So you are saying that being a climate scientist pays better then being an executive of a fossil fuel extraction corporation or a petroleum engineer? Now, the skill set to being a climate scientist might not intersect with that of a successful (rapacious) corporate exec, but the analytical skills required of a climate scientist and petroleum engineer intersect nicely.
Not a Saturn V, but the USA does have the heaviest lifting operational launch vehicle in the world today, the Delta IV Heavy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy-lift_launch_vehicle). The Delta IV Heavy also has a greater payload weight to orbit than any other previous American launch vehicle (except Saturn V) which puts it ahead of such notables from the past as the Saturn 1B, Titan IV and Space Shuttle. Without doing any research I'd hazard a confident guess that only the Soviet Energia could outlift the big Delta among non-American vehicles.
Is that Voter ID really free of charge or is it free after you pay a fee to get a certified copy of your birth certificate which is required in order to get your free ID? Paying money for anything in order to vote has a bad history in this country, as do literacy tests (hey, you should be able to read, else how can you cast an informed vote!), etc. You can always make an argument why there should be some test or other extra-constitutional requirement to vote -- they've all been tried in the past.
Among other things, the "much more advanced capabilities" of those other world powers does not include the currently operational launch vehicle with the largest payload mass to orbit -- that would be the Delta IV Heavy, made in USA. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy-lift_launch_vehicle)
Darn, you're right and my number for orbital KE is to high by a factor of 2 (forgot to do the multiply by 1/2). I did that math about 4 times... My overestimate makes the comparison between orbital energy and nuclear energy even more lopsided in favor of the nukes.
Here is some math comparing the energy of orbital speed vs nuclear weapons. First of all, think about it, if you are going to drop something from orbit, first you have to put it into orbit, which will take more energy to do than the ultimate energetic yield upon reentry (discounting the even more far fetched ideas of redirecting asteroids...). The Saturn V could put 140,000 kg into low earth orbit. So the total energy, kinetic and potential, of 140,000 kg in earth orbit is less than the fuel energy contained in a Saturn V. The Saturn V was big, but would be considered very small as the equivalent of a nuclear weapon (the launch spectators were only a few miles away, in the open).
Now for the math. At the speed of low earth orbit (7.8 km/s) the kinetic energy of 1 kg is 6.1E7 joules (1/2 mv^2). The conversion from nuclear yield in kilotons to joules is 1 kt = 4.184E12 joules. So to equal a small nuke (using the approximate yield of the first one at Trinity) with a yield of 20 kt would require about 2.8E6 kg in low earth orbit to dissipate all of its kinetic energy as destructive yield (that's 2800 metric tons). I've ignored the potential energy of the mass in orbit as it is much smaller than the kinetic energy (about 2E6 joules/kg). The mass of the ISS is 420 metric tons. Not many nukes are as small as 20 kt anymore. I'd guess that the operational ones are closer to 500 kt, though operation weapons with yields of a few megatons (2000 to 3000 kt and up) have been fielded in the past and maybe still are. So now we are talking orbital masses of around 70,000 metric tons to equal one typical nuke. There is a LOT of energy in a nuclear weapon. So dropping things from orbit does not create city flattening yields or big earthquakes, cracks in the earth, etc. Anyone can feel free to check my math, I did it in a hurry. I got all my starting numbers from Wikipedia.
"generals running wars works" not always -- if President Truman had let Gen MacArthur run the Korean war the way the general wanted to, we would have been in a land and nuclear war on Chinese territory in the early 50's, back when the nuclear armed Soviets were still allies with China. As it was, MacArthur was the one who goaded China into that war in the first place. If Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy had let Gen Curtis LeMay run the Cold War the way the general wanted to, we would have been in a nuclear war with the Soviet Union in the late 50's or early 60's.
If "they understand that they need educated people to get their economies further," then why is the Russian economy (and that of most other eastern European economies) so sickly all the time? Perhaps (and that is granting the point without any proof) the Russians do a decent job of educating their populace or encouraging STEM or whatever, but they sure can't put all these skilled citizens to any useful purpose, otherwise Russia's economy would be bigger than one half that of California and not be completely dependent on world oil prices. There is obviously 'something' they don't understand about getting their economies further along. And as far as the USA's system goes, anyone checked lately on the strength of the US dollar compared to the Euro, Australian dollar, Canadian dollar, British pound, etc? Maybe all those so-called faults in the USA's system come with accompanying advantages.
My understanding (you know what that means) is that without forming ULA, Boeing was going to quit building Deltas of any type and exit the launcher market because the Delta couldn't compete with the Atlas. And there wasn't enough business to keep two healthy competitors in business so the Feds allowed the joint project. This combined with DoD's insistence that they have at least two options for launchers for "assured access to space" (even that wasn't enough after the Titan and the Space Shuttle were both grounded for awhile when Challenger and a couple of Titans blew up in close succession). Allowing the merger to make ULA was probably cheaper than nursing along Boeing as a sickly second source to LM.
"just laying out the creation myth and history of the early days. That puts a lot of people off..." -- you just described my experience perfectly. Thanks for the update, maybe I'll give the book another chance.
"It's the medical and pharma lobbies (big Democratic donors)" -- somewhat misleading, Phama companies are big donors to both sides but Republicans generally received more than the Dems. From the Center for Responsive Politics (https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?Ind=H4300), "Pharmaceutical companies, which develop both over-the-counter and prescription drugs, have been among the biggest political spenders for years. They've traditionally supported Republican candidates, as they have received 64 percent of industry contributions on average since the 1990 election cycle."
It wasn't the faceless "City of Austin" which passed the ride sharing rules, it was Austin's voting citizens who passed the rules in a hard fought referendum where the ride sharing companies outspent their opponents by several times. So that's it -- the people WHO LIVE THERE wanted those rules. The State of Texas does have the legal right to overrule the expressed desire of the citizens of Austin, but why, just for spite (or bribes)? For the people that don't like the Austin laws and ways of doing business there are plenty of other places in Texas to move to; not any other big cities (except Fort Worth) as they all have similar politics now, but plenty of smaller cities with "real Texas values", but for various reasons those smaller places aren't seen as such desirable places to live. If the cities are there to "to provide local services, such as police, fire, garbage collection, and perhaps some road repairs", then what in heck is the State there for? The feds provide national defense and the Interstate highway system, the cities provide local services, the local school districts provide for the public schools. What is really left for the states?, mostly just corruption and overrepresentation of the rural areas , at least here in Texas.
"let's not pretend that AI had 5 hours of sleep in the last 48, had a shower, drove to work, checked on the kids and yet..." -- and that is exactly why I am eagerly looking forward to getting all my medical treatment from an AI just as soon as technologically possible. I don't want to be seen (or cut on) by a human who has had 5 hours of sleep in the last 48, even if somehow the profession has gotten itself in the position where that is bragged about. No other profession with potentially deadly consequences (aircraft pilots, truck drivers, military) treats sleep deprivation so casually. No thanks, I'll take my chances with the ever wakeful AI.
The widespread occurrence of employer provided health insurance in the USA is a historical artifact of WWII when the government restricted the freedom of companies to raise salaries to attract workers. Instead, many companies began to offer health insurance as a perq of employment and the system stuck, and even worse, became tax deductible for the company (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=114045132). The one useful thing which (the few remaining) rational Republicans (and many economists) have proposed for health insurance lately is to break the link between health insurance and employment.
Replying to my own post because I should have added this -- with all that said about the USA space program, I fully applaud these Chinese efforts and those of all other nations (and private organizations). There is plenty of space out there for everyone. On the plaque which the Apollo 11 mission left on the moon in 1969, it says, "We came in peace for all mankind." Totally true or not, it's the right sentiment.
Well, right now in 2017, the USA's space program has two (2) functioning rovers on Mars, a spacecraft operating in orbit around Jupiter, a spacecraft operating in orbit around Saturn, a spacecraft operating in orbit around Ceres, a spacecraft on the way to its second encounter with a Kuiper belt object (after its flyby of Pluto), etc. If you want to review what the USA has done since the 1960's -- Since the 60's the USA has had successful missions to every planet in the Solar System, and orbiters around all of them from Mercury out to Saturn, plus five USA spacecraft are currently on their way out of the solar system. No other spacefaring nation will be able to say that anytime soon.
"What Einstein already figured out is that as you approach the speed of light, in your reference, time slows down" -- this is not quite correct. Time is as measured by an observer and the clocks in his co-moving reference frame ( let's stay with Special Relativity to avoid the complications of curved space-time). When the observer looks at any processes in a reference frame moving in relation to his, he sees those other clocks as running slow, BUT another observer in the other reference frame sees the original observer's clocks as running slow, too. Nobody sees their own clocks as running slow. The apparent paradox is resolved by remembering that the two observers don't measure the same distances either. The good example is the muons generated by cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere which are seen at the earth's surface, even though their rest frame half lives are too short for them to survive all the way to the surface. As observed by us at the surface the muon half-lives have been lengthened, their time has "slowed down", but as seen by the muon, it's half life is always the same, but because of the relative speed between it and the earth, it observes that the distance from creation to the surface is relativistically shortened so it has plenty of time before decay to travel that short distance. I don't want to speculate much about the photon traveling at the speed of light -- but to abuse the math -- they don't age as observed by anyone else, but any distance they go is relativistically shortened to zero from their reference -- I'm uneasy about that explanation.
I'll defer to anyone who knows better, but my understanding is that non-zero neutrino rest masses do not contradict the Quantum Electrodynamics or Quantum Chromodynamics upon which the Standard Model is based. The elementary particle masses (electron, muon, neutrinos, quarks, etc) are not predicted by any of those or the Standard Model, but are free parameters determined by experiment for now. Thus the Model is incomplete, but accurate up to it's level of completeness. But my point is that at the level it is now it provides a very good model/quantitative predictions of "how radioactive decay really works or even seemingly random subatomic particle type changes" which the grandparent cavalierly dismisses. Of course when someone uses the phrase "really works" then we get into philosophical discussions which science doesn't address.
Who modded this up? Come on mods! Really? --> "This time around it's even funnier considering we have next to no idea how radioactive decay really works or even seemingly random subatomic particle type changes." Anyone ever heard of Quantum Field Theory, Quantum Electrodynamics, and Quantum Chromodynamics? The theories of particle decays and reactions with none ever observed violations and which the LHC has spent billions of Euros to find flaws or way to improve without success so far.
Stellar fusion is a whole different subject than artificial fusion. You're right that fusion output per volume or weight is quite low in stars, but that is because the fusion being done is essentially four bare protons to helium4 which must evidently (I'm too lazy to look it up) include at least one reaction in the chain with an extremely low cross section. Actually it states in the article you linked that the slow reaction in the sun's Proton-proton reaction is the first one (proton + proton -> deuteron [H1 + H1 -> H2]). No artificial fusion schemes (low or high energy, serious or crackpot) ever consider using H1 as a fuel. They all start with isotopes much, much easier to fuse (usually deuterium, tritium, or helium3). And we do have an example of a high yield artificial fusion technique -- the thermonuclear weapons, which obviously are many orders of magnitude more powerful per kilogram than stars (I know most of their yield is usually fission, but they do produce a significant positive yield from fusion).
Every time there is a presidential election, the losing party is declared dead and the winning party is declared forever ascendant. Remember the "permanent Republican majority" after Bush won twice? Or the "demography is destiny" after Obama won twice? Neither one lasted. And the strange situation about the Democrats in this election -- their presidential candidate won more votes than the Republican, by a lot, and their Senate candidates in aggregate won more votes than the Republicans. It doesn't seem that indicates they will be permanent losers, sooner or later the popular vote numbers will have to have an effect.
"I've just wanted one since high school when my friend had one. Maybe now, I can get it and have a fun car to bounce around town in." -- well, in that case go for it. I go to Ebay Motors from time to time and check out the 2nd gen Trans-Ams. The '73 (the first year of the screaming chicken) would be my personal favorite. On thing to consider, and it violates your wanting the round headlights, is that on the stock suspension, Pontiac really improved them with the WS6 package and 8 inch wheels starting in '78, then the four wheel disks came around in '79. You could drive one of those stock and it would feel fine, and with the T/A 400 engine wouldn't feel that down on power, but they are rare now. The last one I had was the '81 Turbo (in the mid-90s), which had no power but was a fun car with T-Tops. If it were me I'd get an '81 and put an LS-1 in it. But that is all a matter of taste. Good luck in your project and hurry up because I've noticed the number of nice ones on Ebay is noticeably less now than a few years ago.
"A little work on the suspension, and you've got modern handling." -- not with a '76 Trans Am. Those second gen Firebirds and Camaros had very twisty (opposite of stiff) bodies -- the front and rear suspensions were tied together through the not stiff body via rubber biscuit connectors. Especially if you get a T-Top car the body is weak. I had a hot rodder friend complain about that when he did drop a torquey big block Chevy into a t-top Trans-Am. You could do stuff like weld in subframe connectors, etc, but those rubber biscuits were put in there by the factory for a reason -- NVH (noise, vibration, and harshness). And that mid-20th century recirculating ball steering gear is not going to ever feel like a 21st century rack and pinon. There have been 40 years of very expensive engineering in automotive bodies and suspensions since 1976 -- it shows. I'm a big fan of 2nd gen Firebirds and owned three of them -- a '70 Formula 400, a '78 WS-6 T/A 400 Trans Am, and a '81 Turbo Trans-Am, but they are outclassed in every way now (except their awesome styling, but the '73 was the best for that). And no carbureted engine will provide the throttle response and street flexibility that a 21st century fuel injected, computer engine does, but that's a different story. I saw a story in one of the enthusiast magazines a couple of years back where they spent some real money and took a '70 Challenger T/A (the best one) and tried to get it up to the performance spec of a new Challenger R/T -- they couldn't.
What you said is true, but at the risk of igniting derision in many subsequent comments, Hillary also lost because the American system of presidential elections (for better or worse) weights some votes more than others so that the winner of the popular vote loses the election. This has been endlessly 'litigated' on/. but the fact remains that some people's votes don't count as much as others in the presidential elections and Hillary got the majority of the lower weighted voters. In total more people 'liked her' than they did the 'winner'. And no one rational says those were 'millions of illegal votes'.
Slashdot Mirror
So you are saying that being a climate scientist pays better then being an executive of a fossil fuel extraction corporation or a petroleum engineer? Now, the skill set to being a climate scientist might not intersect with that of a successful (rapacious) corporate exec, but the analytical skills required of a climate scientist and petroleum engineer intersect nicely.
Not a Saturn V, but the USA does have the heaviest lifting operational launch vehicle in the world today, the Delta IV Heavy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy-lift_launch_vehicle). The Delta IV Heavy also has a greater payload weight to orbit than any other previous American launch vehicle (except Saturn V) which puts it ahead of such notables from the past as the Saturn 1B, Titan IV and Space Shuttle. Without doing any research I'd hazard a confident guess that only the Soviet Energia could outlift the big Delta among non-American vehicles.
Is that Voter ID really free of charge or is it free after you pay a fee to get a certified copy of your birth certificate which is required in order to get your free ID? Paying money for anything in order to vote has a bad history in this country, as do literacy tests (hey, you should be able to read, else how can you cast an informed vote!), etc. You can always make an argument why there should be some test or other extra-constitutional requirement to vote -- they've all been tried in the past.
Among other things, the "much more advanced capabilities" of those other world powers does not include the currently operational launch vehicle with the largest payload mass to orbit -- that would be the Delta IV Heavy, made in USA. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy-lift_launch_vehicle)
Darn, you're right and my number for orbital KE is to high by a factor of 2 (forgot to do the multiply by 1/2). I did that math about 4 times... My overestimate makes the comparison between orbital energy and nuclear energy even more lopsided in favor of the nukes.
Here is some math comparing the energy of orbital speed vs nuclear weapons. First of all, think about it, if you are going to drop something from orbit, first you have to put it into orbit, which will take more energy to do than the ultimate energetic yield upon reentry (discounting the even more far fetched ideas of redirecting asteroids...). The Saturn V could put 140,000 kg into low earth orbit. So the total energy, kinetic and potential, of 140,000 kg in earth orbit is less than the fuel energy contained in a Saturn V. The Saturn V was big, but would be considered very small as the equivalent of a nuclear weapon (the launch spectators were only a few miles away, in the open).
Now for the math. At the speed of low earth orbit (7.8 km/s) the kinetic energy of 1 kg is 6.1E7 joules (1/2 mv^2). The conversion from nuclear yield in kilotons to joules is 1 kt = 4.184E12 joules. So to equal a small nuke (using the approximate yield of the first one at Trinity) with a yield of 20 kt would require about 2.8E6 kg in low earth orbit to dissipate all of its kinetic energy as destructive yield (that's 2800 metric tons). I've ignored the potential energy of the mass in orbit as it is much smaller than the kinetic energy (about 2E6 joules/kg). The mass of the ISS is 420 metric tons. Not many nukes are as small as 20 kt anymore. I'd guess that the operational ones are closer to 500 kt, though operation weapons with yields of a few megatons (2000 to 3000 kt and up) have been fielded in the past and maybe still are. So now we are talking orbital masses of around 70,000 metric tons to equal one typical nuke. There is a LOT of energy in a nuclear weapon.
So dropping things from orbit does not create city flattening yields or big earthquakes, cracks in the earth, etc.
Anyone can feel free to check my math, I did it in a hurry. I got all my starting numbers from Wikipedia.
"generals running wars works" not always -- if President Truman had let Gen MacArthur run the Korean war the way the general wanted to, we would have been in a land and nuclear war on Chinese territory in the early 50's, back when the nuclear armed Soviets were still allies with China. As it was, MacArthur was the one who goaded China into that war in the first place.
If Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy had let Gen Curtis LeMay run the Cold War the way the general wanted to, we would have been in a nuclear war with the Soviet Union in the late 50's or early 60's.
If "they understand that they need educated people to get their economies further," then why is the Russian economy (and that of most other eastern European economies) so sickly all the time? Perhaps (and that is granting the point without any proof) the Russians do a decent job of educating their populace or encouraging STEM or whatever, but they sure can't put all these skilled citizens to any useful purpose, otherwise Russia's economy would be bigger than one half that of California and not be completely dependent on world oil prices. There is obviously 'something' they don't understand about getting their economies further along. And as far as the USA's system goes, anyone checked lately on the strength of the US dollar compared to the Euro, Australian dollar, Canadian dollar, British pound, etc? Maybe all those so-called faults in the USA's system come with accompanying advantages.
My understanding (you know what that means) is that without forming ULA, Boeing was going to quit building Deltas of any type and exit the launcher market because the Delta couldn't compete with the Atlas. And there wasn't enough business to keep two healthy competitors in business so the Feds allowed the joint project. This combined with DoD's insistence that they have at least two options for launchers for "assured access to space" (even that wasn't enough after the Titan and the Space Shuttle were both grounded for awhile when Challenger and a couple of Titans blew up in close succession). Allowing the merger to make ULA was probably cheaper than nursing along Boeing as a sickly second source to LM.
"just laying out the creation myth and history of the early days. That puts a lot of people off..." -- you just described my experience perfectly. Thanks for the update, maybe I'll give the book another chance.
"It's the medical and pharma lobbies (big Democratic donors)" -- somewhat misleading, Phama companies are big donors to both sides but Republicans generally received more than the Dems. From the Center for Responsive Politics (https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?Ind=H4300), "Pharmaceutical companies, which develop both over-the-counter and prescription drugs, have been among the biggest political spenders for years. They've traditionally supported Republican candidates, as they have received 64 percent of industry contributions on average since the 1990 election cycle."
It wasn't the faceless "City of Austin" which passed the ride sharing rules, it was Austin's voting citizens who passed the rules in a hard fought referendum where the ride sharing companies outspent their opponents by several times. So that's it -- the people WHO LIVE THERE wanted those rules. The State of Texas does have the legal right to overrule the expressed desire of the citizens of Austin, but why, just for spite (or bribes)? For the people that don't like the Austin laws and ways of doing business there are plenty of other places in Texas to move to; not any other big cities (except Fort Worth) as they all have similar politics now, but plenty of smaller cities with "real Texas values", but for various reasons those smaller places aren't seen as such desirable places to live. If the cities are there to "to provide local services, such as police, fire, garbage collection, and perhaps some road repairs", then what in heck is the State there for? The feds provide national defense and the Interstate highway system, the cities provide local services, the local school districts provide for the public schools. What is really left for the states?, mostly just corruption and overrepresentation of the rural areas , at least here in Texas.
I bought a copy and read "The Tempest" years ago because I heard that "Forbidden Planet" was loosely derived from it.
"let's not pretend that AI had 5 hours of sleep in the last 48, had a shower, drove to work, checked on the kids and yet..." -- and that is exactly why I am eagerly looking forward to getting all my medical treatment from an AI just as soon as technologically possible. I don't want to be seen (or cut on) by a human who has had 5 hours of sleep in the last 48, even if somehow the profession has gotten itself in the position where that is bragged about. No other profession with potentially deadly consequences (aircraft pilots, truck drivers, military) treats sleep deprivation so casually. No thanks, I'll take my chances with the ever wakeful AI.
The widespread occurrence of employer provided health insurance in the USA is a historical artifact of WWII when the government restricted the freedom of companies to raise salaries to attract workers. Instead, many companies began to offer health insurance as a perq of employment and the system stuck, and even worse, became tax deductible for the company (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=114045132). The one useful thing which (the few remaining) rational Republicans (and many economists) have proposed for health insurance lately is to break the link between health insurance and employment.
Replying to my own post because I should have added this -- with all that said about the USA space program, I fully applaud these Chinese efforts and those of all other nations (and private organizations). There is plenty of space out there for everyone. On the plaque which the Apollo 11 mission left on the moon in 1969, it says, "We came in peace for all mankind." Totally true or not, it's the right sentiment.
Well, right now in 2017, the USA's space program has two (2) functioning rovers on Mars, a spacecraft operating in orbit around Jupiter, a spacecraft operating in orbit around Saturn, a spacecraft operating in orbit around Ceres, a spacecraft on the way to its second encounter with a Kuiper belt object (after its flyby of Pluto), etc. If you want to review what the USA has done since the 1960's -- Since the 60's the USA has had successful missions to every planet in the Solar System, and orbiters around all of them from Mercury out to Saturn, plus five USA spacecraft are currently on their way out of the solar system. No other spacefaring nation will be able to say that anytime soon.
"What Einstein already figured out is that as you approach the speed of light, in your reference, time slows down" -- this is not quite correct. Time is as measured by an observer and the clocks in his co-moving reference frame ( let's stay with Special Relativity to avoid the complications of curved space-time). When the observer looks at any processes in a reference frame moving in relation to his, he sees those other clocks as running slow, BUT another observer in the other reference frame sees the original observer's clocks as running slow, too. Nobody sees their own clocks as running slow. The apparent paradox is resolved by remembering that the two observers don't measure the same distances either. The good example is the muons generated by cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere which are seen at the earth's surface, even though their rest frame half lives are too short for them to survive all the way to the surface. As observed by us at the surface the muon half-lives have been lengthened, their time has "slowed down", but as seen by the muon, it's half life is always the same, but because of the relative speed between it and the earth, it observes that the distance from creation to the surface is relativistically shortened so it has plenty of time before decay to travel that short distance. I don't want to speculate much about the photon traveling at the speed of light -- but to abuse the math -- they don't age as observed by anyone else, but any distance they go is relativistically shortened to zero from their reference -- I'm uneasy about that explanation.
I'll defer to anyone who knows better, but my understanding is that non-zero neutrino rest masses do not contradict the Quantum Electrodynamics or Quantum Chromodynamics upon which the Standard Model is based. The elementary particle masses (electron, muon, neutrinos, quarks, etc) are not predicted by any of those or the Standard Model, but are free parameters determined by experiment for now. Thus the Model is incomplete, but accurate up to it's level of completeness. But my point is that at the level it is now it provides a very good model/quantitative predictions of "how radioactive decay really works or even seemingly random subatomic particle type changes" which the grandparent cavalierly dismisses. Of course when someone uses the phrase "really works" then we get into philosophical discussions which science doesn't address.
Who modded this up? Come on mods! Really? --> "This time around it's even funnier considering we have next to no idea how radioactive decay really works or even seemingly random subatomic particle type changes." Anyone ever heard of Quantum Field Theory, Quantum Electrodynamics, and Quantum Chromodynamics? The theories of particle decays and reactions with none ever observed violations and which the LHC has spent billions of Euros to find flaws or way to improve without success so far.
Stellar fusion is a whole different subject than artificial fusion. You're right that fusion output per volume or weight is quite low in stars, but that is because the fusion being done is essentially four bare protons to helium4 which must evidently (I'm too lazy to look it up) include at least one reaction in the chain with an extremely low cross section. Actually it states in the article you linked that the slow reaction in the sun's Proton-proton reaction is the first one (proton + proton -> deuteron [H1 + H1 -> H2]). No artificial fusion schemes (low or high energy, serious or crackpot) ever consider using H1 as a fuel. They all start with isotopes much, much easier to fuse (usually deuterium, tritium, or helium3). And we do have an example of a high yield artificial fusion technique -- the thermonuclear weapons, which obviously are many orders of magnitude more powerful per kilogram than stars (I know most of their yield is usually fission, but they do produce a significant positive yield from fusion).
Every time there is a presidential election, the losing party is declared dead and the winning party is declared forever ascendant. Remember the "permanent Republican majority" after Bush won twice? Or the "demography is destiny" after Obama won twice? Neither one lasted. And the strange situation about the Democrats in this election -- their presidential candidate won more votes than the Republican, by a lot, and their Senate candidates in aggregate won more votes than the Republicans. It doesn't seem that indicates they will be permanent losers, sooner or later the popular vote numbers will have to have an effect.
"I've just wanted one since high school when my friend had one. Maybe now, I can get it and have a fun car to bounce around town in." -- well, in that case go for it. I go to Ebay Motors from time to time and check out the 2nd gen Trans-Ams. The '73 (the first year of the screaming chicken) would be my personal favorite. On thing to consider, and it violates your wanting the round headlights, is that on the stock suspension, Pontiac really improved them with the WS6 package and 8 inch wheels starting in '78, then the four wheel disks came around in '79. You could drive one of those stock and it would feel fine, and with the T/A 400 engine wouldn't feel that down on power, but they are rare now. The last one I had was the '81 Turbo (in the mid-90s), which had no power but was a fun car with T-Tops. If it were me I'd get an '81 and put an LS-1 in it. But that is all a matter of taste. Good luck in your project and hurry up because I've noticed the number of nice ones on Ebay is noticeably less now than a few years ago.
"A little work on the suspension, and you've got modern handling." -- not with a '76 Trans Am. Those second gen Firebirds and Camaros had very twisty (opposite of stiff) bodies -- the front and rear suspensions were tied together through the not stiff body via rubber biscuit connectors. Especially if you get a T-Top car the body is weak. I had a hot rodder friend complain about that when he did drop a torquey big block Chevy into a t-top Trans-Am. You could do stuff like weld in subframe connectors, etc, but those rubber biscuits were put in there by the factory for a reason -- NVH (noise, vibration, and harshness). And that mid-20th century recirculating ball steering gear is not going to ever feel like a 21st century rack and pinon. There have been 40 years of very expensive engineering in automotive bodies and suspensions since 1976 -- it shows. I'm a big fan of 2nd gen Firebirds and owned three of them -- a '70 Formula 400, a '78 WS-6 T/A 400 Trans Am, and a '81 Turbo Trans-Am, but they are outclassed in every way now (except their awesome styling, but the '73 was the best for that).
And no carbureted engine will provide the throttle response and street flexibility that a 21st century fuel injected, computer engine does, but that's a different story.
I saw a story in one of the enthusiast magazines a couple of years back where they spent some real money and took a '70 Challenger T/A (the best one) and tried to get it up to the performance spec of a new Challenger R/T -- they couldn't.
What you said is true, but at the risk of igniting derision in many subsequent comments, Hillary also lost because the American system of presidential elections (for better or worse) weights some votes more than others so that the winner of the popular vote loses the election. This has been endlessly 'litigated' on /. but the fact remains that some people's votes don't count as much as others in the presidential elections and Hillary got the majority of the lower weighted voters. In total more people 'liked her' than they did the 'winner'. And no one rational says those were 'millions of illegal votes'.