The problem is that people in the field disagree, the scientific method cannot be applied when you only have one earth and the data is at best questionable. I'm of the opinion that no one actually has a firm grasp of what is happening here.
Of course if you can't imagine it, the rest of reality must fall in line with that uncertainty. Just as each human is fairly different from all others so all medical science and advancement is invalidated because there aren't identical clones to test on. Or better yet there is no proof the laws of physics will keep working as they have in the past so let's just leap off a building and fly like birds. Feel secure in your thoughts as more money is spent in a single year on a single popular sport in any given handful of countries than on the entire history of climate science. Congratulations are in order all around on human priorities.
Ive been taught since a young age that not only are facts subjective but science is uncool, pointless, and only stupid nerds like it. What has this so called "science" ever done for anyone? Just gonna stick my fingers in my ears and hum till this all blows over./s
Odd, because as I've mentioned elsewhere in this thread, I live in Colorado. Mushrooms aren't legal here. We have the jumper issue as well. Also, when the blood work comes back, all they had in their system was THC. In fact, the GPs post almost perfectly sums up the issues we've been seeing since legalization.
Rebuttal?
You mean the single jumper? To claim this you have to show that it was in fact the cause and they weren't insane or suicidal anyhow. Also if you want to compare it to alachol related fatalities which are likely thousands to tens of thousands of times higher.
And, did this ten-year study make use of the contemporary high-test dope, or the sort of stuff that was more commonly used ten years ago?
Yes, this dope was fully tested over the last 10 years. Obviously I can't blame it for this post now.
Seriously though unless you are talking about extracts, the drug content was around 6-12% ten years ago, already extremely high. I'm not sure what you are reefering too, but I'm sure it was within a stones throw of the highest possible naturally.
The hydrogen is absorbed in a medium, it's not just pressurized like air or nitrogen. So the overall pressure is lower and in the case of an accident it won't all come out at once Hollywood style. It's roughly about as dangerous as gasoline. Lithium batteries can fail spectacularly in accidents as well, doubly so in a fire. Really there is no way around storing massive amounts of energy in the vehicle unless you build out an even more ridiculous power delivery system in roads making the hydrogen issue look like child's play.
Even with the problems you mention it's got a much greater energy density than lithium ion batteries, the main reason it is considered. Pound for pound these hydrogen vehicles have far greater range than battery electrics. But besides legitimate complaints with hydrogen you have the difficulty of the catalyst in the fuel cell which tends to be highly problematic.
Where I said I live they get 35-40. This is true. I didn't say everyone, people in the Midwest get 35-40. And the 50mpg, while great, isn't the 110+ to infinite some people think.
No economy of scale - hahahaha. Cant you just print more 3D printers and use those to print more 3D printers? In a few weeks a single printing facility could surpass the output of India and China combined! I'm not sure how these 3D printing companies actually sell more than 1 unit before going out of business.
So if you lived in upstate New York or even California you are doing well, but in much of the Midwest driving an electric is like driving an efficient gas vehicle at least with regards to co2 per mile. It's obvious as the majority of power comes from coal and natural gas in this region and not hydro, nuclear and other renewables which makes up a bigger part of the better areas. Also given that new power plant installations take decades it's certain these numbers are relatively predictable over the life of any vehicle. Perhaps you could use a custom solar install yourself but this adds to the already overwhelming cost of full electrics. Many owners of electrics have battery replacement anxiety around year 8 of the vehicle. It will be interesting to see if electrics go to the landfill faster due to this lump sum repair issue. But thats another issue.
While it's true you can't effectively use regenerative braking on a fully charged vehicle, the process itself is generally 60-70% efficient and fufils 99% of the braking needs of the vehicle. It's true overall that this amounts to about 15% savings as most of the energy dissipated goes to wind resistance. However regenerative braking and the lack of a need to power the vehicle down hill means inclines and vehicle mass also don't impact electrics nearly as much as gas vehicles. That's good because the battery packs make electrics far far heavier than thier gas counterparts for any kind of realistic range. Unless of course you are trying to school me uphill both ways.
It's true about electric cars in general, where I live in the USA they get about 35-40 mpg equivelant. However regenerative braking basically recoups the losses from the heavier vehicles such that a leaf and tesla get roughly the same "mileage" when driven in a similar fashion.
Nice goalpost moving. You said reported accidents. You barely skimmed before replying. So no your argument is invalid as I'm sure your armchair guesswork is better than peer reviewed papers.
Plus you failed to take into account these cars are piloted by humans who, in all likelihood, prevented accidents from happening which was my original point. For a fair study in safety each time they removed control in an unsafe situation should be counted as a crash. That was never documented and released to the public.
Two things. 1) The first sentence of the report says "after correcting for underreported accidents". 2) Most of the mileage of autonomous cars is going 25mph on residential streets or on the open, non-congested highway under perfect driving conditions. so I'm not sure it's comparing apples to apples. I haven't been able to find a non-pay walled version if anyone has I would like to read it but am not paying.
Is it fair to say these cars are currently safer than human drivers when a dedicated copilot is nearly always present and double checking on the cars and who then shuts it off for a human to take over at the slightest problem? How many accidents have been prevented?
For those of you that haven't seen the university of Michigan report
Musk was saying two years several months ago. He should be saying 18 months not doubling it to 3 years.
I in no way believe autonomous cars will replace humans in all everyday driving situations until all generic visual captchas (not specific algorithms for specific types) can be solved better than humans. If Google can't read plainly visible obvious to human house numbers 4% of the time in no way are they ready to put a real autonomous car on the road.
we will see fancy parking, fancy highway cruise control, and many many many more similar behaviors before integration of these into a complete functioning system is achieved. 20 years out easy before simple residential driving, 40 years plus with no law changes before they can handle things like New York pedestrians.
To be fair you can get back all of your energy of the beam including kinetic so to me it isn't clear you need it to be low speed particles. Anyhow it would be hard to feed and certainly far far harder to produce one in the first place. Agreed it's much harder than antimatter propulsion but definitely easier and far far less energetic than wormholes or other questionable stuff.
Even a hundred million ton black hole only produces 3 thousand watts, planet sized ones generate far far less than a watt. It is not a linear relationship as you said. Yes it is a challenge to feed it as I have posted above, with a surface temp of 10 billion degrees in the above case. It's true in a low pressure medium the temperature will overcome gravity. However, you may be able to use a combination of magnetic fields and charged particles to feed it, similar to a particle beam at the LHC, overcoming the thermal radiation. Theoretically you could even feed it neutrinos or anything and it would radiate 100% efficiently.
The arrangement of those atoms isnt distributed though. For example here on earth we have three billion years of evolution, at this point it would be statistically unique in the visible universe as well. The amount of concentrated and useful information from life would make traveling to such places and at least beaming back the information worthwhile as it could be extremely profitable. It probably would not make sense to take any back but it might under rare circumstances. You could essentially get free new technologies.
Well space is extremely empty, on the order of only a atom or two per cubic meter. You simply won't hit objects all the time because there are so few of them. But eventually it would happen so you would basically design the leading surface of your ship to be highly impact resistant - not unlike the heat shields we use today on spacecraft for re-entry.
I'm not claiming to know how to build one but I do have some basic ideas as to how it would work. Black holes conserve electrical charge so you could electrically charge the black hole for one. Also material falling in tends to generate extreme magnetic fields, you would likely use that principle as well in conjunction with the extreme surface gravity which is too short range to work on the order of meters effectively. But you left off the more important one and that is how do you keep it fed when the radius of the horizon is 10^-17m and the surface temp is 10 billion degrees? I'm not entirely sure but I would think there is a way using the magnetic fields to confine material/particles until they get within an extremely close distance and gravity takes over.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is that people in the field disagree, the scientific method cannot be applied when you only have one earth and the data is at best questionable. I'm of the opinion that no one actually has a firm grasp of what is happening here.
Of course if you can't imagine it, the rest of reality must fall in line with that uncertainty. Just as each human is fairly different from all others so all medical science and advancement is invalidated because there aren't identical clones to test on. Or better yet there is no proof the laws of physics will keep working as they have in the past so let's just leap off a building and fly like birds. Feel secure in your thoughts as more money is spent in a single year on a single popular sport in any given handful of countries than on the entire history of climate science. Congratulations are in order all around on human priorities.
Star Wars: The flamethrower!
The kids love this one.
Ive been taught since a young age that not only are facts subjective but science is uncool, pointless, and only stupid nerds like it. What has this so called "science" ever done for anyone? Just gonna stick my fingers in my ears and hum till this all blows over. /s
Give a man a fish and you will feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and the oceans will eventually be depleted.
Odd, because as I've mentioned elsewhere in this thread, I live in Colorado. Mushrooms aren't legal here. We have the jumper issue as well. Also, when the blood work comes back, all they had in their system was THC. In fact, the GPs post almost perfectly sums up the issues we've been seeing since legalization.
Rebuttal?
You mean the single jumper? To claim this you have to show that it was in fact the cause and they weren't insane or suicidal anyhow. Also if you want to compare it to alachol related fatalities which are likely thousands to tens of thousands of times higher.
And, did this ten-year study make use of the contemporary high-test dope, or the sort of stuff that was more commonly used ten years ago?
Yes, this dope was fully tested over the last 10 years. Obviously I can't blame it for this post now.
Seriously though unless you are talking about extracts, the drug content was around 6-12% ten years ago, already extremely high. I'm not sure what you are reefering too, but I'm sure it was within a stones throw of the highest possible naturally.
Nah just go full out crazy and put it in light years per fortnight. Has the added benefit of scientific notation to boot.
The hydrogen is absorbed in a medium, it's not just pressurized like air or nitrogen. So the overall pressure is lower and in the case of an accident it won't all come out at once Hollywood style. It's roughly about as dangerous as gasoline. Lithium batteries can fail spectacularly in accidents as well, doubly so in a fire. Really there is no way around storing massive amounts of energy in the vehicle unless you build out an even more ridiculous power delivery system in roads making the hydrogen issue look like child's play.
Even with the problems you mention it's got a much greater energy density than lithium ion batteries, the main reason it is considered. Pound for pound these hydrogen vehicles have far greater range than battery electrics. But besides legitimate complaints with hydrogen you have the difficulty of the catalyst in the fuel cell which tends to be highly problematic.
Where I said I live they get 35-40. This is true. I didn't say everyone, people in the Midwest get 35-40. And the 50mpg, while great, isn't the 110+ to infinite some people think.
Hyperbole tags get removed when I post sorry.
No economy of scale - hahahaha. Cant you just print more 3D printers and use those to print more 3D printers? In a few weeks a single printing facility could surpass the output of India and China combined! I'm not sure how these 3D printing companies actually sell more than 1 unit before going out of business.
source
So if you lived in upstate New York or even California you are doing well, but in much of the Midwest driving an electric is like driving an efficient gas vehicle at least with regards to co2 per mile. It's obvious as the majority of power comes from coal and natural gas in this region and not hydro, nuclear and other renewables which makes up a bigger part of the better areas. Also given that new power plant installations take decades it's certain these numbers are relatively predictable over the life of any vehicle. Perhaps you could use a custom solar install yourself but this adds to the already overwhelming cost of full electrics. Many owners of electrics have battery replacement anxiety around year 8 of the vehicle. It will be interesting to see if electrics go to the landfill faster due to this lump sum repair issue. But thats another issue.
While it's true you can't effectively use regenerative braking on a fully charged vehicle, the process itself is generally 60-70% efficient and fufils 99% of the braking needs of the vehicle. It's true overall that this amounts to about 15% savings as most of the energy dissipated goes to wind resistance. However regenerative braking and the lack of a need to power the vehicle down hill means inclines and vehicle mass also don't impact electrics nearly as much as gas vehicles. That's good because the battery packs make electrics far far heavier than thier gas counterparts for any kind of realistic range. Unless of course you are trying to school me uphill both ways.
He is bringing Akbar and Jeff to prime time.
It's true about electric cars in general, where I live in the USA they get about 35-40 mpg equivelant. However regenerative braking basically recoups the losses from the heavier vehicles such that a leaf and tesla get roughly the same "mileage" when driven in a similar fashion.
Nice goalpost moving. You said reported accidents. You barely skimmed before replying. So no your argument is invalid as I'm sure your armchair guesswork is better than peer reviewed papers.
Plus you failed to take into account these cars are piloted by humans who, in all likelihood, prevented accidents from happening which was my original point. For a fair study in safety each time they removed control in an unsafe situation should be counted as a crash. That was never documented and released to the public.
Two things.
1) The first sentence of the report says "after correcting for underreported accidents".
2) Most of the mileage of autonomous cars is going 25mph on residential streets or on the open, non-congested highway under perfect driving conditions.
so I'm not sure it's comparing apples to apples. I haven't been able to find a non-pay walled version if anyone has I would like to read it but am not paying.
Is it fair to say these cars are currently safer than human drivers when a dedicated copilot is nearly always present and double checking on the cars and who then shuts it off for a human to take over at the slightest problem? How many accidents have been prevented?
For those of you that haven't seen the university of Michigan report
No means no. They really need to be brought up on computer molestation charges.
Musk was saying two years several months ago. He should be saying 18 months not doubling it to 3 years.
I in no way believe autonomous cars will replace humans in all everyday driving situations until all generic visual captchas (not specific algorithms for specific types) can be solved better than humans. If Google can't read plainly visible obvious to human house numbers 4% of the time in no way are they ready to put a real autonomous car on the road.
we will see fancy parking, fancy highway cruise control, and many many many more similar behaviors before integration of these into a complete functioning system is achieved. 20 years out easy before simple residential driving, 40 years plus with no law changes before they can handle things like New York pedestrians.
To be fair you can get back all of your energy of the beam including kinetic so to me it isn't clear you need it to be low speed particles. Anyhow it would be hard to feed and certainly far far harder to produce one in the first place. Agreed it's much harder than antimatter propulsion but definitely easier and far far less energetic than wormholes or other questionable stuff.
Even a hundred million ton black hole only produces 3 thousand watts, planet sized ones generate far far less than a watt. It is not a linear relationship as you said.
Yes it is a challenge to feed it as I have posted above, with a surface temp of 10 billion degrees in the above case. It's true in a low pressure medium the temperature will overcome gravity. However, you may be able to use a combination of magnetic fields and charged particles to feed it, similar to a particle beam at the LHC, overcoming the thermal radiation. Theoretically you could even feed it neutrinos or anything and it would radiate 100% efficiently.
The arrangement of those atoms isnt distributed though. For example here on earth we have three billion years of evolution, at this point it would be statistically unique in the visible universe as well. The amount of concentrated and useful information from life would make traveling to such places and at least beaming back the information worthwhile as it could be extremely profitable. It probably would not make sense to take any back but it might under rare circumstances. You could essentially get free new technologies.
Well space is extremely empty, on the order of only a atom or two per cubic meter. You simply won't hit objects all the time because there are so few of them. But eventually it would happen so you would basically design the leading surface of your ship to be highly impact resistant - not unlike the heat shields we use today on spacecraft for re-entry.
I'm not claiming to know how to build one but I do have some basic ideas as to how it would work. Black holes conserve electrical charge so you could electrically charge the black hole for one. Also material falling in tends to generate extreme magnetic fields, you would likely use that principle as well in conjunction with the extreme surface gravity which is too short range to work on the order of meters effectively.
But you left off the more important one and that is how do you keep it fed when the radius of the horizon is 10^-17m and the surface temp is 10 billion degrees? I'm not entirely sure but I would think there is a way using the magnetic fields to confine material/particles until they get within an extremely close distance and gravity takes over.