You must be a real bummer to have at parties.
Is this a party? I didn't see the invite.
You must be a real bummer to have at parties.
Is this a party? I didn't see the invite.
How many of the people here complaining about others buying "too much car" then go home to their glass houses to fire up their overclocked 5GHz i7700k processor, dual 1080Ti monster gaming machines?
A reasonable point though one should point out that even the most power hungry PC doesn't consume anywhere near the amount of fuel a car does and the pollution metrics aren't even close. Nevertheless it is hypocritical.
I know people here in Japan with 800+HP cars who have drag raced on public roads.
I know people in the US who have done that. It's not legal either place for very good reasons because it isn't safe and cannot be made safe.
Late nights, low traffic, straight roads, experience from drag racing closed tracks AND the street, roll cages, etc....yeah, it can be reasonably safe.
Bullshit. It's barely "reasonably safe" on a proper drag strip where they have actual safety equipment like fire trucks and EMTs. It is never "reasonably safe" on public roads no matter how much you rationalize it. Your argument is akin to arguing that drunk driving is safe because most of the time people don't get killed. It's a faulty analysis of the risks involved. Drag racing on public roads is a great way to find yourself in jail when someone gets hurt - which happens with regularity. Spend 20 seconds on google if you need actual examples.
Also, newsflash: EVERYONE who is even born in an industrialized country is taking a Cleveland Steamer on the chest of the environment, just by existing.
That's a pathetic excuse for trying to justify purchasing an 800HP gas powered car.
Considering that automation/robots/AI are making human labor obsolete...
Umm, what kind of bullshit are you talking about now? This has nothing to do with the topic at hand nor is it actually true.
I'm not advocating genocide, I'm advocating reduced birthrates, globally.
Holy off topic batman. I think we are done here.
People were saying that back in the 90s. Heck, they were saying that in the late 70s.
And they were right. Internal combustion engines have improved notably (and will continue to improve) but even so the differences from a 1970s engine to a modern one are modest improvements. Their efficiency has risen a few percent and literally cannot go substantially higher because they are reaching the thermodynamic limits of the materials available to us. Even using turbochargers and other efficiency aids most ICEs have an average efficiency around 20% and even in the best cases cannot get much above 35-45%. They are limited by the material properties of the engines and the various operational tradeoffs. Electric engines are typically upwards of 90%-98% efficient which is an efficiency no ICE can hope to achieve or even approach. While I'm hugely oversimplifying the efficiency comparisons the point is that we know for a fact we cannot make an ICE that is even close to the efficiency of an electric motor and we've known that for a century. The reason we haven't already switched is because battery technology has only now reached usable levels of power/weight and cost.
Thermodynamics is a harsh mistress. We have for all practical purposes reached the thermodynamic limits of ICEs so to make substantial improvements we will have to move to a different technology. Baring something unforeseen, electric motors appear to be what will replace (or supplement) the internal combustion engine for most vehicles. The limitation on electric motors is fuel storage density which is a problem with far more headroom than trying to eek out a few more percent gains from ICEs.
If you have a 100% efficient engine...
You could have stopped right there since there is no such thing as a 100% efficient engine. It was a rhetorical example to highlight a point, not a physics problem.
"What router analytics data is collected and how is the data being used by NETGEAR? Technical data about the functioning and use of our routers and their WiFi network can help us to more quickly isolate and debug general technical issues, improve router features and functionality, and improve the performance and usability of our routers. Such data may include information regarding the routerâ(TM)s running status, number of devices connected to the router, types of connections, LAN/WAN status, WiFi bands and channels, IP address, MAC address, serial number, and similar technical data about the use and functioning of the router, as well as its WiFi network."
Wierdly most southerners are too stupid to insulate the hell out of their homes, Air conditioning works better in a heavily insulated home, yet most homes in the south have little to no insulation and the windows are worthless single pane glass that is almost no better than a camper window.
For example a typical florida home has almost no insulation and the AC runs all day long because spending $1500 to actually insulate the place and put radiant heat barrier in the roof is less important than marble countertops.
Insulate the freaking homes in the south and watch power useage drop significantly.
Well, you heard it here first, folks...
It was designed as an impregnable deep-freeze to protect the world's most precious seeds from any global disaster and ensure humanity's food supply forever.
Global warming is not a global disaster. They designed the vault to protect against any global disaster, it didn't protect against this; therefore this is not a global disaster.
The logic is irrefutable (and looney).
"The OS/2 community has been called upon to report supported hardware, open source any OS/2 software, make public as much OS/2 documentation as possible and post the important platform links."
That's an interesting idea.
Here's my counter offer:
I'll happily give you access to each of my OS/2 software titles.
Each title will be available in two editions, Personal ($129 with an introductory price of $99 for the first 90 days [and six months of support and maintenance updates]) and Commercial ($239 with one year of support and maintenance).
I think that's fair, don't you?
The thing is, not everyone is cheap. Some of us have disposable cash, and like to enjoy it. Why is that suddenly something wrong?
Who said it was suddenly wrong? It's always been wasteful.
Our whole lives are NOT about the greater good, if it is..then something very troubling has happened to culture in the US.
Nobody ever claimed they were. But you also cannot credibly argue that you can safely utilize those 800HP on normal roads or that you aren't needlessly polluting. You might have the legal right to do it but don't pretend you aren't taking a big old shit on the environment.
I'm not saying "fuck your neighbor" but geez, folks, life is short....no reason to shame someone that is enjoying the freedoms this country offers (or used to offer at least).
Yes you are saying "fuck your neighbor" in a very real sense. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you aren't imposing consequences on others. If you buy a high horsepower car you necessarily are polluting more and probably increasing some safety risks as well. It's legal but to pretend you aren't putting a burden on others is to be willfully naive.
I have disposable income, and I have never looked at gas mileage as one of the parameters on whether I buy a car or not. I don't like SUV's personal....I've only owned 2 seat sports cars in my life
I have disposable income too but I don't see that as an excuse to not give a shit about the world around me.
People need to face it...not everyone lives with austerity as the major component of their mindset. And that is not a bad thing....
We could not disagree more on that point. I'm not suggesting we all move into the woods and live primitive lives but being responsible with the resources we all share is important.
I never understood this fascination with having stuff you can't use to its fullest extent.
Same reason people buy ludicrously expensive Rolex watches. To show off. It's conspicuous consumption in most cases. Muscle cars however do have one quasi-practical aspect depending on your perspective. They are good at straight line acceleration which is really the only kind of fun thing you can do on normal roads. Basically they do a burnout between stoplights.
According to the summary, "The median time it took for a vehicle to go from 0 to 60 miles per hour was halved, from almost 14 seconds to seven," so in this case more HP does mean faster, or at least, means faster to reach cruising speed.
More HP will get you to speed faster provided you do not exceed the traction limits of your tires. That's why simply putting a bigger engine in a car may not result in substantial performance gains unless attention is also paid to the tires and suspension and traction control systems.
Back in the '70s I drove an old (60s vintage) Volkswagen Beetle that used to impress people with its great gas mileage: 26 miles per gallon.
That's because you were comparing it mostly against cars that were designed without fuel economy as a consideration. I drove a '76 Impala many years ago which got something like 16mpg on a good day. The beetle was a complete crap car but it was small and light so compared to the land yachts of the day it seemed efficient.
What I drive now is bigger, more comfortable, safer, faster, and in short better in every possible way, and still gets almost twice the mileage.
Engines have improved a lot in the last 40 years but they aren't going to get dramatically better. If you want to realize significant fuel efficiency gains you will have to go to something based on a different technology. Most likely that will be electric motors whether in the form of a hybrid or EV. No general purpose ICE can touch an electric motor for fuel economy at a given horsepower in most circumstances.
Those Hellcats are major guzzlers. And those tires aren't cheap.
True though you must admit that anyone buying one doesn't give a rip about fuel economy. They buy them to go fast and impress other similarly minded people. Fuel economy doesn't even enter into the picture.
We can't have both ? Make it very efficient, all while allowing more headroom for power. That's how you use technology.
Not at the same time. You can have horsepower or fuel efficiency but not both beyond a certain point. If you increase horsepower with a 100% efficient engine you necessarily are increasing fuel consumption. But engines aren't 100% efficient so once you reach the limits of current efficiency you have to make a trade off between horsepower or efficiency. You can increase one or the other but not both at the same time. The only way to increase both is to develop/use technology that is more efficient at translating fuel into movement.
This is why hybrids and/or EVs will (probably) eventually win out over internal combustion. Internal combustion engines are remarkably inefficient and unlikely to improve substantially. To move the efficiency limit more than marginally you have to switch technologies and electric motors are significantly more fuel efficient for a given power output in most cases. The limitations on EVs are in fuel infrastructure rather than performance. As that limitation gets pushed back (better batteries, faster charging, etc) then ICE loses regardless of whether you want fuel efficiency or power.
If you remove the separation, though, the influence will flow both ways. I wonder how many of these Church-State Separation opponents would want government officials forming a committee to decide how Baptism should be performed or which prayers should be included in the service.
That's a good point and one I haven't mulled on before. It's actually exactly what happened here in Sweden.
We didn't actually have formal separation of church and state until 2000. But even if the church is now officially separate from the state it is still governed by law. That law says that the church should remain evangelical-lutheran, democratically based, and national. How the governing bodies are set up is also legislated. To this day, they're elected mainly from the political parties, or closely related to them.
So did the church really affect politics when it was the state church? No, not in Sweden, not by a long shot. Not with social democrats in more or less continuous power. But was the church affected by the state? You bet. One fairly recent issue is on female priests. There was strong opposition in the church itself, there was open opposition within the church itself. But society and politics would have it no other way. The church and priesthood was basically told "This is what you believe now and if you don't there's the door". Priests were defrocked for being against. We now have a female arch bishop...
Now, that's not saying that the US situation is the same, or even similar, but it is at least one data point that influence definitely runs both ways. In the case of the state church of Sweden, such a powerful (back in the day) entity clearly wasn't going to be left to run around unchecked by political governance. That's probably a universal.
Mirrors should reflect a little before throwing back images. -- Jean Cocteau