But it leaks VERY easily. It makes the tank brittle. I'm not claiming that hydrogen is some kind of screaming horror, just that ammonia in the quantities a vehicle would carry for fuel isn't such a horror either.
The U.S. has done all of that as well but doesn't have socialized medicine. The packs don't cost $20, but the majority of the cost is taxes.
Then there's the studies that show smokers costing less in healthcare overall. They die earlier in their retirement years and the decline from health to death tends to be fast.
And lo and behold, NYCs attempt to bring your fears to life were promptly shot down by the courts. So I guess it's not actually the problem you thought it was.
It's from the documentation. I presume/guess it means you may declare the function pure in the limited sense and that allows the compiler to check to see if the stricter definition might also apply.
That is a more restricted definition. You need a stricter definition to safely elide code.
Apparently the D compiler does perform further analysis to see if that stricter definition is met. See here. It seems to check if the function can modify it's arguments (for example, by zeroing them).
They derive the hydrogen from methane currently for cost reasons, but they can also produce it by splitting water. Of course, if you are otherwise willing to power the car with hydrogen, there must be a cost effective source of it to feed the Haber process.. Or do you expect the hydrogen for cars to come from a horde of hydrogen faeries who hate the Haber process?
So yes, renewable unless you expect us to run out of water./
If you want to post an abrasive reply, be sure you are right first or at least that your logic didn't tangle into a ball of fail.
If you prefer, now moves through time. At the quantum level there is no directional preference yet at the macro level, there is a distinct preference. Why that is so is an open question.
Ammonia is very much renewable. The Haber process is well understood and has been running on an industrial scale for over half a century.
Ammonia is toxic, but it's not THAT toxic. It is certainly less likely to kill you or leave lasting harm than a hydrogen fire/explosion.
The car CAN be fuel cell based, but TFA was talking about reforming a small amount into hydrogen to form a mixture of hydrogen and ammonia that can fuel an internal combustion engine.
Meanwhile, ammonia is much easier to store in liquid form
The problem is that the USPTO assumes the courts can work out the validity for them and they rubber stamp things when they don't have a relevant expert in the art (or if they're busy, or it's Tuesday).
Except that the remote wipe has itself proven dangerous enough that some people are (reluctantly) disabling it so they don't get screwed by someone that has the last 4 digits of their CC.
Slashdot Mirror
But it leaks VERY easily. It makes the tank brittle. I'm not claiming that hydrogen is some kind of screaming horror, just that ammonia in the quantities a vehicle would carry for fuel isn't such a horror either.
Neither is likely as dangerous as gasoline.
Yes. They would have invented a special integrated cup holder with two cups. They would pretend you intend to give the second cup to someone else.
The U.S. has done all of that as well but doesn't have socialized medicine. The packs don't cost $20, but the majority of the cost is taxes.
Then there's the studies that show smokers costing less in healthcare overall. They die earlier in their retirement years and the decline from health to death tends to be fast.
And lo and behold, NYCs attempt to bring your fears to life were promptly shot down by the courts. So I guess it's not actually the problem you thought it was.
The many other countries in the west with proper healthcare have managed to limit their meddling to a few PSAs urging healthy eating and such.
When is the last time you saw the health police whipping overweight joggers through the streets of London?
On the other hand, few in the lower class end up on disability after skiing and skydiving accidents.
That's the first action non-final ruling. Once you prove you're serious by appealing the matter, you get the approved stamp.
Look at the allowance rates in the same article and recall the goofy crap like teasing your cat with a laser pointer or swinging side to side.
Unlike minimum wage employers, the owner felt some minimal need to protect his substantial investment so they also provided basic healthcare.
He didn't say the insurance company would believe he was smoking on the sly, just that they would use that as an excuse to not pay out.
Insurance companies are notorious for not paying based on flimsy excuses.
It's from the documentation. I presume/guess it means you may declare the function pure in the limited sense and that allows the compiler to check to see if the stricter definition might also apply.
If they shared nothing but the name, that would be one thing, but they actually share the same management as far as I know.
A $2 whore is still a $2 whore even if she moves to another country.
That is a more restricted definition. You need a stricter definition to safely elide code.
Apparently the D compiler does perform further analysis to see if that stricter definition is met. See here. It seems to check if the function can modify it's arguments (for example, by zeroing them).
Well, if the CO2 is a problem, which is better: More or less?
Right in TFA, they propose a plastic tank.
They derive the hydrogen from methane currently for cost reasons, but they can also produce it by splitting water. Of course, if you are otherwise willing to power the car with hydrogen, there must be a cost effective source of it to feed the Haber process.. Or do you expect the hydrogen for cars to come from a horde of hydrogen faeries who hate the Haber process?
So yes, renewable unless you expect us to run out of water./
If you want to post an abrasive reply, be sure you are right first or at least that your logic didn't tangle into a ball of fail.
As opposed to a hydrogen explosion with a fire you cannot see?
The fire department is very good at hydrating anhydrous ammonia.
If you prefer, now moves through time. At the quantum level there is no directional preference yet at the macro level, there is a distinct preference. Why that is so is an open question.
Since Amazon is probably well aware of the law in Seattle and they are going forward with it, apparently the numbers work OK.
Don't drink the cool aid being offered by corporate America. Raising the minimum wage will not trigger the apocalypse (zombie or otherwise).
Not to mention that hydrogen makes metals brittle and will slowly diffuse out of a 'solid' metal tank.
Their proposal is to reform some of the ammonia to form an ammonia/hydrogen mixture which will work better in an engine.
Ammonia is very much renewable. The Haber process is well understood and has been running on an industrial scale for over half a century.
Ammonia is toxic, but it's not THAT toxic. It is certainly less likely to kill you or leave lasting harm than a hydrogen fire/explosion.
The car CAN be fuel cell based, but TFA was talking about reforming a small amount into hydrogen to form a mixture of hydrogen and ammonia that can fuel an internal combustion engine.
Meanwhile, ammonia is much easier to store in liquid form
The problem is that the USPTO assumes the courts can work out the validity for them and they rubber stamp things when they don't have a relevant expert in the art (or if they're busy, or it's Tuesday).
I believe that's where they perform a special ritual (requires 2 cops for best effect.
Cop1: "Did you hear that? What was it?"
Cop2: "I think it's an email screaming for help! We better do a welfare check!"
Except that the remote wipe has itself proven dangerous enough that some people are (reluctantly) disabling it so they don't get screwed by someone that has the last 4 digits of their CC.
But now we're going backwards. We have a lot of people who are one paycheck away from no food in the pantry.