These failings are generally not a core issue with the programming language. Lazy or inexperienced programmers, lack of budget, and wide spread ignorance seem to lead the way with these types of issues. Then there are the problems caused by arbitrary release dates (get it done, we'll fix it later) and the total indifference of those which make the release decisions. Changing the language, at best, is attempting to hide the root cause.
I agree. I believe this trends shows a complete lack of understanding for technology. This is like declaring the phone is dead. I see this as a signal of serious educational and social problems more than anything else. No one wants to read. No 1 cn spl. Math and science penetration is seriously down. Serious research in the US continues to spiral downward. And now the generation that wastes more time on one of the least effective communication mediums declares email is dead. Some how I'm not the least bit surprised.
Seems like an excellent case can be made to declare the current generation is retarded. I can even look at my own kids some time and am amazed they tie their own shoes. I've never seen, heard, or read about a generation which seems to lack common sense more so than the current; and they are proud of it to boot. Ironically, the only thing that does seem to stand out with the current generation is the total lack of common sense. They copy everything previous generations have done in trends, style, and fashion; lacking in any original thought. As far as I can tell, the defining elements of the current generation is fat, laziness, and the complete lack of common sense.
There are two items I see which always cause problems. One, failure to properly identify and document the requirements. Two, failure to resist scope creep or requirements change. In almost every case, these are a failure of management on up. Usually at the behest of marketing. Worse, I find the more input marketing has in large projects, the more screwed the project will become.
For whatever reason, the vast majority of companies refuse to treat project requirements as a project phase in of it self. Or worse, they refuse to budget for this phase of the project. The lack of budget usually means lack of subject matter experts to participate in the requirements phase. Let's face it, requiremets are the foundation on which the entire project will rest. Ths is usually where most projects are screwed. Worse yet, are the fools which blindly require a budget and project plan before the requirements are even generated. When this is done, they then attempt to force the project within the project plan...of course it never fits.
It's also important for the requirements to have both a cooling down period and an acceptance phase. If you find your requirements are constantly changing even during your requirements gathering phase, this is a sure sign of project doom; see scope creep below. Only after your requirements have been documented, unambiguously, and they remain stable, can you hope to successfully build a project on top on them; on time and on budget.
The second biggest problem is scope creep. This is where marketing does a wonderful job of screwing over the entire company, usually with the aid of one or more directors and/or VPs but blames it on engineering. What most people fail to understand is, if the requirements have been properly done, subtle changes in scope can have profoundly negative impact on the entire project because you are really shifting the foundation on which the entire project is based. On a project which is planning to take five years, several months to half a year, or more, may be required to develop and plan for the requirements. The problem with scope creep is that it tends to be given little consideration and so the impact is almost always not understood until much later in the execution of the project. These failures may be identified as late as system integration or even customer (an internal department is still a customer) acceptance phases.
Scope creep can be managed and requirements can be changed and/or updated, but it requires a process to make it successful. And there needs to be room to allow for the rejection of some of these changes; requiring a version 2 and/or post release update. Likewise, a proportional amount of time needs to be spent to identify project impact and readjust the schedule. Often these things are changed on the fly and surprise, surprise, the schedule has slipped (of course it did...more work was added and some work was thrown away...requiring yet more work, but the project was not updated) and no one knows why.
I agree. Frankly, I've found very few situations where ACL or alternate solutions are even required...but they do exist. Smart use of permissions, groups, and masks typically address the need at hand. Tools such as sudo, PAM, and other suid wrappers help finish the complement. Heck, even SSH can be used to tie a key to a specific command or command line. Solutions are widely available, just most people are ignorant of the details and possible solutions.
I find most people that complain tend to be ignorant window users who find themselves forced to use Unix/Linux; so rather than learn, they complain.
Most jet engines will run Jet A, JP-8, or diesel. Both JetA and JP8 are basically kerosene with different additives. There are other fuels which are basically variations from these. If you create a fuel which is pretty close to diesel, it should run through a jet engine. The real question is, does it gum up an engine, cause it to oxydize, or otherwise compatible with the rest of the existig fuel system. And if so, how many other chemicals do you have to add to make it compariable for a jet engine's operating environment. For example, most jet fuels have chemicals to prevent it from freezing. Most biofuels tend to freeze or become gel at much higher temps then kerosene or diesel. There are other issues which may come up such as vapor pressure and/or special handling requirements for the fuel system.
Which is why most distros support POSIX ACLs...they are just not widely used. Ext2, Ext3, JFS, XFS, and ReiserFS all support ACLs (extended attributes). I believe NFS version 3 and 4 also support ACLs.
There are of course some other areas which ACL's don't address but there are pre-existing mechanisms to address those as well. Well, on most modern Unix/Linux systems anyways. The model has survived for so long for simple reasons; it's effective, simple and covers the vast majority of situations. When complex requirements come into light, more complex solutions exist. Most people just don't know about them.
When you turn on a DHCP system is basically shouts "Hey is anyone here a DHCP server?" It then takes the first response it gets and uses the information provided. There's no check for validity or anything like that.
That's right. If you place another DHCP server on a nework, you can begin handing out DHCP addresses for your network. The client will use the first response it gets. There is no end of associated security implications here. In fact, it would be a great way to penetrate into a network. Why? Because DHCP can provide all sorts of information like DNS, gateways, NTP, so on and so on. This means it opens the door for IP spoofing, man in the middle attacks, and even sniffing of the entire segment; limited only by the number of clients you have snared. And there are ways to force all DHCP traffic to the hostile DHCP server. Hint, hint, the mechanism was mentioned by various posters to this article.
It is not hard at all to assume that this is a broken WiFi driver in the iPhone.
Technically, the WiFi driver is probably ok, afer all, it's talking to the AP. The problem appears to be a layer two issue which means it's probably a bug in the IP stack rather than the WiFi driver (layer one).
That's also a cost difference of $45,000/person vs $630/person, assuming both projects were to cost the same $315,000,000. At $630/person, knowing it is going to stimulate an economy where the tax return is likely to easily exceed $630/person in short order, it makes lots of sense. Imagine how long it would take for a return on $45,000/person in a location where the economy, aside from the initial construction, is unlikely to change much.
Precise wording make for more elaborate and less ambiguous thinking.
But usually makes for confussion when things where completely clear and unambiguous until "precise wording" is used. In this case, saying it was stolen clearly and unambiguously conveys what happened. Conceptually, the depiction is completely accurate so describing a legal technicality makes absolutely no sense what so ever. The meat or spirit of the crime has been effectively communicated. And since effective communication is the intent of communication, the task is complete.
I am not American, I don't know about OJ case and the Wikipedia is not very clear about it.
Sorry, I picked OJ because I knew it had received international attention. I had hoped most people would know the details. For legal reasons it can't be very clear else civil litigation may result.
Looks like he was recognize responsible for the murder but escaped jail by (legally ?) paying huge amounts of money?
The vast majority of the evidence, including DNA evidence, makes him out to be the murderer. He paid $2m in legal fees to his attourneys. OJ Simpson is black and was widely regarded as a black culture hero. The jury was mostly black. Despite the abundance of evidence that indicated OJ murdered two people, the mostly black jury voted not-guilty as a protest vote; which they have more or less admitted. This means even the jury believes he is a murderer but set him free simply because he was black; hoping to speak out to previous social and legal injustices against black people in America. This means legally, he can not be referred to as a murderer.
According to what you say, this is an interesting case where you should choose how you call him depending on what is your opinion about the whole process.
In America, you won't find many people that believe he is not a murderer, even in the black community. Just last month he made news because he was refused service at a restaurant. The owner told OJ to leave because he "does not serve murderers." OJ then started a civil suite but dropped it shortly after. In other words, regardless of what you believe the process to be, the facts of the case prove he is guilty. Since he was acquitted, you can not legally refer to him as a murderer.
I may sound pedant but in fact this is not about futility, wording is important.
Wording is important only when it serves to more effectively communicate. In this case, you are trumping laymen wording and comprehension which easily and accurately conveys the action with legal definition, which is often counter intuitive, often needlessly verbose, and sometimes even illogical. In otherwords, unless you are speaking with your attourney, splitting hairs here doesn't really benefit anyone.
Because there is legal jargon and laymen terms. In laymen terms, they took/copied/downloaded something to which they have no right to take/copy/download. Thusly, most people consider that stealing or theft. It's a concept everyone understands. Common sense says that's stealing or theft. Legally, it can fall into different categories. If you want to be legally pedantic...fine, but a thief is a thief is a thief. If it makes you feel better to argue semantics, fine no one cares, but it buys you nothing unless you're in the courtroom.
If we go by your rules, OJ is not a murderer and can not be called one because he was acquitted. Common sense and the evidence say otherwise. You going to correct people everytime you hear him referred to as a murderer? Technically he is, legally he is not.
Yes, I'm fully aware of everything you state. I'm not sure where you're going here. I never said anything about "high compression" or "low compression". Simple fact is, what you're trivializing is well known to be a problem for several decades and your effort to trivialize it nets nothing. If it were a trivial problem most GA planes would be running lead free fuels. Period. But despite lots and lots of research, there is no easy, inexpensive solution; despite your comments.
Seriously, you think your dad's bike engine has anything to do with aviation engines? About the only thing they have in common are pistons which go up and down. Most engines spend 80% of their life at ~20% power. Aviation engines spend 80% of their life at 75% power...or more. The operating environmnet is completely different. Most aviation engines don't even have uniform air/fuel distribution to all of the cylinders. Most aviation engines don't have uniform cooling across all cylinders. On top of that, the air/fuel mixture is constantly changing in aviation engines (you are remembering to reset your altimeter...right). Aviation engines are built for drasically different operating requirements and environments. Corner case failures for most engines and fuel systems can mean death for pilots and passengers; while remaining perfectly safe of ground based vehicles.
Simply stated, while you may have educated me on lead and lubrication, the problem is several orders of magnatude more complex than what you are trivializing. If you want lead free fuels used in GA, the solution is simple. Force a revamping of the FAA and their certification procedures. Next, create a government buy back program at new engine pro-rated rates and you'll soon find (over the next decade), safer, cleaner skies.
As much as I want to believe aliens are among us, it just doesn't make sense that a civilization advanced enough to cross interstellar space would crash in New Mexico.
I've heard this many times before and it always strikes me as even more illogical than what it's trying to defuse. Walk with me. Imagine a world were man finally has the technology to achieve interstellar travel. Using your logic, we will **NEVER** experience a failure of either technology or the pilots during even our initial interstellar travels. Yet I can look at history and realize that mankind has experienced a failure at every significant endeavor.
So which is more likely? Humans achieve perfection and are now infallible god-like beings or aliens crashed in New Mexico? I can tell you that anyone with even a small iota of critical thinking will agree that it's far more likely aliens crashed than mankind will achieve infallible perfection. Thus, but extension, it is far more illogical to defend the "no alien" argument by rationalizing other civilizations have achieved infallible perfection. I would argue it's far more unlikely any civilization will achieve infalliable perfection than interstellar travel.
You want to argue aliens don't exist, fine, but don't hang it on stillborn logic.
You made your point. I'll do some more reading. I did want to point out that I said, "once you get much over 360's"...you said 320. And yes, you can find sixes in the 360-400 range. Besides, the number of cylinders really has nothing to do with anything. Its really a question of compression and horepower.
heh...Canada would lose big time to the Russians, unless the United States came to their rescue.
American's like to poke fun of Canada (I believe the inverse is true too) but the fact is we are strong allies. We share technology, and assets; including military assets. Even if we were not strong allies simple fact is, a strong Canada means a strong northern border for America. Period. So the defence of Canada is and always has been considered an issue of national security and in the best interests of both countries. And to say this is the simple, dumbed down version is an understatement. One can write books describing how both countries growth, security, and economies, are intertwined.
These facts have never been misunderstood on the world stage. These are facts that are well understood even by the likes of Russia. Russia absolutely understands attacking Canada means immediate and unrelenting reprisal by America. And frankly, Russia very well understands they would get these asses handed to them in millions of very tiny pieces; so long as things remained conventional.
They do and it is because a correlation has been shown to exist between people with with poor credit and theft of company services/products, not to mention poor performers.
Interesting. That conflicts which a faily well known tidbit. When they moved to low leaded fuels, engines started going belly up at an alarming rate. The engine manufacturers had to change the metallurgy of various internal components. The change was required because of the lack of lubrication caused by the reduction of lead. As a result of the loss of lubrication, additional friction was created which drastically increased the wear rates.
all it does is prevent detonation/preignition in SOME engines.
Actually, in most engines. You'll find once you get much cast 360's, the lead is pretty much required.
This has been verified in the lab.
I've read a fair number of Deakin's articles. I'm very pro Deakin. Is this one of his articles? Regardless, can you point me to your reference?
taxi with the mixture leaned right out to stop the lead in 100LL from fouling plugs
That's SOP. The only pilots I don't know that lean for taxi are the pilots that constantly complain of fouled plugs.
Everything normally aspirated is so far from its detonation margins, it simply doesn't need the lead
I would guess this is true for newer engines. Older engines simply do not have uniform air/fuel distribution which can drastically reduce detonation margines. Engines which are powered by GAMIs have much improved margins but this reflects a tiny portion of the GA fleet.
You're also forgettig that something about the formulation of 100LL versions 100 does wonders to prevent vaporlock. Normal 100LL is fairly well documented to suffer from vaporlock. Vaporlock alone is one reason why those that do have autofuel STCs still tend to mix in some 100LL.
I'm glad someone is hinting at what it may be. I'm not sure why people keep saying microcode updates are available for Windows or via BIOS. For years now during boot, the Linux distros I use attempt to locate microcode, and if found, it loads. No BIOS changes required.
Why is it that america is always preparing for a war?
Um...perhaps because it's the smart thing to do? Only an idiot wouldn't prepare.
You see, any country that has two nickles to rub together makes preparations to keep their two nickles. The reason is simple. Someone with only one nickle or maybe someone with two nickles that would like to have four, may decide to come take your two nickles. So you have a choice. One, give your two nickles up tomorrow (it will happen), or be in a position where it will cost someone three nickles to take your two.
Perhaps you've heard, "Hope for the best. Plan for the worst." Only an idiot running a country wouldn't do that.
you will find that the company that produces the game "owns" all the items on all the characters on all the servers. This is part of the reason why they ban the selling of virtual goods for real cash. You can't sell something you don't own.
Sounds like you are indirectly making the argument that the people purchasing the gold should be charged with receiving stolen goods.
I think you explained why your idea wouldn't work. What if everything I buy over $20k I resell to my cousin and he lets me use it?
Except you seem to forget that his cousin would still have to pay 20%. Once way or the other, someone is paying that 20%. It doesn't matter if it's the original purchaser or the second. The second simply acquired the tax liability. In other words, the cousin more than likely wouldn't purcahse it because it doesn't help and even if he did, the tax is still paid. Not to mention, in many states the cousin would still have to pay additional sales tax on it so he would wind up paying far beyond 20%.
Actually, IA handles those complaints and it will be filed in the officier's folder. If the number of complaints continues to rise, or should the officier ever wind up in court, the tide starts to turn. Long story short, complain and file the report. It may not help you but you may help someone else.
Slashdot Mirror
These failings are generally not a core issue with the programming language. Lazy or inexperienced programmers, lack of budget, and wide spread ignorance seem to lead the way with these types of issues. Then there are the problems caused by arbitrary release dates (get it done, we'll fix it later) and the total indifference of those which make the release decisions. Changing the language, at best, is attempting to hide the root cause.
I agree. I believe this trends shows a complete lack of understanding for technology. This is like declaring the phone is dead. I see this as a signal of serious educational and social problems more than anything else. No one wants to read. No 1 cn spl. Math and science penetration is seriously down. Serious research in the US continues to spiral downward. And now the generation that wastes more time on one of the least effective communication mediums declares email is dead. Some how I'm not the least bit surprised.
Seems like an excellent case can be made to declare the current generation is retarded. I can even look at my own kids some time and am amazed they tie their own shoes. I've never seen, heard, or read about a generation which seems to lack common sense more so than the current; and they are proud of it to boot. Ironically, the only thing that does seem to stand out with the current generation is the total lack of common sense. They copy everything previous generations have done in trends, style, and fashion; lacking in any original thought. As far as I can tell, the defining elements of the current generation is fat, laziness, and the complete lack of common sense.
It's not real geeky science news until they tell us how many library of congresses it is per second.
It can be done...but it's hard.
There are two items I see which always cause problems. One, failure to properly identify and document the requirements. Two, failure to resist scope creep or requirements change. In almost every case, these are a failure of management on up. Usually at the behest of marketing. Worse, I find the more input marketing has in large projects, the more screwed the project will become.
For whatever reason, the vast majority of companies refuse to treat project requirements as a project phase in of it self. Or worse, they refuse to budget for this phase of the project. The lack of budget usually means lack of subject matter experts to participate in the requirements phase. Let's face it, requiremets are the foundation on which the entire project will rest. Ths is usually where most projects are screwed. Worse yet, are the fools which blindly require a budget and project plan before the requirements are even generated. When this is done, they then attempt to force the project within the project plan...of course it never fits.
It's also important for the requirements to have both a cooling down period and an acceptance phase. If you find your requirements are constantly changing even during your requirements gathering phase, this is a sure sign of project doom; see scope creep below. Only after your requirements have been documented, unambiguously, and they remain stable, can you hope to successfully build a project on top on them; on time and on budget.
The second biggest problem is scope creep. This is where marketing does a wonderful job of screwing over the entire company, usually with the aid of one or more directors and/or VPs but blames it on engineering. What most people fail to understand is, if the requirements have been properly done, subtle changes in scope can have profoundly negative impact on the entire project because you are really shifting the foundation on which the entire project is based. On a project which is planning to take five years, several months to half a year, or more, may be required to develop and plan for the requirements. The problem with scope creep is that it tends to be given little consideration and so the impact is almost always not understood until much later in the execution of the project. These failures may be identified as late as system integration or even customer (an internal department is still a customer) acceptance phases.
Scope creep can be managed and requirements can be changed and/or updated, but it requires a process to make it successful. And there needs to be room to allow for the rejection of some of these changes; requiring a version 2 and/or post release update. Likewise, a proportional amount of time needs to be spent to identify project impact and readjust the schedule. Often these things are changed on the fly and surprise, surprise, the schedule has slipped (of course it did...more work was added and some work was thrown away...requiring yet more work, but the project was not updated) and no one knows why.
I agree. Frankly, I've found very few situations where ACL or alternate solutions are even required...but they do exist. Smart use of permissions, groups, and masks typically address the need at hand. Tools such as sudo, PAM, and other suid wrappers help finish the complement. Heck, even SSH can be used to tie a key to a specific command or command line. Solutions are widely available, just most people are ignorant of the details and possible solutions.
I find most people that complain tend to be ignorant window users who find themselves forced to use Unix/Linux; so rather than learn, they complain.
Most jet engines will run Jet A, JP-8, or diesel. Both JetA and JP8 are basically kerosene with different additives. There are other fuels which are basically variations from these. If you create a fuel which is pretty close to diesel, it should run through a jet engine. The real question is, does it gum up an engine, cause it to oxydize, or otherwise compatible with the rest of the existig fuel system. And if so, how many other chemicals do you have to add to make it compariable for a jet engine's operating environment. For example, most jet fuels have chemicals to prevent it from freezing. Most biofuels tend to freeze or become gel at much higher temps then kerosene or diesel. There are other issues which may come up such as vapor pressure and/or special handling requirements for the fuel system.
Which is why most distros support POSIX ACLs...they are just not widely used. Ext2, Ext3, JFS, XFS, and ReiserFS all support ACLs (extended attributes). I believe NFS version 3 and 4 also support ACLs.
There are of course some other areas which ACL's don't address but there are pre-existing mechanisms to address those as well. Well, on most modern Unix/Linux systems anyways. The model has survived for so long for simple reasons; it's effective, simple and covers the vast majority of situations. When complex requirements come into light, more complex solutions exist. Most people just don't know about them.
I'm just adding to what you provided.
When you turn on a DHCP system is basically shouts "Hey is anyone here a DHCP server?" It then takes the first response it gets and uses the information provided. There's no check for validity or anything like that.
That's right. If you place another DHCP server on a nework, you can begin handing out DHCP addresses for your network. The client will use the first response it gets. There is no end of associated security implications here. In fact, it would be a great way to penetrate into a network. Why? Because DHCP can provide all sorts of information like DNS, gateways, NTP, so on and so on. This means it opens the door for IP spoofing, man in the middle attacks, and even sniffing of the entire segment; limited only by the number of clients you have snared. And there are ways to force all DHCP traffic to the hostile DHCP server. Hint, hint, the mechanism was mentioned by various posters to this article.
It is not hard at all to assume that this is a broken WiFi driver in the iPhone.
Technically, the WiFi driver is probably ok, afer all, it's talking to the AP. The problem appears to be a layer two issue which means it's probably a bug in the IP stack rather than the WiFi driver (layer one).
"Stupid risks are what makes life worth living!"
Or AIDS worth dying from?
That's also a cost difference of $45,000/person vs $630/person, assuming both projects were to cost the same $315,000,000. At $630/person, knowing it is going to stimulate an economy where the tax return is likely to easily exceed $630/person in short order, it makes lots of sense. Imagine how long it would take for a return on $45,000/person in a location where the economy, aside from the initial construction, is unlikely to change much.
Precise wording make for more elaborate and less ambiguous thinking.
But usually makes for confussion when things where completely clear and unambiguous until "precise wording" is used. In this case, saying it was stolen clearly and unambiguously conveys what happened. Conceptually, the depiction is completely accurate so describing a legal technicality makes absolutely no sense what so ever. The meat or spirit of the crime has been effectively communicated. And since effective communication is the intent of communication, the task is complete.
I am not American, I don't know about OJ case and the Wikipedia is not very clear about it.
Sorry, I picked OJ because I knew it had received international attention. I had hoped most people would know the details. For legal reasons it can't be very clear else civil litigation may result.
Looks like he was recognize responsible for the murder but escaped jail by (legally ?) paying huge amounts of money?
The vast majority of the evidence, including DNA evidence, makes him out to be the murderer. He paid $2m in legal fees to his attourneys. OJ Simpson is black and was widely regarded as a black culture hero. The jury was mostly black. Despite the abundance of evidence that indicated OJ murdered two people, the mostly black jury voted not-guilty as a protest vote; which they have more or less admitted. This means even the jury believes he is a murderer but set him free simply because he was black; hoping to speak out to previous social and legal injustices against black people in America. This means legally, he can not be referred to as a murderer.
According to what you say, this is an interesting case where you should choose how you call him depending on what is your opinion about the whole process.
In America, you won't find many people that believe he is not a murderer, even in the black community. Just last month he made news because he was refused service at a restaurant. The owner told OJ to leave because he "does not serve murderers." OJ then started a civil suite but dropped it shortly after. In other words, regardless of what you believe the process to be, the facts of the case prove he is guilty. Since he was acquitted, you can not legally refer to him as a murderer.
I may sound pedant but in fact this is not about futility, wording is important.
Wording is important only when it serves to more effectively communicate. In this case, you are trumping laymen wording and comprehension which easily and accurately conveys the action with legal definition, which is often counter intuitive, often needlessly verbose, and sometimes even illogical. In otherwords, unless you are speaking with your attourney, splitting hairs here doesn't really benefit anyone.
Because there is legal jargon and laymen terms. In laymen terms, they took/copied/downloaded something to which they have no right to take/copy/download. Thusly, most people consider that stealing or theft. It's a concept everyone understands. Common sense says that's stealing or theft. Legally, it can fall into different categories. If you want to be legally pedantic...fine, but a thief is a thief is a thief. If it makes you feel better to argue semantics, fine no one cares, but it buys you nothing unless you're in the courtroom.
If we go by your rules, OJ is not a murderer and can not be called one because he was acquitted. Common sense and the evidence say otherwise. You going to correct people everytime you hear him referred to as a murderer? Technically he is, legally he is not.
Yes, I'm fully aware of everything you state. I'm not sure where you're going here. I never said anything about "high compression" or "low compression". Simple fact is, what you're trivializing is well known to be a problem for several decades and your effort to trivialize it nets nothing. If it were a trivial problem most GA planes would be running lead free fuels. Period. But despite lots and lots of research, there is no easy, inexpensive solution; despite your comments.
Seriously, you think your dad's bike engine has anything to do with aviation engines? About the only thing they have in common are pistons which go up and down. Most engines spend 80% of their life at ~20% power. Aviation engines spend 80% of their life at 75% power...or more. The operating environmnet is completely different. Most aviation engines don't even have uniform air/fuel distribution to all of the cylinders. Most aviation engines don't have uniform cooling across all cylinders. On top of that, the air/fuel mixture is constantly changing in aviation engines (you are remembering to reset your altimeter...right). Aviation engines are built for drasically different operating requirements and environments. Corner case failures for most engines and fuel systems can mean death for pilots and passengers; while remaining perfectly safe of ground based vehicles.
Simply stated, while you may have educated me on lead and lubrication, the problem is several orders of magnatude more complex than what you are trivializing. If you want lead free fuels used in GA, the solution is simple. Force a revamping of the FAA and their certification procedures. Next, create a government buy back program at new engine pro-rated rates and you'll soon find (over the next decade), safer, cleaner skies.
As much as I want to believe aliens are among us, it just doesn't make sense that a civilization advanced enough to cross interstellar space would crash in New Mexico.
I've heard this many times before and it always strikes me as even more illogical than what it's trying to defuse. Walk with me. Imagine a world were man finally has the technology to achieve interstellar travel. Using your logic, we will **NEVER** experience a failure of either technology or the pilots during even our initial interstellar travels. Yet I can look at history and realize that mankind has experienced a failure at every significant endeavor.
So which is more likely? Humans achieve perfection and are now infallible god-like beings or aliens crashed in New Mexico? I can tell you that anyone with even a small iota of critical thinking will agree that it's far more likely aliens crashed than mankind will achieve infallible perfection. Thus, but extension, it is far more illogical to defend the "no alien" argument by rationalizing other civilizations have achieved infallible perfection. I would argue it's far more unlikely any civilization will achieve infalliable perfection than interstellar travel.
You want to argue aliens don't exist, fine, but don't hang it on stillborn logic.
You made your point. I'll do some more reading. I did want to point out that I said, "once you get much over 360's"...you said 320. And yes, you can find sixes in the 360-400 range. Besides, the number of cylinders really has nothing to do with anything. Its really a question of compression and horepower.
heh...Canada would lose big time to the Russians, unless the United States came to their rescue.
American's like to poke fun of Canada (I believe the inverse is true too) but the fact is we are strong allies. We share technology, and assets; including military assets. Even if we were not strong allies simple fact is, a strong Canada means a strong northern border for America. Period. So the defence of Canada is and always has been considered an issue of national security and in the best interests of both countries. And to say this is the simple, dumbed down version is an understatement. One can write books describing how both countries growth, security, and economies, are intertwined.
These facts have never been misunderstood on the world stage. These are facts that are well understood even by the likes of Russia. Russia absolutely understands attacking Canada means immediate and unrelenting reprisal by America. And frankly, Russia very well understands they would get these asses handed to them in millions of very tiny pieces; so long as things remained conventional.
They do and it is because a correlation has been shown to exist between people with with poor credit and theft of company services/products, not to mention poor performers.
For those of us that not in the know, which ones are written in Mono. I'd like to know which ones to stay away from.
Lead does not lubricate,
Interesting. That conflicts which a faily well known tidbit. When they moved to low leaded fuels, engines started going belly up at an alarming rate. The engine manufacturers had to change the metallurgy of various internal components. The change was required because of the lack of lubrication caused by the reduction of lead. As a result of the loss of lubrication, additional friction was created which drastically increased the wear rates.
all it does is prevent detonation/preignition in SOME engines.
Actually, in most engines. You'll find once you get much cast 360's, the lead is pretty much required.
This has been verified in the lab.
I've read a fair number of Deakin's articles. I'm very pro Deakin. Is this one of his articles? Regardless, can you point me to your reference?
taxi with the mixture leaned right out to stop the lead in 100LL from fouling plugs
That's SOP. The only pilots I don't know that lean for taxi are the pilots that constantly complain of fouled plugs.
Everything normally aspirated is so far from its detonation margins, it simply doesn't need the lead
I would guess this is true for newer engines. Older engines simply do not have uniform air/fuel distribution which can drastically reduce detonation margines. Engines which are powered by GAMIs have much improved margins but this reflects a tiny portion of the GA fleet.
You're also forgettig that something about the formulation of 100LL versions 100 does wonders to prevent vaporlock. Normal 100LL is fairly well documented to suffer from vaporlock. Vaporlock alone is one reason why those that do have autofuel STCs still tend to mix in some 100LL.
I'm glad someone is hinting at what it may be. I'm not sure why people keep saying microcode updates are available for Windows or via BIOS. For years now during boot, the Linux distros I use attempt to locate microcode, and if found, it loads. No BIOS changes required.
Why is it that america is always preparing for a war?
Um...perhaps because it's the smart thing to do? Only an idiot wouldn't prepare.
You see, any country that has two nickles to rub together makes preparations to keep their two nickles. The reason is simple. Someone with only one nickle or maybe someone with two nickles that would like to have four, may decide to come take your two nickles. So you have a choice. One, give your two nickles up tomorrow (it will happen), or be in a position where it will cost someone three nickles to take your two.
Perhaps you've heard, "Hope for the best. Plan for the worst." Only an idiot running a country wouldn't do that.
you will find that the company that produces the game "owns" all the items on all the characters on all the servers. This is part of the reason why they ban the selling of virtual goods for real cash. You can't sell something you don't own.
Sounds like you are indirectly making the argument that the people purchasing the gold should be charged with receiving stolen goods.
I think you explained why your idea wouldn't work. What if everything I buy over $20k I resell to my cousin and he lets me use it?
Except you seem to forget that his cousin would still have to pay 20%. Once way or the other, someone is paying that 20%. It doesn't matter if it's the original purchaser or the second. The second simply acquired the tax liability. In other words, the cousin more than likely wouldn't purcahse it because it doesn't help and even if he did, the tax is still paid. Not to mention, in many states the cousin would still have to pay additional sales tax on it so he would wind up paying far beyond 20%.
Try again.
Actually, IA handles those complaints and it will be filed in the officier's folder. If the number of complaints continues to rise, or should the officier ever wind up in court, the tide starts to turn. Long story short, complain and file the report. It may not help you but you may help someone else.