Then they don't get them, and die off earlier on average. The biggest problem comes in when you have sick kids in these people's custody. And that's being/been addressed in courts for a while anyways.
As for plastic surgery, well, I consider those forms of surgery rather extreme for just appearance.
As for genetic mods, that's happening now, for years. Certain sufferers from genetic lung ailments have gotten viral genetic therapy. More or less permanent cure, though they've had a couple cases of cancer, so far mostly successfully treated. It seems that the viral therapy as was done (they've since adjusted) increased the risk of lung cancer.
On the other hand, most of these people weren't expected to reach their 20's because of the genetic disorder, so most consider even a serious risk of cancer in their 30's a good risk in exchange for getting rid of the disease.
He's also effectivly an employee. The President is responsible for his actions, and has the power to override/fire him at any time. The Secretary then delegates powers to the sub-secretaries of the various branches, who delegate power to the various commands, who delegate power to commanders, who... You get the general idea.
The idea is that trying to elect the president's subordinates just wouldn't work, as when there's a conflict of personalities, beliefs, or methods, nothing would get done during the term.
Question: Is the above-board porn sites activly trying to bypass filters, or are they volunteering to be listed in blocking software?
I feel that the porn industry as a whole wouldn't be against it, though some of the shadier sites would be.
While I'd be against banning porn from.com and such, given the vague and varying definitions of 'porn', a xxx tld makes advertising for them even easier. Would make for fewer legal problems for them, as well, as they can say 'he or she went to a.xxx site, they knew where they were going!'.
In my opinion, free speech is _exactly_ escaping any consequences of your speech (although I'm aware and somewhat positive to the exceptions regarding slander and such). Vigilantes don't have any rights whatsoever to suppress any utterings they happen to disagree with, unless of course they do it by yelling louder than you.
Agreed. For the USA, the KKK is generally a better example, being a racist discrimitatory group, homegrown, etc. It's just that them and the Neo-nazis have sorta combined.
Our first amendment rights mean that the government can't stop you from spouting stuff*, and indeed, if somebody beats the snot out of that extremist, it's the person doing the beating that the police will arrest. It's just that, like one of the more recent KKK rallies, the spontaneous(or planned) response will tend to be extreme. People consider it worth the assault charges to chuck D sized batteries at KKK members. It can also become hard to arrest them, given that there was a crowd of hundreds screaming back, compared to not even a dozen KKK people.
I mean, when six KKK people want to march, the city involved generally has 3-5x cops assigned to protect them, because 100x protestors tend to show up, and they aren't all nonviolent.
*As long as you're not advocating illegal violence, support for terrorists(see first rule), outright lying with malice, etc.
Long haul trucks, the ones to benefit the most from this, don't actually start and stop that much. Trying to produce the hydrogen from braking energy would require: A generator($$), probably hooked up to the drive shaft, a method create hydrogen in a rush(more heavy duty unit, $$), a method to store said hydrogen($$$), etc...
These trucks generally don't start and stop enough to justify the extra weight and cost.
You'd be better off making the semi a hybrid, maybe like trains are today, maybe a scaled up version of the ford escape or something. I'm sure they'd love the extra low end torque.
Don't forget that patents, by law, are public. It'd be more along the line of them purchasing and hiding trade secrets.
With the problem that if somebody else invents it and trys to patent it, the worst they can do at that point is yell 'prior art', making it unpatentable and open to all.
All this before getting to the third law of thermodynamics.
I'd like to point out that Iceland is a fairly unique case, with a smaller population and extremely available and easy to tap geothermal.
I'm all for Iceland going to geothermal, given that it's a good resource for Iceland, but you have to be cautios about implying that it'd be good for everybody to go to geothermal, because, well, we just can't.
I think that the old saying 'You get what you pay for' applies here. Having read the $200 page, it seems to assume that generating the hydrogen is free. It's also scaled for a car, not a diesel semi. The idea that it'll benefit every IC engine is also hooky, especially with the 21% claim. Basically, I'd want a guarentee and a positive review by a company I trust, such as consumer digest.
The second site didn't mention prices, but did mention that it uses a gallon of distilled water per 1000 miles, as well as some sort of electrolytic solution. The distilled water isn't a big deal if you figure on saving 3-4 gallons of gas/diesel per 1000 miles. But the ounce of electrolyte is questionable.
Like what other posters have mentioned, diesel tends to burn dirtier than gasoline. Modern gasoline cars already combust the vast majority of their fuel, but diesels were something like 10% lower. You have alot more to gain if the standard is only resulting in 85% burn, rather than 95-97%. Then again, all three sites claim to benefit even gasoline engines.
As for taking some time to notice the effects, cleaning the engine seems likely. This was seen when some older cars were switched to 10%ethanol. Performance would decrease for a little while, then improve. This could be attained purely by much cleaner burning resulting in new deposits not happening, and old deposits breaking off because of engine stresses (heat, vibration, etc)
If I was this company, I'd be offering free trials to big companies. If the payoff is really only 1-2 years, tractor companies will take them up on it left and right. I'd be encouraging trucker magazines to produce articles on it. I'd see if I could get consumer digest to test it.
I can't tell you how many times I have had to argue for free speech, free market, and personal liberties only to have my arguments twisted in an attempt to categorize me with the extreme viewpoints and actions associated with such things.
Agreed. That's why I'm carefull how I phrase things. I don't like racists and such, but feel that market forces should be used against them at this point, versus government regulation, which I feel does more harm than good. I'm a government distrusting libertarian, not a racist. I seriously believe in equal opportunity, but feel that's for government agencies and services, and that very freedom should allow small business owners to do what they want with their business, so long as it doesn't hurt others in a liability sense. Have a KKK printer who doesn't want to hire or serve non-whites? Fine, enjoy having to pay higher wages, get less business(I'm not going to patronize your fine establishment), and probably quickly go out of business. Corporations have to get a charter to exist, and get special benefits and treatment in law for liability* and other aspects, supposably for 'the common good', thus can be subject to more of this sort of regulation. Even then, I feel that the court of public opinion should be used to it's maximum effect.
The original idea that started this all was the term "market anarchism", which I agree is a really bad term in the marketing sense. To get more people behind the idea you should use a term with a more diverse meaning that would appeal to people with the same ideals and those with a more discerning vocabulary. Something like "market royal rumble" or "China" should do the trick.
Cute terms, but I'd suggest "open market", "Free market", "unregulated market" to be better terms. Royal Rumble, to me, brings up images of the fake 'pro wrestling'. China, well, isn't an open market, at least internally.
*The whole 'all the money you can loose if the company folds is your investment' thing
The term "pro-abortion" does not imply the level of meaning that you believe it does. I'm pro-turkey sandwiches does not imply that I am in favor of turkey sandwiches once a week, ten times a week, thirty times a week. It merely means that I am in favor of the existence of turkey sandwiches and do not believe they should be outlawed.
It seems that everybody has different shades of meaning. I once got into an argument with a extreme pro-lifer. He called a political person 'pro-abortion'. He did this to make her position seem more extreme. I argued that a person who is truely pro-abortion would support things like mandatory abortions for underage girls, women on welfare, fetuses with detected defects, etc...
I'll be honest with you. If you say that you're pro-turkey sandwiches, I'm going to assume that you like turkey sandwiches, not that you merely support their existance. While indeed, the choice of 'pro-choice' is a compromise, it's a compromise. I think that many people agree with me. This is one of the very few times that I'm inline with what Kerry says: "Abortions should be safe, legal, and rare". It fits in with my belief that it's better to concentrate on reducing demand for negative acts&materials, not try to ban the act/material. Banning while demand still exists only leads to black markets.
You are assuming meaning that is not implied. While this is the case of many people (and hence why pro-abortion would be a bad label), it does not mean it is correct to assume that level of meaning.
I'm sorry, but from common english, being pro something generally tends to mean that you're in favor and support it.
For example, I support the rights of Neo-Nazis, KKK, and other racists and sexists to speak their views. Doesn't mean that I'm pro-Nazi, KKK, Black Panther, Communist, etc... Matter of fact I disapprove of their beliefs to the point that if they ever attempt to impose their wanted order by anything other than speaking, writing, and voting, I'm fully prepared to lay my life down in opposition to them.
In today's society, there's fewer true 'capitalists' than ever before. If you define a capitalist as a person whose sole 'work' is managing his or her money to generate (hopefully) additional return.
For example, in my third job, the owner of the company worked more hours than anybody else, and often made less. This situation is frequent in small business. In most large businesses, they're publicly traded, which means that a good portion of their stock is owned by mutual funds and people who work for a living.
Your post made me do some more research. I was off. It's substantially better, but still there. 70-92% efficiency. The problem comes from not being able to get things as close together as in a sealed transformer. Conductive systems are qouted at "usually over 92% efficient", Inductive chargers are quoted at "Although inductive charging systems may have a peak efficiency of up to 92%, this efficiency drops off substantially with power level. If EVs are frequently "topping off" at lower power levels staff believes that the overall charging efficiency of inductive systems will be much lower."
It also incures extra cost in needing a $2000 system to provide the connection.
240 volts x 30 amps = 7,200 watts. I really don't see why you couldn't either. Unless you are a complete dumbass about it 240 volt electric out of a dryer/range socket is no more dangerous then 120 out of a household one. Hell, it's good enough for Europe....
I looked up some data, a EV1's power cells seem to be rated at around 30kw/h. Five hours at 7000 watts give you 35kw/h. You generally don't want to push an electrical circuit right up to the breaker blowing point regularly, so give it 6-8 hours. 8 hours at 25amps gives you 44kw/h of power, easily enough to charge the batteries from 'dead' to 'full'. And you're not paying $2k for a charger, you're paying maybe $200 for a electrician to run a 220 socket out into your garage.
It also gives you a chance to charge your car at, say, a friend's or relative's house, you just 'borrow' their dryer socket, as that tends to be near the garage. It might take borrowing the garage and a heck of a extension cable, but it can be done. An external switchmode power supply could make the cable quite a bit lighter(up it to something like 400 volts), and allow you to 'trickle charge' if all you can get is 110.
Then your definition of utility varies substantially from mine. Mine is defined as something where you get a physical hookup allowing for constant delivery(or removal in the case of sewers) of a product. You don't necessarily have to have any utility connections, but it's generally cheaper to pay them to provide it.
Natural Gas: Wood stove, propane tank, coal, electric, etc... Electricity: Various generators Sewage: Septic tank, tile field Water: Your own well, rain catchers, etc... Telephone: Cellular, doing without Cable: Doing without(I am), Dish, etc...
Seeing as how you include goods and services, do you include food as a utility? Hair cuts? Just about everybody purchases food, they definitly need it. Just about everybody has their hair cut.
Public utilities are often in areas that are considered 'natural monopolies', requiring special regulation due to lack of competition. You'd have an argument if there was a tendency for the gasoline companies to run pipes into people's houses, but as it is, in most areas you have a selection of gasoline stations that you travel to to make a purchase. Conoco, Philips, BP, just to name a few.
Except that inductive charging means that you loose about an additional 40% of your energy. It's simply nowhere near as efficient as a direct electrical connection.
Of course, the question of why they can't just use a dryer type socket begs questions, but still. That socket is rated for both 220 and high amperage.
So what do you think about the ideas for a PRT type system?
Conventional mass transit would work fine, if you laid out the city in a line.
My thought was to put the PRT stations all over the place, then have electric golf-cart type vehicles available for rent if you had baggage over what you could haul the remaining distance. A little walking is good for people as well.
Well, there's a good an bad side. I think it's safe to say that capitalism tends to break down when it comes to utilities. This is because the vendor has no market to GAIN, only to LOSE, and so market share loss is all important, and that drives companies to try to lock people in with no interest in how much it disenfranchises them. Because of this strain on the capitalist system, utilities tend to be regulated... all except for gasoline, for some strange reason.
That's because gasoline is a commodity, not a utility. Anybody with a well can put crude on the market, and anybody with an operating refinery can purchase the crude and distill it, then sell the products which consist of everything from asphalt, heating oil, natural gas, to plastics. While we have organic equivalents to all of this, oil is just so cheap...
I tend to prefer the coop model for utilities, which generally consist of water, sewar, gas, electricity, telephone, and maybe cable. Roads in a sense as well. Those items where running a seperate network for compitition just isn't going to happen. Telephone and cable are starting to have competitors, as new technology allows them to compete with each other, and things like satellite and cell phones allow competitors to enter without having to run a network.
I'll note that hybrids are pretty heavily subsidized even in the states. Some areas will discount the car $5,000. Even then, they're still expensive enough to make the calculations for 'saving money' complicated.
They would make alot of sense for city cabs, though.
Then dig up a few earthen banks at firing ranges and dig out the lead there. Troll a few lakes for lost sinkers. Hit the junkyards up for wheel weights. Lead is used for lots of stuff besides batteries.
Like what's been said, lead-acid batteries are heavily recycled. After the initial ramp-up, lead mining doesn't have to increase much at all. Mostly you'd just have to replace the occasional battery lost in an accident/fire or some such.
My main thing is that a hybrid car is more expensive, thus denoting it's taking more resources to manufacture, and where's the break-even point? I know it's not 100% accurate, but the best I can do, right now, is pure economics (price of hybrid + (miles*gas cost/mpg) : traditional car+(miles*gas cost/mpg), assuming both have the same life span and maintenance costs.
I'll agree with you, from what I've seen, it just makes sense, with one caveat:
To the desktop. Our network is almost entirely fiber for switch to switch connections. The only exceptions are some outlying buildings that we haven't gotten the money to run fiber out to yet.
As of right now, inside of a building, to the individual desktop, 100mb is plenty. Heck, we had some users still on 10mb and working just fine.
Like what one user said, the cost of getting fiber desktops is pretty much double that of getting desktops with copper ethernet. Our work replaces computers ~ every 3-5 years. Given that, generally speaking, your end users are going to substantially outnumber your backbone lines, need less bandwidth(on a per connection basis), the cost savings from not going to fiber are substantial.
Now, if you can handle the security issues, fiber to wireless can make sense, but you can run into network limitations, given that you're sharing 54Mbps among all the desktops in the area.
Agreed, what we have here is essentially a 'breech in contract' with the lab worker. If your going to be expected to donate parts of yourself(blood, semen, eggs, other tissue samples) as part of the job, well, it should be listed at the time of interview/hire.
The whole idea is that there's nobody threatening to cause phsyical harm to them or others if they don't do it. That there's no more motivation to do this job than it pays $$$$, versus a McJob paying $, or even strip club paying $$, or going out and getting an education to earn $$$-$$$$$.
Would you say that porn stars would get another job if they could?
from suing you for unnecessary violence and paying for his medical bills, pain and suffering, and imagined economic loss
True, you can sue in the USA for anything. Thing is, some states have put in basically that a criminal assumes ALL liability for damages during the course of commision of the crime. This was done after things like the crook who fell through the skylight he breaking into won a lawsuit for the store having an unsafe skylight(that he'd been working on with a crowbar or something).
In some states, this even applies to the point that if two crooks try to rob a bank, and somebody(cop, security guard, manager, teller, or even armed customer) shoots and kills one of them, the other will be tried for the 1st degree murder of their partner. If a customer gets hurt or killed by the cops/security guard, again, it's the crooks that are considered responsible.
In most of the more right-wing states, it'd be all but impossible for the criminal to get money from this. It'd be pretty much 'case dismissed' the moment the court finds out that the injury was sustained during the commision of a crime. 'No jury would convict him' type of thing.
Slashdot Mirror
Then they don't get them, and die off earlier on average. The biggest problem comes in when you have sick kids in these people's custody. And that's being/been addressed in courts for a while anyways.
As for plastic surgery, well, I consider those forms of surgery rather extreme for just appearance.
As for genetic mods, that's happening now, for years. Certain sufferers from genetic lung ailments have gotten viral genetic therapy. More or less permanent cure, though they've had a couple cases of cancer, so far mostly successfully treated. It seems that the viral therapy as was done (they've since adjusted) increased the risk of lung cancer.
On the other hand, most of these people weren't expected to reach their 20's because of the genetic disorder, so most consider even a serious risk of cancer in their 30's a good risk in exchange for getting rid of the disease.
He's also effectivly an employee. The President is responsible for his actions, and has the power to override/fire him at any time. The Secretary then delegates powers to the sub-secretaries of the various branches, who delegate power to the various commands, who delegate power to commanders, who... You get the general idea.
The idea is that trying to elect the president's subordinates just wouldn't work, as when there's a conflict of personalities, beliefs, or methods, nothing would get done during the term.
Question: Is the above-board porn sites activly trying to bypass filters, or are they volunteering to be listed in blocking software?
.com and such, given the vague and varying definitions of 'porn', a xxx tld makes advertising for them even easier. Would make for fewer legal problems for them, as well, as they can say 'he or she went to a .xxx site, they knew where they were going!'.
I feel that the porn industry as a whole wouldn't be against it, though some of the shadier sites would be.
While I'd be against banning porn from
In my opinion, free speech is _exactly_ escaping any consequences of your speech (although I'm aware and somewhat positive to the exceptions regarding slander and such). Vigilantes don't have any rights whatsoever to suppress any utterings they happen to disagree with, unless of course they do it by yelling louder than you.
Agreed. For the USA, the KKK is generally a better example, being a racist discrimitatory group, homegrown, etc. It's just that them and the Neo-nazis have sorta combined.
Our first amendment rights mean that the government can't stop you from spouting stuff*, and indeed, if somebody beats the snot out of that extremist, it's the person doing the beating that the police will arrest. It's just that, like one of the more recent KKK rallies, the spontaneous(or planned) response will tend to be extreme. People consider it worth the assault charges to chuck D sized batteries at KKK members. It can also become hard to arrest them, given that there was a crowd of hundreds screaming back, compared to not even a dozen KKK people.
I mean, when six KKK people want to march, the city involved generally has 3-5x cops assigned to protect them, because 100x protestors tend to show up, and they aren't all nonviolent.
*As long as you're not advocating illegal violence, support for terrorists(see first rule), outright lying with malice, etc.
10% at 30mpg for 15k annual miles isn't the same as 10% at 7mpg for 300k annual miles, if the installed cost in each case is $12k.
Savings might also be less for a gasoline engine than a diesel.
Long haul trucks, the ones to benefit the most from this, don't actually start and stop that much. Trying to produce the hydrogen from braking energy would require: A generator($$), probably hooked up to the drive shaft, a method create hydrogen in a rush(more heavy duty unit, $$), a method to store said hydrogen($$$), etc...
These trucks generally don't start and stop enough to justify the extra weight and cost.
You'd be better off making the semi a hybrid, maybe like trains are today, maybe a scaled up version of the ford escape or something. I'm sure they'd love the extra low end torque.
Don't forget that patents, by law, are public. It'd be more along the line of them purchasing and hiding trade secrets.
With the problem that if somebody else invents it and trys to patent it, the worst they can do at that point is yell 'prior art', making it unpatentable and open to all.
All this before getting to the third law of thermodynamics.
I'd like to point out that Iceland is a fairly unique case, with a smaller population and extremely available and easy to tap geothermal.
I'm all for Iceland going to geothermal, given that it's a good resource for Iceland, but you have to be cautios about implying that it'd be good for everybody to go to geothermal, because, well, we just can't.
I think that the old saying 'You get what you pay for' applies here. Having read the $200 page, it seems to assume that generating the hydrogen is free. It's also scaled for a car, not a diesel semi. The idea that it'll benefit every IC engine is also hooky, especially with the 21% claim. Basically, I'd want a guarentee and a positive review by a company I trust, such as consumer digest.
The second site didn't mention prices, but did mention that it uses a gallon of distilled water per 1000 miles, as well as some sort of electrolytic solution. The distilled water isn't a big deal if you figure on saving 3-4 gallons of gas/diesel per 1000 miles. But the ounce of electrolyte is questionable.
Like what other posters have mentioned, diesel tends to burn dirtier than gasoline. Modern gasoline cars already combust the vast majority of their fuel, but diesels were something like 10% lower. You have alot more to gain if the standard is only resulting in 85% burn, rather than 95-97%. Then again, all three sites claim to benefit even gasoline engines.
As for taking some time to notice the effects, cleaning the engine seems likely. This was seen when some older cars were switched to 10%ethanol. Performance would decrease for a little while, then improve. This could be attained purely by much cleaner burning resulting in new deposits not happening, and old deposits breaking off because of engine stresses (heat, vibration, etc)
If I was this company, I'd be offering free trials to big companies. If the payoff is really only 1-2 years, tractor companies will take them up on it left and right. I'd be encouraging trucker magazines to produce articles on it. I'd see if I could get consumer digest to test it.
I can't tell you how many times I have had to argue for free speech, free market, and personal liberties only to have my arguments twisted in an attempt to categorize me with the extreme viewpoints and actions associated with such things.
Agreed. That's why I'm carefull how I phrase things. I don't like racists and such, but feel that market forces should be used against them at this point, versus government regulation, which I feel does more harm than good. I'm a government distrusting libertarian, not a racist. I seriously believe in equal opportunity, but feel that's for government agencies and services, and that very freedom should allow small business owners to do what they want with their business, so long as it doesn't hurt others in a liability sense. Have a KKK printer who doesn't want to hire or serve non-whites? Fine, enjoy having to pay higher wages, get less business(I'm not going to patronize your fine establishment), and probably quickly go out of business. Corporations have to get a charter to exist, and get special benefits and treatment in law for liability* and other aspects, supposably for 'the common good', thus can be subject to more of this sort of regulation. Even then, I feel that the court of public opinion should be used to it's maximum effect.
The original idea that started this all was the term "market anarchism", which I agree is a really bad term in the marketing sense. To get more people behind the idea you should use a term with a more diverse meaning that would appeal to people with the same ideals and those with a more discerning vocabulary. Something like "market royal rumble" or "China" should do the trick.
Cute terms, but I'd suggest "open market", "Free market", "unregulated market" to be better terms. Royal Rumble, to me, brings up images of the fake 'pro wrestling'. China, well, isn't an open market, at least internally.
*The whole 'all the money you can loose if the company folds is your investment' thing
The term "pro-abortion" does not imply the level of meaning that you believe it does. I'm pro-turkey sandwiches does not imply that I am in favor of turkey sandwiches once a week, ten times a week, thirty times a week. It merely means that I am in favor of the existence of turkey sandwiches and do not believe they should be outlawed.
It seems that everybody has different shades of meaning. I once got into an argument with a extreme pro-lifer. He called a political person 'pro-abortion'. He did this to make her position seem more extreme. I argued that a person who is truely pro-abortion would support things like mandatory abortions for underage girls, women on welfare, fetuses with detected defects, etc...
I'll be honest with you. If you say that you're pro-turkey sandwiches, I'm going to assume that you like turkey sandwiches, not that you merely support their existance. While indeed, the choice of 'pro-choice' is a compromise, it's a compromise. I think that many people agree with me. This is one of the very few times that I'm inline with what Kerry says: "Abortions should be safe, legal, and rare". It fits in with my belief that it's better to concentrate on reducing demand for negative acts&materials, not try to ban the act/material. Banning while demand still exists only leads to black markets.
You are assuming meaning that is not implied. While this is the case of many people (and hence why pro-abortion would be a bad label), it does not mean it is correct to assume that level of meaning.
I'm sorry, but from common english, being pro something generally tends to mean that you're in favor and support it.
For example, I support the rights of Neo-Nazis, KKK, and other racists and sexists to speak their views. Doesn't mean that I'm pro-Nazi, KKK, Black Panther, Communist, etc... Matter of fact I disapprove of their beliefs to the point that if they ever attempt to impose their wanted order by anything other than speaking, writing, and voting, I'm fully prepared to lay my life down in opposition to them.
It does mean that I'm Pro-Free Speech.
In today's society, there's fewer true 'capitalists' than ever before. If you define a capitalist as a person whose sole 'work' is managing his or her money to generate (hopefully) additional return.
For example, in my third job, the owner of the company worked more hours than anybody else, and often made less. This situation is frequent in small business. In most large businesses, they're publicly traded, which means that a good portion of their stock is owned by mutual funds and people who work for a living.
Your post made me do some more research. I was off. It's substantially better, but still there. 70-92% efficiency. The problem comes from not being able to get things as close together as in a sealed transformer. Conductive systems are qouted at "usually over 92% efficient", Inductive chargers are quoted at "Although inductive charging systems may have a peak efficiency of up to 92%, this efficiency drops off substantially with power level. If EVs are frequently "topping off" at lower power levels staff believes that the overall charging efficiency of inductive systems will be much lower."
It also incures extra cost in needing a $2000 system to provide the connection.
source
240 volts x 30 amps = 7,200 watts. I really don't see why you couldn't either. Unless you are a complete dumbass about it 240 volt electric out of a dryer/range socket is no more dangerous then 120 out of a household one. Hell, it's good enough for Europe....
I looked up some data, a EV1's power cells seem to be rated at around 30kw/h. Five hours at 7000 watts give you 35kw/h. You generally don't want to push an electrical circuit right up to the breaker blowing point regularly, so give it 6-8 hours. 8 hours at 25amps gives you 44kw/h of power, easily enough to charge the batteries from 'dead' to 'full'. And you're not paying $2k for a charger, you're paying maybe $200 for a electrician to run a 220 socket out into your garage.
It also gives you a chance to charge your car at, say, a friend's or relative's house, you just 'borrow' their dryer socket, as that tends to be near the garage. It might take borrowing the garage and a heck of a extension cable, but it can be done. An external switchmode power supply could make the cable quite a bit lighter(up it to something like 400 volts), and allow you to 'trickle charge' if all you can get is 110.
You'd have to notice it first. There's also versions that can go inside the keyboard.
Then your definition of utility varies substantially from mine. Mine is defined as something where you get a physical hookup allowing for constant delivery(or removal in the case of sewers) of a product. You don't necessarily have to have any utility connections, but it's generally cheaper to pay them to provide it.
Natural Gas: Wood stove, propane tank, coal, electric, etc...
Electricity: Various generators
Sewage: Septic tank, tile field
Water: Your own well, rain catchers, etc...
Telephone: Cellular, doing without
Cable: Doing without(I am), Dish, etc...
Seeing as how you include goods and services, do you include food as a utility? Hair cuts? Just about everybody purchases food, they definitly need it. Just about everybody has their hair cut.
Public utilities are often in areas that are considered 'natural monopolies', requiring special regulation due to lack of competition. You'd have an argument if there was a tendency for the gasoline companies to run pipes into people's houses, but as it is, in most areas you have a selection of gasoline stations that you travel to to make a purchase. Conoco, Philips, BP, just to name a few.
Except that inductive charging means that you loose about an additional 40% of your energy. It's simply nowhere near as efficient as a direct electrical connection.
Of course, the question of why they can't just use a dryer type socket begs questions, but still. That socket is rated for both 220 and high amperage.
So what do you think about the ideas for a PRT type system?
Conventional mass transit would work fine, if you laid out the city in a line.
My thought was to put the PRT stations all over the place, then have electric golf-cart type vehicles available for rent if you had baggage over what you could haul the remaining distance. A little walking is good for people as well.
Well, there's a good an bad side. I think it's safe to say that capitalism tends to break down when it comes to utilities. This is because the vendor has no market to GAIN, only to LOSE, and so market share loss is all important, and that drives companies to try to lock people in with no interest in how much it disenfranchises them. Because of this strain on the capitalist system, utilities tend to be regulated... all except for gasoline, for some strange reason.
That's because gasoline is a commodity, not a utility. Anybody with a well can put crude on the market, and anybody with an operating refinery can purchase the crude and distill it, then sell the products which consist of everything from asphalt, heating oil, natural gas, to plastics. While we have organic equivalents to all of this, oil is just so cheap...
I tend to prefer the coop model for utilities, which generally consist of water, sewar, gas, electricity, telephone, and maybe cable. Roads in a sense as well. Those items where running a seperate network for compitition just isn't going to happen. Telephone and cable are starting to have competitors, as new technology allows them to compete with each other, and things like satellite and cell phones allow competitors to enter without having to run a network.
I'll note that hybrids are pretty heavily subsidized even in the states. Some areas will discount the car $5,000. Even then, they're still expensive enough to make the calculations for 'saving money' complicated.
They would make alot of sense for city cabs, though.
Then dig up a few earthen banks at firing ranges and dig out the lead there. Troll a few lakes for lost sinkers. Hit the junkyards up for wheel weights. Lead is used for lots of stuff besides batteries.
Like what's been said, lead-acid batteries are heavily recycled. After the initial ramp-up, lead mining doesn't have to increase much at all. Mostly you'd just have to replace the occasional battery lost in an accident/fire or some such.
My main thing is that a hybrid car is more expensive, thus denoting it's taking more resources to manufacture, and where's the break-even point? I know it's not 100% accurate, but the best I can do, right now, is pure economics (price of hybrid + (miles*gas cost/mpg) : traditional car+(miles*gas cost/mpg), assuming both have the same life span and maintenance costs.
With that kind of hardware, you can again run into the "double the cost of a workstation". Unless it can be cheap, it won't be widely used.
I'll agree with you, from what I've seen, it just makes sense, with one caveat:
To the desktop. Our network is almost entirely fiber for switch to switch connections. The only exceptions are some outlying buildings that we haven't gotten the money to run fiber out to yet.
As of right now, inside of a building, to the individual desktop, 100mb is plenty. Heck, we had some users still on 10mb and working just fine.
Like what one user said, the cost of getting fiber desktops is pretty much double that of getting desktops with copper ethernet. Our work replaces computers ~ every 3-5 years. Given that, generally speaking, your end users are going to substantially outnumber your backbone lines, need less bandwidth(on a per connection basis), the cost savings from not going to fiber are substantial.
Now, if you can handle the security issues, fiber to wireless can make sense, but you can run into network limitations, given that you're sharing 54Mbps among all the desktops in the area.
Agreed, what we have here is essentially a 'breech in contract' with the lab worker. If your going to be expected to donate parts of yourself(blood, semen, eggs, other tissue samples) as part of the job, well, it should be listed at the time of interview/hire.
Well, it does pay extremely good money to them.
The whole idea is that there's nobody threatening to cause phsyical harm to them or others if they don't do it. That there's no more motivation to do this job than it pays $$$$, versus a McJob paying $, or even strip club paying $$, or going out and getting an education to earn $$$-$$$$$.
Would you say that porn stars would get another job if they could?
from suing you for unnecessary violence and paying for his medical bills, pain and suffering, and imagined economic loss
True, you can sue in the USA for anything. Thing is, some states have put in basically that a criminal assumes ALL liability for damages during the course of commision of the crime. This was done after things like the crook who fell through the skylight he breaking into won a lawsuit for the store having an unsafe skylight(that he'd been working on with a crowbar or something).
In some states, this even applies to the point that if two crooks try to rob a bank, and somebody(cop, security guard, manager, teller, or even armed customer) shoots and kills one of them, the other will be tried for the 1st degree murder of their partner. If a customer gets hurt or killed by the cops/security guard, again, it's the crooks that are considered responsible.
In most of the more right-wing states, it'd be all but impossible for the criminal to get money from this. It'd be pretty much 'case dismissed' the moment the court finds out that the injury was sustained during the commision of a crime. 'No jury would convict him' type of thing.