dr mill's work uses planck's and alpha and NOTHING else. there's zero supposition, zero approximation, zero guess-work, zero postulation.
And (as you yourself point out) multiple mistakes and missing pieces.
applying occam's razor or kolmogorov complexity, whatever metric you choose, there's absolutely no comparison between the two theories.
Why would I use completely irrelevant metrics? The only relevant questions are a) does it fit existing data?, and b) does it make testable predictions?
And yes, mistakes down in the tenth decimal place matter. They represent sloppy work, and are without a doubt indicative of deeper errors.
it makes sense, it's consistent, it's self-consistent, there *are* mistakes, there *are* "missing pieces"... but the core makes perfect sense even to me with A-Level maths.
You're OK with a theory with mistakes visible and missing pieces... but you're bothered by theories with "magic constants"? Interesting double standard you have going there.
now, we can *claim* that increasing the power of the particle colliders would increase the detection rate of particles, thus giving a larger statistical analysis base to work from, but with the near-terminal focus being on the Standard Model, where funding is ONLY available if you are working on the STANDARD MODEL, and where deviations from the STANDARD MODEL result in you never receiving funding again... you see where this is going?
Deviations from the Standard Model never receiving funding again? Hardly. And if proven, they lead straight to Stockholm. Where this is going is straight to cloud cuckoo land.
The pressing problem is that there won't be enough energy to keep the heaters running, the electronics will cool down to -50C, and either the heaters won't turn back on when the sun returns, or, if they do, the electronics won't work when they defrost.
IIRC, the temperature concern isn't just about the electronics - it's also the cameras. The glass in the lenses has a lower coefficient of expansion than the metal rings they're mounted in. This means the metal shrinks faster, and may crack the lenses even at temperatures the electronics could survive. (The electronics ae buried away in an insulated box in the rover body, the camera lenses are directly exposed to the atmosphere and thus cool much faster.)
The decay of Pu-238 will not be what limits the Curiosity mission. It has a half-life of 87.7 years. The RTG that uses that decay to produce electricity (and, perhaps more importantly at the moment, heat to keep the electronics happy) decays more quickly than that. But the Voyager probes still have enough electricity to communicate with earth forty years after launch.
Not true. Loss of power generating capacity is already limiting what the Voyager probes can accomplish - and they're only 41 years old. While they retain the ability to communicate, they no longer have the ability to operate all the surviving science instruments simultaneously. Half life only determines the slope of the power output curve, total viable lifetime is determined by using that slope to determine when total output will fall below minimum requirements. (About another seven to eleven years in Voyager's case - still well short of the half life.)
In the case of Tesla, the company is taking all their profit and borrowing extra to invest in manufacturing facilities.
Tesla isn't making a profit other than in (very) short spurts. And even then, it's only a paper (cash flow) profit as they're heavily loaded with debt.
Once the Model 3 production is fully ramped up they will be positioned to *own* the car manufacturing industry in the US.
Are you high? At best they can corner the market on high end sedans (as that's what the Model 3 is), leaving the other 80% of the market to GM and the rest.
Oh, and Tesla isn't one of the most shorted stocks in the US. It's the *most* shorted stock *ever*.
That's because there's no metric by which it's current market cap is justified. That's because there's no possible level of sales of their current or near future model range that justifies their current market cap. That's because there's no possible path to sufficient revenue to justify their current market cap.
Wow. A new low for/., promoting the conspiracy theories of Musk cultists as though they were facts... (And that's setting aside the idiotic notion that a low UID lends additional credence and value to such claims.)
The simple fact is this; Tesla's stock is grossly overvalued by any measure you care to apply. It's current market cap is in no way justified by its current or near term revenue. Over the last year, it has consistently been unable to meet it's production goals. It has serious cash flow and capital problems.
Tesla is overvalued and in significant financial trouble. That is why Musk is pissed and trying to deflect attention away from the facts and convince the investors and cultists that it's all about intentional bad journalism.
So, with no other considerations at all, you're saving about $3,350 per 50K miles.
The problem is, we don't live in a world with "no other considerations". We live in a world where initial costs matter a great deal to the masses - Musk didn't introduce the Tesla as a high end hipster car by accident. (His "to the get the money to develop the tech" is only half the picture. The half he wants you to pay attention to.)
Facebook (and Twitter to a lesser extent) are now too complicated, too annoyingly self-serving, and too confusing.
Yeah. Somehow a billion people a day manage to type text and hit post - but that's "too complicated".
The recent antics of the ultra-liberal leaderships of Google, Facebook, and Twitter in subtly or obviously silencing prominent conservative and libertarian voices and thereby gradually alienating a wider audience constitute only one of several serious problems.
Yeah, here's the heart of your comment - you have no fucking clue what you're talking about, but it's all "teh liberuals fault".
Watch for an abrupt market replacement for Facebook and Twitter to erupt from the shadows.
Yeah, the right wing nutjob fantasy. Millions of lurkers support you in email... and are waiting to rise and strike overnight.
I unfollowed everyone on facebook because it's mostly just pointless or political crap that I couldn't care less about or I would piss people off by responding with devil's advocate tendencies.
So you make bad choices in friends on top of being something of a jackass. Neither of these things are Facebook's fault.
There's one in every province in Canada. There's one in nearly every state in the US.
Which has precisely nothing to do with either your original statement, or my response.
Why don't you just go look through the cases listed on the front page and tell me how many times they show up in the media. I'll give you a hint, it's zero.
I don't know about your neck of the woods, but in mine - investigations of the police routinely show up in the media. But, again, that has nothing to do with either your statement or my response.
So, not even a nice try. Get back to me when you have sufficient grasp of the English language to understand what I wrote.
You don't really ever hear about it because the media doesn't really care to report on it, but it happens all the time.
No, you don't hear about it - because it almost never happens. Only a tiny percentage of cops ever suffer negative consequences beyond slaps on the wrist for their murderous acts.
Yes, I remember the days when corporations were allowed to all but openly kill in pursuit of profits. Very few people remember them as the "good old days".
Now, most of us reference Youtube to hang a door or change our brakes, so the conclusion of the article is already intuitive.
No, I wouldn't call it intuitive at all... Because there's a vast gulf between performing a one-off task and mastering a complex set of physical and mental skills to a professional level.
What blows my mind is that such a blindingly obvious difference goes unnoticed.
If NASA comes to grips with launch costs being this cheap (something that they never seem to do in their planning, always budgeting at ULA rates), it'll become obvious that the next logical step is not to produce probes in 1s or 2s, but by the hundreds.
That's only "obvious" to cargo cultists who don't actually know what they're talking about. What you (and a lot of your fellow cultists) don't grasp - there isn't anywhere where hundreds of identical probes are useful. Nor do you grasp that probes are designed to answer specific questions, which means the next set will be of a different design because it will seeking the answers to a different set of questions. Nor do you grasp the wildly varying thermal requirements (a probe designed for Mars will die at Jupiter or Venus). Etc... etc...
And that's setting aside that mass production doesn't work like you think it does. Probes require enormous amounts of touch labor and testing - things that aren't amenable to mass production.
And of course the biggest elephant in the room - it will still be expensive to operate all those probes. A slightly smaller elephant (but only slightly), the billions of dollars needed to build out the needed communications network.
Yes, let's think this out. Let's work forward from the evidence rather than (as you did) backwards from a conclusion.
Which of these scenarios seem more likely to be a recipe for disaster?
Let's compare the scenarios:
Scenario 1: Vehicle is will not remain in a stable state between boarding and launch. It will transition between the unfueled and fueled states.
Scenario 2: Vehicle will remain in a stable state between boarding and launch.
From where I sit, actually looking at the facts leads me to believe that scenario 1 is the more dangerous. Further support comes from simply examining the record - in the long history of launching manned vehicles fueled the normal way there have been precisely zero losses related to the fueling process. In the short history of handling densified propellants, there's already been one loss related to the fueling process.
So it is good that they tried it and respect the outcome of the experiment.
There's precisely no evidence that this is what happened. (Evidence, it's one of those science things.) In fact, the results won't even be published until next year. (Publishing results, another one of those science things.)
What they did is the way it is supposed to work. Or in words of a more famous person than me : Science, bitch!
You're an ignorant cargo cultist who can type the words - but has no idea what they actually mean.
You're forgetting the actual "cache" part of geocaching! In traditional geocaching, the cache is a cache, a depository, a place where stuff has been stashed away. You bring something to the cache, and swap it with something that's been left behind by a previous geocacher.
Some cachers swap do-dads. Others (like myself) just sign the log and move on.
The traditional objects are custom-made coins, Geocoins, which are trackable online at Geocaching.com.
The traditional objects are do-dads or tchotkes of some sort. Coins are a distinct minority in caches, most are swapped hand-to-hand and only "virtually" dropped into caches. (They're too expensive the scatter liberally.) Geo-coins are practically a separate hobby of their own.
Yet James Webb is credited for forging the NASA capable of landing on the Moon - not only by turning NASA's loosely organized (and often fractious) centers into a cooperative and coordinated enterprise, but by gaining and maintaining a solid base of support in Congress.
The problem with NASA today is lack of a clear cut goals and sufficient stable funding to reach them. And the responsibility for *that* can be found in the Capitol Building and the White House.
I can't say I'm surprised... as I said back in 2012, when Lytro first hit the market:
But that's where Lytro misses the bus... It's priced above the average consumer's price range, requires more fiddling and diddling, and requires Lytro's proprietary web based software - all to produce a picture that would be the pride of 2002.
It ends up being a solution in search of a problem. Too much for consumers, too little for prosumers and professionals.
I knew the end was approaching a year or two ago when they started dumping their cameras on Amazon far below their original MSRP. Hmm... Looked at their website for the first time in forever, and they don't even talk about their consumer equipment anymore.
There are lots of hubs of the aerospace industry, Cali being one of them
The one that's bigger than all the others you list - combined. To the extent that they are "hubs" that is... Seattle is an aerospace hub? Don't make me laugh. It has Boeing and Blue Origin... and not much else. Ditto Huntsville and Houston - largely NASA and NASA contractors. Etc... etc... In fact, I don't think you even grasp what "hub" means as a descriptive term.
Etc... etc...
And none of those reasons are "California is totally the best and you can't recruit top engineers and skilled workers in other places".
Had I said that, you'd have a point. But I didn't. I laid out the reasons why quite clearly.
Slashdot Mirror
And (as you yourself point out) multiple mistakes and missing pieces.
Why would I use completely irrelevant metrics? The only relevant questions are a) does it fit existing data?, and b) does it make testable predictions?
And yes, mistakes down in the tenth decimal place matter. They represent sloppy work, and are without a doubt indicative of deeper errors.
You're OK with a theory with mistakes visible and missing pieces... but you're bothered by theories with "magic constants"? Interesting double standard you have going there.
Deviations from the Standard Model never receiving funding again? Hardly. And if proven, they lead straight to Stockholm. Where this is going is straight to cloud cuckoo land.
IIRC, the temperature concern isn't just about the electronics - it's also the cameras. The glass in the lenses has a lower coefficient of expansion than the metal rings they're mounted in. This means the metal shrinks faster, and may crack the lenses even at temperatures the electronics could survive. (The electronics ae buried away in an insulated box in the rover body, the camera lenses are directly exposed to the atmosphere and thus cool much faster.)
Not true. Loss of power generating capacity is already limiting what the Voyager probes can accomplish - and they're only 41 years old. While they retain the ability to communicate, they no longer have the ability to operate all the surviving science instruments simultaneously. Half life only determines the slope of the power output curve, total viable lifetime is determined by using that slope to determine when total output will fall below minimum requirements. (About another seven to eleven years in Voyager's case - still well short of the half life.)
Tesla isn't making a profit other than in (very) short spurts. And even then, it's only a paper (cash flow) profit as they're heavily loaded with debt.
Are you high? At best they can corner the market on high end sedans (as that's what the Model 3 is), leaving the other 80% of the market to GM and the rest.
That's because there's no metric by which it's current market cap is justified. That's because there's no possible level of sales of their current or near future model range that justifies their current market cap. That's because there's no possible path to sufficient revenue to justify their current market cap.
Wow. A new low for /., promoting the conspiracy theories of Musk cultists as though they were facts... (And that's setting aside the idiotic notion that a low UID lends additional credence and value to such claims.)
The simple fact is this; Tesla's stock is grossly overvalued by any measure you care to apply. It's current market cap is in no way justified by its current or near term revenue. Over the last year, it has consistently been unable to meet it's production goals. It has serious cash flow and capital problems.
Tesla is overvalued and in significant financial trouble. That is why Musk is pissed and trying to deflect attention away from the facts and convince the investors and cultists that it's all about intentional bad journalism.
And here we see the force of the Cult Of Elon (as well as the general tendency of internet posters to exaggerate) - facts are now "maligning".
The problem is, we don't live in a world with "no other considerations". We live in a world where initial costs matter a great deal to the masses - Musk didn't introduce the Tesla as a high end hipster car by accident. (His "to the get the money to develop the tech" is only half the picture. The half he wants you to pay attention to.)
Yeah. Somehow a billion people a day manage to type text and hit post - but that's "too complicated".
Yeah, here's the heart of your comment - you have no fucking clue what you're talking about, but it's all "teh liberuals fault".
Yeah, the right wing nutjob fantasy. Millions of lurkers support you in email... and are waiting to rise and strike overnight.
So you make bad choices in friends on top of being something of a jackass. Neither of these things are Facebook's fault.
Which has precisely nothing to do with either your original statement, or my response.
I don't know about your neck of the woods, but in mine - investigations of the police routinely show up in the media. But, again, that has nothing to do with either your statement or my response.
So, not even a nice try. Get back to me when you have sufficient grasp of the English language to understand what I wrote.
No, you don't hear about it - because it almost never happens. Only a tiny percentage of cops ever suffer negative consequences beyond slaps on the wrist for their murderous acts.
Yes, I remember the days when corporations were allowed to all but openly kill in pursuit of profits. Very few people remember them as the "good old days".
No, I wouldn't call it intuitive at all... Because there's a vast gulf between performing a one-off task and mastering a complex set of physical and mental skills to a professional level.
What blows my mind is that such a blindingly obvious difference goes unnoticed.
It used to be that slashdotters were interested in and enjoyed talking about the impact of technology. Not so much anymore.
You can't remember what doesn't exist.
That's only "obvious" to cargo cultists who don't actually know what they're talking about. What you (and a lot of your fellow cultists) don't grasp - there isn't anywhere where hundreds of identical probes are useful. Nor do you grasp that probes are designed to answer specific questions, which means the next set will be of a different design because it will seeking the answers to a different set of questions. Nor do you grasp the wildly varying thermal requirements (a probe designed for Mars will die at Jupiter or Venus). Etc... etc...
And that's setting aside that mass production doesn't work like you think it does. Probes require enormous amounts of touch labor and testing - things that aren't amenable to mass production.
And of course the biggest elephant in the room - it will still be expensive to operate all those probes. A slightly smaller elephant (but only slightly), the billions of dollars needed to build out the needed communications network.
Yes, let's think this out. Let's work forward from the evidence rather than (as you did) backwards from a conclusion.
Let's compare the scenarios:
Scenario 1: Vehicle is will not remain in a stable state between boarding and launch. It will transition between the unfueled and fueled states.
Scenario 2: Vehicle will remain in a stable state between boarding and launch.
From where I sit, actually looking at the facts leads me to believe that scenario 1 is the more dangerous. Further support comes from simply examining the record - in the long history of launching manned vehicles fueled the normal way there have been precisely zero losses related to the fueling process. In the short history of handling densified propellants, there's already been one loss related to the fueling process.
There's precisely no evidence that this is what happened. (Evidence, it's one of those science things.) In fact, the results won't even be published until next year. (Publishing results, another one of those science things.)
You're an ignorant cargo cultist who can type the words - but has no idea what they actually mean.
Some cachers swap do-dads. Others (like myself) just sign the log and move on.
The traditional objects are do-dads or tchotkes of some sort. Coins are a distinct minority in caches, most are swapped hand-to-hand and only "virtually" dropped into caches. (They're too expensive the scatter liberally.) Geo-coins are practically a separate hobby of their own.
(I am a cacher.)
Geocaching isn't a trend - it's a hobby and an activity with a huge number of active participants across the world.
Yet James Webb is credited for forging the NASA capable of landing on the Moon - not only by turning NASA's loosely organized (and often fractious) centers into a cooperative and coordinated enterprise, but by gaining and maintaining a solid base of support in Congress.
The problem with NASA today is lack of a clear cut goals and sufficient stable funding to reach them. And the responsibility for *that* can be found in the Capitol Building and the White House.
It's a common term in the camera industry and circles. I'm fairly sure you're simply clueless and need to get out more.
I can't say I'm surprised... as I said back in 2012, when Lytro first hit the market:
I knew the end was approaching a year or two ago when they started dumping their cameras on Amazon far below their original MSRP. Hmm... Looked at their website for the first time in forever, and they don't even talk about their consumer equipment anymore.
The one that's bigger than all the others you list - combined. To the extent that they are "hubs" that is... Seattle is an aerospace hub? Don't make me laugh. It has Boeing and Blue Origin... and not much else. Ditto Huntsville and Houston - largely NASA and NASA contractors. Etc... etc... In fact, I don't think you even grasp what "hub" means as a descriptive term.
Etc... etc...
Had I said that, you'd have a point. But I didn't. I laid out the reasons why quite clearly.
So take your strawman and stuff it up your ass.