Another way to think of it would be if the oil companies raised their own prices, and used the additional income as a revenue stream to increase their own offerings of alternative energy sources. They would charge more for oil and put that investment into clean energy. They're not always going to be "oil companies", not when there isn't any more oil (obviously that's a really, really long way into the future, but even so). The smart move for any company making money on fossil fuels is to use part of that money to position themselves to be a provider of clean energy as well.
No doubt. When did I ever suggest otherwise? That's not the subject of the article, though.
Right, the subject is that the Solar Impulse will not lead to a 747 replacement, which brings us back full circle to my original comment:
Seriously, what a strange summary. "This technology demonstrator that is capable of flying around the planet using only solar power cannot replace a Boeing 747 with today's technology." Yeah, no kidding. Why did someone spend the time to write this? Is this an article paid for by Exxon-Mobile or something?
And therefore, the GM Sunraycer is proof that the Tesla Model S is not possible. I understand.
Although imagine the surface area and power requirements of something like this.
The point I'm trying to make is that it's a stupid argument to say that the Solar Impulse 2 is not a drop-in replacement for any existing aircraft. It is a technology demonstrator. Of course it's not going to replace anything. It's going to advance the state of the art though, and it's going to bring about additional research and investment into related technologies in various applications.
Why would any of those deviations matter if one distinct color was in fact statistically significant in what people liked? So people preferred that one color across a range of devices and deviations. If it's statistically significant, why would Google care about the deviations?
It seems like lasers should be used for defense before offense. A tank outfitted with a laser defense system capable of destroying incoming tank rounds or anti-tank missiles, and ground explosives, would be a pretty formidable weapon on the field. It would need to be saturated with fire in order for a hit to be scored, which would be a major problem if you're facing those without a huge size advantage. The same for planes, let the lasers handle the incoming missiles while the plane drops its bombs.
While I find this whole situation funny, I do think the name is a bit inappropriate for a long-term thing in a serious scientific research ship. Maybe they could have named it that for a day or a week or something, just to honor the silliness (and get some media attention), and then renamed it something more "serious" for the rest of its lifespan.
That's why I cast my vote for RRS Serious Science Boat.
In all seriousness though, since this is very serious business, they should paint a cartoon face on the bow of the ship before they launch it. Their goal was to promote public interest in the ship and its mission, throwing away the free PR would sort of defeat that purpose. Naming the ROV "Boaty" was a nice touch though.
I feel like you're trying to argue that the limited capacity of the GM Sunraycer from 1987 is proof that solar power will never be used to power a loaded 300-car freight train across the country.
The goal of the Solar Impulse 2 was never to provide a drop-in replacement for the Boeing 747-400. Just like today we can see that electric passenger cars are viable, and home solar power is viable (and, by extension, using solar power to recharge and thereby power your passenger car), the Solar Impulse project is probably going to lead to small efficient electric light aircraft. Think about replacing a Cessna 188, not a 747.
By that logic the ability to take a picture of a speedometer is inducement to break the law.
No, that's not the same argument. Snapchat specifically offers (and arguably encourages) overlaying the speed as a feature, not just a general-purpose camera with the ability to take a picture of anything, including a speedometer. Taken to the extreme, you're trying to suggest that camera makers should be responsible for child pornography because a camera can photograph anything, but the camera itself is not the issue.
The fact is that the driver chose to break the law and endanger other people for the selfish reason of taking a snap at high speed.
...using Snapchat and its feature of overlaying the speed on her picture, so that her friends could see, and maybe she might score some points or earn a trophy or something like that. Right, that's the fact.
If a driver speeds so that they can take a picture of themselves and the speedometer the car manufacturer should be sued?
I suppose that you could try to argue that car manufacturers encourage speeding by allowing their cars to speed, but I don't think you would get very far with that.
Snapchat didn't force or even tell her to speed.
Yes, that is the defense argument. They even specifically say not to drive while using that feature, even while offering the feature to overlay your current speed on a picture.
I guess Snapchat should remove the temperature filter before someone chooses to freeze to death or die of heat stroke by trying to go to the extreme.
I have no doubt that there is a lawyer somewhere who would take that case, but in that case the person is only endangering themselves. The driver had 3 passengers (one pregnant) in addition to the other vehicle she hit. She's obviously retarded, but that's not going to stop the lawyer from arguing that Snapchat shares culpability for encouraging her to do it. Whether a jury agrees that Snapchat was encouraging her is left up to them to decide.
Anyone can sue anyone not matter how unreasonable the claim. The claim against Snapchat is unreasonable.
If it was me that got hit I would also want to strike out against the culture that enables and encourages self-obsessed idiots to be self-obsessed idiots. It's only a shame that the girl is legally an adult so that her parents who gave her a Mercedes couldn't also be sued.
The problem is people are always thinking progress need to equate to a practical consumer level solution.
Seriously, what a strange summary. "This technology demonstrator that is capable of flying around the planet using only solar power cannot replace a Boeing 747 with today's technology." Yeah, no kidding. Why did someone spend the time to write this? Is this an article paid for by Exxon-Mobile or something?
Turn-based RPGs in general have been jobbed: no MUDs, Zork or Final Fantasy...yet.
It's apparently the second year they've done this, and the fact that only 12 games are listed apparently means that they've decided that only 6 get added each year. Why they decided to add World Of Warcraft, The Sims, and GTA 3 before Diablo, SimCity, or Final Fantasy is beyond me, but I suppose they have their reasons.
If I was arguing the case my argument would be something along the lines of the driver having a reasonable expectation of receiving a trophy for reaching a certain speed based on the requirements for other trophies and the existence of the speed filter, or even just that the existence of the speed filter in itself provides sufficient motivation to travel as fast as possible while taking a picture in order to make Snapchat at least partially culpable.
Mind you, I have very little respect for the way lawyers try to twist things to make a point in court, but if I was arguing the case then that's probably the route I would take. Whether or not Snapchat actually has a trophy for any specific achievement would not be part of my argument. The fact is that the reason the driver was speeding was specifically so that she could use Snapchat to show how fast she was driving.
Where in any of your comment is there any evidence that a "speed trophy" actually exists? I have presented my evidence that it does not exists. Please present yours.
What made you think I want to engage in some stupid argument about the features of Snapchat, an app that I have never used? I see plenty of evidence that it has a feature which overlays the GPS-measured speed on top of a picture. You're welcome to debate the meaning of phrases like "trophy", but I have no desire to engage in a discussion about the features of an app that I have no plan to use. Instead, I would invite you to read the actual complaint which alleges things like a speed filter exists, that Snapchat awards "points" and "trophies", and that the driver was using the speed filter in the hope of receiving a "trophy". What it does not claim is that Snapchat offers a "speed trophy". Your entire argument is pointless because it's completely irrelevant to the case that was actually filed.
If you want to have stupid arguments on the internet, at least stick to the facts. The facts in this case are enumerated in that document, read those and then go find someone who wants to argue with you. If you're willing to do research about the features of Snapchat, maybe instead start with reading the actual complaint to see what is being claimed.
Well then obviously you need to immediately contact the defense council and inform them that, via your rigorous research, you have determined that Snapchat does not offer a trophy for posting while moving faster than 100mph, that there is not a speed filter, and that the passenger in the car who described exactly what the driver was doing is delusional or lying. I'm sure they will offer their profound thanks for your services.
You should also contact change.org to have them remove this petition, since it is no longer an issue. Again, thanks to your exhaustive research.
You also need to get in Wikihow and amend this page, which describes how to use the non-existent speed filter. Make sure to note that this is based on your extensive personal use and deep understanding of the Snapchat app, and clarify that it's not just based on you doing a couple Google searches and thinking you know all the features of Snapchat.
Oh yeah, when you contact the defense council, make sure you also give them your evidence that there was no trophy offered by Snapchat at the time of the accident. The judge might ask for something like that, you just want to cover all of your bases. I'm sure they'll be happy to take you out to lunch or something.
Wow. I mean, don't get me wrong, I don't suffer anyone that making a buck any (legal) way they can, but really...someone can make up to and over 6-figures just by playing video games?
Yes, grandpa, welcome to 2010. Read about PewDiePie if you'd like to become further outraged. His Youtube channel is the #1 subscribed channel (11 billion plus views) and it consists of watching him play video games and narrate while he's doing it. He's been on the 7 and 8 figure income track for a few years now.
Who the fuck is PAYING these folks to sit and watch them...???
That's not how Youtube works. On Youtube, the people watching the videos are the product, and advertisers are the customers. The advertisers pay Youtube (and then Youtube pays the video creator) in order to show ads to people watching the videos. In PewDiePie's case, that translates to getting several million dollars from Youtube in exchange for getting people to sit there and watch him play video games.
The guy had been sick for at least 2 weeks before he died. Drugs probably could have helped save him, actually.
Oh wait, you're not talking about those drugs though, right? You're talking about the things that the government says are bad for you, like weed. Not drugs like caffeine, aspirin, alcohol, penicillin, lipitor, nexium, plavix, abilify, prilosec, amoxicillin, viagra, zoloft, ambien, hydrocodone, oxycontin, you know the completely harmless non-addictive drugs. You're talking about things like plants and mushrooms, right?
I forget, are Bayer's Heroin and Merck's Morphine on the good or bad list these days? Whatever the government says, right?
Sounds like I missed a great opportunity to troll Prince by showing up to one of his concerts carrying one of those tripod cameras with the curtain you pull over yourself while holding up a giant exploding bulb.
Maybe 90% of people will go smoke pot and play video games, but if 10% of the people go create incredible new products and services and new wealth, that's still a huge net-win,
Yes, people will continue to invent, they will create new products and services, music, art, etc. But who is going to decide that instead of sitting home and watching TV, they're going to wait tables, or flip burgers, or enforce laws, or collect trash, or be a retail cashier?
There's never been a time when only presidents were on money. Before 1900 nearly all coins had "Lady Liberty". Lincoln was the first president to appear on money, in the early 1900s, and it was meant to be just a commemorative penny for his 100th birthday. Paper currency has had people such as Chief Onepapa, Daniel Webster, Lewis & Clark, a VP, a US treasurer, a Chief Justice, and others. Back when the $10,000 note was still in circulation, it also did not have a president on it. Right now Sacajawea is also on a gold coin.
It makes perfect sense that we honor people like Franklin or MLK on our money, they have contributed a lot to our history. Shit, Franklin was probably the best American we've had, he deserves to be on our largest bill.
Why did they not put Obama? Probably because there's no way that Congress is going to pass a law saying that Obama doesn't need to be bound by the federal law which says that only dead individuals can appear on US currency.
Slashdot Mirror
Another way to think of it would be if the oil companies raised their own prices, and used the additional income as a revenue stream to increase their own offerings of alternative energy sources. They would charge more for oil and put that investment into clean energy. They're not always going to be "oil companies", not when there isn't any more oil (obviously that's a really, really long way into the future, but even so). The smart move for any company making money on fossil fuels is to use part of that money to position themselves to be a provider of clean energy as well.
No doubt. When did I ever suggest otherwise? That's not the subject of the article, though.
Right, the subject is that the Solar Impulse will not lead to a 747 replacement, which brings us back full circle to my original comment:
Seriously, what a strange summary. "This technology demonstrator that is capable of flying around the planet using only solar power cannot replace a Boeing 747 with today's technology." Yeah, no kidding. Why did someone spend the time to write this? Is this an article paid for by Exxon-Mobile or something?
And therefore, the GM Sunraycer is proof that the Tesla Model S is not possible. I understand.
Although imagine the surface area and power requirements of something like this.
The point I'm trying to make is that it's a stupid argument to say that the Solar Impulse 2 is not a drop-in replacement for any existing aircraft. It is a technology demonstrator. Of course it's not going to replace anything. It's going to advance the state of the art though, and it's going to bring about additional research and investment into related technologies in various applications.
Why would any of those deviations matter if one distinct color was in fact statistically significant in what people liked? So people preferred that one color across a range of devices and deviations. If it's statistically significant, why would Google care about the deviations?
It seems like lasers should be used for defense before offense. A tank outfitted with a laser defense system capable of destroying incoming tank rounds or anti-tank missiles, and ground explosives, would be a pretty formidable weapon on the field. It would need to be saturated with fire in order for a hit to be scored, which would be a major problem if you're facing those without a huge size advantage. The same for planes, let the lasers handle the incoming missiles while the plane drops its bombs.
Ah. Because any future solar-powered plane will necessarily look just like Solar Impulse 2. Got it.
They could use it for fund-raising. Come take a tour of Boaty and buy a shirt.
While I find this whole situation funny, I do think the name is a bit inappropriate for a long-term thing in a serious scientific research ship. Maybe they could have named it that for a day or a week or something, just to honor the silliness (and get some media attention), and then renamed it something more "serious" for the rest of its lifespan.
That's why I cast my vote for RRS Serious Science Boat.
In all seriousness though, since this is very serious business, they should paint a cartoon face on the bow of the ship before they launch it. Their goal was to promote public interest in the ship and its mission, throwing away the free PR would sort of defeat that purpose. Naming the ROV "Boaty" was a nice touch though.
I feel like you're trying to argue that the limited capacity of the GM Sunraycer from 1987 is proof that solar power will never be used to power a loaded 300-car freight train across the country.
The goal of the Solar Impulse 2 was never to provide a drop-in replacement for the Boeing 747-400. Just like today we can see that electric passenger cars are viable, and home solar power is viable (and, by extension, using solar power to recharge and thereby power your passenger car), the Solar Impulse project is probably going to lead to small efficient electric light aircraft. Think about replacing a Cessna 188, not a 747.
By that logic the ability to take a picture of a speedometer is inducement to break the law.
No, that's not the same argument. Snapchat specifically offers (and arguably encourages) overlaying the speed as a feature, not just a general-purpose camera with the ability to take a picture of anything, including a speedometer. Taken to the extreme, you're trying to suggest that camera makers should be responsible for child pornography because a camera can photograph anything, but the camera itself is not the issue.
The fact is that the driver chose to break the law and endanger other people for the selfish reason of taking a snap at high speed.
...using Snapchat and its feature of overlaying the speed on her picture, so that her friends could see, and maybe she might score some points or earn a trophy or something like that. Right, that's the fact.
If a driver speeds so that they can take a picture of themselves and the speedometer the car manufacturer should be sued?
I suppose that you could try to argue that car manufacturers encourage speeding by allowing their cars to speed, but I don't think you would get very far with that.
Snapchat didn't force or even tell her to speed.
Yes, that is the defense argument. They even specifically say not to drive while using that feature, even while offering the feature to overlay your current speed on a picture.
I guess Snapchat should remove the temperature filter before someone chooses to freeze to death or die of heat stroke by trying to go to the extreme.
I have no doubt that there is a lawyer somewhere who would take that case, but in that case the person is only endangering themselves. The driver had 3 passengers (one pregnant) in addition to the other vehicle she hit. She's obviously retarded, but that's not going to stop the lawyer from arguing that Snapchat shares culpability for encouraging her to do it. Whether a jury agrees that Snapchat was encouraging her is left up to them to decide.
Anyone can sue anyone not matter how unreasonable the claim. The claim against Snapchat is unreasonable.
If it was me that got hit I would also want to strike out against the culture that enables and encourages self-obsessed idiots to be self-obsessed idiots. It's only a shame that the girl is legally an adult so that her parents who gave her a Mercedes couldn't also be sued.
The problem is people are always thinking progress need to equate to a practical consumer level solution.
Seriously, what a strange summary. "This technology demonstrator that is capable of flying around the planet using only solar power cannot replace a Boeing 747 with today's technology." Yeah, no kidding. Why did someone spend the time to write this? Is this an article paid for by Exxon-Mobile or something?
The pilot is seated on a centrifuge rotating the opposite direction at the same rate.
My opinion is that they had many cameras and at least one of them captured the moment of separation.
Good god, man. You nearly Godwinned an article about filming a rocket ascent to space, and its descent. You are tired, go home.
Turn-based RPGs in general have been jobbed: no MUDs, Zork or Final Fantasy...yet.
It's apparently the second year they've done this, and the fact that only 12 games are listed apparently means that they've decided that only 6 get added each year. Why they decided to add World Of Warcraft, The Sims, and GTA 3 before Diablo, SimCity, or Final Fantasy is beyond me, but I suppose they have their reasons.
If I was arguing the case my argument would be something along the lines of the driver having a reasonable expectation of receiving a trophy for reaching a certain speed based on the requirements for other trophies and the existence of the speed filter, or even just that the existence of the speed filter in itself provides sufficient motivation to travel as fast as possible while taking a picture in order to make Snapchat at least partially culpable.
Mind you, I have very little respect for the way lawyers try to twist things to make a point in court, but if I was arguing the case then that's probably the route I would take. Whether or not Snapchat actually has a trophy for any specific achievement would not be part of my argument. The fact is that the reason the driver was speeding was specifically so that she could use Snapchat to show how fast she was driving.
Where in any of your comment is there any evidence that a "speed trophy" actually exists? I have presented my evidence that it does not exists. Please present yours.
What made you think I want to engage in some stupid argument about the features of Snapchat, an app that I have never used? I see plenty of evidence that it has a feature which overlays the GPS-measured speed on top of a picture. You're welcome to debate the meaning of phrases like "trophy", but I have no desire to engage in a discussion about the features of an app that I have no plan to use. Instead, I would invite you to read the actual complaint which alleges things like a speed filter exists, that Snapchat awards "points" and "trophies", and that the driver was using the speed filter in the hope of receiving a "trophy". What it does not claim is that Snapchat offers a "speed trophy". Your entire argument is pointless because it's completely irrelevant to the case that was actually filed.
If you want to have stupid arguments on the internet, at least stick to the facts. The facts in this case are enumerated in that document, read those and then go find someone who wants to argue with you. If you're willing to do research about the features of Snapchat, maybe instead start with reading the actual complaint to see what is being claimed.
Well then obviously you need to immediately contact the defense council and inform them that, via your rigorous research, you have determined that Snapchat does not offer a trophy for posting while moving faster than 100mph, that there is not a speed filter, and that the passenger in the car who described exactly what the driver was doing is delusional or lying. I'm sure they will offer their profound thanks for your services.
You should also contact change.org to have them remove this petition, since it is no longer an issue. Again, thanks to your exhaustive research.
You also need to get in Wikihow and amend this page, which describes how to use the non-existent speed filter. Make sure to note that this is based on your extensive personal use and deep understanding of the Snapchat app, and clarify that it's not just based on you doing a couple Google searches and thinking you know all the features of Snapchat.
Oh yeah, when you contact the defense council, make sure you also give them your evidence that there was no trophy offered by Snapchat at the time of the accident. The judge might ask for something like that, you just want to cover all of your bases. I'm sure they'll be happy to take you out to lunch or something.
Wow. I mean, don't get me wrong, I don't suffer anyone that making a buck any (legal) way they can, but really...someone can make up to and over 6-figures just by playing video games?
Yes, grandpa, welcome to 2010. Read about PewDiePie if you'd like to become further outraged. His Youtube channel is the #1 subscribed channel (11 billion plus views) and it consists of watching him play video games and narrate while he's doing it. He's been on the 7 and 8 figure income track for a few years now.
Who the fuck is PAYING these folks to sit and watch them...???
That's not how Youtube works. On Youtube, the people watching the videos are the product, and advertisers are the customers. The advertisers pay Youtube (and then Youtube pays the video creator) in order to show ads to people watching the videos. In PewDiePie's case, that translates to getting several million dollars from Youtube in exchange for getting people to sit there and watch him play video games.
The guy had been sick for at least 2 weeks before he died. Drugs probably could have helped save him, actually.
Oh wait, you're not talking about those drugs though, right? You're talking about the things that the government says are bad for you, like weed. Not drugs like caffeine, aspirin, alcohol, penicillin, lipitor, nexium, plavix, abilify, prilosec, amoxicillin, viagra, zoloft, ambien, hydrocodone, oxycontin, you know the completely harmless non-addictive drugs. You're talking about things like plants and mushrooms, right?
I forget, are Bayer's Heroin and Merck's Morphine on the good or bad list these days? Whatever the government says, right?
Yeah I guess Prince really took her death hard.
Sounds like I missed a great opportunity to troll Prince by showing up to one of his concerts carrying one of those tripod cameras with the curtain you pull over yourself while holding up a giant exploding bulb.
I think the VC's claim is a little strange also:
Maybe 90% of people will go smoke pot and play video games, but if 10% of the people go create incredible new products and services and new wealth, that's still a huge net-win,
Yes, people will continue to invent, they will create new products and services, music, art, etc. But who is going to decide that instead of sitting home and watching TV, they're going to wait tables, or flip burgers, or enforce laws, or collect trash, or be a retail cashier?
There's never been a time when only presidents were on money. Before 1900 nearly all coins had "Lady Liberty". Lincoln was the first president to appear on money, in the early 1900s, and it was meant to be just a commemorative penny for his 100th birthday. Paper currency has had people such as Chief Onepapa, Daniel Webster, Lewis & Clark, a VP, a US treasurer, a Chief Justice, and others. Back when the $10,000 note was still in circulation, it also did not have a president on it. Right now Sacajawea is also on a gold coin.
It makes perfect sense that we honor people like Franklin or MLK on our money, they have contributed a lot to our history. Shit, Franklin was probably the best American we've had, he deserves to be on our largest bill.
why did they put Obama?
Why did they not put Obama? Probably because there's no way that Congress is going to pass a law saying that Obama doesn't need to be bound by the federal law which says that only dead individuals can appear on US currency.