You make an excellent point. But the flip side of that coin is, lawyers must die. Even after supposed reform, lawyers add considerable and needless expense to much of everything we see and touch in our daily lives. In aviation alone, lawyers not only make things up to 4x as expensive as need by, they also slow technology adoption which makes everyone safer. So until such time we start actively killing lawyers by the bushel, caps are unfortunately the next closet option available.
If you have ideas which do not start and end with killing lawyers by the bushel, I'd seriously like this to be the start of such a thread.
Go re-read the post and place it back into its original context. At which point in time, I'm absolutely sure, assuming you can even do such a simple task, we will both be in absolute agreement you are a complete fucking idiot - exactly as I previously described.
Some of those were diesel which had lag problems because of engine design. Made worse were the ones with turbos because of turbo-lag, precisely as you point out.
A lot of the problems associated with diesels from the 80s and early 90s are specifically why they are so hated in the states today.
ABS systems can be a clear advantage in the condition of a un-alert driver (tired, distracted, inhibited, poor reactions...) these systems are then savers. Not for me in general
Statistically speaking, you're more likely to be in a wreck when you are one of those distracted, inhibited, tired, drivers. So while you may be an excellent driver, there is still finite windows in time where you are actually one of the more dangerous drivers on the road.
I used to be a really good, advanced driver too. Like you. It was a matter of pride I was one of the 1% drivers who, on average, could do better than ABS, could handle my car in a variety of conditions, so on and so on. But realistically, even then, I wasn't on the top of my game all the time. And that's true even for professional athletes who need to truly perform at the top of their game a tiny percentage of their professional career. And now that I'm slightly older and no longer actively practice such things, that window has become much, much larger.
Realistically, humans being humans, going out of your way to avoid vehicle safety features is going out of your way to become a more dangerous driver - for at least some of the time you're on the road - even if it may be a small percentage now. And even if that's not true today, it will be tomorrow.
If a car backfires when you stomp the throttle it is badly tuned.
Holy shit - another complete fucking idiot. You can't even maintain proper context. The fact you completely destroy context to make yet another stupid and invalid point, which falls completely outside of the original context does wonders to validate you are a complete fucking idiot.
Both a lean and a rich condition generally heat, not cool, the catalytic converter.
Whoosh. When you're dumping raw fuel into the catalytic convert, it cools it.
The real-world improvements
Real world and well documented results constantly prove your statement completely wrong.
What is it with so many people who like to think those know something about vehicles but actually don't. Grrr...
The real-world improvements from these "upgrades"
All these "upgrades"? Seriously? An air filter is more than one? Seriously, a test to see if that benefits a specific vehicle is unreasonable?
What is it with idiots on slashdot these days?
And its even more shocking the number who think they know something about vehicles but very clearly don't know jack shit. Seriously. Are you really so stupid you honestly believe restricted airflow makes a vehicle go faster? That's basically your argument. Stupidity is an under statement.
Holy shit - what a blow hard post. As if ownership is in any way indicative of knowledge. With your genius, everyone is a rocket scientist because technically, we are all part owners of NASA.
Now brake override: STUPID idea. Insanely stupid idea.
Statistically proven you are completely wrong. Yes, its such a stupid idea the feature has become not only a commodity item, but were first introduced in high end cars and eventually in super cars. So obviously you know far, far more than the top engineers and top drivers in the world - simply because you've owned a few cars. Brilliant.
Closing throttle for traction: Again stupid idea. Any idea how hard it is to get anywhere in winter with just anykind of traction control? You've probably never driven during winter. (Oh and you can do it with simple solenoid valve if you have to, on a mechanical system)
Many vehicles allow you to disable the traction control system. Specifically, vehicles sold in areas where snow and ice are common, rarely don't have a means to disable because these are, in fact, some of the areas where traction control fail. If you live in such an area, don't buy a car where you can't disable it. Why am I not surprised such an easy solution is somehow beyond you.
As for my self, all of the vehicles I have owned with traction control, had a simple push button to disable it. Likewise, that same traction control prevented me from spinning out (lubricated tires and driving through freshly watered road, on an uneven surface - slicker than ice by far) on the first day I owned one of those vehicles. So me, like most of the real world, directly benefit from traction control in the majority of driving conditions. Yes, there were times I turned off traction control. Then again, there were plenty of times where it reacted far faster than is humanly possible. Period.
And of course, this completely ignores that computer controlled brakes also means we're talking about ABS. For the vast, vast, vast majority of drivers, ABS is literally and world changing, safety technology. So clearly, its very stupid, as you insist. Factually, something like less than 1% of the driving population can do better than ABS. Furthermore, where ABS typically does far better than humans is where humans drive as their absolute worst.
If you happen to fit in that 1%, awesome! Good for you! Seriously! But stating improved safety for 99% of the driving community is stupid, actually is stupid. That seems to be a common cord with your posts.
In any case, electric accelerator introduces lots of new BREAKING, WEARING parts, lag and cost due to the extra parts.
It only creates additional wear when required. Sounds like you're a completely reckless driver. Yes, it costs more but the economic benefits, by far, surpass the initial incurred costs. That is why ABS vehicles even receive insurance discounts.
Pretty much anything which interferes with driver control is actually quite bad idea
Yes, because humans never have wrecks, except for all of those caused by technological advancements. Sorry, but reality says you're an idiot.
maybe you should gather some kind of ACTUAL driving experience.
LOL.....................lol........
Can you possibly understand the idiocy and irony of such a statement? LOL....I seriously doubt it...lol.... That is truly fucking priceless....lol...seriously...I am laughing out loud...
You're right, it may be a slow actuator, but that absolutely is not universally true.
For the majority of vehicles, it absolutely is a mixture/airflow issue - up until the actuator limit, or any other programmed limit is reached; if, in fact, its reached. Modern vehicles use a closed loop. Which means, when air flow is restricted, the computer purposely slows everything. As airflow and corresponding mechanics can more quickly respond, so does the throttle. So for some vehicles, an improvement in airflow may make huge differences while in others, it can be very slight, if at all.
Yes, there are programmed delays from economy. But that completely ignores the fact that even at programmed delays, may vehicles are being choked by their accessories, including filter, exhaust, values, etc. Thusly, one of the cheapest modifications which typically benefit a broad selection of vehicles is, in fact, a high flow air filter.
If you read some of other replies, I specifically make note, I over simplified the issue, purposely so, added a number of other issues, and the offered, that was all just the tip of the ice berg.
These issues are all interconnected specifically because its a closed loop. But none of that changes, many cars, especially economy models, are frequently, artificially restricted. As such, something as simple as a high flow filter can made small to big changes depending on the specific engine.
you are speaking downsides of a carb. Fuel injection (which is computerized) solves all of those problems.
They can solve those problems. I've seen a fuel injected vehicle (crossfire injection) backfire. It was actually very cool to watch. So absolutely NO, it does not solve all those problems. But absolutely, it does go a long way. The largest reason it helps prevent this is because you are no longer directly dumping fuel into the intake...rather its timed are carefully metered. The fact an actuator is inline to prevent this type of reckless throttle stomping goes a very long way without fuel injection.
Changing out air filter does jack shit, unless the one being replaced is overtly dirty.
Arg. You're completely talking about of your ass. Two of your initial statements are flatly wrong, and bluntly, stupid. Honestly, I stopped read there.
For many vehicles, throttle response is a function of various pre-computed curves which the on board computer uses. Furthermore, its EXTREMELY common for factory filters to be restrictive to air flow. As such, the computer curve is going to follow the available flow. A restricted air flow means a restricted curve. This is in fact, why so many use new filters and new exhaust to get more horse power and more responsive throttles. Period. The fact you don't understand the most basic of how engines and modern computers work, completely supports no one should waste their time with your idiocy. In fact, I'm sorry I read as much of it as I did.
Yes, some vehicles do not have restricted air flow. But then again, I didn't speak in absolutes. In fact, I encouraged others to experiment if this *may* alleviate some of their throttle response complaints.
Do you drive a taxi or something? That might be hard to do from home.
In Texas, round trip commutes of 100-120 miles per day are fairly common. I've worked with people who have had over 200 mile round trips. I've even spoken with people who had over 300 mile round trips. Some people commute daily between north Dallas and south Oklahoma. As do people in Oklahoma. Same for people in Louisiana. Furthermore, a lot of these jobs frequently change locations so their commute to a specific destination may only be for three months to a year at a time.
Like it or not, driving habits differ dramatically all over the world. And the average commute in the US is twice that of Europeans. Not to mention, the extremes for US drivers fall far outside the numbers provided above, and that's not including commercial drivers.
In the real world, for a lot of Americans, driving and associated costs are a sizable percentage of their income.
It's treatable through tuning and aftermarket though.
That's entirely my point.
Vehicles which have worse throttle response are typically vehicles which never require them. And ignoring my own responses above, its actually far more involved than I indicate. Idle throttle response is actually a poor indicator of over all throttle response for practical application of vehicles. In fact, an overtly fast throttle response at idle can lead to real world bogging when in gear. Meaning, if you make it too responsive at idle, you can actually be slower, less efficient, and have worse economy when driving in real conditions. Not to mention, it can also lead to higher wear 'n tear because of fuel removing oil from the pistol and cylinder and plug fouling. Which in turn can create dirtier oil and require more frequent oil changes. And that's still just getting started.
As such, its easier to simply say the modern goal is to allow for efficiency improvements. Its fairly rare for vehicles to require extremely responsive throttles and when they do, they typically fall into the sports or race car categories. And even then, typically their slightly slowed response is actually making you faster than a dump and foul system would.
I'll add, if you're interested in performing your own throttle response tests, you may have trouble doing so. Some vehicles can not run with their an open air box*. As such, you may need to simply purchase a high flow filter and swap out the filter for your test. If you're not satisfied with the results, simply return the filter after your tests.
(*) Some vehicles have a mass air (or variation of this type of sensor) which measures airflow (or change in air flow) between your air box and the engine. As such, with an open air box, the sensor can be circumvented which prevents sanity cross checks between other engine sensors and the values provided by the air sensor. Typically this results in the computer shutting off the engine.
Yeah, I remember them. When you tap the accelerator, the engine revs in time, with no delay due to slow actuators on the low-mid range end of the market.
You're ignoring the down side to those same cables. Flooding of the carb, back fires, carb damage, excessive gas being dumped and flowing out the exhaust resulting in much more exhaust waste, cooling of the catalytic convertor preventing proper operation. Not to mention, on a lot of vehicles, the inline actuator is part of a safety system which reduces throttle when traction or control is lost. Thusly, for most drivers, direct cable is far more dangerous to everyone.
Basically, it was more reactive because it was so wasteful. Now throttle response follows a consumption and efficiency curve rather than a dump, waste, and foul curve.
If you want a more responsive throttle, simply changing out your air filter can make a big difference; as well as making sure it remains clean. Something like a K&N filter can make for big differences. As can a new exhaust pipe. Basically, on many small displacement engines (really, many engines but especially so on small displacement ICE), their intake and exhaust are artificially restricted; with the intake much more commonly so by the air filter. Remove your air filter and conduct some quick throttle response tests. For many economy cars the difference in throttle response is noteworthy. If this is true for your vehicle, a K&N (or any other high flow filter) can make a big difference.
Strange? I'll point out, thus far, you're the only one who has posted a link to a non-negative review. Furthermore, the review appears to be fairly terse so it doesn't appear to be very deep. Not to mention, after very cursory glance at the review it does not appear to touch on or address some of the serious criticisms, provided by others, in this thread alone. As such, it appears a B+ may be both polite and at least a tad generous.
Let's summarize that review: Startup - No splash screen created a sense of confusion. -1 for Gnome 3.
Launching Applications - "Initially I didnâ(TM)t even understand that the two Windows and Applications âoebuttonsâ are clickable. They follow no convention known to me to indicate that they are clickable instead of being mere titles of some sort." -1 for Gnome 3's non-obvious and confusing interface.
Maximize and Minimize - Basically compares it to 1990's GUI technology and then complains the idiom is contrary to modern and commonly available hardware. -1 Gnome 3.
The Little Things - Complains more about cursor bugs, unintuitive interface interactions and wasted screen space. -1 Gnome 3.
Basically, everything he reviewed he provided overwhelmingly negative comments. That's not a B of any kind. That's an absolute failure score. The fact he doesn't even remark on a large number of usability issues brought up in more in depth reviews or even issues presented in this thread further highlights the silliness of this review as a "B+".
So thus far, no one has presented a positive review of gnome 3. None. I absolutely will give gnome 3 a try when its finalized but frankly, if its better than a pile of crap, I'll honestly be very, very, very surprised. As I've repeated said so far, I have exceedingly low expectations thus far.
Distance of commute varies dramatically on the country you're in as well as the state. In some states, the average commute is 60-100 miles per day. IIRC, the national average is 60. At $4/g, five days a week, four weeks a month, twelve months per year, it adds up quickly.
D. Automatically compressing desktop spaces when the last application in that space closes is very frustrating. Start 20 or so apps in various desktops and get everything just how you like them. Then add an extension to Firefox and you need to restart it. And watch your carefully laid out desktops contract.:( Now you get to start Firefox in the bottom desktop instead of desktop two, where it belongs! What are you supposed to do, start all 20 apps again and get them all the way you want, every time you need to restart Firefox or Thunderbird? REALLY?
Holy shit, that really does sound like a complete cluster fuck. Linus' comments about them being interface nazis seems extremely well justified.
Any idea if they have plans to fix what is very clearly a bug? Or is this the type of bug which is to be a fuck you, you're too stupid to see its a feature?
I will add, in most application changes or even a relationship or marriage, you must make concessions for a healthy relationship.
Either you surrender to it, or you hate it.
But if we run with my relationship metaphor above combined with your statements, don't we wind up with something like: Concessions make for a healthy relationship and surrendering yourself is basically a life of slavery or indentured servitude. In what way does that jive with, "is not that bad." lol.
Seriously, I'm sure I'm being far too literal, at least well beyond your intent, but I just can't reconcile those statements.
Just in gas, it typically costs me $7800/yr in gas. So add in wear and tear plus insurance savings, its likely a break even at worst. For most people, working from home saves money for both the employee and the employer.
It used to be differences in compiler technology (C vs C++) made Gtk+ based applications and frameworks much faster in start up and also a slight edge in run time. Add to the fact KDE traditionally tried to be an extremely crappy Windows wanna-be, most naturally gravitated toward Gtk+ (meaning Gnome).
These days, compiler improvements have come a long ways and KDE (Qt) applications no longer have performance penalties. Furthermore, KDE has grown considerable beyond their windows wanna-be days. By all accounts, they are an excellent framework/desktop in their own right. Both have strong offerings both in features and applications. In fact, despite me being a Gnome user, as a developer, Gtk+ absolutely sucks compared to Qt - although Qt has some real kludges and warts. Though I've not recently looked and more recent versions of Qt may address some or all of these - really not sure.
Which means, now, the appeal is largely based on user entrenchment and application preference. It wasn't so long ago memory was still a deciding factor and running two frameworks was not a satisfactory solution which further forced users into one camp over the other - again, based on application preferences. These days, with 16G become more and more common, the overhead of mixing and matching doesn't pose anywhere near the downside it once did. As such, running Gnome desktop and some KDE apps, or the inverse, is far more likely to be much more palatable. I predict this to become more and more common over the next couple of years.
Why bother fighting about it?
I agree with you. Historically there were good reasons to be in one camp over there other. These days, IMOHO, it large boils down to available memory and the preferred application mix. I strongly suspect Gnome 3's ability to hit or miss at time of release will potentially mean a massive influx of KDE users. And based on all reviews I've read to date, I strongly suspect KDE will prove the real winner once Gnome 3 is finally released. Of course, I'm hoping that's not the case. But either way, as you point out, ultimately, it may not matter one way or the other.
Byfield acknowledges that he's heard rave reviews about GNOME 3, but disagrees: 'I suspect that the majority of users are more likely to be satisfied with KDE 4.6 than GNOME 3.'"
I've actively sought out reviews and have yet to read a single positive review of Gnome 3. Not one. In fact, they are as universally bad as they are universally duplicates of each other. They all seem to very quickly identify and cite the same core problems with Gnome 3's usability, the specific and seemingly broken process which yielded Gnome 3, but also touch on Gnome's process failures and general lack of specification and healthy process.
I'm personally excited to see what all the brouhaha is about with Gnome 3 (hell, can always revert to Gnome 2 or KDE), and I say that as a current Gnome 2 user, but frankly, based on a wide number of reviews, I have exceptionally low expectations of Gnome 3.
Seriously, if you know of some good, unbiased Gnome 3 reviews, please post them here. Thus far, I've never read a single one.
What massive technological improvements did we see as a result of the 6 day war?
Nice try in idiocy and trolling. Factually, the 6-day war was also deemed the end of tank warfare and the return to massive civilian deaths. As a result of such proclamations, the state of the art in metallurgy and material sciences received a boost. The resulting research has made advances to almost everything you see as "modern" today. Not to mention, composite armors are now standard fair on main battle tanks which means dramatically extended lives for tank crews.
Absolutely, the scale and scope of the war makes big differences and massive advances as a result of small wars, such as the six day war, are by far the exception. But then again, this is rather obvious. The longer and more protracted the war, the more money is going to be spent. If this is news to you, you're an idiot. The fact you mention this as somehow validating your point, extremely diminishes your credibility. Seriously, think about it. Derr...no money spent means no science earned. Its almost universally true in all aspects of life.
The rest of your bullshit is just that...baseless rhetoric and bullshit.
If you want to close your eyes and pretend the world doesn't exist, that's fine by me. It literally costs me nothing for you to be stupid and ignorant. If on the other hand, you want to evolve to the modern world, feel free to open your eyes and educate yourself.
Your response validates you are completely clueless on the subject matter.
Mediterranean diets are unpopular? I know a lot of awfully popular Greek restaurants.
Factually, this absolutely is NOT the most healthy diet. Factually, extremely low caloric, high fiber, low meat and no red meat diet is known to be the healthiest diet. Extremely few people follow this diet. So factually, its known to be extremely unpopular specifically because it means little flavor and the exclusion of most foods people enjoy eating. And to be clear, it absolutely has nothing to do with the Mediterranean food. The fact your present that as the only option validates you have no clue what you are talking about.
You seriously need to forget all the bullshit you think you know - because its wrong. Go bother to start reading about the life extension research. That research uses lots of nutritional studies. Some of which go way back. Furthermore, there are studies which date back decades which talk about culture/health which follows the uptake of food trends and colonization. Sugar is one such item which is known to cause a massive uptake on hundreds of diseases. Some of that research dates backs hundreds of years.
Furthermore, most doctors have absolute shit knowledge of nutrition. Hell, even nutritionists well tell you as such. Most doctors make absolutely no effort to follow or understand nutrition. As such, they are notoriously bad sources unless they are specifically studying nutrition. Keep in mind, only a decade or two back, the study of nutrition was openly mocked by doctors and especially the FDA. Hell, some idiot doctors are literally still telling people its impossible for vitamins to be absorbed from tablets - that was, after all, the party line as late at the late eighties.
At least I now understand why you have no clue what you're talking about.
You seem to be talking around in circles without a coherent statement.
I have a bit of a grasp on History and I plainly deny that: the only direct result of war is people being killed
Well, by you're own admission, you just contradicted yourself. Factually, history completely disagrees with you. The fact you state you know history and then directly contradict history to make your point, entirely invalidates your point as well as your credibility.
Everything else are indirect results and, as such, they could have been gotten by other ways -without the killing.
I never said they couldn't be obtained in a world of purely research driven science. But no one lives in that world. No one. Furthermore, its true that some advancements may eventually be made, but in what time span? A decade? A century? More? Like it or not, for example, WWII and the despicable medical experiments conducted by the Germans alone advanced the state of the art by fifty to a hundred years in medical understanding. Literally some of that research is still used today in new research. That doesn't justify the horrors conducted by the Germans but its fact nonetheless.
The simple fact is, almost all of the things on today's "modern" technology literally is because of WWII, the Cold War, and Vietnam. Is it possible that technology could have been developed elsewhere? Absolutely! But likely not for another fifty to hundred years.
As for societal improvements, literally almost the entire world contradicts you. Japan, Vietnam, Korea, are all typical examples which completely prove your notions to be false.
So while it may offend your polite company sensibilities, it doesn't validate your opinion in the least.
And those who are standing in line to wave their hands are also ignoring there are a number of additives specifically made to address these types of issues with concrete. Some are epoxies. Some are other materials which specifically work to bind-to and inhibit the reaction. Furthermore, some concretes are specifically created to cure with massive heat - though not likely for this specific issue.
Nonetheless, yes its certainly a technology complex situation but that doesn't mean there exists no solutions.
Slashdot Mirror
You make an excellent point. But the flip side of that coin is, lawyers must die. Even after supposed reform, lawyers add considerable and needless expense to much of everything we see and touch in our daily lives. In aviation alone, lawyers not only make things up to 4x as expensive as need by, they also slow technology adoption which makes everyone safer. So until such time we start actively killing lawyers by the bushel, caps are unfortunately the next closet option available.
If you have ideas which do not start and end with killing lawyers by the bushel, I'd seriously like this to be the start of such a thread.
Go re-read the post and place it back into its original context. At which point in time, I'm absolutely sure, assuming you can even do such a simple task, we will both be in absolute agreement you are a complete fucking idiot - exactly as I previously described.
Ohhh...I called you on it.
Holy shit, you get dumber by the second.
Some of those were diesel which had lag problems because of engine design. Made worse were the ones with turbos because of turbo-lag, precisely as you point out.
A lot of the problems associated with diesels from the 80s and early 90s are specifically why they are so hated in the states today.
ABS systems can be a clear advantage in the condition of a un-alert driver (tired, distracted, inhibited, poor reactions...) these systems are then savers. Not for me in general
Statistically speaking, you're more likely to be in a wreck when you are one of those distracted, inhibited, tired, drivers. So while you may be an excellent driver, there is still finite windows in time where you are actually one of the more dangerous drivers on the road.
I used to be a really good, advanced driver too. Like you. It was a matter of pride I was one of the 1% drivers who, on average, could do better than ABS, could handle my car in a variety of conditions, so on and so on. But realistically, even then, I wasn't on the top of my game all the time. And that's true even for professional athletes who need to truly perform at the top of their game a tiny percentage of their professional career. And now that I'm slightly older and no longer actively practice such things, that window has become much, much larger.
Realistically, humans being humans, going out of your way to avoid vehicle safety features is going out of your way to become a more dangerous driver - for at least some of the time you're on the road - even if it may be a small percentage now. And even if that's not true today, it will be tomorrow.
If a car backfires when you stomp the throttle it is badly tuned.
Holy shit - another complete fucking idiot. You can't even maintain proper context. The fact you completely destroy context to make yet another stupid and invalid point, which falls completely outside of the original context does wonders to validate you are a complete fucking idiot.
Holy shit you people are truly fucking idiots.
Both a lean and a rich condition generally heat, not cool, the catalytic converter.
Whoosh. When you're dumping raw fuel into the catalytic convert, it cools it.
The real-world improvements
Real world and well documented results constantly prove your statement completely wrong.
What is it with so many people who like to think those know something about vehicles but actually don't. Grrr...
The real-world improvements from these "upgrades"
All these "upgrades"? Seriously? An air filter is more than one? Seriously, a test to see if that benefits a specific vehicle is unreasonable?
What is it with idiots on slashdot these days?
And its even more shocking the number who think they know something about vehicles but very clearly don't know jack shit. Seriously. Are you really so stupid you honestly believe restricted airflow makes a vehicle go faster? That's basically your argument. Stupidity is an under statement.
Holy shit - what a blow hard post. As if ownership is in any way indicative of knowledge. With your genius, everyone is a rocket scientist because technically, we are all part owners of NASA.
Now brake override: STUPID idea. Insanely stupid idea.
Statistically proven you are completely wrong. Yes, its such a stupid idea the feature has become not only a commodity item, but were first introduced in high end cars and eventually in super cars. So obviously you know far, far more than the top engineers and top drivers in the world - simply because you've owned a few cars. Brilliant.
Closing throttle for traction: Again stupid idea. Any idea how hard it is to get anywhere in winter with just anykind of traction control? You've probably never driven during winter. (Oh and you can do it with simple solenoid valve if you have to, on a mechanical system)
Many vehicles allow you to disable the traction control system. Specifically, vehicles sold in areas where snow and ice are common, rarely don't have a means to disable because these are, in fact, some of the areas where traction control fail. If you live in such an area, don't buy a car where you can't disable it. Why am I not surprised such an easy solution is somehow beyond you.
As for my self, all of the vehicles I have owned with traction control, had a simple push button to disable it. Likewise, that same traction control prevented me from spinning out (lubricated tires and driving through freshly watered road, on an uneven surface - slicker than ice by far) on the first day I owned one of those vehicles. So me, like most of the real world, directly benefit from traction control in the majority of driving conditions. Yes, there were times I turned off traction control. Then again, there were plenty of times where it reacted far faster than is humanly possible. Period.
And of course, this completely ignores that computer controlled brakes also means we're talking about ABS. For the vast, vast, vast majority of drivers, ABS is literally and world changing, safety technology. So clearly, its very stupid, as you insist. Factually, something like less than 1% of the driving population can do better than ABS. Furthermore, where ABS typically does far better than humans is where humans drive as their absolute worst.
If you happen to fit in that 1%, awesome! Good for you! Seriously! But stating improved safety for 99% of the driving community is stupid, actually is stupid. That seems to be a common cord with your posts.
In any case, electric accelerator introduces lots of new BREAKING, WEARING parts, lag and cost due to the extra parts.
It only creates additional wear when required. Sounds like you're a completely reckless driver. Yes, it costs more but the economic benefits, by far, surpass the initial incurred costs. That is why ABS vehicles even receive insurance discounts.
Pretty much anything which interferes with driver control is actually quite bad idea
Yes, because humans never have wrecks, except for all of those caused by technological advancements. Sorry, but reality says you're an idiot.
maybe you should gather some kind of ACTUAL driving experience.
LOL.....................lol........
Can you possibly understand the idiocy and irony of such a statement? LOL....I seriously doubt it...lol.... That is truly fucking priceless....lol...seriously...I am laughing out loud...
You're right, it may be a slow actuator, but that absolutely is not universally true.
For the majority of vehicles, it absolutely is a mixture/airflow issue - up until the actuator limit, or any other programmed limit is reached; if, in fact, its reached. Modern vehicles use a closed loop. Which means, when air flow is restricted, the computer purposely slows everything. As airflow and corresponding mechanics can more quickly respond, so does the throttle. So for some vehicles, an improvement in airflow may make huge differences while in others, it can be very slight, if at all.
Yes, there are programmed delays from economy. But that completely ignores the fact that even at programmed delays, may vehicles are being choked by their accessories, including filter, exhaust, values, etc. Thusly, one of the cheapest modifications which typically benefit a broad selection of vehicles is, in fact, a high flow air filter.
If you read some of other replies, I specifically make note, I over simplified the issue, purposely so, added a number of other issues, and the offered, that was all just the tip of the ice berg.
These issues are all interconnected specifically because its a closed loop. But none of that changes, many cars, especially economy models, are frequently, artificially restricted. As such, something as simple as a high flow filter can made small to big changes depending on the specific engine.
you are speaking downsides of a carb. Fuel injection (which is computerized) solves all of those problems.
They can solve those problems. I've seen a fuel injected vehicle (crossfire injection) backfire. It was actually very cool to watch. So absolutely NO, it does not solve all those problems. But absolutely, it does go a long way. The largest reason it helps prevent this is because you are no longer directly dumping fuel into the intake...rather its timed are carefully metered. The fact an actuator is inline to prevent this type of reckless throttle stomping goes a very long way without fuel injection.
Changing out air filter does jack shit, unless the one being replaced is overtly dirty.
Arg. You're completely talking about of your ass. Two of your initial statements are flatly wrong, and bluntly, stupid. Honestly, I stopped read there.
For many vehicles, throttle response is a function of various pre-computed curves which the on board computer uses. Furthermore, its EXTREMELY common for factory filters to be restrictive to air flow. As such, the computer curve is going to follow the available flow. A restricted air flow means a restricted curve. This is in fact, why so many use new filters and new exhaust to get more horse power and more responsive throttles. Period. The fact you don't understand the most basic of how engines and modern computers work, completely supports no one should waste their time with your idiocy. In fact, I'm sorry I read as much of it as I did.
Yes, some vehicles do not have restricted air flow. But then again, I didn't speak in absolutes. In fact, I encouraged others to experiment if this *may* alleviate some of their throttle response complaints.
I'm done with your stupidity.
Do you drive a taxi or something? That might be hard to do from home.
In Texas, round trip commutes of 100-120 miles per day are fairly common. I've worked with people who have had over 200 mile round trips. I've even spoken with people who had over 300 mile round trips. Some people commute daily between north Dallas and south Oklahoma. As do people in Oklahoma. Same for people in Louisiana. Furthermore, a lot of these jobs frequently change locations so their commute to a specific destination may only be for three months to a year at a time.
Like it or not, driving habits differ dramatically all over the world. And the average commute in the US is twice that of Europeans. Not to mention, the extremes for US drivers fall far outside the numbers provided above, and that's not including commercial drivers.
In the real world, for a lot of Americans, driving and associated costs are a sizable percentage of their income.
It's treatable through tuning and aftermarket though.
That's entirely my point.
Vehicles which have worse throttle response are typically vehicles which never require them. And ignoring my own responses above, its actually far more involved than I indicate. Idle throttle response is actually a poor indicator of over all throttle response for practical application of vehicles. In fact, an overtly fast throttle response at idle can lead to real world bogging when in gear. Meaning, if you make it too responsive at idle, you can actually be slower, less efficient, and have worse economy when driving in real conditions. Not to mention, it can also lead to higher wear 'n tear because of fuel removing oil from the pistol and cylinder and plug fouling. Which in turn can create dirtier oil and require more frequent oil changes. And that's still just getting started.
As such, its easier to simply say the modern goal is to allow for efficiency improvements. Its fairly rare for vehicles to require extremely responsive throttles and when they do, they typically fall into the sports or race car categories. And even then, typically their slightly slowed response is actually making you faster than a dump and foul system would.
Sorry for replying to my own response...
I'll add, if you're interested in performing your own throttle response tests, you may have trouble doing so. Some vehicles can not run with their an open air box*. As such, you may need to simply purchase a high flow filter and swap out the filter for your test. If you're not satisfied with the results, simply return the filter after your tests.
(*) Some vehicles have a mass air (or variation of this type of sensor) which measures airflow (or change in air flow) between your air box and the engine. As such, with an open air box, the sensor can be circumvented which prevents sanity cross checks between other engine sensors and the values provided by the air sensor. Typically this results in the computer shutting off the engine.
Mechanical throttle cables?
Yeah, I remember them. When you tap the accelerator, the engine revs in time, with no delay due to slow actuators on the low-mid range end of the market.
You're ignoring the down side to those same cables. Flooding of the carb, back fires, carb damage, excessive gas being dumped and flowing out the exhaust resulting in much more exhaust waste, cooling of the catalytic convertor preventing proper operation. Not to mention, on a lot of vehicles, the inline actuator is part of a safety system which reduces throttle when traction or control is lost. Thusly, for most drivers, direct cable is far more dangerous to everyone.
Basically, it was more reactive because it was so wasteful. Now throttle response follows a consumption and efficiency curve rather than a dump, waste, and foul curve.
If you want a more responsive throttle, simply changing out your air filter can make a big difference; as well as making sure it remains clean. Something like a K&N filter can make for big differences. As can a new exhaust pipe. Basically, on many small displacement engines (really, many engines but especially so on small displacement ICE), their intake and exhaust are artificially restricted; with the intake much more commonly so by the air filter. Remove your air filter and conduct some quick throttle response tests. For many economy cars the difference in throttle response is noteworthy. If this is true for your vehicle, a K&N (or any other high flow filter) can make a big difference.
And factually, present day completely disagrees with history. How's our roaring war economy doing now?
Considering your idiotic statement is verifiably false, in what way do you believe stating verifiable lies makes your point? How stupid are you?
Strange,
Strange? I'll point out, thus far, you're the only one who has posted a link to a non-negative review. Furthermore, the review appears to be fairly terse so it doesn't appear to be very deep. Not to mention, after very cursory glance at the review it does not appear to touch on or address some of the serious criticisms, provided by others, in this thread alone. As such, it appears a B+ may be both polite and at least a tad generous.
Let's summarize that review:
Startup - No splash screen created a sense of confusion. -1 for Gnome 3.
Launching Applications - "Initially I didnâ(TM)t even understand that the two Windows and Applications âoebuttonsâ are clickable. They follow no convention known to me to indicate that they are clickable instead of being mere titles of some sort." -1 for Gnome 3's non-obvious and confusing interface.
Maximize and Minimize - Basically compares it to 1990's GUI technology and then complains the idiom is contrary to modern and commonly available hardware. -1 Gnome 3.
The Little Things - Complains more about cursor bugs, unintuitive interface interactions and wasted screen space. -1 Gnome 3.
Basically, everything he reviewed he provided overwhelmingly negative comments. That's not a B of any kind. That's an absolute failure score. The fact he doesn't even remark on a large number of usability issues brought up in more in depth reviews or even issues presented in this thread further highlights the silliness of this review as a "B+".
So thus far, no one has presented a positive review of gnome 3. None. I absolutely will give gnome 3 a try when its finalized but frankly, if its better than a pile of crap, I'll honestly be very, very, very surprised. As I've repeated said so far, I have exceedingly low expectations thus far.
Distance of commute varies dramatically on the country you're in as well as the state. In some states, the average commute is 60-100 miles per day. IIRC, the national average is 60. At $4/g, five days a week, four weeks a month, twelve months per year, it adds up quickly.
D. Automatically compressing desktop spaces when the last application in that space closes is very frustrating. Start 20 or so apps in various desktops and get everything just how you like them. Then add an extension to Firefox and you need to restart it. And watch your carefully laid out desktops contract. :( Now you get to start Firefox in the bottom desktop instead of desktop two, where it belongs! What are you supposed to do, start all 20 apps again and get them all the way you want, every time you need to restart Firefox or Thunderbird? REALLY?
Holy shit, that really does sound like a complete cluster fuck. Linus' comments about them being interface nazis seems extremely well justified.
Any idea if they have plans to fix what is very clearly a bug? Or is this the type of bug which is to be a fuck you, you're too stupid to see its a feature?
Hmm...I'm trying to reconcile your statements.
Gnome shell is not that bad.
I will add, in most application changes or even a relationship or marriage, you must make concessions for a healthy relationship.
Either you surrender to it, or you hate it.
But if we run with my relationship metaphor above combined with your statements, don't we wind up with something like: Concessions make for a healthy relationship and surrendering yourself is basically a life of slavery or indentured servitude. In what way does that jive with, "is not that bad." lol.
Seriously, I'm sure I'm being far too literal, at least well beyond your intent, but I just can't reconcile those statements.
Just in gas, it typically costs me $7800/yr in gas. So add in wear and tear plus insurance savings, its likely a break even at worst. For most people, working from home saves money for both the employee and the employer.
It used to be differences in compiler technology (C vs C++) made Gtk+ based applications and frameworks much faster in start up and also a slight edge in run time. Add to the fact KDE traditionally tried to be an extremely crappy Windows wanna-be, most naturally gravitated toward Gtk+ (meaning Gnome).
These days, compiler improvements have come a long ways and KDE (Qt) applications no longer have performance penalties. Furthermore, KDE has grown considerable beyond their windows wanna-be days. By all accounts, they are an excellent framework/desktop in their own right. Both have strong offerings both in features and applications. In fact, despite me being a Gnome user, as a developer, Gtk+ absolutely sucks compared to Qt - although Qt has some real kludges and warts. Though I've not recently looked and more recent versions of Qt may address some or all of these - really not sure.
Which means, now, the appeal is largely based on user entrenchment and application preference. It wasn't so long ago memory was still a deciding factor and running two frameworks was not a satisfactory solution which further forced users into one camp over the other - again, based on application preferences. These days, with 16G become more and more common, the overhead of mixing and matching doesn't pose anywhere near the downside it once did. As such, running Gnome desktop and some KDE apps, or the inverse, is far more likely to be much more palatable. I predict this to become more and more common over the next couple of years.
Why bother fighting about it?
I agree with you. Historically there were good reasons to be in one camp over there other. These days, IMOHO, it large boils down to available memory and the preferred application mix. I strongly suspect Gnome 3's ability to hit or miss at time of release will potentially mean a massive influx of KDE users. And based on all reviews I've read to date, I strongly suspect KDE will prove the real winner once Gnome 3 is finally released. Of course, I'm hoping that's not the case. But either way, as you point out, ultimately, it may not matter one way or the other.
Byfield acknowledges that he's heard rave reviews about GNOME 3, but disagrees: 'I suspect that the majority of users are more likely to be satisfied with KDE 4.6 than GNOME 3.'"
I've actively sought out reviews and have yet to read a single positive review of Gnome 3. Not one. In fact, they are as universally bad as they are universally duplicates of each other. They all seem to very quickly identify and cite the same core problems with Gnome 3's usability, the specific and seemingly broken process which yielded Gnome 3, but also touch on Gnome's process failures and general lack of specification and healthy process.
I'm personally excited to see what all the brouhaha is about with Gnome 3 (hell, can always revert to Gnome 2 or KDE), and I say that as a current Gnome 2 user, but frankly, based on a wide number of reviews, I have exceptionally low expectations of Gnome 3.
Seriously, if you know of some good, unbiased Gnome 3 reviews, please post them here. Thus far, I've never read a single one.
Certainly depends on the war.
What massive technological improvements did we see as a result of the 6 day war?
Nice try in idiocy and trolling. Factually, the 6-day war was also deemed the end of tank warfare and the return to massive civilian deaths. As a result of such proclamations, the state of the art in metallurgy and material sciences received a boost. The resulting research has made advances to almost everything you see as "modern" today. Not to mention, composite armors are now standard fair on main battle tanks which means dramatically extended lives for tank crews.
Absolutely, the scale and scope of the war makes big differences and massive advances as a result of small wars, such as the six day war, are by far the exception. But then again, this is rather obvious. The longer and more protracted the war, the more money is going to be spent. If this is news to you, you're an idiot. The fact you mention this as somehow validating your point, extremely diminishes your credibility. Seriously, think about it. Derr...no money spent means no science earned. Its almost universally true in all aspects of life.
The rest of your bullshit is just that...baseless rhetoric and bullshit.
If you want to close your eyes and pretend the world doesn't exist, that's fine by me. It literally costs me nothing for you to be stupid and ignorant. If on the other hand, you want to evolve to the modern world, feel free to open your eyes and educate yourself.
Your response validates you are completely clueless on the subject matter.
Mediterranean diets are unpopular? I know a lot of awfully popular Greek restaurants.
Factually, this absolutely is NOT the most healthy diet. Factually, extremely low caloric, high fiber, low meat and no red meat diet is known to be the healthiest diet. Extremely few people follow this diet. So factually, its known to be extremely unpopular specifically because it means little flavor and the exclusion of most foods people enjoy eating. And to be clear, it absolutely has nothing to do with the Mediterranean food. The fact your present that as the only option validates you have no clue what you are talking about.
You seriously need to forget all the bullshit you think you know - because its wrong. Go bother to start reading about the life extension research. That research uses lots of nutritional studies. Some of which go way back. Furthermore, there are studies which date back decades which talk about culture/health which follows the uptake of food trends and colonization. Sugar is one such item which is known to cause a massive uptake on hundreds of diseases. Some of that research dates backs hundreds of years.
Furthermore, most doctors have absolute shit knowledge of nutrition. Hell, even nutritionists well tell you as such. Most doctors make absolutely no effort to follow or understand nutrition. As such, they are notoriously bad sources unless they are specifically studying nutrition. Keep in mind, only a decade or two back, the study of nutrition was openly mocked by doctors and especially the FDA. Hell, some idiot doctors are literally still telling people its impossible for vitamins to be absorbed from tablets - that was, after all, the party line as late at the late eighties.
At least I now understand why you have no clue what you're talking about.
You seem to be talking around in circles without a coherent statement.
I have a bit of a grasp on History and I plainly deny that: the only direct result of war is people being killed
Well, by you're own admission, you just contradicted yourself. Factually, history completely disagrees with you. The fact you state you know history and then directly contradict history to make your point, entirely invalidates your point as well as your credibility.
Everything else are indirect results and, as such, they could have been gotten by other ways -without the killing.
I never said they couldn't be obtained in a world of purely research driven science. But no one lives in that world. No one. Furthermore, its true that some advancements may eventually be made, but in what time span? A decade? A century? More? Like it or not, for example, WWII and the despicable medical experiments conducted by the Germans alone advanced the state of the art by fifty to a hundred years in medical understanding. Literally some of that research is still used today in new research. That doesn't justify the horrors conducted by the Germans but its fact nonetheless.
The simple fact is, almost all of the things on today's "modern" technology literally is because of WWII, the Cold War, and Vietnam. Is it possible that technology could have been developed elsewhere? Absolutely! But likely not for another fifty to hundred years.
As for societal improvements, literally almost the entire world contradicts you. Japan, Vietnam, Korea, are all typical examples which completely prove your notions to be false.
So while it may offend your polite company sensibilities, it doesn't validate your opinion in the least.
And those who are standing in line to wave their hands are also ignoring there are a number of additives specifically made to address these types of issues with concrete. Some are epoxies. Some are other materials which specifically work to bind-to and inhibit the reaction. Furthermore, some concretes are specifically created to cure with massive heat - though not likely for this specific issue.
Nonetheless, yes its certainly a technology complex situation but that doesn't mean there exists no solutions.