There's even more to it especially in extreme downtowns. You mention that parking downtown is expensive - but picture if we managed to have a transportation system efficient enough that we didn't even need that much parking downtown. That parking garage could be another skyscraper. A few more of those and you might be able to justify some fancy people moving system like airport slideways, automated shuttles, etc...
You can even end up with a situation where an suburbanite like myself ends up walking more because of the trek from parking lot to building than the urbanites do, while never setting foot outside unless it's by choice.
You don't understand. The claim was that yellow was used for "identification".
Well, given that my multimeter happens to be a fluke and is therefore yellow, I can ID MY multimeter by that shade of yellow quickly out of a toolbox.
As for the general identification part, it's less about 'Yellow' and more 'bright primary shade'. The problem with allowing Fluke to take 'all yellow multimeters' is that I believe that a primary color is too broad to qualify as a trademark. Especially when you're looking at avoiding confusion with other stuff, bright orange and yellow are your primary choices.
A meter "being easy to find" is not a safety function.
It is when you're operating in an area that might not be the best lit and you need to use it to check for voltage.
That's not necessarily true. If you are taxing a charger to its limit, there will be a lot more waste heat. Using a charger that is running at half its max will generally be more efficient.
50% is more efficient than 100%, yes, but 80% is generally much more efficient than either. You're generally best off using a power supply that's 120% of the max power the device will use 80% of the time, as long as 'absolute maximum' is still within the supply's reach.
(Oh, and although I firmly hope to never have to drive an electric car, I think the mere existence of the new "Frankenplug" [google.com] EV connector proves my point...)
I wouldn't let an ugly 'do everything' type plug stop you from driving an EV. The technology itself is great for what it is, everything I've read says that EVs are fund to drive.
But Tesla managed to come out with a plug that's much simpler than the frankenplug, yet STILL does more. It's what happens when you let committees design things...
Yeah, I totally hate HDMI cables too, they suck! So what if I can get pure digital HD video and audio on the same tiny cable, as opposed to the five required for component (with stereo sound and lesser vidoe quality). I just hate having to actually look at the cable and port I'm trying to plug it into: I'd much rather just jab them together blindly until it goes in!
Nice attempt at sarcasm, but you missed the point. People want 'everything'. I'd say that I've plugged more cables in under less than ideal circumstances than with a good view of what I'm trying to plug in - such as into the back of a computer when I can't see the back, less than ideal lighting, odd angles, etc.. Having a cable where I don't have to worry about orientation makes it so much easier. Component video is less than ideal because you still need 3-5 cables plugged into the correct spots.
Roughly speaking, the question might be WHY is HDMI only orientable in two ways? Could they have made it so it's reversible without sacrificing any utility?
Heck, consider the bandwidth available from coax. Why do we need all those wires, because it's cheaper?
Does the Nokia 100 include a data port? I don't think so, in which case a charging only port would be cheaper. But if you're doing data as well, then it's cheaper to simply hook the USB up for charging as well.
FTA: adopt an universal charger for mobile phones and tablets, as well.
It includes tablets. Hell, it mentions that they're mandating a universal standard for laptop powersupplies, which given the difference between a 'notebook' and a gaming laptop seems a bit premature. 80W vs 200W is a big change.
I was simply trying to make an analogy. As for the standard port, part of the problem is if you require all chargers to be of a certain power level, while it might not end up in the dump, you're using higher power chargers for lower power devices, which generally uses more resources.
A little flexibility is necessary. For tablets and such, perhaps have a limit? IE if the device is over X power for charging it doesn't have to use the standard interface(and will eventually get it's own)?
What happens when you mandate a single charger suitable for vehicles like the Leaf, then you have Tesla attempting to produce a long-range vehicle? The 'superchargers' that Tesla is building overpowers most 'fast chargers' out there by a substantial amount.
Do you mandate that all chargers reach the Tesla's level, or do you cripple Tesla?
Honestly, with the larger tablets I wonder if 12V might not be a better voltage for them.
Or a massive system failure, such as a massive fire taking out the crew and electronics, but with the basic shell of the craft still being intact it will glide for quite a bit before stability is lost and it 'drops out' of the atmosphere.
Personally, the moment you talk about 'in-flight' refueling, I'm thinking what you need to do is make a strong hybrid - battery assist, but also with an engine, most likely diesel*, perhaps even a turbine like what's in the M1(updated and smaller, of course).
This gives you monster power when you need it, and increased efficiency which also increases the range. Between the armor and the battery weight, many things that would normally stop a vehicle won't stop the presidential one.
*less likely to explode if attacked by something like an IED, RPG, and such.
Yes and no. I recently bought a new car after 15 years in my old one. I really like the tech. BUT, I'd also love the option of buying a 40 year old car (yes, I'm that old) at a 40 year old adjusted price.
My point was that car with more or less the same performance as the 40 year old car technology, just updated to be compatible with modern production techniques, would be substantially cheaper, inflation adjusted, than the original.
I understand that YOU might like that, but when I said 'people' I was meaning in general. In general I think that you'd find that so many people would prefer paying $100 more for this feature, $50 for that, and so on that producing a 'true' analoge to the older car would be such a niche item as to not acheive the economy of scale to actually be cheaper than the cars with more expansive feature sets.
Much like houses, cars have gotten fancier as opposed to cheaper. We could make a beetle analog with modern technology and have it be extremely cheap, but instead people have decided that they prefer buying more car.
By the time you wrap infrastructure around it, plus enough fuel to go from LEO to GEO you're at or over the capacity of existing launchers.
Depends on the extent of the infrastructure, and I'll point out that the ISS was built modularly as well, so if you need 2-3 launches so be it. I'm thinking seed earth side, seed farside, and center station(which does things like control ribbon length for deployment). Once you have that initial cable you start lifting more cable and supplies as necessary.
The cost benefit and safety sides of things start coming down in favour of something capable of putting 30,000+ tons of _net_ payload into GEO in one go.
Are you proposing an orion drive? Or did you meak 30k kg or 30 tons? Right now, from a risk assessment point I'd vote for staggering the launches - launch the station first, followed by the seed cable, then depending on the weight and placement of the station maybe a third for the balance cable/mass.
You've also nailed the issue of the seed cable - one is not enough. You'll need enough of them (plus a sfaety margin) in place to be able to lift another seed cable.
Every proposal I've seen has the first couple years of establishment of the seed cable being primarily lifting more cable. You don't need to be able to lift another whole seed immediately. Instead you lift 'strands' that are individually a lot less capable than the seed.
Having actually read one of Dr. Atkin's diet plan books, the most severe carb restriction is only in the beginning. After that it has instructions to re-introduce carbs in a controlled fashion and find a level that works for you.
The point that I was making is that it's silly to cut out 150 calories when the rest your meal is still like 1500 calories.
Uh... Most burgers aren't 1500 calories. Not even most combo meals are that bad. Drop the fries and bread and that's like 500 calories saved, about what most diets recommend for your deficit for weight loss.
I don't see it mentioned in this article, but I've read that part of the problem is that existing cleanup methods cause more damage to the enviornment than the oil does. The scrubbing, soaps and such required damages the coastline as well. It's faster to let it degrade naturally, though that can take decades with the colder temperatures up there.
1. Define 'Brisk' 2. Where are you biking that you're not sweating? I bike in Alaska and I sweat. Your brisk might be awfully slow. 3. From what I've seen, they DO pedal, generally using the motor to provide extra speed, start and hill assistance.
Consider that this might be the difference between me using a bike to get groceries or driving - simply because of the weight of the groceries I'm planning on getting.
Worst case, consider the device a range extender - getting people so they're willing to bike for slightly longer distances encourages them to use it even more, and as they use it more they get into better shape, and as they get into better shape their range extends even more again.
These drivers would arrive in a folding electric bike, fold their bike and put it in the trunk, take the sensible drunk home and return on the electrified bike.
I agree with the other part. If it's $5 for a standard bike rental or $10 for the electric, if I'm going far enough the electric might make sense. Heck, going on a bike ride with an elder relative might be more realistic.
Here, it's not (although it doesn't sound like it needs much human power).
Yeah. The startup thing aside, after reading the NYC law I wonder how it'd handle an electric bicycle that uses some sort of strain sensor to decide how much 'assist' to give the rider. IE you could set it to 100% and it'd try to match the power the user is putting into the bike, 200% would be if you're old and out of shape, 50% if you just need a bit of assistance to get there on time/up that hill, etc...
It'd work a bit like those grid-tie solar systems that can't produce electricity at all if the grid is out.
It mentions 18 miles per hour in the article for the top speed, but I wonder if that's for 'not' or 'barely' pedaling. Can it take somebody with a max speed of 15mph pedaling on their own and get them up to 20 if they're really working at it?
but to fat and lazy to actually ride a bike enough to be in good enough shape to travel 20 miles without breaking a sweat.
Consider that there's a lot of work and sweat between 'fat&lazy' and 'slim&active'. Most people have limited choice about distance from work. A device that gets them started, to actually do it, can be of great assistance. I know there's a few hills where I would have liked this thing just for that spot. I'd still have to help it up, of course.
What about the guy who needs to travel 30 miles, and this is the difference between him biking and driving?
In other words, biking shouldn't be about exclusivity.
Selling millions - Not if it can only fit on one bike type. Fix that and maybe.
For all the corruption we hear about in the USA and Europe, it's nothing compared to the majority of other countries.
As for the laws, that's pretty much what I meant - grease the right wheels, which is easy, and you can indeed get away with that stuff for long periods of time.
I think that it's because the USA has sufficient court and enforcement systems that any such activities aren't worth it - major companies dominate the market, it's too hard to form a 'fly by night' company selling stuff for a relatively short period of time before you disappear(and show up under a different name) for selling substandard/defective crap.
It would have been better to link to generic fitting instructions for the masks in question as that would actually be useful.
I think they're also overstating the difficulty. At least for my mask(which is rated tougher than 95% of particles) there's 3 basic mask sizes. If you're extremely tiny you might need a different type.
Expedient fitting - put a sample of each of the 3 masks on, picking the one that's 'tight, but not too tight'. Strap it down, then block the filters. Can't breath with your hands over the filter openings? You have a good seal.
Slashdot Mirror
There's even more to it especially in extreme downtowns. You mention that parking downtown is expensive - but picture if we managed to have a transportation system efficient enough that we didn't even need that much parking downtown. That parking garage could be another skyscraper. A few more of those and you might be able to justify some fancy people moving system like airport slideways, automated shuttles, etc...
You can even end up with a situation where an suburbanite like myself ends up walking more because of the trek from parking lot to building than the urbanites do, while never setting foot outside unless it's by choice.
You don't understand. The claim was that yellow was used for "identification".
Well, given that my multimeter happens to be a fluke and is therefore yellow, I can ID MY multimeter by that shade of yellow quickly out of a toolbox.
As for the general identification part, it's less about 'Yellow' and more 'bright primary shade'. The problem with allowing Fluke to take 'all yellow multimeters' is that I believe that a primary color is too broad to qualify as a trademark. Especially when you're looking at avoiding confusion with other stuff, bright orange and yellow are your primary choices.
A meter "being easy to find" is not a safety function.
It is when you're operating in an area that might not be the best lit and you need to use it to check for voltage.
It's not a patent, it's a trademark, and I agree.
The yellow coloring helps with identification/safety.
That's not necessarily true. If you are taxing a charger to its limit, there will be a lot more waste heat. Using a charger that is running at half its max will generally be more efficient.
50% is more efficient than 100%, yes, but 80% is generally much more efficient than either. You're generally best off using a power supply that's 120% of the max power the device will use 80% of the time, as long as 'absolute maximum' is still within the supply's reach.
(Oh, and although I firmly hope to never have to drive an electric car, I think the mere existence of the new "Frankenplug" [google.com] EV connector proves my point...)
I wouldn't let an ugly 'do everything' type plug stop you from driving an EV. The technology itself is great for what it is, everything I've read says that EVs are fund to drive.
But Tesla managed to come out with a plug that's much simpler than the frankenplug, yet STILL does more. It's what happens when you let committees design things...
Yeah, I totally hate HDMI cables too, they suck! So what if I can get pure digital HD video and audio on the same tiny cable, as opposed to the five required for component (with stereo sound and lesser vidoe quality). I just hate having to actually look at the cable and port I'm trying to plug it into: I'd much rather just jab them together blindly until it goes in!
Nice attempt at sarcasm, but you missed the point. People want 'everything'. I'd say that I've plugged more cables in under less than ideal circumstances than with a good view of what I'm trying to plug in - such as into the back of a computer when I can't see the back, less than ideal lighting, odd angles, etc.. Having a cable where I don't have to worry about orientation makes it so much easier. Component video is less than ideal because you still need 3-5 cables plugged into the correct spots.
Roughly speaking, the question might be WHY is HDMI only orientable in two ways? Could they have made it so it's reversible without sacrificing any utility?
Heck, consider the bandwidth available from coax. Why do we need all those wires, because it's cheaper?
Does the Nokia 100 include a data port? I don't think so, in which case a charging only port would be cheaper. But if you're doing data as well, then it's cheaper to simply hook the USB up for charging as well.
FTA: adopt an universal charger for mobile phones and tablets, as well.
It includes tablets. Hell, it mentions that they're mandating a universal standard for laptop powersupplies, which given the difference between a 'notebook' and a gaming laptop seems a bit premature. 80W vs 200W is a big change.
I was simply trying to make an analogy. As for the standard port, part of the problem is if you require all chargers to be of a certain power level, while it might not end up in the dump, you're using higher power chargers for lower power devices, which generally uses more resources.
A little flexibility is necessary. For tablets and such, perhaps have a limit? IE if the device is over X power for charging it doesn't have to use the standard interface(and will eventually get it's own)?
Well, consider electric cars for a moment.
What happens when you mandate a single charger suitable for vehicles like the Leaf, then you have Tesla attempting to produce a long-range vehicle? The 'superchargers' that Tesla is building overpowers most 'fast chargers' out there by a substantial amount.
Do you mandate that all chargers reach the Tesla's level, or do you cripple Tesla?
Honestly, with the larger tablets I wonder if 12V might not be a better voltage for them.
Or a massive system failure, such as a massive fire taking out the crew and electronics, but with the basic shell of the craft still being intact it will glide for quite a bit before stability is lost and it 'drops out' of the atmosphere.
Personally, the moment you talk about 'in-flight' refueling, I'm thinking what you need to do is make a strong hybrid - battery assist, but also with an engine, most likely diesel*, perhaps even a turbine like what's in the M1(updated and smaller, of course).
This gives you monster power when you need it, and increased efficiency which also increases the range. Between the armor and the battery weight, many things that would normally stop a vehicle won't stop the presidential one.
*less likely to explode if attacked by something like an IED, RPG, and such.
Yes and no. I recently bought a new car after 15 years in my old one. I really like the tech. BUT, I'd also love the option of buying a 40 year old car (yes, I'm that old) at a 40 year old adjusted price.
My point was that car with more or less the same performance as the 40 year old car technology, just updated to be compatible with modern production techniques, would be substantially cheaper, inflation adjusted, than the original.
I understand that YOU might like that, but when I said 'people' I was meaning in general. In general I think that you'd find that so many people would prefer paying $100 more for this feature, $50 for that, and so on that producing a 'true' analoge to the older car would be such a niche item as to not acheive the economy of scale to actually be cheaper than the cars with more expansive feature sets.
Oh, and personally I'd prefer the safer car.
Translation:
Much like houses, cars have gotten fancier as opposed to cheaper. We could make a beetle analog with modern technology and have it be extremely cheap, but instead people have decided that they prefer buying more car.
No, Tesla wants to open a showroom in New Jersey to show the cars. All Tesla cars are sold through their web site.
Keep it quiet, we don't want the dealers to know that Tesla already has a way around their strategy.
By the time you wrap infrastructure around it, plus enough fuel to go from LEO to GEO you're at or over the capacity of existing launchers.
Depends on the extent of the infrastructure, and I'll point out that the ISS was built modularly as well, so if you need 2-3 launches so be it. I'm thinking seed earth side, seed farside, and center station(which does things like control ribbon length for deployment). Once you have that initial cable you start lifting more cable and supplies as necessary.
The cost benefit and safety sides of things start coming down in favour of something capable of putting 30,000+ tons of _net_ payload into GEO in one go.
Are you proposing an orion drive? Or did you meak 30k kg or 30 tons? Right now, from a risk assessment point I'd vote for staggering the launches - launch the station first, followed by the seed cable, then depending on the weight and placement of the station maybe a third for the balance cable/mass.
You've also nailed the issue of the seed cable - one is not enough. You'll need enough of them (plus a sfaety margin) in place to be able to lift another seed cable.
Every proposal I've seen has the first couple years of establishment of the seed cable being primarily lifting more cable. You don't need to be able to lift another whole seed immediately. Instead you lift 'strands' that are individually a lot less capable than the seed.
Having actually read one of Dr. Atkin's diet plan books, the most severe carb restriction is only in the beginning. After that it has instructions to re-introduce carbs in a controlled fashion and find a level that works for you.
The point that I was making is that it's silly to cut out 150 calories when the rest your meal is still like 1500 calories.
Uh... Most burgers aren't 1500 calories. Not even most combo meals are that bad. Drop the fries and bread and that's like 500 calories saved, about what most diets recommend for your deficit for weight loss.
I don't really see the downside there..
I don't see it mentioned in this article, but I've read that part of the problem is that existing cleanup methods cause more damage to the enviornment than the oil does. The scrubbing, soaps and such required damages the coastline as well. It's faster to let it degrade naturally, though that can take decades with the colder temperatures up there.
1. Define 'Brisk'
2. Where are you biking that you're not sweating? I bike in Alaska and I sweat. Your brisk might be awfully slow.
3. From what I've seen, they DO pedal, generally using the motor to provide extra speed, start and hill assistance.
Consider that this might be the difference between me using a bike to get groceries or driving - simply because of the weight of the groceries I'm planning on getting.
Worst case, consider the device a range extender - getting people so they're willing to bike for slightly longer distances encourages them to use it even more, and as they use it more they get into better shape, and as they get into better shape their range extends even more again.
These drivers would arrive in a folding electric bike, fold their bike and put it in the trunk, take the sensible drunk home and return on the electrified bike.
It's already being done... "Zingo"
I agree with the other part. If it's $5 for a standard bike rental or $10 for the electric, if I'm going far enough the electric might make sense. Heck, going on a bike ride with an elder relative might be more realistic.
Here, it's not (although it doesn't sound like it needs much human power).
Yeah. The startup thing aside, after reading the NYC law I wonder how it'd handle an electric bicycle that uses some sort of strain sensor to decide how much 'assist' to give the rider. IE you could set it to 100% and it'd try to match the power the user is putting into the bike, 200% would be if you're old and out of shape, 50% if you just need a bit of assistance to get there on time/up that hill, etc...
It'd work a bit like those grid-tie solar systems that can't produce electricity at all if the grid is out.
It mentions 18 miles per hour in the article for the top speed, but I wonder if that's for 'not' or 'barely' pedaling. Can it take somebody with a max speed of 15mph pedaling on their own and get them up to 20 if they're really working at it?
but to fat and lazy to actually ride a bike enough to be in good enough shape to travel 20 miles without breaking a sweat.
Consider that there's a lot of work and sweat between 'fat&lazy' and 'slim&active'. Most people have limited choice about distance from work. A device that gets them started, to actually do it, can be of great assistance. I know there's a few hills where I would have liked this thing just for that spot. I'd still have to help it up, of course.
What about the guy who needs to travel 30 miles, and this is the difference between him biking and driving?
In other words, biking shouldn't be about exclusivity.
Selling millions - Not if it can only fit on one bike type. Fix that and maybe.
For all the corruption we hear about in the USA and Europe, it's nothing compared to the majority of other countries.
As for the laws, that's pretty much what I meant - grease the right wheels, which is easy, and you can indeed get away with that stuff for long periods of time.
I think that it's because the USA has sufficient court and enforcement systems that any such activities aren't worth it - major companies dominate the market, it's too hard to form a 'fly by night' company selling stuff for a relatively short period of time before you disappear(and show up under a different name) for selling substandard/defective crap.
It would have been better to link to generic fitting instructions for the masks in question as that would actually be useful.
I think they're also overstating the difficulty. At least for my mask(which is rated tougher than 95% of particles) there's 3 basic mask sizes. If you're extremely tiny you might need a different type.
Expedient fitting - put a sample of each of the 3 masks on, picking the one that's 'tight, but not too tight'. Strap it down, then block the filters. Can't breath with your hands over the filter openings? You have a good seal.