The point is that facts should not be debatable, but that is what has generally been occurring. People don't want to talk about potentially costly solutions, so they are instead trying to discredit the facts that "create"* the problem, at least until the facts are so obvious that it's unavoidable.
* I say "create" because, obviously, the problem exists whether we choose to recognize it or not.
Why would it be too much? We have more than one manufacturer and they would all be competing with each other on price in a much more direct way than they do today. Nobody is forcing anyone to buy a specific make/model.
Also, If you're getting it for less than someone else, then they are subsidizing your lower price. Why should I or anyone else subsidize the cost of your car?
the kind of competition lacking if the manufacture sets the price and there are no negotiations over that price.
Really? I would love to be able to shop for a car and know that no matter where I shopped I was getting the exact same price. I absolutely HATE having to negotiate on the price, and the popularity of services like truecar suggest that a huge number of people agree with me.
I think Tesla will have to sell cars via dealers
Why? Tesla sees dealers for the unnecessary middle men that they are. They've already shown that they would rather not enter a market than open a franchised dealership. I don't see any reason that this would change.
Local hidden variable theories were dis-proven, but why would a pilot wave be considered local to the particle? It's a property of space-time, not the particle itself.
So, AGW is false if the people that advocate for doing something about it don't want to build nuclear power plants? How is that logical? They are two completely different things. One of them is the reality of whether humans are having an effect on the climate. The other one is what to do about that. The vast majority of "deniers" seem to have a problem with the latter, not the former, but have a difficulty separating the two.
I can't help but notice that the reasons you give for being skeptical of AGW are the character of some prominent people pushing for actions to counter AGW, the cost of said actions, the fact that other countries aren't being forced to take action, and that our current weather models aren't perfect.
NONE of that has anything to do with whether humans are responsible for climate change. All of your skepticism is around what do to about it and the extant of the warming.
Actually, it sounds like this enzyme increases the break-down of collagen, so decreasing it would tend to make it harder for cells to move around, but as others have said, would probably slow healing. Healing quickly would have been a big evolutionary advantage. Smooth skin in advanced age? Not so much.
Let's say we assign an AI to find and execute a solution for the increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere and oceans. The AI may decide that humans are the primary impediment to achieving it's goals, and set out to clandestinely destroy human industrial capacity. Maybe it would hack into the control equipment and cause machines to destroy themselves. "Reduction in CO2 output achieved" -- satisfied AI.
I wonder whether the magnetic coupler would be any lighter than a larger flywheel. Also, couldn't the slipping of the coupler set up harmonic vibrations in the prop as well? (I imagine a magnetic coupler would slip in a notch-y fashion.)
I agree on the unsprung mass issue, but I wonder if it would be possible to use a linear motor in place of a shock absorber to counter some of the negative handling effects. I doubt it would be able to make up for it completely, but I imagine it could help quite a bit.
Most highway fencing I've seen seems to be geared toward keeping cattle out (only about 4-5 feet tall). You would need something like an 8ft fence to have a chance at keeping deer out.
In the USA the police can pull you over for 1mph over the posted limit, but it's pretty darn rare. Generally 10mph over the limit on highways is ignored, though it will vary from place to place.
Pure water isn't run through the collector. They use a mix of water and glycol. It's also common to allow the fluid to empty out of the collector at night, to reduce heat loss.
“No one is sure what actually constitutes a measurement. Perhaps physicists can agree that someone with a Ph.D. wearing a white coat sitting in the lab of a famous university can make measurements. But what about somebody who really isn’t sure what they are doing? Is consciousness required? We don’t really know.”
If so, you can just about guarantee that we're living in a simulation.
The "operational prototype" is a prototype commercial reactor. They plan to build 5 more research reactors, each within a year, before building a commercial prototype that they expect will take 5 years.
Slashdot Mirror
The point is that facts should not be debatable, but that is what has generally been occurring. People don't want to talk about potentially costly solutions, so they are instead trying to discredit the facts that "create"* the problem, at least until the facts are so obvious that it's unavoidable.
* I say "create" because, obviously, the problem exists whether we choose to recognize it or not.
Why would it be too much? We have more than one manufacturer and they would all be competing with each other on price in a much more direct way than they do today. Nobody is forcing anyone to buy a specific make/model.
Also, If you're getting it for less than someone else, then they are subsidizing your lower price. Why should I or anyone else subsidize the cost of your car?
the kind of competition lacking if the manufacture sets the price and there are no negotiations over that price.
Really? I would love to be able to shop for a car and know that no matter where I shopped I was getting the exact same price. I absolutely HATE having to negotiate on the price, and the popularity of services like truecar suggest that a huge number of people agree with me.
I think Tesla will have to sell cars via dealers
Why? Tesla sees dealers for the unnecessary middle men that they are. They've already shown that they would rather not enter a market than open a franchised dealership. I don't see any reason that this would change.
A brake job at the dealer for just about any luxury car is going to run around $600.
Local hidden variable theories were dis-proven, but why would a pilot wave be considered local to the particle? It's a property of space-time, not the particle itself.
So, AGW is false if the people that advocate for doing something about it don't want to build nuclear power plants? How is that logical? They are two completely different things. One of them is the reality of whether humans are having an effect on the climate. The other one is what to do about that. The vast majority of "deniers" seem to have a problem with the latter, not the former, but have a difficulty separating the two.
I can't help but notice that the reasons you give for being skeptical of AGW are the character of some prominent people pushing for actions to counter AGW, the cost of said actions, the fact that other countries aren't being forced to take action, and that our current weather models aren't perfect.
NONE of that has anything to do with whether humans are responsible for climate change. All of your skepticism is around what do to about it and the extant of the warming.
and arguably in some sense can't be the way Nature does what it does
citation needed.
Actually, it sounds like this enzyme increases the break-down of collagen, so decreasing it would tend to make it harder for cells to move around, but as others have said, would probably slow healing. Healing quickly would have been a big evolutionary advantage. Smooth skin in advanced age? Not so much.
Let's say we assign an AI to find and execute a solution for the increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere and oceans. The AI may decide that humans are the primary impediment to achieving it's goals, and set out to clandestinely destroy human industrial capacity. Maybe it would hack into the control equipment and cause machines to destroy themselves. "Reduction in CO2 output achieved" -- satisfied AI.
I wonder whether the magnetic coupler would be any lighter than a larger flywheel. Also, couldn't the slipping of the coupler set up harmonic vibrations in the prop as well? (I imagine a magnetic coupler would slip in a notch-y fashion.)
Really, they replaced the metal teeth with magnetic teeth.
I wonder how high speed electric trains are geared? Maybe they have more than one motor on the same axle, wound for different ranges of speed?
I agree on the unsprung mass issue, but I wonder if it would be possible to use a linear motor in place of a shock absorber to counter some of the negative handling effects. I doubt it would be able to make up for it completely, but I imagine it could help quite a bit.
Either you didn't understand my post, or you meant to reply to the grandparent... I drive a sports sedan, and completely agree with you.
If you can't feel the road at all, then that car probably has no business going faster than 80.
Most highway fencing I've seen seems to be geared toward keeping cattle out (only about 4-5 feet tall). You would need something like an 8ft fence to have a chance at keeping deer out.
In the USA the police can pull you over for 1mph over the posted limit, but it's pretty darn rare. Generally 10mph over the limit on highways is ignored, though it will vary from place to place.
You presume that we won't actively modify ourselves.
England gets stupendously cold? It routinely reached -28C last winter where I live. What would that be? "Ludicrously cold"? "Plaid"?
Pure water isn't run through the collector. They use a mix of water and glycol. It's also common to allow the fluid to empty out of the collector at night, to reduce heat loss.
Now they need to implement this in candy form, so you can taste the rainbow.
“No one is sure what actually constitutes a measurement. Perhaps physicists can agree that someone with a Ph.D. wearing a white coat sitting in the lab of a famous university can make measurements. But what about somebody who really isn’t sure what they are doing? Is consciousness required? We don’t really know.”
If so, you can just about guarantee that we're living in a simulation.
The "operational prototype" is a prototype commercial reactor. They plan to build 5 more research reactors, each within a year, before building a commercial prototype that they expect will take 5 years.
23x43 is for the entire package, including turbines/generator etc. The reactor itself is said to be much smaller.