You're the one claiming radiation isn't a problem. Prove it's safe. I have the US Nuclear waste guidelines that say it isn't.
The rest of your comment is just speculation on future gains in solar energy collection that may never come.
Actually we know the amount of solar energy that hits the earth. It is quite actually more energy in a single hour than we use as a planet in an entire YEAR. linky With 10% efficiency (which we're above now) a total of less than 1% of the earths surface would produce more energy than we need.
If radioactive waste concerns you then answer me this, where do you think all the materials for the solar panels come from? Mining, no?
Nice straw man. Radiation is all about concentration. Naturally it isn't concentrated much at all...hence the need to massively refine it to use in fission.
You also conflate construction costs with infrastructure costs. A solar panel requires, currently but not forever, exotic materials that are mined ONCE for 20+ years of operation. Uranium must mine many many tons for every hour of operation. Uranium mining will produce far more of this release than solar ever will. But if you can prove that mining for solar would be higher than ongoing uranium mining, please provide it.
Nuclear is indeed the only solution we have currently for carbon neutral baseload power. That still doesn't deal with your truck and gasoline consumption though. Studies have shown that replacing current diesel consumption with bio-diesel simply isn't feasible, let alone the gasoline as well. The space and resources needed are just too much. Certainly possible, but not feasible.
Nuclear is expensive for a reason. The dangers and costs of storing voluminous waste for 10s of thousands of years are a bit steep and not at all included in the price yet. Breeder reactors mitigate this, but have the effect of weapons grade material being everywhere. That's no small cost.
Thorium? a MUCH better option that just isn't there yet but gives the benefits of breeder lack of waste and waste that can be stored for only a couple centuries before being safe. This is a reasonable nuclear solution, but isn't proven at grid scale.
BR>
current nuclear fission reactors are never 'safe'...because as we found out in Fukushima...shit happens you haven't planned for. Current gen PLANS that it can't fail, but failure rarely abides by your plans. They certainly are safer than previous gens but that doesn't make them a good idea given the above risks that still exist.
If you want carbon neutral, go straight to hydrogen. Can be made and stored (again not an easy thing but it's done today) entirely via renewable solar/wind/hydro.
renewables only issue in general right now is storage. Solar can provide massively more energy in a day than our entire planet uses in an entire year. Yes it's that big.
Your points are valid, but possibly outdated. Manuals *mostly* had 4-5 forward gears. Autos had 3. Today autos have upwards of 8 gears. That alone will give autos an advantage. CVTs as you said get the 'perfect' gear all the time (with massive sacrifice of performance and feel).
My current CVT (2012 Insight) has lower gear settings so it can be used for engine braking of at least a limited ability.
Driver ability is definitely in the mix, but tech is on the way to surpassing it.
They used to religiously turn off the engine even at stop lights. (cue arguments about starter wear n tear) but that's the mantra - now I haven't been across the pond in years but my experience in multiple Euro countries was basically this.
So while automatics might get better mileage it's only if all cars are running the entire time, and manuals lots of time aren't running the same amount of time.
If your gas cost 8-10x US prices, you might too....
or he made actual scientific observations worthy of a PHD and figured out...wow we're gonna be screwed - and so started getting involved in activities to influence society.
That's called putting your money where your mouth is - and still being an 'activist'.
Because I have a Ford truck and it runs on gasoline, and I don't plan on replacing it any time soon.
You're the one arguing you don't want to pay your fair share for the costs of doing this...
We're happy that you want to continue polluting the atmosphere...but everything has a cost and you'll end up paying it either coming or going, but one is MUCH more expensive.
Again...what political crap....evidence is required for your assertions.
AGW isn't political....it's scientific theory supported by thousands and thousands of studies.
Even ExxonMobils own study showed this back in the 70s...
So your in the 'scientists are making a mint on this' camp.... Koch and co would pay 100x university salaries in comd hard cash for actual evidence against AGW. No one has come up with any yet.
But unlike you we are happy to listen to your evidence of industry wide collusion by scientists all over the globe. Big charges should equal bog evidence...
"presumably". That's the rub. They don't until proven to do so. Then once proven now move go edge cases and proven they always react correctly....which may be not doing anything.
Google cars apparently pull over and stop. Not a bad choice but when a roadway worth does this its not a realistic solution.
Humans are better with mechanical failures because we know a failure has happened. An automatic car might not would continue applying the gas.
Computers definitely react faster than humans. The modern traction control systems and anti-lock brakes attest to that daily. It's an entirely different ballgame when we're talking about deducing the entire environment and planning ahead.
Computers are only as good as their sensors and they can be blocked very easily by road debris or ice and snow. Radar doesn't work through obstructions like ice build up or a randomly placed bit of road tar.
Recognizing a human being in the world is a non-trivial computer problem...one they are starting to work out in 'good' conditions. We don't drive only in 'good' conditions.
Not talking about Tesla, this was about Google and fully autonomous cars. Tesla doesn't have this yet.
Most emergency braking systems are radar driven...which is rendered useless with a coating of ice or snow over the sensors. Visual rules (for lane following) break down when the entire roadway is white or when the camera is blocked...
the trouble expressing what you want is very understandable. Precisely because it will change depending on the specific circumstance encountered.
Lets take to the more extreme - you're on an icy road with a cliff on one side and walking along the road is a class of elementary school kids. Now your car loses control - Should your car drive you off the cliff to save the kids? or try to save you but possibly push the kids off the cliff or just run over them...
If the car will choose the kids over the driver...who in their right mind would ever BUY a car designed to kill you?
There is no right answer in all likelihood...and this is the type of societal values/questions/ramifications thing automation is going to need to handle when it starts becoming significant in its integration into the real world.
Another concept - when emergency stopping tech is standard in cars (2022 by recent agreement) - and in 2030 many cars still on the road won't have....is a new driver who's never known a car without it liable if they drive an older car without it and expect the car to save them?
As my link indicates, the cars actually can't do these things...and are programmed to simply pull over and stop. That isn't reasonable for an entire roadway.
Sensors can get blocked by snow and road spray and now the car is making decisions on faulty inputs.
If the lane markings are covered by snow a camera isn't going to help stay in the lane it can't see.
The issue right now is basically what you explained for why human drivers suck. Automated cars are GREAT at the 99%. It's the edge cases, in bad weather, with mechanical failures...that will be the true test.
Has google been testing their cars in blizzards? Mostly they seem to be in fairly nice safe weather conditions. This link details Ford's ventures into this issue and it seems like good progress. But when the car simply loses traction on a snow covered street, who does it try to protect? The driver? or the pedestrian walking in the road because the sidewalk isn't plowed? How well does this system cope with a build up of ice across a vehicle? It's easy to cherry pick these questions obviously, but giving full access requires either the ability to deal with everything as well or better than humans. (which might be possible in most cases)
My 'tude' is mostly directed at sumdumass as he's just a troll
As for what's better, net neutrality is better and it shouldn't be scrapped as the thread is discussing.
The only problem with that is GWB was largely kept in check by the last vestige of the old GOP guard in the Senate. They didn't do crazy shit.
And now the Senate is as crazy as the House was and the House is beyond loony toons. That means Trump would have to start vetoing GOP crazy bills and I don't really see that happening as often as would be necessary.
The only silver lining is that Trump might cost them the Senate (if the SCOTUS obstruction doesn't by itself).
for a party that will pass unconstitutional laws requiring ID to vote on the mere thought that someone MIGHT commit voter fraud despite a lack of any evidence...it's sort of amusing to see the cries of there isn't enough data to prove AGW is happening so we shouldn't bother with it.
While I want to agree with you, he's also pulling people who have never voted before in fairly large numbers. THAT's his, ahem, trump card. It's unlikely he wins but if he can pull in new votes he may not need as many people from the pool of normal voters.
Slashdot Mirror
Except this was peer reviewed. He put it up before/during the reviews but it has been reviewed and adjusted based on the review.
Go read a book on radioactive half life
You're the one claiming radiation isn't a problem. Prove it's safe. I have the US Nuclear waste guidelines that say it isn't.
The rest of your comment is just speculation on future gains in solar energy collection that may never come.
Actually we know the amount of solar energy that hits the earth. It is quite actually more energy in a single hour than we use as a planet in an entire YEAR. linky With 10% efficiency (which we're above now) a total of less than 1% of the earths surface would produce more energy than we need.
If radioactive waste concerns you then answer me this, where do you think all the materials for the solar panels come from? Mining, no?
Nice straw man. Radiation is all about concentration. Naturally it isn't concentrated much at all...hence the need to massively refine it to use in fission.
You also conflate construction costs with infrastructure costs. A solar panel requires, currently but not forever, exotic materials that are mined ONCE for 20+ years of operation. Uranium must mine many many tons for every hour of operation. Uranium mining will produce far more of this release than solar ever will. But if you can prove that mining for solar would be higher than ongoing uranium mining, please provide it.
yep, another reason that autos will start making the fuel economy gap smaller.
Nuclear is indeed the only solution we have currently for carbon neutral baseload power. That still doesn't deal with your truck and gasoline consumption though. Studies have shown that replacing current diesel consumption with bio-diesel simply isn't feasible, let alone the gasoline as well. The space and resources needed are just too much. Certainly possible, but not feasible.
Nuclear is expensive for a reason. The dangers and costs of storing voluminous waste for 10s of thousands of years are a bit steep and not at all included in the price yet. Breeder reactors mitigate this, but have the effect of weapons grade material being everywhere. That's no small cost.
Thorium? a MUCH better option that just isn't there yet but gives the benefits of breeder lack of waste and waste that can be stored for only a couple centuries before being safe. This is a reasonable nuclear solution, but isn't proven at grid scale.
BR> current nuclear fission reactors are never 'safe'...because as we found out in Fukushima...shit happens you haven't planned for. Current gen PLANS that it can't fail, but failure rarely abides by your plans. They certainly are safer than previous gens but that doesn't make them a good idea given the above risks that still exist.
If you want carbon neutral, go straight to hydrogen. Can be made and stored (again not an easy thing but it's done today) entirely via renewable solar/wind/hydro.
renewables only issue in general right now is storage. Solar can provide massively more energy in a day than our entire planet uses in an entire year. Yes it's that big.
Your points are valid, but possibly outdated. Manuals *mostly* had 4-5 forward gears. Autos had 3. Today autos have upwards of 8 gears. That alone will give autos an advantage. CVTs as you said get the 'perfect' gear all the time (with massive sacrifice of performance and feel).
My current CVT (2012 Insight) has lower gear settings so it can be used for engine braking of at least a limited ability.
Driver ability is definitely in the mix, but tech is on the way to surpassing it.
They used to religiously turn off the engine even at stop lights. (cue arguments about starter wear n tear) but that's the mantra - now I haven't been across the pond in years but my experience in multiple Euro countries was basically this.
So while automatics might get better mileage it's only if all cars are running the entire time, and manuals lots of time aren't running the same amount of time.
If your gas cost 8-10x US prices, you might too....
or he made actual scientific observations worthy of a PHD and figured out...wow we're gonna be screwed - and so started getting involved in activities to influence society.
That's called putting your money where your mouth is - and still being an 'activist'.
Because I have a Ford truck and it runs on gasoline, and I don't plan on replacing it any time soon.
You're the one arguing you don't want to pay your fair share for the costs of doing this...
We're happy that you want to continue polluting the atmosphere...but everything has a cost and you'll end up paying it either coming or going, but one is MUCH more expensive.
Enjoy that warming bath frogman...
Your web pages aren't stored encrypted... But the transit is. Are you against HTTPS?
Again...what political crap....evidence is required for your assertions. AGW isn't political....it's scientific theory supported by thousands and thousands of studies. Even ExxonMobils own study showed this back in the 70s...
So your in the 'scientists are making a mint on this' camp.... Koch and co would pay 100x university salaries in comd hard cash for actual evidence against AGW. No one has come up with any yet. But unlike you we are happy to listen to your evidence of industry wide collusion by scientists all over the globe. Big charges should equal bog evidence...
The end is near...is that like Fusion energy?
"presumably". That's the rub. They don't until proven to do so. Then once proven now move go edge cases and proven they always react correctly....which may be not doing anything. Google cars apparently pull over and stop. Not a bad choice but when a roadway worth does this its not a realistic solution.
Humans are better with mechanical failures because we know a failure has happened. An automatic car might not would continue applying the gas.
Computers definitely react faster than humans. The modern traction control systems and anti-lock brakes attest to that daily. It's an entirely different ballgame when we're talking about deducing the entire environment and planning ahead.
Computers are only as good as their sensors and they can be blocked very easily by road debris or ice and snow. Radar doesn't work through obstructions like ice build up or a randomly placed bit of road tar.
Recognizing a human being in the world is a non-trivial computer problem...one they are starting to work out in 'good' conditions. We don't drive only in 'good' conditions.
Not talking about Tesla, this was about Google and fully autonomous cars. Tesla doesn't have this yet.
Most emergency braking systems are radar driven...which is rendered useless with a coating of ice or snow over the sensors. Visual rules (for lane following) break down when the entire roadway is white or when the camera is blocked...
Physics is a harsh mistress.
the trouble expressing what you want is very understandable. Precisely because it will change depending on the specific circumstance encountered.
Lets take to the more extreme - you're on an icy road with a cliff on one side and walking along the road is a class of elementary school kids. Now your car loses control - Should your car drive you off the cliff to save the kids? or try to save you but possibly push the kids off the cliff or just run over them...
If the car will choose the kids over the driver...who in their right mind would ever BUY a car designed to kill you?
There is no right answer in all likelihood...and this is the type of societal values/questions/ramifications thing automation is going to need to handle when it starts becoming significant in its integration into the real world.
Another concept - when emergency stopping tech is standard in cars (2022 by recent agreement) - and in 2030 many cars still on the road won't have....is a new driver who's never known a car without it liable if they drive an older car without it and expect the car to save them?
As my link indicates, the cars actually can't do these things...and are programmed to simply pull over and stop. That isn't reasonable for an entire roadway. Sensors can get blocked by snow and road spray and now the car is making decisions on faulty inputs. If the lane markings are covered by snow a camera isn't going to help stay in the lane it can't see.
The issue right now is basically what you explained for why human drivers suck. Automated cars are GREAT at the 99%. It's the edge cases, in bad weather, with mechanical failures...that will be the true test.
Has google been testing their cars in blizzards? Mostly they seem to be in fairly nice safe weather conditions. This link details Ford's ventures into this issue and it seems like good progress. But when the car simply loses traction on a snow covered street, who does it try to protect? The driver? or the pedestrian walking in the road because the sidewalk isn't plowed? How well does this system cope with a build up of ice across a vehicle? It's easy to cherry pick these questions obviously, but giving full access requires either the ability to deal with everything as well or better than humans. (which might be possible in most cases)
I've been amazed how basically any prosecution isn't neutered simply by the presence of parallel construction.
We know the gov is doing this. How is any charge not immediately suspect? Reasonable doubt would seem to be met....
My 'tude' is mostly directed at sumdumass as he's just a troll As for what's better, net neutrality is better and it shouldn't be scrapped as the thread is discussing.
they will still make a profit. It's just that most of it will be realized without us.
It already is you dumass. You're defending Comcast...
What the over regulation will end up doing is destroying the possibilities for competition to start up
Again, this is Comcast. They HAVE no competition because of policies pushed by the GOP.
Truly Sum Dum Ass.
The only problem with that is GWB was largely kept in check by the last vestige of the old GOP guard in the Senate. They didn't do crazy shit.
And now the Senate is as crazy as the House was and the House is beyond loony toons. That means Trump would have to start vetoing GOP crazy bills and I don't really see that happening as often as would be necessary.
The only silver lining is that Trump might cost them the Senate (if the SCOTUS obstruction doesn't by itself).
for a party that will pass unconstitutional laws requiring ID to vote on the mere thought that someone MIGHT commit voter fraud despite a lack of any evidence...it's sort of amusing to see the cries of there isn't enough data to prove AGW is happening so we shouldn't bother with it.
While I want to agree with you, he's also pulling people who have never voted before in fairly large numbers. THAT's his, ahem, trump card. It's unlikely he wins but if he can pull in new votes he may not need as many people from the pool of normal voters.