They actually tried that in the 90's, there was a company attempting to make a sort of virtual space elevator by having a lifting platform with a retroreflecting cavity on the bottom they shot high power LASERs at, with just barely enough power to not ionize the air, so that when it reflected back it would ionize the air which would cause a sort of continuous explosion underneath the device propelling it up. If I remember correctly it failed because they couldn't keep the output tuned well enough as the distance increased (increased distance meant increased power needed or much better collimation, less air to use for propulsion and ultimately ionization happening well under the device along the beamline.)
He had nothing to do with battery powered cars; although such a thing would have been unattainable in his day; had he been around today, he may or may not have had an interest. Who's to say?
There were reports of Tesla driving around Colorado Springs in a vehicle he built powered by electricity and no wires attached. He claimed to have made it with ideas of radiant energy, which is possible given his experiments in transmitting electrical power through the air, but it's also possible it had a battery (his conception of radiant energy extended to what was effectively a solar cell and a capacitor held at a resonance greater than light, drawing RF, microwave, xrays or gamma rays from the surrounding environment then dumping it into a battery.)
Nikola Tesla's life obsession was wireless transmission of electrical power.
This is a very common misconception. Nikola Tesla's life obsession was a flying car without rotors and relying only on electromagnetic and electrostatic fields for propulsion. He cracked that fairly early in his career but it required too much energy so he set out to create the wireless transmission of power, thinking the vehicles could be powered from ground stations since there was no conceivable way to get a power source powerful and compact enough onto a vehicle. The Wardenclyffe project was the culmination of his work and most of the diversions thereof, which was aimed to extract electricity from the ionosphere, transmit that power to remote users, act as a communications hub and a stationary defensive platform to stop war.
This definitely isn't the same kind of wireless transmission of power Tesla envisioned (he focused on electrostatic longitudinal waves [not necessarily safe and likely impossible to get approved for by the FCC] to transmit power, rather than transverse RF [what he referred to as "Hertzian"] waves.) Longitudinal electrostatic power transmission is far more efficient because it has an order of magnitude less loss at any given distance (aside from the special case of highly collimated transverse electromagnetic waves [lasers] which have a theoretical loss of zero, only reduced by the quality of the receiver [currently about 30%-45% efficient for circularly polarized sources,] though those are really hard to aim [even harder if you aim for higher efficiencies by making the beam linearly polarized.])
TL;DR: Tesla's vision was flying cars, free energy (both in generation and distribution,) global communication and world peace - this is none of those things any more than Musk's welfare/subsidy-fueled companies are.
Once you reach the "fundamental" level, there are no more turtles underneath.
When you get down to it "God did it" is as good an answer as "the big bang" because we don't know what preceded the big bang but by definition nothing would have preceded God. If there is a God a lot of negative things might be said for him, but leaving us in a universe without amusement isn't one of those things. Either way, God or no God, it's turtles all the way down.
California is a Right to Work state, so they don't really need a reason to fire him.
Funny, because right to work allows either party to cancel at any time without stating a reason. Google stated their reason, and it's an illegal one on several counts.
I wouldn't accept less than 7 figures. Google has significantly more than that to lose if they don't settle.
Google tends to start competent engineers with a 7-figure stock package, and due to the political trouble stirred up over this it's possible he will not be able to work in the industry again. If I were him I wouldn't accept less than 60 years minus his current age, multiplied by that 7 figure base while adjusting for inflation and compounding interest in savings over his working career - probably no less than 50m, if not 100m.
No model can explain the "why" of fundamental particles or constants. They just "are". Science is not about Truth, it's about usefulness.
The current model doesn't explain "why" and as long as what you wrote is believed it will remain that way because nobody with any competence will be looking. That doesn't mean there isn't a "why" or that it is unattainable to find it, just that everyone has resolved to looking at "what" and "how" instead. If any model doesn't answer every possible question it is wrong or at least incomplete.
If I discovered any of my employees keeping blacklists like this, I would fire them on the spot. They will work with whom I say or they won't be working at all.
Wake up, Google's CEO wrote a letter against the guy for speaking out about it. He's complicit in the blacklists.
At my company you would be immediately let go if you refused to work with people. It's extremely negative and selfish. Basically you don't get to pick and choose who you work with, you work with who you need to or are told to. I don't know why people think they have a say in the matter in that regard.
Depends on the person. At my company there's a guy who I can only assume got in because he's friends with the owner, he fucks up every project he's on, blames his coworkers, and has lost about 50% of the clients he's had any interaction with (the standard rate for everyone else is 0%.) I don't work with him anymore and in bulk emails won't even address him by name. It's selfish in the sense that interacting with him is very likely to cost me my job (either directly if he blames me for his failings and the owner buys it or indirectly if we lose so many clients that the company no longer has a need for developers, which actually almost happened from him pissing off clients last year.) There's nothing wrong with being selfish, there is something wrong with acting against corporate interests.
there was some kinda of paper navigation tool you could fold up and keep in the glove box. Or perhaps even a book of said previous things.....
That would require some kind of surveyor who can draw a map without a GPS. You'd run the risk of getting stuck on an island which doesn't exist but only serves as his signature.
Really? Then how do you explain that there is a healthy market in batteries that last zero recharge cycles?
They're different markets. When you talk about rechargeable batteries you're talking about either making smartphones and similar devices have replaceable batteries to compensate for the limited recharge cycles (unlikely due to slim form factors) or laptops and similar devices to have throw-away batteries (unlikely due to the frequency of use and expense of such large batteries) or preppers to buy them in place of standard-sized LiIon batteries (unlikely since they aim for longevity, and it's a small market anyway) or people who buy rechargeable batteries for the eco factor to use throw-away batteries (a possible sell due to the toxicity of LiIon batteries, but a very small market.)
The short of this is that the market is laughably small, so small that a vastly superior energy density and non-toxic semi-rechargable Magnesium-based battery has been around for years and hasn't made any headway.
FYI, asking that in the context of this thread makes you seem functionally retarded.
Google wants NN. It does not count as "Big Telco" in any way shape or form.
I guess "biggest telco" would be more apt for them.
Comcast and Spectrum are "Big Cable", but the difference between Big Cable and Big Telco is rather academic now since both offer the same services. And they don't want NN.
Right, they just spent millions lobbying for something they don't want./s
Nobody has shown all the "onerous regulations". And I highly doubt that Big Telco would fight for the rights of upstart and mid-sized ISPs. There is a reason that the established ISPs don't want net neutrality - they want to be able to charge for the type of data traffic as well as the amount of data traffic.
Google, Comcast, Spectrum, etc want it. Those guys are "Big Telco."
No, that's not the idea at all. The idea is to ensure that ISPs wouldn't interfere or impede packets based on who was sending or receiving them.
Excellent paraphrasing of what I wrote.
If that was the goal, it failed. Nearly all small and mid-sized ISPs want net neutrality. It helps them, too, and outside if a handful of small ISPs who are taking a political, rather than business, stance, they all see that.
So he basically tricked a bunch of hacks with money into pursuing his idea instead of their own, then joined it late in the game able to rip off their R&D while holding all the marketing/branding power?
I'm no Musk fan, but as far as Silicon Valley marketing/sales people go he's no all-bad this time around. (his borderline sweatshop of engineers with low pay in constant burn-out mode withstanding)
He's protecting consumers from high quality internet access.
You seem to have a strong opinion on "net neutrality" without knowing what it was.
In concept, net neutrality was designed to ensure carriers wouldn't charge different amounts for different types of services. That's a great concept.
In reality net neutrality (at least the Obama/FCC version on paper, not what it was marketed as) was designed to wrap the entire ISP industry in so much legislation that upstarts couldn't get started and small-mid sized ISPs couldn't compete with the larger ISPs.
As a rule of thumb: consumers and vendors aren't on the same side. If you see every or nearly every major player voicing their support for something it is bad for consumers. When you see consumers in a fit over something demanding it happen at the same time it is very much worth looking into what the Hell is actually in the regulation, because if everyone on all sides wanted it then it would already be reality and chances are someone is at the least misrepresenting things if not outright lying.
Slashdot Mirror
They actually tried that in the 90's, there was a company attempting to make a sort of virtual space elevator by having a lifting platform with a retroreflecting cavity on the bottom they shot high power LASERs at, with just barely enough power to not ionize the air, so that when it reflected back it would ionize the air which would cause a sort of continuous explosion underneath the device propelling it up. If I remember correctly it failed because they couldn't keep the output tuned well enough as the distance increased (increased distance meant increased power needed or much better collimation, less air to use for propulsion and ultimately ionization happening well under the device along the beamline.)
He had nothing to do with battery powered cars; although such a thing would have been unattainable in his day; had he been around today, he may or may not have had an interest. Who's to say?
There were reports of Tesla driving around Colorado Springs in a vehicle he built powered by electricity and no wires attached. He claimed to have made it with ideas of radiant energy, which is possible given his experiments in transmitting electrical power through the air, but it's also possible it had a battery (his conception of radiant energy extended to what was effectively a solar cell and a capacitor held at a resonance greater than light, drawing RF, microwave, xrays or gamma rays from the surrounding environment then dumping it into a battery.)
If God exists he preceded the big bang, that's part of that theory.
Nikola Tesla's life obsession was wireless transmission of electrical power.
This is a very common misconception. Nikola Tesla's life obsession was a flying car without rotors and relying only on electromagnetic and electrostatic fields for propulsion. He cracked that fairly early in his career but it required too much energy so he set out to create the wireless transmission of power, thinking the vehicles could be powered from ground stations since there was no conceivable way to get a power source powerful and compact enough onto a vehicle. The Wardenclyffe project was the culmination of his work and most of the diversions thereof, which was aimed to extract electricity from the ionosphere, transmit that power to remote users, act as a communications hub and a stationary defensive platform to stop war.
This definitely isn't the same kind of wireless transmission of power Tesla envisioned (he focused on electrostatic longitudinal waves [not necessarily safe and likely impossible to get approved for by the FCC] to transmit power, rather than transverse RF [what he referred to as "Hertzian"] waves.) Longitudinal electrostatic power transmission is far more efficient because it has an order of magnitude less loss at any given distance (aside from the special case of highly collimated transverse electromagnetic waves [lasers] which have a theoretical loss of zero, only reduced by the quality of the receiver [currently about 30%-45% efficient for circularly polarized sources,] though those are really hard to aim [even harder if you aim for higher efficiencies by making the beam linearly polarized.])
TL;DR: Tesla's vision was flying cars, free energy (both in generation and distribution,) global communication and world peace - this is none of those things any more than Musk's welfare/subsidy-fueled companies are.
Once you reach the "fundamental" level, there are no more turtles underneath.
When you get down to it "God did it" is as good an answer as "the big bang" because we don't know what preceded the big bang but by definition nothing would have preceded God. If there is a God a lot of negative things might be said for him, but leaving us in a universe without amusement isn't one of those things. Either way, God or no God, it's turtles all the way down.
He wrote a piece basically explaining how he feels 20% of his coworkers were unjustly hired. Few things are more toxic for a workplace.
Actually, he wrote a piece stating many of his coworkers were unjustly treated due to ideology.
California is a Right to Work state, so they don't really need a reason to fire him.
Funny, because right to work allows either party to cancel at any time without stating a reason. Google stated their reason, and it's an illegal one on several counts.
I wouldn't accept less than 7 figures. Google has significantly more than that to lose if they don't settle.
Google tends to start competent engineers with a 7-figure stock package, and due to the political trouble stirred up over this it's possible he will not be able to work in the industry again. If I were him I wouldn't accept less than 60 years minus his current age, multiplied by that 7 figure base while adjusting for inflation and compounding interest in savings over his working career - probably no less than 50m, if not 100m.
No model can explain the "why" of fundamental particles or constants. They just "are". Science is not about Truth, it's about usefulness.
The current model doesn't explain "why" and as long as what you wrote is believed it will remain that way because nobody with any competence will be looking. That doesn't mean there isn't a "why" or that it is unattainable to find it, just that everyone has resolved to looking at "what" and "how" instead. If any model doesn't answer every possible question it is wrong or at least incomplete.
If I discovered any of my employees keeping blacklists like this, I would fire them on the spot. They will work with whom I say or they won't be working at all.
Wake up, Google's CEO wrote a letter against the guy for speaking out about it. He's complicit in the blacklists.
At my company you would be immediately let go if you refused to work with people. It's extremely negative and selfish. Basically you don't get to pick and choose who you work with, you work with who you need to or are told to. I don't know why people think they have a say in the matter in that regard.
Depends on the person. At my company there's a guy who I can only assume got in because he's friends with the owner, he fucks up every project he's on, blames his coworkers, and has lost about 50% of the clients he's had any interaction with (the standard rate for everyone else is 0%.) I don't work with him anymore and in bulk emails won't even address him by name. It's selfish in the sense that interacting with him is very likely to cost me my job (either directly if he blames me for his failings and the owner buys it or indirectly if we lose so many clients that the company no longer has a need for developers, which actually almost happened from him pissing off clients last year.) There's nothing wrong with being selfish, there is something wrong with acting against corporate interests.
He pointed out a hostile work environment.
Maybe the corporate culture at Google is alt-left, maybe it's not, I don't know.
Nobody here is dumb enough to believe you are dumb enough to believe that, you stupid shill.
there was some kinda of paper navigation tool you could fold up and keep in the glove box. Or perhaps even a book of said previous things.....
That would require some kind of surveyor who can draw a map without a GPS. You'd run the risk of getting stuck on an island which doesn't exist but only serves as his signature.
Let's get rid of all of the negative parts.
Systemd has parts which aren't negative?
The mirrors are different but they still have them (technically a reflector/dish, but same concept.) You're right about it being even easier to clean.
Automate the whole thing and pay some locals to clean the mirrors occasionally. It's not rocket science.
Really? Then how do you explain that there is a healthy market in batteries that last zero recharge cycles?
They're different markets. When you talk about rechargeable batteries you're talking about either making smartphones and similar devices have replaceable batteries to compensate for the limited recharge cycles (unlikely due to slim form factors) or laptops and similar devices to have throw-away batteries (unlikely due to the frequency of use and expense of such large batteries) or preppers to buy them in place of standard-sized LiIon batteries (unlikely since they aim for longevity, and it's a small market anyway) or people who buy rechargeable batteries for the eco factor to use throw-away batteries (a possible sell due to the toxicity of LiIon batteries, but a very small market.)
The short of this is that the market is laughably small, so small that a vastly superior energy density and non-toxic semi-rechargable Magnesium-based battery has been around for years and hasn't made any headway.
Please take your Perfect Solution fallacy elsewhere.
A battery which only lasts a few hundred recharge cycles isn't an imperfect solution, it's simply not a solution.
What is "it" in this context?
FYI, asking that in the context of this thread makes you seem functionally retarded.
Google wants NN. It does not count as "Big Telco" in any way shape or form.
I guess "biggest telco" would be more apt for them.
Comcast and Spectrum are "Big Cable", but the difference between Big Cable and Big Telco is rather academic now since both offer the same services. And they don't want NN.
Right, they just spent millions lobbying for something they don't want. /s
Nobody has shown all the "onerous regulations". And I highly doubt that Big Telco would fight for the rights of upstart and mid-sized ISPs. There is a reason that the established ISPs don't want net neutrality - they want to be able to charge for the type of data traffic as well as the amount of data traffic.
Google, Comcast, Spectrum, etc want it. Those guys are "Big Telco."
No, that's not the idea at all. The idea is to ensure that ISPs wouldn't interfere or impede packets based on who was sending or receiving them.
Excellent paraphrasing of what I wrote.
If that was the goal, it failed. Nearly all small and mid-sized ISPs want net neutrality. It helps them, too, and outside if a handful of small ISPs who are taking a political, rather than business, stance, they all see that.
This is false.
So he basically tricked a bunch of hacks with money into pursuing his idea instead of their own, then joined it late in the game able to rip off their R&D while holding all the marketing/branding power?
I'm no Musk fan, but as far as Silicon Valley marketing/sales people go he's no all-bad this time around. (his borderline sweatshop of engineers with low pay in constant burn-out mode withstanding)
He's protecting consumers from high quality internet access.
You seem to have a strong opinion on "net neutrality" without knowing what it was.
In concept, net neutrality was designed to ensure carriers wouldn't charge different amounts for different types of services. That's a great concept.
In reality net neutrality (at least the Obama/FCC version on paper, not what it was marketed as) was designed to wrap the entire ISP industry in so much legislation that upstarts couldn't get started and small-mid sized ISPs couldn't compete with the larger ISPs.
As a rule of thumb: consumers and vendors aren't on the same side. If you see every or nearly every major player voicing their support for something it is bad for consumers. When you see consumers in a fit over something demanding it happen at the same time it is very much worth looking into what the Hell is actually in the regulation, because if everyone on all sides wanted it then it would already be reality and chances are someone is at the least misrepresenting things if not outright lying.
Treating the "wow" factor as mere noise is exactly why this problem will continue to be dismissed by the ignorant.
Yeah, if only people would just see how smart you filthy hippies are for telling them exhaling air is bad.
The LHC is to physics what the Hyperloop is to psychology.