The particular thing the article is talking about is actually scheduling policies. Solaris lets you specify a lot of different policies, whereas Linux and FreeBSD limit you to only a sensible subset.
Perhaps, but the article also talks about memory management and file systems; and the interesting issue continues there as well.
Another suggested that its likely because of the x86 history of Linux; which is likely. Since it was originally written in pure IA-32 assembly for the i386, and then ported to numerous platforms, the choice of keeping the performance by not having so many layers was either taken or the issue of unifying the layers like Solaris did was ignored. But for whatever reason it occurred, it is still interesting give that the Linux Kernel supports more processors than most any other operating system out there. (Most OS's only support a handleful of processors.)
I find it quite interesting that (at least according to the article) Solaris (which supports a few x86, and mostly Sun's Sparc line) has a full abstraction, while Linux (which supports some large number processor architectures) goes with less abstraction; with FreeBSD somewhere in the middle. It certainly does yield higher performance for Linux, and makes sense in that respect...It's just interesting that the OS that seemingly runs on fewer processor architectures and has been controlled by an incorporated company would take the abstraction route, while the OS that runs on a far greater number of processor architectures and is not tied to corporate funding (directly, at least) is more focussed on less abstraction & fewer layers.
P.S. Sorry to repeat myself on that...just not sure how best to say it.
Creationists are not open about teaching anything and letting anyone decide. They have a world view and will do anything to uphold it and get others to agree to it. It is not far from a creationist to the torturers of the inquisition who would torture a captive until he confessed, repented and accepted God. Then they would kill him, his sould saved the only justification they needed. Creationists are cut from the same evil cloth and care only about their delusional ideas about saving fictional souls.
Uhh...you're about 300 years late on that one.
Try going to and participating in the various "Creationist" and "Theo-evolutionist" colleges. Here's a few just to make it easy for you: Calvin College, Messiah College. And yes, there are some who will not allow anything else, but the majority are looking at all views.
Now compare what you find there to any state college, and you'll find a vast difference in who is providing thinkers. Colleges such as Calvin and Messiah challenge students to think against the grain - to challenge what is being put before them - yes, challenge creationism and evolutionism, and all the other theories out there. Comparitively, state colleges simply put forth "evolution or the highway".
The problem with people who believe in creationism is that they aren't practicing science. They start from the thing they want to prove and construct a chain of reasoning backwards. Fortunately, that chain simply doesn't hold up to any kind of critical, dispassionate thinking.
Wow...what a bias statement, and what a wrong one. It's interesting that you've made that point, since it is mostly creationist teachers/professors who are open to teaching about all of the different views and letting their students decide; but dare an evolutionist do the same or he would be called unscientific.
Not because the data doesn't say what they want it to, but because it does. Dating methods are not as you claim controversial in any way.
Actually, they are quite controversial. For example, the equations in the Carbon dating (C14, I think) require that the person making the calculation make an assumption - is it stable or not. If it is stable, then the equation goes as evolutions agree; however, if it isn't, it very much favors Strict-24-hour-7-day Creationists. (Long Day Creationists can easily agree with the evolutionists.) Additionally, evidence is coming from Mars and other space phenomena showing that various formations (like the Grand Canyon) may have been created a lot, lot faster than previously thought by evolutionists (by though all along by Creationists) - in days or months, not thousands of years. There is a ton of data that really does favor Creationists and requires a very warped view to support Evolutionists.
However, you're going to find what you want to find. The data is there, and it may not support exactly what you think it does due to the bias of the last few generations of scientists.
Though to note, what I am saying does not necessitate that physics is wrong. It might necessitate (at worst) that physics is again the best approximation we have based on the assumptions we've thus far made. (Isn't it always?)
If evolution were true, a grand unified theory of everything would be easy, and the more we look we would see simplicity, not complexity. It's odd that science is showing that the deeper we look into the microscopic the more complex things are, and the deeper we look into the macroscropic the more complex things are as well. While that presents a big problem for evolution; it is an easy fact for Creationists.
No, I am not trolling. And, whilst I may not be in the "scientific" community as much as thou, it is there. For instance, look at anyone dating something. Various groups with religious affiliations will point out the circular logic and inconsistencies, the problems with why evolution simply cannot be - which are quite evident and are becoming more so every day. Without having to reinterpret the data, the basic points can be shut down and proven false. However, should any of these groups point that out, the "scientific" community will simply ignore them, disqualify anything said, etc.
Now compare that to someone who is generally friendly to the ideas putting forth the same basic points, and either without a public religious affiliations or a complete anti-religious view, and the outcome will be much different.
Science - it's a wonderful thing if you like agreeing with the majority.
The scientific community just does not switch to auto-belief mode. no one has yet to have come with overwhelming positive evidence of the existance of any god. flaws in the current model don't count, since it can hardly be true that it's either the current scientific model or god/God. sheesh, the fact that I don't austomatically agree with you when you say "god" does not mean that i'm not listening to you. science is all about PROOFS and EVIDENCE, not "I believe, therefore it is true". science is simply not based upon such low doorstep standards for theory.
I never said anything about "the existance of any god". All I said was that someone who believed there was a god/God would be completely and utterly discredited on that basis alone, no matter what the data behind their studies showed.
Now sure, scientists have biases, but there is no "bias of the community as a whole."
Lol.
For a starters, try looking for one scientist who is held with any kind of respect in the scientific community who believes there is a god/God - and I'm not saying what god/God they believe in, or how many thereof.
The scientific community as a whole has a tendancy (and the replies/flames to this post might very well show it - if people bother to reply) to completely and utterly ignore and discredit what anyone who believes that there is a god/God says - no matter how well the data might back them up; the scientific community simply doesn't want to hear it, much like Victorian Europe didn't want to hear that they weren't the center of the universe.
Science itself will admit the possibility that the current theories are wrong.
It will? I know that's how it is suppose to work, but so far as I can tell, it certainly doesn't work that way - at least not in the last 50 years. As of recent, anything that goes against the politics/religion of the scientific community, no matter how well founded in the data, seems to be ignored, discredited, and thrown out simply because of the politics/religion and biases of the community as a whole.
We truly do know that carbon dating tells us when the carbon in a living creature was absorbed from the atmosphere, and these numbers are good from 150 to 50,000 years before present.
Actually, it is. Who did the guy getting the dates from to generate the initial carbon dating get the dates from? For example, the biologists validate their dates by citing the geologists, who validate their dates by the archeologiests, who validate their dates by the bioligists, and at the beginning of it all was someone with a bias who stated that something was X years old just because they wanted it to be to disprove what person Y believes since they don't agree with it, etc. etc.
Being this is slashdot, I know you're familiar with the various "evolution" here and "creation" here, and "intelligent design" there arguments. This is at the heart of it all. The evolutionist wanted to disprove the other two, and gave a date to do so. Then another science quoted him to give a dating, and the cycle began. Check the history. You'll find it. However, it is going to require more than research text books will tell you. You'll likely have to go through the biographies and notes of all the scientists involved.
Though it is also funny that you completely missed the sarcasm too.
Science - a wonderful thing if you like agreeing with the majority.
Not necessarily. It was common for the government to take a technology from outside, allow it in, and then restrict the re-export of the same technology. Now, should the talk about export restrictions being loosened prove true, then that may not play a factor here; but just because it was developed outside the US does not mean it won't be allowed to be exported.
Furthermore, last I had heard, AES was not allowed to be exported, but I very well could be wrong.
Of course up until recently the Earth's climate was wildly variable, pretty damn close to chaotic. We have no idea what could have been changing Earth's temperature as rapidly as the ice samples indicate.
Well, it couldn't be because we don't have a clue about how to date things could it? Our entire dating technology is completely and utterly circular. So, for all we truly know, it could simply be that we got it wrong (imagine that!) and it's merely the yearly cycles that are being detected.
Wow...leave it to science to forget about individual bias-ness and cult-like following of it to disprove what is inevitably true.
"So it doesn't apply to Vista and the end result is that Vista turns out to be an bug-ridden, insecure operating system. What's new?"
This is classic Microsoft Embrace and Extend. Since it doesn't apply to Vista, Microsoft will release it the way they want it in Vista, and everyone else will have to comply in order to be compatible. If Microsoft actually had to comply to someone else's standard, then there would actually be interoperability.
For RFID to be success, and be successfully used the way you describe, it would have to be put in there permenantly. Additionally, RFID would do nothing - despite what anyone may say - to stop the kind of theft you are describing, and its very use would increase the price since there is now one more "disposable" part that must be accounted for in the price.
Employees would still get away with stealing because they would know how to turn it off and turn it back on - this would be required in order for it to leave the store, just like the magnetic security tags that now exist and are not blockable by jamming - additionally those same tags are large enough that they are very noticable, unlike what RFID would be.
RFID, while in itself it may only track things specific to the product, the technology could be used to say "this consumer picked up this item, and was interested but did not buy this other item" by simply tracking the RFID through the store. They would then be able to link it back to you by using your purchasing mechanism (Credit Card, Check - anything other than cash, unless you use a 'bonus card' or equivalent).
Why would that lower costs? RFID would only enable people to steal more since the chips could be easily disabled or their signal jammed over a short range. Products could leave the store without any kind of registration or recognition by the system; and just because the technology to jam the signal would be "illegal" (it would have to be for the system to work) does not mean people wouldn't use it.
Personally I don't like RFID, and if a store (even Wal-Mart) started using it, I'd find someplace else to shop. Between the ability to track customers that it enables and the numerous other privacy issues, I would rather do without it. It's one technology I don't need, nor do I want.
I signed up for AOL to use the Free time (90 days, 45 days, etc.) a few years back. At the end of the trial period I would call in to cancel. Almost every time it was difficult to cancel the service, and would take serveral attempts. At one point I couldn't afford Internet, and it worked to my advantage as the reps would give me free time to keep me on. I figured it was likely that they were hoping I would forget to call at the end of the extended time and be charged, but as long as kept calling back in, the kept extending it. They even switched me from AOL to Netscape Online (same service, but older versions of the AOL software) to CompuServe.
From what I heard (rumor), the techs were held accountable for losing accounts, so they would do anything to keep from having an account disappear on their watch. Bad policy, and I don't know how AOL could afford such a policy unless enough people would really forget to make it worth it.
In any regards, I am certainly glad that they are being held accountable for it.
Personally, I would definately still object on moral grounds; but I would most certainly be more open to a truly open standard. It would certainly benefit the use of DRM if it was something that was able to be trusted - certainly something not controlled by the RIAA, MPAA, Microsoft or any other corporate entity or corporate organization. But is Sun the right choice to head it up? I don't know. Perhaps the OSDL would be a better choice than Sun; perhaps not.
CS needs better ground-work. Any degree that is too theory oriented does the student no good. CS programs have become this way. By rooting them in an Engineering department, the practicality of the degree returns, and the usefulness of the degree and quality of the students will get better.
Additionally, rooting CS in an Engineering department does not mean that the students will lose the quality of theory either - Engineers do a lot of math and also a lot of theory. But they also realize that to use and create the theory you have to understand and be able to use the factual. CS students are getting to the point now where they do not understand the factual.
Doing as I am suggesting would not degrade the math discipline within CS in any manner. In fact, it might actually improve it. Engineers do a lot more math than most any CS program.
I can't quite tell if you got his point or not...but I think at least most of the others that responded to him did not.
The problem with CS programs is that they are becoming too theoretical and not practical enough. And I certainly agree with him that CS should not be so theoretical, but be part of an actual Engineering discpline; so get the CS programs out of the math departments and put them under the Engineering departments as a Software Engineering degree. The students will be 10 times what they are today, and may once again reach the quality of CS people we had 20 years ago.
True, to a degree. The Insight and Prius and relatives are decent designs...however, they still do not get out of the electric side of the engine what they could.
Moving to a fully electric motor assisted by a small gas engine (as I proposed) would actually provide a higher level of economy. That's not to say that battery technology could not stand improvement - it most certainly could.
The big problem with the current hybrids is that the gas engine is used for all the long haul, high speed driving (e.g. highway). If the electric motor was used for this as well (instead of only for short stop-and-go traffic), then it would be easy to recharge the batteries for the lengthy trips with the alternative power, and increase the highway mileage easily by a power of 10 - 600 MPG instead of 60 MPG. You wouldn't have to change anything else in the design except make the gas engine smaller (lawnmower size) and remove it from the power train so it only fed the batteries. Additionally, better electric engines could be used (such as the mag-electric wheel-mounted engines).
The electric engines certainly do have a ways to go, but the basis of the high fuel economy electric engines is there if the hybrids were simply designed right to start with.
That provides good reasoning for my experience, as my prior car (a Grand Marquis LS) would see half the gas mileage if I had even 10% ethanol content in the gas (400 miles per tank would become 200 miles per tank - a tank being 20 gallons, or MPG of 20 going to 10); unfortunately, to get any kind of good MPG, I had to go to a top-line supplier (e.g Shell) as a result. Also, my brand new 2005 car says in its manual not to use any ethanol; one would figure that that wouldn't be there, but again...
Just give me an electric engine with a small 2 or 4 cylinder engine (lawnmower size - doesn't need much size or HP, just a slightly higher input; burn a gallon to recharge the batteries to get another 400 miles or so out of the batteries) to charge the batteries once in a great while if I choose to let it, or I could just plug it in and let my local powerplant provide the energy - hello 1000 MPG, 60000 MPG.
Slashdot Mirror
The particular thing the article is talking about is actually scheduling policies. Solaris lets you specify a lot of different policies, whereas Linux and FreeBSD limit you to only a sensible subset.
Perhaps, but the article also talks about memory management and file systems; and the interesting issue continues there as well.
Another suggested that its likely because of the x86 history of Linux; which is likely. Since it was originally written in pure IA-32 assembly for the i386, and then ported to numerous platforms, the choice of keeping the performance by not having so many layers was either taken or the issue of unifying the layers like Solaris did was ignored. But for whatever reason it occurred, it is still interesting give that the Linux Kernel supports more processors than most any other operating system out there. (Most OS's only support a handleful of processors.)
I find it quite interesting that (at least according to the article) Solaris (which supports a few x86, and mostly Sun's Sparc line) has a full abstraction, while Linux (which supports some large number processor architectures) goes with less abstraction; with FreeBSD somewhere in the middle. It certainly does yield higher performance for Linux, and makes sense in that respect...It's just interesting that the OS that seemingly runs on fewer processor architectures and has been controlled by an incorporated company would take the abstraction route, while the OS that runs on a far greater number of processor architectures and is not tied to corporate funding (directly, at least) is more focussed on less abstraction & fewer layers.
P.S. Sorry to repeat myself on that...just not sure how best to say it.
Creationists are not open about teaching anything and letting anyone decide. They have a world view and will do anything to uphold it and get others to agree to it. It is not far from a creationist to the torturers of the inquisition who would torture a captive until he confessed, repented and accepted God. Then they would kill him, his sould saved the only justification they needed. Creationists are cut from the same evil cloth and care only about their delusional ideas about saving fictional souls.
Uhh...you're about 300 years late on that one.
Try going to and participating in the various "Creationist" and "Theo-evolutionist" colleges. Here's a few just to make it easy for you: Calvin College, Messiah College. And yes, there are some who will not allow anything else, but the majority are looking at all views.
Now compare what you find there to any state college, and you'll find a vast difference in who is providing thinkers. Colleges such as Calvin and Messiah challenge students to think against the grain - to challenge what is being put before them - yes, challenge creationism and evolutionism, and all the other theories out there. Comparitively, state colleges simply put forth "evolution or the highway".
There is actually a good book out on it called God on the Quad: How Religious Colleges and the Missionary Generation Are Changing America. (Note: The author is not a creationist, far from it actually.)
The problem with people who believe in creationism is that they aren't practicing science. They start from the thing they want to prove and construct a chain of reasoning backwards. Fortunately, that chain simply doesn't hold up to any kind of critical, dispassionate thinking.
Wow...what a bias statement, and what a wrong one. It's interesting that you've made that point, since it is mostly creationist teachers/professors who are open to teaching about all of the different views and letting their students decide; but dare an evolutionist do the same or he would be called unscientific.
Not because the data doesn't say what they want it to, but because it does. Dating methods are not as you claim controversial in any way.
Actually, they are quite controversial. For example, the equations in the Carbon dating (C14, I think) require that the person making the calculation make an assumption - is it stable or not. If it is stable, then the equation goes as evolutions agree; however, if it isn't, it very much favors Strict-24-hour-7-day Creationists. (Long Day Creationists can easily agree with the evolutionists.) Additionally, evidence is coming from Mars and other space phenomena showing that various formations (like the Grand Canyon) may have been created a lot, lot faster than previously thought by evolutionists (by though all along by Creationists) - in days or months, not thousands of years. There is a ton of data that really does favor Creationists and requires a very warped view to support Evolutionists.
However, you're going to find what you want to find. The data is there, and it may not support exactly what you think it does due to the bias of the last few generations of scientists.
Though to note, what I am saying does not necessitate that physics is wrong. It might necessitate (at worst) that physics is again the best approximation we have based on the assumptions we've thus far made. (Isn't it always?)
If evolution were true, a grand unified theory of everything would be easy, and the more we look we would see simplicity, not complexity. It's odd that science is showing that the deeper we look into the microscopic the more complex things are, and the deeper we look into the macroscropic the more complex things are as well. While that presents a big problem for evolution; it is an easy fact for Creationists.
Do the research.
or just trolling?
No, I am not trolling. And, whilst I may not be in the "scientific" community as much as thou, it is there. For instance, look at anyone dating something. Various groups with religious affiliations will point out the circular logic and inconsistencies, the problems with why evolution simply cannot be - which are quite evident and are becoming more so every day. Without having to reinterpret the data, the basic points can be shut down and proven false. However, should any of these groups point that out, the "scientific" community will simply ignore them, disqualify anything said, etc.
Now compare that to someone who is generally friendly to the ideas putting forth the same basic points, and either without a public religious affiliations or a complete anti-religious view, and the outcome will be much different.
Science - it's a wonderful thing if you like agreeing with the majority.
The scientific community just does not switch to auto-belief mode. no one has yet to have come with overwhelming positive evidence of the existance of any god. flaws in the current model don't count, since it can hardly be true that it's either the current scientific model or god/God. sheesh, the fact that I don't austomatically agree with you when you say "god" does not mean that i'm not listening to you. science is all about PROOFS and EVIDENCE, not "I believe, therefore it is true". science is simply not based upon such low doorstep standards for theory.
I never said anything about "the existance of any god". All I said was that someone who believed there was a god/God would be completely and utterly discredited on that basis alone, no matter what the data behind their studies showed.
Now sure, scientists have biases, but there is no "bias of the community as a whole."
Lol.
For a starters, try looking for one scientist who is held with any kind of respect in the scientific community who believes there is a god/God - and I'm not saying what god/God they believe in, or how many thereof.
The scientific community as a whole has a tendancy (and the replies/flames to this post might very well show it - if people bother to reply) to completely and utterly ignore and discredit what anyone who believes that there is a god/God says - no matter how well the data might back them up; the scientific community simply doesn't want to hear it, much like Victorian Europe didn't want to hear that they weren't the center of the universe.
Science itself will admit the possibility that the current theories are wrong.
It will? I know that's how it is suppose to work, but so far as I can tell, it certainly doesn't work that way - at least not in the last 50 years. As of recent, anything that goes against the politics/religion of the scientific community, no matter how well founded in the data, seems to be ignored, discredited, and thrown out simply because of the politics/religion and biases of the community as a whole.
We truly do know that carbon dating tells us when the carbon in a living creature was absorbed from the atmosphere, and these numbers are good from 150 to 50,000 years before present.
Actually, it is. Who did the guy getting the dates from to generate the initial carbon dating get the dates from? For example, the biologists validate their dates by citing the geologists, who validate their dates by the archeologiests, who validate their dates by the bioligists, and at the beginning of it all was someone with a bias who stated that something was X years old just because they wanted it to be to disprove what person Y believes since they don't agree with it, etc. etc.
Being this is slashdot, I know you're familiar with the various "evolution" here and "creation" here, and "intelligent design" there arguments. This is at the heart of it all. The evolutionist wanted to disprove the other two, and gave a date to do so. Then another science quoted him to give a dating, and the cycle began. Check the history. You'll find it. However, it is going to require more than research text books will tell you. You'll likely have to go through the biographies and notes of all the scientists involved.
Though it is also funny that you completely missed the sarcasm too.
Science - a wonderful thing if you like agreeing with the majority.
Not necessarily. It was common for the government to take a technology from outside, allow it in, and then restrict the re-export of the same technology. Now, should the talk about export restrictions being loosened prove true, then that may not play a factor here; but just because it was developed outside the US does not mean it won't be allowed to be exported.
Furthermore, last I had heard, AES was not allowed to be exported, but I very well could be wrong.
Of course up until recently the Earth's climate was wildly variable, pretty damn close to chaotic. We have no idea what could have been changing Earth's temperature as rapidly as the ice samples indicate.
Well, it couldn't be because we don't have a clue about how to date things could it? Our entire dating technology is completely and utterly circular. So, for all we truly know, it could simply be that we got it wrong (imagine that!) and it's merely the yearly cycles that are being detected.
Wow...leave it to science to forget about individual bias-ness and cult-like following of it to disprove what is inevitably true.
At least making it able to compile with GCC 3.x or later would be a good start as well. For example, adding the errno patch.
"So it doesn't apply to Vista and the end result is that Vista turns out to be an bug-ridden, insecure operating system. What's new?" This is classic Microsoft Embrace and Extend. Since it doesn't apply to Vista, Microsoft will release it the way they want it in Vista, and everyone else will have to comply in order to be compatible. If Microsoft actually had to comply to someone else's standard, then there would actually be interoperability.
For RFID to be success, and be successfully used the way you describe, it would have to be put in there permenantly. Additionally, RFID would do nothing - despite what anyone may say - to stop the kind of theft you are describing, and its very use would increase the price since there is now one more "disposable" part that must be accounted for in the price.
Employees would still get away with stealing because they would know how to turn it off and turn it back on - this would be required in order for it to leave the store, just like the magnetic security tags that now exist and are not blockable by jamming - additionally those same tags are large enough that they are very noticable, unlike what RFID would be.
RFID, while in itself it may only track things specific to the product, the technology could be used to say "this consumer picked up this item, and was interested but did not buy this other item" by simply tracking the RFID through the store. They would then be able to link it back to you by using your purchasing mechanism (Credit Card, Check - anything other than cash, unless you use a 'bonus card' or equivalent).
Why would that lower costs? RFID would only enable people to steal more since the chips could be easily disabled or their signal jammed over a short range. Products could leave the store without any kind of registration or recognition by the system; and just because the technology to jam the signal would be "illegal" (it would have to be for the system to work) does not mean people wouldn't use it.
Personally I don't like RFID, and if a store (even Wal-Mart) started using it, I'd find someplace else to shop. Between the ability to track customers that it enables and the numerous other privacy issues, I would rather do without it. It's one technology I don't need, nor do I want.
I signed up for AOL to use the Free time (90 days, 45 days, etc.) a few years back. At the end of the trial period I would call in to cancel. Almost every time it was difficult to cancel the service, and would take serveral attempts. At one point I couldn't afford Internet, and it worked to my advantage as the reps would give me free time to keep me on. I figured it was likely that they were hoping I would forget to call at the end of the extended time and be charged, but as long as kept calling back in, the kept extending it. They even switched me from AOL to Netscape Online (same service, but older versions of the AOL software) to CompuServe.
From what I heard (rumor), the techs were held accountable for losing accounts, so they would do anything to keep from having an account disappear on their watch. Bad policy, and I don't know how AOL could afford such a policy unless enough people would really forget to make it worth it.
In any regards, I am certainly glad that they are being held accountable for it.
Personally, I would definately still object on moral grounds; but I would most certainly be more open to a truly open standard. It would certainly benefit the use of DRM if it was something that was able to be trusted - certainly something not controlled by the RIAA, MPAA, Microsoft or any other corporate entity or corporate organization. But is Sun the right choice to head it up? I don't know. Perhaps the OSDL would be a better choice than Sun; perhaps not.
CS needs better ground-work. Any degree that is too theory oriented does the student no good. CS programs have become this way. By rooting them in an Engineering department, the practicality of the degree returns, and the usefulness of the degree and quality of the students will get better.
Additionally, rooting CS in an Engineering department does not mean that the students will lose the quality of theory either - Engineers do a lot of math and also a lot of theory. But they also realize that to use and create the theory you have to understand and be able to use the factual. CS students are getting to the point now where they do not understand the factual.
Doing as I am suggesting would not degrade the math discipline within CS in any manner. In fact, it might actually improve it. Engineers do a lot more math than most any CS program.
I can't quite tell if you got his point or not...but I think at least most of the others that responded to him did not.
The problem with CS programs is that they are becoming too theoretical and not practical enough. And I certainly agree with him that CS should not be so theoretical, but be part of an actual Engineering discpline; so get the CS programs out of the math departments and put them under the Engineering departments as a Software Engineering degree. The students will be 10 times what they are today, and may once again reach the quality of CS people we had 20 years ago.
Actually, the FSF will if they are informed of the issue, and they do have GNU/Hurds of lawyers. ;-)
It's here....
Microsoft Windows V.I.S.T.A
Very
Insecure
Software
Technology
Asset
Vista - viewing the world as never before...
True, to a degree. The Insight and Prius and relatives are decent designs...however, they still do not get out of the electric side of the engine what they could.
Moving to a fully electric motor assisted by a small gas engine (as I proposed) would actually provide a higher level of economy. That's not to say that battery technology could not stand improvement - it most certainly could.
The big problem with the current hybrids is that the gas engine is used for all the long haul, high speed driving (e.g. highway). If the electric motor was used for this as well (instead of only for short stop-and-go traffic), then it would be easy to recharge the batteries for the lengthy trips with the alternative power, and increase the highway mileage easily by a power of 10 - 600 MPG instead of 60 MPG. You wouldn't have to change anything else in the design except make the gas engine smaller (lawnmower size) and remove it from the power train so it only fed the batteries. Additionally, better electric engines could be used (such as the mag-electric wheel-mounted engines).
The electric engines certainly do have a ways to go, but the basis of the high fuel economy electric engines is there if the hybrids were simply designed right to start with.
No, it was not my driving habits as they did not change between using the two fuels. Ethanol simply burns faster.
That provides good reasoning for my experience, as my prior car (a Grand Marquis LS) would see half the gas mileage if I had even 10% ethanol content in the gas (400 miles per tank would become 200 miles per tank - a tank being 20 gallons, or MPG of 20 going to 10); unfortunately, to get any kind of good MPG, I had to go to a top-line supplier (e.g Shell) as a result. Also, my brand new 2005 car says in its manual not to use any ethanol; one would figure that that wouldn't be there, but again...
Just give me an electric engine with a small 2 or 4 cylinder engine (lawnmower size - doesn't need much size or HP, just a slightly higher input; burn a gallon to recharge the batteries to get another 400 miles or so out of the batteries) to charge the batteries once in a great while if I choose to let it, or I could just plug it in and let my local powerplant provide the energy - hello 1000 MPG, 60000 MPG.