provide any evidence of that. The fact that Tesla has been sued a bunch of times... I don't see how that's relevant to any supplier relationship between Lotus and Toyota. If you want to revise your claim, and say that the Elise chassis has some significant similarities to the MR2, well fine. But that is not what you said originally.
I would assume (I haven't checked the link or done the math) he's talking about price (of electricity vs of gas). Which is a stupid way to talk about price of course, just express it in cents per mile if that's what you're talking about.
The Volt is designed to run on electricity alone, whereas the Prius is designed to use the gas engine on a regular basis as needed. The Volt engine is there as a backup generator in case the batteries run low, or else Lutz is misstating things.
What I found interesting is that the "tiny" auxiliary engine (generator, really) in the Volt is almost as big as the engine in my last car. I haven't looked it up, but I'm guessing this thing is pretty heavy if the emergency back-up engine is 1.4 liters.
I don't know where you're getting that 4-8 year number, but there are certainly plenty of cars that in practice (regardless of manufacturer expectations) last 20 years and more. The oldest car I've had is 19 years old and still running. I still see 20+ year old American cars on the road and those aren't exactly known for reliability.
Back to the original question, my point was not that a hundred year car would cost twice as much. I don't know how much more it would cost. What I do know is that it would cost a lot more. I question whether any substantial number of people would be willing to pay a lot more for a car that would likely still be running when they die. You'll see a curve in what people are willing to pay for longevity, with it being very steep at first and then leveling off. I don't imagine there's much benefit in making a car last longer than 30 or 40 years, because most people would not be willing to pay very much more for something lasting longer than that.
No, but I'm not sure what you're getting at. Are you saying that because a $7000 six-month car is a non-starter, that means people would be willing to pay a whole bunch more for a car that would last a hundred years? Personally I would have no interest in that. I would rather my children and grandchildren buy their own cars. I would rather have something that lasts 10-30 years and costs a lot less. In fact, that's what I buy.:-)
If they were made to last 100 years, they would cost twice as much and nobody would buy them. There will always be a market for reliable cars that last a long time, and electrics will presumably expand that market. There will also be a market for cheaper crappier cars that don't last as long, because some people would rather have a new less reliable car than a used more reliable one for the same price. IMO longevity and reliable are continually improving and becoming more important to consumers across the board.
Letterboxing a game like this would just put black stripes on your monitor where you could have useful content instead. It's not like a movie, where you can get all the content on a 4:3 screen by letterboxing. There's an enormous map that you couldn't possibly fit on your screen, so you always want to use all of it, no matter what the shape. What they need is support for any (reasonable) screen resolution, both widescreen and traditional. Or whatever they're calling that aspect ratio.
Blizzard, if you're listening, such a move would do nothing to prevent piracy or protect your revenues. Honest people will buy the software and either live with the restrictions you have placed on it (which reduces its value and lowers your reputation), or buy it and download the more functional pirate version. Dishonest people will just download the pirate version no matter what kind of DRM or other restrictions you put on it. You know this to be true. You must know it, because you're smart people, and only idiots believe DRM stops piracy.
Make sure that people who buy the game get *at least* as much value as people who pirate it, and you will have nothing to worry about. You can see what happens when value is intentionally removed by looking at games like Spore. Did the DRM prevent anyone from pirating it? Quite the opposite, it induced many many people to pirate it.
The flow of fuel into the cylinders is not shut off. Many reputable tuners will verify this.
Can you provide any sources?
Let it coast in gear, switch the key off, then switch it to "on" not "start" and it will buck because the motor is putting fuel into the cylinders.
Assuming it does buck (I haven't tried it and probably won't but I'll take your word for it), how does that demonstrate that fuel doesn't get cut off during engine braking? It seems more likely to me that the bucking is due to a mismatch between engine speed and gear speed. The only thing I can think of that you're getting at is that there's a buildup of unburned fuel in the cylinders from the engine braking period that produces a sudden surge of acceleration when you turn the engine back on. If that's what you're getting at let me know and I'll debunk it.;-) If not, please explain.
The added stress that the high vacuum situation engine braking creates can harm your motor. You are creating a situation where you are more prone to burning oil because you are sucking it into the combustion chamber with the extra vacuum.
How does engine braking produce so intense a vacuum that it would suck oil around/through the seals designed to prevent that? Are you talking about oil coming up around the piston rings from beneath, or getting past the closed valves from above (modify directions for the case of a horizontally opposed engine of course)? I'm not being snarky, I just don't understand what mechanism would produce such a strong vacuum that is so far out of the normal operating range of the engine. The type of engine braking I'm talking about is in normal RPM range, so if you mean running it way up past redline, that's not what I mean.
How do you explain people (such as me) who regularly employ engine braking during hundreds of thousands of miles of driving without apparent ill effect? How do you explain those people with factory or third-party instantaneous fuel consumption gauges that drop to zero (or maximum in the case of fuel efficiency display) under engine braking? There have been some people in this thread making that claim, I've seen it myself, and I'm sure you can find lots of references online.
Google "engine braking fuel shut off" and read some of the results. And by all means provide me with any sources that indicate that newer vehicles generally do not shut off fuel during engine braking. And especially any sources indicating why. After all, I think we can agree the car is perfectly capable of running without any fuel in such a situation since it has all the energy it needs from gravity and/or momentum, so why keep running fuel through the engine?
In the US, a large percentage of accidents are caused by following too closely. It's the most common cause, IIRC. Something to consider next time you're in the slipstream: are you following at least 2 seconds behind?
The injectors do not shut off... You can verify it by putting your car in gear and turning it off then turn the key back to the on position.
That has nothing to do with the question at hand. If the computer detects that the car is in engine braking (not breaking, that's totally different), it will shut off fuel, in many cars. Starting up the car is obviously not an engine braking situation.
It's true that brakes are cheaper than engine parts, but you have to balance that against the likelihood that you will have to replace the engine parts. If you have a reliable car, it's likely you can drive the car until it's worth less than the engine repair without ever needing that repair. On the other hand, keep a car for any length of time and you're sure to need the brake pads replaced. So I would say putting it in neutral is certainly not a no-brainer, and possibly economically a bad idea.
My guess is they'll just do what they want with it, while saying that they're complying with the terms of the license, and the FCC will let them get away with it. Then Google or EFF or somebody will sue over it, and 3-10 years later maybe something will be opened up.
If the DNS is compromised, then wouldn't you be visiting wachovia.com, which is actually some other IP address than normal, and the certificate is for wachovia.com, and so the browser thinks everything is OK? Or is the original IP address for the certificate resolved and cached in your certificate store and compared to the new one? That wouldn't really seem to help, because there has to be a way to change an IP address. Whatever that mechanism is, such as asking the user to confirm the change, the scammer could just do the same thing.
I thought you said you were going to point to evidence. That is all speculation and guessing, topped off with a claim of information you have access to but aren't willing to share. Not convincing.
I stopped researching when I found a source that says "many legal scholars, politicians, copyright owners and users and their lawyers agree that fair use is so hard to understand that it fails to provide effective guidance for the use of others' works today." Another phrase I saw was "intentionally ambiguous". It kind of sounds like it's supposed to be vague and left up to the courts to decide in each case, which doesn't sound like good law to me but then IANAL.
Slashdot Mirror
Neither of those says anything about Toyota selling MR2 chassis to Lotus unless I'm missing something. It's possible since I'm running NoScript, but it didn't look like it to me.
According to Wikipedia, "Toyota engines used have a Lotus ECU with their own fuel mapping, with the frame based on Toyota designs for US safety specifications." Interesting, and a closer connection than I had heard of before, though there's no source listed, it's not very specific and still not by any means claiming it's an MR2 frame.
This article would have every opportunity to mention Toyota involvement in the Elise chassis and doesn't: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0KJI/is_6_116/ai_n6206349
So far I haven't found anything browsing Google results to indicate that the Elise uses an MR2 chassis. So unless you can present some evidence for that claim, I for one am considering it debunked.
Are those goals mutually exclusive?
You said that Toyota supplies MR2 chassis to Lotus for the Elise. I haven't seen you provide any evidence of that. The fact that Tesla has been sued a bunch of times... I don't see how that's relevant to any supplier relationship between Lotus and Toyota. If you want to revise your claim, and say that the Elise chassis has some significant similarities to the MR2, well fine. But that is not what you said originally.
I would assume (I haven't checked the link or done the math) he's talking about price (of electricity vs of gas). Which is a stupid way to talk about price of course, just express it in cents per mile if that's what you're talking about.
It blows away Ferraris in the same price range.
Actually, there are no Ferraris in that price range, or even close.
The Volt is designed to run on electricity alone, whereas the Prius is designed to use the gas engine on a regular basis as needed. The Volt engine is there as a backup generator in case the batteries run low, or else Lutz is misstating things.
What I found interesting is that the "tiny" auxiliary engine (generator, really) in the Volt is almost as big as the engine in my last car. I haven't looked it up, but I'm guessing this thing is pretty heavy if the emergency back-up engine is 1.4 liters.
I don't know where you're getting that 4-8 year number, but there are certainly plenty of cars that in practice (regardless of manufacturer expectations) last 20 years and more. The oldest car I've had is 19 years old and still running. I still see 20+ year old American cars on the road and those aren't exactly known for reliability.
Back to the original question, my point was not that a hundred year car would cost twice as much. I don't know how much more it would cost. What I do know is that it would cost a lot more. I question whether any substantial number of people would be willing to pay a lot more for a car that would likely still be running when they die. You'll see a curve in what people are willing to pay for longevity, with it being very steep at first and then leveling off. I don't imagine there's much benefit in making a car last longer than 30 or 40 years, because most people would not be willing to pay very much more for something lasting longer than that.
Toyota makes the engines, not the chassis. So the Tesla is completely unrelated to any Toyota product.
No, but I'm not sure what you're getting at. Are you saying that because a $7000 six-month car is a non-starter, that means people would be willing to pay a whole bunch more for a car that would last a hundred years? Personally I would have no interest in that. I would rather my children and grandchildren buy their own cars. I would rather have something that lasts 10-30 years and costs a lot less. In fact, that's what I buy. :-)
Commercial paper is actually overnight loans to businesses, not banks.
If they were made to last 100 years, they would cost twice as much and nobody would buy them. There will always be a market for reliable cars that last a long time, and electrics will presumably expand that market. There will also be a market for cheaper crappier cars that don't last as long, because some people would rather have a new less reliable car than a used more reliable one for the same price. IMO longevity and reliable are continually improving and becoming more important to consumers across the board.
Letterboxing a game like this would just put black stripes on your monitor where you could have useful content instead. It's not like a movie, where you can get all the content on a 4:3 screen by letterboxing. There's an enormous map that you couldn't possibly fit on your screen, so you always want to use all of it, no matter what the shape. What they need is support for any (reasonable) screen resolution, both widescreen and traditional. Or whatever they're calling that aspect ratio.
Blizzard, if you're listening, such a move would do nothing to prevent piracy or protect your revenues. Honest people will buy the software and either live with the restrictions you have placed on it (which reduces its value and lowers your reputation), or buy it and download the more functional pirate version. Dishonest people will just download the pirate version no matter what kind of DRM or other restrictions you put on it. You know this to be true. You must know it, because you're smart people, and only idiots believe DRM stops piracy.
Make sure that people who buy the game get *at least* as much value as people who pirate it, and you will have nothing to worry about. You can see what happens when value is intentionally removed by looking at games like Spore. Did the DRM prevent anyone from pirating it? Quite the opposite, it induced many many people to pirate it.
The flow of fuel into the cylinders is not shut off. Many reputable tuners will verify this.
Can you provide any sources?
Let it coast in gear, switch the key off, then switch it to "on" not "start" and it will buck because the motor is putting fuel into the cylinders.
Assuming it does buck (I haven't tried it and probably won't but I'll take your word for it), how does that demonstrate that fuel doesn't get cut off during engine braking? It seems more likely to me that the bucking is due to a mismatch between engine speed and gear speed. The only thing I can think of that you're getting at is that there's a buildup of unburned fuel in the cylinders from the engine braking period that produces a sudden surge of acceleration when you turn the engine back on. If that's what you're getting at let me know and I'll debunk it. ;-) If not, please explain.
The added stress that the high vacuum situation engine braking creates can harm your motor. You are creating a situation where you are more prone to burning oil because you are sucking it into the combustion chamber with the extra vacuum.
How does engine braking produce so intense a vacuum that it would suck oil around/through the seals designed to prevent that? Are you talking about oil coming up around the piston rings from beneath, or getting past the closed valves from above (modify directions for the case of a horizontally opposed engine of course)? I'm not being snarky, I just don't understand what mechanism would produce such a strong vacuum that is so far out of the normal operating range of the engine. The type of engine braking I'm talking about is in normal RPM range, so if you mean running it way up past redline, that's not what I mean.
How do you explain people (such as me) who regularly employ engine braking during hundreds of thousands of miles of driving without apparent ill effect? How do you explain those people with factory or third-party instantaneous fuel consumption gauges that drop to zero (or maximum in the case of fuel efficiency display) under engine braking? There have been some people in this thread making that claim, I've seen it myself, and I'm sure you can find lots of references online.
Google "engine braking fuel shut off" and read some of the results. And by all means provide me with any sources that indicate that newer vehicles generally do not shut off fuel during engine braking. And especially any sources indicating why. After all, I think we can agree the car is perfectly capable of running without any fuel in such a situation since it has all the energy it needs from gravity and/or momentum, so why keep running fuel through the engine?
So you're saying that because your anecdotal evidence points one way, his contradictory anecdotal evidence must be wrong? Interesting idea.
In the US, a large percentage of accidents are caused by following too closely. It's the most common cause, IIRC. Something to consider next time you're in the slipstream: are you following at least 2 seconds behind?
The injectors do not shut off... You can verify it by putting your car in gear and turning it off then turn the key back to the on position.
That has nothing to do with the question at hand. If the computer detects that the car is in engine braking (not breaking, that's totally different), it will shut off fuel, in many cars. Starting up the car is obviously not an engine braking situation.
It's true that brakes are cheaper than engine parts, but you have to balance that against the likelihood that you will have to replace the engine parts. If you have a reliable car, it's likely you can drive the car until it's worth less than the engine repair without ever needing that repair. On the other hand, keep a car for any length of time and you're sure to need the brake pads replaced. So I would say putting it in neutral is certainly not a no-brainer, and possibly economically a bad idea.
So Sprint looses the edge when ATT and T-Mobile upgrade their networks to support HDSPA.
Sounds like an ad slogan. Sprint: Loose the Edge!
My guess is they'll just do what they want with it, while saying that they're complying with the terms of the license, and the FCC will let them get away with it. Then Google or EFF or somebody will sue over it, and 3-10 years later maybe something will be opened up.
If the DNS is compromised, then wouldn't you be visiting wachovia.com, which is actually some other IP address than normal, and the certificate is for wachovia.com, and so the browser thinks everything is OK? Or is the original IP address for the certificate resolved and cached in your certificate store and compared to the new one? That wouldn't really seem to help, because there has to be a way to change an IP address. Whatever that mechanism is, such as asking the user to confirm the change, the scammer could just do the same thing.
But perhaps I'm missing something here.
I thought you said you were going to point to evidence. That is all speculation and guessing, topped off with a claim of information you have access to but aren't willing to share. Not convincing.
But I truly believe that there are methods available to make short work of encryption
Are you going to provide evidence for that claim, or at least admit it's totally unfounded?
Would these be areal photos (NSFW)? Or at least areol photos?
I stopped researching when I found a source that says "many legal scholars, politicians, copyright owners and users and their lawyers agree that fair use is so hard to understand that it fails to provide effective guidance for the use of others' works today." Another phrase I saw was "intentionally ambiguous". It kind of sounds like it's supposed to be vague and left up to the courts to decide in each case, which doesn't sound like good law to me but then IANAL.