Being a bigot does not invalidate the facts. And for the record I am as bigoted as anyone that has knowledge of the subject matter and has made an educated decision.
<I>The fact that MySQL is easy to configure and easy to use should not be used against it -</I>
It's not. Being easy to install is hardly an issue. Just the same, being easy to install has nothing to do with its SQL engine. Your red herring is easy to ignore.
<I>Had Postgres' developers made it half as easy to install and manage on my machines 10 years ago, many people would now be using it instead.</I>
Again, you're using a metric which has nothing to do with the top at hand. I guess you really love fish. If PostgreSQL's historical lack of Windows support is what keeps you from using it today - well, I can't help but smile at how irrational you are. Obviously current metrics are ignored by you.
<I>As it stands today, MySQL is an excellent platform for relational database development.</I>
Of course its an excellent platform - so long as you love to learn to do things poorly, slowly, tediously, and don't have serious data concerns.
<I>Your bigotry is apparent, and its just bigotry.</I>
Yes, I always associate knowledge with bigotry. Your red herrings and ignorance on the topic hardly furthers your cause.
<I>not everyone is writing (for a random example) VISA's payment processing system.</I>
Agreed; but that hardly changes the fact that better solutions exist.
choosing MySQL as your database speaks poorly of you. Just about any database is better than MySQL.
That's a bit harsh and unrealistic.
In Real Life (tm), you don't always have that choice: sometimes you take what's given to you and roll with it, sometimes you have to use what you know best to get the job done.</I>
If you take what is given to you then it wasn't your choice. In that case, that statement does not apply.
<I>Postgres may be "superior" to MySQL, but that doesn't mean it's the right choice all the time.</I>
I completely agree with you. PostgreSQL is NOT the right choice all the time. In fact, I believe if you re-read my original post you'll find that my position is just about any choice is better than MySQL; not that PostgreSQL is always the right choice.
Stuff like that is why, as much as I love Postgres, it isn't replacing Oracle any time soon. Not when things like partitioning are called for.
Hate to burst your bubble but PostgreSQL is displacing Oracle on the low end. Maybe not in droves but it is happening. Also, the author didn't say that partitioning is required to support his application. Partitioning can make for significant performance gains. After all, why move data you don't need 90% of the time. And if your query planner is smart enough to understand this fact, it makes for a win/win; smarter query plans and potentially huge wins on I/O. Both of which translate to better scaling databases/applications.
You seem to imply Oracle is better because you're wasting I/O moving data you rarely need. That position doesn't make sense to me.
Your response is paranoid and childish. Sometimes you have to hear things you don't want to hear. The AC's response is actually funny and accurate. By in large, most MySQL users are children when it comes to relational databases. You don't have to be a PostgreSQL zealot to recognize that fact. Simple fact is, MySQL is the low rung on the SQL ladder. All DBAs worth respecting understand this simple fact. In other words, what you assume to be zealotry can just as likely be a factual statement by a knowledgeable person.
Just because you heard something you didn't want to hear doesn't mean it was delivered by a zealot. The fact that you're so easily confused by such a fact is a significant indicator the AC's comment was correctly targeted (you're too close) at you. Your response also implies you are in fact a MySQL zealot. Otherwise, why so easily offended by a comment which was obviously presented with levity, by an AC, in a trollish manner. Getting upset about that is just plain silly.
At the end of the day, with so many excellent relational databases available at zero or little cost, choosing MySQL as your database speaks poorly of you. Just about any database is better than MySQL. Imagine a friend bringing home a cheap Chinese made, Yamaha reproduction and declaring they are tired of "zealots" pointing out that better bikes exist. Well, your friend might be tired of hearing it, but it doesn't change the facts. It doesn't take a zealot to point out that bike is a complete PoS; and without regard to zealotry, better options exist. At least with a bike, you can defend such a purchase from a cost perspective. No such hand hold exists when it comes to the field of freely available databases; almost all of which are better than MySQL.
Lastly, please don't forget that one need only be knowledgeable about relational databases to dislike MySQL. Zealotry need not be a factor.
The Soviets did field more weapons in the megaton range than the US but most of those were under 5 MT.
The Soviets used larger yield warheads because they had far worse accuracy. The logic is, if you can't accurately hit a target, then make the bomb big enough so that close enough is good enough.
Their lack of accuracy is why Cheyenne Mountain was built. It was understood that it could survive all but a direct hit and a direct hit was unlikely. These days direct hits are all but assured and thusly Cheyenne Mountain is no longer considered to be American's last stand against nuclear attack. It's now understood that in a nuclear exchange, Cheyenne Mountain will be nothing but ash.
By law, the first developer that asks for Clear Case at your place of business can be legally shot. I encourage you to remind your fellow developers of this fact to keep them in line.
Unfortunitally, the second developer can't be shot. The cure for this is to ensure all developers understand that THEY will become the ClearCase administrator. Point them at the documentation and make it understood that the massive bulk of documentation will need to be understood for everything but the most trivial uses of clearcase.
The above should do a wonderful job of keeping the abomination known as ClearCase away from your job. If on the other hand you hate your co-workers, encourage and prod two other co-workers to ask for ClearCase. This way, one of the two gets shot and the second will be forced to support it. Laugh as you exit toward your future place of employment.
Actually, it does. This is why war is rare between democratic societies and common with Islamic societies. Most Islamic countries are not free and therefore are not allowed to develop educated, reasoned, and meaningful thought. Knowledge is only part of an education. By in large, people are only ever allowed part of an education in those parts of the world; wherein it fits within an Islamic doctrine, further convoluted with anti-western ideology. Most people will agree, that's still an incomplete education. Thusly, people can truthfully say many are uneducated despite having completed college.
This position can't be stressed enough! CRIMINALS DO NOT WANT GUNS TRACED BACK TO THEIR OWNER! This is why, even if buying guns were made easier, criminals would by far, still prefer to buy their guns on the black market, which are normally stolen from someone else.
There's plenty of fissionable material, especially if you include the recyclable secondary material
That's part of the problem. In the US, on the military can recycle these materials making it unreasonable to do so in civilian reactors. This means every US reactor has a fissionable material waste rate as high as 95% on every pellet/rod removed. Given we have such a finite supply, wasting as much as 95% seems well beyond stupid.
If you can cut off the buyer from the seller, you can make a dent in the problem.
Same broken logic that fuels the anti-drug war. Same broken logic that fuels police to arrest johns and prostitutes. It does not curb it; rather it only makes it move and change tactics while wasting huge amounts of money and man power.
Find me one sane person that can justify the war on drugs and I'll agree you have a leg to stand on.
In other words, a company claims patent on "". Morons.
That's like me patenting wheels on a road. Sure, you invented wheels and that other guy invented roads, but I'm the first to even consider wheels on a road; ignoring the fact that wheels on a road are obvious uses of both technologies.
The American Medical Association has given formal recognition to the disease concept since 1956. You're only half a century behind the times... not too late to catch up.
So what you're saying is the AMA is run by a bunch of criminals. After all, this same period in time, doctors commonly prescribed smoking to calm nerves and alleviate stress while at the same time knowing they were creating a "disease." Yes, this sounds exactly like the people you want to trust.
Regardless of what the AMA considers it, smoking is not a disease. You may argue the secondary effects of smoking create a disease, but smoking in of it self is not. I guess common sense isn't a requirement anymore.
And, like it or not, refusing to hire smokers, AFAIK, is perfectly legal in the US.
I think applying the law evenly to all potential offenders would expose the problems with current laws.
You seem to imply these abuses happen only to laws relating to terrorism. This is simply not the case. In fact, a greater challenge is to find a law which is not commonly abused by law enforcement.
If a robot fails, and the house it built a few days earlier falls and kills the family living inside, the implications are orders of magnitude more severe.
Sounds like you've watched the SciFi channel too much. Robot builders does not mean lack of supervision. Nor does use of robots mean lack of general inspections. Frankly, human construction workers typically do piss-poor jobs in the first place until you are talking about high-end customer builders. For track homes, quality often barely able to pass inspection, and that assumes it is actually inspected. Chances are far higher even a poor robotic worker will increase quality a factor of ten or more.
Don't forget, your typical track builder is using illegal workers, workers that are drunk, workers that are high, workers that are more involved in dealing out the back of their truck, if they show up at all, or workers that dropped out of school in the fifth grade. Often, the hardest part of getting a house built, is simply getting workers to show up on time, sober, and ready to work.
Doesn't the GPL do the exact *opposite*? The whole point of open source is to allow others to have access to the same code, thereby leveling the playing field...I guess in a way.
Yes, it is exactly the as you say. In fact, the power of the GPL is that its strength stems from copyright law. If the GPL is deemed in violation of anti-trust, it means copyright law is in violation of anti-trust. Needless to say, it is not very likely they have a sound argument here.
Naivety is tragic from the one doing the finger pointing is such an aggressive manner. Sadly, your smart ass answer lands squarely on your own shoulders. Which frankly, is funny. The *reality* is, the Iraqi people have been liberated. That's fact. The question is, what shape will their liberty take? Democracy is the answer if the US has anything to do with it, and with good reason. But, there is nothing ensuring, even a democracy, will take shape mirroring anything in the west. Regardless of how cliche you believe it is, liberty has a financial cost associated. Period.
You may be against the war, but it doesn't change the fact, Iraq has been liberated. Even the Iraqi people will tell you as much. That doesn't mean they like the situation. That doesn't mean they all love the US and every last American. But like it or not (you obviously don't), Iraq has been liberated.
The US is ensuring that the economic output of Iraq benefits primarily the US.
Because you wouldn't want anyone to pay for the price of liberty.
Iraq was economically, politically and even socially better off under Saddam than it is now, unless you measure welfare in a method that doesn't include death rates, disease proliferation, violent political instability and economic trauma.
Only because of the terrorists who have been actively destroying pipelines (Iraq losses money), destroying infrastructure (rebuilt), or creating hot spots, which prevent restoration and improvement of conditions. Blame the right people. Life if Iraq would be leaps and bounds better than pre-war if it were not for the terrorists purposely keeping Iraq in the stone ages; contrary to the US' efforts. The terrorists have wasted/destroyed/terrorized hundreds of millions (likely billions) of dollars from the Iraqi people.
Remember, the bulk of the Iraqi people are angry at the US, not for invading but because the war continues and the terrorists continue to make their life horrid. Now that we are finally getting mind share and few Iraqi people are helping the terrorists, they are starting to see conditions improve. In parts of the country, conditions are rapidly improving. Again, blame the right people.
If the Iraqi people want improvements, they have to be part of the solution rather than be the problem. Remember, they are not used to being part of any solution. They are used to being puppets. Being part of a solution is something completely new to them and didn't come natural; which was something out leadership didn't immediately understand.
Iraq and Afghanistan.
You can't lump the two together. Afghanistan has a coalition effort, well supported by its people. Its likely outcome is liberty and self determinism. In fact, Afghanistan's primary crop is almost completely unwanted by the US.
The Iraq occupation is about ensuring that when the dust settles, the Iraqi industry is dominated by US contractors and businesses so that the lions share of the profits from that economy are under US control.
You are right but are still out in left field. At this rate, it will take the US thirty plus years to break even from its "investment". By anyone's stick, that's a very poor return...and yet we are still there. And in thirty years, anything can change in that part of the world. Sure, the US needs a security oil supply, but there is a long list of reasons to be there.
Time for a wake up call, my friend.
Sounds like good advise. Hopefully you'll embrace it too.
The US' GPS system is dated and on the verge of becoming unreliable. Many of the sats are well past their anticipated lifes. Two of the US sats are expected to fail in the next year or two. Several missions to replace these sats have been pushed back or scrubbed over the years.
Right now, one of the sats has been coming up and down over this past year. IIRC, it is one of the sats past its prime and is high on the list of anticipated failures.
Frankly, the US needs new sats and the technology can be significantly improved. It is hard to imagine any country wanting to use the US' system when there is so much room for improvement, resolution, time precision, encryption, and associated military advancements (over the air encrypted rekeying/synchronization, etc).
Not to mention, it is foolish, from a national security perspective, to not be in control of such an important military technology.
If for no other reason, all of the countries creating their own GPS system are showing the world they are not stupid. Find me a person that believes the US would depend on a China controlled GPS system for much of its military capability and I will show you a moron. A country needs no other reason.
You are correct, I did say, "at the pump", which is not correct (hmmm...wonder if I said that elsewhere today). It is correct to say it should cost half to get on truck, taxes included, etc.
Keep in mind, about 2/3 of every barrel of crude is to become diesel, kerosene, jet fuel, or lubrication. Given that diesel takes a fraction of the processing, including new sulfur requirements, of which gas does, is more plentiful, can be processed from lower grade crude (one of the reasons you used the wrong price in your calculation), diesel is dirt cheap to deliver. Normally, the highest grade crude is used for gas. Whats left is then used for diesel, etc. The lower grade stuff is often used for diesel (using much more than 2/3) and a smaller portion of this is used for gas as it requires far, far more processing.
So while gas is typically associate with raw crude at prices in the $115+ range, diesel can be made from the junk stuff in the $60s.
From my original post: Actual demand had not changed
I think you missed my point. The point being, there is zero legitimate reasons for diesel to cost anywhere near as much as it does. Even with the additional processing required for the low sulfur variant, it pales in comparison to what is required to create low grade gasoline. And most of what is refined from oil is diesel, making it far more abundant than gas. And to boot, diesel doesn't have very, very expensive and worthless additives like MTBE or ethanol (one of the reasons gas prices went up a lot).
No one needs a 3000 sq ft house (unless maybe you house your in-laws and 6 kids and maybe a maid).
That's a pretty absurd statement. Regardless of their need, only an idiot would subscribe the philosophy that paying more for less is a better bargain. Yet, that's what you're advocating.
It sounds like you need to rethink your position.
There is a difference between a home and 600sq/ft apartments.
If you really believe that, you are an idiot. I can only conclude that you are a shill.
Wow, a real nut-job reply. That's completely uncalled for. I provided fact and left it open for you to make your own conclusion. I actually wish they would create plastic cars. Based on your own reply one can only conclude that despite your ramblings, you believe the market is not ready. And factually speaking, given the market five years ago, only an idiot would take your position. This is why the auto makers were caught holding the bag full of SUVs. Sorry, but don't let something like facts get in the way of your insane, rabid ramblings.
I hate to burst your bubble, but stating facts does not equate to being a shill. If you bother to read my post, you'll find it's rather hopeful current market realities will open the door for newer/better products which people will actually buy in mass. Which makes your reply even more bazaar.
There are dozens of people who would buy one of these cars,
Yes, that's important because dozens of people will surely support an entire industry, let alone pay for the billions required to train and support it; assuming we're talking about plastic cars.
If you are talking about the go-carts, then factually, once again you are incorrect because the market has clearly spoken, big is where the money is at...up until the fairly recent market shift that is.
The fact remains that we would like to purchase a Loremo, one of these over-100mpg-cars, which is a tiny, lightweight bucket. We can not be the only ones.
Assuming you're not insane and can comprehend what you've read, up until the fairly recent market shift, people have spoken, and they do not want these cars. Newer technologies combines with significant changes in associated economics is what is creating a window of hope here. The double prong (market and better tech) is the only thing giving hope here. I thought that was pretty clear from my post. If you go back in time, before the economic picture looked like it does now, there was no hope, as is, for the vehicles you're looking at, aside from something of a niche player. Sorry, but that's reality. Hopefully, given the current market, these newer cars will find a mucher wider audience.
If one of the major automakers would just build one
Please take note of the first word in your sentence. I didn't say they won't. I didn't say it can't happen. Regardless, and "if" is still an "if" and that's still a far cry from reality. Wanting it doesn't make it so.
Loremo, in particular, has a design which does not involve any special repair skills, so any shop could service it. The same is true of any of these cars except perhaps some of the hybrids.
That's far cry from reality. It is obvious you don't understand how this works. No big shop wants to work on unsupported cars because of liability, parts, and backing from someone they trust. Sure, you can likely find someone to work on it but if they screw up, YOU will likely eat it because of their mistake...and this does happen. This is why there are published repair manuals. Do you think a shop is going to spend a $50,000+, low balling here, on repair manuals and parts software so they can work on one car every four to five years? That's not realistic in the least. Like I said, there are some real logistical issues here. Sure, they can be managed, but it requires a serious commitment in $$$$. And that commitment isn't going to happen for "dozens" of people here and there.
A bigger part of the equation is that it's easier to keep turning out the shit they turn out now. A super-lightweight car has less room and weight capacity
I've lost track of the number of dumbshit seniors I've seen driving a V6 car as if it had three cylinders. The salesperson has every motivation to sell them more car than they need, because they make more money.
Actually, studies show that people buy the most HP in the car class they can afford. I
15 miles away, so they could spend a little less money and get a house built in 2005 instead of 1982.
It is more complicated than that. In many cities, it's the difference between buying a 2000sq/ft house for $225,000 versus a 3000sq/ft house for $150,000. Remember, it's location, location, location, and in most major cities, you're going to pay for it. In larger metropolitan areas, twenty miles can make the difference between $500,000 and $120,000.
Even if you assume an extremely modest and unlikely difference of $50,000, with a difference of $5,000 in gas driving per year, that will require 10 years to break even. And in this day and age, it is very unlikely someone will be at the same job in ten years. Even worse, in a ten year window, it is much more likely a family will be started and the extra space will be required.
Why would you ruin the efficiency of a perfectly good diesel by hauling around an electric motor and batteries?
You mean like the worlds most efficient trains, ships, and submarines do? Ya, you sure wouldn't want to do that.;) Which also has the added benefit of isolating the power source from the drive system, which reduces noise and vibration, further extending the life of almost all components of a power train (engine included).
You may not remember this but in the 80s, there was a new push to start creating diesel cars. Within a year of these cars going on the market, diesel fuel prices increased 40%, roughly overnight. Actual demand had not changed because the cars were just hitting the market. As a result, in the US the auto makers moved away from diesel engines. Fuel prices stayed the same.
Technically speaking, diesel is much cheaper to produce as it is a natural byproduct of refining gas and requires much less processing. Not to mention, requires much less additives. The fact that diesel prices are anywhere as high as they are now is thanks to several factors: the oil companies are fucking anyone on diesel (prices could be 1/2 of gas), oil companies refuse to create new refineries, artificially limiting supply, and three, law now requires this processing in the US, which does add cost and is passed on to the customer.
Slashdot Mirror
Your bigotry is apparent, and its just bigotry.
Being a bigot does not invalidate the facts. And for the record I am as bigoted as anyone that has knowledge of the subject matter and has made an educated decision.
<I>The fact that MySQL is easy to configure and easy to use should not be used against it -</I>
It's not. Being easy to install is hardly an issue. Just the same, being easy to install has nothing to do with its SQL engine. Your red herring is easy to ignore.
<I>Had Postgres' developers made it half as easy to install and manage on my machines 10 years ago, many people would now be using it instead.</I>
Again, you're using a metric which has nothing to do with the top at hand. I guess you really love fish. If PostgreSQL's historical lack of Windows support is what keeps you from using it today - well, I can't help but smile at how irrational you are. Obviously current metrics are ignored by you.
<I>As it stands today, MySQL is an excellent platform for relational database development.</I>
Of course its an excellent platform - so long as you love to learn to do things poorly, slowly, tediously, and don't have serious data concerns.
<I>Your bigotry is apparent, and its just bigotry.</I>
Yes, I always associate knowledge with bigotry. Your red herrings and ignorance on the topic hardly furthers your cause.
<I>not everyone is writing (for a random example) VISA's payment processing system.</I>
Agreed; but that hardly changes the fact that better solutions exist.
choosing MySQL as your database speaks poorly of you. Just about any database is better than MySQL.
That's a bit harsh and unrealistic.
In Real Life (tm), you don't always have that choice: sometimes you take what's given to you and roll with it, sometimes you have to use what you know best to get the job done.</I>
If you take what is given to you then it wasn't your choice. In that case, that statement does not apply.
<I>Postgres may be "superior" to MySQL, but that doesn't mean it's the right choice all the time.</I>
I completely agree with you. PostgreSQL is NOT the right choice all the time. In fact, I believe if you re-read my original post you'll find that my position is just about any choice is better than MySQL; not that PostgreSQL is always the right choice.
Stuff like that is why, as much as I love Postgres, it isn't replacing Oracle any time soon. Not when things like partitioning are called for.
Hate to burst your bubble but PostgreSQL is displacing Oracle on the low end. Maybe not in droves but it is happening. Also, the author didn't say that partitioning is required to support his application. Partitioning can make for significant performance gains. After all, why move data you don't need 90% of the time. And if your query planner is smart enough to understand this fact, it makes for a win/win; smarter query plans and potentially huge wins on I/O. Both of which translate to better scaling databases/applications.
You seem to imply Oracle is better because you're wasting I/O moving data you rarely need. That position doesn't make sense to me.
Your response was condescending and presumptive.
Your response is paranoid and childish. Sometimes you have to hear things you don't want to hear. The AC's response is actually funny and accurate. By in large, most MySQL users are children when it comes to relational databases. You don't have to be a PostgreSQL zealot to recognize that fact. Simple fact is, MySQL is the low rung on the SQL ladder. All DBAs worth respecting understand this simple fact. In other words, what you assume to be zealotry can just as likely be a factual statement by a knowledgeable person.
Just because you heard something you didn't want to hear doesn't mean it was delivered by a zealot. The fact that you're so easily confused by such a fact is a significant indicator the AC's comment was correctly targeted (you're too close) at you. Your response also implies you are in fact a MySQL zealot. Otherwise, why so easily offended by a comment which was obviously presented with levity, by an AC, in a trollish manner. Getting upset about that is just plain silly.
At the end of the day, with so many excellent relational databases available at zero or little cost, choosing MySQL as your database speaks poorly of you. Just about any database is better than MySQL. Imagine a friend bringing home a cheap Chinese made, Yamaha reproduction and declaring they are tired of "zealots" pointing out that better bikes exist. Well, your friend might be tired of hearing it, but it doesn't change the facts. It doesn't take a zealot to point out that bike is a complete PoS; and without regard to zealotry, better options exist. At least with a bike, you can defend such a purchase from a cost perspective. No such hand hold exists when it comes to the field of freely available databases; almost all of which are better than MySQL.
Lastly, please don't forget that one need only be knowledgeable about relational databases to dislike MySQL. Zealotry need not be a factor.
The Soviets did field more weapons in the megaton range than the US but most of those were under 5 MT.
The Soviets used larger yield warheads because they had far worse accuracy. The logic is, if you can't accurately hit a target, then make the bomb big enough so that close enough is good enough.
Their lack of accuracy is why Cheyenne Mountain was built. It was understood that it could survive all but a direct hit and a direct hit was unlikely. These days direct hits are all but assured and thusly Cheyenne Mountain is no longer considered to be American's last stand against nuclear attack. It's now understood that in a nuclear exchange, Cheyenne Mountain will be nothing but ash.
ClearCase is simply horrible.
By law, the first developer that asks for Clear Case at your place of business can be legally shot. I encourage you to remind your fellow developers of this fact to keep them in line.
Unfortunitally, the second developer can't be shot. The cure for this is to ensure all developers understand that THEY will become the ClearCase administrator. Point them at the documentation and make it understood that the massive bulk of documentation will need to be understood for everything but the most trivial uses of clearcase.
The above should do a wonderful job of keeping the abomination known as ClearCase away from your job. If on the other hand you hate your co-workers, encourage and prod two other co-workers to ask for ClearCase. This way, one of the two gets shot and the second will be forced to support it. Laugh as you exit toward your future place of employment.
Education does not prevent terrorism
Actually, it does. This is why war is rare between democratic societies and common with Islamic societies. Most Islamic countries are not free and therefore are not allowed to develop educated, reasoned, and meaningful thought. Knowledge is only part of an education. By in large, people are only ever allowed part of an education in those parts of the world; wherein it fits within an Islamic doctrine, further convoluted with anti-western ideology. Most people will agree, that's still an incomplete education. Thusly, people can truthfully say many are uneducated despite having completed college.
This position can't be stressed enough! CRIMINALS DO NOT WANT GUNS TRACED BACK TO THEIR OWNER! This is why, even if buying guns were made easier, criminals would by far, still prefer to buy their guns on the black market, which are normally stolen from someone else.
There's plenty of fissionable material, especially if you include the recyclable secondary material
That's part of the problem. In the US, on the military can recycle these materials making it unreasonable to do so in civilian reactors. This means every US reactor has a fissionable material waste rate as high as 95% on every pellet/rod removed. Given we have such a finite supply, wasting as much as 95% seems well beyond stupid.
If you can cut off the buyer from the seller, you can make a dent in the problem.
Same broken logic that fuels the anti-drug war. Same broken logic that fuels police to arrest johns and prostitutes. It does not curb it; rather it only makes it move and change tactics while wasting huge amounts of money and man power.
Find me one sane person that can justify the war on drugs and I'll agree you have a leg to stand on.
In other words, a company claims patent on "". Morons.
That's like me patenting wheels on a road. Sure, you invented wheels and that other guy invented roads, but I'm the first to even consider wheels on a road; ignoring the fact that wheels on a road are obvious uses of both technologies.
The American Medical Association has given formal recognition to the disease concept since 1956. You're only half a century behind the times... not too late to catch up.
So what you're saying is the AMA is run by a bunch of criminals. After all, this same period in time, doctors commonly prescribed smoking to calm nerves and alleviate stress while at the same time knowing they were creating a "disease." Yes, this sounds exactly like the people you want to trust.
Regardless of what the AMA considers it, smoking is not a disease. You may argue the secondary effects of smoking create a disease, but smoking in of it self is not. I guess common sense isn't a requirement anymore.
And, like it or not, refusing to hire smokers, AFAIK, is perfectly legal in the US.
I think applying the law evenly to all potential offenders would expose the problems with current laws.
You seem to imply these abuses happen only to laws relating to terrorism. This is simply not the case. In fact, a greater challenge is to find a law which is not commonly abused by law enforcement.
If a robot fails, and the house it built a few days earlier falls and kills the family living inside, the implications are orders of magnitude more severe.
Sounds like you've watched the SciFi channel too much. Robot builders does not mean lack of supervision. Nor does use of robots mean lack of general inspections. Frankly, human construction workers typically do piss-poor jobs in the first place until you are talking about high-end customer builders. For track homes, quality often barely able to pass inspection, and that assumes it is actually inspected. Chances are far higher even a poor robotic worker will increase quality a factor of ten or more.
Don't forget, your typical track builder is using illegal workers, workers that are drunk, workers that are high, workers that are more involved in dealing out the back of their truck, if they show up at all, or workers that dropped out of school in the fifth grade. Often, the hardest part of getting a house built, is simply getting workers to show up on time, sober, and ready to work.
Doesn't the GPL do the exact *opposite*? The whole point of open source is to allow others to have access to the same code, thereby leveling the playing field...I guess in a way.
Yes, it is exactly the as you say. In fact, the power of the GPL is that its strength stems from copyright law. If the GPL is deemed in violation of anti-trust, it means copyright law is in violation of anti-trust. Needless to say, it is not very likely they have a sound argument here.
Sir, your naivety is truly staggering.
Naivety is tragic from the one doing the finger pointing is such an aggressive manner. Sadly, your smart ass answer lands squarely on your own shoulders. Which frankly, is funny. The *reality* is, the Iraqi people have been liberated. That's fact. The question is, what shape will their liberty take? Democracy is the answer if the US has anything to do with it, and with good reason. But, there is nothing ensuring, even a democracy, will take shape mirroring anything in the west. Regardless of how cliche you believe it is, liberty has a financial cost associated. Period.
You may be against the war, but it doesn't change the fact, Iraq has been liberated. Even the Iraqi people will tell you as much. That doesn't mean they like the situation. That doesn't mean they all love the US and every last American. But like it or not (you obviously don't), Iraq has been liberated.
The US is ensuring that the economic output of Iraq benefits primarily the US.
Because you wouldn't want anyone to pay for the price of liberty.
Iraq was economically, politically and even socially better off under Saddam than it is now, unless you measure welfare in a method that doesn't include death rates, disease proliferation, violent political instability and economic trauma.
Only because of the terrorists who have been actively destroying pipelines (Iraq losses money), destroying infrastructure (rebuilt), or creating hot spots, which prevent restoration and improvement of conditions. Blame the right people. Life if Iraq would be leaps and bounds better than pre-war if it were not for the terrorists purposely keeping Iraq in the stone ages; contrary to the US' efforts. The terrorists have wasted/destroyed/terrorized hundreds of millions (likely billions) of dollars from the Iraqi people.
Remember, the bulk of the Iraqi people are angry at the US, not for invading but because the war continues and the terrorists continue to make their life horrid. Now that we are finally getting mind share and few Iraqi people are helping the terrorists, they are starting to see conditions improve. In parts of the country, conditions are rapidly improving. Again, blame the right people.
If the Iraqi people want improvements, they have to be part of the solution rather than be the problem. Remember, they are not used to being part of any solution. They are used to being puppets. Being part of a solution is something completely new to them and didn't come natural; which was something out leadership didn't immediately understand.
Iraq and Afghanistan.
You can't lump the two together. Afghanistan has a coalition effort, well supported by its people. Its likely outcome is liberty and self determinism. In fact, Afghanistan's primary crop is almost completely unwanted by the US.
The Iraq occupation is about ensuring that when the dust settles, the Iraqi industry is dominated by US contractors and businesses so that the lions share of the profits from that economy are under US control.
You are right but are still out in left field. At this rate, it will take the US thirty plus years to break even from its "investment". By anyone's stick, that's a very poor return...and yet we are still there. And in thirty years, anything can change in that part of the world. Sure, the US needs a security oil supply, but there is a long list of reasons to be there.
Time for a wake up call, my friend.
Sounds like good advise. Hopefully you'll embrace it too.
The US' GPS system is dated and on the verge of becoming unreliable. Many of the sats are well past their anticipated lifes. Two of the US sats are expected to fail in the next year or two. Several missions to replace these sats have been pushed back or scrubbed over the years.
Right now, one of the sats has been coming up and down over this past year. IIRC, it is one of the sats past its prime and is high on the list of anticipated failures.
Frankly, the US needs new sats and the technology can be significantly improved. It is hard to imagine any country wanting to use the US' system when there is so much room for improvement, resolution, time precision, encryption, and associated military advancements (over the air encrypted rekeying/synchronization, etc).
Not to mention, it is foolish, from a national security perspective, to not be in control of such an important military technology.
If for no other reason, all of the countries creating their own GPS system are showing the world they are not stupid. Find me a person that believes the US would depend on a China controlled GPS system for much of its military capability and I will show you a moron. A country needs no other reason.
I don't have references to provide.
You are correct, I did say, "at the pump", which is not correct (hmmm...wonder if I said that elsewhere today). It is correct to say it should cost half to get on truck, taxes included, etc.
Keep in mind, about 2/3 of every barrel of crude is to become diesel, kerosene, jet fuel, or lubrication. Given that diesel takes a fraction of the processing, including new sulfur requirements, of which gas does, is more plentiful, can be processed from lower grade crude (one of the reasons you used the wrong price in your calculation), diesel is dirt cheap to deliver. Normally, the highest grade crude is used for gas. Whats left is then used for diesel, etc. The lower grade stuff is often used for diesel (using much more than 2/3) and a smaller portion of this is used for gas as it requires far, far more processing.
So while gas is typically associate with raw crude at prices in the $115+ range, diesel can be made from the junk stuff in the $60s.
From my original post: Actual demand had not changed
I think you missed my point. The point being, there is zero legitimate reasons for diesel to cost anywhere near as much as it does. Even with the additional processing required for the low sulfur variant, it pales in comparison to what is required to create low grade gasoline. And most of what is refined from oil is diesel, making it far more abundant than gas. And to boot, diesel doesn't have very, very expensive and worthless additives like MTBE or ethanol (one of the reasons gas prices went up a lot).
No one needs a 3000 sq ft house (unless maybe you house your in-laws and 6 kids and maybe a maid).
That's a pretty absurd statement. Regardless of their need, only an idiot would subscribe the philosophy that paying more for less is a better bargain. Yet, that's what you're advocating.
It sounds like you need to rethink your position.
There is a difference between a home and 600sq/ft apartments.
If you really believe that, you are an idiot. I can only conclude that you are a shill.
Wow, a real nut-job reply. That's completely uncalled for. I provided fact and left it open for you to make your own conclusion. I actually wish they would create plastic cars. Based on your own reply one can only conclude that despite your ramblings, you believe the market is not ready. And factually speaking, given the market five years ago, only an idiot would take your position. This is why the auto makers were caught holding the bag full of SUVs. Sorry, but don't let something like facts get in the way of your insane, rabid ramblings.
I hate to burst your bubble, but stating facts does not equate to being a shill. If you bother to read my post, you'll find it's rather hopeful current market realities will open the door for newer/better products which people will actually buy in mass. Which makes your reply even more bazaar.
There are dozens of people who would buy one of these cars,
Yes, that's important because dozens of people will surely support an entire industry, let alone pay for the billions required to train and support it; assuming we're talking about plastic cars.
If you are talking about the go-carts, then factually, once again you are incorrect because the market has clearly spoken, big is where the money is at...up until the fairly recent market shift that is.
The fact remains that we would like to purchase a Loremo, one of these over-100mpg-cars, which is a tiny, lightweight bucket. We can not be the only ones.
Assuming you're not insane and can comprehend what you've read, up until the fairly recent market shift, people have spoken, and they do not want these cars. Newer technologies combines with significant changes in associated economics is what is creating a window of hope here. The double prong (market and better tech) is the only thing giving hope here. I thought that was pretty clear from my post. If you go back in time, before the economic picture looked like it does now, there was no hope, as is, for the vehicles you're looking at, aside from something of a niche player. Sorry, but that's reality. Hopefully, given the current market, these newer cars will find a mucher wider audience.
If one of the major automakers would just build one
Please take note of the first word in your sentence. I didn't say they won't. I didn't say it can't happen. Regardless, and "if" is still an "if" and that's still a far cry from reality. Wanting it doesn't make it so.
Loremo, in particular, has a design which does not involve any special repair skills, so any shop could service it. The same is true of any of these cars except perhaps some of the hybrids.
That's far cry from reality. It is obvious you don't understand how this works. No big shop wants to work on unsupported cars because of liability, parts, and backing from someone they trust. Sure, you can likely find someone to work on it but if they screw up, YOU will likely eat it because of their mistake...and this does happen. This is why there are published repair manuals. Do you think a shop is going to spend a $50,000+, low balling here, on repair manuals and parts software so they can work on one car every four to five years? That's not realistic in the least. Like I said, there are some real logistical issues here. Sure, they can be managed, but it requires a serious commitment in $$$$. And that commitment isn't going to happen for "dozens" of people here and there.
A bigger part of the equation is that it's easier to keep turning out the shit they turn out now. A super-lightweight car has less room and weight capacity
I've lost track of the number of dumbshit seniors I've seen driving a V6 car as if it had three cylinders. The salesperson has every motivation to sell them more car than they need, because they make more money.
Actually, studies show that people buy the most HP in the car class they can afford. I
15 miles away, so they could spend a little less money and get a house built in 2005 instead of 1982.
It is more complicated than that. In many cities, it's the difference between buying a 2000sq/ft house for $225,000 versus a 3000sq/ft house for $150,000. Remember, it's location, location, location, and in most major cities, you're going to pay for it. In larger metropolitan areas, twenty miles can make the difference between $500,000 and $120,000.
Even if you assume an extremely modest and unlikely difference of $50,000, with a difference of $5,000 in gas driving per year, that will require 10 years to break even. And in this day and age, it is very unlikely someone will be at the same job in ten years. Even worse, in a ten year window, it is much more likely a family will be started and the extra space will be required.
Why would you ruin the efficiency of a perfectly good diesel by hauling around an electric motor and batteries?
;) Which also has the added benefit of isolating the power source from the drive system, which reduces noise and vibration, further extending the life of almost all components of a power train (engine included).
You mean like the worlds most efficient trains, ships, and submarines do? Ya, you sure wouldn't want to do that.
You may not remember this but in the 80s, there was a new push to start creating diesel cars. Within a year of these cars going on the market, diesel fuel prices increased 40%, roughly overnight. Actual demand had not changed because the cars were just hitting the market. As a result, in the US the auto makers moved away from diesel engines. Fuel prices stayed the same.
Technically speaking, diesel is much cheaper to produce as it is a natural byproduct of refining gas and requires much less processing. Not to mention, requires much less additives. The fact that diesel prices are anywhere as high as they are now is thanks to several factors: the oil companies are fucking anyone on diesel (prices could be 1/2 of gas), oil companies refuse to create new refineries, artificially limiting supply, and three, law now requires this processing in the US, which does add cost and is passed on to the customer.