I think your calculations are a bit of. Unless the rings dont stop accelerating you when you reach the top of the mountain. Lets be generous and give you a 10 km tracklength. 10.000m = 1/2*a*t*t = 1/2*V*t with V being needed velocity of about 7km/s this would give t=3 aproximately and an acceleration of over 2000m/(s*s) (sorry never got the hang of squares here) which is 200g.
Lets make it interesting and give you a tracklength of 1000 km (600 mi or so) this still gives an acceleration of 2.4g.
I hope you understand a little better why such mechanisms arent used, its only nice for an initial boost up to mach 1 or so.
It's near the end of the boat level. When you have defeated the two helicopters on the large watery area, you open a gate and come in an area with a ramp to the sluicegate control. In the back wall of the lake is the sewer-opening. To get in climb on your boat. There is radioactive sludge you have to walk through. He's at the end of the tunnel.
I read an interesting article one time. If you reduced the requirement from safe for humans to stand close to it, to less radioactive than the stuff you took out of the ground to begin with. How long would that take do you guess. The time would be reduced from many millenia to a few centuries. Just an interesting fact.
Don't read comments that offend you, you might start thinking.
I forgot to mention furtilizer is made with gas and other ingredients. Interesting isn't it. If you want to find alternatives to oil and gas you should remember that it's used for many things, which means you need to find many alternatives.
A nice future you're imagening there. I hope you are right. Unfortunately not all people have such a rosy view. You should look at oilcrisis.com . It's mainly about oil but gas is discussed, and has usefull links to other sites. Its a serious site with a lot of information coming from the top experts in the oil-business. It makes for a very interesting read.
The problem with your hydrogen view is at present most hydrogen is made from gas. You can make it from water but then you'd need a lot off electricity. Without gas- or oilgenerators this would allmost certainly mean nuclear, not a popular option at present.
And the bio-option is also not very appealing. I dont remember the exact data but you need a surface larger then Texas to produce as much energy as is produced today. And the catch. You need energy to produce it. I have read that 80% off what you get out off it is needed to produce it. So even more surface is needed.
I hope your view is correct because mine would be an economic disaster.
OPEC doesnt much deal in gas.
In North America almost all gas comes from Canada, Mexico and the US. And the fact is there is a gas shortage there.
Importing the gas via ship is a costly business, so expect even higher gasprices in the future. Because demand is going up and production going down.
Where is the proof that it hinders innovation. The effect on innovationhas never been properly investigated. Until there is a thorough study on the effect of IP on innovation I am just as justified to say that copyright has a negative effect on innovation.
This is not a black and white world so there are more ways then just pure capitalism or pure communism. A lot of countries are somewhere in between (all EU countries) and most off these countries rank higher then the US in surveys on the happiness off their citizens.
They might have less billionaires but I know off no reason why somebody nééds to be a billionair. Remember that money has to come from someone else and guess who that will be.
What I want to know is how much the writers make. Writers make the story while actors are just their tool. If one actor isn't good enough you hire another one.
The only reason actors gets paid more is because they are the part people can see and idiots can idolize. I'm not saying good actors cannot be paid more then bad actors. But they are still only doing a job. Why should you pay them more because you can see them.
Finally, a good story can make a mediocre actor famous, but a good actor cannot do the reverse. Tell me why the mediocre actor should get paid more then the good one? Because he's lucky?
Great idea! Replace all the parking space by roads.
I'm sure this would result in less congestion. If you cannot park at your destination you'll be less inclined to take the car.
Wow, so you say a band never practicing outside a studio and only writes their songs when their in a studio, while choruses are perfect in one try.
Perhaps the music industry should contract choruses instead of bands it would save them a lot of money, wait, they recoup that money on the artists so never mind.
Your math lacks the fact that you can invest the money you get back. While in the the case you call most profitable the money is tied up for 10 years,
the result for getting 0.25 per 1.00 every year would be much higher than your 12.50 if you reinvest it. Lets reinvest it in your 10% to the end of the ten years.
0.00= 1.25, 2.63, 4.14, 5,80, 7,63, 9,64, 11.86, 14,29, 16,97, 19,92
Imagine what would happen if you reinvested in another 0.25 per 1.00 for ten years and so on. Sorry if I dont do the math,because it becomes exponentially complicated and after the 10 years you still get money back.
You mention all these general laws that would regulate corporations, without the need for rules specifically for corporations. But you forget most of them originate from these specific laws. Contracts don't apply to children so corporations could not take advantage of them. And for minimum wage, when you desperatly need money, for how little would you work? In this case corporations have all the power. Minimum wage just is a limit to that power. And don't say you can negotiate a higher wage, there are more unemployed where you came from. Pollution laws are the only laws that could have arisen on their own, but I bet they would be a lot more effective if corporations didn't actively lobby against them.
Slashdot Mirror
Lets make it interesting and give you a tracklength of 1000 km (600 mi or so) this still gives an acceleration of 2.4g .
I hope you understand a little better why such mechanisms arent used, its only nice for an initial boost up to mach 1 or so.
The lightest i found on their site was 85kg. The 185kg version you found is used presently on a city bus.
i might be wrong, but convincing others doesn't quite have the same effect if you say you know less about it.
It's near the end of the boat level. When you have defeated the two helicopters on the large watery area, you open a gate and come in an area with a ramp to the sluicegate control. In the back wall of the lake is the sewer-opening. To get in climb on your boat. There is radioactive sludge you have to walk through. He's at the end of the tunnel.
Don't read comments that offend you, you might start thinking.
Just trying to make you think.
The problem with your hydrogen view is at present most hydrogen is made from gas. You can make it from water but then you'd need a lot off electricity. Without gas- or oilgenerators this would allmost certainly mean nuclear, not a popular option at present.
And the bio-option is also not very appealing. I dont remember the exact data but you need a surface larger then Texas to produce as much energy as is produced today. And the catch. You need energy to produce it. I have read that 80% off what you get out off it is needed to produce it. So even more surface is needed.
I hope your view is correct because mine would be an economic disaster.
OPEC doesnt much deal in gas. In North America almost all gas comes from Canada, Mexico and the US. And the fact is there is a gas shortage there. Importing the gas via ship is a costly business, so expect even higher gasprices in the future. Because demand is going up and production going down.
Where is the proof that it hinders innovation. The effect on innovationhas never been properly investigated. Until there is a thorough study on the effect of IP on innovation I am just as justified to say that copyright has a negative effect on innovation.
They might have less billionaires but I know off no reason why somebody nééds to be a billionair. Remember that money has to come from someone else and guess who that will be.
The only reason actors gets paid more is because they are the part people can see and idiots can idolize. I'm not saying good actors cannot be paid more then bad actors. But they are still only doing a job. Why should you pay them more because you can see them.
Finally, a good story can make a mediocre actor famous, but a good actor cannot do the reverse. Tell me why the mediocre actor should get paid more then the good one? Because he's lucky?
Great idea! Replace all the parking space by roads. I'm sure this would result in less congestion. If you cannot park at your destination you'll be less inclined to take the car.
Perhaps the music industry should contract choruses instead of bands it would save them a lot of money, wait, they recoup that money on the artists so never mind.
Your math lacks the fact that you can invest the money you get back. While in the the case you call most profitable the money is tied up for 10 years, the result for getting 0.25 per 1.00 every year would be much higher than your 12.50 if you reinvest it. Lets reinvest it in your 10% to the end of the ten years. 0.00= 1.25, 2.63, 4.14, 5,80, 7,63, 9,64, 11.86, 14,29, 16,97, 19,92 Imagine what would happen if you reinvested in another 0.25 per 1.00 for ten years and so on. Sorry if I dont do the math,because it becomes exponentially complicated and after the 10 years you still get money back.
You mention all these general laws that would regulate corporations, without the need for rules specifically for corporations. But you forget most of them originate from these specific laws.
Contracts don't apply to children so corporations could not take advantage of them.
And for minimum wage, when you desperatly need money, for how little would you work? In this case corporations have all the power. Minimum wage just is a limit to that power. And don't say you can negotiate a higher wage, there are more unemployed where you came from.
Pollution laws are the only laws that could have arisen on their own, but I bet they would be a lot more effective if corporations didn't actively lobby against them.