Self driving cars could also form trains, driving only a few feet apart, thereby greatly reducing wind resistance. A car train might be able to get the same fuel economy at 85 mph as a single car would achieve at 50.
In the past, refrigeration did not take hold for 20+ years after it was invented due to the tight grip of the ice-houses.
It had nothing to do with "the tight grip of the ice-houses". The first commercially available home refrigerator came onto the market in 1911 (a time when the vast majority of homes did not yet have electricity) and was powered by an external motor (or steam/internal combustion engine) that was often mounted in a different room. The first self contained refrigerator came onto the market in 1923, retailing for $714 ($9,700.30 in 2013). For comparison, the average yearly wage at that time was $1,066. These weren't devices that many people could afford. Mass production didn't really begin until after World War II, reducing the cost and making refrigeration accessible to many more people.
It seems odd how they are trying to go "straight to the road". Seems like they should be having self-driving cars continually running at big businesses such as warehouses, airports, etc delivering materials, etc and see how many accidents they have
Automated fork lifts are already becoming fairly common in larger warehouses and factories. These are actually fairly easy, since you have a controlled environment and areas that can be marked as off-limits to humans. Airports have an *awful* lot going on ramp-side, so it would take a bit more effort to automate the fleet of trucks, tugs, and other service vehicles. I'd wager that self driving cars will be here before significantly automated air ports.
Exactly. You can use mirrors to keep an eye on your surroundings, but you should always take a quick glance over your shoulder to check for situations like that or, for example, a motorcycle that still manages to fit in your blind spot (even with your mirrors properly adjusted).
Do you really think it's more likely that essentially every climatologist on the planet is involved in a conspiracy/scam, rather than the possibility that the data is correct and the earth is warming?
If so, I'm curious: Do you discount all fields of scientific research, or only those that result in conclusions you don't like?
Actually, the oceans have absorbed quite a lot of the CO2 that humanity has released, but the rate of absorption is dropping rapidly as ocean levels of CO2 increase. cite
Yes. Carbon dioxide emissions have been generally dropping since around 2007. cite Some of that is due to the economic depression, but most is due to converting a significant number of coal power plants to natural gas. There are also many states that have required electrical utilities to produce a certain percentage of electricity generated from renewable sources. For example, in Minnesota, 25% of electricity will be required to be from renewable sources by 2025. There are also higher nationwide fuel economy standards that are phasing in over a number of years, though vehicle emissions are relatively small compared to utilities/industry.
We did evolve with separate holes for food and air. Most mammals are like that. If you don't believe me, watch a dog eat. How can it breathe, when it's chugging down food like that? Because the two functions are separate.
No, if that were true then how would a dog bark, or pant? They couldn't if the lungs did not connect to the mouth. Dogs breathe between gulps of food (or just plain hold their breath), just like you do.
The light sensitive cells are on the back side of the retina. (Light has to travel through a few layers of cells before it gets to the light sensitive ones.) Also, since the nerves are on the front side of the retina, they have to go through the retina in order to get to the brain, so we have a blind spot in that location. If the light sensitive cells were on the front of the retina, our vision could be much sharper and more sensitive, with no blind spot.
The point is that free will doesn't exist in a fully deterministic universe. If the universe is deterministic, then free will is an illusion. In such a universe, you may feel that you made a decision that was all your own based on your experiences and state of mind, but those experiences/state of mind were always going to end up that way. You were always going to make that decision. It was never really a choice.
There have been processes developed that can take in electricity, atmospheric CO2, and water, and produce hydrocarbon fuels. If this were implemented at commercial scale, nuclear could be used for both base-load and peak load (the excess off-peak electricity could be used to create fuel.) Then you use this generated fuel for uranium mining.
Sure, there are other ways that mining is dirty, but fuel doesn't have to be one of them.
if the speed limit is 55, and you go 65, then you save 10 minutes over a 60 mile daily commute. Over a year, that's over 60 hours of extra time spent in traffic if you stick to the speed limit. If you work an 8 hour day, and sleep for 8 hours, then that's the same as adding 7.5 days of free time to your year. I'm not saying you should speed, but all those 5 minutes/trip do add up.
Though, if the average speed of traffic is significantly higher than your speed, then you are likely actually less safe. The increase in speed you would have to make to match would increase crash risk slightly compared to everyone driving at a lower speed, and would slightly increase crash intensity, but a significant difference in the speed of traffic increases crash risk significantly. Also, at speeds above 40 or so, all crashes are pretty violent. So 5-10 MPH isn't going to matter that much at highway speeds.
You knowingly are causing annoyance to others and have no conscience about it, so yes, you're a bit of a wanker. Legally in the right, but still a bit of a wanker.
Road speeds are set for the weakest link, typically large top-heavy vehicles. Most cars are capable of being driven safely at significantly higher speeds. Mind you, some cars are significantly more capable than others. (And most drivers are less capable than they think they are, but that's a separate issue.)
No, it's not for speeding, but which is more courteous to those around you:
1. Passing someone while driving 0.001 MPH faster than them, causing the passing maneuver to occur over several miles and potentially impeding the flow of traffic.
2. Briefly accelerating by just a few MPH to pass the car on the right and then returning to your normal speed once back in the right lane.
While it may be speeding, a few MPH difference is not going to make much difference in terms of increased risk, and the tempers of all are likely to remain much cooler, reducing the likelihood of people attempting dangerous passing maneuvers such as weaving two lanes over to the right to get around you.
It's perfectly possible to have fun and drive responsibly at the same time, in the correct place and with an appropriate vehicle. I agree that city streets and rush hour freeways are not that place, but an un-congested highway on-ramp can be fun, as can a well maintained curvy rural highway with good visibility. If you've never experienced that, then too bad for you.
Also, often people do not quickly compensate for hills, causing their car to slow down as it climbs. There's a hill on my commute that almost always causes a back-up that immediately clears after the crest. It's not even a particularly steep grade.
Slashdot Mirror
Self driving cars could also form trains, driving only a few feet apart, thereby greatly reducing wind resistance. A car train might be able to get the same fuel economy at 85 mph as a single car would achieve at 50.
At making forward progress despite the tiny budget (the original project completion estimates were based on a much higher level of funding)
So you're relying on "herd" charging cable-icity? What if lots of people stop bringing a cable? We'll end up with an epidemic of dead batteries!
In the past, refrigeration did not take hold for 20+ years after it was invented due to the tight grip of the ice-houses.
It had nothing to do with "the tight grip of the ice-houses". The first commercially available home refrigerator came onto the market in 1911 (a time when the vast majority of homes did not yet have electricity) and was powered by an external motor (or steam/internal combustion engine) that was often mounted in a different room. The first self contained refrigerator came onto the market in 1923, retailing for $714 ($9,700.30 in 2013). For comparison, the average yearly wage at that time was $1,066. These weren't devices that many people could afford. Mass production didn't really begin until after World War II, reducing the cost and making refrigeration accessible to many more people.
It seems odd how they are trying to go "straight to the road". Seems like they should be having self-driving cars continually running at big businesses such as warehouses, airports, etc delivering materials, etc and see how many accidents they have
Automated fork lifts are already becoming fairly common in larger warehouses and factories. These are actually fairly easy, since you have a controlled environment and areas that can be marked as off-limits to humans. Airports have an *awful* lot going on ramp-side, so it would take a bit more effort to automate the fleet of trucks, tugs, and other service vehicles. I'd wager that self driving cars will be here before significantly automated air ports.
Exactly. You can use mirrors to keep an eye on your surroundings, but you should always take a quick glance over your shoulder to check for situations like that or, for example, a motorcycle that still manages to fit in your blind spot (even with your mirrors properly adjusted).
The Gates Foundation recently announced that they are also going to work on breeder reactors.
Yeah, why take any personal responsibility...
Do you really think it's more likely that essentially every climatologist on the planet is involved in a conspiracy/scam, rather than the possibility that the data is correct and the earth is warming?
If so, I'm curious: Do you discount all fields of scientific research, or only those that result in conclusions you don't like?
Actually, the oceans have absorbed quite a lot of the CO2 that humanity has released, but the rate of absorption is dropping rapidly as ocean levels of CO2 increase. cite
Yes. Carbon dioxide emissions have been generally dropping since around 2007. cite Some of that is due to the economic depression, but most is due to converting a significant number of coal power plants to natural gas. There are also many states that have required electrical utilities to produce a certain percentage of electricity generated from renewable sources. For example, in Minnesota, 25% of electricity will be required to be from renewable sources by 2025. There are also higher nationwide fuel economy standards that are phasing in over a number of years, though vehicle emissions are relatively small compared to utilities/industry.
Why does life have to have justice or meaning? That you can't bear the thought that there is not justice/meaning to life does not mean that there is.
We did evolve with separate holes for food and air. Most mammals are like that. If you don't believe me, watch a dog eat. How can it breathe, when it's chugging down food like that? Because the two functions are separate.
No, if that were true then how would a dog bark, or pant? They couldn't if the lungs did not connect to the mouth. Dogs breathe between gulps of food (or just plain hold their breath), just like you do.
The light sensitive cells are on the back side of the retina. (Light has to travel through a few layers of cells before it gets to the light sensitive ones.) Also, since the nerves are on the front side of the retina, they have to go through the retina in order to get to the brain, so we have a blind spot in that location. If the light sensitive cells were on the front of the retina, our vision could be much sharper and more sensitive, with no blind spot.
The point is that free will doesn't exist in a fully deterministic universe. If the universe is deterministic, then free will is an illusion. In such a universe, you may feel that you made a decision that was all your own based on your experiences and state of mind, but those experiences/state of mind were always going to end up that way. You were always going to make that decision. It was never really a choice.
There have been processes developed that can take in electricity, atmospheric CO2, and water, and produce hydrocarbon fuels. If this were implemented at commercial scale, nuclear could be used for both base-load and peak load (the excess off-peak electricity could be used to create fuel.) Then you use this generated fuel for uranium mining.
Sure, there are other ways that mining is dirty, but fuel doesn't have to be one of them.
Perhaps they are waiting for the bus?
Because three clicks is just too much for you to bear?
if the speed limit is 55, and you go 65, then you save 10 minutes over a 60 mile daily commute. Over a year, that's over 60 hours of extra time spent in traffic if you stick to the speed limit. If you work an 8 hour day, and sleep for 8 hours, then that's the same as adding 7.5 days of free time to your year. I'm not saying you should speed, but all those 5 minutes/trip do add up.
Though, if the average speed of traffic is significantly higher than your speed, then you are likely actually less safe. The increase in speed you would have to make to match would increase crash risk slightly compared to everyone driving at a lower speed, and would slightly increase crash intensity, but a significant difference in the speed of traffic increases crash risk significantly. Also, at speeds above 40 or so, all crashes are pretty violent. So 5-10 MPH isn't going to matter that much at highway speeds.
You knowingly are causing annoyance to others and have no conscience about it, so yes, you're a bit of a wanker. Legally in the right, but still a bit of a wanker.
Road speeds are set for the weakest link, typically large top-heavy vehicles. Most cars are capable of being driven safely at significantly higher speeds. Mind you, some cars are significantly more capable than others. (And most drivers are less capable than they think they are, but that's a separate issue.)
No, it's not for speeding, but which is more courteous to those around you: 1. Passing someone while driving 0.001 MPH faster than them, causing the passing maneuver to occur over several miles and potentially impeding the flow of traffic. 2. Briefly accelerating by just a few MPH to pass the car on the right and then returning to your normal speed once back in the right lane. While it may be speeding, a few MPH difference is not going to make much difference in terms of increased risk, and the tempers of all are likely to remain much cooler, reducing the likelihood of people attempting dangerous passing maneuvers such as weaving two lanes over to the right to get around you.
It's perfectly possible to have fun and drive responsibly at the same time, in the correct place and with an appropriate vehicle. I agree that city streets and rush hour freeways are not that place, but an un-congested highway on-ramp can be fun, as can a well maintained curvy rural highway with good visibility. If you've never experienced that, then too bad for you.
Also, often people do not quickly compensate for hills, causing their car to slow down as it climbs. There's a hill on my commute that almost always causes a back-up that immediately clears after the crest. It's not even a particularly steep grade.