The fastest spacecrafts we've ever built take about 9 years or so to go from Earth to Pluto. At that rate, they would take about 120,000 years to reach the next closest solar system.
That's only because they spend most of this time without acceleration — in free fall. Once we find a way to continuously accelerate the ship even at the comfortable 1g, the 9 years shrinks to a couple of months (you accelerate for half the distance and then turn around and begin decelerating for the rest)...
Question:
Instead of turning around at the halfway point and using the same thrust to decelerate, would it be possible to, theoretically, initiate an explosion in front of the craft, equal in yield to the amount of thrust used to achieve whatever speed your craft is at when you need to start accelerating? Kind of like the old police trick of pulling in front of a speeding car and using the police cruiser to slow it (but with a BOOM instead of brakes, obviously).
I don't see how you could enforce the priority lane. Suppose someone stubburn pulls into the lane without the proper plate. What do you do? Push their car into a ditch? You either have big argument while one of you lanes is closed, use violence, or have it work on a honor system and hope the cheaters don't cause a pile up.
The fact that Tesla's lawsuit against the show was settled in a way that still allows the BBC to rebroadcast the episode seems to indicate a lack of fraudulent claims.
The lawsuit ended in Tesla's disfavour because Top Gear isn't a car review show, it's a sitcom with cars in it. And in a sitcom you can say almost anything no matter how outrageous and easily get away with it.
Well, that and the fact that Tesla was suing on the basis that the shows "review" harmed sales by the specific amount of $171,000 (which would be impossible to quantify), and that the judge felt that a "reasonable viewer" would not confuse the shorter range shown in the episode with the actual range claimed by Tesla, since on the show they made it abundantly clear that they were running the shit out of the car (hence, the lessened range).
Honestly, I'm a bit surprised that no one at Tesla has ever watched the show (which is the only way I can think of that a person would mistake a sketch comedy show for a serious documentary series).
I thought depression is still a "physical" problem, although not one immediately obvious in blood tests? Otherwise why would you prescribe drugs altering the brain chemistry (which is beyond the blood-brain barrier)?
Do you want your employer monitoring your political views outside of work and firing you if they think one of your opinions could prove embarassing to the company in the future?
What makes you think this doesn't already happen? Especially in light of the recent stories about employers demanding social media login info.
Proposition 8 didn't seek to strip any rights. It preserved the (centuries-old) status quo.
Centuries old, eh?
So the landowning Lords and Kings still decide who marries who, as a means of securing more land to add to their kingdoms?
What sort of dowry did you get when you were wed? All I got was a shitload of her student debt...
You jackasses and your historically inaccurate "traditional marriage" nonsense... it would be funny if you weren't trying to force your revisionist views on the rest of us via legislative fiat.
If you contribute more than $200 to a committee, the committee is required to use its best efforts to collect and publicly disclose on a financial report your name, address, occupation and employer, as well as the date and amount of your contribution.
This case is a good demonstration as to why anonymous contributions should be allowed.
Or it's a good demonstration on why money should not equal speech.
If you vote for the modern Demopublican party in the united states(at the national level), you are actively engaged in using your limited power to harm others, and there's not really any excuse I've heard for the behavior.
FTFY.
The only difference I've ever seen between the two is that one of the wolves wears a sheepskin suit.
I don't know, are the Democrats supporting reprehensible legislation that places a segment of society beneath others for arbitrary and ill defined reasons?
Well, the problem isn't so much the freedom as the principle. People want to do something that a huge number of people consider controversial. Someone uses their democratic right and votes against it. A different group of people publicly lynch that someone for taking an opposing view.
Oh, so they went to his office with torches and a gallows, drug him from his office, and publicly executed him?
Or is that last sentence just an example of confirmation-bias fueled hyperbole?
Let's re-word your post in a less biased manner, eh?
Well, the problem isn't so much the freedom as the principle. People want to do something that a huge number of people consider controversial. Someone uses their democratic right and votes against it. A different group of people use their democratic right and boycott the company he runs.
You're an idiot. Censorship is something done by the government, and that's it. If I refuse to buy your products because I don't like your public stance on something, that's my right. You sound just as bad and moronic as the Australian government.
Answer this one: if your local (independently-owned) family restaurant posted a big sign saying "black people should be returned to slavery!", would you think it's wrong to boycott them?
I find the fact that people here are actually trying to argue that one action is free speech and the other is not quite depressing.
I mean, I expect that kind of unthinking, sacred-cow-worshipping idiocy on Yahoo, but dammit, this is Slashdot! We're supposed to be more intelligent than that!
You might have a point if Mozilla banned gay employees.
OK, since that was too hard to understand, let me phrase it a different way:
So, if a local business CEO decides to fund a movement to criminalize smoking, and I decide to stop spending my money at the business he draws his checks from because I disagree with his politics, I'm "silencing" or "censoring" them?
Easier to parse now? Because it doesn't change my premise at all.
Side note: as I told someone else, nobody got fired. He quit.
The media frenzy conveniently ignores that Brendan Eich's name is on the foundations of the modern web. If we were to demonize this man's contributions to the world as we know it today the way that they've demonized him as the CEO, say goodbye to the technology that makes it possible to spread the word in the way that they have.
Yea, and what about all the good things Hitler did? Invented the human society, gun control*, set up a highway system that's still the envy of the world...
* Disagree that this is a good thing, but left it in for reasons. Probably something to do with making a point.
Except he was actively trying to deny peoples rights. Big difference.
Not really - he still has a right to speak his mind, same as anyone else. You have a right to not listen, and/or to adjust your relationship with him as a result of learning what his viewpoints are.
Personally, I'm always against censorship, even when it comes to bigots - silencing them would just make them that much harder to identify and avoid.
Slashdot Mirror
Reminds me of that stupid urban legend about entering your pin at an ATM when under duress.. entering it backwards summons ze police.
What if your PIN is a palindrome?
Hey, man, it's not like this is Pakistan...
You'd be surprised. There's a LOT of bad security out there.
Understatement of the day.
Some people would be shocked if they knew how many retailers offering free wifi don't change their router's login from default. I know I always am.
Its unlikely that they would send people like that, or that they would survive on a planet after adapting to 120,000 years worth of space travel.
You mean something like this?
That's only because they spend most of this time without acceleration — in free fall. Once we find a way to continuously accelerate the ship even at the comfortable 1g, the 9 years shrinks to a couple of months (you accelerate for half the distance and then turn around and begin decelerating for the rest)...
Question:
Instead of turning around at the halfway point and using the same thrust to decelerate, would it be possible to, theoretically, initiate an explosion in front of the craft, equal in yield to the amount of thrust used to achieve whatever speed your craft is at when you need to start accelerating? Kind of like the old police trick of pulling in front of a speeding car and using the police cruiser to slow it (but with a BOOM instead of brakes, obviously).
I don't see how you could enforce the priority lane. Suppose someone stubburn pulls into the lane without the proper plate. What do you do? Push their car into a ditch? You either have big argument while one of you lanes is closed, use violence, or have it work on a honor system and hope the cheaters don't cause a pile up.
Forklift.
A big one.
Hey, man, the hospital called - they said your sense of humor's condition has become terminal.
Better start making final arrangements, and sorry about your loss.
The fact that Tesla's lawsuit against the show was settled in a way that still allows the BBC to rebroadcast the episode seems to indicate a lack of fraudulent claims.
The lawsuit ended in Tesla's disfavour because Top Gear isn't a car review show, it's a sitcom with cars in it. And in a sitcom you can say almost anything no matter how outrageous and easily get away with it.
Well, that and the fact that Tesla was suing on the basis that the shows "review" harmed sales by the specific amount of $171,000 (which would be impossible to quantify), and that the judge felt that a "reasonable viewer" would not confuse the shorter range shown in the episode with the actual range claimed by Tesla, since on the show they made it abundantly clear that they were running the shit out of the car (hence, the lessened range).
Honestly, I'm a bit surprised that no one at Tesla has ever watched the show (which is the only way I can think of that a person would mistake a sketch comedy show for a serious documentary series).
I thought depression is still a "physical" problem, although not one immediately obvious in blood tests? Otherwise why would you prescribe drugs altering the brain chemistry (which is beyond the blood-brain barrier)?
Because there's good money in pharmaceuticals?
Do you want your employer monitoring your political views outside of work and firing you if they think one of your opinions could prove embarassing to the company in the future?
What makes you think this doesn't already happen? Especially in light of the recent stories about employers demanding social media login info.
Proposition 8 didn't seek to strip any rights. It preserved the (centuries-old) status quo.
Centuries old, eh?
So the landowning Lords and Kings still decide who marries who, as a means of securing more land to add to their kingdoms?
What sort of dowry did you get when you were wed? All I got was a shitload of her student debt...
You jackasses and your historically inaccurate "traditional marriage" nonsense... it would be funny if you weren't trying to force your revisionist views on the rest of us via legislative fiat.
Won't someone think of the child hookers?!?!
It's criticism all the way down.
Aw, shit - that turned out way more profound than I expected it to...
Same, I disagree with him, but supporting freedom of speech is bigger than any one issue.
Why do so many confuse freedom of speech with freedom from criticism?
Because sacred cattle
Political committees are required to request employer information from larger donors; it does not suggest endorsement.
per the FEC: http://www.fec.gov/pages/broch...
If you contribute more than $200 to a committee, the committee is required to use its best efforts to collect and publicly disclose on a financial report your name, address, occupation and employer, as well as the date and amount of your contribution.
This case is a good demonstration as to why anonymous contributions should be allowed.
Or it's a good demonstration on why money should not equal speech.
If you vote for the modern Demopublican party in the united states(at the national level), you are actively engaged in using your limited power to harm others, and there's not really any excuse I've heard for the behavior.
FTFY.
The only difference I've ever seen between the two is that one of the wolves wears a sheepskin suit.
I don't know, are the Democrats supporting reprehensible legislation that places a segment of society beneath others for arbitrary and ill defined reasons?
Yea - gun owners.
Well, the problem isn't so much the freedom as the principle. People want to do something that a huge number of people consider controversial. Someone uses their democratic right and votes against it. A different group of people publicly lynch that someone for taking an opposing view.
Oh, so they went to his office with torches and a gallows, drug him from his office, and publicly executed him?
Or is that last sentence just an example of confirmation-bias fueled hyperbole?
Let's re-word your post in a less biased manner, eh?
Well, the problem isn't so much the freedom as the principle. People want to do something that a huge number of people consider controversial. Someone uses their democratic right and votes against it. A different group of people use their democratic right and boycott the company he runs.
Ah, much better.
You're an idiot. Censorship is something done by the government, and that's it. If I refuse to buy your products because I don't like your public stance on something, that's my right. You sound just as bad and moronic as the Australian government.
Answer this one: if your local (independently-owned) family restaurant posted a big sign saying "black people should be returned to slavery!", would you think it's wrong to boycott them?
I find the fact that people here are actually trying to argue that one action is free speech and the other is not quite depressing.
I mean, I expect that kind of unthinking, sacred-cow-worshipping idiocy on Yahoo, but dammit, this is Slashdot! We're supposed to be more intelligent than that!
You might have a point if Mozilla banned gay employees.
OK, since that was too hard to understand, let me phrase it a different way:
So, if a local business CEO decides to fund a movement to criminalize smoking, and I decide to stop spending my money at the business he draws his checks from because I disagree with his politics, I'm "silencing" or "censoring" them?
Easier to parse now? Because it doesn't change my premise at all.
Side note: as I told someone else, nobody got fired. He quit.
No, this is getting the cook fired by claiming there is hair in your food, because you spotted an Obama sticker on his car in the parking lot.
He didn't get fired, he quit.
So, kinda completely different than the non sequitur you've posted here.
You are right. But he is being persecuted.
For persecuting others.
Welcome to the world of equal rights, my friend.
And that is how the left represses people who don't share their views.
Yup, just like the right. There's not a nickel's worth of difference between the two, as someone else said at some point.
The media frenzy conveniently ignores that Brendan Eich's name is on the foundations of the modern web. If we were to demonize this man's contributions to the world as we know it today the way that they've demonized him as the CEO, say goodbye to the technology that makes it possible to spread the word in the way that they have.
Yea, and what about all the good things Hitler did? Invented the human society, gun control*, set up a highway system that's still the envy of the world...
* Disagree that this is a good thing, but left it in for reasons. Probably something to do with making a point.
Except he was actively trying to deny peoples rights. Big difference.
Not really - he still has a right to speak his mind, same as anyone else. You have a right to not listen, and/or to adjust your relationship with him as a result of learning what his viewpoints are.
Personally, I'm always against censorship, even when it comes to bigots - silencing them would just make them that much harder to identify and avoid.