I can think of four I/O interfaces that a game system might have: control input, video output, audio output, and networking. I've developed for Windows, GBA, and DS, and I've noticed that the control and audio latency are several frames higher on Windows than on the dedicated game systems. Some of this is due to Windows being a multitasking system, having to mix multiple audio sources into one for the console. Even video latency can pose a problem, as buggy drivers such as that of the ATI Radeon 9000 don't page-flip at the correct moment, causing shearing artifacts.
The context he was giving was for the player, not the developer. If you're talking development, the consoles always have and always will have an advantage. You know exactly what kind of hardware you're programming for, so it's much easier overall (the PS3 developers might beg to differ, but that's another issue entirely). Development is not really relevant to this discussion, though, so it's a moot point.
Several applications, games, and peripherals designed for Windows XP don't work with a computer that was preloaded with Windows Vista. But unlike Sony, which continued to sell new PS1 hardware long after introducing the PS2 and which continues to sell new PS2 hardware long after introducing the PS3, Microsoft plans to stop sales of new copies of its last generation operating system (Windows XP) very soon (2008-06-30 for smaller PC builders and 2009-01-31 for larger ones).
Microsoft has been planning to stop sales of Windows XP since Vista launched, but the date keeps being pushed back farther and farther. It will be pushed back again... in fact, I suspect it will be pushed back until the next version of Windows is released, since Vista is such a flop consumer wise. Gaming on XP is currently the cream of the crop in terms of speed and stability (Macs don't count, since there's like what, modern titles out for it? Kidding.. only kidding, ouch... stop throwing those things. Seriously though, the Mac isn't a contender in the gaming platform arena currently due to lack of titles.)
It's not unexpected that some hardware won't work with Vista that was designed for XP... that's like saying some hardware designed for the PS1 won't work with the PS2. This is surprising?
That will be true as long as the Wii is in shortage. But as soon as that ends, there will be a choice: $250 for a Wii or $350-$500 for the others.
Ummm... we're talking about graphics. The Wii isn't even in the same ball park as the 360, PS3 and PC. A cheap $199 Dell box can play graphics of Wii quality with the built in chipset. So that kind of blows that theory. Besides, the Wii has been in shortage for over a year and a half... what makes you think it'll ever come out of shortage?
How much do you have to spend on PCs if you want to have more than one player playing at a time? The way console games such as Smash Bros. work is that each player plugs a gamepad into the system, and all watch the same view of the action through a television. In theory, a PC can do that with a USB hub and a TV output, but for some reason too many PC games aren't programmed to give that option.
Well, you could spend $7.99 for a USB hub and hook it up to your TV like you said... so you answered your own question. No, most PC games don't have those options. I'm not sure what that has to do with anything, though. We're not really talking about that sort of thing in this discussion. We're talking about graphics and the stability of a platform. Also about upgradability & budget constraints. None of that really has anything to do with playing 4 people on a console or PC. With the advent of XBox Live, you get less and less 4 people sitting around a single TV now as well... as the new consoles are moving into what the PC has been doing all along. Each person playing at their own place on their own rig.
Maybe we care more about having fun than about worrying about optimum input devices, highest possible mouse resolution, upgrading our video cards every 6 months, and so on. All to end up with a "gaming" PC that makes too much noise and crashes all the time (or is down for repairs).
Then you're doing it wrong.
Don't blame the PCs because you don't know how to set one up properly.
My PC is a hell of a lot quieter than my Xbox 360 and hasn't crashed a game in several months at least, if not a year. I can't say the same for my Xbox 360.
Hmm, now that you mention it, the 360 does seem to be the lest stable, more noisy platform. Exactly the opposite of what you describe.
I finished Resistance: Fall of man on my ps3 last month. Absolutely brilliant game. Ok, so the controller was a bit clumsy, but did that stop me having fun? No. It also enabled me to play the game slouched on a sofa, rather than sitting bolt upright at a PC desk with a bottle of mountain dew and a half eaten pizza for sustenance.
I hear this little meme bandied about a lot, and I've found it to be utter bullshit. Unless I'm missing something, I'm far more comfortable sitting at my PC desk, playing a game than sitting on my couch, slouched over playing a game. I don't know how you or others trying to perpetuate this meme play games, but when I play, it's pretty intense. Sitting on the couch slouched over isn't exactly the best posture for competitive gaming.
I suspect people like you, who prefer the slouched couch approach are casual players who basically suck at any competitive gaming event. Which is fine... I'm not bashing you for it. But the fact remains that a console is neither the environment for competitive gaming nor does it have the input methods for it.
Gaming for me is competitive. That's the whole point of games, really... compete against something or someone. If you're playing just to "relax" and you don't care about winning... well that's great. Not everyone does that.
The PC is fundamentally flawed by inconsistent drivers, latency, incompatibility, and simply by being a moving target. How fast is a PC? What graphics chipset does a PC have? A developer has to make the game tweakable, so that it works on everyone's PC and the people with the lithium-cooled turbofan graphics card can stop moaning that it doesn't play at 15241x19841 in 64 bit colour. Alternately, they could just focus it and optimise it for the same graphics chip everywhere and get the absolute best out of it.
Oh please. This is complete horseshit. Inconsistent drivers? Rarely is there a driver problem with STABLE drivers. If you're using beta drivers or tweaked drivers, of course you're going to have problem... and that's the POWER of the PC vs the Console. If you want your shit to run faster and are willing to take instability as a price, YOU CAN. Can't do that on a console, you're stuck with what they give you. Latency? WTF does that even mean in this context? Consoles and PCs run over the same internet connection. Incompatibility? With what?
A moving target, huh? You say it like it's a bad thing. The 2007 PC vs the console... consoles are supposedly superior graphics wise... except there's few games out for the console compared to the PC, so you have a faster graphics system but no games to play on it (Xbox 360 does have some decent ones). As time goes on, more games come out for the console, but the PCs start to catch up graphics-wise. A couple years into the release of the console, the PCs start to surpass the console in graphics and CPU power... there's some games out for the console now, but the PC can play them too and they look better on the PC, since high resolution monitors are the norm. The current crop of console games are still being developed for standard def TVs or at best 720p. Sure they display in 1080i and 1080p, but they look like shit compared to the same game on a 1920x1200 monitor.
Fast forward another couple years... the consoles have fallen WAY behind in graphics and CPU power. Can't upgrade the consoles, so you're stuck with 2nd and 3rd generation games... the PCs have console emulators... they are playing your console games AND PC games at this point... now you're stuck. The new console comes out next year, prepare to drop close to a grand on the new gaming consoles and accessories. About the same you would have paid upgrading your PC to play the latest and greatest over the past 4 - 5 years. Now you start the cycle all over again - how much will the NEXT generation console cost after that? Over a grand?
Yes, the PC is a moving target, and it's an asset not a detriment. You can choose what kind of gaming experience you want (and can afford) with a PC. Can't do that with a console. Gotta spend $600 for the latest and greatest or you get NOTHING. With a PC, you can spend $60 for something adequate, or spend $600 for the latest and greatest... your choice.
2 years plus baby! uptime 15:48:58 up 736 days, 1:41, 1 user, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
Pretty much totally meaningless when your system utilization is 0.00. I can have a system with ridiculous uptime if it sits and idles all day as well.
Show me a heavily used server that's been up that long and it's impressive (and I'll show you an ancient, security problem ridden kernel). An idling desktop machine... not so much.
Yeah, see the thing is, I bet I'm older than you and recall the war quite clearly... where as I suspect you were a 5 or 6 year old kid who thought he knew what was going on when Mommy and Daddy bought their deck. I bet you even programmed the time for them, yes?
Or 5 hours? Perhaps it is just because I am old enough to remember instead of reading (only part of) what is online about Beta? Very shortly after the initial format was released, Sony addressed that issue, which resulted in longer format tapes (hence movies being available on Beta), and different recording speed selections (as our Beta deck had).
No, the initial tapes were 1 hour long. They stayed that way for a time until too many people bitched. You might have been able to buy specialty tapes somewhere prior to that, but the tapes that were available in the store were 1 hour long until near the advent the advent of VHS, and longer play tapes trickled out. The problem then became trying to cram enough tape into the Betamax tape dimensions without making the tape too thin that it would break after being played or rewound. This introduced another set of problems for Betamax.
Almost as many as VHS... but maybe it's because in NY there were a bigger selection of Beta tapes - or because I am old enough to actually remember....
Right, so that's why we have Betamax in every household today. Oh... gee, wait a sec, no we have more VHS. My mistake. Because the consumer is going to choose the format that has LESS availability to them. Silly me. I'm sure you're going to correct me through the haze of your youthful memory.
Irrelevant (cost) as has been proven in such areas as Windows ($$$) vs Linux ($0)
Because software and hardware are exactly the same. Where can a consumer go out and buy a Linux PC? Few places (though it's increasing), 5 or 10 years ago you couldn't buy a PC loaded with Linux. The comparison is ludicrous. Let's compare something that makes a little more sense. How about PC's and Macs? Which one is cheaper? Which one has the vast majority of the market share? Don't like that one, how about something more recent... like Flash memory formats. Let's use Sony's product, the Memory stick vs say SD. How many more SD devices are out there vs. Memory Stick devices? Tons... why? SD is cheaper for the manufacturers and thus for the consumers. In this case, we're talking about EQUAL formats, not even a superior format, and yet SD still won. It's pretty much the defacto standard now a days. Don't like that one? How about hard drives... back in the day you had IDE and SCSI (We won't get into MFM, RLL etc...) - which one won? SCSI was technologically superior on every front, yet IDE won the day... why? Cheaper. The list goes on and on. Price has EVERYTHING to do with it. Saying it's irrelevant shows that you know exactly dick about the subject.
Sure it was... TV's weren't good enough to SHOW the difference... but you are on the right track with that one... the difference made no difference to the average consumer, because they didnt have anything to watch it on to notice the difference.
Sure it was? Then you continue on and admit that no one could see the difference... why did it make a difference then? You got some Betamax tapes you want to watch today on equipment that you could see the difference on? If there was nothing in reach of the consumer that could show the difference between the formats, then the difference is clearly immaterial to the subject. That's a big duh.
It didn't matter how many video geeks knew and understood that Beta was better than VHS, did it? They were the small minority of video users... the same sadly applies to the computer world.
Don't ever use this as your example of why DRM is bad, because it's complete bullshit.
Go on, tell me why Betamax was better than VHS. You don't know why. Why? Because it wasn't in the real world. You can spout some meaningless statistics about Betamax, but it had so many things wrong with it, that the "technical superiority" was almost irrelevant.
Lets see a small example of what was wrong with Betamax and why it failed completely and utterly.
1. Beta tapes lasted 1 hour, instead of two. How many 1 hour movies did you watch back then? None? This made the tapes next to useless for movies. Back then, recording movies off of HBO and shit was the thing to do... can't do it with Betamax! Tapes are too short. Those VHS tapes, though, they are just long enough! 2. How many Beta tapes did you see for rent back then? A small section in the local video store, maybe? Even if that section started out the same size as the VHS section (30 or 40 tapes each), each month, the VHS section grew, and the Beta section stayed the same or shrank. Why? Because Sony tried to suck the blood out of the market, like we see them continue to do, with their ridiculous licensing requirements. 3. Ever go try to buy a Betamax? 30 - 40% more than a VHS in a lot of cases. So, shorter tapes, less availability and they cost more? Yeahhhh, that's going to win market share. That is until VHS started beating down Sony with consumers, then suddenly the prices dropped drastically. There goes Sony again, using their monopoly to rape consumers, then wondering why consumers flee their products in droves when other companies start offering the same or similar things for half the price. 4. The last point I'm going to make here is the fact that consumers, Joe Average, could not distinguish between Beta and VHS pictures under any circumstance. The difference was not vast enough like VHS and DVD. On top of this, given the equipment available at the time, even audiophiles really couldn't distinguish between the two, since the TVs and such were so crappy (compared to today) anyway. It would take tens of thousands of dollars of equipment for someone to see the difference. Given that people don't mind MP3's in 128k today, and people still watch VHS when they have DVD available, do you really think the supposed difference between VHS and Beta made a lick of difference?
No, Beta was not superior to VHS, except on paper. In every instance that mattered, Beta failed miserably compared to Beta. Being better on paper is irrelevant, it's real world results that make a difference, and Beta had no advantage there.
I bought a digital photo frame from Microcenter that was infected. I can't recall what the specific trojan was, but it was fairly benign in so far as it just replicated itself. As I recall it was a fairly old trojan and not very sophisticated... but none the less, it was on the brand new frame that was still sealed in the original factory stuff.
I told Microcenter about it and they were like "Huh." Didn't ask anything more, nor did they remove the frames or check them. I was somewhat pressed for time, so I didn't try going up the chain of management to get someone to acknowledge that there was a problem.
It's a good thing I found it though, since it was a gift for my technologicallly illiterate parents. I had taken it out of the package to load pictures up on it. If I had just given it to them directly, I'm not sure what would have happened. AVG caught it when it was plugged in via USB, so probably nothing drastic, except a phone call from my Dad asking me what the pop-up box meant.
Oh yeah, and I forgot to mention the bullshit you spout about "Manufacturers clean them up enough to meet..."
The manufacturers have had clean diesels for YEARS. It was the SHITTY diesel fuel we've had in the US. Since we switched to ULSD, the diesel manufacturers can now bring in the diesel technology Europe has been running on for a decade. Don't blame the manufacturers, blame the oil companies and unreasonable emissions requirements for diesels. Blame the US government for not requiring stricter standards on D2.
Toyota, Honda, Ford and GM all make a wide variety of hybrids that you can go out and buy TODAY. All of which improve upon the gas mileage of the equivalent car more or less significantly depending on the sophistication of their hybrid system (GM has a number of mild-hybrids on the market which only marginally improve gas mileage).
Are you seriously putting Ford and GM hybrids in the same class as the Prius and I suppose the Civic? The Ford and GM hybrids are complete garbage and should have been aborted before they made it to the showroom floor. The Prius is the best in the hybrid class, and I think you'll likely agree with that - as such, I have been speaking about the Prius when I say hybrids, since the Civic doesn't really compare to the Prius (but it does come close) and the Ford and GM offerings are laughable.
We also aren't talking about "improving on the equivalent car" - we are talking about comparing a hybrid to a diesel. So it's totally irrelevant what a Civic gasser does compared to a Civic hybrid.
If I want to buy a diesel, I have only 3 choices, VW, Mercedes and Jeep (and I have no idea what ones are actually available right now, but I can't find any information on VWs site about the 2008 Jetta Diesel, and it's not on fueleconomy.gov, either). Maybe by the end of the year there will be a wider choice as manufactures clean them up enough to meet TIER 2 BIN 5 emissions standards.
If you want to buy a hybrid, you really have two choices... Prius or Civic. As I said, the Ford and GM offerings are a total joke, and regular gas cars from other manufacturers get far better and some times double the milage as the "hybrids" offered by Ford and GM.
The Jeep diesel (which I'm not sure if it's sold anymore) is equally laughable... leaving you with VW and Mercedes in the US. So you've got two diesels and two hybrids as realistic choices for environmentally improved vehicles.
Please tell me where I can go buy biodiesel without setting up a brewing station on my patio. Even the nearest E85 is about 15 miles from where I live and even further from where I work. I expect the nearest biodiesel station to be the same.
How can I tell you that if I don't know where you live? I can tell you where to buy it around my parts... there's a couple stations that sell B20 at the pump close by, and there's a number of other stations that sell B100 at the pump a little farther away. In my case, I actually have a guy deliver a couple hundred gallons of B100 to my house every so often - though I realize this isn't a realistic solution for most people. But yes, buying B100, or a blend is fairly easy in many, many places... but there are some places that you may not be able to get it as readily - though that is changing.
The average hybrid is meeting their 2008 EPA estimates. Look it up on fueleconomy.gov. So that means that YES, your average Civic Hybrid driver is getting 42 mpg and the average Prius driver is getting 46 mpg.
You boggle my mind with your hybrid blinders, but you do provide lots of salient points as to why everything you've said is utterly and completely wrong when it comes to hybrids vs. diesels.
First off, there are no official EPA estimates for 2008 yet on fueleconomy.gov... but I like how you specify the 2008 - since the EPA ratings have lowered the efficiency ratings of the hybrids by almost 20%. Lets take the Prius as an example, since it's the best in the hybrid class. Actual numbers? 48 and 45. The numbers just go down from there, so no point in listing those. The hybrids are not, and NEVER WILL meet EPA estimates as they are currently defined (2007) and BARELY meet the 2008 ratings, and in many cases fail 2008 ratings. The ONLY cars on the road being sold today that MEET and EXCEED EPA estimates are the diesels.
All the cases where I've seen a Prius getting less than 40 mpg are the result of short trips less than 10 minutes in cold weather. But in these conditions, all cars get crappy mileage compared to their EPA estimates.
While this is neither here nor there, as a point of fact, the diesels still meet EPA ratings on trips like this. On longer trips, they exceed EPA ratings.
Then you brush off diesel-hybrid because it's not available yet. But wait, diesel biofuel isn't available in any significant quantities yet either.
First you brush off diesel biofuel because it's not available in any significant quantities yet, but wait, hybrids aren't available in any significant quanties yet either.:(
The POINT, which you repeatedly either miss by being obtuse or ignorant is that diesels are available now, and biofuel is available NOW. If you want to do a little extra work, you can have as much biofuel as you want. Biofuel is JUST AS AVAILABLE as hybrid cars - neither can replace mainstream transportation at the present time, so they are on equal footing as far as availability goes - so the entire basis of your argument is completely false, and thus everything you've built on it is completely false.
Your claim that hybrids are less efficient than their gas-only counterparts is simply false in many cases is false. If you want to make that argument, I can also claim that in many cases, hybrids completely blow anything else out of the water since many people regularly average 60+ mpg.
We aren't talking about individual cases, we are talking about averages. If you want to talk individual, I can get 70+ MPG out of a NB TDI, blowing 99.9% of the hybrids out of the water. Is your average TDI driver going to see that? Nope. Is your average hybrid driver seeing 40+? Nope, check the statistics. SOME are, yes, some are seeing great milage, but on average, the hybrids are fall far, FAR FAR FAR short of expectations and marketing hype.
Again, I'm going to reiterate the argument for you, which you always seem to just ignore because it doesn't fit in with your blinders. As an average, diesel vehicles are less polluting OVER THE LIFE OF THE VEHICLE than a hybrid.
You obviously haven't lived in any areas where smog is an issue. Please try it, and see how much you like all those NOx emissions instead of hiding behind your "temporary pollutant" argument. If you want to use it, it also applies to CO2, if we stop producing it, CO2 levels will go down as it gets absorbed by the environment.
Yes, I have. Once again, your red-herring argument completely sidesteps the point, because it blows holes in your argument. CO2 is not a temporary pollutant, it needs to be converted by something (trees, plants, etc...) NOx disperses on it's own by ultra-violet breakdown... something we get every day on the planet without any input on our part. CO2 levels will decrease at a glacially slow rate compared to NOx. If we stopped producing both at the same time, NOx would be virtually gone beyond "normal" ambient levels within a matter of weeks to months. It will take decades or centuries for CO2 to return to "normal" ambient levels.
So once again, yes, I'm more than willing to trade NOx for CO2 output.
Never mind the fact that you diesel fanboys completely ignore the fact that you can combine the two and get the best of both worlds. In fact, you see this happening right now, look at all the diesel-hybrid buses that are being bought by municipalities which *gasp* significantly reduce CO2, NOx and particulate emissions. Now if diesel is the perfect technology as you so proclaim, how is a hybrid able to improve upon it?
It's pretty clear you have a reading comprehension problem when it comes to the argument at hand, or is it that it's YOU and the hybrid crowd who have the blinders on? You feel the need to justify the excess expense for the Hybrid you just paid for, but aren't getting the MPG you were expecting... and then you need to justify just what the fuck you're going to do with all those batteries in another few years? Yeah, I'm gonna go with that.
A Diesel hybrid would be great - care to show me where to buy one? Oh that's right, you can't... So we're left with diesel or hybrid technology that is available RIGHT NOW, this VERY MINUTE. So we are going to compare what's available RIGHT NOW, this VERY MINUTE. And between the two available options, a Hybrid is the greater evil when it comes to environmental impact on average.
Take off your blinders and realize that there is more than one solution to the problem, and in fact, the solution absolutely requires us to tackle the issue from multiple points.
Please point out where I've disagreed with this assessment. In fact, I've made no statements for or against it. My post was refuting the bag of bullshit that a Prius has "the lowest emmissions of any car sold in the US," or did you conveniently forget that in your rush to defend Hybrid technology as the savior of the environment?
The bottom line is a Prius has MORE harmful emissions over the life of the vehicle than a comparable diesel vehicle running biofuel. Neither options are available in massive quantities, so they are comparable. If Hybrids were every single vehicle sold and there was no price premium, the hybrid technology would win, since it would lower over all consumption. But that's not the case, you have a very limited availability of hybrids, and in many, MANY cases, the hybrids get the same if not WORSE milage than their gas counterparts (mainly due to driving habits) - so the batteries are effectively a) going to waste, and b) will be an environmental problem in the future and they have provided NO BENEFIT TO OFFSET. So the hybrid, as currently designed, marketed and driven is CLEARLY inferior to diesel during the lifetime of the vehicle ON AVERAGE.
If you combine a diesel and hybrid, you will have a CLEARLY superior vehicle to a gas hybrid or a pure diesel, there's no question about that.
The only reason I'm a diesel "fanboy" is because I've DONE THE RESEARCH... something you clearly haven't done, and come to the conclusion on my own. I've never owned a diesel, or even thought much ab
So you're willing to cause a good number of people unneeded health risks? Good thing you're not making the decisions on acceptable emissions requirements. Don't you think there's a reason why CARB has created the toughest emissions requirements in the entire US (which slowly the rest of the country is adopting, state by state)? Could it be - gasp - that I people would prefer to breath clean air?
You're damned skippy I am. I would much rather have a temporary pollutant that has no lasting effect on the environment and make a few people uncomfortable than a permanent pollutant that makes EVERYONE ON THE FUCKING PLANET uncomfortable. So the answer is yes, yes I most definitely would.
Bullshit. When you live in an urban setting where the NOx output is constant and always there, you can no longer claim it's a "temporary pollutant".
Nope, not bullshit, and you proved it yourself. It's a temporary pollutant. You stop producing it, it goes away. It has no lasting effect on the environment.
1. Thanks for omitting the fact that biodiesel happens to create more NOx/smog forming pollutants than petro-based diesel. 2. Thanks for arguing for biodiesel when it's availability is next to non-existant outside of the EU (just like E85 is next to non-existant outside of the midwest).
The increase on SOME diesel vehicles (older ones) is very slight. So yes, I would definitely take a slight increase in NOx to COMPLETELY ELIMINATE sequestered carbon output. Duh... that's a fucking no brainer, but apparently you can't quite grasp that concept.
You're right that B100's availability is extremely limited. But again, that has nothing to do with it. Hybrid cars availability in quantity is also extremely limited. We're talking about technology that is better for the environment. On a toe to toe basis, the modern diesel wins without question. Availability has nothing to do with it. If there were more demand for diesels in the US, there would be more availability.
If you wanted to spout off about the benefits of biodiesel, perhaps you should be honest about it's drawbacks? I've driven behind biodiesel cars. Frankly, they smell like crap and the odor made me sick to my stomach. Just like driving behind a regular diesel, I have to switch from fresh to recirculated air. I can't imagine what a whole road full of them would smell like.
This is either complete and utter horseshit, or you were driving behind a poorly maintained or ancient diesel. Modern diesels have no more or less odor than a gasoline car... and if you think a B100 running diesel smells worse than a gasoline engine, I'm going to call you a liar of epic proportions. D2, I would agree with you, though.
I love it when people compare apples to oranges. Have you bothered to compare the amount of pollutants one of your TDIs emits compared to the Prius which has the lowest emissions of any car sold in the US? Or perhaps considered that's why only a few diesels for 2008 have finally cleaned up their act enough to actually be legal for sale in the US and are still in the highest polluting category of cars?
I love it when people throw out the giant bag of bullshit about comparing emissions of a TDI to a Prius. The entire basis of your argument is around NOx emissions. Yes, the TDI has higher NOx emissions (all other meaningful emissions are on part with gasoline powered vehicles) - the thing about NOx is that it's a temporary pollutant and has very little lasting effect on the environment. It causes a bit of asthma if you're prone to it and some other respiratory issues in cities - but the NOx issue of TDI's takes a back seat to big-rig trucks.
BUT, lets compare the emissions of a Prius as an overall average of sequestered carbon pumped into the atmosphere vs a TDI running on Biodiesel. This is a fair comparison, because you are paying extra for the Prius hybrid technology, just as you are paying extra for the BD aquisition difficulty vs regular diesel. This difficulty does not exist for many people, but the Prius premium exists for all Prius owners.
The net sequestered carbon output (Which is really all that matters when it comes to the pollution of a vehicle) of a TDI on B100 is zero (We are not including what it takes to "create" the biodisel, just like we are not including what it takes to create the gasoline for the Prius) - the net sequestered carbon output of a Prius is not zero. The TDI, running on B100, is cleaner for the environment than the Prius. Yes, that's right... a "dirty" diesel is more environmentally friendly than a hybrid. See, when you take carbon out of the atmosphere, turn it into plant matter, turn that plant matter into B100, burn the B100 and release the carbon, you have a zero net gain of carbon in the atmosphere. When you take your petroleum based gasoline, you are releasing sequestered carbon into the atmosphere, increasing the green house gas content of our atmosphere - something you are NOT doing running on a biofuel.
Any modern diesel, TDI's included, can run on pure biodiesel with no modifications. I don't know of any gasoline/flex-fuel vehicles that can run on pure ethanol. When you tally everything up in the end, including battery disposal for the hybrids, the TDI is a far, far cleaner vehicle over the lifetime of the vehicle if you are using the best fuel available for the environment.
I live a pretty healthy lifestyle as it is. And I know, based on family history what diseases I'm genetically predisposed. So, this service is worthless to me.
It sounds like you're the kind of guy this would be perfect for. Send it in, find out you've got some disease that's going to kill you when you're 45... well fuck that healthy lifestyle! Time to smoke, eat trans-fats, lots of red meat, hookers, high risk activities... all the good stuff!
You are probably thinking of the version by Rednex. They have a semi-metal (or is it hard rap?) sounding version. Still not as good as the original, though.
I can't tell from the article - but is this because the fat people die sooner due to weight related problems and thus those diseases don't affect them as much, or is it just at that fat people don't plain die as much as skinny people?
I use Truecrypt to encrypt a partition on a drive and store all of my documents there. It's transparent to the user, once you've mounted your volume(s) and it's pretty danged fast, too. You can do encryption with Twofish, Serpent and AES or a cascading combination of them. Pretty damned secure, opensource and free.
You can even encrypt a whole device. If you do that, it just looks like a blank volume and a thief won't even know there is data on the volume to be decrypted.
Thanks for the link... so I went to try to buy that laptop. I can't even register as a new user, since I'm not exactly sure what a "House name or number is," but I went ahead and put in a random number. Then it asked for my post code, which I assume is my zip code, but it wouldn't take the standard 5 digits.
Oh, you mean they only ship to the UK? I guess I *can't* buy that laptop then.
Nice to see one is being offered SOMEWHERE, though.
A Dell laptop, as of at least a few months ago, costs more with Linux and/or no OS than it does with Windows. That's a tax.
I love how my original post is modded as a troll. It's anything but a troll, it's pointing out the fact that trying to buy a laptop without Windows and/or loaded with Linux is almost impossible without either a) Paying an extra fee or b) Getting an inferior product.
No. A tax is an obligatory payment to some higher powers. You don't want Windows? Good , buy a Mac, use Linuzzzz, Amiga, BeOS or write your own OS. Nobody actually is putting a gun in in your mouth.
Could you point me to the laptop or desktop I can buy that doesn't have Windows on it? The desktops are just now starting to come out without Windows. I don't know of any laptops off the top of my head (there may be one or two) that don't give a surcharge for Linux in one form or another. So my "choice" is to either a) Buy and pay for a Laptop with windows, or b) Not purchase a laptop.
Yes, I could choose B, but if I WANT A LAPTOP, I HAVE TO BUY WINDOWS. It's just like, if I WANT to live in the US, I HAVE TO PAY TAXES. Sure, I COULD live somewhere else, but if I want to live in the US (if I want to buy a laptop), I HAVE TO PAY for something I don't want. There are taxes I am willing to pay for, but there are many I'm not. Yet, I'm still forced to pay them, just like I am forced to pay the MS Tax to buy a laptop.
I wasn't aware precedent was predicated on an appeal. I'm not a lawyer, so I'll take your word for it that that's the case. Good to know for future reference.
Slashdot Mirror
I can think of four I/O interfaces that a game system might have: control input, video output, audio output, and networking. I've developed for Windows, GBA, and DS, and I've noticed that the control and audio latency are several frames higher on Windows than on the dedicated game systems. Some of this is due to Windows being a multitasking system, having to mix multiple audio sources into one for the console. Even video latency can pose a problem, as buggy drivers such as that of the ATI Radeon 9000 don't page-flip at the correct moment, causing shearing artifacts.
The context he was giving was for the player, not the developer. If you're talking development, the consoles always have and always will have an advantage. You know exactly what kind of hardware you're programming for, so it's much easier overall (the PS3 developers might beg to differ, but that's another issue entirely). Development is not really relevant to this discussion, though, so it's a moot point.
Several applications, games, and peripherals designed for Windows XP don't work with a computer that was preloaded with Windows Vista. But unlike Sony, which continued to sell new PS1 hardware long after introducing the PS2 and which continues to sell new PS2 hardware long after introducing the PS3, Microsoft plans to stop sales of new copies of its last generation operating system (Windows XP) very soon (2008-06-30 for smaller PC builders and 2009-01-31 for larger ones).
Microsoft has been planning to stop sales of Windows XP since Vista launched, but the date keeps being pushed back farther and farther. It will be pushed back again... in fact, I suspect it will be pushed back until the next version of Windows is released, since Vista is such a flop consumer wise. Gaming on XP is currently the cream of the crop in terms of speed and stability (Macs don't count, since there's like what, modern titles out for it? Kidding.. only kidding, ouch... stop throwing those things. Seriously though, the Mac isn't a contender in the gaming platform arena currently due to lack of titles.)
It's not unexpected that some hardware won't work with Vista that was designed for XP... that's like saying some hardware designed for the PS1 won't work with the PS2. This is surprising?
That will be true as long as the Wii is in shortage. But as soon as that ends, there will be a choice: $250 for a Wii or $350-$500 for the others.
Ummm... we're talking about graphics. The Wii isn't even in the same ball park as the 360, PS3 and PC. A cheap $199 Dell box can play graphics of Wii quality with the built in chipset. So that kind of blows that theory. Besides, the Wii has been in shortage for over a year and a half... what makes you think it'll ever come out of shortage?
How much do you have to spend on PCs if you want to have more than one player playing at a time? The way console games such as Smash Bros. work is that each player plugs a gamepad into the system, and all watch the same view of the action through a television. In theory, a PC can do that with a USB hub and a TV output, but for some reason too many PC games aren't programmed to give that option.
Well, you could spend $7.99 for a USB hub and hook it up to your TV like you said... so you answered your own question. No, most PC games don't have those options. I'm not sure what that has to do with anything, though. We're not really talking about that sort of thing in this discussion. We're talking about graphics and the stability of a platform. Also about upgradability & budget constraints. None of that really has anything to do with playing 4 people on a console or PC. With the advent of XBox Live, you get less and less 4 people sitting around a single TV now as well... as the new consoles are moving into what the PC has been doing all along. Each person playing at their own place on their own rig.
Maybe we care more about having fun than about worrying about optimum input devices, highest possible mouse resolution, upgrading our video cards every 6 months, and so on. All to end up with a "gaming" PC that makes too much noise and crashes all the time (or is down for repairs).
Then you're doing it wrong.
Don't blame the PCs because you don't know how to set one up properly.
My PC is a hell of a lot quieter than my Xbox 360 and hasn't crashed a game in several months at least, if not a year. I can't say the same for my Xbox 360.
Hmm, now that you mention it, the 360 does seem to be the lest stable, more noisy platform. Exactly the opposite of what you describe.
I finished Resistance: Fall of man on my ps3 last month. Absolutely brilliant game. Ok, so the controller was a bit clumsy, but did that stop me having fun? No. It also enabled me to play the game slouched on a sofa, rather than sitting bolt upright at a PC desk with a bottle of mountain dew and a half eaten pizza for sustenance.
I hear this little meme bandied about a lot, and I've found it to be utter bullshit. Unless I'm missing something, I'm far more comfortable sitting at my PC desk, playing a game than sitting on my couch, slouched over playing a game. I don't know how you or others trying to perpetuate this meme play games, but when I play, it's pretty intense. Sitting on the couch slouched over isn't exactly the best posture for competitive gaming.
I suspect people like you, who prefer the slouched couch approach are casual players who basically suck at any competitive gaming event. Which is fine... I'm not bashing you for it. But the fact remains that a console is neither the environment for competitive gaming nor does it have the input methods for it.
Gaming for me is competitive. That's the whole point of games, really... compete against something or someone. If you're playing just to "relax" and you don't care about winning... well that's great. Not everyone does that.
The PC is fundamentally flawed by inconsistent drivers, latency, incompatibility, and simply by being a moving target. How fast is a PC? What graphics chipset does a PC have? A developer has to make the game tweakable, so that it works on everyone's PC and the people with the lithium-cooled turbofan graphics card can stop moaning that it doesn't play at 15241x19841 in 64 bit colour. Alternately, they could just focus it and optimise it for the same graphics chip everywhere and get the absolute best out of it.
Oh please. This is complete horseshit. Inconsistent drivers? Rarely is there a driver problem with STABLE drivers. If you're using beta drivers or tweaked drivers, of course you're going to have problem... and that's the POWER of the PC vs the Console. If you want your shit to run faster and are willing to take instability as a price, YOU CAN. Can't do that on a console, you're stuck with what they give you. Latency? WTF does that even mean in this context? Consoles and PCs run over the same internet connection. Incompatibility? With what?
A moving target, huh? You say it like it's a bad thing. The 2007 PC vs the console... consoles are supposedly superior graphics wise... except there's few games out for the console compared to the PC, so you have a faster graphics system but no games to play on it (Xbox 360 does have some decent ones). As time goes on, more games come out for the console, but the PCs start to catch up graphics-wise. A couple years into the release of the console, the PCs start to surpass the console in graphics and CPU power... there's some games out for the console now, but the PC can play them too and they look better on the PC, since high resolution monitors are the norm. The current crop of console games are still being developed for standard def TVs or at best 720p. Sure they display in 1080i and 1080p, but they look like shit compared to the same game on a 1920x1200 monitor.
Fast forward another couple years... the consoles have fallen WAY behind in graphics and CPU power. Can't upgrade the consoles, so you're stuck with 2nd and 3rd generation games... the PCs have console emulators... they are playing your console games AND PC games at this point... now you're stuck. The new console comes out next year, prepare to drop close to a grand on the new gaming consoles and accessories. About the same you would have paid upgrading your PC to play the latest and greatest over the past 4 - 5 years. Now you start the cycle all over again - how much will the NEXT generation console cost after that? Over a grand?
Yes, the PC is a moving target, and it's an asset not a detriment. You can choose what kind of gaming experience you want (and can afford) with a PC. Can't do that with a console. Gotta spend $600 for the latest and greatest or you get NOTHING. With a PC, you can spend $60 for something adequate, or spend $600 for the latest and greatest... your choice.
2 years plus baby! uptime 15:48:58 up 736 days, 1:41, 1 user, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
Pretty much totally meaningless when your system utilization is 0.00. I can have a system with ridiculous uptime if it sits and idles all day as well.
Show me a heavily used server that's been up that long and it's impressive (and I'll show you an ancient, security problem ridden kernel). An idling desktop machine... not so much.
So this is like a serious question:
What can you do with this thing? Why does it exist? Just to say it's there, or does it have some function beyond bragging rights?
Hmm... if you UUEncode your files in 7 bit ASCII, wouldn't that be considered text, then? You could store a lot of shit UUEncoded in 750GB.
They didn't say the text files had to be human readable, did they? Just that they had to be text files.
Yeah, see the thing is, I bet I'm older than you and recall the war quite clearly... where as I suspect you were a 5 or 6 year old kid who thought he knew what was going on when Mommy and Daddy bought their deck. I bet you even programmed the time for them, yes?
Or 5 hours? Perhaps it is just because I am old enough to remember instead of reading (only part of) what is online about Beta? Very shortly after the initial format was released, Sony addressed that issue, which resulted in longer format tapes (hence movies being available on Beta), and different recording speed selections (as our Beta deck had).
No, the initial tapes were 1 hour long. They stayed that way for a time until too many people bitched. You might have been able to buy specialty tapes somewhere prior to that, but the tapes that were available in the store were 1 hour long until near the advent the advent of VHS, and longer play tapes trickled out. The problem then became trying to cram enough tape into the Betamax tape dimensions without making the tape too thin that it would break after being played or rewound. This introduced another set of problems for Betamax.
Almost as many as VHS... but maybe it's because in NY there were a bigger selection of Beta tapes - or because I am old enough to actually remember....
Right, so that's why we have Betamax in every household today. Oh... gee, wait a sec, no we have more VHS. My mistake. Because the consumer is going to choose the format that has LESS availability to them. Silly me. I'm sure you're going to correct me through the haze of your youthful memory.
Irrelevant (cost) as has been proven in such areas as Windows ($$$) vs Linux ($0)
Because software and hardware are exactly the same. Where can a consumer go out and buy a Linux PC? Few places (though it's increasing), 5 or 10 years ago you couldn't buy a PC loaded with Linux. The comparison is ludicrous. Let's compare something that makes a little more sense. How about PC's and Macs? Which one is cheaper? Which one has the vast majority of the market share? Don't like that one, how about something more recent... like Flash memory formats. Let's use Sony's product, the Memory stick vs say SD. How many more SD devices are out there vs. Memory Stick devices? Tons... why? SD is cheaper for the manufacturers and thus for the consumers. In this case, we're talking about EQUAL formats, not even a superior format, and yet SD still won. It's pretty much the defacto standard now a days. Don't like that one? How about hard drives... back in the day you had IDE and SCSI (We won't get into MFM, RLL etc...) - which one won? SCSI was technologically superior on every front, yet IDE won the day... why? Cheaper. The list goes on and on. Price has EVERYTHING to do with it. Saying it's irrelevant shows that you know exactly dick about the subject.
Sure it was... TV's weren't good enough to SHOW the difference... but you are on the right track with that one... the difference made no difference to the average consumer, because they didnt have anything to watch it on to notice the difference.
Sure it was? Then you continue on and admit that no one could see the difference... why did it make a difference then? You got some Betamax tapes you want to watch today on equipment that you could see the difference on? If there was nothing in reach of the consumer that could show the difference between the formats, then the difference is clearly immaterial to the subject. That's a big duh.
It didn't matter how many video geeks knew and understood that Beta was better than VHS, did it? They were the small minority of video users... the same sadly applies to the computer world.
Don't ever use this as your example of why DRM is bad, because it's complete bullshit.
Go on, tell me why Betamax was better than VHS. You don't know why. Why? Because it wasn't in the real world. You can spout some meaningless statistics about Betamax, but it had so many things wrong with it, that the "technical superiority" was almost irrelevant.
Lets see a small example of what was wrong with Betamax and why it failed completely and utterly.
1. Beta tapes lasted 1 hour, instead of two. How many 1 hour movies did you watch back then? None? This made the tapes next to useless for movies. Back then, recording movies off of HBO and shit was the thing to do... can't do it with Betamax! Tapes are too short. Those VHS tapes, though, they are just long enough!
2. How many Beta tapes did you see for rent back then? A small section in the local video store, maybe? Even if that section started out the same size as the VHS section (30 or 40 tapes each), each month, the VHS section grew, and the Beta section stayed the same or shrank. Why? Because Sony tried to suck the blood out of the market, like we see them continue to do, with their ridiculous licensing requirements.
3. Ever go try to buy a Betamax? 30 - 40% more than a VHS in a lot of cases. So, shorter tapes, less availability and they cost more? Yeahhhh, that's going to win market share. That is until VHS started beating down Sony with consumers, then suddenly the prices dropped drastically. There goes Sony again, using their monopoly to rape consumers, then wondering why consumers flee their products in droves when other companies start offering the same or similar things for half the price.
4. The last point I'm going to make here is the fact that consumers, Joe Average, could not distinguish between Beta and VHS pictures under any circumstance. The difference was not vast enough like VHS and DVD. On top of this, given the equipment available at the time, even audiophiles really couldn't distinguish between the two, since the TVs and such were so crappy (compared to today) anyway. It would take tens of thousands of dollars of equipment for someone to see the difference. Given that people don't mind MP3's in 128k today, and people still watch VHS when they have DVD available, do you really think the supposed difference between VHS and Beta made a lick of difference?
No, Beta was not superior to VHS, except on paper. In every instance that mattered, Beta failed miserably compared to Beta. Being better on paper is irrelevant, it's real world results that make a difference, and Beta had no advantage there.
I bought a digital photo frame from Microcenter that was infected. I can't recall what the specific trojan was, but it was fairly benign in so far as it just replicated itself. As I recall it was a fairly old trojan and not very sophisticated... but none the less, it was on the brand new frame that was still sealed in the original factory stuff.
I told Microcenter about it and they were like "Huh." Didn't ask anything more, nor did they remove the frames or check them. I was somewhat pressed for time, so I didn't try going up the chain of management to get someone to acknowledge that there was a problem.
It's a good thing I found it though, since it was a gift for my technologicallly illiterate parents. I had taken it out of the package to load pictures up on it. If I had just given it to them directly, I'm not sure what would have happened. AVG caught it when it was plugged in via USB, so probably nothing drastic, except a phone call from my Dad asking me what the pop-up box meant.
Oh yeah, and I forgot to mention the bullshit you spout about "Manufacturers clean them up enough to meet..."
The manufacturers have had clean diesels for YEARS. It was the SHITTY diesel fuel we've had in the US. Since we switched to ULSD, the diesel manufacturers can now bring in the diesel technology Europe has been running on for a decade. Don't blame the manufacturers, blame the oil companies and unreasonable emissions requirements for diesels. Blame the US government for not requiring stricter standards on D2.
Toyota, Honda, Ford and GM all make a wide variety of hybrids that you can go out and buy TODAY. All of which improve upon the gas mileage of the equivalent car more or less significantly depending on the sophistication of their hybrid system (GM has a number of mild-hybrids on the market which only marginally improve gas mileage).
Are you seriously putting Ford and GM hybrids in the same class as the Prius and I suppose the Civic? The Ford and GM hybrids are complete garbage and should have been aborted before they made it to the showroom floor. The Prius is the best in the hybrid class, and I think you'll likely agree with that - as such, I have been speaking about the Prius when I say hybrids, since the Civic doesn't really compare to the Prius (but it does come close) and the Ford and GM offerings are laughable.
We also aren't talking about "improving on the equivalent car" - we are talking about comparing a hybrid to a diesel. So it's totally irrelevant what a Civic gasser does compared to a Civic hybrid.
If I want to buy a diesel, I have only 3 choices, VW, Mercedes and Jeep (and I have no idea what ones are actually available right now, but I can't find any information on VWs site about the 2008 Jetta Diesel, and it's not on fueleconomy.gov, either). Maybe by the end of the year there will be a wider choice as manufactures clean them up enough to meet TIER 2 BIN 5 emissions standards.
If you want to buy a hybrid, you really have two choices... Prius or Civic. As I said, the Ford and GM offerings are a total joke, and regular gas cars from other manufacturers get far better and some times double the milage as the "hybrids" offered by Ford and GM.
The Jeep diesel (which I'm not sure if it's sold anymore) is equally laughable... leaving you with VW and Mercedes in the US. So you've got two diesels and two hybrids as realistic choices for environmentally improved vehicles.
Please tell me where I can go buy biodiesel without setting up a brewing station on my patio. Even the nearest E85 is about 15 miles from where I live and even further from where I work. I expect the nearest biodiesel station to be the same.
How can I tell you that if I don't know where you live? I can tell you where to buy it around my parts... there's a couple stations that sell B20 at the pump close by, and there's a number of other stations that sell B100 at the pump a little farther away. In my case, I actually have a guy deliver a couple hundred gallons of B100 to my house every so often - though I realize this isn't a realistic solution for most people. But yes, buying B100, or a blend is fairly easy in many, many places... but there are some places that you may not be able to get it as readily - though that is changing.
The average hybrid is meeting their 2008 EPA estimates. Look it up on fueleconomy.gov. So that means that YES, your average Civic Hybrid driver is getting 42 mpg and the average Prius driver is getting 46 mpg.
You boggle my mind with your hybrid blinders, but you do provide lots of salient points as to why everything you've said is utterly and completely wrong when it comes to hybrids vs. diesels.
First off, there are no official EPA estimates for 2008 yet on fueleconomy.gov... but I like how you specify the 2008 - since the EPA ratings have lowered the efficiency ratings of the hybrids by almost 20%. Lets take the Prius as an example, since it's the best in the hybrid class. Actual numbers? 48 and 45. The numbers just go down from there, so no point in listing those. The hybrids are not, and NEVER WILL meet EPA estimates as they are currently defined (2007) and BARELY meet the 2008 ratings, and in many cases fail 2008 ratings. The ONLY cars on the road being sold today that MEET and EXCEED EPA estimates are the diesels.
All the cases where I've seen a Prius getting less than 40 mpg are the result of short trips less than 10 minutes in cold weather. But in these conditions, all cars get crappy mileage compared to their EPA estimates.
While this is neither here nor there, as a point of fact, the diesels still meet EPA ratings on trips like this. On longer trips, they exceed EPA ratings.
Then you brush off diesel-hybrid because it's not available yet. But wait, diesel biofuel isn't available in any significant quantities yet either.
:(
First you brush off diesel biofuel because it's not available in any significant quantities yet, but wait, hybrids aren't available in any significant quanties yet either.
The POINT, which you repeatedly either miss by being obtuse or ignorant is that diesels are available now, and biofuel is available NOW. If you want to do a little extra work, you can have as much biofuel as you want. Biofuel is JUST AS AVAILABLE as hybrid cars - neither can replace mainstream transportation at the present time, so they are on equal footing as far as availability goes - so the entire basis of your argument is completely false, and thus everything you've built on it is completely false.
Your claim that hybrids are less efficient than their gas-only counterparts is simply false in many cases is false. If you want to make that argument, I can also claim that in many cases, hybrids completely blow anything else out of the water since many people regularly average 60+ mpg.
We aren't talking about individual cases, we are talking about averages. If you want to talk individual, I can get 70+ MPG out of a NB TDI, blowing 99.9% of the hybrids out of the water. Is your average TDI driver going to see that? Nope. Is your average hybrid driver seeing 40+? Nope, check the statistics. SOME are, yes, some are seeing great milage, but on average, the hybrids are fall far, FAR FAR FAR short of expectations and marketing hype.
Again, I'm going to reiterate the argument for you, which you always seem to just ignore because it doesn't fit in with your blinders. As an average, diesel vehicles are less polluting OVER THE LIFE OF THE VEHICLE than a hybrid.
You obviously haven't lived in any areas where smog is an issue. Please try it, and see how much you like all those NOx emissions instead of hiding behind your "temporary pollutant" argument. If you want to use it, it also applies to CO2, if we stop producing it, CO2 levels will go down as it gets absorbed by the environment.
Yes, I have. Once again, your red-herring argument completely sidesteps the point, because it blows holes in your argument. CO2 is not a temporary pollutant, it needs to be converted by something (trees, plants, etc...) NOx disperses on it's own by ultra-violet breakdown... something we get every day on the planet without any input on our part. CO2 levels will decrease at a glacially slow rate compared to NOx. If we stopped producing both at the same time, NOx would be virtually gone beyond "normal" ambient levels within a matter of weeks to months. It will take decades or centuries for CO2 to return to "normal" ambient levels.
So once again, yes, I'm more than willing to trade NOx for CO2 output.
Never mind the fact that you diesel fanboys completely ignore the fact that you can combine the two and get the best of both worlds. In fact, you see this happening right now, look at all the diesel-hybrid buses that are being bought by municipalities which *gasp* significantly reduce CO2, NOx and particulate emissions. Now if diesel is the perfect technology as you so proclaim, how is a hybrid able to improve upon it?
It's pretty clear you have a reading comprehension problem when it comes to the argument at hand, or is it that it's YOU and the hybrid crowd who have the blinders on? You feel the need to justify the excess expense for the Hybrid you just paid for, but aren't getting the MPG you were expecting... and then you need to justify just what the fuck you're going to do with all those batteries in another few years? Yeah, I'm gonna go with that.
A Diesel hybrid would be great - care to show me where to buy one? Oh that's right, you can't... So we're left with diesel or hybrid technology that is available RIGHT NOW, this VERY MINUTE. So we are going to compare what's available RIGHT NOW, this VERY MINUTE. And between the two available options, a Hybrid is the greater evil when it comes to environmental impact on average.
Take off your blinders and realize that there is more than one solution to the problem, and in fact, the solution absolutely requires us to tackle the issue from multiple points.
Please point out where I've disagreed with this assessment. In fact, I've made no statements for or against it. My post was refuting the bag of bullshit that a Prius has "the lowest emmissions of any car sold in the US," or did you conveniently forget that in your rush to defend Hybrid technology as the savior of the environment?
The bottom line is a Prius has MORE harmful emissions over the life of the vehicle than a comparable diesel vehicle running biofuel. Neither options are available in massive quantities, so they are comparable. If Hybrids were every single vehicle sold and there was no price premium, the hybrid technology would win, since it would lower over all consumption. But that's not the case, you have a very limited availability of hybrids, and in many, MANY cases, the hybrids get the same if not WORSE milage than their gas counterparts (mainly due to driving habits) - so the batteries are effectively a) going to waste, and b) will be an environmental problem in the future and they have provided NO BENEFIT TO OFFSET. So the hybrid, as currently designed, marketed and driven is CLEARLY inferior to diesel during the lifetime of the vehicle ON AVERAGE.
If you combine a diesel and hybrid, you will have a CLEARLY superior vehicle to a gas hybrid or a pure diesel, there's no question about that.
The only reason I'm a diesel "fanboy" is because I've DONE THE RESEARCH... something you clearly haven't done, and come to the conclusion on my own. I've never owned a diesel, or even thought much ab
So you're willing to cause a good number of people unneeded health risks? Good thing you're not making the decisions on acceptable emissions requirements. Don't you think there's a reason why CARB has created the toughest emissions requirements in the entire US (which slowly the rest of the country is adopting, state by state)? Could it be - gasp - that I people would prefer to breath clean air?
You're damned skippy I am. I would much rather have a temporary pollutant that has no lasting effect on the environment and make a few people uncomfortable than a permanent pollutant that makes EVERYONE ON THE FUCKING PLANET uncomfortable. So the answer is yes, yes I most definitely would.
Bullshit. When you live in an urban setting where the NOx output is constant and always there, you can no longer claim it's a "temporary pollutant".
Nope, not bullshit, and you proved it yourself. It's a temporary pollutant. You stop producing it, it goes away. It has no lasting effect on the environment.
1. Thanks for omitting the fact that biodiesel happens to create more NOx/smog forming pollutants than petro-based diesel.
2. Thanks for arguing for biodiesel when it's availability is next to non-existant outside of the EU (just like E85 is next to non-existant outside of the midwest).
The increase on SOME diesel vehicles (older ones) is very slight. So yes, I would definitely take a slight increase in NOx to COMPLETELY ELIMINATE sequestered carbon output. Duh... that's a fucking no brainer, but apparently you can't quite grasp that concept.
You're right that B100's availability is extremely limited. But again, that has nothing to do with it. Hybrid cars availability in quantity is also extremely limited. We're talking about technology that is better for the environment. On a toe to toe basis, the modern diesel wins without question. Availability has nothing to do with it. If there were more demand for diesels in the US, there would be more availability.
If you wanted to spout off about the benefits of biodiesel, perhaps you should be honest about it's drawbacks? I've driven behind biodiesel cars. Frankly, they smell like crap and the odor made me sick to my stomach. Just like driving behind a regular diesel, I have to switch from fresh to recirculated air. I can't imagine what a whole road full of them would smell like.
This is either complete and utter horseshit, or you were driving behind a poorly maintained or ancient diesel. Modern diesels have no more or less odor than a gasoline car... and if you think a B100 running diesel smells worse than a gasoline engine, I'm going to call you a liar of epic proportions. D2, I would agree with you, though.
My vote is that it was a starship that had a critical engine failure.
:(
It gives me hope and lets me sleep at night. Don't destroy my dream
I love it when people compare apples to oranges. Have you bothered to compare the amount of pollutants one of your TDIs emits compared to the Prius which has the lowest emissions of any car sold in the US? Or perhaps considered that's why only a few diesels for 2008 have finally cleaned up their act enough to actually be legal for sale in the US and are still in the highest polluting category of cars?
... a "dirty" diesel is more environmentally friendly than a hybrid. See, when you take carbon out of the atmosphere, turn it into plant matter, turn that plant matter into B100, burn the B100 and release the carbon, you have a zero net gain of carbon in the atmosphere. When you take your petroleum based gasoline, you are releasing sequestered carbon into the atmosphere, increasing the green house gas content of our atmosphere - something you are NOT doing running on a biofuel.
I love it when people throw out the giant bag of bullshit about comparing emissions of a TDI to a Prius. The entire basis of your argument is around NOx emissions. Yes, the TDI has higher NOx emissions (all other meaningful emissions are on part with gasoline powered vehicles) - the thing about NOx is that it's a temporary pollutant and has very little lasting effect on the environment. It causes a bit of asthma if you're prone to it and some other respiratory issues in cities - but the NOx issue of TDI's takes a back seat to big-rig trucks.
BUT, lets compare the emissions of a Prius as an overall average of sequestered carbon pumped into the atmosphere vs a TDI running on Biodiesel. This is a fair comparison, because you are paying extra for the Prius hybrid technology, just as you are paying extra for the BD aquisition difficulty vs regular diesel. This difficulty does not exist for many people, but the Prius premium exists for all Prius owners.
The net sequestered carbon output (Which is really all that matters when it comes to the pollution of a vehicle) of a TDI on B100 is zero (We are not including what it takes to "create" the biodisel, just like we are not including what it takes to create the gasoline for the Prius) - the net sequestered carbon output of a Prius is not zero. The TDI, running on B100, is cleaner for the environment than the Prius. Yes, that's right
Any modern diesel, TDI's included, can run on pure biodiesel with no modifications. I don't know of any gasoline/flex-fuel vehicles that can run on pure ethanol. When you tally everything up in the end, including battery disposal for the hybrids, the TDI is a far, far cleaner vehicle over the lifetime of the vehicle if you are using the best fuel available for the environment.
I live a pretty healthy lifestyle as it is. And I know, based on family history what diseases I'm genetically predisposed. So, this service is worthless to me.
It sounds like you're the kind of guy this would be perfect for. Send it in, find out you've got some disease that's going to kill you when you're 45... well fuck that healthy lifestyle! Time to smoke, eat trans-fats, lots of red meat, hookers, high risk activities... all the good stuff!
You are probably thinking of the version by Rednex. They have a semi-metal (or is it hard rap?) sounding version. Still not as good as the original, though.
I can't tell from the article - but is this because the fat people die sooner due to weight related problems and thus those diseases don't affect them as much, or is it just at that fat people don't plain die as much as skinny people?
I use Truecrypt to encrypt a partition on a drive and store all of my documents there. It's transparent to the user, once you've mounted your volume(s) and it's pretty danged fast, too. You can do encryption with Twofish, Serpent and AES or a cascading combination of them. Pretty damned secure, opensource and free.
You can even encrypt a whole device. If you do that, it just looks like a blank volume and a thief won't even know there is data on the volume to be decrypted.
Thanks for the link... so I went to try to buy that laptop. I can't even register as a new user, since I'm not exactly sure what a "House name or number is," but I went ahead and put in a random number. Then it asked for my post code, which I assume is my zip code, but it wouldn't take the standard 5 digits.
Oh, you mean they only ship to the UK? I guess I *can't* buy that laptop then.
Nice to see one is being offered SOMEWHERE, though.
Apparently you had a little trouble reading my last sentence. I said a LAPTOP. I can build my own desktops, thanks. I can't build a laptop.
As for those of you talking about Dell: http://buranen.info/?p=77
A Dell laptop, as of at least a few months ago, costs more with Linux and/or no OS than it does with Windows. That's a tax.
I love how my original post is modded as a troll. It's anything but a troll, it's pointing out the fact that trying to buy a laptop without Windows and/or loaded with Linux is almost impossible without either a) Paying an extra fee or b) Getting an inferior product.
No. A tax is an obligatory payment to some higher powers. You don't want Windows? Good , buy a Mac, use Linuzzzz, Amiga, BeOS or write your own OS. Nobody actually is putting a gun in in your mouth.
Could you point me to the laptop or desktop I can buy that doesn't have Windows on it? The desktops are just now starting to come out without Windows. I don't know of any laptops off the top of my head (there may be one or two) that don't give a surcharge for Linux in one form or another. So my "choice" is to either a) Buy and pay for a Laptop with windows, or b) Not purchase a laptop.
Yes, I could choose B, but if I WANT A LAPTOP, I HAVE TO BUY WINDOWS. It's just like, if I WANT to live in the US, I HAVE TO PAY TAXES. Sure, I COULD live somewhere else, but if I want to live in the US (if I want to buy a laptop), I HAVE TO PAY for something I don't want. There are taxes I am willing to pay for, but there are many I'm not. Yet, I'm still forced to pay them, just like I am forced to pay the MS Tax to buy a laptop.
So yes, it's a tax.
Sounds like you want ProFTPd for Linux. Does everything you ask, with the configuration file almost identical to what you just posted.
ProFTPd is somewhat of a standard ftp daemon to include in Linux distro's now adays, I'm surprised you never came across it.
I wasn't aware precedent was predicated on an appeal. I'm not a lawyer, so I'll take your word for it that that's the case. Good to know for future reference.