Why? What fundamental axiom dictates that the cost is proportional to the number of reactors?
About the simplest axiom there is - the more man hours you spend doing something, the more it costs. And it takes many more man hours to remove and package eight of something for disposal than it does two of something. (Duh.) Then there's another axiom - the more touch labor a job requires (and removing reactor compartments takes a lot of touch labor), the lower your economies of scale.
Plus, if the rumors are true, Enterprise's reactor compartments share common bulkheads, while Nimitz and follow-on CVN's do not. Basically, that means you'll have to physically cut into Enterprise's reactor compartments to break them into packages small enough to transport... And that requirement kicks off a metric buttload of (expensive) radiation control and security requirements. That's the big reason Triton sat around for so long before being dismantled - her twin reactor compartments shared a common bulkhead. It took a long time to work out how to dismantle her.
Shit scales in all kinds of ways. I don't know which apply here, but unlike you I know that I don't know.
An intelligent individual doesn't presume that because he doesn't know - no one else does either. He asks and learns.
For awhile the navy was paying breakers to dismantle them, but that became so expensive they went back to using old ships as targets and sinking them.
Far more ships went to the breakers than were used in SINKEXs. Not to mention that a ship clean enough for a SINKEX is one far cleaners than one sent to breakers (I.E. no money is saved).
If I had to bet I'd guess with the fuel rods removed that's how Enterprise will end up as well.
Nope. The core basket and the rest of the internals as well as the reactor vessels and all the piping that ever held primary coolant has to come out as well. And to get all that out, you have to cut away huge chunks of the ship - there won't be enough left for a SINKEX without spending hundreds of millions adding new structure back in.
It took 15 years to execute on our initial goal to produce an affordable, long-range electric vehicle
True - if you play fast and loose with the definition of "affordable"... The base model is only "affordable" (under standard guidelines) to the 70th percentile (of average household income) and above. Basically, still a vehicle for the upper crust rather than one for the masses.
Personally? I think there's a great money-making opportunity for independent shops who can stock specific parts that are known to fail somewhat regularly, and can do those specific repairs.
That only works if two preconditions have been met: 1) a sufficient density of vehicles to keep the shop occupied. And 2), a sufficient supply of spare parts (depth, breadth, and speed of replenishment). The latter in particular is a problem as Tesla is struggling to meet the existing market.
Clearly, this is a place where independent shops could re-work a broken, old revision handle and make it "better than new", for cheaper than Tesla's repair cost. (Tesla wants around $700+ per door handle for an out of warranty repair.)
Presuming it's broken in a fashion that lends itself to rework. (A gear that "broken in pieces" cannot be reworked, it must be replaced.) Even so, the labor of disassembly, replacing the individual failed part, and reassembly isn't going to be cheap. Nor is obtaining the individual replacement parts. (Especially if they have to be manufactured rather than ordered.)
All the content is available on the Internet, but that means you have to sift through all the content on the internet.
Horseshit. I have a two foot tall stack of haiku books on my coffee table precisely because almost none of it is on the internet. Ditto for my historical food & cooking collection. For my bookbinding collection, maybe 20% is available online - but scattered across a couple of hundred websites. Dead tree with an occasional reference to YouTube is much better. The same is true of my strategic weaponry collection, only a small fraction is available online (and that widely scattered).
I've maintained and enlarged my dead tree collection of these things precisely because years of searching on the internet has consistently returned bupkes.
While I'm certain there are topics for which the internet is a comprehensive reference - that is not at all true for all topics.
That said, I do think that like Gabe Newell of Valve famously said, "Piracy is almost always a service problem, not a pricing problem". The same holds true here. As long as Nintendo doesn't service the ability to easily get that experience on equipment people have or can easily buy (like the Switch or 3DS), people will go elsewhere for it. And they really need to sort that out.
What you're describing doesn't sound like a service problem - it sounds like a blend of self entitlement and blackmail.
But attacking the weak link is nothing new, "pester power" was an established phrase in the 1980s.
It goes back much further than that. Ray Kroc was going after kids to capture the parents (and the adults the kids would eventually become) by the late 1950's.
Read and comprehend the next sentence of the summary, where it is EXPLICITLY stated "Before he started receiving the messages, Green says he hadn't logged into Facebook for a long time and had actually forgotten his password."
Only moron I see here is you. He's a professor at John Hopkins, what are your credentials?
My credentials? Being smarter than a professor at Johns Hopkins - because I know how to follow instructions to recover my passwords.
Seriously, you're a bigger idiot than he is if you think that he'd forgotten his password is in any way relevant.
Green says he's received near-daily SMS messages from Facebook since January alerting him that one of his friends performed some action on the platform.
Then turn off SMS messaging you moron. It's not Facebook's fault that you're an idiot, nor that you're an idiot looking for your fifteen minutes.
When we sold books (we stopped 10 years ago, lots of reasons but mainly Amazon), we'd see prices on used books on sites such as the late Half.com and Amazon marketplace that would go from a $10 reasonable to $40-60 silly. What we were finding is that it was often the same book getting marked up by a couple bucks by each merchant who thought they could sell it, and still make money buying it off the other guy. We could trace one book through a half-dozen sellers by the text they'd add onto the descriptions
Yep. And the next guy to come along with a copy takes an average and sets his price there... And thus raises to high price. The original one sells, leaving on the higher priced one. Lather, rinse, repeat - and the price keeps getting pushed to insane levels. This was happening as far back as when I got out of bookselling in '02.
His willingness to question industry doctrines is the reason why he is rich and successful.
No, he's rich because Paypal took off like gangbusters. SpaceX is successful because a series of government contracts kept him afloat long enough to question industry doctrine. (It's not clear that anyone is getting rich off of SpaceX.) Tesla is successful (to an extent) because a set of government loans got him off the ground, and tax credits increased the attractiveness of his products. Nobody is getting rich off of Tesla other than by selling it's stock at highly inflated prices. (Not to mention Tesla is very heavily burdened by debt that it's operating revenue barely covers.) Solar City is also heavily burdened by debt and suffering cash flow issues.
My information is second hand, but I'm told about 10 years ago that Getty spent a load of money buying up "all" of the photo libraries around the world and then renegotiating the contracts they had with photographers. Ultimately, it meant that photographers got paid a pittance for their images, and guess what... Getty did nicely out of the deal. It used to be that one good picture could pay for a week or two week's trip to wherever. Under Getty, you'd need several top-sellers to achieve the same sort of return.
It's a... wee bit more complicated than that. Getty is also taking advantage of the fact that good digital photography has gotten cheap, and that a huge number of people have leapt into the business of photography. The resulting race to the bottom was inevitable. I give and grant that Getty doesn't play nice, but they're taking advantage of pre-existing conditions rather than creating them.
This is why sustained production numbers are the only accurate ones.
So. Much. This.
With their enormous debt load, low credit rating, shrinking capital reserves, and lack of cash flow - sprints are irrelevant. Sprints generate lots of publicity, lets the fanboys drool and crow, impresses the impressionable and the already convinced... They do very little to address the very real problems Tesla is facing in the short (>6 mos) term.
If this AI truly uses real facts in a debate it would be wonderful. One thing most "debaters" these days seem to despise is actual facts. They get in the way of an emotional argument, something I (sadly) see as most prevalent in the SJW crowd.
Funny, and not unexpected - the poster making the strongest emotional argument and the weakest factual argument is that guy who claims it's the Other Guy who eschews facts for emotion.
This is also going to derail politicians in a big way, especially if it sticks to facts. Politicians hate facts. They bank on their constituents not knowing the facts and being too lazy to check them.
And you brilliantly demonstrate why they can get away with that behavior.
You do realize where we are in the timeline for this event....
Yes, we're past the point where cops should be involved. We're almost certainly past the point where somebody should be under arrest. We know that because company management is openly discussing the issue.
It's either that or Musk is disregarding the advice he should be getting from the company lawyers.
You seem to think technical trading is irrational.
You are correct, I do. Especially in this case when it's more akin to speculation than technical trading - because the fundamentals don't support the valuation. The end result of that is a bubble and the invariable subsequent crash.
To be more clear, while the fundamentals of Tesla may not support the current price (which is just speculation as Tesla has no direct comparisons; the closest is probably AAPL), the fundamentals are all turning positive.
The issue isn't whether the fundamentals are turning positive or not (they aren't really, because of Tesla's massive debt load and capital burn rate)... It's whether the fundamentals support the valuation. They don't. Not even close.
I have to wonder though, on what basis are people buying Tesla stock right now?
Insanity? Being dedicated Faithful of the Cult of Elon? There's certainly no rational reason, and even the more usual forms of irrationality in the market don't explain it. Tesla stock is vastly overpriced, with no clear path to profitability on the levels that would justify the price (which would be profits in the tens of billions of dollars range). And that's setting aside the massive amounts of debt they're loaded with.
Tesla makes a big thing about 5,000 model 3s/week, and it sounds like in the near term they're hoping to ramp up to 7000-8000/week. There's also the S and X selling 2,000/week.
That's a big chuck of the car market.
10,000 cars a week is 520,000 cars a year. The US market is 17 million cars a year. I leave it to you to do the math.
Just that dismissing Tesla as an upstart bit player is flat-out wrong.
With a hair under 3% of the total market, Tesla is very, very much an upstart bit player.
The problem isn't that I dislike "smart suggestions" - it's that Gmail's suggestions aren't smart at all. (Ditto for their news reader - I've been thumbing down sports and entertainment stories for months, and they still keep showing up by the raftload.)
It's discussed in Roving Mars by Stephen Squyres. (You might have heard of him - he's the PI for the MER program.)
They're not particularly worried about the absolute temperatures, because the presence of all that atmospheric dust prevents the ground from seeing outer space and so the temperatures dno't get absolutely low.
They're absolutely worried about absolute temperatures - because those temps affect the current draw of the heaters.
Slashdot Mirror
About the simplest axiom there is - the more man hours you spend doing something, the more it costs. And it takes many more man hours to remove and package eight of something for disposal than it does two of something. (Duh.) Then there's another axiom - the more touch labor a job requires (and removing reactor compartments takes a lot of touch labor), the lower your economies of scale.
Plus, if the rumors are true, Enterprise's reactor compartments share common bulkheads, while Nimitz and follow-on CVN's do not. Basically, that means you'll have to physically cut into Enterprise's reactor compartments to break them into packages small enough to transport... And that requirement kicks off a metric buttload of (expensive) radiation control and security requirements. That's the big reason Triton sat around for so long before being dismantled - her twin reactor compartments shared a common bulkhead. It took a long time to work out how to dismantle her.
An intelligent individual doesn't presume that because he doesn't know - no one else does either. He asks and learns.
Far more ships went to the breakers than were used in SINKEXs. Not to mention that a ship clean enough for a SINKEX is one far cleaners than one sent to breakers (I.E. no money is saved).
Nope. The core basket and the rest of the internals as well as the reactor vessels and all the piping that ever held primary coolant has to come out as well. And to get all that out, you have to cut away huge chunks of the ship - there won't be enough left for a SINKEX without spending hundreds of millions adding new structure back in.
Banks determine loan eligibility by the purchase price - not by cost of ownership. By that criteria (I.E. the standard one), Tesla loses badly.
True - if you play fast and loose with the definition of "affordable"... The base model is only "affordable" (under standard guidelines) to the 70th percentile (of average household income) and above. Basically, still a vehicle for the upper crust rather than one for the masses.
That only works if two preconditions have been met: 1) a sufficient density of vehicles to keep the shop occupied. And 2), a sufficient supply of spare parts (depth, breadth, and speed of replenishment). The latter in particular is a problem as Tesla is struggling to meet the existing market.
Presuming it's broken in a fashion that lends itself to rework. (A gear that "broken in pieces" cannot be reworked, it must be replaced.) Even so, the labor of disassembly, replacing the individual failed part, and reassembly isn't going to be cheap. Nor is obtaining the individual replacement parts. (Especially if they have to be manufactured rather than ordered.)
"I want this, I deserve this, and if I can't buy it I'll steal it" - is not a service problem. It's a self entitlement problem.
Horseshit. I have a two foot tall stack of haiku books on my coffee table precisely because almost none of it is on the internet. Ditto for my historical food & cooking collection. For my bookbinding collection, maybe 20% is available online - but scattered across a couple of hundred websites. Dead tree with an occasional reference to YouTube is much better. The same is true of my strategic weaponry collection, only a small fraction is available online (and that widely scattered).
I've maintained and enlarged my dead tree collection of these things precisely because years of searching on the internet has consistently returned bupkes.
While I'm certain there are topics for which the internet is a comprehensive reference - that is not at all true for all topics.
What you're describing doesn't sound like a service problem - it sounds like a blend of self entitlement and blackmail.
It goes back much further than that. Ray Kroc was going after kids to capture the parents (and the adults the kids would eventually become) by the late 1950's.
My credentials? Being smarter than a professor at Johns Hopkins - because I know how to follow instructions to recover my passwords.
Seriously, you're a bigger idiot than he is if you think that he'd forgotten his password is in any way relevant.
Then turn off SMS messaging you moron. It's not Facebook's fault that you're an idiot, nor that you're an idiot looking for your fifteen minutes.
Yep. And the next guy to come along with a copy takes an average and sets his price there... And thus raises to high price. The original one sells, leaving on the higher priced one. Lather, rinse, repeat - and the price keeps getting pushed to insane levels. This was happening as far back as when I got out of bookselling in '02.
No, he's rich because Paypal took off like gangbusters. SpaceX is successful because a series of government contracts kept him afloat long enough to question industry doctrine. (It's not clear that anyone is getting rich off of SpaceX.) Tesla is successful (to an extent) because a set of government loans got him off the ground, and tax credits increased the attractiveness of his products. Nobody is getting rich off of Tesla other than by selling it's stock at highly inflated prices. (Not to mention Tesla is very heavily burdened by debt that it's operating revenue barely covers.) Solar City is also heavily burdened by debt and suffering cash flow issues.
The fanboys will flame me, but them's the facts.
Only if you're hopelessly and cluelessly biased against the iPhone.
It's a... wee bit more complicated than that. Getty is also taking advantage of the fact that good digital photography has gotten cheap, and that a huge number of people have leapt into the business of photography. The resulting race to the bottom was inevitable. I give and grant that Getty doesn't play nice, but they're taking advantage of pre-existing conditions rather than creating them.
So. Much. This.
With their enormous debt load, low credit rating, shrinking capital reserves, and lack of cash flow - sprints are irrelevant. Sprints generate lots of publicity, lets the fanboys drool and crow, impresses the impressionable and the already convinced... They do very little to address the very real problems Tesla is facing in the short (>6 mos) term.
Nice rant, but it's unrelated to the problem at hand. Even smaller ISPs are vulnerable to problems at the backbone level.
Because /. is heavily infested with the Faithful, members and True Believers in the divinity of His Holiness Elon Musk.
Funny, and not unexpected - the poster making the strongest emotional argument and the weakest factual argument is that guy who claims it's the Other Guy who eschews facts for emotion.
And you brilliantly demonstrate why they can get away with that behavior.
Yes, we're past the point where cops should be involved. We're almost certainly past the point where somebody should be under arrest. We know that because company management is openly discussing the issue.
It's either that or Musk is disregarding the advice he should be getting from the company lawyers.
You are correct, I do. Especially in this case when it's more akin to speculation than technical trading - because the fundamentals don't support the valuation. The end result of that is a bubble and the invariable subsequent crash.
The issue isn't whether the fundamentals are turning positive or not (they aren't really, because of Tesla's massive debt load and capital burn rate)... It's whether the fundamentals support the valuation. They don't. Not even close.
Insanity? Being dedicated Faithful of the Cult of Elon? There's certainly no rational reason, and even the more usual forms of irrationality in the market don't explain it. Tesla stock is vastly overpriced, with no clear path to profitability on the levels that would justify the price (which would be profits in the tens of billions of dollars range). And that's setting aside the massive amounts of debt they're loaded with.
10,000 cars a week is 520,000 cars a year. The US market is 17 million cars a year. I leave it to you to do the math.
With a hair under 3% of the total market, Tesla is very, very much an upstart bit player.
So. Much. This.
The problem isn't that I dislike "smart suggestions" - it's that Gmail's suggestions aren't smart at all. (Ditto for their news reader - I've been thumbing down sports and entertainment stories for months, and they still keep showing up by the raftload.)
It's discussed in Roving Mars by Stephen Squyres. (You might have heard of him - he's the PI for the MER program.)
They're absolutely worried about absolute temperatures - because those temps affect the current draw of the heaters.