 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 11:09:05 +0000, Invisible wrote:
> ...but Toyota is Japanese...?
>
> More importantly, I gather that most American cars are horrifyingly
> inefficient, so beating that shouldn't be too hard I'd guess. I don't
> really know.
Not much worse than cars in the UK, remember that the US gallon is
smaller, so 34 MPG here (which is about what I get out of my 10 year old
Saturn coupe) is about 7 L/100 KM (or about 40 MPG in UK Gallons if I've
done my math correctly).
The Prius owners I know (a couple) typically get 55-65 MPG (in US
gallons). That'd be 66-78 MPG in UK gallons.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> and transitive
>>
>> I don't think that's what you intended to say. You probably meant to
>> say "triangle inequality".
>
> Actually I meant that d(x,y)=0 implies x=y, but even so, that's not the
> right term...
"identity of indiscernibles" is the phrase you want. And at any rate,
that conflicts more with your use of the term "reflexive", rather than
"transitive". But hey, you got "symmetric"! (and the gist of the
others, I'm just pulling your leg).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Kevin Wampler wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
>>
>> What about xyz = the ratio of any circle's circumference to its diameter?
>>
>
> The main problem here is that xyz is not a constant, but is rather a
> function. In spherical and hyperbolic spaces it can be defined as a
> function of the radius so you need to say something like:
>
> xyz(r) = the ratio of the circumference to the diameter of a circle of
> radius r
>
> If your space doesn't have a constant curvature, then it's a function of
> yet more parameters.
>
> The main issue isn't only that pi has a pre-existing meaning, it's that
> the value in these non-euclidean spaces isn't even a constant.
Too much information.
La la la la la. ;)
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I'll be waiting over 42 American MPG with just enough room for 5 people
> and some luggage (OTOH most of the time just me, secondarily me and
> Sonic) - even with the warming needed at winter - still having
> 150bhp/320Nm (upgradeable to 175bhp/370Nm with just a software) with
> pretty decent equipment.
Aren't all cars upgradeable with just software nowadays? In my car the
"1.6L", "1.8L", "2.0L" and "2.3L" versions all actually have exactly the
same engine. You are just choosing whether you want the 116, 143, 177 or
204 BHP software installed when you buy it :-) I heard some people got up
to 265 BHP out of that engine, but to me that seems really stupid as all the
other components will not have been reliability tested at that power level.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> The Megane seems to be a diesel car, which tends to get better mileage
> anyway, and almost as good as a Prius running on gasoline.
My Megane is petrol, although I gather there is a diesel version of most
of these cars now. And yes, diesel has completely different performance
characteristics.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> Aren't all cars upgradeable with just software nowadays? In my car the
> "1.6L", "1.8L", "2.0L" and "2.3L" versions all actually have exactly the
> same engine. You are just choosing whether you want the 116, 143, 177
> or 204 BHP software installed when you buy it :-)
Erm... 1.6L means that the engine block has a displacement of 1.6L,
while 2.3L means that the displacement is 2.3L - i.e., the cylinders are
physically bigger.
The Real WTF of course is that displacement is not directly related to
power output in the first place...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> Would you run that past me again, in English? :-)
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'milnerhindley.png' (78 KB)
Preview of image 'milnerhindley.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
>
>> Would you run that past me again, in English? :-)
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
The bit where it says take away the number you first thought of.
Nice one BTW :D
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> Nice one BTW :D
Heh. Somebody had this printed on a T-shirt [as you can probably tell].
I just copied the image file. ;-)
That's apparently the Milner-Hindley type inference algorithm. But whatever.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
>
>> Nice one BTW :D
>
> Heh. Somebody had this printed on a T-shirt [as you can probably tell].
> I just copied the image file. ;-)
>
> That's apparently the Milner-Hindley type inference algorithm. But
> whatever.
That's what the file name says :D
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
