Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Re:the CO2 improvements are minor at best (Score 1) 63

> Gassers make just as much particulate, but it's of the most hazardous type, which means their particulate emissions are actually worse than diesel.

That's only true of direct injected gas engines.

Who told you that? That's bullshit. The only way in which DI gassers are worse than other gassers is that they foul their intake valves which have to be expensively cleaned, sometimes including head removal.

Gasoline also has to be refined more than diesel

This isn't true anymore. Diesel is a highly refined product now also. Clean emissions requires clean and homogeneous input fuel and that means more processing.

Not only is it still true (it still takes less energy to make diesel, it just takes more than it used to) but guess what? Automakers are now asking fuel companies to make higher-octane fuels, over 100 on the scale we use in the USA. That's what they need to make cleaner-burning gasoline engines. So gasoline is actually about to get more expensive, both in real dollars and in energy cost.

That car is a rolling smog bank and you are trying to talk about how your input fuel was renewable? Seriously, have you looked at the emissions standards it was required to conform?

That's irrelevant; mine is running nice and clean. It only smokes when you pin it, which even brand new diesels do. And since it doesn't have a catalyst, it puts out nice big fat soot particles that can be trivially swept out of your lungs by your cilia.

They were a joke in the US and a double joke in Europe. It's far filthier than its contemporary gas cars and really bad compares to any modern car of any sort.

And yet, far superior to anything else in the class sold in 1982.

Comment What makes you think I'm trolling? Losing the arg? (Score 1) 55

It's a fact that over and over again device-specific add-ons are ignored. They wind up in bargain bins whether it's tablet-specific keyboard docks or R.O.B. for the N.E.S. Ignore the lessons of history at your peril. Moto G 2nd owner here, in case you think I'm in love with Samsung or something. Anybody else notice they're now stooping to infomercials?

Comment Re:VISA program is GOOD. H1B is NOT. It is a joke (Score 1) 240

I work for Google and there are constantly great Ph.D. theses where we hire the inventor to integrate their thesis work into our products. Here's an example of an area that can have major impact on our products and at the same time there is typically one person out there (the Ph.D. student) who knows the topic well and understands all small nuances of it.

Google has offices all over the world, so this is a ridiculous argument at best. Even if you did need them to be face to face, there's no need for anything more than a temporary work visa for that purpose. Got any better explanations than that one?

Comment Re:The Verge is 100% wrong (Score 2) 55

Not only is this a viable play-book for Moto, it's exactly what they should do in order to not become part of the "value" market on the clearance shelf.

History has shown us that statistically nobody buys expensive accessories for electronic devices, not least because they are never compatible for long. So no, it's a stupid waste of time. Also, Moto is already part of the value market. They make cheap-ass Motos as tracfones.

Comment Re: Wow... (Score 1) 219

That statement should disqualify you from driving a car.

Right back at you:

While pedestrians are supposed to behave, it's YOUR responsibility to make sure that you never drive in a way that makes it possible for you to run over a pedestrian (or hit other cars, for that matter).

While it's my responsibility to minimize that risk, the law recognizes the impossibility of doing that. It sets specific standards where necessary, such as in the case of motorists passing cyclists in California. In other cases, it is deliberately vague to give leeway specifically for the purpose of assigning fault to the party whose fault it actually is (or for other more malign purposes like selective enforcement, but those are outside the scope of this comment.)

The law recognizes the impossibility of completely eliminating accidents, whether between a vehicle and a vehicle, or a vehicle and a pedestrian. It sets speed limits accordingly, so that even if a pedestrian (or motorist) does something stupid, they will hopefully not die. Let's be clear, though; the law recognizes that physics is a thing, and that a person can change direction more rapidly than a car. We don't make the driver automatically responsible in every situation because if we did, nobody would effectively be able to drive. Instead, we make pedestrians responsible for their behavior in many cases. In most of the US, and apparently in most of the world, jaywalking laws exist which make it illegal to cross the road without consideration for safety. Even in DC, where you don't need to use a crosswalk, it's still explicitly illegal to enter the roadway even in a crosswalk when an oncoming vehicle cannot stop for you. Note that the law does not specify a car traveling at legal speeds, or traveling with the light, et cetera. The driver might well be found at fault in a collision with a pedestrian who stepped out in front of them while speeding, but the pedestrian would still be cited for entering the roadway illegally. The goal of the law is to reduce accidents because they are inconvenient to others, not to be fair.

Oh hell, why am I wasting time. It's not "OK" to hit someone at 25 mph. To wrap it up, I hope you didn't mean what you wrote :)

To wrap it up, you misused quotation marks. I didn't say it was OK to hit someone at 25 mph. You're wasting time because you are an idiot who doesn't understand the argument.

Comment Re:VW needs a bankruptcy "fix" ready (Score 1) 63

Clearly you are confusing VW with Toyota, who are still the world's biggest automaker.

They are neck and neck, and VW employs more people due to all the marques they own.

I can't comment on the rest of your manifesto, other than to say I have no idea why you are so interested in how the Phaeton was destined to be a phailure from the beginning.

It's interesting because it's Ferdinand's fault, like everything else wrong with VW today. Germans love a hardass, though, and that's how they got him in the big chair. And what else is interesting about it is just how spectacularly stupid it was when they already had a car in that space. But what's relevant about it is that they have money to burn.

Comment Re: reports are it's no fix (Score 0) 63

Comparable VW petrol engines, in terms of power and very close torque, produce less co2, mostly because a petrol engine can be lower displacement.

What? Who told you that? That is literally the opposite of the truth. For about the same level of driving experience (less power, more torque, make it less immediate but more relentless) you have a much smaller engine. OR, and this is a bit hilarious, you build a gasoline engine with all the drawbacks of a diesel (AKA direct injected gasoline) but without the benefit of being able to run on diesel fuel.

Once you no longer ignore the carbon in the diesel soot, diesel stops looking good,

False, ignoramus. In fact, once you no longer ignore the almost-entirely-PM2.5-and-thus-most-carcinogenic gasoline soot, gasoline stops looking good. When you consider the additional unburned HC released during a typical gasoline drive cycle (not just at startup, but also at WOT) which is the most harmful automotive emission, gasoline starts to look positively pathetic.

and the higher power/displacement of petrol shows advantages at part load.

It does no such thing. Look at any vehicle offered as both a gasser and a turbo diesel. They always have a smaller engine as a diesel, literally always. You have this completely backwards. And Subaru's diesel engine isn't even heavy, so they don't even have to be that!

Comment Re:Applications? (Score 3, Insightful) 118

Well I wouldn't be that certain about that. But it's certainly stupid to knife the OS development arm, which was the only thing they had which was unique, for application development which is crowded with competition from everyone and their dog.

Let's go around in circles, though: What made their OS development arm unique was their apps, that were designed not to work with AOSP like a well-designed app would. Meanwhile, AOKP and SOKP are supporting more devices between them than Cyanogenmod, so what do they actually have to offer other than their apps? Conclusion, stick with the apps.

Comment Re:Hater's Gonna Hate... (Score 1) 158

It's totally worthwhile to give tax breaks to the rich, but only as an inducement to spending. Any other kind harms everyone, even them in the long term.

Many investments are just spending, one level removed.

Yes, and the problem is that many rich people are putting their gains in offshore tax havens where the only "work" it does is money laundering — instead of spending it by investing it, at which point theoretically it gets spent on making things happen.

Slashdot Top Deals

news: gotcha

Working...