Making the jump from individuals contributing to a war effort to the entire city where they live is still not ok with me.
Welcome to the realm of target discrimination. The problem becomes one that back then, especially with the japanese's style of having distributed light industry, they couldn't discriminate targets at that range. They didn't have any 'smart' bombs at all, and even the targeting sights was such a hit or miss that they sent fleets of planes to hit one factory, and still had a good chance of not taking out the factory. Today we send one plane to take out 5-6 targets.
Ever read about the firebombings of some Japanese cities? Just about as bad, it's just that the heavily loaded planes couldn't fly above the air defenses, thus were highly vulnerable, leading to high losses.
Sorry, so sad, but people should realize that the last half a dozen or so wars/actions fought by the USA since Vietnam have been fought so differently, with such accuracy, that it's turned a new page in history.
How can anyone still believe in propaganda like this? That the entire population of a country is evil, that they are freedom-hating fanatics who will fight to the last man, woman and child?
Not being a 'civilian' doesn't equal being Evil. You're the one bringing archetypes into the deal. I'm military. I don't necessarily consider my opponents evil, though I'd kill them just the same, because they're the enemy.
On the other hand, there are videos and documentation showing arms-caches and propaganda aimed towards using the populace(including women and older children) to repel invasion.
Oh, and according to the conventions, even civilians are legal targets if they're contributing to the war effort. To that end, if you're producing bullets, bombs, arms, vehicles, etc, you're a legal. You're still legal even if you're producing food, clothing, etc for military use.
Thus, the point that the cities were being used for military purpose made them targets.
Whether, in hindsight, it was needed or not, well, I'd have to say that in this case, not even hindsight is 20/20. There's been just too much spin-doctoring on both sides.
They might not be able to stop you from working at another empoyer, but they can say 'not in this field for x period of time', and sue you for doing so. As long as you signed the contract knowing what it said, you can be held to it. The company can't press any criminal charges, but it can win money in a civil suit.
My response to a non-compete clause: I can do that, for another 20K a year, or an agreement from you to continue paying me through that period, etc. Make sure that you get it in writing.
Want me to wear a suit: Sure, for another 10k a year.
If they're making you sign non-compete agreements, make them pay for it. Then be aware of it, and save up to last through the non-compete/retrain period if they go under.
Just like if they make you wear a suit. Make them pay for it. View the employment as a whole, not just the paycheck amount. Heck, my mom, who's an accountant, has actually advised a number of people to quit their jobs. Why? Well, they were working in a place, getting paid barely minimum wage(for filing), but required to wear a suit type dress. Between the clothing, commuting, childcare, etc, they were spending more to work there than what they were making.
Live a bit below your means. Tends to keep you from having to declare bankruptcy.
If dressing/looking the way you want is worth making less money, well, whatever makes you happy.
The Kyoto accords should stimulate capital investment in newer, energy efficient technologies and processes.
Investments that either would of happened anyways, or would have gone elsewhere.
As for missing out, well, I view it as letting the other countries develop the tech, we'll license and impliment it when it makes actual economic sense to do so.
And Europe, while a large economy, is mostly a stagnant economy. It's not growing at anything near the rate the US economy is.
Of course, I'm a wierd green, I'd shut down every coal plant in favor of a nuclear one, but that's just me. If you can prove to me that wind/solar can provide the amount of power that nuclear can for less, I'd go for that. Wind is getting closer, solar is still way too expensive.
It'd still be far cheaper than if the terrorist detonated it in, say, Times Square, New York. Even if you nuke the base facilities, the space station would still be there, and it'd be relativly simple to replace the base station.
I mean, a suitcase nuke wouldn't even take out a kilometer of the cable. You'd just extend some more from the space station, replace the base station, and you're good to go.
No it doesn't. The center of mass has to be in GSO. the cable can extend another 32k miles out if the design calls for that. It would require less mass that way, and would have the added benefit of being good for launching or recovering interplanetary craft.
Actually, I was just car-shopping, and one of the vehicles I checked out was the GM Hybrid SUV. Their battery replacement cost was $3k, with a credit for the old batteries (to be recycled).
Don't forget that the whole 'electric assist' makes the vehicle accelerate like a vehicle with a bigger engine, allowing the manufacturer to put a smaller, more fuel efficient gasoline engine in. 20-60 more horsepower "on demand", allows the hybrid with the dinky 4 cylinder to beat the 6 cylinder to 75mph.
I'll agree, the biggest problem with regenerative braking is that it's difficult to charge batteries that fast, so you end up wasting 50% or so of the energy anyways.
While you'd have to do some re-wiring in most homes, all you'd have to do would be to install a 3 phase 220V outlet of the sort used by electric ranges, dryers, and such. Shouldn't be more than a couple hundred bucks for most houses.
1. They're already considering recycling these batteries 2. The batteries are NiMH or NiCd instead of Lion because Lithium-ion batteries wear out in 2-3 years. The nickel varieties can last 5 times as long. 3. You don't have to mine much lead for lead-acid batteries, they are very easy to recycle, almost to the point of just refurbishing/renewing them.
Interestingly is rich relatives who "cannot afford to live in Manhatten"
Actually, I find this very easy to explain. Standard of living. Cheap, nasty apartments are cheaper than a house.
Lets say that a house/condo of a given size and features in the city costs $500,000. Meanwhile, 30 miles away you can get a house for $200,000 that has all the same features and 2 acres of land.
Daily commute cost: ~$5, one hour of time. 260 working days a year x 5 = $1,300 a year on fuel. It's going to take a few years to make that up... But then we figure in time. Let's say that he values his time at $40 an hour. $40x260=$10,400 a year. It'd still twenty years to make up that initial investment.
and in fact many plant/tree species need to burn in order to reproduce
This is true. Even for many species in the USA, the occasional fire is a needed renewal agent. It returns nutrients to the soil, clears out old growth, etc.
Heck there are areas where they do controlled burns every so many years, on a rotating schedule. It prevents the hugely expensive, disruptive, and damaging forest fires.
Kyoto was, ultimatly, a very bad treaty for developed countries with growing economies.
Because, ultimatly, Kerry was seen as being worse?
Sheesh, you know you're in trouble when most of the people voting for you are just voting against the other guy. Of course, to an extent that was true of Bush as well.
I'm so fed up with them I'm considering running for office myself.
However, many courts see it as purchasing the software when:
You enter a physical store. You pick up a sealed package. You purchase said package, paying real money for it.
You don't see the license 'agreement' until you've opened the sealed container, or even started installing the software.
These judges especially don't see it as 'licensing' a copy when you can't return it for a refund at the store you bought it at if the package is opened(required to read the TOS).
"calling out my ass?" maybe you ment talking out my ass, which I'm not. I fully acknowledge that I don't know everything there is to know about electric motors, but I do have a working knowledge of mechanics.
While not a mechanic or professional in the world of electric motors, I know about both.
Gasoline: Bad engine efficiency;great energy storage
Electric: Great engine efficiency;bad energy storage
Electric motors can be very high reliability. The "Rotors" aren't mobile, they're merely electrical wiring and such to create an electromagnic. A sealed electric motor can quite literally go years between mainentance periods. Compare this with the monthly oil & filter changes for a car.
As for the speed part, I've seen some electric drag racers. These cars can keep up with top fuelers.
of course, I wouldn't call this motor revolutionary, more evolutionary.
It would still take another order of magnitude of failsafes to even start approaching the complexity of today's gasoline drinkers.
And a motor on each wheel != complexity, especially if the motors are reasonably identical(fronts might have a different housing/hookup to deal with turning).
Given that the whole thing is powered by electromagnics, it's most likely to 'freeze' in a freely rotatable state. Even if it's just a two-wheel drive(return of the rear wheel drive?), powered by two motors, the loss of one motor would leave you in a state to limp to a service station. The fix? Yank and replace the engine module. Designed right, it'd be less than an hours work.
Did you RTFA? These motors are designed to be hooked directly up to the wheel. That means that this engine doesn't NEED any transmission because it generates enough torque at 0 RPM to move the vehicle, and can rotate fast enough to propel the vehicle at all speeds.
And electric motors, properly built, are very very tough.
There is one in Fremont, Nebraska, for one. There was a bit of a furer about it a while back.
There was a big protest over it that led to it actually gaining more support. It seems that the parents and other locals noticed that all the cars of the protesters were out of the cities of Omaha and Lincoln(If you know how Nebraska does license plates, it's really easy to tell what county the car is registered in). They of course, got pissed off at the 'big city' folks sticking their noses into their affairs.
Nevada passed legislation authorizing firearm education, including live fire, not too long ago.
I agree with the idea-Gunproof the kids. Just like 'child-proof' caps that kids find easier to open than their parents do, child-proofing guns doesn't work, and what happens when your kid comes across one that's not locked up? I read somewhere that accidental poisonings from prescription and OTC drugs actually went up after they started putting 'child-proof' caps on them because people stopped locking them up, and the caps really weren't 'proof'.
We teach safe driving, safe sex, why not safe shooting?
Slashdot Mirror
Making the jump from individuals contributing to a war effort to the entire city where they live is still not ok with me.
Welcome to the realm of target discrimination. The problem becomes one that back then, especially with the japanese's style of having distributed light industry, they couldn't discriminate targets at that range. They didn't have any 'smart' bombs at all, and even the targeting sights was such a hit or miss that they sent fleets of planes to hit one factory, and still had a good chance of not taking out the factory. Today we send one plane to take out 5-6 targets.
Ever read about the firebombings of some Japanese cities? Just about as bad, it's just that the heavily loaded planes couldn't fly above the air defenses, thus were highly vulnerable, leading to high losses.
Sorry, so sad, but people should realize that the last half a dozen or so wars/actions fought by the USA since Vietnam have been fought so differently, with such accuracy, that it's turned a new page in history.
How can anyone still believe in propaganda like this? That the entire population of a country is evil, that they are freedom-hating fanatics who will fight to the last man, woman and child?
Not being a 'civilian' doesn't equal being Evil. You're the one bringing archetypes into the deal. I'm military. I don't necessarily consider my opponents evil, though I'd kill them just the same, because they're the enemy.
On the other hand, there are videos and documentation showing arms-caches and propaganda aimed towards using the populace(including women and older children) to repel invasion.
Oh, and according to the conventions, even civilians are legal targets if they're contributing to the war effort. To that end, if you're producing bullets, bombs, arms, vehicles, etc, you're a legal. You're still legal even if you're producing food, clothing, etc for military use.
Thus, the point that the cities were being used for military purpose made them targets.
Whether, in hindsight, it was needed or not, well, I'd have to say that in this case, not even hindsight is 20/20. There's been just too much spin-doctoring on both sides.
I've seen alot of comments about the FAA not allowing Mach travel over the land.
Doesn't anybody think that with enough effort, that the regulations could be changed, especially if some company manages a 'quiet' mach+ plane?
And lets face it. As long as you're only flying within the states, we could save more time just streamlining the 'security checkpoint' system.
Flying anymore just isn't worth it for me anymore unless I'm traveling at least half of the continental USA.
They might not be able to stop you from working at another empoyer, but they can say 'not in this field for x period of time', and sue you for doing so. As long as you signed the contract knowing what it said, you can be held to it. The company can't press any criminal charges, but it can win money in a civil suit.
My response to a non-compete clause: I can do that, for another 20K a year, or an agreement from you to continue paying me through that period, etc. Make sure that you get it in writing.
Want me to wear a suit: Sure, for another 10k a year.
If they're making you sign non-compete agreements, make them pay for it. Then be aware of it, and save up to last through the non-compete/retrain period if they go under.
Just like if they make you wear a suit. Make them pay for it. View the employment as a whole, not just the paycheck amount. Heck, my mom, who's an accountant, has actually advised a number of people to quit their jobs. Why? Well, they were working in a place, getting paid barely minimum wage(for filing), but required to wear a suit type dress. Between the clothing, commuting, childcare, etc, they were spending more to work there than what they were making.
Live a bit below your means. Tends to keep you from having to declare bankruptcy.
If dressing/looking the way you want is worth making less money, well, whatever makes you happy.
several of the guys seemed fascinated by them
Distracting the employees = less work by them=less money for the business.
At least in the employer's minds. That's probably the problem they had with it.
The Kyoto accords should stimulate capital investment in newer, energy efficient technologies and processes.
Investments that either would of happened anyways, or would have gone elsewhere.
As for missing out, well, I view it as letting the other countries develop the tech, we'll license and impliment it when it makes actual economic sense to do so.
And Europe, while a large economy, is mostly a stagnant economy. It's not growing at anything near the rate the US economy is.
Of course, I'm a wierd green, I'd shut down every coal plant in favor of a nuclear one, but that's just me. If you can prove to me that wind/solar can provide the amount of power that nuclear can for less, I'd go for that. Wind is getting closer, solar is still way too expensive.
It'd still be far cheaper than if the terrorist detonated it in, say, Times Square, New York. Even if you nuke the base facilities, the space station would still be there, and it'd be relativly simple to replace the base station.
I mean, a suitcase nuke wouldn't even take out a kilometer of the cable. You'd just extend some more from the space station, replace the base station, and you're good to go.
No. The end of the cable has to be in GSO
No it doesn't. The center of mass has to be in GSO. the cable can extend another 32k miles out if the design calls for that. It would require less mass that way, and would have the added benefit of being good for launching or recovering interplanetary craft.
Actually, I was just car-shopping, and one of the vehicles I checked out was the GM Hybrid SUV. Their battery replacement cost was $3k, with a credit for the old batteries (to be recycled).
It's dropped a huge amount.
Don't forget that the whole 'electric assist' makes the vehicle accelerate like a vehicle with a bigger engine, allowing the manufacturer to put a smaller, more fuel efficient gasoline engine in. 20-60 more horsepower "on demand", allows the hybrid with the dinky 4 cylinder to beat the 6 cylinder to 75mph.
I'll agree, the biggest problem with regenerative braking is that it's difficult to charge batteries that fast, so you end up wasting 50% or so of the energy anyways.
While you'd have to do some re-wiring in most homes, all you'd have to do would be to install a 3 phase 220V outlet of the sort used by electric ranges, dryers, and such. Shouldn't be more than a couple hundred bucks for most houses.
I have to agree with Eric:
1. They're already considering recycling these batteries
2. The batteries are NiMH or NiCd instead of Lion because Lithium-ion batteries wear out in 2-3 years. The nickel varieties can last 5 times as long.
3. You don't have to mine much lead for lead-acid batteries, they are very easy to recycle, almost to the point of just refurbishing/renewing them.
Interestingly is rich relatives who "cannot afford to live in Manhatten"
Actually, I find this very easy to explain. Standard of living. Cheap, nasty apartments are cheaper than a house.
Lets say that a house/condo of a given size and features in the city costs $500,000. Meanwhile, 30 miles away you can get a house for $200,000 that has all the same features and 2 acres of land.
Daily commute cost: ~$5, one hour of time.
260 working days a year x 5 = $1,300 a year on fuel. It's going to take a few years to make that up...
But then we figure in time. Let's say that he values his time at $40 an hour. $40x260=$10,400 a year. It'd still twenty years to make up that initial investment.
Actually, it's more along the lines of 6-10 years of bracken, but still true.
Heck, even the Native Australians and Americans had controlled burn policies.
and in fact many plant/tree species need to burn in order to reproduce
This is true. Even for many species in the USA, the occasional fire is a needed renewal agent. It returns nutrients to the soil, clears out old growth, etc.
Heck there are areas where they do controlled burns every so many years, on a rotating schedule. It prevents the hugely expensive, disruptive, and damaging forest fires.
Kyoto was, ultimatly, a very bad treaty for developed countries with growing economies.
Because, ultimatly, Kerry was seen as being worse?
Sheesh, you know you're in trouble when most of the people voting for you are just voting against the other guy. Of course, to an extent that was true of Bush as well.
I'm so fed up with them I'm considering running for office myself.
However, many courts see it as purchasing the software when:
You enter a physical store.
You pick up a sealed package.
You purchase said package, paying real money for it.
You don't see the license 'agreement' until you've opened the sealed container, or even started installing the software.
These judges especially don't see it as 'licensing' a copy when you can't return it for a refund at the store you bought it at if the package is opened(required to read the TOS).
probably because they're arranged in a rotary fashion(ie lined up in a circle around a shaft).
Then they're powered up as needed to turn the engine.
"calling out my ass?" maybe you ment talking out my ass, which I'm not. I fully acknowledge that I don't know everything there is to know about electric motors, but I do have a working knowledge of mechanics.
While not a mechanic or professional in the world of electric motors, I know about both.
Gasoline:
Bad engine efficiency;great energy storage
Electric:
Great engine efficiency;bad energy storage
Electric motors can be very high reliability. The "Rotors" aren't mobile, they're merely electrical wiring and such to create an electromagnic. A sealed electric motor can quite literally go years between mainentance periods. Compare this with the monthly oil & filter changes for a car.
As for the speed part, I've seen some electric drag racers. These cars can keep up with top fuelers.
of course, I wouldn't call this motor revolutionary, more evolutionary.
It would still take another order of magnitude of failsafes to even start approaching the complexity of today's gasoline drinkers.
And a motor on each wheel != complexity, especially if the motors are reasonably identical(fronts might have a different housing/hookup to deal with turning).
Given that the whole thing is powered by electromagnics, it's most likely to 'freeze' in a freely rotatable state. Even if it's just a two-wheel drive(return of the rear wheel drive?), powered by two motors, the loss of one motor would leave you in a state to limp to a service station. The fix? Yank and replace the engine module. Designed right, it'd be less than an hours work.
which means 4 transmitions
Did you RTFA? These motors are designed to be hooked directly up to the wheel. That means that this engine doesn't NEED any transmission because it generates enough torque at 0 RPM to move the vehicle, and can rotate fast enough to propel the vehicle at all speeds.
And electric motors, properly built, are very very tough.
On the other hand, I have problems with Eye relief. I'm getting to the point that I have
I find a cheap LCD monitor easier on my eyes anymore than anything but a properly set up and high refresh rate CRT.
I do miss my high resolutions though.
My problem with them isn't so much the weight, but the distribution and bulk.
I can carry ~70 pounds with one hand without much problem, as long as it has a good hand-hold. But many monitors don't.
I object to the depth that many of these monitors take up.
They still exist.
There is one in Fremont, Nebraska, for one. There was a bit of a furer about it a while back.
There was a big protest over it that led to it actually gaining more support. It seems that the parents and other locals noticed that all the cars of the protesters were out of the cities of Omaha and Lincoln(If you know how Nebraska does license plates, it's really easy to tell what county the car is registered in). They of course, got pissed off at the 'big city' folks sticking their noses into their affairs.
Nevada passed legislation authorizing firearm education, including live fire, not too long ago.
I agree with the idea-Gunproof the kids. Just like 'child-proof' caps that kids find easier to open than their parents do, child-proofing guns doesn't work, and what happens when your kid comes across one that's not locked up? I read somewhere that accidental poisonings from prescription and OTC drugs actually went up after they started putting 'child-proof' caps on them because people stopped locking them up, and the caps really weren't 'proof'.
We teach safe driving, safe sex, why not safe shooting?