As noted by someone else, you are incorrect about requiring an ATP to carry passengers. You can hire a commercial pilot to fly your plane, or a rented plane. You can charter an aircraft (including pilot) from any number of places,that operate under part 135 instead of part 121 (scheduled service).
With regard to type ratings, this is also incorrect--those are only required for aircraft larger than 12,500 pounds. To put that into perspective, a Cessna Caravan (capable of being configured to haul 9 passengers) weighs less than 9,000 lbs fully loaded.
I'm not for the government on this issue, or the no fly list, I'm just pointing out that cell phones are not a necessity.
I tend to agree in principle, but I would point out that they CAN be necessities. When you job, for example, requires you to have one so you are reachable after hours. This is no longer a "luxury."
None of that applies if what you need is thermal power - which is most of heavy industry (something like 1/4 of the US's total power consumption is direct thermal use of burning fuels in heavy industry). Refining aluminum or iron from asteroids made of the stuff? A polished Al reflector 100m square gives you 10MW, 1 km on a side and you've got 1 GW, and you've got basically unlimited Al to work with.
I'm not going to delve into your debate (suffice to say that I agree with the general notion that our species future involves NOT being tied to this rock we call home, and the suggestion that this is all a waste of time is head in the sand thinking) but the above claim is NOT as simple as you make it sound. Thought experiment: you use nice pretty reflectors to smelt aluminium. You now have a ball (or, more likely, an expanding cloud) of +/- 700C molten metal.
How do you plan to cast (and, more importantly, cool!) that into a usable finished good without gravity and an atmosphere working in your favor? I understand that removing gravity from this equation has some interesting possibilities from a weight/strength point of view (even though the techniques for doing so simply don't exist) but there is no getting away from needing to cool down the material you're trying to fabricate. There's only one way to do that in space, and building radiators the size of Hoover Dam is not a trivial undertaking (and you can't fabricate the first set of those in space--they have to be fabricated somewhere you can cool them down).
I'm not saying we should shitcan the whole idea, but the "Futurist" camp really has to stop talking about how trivial things are once we get most of the way out of the gravity well, just as much as the other side of the argument needs to adjust their thinking.
This is the same argument that the government makes about the no fly list ("Flying is not a right, and you can always walk, drive, take a boat, or go fuck yourself hard enough that the force thereof will accelerate you to near light speed and you'll get there faster than the plane would"). Let me rephrase it for you: "You can have all of the rights guaranteed to you by the constitution, as long as you choose not to participate in the modern world."
That argument might work for the Amish, but it sure as hell doesn't pass the smell test with anyone else.
What fucking map have you seen with north and s America and not the rest of the world ?
Probably a map of the western hemisphere, which would neatly explain why things were "cut off."
To the jackass who thinks this is some kind of americacentric view, please rest assured that we do have maps of the rest of the world, and show them to our school children regularly. That's the fun thing about maps: you use different maps for different purposes. We also have running water, indoor plumbing, and some guy down the road has a magic moving picture box in his home that occasionally shows us views off far of Europe, Africa, and other exotic locales.
Thanks for more than a one liner, but I've gotta ask: what, exactly, does that have to do with batteries? Batteries are, in fact, extremely recyclable--they are probably the poster child for recycling, since the whole damn battery gets reused in the process and (unlike aluminum recycling) the process is not especially energy intensive. If I wanted to call a physical product "renewable" the battery would probably be the first thing that came to mind.
FWIW, I do agree with your general hatred of the abuse of the term, but in this case, it actually does fit.
No you don't. You just want strangers on the Internet to think you do.
I agree with your assessment. I'm a firm believer in the 2nd amendment, but I'm pretty horrified when someone suggests we need it due to something as trivial as copyright law. Anybody advocating for an armed revolution should think long and hard about the last time we did that, and at modern examples. The outcome would be catastrophic (even if (or maybe especially if) "the people" "won"), and one need look no further than somewhere like Syria to see the template for their new life.
That's not to say I advocate the relative comfort of slavery over a just war of independence, but there is a reason "the cartridge box" is listed last of the four boxes of liberty. All other options MUST be exhausted first.
Then the cop's probably don't either. They are not lawyers and the myriad of byzantine laws and exceptions in any jurisdiction can hardly be comprehended by the judges and lawyers whose job it is to adjudicate them. I would guess it would be a legitimate mistake with the only exception would be meter maids who are supposed to know the scope of parking laws they enforce.
If cops don't know what the law is, why would they be writing citations for claimed infractions? How about "If you don't know that something is illegal, you don't write tickets/arrest people for it?" Will society collapse because of that?
On the one hand, I kinda agree with you. Let the cops issue whatever tickets they want, and let it be hashed out in the courts. It's no different from letting anyone sue anyone else for anything, and letting it get hashed out in the courts.
The problem is that court costs (which, IIRC, were only assessed in the past if you LOST your hearing) are now assessed by many courts regardless of outcome. So you can go to court (time off work, misc expenses like fuel, parking, etc) and "win" your case and get the $50 ticket thrown out, and be assessed with $125 of court costs. You come out far worse off than had you just paid the phony ticket to begin with.
Note - all numbers above are rectally extracted, but do reflect relative reality in many municipalities.
You'd be an idiot to throw large batteries into a landfill--and not only for environmental reasons, but because there is a significant value to the components of even a lead acid battery, much less something more advanced.
It's not censorship. Facebook is not restricting freedom of speech nor are they preventing anyone, anywhere from publishing content of any type in any manner of their choosing.
You seem to be one of those people that is incapable of divorcing the concept of "censorship" from "first amendment violation." Here's a hint: Facebook is censoring stories on their platform. There is a word for that. Whether they have the right to do that (they certainly do, it's their website!) is immaterial to whether or not it is censorship.
I had to read this about six times to understand it, but what I THINK he is saying is:
x/j = total subsidies for renewable power divided by total joules of renewable power produced y/j = total subsidies for fossil power divided by total joules of fossil power produced
x/j > y/j is his desired outcome, and, further, the ratio of x/j : y/j must automatically increase over time so that y is eventually eliminated.
To use a car analogy hey, it's slashdot AND it's a thread about cars) to what you're suggesting above, "someone ran a jeep cherokee into a crowd of people. Let's get all these cars off the road."
To the point you're actually trying to make, though, I'll say this: there's a firearm for every person in the US. Banning them will never achieve what gun control advocates say it will, it will only disarm the law abiding while criminals will have access to them for centuries to come.
It depends on they type of crash. I had a friend who was driving a 65 T-bird when a driver going the other way fell asleep and crossed over and hit him head on. The other car was a Chevy Beretta, which had a 5 star head on rating crash at the time. My friend was fine, other than being shaken up. The other driver was pronounced dead at the scene.
While the dynamics of all crashes are different, I''m just going to drop this right here. Moderns vehicles are designed from the ground up to sacrifice the car for the safety of the passengers. Older vehicles were not.
Your new car will be totaled in any significant accident, while your land yacht may just need a hammer, some bondo, and some paint, but the humans in a modern vehicle are much, much safer.
Yes, because designing a device or facility at any size to be operated and maintained for 2,000 to 1,000,000 years would be so simple to do. Right?
Snarky answer: you could site such a facility in high latitudes or high in the mountains, or underground.
Even at the low end (10C for 2,000 years) that could be considered much, much more "intense" than existing data center solutions.
Serious answer: you don't have to build the storage device to survive for two millennia, that is, if not impossible, at least wildly improbable. You could, however, build the storage device to survive for five to ten years without too much engineering effort. Falling back on my snarky answer above, you could site your facility in an old salt mine (some of which are already used for archival storage) where the temperatures are already below 20C year round and either accept whatever your shelf life is at that temp (I don't know what it is) or engineer a (probably fairly trivial) solution to get you the rest of the way to the 10C target.
So, the article claims 2000 year data life at 10C, and 1,000,000 year data life at -18C. That doesn't exactly sound like something that requires "cooling solutions and order of magnitude more intense that what is currently used to keep a data center running" especially since those temperatures can be localized to the storage device, rather than the general environment.
They're not even allowed to: the KBA will not approve any updates that has downsides for the owner. This is why the recall takes so long: VW have to prove for each and every model that there is no overall reduction in fuel efficiency or power under normal driving conditions.
So what you're saying is that this problem is never actually going to get fixed? I'm reasonably certain that if they had the ability to deliver a solution that could have provided the same power, and fuel efficiency, while lowering emissions to the point that the vehicle would pass the test honestly, they would have in the first place, so demanding a solution that achieves just that seems like little more than regulatory masturbation.
One annoying issue with Charter was the random monthly internet drop out. Worse is you try contacting customer support and they say your connection looks fine from their end. After 10-15 minutes of them trying to have you reboot your modem, computer, and light bulbs, they go "ohh, yeah, we can't contact your modem". WTF did you mean by "your connection looks fine" if you can't fk'n communicate with it?!
I read this and laughed, because that's my experience with them (random failures, etc). They suck on the internet side (lowest upstream of any provider other than DSL... even their 100mbit business plans only have 4mbit up) and they're even worse on the TV side.
Slashdot Mirror
As noted by someone else, you are incorrect about requiring an ATP to carry passengers. You can hire a commercial pilot to fly your plane, or a rented plane. You can charter an aircraft (including pilot) from any number of places,that operate under part 135 instead of part 121 (scheduled service).
With regard to type ratings, this is also incorrect--those are only required for aircraft larger than 12,500 pounds. To put that into perspective, a Cessna Caravan (capable of being configured to haul 9 passengers) weighs less than 9,000 lbs fully loaded.
PP-ASEL.
I'm not for the government on this issue, or the no fly list, I'm just pointing out that cell phones are not a necessity.
I tend to agree in principle, but I would point out that they CAN be necessities. When you job, for example, requires you to have one so you are reachable after hours. This is no longer a "luxury."
None of that applies if what you need is thermal power - which is most of heavy industry (something like 1/4 of the US's total power consumption is direct thermal use of burning fuels in heavy industry). Refining aluminum or iron from asteroids made of the stuff? A polished Al reflector 100m square gives you 10MW, 1 km on a side and you've got 1 GW, and you've got basically unlimited Al to work with.
I'm not going to delve into your debate (suffice to say that I agree with the general notion that our species future involves NOT being tied to this rock we call home, and the suggestion that this is all a waste of time is head in the sand thinking) but the above claim is NOT as simple as you make it sound. Thought experiment: you use nice pretty reflectors to smelt aluminium. You now have a ball (or, more likely, an expanding cloud) of +/- 700C molten metal.
How do you plan to cast (and, more importantly, cool!) that into a usable finished good without gravity and an atmosphere working in your favor? I understand that removing gravity from this equation has some interesting possibilities from a weight/strength point of view (even though the techniques for doing so simply don't exist) but there is no getting away from needing to cool down the material you're trying to fabricate. There's only one way to do that in space, and building radiators the size of Hoover Dam is not a trivial undertaking (and you can't fabricate the first set of those in space--they have to be fabricated somewhere you can cool them down).
I'm not saying we should shitcan the whole idea, but the "Futurist" camp really has to stop talking about how trivial things are once we get most of the way out of the gravity well, just as much as the other side of the argument needs to adjust their thinking.
This is the same argument that the government makes about the no fly list ("Flying is not a right, and you can always walk, drive, take a boat, or go fuck yourself hard enough that the force thereof will accelerate you to near light speed and you'll get there faster than the plane would"). Let me rephrase it for you: "You can have all of the rights guaranteed to you by the constitution, as long as you choose not to participate in the modern world."
That argument might work for the Amish, but it sure as hell doesn't pass the smell test with anyone else.
What fucking map have you seen with north and s America and not the rest of the world ?
Probably a map of the western hemisphere, which would neatly explain why things were "cut off."
To the jackass who thinks this is some kind of americacentric view, please rest assured that we do have maps of the rest of the world, and show them to our school children regularly. That's the fun thing about maps: you use different maps for different purposes. We also have running water, indoor plumbing, and some guy down the road has a magic moving picture box in his home that occasionally shows us views off far of Europe, Africa, and other exotic locales.
Thanks for more than a one liner, but I've gotta ask: what, exactly, does that have to do with batteries? Batteries are, in fact, extremely recyclable--they are probably the poster child for recycling, since the whole damn battery gets reused in the process and (unlike aluminum recycling) the process is not especially energy intensive. If I wanted to call a physical product "renewable" the battery would probably be the first thing that came to mind.
FWIW, I do agree with your general hatred of the abuse of the term, but in this case, it actually does fit.
No you don't. You just want strangers on the Internet to think you do.
I agree with your assessment. I'm a firm believer in the 2nd amendment, but I'm pretty horrified when someone suggests we need it due to something as trivial as copyright law. Anybody advocating for an armed revolution should think long and hard about the last time we did that, and at modern examples. The outcome would be catastrophic (even if (or maybe especially if) "the people" "won"), and one need look no further than somewhere like Syria to see the template for their new life.
That's not to say I advocate the relative comfort of slavery over a just war of independence, but there is a reason "the cartridge box" is listed last of the four boxes of liberty. All other options MUST be exhausted first.
The sad thing is that the Supreme Court ruled recently (last year, IIRC) that ignorance of the law is, indeed, an excuse if you are the police.
Some animals are, indeed, more equal than others.
Then the cop's probably don't either. They are not lawyers and the myriad of byzantine laws and exceptions in any jurisdiction can hardly be comprehended by the judges and lawyers whose job it is to adjudicate them. I would guess it would be a legitimate mistake with the only exception would be meter maids who are supposed to know the scope of parking laws they enforce.
If cops don't know what the law is, why would they be writing citations for claimed infractions? How about "If you don't know that something is illegal, you don't write tickets/arrest people for it?" Will society collapse because of that?
On the one hand, I kinda agree with you. Let the cops issue whatever tickets they want, and let it be hashed out in the courts. It's no different from letting anyone sue anyone else for anything, and letting it get hashed out in the courts.
The problem is that court costs (which, IIRC, were only assessed in the past if you LOST your hearing) are now assessed by many courts regardless of outcome. So you can go to court (time off work, misc expenses like fuel, parking, etc) and "win" your case and get the $50 ticket thrown out, and be assessed with $125 of court costs. You come out far worse off than had you just paid the phony ticket to begin with.
Note - all numbers above are rectally extracted, but do reflect relative reality in many municipalities.
Recycled is not the same thing as renewable.
Close enough, in this instance (I can make short claims with no substance, too).
You'd be an idiot to throw large batteries into a landfill--and not only for environmental reasons, but because there is a significant value to the components of even a lead acid battery, much less something more advanced.
Batteries aren't.
You'd better get down to the battery recycling center and let them know that they're making a horrible mistake.
Unless it's slow by a minute, then it's wrong all day.
If it's slow by a minute, it's not broken,
broken
adjective
having been fractured or damaged and no longer in one piece or in working order
non sequitur /nän sekwdr/
noun a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement.
It's not censorship. Facebook is not restricting freedom of speech nor are they preventing anyone, anywhere from publishing content of any type in any manner of their choosing.
You seem to be one of those people that is incapable of divorcing the concept of "censorship" from "first amendment violation." Here's a hint: Facebook is censoring stories on their platform. There is a word for that. Whether they have the right to do that (they certainly do, it's their website!) is immaterial to whether or not it is censorship.
I had to read this about six times to understand it, but what I THINK he is saying is:
x/j = total subsidies for renewable power divided by total joules of renewable power produced
y/j = total subsidies for fossil power divided by total joules of fossil power produced
x/j > y/j is his desired outcome, and, further, the ratio of x/j : y/j must automatically increase over time so that y is eventually eliminated.
...I think.
What about recalling guns? Save more lives... ;-)
To use a car analogy hey, it's slashdot AND it's a thread about cars) to what you're suggesting above, "someone ran a jeep cherokee into a crowd of people. Let's get all these cars off the road."
To the point you're actually trying to make, though, I'll say this: there's a firearm for every person in the US. Banning them will never achieve what gun control advocates say it will, it will only disarm the law abiding while criminals will have access to them for centuries to come.
It depends on they type of crash. I had a friend who was driving a 65 T-bird when a driver going the other way fell asleep and crossed over and hit him head on. The other car was a Chevy Beretta, which had a 5 star head on rating crash at the time. My friend was fine, other than being shaken up. The other driver was pronounced dead at the scene.
While the dynamics of all crashes are different, I''m just going to drop this right here. Moderns vehicles are designed from the ground up to sacrifice the car for the safety of the passengers. Older vehicles were not.
Your new car will be totaled in any significant accident, while your land yacht may just need a hammer, some bondo, and some paint, but the humans in a modern vehicle are much, much safer.
Unless you're talking about a penis transplant (an addadicktomy), in which case it makes perfect sense :-)
Given that many (most?) men often think with their penises, I'm still voting for "body transplant." :)
BTW, kudos on having the most commented journal post I've ever seen.
Yes, because designing a device or facility at any size to be operated and maintained for 2,000 to 1,000,000 years would be so simple to do. Right?
Snarky answer: you could site such a facility in high latitudes or high in the mountains, or underground.
Even at the low end (10C for 2,000 years) that could be considered much, much more "intense" than existing data center solutions.
Serious answer: you don't have to build the storage device to survive for two millennia, that is, if not impossible, at least wildly improbable. You could, however, build the storage device to survive for five to ten years without too much engineering effort. Falling back on my snarky answer above, you could site your facility in an old salt mine (some of which are already used for archival storage) where the temperatures are already below 20C year round and either accept whatever your shelf life is at that temp (I don't know what it is) or engineer a (probably fairly trivial) solution to get you the rest of the way to the 10C target.
So, the article claims 2000 year data life at 10C, and 1,000,000 year data life at -18C. That doesn't exactly sound like something that requires "cooling solutions and order of magnitude more intense that what is currently used to keep a data center running" especially since those temperatures can be localized to the storage device, rather than the general environment.
They're not even allowed to: the KBA will not approve any updates that has downsides for the owner. This is why the recall takes so long: VW have to prove for each and every model that there is no overall reduction in fuel efficiency or power under normal driving conditions.
So what you're saying is that this problem is never actually going to get fixed? I'm reasonably certain that if they had the ability to deliver a solution that could have provided the same power, and fuel efficiency, while lowering emissions to the point that the vehicle would pass the test honestly, they would have in the first place, so demanding a solution that achieves just that seems like little more than regulatory masturbation.
FWIW, I think you've been (successfully) trolled.
One annoying issue with Charter was the random monthly internet drop out. Worse is you try contacting customer support and they say your connection looks fine from their end. After 10-15 minutes of them trying to have you reboot your modem, computer, and light bulbs, they go "ohh, yeah, we can't contact your modem". WTF did you mean by "your connection looks fine" if you can't fk'n communicate with it?!
I read this and laughed, because that's my experience with them (random failures, etc). They suck on the internet side (lowest upstream of any provider other than DSL... even their 100mbit business plans only have 4mbit up) and they're even worse on the TV side.