I live in Winnipeg, one of the places in the world with the highest temperature variability. Temperatures range from +35C (about 100F) in summer to -40 (C or F) at times in winter. If anyone had problems with glass shattering due to weather, it would be me. Glass doesn't spontaneously shatter at -40. Cement may not last long due to moisture freezing and thawing, sure, but glass is fine. Eventually, it may crack, but it won't shatter unless struck. I've had the same glass windows in my home for 20+ years. You are quite simply wrong.
Being in -40 weather, even at high winds, doesn't kill instantaneously. You would have seen thousands of deaths several years ago in the winter of 2003/2004 when it was below -40 with a windchill of -55C (-68 F). Yet, you didn't. No spontaneous window shattering, either. 'Struck dead' is hardly appropriate. I believe you have been misled, or are intentionally misleading.
This phenomenon you describe could not be invisible, as you claim. If there is a large gust or vortex of wind, it would pick up material. Most notably, snow.
Didn't look very hard, did you? Manitoba. It's colder, we get just as much snow, it's bigger, and bonus: it's only a few hours away!
I have never owned a truck or SUV and don't plan to. As long as you use all-season or snow tires, you should do fine, unless you're in a wide-open rural area with heavy snowfall and high winds. Keep a shovel in the trunk for emergencies, a little sand or ice-melting salt, and you're golden.
The only accident I've ever been in was when a freak gust of wind blew me sideways on the highway during a snowstorm in May several years ago. A truck or SUV wouldn't have helped then - it would have had much larger profile and the wind would have affected it more. Amusingly, I've seen more 4x4s in ditches than cars.
To be honest, most of my driving is within city limits, so I wouldn't personally be at as big a risk, but there's always that chance. But I'm a geek when it comes to technology - if I can afford it and there aren't any major issues, there's a more-than-decent chance I'll be an early adopter. I'll definitely find out before I purchase, though.
I think that's a gross exaggeration. From what I've heard, even the most dramatic change expected is still in the single digits of degrees Celsius per century; I'm pretty sure that I won't notice any difference at all. Some say that locally, extreme temperatures will get more extreme, that could mean even colder winters. Don't forget, $40/gallon isn't as dramatic as you think; inflation will push salaries up as well. Perhaps not at the same pace, but the prices won't jump 10x overnight.
Disclaimer: There are several assumptions I've made in the following that could be wrong. Please let me know if that is the case. I'm also ignoring the political aspects of your post; I'm not an American.
I'm looking forward to owning an electric vehicle. I'm in a location where electricity is relatively inexpensive and cleanly generated; the vast majority of power generation in my area is hydroelectric, and we produce more than we use. However, I have some valid concerns before diving in.
Mainly, I need to know how they'll perform in low-temperature conditions. Where I live, temperatures routinely hit -30 and -40 in the depths of winter. Many electronic devices cannot operate properly at this temperature, and batteries' output are greatly reduced. I'll need to know that I can reach my destination, because being stranded in those temperatures can be life-threatening. One option is an internal heating system that could be activated while charging upon reaching a low temperature threshold. It could function similar to a block heater for an ICE, but would probably have to heat both the motor itself and the batteries. Electric heat can be costly. Another concern is heat generation. Combustion-based engines have a useful side effect - they generate heat, which is used to heat the interior of the vehicle. An electric motor won't produce nearly as much heat. That means there'll be an even bigger drain on the batteries. As it currently stands, even with low electricity costs, it appears gas would be a cheaper and more efficient way to go.
Also, cost is a major issue - not just the initial purchase price, but maintenance and energy usage over its life. This can't be known until the vehicles have been in use for a number of years. Mechanics are currently familiar with ICEs, and there won't be an immediate uptake; supply will eventually follow demand, so many won't be familiar with electric vehicles until enough people have them. Until then, those that maintain electric vehicles will be in higher demand, thus a higher cost. I'm sure that initial costs will be higher - the manufacturers have to recover that initial R&D investment somehow.
Unless I'm misreading, I take it to mean the opposite: they're going to assess the factors that impact the efficiency and speed of deployment, such as weather conditions. It would be difficult to assess the deployment to northern areas without testing deployment to northern areas. I suspect if you can gather support from your community, you might have a chance.
Unfortunately, I won't, as they specify it's only for Americans.
Of course, you're right, there are no absolutes here. It's better to hit an animal than swerve into oncoming traffic. And, by animals, I wasn't talking about bunnies, I was assuming deer or moose. Hitting a moose at high speed would be disastrous, so avoiding it would be a priority, but that would have to be weighed against anything else you might hit.
"Pump the brakes" was only for low-traction conditions. No one should ever pump the brakes for anything else, unless they experience a skid/lockup.
True, but it's more complicated than that. I live in a cold climate, and icy roads are common for 5-6 months of the year. My first driver's ed outing was the day after freezing rain; trial by fire, as it were. Your advice for braking is mostly right, but there are some important caveats.
To stop the fastest, yes, locking the brakes while throwing it in neutral is the best option. However, sometimes it is better to avoid the hazard. To regain control on a vehicle without ABS, releasing the brakes is required to unlock the brakes. On sheer ice, the brakes can lock with very little pressure on the pedal, requiring you to release the brake very shortly after depressing it to gain a bit of traction. This gives you a short window to redirect your vehicle during a slide. Repeat rapidly and you can gain the ability to turn away from your original trajectory.
Needing to stop quickly or with some control is not necessarily caused by a driver screwing up or being a moron; black ice exists and can be virtually invisible, animals can run onto the road from the forest, people can run onto the street from behind a building... there are numerous hazards that can't be anticipated.
It's even worse now with ABS, and that does the pumping for you (and has the specific goal of *not* stopping you as fast as possible, but instead purposefully reducing your braking power in order to maintain greatly increased maneuverability).
This is the most important part of your post. With ABS, in either situation, press firmly on the brakes an DO NOT PUMP. If possible, try to avoid the hazard, as you should have some steering control. However, you will not be able to stop as quickly as a vehicle without ABS. Personally, since I was trained on a vehicle without it, I prefer a vehicle that doesn't have it. Unfortunately, they are becoming more and more rare. I do understand why they have included it in most vehicles these days - most people aren't exposed to these kind of driving conditions, and don't know what to do when it happens. I find that people just freeze, turn the steering wheel and jam on the brakes when sliding on ice. In a vehicle without ABS, this will likely send them directly into the object they were trying to avoid.
And if your brakes start to fade and you are losing control, put your brake foot to the floor, pull (or step on) your emergency brake, and hold on. You'll skid, and you'll stop, but with no control at all.
As I mentioned above, there are times when that is exactly the wrong thing to do. It's better to avoid a large animal than to hit it at a slightly lower speed. You don't want your vehicle spinning out of control on a highway. If the ice isn't too bad, jamming the brakes will make you skid, while holding the brakes less firmly will slow you down without putting you into a skid. If you are heading for a bridge or cliff, you want to steer away, not head straight for it. (And if you're on ice, I personally guarantee you won't melt your tires!)
I have no experience with brake assist, so I can't comment on it.
I also own all three consoles. I've had a different experience with them, though.
I'm on my second Wii. The first (purchased on launch day) died after a month; apparently with WiiConnect24 on, the system overheated and damaged the video card. I was told I was the first in Canada to have this problem; it became more widespread a bit later. No problems since (though it hasn't seen much use lately).
The first 360 I purchased scratched disks. I returned this to the store immediately. The second eventually red-ringed (after owning it for about 8 or 9 months). I bought an elite while waiting for the second to be repaired; I haven't had a problem with it yet (after over a year and a half of owning it).
My PS3 (60GB, original hardware) hasn't had any problems, but I've only had it for less than a year. It also hasn't seen too much use.
The return process was interesting for both cases. My 360 died early enough in its lifespan that Microsoft was still providing the package to ship the console and paying for shipping. I heard that's no longer the case. It was returned to me just about on time with estimates (~3 weeks), along with 1 month of Xbox Live, which was a nice thought. I really have to commend Nintendo on their replacement process, though. They gave me an option - ship it to them myself, and it'd be returned quicker, or they'd send a box + shipping label to get it replaced at no cost, but this would obviously take longer. I opted to ship it myself. They received it on Friday, Dec. 22, I received the new one, with all saved games and Virtual Console titles transferred to it, on Sunday, Dec. 24. Kudos to them for getting it back to me on a Sunday, on Christmas eve:)
Yeah, I know a way to place animals in homes - make an attempt to place animals in homes. Take a look back at my first link, the 2006 line. Out of over 3000 animals, 12 were adopted. Twelve. The year prior, 2005, showed that 146 were adopted. What changed in the course of one year?
What have I done? I certainly haven't killed any animals. Oh yeah - my Jack Russell, Rogue, says hi.
You know what shows a lack of compassion? PETA kills animals. What excuse is there for killing thousands of animals - over 80% of those they take in? They can't all be critically injured or diseased. What kind of sick, twisted morality is that? In my opinion, given the information, this is not Ethical Treatment of Animals.
So given these examples, why would the other planets not have an effect upon us?
They do have an effect, but it is so minuscule that it isn't worth mentioning.
I'm not terribly well spoken, so I'll let wikipedia handle this one: Inverse square law.
Gravity between the Earth and the Moon is what causes the tides.
Gravity between two objects is affected by the mass of the two objects and the distance between them. However, mass is not as significant as distance. If you double the distance between two objects, you need 4 times the mass to have the same gravitational force. Triple the distance, 9 times the mass is required for the same force, and so on. The farther the object, the more dramatic the drop in force.
As an example, Venus (the planet with an orbit that is closest to Earth's) is, at its closest, about 100 times further away from us than the moon. Even though Venus is about 66 times more massive than the moon, it only has about 66/10000 or 0.66% of the gravitational pull (at its closest!).
Not necessarily -
here's one example. While this specific case was kind of an anomaly, truckers ignoring clearance signs have been happening here a lot, lately.
Note the last line in the article:
At least four truckers have struck bridges or overpasses around Winnipeg this summer, causing damage estimated in the millions of dollars.
All bridges, overpasses and underpasses in the city have clearance signs.
Slashdot Mirror
Followup: why DID Constantinople get the works?
>>Network traffic has moved 8 feet to the east.
On a serious note, I wonder what this will do to GPS navigation systems.
I suspect everything in Japan will be off by 8 feet or so, until new maps can be distributed.
I do the same. I just use a different postal code - H0H 0H0. They don't like it, they can take it up with Santa!
a company that holds a lot of patients
That's a hospital, but that's not important right now.
I'm calling bullshit on some of your claims.
I live in Winnipeg, one of the places in the world with the highest temperature variability. Temperatures range from +35C (about 100F) in summer to -40 (C or F) at times in winter. If anyone had problems with glass shattering due to weather, it would be me. Glass doesn't spontaneously shatter at -40. Cement may not last long due to moisture freezing and thawing, sure, but glass is fine. Eventually, it may crack, but it won't shatter unless struck. I've had the same glass windows in my home for 20+ years. You are quite simply wrong.
Being in -40 weather, even at high winds, doesn't kill instantaneously. You would have seen thousands of deaths several years ago in the winter of 2003/2004 when it was below -40 with a windchill of -55C (-68 F). Yet, you didn't. No spontaneous window shattering, either. 'Struck dead' is hardly appropriate. I believe you have been misled, or are intentionally misleading.
This phenomenon you describe could not be invisible, as you claim. If there is a large gust or vortex of wind, it would pick up material. Most notably, snow.
I challenge you to back up your claims.
Didn't look very hard, did you?
Manitoba. It's colder, we get just as much snow, it's bigger, and bonus: it's only a few hours away!
I have never owned a truck or SUV and don't plan to. As long as you use all-season or snow tires, you should do fine, unless you're in a wide-open rural area with heavy snowfall and high winds. Keep a shovel in the trunk for emergencies, a little sand or ice-melting salt, and you're golden.
The only accident I've ever been in was when a freak gust of wind blew me sideways on the highway during a snowstorm in May several years ago. A truck or SUV wouldn't have helped then - it would have had much larger profile and the wind would have affected it more. Amusingly, I've seen more 4x4s in ditches than cars.
I hate to break it to you, but the lunar landscape is far from pristine. There are craters all over the place!
It is at this juncture that I feel I should point out that I am Canadian. :)
To be honest, most of my driving is within city limits, so I wouldn't personally be at as big a risk, but there's always that chance. But I'm a geek when it comes to technology - if I can afford it and there aren't any major issues, there's a more-than-decent chance I'll be an early adopter. I'll definitely find out before I purchase, though.
I think that's a gross exaggeration. From what I've heard, even the most dramatic change expected is still in the single digits of degrees Celsius per century; I'm pretty sure that I won't notice any difference at all. Some say that locally, extreme temperatures will get more extreme, that could mean even colder winters. Don't forget, $40/gallon isn't as dramatic as you think; inflation will push salaries up as well. Perhaps not at the same pace, but the prices won't jump 10x overnight.
Disclaimer: There are several assumptions I've made in the following that could be wrong. Please let me know if that is the case. I'm also ignoring the political aspects of your post; I'm not an American.
I'm looking forward to owning an electric vehicle. I'm in a location where electricity is relatively inexpensive and cleanly generated; the vast majority of power generation in my area is hydroelectric, and we produce more than we use. However, I have some valid concerns before diving in.
Mainly, I need to know how they'll perform in low-temperature conditions. Where I live, temperatures routinely hit -30 and -40 in the depths of winter. Many electronic devices cannot operate properly at this temperature, and batteries' output are greatly reduced. I'll need to know that I can reach my destination, because being stranded in those temperatures can be life-threatening. One option is an internal heating system that could be activated while charging upon reaching a low temperature threshold. It could function similar to a block heater for an ICE, but would probably have to heat both the motor itself and the batteries. Electric heat can be costly. Another concern is heat generation. Combustion-based engines have a useful side effect - they generate heat, which is used to heat the interior of the vehicle. An electric motor won't produce nearly as much heat. That means there'll be an even bigger drain on the batteries. As it currently stands, even with low electricity costs, it appears gas would be a cheaper and more efficient way to go.
Also, cost is a major issue - not just the initial purchase price, but maintenance and energy usage over its life. This can't be known until the vehicles have been in use for a number of years. Mechanics are currently familiar with ICEs, and there won't be an immediate uptake; supply will eventually follow demand, so many won't be familiar with electric vehicles until enough people have them. Until then, those that maintain electric vehicles will be in higher demand, thus a higher cost. I'm sure that initial costs will be higher - the manufacturers have to recover that initial R&D investment somehow.
Unless I'm misreading, I take it to mean the opposite: they're going to assess the factors that impact the efficiency and speed of deployment, such as weather conditions. It would be difficult to assess the deployment to northern areas without testing deployment to northern areas. I suspect if you can gather support from your community, you might have a chance.
Unfortunately, I won't, as they specify it's only for Americans.
Of course, you're right, there are no absolutes here. It's better to hit an animal than swerve into oncoming traffic. And, by animals, I wasn't talking about bunnies, I was assuming deer or moose. Hitting a moose at high speed would be disastrous, so avoiding it would be a priority, but that would have to be weighed against anything else you might hit.
True, but it's more complicated than that. I live in a cold climate, and icy roads are common for 5-6 months of the year. My first driver's ed outing was the day after freezing rain; trial by fire, as it were. Your advice for braking is mostly right, but there are some important caveats.
To stop the fastest, yes, locking the brakes while throwing it in neutral is the best option. However, sometimes it is better to avoid the hazard. To regain control on a vehicle without ABS, releasing the brakes is required to unlock the brakes. On sheer ice, the brakes can lock with very little pressure on the pedal, requiring you to release the brake very shortly after depressing it to gain a bit of traction. This gives you a short window to redirect your vehicle during a slide. Repeat rapidly and you can gain the ability to turn away from your original trajectory.
Needing to stop quickly or with some control is not necessarily caused by a driver screwing up or being a moron; black ice exists and can be virtually invisible, animals can run onto the road from the forest, people can run onto the street from behind a building... there are numerous hazards that can't be anticipated.
This is the most important part of your post. With ABS, in either situation, press firmly on the brakes an DO NOT PUMP. If possible, try to avoid the hazard, as you should have some steering control. However, you will not be able to stop as quickly as a vehicle without ABS. Personally, since I was trained on a vehicle without it, I prefer a vehicle that doesn't have it. Unfortunately, they are becoming more and more rare. I do understand why they have included it in most vehicles these days - most people aren't exposed to these kind of driving conditions, and don't know what to do when it happens. I find that people just freeze, turn the steering wheel and jam on the brakes when sliding on ice. In a vehicle without ABS, this will likely send them directly into the object they were trying to avoid.
As I mentioned above, there are times when that is exactly the wrong thing to do. It's better to avoid a large animal than to hit it at a slightly lower speed. You don't want your vehicle spinning out of control on a highway. If the ice isn't too bad, jamming the brakes will make you skid, while holding the brakes less firmly will slow you down without putting you into a skid. If you are heading for a bridge or cliff, you want to steer away, not head straight for it. (And if you're on ice, I personally guarantee you won't melt your tires!)
I have no experience with brake assist, so I can't comment on it.
Not true; you forgot nuclear. Uranium and other heavy elements don't come from the sun. Sure, they came from a star, just not ours.
I also own all three consoles. I've had a different experience with them, though.
I'm on my second Wii. The first (purchased on launch day) died after a month; apparently with WiiConnect24 on, the system overheated and damaged the video card. I was told I was the first in Canada to have this problem; it became more widespread a bit later. No problems since (though it hasn't seen much use lately).
The first 360 I purchased scratched disks. I returned this to the store immediately. The second eventually red-ringed (after owning it for about 8 or 9 months). I bought an elite while waiting for the second to be repaired; I haven't had a problem with it yet (after over a year and a half of owning it).
My PS3 (60GB, original hardware) hasn't had any problems, but I've only had it for less than a year. It also hasn't seen too much use.
The return process was interesting for both cases. My 360 died early enough in its lifespan that Microsoft was still providing the package to ship the console and paying for shipping. I heard that's no longer the case. It was returned to me just about on time with estimates (~3 weeks), along with 1 month of Xbox Live, which was a nice thought. :)
I really have to commend Nintendo on their replacement process, though. They gave me an option - ship it to them myself, and it'd be returned quicker, or they'd send a box + shipping label to get it replaced at no cost, but this would obviously take longer. I opted to ship it myself. They received it on Friday, Dec. 22, I received the new one, with all saved games and Virtual Console titles transferred to it, on Sunday, Dec. 24. Kudos to them for getting it back to me on a Sunday, on Christmas eve
No, that's not about par. 56% of dogs and 71% of cats that enter animal shelters are euthanized. Why does PETA have rates of over 90% in the last two years?
Yeah, I know a way to place animals in homes - make an attempt to place animals in homes. Take a look back at my first link, the 2006 line. Out of over 3000 animals, 12 were adopted. Twelve. The year prior, 2005, showed that 146 were adopted. What changed in the course of one year?
What have I done? I certainly haven't killed any animals. Oh yeah - my Jack Russell, Rogue, says hi.
You know what shows a lack of compassion? PETA kills animals. What excuse is there for killing thousands of animals - over 80% of those they take in? They can't all be critically injured or diseased. What kind of sick, twisted morality is that? In my opinion, given the information, this is not Ethical Treatment of Animals.
I'm not terribly well spoken, so I'll let wikipedia handle this one: Inverse square law.
Gravity between the Earth and the Moon is what causes the tides.
Gravity between two objects is affected by the mass of the two objects and the distance between them. However, mass is not as significant as distance. If you double the distance between two objects, you need 4 times the mass to have the same gravitational force. Triple the distance, 9 times the mass is required for the same force, and so on. The farther the object, the more dramatic the drop in force.
As an example, Venus (the planet with an orbit that is closest to Earth's) is, at its closest, about 100 times further away from us than the moon. Even though Venus is about 66 times more massive than the moon, it only has about 66/10000 or 0.66% of the gravitational pull (at its closest!).
While this specific case was kind of an anomaly, truckers ignoring clearance signs have been happening here a lot, lately. Note the last line in the article: All bridges, overpasses and underpasses in the city have clearance signs.