That said, why did it take them so long to offer something like this?
The US imposed import tariffs on "trucks". SUV's were classified as "trucks". Due to the tariffs, domestic manufacturers could make a higher margin on "trucks" than on sedans. So they built the plants to build the SUV/trucks.
Economy changes...gas prices skyrocket...
People don't want to buy "trucks" anymore. Lots of manufacturing plant building occurs. Lots of new designing occurs. Years later, domestic car manufacturers are ready to sell something that is more gas efficient. But they've got to sell in a market already owned by manufacturers that zigged when they were zagging. The domestic guys can go in with a "me too" sell, or they can go in with a "this is how it should be done" sell.
GM just came in saying, "Hell, if we're gonna go, let's go all the way." Toyota is saying, "Oops. We're not ready for that yet. Slow down."
*"truck" is a political term defined as 'large vehicle built by people who pay us large sums of money'. It is not defined by anything you will find reasonable.
FTA: However, he warned restaurants and bars against trying to pass off a cheaper bottle of wine as a more expensive one just because it had been through the machine. "You would have to tell customers it wasn't quite the real thing," he said.
What's that? Is that the BS detector going off?!! Why, yes it is!
Heh, either the wine taste good and you can charge more for it, or it doesn't and it goes to the supermarket. The snooty people spending money for a name and a year just want the label anyway. It could be piss water and they'd just claim that it is an acquired taste.
That said, I suspect this invention could actually work. Not by banging alcohol molecules together, but by breaking down organic solids that are floating around.
I gotcha. The only problem I see with your argument is that people need to publish what they think they've found, so that others can pick it up and run with it. I use "people" in place of "scientist" here, because I want to avoid the allusion to the white coat, ivory tower mentality. Humans get their best solutions through collaboration. So publishing preliminary or poorly thought out results has the contradictory results of both hindering and speeding progress at the same time 8*)
Just to refine your analogy a bit. The bucket is being filled with a siphon hose connected to a second bucket. The fill rate is determined by the water height difference between the two. As the first one fills, the water level evens out, and the flow rate drops.
The water flow very quickly at first, but waiting for that last 1/4" could be a very long ordeal.
Batteries charge curve looks very much like an RC circuit. Very fast at the start, then tapers off and never really fully charges. The product isn't yet at the point of marketing to the public (who don't even know what an RC circuit is), so they're publishing numbers that knowledgeable people expect to see.
Grow grass until it browns, then burn it as fuel. This leaves you with energy and lots of ashes...which are mostly carbon. Bury the ashes in old limestone mines.
You can even let the grass be one of the corn or wheat variety of grasses.
You encase the cells in glass and install them on your roof. You don't offer them to your children as pacifiers.
The typical propane tank that a great many Americans have stashed under their BBQ grills next to their back wall has the power of 3 sticks of dynamite. I think of the intelligence my fellow American. I think of 3 sticks of dynamite. Now there is something to be worried about.
You need a different metric. With current trends in our American financial system, you'll soon be happy with $10/Watt. $100/Watt will be soon to follow. 8*(
I will most likely vote third party, and I do believe in "least of evils". I see the Dempublicans as having the exact same agenda...consolidating power in Washington. The "One Ring to Rule Them All" is the greatest evil of all.
People are telling you what the EC is, but not really telling you what it is for.
The purpose is to not allow populous states to overrun mostly rural ones. It's the same sort of thinking that created our Congress. Two houses, one represents population, the other gives equal power to every state.
The problem is that the people who live in urban New York cannot appreciate the viewpoints of people in rural Montana, and vice-versa. Reducing the election to a purely populous vote would result in Montana being ruled by New York. Why would Montana willingly subject themselves to that? The guys who started this thing worked out a compromise called the electoral college, and both New York and Montana agreed to the deal.
The contract may create problems, but it was the only compromise that allowed for the United STATES to come together in the first place.
You need to read American history to understand this system. As a Dutchman, you are a citizen of a single country. As an American, I am a citizen of both North Carolina, and the United STATES of America. The state of North Carolina is a separate political entity from the Commonwealth of Virginia. Our electoral college is an attempt to moderate the influence that populous states have over rural states that would occur with a purely populous vote, and the opposite that would occur with a one-state one vote model.
Our Federal government has been garnering more and more power over time, but initially the government was set up with a lot of mechanisms to limit that consolidation.
Just because you don't read your history book doesn't mean that our electoral college doesn't make sense.
Here's a clue for you: In a federation of political entities, those with less power will not agree to common leadership unless you do something to equalize the power sharing. If you decide the presidency a popular vote, Montana would have to agree to be ruled by New York. Why the hell would Montana do that? The compromise was the electoral college, which gives the less populous states a more equal footing.
It's not about making individuals have equal power. It's about making individual States have equal power. (the capital 'S' is on purpose).
And before you cry 'we weren't to know': Just about everyone was saying loud and clear that the US administration's case was pure bull and the evidence didn't hold up.
Strange definition for 'everyone' you have there. Everyone doesn't seem to include 600 members of Congress, or the >60% of Americans without any access to classified documents that approved of the boondoggle.
And just WHERE is the political gain in blowing up a camel with a $100K missile?
Keep in mind that Hussien was a pariah in this nation, and Bush was up against the "kill somebody, we need revenge" sentiment running rampant in this country. Amercians were all on his side, until the bill came due. Then it was, "That lying Bush. It's all his fault."
It wasn't his fault. It was the fault of the >60% who thought that messing around in the Middle East was a good idea in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
That said, why did it take them so long to offer something like this?
The US imposed import tariffs on "trucks". SUV's were classified as "trucks". Due to the tariffs, domestic manufacturers could make a higher margin on "trucks" than on sedans. So they built the plants to build the SUV/trucks.
Economy changes...gas prices skyrocket...
People don't want to buy "trucks" anymore. Lots of manufacturing plant building occurs. Lots of new designing occurs. Years later, domestic car manufacturers are ready to sell something that is more gas efficient. But they've got to sell in a market already owned by manufacturers that zigged when they were zagging. The domestic guys can go in with a "me too" sell, or they can go in with a "this is how it should be done" sell.
GM just came in saying, "Hell, if we're gonna go, let's go all the way." Toyota is saying, "Oops. We're not ready for that yet. Slow down."
*"truck" is a political term defined as 'large vehicle built by people who pay us large sums of money'. It is not defined by anything you will find reasonable.
FTA: However, he warned restaurants and bars against trying to pass off a cheaper bottle of wine as a more expensive one just because it had been through the machine. "You would have to tell customers it wasn't quite the real thing," he said.
What's that? Is that the BS detector going off?!! Why, yes it is!
Heh, either the wine taste good and you can charge more for it, or it doesn't and it goes to the supermarket. The snooty people spending money for a name and a year just want the label anyway. It could be piss water and they'd just claim that it is an acquired taste.
That said, I suspect this invention could actually work. Not by banging alcohol molecules together, but by breaking down organic solids that are floating around.
I gotcha. The only problem I see with your argument is that people need to publish what they think they've found, so that others can pick it up and run with it. I use "people" in place of "scientist" here, because I want to avoid the allusion to the white coat, ivory tower mentality. Humans get their best solutions through collaboration. So publishing preliminary or poorly thought out results has the contradictory results of both hindering and speeding progress at the same time 8*)
Just to refine your analogy a bit.
The bucket is being filled with a siphon hose connected to a second bucket. The fill rate is determined by the water height difference between the two. As the first one fills, the water level evens out, and the flow rate drops.
The water flow very quickly at first, but waiting for that last 1/4" could be a very long ordeal.
Because they wouldn't be believed?
Batteries charge curve looks very much like an RC circuit. Very fast at the start, then tapers off and never really fully charges. The product isn't yet at the point of marketing to the public (who don't even know what an RC circuit is), so they're publishing numbers that knowledgeable people expect to see.
Why would I feel a need of teaching leading edge cosmology theories to children? It's a 24x7 job just covering the stuff that they actually need.
Here's an idea:
Grow grass until it browns, then burn it as fuel. This leaves you with energy and lots of ashes...which are mostly carbon. Bury the ashes in old limestone mines.
You can even let the grass be one of the corn or wheat variety of grasses.
Just a thought.
Bubba?! Bubba, is that you?
You encase the cells in glass and install them on your roof. You don't offer them to your children as pacifiers.
The typical propane tank that a great many Americans have stashed under their BBQ grills next to their back wall has the power of 3 sticks of dynamite. I think of the intelligence my fellow American. I think of 3 sticks of dynamite. Now there is something to be worried about.
Yes, it can, but I would refer you to fiberglass cloth. It's glass. And yet it is a cloth.
I would say that the fragility question is just a matter of a properly engineered mounting. Just glue the ultra-thin panels to a resilient substrate.
You need a different metric. With current trends in our American financial system, you'll soon be happy with $10/Watt. $100/Watt will be soon to follow. 8*(
..because?....ummm?...it is a normal member of the world community?
No, no, no. I got it! We let this pariah state pretend to be a normal member of the world community just to piss off trolls! Woohoo! What do I win!
(Sorry to poke at the trolls, but that one was just to easy to resist!)
Gold isn't cheap, either, but you can find it spread across a $15 NIC card.
Go figure.
There is no law that i know of that demands they have to do as we ask.
Depends on which state you live in. Some have laws dictating how the delegates vote. Some don't.
I will most likely vote third party, and I do believe in "least of evils". I see the Dempublicans as having the exact same agenda...consolidating power in Washington. The "One Ring to Rule Them All" is the greatest evil of all.
I apologize. You did answer the gp question. I should have looked more indepth.
People are telling you what the EC is, but not really telling you what it is for.
The purpose is to not allow populous states to overrun mostly rural ones. It's the same sort of thinking that created our Congress. Two houses, one represents population, the other gives equal power to every state.
The problem is that the people who live in urban New York cannot appreciate the viewpoints of people in rural Montana, and vice-versa. Reducing the election to a purely populous vote would result in Montana being ruled by New York. Why would Montana willingly subject themselves to that? The guys who started this thing worked out a compromise called the electoral college, and both New York and Montana agreed to the deal.
The contract may create problems, but it was the only compromise that allowed for the United STATES to come together in the first place.
You need to read American history to understand this system. As a Dutchman, you are a citizen of a single country. As an American, I am a citizen of both North Carolina, and the United STATES of America. The state of North Carolina is a separate political entity from the Commonwealth of Virginia. Our electoral college is an attempt to moderate the influence that populous states have over rural states that would occur with a purely populous vote, and the opposite that would occur with a one-state one vote model.
Our Federal government has been garnering more and more power over time, but initially the government was set up with a lot of mechanisms to limit that consolidation.
Just because you don't read your history book doesn't mean that our electoral college doesn't make sense.
Here's a clue for you: In a federation of political entities, those with less power will not agree to common leadership unless you do something to equalize the power sharing. If you decide the presidency a popular vote, Montana would have to agree to be ruled by New York. Why the hell would Montana do that? The compromise was the electoral college, which gives the less populous states a more equal footing.
It's not about making individuals have equal power. It's about making individual States have equal power. (the capital 'S' is on purpose).
TV sucked for a few months while they took some time off and regrouped.
That was there excuse then. What's their excuse now?
And before you cry 'we weren't to know': Just about everyone was saying loud and clear that the US administration's case was pure bull and the evidence didn't hold up.
Strange definition for 'everyone' you have there. Everyone doesn't seem to include 600 members of Congress, or the >60% of Americans without any access to classified documents that approved of the boondoggle.
And just WHERE is the political gain in blowing up a camel with a $100K missile?
Keep in mind that Hussien was a pariah in this nation, and Bush was up against the "kill somebody, we need revenge" sentiment running rampant in this country. Amercians were all on his side, until the bill came due. Then it was, "That lying Bush. It's all his fault."
It wasn't his fault. It was the fault of the >60% who thought that messing around in the Middle East was a good idea in the first place.
Just like Clinton did?
In fact, I can't believe I'll ever hate ANYONE as much as I hate Bush.
You don't even know the man. All you know is a caricature handed to you through your television and news papers.