The way math is taught, Math is a chore. The way common core teaches it, it's a stupid, idiotic chore.
YessereeBob, I think its important for my kids to learn to skip the hard stuff, and only develop skills in the fun stuff. I tell them, "if it seems like a chore, that is your excuse to perform poorly". My youngest wanted to be a clown, but she didn't like the chore of putting on the makeup.
An insightful statement. I remember someone once trying to argue that turn signals and brake lights should be unnecessary, as if there is no benefit to knowing what the other car is about to do.
Like anything, the benefits of lines will vary depending on the road and environment.
And my wifi thermostat (not a NEST) has been working for 5 years now with no problems. It replaced a mercury switch one that you could not program for energy savings.
No , but theres a cutoff point of low speed where traffic really does start backing up. Obviously its dependent on the road layout and traffic density but I think its fair to say that driving at 20mph on a clear road is not a way to traffic harmony.
Exactly. I wish more people understood this. Also, there is a variability in car speed that causes a wave reaction, amplifying the effect of slowdowns. The key is speed AND steadiness. If cars move faster on average, they are on the road a shorter amount of time, therefore there are less cars on the road at any given moment, reducing congestion.
But alas, as long as we have left lane laggard idiots, we are subject to significantly reduced travel efficiency.
You can't completely ignoring that lines have other safety functions than simply keeping cars on their side. You would have a hard time convincing me that no passing/passing allowed lines are not helpful.
TFA mentions lower temperatures than other processes. That suggests the new process is more energy efficient than the old one.
Obviously, the laws of thermodynamics prevent this technology from being anything more than a way to store energy. However, it seems like they have made the process more efficient by discovering a new type of catalyst.
More efficient than what? More efficient than hopelessly inefficient isn't saying much.
Using energy from windmills to power the process in a remote location (arctic etc) is cheaper than flying in gas. Using energy from the nuclear reactor of an aircraft carrier to produce jet fuel while at sea would save a lot of money/risk on transporting fuel. Using this tech to make fuel at a military base in a dangerous place (Afghanistan etc) would reduce the need for supply convoys, and save lives.
You couldn't fit enough windmills on a base to make all the fuel that base uses.
If it takes off vertically, you could possibly provide electrical power from the ground for a certain distance, overcoming the initial lift off energy use at least. But still, better hope battery tech evolves dramatically for any real prospect of fast long distance E flying.
Read the EULA. Read the instructions. Apple will replace your phone if under warranty. It is stated very clearly that your iPhone IS NOT SERVICEABLE, either by you or by anyone who is not Apple. Don't like it? Buy something else.
Buy something else is the right choice, but there is a difference between voiding a warranty and bricking a device. If the EULA says the device will be bricked if you repair it yourself, then you have a point.
Whether they installed 30, 50, or 60 Kw of capacity is really irrelevant. It generates such a minuscule amount of energy compared to what this company uses that it is nothing more than symbolic. Why this is news is beyond me.
Well then, what is the acceptable level of accidents per mile of roadway? How is this adjusted by the speed of the vehicle and the local conditions?
Well, the question really is the wrong one. Common sense says we will always have some risk. But there is a great body of experience that dictates speed limits, which is why there are general rules for neighborhood roads, school zones,, etc. For example, it is known that blind intersections, tight curves, and a number of other factors can increase the risks on any given stretch of road, therefore they might reduce the limit from the standard for that road type where needed. When there are no reasons to further reduce the standard speed limits for neighborhoods, then I suppose the level of incidents presently occurring is deemed 'acceptable' by default.
Speed limits should be set based on the first only. The entire objective is reduce the probability of and accident to an acceptable level, not reduce it's severity.
Yeah - my seatbelts, crumple zone, side impact airbags, front impact airbags, passenger airbags, re-enforced pillars, side impact beams, automatic roll shut off, bumpers, safety glass, etc. all are very helpful at reducing the probability of an accident.
That's a seriously wrong statement.
None of those items has anything to do with how speed limits are set.
Perhaps the kid was jumping in front of the car and would have been injured anyway.
Two things about this, one, slower vehicles are much easier to avoid for careless kids and two, speed kills, every extra ten miles an hour exponentially increases the likelihood of the pedestrian being killed when hit.
Speed limits should be set based on the first only. The entire objective is reduce the probability of and accident to an acceptable level, not reduce it's severity.
In Europe is it vastly more than that. It's hard to compute a per m2 cost because it rather depends how much closing the road (or one/two lanes) costs. It also depends on things like if pedestrians can access the site, the type of road surface being replaced etc.
Bullshit. You make a claim with no data, then say its " hard to compute". Not even a baseline amount? Lets face it, you simply have no idea of the cost at all.
The entire cost of re-paving asphalt is around $2-$3/sq foot. That includes everything, labor, materials, etc. That is complete repair/repaving cost. You can't get anywhere close to that, not even within 1 order of magnitude, with panels, not even with just the material cost of the panels. Just clueless spouting on your part.
Maybe you or your family members don't want a roof on stilts in front of your home or over your yard - while you do want more solar capacity than what your roof may provide
That would entail a very minute slice of market. I've always laughed a bit at proposed solar carports for driveways, when 99.9% of the time there is a house right there to put solar panels on in a much more aesthetically pleasing and economic way. Even if you are going to add a carport anyhow, it likely makes more sense to mount panels on the house and not add loading to the carport.
Regardless, when it takes these scenarios to describe any practical customer use case, you know it is a niche product at best.
But not compared to the cost of paving the roads - compared to cost of installing regular solar panels, on, around or over that surface.
Besides, solar fucking hexagons were the only ones retarded enough to suggest ripping out existing roads and putting in magical hexagons instead.
French Wattway assumes existing asphalt roads underneath the glued-on photovoltaics, Dutch SolaRoad is assembled from concrete slabs with a top layer of photovoltaics - which is just the thing for driveways.
Compared to either or both, there is just no way to show a path to cost effectiveness when there are so many other place to put panels. I don't care of a few homeowners install them, some homeowners blow money on stupid stuff all the time. As a societal solution, its quite destined to failure from a cost effectiveness standpoint either approach you take. If there were any cost effective case, you can rest assure the developers would be talking about it in their PR headlines.
Yes, anything might have some niche application. But why even do it in your driveway when its much cheaper to put them on the roof?
And seeing that repaving a road in generally only about $2/square foot, and a conventional low cost solar panel is over $25/square foot, and assuming, for obvious reasons, these panels will cost significantly more than a conventional one, I chuckle when I see arguments about the benefits of replacing panels vs normal road repair. Heck, even new road construction, including grading, compaction, and layering, is only about $8/square foot.
A normal road surface costs very little, it is quite durable, and quite easy to replace. Lifting sections is much more difficult than scraping and repaving long stretches. You also have to consider the supply and storage line for all those sections, and what needs to be done with damaged or aged sections that are removed.
As a surface material, it doesn't get cheaper and easier than asphalt. It is quite ignorant to think manufactured panels would be even close in comparison.
The one thing that is clearly missing from the article and reference pieces is an estimation of cost. There is no indication that this will be cost effective in any way. It would likely be much less costly to line roadsides and medians with normal panels.
But alas, for some, cost doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if we maximize the carbon reduction returns for our investments, it is more important to look like you are doing something extraordinary. Look at how wonderful the French are!
Slashdot Mirror
The way math is taught, Math is a chore. The way common core teaches it, it's a stupid, idiotic chore.
YessereeBob, I think its important for my kids to learn to skip the hard stuff, and only develop skills in the fun stuff. I tell them, "if it seems like a chore, that is your excuse to perform poorly". My youngest wanted to be a clown, but she didn't like the chore of putting on the makeup.
Driver confusion rarely is a good thing.
An insightful statement. I remember someone once trying to argue that turn signals and brake lights should be unnecessary, as if there is no benefit to knowing what the other car is about to do.
Like anything, the benefits of lines will vary depending on the road and environment.
And my wifi thermostat (not a NEST) has been working for 5 years now with no problems. It replaced a mercury switch one that you could not program for energy savings.
Those 'otherwise clear stretches' that come with hidden intersections and entrances/driveways, you mean?
No , but theres a cutoff point of low speed where traffic really does start backing up. Obviously its dependent on the road layout and traffic density but I think its fair to say that driving at 20mph on a clear road is not a way to traffic harmony.
Exactly. I wish more people understood this. Also, there is a variability in car speed that causes a wave reaction, amplifying the effect of slowdowns. The key is speed AND steadiness. If cars move faster on average, they are on the road a shorter amount of time, therefore there are less cars on the road at any given moment, reducing congestion.
But alas, as long as we have left lane laggard idiots, we are subject to significantly reduced travel efficiency.
You can't completely ignoring that lines have other safety functions than simply keeping cars on their side. You would have a hard time convincing me that no passing/passing allowed lines are not helpful.
TFA mentions lower temperatures than other processes. That suggests the new process is more energy efficient than the old one. Obviously, the laws of thermodynamics prevent this technology from being anything more than a way to store energy. However, it seems like they have made the process more efficient by discovering a new type of catalyst.
More efficient than what? More efficient than hopelessly inefficient isn't saying much.
Using energy from windmills to power the process in a remote location (arctic etc) is cheaper than flying in gas. Using energy from the nuclear reactor of an aircraft carrier to produce jet fuel while at sea would save a lot of money/risk on transporting fuel. Using this tech to make fuel at a military base in a dangerous place (Afghanistan etc) would reduce the need for supply convoys, and save lives.
You couldn't fit enough windmills on a base to make all the fuel that base uses.
I see no mention of the energy put into the process vs the methanol output. Unless they are close, this would make no sense.
Or a rail gun.... heck, all you really need on the vehicle is a parachute.
If it takes off vertically, you could possibly provide electrical power from the ground for a certain distance, overcoming the initial lift off energy use at least. But still, better hope battery tech evolves dramatically for any real prospect of fast long distance E flying.
I guess they should be called Niceburgs.
If they can't do a proper repair such that it doesn't brick your phone, then they are at fault, no?
Should one be able to break through the trust hardware and cause a security vulnerability instead?
The only functional difference between a 'proper repair' and a 'third party repair' is typically just $$$$$$$.
Read the EULA. Read the instructions. Apple will replace your phone if under warranty. It is stated very clearly that your iPhone IS NOT SERVICEABLE, either by you or by anyone who is not Apple. Don't like it? Buy something else.
Buy something else is the right choice, but there is a difference between voiding a warranty and bricking a device. If the EULA says the device will be bricked if you repair it yourself, then you have a point.
Whether they installed 30, 50, or 60 Kw of capacity is really irrelevant. It generates such a minuscule amount of energy compared to what this company uses that it is nothing more than symbolic. Why this is news is beyond me.
Well then, what is the acceptable level of accidents per mile of roadway? How is this adjusted by the speed of the vehicle and the local conditions?
Well, the question really is the wrong one. Common sense says we will always have some risk. But there is a great body of experience that dictates speed limits, which is why there are general rules for neighborhood roads, school zones,, etc. For example, it is known that blind intersections, tight curves, and a number of other factors can increase the risks on any given stretch of road, therefore they might reduce the limit from the standard for that road type where needed. When there are no reasons to further reduce the standard speed limits for neighborhoods, then I suppose the level of incidents presently occurring is deemed 'acceptable' by default.
Speed limits should be set based on the first only. The entire objective is reduce the probability of and accident to an acceptable level, not reduce it's severity.
Yeah - my seatbelts, crumple zone, side impact airbags, front impact airbags, passenger airbags, re-enforced pillars, side impact beams, automatic roll shut off, bumpers, safety glass, etc. all are very helpful at reducing the probability of an accident. That's a seriously wrong statement.
None of those items has anything to do with how speed limits are set.
Two things about this, one, slower vehicles are much easier to avoid for careless kids and two, speed kills, every extra ten miles an hour exponentially increases the likelihood of the pedestrian being killed when hit.
Speed limits should be set based on the first only. The entire objective is reduce the probability of and accident to an acceptable level, not reduce it's severity.
In Europe is it vastly more than that. It's hard to compute a per m2 cost because it rather depends how much closing the road (or one/two lanes) costs. It also depends on things like if pedestrians can access the site, the type of road surface being replaced etc.
Bullshit. You make a claim with no data, then say its " hard to compute". Not even a baseline amount? Lets face it, you simply have no idea of the cost at all.
The entire cost of re-paving asphalt is around $2-$3/sq foot. That includes everything, labor, materials, etc. That is complete repair/repaving cost. You can't get anywhere close to that, not even within 1 order of magnitude, with panels, not even with just the material cost of the panels. Just clueless spouting on your part.
Maybe you or your family members don't want a roof on stilts in front of your home or over your yard - while you do want more solar capacity than what your roof may provide
That would entail a very minute slice of market. I've always laughed a bit at proposed solar carports for driveways, when 99.9% of the time there is a house right there to put solar panels on in a much more aesthetically pleasing and economic way. Even if you are going to add a carport anyhow, it likely makes more sense to mount panels on the house and not add loading to the carport.
Regardless, when it takes these scenarios to describe any practical customer use case, you know it is a niche product at best.
But not compared to the cost of paving the roads - compared to cost of installing regular solar panels, on, around or over that surface. Besides, solar fucking hexagons were the only ones retarded enough to suggest ripping out existing roads and putting in magical hexagons instead. French Wattway assumes existing asphalt roads underneath the glued-on photovoltaics, Dutch SolaRoad is assembled from concrete slabs with a top layer of photovoltaics - which is just the thing for driveways.
Compared to either or both, there is just no way to show a path to cost effectiveness when there are so many other place to put panels. I don't care of a few homeowners install them, some homeowners blow money on stupid stuff all the time. As a societal solution, its quite destined to failure from a cost effectiveness standpoint either approach you take. If there were any cost effective case, you can rest assure the developers would be talking about it in their PR headlines.
Yes, anything might have some niche application. But why even do it in your driveway when its much cheaper to put them on the roof?
And seeing that repaving a road in generally only about $2/square foot, and a conventional low cost solar panel is over $25/square foot, and assuming, for obvious reasons, these panels will cost significantly more than a conventional one, I chuckle when I see arguments about the benefits of replacing panels vs normal road repair. Heck, even new road construction, including grading, compaction, and layering, is only about $8/square foot.
or Black Door?
A normal road surface costs very little, it is quite durable, and quite easy to replace. Lifting sections is much more difficult than scraping and repaving long stretches. You also have to consider the supply and storage line for all those sections, and what needs to be done with damaged or aged sections that are removed.
As a surface material, it doesn't get cheaper and easier than asphalt. It is quite ignorant to think manufactured panels would be even close in comparison.
I chuckled at your private road comment.
The one thing that is clearly missing from the article and reference pieces is an estimation of cost. There is no indication that this will be cost effective in any way. It would likely be much less costly to line roadsides and medians with normal panels.
But alas, for some, cost doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if we maximize the carbon reduction returns for our investments, it is more important to look like you are doing something extraordinary. Look at how wonderful the French are!