At costs in the US ranging between about 6 and 20 cents a kilowatt-hour, let's take an average of 12 cents. I pay over 16 in my area, some pay more, some less.
According to Wikipedia, the Volt's battery is a 16 kWh battery (it mentions that 8 kWh are usable, so let's go with 8 kWh as our assumption).
So, if my maths aren't totally screwed, and assuming 80% efficiency in the batteries, we're looking at somewhere around $1.20US to get 40 miles. Now, honestly, that's effing CHEAP compared to fuel (I get 40-50 miles out of a gallon of Diesel, but a gallon of Diesel is over twice the cost). But it's a lot more than "a couple cents" and if you drive 40 miles a day you'll have to find about 4 100W bulbs that are currently burning 24/7 to pay for it.
But the compromises in the car make it a difficult sell. Honestly, with my 15 mile commute, I would rather have a pure-play electric at $15,000 or so and then buy a pure-play gasser at another $15,000 for long trips. That leaves me with $10,000 savings from buying a single Chevy Volt, which buys me a lot of electricity and gas. And the pure-play electric could rip out all that heavy internal combustion crap and give me less weight (better handling and range) and/or a few extra batteries on board.
1. You need a standard. All the auto manufacturers have to come up with a standard shape, size, connectors, and voltage for their batteries, or at least a reasonably small number of standards so stations can have enough of each on hand.
2. They need to be removable. Instead of building the batteries deep down somewhere in the innards where the frame can protect them and their weight can be used for better handling, the batteries will have to be somewhere they can be removed from the car easily. Maybe put them underneath and you drive over a removal mechanism? I don't know, but it's a technical challenge that all the car manufacturers will have to solve the same way. Plus, the containment system adds weight and complexity, the interface system adds failure points, and the handling of the batteries outside the car all the time increases the chance of damage (dropping, etc).
3. Batteries wear out. So if you want to go to a station, you'll swap your brand new batteries for ones of unknown age and capacity, and who is left having to pay to recycle the batteries when they reach end-of-life? If it's the station, which it undoubtedly would be, they are going to have to charge accordingly.
4. Partial charges at refuel. Today, if I have a half tank of fuel, I can choose to fill up or let it go to near empty, and there are different costs for the two. Swapping a battery is an "all or none" proposition, so most people are going to run the batteries down to near zero before swapping them unless recharge stations come up with a way to charge less based on remaining power in the existing cell.
If people are running close to empty more often, we'll have more out of fuel situations, and you can't just give 'em 5 gallons of electrons and send them on their way.
And, of course, the slow loss of battery capacity leads to some interesting side issues. When I fill my Jetta TDI's 15.5 gallon tank, I know I can go 600 miles on the highway without breaking a sweat, and about 650 if I want to risk pulling in to a station on fumes. I know this because Diesel has predictable properties, and a gallon of it can take me 50 miles on the highway.
With an electric, I don't know how old the battery is that's randomly chosen for me. Am I going to get the rated capacity of 300 miles? Is it an older battery that hasn't been well-kept that will only give me 120 miles? Will I have to pay a premium for batteries with 100% capacity and be charged less for a lower-capacity battery? How will that all be managed?
I'm not saying these are insurmountable, but at the moment each individual driver is responsible for all of the components of their car, and fuel is largely a standardized commodity in 4 basic variants (regular, premium, super, Diesel) with a fixed and known capacity in each grade that can be added to in increments without the need to sell a storage container as part of the sale. Batteries are harder to handle, can only be replaced fully at the station, have varying capacity as they age or are misused, and eventually die and need expensive replacements. The logistics and economics are markedly different.
I admit it's been a few years since I've shopped for a car, but I clearly recall most of the reviews on most auto sites talk about fuel mileage and cost of operation, at least in broad terms. I've never read a "Car and Driver" review, though, so I wouldn't know their style. I also don't take a lot of automotive advice from "Top Gear" either, though I do find their antics amusing. Actually, I think if "Top Gear" likes it, I'd probably avoid it at all costs.:)
Except for special cases (plow truck, for example) I always buy new and drive 'em until I can't rely on 'em any more. With good maintenance, I can get ten years out of a car. And efficiency is a very large part of my purchasing decision, because fuel savings help me save up for the next car. If I buy something that gets 40MPG instead of 30MPG, that's $3000 at the end of ten years that I can spend on toys for my next new car or get a slightly nicer one, or just keep more cash on hand.
It's not ALL of it - if I'm living with a car for ten or more years I want something fairly comfortable, reliable, large enough to be useful to me, and fun to drive - but it weighs heavily in my decision.
Anything you spend on a car is "lost money". That includes the initial purchase price and maintenance and fuel costs. I'm a tightwad, so I try to lose as little money as possible while still getting something I won't mind driving for a decade or so.
In 2002, I was in the market for a new vehicle. I wanted good fuel mileage, so at the end of my search I was looking at two vehicles, a Toyota Prius (which were pretty new at the time) and a VW Jetta TDI. Test drives made it no contest. I chose the TDI. It was somewhat cheaper, handled better, got better fuel mileage for my purposes, and included some niceties like a sunroof and more room. I was also concerned since the Prius was so new, whereas the TDI's been around for a very long time.
Most of my driving at the time was on the highway, and the TDI gets better highway mileage than the Prius. I don't know if that's true of today's models - I think VW added some horsepower to the TDI in '08 or '09 and may have cut the mileage, where the Prius probably gets better mileage since that's its major goal. The Prius also has a few more years under its belt and certainly has a decent track record - they aren't dropping like flies at least.
Fast forward 85,000 miles and 7 years, and I'd be sweating a battery replacement pack right about now on the Prius. I did have to replace the timing belt and THAT wasn't cheap, but it's nothing compared to a new battery pack.
When I first bought it, Diesel was a good bit cheaper than gasoline, too. That has since reversed, but I still get better miles-per-dollar than my wife's already pretty efficient Pontiac Vibe gasoline engine. Had a chosen a Prius, I'd probably be spending a little less on fuel now (maybe about $200/year), but I refer you again to the $3500+ battery pack, which is enough money for me to buy more than a THREE YEAR supply of Diesel fuel outright even if Diesel was at $4 a gallon.
I won't say the TDI is completely trouble-free, it's a VW with its share of problems. I've replaced a few expensive parts that really shouldn't have broken, and there are a few things that are broken that aren't worth fixing (front door "open" sensors are both shot, but at $500 a pop, they can stay that way). But it's still a comfortable, responsive, enjoyable car that gets great fuel mileage. Carries a couple of large kayaks on top without complaint, too.:)
I don't honestly know how much this car would benefit from any sort of hybrid tech. I suppose it might be useful to put a smaller battery in it and have a "booster motor" with regenerative braking, so when I come to a stop some of that energy could be stored to get moving again. But I'm not sure if there would be any significant savings.
The advantage to the "Tied to one format" problem is that, once I've purchased that one format, no one can take away my right to play it short of making the hardware completely unavailable or coming to my house and taking it by force. If PlaysForSure or Yahoo! Music or any one of the previous obsoleted central server DRM technologies have taught anyone a lesson, it should be this: THIS IS A REALLY BAD IDEA! At least it is for the purchasing consumer. For the seller, it's fantastic.
Within a month of release, KeyChest will be fundamentally cracked. Actually, I should say "before release", but I'm being generous. Someone will use a proxy server to simulate a positive response from a faked KeyChest server. After it's been cracked, the movie studios will move on to a "more secure" technology, and KeyChest will stop being used. And once they have your one-time payment to access "Finding Nemo", remind me again of what justifies their continued operation of the KeyChest server you now utterly depend on? Do you seriously believe that a company is going to respect your right to watch it across multiple platforms for any length of time after the scheme stops being used? When KeyKeeper comes out a year or a decade from now, KeyChest will declare bankruptcy and the server that approves your PLAY button for you will be sold for scrap.
Then you'll be left with a living room media player that's full of movies you can't play without buying them all over again. Oh, and did we mention that your old media player doesn't support KeyKeeper? That'll be $200 to buy the right to rebuy all of your movies, please.
Don't come crying to me, I won't be able to hear you. I'll probably have a ripped copy of one of my CDs from the 1980s playing really loud. They still work fine, you know. And I can loan them to friends, or sell them, or just give them to someone else. Legally.
Exactly enough time to look down and assess the height, then raise a little sign that says "bye-bye!", if I'm remembering the weekend educational materials from my youth correctly.
Are there monthly caps on Comcast's business service?
Right now, I'm paying $45 a month (plus I'm required to have $15 a month Cable TV) for their 3mb down / 256kb up plan. They have a $60 6mb down / 1mb up plan, which would actually work out to the same money, but if they have the same cap and throttling, forget it.
I can't find a terms of service for their business accounts.
Not all of the laws have been struck down yet. So, yes, you can be arrested. Which can be terribly inconvenient, even if the law will probably be overturned and along with it any charges.
Boss: "Why were you late to work, Bob?" Bob: "I was arrested for swearing at a cop." Boss: "Here, let me help you pack."
I'm not a big fan of "Security Theater", personally. It has a deterrent factor, possibly, but it also has a huge deterrent factor to actually flying.
We solved the major problem of anyone actually being able to direct an airplane into a strategic landmark when we put armored doors in the cockpit. That was a logical, sensible move - if someone means harm, deny them access to the controls.
About the only thing left that a terrorist can do is kill some passengers on board or, absolute worst case, bring the plane down in an uncontrolled manner by sufficiently compromising the structure. Everyone on the plane dies, and that's a tragedy, but the terrorist cannot direct the plane at a specific target.
In other words, the armored doors solved the problem, at least in large part. Make sure passengers can't actually sneak plasma cutters in their carryons and we're about as good as we're going to get.
My major objection to the "how stupid are the TSA agents" in this case is that, given the technology we've given them and the context of what appears to have happened, it looks like a perfectly reasonable evaluation of what was before them. They obviously turned out to be incorrect, and it makes really cool biting headlines to say "stupid idiot TSA agents don't recognize honey", but I don't see how (short of eliminating Security Theater) it could have been prevented.
Unfortunately, there are places in the US that still have obscenity laws, which cover naughty words and obscene gestures. People can be, and have been, arrested for violating such laws.
** Order confirmed. Your 4,000 chicken pot pies will be delivered tomorrow. Your mobile account has been charged. Thanks for ordering from Kentucky Funky Chicken **
Back when Bluetooth first came out, we used to play the game "Wireless Headset or Missed His Meds", where we'd watch someone walk down the street talking to himself and try to figure out if he was using a headset or just talking to himself.
This adds a whole new dimension to the game.
"He's not shaking his phone up and down, he's masturbating on a porn page"
I can see the marketing song for this, to the Village People's "YMCA":
"Young man! Want to open that app? I say. Touch Screen! covers your screen with crap, so now, Gestures!, keep your hands off your screen, and then, your... phone... will... stay... so... clean...
Open your apps to the Y! M! C! A! Dance, tap, and shake your phone the touchless way.
You can open an app, your phone stays free of crap, you can stay in great shape and then you, can, wave, like an ape...
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares?"
One of the most subtle yet clever puns I have had the pleasure to encounter. I'm so used to people replacing "intents and" with "intensive" in that phrase that I almost missed it. Extra points for the appropriate use of an alternate definition.
It is possible for a system to work as designed and still fail under certain extreme conditions. To design a system that is completely immune from failure would be hideously expensive. The current system is designed to eliminate false negatives to enough extent that false positives can and will happen.
I had a bag test positive once during a routine 100% inspection (Back when they used to do it with you present). I was asked to open the bag, I complied, and the TSA agent put on gloves and (with me present and able to observe but far enough away not to interfere) checked my luggage. He found nothing suspicious, apologized, did his best to tidy up the contents, sent my bag down the conveyor, and thanked me for being patient and polite about the whole thing. Done.
In this case, detection system worked to the best ability to design one. It's just that the system is not perfect, and is probably not ever going to be. This isn't CSI:Airport, this is real human beings dealing with imperfect technology looking at circumstances that aren't predetermined in a script.
It's hard to judge the appropriateness of shutting down the airport. If the airport was doing random checks of luggage, and they suspected explosives, then the appropriate response is to temporarily shut down the airport because there may be other bags in the system that have similar issues.
If the airport was checking 100% of all bags and this one was caught, then they could have simply quarantined that one bag until the substance can be analyzed. Of course, at that point, they have to shut down the machines that check the rest of the luggage (unless they have a special team to deal with positives), so they are pretty much effectively shutting down the airport anyway.
(Ideally, we should go back to the system where you hand your luggage to a TSA agent and wait until their test is complete, but that means people actually have to arrive early for their flights)
In either case, the main failure of the system was the continuing response, and that is deeply unfortunate, and very much deserving of an apology to Mr. Ramirez. This is where Youngblood is very much in the wrong.
Next step should have been to go collect Ramirez and ask what the stuff is. Chances are, he'd act very surprised and say "honey", at which point you bring them some crackers and a clean plate and ask him to please eat a bit.
Once Ramirez has enjoyed his snack, you apologize for the inconvenience, get him back to his flight quickly (preferably asking the airline to bump him to first class because he cooperated nicely with a mistake you made), and expedite his bag into his plane so his luggage makes it with him.
THAT is where "the system" appears to have broken down. Not in the initial detection, but in the response. And the ongoing response of accusing Ramirez for mistakes the TSA and the local police made after it became clear that the positive was a false one.
When he drinks the latte, the caffeine will make his heartbeat clearly audible. The thumping sound will remind him that he needs to burn a new rap CD for the car.
Slashdot Mirror
At costs in the US ranging between about 6 and 20 cents a kilowatt-hour, let's take an average of 12 cents. I pay over 16 in my area, some pay more, some less.
According to Wikipedia, the Volt's battery is a 16 kWh battery (it mentions that 8 kWh are usable, so let's go with 8 kWh as our assumption).
So, if my maths aren't totally screwed, and assuming 80% efficiency in the batteries, we're looking at somewhere around $1.20US to get 40 miles. Now, honestly, that's effing CHEAP compared to fuel (I get 40-50 miles out of a gallon of Diesel, but a gallon of Diesel is over twice the cost). But it's a lot more than "a couple cents" and if you drive 40 miles a day you'll have to find about 4 100W bulbs that are currently burning 24/7 to pay for it.
But the compromises in the car make it a difficult sell. Honestly, with my 15 mile commute, I would rather have a pure-play electric at $15,000 or so and then buy a pure-play gasser at another $15,000 for long trips. That leaves me with $10,000 savings from buying a single Chevy Volt, which buys me a lot of electricity and gas. And the pure-play electric could rip out all that heavy internal combustion crap and give me less weight (better handling and range) and/or a few extra batteries on board.
Four problems with swapping batteries:
1. You need a standard. All the auto manufacturers have to come up with a standard shape, size, connectors, and voltage for their batteries, or at least a reasonably small number of standards so stations can have enough of each on hand.
2. They need to be removable. Instead of building the batteries deep down somewhere in the innards where the frame can protect them and their weight can be used for better handling, the batteries will have to be somewhere they can be removed from the car easily. Maybe put them underneath and you drive over a removal mechanism? I don't know, but it's a technical challenge that all the car manufacturers will have to solve the same way. Plus, the containment system adds weight and complexity, the interface system adds failure points, and the handling of the batteries outside the car all the time increases the chance of damage (dropping, etc).
3. Batteries wear out. So if you want to go to a station, you'll swap your brand new batteries for ones of unknown age and capacity, and who is left having to pay to recycle the batteries when they reach end-of-life? If it's the station, which it undoubtedly would be, they are going to have to charge accordingly.
4. Partial charges at refuel. Today, if I have a half tank of fuel, I can choose to fill up or let it go to near empty, and there are different costs for the two. Swapping a battery is an "all or none" proposition, so most people are going to run the batteries down to near zero before swapping them unless recharge stations come up with a way to charge less based on remaining power in the existing cell.
If people are running close to empty more often, we'll have more out of fuel situations, and you can't just give 'em 5 gallons of electrons and send them on their way.
And, of course, the slow loss of battery capacity leads to some interesting side issues. When I fill my Jetta TDI's 15.5 gallon tank, I know I can go 600 miles on the highway without breaking a sweat, and about 650 if I want to risk pulling in to a station on fumes. I know this because Diesel has predictable properties, and a gallon of it can take me 50 miles on the highway.
With an electric, I don't know how old the battery is that's randomly chosen for me. Am I going to get the rated capacity of 300 miles? Is it an older battery that hasn't been well-kept that will only give me 120 miles? Will I have to pay a premium for batteries with 100% capacity and be charged less for a lower-capacity battery? How will that all be managed?
I'm not saying these are insurmountable, but at the moment each individual driver is responsible for all of the components of their car, and fuel is largely a standardized commodity in 4 basic variants (regular, premium, super, Diesel) with a fixed and known capacity in each grade that can be added to in increments without the need to sell a storage container as part of the sale. Batteries are harder to handle, can only be replaced fully at the station, have varying capacity as they age or are misused, and eventually die and need expensive replacements. The logistics and economics are markedly different.
I admit it's been a few years since I've shopped for a car, but I clearly recall most of the reviews on most auto sites talk about fuel mileage and cost of operation, at least in broad terms. I've never read a "Car and Driver" review, though, so I wouldn't know their style. I also don't take a lot of automotive advice from "Top Gear" either, though I do find their antics amusing. Actually, I think if "Top Gear" likes it, I'd probably avoid it at all costs. :)
Except for special cases (plow truck, for example) I always buy new and drive 'em until I can't rely on 'em any more. With good maintenance, I can get ten years out of a car. And efficiency is a very large part of my purchasing decision, because fuel savings help me save up for the next car. If I buy something that gets 40MPG instead of 30MPG, that's $3000 at the end of ten years that I can spend on toys for my next new car or get a slightly nicer one, or just keep more cash on hand.
It's not ALL of it - if I'm living with a car for ten or more years I want something fairly comfortable, reliable, large enough to be useful to me, and fun to drive - but it weighs heavily in my decision.
Anything you spend on a car is "lost money". That includes the initial purchase price and maintenance and fuel costs. I'm a tightwad, so I try to lose as little money as possible while still getting something I won't mind driving for a decade or so.
In 2002, I was in the market for a new vehicle. I wanted good fuel mileage, so at the end of my search I was looking at two vehicles, a Toyota Prius (which were pretty new at the time) and a VW Jetta TDI. Test drives made it no contest. I chose the TDI. It was somewhat cheaper, handled better, got better fuel mileage for my purposes, and included some niceties like a sunroof and more room. I was also concerned since the Prius was so new, whereas the TDI's been around for a very long time.
Most of my driving at the time was on the highway, and the TDI gets better highway mileage than the Prius. I don't know if that's true of today's models - I think VW added some horsepower to the TDI in '08 or '09 and may have cut the mileage, where the Prius probably gets better mileage since that's its major goal. The Prius also has a few more years under its belt and certainly has a decent track record - they aren't dropping like flies at least.
Fast forward 85,000 miles and 7 years, and I'd be sweating a battery replacement pack right about now on the Prius. I did have to replace the timing belt and THAT wasn't cheap, but it's nothing compared to a new battery pack.
When I first bought it, Diesel was a good bit cheaper than gasoline, too. That has since reversed, but I still get better miles-per-dollar than my wife's already pretty efficient Pontiac Vibe gasoline engine. Had a chosen a Prius, I'd probably be spending a little less on fuel now (maybe about $200/year), but I refer you again to the $3500+ battery pack, which is enough money for me to buy more than a THREE YEAR supply of Diesel fuel outright even if Diesel was at $4 a gallon.
I won't say the TDI is completely trouble-free, it's a VW with its share of problems. I've replaced a few expensive parts that really shouldn't have broken, and there are a few things that are broken that aren't worth fixing (front door "open" sensors are both shot, but at $500 a pop, they can stay that way). But it's still a comfortable, responsive, enjoyable car that gets great fuel mileage. Carries a couple of large kayaks on top without complaint, too. :)
I don't honestly know how much this car would benefit from any sort of hybrid tech. I suppose it might be useful to put a smaller battery in it and have a "booster motor" with regenerative braking, so when I come to a stop some of that energy could be stored to get moving again. But I'm not sure if there would be any significant savings.
The advantage to the "Tied to one format" problem is that, once I've purchased that one format, no one can take away my right to play it short of making the hardware completely unavailable or coming to my house and taking it by force. If PlaysForSure or Yahoo! Music or any one of the previous obsoleted central server DRM technologies have taught anyone a lesson, it should be this: THIS IS A REALLY BAD IDEA! At least it is for the purchasing consumer. For the seller, it's fantastic.
Within a month of release, KeyChest will be fundamentally cracked. Actually, I should say "before release", but I'm being generous. Someone will use a proxy server to simulate a positive response from a faked KeyChest server. After it's been cracked, the movie studios will move on to a "more secure" technology, and KeyChest will stop being used. And once they have your one-time payment to access "Finding Nemo", remind me again of what justifies their continued operation of the KeyChest server you now utterly depend on? Do you seriously believe that a company is going to respect your right to watch it across multiple platforms for any length of time after the scheme stops being used? When KeyKeeper comes out a year or a decade from now, KeyChest will declare bankruptcy and the server that approves your PLAY button for you will be sold for scrap.
Then you'll be left with a living room media player that's full of movies you can't play without buying them all over again. Oh, and did we mention that your old media player doesn't support KeyKeeper? That'll be $200 to buy the right to rebuy all of your movies, please.
Don't come crying to me, I won't be able to hear you. I'll probably have a ripped copy of one of my CDs from the 1980s playing really loud. They still work fine, you know. And I can loan them to friends, or sell them, or just give them to someone else. Legally.
He'll call it "Prayers to Broken Phones"
Exactly enough time to look down and assess the height, then raise a little sign that says "bye-bye!", if I'm remembering the weekend educational materials from my youth correctly.
See? Told you not to look. Silly boy.
Most people just yell "My God! It's full of stars!". You, you have to do the drumbeat thing.
Are there monthly caps on Comcast's business service?
Right now, I'm paying $45 a month (plus I'm required to have $15 a month Cable TV) for their 3mb down / 256kb up plan. They have a $60 6mb down / 1mb up plan, which would actually work out to the same money, but if they have the same cap and throttling, forget it.
I can't find a terms of service for their business accounts.
Unfortunately, the last such attempt died a gooey death.
That's one of the best and most concise descriptions of the lawmaking process I've seen to date. Well done.
"Laws are like sausages. You might like 'em, you might dislike 'em, but you do not want to know what went in to making 'em."
Not all of the laws have been struck down yet. So, yes, you can be arrested. Which can be terribly inconvenient, even if the law will probably be overturned and along with it any charges.
Boss: "Why were you late to work, Bob?"
Bob: "I was arrested for swearing at a cop."
Boss: "Here, let me help you pack."
Good point.
I'm not a big fan of "Security Theater", personally. It has a deterrent factor, possibly, but it also has a huge deterrent factor to actually flying.
We solved the major problem of anyone actually being able to direct an airplane into a strategic landmark when we put armored doors in the cockpit. That was a logical, sensible move - if someone means harm, deny them access to the controls.
About the only thing left that a terrorist can do is kill some passengers on board or, absolute worst case, bring the plane down in an uncontrolled manner by sufficiently compromising the structure. Everyone on the plane dies, and that's a tragedy, but the terrorist cannot direct the plane at a specific target.
In other words, the armored doors solved the problem, at least in large part. Make sure passengers can't actually sneak plasma cutters in their carryons and we're about as good as we're going to get.
My major objection to the "how stupid are the TSA agents" in this case is that, given the technology we've given them and the context of what appears to have happened, it looks like a perfectly reasonable evaluation of what was before them. They obviously turned out to be incorrect, and it makes really cool biting headlines to say "stupid idiot TSA agents don't recognize honey", but I don't see how (short of eliminating Security Theater) it could have been prevented.
Unfortunately, there are places in the US that still have obscenity laws, which cover naughty words and obscene gestures. People can be, and have been, arrested for violating such laws.
I'd say urine big trouble, mister!
Yeah, but then you have to fart and end up skipping to a new album. No, thanks.
** Order confirmed. Your 4,000 chicken pot pies will be delivered tomorrow. Your mobile account has been charged. Thanks for ordering from Kentucky Funky Chicken **
Back when Bluetooth first came out, we used to play the game "Wireless Headset or Missed His Meds", where we'd watch someone walk down the street talking to himself and try to figure out if he was using a headset or just talking to himself.
This adds a whole new dimension to the game.
"He's not shaking his phone up and down, he's masturbating on a porn page"
I can see the marketing song for this, to the Village People's "YMCA":
"Young man! Want to open that app?
I say.
Touch Screen! covers your screen with crap,
so now,
Gestures!, keep your hands off your screen,
and then,
your...
phone...
will...
stay...
so...
clean...
Open your apps to the Y! M! C! A!
Dance, tap, and shake your phone the touchless way.
You can open an app,
your phone stays free of crap,
you can stay in great shape
and then you, can, wave, like an ape...
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares?"
One of the most subtle yet clever puns I have had the pleasure to encounter. I'm so used to people replacing "intents and" with "intensive" in that phrase that I almost missed it. Extra points for the appropriate use of an alternate definition.
I tip my hat to you, sir. Well done.
Chances are, if it's a bluetooth wireless mouse, he's going to want a cell phone to go with it.
It is possible for a system to work as designed and still fail under certain extreme conditions. To design a system that is completely immune from failure would be hideously expensive. The current system is designed to eliminate false negatives to enough extent that false positives can and will happen.
I had a bag test positive once during a routine 100% inspection (Back when they used to do it with you present). I was asked to open the bag, I complied, and the TSA agent put on gloves and (with me present and able to observe but far enough away not to interfere) checked my luggage. He found nothing suspicious, apologized, did his best to tidy up the contents, sent my bag down the conveyor, and thanked me for being patient and polite about the whole thing. Done.
In this case, detection system worked to the best ability to design one. It's just that the system is not perfect, and is probably not ever going to be. This isn't CSI:Airport, this is real human beings dealing with imperfect technology looking at circumstances that aren't predetermined in a script.
It's hard to judge the appropriateness of shutting down the airport. If the airport was doing random checks of luggage, and they suspected explosives, then the appropriate response is to temporarily shut down the airport because there may be other bags in the system that have similar issues.
If the airport was checking 100% of all bags and this one was caught, then they could have simply quarantined that one bag until the substance can be analyzed. Of course, at that point, they have to shut down the machines that check the rest of the luggage (unless they have a special team to deal with positives), so they are pretty much effectively shutting down the airport anyway.
(Ideally, we should go back to the system where you hand your luggage to a TSA agent and wait until their test is complete, but that means people actually have to arrive early for their flights)
In either case, the main failure of the system was the continuing response, and that is deeply unfortunate, and very much deserving of an apology to Mr. Ramirez. This is where Youngblood is very much in the wrong.
Next step should have been to go collect Ramirez and ask what the stuff is. Chances are, he'd act very surprised and say "honey", at which point you bring them some crackers and a clean plate and ask him to please eat a bit.
Once Ramirez has enjoyed his snack, you apologize for the inconvenience, get him back to his flight quickly (preferably asking the airline to bump him to first class because he cooperated nicely with a mistake you made), and expedite his bag into his plane so his luggage makes it with him.
THAT is where "the system" appears to have broken down. Not in the initial detection, but in the response. And the ongoing response of accusing Ramirez for mistakes the TSA and the local police made after it became clear that the positive was a false one.
But once you have it, Parkinson's increases the chances of your being burned by the latte.
With that much radiation, maybe he'll develop magical powers and finally get in to Unseen University.
Exactly, which is how the cell phone protects you from Alzheimer's. You die in a horrific car crash at 18.
SCIENCE!!!!
When he drinks the latte, the caffeine will make his heartbeat clearly audible. The thumping sound will remind him that he needs to burn a new rap CD for the car.
In other words, a lot like the ones we already have, except we can prove this one exists.
KIDDING!!!!