Yeah people are claiming this was a science experiment.. seriously.. toiletbowl cleaner and tinfoil in a bottle? she didn't get that from the chemistry classroom.. and in a hallway... these things are dangerous.. had she opted to put this in a glass bottle and screw the metal cap back on like a real deviant some people could have been hurt, that hurls glass out at a pretty good clip and could easily slice some people up. She's a terrorist.
toiletbowl cleaner and tinfoil, likely not from a classroom but brought from home, along with the bottle. Had this not been plastic but glass instead a lot of people could have been hurt. This was not an experiment... why would you bring these things to school and put them in a hallway... this was a bomb and she deserves this punishment. I bet the tinfoil was torn up and molded into little balls too... She knew what she was doing and she knew what was going to happen.
Mention of spending 4-5 million per month, but beyond that little in detail. What was this money being spent on? Who walked away with what. A lot of talk about how they got a loan from RI but that has nothing to do with them going bust.
Anyway, the manuscript has some flaws are required to be revised :
(1) For the abstract, I consider that the author can’t introduce the main idea and work of this topic specifically. We can’t catch the main thought from this abstract. So I suggest that the author can reorganize the descriptions and give the keywords of this paper. (2) In this paper, we may find that there are so many mathematical expressions and notations. But the author doesn’t give any introduction for them. I consider that for these new expressions and notations, the author can indicate the factual meanings of them. (3) In part 2, the author gives the main results. On theorem 2.4, I consider that the author should give the corresponding proof. (4) Also, for proposition 3.3 and 3.4, the author has better to show the specific proving processes. (5) The format of this paper is not very standard. Please follow the format requirements of this journal strictly.
Fuel cost is only one of many things calculated in the cost of travel. Wear and tear, maintenance on a vehicle. Perhaps a 2 day trip is then stretched to 3 and you're staying another night on the road. On the road food is also typically more expensive, along with your personal time, which perhaps you enjoy driving great, but still, fuel is not the only consideration in the cost of a trip.
You're correct I don't think 60mph on a highway is safe, but not because it's too fast. Visiting the restroom, bottle of Gatorade, whatever doesn't typically take 30 minutes. I hope these stations have a place to eat in walking distance... cause you'll be walking... and I hope there's something scenic close by.. cause you'll be walking. What I know from experience is that fueling stations off the highway don't typically have a lot going on for themselves and MOST definitely do not have anything interesting within WALKING distance.
Stick these only in scenic places with things to do? great idea, however, I highly doubt they're going to be next to a major highway.
I agree I think this is the way to go, much like propane tanks. Even take a deposit in the system if it's needed. Regular gas stations can use this to supplement their income and it's easy enough (just like most sell propane)
I don't know where you live that your highway speed limit is only 60, but I'm sorry for you. In the rest of the country it's 65-70 (now even 80 in some places). People are typically driving at 75-80 on my morning and evening commute.
I was referring to 60 mph on a major highway, a lot of states are 70mph speed limit which means travelers are typically doing 75-80. People doing 60 and beyond slow lane slow, you're going to draw attention and it won't be the friendly hey it's an e-vehicle kind.
3 hours of driving at 60 mph on the highway (which is dangerous IMO) and 30 minute fillup. More likely 70-75 mph, 2 hours of driving + finding a station? and then 30 minutes of fillup. 25% more travel time on a long trip. I don't know who has that kind of time on the road. Timing over lunch a great idea... what about at 3pm, not so convenient then is it. I think they have a lot of work to do
TIL some of the earliest automobiles were electric
The Electric Vehicle Company was founded as a holding company of battery-powered electric automobile manufacturers made up of several car companies assembled by Isaac L. Rice beginning in 1897. It was taken over in 1899 by William C. Whitney and P. A. B. Widener's, thus forming the so-called "Lead Cab Trust," which hoped to develop a monopoly by placing electric cabs on the streets of major American cities. The firm actually made and sold about two thousand electric cars (based on the Electrobat and Riker Electric cabs) as taxis to several American cities, but fell into hard times in 1900 after facing competition from gas-powered cars and legal problems stemming from monopolistic practices, as well as scandal surrounding the poor performance of its vehicles.
There are four regions offshore North America with known seeps. Two of these, the Gulf of Mexico and southern California, have a combined annual oil seep rate of 160,000 tonnes, derived by adding 140,000 tonnes, estimated from the Gulf of Mexico, and the estimate of 20,000 tonnes from Southern California.
Spills of that magnitude at one location might be rare but they still occur and looking at time in a geologic timescale they're simply not that big of a deal. Man has simply decided that it needs to feed of the seafood in that area, and swim on those beaches so a spill is something to complain about. A meteor impact wiping out 80% of all species on the planet you could deem damaging to the ecosystem, it's still a natural occurence, life still finds a way and the world still turns.
The pictures of dead fish sure prompt a lot of people to get upset I'm sure but it does not make this event even remotely unprecedented in nature.
I'm posting about the actual long-term effects to the environment certain people claim this is going to cause. Nature has mechanisms to deal with spills of this magnitude without any intervention from us. It could just have easily happened naturally.
This could easily have been a natural occurrence, at anytime nature could again just decide to expel tons of deep ocean oil, but because now people have $$$$ involved and it could be blamned on someone (sued) then it's all the news with the environmentalists. Anyone who actually has studied some Geology knows this was not a big deal for the environment... and please.. we need to talk in scales of centuries.. not months.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah people are claiming this was a science experiment.. seriously.. toiletbowl cleaner and tinfoil in a bottle? she didn't get that from the chemistry classroom.. and in a hallway... these things are dangerous.. had she opted to put this in a glass bottle and screw the metal cap back on like a real deviant some people could have been hurt, that hurls glass out at a pretty good clip and could easily slice some people up. She's a terrorist.
toiletbowl cleaner and tinfoil, likely not from a classroom but brought from home, along with the bottle. Had this not been plastic but glass instead a lot of people could have been hurt. This was not an experiment... why would you bring these things to school and put them in a hallway... this was a bomb and she deserves this punishment. I bet the tinfoil was torn up and molded into little balls too... She knew what she was doing and she knew what was going to happen.
Mention of spending 4-5 million per month, but beyond that little in detail. What was this money being spent on? Who walked away with what. A lot of talk about how they got a loan from RI but that has nothing to do with them going bust.
... he's dead.
Anyway, the manuscript has some flaws are required to be revised :
(1) For the abstract, I consider that the author can’t introduce the main idea and work of this topic specifically. We can’t catch the main thought from this abstract. So I suggest that the author can reorganize the descriptions and give the keywords of this paper.
(2) In this paper, we may find that there are so many mathematical expressions and notations. But the author doesn’t give any introduction for them. I consider that for these new expressions and notations, the author can indicate the factual meanings of them.
(3) In part 2, the author gives the main results. On theorem 2.4, I consider that the author should give the corresponding proof.
(4) Also, for proposition 3.3 and 3.4, the author has better to show the specific proving processes.
(5) The format of this paper is not very standard. Please follow the format requirements of this journal strictly.
I believe you suffer from acute subject comprehension failure.
Just a couple weeks ago I had a chuckle when I learned that the first cars ever made were fully electric.
Fuel cost is only one of many things calculated in the cost of travel. Wear and tear, maintenance on a vehicle. Perhaps a 2 day trip is then stretched to 3 and you're staying another night on the road. On the road food is also typically more expensive, along with your personal time, which perhaps you enjoy driving great, but still, fuel is not the only consideration in the cost of a trip.
The Tesla has about the same range as a gas car, but the infrastructure has yet to catch up.
Even my gas guzzler family hauler has a 360 mile range on a tank. From TFA: 3 hours at 60mph is 180 miles. 50% is not about the same.
You're correct I don't think 60mph on a highway is safe, but not because it's too fast. Visiting the restroom, bottle of Gatorade, whatever doesn't typically take 30 minutes. I hope these stations have a place to eat in walking distance... cause you'll be walking... and I hope there's something scenic close by.. cause you'll be walking. What I know from experience is that fueling stations off the highway don't typically have a lot going on for themselves and MOST definitely do not have anything interesting within WALKING distance.
Stick these only in scenic places with things to do? great idea, however, I highly doubt they're going to be next to a major highway.
I agree I think this is the way to go, much like propane tanks. Even take a deposit in the system if it's needed. Regular gas stations can use this to supplement their income and it's easy enough (just like most sell propane)
I don't know where you live that your highway speed limit is only 60, but I'm sorry for you. In the rest of the country it's 65-70 (now even 80 in some places). People are typically driving at 75-80 on my morning and evening commute.
I was referring to 60 mph on a major highway, a lot of states are 70mph speed limit which means travelers are typically doing 75-80. People doing 60 and beyond slow lane slow, you're going to draw attention and it won't be the friendly hey it's an e-vehicle kind.
Tell that to the grass under the solar panel you just installed.
3 hours of driving at 60 mph on the highway (which is dangerous IMO) and 30 minute fillup. More likely 70-75 mph, 2 hours of driving + finding a station? and then 30 minutes of fillup. 25% more travel time on a long trip. I don't know who has that kind of time on the road. Timing over lunch a great idea... what about at 3pm, not so convenient then is it. I think they have a lot of work to do
Cornell
Neither did the John Galt Line
They're manufacturing insanity in America now? That explains a lot.
AKA. QE3
TIL some of the earliest automobiles were electric
The Electric Vehicle Company was founded as a holding company of battery-powered electric automobile manufacturers made up of several car companies assembled by Isaac L. Rice beginning in 1897. It was taken over in 1899 by William C. Whitney and P. A. B. Widener's, thus forming the so-called "Lead Cab Trust," which hoped to develop a monopoly by placing electric cabs on the streets of major American cities.
The firm actually made and sold about two thousand electric cars (based on the Electrobat and Riker Electric cabs) as taxis to several American cities, but fell into hard times in 1900 after facing competition from gas-powered cars and legal problems stemming from monopolistic practices, as well as scandal surrounding the poor performance of its vehicles.
Oh how far we've come.
Move to technologies that don't run the risks of poisoning huge swaths of their nation's limited land.
Like windmill farms, giant dams, and solar panel fields.
There are four regions offshore North America with known seeps. Two of these, the Gulf of Mexico and southern California, have a combined annual oil seep rate of 160,000 tonnes, derived by adding 140,000 tonnes, estimated from the Gulf of Mexico, and the estimate of 20,000 tonnes from Southern California.
source: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10388&page=192
Spills of that magnitude at one location might be rare but they still occur and looking at time in a geologic timescale they're simply not that big of a deal. Man has simply decided that it needs to feed of the seafood in that area, and swim on those beaches so a spill is something to complain about. A meteor impact wiping out 80% of all species on the planet you could deem damaging to the ecosystem, it's still a natural occurence, life still finds a way and the world still turns.
The pictures of dead fish sure prompt a lot of people to get upset I'm sure but it does not make this event even remotely unprecedented in nature.
I'm posting about the actual long-term effects to the environment certain people claim this is going to cause. Nature has mechanisms to deal with spills of this magnitude without any intervention from us. It could just have easily happened naturally.
Here's a simple citation easily google'd
This is for the /. mods who love to just mark me troll
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/01/000127082228.htm
This could easily have been a natural occurrence, at anytime nature could again just decide to expel tons of deep ocean oil, but because now people have $$$$ involved and it could be blamned on someone (sued) then it's all the news with the environmentalists. Anyone who actually has studied some Geology knows this was not a big deal for the environment... and please.. we need to talk in scales of centuries.. not months.
Maybe you should read their actual lawsuit.
http://static.ibsrv.net/ibsite/pdf/2012/2012_9_4_Internet%20Brands%20Files%20To%20Protect%20Its%20Wikitravel%20Trademark%20From%20Deliberate%20Infringement.pdf