Slashdot Mirror

Indeed. The storage space argument is absolute nonsense. Technically, 64GB of mobile storage isn't that much nowadays: https://www.newegg.com/Product...

"Apps clocking in at 40+MB" equates to 1600 apps. I did not do an extensive search, but users have rougly 30 to 100 apps installed according to these sources:
- https://www.quora.com/How-many...
- https://thenextweb.com/apps/20...

No, storage space on average mobiles is gobbled up by (UHD) self shot videos and years of videos received with Whatsapp (and the like) stored on the device.

BS

https://www.quora.com/How-many...

Batteries can store and discharge about 6-10 times the energy required to create them in their lifetimes.

That number seems very low. Got a source?

I was wondering too and did some searching. It looks like the number is realistic. What I found...

I hope I didn't screw up the math. If I did, please ridicule me and mod me down....

Modern EV batteries which are temperature controlled and charge limited have, so far, shown extremely low degradation over 100,000K EV miles.

The owner of this Volt, who is a member of a Facebook Volt owner group claims to still get the EPA rated 35 miles per charge from his Volt after 120K EV miles...

http://www.voltstats.net/Stats...

I personally own a Volt with 32K EV miles and still get the same EV range...

http://www.voltstats.net/Stats...

One charge in a Gen1 Volt is about 10.5 kWh. This means that over 100K EV miles, a Volt battery stores in the neighborhood of 29 MWh of energy.

1/10 of that would by 2.9 MWh

A quick search shows 828MJ per kWh of capacity to produce a lithium ion battery pack. This equates to 3.68 MWh to produce a 16kwh Chevy Volt battery pack.

https://www.quora.com/How-much...

Given that those Volt battery packs have shown little to no degradation so far, it's safe to say they have quite a bit more useful life to go, so they will probably make it close to 36 MWh of lifetime storage, but they will eventually succumb to the laws of physics though and start to degrade.

Other than the OS used to design Macs, you mean (Windows being used to run Solidworks and Altium, which design the mechanicals and electricals).

Oh? Do you know something the second guy in this discussion doesn't know?

Apple Industrial Design Group uses Autodesk Alias 3D for surfaces, Rhinoceros 3D for conceptual design and Nx (unigraphics) for manufacturing design.

All of these of course run on macOS.

Seeing as how it just donated a quarter million to privacy sites, I would say they are OK for cash right now. (From the article above) And advertising still pays without having to need the whole pie. https://www.quora.com/How-does... (Searched for on DDG)

Look, a solar panel never makes in it's usable life the amount of energy it takes to produce, the same with wind power. Do the math with cost of production and construction. It NEVER works.

The internet disagrees with you. On both points.

Do you have links or other supporting information you can cite?

If not, consider changing your position.

Spreading these sorts of lies will only hurt our efforts to avoid a real and imminent crisis.

Merits of systemd

How is this modded up? Stroutsup first wrote "C with Classes" in C and then used that to write C++ so C++ is technically written in C see here https://www.quora.com/In-what-...

I still find myself wondering why the spaceborn had to drop comet cores on Earth...I just don't understand where he thought the water that boiled would go.

That's my whole problem with the book — it is just too implausible (not just from physics perspective, but all around) and leaves too many questions. Sure, some of his other stuff — like Anathem, which I loved — is only less plausible, but it does not pretend, whereas the SevenEves is firmly in the uncanny valley of plausibility.

While you can't easily prove your phone ISN'T sending data, you can certainly prove when it IS sending data.

Simply take out the SIM card, turn on WiFi, and monitor the connections. I'd imagine many apps/hacks/vulnerabilities aren't designed to automatically disable if the cellular radio is off. So that'd logically leave you with ones that are, and ones that depend specifically on a cellular modem. (Fun fact: Cellular modems can actually have root file access to your phone, an "Red Flag!"-level vulnerability.)

--- Citation for last point:

http://www.darkreading.com/mob...

----------------- Secondary post:

Lastly, come to think of it. I wonder if you could design a "Communication LED" like modems and ethernet hubs/cards have. A blinking LED any time the PHY layer is sending data. However, I don't know enough about the GSM/CDMA protocol to know how often a cellphone "actively" sends data (announcement to look for potential cell towers), or if it's passive in nature.

A quick Google seems to favor the passive route (and battery conservation sure sounds like the right idea for a protocol.)

https://www.quora.com/How-ofte...

This would certainly be outside of "most" people's abilities. Cellphones are a pain-in-the-ass to open without damaging, and you'd have to identify the PHY layer and I would imagine you can't simply attach an LED to a GSM antenna. But the point remains. For a donor phone and a (hardware) hacker with a free weekend, one could likely build a phone that lights up an LED whenever it sends data. And logically, you've then made a phone that will tell you if entire ranges of apps and Android features "call home."

Perhaps I'm overthinking it. An even better method (if you had the cash) would be to create a fake cellphone tower ("base station") that forwards back to the internet and gives you a packet log. OpenBTS (open base station) exists already. Then you'd be able to see many layers of the stack and not just a transmit LED, to help identify what is talking and where it's going.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... . Any device using Android 6.0 onwards.

It sounds like that is half of the system that Apple has implemented. Apple's Axx SoC's have a TEE, but they also have the "Secure Enclave" (SE) CHIP. What is still missing in Android's implementation is the SEPERATE Secure Enclave chip.

I'm not a security expert, but from what I understand, the SE holds the key (literally) to decryption, and there is no direct or even indirect path to that key. That provides an important additional level of abstraction and security that no "on chip" solution can provide. And, according to those who ARE Security Experts, that is a significant advantage.

You should check out the gamergate page. Not only have dozens of editors been banned for edit warring, but the entire thing is a complete mess where even factual information is removed because it's contrary to the people who are pushing a narrative.[...] It's pretty sad when "know your meme" and "encyclopedia dramatica" have more factual articles.

Direct links for the lazy:

• Encyclopedia Dramatica (NSFW)
• Infogalactic
• Know Your Meme
• The History of Gamergate

That's the same article where a dozen hardcore feminists were banned for edit warring,

Oops, you believed the Guardian. It's a common mistake. What actually happened was that one feminist editor Ryulong was banned after he was caught begging for money from the activist group GamerGhazi which was formed by Reddit's SRS clique to suppress the spread of information about Gamergate. That's like asking for money from the Trump campaign after changing the name of Hillary Clinton to "Lying Hillary." They were still going to let him off the hook but Ryulong acted like a total ass on the last few days of the arbitration case so one or two of the votes flipped.

Every other hardcore feminist editor got away with it. Then the admins took vengeance for their friend Ryulong by instantly banning anybody who reported the misbehavior of any of the hardcore feminist editors in any other area of the wiki. They also took out a bunch of the Japanese editors who tried to correct Ryulong's misspellings where this white fanboy had made himself Wikipedia's final judge of Japanese spelling and grammar and had previously banned anyone who disagreed with him. When Gamaliel got elected to the Arbitration Committee a year later, ArbCom quickly banned two prominent editors who had presented evidence against Gamaliel during the Gamergate case, Cla68 and The Devil's Advocate, without presenting any justification for either ban. It was straight out of Kafka.

Some people still mistakenly think that the adults will take charge if you stay calm and reasonable and don't break the rules. That has been tried and results in a quick and permanent ban. Explaining your own position is "soapboxing" and "beating a dead horse" and is grounds for a ban. Having strong sources to support your position makes you a "POV-pusher" who is "not here to build the encyclopedia", which justifies a permanent ban. Presenting evidence of rulebreaking by the admins is "trolling" and "sockpuppetry" and merits an instant ban, and they are likely to remove your comments and insult you on the way out. If you try to appeal your ban on the grounds that you never broke any policy, your appeal will be rejected and you are likely to have your talk page access revoked. You are required to confess to sins you have not committed and proclaim that the admins are correct in policy when they are not. The place is run by completely irrational people who belong in an insane asylum.

For further reading:

• GamergateHQ's Wikidrama thread
• Wiki In Action
• Wikipediocracy
• Wikipedia Sucks

Now that OSX targets Intel architecture, there are instructions available online to build a "Hackintosh", a computer built from non-Apple parts that can run OSX. A few laptops are OSX-compatible, but Mac-hackers have the best success with a tower build as they can choose the exact hardware supported by Apple.

What's not annoying about that?

The US has already been giving a subset of citizens BI for years - and the result is horrific. American Indians receive basic income, free health care, free housing, and free education if they choose it - the result is the most impoverished areas in the United States.

I don't think you are properly characterizing the reality of life as a member of a native american tribe. Yes, some do have significant benifits for being a member of the clan, but some of those clans are pretty poor. Similarly, if you are a part of the "Gates" or "Buffet" clan you could well be better off than someone from the "Jones" or "Smith" clan. Yes, tribes recieve federal dollars for various things with wide variation between different tribes, not unlike states recieve different amounts of federal monies. The "free healthcare" has at times included sterilizing women without their consent, so I don't know that it is something one need look upon with envy. I can't find any info on "free education" beyond k-12 and the types of grants and scholarships widely available to other communities - some scholarships are available for specific tribes, but I don't think that counts as "free education if they choose it ". Poverty rates on reservations seem to be about double the national average - not such a good "basic income" system in my mind.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

https://www.quora.com/What-ben...

So, without looking at things more closely, I don't think one can really draw conclusions about UBI ideas based on the experiences of Native Americans as a whole. While some (even "many") native communities might be "the most impoverished areas in the United States", some are not. Native Americans (like all Americans) are elligable for a huge variety of social programs the are different in different places, few of which are very much like a UBI.

That's not to say that looking at specific programs in specific regions might not be illuminating. And not only Native American programs. Looking at payments from the Alaska Permanent Fund as well as per-capita tribal payments from different places might give some insight on what types of payments are "effective" by various measures.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Powell counted 69406 to 4

Bullshit. There aren't that many climate researchers in the world. And Stephan, I have a bit of hate for you right now for making me read this stupid piece of shit just so I could refute your argument. Here's the problem right in the methodology:

To find the number of recent articles that reject AGW, I used the following method: [...]

Notice that the author does not actually count climate research papers, doesn't actually find authors who refute or affirm AGW or other climate change theory, and doesn't actually count climate researchers. Waste of my time.

You do understand that by casting a wide net, Powell increases the chance of finding sceptical papers, right?

As for the number of climate scientists, we can do a simple Fermi approximation. There are apparently around 40000 universities in the world (which jibes nicely with a bit over 400 universities for approximately 80 million inhabitants in Germany). Going with the German sample, about 1/4 to 3/4 of these are research universities (depending on your definition) - so call it 20000. Assuming that half of these do climate research and that the average research group has 10 people, we are at 100000 climate scientists just at universities - without counting NASA (which spends approximately US$ 2e9 on Earth sciences - that should pay about 10000 people alone) or NOAA (with a nearly US$ 5e9 budget - another 25000 people) or Max Planck Institutes in Germany or JAXA in Japan, or any of the corresponding organisations in other states. Now neither NASA not NOAA is all scientists, but it should be clear that 69000 is not an implausible number of climate scientists.

It's attitudes like yours that cost the entire left this past election cycle.

As a moderate conservative, I don't representative the left.

You seem to have it in your head that you get to have an say so in how everyone else gets to vote.

Yes, I'm an American.

And just because YOU think people didn't make the right choice doesn't make your OPINION have any more weight.

Again, I'm an American.

And more to the point how just how much absolute corruption can you pricks on the left tolerate?

Why don't you ask someone on the left? I'm just right of center.

How many well documented cases of high level criminal corruption will it take for you open your eyes to the mere possibility that maybe, just maybe, the media isn't being honest with you?

Assuming that the Electoral College doesn't correct this historical mistake, the Trump administration will rival the Reagan administration when it comes to controversy, corruption and prison sentences.

https://www.quora.com/Which-presidents-administration-was-the-most-corrupt-in-US-history

Or are you just going to just talk down to people about how you think you know better than them?

If you feel like I'm talking down to you, it's because you're groveling on the floor. That's your problem, not mine.

That's what the courts told China.

Except that's not a real international court, something you are usually not told by the West media. It is a basically an arbitration panel paid for by Philippine (who now falls to China.) Guess how will such a panel rule. you don't abide to arbitration ruling unless you first agree to; and China never did agree to abide such arbitration.

The problem of course, is that while the US has a good bit of coastline, we have a lot of real estate that is a long way from the ocean.

Of course we do. We also have the ability to transmit electricity there. And don't kid yourself. A huge percentage of the population of the US lives within two hundred miles of the ocean. This includes the entire populations of New York City, Boston, Washington DC, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Miami, Jacksonville, Houston, New Orleans, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Portland, Seattle and plenty more. Counties directly on the shoreline account for 40% of US population. All of these cities could easily be supplied by off shore wind power. We're idiots for not taking advantage of this power source.

The east coast of the US is prone to some serious weather excursions in the form of hurricanes. A lot of them. Even in Rhode Island. So an offshore wind facility has to be designed with that in mind.

They are. My understanding is that they stop the turbines from spinning above a certain wind load (somewhere around 125kph currently). They have a hurricane mode where the blades are pitched to neutral so it doesn't spin and then locked down facing the wind. Of course if the wind gets high enough damage is likely to result from a hurricane on land or off shore. Cuba had some wind farms survive hurricane Sandy which had winds of 110mph.

It's easy to take cheap shots at the UK over Brexit, however in reality the referendum result was about anti-EU sentiment and sovereignty rather than xenophobia. Sure, a small core of the Leave campaign and their supporters are pretty xenophobic, but that is not reflected amongst the population at large. That side of things was given far too much weight by the media and the Remain side, to the detriment of rational debate in the run up to the vote.

The fact is that the UK is one of the least racist countries in Europe; we are far more multicultural and inclusive than the majority of EU states, and that's unlikely to change post-Brexit in my opinion. Regaining some degree of control over our borders removes the feeling that immigration is something being imposed on us by the EU, which is actually what people resent, not the immigration itself.

Just for comparison... What is the value of all the Gold in the world? $7,024,689,650,351 Yep - That's trillions Based on current spot gold price of $1,174.62 http://onlygold.com/Info/All-T... How many Bitcoins are currently in circulation? 15,873,063 BTC (as of October 4th 2016) Note that there’s a cap of 21,000,000 — there won’t ever be more than that! https://www.quora.com/How-many... So, value at $2000 per Bc is about $42 Billions U.S. GDP is about about $18 Trillions U.S. Federal Debt is about $20 Trillions

it's not "magic" that causes this complete crapshoot of prices...it's the lack of a competitive market.

You mean the competition among insurers for customers, and the competition among health care providers for access to large insurer provider networks? The things that can make or break your business: whether your premium is $425 or $317/month, and whether the 240,000 regional customers in your 30-mile radius are disinclined to even show up at your office because the next guy over is covered by their insurance?

"Competition" means true costs are exposed (not "negotiated rates") and consumers have the freedom and mobility of choice to pick one doctor or hospital over another based on known rates

Actually, competition means that two or more participants stand to gain only at the expense of the others, and so tend toward behaviors which maximize their gains. In markets, that means supplying the best service at the lowest price point. In insurance markets, that means attracting customers by lowering premiums; and to do that, you must lower costs. In healthcare markets, that often means attracting insurers to allow you to participate in their provider networks, which means you must lower your prices closer to your costs if there are other providers adequate to care for the clients of the insurers (you're competing with those providers).

Businesses generally tailor their own insurance through a third party. My current employer uses Carefirst for healthcare and CVS for prescriptions, with unique plans designed by the insurance adjusters and our HR department. My employer has to pay Carefirst large amounts of money for insurance (if you've ever looked at COBRA rates, that's what your employer was paying), and I only take up about $25/month of it (of some $700). My last employer used Aflac, and the employer prior used Guardian, each having negotiated similarly for appropriate plans and bid between insurers to find who could provide something they could use to entice employees while also keeping their premiums low to maximize the business's profitability by minimizing benefits expenses.

It's an enormously-competitive market; the problem is healthcare costs in the US are ridiculous, and there's a lot of gerrymandering to cover this. Healthcare profits are all over the place, and some of them are actually pretty big; although how big is a matter of debate. That question has been asked before, with claims like HCA making 20% profit margin and Pfeizer making an egregious 43%. That compares to a rough 10% average profit margin; but are they really that big?

That's not even the whole story, though.

High profit margins are frequently a sign of risk. Pfeizer's profit margin reached a whopping 45.5% in the past few years; their current quarter margin is 10%; and their minimum profit for one year was -1.22% (a loss in Q4 2015). Their 5-year average margin? 19%. Prescription drugs are volatile, and can face large losses; when you include the cost of risk--the losses faced that eat up previous profits so the business doesn't just file for bankruptcy and make someone else pay for it all--80% of the actual price paid to Pfeizer itself is sucked into costs.

Drugs aren't even a large part of the cost of care--which is the other shoe dropping. Hospitals might average 20%, and medical devices might be 33%--although HCA seems to average 6%, and Medtronic seems to max at 25% and average only 17%--but how much medical care is drugs and hospitals, rather than doctor's office visits and preventative care?

That probably doesn't matter all that much when it comes to actual surgery. Catastrophic care is easy to talk about as a sor

It's a somewhat common practice notably on Reddit. You can read about it here

She didn't lose by voters despising her, she got 2 million more vote,

From what I could gather over here, basically half the people who voted for HC actually voted against Trump and would have preferred any other option if there had been one.

Fake news and propaganda built around the emails certainly helped. We'd regularly read selective misleading quotes here from her emails, hoping nobody actually would go read the full email.

I never read even one of the quotes, because the scandal is not in what the emails contained, the scandal is that a high ranking official breaks the rules in a way that would have landed a soldier or a low ranking official in jail.

he also had his hacker hack actual election related data and one voting machine manufacturer.

So why were these things hackable in the first place? If you can't run your election securely, you have no business running an election. Use paper ballots and hand-counting like the rest of the civilized world does for good reasons.

It's time to get real about elections. There's no point in having a large wall of security around the US, if a foreign power can rig an election and stick a puppet into power to control security. Now you Trump lot insist he's not Putin's puppet, but he certainly did provide political cover for those hacks, he certainly repeated Putin's false propaganda about Aleppo, and he certainly has strong business links to Russia.

Wow so much in there.

a) not everyone who points out what a corrupt person HC is automatically is a "Trump lot"
b) Aleppo is full of propaganda from all sides. European media, for example, regularily uses the word "Syrian rebels", conveniently ignoring that there are non non-islamist fighters left in Aleppo. They also use the word "civilians", conveniently ignoring that even respectable NGOs point out that for all we know, the only civilians left in Aleppos rebel controlled areas are the families of the islamist fighters, who are paid by Daesh to stay there.
c) If a foreign power can rig an election, your election system is fucked up and needs wholesale replacement
d) Your claim that Trump is a puppet, much less Putins puppet, is just words. You are entitled to your opinion, just make it obvious that it's only an opinion.
e) Russia is a huge country with 144 million people. If you're into international business, chances are good you have some business links to Russia. Pretty much all of Wall Street has, for example, but I've not heard anyone call Wall Street "Pro-Putin".
f) if you were really concerned so much about Trump, why you didn't prevent the DNC putting up literally the only imaginable candidate who could possibly lose against him in the election?

So if Putin invades a country could we trust the US to follow its agreed defense pacts?

Because Russia is such an aggressor... Wake up to your own countries propaganda, dude.

There is an answer on Yahoo Answers listing 5 countries that Russia invaded between 1890 and 2008, compared to 50 countries invaded or subject of military interventions by the USA in the same time period.

This list of countries invaded by Russia covers a longer time period, and again shows comparatively low aggression compared to most western countries.

this list shows 5 countries in the last 20 years invaded by Russia. A similar list for the USA would have at least 15-20 countries listed.

If you really still believe the tall tale of the Russian aggressiveness, you shouldn't talk about propaganda. You're a textbook example of a propaganda victim.

You still live in the early 2000's? It's 2016: even virtualization (if needed) runs well on low end hardware now

Oh, for example, has Adobe ported their apps to Linux, and if so, which Distro?

And if you are talking about running stuff under WINE (since we all know the answer to the question regarding Adobe Creative Cloud running directly on Linux), the answer still appears to be "not so much"...

Bearing in mind that all this is just a fun exercise, and there's no reason to believe that the 1.2 mN/kW thrust will scale to megawatts of power, here's how long it would take to get to Mars if this finding scales to a practical spaceship drive:

• Assume solar panels in space can give you 2.5kW per square meter, and a hypothetical spacecraft has a 20 x 40 meter solar array giving 2 MW
• 1.2 mN/kW == 1.2 N/MW, so at 2MW you're getting 2.4 Newtons of thrust.
• Let's say that the craft weighs 100 tonnes, that gives an acceleration of 0.000024 meters per second squared, or about 20 hours to get to walking speed.
• Mars is 225 million km away.
• Putting those numbers into this nifty space travel calculator, it'll take 6 years to get to mars, including acceleration and deceleration. Or 2 years if you can get the craft mass down to 10 tonnes.

When you go to a restaurant, if they screw up your order you'll probably still live.

That may be a reason to regulate doctors stricter. But it is not a reason to nationalize them...

And there is very little shopping around to be done especially because when it comes to life saving medicine or surgery time is a factor.

Of course, there is plenty of "shopping around" — or, rather, there can be. People even travel abroad for such procedures — they aren't all about "boob jobs" as someone claimed. Some times time is, indeed, of essence, but that's far from the norm. Except in an aftermath of an accident, it is, thankfully, very rare, that a person discovers, he must undergo a surgery within hours. Usually, surgeries and other procedures are scheduled in advance — indeed, long waits for such procedures is the number one complaint of Canadians. Having already paid for them with their taxes, they have little choice but to wait, but, if they were allowed to choose, some would've chosen different.

And that, really, is the bottom line — you can not (or rather, should not be allowed to) compel me into joining whatever health-care scheme you wish. No way, no how. It is my life, my body, and my money.

there are areas where profit motive is a detriment, where it actively impedes other more important motives such Quality.

Really? Why, then, is my healthcare so much better here, than it was in the worker's paradise called USSR?

Health care is one. Aircraft maintenance (both civil and military, and ive worked both) is another.

So, your argument is, any service, where bad quality may result in the consumer's death, should be nationalized?

Is government really a better guardian of quality of service provided by its monopoly, than competition among service-providers would be?

This article claims it was 110db at take off. Loud yes. But that has nothing to do with the volume at ground level while the plane flies at Mach 2.2 at 55k feet.

Can anyone dig up a reference for an actual sound reading taken while Concorde over-flies at max speed and max elevation?

There is also this, which starts out very promising and I got excited that it may actually answer the damn question. But it doesn't. The guy claims that the sonic boom is equivalent to a loud trumpet at 0.5m, which may be true, but makes no correction for the fact the concord is 55k feet away.

Some more info here, but still nothing definitive.

The problem is all the reference points don't apply, since the main comments are from those observing the space shuttle (Mach 25 vs Mach 2.2) and military jets at much lower altitude, i.e. performing maneuvers. What we really need is a sea captain's report from the middle of the Atlantic.

If you don't have anything thoughtful to say, you can't say it.

That's pretty much how https://www.quora.com/ works.

The one who is daft is you. It wasn't about the states, it was about the people not having enough information about a presidential candidate because of the lack of communication technology. The example given is perfect:

It was a compromise made toward the end of the constitutional convention in a committee, when the attendees were getting anxious to leave. The major sticking point was concern about too much democracy. The founders feared the "rabble" and what they worried about the most was that, given technology at the time, there was no way for people from South Carolina to know anything about a candidate from Delaware or vice versa.

They were concerned presidential elections would become free-for-alls among a dozen candidates representing different parts of the country and they would not be focused on the national interest, but on pleasing the constituents from their region. So the founders wanted some kind of indirect election method for the President, providing an extra layer of vetting from the "right" kind of person, but one that still featured some acknowledgement of the will of the populace. They argued about how exactly that would work on and off most of the convention, and the committee of eleven wrapped it up toward the end with the system as we know it.

Or, in the words of a former Secretary of the Treasury, who said the president should be elected:

"by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice."

In other words, nothing to do with the states, directly, but rather the fear a candidate could appeal to certain groups and thus, tyranny of the majority.

With today's diverse population, and as this election has shown, that tyranny exists despite the electoral college since the person who gets the majority of votes in a state gets all the state's electoral votes (except for Maine who divides its votes).

ummm Tesla lost 750 million dollars in the 3 previous quarters, with that +80 million they are only 400 million short of making a profit this year. That is with a estimated $2.4 Billion in subsidies last year, and likely even more this year.

Takes money to make money. Rounding for ease of calculation, 100 million profit a quarter makes 400 mill a year. 2.4 billion could be paid back in 6 years, with no profit growth.

ummm Tesla lost 750 million dollars in the 3 previous quarters, with that +80 million they are only 400 million short of making a profit this year. That is with a estimated $2.4 Billion in subsidies last year, and likely even more this year.

" (you won't run into any DJT supporters in ND either)"

You forgot about Narendra Modi:
https://www.quora.com/Is-Donal...

Jobs's cancer wasn't "extremely aggressive" and it was detected early. He would probably be alive if he had followed his doctor's advice.

It looks like TFS has this wrong though. Dendrites don't reduce a battery's capacity, but lifetime. Reducing the production of dendrites extends how long until the cell fails, which increases the total lifetime, not the capacity. This is good to make batteries that don't need to be replaced as often, which helps reduce the TCO of any battery powered device, including cars.

Also, for those doubting what you say above, I find the best thing is to point them at the facts:

https://www.quora.com/Is-it-tr...

Batteries have increased density quite well over time, it is just the push for smaller phones and faster processors eats the improvements so that it isn't as obvious to end users that the batteries are improving over time.

My first thought in rebuttal was that they could attach a few JDAMs to the thing; but as usual the question has been raised and discussed elsewhere. Long story short, if they can't take it out with the gun, they'll put some missiles on 'er.

IMHO, it seems like an awful lot of modern warfare these days is just a matter of getting the missiles close enough and then releasing them. F-35 is a boondoggle, an anachronism before it even got off the drawing board. The replacement for the A-10 *and* the F-35 is dudes sitting behind a screen somewhere in Nebraska, making the call and entering codes into drones. We're already doing that. We'll just do more of it.

but modern tanks will survive its shitty popgun,

The A-10 has weapons other than its 30 mm gun. Hellfire and Maverick missiles do wonders against every tank on today's battlefield.

This article from 5 years ago is a long discussion from people who appear to know what they are talking about regarding this subject. The overall consensus: while the A-10 may not be able to destroy a MBT with only its gun, that gun can render a tank inoperable (track hits), sufficiently damage components and cause other havoc which will make any tanker nervous. When combined with its under wing stores, tanks and their supporting vehicles and infantry would be toast.

Further, this article goes into a deeper discussion about penetration capability of the 30 mm gun vs armor, what tank (specifically the T-90) has what armor as well as factual incidents of tanks being hit by such rounds or other tanks.

Again, depending on where you hit a tank, the A-10 can immobilize it, damage it to the point it's essentially useless or, if lucky, can destroy it with only its gun.

The other thing to consider is loiter time. The Warthog can stay over a battle area substantially longer (up to 3 hours) than any other aircraft, especially the F-35. That is great for seeking out targets of opportunity or even acting as a spotter for ground troops/tanks.

IOW it can't be used against an enemy with an air force and it can't fly low enough to use its gun.

A) that is why we achieve air superiority. However, how that is supposed to be done with the F-35 is still unclear since that is the role the F-15 and F-16 are designed and used for. Technically the F-14 as well but its role can vary.

B) the warthog is designed to fly low. Yes, it can dive if necessary but its primary course of attack is at a low, shallow angle. You don't want a slow(er) flying aircraft to be high in the air. You want it to swoop in, lay waste to its target then get out. By flying low you present a very small window of opportunity for opposing troops on the ground to target it as well as make it more difficult for radar to pick it up and track.

The capacity of an installed solar panel is the sum or average of expected generation over a day/month/year, so it takes generation time and location into account.

Wrong. See:

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=101&t=3
http://exploringgreentechnology.com/glossary/installed-capacity-definition/
https://www.quora.com/What-does-it-mean-when-a-solar-panel-has-a-capacity-of-say-100kW

The proof renewables work is all the lies told by those who hate them. If they didn't work, then they wouldn't need to lie so much to make them look bad.

By this logic, should I conclude that renewables don't work, because you're lying to make them look good?

It seems Chrome had good reasons to remove MathML

or the other 99%ers that live in towns that are at or below sea level. The US has plenty of cities that could disappear. Eventually the Earth will recover on it's own (assuming we don't screw it up more), but I wont be around thousands of years from now when it does.

Donald Trump had his kids vaccinated: https://www.quora.com/Has-Dona...

Many studies have indicated that people are happier when they feel well-off compared to others as opposed to being well-off in an absolute sense.

https://sciencehouse.wordpress...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...
http://livingeconomics.org/art...
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-mo...
http://content.time.com/time/h...

It's a bit distressing to learn that we get a kick from schadenfreude, but there it is.

Perhaps the radar sensor?

https://www.quora.com/What-kin...

youre right.
therefore, read and become edumicated you fucking racist moron, and stop spreading bullshit:

https://www.quora.com/Is-it-tr...

Is it true that Democrats used to be the conservative party and Republicans used to be the progressive party?

Something I learned in history class is that the Republicans tended to be against slavery, while the Democrats were for it. It was a Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, who was the politician who made the greatest impact against slavery. Yet, now things have changed. Republican politicians have routinely been accused of racism, and ethnic minorities are more likely to be supportive of the Democrats.

I'm sure the whole truth is more complex than two parties switching their main ideologies, but what is the truth?
49 Answers
Murray Godfrey
Murray Godfrey, U.S History Professor
Updated 3 Jun 2015 Upvoted by Marc Bodnick, former Stanford Poli Sci PhD; student of Congress
I teach history for a living. What you've learned is accurate.

Understanding this has to do more with understanding U.S. political history in general.

The republicans were a new party in Lincoln's day. They were a conglomeration of various northern former Whig constituencies and people that wanted to develop the west that coalesced due to issues surrounding slavery. Generally speaking, they retained a lot of the older Whig economic views that the government should be involved in the economy. It should promote policies that promote growth, they thought. That meant financing infrastructure, education, protecting native industries, policies that promoted commerce and rapid job growth. They did believe in more federal involvement in all these things, and it cost money. They were the forward looking, innovative party, and also vaguely speaking they were the "big government" party and had policies that promoted big banks, big industry, big business.

The democrats were the more tradition-minded party. They were also the party focused on keeping taxes low and when it came to promoting commerce, etc... wanted to leave it to the states. Generally speaking, they were the "states' rights" party.

The shift started after the Civil War and continued for over 135 years. After the civil war, the republicans started to split into factions generally divided between how deep "in bed" you got with big business, so they developed a conservative business wing often at odds with with the more progressive wing. The democrats pretty much stayed the states rights party and were marginalized at the national level for several decades.

Key points in the shift to the structure we know today:

1896: William Jennings Bryan incorporates the Populist Party vote, giving the democrats a sizable left wing on economics that it didn't have before.

1912: Theodore Roosevelt breaks from the republicans and runs as the candidate of the Progressive Party - this makes the republican progressive wing - once a third to a half of the republican coalition, much less committed to the party going forward and they never really reconcile. Republican leadership comes more and more from its conservative wing after that.

1932-45: Franklin Roosevelt essentially adopts most of the old Progressive platform and pretty much incorporates that whole vote into his Democratic coalition. This puts the party on a collision course when it comes to social policy.

1964: Lyndon Johnson essentially divorces the longest marriage the democratic party had: the one with southern whites. By making Civil Rights part of the Democratic platform, the republicans lose basically all of what's left of their black constituencies - which had been a significant part of their remaining progressive vote in northern urban areas. The democrats start to hemorrhage southern whites rapidly - you see George Wallace run for pres

So what do we do about Neptune then? It certainly hasn't cleared its orbital path of Pluto.

If you look at the orbits of Neptune and Pluto in 3D, they never really cross.

In fact due to 3:2 resonance between them, the closest they ever get to each other is 18AU, about the distance of Earth with Uranus.
https://www.quora.com/Will-Nep...

So yet, Neptunes orbit is considered cleared.

Note that small bodies in rensonace and in Lagrange points are considered excluded from the planetary "clearing" requirement, since they are not in the way of the planet's orbit.

With all of our satellites, and many more to come will Earth still be a planet in the future? :-)

So what do we do about Neptune then? It certainly hasn't cleared its orbital path of Pluto.

If you look at the orbits of Neptune and Pluto in 3D, they never really cross.

In fact due to 3:2 resonance between them, the closest they ever get to each other is 18AU, about the distance of Earth with Uranus.
https://www.quora.com/Will-Nep...

So yet, Neptunes orbit is considered cleared.

Note that small bodies in rensonace and in Lagrange points are considered excluded from the planetary "clearing" requirement, since they are not in the way of the planet's orbit.

No, it is not. The government's duty is to protect us from external enemies and internal criminals. Nobody owes you any actual support — that is, you can not count on other people giving you anything of theirs, only on them not taking away anything of yours.

Not exactly... Basically all forms of an oath for public service at the federal level are: "I, , do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. [So help me God is optional for President]". This poses the question of what/who are to be considered enemies?

Back to the original topic, I can not see, how an employer can be considered wrong not buying labor from the same folks, who are themselves happy to buy imported goods. We are all selling something (such as our labor) to buy something — and Free Trade expands the markets for both sellers and buyers. It sucks to be on the losing side, but that's life...

This is the argument that has in my opinion not gotten enough analysis. How can a country approach a 100% consumer society when all the production had moved out of the country. There is no longer anything to trade from local resources, labor, goods, etc.. All is being either outsourced or imported (and this is the current trend).

If you ban trading with India, the employer may consider moving work away from the expensive California towards a cheaper State — will we be talking about banning interstate commerce next, the way health insurance is already banned (under a variety of bogus excuses), for example?

I do not believe the concerns today are about banning trade, but eliminate one-sided trade practices (H1B abuse is one of them along with market saturation of government-subsidized lower cost items). This is not free trade.

Probably because it is a country's duty to first support its own citizens.

No, it is not. The government's duty is to protect us from external enemies and internal criminals. Nobody owes you any actual support — that is, you can not count on other people giving you anything of theirs, only on them not taking away anything of yours.

Back to the original topic, I can not see, how an employer can be considered wrong not buying labor from the same folks, who are themselves happy to buy imported goods. We are all selling something (such as our labor) to buy something — and Free Trade expands the markets for both sellers and buyers. It sucks to be on the losing side, but that's life...

If you ban trading with India, the employer may consider moving work away from the expensive California towards a cheaper State — will we be talking about banning interstate commerce next, the way health insurance is already banned (under a variety of bogus excuses), for example?

She did not intentionally leak any information.

Wow! Do we have to debunk this meme once again?

Lack of intent may be why she should get a reduced sentence. It does not absolve her of the crime. An NSA contractor was just arrested merely for taking some materials home — that in itself is highly illegal and qualifies him for jail time. If the investigation also proves he wanted to leak/sell the information, the charges will be upgraded.

She really does belong to jail over this — the Democrats have disgraced the US this year by nominating a bona-fide criminal.

Why is marijuana outlawed? The real reasons are worse than you think.

Not the webpage documenting the perjury in front of congress - and while I can’t find the best presentation of these facts, I did find this here:

This was the final salvo in the battle for control of America’s paper production. Randolph Hearst the newspaper and lumber baron, reportedly feared a major loss of revenues and aligned with his son-in-law Harry Anslinger, an opportunistic minor government official. Anslinger hated Mexicans and blacks, and demonized cannabis as “marijuana”—a denigrating reference to its Hispanic name.

He rallied support against this “marijuana” drug being imported from Mexico and the Caribbean, so that many of the legislators who voted for his bill did not realize that they were criminalizing the hemp plant grown in their own gardens and communities. To strengthen support, Anslinger and his cronies suborned perjury to the US Congress about the American Medical Association (AMA) position. In 1937, the AMA actually opposed Prohibition, regarding cannabis as a safe drug.[4]

I never said Keystone ends in Europe. I implied that if Canadian oil becomes available to the US, then it puts more pressure on Russian oil prices and forces them to sell it at fair market value to Eastern Europe.

First, Canadian oil is already available to the US. The first two phases of the Keystone pipeline system are already online and fully operational. The third phase is partly online, and expected to be fully operational in 2017. The fourth phase, Keystone XL, is what was nixed.

Second, the Keystone pipeline system is far from the only oil pipeline from Canada to the US. Here's a map that I found linked from here, easily found by a cursory web search. So, again, Canadian oil is already available to the US.

Third, Canadian oil has been available to the US for longer than we've had pipelines, as oil is commonly distributed via tankers. I'll stop beating that horse now, as I'm assuming you misspoke on that point and are aware that over 1/3 of US oil imports already come from Canada.

Fouth, you seem to be making a number of mutually-exclusive assumptions about oil. Specifically, you seem to be assuming that the cost of transporting Canadian oil to Europe by tanker is less than the cost of transporting Russian oil to Europe by pipeline. You seem to [correctly] imply that transport by pipeline is cheaper than transport by tanker in the context of Canada/US oil transport, but for some reason [falsely] imply the opposite in the context of supplying Europe with oil. If pipeline transport is cheaper than tanker transport, then tanker-transported Canadian oil wouldn't be able to undercut pipeline-transported Russian oil on price. If pipeline transport is not cheaper than tanker transport, then Keystone XL wouldn't lower the cost of Canadian oil.

Finally, you're overlooking many other aspects of this situation. Say, the fact that not all oils are born equal (though that's not really that much of an issue in this comparison, as both Canadian and Russian crude oils are shit). Maybe the fact that geographic location of refining and storage capacity dictate in large part the route that petrochemicals travel between production and consumption. Et cetera.

In a nutshell, I find your view overly simplistic and likely inaccurate. While it's true that increased production in North America (and indeed, the current bottleneck is in the distribution network, not on the production side) would put some negative price pressure on oil markets, there's no reason to suspect that this would be sufficient to bankrupt Gazprom.

Also, I'd like to point out that the "stupid oil pipeline" in Syria isn't actually an oil pipeline. It's a natural gas pipeline. And Russia extorts Eastern Europe via turning the screws on gas prices during winter. We should've been talking about gas, not oil. An oversight like that really makes me wonder why I spend so much time on my response, but feel free to reply if you're interested in how natural gas distribution works.