a) it takes about 25 minutes to charge, not 4 hours. b) 375V * 1.5kA * 2.8s = 0.4375kWh. That is, it takes less than 0.5% of the total charge of the battery to do this.
Yep, same here - drive to work, plug in, drive home; drive to work, plug in, drive home,...
I never ever ever have to think at all about stopping at a petrol station, and I never dip below 70-80% battery charge, also, with a ~100 mile range on my car.
Utility of being able to drive 500 miles and then 'recharge' in five minutes = lots.
I don't really understand the necessity of this. Realistically, you're gonna be driving at most 70mph, more likely averaging 50-60 over a long journey. You can reasonably do 4 hours before you need to stop for lunch, and another 4 in the afternoon before you're going to want to eat dinner. Both of those meals are gonna take you half an hour.
That means that a range of between 200 and 280 miles is sufficient for pretty much any form of driving save for utter insanity driving all through the night, and frankly, forcing you to stop for half an hour every few during that time I regard as a good thing, not a bad.
That said, I do think the tesla's current ~267mile range (assuming 85->90kWh scales linearly) is a tiny bit on the short side. If they managed to get the thing to 300, that would be pretty much sufficient for all forms of driving.
Once you get down sub 4-5 seconds everything is about traction, not about power. The fact that the P85D/P90D are four wheel drive means that they have a metric fuck ton more traction than a Camaro. Add to that that the Camaro you're talking about did 4 seconds on 1970s tyres, and you get quite easily to a car with 4 wheel drive and a lot of torque can do 0-60 in 2.8 seconds.
Admittedly that's into the range of current super/hyper cars (a McLaren P1, and The Ferrari The Ferrari will both do around 2.3 seconds), but that's not surprising when the current way that said super/hyper cars generate enough torque to do that is with electric motors.
I hate to break it to you, but almost all modern cars have some form of communication equipment, and will upload driving data to the manufacturer in real time.
says the moron who has never been at a company where an employee sued for tens of thousands of dollars because one employee decided to look at porn and another employee was "offended".
That's trivial to deal with - you explicitly write it in the company hand book that looking at porn is banned. When the other person is offended, you quickly nip it in the bud by disciplining the person looking at porn.
As I said - if you don't trust the employees, don't employ them.
For reference, there are some enormous companies out there that don't filter the internet (I work for one). They survive just fine simply by saying "don't be idiots and look at porn at work".
Yep, I don't understand how companies don't get this. If you observe that your employees are spending all day dicking around, and they don't get their assigned work done, you fire them. If you don't observe that, then you have no reason to block their access to anything.
It's entirely reasonable to expect employees to take short brain breaks during the working day. It's entirely reasonable for those brain breaks to be spent on random web pages.
All this comes down to is simply trusting your employees. If you can trust them to get on and do their job, and only take reasonable breaks, then you don't need a filter. If you can't trust them, then 1) your culture is fucked up, fix that, and 2) why the hell are you employing someone so untrustworthy that they don't do their job.
Just fucking trust your employees. An environment in which people are overtly not trusted to do their jobs just breeds resentment and in fact employees that can't be trusted. People who feel like they're being treated unreasonably tend to act unreasonably in return.
On this issue, I honestly wouldn't be surprised if the tech companies stood side by side and said "fine, the UK gets no chat apps if the UK won't allow end to end encryption".
No, that's the point. The reason why iMessage, Facebook Messenger and SnapChat would be banned is exactly because these are messaging platforms where the vendor does not have the key.
The government wants to ban such messaging platforms.
Right, but what will actually happen (hopefully) is that the law will come into force, and WhatsApp, SnapChat, Apple, Google and Facebook will all say "okay, well, all your chat apps are now unavailable, sorry".
As you rightly point out, that'll make the law immensely unpopular, and hopefully it'll get repealed.
U238 will happily absorb neutrons (which are produced by the fusion) and become U239. U239 will happily absorb beta radiation (also production by the fusion) and become Np239. Np239 will also happily absorb beta radiation and become Pu239. Pu239 is nasty stuff that you don't want to get anywhere near you.
This is in fact exactly the reaction used in the production of Pu239 for nuclear weapons.
Because usually these people only have one person that they sell their services to, and that makes them employees, not contractors. Uber doesn't like treating them as employees, so it wants another box to put them in, and deny them the benefits of being an employee.
Again - the point of the government is to manage society working together. You are effectively saying "I don't want to be part of a society or attempt to contribute anything to it".
The reason the government is regulating it is because simple capitalist free markets will not get the ball rolling on what everyone can plainly see is a social good.
Again - if you don't want to lose out - start investing in the things that society has determined are good for the country as a whole. Simple.
Then maybe you should start investing in renewables. Then other people will pay your power bill. That's the whole point of tax breaks/hikes - to encourage changes in societal norms for the betterment of the whole country.
If you're paying someone else's xyz bill through your taxes, that's because they're doing something good for society that you aren't - start helping society, and everyone else will pay your bills.
The same thing applies in an office environment, only instead of one wife you now have 50 colleagues who want help with this and that (often not work related), or just want to chat about the weather...
Except that this is actually good. Sure your productivity drops. But the company's as a whole increases. You should absolutely see it as your job to help your colleagues be able to do their job. Your company certainly does.
Slashdot Mirror
a) it takes about 25 minutes to charge, not 4 hours.
b) 375V * 1.5kA * 2.8s = 0.4375kWh. That is, it takes less than 0.5% of the total charge of the battery to do this.
Yep, same here - drive to work, plug in, drive home; drive to work, plug in, drive home, ...
I never ever ever have to think at all about stopping at a petrol station, and I never dip below 70-80% battery charge, also, with a ~100 mile range on my car.
Utility of being able to drive 500 miles and then 'recharge' in five minutes = lots.
I don't really understand the necessity of this. Realistically, you're gonna be driving at most 70mph, more likely averaging 50-60 over a long journey. You can reasonably do 4 hours before you need to stop for lunch, and another 4 in the afternoon before you're going to want to eat dinner. Both of those meals are gonna take you half an hour.
That means that a range of between 200 and 280 miles is sufficient for pretty much any form of driving save for utter insanity driving all through the night, and frankly, forcing you to stop for half an hour every few during that time I regard as a good thing, not a bad.
That said, I do think the tesla's current ~267mile range (assuming 85->90kWh scales linearly) is a tiny bit on the short side. If they managed to get the thing to 300, that would be pretty much sufficient for all forms of driving.
You built bloodhound?
Once you get down sub 4-5 seconds everything is about traction, not about power. The fact that the P85D/P90D are four wheel drive means that they have a metric fuck ton more traction than a Camaro. Add to that that the Camaro you're talking about did 4 seconds on 1970s tyres, and you get quite easily to a car with 4 wheel drive and a lot of torque can do 0-60 in 2.8 seconds.
Admittedly that's into the range of current super/hyper cars (a McLaren P1, and The Ferrari The Ferrari will both do around 2.3 seconds), but that's not surprising when the current way that said super/hyper cars generate enough torque to do that is with electric motors.
I hate to break it to you, but almost all modern cars have some form of communication equipment, and will upload driving data to the manufacturer in real time.
says the moron who has never been at a company where an employee sued for tens of thousands of dollars because one employee decided to look at porn and another employee was "offended".
That's trivial to deal with - you explicitly write it in the company hand book that looking at porn is banned. When the other person is offended, you quickly nip it in the bud by disciplining the person looking at porn.
As I said - if you don't trust the employees, don't employ them.
For reference, there are some enormous companies out there that don't filter the internet (I work for one). They survive just fine simply by saying "don't be idiots and look at porn at work".
Correct - the way the UK repeals a law is to make a new law saying "sections x to y of the blah blah act of 2015 shall be held delete".
Why on earth would not blocking internet access lead to sexual harassment charges?
Yep, I don't understand how companies don't get this. If you observe that your employees are spending all day dicking around, and they don't get their assigned work done, you fire them. If you don't observe that, then you have no reason to block their access to anything.
It's entirely reasonable to expect employees to take short brain breaks during the working day. It's entirely reasonable for those brain breaks to be spent on random web pages.
All this comes down to is simply trusting your employees. If you can trust them to get on and do their job, and only take reasonable breaks, then you don't need a filter. If you can't trust them, then 1) your culture is fucked up, fix that, and 2) why the hell are you employing someone so untrustworthy that they don't do their job.
Stop blocking access at all.
Just fucking trust your employees. An environment in which people are overtly not trusted to do their jobs just breeds resentment and in fact employees that can't be trusted. People who feel like they're being treated unreasonably tend to act unreasonably in return.
On this issue, I honestly wouldn't be surprised if the tech companies stood side by side and said "fine, the UK gets no chat apps if the UK won't allow end to end encryption".
No, that's the point. The reason why iMessage, Facebook Messenger and SnapChat would be banned is exactly because these are messaging platforms where the vendor does not have the key.
The government wants to ban such messaging platforms.
Right, but what will actually happen (hopefully) is that the law will come into force, and WhatsApp, SnapChat, Apple, Google and Facebook will all say "okay, well, all your chat apps are now unavailable, sorry".
As you rightly point out, that'll make the law immensely unpopular, and hopefully it'll get repealed.
Yes, U238. That lovely "stable" substance that if you fire neutrons into it results in Pu239.
U238 will happily absorb neutrons (which are produced by the fusion) and become U239. U239 will happily absorb beta radiation (also production by the fusion) and become Np239. Np239 will also happily absorb beta radiation and become Pu239. Pu239 is nasty stuff that you don't want to get anywhere near you.
This is in fact exactly the reaction used in the production of Pu239 for nuclear weapons.
But the plutonium produced by firing neutrons into it is.
Go and read the article - the fusion is only a source of neutrons that then impact U-238 and cause fission to generate heat.
If you're getting punished for using your contractually guaranteed benefits, then you need to find a better employer and/or a lawyer.
Because usually these people only have one person that they sell their services to, and that makes them employees, not contractors. Uber doesn't like treating them as employees, so it wants another box to put them in, and deny them the benefits of being an employee.
Again - the point of the government is to manage society working together. You are effectively saying "I don't want to be part of a society or attempt to contribute anything to it".
The reason the government is regulating it is because simple capitalist free markets will not get the ball rolling on what everyone can plainly see is a social good.
Again - if you don't want to lose out - start investing in the things that society has determined are good for the country as a whole. Simple.
Then maybe you should start investing in renewables. Then other people will pay your power bill. That's the whole point of tax breaks/hikes - to encourage changes in societal norms for the betterment of the whole country.
If you're paying someone else's xyz bill through your taxes, that's because they're doing something good for society that you aren't - start helping society, and everyone else will pay your bills.
You know that section of your review that says "team work", and how your team members get to rate you, and make comments about you?
The same thing applies in an office environment, only instead of one wife you now have 50 colleagues who want help with this and that (often not work related), or just want to chat about the weather...
Except that this is actually good. Sure your productivity drops. But the company's as a whole increases. You should absolutely see it as your job to help your colleagues be able to do their job. Your company certainly does.