Lithium is a metal.
Oops. Right. Sorry.
"lithium is in the upper left-hand corner of the periodic table. Only hydrogen and helium are lighter on an atomic basis."
I'm wondering if this is a non sequitur for electric batteries.
Not a non sequitur at all.
An important factor for batteries is energy density: How much energy is stored per unit mass. This is particularly important for electric cars: The higher the energy density, the less mass you havce to haul around for a given amount of "fuel", which means the less "fuel" is spent hauling your "fuel" around, so it's a more-than-linear improvement.
Lithium is both extremely light and a very reactive nonmetal. So you're talking about a lot of energy per unit mass for the lithium-based electrode's contribution to the reaction.
Some new game changing battery/supercapacitor breakthrough might be just around the corner. If so, all that investment in the battery megafactory could get wiped out. Ditto with investing in lithium mining.
It's not much of a risk. Every single battery chemistry has been played with, at one time or another. And by that I mean rigorously and exhaustively scientifically investigated. In consequence, not only has everything been tried, but we now know what works and why it works. That's why it's science, and not merely engineering.
Lithium will always remain a preferential element because it's the element that is the strongest reducing agent in the periodic table, short of hydrogen, which is too hard to hold on to. The stronger the reducing agent, the higher the voltage a cell can develop and the better a battery can be. At the other end, you want a strong oxidizing agent. Fluorine would be ideal, if it wasn't such a viciously strong oxidizing agent that it eats your whole battery, not just the electrons you want it to. Presumably this situation is what the spokesdroid was referring to, without explaining what the hell he was talking about.
Lithium is the cathode of choice since it's a metal that can be conveniently nailed down while still possessing a very good electrode potential. As an ion, it's nicely compact, being the lightest of metals, so it migrates through a battery most conveniently. What to pair it with is a little more complicated, and the subject of much research. This is where manganese, cobalt, and carbon come in. Various combinations of those elements and their immediate neighbors on the periodic table are used to make anodes. Some work better than others. Some may work better yet depending on how they're assembled.
Rest assured, whatever develops in terms of battery assembly, lithium will remain the cathode, and much of the macroscopic assembly will be the same or close enough to the same that the gigafactory will always be busy. The assembly and packaging to be done is fairly common, regardless of chemistry.
I mean, I did. Right on this very page. Stay special, you.
And clearly, you discarded my response because yours was in some magical way vastly superior.
In other words thank you for no rebuttal whatsoever.
I will go ahead and repeat what I said earlier:
Amping up the regressive nature of the most regressive taxation system in the world is not even close to the same as "fiscal accountability". I would suggest you try again but you haven't really tried once.
In other words, your malarkey about the tea party being somehow in pursuit of "fiscal accountability" is malarkey at best. Your party wants only to bring more wealth to their favored class, which is frankly astonishing as it is only a further acceleration of where the vast overwhelming majority of this country's wealth already accumulates.
What if it is worthy of utter disdain?
How can you conclude that without reading it? Just because you assume (sans fact, as per your most favored m.o.) that communism is TEH EEEEVIL, doesn't mean that the book written by Marx on the matter is actually connected to any of your assumptions on the matter.
What did you want to gain from it, and why are you not gaining it?
I wanted some insight into the human condition
This seems counter to your oft-repeated bits about people "scaling" (or not). Why would you read the writings of one man - who mind you was well past dead long before Lenin lead the Soviets in a strange contortion (and eventual complete discard) of his theories - and pretend that it represents accurately the beliefs of vastly more people? Even more so, why would you be so arrogant to fake the reading to begin with?
What I got was the precursor to BHO's 2012 campaign against Romney.
I'm not sure what you could possibly be reading that would resemble the re-election of the country's most conservative executive in history over a waffling man who wrote the bill that was very much the model of the bill whose nickname bears the name of the former.
> In theory false takedowns could be pursued in court.
The statute specifically says that if someone KNOWINGLY misrepresents tge facts in a DMCA notice, they can be sued for actual damages. In contrast , someone who NEGLIGENTLY infringes can be sued for statutory damages. Knowingly is a much huger standard than recklessly or negligently. If Google can prove that Warner Brothers KNOWS a notice they are sending is bogus, Google can sue for their actual costs, about $5. That's in the DMCA law , and that's the problem with tge DMCA law.
> The real problem here is automated takedowns.
The automated notices you're talking about are sent recklessly or at least negligently. If Google and the target could sue fir reckless notices and receive statutory damages, that would solve the problem.
> How can you have a computer send
You had your computer send that message to Slashdot's computer. You did so carefully, not recklessly or negligently.
I'm wondering how much is a false detection for a similar chemical, or as the result of another chemical reaction. At work our Lead detection kits respond the same to Copper. This has led to missdiagnosis in copper plating.
Chlorinated hydrocarbons abound in the environment. Could this be by products of burning recycled PC parts and old monitors and wire. The copper and other metals theft and recycling may be the cause.
As an author, I own rights to Apache httpd.
I allege that your post infringes my copy rights on Apache and demand that Slashdot remove your post.
I am indeed "the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed." My ownership of my Apache contributes is a true fact. I allege that you've infringed those rights. The perjury part applies (only) to my statement that I do in fact own the rights to my contributions. Whether or not your post infringes my rights is for a judge or jury to decide, because it's a complicated question.
Whether or not the whole complaint is true is the subject of the "knowingly misrepresents" clause, which would be better if it was "recklessly misrepresents" or "negligently misrepresents".
I suspect the e-readers are more likely to be time pressed people who multitask alot often skimming for important points where readers of paper editions tend to close out distractions and read the full text without jumping about looking at key events in random order. E book manual owners tend to read them the same way I read the National Electrical Code going to revelant sections to answer specific questions. Other than the numbered chapters sections of the code, I would have had difficulting knowing if Hospital Isolated Ground requirements came before or after the section of low voltage wires in an elevator access shaft.
Creating fusion is creative destruction of carbon based infrastructure, the capital investment made by coal, natural gas and oil companies, and they will resist any change until they have paid off their sunk costs even if it means permanently poisoning the biosphere. So, at least the public policy, politics is a dialectic between competing priorities in society, reflects the power of the carbon based industry, and so even if the technical problems can be solved, they will be delayed not by a lack of know-how, but by an active resistance to change by those who have a stake in the current infrastructure and who are owed return on their investment. That is what political economics means. Now, we could change that by edict, even if some calamity causes us to, but it will take some extreme disaster to persuade the most pragmatic financially thinking people that the cost exceeds the benefit. This is a problem when the accounting system doesn't really measure risk or when it is self preserving as many market-based entities are.
This is the same reason why many areas of this nation have slower broadband than is possible in nations that do not have an existing infrastructure. There is disincentive for the carriers to offer faster service even if they have to charge less for it. They are still paying off the cost of the installed infrastructure and will not replace it until either the cost of doing so is less than what they owe or until what they owe is paid off.
This is also why a Roman Emperor has a glass maker executed who had developed a recipe for unbreakable glass, because it would have upset a cartel in glass supported by the emperor.
If anything demand for ROI stunts our overall results, they result from applying knowledge to problems whose application cannot not be anticipated. So it is possible to be too pragmatic and too concerned with immediate profit so that you, as an investor, can't see beyond the end of your nose, and that is most pragmatic business men IMHO.
If their vision were not so narrow, they would have fulfilled the promise they made as they get all of the influence they now have politically that they would create more opportunity and less risk, they they could sustain growth and reduce the bad effects of it. This they have not done. Things have gotten worse. All we did was to give business people and investors more power to abuse the other priorities in society. It is unplanned that the Big Data problem has generality far beyond the social media data mining that draws in capital for it. That is good. The effort has greater hidden payoffs than what sells a group of investors on it. Woe that we give too much wisdom and power to markets and investors.
Yeah, an earlier draft was better, but since you can only recover damages for KNOWINGLY false claims, and there are no statutory damages, it allows large-scale bogus claims. Truly, though, if it allowed damages for recklessly false or negligent claims, and had statutory damages, that would pretty much fix it. The procedure outlined in the law is actually pretty good. The content goes right back up if the person who posted it says it's not infringing. It's just the lack of any penalty for reckless claims that screws up an otherwise pretty reasonable law.