Don't forget that not all VW models are made by VW. The Routan, for example, is a Dodge Caravan rebranded. On top of that, the European market is more diesel than gas, and the diesel engines are far superior to the gas engines.
The diesel engines aren't superior.
The reason there are so many diesels in Europe is because up until very recently diesel fuel had less tax on it, creating a false economy.
Diesel engines are inferior to petrol engines that can produce the same amount of power and performance with a smaller displacement and without a turbocharger. A 2L NA petrol can easily beat a 2L turbo diesel. Add a turbo to the petrol and the deficiencies of the diesel are so obvious it's funny.
Australia and the United States have never discounted diesel, so petrol cars are in the majority. In the long run, even though they use slightly more fuel it's cheaper to run a petrol.
First let me say that this change is urgently needed.
But, it's unlikely that automakers who build gasoline cars are cheating like VW did. It's especially difficult to clean NOx from diesel engine exhaust because unlike gasoline engines, the exhaust contains lots of extra oxygen. Diesels need special NOx-cleaning devices which add cost and weight, and can seriously limit performance in some situations. Gasoline engines just need minor modifications to the engine computer software and the catalytic converter to clean NOx, so there's very little need to cheat.
Many Diseasels have a NOx cleaning device, it's called Urea Injection. Its a system that adds a Diesel Exhaust Fluid (DEF) to the Catalytic Converter that reduces pollutants, more specifically it converts NOx into water (H2O) and Nitrogen (N2).
DEF is more commonly know by it's commercial name, AdBlue.
VW is pretty much the only manufacturer not to use urea injection (as it adds cost, complexity and maintenance costs which are considered poison to people tight fisted enough to buy diesel passenger cars). VW used to maintain that their engines were magically cleaner and didn't need to use urea injection, I guess we know where the magic came from.
" The Allies were able to take the Axis by surprise as it was assumed the armored divisions wouldn't be able to break through this area.:...which is funny because the French didn't expect the tanks of the Germans to be able to pass through the Ardennes. The moment they realized what the plan was, it was too late and France had no option but to surrender, even if possessing a superior force.
The main reason the allies were able to take the Nazi's by surprise in Normandy is because they had managed to completely convince Hitler that the invasion would be led by Patton at the pas de Calais.
On the morning of the Normandy landings, they woke Hitler and told him the allies had landed in Normandy. He dismissed this as a ruse, said the invasion would be at Calais and refused to release an armoured division to Normandy. Thanks to this, the landings were considerably less bloody than expected.
Blackballing usually is not, because it can be very difficult to prove. Getting a new position, especially one that requires a visa, for an employee whose previous or current employer will not give positive recommendations can be very difficult.
True, but blackballing is very difficult to do with professionals. All it takes is one company not to go along with it and the whole thing falls apart.
This is why blackballing is reserved for the worst of the worst. A good coder, engineer or scientist who is a little bit difficult to work with is not worth trying to blackball.
Also companies can be sued for deformation, so deliberately trying to blackball an ex-employee is dangerous. The worst thing a company can safely say is "I would not employ this person again".
Getting a new position, especially one that requires a visa
Any position that requires a visa or sponsorship is going to put the employee over a barrel regardless. Its a crappy situation for anyone and generally is a last resort when you cant get a visa yourself. For Australians it's pretty easy for us to get working visas in the UK (Youth Mobility visa, Ancestry visa, I know the latter can lead to an ILR), for a non commonwealth country it is a lot harder.
The fact that some racers go out of their way to find the slowest cars available to race, says nothing about those who drive those turtles daily.
This.
There are Excel racing leagues in Australia. Hyundai Excel's are not performance cars in any definition of the word... However they're cheap and easy to find. If you blow up an engine, you can get a replacement in half a day from any number of wreckers.
Endurance races are the only type of race where diesels have any kind of traction and even then, production diesels still completely suck. Production turbo petrols will outperform production diesels. Hell If you put a production 2L Golf TDI vs a V8 Mustang in a 12 hour enduro, I'll put my money on the Mustang. This has been proven in Australia where a V8 Ford Falcon beat an Alfa 159 Diesel in the Bathurst 12 hour.
People who are buying VW Diesels are performance obsessed? Are we sure it has not always been reading low on the Dyno, but nobody cared because it's an econobox anyway and only car nerds care about the horsepower and torque numbers?
This,
Anyone who cares about performance and power doesn't buy a diesel.
They dont make diesel sports cars for the same reason they dont make petrol tractors. The engine is completely wrong for the purpose.
I find it odd to hear how programmers seem so abused by PHBs. Maybe it's an American thing, but in the UK, I've always found that employers want to keep hold of skilled people like programmers, because new ones are hard to find and take a while to get up to speed. This means that saying no is always possible.
(Nothing to to with official engineer status and ethics. There's no general requirement for engineer certifications for programmers here.)
In the UK, non-competes are illegal and good talent is not willing to put up with abuse.
The hard part here comes from "get it in writing".
When someone three layers of food-chain above you tells you "do this", you don't get to refuse until you have it in writing (unless you already have a new job lined up - and even then, don't expect that one to go any differently).
Actually you can refuse up until you get it in writing because until it's in writing, company policy prohibits me from doing anything.
I'm at the very minimum going to need a project plan, design scope, authorisation and most importantly, budget. Without paperwork there is no money, without money there is no "test assistance control device".
Working in a professional environment is very different to being a blue collar worker or working in a third world country. Its very difficult to find good talent so you dont let them go because they asked for something perfectly reasonable.
Beyond this, Volkswagen is German.
Firstly, Germans document and record everything, they're meticulous about it.
Secondly, Germany has some of the most stringent employee protection laws in the world. If they sacked someone for asking for written orders they would have been made bankrupt about 10 minutes after it happened.
$25 or $100 is negligible even if you value your time well below minimum wage.
If I wanted to develop an IOS app, I'd have to buy another computer and another phone. This is a $2000 minimum outlay as well as the $99 per year needed to remain a developer. Given that most apps dont even make $99 per year chances are I'd never make back the original outlay.
I can develop a Windows, Linux and Android app with all of my existing resources.
It's not so much that Groupon isn't useful, what they've always failed to do is convert the coupon users into repeat customers which frequently causes their clients to operate at a loss (making only the heavily-discounted deal and never cashing in on full-price sales).
Groupon gets plenty of repeat customers.
What they've failed to do is get repeat suppliers because coupon users are causing a loss for the suppliers because they aren't returning. Businesses have finally realised that Groupon isn't a loss leader, it's just a loss and have pulled up sticks. Its less expensive for them to not offer anything on Groupon.
Apple has, repeatedly, entered a market with a better marketed product than most or all of its competition.
What you forget is that Apple have never successfully entered a saturated market.
They're starting out 5 years behind the competition. Sure they can afford to keep their current flops like AppleTV afloat from their successful businesses (much like MS does with the XBox) but I dont think you realise just how expensive it is to make a car and just how much it will cost if they dont sell.
An Apple car will be a flop and I hope it buries Apple in the process. I can tell it's going to be a flop because of the trail of other small manufacturers who said "I can make a better car" and utterly failed to compete. TVR is a good example, investors threw money after TVR for years and produced cars that enthusiasts raved about... but in the end TVR didn't sell enough to stay in business. TVR is a good analogy because TVR has rabid fanboys
If Apple has half a brain, they'll just buy a 918 and badge engineer it (they already do this with almost all of their hardware anyway). It'll be more expensive than the porsche and be less functional but it's the only way they wont fail miserably (it'll just be a normal fail).
That's exactly what Moto, Microsoft, and Nokia said about the iPhone. Where are they now?
All are still alive and well.
However the car industry is a different kettle of fish.
There are plenty of small phone players but you have to ask why so many small car manufacturers fail. Even TVR with decades of heritage died in the end and most Americans wont even know who Noble are.
A car requires a lot of regulatory requirements to be met, if they fail the auto manufacturer is not allowed to say "you're holding it wrong", no they have to fix it. Apple's approach to telling you what to do isn't going to fly with motorists either when they've got a metric shitload of choice.
Beyond this there is the price. Apple are know for producing mediocre stuff and selling it a high price. Are you really going to buy a Leaf for 918 prices just because it's made by Apple?
Finally, cars are a saturated market. Apple has never managed to break into a saturated market.
When it comes to cars. I'm going to take GMs advice over Apples and I dont think highly of GM to begin with.
"An expensive plane that ended up with little real use."
No it made an excellent long range strike aircraft and did very well in desert storm. The reason it was retired was that it was old and expensive to maintain and the USAF wanted more F-15Es. Which could dogfight.
This is why the Australian Air Force (RAAF) operated them up until about 5 years ago when they were replaced with F/A 18F's which dont have the same range (which is kind of a big deal when talking about Australia).
Reminds me of WWII. Panzer were fantastic tanks, Sherman tanks were closer to a modern day prius by comparison... Sherman's won out only due to superior numbers (and maneuverability because they lacked the large gun the panzers had).
ME 109 was a marvelous piece of engineering, but the US brought far more planes to bear than germany could squeeze out of their bombed out factories.
Hell Germans had Machine guns, and The soviets lead cavalry charges into them... in stalingrad every other man got a rifle..
Oh, God, where to start. The Me-109 was a good plane. It was also old. The P-51, which was our main fighter in the latter part of the war, outflew it five ways from Sunday. The FW-190, developed during the war, did better, but didn't fly well at high altitudes. The Germans also couldn't build enough of them to take over completely from the 109s.
The Soviets never led cavalry charges into machine guns. Soviet cavalry was deployed mostly in the Pripet Marshes--where they did very well, the Pripet being unfriendly ground for your average vehicle, even if it's tracked.
"In Stalingrad every other man got a rifle"? The Soviets had to strain for men and equipment in Stalingrad, but that's not even remotely true. And one reason Stalingrad itself went short was because the Russians were saving up for a devasting blow on the German's lightly held flanks outside of Stalingrad--which enabled them to completely surrond the Sixth Army and ultimately destroy it.
Germany's main problem wasn't it's weapons, it was it's leaders. Hitler had issued so many stupid decrees that ended up getting people killed such as disallowing retreat and demanding immediate counter attacks. Germany's tactics became predictable. Add to this the fact that Hitler was also very easily fooled (even as Allied troops landed at Normandy he insisted that the invasion would be at Calais).
The downfall of the Panzer's was their complexity. This again, was due to Hitler who wanted bigger tanks with bigger guns, the problem with adding more weight is that you need more power. The Achilles heel of the King Tiger wasn't cost or range (although it's fuel consumption was horrendous), it was it's transmission. If you tried to drive the tank at more than 30 KPH for any length of time the transmissions would just die.
It was the same story with the Me262. Hitler insisted that it was constructed as a bomber and eventually compromised on a fighter/bomber. This limited it's top speed and manoeuvrability which is the only reason allied fighters like the P51 were able to combat it.
Shouldn't that be "Some Trump Donors Get Fleeced Again By 3d-Party Payment System"
I would have called it "Unrestricted Capitalism In Action" or "How Libertarianism Really Work" because lets face it, the only thing stopping this from being legal is the fact the government places restrictions on it.
this is why it's profoundly stupid to buy a new car
No, that is why it's profoundly stupid to buy a new car with finance.
If you do finance from new, you should take the shortest possible term and immediately pay off at least six months of repayments. Cars lose 33-50% of their value in the first 3 years and depreciation is worse for larger cars.
Plus, aren't all those customers now stuck with cars that are either not street legal(I know that pre-emissions-standards vehicles were grandfathered; but these aren't) or will absolutely suck once they get reflashed so that the 'clean' ECU parameters run all the time, rather than just during testing(I'm assuming that something about the test-mode parameters was lousy, or they would have had no incentive to try this little trick)?
That seems like the sort of thing that might make them justifiably unhappy, and in a way with a relatively large, and relatively easily quantified, dollar value attached.
I suspect a lot of "customers" will refuse the reflash after they figure out it'll cause a loss of power (which in a diesel is bad enough as it is). As far as I know, nowhere in the US has yearly emissions testing like the UK.
Or it's to compete with the other 800 lb gorilla, Google! If they wanted too, they could Crush Apple. Google certainly has the funds to do it, it just lacks leadership and vision.
Or perhaps its that Google has the leadership and vision needed to compete fairly and openly... Because that seems more plausible than "to timid to crush the opposition using lawsuits and intimidation" given their success with Android.
Case in point, the Android platform; it's a mess and needs a genuine philosophical overhaul of the union between the OS and keeping a more unified hardware base.
You could have just said "I know nothing of Android", it would have been faster.
Android was designed to be as hardware agnostic as possible deliberately to ensure that it could run across different hardware platforms and it has achieved this goal fantastically. I can use a LG or Samsung or Huawei phone and get the same results in software across disparate hardware platforms.
Just imagine how expensive computers would be if the OS was tied to the hardware the vendor chose. Love them or hate them (and I tend to lean towards the "hate them" category), we have Microsoft to thank for the affordability of computers today. Google is trying to do the same thing with phones and achieving a lot of success.
Also keep in mind, many, many people own a smartphone, yet don't use the advanced features offered. Like my dad. He has about 3 apps he uses -- no interest in getting others, no interest in shooting video, maybe shoots photos every couple of months.
Its not just people who dont use smartphones.
I have a 16 GB Nexus 5 and its plenty. I'm a heavy user and I've got 100 applications which take up all of 2.1 GB of my storage. I've got 9.3 GB free and dont see myself using that up any time soon. I dont keep music or videos (or much of any content) on there. I've got a 32 GB OTG drive that I keep videos on for flights and other times when I'm going to be disconnected but I mainly use my tablet for media (OK, this wont help iUsers very much).
I'd bet there are a lot of smartphone users who simply use their device as a phone and internet device, and not for media. When you add in the people who use streaming services exclusively (Netflix, Spotify) then you're approaching a significant percentage of users.
Add to this corporate users that just want the cheapest model and dont care if it hasn't got the room to store 100,000 Miley Cyrus albums then it becomes stupid _not_ to have a small, cheaper base model. With Android being so competitive on features and price, they'd literally be giving customers to their competition without it. The summary sounds like it was written by an Apple puritan with no idea about reality.
Google does not reject aps. They may ban them if they are discovered to have maleware, but if you get the developer license then you can post your apps.
Not strictly true,
They reject applications that are illegal or harmful. But Google do not reject applications out of whimsy, blind ideology or because they're afraid they'll be better than the stock apps.
Beyond this being rejected from Google Play isn't the end for an application. This is a bit of a double edged sword, but it's still the reason I like Android and the way Android does things, the benefits outweigh the flaws and it gives me, the owner of the device, the power to choose how I want to use it.
For the thousandth time, a low 0-60 time does not make your car a sports car. There is so much more to a sports car than raw acceleration. The Miata is 3x slower than a Tesla to 60mph but it's ten times the sports car. Go drive one and use a manual transmission.
This cannot be stated enough.
Sports cars emphasise handling and responsiveness over speed. The idea is that you can not just carry more speed into a corner but still have most of it on the way out of the corner.
As such, sports cars tend to focus on low weight and good weight distribution over raw power (HP/KW). I drive a Nissan Silvia S15, 1240 KG, 55/45 weight distribution and only 160 KW but it can still out perform most of the GM and Ford boats on the road.
The trend is actually reversing in some ways. Many kids are no longer interested in tinkering with PCs - which used to be a near requirement just to get them to work. They just see them as appliances now, about as interesting or exciting as their refrigerator, except for what it can DO for them. And it's often easier and more convenient for them to simply use their iPad.
This.
Computers are seen as appliances these days. In the future there will be fewer computer users who can program, not more.
The same happened with everything we consider appliances now from refrigerators to cars. Not so long ago, being able to fix a washing machine or perform rudimentary maintenance on a car was almost mandatory for owning one, now these skills are rapidly disappearing as people need to call the AA (roadside assistance) to change a tyre.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't forget that not all VW models are made by VW. The Routan, for example, is a Dodge Caravan rebranded. On top of that, the European market is more diesel than gas, and the diesel engines are far superior to the gas engines.
The diesel engines aren't superior.
The reason there are so many diesels in Europe is because up until very recently diesel fuel had less tax on it, creating a false economy.
Diesel engines are inferior to petrol engines that can produce the same amount of power and performance with a smaller displacement and without a turbocharger. A 2L NA petrol can easily beat a 2L turbo diesel. Add a turbo to the petrol and the deficiencies of the diesel are so obvious it's funny.
Australia and the United States have never discounted diesel, so petrol cars are in the majority. In the long run, even though they use slightly more fuel it's cheaper to run a petrol.
First let me say that this change is urgently needed.
But, it's unlikely that automakers who build gasoline cars are cheating like VW did. It's especially difficult to clean NOx from diesel engine exhaust because unlike gasoline engines, the exhaust contains lots of extra oxygen. Diesels need special NOx-cleaning devices which add cost and weight, and can seriously limit performance in some situations. Gasoline engines just need minor modifications to the engine computer software and the catalytic converter to clean NOx, so there's very little need to cheat.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
http://www.google.com/patents/...
Many Diseasels have a NOx cleaning device, it's called Urea Injection. Its a system that adds a Diesel Exhaust Fluid (DEF) to the Catalytic Converter that reduces pollutants, more specifically it converts NOx into water (H2O) and Nitrogen (N2).
DEF is more commonly know by it's commercial name, AdBlue.
VW is pretty much the only manufacturer not to use urea injection (as it adds cost, complexity and maintenance costs which are considered poison to people tight fisted enough to buy diesel passenger cars). VW used to maintain that their engines were magically cleaner and didn't need to use urea injection, I guess we know where the magic came from.
Mod this +1 Informative if you like kittens, +1 interesting if you find kittens delicious.
" The Allies were able to take the Axis by surprise as it was assumed the armored divisions wouldn't be able to break through this area.: ...which is funny because the French didn't expect the tanks of the Germans to be able to pass through the Ardennes. The moment they realized what the plan was, it was too late and France had no option but to surrender, even if possessing a superior force.
The main reason the allies were able to take the Nazi's by surprise in Normandy is because they had managed to completely convince Hitler that the invasion would be led by Patton at the pas de Calais.
On the morning of the Normandy landings, they woke Hitler and told him the allies had landed in Normandy. He dismissed this as a ruse, said the invasion would be at Calais and refused to release an armoured division to Normandy. Thanks to this, the landings were considerably less bloody than expected.
> In the UK, non-competes are illegal
Blackballing usually is not, because it can be very difficult to prove. Getting a new position, especially one that requires a visa, for an employee whose previous or current employer will not give positive recommendations can be very difficult.
True, but blackballing is very difficult to do with professionals. All it takes is one company not to go along with it and the whole thing falls apart.
This is why blackballing is reserved for the worst of the worst. A good coder, engineer or scientist who is a little bit difficult to work with is not worth trying to blackball.
Also companies can be sued for deformation, so deliberately trying to blackball an ex-employee is dangerous. The worst thing a company can safely say is "I would not employ this person again".
Getting a new position, especially one that requires a visa
Any position that requires a visa or sponsorship is going to put the employee over a barrel regardless. Its a crappy situation for anyone and generally is a last resort when you cant get a visa yourself. For Australians it's pretty easy for us to get working visas in the UK (Youth Mobility visa, Ancestry visa, I know the latter can lead to an ILR), for a non commonwealth country it is a lot harder.
There are Honda 600N race leagues.
The fact that some racers go out of their way to find the slowest cars available to race, says nothing about those who drive those turtles daily.
This.
There are Excel racing leagues in Australia. Hyundai Excel's are not performance cars in any definition of the word... However they're cheap and easy to find. If you blow up an engine, you can get a replacement in half a day from any number of wreckers.
Endurance races are the only type of race where diesels have any kind of traction and even then, production diesels still completely suck. Production turbo petrols will outperform production diesels. Hell If you put a production 2L Golf TDI vs a V8 Mustang in a 12 hour enduro, I'll put my money on the Mustang. This has been proven in Australia where a V8 Ford Falcon beat an Alfa 159 Diesel in the Bathurst 12 hour.
People who are buying VW Diesels are performance obsessed? Are we sure it has not always been reading low on the Dyno, but nobody cared because it's an econobox anyway and only car nerds care about the horsepower and torque numbers?
This,
Anyone who cares about performance and power doesn't buy a diesel.
They dont make diesel sports cars for the same reason they dont make petrol tractors. The engine is completely wrong for the purpose.
I find it odd to hear how programmers seem so abused by PHBs. Maybe it's an American thing, but in the UK, I've always found that employers want to keep hold of skilled people like programmers, because new ones are hard to find and take a while to get up to speed. This means that saying no is always possible.
(Nothing to to with official engineer status and ethics. There's no general requirement for engineer certifications for programmers here.)
In the UK, non-competes are illegal and good talent is not willing to put up with abuse.
The hard part here comes from "get it in writing".
When someone three layers of food-chain above you tells you "do this", you don't get to refuse until you have it in writing (unless you already have a new job lined up - and even then, don't expect that one to go any differently).
Actually you can refuse up until you get it in writing because until it's in writing, company policy prohibits me from doing anything.
I'm at the very minimum going to need a project plan, design scope, authorisation and most importantly, budget. Without paperwork there is no money, without money there is no "test assistance control device".
Working in a professional environment is very different to being a blue collar worker or working in a third world country. Its very difficult to find good talent so you dont let them go because they asked for something perfectly reasonable.
Beyond this, Volkswagen is German.
Firstly, Germans document and record everything, they're meticulous about it.
Secondly, Germany has some of the most stringent employee protection laws in the world. If they sacked someone for asking for written orders they would have been made bankrupt about 10 minutes after it happened.
$25 or $100 is negligible even if you value your time well below minimum wage.
If I wanted to develop an IOS app, I'd have to buy another computer and another phone. This is a $2000 minimum outlay as well as the $99 per year needed to remain a developer. Given that most apps dont even make $99 per year chances are I'd never make back the original outlay.
I can develop a Windows, Linux and Android app with all of my existing resources.
It's not so much that Groupon isn't useful, what they've always failed to do is convert the coupon users into repeat customers which frequently causes their clients to operate at a loss (making only the heavily-discounted deal and never cashing in on full-price sales).
Groupon gets plenty of repeat customers. What they've failed to do is get repeat suppliers because coupon users are causing a loss for the suppliers because they aren't returning. Businesses have finally realised that Groupon isn't a loss leader, it's just a loss and have pulled up sticks. Its less expensive for them to not offer anything on Groupon.
(On a related note, it was pretty stupid of Cisco to license the trademark.)
As much as I dislike Cisco for doing it, they were stupid all the way to the bank.
Apple has, repeatedly, entered a market with a better marketed product than most or all of its competition.
What you forget is that Apple have never successfully entered a saturated market.
They're starting out 5 years behind the competition. Sure they can afford to keep their current flops like AppleTV afloat from their successful businesses (much like MS does with the XBox) but I dont think you realise just how expensive it is to make a car and just how much it will cost if they dont sell.
An Apple car will be a flop and I hope it buries Apple in the process. I can tell it's going to be a flop because of the trail of other small manufacturers who said "I can make a better car" and utterly failed to compete. TVR is a good example, investors threw money after TVR for years and produced cars that enthusiasts raved about... but in the end TVR didn't sell enough to stay in business. TVR is a good analogy because TVR has rabid fanboys
If Apple has half a brain, they'll just buy a 918 and badge engineer it (they already do this with almost all of their hardware anyway). It'll be more expensive than the porsche and be less functional but it's the only way they wont fail miserably (it'll just be a normal fail).
That's exactly what Moto, Microsoft, and Nokia said about the iPhone. Where are they now?
All are still alive and well.
However the car industry is a different kettle of fish.
There are plenty of small phone players but you have to ask why so many small car manufacturers fail. Even TVR with decades of heritage died in the end and most Americans wont even know who Noble are.
A car requires a lot of regulatory requirements to be met, if they fail the auto manufacturer is not allowed to say "you're holding it wrong", no they have to fix it. Apple's approach to telling you what to do isn't going to fly with motorists either when they've got a metric shitload of choice.
Beyond this there is the price. Apple are know for producing mediocre stuff and selling it a high price. Are you really going to buy a Leaf for 918 prices just because it's made by Apple?
Finally, cars are a saturated market. Apple has never managed to break into a saturated market.
When it comes to cars. I'm going to take GMs advice over Apples and I dont think highly of GM to begin with.
"An expensive plane that ended up with little real use."
No it made an excellent long range strike aircraft and did very well in desert storm. The reason it was retired was that it was old and expensive to maintain and the USAF wanted more F-15Es. Which could dogfight.
This is why the Australian Air Force (RAAF) operated them up until about 5 years ago when they were replaced with F/A 18F's which dont have the same range (which is kind of a big deal when talking about Australia).
Oh, God, where to start. The Me-109 was a good plane. It was also old. The P-51, which was our main fighter in the latter part of the war, outflew it five ways from Sunday. The FW-190, developed during the war, did better, but didn't fly well at high altitudes. The Germans also couldn't build enough of them to take over completely from the 109s.
The Soviets never led cavalry charges into machine guns. Soviet cavalry was deployed mostly in the Pripet Marshes--where they did very well, the Pripet being unfriendly ground for your average vehicle, even if it's tracked.
"In Stalingrad every other man got a rifle"? The Soviets had to strain for men and equipment in Stalingrad, but that's not even remotely true. And one reason Stalingrad itself went short was because the Russians were saving up for a devasting blow on the German's lightly held flanks outside of Stalingrad--which enabled them to completely surrond the Sixth Army and ultimately destroy it.
Germany's main problem wasn't it's weapons, it was it's leaders. Hitler had issued so many stupid decrees that ended up getting people killed such as disallowing retreat and demanding immediate counter attacks. Germany's tactics became predictable. Add to this the fact that Hitler was also very easily fooled (even as Allied troops landed at Normandy he insisted that the invasion would be at Calais).
The downfall of the Panzer's was their complexity. This again, was due to Hitler who wanted bigger tanks with bigger guns, the problem with adding more weight is that you need more power. The Achilles heel of the King Tiger wasn't cost or range (although it's fuel consumption was horrendous), it was it's transmission. If you tried to drive the tank at more than 30 KPH for any length of time the transmissions would just die.
It was the same story with the Me262. Hitler insisted that it was constructed as a bomber and eventually compromised on a fighter/bomber. This limited it's top speed and manoeuvrability which is the only reason allied fighters like the P51 were able to combat it.
Shouldn't that be "Some Trump Donors Get Fleeced Again By 3d-Party Payment System"
I would have called it "Unrestricted Capitalism In Action" or "How Libertarianism Really Work" because lets face it, the only thing stopping this from being legal is the fact the government places restrictions on it.
I still owe more than it is worth.
this is why it's profoundly stupid to buy a new car
No, that is why it's profoundly stupid to buy a new car with finance.
If you do finance from new, you should take the shortest possible term and immediately pay off at least six months of repayments. Cars lose 33-50% of their value in the first 3 years and depreciation is worse for larger cars.
Plus, aren't all those customers now stuck with cars that are either not street legal(I know that pre-emissions-standards vehicles were grandfathered; but these aren't) or will absolutely suck once they get reflashed so that the 'clean' ECU parameters run all the time, rather than just during testing(I'm assuming that something about the test-mode parameters was lousy, or they would have had no incentive to try this little trick)?
That seems like the sort of thing that might make them justifiably unhappy, and in a way with a relatively large, and relatively easily quantified, dollar value attached.
I suspect a lot of "customers" will refuse the reflash after they figure out it'll cause a loss of power (which in a diesel is bad enough as it is). As far as I know, nowhere in the US has yearly emissions testing like the UK.
Or it's to compete with the other 800 lb gorilla, Google! If they wanted too, they could Crush Apple. Google certainly has the funds to do it, it just lacks leadership and vision.
Or perhaps its that Google has the leadership and vision needed to compete fairly and openly... Because that seems more plausible than "to timid to crush the opposition using lawsuits and intimidation" given their success with Android.
Case in point, the Android platform; it's a mess and needs a genuine philosophical overhaul of the union between the OS and keeping a more unified hardware base.
You could have just said "I know nothing of Android", it would have been faster.
Android was designed to be as hardware agnostic as possible deliberately to ensure that it could run across different hardware platforms and it has achieved this goal fantastically. I can use a LG or Samsung or Huawei phone and get the same results in software across disparate hardware platforms.
Just imagine how expensive computers would be if the OS was tied to the hardware the vendor chose. Love them or hate them (and I tend to lean towards the "hate them" category), we have Microsoft to thank for the affordability of computers today. Google is trying to do the same thing with phones and achieving a lot of success.
Also keep in mind, many, many people own a smartphone, yet don't use the advanced features offered. Like my dad. He has about 3 apps he uses -- no interest in getting others, no interest in shooting video, maybe shoots photos every couple of months.
Its not just people who dont use smartphones.
I have a 16 GB Nexus 5 and its plenty. I'm a heavy user and I've got 100 applications which take up all of 2.1 GB of my storage. I've got 9.3 GB free and dont see myself using that up any time soon. I dont keep music or videos (or much of any content) on there. I've got a 32 GB OTG drive that I keep videos on for flights and other times when I'm going to be disconnected but I mainly use my tablet for media (OK, this wont help iUsers very much).
I'd bet there are a lot of smartphone users who simply use their device as a phone and internet device, and not for media. When you add in the people who use streaming services exclusively (Netflix, Spotify) then you're approaching a significant percentage of users.
Add to this corporate users that just want the cheapest model and dont care if it hasn't got the room to store 100,000 Miley Cyrus albums then it becomes stupid _not_ to have a small, cheaper base model. With Android being so competitive on features and price, they'd literally be giving customers to their competition without it. The summary sounds like it was written by an Apple puritan with no idea about reality.
Google does not reject aps. They may ban them if they are discovered to have maleware, but if you get the developer license then you can post your apps.
Not strictly true,
They reject applications that are illegal or harmful. But Google do not reject applications out of whimsy, blind ideology or because they're afraid they'll be better than the stock apps.
Beyond this being rejected from Google Play isn't the end for an application. This is a bit of a double edged sword, but it's still the reason I like Android and the way Android does things, the benefits outweigh the flaws and it gives me, the owner of the device, the power to choose how I want to use it.
laser beam...
Are sharks now considered a suspect?
For the thousandth time, a low 0-60 time does not make your car a sports car. There is so much more to a sports car than raw acceleration. The Miata is 3x slower than a Tesla to 60mph but it's ten times the sports car. Go drive one and use a manual transmission.
This cannot be stated enough.
Sports cars emphasise handling and responsiveness over speed. The idea is that you can not just carry more speed into a corner but still have most of it on the way out of the corner.
As such, sports cars tend to focus on low weight and good weight distribution over raw power (HP/KW). I drive a Nissan Silvia S15, 1240 KG, 55/45 weight distribution and only 160 KW but it can still out perform most of the GM and Ford boats on the road.
Also, definitely drive a manual transmission.
The trend is actually reversing in some ways. Many kids are no longer interested in tinkering with PCs - which used to be a near requirement just to get them to work. They just see them as appliances now, about as interesting or exciting as their refrigerator, except for what it can DO for them. And it's often easier and more convenient for them to simply use their iPad.
This.
Computers are seen as appliances these days. In the future there will be fewer computer users who can program, not more.
The same happened with everything we consider appliances now from refrigerators to cars. Not so long ago, being able to fix a washing machine or perform rudimentary maintenance on a car was almost mandatory for owning one, now these skills are rapidly disappearing as people need to call the AA (roadside assistance) to change a tyre.