IRV still has spoilers, and so still tends toward two-party domination (just ask Australia.)
But not the same two parties, because the voters are free to vote for whomever they want, instead of the lesser of the likely-to-win evils. If it tended toward domination the same two parties, there wouldn't be much resistance to changing the vote system.
What range problem? The cars go hundreds of miles per charge and can charge at a rate of 60 miles' range per hour. US average commute: 24 miles. Average daily driving: 30 miles.
The data confirm--over and over again--that, despite most people's fantasies to the contrary, long distance road trips and boat-towing are outliers in our collective driving habits.
If you absolutely must drive long distances regularly and you only have one car, then that's too bad for you. Shut up and go drive something else. It's a false premise that electrics must be a 100% solution for everyone. If that was an actual requirement for vehicles, we'd never have Hummers, motorcycles, or concrete mixer trucks.
There have been advances in the technology for storing and transporting hydrogen that make it fairly viable.
But unfortunately not for creating the hydrogen. Most H2 is created by reforming natural gas, in which case you'd do significantly better to burn the NG directly in the combustion engine.
H2 can also be created by electrolysis, which is mostly not done, because it is a grossly inefficient process. (The round trip efficiency from electric energy to H2 and back via fuel cell is at best 25%. If you're starting with electricity, you could put it straight into an EV and drive four times as far.)
The standard line from the H2 industry was that the inefficiency doesn't matter, because we'll use "renewables" to provide the electric energy input. This is BS, because we get about 1% of our energy from renewables, yet this argument suggests that someday we will get 400% of our energy this way, allowing us to throw away most of it.
The large sums of money spent in all electric vehicles would have been better put towards hydrogen or hydrogen fuel cells.
If you think EVs are expensive, prepare to be staggered by the cost of H2 cars, and the trend showed no hope of improvement.
The smart money started backing away from fuel cells around 2008, and eventually the foolish money figured it out, too.
Quit paying rent to the man, own your own infrastructure. It makes you rich in more than one way.
I agree with most of what you posted, but if you have the option to be interconnected with the utility grid, doing so will make you even richer. Going completely off-grid makes sense if you have no other option, or if you're willing to pay a premium to give your utility the finger, but being grid-tied is better for your pocketbook, the grid, and the planet.
I'm interested in PV but I feel like most home owners assoc will not allow you to install these on your home. Do you know if this is true? And if so, is it legal to prevent it?
It varies from state to state, so you'll have to do some research. Many states have passed legislation that prevents HOAs from interfering.
By the time an electric vehicle could charge so quickly as to be useful, we'll probably have self-driving cars.
Actually, by the time the electric charges up to be useful, it's morning.
The "gas station" model doesn't apply, because it only takes a few seconds to plug the car in, and then it charges while you're doing other things, like sleeping, but not necessarily.
6kW charging (as featured on first-generation electrics) is fast enough that you can accept meaningful opportunity charging, increasing the vehicle's utility. 3kW charging (as seen on Nissan's Leaf) is embarrassing and is hurting the entire industry. 10-20kW charging (standard on Tesla vehicles, because they Get It) is like charging at 60 miles per hour. Need to make a 40-mile round trip, and for some reason you forgot to plug your car in? No problem, just plug it in for half an hour and you're good to go.
The minute private interests lose people on their own ventures you'll see how interested they remain in pursuing it.
If this were the case, we wouldn't be riding jet planes everywhere.
I'm not sure that's a good analogy. Rocket launches are several orders of magnitude riskier than commercial aviation, and while we can expect modest improvements, I don't see the trend changing much. Launching rockets is hard.
No one expected the Spanish Inquisition to have a hand in this.
From TFA:
Amongst its weaponry are such diverse elements as:
Fearfully low latency: Frame sizes from 2.5 ms to 60 ms
Surprising voice and music quality (it beats all other comers across its operating range, including Vorbis and AAC)
Ruthless bitrate efficiency from 6 kb/s to 512 kb/s
Did Sweden Pay Cambodia For the Pirate Bay Co-founder?
Why are you asking me? You're the one writing the article, so how about answering some questions and providing factual information instead of weaseling around with headline questions?
As with electric cars and aircraft, the power density of boring, smelly chemical fuels are just stubbornly competitive with electric tricks...
Not really. Electric cars and aircraft have low energy density (aka specific energy aka energy per unit mass), but the power density is outrageously high, even if this particular coilgun specemin is uninspiring.
Fortunately, our political system provides a wide range of candidates to choose from, because 2 choices wouldn't be nearly enough for a large country with many millions of people.
Direct your (sat)ire at the voting system, not the political system, because first-past-the-post voting effectively ensures two choices, neither of whom are preferred by most voters.
We're not second graders. Neither the radio program title nor the slashdot headline could be bothered, but why not at least give him the respect of using his name?
has circumcision ever been shown to be linked to something harmful?
Yes, as concerns penile cancer. According to the actual paper, routine circumcision is impractical for prevention of cancers, as the rate of "complications" greatly exceeds the number of cancers prevented.
Not mentioned is the fact that said cancer is practically nonexistent in children under the age of consent.
Quoting TF paper:
One study with good evidence estimates that based on having to do 909 circumcisions to prevent 1 penile cancer event, 2 complications would be expected for every penile cancer event avoided. However, another study with fair evidence estimates that more than 322,000 newborn circumcisions are required to prevent 1 penile cancer event per year. This would translate into 644 complications per cancer event, by using the most favorable rate of complications, including rare but significant complications.
Penile cancer is extremely rare, and damn near nonexistent among children under the age of consent. For the record, here is what the actual paper says about penile caner:
One study with good evidence estimates that based on having to do 909 circumcisions to prevent 1 penile cancer event, 2 complications would be expected for every penile cancer event avoided. However, another study with fair evidence estimates that more than 322,000 newborn circumcisions are required to prevent 1 penile cancer event per year. This would translate into 644 complications per cancer event, by using the most favorable rate of complications, including rare but significant complications.
Since you like science so much, here's what the actual paper has to say about penile cancer:
One study with good evidence estimates that based on having to do 909 circumcisions to prevent 1 penile cancer event, 2 complications would be expected for every penile cancer event avoided. However, another study with fair evidence estimates that more than 322,000 newborn circumcisions are required to prevent 1 penile cancer event per year.122 This would translate into 644 complications per cancer event, by using the most favorable rate of complications, including rare but significant complications
well, god luck getting a 16 year old to make a ration decisions.
If my children can't think for themselves, then we've got bigger problems. He can wait until he's much older than sixteen without any rational fear of penile cancer.
You're just a coward who has condemned his son to higher risk with cancer, disease becasoe of an emotional belief.
What do you mean *I* condemned him? I am explicitly deferring to his own judgement. Penile cancer is practically down in the noise it's so insignificant, and the risk is damn near nonexistent for young people. He can weigh those risks himself when he's older, just like you could have if someone hadn't played god with your nerve endings.
Alternately, if you went and got yourself circumcised as an adult--which I doubt--then don't assume my children are incapable of making the same choice.
And what about the rest of society? Roughly half of American adult males are uncircumcised--are they all incapable of making rational decisions, too? They should be lining up to swap their nerve endings for a nice shiny $313, right?
I decided STDs weren't likely to be a significant threat to my infant son. If he wants to have part of himself chopped off when he turns sixteen, I'll give him all the info and support his choice. I think I can predict how it'll turn out, but I'm not kidding--I'll drive him to the hospital myself.
(And before anyone starts, the entire rest of the pro-circumcision argument revolves around an additional 9-per-thousand UTI infection rate. Yawn.)
On a planeful of hair-trigger sensitive, nervous passengers, upset and uncomfortable can lead to unsafe in a matter of moments. Especially once the alcohol starts flowing.
Then those are the people who need to be removed from the plane.
Slashdot Mirror
IRV still has spoilers, and so still tends toward two-party domination (just ask Australia.)
But not the same two parties, because the voters are free to vote for whomever they want, instead of the lesser of the likely-to-win evils. If it tended toward domination the same two parties, there wouldn't be much resistance to changing the vote system.
The range problem is STILL not addressed.
What range problem? The cars go hundreds of miles per charge and can charge at a rate of 60 miles' range per hour. US average commute: 24 miles. Average daily driving: 30 miles.
The data confirm--over and over again--that, despite most people's fantasies to the contrary, long distance road trips and boat-towing are outliers in our collective driving habits.
If you absolutely must drive long distances regularly and you only have one car, then that's too bad for you. Shut up and go drive something else. It's a false premise that electrics must be a 100% solution for everyone. If that was an actual requirement for vehicles, we'd never have Hummers, motorcycles, or concrete mixer trucks.
In fact I get preached to more by athiests than by any other groups
Where do you live? It's pretty lonely being an atheist most places I've been.
It kills me to point this out, but his first "sentence" isn't even a sentence:
For me the story of Slashdot utterly inseparable from my own life.
There have been advances in the technology for storing and transporting hydrogen that make it fairly viable.
But unfortunately not for creating the hydrogen. Most H2 is created by reforming natural gas, in which case you'd do significantly better to burn the NG directly in the combustion engine.
H2 can also be created by electrolysis, which is mostly not done, because it is a grossly inefficient process. (The round trip efficiency from electric energy to H2 and back via fuel cell is at best 25%. If you're starting with electricity, you could put it straight into an EV and drive four times as far.)
The standard line from the H2 industry was that the inefficiency doesn't matter, because we'll use "renewables" to provide the electric energy input. This is BS, because we get about 1% of our energy from renewables, yet this argument suggests that someday we will get 400% of our energy this way, allowing us to throw away most of it.
The large sums of money spent in all electric vehicles would have been better put towards hydrogen or hydrogen fuel cells.
If you think EVs are expensive, prepare to be staggered by the cost of H2 cars, and the trend showed no hope of improvement.
The smart money started backing away from fuel cells around 2008, and eventually the foolish money figured it out, too.
Quit paying rent to the man, own your own infrastructure. It makes you rich in more than one way.
I agree with most of what you posted, but if you have the option to be interconnected with the utility grid, doing so will make you even richer. Going completely off-grid makes sense if you have no other option, or if you're willing to pay a premium to give your utility the finger, but being grid-tied is better for your pocketbook, the grid, and the planet.
I'm interested in PV but I feel like most home owners assoc will not allow you to install these on your home. Do you know if this is true? And if so, is it legal to prevent it?
It varies from state to state, so you'll have to do some research. Many states have passed legislation that prevents HOAs from interfering.
By the time an electric vehicle could charge so quickly as to be useful, we'll probably have self-driving cars.
Actually, by the time the electric charges up to be useful, it's morning.
The "gas station" model doesn't apply, because it only takes a few seconds to plug the car in, and then it charges while you're doing other things, like sleeping, but not necessarily.
6kW charging (as featured on first-generation electrics) is fast enough that you can accept meaningful opportunity charging, increasing the vehicle's utility. 3kW charging (as seen on Nissan's Leaf) is embarrassing and is hurting the entire industry. 10-20kW charging (standard on Tesla vehicles, because they Get It) is like charging at 60 miles per hour. Need to make a 40-mile round trip, and for some reason you forgot to plug your car in? No problem, just plug it in for half an hour and you're good to go.
The minute private interests lose people on their own ventures you'll see how interested they remain in pursuing it.
If this were the case, we wouldn't be riding jet planes everywhere.
I'm not sure that's a good analogy. Rocket launches are several orders of magnitude riskier than commercial aviation, and while we can expect modest improvements, I don't see the trend changing much. Launching rockets is hard.
No one expected the Spanish Inquisition to have a hand in this.
From TFA:
Amongst its weaponry are such diverse elements as:
Fearfully low latency: Frame sizes from 2.5 ms to 60 ms
Surprising voice and music quality (it beats all other comers across its operating range, including Vorbis and AAC)
Ruthless bitrate efficiency from 6 kb/s to 512 kb/s
Thank you. It is nice to know I'm not the only one bothered by this trend. It was starting to get lonely.
Did Sweden Pay Cambodia For the Pirate Bay Co-founder?
Why are you asking me? You're the one writing the article, so how about answering some questions and providing factual information instead of weaseling around with headline questions?
As with electric cars and aircraft, the power density of boring, smelly chemical fuels are just stubbornly competitive with electric tricks...
Not really. Electric cars and aircraft have low energy density (aka specific energy aka energy per unit mass), but the power density is outrageously high, even if this particular coilgun specemin is uninspiring.
Fortunately, our political system provides a wide range of candidates to choose from, because 2 choices wouldn't be nearly enough for a large country with many millions of people.
Direct your (sat)ire at the voting system, not the political system, because first-past-the-post voting effectively ensures two choices, neither of whom are preferred by most voters.
We're not second graders. Neither the radio program title nor the slashdot headline could be bothered, but why not at least give him the respect of using his name?
If urinary tract infections were the only danger I would agree with you.
And how many of those other scary dangers you cite are of significance for small children under the age of consent?
has circumcision ever been shown to be linked to something harmful?
Yes, as concerns penile cancer. According to the actual paper, routine circumcision is impractical for prevention of cancers, as the rate of "complications" greatly exceeds the number of cancers prevented.
Not mentioned is the fact that said cancer is practically nonexistent in children under the age of consent.
Quoting TF paper:
One study with good evidence estimates that based on having to do 909 circumcisions to prevent 1 penile cancer event, 2 complications would be expected for every penile cancer event avoided. However, another study with fair evidence estimates that more than 322,000 newborn circumcisions are required to prevent 1 penile cancer event per year. This would translate into 644 complications per cancer event, by using the most favorable rate of complications, including rare but significant complications.
Penile cancer is extremely rare, and damn near nonexistent among children under the age of consent. For the record, here is what the actual paper says about penile caner:
One study with good evidence estimates that based on having to do 909 circumcisions to prevent 1 penile cancer event, 2 complications would be expected for every penile cancer event avoided. However, another study with fair evidence estimates that more than 322,000 newborn circumcisions are required to prevent 1 penile cancer event per year. This would translate into 644 complications per cancer event, by using the most favorable rate of complications, including rare but significant complications.
Since you like science so much, here's what the actual paper has to say about penile cancer:
One study with good evidence estimates that based on having to do 909 circumcisions to prevent 1 penile cancer event, 2 complications would be expected for every penile cancer event avoided. However, another study with fair evidence estimates that more than 322,000 newborn circumcisions are required to prevent 1 penile cancer event per year.122 This would translate into 644 complications per cancer event, by using the most favorable rate of complications, including rare but significant complications
and double dumbass on you good sir.
I'm crying from laughter...
well, god luck getting a 16 year old to make a ration decisions.
If my children can't think for themselves, then we've got bigger problems. He can wait until he's much older than sixteen without any rational fear of penile cancer.
You're just a coward who has condemned his son to higher risk with cancer, disease becasoe of an emotional belief.
What do you mean *I* condemned him? I am explicitly deferring to his own judgement. Penile cancer is practically down in the noise it's so insignificant, and the risk is damn near nonexistent for young people. He can weigh those risks himself when he's older, just like you could have if someone hadn't played god with your nerve endings.
Alternately, if you went and got yourself circumcised as an adult--which I doubt--then don't assume my children are incapable of making the same choice.
And what about the rest of society? Roughly half of American adult males are uncircumcised--are they all incapable of making rational decisions, too? They should be lining up to swap their nerve endings for a nice shiny $313, right?
I decided STDs weren't likely to be a significant threat to my infant son. If he wants to have part of himself chopped off when he turns sixteen, I'll give him all the info and support his choice. I think I can predict how it'll turn out, but I'm not kidding--I'll drive him to the hospital myself.
(And before anyone starts, the entire rest of the pro-circumcision argument revolves around an additional 9-per-thousand UTI infection rate. Yawn.)
19 million Americans still do not have access to high-speed broadband above the 3Mbps threshold.
Of those who have access to high-speed broadband, how many have access from non-monopoly providers?
If enough people simply refuse to fly, the airlines will go belly up, or they will lobby to remove the TSA.
...and then...
I have not flown in nearly 7 years, and don't see it happening any time soon.
So how's that working out so far?
On a planeful of hair-trigger sensitive, nervous passengers, upset and uncomfortable can lead to unsafe in a matter of moments. Especially once the alcohol starts flowing.
Then those are the people who need to be removed from the plane.