I would rather use "besetzt" (occupied). But "besetzt" has a different connotation than owned. Besetzt would always be preliminary, and not to stay, and it has also a connotation of illegality. "Besessen" has a double meaning, as it either means "has been owned" (and is no longer owned), or it means "bewitched".
Autosteering via rails will never be reliable. Scientists have discovered yet another way to derail a train. Railroads will go down in history as silly as mechanical chess players.
Gasoline lasts a whole lot more miles per 100kg of fuel, than 100kg of batteries do.
Which only makes sense if you want to ride more than 2000 km without stopping. For all other uses, this is totally irrelevant.
Driver further, get around corners better, break faster.
The last two are purely a design problem, if they actually exist. And most people will never be able to tell the difference.
And you can "recharge" in seconds.
This is only relevant if you are recharging while on a trip. But a normal car sits in a parking lot 22 to 23 hrs a day, time enough for recharging.
And your tank does not get smaller every time you use it.
But the efficiency of your energy conversoin gets worse every time you use it.
And gasoline has no lithium in it. Plus you can actually put the fires out that it causes.:)
This is only relevant for today's battery technology. If for instance, sulfur-air-batteries are available for normal use, you don't need to mine Lithium anymore.
Charging batteries is not a free action either, but very inefficient. As OP said, turning electricity and CO2 into gasoline might well be more efficient.
Actually, it's worse, you lose about 50% energy to the environment compared with 10% for recharging.
Insulation only helps so much. You can slow down the cooling, but you can't block it entirely. The insulation can't be too think otherwise it gets too heavy for a car. I would guess that after 24 hrs, a battery has cooled down to the environmental temperature, no matter what insulation you put in place.
In a country which generates more electric energy from hydroplants than it actually uses (Norway is a net exporter of electric energy), fuel cells just don't make sense at all.
The dutch dams work because of the special situation at the Dutch coast: a mudflat with tidal changes.
Due to the special conditions around the North Sea (a small sea bordering an ocean) you have high tidal differences, which allows to empty the rivers during low tide and block the incoming seawater during high tide. The difference in height is up to ten feet at the Dutch coast, but only about one foot at Bangladesh's coast.
The tidal changes work like a large natural water pump. The natural pump basically doesn't exist in Bangladesh with only one foot twice per day, and with one foot of sealevel rise, it is totally gone. Instead, Bangladesh would have to install large man-made water to get the water of the Ganges and the Brahmhaputra river out of the country and into the ocean.
I always wonder when people bring up the Dutch dam system if they ever actually look how they work? And why they only exists along the North Sea and nowhere else on the globe? You would expect them to have been built alongside all coasts of the world, if they were an universally appliable concept. Alas, they aren't. They work because the Dutch coast is in fact a mudflat... the largest mutflat of the world. The Dutch dam system only works with mudflats. Everywhere else, it fails, becaue either, you don't have enough tidal changes, or because of the missing mudflats along the coast.
No. I am not. Whatever that video quoted from, it's probably not NASA.
What I did is simply taking numbers everyone can look up. We know the surface temperature of the Sun. It's effective temperature is about 5777 K. We know the Solar constant is slighly less than 1.4 kW. We know the diameter of the Earth and can thus calculate how much energy the Sun radiates to the Earth. We can calculate how warm a black body the size of the Earth has to have to radiate as much energy back to Space. We know, it's 254 K if we consider the albedo (the reflectivity of the Earth, without it would be around 279 K). We also know that the average surface temperature of Earth is 290 K, as we get daily measurements in the weather reports.
We did the same for Mars and Venus (the U.S. first with the Mariner probes, the USSR with the Venera probes) already in the 1970ies. We know their atmospheres. We know their average surface temperatues (220 K and 740 K). We can calculate their black body temperature (211 K and 227 K if we include the albedo). There is no magic. There are no hidden variables. There is just the Stefan-Boltzmann law and Planck's radiation law.
Whatever your video suggests, it contradicts what we actually measure. So I would rather trust the measurements and not some video on Youtube.
Somehow the major TV broadcasters have only a few live shows per day, and on those shows, they already have people switching cameras, fading sounds in and out and similar stuff.
With livestreams someone else is broadcasting, there is no such infrastructure in place.
It does make sense. The idea was to optimize the daily schedule so most work will be done during daylight. But as it gets hot in summer, it was necessary to rest a little in the afternoon, and continue to work afterwards, extending the schedule for one or two hours. In winter, you don't need to avoid the heat in the afternoon, but as it gets dark early, extending the work schedule too late doesn't make sense.
We have a pretty good clue what CO2 does to a celestial body. The Earth is not the only one that has CO2. Actually, most of the celestial bodies we know have CO2 in their atmosphere, if they actually have one. And each single of them is warmer than the black body temperature would predict. We have the extreme Venus, where the black body temperature is about the freezing point of water (273 K), but the actual surface temperature is about 740 K. And yes, the atmosphere of Venus is dense, and consists to more than 95% of CO2. We have the Mars with a very thin atmosphere, which is also mainly CO2, but of very low density, which means that the amount of CO2 electromagnetic radiation has to pass to either reach the Mars surface or to leave it, is much smaller than on Earth. Earth in turn has Greenhouse effect of about 20 K. We have Earth, whose Greenhouse effect compared to the black body temperature makes the surface about 35 K warmer.
So yes, we have plenty of data how CO2 influences surface temperatures.
We also have historical data on CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere. Starting in the 1870ies, chemists were able to analyze the atmosphere very exactly, and at least since the 1890ies, we have complete data. We know that in 1900, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was 270 ppm (or 0.0270 percent). We know that it grew to 300 ppm in the 1950ies, 330 ppm in the 1970ies and to 410 ppm now. We can also calculate the amount of additional carbon dioxide necessary for the increase: It's 700 billion metric tons. We can also calculate the amount of coal and oil we need to burn to get 700 billion metric tons. It's about 270 billion metric tons. That means: burning about 2.1 billion tons of coal and oil per year for the last 120 years would result in the increase of carbon dioxid we measure right now. In fact, we burn about 4.1 billion tons of oil and 1 billion tons of coal per year right now.
I can see the global warming right out of my window. I live in the mountains, and I can see the skiing resorts. The one that got built in the 1800s, the one from the early 1900s, the one from the 1950ies, 1980ies and of now. I wonder why all new structures have moved higher up.
I can also see the terminal moraine left by the glaciers in the 1800s, in the early 1900s, the ones from the 1950ies, 1980ies, and where the glacier ends now. I wonder why they likewise move higher up.
And I can see the postcards with pictures from the same spot in the 1800s, in the early 1900s, the ones from the 1950ies, 1980ies, and where the snow line ends now. I wonder why it moved higher up too.
Basicly you are saying: When all agree, measurements, experiments, people performing the measurements, setting up the experiments, knowing the theories behind the measurements and the experiments, it's still not science. And then you quote Richard Feynman as your appeal to authority.
It doesn't say that. It says that development of selfdriving cars will continue because of the economy of driving, and they will find widespread adoption not when they are good, but when they are good enough. They don't need to prove that they will actually save human lives. It is sufficient if they don't cost more than human drivers.
Selfdriving cars will have other advantages. You don't need large parking lots anymore close to highly frequented destinations. Just leave the car at your destination and let it self-park somewhere else. They will make renting a car nearly hassle-free. Just order a car, it will selfdrive to your location, you drive to your destination and then just leave it where it is. Car ownership, which regularly means that it will be parked unused somewhere 95% of its time, will look more and more unattractive, freeing up money for other tasks.
Saving human lives by being less accident prone than human drivers will be a side effect. Economy of driving will be much more important in the widespread adoption of selfdriving cars.
Slashdot Mirror
But that's only for pwned, not for owned. An owned car is by no means illegal property. A besetztes house definitely is.
I would rather use "besetzt" (occupied). But "besetzt" has a different connotation than owned. Besetzt would always be preliminary, and not to stay, and it has also a connotation of illegality. "Besessen" has a double meaning, as it either means "has been owned" (and is no longer owned), or it means "bewitched".
I do too, and I am German.
I'm missing a "-1, Wishful thinking" moderation choice.
Autosteering via rails will never be reliable. Scientists have discovered yet another way to derail a train. Railroads will go down in history as silly as mechanical chess players.
I have no problem to rent a car if I need something else for a single trip. I also rent a van if I have to transport more than my car can carry.
Gasoline lasts a whole lot more miles per 100kg of fuel, than 100kg of batteries do.
Which only makes sense if you want to ride more than 2000 km without stopping. For all other uses, this is totally irrelevant.
Driver further, get around corners better, break faster.
The last two are purely a design problem, if they actually exist. And most people will never be able to tell the difference.
And you can "recharge" in seconds.
This is only relevant if you are recharging while on a trip. But a normal car sits in a parking lot 22 to 23 hrs a day, time enough for recharging.
And your tank does not get smaller every time you use it.
But the efficiency of your energy conversoin gets worse every time you use it.
And gasoline has no lithium in it. Plus you can actually put the fires out that it causes. :)
This is only relevant for today's battery technology. If for instance, sulfur-air-batteries are available for normal use, you don't need to mine Lithium anymore.
Charging batteries is not a free action either, but very inefficient. As OP said, turning electricity and CO2 into gasoline might well be more efficient.
Actually, it's worse, you lose about 50% energy to the environment compared with 10% for recharging.
Insulation only helps so much. You can slow down the cooling, but you can't block it entirely. The insulation can't be too think otherwise it gets too heavy for a car. I would guess that after 24 hrs, a battery has cooled down to the environmental temperature, no matter what insulation you put in place.
The "fair bit" in this case is: more hydro electric power than the country actually uses, or more than 100 percent hydro powered.
In a country which generates more electric energy from hydroplants than it actually uses (Norway is a net exporter of electric energy), fuel cells just don't make sense at all.
When should that have been? The second wife of my grandfather was an engineer. And my grandfather died more than 20 years ago.
It is. But it would have been sufficient in this case, as any not-0000 would have foiled the plan.
Setting the PIN to 1234 instead of 0000 would also have stopped that van crime. And it would have cost much less.
Due to the special conditions around the North Sea (a small sea bordering an ocean) you have high tidal differences, which allows to empty the rivers during low tide and block the incoming seawater during high tide. The difference in height is up to ten feet at the Dutch coast, but only about one foot at Bangladesh's coast.
The tidal changes work like a large natural water pump. The natural pump basically doesn't exist in Bangladesh with only one foot twice per day, and with one foot of sealevel rise, it is totally gone. Instead, Bangladesh would have to install large man-made water to get the water of the Ganges and the Brahmhaputra river out of the country and into the ocean.
I always wonder when people bring up the Dutch dam system if they ever actually look how they work? And why they only exists along the North Sea and nowhere else on the globe? You would expect them to have been built alongside all coasts of the world, if they were an universally appliable concept. Alas, they aren't. They work because the Dutch coast is in fact a mudflat... the largest mutflat of the world. The Dutch dam system only works with mudflats. Everywhere else, it fails, becaue either, you don't have enough tidal changes, or because of the missing mudflats along the coast.
What I did is simply taking numbers everyone can look up. We know the surface temperature of the Sun. It's effective temperature is about 5777 K. We know the Solar constant is slighly less than 1.4 kW. We know the diameter of the Earth and can thus calculate how much energy the Sun radiates to the Earth. We can calculate how warm a black body the size of the Earth has to have to radiate as much energy back to Space. We know, it's 254 K if we consider the albedo (the reflectivity of the Earth, without it would be around 279 K). We also know that the average surface temperature of Earth is 290 K, as we get daily measurements in the weather reports.
We did the same for Mars and Venus (the U.S. first with the Mariner probes, the USSR with the Venera probes) already in the 1970ies. We know their atmospheres. We know their average surface temperatues (220 K and 740 K). We can calculate their black body temperature (211 K and 227 K if we include the albedo). There is no magic. There are no hidden variables. There is just the Stefan-Boltzmann law and Planck's radiation law.
Whatever your video suggests, it contradicts what we actually measure. So I would rather trust the measurements and not some video on Youtube.
With livestreams someone else is broadcasting, there is no such infrastructure in place.
It does make sense. The idea was to optimize the daily schedule so most work will be done during daylight. But as it gets hot in summer, it was necessary to rest a little in the afternoon, and continue to work afterwards, extending the schedule for one or two hours. In winter, you don't need to avoid the heat in the afternoon, but as it gets dark early, extending the work schedule too late doesn't make sense.
So yes, we have plenty of data how CO2 influences surface temperatures.
We also have historical data on CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere. Starting in the 1870ies, chemists were able to analyze the atmosphere very exactly, and at least since the 1890ies, we have complete data. We know that in 1900, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was 270 ppm (or 0.0270 percent). We know that it grew to 300 ppm in the 1950ies, 330 ppm in the 1970ies and to 410 ppm now. We can also calculate the amount of additional carbon dioxide necessary for the increase: It's 700 billion metric tons. We can also calculate the amount of coal and oil we need to burn to get 700 billion metric tons. It's about 270 billion metric tons. That means: burning about 2.1 billion tons of coal and oil per year for the last 120 years would result in the increase of carbon dioxid we measure right now. In fact, we burn about 4.1 billion tons of oil and 1 billion tons of coal per year right now.
I can also see the terminal moraine left by the glaciers in the 1800s, in the early 1900s, the ones from the 1950ies, 1980ies, and where the glacier ends now. I wonder why they likewise move higher up.
And I can see the postcards with pictures from the same spot in the 1800s, in the early 1900s, the ones from the 1950ies, 1980ies, and where the snow line ends now. I wonder why it moved higher up too.
Basicly you are saying: When all agree, measurements, experiments, people performing the measurements, setting up the experiments, knowing the theories behind the measurements and the experiments, it's still not science. And then you quote Richard Feynman as your appeal to authority.
I'll code in any language you throw at me if necessary. Sometimes, you have to do with the things at hand. Life is not a picnic.
Real Programmers use a butterfly.
[,,,] the determined Real Programmer can write FORTRAN programs in any language.
Ironically, this is an article why Real Programmers avoid Pascal.
It doesn't say that. It says that development of selfdriving cars will continue because of the economy of driving, and they will find widespread adoption not when they are good, but when they are good enough. They don't need to prove that they will actually save human lives. It is sufficient if they don't cost more than human drivers.
Saving human lives by being less accident prone than human drivers will be a side effect. Economy of driving will be much more important in the widespread adoption of selfdriving cars.