Because of the doubling of gas prices, with flirtations at the $4.00 mark occasionally, we hit break-even at 80,000 miles.
I call B.S.
Let's check your math. Assume an average of $2.24/gal. over the 80,000 miles (that's the average of $1.49/gal. and $2.98/gal., which is twice $1.49/gal.). Also assume you got 50mpg. Total fuel cost over the 80k miles = 80000 miles / 50 mpg * $2.24/gal. = $3584.
I think we can guess that you bought your Prius in 2002. That's the last time regular gasoline cost $1.49/gal. MSRP for a 2002 Prius was $20,000, and I think it's safe to assume you paid full sticker price (Priuses have always been a hot item). We'll keep things simple and ignore any sales taxes or other fees. This gives a partial cost over 80,000 miles of $23,584.
What was the other car you used for comparison? In order to hit breakeven, its sales cost + fuel cost over 80,000 miles must have been $23,584. If you're comparing to a similar sized vehicle with similar features, you're probably looking at a sales cost of around $13000 (the 2002 Corolla for example had an MSRP between $12000 and $14000, depending on features). $13K is probably a good, conservative assumption.
In order for you to really have hit breakeven at 80,000 miles, with an average fuel price of $2.24, a $13000 car would have had a fuel cost of $23584 - $13000 = $10584 over those 80,000 miles. That's a fuel efficiency of 80,000 miles * $2.24/gal. / $10584 = 16.9 mpg. That's horrible efficiency for a small car. I don't think any small car built in 2002 had anywhere near 16.9 mpg. Even the Ford Ranger had better estimated efficiency than that.
I don't know where you get your price data, but in my area used Corollas are selling for a minimum of $6500. That's for a pure beater with high miles. The nicer maintained Corollas are selling in the 9000-11000 range. Meanwhile '05 Priuses are selling in the $10000-$12000 range. So I think iamhassi's point holds up: at $3/gal., you have to drive the Prius (or Civic Hybrid, which is what I drive) a long time to realize any economic benefit from the fuel efficiency.
Actually, the restrictions Holder had in mind were mostly passed into law four months after he gave that interview. See 18 USC Â 842(p):
(2) Prohibition. - It shall be unlawful for any person -
(A) to teach or demonstrate the making or use of an explosive, a destructive device, or a weapon of mass destruction, or to distribute by any means information pertaining to, in whole or in part, the manufacture or use of an explosive, destructive device, or weapon of mass destruction, with the intent that the teaching, demonstration, or information be used for, or in furtherance of, an activity that constitutes a Federal crime of violence; or
(B) to teach or demonstrate to any person the making or use of an explosive, a destructive device, or a weapon of mass destruction, or to distribute to any person, by any means, information pertaining to, in whole or in part, the manufacture or use of an explosive, destructive device, or weapon of mass destruction, knowing that such person intends to use the teaching, demonstration, or information for, or in furtherance of, an activity that constitutes a Federal crime of violence.
It's no wonder these artists have to become addicted to vice - they know deep inside their lives are worthless and they have abused their Apollian gifts to corrupt the masses instead of improving them.
Right on. Take that Mozart fellow for instance: what a degenerate. Or that rotten Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky.
Doesn't seem like anyone understood the point of the article. The breakthrough isn't the peptide binding, it's the statistical method used to maximize affinity between the liposome molecule and the anthrax toxin.
This would be a big discovery if, as the researchers suggest, the procedure can be applied to other bacteria or virii.
Granted that religious fundamentalism has prompted a FEW prospective scientists to pursue other careers, I nevertheless seriously doubt that that's the real cause of the problem.
Other possible causes: 1. People like money and most don't perceive engineering/science to be high-paying. 2. Most people derive satisfaction from interacting with other people, meaning they get less satisfaction from numbers- or theory-oriented professions like engineering/science. 3. U.S. popular culture disdains "intelligence". Thus for most Americans "geek" and "nerd" are pejoratives. This perception may be coming around, albeit very slowly. I doubt we'll see any TV shows about 40-yr old molecular biologists who use their mental acuity to solve the world energy crisis.
The internet is now a key part of the infrastructure of many countries and no matter if you like it or not, nations don't like it when a critical part of their infrastructure is controlled by a foreign government. The US wouldn't like and accept such a situation and other nations won't either, so the interesting question is not if this situation will change, but how it will change.
Re-read that last sentence. Isn't the internet a key part of U.S. infrastructure? Do you really think the U.S. wants nations like China, Iran, Tunisia, and Cuba to have a say in managing the top-level domain policies? Why would U.K., Germany, Japan, or any of the other major democracies want that either?
Hihi, watching people like you rave about how the US invented the internet is just to funny. Why? First because it is pretty senseless. So what if they did? What follows from it?
U.S. companies are still helping to push internet standards. We know we're approaching a point where the existing internet is going to struggle to handle the traffic, especially as more nations like Brazil add their own traffic to the world net. You know what constraints China has placed on Yahoo/Google/MSFT etc. Please try to imagine what policies China would want from a new top-level domain spec.
I disagree. Much better to print the lame answers. That way we can all drop comments in the WoW general forum. At least that way more people at Blizzard will see what a piss-poor job the PR people did.
Those are great questions, it'd be great to have answers from the real developers. Any chance of that happening? I *assume* someone at Blizzard reads slashdot, they must know these answers are lame and are making them look bad.
First, one company destroying another is not competition. We don't allow football players to knowingly break their opponents' legs. Likewise the anti-trust laws are supposed to prevent companies from unfairly destroying their competitors. (Key word: *supposed*)
Second, the point of competition is innovation. Not just technical, but also business innovation. As a counter-example to MSFT, look at Apple. You can clearly see the innovation in their move to x86 as well as their iPod/iTunes music store products. You may not like 'em, but you gotta agree that they've succeeded on an unprecedented scale with an entirely new technical/business model. You can also say the same thing about the open-source projects even though their goals are rather different.
That's the point, why not both?! Apple could easily spin off the OS division as a subidiary and still support their own hardware. Meanwhile they could do OEM deals with Dell, IBM, etc. How quickly do you think their market share would reach 20%? And they wouldn't have to "support computers they didn't make themselves" any more than MSFT does. Why? Because Dell and IBM would be providing that support the same way they support their WinXP systems! And yes, Apple would have to invest in more infrastructure to deal with crappy device drivers, but can you seriously suggest that they would lose money in the process? When MSFT has built an empire with that precise strategy?
Seriously ask yourself: wouldn't it be great to have OS X on an Athlon 3200+ system for the same price that you'd currently pay for a Mac Mini?
In the sense that you meant it, I think your statement is true. But what about the science that went into the ISS' design, planning, and construction? If nothing else, the ISS is a practical test of theory. But I suspect the project engineers and scientists have had to form and test new theory in order to design and build ISS. So even if you never run a single low-gravity experiment, I don't think you can say that the ISS project hasn't contributed to science.
Of course, it's debatable whether the scientific contribution is worth the expense.
Word was originally written and released for the Apple Mac in the mid-80's, don't remember the exact year (but I used it at college in '87). Word for Windows (1990) was a clone of the Mac version.
But even farther back (1982), Apple contracted MSFT to develop MacWrite for the version one Macs (128K ram, monochrome 10" display, baby!). MacWrite had wysiwyg editing and mouse-driven menus. Word of course inherited those features and added more (TrueType fonts). WordPerfect didn't have any of those features until '91-'92 (remember Wordperfect 6 for Windows? yech).
I only remember using Word on the Mac (until '90), I don't recall if there was ever a DOS version. If there was it was probly hideous.
Every copyright entails a contract. "Copying or distributing without the express permission of the copyright holder is prohibitied." By definition, every copyright infringement is a contract violation.
Sun does print a license agreement in the JLS book, but it's not a license for the book. It's a copy of the license to create Java implementations.
"This license allows and is limited to the creation and distrubtion of clean-room implementations of this specification." (Gosling et. al., Java Language Specification 2nd ed., page iii)
Slashdot Mirror
If you're looking to make bad video game movies, there's only one man for the job.
Because of the doubling of gas prices, with flirtations at the $4.00 mark occasionally, we hit break-even at 80,000 miles.
I call B.S.
Let's check your math. Assume an average of $2.24/gal. over the 80,000 miles (that's the average of $1.49/gal. and $2.98/gal., which is twice $1.49/gal.). Also assume you got 50mpg. Total fuel cost over the 80k miles = 80000 miles / 50 mpg * $2.24/gal. = $3584.
I think we can guess that you bought your Prius in 2002. That's the last time regular gasoline cost $1.49/gal. MSRP for a 2002 Prius was $20,000, and I think it's safe to assume you paid full sticker price (Priuses have always been a hot item). We'll keep things simple and ignore any sales taxes or other fees. This gives a partial cost over 80,000 miles of $23,584.
What was the other car you used for comparison? In order to hit breakeven, its sales cost + fuel cost over 80,000 miles must have been $23,584. If you're comparing to a similar sized vehicle with similar features, you're probably looking at a sales cost of around $13000 (the 2002 Corolla for example had an MSRP between $12000 and $14000, depending on features). $13K is probably a good, conservative assumption.
In order for you to really have hit breakeven at 80,000 miles, with an average fuel price of $2.24, a $13000 car would have had a fuel cost of $23584 - $13000 = $10584 over those 80,000 miles. That's a fuel efficiency of 80,000 miles * $2.24/gal. / $10584 = 16.9 mpg. That's horrible efficiency for a small car. I don't think any small car built in 2002 had anywhere near 16.9 mpg. Even the Ford Ranger had better estimated efficiency than that.
I don't know where you get your price data, but in my area used Corollas are selling for a minimum of $6500. That's for a pure beater with high miles. The nicer maintained Corollas are selling in the 9000-11000 range. Meanwhile '05 Priuses are selling in the $10000-$12000 range. So I think iamhassi's point holds up: at $3/gal., you have to drive the Prius (or Civic Hybrid, which is what I drive) a long time to realize any economic benefit from the fuel efficiency.
Actually, the restrictions Holder had in mind were mostly passed into law four months after he gave that interview. See 18 USC Â 842(p):
(2) Prohibition. - It shall be unlawful for any person -
(A) to teach or demonstrate the making or use of an explosive, a destructive device, or a weapon of mass destruction, or to distribute by any means information pertaining to, in whole or in part, the manufacture or use of an explosive, destructive device, or weapon of mass destruction, with the intent that the teaching, demonstration, or information be used for, or in furtherance of, an activity that constitutes a Federal crime of violence; or
(B) to teach or demonstrate to any person the making or use of an explosive, a destructive device, or a weapon of mass destruction, or to distribute to any person, by any means, information pertaining to, in whole or in part, the manufacture or use of an explosive, destructive device, or weapon of mass destruction, knowing that such person intends to use the teaching, demonstration, or information for, or in furtherance of, an activity that constitutes a Federal crime of violence.
It's no wonder these artists have to become addicted to vice - they know deep inside their lives are worthless and they have abused their Apollian gifts to corrupt the masses instead of improving them. Right on. Take that Mozart fellow for instance: what a degenerate. Or that rotten Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky.
Doesn't seem like anyone understood the point of the article. The breakthrough isn't the peptide binding, it's the statistical method used to maximize affinity between the liposome molecule and the anthrax toxin.
This would be a big discovery if, as the researchers suggest, the procedure can be applied to other bacteria or virii.
Granted that religious fundamentalism has prompted a FEW prospective scientists to pursue other careers, I nevertheless seriously doubt that that's the real cause of the problem.
Other possible causes:
1. People like money and most don't perceive engineering/science to be high-paying.
2. Most people derive satisfaction from interacting with other people, meaning they get less satisfaction from numbers- or theory-oriented professions like engineering/science.
3. U.S. popular culture disdains "intelligence". Thus for most Americans "geek" and "nerd" are pejoratives. This perception may be coming around, albeit very slowly. I doubt we'll see any TV shows about 40-yr old molecular biologists who use their mental acuity to solve the world energy crisis.
The internet is now a key part of the infrastructure of many countries and no matter if you like it or not, nations don't like it when a critical part of their infrastructure is controlled by a foreign government. The US wouldn't like and accept such a situation and other nations won't either, so the interesting question is not if this situation will change, but how it will change.
Re-read that last sentence. Isn't the internet a key part of U.S. infrastructure? Do you really think the U.S. wants nations like China, Iran, Tunisia, and Cuba to have a say in managing the top-level domain policies? Why would U.K., Germany, Japan, or any of the other major democracies want that either?
Hihi, watching people like you rave about how the US invented the internet is just to funny. Why? First because it is pretty senseless. So what if they did? What follows from it?
U.S. companies are still helping to push internet standards. We know we're approaching a point where the existing internet is going to struggle to handle the traffic, especially as more nations like Brazil add their own traffic to the world net. You know what constraints China has placed on Yahoo/Google/MSFT etc. Please try to imagine what policies China would want from a new top-level domain spec.
I disagree. Much better to print the lame answers. That way we can all drop comments in the WoW general forum. At least that way more people at Blizzard will see what a piss-poor job the PR people did.
Those are great questions, it'd be great to have answers from the real developers. Any chance of that happening? I *assume* someone at Blizzard reads slashdot, they must know these answers are lame and are making them look bad.
First, one company destroying another is not competition. We don't allow football players to knowingly break their opponents' legs. Likewise the anti-trust laws are supposed to prevent companies from unfairly destroying their competitors. (Key word: *supposed*)
Second, the point of competition is innovation. Not just technical, but also business innovation. As a counter-example to MSFT, look at Apple. You can clearly see the innovation in their move to x86 as well as their iPod/iTunes music store products. You may not like 'em, but you gotta agree that they've succeeded on an unprecedented scale with an entirely new technical/business model. You can also say the same thing about the open-source projects even though their goals are rather different.
That's the point, why not both?! Apple could easily spin off the OS division as a subidiary and still support their own hardware. Meanwhile they could do OEM deals with Dell, IBM, etc. How quickly do you think their market share would reach 20%? And they wouldn't have to "support computers they didn't make themselves" any more than MSFT does. Why? Because Dell and IBM would be providing that support the same way they support their WinXP systems! And yes, Apple would have to invest in more infrastructure to deal with crappy device drivers, but can you seriously suggest that they would lose money in the process? When MSFT has built an empire with that precise strategy?
Seriously ask yourself: wouldn't it be great to have OS X on an Athlon 3200+ system for the same price that you'd currently pay for a Mac Mini?
...my wrists and eyes didn't start hurting until after I'd read this thread.
"The ISS has never done any science."
In the sense that you meant it, I think your statement is true. But what about the science that went into the ISS' design, planning, and construction? If nothing else, the ISS is a practical test of theory. But I suspect the project engineers and scientists have had to form and test new theory in order to design and build ISS. So even if you never run a single low-gravity experiment, I don't think you can say that the ISS project hasn't contributed to science.
Of course, it's debatable whether the scientific contribution is worth the expense.
Word was originally written and released for the Apple Mac in the mid-80's, don't remember the exact year (but I used it at college in '87). Word for Windows (1990) was a clone of the Mac version.
But even farther back (1982), Apple contracted MSFT to develop MacWrite for the version one Macs (128K ram, monochrome 10" display, baby!). MacWrite had wysiwyg editing and mouse-driven menus. Word of course inherited those features and added more (TrueType fonts). WordPerfect didn't have any of those features until '91-'92 (remember Wordperfect 6 for Windows? yech).
I only remember using Word on the Mac (until '90), I don't recall if there was ever a DOS version. If there was it was probly hideous.
On average, each uncapper allegedly stole bandwidth equaling $11K. If the allegations are true (big IF), that's not petty thievery.
Every copyright entails a contract. "Copying or distributing without the express permission of the copyright holder is prohibitied." By definition, every copyright infringement is a contract violation.