Yes if you've bicycled on ice with some good Schwalbe Marathon Winters you already know to drop to 50% of rated. However my answer to winter is that ice sucks and that snow tires are for snow. Don't drive like a nut sack.
Good tires are for wet and dry. For everything else, there are appropriate tires; but even with appropriate mud, snow, and ice tires, you can't just drive like you're on hard pavement. If you can't drive in snow, stay the fuck home.
I prefer a manual drive; however I will accept the CVT in the Tesla Model S because it performs. Slushboxes I can't drive, they simply don't work for me. I can't control the car and it behaves unexpectedly. The CVT is a solid clutched transmission that gives maximum performance when accelerating, without hanging around in a high gear for ~1 second and switching up to a high gear if you don't keep the car WOT (fucking stupid Chevy Cobalt auto-tranny shit), so no worries about being crippled on the highway trying to aim your wobbly car into a 3 car length gap when you can't control your acceleration.
I wish they'd just put a slide shifter on the damn thing so I can switch to manual mode and smoothly glide the ratio... yeah the car's better at it but hell.
It's actually the opposite. Gaining 10mpg over 40mpg is pathetically little, while gaining 5mpg over 20mpg is HUGE. Dropping 0.5L per 100km is the same amount of saved fuel regardless of if you have a 7L/100km or 3.5L/100km car. Thus it's easy to hype your 30, 35mpg cars and tell people they need to upgrade their 28mpg car, when really that's a huge fucking waste.
The real world effect is that Americans think what we need is shiny new expensive 40mpg hybrids, when the best thing we could do is get the existing 15mpg old-ass broken down shitheaps off the road in exchange for newer 22mpg used cars that exist already. The environmental savings would be bigger than if we just replaced the natural new flow of new cars with a natural new flow of new cars with slightly better mileage. i.e. what's important is the flow of average-mileage used cars into the hands of people who aren't going to buy a new car!
I actually do over-inflate my tires. Well-made tires will handle their rating and keep shape without the load--i.e. a car that specifies 35PSI on a cheap tire inflated to 50PSI will have excess tire wear in the middle; but with a stiffer, better-made tire, the tire retains shape and the extra inflation pressure actually gets you better acceleration, traction, and stopping power. So I do about 5PSI below rated on really good tires.
Now, it is certainly possible for priests to be arrogant or overbearing or whatever, but many of these positions come from a sincere attempt to follow the rules as they were laid down. That's not arrogance, it is obedience.
Yes but he asked for an explanation of how they are not compatible.
Well, welcome to 2013 where it's Goldman Sachs, Monsanto, and such; and where 'Perfunctory Bullshit from 76 years ago' doesn't happen because we have... well, socialist laws that tell businesses what they can and can't do. Notably, the Government dictates to the businesses how they're allowed to conduct certain business. We call these "Anti-Trust Laws" and they control who can own what and how--you can't buy up all your little competitors because the Government says that would be bad economy, you can't use your economic advantage in one sector to invade another sector.
Socialism is the hammer and sickle. Capitalism is the nails. What we need are the hammer and nails.
Invasions have happened over passive acts such as manufacturing guns in a neighboring country that just happen to get across the border because rebels in that country cross the border, get guns, and come back. Hey I'm not selling guns to your country, it's your own people breaking the law...
Indicating that someone's morals may not be the Church's morals and therefor may be wrong means you believe you know better than them. Humility is accepting the ignorant and the possibility that it may be YOU who is ignorant. Like when you give the cashier a $20, and they give you $5 back, and you're like, "Hey I gave you $20" and they're like "You only gave me $10" and you are like, "Oh, maybe you're right" and accept that. Because why would you be so arrogant as to believe you'd know better than the cashier, who handles money all day?
That's kind of the point of religion. It's not supposed to be very dynamic. It's supposed to be a set of guiding morals, for example Buddhism's guiding moral of "Don't Be A Giant Dickhead." This hasn't changed to "It's Okay To Be A Giant Dickhead When It Makes You Feel Better" or "Be A Giant Dickhead, But Only To Politicians And Wall Street Bankers." Now times are changing and it's probably not really terrible to be a giant dickhead to Wall Street bankers, but eh. That's not what Buddhism is about.
I'm free to go on MySpace and taunt 12 year old girls until they commit suicide, and it's not an act of murder. At a point in my life I got *quite* good at manipulating peoples' emotions to injure folks that pissed me off.. but that became distasteful. It'd be relatively easy to carry out an intentional serial murder spree that way, though. Not to mention it's been done.
No consequences because people are too stupid to recognize an attack for what it is when you wrap it up in a fancy sheet.
Language is a funny thing. An "Act of War" would be anything that is an attack.
Let's try deconstructing this.
Country A engages in passive-aggressive, non-hostile circumvention activities that cause trouble for Country B. Country B views this a destabilizing: a perceived, potential, or real rebellion is occurring as an indirect cause, which is threatening to the national security of Country B.
Country B correlates the actions of Country A with the destabilizing results, and thus declares that Country B is eroding their national security. If Country A is now stopped--by intimidation or invasion--then Country B will regain stability, or so it is hoped; it is at least believed and potentially true that if Country A had been stopped sooner, Country B wouldn't be in this mess.
Country B is in a situation as bad as having an invading army march into their country. Their national security is compromised and they can trace their problems back to intentional actions of forces harbored and supported by Country A. Country B may interpret this as an act of war; Country A may dispute this, but does it matter? Country A is causing serious national security problems for Country B, triggering an internal rebellion, etc. Country A must be stopped, by force if necessary. Will we blame Country B for starting the war when they land troops in Country A?
He has no analytical skills. He's probably one of the type that reads i.e. The New Rational Manager and goes "This is a waste of time and all bullshit and common sense can't believe morons fall for this scam"... particularly, his comment directly claims that only morons use Potential Problem Analysis, abbreviated or otherwise.
Yes it's called "Potential Problem Analysis" and it's what's done by people who actually know how to get things done and not find themselves falling down a hole with no idea what went wrong or how they're going to get out of it.
Let's try Tor:
Supply a list of Tor connection nodes at
Potential Problem Analysis: "What if China blocks those 4 IP addresses on their firewall?"
You: "Stop being morons, stuff like this is still useful." (6 months later) "Oh, shit. Well uh, start distributing updates. Oh, they're getting shot down too. Uh."
Intelligent people: "Hmm, that could be a problem. China probably will do that when they see the circumvention, so Likelihood is 'HIGH'. It'd be crippling, so Severity is 'HIGH'. We should make it part of the protocol to be able to trade information about the network, but not force synchronization of full information, that way the network won't have desync issues and it also will be harder to insert nodes on the network to quickly collect a list of all nodes and block them all."
Another Potential Problem, in this case, is that the VPNs are direct and traceable--the country may leave the list of VPNs accessible, track it, and track connections to those addresses. Then they know who the offenders are. In that case, this project would still be useful: Iran could find the Blasphemers, come to their house at night, and behead them.
What's to stop a country from declaring this an act of war? The information blocked is considered harmful as a matter of national security; the people trying to push circumvention software are illegally smuggling propaganda that damages national security. These people have some delusion about how "it's not an act of war because it supports human rights" (I had that argument a few times--as if marching into a country to free a brutally abused people is not an act of war either?); but the truth is that the government in China, Iran, and so on decide that certain information will compromise their government's stability if released to the public, and so that information must be kept from the people in the interest of national security. Propagating that information is thus an act on the government's stability, thus an attack, thus an act of war.
What would you do instead? Let Rockerfeller continue to use his railroads to block oil competitors, buy out Microsoft and IBM, take control of Monsanto, gain a crippling hold over all shipping for the farming industry so he can permanently shut down any farm that doesn't follow his policies, and rule the world by dictate?
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks, but you get my point. Fuel turns Carbon + Oxygen into CO2. Hydrocarbons become H2O because hydrogen. There's more energy in carbon.
Yes if you've bicycled on ice with some good Schwalbe Marathon Winters you already know to drop to 50% of rated. However my answer to winter is that ice sucks and that snow tires are for snow. Don't drive like a nut sack.
Good tires are for wet and dry. For everything else, there are appropriate tires; but even with appropriate mud, snow, and ice tires, you can't just drive like you're on hard pavement. If you can't drive in snow, stay the fuck home.
A pit bull or a shit zoo?
What you suggests costs money and provides substandard results.
That's why SNELL rated helmets are so much shittier than non-SNELL rated ANSI compliant helmets?
Uhhhhh... 'however'? Hello? How do you think fuel works?
Hint: Charcoal is better than wood because it's more purely carbon. Anthricite is the most energy-dense coal because it's practically straight carbon.
I prefer a manual drive; however I will accept the CVT in the Tesla Model S because it performs. Slushboxes I can't drive, they simply don't work for me. I can't control the car and it behaves unexpectedly. The CVT is a solid clutched transmission that gives maximum performance when accelerating, without hanging around in a high gear for ~1 second and switching up to a high gear if you don't keep the car WOT (fucking stupid Chevy Cobalt auto-tranny shit), so no worries about being crippled on the highway trying to aim your wobbly car into a 3 car length gap when you can't control your acceleration.
I wish they'd just put a slide shifter on the damn thing so I can switch to manual mode and smoothly glide the ratio... yeah the car's better at it but hell.
Buy better tires and they won't highspot.
It's actually the opposite. Gaining 10mpg over 40mpg is pathetically little, while gaining 5mpg over 20mpg is HUGE. Dropping 0.5L per 100km is the same amount of saved fuel regardless of if you have a 7L/100km or 3.5L/100km car. Thus it's easy to hype your 30, 35mpg cars and tell people they need to upgrade their 28mpg car, when really that's a huge fucking waste.
The real world effect is that Americans think what we need is shiny new expensive 40mpg hybrids, when the best thing we could do is get the existing 15mpg old-ass broken down shitheaps off the road in exchange for newer 22mpg used cars that exist already. The environmental savings would be bigger than if we just replaced the natural new flow of new cars with a natural new flow of new cars with slightly better mileage. i.e. what's important is the flow of average-mileage used cars into the hands of people who aren't going to buy a new car!
I actually do over-inflate my tires. Well-made tires will handle their rating and keep shape without the load--i.e. a car that specifies 35PSI on a cheap tire inflated to 50PSI will have excess tire wear in the middle; but with a stiffer, better-made tire, the tire retains shape and the extra inflation pressure actually gets you better acceleration, traction, and stopping power. So I do about 5PSI below rated on really good tires.
I was more talking about the E-Cat fiasco.
Hey we have working cold fusion in Italy now, didn't you see the tests?
Now, it is certainly possible for priests to be arrogant or overbearing or whatever, but many of these positions come from a sincere attempt to follow the rules as they were laid down. That's not arrogance, it is obedience.
Yes but he asked for an explanation of how they are not compatible.
Well, welcome to 2013 where it's Goldman Sachs, Monsanto, and such; and where 'Perfunctory Bullshit from 76 years ago' doesn't happen because we have... well, socialist laws that tell businesses what they can and can't do. Notably, the Government dictates to the businesses how they're allowed to conduct certain business. We call these "Anti-Trust Laws" and they control who can own what and how--you can't buy up all your little competitors because the Government says that would be bad economy, you can't use your economic advantage in one sector to invade another sector.
Socialism is the hammer and sickle. Capitalism is the nails. What we need are the hammer and nails.
Invasions have happened over passive acts such as manufacturing guns in a neighboring country that just happen to get across the border because rebels in that country cross the border, get guns, and come back. Hey I'm not selling guns to your country, it's your own people breaking the law...
That's funny. You really tell girls that thing is eight inches?
Why the hell are we letting little birds run a religion?
Indicating that someone's morals may not be the Church's morals and therefor may be wrong means you believe you know better than them. Humility is accepting the ignorant and the possibility that it may be YOU who is ignorant. Like when you give the cashier a $20, and they give you $5 back, and you're like, "Hey I gave you $20" and they're like "You only gave me $10" and you are like, "Oh, maybe you're right" and accept that. Because why would you be so arrogant as to believe you'd know better than the cashier, who handles money all day?
KY jelly.
That's kind of the point of religion. It's not supposed to be very dynamic. It's supposed to be a set of guiding morals, for example Buddhism's guiding moral of "Don't Be A Giant Dickhead." This hasn't changed to "It's Okay To Be A Giant Dickhead When It Makes You Feel Better" or "Be A Giant Dickhead, But Only To Politicians And Wall Street Bankers." Now times are changing and it's probably not really terrible to be a giant dickhead to Wall Street bankers, but eh. That's not what Buddhism is about.
I'm free to go on MySpace and taunt 12 year old girls until they commit suicide, and it's not an act of murder. At a point in my life I got *quite* good at manipulating peoples' emotions to injure folks that pissed me off.. but that became distasteful. It'd be relatively easy to carry out an intentional serial murder spree that way, though. Not to mention it's been done.
No consequences because people are too stupid to recognize an attack for what it is when you wrap it up in a fancy sheet.
Language is a funny thing. An "Act of War" would be anything that is an attack.
Let's try deconstructing this.
Country A engages in passive-aggressive, non-hostile circumvention activities that cause trouble for Country B. Country B views this a destabilizing: a perceived, potential, or real rebellion is occurring as an indirect cause, which is threatening to the national security of Country B.
Country B correlates the actions of Country A with the destabilizing results, and thus declares that Country B is eroding their national security. If Country A is now stopped--by intimidation or invasion--then Country B will regain stability, or so it is hoped; it is at least believed and potentially true that if Country A had been stopped sooner, Country B wouldn't be in this mess.
Country B is in a situation as bad as having an invading army march into their country. Their national security is compromised and they can trace their problems back to intentional actions of forces harbored and supported by Country A. Country B may interpret this as an act of war; Country A may dispute this, but does it matter? Country A is causing serious national security problems for Country B, triggering an internal rebellion, etc. Country A must be stopped, by force if necessary. Will we blame Country B for starting the war when they land troops in Country A?
He has no analytical skills. He's probably one of the type that reads i.e. The New Rational Manager and goes "This is a waste of time and all bullshit and common sense can't believe morons fall for this scam" ... particularly, his comment directly claims that only morons use Potential Problem Analysis, abbreviated or otherwise.
Yes it's called "Potential Problem Analysis" and it's what's done by people who actually know how to get things done and not find themselves falling down a hole with no idea what went wrong or how they're going to get out of it.
Let's try Tor:
Supply a list of Tor connection nodes at
Potential Problem Analysis: "What if China blocks those 4 IP addresses on their firewall?"
You: "Stop being morons, stuff like this is still useful." (6 months later) "Oh, shit. Well uh, start distributing updates. Oh, they're getting shot down too. Uh."
Intelligent people: "Hmm, that could be a problem. China probably will do that when they see the circumvention, so Likelihood is 'HIGH'. It'd be crippling, so Severity is 'HIGH'. We should make it part of the protocol to be able to trade information about the network, but not force synchronization of full information, that way the network won't have desync issues and it also will be harder to insert nodes on the network to quickly collect a list of all nodes and block them all."
Another Potential Problem, in this case, is that the VPNs are direct and traceable--the country may leave the list of VPNs accessible, track it, and track connections to those addresses. Then they know who the offenders are. In that case, this project would still be useful: Iran could find the Blasphemers, come to their house at night, and behead them.
What's to stop a country from declaring this an act of war? The information blocked is considered harmful as a matter of national security; the people trying to push circumvention software are illegally smuggling propaganda that damages national security. These people have some delusion about how "it's not an act of war because it supports human rights" (I had that argument a few times--as if marching into a country to free a brutally abused people is not an act of war either?); but the truth is that the government in China, Iran, and so on decide that certain information will compromise their government's stability if released to the public, and so that information must be kept from the people in the interest of national security. Propagating that information is thus an act on the government's stability, thus an attack, thus an act of war.
Inciting rebellion here.
What would you do instead? Let Rockerfeller continue to use his railroads to block oil competitors, buy out Microsoft and IBM, take control of Monsanto, gain a crippling hold over all shipping for the farming industry so he can permanently shut down any farm that doesn't follow his policies, and rule the world by dictate?