Posting this from a 5 year old iMac that runs everything I need just fine, including El Capitan and the Windows 10 VM I just installed. Of course, I upgraded the RAM, which is damn near impossible to do on a new model. Now that is sad.
Yes, but the trans-Atlantic flights were pretty profitable. Makes sense to start there, then develop trans-Pacific routes. Although range is an issue, the Concorde's max was 4500 miles. San Francisco to Tokyo is 5100 miles, so you might be looking at a refueling stop, which could eliminate any time saved by traveling Mach 2.
Yes but with the external GPU doing the heavy lifting, there should be less heat being generated inside the laptop, and less throttling of the CPU. In theory. But I fear you're probably right. The article certainly doesn't address that issue.
"There was a significant cash flow that went from the football program to the academic side"
You sure? I work at a large Div 1 school too. Football makes money, but it subsidizes the rest of the athletic programs. And athletics still comes up short, some tuition money--sorry, "student fees"--goes to cover the shortfall. I'd imagine a top 10 program might make enough to cover the whole of athletics and kick some money into the general kitty, but most don't.
Now one can argue that a winning program helps with recruiting students and keeping alumni connected, so it's worth the investment, but that's another topic.
Thanks for the shout out. But you're thinking of U of Oregon. Oregon State has fielded a few decent football teams this millennium, but Oregon is the spiffily-uniformed team that's dominated the PAC12. Now if you want to talk baseball....Go Beavs!
Yes, which is why we need regulation for business and transparency for government. Neither party is particularly great at this, but one is openly opposed.
hardly a deterrent. Maybe $10,000 per foreign worker. Hey, if they're truly irreplaceable, that's not a big nut. Of course, if they're truly irreplaceable, by definition the American worker they're replacing can't train them to do the job.
Sorry the DNA comment hurt your feelings. Of course that's a generalization, people buy pickups for a myriad of reasons. As for handwaving my comments away as "petty", whatever.
Thanks for making my argument for me: There are those who need pickups for their work. Yep. And if they're independent contractors, they're traveling to job sites all over the place, sometimes an hour or two away. Which gets scarily close to the range limit of current EVs.
There are those who use primarily for recreation, sporting activities Yep. And often it's a two or three hour drive to the lake or trailhead. Next.
There are those (like me) who have an old pickup but its not the primary driver And they're not going to pay the electric premium for a vehicle that only gets driven a few times a month. The payback in fuel and maintenance savings will be several decades.
There are those who are simply truck enthusiasts Sure. And they've been clamoring for an electric pickup. Really?
There are some who found a small pickup to be more economical than a car Yes, and they all lived in the '80s. The Toyota Tacoma starts at 23 grand and gets 24 mpg highway. There's a crapload of new cars that are more economical.
Look, I'm not on an anti-pickup jihad, but the assumption that because Americans buy a lot of pickups Tesla needs to build one doesn't stand up. I'm sure there's a market for an electric pickup, but I don't think it's big enough to be worth chasing at this point.
I agree, the writer just made an assumption that "truck" = "pickup". Pickup buyers are not going to go electric, it's not in their DNA. At least not in the near future. But electric delivery trucks would make a ton of sense. Limited range shouldn't be an issue, and the reduced fuel and maintenance costs would offset the upfront expense. Even the time saved from not refueling would add up.
A turbo V6 can easily hit 300-400 hp, and any modern mill will be mostly aluminum. I suppose the tranny might be a bit heavier to deal with that power, but metallurgy has advanced a bit in the last 30 years, so probably won't be a significant increase.
Yes, it's weak methodology, but better than nothing. And if there was an impact from marijuana use, you'd expect there to be some indication, even though the methodology would make it difficult to quantify how extensive it is. The fact that they found no significant variance in scores indicates that's because there is no effect....or the vast majority of the 1588 participants lied about their drug-use, for no reason.
I just can't get past the Metro look. Maybe it's just me, but when I look at the screen all I see is squares, I have to examine each one to see what app it corresponds to. If I were colorblind, it would be even worse. With iOS or Android, I can glance at a screen full of icons and instantly find what I'm looking for, because the icons are much more distinct from each other. I find it very hard to believe MS did any usability testing and concluded they were giving users what they want.
I don't see why you wouldn't want long loiter times and high fuel efficiency in a border-patrol drone. That said, I agree a Reaper is overkill. 300 mph, 1100 mile range, $17,000,000 each.
Seventeen. Million. Dollars. That. Is. Insane. There are companies producing large civilian drones that cost orders of magnitude less.
A drone should cost much less than a piloted aircraft. Since it doesn't have to carry a pilot, in can be much smaller and lighter. Fuel permitting, it can stay aloft longer, as you can easily swap pilots without paying for a co-pilot. Part of what wrecked the light aircraft industry in the US was liability issues. Since drones don't carry humans, it's not a concern. Drones are a good tool for the job, but the Reaper is not the right drone.
Heh, if the left lane's clear and someone's tailgating me, I just take my foot off the gas. I've dropped from 60 down to 40 sometimes before the tailgater gets the hint and passes me. I guess moving over to that other lane is just too damn hard.
From TFA: "What the public didn’t know was that Midgley had recently spent six weeks in Florida, golfing in the sunshine in an attempt to clear his own lungs of lead particles."
I can't tell you what Midgely believed, but lying by omission is still deception, and he was not forthcoming about his own health issues due to lead. You don't have to be getting rich to have a financial incentive. I'm not getting rich, but I have a financial incentive to show up to work.
Really, I don't remember it being big in the culture at the time. No one I knew talked about it, and all that came later, in the eighties. one I knew talked about it, and all that came later, in the eighties.
It may not have been a big deal to you, but it was a big deal. The theater that showed it in my town had huge lines for weeks. It was the biggest grossing movie of the year. Until ET was released in 1982, it was the highest grossing film of all time.
...he was indeed lying for financial gain, because he was suffering from lead poison and was quite aware of it. What he honestly believed is impossible for us to know, but if honestly believed lead was harmless he was deliberately ignoring evidence to the contrary. The fact that some scientists mislead others (and perhaps themselves) out of love for money or their pet theories, doesn't mean all scientists behave the same way.
C-130 stalls at 100 mph, the B52 at about 150. Not ideal for lingering over the battlefield. Plus lingering means "target", in the B52's case "very big, very expensive target". Plus its turning radius must be huge, combined with the higher speed you couldn't keep it targeted on a small piece of real estate. Just not the right tool for the job.
Friend of mine just dumped Comcast and bought an Apple TV. I helped him get it set up. Netflix? No problem. Just about everything else...you have to subscribe to over cable to get permission to watch via stream. It's a stupid, outdated model, but content providers will have to be dragged kicking and screaming into our brave new streaming world. HBO seems to get it, but the price is a bit high IMHO.
Slashdot Mirror
Posting this from a 5 year old iMac that runs everything I need just fine, including El Capitan and the Windows 10 VM I just installed. Of course, I upgraded the RAM, which is damn near impossible to do on a new model. Now that is sad.
Yes, but the trans-Atlantic flights were pretty profitable. Makes sense to start there, then develop trans-Pacific routes. Although range is an issue, the Concorde's max was 4500 miles. San Francisco to Tokyo is 5100 miles, so you might be looking at a refueling stop, which could eliminate any time saved by traveling Mach 2.
Yes but with the external GPU doing the heavy lifting, there should be less heat being generated inside the laptop, and less throttling of the CPU. In theory. But I fear you're probably right. The article certainly doesn't address that issue.
"There was a significant cash flow that went from the football program to the academic side"
You sure? I work at a large Div 1 school too. Football makes money, but it subsidizes the rest of the athletic programs. And athletics still comes up short, some tuition money--sorry, "student fees"--goes to cover the shortfall. I'd imagine a top 10 program might make enough to cover the whole of athletics and kick some money into the general kitty, but most don't.
Now one can argue that a winning program helps with recruiting students and keeping alumni connected, so it's worth the investment, but that's another topic.
Thanks for the shout out. But you're thinking of U of Oregon. Oregon State has fielded a few decent football teams this millennium, but Oregon is the spiffily-uniformed team that's dominated the PAC12. Now if you want to talk baseball....Go Beavs!
Yes, which is why we need regulation for business and transparency for government. Neither party is particularly great at this, but one is openly opposed.
hardly a deterrent. Maybe $10,000 per foreign worker. Hey, if they're truly irreplaceable, that's not a big nut. Of course, if they're truly irreplaceable, by definition the American worker they're replacing can't train them to do the job.
Sorry the DNA comment hurt your feelings. Of course that's a generalization, people buy pickups for a myriad of reasons. As for handwaving my comments away as "petty", whatever.
Thanks for making my argument for me:
There are those who need pickups for their work. Yep. And if they're independent contractors, they're traveling to job sites all over the place, sometimes an hour or two away. Which gets scarily close to the range limit of current EVs.
There are those who use primarily for recreation, sporting activities Yep. And often it's a two or three hour drive to the lake or trailhead. Next.
There are those (like me) who have an old pickup but its not the primary driver And they're not going to pay the electric premium for a vehicle that only gets driven a few times a month. The payback in fuel and maintenance savings will be several decades.
There are those who are simply truck enthusiasts Sure. And they've been clamoring for an electric pickup. Really?
There are some who found a small pickup to be more economical than a car Yes, and they all lived in the '80s. The Toyota Tacoma starts at 23 grand and gets 24 mpg highway. There's a crapload of new cars that are more economical.
Look, I'm not on an anti-pickup jihad, but the assumption that because Americans buy a lot of pickups Tesla needs to build one doesn't stand up. I'm sure there's a market for an electric pickup, but I don't think it's big enough to be worth chasing at this point.
I would reply that the buyer you know is not buying the majority of the US pickup fleet. Nice anecdote, and thank you for playing.
I agree, the writer just made an assumption that "truck" = "pickup". Pickup buyers are not going to go electric, it's not in their DNA. At least not in the near future. But electric delivery trucks would make a ton of sense. Limited range shouldn't be an issue, and the reduced fuel and maintenance costs would offset the upfront expense. Even the time saved from not refueling would add up.
A turbo V6 can easily hit 300-400 hp, and any modern mill will be mostly aluminum. I suppose the tranny might be a bit heavier to deal with that power, but metallurgy has advanced a bit in the last 30 years, so probably won't be a significant increase.
Yes, it's weak methodology, but better than nothing. And if there was an impact from marijuana use, you'd expect there to be some indication, even though the methodology would make it difficult to quantify how extensive it is. The fact that they found no significant variance in scores indicates that's because there is no effect....or the vast majority of the 1588 participants lied about their drug-use, for no reason.
I just can't get past the Metro look. Maybe it's just me, but when I look at the screen all I see is squares, I have to examine each one to see what app it corresponds to. If I were colorblind, it would be even worse. With iOS or Android, I can glance at a screen full of icons and instantly find what I'm looking for, because the icons are much more distinct from each other. I find it very hard to believe MS did any usability testing and concluded they were giving users what they want.
....Top. Men.
I don't see why you wouldn't want long loiter times and high fuel efficiency in a border-patrol drone. That said, I agree a Reaper is overkill. 300 mph, 1100 mile range, $17,000,000 each.
Seventeen. Million. Dollars. That. Is. Insane. There are companies producing large civilian drones that cost orders of magnitude less.
A drone should cost much less than a piloted aircraft. Since it doesn't have to carry a pilot, in can be much smaller and lighter. Fuel permitting, it can stay aloft longer, as you can easily swap pilots without paying for a co-pilot. Part of what wrecked the light aircraft industry in the US was liability issues. Since drones don't carry humans, it's not a concern. Drones are a good tool for the job, but the Reaper is not the right drone.
"Sulfur batteries can also supposedly be made 30 percent smaller than traditional lithium-ion cells while maintaining the same run times
If the headline is true, ie 40% more capacity, isn't "smaller batteries can maintain the same run time" pretty much a given?
Heh, if the left lane's clear and someone's tailgating me, I just take my foot off the gas. I've dropped from 60 down to 40 sometimes before the tailgater gets the hint and passes me. I guess moving over to that other lane is just too damn hard.
From TFA: "What the public didn’t know was that Midgley had recently spent six weeks in Florida, golfing in the sunshine in an attempt to clear his own lungs of lead particles."
I can't tell you what Midgely believed, but lying by omission is still deception, and he was not forthcoming about his own health issues due to lead. You don't have to be getting rich to have a financial incentive. I'm not getting rich, but I have a financial incentive to show up to work.
Really, I don't remember it being big in the culture at the time. No one I knew talked about it, and all that came later, in the eighties. one I knew talked about it, and all that came later, in the eighties.
It may not have been a big deal to you, but it was a big deal. The theater that showed it in my town had huge lines for weeks. It was the biggest grossing movie of the year. Until ET was released in 1982, it was the highest grossing film of all time.
...you need more range time.
...he was indeed lying for financial gain, because he was suffering from lead poison and was quite aware of it. What he honestly believed is impossible for us to know, but if honestly believed lead was harmless he was deliberately ignoring evidence to the contrary. The fact that some scientists mislead others (and perhaps themselves) out of love for money or their pet theories, doesn't mean all scientists behave the same way.
C-130 stalls at 100 mph, the B52 at about 150. Not ideal for lingering over the battlefield. Plus lingering means "target", in the B52's case "very big, very expensive target". Plus its turning radius must be huge, combined with the higher speed you couldn't keep it targeted on a small piece of real estate. Just not the right tool for the job.
If it's graham cracker crust, I call dibs!
Friend of mine just dumped Comcast and bought an Apple TV. I helped him get it set up. Netflix? No problem. Just about everything else...you have to subscribe to over cable to get permission to watch via stream. It's a stupid, outdated model, but content providers will have to be dragged kicking and screaming into our brave new streaming world. HBO seems to get it, but the price is a bit high IMHO.