Correct me if I'm wrong, but from my skim through the article, it seems like he only used a single drive of each type. That makes it hard to demonstrate that the differences he saw were real, and not just random. I.e., it may be that all drives have a 75% chance of surviving the test, and that the Intel one just happened to be the lucky one. A more robust test would be to test N copies of each drive. N = 5 should give pretty good significance if this really is completely deterministic.
I had the same thought. And to make the sample really meaningful, the N drives from each vendor would ideally come from production different lots.
There are many site where I don't even look at the comments any more, because they're so infested with vileness and nonsense./. is a notable exception; for me, about 90% of the value of this site is in the comments.
True, but that's mostly because the summaries are total crap.
So there was a discrepancy between prediction and observation for the AGW model. Why haven't we heard about that before? Only now that the observations are consistent with theory do we find out about it. Yet more evidence that climate scientists are not real scientists.
What makes you think that scientists have hidden this discrepancy? They haven't, and every anti-AGW promoter has been shouting it from the rooftops (while they ignore or misrepresent all the evidence that supports AGW.)
Just another example of Man thinking he has everything figured out only to be made a fool of by nature.
Who claims to know everything? Certainly no scientist does. If they knew everything they wouldn't have anything to figure out and figuring out "how life, the universe and everything" work is the what science is about.
Yes, and it is for you too. If someone makes a claim that unobservable unicorns exist, I have to take it on faith that they do not, in fact, exist. Few people would disagree that doing so is entirely reasonable, but I'd acknowledge it for what it is: a belief based on nothing but a faith that the lack of evidence is sufficient proof of their non-existence. As you said, when extraordinary claims occur, the burden is on the ones making them to prove their point, but the inability to prove their point does not necessarily mean that they were wrong; it merely means that the reasonable person should believe that they were.
If you feel that such a belief is reasonable here as well, then that's fine. As I said to another commenter, go forth, be happy, but recognize it for what it is. I have friends who are atheists, friends who are agnostics, and friends who are theists. I'm fine with any of them, but I've always found it a bit ironic when an atheist slams a theist for claiming a faith-based belief, without being willing to acknowledge that their fundamental stance is based on one as well, since it would mean yielding a piece of their intellectual high ground.
I have a friend that believes that if he lets go of a lead ball and wishes really hard, he can make it hover. I do not believe that. These are not equivalent positions, he is believing something without evidence, I am not.
The third definition is certainly interesting. If Dawkins and these other scientists feel strongly enough about their atheism to write books and make movies and go on lecture tours then I would posit that this interest/activity is very important to them.
So yeah, maybe hardcore atheism IS a religion.
By that definition, here are some other religions: American Football, Soccer (the rest of the world Football), Cricket, Baseball, Capitalism (aka The Free Market), Communism, Social Justice, NASCAR, Basketball, World of Warcraft, Cheese making, Software Development, Science, Sex, Drugs, Rock and Roll, Photography, Hiking, Fitness, Health, Nutrition, Hiking, Harry Potter, Star Wars, Star Trek, Cosplay, Comics, The Second Amendment (of the US Consitution), Politics, and every other interest, belief, or activity that is very important to a person or group...
In other words, calling atheism a religion by that definition is meaningless and still does not equate atheism to an actual religion.
Actually, atheism of this sort is a religion. It's now even an evangelical religion - they're trying to spread it.
Oh, wait, "ha, ha, atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby! ha ha ha". Yeah, when was the last time someone went around telling everybody that they don't collect stamps and neither should you?
That would be a great analogy if people used their stamp collections to justify homophobia and misogyny. Or if people used their stamp collections to justify wars. Or if people insisted that stamp collecting be taught in school in place of actual science while constantly spreading anti-science propaganda. Or if people were using the tale of the impending stampocalypse to justify ignoring environmental threats. Or if people were constantly insisting that non-stamp collectors are evil and will spend eternity being tortured while promising collectors of the correct stamps will get ever lasting bliss in a land of unicorns and rainbows. Or if stamp collectors ran huge non-profit corporations that meddled in the social policies and laws of states and governments. If stamp collectors did any of those things on a massive scale, that would be a really good analogy. And if stamp collectors did all those things, then it would be an excellent analogy because some of us non-stamp collectors would probably get vocal and tell people where to shove their stupid stamps...
why use so many Apple computers when there's your own awesome Chromebook?
Because the Chromebook is basically a web-browser wrapped in hardware. You wouldn't want to compile code or run VMs on it. That doesn't mean the Chromebook is useless.
I love how you assume 'separation of church and state' when that is no where in constitution or anywhere. There isn't any. Yours statement says you want a state freedom from religion....
The spirit of the proposed law is made clear in Jefferson's letters discussing what will be made into the First Amendment:
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their "legislature" should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
So while the constitution does not use the words, it is clearly the intent of the amendment. Or do you think the Second Amendment only applies to supporting a well regulated militia? Fair is fair. No?
... OK, I'll give you one. Russia 1917 - 1989. enjoy.
This old canard? Stalin's policies were in support of political power and dogma, not religious ones. He killed everyone that he saw as a threat to the State or his power, including other communists and atheists. The entire canon of atheism is "I don't believe the assertion there is a God." That's it, anything beyond that is not relevant to atheism. But there are strong theological arguments supporting the Inquisition, slavery, and killing homosexuals in the Bible if you want to play that game.
... anti theist, the former group doesn't believe in god, the later is a "religion" whose members think that everyone that believe in some kind of God(s) are sinners
No, anti-theist think religion is a really bad idea and are verbally opposed to it. Anti-theist don't think it's a sin to believe in God, they don't believe in sin. They think that we make up the rules and that taking religious doctrine seriously has real world consequences. Like denying people rights - today the gays, in the past, women, minorities, holders of other religious beliefs. Like spreading lies about the efficacy of condoms and withholding information on safer-sex practices. I won't list all of it, you get the idea. And yes, I know there are plenty of loving, peaceful, accepting religious people. Unfortunately, the major religions' actual canon provide plenty of theologically justifiable ammo to do great harm and say "God demands it!"
But somehow having a strong opinion and trying to get the government out of the business of endorsing a specific religion is "just the same" as trying to force everyone to conform to religious law through supposedly secular institutions.
... Do you think this action will do anything to change anyones mind?
It might get them to consider the fact that the government sanctioning ANY religion is a bad thing.
This plays right into what you would consider the Evangelical Christians paranoid delusion. They truly think there is a Satan, and that Satan has tricked the majority of people into denying God. And now, the Church of Satan is attacking them on an issue we'd really like them to change their mind about.
So what is your suggestion? Continue to support their delusion that American was founded as a Christian nation and that they can keep forcing others to abide by their specific religion's so called morals?
This might force some bullshit legal decision that will force the monuments down,...
It's not a "bullshit legal decision," it is enforcing the 1st amendment that explicitly states that the government stays out of the religion business.
... but the one thing it will not do is change anyones mind or make the kind of social progress we really need.
This will change the minds of people that see the hypocrisy. It will remove religious endorsement from government property. It will give those that have other beliefs the courage to stand up for their rights. That's good enough.
Would Gandhi have done this? Martin Luther King?
Well, if it was some biblical justification for slavery, then yes, Martin Luther King would have down something. And Ghandi was a Hindu, so yeah. He may have had an issue with Britain claiming India was a nation founded on Christian values if anyone ever tried to claim such a thing. But this is all a non sequitur.
Let's convert how much energy is wasted in tesla's sleep mode compared to a fossil fuel car:
According to yahoo answers, 1 gallon of gasoline = 34.7 kWh.
Energy consumed by a model s in a month = 30 x 1.1 = 33 kWh
Converting 33 kWh to equivalent gallons of gasoline = 33 / 34.7 = 0.95 gallons
The tesla wastes the equivalent of 1 gallon gasoline/month while parked!
I hope Tesla keeps working on reducing the amount of energy wasted. But lets use those same numbers for cars that actually get driven and see how the Tesla compares:
Whereas the Tesla consumes 38 kWh/100 miles. So for the Tesla we have: 38/100 * 1123 = 427 kWh driving per month, plus 33 kWh wasted per month gives a grand total of 460 kWh / month.
In other words, for people that actually drive their cars, the Tesla uses less than 1/3 of the energy of an ICE. Which seems relevant to the conversation.
Now, to be fair. I bet that people drive their Teslas more aggressively and get less than the EPA 38 kWh/100 miles. And there is the drain of accessories, etc. But that is a lot of headroom, I doubt any of the similar sized ICEs ever come close to the Tesla in energy efficiency.
Take SpaceX for example - where the fanbois refuse to acknowledge the problems the Falcon 9 has experienced and who also treat the Falcon Heavy as if it were a proven craft rather than vaporware.
So you hate Elon Musk because you imagine that people (who are not Elon Musk) are not adequately upset by all the "problems" that Falcon 9 has experienced? Are you sure fanbois (nice ad hominem by the way) refuse to acknowledge the "problems," it seems to me you are blowing them out of proportion. What Falcon 9 problems are out of line for developing a completely new rocket, including engines? I'm not saying there haven't been problems and I know it took longer than they thought, but I don't see anything out of the ordinary in the course of developing a new rocket. Also, kindly list any comparable rockets that had fewer problems during their development and shakedown phases. Most currently flying rockets have had catastrophic failures during their development and service. The "worst" incident so far for the Falcon 9 was an engine failure, and it still reached orbit and deployed it's cargo - albeit in a lower than optimal orbit. Here is a sampling of some respectable rockets, from respectable companies having real problems:
No rocket technology has ever been perfect right off the drawing board and most rockets flying today are using engines originally designed in the 60s and 70s. Those engines failed a lot during their early flights.
The only currently inservice rocket (that I am aware of) that has not had an outright failure is the Atlas V. That thing is amazing, but it costs 4x as much to launch as a Falcon 9 even though ULA gets launch subsidies. Orbital Services' Antares also looks like a solid platform. Its first flight was originally planned to be in December 2010 (when it was called the Taurus II). Its first launch was actually late April 2013. Two and a quarter years behind schedule (which is about the same delay as the Falcon 9.) Yet it's a much less capable rocket than the Falcon 9, using "off the shelf" engines and therefore should have been easier to design and build. But it turns out that building rockets is hard, even for companies that have been doing it for decades.
I want to be clear, I'm not bagging on any of the existing manufacturers nor their rockets. I just don't understand your animosity towards SpaceX, Elon Musk, and those of us excited that space flight is becoming less expensive.
And I feel the same way about Tesla. I don't expect a car to be perfect. It seems like a damn cool car and most the people that own one seem more than pleased with it. As for this problem existing for quite a while, it sounds like Tesla addressed it once they where made aware of it.
Facts aren't hate - except to the fanbois.
If this has to be explained to you... well, then you're either among the fanbois or terminally clueless as to the world around you.
You didn't list any actual facts and calling people fanbois and terminally clueless is pretty rude.
We need to strip government of unneeded power and put ourselves back into proper Constitutional governance. The problem is, progressives need the power of the Police State to enforce their progressive policies. But they are the first ones that complain about the police state.
First of all, don't conflate the Democrats with progressives, we don't have a progressive party in the US. Second, US conservatives are just as (or more) authoritarian as it's so-called liberals. Don't get me wrong, I'm no longer a fan of Obama but Romney would have been no better. Second, look at all the votes for the Patriot Act in 2001 and 2006: the overwhelming majority of nay votes (and those abstaining) were Democrats. Third, who is passing all the laws requiring women to be vaginally probed before they can get an abortion? Who wants to force their religious values on others? Etc... The Republicans want just as big of a police state as the Democrats, they only have a couple of minor differences on what to enforce. The NSA has been with us for a long time, through multiple power shifts and no one has reigned it in.
In summary. The US does not have a party that is "left of center." Democrats suck. Republicans suck more.
Humans are evil! We must kill ourselves now! I feel soooooooo guilty about my impact on the Earth! Woe is me!
Not evil, just short sighted at times. Maybe a bit unaware and selfish too. But we've come a long way on both counts, so there's hope even if the current trend is to bag on people for the crime of giving a shit.
Why is this modded -1 Troll? Parent is correct; in the U.S. (and I assume most other developed nations), close to 100% of plastic waste either go into a landfill or is recycled. Amount dumped into the ocean is negligible.
Because summarizing valid and semi-insightful point by calling people:
... jackass hipsters at Trader Joe's...
for the intolerable crime of:
using... burlap bags
Is kindof douchey, but sadly Slashdot does not have a kind of douchey choice for the moderators.
And then there is the point that landfills aren't really an unlimited resource, none of the articles accused the US of anything, plastic bags wash out to sea from storm drains in the US (even if other countries contribute most of the trash.) And finally, what's so funny about peace, love, and understanding?
"booked" is not the same as having it in the bank. They need to launch or they don't earn the money.
There is no way SpaceX ramps up its production line without customers paying something up front, and I'm pretty sure that one of the requirements to get the $56.5 M price is payment in full before launch. Either way, according to SpaceX and many comments from Musk, SpaceX is already profitable and cash-flow positive. They have development funds from NASA for the Dragon capsule and $1.6 billion in Falcon 9 launches alone. At this point, they seem to be a viable enterprise and will have to screw up really seriously to run out of money.
SpaceX is in the red currently and if they can market the heck out their rockets to Wall Street (for funding) and undercut everyone, hopefully timing will allow them to get into the black.
They do great work, but either SpaceX will survive as much as OSC did in the 90's (they did well to start subcompanies) or they will flame out hard from debt.
SpaceX doesn't need funding, they have paying customers. And unless something goes terribly wrong, they are about to get a bunch more.
Third, to reinforce how strongly we feel about the low risk of fire in our cars, we will be amending our warranty policy to cover damage due to a fire, even if due to driver error. Unless a Model S owner actively tries to destroy the car, they are covered. Our goal here is to eliminate any concern about the cost of such an event and ensure that over time the Model S has the lowest insurance cost of any car at our price point. Either our belief in the safety of our car is correct and this is a minor cost or we are wrong, in which case the right thing is for Tesla to bear the cost rather than the car buyer.
I think it is clear that the Tesla is more likely to have a fire if you hit something hard enough to puncture the vehicle's armor plating and pierce the battery pack. It's a specific mode of failure and I don't know how common of an event this will be in the long run. I also don't think it's as big of a deal as the media is making. It doesn't "explode" or unexpectedly burst into flames that engulf the passenger compartment. A cluster of events does not define a trend in my mind.
I really like the low center of gravity, the balanced fore-aft weight distribution and the ridiculous amounts of trunk space the "skateboard" design allows. It makes for a great handling car, which improves safety. It also means huge crumble zones to absorb kinetic energy in a crash, which also improves safety. To me, it's a design trade-off. The real measure of the trade off will be whether people are safer, on average, or not. So far there have been no deaths or serious injuries, but the sample size and time frame is small for that to be really meaningful. But I'm hopeful, and if I could afford one, I'd buy one.
Tesla, itslef states that battery life is dependent on the number of charge/discharge cycles and reccommends against frequent charging when the battery is relatively "full."
The most important way to preserve the Battery is to LEAVE YOUR MODEL S PLUGGED IN when you’re not using it. This is particularly important if you are not planning to drive your Model S for several weeks. When plugged in, Model S wakes up when needed to automatically maintain a charge level that maximizes the lifetime of the Battery.
There is no advantage to waiting until the Battery’s level is low before charging. In fact, the Battery performs best when charged regularly.
Never allow the Battery to fully discharge
Maybe the confusing is with the MAX charging option. As part of its battery management, Tesla intentionally does not charge to 100% unless you explicitly request it on the charging menu. People on the forums are still getting over 200 miles on the standard charge. With the MAX charge they're getting over 250 miles and the common practice is to use MAX for road trips. As long as you are using the standard charge settings, you can plug it in all the time and not worry about it killing the battery.
What's wrong with this guy. He keeps launching and suggesting new ideas every other week, without actually delivering something most of his fans are begging for.
Enough pie in the sky and train in the tube already.
Haul your tail in and make and deliver a decent 40K Tesla sedan.
From TFA:
It'll be a while, though. In the meantime, Tesla has a Model X crossover to launch and a smaller, more affordable sedan to develop--so don't expect to see a pickup for another five years or so.
And for what it's worth, he's clearly stated he won't be involved with the HyperLoop because he's too busy with Tesla and Space X. And what's so terrible about having ideas?
That is going to depend on whether or not the job site has a high amp charging station. One of the problems plaguing current EVs is that multiple partial charges shorten battery life. So, unless your EV truck is close to needing a full charge and you actually have the equipment and/or time to give it a full charge, charging it at the worksite could very well be reducing the uselife of the truck.
I don't remember the details, but Tesla did a lot of fine tuning of the battery management system that leverages having around 8000 cells. On the Model S they worked with Panasonic to tweak the battery chemistry and internals of the cells. Anyway, according to the Model S Owner's Manual:
The most important way to preserve the Battery is to LEAVE YOUR MODEL S PLUGGED IN when you’re not using it. This is particularly important if you are not planning to drive your Model S for several weeks. When plugged in, Model S wakes up when needed to automatically maintain a charge level that maximizes the lifetime of the Battery.
There is no advantage to waiting until the Battery’s level is low before charging. In fact, the Battery performs best when charged regularly.
The Roadster uses standard Panasonic 18650s and it's manual also suggests leaving the car plugged in. I don't think charging frequently is as much of an issue for Tesla as it is for other EVs.
It's a type of clam known to live extremely long lives that people are studying to understand aging. It was part of a haul of clams caught on a field trip of Bangor University’s School of Ocean Sciences. And it's a clam. You know, one of those things we catch and eat by the millions every year without shedding a tear.
But God forbid a scientist kills one and actually learns something. And since one of the many things we might learn is how the climate has changed over the last 500 years, we get to blame climate science.
In summary:
Over Fishing entire species to near extinction: Fine.
Kill one clam that turns out to be really old add to our understanding of the oceans and climate: Evil, arrogant, and self-centered!
Slashdot Mirror
Correct me if I'm wrong, but from my skim through the article, it seems like he only used a single drive of each type. That makes it hard to demonstrate that the differences he saw were real, and not just random. I.e., it may be that all drives have a 75% chance of surviving the test, and that the Intel one just happened to be the lucky one. A more robust test would be to test N copies of each drive. N = 5 should give pretty good significance if this really is completely deterministic.
I had the same thought. And to make the sample really meaningful, the N drives from each vendor would ideally come from production different lots.
There are many site where I don't even look at the comments any more, because they're so infested with vileness and nonsense. /. is a notable exception; for me, about 90% of the value of this site is in the comments.
True, but that's mostly because the summaries are total crap.
People moderate for /. all the time that are not paid. /. is a for-profit business.
Yeah, but have you read Slashdot's comments?
So there was a discrepancy between prediction and observation for the AGW model. Why haven't we heard about that before? Only now that the observations are consistent with theory do we find out about it. Yet more evidence that climate scientists are not real scientists.
What makes you think that scientists have hidden this discrepancy? They haven't, and every anti-AGW promoter has been shouting it from the rooftops (while they ignore or misrepresent all the evidence that supports AGW.)
Just another example of Man thinking he has everything figured out only to be made a fool of by nature.
Who claims to know everything? Certainly no scientist does. If they knew everything they wouldn't have anything to figure out and figuring out "how life, the universe and everything" work is the what science is about.
Yes, and it is for you too. If someone makes a claim that unobservable unicorns exist, I have to take it on faith that they do not, in fact, exist. Few people would disagree that doing so is entirely reasonable, but I'd acknowledge it for what it is: a belief based on nothing but a faith that the lack of evidence is sufficient proof of their non-existence. As you said, when extraordinary claims occur, the burden is on the ones making them to prove their point, but the inability to prove their point does not necessarily mean that they were wrong; it merely means that the reasonable person should believe that they were.
If you feel that such a belief is reasonable here as well, then that's fine. As I said to another commenter, go forth, be happy, but recognize it for what it is. I have friends who are atheists, friends who are agnostics, and friends who are theists. I'm fine with any of them, but I've always found it a bit ironic when an atheist slams a theist for claiming a faith-based belief, without being willing to acknowledge that their fundamental stance is based on one as well, since it would mean yielding a piece of their intellectual high ground.
I have a friend that believes that if he lets go of a lead ball and wishes really hard, he can make it hover. I do not believe that. These are not equivalent positions, he is believing something without evidence, I am not.
The third definition is certainly interesting. If Dawkins and these other scientists feel strongly enough about their atheism to write books and make movies and go on lecture tours then I would posit that this interest/activity is very important to them.
So yeah, maybe hardcore atheism IS a religion.
By that definition, here are some other religions: American Football, Soccer (the rest of the world Football), Cricket, Baseball, Capitalism (aka The Free Market), Communism, Social Justice, NASCAR, Basketball, World of Warcraft, Cheese making, Software Development, Science, Sex, Drugs, Rock and Roll, Photography, Hiking, Fitness, Health, Nutrition, Hiking, Harry Potter, Star Wars, Star Trek, Cosplay, Comics, The Second Amendment (of the US Consitution), Politics, and every other interest, belief, or activity that is very important to a person or group...
In other words, calling atheism a religion by that definition is meaningless and still does not equate atheism to an actual religion.
I hope, for Dawkins' sake, if God speaks to him, he'll be prepared to listen. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_converts_to_Christianity_from_nontheism
That knife cuts both ways I wonder which god will speak to him first...
Actually, atheism of this sort is a religion. It's now even an evangelical religion - they're trying to spread it.
Oh, wait, "ha, ha, atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby! ha ha ha". Yeah, when was the last time someone went around telling everybody that they don't collect stamps and neither should you?
That would be a great analogy if people used their stamp collections to justify homophobia and misogyny. Or if people used their stamp collections to justify wars. Or if people insisted that stamp collecting be taught in school in place of actual science while constantly spreading anti-science propaganda. Or if people were using the tale of the impending stampocalypse to justify ignoring environmental threats. Or if people were constantly insisting that non-stamp collectors are evil and will spend eternity being tortured while promising collectors of the correct stamps will get ever lasting bliss in a land of unicorns and rainbows. Or if stamp collectors ran huge non-profit corporations that meddled in the social policies and laws of states and governments. If stamp collectors did any of those things on a massive scale, that would be a really good analogy. And if stamp collectors did all those things, then it would be an excellent analogy because some of us non-stamp collectors would probably get vocal and tell people where to shove their stupid stamps...
why use so many Apple computers when there's your own awesome Chromebook?
Because the Chromebook is basically a web-browser wrapped in hardware. You wouldn't want to compile code or run VMs on it. That doesn't mean the Chromebook is useless.
I love how you assume 'separation of church and state' when that is no where in constitution or anywhere. There isn't any. Yours statement says you want a state freedom from religion. ...
The spirit of the proposed law is made clear in Jefferson's letters discussing what will be made into the First Amendment:
So while the constitution does not use the words, it is clearly the intent of the amendment. Or do you think the Second Amendment only applies to supporting a well regulated militia? Fair is fair. No?
... OK, I'll give you one. Russia 1917 - 1989. enjoy.
This old canard? Stalin's policies were in support of political power and dogma, not religious ones. He killed everyone that he saw as a threat to the State or his power, including other communists and atheists. The entire canon of atheism is "I don't believe the assertion there is a God." That's it, anything beyond that is not relevant to atheism. But there are strong theological arguments supporting the Inquisition, slavery, and killing homosexuals in the Bible if you want to play that game.
... anti theist, the former group doesn't believe in god, the later is a "religion" whose members think that everyone that believe in some kind of God(s) are sinners
No, anti-theist think religion is a really bad idea and are verbally opposed to it. Anti-theist don't think it's a sin to believe in God, they don't believe in sin. They think that we make up the rules and that taking religious doctrine seriously has real world consequences. Like denying people rights - today the gays, in the past, women, minorities, holders of other religious beliefs. Like spreading lies about the efficacy of condoms and withholding information on safer-sex practices. I won't list all of it, you get the idea. And yes, I know there are plenty of loving, peaceful, accepting religious people. Unfortunately, the major religions' actual canon provide plenty of theologically justifiable ammo to do great harm and say "God demands it!"
But somehow having a strong opinion and trying to get the government out of the business of endorsing a specific religion is "just the same" as trying to force everyone to conform to religious law through supposedly secular institutions.
... Do you think this action will do anything to change anyones mind?
It might get them to consider the fact that the government sanctioning ANY religion is a bad thing.
This plays right into what you would consider the Evangelical Christians paranoid delusion. They truly think there is a Satan, and that Satan has tricked the majority of people into denying God. And now, the Church of Satan is attacking them on an issue we'd really like them to change their mind about.
So what is your suggestion? Continue to support their delusion that American was founded as a Christian nation and that they can keep forcing others to abide by their specific religion's so called morals?
This might force some bullshit legal decision that will force the monuments down, ...
It's not a "bullshit legal decision," it is enforcing the 1st amendment that explicitly states that the government stays out of the religion business.
... but the one thing it will not do is change anyones mind or make the kind of social progress we really need.
This will change the minds of people that see the hypocrisy. It will remove religious endorsement from government property. It will give those that have other beliefs the courage to stand up for their rights. That's good enough.
Would Gandhi have done this? Martin Luther King?
Well, if it was some biblical justification for slavery, then yes, Martin Luther King would have down something. And Ghandi was a Hindu, so yeah. He may have had an issue with Britain claiming India was a nation founded on Christian values if anyone ever tried to claim such a thing. But this is all a non sequitur.
Let's convert how much energy is wasted in tesla's sleep mode compared to a fossil fuel car: According to yahoo answers, 1 gallon of gasoline = 34.7 kWh.
Energy consumed by a model s in a month = 30 x 1.1 = 33 kWh Converting 33 kWh to equivalent gallons of gasoline = 33 / 34.7 = 0.95 gallons
The tesla wastes the equivalent of 1 gallon gasoline/month while parked!
I hope Tesla keeps working on reducing the amount of energy wasted. But lets use those same numbers for cars that actually get driven and see how the Tesla compares:
Given the average US driver drives 13476 miles per year, which is 1123 miles per month. And the average new car gets 24.9 miles per gallon. Therefore the kWh equivalent for the average ICE car is: 1123/24.9*34.7 = 1564 kWh / month
Whereas the Tesla consumes 38 kWh/100 miles. So for the Tesla we have: 38/100 * 1123 = 427 kWh driving per month, plus 33 kWh wasted per month gives a grand total of 460 kWh / month.
In other words, for people that actually drive their cars, the Tesla uses less than 1/3 of the energy of an ICE. Which seems relevant to the conversation.
Now, to be fair. I bet that people drive their Teslas more aggressively and get less than the EPA 38 kWh/100 miles. And there is the drain of accessories, etc. But that is a lot of headroom, I doubt any of the similar sized ICEs ever come close to the Tesla in energy efficiency.
Take SpaceX for example - where the fanbois refuse to acknowledge the problems the Falcon 9 has experienced and who also treat the Falcon Heavy as if it were a proven craft rather than vaporware.
So you hate Elon Musk because you imagine that people (who are not Elon Musk) are not adequately upset by all the "problems" that Falcon 9 has experienced? Are you sure fanbois (nice ad hominem by the way) refuse to acknowledge the "problems," it seems to me you are blowing them out of proportion. What Falcon 9 problems are out of line for developing a completely new rocket, including engines? I'm not saying there haven't been problems and I know it took longer than they thought, but I don't see anything out of the ordinary in the course of developing a new rocket. Also, kindly list any comparable rockets that had fewer problems during their development and shakedown phases. Most currently flying rockets have had catastrophic failures during their development and service. The "worst" incident so far for the Falcon 9 was an engine failure, and it still reached orbit and deployed it's cargo - albeit in a lower than optimal orbit. Here is a sampling of some respectable rockets, from respectable companies having real problems:
No rocket technology has ever been perfect right off the drawing board and most rockets flying today are using engines originally designed in the 60s and 70s. Those engines failed a lot during their early flights.
The only currently inservice rocket (that I am aware of) that has not had an outright failure is the Atlas V. That thing is amazing, but it costs 4x as much to launch as a Falcon 9 even though ULA gets launch subsidies. Orbital Services' Antares also looks like a solid platform. Its first flight was originally planned to be in December 2010 (when it was called the Taurus II). Its first launch was actually late April 2013. Two and a quarter years behind schedule (which is about the same delay as the Falcon 9.) Yet it's a much less capable rocket than the Falcon 9, using "off the shelf" engines and therefore should have been easier to design and build. But it turns out that building rockets is hard, even for companies that have been doing it for decades.
I want to be clear, I'm not bagging on any of the existing manufacturers nor their rockets. I just don't understand your animosity towards SpaceX, Elon Musk, and those of us excited that space flight is becoming less expensive.
And I feel the same way about Tesla. I don't expect a car to be perfect. It seems like a damn cool car and most the people that own one seem more than pleased with it. As for this problem existing for quite a while, it sounds like Tesla addressed it once they where made aware of it.
Facts aren't hate - except to the fanbois.
If this has to be explained to you... well, then you're either among the fanbois or terminally clueless as to the world around you.
You didn't list any actual facts and calling people fanbois and terminally clueless is pretty rude.
We need to strip government of unneeded power and put ourselves back into proper Constitutional governance. The problem is, progressives need the power of the Police State to enforce their progressive policies. But they are the first ones that complain about the police state.
First of all, don't conflate the Democrats with progressives, we don't have a progressive party in the US. Second, US conservatives are just as (or more) authoritarian as it's so-called liberals. Don't get me wrong, I'm no longer a fan of Obama but Romney would have been no better. Second, look at all the votes for the Patriot Act in 2001 and 2006: the overwhelming majority of nay votes (and those abstaining) were Democrats. Third, who is passing all the laws requiring women to be vaginally probed before they can get an abortion? Who wants to force their religious values on others? Etc... The Republicans want just as big of a police state as the Democrats, they only have a couple of minor differences on what to enforce. The NSA has been with us for a long time, through multiple power shifts and no one has reigned it in.
In summary. The US does not have a party that is "left of center." Democrats suck. Republicans suck more.
Humans are evil! We must kill ourselves now! I feel soooooooo guilty about my impact on the Earth! Woe is me!
Not evil, just short sighted at times. Maybe a bit unaware and selfish too. But we've come a long way on both counts, so there's hope even if the current trend is to bag on people for the crime of giving a shit.
Why is this modded -1 Troll? Parent is correct; in the U.S. (and I assume most other developed nations), close to 100% of plastic waste either go into a landfill or is recycled. Amount dumped into the ocean is negligible.
Because summarizing valid and semi-insightful point by calling people:
... jackass hipsters at Trader Joe's ...
for the intolerable crime of:
using ... burlap bags
Is kindof douchey, but sadly Slashdot does not have a kind of douchey choice for the moderators.
And then there is the point that landfills aren't really an unlimited resource, none of the articles accused the US of anything, plastic bags wash out to sea from storm drains in the US (even if other countries contribute most of the trash.) And finally, what's so funny about peace, love, and understanding?
"booked" is not the same as having it in the bank. They need to launch or they don't earn the money.
There is no way SpaceX ramps up its production line without customers paying something up front, and I'm pretty sure that one of the requirements to get the $56.5 M price is payment in full before launch. Either way, according to SpaceX and many comments from Musk, SpaceX is already profitable and cash-flow positive. They have development funds from NASA for the Dragon capsule and $1.6 billion in Falcon 9 launches alone. At this point, they seem to be a viable enterprise and will have to screw up really seriously to run out of money.
SpaceX is in the red currently and if they can market the heck out their rockets to Wall Street (for funding) and undercut everyone, hopefully timing will allow them to get into the black.
They do great work, but either SpaceX will survive as much as OSC did in the 90's (they did well to start subcompanies) or they will flame out hard from debt.
SpaceX doesn't need funding, they have paying customers. And unless something goes terribly wrong, they are about to get a bunch more.
I think it is clear that the Tesla is more likely to have a fire if you hit something hard enough to puncture the vehicle's armor plating and pierce the battery pack. It's a specific mode of failure and I don't know how common of an event this will be in the long run. I also don't think it's as big of a deal as the media is making. It doesn't "explode" or unexpectedly burst into flames that engulf the passenger compartment. A cluster of events does not define a trend in my mind.
I really like the low center of gravity, the balanced fore-aft weight distribution and the ridiculous amounts of trunk space the "skateboard" design allows. It makes for a great handling car, which improves safety. It also means huge crumble zones to absorb kinetic energy in a crash, which also improves safety. To me, it's a design trade-off. The real measure of the trade off will be whether people are safer, on average, or not. So far there have been no deaths or serious injuries, but the sample size and time frame is small for that to be really meaningful. But I'm hopeful, and if I could afford one, I'd buy one.
Tesla, itslef states that battery life is dependent on the number of charge/discharge cycles and reccommends against frequent charging when the battery is relatively "full."
Citation please, because the Model S Owner's Manual says the exact opposite:
Maybe the confusing is with the MAX charging option. As part of its battery management, Tesla intentionally does not charge to 100% unless you explicitly request it on the charging menu. People on the forums are still getting over 200 miles on the standard charge. With the MAX charge they're getting over 250 miles and the common practice is to use MAX for road trips. As long as you are using the standard charge settings, you can plug it in all the time and not worry about it killing the battery.
What's wrong with this guy. He keeps launching and suggesting new ideas every other week, without actually delivering something most of his fans are begging for.
Enough pie in the sky and train in the tube already.
Haul your tail in and make and deliver a decent 40K Tesla sedan.
From TFA:
It'll be a while, though. In the meantime, Tesla has a Model X crossover to launch and a smaller, more affordable sedan to develop--so don't expect to see a pickup for another five years or so.
And for what it's worth, he's clearly stated he won't be involved with the HyperLoop because he's too busy with Tesla and Space X. And what's so terrible about having ideas?
That is going to depend on whether or not the job site has a high amp charging station. One of the problems plaguing current EVs is that multiple partial charges shorten battery life. So, unless your EV truck is close to needing a full charge and you actually have the equipment and/or time to give it a full charge, charging it at the worksite could very well be reducing the uselife of the truck.
I don't remember the details, but Tesla did a lot of fine tuning of the battery management system that leverages having around 8000 cells. On the Model S they worked with Panasonic to tweak the battery chemistry and internals of the cells. Anyway, according to the Model S Owner's Manual:
The most important way to preserve the Battery is to LEAVE YOUR MODEL S PLUGGED IN when you’re not using it. This is particularly important if you are not planning to drive your Model S for several weeks. When plugged in, Model S wakes up when needed to automatically maintain a charge level that maximizes the lifetime of the Battery.
There is no advantage to waiting until the Battery’s level is low before charging. In fact, the Battery performs best when charged regularly.
The Roadster uses standard Panasonic 18650s and it's manual also suggests leaving the car plugged in. I don't think charging frequently is as much of an issue for Tesla as it is for other EVs.
It's a type of clam known to live extremely long lives that people are studying to understand aging. It was part of a haul of clams caught on a field trip of Bangor University’s School of Ocean Sciences. And it's a clam. You know, one of those things we catch and eat by the millions every year without shedding a tear.
But God forbid a scientist kills one and actually learns something. And since one of the many things we might learn is how the climate has changed over the last 500 years, we get to blame climate science.
In summary:
Kill one clam that turns out to be really old add to our understanding of the oceans and climate: Evil, arrogant, and self-centered!
WTF?