A 55kW (75hp) two pole TEFC three phase induction motor is approximately 480kg. Yes this is an industrial motor, but gives you an order of scale. A wheel/tyre/hub assembly for a moderate size car would be 50kg or less. A hub motor wouldn't want to be much more than 20% of that.
I wonder how long till car stereos will have the inputs from engine speed and throttle position? You could synthesize any kind of noise you want......I'll have ferrari.mp3 today, in my Geo Metro electric conversion.:)
The carbon canister is purged at particular engine speed/load conditions (normally cruise). The captured vapours are drawn off by pulling air through the canister using inlet manifold vacuum. They are then burnt during normal combusion process. They cannot be returned to the tank.
a good proportion of the difference in efficiency between diesel engines and gasoline engines is attributable to "pumping losses". A diesel engine does not have a throttle like a gasoline engine. The throttle valve on a gasoline engine gives power/speed control by effectively reducing volumetric efficiency. By driving a gasoline engine at lower engine speeds and wider throttle openings, you can minimise these losses, which maximises fuel economy. It is totally at odds with the "vacuum gage" mentality mentioned in another post.
If you really knew the cost per mile, many people would think twice about commuting long distances. In Australia, the ATO (tax office) rates for business travel is AUD0.66/km,. You have to realise that the tax office is not a benevolent organisation, so it must be pretty close to the actual cost. I calculate that fuel is less than 30% or less of true car ownership costs (that is obviously dependent on distance driven per year).
Sun has been trying for years to restore the luster of Solaris, but that since has faced a strong challenge chiefly from Linux
"As we make Solaris more familiar to Linux users, we don't [want to] lose what makes it more compelling and competitive." If it is "more compelling and competitive" [than some other OS, whichever that is], then why the obsession with following after Linux? If Solaris is on the decline, then why not suspend further Solaris development, and launch their own Linux distro along side?
If the use of incorrect grammar was deliberate for the sake of humour, then the joke went right over my head. Perhaps you'd like to enlighten me of the context of such a Joke?
By definition, the user base of Windose will always wallow in mediocrity. Microsoft needs to take responsiblity for this, if it wants to dominate the OS marketplace.
"Wants to dominate" ? What _have_ they been doing then ? Perhaps I should have added continue to dominate.
No developer has had any excuse for releasing software that needlessly requires Administrator privileges for at least 8-9 years. None Sure, they don't have any excuse, but MS lets them get away with it, simply because badly designed software will still work. So this changes nothing of the Windose-Malware paradigm. This attitude also does nothing to counter the risks associated with the inherently mediocre technical skills of a large user base.
This isn't the open source world where developers can just go around breaking shit willy-nilly to make end users conform to some arbitrary plan for the hell of it (despite many people here insisting to the contrary). I'm not talking about end users conforming. I'm talking about developers. And arbitrary plan attitude is a somewhat simplistic regarding an OS security model.
Eventually, the open source world will get their standards together, and gain sufficient momentum that will threaten the Windose environment. OSS (GNU/Linux) has no qualms about breaking and deprecating something old, in order to move to the "next level" in the development evolution, which will ultimately benefit the quality of the products. Why hobble future development with kludgy hacks to support legacy requirements. The legacy stuff should use the work-arounds for backward compatability. The new stuff should be "native".
Compare the progress made in last decade of developments for Windows and GNU/Linux environments. Then extrapolate that another decade.
No version of Windoze will be a truly secure system until its user base becomes better educated, which is a requirement that Microsoft will never enforce to protect their bottom line. By definition, the user base of Windose will always wallow in mediocrity. Microsoft needs to take responsiblity for this, if it wants to dominate the OS marketplace.
I think that MS missed their opportunity to make Vista really secure. They could have developed a brand new API, and sandboxed the old API in a virtual machine environment, to maintain backwards compatibility. Then publish decent standards for building applications, particularly with respect to file permissions, drivers etc, so developers can genuinely create robust applications that don't require administrative privileges to run. Enforce the standards by making them mandatory for using the OS installation mechanism. Enforce proper use of the correct installation mechanisms by disabling rogue installation hacks with system updates (i.e. deliberately break third party vendor's software if it's crap).
Slashdot Mirror
They're frikin laser beams, you insensitive clod!
Yeah, sure. Only problem is that the hairy palms upgrade is also part of that service pack.
And will it squirt?
50kg, or anything like it, is still not an amount you'd want to add to the unsprung weight your average car.
Nah. Not good enough. You've got to appeal to the users ego. Make them feel like the download will turn them into a Super User.
A 55kW (75hp) two pole TEFC three phase induction motor is approximately 480kg. Yes this is an industrial motor, but gives you an order of scale. A wheel/tyre/hub assembly for a moderate size car would be 50kg or less. A hub motor wouldn't want to be much more than 20% of that.
I wonder how long till car stereos will have the inputs from engine speed and throttle position? You could synthesize any kind of noise you want... ...I'll have ferrari.mp3 today, in my Geo Metro electric conversion. :)
The carbon canister is purged at particular engine speed/load conditions (normally cruise). The captured vapours are drawn off by pulling air through the canister using inlet manifold vacuum. They are then burnt during normal combusion process. They cannot be returned to the tank.
a good proportion of the difference in efficiency between diesel engines and gasoline engines is attributable to "pumping losses". A diesel engine does not have a throttle like a gasoline engine. The throttle valve on a gasoline engine gives power/speed control by effectively reducing volumetric efficiency. By driving a gasoline engine at lower engine speeds and wider throttle openings, you can minimise these losses, which maximises fuel economy. It is totally at odds with the "vacuum gage" mentality mentioned in another post.
If you really knew the cost per mile, many people would think twice about commuting long distances. In Australia, the ATO (tax office) rates for business travel is AUD0.66/km,. You have to realise that the tax office is not a benevolent organisation, so it must be pretty close to the actual cost. I calculate that fuel is less than 30% or less of true car ownership costs (that is obviously dependent on distance driven per year).
Trees going buy fast is good for the US economy.
Early withdrawals are a bit messy to deal with.
Yep, That.
If the use of incorrect grammar was deliberate for the sake of humour, then the joke went right over my head. Perhaps you'd like to enlighten me of the context of such a Joke?
Frist Psot?
Didn't MS have a free WordViewer package at some point? Whatever happened to that?
I can see you didn't study English at Harvard.
Eventually, the open source world will get their standards together, and gain sufficient momentum that will threaten the Windose environment. OSS (GNU/Linux) has no qualms about breaking and deprecating something old, in order to move to the "next level" in the development evolution, which will ultimately benefit the quality of the products. Why hobble future development with kludgy hacks to support legacy requirements. The legacy stuff should use the work-arounds for backward compatability. The new stuff should be "native".
Compare the progress made in last decade of developments for Windows and GNU/Linux environments. Then extrapolate that another decade.
I should introduce you to the world of disk imaging...
I think that MS missed their opportunity to make Vista really secure. They could have developed a brand new API, and sandboxed the old API in a virtual machine environment, to maintain backwards compatibility. Then publish decent standards for building applications, particularly with respect to file permissions, drivers etc, so developers can genuinely create robust applications that don't require administrative privileges to run. Enforce the standards by making them mandatory for using the OS installation mechanism. Enforce proper use of the correct installation mechanisms by disabling rogue installation hacks with system updates (i.e. deliberately break third party vendor's software if it's crap).
A cousin of mine managed to get a picture of himself, holding a trumpet, into the local paper with the caption identifying him as Wynton Marsalis.
A change from flying toasters, I suppose...
That business plan won't work. There aren't any question marks.