The lights stay on if the generators don't trip on load/frequency deviations.
Storage for the purpose of dispensing energy continuously at regular intervals (e.g. batteries compensating for the peak demand after sunset) however is most valuable close to demand as there are less system losses.
Wouldn't it still make more sense to locate the storage near the point of demand? Providing it there still keeps the load off of the system that would otherwise cause the generators to disconnect.
In theory, sure, but also keep in mind that you would then have to deal with maintenance at hundreds or thousands of local sites instead of a single large power plant.
Then your problem isn't with range, it's with the ubiquity of refill/recharge stations. I'm going to take a wild guess and say that the number of places to recharge your electric car is going to increase.
I wouldn't call it a considerable advantage. My current car gets somewhere around 350 miles on one tank of gas (roughly 12 gallon tank, 30 MPG on the highway). Tesla's vehicles are quickly approaching that range on a single full charge.
Those sorts of cases already exist but I don't think they go far enough. What I'm suggesting is something more deeply integrated into the smartphone. Have a dedicated connection on the back rather than adding a bulky pass through USB on the bottom. And have the case do more than just be a second battery. Why not have an upgraded camera? Or a 3.5mm headphone jack? Or an ethernet port? Or better speakers? Or scientific equipment? The list is endless. Then you can have the compact simple base phone if you want but if you want additional features you add them via the case. Since most people put a case on their phone anyway why not make it more than an afterthought in the device design?
I think Motorola did that. I don't know how well they're selling, though.
This is the usual level of thinking involved in trying to prove the existence of Jesus. It's pathetic. What does that have to do with anything? Nothing. Jews were regularly being crucified at the time, so it makes all the sense in the world that they would invent a crucified messiah.
No, it doesn't really make any sense at all. The messiah (Hebrew mashiach, "anointed") was simply the descendant of King David who would be anointed king of Israel. Kinda tough to do that if you're dead.
When you refer to "moderate muslims" you are still talking about people who would ban gay relationships and use the force of law to punish homosexuals. The number of christians who support those sorts of laws is vanshingly small.
Maybe where you live. In the United States, it's pretty close to 50%.
If you're taking out bank loans to buy fashion accessories, it's time for an intervention.
Especially when you can already get a loan with 0% interest from the carrier. For my current phone, I paid more in sales tax than I did for the down payment ($20 down on a $500 phone).
...it would be easy for me to get on your Republican-bashing bandwagon...
I keep looking at the post you're replying to and I don't see the word "Republican" anywhere. Please help me to find it:
Other countries need to fill in as the US culls science programs and generally sets itself back to the stone age. After all, you'll need to know how much CO2 is being emitted when the US has to come crawling back years from now to buy carbon credits from the EU and China...
For some bizarre reason, a lot of people consider advocating for scientific research and the setting of policies based on scientific data to be "Republican-bashing".
"Meteor" is the name used when it enters the atmosphere, and "meteorite" is the name used when it reaches the surface (assuming it doesn't completely burn up before then). I don't think burning is strictly part of the definition of either word, it's just a natural consequence of moving through the atmosphere.
It's not a perfect example of something that changes name just because it changes position, since, as you pointed out, there are other changes that typically go along with it, but it's definitely better than examples like water/ice/steam or star/black hole.
Uranus named after the Greek god of the sky Ouranos (the Roman equivalent was Caelus)
Good call, I had forgotten that. Thanks.
and Earth is named after dirt.
That could start a pedantic discussion of godlike proportions. You could argue about when, if ever, "Earth" was named, especially since the word "earth" predates the idea that Earth is a planet. It's similar to when the sun was named Sol, since that's just the Latin word for sun.
And then there's always the ultra-pedantic argument that Earth can't be a planet because the original definition of "planet" was (what people thought was) a star that changed position in the sky as seen from Earth.
Rule number one in science is that things should be space-invariant and time-invariant. This is clearly neither.
Huh? There are plenty of things that change and are called something else. Off the top of my head...
Water->Ice->Steam
Meteor->Meteorite
Lava->Igneous rock
Star->Black Hole
Most of those things don't change names only because they move to a different location or because X seconds have elapsed. Meteor/meteorite is a better example, as would be lava/magma. The rest of your examples involve changes in atomic-level structure due to things like change in temperature.
Just like in christian mythology, Satan is called often "the devil" instead of by his name
"Satan" isn't a name either, it's a regular noun in Hebrew, usually translated as "adversary" or "accuser". In the books of the Prophets (I don't remember offhand that it's anywhere in the Torah), the Hebrew is always "Ha-satan", "the accuser". It's just an angel that tells God how horrible humans are, playing the role of prosecutor in a trial.
Yeah, but I find it pretty reasonable that it's greater than 50% of people who support the death penalty (not 50% of all people). I would guess that the majority of people who have that much concern for prisoners are opposed to the death penalty anyway.
didn't you get the memo - they found a way around that by rephrasing to "thou shall not murder" and adopting whatever definition of murder most suits them.
No, the Hebrew word used is definitely "murder". There's no ambiguity at all.
Most death penalty proponents do not want to execute criminals, they want to see what they see as Bad People(tm) suffer. They don't want execution. They want torture, the more horrible the better.
Is this true? I have no idea, but I would like to see some sort of citation before I buy into the claim that most death penalty proponents just want to hurt people.
I don't know if anyone has ever conducted a survey to get an exact percentage, but there are definitely people out there who think that a quick, painless death would be treating condemned prisoners more nicely than they deserve. For such people, the death penalty isn't about protecting others, it's about revenge.
FTS:
"It's not just a big organism close to humans. It's something people will pay for, and the FDA process is much faster. We'll do dog trials, and that'll be a product, and that'll pay for scaling up in human trials."
I'm not going to claim that all regulation is bad, but there is a common theme out there that regulation is NEVER bad. This sentence can be read to say that they could alleviate pain and suffering faster, but the FDA is in the way.
So you want them to start selling life-extending treatments without conducting trials on the safety and efficacy of the treatments.
Do you want a zombie apocalypse? Because that's how you get a zombie apocalypse.
Wall Street *are* his investors, and by the stock valuation we can judge their reaction. They surely did not like this, and, apparently, were more interested to find out what the answer to the analysts' question was.
I guess people other than Wall Street surely did like it, because the current price is almost the highest it's been in a month.
No, it's not. Anybody can Google the price of the stock and see that it's not back up...
Okay, let's do that. At close Friday (4:00 PM), it was 294.09. The previous Friday (April 27), the price at close was 294.08. On Monday (April 30), the price at close was 293.90. So by the time of your post, TSLA had recovered all but the gains from Tuesday and Wednesday, and was actually higher than it was at the beginning of the week.
As of the time of this post, it's at 302.78, which is higher than all of last week outside of a 1-hour period in the middle of Wednesday.
Originally I said it was a vote. You responded saying it wasn't an election. I didn't introduce the word "election".
You didn't introduce the word "election". The Hatch Act introduced the word "election".
The article is about a violation of the Hatch Act. You claimed that Biden's comments to other senators about a Senate vote was an example of a double standard. Was I incorrect to interpret your claim as a statement that you believe Biden violated the Hatch Act?
Slashdot Mirror
The lights stay on if the generators don't trip on load/frequency deviations. Storage for the purpose of dispensing energy continuously at regular intervals (e.g. batteries compensating for the peak demand after sunset) however is most valuable close to demand as there are less system losses.
Wouldn't it still make more sense to locate the storage near the point of demand? Providing it there still keeps the load off of the system that would otherwise cause the generators to disconnect.
In theory, sure, but also keep in mind that you would then have to deal with maintenance at hundreds or thousands of local sites instead of a single large power plant.
Then your problem isn't with range, it's with the ubiquity of refill/recharge stations. I'm going to take a wild guess and say that the number of places to recharge your electric car is going to increase.
ICE vehicles have considerable range advantage
I wouldn't call it a considerable advantage. My current car gets somewhere around 350 miles on one tank of gas (roughly 12 gallon tank, 30 MPG on the highway). Tesla's vehicles are quickly approaching that range on a single full charge.
Those sorts of cases already exist but I don't think they go far enough. What I'm suggesting is something more deeply integrated into the smartphone. Have a dedicated connection on the back rather than adding a bulky pass through USB on the bottom. And have the case do more than just be a second battery. Why not have an upgraded camera? Or a 3.5mm headphone jack? Or an ethernet port? Or better speakers? Or scientific equipment? The list is endless. Then you can have the compact simple base phone if you want but if you want additional features you add them via the case. Since most people put a case on their phone anyway why not make it more than an afterthought in the device design?
I think Motorola did that. I don't know how well they're selling, though.
"Christus", a common biblical term that means "anointed one" -- which required far less chutzpah to claim than "messiah"
"Anointed one" is exactly what the Hebrew mashiach means.
This is the usual level of thinking involved in trying to prove the existence of Jesus. It's pathetic. What does that have to do with anything? Nothing. Jews were regularly being crucified at the time, so it makes all the sense in the world that they would invent a crucified messiah.
No, it doesn't really make any sense at all. The messiah (Hebrew mashiach, "anointed") was simply the descendant of King David who would be anointed king of Israel. Kinda tough to do that if you're dead.
When you refer to "moderate muslims" you are still talking about people who would ban gay relationships and use the force of law to punish homosexuals. The number of christians who support those sorts of laws is vanshingly small.
Maybe where you live. In the United States, it's pretty close to 50%.
Probably because the other team likes to pretend their smart
Yeah, about that...
If you're taking out bank loans to buy fashion accessories, it's time for an intervention.
Especially when you can already get a loan with 0% interest from the carrier. For my current phone, I paid more in sales tax than I did for the down payment ($20 down on a $500 phone).
...it would be easy for me to get on your Republican-bashing bandwagon...
I keep looking at the post you're replying to and I don't see the word "Republican" anywhere. Please help me to find it:
Other countries need to fill in as the US culls science programs and generally sets itself back to the stone age. After all, you'll need to know how much CO2 is being emitted when the US has to come crawling back years from now to buy carbon credits from the EU and China...
For some bizarre reason, a lot of people consider advocating for scientific research and the setting of policies based on scientific data to be "Republican-bashing".
Then if the world says we have to trade carbon credits, we'll have to trade carbon credits.
We won't have to trade carbon credits. We'll still have significant weaponry, so we can just use that instead.
I'm worried that there are enough people in this country who would consider military action to be the better of those options.
"Meteor" is the name used when it enters the atmosphere, and "meteorite" is the name used when it reaches the surface (assuming it doesn't completely burn up before then). I don't think burning is strictly part of the definition of either word, it's just a natural consequence of moving through the atmosphere.
It's not a perfect example of something that changes name just because it changes position, since, as you pointed out, there are other changes that typically go along with it, but it's definitely better than examples like water/ice/steam or star/black hole.
Uranus named after the Greek god of the sky Ouranos (the Roman equivalent was Caelus)
Good call, I had forgotten that. Thanks.
and Earth is named after dirt.
That could start a pedantic discussion of godlike proportions. You could argue about when, if ever, "Earth" was named, especially since the word "earth" predates the idea that Earth is a planet. It's similar to when the sun was named Sol, since that's just the Latin word for sun.
And then there's always the ultra-pedantic argument that Earth can't be a planet because the original definition of "planet" was (what people thought was) a star that changed position in the sky as seen from Earth.
Rule number one in science is that things should be space-invariant and time-invariant. This is clearly neither.
Huh? There are plenty of things that change and are called something else. Off the top of my head...
Water->Ice->Steam Meteor->Meteorite Lava->Igneous rock Star->Black Hole
Most of those things don't change names only because they move to a different location or because X seconds have elapsed. Meteor/meteorite is a better example, as would be lava/magma. The rest of your examples involve changes in atomic-level structure due to things like change in temperature.
Just like in christian mythology, Satan is called often "the devil" instead of by his name
"Satan" isn't a name either, it's a regular noun in Hebrew, usually translated as "adversary" or "accuser". In the books of the Prophets (I don't remember offhand that it's anywhere in the Torah), the Hebrew is always "Ha-satan", "the accuser". It's just an angel that tells God how horrible humans are, playing the role of prosecutor in a trial.
All of the other planets are named for Roman gods. Pluto was the most significant god left without a planet named for him.
South Park already did it. And yes, it activated devices in people's homes.
Yeah, but I find it pretty reasonable that it's greater than 50% of people who support the death penalty (not 50% of all people). I would guess that the majority of people who have that much concern for prisoners are opposed to the death penalty anyway.
didn't you get the memo - they found a way around that by rephrasing to "thou shall not murder" and adopting whatever definition of murder most suits them.
No, the Hebrew word used is definitely "murder". There's no ambiguity at all.
Most death penalty proponents do not want to execute criminals, they want to see what they see as Bad People(tm) suffer. They don't want execution. They want torture, the more horrible the better.
Is this true? I have no idea, but I would like to see some sort of citation before I buy into the claim that most death penalty proponents just want to hurt people.
I don't know if anyone has ever conducted a survey to get an exact percentage, but there are definitely people out there who think that a quick, painless death would be treating condemned prisoners more nicely than they deserve. For such people, the death penalty isn't about protecting others, it's about revenge.
FTS: "It's not just a big organism close to humans. It's something people will pay for, and the FDA process is much faster. We'll do dog trials, and that'll be a product, and that'll pay for scaling up in human trials."
I'm not going to claim that all regulation is bad, but there is a common theme out there that regulation is NEVER bad. This sentence can be read to say that they could alleviate pain and suffering faster, but the FDA is in the way.
So you want them to start selling life-extending treatments without conducting trials on the safety and efficacy of the treatments.
Do you want a zombie apocalypse? Because that's how you get a zombie apocalypse.
I wasn't saying Biden violated the hatch act.
Okay. My apologies for misinterpreting your statement.
Wall Street *are* his investors, and by the stock valuation we can judge their reaction. They surely did not like this, and, apparently, were more interested to find out what the answer to the analysts' question was.
I guess people other than Wall Street surely did like it, because the current price is almost the highest it's been in a month.
No, it's not. Anybody can Google the price of the stock and see that it's not back up...
Okay, let's do that. At close Friday (4:00 PM), it was 294.09. The previous Friday (April 27), the price at close was 294.08. On Monday (April 30), the price at close was 293.90. So by the time of your post, TSLA had recovered all but the gains from Tuesday and Wednesday, and was actually higher than it was at the beginning of the week.
As of the time of this post, it's at 302.78, which is higher than all of last week outside of a 1-hour period in the middle of Wednesday.
Originally I said it was a vote. You responded saying it wasn't an election. I didn't introduce the word "election".
You didn't introduce the word "election". The Hatch Act introduced the word "election".
The article is about a violation of the Hatch Act. You claimed that Biden's comments to other senators about a Senate vote was an example of a double standard. Was I incorrect to interpret your claim as a statement that you believe Biden violated the Hatch Act?