They're not using a "facewall" they're using OAuth, and I've never seen a single site not offer you the option to use another OAuth provider(google and twitter are the usual two alternatives). They do this because it means that someone who actually knows what they're doing can manage keeping your account detail secure instead of them.
That means facebook can manage keeping my account details secure? Hmm, probably I should be able to login to facebook using my google account...
As sad as I am to say that, each Ubuntu release looks more and more broken, in fact it even reminds me of Windows.
Really? Your computer suddenly shuts down for no apparent reason whilst you are playing a game, only to find it reboots and completes some random update? You can't work because of the constant stream of Java/Flash/Antivirus that keep blinking at you to update them? All the utilities you regularly use keep flashing up nag screens at you or are crippled requiring you to upgrade to the "pro" version?
YMMV, for me Ubuntu gets more and more stable with each release. I have zero problems with PP (only a few apps like Simplescan and a couple of others). The only reason I won't upgrade for the forseeable future is the advertising spam in the Dashboard.
I would suggest you to try Debian for a few months and than switch back to Ubuntu, you will understand what I mean.
Of course ubuntu is not as bad as windows, but each release brings it closer unfortunately. But I have to admit I haven't really used windows for more than 10 years now.
Honestly, I tried Ubuntu countless times, recommended it to a bunch of people, used it on some computers for a while, but they should really concentrate in getting the bugs worked out. Unfortunately, I am afraid, I will not use Ubuntu anywhere myself anymore. Don't take it wrong, I like the fact they want to put the linux desktop where it should be, but each release breaks more often that the former one, and I really don't understand why. As sad as I am to say that, each Ubuntu release looks more and more broken, in fact it even reminds me of Windows.
I will stick with Debian on my desktops/laptops, I am currently using testing/wheezy, which is way more stable than any current Ubuntu, even the LTS releases...
And yes, I know I will be flamed to give my opinion and I am repeating myself, but Ubuntu should really work out bugs instead of pushing eye candy.
Actually, chillies have some flavor. Maybe you cannot stand chilllies enough to taste them, but they do add flavor. By this I do not say it's sufficient, I say, chillies have flavors and each species has its own flavor.
Actually, yes, it's harder in Europe in general to get a license, but... really, the level you need to get the license is only considered as basics in Europe. You MUST still increase your skills after the license to drive safely. When you get the license in Europe, you are still considered as a very low level driver, even though it's much higher than many US drivers... In Nordic countries, if I remember well, they even have some mandatory ice track like courses.
amount of work that can be done using an given quantity of gasoline == efficiency
The muscle cars turn the more efficient burning of gasoline into more horsepower per gallon
I will stop arguing after this post.
US cars are generally less efficient as they pack much less power per liter capacity.
For example, the iconic Dodge Viper gets 600bhp for a 8.4 liter engine (and something like 14mpg) while the Bugatti Veyron SS packs 1182bhp for 8 liter engine. If you want near the power of the Viper without turbos, just take the Ferrari 458 which packs 562hp with only 4.5L and 17.7mpg. Mean mpg doesn't mean much as it's not calculated based on the engine running at full power.
But again, it's not the same market. In Europe most people generally do not want a very big overtaxed engine with poor efficiency. Also our roads are not as wide and straight as in the US, so we focus more on reasonable power with good handling.
Let me formulate this another way. In 1998, Ford could probably already produce a 5.0L 400bhp engine, but there was no market for it from their point of view. Obviously, they have more power each year, because the market demands that. Most stock US cars have always been very inefficient compared to european or japan models because the market didn't need efficiency. Probably because gas is very cheap in the US (I just looked right now and the highest price in New York is 4.69$/gallon while in Europe it's 1.8eur/liter, which means converted, in Europe we are at about 8.7$/gallon).
What you describe is market evolution and demand, not technical evolution or efficiency.
A Lamborghini Gallardo of 2007 with the same capacity as your Mustang (5.0L) had 625bhp.
A Lotus Esprit S4s from 1995 with a 2.2 liter engine, less than half the size of your 1998 Mustang, had 300bhp, almost 50% more than the Mustang.
Diesel engines have better efficiency only because compression ratio is higher. The loss from the pressure drop due to the throttle is relatively small compared to the loss due to the compression ratio.
With the same compression ratio, a diesel engine is far less efficient than a gasoline one, but (until now) there were no gasoline engine with the same compression ration as the diesel ones.
ok, please excuse my bad English terminology, I am not a native English speaker. Replace oil by diesel in my message.
Technically, Diesel is a type of engine which runs on diesel (oil?), in fact originally it was designed to run on vegetable oil. The gasoline engine is a Otto type engine.
You really don't want anything to explode in your engine. Gasoline burns when evaporated, oil burns in liquid form.
This is still relatively low compared to diesel engines which can go to 20:1 or more.
Efficiency of gasoline is better than oil in the same conditions. But diesel engines have much higher compression ratios (needed to burn the oil and give the self combustion). The problem with gasoline is/was that you could not get those compression ratios until now without explosion or engine melt.
Sorry for the simplification
Gasoline is more efficient than oil in the same conditions. The problem is (or was in this case), the 2 types of engines cannot run in the same conditions, you can get more compression ratios with oil and it needs it to burn. Previous attempts at making a gasoline engine with a very high compression ratio like the diesel one resulted in explosions or melted engines.
Also, when you produce 1 liter of oil, you also produce some gasoline (even more than a liter if I recall correctly). So both should still coexist.
Truth is free, but information costs.