What "standard that was in place first" are you talking about? There have been tons of EV charging standards over time as the technology has evolved. This isn't like some sort of wall plug, there's data exchange and negotiation before beginning a charge, and newer standards handle higher powers than old ones.
350kW is superb, I'm really glad to see them taking such a bold step. They'll even be able to recharge freight vehicles in plausible lengths of time at those power levels.
* Streamlined, efficient small car (200Wh/mi): 29 miles of range added per minute charging (60mph = 2 minutes charging per hour on the road)
* Typical crossover SUV (350 Wh/mi): 17 miles of range added per minute charging (60mph = 3 minutes charging per hour on the road)
* Large freight truck, ~30 tonne load (2 kWh/mi): 2.9 miles of range added per minute charging (60mph = 15 minutes charging per hour on the road)
In the last case the slowdown is measurable... but probably well worth the fuel cost savings. For passenger vehicles, the difference vs. gasoline is insignificant
That said, I do hope that they're putting battery buffers in these chargers. Otherwise, grid operators are not going to be very happy with them, and they'll need to have a good supply line. But with a buffer you could run them off of a small solar panel out in the middle of the desert, so long as your net generation exceeds your net discharge needs.
Yes, because when I think of "things that are cheap to engineer and produce", I think of "a generation of rad hardened nuclear power plant disassembly robots"
I get the impression that you don't know what VAT is.
Let's say that you have a widget shop in the US and a widget shop in the UK, and they both would turn a profit selling their widgets at $5 each. The UK decides that they need 20% tax money from the sales. Let's look at the different possible tax scenarios (US seller US buyer : UK seller US buyer / US seller UK buyer : UK seller UK buyer):
1) Seller's location, only on UK companies: $5 : $6 / $5 : $6 2) Seller's location, both US and UK companies: $5 : $6 / $6 : $6 3) Buyer's location, only on UK companies: $5 : $5 / $5 : $6 4) Buyer's location, both US and UK companies: $5 : $5 / $6 : $6
The only scenario that doesn't disadvantage UK companies is scenario #4. This forms the basis of VAT. At each stage in which value is added to a product, VAT is charged on the value increase. Goods imported from outside the VAT zone are charged the full VAT for their worth. Goods exported to outside the VAT zone receive a full rebate.
Indeed. Ron Glass dies, Andrew Breitbart rises from the dead, and gets picked to play Shepherd Book in a new series of Firefly.
Kaylee: But Shepherd, I thought you liked Inara.
Book: She's a hispanic immigrant and is ruining the culture of this spacecraft! And stop whining about your loss to the Alliance. The Alliance won - get over it, buttercup.
Something about this new Shepherd Book just doesn't feel right...
More to the point, there's no point in the timeline where he would need to be included.
* In any prequel, they wouldn't have met him yet
* In anything after Serenity, he's dead
* If they do an in-between, he's reported to have left the ship at the same time as Inara (if I remember correctly), which was right after the series ended. So that event just needs to happen off-camera. We know that Serenity visited him several times, but they don't have to cover any of those visits.
To me, it seems that the biggest problem with resuming it now is that all of the actors are aging. It sort of puts a limit on when you can fit them into the timeline, especially if you want to do a prequel. I know recasting is the standard approach to that, but I doubt they could come close to the original cast. I mean, can anyone seriously picture anyone other than Nathan Fillion as Mal?
Actually, I think his deleted monologue from Serenity best describes Book's character:
Lord, I am walking your way. Let me in, for my feet are sore, my clothes are ragged. Look in my eyes, Lord, and my sins will play out on them as on a screen. Read them all. Forgive what you can, and send me on my path. I will walk on, until you bid me rest.
I'd like to choose a quote that best describes Ron personally, but I don't know what he was really like. Jewel's comments were really touching, though.
Oh my god - four cases in Colorado in the past decade. THEY'RE DESTROYING DEMOCRACY!
Meanwhile, pay not attention to Crosscheck, removing tens of thousands of voters per state that uses it from the voting rolls, most shortly before the election, based on a method that disproportionately hits african-americans, asians, and hispanics.
The size of the download has nothing to do with it. If you want to talk about "universes", the rules that define ours could be fit on a 3 1/2" floppy disk hundreds of times over.
The problem is that what they did was just poorly done.
Everything you eat can have good and bad effects. That a new good or bad effect to some particular food may be discovered in the future does not invalidate those discovered previously.
Furthermore, a lot of the "refinements" are just that - refinements. For example, fat. First it was "too much fat is bad". Then we broke fats down: "saturated fat is bad, unsaturated fat is good". Then we broke those down. For example, "polyunsaturated fats are mixed but often bad, monounsaturated are mixed but often good". Then you break those down - for example, "omega-3 polyunsaturated are good, most of the others are consumed in too much quantity relative to the amount of omega-3". And then you break those down - "ALA omega-3 is good, but EPA and DHA are better".
Just because you learn more and break categories down in more detail doesn't mean that the previous, more general statements, were wrong. Yes, sometimes things will actually be wrong, but that's not the general case; you just add more information to the corpus.
As to this article:
However, aspartame does not block the enzyme directly. It does so through one of its intestinal breakdown products called phenylalanine.
So it's not actually a study on aspartame (which breaks down immediately in the stomach to phenylalanine, methanol and aspartic acid). Phenylalanine is an amino acid, found in many foods in quantities well more than in typical amounts of aspartame - for example, eggs, meat / seafood, nuts, legumes, dairy, etc are all high in phenylalanine. Basically, most source of protein are also major sources of phenylalanine. So why spin this study as an anti-aspartame study? And furthermore, are people who eat high protein diets (aka, rich in phenylalanine) famous for being overweight, for that matter?
Looks like this study involved a questionable procedure I've seen in the past - feeding mice ad libitum either aspartame-sweetened water, or just plain water. The ones that had the sweetened water ate more and gained more weight. Great, except that's not comparing what you're claiming it's comparing. If you want to see the benefits of switching from sugary drinks to artificially sweetened ones, the control group should be drinking sugar sweetened water ad libitum, not plain water. At least in this study the sweetener was in the water in this one; I've seen some where they put the sweetener in the food. Which leads to the result "gee, I am so shocked that they ate more of their food after you sweetened it up". Even in this case, they're having a sweet liquid with their food, which could on its own explain why they're eating more of it. I'm no expert in the flavour of lab mouse food, but I'm going to wager that it's not the most delicious of substances on Earth.
"A chill type game" in an "infinite generated universe" was exactly what I was looking for in NMS - and was sorely disappointed when it turned out to be nothing more than poorly designed grind game, with the procedural generation just being randomly pieced together premade assets.
It seems neat until you wear through the veneer, and then it's... oh, this thing is just plywood held together with duct tape
And that was the problem - they made there be absolutely no reason to explore. All resources were available everywhere, as were all types of buildings in the game. It takes away all incentive to explore, except for aesthetics. Which is great, except that since all of the creatures and plants are made of premade assets, and the terrain is just standard diamond-square fractal terrain with a handful of primitive generators / modifier functions, you run through all of the variation that the universe has to show you quickly as well.
They try to compensate for everything-being-everywhere with grind. Which is a terrible solution. People wanted NMS to explore, not to sit around waving a laser at a giant column of rock and stopping regularly to recharge the beam and shields.
And even if you did find some reason you wanted to stick around on a planet... well, you better literally never leave, because everything about the universe makes it incredibly difficult to ever get back to anywhere that you've been before. Their "goal" of getting to the center of the galaxy, that they deliberately slowed down to a painful grindy crawl and tried to prevent anything that might shortcut it, is the root of this (and of course, there's nothing at the center but a big F-U to players anyway)
If they had done proper playtesting and player feedback, they could have made a far better game. There was so much potential. Some things that could have been done to make it better were hard, but a lot of them really weren't.
The concentration of water in this location is just as high or higher than in most aquifers
That would be a fine response if we were talking about an aquifer. It is not an aquifer. An aquifer is solid rock, not dust and debris, and full of liquid water, not solid. It's an absurd comparison because you can't just drill a well into permafrost and pump water out. Not that "drilling a well into permafrost" is an easy task to begin with regardless. If you melt permafrost you don't get water, you get sludge.
This bullshit about secondary insurers wouldn't matter if they hadn't been trading recklessly in the first place.
If you don't want your investment account to be backed with a private fund as the primary insurer, then... wait for it.... don't invest in an account with a private fund as the primary insurer. It was literally one click away from the front page describing Icesave accounts, clearly labeled. This wasn't some secret, you can't pretend, "Oh, I had no idea it was a private fund that was the primary backer!" It was right there in plain English, not even remotely hidden.
Private funds are subject to the state of the market. In a financial crash, private funds can crash. Duh. I hope this fact isn't news to you. And that's what happened when a crash hit. What should have happened next was secondary insurers paying the bills they were responsible for, not trying to blackmail a tiny country into paying it for them.
I'll repeat: if you don't want your money in an account backed by a private fund as the primary insurer, don't put your money into an account backed by a private fund as the primary insurer. And don't make BS excuses for your secondary insurer not paying. The UK and Netherlands had no objection to the insurance structure until after the crash. Well, waaaaah, if you had a problem with it, you had nearly two years to register an objection to it.
They lost on all counts in court, and for good reason. Hopefully they'll remember that next time that they decide to try to use blackmail to get out of paying their bills. Oh, and declaring Icelandic entities to be terrorists didn't exactly win you any friends here, either.
Translation: "Words mean whatever I want them to mean and I can change their context afterwards to fit my agenda!"
No, words mean what words mean. When you're talking about mining, "shallow" means "low overburden". If you're talking about thickness of a deposit, you refer to... wait for it.... "thickness".
It's not my fault if you want to misuse terminology.
I do every day, from even lower concentrations of water and higher concentrations of sand & rock. It's this thing called a "well"
The water that comes up from your well is 15-50% sand, dust, etc? You need a new well. And probably should have yourself checked out at a hospital.
I think you're confusing liquid water trapped in the pore space of strata, with permafrost, a roughly uniform mixture of loose particles bonded together by ice.
Contrary to how the media is spinning this, shallow permafrost deposits on Mars are not a new discovery. That's "shallow permafrost" to you?
Shallow = low overburden
"...has a composition that's 50 to 85 percent water ice, with what appears to be dust or larger rocky particles mixed in as well."
Which is in no way, shape or form a "very high relative concentration of ice". If you think this is, I recommend you make yourself a mixture of 50-85% ice, 15-50% rock, dust and sand, and drink it.
So, the studies you refer to NASA performing regarding extraction of H2O from Martian soil somehow were able to take into account the large deposits of relatively pure (compared to plain Martian soil) water-ice deposits that were *just discovered*? Was not aware NASA had broken the time-barrier.
Contrary to how the media is spinning this, shallow permafrost deposits on Mars are not a new discovery. Phoenix landed on one. Want to see Martian ice? Here you go
Pop quiz: Are the temperatures and vapor-pressures the same or far different between water and those contaminants?
Hydrogen chloride is highly hygroscopic; it is difficult to separate by simple distillation. It forms an azeotrope at 20.2%. You're not going to get it down (or up) enough just by pressure shifting.
Will a very high relative concentration of water-ice make it easier or more difficult to extract and purify?
There is no "very high relative concentration of water-ice".
How in the world do we manage to extract relatively-pure water locked away in rocky layers from wells in many homeowners' back yards?
If it's saline, or contaminated with toxic compounds? We don't.
Even for non-drinking water, we don't. Here in Iceland we use geothermal water to heat our homes. But if it turns out that the geothermal reservoir that they hit is saline, they just close off the well; the corrosion problems of hot saline water just aren't worth the effort to even set up a short heat exchanger loop.
How are you certain enough of the relative amount and types of contamination of water-ice on Mars to be able to all but dismiss the idea that we have the technology to extract usable, potable water from ice on Mars?
Mars is well enough studied to have a good idea. We still, however, need core samples before we can design a proper system to work with it.
C'mon! This is elementary chemistry and physics!
Now, welcome to elementary astronautical engineering, where you have literally zero tolerance for failure, yet something you didn't think of almost invariably crops up and ruins things for you.
Look at the ISS oxygen generators, for crying out loud. Simple electrolysis. Straightforward, highly controlled feedstocks (the precise opposite of IRSU). And they've still had problem after problem. On ISS, that's fine; you have Earth right next to you to resupply you. If you're on Mars in opposition, yeah, good luck with that.
I think this one was so believable because broadcast mistakes do happen at regular intervals. Here in Iceland they once accidentally ran Teletubbies with subtitles from The Sopranos. The juxtaposition was hilarious;) "I know that you were high during my mothers funeral", "You are no longer good as a man.", "You killed my dog last week", etc.
Slashdot Mirror
What "standard that was in place first" are you talking about? There have been tons of EV charging standards over time as the technology has evolved. This isn't like some sort of wall plug, there's data exchange and negotiation before beginning a charge, and newer standards handle higher powers than old ones.
350kW is superb, I'm really glad to see them taking such a bold step. They'll even be able to recharge freight vehicles in plausible lengths of time at those power levels.
* Streamlined, efficient small car (200Wh/mi): 29 miles of range added per minute charging (60mph = 2 minutes charging per hour on the road)
* Typical crossover SUV (350 Wh/mi): 17 miles of range added per minute charging (60mph = 3 minutes charging per hour on the road)
* Large freight truck, ~30 tonne load (2 kWh/mi): 2.9 miles of range added per minute charging (60mph = 15 minutes charging per hour on the road)
In the last case the slowdown is measurable... but probably well worth the fuel cost savings. For passenger vehicles, the difference vs. gasoline is insignificant
That said, I do hope that they're putting battery buffers in these chargers. Otherwise, grid operators are not going to be very happy with them, and they'll need to have a good supply line. But with a buffer you could run them off of a small solar panel out in the middle of the desert, so long as your net generation exceeds your net discharge needs.
Yes, because when I think of "things that are cheap to engineer and produce", I think of "a generation of rad hardened nuclear power plant disassembly robots"
Because city people aren't really individuals or even humans, they're more some amorphous evil hive mind, amirite?
Maybe we should just simplify it and declare city people to be 3/5ths of "real" people?
I get the impression that you don't know what VAT is.
Let's say that you have a widget shop in the US and a widget shop in the UK, and they both would turn a profit selling their widgets at $5 each. The UK decides that they need 20% tax money from the sales. Let's look at the different possible tax scenarios (US seller US buyer : UK seller US buyer / US seller UK buyer : UK seller UK buyer):
1) Seller's location, only on UK companies: $5 : $6 / $5 : $6
2) Seller's location, both US and UK companies: $5 : $6 / $6 : $6
3) Buyer's location, only on UK companies: $5 : $5 / $5 : $6
4) Buyer's location, both US and UK companies: $5 : $5 / $6 : $6
The only scenario that doesn't disadvantage UK companies is scenario #4. This forms the basis of VAT. At each stage in which value is added to a product, VAT is charged on the value increase. Goods imported from outside the VAT zone are charged the full VAT for their worth. Goods exported to outside the VAT zone receive a full rebate.
I googled the Edge and that was my immediate thought - "Wait a minute, aren't you going to be constantly accidentally clicking the edge buttons?"
No no, you don't understand, Tofu Palin is just trying to "hold both parties accountable", or something like that.
You sound stressed. Perhaps you could use a homeopathic spirulina shake?
You're free to disagree with all major medical associations on saturated fat's correlation with heart disease if you want.
Indeed. Ron Glass dies, Andrew Breitbart rises from the dead, and gets picked to play Shepherd Book in a new series of Firefly.
Something about this new Shepherd Book just doesn't feel right...
More to the point, there's no point in the timeline where he would need to be included.
* In any prequel, they wouldn't have met him yet
* In anything after Serenity, he's dead
* If they do an in-between, he's reported to have left the ship at the same time as Inara (if I remember correctly), which was right after the series ended. So that event just needs to happen off-camera. We know that Serenity visited him several times, but they don't have to cover any of those visits.
To me, it seems that the biggest problem with resuming it now is that all of the actors are aging. It sort of puts a limit on when you can fit them into the timeline, especially if you want to do a prequel. I know recasting is the standard approach to that, but I doubt they could come close to the original cast. I mean, can anyone seriously picture anyone other than Nathan Fillion as Mal?
The special hell.
Actually, I think his deleted monologue from Serenity best describes Book's character:
I'd like to choose a quote that best describes Ron personally, but I don't know what he was really like. Jewel's comments were really touching, though.
No, they mean 2M.
Oh my god - four cases in Colorado in the past decade. THEY'RE DESTROYING DEMOCRACY!
Meanwhile, pay not attention to Crosscheck, removing tens of thousands of voters per state that uses it from the voting rolls, most shortly before the election, based on a method that disproportionately hits african-americans, asians, and hispanics.
The size of the download has nothing to do with it. If you want to talk about "universes", the rules that define ours could be fit on a 3 1/2" floppy disk hundreds of times over.
The problem is that what they did was just poorly done.
Sigh... this again.
Everything you eat can have good and bad effects. That a new good or bad effect to some particular food may be discovered in the future does not invalidate those discovered previously.
Furthermore, a lot of the "refinements" are just that - refinements. For example, fat. First it was "too much fat is bad". Then we broke fats down: "saturated fat is bad, unsaturated fat is good". Then we broke those down. For example, "polyunsaturated fats are mixed but often bad, monounsaturated are mixed but often good". Then you break those down - for example, "omega-3 polyunsaturated are good, most of the others are consumed in too much quantity relative to the amount of omega-3". And then you break those down - "ALA omega-3 is good, but EPA and DHA are better".
Just because you learn more and break categories down in more detail doesn't mean that the previous, more general statements, were wrong. Yes, sometimes things will actually be wrong, but that's not the general case; you just add more information to the corpus.
As to this article:
So it's not actually a study on aspartame (which breaks down immediately in the stomach to phenylalanine, methanol and aspartic acid). Phenylalanine is an amino acid, found in many foods in quantities well more than in typical amounts of aspartame - for example, eggs, meat / seafood, nuts, legumes, dairy, etc are all high in phenylalanine. Basically, most source of protein are also major sources of phenylalanine. So why spin this study as an anti-aspartame study? And furthermore, are people who eat high protein diets (aka, rich in phenylalanine) famous for being overweight, for that matter?
Looks like this study involved a questionable procedure I've seen in the past - feeding mice ad libitum either aspartame-sweetened water, or just plain water. The ones that had the sweetened water ate more and gained more weight. Great, except that's not comparing what you're claiming it's comparing. If you want to see the benefits of switching from sugary drinks to artificially sweetened ones, the control group should be drinking sugar sweetened water ad libitum, not plain water. At least in this study the sweetener was in the water in this one; I've seen some where they put the sweetener in the food. Which leads to the result "gee, I am so shocked that they ate more of their food after you sweetened it up". Even in this case, they're having a sweet liquid with their food, which could on its own explain why they're eating more of it. I'm no expert in the flavour of lab mouse food, but I'm going to wager that it's not the most delicious of substances on Earth.
"A chill type game" in an "infinite generated universe" was exactly what I was looking for in NMS - and was sorely disappointed when it turned out to be nothing more than poorly designed grind game, with the procedural generation just being randomly pieced together premade assets.
It seems neat until you wear through the veneer, and then it's... oh, this thing is just plywood held together with duct tape
I assume you never actually bought and played the game, then?
And that was the problem - they made there be absolutely no reason to explore. All resources were available everywhere, as were all types of buildings in the game. It takes away all incentive to explore, except for aesthetics. Which is great, except that since all of the creatures and plants are made of premade assets, and the terrain is just standard diamond-square fractal terrain with a handful of primitive generators / modifier functions, you run through all of the variation that the universe has to show you quickly as well.
They try to compensate for everything-being-everywhere with grind. Which is a terrible solution. People wanted NMS to explore, not to sit around waving a laser at a giant column of rock and stopping regularly to recharge the beam and shields.
And even if you did find some reason you wanted to stick around on a planet... well, you better literally never leave, because everything about the universe makes it incredibly difficult to ever get back to anywhere that you've been before. Their "goal" of getting to the center of the galaxy, that they deliberately slowed down to a painful grindy crawl and tried to prevent anything that might shortcut it, is the root of this (and of course, there's nothing at the center but a big F-U to players anyway)
If they had done proper playtesting and player feedback, they could have made a far better game. There was so much potential. Some things that could have been done to make it better were hard, but a lot of them really weren't.
That would be a fine response if we were talking about an aquifer. It is not an aquifer. An aquifer is solid rock, not dust and debris, and full of liquid water, not solid. It's an absurd comparison because you can't just drill a well into permafrost and pump water out. Not that "drilling a well into permafrost" is an easy task to begin with regardless. If you melt permafrost you don't get water, you get sludge.
If you don't want your investment account to be backed with a private fund as the primary insurer, then... wait for it.... don't invest in an account with a private fund as the primary insurer. It was literally one click away from the front page describing Icesave accounts, clearly labeled. This wasn't some secret, you can't pretend, "Oh, I had no idea it was a private fund that was the primary backer!" It was right there in plain English, not even remotely hidden.
Private funds are subject to the state of the market. In a financial crash, private funds can crash. Duh. I hope this fact isn't news to you. And that's what happened when a crash hit. What should have happened next was secondary insurers paying the bills they were responsible for, not trying to blackmail a tiny country into paying it for them.
I'll repeat: if you don't want your money in an account backed by a private fund as the primary insurer, don't put your money into an account backed by a private fund as the primary insurer. And don't make BS excuses for your secondary insurer not paying. The UK and Netherlands had no objection to the insurance structure until after the crash. Well, waaaaah, if you had a problem with it, you had nearly two years to register an objection to it.
They lost on all counts in court, and for good reason. Hopefully they'll remember that next time that they decide to try to use blackmail to get out of paying their bills. Oh, and declaring Icelandic entities to be terrorists didn't exactly win you any friends here, either.
No, words mean what words mean. When you're talking about mining, "shallow" means "low overburden". If you're talking about thickness of a deposit, you refer to... wait for it.... "thickness".
It's not my fault if you want to misuse terminology.
The water that comes up from your well is 15-50% sand, dust, etc? You need a new well. And probably should have yourself checked out at a hospital.
I think you're confusing liquid water trapped in the pore space of strata, with permafrost, a roughly uniform mixture of loose particles bonded together by ice.
Shallow = low overburden
Which is in no way, shape or form a "very high relative concentration of ice". If you think this is, I recommend you make yourself a mixture of 50-85% ice, 15-50% rock, dust and sand, and drink it.
** ISRU
Contrary to how the media is spinning this, shallow permafrost deposits on Mars are not a new discovery. Phoenix landed on one. Want to see Martian ice? Here you go
Hydrogen chloride is highly hygroscopic; it is difficult to separate by simple distillation. It forms an azeotrope at 20.2%. You're not going to get it down (or up) enough just by pressure shifting.
There is no "very high relative concentration of water-ice".
If it's saline, or contaminated with toxic compounds? We don't.
Even for non-drinking water, we don't. Here in Iceland we use geothermal water to heat our homes. But if it turns out that the geothermal reservoir that they hit is saline, they just close off the well; the corrosion problems of hot saline water just aren't worth the effort to even set up a short heat exchanger loop.
Mars is well enough studied to have a good idea. We still, however, need core samples before we can design a proper system to work with it.
Now, welcome to elementary astronautical engineering, where you have literally zero tolerance for failure, yet something you didn't think of almost invariably crops up and ruins things for you.
Look at the ISS oxygen generators, for crying out loud. Simple electrolysis. Straightforward, highly controlled feedstocks (the precise opposite of IRSU). And they've still had problem after problem. On ISS, that's fine; you have Earth right next to you to resupply you. If you're on Mars in opposition, yeah, good luck with that.
I think this one was so believable because broadcast mistakes do happen at regular intervals. Here in Iceland they once accidentally ran Teletubbies with subtitles from The Sopranos. The juxtaposition was hilarious ;) "I know that you were high during my mothers funeral", "You are no longer good as a man.", "You killed my dog last week", etc.
Explosives would work great, but only if you ignore the existence of sublimation when the now fractured ice gets exposed to the Martian atmosphere.