When the conductor opened the pressurized train car door for the first time in Tibet, the pasengers were heard to exclaim, "This place really sucks!" as they blew out the door.
$130.000 is not low priced. My parents paid about $37,000 for their first house in the 70's and it had four bedrooms. Granted it was in a slightly slummish area of the suburban Midwest/Chicagoland but still a good deal.
In my opinion a house shouldn't cost that much without some seriously nice features and some good land.
Besides - other than physical maintenance why do the people need to live near it once it's built? I can understand temporary housing while building it but if you put it on cheap land you can afford a large amount of people to build it quickly and then go back to their real homes.
The array data can then be transmitted over land line to the most neadby town. Or am I underestimating the size of the station wagon needed?;-)
"Bah!" - Dogbert
Dogbert, I wasn't suggesting that people move there. I used the low price of housing there to illustrate to those who think California is only Los Angeles and San Francisco that that Cassel is not an expensive area .
Speaking of illustrating, in the future, wait for me to write your words for you.
This Allen Telescope Array has been getting advertised for at least 15 years now and all they've gotten is 10% of it erected and not a single bit of data yet. They must be spending $1 a year on it.
Wouldn't it be farther along if they didn't build it on the most expensive real estate in the world? Maybe instead of spending 15 years building 10% of it outside Sacramento they could compromise and build it 1 mile east of Calif* for a trillion dollars less.
Mr Google tells me it's nearest Cassel CA, population 366, in the Mt. Lassen Area. That is a low priced area. The median home in Cassel in the 2000 Census data was valued at $130,000.
Unplugging is a good first step, if that's all you can do. Strong EMP will induce currents in electronic circuitry stong enough to fry much solid state electronics.
Diesels are still more efficient even considering the higher density of diesel fuel. About 15 to 20% more efficient based on the mass of fuel consumed.
That is at high power levels, at lower power levels the diesel advantage gets even bigger. Gas engine lose because the air flow is throttled. It takes power to suck the air past a partly closed throttle and that's a loss.
Diesels consume far less fuel at idle than gas engines, partly because of the lack of power loss sucking the air past the throttle plate and partly because of more efficent burning of the fuel.
You comment on mixture (running lean) is also 180 degrees from fact. Gas engine run close to 15:1 air fuel ratio. About 12.5:1 to 17:1 for extremes. The richest diesels ever gets is about 20:1. At idle a diesel is more like 100:1.
#2 Diesel fuel is about 15% denser than gasoline. Diesel cars typically have about 30% lower fuel consumption than equivilant gasoline powered cars.
I find it more curious that the US -is- capable of getting adequate food and water to those people and isn't doing it.
Dropping the food and water under the present conditions isn't the answer, but there are other ways. Either lowering in cargo ners or impovised landing areas. Food and water should have been moving in there in large quantities as soon as the winds died down.
If those people in the Toilet Dome were in the tax brackets that Bush and his cronies in Congress gave tax relief to, you can be damn sure they would be getting all the help they needed.
Slashdot Mirror
Vote intelligently, just voting got us the balloon knots we have in ofice now.
When the conductor opened the pressurized train car door for the first time in Tibet, the pasengers were heard to exclaim, "This place really sucks!" as they blew out the door.
Good point and thank-you. I have put a yellow sticky on my computer designating it private property.
I must have missed the part where they said it was a Microsoft product.
I'm going to wait for Farty Ferret.
In my opinion a house shouldn't cost that much without some seriously nice features and some good land.
Besides - other than physical maintenance why do the people need to live near it once it's built? I can understand temporary housing while building it but if you put it on cheap land you can afford a large amount of people to build it quickly and then go back to their real homes.
The array data can then be transmitted over land line to the most neadby town. Or am I underestimating the size of the station wagon needed? ;-)
"Bah!" - Dogbert
Dogbert, I wasn't suggesting that people move there. I used the low price of housing there to illustrate to those who think California is only Los Angeles and San Francisco that that Cassel is not an expensive area .
Speaking of illustrating, in the future, wait for me to write your words for you.
Scott
Wouldn't it be farther along if they didn't build it on the most expensive real estate in the world? Maybe instead of spending 15 years building 10% of it outside Sacramento they could compromise and build it 1 mile east of Calif* for a trillion dollars less.
Mr Google tells me it's nearest Cassel CA, population 366, in the Mt. Lassen Area. That is a low priced area. The median home in Cassel in the 2000 Census data was valued at $130,000.
With that problem out of the way, if we can just get the birds to keep their damn flu to theirselves, all will be well.
Unplugging is a good first step, if that's all you can do. Strong EMP will induce currents in electronic circuitry stong enough to fry much solid state electronics.
Diesels are still more efficient even considering the higher density of diesel fuel. About 15 to 20% more efficient based on the mass of fuel consumed.
That is at high power levels, at lower power levels the diesel advantage gets even bigger. Gas engine lose because the air flow is throttled. It takes power to suck the air past a partly closed throttle and that's a loss.
Diesels consume far less fuel at idle than gas engines, partly because of the lack of power loss sucking the air past the throttle plate and partly because of more efficent burning of the fuel.
You comment on mixture (running lean) is also 180 degrees from fact. Gas engine run close to 15:1 air fuel ratio. About 12.5:1 to 17:1 for extremes. The richest diesels ever gets is about 20:1. At idle a diesel is more like 100:1.
#2 Diesel fuel is about 15% denser than gasoline. Diesel cars typically have about 30% lower fuel consumption than equivilant gasoline powered cars.
GM did pretty good job of convincing the American public when they produced their miserable diesel powered cars sometime around 1970.
Modern Euro diesels are very civilized cars with decent performance, not a lot of noise and no smoke.
The Japanese and Korea build some good ones too. Unfortunately, we in the US don't have as many choices as they do.
By lying. He's full of crap.
That would be ring and tongue. :)
It's "ring and tip" , young'un :)
With no fan, it should be pretty close to inaudaible from a couple of feet away.
I looked up the specs on one and it was 82% efficient at full power. That's 90 Watts of heat it needs to get rid of without a fan. Toasty!
Maybe not even then. It depends on which bodilyt orifice you were pulling out of.
His legal department would have never said that, they would have said
" Microsoft is the greatest company in the world and managed by a genius.
Bill, Seattle"
Then it's safe to assume you want security making purely random checks.
Troll my ass, do you really want security wasting their time making purely random checks?
I certainly hope so.
Please change title to "Russians put Europeon student's satellite in orbit."
A bunch of students building a satellite is kinda neat, but far short of the neatness of actually putting it in orbit.
Please don't assume that all Americans are raving right wing nut cases. Nearly 50% of us aren't.
Right, Chessy
After his bad experiance participating in the beta program, he isn't going to take another chance at it.
I find it more curious that the US -is- capable of getting adequate food and water to those people and isn't doing it.
Dropping the food and water under the present conditions isn't the answer, but there are other ways. Either lowering in cargo ners or impovised landing areas. Food and water should have been moving in there in large quantities as soon as the winds died down.
If those people in the Toilet Dome were in the tax brackets that Bush and his cronies in Congress gave tax relief to, you can be damn sure they would be getting all the help they needed.