Uber is not a person. Your argument is stupid. Sorry.
No, the way you *read* my argument is stupid. Corporations are made of people. Especially for a startup like Uber, it's owners/creators are seeking a profit. It's drivers are seeking profit. Etc...
Just as an example, bus and limo drivers fit that description, and they aren't considered 'taxis'.
Then you get cities like NYC that are very specific about what constitutes a taxi and how they operate, and if you don't operate in that fashion, such as respond to 'street hails' such as by the hand signal and charge via the use of a taximeter, you're not a taxi, you're a 'black car', and the regulations are different.
At least in the NYC example, Uber acts more like a black car company than a taxi company, under NYC rules. They don't respond to street hails, and the passenger knows how much the trip is going to cost before getting into the door, thus there's no incentive to 'take the long way', there's no need for a taximeter, etc...
I've noticed this as well. Short of laptops, my old computers generally used a couple 6-8 cm fans. Today my computer has 5 12 cm fans. They're low speed, but still.
You look at the cooling for a modern computer and the first guess wouldn't be reduced power usage.
Another thing - CRT could be more efficient than many thought.
About 5 years ago I finally got rid of my 32" CRT TV and replaced it with a 42" LCD. Given the time mind you, it's a CCFL lit one, not LED.
However, both were energy star rated for their time. I no longer remember the exact figures, but I used a Kill-A-Watt energy meter on it.
To my surprise, the new TV used more power than the old. I no longer remember the exact measurements, but my first thought was 'well, it's bigger!', so I calculated it out by square inch of [i]visible[/i] screen, just to be meaner to the CRT. The LCD TV still used 30% more power per square inch than the CRT!
Ah, so famous people like Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr were just criminals, not famous civil disobedience people.
Disobeying a law with the intent of bringing it to public attention in order to get the law changed IS civil disobedience. It's just that Uber's actions are more commercial in nature than past civil rights types.
Then again, given that the USA is no longer rated amongst the most business friendly due to our regulatory load, maybe we SHOULD look at fixing that.
Note, in the USA you can't sue about a law in order to get it declared unconstitutional unless you have 'standing'. Which often amounts to you needing to be arrested for it.
As for taxis, a lot of the horribleness came from lack of oversight - today though, if Uber starts to suck I can simply go to Lyft, the taxi companies, or any of Uber's other competitors. I can hold Uber responsible for the conduct of it's drivers even if I'm only in an area temporarily. More so than I can do with the local taxi companies, at least.
but I can guarantee you that some redneck would take it too far if you gave people a free pass to shoot things out of the sky above their property.
I didn't give them a free pass though. Note the number of restrictions - shot must 'harmlessly' fall back down, so no unloading with slugs or.50BMG rounds. 12 gauge shotgun, so no pulling out the punt guns.
As for the drone in question, well, I question everything.
Though looking at ranges, 200 feet UP might be doable, given a ~200-250 yard horizontal effective range.
Still gives drone operators the area between 250-500 feet for 'transit' operations where they don't 'need' to worry about getting permission from every land owner, but stay below FAA jurisdiction.
The problem you have here is that people at this point are STILL going on about Fukushima. But the disaster itself killed over a thousand. But nobody talks about them.
What does all of this say - the Supreme Court has ruled you own at least 83 feet above your property. So no, all airspace is definitely not public. Hopefully this will lead towards a new ruling which will legal define how much airspace you own; opposed to it being left in a legal grey area for heights between 83 feet and 500 feet.
This reminds me of ancient maritime law and how they defined 'territorial waters'. Today it's 12 nautical miles. Back in the 18th Century it was 3 miles. For several centuries it amounted to being the range of common ground-based cannon-shot. Basically, if they could shoot at you from shore, you were within their territorial waters.
It seems as good of a standard as any - if you can hit the drone with a standard 12 gauge using normal shot that's small enough to fall 'harmlessly' back to earth, then the drone is too low.
Depending on whether people pull the goose guns out, this seems
At 425 m/s, if it wasn't for atmosphere it'd make it out 9k feet. As is, air resistance is critical, and while I can get plenty of 'how far', 'how high' is tougher, but I'm getting a practical range of about 80-120 feet.
Not sure how high drones fly. It looks like it was above 80 feet. I have no idea whether it would even be in range at 500 feet. Nor am I all that clear whether your right to private property extends to destruction of equipment that enters.
Much above 80 feet and the birdshot is likely to be ineffective. I found a source quoting 40 yards(120 feet) as about the maximum.
Keep in mind that vertical distance is more 'expensive' energy wise than horizontal.
the user shut them up, with ad-block or simply the mute button.
Or in the case of television and radio, there have been attempts to regulate how annoying ads can be via legislation.
Specifically, the 'volume turn up' trick. You know, where you're watching a show, then an ad comes on and you're diving for the volume down button because it's 3X as loud as the show?
Of course, 'loud' isn't a technical term, so the legislation ended up being ineffective, but given enough imputus, people will push for it again. Or do like me, and cut the 'live' television plug because their show isn't worth sitting through an equal amount of advertising for shit I would never buy or already buy. Seriously, I don't base my purchases on TV ads.
Sorry, messed up on editing - quote tags disappeared.
1) If i could guarantee 150 miles per day at 70mph minimum (speed limit is 70), that would cover my commute.
You're in luck, the model S has that range. Specifically, it has 225 miles@75mph.
Rear ended: The Model S has TWO batteries, a tiny 12V one for accessories, and the big lithium-ion one that's over 7k 18650 cells. However, the big battery is unlikely to be hit, given it's location. The body of a model S is basically a skateboard with the battery attached to the bottom of the board between the wheels.
Destination: How far away is it, and does it have electricity at all? I was thinking that you camp on the weekends or something.
Plug: Right now most Tesla owners have a garage they can pull into. Thieves: I might be mean, but I would laugh heartily when any metal stealing thieves manage to electrocute themselves. Breaking in: Home security system. Smith & Wesson is popular, but I went with the cheaper but more modern CZ. Slap a home monitoring sticker on your door/window, it should dissude most.
On electricity: Tesla pays for the electricity, with the cost for the superchargers built into the price of the vehicle, much like how many dealers are bundling the first 2 years of oil changes and routine maintenance with their vehicles.
Electricity not being cheap: If you don't mind, where are you, and what's your electric company? Industrial/Commerical users normally see quite a break in price. As for third parties, it's a mix of things: 1. If they install a supercharger station Tesla pays them. 2. If they install something else, they're allowed to charge. 3. Loss leader to attract the normally wealthier than normal EV owners 4. Electricity isn't actually that expensive
Prankster kid: The charger for the tesla locks into the port when connected. You need your proximity key to unlock it. If they're bringing tools to cut the cord, well, electrocution awaits and they could just disassemble your car as is.
Charge time: It all depends on the station. 150 miles ~ 50 kwh; With a dedicated 30A charger, you're looking at about 7 hours to reach full again. 50A or higher would be faster, of course.
Cheapness: Look into 'off-peak' electricity. You're still looking at $15/day in gasoline(30mpg vehicle) vs $5 of electricity.
That being said, I agree that cost is the single biggest reason to NOT get a Tesla today.
It's not especially for drivers. It's for autonomous cars. IE your tesla drops you off at the front door of your work or destination, then wanders off to a charging station. Once it's topped off, if the stalls are full and there's another EV than needs charging, it can go park itself in a non-charging spot. Then, when you're getting ready to leave, it can leave the possibly remote lot and be there to pick you up as you go.
Or consider 'robotic' taxis. When one becomes low on charge or has free time, it hits up the charging spot on it's own.
Nah, Teslas don't work for me. I commute 60 miles to work, none of it down town driving, and there are no recharging stations near anywhere i'd be traveling, nor would it be profitable to have one along the route. Most convenient form of energy transference, Dino Juice.
You said enough to say that you're not a good fit for a leaf and other short range EVs, but you said NOTHING that disqualifies you from using a Tesla. 1. 60 mile commute, no city driving: Not within a leaf's range, but easily within a Tesla's. You could recharge every other day or so, as a matter of fact. 2. No recharging stations where you travel: Unspecific, but Tesla keeps building more supercharge stations. And technically speaking, with the Tesla there actually probably ARE charging stations 'near anywhere' you'd be traveling. One of the adapter plugs they give you with the car is compatible with RV plugins. Is there an RV park near where you're going? Then you have a charging station. Even if you go camping those are generally 'all over'. 3. Profitable - Tesla isn't charging for using it's stations.
You make a good point. In the future I can see them deliberately spacing dormers and such to balance usability and solar energy potential.
That being said, solar panels don't have to be restricted to the roof. I'm tempted to set up a 'solar car park'.
If you don't need house-level water resistance or insulation they're perfectly suitable as a roof surface.
As a bonus, if you write it up as the structural members are to keep it out of the way and from interfering with your car as opposed to being a car park with solar panels on top, the whole construction cost is deductible. Not that structural members to raise the panels 8-10' high are all that more expensive than ones that would only raise it 4'.
This snow clearing suggestion probably works, except for heavy snowfalls.
Just the opposite, actually. Remember, you don't have to melt all the snow. Just a very small layer that's touching the solar panel.
The heavier the snowfall, the less energy you need to spend on heat to make it fall off.
That being said, after doing the math, my answer for solar power in the winter once it snows is indeed 'fuck it', my simulations assume NO power generation for four months/year.
AC is one of those things where a custom solution is often better than just trying to throw more solar panels and batteries at it.
First, you start by designing the house for the region, not forcing it by 'simply' tossing a X ton AC system at it. This can dramatically reduce the heat load. Much better done when building the house, of course, rather than as a refit.
Second, consider your total cooling requirements, at the reduced level. Consider what resources you have. Options include adsorption, absorption, air & ground source heat pump, evaporative, etc... Let's say we're sticking with that our cooling energy MUST come from solar power. We can use solar photovoltiac or solar thermal. Thermal pulls more energy from the sun per square meter and be cheaper, but processes after it are less efficient.
Today you can buy high efficiency heat pumps that work directly off of DC.
Third - get creative with storage. Batteries are not the only option! Thermal mass is an option - you cool down some media - water, bricks, dirt, doesn't really matter. Then use that to keep blowing cool air through the night. In the case of a thermal system, you can dump heat into storage and keep using it to run the absorption chiller overnight. In the case of an Adsorption chiller, you can size the media to last through the night and regenerate it during the day.
Slashdot Mirror
Uber is not a person. Your argument is stupid. Sorry.
No, the way you *read* my argument is stupid. Corporations are made of people. Especially for a startup like Uber, it's owners/creators are seeking a profit. It's drivers are seeking profit. Etc...
Because in many cities you aren't?
Just as an example, bus and limo drivers fit that description, and they aren't considered 'taxis'.
Then you get cities like NYC that are very specific about what constitutes a taxi and how they operate, and if you don't operate in that fashion, such as respond to 'street hails' such as by the hand signal and charge via the use of a taximeter, you're not a taxi, you're a 'black car', and the regulations are different.
At least in the NYC example, Uber acts more like a black car company than a taxi company, under NYC rules. They don't respond to street hails, and the passenger knows how much the trip is going to cost before getting into the door, thus there's no incentive to 'take the long way', there's no need for a taximeter, etc...
Pursuit of happiness is a human right.
Making a profit is such.
I've noticed this as well. Short of laptops, my old computers generally used a couple 6-8 cm fans. Today my computer has 5 12 cm fans. They're low speed, but still.
You look at the cooling for a modern computer and the first guess wouldn't be reduced power usage.
Another thing - CRT could be more efficient than many thought.
About 5 years ago I finally got rid of my 32" CRT TV and replaced it with a 42" LCD. Given the time mind you, it's a CCFL lit one, not LED.
However, both were energy star rated for their time. I no longer remember the exact figures, but I used a Kill-A-Watt energy meter on it.
To my surprise, the new TV used more power than the old. I no longer remember the exact measurements, but my first thought was 'well, it's bigger!', so I calculated it out by square inch of [i]visible[/i] screen, just to be meaner to the CRT. The LCD TV still used 30% more power per square inch than the CRT!
Hi. I live in Quebec. Not only does hydro provide reliable power, it powers most of the province and there's a huge energy surplus.
Hi Quebec, could you please cover the NE seaboard of the USA? No? Well, I guess we'll have to find our own options.
Hydroelectric is effectively maxed in the USA. We still need to make up the difference.
Some of the regulations are to increase local tax revenue, some are for road safety, some are for passenger safety, and some are for driver safety
You missed that some of the regulations are also there solely to protect the existing companies through regulatory capture.
Ah, so famous people like Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr were just criminals, not famous civil disobedience people.
Disobeying a law with the intent of bringing it to public attention in order to get the law changed IS civil disobedience. It's just that Uber's actions are more commercial in nature than past civil rights types.
Then again, given that the USA is no longer rated amongst the most business friendly due to our regulatory load, maybe we SHOULD look at fixing that.
Note, in the USA you can't sue about a law in order to get it declared unconstitutional unless you have 'standing'. Which often amounts to you needing to be arrested for it.
As for taxis, a lot of the horribleness came from lack of oversight - today though, if Uber starts to suck I can simply go to Lyft, the taxi companies, or any of Uber's other competitors. I can hold Uber responsible for the conduct of it's drivers even if I'm only in an area temporarily. More so than I can do with the local taxi companies, at least.
but I can guarantee you that some redneck would take it too far if you gave people a free pass to shoot things out of the sky above their property.
I didn't give them a free pass though. Note the number of restrictions - shot must 'harmlessly' fall back down, so no unloading with slugs or .50BMG rounds. 12 gauge shotgun, so no pulling out the punt guns.
As for the drone in question, well, I question everything.
Though looking at ranges, 200 feet UP might be doable, given a ~200-250 yard horizontal effective range.
Still gives drone operators the area between 250-500 feet for 'transit' operations where they don't 'need' to worry about getting permission from every land owner, but stay below FAA jurisdiction.
Strat,
The problem you have here is that people at this point are STILL going on about Fukushima. But the disaster itself killed over a thousand. But nobody talks about them.
Oh, I fully understand that, thus the comment that it's sad that a 31 year old nuclear plant could be considered the 'new' one.
I'd be much happier if that number was around 5 instead.
What does all of this say - the Supreme Court has ruled you own at least 83 feet above your property. So no, all airspace is definitely not public. Hopefully this will lead towards a new ruling which will legal define how much airspace you own; opposed to it being left in a legal grey area for heights between 83 feet and 500 feet.
This reminds me of ancient maritime law and how they defined 'territorial waters'. Today it's 12 nautical miles. Back in the 18th Century it was 3 miles. For several centuries it amounted to being the range of common ground-based cannon-shot. Basically, if they could shoot at you from shore, you were within their territorial waters.
It seems as good of a standard as any - if you can hit the drone with a standard 12 gauge using normal shot that's small enough to fall 'harmlessly' back to earth, then the drone is too low.
Depending on whether people pull the goose guns out, this seems
At 425 m/s, if it wasn't for atmosphere it'd make it out 9k feet. As is, air resistance is critical, and while I can get plenty of 'how far', 'how high' is tougher, but I'm getting a practical range of about 80-120 feet.
Reasonable enough.
Actually, per earlier reports he had been informed by a neighbor that somebody was snooping around with a drone. That probably primed the guy.
Not sure how high drones fly. It looks like it was above 80 feet. I have no idea whether it would even be in range at 500 feet. Nor am I all that clear whether your right to private property extends to destruction of equipment that enters.
Much above 80 feet and the birdshot is likely to be ineffective. I found a source quoting 40 yards(120 feet) as about the maximum.
Keep in mind that vertical distance is more 'expensive' energy wise than horizontal.
Indeed, I'm not even a proper red-neck, being descended from mountain-folk, and I still have 2 shotguns.
That being said, swapping between bird and buck shot is the matter of a few seconds.
From the article: "has built stronger, higher tsunami walls near the new plant" and "Regardless, the 31-year old reactor"
It's sad that 31 years old counts as 'new'.
Consider that if they had had some really new nuclear plants that Fukushima probably would have already been shut down.
the user shut them up, with ad-block or simply the mute button.
Or in the case of television and radio, there have been attempts to regulate how annoying ads can be via legislation.
Specifically, the 'volume turn up' trick. You know, where you're watching a show, then an ad comes on and you're diving for the volume down button because it's 3X as loud as the show?
Of course, 'loud' isn't a technical term, so the legislation ended up being ineffective, but given enough imputus, people will push for it again. Or do like me, and cut the 'live' television plug because their show isn't worth sitting through an equal amount of advertising for shit I would never buy or already buy. Seriously, I don't base my purchases on TV ads.
There's still some subsidizing going on...
Subsidization, or built into the advertised price of the phone?
Sorry, messed up on editing - quote tags disappeared.
1) If i could guarantee 150 miles per day at 70mph minimum (speed limit is 70), that would cover my commute.
You're in luck, the model S has that range. Specifically, it has 225 miles@75mph.
Rear ended: The Model S has TWO batteries, a tiny 12V one for accessories, and the big lithium-ion one that's over 7k 18650 cells. However, the big battery is unlikely to be hit, given it's location. The body of a model S is basically a skateboard with the battery attached to the bottom of the board between the wheels.
On safety: highest marks.
Destination: How far away is it, and does it have electricity at all? I was thinking that you camp on the weekends or something.
Plug: Right now most Tesla owners have a garage they can pull into.
Thieves: I might be mean, but I would laugh heartily when any metal stealing thieves manage to electrocute themselves.
Breaking in: Home security system. Smith & Wesson is popular, but I went with the cheaper but more modern CZ. Slap a home monitoring sticker on your door/window, it should dissude most.
On electricity: Tesla pays for the electricity, with the cost for the superchargers built into the price of the vehicle, much like how many dealers are bundling the first 2 years of oil changes and routine maintenance with their vehicles.
Electricity not being cheap: If you don't mind, where are you, and what's your electric company? Industrial/Commerical users normally see quite a break in price. As for third parties, it's a mix of things:
1. If they install a supercharger station Tesla pays them.
2. If they install something else, they're allowed to charge.
3. Loss leader to attract the normally wealthier than normal EV owners
4. Electricity isn't actually that expensive
Prankster kid: The charger for the tesla locks into the port when connected. You need your proximity key to unlock it. If they're bringing tools to cut the cord, well, electrocution awaits and they could just disassemble your car as is.
Charge time: It all depends on the station. 150 miles ~ 50 kwh; With a dedicated 30A charger, you're looking at about 7 hours to reach full again. 50A or higher would be faster, of course.
Cheapness: Look into 'off-peak' electricity. You're still looking at $15/day in gasoline(30mpg vehicle) vs $5 of electricity.
That being said, I agree that cost is the single biggest reason to NOT get a Tesla today.
It's not especially for drivers. It's for autonomous cars. IE your tesla drops you off at the front door of your work or destination, then wanders off to a charging station. Once it's topped off, if the stalls are full and there's another EV than needs charging, it can go park itself in a non-charging spot. Then, when you're getting ready to leave, it can leave the possibly remote lot and be there to pick you up as you go.
Or consider 'robotic' taxis. When one becomes low on charge or has free time, it hits up the charging spot on it's own.
He also neglected to consider the weight involved. Moving so much as my truck's battery is a pain. Moving an EV battery requires equipment.
Nah, Teslas don't work for me. I commute 60 miles to work, none of it down town driving, and there are no recharging stations near anywhere i'd be traveling, nor would it be profitable to have one along the route. Most convenient form of energy transference, Dino Juice.
You said enough to say that you're not a good fit for a leaf and other short range EVs, but you said NOTHING that disqualifies you from using a Tesla.
1. 60 mile commute, no city driving: Not within a leaf's range, but easily within a Tesla's. You could recharge every other day or so, as a matter of fact.
2. No recharging stations where you travel: Unspecific, but Tesla keeps building more supercharge stations. And technically speaking, with the Tesla there actually probably ARE charging stations 'near anywhere' you'd be traveling. One of the adapter plugs they give you with the car is compatible with RV plugins. Is there an RV park near where you're going? Then you have a charging station. Even if you go camping those are generally 'all over'.
3. Profitable - Tesla isn't charging for using it's stations.
You make a good point. In the future I can see them deliberately spacing dormers and such to balance usability and solar energy potential.
That being said, solar panels don't have to be restricted to the roof. I'm tempted to set up a 'solar car park'.
If you don't need house-level water resistance or insulation they're perfectly suitable as a roof surface.
As a bonus, if you write it up as the structural members are to keep it out of the way and from interfering with your car as opposed to being a car park with solar panels on top, the whole construction cost is deductible. Not that structural members to raise the panels 8-10' high are all that more expensive than ones that would only raise it 4'.
This snow clearing suggestion probably works, except for heavy snowfalls.
Just the opposite, actually. Remember, you don't have to melt all the snow. Just a very small layer that's touching the solar panel.
The heavier the snowfall, the less energy you need to spend on heat to make it fall off.
That being said, after doing the math, my answer for solar power in the winter once it snows is indeed 'fuck it', my simulations assume NO power generation for four months/year.
AC is one of those things where a custom solution is often better than just trying to throw more solar panels and batteries at it.
First, you start by designing the house for the region, not forcing it by 'simply' tossing a X ton AC system at it. This can dramatically reduce the heat load. Much better done when building the house, of course, rather than as a refit.
Second, consider your total cooling requirements, at the reduced level. Consider what resources you have. Options include adsorption, absorption, air & ground source heat pump, evaporative, etc... Let's say we're sticking with that our cooling energy MUST come from solar power. We can use solar photovoltiac or solar thermal. Thermal pulls more energy from the sun per square meter and be cheaper, but processes after it are less efficient.
Today you can buy high efficiency heat pumps that work directly off of DC.
Third - get creative with storage. Batteries are not the only option! Thermal mass is an option - you cool down some media - water, bricks, dirt, doesn't really matter. Then use that to keep blowing cool air through the night. In the case of a thermal system, you can dump heat into storage and keep using it to run the absorption chiller overnight. In the case of an Adsorption chiller, you can size the media to last through the night and regenerate it during the day.