Yeah, people who haven't done the math don't understand the tradeoffs. Buying costs a lot more at the start. You don't get it back until the very end of the process. If you plan to live in the house until you die, there is a good chance that the "savings" are entirely extra value you have to pass on, not actual money you have in your own hand. Unless you sell, you might still have spent more by owning than you would be renting.
And most people have much lower income when they make their down payment than they do at the end when they have it paid off. For a lot of people, if they had rented another 10 years, they would have had more disposable income during that time, and then later when their income is higher they could buy the same house and still have surplus income.
Unless you expect to have flat income your whole life, the reason to buy earlier isn't to save money, it is to be able to covet the property. Mine mine mine. Mine.
You're right of course, but another combination that works with a fuel cell instead of a battery is a small flywheel for acceleration. Assuming that you charge the flywheel to slow down, instead of braking, it is nearly free. It won't give you a sportscar, but it can be enough to overcome the steadiness of the fuel cell output to allow normal driving.
Even if you also assume that the near future will have more efficient hydrogen generation, it still sucks; if there was a hydrogen sea to pump it out of, you'd still be stuck under 60% efficiency to get the ions into the tank. You can't just pour it in like gas, it takes energy to encourage the chemical reaction that gets the ions into the metal.
When the size and weight come down, I do expect them to be a good choice for long-haul shipping. They will probably beat batteries for electric aircraft eventually, too. The fuel cell itself can be designed as a functional part of the frame. If you don't have to count the metal in the cell, or at least you can subtract the aluminum it displaces, then the density improves a lot. For a passenger car that isn't a benefit nearly as soon, because there is limited weight going towards strength; weight and safety are from crumple zones and that is not a good candidate for replacement because there would be different performance when full or empty. The frame itself is not all that heavy.
This is ridiculous - I would venture to guess you'd be in favor of a government regulated "service" that the "community" could partake in.
What's next - the "archaic" practice of owning your own home?
Your silly hand-waving isn't stopping companies from offering the service, or communities from creating special parking zones usable by commercially-marked shared vehicles...
If you're curious who offers the service, just find a website like car2go.com there is no need to invent imaginry ebil libraaaaaaaals that only exist on cable news, AM radio, and the minds of their fans.
I also use up valuable real estate to store an emergency kit full of items that I'll most likely never use.
And in my minivan it isn't just an extra jacket, (no, a couple jackets don't really add up to much) but 2 axes and a shovel. Required to have in the vehicle in order to drive on forest service or BLM roads during fire season. I probably use an extra gallon of gas by the end of the year carrying those around.
Those who can't imagine living a life where you have emergency equipment (like blankets) ready... are probably young and poor.
Heck, take you for example: you can't even afford a free registration!
Your idea that suburban cars collect personal items at a different rate than urban cars is hilarious.
But you're right that the model can be easily adopted. And has been. They are all over town now. You just walk up and wave your credit card at the reader under the driver side windshield. Very popular with young people.
Not a problem really. With a small flywheel for in-town, it does pull to the side a bit when you engage, but not worse than wind, and people adjust to it easily.
The real problem regarding the forces are the accident danger. If you crash it can really tear your car apart.
My friend had flywheel assist before he went electric. That was in the early 90s. Trust me, the reason you don't see it around very often isn't because of viability concerns; mostly cost/result/accident danger. It is expensive to install, uses up limited space, and isn't a miracle at all.
As far as efficiency, you fell on your face. Sorry man. The 35% for the car is the engine. That's the max possible, real IC engines in consumer cars are closer to 25%. Your novel idea that that is higher than electric cars get is funny, but no. Also, battery charging using the battery technologies already used in cars is closer to 85% in the worst case, and over 90% average. Nobody is building cars with lead acid. And "battery discharge" is not 75%, the average is over 90%. 75% is the lowest efficiency, which you get briefly at the end of the cycle when the battery is already charged and you're only using a tiny bit of current to top it off. The main part of the charge that uses most of the power is at the higher end of the efficiency range for the battery. You're whacking battery efficiency down twice with made-up numbers and pretending to be science-y.
Battery charging efficiency is actually near 100% below 70% charge. Remember, you're not doing much work here, physically. There is no reason to desire there to be an extra loss here.;) Discharge loss is also normally only a few percent, not 25%. Almost all the losses in your "equation" are from made-up numbers that are nowhere close to reality.
Fuel cell storage efficiency is only 20-60%. No surprise, because hydrogen atoms are larger than electrons, and so filling up the cell requires vastly more physical work.
Flywheels are super-heavy. The funny part about what you say there is that small flywheels used the same way as electric regenerative braking can increase fuel efficiency in a city, with frequent start/stop, but the mass of flywheel you'd need to be useful at a 50+ mile range would be really heavy, and have huge friction losses. It can be done, it has been done, but you get a slow tank that is inefficient, not a fuel-saver.
Not having better numbers is no excuse for just making them up as if a guess what you use when you can't be bothered to look any of it up, and don't already know about the technologies.
Nope. The way "anybody" could question it is because you're simply wrong about what rights you have. My advice, learn about rights from books, not cable television.
You have no right to privacy, except where you maintained your privacy successfully. Or rather, you have a right to try to be private. Outdoors is not private. Never was. Never will be.
Yes, new laws will be written to regulate use of drones over private land, and they will require permission. But no, privacy won't be any part of it.
Your jammer idea is the pinnacle of idiocy. Yeah, just point electronic devices at the sky that you believe will cause small aircraft you don't like to fall from the sky! Nothing wrong there, that is safe enough to give to idiot rednecks that already discharge firearms in a city.
If you're surprised he was released the next business day, you probably don't read small-town newspapers. This sort of gun crime happens all the time in redneck towns. You also see lots of citations for "illegal burning" and "animal cruelty."
Actually, no. Liberals support the clear view doctrine, because it is established legal precedent.
The people crying about the children are just idiots. Don't try to dump them on us. Liberals support the right of photographers to do whatever weird shit is legal, even when it is disgusting.
With the added benefit, you know it might be back because after being arrested for shooting it, you had to buy him a new one.
If there is some "unauthorized recording device," that is a tort claim. Hire a lawyer, and file a lawsuit. Taking the law into your own hands will not end well for you.
Under 50' on private land isn't even regulated. There were numerous laws violated by various involved parties, but I really doubt that was one. Check the wording of the law to discover the other reasons.
If you try to understand legal issues, or issues where the community standards are embodied in law, then yes, you really do need to have found out the differences with some sort of help, either from lawyers or from books.
There are differences, but none of them involve privacy.;) (no, you have no expectation of privacy outdoors)
And not all passers-by; if they're 9ft tall, or riding on their friend's shoulders, they can look at whatever is in view. They may or may not be allowed to loiter on the sidewalk to do it, of course, depending on local law. It might even be illegal "peeping" if they're already violating the loitering law, too.
They can absolutely look over your fence as they parachute down to their landing zone outside your property, or fly over looking for weed growing in your yard.
The legal example is a neighbor climbing a tree to see over your fence, and over the curtain that protected the ground-level view. That is legal. You have to successfully protect your privacy by blocking whatever "clear view" they might find. Having tried doesn't count.
Now, in many States if that beer crate is on the sidewalk, not your own property, or if you're trespassing on their property because it extends past the fence, then it becomes illegal "peeping." But it is never peeping just to climb a tree or beer crate to see in your neighbors window.
There is long and solid legal precedent. It doesn't matter if the curtains are drawn; they have to successfully block the view. Having tried isn't good enough. The curtains can be drawn but leave a tiny opening, and there is no expectation of privacy. Not only butt-dialing, but even neighbors climbing trees to see over the top of a curtain that only covered the part of the window visible from ground level. It is only "peeping" if they're standing in a place they're not supposed to stand.
The phrasing of the local law, if the drone is over private land and looking into a window to see naked people, that would actually violate the peeping law, and would be a sex crime. That is probably the only law that would be violated. But looking at naked people outdoors never would be peeping, because it is visible from other aircraft.
The implication is that your neighbor can only legally drone-peep your window with a telephoto while hovering over their own land. So if you're flying two houses down, you can only peep at the pool party.
Merideth's neighbors saw it too. "It was just hovering above our house and it stayed for a few moments and then she finally waved and it took off," said neighbor Kim VanMeter. VanMeter has a 16-year-old daughter who lays out at their pool. She says a drone hovering with a camera is creepy and weird. "I just think you should have privacy in your own backyard," she said.
What would she think if she knew that the Russians and Chinese have pictures of her sunbathing? And that numerous geologists and other scientists have their pool in aerial photos? And that the police fly over and look at their yard to see if they're growing weed? People are sure idiots. Outdoors isn't private.
Baseballs, slingshots, yarn, hosing it down, etc. All fair game I bet.
In many, or even most, US States it would be legal to hose (or yarn) it down if you said it was endangering your property. If you said it was "violating your privacy," that is generally criminal destruction of property. You can't legally destroy anything that accidentally crosses a property line. You can sue them, or accuse them of trespassing, or whatever law might apply locally, but you probably can't destroy it legally without an education and a controlled communication strategy.
The difference there is that I wouldn't shoot it with my shotgun or rifle but it likely would have a close encounter with my 8lb maul.
That doesn't sound like a very good technical solution. How would you know it was the only one, if you didn't investigate it, or have a qualified authority do so? I assume the person smashing the first camera with a maul is still being recorded on all the other cameras. The person who makes sure not to touch it, and reports it instead, would have a chance of actually discovering how many there were, who placed them, and if that person is still free.
Hmmm then that is a different question.... but only one of whether the force was justified against the safety of others. The drone operator was still in the wrong and he was defending his privacy.
No, this is well-examined already by the Court; there is no debate about it. Privacy has to be successfully achieved to be expected. Outdoors and uncovered on your property is not private; and you can never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever defend your privacy after somebody already saw you. If they violated the law, OK, they violated whatever law that is. Perhaps they even harmed you by removing your privacy. But you can't defend your privacy except by not being seen.
There is nothing about this situation that invokes privacy, because every airplane flying over can see the same things. Even if your neighbor climbs a tree to see over your fence and through your window, that is considered your own fault; you don't have any expectation of privacy if your neighbor can climb a tree on their own property and see you. And you don't control the commercial airspace above your property, so you can never claim that view-from-above might be private or had an expectation of it. Your yard, and your children playing in the yard, are also on Russian satellite photos! It is very far from private.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, people who haven't done the math don't understand the tradeoffs. Buying costs a lot more at the start. You don't get it back until the very end of the process. If you plan to live in the house until you die, there is a good chance that the "savings" are entirely extra value you have to pass on, not actual money you have in your own hand. Unless you sell, you might still have spent more by owning than you would be renting.
And most people have much lower income when they make their down payment than they do at the end when they have it paid off. For a lot of people, if they had rented another 10 years, they would have had more disposable income during that time, and then later when their income is higher they could buy the same house and still have surplus income.
Unless you expect to have flat income your whole life, the reason to buy earlier isn't to save money, it is to be able to covet the property. Mine mine mine. Mine.
"How can you own the land? You can't pick it up and take it with you."
I guess I'll just have to build a house and stay here with it, then. Thanks for the tip!
You're right of course, but another combination that works with a fuel cell instead of a battery is a small flywheel for acceleration. Assuming that you charge the flywheel to slow down, instead of braking, it is nearly free. It won't give you a sportscar, but it can be enough to overcome the steadiness of the fuel cell output to allow normal driving.
Even if you also assume that the near future will have more efficient hydrogen generation, it still sucks; if there was a hydrogen sea to pump it out of, you'd still be stuck under 60% efficiency to get the ions into the tank. You can't just pour it in like gas, it takes energy to encourage the chemical reaction that gets the ions into the metal.
When the size and weight come down, I do expect them to be a good choice for long-haul shipping. They will probably beat batteries for electric aircraft eventually, too. The fuel cell itself can be designed as a functional part of the frame. If you don't have to count the metal in the cell, or at least you can subtract the aluminum it displaces, then the density improves a lot. For a passenger car that isn't a benefit nearly as soon, because there is limited weight going towards strength; weight and safety are from crumple zones and that is not a good candidate for replacement because there would be different performance when full or empty. The frame itself is not all that heavy.
This is ridiculous - I would venture to guess you'd be in favor of a government regulated "service" that the "community" could partake in.
What's next - the "archaic" practice of owning your own home?
Your silly hand-waving isn't stopping companies from offering the service, or communities from creating special parking zones usable by commercially-marked shared vehicles...
If you're curious who offers the service, just find a website like car2go.com there is no need to invent imaginry ebil libraaaaaaaals that only exist on cable news, AM radio, and the minds of their fans.
I also use up valuable real estate to store an emergency kit full of items that I'll most likely never use.
And in my minivan it isn't just an extra jacket, (no, a couple jackets don't really add up to much) but 2 axes and a shovel. Required to have in the vehicle in order to drive on forest service or BLM roads during fire season. I probably use an extra gallon of gas by the end of the year carrying those around.
Those who can't imagine living a life where you have emergency equipment (like blankets) ready... are probably young and poor.
Heck, take you for example: you can't even afford a free registration!
Your idea that suburban cars collect personal items at a different rate than urban cars is hilarious.
But you're right that the model can be easily adopted. And has been. They are all over town now. You just walk up and wave your credit card at the reader under the driver side windshield. Very popular with young people.
Not a problem really. With a small flywheel for in-town, it does pull to the side a bit when you engage, but not worse than wind, and people adjust to it easily.
The real problem regarding the forces are the accident danger. If you crash it can really tear your car apart.
My friend had flywheel assist before he went electric. That was in the early 90s. Trust me, the reason you don't see it around very often isn't because of viability concerns; mostly cost/result/accident danger. It is expensive to install, uses up limited space, and isn't a miracle at all.
Yes.
As far as efficiency, you fell on your face. Sorry man. The 35% for the car is the engine. That's the max possible, real IC engines in consumer cars are closer to 25%. Your novel idea that that is higher than electric cars get is funny, but no. Also, battery charging using the battery technologies already used in cars is closer to 85% in the worst case, and over 90% average. Nobody is building cars with lead acid. And "battery discharge" is not 75%, the average is over 90%. 75% is the lowest efficiency, which you get briefly at the end of the cycle when the battery is already charged and you're only using a tiny bit of current to top it off. The main part of the charge that uses most of the power is at the higher end of the efficiency range for the battery. You're whacking battery efficiency down twice with made-up numbers and pretending to be science-y.
Battery charging efficiency is actually near 100% below 70% charge. Remember, you're not doing much work here, physically. There is no reason to desire there to be an extra loss here. ;) Discharge loss is also normally only a few percent, not 25%. Almost all the losses in your "equation" are from made-up numbers that are nowhere close to reality.
Fuel cell storage efficiency is only 20-60%. No surprise, because hydrogen atoms are larger than electrons, and so filling up the cell requires vastly more physical work.
Flywheels are super-heavy. The funny part about what you say there is that small flywheels used the same way as electric regenerative braking can increase fuel efficiency in a city, with frequent start/stop, but the mass of flywheel you'd need to be useful at a 50+ mile range would be really heavy, and have huge friction losses. It can be done, it has been done, but you get a slow tank that is inefficient, not a fuel-saver.
Not having better numbers is no excuse for just making them up as if a guess what you use when you can't be bothered to look any of it up, and don't already know about the technologies.
Nope. The way "anybody" could question it is because you're simply wrong about what rights you have. My advice, learn about rights from books, not cable television.
You have no right to privacy, except where you maintained your privacy successfully. Or rather, you have a right to try to be private. Outdoors is not private. Never was. Never will be.
Yes, new laws will be written to regulate use of drones over private land, and they will require permission. But no, privacy won't be any part of it.
Your jammer idea is the pinnacle of idiocy. Yeah, just point electronic devices at the sky that you believe will cause small aircraft you don't like to fall from the sky! Nothing wrong there, that is safe enough to give to idiot rednecks that already discharge firearms in a city.
If you're surprised he was released the next business day, you probably don't read small-town newspapers. This sort of gun crime happens all the time in redneck towns. You also see lots of citations for "illegal burning" and "animal cruelty."
You don't actually even know the angle of fire, such is the depth of your ignorance.
If you knew the angle of fire, such comments might be worth considering. But since you don't, you can't even claim to think your comment is relevant.
"shotgun" doesn't mean, "shotgun shell loaded with birdshot." Man, people are sure ignorant.
Dictionaries, people. Dictionaries. I thought nerds had all read the whole thing multiple times?
Actually, no. Liberals support the clear view doctrine, because it is established legal precedent.
The people crying about the children are just idiots. Don't try to dump them on us. Liberals support the right of photographers to do whatever weird shit is legal, even when it is disgusting.
I tried to wave off the Russian satellite that is also photographing his daughters, but it is still up there, flying over again and again and again.
Maybe his daughters aren't invisible outdoors, even on privately-owned land.
With the added benefit, you know it might be back because after being arrested for shooting it, you had to buy him a new one.
If there is some "unauthorized recording device," that is a tort claim. Hire a lawyer, and file a lawsuit. Taking the law into your own hands will not end well for you.
Under 50' on private land isn't even regulated. There were numerous laws violated by various involved parties, but I really doubt that was one. Check the wording of the law to discover the other reasons.
If you try to understand legal issues, or issues where the community standards are embodied in law, then yes, you really do need to have found out the differences with some sort of help, either from lawyers or from books.
There are differences, but none of them involve privacy. ;) (no, you have no expectation of privacy outdoors)
And not all passers-by; if they're 9ft tall, or riding on their friend's shoulders, they can look at whatever is in view. They may or may not be allowed to loiter on the sidewalk to do it, of course, depending on local law. It might even be illegal "peeping" if they're already violating the loitering law, too.
They can absolutely look over your fence as they parachute down to their landing zone outside your property, or fly over looking for weed growing in your yard.
That is exactly clear view.
The legal example is a neighbor climbing a tree to see over your fence, and over the curtain that protected the ground-level view. That is legal. You have to successfully protect your privacy by blocking whatever "clear view" they might find. Having tried doesn't count.
Now, in many States if that beer crate is on the sidewalk, not your own property, or if you're trespassing on their property because it extends past the fence, then it becomes illegal "peeping." But it is never peeping just to climb a tree or beer crate to see in your neighbors window.
There is long and solid legal precedent. It doesn't matter if the curtains are drawn; they have to successfully block the view. Having tried isn't good enough. The curtains can be drawn but leave a tiny opening, and there is no expectation of privacy. Not only butt-dialing, but even neighbors climbing trees to see over the top of a curtain that only covered the part of the window visible from ground level. It is only "peeping" if they're standing in a place they're not supposed to stand.
The phrasing of the local law, if the drone is over private land and looking into a window to see naked people, that would actually violate the peeping law, and would be a sex crime. That is probably the only law that would be violated. But looking at naked people outdoors never would be peeping, because it is visible from other aircraft.
The implication is that your neighbor can only legally drone-peep your window with a telephoto while hovering over their own land. So if you're flying two houses down, you can only peep at the pool party.
Here's a key detail from the article:
Merideth's neighbors saw it too. "It was just hovering above our house and it stayed for a few moments and then she finally waved and it took off," said neighbor Kim VanMeter. VanMeter has a 16-year-old daughter who lays out at their pool. She says a drone hovering with a camera is creepy and weird. "I just think you should have privacy in your own backyard," she said.
What would she think if she knew that the Russians and Chinese have pictures of her sunbathing? And that numerous geologists and other scientists have their pool in aerial photos? And that the police fly over and look at their yard to see if they're growing weed? People are sure idiots. Outdoors isn't private.
Baseballs, slingshots, yarn, hosing it down, etc. All fair game I bet.
In many, or even most, US States it would be legal to hose (or yarn) it down if you said it was endangering your property. If you said it was "violating your privacy," that is generally criminal destruction of property. You can't legally destroy anything that accidentally crosses a property line. You can sue them, or accuse them of trespassing, or whatever law might apply locally, but you probably can't destroy it legally without an education and a controlled communication strategy.
The difference there is that I wouldn't shoot it with my shotgun or rifle but it likely would have a close encounter with my 8lb maul.
That doesn't sound like a very good technical solution. How would you know it was the only one, if you didn't investigate it, or have a qualified authority do so? I assume the person smashing the first camera with a maul is still being recorded on all the other cameras. The person who makes sure not to touch it, and reports it instead, would have a chance of actually discovering how many there were, who placed them, and if that person is still free.
Thankfully, "warnings" aren't invoked by any of the circumstances here, and this does not matter.
Hmmm then that is a different question.... but only one of whether the force was justified against the safety of others. The drone operator was still in the wrong and he was defending his privacy.
No, this is well-examined already by the Court; there is no debate about it. Privacy has to be successfully achieved to be expected. Outdoors and uncovered on your property is not private; and you can never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever defend your privacy after somebody already saw you. If they violated the law, OK, they violated whatever law that is. Perhaps they even harmed you by removing your privacy. But you can't defend your privacy except by not being seen.
There is nothing about this situation that invokes privacy, because every airplane flying over can see the same things. Even if your neighbor climbs a tree to see over your fence and through your window, that is considered your own fault; you don't have any expectation of privacy if your neighbor can climb a tree on their own property and see you. And you don't control the commercial airspace above your property, so you can never claim that view-from-above might be private or had an expectation of it. Your yard, and your children playing in the yard, are also on Russian satellite photos! It is very far from private.