The conspiracy theorist in me says that this is just a way for manufacturers to increase their revenues for ongoing maintenance (as these engines WILL need far more regular maintenance cycles)
When was the last time you sold a car because the engine had worn out? As opposed to selling it because the body rattles, the upholstery is worn, the doors leak water when it rains, the paint is scratched, the windshield is cracked, plastic parts are broken, the dashboard is crumbling?
In the 1950s an engine was totally shot by 100,000 miles. But then, cars were a lot more affordable then (about 5% of gross pay). Do you really want to return to that, when the average car price is now 50% of the average gross pay for most people in this country (USA)?
What has me interested is seeing electrification of all the accessories (power steering/brakes/AC compressor/etc) that are currently typically driven by belts off of the engine. Besides being more efficient, removing them from the motor reduces drag on the motor and enables higher RPMs, thus more power density. Hopefully, even on 'normal' cars, we'll get to the point where the only things driven from the motor will be the output shaft and the starternator (starter/alternator combo unit, possibly integrated in-line between the engine output shaft and transmission input).
Hopefully this will help reduce the cost of these components due to economies of scale.
Who knows, perhaps the early '00s "mild" hybridization will morph into something that's standard across all non-dedicated hybrid vehicles, perhaps even reducing weight overall (starternator, lithium battery replacing lead-acid).
If an accessory, say a compressor for air conditioning or power steering, requires x amount of horsepower to do it's job when driven by a belt, changing it to an all electric component will still require x amount of horsepower to do the same amount of work. You'll just need a larger alternator which will be harder to spin (require more horsepower) when there is the additional electrical load on it.
I've got a better solution, one that will save gas whether city driving or highway. Do the same thing they did in the 70s. Build smaller, lighter cars. The Honda Civic in the 70s and early 80s got mileage close to what some of the hybrids get today. Why, they did have high horse power engines that are needed to haul all the extra weight around. Today's civic is closer to a full size car of the 70s than a compact.
Today, we have cars that are over-powered, over-weight and over-priced. I have 1972 Volkswagen Beetle that I drive most days. It gets actual 27mpg city and 32 highway. I am not suggesting that everyone drive an old Beetle. It is frustrating, though that a 38 year old vehicle gets better mileage than most of today's fuel efficient vehicles.
This may work on a small engine but not on a typical american gas guzzler
Once again: If you're driving a gas guzzler, you don't care about 5-10% saving.
It's a bit like saying "This is stupid, because the Formula 1 car I'm driving is seldom at a complete halt".
If you wish to drive in a gas guzzler, go ahead. If you wish to be sensible and save a few bucks, you probably are not driving a gas guzzler and you would probably like another 5-10% saving.
If you are truly sensible, you won't be spending $20,000-$30,000 to get a new car that will save you at most 2mpg from idling (and that is only if the 10% figure is reached).
Right now, you are lucky to get 4 to 6 cars through a light before it turns red again. The problem isn't necessarily because the lights are too short, but more often, the hesitation from one driver to the next in starting to move. What happens when those cars now take a fraction of a second longer just to start up again?
Will the extra fuel used to start multiple times still offset the original idle time fuel usage?
Too bad they didn't own their own business, courts have already ruled that your employer can read your email. Maybe he can have his wife arrested for stalking, because she keeps showing up wherever he is. It seems the real crime here is a prosecutor who would prosecute this in the first place. If I were the judge, I'd throw it out and issue a warning to the prosecutor not to waste the court's time when there is a backlog of real crimes that need to be dealt with.
Actually, other than this being a government agency, it has nothing to do with Obama, unless the president is expected to micro-manage every last minutia of government.
In reality, ICE is part of Homeland Security and ever since being created under the Bush administration, everyone has had trouble reigning them in. I'm pretty sure that protecting us from pirated music and movies will not have one iota of impact on terrorism, but hey, maybe they know something that thinking people don't.
I think I figured out how to retire early. Make video or some other form of media and copyright it. Let all kinds of people know about it. Then do a google/bing/yahoo search and if they've linked to my media, sue the pants off of them.
If the RIAA thinks that a small website linking is violating copyright, then why don't they go after the big players, too (other than they know that google and the like have the money to fight such an absurd notion).
I just find it fascinating how posters on this story are blasting the patent system and the entirety of the United States itself based on a single, solitary email from some unknown guy. I don't know how any reasonable person would assume with such 100% certainty that this single patent proves anything about any fact other than "once upon a time some guy managed to obtain a bad patent."
Because this is Slashdot. You don't really expect people to use reason or research before they post something, do you? Present company excluded, of course.
If there truly is a patent for the playoffs, then why not use a system that is already in existence? NCAA basketball tournament seems to be non-infringing. Nobody says you have to start with 64 teams. Take the top sixteen BCS teams, pair them like in the basketball tournament and let them have at it. It adds a total of 15 games for the public (not much different than the current bowl system) and a total of 4 more games to the season for whomever makes it all the way to the championship game (only 1 more game if you lose in the first round). If that is too many, then start with the top 8 teams.
Since this was not an actual statistical survey you cannot extrapolate the findings to mean anything other than the 62% of the sites they got to talk with them had problems (as stated in the article). Now I understand that it might be difficult to get a statistical sample because sites may not want to participate, but that doesn't make this a valid report. Actually, it is worse than valid, because it implies a problem exists without any real evidence to support it. I would have expected more from Harvard. Surely they still teach statistics and sampling techniques there.
Hah, that's just like the government contractor -- write a backdoor into a system that doesn't actually work. Since the so called announcement, and the source being available. If this back door were true, wouldn't there be a patch issued for it?
Personally, I think that the leak got it wrong, it's not about making OpenBSD insecure, it was to openly create the BSoD in another well known operating system.
WTF, not another Wikileaks story! In the spirit of the upcoming holiday season, maybe we can just forgo any more Wikileaks stories until after the New Year.
I guess the truth hurts, when you have nothing to hold on to but your own anger and frustration. I haven't regurgitated anything. I have only pointed out the displaced hostility towards Apple. You on the other hand seem to have a low opinion of anyone who takes a position contra to your own misconceptions.
To make it perfectly clear, Apple clearly states that apps in the app store cannot be used to solicit donations. That is their prerogative. If you or I or anyone want to develop for Apple's platform, it seems sense to sensible to follow the developer's agreement which you agree to when getting the developer kit. The developer of the Wikileaks app (which was not developed by or even authorised by Wikileaks), did not abide by that agreement and therefore had their app removed.
Plain and simple, no if's, and's or but's. That is unless you have an axe to grind with anyone who looks for real truth that might contradict your own myopic view.
No, I didn't buy their phone, and I never will. But loads of people do, and if Apple ever gets to become a dominant platform, the media will start adapting to their censorship, and we're all screwed. So that's just another bullshit argument from you, and yet again it's a cliché that you copied from elsewhere. No wonder you're happy with the Apple "experience" when you're following the herd without a single rational thought of your own. Sheep.
Actually, I don't use or own any Apple products, so I don't share in their experience. If they made a product that fit my needs, I'd consider buying it. But, then I like to make rational purchasing decisions based on actual needs and values.
I'm not sure what made you feel the need to call me names or make assumptions about me, but if it makes you feel better, go for it.
Actually, the US involvement with the issue began in 2004 (over six years ago) and was at the request of the then Spanish government and supported by the opposition party. That, at least is how it was described in the article referenced by the poster regarding Spain.
So, I guess, the US is still the bad guy when asked for their input and help. Seems they just can't win.
It seems odd that while slashdoters argue that the US has become fascist, at the same time, they argue that corporate freedoms are in jeopardy.
As for "The data they publish was not acquired by them..." They maybe didn't pay for it, but I'm pretty sure they acquired it somehow. Otherwise, how could they publish it?
Yeah yeah you can get an Android, I know (I do have an Android). The thing is, as a developer, if you want to enter the mobile app market today, your app has to run on iOS. And it's a lot of effort that can just go to waste if Apple decides to just remove your app from the store one day without any justification whatsoever.
I guess if I were a developer (which I am, btw), before writing an app for iOS, I would make sure I am following Apple's policies on what my app can do or not. Apple does not allow apps to make contributions/donations. The Wikileak app isn't the only one that has run afoul of this policy. So, like Wikileaks violating Paypal's acceptable use policy, this developer violated Apple's. At least with Apple, unlike Paypal, they enforce the policy on all their apps, not just a selective few.
So Apple and the iphone acts just like Sony and the PS3 or Microsoft and the XBOX.
If you want to use somebody's licensed technology, you have to use it under their own rules. It's not like Apple changed the game plan once you bought their phone. It's been that way since day one and you still bought their phone.
If you don't like it, then don't use it. Apple is a business. If enough customers quit using their product, they will change. Oh, wait, they won't because most people are quite satisfied with the Apple experience.
Slashdot Mirror
From the summary: "But look at it, all brown, ugly and lovely..."
The conspiracy theorist in me says that this is just a way for manufacturers to increase their revenues for ongoing maintenance (as these engines WILL need far more regular maintenance cycles)
When was the last time you sold a car because the engine had worn out? As opposed to selling it because the body rattles, the upholstery is worn, the doors leak water when it rains, the paint is scratched, the windshield is cracked, plastic parts are broken, the dashboard is crumbling?
In the 1950s an engine was totally shot by 100,000 miles. But then, cars were a lot more affordable then (about 5% of gross pay). Do you really want to return to that, when the average car price is now 50% of the average gross pay for most people in this country (USA)?
What has me interested is seeing electrification of all the accessories (power steering/brakes/AC compressor/etc) that are currently typically driven by belts off of the engine. Besides being more efficient, removing them from the motor reduces drag on the motor and enables higher RPMs, thus more power density. Hopefully, even on 'normal' cars, we'll get to the point where the only things driven from the motor will be the output shaft and the starternator (starter/alternator combo unit, possibly integrated in-line between the engine output shaft and transmission input).
Hopefully this will help reduce the cost of these components due to economies of scale.
Who knows, perhaps the early '00s "mild" hybridization will morph into something that's standard across all non-dedicated hybrid vehicles, perhaps even reducing weight overall (starternator, lithium battery replacing lead-acid).
If an accessory, say a compressor for air conditioning or power steering, requires x amount of horsepower to do it's job when driven by a belt, changing it to an all electric component will still require x amount of horsepower to do the same amount of work. You'll just need a larger alternator which will be harder to spin (require more horsepower) when there is the additional electrical load on it.
I've got a better solution, one that will save gas whether city driving or highway. Do the same thing they did in the 70s. Build smaller, lighter cars. The Honda Civic in the 70s and early 80s got mileage close to what some of the hybrids get today. Why, they did have high horse power engines that are needed to haul all the extra weight around. Today's civic is closer to a full size car of the 70s than a compact.
Today, we have cars that are over-powered, over-weight and over-priced. I have 1972 Volkswagen Beetle that I drive most days. It gets actual 27mpg city and 32 highway. I am not suggesting that everyone drive an old Beetle. It is frustrating, though that a 38 year old vehicle gets better mileage than most of today's fuel efficient vehicles.
This may work on a small engine but not on a typical american gas guzzler
Once again: If you're driving a gas guzzler, you don't care about 5-10% saving.
It's a bit like saying "This is stupid, because the Formula 1 car I'm driving is seldom at a complete halt".
If you wish to drive in a gas guzzler, go ahead. If you wish to be sensible and save a few bucks, you probably are not driving a gas guzzler and you would probably like another 5-10% saving.
If you are truly sensible, you won't be spending $20,000-$30,000 to get a new car that will save you at most 2mpg from idling (and that is only if the 10% figure is reached).
Right now, you are lucky to get 4 to 6 cars through a light before it turns red again. The problem isn't necessarily because the lights are too short, but more often, the hesitation from one driver to the next in starting to move. What happens when those cars now take a fraction of a second longer just to start up again?
Will the extra fuel used to start multiple times still offset the original idle time fuel usage?
Too bad they didn't own their own business, courts have already ruled that your employer can read your email. Maybe he can have his wife arrested for stalking, because she keeps showing up wherever he is. It seems the real crime here is a prosecutor who would prosecute this in the first place. If I were the judge, I'd throw it out and issue a warning to the prosecutor not to waste the court's time when there is a backlog of real crimes that need to be dealt with.
Actually, other than this being a government agency, it has nothing to do with Obama, unless the president is expected to micro-manage every last minutia of government.
In reality, ICE is part of Homeland Security and ever since being created under the Bush administration, everyone has had trouble reigning them in. I'm pretty sure that protecting us from pirated music and movies will not have one iota of impact on terrorism, but hey, maybe they know something that thinking people don't.
Of course, ICE is part of Homeland Security, which Obama did not create.
I think I figured out how to retire early. Make video or some other form of media and copyright it. Let all kinds of people know about it. Then do a google/bing/yahoo search and if they've linked to my media, sue the pants off of them.
If the RIAA thinks that a small website linking is violating copyright, then why don't they go after the big players, too (other than they know that google and the like have the money to fight such an absurd notion).
I just find it fascinating how posters on this story are blasting the patent system and the entirety of the United States itself based on a single, solitary email from some unknown guy. I don't know how any reasonable person would assume with such 100% certainty that this single patent proves anything about any fact other than "once upon a time some guy managed to obtain a bad patent."
Because this is Slashdot. You don't really expect people to use reason or research before they post something, do you? Present company excluded, of course.
Maybe someone should just patent the method of pantenting something. That way, nobody could obtain a method patent without violating it.
If there truly is a patent for the playoffs, then why not use a system that is already in existence? NCAA basketball tournament seems to be non-infringing. Nobody says you have to start with 64 teams. Take the top sixteen BCS teams, pair them like in the basketball tournament and let them have at it. It adds a total of 15 games for the public (not much different than the current bowl system) and a total of 4 more games to the season for whomever makes it all the way to the championship game (only 1 more game if you lose in the first round). If that is too many, then start with the top 8 teams.
Once again modded down for make a post critical of Wikileaks.
With all of the talk/complaints about paypal, mastercard/visa, etc. cutting off service to Wikileaks, it seams that Slashdot is no different.
Zero tolerance of non-conforming opinions.
Since this was not an actual statistical survey you cannot extrapolate the findings to mean anything other than the 62% of the sites they got to talk with them had problems (as stated in the article). Now I understand that it might be difficult to get a statistical sample because sites may not want to participate, but that doesn't make this a valid report. Actually, it is worse than valid, because it implies a problem exists without any real evidence to support it. I would have expected more from Harvard. Surely they still teach statistics and sampling techniques there.
Maybe the CIA used OpenBSD. Damn those FBI agents. Damn them, I say.
Hah, that's just like the government contractor -- write a backdoor into a system that doesn't actually work. Since the so called announcement, and the source being available. If this back door were true, wouldn't there be a patch issued for it?
Personally, I think that the leak got it wrong, it's not about making OpenBSD insecure, it was to openly create the BSoD in another well known operating system.
WTF, not another Wikileaks story! In the spirit of the upcoming holiday season, maybe we can just forgo any more Wikileaks stories until after the New Year.
I guess the truth hurts, when you have nothing to hold on to but your own anger and frustration. I haven't regurgitated anything. I have only pointed out the displaced hostility towards Apple. You on the other hand seem to have a low opinion of anyone who takes a position contra to your own misconceptions.
To make it perfectly clear, Apple clearly states that apps in the app store cannot be used to solicit donations. That is their prerogative. If you or I or anyone want to develop for Apple's platform, it seems sense to sensible to follow the developer's agreement which you agree to when getting the developer kit. The developer of the Wikileaks app (which was not developed by or even authorised by Wikileaks), did not abide by that agreement and therefore had their app removed.
Plain and simple, no if's, and's or but's. That is unless you have an axe to grind with anyone who looks for real truth that might contradict your own myopic view.
No, I didn't buy their phone, and I never will. But loads of people do, and if Apple ever gets to become a dominant platform, the media will start adapting to their censorship, and we're all screwed. So that's just another bullshit argument from you, and yet again it's a cliché that you copied from elsewhere. No wonder you're happy with the Apple "experience" when you're following the herd without a single rational thought of your own. Sheep.
Actually, I don't use or own any Apple products, so I don't share in their experience. If they made a product that fit my needs, I'd consider buying it. But, then I like to make rational purchasing decisions based on actual needs and values.
I'm not sure what made you feel the need to call me names or make assumptions about me, but if it makes you feel better, go for it.
Actually, the US involvement with the issue began in 2004 (over six years ago) and was at the request of the then Spanish government and supported by the opposition party. That, at least is how it was described in the article referenced by the poster regarding Spain.
So, I guess, the US is still the bad guy when asked for their input and help. Seems they just can't win.
Actually, after actually reading the cables, it appears that it wasn't the US pressuring anybody.
It seems odd that while slashdoters argue that the US has become fascist, at the same time, they argue that corporate freedoms are in jeopardy.
As for "The data they publish was not acquired by them..." They maybe didn't pay for it, but I'm pretty sure they acquired it somehow. Otherwise, how could they publish it?
Yeah yeah you can get an Android, I know (I do have an Android). The thing is, as a developer, if you want to enter the mobile app market today, your app has to run on iOS. And it's a lot of effort that can just go to waste if Apple decides to just remove your app from the store one day without any justification whatsoever.
I guess if I were a developer (which I am, btw), before writing an app for iOS, I would make sure I am following Apple's policies on what my app can do or not. Apple does not allow apps to make contributions/donations. The Wikileak app isn't the only one that has run afoul of this policy. So, like Wikileaks violating Paypal's acceptable use policy, this developer violated Apple's. At least with Apple, unlike Paypal, they enforce the policy on all their apps, not just a selective few.
So Apple and the iphone acts just like Sony and the PS3 or Microsoft and the XBOX.
If you want to use somebody's licensed technology, you have to use it under their own rules. It's not like Apple changed the game plan once you bought their phone. It's been that way since day one and you still bought their phone.
If you don't like it, then don't use it. Apple is a business. If enough customers quit using their product, they will change. Oh, wait, they won't because most people are quite satisfied with the Apple experience.