Also, you and your 39 friends need to stand around for 6 hours performing mindless repetitive tasks. Not to mention wipe a few times because SOMEONE can't control their aggro. (I'm looking at you Mr. Mage...)
Not just 5,000 people. 5,000 people that work for AOL. Anyone with half a brain should have seen the writing on the wall years ago when they came up with that half-assed "AOL for Broadband" joke.
Lawerence:Damn straight. I always wanted to do that, man. And I think if I had a million dollars I could hook that up, cause chicks dig a dude with money. Peter:Well, not all chicks. Lawerence:Well, the kind of chicks that would double up on a dude like me do. Peter:Good point.
Exactly right. Ethanol and biodiesel are a CO2 "short cycle". The problem with burning fossil fuels is it turns carbon that was "fixed" in a solid or liquid form underground into CO2 in the atmosphere, where given enough of it will cause Big Problems.
While I agree with you that biodiesel is a more attractive solution, I have to disagree with "It isn't going to explode".
What do you think it is doing inside your engine? Pushing the piston with hugs and kisses?:) Gasoline doesn't just explode either. Under the right conditions it will, just like diesel.
And how does all that make Robert Rapier not a shill for the oil industry?
Even if switching to ethanol or biodiesel meant the same cost per mile as gasoline is now, I'd rather be using domestically produced renewable resources instead of pumping money into the region that gave us televised beheadings and 9/11.
You really have to understand that when "reading something somewhere" that there is a LOT of money on both sides. If you really want to understand an issue like this, you need to look at the research methodology and references. Article doesn't have any? Article is then useless.
Do you think BP or Exxon wants a non-fossil fuel energy source to flourish in the US? They have billions of dollars into the current infrastructure, and their primary goal is to wring all the money they can out of it while they can. If they have to muddy the waters with FUD, so be it.
On the other hand, the ethanol producers _also_ have a lot at stake in the form of possible future profits. They are likely to paint a too-rosy picture of what an alcohol based fuel can do. But with oilmen in control of the government, you can't really rely on them for an unbiased position either.
Hacking NASA's site to protest a conflict between Israel and Lebanon? Wow, why did't I think of that? Maybe if we bombed Chile we could defeat all hackers too!
Doesn't make me wonder. The Minuteman III and Polaris missiles have solid boosters with "end the world by" dates. Once a booster is expired, they either test fire it (sans warheads) or scrap it. The warheads can be reused on a fresh new booster.
If the timing wasn't backed off it would detonate the fuel, which means it explodes instead of burns
Wrong. If the timing wasn't backed off it would predetonate. In other words it would detonate before the spark plug fired and possibly before the piston has went past TDC. Which is a Bad Thing because it will harm bearings, valves, etc. When operating normally, the fuel/air mixture still explodes, set off by a spark from the cylinder's spark plug.
But gee, I'd hate to get hit from behind because I didn't hear the damn thing coming. You'd have to build some kind of noise-maker into it.
Yeah... they already have them. They're called horns. Also, modern internal combustion vehicles are very quiet when running. A friend of mine has a 2005 Camry, and I couldn't even hear the engine at idle. With a moving vehicle with a properly working muffler, most of what you hear is tire noise unless the driver is "gunning" the engine.
How is this at ALL more useful than having the intelligence built into the firearm? I'd say the electronics could be more robust and reliable when you only have one device per gun instead of one per round that is fired.
It sounds like something an ammo company came up with. "We need to find a way to increase our gross margin. I've got it! Make the ammo cost $5 per round by putting a chip in every casing!"
Our industry's biggest business challenge is to figure out how to convince consumers to pay "fair value" for the increased quality we are delivering. We need to monetize our "excess hours" of satisfied play. Our best games are unbelievably cheap on a per hour basis, compared to, say $1.00 per hour for paperback books, and $5-10 an hour for movies and DVD's.
Die in a fire you ass! Fine, as soon as gaming PCs/consoles are as cheap as the equipment needed to read a book you use that as a valid comparison. And as far as "excess hours", cut-n-paste level grinding and mindless drudgery does NOT count per-hour the same as watching a movie. Fucktard. I think we found one of the reasons EA sucks so hard.
...was when the telcom shill tried to make it seem like neutrality would be harming the ISPs, when in truth it would only harm their ability to extort money from internet based services.
ISPs already get money for bandwidth usage from sites they host AND their CUSTOMERS. How much more can they go for with a straight face?
Or they'll have to scrape you off the pavement with a putty knife. This would actually be news if it was a roadworthy vehicle. It's not, it's a bicycle with a tiny engine.
So I know the "official word" has the silly comparison to cell phone "speed", which is sad. I also understand that the implication is that these chips can do RF signal processing/generation on their own, which is what engineers are excited about.
But what people don't realize is these chips are over 16,000 faster than ham radios!!11!!1!
Arggg read the article they said they wanted to test the theoretical limits of these chips. They know speed increases with temperature. They wanted to know how much.
The word "increases" does not mean what you think it does.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a series of tubes. (cue techno music)
Also, you and your 39 friends need to stand around for 6 hours performing mindless repetitive tasks. Not to mention wipe a few times because SOMEONE can't control their aggro. (I'm looking at you Mr. Mage...)
Not just 5,000 people. 5,000 people that work for AOL. Anyone with half a brain should have seen the writing on the wall years ago when they came up with that half-assed "AOL for Broadband" joke.
I believe what he was going for was:
Lawerence: Damn straight. I always wanted to do that, man. And I think if I had a million dollars I could hook that up, cause chicks dig a dude with money.
Peter: Well, not all chicks.
Lawerence: Well, the kind of chicks that would double up on a dude like me do.
Peter: Good point.
think of the children!?
:)
Couldn't resist.
Exactly right. Ethanol and biodiesel are a CO2 "short cycle". The problem with burning fossil fuels is it turns carbon that was "fixed" in a solid or liquid form underground into CO2 in the atmosphere, where given enough of it will cause Big Problems.
While I agree with you that biodiesel is a more attractive solution, I have to disagree with "It isn't going to explode".
:) Gasoline doesn't just explode either. Under the right conditions it will, just like diesel.
What do you think it is doing inside your engine? Pushing the piston with hugs and kisses?
And how does all that make Robert Rapier not a shill for the oil industry?
Even if switching to ethanol or biodiesel meant the same cost per mile as gasoline is now, I'd rather be using domestically produced renewable resources instead of pumping money into the region that gave us televised beheadings and 9/11.
You really have to understand that when "reading something somewhere" that there is a LOT of money on both sides. If you really want to understand an issue like this, you need to look at the research methodology and references. Article doesn't have any? Article is then useless.
Do you think BP or Exxon wants a non-fossil fuel energy source to flourish in the US? They have billions of dollars into the current infrastructure, and their primary goal is to wring all the money they can out of it while they can. If they have to muddy the waters with FUD, so be it.
On the other hand, the ethanol producers _also_ have a lot at stake in the form of possible future profits. They are likely to paint a too-rosy picture of what an alcohol based fuel can do. But with oilmen in control of the government, you can't really rely on them for an unbiased position either.
Hacking NASA's site to protest a conflict between Israel and Lebanon? Wow, why did't I think of that? Maybe if we bombed Chile we could defeat all hackers too!
Have you tried ratcheting up clock speeds recently? Things are starting to glow and melt.
Ack! Trident, not Polaris. Stupid brain.
Doesn't make me wonder. The Minuteman III and Polaris missiles have solid boosters with "end the world by" dates. Once a booster is expired, they either test fire it (sans warheads) or scrap it. The warheads can be reused on a fresh new booster.
It said to stop surfing the net and get back to work.
If the timing wasn't backed off it would detonate the fuel, which means it explodes instead of burns
Wrong. If the timing wasn't backed off it would predetonate. In other words it would detonate before the spark plug fired and possibly before the piston has went past TDC. Which is a Bad Thing because it will harm bearings, valves, etc. When operating normally, the fuel/air mixture still explodes, set off by a spark from the cylinder's spark plug.
But gee, I'd hate to get hit from behind because I didn't hear the damn thing coming. You'd have to build some kind of noise-maker into it.
Yeah... they already have them. They're called horns. Also, modern internal combustion vehicles are very quiet when running. A friend of mine has a 2005 Camry, and I couldn't even hear the engine at idle. With a moving vehicle with a properly working muffler, most of what you hear is tire noise unless the driver is "gunning" the engine.
Doesn't telling the participants what the study is about beforehand invalidate any results? Or is that only for "real" studies?
FSUK RAMBUS!!!
Ahem. Sorry. It's a reaction I have whenever I see that company's name.
On my computers?
Would you mind sharing? The installations I've tried don't replace Windows.
How is this at ALL more useful than having the intelligence built into the firearm? I'd say the electronics could be more robust and reliable when you only have one device per gun instead of one per round that is fired.
It sounds like something an ammo company came up with. "We need to find a way to increase our gross margin. I've got it! Make the ammo cost $5 per round by putting a chip in every casing!"
Our industry's biggest business challenge is to figure out how to convince consumers to pay "fair value" for the increased quality we are delivering. We need to monetize our "excess hours" of satisfied play. Our best games are unbelievably cheap on a per hour basis, compared to, say $1.00 per hour for paperback books, and $5-10 an hour for movies and DVD's.
Die in a fire you ass! Fine, as soon as gaming PCs/consoles are as cheap as the equipment needed to read a book you use that as a valid comparison. And as far as "excess hours", cut-n-paste level grinding and mindless drudgery does NOT count per-hour the same as watching a movie. Fucktard. I think we found one of the reasons EA sucks so hard.
...was when the telcom shill tried to make it seem like neutrality would be harming the ISPs, when in truth it would only harm their ability to extort money from internet based services.
ISPs already get money for bandwidth usage from sites they host AND their CUSTOMERS. How much more can they go for with a straight face?
Or they'll have to scrape you off the pavement with a putty knife. This would actually be news if it was a roadworthy vehicle. It's not, it's a bicycle with a tiny engine.
So I know the "official word" has the silly comparison to cell phone "speed", which is sad. I also understand that the implication is that these chips can do RF signal processing/generation on their own, which is what engineers are excited about.
But what people don't realize is these chips are over 16,000 faster than ham radios!!11!!1!
Arggg read the article they said they wanted to test the theoretical limits of these chips. They know speed increases with temperature. They wanted to know how much.
The word "increases" does not mean what you think it does.