It makes perfect sense. After enough time of disparaging the factory life, Americans are finally realizing that it beats the alternative.
I can make sense of it at an intellectual level, it's just my gut reaction to go "WTF" -- it's a bit counter-intuitive.
The news is welcome, I just wish American companies would start making things in USA again. I know we can do it. I suppose in time, we will.
It's already turning around. Tesla builds its cars in Fremont, CA and they're planning to open a battery factory somewhere in the US. SpaceX makes rockets in Hawthorne, CA. SolarCity bought Silevo and is planning to build a solar panel factory in NY. Now we just need to convince someone besides Elon Musk (which is actually happening.)
I admire Elon Musk. But he's dead wrong. Neil Degrasse Tyson is right.
I admire Neil Degrasse Tyson, but he's basically shilling for NASA. (I like NASA, more on their limits below.) And he is over simplifying what people's motivations where.
As others have pointed out, taking your company public means surrendering a significant amount of control over the long term. Board members and share holders like revenue. It's all about the next quarter. They don't like pet projects that are giant money sinks without the remote possibility of a return. Persist on that path post-IPO Elon, and watch yourself be fired from your own company, ala Steve Jobs.
Good thing Elon Musk has stated over and over that he won't take SpaceX public until all the long term development is done, specifically for those reasons.
NDGT is spot on the issue of exploration. It takes a government interested in (mostly) pure science without profit motivation.
You want to put people on Mars? I'll tell you what puts people on Mars - the U.S. government thumbing their nose in the face of Chinese ascendancy - Ala Cold War 2: Space Boogaloo.
Let the government, or team of governments blow tax dollars on building Mars mission tech. That tech will filter down to private enterprise years later, so the next generation of Elon Musks can farm minerals off asteroids, or some other future commercial endeavor.
NASA lives and dies by congressional funding and congressional funding is fickle. NASA has done great things, but those days are over and where basically a fluke. President's come in, they say they want to return to the Moon or go to Mars but they don't push congress to fund a coherent plan. Next president comes in, new plan, still not funded. When congress does fund something, the funding is based on getting jobs in their own districts not on what actually makes sense from an engineering standpoint. Look into the history of the "Space Launch System" (that's the rocket congress wants NASA to build that would be used to send people to Mars.) It's mandated that it must use components from Space Shuttle technology. In the space industry, the Space Launch System is known as "the rocket to nowhere." NASA's history is littered with cancelled projects due to the fickleness of Presidents and Congress.
At this point in history, the US Congress is incapable of funding an expensive and on going coherent space program. I don't see that changing in the next twenty years. NASA may land a man on Mars in the 2030s, but I doubt it. But even if NASA does land a human on Mars in the 2030s, they are not working on the technologies, infrastructure and transportation systems to put a colony there. If NASA puts humans on Mars, it will be just like when we landed on the Moon. Plant a flag, shout "we're #1", and then go home.
Elon is overreaching with this.
No, he's reaching. Something I wish more people would do even though they may fail.
Long live the oligarchy (and how sad is it that is our best hope?)
... Please focus on finishing what you started instead of constantly shifting focus like someone afflicted with attention deficit disorder.
He's not doing it all alone. He's got 2 or 3 people working for him (by 2 or 3, I mean over 10,000).
He founded SpaceX in 2002 and Tesla in 2003. He didn't intend to be involved with Telsa, but the original CEO almost killed the company. Now both companies are kicking ass. People whine about delays, but delays are the natural result of pushing boundaries aggressively and don't matter when you're still outpacing everyone else.
He's on the board of Solar City because he provided the seed money, he is not involved operationally.
He spent a few days thinking about hyperloop and then put the idea in the public domain (the bastard!)
Elon Musk is doing fine and luckily will ignore your advice.
No, the quote from the article did not contain the words "South America," so it's the submitter or editor that is poor at geography. And quoting. And the first sentence was not attributed to the Professor in the article nor in the summary.
In a place where the temperature is always well below freezing, "global warming" is not going to melt all the ice. That doesn't mean it isn't a problem elsewhere. Even if there were no net ice loss on earth, if we're losing ice in places we need it (such as mountain ranges that supply people with drinking water), and accumulate it in places that have no humans at all (Antarctica), that's an enormous problem.
But hey, let's confuse land ice and sea ice and create doubt about the actual science by cherry picking data, spreading half-truths and general misinformation.
So, is NASA currently paying a nearly 3x premium to SpaceX just to get their technology off the ground or what? Not that I object to such long-term thinking, quite the opposite in fact, but I could swear the SpaceX contract was marketed as a cost-saving maneuver.
It says here that it currently costs $10,000 to get a pound of payload into orbit, but from TFA SpaceX has a $1.6 billion contract for 12 launches, and if the current ~5000 pound payload is typical that works out to ~$27,000 per pound.....
That $10,000 number does not include the price of the spacecraft/satellite (that you are trying to put into orbit). The $10,000/lb refers to the scenario where the spacecraft/satellite is the payload. NASA never sent anything to the ISS for $10,000 per pound, as missions to the ISS require a spacecraft to contain the actual cargo. The shuttle supposedly used to cost around $20,000/lb to deliver cargo to the ISS even though it use "reusable" (really it was refurbishable.)
Furthermore, the $10,000/lb is just to get something into orbit. SpaceX also returns cargo from the ISS back to Earth. So for the money NASA gets a launch vehicle and a spacecraft capable of carrying cargo to and from the ISS. All at a lower price than anyone else can offer. It really is a deal, and they really are not paying 3x the "going rate." As a matter of fact, the closest competition is Orbital Sciences and the are more expensive and can't return cargo to Earth. SpaceX is the only company that can do that for more small amounts of cargo.
Based on that set of axioms, it can be completely loving to encourage someone to repent of his sins and choose to follow Jesus. Practicing homosexuality is a sign that someone isn't doing that. It would therefore be unloving or even hateful to affirm homosexual relations.
His intent is not relevant, it's his actions that matter. The fact that he comes to these conclusions through religious beliefs makes them no less oppressive. The only reasons to oppose gay marriage are religious, or "ick factor." Neither have any business in a state's constitution.
I personally feel that boycotting FF over this is a bit much, but I think people have every right to do so.
Thinking one group of people is subhuman, and not worthy of the same rights isn't "an opposing view", it's bigotry.
This isn't a quip at you, but I'm interested in your response; It's an honest question. Am I a bigot because I consider child molestors, rapists and nazis subhuman? These are groups of people. Some with mental health problems, others with aggressive theological views... All scourge of the earth in my eyes.
Are you equating being gay to molesting children, raping and genocide of the jews, gypsies and homosexuals?
2. Refusing to participate in/support an event that goes against one's religious beliefs. Similar bakery, but now someone (straight or gay) asks for a wedding cake for a gay wedding (with two grooms on top, say). If the baker has a religious belief that opposes gay marriage, must they still provide the cake?
If the baker has a genuine religious belief to oppose interracial marriages, can they deny providing a cake to an interracial couple? This is a real thing, people use Deuteronomy 7:3 among other verses to justify it. Their beliefs are repugnant, but "genuine." My answer is that if you sell to the public, you sell to the public. Selling someone a cake is not "supporting gay marriage." It's selling them a cake. The baker is free to have all the hateful, unloving, non-compassionate thoughts they want. Presumably God can read minds and will understand that they are good righteous people.
... that electric cars are no greener than what the energy company uses to generate and transport electricity.
What's funny is it would take someone only a few seconds to look up the relevant facts, but they never do. If someone is opposed to "green technology," they just let their confirmation bias decide that statements that align with their beliefs are obviously true. ICE engines are incredibly inefficient. All that noise that requires a muffler is wasted energy. All that heat that requires a radiator is wasted energy.Power plants are fairly efficient, as are electric motors. Don't believe me? Run the numbers:
Using the magical power of the internet, we can find out that a power plant burning petroleum produces 12.7 kWh per gallon. Tesla recently drove two Model S cars across the country (3,464.5 miles). The total energy consumed by both cars was 1197.8 kWh. It would take a power plant 94.3 gallons of gasoline (1197.8 kWh / 12.7 kWh / gallon) to generate the electricity used by both cars, so each car drove 3,464.5 miles on the equivalent of less than 48 gallons of gasoline. That's 72 MPG. What 5 seater, high performance, luxury hybrid gets 72 MPG?. It doesn't matter if the power plant is burring coal, power plants and electric motors are so freakin' efficient they blow everything else out of the water. Furthermore, it's much easier to scrub the exhaust of a power plant, than of a car.
And guess what, the US produces energy using all sorts of fuels: coal, natural gas, hydro, nuclear, wind and solar. Hybrids only burn gas, no alternative. Electric cars are green, get over it and stop spreading FUD to people too lazy to google reliable sources and perform simple math.
This time, the landing legs will supposedly be actuated. They'll fold out just before "landing". I don't think they've done this before, or at least it didn't look like it from the videos. Cool....
Now, this is all awesome stuff, but I can't help but wonder... What good are landing legs when you're landing in the ocean?
... I just don't understand what the landing legs are for.
They are doing this to collect data with the goal of eventually boosting back and landing near the launch pad for rapid reuse. The legs actually do help, they reduce aerodynamically induced spin and the terminal velocity. But mostly this is a test so they can gain confidence to return to land.
How does this work? The rocket will have gone far down range before the first stage separates.
* First stage reverses direction and comes back. Very fuel expensive, I'd be amazed if they're planning this.
That's exactly what they intend to do. They refer to it as "boost back." Fuel is cheap compared to the price of a rocket. Right now they are working on a fully reusable first stage and a capsule that lands under propulsive power. After that they'll work on the second stage returning (it can just complete an orbit instead of boosting back.
Here's an animation they put out to show the concept.
based on 1197.8 kWh it took to drive, you can figure that out here: http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/... or
1281 lbs of coal, or
1197800 cubic feet of natural gas, or
95 gallons of residential fule oil.
Just to keep things in perspecitve for the tree huggers.
Funny, you didn't do the conversation to gasoline which the same source provides. The 1197.8 kWh, was total for both cars. That's 3,464.5 miles on 46.1 gallons of gasoline (1197.8 kWh / 2 cars / 13 kWh per gallon of gasoline) based on the source you provided. In other words, a big, heavy, powerful, luxury car went 3,464.5 miles on the energy that could be produced with 46.1 gallons gasoline. That's 75.1 MPG, in the dead of winter.
EV's are way more efficient than ICEs, even when the power is generated with fossil fuels. And EVs have the potential of being powered by nuclear, solar, wind, and hydro. Can an ICE do that?
Just to keep things in perspective for people that have the numbers directly in front of themselves but choose not to do the math.
Read this blog post which references actual studies and then tell me gender bias is not real. Can't read? I'll summarize it: send out a resume to a bunch of people. Sometimes use a male name, other times use a female name. Have the recipient rate the candidate and guess what? The resume with the male name scores higher in their estimation. When asked how much they would pay the candidate, the male is always valued higher. Even if the person evaluating the resume is a women.
Many orchestras now perform blind auditions, because they discovered that gender and physical appearance of the candidate skewed their perception of the candidate's performance. There are studies that test people's cognitive abilities after the most subtle forms of "priming." Stereotype susceptibility is a real thing, proven in study after study. Remind a group of asian girls they are asian before they take a math test, their scores increase. Remind them they are girls, their scores go down.
We are social animals, even those of us that lack social skills, and constant social pressure has real world ramifications. It amazes me that a site of self-professed nerds is populated with so many people that don't question their own biases.
... No, it's not. It's yet another example of how shit the EU is, and how they think that their unelected parasite 'politicians' should be able to interfere with other countries' justice systems.
It's an example of treating one's principles as more important than profits. They don't wish to participate, even indirectly, a nation killing it's own citizens. Isn't that within their rights?
You must be either French, German, or gay.
And you seem to be a really unpleasant person, regardless of your genealogy and orientation.
of course it is, only dumbass creationists think its not
A falsifiable theory wouldn't need religious zealots for its defense. Q.E.D.
The behavior of random humans has no bearing on the validity of a scientific theory. In said human's defense:
Creationism is not a theory, it's a mythology.
Intelligent Design is not a theory, it is an argument from ignorance thinly veiled in the language of science to bolster creationism. ("It's too complex to understand, therefore God did it!" is not science. It wasn't when Newton invoked it when he could not solve orbits with more that two bodies, and it's still not today.)
Teaching either of these as "science" undermines science and that pisses people off.
Believing that our universe came forth by accident from nothing and then that our planet just happened to be one which could support life, and then we evolved initially from primordial ooze,
None of this has anything to do with evolution. You are talking about physics, cosmology and abiogenesis (the first "replicators"). Presumably evolution began from those replicators, before the single-cell organisms.
and then from single- celled organisms into... fish... then monkeys.. and then people, is completely unbelievable and unrealistic. It would take a tremendous leap of faith and abandonment of logic to believe then entire big-bang to evolution concoction of theories.
Faith is believing something without evidence. There is a ton of evidence that supports evolution as the most viable explanation of the diversity of species on the planet. It's survived 150 years of predictions, experiments and challenges.
Evolving from simple to complex violates the laws of thermodynamics.
The specific claim is that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics. Whoever told you this either does not understand the second law of thermodynamics, or is outright lying. The second law of thermodynamics only applies on average across the entire system and in a closed system. The Earth is not a closed system, the Sun pumps huge amounts of energy into the Earth which in turn radiates it back into space. As a matter of fact, the energy coming in is in the form of high energy photons and the radiated energy is an even greater number of low energy photons. That energy fuels life on Earth (and therefore "fuels" evolution.)
Let me put it another way. If evolution violates the laws of thermodynamics, so does a sperm and egg growing into a human.
It is far easier to believe that were were created in perfect form, and have De-evolved over the years due to various factors.
Actually, it's easiest to believe whatever conforms to our beliefs and the beliefs of the social groups we identify with. But the ease of believing something is not a valid justification and in no way validates those beliefs. Relativity is really unintuitive, but if the GPS system did not adjust for time dilation it would not work. Quantum Mechanics does not match our day to day experience, but experiment after experiment validate it. Modern electronics would not exist without Quantum Mechanics. I suspect that even Newtonian Physics are not as intuitive as we "feel," we are just taught it at a young age and have a grown accustomed to the ideas. A few hundred years ago, it would have seemed absurd and completely counter-intuitive that the Earth orbits the Sun or that the wandering stars were other planets, etc.
I'm a lifelong Democrat, but I voted for Romney:-) for the sake of protecting the unborn.
That's great you voted your conscience. I voted for Obama for the living. Sadly that didn't work out so well, though I think Romney would have been even worse on most of the matters I care about.
Evolution is a religion or belief system. It takes faith to believe in that just as it takes faith to believe in God.
Faith is believing something without evidence, there is a ton of evidence for evolution and none for God.
Upon our deaths, the issue will be resolved for each of us.
If God doesn't exist, and I believe and have made my life better because of that belief, I still win.
If you deny God and He does exist as He says, you will have eternity to contemplate your pride and ignorance.
Pascal's wager is proof that religious dogma can cloud even great minds. It assumes that there is only one possible God, and it happens to be the one you believe in. But as there is no evidence of any God, much less a specific one, you could be in just as much trouble as an atheist. If you believe Jesus is Lord but it's Allah, you are going to burn. Mormon's burn if Joseph Smith was wrong. Muslim's burn if Mohammad was wrong. Etc... But what if God hates people who believe stuff without reason? Well then, I'm just fine, but you are going to suffer. Or maybe God's not an egomaniacal douche. Then everybody's fine.
What is the evidence that the universe is intelligent?
Any sufficiently complex system is, by definition, intelligent.
Really? By who's definition? Sounds like an assertion without any evidence.
What is more complex than the universe?
Whoa... I feel like I just attended a lecture by the great American philosopher known as Ted 'Theodore' Logan.
Don't you believe the universe exists?
Yes, but I don't understand how your post was moderated "Interesting." It's two assertions that try to define something into existence followed by two leading, but completely irrelevant, questions.
Let's say one of your unionized coworkers came up with and lead the implementation of an idea that would save your company $5M or increase revenues by 10% over the next year. What would their expected reward be? If a different company saw that result (or potential) in that same coworker, what might they be willing to extend in terms of a job offer to that person?
You're kidding right? I used to work for a huge hardware/software company back in the day. My "real job" was to work on the OS, but I was also sent all over the world to "save" $50-150 million dollar sales on multiple occasions. I busted my ass and did some pretty damn good work - if I say so myself. Know what I got? $500, a plaque and a pat on the back for going above and beyond. I also got to keep my job and got a minor promotion. Which is exactly what would happen to the union guy - he'd get a few hundred bucks, and a bump to his pay grade (aka, a promotion.)
Slashdot Mirror
It makes perfect sense. After enough time of disparaging the factory life, Americans are finally realizing that it beats the alternative.
I can make sense of it at an intellectual level, it's just my gut reaction to go "WTF" -- it's a bit counter-intuitive.
The news is welcome, I just wish American companies would start making things in USA again. I know we can do it. I suppose in time, we will.
It's already turning around. Tesla builds its cars in Fremont, CA and they're planning to open a battery factory somewhere in the US. SpaceX makes rockets in Hawthorne, CA. SolarCity bought Silevo and is planning to build a solar panel factory in NY. Now we just need to convince someone besides Elon Musk (which is actually happening.)
I admire Elon Musk. But he's dead wrong. Neil Degrasse Tyson is right.
I admire Neil Degrasse Tyson, but he's basically shilling for NASA. (I like NASA, more on their limits below.) And he is over simplifying what people's motivations where.
As others have pointed out, taking your company public means surrendering a significant amount of control over the long term. Board members and share holders like revenue. It's all about the next quarter. They don't like pet projects that are giant money sinks without the remote possibility of a return. Persist on that path post-IPO Elon, and watch yourself be fired from your own company, ala Steve Jobs.
Good thing Elon Musk has stated over and over that he won't take SpaceX public until all the long term development is done, specifically for those reasons.
NDGT is spot on the issue of exploration. It takes a government interested in (mostly) pure science without profit motivation.
You want to put people on Mars? I'll tell you what puts people on Mars - the U.S. government thumbing their nose in the face of Chinese ascendancy - Ala Cold War 2: Space Boogaloo.
Let the government, or team of governments blow tax dollars on building Mars mission tech. That tech will filter down to private enterprise years later, so the next generation of Elon Musks can farm minerals off asteroids, or some other future commercial endeavor.
NASA lives and dies by congressional funding and congressional funding is fickle. NASA has done great things, but those days are over and where basically a fluke. President's come in, they say they want to return to the Moon or go to Mars but they don't push congress to fund a coherent plan. Next president comes in, new plan, still not funded. When congress does fund something, the funding is based on getting jobs in their own districts not on what actually makes sense from an engineering standpoint. Look into the history of the "Space Launch System" (that's the rocket congress wants NASA to build that would be used to send people to Mars.) It's mandated that it must use components from Space Shuttle technology. In the space industry, the Space Launch System is known as "the rocket to nowhere." NASA's history is littered with cancelled projects due to the fickleness of Presidents and Congress.
At this point in history, the US Congress is incapable of funding an expensive and on going coherent space program. I don't see that changing in the next twenty years. NASA may land a man on Mars in the 2030s, but I doubt it. But even if NASA does land a human on Mars in the 2030s, they are not working on the technologies, infrastructure and transportation systems to put a colony there. If NASA puts humans on Mars, it will be just like when we landed on the Moon. Plant a flag, shout "we're #1", and then go home.
Elon is overreaching with this.
No, he's reaching. Something I wish more people would do even though they may fail.
Long live the oligarchy (and how sad is it that is our best hope?)
... Please focus on finishing what you started instead of constantly shifting focus like someone afflicted with attention deficit disorder.
Elon Musk is doing fine and luckily will ignore your advice.
"South American countries such as...Mexico"
No, the quote from the article did not contain the words "South America," so it's the submitter or editor that is poor at geography. And quoting. And the first sentence was not attributed to the Professor in the article nor in the summary.
In a place where the temperature is always well below freezing, "global warming" is not going to melt all the ice. That doesn't mean it isn't a problem elsewhere. Even if there were no net ice loss on earth, if we're losing ice in places we need it (such as mountain ranges that supply people with drinking water), and accumulate it in places that have no humans at all (Antarctica), that's an enormous problem.
But hey, let's confuse land ice and sea ice and create doubt about the actual science by cherry picking data, spreading half-truths and general misinformation.
So, is NASA currently paying a nearly 3x premium to SpaceX just to get their technology off the ground or what? Not that I object to such long-term thinking, quite the opposite in fact, but I could swear the SpaceX contract was marketed as a cost-saving maneuver.
It says here that it currently costs $10,000 to get a pound of payload into orbit, but from TFA SpaceX has a $1.6 billion contract for 12 launches, and if the current ~5000 pound payload is typical that works out to ~$27,000 per pound. ... .
That $10,000 number does not include the price of the spacecraft/satellite (that you are trying to put into orbit). The $10,000/lb refers to the scenario where the spacecraft/satellite is the payload. NASA never sent anything to the ISS for $10,000 per pound, as missions to the ISS require a spacecraft to contain the actual cargo. The shuttle supposedly used to cost around $20,000/lb to deliver cargo to the ISS even though it use "reusable" (really it was refurbishable.)
Furthermore, the $10,000/lb is just to get something into orbit. SpaceX also returns cargo from the ISS back to Earth. So for the money NASA gets a launch vehicle and a spacecraft capable of carrying cargo to and from the ISS. All at a lower price than anyone else can offer. It really is a deal, and they really are not paying 3x the "going rate." As a matter of fact, the closest competition is Orbital Sciences and the are more expensive and can't return cargo to Earth. SpaceX is the only company that can do that for more small amounts of cargo.
No one said the Model S would be available for 35K in 5-7 years. The plan is to make a smaller, cheaper, lower-range model for 35K.
The 35K EVs out there today are an embarrasment.
Actually the plan is just smaller and cheaper. It will have similar range to the Model S.
Based on that set of axioms, it can be completely loving to encourage someone to repent of his sins and choose to follow Jesus. Practicing homosexuality is a sign that someone isn't doing that. It would therefore be unloving or even hateful to affirm homosexual relations.
His intent is not relevant, it's his actions that matter. The fact that he comes to these conclusions through religious beliefs makes them no less oppressive. The only reasons to oppose gay marriage are religious, or "ick factor." Neither have any business in a state's constitution.
I personally feel that boycotting FF over this is a bit much, but I think people have every right to do so.
Thinking one group of people is subhuman, and not worthy of the same rights isn't "an opposing view", it's bigotry.
This isn't a quip at you, but I'm interested in your response; It's an honest question. Am I a bigot because I consider child molestors, rapists and nazis subhuman? These are groups of people. Some with mental health problems, others with aggressive theological views... All scourge of the earth in my eyes.
Are you equating being gay to molesting children, raping and genocide of the jews, gypsies and homosexuals?
But laying this at the feet of "The Left" much less Obama is utter horseshit
Not really, no. This tactic of destroying people's livehoods by virtue of internet slacktivism is unquestionably a page out of the leftist playbook.
You're kidding right?
If you think that only liberals boycott companies and people they disagree with, you are living in a cognitive bubble.
2. Refusing to participate in/support an event that goes against one's religious beliefs. Similar bakery, but now someone (straight or gay) asks for a wedding cake for a gay wedding (with two grooms on top, say). If the baker has a religious belief that opposes gay marriage, must they still provide the cake?
If the baker has a genuine religious belief to oppose interracial marriages, can they deny providing a cake to an interracial couple? This is a real thing, people use Deuteronomy 7:3 among other verses to justify it. Their beliefs are repugnant, but "genuine." My answer is that if you sell to the public, you sell to the public. Selling someone a cake is not "supporting gay marriage." It's selling them a cake. The baker is free to have all the hateful, unloving, non-compassionate thoughts they want. Presumably God can read minds and will understand that they are good righteous people.
... that electric cars are no greener than what the energy company uses to generate and transport electricity.
What's funny is it would take someone only a few seconds to look up the relevant facts, but they never do. If someone is opposed to "green technology," they just let their confirmation bias decide that statements that align with their beliefs are obviously true. ICE engines are incredibly inefficient. All that noise that requires a muffler is wasted energy. All that heat that requires a radiator is wasted energy.Power plants are fairly efficient, as are electric motors. Don't believe me? Run the numbers:
Using the magical power of the internet, we can find out that a power plant burning petroleum produces 12.7 kWh per gallon. Tesla recently drove two Model S cars across the country (3,464.5 miles). The total energy consumed by both cars was 1197.8 kWh. It would take a power plant 94.3 gallons of gasoline (1197.8 kWh / 12.7 kWh / gallon) to generate the electricity used by both cars, so each car drove 3,464.5 miles on the equivalent of less than 48 gallons of gasoline. That's 72 MPG. What 5 seater, high performance, luxury hybrid gets 72 MPG?. It doesn't matter if the power plant is burring coal, power plants and electric motors are so freakin' efficient they blow everything else out of the water. Furthermore, it's much easier to scrub the exhaust of a power plant, than of a car.
And guess what, the US produces energy using all sorts of fuels: coal, natural gas, hydro, nuclear, wind and solar. Hybrids only burn gas, no alternative. Electric cars are green, get over it and stop spreading FUD to people too lazy to google reliable sources and perform simple math.
This time, the landing legs will supposedly be actuated. They'll fold out just before "landing". I don't think they've done this before, or at least it didn't look like it from the videos. Cool. ...
Now, this is all awesome stuff, but I can't help but wonder... What good are landing legs when you're landing in the ocean?
They are doing this to collect data with the goal of eventually boosting back and landing near the launch pad for rapid reuse. The legs actually do help, they reduce aerodynamically induced spin and the terminal velocity. But mostly this is a test so they can gain confidence to return to land.
How does this work? The rocket will have gone far down range before the first stage separates.
* First stage reverses direction and comes back. Very fuel expensive, I'd be amazed if they're planning this.
That's exactly what they intend to do. They refer to it as "boost back." Fuel is cheap compared to the price of a rocket. Right now they are working on a fully reusable first stage and a capsule that lands under propulsive power. After that they'll work on the second stage returning (it can just complete an orbit instead of boosting back. Here's an animation they put out to show the concept.
Here's an article explaining the current status of the effort and what they hope to achieve with this test.
s/conversation/conversion/
Doh!
based on 1197.8 kWh it took to drive, you can figure that out here: http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/... or
1281 lbs of coal, or
1197800 cubic feet of natural gas, or
95 gallons of residential fule oil.
Just to keep things in perspecitve for the tree huggers.
Funny, you didn't do the conversation to gasoline which the same source provides. The 1197.8 kWh, was total for both cars. That's 3,464.5 miles on 46.1 gallons of gasoline (1197.8 kWh / 2 cars / 13 kWh per gallon of gasoline) based on the source you provided. In other words, a big, heavy, powerful, luxury car went 3,464.5 miles on the energy that could be produced with 46.1 gallons gasoline. That's 75.1 MPG, in the dead of winter.
EV's are way more efficient than ICEs, even when the power is generated with fossil fuels. And EVs have the potential of being powered by nuclear, solar, wind, and hydro. Can an ICE do that?
Just to keep things in perspective for people that have the numbers directly in front of themselves but choose not to do the math.
Read this blog post which references actual studies and then tell me gender bias is not real. Can't read? I'll summarize it: send out a resume to a bunch of people. Sometimes use a male name, other times use a female name. Have the recipient rate the candidate and guess what? The resume with the male name scores higher in their estimation. When asked how much they would pay the candidate, the male is always valued higher. Even if the person evaluating the resume is a women.
Many orchestras now perform blind auditions, because they discovered that gender and physical appearance of the candidate skewed their perception of the candidate's performance. There are studies that test people's cognitive abilities after the most subtle forms of "priming." Stereotype susceptibility is a real thing, proven in study after study. Remind a group of asian girls they are asian before they take a math test, their scores increase. Remind them they are girls, their scores go down.
We are social animals, even those of us that lack social skills, and constant social pressure has real world ramifications. It amazes me that a site of self-professed nerds is populated with so many people that don't question their own biases.
... No, it's not. It's yet another example of how shit the EU is, and how they think that their unelected parasite 'politicians' should be able to interfere with other countries' justice systems.
It's an example of treating one's principles as more important than profits. They don't wish to participate, even indirectly, a nation killing it's own citizens. Isn't that within their rights?
You must be either French, German, or gay.
And you seem to be a really unpleasant person, regardless of your genealogy and orientation.
of course it is, only dumbass creationists think its not
A falsifiable theory wouldn't need religious zealots for its defense. Q.E.D.
The behavior of random humans has no bearing on the validity of a scientific theory. In said human's defense:
I really can't understand this Rider!
I just can't understand what there is to be gained from the Incandescent bulb lobby?
Republicans are very very odd. What can be gained from this?
Since VC wars are almost as much fun as language wars, and I've already donned my Nomex underwear, why not Mercurial?...
Because mercury causes autism!
Believing that our universe came forth by accident from nothing and then that our planet just happened to be one which could support life, and then we evolved initially from primordial ooze,
None of this has anything to do with evolution. You are talking about physics, cosmology and abiogenesis (the first "replicators"). Presumably evolution began from those replicators, before the single-cell organisms.
and then from single- celled organisms into... fish... then monkeys.. and then people, is completely unbelievable and unrealistic. It would take a tremendous leap of faith and abandonment of logic to believe then entire big-bang to evolution concoction of theories.
Faith is believing something without evidence. There is a ton of evidence that supports evolution as the most viable explanation of the diversity of species on the planet. It's survived 150 years of predictions, experiments and challenges.
Evolving from simple to complex violates the laws of thermodynamics.
The specific claim is that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics. Whoever told you this either does not understand the second law of thermodynamics, or is outright lying. The second law of thermodynamics only applies on average across the entire system and in a closed system. The Earth is not a closed system, the Sun pumps huge amounts of energy into the Earth which in turn radiates it back into space. As a matter of fact, the energy coming in is in the form of high energy photons and the radiated energy is an even greater number of low energy photons. That energy fuels life on Earth (and therefore "fuels" evolution.)
Let me put it another way. If evolution violates the laws of thermodynamics, so does a sperm and egg growing into a human.
It is far easier to believe that were were created in perfect form, and have De-evolved over the years due to various factors.
Actually, it's easiest to believe whatever conforms to our beliefs and the beliefs of the social groups we identify with. But the ease of believing something is not a valid justification and in no way validates those beliefs. Relativity is really unintuitive, but if the GPS system did not adjust for time dilation it would not work. Quantum Mechanics does not match our day to day experience, but experiment after experiment validate it. Modern electronics would not exist without Quantum Mechanics. I suspect that even Newtonian Physics are not as intuitive as we "feel," we are just taught it at a young age and have a grown accustomed to the ideas. A few hundred years ago, it would have seemed absurd and completely counter-intuitive that the Earth orbits the Sun or that the wandering stars were other planets, etc.
I'm a lifelong Democrat, but I voted for Romney :-) for the sake of protecting the unborn.
That's great you voted your conscience. I voted for Obama for the living. Sadly that didn't work out so well, though I think Romney would have been even worse on most of the matters I care about.
Evolution is a religion or belief system. It takes faith to believe in that just as it takes faith to believe in God.
Faith is believing something without evidence, there is a ton of evidence for evolution and none for God.
Upon our deaths, the issue will be resolved for each of us.
If God doesn't exist, and I believe and have made my life better because of that belief, I still win.
If you deny God and He does exist as He says, you will have eternity to contemplate your pride and ignorance.
Pascal's wager is proof that religious dogma can cloud even great minds. It assumes that there is only one possible God, and it happens to be the one you believe in. But as there is no evidence of any God, much less a specific one, you could be in just as much trouble as an atheist. If you believe Jesus is Lord but it's Allah, you are going to burn. Mormon's burn if Joseph Smith was wrong. Muslim's burn if Mohammad was wrong. Etc... But what if God hates people who believe stuff without reason? Well then, I'm just fine, but you are going to suffer. Or maybe God's not an egomaniacal douche. Then everybody's fine.
God is the intelligent universe itself.
What is the evidence that the universe is intelligent?
Any sufficiently complex system is, by definition, intelligent.
Really? By who's definition? Sounds like an assertion without any evidence.
What is more complex than the universe?
Whoa... I feel like I just attended a lecture by the great American philosopher known as Ted 'Theodore' Logan.
Don't you believe the universe exists?
Yes, but I don't understand how your post was moderated "Interesting." It's two assertions that try to define something into existence followed by two leading, but completely irrelevant, questions.
Let's say one of your unionized coworkers came up with and lead the implementation of an idea that would save your company $5M or increase revenues by 10% over the next year. What would their expected reward be? If a different company saw that result (or potential) in that same coworker, what might they be willing to extend in terms of a job offer to that person?
You're kidding right? I used to work for a huge hardware/software company back in the day. My "real job" was to work on the OS, but I was also sent all over the world to "save" $50-150 million dollar sales on multiple occasions. I busted my ass and did some pretty damn good work - if I say so myself. Know what I got? $500, a plaque and a pat on the back for going above and beyond. I also got to keep my job and got a minor promotion. Which is exactly what would happen to the union guy - he'd get a few hundred bucks, and a bump to his pay grade (aka, a promotion.)