It'd be a lot more fun if they did... imagine the hilarity that would ensue when the recently deceased bursts out of their coffin after hitting a high voltage line.
Tyres don't make much that much difference to fuel economy. At least 90% of the time tyres are basically doing nothing but going round and providing a bit of suspension. The only time tyres make a major difference is when accelerating, braking, and cornering... also arguably (with regards to fuel economy) in the wet. However, the more you pump up your tyres, the better the mpg will be, by very small increments... (don't try to to take this to extremes people:P)
There was a (admittedly limited) test done by 5th gear a while back with standard tyres, then energy savers, driving around a test track. The energy savers actually did worse than the standard tyres. The difference was tiny though.
This is all quibbling over smallfry though... back in the 80's we had production cars that could do 100mpg.
Actually, the Conservatives have been against civil liberty infringements for a while. David Davis resigned in protest about the 42 day detentions, for example. But, he added: "In truth, 42 days is just one - perhaps the most salient example - of the insidious, surreptitious and relentless erosion of fundamental British freedoms." He listed the growth of the "database state," government "snooping" ID cards, the erosion of jury trials and other issues. It's one of the big redeeming qualities of the conservatives, in my opinion... they've always said they'd scrap the ID card system too, which they are. Of the three major political parties, they probably aim to be the least intrusive.
I don't know if you're trolling or not, but I'll reply anyway. Diesel engines most definitely do _not_ have a better power to weight ratio than petrol engines. Look at motorbikes.
Once you get water in the fuel, you're pretty much screwed with either diesel or petrol. The point I was making was that petrol engines rely on external electrics way more than diesels - diesels can operate underwater if they have an air intake.
I was not proposing a new method of counting books... I was only supporting the OP in his assertion that their method contains limitations regarding repetition of works with minor differences.
I was mainly responding to those who just said RTFA without seeing basic facts in TFS.
I'm not denigrating diesels - I own one. It's an old citroen XM 2.5 turbo diesel. It'll do 0-60 in about 10 seconds, which isn't quick, but is quicker than lots of cars out there.
However, it's boring as fuck. Accelerating to 60 requires sitting between 2500 and 4000 rpm constantly.
My parents used to own a 2 litre turbo petrol XM. I know it's not a performance car, but it was _so_ much more fun to drive... it's only a little bit quicker, but so much more fun.
O/T but I did Leipzig to Hook of Holland (450 miles or so) in about 5 hours in that car... I was conservative and thought it'd take me 12 hours (used to English roads), so I was sat at the ferry port for 7 hours:P
Modern diesel engines are exactly as complex as modern petrol engines. No mainstream petrol engines now use carboretters (that I know of). The only big disadvantage with diesel engines is that they are heavier - they require a little more ironmongery.
Diesel engines are generally simpler to run and way less sensitive to water. There's a reason all commercial vehicles are diesels. The weight is also a reason why we haven't seen diesel bikes hitting the mainstream yet either.
Essentially, with current engine design, the _only_ disadvantage to diesels is their weight. That and their performance characteristics - you don't get high reving fun diesels.
A suprisingly large proportion of the humans who ever have lived are actually alive now (most people estimate it about 10%). It is _way_ easier now to publish a book than it was even 100 years ago.
I'm not saying you're wrong about GP's assumptions made, but personally I'd guess he's right. That's just a guess though;).
Look at textbooks - new editions that are almost indistinguishable from the previous editions have new ISBNs. Do we count every single one as a different book?
From TFS : if they contain different ISBNs, then they definitely describe different books
If they're using this method, GP's point is valid. The books are not really new books, they're essentially the same as previous editions but have different ISBNs. In essence, these new editions with new ISBNs are being counted twice (or more) for very small revisions to the same book.
Animated, flowing wheat fields don't hit the CPU, which was what the problem was with huge games in civ IV was. The graphics card does the graphics, the CPU does the AI and pathfinding. I am simplifying here a little, but it's essentially true. They could have created an ASCII interface for civ IV, and it would still be about as slow as it is, because the graphics were not what were slowing it down. Map size increases also are not directly relative to CPU demands - it'll be exponential. A map with 2000 squares (or pentagons) will require more than double the processor power than a map with 1000 squares.
I've played them all extensively, and I found Civ II to be the least enjoyable. The original I've got masses of respect for, and I absolutely loved it at the time (I still partially blame it for my crappy GCSE results;P), but I'd never play it now. Civ II I played a bit but never really got into - perhaps because I was at university at the time. Civ 3 I was slightly frustrated by, but loved in many ways - I only played a few games unmodded though - the mods made the game. Civ IV I thought was great from the start - I did again only play a few games through unmodded though. I _really_ appreciate the worldbuilder. I love epic games, which is one of the reasons why I love the mods - all the original civs run a bit too fast for me.
Anyway, my point really was that unless you give reasons for why you found civ IV less "fun", you're just whistling in the wind - loads of people _loved_ civ IV, and with good reason IMO.
Unless you simply wear trash bags instead of clothes, because trash bags are stainproof, waterproof, and cheap, I imagine you actually wear clothes that are comfortable
Wait... wearing clothes that are comfortable is now a style statement? I should tell my dad he's back in fashion....
A weak handshake indicates the person either has a low opinion of you or whatever business you are conducting. That might mean they disagree or it might mean they don't give a shit.
So wrong - there are loads of people who don't like unnecessary bodily contact with other men, and thus are automatically reluctant. I'm not fussed really, but I know people who are, and judging them by their handshake is simple minded and shortsighted.
I'm guessing handshake technique is like handjob technique - there's nothing worse than the other person gripping as tightly as they can and pumping for all they're worth. You just want to say... you're doing it wrong.
Creating a product and dictating the price for the product and creating contractual requirements for the product is not an abusive business practice unless you're a blathering corporation hater, which I understand is trendy these days.
It most definitely can be abusive... This is not about corporations vs "the people", this is about corporations vs corporations. The EU is trying to maintain a non-monopolistic economy, and you're portraying it as anti-corporation - it is in fact the reverse, the EU wants to foster a thriving competetive marketplace.
No matter how many companies the EU sues, it's not going to help them avoid the catastrophe they're heading towards with a declining population growth and laughably unsustainable social policies and spending. Their anti-business leanings are certainly going to accelerate their collapse.
The EU is not suing anyone... that word doesn't mean what you think it means. The EU can fine companies for breaches of EU law funnily enough, which is what they are possibly doing now. Spending policies are a different matter, and countries in the EU are addressing many of the difficulties caused by previous overspending now.
If you're going to pretend Apples and PCs are interchangeable
They are for most people - they do exactly the same job. On the one hand, PC's can play just about all current games and applications, on the other Macs emit an aura of smug. YMMV, but they are essentially interchangeable.
A monopolistic hardware company can destroy other software companies with lockins... There's not a problem at the moment with Apple, for example, since they do not hold a dominant market share. Laissez faire capitalism does _not_ work, the government has to be on hand to whack down the big corporations every so often. At least, that's the theory.
Are you trolling? Freedom of association is so far from what I was referring to that I can't believe you misinterpreted so badly.
Freedom of association protects conglomurates, and I agree with freedom of association. You're confused about what a monopoly is, and what monopolistic influences can do to an economy, if you think that they are a figment of my imagination.
You obviously have no love for your job - you know you could do your job better, but you are comparing your performance to somone who does the same job badly. Don't fucking do that... don't say your co-workers are shit so that you can do what they do with your hands tied behind your back. Little priveledges are that - little.
The web filters are mandated by Australian law IIRC. There was a list published a while ago on wikileaks of all of the websites that were being blocked... some were not offensive at all.
Slashdot Mirror
It'd be a lot more fun if they did... imagine the hilarity that would ensue when the recently deceased bursts out of their coffin after hitting a high voltage line.
Tyres don't make much that much difference to fuel economy. At least 90% of the time tyres are basically doing nothing but going round and providing a bit of suspension. The only time tyres make a major difference is when accelerating, braking, and cornering... also arguably (with regards to fuel economy) in the wet. However, the more you pump up your tyres, the better the mpg will be, by very small increments... (don't try to to take this to extremes people :P)
There was a (admittedly limited) test done by 5th gear a while back with standard tyres, then energy savers, driving around a test track. The energy savers actually did worse than the standard tyres. The difference was tiny though.
This is all quibbling over smallfry though... back in the 80's we had production cars that could do 100mpg.
Actually, the Conservatives have been against civil liberty infringements for a while. David Davis resigned in protest about the 42 day detentions, for example. But, he added: "In truth, 42 days is just one - perhaps the most salient example - of the insidious, surreptitious and relentless erosion of fundamental British freedoms." He listed the growth of the "database state," government "snooping" ID cards, the erosion of jury trials and other issues. It's one of the big redeeming qualities of the conservatives, in my opinion... they've always said they'd scrap the ID card system too, which they are. Of the three major political parties, they probably aim to be the least intrusive.
(Lib Dem voter)
I don't know if you're trolling or not, but I'll reply anyway. Diesel engines most definitely do _not_ have a better power to weight ratio than petrol engines. Look at motorbikes.
Once you get water in the fuel, you're pretty much screwed with either diesel or petrol. The point I was making was that petrol engines rely on external electrics way more than diesels - diesels can operate underwater if they have an air intake.
Hehe... I love ignorance as an excuse.
Yeah... one simple tip though - try not to include your boss when complaining about them, people.
I was not proposing a new method of counting books... I was only supporting the OP in his assertion that their method contains limitations regarding repetition of works with minor differences.
I was mainly responding to those who just said RTFA without seeing basic facts in TFS.
I'm not denigrating diesels - I own one. It's an old citroen XM 2.5 turbo diesel. It'll do 0-60 in about 10 seconds, which isn't quick, but is quicker than lots of cars out there.
However, it's boring as fuck. Accelerating to 60 requires sitting between 2500 and 4000 rpm constantly.
My parents used to own a 2 litre turbo petrol XM. I know it's not a performance car, but it was _so_ much more fun to drive... it's only a little bit quicker, but so much more fun.
O/T but I did Leipzig to Hook of Holland (450 miles or so) in about 5 hours in that car... I was conservative and thought it'd take me 12 hours (used to English roads), so I was sat at the ferry port for 7 hours :P
Modern diesel engines are exactly as complex as modern petrol engines. No mainstream petrol engines now use carboretters (that I know of). The only big disadvantage with diesel engines is that they are heavier - they require a little more ironmongery.
Diesel engines are generally simpler to run and way less sensitive to water. There's a reason all commercial vehicles are diesels. The weight is also a reason why we haven't seen diesel bikes hitting the mainstream yet either.
Essentially, with current engine design, the _only_ disadvantage to diesels is their weight. That and their performance characteristics - you don't get high reving fun diesels.
A suprisingly large proportion of the humans who ever have lived are actually alive now (most people estimate it about 10%). It is _way_ easier now to publish a book than it was even 100 years ago.
I'm not saying you're wrong about GP's assumptions made, but personally I'd guess he's right. That's just a guess though ;).
No... don't be an asshole, GP won't like that. Mod GP down -1 Emo.
Look at textbooks - new editions that are almost indistinguishable from the previous editions have new ISBNs. Do we count every single one as a different book?
From TFS : if they contain different ISBNs, then they definitely describe different books
If they're using this method, GP's point is valid. The books are not really new books, they're essentially the same as previous editions but have different ISBNs. In essence, these new editions with new ISBNs are being counted twice (or more) for very small revisions to the same book.
Animated, flowing wheat fields don't hit the CPU, which was what the problem was with huge games in civ IV was. The graphics card does the graphics, the CPU does the AI and pathfinding. I am simplifying here a little, but it's essentially true. They could have created an ASCII interface for civ IV, and it would still be about as slow as it is, because the graphics were not what were slowing it down. Map size increases also are not directly relative to CPU demands - it'll be exponential. A map with 2000 squares (or pentagons) will require more than double the processor power than a map with 1000 squares.
I've played them all extensively, and I found Civ II to be the least enjoyable. The original I've got masses of respect for, and I absolutely loved it at the time (I still partially blame it for my crappy GCSE results ;P), but I'd never play it now. Civ II I played a bit but never really got into - perhaps because I was at university at the time. Civ 3 I was slightly frustrated by, but loved in many ways - I only played a few games unmodded though - the mods made the game. Civ IV I thought was great from the start - I did again only play a few games through unmodded though. I _really_ appreciate the worldbuilder. I love epic games, which is one of the reasons why I love the mods - all the original civs run a bit too fast for me.
Anyway, my point really was that unless you give reasons for why you found civ IV less "fun", you're just whistling in the wind - loads of people _loved_ civ IV, and with good reason IMO.
Mind you the rules also said no devices with QUERTY key layout. I never understood this.
Me neither... I guess they must be just angry at one guy who custom hacked his keyboard or something, so they got back at him.
Unless you simply wear trash bags instead of clothes, because trash bags are stainproof, waterproof, and cheap, I imagine you actually wear clothes that are comfortable
Wait... wearing clothes that are comfortable is now a style statement? I should tell my dad he's back in fashion....
A weak handshake indicates the person either has a low opinion of you or whatever business you are conducting. That might mean they disagree or it might mean they don't give a shit.
So wrong - there are loads of people who don't like unnecessary bodily contact with other men, and thus are automatically reluctant. I'm not fussed really, but I know people who are, and judging them by their handshake is simple minded and shortsighted.
I'm guessing handshake technique is like handjob technique - there's nothing worse than the other person gripping as tightly as they can and pumping for all they're worth. You just want to say... you're doing it wrong.
Creating a product and dictating the price for the product and creating contractual requirements for the product is not an abusive business practice unless you're a blathering corporation hater, which I understand is trendy these days.
It most definitely can be abusive... This is not about corporations vs "the people", this is about corporations vs corporations. The EU is trying to maintain a non-monopolistic economy, and you're portraying it as anti-corporation - it is in fact the reverse, the EU wants to foster a thriving competetive marketplace.
No matter how many companies the EU sues, it's not going to help them avoid the catastrophe they're heading towards with a declining population growth and laughably unsustainable social policies and spending. Their anti-business leanings are certainly going to accelerate their collapse.
The EU is not suing anyone... that word doesn't mean what you think it means. The EU can fine companies for breaches of EU law funnily enough, which is what they are possibly doing now. Spending policies are a different matter, and countries in the EU are addressing many of the difficulties caused by previous overspending now.
If you're going to pretend Apples and PCs are interchangeable
They are for most people - they do exactly the same job. On the one hand, PC's can play just about all current games and applications, on the other Macs emit an aura of smug. YMMV, but they are essentially interchangeable.
A monopolistic hardware company can destroy other software companies with lockins... There's not a problem at the moment with Apple, for example, since they do not hold a dominant market share. Laissez faire capitalism does _not_ work, the government has to be on hand to whack down the big corporations every so often. At least, that's the theory.
Heh, that's nothing. My mobile broadband cost £15 per month for 15Gb. Overflow is.... £10 for 100Mb. I make sure never to go over my monthly 15Gb.
Are you trolling? Freedom of association is so far from what I was referring to that I can't believe you misinterpreted so badly.
Freedom of association protects conglomurates, and I agree with freedom of association. You're confused about what a monopoly is, and what monopolistic influences can do to an economy, if you think that they are a figment of my imagination.
Monopolies _kill_ economies.
You obviously have no love for your job - you know you could do your job better, but you are comparing your performance to somone who does the same job badly. Don't fucking do that... don't say your co-workers are shit so that you can do what they do with your hands tied behind your back. Little priveledges are that - little.
The web filters are mandated by Australian law IIRC. There was a list published a while ago on wikileaks of all of the websites that were being blocked... some were not offensive at all.