Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Fire up SJWs, make my day (Score 2, Insightful) 155

...from a PR standpoint [...] something to fire SJWs up

If Donald Trump's electoral victory has taught us anything, it is that gleefully sticking it to the SJWs is a good PR-move.

I, for one, simply enjoy them watching them froth about human traits. They've been trying to shame us all into suppressing them for too long.

Comment Re:I thought diesel ran cleaner (Score 1) 193

because it's important: exhaust gas volume is proportional to load.

Gasoline engines, yes, Diesel, no. As I posted elsewhere, Diesel engines have something closer to a fixed air intake on each revolution, irrespective of load.

Please read before replying.

Remember that Diesel engines use compression ignition and, without sufficient air, there is insufficient compression to ignite the fuel.

Would you like me to tell you about my AT185. or my OM617.951A?

Comment Re:Curing Greed. (Score 1) 435

Thanks for asking. There are lots of different schools of thought on the matter, so I'm just giving my own thoughts on it here, not an overview of every possibility entertained. If you were to strictly-speaking enforce a process of diminishing returns on concentrating wealth, that wouldn't be a free market anymore; keeping wealth from concentrating in a free market requires you find some kind of loophole or process that is enabling that, and then you just stop enabling it.

I think that that loophole is rent, including rent on money otherwise known as interest. I'm cutting this really quick here and glossing over a lot (mostly rebuttals to anticipated objections), but basically rents happen when one person has more capital than they (in their own estimation) need for their own use, and someone else has less capital than they (in their own estimation) need for their own use, and the one with more exploits that difference by charging the one with less a permanent fee for the temporary use of the capital, so that when the whole transaction is over, the one with more now has even more, and the one with less now has even less, and (this is the key part) that process then loops over and over and over again, unless by some other means the one with not enough capital manages to get enough capital of their own (a process made all the harder by having to pay to borrow someone else's meanwhile).

In the absence of the ability to rent the capital (lend it at interest), the one with more capital would need, if they wanted to profit from it at all (since they're not using it themselves), to sell their excess capital, and the only buyers would be those without enough already, so the sale would have to be on terms (price and payment schedule) the latter can afford, to satisfy both of their own self-interests. This would still come at the cost of extra labor from the buying party (being all that they have to trade, lacking in capital), and consequently afford the selling party some leisure (lack of labor needed), but that would be a temporary condition until the sale is complete. Afterward, both parties have the amount of capital they (in their own estimation) need for their own use, and can continue about their usual amount of labor, keeping the whole product thereof for themselves.

For illustration consider a toy model economy where the only capital is land, the only labor is farming, and there are only two identical participants, with the same needs and labor capacity. If they both have enough land to farm to meet their own needs, then they can each farm their own land and they are equals. If one has more land than he needs and the other less, and rent is a thing, the first can rent some of his land to the other, which he pays by also farming some of the other guy's land (besides the part he's renting), meaning the other guy can kick back and work less... and this will continue like that indefinitely, one person perpetually indebted to the other, all because one of them started out with more than the other. Meanwhile without rent, the poorer farmer would still need to buy the excess land from the richer farmer, meaning he would still have to do some of the farming for the other farmer in trade for that land, but a finite amount thereof, after which time the price will have been paid, they will have equal amounts of land, and go about farming it with equal amounts of labor to meet their equal needs, neither indebted to the other.

Fortunately, we don't have to ban rent to get rid of it, because rent is not just a voluntary trade of one thing for another, that would be a sale; it's a special kind of contract. If we simply stop enforcing such contracts, consider them invalid the way we consider a contract selling yourself into slavery invalid, then rentals and interest-bearing loans would be, while strictly speaking allowed, economically untenable (inasmuch as I will not be punished for agreeing to be your slave, but as soon as I decide I'm tired of it, tough luck for you, that agreement is not binding). So you're not using any force, and all trades are still free, just certain kinds of contracts are not protected, and so won't be used, and in their absence, actual trades (still free) will have to be used instead, in the process circumventing the problems that arise from rent.

And Marx thought capitalism was an unavoidable byproduct of free markets just because he couldn't see what it was, in addition to the free trade of private property, was really causing it. The problem is not, as Marx thought, that the factory-owners pay the workers less than they in turn sell the product of those workers' labor for; the problem is what causes the workers to be in such a bind that their best option is to agree to such an arrangement instead of telling the factory-owners to go fuck themselves, and that is that the workers have debts to their landlords (and possibly other creditors) to pay. The only difference between capitalism and feudalism is that the lord whose land you live on and the lord whose land you labor on can be different people (and you can pick who they are); you're still laboring upon someone else's capital, and then giving a big chunk of the product of that labor to someone to borrow the capital you need to live and continue laboring. That the someones are different instead of the same doesn't make that much difference to the economics of it.

Comment Re:I thought diesel ran cleaner (Score 2) 193

Typical compression ratio in a Diesel engine is somewhere around 20:1, vs a gasoline engine that's running 10:1 or there about.

So what?

Basically this is displacement/cylinder * compression ratio * RPM * number of intake strokes per revolution.

The compression ratio is a function of the head volume and the cylinder volume. It has nothing to do whatsoever with determining how much air is drawn into the engine, which is defined by speed, bore, stroke, and intake efficiency. It is rather determined by how much air is drawn into the engine, and how much space you have left for air at the end of a compression stroke.

Ever wondered why diesel tail pipes are a lot larger than gasoline ones? This is why, diesels move a lot more air.

Diesel tail pipes are a lot larger than gasoline ones because diesels shit the bed when you have backpressure. It ruins their efficiency and you have to play tricks to get it back. Turbocharging is worth it anyway because it's turbocharging. Now, pay attention to this part, because it's important: exhaust gas volume is proportional to load. Diesels have bigger exhausts because they have more torque. This is also why turbochargers and diesels go together so well. Turbochargers are driven by exhaust gas expansion, which as mentioned, is proportional to load.

If you carve the piston out, you lower the compression ratio, and you increase the amount of air the engine consumes. You in fact have this exactly backwards.

Comment Re:I thought diesel ran cleaner (Score 1) 193

Not when cruising at 65 mph. Not even close.

Well, tell us what it is. Neither of my turbos boost that high, but they're both old. (My F250 peaks out at 11 psi and my Mercedes at 12.) The F250 cruises at only around 2 psi unless you have a trailer, then it's more like 6 or 7. The Mercedes cruises at around 7 or 8 psi. But they have much lower boost pressure than modern diesels.

Comment Re:So much for biodiesel use... (Score 1) 193

And still has a hell of a lot of particulate emissions, negatively impacting air quality in major cities, which you might note are the entities banning the diesels here.

Gasoline has just as much particulate emissions as diesel. It's just a smaller soot particle which we couldn't accurately measure until recently. Of course, DPFs on diesels reburn the soot until it's a small, invisible particle just like gasoline, making it just as dangerous as gasoline.

Banning diesel is not the remedy. Banning combustion is the remedy. Banning diesel is just stupid.

Comment Re:Democrats are the enemy (Score 1) 549

They're all going to agree to never lobby for foreign entities, and go half a decade after they leave office before they can do that work domestically.

Guess what? Those agreements are unconstitutional and won't stand. That's like a Californian signing a non-compete agreement. Okay! Sure!

Comment Re:Curing Greed. (Score 1) 435

i think you're a moron with no knowledge of the history of economics who can't distinguish propertarianism (private property ownership) and voluntarism (freedom to conduct commerce voluntarily) from capitalism (the shaping of a market -- free or not -- by the prior distribution of capital, such that ownership flows to those who already have more of it; first coined by Marx as an unavoidably byproduct of free markets, though I and plenty of others think he's wrong).

Slashdot Top Deals

"I say we take off; nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure." - Corporal Hicks, in "Aliens"