Singlespeeders have solved this problem- just look up "singlespeed tension," and see the seven or so methods used by singlespeeders to properly space chains, on frames NOT DESIGNED to be run as singlespeeds.
Not that I'm defending this company, I would never buy one. But they could easily call out some tension adjustment in their standard. Rene Carlos
Discharge in months? I think you meant self-discharge in days.
Several automakers have experimented with supercaps in cars. All used them as buffers, not primary storage. Which is not a bad thing: increases POWER to the wheels (not range), and reduces spikes to the battery pack. Rene Carlos
But all electrostatic devices, even this electro-static/chemical one, have linear voltages. A battery stays at 1.5 volts, 12 volts, or whatever, until they're almost drained. A capacitor tapers down in voltage continuously the instant you begin tapping it. Any device with capacitor primary power must either live with this, or have some sort of active step-up circuit.
And they self-discharge faster than batteries.
The auto industry has already been through this- ultracapacitors would only be used as electron buffers in conjuction with a baseline energy source (battery or fuel cell), to deliver peak power. Rene Carlos
In all seriousness, why expend power to stand still? Using a "landing gear" at a stoplight makes as much sense as shutting a 4-wheeler's engine off at a stoplight. I was thinking of getting a bigger battery, so I could shut off my truck's engine manually. Rene Carlos
>What would you imagine the advantage of having two driven wheels
There was a review in one of the motorcycle websites (sorry, don't remember, it was months ago) on a prototype 2WD dirt bike. While I'm not a dirt bike rider, it sounded like a definite improvement. It would require a fair amount of "re-learning" on the part of the rider to extract maximum benefit- different throttle strategy, corner approach/lean/exit, hill approach, etc. This is to be expected, as the human-motorcycle connection is far deeper and more subtle than in a cage (moto-speak for "car or truck"). But the reviewer did see potential.
I do ride street bikes, and there would still be an advantage. Aside from a simpler drivetrain of course, takeoffs (both from a stop, and out of a corner) are really dependent on your rear rubber. Using both contact patches instead of one is a good thing.
Do you ride motorcycles, of either sort? Rene Carlos
Hydrogen "transmission" is most certainly lossy- any reasonably-profitable operation must compress the H2 to fairly-high pressure using engines. We know this because natural gas requires compression, and natural gas has at least double the energy, before you even figure the density advantage.
Even a staunch H2 advocate, Amory Lovins at the Rocky Mountain Institute, sees natural gas piping to H2 reformers as the only practical distribution method in the foreseeable term. Look up his paper, "Twenty Hydrogen Myths" (sorry I don't feel like digging up the link). And he's a shameless H2 plugger.
BTW, hydrogen is better suited to powering large stationary engines...er, fuel cell stacks. Geoffrey Ballard (founder of Ballard Power Systems, the industry leader) believes that mobile engines will only become practical once pallet-mounted generators subsidize the R&D. He is quoted in Fortune Small Business as saying something like, "the garaged, personal vehicle will be the last one to operate on hydrogen." Sorry I don't have the exact quote.
Rene Carlos
That, and tap water contains chlorine and fluorine, which will send your reaction straight into the toilet. Domestic/neighborhood electrolyzers are generations away; economies of scale work against them just as surely as they work for refineries and other chemical industries. Even if you can get nice, clean water somewhere in the Arctic, you still get carbonates in the water and possibly the hydrogen.
Rene Carlos
URL, ghettocat, or pure fantasy? Britain claims 2% transmission losses, which I'm sure is complete BS. But I'll bet the true figure is closer to 2% than 90%.
There's a University of California study on vehicle demand somewhere on the web- overnight charging only leads to capacity increases when electric cars become something like 30% of the total. This is because we have so much air conditioning, that there's massive overcapacity at night.
Rene Carlos
and more importantly, one that *never* needs to be replaced. This is because the 'battery' consists entirely of the fuel it contains, and can be broken down very cleanly.
Except when you replace the microparticle filters, to prevent membrane fouling. And the molecular filters needed on the production side, which is why decentralized electrolyzers are generations away. And the 'battery' contains large loadings of platinum, which costs a few hundred or so in today's catalytic converters- now multiply that by a factor of five to ten.
Hydrogen is an extremely efficient battery if you only consider the underhood steps in the cycle. Undoubtedly.
Personally, I don't go half-assed, and ride a bike or take public transportation most days. A three-thousand-pound box is a three-thousand-pound box, no matter what's pushing it.
Rene Carlos
France exports electricity because it's NIGHTTIME electricity- that's it. Not because of taxation, not because of government lies, not because Germany has Greens- because it's night.
The majority of electricity is consumed in the afternoon, when all the air conditioners are on, and workers are using computers and machinery. Ordinarily, you shut down some generators at night to match demand.
But nuclear plants are very difficult to throttle- Chornobyl went runaway due to a botched transition from idle. Therefore, nuclear reactors are run all night.
This is fine when nuclear generates 20-40% of your electricity. You just shut down the rest of the plants. But since France uses 80-90% nuclear, they either have to sell the juice, or waste it somehow. Not being idiots, they sell it.
That's it. Simple physics, no politics involved. (Unless you go way back, to the decision to go 80-90% nuclear.) Rene Carlos
I think we agree on the basic principle: the 2-wheeled vehicles sold today are, for various reasons, getting less mileage than what's physically possible. But you think that's illogical, I think that's logical (though regrettable).
Who needs to do 0-60 in 2.8 seconds on your way to work every day?
No one does...just like no one needs an SUV to get groceries, unless you're on an Indian reservation or archaeological dig. But we have yet to limit SUVs to Indians and archaeologists, and we have yet to restrict bikes to legal speeds, and I don't think we ever will.
Scooters are much slower than the average four-door daily commuter
Have you been on a scooter lately? While a 125cc machine is obviously not going to be in the left lane of a controlled-access highway, from a standing start a scooter can hold its own. And then there's the growing category of "super scoots" or "sport scoots," but then you lose the high mileage. Which brings us back to the original point:
I have seen no mass-produced motorcycles that are advertised for their fuel economy and emissions.
Exactly!!! Bikes don't have better fuel economy or emissions because we don't ask them to. That's not what the public looks for in a bike. SUVs don't get high mileage either, but manufacturers are making token efforts to shut up protesters/the government.
To continue the metaphor, people want tough(-looking) vehicles even if they're just dropping off the kids. They want the look so much, they're willing to sacrifice mileage, handling...and several thousand dollars extra, which is why the automakers are obliging. Similarly, motorcycle buyers want manly vehicles, even if the plain, higher-mileage ones are already capable of breaking every speed limit in this country.
You and I would both like to see more sensible vehicles, but we're unfortunately in the minority. I buy and use sensible vehicles- my bike is small by American standards (I actually wanted a smaller one), and I drove my pickup once in the last month. I think I'm doing my part, but my money can't compensate for the thousands of people who want macho vehicles, EPA be damned. You said it yourself: "Unfortunately, no one rides scooters."
BTW, there's a physical reason why motorcycles and scooters don't get proportionally-better mileage than cars. The average motorcycle (and rider) has a drag coefficient of.7, twice as bad as a modern car, and right up there with pickup trucks. At low speeds, you're right, weight gives the 2-wheeler a distinct advantage. But at highway speeds, air resistance is the dominant loss-factor.
Rene Carlos
And I suppose your "readily available conventional cars" can do 0-60 mph in 2.8 seconds? That's the oft-quoted GSXR1000 figure. To match it, let alone beat it, you have to go beyond Ferrari, to the McLarens and Vectors with >$250,000 price tags. Meanwhile the GSXR costs $11,000.
Okay, so that's an extreme example. The Ducati Monster 1000 doesn't even have a multivalve, liquid-cooled engine, yet it turns sub-4-second 0-60 times. Even stock Harleys will outdrag most mass-market cars at an intersection.
I think a more apples-to-apples comparison would be a conventional car to a scooter. After all, both are designed to be everyday vehicles, with all the compromises that entails. Then you get your 80 mpg. A hybrid car should be compared to a hybrid motorcycle, and yes they exist (in limited production, which is in line with the relative production quantities of hybrid cars.)
Your argument plays directly into the hands of Ford, GM, etc. "Sure we can make significant gains in mileage, but the consumer has largely rejected that. We should not be forced to build something that won't sell." While I agree that Ford, GM, et al are being evasive, and could certainly do more than they're doing, what they are doing is filling a niche. There are people who want SUVs even if they're just going to the mall. They'll pay the price, both financially and chemically.
Similarly, there are people who want the ability to go 190 mph, even though the odds of that actually occurring are nil. They, too, are putting up legal tender. Same thing with 6-foot-long chrome boats. I don't think race-replicas or custom cruisers make any more sense than SUVs, which is why I don't own any of the three. But no body has yet legislated logic or taste.
Rene Carlos
You must not have any kids. An econo-box hatchback just doesn't have enough room for the whole family plus a week's worth of groceries or luggage for a long weekend out in the country.
American families are smaller than in most other nations (except Italy and Scandinavia). Americans wear less clothing than virtually all Europeans. Your point?
Okay, Americans eat more food than in every other nation.
Rene Carlos
You can't call BS using a very specific example that's not representative of the rest of the group at all.
Now it's my turn to call BS. The EPA just enacted tighter emissions regs to begin in '06- and many bikes already met them. My '02 Ducati has EFI, 2-way catalytic converters, and PCV with carbon cannister... and it's the cheapest one they make (M620 Dark).
Virtually all sportbikes had EFI for '02. They had to, to match the horsepower gain of the competition's EFI bikes. Ducati had EFI no later than '86, which put them ahead of every GM division except Cadillac. Every 2-wheeled BMW available in North America has EFI and cats.
the Harley, is the epitome of ultra-low-tech, using the exact same engine design they've used for decades.
Harleys are surprisingly clean: given large displacements, they don't need overlap or late spark to produce pull. Not that I'm a Harley fan, I think they're wasteful from a marketing perspective alone. But I'll stand up for the 2-wheeled brethren, bicycles included.
and pick up ugly biker chicks.
The majority of bikers (at least street bikers, in the US) are married. Now who's the one making sweeping generalizations? Rene Carlos
>You can't call BS using a very specific example that's not representative of the rest of the group at all.
Now it's my turn to call BS. My '02 Ducati also has EFI, 2-way catalytic converters, and PCV with carbon cannister. I will agree that it's tuned for speed, not economy or emissions- yet I still get 40+ mpg if I don't get caught in traffic.
>the popular bike around here these days, the Harley, is the epitome of ultra-low-tech, using the exact same engine design they've used for decades.
Funny, the EPA just enacted tighter emissions regulations, to go into effect in 2006...and many motorcycles already meet them. Harleys are also surprisingly clean: given their massive displacement, the company doesn't need thermochemical compromises to produce grunt. There were already several models with EFI even before the legislation was announced.
(Not that I'm a Harley fan, I think they're wasteful simply from a marketing POV. But I'll stand up for my 2-wheeled brethren, bicycles included.)
Bikes (motorized or not) also use less lifecycle energy, from the foundry (smaller frames use recycled steel, from mini-mills) to the road (orders of magnitude less wear, saving asphalt and pavement-laying emissions) to the scrapyard (easier to separate). Rene Carlos
>If they had realized that their most valuable product is actually their distillation of songs from various artists, they'd allow you to build your own compilation CDs from a comprehensive catalog of artists for a per-track fee, rather than
Now That's What I Call Mod -10! Featuring Blindingly Obvious and Money See Monkey Poo!!!
In all seriousness, the labels got wise to K-tel and beat them at their own game. What you're proposing the labels do now is simply the digital equivalent, but that's exactly why it won't happen. The labels can't beat Kazaa et al. using the imitate/withhold(embrace/extend?) strategy that worked on K-tel.
>Canadian artists really need more exposure in the states
You mean like Nickelback, Default, Our Lady Peace, and all the other Nirvana/PJ ripoffs? You mean like Bif Naked? You mean like Avril Lavigne...okay, avril has some merit, just not for me. But after she got the treatment by big American producers.
GOOD artists really need more exposure in the states. When I got MuchMusic, it easily kicked MTV's ass artistically, but that's not saying much.
>Now, if album-length CD's were priced at US$11 per disc
Many indie bands can be bought straight off their indie labels, through either web or s-mail. Most are US$12, though some up-and-coming bands will be $10 or even $9.
The best part is that you know your money's going to, if not the artist, then the small-timers with stock in the same building. And not some broker for BestBuy, or some payola dude.
And personally, I prefer those bands that CAN'T get onto the major labels. Your riffage may vary.
This whole president = economy thing is a stretch at best, and at worst a scapegoating. The president has about as much command of the economy as Bill Gates has command of your weekly backup scheme. He can stimulate it, at best, or cut the bloat when the pendulum swings the other way.
I read an interesting theory that the Wizard of Oz (the title character) represents the president. The whole movie was a metaphor for the populist movement of the turn of the (last) century. Dorothy was the broke farmer, the witch was the banking industry trying to foreclose (I think), and the silver slippers (they were silver in the book) represented the silver monetary standard which was supposed to stabilize interest rates.
Upshot: the prez looks and sounds impressive, but can't really do that much here.
On-topic: There's a lot of single songs I'd buy if someone offered a convenient outlet. Yesterday Petty's "Runnin' Down a Dream" came on the radio, and I pondered doing a punk cover of it. If the "music industry" had a way to get that song, just that song, to me that afternoon (not even in broadband speed), they could have easily gotten a few bucks out of me. But they don't, so they didn't.
Yes, I've looked into pressplay and MusicNet. Of the 26 CDs I've bought so far this year, both services listed two, and the same two. And they listed the artists, not individual albums or songs- I'd be really surprised if they offered the live James Brown disc I bought, from 1968.
Oh, and pressplay's user agreement is 700-odd lines long. While I'm sure that won't set a record, it's still way too much- I'd have lost interest in "Runnin' Down a Dream" by the time I drilled that far.
Oh, and pressplay's registration server was fuct. They _literally_ would not take my money.
>What's wrong with the Hummer H2, and what about it would make the buyer an idiot? Is it that you can't afford one?
Idiot == one who buys an uglier Tahoe for a $15,000 premium. Look at the drivetrain specs, look at the interior. GM is smart to piggyback off the H1 phenomenon; buyers are idiots to fall for the switcheroo.
In the motorcycle world, the H2 would be called a "parts-bin bike," and avoided like the plague by anyone who can.
>Forrest Gump - another huge commercial success that also won an Oscar - 1994.
Funny you should mention Gump, since it beat out Pulp Fiction in something like six categories. All my friends liked Pulp Fiction better than Gump, but then again I hang out with the artsies (especially the darky-artsies).
Whether FG or PF is better on merit depends on you, but a film student friend of mine opined that FG was "the right movie" for 1994. The national consciousness was wrapped around recession, crime, and the "decline of America" in abstract. Whether or not it was better, PF was simply too bitter a pill at the time.
On-topic: if Serkis deserves recognition for Gollum, then Ezekiel deserved a screenplay co-credit.
>...Spider-man. It too was criticized quite a bit for looking 'cartoony', not moving right, etc. This friend went to great lengths to explain to me that the problem was physics.
Funny, I know two physics professors who saw it opening weekend, looking specifically for physics. They found no issues.
I suppose this plays into the other poster's point- what two physics profs consider realistic could be entirely different from what two 13-year olds consider realistic. And the movie, IMHO, was certainly 13-YO targeted.
On-topic: if Serkis deserves recognition for Gollum, then Kirsten Dunst's nipples deserve a best-supporting-appendage nom.
>the box office receipts from my movies would be all the applause I would need. To me that's a much more accurate measure of whether or not people like my work --- or at least, ordinary people, who are the ones whose opinions I'd care about most
Two words: Devlin and Emmerich. I'd have asked for my eight dollars back after "Independence Day," except the two hours out of my life were far more valuable.
It did appear that the "ordinary people" wised up in time for "Godzilla," at least in the U.S. market. No, I didn't see it, so I could be being an asshole here.
On-topic: If Serkis deserves a nomination for Gollum, then the dog from "As Good as it Gets" deserves veal kibble for life.
>I'd rather see that $150 million invested into ways to destroy an asteroid
*Sigh* that's the plan. Such a mission would determine surface composition and overall morphology, both necessary for any destruction/deflection scheme. In addition, collecting background information on one (preferably several) bodies lets us make assumptions about the rest of the asteroid population and by extension, Earth.
It's called science- the pursuit of knowledge for the sake of knowledge. You don't order an asteroid's destruction like you order a pizza.
Slashdot Mirror
Singlespeeders have solved this problem- just look up "singlespeed tension," and see the seven or so methods used by singlespeeders to properly space chains, on frames NOT DESIGNED to be run as singlespeeds.
Not that I'm defending this company, I would never buy one. But they could easily call out some tension adjustment in their standard.
Rene Carlos
Discharge in months? I think you meant self-discharge in days.
Several automakers have experimented with supercaps in cars. All used them as buffers, not primary storage. Which is not a bad thing: increases POWER to the wheels (not range), and reduces spikes to the battery pack.
Rene Carlos
But all electrostatic devices, even this electro-static/chemical one, have linear voltages. A battery stays at 1.5 volts, 12 volts, or whatever, until they're almost drained. A capacitor tapers down in voltage continuously the instant you begin tapping it. Any device with capacitor primary power must either live with this, or have some sort of active step-up circuit.
And they self-discharge faster than batteries.
The auto industry has already been through this- ultracapacitors would only be used as electron buffers in conjuction with a baseline energy source (battery or fuel cell), to deliver peak power.
Rene Carlos
In all seriousness, why expend power to stand still? Using a "landing gear" at a stoplight makes as much sense as shutting a 4-wheeler's engine off at a stoplight. I was thinking of getting a bigger battery, so I could shut off my truck's engine manually.
Rene Carlos
>What would you imagine the advantage of having two driven wheels
There was a review in one of the motorcycle websites (sorry, don't remember, it was months ago) on a prototype 2WD dirt bike. While I'm not a dirt bike rider, it sounded like a definite improvement. It would require a fair amount of "re-learning" on the part of the rider to extract maximum benefit- different throttle strategy, corner approach/lean/exit, hill approach, etc. This is to be expected, as the human-motorcycle connection is far deeper and more subtle than in a cage (moto-speak for "car or truck"). But the reviewer did see potential.
I do ride street bikes, and there would still be an advantage. Aside from a simpler drivetrain of course, takeoffs (both from a stop, and out of a corner) are really dependent on your rear rubber. Using both contact patches instead of one is a good thing.
Do you ride motorcycles, of either sort?
Rene Carlos
>where it proceeded to get run over by a bus
Front axle, or back axle? An unladen bus can have surprisingly low ground loading, due to the massive tires.
Rene Carlos
Even a staunch H2 advocate, Amory Lovins at the Rocky Mountain Institute, sees natural gas piping to H2 reformers as the only practical distribution method in the foreseeable term. Look up his paper, "Twenty Hydrogen Myths" (sorry I don't feel like digging up the link). And he's a shameless H2 plugger.
BTW, hydrogen is better suited to powering large stationary engines...er, fuel cell stacks. Geoffrey Ballard (founder of Ballard Power Systems, the industry leader) believes that mobile engines will only become practical once pallet-mounted generators subsidize the R&D. He is quoted in Fortune Small Business as saying something like, "the garaged, personal vehicle will be the last one to operate on hydrogen." Sorry I don't have the exact quote.
Rene Carlos
That, and tap water contains chlorine and fluorine, which will send your reaction straight into the toilet. Domestic/neighborhood electrolyzers are generations away; economies of scale work against them just as surely as they work for refineries and other chemical industries. Even if you can get nice, clean water somewhere in the Arctic, you still get carbonates in the water and possibly the hydrogen.
Rene Carlos
There's a University of California study on vehicle demand somewhere on the web- overnight charging only leads to capacity increases when electric cars become something like 30% of the total. This is because we have so much air conditioning, that there's massive overcapacity at night.
Rene Carlos
Except when you replace the microparticle filters, to prevent membrane fouling. And the molecular filters needed on the production side, which is why decentralized electrolyzers are generations away. And the 'battery' contains large loadings of platinum, which costs a few hundred or so in today's catalytic converters- now multiply that by a factor of five to ten.
Hydrogen is an extremely efficient battery if you only consider the underhood steps in the cycle. Undoubtedly.
Personally, I don't go half-assed, and ride a bike or take public transportation most days. A three-thousand-pound box is a three-thousand-pound box, no matter what's pushing it.
Rene Carlos
France exports electricity because it's NIGHTTIME electricity- that's it. Not because of taxation, not because of government lies, not because Germany has Greens- because it's night.
The majority of electricity is consumed in the afternoon, when all the air conditioners are on, and workers are using computers and machinery. Ordinarily, you shut down some generators at night to match demand.
But nuclear plants are very difficult to throttle- Chornobyl went runaway due to a botched transition from idle. Therefore, nuclear reactors are run all night.
This is fine when nuclear generates 20-40% of your electricity. You just shut down the rest of the plants. But since France uses 80-90% nuclear, they either have to sell the juice, or waste it somehow. Not being idiots, they sell it.
That's it. Simple physics, no politics involved. (Unless you go way back, to the decision to go 80-90% nuclear.)
Rene Carlos
Who needs to do 0-60 in 2.8 seconds on your way to work every day?
No one does...just like no one needs an SUV to get groceries, unless you're on an Indian reservation or archaeological dig. But we have yet to limit SUVs to Indians and archaeologists, and we have yet to restrict bikes to legal speeds, and I don't think we ever will.
Scooters are much slower than the average four-door daily commuter
Have you been on a scooter lately? While a 125cc machine is obviously not going to be in the left lane of a controlled-access highway, from a standing start a scooter can hold its own. And then there's the growing category of "super scoots" or "sport scoots," but then you lose the high mileage. Which brings us back to the original point:
I have seen no mass-produced motorcycles that are advertised for their fuel economy and emissions.
Exactly!!! Bikes don't have better fuel economy or emissions because we don't ask them to. That's not what the public looks for in a bike. SUVs don't get high mileage either, but manufacturers are making token efforts to shut up protesters/the government.
To continue the metaphor, people want tough(-looking) vehicles even if they're just dropping off the kids. They want the look so much, they're willing to sacrifice mileage, handling...and several thousand dollars extra, which is why the automakers are obliging. Similarly, motorcycle buyers want manly vehicles, even if the plain, higher-mileage ones are already capable of breaking every speed limit in this country.
You and I would both like to see more sensible vehicles, but we're unfortunately in the minority. I buy and use sensible vehicles- my bike is small by American standards (I actually wanted a smaller one), and I drove my pickup once in the last month. I think I'm doing my part, but my money can't compensate for the thousands of people who want macho vehicles, EPA be damned. You said it yourself: "Unfortunately, no one rides scooters."
BTW, there's a physical reason why motorcycles and scooters don't get proportionally-better mileage than cars. The average motorcycle (and rider) has a drag coefficient of .7, twice as bad as a modern car, and right up there with pickup trucks. At low speeds, you're right, weight gives the 2-wheeler a distinct advantage. But at highway speeds, air resistance is the dominant loss-factor.
Rene Carlos
And I suppose your "readily available conventional cars" can do 0-60 mph in 2.8 seconds? That's the oft-quoted GSXR1000 figure. To match it, let alone beat it, you have to go beyond Ferrari, to the McLarens and Vectors with >$250,000 price tags. Meanwhile the GSXR costs $11,000.
Okay, so that's an extreme example. The Ducati Monster 1000 doesn't even have a multivalve, liquid-cooled engine, yet it turns sub-4-second 0-60 times. Even stock Harleys will outdrag most mass-market cars at an intersection.
I think a more apples-to-apples comparison would be a conventional car to a scooter. After all, both are designed to be everyday vehicles, with all the compromises that entails. Then you get your 80 mpg. A hybrid car should be compared to a hybrid motorcycle, and yes they exist (in limited production, which is in line with the relative production quantities of hybrid cars.)
Your argument plays directly into the hands of Ford, GM, etc. "Sure we can make significant gains in mileage, but the consumer has largely rejected that. We should not be forced to build something that won't sell." While I agree that Ford, GM, et al are being evasive, and could certainly do more than they're doing, what they are doing is filling a niche. There are people who want SUVs even if they're just going to the mall. They'll pay the price, both financially and chemically.
Similarly, there are people who want the ability to go 190 mph, even though the odds of that actually occurring are nil. They, too, are putting up legal tender. Same thing with 6-foot-long chrome boats. I don't think race-replicas or custom cruisers make any more sense than SUVs, which is why I don't own any of the three. But no body has yet legislated logic or taste.
Rene Carlos
American families are smaller than in most other nations (except Italy and Scandinavia). Americans wear less clothing than virtually all Europeans. Your point?
Okay, Americans eat more food than in every other nation.
Rene Carlos
You can't call BS using a very specific example that's not representative of the rest of the group at all.
Now it's my turn to call BS. The EPA just enacted tighter emissions regs to begin in '06- and many bikes already met them. My '02 Ducati has EFI, 2-way catalytic converters, and PCV with carbon cannister... and it's the cheapest one they make (M620 Dark).
Virtually all sportbikes had EFI for '02. They had to, to match the horsepower gain of the competition's EFI bikes. Ducati had EFI no later than '86, which put them ahead of every GM division except Cadillac. Every 2-wheeled BMW available in North America has EFI and cats.
the Harley, is the epitome of ultra-low-tech, using the exact same engine design they've used for decades.
Harleys are surprisingly clean: given large displacements, they don't need overlap or late spark to produce pull. Not that I'm a Harley fan, I think they're wasteful from a marketing perspective alone. But I'll stand up for the 2-wheeled brethren, bicycles included.
and pick up ugly biker chicks.
The majority of bikers (at least street bikers, in the US) are married. Now who's the one making sweeping generalizations?
Rene Carlos
>You can't call BS using a very specific example that's not representative of the rest of the group at all.
Now it's my turn to call BS. My '02 Ducati also has EFI, 2-way catalytic converters, and PCV with carbon cannister. I will agree that it's tuned for speed, not economy or emissions- yet I still get 40+ mpg if I don't get caught in traffic.
>the popular bike around here these days, the Harley, is the epitome of ultra-low-tech, using the exact same engine design they've used for decades.
Funny, the EPA just enacted tighter emissions regulations, to go into effect in 2006...and many motorcycles already meet them. Harleys are also surprisingly clean: given their massive displacement, the company doesn't need thermochemical compromises to produce grunt. There were already several models with EFI even before the legislation was announced.
(Not that I'm a Harley fan, I think they're wasteful simply from a marketing POV. But I'll stand up for my 2-wheeled brethren, bicycles included.)
Bikes (motorized or not) also use less lifecycle energy, from the foundry (smaller frames use recycled steel, from mini-mills) to the road (orders of magnitude less wear, saving asphalt and pavement-laying emissions) to the scrapyard (easier to separate).
Rene Carlos
>If they had realized that their most valuable product is actually their distillation of songs from various artists, they'd allow you to build your own compilation CDs from a comprehensive catalog of artists for a per-track fee, rather than
Now That's What I Call Mod -10! Featuring Blindingly Obvious and Money See Monkey Poo!!!
In all seriousness, the labels got wise to K-tel and beat them at their own game. What you're proposing the labels do now is simply the digital equivalent, but that's exactly why it won't happen. The labels can't beat Kazaa et al. using the imitate/withhold(embrace/extend?) strategy that worked on K-tel.
>Canadian artists really need more exposure in the states
You mean like Nickelback, Default, Our Lady Peace, and all the other Nirvana/PJ ripoffs? You mean like Bif Naked? You mean like Avril Lavigne...okay, avril has some merit, just not for me. But after she got the treatment by big American producers.
GOOD artists really need more exposure in the states. When I got MuchMusic, it easily kicked MTV's ass artistically, but that's not saying much.
>Now, if album-length CD's were priced at US$11 per disc
Many indie bands can be bought straight off their indie labels, through either web or s-mail. Most are US$12, though some up-and-coming bands will be $10 or even $9.
The best part is that you know your money's going to, if not the artist, then the small-timers with stock in the same building. And not some broker for BestBuy, or some payola dude.
And personally, I prefer those bands that CAN'T get onto the major labels. Your riffage may vary.
>Thank Bush.
This whole president = economy thing is a stretch at best, and at worst a scapegoating. The president has about as much command of the economy as Bill Gates has command of your weekly backup scheme. He can stimulate it, at best, or cut the bloat when the pendulum swings the other way.
I read an interesting theory that the Wizard of Oz (the title character) represents the president. The whole movie was a metaphor for the populist movement of the turn of the (last) century. Dorothy was the broke farmer, the witch was the banking industry trying to foreclose (I think), and the silver slippers (they were silver in the book) represented the silver monetary standard which was supposed to stabilize interest rates.
Upshot: the prez looks and sounds impressive, but can't really do that much here.
On-topic: There's a lot of single songs I'd buy if someone offered a convenient outlet. Yesterday Petty's "Runnin' Down a Dream" came on the radio, and I pondered doing a punk cover of it. If the "music industry" had a way to get that song, just that song, to me that afternoon (not even in broadband speed), they could have easily gotten a few bucks out of me. But they don't, so they didn't.
Yes, I've looked into pressplay and MusicNet. Of the 26 CDs I've bought so far this year, both services listed two, and the same two. And they listed the artists, not individual albums or songs- I'd be really surprised if they offered the live James Brown disc I bought, from 1968.
Oh, and pressplay's user agreement is 700-odd lines long. While I'm sure that won't set a record, it's still way too much- I'd have lost interest in "Runnin' Down a Dream" by the time I drilled that far.
Oh, and pressplay's registration server was fuct. They _literally_ would not take my money.
>What's wrong with the Hummer H2, and what about it would make the buyer an idiot?
Is it that you can't afford one?
Idiot == one who buys an uglier Tahoe for a $15,000 premium. Look at the drivetrain specs, look at the interior. GM is smart to piggyback off the H1 phenomenon; buyers are idiots to fall for the switcheroo.
In the motorcycle world, the H2 would be called a "parts-bin bike," and avoided like the plague by anyone who can.
>Forrest Gump - another huge commercial success that also won an Oscar - 1994.
Funny you should mention Gump, since it beat out Pulp Fiction in something like six categories. All my friends liked Pulp Fiction better than Gump, but then again I hang out with the artsies (especially the darky-artsies).
Whether FG or PF is better on merit depends on you, but a film student friend of mine opined that FG was "the right movie" for 1994. The national consciousness was wrapped around recession, crime, and the "decline of America" in abstract. Whether or not it was better, PF was simply too bitter a pill at the time.
On-topic: if Serkis deserves recognition for Gollum, then Ezekiel deserved a screenplay co-credit.
>...Spider-man. It too was criticized quite a bit for looking 'cartoony', not moving right, etc. This friend went to great lengths to explain to me that the problem was physics.
Funny, I know two physics professors who saw it opening weekend, looking specifically for physics. They found no issues.
I suppose this plays into the other poster's point- what two physics profs consider realistic could be entirely different from what two 13-year olds consider realistic. And the movie, IMHO, was certainly 13-YO targeted.
On-topic: if Serkis deserves recognition for Gollum, then Kirsten Dunst's nipples deserve a best-supporting-appendage nom.
>the box office receipts from my movies would be all the applause I would need. To me that's a much more accurate measure of whether or not people like my work --- or at least, ordinary people, who are the ones whose opinions I'd care about most
Two words: Devlin and Emmerich. I'd have asked for my eight dollars back after "Independence Day," except the two hours out of my life were far more valuable.
It did appear that the "ordinary people" wised up in time for "Godzilla," at least in the U.S. market. No, I didn't see it, so I could be being an asshole here.
On-topic: If Serkis deserves a nomination for Gollum, then the dog from "As Good as it Gets" deserves veal kibble for life.
>I'd rather see that $150 million invested into ways to destroy an asteroid
*Sigh* that's the plan. Such a mission would determine surface composition and overall morphology, both necessary for any destruction/deflection scheme. In addition, collecting background information on one (preferably several) bodies lets us make assumptions about the rest of the asteroid population and by extension, Earth.
It's called science- the pursuit of knowledge for the sake of knowledge. You don't order an asteroid's destruction like you order a pizza.