Am I missing something in this whole timeline-hate thing? Aren't 99.9% of all users spending 99.9% of their time in the "news feed" view of facebook? That didn't change with timeline? For me, a timeline only appears on the profile page, a page I don't really see a point in visiting.
Yes I'm typing on one. It's good as far as laptop keyboards go, but it has the typical short-stroke and cramped button layout of laptop keys, and the smaller versions are missing the numerical keyboard which I'm absolutely dependent on (write scientific applications). Real page up/dn/home/end keys without a required modifier are also an absolute must. Also, since I always use an external mouse (heavy mouse/drawing input in the applications) I don't want the touchpad to be in the way.
I don't know. I'm just picky. Even with what kind of full size desktop keyboard I use. I use it 8 hours a day, so I don't want one button smaller than it needs to be, or one button out of place. I also want a numeric keyboard, something I'd have to get a 17" pro for, which suddenly feels too large as a form factor in a portable.
I wouldn't even use a MacBook Pro keyboard for coding more than a few minutes. Nor would I code on that kind of screen size. Similarly, if I'm writing an email longer than a few sentences, I put my iPad down and reach for the laptop...
I was using 4.3L/100km which is 54 miles per US gallon.
This is presumably a manufacturer figure, and not the figure from the article in the link. But my point is that there definitely exists full size estate cars today, with competitive prices, that will do 54 miles to a US gallon. With another test cycle or way of measuring, this figure may vary somewhat, but its not at all too far away (considering we are talking about the average requirement for 2025).
No, I actually calculated from a newer number 4.3L/100km which translates to 54 miles per US gallon. Could be a newer model, or another test cycle than the one in the article. Still, its not the US test cycle presumably so "YMMV", literally...
Average per manufacturer, correct? So what volvo needs to do is sell enough of their electrics to offset their SUV:s, while the V70 estates are neutral for them.
A modern diesel with particle filters doesn't necessarily emit more particles than a petrol engine (considering that the petrol engine burns twice the fuel). As for the NOx output, the Euro V standard (2009) has the requirement of diesel engines at 3x the requirement of petrol engines. This is not perfect, but a long way from the 10x NOx emissions of a few years ago. The upcoming Euro VI standard will improve this further. But like you are saying, both methanol powered cars and turbodiesels are a quick fix for a problem until we get proper battery tech. I think "pure hybrids" are the way of the coming decade, i.e. plugin hybrids with combustion engines coupled only to the batteries, not to the drivetrain. Fisker Karma is one example. Electric cars will have acceptable performance already in the upcoming years, but it will be another 10 until they are competitive in price, even with moderate subsidies.
In Europe there are standards set for emissions. After decades of nothing happening with fuel consumption, all of a sudden ALL manufacturers had new full-size models with half the consumption of the models from just a few years ago.
The reason was this: all company leasning cars should fulfill the standards to be eligible for large tax breaks. All government/state/county/authority/etc. vehicles and so on, should all fulfill the emission standards.
So while it would seem ridiculous that the manufacturers could just take a standard, and "bend" physics to cut consumption in half, it looks like it did. BMW, Audi, VW, Volvo and all the rest are now making full size cars that are making 50-55mpg. Because of regulations. And everyone is pleased to pay less at the pump.
Cutting subsidies to oil companies feels like a given. But taxing it at the lowest level risks damaging the economy. Subsidies probably have to be removed slowly. A tax at the pump wouldn't hurt the economy as much.
If there was a federal tax of say $4 per gallon, that would go a long way when it comes to financing medical programs (That have expenses from traffic related injuries), as well as giving incentives to buy good mpg cars (Which, by the way, are already available in the old world, even in full size models http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-review/volvo/v70/first-drives/volvo-v70-1.6d-drive-se).
Whoever messed up that law where it was actually more economic to buy a "truck" (i.e. SUV) than a sane car for people, should personally be responsible for sucking that carbon out of the atmosphere. I understand americans are often tired of "regulation" when it seems to be just completely idiotic results coming from compromises and lobbying (I guess/hope, since otherwise it has to come from incompetence). Regulation done right is often very useful. Remember, it should gain *everyone* if it is done right.
The full size Volvo V70 estate does....wait for it... 54 miles per gallon.
Its mind blowing to sit here and watch a discussion where people question whether it is "Physically possible" to build such cars, or whether they will be around in 2025. You can buy (and many do) a full size family station wagon that does 54mpg! You don't have to get a "subcompact" or even a "compact"! http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-review/volvo/v70/first-drives/volvo-v70-1.6d-drive-se
Small cars have bad crash surviability not mainly because they are light, but because they are *small*. A normal full size family car weighs 3-4000lbs. A large SUV a bit more. But the most important thing is things like deformation zones etc. Many SUV's have a horrible record in crash tests.
It's too simplistic to think of car safety only in terms of weight. There are loads of more important factors. If your children are under four, they should ride backwards (better backwards in the small car, than front facing in the suv, when they collide, just to give an example). Stuffing kids in crap seats inside a huge car gives a very false sense of security.
I'd put my family in a car with a high rating from crash tests. There are new full size volvo estates that will make 54mpg, In a collision between new full size volvo and [insert whatever car] I'd probably want to be in the Volvo, regardless how big the oncoming SUV is.
My picture of a "soccer mom" is a woman in a large Volvo stationwagon (estate, whatever you like to call them) Volvo calls them V70.
As it happens, their most popular V70 model in many european countries already does the 54mpg that the current administration sets as a 2025 TARGET.
Thats a full size car. Not a big suv, but a full size car. And its a car with an internal combustion engine _only_ No hybrid tech, no vodoo.
So clearly, there is no contradiction with using a full size, heavy, soccer-mom car, and doing 54mpg
No, someone else (management) is always responsible for the company's products and services. An employee risks being fired for not doing their job, but that's all. We are only talking incompetence here, not deliberate error. To put it another way: if I'm going to take some of the economic/legal risk that he company should be taking, then this company better pay me extra (say, about twice what it would cost me to insure against this) or they can look for other developers, and presumably finding those they will have to sue a lot.
I was aware it it American run, but thought the American-centeredness was just de-facto. So are Americans really in majority here? Feels hard to believe that they would be even 1/4 of the worlds English speaking geeks...
At least bother to clarify that this is really a question aimed at US contractors. For the rest of us (a majority of slashdotters?) this is a non-issue.
I think what would scare me the most is even having to pay attention to what kind of treatment I'm getting, or research if there are better alternatives that I'm being denied. I'm happy as long as I can be sure my treatment is as good as my neighbors, and my country has a healthcare ranked as among the best in the world. As soon as a public health care system is no longer top rated, it all falls apart. You'd start to worry about whether you need private coverage in order to get the advanced treatments etc. Then it doesn't work.
I can pay to get more luxury (my own room), or to get a procedure done in private (thereby bypassing queues for non-emergency treatment). If I had to start paying to get a treatment that would be more effective, it would already be a useless system. This is the reason why you can't (and shouldn't) half-do a single payer system. You have to all out do it. And it has to be top notch, meaning you will have, like Sweden, a tax pressure of around 60% in order to pull that off (that said, 60% goes a long way in e.g. ensuring 1.5years of parental leave too for example).
Slashdot Mirror
Am I missing something in this whole timeline-hate thing? Aren't 99.9% of all users spending 99.9% of their time in the "news feed" view of facebook? That didn't change with timeline? For me, a timeline only appears on the profile page, a page I don't really see a point in visiting.
Yes I'm typing on one. It's good as far as laptop keyboards go, but it has the typical short-stroke and cramped button layout of laptop keys, and the smaller versions are missing the numerical keyboard which I'm absolutely dependent on (write scientific applications). Real page up/dn/home/end keys without a required modifier are also an absolute must. Also, since I always use an external mouse (heavy mouse/drawing input in the applications) I don't want the touchpad to be in the way.
I don't know. I'm just picky. Even with what kind of full size desktop keyboard I use. I use it 8 hours a day, so I don't want one button smaller than it needs to be, or one button out of place. I also want a numeric keyboard, something I'd have to get a 17" pro for, which suddenly feels too large as a form factor in a portable.
I wouldn't even use a MacBook Pro keyboard for coding more than a few minutes. Nor would I code on that kind of screen size. Similarly, if I'm writing an email longer than a few sentences, I put my iPad down and reach for the laptop...
I was using 4.3L/100km which is 54 miles per US gallon. This is presumably a manufacturer figure, and not the figure from the article in the link. But my point is that there definitely exists full size estate cars today, with competitive prices, that will do 54 miles to a US gallon. With another test cycle or way of measuring, this figure may vary somewhat, but its not at all too far away (considering we are talking about the average requirement for 2025).
4.3L/100km = 54 miles per US gallon. Don't know if its a newer model or another test cycle that gives the 4.3L, I took that from another article.
No, I actually calculated from a newer number 4.3L/100km which translates to 54 miles per US gallon. Could be a newer model, or another test cycle than the one in the article. Still, its not the US test cycle presumably so "YMMV", literally...
Average per manufacturer, correct? So what volvo needs to do is sell enough of their electrics to offset their SUV:s, while the V70 estates are neutral for them.
No, US gallons actually (4.3L/100km = 54mpg US)
There are full size estates that do 0.43,which was actually the calulation I did. 4.3L/100km = 54mpg (US)
A modern diesel with particle filters doesn't necessarily emit more particles than a petrol engine (considering that the petrol engine burns twice the fuel). As for the NOx output, the Euro V standard (2009) has the requirement of diesel engines at 3x the requirement of petrol engines. This is not perfect, but a long way from the 10x NOx emissions of a few years ago. The upcoming Euro VI standard will improve this further. But like you are saying, both methanol powered cars and turbodiesels are a quick fix for a problem until we get proper battery tech. I think "pure hybrids" are the way of the coming decade, i.e. plugin hybrids with combustion engines coupled only to the batteries, not to the drivetrain. Fisker Karma is one example. Electric cars will have acceptable performance already in the upcoming years, but it will be another 10 until they are competitive in price, even with moderate subsidies.
The reason was this: all company leasning cars should fulfill the standards to be eligible for large tax breaks. All government/state/county/authority/etc. vehicles and so on, should all fulfill the emission standards.
So while it would seem ridiculous that the manufacturers could just take a standard, and "bend" physics to cut consumption in half, it looks like it did. BMW, Audi, VW, Volvo and all the rest are now making full size cars that are making 50-55mpg. Because of regulations. And everyone is pleased to pay less at the pump.
4.3L / 100km is quite a common figure these days, for example http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-review/volvo/v70/first-drives/volvo-v70-1.6d-drive-se
Cutting subsidies to oil companies feels like a given. But taxing it at the lowest level risks damaging the economy. Subsidies probably have to be removed slowly. A tax at the pump wouldn't hurt the economy as much.
If there was a federal tax of say $4 per gallon, that would go a long way when it comes to financing medical programs (That have expenses from traffic related injuries), as well as giving incentives to buy good mpg cars (Which, by the way, are already available in the old world, even in full size models http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-review/volvo/v70/first-drives/volvo-v70-1.6d-drive-se).
Whoever messed up that law where it was actually more economic to buy a "truck" (i.e. SUV) than a sane car for people, should personally be responsible for sucking that carbon out of the atmosphere. I understand americans are often tired of "regulation" when it seems to be just completely idiotic results coming from compromises and lobbying (I guess/hope, since otherwise it has to come from incompetence). Regulation done right is often very useful. Remember, it should gain *everyone* if it is done right.
The full size Volvo V70 estate does ....wait for it... 54 miles per gallon.
Its mind blowing to sit here and watch a discussion where people question whether it is "Physically possible" to build such cars, or whether they will be around in 2025. You can buy (and many do) a full size family station wagon that does 54mpg! You don't have to get a "subcompact" or even a "compact"! http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-review/volvo/v70/first-drives/volvo-v70-1.6d-drive-se
Small cars have bad crash surviability not mainly because they are light, but because they are *small*. A normal full size family car weighs 3-4000lbs. A large SUV a bit more. But the most important thing is things like deformation zones etc. Many SUV's have a horrible record in crash tests.
It's too simplistic to think of car safety only in terms of weight. There are loads of more important factors. If your children are under four, they should ride backwards (better backwards in the small car, than front facing in the suv, when they collide, just to give an example). Stuffing kids in crap seats inside a huge car gives a very false sense of security.
I'd put my family in a car with a high rating from crash tests. There are new full size volvo estates that will make 54mpg, In a collision between new full size volvo and [insert whatever car] I'd probably want to be in the Volvo, regardless how big the oncoming SUV is.
My picture of a "soccer mom" is a woman in a large Volvo stationwagon (estate, whatever you like to call them) Volvo calls them V70.
As it happens, their most popular V70 model in many european countries already does the 54mpg that the current administration sets as a 2025 TARGET. Thats a full size car. Not a big suv, but a full size car. And its a car with an internal combustion engine _only_ No hybrid tech, no vodoo.
So clearly, there is no contradiction with using a full size, heavy, soccer-mom car, and doing 54mpg
No, someone else (management) is always responsible for the company's products and services. An employee risks being fired for not doing their job, but that's all. We are only talking incompetence here, not deliberate error. To put it another way: if I'm going to take some of the economic/legal risk that he company should be taking, then this company better pay me extra (say, about twice what it would cost me to insure against this) or they can look for other developers, and presumably finding those they will have to sue a lot.
I was aware it it American run, but thought the American-centeredness was just de-facto. So are Americans really in majority here? Feels hard to believe that they would be even 1/4 of the worlds English speaking geeks...
At least bother to clarify that this is really a question aimed at US contractors. For the rest of us (a majority of slashdotters?) this is a non-issue.
I think they are one of few treatments that actually have a negative cost in the system. You create a taxpayer for a few thousand bucks, remember?
I can pay to get more luxury (my own room), or to get a procedure done in private (thereby bypassing queues for non-emergency treatment). If I had to start paying to get a treatment that would be more effective, it would already be a useless system. This is the reason why you can't (and shouldn't) half-do a single payer system. You have to all out do it. And it has to be top notch, meaning you will have, like Sweden, a tax pressure of around 60% in order to pull that off (that said, 60% goes a long way in e.g. ensuring 1.5years of parental leave too for example).
Its the first time I have a "troll" score on a post I've made. Funny how it isn't even on a troll post.
Yep, they do liver, kidneys and all other major organs :-)
So once you have been de-livered they do bother to put in a new one?