Tesla would seemingly need the battery cost reductions from their "GigaFactory" to get the cost of their 200-mile electric car down to $35,000, and Chevy is going to sell a 200-mile EV for $30,000 without those cost reductions?
Something's gotta give to pull that off.
Nissan's 2016 LEAF is going to have a 200+-mile range, and will also be sub-$30K.
How about Jolt? That would be electricity-related, and it would accurately reflect both GM's build and ride quality.
Even though they are in different markets, I'm sure that Jolt Cola would object that name.
They could object all they like, but trademark law allows the reuse of the same mark in different markets. If they were smart they would try for a co-branded advertising initiative rather than fighting. Well, unless the Chevy sucked.
You always pay auto sales taxes and property taxes in your state of residence, not the state you purchased the vehicle. I've bought several vehicles from out-of-state dealers.
That sounds hard to accomplish and people often service their cars at their dealership.
What service? Have you ever looked at the recommended service schedule for an electric vehicle? It's basically tires and brakes, which clueful people don't have serviced at a dealership.
You're right there. The amendment establishing prohibition was obviously flawed. The one repealing it was almost worse. It enshrined in the Constitution the ability of states to come up with whatever bullshit laws they want to concerning alcohol.
That ability was already present in the 10th amendment.
The only good point he made is that by mathematical standards the question is who proved the theorem.
I disagree. Proofs aren't the only important element of mathematical creation/discovery. Conjectures are also crucial, and there are lots of important conjectures which are notable long before they're proved. The Pythagorean theorem is clearly one such, because it's extremely useful even if you can't prove it. For that matter, as noted by the article, the Egyptians found it very useful, and they not only didn't have a proof, they didn't even fully understand the relation. They merely knew that some certain combinations of proportions made right triangles... and then used that fact all over the place. The Babylonians also probably understood the principle, and the Pythagoreans likely learned it from them or the Egyptians.
In addition, even a proof is irrelevant if it just gets lost, or buried. Communication of proofs, especially as part of a systematic theory is even more important and -- as you correctly noted -- that achievement is indisputably Greek. How much of it was due to the Pythagorean mystics and how much to Euclid is a matter of much debate; some historians of mathematics argue that the Pythagoreans discovered essentially everything in the first two books of Elements. Euclid's main achievement with respect to the theorem may well have been mostly just to record it and remove all of the references to beans and the rest of the Pythagorean mysticism. What the truth is we'll likely never know, but the Greeks attributed the knowledge of the theorem to Pythagoras, which I think is quite meaningful.
All of these stages in the development, proof, formalization and dissemination of important ideas are crucial. The best point to be made here is that the question is inherently meaningless. Any attempt to pick an "origin" must fail because the theorem originated over millenia, and was likely independently discovered in different regions at different times. Even if it's a Chinese manuscript that contains the earliest proof, it seems unlikely that the Greeks got it from the Chinese, and it appears that the Chinese proof in question had little effect on history, Eastern or Western, while the Greek proof, alongside the rest of Elements, fundamentally shaped Western civilization.
That last claim may seem a little too strong, but it's not. Greek Mathematics didn't so much influence Greek philosophy as create it, and Greek philosophy similarly founded Western philosophy as a whole.
Plato's philosophy in particular, was essentially mathematical, and his notion of Forms, the central element of his ideas, is clearly an attempt to relate the pure, abstract beauty of geometry to the world as a whole, and to use it as a vehicle for understanding reality and man's relationship with it. Aristotle was, in many ways, the anti-Plato, but he also deeply honored mathematics. All of the rest of Western philosophy, including its deep influence on social and political structures, can be viewed, as Russell said, as a series of footnotes to Plato and Aristotle, they were that important. And a large part of the powerful influence of Greek ideas on Roman, medieval Christian, Renaissance and modern philosophy derived from the elegance and power of Greek mathematics. Although it wasn't often stated so clearly, the indisputable clarity and power of Greek mathematics impressed later generations and convinced them that the rest of Greek wisdom might well be equally profound.
The Pythagorean version, as presented by Euclid, mattered.
There may have been a half-dozen proofs of the Pythagorean theorem created, recorded and lost, in many locations around the world, perhaps long before Pythagoras. But none of them mattered. The one that did is the Greek proof, and the Greeks credited the Pythagoreans.
The AC's claim was that "other countries (ie: Russia) have already done a barge landing successfully". As I understand it, Russia has landed capsules, but on land not on a barge, and nothing as big and difficult to control as a first stage.
It's kind of the paradox of democracy -- how do you square the rights of a free society against those would use those rights to advocate against them or overthrow them?
You recognize that the solution to bad speech isn't to silence the bad speech, it's more speech.
For me it was the adverts, I have 'do not track' and yet Google would present me with personalized advertising, and my wife with her personalized advertising. They are clearly profiling PCs behind the NAT even if you say do not track.
If you don't like personalized advertising (personally, if I have to see ads, I prefer that they're things I might actually care about, but YMMV), what you need to do is opt out of personalized advertising. Google provides a web control panel that allows you to opt out, but that sets an opt out cookie, which can get lost. So the easy and permanent way to opt out is to install the opt-out plugin Google provides: https://www.google.com/setting.... If you want to know exactly what that plugin does, it's open source: http://code.google.com/p/googl...
Sorry to burst your bubble. Other countries (ie: Russia) have already done a barge landing successfully.... but abandoned the idea because it wasn't cost effective.
Define stable? How about... we can expect climate to continue being what it has been for the last few hundred years. This common implicit assumption is provably false. Within the last 75K years the planet has seen far more drastic climate changes than anything in recent history, including a 7C change in ~50 years, and if you want to look back tens of millions of years has been both much, much hotter and much, much colder than it is now. If we would like the climate to stay the way we know it, we're going to have to learn to engineer that stability.
But more evaporation will produce more clouds, increasing the albedo of the planet and cooling it. It's quite clear that there must be negative feedback cycles in both directions, otherwise the planet would have become a permanent snowball or Venus.
Google will receive an NSL or equivalent to cripple such a thing and pull it from the play store if it becomes a hindrance, and of course they will comply.
NSLs cannot command compliance with directives, only request information (and only metadata), so such an NSL would be illegal and Google would refuse it. Google has repeatedly demonstrated its willingness to fight unauthorized requests in court. Also, it's worth pointing out that Google does not have the ability to modify apps in the Play store.
(Disclaimer: I work for Google, but don't speak for Google. However, I think the above policy points are well-supported by Google's public statements. The technical point about app modification is easily demonstrated; modification would invalidate the developer's signature. Google could re-sign the modified version with its own keys, but that would be obvious to the developer.)
(Note, you still need employees to LOAD the garbage, you just need 2 men per truck as opposed to 3).
All the trucks in my area are automated, meaning there's a hydraulic arm that picks up the cans and dumps them. They're slower and more expensive than non-automated trucks, but require only a single operator (the driver). I have a brother-in-law who drives such a truck and in discussions with him I've become skeptical that they'll replace the driver in such trucks any time soon, because he encounters enough bizarre situations on a regular basis that having a human on board is essential.
In situations where the garbage is thrown by hand, I can see the driver's job being automated away. The loaders would be around to deal with the unexpected.
To me, a self-driving car is essentially a really clever cruise control. Which means it's great for the highway but not so good for crowded city streets.
It's worth noting that Google's current self-driving car platform is intended primarily for use on crowded city streets. They don't go very fast, and so aren't intended for highway driving at all. They do an outstanding job of dealing with pedestrians, cyclists and other automobiles.
They don't handle bad weather all that well yet, though.
Is that everyone has some skeletons in the closet they're hiding.
Most people, I'm sure. I actually don't. Thinking back through my life, there's really nothing that has ever happened that would bother me. Some of it might be mildly uncomfortable but only mildly. Some might be a little more uncomfortable without the context, for example when I was 19 I was arrested for theft, but I wasn't actually stealing anything. Oh... perhaps an even better example was about three years ago when I broke my daughter's collarbone. Without the context, that makes me sound like an abusive father. But even that doesn't bother me so much that I feel a need to provide the context here.
However, let's assume that everyone does. In that case, there's a good argument that lots of doxing would be a good thing, since it would demonstrate that (nearly) everyone has these sorts of minor issues at some point in their life, which means that we should all just stop getting worked up over them.
as i've mentioned elsewhere in this thread, 55 million years ago the earth was balls hotter. i don't mean 'crank up the AC summer's a few degrees hotter'. i mean a shit-ton hotter.
Sure it was a lot hotter. But we could deal with it. At my house this morning it's -23F. We can deal with that, we can deal with heat.
i hate to break this to you, but the mammals that thrived 55 million years ago were not the same as the mammals of today, much less people.
There's a false assumption behind this line of argument, which is that the climate today is hospitable to humans. It's really not. There are relatively few areas of the planet where humans could survive without some level of technology and effective adaptation of the environment (clothing, man-made shelters and fuel for heating, at least). Humans today live in large numbers everywhere except the most extreme of the climates... from equatorial jungles and deserts to frozen tundra, including places that have annual temperature swings of 150F or more.
Given that, it's silly to claim that altering temperatures by a few degrees will make the technologically adept humans of today (and decades and centuries hence) incapable of living comfortably in large numbers. Rising sea levels will cause mass displacements, and that will be expensive and difficult, consuming a large fraction of human productivity and likely causing many individual tragedies. Other changes in weather patterns will cause other displacements and changes. Droughts, floods, possibly-increased storms, etc. All of these are real issues, and worth worrying about. But the direct effects of a few degrees temperature change will merely make us adjust our clothing styles and turn down the heat/turn up the AC. Meh.
Slashdot Mirror
Tesla would seemingly need the battery cost reductions from their "GigaFactory" to get the cost of their 200-mile electric car down to $35,000, and Chevy is going to sell a 200-mile EV for $30,000 without those cost reductions?
Something's gotta give to pull that off.
Nissan's 2016 LEAF is going to have a 200+-mile range, and will also be sub-$30K.
How about Jolt? That would be electricity-related, and it would accurately reflect both GM's build and ride quality.
Even though they are in different markets, I'm sure that Jolt Cola would object that name.
They could object all they like, but trademark law allows the reuse of the same mark in different markets. If they were smart they would try for a co-branded advertising initiative rather than fighting. Well, unless the Chevy sucked.
Okay, so maybe they should try to fight.
To which state?
You always pay auto sales taxes and property taxes in your state of residence, not the state you purchased the vehicle. I've bought several vehicles from out-of-state dealers.
That sounds hard to accomplish and people often service their cars at their dealership.
What service? Have you ever looked at the recommended service schedule for an electric vehicle? It's basically tires and brakes, which clueful people don't have serviced at a dealership.
You're right there. The amendment establishing prohibition was obviously flawed. The one repealing it was almost worse. It enshrined in the Constitution the ability of states to come up with whatever bullshit laws they want to concerning alcohol.
That ability was already present in the 10th amendment.
The only good point he made is that by mathematical standards the question is who proved the theorem.
I disagree. Proofs aren't the only important element of mathematical creation/discovery. Conjectures are also crucial, and there are lots of important conjectures which are notable long before they're proved. The Pythagorean theorem is clearly one such, because it's extremely useful even if you can't prove it. For that matter, as noted by the article, the Egyptians found it very useful, and they not only didn't have a proof, they didn't even fully understand the relation. They merely knew that some certain combinations of proportions made right triangles... and then used that fact all over the place. The Babylonians also probably understood the principle, and the Pythagoreans likely learned it from them or the Egyptians.
In addition, even a proof is irrelevant if it just gets lost, or buried. Communication of proofs, especially as part of a systematic theory is even more important and -- as you correctly noted -- that achievement is indisputably Greek. How much of it was due to the Pythagorean mystics and how much to Euclid is a matter of much debate; some historians of mathematics argue that the Pythagoreans discovered essentially everything in the first two books of Elements. Euclid's main achievement with respect to the theorem may well have been mostly just to record it and remove all of the references to beans and the rest of the Pythagorean mysticism. What the truth is we'll likely never know, but the Greeks attributed the knowledge of the theorem to Pythagoras, which I think is quite meaningful.
All of these stages in the development, proof, formalization and dissemination of important ideas are crucial. The best point to be made here is that the question is inherently meaningless. Any attempt to pick an "origin" must fail because the theorem originated over millenia, and was likely independently discovered in different regions at different times. Even if it's a Chinese manuscript that contains the earliest proof, it seems unlikely that the Greeks got it from the Chinese, and it appears that the Chinese proof in question had little effect on history, Eastern or Western, while the Greek proof, alongside the rest of Elements, fundamentally shaped Western civilization.
That last claim may seem a little too strong, but it's not. Greek Mathematics didn't so much influence Greek philosophy as create it, and Greek philosophy similarly founded Western philosophy as a whole.
Plato's philosophy in particular, was essentially mathematical, and his notion of Forms, the central element of his ideas, is clearly an attempt to relate the pure, abstract beauty of geometry to the world as a whole, and to use it as a vehicle for understanding reality and man's relationship with it. Aristotle was, in many ways, the anti-Plato, but he also deeply honored mathematics. All of the rest of Western philosophy, including its deep influence on social and political structures, can be viewed, as Russell said, as a series of footnotes to Plato and Aristotle, they were that important. And a large part of the powerful influence of Greek ideas on Roman, medieval Christian, Renaissance and modern philosophy derived from the elegance and power of Greek mathematics. Although it wasn't often stated so clearly, the indisputable clarity and power of Greek mathematics impressed later generations and convinced them that the rest of Greek wisdom might well be equally profound.
The Pythagorean version, as presented by Euclid, mattered.
There may have been a half-dozen proofs of the Pythagorean theorem created, recorded and lost, in many locations around the world, perhaps long before Pythagoras. But none of them mattered. The one that did is the Greek proof, and the Greeks credited the Pythagoreans.
Or Google music search.
The AC's claim was that "other countries (ie: Russia) have already done a barge landing successfully". As I understand it, Russia has landed capsules, but on land not on a barge, and nothing as big and difficult to control as a first stage.
So they landed a second or third stage for the hell of it???
AFAIK, they've only landed a capsule. If you have a citation showing something else, I'd love to see it.
It's kind of the paradox of democracy -- how do you square the rights of a free society against those would use those rights to advocate against them or overthrow them?
You recognize that the solution to bad speech isn't to silence the bad speech, it's more speech.
For me it was the adverts, I have 'do not track' and yet Google would present me with personalized advertising, and my wife with her personalized advertising. They are clearly profiling PCs behind the NAT even if you say do not track.
If you don't like personalized advertising (personally, if I have to see ads, I prefer that they're things I might actually care about, but YMMV), what you need to do is opt out of personalized advertising. Google provides a web control panel that allows you to opt out, but that sets an opt out cookie, which can get lost. So the easy and permanent way to opt out is to install the opt-out plugin Google provides: https://www.google.com/setting.... If you want to know exactly what that plugin does, it's open source: http://code.google.com/p/googl...
AFAIK, Google does not pay attention to the "Do Not Track" setting in browsers: https://support.google.com/chr...
Sorry to burst your bubble. Other countries (ie: Russia) have already done a barge landing successfully .... but abandoned the idea because it wasn't cost effective.
Not of a first stage.
The only way hydraulic fluid can be "used / lost" is if the vehicle had a major rupture in a hydraulic fluid line
True only if the hydraulic system is closed. Apparently that's not the way it's done in rocketry: "Chris (Robotbeat) (see robotbeat@ comment).
and that will affect the landing gear (only item that can potentially use hydraulic fluids)
The grid fins are hydraulically actuated.
Define stable? How about... we can expect climate to continue being what it has been for the last few hundred years. This common implicit assumption is provably false. Within the last 75K years the planet has seen far more drastic climate changes than anything in recent history, including a 7C change in ~50 years, and if you want to look back tens of millions of years has been both much, much hotter and much, much colder than it is now. If we would like the climate to stay the way we know it, we're going to have to learn to engineer that stability.
While I agree strenuously that intentionally messing with the climate is likely to end as badly as unintentionally messing with the climate
As is not messing with the climate at all. The climate isn't naturally stable.
But more evaporation will produce more clouds, increasing the albedo of the planet and cooling it. It's quite clear that there must be negative feedback cycles in both directions, otherwise the planet would have become a permanent snowball or Venus.
The discovery is based on the long-known quantum phenomenon in which a single particle can be in two places at the same time.
Wrooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong.
Right. The long-known phenomenon is that a single particle can have two velocities at the same time. Sheesh.
Google will receive an NSL or equivalent to cripple such a thing and pull it from the play store if it becomes a hindrance, and of course they will comply.
NSLs cannot command compliance with directives, only request information (and only metadata), so such an NSL would be illegal and Google would refuse it. Google has repeatedly demonstrated its willingness to fight unauthorized requests in court. Also, it's worth pointing out that Google does not have the ability to modify apps in the Play store.
(Disclaimer: I work for Google, but don't speak for Google. However, I think the above policy points are well-supported by Google's public statements. The technical point about app modification is easily demonstrated; modification would invalidate the developer's signature. Google could re-sign the modified version with its own keys, but that would be obvious to the developer.)
(Note, you still need employees to LOAD the garbage, you just need 2 men per truck as opposed to 3).
All the trucks in my area are automated, meaning there's a hydraulic arm that picks up the cans and dumps them. They're slower and more expensive than non-automated trucks, but require only a single operator (the driver). I have a brother-in-law who drives such a truck and in discussions with him I've become skeptical that they'll replace the driver in such trucks any time soon, because he encounters enough bizarre situations on a regular basis that having a human on board is essential.
In situations where the garbage is thrown by hand, I can see the driver's job being automated away. The loaders would be around to deal with the unexpected.
To me, a self-driving car is essentially a really clever cruise control. Which means it's great for the highway but not so good for crowded city streets.
It's worth noting that Google's current self-driving car platform is intended primarily for use on crowded city streets. They don't go very fast, and so aren't intended for highway driving at all. They do an outstanding job of dealing with pedestrians, cyclists and other automobiles.
They don't handle bad weather all that well yet, though.
Heh. I should have read the third paragraph of Solandri's post.
Is that everyone has some skeletons in the closet they're hiding.
Most people, I'm sure. I actually don't. Thinking back through my life, there's really nothing that has ever happened that would bother me. Some of it might be mildly uncomfortable but only mildly. Some might be a little more uncomfortable without the context, for example when I was 19 I was arrested for theft, but I wasn't actually stealing anything. Oh... perhaps an even better example was about three years ago when I broke my daughter's collarbone. Without the context, that makes me sound like an abusive father. But even that doesn't bother me so much that I feel a need to provide the context here.
However, let's assume that everyone does. In that case, there's a good argument that lots of doxing would be a good thing, since it would demonstrate that (nearly) everyone has these sorts of minor issues at some point in their life, which means that we should all just stop getting worked up over them.
Greenland ice core records show a 7C shift in as little as 30-50 years, with no evidence of an obvious cause. Google it.
as i've mentioned elsewhere in this thread, 55 million years ago the earth was balls hotter. i don't mean 'crank up the AC summer's a few degrees hotter'. i mean a shit-ton hotter.
Sure it was a lot hotter. But we could deal with it. At my house this morning it's -23F. We can deal with that, we can deal with heat.
i hate to break this to you, but the mammals that thrived 55 million years ago were not the same as the mammals of today, much less people.
There's a false assumption behind this line of argument, which is that the climate today is hospitable to humans. It's really not. There are relatively few areas of the planet where humans could survive without some level of technology and effective adaptation of the environment (clothing, man-made shelters and fuel for heating, at least). Humans today live in large numbers everywhere except the most extreme of the climates... from equatorial jungles and deserts to frozen tundra, including places that have annual temperature swings of 150F or more.
Given that, it's silly to claim that altering temperatures by a few degrees will make the technologically adept humans of today (and decades and centuries hence) incapable of living comfortably in large numbers. Rising sea levels will cause mass displacements, and that will be expensive and difficult, consuming a large fraction of human productivity and likely causing many individual tragedies. Other changes in weather patterns will cause other displacements and changes. Droughts, floods, possibly-increased storms, etc. All of these are real issues, and worth worrying about. But the direct effects of a few degrees temperature change will merely make us adjust our clothing styles and turn down the heat/turn up the AC. Meh.