We use metric measurements for stuff like measuring volumes and weights of food items etc, but we stil use miles as our official unit of distance on all road signs, and mph is the major unit on our speedometers. I've never seen any evidence that we have plans to change that, do you have any citations?
It would be quite a lot of effort and expense to change all our distance and speed limit signs. Not to mention we'd probably have to do it twice - once for dual units, then eventually after a few years switching to km completely, presumably after all new cars have been sold with km/h as the major unit of measurement for a good few years.
Remember with an ICE you've got the engine block itself, exhaust piping, radiator, oil, clutch and brake system with their own fluid.. an all electric car is going to save a lot of weight. I just looked up the weight of a Tesla roadster, anlit's pretty much exactly the same weight as my own 2 sweater sports car, which is also based on a Lotus chassis. From a selfish point of view, the electric vehicle is a lot simpler though, so should hopefully be cheaper and easier to maintain at home.
I remember a discussion here before saying how coal plants were much more efficient than car engines at least - and we can also further reduce coal plant emssions, just in many cases we haven't cleaned them up yet because of ths costs involved.
The batteries are definitely the main problem, but we're still improving our battery tech:)
These solar cars and efficiency are a great thing and all, but sometimes I'd still like to see a competition with cars shooting flames out the back, Bat-mobile style...
I bet those rockets cars are way better for making toast.
You're going to need a new Ireland, because it's apparently going to lose the gulf stream and get pretty fecking cold. Here in Scotland we'll probably end up with the same climate as southern Canada. At least the summers will be warmer:)
It's definitely better than our current method of getting fossil fuels - and there are probably some uses where these fuels will still be the best option for energy storage purposes - but I still think it's best if we continue to look into electric vehicles where possible.
Some guys below were working out energy acre, and solar gave much more energy per year than these bacteria.
Of course as usual it's probably best to have a mix, and keep researching and improving on all of these things.
I'm just going to assume you're trolling and stop responding btw.
I think it is clear who the liar is.
You've taken that quote out of context, it had a conditional before it. You also don't understand analogies.
Your other posts don't seem like trolls so I'm going to have to go with you just being an irresponsible and stupid person who would rather blame external factors for things that you could have avoided. I hope you don't end up killing anybody when you drive around in cold weather as if there is no chance of ice around the corner.
Are you kidding? That seems very cheap already if these prices I'm seeing after googling are per barrel. This is amazing news for generations in the near future, though possibly awful news for the ones after that if we can't switch to energy sources that don't create so much pollution. Whatever you think of global warming, pollution is nasty, and giving us such delightful things as asthma.
Seems like you washed away your sense of mildly racist humour. I don't get offended when people makes jokes about kilts and sheep... mmmm... those sexy fluffy beasties...
What is your deal? I've already said that I'm not applying one standard to myself and another to other people. If I ever do that, it will only be to judge myself more harshly than I would others, not to make things easier on myself. You can think of me as a liar or an idiot if you want, but really you are being so nonsensical sometimes that I'm having a hard time telling whether you're trolling, or just stupid (ie I already think you're a liar or an idiot, so don't feel bad about doing the same thing to me).
I've skidded uncontrollably on ice before, and I know it was my fault. I've hit other cars in the past, and I know it was my own fault. Just because something has happened to me doesn't mean I automatically blame external factors.
This is nothing to do with me trying to convince myself I'm a perfect driver, this is me trying to get people to think responsibly and improve their own driving, as I have done with my own driving. I'm a much, much, much safer driver now than 10 years ago when I first started learning to drive.
You are trying to lump in collisions with sentient objects outside of your own control in with unthinking factors like the weather, and I don't think that is right. It's like trying to compare a dog biting you to you putting your hand in a lit fireplace. The first is outwith your control, the second is your own fault. You can reduce the risk of colliding with another sentient being, but you can't eliminate it entirely. A fireplace is a potentially very dangerous thing, and yet the distance you are from it is entirely under your own control. If you get too close, you'll get hurt. This is the same as any of the driving factors that are not controlled by sentient beings.
Factors that are outwith your control but that should never be the cause of an accident are things like rain and snow. I'd like to hear your opinion on these, because you seem to be one of those people that likes to blame their accidents on things like "it was raining".
I meant a boat built out of real Lego by the way, not a virtual boat. If someone started to put Lego into their own game without permission then Lego should of course protect their assets.
So, your dangerous activity is better than someone else's dangerous activity. Check.
What was this meant to mean then? That's where the "context of varying degrees of danger" came into it, and I was pointing out that my comments were saying no such thing.
My original comment, that almost all accidents are human error to the extent that people need to accept it and learn ways to improve their road sense, is true, and I still think my examples made sense. You haven't actually said anything to make me think otherwise, because your reductio ad absurdum of "all accidents could be avoided if you stay at home" is obvious and is failing to recognise that in fact almost all accidents would disappear if drivers took it upon themselves to pay more attention, learn safer driving habits, and then drive within the limits of their own driving ability, and the conditions.
Even if you're a theoretically perfect driver, then yes you could still have accidents if other things crash into you rather than you crashing into them, but that would have to happen without adequate warning for the theoretically perfect driver to not be able to avoid the accident. For example a driver coming the opposite direction has a heart attack and swerves into the opposing traffic when they're both going 60mph.
I said the wind was different, because (in my country at least) it takes time for the weather to change dramatically, and you'd know beforehand if the winds were starting to get dangerous.
If that's not clear enough, I'm just going to assume you're trolling and stop responding btw.
Yes, I said "unless an animal runs across the road or similar", ie any other very occasional "act of god" type freak occurrences, like a strong gust of wind on a calm day (which I've never experienced, though I admit it could happen in extreme climates as I've stated elsewhere). Why are you so desperate to argue about it?
I still stand by the claim that not all moments of driving are equally dangerous, nor are all dangers equal. It's not a black and white issue, and I don't know why you were trying to say that the animal and wind risks are exactly the same level of danger and probability.
Hmm I just reread your first comment and noticed the "you haven't hit an animal or two have you?" (I didn't notice before because I reacted to your "better not to drive at all" talk). Now your "your activity is more dangerous" comment makes more sense. No, I haven't hit an animal. Run over a couple of rabbits, but that's it. The animal one is just one of the occurrences that are almost impossible to foresee in every situation (ie if there are no signs to warn of animals and someone doesn't know the area) and avoid, and therefore it's hard to say it's driver error. My uncle did hit a deer recently but that's about it, and I don't judge his driving any differently than I'd judge yours or anyone elses just because he's my uncle.
In revision to my previous comment, after reading a couple of articles it seems that it's the actual recreation of World Of Warcraft content that's pissing them off, not even the name (though it certainly didn't help the project to stay off of their radar).
It's not a distro though, it's a mod for a game. It would be like the makers of Lego getting annoyed at someone for calling a boat they made a "lego boat"..
Slashdot Mirror
We use metric measurements for stuff like measuring volumes and weights of food items etc, but we stil use miles as our official unit of distance on all road signs, and mph is the major unit on our speedometers. I've never seen any evidence that we have plans to change that, do you have any citations?
It would be quite a lot of effort and expense to change all our distance and speed limit signs. Not to mention we'd probably have to do it twice - once for dual units, then eventually after a few years switching to km completely, presumably after all new cars have been sold with km/h as the major unit of measurement for a good few years.
Hopefully. In 2009/2010 we had our coldest winter for 30 years, and this year it's been worse in terms of snow and ice.
Remember with an ICE you've got the engine block itself, exhaust piping, radiator, oil, clutch and brake system with their own fluid.. an all electric car is going to save a lot of weight. I just looked up the weight of a Tesla roadster, anlit's pretty much exactly the same weight as my own 2 sweater sports car, which is also based on a Lotus chassis. From a selfish point of view, the electric vehicle is a lot simpler though, so should hopefully be cheaper and easier to maintain at home.
I remember a discussion here before saying how coal plants were much more efficient than car engines at least - and we can also further reduce coal plant emssions, just in many cases we haven't cleaned them up yet because of ths costs involved.
The batteries are definitely the main problem, but we're still improving our battery tech :)
We still use miles in the UK too.
These solar cars and efficiency are a great thing and all, but sometimes I'd still like to see a competition with cars shooting flames out the back, Bat-mobile style...
I bet those rockets cars are way better for making toast.
You're going to need a new Ireland, because it's apparently going to lose the gulf stream and get pretty fecking cold. Here in Scotland we'll probably end up with the same climate as southern Canada. At least the summers will be warmer :)
This is the one of the best posts I've ever seen in one of these climate change battle royales.
Although a lot of people don't seem to be too concerned with the idea of humanity being wiped out, considering they won't be around to see it.
It's definitely better than our current method of getting fossil fuels - and there are probably some uses where these fuels will still be the best option for energy storage purposes - but I still think it's best if we continue to look into electric vehicles where possible.
Some guys below were working out energy acre, and solar gave much more energy per year than these bacteria.
Of course as usual it's probably best to have a mix, and keep researching and improving on all of these things.
Of course, that would slightly raise energy costs, so why bother?
I hate us.
I'm just going to assume you're trolling and stop responding btw.
I think it is clear who the liar is.
You've taken that quote out of context, it had a conditional before it. You also don't understand analogies.
Your other posts don't seem like trolls so I'm going to have to go with you just being an irresponsible and stupid person who would rather blame external factors for things that you could have avoided. I hope you don't end up killing anybody when you drive around in cold weather as if there is no chance of ice around the corner.
and will lead to oligarhy (true 'mericans spell it that way and fear it)
It's pretty much what we have already in most places - might as well switch to a better form of energy to make the most of it?
Are you kidding? That seems very cheap already if these prices I'm seeing after googling are per barrel. This is amazing news for generations in the near future, though possibly awful news for the ones after that if we can't switch to energy sources that don't create so much pollution. Whatever you think of global warming, pollution is nasty, and giving us such delightful things as asthma.
I think HPoSoft would be a better name, pronounced "hipposoft".
Xenophobic then? It's exactly the same concept anyway, ragging on something simply for being "not like me".
Them sitting in a can for 500 days is itself providing important data for research though.
I wonder if they get a bonus for making it all the way through. That would also skew the results.
Plus, gravity sucks. It would be way more fun living in a zero g spaceship.
Seems like you washed away your sense of mildly racist humour. I don't get offended when people makes jokes about kilts and sheep... mmmm... those sexy fluffy beasties...
What is your deal? I've already said that I'm not applying one standard to myself and another to other people. If I ever do that, it will only be to judge myself more harshly than I would others, not to make things easier on myself. You can think of me as a liar or an idiot if you want, but really you are being so nonsensical sometimes that I'm having a hard time telling whether you're trolling, or just stupid (ie I already think you're a liar or an idiot, so don't feel bad about doing the same thing to me).
I've skidded uncontrollably on ice before, and I know it was my fault. I've hit other cars in the past, and I know it was my own fault. Just because something has happened to me doesn't mean I automatically blame external factors.
This is nothing to do with me trying to convince myself I'm a perfect driver, this is me trying to get people to think responsibly and improve their own driving, as I have done with my own driving. I'm a much, much, much safer driver now than 10 years ago when I first started learning to drive.
You are trying to lump in collisions with sentient objects outside of your own control in with unthinking factors like the weather, and I don't think that is right. It's like trying to compare a dog biting you to you putting your hand in a lit fireplace. The first is outwith your control, the second is your own fault. You can reduce the risk of colliding with another sentient being, but you can't eliminate it entirely. A fireplace is a potentially very dangerous thing, and yet the distance you are from it is entirely under your own control. If you get too close, you'll get hurt. This is the same as any of the driving factors that are not controlled by sentient beings.
Factors that are outwith your control but that should never be the cause of an accident are things like rain and snow. I'd like to hear your opinion on these, because you seem to be one of those people that likes to blame their accidents on things like "it was raining".
I meant a boat built out of real Lego by the way, not a virtual boat. If someone started to put Lego into their own game without permission then Lego should of course protect their assets.
So, your dangerous activity is better than someone else's dangerous activity. Check.
What was this meant to mean then? That's where the "context of varying degrees of danger" came into it, and I was pointing out that my comments were saying no such thing.
My original comment, that almost all accidents are human error to the extent that people need to accept it and learn ways to improve their road sense, is true, and I still think my examples made sense. You haven't actually said anything to make me think otherwise, because your reductio ad absurdum of "all accidents could be avoided if you stay at home" is obvious and is failing to recognise that in fact almost all accidents would disappear if drivers took it upon themselves to pay more attention, learn safer driving habits, and then drive within the limits of their own driving ability, and the conditions.
Even if you're a theoretically perfect driver, then yes you could still have accidents if other things crash into you rather than you crashing into them, but that would have to happen without adequate warning for the theoretically perfect driver to not be able to avoid the accident. For example a driver coming the opposite direction has a heart attack and swerves into the opposing traffic when they're both going 60mph.
I said the wind was different, because (in my country at least) it takes time for the weather to change dramatically, and you'd know beforehand if the winds were starting to get dangerous.
If that's not clear enough, I'm just going to assume you're trolling and stop responding btw.
Yes, I said "unless an animal runs across the road or similar", ie any other very occasional "act of god" type freak occurrences, like a strong gust of wind on a calm day (which I've never experienced, though I admit it could happen in extreme climates as I've stated elsewhere). Why are you so desperate to argue about it?
I still stand by the claim that not all moments of driving are equally dangerous, nor are all dangers equal. It's not a black and white issue, and I don't know why you were trying to say that the animal and wind risks are exactly the same level of danger and probability.
Hmm I just reread your first comment and noticed the "you haven't hit an animal or two have you?" (I didn't notice before because I reacted to your "better not to drive at all" talk). Now your "your activity is more dangerous" comment makes more sense. No, I haven't hit an animal. Run over a couple of rabbits, but that's it. The animal one is just one of the occurrences that are almost impossible to foresee in every situation (ie if there are no signs to warn of animals and someone doesn't know the area) and avoid, and therefore it's hard to say it's driver error. My uncle did hit a deer recently but that's about it, and I don't judge his driving any differently than I'd judge yours or anyone elses just because he's my uncle.
Hehehe.. smoka-bowla.. perhaps when it's legal.
In revision to my previous comment, after reading a couple of articles it seems that it's the actual recreation of World Of Warcraft content that's pissing them off, not even the name (though it certainly didn't help the project to stay off of their radar).
I don't think it was a C&D letter so much as a copyright violation that was reported to YouTube, and then the guy flipped out. All is now well though.
It's not a distro though, it's a mod for a game. It would be like the makers of Lego getting annoyed at someone for calling a boat they made a "lego boat"..
I read some articles about it earlier too. This is a quote from one of the developers to another:
So. Youtube just sent me this message. Apparently Blizzard is not happy. They threw the copyright hammer at me. I don’t know what to think right now.