The problem is that there is water in the air... And when water touches the cold metal tank it turns into ice... So the foam is not for keeping the fuel warm, its for keeping the air outside the rocket warm and thus not condencing and forming into ice on the said rocket, then falling off and hitting the shuttle.
The problem is the "shuttle consept of doom", not the foam... Something has to cover that rocket, foam is better than ice. If the shuttle didnt "ride" a rocket then there would be no need for foam, inside or outside...
"I know that the parking attendants are on a target based system"
That is wrong, there was never a quota they had to fill. They did that with a couple of boroughs in London for a short period of time and dropped it because of overwhelming complaints.
Just to state the obvious: Cocaine is addictive because you physically need it to the point of making life and death decisions...
WoW doesn't make people rob stores for game cards or hold up people at gunpoint to get their "fix" last time I checked.
Games are not addictive, just as TV is not addictive. It's simply a method of entertainment. Note that every person's taste and therefore type of entertainment required is different. Someone who enjoys games may be able to afford/live at the Playboy Mansion, but finds computer games more entertaining... This does NOT mean they are addicted. When something more exciting comes along (for that particular person) people generally switch.
But more on topic, the conclusion made by this article is coloured by the opinion(s) of the person(s) who wrote/edited the said article. Hence it does not apply to everyone and is merely a point of view.
And as points of view go it's a pretty dim-witted one... Every person is going to be emotional about different things, assuming that ALL people are generally less sensitive towards interactive games as opposed to video is silly. It's like assuming ALL people like the colour red.
The article should have said that most games have crap story lines that people generally non-existent acting which people can't associate with (and hence have feelings for). Just like I can't get emotional about a crap sitcom episode, but find 24 quite entertaining.
I agree with you on the motivation, but intellect doesn't come into it. It boils down to some common sense, manners and a bit of wisdom. Those 3 commodities are rarely found OR used (if found) in underpaid jobs due to lack of pay & motivation - job satisfaction.
A person who knows how to fix the problem is probably working on a permanent fix in the development department getting paid much much more. He/She will not work as SC in the first place because there is no job satisfaction. So you see, you can never get good SC staff because all the good SC staff are destined to leave for greener pastures.
That's just the way the cookie crumbles in this world.
HOWEVER you CAN have a very intelligent person who WILL stay as a CS because he/she is either rude or immature for a long duration. A LOT of intelligent people have a severe lack basic common sense, wisdom or very often manners which closes job opportunities for them.
3. Yes but tens of millions electrics dont use as much energy as a car.
At the end of the day electric batteries for use in car are not and will not be up to par for mainstream use for a very very long time. Hydrogen on the other hand may provide some more efficiency than petrol in the long run. More efficiency = more environmentaly friendly.
I agree with your point of view, but I made my first post to illustrate that a new battery technology that is theoretically marginally better than current technology, a technology that may or may not be available in 5 years time should not be advertised as the solution for EVs (as the original article and all of its kind seem to [always] suggest). I am NOT against EVs, I am simply against the hype associated with battery tech.
If the car is fully electric it requires A LOT of new infrastructure (which is especially problematic in big open spaces where caves are more common than your "modern world")
If the car is a hybrid it's simply less efficient than diesel at the moment. Advances in battery power will improve efficiency, but it will not remove the need for petrol.
I see nothing wrong with electric cars, but with the current state of technology +5 years is not going to bring about a revolution, hence my irritation of this [false] advertisement. It's just a lot of hype about nothing of consequence and everyone joins in the "Hi Ho, it's off to greener earth we go".
As for the "tailpipe" argument, I fully acknowledge your point of view and the proof behind it. I do not, however, believe that building the necessary infrastructure for this is feasible in the foreseeable future (read my life time). Not all of us live in big cities and/or "modern world" countries. It takes 5 years to design a power plant, let alone build it and the supporting infrastructure and agree with all the relevant parties who/what the said plant will be supporting. A car manufacturer is simply not going to make something for less than 10% of it's customer base unless it's a PR stunt or it has money to burn.
Take a reasonably developed country like Russia. It has huge CO2 production, there's no way in hell you'd get anyone there to use an electric car. In USA where people drive to their neighbours, you still have vast distances to cover. A car that has 300 mile range and takes 2 hours to charge is not feasible. Who will buy this car? City dwellers? Where is the need? Most of the people I know in cities don't own a car... How will the charge time reduce? Make a hybrid, charge it with petrol and we've gone full circle.
In closing I'd like to state that in a perfect world I would love it if we would start building the said infrastructure for electric powered [everything] using the most up to date and efficient technology available at the time. Be it nuclear, solar, wind, geothermal or gravity as long as it's renewable. But we don't live in a perfect world and it takes a long time to take theory and put it into practice.
Of course no one really cares about reality and just wants to get on the environmentally high horse and pipe on about electric cars. Show me some news about something actually practical, like someone developing a way for people to stop commuting to work.
I'm making the asumption that we will not see [nuclear] (insert other ways to produce electicity) powered cars any time soon...
As for [electric] (Read energy producing/distilling) powerplants/refinaries that produce energy and store it in liquid form (i.e. NOT electricity which IMO is not suitable for moving vehicles as per reasons stated in my previous post) for portable use/consumption in moving vehicles then yes, i am making THAT asumption.
Another article about a new battery technology that promises to beat everything currently on the market. When will they realise that unless its charge time is (A) the same as or close to pumping petrol into a container and (B) doesn't loose energy (or close to it) when doing nothing.
Fuel, whether it's in electrical or chemical form it is still fuel. A car does not become "greener" if it uses electricity. At the moment the likelihood that the electricity was produced by environmentally friendly means (IE not oil, not dams which destroy vast eco systems, not wind farms which kill birds) are very slim.
Currently the most efficient way to store and transfer energy for vehicles is chemical fuel of some sort that can be used in an internal combustion engine. There are diesel cars that get more MPG than hybrid cars. So why are we jumping on electricity when it is more expensive to produce (it would be cheaper for a power plant to produce hydrogen and deliver it to a petrol station than deliver the same electricity to your car) and carries with it a longer charge time (not to mention all the idle time discharging issues and being totally unusable below -15C). Then there's the issue of all the new infrastructure that needs to be put in for electric cars.
By all means develop better batteries, but please don't advertise them as replacement for liquid combustible fuel.
No on all accounts. They would be considered BAD [insert object].
Just to feel how long 15 min is, try timing it while doing nothing...
If it takes that long to start to enjoy or understand something, it gets boring. When that object is designed to entertain, it's not doing a very good job.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is the "shuttle consept of doom", not the foam... Something has to cover that rocket, foam is better than ice. If the shuttle didnt "ride" a rocket then there would be no need for foam, inside or outside...
And we're back to a 'simple' stage rocket....
That is wrong, there was never a quota they had to fill. They did that with a couple of boroughs in London for a short period of time and dropped it because of overwhelming complaints.
US does all the R&D???? Don't exadurate please.
Just to state the obvious: Cocaine is addictive because you physically need it to the point of making life and death decisions...
WoW doesn't make people rob stores for game cards or hold up people at gunpoint to get their "fix" last time I checked.
Games are not addictive, just as TV is not addictive. It's simply a method of entertainment. Note that every person's taste and therefore type of entertainment required is different. Someone who enjoys games may be able to afford/live at the Playboy Mansion, but finds computer games more entertaining... This does NOT mean they are addicted. When something more exciting comes along (for that particular person) people generally switch.
But more on topic, the conclusion made by this article is coloured by the opinion(s) of the person(s) who wrote/edited the said article. Hence it does not apply to everyone and is merely a point of view.
And as points of view go it's a pretty dim-witted one... Every person is going to be emotional about different things, assuming that ALL people are generally less sensitive towards interactive games as opposed to video is silly. It's like assuming ALL people like the colour red.
The article should have said that most games have crap story lines that people generally non-existent acting which people can't associate with (and hence have feelings for). Just like I can't get emotional about a crap sitcom episode, but find 24 quite entertaining.
A person who knows how to fix the problem is probably working on a permanent fix in the development department getting paid much much more. He/She will not work as SC in the first place because there is no job satisfaction. So you see, you can never get good SC staff because all the good SC staff are destined to leave for greener pastures.
That's just the way the cookie crumbles in this world.
HOWEVER you CAN have a very intelligent person who WILL stay as a CS because he/she is either rude or immature for a long duration. A LOT of intelligent people have a severe lack basic common sense, wisdom or very often manners which closes job opportunities for them.
Sony? I think you mean jointly developed by a Sony, Toshiba, and IBM, an alliance known as "STI." Sony bashing is just that, Sony bashing.
1. Faster recharge will be your selling point, long recharge = no sale no matter how much it doesent matter.
2. Please look up "dust-to-dust" or "Cradle-to-Grave" energy consumption of electric or hybrid cars compared to, say, range rovers and I think you will find that no matter how "clean" the end procut is, the production method makes it a LOT less attractive. There was an article not too long ago about a toyota battery production factory being under investigation for producing too much polution. Here is an example after a quick search:http://www.motoring.co.za/index.php?fArticl eId=3528666&fSectionId=1645&fSetId=381. And here is the factory link:http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages/live/arti cles/news/news.html?in_article_id=417227&in_page_i d=1770
3. Yes but tens of millions electrics dont use as much energy as a car.
At the end of the day electric batteries for use in car are not and will not be up to par for mainstream use for a very very long time. Hydrogen on the other hand may provide some more efficiency than petrol in the long run. More efficiency = more environmentaly friendly.
I agree with your point of view, but I made my first post to illustrate that a new battery technology that is theoretically marginally better than current technology, a technology that may or may not be available in 5 years time should not be advertised as the solution for EVs (as the original article and all of its kind seem to [always] suggest). I am NOT against EVs, I am simply against the hype associated with battery tech.
I would if you could get a nuclear reactor small enough.
If the car is fully electric it requires A LOT of new infrastructure (which is especially problematic in big open spaces where caves are more common than your "modern world")
If the car is a hybrid it's simply less efficient than diesel at the moment. Advances in battery power will improve efficiency, but it will not remove the need for petrol.
I see nothing wrong with electric cars, but with the current state of technology +5 years is not going to bring about a revolution, hence my irritation of this [false] advertisement. It's just a lot of hype about nothing of consequence and everyone joins in the "Hi Ho, it's off to greener earth we go".
As for the "tailpipe" argument, I fully acknowledge your point of view and the proof behind it. I do not, however, believe that building the necessary infrastructure for this is feasible in the foreseeable future (read my life time). Not all of us live in big cities and/or "modern world" countries. It takes 5 years to design a power plant, let alone build it and the supporting infrastructure and agree with all the relevant parties who/what the said plant will be supporting. A car manufacturer is simply not going to make something for less than 10% of it's customer base unless it's a PR stunt or it has money to burn.
Take a reasonably developed country like Russia. It has huge CO2 production, there's no way in hell you'd get anyone there to use an electric car. In USA where people drive to their neighbours, you still have vast distances to cover. A car that has 300 mile range and takes 2 hours to charge is not feasible. Who will buy this car? City dwellers? Where is the need? Most of the people I know in cities don't own a car... How will the charge time reduce? Make a hybrid, charge it with petrol and we've gone full circle.
In closing I'd like to state that in a perfect world I would love it if we would start building the said infrastructure for electric powered [everything] using the most up to date and efficient technology available at the time. Be it nuclear, solar, wind, geothermal or gravity as long as it's renewable. But we don't live in a perfect world and it takes a long time to take theory and put it into practice.
Of course no one really cares about reality and just wants to get on the environmentally high horse and pipe on about electric cars. Show me some news about something actually practical, like someone developing a way for people to stop commuting to work.
As for [electric] (Read energy producing/distilling) powerplants/refinaries that produce energy and store it in liquid form (i.e. NOT electricity which IMO is not suitable for moving vehicles as per reasons stated in my previous post) for portable use/consumption in moving vehicles then yes, i am making THAT asumption.
Fuel, whether it's in electrical or chemical form it is still fuel. A car does not become "greener" if it uses electricity. At the moment the likelihood that the electricity was produced by environmentally friendly means (IE not oil, not dams which destroy vast eco systems, not wind farms which kill birds) are very slim.
Currently the most efficient way to store and transfer energy for vehicles is chemical fuel of some sort that can be used in an internal combustion engine. There are diesel cars that get more MPG than hybrid cars. So why are we jumping on electricity when it is more expensive to produce (it would be cheaper for a power plant to produce hydrogen and deliver it to a petrol station than deliver the same electricity to your car) and carries with it a longer charge time (not to mention all the idle time discharging issues and being totally unusable below -15C). Then there's the issue of all the new infrastructure that needs to be put in for electric cars.
By all means develop better batteries, but please don't advertise them as replacement for liquid combustible fuel.
No, you don't understand, he ASKED to go to prison to save on rent to pay off that fine within his lifetime.
No on all accounts. They would be considered BAD [insert object].
Just to feel how long 15 min is, try timing it while doing nothing...
If it takes that long to start to enjoy or understand something, it gets boring. When that object is designed to entertain, it's not doing a very good job.
All this fuss...
All they did was outlaw unauthorised files, as in illigal, as in not approved by the author.
How hard is it to read the article? No, really?