Hmmm... what if you need a passenger car (that seats 2 car seats side by side and 2 adults in the front) which can also carry random large things like furniture, doors, long 2x4s, 1000 lbs of sand, etc.?
Trailer. But that would actually require some driving skill.
Shouldn't the balance in market have prevented such a huge blast in fuel prices?
No, why should it ? The worldwide demand for oil simply cannot decrease quickly when prices rise. As long as the speculators don't run out of money, they can keep driving the price up (and thereby make money). Unless demand for oil suddenly drops sharply or supply increases noticably, prices are going to stay up and continue going up.
Heck. I wonder why environmentalists haven't figured this out years ago: Buy oil futures, make a crapload of money _and_ encourage looking for alternatives at the same time.
Re:completely missing the point with SUV's.
on
The SUV Is Dethroned
·
· Score: 1
A status symbol, representing what exactly? That your IQ is probably representable using the fingers on your hand?
Geez, where have you been the last 10 (or maybe 20) years ? Dumb is cool. You can get famous and rich by being dumb. Heck, if you're looking for a career in politics, don't try to be a smartypants elitist - dumb is what people want. They can relate to it.
Just don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen.
It might happen if third- or fourth-generation biofuel production turns out to be viable on a large scale, or we manage to get fusion power working. I don't see any of those two happening in the next ten years.
And they don't sell because it's more fun to drive a car with a 300 hp engine.
Driving is a mind-numbingly boring waste of time for me. You could put a rocket engine on my car and I still wouldn't consider it any more fun than poking my eye out with a spoon. And since pretty much any car can go the speed limit, a bigger engine doesn't help significantly shorten the time I spend driving. Might as well save money (from the smaller engine and the better fuel economy) to spend on some actual fun.
So, if I missed any crucial one, please tell me, I would gladly save another few litres of gas.
Keep the tire pressure a little bit (~10%) above the recommendation in the manual. That recommendation provides the best comfort, but not the best fuel economy.
No sudden acceleration, nice and smooth up to speed.
Actually, since you drive a manual, that's bad advice. Shift up early (to avoid high rpm) and accelerate quickly. Gasoline engines are more efficient in this load situation than they are when accelerating slowly.
Re:SUVs were always mostly a waste
on
The SUV Is Dethroned
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
What's with all the SUV hating? If people hate the idea of poor fuel economy, brashness etc, why don't they rail against supercars?
Do a reality check: How many SUVs do you see driving around ? How many "supercars" do you see driving around ?
I was more referring to collisions, where SUVs come out intact and the other car comes out as a crashed block.
In case of an accident, I don't care what my car looks like afterwards. And if it looks "intact" after anything more serious than a fender bender, it most likely means that parts of my body need to be scraped off the windshield or steering wheel. No thanks.
Re:Everybody hates a truck until...
on
The SUV Is Dethroned
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
(a) it snows a lot
Road service is pretty much up to the job where I live. Oops, I forgot... taxes baaaaad, truck gooood.
(b) it floods
I'd rather have a boat than a truck in that case. Or a hovercraft.
(c) they are moving
Last time I moved, I rented a truck. I mean, a _real_ truck (7.5 ton). I only needed it for a day.
(d) they drive into a ditch
I usually don't. My dad does that a lot, but then again, he's got a 4WD and thinks he won't get stuck. He usually needs to call someone with a fscking tractor to pull him out, though.
(e) they need a truck but only have a little munchkin car
See (c). When I need a truck, I rent one. That's easy with all the money I save by not owning a truck. Heck, I even have money left over.
Re:hmmmm. as long as your are offering advice
on
The SUV Is Dethroned
·
· Score: 1
well, most SUV's are safer in an accident just because they are on stronger frames.
A "strong frame" only means that you can drive the car away after an accident, after scraping the remains of the occupants from the inside.
We hit 102 at my house. It must be global warming. But wait a minute, we had the coldest winter on record, so that must also be global warming.
Duh. The average doesn't tell you anything about the standard deviation. If it was -100 degrees C in the winter and 120 degrees C in the summer, you'd have a cozy average temperature of 10 degrees C, but would you like that ?
(And yes, the expected effects of GW do include larger temperature swings, i.e. colder winters and much warmer summers).
If CO2 was such a "Greenhouse Gas" then Mars should be a tropical paradise full of plant life because plants use CO2.
Could you explain that statment, especially considering the low density of the Martian atmosphere, please ? (and yes, Mars would be measurably colder without its atmosphere, but it would need a much higher density to turn it into a tropical paradise. And then, the CO2 would acidify any water, making plant life as we know it pretty much impossible.)
CO2 is "such a greenhouse gas", and it turns Venus into the hellhole it is, with a higher _average_ surface temperature than the maximum surface temperature of Mercury which receives several times the solar irradiance that Venus receives.
Take a guess what percentage the weighted variable Sun accounts for the Earth temperature.
Earth's albedo is pretty easy to determine. Your point is ?
You can't even *BEGIN* to guesstimate the impact of the variable of increasing CO2 on net average Earth temperature without reference to some assumed or hidden temperature model variables.
You can start with a black body model, which is a pretty good initial guess. Your point is ?
Given the size of our economy, we are actually quite efficient in our use for energy when compared to economies like China. China releases more carbon than the US while its economy is a fraction of the size.
So, yeah. The US is somewhat more efficient than, um, China when it comes to CO2 output per unit of GDP. It's nice that you can compare the great USA to some second world country and feel good that you barely manage to beat them.
Do you seriously think America can function with even 20% less oil ?
Given that most of the world, including most industrialized nations, can function with a fraction of the per capita oil consumption of the US, I'd say yes. Granted, some American habits and conveniences might have to go, but they're not essential for functioning.
Given the current rise in oil prices, we'll probably soon get a chance to find out whether my guess is correct. I hope it is, since we'll be in even deeper shit than we're already in otherwise.
I'm just curious... what would you accept as proof of a creator?
Well, a burning bush that doesn't get consumed by the fire would definitely be accepted. But I am sure that any creator could also be more creative than that.
The OVERALL total global temperature of the oceans have not changed significantly in the whole time we have been able to measure them.
The mass of Earth's hydrosphere is about three orders of magnitude higher than that of Earth's atmosphere. _Of course_ the hydrosphere's time constant for temperature changes is much, much higher than that of the atmosphere.
Look, I'm not a science denier, I just think something that's going to cost tens of TRILLIONS should require tons and tons of proof that it will truly screw things up. I don't think we're there yet.
Yes, just like recent wars. Oh well. They've only been in the single-trillion range by now, so the evidence requirements are significanly lower.
Enjoy your algae paste for breakfast, lunch and dinner.
If a species is so weak or specialized that it can't survive changing circumstances or new competitors, why shouldn't it go extinct?
Because it's tasty or valuable in other ways ?
While humans may accelerate the process, every ecosystem has to deal with change.
Humans are also a species. Getting to the point where change occurs to rapidly for us to keep up would be... unfortunate, even though it may be the ultimate lesson not to crap in your living room.
What is bad news for one species may be an opportunity for others.
Yes, I really want more disease-carrying mosquito species around.
Slashdot Mirror
The nice voice on TV told 'em that they wanted one.
Trailer. But that would actually require some driving skill.
No, why should it ? The worldwide demand for oil simply cannot decrease quickly when prices rise. As long as the speculators don't run out of money, they can keep driving the price up (and thereby make money). Unless demand for oil suddenly drops sharply or supply increases noticably, prices are going to stay up and continue going up.
Heck. I wonder why environmentalists haven't figured this out years ago: Buy oil futures, make a crapload of money _and_ encourage looking for alternatives at the same time.
Geez, where have you been the last 10 (or maybe 20) years ? Dumb is cool. You can get famous and rich by being dumb. Heck, if you're looking for a career in politics, don't try to be a smartypants elitist - dumb is what people want. They can relate to it.
Just don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen.
It might happen if third- or fourth-generation biofuel production turns out to be viable on a large scale, or we manage to get fusion power working. I don't see any of those two happening in the next ten years.
Driving is a mind-numbingly boring waste of time for me. You could put a rocket engine on my car and I still wouldn't consider it any more fun than poking my eye out with a spoon. And since pretty much any car can go the speed limit, a bigger engine doesn't help significantly shorten the time I spend driving. Might as well save money (from the smaller engine and the better fuel economy) to spend on some actual fun.
Keep the tire pressure a little bit (~10%) above the recommendation in the manual. That recommendation provides the best comfort, but not the best fuel economy.
Actually, since you drive a manual, that's bad advice. Shift up early (to avoid high rpm) and accelerate quickly. Gasoline engines are more efficient in this load situation than they are when accelerating slowly.
Do a reality check: How many SUVs do you see driving around ? How many "supercars" do you see driving around ?
In case of an accident, I don't care what my car looks like afterwards. And if it looks "intact" after anything more serious than a fender bender, it most likely means that parts of my body need to be scraped off the windshield or steering wheel. No thanks.
Road service is pretty much up to the job where I live. Oops, I forgot
(b) it floods
I'd rather have a boat than a truck in that case. Or a hovercraft.
(c) they are moving
Last time I moved, I rented a truck. I mean, a _real_ truck (7.5 ton). I only needed it for a day.
(d) they drive into a ditch
I usually don't. My dad does that a lot, but then again, he's got a 4WD and thinks he won't get stuck. He usually needs to call someone with a fscking tractor to pull him out, though.
(e) they need a truck but only have a little munchkin car
See (c). When I need a truck, I rent one. That's easy with all the money I save by not owning a truck. Heck, I even have money left over.
A "strong frame" only means that you can drive the car away after an accident, after scraping the remains of the occupants from the inside.
Apparently, you haven't heard of the concept of "Rapture".
Duh. The average doesn't tell you anything about the standard deviation. If it was -100 degrees C in the winter and 120 degrees C in the summer, you'd have a cozy average temperature of 10 degrees C, but would you like that ?
(And yes, the expected effects of GW do include larger temperature swings, i.e. colder winters and much warmer summers).
Well, it's your turn now. Enlighten me. Tell me which industries Europe doesn't have anymore while the US still does.
Heck, here' some more numbers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steel_production_by_country
Could you explain that statment, especially considering the low density of the Martian atmosphere, please ? (and yes, Mars would be measurably colder without its atmosphere, but it would need a much higher density to turn it into a tropical paradise. And then, the CO2 would acidify any water, making plant life as we know it pretty much impossible.)
CO2 is "such a greenhouse gas", and it turns Venus into the hellhole it is, with a higher _average_ surface temperature than the maximum surface temperature of Mercury which receives several times the solar irradiance that Venus receives.
Citation please ?
Here's mine:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ind_car_pro-industry-car-production
And I don't think all those cars build themselves while people sit behind computer screens.
Earth's albedo is pretty easy to determine. Your point is ?
You can't even *BEGIN* to guesstimate the impact of the variable of increasing CO2 on net average Earth temperature without reference to some assumed or hidden temperature model variables.
You can start with a black body model, which is a pretty good initial guess. Your point is ?
Citation please. Oh, here's mine:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/env_co2_emi-environment-co2-emissions
Also interesting:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/env_co2_emi_kg_per_2000_ppp_of_gdp-kg-per-2000-ppp-gdp
So, yeah. The US is somewhat more efficient than, um, China when it comes to CO2 output per unit of GDP. It's nice that you can compare the great USA to some second world country and feel good that you barely manage to beat them.
Given that most of the world, including most industrialized nations, can function with a fraction of the per capita oil consumption of the US, I'd say yes. Granted, some American habits and conveniences might have to go, but they're not essential for functioning.
Given the current rise in oil prices, we'll probably soon get a chance to find out whether my guess is correct. I hope it is, since we'll be in even deeper shit than we're already in otherwise.
Well, a burning bush that doesn't get consumed by the fire would definitely be accepted. But I am sure that any creator could also be more creative than that.
The mass of Earth's hydrosphere is about three orders of magnitude higher than that of Earth's atmosphere. _Of course_ the hydrosphere's time constant for temperature changes is much, much higher than that of the atmosphere.
Yes, just like recent wars. Oh well. They've only been in the single-trillion range by now, so the evidence requirements are significanly lower.
Actually, we would just need to value long-term profit over short-term profit. But we can't even do that.
Enjoy your algae paste for breakfast, lunch and dinner.
If a species is so weak or specialized that it can't survive changing circumstances or new competitors, why shouldn't it go extinct?
Because it's tasty or valuable in other ways ?
While humans may accelerate the process, every ecosystem has to deal with change.
Humans are also a species. Getting to the point where change occurs to rapidly for us to keep up would be ... unfortunate, even though it may be the ultimate lesson not to crap in your living room.
What is bad news for one species may be an opportunity for others.
Yes, I really want more disease-carrying mosquito species around.