We use lighter materials than were used back then and you're more likely to be killed by the engine getting pushed into your lap by whatever you hit (which was allowed to happen by the "crumple zones") than you ever were by slamming into the steering wheel. There are fewer traffic deaths now than there were back then primarily because of seatbelt laws, which exist primarily because of the dangers posed by airbags when you're not wearing a seatbelt. Throw airbags into a 1990's beater and require idiots to wear seatbelts and see what happens; you gain 20lb in curb weight and have an overall safer vehicle.
Car companies aren't selling what's safer, they're selling what they can easily convince YOU is safer; selling what's actually safer would mean losing the sales they get when you total your crumple-box in a 5MPH bumper kiss.
To be clear, before you quote any industry averages, you need to realize that those were achieved not by producing more efficient vehicles, but by ceasing production of less efficient vehicles. What street legal, gas-only, 4 wheel vehicle exists on the market today that can get better than 50MPG? In the 1990s, there was the Geo Metro, weighing in at 42MPG; now we have hybrids on the market that can't touch that. Of the 19 hybrids listed in the chart on that page, 12 get WORSE gas mileage than a 1990's gas-only beater; the other 7 are made by Honda and Toyota. Where are the gas-only cars that get that kind of mileage today? Hell, where are the domestic hybrids that can do the same? Don't get my wrong, I'm not bashing imports at all; I love my Corolla, I just want to know when the fuck we're going to catch up to 20 years ago.
You need to check again. Fuel economy is no better now than it was in the 80's; in fact, there were cars that were popular in the 80's that got better mileage than some of today's hybrids.
Not providing a citation since you won't buy it anyway. Do your own research.
Because so many people won't care, or won't realize what they're "buying" that other manufacturers will see the success and think it's okay to follow suit. Then they will. Then your choice will be DRM car or NO car.
The computer *CAN* tune the engine for better efficiency, but if you run too lean you risk grenading the engine. As a result, the computers are programmed to operate with a large (IMO too large) margin of safety, resulting in often *WORSE* fuel economy than older cars.
A post about burning wood, in response to a post about burning wood, in a thread about an article about wood burning stoves. How, exactly, is this off-topic?
You're only putting back into the atmosphere a fraction of what the tree you're burning pulled out; it's not like you're creating new carbon. Fossil fuels aren't new carbon, either, but they are carbon that has been sequestered from the atmosphere for hundreds of thousands, or millions, of years, whereas a tree will cycle a large amount of the carbon it takes in as CO2 back into the ground in the form of fruit/nuts and leaves (as they decompose), only sequestering a small overall portion of that, and only for the relatively (compared to fossil fuels) short life of the tree.
When you're considering the effects of wood burning on the overall amount of carbon compounds in the atmosphere, the effect of burning wood is almost immeasurable, since the carbon released came from the atmosphere originally and will be reabsorbed by other trees, anyway.
Why would you do that when there are plenty of PCs available on NewEgg, at or near the price of an Ouya, that are so much more capable? And many, many more between the price of an Ouya and a PS3 or XBox 360 that will play almost any game you throw at them. If you really want a middle of the road console, Nintendo has you covered on that front.
The more your speed diverges from the prevailing speed of traffic, the higher the level of risk you are exposed to. Therefore, by traveling at 1/3 the speed of surrounding traffic, you are exposing yourself to an exponentially higher level of risk than you would experience if you were traveling at the same speed as traffic. That is to say, if a line of cars are traveling at 35MPH and you're cycling along at 10-12MPH, you are constantly at risk, but the cars are only at risk while passing you.
Let's assume you and I leave from the same point, at the same time, and follow the same 5 mile route to the same destination, I'm traveling by car and you're traveling by bike. Obeying traffic laws, I make my 5 mile trip in 10 minutes, assuming a 35MPH speed limit and a couple of traffic lights. Also obeying traffic laws, but traveling at a slower speed, you have traveled roughly 1.6-1.7 miles by the time you have reached my destination; you have also been exposed to an elevated level of risk the entire time, and will have been exposed for another 10 minutes before you reach your destination.
By the end of my 5 minute trip, you have already been exposed to much higher levels of risk than I have, yet you have traveled only 1/3 the distance. This does correlate with miles traveled, as well, but clearly not for the reasons you seem to think; by the time you've traveled the same distance as me, your risk factor has tripled versus what it was when I reached my destination; keep in mind that your risk factor was already exponentially higher than mine at that point.
If you spend 2 minutes googling, you will find numerous studies that show that your risk exposure shares a direct correlation to the difference between your speed and the prevailing speed of traffic, regardless of which type of vehicle you are in. A bicycle traveling in the same direction, and at the same speed, as an SUV can not possibly get hit my that SUV; but, when that bicycle is going slower than that SUV, a collision suddenly becomes possible.
I searched and searched, but I found exactly zero studies even hinting at the conclusion that a cyclist obeying all traffic laws was at any more risk than a driver obeying all traffic laws when speed and direction of travel were equal. All the studies I find indicate that, regardless of vehicle, the danger comes from diverging from traffic in either speed or direction. To wit, given a number of vehicles traveling in a group, the vehicle whose speed or direction diverges the most from the average speed or direction of the group is at the most risk; once a faster vehicle passes the group, or a slower vehicle is passed by the group, that vehicle is no longer considered part of that group, as the separation form the group will only continue to increase, but during the entire time the divergent vehicle is a part of the group, that vehicle, and any vehicles directly neighboring the divergent vehicle, are at risk. Since the divergent vehicle is at risk the entire time, but each other vehicle in the group will only directly neighbor that vehicle for a portion of the time, the greater risk belongs to the divergent vehicle, whether that vehicle has 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5000 wheels.
As someone who's done risk management, I can assure you it's "measured" in milliseconds, not miles.
If both choices resulted in the same injuries, it would still be 3 times more likely on the bike because it puts you at risk for 3 times as long, so no, I would no consider bikes safer. Even if I would agree with you in your hypothetical fantasy, that doesn't change that my position on this matter is based in reality and you are actually not only at risk for far longer on a bike than you are in a car, you are exposing yourself to a higher level of risk on a bike.
You can argue your fantastic position all day long, but it doesn't change the facts.
The problem with the reasonable person test is that it's typically carried out by unreasonable people. Not saying that applies in this case, as a 10 year old girl isn't reasonably going to look 18, no matter what, but I'm sure you see the point I was trying to make.
PC and Mac have both supported controllers for as long as I can remember and there have been controllers ranging from $2 to $2000 available for all of that time, as well. What's OUYA bring to the table, again?
The amount of time you are at risk is the most relevant metric, period. The next most relevant is the difference in speed between you and the traffic around you; the greater that number, the greater the risk. Therefore, lower mileage may well mean higher risk. Using GP's example, on a road where cars are driving at 35MPH, the 30MPH cyclist is closer to the prevailing speed than the 10MPH cyclist, by a factor of 5; at any given moment, the 10MPH cyclist is at 5x the risk of an accident than the 30MPH cyclist.
Let's assume a standard unit of risk, which we'll call the "risk-minute"; if the 30MPH cyclist is incurring 1 risk-minute for every minute they're traveling 5MPH below the prevailing speed, the 10MPH cyclist incurs 5 in that same time. Since the 30MPH cyclist will complete their commute in 20 minutes, they incur 20 risk-minutes during their commute, while the 10MPH cyclist will take 60 minutes to complete their commute, incurring 300 risk-minutes. The mileage is the same, but there is a factor if 15 difference in the risk assumed by the two cyclists.
If I'm driving for an hour and I travel 60 miles, I am at risk for an hour. If I'm cycling or an hour and I travel 6 miles, I am at risk for an hour. Time is the apple to which you should compare your other apples.
The only cyclists I've ever nearly killed have been the ones who didn't stop at their sign when I was already half-way through the intersection (after coming to a complete stop at my sign), failed to stop at their sign before turning in front of me as I'm half-way through my turn (after coming to a complete stop at my sign), failed to stop at their sign before pulling into traffic from a side street, were illegally riding on the sidewalk and failed to stop, get off their bike, and wait for the walk sign before walking their bike across the crosswalk (e.g. riding through the cross-walk across my green light, against a DO NOT WALK), or were riding against traffic.
Before you jump up and say I only almost killed them because I'm an inattentive driver, let me say that I only didn't hit them because I'm an attentive enough driver that I saw them early enough to react and avoid the accident.
There is always a 0 or a 1 on the wire, from one end of the interconnect to the other. Whether that 0 or 1 is part of a data packet that is actively being transmitted, or just maintaining clock synch between the endpoints is irrelevant.
All the connections?
So... NFC?
Honestly, that's all that's lacking from my MBP; my phone has it, my PC ultrabook has it and, if my MBP had it, I'd never have to manually pair my Zik headphones.
And, as a personal comfort device that you'll use in every building you enter, you buy your god damn own. Now I don't have to take that into account, thank you very much; nor do I need to power your devices for you.
Oh christ... I used fahrenheit for my cost savings calculations... it's more like $30-50/mo, or $360-600/yr. Still in the "you have my attention re: the 20+k buildings I have to heat and cool" range, though.
for every 1 degree celcius... if that means the building can operate at 28C (roughly 82F) in the summer and 17C (roughly 62F) in the winter, rather than having to maintain 22C (roughly 72F) all year, that's 1000 kWh per month for the more extreme 2/3 of the year, or roughly 667 kWh on average. That's in the $60-90/mo range, $720-1080/yr, the kind of numbers that aren't huge but get your attention pretty damn quick if you're heating or cooling 20+k locations.
You know why that is? If I've invested in the Android platform, purchased a bunch of apps that I don't want to lose, and just generally don't feel like switching to a new platform, I can buy from any number of manufacturers who aren't Samsung when Samsung pulls shit like this. If I've invested in iOS, purchased a bunch of apps that I don't want to lose, and just generally don't feel like switching to a new platform, I can buy from... Apple... when Apple pulls shit like this.
By insisting on being the only makers of iOS devices, Apple has put themselves in that position, for better or worse. It's been mostly for better until recently, thought that seems to be slowly changing.
But... but... but... it's so much better than USB!
I almost died the day someone tried to tell me their iPhone synched to their computer (via the USB port on their computer) faster than USB because of lightning. Yes. I almost died. Laughing.
Slashdot Mirror
We use lighter materials than were used back then and you're more likely to be killed by the engine getting pushed into your lap by whatever you hit (which was allowed to happen by the "crumple zones") than you ever were by slamming into the steering wheel. There are fewer traffic deaths now than there were back then primarily because of seatbelt laws, which exist primarily because of the dangers posed by airbags when you're not wearing a seatbelt. Throw airbags into a 1990's beater and require idiots to wear seatbelts and see what happens; you gain 20lb in curb weight and have an overall safer vehicle.
Car companies aren't selling what's safer, they're selling what they can easily convince YOU is safer; selling what's actually safer would mean losing the sales they get when you total your crumple-box in a 5MPH bumper kiss.
To be clear, before you quote any industry averages, you need to realize that those were achieved not by producing more efficient vehicles, but by ceasing production of less efficient vehicles. What street legal, gas-only, 4 wheel vehicle exists on the market today that can get better than 50MPG? In the 1990s, there was the Geo Metro, weighing in at 42MPG; now we have hybrids on the market that can't touch that. Of the 19 hybrids listed in the chart on that page, 12 get WORSE gas mileage than a 1990's gas-only beater; the other 7 are made by Honda and Toyota. Where are the gas-only cars that get that kind of mileage today? Hell, where are the domestic hybrids that can do the same? Don't get my wrong, I'm not bashing imports at all; I love my Corolla, I just want to know when the fuck we're going to catch up to 20 years ago.
You need to check again. Fuel economy is no better now than it was in the 80's; in fact, there were cars that were popular in the 80's that got better mileage than some of today's hybrids.
Not providing a citation since you won't buy it anyway. Do your own research.
Because so many people won't care, or won't realize what they're "buying" that other manufacturers will see the success and think it's okay to follow suit. Then they will. Then your choice will be DRM car or NO car.
The computer *CAN* tune the engine for better efficiency, but if you run too lean you risk grenading the engine. As a result, the computers are programmed to operate with a large (IMO too large) margin of safety, resulting in often *WORSE* fuel economy than older cars.
No, I kind of agree, but I think the drones need to scan for nearby traffic before firing, to ensure there will be no innocent casualties.
A post about burning wood, in response to a post about burning wood, in a thread about an article about wood burning stoves. How, exactly, is this off-topic?
You're only putting back into the atmosphere a fraction of what the tree you're burning pulled out; it's not like you're creating new carbon. Fossil fuels aren't new carbon, either, but they are carbon that has been sequestered from the atmosphere for hundreds of thousands, or millions, of years, whereas a tree will cycle a large amount of the carbon it takes in as CO2 back into the ground in the form of fruit/nuts and leaves (as they decompose), only sequestering a small overall portion of that, and only for the relatively (compared to fossil fuels) short life of the tree.
When you're considering the effects of wood burning on the overall amount of carbon compounds in the atmosphere, the effect of burning wood is almost immeasurable, since the carbon released came from the atmosphere originally and will be reabsorbed by other trees, anyway.
Why would you do that when there are plenty of PCs available on NewEgg, at or near the price of an Ouya, that are so much more capable? And many, many more between the price of an Ouya and a PS3 or XBox 360 that will play almost any game you throw at them. If you really want a middle of the road console, Nintendo has you covered on that front.
Are you pointing at a conspiracy here?
The more your speed diverges from the prevailing speed of traffic, the higher the level of risk you are exposed to. Therefore, by traveling at 1/3 the speed of surrounding traffic, you are exposing yourself to an exponentially higher level of risk than you would experience if you were traveling at the same speed as traffic. That is to say, if a line of cars are traveling at 35MPH and you're cycling along at 10-12MPH, you are constantly at risk, but the cars are only at risk while passing you.
Let's assume you and I leave from the same point, at the same time, and follow the same 5 mile route to the same destination, I'm traveling by car and you're traveling by bike. Obeying traffic laws, I make my 5 mile trip in 10 minutes, assuming a 35MPH speed limit and a couple of traffic lights. Also obeying traffic laws, but traveling at a slower speed, you have traveled roughly 1.6-1.7 miles by the time you have reached my destination; you have also been exposed to an elevated level of risk the entire time, and will have been exposed for another 10 minutes before you reach your destination.
By the end of my 5 minute trip, you have already been exposed to much higher levels of risk than I have, yet you have traveled only 1/3 the distance. This does correlate with miles traveled, as well, but clearly not for the reasons you seem to think; by the time you've traveled the same distance as me, your risk factor has tripled versus what it was when I reached my destination; keep in mind that your risk factor was already exponentially higher than mine at that point.
If you spend 2 minutes googling, you will find numerous studies that show that your risk exposure shares a direct correlation to the difference between your speed and the prevailing speed of traffic, regardless of which type of vehicle you are in. A bicycle traveling in the same direction, and at the same speed, as an SUV can not possibly get hit my that SUV; but, when that bicycle is going slower than that SUV, a collision suddenly becomes possible.
I searched and searched, but I found exactly zero studies even hinting at the conclusion that a cyclist obeying all traffic laws was at any more risk than a driver obeying all traffic laws when speed and direction of travel were equal. All the studies I find indicate that, regardless of vehicle, the danger comes from diverging from traffic in either speed or direction. To wit, given a number of vehicles traveling in a group, the vehicle whose speed or direction diverges the most from the average speed or direction of the group is at the most risk; once a faster vehicle passes the group, or a slower vehicle is passed by the group, that vehicle is no longer considered part of that group, as the separation form the group will only continue to increase, but during the entire time the divergent vehicle is a part of the group, that vehicle, and any vehicles directly neighboring the divergent vehicle, are at risk. Since the divergent vehicle is at risk the entire time, but each other vehicle in the group will only directly neighbor that vehicle for a portion of the time, the greater risk belongs to the divergent vehicle, whether that vehicle has 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5000 wheels.
As someone who's done risk management, I can assure you it's "measured" in milliseconds, not miles.
If both choices resulted in the same injuries, it would still be 3 times more likely on the bike because it puts you at risk for 3 times as long, so no, I would no consider bikes safer. Even if I would agree with you in your hypothetical fantasy, that doesn't change that my position on this matter is based in reality and you are actually not only at risk for far longer on a bike than you are in a car, you are exposing yourself to a higher level of risk on a bike.
You can argue your fantastic position all day long, but it doesn't change the facts.
Now that monitors and TVs both have HDMI ports, as to PCs, why the fuck would you try and fit 2-4 people around a 21" monitor?
The problem with the reasonable person test is that it's typically carried out by unreasonable people. Not saying that applies in this case, as a 10 year old girl isn't reasonably going to look 18, no matter what, but I'm sure you see the point I was trying to make.
PC and Mac have both supported controllers for as long as I can remember and there have been controllers ranging from $2 to $2000 available for all of that time, as well. What's OUYA bring to the table, again?
The amount of time you are at risk is the most relevant metric, period. The next most relevant is the difference in speed between you and the traffic around you; the greater that number, the greater the risk. Therefore, lower mileage may well mean higher risk. Using GP's example, on a road where cars are driving at 35MPH, the 30MPH cyclist is closer to the prevailing speed than the 10MPH cyclist, by a factor of 5; at any given moment, the 10MPH cyclist is at 5x the risk of an accident than the 30MPH cyclist.
Let's assume a standard unit of risk, which we'll call the "risk-minute"; if the 30MPH cyclist is incurring 1 risk-minute for every minute they're traveling 5MPH below the prevailing speed, the 10MPH cyclist incurs 5 in that same time. Since the 30MPH cyclist will complete their commute in 20 minutes, they incur 20 risk-minutes during their commute, while the 10MPH cyclist will take 60 minutes to complete their commute, incurring 300 risk-minutes. The mileage is the same, but there is a factor if 15 difference in the risk assumed by the two cyclists.
If I'm driving for an hour and I travel 60 miles, I am at risk for an hour. If I'm cycling or an hour and I travel 6 miles, I am at risk for an hour. Time is the apple to which you should compare your other apples.
This.
The only cyclists I've ever nearly killed have been the ones who didn't stop at their sign when I was already half-way through the intersection (after coming to a complete stop at my sign), failed to stop at their sign before turning in front of me as I'm half-way through my turn (after coming to a complete stop at my sign), failed to stop at their sign before pulling into traffic from a side street, were illegally riding on the sidewalk and failed to stop, get off their bike, and wait for the walk sign before walking their bike across the crosswalk (e.g. riding through the cross-walk across my green light, against a DO NOT WALK), or were riding against traffic.
Before you jump up and say I only almost killed them because I'm an inattentive driver, let me say that I only didn't hit them because I'm an attentive enough driver that I saw them early enough to react and avoid the accident.
There is always a 0 or a 1 on the wire, from one end of the interconnect to the other. Whether that 0 or 1 is part of a data packet that is actively being transmitted, or just maintaining clock synch between the endpoints is irrelevant.
All the connections? So... NFC? Honestly, that's all that's lacking from my MBP; my phone has it, my PC ultrabook has it and, if my MBP had it, I'd never have to manually pair my Zik headphones.
And, as a personal comfort device that you'll use in every building you enter, you buy your god damn own. Now I don't have to take that into account, thank you very much; nor do I need to power your devices for you.
Oh christ... I used fahrenheit for my cost savings calculations... it's more like $30-50/mo, or $360-600/yr. Still in the "you have my attention re: the 20+k buildings I have to heat and cool" range, though.
for every 1 degree celcius... if that means the building can operate at 28C (roughly 82F) in the summer and 17C (roughly 62F) in the winter, rather than having to maintain 22C (roughly 72F) all year, that's 1000 kWh per month for the more extreme 2/3 of the year, or roughly 667 kWh on average. That's in the $60-90/mo range, $720-1080/yr, the kind of numbers that aren't huge but get your attention pretty damn quick if you're heating or cooling 20+k locations.
You know why that is? If I've invested in the Android platform, purchased a bunch of apps that I don't want to lose, and just generally don't feel like switching to a new platform, I can buy from any number of manufacturers who aren't Samsung when Samsung pulls shit like this. If I've invested in iOS, purchased a bunch of apps that I don't want to lose, and just generally don't feel like switching to a new platform, I can buy from... Apple... when Apple pulls shit like this.
By insisting on being the only makers of iOS devices, Apple has put themselves in that position, for better or worse. It's been mostly for better until recently, thought that seems to be slowly changing.
But... but... but... it's so much better than USB!
I almost died the day someone tried to tell me their iPhone synched to their computer (via the USB port on their computer) faster than USB because of lightning. Yes. I almost died. Laughing.