Rail is a good idea, but the real challenge is the "last mile" problem. How do you get the passengers of said train to their ultimate destinations, assuming they don't work/live in the station? Bus? At some point the travel will have to be individualized to accommodate for those who need to get somewhere from the station. Walking would be great, but what's more difficult: Finding a solution to this problem, or slimming down America?
Imagine that this could happen face to face... wait, it has. Should I/they sue them/me?
Social empathy isn't the argument, its whether or not she is responsible for her murder.
A bully can be 18. He's an adult, and will be tried as an adult. Think he's more mature than you? Think again, fucktard. With me so far?
The creative use of the law is what will allow the creative ABUSE of the law when asshat parents who don't raise their children need to blame someone for their child's asshatish behavior, like killing themselves. This is FAR different than sex with a child, she did not commit the act, the idiot kid killed herself. Age simply is not a factor here. Those same words could've come from a peer of hers, and the fact that she believed that it was a peer shows that a) the adult was a mastermind of child manipulation, or b) the child experiences the same shit from kids at school, either directly or indirectly. How do we know that this was the straw that broke her back? How much other abuse contributed to her poor mental state?
Who else can we take down in this tirade of creative prosecution? The parents for not fostering a sense of security in their child? Myspace for allowing such behavior to go on? When something like this gets legal precedent, it allows for a whole slew of frivolity. I'm not saying at all that she doesn't deserve a form of punishment, it was abuse nonetheless, but murder? Please, don't waste my time or tax dollars.
What is the difference between what she did and what a bully does to others at school (aside from her being an adult)? Nothing. Bullies know their victims have emotional problems, otherwise they wouldn't be such easy prey. Bullies, perhaps not systematically, attack and undermine others' confidence over longterm periods purposefully and with malicious intent. Go ahead and tell me I'm wrong. You're absolutely retarded if you think for one second that age is the single difference that makes this a federal case. And as for coming to spastic panicky conclusions, perhaps you should reread TFA. Idiot.
Moral of the story then, be careful who you prank nowadays. You could be brought to court with unheard of methods of prosecution. Placing a whoopie cushion underneath the chair of your friend is grounds for attempted murder if your friend has any sort of anxiety. Here comes the future of law. If this passes, do you disagree that it will result in thousands and thousands of frivolous and ridiculous lawsuits? If you embellish any of the day to day crap that goes on in people's lives, you could get a crowd going pretty easily. You hurt my feelings man... better get a lawyer.
So should bullies in school be stuck with attempted murder? Should companies that fire their employees be hit with endangerment of others, as that fired employee could very well come back and shoot up everyone in the building. What about relationships coming to an end? Would the person who initiated the break up be responsible for whether or not the breakee kills themselves? After all, most anything said during a break up could be construed as intentional infliction of emotional distress.
This case is fluff. The girl was dumb enough to kill herself. Who's to say that "Josh" was the breaking point? Perhaps her own parents had treated in such a way that propagated that fragile emotional state. Are they really the ones to blame, putting her in that state to begin with, in that she would no longer be capable of making sane decisions in the face of, IMHO, weak "verbal" abuse?
So, fuck the consumer and his budget, develop nuclear with gusto, neglecting other perfectly viable and cleaner technologies, and once all is said and done, figure out a way to use this electricity in a car?
That's not an infrastructure. That's a novelty. When you can support hundreds of millions of vehicles then you have an infrastructure.
I didn't mean to say that the plant was infrastructure as of yet, the facilities that are in place and distribute the hydrogen are. The plant is simply on a smaller scale to gauge the production capabilities, and on the side provide minimal power. It's like a pilot to a TV series, get it?/sarcasm
Consuming electricity or hydrogen is consuming petroleum. Both are generated from fossil fuels. That's the problem I've been trying to make clear.
...
That raises an interesting point. Can the existing power generation stations handle the increased load you propose? Parts of the US already have rolling black outs in the summer.
It is overly clear, I've been reading/. long enough to know that side of the argument. But the cost to the consumer per mile driven is less when electricity is used. With regards to hydrogen, providing equivalent energy, it was being sold last year for less than the price of gas. Both electricity and hydrogen are reducing the financial burden on the consumer.
The power grid has been a problem for a very long time, longer than gas prices I'm willing to bet. That is a problem that has needed a solution regardless of the fuel we're burning. But the beauty of diversifying scientific investments is that we can accomplish both tasks at the same time. Nuclear is a great alternative, but you cannot say that hydrogen and electrical vehicles are a waste of time. Should we continue to pay $4/gal until nuclear is perfected, and THEN begin research into electrical and fuel cell vehicles? Some of us don't have deep enough pockets.
Power plants that will now spew more pollution than currently since we'd have to up production to meet the increased load. Can we put that power plant in your county? Would you be ok living within 20 miles of it?
No, but who's happy living next to a power plant at all? I'd rather concentrate it to a couple areas than spew it all over a highly populated metropolis, which is what our petroleum-eating cars do now. Again, diversifying our research allows us to further develop clean coal methods, and as well nuclear. It isn't a one shot solution. Focusing ourselves on one fuel source makes us vulnerable and inflexible.
You do. Your position is that we should burn fossil fuel and release massive greenhouse gasses in new and unique ways. That this will some how help.
This will help the average American handle rising gas prices. Invest in a cheap electrical or hydrogen vehicle and save money on powering it. Regardless of which fuel we choose, electrical vehicles will use electricity. Are you proposing we scrap all of our current dirty power plants and replace them with nuclear? How cheap will that be? Why not use our current supply of petroleum, improve upon the cleanliness of our current methods, while still investing in nuclear and renewables? That will still convert billions of devices to greenery, and we will have many options for powering our country.
Converting to hydrogen would require new vehicles, and companies aren't unwilling to do that. They adopted EV's quickly, why not hydrogen? Gas stations will inevitably be modified, even if we switch to just nuclear energy. Fossil fuels will deplete, why not be ready for that with an infrastructure ready to accommodate? Hydrogen is produced by refining fossil fuels, but it can be produced in other ways. Solar thermochemical cells, photobiological production, recoverable methane... why do you insist on focusing on only one energy source?
Hydrogen is also a very efficient energy carrier. Again, which is easier to transport, liquid or gas?
Lots of things are being worked on. Lots of them never see the light of day. You don't build an infrastructure on something that might be.
The infrastructure is already being built. There are hydrogen stations popping up in many places around the world. This is a vehicle that pulls its fuel from this infrastructure. Biological production of hydrogen is already proven to work, not only from photobiological, but as well as derivation from methane. A small scale pioneer plant for photobiological hydrogen is set to be built here in Co.
None. More gains would be made by spending those resources on switching over to nuclear power.
So we might as well slash every effort to create electrical and hydrogen vehicles and focus our attention solely on switching to nuclear? Even in the midst of this "fuel crisis" you think it'd be better for the general populace to be consuming petroleum instead of electricity?
That's an ambiguous sentence. Please elaborate.
If the petroleum vehicles that produce pollution are no longer producing pollution, that would confine existing pollution to areas in which power plants reside.
WTF? Seriously? Do you know people who want more?
Domestically, how much does it cost to transport a liquid rather than electricity? And who wants more? Are you kidding? Who wouldn't be happy with more energy?
If someone can figure out how burning fossil fuel can be made clean than this whole conversation is moot. We can do what ever we want until it runs out.
...which is far far down the line, and way beyond our lifetimes, right? Who cares?
That's true. I'm just thinking that given the same puncture, a hydrogen tank would explosively react, whereas a gas tank has a chance to simply leak (neither of which is a good outcome, but I'd rather smell like gas than take a rocket to the junk).
Using coal would be cheaper than using oil, since we import a large amount of our oil, and our coal is local. And those two cases are not the only cases. I'm currently doing research on algal hydrogen production, and it is a very viable third option.
My point is, what do you think the point of creating electrical and hydrogen vehicles are if we're still using oil and coal to produce this electricity? How about confinement of pollution? How about reduction of energy transportation costs (although hydrogen may not be helping this)? How about vehicles that can use electricity and hydrogen efficiently for when we do improve clean coal?
Yes, but we've removed the oil powered cycle, which alleviates economic burden. There is a trade-off somewhere. You can't knock this because of our current method of producing electricity.
No offense taken. I was referring to the link I posted previously, in that they looked effectively like half-cylinders due to them being mounted almost flush with the roof.
They would need to be steered, although their cylindrical shape would reduce the need for highly robust mounts to counteract the wind. And they wouldn't need to be steered as drastically in all directions since they're facing the sun constantly.
How is all this hydrogen stored? From what I've seen elsewhere it's still the carbon canister kind of technology. I wouldn't feel all that peachy with that between my legs.
I only wish my grandma would drive 20 in the 40 zone. We'd all be white knuckling it wherever we were going, praying that she'd slam into something soft and inanimate.
This link says the cylindrical shape contributes to better solar absorption throughout the day, and offer less wind resistance.
Looking at the picture in the article, they seem to be more like half-cylinders. That'd make sense, that while geometrically they don't have their face optimally pointed towards the sun at some optimal point during the day, they're continually pointed at the sun with some constant exposed amount of surface area.
I trust very few 16-18 y.o.'s with anything, let alone my car. But it isn't that I don't trust them to keep it below 80, there are very few places around LA other than the freeway where I'd be nervous they'd get into an accident. How much physical damage can be incurred just on city streets that happens well below 80, with traction control on, and the stereo blaring? I think it's a matter of them needing the car to drive for them, or learning to drive better, rather than limiting their top speed.
Slashdot Mirror
DEKA has been doing this for some time now. http://www.engadget.com/2008/05/29/dean-kamens-luke-arm-now-has-mind-control-and-3d-spatial-interf/
Rail is a good idea, but the real challenge is the "last mile" problem. How do you get the passengers of said train to their ultimate destinations, assuming they don't work/live in the station? Bus? At some point the travel will have to be individualized to accommodate for those who need to get somewhere from the station. Walking would be great, but what's more difficult: Finding a solution to this problem, or slimming down America?
Now, to write the software simulating a thinking brain...
Imagine that this could happen face to face... wait, it has. Should I/they sue them/me? Social empathy isn't the argument, its whether or not she is responsible for her murder.
A bully can be 18. He's an adult, and will be tried as an adult. Think he's more mature than you? Think again, fucktard. With me so far? The creative use of the law is what will allow the creative ABUSE of the law when asshat parents who don't raise their children need to blame someone for their child's asshatish behavior, like killing themselves. This is FAR different than sex with a child, she did not commit the act, the idiot kid killed herself. Age simply is not a factor here. Those same words could've come from a peer of hers, and the fact that she believed that it was a peer shows that a) the adult was a mastermind of child manipulation, or b) the child experiences the same shit from kids at school, either directly or indirectly. How do we know that this was the straw that broke her back? How much other abuse contributed to her poor mental state? Who else can we take down in this tirade of creative prosecution? The parents for not fostering a sense of security in their child? Myspace for allowing such behavior to go on? When something like this gets legal precedent, it allows for a whole slew of frivolity. I'm not saying at all that she doesn't deserve a form of punishment, it was abuse nonetheless, but murder? Please, don't waste my time or tax dollars.
What is the difference between what she did and what a bully does to others at school (aside from her being an adult)? Nothing. Bullies know their victims have emotional problems, otherwise they wouldn't be such easy prey. Bullies, perhaps not systematically, attack and undermine others' confidence over longterm periods purposefully and with malicious intent. Go ahead and tell me I'm wrong. You're absolutely retarded if you think for one second that age is the single difference that makes this a federal case. And as for coming to spastic panicky conclusions, perhaps you should reread TFA. Idiot.
Moral of the story then, be careful who you prank nowadays. You could be brought to court with unheard of methods of prosecution. Placing a whoopie cushion underneath the chair of your friend is grounds for attempted murder if your friend has any sort of anxiety. Here comes the future of law. If this passes, do you disagree that it will result in thousands and thousands of frivolous and ridiculous lawsuits? If you embellish any of the day to day crap that goes on in people's lives, you could get a crowd going pretty easily. You hurt my feelings man... better get a lawyer.
So should bullies in school be stuck with attempted murder? Should companies that fire their employees be hit with endangerment of others, as that fired employee could very well come back and shoot up everyone in the building. What about relationships coming to an end? Would the person who initiated the break up be responsible for whether or not the breakee kills themselves? After all, most anything said during a break up could be construed as intentional infliction of emotional distress. This case is fluff. The girl was dumb enough to kill herself. Who's to say that "Josh" was the breaking point? Perhaps her own parents had treated in such a way that propagated that fragile emotional state. Are they really the ones to blame, putting her in that state to begin with, in that she would no longer be capable of making sane decisions in the face of, IMHO, weak "verbal" abuse?
Lets see if that puts a stop to this nonsense... right? Right?! *rolls eyes*
So, fuck the consumer and his budget, develop nuclear with gusto, neglecting other perfectly viable and cleaner technologies, and once all is said and done, figure out a way to use this electricity in a car?
Exactly, why wait for the power source to be perfected to develop ways to use it? We need to plan accordingly.
That's not an infrastructure. That's a novelty. When you can support hundreds of millions of vehicles then you have an infrastructure.
I didn't mean to say that the plant was infrastructure as of yet, the facilities that are in place and distribute the hydrogen are. The plant is simply on a smaller scale to gauge the production capabilities, and on the side provide minimal power. It's like a pilot to a TV series, get it? /sarcasm
Consuming electricity or hydrogen is consuming petroleum. Both are generated from fossil fuels. That's the problem I've been trying to make clear.
That raises an interesting point. Can the existing power generation stations handle the increased load you propose? Parts of the US already have rolling black outs in the summer.
It is overly clear, I've been reading /. long enough to know that side of the argument. But the cost to the consumer per mile driven is less when electricity is used. With regards to hydrogen, providing equivalent energy, it was being sold last year for less than the price of gas. Both electricity and hydrogen are reducing the financial burden on the consumer.
The power grid has been a problem for a very long time, longer than gas prices I'm willing to bet. That is a problem that has needed a solution regardless of the fuel we're burning. But the beauty of diversifying scientific investments is that we can accomplish both tasks at the same time. Nuclear is a great alternative, but you cannot say that hydrogen and electrical vehicles are a waste of time. Should we continue to pay $4/gal until nuclear is perfected, and THEN begin research into electrical and fuel cell vehicles? Some of us don't have deep enough pockets.
Power plants that will now spew more pollution than currently since we'd have to up production to meet the increased load. Can we put that power plant in your county? Would you be ok living within 20 miles of it?
No, but who's happy living next to a power plant at all? I'd rather concentrate it to a couple areas than spew it all over a highly populated metropolis, which is what our petroleum-eating cars do now. Again, diversifying our research allows us to further develop clean coal methods, and as well nuclear. It isn't a one shot solution. Focusing ourselves on one fuel source makes us vulnerable and inflexible.
You do. Your position is that we should burn fossil fuel and release massive greenhouse gasses in new and unique ways. That this will some how help.
This will help the average American handle rising gas prices. Invest in a cheap electrical or hydrogen vehicle and save money on powering it. Regardless of which fuel we choose, electrical vehicles will use electricity. Are you proposing we scrap all of our current dirty power plants and replace them with nuclear? How cheap will that be? Why not use our current supply of petroleum, improve upon the cleanliness of our current methods, while still investing in nuclear and renewables? That will still convert billions of devices to greenery, and we will have many options for powering our country. Converting to hydrogen would require new vehicles, and companies aren't unwilling to do that. They adopted EV's quickly, why not hydrogen? Gas stations will inevitably be modified, even if we switch to just nuclear energy. Fossil fuels will deplete, why not be ready for that with an infrastructure ready to accommodate? Hydrogen is produced by refining fossil fuels, but it can be produced in other ways. Solar thermochemical cells, photobiological production, recoverable methane... why do you insist on focusing on only one energy source? Hydrogen is also a very efficient energy carrier. Again, which is easier to transport, liquid or gas?
Besides, nasty stuff out of the top of a chimney is better than nasty stuff out of an exhaust in a built-up area.
Please mod up for common sense.
Lots of things are being worked on. Lots of them never see the light of day. You don't build an infrastructure on something that might be.
The infrastructure is already being built. There are hydrogen stations popping up in many places around the world. This is a vehicle that pulls its fuel from this infrastructure. Biological production of hydrogen is already proven to work, not only from photobiological, but as well as derivation from methane. A small scale pioneer plant for photobiological hydrogen is set to be built here in Co.
None. More gains would be made by spending those resources on switching over to nuclear power.
So we might as well slash every effort to create electrical and hydrogen vehicles and focus our attention solely on switching to nuclear? Even in the midst of this "fuel crisis" you think it'd be better for the general populace to be consuming petroleum instead of electricity?
That's an ambiguous sentence. Please elaborate.
If the petroleum vehicles that produce pollution are no longer producing pollution, that would confine existing pollution to areas in which power plants reside.
WTF? Seriously? Do you know people who want more?
Domestically, how much does it cost to transport a liquid rather than electricity? And who wants more? Are you kidding? Who wouldn't be happy with more energy?
If someone can figure out how burning fossil fuel can be made clean than this whole conversation is moot. We can do what ever we want until it runs out.
...which is far far down the line, and way beyond our lifetimes, right? Who cares?
That's true. I'm just thinking that given the same puncture, a hydrogen tank would explosively react, whereas a gas tank has a chance to simply leak (neither of which is a good outcome, but I'd rather smell like gas than take a rocket to the junk).
Using coal would be cheaper than using oil, since we import a large amount of our oil, and our coal is local. And those two cases are not the only cases. I'm currently doing research on algal hydrogen production, and it is a very viable third option. My point is, what do you think the point of creating electrical and hydrogen vehicles are if we're still using oil and coal to produce this electricity? How about confinement of pollution? How about reduction of energy transportation costs (although hydrogen may not be helping this)? How about vehicles that can use electricity and hydrogen efficiently for when we do improve clean coal?
What if the electricity was from coal? ~40-50% of our electricity production comes from coal, from what I remember.
Yes, but we've removed the oil powered cycle, which alleviates economic burden. There is a trade-off somewhere. You can't knock this because of our current method of producing electricity.
No offense taken. I was referring to the link I posted previously, in that they looked effectively like half-cylinders due to them being mounted almost flush with the roof. They would need to be steered, although their cylindrical shape would reduce the need for highly robust mounts to counteract the wind. And they wouldn't need to be steered as drastically in all directions since they're facing the sun constantly.
How is all this hydrogen stored? From what I've seen elsewhere it's still the carbon canister kind of technology. I wouldn't feel all that peachy with that between my legs.
I only wish my grandma would drive 20 in the 40 zone. We'd all be white knuckling it wherever we were going, praying that she'd slam into something soft and inanimate.
Sorry, they *effectively* look to be more like half-cylinders.
This link says the cylindrical shape contributes to better solar absorption throughout the day, and offer less wind resistance. Looking at the picture in the article, they seem to be more like half-cylinders. That'd make sense, that while geometrically they don't have their face optimally pointed towards the sun at some optimal point during the day, they're continually pointed at the sun with some constant exposed amount of surface area.
Oxygen from the water they split it from, hopefully.
I trust very few 16-18 y.o.'s with anything, let alone my car. But it isn't that I don't trust them to keep it below 80, there are very few places around LA other than the freeway where I'd be nervous they'd get into an accident. How much physical damage can be incurred just on city streets that happens well below 80, with traction control on, and the stereo blaring? I think it's a matter of them needing the car to drive for them, or learning to drive better, rather than limiting their top speed.