Well, it's been mentioned elsewhere that diesel is better than gasoline from a explosion standpoint - diesel is harder to make explode in response to the first one.
The biggest problem with converting the President's vehicle to electric would be weight. The thing is already heavy enough to 'technically' not be allowed on some roads. While energy density has increased in the last decade, EVs are still substantially heavier than their fossil fuel cousins. As the primary concern about the president's safety isn't actually an accident, but actual attack or even a kidnapping attempt, mobility is a critical concern - while needing to suddenly drive 300 miles non-stop is extremely unlikely, I'm sure the secret service likes the option. As such, making the vehicle weigh even more(making it more likely to be stopped), while reducing the range is not considered a good choice.
Spark ignition creates a lot of the same surges an EMP weapon would create. Due to the way cars are wired - the body itself is the common ground and everything is DC, it turns out that in order for electronics to be reliable in a car they have to be built tough enough to take all but the most crazy EMP surges.
12-25kVM to start experiencing stuff that 'normally' only takes restarting the vehicle, or worst case disconnecting then reattaching the battery.
Levels quoted from actual nuclear weapons are 5-5.6kVM for the USA, 7.5kVM for Russia. It's possible to design one that's >50kVM, but even that might not be enough to permanently disable more than a small fraction of automobiles in the immediate area.
Uh... They're both fossil fuels derived from oil, but Diesel is very much from a different section of the refinement stack than Gasoline. Their properties are so different that when used to fuel an internal combustion engine you need to use very different fuel cycles. Gasoline uses spark engines, diesel one specifically named after it.
On that topic, I'd like to see a series EV diesel truck. I mean, having the electric motors would fit in about ideally with towing requirements, while the diesel would give you the extended range/higher fuel economy of the more energy dense fuel.
Um.... Wow. Always humbled a bit when somebody responds with a huge post to one of mine.
On Unions - I'll keep it short and simple: There needs to be a balance of power between Businesses, Unions, and workers. Yes, I recognize that Unions don't always act in the Worker's best interests, thus workers need power against the union. Especially the mega-unions you mention. Where the line needs to be drawn is more a gray area than some sharp division, but ON AVERAGE I think that Unions need to be more company level(So you don't get situations like the Autoworkers Union pulling funds from Ford workers to pay for the GM worker's strike), and companies should have the right to 'fire' the union. Basically, treat the Union as a giant employee. You can't just hire the hand; you have to hire the whole thing, which theoretically should be easier to work with(benefits, pay scale, and such) than trying to negotiate with each worker individually. If the union gets too uptight; fire the whole thing and either hire another union or workers individually. You're still talking about a huge disruption of the business, making it something of a nuclear option, so the union still has negotiating power.
On PSC's: Comparing them to communications companies isn't entirely fair. Most of those are still enjoying the advantages of ancient monopoly agreements with various areas. We still have hundreds of different security firms, many different gas station lines, etc... It's going to be fairly easy to start up a police firm or expand one. A small one won't have the overhead of a large one, so can be more agile. Most of the equipment of a police force is mobile, and while building a jail can take a while, it could be managed by an independent firm or still the property of the government and simply leased to the active contract holder.
Generic office space can merely be leased. 'Calibration Equipment'? What are the officers calibrating? Their radar guns? They have to buy those anyways, along with cruisers and such. For a new/expanding company, that's what loans are for. It's probably cheaper to have calibration equipment fairly close to avoid shipping the guns, and if it's cheaper to ship them, then you can have independent companies that do the job, not done internally.
Basically, if you start offering AT&T or Comcast level service, because police services aren't a natural monopoly, you're going to see municipalities firing BOTH companies and hiring a third party. You'll see PS individuals leaving the large companies and forming their own group, etc...
The speeding ticket involved 'points on the license' for his non-existent license, then he didn't pay up on time(didn't take the ticket seriously, stupid in and of itself), it got elevated to a suspension/revocation, then they noticed that he didn't HAVE a license, and it became a mandatory X year revocation, which they didn't start until he actually applied for one.
I think at one point they actually mailed him an 'upgraded' ticket for driving without a license, which took work to convince them that, yes, he got a speeding ticket while a minor on a bicycle.
There is no debate here, there's just me calling you to account for some rubbish you've posted on the net.
I see it as the opposite. Without citations, all I have is the vague word of some anonymous person on the internet. Not good enough up against other source.
Well, if you're not willing to source your information, I think I'm done here. You have failed to convince anybody, and I think that if anybody peruses this thread, they'll be more apt to believe me, seeing as how, you know, I actually listed specific figures and sources.
Any random person above the age of 16 can acquire a driver's license. There is no restriction, other than age.
Not true. 1. Vision - if it's too bad, no license 2. Child support - if you're behind too much, no license 3. Convictions - too many offenses? No license. I know of somebody who can't get a license due to a speeding ticket on a bicycle when they were a kid.
regulations typically ban SOMEBODY from doing SOMETHING. If it's a good regulation, this is a good thing.
Yes, and it is easier for an individual with insurance sock up increased insurance costs and in a way get a lower total salary because they put more of their own salary towards increased insurance.
Only works up to a point, at some point if you have too many claims you can't get insurance anymore, or you're no longer making enough money to live on since you're paying so much in insurance. This doesn't just apply to individuals, but companies as well.
But you can do this is a public system, and there are many downsides to this monetary model. Sometimes you want a police officer to take risks.
Like I said, on average I still support them being public. You generally don't want an emergency services organization making every decision purely from a monetary risk to themselves perspective.
Except that, well, there's encrypted GPS channels intended to prevent spoofing(and increase accuracy), and while some of the video feeds were unencrypted on some models of UAV, the control lines are encrypted.
Running a GPS spoofer on US Soil(where you have to worry about US Police) is likely to get you far too much attention from other parties.
Except that it did come out of the treasury, because his pay has to cover his insurance costs, and those costs included operation expenses, money to promote their services in the form of ads and the like, and profit for CEOs.
The difference is that with a private police/law enforcement organization is that if the company screws up too badly: 1. The government organization that hired them are at least somewhat shielded from the total liability. 2. The company itself will go bankrupt (no profits for the corrupt/incompetent owners) 3. Another company will replace the bad one; absorbing only the 'worthy' assets of the old company(preferably, I know this stuff is often messed up). 4. It's much easier to 'fire' the entire police department if they're screwing up too badly.
Despite saying all this, on average I still support public police departments(IE government run).
By which mechanism? Oh that's right, sympathetic magic because it is also dust.
You call it magic. I consult the EPA, CATF, and JAMA.
Also why should I post sources against someone that is very obviously just making stuff up and pretending they know it's real?
Why should I bother posting sources against someone that is very obviously just making stuff up and pretending they know it's real? I mean, it's not like you've cited one thing you've said, and citations disproving your statements are about 10 seconds of google searching away. Despite that, I've bothered to cite various sources like the EPA and CATF. Other cites used information collected by the World Health Organization and other reputable sources.
It doesn't get anyone anywhere since we both know it's made up and also the only bit you've got that's actually about fly ash, using a landslide as evidence that the stuff is dangerous is misleading - so is snow in the wrong place.
Well, you could have gone to the links and found that there are people concerned, that there's moves to further restrict the stuff, and there have been incidents of ground water contamination from leeching. Water being one of the biggest killers in the world is a known but separate issue. The problem I was trying to point out with the landslide of ash was the possibility of chemical contamination making so that people couldn't just move back into their homes after cleanup.
Really, you want to be insulting? Fine. You are a very poor debater. You fail to post sources or citations. You fail to respond with countering evidence when I provide evidence. You fail to provide specific details, attack the person instead of addressing the topic, etc... I'm not perfect, but you suck.
You don't have much choice if you're a start up or something, but I'd argue that as you transition into a stable company you need to work on redundancy and failure tolerance.
Most businesses are very short-term in terms of planning. I suspect this one is no different.
Like I said a couple posts ago - I expanded my concern over the ash from just fly ash AFTER conducting more research. Granite might have higher concentrations, but at least it's a solid. Ash, especially the lighter stuff, is still small enough to get into the lungs and stuff. It might purge easier than asbestos, but it's still fine particulate pollution that can cause lung cancer and such if it's not contained, which is why they've put all those pollution controls in.
Heck, I spent some time studying the local coal cogeneration plant a couple blocks away from my work. It's actually less of a pollution concern at this point than the people operating outdoor wood boilers in my neighborhood. I might not know everything, but like I said - you fixated upon one little thing on my post, and worse, you didn't really specify it before getting into the insults. THAT got my hackles up, at which point I didn't CARE about doing proper research. I LIKE debating and learning and such. If you bothered to post sources I'd probably believe your posts and assertions more, but as long as you're polite I'll be polite and listen.
As is, you've still posted assertions that I've pretty much disproved, and you haven't countered with sources saying otherwise.
I was talking about the production of the batteries vs the refining of oil, and you counter with an emissions comparison.
No need to get snippy, simply cite a source on the batteries like I asked. All I really did was "Could you cite X? I'm only familiar with stuff that says Y". Heck, the BBC link is a lifecycle test that acknowledges that more pollution happens in the factories for EVs, but it says that EVs are eventually 10-24% better than gasoline vehicles over their lifetime. Which would be a proper study comparing EVs with their polluting battery production vs conventional cars with their polluting fuel; IE total up ALL the pollution involved and make a determination.
Keep in mind that the market is shifting away from the NiCd and NiMh that were present in hybrids and EV1 to LiIon in the Tesla series. The nastiest mines I remember about batteries was the Nickel mines in Canada, and that's not present in the battery packs in Tesla cars. I suppose you could cite a source on animal products, but that would be a touch off topic.
I'd argue that, as a company, I don't want ANY one individual, not even the CEO, to be counted as 'irreplaceable'. What if the OP was killed in a car crash tomorrow? Had a heart attack or stroke?
The kid might only be able to do some things with the software, but he could reduce an emergency to an urgent situation as he keeps the system operating long enough for a new contractor to figure out the program.
Just grow up and realize that maybe I know about this shit as well? Heck, maybe you can learn that you get much better results if you don't deliberately insult the person you're replying to/debating with?
Coal ash varies in toxicity. Some of it qualifies as hazardous waste. Some does not. Cinder blocks, indeed, any concrete made using Portland cement from fly ash and similar sources tend to tie up any contaminants for long durations.
It's still a higher concern than the radioactivity, but that says more about the low levels of radioactivity than the toxicity of the substance. Though I definitely wouldn't want to snort it, or even drink water filtered through it.
Still, that would be in the 'improving, but it's going to be a while' category. Having followed the links, I see no mention of cost, longevity, charge efficiency, amp capacity, charge rate, and such that I'd expect to see for something that's 'almost ready' to be manufactured for use in EVs or even just phones.
It's neat technology, but until it's developed into a commercial processes, it's just 'neat', not 'practical'.
Not to mention the large amounts of pollution from the production of them. Oil's far from clean, but it's not as bad.
Citation please? I've mostly seen studies like this.
Even this article only says it's worse if the power is 100% coal, which most areas aren't.
'Hydrogen Infrastructure' is a mistake in my opinion. Hydrogen is hard to store in the densities needed, you need expensive fuel cells to burn it efficiently, and it's not an energy source. It's an energy storage system - you have to spend energy to turn something into hydrogen - the most economical is natural gas, which is actually more efficient to use as a fuel directly, or from electrolysis, which is currently much less efficient than charging a battery.
Yeah, about a decade ago I came up with a saying "There's nothing wrong with electric cars that a battery that lasts twice as long for half the price wouldn't fix".
By my latest figuring, the switch to LiIon got us the 'twice as far', but LiIon doubled the price, at least initially. I think it's now back down to the price per kwh that NiMH and such used to be at, but it needs to be cut in half again, which is at least theoretically possible.
That doesn't mean she is abusing them and out on the street trying to supplement her prescriptions.
From my readings, it's quite possible to be an active addict(IE taking the substance) of opiates essentially for life and still be a productive citizen. Without all the controls we place on opiates, it would actually be quite cheap to provide heroin. I'm not a chemist, but from my research it's about equally difficult to make aspirin and heroin. A quick wiki trawl reveals that aspirin is salicylic acid(historically from willow bark) is treated with acetic anhydride and phosphoric or sulfuric acid. One of the ways to make heroin is treating anhydrous morphine with acetic anhydride.
One report was that, under equal drug controls as aspirin, they'd be of similar price. IE a couple bucks a month for medical grade drugs at therapeutic doses.
I understand that being addicted to a drug is a bad thing, but you have to consider the risks. 1. Physical harm: Can mostly be mitigated via ensuring that the supply is clean and of consistent potency(not a problem for medical grade). 2. Financial harm: Addicts will sacrifice anything for their fix. If said fix is $10/month, it's not much of a sacrifice 3. Productivity harm: Does it matter there will be productivity loss is from pain without the drug? What if they're MORE productive because the pain being treated burns off most of the negative affects(not a doctor, but I've heard that therapeutic uses of opiates to treat pain don't lead to the same issues that using them for recreation does).
Basically, at some point you need to consider that maybe just leaving them on the drug is the cheapest, most effective treatment for their addiction. Especially if their condition means they're still in pain. People pop enough pills already. My parents and grandparents are on at least 6 drugs each. Mom's closer to 12.
While certainly not perfect, there's online converters out there that will automatically convert an e-book from over a dozen formats into almost as many. PDF->EPUB, for one example(though it's noted as being one of the ones more likely to have problems).
Once you get rid of DRM, open source/free ebook reader programmers are free to implement a way to read that format. You're no longer tied to the publisher's choice in readers.
Nothing is ever perfect, but my DRMless ebooks are a lot more usable to me than the few I have that are locked up with DRM*
*Which I mostly got for free; having been burned by DRM in the past I place a serious discount on anything encumbered with it. Oddly enough, I don't crack anything anymore, I'm at a point in my life that I'm willing to pay for stuff, not to mention that a lawsuit, much less criminal charges, wouldn't be worth the even low risk. There's plenty of free media out there if I want it.
Personally, I think that while fast chargers are important, they're not critical. I think the critical thing is to drop the price of the cars. A $30k EV with the capabilities of the Model S(range, passangers, weight, etc...) even if the interior isn't as nice would be a HUGE jump.
Basically, as long as people can point out valid down sides to EVs, you have to be able to point out upsides - and the core one would be 'money saved', while maintaining superior performance in as many other points as possible - comfort, power, ease of use, etc...
EVs pretty much win on the other features - modern ones are often as or more powerful than their competition(electric motors scale up well), they're quiet and non-polluting so the 'comfort' angle is addressed, no shifting at all makes them easy to use. EVs are great except for one big problem - the batteries. They're too expensive for not enough capacity. That's improving, but it's going to be a while.
If you stick to reporting the truth you'll be fine.
I'm not a UK citizen, much less a lawyer, but I remember from some news articles about lawsuits that a critical legal difference between the UK and USA is that unlike the USA, "the truth" is NOT an absolute defense against libel charges.
Though a quick googling shows that some changes were made in 2011, but I'm seeing stuff saying that you still have to be able to PROVE it's true in court in order for it to be a defense, and that the level of proof required can be difficult to meet.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, it's been mentioned elsewhere that diesel is better than gasoline from a explosion standpoint - diesel is harder to make explode in response to the first one.
The biggest problem with converting the President's vehicle to electric would be weight. The thing is already heavy enough to 'technically' not be allowed on some roads. While energy density has increased in the last decade, EVs are still substantially heavier than their fossil fuel cousins. As the primary concern about the president's safety isn't actually an accident, but actual attack or even a kidnapping attempt, mobility is a critical concern - while needing to suddenly drive 300 miles non-stop is extremely unlikely, I'm sure the secret service likes the option. As such, making the vehicle weigh even more(making it more likely to be stopped), while reducing the range is not considered a good choice.
Spark ignition creates a lot of the same surges an EMP weapon would create. Due to the way cars are wired - the body itself is the common ground and everything is DC, it turns out that in order for electronics to be reliable in a car they have to be built tough enough to take all but the most crazy EMP surges.
EMP testing on vehicles.
12-25kVM to start experiencing stuff that 'normally' only takes restarting the vehicle, or worst case disconnecting then reattaching the battery.
Levels quoted from actual nuclear weapons are 5-5.6kVM for the USA, 7.5kVM for Russia. It's possible to design one that's >50kVM, but even that might not be enough to permanently disable more than a small fraction of automobiles in the immediate area.
Diesel is a sub-type of gasoline.
Uh... They're both fossil fuels derived from oil, but Diesel is very much from a different section of the refinement stack than Gasoline. Their properties are so different that when used to fuel an internal combustion engine you need to use very different fuel cycles. Gasoline uses spark engines, diesel one specifically named after it.
On that topic, I'd like to see a series EV diesel truck. I mean, having the electric motors would fit in about ideally with towing requirements, while the diesel would give you the extended range/higher fuel economy of the more energy dense fuel.
Um.... Wow. Always humbled a bit when somebody responds with a huge post to one of mine.
On Unions - I'll keep it short and simple: There needs to be a balance of power between Businesses, Unions, and workers. Yes, I recognize that Unions don't always act in the Worker's best interests, thus workers need power against the union. Especially the mega-unions you mention. Where the line needs to be drawn is more a gray area than some sharp division, but ON AVERAGE I think that Unions need to be more company level(So you don't get situations like the Autoworkers Union pulling funds from Ford workers to pay for the GM worker's strike), and companies should have the right to 'fire' the union. Basically, treat the Union as a giant employee. You can't just hire the hand; you have to hire the whole thing, which theoretically should be easier to work with(benefits, pay scale, and such) than trying to negotiate with each worker individually. If the union gets too uptight; fire the whole thing and either hire another union or workers individually. You're still talking about a huge disruption of the business, making it something of a nuclear option, so the union still has negotiating power.
On PSC's: Comparing them to communications companies isn't entirely fair. Most of those are still enjoying the advantages of ancient monopoly agreements with various areas. We still have hundreds of different security firms, many different gas station lines, etc... It's going to be fairly easy to start up a police firm or expand one. A small one won't have the overhead of a large one, so can be more agile. Most of the equipment of a police force is mobile, and while building a jail can take a while, it could be managed by an independent firm or still the property of the government and simply leased to the active contract holder.
Generic office space can merely be leased. 'Calibration Equipment'? What are the officers calibrating? Their radar guns? They have to buy those anyways, along with cruisers and such. For a new/expanding company, that's what loans are for. It's probably cheaper to have calibration equipment fairly close to avoid shipping the guns, and if it's cheaper to ship them, then you can have independent companies that do the job, not done internally.
Basically, if you start offering AT&T or Comcast level service, because police services aren't a natural monopoly, you're going to see municipalities firing BOTH companies and hiring a third party. You'll see PS individuals leaving the large companies and forming their own group, etc...
The speeding ticket involved 'points on the license' for his non-existent license, then he didn't pay up on time(didn't take the ticket seriously, stupid in and of itself), it got elevated to a suspension/revocation, then they noticed that he didn't HAVE a license, and it became a mandatory X year revocation, which they didn't start until he actually applied for one.
I think at one point they actually mailed him an 'upgraded' ticket for driving without a license, which took work to convince them that, yes, he got a speeding ticket while a minor on a bicycle.
To enable me to learn?
There is no debate here, there's just me calling you to account for some rubbish you've posted on the net.
I see it as the opposite. Without citations, all I have is the vague word of some anonymous person on the internet. Not good enough up against other source.
Well, if you're not willing to source your information, I think I'm done here. You have failed to convince anybody, and I think that if anybody peruses this thread, they'll be more apt to believe me, seeing as how, you know, I actually listed specific figures and sources.
Have a good day.
Any random person above the age of 16 can acquire a driver's license. There is no restriction, other than age.
Not true.
1. Vision - if it's too bad, no license
2. Child support - if you're behind too much, no license
3. Convictions - too many offenses? No license. I know of somebody who can't get a license due to a speeding ticket on a bicycle when they were a kid.
regulations typically ban SOMEBODY from doing SOMETHING. If it's a good regulation, this is a good thing.
Yes, and it is easier for an individual with insurance sock up increased insurance costs and in a way get a lower total salary because they put more of their own salary towards increased insurance.
Only works up to a point, at some point if you have too many claims you can't get insurance anymore, or you're no longer making enough money to live on since you're paying so much in insurance. This doesn't just apply to individuals, but companies as well.
But you can do this is a public system, and there are many downsides to this monetary model. Sometimes you want a police officer to take risks.
Like I said, on average I still support them being public. You generally don't want an emergency services organization making every decision purely from a monetary risk to themselves perspective.
Except that, well, there's encrypted GPS channels intended to prevent spoofing(and increase accuracy), and while some of the video feeds were unencrypted on some models of UAV, the control lines are encrypted.
Running a GPS spoofer on US Soil(where you have to worry about US Police) is likely to get you far too much attention from other parties.
Except that it did come out of the treasury, because his pay has to cover his insurance costs, and those costs included operation expenses, money to promote their services in the form of ads and the like, and profit for CEOs.
The difference is that with a private police/law enforcement organization is that if the company screws up too badly:
1. The government organization that hired them are at least somewhat shielded from the total liability.
2. The company itself will go bankrupt (no profits for the corrupt/incompetent owners)
3. Another company will replace the bad one; absorbing only the 'worthy' assets of the old company(preferably, I know this stuff is often messed up).
4. It's much easier to 'fire' the entire police department if they're screwing up too badly.
Despite saying all this, on average I still support public police departments(IE government run).
By which mechanism? Oh that's right, sympathetic magic because it is also dust.
You call it magic. I consult the EPA, CATF, and JAMA.
Also why should I post sources against someone that is very obviously just making stuff up and pretending they know it's real?
Why should I bother posting sources against someone that is very obviously just making stuff up and pretending they know it's real? I mean, it's not like you've cited one thing you've said, and citations disproving your statements are about 10 seconds of google searching away. Despite that, I've bothered to cite various sources like the EPA and CATF. Other cites used information collected by the World Health Organization and other reputable sources.
It doesn't get anyone anywhere since we both know it's made up and also the only bit you've got that's actually about fly ash, using a landslide as evidence that the stuff is dangerous is misleading - so is snow in the wrong place.
Well, you could have gone to the links and found that there are people concerned, that there's moves to further restrict the stuff, and there have been incidents of ground water contamination from leeching. Water being one of the biggest killers in the world is a known but separate issue. The problem I was trying to point out with the landslide of ash was the possibility of chemical contamination making so that people couldn't just move back into their homes after cleanup.
Really, you want to be insulting? Fine. You are a very poor debater. You fail to post sources or citations. You fail to respond with countering evidence when I provide evidence. You fail to provide specific details, attack the person instead of addressing the topic, etc... I'm not perfect, but you suck.
You don't have much choice if you're a start up or something, but I'd argue that as you transition into a stable company you need to work on redundancy and failure tolerance.
Most businesses are very short-term in terms of planning. I suspect this one is no different.
Sadly true.
Like I said a couple posts ago - I expanded my concern over the ash from just fly ash AFTER conducting more research. Granite might have higher concentrations, but at least it's a solid. Ash, especially the lighter stuff, is still small enough to get into the lungs and stuff. It might purge easier than asbestos, but it's still fine particulate pollution that can cause lung cancer and such if it's not contained, which is why they've put all those pollution controls in.
Heck, I spent some time studying the local coal cogeneration plant a couple blocks away from my work. It's actually less of a pollution concern at this point than the people operating outdoor wood boilers in my neighborhood. I might not know everything, but like I said - you fixated upon one little thing on my post, and worse, you didn't really specify it before getting into the insults. THAT got my hackles up, at which point I didn't CARE about doing proper research. I LIKE debating and learning and such. If you bothered to post sources I'd probably believe your posts and assertions more, but as long as you're polite I'll be polite and listen.
As is, you've still posted assertions that I've pretty much disproved, and you haven't countered with sources saying otherwise.
I was talking about the production of the batteries vs the refining of oil, and you counter with an emissions comparison.
No need to get snippy, simply cite a source on the batteries like I asked. All I really did was "Could you cite X? I'm only familiar with stuff that says Y". Heck, the BBC link is a lifecycle test that acknowledges that more pollution happens in the factories for EVs, but it says that EVs are eventually 10-24% better than gasoline vehicles over their lifetime. Which would be a proper study comparing EVs with their polluting battery production vs conventional cars with their polluting fuel; IE total up ALL the pollution involved and make a determination.
Keep in mind that the market is shifting away from the NiCd and NiMh that were present in hybrids and EV1 to LiIon in the Tesla series. The nastiest mines I remember about batteries was the Nickel mines in Canada, and that's not present in the battery packs in Tesla cars. I suppose you could cite a source on animal products, but that would be a touch off topic.
But you will never be irreplaceable.
I'd argue that, as a company, I don't want ANY one individual, not even the CEO, to be counted as 'irreplaceable'. What if the OP was killed in a car crash tomorrow? Had a heart attack or stroke?
The kid might only be able to do some things with the software, but he could reduce an emergency to an urgent situation as he keeps the system operating long enough for a new contractor to figure out the program.
Just grow up and realize that maybe I know about this shit as well? Heck, maybe you can learn that you get much better results if you don't deliberately insult the person you're replying to/debating with?
Coal ash varies in toxicity. Some of it qualifies as hazardous waste. Some does not. Cinder blocks, indeed, any concrete made using Portland cement from fly ash and similar sources tend to tie up any contaminants for long durations.
It's still a higher concern than the radioactivity, but that says more about the low levels of radioactivity than the toxicity of the substance. Though I definitely wouldn't want to snort it, or even drink water filtered through it.
Honestly, a much better way to state it than I did. Like I said, not a lawyer, nor pretending to be one.
The relative ease to press libel charges can still chill 'the free press' though.
Hmm... Is 'I got my information from XYZ source' a valid defense? IE 'Go sue XYZ, they're the original publishers'?
Nope, must of missed it.
Still, that would be in the 'improving, but it's going to be a while' category. Having followed the links, I see no mention of cost, longevity, charge efficiency, amp capacity, charge rate, and such that I'd expect to see for something that's 'almost ready' to be manufactured for use in EVs or even just phones.
It's neat technology, but until it's developed into a commercial processes, it's just 'neat', not 'practical'.
Not to mention the large amounts of pollution from the production of them. Oil's far from clean, but it's not as bad.
Citation please? I've mostly seen studies like this.
Even this article only says it's worse if the power is 100% coal, which most areas aren't.
'Hydrogen Infrastructure' is a mistake in my opinion. Hydrogen is hard to store in the densities needed, you need expensive fuel cells to burn it efficiently, and it's not an energy source. It's an energy storage system - you have to spend energy to turn something into hydrogen - the most economical is natural gas, which is actually more efficient to use as a fuel directly, or from electrolysis, which is currently much less efficient than charging a battery.
Yeah, about a decade ago I came up with a saying "There's nothing wrong with electric cars that a battery that lasts twice as long for half the price wouldn't fix".
By my latest figuring, the switch to LiIon got us the 'twice as far', but LiIon doubled the price, at least initially. I think it's now back down to the price per kwh that NiMH and such used to be at, but it needs to be cut in half again, which is at least theoretically possible.
That doesn't mean she is abusing them and out on the street trying to supplement her prescriptions.
From my readings, it's quite possible to be an active addict(IE taking the substance) of opiates essentially for life and still be a productive citizen. Without all the controls we place on opiates, it would actually be quite cheap to provide heroin. I'm not a chemist, but from my research it's about equally difficult to make aspirin and heroin. A quick wiki trawl reveals that aspirin is salicylic acid(historically from willow bark) is treated with acetic anhydride and phosphoric or sulfuric acid. One of the ways to make heroin is treating anhydrous morphine with acetic anhydride.
One report was that, under equal drug controls as aspirin, they'd be of similar price. IE a couple bucks a month for medical grade drugs at therapeutic doses.
I understand that being addicted to a drug is a bad thing, but you have to consider the risks.
1. Physical harm: Can mostly be mitigated via ensuring that the supply is clean and of consistent potency(not a problem for medical grade).
2. Financial harm: Addicts will sacrifice anything for their fix. If said fix is $10/month, it's not much of a sacrifice
3. Productivity harm: Does it matter there will be productivity loss is from pain without the drug? What if they're MORE productive because the pain being treated burns off most of the negative affects(not a doctor, but I've heard that therapeutic uses of opiates to treat pain don't lead to the same issues that using them for recreation does).
Basically, at some point you need to consider that maybe just leaving them on the drug is the cheapest, most effective treatment for their addiction. Especially if their condition means they're still in pain. People pop enough pills already. My parents and grandparents are on at least 6 drugs each. Mom's closer to 12.
While certainly not perfect, there's online converters out there that will automatically convert an e-book from over a dozen formats into almost as many. PDF->EPUB, for one example(though it's noted as being one of the ones more likely to have problems).
Once you get rid of DRM, open source/free ebook reader programmers are free to implement a way to read that format. You're no longer tied to the publisher's choice in readers.
Nothing is ever perfect, but my DRMless ebooks are a lot more usable to me than the few I have that are locked up with DRM*
*Which I mostly got for free; having been burned by DRM in the past I place a serious discount on anything encumbered with it. Oddly enough, I don't crack anything anymore, I'm at a point in my life that I'm willing to pay for stuff, not to mention that a lawsuit, much less criminal charges, wouldn't be worth the even low risk. There's plenty of free media out there if I want it.
Personally, I think that while fast chargers are important, they're not critical. I think the critical thing is to drop the price of the cars. A $30k EV with the capabilities of the Model S(range, passangers, weight, etc...) even if the interior isn't as nice would be a HUGE jump.
Basically, as long as people can point out valid down sides to EVs, you have to be able to point out upsides - and the core one would be 'money saved', while maintaining superior performance in as many other points as possible - comfort, power, ease of use, etc...
EVs pretty much win on the other features - modern ones are often as or more powerful than their competition(electric motors scale up well), they're quiet and non-polluting so the 'comfort' angle is addressed, no shifting at all makes them easy to use. EVs are great except for one big problem - the batteries. They're too expensive for not enough capacity. That's improving, but it's going to be a while.
If you stick to reporting the truth you'll be fine.
I'm not a UK citizen, much less a lawyer, but I remember from some news articles about lawsuits that a critical legal difference between the UK and USA is that unlike the USA, "the truth" is NOT an absolute defense against libel charges.
Though a quick googling shows that some changes were made in 2011, but I'm seeing stuff saying that you still have to be able to PROVE it's true in court in order for it to be a defense, and that the level of proof required can be difficult to meet.