Efficiency varies around the world between 13000-16000 kWh per 1000kg of aluminium.
Assuming the entire quoted weight of 100kg is aluminium (which according to the article the batteries are "made mostly of aluminium"), that's at best 50% efficient assuming your ballpark estimate of 600 kWh. Compared to an internal combustion engine that's not too shabby.
However, I feel like a demonstration like this probably used an extremely lightweight car in order to maximize the range for the test. I'm thinking 600 kWh is probably a bit too optimistic.
I'm currently studying medicine in Sweden (on my second semester, which is somewhat equivalent to "pre med" in the US system) and we are using PBL and focusing on it quite strongly.
Every week we have two PBL-meetings which usually involves a typical case regarding the subject the week's learning is supposed to be about (this week it's about memory and forming memories on a neuronal level in the brain and the case is about an old man forgetting things and getting lost while driving his car).
Anyway, we are in 9 person groups, 1 paid tutor who's usually a lecturer or scientist working at the university and 8 students. It's really hard to not actively take part in such a small group which seems to be the entire point.
This is of course not the only thing we do, we still have lectures as usual but they are not mandatory in any way other than the practical exercises. So far I'm liking it very much and it seems to be an extremely effective way to teach. We need to present our findings for our peers on a weekly basis and the opening session usually includes a lot of debating and discussions which help you "get into" the studying.
It's untreated in the sense that no artificial chemicals or filtering is taking place, but soil sediment filtering is one of the most ancient and effective ways of filtering water so there is a massive difference compared to an untreated open air reservoir where pretty much anything can go die and decompose.
Oxidation is by definition: A loss of electrons, or an increase in oxidation state.
What you are referring to is simply *one* example of oxidation and not the entire definition.
Anyone with some more knowledge of this care to shine a light on this?
Who says you need to do it in secret? All you would need to do is convince someone to let you do it, either through being in on it, or some other covert means.
And what, exactly, is the reasoning for taxing those extremely fuel efficient cars? I thought the entire point of a fuel tax was to discourage consumption of fossil fuels. Wouldn't the effect of a "tax free" electric vehicle be exactly what you would be trying to accomplish through fuel tax policy?
I'd say infrastructure is needed no matter what, so justifying a distance tax based on road usage seems like it misses the entire crux of the issue.
It doesn't make much sense even for someone who works a lot with computers though. Consider the fact that unless you are migrating between more than two options your "most frequent" will always be whichever was your very first migration(from a -> b) or both(from a -> b and then back again). Since after the first migration(1-0), you won't migrate again until you migrate back, putting the score back at even(1-1, 2-2, 3-3 et.c.).
Admittedly, the options do reflect that since the first three options all include a or b -> c suggesting that the poll creator wanted to find out which OS out of the "big three" people have most often tried. Even for people who migrate a lot, what does options 1, 2 and 3 really signify? Which OS they've given up the most on?(Unlikely since all the options are "given up on a or b" without specifying) or which they've given the most tries? More likely, but what does that even mean?
And lastly, given the very few possible directions to actually migrate, for the very vast majority of people Windows -> Linux or Windows -> OS X will be "most frequent" simply because people are generally introduced to computers through Windows. It follows then that their first migration(if they ever migrate) will be away from whichever they used first. Hence the comparatively very small amount of people choosing the "From Linux or OS X to Windows".
Basically, don't expect to draw any meaningful scientific conclusions from this one, although that can probably be said for pretty much all internet polls.
While their compliance rate has indeed gone down, a 70% increase coupled with only 10 pp decrease mean that they actually comply with more requests. In fact, it works out to be a 15% increase in the total amount of requests that were complied with.
I stopped reading after your first paragraph. The foundation of modern science have absolutely nothing to do with judeo-christians other than the fact that it was developed during the renaissance by (mainly, but not only) Christian scientists(many of them very much not in the spirit of their religion, look up Galileo Galilei). The renaissance itself took almost all of its principles of science from the ancient greeks where Judaism was rare at best and Christianity did not even exist yet. The rest was a mix of chinese/indian/arabic scholarly thought that was brought to Europe by the silk road and other trade routes that the scholars of Europe then developed further.
The sheer audacity of taking credit away from the Greeks and orientals(for lack of a better catch-all for the eastern civilizations) for the foundations of science is to me an amazing piece of ignorance that just baffles the bloody mind.