Forget unit prices, horsepower, yadda yadda, here's the only statistic that matters:
Energy density of lithium batteries: 1 megajoule/kg Energy density of gasoline: 45 megajoules/kg
Vehicles are unique among energy technologies in that they typically have to carry their energy source around with them. So energy stored per mass is the most important figure of merit for vehicle propulsion, and electric vehicles are inherently 45 times worse than their liquid-fuel competition.
Ooh, but you were so close. You're right that "energy stored per mass" is the most important metric, but you completely flubbed what energy and what mass. See, the hypothetical energy contained in the fuel doesn't all go to the tires, and the car doesn't just have to carry around its energy source, it also has to carry the mechanism for turning that potential energy into kinetic energy.
What matters is delivered energy divided by total mass.
Once you factor in the weight of the engines, and the inefficiencies of those engines, thing the comparison becomes much closer. It still favors gas vehicles, but not to the extent that you can say EVs can never compete, especially since they're getting closer and closer.
Having actually tried it, I have to say that while it may be the dog's gain, I don't feel I've lost anything.
Same with lungs.
Intestines as anything more than a small component.
Or liver for that matter.
But then again, for liver and kidneys, I have a hard time buying into the idea that I'm supposed to be eating something whose biological purpose is to act as a filter for contaminants. Yum!
The cooling tower exhaust plume is not nuclear related
The point was eye-sore, not nuclear-waste, related.
As for wind, it's nice but wind farms are ugly and have environmental impacts of their own; such as bird strikes.
I think wind farms are beautiful compared to the vast majority of man-made structures, and as a bird lover, I am quite confident that bird deaths are negligible, and the issues that did exist are in the past.
I see, so you think one or two people trying to take care of 12 non-polio children have more "opportunity" (education, time, resources, money) than one or two people trying to take care of 2?
Almost certainly, yes -- you have any idea the amount of extra effort that goes into taking care of a sick child, versus one who above a certain age does not require constant care? And the children themselves will have more opportunities.
Doesn't take a genius...
Nope, just someone with a clue as to the consequences of serious but preventable disease.
I never said birth control should be the ONLY aid, I said it should be high on the list of aid given.
No, you just said that if you "artificially increase the life span of the overpopulation" it only exacerbates the problem, implying you think curing disease shouldn't be high on the aid priority because its detrimental.
Nobody (outside of fundamentalists and catholics) thinks birth control aid shouldn't be given. And, in fact, it is being given. However to truly impact population growth you have to affect the economic realities that create the incentives to have more children, and that includes the burden and cost of disease! People are having many children to help them on their farms, but some of those children are then tasked with caring for the sick ones, necessitating even more family laborers.
Vaccines will have more real effect on their situation and on the subsequent population growth than crates full of condoms. Does it take a genius to figure this out, or am I just wasting my time?
directly converts to energy and we'll experience a leap in efficiency as a consequence. somebody please explain to our idiot-in-chief not to cancel constellation.
Sorry, but if the premise is we're going to want to mine He-3 for fusion reactors, then motivating the commercial sector to provide that capability is the best decision, and canceling the constellation boondoggle goes right along with that.
If you really think someone taking care of a household of polio victims is deprived of opportunity, how much opportunity will they have if that household suddenly became three times as large.
If you could give them the experience of working 50+ hours a week to come home to a screaming brat, and have your money earned already spent before you even get it, just to take care of the child, the population growth would fall real fast.
For the problem of population growth in general, that's obviously nonsense. For the population to grow, people must be having on average more than 2 children, and guess what that means? Barring twins the first time out, they already have a kid and thus know exactly what kind of burden it is! So what exactly are you planning on teaching them?
For teen pregnancy, which isn't an issue of population growth but still, this is still not going to help. The problem has never been that teens want children, or don't know they don't want children, to any significant extent. The problem is that teens want to fuck. And you can't educate people out of their instinctual, hormonal urges.
The only thing teaching them about the burden of parenthood can accomplish is to make teenagers more likely to use proper birth control. But that's not "abstinence education" then is it?
I find this incredibly sad. Aren't there any better, new ideas in fusion research to invest money and time into for experimental purposes?
Lots of people are working on different methods. Turns out they all take a lot of time and development to actually get working.
What I find sad is that so many of us don't seem to have the patience for things that are honestly and truly difficult to work out and that could really take many years to figure out. 30 years isn't very long in the history of science. Things much simpler than practical fusion reactors took much longer to develop in the past. It's only because of how rapidly technology advances these days that we expect this to apply to everything, and that anything to which this doesn't apply is a waste of time.
And what's also sad is that I know this intellectually, but I really can't blame you for feeling the way you do because to an extent I feel the same way!
And, let's admit everything works: what quantity of nuclear waste will such a machine produce? And of what type?
Don't give me the "it's fusion, so it's clean, duh" line: this machine is going to generate an enormous amount of energy and a lot of that will in the form of a "carefully controlled thermonuclear explosion" (BBC dixit) -- which means radiation, which also means neutrons. And neutrons are not really good for your health.
Later in TFA it says they'll eventually be fusing a fuel containing a mix deuterium and tritium. Deuterium-deuterium fusion yields tritium and a neutron, and deuterium-tritium fusion yields helium-4 and a neutron. So the byproducts are Helium-4 (not radioactive in the slightest) and neutrons.
High energy neutrons are very bad for you, yes, but that just means you won't be standing near the unshielded reaction chamber. It's not like you have to dump a big pile of poisonous neutrons somewhere. The neutrons will affect the containment itself, but the biggest problem there is just that it becomes brittle, not necessarily radioactive.
It is basically true that fusion is clean. The waste is minimal.
I'm totally on board with rethinking addressing. My point wasn't that you couldn't use something other than IP... it was that the kind of security problems we're talking about solving aren't really problems at the link/internet level. They're mostly application level.
Rampant SPAM (95% of all email), deep packet inspection, attacks, bot nets, the list goes on. Almost all the abuses we suffer daily on the internet are due to the security-as-an-afterthought model.
Not really.
Bot nets exist because you can never stop people from installing software no matter how scary your warning dialogues about untrusted sources are (and in fact throwing up too many is counter-productive).
Spam and DOS attacks are because you can't prevent the bot nets.
Most of the real security problems are at the OS/application level. Not the underlying internet.
History will see you for what you are -- another chump that bought into a propped-up theory because he didn't want to have to go to sunday school anymore.
Ah. Now I see. So sad!
You don't have to pick between religion and science. I haven't. Science and evolution don't disprove God, and God doesn't demand we abandon science. Jesus is my copilot. Knowledge is my instrumentation.:)
So, the internet of the future isn't going to be a general-purpose protocol-agnostic world-wide data network for sharing and communication of information?
Actually, I did address the ridiculous rationalization of "T-rex useless limbs are perfect candidate for wings" as what it is -- rationalization and just ANOTHER trillion-to-one shot
Wow, my ever so subtle point just zoomed right past you, didn't it?
Yes I know you addressed the ridiculous "T-Rex limbs evolved into wings" theory, that's what I said. But what I also said, and which you can't seem to wrap your head around is that there's only one problem with refuting that theory:
THAT'S NOT THE ACTUAL THEORY.
The actual theory of the evolution of birds has nothing to do with T-Rex or his limbs. Nothing. Not a scrap. That's just some B.S. you made up or misheard or whatever. Do you know what a "strawman argument" is? Well all you're doing here is burning down strawmen.
And as I already said, that's only one of many blatant misunderstandings, falsehoods, and outright fabrications you've made up on the spot.
You claim to understand evolution... You claim to understand it as well as anyone. You insist that you do all you want, but you demonstrably do not.
If you had any SHRED of care for actual science in you, you would THANK me for finding something wrong with the theory.
If you had a shred of care for science, you would LEARN about the ACTUAL SCIENCE. Not whatever you make up, or your anti-evolution sources tell you, or wherever the fuck you're getting your completely wrong information.
UNTIL then, you can't find something wrong with a theory that you don't know jack shit about. It's of course possible that if you admitted you don't know shit, went and actually acquired an education on the subject, learned what the flying fuck you're actually talking about, THEN in some years you might be able to find something wrong with the theory. And THEN you would be thanked; you may even become famous!
As it is, you've found nothing. You think you have, but you think you know something about evolution when you don't know anything. Which is why you have no basis for understanding why you haven't found anything. That's why all you can do is cry "Wah wah evolution is just blind faith!" No, blind faith is where you got your education on evolution.
You are deliberately ignorant. The odds of a person like you actually discovering a flaw in evolutionary theory is as likely as *snicker* a T-Rex turning into a bird.
When I describe the current theory of evolution, I describe it for the fraud it is.
No, when you describe it, you describe what you imagine the theory is, and then explain why your imagination is obviously wrong.
Your posts in this thread are completely chock-full of misconceptions, errors, and flat out fabrications of what evolutionary theory is. You make claims about what evolutionary theory states, but those claims are completely wrong. They are strawmen. You then proceed to burn them, and think that proves you "right". Good job. *golf clap*
You see, I don't think you're wrong because you disagree with evolution. I think you're wrong because you obviously have no understanding of evolution but claim to. You can't possibly prove evolution wrong without actually knowing what it is saying.
If you actually understood evolution like you claim to, then we could have a reasonable discussion about the strengths and weaknesses of these claims. You might actually have something useful to contribute. But since you don't know, think you know, and ergo obviously refuse to educate yourself, you cannot contribute anything useful.
You see, I have been listening to you, and that's why I know that if you understood evolution like you claim to, you could, yourself, point out at least half a dozen errors in your description of evolutionary theory. Until you can demonstrate this understanding by pointing out those errors, then you're simply another example of someone who thinks deliberate ignorance is a form of intellectual strength. So, come on, demonstrate your understanding to me. What outright falsehoods have you stated in your posts?
Because I'm feeling very generous, I'll give you a hint on one of them. You mentioned something about T-Rex's limbs being unable to evolve into bird wings. In the actual theory, it is in fact limb structure itself that provides a very strong clue (among many).
Just in case you manage to google that up, read up on it, pretend you knew about it already, and want to come back and here and say how your vague and brand new comprehension enables you to prove it wrong, keep in mind there are plenty of other errors you made. If you can't point them out, I'm just not going to believe you know what you're talking about.
And if you can point them out, then you were just trolling with your lies. But believe me, that's pretty much the best case scenario for you.
Slashdot Mirror
Forget unit prices, horsepower, yadda yadda, here's the only statistic that matters:
Energy density of lithium batteries: 1 megajoule/kg
Energy density of gasoline: 45 megajoules/kg
Vehicles are unique among energy technologies in that they typically have to carry their energy source around with them. So energy stored per mass is the most important figure of merit for vehicle propulsion, and electric vehicles are inherently 45 times worse than their liquid-fuel competition.
Ooh, but you were so close. You're right that "energy stored per mass" is the most important metric, but you completely flubbed what energy and what mass. See, the hypothetical energy contained in the fuel doesn't all go to the tires, and the car doesn't just have to carry around its energy source, it also has to carry the mechanism for turning that potential energy into kinetic energy.
What matters is delivered energy divided by total mass.
Once you factor in the weight of the engines, and the inefficiencies of those engines, thing the comparison becomes much closer. It still favors gas vehicles, but not to the extent that you can say EVs can never compete, especially since they're getting closer and closer.
it is freaking awesome, especially with a good single malt whisky.
Yeah, and I have a good bet on what the optimal order of consumption is.
Having actually tried it, I have to say that while it may be the dog's gain, I don't feel I've lost anything.
Same with lungs.
Intestines as anything more than a small component.
Or liver for that matter.
But then again, for liver and kidneys, I have a hard time buying into the idea that I'm supposed to be eating something whose biological purpose is to act as a filter for contaminants. Yum!
The cooling tower exhaust plume is not nuclear related
The point was eye-sore, not nuclear-waste, related.
As for wind, it's nice but wind farms are ugly and have environmental impacts of their own; such as bird strikes.
I think wind farms are beautiful compared to the vast majority of man-made structures, and as a bird lover, I am quite confident that bird deaths are negligible, and the issues that did exist are in the past.
I see, so you think one or two people trying to take care of 12 non-polio children have more "opportunity" (education, time, resources, money) than one or two people trying to take care of 2?
Almost certainly, yes -- you have any idea the amount of extra effort that goes into taking care of a sick child, versus one who above a certain age does not require constant care? And the children themselves will have more opportunities.
Doesn't take a genius...
Nope, just someone with a clue as to the consequences of serious but preventable disease.
I never said birth control should be the ONLY aid, I said it should be high on the list of aid given.
No, you just said that if you "artificially increase the life span of the overpopulation" it only exacerbates the problem, implying you think curing disease shouldn't be high on the aid priority because its detrimental.
Nobody (outside of fundamentalists and catholics) thinks birth control aid shouldn't be given. And, in fact, it is being given. However to truly impact population growth you have to affect the economic realities that create the incentives to have more children, and that includes the burden and cost of disease! People are having many children to help them on their farms, but some of those children are then tasked with caring for the sick ones, necessitating even more family laborers.
Vaccines will have more real effect on their situation and on the subsequent population growth than crates full of condoms. Does it take a genius to figure this out, or am I just wasting my time?
directly converts to energy and we'll experience a leap in efficiency as a consequence. somebody please explain to our idiot-in-chief not to cancel constellation.
Sorry, but if the premise is we're going to want to mine He-3 for fusion reactors, then motivating the commercial sector to provide that capability is the best decision, and canceling the constellation boondoggle goes right along with that.
If you really think someone taking care of a household of polio victims is deprived of opportunity, how much opportunity will they have if that household suddenly became three times as large.
A lot more if they don't have polio, genius!
If you could give them the experience of working 50+ hours a week to come home to a screaming brat, and have your money earned already spent before you even get it, just to take care of the child, the population growth would fall real fast.
For the problem of population growth in general, that's obviously nonsense. For the population to grow, people must be having on average more than 2 children, and guess what that means? Barring twins the first time out, they already have a kid and thus know exactly what kind of burden it is! So what exactly are you planning on teaching them?
For teen pregnancy, which isn't an issue of population growth but still, this is still not going to help. The problem has never been that teens want children, or don't know they don't want children, to any significant extent. The problem is that teens want to fuck. And you can't educate people out of their instinctual, hormonal urges.
The only thing teaching them about the burden of parenthood can accomplish is to make teenagers more likely to use proper birth control. But that's not "abstinence education" then is it?
That's funny, I was thinking Escape from New York (which takes place in 1997).
I saw that documentary -- it was awesome!
where it really does sustain itself with no input of energy whatsoever after the initial neutron bombardment.
Until the fuel runs out.
Exactly like here.
They just have to put new fuel in and start a new reaction more frequently.
tldr. ;)
I find this incredibly sad. Aren't there any better, new ideas in fusion research to invest money and time into for experimental purposes?
Lots of people are working on different methods. Turns out they all take a lot of time and development to actually get working.
What I find sad is that so many of us don't seem to have the patience for things that are honestly and truly difficult to work out and that could really take many years to figure out. 30 years isn't very long in the history of science. Things much simpler than practical fusion reactors took much longer to develop in the past. It's only because of how rapidly technology advances these days that we expect this to apply to everything, and that anything to which this doesn't apply is a waste of time.
And what's also sad is that I know this intellectually, but I really can't blame you for feeling the way you do because to an extent I feel the same way!
And, let's admit everything works: what quantity of nuclear waste will such a machine produce? And of what type?
Don't give me the "it's fusion, so it's clean, duh" line: this machine is going to generate an enormous amount of energy and a lot of that will in the form of a "carefully controlled thermonuclear explosion" (BBC dixit) -- which means radiation, which also means neutrons. And neutrons are not really good for your health.
Later in TFA it says they'll eventually be fusing a fuel containing a mix deuterium and tritium. Deuterium-deuterium fusion yields tritium and a neutron, and deuterium-tritium fusion yields helium-4 and a neutron. So the byproducts are Helium-4 (not radioactive in the slightest) and neutrons.
High energy neutrons are very bad for you, yes, but that just means you won't be standing near the unshielded reaction chamber. It's not like you have to dump a big pile of poisonous neutrons somewhere. The neutrons will affect the containment itself, but the biggest problem there is just that it becomes brittle, not necessarily radioactive.
It is basically true that fusion is clean. The waste is minimal.
I'm totally on board with rethinking addressing. My point wasn't that you couldn't use something other than IP... it was that the kind of security problems we're talking about solving aren't really problems at the link/internet level. They're mostly application level.
Who says a new design has to use IP?
So... you're planning on introducing a bunch of security problems below the transport layer?
You'll still have to solve all the problems again at the application layer!
Remember, at the time it was designed, there was no "is".
Yeah instead there was a "designed to be", and it was designed to be what I described in my first post. You can break that if you want. I like it.
No, it's because there aren't many security problems to solve at the IP layer or below.
You can't stop botnets or spam by putting security into the internet itself. Not without breaking what the internet *is*.
Rampant SPAM (95% of all email), deep packet inspection, attacks, bot nets, the list goes on. Almost all the abuses we suffer daily on the internet are due to the security-as-an-afterthought model.
Not really.
Bot nets exist because you can never stop people from installing software no matter how scary your warning dialogues about untrusted sources are (and in fact throwing up too many is counter-productive).
Spam and DOS attacks are because you can't prevent the bot nets.
Most of the real security problems are at the OS/application level. Not the underlying internet.
and I'm not talkin about what oysters sometimes produce.
You're not talking about sperm? Okay now I'm just confused.
History will see you for what you are -- another chump that bought into a propped-up theory because he didn't want to have to go to sunday school anymore.
Ah. Now I see. So sad!
You don't have to pick between religion and science. I haven't. Science and evolution don't disprove God, and God doesn't demand we abandon science. Jesus is my copilot. Knowledge is my instrumentation. :)
One's making a phone call, the other is making a clone fall... to a whore!
Wait, lemme try that again.
So, the internet of the future isn't going to be a general-purpose protocol-agnostic world-wide data network for sharing and communication of information?
Uh, can I opt-out of the future?
Actually, I did address the ridiculous rationalization of "T-rex useless limbs are perfect candidate for wings" as what it is -- rationalization and just ANOTHER trillion-to-one shot
Wow, my ever so subtle point just zoomed right past you, didn't it?
Yes I know you addressed the ridiculous "T-Rex limbs evolved into wings" theory, that's what I said. But what I also said, and which you can't seem to wrap your head around is that there's only one problem with refuting that theory:
THAT'S NOT THE ACTUAL THEORY.
The actual theory of the evolution of birds has nothing to do with T-Rex or his limbs. Nothing. Not a scrap. That's just some B.S. you made up or misheard or whatever. Do you know what a "strawman argument" is? Well all you're doing here is burning down strawmen.
And as I already said, that's only one of many blatant misunderstandings, falsehoods, and outright fabrications you've made up on the spot.
You claim to understand evolution... You claim to understand it as well as anyone. You insist that you do all you want, but you demonstrably do not.
If you had any SHRED of care for actual science in you, you would THANK me for finding something wrong with the theory.
If you had a shred of care for science, you would LEARN about the ACTUAL SCIENCE. Not whatever you make up, or your anti-evolution sources tell you, or wherever the fuck you're getting your completely wrong information.
UNTIL then, you can't find something wrong with a theory that you don't know jack shit about. It's of course possible that if you admitted you don't know shit, went and actually acquired an education on the subject, learned what the flying fuck you're actually talking about, THEN in some years you might be able to find something wrong with the theory. And THEN you would be thanked; you may even become famous!
As it is, you've found nothing. You think you have, but you think you know something about evolution when you don't know anything. Which is why you have no basis for understanding why you haven't found anything. That's why all you can do is cry "Wah wah evolution is just blind faith!" No, blind faith is where you got your education on evolution.
You are deliberately ignorant. The odds of a person like you actually discovering a flaw in evolutionary theory is as likely as *snicker* a T-Rex turning into a bird.
When I describe the current theory of evolution, I describe it for the fraud it is.
No, when you describe it, you describe what you imagine the theory is, and then explain why your imagination is obviously wrong.
Your posts in this thread are completely chock-full of misconceptions, errors, and flat out fabrications of what evolutionary theory is. You make claims about what evolutionary theory states, but those claims are completely wrong. They are strawmen. You then proceed to burn them, and think that proves you "right". Good job. *golf clap*
You see, I don't think you're wrong because you disagree with evolution. I think you're wrong because you obviously have no understanding of evolution but claim to. You can't possibly prove evolution wrong without actually knowing what it is saying.
If you actually understood evolution like you claim to, then we could have a reasonable discussion about the strengths and weaknesses of these claims. You might actually have something useful to contribute. But since you don't know, think you know, and ergo obviously refuse to educate yourself, you cannot contribute anything useful.
You see, I have been listening to you, and that's why I know that if you understood evolution like you claim to, you could, yourself, point out at least half a dozen errors in your description of evolutionary theory. Until you can demonstrate this understanding by pointing out those errors, then you're simply another example of someone who thinks deliberate ignorance is a form of intellectual strength. So, come on, demonstrate your understanding to me. What outright falsehoods have you stated in your posts?
Because I'm feeling very generous, I'll give you a hint on one of them. You mentioned something about T-Rex's limbs being unable to evolve into bird wings. In the actual theory, it is in fact limb structure itself that provides a very strong clue (among many).
Just in case you manage to google that up, read up on it, pretend you knew about it already, and want to come back and here and say how your vague and brand new comprehension enables you to prove it wrong, keep in mind there are plenty of other errors you made. If you can't point them out, I'm just not going to believe you know what you're talking about.
And if you can point them out, then you were just trolling with your lies. But believe me, that's pretty much the best case scenario for you.
It's the same distinction as "murder" and "genocide", or "explosives" and "nuclear missiles".