Not at all. I am asking him to quantify is assertion with something. I then gave an example of the kind of evidence I would accept, because I think it provides a useful data point. Where did I ask for "scientific" evidence?
An electric car for me would have more than enough range. If the EV1 and other vehicles were manufactured to the scale that IC cars were, would they still be more expensive? The people who had the electric cars were desperate to keep them. Please cite your assertion that simple phyisics killed the electric car. Also please site your "to [sic] short a [sic] range", or provide some kind of quantitative analysis to demonstrate the validity of your assertion.
Since I saw the movie I have done some ad hoc interviewing and have yet to find anyone who needs a daily range beyond 100 miles except for the "road trip" condition. I know that there are people in other areas who commute beyond 100 miles per day, but I think this is a smaller percentage of commuters. So I tend to believe that 90% of commuters would be able to effectively use a 100-200 mile range electric car in order to take care of the vast majority of their transportation needs.
My experience is much the same. When I stopped eating sugar, but ate a lot of fat (mostly in the form of clarified butter, olive oil, and grapeseed oil), vegetables, brown basmati rice, and protein (fish and lentils), I could barely keep weight on. Mostly from a lot of calorie burning exercise I guess. I could eat as much as I wanted though and not gain weight. Now I am about 40 pounds heavier and have been eating a lot more sugar and processed foods. I exercise less, but still a lot, and have to really watch how much I eat or I'll gain weight. For me, the diet is the culprit, and now that I'm done with my Master's degree I can start having more time to do the simple things that matter, namely cooking and eating unprocessed foods every day, every meal. I'm hoping that one year from now I have dropped 30 lbs and am on my way back to the great health that I experienced previously.
You raise an interesting point . . . are you distressed that Cheney did not disclose the attendees of early energy policy meetings? Do you see that as the same thing as keeping individual private records private? Do you believe that all politicians have access to all information held by the IRS, FBI, and other government agencies and offices? I personally don't, there are protocols even in the civilian world that come down to "need to know". I will probably never wish to release my personal tax records to you. Perhaps if I were a Senator you would feel that it was your business for me to?
As for the campaign funding records, yes those should be transparent. In fact I would like to see it so that the government was the clearing house for campaign funds, and individuals could donate to the clearinghouse. All candidates who qualified (signatures, petitions, something) would split the pot evenly. The freedom of speech issue associated with campaign finance in my mind is bullshit. The freedom of speech begins and ends with a vote. By donating to a candidate one is able to weight their vote, making the wealthy minority a voting majority, and effectively undermining democratic principle.
But for other places I don't see the point - it's still going to be mostly dark in winter anyway.
winter = standard time
spring, summer, fall = daylight savings time
or, as a friend of mine used to call them, "dumb time" and "smart time" respectively. I somewhat agree with him, and think that if we just stayed on the 1pm is solar noon smart time forever we would be better off.
I wouldn't count on the VW high milage car hitting our market. As it is they do not sell their high milage TDI versions of their current fleet in the US. The equivalent gas engine VW gets 30mpg where the TDI version gets 40-45. Right now they have 70-85mpg cars (Polo and Lupo) which have not been brought to the US market. Perhaps the Jetta TDI will be here in 2009, but as of yet I haven't found the 2008 indicated here. In my mind we are keeping better cars out of our market based on "safety standards" that in effect let auto makers sell big profitable gas guzzlers here and keep the small efficient cars out of the way. But I'm a rather cantakerous conspiracy theorist nut.
With that said, even though you already have a high milage car, isn't another one on the market a good sign? Especially since the insight is no longer made.
Hey I'm a pretentious draft mon . . . er, architect you insensitive clod! And it's true that there are lots of us with little or no technical experience. Lucky for me my undergrad was AE, and I have built a few buildings on my own. Because in the academic world of architecture you learn nothing of how to build, or even how to design stucturally sound buildings. But you do get a lot of pedantic critiques. So I've got that goin' for me. Which is nice.
If California were as influential as you seem to think, we would all be able to drive all electric cars by now. Unfortunately the auto makers still hold more influence. There is not a car in the US market that I would buy right now. If VW would sell their entire line here, then I would buy the Polo (or something, it's the 70-85 mpg small TDI they sell). As it is, I'll stick to my current 15 year old guzzler and wait for automakers to get their heads out of their asses.
Who modded this insightful? This is the lowest common denomenator argument against electric vehicles . . . anyone not smart enough to see that there are myriad solutions to this should not be allowed to drive. The other segment proposing this as the killer to electric cars are of course the oil men. Thanks for the FUD though, there's not nearly enough of that these days.
An interesting point . . . 8 year old taunting Rottweiler through a fence with a stick? Is the fault of the parent of the 8 year old. The Rottweiler will die, and that will be two tragic events. The Rotts I have owned would most likely have stayed out of reach of said stick, or would have grabbed the stick and played with it, and the 8 year old would have been fine. The changes you subsequently make don't really change anything. The prefrontal cortex IIRC does not finish maturing until the age of 20 or so (early 20s perhaps), so the fault would lie still somewhat with the parents, though more of it with the teenaged kid. The dog would still be put to death. Any dog that reacts with that kind of rage should be. The dog owner would face a court case, and who knows how that would work out, given that the fence was tall.
But the reall problem is the comparison of Rottweiler (a domesticated animal) with a Tiger, even a tiger in a zoo. There is a normal expectation to be reasonably safe around domesticated animals, though when one taunts, kicks, or otherwise abuses them there is an expectation that one would be injured as a result. There should be no expectation of safety when taunting a wild animal, be it a deer, a racoon, or even a tiger, even when the tiger is behind a wall and a moat, and you are kept from the wall by a fence which signifies a "do not cross this line" point. The fact that this dude climbed the fence I think is the most salient point here . . . he acted to circumvent a portion of the safety precautions that the zoo put into place, and did so knowingly. I agree with the "poor tiger" sentiment. Tigers should be allowed to be tigers, and when I go to the zoo (with my young neices) my reaction is still "poor tigers".
Interesting. I was researching the steel industry from the 1880s to today, and it looks like it fits, with an interesting twist. The unions became a necessity because of the likes of Carnegie, helped the workers and grew powerful. Fast forward 40 years or so and the unions acted to cloy the ability for US Steel to keep up with technology. I had one guy tell me about how he would work a double shift, and basically sleep the second one, so that he could make more money. The position was required by the union because of the contract, but did not have any associated duties. The unions blocked any automation for fear that it would displace part of the existing workforce. So Japan took over the steel industry with very little resistance in the US. It looked to me that this was a fault of the unions, as they could not see how to work with management to keep the industry alive.
An interesting question with no easy answer. Basically I like to think that the people I hire are professionals who can disagree on a matter, and through careful dialog come to an agreement on the correct course of action. In the end, if this is not the case then something must be done. I have seen this happen and in those cases the team should act as moderator to resolve the issue. Falling back on the "I am the real boss and will make this decision" short circuits the benefits of the team dynamic.
Yes I agree with that. However, I was always telling my employees to send me their reports/issues/updates in email because I could keep track of things that way. So usually I would follow up a conversation with an employeee via email so that they could have the benefit as well. That said I still found it presumptuous to be told to do so by an employee when they should have been taking notes. But upon self reflection I wonder if this is some kind of egoistic holdover to a heirarchically arranged corporate structure, something that I have always preached against (preferring a team based arrangement where whoever has the expertise in the topical area is the "boss" of that piece).
My use of email requires the whole thread to be in the message body, out of convenience so that I can more easily browse the evolution of the issue(s). Yes it can happen in other ways, but for me it is most convenient when it is all there. This is why (or one reason) I don't like AOL and am irritated by people who use it . . . the conversation is missing from their replies.
I don't think "they" hanged Nazis for their ideas. Nazi war criminals were tried based on their actions. But it seems like there are a lot of people in the world who are willing to hang or persecute a person based on their ideas alone. This is what the Nazis (and others) did.
47000 feet yields good views, but they are still from those little airplane windows. Even views from cockpits are not that great . . . unless they're in a Mig 24 (a guy I used to work with flew one, he was most impressed by the "great vis"). Every time I fly, and spend more than a few minutes trying to focus on something outside the airplane window I get a headache. I didn't read the article, so perhaps they will actually have cameras etc. mounted outside the plane, but in that case why include the scientist payload . . . they (or most of them) could just wait back on the ground.
I don't recall mentioning any hand signals. But yes, this is good advice to all cyclists. I started out (years ago) with a sense of righteousness and would signal to cars who were driving improperly around me. This was about as helpful as cars honking at cyclists that they feel are driving improperly. It is just stupid, and something that for the last few years I have stopped. I just ignore any honks, and also ignore those who try to scare me by the shenanigans in my first post. That doesn't mean I like it, and it doesn't mean it's ok. Driving that way around cyclists is nothing less than attempted murder, and my point is that in the heat of the moment people will act this way, regardless of my actions.
Perhaps after this delay nobody but you will see this (ok by me).
I'm not complaining about cars speeding up to get past me, that is how I drive (rarely) around bikes, and how I prefer it while riding. But some cars will swerve towards you (perhaps you missed that part in my first post) in an attempt to (presumably) scare me because they believe (as others have posted below) that bikes should not be allowed on the roadway.
As a pedestrian, I have had incidents where cars are irritated that I am (legally, and not jaywalking) crossing in front of them while they are at a stop sign . . . this is in residential areas, and they barely stop and accelerate through the intersection at me.
It would be a mistake to assume that I would kill anyone for frustrating me/pissing me off. Nice troll, there, and way to have a reasonable dialog about this.
I don't know how rare . . . maybe with guns but not with cars. I walk/bike exclusively and at least once per week am confronted with angry drivers who speed up and swerve towards me. Now, they are counting on not hitting me, but are acting in a way that removes any tolerance for error. So if I trip, or swerve, then I'm dead. People who are frustrated and or angry are capable of doing almost anything. And the US is becoming a country full of people who are frustrated and or angry.
Slashdot Mirror
Not at all. I am asking him to quantify is assertion with something. I then gave an example of the kind of evidence I would accept, because I think it provides a useful data point. Where did I ask for "scientific" evidence?
An electric car for me would have more than enough range. If the EV1 and other vehicles were manufactured to the scale that IC cars were, would they still be more expensive? The people who had the electric cars were desperate to keep them. Please cite your assertion that simple phyisics killed the electric car. Also please site your "to [sic] short a [sic] range", or provide some kind of quantitative analysis to demonstrate the validity of your assertion.
Since I saw the movie I have done some ad hoc interviewing and have yet to find anyone who needs a daily range beyond 100 miles except for the "road trip" condition. I know that there are people in other areas who commute beyond 100 miles per day, but I think this is a smaller percentage of commuters. So I tend to believe that 90% of commuters would be able to effectively use a 100-200 mile range electric car in order to take care of the vast majority of their transportation needs.
My experience is much the same. When I stopped eating sugar, but ate a lot of fat (mostly in the form of clarified butter, olive oil, and grapeseed oil), vegetables, brown basmati rice, and protein (fish and lentils), I could barely keep weight on. Mostly from a lot of calorie burning exercise I guess. I could eat as much as I wanted though and not gain weight. Now I am about 40 pounds heavier and have been eating a lot more sugar and processed foods. I exercise less, but still a lot, and have to really watch how much I eat or I'll gain weight. For me, the diet is the culprit, and now that I'm done with my Master's degree I can start having more time to do the simple things that matter, namely cooking and eating unprocessed foods every day, every meal. I'm hoping that one year from now I have dropped 30 lbs and am on my way back to the great health that I experienced previously.
You raise an interesting point . . . are you distressed that Cheney did not disclose the attendees of early energy policy meetings? Do you see that as the same thing as keeping individual private records private? Do you believe that all politicians have access to all information held by the IRS, FBI, and other government agencies and offices? I personally don't, there are protocols even in the civilian world that come down to "need to know". I will probably never wish to release my personal tax records to you. Perhaps if I were a Senator you would feel that it was your business for me to?
As for the campaign funding records, yes those should be transparent. In fact I would like to see it so that the government was the clearing house for campaign funds, and individuals could donate to the clearinghouse. All candidates who qualified (signatures, petitions, something) would split the pot evenly. The freedom of speech issue associated with campaign finance in my mind is bullshit. The freedom of speech begins and ends with a vote. By donating to a candidate one is able to weight their vote, making the wealthy minority a voting majority, and effectively undermining democratic principle.
But for other places I don't see the point - it's still going to be mostly dark in winter anyway.
winter = standard time
spring, summer, fall = daylight savings time
or, as a friend of mine used to call them, "dumb time" and "smart time" respectively. I somewhat agree with him, and think that if we just stayed on the 1pm is solar noon smart time forever we would be better off.
well played sir.
you probably think someone has to strike before you can retaliate. noob.
I guess I'm a supergenious, but I had no difficulty in understanding your comparison.
I wouldn't count on the VW high milage car hitting our market. As it is they do not sell their high milage TDI versions of their current fleet in the US. The equivalent gas engine VW gets 30mpg where the TDI version gets 40-45. Right now they have 70-85mpg cars (Polo and Lupo) which have not been brought to the US market. Perhaps the Jetta TDI will be here in 2009, but as of yet I haven't found the 2008 indicated here. In my mind we are keeping better cars out of our market based on "safety standards" that in effect let auto makers sell big profitable gas guzzlers here and keep the small efficient cars out of the way. But I'm a rather cantakerous conspiracy theorist nut.
With that said, even though you already have a high milage car, isn't another one on the market a good sign? Especially since the insight is no longer made.
Hey I'm a pretentious draft mon . . . er, architect you insensitive clod! And it's true that there are lots of us with little or no technical experience. Lucky for me my undergrad was AE, and I have built a few buildings on my own. Because in the academic world of architecture you learn nothing of how to build, or even how to design stucturally sound buildings. But you do get a lot of pedantic critiques. So I've got that goin' for me. Which is nice.
If California were as influential as you seem to think, we would all be able to drive all electric cars by now. Unfortunately the auto makers still hold more influence. There is not a car in the US market that I would buy right now. If VW would sell their entire line here, then I would buy the Polo (or something, it's the 70-85 mpg small TDI they sell). As it is, I'll stick to my current 15 year old guzzler and wait for automakers to get their heads out of their asses.
Who modded this insightful? This is the lowest common denomenator argument against electric vehicles . . . anyone not smart enough to see that there are myriad solutions to this should not be allowed to drive. The other segment proposing this as the killer to electric cars are of course the oil men. Thanks for the FUD though, there's not nearly enough of that these days.
Errr, so you mean yes then?
An interesting point . . . 8 year old taunting Rottweiler through a fence with a stick? Is the fault of the parent of the 8 year old. The Rottweiler will die, and that will be two tragic events. The Rotts I have owned would most likely have stayed out of reach of said stick, or would have grabbed the stick and played with it, and the 8 year old would have been fine. The changes you subsequently make don't really change anything. The prefrontal cortex IIRC does not finish maturing until the age of 20 or so (early 20s perhaps), so the fault would lie still somewhat with the parents, though more of it with the teenaged kid. The dog would still be put to death. Any dog that reacts with that kind of rage should be. The dog owner would face a court case, and who knows how that would work out, given that the fence was tall.
But the reall problem is the comparison of Rottweiler (a domesticated animal) with a Tiger, even a tiger in a zoo. There is a normal expectation to be reasonably safe around domesticated animals, though when one taunts, kicks, or otherwise abuses them there is an expectation that one would be injured as a result. There should be no expectation of safety when taunting a wild animal, be it a deer, a racoon, or even a tiger, even when the tiger is behind a wall and a moat, and you are kept from the wall by a fence which signifies a "do not cross this line" point. The fact that this dude climbed the fence I think is the most salient point here . . . he acted to circumvent a portion of the safety precautions that the zoo put into place, and did so knowingly. I agree with the "poor tiger" sentiment. Tigers should be allowed to be tigers, and when I go to the zoo (with my young neices) my reaction is still "poor tigers".
Interesting. I was researching the steel industry from the 1880s to today, and it looks like it fits, with an interesting twist. The unions became a necessity because of the likes of Carnegie, helped the workers and grew powerful. Fast forward 40 years or so and the unions acted to cloy the ability for US Steel to keep up with technology. I had one guy tell me about how he would work a double shift, and basically sleep the second one, so that he could make more money. The position was required by the union because of the contract, but did not have any associated duties. The unions blocked any automation for fear that it would displace part of the existing workforce. So Japan took over the steel industry with very little resistance in the US. It looked to me that this was a fault of the unions, as they could not see how to work with management to keep the industry alive.
An interesting question with no easy answer. Basically I like to think that the people I hire are professionals who can disagree on a matter, and through careful dialog come to an agreement on the correct course of action. In the end, if this is not the case then something must be done. I have seen this happen and in those cases the team should act as moderator to resolve the issue. Falling back on the "I am the real boss and will make this decision" short circuits the benefits of the team dynamic.
Yes I agree with that. However, I was always telling my employees to send me their reports/issues/updates in email because I could keep track of things that way. So usually I would follow up a conversation with an employeee via email so that they could have the benefit as well. That said I still found it presumptuous to be told to do so by an employee when they should have been taking notes. But upon self reflection I wonder if this is some kind of egoistic holdover to a heirarchically arranged corporate structure, something that I have always preached against (preferring a team based arrangement where whoever has the expertise in the topical area is the "boss" of that piece).
My use of email requires the whole thread to be in the message body, out of convenience so that I can more easily browse the evolution of the issue(s). Yes it can happen in other ways, but for me it is most convenient when it is all there. This is why (or one reason) I don't like AOL and am irritated by people who use it . . . the conversation is missing from their replies.
I don't think "they" hanged Nazis for their ideas. Nazi war criminals were tried based on their actions. But it seems like there are a lot of people in the world who are willing to hang or persecute a person based on their ideas alone. This is what the Nazis (and others) did.
Truly funny.
47000 feet yields good views, but they are still from those little airplane windows. Even views from cockpits are not that great . . . unless they're in a Mig 24 (a guy I used to work with flew one, he was most impressed by the "great vis"). Every time I fly, and spend more than a few minutes trying to focus on something outside the airplane window I get a headache. I didn't read the article, so perhaps they will actually have cameras etc. mounted outside the plane, but in that case why include the scientist payload . . . they (or most of them) could just wait back on the ground.
Thanks, I was too lazy to look them up again, mostly because I never really understand the difference. But I did find this comparison
Don't current adsorption chillers use solar heat/ molten salt? A pretty week summary but perhaps someone out there knows how this works . . .
I don't recall mentioning any hand signals. But yes, this is good advice to all cyclists. I started out (years ago) with a sense of righteousness and would signal to cars who were driving improperly around me. This was about as helpful as cars honking at cyclists that they feel are driving improperly. It is just stupid, and something that for the last few years I have stopped. I just ignore any honks, and also ignore those who try to scare me by the shenanigans in my first post. That doesn't mean I like it, and it doesn't mean it's ok. Driving that way around cyclists is nothing less than attempted murder, and my point is that in the heat of the moment people will act this way, regardless of my actions.
Perhaps after this delay nobody but you will see this (ok by me).
/pissing me off. Nice troll, there, and way to have a reasonable dialog about this.
I'm not complaining about cars speeding up to get past me, that is how I drive (rarely) around bikes, and how I prefer it while riding. But some cars will swerve towards you (perhaps you missed that part in my first post) in an attempt to (presumably) scare me because they believe (as others have posted below) that bikes should not be allowed on the roadway.
As a pedestrian, I have had incidents where cars are irritated that I am (legally, and not jaywalking) crossing in front of them while they are at a stop sign . . . this is in residential areas, and they barely stop and accelerate through the intersection at me.
It would be a mistake to assume that I would kill anyone for frustrating me
I don't know how rare . . . maybe with guns but not with cars. I walk/bike exclusively and at least once per week am confronted with angry drivers who speed up and swerve towards me. Now, they are counting on not hitting me, but are acting in a way that removes any tolerance for error. So if I trip, or swerve, then I'm dead. People who are frustrated and or angry are capable of doing almost anything. And the US is becoming a country full of people who are frustrated and or angry.