I checked the MAN 'giant marine diesel' portfolio: they offer 4 different stroke lengths, with rpm ranges that top out at 72 rpm for the longest-stroke version.
Industry-specific units of measurement rarely serve any purpose other than to befuddle outsiders. We decided on an actual standard long ago, these nautical types need to get with the times.
For grocery stores (and other shops where you'd buy a large number of items in one go) the single line is less convenient for the customer.
I like being able to stack all of my groceries onto the conveyor before the cashier starts processing them. When the cashier gets to my groceries, I can immediately start packing them (in the right order, heavy items first).
In a single-line system, you're inevitably still unpacking while the cashier processes your item, so they all end up in a mangled heap at the end of the conveyor belt.
Large pods would just move the inefficiencies elsewhere. You'd have to load the ISO containers into these pods, then load the pods onto a ship.
You can't reliably transfer these pods at sea, so you'll have to do this in port anyway, so your system won't result in shorter routes.
Smaller ships are less efficient than large ships: the longer a ship gets, the more efficient its propulsion system gets. You also get other economies of scale (less crew, for instance).
They're using a different type of engines, optimized for running at lower speeds.
The CO2 emissions have little to do with impurities in the fuel. They emit so much CO2 because they require a lot of power for propulsion. The Triple-E is a lot more efficient than the previous generation of ships, so CO2 emissions are some 20% lower despite carrying more containers.
that should have read "Okpo, instead of Opko"
That's because it's Okpo, on Opko.
DSME also takes you there.
The Triple-E is unusual in several aspects apart from its size.
1. It has 2 engines instead of one. This improves packaging (less volume lost to the engine room), mainly because the engines are shorter (8 cylinders in line instead of 14). Earlier ships had one engine to reduce complexity.
2. It's slower, with an operational speed of 35 km/h (down from 45 km/h of its predecessor). This saves fuel.
Discovery Channel aired a series of programmes on this project last year. IIRC the main shipyard can house 2 or 3 of these in parallel, not 13. Each ship spends only a few months in this yard (final assembly only). Delivery tempo is one a month.
Modules are built at various other shipyards.
You can thank Microsoft for that moronic decision. It's also in e.g. Outlook. Why you would want to map a key that's universally used to delete stuff, to act as "go to the previous view" (and worse, swap between the two behaviors depending on focus) is beyond me.
Are any of them able to use the Skype network?
Over the past few years, the Mozilla foundation hasn't given the impression it'll listen to user feedback at all. If the rivers of vitriol over the Australis UI changes haven't had any effect, why would I bother giving them one more data point?
I used Firefox with Classic Theme Restorer before moving to Pale Moon. CTR helps, but it wasn't able to undo all of the crappiness that Australis brought. For example, the new tab design in Australis meant that very narrow tabs (anything below ~60 px) didn't work well anymore. I used the Custom Tab Width extension to adjust the minimum tab width. After Australis, there would be a ghost region around each tab, making the tabs overlap each other.
CTR also didn't bring back the Status bar. Having status text overlap the main window is annoying.
After the Australis debacle I decided to move my Windows machines to Pale Moon. The change has been surprisingly painless, I could pretty much copy my Firefox profile wholesale without a hitch. All of the extensions work too and the interface is such a relief.
Now to find something similar for my Mac...