I think American Public schools vary greatly from region to region and school to school. For instance, compare your average graduates from central Mississippi to Minnesota. Minnesota has some of the finest public schools in the US. I grew up in a small town in Wisconsin, I didn't think my education was expecially good or bad, I had 3 years of programming classes, trig and calc, physics, a good selection of AP classes, a nice auto and electronics shop, a good well rounded education. After highschool I went on a foreign exchange to Germany, then I joined the Marine Corps, toured the world for a few years, California, Japan, DC, and finally came back home to Madison, WI. A while back I went back to school to get a college degree. It was a tech college, and my degree focused on the work I had already been doing for years, so it was pretty easy. But I was somewhat worried about the Math and Physics classes, I mean, it had been 6+ years since I had gone over that stuff. When I showed up for the first Math class, there was a guy I had graduated highschool with in the class (we were both C average under acheivers in HS). both of us could have slept through that class, we both aced it, it was nothing more then a review of Algebra I and II. The next math class was Trig and Calc, again, we both aced the class. I was amazed that there were a lot of straight out of highschool students who were really strugling to get by in the class, as if they had never seen any of this material before. Even one of the kids who had come from a private school barily managed to scrape by in that class.
So I would avoid saying that ALL US Public schools are bad, because there are good ones.
"That 3.7 figure is dated, even the 8.1 is old, people are talking about 10 now."
Brazil can also pull 2 harvests a year. 10x would be a best of 5x return in the US, likely less due to environmental differences.
"The highter EROEI farms normaly use tractors."
The problem is that I can't find a single peer reviewed article showing a return on switch grass over the 3.7 figure.
"3: Gas also needs sealed tanks. "
The issue is NOT tanks, it's pipes. This has been covered extencively elsewheres in this discussion.
"4: Ethanol cars lose mileage but the power increases. Also, flex cars are able to deal well with ethanol, working the same way is pure ethanol cars. What you don't seem to grasp is that flex cars detect the amount of ethanol and gas on the fuel, and set everyhing according."
I have a good understanding of dynamic fuel engines, and yes using exhaust O2 levels and ping detection the engine can alter fuel mapping and turbo boost pressure to optimize the engine's effieciency for petrol, ethanol, or any mix there of. But in NA the only FlexFuel vehicles (FF is a GM trademark) are non-turbo fleet vehicles. NA engines have a fixed effective compression ratio and can only adjust for E## fuel by increasing the amount of fuel in the mixture and adjusting spark timing. Which can results in a loss of both power and efficiency. There are cars in Brazil that are significantly better at adapting to different fuels by using variable boost pressures and fuel mappings to improve efficiencies. But those car are not available in NA.
"Now, a previous poster said that ethanol cars age faster. If that happens, the difference is very small to be detected."
I have heard the same. Ethanol is rough on oil, running E85 decreases the time frame for oil changes. So I would not be suprised if other issues also arose.
I live in Wisconsin, Ethanol distribution here is no problem since there are major refineries with in a few hundred miles. California is a major problem, Ideally we would pipe ethanol through/over the mountains from the mid west to the west coast, but due to problems with condensation and seperation of the fuel that isn't an option. The other option is load up trains to haul tank load after of fuel over the mountains. Marching a train over the mountains is significantly less efficient and more costly then pumping fuel down a pipe.
"If ethanol-blended gasoline is exposed to water or even water vapor (as in pipelines), ethanol will bring the water into solution and make the gasoline unusable. In addition, if ethanolblended gasoline is stored for an extended period, the ethanol will begin to separate from the gasoline. As a re-sult, ethanol is often manufactured close to the point of use or shipped by rail, increasing the cost of its use."
As per ADM: "Because ethanol's water-retaining tendency prevents it from being shipped via pipeline, California officials have voiced concerns about obtaining adequate supplies."
My assumption that the pipes were "sweating" is based on the assumption that there is air in the pipes, and the pipes are run above and under ground. When the pipe temperature drops (going underground) the air temperature drops and condensation forms on the pipe walls. Given that a major fuel distributor and the EPA have concerns about the feasibility of piping ethanol blended fuels, I would figure that it is likely a major concern. I could be wrong about the sweating, but none the less, Ethanol is not piped as gasoline/diesel is, it is shipped.
Sorry, I didn't realise you were talking about a GM company. GM in NA is much more limited than their world wide companies. In North America the only FF vechiles availible in the next few years are full sized trucks and fleet vehicles. You can't buy a flex fuel Cobalt in the US. We're talking about trucks that get EPA 14mpg.
Gasoline is piped from refineries to distribution points, not trucked. Those pipes sweat moisture in from the ground. Gas and water don't mix. If you fill a jug up with half water and half gas, then wait a while, the two will separate. Ethanol on the other hand will suck up water and will not separate on its own. So you can not pipe ethanol from the mid west to either cost. You have to load it onto a train or tanker truck and ship it across the country. Just think of how much fuel it would take to ship enough ethanol from the mid west to southern Cali to full fill an E85 fuel base.
"It is not true that ethanol engines have less power, quite the opposite."
Ethanol engines have more power, true. FlexFuel (GM's Gas/E85 hybrid) engines have less power on E85 than they do on Gas.
Ethanol contains more oxygen per volume than gas. That means that you need less air in the mix to get the optimal power, or you can push more ethanol into the cylinder with the same displacement. More fuel = larger expansion after ignition. But Ethanol has less energy per volume than gasoline, so even with more fuel, the power stroke is still weaker than a gas engine.
The place where Ethanol shines is in its Octane rating. With an octane rating upwords of 130 you can really crank up the compression on an ethanol engine and not have to worry about pinging (pre-spark detination). The higher the compression, the more efficient the engine, and the more power you get from the power stroke. So while you Gas engine may have 9.1:1 compression, an Ethanol engine can run close to 14:1. Even though ethanol has less energy per volume, the fact that you need less air in the charge and can compress it more means that you can get more power from it. The down side is that it will still take more fuel to get that power, but with that extra power you can reduce the final gear in the tranny and recoup the difference.
The well designed Gas/Ethanol engines usually use a lower compression ration in combination with a VNT or waste gate controled turbo. A computer monitors nocking (ping/pre-det) and increases or decreases the turbo's boost to raise or lower the effective compression ratio (note that the compression ratio itself does not change, but the effective volumes of fuel/air are altered). This way you can reduce boost and have a gas engine operating at the top end of its ability, or you can pile on the boost and run pure 85.
And just as a final comparison, Diesel engines use no spark plugs. They ignite the air/fuel mixture using compression and heat alone. The lowest compression ratio I have heard of on a Diesel is 14:1 (with a huge amount of turbo boost), and the highest was about 24:1 (with no turbo). Not only do Diesel engines have higher compression ratios then gas and ethanol engines, but Diesel also contains more energy per volume then either. With more potential energy and a more efficient use of that power it's no suprise that Diesel engines look so attactive. My VW Golf (a 4 cylinder 1.9l TDI diesel) hit 44mpg (B5) on my last tank and has 177ft/lbs of torque. My Pontiac Fiero (a 6 cylinder 3.4l HO gas) hit 20mpg (E10) on my last tank and has ~175ft/lbs of torque.
It really depends on the source. With soy, yeah, you are looking at 50 gal/acre, Palm oil puts you closed to 650 gal/acre of Bio Diesel. Corn Ethanol produces 300-450 gal/acre (depends on study), I don't have numbers on Sugarcane Ethanol gal/acres though. The holy grail though remains the power plant emission scrubbing bacteria. That stuff is projected to produce 10,000 to 20,000 gallons of Bio Diesel per acre. At that point a handful of power plants with algae farms could replace the entire US decency on foreign oil for Diesel, which would drop the cost of heating oil. If Algae farms prove successful, or even if they are half as successful as projected, then the arguments for ethanol go out the window and the market for light duty diesel's will skyrocket.
I'm saying GM is not in a great financial position. So for them to invest in a marketing campaign for E85 is a win-win.
They invest a minimum amount in Flex Fuel vehicles (realistically, this is replacing rubber fuel lines and setting up the ECM to switch fuel mappings over a wider range depending on the O2 sensor's readings).
Since this is the 'low tech' way of making a gas engine run on ethanol (some more impressive FF vehicles use dynamic turbos and increase boost pressure when running more Ethanol, but so far as I know, GM's FF vehicles are only changing fuel mappings). It doesn't do anything for efficiency or power, so the vehicle will run significantly worse (power/mileage). But that doesn't matter since you can't really get E85 at any public pumps. I only know of a single E85 pump in all of south central Wisconsin. GM is aiming E85 primarily at fleet vehicles, for everyone else it's just a marketing gimmick. It allows them to look like a golden company in the face of rising gas prices to the public, they get free marketing off anyone talking about E85, and for a minimal investment in R&D and on the assembly line, they get a huge boost in sales.
E85 does have a place in the future of US fuel consumption, but that place is not GM's FlexFuel vehicle line. It's place is in vehicles designed to run on higher compression or those that can increase boost pressure. Vehicles that are designed to take advantage of Ethanol's properties as opposed to a patch kit that allows a gas engine to run on it.
Decreased engine life, shorter duration oil changes, invisible flames (on pure ethanol, not E85), it's amazing what some good marketing and desperate consumers will lead to.
"This will no doubt help matters, but still the burden of this work is being put on the wrong people. It should be on those who want the patent in the first place."
But then there is a problem with motivation and bias. Maker of XYZ patent is of course going to say his patent is different than or a vast improvement over patent YXZ, even if the two are virtually identical. The patent submitter has a monetary stake at getting their patent approved, so of course they will do sufficient "research" to "prove" that their patent is unique and appropriate.
Thus the need for independent reviewers. Which is what frightens me somewhat about opening the process to peers. If MS submits a patent request for a new form of technology, Apple, Sun, IBM and who ever else wants to can flood the review panel with peers with a bias. Preventing MS from acquiring a patent (even a valid one) can prove to be financially beneficial to MS's competitors.
I think this system will help the process, but there still needs to be significant over-site to ensure that people are not buying the ability to block competitors' patents.
I have not been able to find a single peer reviewed source to back up that 7 times as efficient number. I see many references to the widely excepted 1.34 return, but I have found nothing that says 8.1 units returned. I did find one study that claimed SugarCane could hit 3.7 in production in Brazil, but that can't be directly compared to the US.
1) In Brazil manual labor can be had for $3-5/day. At that cost it can be cheaper to use a fleet of farm labor instead of a tractor. the fuel consumption requred by the work force is not included. 2) Brazil has a much larger land mass that is appropriate for growing sugar cane. 3) Ethanol has to be shipped in sealed tanks. Due to its propencity to attract water, piping it with fuel through the exist infrastructure would result in water contaminated fuel at the pump. The extra expences and fuel needed for the new delivery systems really kill the return. This is also the reason why E10 has been a pretty standard fuel in the Mid-West for years, but not on the costs. Brazil uses a much more localized distribution system (many 20k gallon plants as opposed to a centralized 10m gallon plants). 4) Ethanol has less power per volume then gas. That means those flex fuel vehicles are going to lose mileage AND power on E85. A proper E85+ designed engine could improve the power issue (Ethanol's higher octane rating allows for higher compression, which leads to more power and better efficiency).
I'm not saying Ethanol is bad, just that it isn't as great as GM wants you to believe.
Biodiesel is better (IMO) in that it can be added to the US's fuel infrastructure with no modication to the system or vehicles, it's performance is on par with petrol-diesel (ie: better than gas and ethanol).
Yeah, it sounds like for the most part, if you are using managed code you should be fine. If you are depending on OS level API calls, you are hosed. Nothing to suprising here. For most Java/.Net apps this isn't the end of the world. For biometrics drivers, and applications that interact with them, yeah, it's going to suck.
Yes, the parent company will make money supporting OS software. This is nothing new. The only difference here is the OS developers and community managers have a chance to earn 'points' that they can redeam on prizes. So if you are an OS developer and willing to live off of cracker jacks, then yes, you can get paid this way.
The point of my anology was to show that ignoring 'crazy' people with access to government and mass media is not a wise idea. Yes, it was an extreme comparison, and no, I do not believe that Thompson is going to go on a rampage killing millions.
The Nazi's did how ever determine what material was appropriate for the masses, and "un-German" books and other "socially disturbing" material were banned and burnt. Would you ignore Thompson if he called for M video games to be banned? Would you ignore him if he held video game burning events in front of the capital? Would you ignore him if he were actively lobying for strictor video game content laws?
Our for fathers fought and died to ensure that we have our civil liberties. But that doesn't mean they are ours forever. We must always be vigilant and defend our cibil liberties and protect them, and our way of life from those who would seek to rule us under tyrany with lives shaped in their views.
"As consumers we can opt not to pick up newspapers, magazines and the like that have him blasting his usual rhetoric on their pages."
And the Jews had every right to ignore the Nazi party in the early 1930s. Ignoring those who preach for the restriction of our civil liberties is every bit as damning as signing those civil liberties away yourself.
"And frankly, those that are likely to listen to him and believe him are those that already made up their minds."
Given enough publicity to the contrary people can and will change their minds. Just look at Bush's track record for proof on that one.
"Screaming at Thompson himself is not likely to change his mind, or anyone else's sadly."
I never said scream at Thompson. I said discredit him. Attack his position, his stance, and his point of view. If all else fails, implicate him in a scandle. Money laundering, political payoffs, underage Philipino boys, what ever. Sure, it might not be completely ethical, but it'll erode a lot of his constituency.;)
"Honestly, the best course of action is to ignore him."
While that may work in the play ground, ignoring people who have access to mass publication and political lobiests is all round a bad idea. The American people will beleive what ever lie is said the most. The best way to beat him is to get him involved in a scandle, even a wide spread rumor of sexual deviance would be enough to close a lot of the right wing doors in his face.
Yeah, it's a small car, but it's actually quite roomy on the inside, lots of cargo space, and enough room in the back seat for a 6' guy to sit comfortably. At $23k fully loaded (sun/moon roof, AC, 6 disc changer + monsoon system, etc...) the TDI is rated at 45mpg diesel. With a gental foot, 50mpg is achievable. Also, since it's diesel, you can run it off Biodiesel. Anything over B5 voids the warenty, but people have had no problems running their older TDIs on BD100 (other then clogging the fuel filter after initially making the change).
Lower emissions, carbon nuetral, higher gas mileage, reduced foreign dependency, existing distribution network, renewable resource (soy beans)... the only reason to NOT switch to BD is that BD100 will gel around ~40 degrees. Running blends of BD (BD20 with winter D2 has virtually no gelling issues in the continental US) can take care of that. And in the colder climates, tank heaters can keep the juice flowing with out a problem.
Not sure if you were intending a/sarcasm tag in there, but I've still got two open positions at my company for VB.Net developers. One entry, one midlevel. Know anyone in the Madison, WI area?
No joke, we have 800 people going out over one IP from here. Kinda a pisser when I hit the 'slow down cowboy! you just posted' message. As much as the stats are inflated by dynamic IPs and multiple logon points, they are deflated by NAT and Proxies.
Slashdot Mirror
I think American Public schools vary greatly from region to region and school to school. For instance, compare your average graduates from central Mississippi to Minnesota. Minnesota has some of the finest public schools in the US. I grew up in a small town in Wisconsin, I didn't think my education was expecially good or bad, I had 3 years of programming classes, trig and calc, physics, a good selection of AP classes, a nice auto and electronics shop, a good well rounded education. After highschool I went on a foreign exchange to Germany, then I joined the Marine Corps, toured the world for a few years, California, Japan, DC, and finally came back home to Madison, WI. A while back I went back to school to get a college degree. It was a tech college, and my degree focused on the work I had already been doing for years, so it was pretty easy. But I was somewhat worried about the Math and Physics classes, I mean, it had been 6+ years since I had gone over that stuff. When I showed up for the first Math class, there was a guy I had graduated highschool with in the class (we were both C average under acheivers in HS). both of us could have slept through that class, we both aced it, it was nothing more then a review of Algebra I and II. The next math class was Trig and Calc, again, we both aced the class. I was amazed that there were a lot of straight out of highschool students who were really strugling to get by in the class, as if they had never seen any of this material before. Even one of the kids who had come from a private school barily managed to scrape by in that class.
So I would avoid saying that ALL US Public schools are bad, because there are good ones.
-Rick
"That 3.7 figure is dated, even the 8.1 is old, people are talking about 10 now."
Brazil can also pull 2 harvests a year. 10x would be a best of 5x return in the US, likely less due to environmental differences.
"The highter EROEI farms normaly use tractors."
The problem is that I can't find a single peer reviewed article showing a return on switch grass over the 3.7 figure.
"3: Gas also needs sealed tanks. "
The issue is NOT tanks, it's pipes. This has been covered extencively elsewheres in this discussion.
"4: Ethanol cars lose mileage but the power increases. Also, flex cars are able to deal well with ethanol, working the same way is pure ethanol cars. What you don't seem to grasp is that flex cars detect the amount of ethanol and gas on the fuel, and set everyhing according."
I have a good understanding of dynamic fuel engines, and yes using exhaust O2 levels and ping detection the engine can alter fuel mapping and turbo boost pressure to optimize the engine's effieciency for petrol, ethanol, or any mix there of. But in NA the only FlexFuel vehicles (FF is a GM trademark) are non-turbo fleet vehicles. NA engines have a fixed effective compression ratio and can only adjust for E## fuel by increasing the amount of fuel in the mixture and adjusting spark timing. Which can results in a loss of both power and efficiency. There are cars in Brazil that are significantly better at adapting to different fuels by using variable boost pressures and fuel mappings to improve efficiencies. But those car are not available in NA.
"Now, a previous poster said that ethanol cars age faster. If that happens, the difference is very small to be detected."
I have heard the same. Ethanol is rough on oil, running E85 decreases the time frame for oil changes. So I would not be suprised if other issues also arose.
-rick
I live in Wisconsin, Ethanol distribution here is no problem since there are major refineries with in a few hundred miles. California is a major problem, Ideally we would pipe ethanol through/over the mountains from the mid west to the west coast, but due to problems with condensation and seperation of the fuel that isn't an option. The other option is load up trains to haul tank load after of fuel over the mountains. Marching a train over the mountains is significantly less efficient and more costly then pumping fuel down a pipe.
-Rick
As per the EPA:
"If ethanol-blended gasoline is exposed to water or even water vapor (as in pipelines), ethanol will bring the water into solution and make the gasoline unusable. In addition, if ethanolblended gasoline is stored for an extended period, the ethanol will begin to separate from the gasoline. As a re-sult, ethanol is often manufactured close to the point of use or shipped by rail, increasing the cost of its use."
As per ADM:
"Because ethanol's water-retaining tendency prevents it from being shipped via pipeline, California officials have voiced concerns about obtaining adequate supplies."
My assumption that the pipes were "sweating" is based on the assumption that there is air in the pipes, and the pipes are run above and under ground. When the pipe temperature drops (going underground) the air temperature drops and condensation forms on the pipe walls. Given that a major fuel distributor and the EPA have concerns about the feasibility of piping ethanol blended fuels, I would figure that it is likely a major concern. I could be wrong about the sweating, but none the less, Ethanol is not piped as gasoline/diesel is, it is shipped.
-Rick
Sorry, I didn't realise you were talking about a GM company. GM in NA is much more limited than their world wide companies. In North America the only FF vechiles availible in the next few years are full sized trucks and fleet vehicles. You can't buy a flex fuel Cobalt in the US. We're talking about trucks that get EPA 14mpg.
-Rick
Gasoline is piped from refineries to distribution points, not trucked. Those pipes sweat moisture in from the ground. Gas and water don't mix. If you fill a jug up with half water and half gas, then wait a while, the two will separate. Ethanol on the other hand will suck up water and will not separate on its own. So you can not pipe ethanol from the mid west to either cost. You have to load it onto a train or tanker truck and ship it across the country. Just think of how much fuel it would take to ship enough ethanol from the mid west to southern Cali to full fill an E85 fuel base.
-Rick
"It is not true that ethanol engines have less power, quite the opposite."
Ethanol engines have more power, true. FlexFuel (GM's Gas/E85 hybrid) engines have less power on E85 than they do on Gas.
Ethanol contains more oxygen per volume than gas. That means that you need less air in the mix to get the optimal power, or you can push more ethanol into the cylinder with the same displacement. More fuel = larger expansion after ignition. But Ethanol has less energy per volume than gasoline, so even with more fuel, the power stroke is still weaker than a gas engine.
The place where Ethanol shines is in its Octane rating. With an octane rating upwords of 130 you can really crank up the compression on an ethanol engine and not have to worry about pinging (pre-spark detination). The higher the compression, the more efficient the engine, and the more power you get from the power stroke. So while you Gas engine may have 9.1:1 compression, an Ethanol engine can run close to 14:1. Even though ethanol has less energy per volume, the fact that you need less air in the charge and can compress it more means that you can get more power from it. The down side is that it will still take more fuel to get that power, but with that extra power you can reduce the final gear in the tranny and recoup the difference.
The well designed Gas/Ethanol engines usually use a lower compression ration in combination with a VNT or waste gate controled turbo. A computer monitors nocking (ping/pre-det) and increases or decreases the turbo's boost to raise or lower the effective compression ratio (note that the compression ratio itself does not change, but the effective volumes of fuel/air are altered). This way you can reduce boost and have a gas engine operating at the top end of its ability, or you can pile on the boost and run pure 85.
And just as a final comparison, Diesel engines use no spark plugs. They ignite the air/fuel mixture using compression and heat alone. The lowest compression ratio I have heard of on a Diesel is 14:1 (with a huge amount of turbo boost), and the highest was about 24:1 (with no turbo). Not only do Diesel engines have higher compression ratios then gas and ethanol engines, but Diesel also contains more energy per volume then either. With more potential energy and a more efficient use of that power it's no suprise that Diesel engines look so attactive. My VW Golf (a 4 cylinder 1.9l TDI diesel) hit 44mpg (B5) on my last tank and has 177ft/lbs of torque. My Pontiac Fiero (a 6 cylinder 3.4l HO gas) hit 20mpg (E10) on my last tank and has ~175ft/lbs of torque.
-Rick
I thought that if you post a non-anon post anyplace in the discution your mods are cleared from that topic. Not sure on that though.
-Rick
It really depends on the source. With soy, yeah, you are looking at 50 gal/acre, Palm oil puts you closed to 650 gal/acre of Bio Diesel. Corn Ethanol produces 300-450 gal/acre (depends on study), I don't have numbers on Sugarcane Ethanol gal/acres though. The holy grail though remains the power plant emission scrubbing bacteria. That stuff is projected to produce 10,000 to 20,000 gallons of Bio Diesel per acre. At that point a handful of power plants with algae farms could replace the entire US decency on foreign oil for Diesel, which would drop the cost of heating oil. If Algae farms prove successful, or even if they are half as successful as projected, then the arguments for ethanol go out the window and the market for light duty diesel's will skyrocket.
-Rick
I'm saying GM is not in a great financial position. So for them to invest in a marketing campaign for E85 is a win-win.
They invest a minimum amount in Flex Fuel vehicles (realistically, this is replacing rubber fuel lines and setting up the ECM to switch fuel mappings over a wider range depending on the O2 sensor's readings).
Since this is the 'low tech' way of making a gas engine run on ethanol (some more impressive FF vehicles use dynamic turbos and increase boost pressure when running more Ethanol, but so far as I know, GM's FF vehicles are only changing fuel mappings). It doesn't do anything for efficiency or power, so the vehicle will run significantly worse (power/mileage). But that doesn't matter since you can't really get E85 at any public pumps. I only know of a single E85 pump in all of south central Wisconsin. GM is aiming E85 primarily at fleet vehicles, for everyone else it's just a marketing gimmick. It allows them to look like a golden company in the face of rising gas prices to the public, they get free marketing off anyone talking about E85, and for a minimal investment in R&D and on the assembly line, they get a huge boost in sales.
E85 does have a place in the future of US fuel consumption, but that place is not GM's FlexFuel vehicle line. It's place is in vehicles designed to run on higher compression or those that can increase boost pressure. Vehicles that are designed to take advantage of Ethanol's properties as opposed to a patch kit that allows a gas engine to run on it.
Decreased engine life, shorter duration oil changes, invisible flames (on pure ethanol, not E85), it's amazing what some good marketing and desperate consumers will lead to.
-Rick
"This will no doubt help matters, but still the burden of this work is being put on the wrong people. It should be on those who want the patent in the first place."
But then there is a problem with motivation and bias. Maker of XYZ patent is of course going to say his patent is different than or a vast improvement over patent YXZ, even if the two are virtually identical. The patent submitter has a monetary stake at getting their patent approved, so of course they will do sufficient "research" to "prove" that their patent is unique and appropriate.
Thus the need for independent reviewers. Which is what frightens me somewhat about opening the process to peers. If MS submits a patent request for a new form of technology, Apple, Sun, IBM and who ever else wants to can flood the review panel with peers with a bias. Preventing MS from acquiring a patent (even a valid one) can prove to be financially beneficial to MS's competitors.
I think this system will help the process, but there still needs to be significant over-site to ensure that people are not buying the ability to block competitors' patents.
-Rick
I dunno, I rather enjoyed the Resident Evil movies.
-Rick
I have not been able to find a single peer reviewed source to back up that 7 times as efficient number. I see many references to the widely excepted 1.34 return, but I have found nothing that says 8.1 units returned. I did find one study that claimed SugarCane could hit 3.7 in production in Brazil, but that can't be directly compared to the US.
1) In Brazil manual labor can be had for $3-5/day. At that cost it can be cheaper to use a fleet of farm labor instead of a tractor. the fuel consumption requred by the work force is not included.
2) Brazil has a much larger land mass that is appropriate for growing sugar cane.
3) Ethanol has to be shipped in sealed tanks. Due to its propencity to attract water, piping it with fuel through the exist infrastructure would result in water contaminated fuel at the pump. The extra expences and fuel needed for the new delivery systems really kill the return. This is also the reason why E10 has been a pretty standard fuel in the Mid-West for years, but not on the costs. Brazil uses a much more localized distribution system (many 20k gallon plants as opposed to a centralized 10m gallon plants).
4) Ethanol has less power per volume then gas. That means those flex fuel vehicles are going to lose mileage AND power on E85. A proper E85+ designed engine could improve the power issue (Ethanol's higher octane rating allows for higher compression, which leads to more power and better efficiency).
I'm not saying Ethanol is bad, just that it isn't as great as GM wants you to believe.
Biodiesel is better (IMO) in that it can be added to the US's fuel infrastructure with no modication to the system or vehicles, it's performance is on par with petrol-diesel (ie: better than gas and ethanol).
-Rick
-Rick
Yeah, it sounds like for the most part, if you are using managed code you should be fine. If you are depending on OS level API calls, you are hosed. Nothing to suprising here. For most Java/.Net apps this isn't the end of the world. For biometrics drivers, and applications that interact with them, yeah, it's going to suck.
-Rick
Yes, the parent company will make money supporting OS software. This is nothing new. The only difference here is the OS developers and community managers have a chance to earn 'points' that they can redeam on prizes. So if you are an OS developer and willing to live off of cracker jacks, then yes, you can get paid this way.
-Rick
The point of my anology was to show that ignoring 'crazy' people with access to government and mass media is not a wise idea. Yes, it was an extreme comparison, and no, I do not believe that Thompson is going to go on a rampage killing millions.
The Nazi's did how ever determine what material was appropriate for the masses, and "un-German" books and other "socially disturbing" material were banned and burnt. Would you ignore Thompson if he called for M video games to be banned? Would you ignore him if he held video game burning events in front of the capital? Would you ignore him if he were actively lobying for strictor video game content laws?
Our for fathers fought and died to ensure that we have our civil liberties. But that doesn't mean they are ours forever. We must always be vigilant and defend our cibil liberties and protect them, and our way of life from those who would seek to rule us under tyrany with lives shaped in their views.
-Rick
"As consumers we can opt not to pick up newspapers, magazines and the like that have him blasting his usual rhetoric on their pages."
;)
And the Jews had every right to ignore the Nazi party in the early 1930s. Ignoring those who preach for the restriction of our civil liberties is every bit as damning as signing those civil liberties away yourself.
"And frankly, those that are likely to listen to him and believe him are those that already made up their minds."
Given enough publicity to the contrary people can and will change their minds. Just look at Bush's track record for proof on that one.
"Screaming at Thompson himself is not likely to change his mind, or anyone else's sadly."
I never said scream at Thompson. I said discredit him. Attack his position, his stance, and his point of view. If all else fails, implicate him in a scandle. Money laundering, political payoffs, underage Philipino boys, what ever. Sure, it might not be completely ethical, but it'll erode a lot of his constituency.
-Rick
"Honestly, the best course of action is to ignore him."
While that may work in the play ground, ignoring people who have access to mass publication and political lobiests is all round a bad idea. The American people will beleive what ever lie is said the most. The best way to beat him is to get him involved in a scandle, even a wide spread rumor of sexual deviance would be enough to close a lot of the right wing doors in his face.
-Rick
Yeah, it's a small car, but it's actually quite roomy on the inside, lots of cargo space, and enough room in the back seat for a 6' guy to sit comfortably. At $23k fully loaded (sun/moon roof, AC, 6 disc changer + monsoon system, etc...) the TDI is rated at 45mpg diesel. With a gental foot, 50mpg is achievable. Also, since it's diesel, you can run it off Biodiesel. Anything over B5 voids the warenty, but people have had no problems running their older TDIs on BD100 (other then clogging the fuel filter after initially making the change).
Lower emissions, carbon nuetral, higher gas mileage, reduced foreign dependency, existing distribution network, renewable resource (soy beans)... the only reason to NOT switch to BD is that BD100 will gel around ~40 degrees. Running blends of BD (BD20 with winter D2 has virtually no gelling issues in the continental US) can take care of that. And in the colder climates, tank heaters can keep the juice flowing with out a problem.
-Rick
At the risk of being modded -1 redundant, I couldn't agree with you more.
-Rick
My dog died 12 years ago. Which oddly enough, is about the last time that Dvorak was right about something.
-Rick
Not sure if you were intending a /sarcasm tag in there, but I've still got two open positions at my company for VB.Net developers. One entry, one midlevel. Know anyone in the Madison, WI area?
-Rick
My dog's ass sees the sun more often than Dvorak actually calls one correctly.
-Rick
No joke, we have 800 people going out over one IP from here. Kinda a pisser when I hit the 'slow down cowboy! you just posted' message. As much as the stats are inflated by dynamic IPs and multiple logon points, they are deflated by NAT and Proxies.
-Rick
Is it still a slashvertisement if the product is "free"?
-Rick