The result is absolutely not the same. The difference is that what everybody else did, "optimised for low NOx emissions during test conditions," you're optimizing performance all the time so that it has low enough emissions that when you run the test you pass. That is not at all the same result as detecting the test, and turning on the lower emissions mode, and then turning it off when the test is done.
That isn't at all "the same." It isn't even close to the same. And yes, the NOX emissions were much much higher under real-world conditions for otherwise comparable cars.
Here in the US with NOX they've been testing other manufacturers too, and nobody else has been found with cheat devices.
Gas mileage numbers are imperfect, and based on arbitrary driving patterns, but so far the main scandal is not playing out as "everybody was doing it but VW got caught." So far, the things VW is accused of, everybody else tested has been cleared.
This is a different issue than the main issue, but there is no need to falsely point fingers at other companies.
And I for one am not going to believe VW at all. If they tried to cheat CO2 like they said, and failed to move the numbers, as they're now claiming, I'll wait until I hear it from an independent investigator. They're known, admitted liars who have yet to even make a public accounting of what the truth is and who did what. It may be that they knew they tried to cheat the CO2 numbers, and admitted it at the right time to shield the executives remaining currently, and then later decided "gosh, I don't think they can quite prove this, lets walk it back." They admitted tampering with the CO2 numbers for 800,000 cars, now they're saying, "Gosh, we tested a few of those cars and they're `good enough for us'." I'm more inclined to believe that they did in fact uncover internal evidence of tampering on those vehicles than that they just accidentally accused themselves of it.
I thought the big deal was all the NOx they were releasing was way above normal.
Yeah, I don't think this attempt at damage control is going to do anything but show they're still dishonest. They're just trying to make sure that the public understands that their brand is permanently tainted, and there will be no period of repentance, contrition, or penitence.
No, the grammar was correct and the correct meaning is also the most literal.
Sloppy readers were easily confused, and clicked "reply" instead of just re-parsing when they hit the "I don't understand that" part. If it sounds absurdly wrong, the first question should always be "did it say what I thought it said?" They should at least do the double-take before deciding it is wrong.
I disagree with the presumed sentiment, but I think it accurately represents the dispute. I would say yes, seventeen is still only a few. They were there for a few years, other people came, and it has been a few years since. And this isn't land that the protesters owned when Hawaii became a State. They're presuming ownership based on race. It is just like if I, as an American, go to France and start complaining that I'm part Gualish and therefore I have a claim to parts of France that my ancestors controlled. That there were "no English people" at the time is hilarious; there were no Hawaiian people in Hawaii yet even after "discovery," because the English spelling had not yet been coined. That is the only sense in which there were not already "English people" seventeen hundred years ago. Somebody go remind the English that the Romans never invaded England, because they hadn't established national unity and agreed on a name yet.
It seems obvious that if the other 12 observatories are going to be allowed to remain, and the University was truly the organization given the responsibility to manage the land, then the University can also build another one. And that is all true, and they can. This is why the people associated with the project were not running around crying, they were just slightly bummed out about the added delay.
The only thing going on here with this ruling is that people made a stink, and the Hawaiian court made a ruling about process. Basically, this is one of those situation where public hearings were held, they were attended by involved parties, and not a single complaint was raised, and so the project sailed through the public comment phase. Then later, when construction began, people started protesting. So the Court is just making them go back and re-do the initial public comment process. There is nothing about the plans that is likely going to be required to be changed, and there is nothing about the process that is being repeated that has a significant chance of derailing the project. It is just a delay. The protesters will now have to attend the re-do public hearings and convince fellow Hawaiians that they don't want to have the awesomest telescope in the world. And then the University will make the decision. Nothing has been raised in the protests that, if true, would change the decision. Some Hawaiians are against all access to people of the wrong races to the mountains, and that has always been the case. But that is unlikely to persuade those others.
The only thing I would hate worse than documenting my code would be watching a video about documenting code.
If they video, which there is no chance I would watch, is about dictating documentation into a voice-recognition system then I'll apologize because I have no idea about if that is a good idea or not. But assuming that the documentation in question is normal written documentation that is written by writing then having a video about it sounds pretty stupid to me.
If people didn't hate writing documentation so badly, maybe they could find a volunteer that would make a transcript, then when people are writing documentation they can use the information asynchronously.
No, those are fake problems. Building down is more expensive that building out, but it is not the impossible problem you believe. It is already done around the world. The cost of property is also balanced by the cost of parking; parking is more expensive in places where land is more expensive. And you don't destroy neighborhoods, buildings do indeed go up and down on a regular bases in cities, and many cities require the inclusion of parking in new construction.
The financial challenges are fake, because they scale. And to the extent that there is an existing mismatch that creates a problem, that problem will drive the balance; the less parking there is, the more valuable parking is, the more lucrative it is to have a couple stories of parking garage hidden away in the windowless core of an office building. There are many problems relating to public planning and pollution management that are not easily solved by markets. But this part can indeed be solved by markets, proven by the fact that it is happening in many places.
As for building new arcologies "far outside existing cities," I just assume that if somebody narrows my claims to things that I would agree are stupid ideas, then it isn't applicable to my claim at all and doesn't need analysis. For one thing, they wouldn't be arcologies, they would just be planned cities. For another thing, the ones I talked about are all things that are inside cities; often in the downtown urban core, or near it, or at least making up a neighborhood core in a city.
And Le Corbusier's buildings only speak to Le Corbusier. Google his work and you'll see it is primarily Modern cement monoliths, similar to what you would see in any former Soviet republic. They're ugly monstrosities that look just like the standard things built in his day. But it isn't relevant to any of this. He wasn't trying to solve this problem, and he wasn't creating arcologies. He was trying to solve the problem of the Parisian slums, to create planned developments that would increase the standard of living for the working poor. His large-scale plans for that were never realized, but he did build a bunch of individual developments around France that were largely successful at that limited goal. His concepts, though never original or unique, are the same concepts in use today in the construction of public housing. He did have large-scale urban planning ideas, but those were never built at all in France, and if you look at the one city-level project he ever did, Chandigarh, India, it is just a normal city without any arcologies.
My definition of coops is not a narrow US definition, I am using the standard definition as in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... The funny part about that claim is that in the US "coop" has no special meaning; it is entirely descriptive and as broad as the sky. Of the ones I was referring to, most have a central organizational entity that all members are owners of (the cooperative) and that organization has almost complete authority over the rules governing their shared whatever. In the US, groups like this have similar powers over themselves as a municipality, except that they have less restrictions on what types of rules they can adopt. But the most common type of coop in the US are probably agricultural coops where the farmers own their own farms, and have a cooperative that they jointly own, and the coop then owns the granges, factories, and brands. Most high quality cheese produced in the US is made by these types of groups, and many grain mills that serve small farmers are the same. We also have "employee-owned" retail chains that are organized as coops, but don't use the word. (the word is associated with "liberal" politics in the US, so is only used in retail if it is a specialty "health food" store) I'm curious... what is it that you think the "culturally narrow" US definition of coops is? In the 1970s there were many coops that could also be called "cults," where people lived isolated on farms with collective ownership of all property. Some of them still exist, and are still largely isolated from the rest of the world.
I was just talking about the standard SF use of asteroid fields where the field is a maze of closely tumbling rocks
Nobody has even presented an example. I've read over half the books from over half the famous "Golden Age" sci-fi authors, and it doesn't jump out to me as a standard thing. The example in TFA isn't a book, but the movie Star Wars. If it is an element of bad sci-fi movies, I wouldn't doubt that. But books? Is it even described as that when it exists in the book that the movie was based on? I haven't read Star Wars books, so I don't know about that example.
Electrostatic forces isn't going to mean that the aggregate isn't bouncing off your hull in my example scenario, it just means that many particles give you a single ping before sticking. Surely if the author is detailing the exact musical rhythm created by the particles they should take this into consideration, but I'm not sure I've ever read an author claiming it. The vast, vast majority of asteroid involvement in stories I've read has to do with dealing with small, widely spaced dust-like particles at a high speed, or situations like in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress where they're man-made weapons.
Without even a single example, I think this is an example of a meme that is based on a movie but is perceived as existing in books. Which books? Oh, those bad sci-fi books that I didn't read, of course.
And BTW, "human walking pace or slower" would produce exactly the sort of hull-pinging that is being slagged on. And many particles at that speed are not going to stick from electrostatic forces on the first hit; they might bounce a couple times.;)
OK, but you're just waving your hands and insisting that a conclusion is correct because your preferred authority (a blog by Tom Murphy hosted at a.edu domain) wrote some words. But it is actually just a chart listing options. And it is entirely circular to claim that because somebody enumerated options, and has columns containing cons, that therefore there are no alternatives that are viable. It is total nonsense, even if it was what your authority is trying to teach you.
Also, you're conflating different things. He's talking about alternatives to fossil fuels; we were talking about "peak oil" which is about petroleum, ie "oil", or rather, products made from the commodity called "crude oil." Hopefully in the context of the story which is about auto pollution in megacities and how to manage that. Currently, the biggest downward demand pressure on "oil" is "natural gas," which (for example) here in the US has displaced coal as the main source of electricity. You're not going to find out why "peak oil" is nonsense if you can't tell the difference between articles that discuss "oil" and articles that discuss all "fossil fuels."
So yes, I looked at it, and I'm rather disappointed that you refused to simply google it.
And furthermore, your expert doesn't even give what you claim; it isn't a "detailed description and why they all kinda suck in some way when compared to fossil fuels," rather it is a list with pros and cons that are in absolute terms, not relative to oil. Oil fares worse on many of the criteria than many of the alternatives listed, even if not in his chart. For example there is a column called "acceptance" and oil (and even coal!) are given a "green" rating, a good rating, on acceptance. So the defense to my claim that "peak oil" is a load a crap (in the predictions of doom) apparently includes the claim that coal is well-liked, as is oil. And yet wind is given a "yellow" rating for acceptance, because of "birds, noise, eyesore." It doesn't actually cause eyesore, and not everybody enjoys the look of oil drilling rigs. Or the sounds they make. Or other reasons that are more commonly given for disliking oil. Fuck, I mean, by any standard that has concern for birds from wind power as a problem for general acceptance then oil is already considered unacceptable, which is why there is even a conversation about acceptance. It points out that hydroelectric acceptance is "not universal," and by implication the unreserved "green" acceptance rating for coal implies it is universally accepted. Geothermal is not accepted by the public because it requires deep wells, according to this guy. Wow. Biofuel is not accepted because of "food/land competition," which is absurd. It is true that Castro gave a famous speech against biofuels on that basis, and that some people agree. But that only applies to certain sepecific types of biofuel; mainly the sort of government-funded research biofuel that would use corn. And yet the biofuel on the market is not from those sources. There is a "gas" station in my town that sells only bio-fuel, they're a regional chain and none of it is competing with food or taking up cropland. It is a totally specious claim. Wave generators are also given a yellow acceptance rating for "eyesore," but note that oil doesn't get an eyesore rating because of offshore oil rigs, which a basic google search would tell you is a real issue and the lack of acceptance prevents expansion into many areas that would otherwise be lucrative.
That's just one column. Other columns are equally crappy. Biofuel gets a yellow rating for difficulty, because of "gunk/disease" but that is a load of crap. Biofuel receives a lot of research, including into solving hard problems, but existing biofuel technologies are not complicated, and problems that were difficult in the past, such as cellulosic production, are not difficult when using the equipment and microbes that results from the research. I know hippies with no formal education (and few smarts) who manage to create their own biofuel
I've already been using chartreuse in most of my work, ever since I saw St. Wall using it in the `90s for his "home page." He's still doing it, and so am I. http://wall.org/~larry/
Client: Why is the site so ugly? Me: So that you'll hire a web designer to fix the CSS when I'm done with the backend:)
Speak for yourself, I'm still in the year of the linux desktop, and I'm still using a 90s-style desktop paradigm.
And in the browser if you use scriptblock, then sites without a traditional interface won't even look usable; you'll be spared entirely. The worst crap just obviously didn't load right, and you look for a site with legit content.
You don't have to devolve, just increase your lawn security.
Even Emacs is written in C. The idea that there is a fundamental difference is incorrect. The differences are subjective and related to the programmer experience and the set of metaphors that are used.
They're not talking about commercial exploration they're talking about commercial exploitation of the ISS, and the construction of anything similar to replace it.
From the article:
"We’re going to get out of ISS as quickly as we can,” said William Gerstenmaier, NASA’s chief of human spaceflight, last week. “Whether it gets filled in by the private sector or not, NASA’s vision is we’re trying to move out."
So it isn't really that they have some sort of plan that there is some important activity for commercial companies. That is clearly up to them to figure out. NASA is being supportive and communicative, and that is all. I think the real point is that there a bunch of companies clamoring for increased commercial access, and NASA is happy to oblige and coordinate with them, but NASA doesn't actually see anything left to do in LEO and isn't going to invest in that anymore. They're actually skeptical that there is a commercial reason, which is why it is phrased as, "Whether it gets filled in by the private sector or not."
And they want companies to think about buying the ISS because anybody at NASA would rather see it sold than scuttled, when the time comes. And it would take a lot of planning to put together the financing, so it isn't going to be a last minute purchase.
I read it as NASA not getting out of the ISS altogether - they're getting out of doing the supply stuff themselves.
So, you didn't read it? That's fine, but lol
My advice is to read it as what it says; they're getting out of the ISS itself when the time comes, and they're not going to replace it or do anything else like it in LEO. That science has already been done. There are lots of experiments that individual groups of academics would like to see done, but the important science that benefits from LEO is minimal and has been done already. An important experiment can also be sent up in a rocket and run like a satellite. Launch vehicles are commercially available now.
Important science that is left to be done is mostly things that require going farther out than LEO.
Oil is dirty and it sucks and other things are already cheaper. There is no need for a weird imagined oil supply catastrophe in order for people to switch to cheaper, cleaner, better fuel sources. That is happening already.
That's basic [your choice of internet search engine] material. I will enumerate it for you as far as to say, I'm only using the mainstream, top-shelf definition of "other things" in my statement. I am only talking about energy sources that are well known, and where is consensus that they exist, and that they are not oil. If you don't know of any, then start with reputable encyclopedic sources, don't just ask some random person on the internet.
The funny part, aren't you the same guy who claims in another post to work in a research center studying alternative energy? So you're just trolling here, then?
Right, you describe it as a false pejorative that you use pervasively. I say that proves you don't care about Justice. And I advise you that Justice is a positive thing, not a negative thing. The meaning of the word has only changed for you. For others, Justice means what it means; "justice" doesn't mean "false justice."
Can you truly not see how that harms people who are "actually discriminated against," or how it demeans people who are fighting for Justice for people who are "actually discriminated against?"
Park/ride doesn't work when the suburban density is already high enough that every spot where you'd like to put a parking lot is already lived on.
They build that just the same as other urban buildings, they build up and dig down. The way it is already is that there are huge multilevel parking structures in urban centers, and broad flat ones in the suburbs, and they're both Park & Ride. Urban density actually makes it more efficient.
Also, urban construction can be achieved easily. Somebody in a condo doesn't own the whole building, and can't obstruct construction. All it takes is allocating the money to make this happen in a city. Parking can be, will be, and is constructed wherever needed.
I've seen plenty of things that would count as an Arcology, but nobody calls them that because the people using the word are different people than the people building buildings and have different goals, and don't want to be perceived as each other.;) Heck, many modern high-rise buildings would count. Look at all the work being done with "living architecture," "urban greenspaces," and rooftop/balcony horticulture, nodal development, and "permaculture." There are private developments in my area that bill themselves as "permaculture coops" that are basically low-tech arcology installations. Arcology is a clumsy word lol! Where is the -ology? Anyways... permaculture coops are like apartment buildings with shared kitches, and builtin horticulture, composting, etc., and usually having a community-managed supply of bicycles including ones outfitted for hauling loads (like groceries). Notice for example that the wikipedia page for arcology has a larger section about "Similar real-world projects" than it does about the word itself, which represents a concept by architect Paolo Soleri. So it is natural that people don't use the word, because they're not doing it to copy Soleri, or because he convinced them, he was just a guy who talked about the same stuff in the past, and coined an awkward term.
Yeah, I hear local tinfoil hatters talking about wanting to use zoning laws to create neighborhood zones like you describe. Locally there is no support, but I assume there are people around the world with the same idea. I don't say they're tinfoil hatters for supporting this; that is just the small niche in my community that is discussing "city within city" concepts already. They're nuts in thinking the local community would do that with our zoning laws, but the idea is generally sound. In most places it will require new managed developments though, based on demand for it that will develop as traffic and pollution get worse. We do have zoning laws that allow for "nodal development" which is a lighter version where cars still have access, but services are clustered within walking distance.
If prices go up in the short term, they'll quickly stabilize, and the eventual balance point is likely to be much much cheaper than what is in place now, because of scaling and externalities. Oil has huge external costs, and that is without considering the controversial ones like war that may or may not be related. Just purely measuring direct externalities related to transporting the oil to refineries and to power/gas stations is a huge cost. Countries spend billions of dollars just on shipping terminals to subsidize the industry. Oils spills cause billions of dollars in economic damage to non-oil business. A lot of business leaders are on the same page as environmentalists, for totally different reasons, but they're not willing to be seen as such. We're not only near negative tipping points, we could be near positive ones that react to the negative ones. I'm not saying that will achieve any sort of balance or prevention, just that as things get worse, practical but too-late steps are likely to be taken. When it comes to air pollution, though, I predict success. Other environmental concerns will drive CO2 down and clean up the air incidentally.
Currently the places that would want the result of what you describe are mostly places that can't afford it.
It seems that most orbits would require passing through the imaginary "plane" (presumably we're talking about the plane of the mean center of the rings, there isn't an actual physical thing that is a plane) unless they're geostationary. It sounds like you said something, but it was so heavily hedged by that word that it has no meaning. Presumably your intent is to say that spacecraft in orbit around Saturn routinely pass outside the rings, and don't hit anything. That would all be expected. If you meant to say that they routinely pass through the rings, that would be at least relevant to the parent, though not my GP post. I would at least expect a person to be able to adapt their comment to the context in some minimal way.
It is obvious that a person who believes everything in my post would also agree that the rings of Saturn do not represent an area where loose aggregates are locally common.
So, space is big, things involving small objects are rare, therefore? I just don't see where you're going. Space is big, but small objects are locally common. You're talking about the distance between objects... in scenarios other than the one in my comment. Explain why the large space between objects means that if you disturb one of those objects, it won't turn into a cloud of pebbles that (because of the vast space between objects that you mention) will be more attracted to your hull than anything else, and will be pelting your... shields or whatever. If you're in motion you're not going to see a cloud of pebbles, because they are still stuck together into a dirty potato, sure. But there are all sorts of situations in a story where somebody else might have just disturbed that potato, not even just the situation I came up with.
Don't just repeat the sciencey memes without understanding the basics of the physics. None of the things you say apply to the scenario I described. Indeed, flying through the "rings" of Saturn is nothing like what I described. Though if you're going through at a high speed, single small particles are major impacts.
Electric motors are more efficient than ICE, it is silly to think that lack of energy is an impediment.
And so, let me get this straight, you think because the French nuclear industry is accused of making some mistakes or something, (not clicking your link, if you want to be taken seriously link to BBC or similar, otherwise you'll have to paraphrase the specific claims you want to recycle) well that is just daft. Are French power stations melting down or something? [checks news] Nope, everything is normal on that front. Looks like the nuclear power is still "good" in France, eh? We have to leave that determination up to the French, mostly. Our personal opinions don't make or break the success of French nuclear power.;)
If you think being the world market leader, and production leader, with a growing nuclear power program... is failure... hahahahahaha
Layoffs of consultants working on foreign investment projects has a lot to do with a lot of things, but it isn't a sign that nuclear power is somehow failing, or somehow too inefficient to replace... internal combustion.
That's fuckin rich right there. Oh, wait, you actually believe that? Let me laugh even harder at your stupidity.
I'd be curious what the counter-argument actually is... if I thought there was one.
We have direct democracy where I'm from, and we have however much Justice we want. Sometimes more, sometimes less. And the people fighting for Justice are invariably the "good guys." If you disagreed about the meaning of Justice, you'd still have to agree that Justice is good. Is there a counter-argument? Is it any good?
Slashdot Mirror
The result is absolutely not the same. The difference is that what everybody else did, "optimised for low NOx emissions during test conditions," you're optimizing performance all the time so that it has low enough emissions that when you run the test you pass. That is not at all the same result as detecting the test, and turning on the lower emissions mode, and then turning it off when the test is done.
That isn't at all "the same." It isn't even close to the same. And yes, the NOX emissions were much much higher under real-world conditions for otherwise comparable cars.
Here in the US with NOX they've been testing other manufacturers too, and nobody else has been found with cheat devices.
Gas mileage numbers are imperfect, and based on arbitrary driving patterns, but so far the main scandal is not playing out as "everybody was doing it but VW got caught." So far, the things VW is accused of, everybody else tested has been cleared.
This is a different issue than the main issue, but there is no need to falsely point fingers at other companies.
And I for one am not going to believe VW at all. If they tried to cheat CO2 like they said, and failed to move the numbers, as they're now claiming, I'll wait until I hear it from an independent investigator. They're known, admitted liars who have yet to even make a public accounting of what the truth is and who did what. It may be that they knew they tried to cheat the CO2 numbers, and admitted it at the right time to shield the executives remaining currently, and then later decided "gosh, I don't think they can quite prove this, lets walk it back." They admitted tampering with the CO2 numbers for 800,000 cars, now they're saying, "Gosh, we tested a few of those cars and they're `good enough for us'." I'm more inclined to believe that they did in fact uncover internal evidence of tampering on those vehicles than that they just accidentally accused themselves of it.
I thought the big deal was all the NOx they were releasing was way above normal.
Yeah, I don't think this attempt at damage control is going to do anything but show they're still dishonest. They're just trying to make sure that the public understands that their brand is permanently tainted, and there will be no period of repentance, contrition, or penitence.
No, the grammar was correct and the correct meaning is also the most literal.
Sloppy readers were easily confused, and clicked "reply" instead of just re-parsing when they hit the "I don't understand that" part. If it sounds absurdly wrong, the first question should always be "did it say what I thought it said?" They should at least do the double-take before deciding it is wrong.
I disagree with the presumed sentiment, but I think it accurately represents the dispute. I would say yes, seventeen is still only a few. They were there for a few years, other people came, and it has been a few years since. And this isn't land that the protesters owned when Hawaii became a State. They're presuming ownership based on race. It is just like if I, as an American, go to France and start complaining that I'm part Gualish and therefore I have a claim to parts of France that my ancestors controlled. That there were "no English people" at the time is hilarious; there were no Hawaiian people in Hawaii yet even after "discovery," because the English spelling had not yet been coined. That is the only sense in which there were not already "English people" seventeen hundred years ago. Somebody go remind the English that the Romans never invaded England, because they hadn't established national unity and agreed on a name yet.
It seems obvious that if the other 12 observatories are going to be allowed to remain, and the University was truly the organization given the responsibility to manage the land, then the University can also build another one. And that is all true, and they can. This is why the people associated with the project were not running around crying, they were just slightly bummed out about the added delay.
The only thing going on here with this ruling is that people made a stink, and the Hawaiian court made a ruling about process. Basically, this is one of those situation where public hearings were held, they were attended by involved parties, and not a single complaint was raised, and so the project sailed through the public comment phase. Then later, when construction began, people started protesting. So the Court is just making them go back and re-do the initial public comment process. There is nothing about the plans that is likely going to be required to be changed, and there is nothing about the process that is being repeated that has a significant chance of derailing the project. It is just a delay. The protesters will now have to attend the re-do public hearings and convince fellow Hawaiians that they don't want to have the awesomest telescope in the world. And then the University will make the decision. Nothing has been raised in the protests that, if true, would change the decision. Some Hawaiians are against all access to people of the wrong races to the mountains, and that has always been the case. But that is unlikely to persuade those others.
The only thing I would hate worse than documenting my code would be watching a video about documenting code.
If they video, which there is no chance I would watch, is about dictating documentation into a voice-recognition system then I'll apologize because I have no idea about if that is a good idea or not. But assuming that the documentation in question is normal written documentation that is written by writing then having a video about it sounds pretty stupid to me.
If people didn't hate writing documentation so badly, maybe they could find a volunteer that would make a transcript, then when people are writing documentation they can use the information asynchronously.
I've got the hurd docs nearly done but I'm not quite there yet.
Okay, but you've only got 5 years left until my decadal query, "is the Hurd here yet?"
Hurry up, 5 years goes fast in the age brackets of probable Hurd users.
No, those are fake problems. Building down is more expensive that building out, but it is not the impossible problem you believe. It is already done around the world. The cost of property is also balanced by the cost of parking; parking is more expensive in places where land is more expensive. And you don't destroy neighborhoods, buildings do indeed go up and down on a regular bases in cities, and many cities require the inclusion of parking in new construction.
The financial challenges are fake, because they scale. And to the extent that there is an existing mismatch that creates a problem, that problem will drive the balance; the less parking there is, the more valuable parking is, the more lucrative it is to have a couple stories of parking garage hidden away in the windowless core of an office building. There are many problems relating to public planning and pollution management that are not easily solved by markets. But this part can indeed be solved by markets, proven by the fact that it is happening in many places.
As for building new arcologies "far outside existing cities," I just assume that if somebody narrows my claims to things that I would agree are stupid ideas, then it isn't applicable to my claim at all and doesn't need analysis. For one thing, they wouldn't be arcologies, they would just be planned cities. For another thing, the ones I talked about are all things that are inside cities; often in the downtown urban core, or near it, or at least making up a neighborhood core in a city.
And Le Corbusier's buildings only speak to Le Corbusier. Google his work and you'll see it is primarily Modern cement monoliths, similar to what you would see in any former Soviet republic. They're ugly monstrosities that look just like the standard things built in his day. But it isn't relevant to any of this. He wasn't trying to solve this problem, and he wasn't creating arcologies. He was trying to solve the problem of the Parisian slums, to create planned developments that would increase the standard of living for the working poor. His large-scale plans for that were never realized, but he did build a bunch of individual developments around France that were largely successful at that limited goal. His concepts, though never original or unique, are the same concepts in use today in the construction of public housing. He did have large-scale urban planning ideas, but those were never built at all in France, and if you look at the one city-level project he ever did, Chandigarh, India, it is just a normal city without any arcologies.
My definition of coops is not a narrow US definition, I am using the standard definition as in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The funny part about that claim is that in the US "coop" has no special meaning; it is entirely descriptive and as broad as the sky. Of the ones I was referring to, most have a central organizational entity that all members are owners of (the cooperative) and that organization has almost complete authority over the rules governing their shared whatever. In the US, groups like this have similar powers over themselves as a municipality, except that they have less restrictions on what types of rules they can adopt. But the most common type of coop in the US are probably agricultural coops where the farmers own their own farms, and have a cooperative that they jointly own, and the coop then owns the granges, factories, and brands. Most high quality cheese produced in the US is made by these types of groups, and many grain mills that serve small farmers are the same. We also have "employee-owned" retail chains that are organized as coops, but don't use the word. (the word is associated with "liberal" politics in the US, so is only used in retail if it is a specialty "health food" store)
I'm curious... what is it that you think the "culturally narrow" US definition of coops is? In the 1970s there were many coops that could also be called "cults," where people lived isolated on farms with collective ownership of all property. Some of them still exist, and are still largely isolated from the rest of the world.
I was just talking about the standard SF use of asteroid fields where the field is a maze of closely tumbling rocks
Nobody has even presented an example. I've read over half the books from over half the famous "Golden Age" sci-fi authors, and it doesn't jump out to me as a standard thing. The example in TFA isn't a book, but the movie Star Wars. If it is an element of bad sci-fi movies, I wouldn't doubt that. But books? Is it even described as that when it exists in the book that the movie was based on? I haven't read Star Wars books, so I don't know about that example.
Electrostatic forces isn't going to mean that the aggregate isn't bouncing off your hull in my example scenario, it just means that many particles give you a single ping before sticking. Surely if the author is detailing the exact musical rhythm created by the particles they should take this into consideration, but I'm not sure I've ever read an author claiming it. The vast, vast majority of asteroid involvement in stories I've read has to do with dealing with small, widely spaced dust-like particles at a high speed, or situations like in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress where they're man-made weapons.
Without even a single example, I think this is an example of a meme that is based on a movie but is perceived as existing in books. Which books? Oh, those bad sci-fi books that I didn't read, of course.
And BTW, "human walking pace or slower" would produce exactly the sort of hull-pinging that is being slagged on. And many particles at that speed are not going to stick from electrostatic forces on the first hit; they might bounce a couple times. ;)
OK, but you're just waving your hands and insisting that a conclusion is correct because your preferred authority (a blog by Tom Murphy hosted at a .edu domain) wrote some words. But it is actually just a chart listing options. And it is entirely circular to claim that because somebody enumerated options, and has columns containing cons, that therefore there are no alternatives that are viable. It is total nonsense, even if it was what your authority is trying to teach you.
Also, you're conflating different things. He's talking about alternatives to fossil fuels; we were talking about "peak oil" which is about petroleum, ie "oil", or rather, products made from the commodity called "crude oil." Hopefully in the context of the story which is about auto pollution in megacities and how to manage that. Currently, the biggest downward demand pressure on "oil" is "natural gas," which (for example) here in the US has displaced coal as the main source of electricity. You're not going to find out why "peak oil" is nonsense if you can't tell the difference between articles that discuss "oil" and articles that discuss all "fossil fuels."
So yes, I looked at it, and I'm rather disappointed that you refused to simply google it.
And furthermore, your expert doesn't even give what you claim; it isn't a "detailed description and why they all kinda suck in some way when compared to fossil fuels," rather it is a list with pros and cons that are in absolute terms, not relative to oil. Oil fares worse on many of the criteria than many of the alternatives listed, even if not in his chart. For example there is a column called "acceptance" and oil (and even coal!) are given a "green" rating, a good rating, on acceptance. So the defense to my claim that "peak oil" is a load a crap (in the predictions of doom) apparently includes the claim that coal is well-liked, as is oil. And yet wind is given a "yellow" rating for acceptance, because of "birds, noise, eyesore." It doesn't actually cause eyesore, and not everybody enjoys the look of oil drilling rigs. Or the sounds they make. Or other reasons that are more commonly given for disliking oil. Fuck, I mean, by any standard that has concern for birds from wind power as a problem for general acceptance then oil is already considered unacceptable, which is why there is even a conversation about acceptance. It points out that hydroelectric acceptance is "not universal," and by implication the unreserved "green" acceptance rating for coal implies it is universally accepted. Geothermal is not accepted by the public because it requires deep wells, according to this guy. Wow. Biofuel is not accepted because of "food/land competition," which is absurd. It is true that Castro gave a famous speech against biofuels on that basis, and that some people agree. But that only applies to certain sepecific types of biofuel; mainly the sort of government-funded research biofuel that would use corn. And yet the biofuel on the market is not from those sources. There is a "gas" station in my town that sells only bio-fuel, they're a regional chain and none of it is competing with food or taking up cropland. It is a totally specious claim. Wave generators are also given a yellow acceptance rating for "eyesore," but note that oil doesn't get an eyesore rating because of offshore oil rigs, which a basic google search would tell you is a real issue and the lack of acceptance prevents expansion into many areas that would otherwise be lucrative.
That's just one column. Other columns are equally crappy. Biofuel gets a yellow rating for difficulty, because of "gunk/disease" but that is a load of crap. Biofuel receives a lot of research, including into solving hard problems, but existing biofuel technologies are not complicated, and problems that were difficult in the past, such as cellulosic production, are not difficult when using the equipment and microbes that results from the research. I know hippies with no formal education (and few smarts) who manage to create their own biofuel
And here I thought it would be Chartreuse.
I've already been using chartreuse in most of my work, ever since I saw St. Wall using it in the `90s for his "home page." He's still doing it, and so am I. http://wall.org/~larry/
Client: Why is the site so ugly? :)
Me: So that you'll hire a web designer to fix the CSS when I'm done with the backend
We devolved from the desktop days.
Speak for yourself, I'm still in the year of the linux desktop, and I'm still using a 90s-style desktop paradigm.
And in the browser if you use scriptblock, then sites without a traditional interface won't even look usable; you'll be spared entirely. The worst crap just obviously didn't load right, and you look for a site with legit content.
You don't have to devolve, just increase your lawn security.
...or if they're actually 75-year-olds who used to be beer-bellied, balding men.
Surely our slashdot IDs will still give us away as old fogies.
Even Emacs is written in C. The idea that there is a fundamental difference is incorrect. The differences are subjective and related to the programmer experience and the set of metaphors that are used.
LOL "all 10 pages of it"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Sorry kiddo, your grandpa was off his meds when he told that story.
They're not talking about commercial exploration they're talking about commercial exploitation of the ISS, and the construction of anything similar to replace it.
From the article:
"We’re going to get out of ISS as quickly as we can,” said William Gerstenmaier, NASA’s chief of human spaceflight, last week. “Whether it gets filled in by the private sector or not, NASA’s vision is we’re trying to move out."
So it isn't really that they have some sort of plan that there is some important activity for commercial companies. That is clearly up to them to figure out. NASA is being supportive and communicative, and that is all. I think the real point is that there a bunch of companies clamoring for increased commercial access, and NASA is happy to oblige and coordinate with them, but NASA doesn't actually see anything left to do in LEO and isn't going to invest in that anymore. They're actually skeptical that there is a commercial reason, which is why it is phrased as, "Whether it gets filled in by the private sector or not."
And they want companies to think about buying the ISS because anybody at NASA would rather see it sold than scuttled, when the time comes. And it would take a lot of planning to put together the financing, so it isn't going to be a last minute purchase.
I read it as NASA not getting out of the ISS altogether - they're getting out of doing the supply stuff themselves.
So, you didn't read it? That's fine, but lol
My advice is to read it as what it says; they're getting out of the ISS itself when the time comes, and they're not going to replace it or do anything else like it in LEO. That science has already been done. There are lots of experiments that individual groups of academics would like to see done, but the important science that benefits from LEO is minimal and has been done already. An important experiment can also be sent up in a rocket and run like a satellite. Launch vehicles are commercially available now.
Important science that is left to be done is mostly things that require going farther out than LEO.
Would you please enumerate the oh-so-wonderful alternatives?
http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the...
That's basic [your choice of internet search engine] material. I will enumerate it for you as far as to say, I'm only using the mainstream, top-shelf definition of "other things" in my statement. I am only talking about energy sources that are well known, and where is consensus that they exist, and that they are not oil. If you don't know of any, then start with reputable encyclopedic sources, don't just ask some random person on the internet.
The funny part, aren't you the same guy who claims in another post to work in a research center studying alternative energy? So you're just trolling here, then?
Right, you describe it as a false pejorative that you use pervasively. I say that proves you don't care about Justice. And I advise you that Justice is a positive thing, not a negative thing. The meaning of the word has only changed for you. For others, Justice means what it means; "justice" doesn't mean "false justice."
Can you truly not see how that harms people who are "actually discriminated against," or how it demeans people who are fighting for Justice for people who are "actually discriminated against?"
ROFLCOPTER nice shibboleth! You win an internet.
Park/ride doesn't work when the suburban density is already high enough that every spot where you'd like to put a parking lot is already lived on.
They build that just the same as other urban buildings, they build up and dig down. The way it is already is that there are huge multilevel parking structures in urban centers, and broad flat ones in the suburbs, and they're both Park & Ride. Urban density actually makes it more efficient.
Also, urban construction can be achieved easily. Somebody in a condo doesn't own the whole building, and can't obstruct construction. All it takes is allocating the money to make this happen in a city. Parking can be, will be, and is constructed wherever needed.
I've seen plenty of things that would count as an Arcology, but nobody calls them that because the people using the word are different people than the people building buildings and have different goals, and don't want to be perceived as each other. ;) Heck, many modern high-rise buildings would count. Look at all the work being done with "living architecture," "urban greenspaces," and rooftop/balcony horticulture, nodal development, and "permaculture." There are private developments in my area that bill themselves as "permaculture coops" that are basically low-tech arcology installations. Arcology is a clumsy word lol! Where is the -ology? Anyways... permaculture coops are like apartment buildings with shared kitches, and builtin horticulture, composting, etc., and usually having a community-managed supply of bicycles including ones outfitted for hauling loads (like groceries). Notice for example that the wikipedia page for arcology has a larger section about "Similar real-world projects" than it does about the word itself, which represents a concept by architect Paolo Soleri. So it is natural that people don't use the word, because they're not doing it to copy Soleri, or because he convinced them, he was just a guy who talked about the same stuff in the past, and coined an awkward term.
Yeah, I hear local tinfoil hatters talking about wanting to use zoning laws to create neighborhood zones like you describe. Locally there is no support, but I assume there are people around the world with the same idea. I don't say they're tinfoil hatters for supporting this; that is just the small niche in my community that is discussing "city within city" concepts already. They're nuts in thinking the local community would do that with our zoning laws, but the idea is generally sound. In most places it will require new managed developments though, based on demand for it that will develop as traffic and pollution get worse. We do have zoning laws that allow for "nodal development" which is a lighter version where cars still have access, but services are clustered within walking distance.
If prices go up in the short term, they'll quickly stabilize, and the eventual balance point is likely to be much much cheaper than what is in place now, because of scaling and externalities. Oil has huge external costs, and that is without considering the controversial ones like war that may or may not be related. Just purely measuring direct externalities related to transporting the oil to refineries and to power/gas stations is a huge cost. Countries spend billions of dollars just on shipping terminals to subsidize the industry. Oils spills cause billions of dollars in economic damage to non-oil business. A lot of business leaders are on the same page as environmentalists, for totally different reasons, but they're not willing to be seen as such. We're not only near negative tipping points, we could be near positive ones that react to the negative ones. I'm not saying that will achieve any sort of balance or prevention, just that as things get worse, practical but too-late steps are likely to be taken. When it comes to air pollution, though, I predict success. Other environmental concerns will drive CO2 down and clean up the air incidentally.
Currently the places that would want the result of what you describe are mostly places that can't afford it.
It seems that most orbits would require passing through the imaginary "plane" (presumably we're talking about the plane of the mean center of the rings, there isn't an actual physical thing that is a plane) unless they're geostationary. It sounds like you said something, but it was so heavily hedged by that word that it has no meaning. Presumably your intent is to say that spacecraft in orbit around Saturn routinely pass outside the rings, and don't hit anything. That would all be expected. If you meant to say that they routinely pass through the rings, that would be at least relevant to the parent, though not my GP post. I would at least expect a person to be able to adapt their comment to the context in some minimal way.
It is obvious that a person who believes everything in my post would also agree that the rings of Saturn do not represent an area where loose aggregates are locally common.
So, space is big, things involving small objects are rare, therefore? I just don't see where you're going. Space is big, but small objects are locally common. You're talking about the distance between objects... in scenarios other than the one in my comment. Explain why the large space between objects means that if you disturb one of those objects, it won't turn into a cloud of pebbles that (because of the vast space between objects that you mention) will be more attracted to your hull than anything else, and will be pelting your... shields or whatever. If you're in motion you're not going to see a cloud of pebbles, because they are still stuck together into a dirty potato, sure. But there are all sorts of situations in a story where somebody else might have just disturbed that potato, not even just the situation I came up with.
Don't just repeat the sciencey memes without understanding the basics of the physics. None of the things you say apply to the scenario I described. Indeed, flying through the "rings" of Saturn is nothing like what I described. Though if you're going through at a high speed, single small particles are major impacts.
Electric motors are more efficient than ICE, it is silly to think that lack of energy is an impediment.
And so, let me get this straight, you think because the French nuclear industry is accused of making some mistakes or something, (not clicking your link, if you want to be taken seriously link to BBC or similar, otherwise you'll have to paraphrase the specific claims you want to recycle) well that is just daft. Are French power stations melting down or something? [checks news] Nope, everything is normal on that front. Looks like the nuclear power is still "good" in France, eh? We have to leave that determination up to the French, mostly. Our personal opinions don't make or break the success of French nuclear power. ;)
If you think being the world market leader, and production leader, with a growing nuclear power program... is failure... hahahahahaha
Layoffs of consultants working on foreign investment projects has a lot to do with a lot of things, but it isn't a sign that nuclear power is somehow failing, or somehow too inefficient to replace... internal combustion.
That's fuckin rich right there. Oh, wait, you actually believe that? Let me laugh even harder at your stupidity.
I'd be curious what the counter-argument actually is... if I thought there was one.
We have direct democracy where I'm from, and we have however much Justice we want. Sometimes more, sometimes less. And the people fighting for Justice are invariably the "good guys." If you disagreed about the meaning of Justice, you'd still have to agree that Justice is good. Is there a counter-argument? Is it any good?