i read somewhere (so it must be true) that the majority of the pollution from modern cars is produced in the brief interval after cold start
Is that true because of incomplete combustion or because the catalyst isn't heated up (or both)?
manufacturers are experimenting with electrically heated catalytic coverters
Well, given that in a Volt-like design you'd already have a nice big battery pack with plenty of power anyway -- and that you can get started driving without having the engine on -- it seems relatively trivial to use some of that energy to preheat the catalyst.
As an (unfortunately) current Comcast customer (who will jump ship the nanosecond Google Fiber becomes available), Comcast has always been technically competent in my experience. The problem is that they're evil!
The EULA should not be invalidated based on the idea that it contains unconscionable clauses; it should be invalidated based on the idea that it is not and never was an actual valid legal document in the first place.
More is not necessarily better. Although a few features of C++ might be "nice to have" in C, the fact that all the other shit is also available means there's too much unnecessary complexity, especially in code written by other people (who might have a different opinion of which subset of C++ is valuable).
The main cause of problems with C++ is using it as an object-oriented language, but you'd have the same problem in C#.
I spent the last two years programming professionally in C#, and recently changed jobs to a C++ shop. You clearly have no idea how much nicer C# is to use than C++, especially due to the facts that C# has real generics instead of preprocessor templates, that Visual Studio's debugger works much better with C# code (by showing the actual hierarchical members of your objects instead of vtable pointers everywhere, for example), and that LINQ exists. Also, having private members be actually private (rather than being exposed in the header file) is nice, if for no other reason than that you don't have to recompile everything that uses the class just because you added a new private method. (And those are just a few things off the top of my head; C# has lots of other advantages.)
Also, the article you cited is based on an archaic version of Java; what applied then does not apply now. (He talks about AWT, which as far as I know nobody's used in decades, and the question he's answering was about Java's lack of generics, which it has had for quite a while.)
If your C code leaks memory, you don't know WTF you're doing -- which is exactly why a department of CS professors who don't use C is so damn scary.
And I don't give a shit if you think you don't need to use pointers; that's fine. You still need to understand them so that -- if for no other reason -- you understand why in Java or C# not every IEnumerable should be a List.
Also, if you think a high-level language will save you from remote code exploits, I've got a bridge to sell you.
Granted my car is 25 years old, but I don't need to drive anywhere. Cars are very poor investments.
Cars are an instance where you can have your cake and eat it too. My daily-driver is a '90 Miata with less than 90K miles on it. I bought it for only a couple thousand bucks (i.e., at the bottom of its depreciation curve, since it's almost a "classic" now), it costs a whopping $10/month to insure, and is so reliable that I'd drive it across the country with no qualms whatsoever. I fully expect to sell it for more than I paid (if I ever sell it, which isn't particularly likely).
I also own two other cars -- which is an extravagance for a two-person household -- but all three have a combined value of less than $10k, so they don't impact my finances much (especially since I bike to work most of the time). My wife and I also own a 3-bedroom house in a rapidly-gentrifying urban neighborhood. Even with all that, we spend less than $18K/person, including student loan and mortgage repayment.
There's a lot of things like this in C++ that can slip past a person for years before it actually bites them. Don't get me wrong, I love C++ and think C is a rather dangerous language (from a memory safety standpoint) that requires that its authors reinvent the wheel over and over again. But C++ does have some weirdness in places that can pose hazards.
C++ doesn't have "weirdness," C++ has bad design. Literally anything that you might think C++ would be good for is better solved by either C#, C, or a combination of both.
Now that I think about it, maybe it wouldn't. Regular diesel cars use them to increase top-end power for better driveability, but if you're engineering the car to use the engine as merely a generator to recharge the battery (and thus running it at a constant speed and load), maybe the turbo wouldn't matter. I'm not sure if a turbo theoretically improves maximum BSFC (brake specific fuel consumption) or not.
That's not true: you should just treat it as more of a Chevy Volt-style hybrid system, where the ECU is designed to let the battery discharge to the point that the engine will run long enough that it spends a good proportion of it at normal operating temperature. (Plus, if you do that then you can size the engine for average output instead of peak output, i.e., smaller, which means it'll come up to temp even faster.)
Diesel engines are more expensive than gasoline engines (because they have to be built stronger, and have a turbocharger). Hybrids are also more expensive than gasoline engines (because they have an extra battery and electric motor, or at least an oversized alternator, depending on design). Diesel hybrids would be more expensive twice.
Except it isn't. Check out the forums at places like Mr. Money Mustache or Early Retirement Extreme for tons of examples of people living -- and living well, not on deprivation -- on roughly "poverty-level" spending (e.g. $20K/year) just about anywhere in America outside of Silly Valley, Manhattan, and DC.
The real issue is that the examples I cited are on early retirement websites for a reason: the people executing the plans have got their shit together and know how to optimize their lifestyle, and have huge advantages in flexibility due to the fact that they could spend more if they needed to (we're talking about people who live on less than half their income), but just choose not to. Actual poor people do not have those advantages. It's little stuff like being able to shop at Costco instead of the convenience store, not having to go to the loan shark when some minor thing goes wrong, and not having the mental stress of living paycheck-to-paycheck that adds up.
Here's an alternative: give up. Recognize the fact that 99.99999999999999% of travelers aren't, in fact, trying to do anything nefarious and that it's not worth shitting all over everyone's civil rights to find that 0.00000000000001% who are.
Returning to LA from Ohio on a business trip I was detained after an explosives detector found something on my hands. I was led to a small concrete room with two bluecoats and my carry-on was privately searched. I explained a bar of soap, and they packed everything as they found it and sent me on my way. Another time, I decided to exit the very tedious screening line to get a beer at an adjacent microbrewery in the portland airport. Big mistake. I was detained by police and questioned for leaving the line. I told them the line was boring, and I wanted beer. After refusing to answer a few questions about religion and my laptop password, my laptop was confiscated and i was free to return to the pub. I rescheduled my flight, shared a laugh with the bartender, and re-entered the line only to be followed by the cops again to my gate. My laptop was returned, along with an apology and some rambling nonsense about muslims. They didnt crack a smile until I asked how many beers the average muslim drinks in a day.
Wait a second, you call that kind of jackbooted totalitarian shit productive? What the fuck is wrong with you?!
I'm not discounting what pharmacists do -- they know more about drugs than most doctors. I am saying that they have a very nice, protected work life, the entry into the field and licensure is limited to keep supply low, and demand is high; you can go anywhere you want and get a pharmacy job. If I could tell "19-year-old Me" anything, it would be to study hard and get a job in s profession, rather than fight tooth and nail for the last remaining IT or developer jobs.
...
I've said it before, IT people and developers need to pool their resources, set up an engineering-style profession, and buy a few favorable laws.
That's not always true. For example, I was on track to become a licensed professional civil engineer, but bailed to become a software "engineer" because the pay is much better. (Hopefully I might still be able to get my PE license since I work on CAD/BIM/structural analysis software and my supervisor is a PE, but I'm not sure.)
IMO, the real strategy is to take advantage of the high earnings while they last, live frugally, and retire at 40 or so.
I think you mean the "Facebook internet" and the "Google internet" and the "Microsoft Internet" and the "Baidu internet." All the companies want the Internet to turn into Cable TV 2.0, with them in control.
Somebody mod parent up, please. And even if we don't make the whole Internet like Usenet, we need to at least quit with the centralized shit like Facebook.
People that we generously let in here are shooting us because of their sick, twisted "religion"
If by that you mean the WHITE ALLEGEDLY-CHRISTIAN CITIZENS whose ancestors we let in several generations ago, who constitute the VAST MAJORITY OF DOMESTIC TERRORISTS, then sure!
So you're saying the police arrested him for making a bomb threat because he didn't make a bomb threat?
Yes and no. They arrested him because of racist assumptions, then claimed a threat existed after the fact as an excuse.
The only flaw in your imagined scenario is the police and the prosecutor will have to defend their actions in court, without proof, how would they plan on doing that?
By quietly dropping the case. The implication, as it always is in these sorts of situations, is that the government isn't admitting that it was wrong, but instead is acting out of "compassion" or some bullshit like that. "He's guilty, but we feel he's learned his lesson" is what the prosecutor will say. He'll never say "our racist police should never have arrested him in the first place," even though it's the truth.
Cute, but no. It is not. USSR was never a Communist country â" Soviet people were building Communism, not living it. Some ownership of the means of production was tolerated.
Another 'no true scotsman' fallacy. Apparently, socialism is communism when it's convenient for your argument, but even communism isn't communism when it hurts your argument. You can't have it both ways! (You're still wrong when trying to have it even one way, but trying to have it two ways is even worse!)
Actually, none of the past Socialists have been particularly successful at governing.
And yet another -- I can feel it coming! Let me guess: if I cite socialists who have been successful (e.g. the leaders of most of western Europe), you'll try to pretend they aren't real socialists, right?
What I was saying was that the "features" of Chavez, which you tried to contrast with those of Sanders, were not intentional â" they were a result of his ideas put into practice.
You keep saying that as if (a) Chavez and Sanders have the same ideas (but they don't), (b) they'd implement them the same way (but even if (a) were true, you can't possibly know that), and (c) they'd have the same result (even though the US's and Venezuela's circumstances are very different). In other words, pure sophistry -- your arguments are fallacious in so many ways I can't even keep up with which fallacies they are anymore!
No, I do not think so for a second â" Communists, National Socialists â" and all other Collectivists are hardly distinguishable from one another. All forms of Collectivism value the Collective (a.k.a. Community) above the Individual. This approach inevitably destroy human rights (hey, our glorious Collective is more important than your silly liberties) and the economy. Sometimes it devolves further â" into killing fields of one kind or another â" which Venezuela seems to have avoided.
But back to the original topic â" in your attempt to come up with differences between the two men, you unwittingly offered similarities (nationalizations) and then proceeded to contrast, what Chavez actually accomplished (quadrupling of violent crime, destroyed infrastructure, shrinking economy â" at the times of oil-price booming) with what you hope Sanders will avoid. In other words, you were unable to offer anything. Just as I suspected.
Pure bullshit, all of it. You're fucking delusional, do you know that?
You mean in the sense that the school and the police falsely claimed it to be a bomb threat in order to attempt to justify their blatant criminal violation of the kid's civil rights?
Slashdot Mirror
Is that true because of incomplete combustion or because the catalyst isn't heated up (or both)?
Well, given that in a Volt-like design you'd already have a nice big battery pack with plenty of power anyway -- and that you can get started driving without having the engine on -- it seems relatively trivial to use some of that energy to preheat the catalyst.
As an (unfortunately) current Comcast customer (who will jump ship the nanosecond Google Fiber becomes available), Comcast has always been technically competent in my experience. The problem is that they're evil!
I wish more people who believe in jury nullification would want to serve on juries!
The EULA should not be invalidated based on the idea that it contains unconscionable clauses; it should be invalidated based on the idea that it is not and never was an actual valid legal document in the first place.
More is not necessarily better. Although a few features of C++ might be "nice to have" in C, the fact that all the other shit is also available means there's too much unnecessary complexity, especially in code written by other people (who might have a different opinion of which subset of C++ is valuable).
I spent the last two years programming professionally in C#, and recently changed jobs to a C++ shop. You clearly have no idea how much nicer C# is to use than C++, especially due to the facts that C# has real generics instead of preprocessor templates, that Visual Studio's debugger works much better with C# code (by showing the actual hierarchical members of your objects instead of vtable pointers everywhere, for example), and that LINQ exists. Also, having private members be actually private (rather than being exposed in the header file) is nice, if for no other reason than that you don't have to recompile everything that uses the class just because you added a new private method. (And those are just a few things off the top of my head; C# has lots of other advantages.)
Also, the article you cited is based on an archaic version of Java; what applied then does not apply now. (He talks about AWT, which as far as I know nobody's used in decades, and the question he's answering was about Java's lack of generics, which it has had for quite a while.)
If your C code leaks memory, you don't know WTF you're doing -- which is exactly why a department of CS professors who don't use C is so damn scary.
And I don't give a shit if you think you don't need to use pointers; that's fine. You still need to understand them so that -- if for no other reason -- you understand why in Java or C# not every IEnumerable should be a List.
Also, if you think a high-level language will save you from remote code exploits, I've got a bridge to sell you.
Cars are an instance where you can have your cake and eat it too. My daily-driver is a '90 Miata with less than 90K miles on it. I bought it for only a couple thousand bucks (i.e., at the bottom of its depreciation curve, since it's almost a "classic" now), it costs a whopping $10/month to insure, and is so reliable that I'd drive it across the country with no qualms whatsoever. I fully expect to sell it for more than I paid (if I ever sell it, which isn't particularly likely).
I also own two other cars -- which is an extravagance for a two-person household -- but all three have a combined value of less than $10k, so they don't impact my finances much (especially since I bike to work most of the time). My wife and I also own a 3-bedroom house in a rapidly-gentrifying urban neighborhood. Even with all that, we spend less than $18K/person, including student loan and mortgage repayment.
C++ doesn't have "weirdness," C++ has bad design. Literally anything that you might think C++ would be good for is better solved by either C#, C, or a combination of both.
Holy shit, that's scary! Doesn't the school you're thinking of teach compilers, embedded computing, or high-performance computing?
Now that I think about it, maybe it wouldn't. Regular diesel cars use them to increase top-end power for better driveability, but if you're engineering the car to use the engine as merely a generator to recharge the battery (and thus running it at a constant speed and load), maybe the turbo wouldn't matter. I'm not sure if a turbo theoretically improves maximum BSFC (brake specific fuel consumption) or not.
That's not true: you should just treat it as more of a Chevy Volt-style hybrid system, where the ECU is designed to let the battery discharge to the point that the engine will run long enough that it spends a good proportion of it at normal operating temperature. (Plus, if you do that then you can size the engine for average output instead of peak output, i.e., smaller, which means it'll come up to temp even faster.)
Diesel engines are more expensive than gasoline engines (because they have to be built stronger, and have a turbocharger). Hybrids are also more expensive than gasoline engines (because they have an extra battery and electric motor, or at least an oversized alternator, depending on design). Diesel hybrids would be more expensive twice.
That said, I'd love to have one.
Except it isn't. Check out the forums at places like Mr. Money Mustache or Early Retirement Extreme for tons of examples of people living -- and living well, not on deprivation -- on roughly "poverty-level" spending (e.g. $20K/year) just about anywhere in America outside of Silly Valley, Manhattan, and DC.
The real issue is that the examples I cited are on early retirement websites for a reason: the people executing the plans have got their shit together and know how to optimize their lifestyle, and have huge advantages in flexibility due to the fact that they could spend more if they needed to (we're talking about people who live on less than half their income), but just choose not to. Actual poor people do not have those advantages. It's little stuff like being able to shop at Costco instead of the convenience store, not having to go to the loan shark when some minor thing goes wrong, and not having the mental stress of living paycheck-to-paycheck that adds up.
Here's an alternative: give up. Recognize the fact that 99.99999999999999% of travelers aren't, in fact, trying to do anything nefarious and that it's not worth shitting all over everyone's civil rights to find that 0.00000000000001% who are.
FUCK YOU AND FUCK YOUR SOPHISTRY! Terrorists aren't the dangerous ones; totalitarian cowards like you are the dangerous ones!
Wait a second, you call that kind of jackbooted totalitarian shit productive? What the fuck is wrong with you?!
That's not always true. For example, I was on track to become a licensed professional civil engineer, but bailed to become a software "engineer" because the pay is much better. (Hopefully I might still be able to get my PE license since I work on CAD/BIM/structural analysis software and my supervisor is a PE, but I'm not sure.)
IMO, the real strategy is to take advantage of the high earnings while they last, live frugally, and retire at 40 or so.
Hey, at least it's not as bloated as Super Mario Maker!
A sign with the AC's post number (#51165329) would work.
I think you mean the "Facebook internet" and the "Google internet" and the "Microsoft Internet" and the "Baidu internet." All the companies want the Internet to turn into Cable TV 2.0, with them in control.
Somebody mod parent up, please. And even if we don't make the whole Internet like Usenet, we need to at least quit with the centralized shit like Facebook.
If by that you mean the WHITE ALLEGEDLY-CHRISTIAN CITIZENS whose ancestors we let in several generations ago, who constitute the VAST MAJORITY OF DOMESTIC TERRORISTS, then sure!
Yes and no. They arrested him because of racist assumptions, then claimed a threat existed after the fact as an excuse.
By quietly dropping the case. The implication, as it always is in these sorts of situations, is that the government isn't admitting that it was wrong, but instead is acting out of "compassion" or some bullshit like that. "He's guilty, but we feel he's learned his lesson" is what the prosecutor will say. He'll never say "our racist police should never have arrested him in the first place," even though it's the truth.
Another 'no true scotsman' fallacy. Apparently, socialism is communism when it's convenient for your argument, but even communism isn't communism when it hurts your argument. You can't have it both ways! (You're still wrong when trying to have it even one way, but trying to have it two ways is even worse!)
And yet another -- I can feel it coming! Let me guess: if I cite socialists who have been successful (e.g. the leaders of most of western Europe), you'll try to pretend they aren't real socialists, right?
You keep saying that as if (a) Chavez and Sanders have the same ideas (but they don't), (b) they'd implement them the same way (but even if (a) were true, you can't possibly know that), and (c) they'd have the same result (even though the US's and Venezuela's circumstances are very different). In other words, pure sophistry -- your arguments are fallacious in so many ways I can't even keep up with which fallacies they are anymore!
Pure bullshit, all of it. You're fucking delusional, do you know that?
You mean in the sense that the school and the police falsely claimed it to be a bomb threat in order to attempt to justify their blatant criminal violation of the kid's civil rights?
Yep, I can agree with that.