- government funding. I don't like paying for stuff I'm not using. Hopefully it's just a temporary subsidy to jumpstart GM's hybrid production, not a permanen form of corporate welfare.
No... its a subsidy to get you to use electrons produced in the US (mostly with coal produced in the US) instead of oil produced by countries who hate us.
You drive 400 miles every day? I drive 25 miles each way to and from work. My commute is pretty typical for an American. I would probably be able to get away with using NO GAS on my daily weekday commutes.
Ok. A you said yourself that most people average a 20-40 mile commute. That is pretty common. I personally have a 25 mile commute. If I had a volt, I would get the building where I work to run a power cord out to my car. Maybe even pay them for the privilege. 8 hours later, when I get off work, it would be charged up and ready for my trip home. Sounds very workable to me.
Most of the charging would be done at home. Which means before 8am and after 6pm. The peak hours for electricity consumption are in the middle of the day (when the sun is shining and factories are running). Also, not sure where you get your 25% transmission loss number. Wikipedia had it at ~6.5%. You are just trying to spread FUD.
Or it could be that there is no global warming and it is either a conspiracy or bias in the scientific community. Let me be very quick to say that I do believe that global warming exists and do not believe that there is a conspiracy in the scientific community. I do not discount the possibility of a bias, but there is nothing I have seen to indicate that the bias (since the scientific community is self-selecting, meaning that people choose to become scientists, there is going to be a bias) overwhelms the scientific method. But, I do not know for a fact that there is no conspiracy, and I have made the decision from what I have learned over time that there is not a significant bias. So, to some extent I take it on faith that the peer-review system works and that the scientific system in general is self-regulating. So, the disbelief in Global Warming is a valid hypothesis when it is based upon conspiracy or bias. But, it needs to be tested and upheld or disproven based upon science and evidence. Which global warming skeptics seem incapable of doing.
I cannot speak for other liberals, but I do not believe that there is finite wealth to be had. But, I do believe that wealth disparities decrease the amount of wealth that can be created. The way I see it, wealth is like growing food. You can get much better performance out of a small garden for a family (on a food produced per acre measure) than you can out of a large farm. But, it would take more man-hours per unit of produce. The difference is, though, that most people have enough extra free time at home so that the man-hours are essentially free (especially since gardening can be a stress-reducer and so actually be a value-add activity regardless of whether it produces vegetables). Or, at the very least a man-hour on a farm costs society more than a man-hour in a home garden. And, I feel that wealth is similar. Millionaires and Billionaires do produce more wealth with their wealth, but I believe that if that $250,000 in wealth each for 40 people will produce more wealth for society than $10,000,000 from one person. The reason is that those 40 people are more likely to use that wealth effectively by starting their own businesses, or investing in businesses in their community (both are investments in small businesses) while the one person with $10,000,000 will probably invest with a manager in the stock market. Now, don't get me wrong, that person will probably invest $250,000 of the $10,000,000 in local ventures as well (or maybe $500,000), but not as much will be invested personally as if 40 people did it.
I am not an advocate of communism, either. I think that there needs to be a monetary incentive to work hard to get the maximum productivity out of society. And, I think that someone who earns their money is much more likely to use and invest it wisely. But, income disparity is getting worse. Our current society is redistributing wealth from the lower and middle classes to the upper class. I think that we need to adjust our economic and government systems to stop the redistribution of wealth to the wealthy, because that is decreasing our potential for creating wealth. The easiest solution I see is to raise taxes on the upper class while reducing taxes on the lower and middle classes, so that the people that benefit the most from our current system pay more towards maintaining that system. (but I only care about reducing the the rate at which income inequality is growing. As far as I care it can be income-neutral to the government, or even income-negative) But, if there is a better solution to my stated problem (that doesn't involve "redistributing wealth" as you would probably name my solution) then I am all ears.
I am confused as to what you are trying to say. I thought one of the main reasons that MTBE was added to gasoline was that it raised the oxygen level of the gasoline. This would then make the gasoline burn cleaner. What is BS? Was that not the reason that MTBE (and now ethanol) was added to gasoline?
The amount of energy required to get a kilogram into geosynchronous orbit is around 15kWh. Assuming 10c per kWh (a pessimistic number since I pay ~5c/kWh to my utility company for my house), it should cost ~$1.50/kg to get something into geosynchronous orbit. I am pretty sure the space shuttle uses a lot more than 15kWh/kg to launch, considering that gasoline has 36kWh/gal (US). So, you are wrong unless you have some evidence that "no matter what method you use" you will get ~0.015% efficiency.
How is this different from an absentee ballot? Someone could take your family hostage (or whatever else is the metaphorical gun) and require you to take a video of you casting the correct ballot. I am not too concerned with coerced votes because, if it happens on a large (or probably even small) scale, someone would eventually tell the authorities about it and the full weight of the US govn't would come crashing down on the offender. And I don't think my system is any less secure than what we have today.
You have to get beyond a username and password. The first solution that comes to mind is biometrics. For example, when you register to vote, you also have them scan your irises (I think that they are uniquely identifiable). Then, after you vote online, you confirm it. In this case, the person voting might have to have a video (by webcam) of them following a point on the screen. If you have the correct eyes following the correct pattern, then the vote is confirmed. While there might be a way to get around it, it would probably be labor and cost intensive to do it on a large scale (for many people).
Keep in mind that this is just an example. Technology would have to have progressed to the point and be widespread enough that this was feasible for the average person. And it could be fingerprints, or DNA, or whatever.
But, demand for lithium is a little more elastic. I can put off filling up my car for no more than a week (by changing my driving habits to use less fuel). I could probably put off getting new batteries for ones that are wearing out for between a year and five years or more (by changing my driving habits to charge up more often between destinations or by not traveling as far).
Tesla specifically makes you sign a document acknowledging that you understand the charging needs. If you get an expensive toy, you should be willing to time in to maintain it correctly. Also, Tesla offers the option to have your car send you a notification (probably a text message) if your battery gets discharged below a certain threshold. This was a brand new technology when it came out, so of course early adopters are going to encounter a few kinks. But, it seems like Tesla did everything it could to inform owners of the potential problem and give them tools to prevent the problem from occurring. But, like in the rest of life, you can't save the idiots from themselves.
It is true. Tesla makes everyone who buys a roadster from them sign a document that says they understand that if the battery pack is not maintained it will become unusable. So, the original complaint isn't actually inaccurate, it is just prejudicial. Not only does Tesla make sure you understand the danger before you buy the car, but you can sign up to have the car send you a text message, or even send Tesla a text message, if it reaches a certain discharge threshold. It sounds like the owner (who was complaining) is an idiot who is willing to spend tons of money on fancy toys (and the roadster is a rich person toy), but is unwilling to maintain it. And then throws a temper-tantrum when it gets ruined as he was previously warned would happen.
The battery on the thing was probably also humongous and not that powerful. Batteries have gotten enormously better since then, but there have been tradeoffs in the self-discharge rate and the ability of the battery to recover from a complete discharge to get vast increases is power density and energy density.
They make you sign a document before you buy the car that states that you understand the risks. If you are going to leave your car sitting for a long period of time (months) then it should be plugged it. They are using high performance batteries because it is a SPORTS CAR. Sports cars have to be maintained. If you can't afford to keep the thing properly maintained, maybe you shouldn't have shelled out the $100k in the first place to buy it.
If you run the battery pack completely out, and then let it sit for a long time (probably years), then the batteries could self-discharge (as all batteries do) to a point that damages them.
I never said 50/50. It is impossible to assign a probability. For someone who is arguing for science over god (I am not arguing the converse, I think it is a stupid argument to begin with) you seem to have a very poor understanding of what science actually is.
Slashdot Mirror
If that is true, then ANY traffic that remains solely within Comcast's network should not affect the data cap.
- government funding. I don't like paying for stuff I'm not using. Hopefully it's just a temporary subsidy to jumpstart GM's hybrid production, not a permanen form of corporate welfare.
No... its a subsidy to get you to use electrons produced in the US (mostly with coal produced in the US) instead of oil produced by countries who hate us.
You drive 400 miles every day? I drive 25 miles each way to and from work. My commute is pretty typical for an American. I would probably be able to get away with using NO GAS on my daily weekday commutes.
Ok. A you said yourself that most people average a 20-40 mile commute. That is pretty common. I personally have a 25 mile commute. If I had a volt, I would get the building where I work to run a power cord out to my car. Maybe even pay them for the privilege. 8 hours later, when I get off work, it would be charged up and ready for my trip home. Sounds very workable to me.
You keep your terroristmobiles. I prefer cars that run on electrons made in the good old USA.
Most of the charging would be done at home. Which means before 8am and after 6pm. The peak hours for electricity consumption are in the middle of the day (when the sun is shining and factories are running). Also, not sure where you get your 25% transmission loss number. Wikipedia had it at ~6.5%. You are just trying to spread FUD.
I did not RTFA, but the H most likely comes from H2O. That is where just about all other photosynthetic processes get it from.
Would you happen to have a citation for that claim, or is it just conspiracy theories?
Or it could be that there is no global warming and it is either a conspiracy or bias in the scientific community. Let me be very quick to say that I do believe that global warming exists and do not believe that there is a conspiracy in the scientific community. I do not discount the possibility of a bias, but there is nothing I have seen to indicate that the bias (since the scientific community is self-selecting, meaning that people choose to become scientists, there is going to be a bias) overwhelms the scientific method. But, I do not know for a fact that there is no conspiracy, and I have made the decision from what I have learned over time that there is not a significant bias. So, to some extent I take it on faith that the peer-review system works and that the scientific system in general is self-regulating. So, the disbelief in Global Warming is a valid hypothesis when it is based upon conspiracy or bias. But, it needs to be tested and upheld or disproven based upon science and evidence. Which global warming skeptics seem incapable of doing.
I cannot speak for other liberals, but I do not believe that there is finite wealth to be had. But, I do believe that wealth disparities decrease the amount of wealth that can be created. The way I see it, wealth is like growing food. You can get much better performance out of a small garden for a family (on a food produced per acre measure) than you can out of a large farm. But, it would take more man-hours per unit of produce. The difference is, though, that most people have enough extra free time at home so that the man-hours are essentially free (especially since gardening can be a stress-reducer and so actually be a value-add activity regardless of whether it produces vegetables). Or, at the very least a man-hour on a farm costs society more than a man-hour in a home garden. And, I feel that wealth is similar. Millionaires and Billionaires do produce more wealth with their wealth, but I believe that if that $250,000 in wealth each for 40 people will produce more wealth for society than $10,000,000 from one person. The reason is that those 40 people are more likely to use that wealth effectively by starting their own businesses, or investing in businesses in their community (both are investments in small businesses) while the one person with $10,000,000 will probably invest with a manager in the stock market. Now, don't get me wrong, that person will probably invest $250,000 of the $10,000,000 in local ventures as well (or maybe $500,000), but not as much will be invested personally as if 40 people did it.
I am not an advocate of communism, either. I think that there needs to be a monetary incentive to work hard to get the maximum productivity out of society. And, I think that someone who earns their money is much more likely to use and invest it wisely. But, income disparity is getting worse. Our current society is redistributing wealth from the lower and middle classes to the upper class. I think that we need to adjust our economic and government systems to stop the redistribution of wealth to the wealthy, because that is decreasing our potential for creating wealth. The easiest solution I see is to raise taxes on the upper class while reducing taxes on the lower and middle classes, so that the people that benefit the most from our current system pay more towards maintaining that system. (but I only care about reducing the the rate at which income inequality is growing. As far as I care it can be income-neutral to the government, or even income-negative) But, if there is a better solution to my stated problem (that doesn't involve "redistributing wealth" as you would probably name my solution) then I am all ears.
I am confused as to what you are trying to say. I thought one of the main reasons that MTBE was added to gasoline was that it raised the oxygen level of the gasoline. This would then make the gasoline burn cleaner. What is BS? Was that not the reason that MTBE (and now ethanol) was added to gasoline?
The amount of energy required to get a kilogram into geosynchronous orbit is around 15kWh. Assuming 10c per kWh (a pessimistic number since I pay ~5c/kWh to my utility company for my house), it should cost ~$1.50/kg to get something into geosynchronous orbit. I am pretty sure the space shuttle uses a lot more than 15kWh/kg to launch, considering that gasoline has 36kWh/gal (US). So, you are wrong unless you have some evidence that "no matter what method you use" you will get ~0.015% efficiency.
How is this different from an absentee ballot? Someone could take your family hostage (or whatever else is the metaphorical gun) and require you to take a video of you casting the correct ballot. I am not too concerned with coerced votes because, if it happens on a large (or probably even small) scale, someone would eventually tell the authorities about it and the full weight of the US govn't would come crashing down on the offender. And I don't think my system is any less secure than what we have today.
Never mind... you are right for electric only.
A range of 35 miles? I see over 350 miles.
He was replying to this comment... To use a reverse car analogy, it's Motorola Xoom to iPad2. His response seemed legitimate.
You have to get beyond a username and password. The first solution that comes to mind is biometrics. For example, when you register to vote, you also have them scan your irises (I think that they are uniquely identifiable). Then, after you vote online, you confirm it. In this case, the person voting might have to have a video (by webcam) of them following a point on the screen. If you have the correct eyes following the correct pattern, then the vote is confirmed. While there might be a way to get around it, it would probably be labor and cost intensive to do it on a large scale (for many people).
Keep in mind that this is just an example. Technology would have to have progressed to the point and be widespread enough that this was feasible for the average person. And it could be fingerprints, or DNA, or whatever.
But, demand for lithium is a little more elastic. I can put off filling up my car for no more than a week (by changing my driving habits to use less fuel). I could probably put off getting new batteries for ones that are wearing out for between a year and five years or more (by changing my driving habits to charge up more often between destinations or by not traveling as far).
Tesla specifically makes you sign a document acknowledging that you understand the charging needs. If you get an expensive toy, you should be willing to time in to maintain it correctly. Also, Tesla offers the option to have your car send you a notification (probably a text message) if your battery gets discharged below a certain threshold. This was a brand new technology when it came out, so of course early adopters are going to encounter a few kinks. But, it seems like Tesla did everything it could to inform owners of the potential problem and give them tools to prevent the problem from occurring. But, like in the rest of life, you can't save the idiots from themselves.
It is true. Tesla makes everyone who buys a roadster from them sign a document that says they understand that if the battery pack is not maintained it will become unusable. So, the original complaint isn't actually inaccurate, it is just prejudicial. Not only does Tesla make sure you understand the danger before you buy the car, but you can sign up to have the car send you a text message, or even send Tesla a text message, if it reaches a certain discharge threshold. It sounds like the owner (who was complaining) is an idiot who is willing to spend tons of money on fancy toys (and the roadster is a rich person toy), but is unwilling to maintain it. And then throws a temper-tantrum when it gets ruined as he was previously warned would happen.
The battery on the thing was probably also humongous and not that powerful. Batteries have gotten enormously better since then, but there have been tradeoffs in the self-discharge rate and the ability of the battery to recover from a complete discharge to get vast increases is power density and energy density.
They make you sign a document before you buy the car that states that you understand the risks. If you are going to leave your car sitting for a long period of time (months) then it should be plugged it. They are using high performance batteries because it is a SPORTS CAR. Sports cars have to be maintained. If you can't afford to keep the thing properly maintained, maybe you shouldn't have shelled out the $100k in the first place to buy it.
Ah... but those are bricked by exhausting the fuel reservoir.
If you run the battery pack completely out, and then let it sit for a long time (probably years), then the batteries could self-discharge (as all batteries do) to a point that damages them.
I never said 50/50. It is impossible to assign a probability. For someone who is arguing for science over god (I am not arguing the converse, I think it is a stupid argument to begin with) you seem to have a very poor understanding of what science actually is.