I went back to Vista two months ago, after trying the latest and greatest I could find of drivers. It still crashed aplenty. Disabling the desktop effects helped a bit, but not completely. I'm sure the drivers have improved, but not so much that I'd prefer ATI over NVidia quite yet (which is pretty sad, because I'm kindof an AMD fanboy)
My laptop from last year can't run Ubuntu because of the crappy ATI drivers. X crashes at random for no apparent reason (although it happens more frequently when closing tabs in firefox, wtf?). Their drivers may possibly have improved, but not enough to be actually usable...
The key word here is "sensible". He can consult with his inferiors, but he is in no way obliged to do so.
Are you claiming to know first hand that he IS sensible? I'm not insisting on shit, I'm merely stating that he doesn't have to listen to anyone below him in rank.
Of course, but still. Oxford street is just a tiny part of London. I can't believe that that one street accounts for almost 10% of Londons wifi networks.
I'm not one of the global warming crazies, just so you know. It's just for the sake of the argument. Are there actual numbers behind the lung-destroying pollutants? I can see that it's bad for you when enclosed, but what about semi-open spaces like cities? "Everything" is bad for you, in one way or another.
It's funny how the definition of pollutant changes. When the crazies want to get more money, CO2 is definitely a "pollutant". I guess it's more a matter of local versus global pollution.
Another side-effect of global warming that you are forgetting... Sahara regularly turns into a jungle due to the increased rainfall. That eats up a lot of CO2, and helps the cycle back again.
I guess the USEPA or CARB doesn't acknowledge global warming then. The definition of pollution: "Pollution is the introduction of contaminants into the environment that cause harm or discomfort to humans or other living organisms, or that damage the environment."
I'm not denying that old cars produce more CO/NOx than newer cars. It doesn't appear that you are grasping that though.
CO2 isn't a pollutant all of a sudden? I thought there was this whole "greenhouse gas" hysteria because of CO2 nowadays. Of course an non-cat car outputs a hellovalot more CO than CO2. That's the whole point of the cat. You're just phrasing it as if though old cars produce more pollution than new ones because of the cat. The cat just changes what kind of pollution is produced. It also increases the amount a bit.
With lean-burning cats, the NOx reduction is very inefficient. Hondas NOx emissions are higher than rich-burn engines, while CO output is lower. Thus, it's not working "as it should". It still demands more fuel than having no cat, so the net output is larger than without it.
Re-reading your reply... this just doesn't make sense:
Due to lack of a catalytic converter, it spews about 1000 times more NOx and CO than a modern ULEV car. If it is one of the later models with a 70s-era catalyst, then it's still emitting about 100 times more pollution than a modern 2009 car.
100 times more pollution? An non-cat car produces CO, while a cat car produces CO2. Considering the requirements for the cat to work (rich mixture, and reduces effective output), the cat car outputs more than the non-cat car for the same amount of work. More fossil fuel spent, and the output has gotta go somewhere.
Kinda incoherent, but I'll bite. I'm not revising history. I'm saying that the technology we have today is incredibly more advanced and virtually foolproof. This makes the environmentalist scare tactic of Chernobyl/3M Island moot. Things have changed a helluvalot during the last 30-40 years, and tech is much safer. In nuclear infancy, the environmentalists would be right in claiming nuclear power was going to be a disaster. I don't think they are right any longer.
Chernobyl was bad design. What makes you think Three Mile wasn't shitty design? Three mile happened 29 years ago, and would NEVER have happened with todays reactors.
Regarding waste. Should we wait until there is a complete solution to this problem, or bet on it being solved in the semi-near future? I consider the gains worth the "risk" of having to keep the waste locked up worth thousands of coal-plants. Especially since coal ash is more radioactive than nuclear waste. Do we guard the coal ash? Don't our children pay a higher price for the ginormous amounts of coal burnt every single day?
I ain't saying that we should drop wind/solar/thermal/wave/hydro power. But I think nuclear is a pretty good step in a better direction, especially since only hydroelectric power can adjust quickly to grid needs, but hydro isn't available everywhere. (Fortunately, I live in Norway where we have *no* coal plants but plenty of hydro)
Does it really sound that bad, compared to the *existing* alternatives?
And the reasonable environmentalists might be right. Technology might possibly have developed over the last 20+ years. We're afraid of technology that had flaws in its infancy. Maybe humanity has learned, and possibly improved technology since then?
Slashdot Mirror
Slightly paraphrased: Won't anyone think of the environment?!
Believe me, managing to play "Through fire and flames" also gives you a huge sense of accomplishment ;)
I seem to remember you could do echo ^G too
They could craft an EULA that'd absolve them from anything. The question is whether or not it'd hold up in court.
Fortunately, citizens outside the United States of Asshats* doesn't have to bother with this whole DMCA crap.
* Referring to lawyers et.al.
I went back to Vista two months ago, after trying the latest and greatest I could find of drivers. It still crashed aplenty. Disabling the desktop effects helped a bit, but not completely.
I'm sure the drivers have improved, but not so much that I'd prefer ATI over NVidia quite yet (which is pretty sad, because I'm kindof an AMD fanboy)
My laptop from last year can't run Ubuntu because of the crappy ATI drivers. X crashes at random for no apparent reason (although it happens more frequently when closing tabs in firefox, wtf?). Their drivers may possibly have improved, but not enough to be actually usable...
The key word here is "sensible". He can consult with his inferiors, but he is in no way obliged to do so.
Are you claiming to know first hand that he IS sensible? I'm not insisting on shit, I'm merely stating that he doesn't have to listen to anyone below him in rank.
His entire staff? If this career general decides that he wants to prolong this shit, his entire staff can't do shit except ... mutiny.
Of course, but still. Oxford street is just a tiny part of London. I can't believe that that one street accounts for almost 10% of Londons wifi networks.
I found more than a thousand wifi networks walking down Oxford street with a PDA this spring, and London only has ~12k wifi networks?
Wine Is Not an Emulator
I'm not one of the global warming crazies, just so you know. It's just for the sake of the argument. Are there actual numbers behind the lung-destroying pollutants? I can see that it's bad for you when enclosed, but what about semi-open spaces like cities?
"Everything" is bad for you, in one way or another.
It's funny how the definition of pollutant changes. When the crazies want to get more money, CO2 is definitely a "pollutant".
I guess it's more a matter of local versus global pollution.
Another side-effect of global warming that you are forgetting... Sahara regularly turns into a jungle due to the increased rainfall. That eats up a lot of CO2, and helps the cycle back again.
I guess the USEPA or CARB doesn't acknowledge global warming then. The definition of pollution: "Pollution is the introduction of contaminants into the environment that cause harm or discomfort to humans or other living organisms, or that damage the environment."
I'm not denying that old cars produce more CO/NOx than newer cars. It doesn't appear that you are grasping that though.
CO2 isn't a pollutant all of a sudden? I thought there was this whole "greenhouse gas" hysteria because of CO2 nowadays.
Of course an non-cat car outputs a hellovalot more CO than CO2. That's the whole point of the cat. You're just phrasing it as if though old cars produce more pollution than new ones because of the cat. The cat just changes what kind of pollution is produced. It also increases the amount a bit.
With lean-burning cats, the NOx reduction is very inefficient. Hondas NOx emissions are higher than rich-burn engines, while CO output is lower. Thus, it's not working "as it should". It still demands more fuel than having no cat, so the net output is larger than without it.
Re-reading your reply... this just doesn't make sense:
100 times more pollution? An non-cat car produces CO, while a cat car produces CO2. Considering the requirements for the cat to work (rich mixture, and reduces effective output), the cat car outputs more than the non-cat car for the same amount of work. More fossil fuel spent, and the output has gotta go somewhere.
The main component is Nickel, which is considered "semi-toxic".
Fine by me, if they wouldn't survive in nature anyway.
There should be a "hilarious" mod for occations like this
The Picasso in my toilet is good for decoration. So it's not art :)
Kinda incoherent, but I'll bite.
I'm not revising history. I'm saying that the technology we have today is incredibly more advanced and virtually foolproof. This makes the environmentalist scare tactic of Chernobyl/3M Island moot.
Things have changed a helluvalot during the last 30-40 years, and tech is much safer. In nuclear infancy, the environmentalists would be right in claiming nuclear power was going to be a disaster. I don't think they are right any longer.
The problem is, you don't know the shelf life of the media until it fails. Within three years you are reasonably secure. After that, who knows.
There is no such thing as "can't afford a proper backup system". If you can't afford a proper backup system (as a company), you don't value your data.
Chernobyl was bad design. What makes you think Three Mile wasn't shitty design?
Three mile happened 29 years ago, and would NEVER have happened with todays reactors.
Regarding waste. Should we wait until there is a complete solution to this problem, or bet on it being solved in the semi-near future? I consider the gains worth the "risk" of having to keep the waste locked up worth thousands of coal-plants. Especially since coal ash is more radioactive than nuclear waste.
Do we guard the coal ash? Don't our children pay a higher price for the ginormous amounts of coal burnt every single day?
I ain't saying that we should drop wind/solar/thermal/wave/hydro power. But I think nuclear is a pretty good step in a better direction, especially since only hydroelectric power can adjust quickly to grid needs, but hydro isn't available everywhere. (Fortunately, I live in Norway where we have *no* coal plants but plenty of hydro)
Does it really sound that bad, compared to the *existing* alternatives?
And the reasonable environmentalists might be right. Technology might possibly have developed over the last 20+ years.
We're afraid of technology that had flaws in its infancy. Maybe humanity has learned, and possibly improved technology since then?