OTOH, driverless trains would be an order of magnitude or two easier and... not there.
Wrong - driverless trains are already here and have been since 1967 which means they have been around longer than most Slashdot readers including myself. However, like driverless cars, the first line which was automated, London's Victoria line, still carried drivers because of the unions i.e. politics. More recent lines, like the Docklands Light Railway (DLR) are driverless and there are plans to upgrade other tube lines to true driverless operation.
Given the politics with driverless trains should we expect driverless cars to be any different? I expect there will be a period of adjustment where they are allowed but heavily restricted as we learn to see how well they cope. Assuming they perform these restrictions will be gradually lifted.
Again this is not correct on the evidence available. If your money was seized under this law you will undoubtedly be able to get it back if they fail to prove that you are guilty: there is nothing to suggest that you have to prove that you are innocent. The issue is that you don't have your money for however long it takes for that to happen.
You can be imprisoned after being charged with a crime before you are proven guilty. Nobody claims that this is being found guilty before being proven innocent. However this is done under strict court supervision to prevent abuse and mistakes. Exactly the same sort of rules should apply to money as well for exactly the same reasons.
The point of the bullet cluster is not that it is the "holy grail" for Dark Matter - all the other evidence provides that - it is that it really kills the MOND interpretation which was pretty much already dead and gone before hand in any case. The 'alternative explanations' part of the wikipedia article refer primarily to an *online refutation*, not a refereed journal paper. However I'm sure that you can come up with models that make the bullet cluster work it is just that they are so convoluted and fine tuned that nobody believes them because there is no evidence to support them over the far simpler model that there is some undiscovered particle out there.
Is there *any* evidence that the police targeted innocent people deliberately to seize their money? This is a bad law which, I'll agree, is ripe for abuse and gives the police far too much power without any checks but from the article the complaint is that the police made an honest mistake. If the police do abuse it then yes, those particular individuals are "being evil" but where is your evidence of that?
Without that evidence what you have is an extremely bad law that *could* easily be abused and which will lead to huge inconvenience for innocent people when mistakes are made. The law is not inherently 'evil' (it does not *require* that innocent people have theor money seized) and, if we lived in a utopia where we could be sure the law would be correctly enforced, there would be no issue with it. The problem is that we do not live in such a world and so this is a terrible law hence it is the politicians who are at fault because they are the ones writing the laws.
Neither concept has a shred of evidence behind it indicating that anything exotic is going on.
It depends on what you mean by 'exotic'. In physics we usually reserve this term for 'new physics that we do not yet understand'. In these terms Dark Matter is "exotic". There is a huge amount of evidence (from galaxy rotation curves, cosmic microwave background and gravitational lensing) indicating that there some sort of mass which is not made of atoms. Since all the matter we have a handle on is made of atoms (or, if a plasma, parts of atoms) 'exotic' seems like an appropriate description at least until we figure out what it is exactly.
Your suggestion that the "maths does not work" has been tried. Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) models essentially died with the Bullet Cluster because this showed that there was a gravitational field (it lensed the galaxies behind it) where there was no atomic matter. Effectively when this pair of galaxies collided the atomic matter in each interacted with each other and slowed down and the Dark Matter passed through each other without interacting. It is very hard to explain this with anything other than some type of 'exotic' form of matter not made of atoms.
It is very easy to imagine models for Dark Matter where the DM cannot annihilate with itself. In such cases there are only two ways to detect it: create it in high energy collisions such as those at the LHC or detect it bouncing off an atomic nucleus in extremely sensitive experiments placed deep underground to shield them from cosmic rays. The fact that there is no evidence of annihilating Dark Matter does not "dim hopes of Dark Matter" it just dims hopes of one particular class of model of Dark Matter.
If the LHC sees nothing in the next few years though it does tell us something: Dark Matter is unlikely to be a a massive particle which interacts with matter via the weak force. At LHC energies we can pretty-much exclude the mass range consistent with thermal production in the Big Bang for this class of particle. There are ways around this e.g. exotic production mechanisms or multiple types of particle contributing to Dark Matter but the simplest models for weak particles will be gone and axions might start to look even more attractive as an explanation.
The police have a hard job to protect us from criminals while, at the same time, not infringing on our freedom and as such they deserve our help and support. In this case there does not even seem to be any suggestion of abuse of their powers it is just that the powers are so far reaching without any checks that honest mistakes end up having huge consequences for innocent people.
In a democracy the police use the powers handed to them by the politicians. If they get handed a hammer then thats what they have to use to do their job. It is not their job to start evaluating their own powers to see whether they are too far reaching or not - the politicians should be doing that BEFORE they start handing out police powers like hallowe'en candy.
If they've done nothing wrong, they have nothing to worry about.
I hope you were being sarcastic but it's modded 'insightful' so that's not how people are reading it! Even if you are completely innocent of all wrong doing having your accounts frozen will have a massive impact on your life. Suddenly accessing your paycheque to pay the mortgage/rent, purchase food etc. becomes impossible all you have is you cash on hand for however long it takes them to realize that you are innocent and to pay it back. That will have a massive impact on your life and to be able to do that simply because some overworked policeman has a suspicion seems highly unreasonable. In fact I'm guessing that you'll need to go to court to get the money back and who knows how you'll be paying for the lawyer or whether you can also reclaim the expenses of the court case from the US government.
I'm all for supporting law enforcement but seizing money on a suspicion without any court oversight is just wrong. If they need to act fast then let them freeze an account for 24 hours to give them the time to go to a court and make a case for seizure. This gives them the ability to act rapidly, keeps the system open to public scrutiny and would ensure that they have some evidence before peoples lives are impacted. Why do governments find it so hard to put reasonable balances like this into laws?
I can't imagine what tortured interpretation of English suggests that saying "good morning" means in *any* way that you had a hand in creating the morning rather than wishing someone has a good morning or just a comment that it is a good morning. On the other hand saying "I took the initiative in creating the internet" is like saying "I took the initiative in making the tea": in both cases there is a clear indication that the speaker has made or created something even in the context it was spoken in. Only with addition facts, such as those provided by the OP, can you *guess* at what he meant to say. While it might be wrong to ridicule someone for a simple mistake like this it is also wrong to try and pretend that he did not make a mistake.
Given that you can't interpret "good morning" in even a literal sense I suspect that you are not a native English speaker so you might want to brush up on the language before making comments like the one above otherwise you'll end up looking a bit silly.
Gore never said he invented the Internet, but rather that he was instrumental in its creation.
Not entirely true, see this video around the 50 second mark: "I took the initiative in creating the internet". He may have meant to say that he was instrumental in supporting it's creation (and given the background you provided that seems an entirely reasonable supposition) but what he actually said was that he created it which was a rather preposterous claim.
Actually if that is the reason for doing it then the hypocrisy has more to do with free trade and innovation than big government. The US keeps wanting to setup free trade agreements which export its IP laws "to protect US innovations" and (allegedly) promote free trade. At the same it is passing internal laws to exclude foreign competition and is so hell bent to do so it doesn't care if it damages some highly innovative US companies in the process. Mind you I'm not sure whether this is a case of double hypocrisy or just shooting yourself in the foot, twice.
Waaaaah! I want to shit up the world and I don't want to be held accountable!
Ah, now it becomes clear. I'm sorry your parents are not properly looking after you and letting you loose on the internet without adult supervision. When you grow up hopefully you'll become mature enough to realize that your parents can't be responsible for you for your entire life and that at some point you have to grow up and take responsibility for yourself.
Indeed even by the time you reach ten you'll probably be able figure out the massive logical hole in your argument that parents should be responsible for their kids for life which is simply that even your parents had parents. Hence, if we accept your argument the first humans to evolve would be responsible for the entire human race and everyone else can just sit back and relax and never have to worry about taking responsibility for anything ever again.
Given your logical reasoning skills I'd also suggest that you stop trying to tell people what they really believe or think, unless it is something like "wow, this person is nuts": you'll probably come across as telepathic if you tell them they are thinking that.
Do you really think it would be very hard to convince the public that it is inherently safer than other fission designs.
I expect that you can convince them that LFTR is safer than our current reactors but that is not the same as convincing them that it is safe enough to build. If you want to do that they best way to do it would be to sell them cheaper electricity. They are unlikely to be able to sensibly judge the risk but at least this way they see that they are benefiting from having a plant nearby.
However there is still the issue of nuclear waste. Both LFTR and fusion still generate it but the advantage of fusion is that it is a one-generation problem not a 10-100,000 year issue. The lighter nuclei activated by neutron radiation from fusion reactors have far shorter half lives than the heavy nuclear fragments left by thorium fission. LFTR might reduce the volume but not to zero and it will be with us for a VERY long time.
No they don't work well. They encourage companies to only invest money in developing new drugs which are profitable for them. This means diseases which predominantly affect first world countries and which effect enough people to make it worth their while. They then hold us ransom by charging exorbitant prices for these drugs which, in same cases people need to survive. This is not a model which works: healthcare costs are sent spiralling upwards and new uses for old drugs, less common diseases and tropical diseases, like ebola, are all generally ignored. This is not a model which works in the best interests of society.
If you are not able to judge, and assess those risks, then you shouldn't be having kids.
In that case nobody should ever have kids. You have no idea exactly how they will turn out: in extreme cases they can even have Tourette's syndrome which might cause them involuntarily to insult someone. Should the parent of such a child be liable for that? They would not be if they themselves had the condition!
What your propose is frankly insane, grossly unfair and will result in society endlessly suing itself. You sue the parents of the teenager who had a car accident, who then sue the government for agreeing that their offspring was allowed to drive, who then ban teenagers driving and in turn get sued by teenagers who have to lose their jobs due to a lack of public transit etc. etc. Hmmm....you aren't a lawyer without kids are you by any chance?
A parent's responsibility to their kids is to bring them up to be able to know right from wrong, how to behave and to correct them when they misbehave. It is not our responsibility to prevent them from ever misbehaving, indeed you cannot control a human being to the extent that they commit no wrong nor should you even try. Liability is typically limited to what you can control: car manufacturers are not liable for every injury in a car accident because they ultimately failed to make a car which kept the occupants safe under conditions outside their control. The same should apply to parents and kids...unless you want all cars fitted with a speed limiter set to 20 km/h covered with metre thick padding inside and out.
If you are going to make me liable for something then I has to be something under my control. Short of tying my kids up in chains and never letting them do anything there is no way for me do absolutely guarantee that they will never do anything which causes liability. Not only would I refuse to do that it would be illegal and society does not want parents to do that: kids have to learn to control their own behaviour and that means giving them the freedom to do things wrong.
Parents have to be responsible but not necessarily liable. If we are taking reasonable measures to supervise our kids online including giving them guidance on how to behave as well as punishing them when they do not then I believe we have fulfilled our responsibility as parents and should not be held liable if one of them disobeys us and libels someone while we are not watching.
On the other hand if parents completely ignores their kids, provide no guidance or consequences then by all means find them negligent and hence liable through their act of negligence...but making parents automatically liable for their kids actions under all circumstances is unfair and encourages poor parenting since if means that you can't risk letting them fail. Indeed the only way to be sure would be to ban them from access the net: does society really want that?
No not over a 30A ring but the point you made was that it would melt the domestic feed of 100A which is not correct. However, assuming it was properly connected to the 100A input, it does not leave much spare capacity for anything else. So no cooking, heating or even putting on the kettle.
There could be such a thing as a 100kW battery: it would be a battery which can provide a power of 100kW. Not all batteries can do this since they have an internal resistance which either prevents this power from being achieved or will cause them to overheat and explode/catch fire even if it is. Indeed, assuming that this battery can carry a decent amount of energy, it is very likely that you could make a 100kW battery from it since it charges so quickly it must have a very low internal resistance.
Ironically there is no such thing as a 100kW/hr battery though...
perhaps more properly, he and his company were great inventors
I think that this is probably the truth of it. Edison's "genius" was that he assembled a team of engineers and scientists to create the first company which relied on innovation. I doubt we will ever really know exactly how much Edison himself actually contributed to the inventions his company created but I suspect that it is probably quite a bit less than we think.
But he did improve the it enough to make it practical.
Actually even that is not true: Swan did it first, before Edison and some believe that Edison went as far to falsify evidence in the US court case to prevent him losing there. The sole reason that Edison is remembered is because he made a lot of money. Edison's contributions to light bulbs are like Bill Gates' contributions to Operating Systems: he marketed a popular early version of the invention.
Microsoft does have a lot of experience with the principles of quantum mechanics.
Joking aside I'd estimate it as about as much experience as the GP has with particle physics i.e. close to none. Particle physics is concerned with fundamental particles not with condensed matter states that might behave consistently with a theoretical prediction of how a Majorana fermion would behave. The fact that they dress this up as particle physics is rather sad: condensed matter physics is just as interesting!
This is why he's recognized. E=mc2 is minor. GR is the true genius part.
Einstein's Nobel prize was for the photo-electric effect and not for GR. Einstein could easily have received 4 Nobel prizes: for SR, GR, Photo-electric and his explanation of Brownian motion. This is why he is recognized as a genius, more so than those who actually have won multiple Nobels.
Slashdot Mirror
OTOH, driverless trains would be an order of magnitude or two easier and... not there.
Wrong - driverless trains are already here and have been since 1967 which means they have been around longer than most Slashdot readers including myself. However, like driverless cars, the first line which was automated, London's Victoria line, still carried drivers because of the unions i.e. politics. More recent lines, like the Docklands Light Railway (DLR) are driverless and there are plans to upgrade other tube lines to true driverless operation.
Given the politics with driverless trains should we expect driverless cars to be any different? I expect there will be a period of adjustment where they are allowed but heavily restricted as we learn to see how well they cope. Assuming they perform these restrictions will be gradually lifted.
Again this is not correct on the evidence available. If your money was seized under this law you will undoubtedly be able to get it back if they fail to prove that you are guilty: there is nothing to suggest that you have to prove that you are innocent. The issue is that you don't have your money for however long it takes for that to happen.
You can be imprisoned after being charged with a crime before you are proven guilty. Nobody claims that this is being found guilty before being proven innocent. However this is done under strict court supervision to prevent abuse and mistakes. Exactly the same sort of rules should apply to money as well for exactly the same reasons.
The point of the bullet cluster is not that it is the "holy grail" for Dark Matter - all the other evidence provides that - it is that it really kills the MOND interpretation which was pretty much already dead and gone before hand in any case. The 'alternative explanations' part of the wikipedia article refer primarily to an *online refutation*, not a refereed journal paper. However I'm sure that you can come up with models that make the bullet cluster work it is just that they are so convoluted and fine tuned that nobody believes them because there is no evidence to support them over the far simpler model that there is some undiscovered particle out there.
Is there *any* evidence that the police targeted innocent people deliberately to seize their money? This is a bad law which, I'll agree, is ripe for abuse and gives the police far too much power without any checks but from the article the complaint is that the police made an honest mistake. If the police do abuse it then yes, those particular individuals are "being evil" but where is your evidence of that?
Without that evidence what you have is an extremely bad law that *could* easily be abused and which will lead to huge inconvenience for innocent people when mistakes are made. The law is not inherently 'evil' (it does not *require* that innocent people have theor money seized) and, if we lived in a utopia where we could be sure the law would be correctly enforced, there would be no issue with it. The problem is that we do not live in such a world and so this is a terrible law hence it is the politicians who are at fault because they are the ones writing the laws.
Neither concept has a shred of evidence behind it indicating that anything exotic is going on.
It depends on what you mean by 'exotic'. In physics we usually reserve this term for 'new physics that we do not yet understand'. In these terms Dark Matter is "exotic". There is a huge amount of evidence (from galaxy rotation curves, cosmic microwave background and gravitational lensing) indicating that there some sort of mass which is not made of atoms. Since all the matter we have a handle on is made of atoms (or, if a plasma, parts of atoms) 'exotic' seems like an appropriate description at least until we figure out what it is exactly.
Your suggestion that the "maths does not work" has been tried. Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) models essentially died with the Bullet Cluster because this showed that there was a gravitational field (it lensed the galaxies behind it) where there was no atomic matter. Effectively when this pair of galaxies collided the atomic matter in each interacted with each other and slowed down and the Dark Matter passed through each other without interacting. It is very hard to explain this with anything other than some type of 'exotic' form of matter not made of atoms.
It is very easy to imagine models for Dark Matter where the DM cannot annihilate with itself. In such cases there are only two ways to detect it: create it in high energy collisions such as those at the LHC or detect it bouncing off an atomic nucleus in extremely sensitive experiments placed deep underground to shield them from cosmic rays. The fact that there is no evidence of annihilating Dark Matter does not "dim hopes of Dark Matter" it just dims hopes of one particular class of model of Dark Matter.
If the LHC sees nothing in the next few years though it does tell us something: Dark Matter is unlikely to be a a massive particle which interacts with matter via the weak force. At LHC energies we can pretty-much exclude the mass range consistent with thermal production in the Big Bang for this class of particle. There are ways around this e.g. exotic production mechanisms or multiple types of particle contributing to Dark Matter but the simplest models for weak particles will be gone and axions might start to look even more attractive as an explanation.
The police have a hard job to protect us from criminals while, at the same time, not infringing on our freedom and as such they deserve our help and support. In this case there does not even seem to be any suggestion of abuse of their powers it is just that the powers are so far reaching without any checks that honest mistakes end up having huge consequences for innocent people.
In a democracy the police use the powers handed to them by the politicians. If they get handed a hammer then thats what they have to use to do their job. It is not their job to start evaluating their own powers to see whether they are too far reaching or not - the politicians should be doing that BEFORE they start handing out police powers like hallowe'en candy.
If they've done nothing wrong, they have nothing to worry about.
I hope you were being sarcastic but it's modded 'insightful' so that's not how people are reading it! Even if you are completely innocent of all wrong doing having your accounts frozen will have a massive impact on your life. Suddenly accessing your paycheque to pay the mortgage/rent, purchase food etc. becomes impossible all you have is you cash on hand for however long it takes them to realize that you are innocent and to pay it back. That will have a massive impact on your life and to be able to do that simply because some overworked policeman has a suspicion seems highly unreasonable. In fact I'm guessing that you'll need to go to court to get the money back and who knows how you'll be paying for the lawyer or whether you can also reclaim the expenses of the court case from the US government.
I'm all for supporting law enforcement but seizing money on a suspicion without any court oversight is just wrong. If they need to act fast then let them freeze an account for 24 hours to give them the time to go to a court and make a case for seizure. This gives them the ability to act rapidly, keeps the system open to public scrutiny and would ensure that they have some evidence before peoples lives are impacted. Why do governments find it so hard to put reasonable balances like this into laws?
I can't imagine what tortured interpretation of English suggests that saying "good morning" means in *any* way that you had a hand in creating the morning rather than wishing someone has a good morning or just a comment that it is a good morning. On the other hand saying "I took the initiative in creating the internet" is like saying "I took the initiative in making the tea": in both cases there is a clear indication that the speaker has made or created something even in the context it was spoken in. Only with addition facts, such as those provided by the OP, can you *guess* at what he meant to say. While it might be wrong to ridicule someone for a simple mistake like this it is also wrong to try and pretend that he did not make a mistake.
Given that you can't interpret "good morning" in even a literal sense I suspect that you are not a native English speaker so you might want to brush up on the language before making comments like the one above otherwise you'll end up looking a bit silly.
*its* (sorry but the last time I let a simple typo like that pass the grammar Nazis invaded Poland)
Gore never said he invented the Internet, but rather that he was instrumental in its creation.
Not entirely true, see this video around the 50 second mark: "I took the initiative in creating the internet". He may have meant to say that he was instrumental in supporting it's creation (and given the background you provided that seems an entirely reasonable supposition) but what he actually said was that he created it which was a rather preposterous claim.
Actually if that is the reason for doing it then the hypocrisy has more to do with free trade and innovation than big government. The US keeps wanting to setup free trade agreements which export its IP laws "to protect US innovations" and (allegedly) promote free trade. At the same it is passing internal laws to exclude foreign competition and is so hell bent to do so it doesn't care if it damages some highly innovative US companies in the process. Mind you I'm not sure whether this is a case of double hypocrisy or just shooting yourself in the foot, twice.
Waaaaah! I want to shit up the world and I don't want to be held accountable!
Ah, now it becomes clear. I'm sorry your parents are not properly looking after you and letting you loose on the internet without adult supervision. When you grow up hopefully you'll become mature enough to realize that your parents can't be responsible for you for your entire life and that at some point you have to grow up and take responsibility for yourself.
Indeed even by the time you reach ten you'll probably be able figure out the massive logical hole in your argument that parents should be responsible for their kids for life which is simply that even your parents had parents. Hence, if we accept your argument the first humans to evolve would be responsible for the entire human race and everyone else can just sit back and relax and never have to worry about taking responsibility for anything ever again.
Given your logical reasoning skills I'd also suggest that you stop trying to tell people what they really believe or think, unless it is something like "wow, this person is nuts": you'll probably come across as telepathic if you tell them they are thinking that.
Do you really think it would be very hard to convince the public that it is inherently safer than other fission designs.
I expect that you can convince them that LFTR is safer than our current reactors but that is not the same as convincing them that it is safe enough to build. If you want to do that they best way to do it would be to sell them cheaper electricity. They are unlikely to be able to sensibly judge the risk but at least this way they see that they are benefiting from having a plant nearby.
However there is still the issue of nuclear waste. Both LFTR and fusion still generate it but the advantage of fusion is that it is a one-generation problem not a 10-100,000 year issue. The lighter nuclei activated by neutron radiation from fusion reactors have far shorter half lives than the heavy nuclear fragments left by thorium fission. LFTR might reduce the volume but not to zero and it will be with us for a VERY long time.
Patents in pharmacuticals work well.
No they don't work well. They encourage companies to only invest money in developing new drugs which are profitable for them. This means diseases which predominantly affect first world countries and which effect enough people to make it worth their while. They then hold us ransom by charging exorbitant prices for these drugs which, in same cases people need to survive. This is not a model which works: healthcare costs are sent spiralling upwards and new uses for old drugs, less common diseases and tropical diseases, like ebola, are all generally ignored. This is not a model which works in the best interests of society.
If you are not able to judge, and assess those risks, then you shouldn't be having kids.
In that case nobody should ever have kids. You have no idea exactly how they will turn out: in extreme cases they can even have Tourette's syndrome which might cause them involuntarily to insult someone. Should the parent of such a child be liable for that? They would not be if they themselves had the condition!
What your propose is frankly insane, grossly unfair and will result in society endlessly suing itself. You sue the parents of the teenager who had a car accident, who then sue the government for agreeing that their offspring was allowed to drive, who then ban teenagers driving and in turn get sued by teenagers who have to lose their jobs due to a lack of public transit etc. etc. Hmmm....you aren't a lawyer without kids are you by any chance?
A parent's responsibility to their kids is to bring them up to be able to know right from wrong, how to behave and to correct them when they misbehave. It is not our responsibility to prevent them from ever misbehaving, indeed you cannot control a human being to the extent that they commit no wrong nor should you even try. Liability is typically limited to what you can control: car manufacturers are not liable for every injury in a car accident because they ultimately failed to make a car which kept the occupants safe under conditions outside their control. The same should apply to parents and kids...unless you want all cars fitted with a speed limiter set to 20 km/h covered with metre thick padding inside and out.
If you are going to make me liable for something then I has to be something under my control. Short of tying my kids up in chains and never letting them do anything there is no way for me do absolutely guarantee that they will never do anything which causes liability. Not only would I refuse to do that it would be illegal and society does not want parents to do that: kids have to learn to control their own behaviour and that means giving them the freedom to do things wrong.
Parents have to be responsible but not necessarily liable. If we are taking reasonable measures to supervise our kids online including giving them guidance on how to behave as well as punishing them when they do not then I believe we have fulfilled our responsibility as parents and should not be held liable if one of them disobeys us and libels someone while we are not watching.
On the other hand if parents completely ignores their kids, provide no guidance or consequences then by all means find them negligent and hence liable through their act of negligence...but making parents automatically liable for their kids actions under all circumstances is unfair and encourages poor parenting since if means that you can't risk letting them fail. Indeed the only way to be sure would be to ban them from access the net: does society really want that?
No not over a 30A ring but the point you made was that it would melt the domestic feed of 100A which is not correct. However, assuming it was properly connected to the 100A input, it does not leave much spare capacity for anything else. So no cooking, heating or even putting on the kettle.
I had to pretty much demand a 100A and a leg main out to my garage) at 220V, that's 13KW or so at the meter...
Mean electrical power is voltage times current when using the RMS values for AC: 100A*220V = 22kW...sounds to me like you have enough power for 20kW.
There could be such a thing as a 100kW battery: it would be a battery which can provide a power of 100kW. Not all batteries can do this since they have an internal resistance which either prevents this power from being achieved or will cause them to overheat and explode/catch fire even if it is. Indeed, assuming that this battery can carry a decent amount of energy, it is very likely that you could make a 100kW battery from it since it charges so quickly it must have a very low internal resistance.
Ironically there is no such thing as a 100kW/hr battery though...
perhaps more properly, he and his company were great inventors
I think that this is probably the truth of it. Edison's "genius" was that he assembled a team of engineers and scientists to create the first company which relied on innovation. I doubt we will ever really know exactly how much Edison himself actually contributed to the inventions his company created but I suspect that it is probably quite a bit less than we think.
Look, the Nobel physics prize is not supposed to be given on the basis of "social impact" of the discovery.
Actually, and sadly, you are wrong and that is part of the reason why it may end up being replaced.
But he did improve the it enough to make it practical.
Actually even that is not true: Swan did it first, before Edison and some believe that Edison went as far to falsify evidence in the US court case to prevent him losing there. The sole reason that Edison is remembered is because he made a lot of money. Edison's contributions to light bulbs are like Bill Gates' contributions to Operating Systems: he marketed a popular early version of the invention.
Microsoft does have a lot of experience with the principles of quantum mechanics.
Joking aside I'd estimate it as about as much experience as the GP has with particle physics i.e. close to none. Particle physics is concerned with fundamental particles not with condensed matter states that might behave consistently with a theoretical prediction of how a Majorana fermion would behave. The fact that they dress this up as particle physics is rather sad: condensed matter physics is just as interesting!
This is why he's recognized. E=mc2 is minor. GR is the true genius part.
Einstein's Nobel prize was for the photo-electric effect and not for GR. Einstein could easily have received 4 Nobel prizes: for SR, GR, Photo-electric and his explanation of Brownian motion. This is why he is recognized as a genius, more so than those who actually have won multiple Nobels.