Solar? Wind? Heat reclamation? as other posters have said, this is only impossible if the car operates as a closed system.
That said, if the car is using some sort of solar/whatever power to sustain an energy producing water reaction then I'm not sure why they would claim it to be water powered instead of what is actually inputting energy to the system.
Yes, but GP explicitly stated that a) they have better things to do than research a $50 thumb drive purchase and b) there's no reason they should have to research it, since companies SHOULD be simply publishing it on the box.
Didn't you get the memo, Apple are so nice and fair that they would always happily lend a hand to other large corporations with or without any kind of motive or incentive. They'd also never engage in vendor lock in, or support DRM to keep software from being used in unapproved ways or on unapproved hardware.
I honestly have no citable source, but I have been told this by people with more formal education on the subject.
That said, my general understanding is that most of our bodily functions operate largely on positive feedback loops such that the things our bodies encounter and become accustomed to are better dealt with. If long-time vegetarians are generally unable to properly digest meat (many are, by the way... I know a lot of vegetarians who have tried to go omnivore or had to under extenuating circumstances, and most report that at least for the first few times eating it meat is very difficult to digest), I would imagine that a long-time user of dietary supplements would have a lot of trouble getting their vitamins and minerals were they to quit them cold turkey.
Thanks for pointing out the absorbency issue as well, I forgot to mention that one, and it's definitely key. The dangers of overpriced food semi-replacements are never off topic in my book.
Jeez stop being so elitist. Everybody knows that "experts" are just a sham created by the liberal/conservative elite to oppress us and make us all feel inferior. Just because somebody has decades of experience and many years of formal education on a subject doesn't make their opinion on it any better or more valid than the ones you or I pull out of our asses based on absolutely nothing.
I tested this theory by keying my jeans... while it somewhat hurt my thigh, the cloth was quite unaffected.
My conclusion: cloth is more resistant to minor cosmetic damage than painted sheet metal, and harder to cut than flash.*
Seriously though, cloth is actually quite resistant to things like impact and scratching, which to me sounds like a great reason to make parts which are really prone to little other than cosmetic damage out of it (keep in mind that in a serious accident, the damage which we are concerned with is not to the painted sheet metal on the outside, it's to the frame and chassis... if those are essentially undamaged, then any damage is really just cosmetic). Even a flimsy t-shirt requires some serious twisting or a tremendous amount of blunt trauma to take any noticeable damage, and something like canvas is substantially tougher, not to mention Kevlar and other synthetics which are highly resistant even to sharp trauma.
*Do not try this at home, goodness knows I didn't. All experimental data is fabricated... get it ated. I crack myself up.
Because hysteria and overblown studies aside, marijuana is essentially harmless and stupid to prohibit. Plus, for all you fiscal conservatives out there, it is extraordinarily expensive to arrest, prosecute, and incarcerate marijuana users especially given that it is such a mild drug in the first place.
The fact that even the most dire effects found in studies basically amount to "it can be addictive if used in large quantities over long periods of time", "generally mildly detrimental to health and higher nervous function" and "mildly impairs judgment and perception" is just sort of the icing on the cake. 40 years of anti-weed hysteria has yielded little more than "ha! it actually MIGHT be addictive!" and frankly that just doesn't cut it (especially as, to the very best of my knowledge, there is no law against being addicted to something, or any compelling reason to outright ban a substance based on a possibly addictive nature... alcohol and tobacco would both be considerably more illegal than weed if either were the case).
Most nations with sensible drug policies have at least decriminalized marijuana, and some have even had the good sense to go as far as legalizing and regulating it similarly to alcohol and with comparable legal requirements for both its sale and consumption. If your real problem is people driving while high, then make laws against DUI, but don't just arbitrarily ban various substances which people could use to run afoul of that law while protecting the corporate interests of those who produce others.
As for vitamins not having an abuse risk... I've known many people to substitute a large daily regimen of vitamins for balanced diets as a means of maintaining "healthy" weight. I've heard from many, many sources that I trust (including dietitians) that doing this is EXTREMELY counterproductive because, among other reasons, your body will acclimate to receiving these nutrients in that format and will therefore ramp up the ability to use them in pure form while deactivating the systems intended to extract them from actual food. Aside from weakening the digestive system overall, this actually leads to people being unable to properly obtain nutrients from food, making them dependent on supplements for proper nutrition. That sounds an awful lot like abuse leading to physiological addiction to me, even if it doesn't occur in the brain's "addiction center" (so called because many addictive substances cause stimulation there, not because it defines what is addictive, by the way).
The point is, pharmaceutical companies are praised for pushing all kinds of dangerous mind-altering substances (including, by the way, amphetamines, synthetic opiates, barbiturates and hallucinogens) with extremely dangerous side affects and addictive properties, while marijuana is obsessively attacked by various groups despite being essentially harmless by comparison. Treat your stress and anxiety by smoking pot and you run the risk of having a negative reaction and possibly going to jail; do it with Xanax and you still run the risk of a negative reaction, but you've paid a whole lot more and the negative reaction in question may include suicidal tendencies (something never credibly linked to marijuana use) or a potentially fatal drug interaction (again, something never credibly demonstrated with marijuana), but it's legal.
Sure, some of it is about "hippies" who want to smoke pot... but it's also about people who just don't buy into the "pot is evil" bullshit because it's a bunch of hypocritical fear-mongering with no basis in reality other than the business concerns of legal drug producers who prefer to compete as little as possible. I'm mostly just sick of seeing tax dollars that could be spent on useful things, like education or health care or the enforcement of laws that actually matter instead wasted on fighting a pseudo-war on drugs that can't ever be won and has no point.
Granted, I also want to put a spike in the head of every idiot asshole who balks at spending a couple of mill
Of course, the double edged sword of parsibility is that things which seem otherwise synonymous can be radically different in certain contexts because of otherwise subtle to the point of triviality differences in meaning. The law says and does precisely what it is supposed to, it's just that those of us who don't know the exact mechanics don't always see what is causing the supposed breakdown.
Take the tax code: one explanation for the wealthy being able to pay a substantially smaller portion of their net income in taxes is that there are unintentional loopholes that unscrupulous outsiders are exploiting. The other is that virtually all politicians, being personally wealthy, have unscrupulously written the laws such that they and their friends 9read: other wealthy people) can pay fewer taxes. there's nothing unintentional about it, that's how they wrote the "code" in the first place, it's just obfuscated with near synonyms and complicated function calls.
A lot of people hate AT&T for a wide variety of reasons. The most common I've heard is that they really liked Cingular prior to the merger, but afterwards started to have billing problems and find dead spots.
In any case, that French law sounds solid. Vendor lock in isn't cool when cell providers do it either.
Perhaps if the real inventors of the internet hadn't basically come out and validated his quote in full, you could get away with saying that, but since they did (and since you took that snippet out of a context that actually explains HOW he did it) I'm left with you having some axe to grind with Gore (and I can't imagine what it is at this point).
Anyway, for anyone out there who still thinks that gore even misspoke... he claimed to have taken initiative in creating the legislation which created (largely by funding) a larger version of ARPAnet that was accessible to the public at large. In other words, he has never claimed any (direct) technical contribution to the internet, but has claimed legislative, financial, legal, and social contributions to it. This makes sense, if you keep in mind that there are ways to contribute to technology other than coding.
Also consider that when somebody dumps $1.5bn of a single stock, it is no longer worth $1.5bn.
I'd imagine the real reason he's pissed is that he's so heavily invested in Yahoo he can't possibly get out of it.
That said, even if it halved in value had he sold his stock off, he can still cry me a river: "I only made $750,000,000 cashing out my YHOO stocks, wah!"
"until major companies cancel mass volume licensing of MS Office"
Which will happen when *drumroll* enough individual users make the switch. I didn't say that OO was beating MS Office or even universally better than it (although for my needs it actually is, which is why I have declined to install MS Office even when offered it for free-as-in-beer), just that it is becoming a credible threat for the relatively near future.
The bottom line is that Firefox has demonstrated to Microsoft that FOSS can come out of nowhere to beat the crap out of their products, and now that one of their golden geese is being threatened they aren't about to take any chances. If they lose their Office monopoly, that's easily as bad to them as losing the Windows monopoly, not least because it directly threatens that one as well (why would corporate users want to pay money for Windows to run software that runs better and safer on any number of cheaper solutions?). It seems like they are realizing that they let OO continue and grow for far too long already, and they're actually concerned they might have to compete again, and on much worse terms with a far inferior track record than the last time around.
"I notice you casually forget the second half of the question. There's far less competition in wireless now than in the past. That is an incontrovertible fact."
Really? I see a lot more competition in the market than there used to be. Pay as you go has forced contract companies to actually provide some real services and made people much more aware of how much they pay for a minute of talking. Sure, since the AAT&T/Cingular and Sprint/Nextel mergers there are less of the old school heavies in wireless, but balanced with the fact that there are now a huge number of independents (not to mention companies like Alltel who use a similar model to the old contract dinosaurs) selling prepaid that more than balances out.
In any case, if mobile phones cost a fraction of what they used to, and the service offered is exponentially greater, how exactly do you see the price going up?
Uh, actually, I'm sure they're thinking plenty hard about playing nice, and seeing as there is a competitor (OO is taking away some of their customers, even if only the ones who don't care about spread sheets going beyond 256 columns, and since it keeps getting markedly better where Office keeps getting markedly more irritating...) have decided that is a risk they simply cannot afford to take.
You must have been asleep for the past 2 decades, because otherwise you'd know by now that Microsoft's version of "playing nice" is creating a de facto standard that they alone control then avoiding making any changes 9even positive ones) to it so long as nobody else is in the game.
"OMG my Pinto is a piece of crap, therefore the 2009 Mustang must also be a piece of crap."
While the logic is fallacious, I am confident that the conclusion is, regardless, spot on. Years of crappy experiences with Fords has taught me that they all suck, and buying their overpriced pseudo-dragster is only marginally wiser than making sweet love to a meat grinder. It also screams "I'm 45 years old, bald, pudgy, and I have a tiny penis".
If Vista becomes better than it is to the same extent that XP did, then I'm sure everyone will. it's not there yet, and until it is it sucks.
As for people pointing out that 2k->XP was exactly the same... yeah, XP blew nuts when it came out. I refused to even install it until Vista was a few months from (actual) commercial release because my early experiences with it could be best summed as "just like 2k, except that it's complete shit and does nothing useful." With that said, once I used it significantly in 2006/2007 I found that it simply blew my 2k install out of the water, and prejudices which hadn't been updated since 2003 evaporated in a few days.
Vista may be worth installing some day, but for this moment, if you need or want Windows installed, XP is simply better than it and every other version currently available (including those available only in backups). One day Vista might get there itself, either that or it actually will turn out to be ME 2.0: now with more shiny.
6 hours... unless his time is actually worth less than $50 per hour. I don't make even close to that much, so your math is actually encouraging me to spend almost however much time it takes to get a windows refund.
Alas, I built my own desktop, and I payed nothing for my (legal) install of XP, so I don't think I'm quite eligible.
Slashdot Mirror
Solar? Wind? Heat reclamation? as other posters have said, this is only impossible if the car operates as a closed system.
That said, if the car is using some sort of solar/whatever power to sustain an energy producing water reaction then I'm not sure why they would claim it to be water powered instead of what is actually inputting energy to the system.
Yes, but GP explicitly stated that a) they have better things to do than research a $50 thumb drive purchase and b) there's no reason they should have to research it, since companies SHOULD be simply publishing it on the box.
Nice try though.
Didn't you get the memo, Apple are so nice and fair that they would always happily lend a hand to other large corporations with or without any kind of motive or incentive. They'd also never engage in vendor lock in, or support DRM to keep software from being used in unapproved ways or on unapproved hardware.
This is just common knowledge.
Well bollocks to that, they're a bunch of tossers on your carriage. Sounds like your neighbourhood is full up of twats and idiots.
I don't include you in that, of course, you seem like a decent sort. I'm sure you're just about the only decent bloke living there. Yeah.
My apologies to anyone who is actually British for mauling the slang so badly.
"He'll just end up coming across as creepy and forceful."
I believe that in the biz that's referred to as "Mainstream Republican".
I honestly have no citable source, but I have been told this by people with more formal education on the subject.
That said, my general understanding is that most of our bodily functions operate largely on positive feedback loops such that the things our bodies encounter and become accustomed to are better dealt with. If long-time vegetarians are generally unable to properly digest meat (many are, by the way... I know a lot of vegetarians who have tried to go omnivore or had to under extenuating circumstances, and most report that at least for the first few times eating it meat is very difficult to digest), I would imagine that a long-time user of dietary supplements would have a lot of trouble getting their vitamins and minerals were they to quit them cold turkey.
Thanks for pointing out the absorbency issue as well, I forgot to mention that one, and it's definitely key. The dangers of overpriced food semi-replacements are never off topic in my book.
Jeez stop being so elitist. Everybody knows that "experts" are just a sham created by the liberal/conservative elite to oppress us and make us all feel inferior. Just because somebody has decades of experience and many years of formal education on a subject doesn't make their opinion on it any better or more valid than the ones you or I pull out of our asses based on absolutely nothing.
Well, at least that's what Wikipedia says.
I tested this theory by keying my jeans... while it somewhat hurt my thigh, the cloth was quite unaffected.
My conclusion: cloth is more resistant to minor cosmetic damage than painted sheet metal, and harder to cut than flash.*
Seriously though, cloth is actually quite resistant to things like impact and scratching, which to me sounds like a great reason to make parts which are really prone to little other than cosmetic damage out of it (keep in mind that in a serious accident, the damage which we are concerned with is not to the painted sheet metal on the outside, it's to the frame and chassis... if those are essentially undamaged, then any damage is really just cosmetic). Even a flimsy t-shirt requires some serious twisting or a tremendous amount of blunt trauma to take any noticeable damage, and something like canvas is substantially tougher, not to mention Kevlar and other synthetics which are highly resistant even to sharp trauma.
*Do not try this at home, goodness knows I didn't. All experimental data is fabricated... get it ated. I crack myself up.
Because hysteria and overblown studies aside, marijuana is essentially harmless and stupid to prohibit. Plus, for all you fiscal conservatives out there, it is extraordinarily expensive to arrest, prosecute, and incarcerate marijuana users especially given that it is such a mild drug in the first place.
The fact that even the most dire effects found in studies basically amount to "it can be addictive if used in large quantities over long periods of time", "generally mildly detrimental to health and higher nervous function" and "mildly impairs judgment and perception" is just sort of the icing on the cake. 40 years of anti-weed hysteria has yielded little more than "ha! it actually MIGHT be addictive!" and frankly that just doesn't cut it (especially as, to the very best of my knowledge, there is no law against being addicted to something, or any compelling reason to outright ban a substance based on a possibly addictive nature... alcohol and tobacco would both be considerably more illegal than weed if either were the case).
Most nations with sensible drug policies have at least decriminalized marijuana, and some have even had the good sense to go as far as legalizing and regulating it similarly to alcohol and with comparable legal requirements for both its sale and consumption. If your real problem is people driving while high, then make laws against DUI, but don't just arbitrarily ban various substances which people could use to run afoul of that law while protecting the corporate interests of those who produce others.
As for vitamins not having an abuse risk... I've known many people to substitute a large daily regimen of vitamins for balanced diets as a means of maintaining "healthy" weight. I've heard from many, many sources that I trust (including dietitians) that doing this is EXTREMELY counterproductive because, among other reasons, your body will acclimate to receiving these nutrients in that format and will therefore ramp up the ability to use them in pure form while deactivating the systems intended to extract them from actual food. Aside from weakening the digestive system overall, this actually leads to people being unable to properly obtain nutrients from food, making them dependent on supplements for proper nutrition. That sounds an awful lot like abuse leading to physiological addiction to me, even if it doesn't occur in the brain's "addiction center" (so called because many addictive substances cause stimulation there, not because it defines what is addictive, by the way).
The point is, pharmaceutical companies are praised for pushing all kinds of dangerous mind-altering substances (including, by the way, amphetamines, synthetic opiates, barbiturates and hallucinogens) with extremely dangerous side affects and addictive properties, while marijuana is obsessively attacked by various groups despite being essentially harmless by comparison. Treat your stress and anxiety by smoking pot and you run the risk of having a negative reaction and possibly going to jail; do it with Xanax and you still run the risk of a negative reaction, but you've paid a whole lot more and the negative reaction in question may include suicidal tendencies (something never credibly linked to marijuana use) or a potentially fatal drug interaction (again, something never credibly demonstrated with marijuana), but it's legal.
Sure, some of it is about "hippies" who want to smoke pot... but it's also about people who just don't buy into the "pot is evil" bullshit because it's a bunch of hypocritical fear-mongering with no basis in reality other than the business concerns of legal drug producers who prefer to compete as little as possible. I'm mostly just sick of seeing tax dollars that could be spent on useful things, like education or health care or the enforcement of laws that actually matter instead wasted on fighting a pseudo-war on drugs that can't ever be won and has no point.
Granted, I also want to put a spike in the head of every idiot asshole who balks at spending a couple of mill
Fun fact: many 'roids shrink your junk.
Kind of puts the whole thing in perspective, doesn't it?
Believe it or not, we already have one.
Of course, the double edged sword of parsibility is that things which seem otherwise synonymous can be radically different in certain contexts because of otherwise subtle to the point of triviality differences in meaning. The law says and does precisely what it is supposed to, it's just that those of us who don't know the exact mechanics don't always see what is causing the supposed breakdown.
Take the tax code: one explanation for the wealthy being able to pay a substantially smaller portion of their net income in taxes is that there are unintentional loopholes that unscrupulous outsiders are exploiting. The other is that virtually all politicians, being personally wealthy, have unscrupulously written the laws such that they and their friends 9read: other wealthy people) can pay fewer taxes. there's nothing unintentional about it, that's how they wrote the "code" in the first place, it's just obfuscated with near synonyms and complicated function calls.
A lot of people hate AT&T for a wide variety of reasons. The most common I've heard is that they really liked Cingular prior to the merger, but afterwards started to have billing problems and find dead spots.
In any case, that French law sounds solid. Vendor lock in isn't cool when cell providers do it either.
Yes, but can you convert that to automobiles?
Frighteningly close? Really?
Perhaps if the real inventors of the internet hadn't basically come out and validated his quote in full, you could get away with saying that, but since they did (and since you took that snippet out of a context that actually explains HOW he did it) I'm left with you having some axe to grind with Gore (and I can't imagine what it is at this point).
Anyway, for anyone out there who still thinks that gore even misspoke... he claimed to have taken initiative in creating the legislation which created (largely by funding) a larger version of ARPAnet that was accessible to the public at large. In other words, he has never claimed any (direct) technical contribution to the internet, but has claimed legislative, financial, legal, and social contributions to it. This makes sense, if you keep in mind that there are ways to contribute to technology other than coding.
Also consider that when somebody dumps $1.5bn of a single stock, it is no longer worth $1.5bn.
I'd imagine the real reason he's pissed is that he's so heavily invested in Yahoo he can't possibly get out of it.
That said, even if it halved in value had he sold his stock off, he can still cry me a river: "I only made $750,000,000 cashing out my YHOO stocks, wah!"
I was going to write out a long response, but suffice it to say, you're an idiot.
May your once grossly overvalued home plummet in value and drive you into (well deserved) poverty.
Unless, and this is a distinct possibility for many web sites, IE is only a compatibility outlier while everything else is a use outlier.
If 90% of your users are using one browser, then it kind of makes sense to test in it first, no matter how much of a dog it is.
It *nghflgthurnaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhh* seizes me too!
"until major companies cancel mass volume licensing of MS Office"
Which will happen when *drumroll* enough individual users make the switch. I didn't say that OO was beating MS Office or even universally better than it (although for my needs it actually is, which is why I have declined to install MS Office even when offered it for free-as-in-beer), just that it is becoming a credible threat for the relatively near future.
The bottom line is that Firefox has demonstrated to Microsoft that FOSS can come out of nowhere to beat the crap out of their products, and now that one of their golden geese is being threatened they aren't about to take any chances. If they lose their Office monopoly, that's easily as bad to them as losing the Windows monopoly, not least because it directly threatens that one as well (why would corporate users want to pay money for Windows to run software that runs better and safer on any number of cheaper solutions?). It seems like they are realizing that they let OO continue and grow for far too long already, and they're actually concerned they might have to compete again, and on much worse terms with a far inferior track record than the last time around.
"I notice you casually forget the second half of the question. There's far less competition in wireless now than in the past. That is an incontrovertible fact."
Really? I see a lot more competition in the market than there used to be. Pay as you go has forced contract companies to actually provide some real services and made people much more aware of how much they pay for a minute of talking. Sure, since the AAT&T/Cingular and Sprint/Nextel mergers there are less of the old school heavies in wireless, but balanced with the fact that there are now a huge number of independents (not to mention companies like Alltel who use a similar model to the old contract dinosaurs) selling prepaid that more than balances out.
In any case, if mobile phones cost a fraction of what they used to, and the service offered is exponentially greater, how exactly do you see the price going up?
Uh, actually, I'm sure they're thinking plenty hard about playing nice, and seeing as there is a competitor (OO is taking away some of their customers, even if only the ones who don't care about spread sheets going beyond 256 columns, and since it keeps getting markedly better where Office keeps getting markedly more irritating...) have decided that is a risk they simply cannot afford to take.
You must have been asleep for the past 2 decades, because otherwise you'd know by now that Microsoft's version of "playing nice" is creating a de facto standard that they alone control then avoiding making any changes 9even positive ones) to it so long as nobody else is in the game.
"OMG my Pinto is a piece of crap, therefore the 2009 Mustang must also be a piece of crap."
While the logic is fallacious, I am confident that the conclusion is, regardless, spot on. Years of crappy experiences with Fords has taught me that they all suck, and buying their overpriced pseudo-dragster is only marginally wiser than making sweet love to a meat grinder. It also screams "I'm 45 years old, bald, pudgy, and I have a tiny penis".
And if you've ever bought anything from them, you'll realize that the DICKS are actually right behind you...
If Vista becomes better than it is to the same extent that XP did, then I'm sure everyone will. it's not there yet, and until it is it sucks.
As for people pointing out that 2k->XP was exactly the same... yeah, XP blew nuts when it came out. I refused to even install it until Vista was a few months from (actual) commercial release because my early experiences with it could be best summed as "just like 2k, except that it's complete shit and does nothing useful." With that said, once I used it significantly in 2006/2007 I found that it simply blew my 2k install out of the water, and prejudices which hadn't been updated since 2003 evaporated in a few days.
Vista may be worth installing some day, but for this moment, if you need or want Windows installed, XP is simply better than it and every other version currently available (including those available only in backups). One day Vista might get there itself, either that or it actually will turn out to be ME 2.0: now with more shiny.
6 hours... unless his time is actually worth less than $50 per hour. I don't make even close to that much, so your math is actually encouraging me to spend almost however much time it takes to get a windows refund.
Alas, I built my own desktop, and I payed nothing for my (legal) install of XP, so I don't think I'm quite eligible.