There's a lot of misinformation and misconceptions about how animals are related. Dimetrodon, a reptile that lived almost 300 million years ago is more closely related to mammals than any other extant group. "Reptile" is an awful catch-all term that includes lots of species not even closely related to each other. Crocodiles are much more closely related to birds and dinosaurs than they are to other reptiles, for example.
gentle acceleration because that is not only fuel-efficient
Citation needed.
Over a 50 mile stretch of road, the car accelerating at 1mph/mile will use more fuel than the car accelerating quickly up to 50mph. That is taken to the extreme, but it illustrates the point that more gentle acceleration does not necessarily mean better mpg - there must be a sweet spot in the middle somewhere, and I personally would guess it's a bit quicker than most would guess (my personally opinion is foot flat to the floor at low revs).
I'm a hypermiler. I get 51 mpg out of my diesel minivan, But I have to work really hard at it, drive slowly, draft trucks, avoid braking, coast and engine-brake whenever I can.
Engine braking is just as bad for fuel efficiency as ordinary braking is. The reason it's recommended is to preserve brake pads (and prevent brake overheating in extreme cases, like trucks down long hills), not to increase mpg.
When you say engine braking, I assume you mean deliberately changing down one or two gears to increase engine braking, rather than using the gear you were in. Taking the car entirely out of gear (or dropping the clutch) when braking is obviously bad for mpg because the car uses fuel to maintain tickover as you are braking, not to mention the additional strain put on the brakes.
Note : this is true for (most) modern cars with fuel injectors, which will not use any fuel when in gear with no accelerator pedal application. Older cars with carburetors will use fuel depending on their revs even with no accelerator pedal application. So, for optimum mpg for older cars, it probably is best to coast in neutral at tickover down hills just using the brakes. However, this is not very good for the brakes. You could turn the engine off altogether down long hills in old cars for even better mpg.... this is most definitely extremely not recommended, for lots of reasons.
Car taxes linked to engine displacement are ludicrous. I've got a 1.8 litre normally aspirated 4 pot Japanese hatchback, that does under 15 seconds quarter mile stock.
You want the rule : it's first to name, and that's basically it.
If you want to go around calling a dinosaur "scrotum humanum", feel free, but everyone will think you strange.
It definitely breaks the rules in terms of nomenclature, but scientific naming changes all the time anyway, redefining species into other places, etc.
My personal pet peeve is "Reptile". That contains every land vertebrate that was not a bird, mammal, dinosaur or amphibian. What people don't mention is that mammals evolved from separate reptiles to everything else, and we're more closely related to dimetrodon than birds or dinosaurs are or were. "Reptile" is just a crap catch all term that doesn't mean anything.
What I meant by "good cause" was that hunting generally is much easier with things we can easily hunt. Getting rid of stuff that can easily kill us is a good thing, even if it is difficult. Humanity also drove off loads of large carnivores, not to eat obviously.
There's also no reason not to think that a large part of the effect of humans on the megafauna was by killing the young.
I agree, and that could be the predominant means of humanity wiping out things like mammoths. However, there's no evidence for it. There is evidence for people killing adult mammoths.
And what is the mantra to chant when you hear the word "correlation"? All together now : "correlations are not, of themselves, evidence for causation."
Correlation _is_ causation a lot of the time. That mantra you chant is wrong. Correlation shows something going on that is connected between the two things. It may be caused by other things, but they _are_ connected in some way, otherwise there would not be any correlation.
The chances of "Scrotum Humanum" being accepted as a taxon are essentially nil.
We can accept silly names in the scientific community when they are not important, but when they're so central to understanding dinosaurs, and their discovery by modern man, silly names give idiots ammunition.
This particular creature is alleged over 60 feet tall, and more than 10 times the height of a man, which makes it more than 1000 times the mass of a human.
Well.... no. If we take human height to be 2m and weight to be 100kg (This is me, by the way, I've just used these numbers for simplicity):
Elephant = 4 metres or so, 2 * height, therefore should weigh 800kg. Actually, they weigh about 7000kg.
Giraffe = 6 metres or so, 3 * height, therefore should weigh 2700kg. Actually, they weigh about 1200kg.
The early estimates of this dinosaur's weight are about 77000kg, so not too far off your estimate. Most of its height is in its long neck.
People have been claiming that giant sauropods must have been semi-aquatic (or fully aquatic) because of their huge size for centuries, and this was the prevailing paradigm until the last 50 years or so. There's quite a lot of evidence now showing that they were at least mainly terrestrial.
As to how big they could get... simple mechanical engineering was the cause of the now mainly discredited aquatic theories, I think you'll probably have to find someone who actually knows a little about it.
I wasn't saying that bandwidth limited services would be for you. You've fulfilled 2 of my original criteria for needing more bandwidth right off the bat.
Yes... that is one of the problems with great whites, they eat everything else. However, even with eating everything else in the tank, they can't be kept alive for long.
Also note that dog lifespans have gone down since WWII. It's difficult to prove the exact cause, but the change to dry dog food and dogs spending less time outdoors are two of the suspects.
Breed specifications are the other reason. German Shepherds used to look like that. Now they look like this.
Being intelligent does not have any correlation to being able to be confined. Great white sharks, for example, cannot be kept in captivity. At all. They die after a couple of weeks, at best, generally. The world record is 44 days.
Unless you're downloading games regularly, watching high def videos online, or torrenting stuff, data caps should never be a problem.
The trouble is a lot of people are now doing most of the above. People who aren't don't care about caps, since they'll never get close to 100gb a month without those three.
Amontons' First Law: The force of friction is directly proportional to the applied load.
Therefore, in a perfect world, it doesn't matter at all how heavy your car is, it should go around corners at the same speed all other things being equal. However, it's (obviously) more complicated than that. Generally the lighter your car, the better it will go around a corner. This is mainly due to the way the tyre interacts with the road, and the way it deforms under load.
The Lotus Elise has far fewer electronic nannies than those it is competing against - it's a very basic (in a good way) car.
The problem is not completely dead batteries - if your battery is completely dead, your petrol car won't start whatever you do. However, there are loads of times when your battery doesn't have enough power to turn the starter motor, but does have enough to spark the plugs. In these cases, bump starting is desirable.
I used to have an old diesel XM hand me down whose alternator died. I drove it for about a month before I had enough money to get it fixed... I just parked at the top of hills, and bump started it by rolling down them every time. You had to careful no one could park in front of you, and angle the wheels outwards (low speed no power steering is not fun). My friend had an old Peugeot 205 that failed the same was when we were at university... that didn't get fixed until it died about 2 years later.
The first automatic I ever drove was an 18 tonne truck. I got in, and was just confused for a second. I then went and asked my boss how to drive it.
I'm glad I had that experience, though, because temping as an HGV driver you often turn up to places with a keycode to get in, directions, and not much else (including no one there). No one ever checked what kind of trucks I'd driven before, I'd only driven Mercedes manuals up until that point. My first experience with a semi-auto full size artic truck was at 4am in the morning with no one about. This semi-auto used a clutch pedal to get started, then switched to full auto when moving - the trouble was remembering to drop the clutch when you're stopping (often hours after you last used it). It was relatively intuitive, though.
In France, they fought heavily for their cheese, as EU wanted to force all cheeses to be pasteurized. This would have been bad news for cheese lovers. I think the French farmers won on this, and we can still eat lovely cheeses from strange places, but likely the war against fresh food is still going on, with more and more regulation making small farmers' life and direct sales increasingly difficult.
The EU is actually much more liberal than just about everywhere else in the world in regards to raw milk. It's actually illegal to sell something called Roquefort made with pasteurized milk (you can make it, just not call it Roquefort). Other cheeses are also commonly unpasteurized, like Gruyere and Emmental.
And in any event, unless you buy in at the IPO, you don't "help" a company or technology by buying their stock since the said stock is owned by some other dude and the sale does not bring a single more dollar to the company
This is like claiming there is no point voting because some other dude also voted. Companies live and die by how many people are willing to invest in them, so, in my opinion, buying stock is a company is definitely helping them.
Some things don't get a lot of wear. You touch them at most a few times a day.
Amusingly, my Logitech MX510 did die. The left click button failed (after about 5 years). However, I loved that mouse, and therefore bought another Logitech (a g9x, which I am still using). It was expensive, but I had no reservations about buying it because of the reviews and the performance of the previous mouse.
You see, when my MX510 died, I bought another Logitech product. It had served me well, and perhaps I could have got a replacement after it failed. My use was not typical, probably, but that shouldn't matter. Now an owner of a g9x, and when that dies.... I'll buy another Logitech mouse, because they have served me well.
Brazil has a lot of diversity but being 50 percent white means being 50 percent being something else.
That remaining 50% is lots of other things, mainly black, brown (this is closer to how it is described in Brazil, although not politically correct in the US), indigenous, middle eastern, east Asian, and others. The US, by contrast, is almost 3/4 white.
Do they have as many Russians? As many people from the middle east?
In my original post I mentioned Brazil has more people of Lebanese descent than Lebanon, they also have a large Syrian population. I don't know the Russian population of Brazil, but they do have relatively large populations of other east European peoples, such as Ukranian and Polish.
As many Muslims? Do they have large Buddhist communities? Do they have Amish?
You probably don't want to conflate religious diversity with racial diversity, they're not the same thing.
Brazil is _slightly_ less religiously diverse than the US, I admit. About 75% of Americans are Christian, whereas about 86% are Christian in Brazil. In the US Islam is at 0.6%, Buddhism is at 0.7%, Hinduism is at 0.4%. Contrast this to somewhere like England : Christianity 59%, Islam 5%, Hinduism 1.5%, Buddhism 0.5% (and 0.7% Jedi). This shows that England is much more religiously diverse than the United States.
How many distinct Indian tribes do they have? I doubt more then four or five. We have that many in some states.
You're really beginning to show your ignorance. I'll start you off with this. That list does not include many original tribes that have been integrated into the main Brazilian population (like American Indian tribes have been in the US).
And here's another question, does Brazil have a high level of non-spanish speaking immigrants? I doubt it. Which impacts literacy... Right?
Look, I'm right. So don't get mad when my facts line up. I have an unfair advantage... I'm right.
Ok, I think you must be trolling. How, exactly, does being Spanish speaking help in Brazil? I'll give you a hint : Spanish is not the language of Brazil.
I'll try to start getting mad when you get your facts to line up.
Slashdot Mirror
There's a lot of misinformation and misconceptions about how animals are related. Dimetrodon, a reptile that lived almost 300 million years ago is more closely related to mammals than any other extant group. "Reptile" is an awful catch-all term that includes lots of species not even closely related to each other. Crocodiles are much more closely related to birds and dinosaurs than they are to other reptiles, for example.
gentle acceleration because that is not only fuel-efficient
Citation needed.
Over a 50 mile stretch of road, the car accelerating at 1mph/mile will use more fuel than the car accelerating quickly up to 50mph. That is taken to the extreme, but it illustrates the point that more gentle acceleration does not necessarily mean better mpg - there must be a sweet spot in the middle somewhere, and I personally would guess it's a bit quicker than most would guess (my personally opinion is foot flat to the floor at low revs).
I'm a hypermiler. I get 51 mpg out of my diesel minivan, But I have to work really hard at it, drive slowly, draft trucks, avoid braking, coast and engine-brake whenever I can.
Engine braking is just as bad for fuel efficiency as ordinary braking is. The reason it's recommended is to preserve brake pads (and prevent brake overheating in extreme cases, like trucks down long hills), not to increase mpg.
When you say engine braking, I assume you mean deliberately changing down one or two gears to increase engine braking, rather than using the gear you were in. Taking the car entirely out of gear (or dropping the clutch) when braking is obviously bad for mpg because the car uses fuel to maintain tickover as you are braking, not to mention the additional strain put on the brakes.
Note : this is true for (most) modern cars with fuel injectors, which will not use any fuel when in gear with no accelerator pedal application. Older cars with carburetors will use fuel depending on their revs even with no accelerator pedal application. So, for optimum mpg for older cars, it probably is best to coast in neutral at tickover down hills just using the brakes. However, this is not very good for the brakes. You could turn the engine off altogether down long hills in old cars for even better mpg.... this is most definitely extremely not recommended, for lots of reasons.
Car taxes linked to engine displacement are ludicrous. I've got a 1.8 litre normally aspirated 4 pot Japanese hatchback, that does under 15 seconds quarter mile stock.
You want the rule : it's first to name, and that's basically it.
If you want to go around calling a dinosaur "scrotum humanum", feel free, but everyone will think you strange.
It definitely breaks the rules in terms of nomenclature, but scientific naming changes all the time anyway, redefining species into other places, etc.
My personal pet peeve is "Reptile". That contains every land vertebrate that was not a bird, mammal, dinosaur or amphibian. What people don't mention is that mammals evolved from separate reptiles to everything else, and we're more closely related to dimetrodon than birds or dinosaurs are or were. "Reptile" is just a crap catch all term that doesn't mean anything.
What I meant by "good cause" was that hunting generally is much easier with things we can easily hunt. Getting rid of stuff that can easily kill us is a good thing, even if it is difficult. Humanity also drove off loads of large carnivores, not to eat obviously.
There's also no reason not to think that a large part of the effect of humans on the megafauna was by killing the young.
I agree, and that could be the predominant means of humanity wiping out things like mammoths. However, there's no evidence for it. There is evidence for people killing adult mammoths.
And what is the mantra to chant when you hear the word "correlation"? All together now : "correlations are not, of themselves, evidence for causation."
Correlation _is_ causation a lot of the time. That mantra you chant is wrong. Correlation shows something going on that is connected between the two things. It may be caused by other things, but they _are_ connected in some way, otherwise there would not be any correlation.
Anything this big will be able to eat what it wants, generally. This is seen with elephants now.
Climate change and predation on young are about the only things that can stop massive herbivores.
That is, until humanity. There's lots of evidence for stone age people wiping out swathes of huge mammals, for good cause some of the time.
The chances of "Scrotum Humanum" being accepted as a taxon are essentially nil.
We can accept silly names in the scientific community when they are not important, but when they're so central to understanding dinosaurs, and their discovery by modern man, silly names give idiots ammunition.
This paper is probably the most influential.
This particular creature is alleged over 60 feet tall, and more than 10 times the height of a man, which makes it more than 1000 times the mass of a human.
Well.... no. If we take human height to be 2m and weight to be 100kg (This is me, by the way, I've just used these numbers for simplicity) :
Elephant = 4 metres or so, 2 * height, therefore should weigh 800kg. Actually, they weigh about 7000kg.
Giraffe = 6 metres or so, 3 * height, therefore should weigh 2700kg. Actually, they weigh about 1200kg.
The early estimates of this dinosaur's weight are about 77000kg, so not too far off your estimate. Most of its height is in its long neck.
People have been claiming that giant sauropods must have been semi-aquatic (or fully aquatic) because of their huge size for centuries, and this was the prevailing paradigm until the last 50 years or so. There's quite a lot of evidence now showing that they were at least mainly terrestrial.
As to how big they could get... simple mechanical engineering was the cause of the now mainly discredited aquatic theories, I think you'll probably have to find someone who actually knows a little about it.
Megalosaurus already exists. Its original scientific name was "Scrotum humanum". No, I'm not making this up.
Data caps don't hurt uploads in basically all cases. Even in outside cases, there will be more down than up.
I wasn't saying that bandwidth limited services would be for you. You've fulfilled 2 of my original criteria for needing more bandwidth right off the bat.
Yes... that is one of the problems with great whites, they eat everything else. However, even with eating everything else in the tank, they can't be kept alive for long.
Also note that dog lifespans have gone down since WWII. It's difficult to prove the exact cause, but the change to dry dog food and dogs spending less time outdoors are two of the suspects.
Breed specifications are the other reason. German Shepherds used to look like that. Now they look like this.
Being intelligent does not have any correlation to being able to be confined. Great white sharks, for example, cannot be kept in captivity. At all. They die after a couple of weeks, at best, generally. The world record is 44 days.
Unless you're downloading games regularly, watching high def videos online, or torrenting stuff, data caps should never be a problem.
The trouble is a lot of people are now doing most of the above. People who aren't don't care about caps, since they'll never get close to 100gb a month without those three.
Amontons' First Law: The force of friction is directly proportional to the applied load.
Therefore, in a perfect world, it doesn't matter at all how heavy your car is, it should go around corners at the same speed all other things being equal. However, it's (obviously) more complicated than that. Generally the lighter your car, the better it will go around a corner. This is mainly due to the way the tyre interacts with the road, and the way it deforms under load.
The Lotus Elise has far fewer electronic nannies than those it is competing against - it's a very basic (in a good way) car.
The problem is not completely dead batteries - if your battery is completely dead, your petrol car won't start whatever you do. However, there are loads of times when your battery doesn't have enough power to turn the starter motor, but does have enough to spark the plugs. In these cases, bump starting is desirable.
I used to have an old diesel XM hand me down whose alternator died. I drove it for about a month before I had enough money to get it fixed... I just parked at the top of hills, and bump started it by rolling down them every time. You had to careful no one could park in front of you, and angle the wheels outwards (low speed no power steering is not fun). My friend had an old Peugeot 205 that failed the same was when we were at university... that didn't get fixed until it died about 2 years later.
The first automatic I ever drove was an 18 tonne truck. I got in, and was just confused for a second. I then went and asked my boss how to drive it.
I'm glad I had that experience, though, because temping as an HGV driver you often turn up to places with a keycode to get in, directions, and not much else (including no one there). No one ever checked what kind of trucks I'd driven before, I'd only driven Mercedes manuals up until that point. My first experience with a semi-auto full size artic truck was at 4am in the morning with no one about. This semi-auto used a clutch pedal to get started, then switched to full auto when moving - the trouble was remembering to drop the clutch when you're stopping (often hours after you last used it). It was relatively intuitive, though.
In France, they fought heavily for their cheese, as EU wanted to force all cheeses to be pasteurized. This would have been bad news for cheese lovers. I think the French farmers won on this, and we can still eat lovely cheeses from strange places, but likely the war against fresh food is still going on, with more and more regulation making small farmers' life and direct sales increasingly difficult.
The EU is actually much more liberal than just about everywhere else in the world in regards to raw milk. It's actually illegal to sell something called Roquefort made with pasteurized milk (you can make it, just not call it Roquefort). Other cheeses are also commonly unpasteurized, like Gruyere and Emmental.
And in any event, unless you buy in at the IPO, you don't "help" a company or technology by buying their stock since the said stock is owned by some other dude and the sale does not bring a single more dollar to the company
This is like claiming there is no point voting because some other dude also voted. Companies live and die by how many people are willing to invest in them, so, in my opinion, buying stock is a company is definitely helping them.
Some things don't get a lot of wear. You touch them at most a few times a day.
Amusingly, my Logitech MX510 did die. The left click button failed (after about 5 years). However, I loved that mouse, and therefore bought another Logitech (a g9x, which I am still using). It was expensive, but I had no reservations about buying it because of the reviews and the performance of the previous mouse.
You see, when my MX510 died, I bought another Logitech product. It had served me well, and perhaps I could have got a replacement after it failed. My use was not typical, probably, but that shouldn't matter. Now an owner of a g9x, and when that dies.... I'll buy another Logitech mouse, because they have served me well.
I was replying to this post. I wasn't talking about literacy, and neither was your post.
I never said Brazil didn't have native tribes. I said they have fewer distinct tribes. That's a fact.
You said that Brazil had fewer than 4 or 5 distinct Indian tribes. That is... wrong.
Places like Brazil are more racially diverse than the US, and places like England have more religious diversity than the US.
That's all I was saying, and you disagreed with it.
Brazil has a lot of diversity but being 50 percent white means being 50 percent being something else.
That remaining 50% is lots of other things, mainly black, brown (this is closer to how it is described in Brazil, although not politically correct in the US), indigenous, middle eastern, east Asian, and others. The US, by contrast, is almost 3/4 white.
Do they have as many Russians? As many people from the middle east?
In my original post I mentioned Brazil has more people of Lebanese descent than Lebanon, they also have a large Syrian population. I don't know the Russian population of Brazil, but they do have relatively large populations of other east European peoples, such as Ukranian and Polish.
As many Muslims? Do they have large Buddhist communities? Do they have Amish?
You probably don't want to conflate religious diversity with racial diversity, they're not the same thing.
Brazil is _slightly_ less religiously diverse than the US, I admit. About 75% of Americans are Christian, whereas about 86% are Christian in Brazil. In the US Islam is at 0.6%, Buddhism is at 0.7%, Hinduism is at 0.4%. Contrast this to somewhere like England : Christianity 59%, Islam 5%, Hinduism 1.5%, Buddhism 0.5% (and 0.7% Jedi). This shows that England is much more religiously diverse than the United States.
How many distinct Indian tribes do they have? I doubt more then four or five. We have that many in some states.
You're really beginning to show your ignorance. I'll start you off with this. That list does not include many original tribes that have been integrated into the main Brazilian population (like American Indian tribes have been in the US).
And here's another question, does Brazil have a high level of non-spanish speaking immigrants? I doubt it. Which impacts literacy... Right?
Look, I'm right. So don't get mad when my facts line up. I have an unfair advantage... I'm right.
Ok, I think you must be trolling. How, exactly, does being Spanish speaking help in Brazil? I'll give you a hint : Spanish is not the language of Brazil.
I'll try to start getting mad when you get your facts to line up.