" fuel consumption wasn't amazing, maybe mid-high 20s average MPG."
You need a given amount of fuel to produce a given amount of power regardless of how big the engine is. Yes the more cylinders you have the greater your frictional and induction losses but they don't really add up to all that much at the end of the day.
"I'm not sure how they will squeeze 200k out of a 2.0L like that."
They won't. But by they'll make sure the engine will last up to the warranty period in normal use. Beyond that they don't care.
"Let's be honest, somebody buying the 1.0L Mondeo is probably going to drive fewer miles than average,"
I disagree. Not many private buyers are going to buy a big car like a Mondeo with that miserable little engine. Its almost certainly aimed at the bottom end of the fleet market and they will do a lot of miles.
"General torque curve means much more lower down power, so you have to work the gearbox less."
At traffic queue speeds the turbo isnt working and the engine will be gutless so it'll actually be more effort to drive than the 1.6 in that situation, plus constantly having to give it extra revs to move wont do the clutch any favours.
They're new engine line up consists of ONE engine - a 2.0L 4 cyl in various stages of tune and turbocharging (presumably to save development costs). Good luck to them getting decent NOx figures out of that in the high power versions, not to mention longevity. There does seem to be an obsession with shriking engines below what is reasonable (3 cyl 1.0L in a Mondeo?? Hello Ford!) simply to meet CO2 emissions targets. Thats all well and good but you don't get something for nothing and high pressure small engines just don't last so you will probably find the car scrapped years earlier than otherwise and so completely negating any CO2 benefit accrued by the engine. Short term thinking at its finest.
CO is even worse than that - it binds to haemoglobin and doesn't let go which means the O2 in your lungs can't. Thats why it only takes a relatively small amount of CO to poison you.
Except these people are usually allergic to whatever is the current latest technology whether it be cellphones, wifi or whatever. Oddly none of them seem to be allergic to domestic electrical power cables which emit frequencies far closer to brainwaves than VHF and UHF devices.
We might not know all the laws of physics, but if the was one that allowed life to group exponentially faster than currently then there's a good chance evolution would have "discovered" it by now. Assuming of course it could be used with the kinds of conditions and resources found on earth I grant you.
Thats all very well, but these buildbots still have to obey the laws of physics and self replication of complex objects simply can't happen that fast. It requires time and a boatload of energy and complex chemicals and material resources. You can't make something complex out of hydrogen unless each little bot has a mini fusion reactor on board which is pretty unlikely. Evolution has had 4 billion years to fine tune self replication on this planet with huge resources and sunlight, and yet even the fastest growing bacteria still grow slower than the human eye can resolve. There's no reason to assume an artificial system could manage it much faster given similar constraints.
I don't know anything about R but if its specifically designed for statistical analysis then its probably better at it out the box than Python. Having said that I can guarantee you'll find far more candidates with Python skills than you will R.
"Oh, so because it's of limited use it's not good? A car is not a can opener but I can still drive it to work."
A car that can only be driven down main highways but not suburban streets and back roads would be of limited use.
"Python is based around a stupid premise,"
Your whole argument is based around one. I suggest you go back to your javascript playpen and let the rest of us get on with some real backend development.
Oh dear, did I hit a nerve? Get over it and answer the fucking point if you can, though given you resorted to Ad Hominem I suspect not.
Q. Does any javascript intepreter implement the full posix API? A. ?
Because if it can't, for example, do full process control including forking, limit setting and IPC, signal handling, terminal control, shared memory , semaphores, queues, system configuration etc etc then its of limited use in the Real Real World. Say what you like about Python, but it does all of the above.
I've probably had to use more "frameworks" in the last 25 years that you've had hot dinners mate but if it makes you feel better being a typical sneering AC loser then enjoy.
"Maybe they're just living in the really real world"
That would be the "real world" where implementing the full Posix API is a must for most serious backend programs running on unix systems? Which javascript can do can it? Oh, no , it can't....
Perhaps you should try visiting the real world occasionally rather than the small part of it you live in.
I'm confused as to where the impetus is to have these standalone javascript engines such as Chakra and googles V8 anyway. Javascript is a poor scripting language compared to something like Python and a poor general purpose programming language compared to C++ or Java (Why? Google it). I know a lot of kids these days kick off their coding doing web based stuff, but thats really no reason to try and drag that 2nd rate mishmash of an enviroment out of its niche into other areas of computing such as Databases (hello Mongo) and backend services. I know people who say Javascript is much improved over what it used to be but I do get the feeling that a lot of these people have never really used any other language in depth.
Try listening to your users instead of implementing whatever eye candy and widgets you dreamt up after the 5th pint and 2 shots the night before. Just a thought.
"And urban areas should see self-driving cars as a huge advantage, increasing the effective capacity of highways."
Hah, yeah, right. Lets see how these autonomous vehicles cope outside the wide straight roads of north america. European cities for example - narrow twisty roads with illegal double parking , only enough room for 1 vehicle at a time on a 2 way street, junctions where no one ever lets you in unless you push in, mopeds cutting you up, roundabouts, the list goes on. And asia? Even worse.
"Driving is a dangerous activity. Driving causes way much more death than terrorism blah blah liberal crap snipped.."
Perhaps we should ban cars and see how life goes for you on your pedal bike when doctors and nurses, emergency workers, police, people who work the shops, guys who fix the roads, drive the buses and trucks plus 1001 other assorted activities can't get to work. You see I know this doesn't fit your standard issue left wing drivers-are-evil argument, but unlike cancer, terrorists and "the bogeyman" (how old are you, 12?) driving is far more a force for good than bad. Just an FYI - check out how many people were trampled and killed by horses each year back before the internal combustion engine was invented.
Lets see how a google car copes with pulling out onto a busy junction with traffic that won't give way or a road with only enough room for one vehicle each way. Then get back to me. In the meantime there's another post you haven't bothered replying to. No surprise really.
Hoping they'll get to suck off Putin at some point. I doubt it was ordered by the Kremlin since they'd just bomb some power station in eastern ukraine to make their point. Why be subtle when you've got overwhelming military force and arn't afraid of using it?
Slashdot Mirror
Use ifconfig:
ifconfig eth0 hw ether
Its had this option for years. I presume it'll work for the wlan0 device though I've never tried it.
"but critical vulnerablilities like this seem to be becoming more and more common"
Probably a combination of the kernel becoming ever more complex (or more code anyway), and ever more scrutiny.
I bet the life of that clutch will be short and expensive.
" fuel consumption wasn't amazing, maybe mid-high 20s average MPG."
You need a given amount of fuel to produce a given amount of power regardless of how big the engine is. Yes the more cylinders you have the greater your frictional and induction losses but they don't really add up to all that much at the end of the day.
"I'm not sure how they will squeeze 200k out of a 2.0L like that."
They won't. But by they'll make sure the engine will last up to the warranty period in normal use. Beyond that they don't care.
"Let's be honest, somebody buying the 1.0L Mondeo is probably going to drive fewer miles than average,"
I disagree. Not many private buyers are going to buy a big car like a Mondeo with that miserable little engine. Its almost certainly aimed at the bottom end of the fleet market and they will do a lot of miles.
"General torque curve means much more lower down power, so you have to work the gearbox less."
At traffic queue speeds the turbo isnt working and the engine will be gutless so it'll actually be more effort to drive than the 1.6 in that situation, plus constantly having to give it extra revs to move wont do the clutch any favours.
Isn't that when you find the CPU in your nuclear missile command centre has a Pentium bug?
They're new engine line up consists of ONE engine - a 2.0L 4 cyl in various stages of tune and turbocharging (presumably to save development costs). Good luck to them getting decent NOx figures out of that in the high power versions, not to mention longevity. There does seem to be an obsession with shriking engines below what is reasonable (3 cyl 1.0L in a Mondeo?? Hello Ford!) simply to meet CO2 emissions targets. Thats all well and good but you don't get something for nothing and high pressure small engines just don't last so you will probably find the car scrapped years earlier than otherwise and so completely negating any CO2 benefit accrued by the engine. Short term thinking at its finest.
CO is even worse than that - it binds to haemoglobin and doesn't let go which means the O2 in your lungs can't. Thats why it only takes a relatively small amount of CO to poison you.
Except these people are usually allergic to whatever is the current latest technology whether it be cellphones, wifi or whatever. Oddly none of them seem to be allergic to domestic electrical power cables which emit frequencies far closer to brainwaves than VHF and UHF devices.
We might not know all the laws of physics, but if the was one that allowed life to group exponentially faster than currently then there's a good chance evolution would have "discovered" it by now. Assuming of course it could be used with the kinds of conditions and resources found on earth I grant you.
"There have been a bunch of mass extinctions that have killed off billions, if not more, branches of life."
And none of them killed off bacteria.
Thats all very well, but these buildbots still have to obey the laws of physics and self replication of complex objects simply can't happen that fast. It requires time and a boatload of energy and complex chemicals and material resources. You can't make something complex out of hydrogen unless each little bot has a mini fusion reactor on board which is pretty unlikely. Evolution has had 4 billion years to fine tune self replication on this planet with huge resources and sunlight, and yet even the fastest growing bacteria still grow slower than the human eye can resolve. There's no reason to assume an artificial system could manage it much faster given similar constraints.
I don't know anything about R but if its specifically designed for statistical analysis then its probably better at it out the box than Python. Having said that I can guarantee you'll find far more candidates with Python skills than you will R.
No, it doesn't.
"Oh, so because it's of limited use it's not good? A car is not a can opener but I can still drive it to work."
A car that can only be driven down main highways but not suburban streets and back roads would be of limited use.
"Python is based around a stupid premise,"
Your whole argument is based around one. I suggest you go back to your javascript playpen and let the rest of us get on with some real backend development.
Oh dear, did I hit a nerve? Get over it and answer the fucking point if you can, though given you resorted to Ad Hominem I suspect not.
Q. Does any javascript intepreter implement the full posix API?
A. ?
Because if it can't, for example, do full process control including forking, limit setting and IPC, signal handling, terminal control, shared memory , semaphores, queues, system configuration etc etc then its of limited use in the Real Real World. Say what you like about Python, but it does all of the above.
I've probably had to use more "frameworks" in the last 25 years that you've had hot dinners mate but if it makes you feel better being a typical sneering AC loser then enjoy.
"Maybe they're just living in the really real world"
That would be the "real world" where implementing the full Posix API is a must for most serious backend programs running on unix systems? Which javascript can do can it? Oh, no , it can't....
Perhaps you should try visiting the real world occasionally rather than the small part of it you live in.
Ah "frameworks". The euphamism for a APIs that are far more bloated & complicated than they need to be.
I'm confused as to where the impetus is to have these standalone javascript engines such as Chakra and googles V8 anyway. Javascript is a poor scripting language compared to something like Python and a poor general purpose programming language compared to C++ or Java (Why? Google it). I know a lot of kids these days kick off their coding doing web based stuff, but thats really no reason to try and drag that 2nd rate mishmash of an enviroment out of its niche into other areas of computing such as Databases (hello Mongo) and backend services. I know people who say Javascript is much improved over what it used to be but I do get the feeling that a lot of these people have never really used any other language in depth.
Try listening to your users instead of implementing whatever eye candy and widgets you dreamt up after the 5th pint and 2 shots the night before. Just a thought.
"And urban areas should see self-driving cars as a huge advantage, increasing the effective capacity of highways."
Hah, yeah, right. Lets see how these autonomous vehicles cope outside the wide straight roads of north america. European cities for example - narrow twisty roads with illegal double parking , only enough room for 1 vehicle at a time on a 2 way street, junctions where no one ever lets you in unless you push in, mopeds cutting you up, roundabouts, the list goes on. And asia? Even worse.
"Driving is a dangerous activity. Driving causes way much more death than terrorism blah blah liberal crap snipped.."
Perhaps we should ban cars and see how life goes for you on your pedal bike when doctors and nurses, emergency workers, police, people who work the shops, guys who fix the roads, drive the buses and trucks plus 1001 other assorted activities can't get to work. You see I know this doesn't fit your standard issue left wing drivers-are-evil argument, but unlike cancer, terrorists and "the bogeyman" (how old are you, 12?) driving is far more a force for good than bad. Just an FYI - check out how many people were trampled and killed by horses each year back before the internal combustion engine was invented.
Lets see how a google car copes with pulling out onto a busy junction with traffic that won't give way or a road with only enough room for one vehicle each way. Then get back to me. In the meantime there's another post you haven't bothered replying to. No surprise really.
Hoping they'll get to suck off Putin at some point. I doubt it was ordered by the Kremlin since they'd just bomb some power station in eastern ukraine to make their point. Why be subtle when you've got overwhelming military force and arn't afraid of using it?