search results matching tag: hybrid

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.002 seconds

    Videos (185)     Sift Talk (9)     Blogs (151)     Comments (1000)   

Price Is Right Fools Don't Know How Much An iPhone Costs

SFOGuy says...

lol. Yes, if only that was an actual option. The problem is, in my experience of having been on diferent networks---for anyone who travels, the two biggest and most expensive networks to be on---AT&T and Verizon--offer the broadest and most competent voice and data networks.

They can be slaughtered pricewise by Sprint and T-Mobile in any given location---and maybe, if that location has a good antenna network, be given a decent run for the money by these cheaper networks...

Of course, if you want the cheapest mobile phone plan, you end up with a sort of hybrid phone --Republic---which uses Wifi calling when in range of a network you've signed onto---and Sprint's network otherwise.

And that's the American story...

MilkmanDan said:

Note to self:
NEVER BUY A SMARTPHONE AND DATA PLAN IN THE US

The Newsroom's Take On Global Warming-Fact Checked

Trancecoach says...

Like most of Sorkin's bloviating, this empty rhetoric is undermined by the incongruency of the climate change alarmists' own ballooning carbon footprints while attempting to use the government to impose force upon others' behavior. Until global warming alarmists themselves walk their talk (i.e., drive hybrids -- if they drive at all -- cease flying in airplanes, eat strictly vegetarian diets, have few if any children, and withdraw their consent from the worst polluter on the planet: the state), then no amount of freaking out, ranting, incentives, or attempts at policy will serve to avert the "impending catastrophe."

In China and India (where pollution is no doubt a significant problem), there are hundreds of millions of people who have far bigger concerns and more pressing problems than some remote notion of a "warming planet" or some looming "catastrophic collapse of civilization." (In fact, the same can be said for the majority of the population of the planet.)

And this is to say nothing of how ALL of the models used to support "evidence" for the case of a warming planet have ALL (not some, but ALL) been consistently undermined by serious skeptical science (PDF) while the claims of the political entity of the IPCC remain inconsistent with the data.

Since when do politicians get to decide the veracity of scientific fact?

EDIT: ALL of the climate-change alarmists' predictions, dating back to the 1980s, have all failed to come true. When this trend continues for the next few decades, there will be no shortage of "Told You So" moments that will undoubtedly be explained away by some unknown variable -- like the heat that is "hiding" in the ocean -- that, once "corrected for," will serve to further prop up this political ruse.

Hottest Year Ever (Global Warming Hiatus) - SciShow

Trancecoach says...

@Taint, The skeptics don't "deny" that the climate changes. They are skeptical of the reasons why it changes, the claims of consistent warming, and the claims about the catastrophic effect of whatever is caused by human activity. Also, I don't think I need to go into the debunking of that 97% claim (science is not a function of votes or consensus, but of evidence). In any event, most of the "debate" about this topic is a waste of time considering the "believers" are mostly not climate scientists and that no one is actually doing very much about it in their own lives.

So, straw man opinions about so-called "deniers" is a pathetic attempt to substitute character "analysis" for actual scientific evidence of man-made global warming of catastrophic proportions. Evidence of which has yet to be provided.

So the real reason many people don't "believe" has to do with not being presented with actual evidence and instead being given false claims (97%) about "consensus" (which is irrelevant to science), and claims of "settled" science (also meaningless in real science), postulated mostly by writers, politicians, and activists with no scientific credentials.

No one really argues with the idea that the climate changes. But, rather, what caused the change, to what degree, and what the effects will be... Well, let's just say for now that all (not a few but all) climate models have been proven wrong.
So no, there are no climate change "deniers," but plenty of people, and many scientists, who don't believe certain claims about specific aspects, even when believers keep repeating the "consensus" canard.

I honestly don't think believers actually believe their own claims of impending greenhouse gas climate catastrophe. If they did, they would all drive hybrids and go vegetarian. Also, most "green" tech companies wouldn't fail (like most of them do). Why do the climate change believers drive their SUVs and fly to their holiday vacation without regard to the impending climate doom? They are polluting the air, are they not? By their own theories, they also warm up the climate.

Contrary to consensus claims, nearly every aspect of climate change is being debated by the scientific community. Can you name a specific aspect of it that is not under debate (without going into some general "climate change" "consensus" canard)? Such claims are too broad to mean anything of any relevance. What specific aspect? What about it?

Arrows A22 F1 car vs other track day cars at Circuit Zolder

Reefie says...

Both Nico Rosberg and Lewis Hamilton broke the pole lap record for the Interlagos circuit of Brazil this year with the new hybrid engines. Previously held by the good man Rubens Barichello so I doubt that made them very popular with the locals! The race lap record is still held by Montoya.

AeroMechanical said:

Ah, the good old years when the cars actually got faster every year.

Sweet Japanese girls summoning Demons

MilkmanDan says...

Interesting. I find that I learn MUCH better with Rocksmith than I do from a straight tab. I hate the difficulty levels; I'd rather just show ALL of the notes ALL of the time (although that is easily fixed by just selecting the whole song and turning up the difficulty to 100%), but riff repeater plus slowing a song down to 60% or so (depending on how tough the bits are) has been my new ideal way of learning more difficult songs.

But for bass at least, I find that I'm able to sight-read the majority of songs to 97%+ accuracy. Probably 9 out of 10 new songs that I try, even if I've never looked at a tab before, I can get that kind of accuracy with the Rocksmith note highway / tab hybrid.

I do agree that sometimes it would be nice to be able to pause and just show a pure tab, to have more time to prepare and anticipate what things are coming. I know of two things to assist with that:

1) I know that there is a program that somebody put together that can read Rocksmith .psarc files and automatically create a tab text file from the song's arrangements. I can't recall the name of it, but I know it exists -- I've seen people talking about it at www.customsforge.com, the community for creating custom Rocksmith DLC tracks. I'll do some searching and see if I can find the exact name of that program for you.

2) As an alternative to Rocksmith if you prefer reading tabs but like playing along with the recording, check out "Go Playalong", which you can use to sync a guitar pro or powertab format tab with an .mp3 or other audio file and do Rocksmith-like features like slowing down, etc. but with the cursor scrolling through a traditional text-based tab. I sometimes use this also, but overall I prefer Rocksmith now. Works quite a bit like GuitarPro, but the cursor scrolling through the song is more intelligent about keeping bars ahead of your current position in view, and most importantly it lets you sync up to an actual recording rather than just playing back MIDI.

ChaosEngine said:

I'd have to disagree. I bought 2014 last year and it's a fun game, but as a learning tool it's very limited.

For a start, it just really REALLY needs a mode where you can read the tab for the part without playing it. Maybe it's just me, but I don't know any guitarist who plays from sight. You learn the part, then play it back from memory.

Neil deGrasse Tyson on genetically modified food

LooiXIV says...

What Neil deGrasse Tyson and some of the other scientists/doctors (myself include) have are saying is that the IDEA of GMO's is a great one. The fact that we can engineer our foods to get the traits we want or add additional beneficial traits is an incredibly useful tool. We've already engineered rice that is able to produce vitamin A, which has been a huge help for places with vitamin A deficiencies and we can engineer potatoes to absorb less fats and oils when we fry them, there is also a professor at SUNY-ESF who is using GMO's to try and save the American Chestnut tree from extinction.

GMing is simply another tool in humanity's struggle to survive. First it was finding which foods were safe to eat, then it was breeding organisms within species to make inbred organisms that had the traits we wanted (think cattle, dogs, cats, corn, banana's; some of these things are more inbred than the Hapsburgs), then we starting creating our own hybrids across different species, and now we have GMO's.

However, what I object to is the current corporate use of GMO's to exploit farmers over patents, and breed for traits that people do necessarily need. NdT I'm sure is not advocating for that, but is advocating for the use of transgenic organisms/GMO's to solve some of the world's most pressing issues.

GMO's are probably the most powerful tool we have to curb world hunger, and mal-nutrition, and it could also be the thing that allows humans to venture beyond the solar system. What the Sift seems to be objecting to, and the rest of the "developed" world is the use of GMO's by greedy corporations who care more about turning a profit than solving world problems (there isn't very much money in feeding the needy and hungry). They are the one's making what appear to me more or less useless and potentially dangerous GMO's. Turn your anger away from GMO's specifically and narrow it to the ill use of GMO's by greedy corporations.

Lastly, the argument that "we don't know what they'll do" is for the most part unfounded, there are a decent amount of studies (find them yourself sorry) which show that GMO's in general won't cause harm (though it really depends on what you're trying to make). The same argument was made about the LHC "We don't know what will happen when we turn it on!" but everyone was fine.

Duke Engineering's new four stroke "axial" engine

newtboy says...

Revolutionize, probably not. Be an improved option over 'regular' internal combustion in (apparently) weight, size and efficiency, maybe. This seems to be a great option for a hybrid. Being smaller and lighter is what you want in an energy efficient vehicle, as is fuel efficiency. Since fossil fueled vehicles will be the norm for the foreseeable future, any step towards making them more efficient is a good thing (although not the end goal, true enough). This seemed to have many advantages of Wankel motors (rotaries) without the efficiency problem due to low compression/incomplete combustion. 14:1 on pump gas is INSANE! My offroad race motor is only 12:1 and it needs trick racing fuel.
Also, as far as simplicity, this had no valves and assorted crap, just inlet and outlet ports (from what I understood anyway) like Wankels. That's a HUGE jump in simplicity, with an entire system eliminated, so there's far less to break/wear out/need tuning. IF manufacturing cost can be reasonable, I see this as a great step forward possibly making hybrids more acceptable to many more people.

zeoverlord said:

Sure, yea, right now it is, but the way things are going it's not far of that a majority of new cars are going to be electric or at least partly electric, especially since this technology is still a bit off.
I like the Free Piston Engine Linear Generator better since it's literally only one moving part (save for the myriad of pumps, valves and other assorted crap all engines have) and has a small size, but it will also be a stopgap measure on the road to pure electric.
And sure this might end up in a few specialized vehicles, but it won't revolutionize anything.

Duke Engineering's new four stroke "axial" engine

newtboy says...

If a large percentage, or at least a majority of cars were now electric, I would agree. But they are not. Because internal combustion engines are still the norm, even in hybrids, making one that's more efficient and lighter with fewer parts is a great idea.
Don't let the great be the enemy of the good.
I wonder how they deal with centrifugal force when it runs at high speeds, it seems like the piston would ride the cylinder wall, creating major friction and heat. Maybe I missed something.

zeoverlord said:

So it's basically a Gatling style engine.
It would have been great if introduced 10-15 years ago, but as cars and other vehicles are beginning to switch to electric drive a Free Piston Engine Linear Generator is more appropriate for cars as a range extender.

Coulthard on team orders

AeroMechanical says...

For open wheel racing, Indycar is where it's at these days IMO. Since they changed to the DW-12 chassis, lost the stupid blocking rules and brought in some new talent and sponsors, the racing has been fantastic. Unfortunately, I don't care for oval racing, but it looks like its weighing even more towards road and street courses next year.

I wouldn't want F1 to become a spec series, but they need to do something to either make the racing closer or the technology development more interesting. The WEC has been the most interesting development series lately. It's guaranteed that Mercedes, Ferrari and Renault would never allow it, but opening up the engine regulations to allow more freedom could bring in other manufacturers itching to show off their hybrid technology as something sexy and powerful.

Neil deGrasse Tyson schooling ignorant climate fools

chingalera says...

Climate change-The hot-topic for a new age of ineffectuals...something for the insects to rally-around and discuss which produces nay but fodder for the same passive-aggressive types who are being seduced by their desire to trade practical action (whatever that could be) for polemic intercourse with themselves and others like them on the internet....

....people who are passionate to a fault and use forums like this to espouse their anger and frustration with tomes of keystrokes AT and not WITH others they deem unworthy, those ignorant and simpering few with opinions or observations dissimilar to theirs (and lower than 130 I.Q.'s....*cough), who know they are helpless to act to stop the high-speed train of planet-fucking (wage-slave-required and dutifully induced through the programming by adepts of semantic mind-fucking).This delusional empowerment, with all the invisible superpowers of new 'information' gives them the license and ability to do absolutely nothing to correct or marginally disrupt the pace of the so-labeled change while becomming better dicks in doing-so.

This fan-driven subject of climate change they use not only to deride those with any dissenting opinion and doubt regarding the mechanics and unfolding of what our big, blue marble is handing the creatures onnit, but also and most evidently obvious, to bolster their own superiority and self-satisfaction in their ability to process the distraction of disinformation/information/datum-ad-nauseum, and then condense it into how clever they can be in being complete assholes without breaking rules of accepted decorum so they can hear themselves bark, howl, and foment.

Smug, helpless, and irritatingly predictable in their helplessness to do anything more effectual than to add more used motor oil to the bonfire of their own vanity.

I would ask these irritating bugs what ARE you prepared to do to alter the course of the 'changes' in the 'terminal climate' described above? Recycle and drive a hybrid? Sacrifice anything but another trip to a polling-station? Oh I know, sit at your computer keyboard and grow more incensed while going-on with your business of spouting and shouting from a mountain of trash that you add-to daily by converting oxygen to more life-giving C02 and buying shit you don't need with paper you are forced to trade for 'bads and disservices??'

Thought so.

Fuck global warming in it's ass and let the planet shake and quiver with change as humans and/or their own slave-like actions continue to feed the earth-furnace. The bigger fish to fry and serve head-on have you by the short and curlies and we're all bio-fuel for future generations

Interstellar -- Trailer

The Man Who Redefined Monster Movies

Sagemind says...

Swiss artist H.R. Giger, who designed the creature in Ridley Scott's sci-fi horror classic Alien, has died at age 74 from injuries suffered in a fall, his museum said Tuesday.

Sandra Mivelaz, administrator of the H.R. Giger museum in Gruyeres, western Switzerland, told The Associated Press that Giger died in a hospital on Monday.

Giger's works, often showing macabre scenes of humans and machines fused into hellish hybrids, influenced a generation of movie directors and inspired an enduring fashion for "biomechanical" tattoos.

"My paintings seem to make the strongest impression on people who are, well, who are crazy," Giger said in a 1979 interview with Starlog magazine. "If they like my work they are creative ... or they are crazy."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/arts/h-r-giger-designer-of-alien-from-alien-films-dead-at-74-1.2640867

Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Climate Change Debate

Trancecoach says...

Bottomline: who cares? None of the people who are attacking me here are going to do anything of any impact on the climate. It's just "talk, talk, talk" anyway. Do you buy plastic? If so, then who cares what you think about the environment?

These are not rhetorical or trivial questions! I expect answers! (not really)

Pragmatically, are you personally contributing to clean air or are you contributing to smog? I walk to work, I don't have children, I don't consume beef, and when I do use vehicles, I take public transportation and drive a hybrid. What do you do? What are your theoretical opinions contributing to anything of value? If you just want something more to freak out about (without actually contributing anything in any positive way), then you can enjoy your worry and stress and get your panties in a bunch on videosift. I have no interest in it.


And speaking of "geniuses:"

@9547bis said: "Denying basic physics is a bit harder, you see."

So, other than parroting something you read on a government website, can you in fact explain the "physics" you are so convinced of? What are the "physics" that "prove" man-made greenhouse gases are the reason for global warming? And why do the warming models invariably prove to be inaccurate (according to physics)?

So, you know which is "bigger" between 5 and 15. I'm not as impressed with yourself as you seem to be. But perhaps you can explain the "physics errors" in this report?

Or this one.

This section specifically deals with the "physical science." What is it that you know that the experts don't. Perhaps you can demonstrate the scientific errors with which you disagree, and point out where they're inaccurate?

Or perhaps you don't understand anything that you aren't repeating from what some government hack tells you...

Something you failed to recognize is that "data" requires a rationalist theory by which to interpret it. Many people have not been getting that kind of education (as Google's HR knows), so the "data" can then be interpreted any which way to suit pre-conditioned biases and vested interests. That's not "science." In fact, that's where so-called "authorities" come in: the propagandists and those paid to tell "the people" how to interpret the "data."

Who amongst those taking issue with my posts (@dannym3141) follows this epistemological "method" of reading the "data" and interpreting it, and who simply repeats what some "authority" tells them is the case?

(And lest you think "the people" are innocent victims, know that they seem more like willing participants; the extent to which they can be "victimized" depends on the extent of their own personal vices: anger, greed, pride, envy, laziness, etc. I'm looking at you @ChaosEngine.)

9547bis said:

<snipped>

Alton Brown: How To Open A Bottle Of Champagne With A Saber

Thumper says...

Not to mention that most of the vines that currently exist in EU, are hybrids from American vines. This is because of the phylloxera mite that devasted between 2/3 and nine tenths of all wine vines in Europe *especially in France where they saw the most devastation. The only way they could save their vines was to graft American vines which as a natural resistance to the phylloxera mite. Suck it France, we'll call it whatever we want - losers.

Shepppard said:

Although in more recent years, there have actually been laws passed to prohibit the name "Champagne" to only wines that are produced in the Champagne region of France, There are still other wines that call themselves Champagnes, typically Sparkling wine.

There have been laws passed in both Canada and the U.s.a., however if you were calling your wine "Champagne" pre-2006, you're still allowed to do so, however the region that the grapes were grown for the wine MUST be included on the label.

Dick.

"Hello Airplanes? It's Blimps, You Win."

siftbot says...

Archer Gives Tips On How To Improve Your Work Environment has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579.

Ask Archer has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579.

Archer ~ That's How You Get Ants has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579.

Archer - Hybrid Pig Boy has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579.

Archer - Just the tip has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579.



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon