Besides, it's always easier to critique someone else's work than create something novel yourself.
Did you read on below the video?
In 1994-1995 I designed (while consulting for IBM) screen mock-ups for navigating
through the National Gallery via information kiosks. [...]
The design ideas here include high-resolution touch-screens; minimizing computer
admin debris; spatial distribution of information rather than temporal stacking;
complete integration of text, images, and live video; a flat non-hierarchical
interface; and replacing spacious icons with tight words. [...]
Is being forced by necessity still unreasonable? Or do all others have to change their lifestyle even more in order to not disturb SUV driving country-dwellers?
I didn't say it's always siple or cheap. But a harddrive failure can still wipe it out just like malware can, so you need to have a backup anyway if you want to be safe.
Yeah, well, the article doesn't indicate who interviewed him, so this "everybody who interviewed him was impressed" statement doesn't necessarily carry much weight.
Yeah, I think at RedHat, candidates for the CEO position are interviewed by a panel of gardener, janitor, and head of cleaning personnel.
Yeah, "market failure" was probably the wrong word. As usual, the market as such was successful. But, also as usual, since it is a non-ideal (ie., real) market with arbitrary rules and constraints it efficiently optimized for the creation and perpetuation of a situation nobody particularly cares for and few profit from.
Well, I just used this link because it was the first URL my fingers typed for a car different from the mentioned Escort, with a powerful engine, that still gets good mpg. Some German auto mag recently did a test comparing the listed and real fuel consumptions and yes, some are ridiculously understated. BMW fared quite well though, IIRC you'd have to add 10% for real life.
BMW have recently added a number of unspectacular but efficient techniques to reduce fuel consumption across their whole fleet. E.g., they turn off the engine automatically when stopping and putting the gear into neutral. When you press the clutch, the engine starts again, faster than you can put in a gear. I have a new Mini Cooper S Clubman with this stuff, and it works great. Suddenly it feels stupid and noisy seeing the other cars idling in a jam or at a red light (works only above 3 degrees centigrade though). The real-life fuel consumption I get is within the 10% margin compared to the listed values. Of course, this is all moot if the driver does not drive economical.
Oh yeah, stupid units. Thanks. Google calc does it right, but I stupidly had searched for the number. That's the smallest (well, "small" for BMW 5 standards) gas engine, the 520i. It's a 2 liter 4-cylinder with 170 hp (210 Nm torque). The 520d (4-cyl diesel, 350 Nm torque, 177 hp) is listed as 6.7 l/100km urban, 4.5 extra-urban, 5.3 composite. Add 10% or so for real life, depending on driving style.
I've seen no facts from you either. No problem, as I don't have any either (and due to a tremendous hangover feel unable to search). But I have said so from the start and just wanted the whole life cycle considered. Zero-emission might mean tailpipe in your circles. In the European industry reports and auto magazines I read it often doesn't and larger parts of the cycle are taken into account or at least is suggested. Sorry for that.
You should quit being offended because someone does not unconditionally believe in your pet tech and just agree that yes, it makes sense to look at the whole cycle and all the impacts. If then it turns out that battery cars are better, then fine for me - I am not opposed to them. For me, "all the impacts" also includes that I would not much fancy a proliferation of nuclear plants to produce the power, along with the increase of police power that goes along with them, for "security from terrorists".
You are referring to the infamous CNW Marketing "Dust-to-dust" lifecycle cost analysis, which came out with a silly claim that a Hummer is greener than a prius.
No I'm not. I'm referring to numerous European studies I have read about over the last 10 years or more. I don't know who commissioned them and how correct they are, though.
OP has a point re the time frame. Look at stuff humans have built a few hundred years ago, from governments to whole cities. Most are not there anymore. And you believe in humanity's ability to protect and maintain stuff for 100,000 (!) years. Also: http://www.physorg.com/news116329421.html
I agree that burning of fossil fuels in centralized plants reduces the emissions and makes those that occur easier to manage but nevertheless, moving the emissions from A to B and reducing them does not make them "zero". And you really need to look at overall resource consumption over the whole car life cycle from production to recycling, not just the fuel consumption or even just the tailpipe emissions. I'm too lazy to search for a link, but I have read many times that most of the resource consumption a car will have over its lifetime has already happened by the time it leaves the production plant. Considering the additional parts and complexity of, e.g., a Prius, it seems entirely conceivable to me that its whole lifecycle uses more resources than a comparable non-hybrid. I know little about the environmental impact of current battery production, but I imagine it is not pretty. Multiply by the billions of cars in existence.
Slashdot Mirror
Kind of. But when running proprietary software you just have to live with uncertainty and doubt.
Did you read on below the video?
The mock-ups are included, too.IIS6 has never had a remote code execution hole. Ever.
That you know of.
Free market can do no wrong -- by definition.
that's only true if you are a free market. If you are a human being affected by markets, free or otherwise, then yes, it can do wrong.
What if they just can't afford the gas anymore? Do others have to subsidize it?
And it's not as if we had to give up meat completely. It would already help if people reduced their meat consumption to healthy levels.
Ask? No. Force? Yes.
Is being forced by necessity still unreasonable? Or do all others have to change their lifestyle even more in order to not disturb SUV driving country-dwellers?
I didn't say it's always siple or cheap. But a harddrive failure can still wipe it out just like malware can, so you need to have a backup anyway if you want to be safe.
Well, they should have backups. I mean really, it's the same as the hd dying or something.
Yeah, well, the article doesn't indicate who interviewed him, so this "everybody who interviewed him was impressed" statement doesn't necessarily carry much weight.
Yeah, I think at RedHat, candidates for the CEO position are interviewed by a panel of gardener, janitor, and head of cleaning personnel.
Would you also blame a plumber for reporting to the cops the baggie of dope that he saw on your coffee table?
Certainly, snitch.
Would you have one of these in your cellar?
Have one myself? Not likely, but possible. Wanting my dumb-ass neighbors to have one? No way.
There's also no more sure-fire way to increase the power of the police and military. Well, except a terrorism scare.
Of course its a toss up if an average user would use a log off button
That's why all bank sites I know log you out if you are inactive for a while. Seems like a good idea.
Free means no restrictions
Your basic premise is wrong.
Yeah, "market failure" was probably the wrong word. As usual, the market as such was successful. But, also as usual, since it is a non-ideal (ie., real) market with arbitrary rules and constraints it efficiently optimized for the creation and perpetuation of a situation nobody particularly cares for and few profit from.
Well, I just used this link because it was the first URL my fingers typed for a car different from the mentioned Escort, with a powerful engine, that still gets good mpg. Some German auto mag recently did a test comparing the listed and real fuel consumptions and yes, some are ridiculously understated. BMW fared quite well though, IIRC you'd have to add 10% for real life.
BMW have recently added a number of unspectacular but efficient techniques to reduce fuel consumption across their whole fleet. E.g., they turn off the engine automatically when stopping and putting the gear into neutral. When you press the clutch, the engine starts again, faster than you can put in a gear. I have a new Mini Cooper S Clubman with this stuff, and it works great. Suddenly it feels stupid and noisy seeing the other cars idling in a jam or at a red light (works only above 3 degrees centigrade though). The real-life fuel consumption I get is within the 10% margin compared to the listed values. Of course, this is all moot if the driver does not drive economical.
Oh yeah, stupid units. Thanks. Google calc does it right, but I stupidly had searched for the number. That's the smallest (well, "small" for BMW 5 standards) gas engine, the 520i. It's a 2 liter 4-cylinder with 170 hp (210 Nm torque). The 520d (4-cyl diesel, 350 Nm torque, 177 hp) is listed as 6.7 l/100km urban, 4.5 extra-urban, 5.3 composite. Add 10% or so for real life, depending on driving style.
Cool, thanks for the links.
I've seen no facts from you either. No problem, as I don't have any either (and due to a tremendous hangover feel unable to search). But I have said so from the start and just wanted the whole life cycle considered. Zero-emission might mean tailpipe in your circles. In the European industry reports and auto magazines I read it often doesn't and larger parts of the cycle are taken into account or at least is suggested. Sorry for that.
You should quit being offended because someone does not unconditionally believe in your pet tech and just agree that yes, it makes sense to look at the whole cycle and all the impacts. If then it turns out that battery cars are better, then fine for me - I am not opposed to them. For me, "all the impacts" also includes that I would not much fancy a proliferation of nuclear plants to produce the power, along with the increase of police power that goes along with them, for "security from terrorists".
You are referring to the infamous CNW Marketing "Dust-to-dust" lifecycle cost analysis, which came out with a silly claim that a Hummer is greener than a prius.
No I'm not. I'm referring to numerous European studies I have read about over the last 10 years or more. I don't know who commissioned them and how correct they are, though.
bizarro world
OP has a point re the time frame. Look at stuff humans have built a few hundred years ago, from governments to whole cities. Most are not there anymore. And you believe in humanity's ability to protect and maintain stuff for 100,000 (!) years. Also: http://www.physorg.com/news116329421.html
in the early 90s carburetion definitely was not the norm. By the mid-80s, nearly all new cars were fuel injected
Yes, but you can still fit them with LPG engines rather easily. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autogas
I agree that burning of fossil fuels in centralized plants reduces the emissions and makes those that occur easier to manage but nevertheless, moving the emissions from A to B and reducing them does not make them "zero". And you really need to look at overall resource consumption over the whole car life cycle from production to recycling, not just the fuel consumption or even just the tailpipe emissions. I'm too lazy to search for a link, but I have read many times that most of the resource consumption a car will have over its lifetime has already happened by the time it leaves the production plant. Considering the additional parts and complexity of, e.g., a Prius, it seems entirely conceivable to me that its whole lifecycle uses more resources than a comparable non-hybrid. I know little about the environmental impact of current battery production, but I imagine it is not pretty. Multiply by the billions of cars in existence.