The joke is that the woman who he "said should be stoned" said that no British politician should be able to complain about stoning in Muslim countries, because Muslim culture allows for stoning.
He then "said she should be stoned."
The implication here is that she has no right to complain about him wanting to have someone stoned.
Hallelujah! But where's the +5 Insightful this comment deserves? Hit the nail on the head my friend - if I had mod points, well, it'd be too late 'cos I already posted in this thread, but you know what I mean.
... Would it kill you to add "Just kidding;)" in the end?
In general, over here in jolly old blighty we tend not to add the "just joking" or "only kidding" things because we assume that the readers are clever enough to be able to work that out for themselves. In both these cases (the Robin Hood airport chap and this erstwhile politician) I'd suggest that _everyone_ knows it's just a joke but some people have decided, for their own reasons (aggrandisement) to wilfully misinterpret the text.
They are doing us all a very great disservice in doing so, because it weakens our society to have such pompous fools use the (half-baked, mostly nu-labour) laws in such ways. This should be the call to arms to fix such laws as can be misused, and abolish those that are unfixable.
I'd think the best identification system would simply be based entirely on biometrics...
OK, now what if someone is able to clone your biometrics to impersonate you (see German magazine that got a fingerprint of some German Gov official and distributed it on some suitable sticky film with their mag so anyone could leave that official's fingerprints all over the place).
So now what if someone can hack the central server to change your biometric info to their biometric info? They are now, to all intents and purposes, you.
If someone discovers your password or pin you can change it, if someone clones or spoofs your biometrics you're screwed!
... And the IRA and ETA are well known for their Islamic beliefs. Right?
Neither the IRA nor ETA have ever blown up an airplane. They are/were also much more into remotely triggered or timed devices rather than blowing themselves or their daughters up suicide stylie! Nutjobs fo shizzle, but not religious nutjobs.
... As an aside, my brother takes the train from Boston to NY frequently and apparently it's quite nice, with power outlets for computers, leg room, freedom to walk and no intrusive security.
Also, if the pat down doesn't include a cavity search then can anyone tell me where someone might hide something they didn't want found during a pat down? Anyone?
Also, wasn't there some unfortunate suicide jockey with a grenade and cell phone implanted into his abdomen then remotely triggered by an accomplice when he got close enough to his target? As I recall the target survived 'cos the bomb's meat jacket contained the blast, but I don't think it was much fun for the cleaners!
Ok, let's say those figures are correct. Now let's assume that the average nuke plant has about 25% of it's output used for other means - a conservative estimate. That means we're down to 825 cars....
Er, no. It means were down to 825 cars in any given 6 minute period. It is usual to find 240 such 6 minute periods in any (Earth) day thereby allowing for approx 200000 such EV charge events (198000, but as we're using wet finger math(s) please excuse me if I round up at this point). I would suggest we could comfortably halve that number and be ecstatic about 100000 EV's driving around a city! Hell, 50K EV's would be brilliant!
What's the average commute I wonder? I furthest I ever had to commute was about 60 miles (30 each way) so I'd have to charge one of these suckers up (less than!) once a week if it was my car, and the same for my Electric MGF friend too. We could probably assume that most people's commute (or 'daily drive' for the non-workers) is (considerably) less than 375 miles anyway. If we plump for once a week we can multiply up the (already halved!) 100000 accordingly... 500000 EV's. Hell, even if we go for 50000 EV's a day that's still capacity for 250000 a week!
Also, the article says the vehicle can be charged in 6 minutes but it doesn't say it has to be - what's the betting there'd be a cost benefit (and maybe battery life benefit) from charging more slowly, like in 6 to 8 hours overnight, for example.
If you finally factor in the ideas about keeping such EVs which are not currently in use attached to the grid and allowing the grid to request power back to smooth out power use spikes (with suitable payments to the EV owner, and the proviso that the owner can specify a minimum level on the vehicle in case they need to drive it - but if it only takes 6 mins to charge it that becomes less of an issue!) we could see the Max Load requirement for a city actually be lowered because the city grid can pull power from the EVs that are not in use (have hookups at places of work and other car parks maybe too?)!
That it seems too good to be true is another issue, but it sounds bloody good to me!
Ok, let's say those figures are correct. Now let's assume that the average nuke plant has about 25% of it's output used for other means - a conservative estimate. That means we're down to 825 cars....
Er, no. It means were down to 825 cars in any given 6 minute period. It is usual to find 240 such 6 minute periods in any (Earth) day thereby allowing for approx 200000 such EV charge events (198000, but as we're using wet finger math(s) please excuse me if I round up at this point). I would suggest we could comfortably halve that number and be ecstatic about 100000 EV's driving around a city! Hell, 50K EV's would be brilliant!
What's the average commute I wonder? I furthest I ever had to commute was about 60 miles (30 each way) so I'd have to charge one of these suckers up (less than!) once a week if it was my car, and the same for my Electric MGF friend too. We could probably assume that most people's commute (or 'daily drive' for the non-workers) is (considerably) less than 375 miles anyway. If we plump for once a week we can multiply up the (already halved!) 100000 accordingly... 500000 EV's. Hell, even if we go for 50000 EV's a day that's still capacity for 250000 a week!
Also, the article says the vehicle can be charged in 6 minutes but it doesn't say it has to be - what's the betting there'd be a cost benefit (and maybe battery life benefit) from charging more slowly, like in 6 to 8 hours overnight, for example.
If you finally factor in the ideas about keeping such EVs which are not currently in use attached to the grid and allowing the grid to request power back to smooth out power use spikes (with suitable payments to the EV owner, and the proviso that the owner can specify a minimum level on the vehicle in case they need to drive it - but if it only takes 6 mins to charge it that becomes less of an issue!) we could see the Max Load requirement for a city actually be lowered because the city grid can pull power from the EVs that are not in use (have hookups at places of work and other car parks maybe too?)!
That it seems too good to be true is another issue, but it sounds bloody good to me!
Ok, let's say those figures are correct. Now let's assume that the average nuke plant has about 25% of it's output used for other means - a conservative estimate. That means we're down to 825 cars....
Er, no. It means were down to 825 cars in any given 6 minute period. It is usual to find 240 such 6 minute periods in any (Earth) day thereby allowing for approx 200000 such EV charge events (198000, but as we're using wet finger math(s) please excuse me if I round up at this point). I would suggest we could comfortably halve that number and be ecstatic about 100000 EV's driving around a city! Hell, 50K EV's would be brilliant!
What's the average commute I wonder? I furthest I ever had to commute was about 60 miles (30 each way) so I'd have to charge one of these suckers up (less than!) once a week if it was my car, and the same for my Electric MGF friend too. We could probably assume that most people's commute (or 'daily drive' for the non-workers) is (considerably) less than 375 miles anyway. If we plump for once a week we can multiply up the (already halved!) 100000 accordingly... 500000 EV's. Hell, even if we go for 50000 a day that's still capacity for 250000 a week!
Also, the article says the vehicle can be charged in 6 minutes but it doesn't say it has to be - what's the betting there'd be a cost benefit (and maybe battery life benefit) from charging more slowly, like in 6 to 8 hours overnight, for example.
If you finally factor in the ideas about keeping such EVs which are not currently in use attached to the grid and allowing the grid to request power back to smooth out power use spikes (with suitable payments to the EV owner, and the proviso that the owner can specify a minimum level on the vehicle in case they need to drive it - but if it only takes 6 mins to charge it that becomes less of an issue!) we could see the Max Load requirement for a city actually be lowered because the city grid can pull power from the EVs that are not in use (have hookups at places of work and other car parks maybe too?)!
That it seems too good to be true is another issue, but it sounds bloody good to me!
My house has 200A, 240V service (2 phases 120V each, 180 degrees off.) The maximum power is, therefore, 48 kW. The car will need 1.5 MW power source to charge in 6 minutes, and the battery would have to hold 150 kWh, or 540 MJ, equivalent to 1/8 ton of TNT or to 3 gallons of gasoline.
Eh? If you are at home there is no need to charge the EV in 6 minutes 'cos you can plug the sucker in overnight and get 6 to 8 hours. The 6 mins charge would perhaps be at a Charging Station where they could perhaps have organised sufficient power to be available.
Ok, let's say those figures are correct. Now let's assume that the average nuke plant has about 25% of it's output used for other means - a conservative estimate. That means we're down to 825 cars....
That means we're down to 825 cars for any given 6 minute period. There are 240 such "6 minute periods" per day, so if everyone with one of these cars religiously (fully) charged the muthers every day there'd be capacity for approx 200000 cars (198000 actually, but we're using wet finger math(s) so please forgive the rounding up).
We could easily halve that number and still be happy with 100000 EV's in a city!
Let's now assume that those 825 people don't drive 375 miles every day, so don't have to have their 6 minutes in the sun every day. My daily commute was somewhere in the region of 60 miles (30 each way), suggesting that those car owners may only be charging up once a week? (as per my Electric MGF friend)... so could we have 500000 EV's now?:-)
Let's also assume that whilst it is possible to charge in 6 mins it can also be done overnight and there may be some cost-benefit and/or battery life benefit for doing so...
If we also factor in the concepts bandied about where such EVs are left connected to the grid and the grid can request power to be fed back into the grid to smooth out demand spikes (with suitable payments to the EV owner, and the proviso that the vehicle will retain an owner specified charge sufficient to drive it - though with the 6 min quick charge that might be less of a problem anyway!)...
Farmers and fishermen use loopholes in the law to block entire interstates or major ferry ports for weeks on end.
I'm sure it won't be long before they start blockading the Channel ports and burning lorries full of British sheep, at least that's what usually happens!
And why the hell haven't you thrown out the stupid queen yet, while we're at it? Are you really OK with having royalty? I mean, isn't that a little bit creepy that a bunch of inbred morons get to live high on the public dole just because they happen to be related to an earlier inbred moron? If you want to be taken seriously, it might be time to set aside all that aristocracy and "House of Lords" stuff. I'd say it's "so last-century" but really it was "so last century" last century.
OK, A lot of others have responded to this one with a lot of interesting arguments but I haven't seen one throwing in the "Cost of Head of State" yet. Our Queen costs considerably less to run than the US (or indeed French) President. She's actually a bloody bargain!
3)... There's still plenty of time to conquer space
Sadly I baulked at No3. There are those who suggest that the opportunity window is somewhat smaller that suggested by the GP.
The problem is available funds: Picture, if you will, the World in 1000 years time. The (human) population has continued to grow unabated (because numpties get all bent out of shape when people suggest we should be talking about Population Control - they think we are advocating euthanasia or something! Sheeez, we just think we should be talking about it!) and it takes all the World's money to feed the people.
So, the World is now running out of space (to grow food, amongst other things) and we look wistfully skywards towards the untapped potential of other worlds but can no longer afford to explore them without making the decision to stop feeding some of the people, and as everyone knows, that can be a real downer to the voters and you probably won't get (re-)elected!
So, all you clever people out there, what's the best guess on when the GWP (Gross World Product) will be only just sufficient to feed everyone? If we're not off this rock by then it will become very difficult, politically, to find the will to start exploring! If we at least start now we're ahead of the game and hopefully we can already have at least some off-world colony(ies) to play with before we start getting hungry!
... and, lest we forget, religion seems to be doing its best to make this problem worse rather than better (though I guess it could be argued that assisting the spread of AIDS is maybe their idea of the long game)!
... Fear of security breaches cannot be a reason to stop a project like this which has so many benefits.
So many benefits to whome? The biggest winners in any sort of national ID scheme are the Government, and by a country mile!
The nu-Labour shysters who tried to impose such a system on us in the UK tried time and time again to tell us how it would be better for us, and each time their argument was shot down in flames! Not one cogent reason was put forward. Not one!
I don't know though, perhaps there's something inherently different about India that there is a benefit to be gained by the general public which will outweigh the unbelievable cost of the system.
I'd be interested to know what these benefits would be.
As for false positives, it is harder to forge a fingerprint or iris scan than to memorize the victim's ID number.
Interesting that you should say it is harder rather than it is impossible!
Two possibilities suggest themselves to me:
1: Someone sets themselves up with fake fingerprints and becomes you.
2: Someone changes the stored info so their biometrics are stored against your record, so not only do they become you, but you are no longer you!
If we can agree that biometrics are not infallible, then we must assume that all ID checks will have to also check something else and the whole process is no longer any better than the current one!
All it needs is proper implementation and security.
OK, now I've worked in 'Computing' for 30 years or so and I know the only way to guarantee that a computer system is 100% secure is to not have it connected to anything else and for it to be stored in a sealed room. This somewhat degrades the usefulness of the system for real-world applications.
In all areas of 'Security' you have to be successful at maintaining the security 100% of the time, whereas those who feel the need to breach your security only have to do so once, and they often have a really powerful inclination to do so. Indeed, it could be argued that the more successful the security is, the greater the value of breaking it because if such an ID system is perceived as 'bullet proof' and you are the only person to break in then you can sell fake or cloned ID's that will NEVER be questioned.
... and all that before you even consider whether or not you feel you can trust your current government, and all future governments, to not abuse their position.
... You also have an easier time being sure someone is who they say they are...
The problem, as I see it, is that people are led to believe that such a biometric system is infallible and therefore unquestioningly accept such proffered 'ID' as secure. Given that such biometric IDs simply aren't infallible this means that those who wish to offer a false identify can do so more readily because no one questions the biometrics. The other side of the coin is that if people always do question (ie mistrust) the Biometrics (as indeed they should!) then they are no better than the old system.
Simply put, Biometrics aren't the answer... now what was the question again?
If you get a court summons, you should not ignore it. Even if they sent it to the wrong guy (you), you could at least call the plaintiff and say "yeah, I got this summons, but I think you got the wrong website).
Of course you could just turn up and defend the case yourself. She'd lose and presumably you'd be awarded costs + damages for defamation, etc.
Sure hope she got this one on a no win no fee deal!
It's technology that needs to be improved and can be improved and government/corporation control not of the data (it's already in government/corporation control) but of technological updates that could save lives.
I'd argue that the tech doesn't need to be improved, just current tech applied!
As I understand it, BA already record vastly more information than is required in the black box and retrieve it from each 'plane when it lands. Obviously in the event of an accident this info is often/usually lost because it is outside the black box, but the collection of that flight data from successful flight is still useful. Now how about some of that nifty burst-transmission stuff the military use. How much info from the on-board repository that BA currently fills in-flight for their own use could be transmitted once a critical problem has occurred, or indeed when a pilot (or co-pilot/navigator/steward) presses the red button when any incident occurs?
I also remember watching a documentary about Rolls Royce jet engines and I'm sure it showed telemetry from their engines in flight and anything 'odd' was flagged up so the operator could instruct service personnel to inspect the engines when the 'plane next lands.
Honestly, none of this is rocket science and nothing "new" needs to be invented - just apply the current levels of technology to the problem for a leap forward in available info!
Go read about net present value and try that again. The value of any investment is measured as the (say it with me) the "present value of all FUTURE free cash flows". Welcome to Finance 101.
The OP mentioned gold which is perhaps to be treated differently because gold is held because it is gold and known to be rare and (therefore) worth hanging onto. If a metric shed-load of gold suddenly arrived, and this also indicates another shed-load can be similarly obtained as required, the "worth hanging onto"-ness of gold will be substantially dented. This will likely have a two-fold effect: 1) The Governments who like to hold gold will decide that something else will likely be a better bet for the foreseeable future and dump their gold reserves for whatever the something else is - and - 2) The price of Gold will -double- plummet as there's a shed-load of space gold just arrived and all the Governments just dumped their stock 'cos it's no longer a sufficient rarity to gamble their country's wealth on!
The Result: The gold brought back will be worth considerably less.
I bet Brown would be happy though, 'cos then he won't have sold our bloody gold for a record low price - the muppet!
But swap that for something we're short of that we use for something other than fiscal stability and there's definitely an advantage to be garnered.
What does is the relevance of a Star Wars cannon have to do with anything?
It shoots midichlorians.
Ah yes. Midichlorians! For me, the invention of midichlorians was the biggest mistake of the new SW movies because if they were so important they would have been mentioned in the first SW films. The rest of the stuff, even the dreadful JarJarBinks, I can almost forgive.
It certainly doesn't help, but the Electric MGF chap suggests that modern cars are sufficiently quiet that the difference isn't as great as some may imagine.
Case in point is my current car - a Golf 1.4 TSI. I picked a couple of mates up to go for lunch last January and one of my mates doesn't like wearing a seat belt so I just waited until he put it on. The other one (sitting in the front) said "well at least turn it on so we can warm up" and it was on!
Driving it in town traffic it is near enough silent that people don't hear it and I don't think you can "not hear" an electric car more.
maybe it is just me, but wouldn't it be easier to just teach drivers to watch the hell out for pedestrians?
oh right, my bad, in this world no one can be bothered to look out for themselves or anyone else... we need to pay $150 for an extra to make our nice, quiet car contribute to the already horrific noise polution.
The problem is that people (pedestrians) will simply step off the pavement without looking if they think it is safe to do so, and not hearing any danger may fool them into thinking there is no danger - it's not about drivers looking out for pedestrians, the hell or otherwise! They do it all the damn time, and just because it's not the driver's fault doesn't make the pedestrian any the less squashed!
Now, that all said, I had a ride in an Electric MGF on Monday morning and I asked the owner this very question, "do you need to be extra careful about pedestrians" and he said he was careful but that modern cars are (or can be!) so quiet these days anyway that it's actually not so different an experience to driving a modern/new car.
And FWIW the Electric MGF was awesome and I'd love one!
You are wrong. Leap days fix the fact that the year isn't an integral number of days. Leap seconds fix the fact that the day isn't an integral number of seconds. Neither helps the other.
LOL: OK, so if we stopped having leap seconds that would never have any bearing on leap days then.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Slashdot Mirror
The joke is that the woman who he "said should be stoned" said that no British politician should be able to complain about stoning in Muslim countries, because Muslim culture allows for stoning.
He then "said she should be stoned."
The implication here is that she has no right to complain about him wanting to have someone stoned.
Hallelujah! But where's the +5 Insightful this comment deserves? Hit the nail on the head my friend - if I had mod points, well, it'd be too late 'cos I already posted in this thread, but you know what I mean.
... Would it kill you to add "Just kidding ;)" in the end?
In general, over here in jolly old blighty we tend not to add the "just joking" or "only kidding" things because we assume that the readers are clever enough to be able to work that out for themselves. In both these cases (the Robin Hood airport chap and this erstwhile politician) I'd suggest that _everyone_ knows it's just a joke but some people have decided, for their own reasons (aggrandisement) to wilfully misinterpret the text.
They are doing us all a very great disservice in doing so, because it weakens our society to have such pompous fools use the (half-baked, mostly nu-labour) laws in such ways. This should be the call to arms to fix such laws as can be misused, and abolish those that are unfixable.
I'd think the best identification system would simply be based entirely on biometrics ...
OK, now what if someone is able to clone your biometrics to impersonate you (see German magazine that got a fingerprint of some German Gov official and distributed it on some suitable sticky film with their mag so anyone could leave that official's fingerprints all over the place).
So now what if someone can hack the central server to change your biometric info to their biometric info? They are now, to all intents and purposes, you.
If someone discovers your password or pin you can change it, if someone clones or spoofs your biometrics you're screwed!
... And the IRA and ETA are well known for their Islamic beliefs. Right?
Neither the IRA nor ETA have ever blown up an airplane. They are/were also much more into remotely triggered or timed devices rather than blowing themselves or their daughters up suicide stylie! Nutjobs fo shizzle, but not religious nutjobs.
... As an aside, my brother takes the train from Boston to NY frequently and apparently it's quite nice, with power outlets for computers, leg room, freedom to walk and no intrusive security.
Has no one told the TSA about the Madrid Train Bombings?
Also, if the pat down doesn't include a cavity search then can anyone tell me where someone might hide something they didn't want found during a pat down? Anyone?
Also, wasn't there some unfortunate suicide jockey with a grenade and cell phone implanted into his abdomen then remotely triggered by an accomplice when he got close enough to his target? As I recall the target survived 'cos the bomb's meat jacket contained the blast, but I don't think it was much fun for the cleaners!
Apologies for the multiple postings. I posted it and re-visited the page and it wasn't there so I posted it again! Several times!!
Ok, let's say those figures are correct. Now let's assume that the average nuke plant has about 25% of it's output used for other means - a conservative estimate. That means we're down to 825 cars. ...
Er, no. It means were down to 825 cars in any given 6 minute period. It is usual to find 240 such 6 minute periods in any (Earth) day thereby allowing for approx 200000 such EV charge events (198000, but as we're using wet finger math(s) please excuse me if I round up at this point). I would suggest we could comfortably halve that number and be ecstatic about 100000 EV's driving around a city! Hell, 50K EV's would be brilliant!
What's the average commute I wonder? I furthest I ever had to commute was about 60 miles (30 each way) so I'd have to charge one of these suckers up (less than!) once a week if it was my car, and the same for my Electric MGF friend too. We could probably assume that most people's commute (or 'daily drive' for the non-workers) is (considerably) less than 375 miles anyway. If we plump for once a week we can multiply up the (already halved!) 100000 accordingly ... 500000 EV's. Hell, even if we go for 50000 EV's a day that's still capacity for 250000 a week!
Also, the article says the vehicle can be charged in 6 minutes but it doesn't say it has to be - what's the betting there'd be a cost benefit (and maybe battery life benefit) from charging more slowly, like in 6 to 8 hours overnight, for example.
If you finally factor in the ideas about keeping such EVs which are not currently in use attached to the grid and allowing the grid to request power back to smooth out power use spikes (with suitable payments to the EV owner, and the proviso that the owner can specify a minimum level on the vehicle in case they need to drive it - but if it only takes 6 mins to charge it that becomes less of an issue!) we could see the Max Load requirement for a city actually be lowered because the city grid can pull power from the EVs that are not in use (have hookups at places of work and other car parks maybe too?)!
That it seems too good to be true is another issue, but it sounds bloody good to me!
Ok, let's say those figures are correct. Now let's assume that the average nuke plant has about 25% of it's output used for other means - a conservative estimate. That means we're down to 825 cars. ...
Er, no. It means were down to 825 cars in any given 6 minute period. It is usual to find 240 such 6 minute periods in any (Earth) day thereby allowing for approx 200000 such EV charge events (198000, but as we're using wet finger math(s) please excuse me if I round up at this point). I would suggest we could comfortably halve that number and be ecstatic about 100000 EV's driving around a city! Hell, 50K EV's would be brilliant!
What's the average commute I wonder? I furthest I ever had to commute was about 60 miles (30 each way) so I'd have to charge one of these suckers up (less than!) once a week if it was my car, and the same for my Electric MGF friend too. We could probably assume that most people's commute (or 'daily drive' for the non-workers) is (considerably) less than 375 miles anyway. If we plump for once a week we can multiply up the (already halved!) 100000 accordingly ... 500000 EV's. Hell, even if we go for 50000 EV's a day that's still capacity for 250000 a week!
Also, the article says the vehicle can be charged in 6 minutes but it doesn't say it has to be - what's the betting there'd be a cost benefit (and maybe battery life benefit) from charging more slowly, like in 6 to 8 hours overnight, for example.
If you finally factor in the ideas about keeping such EVs which are not currently in use attached to the grid and allowing the grid to request power back to smooth out power use spikes (with suitable payments to the EV owner, and the proviso that the owner can specify a minimum level on the vehicle in case they need to drive it - but if it only takes 6 mins to charge it that becomes less of an issue!) we could see the Max Load requirement for a city actually be lowered because the city grid can pull power from the EVs that are not in use (have hookups at places of work and other car parks maybe too?)!
That it seems too good to be true is another issue, but it sounds bloody good to me!
Ok, let's say those figures are correct. Now let's assume that the average nuke plant has about 25% of it's output used for other means - a conservative estimate. That means we're down to 825 cars. ...
Er, no. It means were down to 825 cars in any given 6 minute period. It is usual to find 240 such 6 minute periods in any (Earth) day thereby allowing for approx 200000 such EV charge events (198000, but as we're using wet finger math(s) please excuse me if I round up at this point). I would suggest we could comfortably halve that number and be ecstatic about 100000 EV's driving around a city! Hell, 50K EV's would be brilliant!
What's the average commute I wonder? I furthest I ever had to commute was about 60 miles (30 each way) so I'd have to charge one of these suckers up (less than!) once a week if it was my car, and the same for my Electric MGF friend too. We could probably assume that most people's commute (or 'daily drive' for the non-workers) is (considerably) less than 375 miles anyway. If we plump for once a week we can multiply up the (already halved!) 100000 accordingly ... 500000 EV's. Hell, even if we go for 50000 a day that's still capacity for 250000 a week!
Also, the article says the vehicle can be charged in 6 minutes but it doesn't say it has to be - what's the betting there'd be a cost benefit (and maybe battery life benefit) from charging more slowly, like in 6 to 8 hours overnight, for example.
If you finally factor in the ideas about keeping such EVs which are not currently in use attached to the grid and allowing the grid to request power back to smooth out power use spikes (with suitable payments to the EV owner, and the proviso that the owner can specify a minimum level on the vehicle in case they need to drive it - but if it only takes 6 mins to charge it that becomes less of an issue!) we could see the Max Load requirement for a city actually be lowered because the city grid can pull power from the EVs that are not in use (have hookups at places of work and other car parks maybe too?)!
That it seems too good to be true is another issue, but it sounds bloody good to me!
My house has 200A, 240V service (2 phases 120V each, 180 degrees off.) The maximum power is, therefore, 48 kW. The car will need 1.5 MW power source to charge in 6 minutes, and the battery would have to hold 150 kWh, or 540 MJ, equivalent to 1/8 ton of TNT or to 3 gallons of gasoline.
Eh? If you are at home there is no need to charge the EV in 6 minutes 'cos you can plug the sucker in overnight and get 6 to 8 hours. The 6 mins charge would perhaps be at a Charging Station where they could perhaps have organised sufficient power to be available.
Ok, let's say those figures are correct. Now let's assume that the average nuke plant has about 25% of it's output used for other means - a conservative estimate. That means we're down to 825 cars. ...
That means we're down to 825 cars for any given 6 minute period. There are 240 such "6 minute periods" per day, so if everyone with one of these cars religiously (fully) charged the muthers every day there'd be capacity for approx 200000 cars (198000 actually, but we're using wet finger math(s) so please forgive the rounding up). We could easily halve that number and still be happy with 100000 EV's in a city!
Let's now assume that those 825 people don't drive 375 miles every day, so don't have to have their 6 minutes in the sun every day. My daily commute was somewhere in the region of 60 miles (30 each way), suggesting that those car owners may only be charging up once a week? (as per my Electric MGF friend) ... so could we have 500000 EV's now? :-)
Let's also assume that whilst it is possible to charge in 6 mins it can also be done overnight and there may be some cost-benefit and/or battery life benefit for doing so ...
If we also factor in the concepts bandied about where such EVs are left connected to the grid and the grid can request power to be fed back into the grid to smooth out demand spikes (with suitable payments to the EV owner, and the proviso that the vehicle will retain an owner specified charge sufficient to drive it - though with the 6 min quick charge that might be less of a problem anyway!) ...
I'm guessing you've not visited France much.
Farmers and fishermen use loopholes in the law to block entire interstates or major ferry ports for weeks on end.
I'm sure it won't be long before they start blockading the Channel ports and burning lorries full of British sheep, at least that's what usually happens!
...
And why the hell haven't you thrown out the stupid queen yet, while we're at it? Are you really OK with having royalty? I mean, isn't that a little bit creepy that a bunch of inbred morons get to live high on the public dole just because they happen to be related to an earlier inbred moron? If you want to be taken seriously, it might be time to set aside all that aristocracy and "House of Lords" stuff. I'd say it's "so last-century" but really it was "so last century" last century.
OK, A lot of others have responded to this one with a lot of interesting arguments but I haven't seen one throwing in the "Cost of Head of State" yet. Our Queen costs considerably less to run than the US (or indeed French) President. She's actually a bloody bargain!
3) ... There's still plenty of time to conquer space
Sadly I baulked at No3. There are those who suggest that the opportunity window is somewhat smaller that suggested by the GP.
The problem is available funds: Picture, if you will, the World in 1000 years time. The (human) population has continued to grow unabated (because numpties get all bent out of shape when people suggest we should be talking about Population Control - they think we are advocating euthanasia or something! Sheeez, we just think we should be talking about it!) and it takes all the World's money to feed the people.
So, the World is now running out of space (to grow food, amongst other things) and we look wistfully skywards towards the untapped potential of other worlds but can no longer afford to explore them without making the decision to stop feeding some of the people, and as everyone knows, that can be a real downer to the voters and you probably won't get (re-)elected!
So, all you clever people out there, what's the best guess on when the GWP (Gross World Product) will be only just sufficient to feed everyone? If we're not off this rock by then it will become very difficult, politically, to find the will to start exploring! If we at least start now we're ahead of the game and hopefully we can already have at least some off-world colony(ies) to play with before we start getting hungry!
... Fear of security breaches cannot be a reason to stop a project like this which has so many benefits.
So many benefits to whome? The biggest winners in any sort of national ID scheme are the Government, and by a country mile!
The nu-Labour shysters who tried to impose such a system on us in the UK tried time and time again to tell us how it would be better for us, and each time their argument was shot down in flames! Not one cogent reason was put forward. Not one!
I don't know though, perhaps there's something inherently different about India that there is a benefit to be gained by the general public which will outweigh the unbelievable cost of the system.
I'd be interested to know what these benefits would be.
As for false positives, it is harder to forge a fingerprint or iris scan than to memorize the victim's ID number.
Interesting that you should say it is harder rather than it is impossible!
Two possibilities suggest themselves to me:
1: Someone sets themselves up with fake fingerprints and becomes you.
2: Someone changes the stored info so their biometrics are stored against your record, so not only do they become you, but you are no longer you!
If we can agree that biometrics are not infallible, then we must assume that all ID checks will have to also check something else and the whole process is no longer any better than the current one!
All it needs is proper implementation and security.
OK, now I've worked in 'Computing' for 30 years or so and I know the only way to guarantee that a computer system is 100% secure is to not have it connected to anything else and for it to be stored in a sealed room. This somewhat degrades the usefulness of the system for real-world applications.
In all areas of 'Security' you have to be successful at maintaining the security 100% of the time, whereas those who feel the need to breach your security only have to do so once, and they often have a really powerful inclination to do so. Indeed, it could be argued that the more successful the security is, the greater the value of breaking it because if such an ID system is perceived as 'bullet proof' and you are the only person to break in then you can sell fake or cloned ID's that will NEVER be questioned.
... You also have an easier time being sure someone is who they say they are ...
The problem, as I see it, is that people are led to believe that such a biometric system is infallible and therefore unquestioningly accept such proffered 'ID' as secure. Given that such biometric IDs simply aren't infallible this means that those who wish to offer a false identify can do so more readily because no one questions the biometrics. The other side of the coin is that if people always do question (ie mistrust) the Biometrics (as indeed they should!) then they are no better than the old system.
Simply put, Biometrics aren't the answer ... now what was the question again?
If you get a court summons, you should not ignore it. Even if they sent it to the wrong guy (you), you could at least call the plaintiff and say "yeah, I got this summons, but I think you got the wrong website).
Of course you could just turn up and defend the case yourself. She'd lose and presumably you'd be awarded costs + damages for defamation, etc.
Sure hope she got this one on a no win no fee deal!
It's technology that needs to be improved and can be improved and government/corporation control not of the data (it's already in government/corporation control) but of technological updates that could save lives.
I'd argue that the tech doesn't need to be improved, just current tech applied!
As I understand it, BA already record vastly more information than is required in the black box and retrieve it from each 'plane when it lands. Obviously in the event of an accident this info is often/usually lost because it is outside the black box, but the collection of that flight data from successful flight is still useful. Now how about some of that nifty burst-transmission stuff the military use. How much info from the on-board repository that BA currently fills in-flight for their own use could be transmitted once a critical problem has occurred, or indeed when a pilot (or co-pilot/navigator/steward) presses the red button when any incident occurs?
I also remember watching a documentary about Rolls Royce jet engines and I'm sure it showed telemetry from their engines in flight and anything 'odd' was flagged up so the operator could instruct service personnel to inspect the engines when the 'plane next lands.
Honestly, none of this is rocket science and nothing "new" needs to be invented - just apply the current levels of technology to the problem for a leap forward in available info!
Go read about net present value and try that again. The value of any investment is measured as the (say it with me) the "present value of all FUTURE free cash flows". Welcome to Finance 101.
The OP mentioned gold which is perhaps to be treated differently because gold is held because it is gold and known to be rare and (therefore) worth hanging onto. If a metric shed-load of gold suddenly arrived, and this also indicates another shed-load can be similarly obtained as required, the "worth hanging onto"-ness of gold will be substantially dented. This will likely have a two-fold effect: 1) The Governments who like to hold gold will decide that something else will likely be a better bet for the foreseeable future and dump their gold reserves for whatever the something else is - and - 2) The price of Gold will -double- plummet as there's a shed-load of space gold just arrived and all the Governments just dumped their stock 'cos it's no longer a sufficient rarity to gamble their country's wealth on!
The Result: The gold brought back will be worth considerably less.
I bet Brown would be happy though, 'cos then he won't have sold our bloody gold for a record low price - the muppet!
But swap that for something we're short of that we use for something other than fiscal stability and there's definitely an advantage to be garnered.
Go Get It Kids!
It shoots midichlorians.
Ah yes. Midichlorians! For me, the invention of midichlorians was the biggest mistake of the new SW movies because if they were so important they would have been mentioned in the first SW films. The rest of the stuff, even the dreadful JarJarBinks, I can almost forgive.
... A whisper-quiet car robs you of luck.
It certainly doesn't help, but the Electric MGF chap suggests that modern cars are sufficiently quiet that the difference isn't as great as some may imagine.
Case in point is my current car - a Golf 1.4 TSI. I picked a couple of mates up to go for lunch last January and one of my mates doesn't like wearing a seat belt so I just waited until he put it on. The other one (sitting in the front) said "well at least turn it on so we can warm up" and it was on!
Driving it in town traffic it is near enough silent that people don't hear it and I don't think you can "not hear" an electric car more.
maybe it is just me, but wouldn't it be easier to just teach drivers to watch the hell out for pedestrians?
oh right, my bad, in this world no one can be bothered to look out for themselves or anyone else... we need to pay $150 for an extra to make our nice, quiet car contribute to the already horrific noise polution.
The problem is that people (pedestrians) will simply step off the pavement without looking if they think it is safe to do so, and not hearing any danger may fool them into thinking there is no danger - it's not about drivers looking out for pedestrians, the hell or otherwise! They do it all the damn time, and just because it's not the driver's fault doesn't make the pedestrian any the less squashed!
Now, that all said, I had a ride in an Electric MGF on Monday morning and I asked the owner this very question, "do you need to be extra careful about pedestrians" and he said he was careful but that modern cars are (or can be!) so quiet these days anyway that it's actually not so different an experience to driving a modern/new car.
And FWIW the Electric MGF was awesome and I'd love one!
You are wrong. Leap days fix the fact that the year isn't an integral number of days. Leap seconds fix the fact that the day isn't an integral number of seconds. Neither helps the other.
LOL: OK, so if we stopped having leap seconds that would never have any bearing on leap days then.
Thanks for clearing that up.