Please don't clarify things you don't understand as it adds no clarity to be flat-out wrong. British gallons are BIGGER than American gallons. 4.54 litres instead of 3.78 litres. Thats why a car doing 40mpg in the UK on British gallons does 33mpg in the USA on American gallons.
I'm unconvinced anyway by mileage claims. I can't speak for the US system but in the UK it's done in a test where the car runs for a set period at certain speeds then either accelerates or decelerates to different speeds, all cars are tested at the same speeds and intervals to get comparable figures. On A Rolling Road
If they were comparable to real life it'd be nice: It makes no adjustment for whether some cars coast better than others downhill, effects of wind resistance, effect on drag of the car's turning geometry.... In the real world some cars do significantly better than their official mileages and others can't even get close.
My VW Passat 2.0i 16v (1991) once managed 56mpg on one long run and always beat 45mpg when it was officially meant to do no more than 42mpg, my 1.8D Ford Escort didn't even come close to its official range of 50-60mpg on long runs and my dad's Passat 1.8 20v likewise drank far more than the label indicated it should, and both my mondeo 1.8TD and Volvo V40 2.0i 16v significantly beat their official figures (the Mondeo with ease, it once managed 932 miles on a single tank, the V40 takes careful handling).
TL:DR? Summary: "Official mileage figures are unreliable, live with it"
Agreed, worst-written article I've seen in a long time. More to the point the link is to an excerpt that required a lot of prior knowledge of the case - where I find myself coming up short.
Then I'll give you a real one: When visiting locations with wired internet but no wifi (yes they do exist), a USB Ethernet adapter is a lot smaller a thing to carry than a spare access point
My old Nokia rocked, it was fast, light, quality hardware and great GSM stack - fast, reliable connections to data and voice services - which was always a Nokia strong point. I'm only using a SonyEricsson android unit because they haven't produced a new handset to my liking. Nokia hardware plus android would bring me right back into the fold.
I'd agree with most of what you say too (seem to be doing more of this than usual tonight - its nice (unusual?) to have a mature discussion on economics)
I'm guilty of badly phrasing my thoughts as much as anything. No, the funds still exist which were staked and never repaid, the only real 'destruction' of economic value is when the benefit of it flows overseas into economies that have a favourable-to-them trade balance. HOWEVER its doing less good now than it might be.
The amount of money in the economy may change little but a relatively large proportion of it is locked into loops (trade>employment>salary>[pays for food and rent/mortgage]>returns to bank>lent out) etc. a relatively small proportion of the entire currency is available on the Stock Market to buy shares and invest in new businesses, but the gross benefits brought to an economy BY those investors actions disproportionately outweighs most uses of money.
As such, the potential value of the shareholders money that has been spent on server farms, staff salary, office rents etc in the hands of OnLive's board is reduced. Had they made a profit and returned dividends to their shareholders, more money would be available for investment than now is. Instead the money has made tech firms, employees, telecomms companies a bit better off each. The people who have felt the benefit of it are people with a lower likelihood to invest the extra income into doing something valuable - growing new businesses.
In terms of private investors risking their own capital I would also agree (see, liberals and conservatives CAN agree on some stuff...)
My main concern was that a lot of investment is handled by fund managers who are trusted to know the risks in order to stake others' savings: I would like to hear that the only people who made capital losses here were those handling their own money. I'd consider it a good lesson for society if it were so. Somehow I very much doubt it - people probably lost out here through managed schemes taking a hit also.
In the end if you rely on anything other than social benefits for a pension (and god help you if you do that) you rely on good judgment on the part of the hands that do your indirect bidding: We are all dependent in the long run on a rising market in stocks and shares and on our pensions being mainly based on the rising shares not the falling ones. Otherwise we risk needing a government handout, and we'd be back to the clunking fist of the state settling private deficits with our taxes.
Oh don't get me wrong, I know public spending is as bad if not worse in terms of efficiency, I wasnt attempting to make an argument in favour of nationalisation or socialisation. Just that capital efficiency in private markets also sucks when people don't know what it is that they don't know.
A lot of people (particularly I'm discussing western political leaders, but not just them) state as a matter of blind faith that markets are effective allocators of capital
OnLive to me is another DotCom Crash Co, it just happened rather later: We all know the basic story, they said they could deliver high fidelity gaming as a service, thus freeing users from the capital investment of the console and turning a sales market into a services market
Most of us scoffed, pointing out things we understand about residential internet connecticvity, the devastating efffect of lag upon gaming, and the implausibility of the system in general. Institutional investors looked at what the company said, thought ' turning a sales market into a services / rental market is a good thing, it means higher long-run revenues' and poured money into it.
I have limited sympathy - they invested badly. Only real benefit was to the coders who had jobs there for a few years. But I do think the idea that investors will run to invest in markets they patently dont understand doesnt speak well for the efficiency of the capital markets.
Most online businesses eventually find that 'unlimited' = 'bankrupt once the VC cash runs out'
I use Amazon S3 via Jungledisk (still waitinbg for Google Drive on Linux). I use it in preference to all cheaper options as I understand its profitable therefore will probably still exist if I ever need to do a full reinstall due to some disaster wiping out my onsite copies.
If lots of mid range cars get secondary electric/hybrid plug-in power systems (small battery under the rear seat, traction motors on the wheels that don't have direct mechanical drive from the engine) so they can do 15 to 30 miles on home electricity before the 'engine' kicks in, that would probably increase the average efficiency, although at different rates for different driving patterns (Does the MPGe standard have an averaged-out distance cars get run on a trip? as someone only ever commuting 10 miles might use no liquid fuel at all this way while someone in the same car doing 100 mile commutes would just see a reduction in their liquid fuel use.)
It did seem as though they got the rare 'freakishly good' car that any maker turns out a few of - the one that for no know reason is better-set-up and more efficient than other identical ones. TG stated that after the 600+ mile run to Blackpool they drained the tank on that car and found it could have managed a further 100 miles.
If all Jag diesels were that efficient they'd make more of it for marketing, and have a higher official MPG figure, as what that car managed was astonishing. It had to be the fluke car
I'm the same, but with a less extreme difference: I'm a single guy, no large family to lug around, but I love camping, mountain biking and going on road trips with my friends. So I drive a compact estate car (Volvo V40) and take the economy hit for the practicality of having it always there, never having to worry about having too much stuff with me for the trip, etc. I know I should buy a Ka or Micra and borrow or rent larger vehicles as needed.. but the convenience of permanent ownership means a lot even though I know its silly.
I run a 2.0 litre 4-cyl Volvo V40 compact estate (station wagon), which is now 11 years old. Over my last 10,000 miles I have had an average fuel economy (brim to brim method) of 37.5mpg - in imperial gallons. So you might say my technologically crude car is pretty close and a little improvement such as start-stop, higher final gearing ratios, low-rolling-resistance tyres, maybe a mild hybrid system, and use of aluminium instead of steel for structures might get it there
BUT: That's about 31.2mpg in US gallons. I wonder how many Brits are reading this, thinking 'My diesel car does better than that' - and not realising that actually the Americans have set themselves a bar thats 20% higher than it appears to us as their gallons are smaller - 65mpg in fact.
A handful of cars do manage that - VW's Bluemotion range for instance, and equivalents from other makers. But a Prius doesn't and my Volvo never will (I'm planning to convert it to LPG instead)....
I think that story (using Nintendo chips as missile guidance?) was totally debunked in the end and it was suggested it may have been dreamed up along with the majority of the illegal weapons, to justify a war that was already desired
... Russia, that is, has gone rogue. The whole state is corrupt. This however looks like perfectly normal spying and the sort of thing they have always done, and vice-versa.
Don't start complaining until they use radiological weapons on your streets, like they did to us...
If this is for real I think its time we all went and found a new place to post our views and engage in general geekery. I'll stand for a lot from slashdot but this was ALWAYS the place that stood up for the right to post, even against the Scientologists. Dice, if this is for real, I'm gone.
Slashdot Mirror
Please don't clarify things you don't understand as it adds no clarity to be flat-out wrong. British gallons are BIGGER than American gallons. 4.54 litres instead of 3.78 litres. Thats why a car doing 40mpg in the UK on British gallons does 33mpg in the USA on American gallons.
I'm british, when I say 'mpg' I mean miles per british gallon, which are bigger.
I'm unconvinced anyway by mileage claims. I can't speak for the US system but in the UK it's done in a test where the car runs for a set period at certain speeds then either accelerates or decelerates to different speeds, all cars are tested at the same speeds and intervals to get comparable figures. On A Rolling Road
If they were comparable to real life it'd be nice: It makes no adjustment for whether some cars coast better than others downhill, effects of wind resistance, effect on drag of the car's turning geometry.... In the real world some cars do significantly better than their official mileages and others can't even get close.
My VW Passat 2.0i 16v (1991) once managed 56mpg on one long run and always beat 45mpg when it was officially meant to do no more than 42mpg, my 1.8D Ford Escort didn't even come close to its official range of 50-60mpg on long runs and my dad's Passat 1.8 20v likewise drank far more than the label indicated it should, and both my mondeo 1.8TD and Volvo V40 2.0i 16v significantly beat their official figures (the Mondeo with ease, it once managed 932 miles on a single tank, the V40 takes careful handling).
TL:DR? Summary: "Official mileage figures are unreliable, live with it"
That's your illness talking
Easy. You're either a paranoid schizophrenic or extremely gullible
Judging from your sig text I'm glad you weren't called. Jurors need a grounding in reality.
For there ain't no Bolthole in all the world
Like that dear little Bolthole of mine.
Agreed, worst-written article I've seen in a long time. More to the point the link is to an excerpt that required a lot of prior knowledge of the case - where I find myself coming up short.
Then I'll give you a real one: When visiting locations with wired internet but no wifi (yes they do exist), a USB Ethernet adapter is a lot smaller a thing to carry than a spare access point
My old Nokia rocked, it was fast, light, quality hardware and great GSM stack - fast, reliable connections to data and voice services - which was always a Nokia strong point. I'm only using a SonyEricsson android unit because they haven't produced a new handset to my liking. Nokia hardware plus android would bring me right back into the fold.
I'd agree with most of what you say too (seem to be doing more of this than usual tonight - its nice (unusual?) to have a mature discussion on economics)
I'm guilty of badly phrasing my thoughts as much as anything. No, the funds still exist which were staked and never repaid, the only real 'destruction' of economic value is when the benefit of it flows overseas into economies that have a favourable-to-them trade balance. HOWEVER its doing less good now than it might be.
The amount of money in the economy may change little but a relatively large proportion of it is locked into loops (trade>employment>salary>[pays for food and rent/mortgage]>returns to bank>lent out) etc. a relatively small proportion of the entire currency is available on the Stock Market to buy shares and invest in new businesses, but the gross benefits brought to an economy BY those investors actions disproportionately outweighs most uses of money.
As such, the potential value of the shareholders money that has been spent on server farms, staff salary, office rents etc in the hands of OnLive's board is reduced. Had they made a profit and returned dividends to their shareholders, more money would be available for investment than now is. Instead the money has made tech firms, employees, telecomms companies a bit better off each. The people who have felt the benefit of it are people with a lower likelihood to invest the extra income into doing something valuable - growing new businesses.
In terms of private investors risking their own capital I would also agree (see, liberals and conservatives CAN agree on some stuff...)
My main concern was that a lot of investment is handled by fund managers who are trusted to know the risks in order to stake others' savings: I would like to hear that the only people who made capital losses here were those handling their own money. I'd consider it a good lesson for society if it were so. Somehow I very much doubt it - people probably lost out here through managed schemes taking a hit also.
In the end if you rely on anything other than social benefits for a pension (and god help you if you do that) you rely on good judgment on the part of the hands that do your indirect bidding: We are all dependent in the long run on a rising market in stocks and shares and on our pensions being mainly based on the rising shares not the falling ones. Otherwise we risk needing a government handout, and we'd be back to the clunking fist of the state settling private deficits with our taxes.
Oh don't get me wrong, I know public spending is as bad if not worse in terms of efficiency, I wasnt attempting to make an argument in favour of nationalisation or socialisation. Just that capital efficiency in private markets also sucks when people don't know what it is that they don't know.
A lot of people (particularly I'm discussing western political leaders, but not just them) state as a matter of blind faith that markets are effective allocators of capital
OnLive to me is another DotCom Crash Co, it just happened rather later: We all know the basic story, they said they could deliver high fidelity gaming as a service, thus freeing users from the capital investment of the console and turning a sales market into a services market
Most of us scoffed, pointing out things we understand about residential internet connecticvity, the devastating efffect of lag upon gaming, and the implausibility of the system in general. Institutional investors looked at what the company said, thought ' turning a sales market into a services / rental market is a good thing, it means higher long-run revenues' and poured money into it.
I have limited sympathy - they invested badly. Only real benefit was to the coders who had jobs there for a few years. But I do think the idea that investors will run to invest in markets they patently dont understand doesnt speak well for the efficiency of the capital markets.
I think thats already happened judging from some of the stuff I overhear.
"Yeah? Well we've got triangular bees" - from a passing guy with a phone headset, never did get to the bottom of that one...
You deserve some sort of reward for that remark.
Most online businesses eventually find that 'unlimited' = 'bankrupt once the VC cash runs out'
I use Amazon S3 via Jungledisk (still waitinbg for Google Drive on Linux). I use it in preference to all cheaper options as I understand its profitable therefore will probably still exist if I ever need to do a full reinstall due to some disaster wiping out my onsite copies.
If lots of mid range cars get secondary electric/hybrid plug-in power systems (small battery under the rear seat, traction motors on the wheels that don't have direct mechanical drive from the engine) so they can do 15 to 30 miles on home electricity before the 'engine' kicks in, that would probably increase the average efficiency, although at different rates for different driving patterns (Does the MPGe standard have an averaged-out distance cars get run on a trip? as someone only ever commuting 10 miles might use no liquid fuel at all this way while someone in the same car doing 100 mile commutes would just see a reduction in their liquid fuel use.)
It did seem as though they got the rare 'freakishly good' car that any maker turns out a few of - the one that for no know reason is better-set-up and more efficient than other identical ones. TG stated that after the 600+ mile run to Blackpool they drained the tank on that car and found it could have managed a further 100 miles.
If all Jag diesels were that efficient they'd make more of it for marketing, and have a higher official MPG figure, as what that car managed was astonishing. It had to be the fluke car
I'm the same, but with a less extreme difference: I'm a single guy, no large family to lug around, but I love camping, mountain biking and going on road trips with my friends. So I drive a compact estate car (Volvo V40) and take the economy hit for the practicality of having it always there, never having to worry about having too much stuff with me for the trip, etc. I know I should buy a Ka or Micra and borrow or rent larger vehicles as needed.. but the convenience of permanent ownership means a lot even though I know its silly.
I run a 2.0 litre 4-cyl Volvo V40 compact estate (station wagon), which is now 11 years old. Over my last 10,000 miles I have had an average fuel economy (brim to brim method) of 37.5mpg - in imperial gallons. So you might say my technologically crude car is pretty close and a little improvement such as start-stop, higher final gearing ratios, low-rolling-resistance tyres, maybe a mild hybrid system, and use of aluminium instead of steel for structures might get it there
BUT: That's about 31.2mpg in US gallons. I wonder how many Brits are reading this, thinking 'My diesel car does better than that' - and not realising that actually the Americans have set themselves a bar thats 20% higher than it appears to us as their gallons are smaller - 65mpg in fact.
A handful of cars do manage that - VW's Bluemotion range for instance, and equivalents from other makers. But a Prius doesn't and my Volvo never will (I'm planning to convert it to LPG instead)....
I think that story (using Nintendo chips as missile guidance?) was totally debunked in the end and it was suggested it may have been dreamed up along with the majority of the illegal weapons, to justify a war that was already desired
... Russia, that is, has gone rogue. The whole state is corrupt. This however looks like perfectly normal spying and the sort of thing they have always done, and vice-versa.
Don't start complaining until they use radiological weapons on your streets, like they did to us...
If this is for real I think its time we all went and found a new place to post our views and engage in general geekery. I'll stand for a lot from slashdot but this was ALWAYS the place that stood up for the right to post, even against the Scientologists. Dice, if this is for real, I'm gone.
Yelp and the Business of Extortion 2.0