I didn't buy a dvd player for many years after the format was introduced. Something to do with initially costing £600 for a player, and no recording capability. I didn't buy a cd drive for my computer until years after they were available. DVD writer ? Not until they became cheap enough to be worth adding on. I have looked at getting a bluray writer, and although they are quite cheap, they are not cheap enough. Once we get down to £40 region they'll be worth the money.
I, perhaps mistakenly, have always assumed that a large proportion of/. posters are techs in one way or another. Yet you can pick any story, and find people who can't spell, can't parse a sentence and have poor comprehension, and yet they dive in to flame other posters because of their own poor understanding. They read the first few words and then fire off a reply taking no notice of the context, the tone, anything later in the post that explains the bit they didn't get. Whole pages are devoted to arguing over something nobody ever asserted in the first place. Ego is the issue, and you lot have it in spades. Combined with those other basic language issues and you have a recipe for going nowhere fast.
The guy who posted the examples of things he was asking at interview, all basic things for anybody who has ever expressed an interest in coding, and yet candidates with masters degrees couldn't do it. And then you get the idiots on here who try to defend the masters degree holders, without even taking notice that he never specified he wanted masters holders, they just applied. I can't see how they had the balls to apply for a job without knowing simple code for string substitution, or simple sql statements, or apparently what a variable is. I second his opinion - what have they been doing for all that time at school ?
1) If you had a string, and wanted to replace part of that string with another string, how would you do it?
s/$string/$newstring
2) How would you add 5 to each element in an array of integers?
3) How would you add 5 to a field of integers in an SQL table?
Don't know. I'm not a dbase programmer, but there may well be a built in command for this. Otherwise I would read, increment and rewrite as above with the array.
4) Write up any form of database "select" query. I don't expect it to parse, just have the basic pieces. Honestly, just a simple "Select field [, field2] from [table] where (conditions));" would suffice.
SELECT $record FROM $table WHERE $fieldname LIKE 'idiot';
5) In your language of choice, take a variable containing the value 5 and construct a sentence that says "I have 5 children".
#!/usr/bin/perl
$variable="5";
print "I have $variable children\n";
I have no tertiary education, I drive a truck for a living. So again, explain what these people have been doing for the last 6 years ?
Very basically it's reading a value off the top of the stack, incrementing it and pushing it back onto the stack. It could be causing an overflow, or adding time to a time limited trial. Your second question is ambiguous. What do you want doing with it (in the disassembler)? Fixing, or monitoring ? The consequences of that code are bound to be affecting something else, so the question is how or why.
There's even a phrase "Sticks to his guns", which I doubt you have run across much, if at all, in the UK.
WTF ?
You realise we had guns before the US even existed ? The phrase most likely comes from use in the Royal Navy as in "Stand by your guns". Somebody who didn't desert his post during a battle would be "sticking to his guns". The Royal Navy had guns in the 1500s.
As for cowboys, well anybody who spends their life largely outside authority, who seems to spend a lot of time "whooping" and "yeehawing" and also has no respect for others property, can not be surprised to find the term has negative connotations. If anybody other than a real cowboy is described in that manner, then I would hazard that it is indeed a pejorative term.
This has nothing to do with HTML 5 or the video tag. The javascript is used to create a fallback path for users who don't have a particular codec installed. It is not compulsory. Most linux machines install ogg theora with a media player package anyway, it's the rest of the world that need to download it.
Exactly. I think I've su'd once in the last month, and that was yesterday to mount a ram disk to use as the Firefox disk cache. That was a nice tip BTW, significant speedup in page loads and UI responsiveness.
mount -t tmpfs -o 'size=100M' tmpfs/path/to/chosen/mountpoint
Create an about:config preference called browser.cache.disk.parent_directory with a string value of/path/to/chosen/mountpoint.
You do need to restart the browser for it to take effect. I also chowned the ram disk to my user name so that FF can write to it. 100MB is probably a bit too big, but when I set it as 50MB it filled up. I'll tweak it later when I see what is usual for the cache. It's currently running at 47.47MB with 2 tabs, and I'm not anal about avoiding closing the browser if I'm not using it.
If the "secret police" catch you, the fucking last thing to worry about is "plausible deniability". This isn't the White House, or the Senate. You don't get your "phone call". If the secret police catch you, you suffer. No trial, no evidence, no representation. Worrying about hiding stuff on a phone is moot. Just be glad if you are released alive.
How exactly is a library better than the Internet if Google digitizes all the books, the same ones that are in the library, and puts them online so everyone can access them from everywhere AND electronically search them.
Because I can pretty much guarantee that what a book says today, it will say tomorrow. Short of mass book burning, nobody is going to rewrite all the books. It is pretty simple to edit some text and replace a file online such that no-one could ever prove otherwise. Should 18th century literature be edited to remove all references to the word nigger or golliwog ? Have we really always been at war with Oceania ?
Just because you haven't figured out how to filter noise is your problem, not a universal one.
Even if that sentence made sense, you seem to miss one important fact. Yes you can filter out the noise to find or establish a fact. But how many people can then benefit from that work ? One - you. If anybody else needs to find out the same thing, they have to repeat the same process you did, and they may not necessarily come up with an identical result. A book has facts written in it. The same facts will be there tomorrow and a year later, they are verifiable by others and can be found easily by others, "just go to p 183 of Jones". This is why they are called 'hard' facts. "Just fucking google it" is not an improvement, and it is a waste of humanities time to keep repeating things when if they are written down and catalogued correctly, then everybody can benefit from a one time effort. Most of what you find on the net is opinion, and erroneous at that. How are you supposed to learn something when in order to separate the wheat from the chaff, you need to already know what is accurate ? Consequently you have to rely on many many sources and see if you can rule the erroneous ones out by using consensus. How is that easier than having all the relevant facts in one place, already sorted, established as true, and not cluttered by amateur opinions - ie. in a book.
The internet appears to make information easier to access, but at the cost of permanence. If I read something on the net which I later rely on in court, there is a very real chance that if I go back to read it again, it no longer says the same thing. That may be for good reasons or bad, but either way it makes me look like a tit. At least with a book I can prove that I'm not making it up, the words are still there on the printed page. If the book's outdated, then fair enough, but I didn't get the information out of my ass. Try doing that with the net. Or should I take screenshots of everything to try and back up my assertions ? Hope nobody realises you can fake or edit screenshots.
Remember the saying "Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it". With the internet there is no history, only the present. And people are already making old mistakes because of that.
I remember a short story, 'The Fun They Had' by Asimov (set in 2155)- where a young boy and girl find a book in the attic and are surprised because when they turn back a page the words are the same as they were before. "How wasteful" they think. Not like the modern telescreens where once you have read a page it changes to something new. This was written before the internet existed, but is/was quite prescient. How can you have knowledge if you can never be sure that it will exist tomorrow ? (the story doesn't make that point - in fact it's about teachers and school, but the reference to a hard copy of a book is the relevant part here).
As an example of serendipity, I couldn't remember the name of that story or the author, so I tried googling it, but couldn't remember enough of the story to find anything helpful about it. So I turned to my bookshelf, and after thinking for a while remembered the book it was in and sure enough there it was. It still has the same words, the same pages, the same cover. It has needed no power to maintain it for years and it will probably survive many more years in exactly the same form. It was printed in 1974.
You are an idiot then. Just last week there was a story on the web site of my local newspaper. It was a follow up to an earlier story but they provided no link to the earlier story for reference. I spent an hour trying to find that earlier story using their site search, google site search, google cache, wayback machine, everything available. That story is gone from the net, completely and forever. And that wasn't even deliberately done, AFAIK. So it is perfectly possible for an Orwellian future to develop where history is dictated by those with the power to write and rewrite it at their whim.
If I had bought the hard copy of the newspaper, I would at least have proof that there was in fact an earlier version of the story, but relying on the net is foolish.
'For so long as copyright holders think like short-timers, seeking a quick buck instead of a healthy competitive marketplace, they're doomed to work for their gatekeepers,' he says.
No, that's exactly the problem. Maybe it's not obvious to those trying to make the money, but it is to the people who copyright is supposed to benefit, ie. us. Copyright is supposed to grant an author limited time to cover the costs of production. If they can make a profit during that time, good for them. If they can't, tough. The way he speaks encourages the conception that holding a copyright constitutes an income stream, he treats it as a given. It was never intended for that purpose, and this is why there is so much trouble with it currently. Copyright holders ARE short timers. If they want to benefit from copyright, they should produce new works, not rely on a never ending stream of income from old works. If they can't cover their costs sufficiently from a copyrighted work, that is not a failure of the copyright system, it is a failure on their part to produce a popular work or to market it correctly. They should not be able to extend the length of copyright just because they haven't made enough money yet.
How much does it cost to live for a year ? Let's call it X. If it takes you a year to create a work, then that figure X plus publishing costs(Y) are all the recompense you can reasonably expect to recoup from copyright. If you make X+Y+2 or 2(X+Y) then you're doing well. But once you have recouped X+Y copyright has fulfilled its purpose. Maybe that takes a year, maybe it takes 5 years but in any case you should be working on your next creation. If you run it right and your works are popular you end up with an income stream. If you sit on your arse, expecting copyright to make things turn out all right, you will be disappointed. Similarly, if you expect one work to cover X+Y before you start the next work, you will be disappointed. No-one in the world has the luxury of sitting back like that. I don't do a weeks work then think I can now have a week off. You have to build a margin of financial safety before you can interrupt your work. Expecting copyright to guarantee that margin is not a sound business plan.
If you write a song, say it takes you a day. How much is a person reasonably due for a days work ? $1000 sound fair ? If you sing that song and get paid $50 for each performance, it will take 20 performances to cover the costs of creating that song. If you record it and it sells 2000 copies (@ $0.99), is it still reasonable to claim you are owed recompense for the creation ? Especially since after the recording is done you essentially don't do any more work on that song. Now lets allow you to claim money for life plus 50 years on that song. Is that anywhere near reasonable ?
I suggest it isn't.
Reform copyright, and let's get those artists back to work !
them, "allowing them to search for video." If you permit a user to do something you allow them to do it. Nothing grammatically wrong with that at all. Unless you have already specified a particular person. If a worker needed to leave early, I would allow them to go. If Dave needed to leave early, I would allow him to go. etc.
So what happens if it rings my home phone and my mobile and a relative picks up at home ? Does that mean I am basically going to have to pick one or the other for the google voice number to connect to, in which case it will have to be the mobile. And the point is... ?
Who has an 8 minute timeout ?
Mine's 5 minutes, and I've not changed it from default (2.0.54 ):
# Timeout: The number of seconds before receives and sends time out. # Timeout 300
# # KeepAlive: Whether or not to allow persistent connections (more than # one request per connection). Set to "Off" to deactivate. # KeepAlive Off
# # MaxKeepAliveRequests: The maximum number of requests to allow # during a persistent connection. Set to 0 to allow an unlimited amount. # We recommend you leave this number high, for maximum performance. # MaxKeepAliveRequests 100
# # KeepAliveTimeout: Number of seconds to wait for the next request from the # same client on the same connection. # KeepAliveTimeout 15
Why should 3rd parties have to provide tools to make their product work with a competitors product ? Besides which you can easily have a local repo for your customised Firefox and set them to all get their updates from that.. ( about:config app.update.* )
And how long will it take for them to figure out they need a hole in the firewall (or leave the browser running 24/7) before anybody can see it ? And how long before those people leave private documents in the public folder and then bitch about it ?
The whole summary is a troll. All the other servers were faster without exception, but they take the conclusion that this is good ? Are we supposed to rip out our lamp stacks now and run opera on our co-lo servers ? I don't think so. As for ease of use, I installed fedora and selected the server items during the install. All I had to do then was put files in the relevant folder - not rocket science. If I wanted to do it post-install it's just add/remove programs, and the same result. And none of my stuff gets sniffed as it passes though operas gateway.
So the great guitarist Andy McKee, chooses to insult and rant at 8,676 potential customers. Does that make him stupid or insightful ? How do I know he is a great guitarist without a)knowing who the fuck he is, b)risking my hard earned money in a crap shoot down at the record store, c)downloading a track or an album and deciding for myself ? He sounds like he feels he has a right to make as much money as he can from people who haven't even heard his work yet. I've never heard him on the radio or seen his name before today. He obviously records music to make money, not to enjoy being creative. How would he have felt if there were NO leechers ?
You only lost 10kph. If you had let it slow down to 0 your calculations would account for the whole speed of the vehicle, as it is they account for a minute fraction which you then take as the figure for the whole. The calculations maybe correct, your conclusion is not. At best 2.4kW is the extra energy needed to get from 90 to 100kph, although I suspect on the way up it would require more.
Read more. Most figures that I can find say you need between 10 and 30hp (depending on size/type of car) to maintain 60mph which for 30hp is 22.4kW. You also neglected to account for the alternator which can use 4 hp by itself, and the radiator fan which can use another 4 hp if it's belt driven. Were your lights on, the radio ? How heavy are you ? How were you tyres inflated ? Was a window open ? You coasted when you slowed down, which is not the same as constant drive which requires power. When the throttle is closed there is very little air being mixed with the fuel, which makes it look inefficient, but you never normally drive with the throttle closed.
When I said "You need 44kW to maintain 100kph" I meant you need 44kW to attain 100kph. Maintaining it will need less, but not less than half. ICEs are built to be at their most efficient at 90kph, so deliberately building something to waste 95% of the available energy would be at cross purposes.
Very nice numbers but a false conclusion. It does not take only 2.4kW to keep the car at 100kph, that is how much kinetic energy you lost by dropping 10kph. What about the other 90kph ? The figure is low because you are on wheels and the whole thing is designed to have low rolling resistance. The fact that you only lost 2.4kW shows that. You need 44kW to maintain 100kph. If the engine was only 5% efficient it would not be in production.
Having looked at the pictures in TFA, the plate doesn't seem too efficient. If they had small depressable ramps like in car park entrances then the momentum of the car would depress the ramp, even if you turned the engine off. As you are supposed to be stopping anyway, you've not wasted the energy in heat on the brakes, just transferred it to the ramp and the generator. You already used the fuel to get up to speed, you need no more to slow down.
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't buy a dvd player for many years after the format was introduced. Something to do with initially costing £600 for a player, and no recording capability. I didn't buy a cd drive for my computer until years after they were available. DVD writer ? Not until they became cheap enough to be worth adding on. I have looked at getting a bluray writer, and although they are quite cheap, they are not cheap enough. Once we get down to £40 region they'll be worth the money.
I, perhaps mistakenly, have always assumed that a large proportion of /. posters are techs in one way or another. Yet you can pick any story, and find people who can't spell, can't parse a sentence and have poor comprehension, and yet they dive in to flame other posters because of their own poor understanding. They read the first few words and then fire off a reply taking no notice of the context, the tone, anything later in the post that explains the bit they didn't get. Whole pages are devoted to arguing over something nobody ever asserted in the first place. Ego is the issue, and you lot have it in spades. Combined with those other basic language issues and you have a recipe for going nowhere fast.
The guy who posted the examples of things he was asking at interview, all basic things for anybody who has ever expressed an interest in coding, and yet candidates with masters degrees couldn't do it. And then you get the idiots on here who try to defend the masters degree holders, without even taking notice that he never specified he wanted masters holders, they just applied. I can't see how they had the balls to apply for a job without knowing simple code for string substitution, or simple sql statements, or apparently what a variable is. I second his opinion - what have they been doing for all that time at school ?
1) If you had a string, and wanted to replace part of that string with another string, how would you do it?
2) How would you add 5 to each element in an array of integers?
3) How would you add 5 to a field of integers in an SQL table?
Don't know. I'm not a dbase programmer, but there may well be a built in command for this. Otherwise I would read, increment and rewrite as above with the array.
4) Write up any form of database "select" query. I don't expect it to parse, just have the basic pieces. Honestly, just a simple "Select field [, field2] from [table] where (conditions));" would suffice.
5) In your language of choice, take a variable containing the value 5 and construct a sentence that says "I have 5 children".
I have no tertiary education, I drive a truck for a living. So again, explain what these people have been doing for the last 6 years ?
Very basically it's reading a value off the top of the stack, incrementing it and pushing it back onto the stack. It could be causing an overflow, or adding time to a time limited trial. Your second question is ambiguous. What do you want doing with it (in the disassembler)? Fixing, or monitoring ? The consequences of that code are bound to be affecting something else, so the question is how or why.
WTF ?
You realise we had guns before the US even existed ? The phrase most likely comes from use in the Royal Navy as in "Stand by your guns". Somebody who didn't desert his post during a battle would be "sticking to his guns". The Royal Navy had guns in the 1500s.
As for cowboys, well anybody who spends their life largely outside authority, who seems to spend a lot of time "whooping" and "yeehawing" and also has no respect for others property, can not be surprised to find the term has negative connotations. If anybody other than a real cowboy is described in that manner, then I would hazard that it is indeed a pejorative term.
This has nothing to do with HTML 5 or the video tag. The javascript is used to create a fallback path for users who don't have a particular codec installed. It is not compulsory. Most linux machines install ogg theora with a media player package anyway, it's the rest of the world that need to download it.
Exactly. I think I've su'd once in the last month, and that was yesterday to mount a ram disk to use as the Firefox disk cache. That was a nice tip BTW, significant speedup in page loads and UI responsiveness.
/path/to/chosen/mountpoint
/path/to/chosen/mountpoint .
mount -t tmpfs -o 'size=100M' tmpfs
Create an about:config preference called browser.cache.disk.parent_directory with a string value of
You do need to restart the browser for it to take effect. I also chowned the ram disk to my user name so that FF can write to it. 100MB is probably a bit too big, but when I set it as 50MB it filled up. I'll tweak it later when I see what is usual for the cache. It's currently running at 47.47MB with 2 tabs, and I'm not anal about avoiding closing the browser if I'm not using it.
If the "secret police" catch you, the fucking last thing to worry about is "plausible deniability". This isn't the White House, or the Senate. You don't get your "phone call". If the secret police catch you, you suffer. No trial, no evidence, no representation. Worrying about hiding stuff on a phone is moot. Just be glad if you are released alive.
Because I can pretty much guarantee that what a book says today, it will say tomorrow. Short of mass book burning, nobody is going to rewrite all the books. It is pretty simple to edit some text and replace a file online such that no-one could ever prove otherwise. Should 18th century literature be edited to remove all references to the word nigger or golliwog ? Have we really always been at war with Oceania ?
Even if that sentence made sense, you seem to miss one important fact. Yes you can filter out the noise to find or establish a fact. But how many people can then benefit from that work ?
One - you.
If anybody else needs to find out the same thing, they have to repeat the same process you did, and they may not necessarily come up with an identical result. A book has facts written in it. The same facts will be there tomorrow and a year later, they are verifiable by others and can be found easily by others, "just go to p 183 of Jones". This is why they are called 'hard' facts.
"Just fucking google it" is not an improvement, and it is a waste of humanities time to keep repeating things when if they are written down and catalogued correctly, then everybody can benefit from a one time effort. Most of what you find on the net is opinion, and erroneous at that. How are you supposed to learn something when in order to separate the wheat from the chaff, you need to already know what is accurate ? Consequently you have to rely on many many sources and see if you can rule the erroneous ones out by using consensus. How is that easier than having all the relevant facts in one place, already sorted, established as true, and not cluttered by amateur opinions - ie. in a book.
The internet appears to make information easier to access, but at the cost of permanence. If I read something on the net which I later rely on in court, there is a very real chance that if I go back to read it again, it no longer says the same thing. That may be for good reasons or bad, but either way it makes me look like a tit. At least with a book I can prove that I'm not making it up, the words are still there on the printed page. If the book's outdated, then fair enough, but I didn't get the information out of my ass. Try doing that with the net. Or should I take screenshots of everything to try and back up my assertions ? Hope nobody realises you can fake or edit screenshots.
Remember the saying "Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it". With the internet there is no history, only the present. And people are already making old mistakes because of that.
I remember a short story, 'The Fun They Had' by Asimov (set in 2155)- where a young boy and girl find a book in the attic and are surprised because when they turn back a page the words are the same as they were before. "How wasteful" they think. Not like the modern telescreens where once you have read a page it changes to something new. This was written before the internet existed, but is/was quite prescient. How can you have knowledge if you can never be sure that it will exist tomorrow ? (the story doesn't make that point - in fact it's about teachers and school, but the reference to a hard copy of a book is the relevant part here).
As an example of serendipity, I couldn't remember the name of that story or the author, so I tried googling it, but couldn't remember enough of the story to find anything helpful about it. So I turned to my bookshelf, and after thinking for a while remembered the book it was in and sure enough there it was. It still has the same words, the same pages, the same cover. It has needed no power to maintain it for years and it will probably survive many more years in exactly the same form. It was printed in 1974.
You are an idiot then. Just last week there was a story on the web site of my local newspaper. It was a follow up to an earlier story but they provided no link to the earlier story for reference. I spent an hour trying to find that earlier story using their site search, google site search, google cache, wayback machine, everything available. That story is gone from the net, completely and forever. And that wasn't even deliberately done, AFAIK. So it is perfectly possible for an Orwellian future to develop where history is dictated by those with the power to write and rewrite it at their whim.
If I had bought the hard copy of the newspaper, I would at least have proof that there was in fact an earlier version of the story, but relying on the net is foolish.
No, that's exactly the problem. Maybe it's not obvious to those trying to make the money, but it is to the people who copyright is supposed to benefit, ie. us.
Copyright is supposed to grant an author limited time to cover the costs of production. If they can make a profit during that time, good for them. If they can't, tough. The way he speaks encourages the conception that holding a copyright constitutes an income stream, he treats it as a given. It was never intended for that purpose, and this is why there is so much trouble with it currently.
Copyright holders ARE short timers. If they want to benefit from copyright, they should produce new works, not rely on a never ending stream of income from old works. If they can't cover their costs sufficiently from a copyrighted work, that is not a failure of the copyright system, it is a failure on their part to produce a popular work or to market it correctly. They should not be able to extend the length of copyright just because they haven't made enough money yet.
How much does it cost to live for a year ? Let's call it X. If it takes you a year to create a work, then that figure X plus publishing costs(Y) are all the recompense you can reasonably expect to recoup from copyright. If you make X+Y+2 or 2(X+Y) then you're doing well. But once you have recouped X+Y copyright has fulfilled its purpose. Maybe that takes a year, maybe it takes 5 years but in any case you should be working on your next creation. If you run it right and your works are popular you end up with an income stream. If you sit on your arse, expecting copyright to make things turn out all right, you will be disappointed. Similarly, if you expect one work to cover X+Y before you start the next work, you will be disappointed. No-one in the world has the luxury of sitting back like that. I don't do a weeks work then think I can now have a week off. You have to build a margin of financial safety before you can interrupt your work. Expecting copyright to guarantee that margin is not a sound business plan.
If you write a song, say it takes you a day. How much is a person reasonably due for a days work ? $1000 sound fair ? If you sing that song and get paid $50 for each performance, it will take 20 performances to cover the costs of creating that song. If you record it and it sells 2000 copies (@ $0.99), is it still reasonable to claim you are owed recompense for the creation ? Especially since after the recording is done you essentially don't do any more work on that song. Now lets allow you to claim money for life plus 50 years on that song. Is that anywhere near reasonable ?
I suggest it isn't.
Reform copyright, and let's get those artists back to work !
them, "allowing them to search for video." If you permit a user to do something you allow them to do it. Nothing grammatically wrong with that at all. Unless you have already specified a particular person.
If a worker needed to leave early, I would allow them to go.
If Dave needed to leave early, I would allow him to go.
etc.
That's no anus - THIS is an anus ....
I'll leave the link out shall I ?
especially as most Iranians would call it Farsi, not Persian.
http://www.kwintessential.co.uk/articles/article/Iran/Language-in-Iran/121
The ones I know do.
So what happens if it rings my home phone and my mobile and a relative picks up at home ? Does that mean I am basically going to have to pick one or the other for the google voice number to connect to, in which case it will have to be the mobile. And the point is... ?
Classic
LOL
Best nutter^H^H^H^H Doctor evar !
Mine's 5 minutes, and I've not changed it from default (2.0.54 )
Why should 3rd parties have to provide tools to make their product work with a competitors product ? Besides which you can easily have a local repo for your customised Firefox and set them to all get their updates from that.. ( about:config app.update.* )
And how long will it take for them to figure out they need a hole in the firewall (or leave the browser running 24/7) before anybody can see it ? And how long before those people leave private documents in the public folder and then bitch about it ?
The whole summary is a troll. All the other servers were faster without exception, but they take the conclusion that this is good ? Are we supposed to rip out our lamp stacks now and run opera on our co-lo servers ? I don't think so. As for ease of use, I installed fedora and selected the server items during the install. All I had to do then was put files in the relevant folder - not rocket science. If I wanted to do it post-install it's just add/remove programs, and the same result. And none of my stuff gets sniffed as it passes though operas gateway.
So the great guitarist Andy McKee, chooses to insult and rant at 8,676 potential customers. Does that make him stupid or insightful ? How do I know he is a great guitarist without a)knowing who the fuck he is, b)risking my hard earned money in a crap shoot down at the record store, c)downloading a track or an album and deciding for myself ?
He sounds like he feels he has a right to make as much money as he can from people who haven't even heard his work yet. I've never heard him on the radio or seen his name before today. He obviously records music to make money, not to enjoy being creative. How would he have felt if there were NO leechers ?
You only lost 10kph. If you had let it slow down to 0 your calculations would account for the whole speed of the vehicle, as it is they account for a minute fraction which you then take as the figure for the whole. The calculations maybe correct, your conclusion is not. At best 2.4kW is the extra energy needed to get from 90 to 100kph, although I suspect on the way up it would require more.
Read more. Most figures that I can find say you need between 10 and 30hp (depending on size/type of car) to maintain 60mph which for 30hp is 22.4kW. You also neglected to account for the alternator which can use 4 hp by itself, and the radiator fan which can use another 4 hp if it's belt driven. Were your lights on, the radio ? How heavy are you ? How were you tyres inflated ? Was a window open ? You coasted when you slowed down, which is not the same as constant drive which requires power. When the throttle is closed there is very little air being mixed with the fuel, which makes it look inefficient, but you never normally drive with the throttle closed.
Your figures are far too simplistic.
No, I'm correcting what you said. Do you need me to spoon feed you the reason ?
When I said "You need 44kW to maintain 100kph" I meant you need 44kW to attain 100kph. Maintaining it will need less, but not less than half. ICEs are built to be at their most efficient at 90kph, so deliberately building something to waste 95% of the available energy would be at cross purposes.
Very nice numbers but a false conclusion. It does not take only 2.4kW to keep the car at 100kph, that is how much kinetic energy you lost by dropping 10kph. What about the other 90kph ? The figure is low because you are on wheels and the whole thing is designed to have low rolling resistance. The fact that you only lost 2.4kW shows that. You need 44kW to maintain 100kph. If the engine was only 5% efficient it would not be in production.
Having looked at the pictures in TFA, the plate doesn't seem too efficient. If they had small depressable ramps like in car park entrances then the momentum of the car would depress the ramp, even if you turned the engine off. As you are supposed to be stopping anyway, you've not wasted the energy in heat on the brakes, just transferred it to the ramp and the generator. You already used the fuel to get up to speed, you need no more to slow down.