Trucks do not cause 200x the damage of cars. Each axle (in the EU) is limited to 8 tonnes, which means 4 tonnes per wheel so roughly 8x the weight of a cars wheel. But read below for more on that. Also, at least in the UK, they ripped up most of the branch lines for the railways in the 1960s and so unless you are delivering to a very narrow corridor, you don't get close to more than 10% of the towns.
There are also many whiners in the UK who think that trucks should be banned and everything done by trains and small vans. They simply don't do the maths. Consider this: 1 truck (44,000kg gross) carries 30,000 kg of goods, at a fuel usage rate of around 10mpg. To carry the same amount of goods by small van (3500kg gross, 1500kg net) would require 20 small vans achieving around 25 mpg. Which is more efficient ? 1 vehicle making one trip, or 20 small vehicles making 1 trip, or 1 small vehicle making 20 trips ? The answer is obvious. If the trip is 100 miles, the truck uses 10 gallons. The small van uses 8 gallons for each return trip and needs 20 return trips = 160 gallons. The truck can return empty and still save 140 gallons of fuel over the small van. If you don't want to take 15 to 20 times as long to do the job, small vans will need 20x the road tax, and 20x the maintenance costs, and 20x more drivers. Not to mention the extra congestion from having 20 vehicles instead of 1 (which only takes up about the space of 3 small vans). Also, as a professional driver, I am more likely to see damage to road signs, street lights, crash barriers, and pedestrians caused by cars and by small vans than by trucks. Add that lot into your costings. And trucks pay 10 to 15 times the amount of road tax, and the fuel is more expensive than petrol (due to taxes).
Sure if you could transport the goods by train and just do the last leg by truck, that would help, but here's a tip - they already do that ! The trains can't cope with the traffic. In the time it takes to load containers from a ship onto a train you can load multiple trucks and reload the ship and start on the next ship. They have holding yards to load trains just because it takes so long. You can load 40 trucks in the time it takes to load 1 box onto a train.
So while planes might be greener than trains, trucks beat everything for real world bulk efficiency.
The supermarket has an online store these days. I use it all the time. It costs £5 delivery, but I don't have to drive, I don't have to queue, the vans they use can carry 20 or thirty peoples shopping (reducing road congestion) and I can specify the hour they deliver. Win win all round I think.
Rubbish. The homes are already using fossil fuels, not wind power. The wind farms are extra, so the trains are NOT using power that could be used for other things. Unless you mean new build homes, but that's also silly as you are still NOT using fossil fuels for all requirements, just some. No "extra" about it.
I don't know if that's true. Here's a link from 2007.
Also, from May this year...
Do U.S. airlines also pay fuel taxes ?
At the federal level, airlines pay 4.4 cents for every gallon consumed on a domestic flight. Of that amount, 4.3 cents goes to the Airport and Airway Trust Fund while 0.1 cents supports the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Fund. In addition, in most states airlines pay a flat rate per gallon or an ad valorem sales tax on the purchase of fuel. In California, for example, airlines pay a fuel tax in excess of 8.0 percent of the price of jet fuel. So if the price of jet fuel purchased in California were to double, our tax would double as well, generating substantial revenue for the state's treasury.
Also, in the UK at least, we do pay a tax on air travel to the airline, whether that is to cover govt. imposed taxes or not I don't know.
You don't need active tracking. In the northern hemisphere, as long as the panels are aligned south, they will get the sun all day, and the reverse in the southern hemisphere. Assuming no cloud cover of course. Active tracking is for use with mirror based systems.
The alternator doesn't care, but your MPG suffers every time the alternator spins. You can get quite a few more useful HP out of an engine if you remove the alternator completely. And if the rest of your claptrap were true, manufacturers would not be using LEDs in tail lights, dashboard instruments, turn signals etc etc. Less demand means smaller alternator, means more useful power to the wheels, means more MPG.
By catching and holding much of an areas rainfall, and extracting water from rivers you prevent it from replenishing the underground aquifers and the water table drops over time. One day, a field you didn't have to irrigate goes dry. The Columbia river is a shadow of its former self due to demands for irrigation and potable water.
So be as smug as you like, it will catch up with you.
It looks fine on Firefox 2.0.0.20 and I also have the new threading turned off. Too much javascript as usual. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. I have never seen the white on white comment titles people bitch about either.
Why don't they levy an additional tax on retail sales and call it the "shoplifter arrest and incarceration tax".
They probably already do. Why do you think cities have their own taxes to pay for local law enforcement and other services. The internet has escaped local taxes other than sales tax, so where should the extra money to provide online law enforcement come from ? By charging everybody, including people who don't use the internet, or just those who do ?
Wrong.
If he had said "I was uploading pirated movies" that would be correct.
But he actually said "if I was to upload pirated movies"
the critical point is the "to upload".
He used the infinitive of the verb "upload" implying that it would be a future event, so he should have used were, not was.
Was implies the action had taken place, were (in this context) implies possible action in the future.
Fucking hillbillies.
That's not really bundling now, is it? How do they server(sic) this list to the user? Must be a webpage, Shirley?
It is a bundle of options. Anonymous FTP ? FTP is included in Windows installs. And if you're using a GUI then you can run commands based on responses from a graphical form. Why are you trying to make this seem difficult ?
99% of computer lusers are not relevant to linux. I wish people would stop trying to force linux to conform to the ideas of people who just want a fucking appliance. Can you imagine ham radio enthusiasts being forced to fine tune their equipment and knowledge to suit people who only ever listen to FM pap radio ? Fucking piss off and do your own thing. You make the mistake of thinking that a majority of linux users want linux to be mainstream on the desktop. The only issue is hardware support, and that is a marginal case at best. Most of us are doing just fine without being mainstream thanks. The only people calling for "linux on the desktop" have another agenda, usually control (ironically).
The only limit to what I can do on a linux system is MY brain. On the proprietary OSes you are limited to what THEY allow you to do. Don't try to force linux down the same path. You know that the top 5% of the population have much higher IQ ? Why should linux ever get more than 5% Desktop penetration ? If it does then either IQ levels are rising or linux is being dumbed down. Given the state of education, I think the former is unlikely. Yes if that's elitist, bite me. Don't expect me to conform to a lower standard than I am capable of, respect MY rights. Do you expect top restaurants to conform to McDonalds standards to grow their market share, or would that be stupid ?
It's all very well wishing more people used linux because it is better, but what you're really wishing for is more intelligent people. Just throwing idiots in to make up the numbers doesn't help. It has to be self selecting, or you remove the very thing that makes it better.
Linux and the BSDs are the last remnants of what computing used to be like, when everybody had a clue about what they were doing, and respected the system. The proprietary OSes seek to obscure the system, and their users abuse the system and each other. AOL ruined the internet, and Microsoft ruined true computing. So I say No, to ads promoting linux, and No to Ubuntu and its ilk. If you're any good, you'll get there anyway.
BTW, it is unbelievably hard to find SATA RAID cards that are recognized by Linux (same reason it's hard to find good progams).
Silicon Image, Inc. SiI 3114 [SATALink/SATARaid] Serial ATA Controller Found on various boards, cost less than £10 each. I have 4, and each has 4 ports. Picked up instantly by an existing install of FC4. Maybe you're not looking hard enough (or at all). Haven't looked for a SATA II version yet.
I remember when anything over 48 bit encryption was deemed "munitions" and as a UK resident I was not allowed to download the 128bit SSL version of IE or Netscape. All the versions available legally in the UK on cd were 48 bit. Didn't stop me though - in fact it made me go the other way. I ended up becoming part of the Thawte Web of trust and was using 2048 bit encryption for email ! It all seemed a bit petty. As does this. It reminds me of the daily 2 minutes hate.
While all you said is fair enough, sometimes not knowing the basics can get you in trouble. When steering wasn't so positive, or your brakes weren't as efficient, you learned how to handle several tons of metal. So when you threw it into a corner, you could feel the car lean into the corner, and you knew instinctively when it was likely to break away from you. These days, you just point and shoot, and the result is lots of cars hitting each other or leaving the road.
Plus the ease of use of modern vehicles means that they are mechanically abused beyond anything an older car would be. People use brakes for everything, don't bother to drop down a gear when slowing down or when speeding up again (yes you can do that on autos) and generally treat it like a funfair ride. Together with the ICE which prevents you from hearing your engine, or that of other vehicles, modern driving has become an insular past-time, which does not promote cooperation and mutual respect on the roads.
And ABS doesn't mean you stop quicker - it just removes the chance of skidding, so you can retain steering ability. Any decent driver wouldn't need to be hitting the brakes that hard in the first place. Most deceleration manoeuvres can be accomplished simply by dropping the throttle earlier, and changing down a gear. Observation is the key.
If you prefer not being limited by the tools, you still have to bear in mind that they are still limited to what is possible or safe. Unless you understand that, you will end up going wrong, and you won't be able to push those limits responsibly.
I spent just about $40,000 the last time I was in the US (In restaurants, hotels and cars and air fares mostly). I was there for less than 4 months. I've not been back since you started treating me like a criminal. I first arrived November 2001. I had less hassle then than now, and that was 2 months after 9/11.
The only problem I can see with all your comments is that you are assuming this took place a long time ago. We know that Mars can reach the mid 20s C and we also know that there are massive periodic dust storms. Don't you think the storms would have eroded away the water gullies, or at least filled them with dust by now ? So I would say the formations are a lot more recent than "in the ancient past when Mars had a bigger atmosphere".
Slashdot Mirror
Trucks do not cause 200x the damage of cars. Each axle (in the EU) is limited to 8 tonnes, which means 4 tonnes per wheel so roughly 8x the weight of a cars wheel. But read below for more on that.
:
Also, at least in the UK, they ripped up most of the branch lines for the railways in the 1960s and so unless you are delivering to a very narrow corridor, you don't get close to more than 10% of the towns.
There are also many whiners in the UK who think that trucks should be banned and everything done by trains and small vans. They simply don't do the maths.
Consider this
1 truck (44,000kg gross) carries 30,000 kg of goods, at a fuel usage rate of around 10mpg. To carry the same amount of goods by small van (3500kg gross, 1500kg net) would require 20 small vans achieving around 25 mpg. Which is more efficient ? 1 vehicle making one trip, or 20 small vehicles making 1 trip, or 1 small vehicle making 20 trips ?
The answer is obvious.
If the trip is 100 miles, the truck uses 10 gallons. The small van uses 8 gallons for each return trip and needs 20 return trips = 160 gallons. The truck can return empty and still save 140 gallons of fuel over the small van. If you don't want to take 15 to 20 times as long to do the job, small vans will need 20x the road tax, and 20x the maintenance costs, and 20x more drivers. Not to mention the extra congestion from having 20 vehicles instead of 1 (which only takes up about the space of 3 small vans).
Also, as a professional driver, I am more likely to see damage to road signs, street lights, crash barriers, and pedestrians caused by cars and by small vans than by trucks. Add that lot into your costings. And trucks pay 10 to 15 times the amount of road tax, and the fuel is more expensive than petrol (due to taxes).
Sure if you could transport the goods by train and just do the last leg by truck, that would help, but here's a tip - they already do that ! The trains can't cope with the traffic. In the time it takes to load containers from a ship onto a train you can load multiple trucks and reload the ship and start on the next ship. They have holding yards to load trains just because it takes so long. You can load 40 trucks in the time it takes to load 1 box onto a train.
So while planes might be greener than trains, trucks beat everything for real world bulk efficiency.
The supermarket has an online store these days. I use it all the time. It costs £5 delivery, but I don't have to drive, I don't have to queue, the vans they use can carry 20 or thirty peoples shopping (reducing road congestion) and I can specify the hour they deliver. Win win all round I think.
Rubbish. The homes are already using fossil fuels, not wind power. The wind farms are extra, so the trains are NOT using power that could be used for other things. Unless you mean new build homes, but that's also silly as you are still NOT using fossil fuels for all requirements, just some. No "extra" about it.
I drive to Cornwall (Helston) regularly, and in an otherwise cloudless day, the only visible clouds are directly over the (military) airport. Always.
Also, from May this year
Do U.S. airlines also pay fuel taxes ?
At the federal level, airlines pay 4.4 cents for every gallon consumed on a domestic flight. Of that amount, 4.3 cents goes to the Airport and Airway Trust Fund while 0.1 cents supports the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Fund. In addition, in most states airlines pay a flat rate per gallon or an ad valorem sales tax on the purchase of fuel. In California, for example, airlines pay a fuel tax in excess of 8.0 percent of the price of jet fuel. So if the price of jet fuel purchased in California were to double, our tax would double as well, generating substantial revenue for the state's treasury.
Also, in the UK at least, we do pay a tax on air travel to the airline, whether that is to cover govt. imposed taxes or not I don't know.
You don't need active tracking. In the northern hemisphere, as long as the panels are aligned south, they will get the sun all day, and the reverse in the southern hemisphere. Assuming no cloud cover of course. Active tracking is for use with mirror based systems.
The alternator doesn't care, but your MPG suffers every time the alternator spins. You can get quite a few more useful HP out of an engine if you remove the alternator completely. And if the rest of your claptrap were true, manufacturers would not be using LEDs in tail lights, dashboard instruments, turn signals etc etc. Less demand means smaller alternator, means more useful power to the wheels, means more MPG.
As for TTL, bollox mate.
http://www.rapidonline.com/Electronic-Components/Optoelectronics/Miniature-Lamps/Sixcess-LED-Lamp-12V-white-E12/75832/kw/12v+led
http://www.rapidonline.com/searchresults.aspx?style=0&kw=12v+led
Yet.
By catching and holding much of an areas rainfall, and extracting water from rivers you prevent it from replenishing the underground aquifers and the water table drops over time. One day, a field you didn't have to irrigate goes dry. The Columbia river is a shadow of its former self due to demands for irrigation and potable water.
So be as smug as you like, it will catch up with you.
It looks fine on Firefox 2.0.0.20 and I also have the new threading turned off. Too much javascript as usual. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. I have never seen the white on white comment titles people bitch about either.
They probably already do. Why do you think cities have their own taxes to pay for local law enforcement and other services. The internet has escaped local taxes other than sales tax, so where should the extra money to provide online law enforcement come from ? By charging everybody, including people who don't use the internet, or just those who do ?
Battle skeletor ?
Wrong.
If he had said "I was uploading pirated movies" that would be correct.
But he actually said "if I was to upload pirated movies"
the critical point is the "to upload".
He used the infinitive of the verb "upload" implying that it would be a future event, so he should have used were, not was.
Was implies the action had taken place, were (in this context) implies possible action in the future.
Fucking hillbillies.
Or when there are enough female hormones pumped into the environment. This is biological warfare.
Wrong.
If it was costless, they'd have their own laptops.
He with the smartest lawyer wins.
Not !
None at all. But then I'm not American.
It is a bundle of options.
Anonymous FTP ? FTP is included in Windows installs. And if you're using a GUI then you can run commands based on responses from a graphical form. Why are you trying to make this seem difficult ?
Me too.
99% of computer lusers are not relevant to linux. I wish people would stop trying to force linux to conform to the ideas of people who just want a fucking appliance. Can you imagine ham radio enthusiasts being forced to fine tune their equipment and knowledge to suit people who only ever listen to FM pap radio ? Fucking piss off and do your own thing. You make the mistake of thinking that a majority of linux users want linux to be mainstream on the desktop. The only issue is hardware support, and that is a marginal case at best. Most of us are doing just fine without being mainstream thanks. The only people calling for "linux on the desktop" have another agenda, usually control (ironically).
The only limit to what I can do on a linux system is MY brain. On the proprietary OSes you are limited to what THEY allow you to do. Don't try to force linux down the same path. You know that the top 5% of the population have much higher IQ ? Why should linux ever get more than 5% Desktop penetration ? If it does then either IQ levels are rising or linux is being dumbed down. Given the state of education, I think the former is unlikely. Yes if that's elitist, bite me. Don't expect me to conform to a lower standard than I am capable of, respect MY rights. Do you expect top restaurants to conform to McDonalds standards to grow their market share, or would that be stupid ?
It's all very well wishing more people used linux because it is better, but what you're really wishing for is more intelligent people. Just throwing idiots in to make up the numbers doesn't help. It has to be self selecting, or you remove the very thing that makes it better.
Linux and the BSDs are the last remnants of what computing used to be like, when everybody had a clue about what they were doing, and respected the system. The proprietary OSes seek to obscure the system, and their users abuse the system and each other. AOL ruined the internet, and Microsoft ruined true computing. So I say No, to ads promoting linux, and No to Ubuntu and its ilk. If you're any good, you'll get there anyway.
</RANT>
Silicon Image, Inc. SiI 3114 [SATALink/SATARaid] Serial ATA Controller
Found on various boards, cost less than £10 each. I have 4, and each has 4 ports. Picked up instantly by an existing install of FC4.
Maybe you're not looking hard enough (or at all). Haven't looked for a SATA II version yet.
I remember when anything over 48 bit encryption was deemed "munitions" and as a UK resident I was not allowed to download the 128bit SSL version of IE or Netscape. All the versions available legally in the UK on cd were 48 bit. Didn't stop me though - in fact it made me go the other way. I ended up becoming part of the Thawte Web of trust and was using 2048 bit encryption for email ! It all seemed a bit petty. As does this. It reminds me of the daily 2 minutes hate.
Money.
Goldman-Sachs, Bloomberg, Ballmer, Ellison, Dell, Friedman, Geffen, Greenspan, Madoff, etc etc.
While all you said is fair enough, sometimes not knowing the basics can get you in trouble. When steering wasn't so positive, or your brakes weren't as efficient, you learned how to handle several tons of metal. So when you threw it into a corner, you could feel the car lean into the corner, and you knew instinctively when it was likely to break away from you. These days, you just point and shoot, and the result is lots of cars hitting each other or leaving the road.
Plus the ease of use of modern vehicles means that they are mechanically abused beyond anything an older car would be. People use brakes for everything, don't bother to drop down a gear when slowing down or when speeding up again (yes you can do that on autos) and generally treat it like a funfair ride. Together with the ICE which prevents you from hearing your engine, or that of other vehicles, modern driving has become an insular past-time, which does not promote cooperation and mutual respect on the roads.
And ABS doesn't mean you stop quicker - it just removes the chance of skidding, so you can retain steering ability. Any decent driver wouldn't need to be hitting the brakes that hard in the first place. Most deceleration manoeuvres can be accomplished simply by dropping the throttle earlier, and changing down a gear. Observation is the key.
If you prefer not being limited by the tools, you still have to bear in mind that they are still limited to what is possible or safe. Unless you understand that, you will end up going wrong, and you won't be able to push those limits responsibly.
I spent just about $40,000 the last time I was in the US (In restaurants, hotels and cars and air fares mostly). I was there for less than 4 months. I've not been back since you started treating me like a criminal. I first arrived November 2001. I had less hassle then than now, and that was 2 months after 9/11.
The only problem I can see with all your comments is that you are assuming this took place a long time ago. We know that Mars can reach the mid 20s C and we also know that there are massive periodic dust storms.
Don't you think the storms would have eroded away the water gullies, or at least filled them with dust by now ? So I would say the formations are a lot more recent than "in the ancient past when Mars had a bigger atmosphere".