I bet there were a lot of pubic hair fires.

Maybe it's because I've been drinking since 10am, but I just cannot wrap my head around how these single-pixel cameras work.

Any nice person out there feel like explaining it so a stupid person can understand?

Bonus points if you explain why a chicken breast was involved. Seriously, maybe I have brain damage because I've read the summary three times and it might as well be written in Middle Egyptian for all I'm getting.

Yes, back in those days I also had a 386, although mine had 8MB RAM. I could therefore get away with only using 8MB of my 120MB ATA disk for swap. Today, I use 0MB of my 160GB SATA SSD, and also 0MB of the 320GB ATA that I use for my /opt.

NO! They were way ahead of us for awhile. But now they're way behind, because we've mandated low-sulfur diesel and they haven't, at least not all of them.

The issue is that there were always fine particulates, and they can't be trivially filtered out. But perhaps you missed it when we discussed here that gasoline engines produce as much soot as diesels, and it is all of the exceptionally-fine kind. Now that the big stuff is being filtered out of the diesel exhaust, all we have left is a relatively small amount of that PM2.5.

Ideally we'd do away with the ICEs entirely and eliminate all that crap, get down to worrying about how to eliminate it from the tires. But what's really pathetic is that we've had the technology at least since the 1800s to solve all of these problems. It's called electrified rail. With modern levels of traffic, it is worthwhile to have people in packets smaller than train cars, however, yet with the distances which must be covered the vehicles must have their own power storage. Current battery and self-driving vehicle technology permits just this particular use case. We have every piece we need to replace cars entirely with PRT save for the will, starting in the densest city centers and moving outwards in stages related primarily to the availabilty of parking.

AHEM. Back on topic. "invisible smoke doesn't mean it's better" is exactly why diesel is better than gasoline. And yet, soot isn't even the worst emission that cars produce! It's unburned hydrocarbons, also known as raw fuel. And by their nature, diesels which are running properly run lean all the time, that's just how they operate. That means they're burning their fuel. It also means they produce more NOx, but that's why diesels now have catalysts.

It does if you're subaru and you've got opposed cylinders and thus it doesn't have to be heavier, and the whole world is moving towards turbocharged gasoline direct injection anyway which means the engines cost just as much as diesels. and guess what? they foul their intake valves more than diesels do! hilarity ensues.

It is the cleanest fuel. We discussed here on slashdot how (gasoline-driven) cars emit more black carbon than previously thought) and the diesels are more efficient so you actually wind up with diesel as the cleanest fuel once you get the traps and filters and piss injection and whatnot. It's true that gasoline direct injection is close, but it's also true that it takes less energy to make diesel than gasoline, that diesel contains more energy than gasoline per liter, and that diesel is less volatile and thus less hazardous to transport and store than gasoline. All in all, it is the superior fuel. Also, it can be made from biological feedstocks including oils from algae, waste animal fats, and so on, and with proper seals and fuel line linings mixed to any proportion with petrodiesel.

Diesel is a better fuel than gasoline in every single way. If, like Subaru, you build your diesel with opposed cylinders, it doesn't even have to be big and heavy because vibration is inherently cancelled by the design. It's just better. The TGDIs are just as expensive as TDIs. So the only thing wrong with Diesel fuel here in the USA is the taxes, and the only thing wrong with it in France is that they want to get rid of it, probably for a reason mentioned elsewhere in this discussion — it's taxed less there.

Since you are an anonymous coward, your anecdote is worth even less than the usual nothing. Even if your veracity were assured, we have no idea where you are. We know only that you are cowardly, and make both typos and unsubstantiated statements.

Why not? It's been our philosophy for centuries not to worry about the future and just expect that future generations will have more wits and basic decency than us.

Seems unlikely it can be saved now. Filming is finished, it's going to look like that. Crappy CG, shakey camera, extremely fast cuts and flashing lights so you can't see anything... Even had the lens flare in there, although not as bad as Star Trek. In other words a standard J.J. Abrams film.

If you had bothered to check the sources you would have noticed that it's actually worse for nuclear if you adjust for energy produced: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/inde...

They don't even have beam weapons. They're not LASERs, they're "blasters".

long ago, you needed swap, though. And it wasn't until XP that you could reasonably attempt to run Windows NT without swap without it exploding.

Yes, but we as a species already know enough not to trust rocks.

Well, Star Wars has been known to have serious consequences for youth with side effects such as lifelong virginity.