Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



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

Comment Re:logging (Score 1) 162

what did they replace SystemD with and how does it log?

Unless they tell you so, you should assume they did something sensible like use something syslogd compatible, and if you don't like it, you can switch to another one. From googling I get the idea it's rsyslog.

Comment Re:Init alternatives (Score 1) 162

The truth is that the boot speed improvements of systemd are effectively notional. The boot process is so fast now that starting in parallel only saves you time when something goes wrong. If you regularly have a problem during boot, then you should think about fixing that regardless of what your init system is.

Comment Re:I thought diesel ran cleaner (Score 1) 215

Expanding isn't "reacting to heat".

What? What do you call it, then? I didn't say it was reacting with heat. Although it does react with oxygen in the presence of heat, to form NOx, that's explicitly not what I was talking about.

But, back to the original point: Diesel engines take in much more atmospheric air than gasoline engines when running at normal loads (highway cruising).

Yes. But they consume no more when wide open. The size of the exhaust is defined primarily by the maximum flow, not the cruising flow. (That defines other design characteristics more.) Diesels tend to have higher peak boost in spite of their typically higher static compression ratios, but they also tend to have significantly lower RPM limits and tend to run less RPMs while cruising.

Of course, all of this has been muddied by the introduction of the direct-injected gasoline engine, and by developments in diesel engine technology. Not only do GDI motors have higher cylinder pressures and thus higher temperatures, but there are also now diesels with [automated] throttles. As well, the recent crop of automatic transmissions with many gear ratios (8 now being common, 9 not being uncommon, and 10 beginning to roll out) and multiple overdrive ratios has led to gasoline engines being used at much lower RPMs...

Comment Re:How the fuck.... (Score 1) 215

Yeah maybe in America. But that is a fantasy land in terms of fuel. This article however is talking about other places in the world.
In Australia for example most heavy busses have switched to running nat gas because it was cheaper. Most taxis and many passenger cars did too though these are being displaced by electric.

all of which makes sense, but what about long-haul trucking? the hauls are really long in oz.

Comment Re:Think outside the container... (Score 1) 215

I can't help but be a little amused at all the people saying cities could never ban Diesel because there's no acceptable alternative.
There is, of course, just not for long-haul trucking.

You could probably switch to turbine-electric and burn... well, whatever you wanted really, but the only thing which would have the same kind of energy density is jet fuel. That would only cost what, an order of magnitude more or something? But the good news, everyone, is that we're all going to be getting higher-grade fuels whether we like it or not. It's not going to be possible to get much better emissions out of internal combustion vehicles without them. The automakers want to see even higher-grade diesel fuel, and higher-octane gasoline.

Of course, if the Trump takes a Dump on CAFE somehow then we might well not get any of this stuff any time soon...

Comment Re:Stupid (Score 1) 215

Natural Gas for trucks.
Electric, Natrual Gas, or Petrol for cars.

Natural gas? So, you're pro-fracking. Cars are more important than clean water. Nothing is good about petrol, either.

Even if it weren't ecologically retarded, natgas is not a viable replacement for diesel. We use diesel for long-haul OTR trucking for many reasons, but not least because of range. You have to make many more refueling stops for gasoline than for diesel, and you have to make even more for natgas.

Now, to be fair, it is possible to make natural gas from an ecologically friendly source — feedlot manure. Currently this is mostly put into holding ponds to sit and stink for a time before being flushed into a waterway. The smart thing to do with it is put it into tanks (or even into glorified ziploc bags such as the ones often used as water tanks now) and let it cook itself, producing methane in the process; it's going to do this anyway, but we can capture it and put it directly into any vehicle with a propane conversion which involves an O2 sensor. You can buy the conversion parts (the PCM, injectors, and fuel rail) straight outta China for around five hundred bucks.

Methane aside, there is also Butanol, a 1:1 replacement for gasoline. BP and DuPont own a company called Butamax which holds the patents for cost-effective commercial production, which were developed partly with our money. GE Energy Ventures owns a company called Gevo which would like to sell it to us, but Butamax sued them to stop production.

As for diesel, the best replacement is "green diesel", which is what you call it when you crack fats (waste or otherwise) in a distillation column such as we currently use for the distillation of crude petroleum. Like biodiesel produced by the transesterification of fats with methanol or ethanol it is a carbon-neutral fuel (assuming you get your conversion heat energy from a carbon-neutral source) but its other properties are more similar to petroleum diesel, like its gel point. It can be blended with 2-10% traditional biodiesel to deliver a fuel which can be used in any diesel engine and, which will actually extend the life of its fuel system with superior lubricity.

The best solution for reducing emissions in locations where it is excessive, assuming we're going to keep driving around like a horde of motorized lemmings, is battery electric. So sad, it only solves the needs of what, is it 80% of the population? Even if were only 50%, that would still be a massive victory.

Comment Re:So much for biodiesel use... (Score 1) 215

Diesel engines used to run without making ANY NOx. However, because of the political need to reduce CO2, they were modified to minimise CO2 regardless of the consequences for NOx.
Totally separately, if you don't have a particulate filter, the particulates are pretty bad.

Well, congratulations, you got that completely and totally wrong. You could not be more wrong if you were trying to be wrong.

First, NOx is produced any time you have combustion in the presence of nitrogen. Diesels produce more NOx than gassers because they have higher combustion temperatures. It's not unusual for someone to turn the fuel up on their diesel just a bit without understanding the consequences and melt a hole right in one of their fancy forged Aluminum pistons. This is why an exhaust gas pyrometer is a mandatory upgrade (if not fitted from the factory) for anyone who wants to increase power in their diesel. You can cook things very easily, mostly pistons and exhaust valves but also turbochargers.

Second, gasoline engines produce just as much soot as diesels. They produce finer soot, which is more dangerous. The class of soot which gasoline engines produce is collectively termed "PM2.5" or particles of 2.5 microns and smaller. This is the smallest common classification of soot particles, and it is by far the most dangerous because these particles are so small that your cilia cannot sweep them out of your lungs. They can only be removed by adhering to sputum which is then expelled by coughing. Diesel catalysts re-burn diesel soot, which is nice big chunky particles of 10 microns or larger, until it too is PM2.5. This makes them look a lot cleaner, but it actually makes them much more hazardous to health.

Diesels with clever injection systems but without catalysts are the most health-friendly internal combustion engines available which run on liquid fuels. The only internal combustion engines which are superior in that regard are propane engines (typically gasoline conversions, and not purpose-built) run on bio-methane, and lubricated with bio-based oil.

Comment Kubuntu and (almost) any laptop on sale (Score 1) 204

For the past 10 + years, I have been using Linux exclusively as my desktop environment, and all on laptops. I use Kubuntu 14.04 at present, and have been on the LTS versions for many years.

I only buy laptops that are on sale, whatever is in the flyers the week I need to replace a laptop.

From a 'what works' point of view, most of the laptops I have used have fully worked with Linux. That includes Wifi and sound, the most pesky components. Years ago, one Dell laptop had an issue with Wifi and I had to download something or other to make it work. The last few releases did not need anything special for it to work.

I am writing this from a 2009 Toshiba that works well with Kubuntu 14.04. An older Toshiba (maybe 2006 or 2007) still works fine with the same Kubuntu version.

From a reliability point of view, avoid HP laptops. I had one where the screen hinge decided not to work, and broke, so it is now a special purpose server. Another HP was overheating and we got it exchanged under extended warranty and 3 strikes (sent for repair 3 times for the same issue).

Comment in for a penny, in for a pount (Score 1) 71

Privacy will go. That's the inevitable future (you can say "inevitable" with Agent Smith accent).

The same wonderful combo: digital information that is not lost and Internet that spreads it freely faster than you can say "entropy" brings you newest Holliwood action masterpieces on the same day of premiere and it also will make _your_ information available to any suitable buyer.

Slashdot Top Deals

If I had only known, I would have been a locksmith. -- Albert Einstein

Working...