The rocket won't fly off any more than the earth will.
Say you launch something at the sun at 100kph (while going around at orbit speed) and then you cut the rockets. Relative to the sun there's will be no increase in orbit speed except from whatever it gets from reducing its altitude relative to the sun (potential energy), but as you get lower you need higher and higher speeds to maintain orbit. There is no other force except from the sun and that is always towards the sun's direction. So how can it fly off anywhere? If it can it's magically getting energy - where's that energy coming from?
That article makes the false assumption that to hit the sun you need to reduce the relative velocity to zero.
Assuming no atmosphere if you want to get from a perfectly circular orbit around an object to the objects surface and you don't care about surviving you don't have to reduce your velocity. All you have to do is to head directly towards the object (perpendicular to orbit). Barring outside interference (other objects) there would be no force increasing your altitude so you will eventually crash at a high speed.
Now our orbit isn't perfectly circular, but the reasoning still applies - since we're not interested in "landing" trash on the Sun, we don't have to change the deltav that much. All you need is a suitable trajectory at Earth's escape velocity.
One of the reasons we change velocity when putting stuff on earth or other planets is because we normally want the object to survive. So if you don't care do you really have to do that? Objects traveling faster than Earth's escape velocity can certainly still hit the Earth right?
Assuming you're in a perfectly circular orbit around something with no atmosphere, if you shoot a bullet directly at it (perpendicular to orbit), the bullet will still keep losing altitude - because what other relative force would there be to increase the altitude?
So I suggest that given a suitable trajectory at Earth's escape velocity you can get stuff to hit the Sun. It may take the stuff a longer time to reach the Sun, but who cares as long as the stuff doesn't come back:).
It is hard to certify some program is trouble-free - that's arguably harder than solving the halting-problem- since you aren't provided the full inputs and code (the program might download additional code).
I refuted his point. Pharmboy claimed we are hardwired to seek high calorie foods. So I gave examples of high calorie foods that I think most people aren't as addicted to- they may like it (or not), consume it but then they stop fairly easily - they may even stop for days or longer with no urge to reconsume them in the same quantities.
And there are also people like me who aren't as addicted to sugar. I do not feel a great urge to consume more white sugar or a sugar solution after having a bit of it. But for example, after taking a single Lays potato chip, I feel like I have to have another and another etc (I can stop, but the urge is stronger). Lays may be high calorie but it's not as high calorie as pure oil or fat. And there are plenty of foods with similar calorie density that aren't as addictive.
So it's not high calories. Assuming it is won't get you closer to figuring the real reasons.
I bet the snack food people have done a lot more research on addictive snacks and are closer to the truth. Saltiness, sweetness, umaminess, oiliness, stuff like mouthfeel, even the sound a snack makes when you chomp on it (crispy is popular for some reason). There's probably some snack food researcher somewhere working on snacks that are as addictive as possible while remaining legal, cheap and minimally satiating;).
Hardwired to seek high calorie foods? OK eat a spoon of unsweetened peanut butter. Or drink some olive oil. Or chew on some low sugar biltong. Does that help?:)
The real problem is sugar is addictive for many people - sugar high, then crash, then want more sugar, repeat till obese. I'm lucky that I'd prefer biltong or good beef jerky to candy, or >80% cocoa chocolate. Except that biltong and good quality high cocoa chocolate bars are a lot more expensive... So I end up not snacking much.
Sad? You sound like you have very little idea what Forever or Eternity means (but not surprising - most people don't). Do you really want to still be alive in this universe when all its stars have long died and gone cold, and all other energy sources have been used up? What sort of "greater existence" is that? How would you be "thoroughly enjoying" your life in the dark and cold?
Eventually stuff might start happening again - forever is a very long time after all. But go ask some physicists or astronomers how long that's likely to take.
No. Struldbrugs age and assuming the the brain ages and you eventually go senile it might actually not be as bad. I'm saying if you don't age and are at your best physical form you are unlikely to keep enjoying the experience.
For example, assuming humanity doesn't figure out interstellar space travel, you'd still be stuck in the Solar System when the Sun starts dying. If you can still feel pain and other human things being around/in a dying star would be very unpleasant. And even if you are invulnerable, it would be rather boring just looking at glowing gas not for just one year, but for about a billion years. Then after a brief (few hundred million years) slightly more exciting period of the sun going "poof" it will go dark and you'll be stuck waiting for the other stars to dim and go out. An astronomer can probably give you a better idea of what it would be like.
Even if humanity does figure out interstellar space travel, soon the rest of the stars will start dying too. Then you will be alone in a cold, dark, dead universe for a very long time till a new "big bang" occurs. I'm assuming that a "big crunch" is not going to happen for this particular universe (most physicists think it's likely to keep expanding), but given an eternity there is a chance a new big bang may occur randomly from a quantum vacuum state.
I think a worse curse would be for the target to live forever, NO MATTER WHAT! Heat death of the universe, next big bang, next heat death of next universe, so on and so forth. The first 1000 years might be all fun and games, but long before the last stars dim, I'm sure you'd be wishing you didn't exist any more.
So many people want to live forever the way they are at their prime. I don't, I would only want eternal existence if I was transformed into an entity that could enjoy it. Otherwise it would be hell and not heaven. I'd rather have complete oblivion, total nonexistence instead.
If you've seen most of the voters out there you would know how easily swayed they are by what the see on television and what they hear on the radio.
Sure but it's still the voter's decision and responsibility. Nobody is forcing the voter to vote according to the dollar. In other countries candidates can and do win without huge financial backing against those that have deep pockets. The buck stops at the voters. The more they realize that the closer they will be to changing things. If money stops winning elections, the politicians will have to try other methods.
And is money actually winning elections? From what I see, many of the US voters do actually want the stuff the politicians promise them more than the other stuff. For example, their priorities are stuff like gay marriage or no gay marriage, abortion or no abortion, marijuana or not, etc. Not whether their candidate can be bought or not;). I bet most of the candidates deep down don't really care that much about those issues and are happy to give the majority of the voters whatever they want on those. And return favours to their sponsors (corps) on things that typically most voters don't care that much about - copyright act extensions, patent laws etc.
The problem is when huge numbers of voters want very different things, opposing things even. So naturally huge numbers are going to be unhappy whatever the politician does. So the corporations back more than one candidate, that way whoever wins they get what they want.
So it might be that the money is following the votes about as much as the votes are following the money.
So unless you are willing to euthanize the poor and sick, "single payer public health care" is the rational self-serving route for at least the "middle/upper class". It's still expensive but it provably costs less (just look at other countries). The elite class of course live in a different world - they may have their own doctors and pay proportionately less in taxes.
It should be frigging obvious taxes and other public money are ALREADY paying for the poor. But because of the many stupid AND selfish AND greedy people in the USA, you get some monstrosity of Obamacare. No poor sick person needs 1000 different health plans to choose from. You should automatically be covered by one public plan. If you don't want the public plan (or it doesn't cover your needs) you can go with whatever private plan you can afford.
the US left 'one person, one vote' and became 'one dollar, one vote'. in that sense, we lost 100% of our power as citizens to control our own government.
Bullshit. How did one dollar become one vote?
The buck stops at the voter. The voter still decides who to vote for and thus still has the power to control the government.
Unless your elections are completely made up like in some dictatorships (in which case there would be no need for those dollars either),
Go speak to some voters some time and get your eyes opened by how many voters are indeed voluntarily voting for those people. Some happily even. The government may be giving them exactly what they want - "tough action on drugs" etc.
I think that's actually worse than the Tesla/Nissan Leaf pure battery model. Since you can charge battery cars in far more places.
We would still need hydrocarbons because I doubt our airliners will be hydrogen or battery powered. So it'll be great if we can figure out a practical path for "green energy" (e.g. wind/solar) or nuke to hydrocarbon, and hydrocarbon powered electric cars.
If they use hydrocarbon fuel cells the cars may be able to use the existing fuel stations (likely to need filters to prevent poisoning from impurities). They'd probably still release CO2 but be more efficient.
Far more convenient than cars with hydrogen tanks.
Corporations should pay taxes otherwise people would just hide their personal profits in Corporations - many already do - they get "paid nothing", but get to use the resources of the corporation as theirs.
I'm fine with Corporations not paying taxes on profits that aren't theirs.
But it sure seems unfair when a Corporation starts treating certain profits as if it owns them but still doesn't have to pay any taxes on them.
For example, a) if a corporation can include the profit in its financial reports as part of its total profit then the profit is the corporation's and so it should pay any taxes due them. If it doesn't want to pay taxes on them it should not include them as part of its profits. b) If a corporation can borrow money using profits of another corporation as collateral, or otherwise control or use the profits of another corporation, then those profits belong to the first company and so it should pay any taxes due on them. If it's not your money why can the bank lend you money using it as collateral? If it's not yours why can you treat it like you own it? If it's yours then pay the taxes on it.
As for double or triple taxation you could simply say the Corporation has to pay your country what's left over after the other countries have taxed the corporation. If the corporation has paid out zero, your country gets the full amount of tax, if it has paid out a lot then your country might get none of it.
Hundreds of years ago copyright was just 14 years.
With productivity and efficiency supposedly increasing, the rate of innovation supposedly increasing, the costs of distribution going down, and reach of distribution increasing, when copyright and patent terms are changed shouldn't it be for the shorter instead of longer?
Copyright terms that last more than a century prove something is wrong.
It is bullshit at least for "diet" purposes since: 1) Not all the calories are the same - try pumping diesel into a petrol car or vice versa, same calories very different effects. Compare long term effects of different ethanol-petrol ratios on your car. Human metabolism is even more complicated than a car's engine. Compare consuming 2000 calories of sugar water with consuming 2000 calories of protein mix. 2) most conveniently forget to measure the _excreted_ calories - for example, how much you shit out. Even a 5% difference in individuals can become significant over time. 3) There's also satiety factors. For "dieting" purposes different foods with the same amount of calories have different satiety.
A partial truth can be just as damaging as flat out lies. And there have been plenty saying harmful bullshit like "a calorie is a calorie" when it's not so simple as that.
Everyone suffers from input latency anyway. The difference is with local side rendering the game clients can just draw what they think would happen ASAP without waiting for the server. This hides the latency a fair bit. The server just says some time later "Nope, sorry you're dead" or "No, you are actually in this position" or "It happened about the way you thought it would".
With the rendering done server side, to hide some latency issues the servers could render and stream spherical/360 video - e.g. you turn and the "client" can show that view of the video immediately, rather than ping time later. But positional movement and other stuff will still lag by ping time. This is a showstopper for "twitch" games but not others.
My guess is it takes significantly longer for a Tesla battery to go from too hot to burning to kaboom, than for a fuel tank to do the same, and if you have thermal sensors you might be able to get enough warning time. Doesn't help if it burns down your garage and house though, but perhaps you could get the car to sound the horn in a distinctive way.
Do the statistics indicate that Teslas are catching on fire destructively more often than cars in its class?
Why's the current location a big problem? The current location helps lower the Tesla's CG which is good in many other ways. For a "sports car" I'd say the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.
These class of cars crash and burn all the time (some even split in two). Google if you don't believe me. Heck even other conventional cars crash and burn too- A friend's friends were burnt to death in a BMW after a crash - they were stuck and couldn't get out.
This Tesla model seems really safe in comparison. Maybe add some thermal sensors, have a "car about to burn" warning and we're good to go.
I don't play GW2 (sure seems more like WoW[1] than GW1, so not going to bother at least for now), but from what I see the GW2 players can't even agree whether there's inflation or deflation.
As for massive grind, if you want to max level and get the best gear etc ASAP, I can see how you'd have to grind in GW2 (and I don't like games like that). But given your complaint about grinding in GW1, maybe your playing style also tends too much towards grinding? If you really do enjoy blowing your way through to the end game and getting all the "best stuff" then do so by all means (some really do- even compete to be the first to hit max etc), but you don't seem to find that fun. So in GW2 is it possible to relax and play through the content without grinding? In GW1 it was possible. OK GW Prophecies was more grindy, but Factions was almost "sneeze and gain a level";)...
[1] For example: gear makes a significant difference and so grinding for gear makes a significant difference in how well you do. Not merely how stylish you look while you are kicking ass or getting your ass kicked;).
Slashdot Mirror
The rocket won't fly off any more than the earth will.
Say you launch something at the sun at 100kph (while going around at orbit speed) and then you cut the rockets. Relative to the sun there's will be no increase in orbit speed except from whatever it gets from reducing its altitude relative to the sun (potential energy), but as you get lower you need higher and higher speeds to maintain orbit. There is no other force except from the sun and that is always towards the sun's direction. So how can it fly off anywhere? If it can it's magically getting energy - where's that energy coming from?
So who is making hilarious statements?
That article makes the false assumption that to hit the sun you need to reduce the relative velocity to zero.
Assuming no atmosphere if you want to get from a perfectly circular orbit around an object to the objects surface and you don't care about surviving you don't have to reduce your velocity. All you have to do is to head directly towards the object (perpendicular to orbit). Barring outside interference (other objects) there would be no force increasing your altitude so you will eventually crash at a high speed.
Now our orbit isn't perfectly circular, but the reasoning still applies - since we're not interested in "landing" trash on the Sun, we don't have to change the deltav that much. All you need is a suitable trajectory at Earth's escape velocity.
One of the reasons we change velocity when putting stuff on earth or other planets is because we normally want the object to survive. So if you don't care do you really have to do that? Objects traveling faster than Earth's escape velocity can certainly still hit the Earth right?
:).
Assuming you're in a perfectly circular orbit around something with no atmosphere, if you shoot a bullet directly at it (perpendicular to orbit), the bullet will still keep losing altitude - because what other relative force would there be to increase the altitude?
So I suggest that given a suitable trajectory at Earth's escape velocity you can get stuff to hit the Sun. It may take the stuff a longer time to reach the Sun, but who cares as long as the stuff doesn't come back
It is hard to certify some program is trouble-free - that's arguably harder than solving the halting-problem- since you aren't provided the full inputs and code (the program might download additional code).
So I proposed something like this:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/156693
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=308760
Trusted parties ( including 3rd parties) could sign the app and its sandbox.
My proposal is a bit like working around the halting problem by forcibly limiting how long the program will run. ;)
I refuted his point. Pharmboy claimed we are hardwired to seek high calorie foods. So I gave examples of high calorie foods that I think most people aren't as addicted to- they may like it (or not), consume it but then they stop fairly easily - they may even stop for days or longer with no urge to reconsume them in the same quantities.
;).
And there are also people like me who aren't as addicted to sugar. I do not feel a great urge to consume more white sugar or a sugar solution after having a bit of it. But for example, after taking a single Lays potato chip, I feel like I have to have another and another etc (I can stop, but the urge is stronger). Lays may be high calorie but it's not as high calorie as pure oil or fat. And there are plenty of foods with similar calorie density that aren't as addictive.
So it's not high calories. Assuming it is won't get you closer to figuring the real reasons.
I bet the snack food people have done a lot more research on addictive snacks and are closer to the truth. Saltiness, sweetness, umaminess, oiliness, stuff like mouthfeel, even the sound a snack makes when you chomp on it (crispy is popular for some reason). There's probably some snack food researcher somewhere working on snacks that are as addictive as possible while remaining legal, cheap and minimally satiating
Hardwired to seek high calorie foods? OK eat a spoon of unsweetened peanut butter. Or drink some olive oil. Or chew on some low sugar biltong. Does that help? :)
The real problem is sugar is addictive for many people - sugar high, then crash, then want more sugar, repeat till obese. I'm lucky that I'd prefer biltong or good beef jerky to candy, or >80% cocoa chocolate. Except that biltong and good quality high cocoa chocolate bars are a lot more expensive... So I end up not snacking much.
By the way there's some research indicating that alcohlics tend to like sweet stuff: http://alcoholism.about.com/library/weekly/aa001218a.htm
Sad? You sound like you have very little idea what Forever or Eternity means (but not surprising - most people don't). Do you really want to still be alive in this universe when all its stars have long died and gone cold, and all other energy sources have been used up? What sort of "greater existence" is that? How would you be "thoroughly enjoying" your life in the dark and cold?
Eventually stuff might start happening again - forever is a very long time after all. But go ask some physicists or astronomers how long that's likely to take.
No. Struldbrugs age and assuming the the brain ages and you eventually go senile it might actually not be as bad. I'm saying if you don't age and are at your best physical form you are unlikely to keep enjoying the experience.
For example, assuming humanity doesn't figure out interstellar space travel, you'd still be stuck in the Solar System when the Sun starts dying. If you can still feel pain and other human things being around/in a dying star would be very unpleasant. And even if you are invulnerable, it would be rather boring just looking at glowing gas not for just one year, but for about a billion years. Then after a brief (few hundred million years) slightly more exciting period of the sun going "poof" it will go dark and you'll be stuck waiting for the other stars to dim and go out. An astronomer can probably give you a better idea of what it would be like.
Even if humanity does figure out interstellar space travel, soon the rest of the stars will start dying too. Then you will be alone in a cold, dark, dead universe for a very long time till a new "big bang" occurs. I'm assuming that a "big crunch" is not going to happen for this particular universe (most physicists think it's likely to keep expanding), but given an eternity there is a chance a new big bang may occur randomly from a quantum vacuum state.
I think a worse curse would be for the target to live forever, NO MATTER WHAT! Heat death of the universe, next big bang, next heat death of next universe, so on and so forth. The first 1000 years might be all fun and games, but long before the last stars dim, I'm sure you'd be wishing you didn't exist any more.
So many people want to live forever the way they are at their prime. I don't, I would only want eternal existence if I was transformed into an entity that could enjoy it. Otherwise it would be hell and not heaven. I'd rather have complete oblivion, total nonexistence instead.
If you've seen most of the voters out there you would know how easily swayed they are by what the see on television and what they hear on the radio.
Sure but it's still the voter's decision and responsibility. Nobody is forcing the voter to vote according to the dollar. In other countries candidates can and do win without huge financial backing against those that have deep pockets. The buck stops at the voters. The more they realize that the closer they will be to changing things. If money stops winning elections, the politicians will have to try other methods.
And is money actually winning elections? From what I see, many of the US voters do actually want the stuff the politicians promise them more than the other stuff. For example, their priorities are stuff like gay marriage or no gay marriage, abortion or no abortion, marijuana or not, etc. Not whether their candidate can be bought or not ;). I bet most of the candidates deep down don't really care that much about those issues and are happy to give the majority of the voters whatever they want on those. And return favours to their sponsors (corps) on things that typically most voters don't care that much about - copyright act extensions, patent laws etc.
The problem is when huge numbers of voters want very different things, opposing things even. So naturally huge numbers are going to be unhappy whatever the politician does. So the corporations back more than one candidate, that way whoever wins they get what they want.
So it might be that the money is following the votes about as much as the votes are following the money.
You all stupid? Where do you think the money comes from to treat the poor in ERs? The poor? They have no money, so you still pay for them!
Except you pay in very inefficient and expensive ways - the poor queuing at ERs till they get sick enough to treat, or committing crimes to get into prison to get healthcare ( http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/02/on-purposely-getting-arrested-to-get-life-saving-surgery/273282/ http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/08/27/2535201/sick-oregon-man-robs-bank-dollar-health-care-jail/ ). You also pay if one day you need ER treatment and don't get it because too many ERs have closed down: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/18/health/18hospital.html
So unless you are willing to euthanize the poor and sick, "single payer public health care" is the rational self-serving route for at least the "middle/upper class". It's still expensive but it provably costs less (just look at other countries). The elite class of course live in a different world - they may have their own doctors and pay proportionately less in taxes.
It should be frigging obvious taxes and other public money are ALREADY paying for the poor. But because of the many stupid AND selfish AND greedy people in the USA, you get some monstrosity of Obamacare. No poor sick person needs 1000 different health plans to choose from. You should automatically be covered by one public plan. If you don't want the public plan (or it doesn't cover your needs) you can go with whatever private plan you can afford.
the US left 'one person, one vote' and became 'one dollar, one vote'. in that sense, we lost 100% of our power as citizens to control our own government.
Bullshit. How did one dollar become one vote?
The buck stops at the voter. The voter still decides who to vote for and thus still has the power to control the government.
Unless your elections are completely made up like in some dictatorships (in which case there would be no need for those dollars either),
Go speak to some voters some time and get your eyes opened by how many voters are indeed voluntarily voting for those people. Some happily even. The government may be giving them exactly what they want - "tough action on drugs" etc.
I think that's actually worse than the Tesla/Nissan Leaf pure battery model. Since you can charge battery cars in far more places.
We would still need hydrocarbons because I doubt our airliners will be hydrogen or battery powered. So it'll be great if we can figure out a practical path for "green energy" (e.g. wind/solar) or nuke to hydrocarbon, and hydrocarbon powered electric cars.
If fuel cells aren't up to it yet, maybe small gas turbine generators could do: http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/alternative-fuel/electric/jaguar-hybrid-micro-turbine-engineering
http://www.thechargingpoint.com/opinions/James-Allen-on-EV-The-Whisper-turbine-charged-electric-car.html
So you think it won't be in vein? ;)
If they use hydrocarbon fuel cells the cars may be able to use the existing fuel stations (likely to need filters to prevent poisoning from impurities). They'd probably still release CO2 but be more efficient.
Far more convenient than cars with hydrogen tanks.
Copyright infringement is not stealing because it doesn't prevent the owners from using their own copies or restrict their access to them.
Copyright term extensions on the other hand restricts the public's access to works that would otherwise be freely available to them.
Therefore the latter is closer to stealing than the former.
I thought it was more "You break it, you buy it". ;)
Corporations should pay taxes otherwise people would just hide their personal profits in Corporations - many already do - they get "paid nothing", but get to use the resources of the corporation as theirs.
I'm fine with Corporations not paying taxes on profits that aren't theirs.
But it sure seems unfair when a Corporation starts treating certain profits as if it owns them but still doesn't have to pay any taxes on them.
For example,
a) if a corporation can include the profit in its financial reports as part of its total profit then the profit is the corporation's and so it should pay any taxes due them. If it doesn't want to pay taxes on them it should not include them as part of its profits.
b) If a corporation can borrow money using profits of another corporation as collateral, or otherwise control or use the profits of another corporation, then those profits belong to the first company and so it should pay any taxes due on them. If it's not your money why can the bank lend you money using it as collateral? If it's not yours why can you treat it like you own it? If it's yours then pay the taxes on it.
As for double or triple taxation you could simply say the Corporation has to pay your country what's left over after the other countries have taxed the corporation. If the corporation has paid out zero, your country gets the full amount of tax, if it has paid out a lot then your country might get none of it.
Hundreds of years ago copyright was just 14 years.
With productivity and efficiency supposedly increasing, the rate of innovation supposedly increasing, the costs of distribution going down, and reach of distribution increasing, when copyright and patent terms are changed shouldn't it be for the shorter instead of longer?
Copyright terms that last more than a century prove something is wrong.
It is bullshit at least for "diet" purposes since:
1) Not all the calories are the same - try pumping diesel into a petrol car or vice versa, same calories very different effects. Compare long term effects of different ethanol-petrol ratios on your car. Human metabolism is even more complicated than a car's engine. Compare consuming 2000 calories of sugar water with consuming 2000 calories of protein mix.
2) most conveniently forget to measure the _excreted_ calories - for example, how much you shit out. Even a 5% difference in individuals can become significant over time.
3) There's also satiety factors. For "dieting" purposes different foods with the same amount of calories have different satiety.
A partial truth can be just as damaging as flat out lies. And there have been plenty saying harmful bullshit like "a calorie is a calorie" when it's not so simple as that.
They spray, you pray. And everyone pays.
Everyone suffers from input latency anyway. The difference is with local side rendering the game clients can just draw what they think would happen ASAP without waiting for the server. This hides the latency a fair bit. The server just says some time later "Nope, sorry you're dead" or "No, you are actually in this position" or "It happened about the way you thought it would".
With the rendering done server side, to hide some latency issues the servers could render and stream spherical/360 video - e.g. you turn and the "client" can show that view of the video immediately, rather than ping time later. But positional movement and other stuff will still lag by ping time. This is a showstopper for "twitch" games but not others.
My guess is it takes significantly longer for a Tesla battery to go from too hot to burning to kaboom, than for a fuel tank to do the same, and if you have thermal sensors you might be able to get enough warning time. Doesn't help if it burns down your garage and house though, but perhaps you could get the car to sound the horn in a distinctive way.
Do the statistics indicate that Teslas are catching on fire destructively more often than cars in its class?
Why's the current location a big problem? The current location helps lower the Tesla's CG which is good in many other ways. For a "sports car" I'd say the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.
These class of cars crash and burn all the time (some even split in two). Google if you don't believe me. Heck even other conventional cars crash and burn too- A friend's friends were burnt to death in a BMW after a crash - they were stuck and couldn't get out.
This Tesla model seems really safe in comparison. Maybe add some thermal sensors, have a "car about to burn" warning and we're good to go.
I don't play GW2 (sure seems more like WoW[1] than GW1, so not going to bother at least for now), but from what I see the GW2 players can't even agree whether there's inflation or deflation.
http://www.guildwars2guru.com/topic/76265-inflation-out-of-hand-or-alright-for-now/
https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/archive/jubilee/Do-you-notice-inflation
As for massive grind, if you want to max level and get the best gear etc ASAP, I can see how you'd have to grind in GW2 (and I don't like games like that). But given your complaint about grinding in GW1, maybe your playing style also tends too much towards grinding? If you really do enjoy blowing your way through to the end game and getting all the "best stuff" then do so by all means (some really do- even compete to be the first to hit max etc), but you don't seem to find that fun. So in GW2 is it possible to relax and play through the content without grinding? In GW1 it was possible. OK GW Prophecies was more grindy, but Factions was almost "sneeze and gain a level" ;)...
[1] For example: gear makes a significant difference and so grinding for gear makes a significant difference in how well you do. Not merely how stylish you look while you are kicking ass or getting your ass kicked ;).