Mod parent up! If the ban was really to make the US safer, and it took 90 days to come up with "improved" poking and prodding procedures to that end, said procedures are ready and should be implemented without delay. The ban is moot.
+1 some more unrealistic assumptions: -soil is firm and even enough to drive on and not cake wheels with dirt -plants never grow big enough to shade the paths the robot drives on -weeds are small but try to grow tall, there are no creeping vine type weeds.
To meet the requirements of enough space for the thing to travel, and enough sunlight for it to power itself, you essentially need to use your real estate very inefficiently. Can only plant a fraction of the density you normally would.
Plus you don't have to use electricity from fossile fuels. Use wind-, solar or hydro power to go emission free! Maybe not everyone does, but at least electric cars have the option. Try filling the tank of your average gas-guzzler with solar power...
Lithium isn't mined, you insensitive clod. It's extracted from mineral springs or salt flats. Byproducts are calcium potassium and other salts that are no more harmful than the original brine in said salt flat.
What they really mean is that there was a control group exposed to nothing.
Not quite, what it really means is that while both groups were put in the same apparatus with the RF antenna, for one group the antenna was turned on, for the other off, without the subjects knowledge. That's why it's called a placebo, or in the words of tfa "sham exposure": it looks like you are geting radiation while actually getting nothing.
A true control would be a third group that doesn't get stuck in the RF apparatus at all.
This has nothing to do with open standards, though. The problem is the absence of privacy protection in the US.
Of course, it doesn't help to make it even easier for say a Workers comp insurer to scan through your mental health records trying to prove how that broken leg is all in your head...
Regulating fuel consumption (and exempting the really big guzzlers) is just the wrong way to manage technology. All it does is tell the industry to get up to current standard (in 13 years) and not to innovate any more than needed.
The best way to improve efficiency is market forces. Once gas is expensive enough to be a real consideration when buying a vehicle, people might actually see past the marketing hype and realize they don't need that huge StupidUglyVehicle after all.
Yes, gas got expensive enough to get people to complain. But for most families it's still less than their cable bill. Clearly not something that would change habits.
Another major component in reducing fuel consumption or CO2 emissions is modifying our behavior: number of trips, distances traveled, and god help us car-pools and public transport. Raising the mileage standard does nothing on any of these fronts. Increasing gas prices gives a strong incentive to reduce consumption in any way possible.
Wait, so burning some fuel is equivalent to thoughtlessly mangling defenseless animals.
Exactly!
Thoughtlessly burning fuel _is_ mangling defenseless animals. Just not quite so directly and dramatically as clubbing the baby seal.
I was trying to make a point by an overdrawn analogy. Apparently you missed that. I could have made it more clear.
You can't go around doing anything you want to just because you want to. There is a cost associated with anything you do. And with burning gasoline, it is far more than just the cost you pay for the gas! (acid rain, global warming, respiratory diseases, that sort of stuff) This affects everybody, not just Joe. So if Joe wants to have fun, he should do it without hurting anybody.
Now, I understand that in todays society, everybody needs to burn fuel for lots of things (i.e. heating, getting to work, etc). But there's a difference between burning fuel for a bonafide purpose and just for the heck of it!
What is wrong with Joe wanting to accelrate a 7-ton monster from zero to 60 in under 4 seconds?
The same thing that's wrong about wanting to club baby seals. Some distorted minds may consider it fun, but that doesn't mean that it needs to be supported or even legal. Why does Joe need to get his kicks on the back of everyone else, including the environment? Can't he go to a gym and punch a bag for a while?
#1 very true. For every vehicle, hybrid or otherwise.
#2 What do you base this on? There is liquid sulfuric acid in every traditional car battery that can spill if the battery is ruptured in an accident. The NiMH batteries of hybrids are dry and nonspillable. Nickel is less toxic than lead, btw.
#3 True, but how does it compare to the energy saved during its service life?
#4 True, it also depends on gas prices. Since those can only go up, it bodes pretty well for hybrids. How do you know about the cliff after 6 years? The oldest hybrids around are just getting there, and I haven't seen their values plummet...
#5 This just shows you have no idea what you are talking about. Recycling of NiMH is as well established a process as it is for lead-acid.
It's sad how every article about hybrids always focuses on how many years it takes to save enough gas to pay fro the added cost of the car. That's not what it is about! Especially not if you use the gas prices in a country where said price is held artificially low! It's about how much more we could do by using technology in a sensible way rather than spending it on finding ways to allow every Joe to accelerate a 7 ton monster truck 0-60 in under 4 seconds!
Ford flipped the switch which he saw was now marked 'Mode Execute Ready' instead of the now old-fashioned 'Access Standby' which had so long ago replaced the appallingly stone-aged 'Off'.
i will never understand why man has to have dominance over other men.
Because he can only drive so many big SUVs, talk on so many tiny cellphones and watch so many TV shows at the same time. Once that get's boring, he's got to look for other entertainment.
It's logical that the richest country on the planet will be doing a greater share of consumption as well as production compared to the rest of the world.
Only the resources they are consuming are limited on a global scale, leaving less to anyone else. And the trash/pollution they produce destroys the environment on a global scale. Are you surprised that less wealthy people aren't exactly happy with this arrangement?
It would be one thing if the US had accumulated its wealth in fair and equal competition with the rest of the world. But I doubt anyone would claim that to be true...
The problem is that you would then have lots of nuclear waste in orbit around Earth. As if all the space-junk up there isn't enough already!
To escape orbit, you need to accelerate the payload to even faster speed: escape velocity on earth is over 11 km/s, plus you need to be faster to account for atmopspheric friction slowing the projectile. I don't know if the device could be scaled up that easily...
Slashdot Mirror
Mod parent up!
If the ban was really to make the US safer, and it took 90 days to come up with "improved" poking and prodding procedures to that end, said procedures are ready and should be implemented without delay. The ban is moot.
+1
some more unrealistic assumptions:
-soil is firm and even enough to drive on and not cake wheels with dirt
-plants never grow big enough to shade the paths the robot drives on
-weeds are small but try to grow tall, there are no creeping vine type weeds.
To meet the requirements of enough space for the thing to travel, and enough sunlight for it to power itself, you essentially need to use your real estate very inefficiently. Can only plant a fraction of the density you normally would.
Isn't that what telephone sanitizers are there for? Maybe we shouldn't have put them all on the first ark?
It sounds like total water usage in USA once you consider showers, toilets, cooking, cleaning, etc.
There, fixed that for you
Water usage in most European countries is about 1/2 that.
I'd not be interested in it even at $30K...has too many seats in the car.
Get an electric smart. Correct number of seats, and cheaper, too!
Anyone who is not a millionaire needs to stop supporting these guys. There, fixed that for you.
Likely arc lamps
Plus you don't have to use electricity from fossile fuels. Use wind-, solar or hydro power to go emission free! Maybe not everyone does, but at least electric cars have the option. Try filling the tank of your average gas-guzzler with solar power...
Lithium isn't mined, you insensitive clod. It's extracted from mineral springs or salt flats. Byproducts are calcium potassium and other salts that are no more harmful than the original brine in said salt flat.
I wonder how long the tablets will last...
And mounted them vertically! That reduces their output by ~ 50%
What they really mean is that there was a control group exposed to nothing.
Not quite, what it really means is that while both groups were put in the same apparatus with the RF antenna, for one group the antenna was turned on, for the other off, without the subjects knowledge. That's why it's called a placebo, or in the words of tfa "sham exposure": it looks like you are geting radiation while actually getting nothing.
A true control would be a third group that doesn't get stuck in the RF apparatus at all.
This has nothing to do with open standards, though. The problem is the absence of privacy protection in the US. Of course, it doesn't help to make it even easier for say a Workers comp insurer to scan through your mental health records trying to prove how that broken leg is all in your head...
Regulating fuel consumption (and exempting the really big guzzlers) is just the wrong way to manage technology. All it does is tell the industry to get up to current standard (in 13 years) and not to innovate any more than needed.
The best way to improve efficiency is market forces. Once gas is expensive enough to be a real consideration when buying a vehicle, people might actually see past the marketing hype and realize they don't need that huge StupidUglyVehicle after all.
Yes, gas got expensive enough to get people to complain. But for most families it's still less than their cable bill. Clearly not something that would change habits.
Another major component in reducing fuel consumption or CO2 emissions is modifying our behavior: number of trips, distances traveled, and god help us car-pools and public transport. Raising the mileage standard does nothing on any of these fronts. Increasing gas prices gives a strong incentive to reduce consumption in any way possible.
Exactly!
Thoughtlessly burning fuel _is_ mangling defenseless animals. Just not quite so directly and dramatically as clubbing the baby seal.
I was trying to make a point by an overdrawn analogy. Apparently you missed that. I could have made it more clear.
You can't go around doing anything you want to just because you want to. There is a cost associated with anything you do. And with burning gasoline, it is far more than just the cost you pay for the gas! (acid rain, global warming, respiratory diseases, that sort of stuff) This affects everybody, not just Joe. So if Joe wants to have fun, he should do it without hurting anybody.
Now, I understand that in todays society, everybody needs to burn fuel for lots of things (i.e. heating, getting to work, etc). But there's a difference between burning fuel for a bonafide purpose and just for the heck of it!
The same thing that's wrong about wanting to club baby seals. Some distorted minds may consider it fun, but that doesn't mean that it needs to be supported or even legal. Why does Joe need to get his kicks on the back of everyone else, including the environment? Can't he go to a gym and punch a bag for a while?
#1 very true. For every vehicle, hybrid or otherwise. #2 What do you base this on? There is liquid sulfuric acid in every traditional car battery that can spill if the battery is ruptured in an accident. The NiMH batteries of hybrids are dry and nonspillable. Nickel is less toxic than lead, btw. #3 True, but how does it compare to the energy saved during its service life? #4 True, it also depends on gas prices. Since those can only go up, it bodes pretty well for hybrids. How do you know about the cliff after 6 years? The oldest hybrids around are just getting there, and I haven't seen their values plummet... #5 This just shows you have no idea what you are talking about. Recycling of NiMH is as well established a process as it is for lead-acid.
Lifetime average over 107000 miles on my Insight (EPA rating 68/60): 68.3
It's sad how every article about hybrids always focuses on how many years it takes to save enough gas to pay fro the added cost of the car. That's not what it is about! Especially not if you use the gas prices in a country where said price is held artificially low!
It's about how much more we could do by using technology in a sensible way rather than spending it on finding ways to allow every Joe to accelerate a 7 ton monster truck 0-60 in under 4 seconds!
So who told you nuclear fuel supply is unlimited?
Ford flipped the switch which he saw was now marked 'Mode Execute Ready' instead of the now old-fashioned 'Access Standby' which had so long ago replaced the appallingly stone-aged 'Off'.
It would be one thing if the US had accumulated its wealth in fair and equal competition with the rest of the world. But I doubt anyone would claim that to be true...
The problem is that you would then have lots of nuclear waste in orbit around Earth. As if all the space-junk up there isn't enough already! To escape orbit, you need to accelerate the payload to even faster speed: escape velocity on earth is over 11 km/s, plus you need to be faster to account for atmopspheric friction slowing the projectile. I don't know if the device could be scaled up that easily...