But don't ignore other advantages of hydrocarbon fuels simply because you don't like the idea of spewing carbon into the atmosphere.
FWIW, I don't worry over much about carbon. My EV purchase was based on purely economic analysis. Having driven an EV for a while, what I really dislike about gas burners is the noise and the smell. This isn't an environmental concern, or not a global environmental concern, anyway. It's about the environment of my garage.
The FCC's means of allowing competition is having a vibrant MVNO industry. See what Sprint, AT&T and T-mobile are doing with their spectrum on the wholesale side. Lots of non-compatible towers doesn't help anything it just makes America's system worse.
No you aren't. You live in a country with a total different population density spread than Europeans do. They have a higher percentage of their population concentrated than we do. (If you are going to try and do this for yourself, don't calculate people per sq mile that's not the relevant figure, the relevant figure is number of square miles with moderate population).
You want to object to America's housing / transportation policy that's the root of the problem. Not the telcos.
Speed is poor in America because of low density mostly. The American system is much more expensive to build than the east Asian or European system. That is one of the many many costs due to our housing / transportation policies. As for the poor, the poor mostly do use some cellular data. This does benefit them. Plus the $34b is very likely to benefit them.
MLK also said to judge people not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
There are a hell of a lot of New Yorkers of shockingly low character. Bringing a foreign country's culture into the argument doesn't change anything and is just a lazy attempt at guilt by association. Guilt by association is a logical fallacy and educated people should know better.
This form of the argument is as follows:
- Source S makes claim C.
- Group G, which is currently viewed negatively by the recipient, also makes claim C.
- Therefore, source S is viewed by the recipient of the claim as associated to the group G and inherits how negatively viewed it is.
An example of this fallacy would be "My opponent for office just received an endorsement from the Puppy Haters Association. Is that the sort of person you would want to vote for?"
No. It wouldn't be better. Running networks is hard. And so far government has proven pretty bad at managing local wifi which is much easier than building out a cellular network. I can think of lots of things that I'd like to socialize long before telco.
Well in addition to better phone performance, $34b is spending on the public welfare. They lose some spectrum from government usage.
Well it isn't a broad tax. It is a fee paid by people who consume lots of bandwidth to people who consume government services. Those aren't necessarily (or likely) the same people. Using price as a mechanism to determine the best possible public use make sense in a capitalist society.
As far as fibre rollout. That's an entirely different function and involves (with some overlap) different companies and different consumers.
When they get the number of stations into the tens of thousands then I'll concede the point.
I don't think the number needs to be anywhere near that high. Not remotely.
Don't make the mistake of thinking of supercharger stations as analogous to your average neighborhood gas station. They're nothing like that. Supercharger stations are only needed for long-distance travel. They're analogous to the big travel centers you find along the interstates and other highways which carry significant amounts of long-distance traffic, and the numbers required are similar to those of travel centers. If there's one every hundred miles or so along every long-distance travel corridor (which in the US is mostly just the interstates, though there are a few areas with long-distance highways) then coverage will be complete.
With electric vehicles, 95+% of charging is done at places where vehicles spend lots of time parked, primarily homes and workplaces. Such charging doesn't need to be particularly fast. Fast charging only matters when you're driving distances beyond the range of your battery.
You mention North Dakota, for example. Move the slider on that map to 2015 and you'll see they plan to put three superchargers there. That will cover the long-distance travel across ND, and most long-distance travel within ND. Add another supercharger on highway 2, midway between Grand Forks and Minot and you'll have covered nearly all of the rest. Add four of five more and you'll be able to get to any destination in the state without worry.
Throw away Malthus - you have to give up the theory of evolution.
Darwin cites Malthus repeatedly in his books and for very good reason: without Malthus, there can't BE evolution.
Randomly-driven evolution, no. But we aren't very far from being able to deliberately evolve ourselves, to achieve specific purposes.
There's a good argument, though, that deliberate, directed evolution is also evolution by variation and selection... it's just that the variation and selection is carried out in brains and in computers rather than in genotypes and phenotypes. In fact, there's a good argument that all knowledge creation is via variation and selection, including all knowledge created by humans, though there we call the process speculation and criticism and much of it happens internally so that truly bad ideas never get uttered or written.
So, no need to abandon the theory of evolution.
No convincing needed, its happening naturally and just a question of when the peak is Total fertility rate 1950–1955 : 4.95 2010–2015 : 2.36 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...
Yes and no. What you say is true, and further it appears we've already reached and passed the maximum number of children born per year, in absolute terms. But the population is still growing because the world population is youth-heavy. Assuming we stay on the current trend of gradually declining births and assuming we don't start living longer than 100 years in large numbers, this means the world population will stop growing at about 10B, then start a very slow decline, but that will be far above the levels Spy Hunter thinks we should reach.
I don't think I'd want to live in Spy Hunter's world, though. I certainly wouldn't want to live the "hunter-gatherer lifestyle", which was fully Hobbesian (nasty, brutish and short). In some senses perhaps those people were "healthier" than we are today, but they experienced a lot more pain and died a lot sooner. I suppose Spy Hunter is theorizing some world in which we eat like hunter-gatherers but live in a technological civilization, but that seems like a silly approach when we can, instead, continue our research into human biochemistry to understand exactly what humans need (with much more precision than "eat like hunter-gatherers", who almost certainly never got an ideal diet) and into food production, until we can create food that is healthy (ideally so), safe and flavorful.
At least, compressed hydrogen gas is really questionable.
Besides the well-known problems associated with containing hydrogen, I'm skeptical that it makes sense to build out a whole new distribution system. We have an extensive network in place for distributing gasoline and smaller ones for distributing compressed natural gas (CNG) and liquid propane (LP), but hydrogen gas is very different from any of those three. We also have a network in place for distributing electricity. Granted that it will have to be beefed up in many ways to support a society of all electric vehicles, that still seems like a much easier task. Particularly since with the increasing deployment of home PV generation, the electric grid might not need to be beefed up as much as we think.
It all really comes down to the cost of batteries. The only saving grace of compressed hydrogen vs batteries is that big batteries are expensive. And somewhat heavy, but probably not much heavier than the tanks needed to contain hydrogen. So is it cheaper to build lots of batteries and improve the electric grid where needed, or to build out an entirely new distribution infrastructure?
My money is on electric vehicles. Battery prices are falling just due to small incremental improvements plus scaling, and there are a number of technologies on the horizon that promise to significantly increase the kWh/$ ratio. Yes, yes, many of them have been "on the horizon" for a while, but there are so many promising technologies that it seems very probable that at least one will work out. Note that I'm not talking about recharge times, because Tesla has already solved that problem... given ~300 miles range and a one-hour recharge time, you're good even for cross-country trips.
Another option that might make a lot of sense is fuel cells that run on gasoline or CNG. Those would have many of the benefits of an EV (quiet, powerful electric drive; very simple, low-maintenance drive train), but could use existing fueling infrastructure. They still emit some CO2, but less than ICEs.
(Disclaimer: I own an electric vehicle.)