You are seriously saying the soviets evacuated the exclusion zone around Chernobyl to show off their care to the west?
Pretty much, yeah. It's pretty clear that whoever was in charge initially cared little for human life. People watched the damn thing make the sky glow blue from the rooftops on nearby apartment buildings. They thought it was pretty.
An alternate explanation is that the bureaucracy was so thick that the Soviets were simply incapable of responding to the crisis until a few weeks passed.
Which Soviets? The "lets keep this whole thing quiet so the West doesn't find out" Soviets that threw workers at the fire without telling them about the radiation, or the "well, now the West knows about the disaster so lets be super-safe to show how much we care" Soviets?
Honestly, I don't know how someone entrusted as the 'censor' is supposed to tell the difference unless they themselves are also an expert on all things nuclear.
As long as there is an independent judiciary, and as long as the person gets a fair trial, this is pretty much the fairest way to balance free speech and the public interest.
Find a 3.0 gasoline engine that will give that sort of torque.
Why a displacement constraint? Wouldn't a car manufacturer worry more about size or weight? A diesel is heavier and bulkier than a gasoline engine by definition.
As for fuel economy - lower doesn't even start to describe it. Try less than half!
Half the economy and more than twice the power... go figure!
When you compare a car that performs roughly the same, the diesel is invariably more expensive by about $5000. That's a fine tradeoff in Europe, where fuel is so expensive that you get the benefit of the fuel economy very quickly. Even more so in countries like the UK which subsidize diesel. In the US, $5000 still gets you well over 1250 gallons of gas. I *might* make that up in the entire lifetime of a big car, but I likely will never see a return on an economy car, and if I did I'd be silly for not considering hybrids which at least get me a government subsidy.
If you were out to buy a new car and were making a cost comparison it would be hard to save money on the fuel efficiency of a diesel unless you were driving a lot of miles. If you're out to buy a used car, well, you can get these old IDI diesel Mercedes for very little money and they are simple enough for normal people to actually work on. If you're buying a new truck then it's more about what you do with it. If you're towing then you have to be aware that mileage dips atrociously with gas in a way that it simply does not with diesel.
Thank you for casting the issue as a balance of tradeoffs. I'm not anti-diesel (how can you be against a thermodynamic cycle?), but when I point out it's shortcomings the conversation often devolves into a holy war.:)
My father has a diesel for towing and he would never give up that torque. If I were towing, I'd buy a diesel in a heartbeat. But until gas is at a point where I'm likely to get a payback, I'm probably not going to buy a diesel car. Especially since in the US it would seriously constrain my choices, and if I were all "torqued" up about the environment I'd use the federal subsidy and get an electric. If the US starts subsidizing diesel like they do in Europe, I'd also consider a diesel.
Might I point out that Audi's TDI has done particularly well in the LMP class over the last few years of Lemans series?
Cost isn't exactly an object at Lemans:)
They also bent the rules a bit regarding tank size.
Diesel is more efficient, but for your average car buyer the extra initial cost is unlikely to be recouped in a reasonable amount of time. If fuel prices go higher, then the payback period is shorter - so in the long term diesels will probably catch on. But for now, any argument for personal diesel cars is not economic unless you have a special set of circumstances.
To use my car as an example it generates 215hp and 376lb/ft.
Find me a gasoline engine with that kind of torque and such a low HP rating. For any given cost, weight, or displacement, gasoline will develop more power. Less torque, but faster RPMs. You can argue that diesels are stronger, tougher, more efficient, etc... but arguing that they produce more - or even as much - power is wrong.
Sorry, what government subsidy?
Do the research before calling me out: 2009 fuel duty (as of 1 September 2009) in the United Kingdom is:
56.19 pence per litre for main road fuels, unleaded petrol and diesel
65.91 pence per litre for leaded petrol
36.19 pence per litre for biodiesel and bioethanol
22.16 pence per kg for road fuel natural gas
27.67 pence per kg for road fuel liquefied petroleum gas ('LPG')
They subsidize diesel by charging less tax. This is why diesel is cost-effective in the UK and not the US.
In 7.1 seconds? Let me guess, a 5.0 V8 that does single figure mpg?
No, it's Toyota's usual V6. Mileage is typical for a big square box. But gasoline will never compete with diesel on MPG. Diesel is a bit more efficient, and the fuel itself is more dense. A gallon of diesel contains more energy than a gallon of gasoline.
As for the Sonata you're refering to the V6 which probably doesn't weigh 2 tons unlike a 300C.
Fine, then compare with a 300C. You can buy a 300C gasoline version will get to 60 in less than 5 seconds. Yes, the fuel economy will be lower than your diesel, but the power is much higher.
If you don't think diesels are powerful you might like to take a look inside a railway locomotive
Power = horsepower or wattage. A diesel is too heavy and has too much throw to spin fast enough to generate a lot of power. Railways use diesels for a number of reasons, but high power is not one of them.
As for cost effective , well most of europes drivers disagree with you.
Yes, it is cost effective if the government subsidizes it - much like electrics in the US.
AFWIW my 300C 3.0 diesel does 0-60 in 7.5 and 143 in standard tune.
That's not very impressive on this side of the pond. A Hyundai Sonata does better and my minivan does 0-60 in 7.1 seconds.
If Walmart refuses to carry a game because it's violent, you've got other options.
Games is your example? Sony, Nintendo, and MS have absolute and total control over the catalog of games on their systems, and then you have the additional preferences of Walmart to contend with.
BDs are not more delicate than DVDs. BDs have a scratch resistant film on them.
I'll grant you that I'm a sample size of one, and that I don't rent much. But the scratching I would get with rental DVDs made them jump or go "digital" for a few seconds. The Blu-Ray's don't seem to recover as well. Again, low sample size. Also, smartphones all claim to have a "scratch resistant coating", and they still get all sorts of messed up.
Nobody watches movies from 25ft away in their home.
You made me just walk it off - sorry, you are right, it was 20 ft. I have no idea what an average living room size is - mine is 20ft from couch to TV.
$20 is your price? Really?
I stayed with VHS until the rental shop started carrying things in DVD only - the back catalog was all-VHS anyway for a very long time. By then, DVD players were, literally, $20-25 at Walgreens. They even played some homemade disks - something the name-brands couldn't promise. I think we're talking roughly 2002-2003.
I have no idea what I paid for my first VHS player, since I was about 5 when my father brought it home. But in college I bought the cheapest one that was "Made in Japan" (a Sharp 4 head HiFi) and it was about $60 IIRC. The rage at the time was to cost reduce to Korea, but the quality wasn't yet there. VHS could record, which you don't need anymore but was a must before TiVo/Hulu/usenet.
Oh, God, yeah... how could I forget 8 and 9. Collectively they make up the "half baked" feeling the technology has. People don't generally favor things that make it so much harder to do what they did before.
First of all, the pricing is all wrong... why are these things so expensive? I understand that they were initially gouging the early adopters, but we should be more in-line with DVDs by now.
Second, they are delicate. You get rentals (if you can find them) and they seem more prone to scratches than DVDs.
Third, picture quality is awesome, but you often don't really notice from 25 feet away. Sometimes I have to really pay attention to whether it is Blu-Ray or DVD if the upsampling is decent.
Fourth, selection. Finding pre-2005-ish movies seems to be almost impossible. There have been some things worth buying since then, but not a whole lot. They need at least release the "watch over and over again" classics.
Fifth, player cost. I still haven't seen any for $20 at Walgreens.
Sixth, online. People watch "TV" more and more on their computers. Leisure time isn't what it was in the 90s.
Finally, replacement. VHS wore out, so re-purchasing an old movie on DVD was reasonable. It is much harder to chuck away a perfectly good DVD.
To who? The peace-loving dictator of Iraq? The equal-opportunity Taliban? The great leader of Libya? The US has some fairly indefensible actions in the past, but I'm not sure who you are so concerned about in the present day.
I'm presuming you are a Waco wacko? Ruby Ridge maybe? While I think both situations could have been handled better, the people getting shot in Iran don't have any weapons - let alone a stockpile.
I get the point, but scanning a hand-redacted document is idiot-proof. Besides, some applications save editing data into PDFs. OpenOffice does this, for instance. So that's yet another set of items you'd have to add to your list: 1b: When exporting the PDF, use a print driver and not the PDF export function of your program.
Slashdot Mirror
You are seriously saying the soviets evacuated the exclusion zone around Chernobyl to show off their care to the west?
Pretty much, yeah. It's pretty clear that whoever was in charge initially cared little for human life. People watched the damn thing make the sky glow blue from the rooftops on nearby apartment buildings. They thought it was pretty.
An alternate explanation is that the bureaucracy was so thick that the Soviets were simply incapable of responding to the crisis until a few weeks passed.
I think it's a combination of the two.
Which Soviets? The "lets keep this whole thing quiet so the West doesn't find out" Soviets that threw workers at the fire without telling them about the radiation, or the "well, now the West knows about the disaster so lets be super-safe to show how much we care" Soviets?
Honestly, I don't know how someone entrusted as the 'censor' is supposed to tell the difference unless they themselves are also an expert on all things nuclear.
As long as there is an independent judiciary, and as long as the person gets a fair trial, this is pretty much the fairest way to balance free speech and the public interest.
Yeah, I can't decide whether to rejoice because a collection agency got stiffed, or bust out the champagne because Comcast has been sued. Win-win!
Find a 3.0 gasoline engine that will give that sort of torque.
Why a displacement constraint? Wouldn't a car manufacturer worry more about size or weight? A diesel is heavier and bulkier than a gasoline engine by definition.
As for fuel economy - lower doesn't even start to describe it. Try less than half!
Half the economy and more than twice the power... go figure!
When you compare a car that performs roughly the same, the diesel is invariably more expensive by about $5000. That's a fine tradeoff in Europe, where fuel is so expensive that you get the benefit of the fuel economy very quickly. Even more so in countries like the UK which subsidize diesel. In the US, $5000 still gets you well over 1250 gallons of gas. I *might* make that up in the entire lifetime of a big car, but I likely will never see a return on an economy car, and if I did I'd be silly for not considering hybrids which at least get me a government subsidy.
If you were out to buy a new car and were making a cost comparison it would be hard to save money on the fuel efficiency of a diesel unless you were driving a lot of miles. If you're out to buy a used car, well, you can get these old IDI diesel Mercedes for very little money and they are simple enough for normal people to actually work on. If you're buying a new truck then it's more about what you do with it. If you're towing then you have to be aware that mileage dips atrociously with gas in a way that it simply does not with diesel.
Thank you for casting the issue as a balance of tradeoffs. I'm not anti-diesel (how can you be against a thermodynamic cycle?), but when I point out it's shortcomings the conversation often devolves into a holy war. :)
My father has a diesel for towing and he would never give up that torque. If I were towing, I'd buy a diesel in a heartbeat. But until gas is at a point where I'm likely to get a payback, I'm probably not going to buy a diesel car. Especially since in the US it would seriously constrain my choices, and if I were all "torqued" up about the environment I'd use the federal subsidy and get an electric. If the US starts subsidizing diesel like they do in Europe, I'd also consider a diesel.
Might I point out that Audi's TDI has done particularly well in the LMP class over the last few years of Lemans series?
Cost isn't exactly an object at Lemans :)
They also bent the rules a bit regarding tank size.
Diesel is more efficient, but for your average car buyer the extra initial cost is unlikely to be recouped in a reasonable amount of time. If fuel prices go higher, then the payback period is shorter - so in the long term diesels will probably catch on. But for now, any argument for personal diesel cars is not economic unless you have a special set of circumstances.
To use my car as an example it generates 215hp and 376lb/ft.
Find me a gasoline engine with that kind of torque and such a low HP rating. For any given cost, weight, or displacement, gasoline will develop more power. Less torque, but faster RPMs. You can argue that diesels are stronger, tougher, more efficient, etc... but arguing that they produce more - or even as much - power is wrong.
Sorry, what government subsidy?
Do the research before calling me out:
2009 fuel duty (as of 1 September 2009) in the United Kingdom is:
56.19 pence per litre for main road fuels, unleaded petrol and diesel
65.91 pence per litre for leaded petrol
36.19 pence per litre for biodiesel and bioethanol
22.16 pence per kg for road fuel natural gas
27.67 pence per kg for road fuel liquefied petroleum gas ('LPG')
They subsidize diesel by charging less tax. This is why diesel is cost-effective in the UK and not the US.
In 7.1 seconds? Let me guess, a 5.0 V8 that does single figure mpg?
No, it's Toyota's usual V6. Mileage is typical for a big square box. But gasoline will never compete with diesel on MPG. Diesel is a bit more efficient, and the fuel itself is more dense. A gallon of diesel contains more energy than a gallon of gasoline.
As for the Sonata you're refering to the V6 which probably doesn't weigh 2 tons unlike a 300C.
Fine, then compare with a 300C. You can buy a 300C gasoline version will get to 60 in less than 5 seconds. Yes, the fuel economy will be lower than your diesel, but the power is much higher.
Is that the one with the mechanical fuel injectors? Piece of engineering, that is.
If you don't think diesels are powerful you might like to take a look inside a railway locomotive
Power = horsepower or wattage. A diesel is too heavy and has too much throw to spin fast enough to generate a lot of power. Railways use diesels for a number of reasons, but high power is not one of them.
As for cost effective , well most of europes drivers disagree with you.
Yes, it is cost effective if the government subsidizes it - much like electrics in the US.
AFWIW my 300C 3.0 diesel does 0-60 in 7.5 and 143 in standard tune.
That's not very impressive on this side of the pond. A Hyundai Sonata does better and my minivan does 0-60 in 7.1 seconds.
Notice you didn't mention fast, cost-effective, powerful, or lightweight :)
In the Ivy League, they call the training wheel "daddy".
LOL, I clicked on this story about gasoline engines with the specific intent of seeing how far down it would be before someone mentioned their diesel.
If Walmart refuses to carry a game because it's violent, you've got other options.
Games is your example? Sony, Nintendo, and MS have absolute and total control over the catalog of games on their systems, and then you have the additional preferences of Walmart to contend with.
if you're a troll or an idiot.
Idiot, apparently.
BDs are not more delicate than DVDs. BDs have a scratch resistant film on them.
I'll grant you that I'm a sample size of one, and that I don't rent much. But the scratching I would get with rental DVDs made them jump or go "digital" for a few seconds. The Blu-Ray's don't seem to recover as well. Again, low sample size. Also, smartphones all claim to have a "scratch resistant coating", and they still get all sorts of messed up.
Nobody watches movies from 25ft away in their home.
You made me just walk it off - sorry, you are right, it was 20 ft. I have no idea what an average living room size is - mine is 20ft from couch to TV.
$20 is your price? Really?
I stayed with VHS until the rental shop started carrying things in DVD only - the back catalog was all-VHS anyway for a very long time. By then, DVD players were, literally, $20-25 at Walgreens. They even played some homemade disks - something the name-brands couldn't promise. I think we're talking roughly 2002-2003.
I have no idea what I paid for my first VHS player, since I was about 5 when my father brought it home. But in college I bought the cheapest one that was "Made in Japan" (a Sharp 4 head HiFi) and it was about $60 IIRC. The rage at the time was to cost reduce to Korea, but the quality wasn't yet there. VHS could record, which you don't need anymore but was a must before TiVo/Hulu/usenet.
they're deciding what you can buy or use.
Well...
Well, not me, I don't have an iPhone
So what's the problem, then? Apple has a nice smartphone, but they don't even come close to controlling the market. Buy a different phone, right?
Oh, God, yeah... how could I forget 8 and 9. Collectively they make up the "half baked" feeling the technology has. People don't generally favor things that make it so much harder to do what they did before.
First of all, the pricing is all wrong... why are these things so expensive? I understand that they were initially gouging the early adopters, but we should be more in-line with DVDs by now.
Second, they are delicate. You get rentals (if you can find them) and they seem more prone to scratches than DVDs.
Third, picture quality is awesome, but you often don't really notice from 25 feet away. Sometimes I have to really pay attention to whether it is Blu-Ray or DVD if the upsampling is decent.
Fourth, selection. Finding pre-2005-ish movies seems to be almost impossible. There have been some things worth buying since then, but not a whole lot. They need at least release the "watch over and over again" classics.
Fifth, player cost. I still haven't seen any for $20 at Walgreens.
Sixth, online. People watch "TV" more and more on their computers. Leisure time isn't what it was in the 90s.
Finally, replacement. VHS wore out, so re-purchasing an old movie on DVD was reasonable. It is much harder to chuck away a perfectly good DVD.
America is a far larger threat
To who? The peace-loving dictator of Iraq? The equal-opportunity Taliban? The great leader of Libya? The US has some fairly indefensible actions in the past, but I'm not sure who you are so concerned about in the present day.
I'm presuming you are a Waco wacko? Ruby Ridge maybe? While I think both situations could have been handled better, the people getting shot in Iran don't have any weapons - let alone a stockpile.
Yeah, nice kind-hearted guys indeed, they really work hard to make the World a better place.
Maybe, but they also don't use their own citizens as a goddamn shooting gallery.
Seriously, you can't even have a fucking discussion board like Slashdot in Iran. Who the hell do you think you are kidding comparing the US to Iran?
Iran has as much right as the US does to make nuclear weapons.
Is that a natural right? LOL.
You mean hysteria like this?
Yes, perfect example.
I get the point, but scanning a hand-redacted document is idiot-proof. Besides, some applications save editing data into PDFs. OpenOffice does this, for instance. So that's yet another set of items you'd have to add to your list: 1b: When exporting the PDF, use a print driver and not the PDF export function of your program.
I'll use Hanlon's razor on your reply and merely point out that at least half the population are of above average intelligence.
"Average" is not where I draw the line between stupid and smart. If there is such a line, it would be well above the mean line.