I was thinking it probably had a passive or low-power cooling system - if any - for normal use. This is basically an add-on for certain applications, and most of the mechanics of it would be located at the station. (Just have heat-exchanger tubes in the car.)
Build a coolant system into the quick-charge station. Have the connector also pump ice-water or something to the car, and back out to take the heat. Leave it out of the 'normal-speed' charge stations, and charge more for the quick-charge. A compatible car and battery would then be able to do a quick-charge without damage.
At the end of the charge cycle, pump in air to remove the water, and off you go.
I don't disagree, but the point of the above was that I learned to actively avoid trying to learn in school, and that I should consider the teacher a hindrance at best, and an actively creator of ignorance at worst. Therefore the teacher was no longer a mediator, or even a helper: they were someone to be avoided, ignored, and mocked.
This does not help either the education or the socialization of the student. (At best it is neutral.)
It bugged the hell out of me as well, and I was good at figuring out what the answer they wanted was. Give me a question like many of these and I'd go 'Ok, several of these are correct, but the idiots want ___.' Put that, and I'd get the grade. No sweat.
Meanwhile I'm learning that the teacher and the test creator are idiots, and can't be trusted to teach me anything useful or accurate. Ever.
If I were the employer and I was running this type of high-profile event, I might do both: Redundancy can fail, and load testing only proves what you've tested, after all. Having someone on hand to fix things immediately will prevent a crisis should something unexpected happen.
Of course, as the employee, I'd want extra pay, and other compensation (extended time off after? Extra vacation? An award plaque for sure would not be enough...) for this.
If they'd actually caught them, and captured the bomb, I see no reason why they wouldn't make it the front-page story on every piece of news media from here to the Moon. It proves they are doing their job, proves the threat is real, and proves that the money we spend on them is worth it. (And the rights, and...) It also scares anyone else who was thinking of trying it into believing that they will likely get caught.
Conversely, hiding it at that point has no value: The (current) threat has passed, and the people have been caught, so any current investigation will be done, and there is no cover on that issue to blow. (And specific details can be obscured in the name of national security if the same agents are in other operations.)
Sure there would be some massive uproar, but it would be contained by it's nature, and easily focusable to any direction the current powers that be wanted it. It would also be fairly short-lived, as the threat would be known to be passed (for the moment).
So this one doesn't hold water. There could be other threats or ongoing operations that might, but a large-scale terrorist attack that we could prove was a real threat and that has been stopped would be announced to the public.
To add to the above: And I may not be in a position to watch a video at the time I find the article, even if I had the time to do so.
I am aware that some people prefer talking heads. I have no problem with that. But if you don't provide at the very least a transcription as well, I will usually be heading elsewhere before I click 'play'.
Bingo. A 10% markup for the ability to easily walk in to a nearby location, find what you want, and walk out will be tolerated. A 30% markup for walking in, being pestered, and waiting in a huge line to check out is in no way worth it.
The fact that they are still in business right now is due to name recognition, and lack of direct competitors. (Amazon and such are indirect: You can get what you want from them as well, but you can't replace a Best Buy store with an Amazon store in the same location.)
If their new checkout lanes are anything like the last time they've changed their checkout process (which was just a couple of months ago...), it won't help. The local store here just combined their checkout and return lanes - meaning you can no longer do either one in any reasonable amount of time.
These days about the only thing I go in there for is refills for my shaver, and that just because the shipping from anyplace online would be more than the cost of the refill.
The problem is in writing a law that doesn't also apply to day-spas or grandma's chicken soup.
Also, your example shows part of the problem as well: Chiropractors have some value as specialists for specific problems. (Where the problem is actual bone-alignment related, as basically a form of specialty medicine.) But they tend to over-state what they can solve, and generally it's hard to curtail that unless someone makes a complaint. This happens with GP's as well, which is part of the reason for the encroachment of red tape in the healthcare system. Which then has it's own costs.
Problem: They aren't licensed as medical facilities, they aren't regulated as healthcare, and they specifically claim no guarantees. So they can just say 'Sorry, we provided a service, and you used the service. The rest is your problem.'
Not going to happen. If a political party can't get at least 35% of the vote in any particular election, it's not relevant in American politics. (And I might argue that number is higher.) Winner takes all, single representation means that there is no space for small parties to gain a foothold and grow: You either need to be a serious contender right off the bat, or you aren't going to be worth talking about.
Some of us have been educated in development issues.;) A site like this is worldwide, and draws a lot of people. Even if they have no formal education in the subject, a portion of the population will have seen or worked with the issues directly. It wouldn't surprise me if some of the comments are from people currently living in countries where these are targeted, who can drive by the people it is for any time they wish. For myself, I grew up in developing countries in a family who were working directly on some of these very issues. No formal education in the subject - but I've helped build the types of houses these people are living in, and I know what level of resources they are likely to have.
They have a problem with deforestation. Burn dried dung instead of wood.
Raising animals is even more costly in terms of plant matter you need to grow. (Admitted, they might have a suitable animal already - but don't assume they all do.)
They get sick from the open fires indoors.
Cook outside (or more usefully, build the stove into a wall with the chimney outside and the cook-surface inside).
They may not have any useful outdoor space. Or there may be other reasons to stay indoors; rain is obvious, malaria and other insect-borne diseases aren't quite as obvious, but are reasonable reasons to stay indoors, among others.
And you are assuming they have a strong-walled structure that can be modified. I wouldn't bet on that. (Cardboard and corrugated steel are common building materials in many developing countries. Slightly better is wood, straw, and mud, which could accommodate such an opening if put in during construction, but not after.) Plus the fact that a chimney costs money and takes up space, both of which are at a premium. (And it needs maintenance, and when the stove is off needs to be sealed from the outside like any door or window, at least.)
Carrying that wood through the mountains is hard labor.
Cry me a river - See #1, or... Just move closer to the damned trees.
Which would be away from their land, and their job. Quite possibly they are living on the edge of a city, working in the city, and getting fuel from a nearby forest. Moving towards the forest decreases their income - even if they can find land to move to. (Upon which they would need to build a new house, and then move all their stuff into it... Moving costs money in and of itself.)
Oh, and with the constant use of wood for fuel, the forest itself is moving - away from them. How often should they move?
Propane is expensive and hard to store and transport. (At least by 'developing country villager' standpoint.) Easiest way to transport it is large metal canisters, of which the canister itself would cost a month's salary, quite often. Of course, the canister is recyclable, so they'd only have to pay that once, but it's still an expensive item. Then they have to carry it back and forth from the refueling station, and pay for the actual fuel.
From the villager's standpoint, that's not much different than using a wood stove; at least the wood will be cheap/free.
Slashdot Mirror
I was thinking it probably had a passive or low-power cooling system - if any - for normal use. This is basically an add-on for certain applications, and most of the mechanics of it would be located at the station. (Just have heat-exchanger tubes in the car.)
I think this might count as biology, not chemistry... (Although it's right at the overlap.)
Build a coolant system into the quick-charge station. Have the connector also pump ice-water or something to the car, and back out to take the heat. Leave it out of the 'normal-speed' charge stations, and charge more for the quick-charge. A compatible car and battery would then be able to do a quick-charge without damage.
At the end of the charge cycle, pump in air to remove the water, and off you go.
I don't disagree, but the point of the above was that I learned to actively avoid trying to learn in school, and that I should consider the teacher a hindrance at best, and an actively creator of ignorance at worst. Therefore the teacher was no longer a mediator, or even a helper: they were someone to be avoided, ignored, and mocked.
This does not help either the education or the socialization of the student. (At best it is neutral.)
It bugged the hell out of me as well, and I was good at figuring out what the answer they wanted was. Give me a question like many of these and I'd go 'Ok, several of these are correct, but the idiots want ___.' Put that, and I'd get the grade. No sweat.
Meanwhile I'm learning that the teacher and the test creator are idiots, and can't be trusted to teach me anything useful or accurate. Ever.
If I were the employer and I was running this type of high-profile event, I might do both: Redundancy can fail, and load testing only proves what you've tested, after all. Having someone on hand to fix things immediately will prevent a crisis should something unexpected happen.
Of course, as the employee, I'd want extra pay, and other compensation (extended time off after? Extra vacation? An award plaque for sure would not be enough...) for this.
If they'd actually caught them, and captured the bomb, I see no reason why they wouldn't make it the front-page story on every piece of news media from here to the Moon. It proves they are doing their job, proves the threat is real, and proves that the money we spend on them is worth it. (And the rights, and...) It also scares anyone else who was thinking of trying it into believing that they will likely get caught.
Conversely, hiding it at that point has no value: The (current) threat has passed, and the people have been caught, so any current investigation will be done, and there is no cover on that issue to blow. (And specific details can be obscured in the name of national security if the same agents are in other operations.)
Sure there would be some massive uproar, but it would be contained by it's nature, and easily focusable to any direction the current powers that be wanted it. It would also be fairly short-lived, as the threat would be known to be passed (for the moment).
So this one doesn't hold water. There could be other threats or ongoing operations that might, but a large-scale terrorist attack that we could prove was a real threat and that has been stopped would be announced to the public.
Unfortunately, I have to leave my house occasionally so I can have money for internet access, so I run across them.
You obviously don't talk to people near where I live. To most of them, GWB should have had a third term, and Obama is dragging this country to hell.
To add to the above: And I may not be in a position to watch a video at the time I find the article, even if I had the time to do so.
I am aware that some people prefer talking heads. I have no problem with that. But if you don't provide at the very least a transcription as well, I will usually be heading elsewhere before I click 'play'.
In this case, I meant relative markup: compared to other consumer-level sources.
Bingo. A 10% markup for the ability to easily walk in to a nearby location, find what you want, and walk out will be tolerated. A 30% markup for walking in, being pestered, and waiting in a huge line to check out is in no way worth it.
The fact that they are still in business right now is due to name recognition, and lack of direct competitors. (Amazon and such are indirect: You can get what you want from them as well, but you can't replace a Best Buy store with an Amazon store in the same location.)
Slashdot is a news commentary and aggregation site. Very rarely is it going to be the first place to find a piece of news.
If their new checkout lanes are anything like the last time they've changed their checkout process (which was just a couple of months ago...), it won't help. The local store here just combined their checkout and return lanes - meaning you can no longer do either one in any reasonable amount of time.
These days about the only thing I go in there for is refills for my shaver, and that just because the shipping from anyplace online would be more than the cost of the refill.
Apple's always been found of royalty free standards and products in markets were they need some minimal presence, but aren't actually competing...
Oh, for mod points today...
The problem is in writing a law that doesn't also apply to day-spas or grandma's chicken soup.
Also, your example shows part of the problem as well: Chiropractors have some value as specialists for specific problems. (Where the problem is actual bone-alignment related, as basically a form of specialty medicine.) But they tend to over-state what they can solve, and generally it's hard to curtail that unless someone makes a complaint. This happens with GP's as well, which is part of the reason for the encroachment of red tape in the healthcare system. Which then has it's own costs.
But I agree: Good regulation would help.
Are you mocking the Invisible Pink Unicorn?
Problem: They aren't licensed as medical facilities, they aren't regulated as healthcare, and they specifically claim no guarantees. So they can just say 'Sorry, we provided a service, and you used the service. The rest is your problem.'
Not going to happen. If a political party can't get at least 35% of the vote in any particular election, it's not relevant in American politics. (And I might argue that number is higher.) Winner takes all, single representation means that there is no space for small parties to gain a foothold and grow: You either need to be a serious contender right off the bat, or you aren't going to be worth talking about.
Well, to be fair, the Democrats are only slightly better... And are in bed with the RIAA and the MPIAA. (Among other things.)
It's really a matter of 'who will do the least damage to the country', not 'who will make the country better'.
(Personally, I refuse to vote for either party, but I know that it's a vain hope that my vote will make any difference.)
See, people keep saying Canada is just another part of the USA, but you guys never believe us...
Some of us have been educated in development issues. ;) A site like this is worldwide, and draws a lot of people. Even if they have no formal education in the subject, a portion of the population will have seen or worked with the issues directly. It wouldn't surprise me if some of the comments are from people currently living in countries where these are targeted, who can drive by the people it is for any time they wish. For myself, I grew up in developing countries in a family who were working directly on some of these very issues. No formal education in the subject - but I've helped build the types of houses these people are living in, and I know what level of resources they are likely to have.
They have a problem with deforestation.
Burn dried dung instead of wood.
Raising animals is even more costly in terms of plant matter you need to grow. (Admitted, they might have a suitable animal already - but don't assume they all do.)
They get sick from the open fires indoors.
Cook outside (or more usefully, build the stove into a wall with the chimney outside and the cook-surface inside).
They may not have any useful outdoor space. Or there may be other reasons to stay indoors; rain is obvious, malaria and other insect-borne diseases aren't quite as obvious, but are reasonable reasons to stay indoors, among others.
And you are assuming they have a strong-walled structure that can be modified. I wouldn't bet on that. (Cardboard and corrugated steel are common building materials in many developing countries. Slightly better is wood, straw, and mud, which could accommodate such an opening if put in during construction, but not after.) Plus the fact that a chimney costs money and takes up space, both of which are at a premium. (And it needs maintenance, and when the stove is off needs to be sealed from the outside like any door or window, at least.)
Carrying that wood through the mountains is hard labor.
Cry me a river - See #1, or... Just move closer to the damned trees.
Which would be away from their land, and their job. Quite possibly they are living on the edge of a city, working in the city, and getting fuel from a nearby forest. Moving towards the forest decreases their income - even if they can find land to move to. (Upon which they would need to build a new house, and then move all their stuff into it... Moving costs money in and of itself.)
Oh, and with the constant use of wood for fuel, the forest itself is moving - away from them. How often should they move?
Propane is expensive and hard to store and transport. (At least by 'developing country villager' standpoint.) Easiest way to transport it is large metal canisters, of which the canister itself would cost a month's salary, quite often. Of course, the canister is recyclable, so they'd only have to pay that once, but it's still an expensive item. Then they have to carry it back and forth from the refueling station, and pay for the actual fuel.
From the villager's standpoint, that's not much different than using a wood stove; at least the wood will be cheap/free.