Yeah, and that $10/month for custom domain hosting from Google will really break the bank if you are a small business. That pegs the ROI on this device at 50 months if everything goes perfectly, and never needs to be upgraded, never has a support agreement, and never has any other costs whatsoever.
Until you plug it into a large ISP that registered their residential IP blocks with the various anti-spam lists just to make sure that you're buying their "business-class" (read: more expensive for exactly the same) service.
Unless this company is acting as a VPN endpoint or a mail relay with this thing, there are very large numbers of (residential) customers where this thing just won't work. And if they are acting as a VPN endpoint or a mail relay, this company has the option to read all your shit, as well as have you dependent on their survival for this thing to not be a $500 paperweight.
It's also that massive blocks of IPs that are handed out by residential ISPs are blacklisted by lots of SMTP servers to cut down on botnet spam. Unless they are also including a VPN service that it uses to get around that, this thing is a $500 email server that will have most of your email rejected by the intended recipient.
Or pay $5/mo to just host it somewhere and not have that problem. It's unlikely this device would have a 100 month warranty on it, and that this company would still be around 100 months from now (they would have to be for the VPN endpoint) anyway in order to see an ROI over standard private domain email hosting services.
Someone could combine a privilege escalation attack with this to persist a user that is an admin, without visibility. E.g. they would essentially be in the "Administrators" group without showing up in that group.
Yes, this is incredibly sensationalized for what it is. There are far bigger risks if some rogue process or actor has administrative privileges to begin with. Once you're owned, you are already owned.
The same technologies that reprocess nuclear waste are used to separate weapons grade plutonium from stuff that isn't weapons grade plutonium. The argument is that spreading this technology is tantamount to spreading nuclear weapons, as nuclear weapons aren't technically hard to create once you have the material; getting the material without anyone knowing is the hard bit.
The spread of nuclear weapons means that there are more weapons that need to be secured from non-state actors that would want to use them. Thus, indirectly, because terrorism!
It's left as an exercise for the reader to decide if it's all horseshit or not.
And there's no way that your 2002 whatever (funny that you posted anonymous and didn't include the make / model to back up your claim) might be an outlier to the average MPG of the in-use vehicle fleet?
Hint: average MPG of vehicles in use is
Also, your car probably got 55 MPG brand new, 16 years ago. Likely not to be the case today due to reduced efficiency of worn parts, etc. That's my unsubstantiated claim that counters your unsubstantiated claim.
The diesel generator is likely to be more efficient per unit of volume, due to being able to run the diesel engine at the optimum RPM for extracting the most energy from the fuel. Varying RPMs and running all the other crap that runs off a car's engine (power steering, air conditioning compressor, losses from gearbox, etc.) all represent energy being lost.
Suggested experimental reactor designs actually use molten salts as the coolant and do exactly what you suggest. The problem then becomes one of materials science and longevity of equipment - those same salts when combined with heat tend to corrode most materials that is used for piping them in and out of the reactor and heat exchanger unless they are made out of prohibitively expensive materials, or materials that haven't been invented yet. And you still need the heat exchanger to be made out of something that can withstand those salts and the corrosion they represent, at the same time as being thermally conductive in order to do it's job.
When I contract with an ISP, I am paying for a next-hop router and an IP address. It is very likely that will be local to my address, the same as electrical grid connection or local water and sewer.
The Federal Government doesn't prevent the State of Ohio from enacting regulations regarding those other utilities, why the hell is it one-size-fits-huge-corporations-and-everyone-else-is-screwed with this?
Yes, I am calling an ISP a utility provider, and they should be classified and treated as such.
And in order to get the crop yields necessary to support all that, we'd better increase the use of pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers. Because that doesn't present any problems at all!
Spy satellites and nuclear weapons have prevented global conflict since their adoption by the world's "superpowers" by making sure that sneak attack is not possible, and that any fully-involved shooting war would be unthinkable.
Neither coal, nor nuclear, are available "at the flick of a switch" - they both work by boiling a shitload of water that is circulating through a huge heat exchanger and coolant loop, so they take a bit to get going. Coal plants take a couple hours to perform a "hot-start" if they are already warm; if it's a cold start it can take over a day depending on the size of the facility.
Nuclear plants usually take a day to come back up as well, because of decay products in the fuel (xenon, for example) that need to decay into other things in order to not absorb too many neutrons and prevent the pile from going critical. If they could start them up faster, they would - most nuclear plants that are shut down cost something like $1M/day in lost revenue when they aren't generating electricity, but when you have that many neutron absorbers in the reactor, there's just not enough control rods to pull in order to achieve criticality. Then, there's heating all the water still. Also, by safety convention, they avoid making big fast swings in thermal load to protect the fuel element cladding - that part is kind of important too.
Natural Gas turbines come up in a matter of minutes, which is why they are the favorite for load following.
Maybe with those two independent seats you've got to put people in, you consider someone with experience running a manufacturing or logistics operation, which seem to be the two things Tesla really needs, and right now.
Maybe that person will have a friend that can act as a Chief Operating Officer, who also has manufacturing and / or logistics experience. Bonus points if they have experience in the automotive industry with actually making and delivering cars at volume.
3. Disposition and disposal of waste products. You vaguely dismiss this issue with some odd and completely unsubstantiated claims including a citation of NASA that has no backing or reference whatsoever. The reality is this: the United States has no commercial waste reprocessing facilities at all, and it would take massive infrastructure spend to get them, which won't happen until #1 is solved. It's a shame too, as upwards of 95% of "spent" fuel is actually still useable fuel, mixed with neutron-absorbing waste that prevents reaction. However, any reprocessing activity is using essentially the same techniques as extraction of weapons materials, so it must be closely monitored and has been banned in the US due to "leadership by example" in the very noble efforts to prevent nuclear weapons proliferation. In addition, even though Federal law requires it under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, the US Government has not been able to provide a repository for the nuclear waste from commercial reactors due to intractable political concerns (See: problem #1). Therefore any new reactors we cannot build today (again, #1) will necessarily also be places to store and secure highly radioactive material (causing part of problem #2), substantially adding to both construction costs, operational expense (leading to the corner-cutting in problem #2), and political ill-will (yet again, #1).
4. Decommissioning of aging, obsolete, and borderline-dangerous designs. The United States has 100 or so commercial reactors running right now, producing ~20% of the energy on the grid. Many of those are 1950s and 60s designs, built in the 1960s and 70s, license-uprated in the 1980s, and license-extended in the 2000s because we're not replacing them, and can't afford to do without them. These aging reactors are running longer, and harder than they were originally designed to, and they won't last forever; the longer they operate the more chance there is of failure. Plus, they still have to store all the spent fuel on-site for the extended operation due to license extension (contributing to problem #3). It would be great to replace them with something much better designed and more efficient, but it's hard to put any trust in the current designs when the nuclear industry has such a history replete with lies and exaggerations about safety, costs, and operational lifespan (problem #2). Oh, and there's still problem #1 preventing any construction of replacement infrastructure.
Fix those completely insurmountable issues (get the public to change their collective mind all of a sudden, cause the commercial nuclear industry and the US Government to start being responsible actors all of a sudden, and then wish into existence hundreds of billions of dollars of reprocessing infrastructure and waste internment sites) and I guess we're good to go?
If we could make different font sizes on Slashdot comments, I would use the absolute largest size available for a
[Citation Needed]
for your figures that you have pulled directly from your transverse colon. Fossil fuel subsidies per annum are 2x the world's total GDP? How does that math work, exactly?
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, and that $10/month for custom domain hosting from Google will really break the bank if you are a small business. That pegs the ROI on this device at 50 months if everything goes perfectly, and never needs to be upgraded, never has a support agreement, and never has any other costs whatsoever.
Not very good.
Until you plug it into a large ISP that registered their residential IP blocks with the various anti-spam lists just to make sure that you're buying their "business-class" (read: more expensive for exactly the same) service.
Unless this company is acting as a VPN endpoint or a mail relay with this thing, there are very large numbers of (residential) customers where this thing just won't work. And if they are acting as a VPN endpoint or a mail relay, this company has the option to read all your shit, as well as have you dependent on their survival for this thing to not be a $500 paperweight.
No thanks.
It's also that massive blocks of IPs that are handed out by residential ISPs are blacklisted by lots of SMTP servers to cut down on botnet spam. Unless they are also including a VPN service that it uses to get around that, this thing is a $500 email server that will have most of your email rejected by the intended recipient.
Or pay $5/mo to just host it somewhere and not have that problem. It's unlikely this device would have a 100 month warranty on it, and that this company would still be around 100 months from now (they would have to be for the VPN endpoint) anyway in order to see an ROI over standard private domain email hosting services.
It could be thought of as a very slight issue.
Someone could combine a privilege escalation attack with this to persist a user that is an admin, without visibility. E.g. they would essentially be in the "Administrators" group without showing up in that group.
Yes, this is incredibly sensationalized for what it is. There are far bigger risks if some rogue process or actor has administrative privileges to begin with. Once you're owned, you are already owned.
It's not terrorism. Not directly.
The same technologies that reprocess nuclear waste are used to separate weapons grade plutonium from stuff that isn't weapons grade plutonium. The argument is that spreading this technology is tantamount to spreading nuclear weapons, as nuclear weapons aren't technically hard to create once you have the material; getting the material without anyone knowing is the hard bit.
The spread of nuclear weapons means that there are more weapons that need to be secured from non-state actors that would want to use them. Thus, indirectly, because terrorism!
It's left as an exercise for the reader to decide if it's all horseshit or not.
And there's no way that your 2002 whatever (funny that you posted anonymous and didn't include the make / model to back up your claim) might be an outlier to the average MPG of the in-use vehicle fleet?
Hint: average MPG of vehicles in use is
Also, your car probably got 55 MPG brand new, 16 years ago. Likely not to be the case today due to reduced efficiency of worn parts, etc. That's my unsubstantiated claim that counters your unsubstantiated claim.
The diesel generator is likely to be more efficient per unit of volume, due to being able to run the diesel engine at the optimum RPM for extracting the most energy from the fuel. Varying RPMs and running all the other crap that runs off a car's engine (power steering, air conditioning compressor, losses from gearbox, etc.) all represent energy being lost.
You just inferred that all electric cars use dirty energy to recharge, which is not the case.
What a fun game, putting words in other people's mouths!
The difference is that Elon Musk has a company that actually has put something into orbit, so he at least has the ability to talk.
Blue Origin has yet to even make one orbital flight, at all.
Suggested experimental reactor designs actually use molten salts as the coolant and do exactly what you suggest. The problem then becomes one of materials science and longevity of equipment - those same salts when combined with heat tend to corrode most materials that is used for piping them in and out of the reactor and heat exchanger unless they are made out of prohibitively expensive materials, or materials that haven't been invented yet. And you still need the heat exchanger to be made out of something that can withstand those salts and the corrosion they represent, at the same time as being thermally conductive in order to do it's job.
When I contract with an ISP, I am paying for a next-hop router and an IP address. It is very likely that will be local to my address, the same as electrical grid connection or local water and sewer.
The Federal Government doesn't prevent the State of Ohio from enacting regulations regarding those other utilities, why the hell is it one-size-fits-huge-corporations-and-everyone-else-is-screwed with this?
Yes, I am calling an ISP a utility provider, and they should be classified and treated as such.
And in order to get the crop yields necessary to support all that, we'd better increase the use of pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers. Because that doesn't present any problems at all!
Bacon.
Next question!
What's the injury rate on staying attached to a failing booster that is falling out of the sky from a staging failure, or exploding on the pad?
I'm guessing it's far higher than the injury rate and severity from an abort scenario.
What the fuck does a solar energy / electric vehicle company have to do with military orbital booster development contracts?
Spy satellites and nuclear weapons have prevented global conflict since their adoption by the world's "superpowers" by making sure that sneak attack is not possible, and that any fully-involved shooting war would be unthinkable.
Your hopes are reality.
Neither coal, nor nuclear, are available "at the flick of a switch" - they both work by boiling a shitload of water that is circulating through a huge heat exchanger and coolant loop, so they take a bit to get going. Coal plants take a couple hours to perform a "hot-start" if they are already warm; if it's a cold start it can take over a day depending on the size of the facility.
Nuclear plants usually take a day to come back up as well, because of decay products in the fuel (xenon, for example) that need to decay into other things in order to not absorb too many neutrons and prevent the pile from going critical. If they could start them up faster, they would - most nuclear plants that are shut down cost something like $1M/day in lost revenue when they aren't generating electricity, but when you have that many neutron absorbers in the reactor, there's just not enough control rods to pull in order to achieve criticality. Then, there's heating all the water still. Also, by safety convention, they avoid making big fast swings in thermal load to protect the fuel element cladding - that part is kind of important too.
Natural Gas turbines come up in a matter of minutes, which is why they are the favorite for load following.
Maybe with those two independent seats you've got to put people in, you consider someone with experience running a manufacturing or logistics operation, which seem to be the two things Tesla really needs, and right now.
Maybe that person will have a friend that can act as a Chief Operating Officer, who also has manufacturing and / or logistics experience. Bonus points if they have experience in the automotive industry with actually making and delivering cars at volume.
Just a thought.
I'm pro-nuclear, as long as it's done correctly. The problem is, overall, nuclear is not done correctly.
The only way that nuclear will ever work is if the following problems are solved:
1. Construction and adoption headwinds and legal challenges. Good luck with that.
2. Massively improved oversight and management that positively disallows the kind of corner cutting and reactive-rather-than-proactive safety issues we've seen in the current history of nuclear power. And I'm not just talking about Fukushima - there's plenty of minor issues to point to with aging nuclear plants. Just for one example, as I can actually cite sources unlike your post: Vermont Yankee having a cooling tower collapse from corroded bolts and rotted lumber, as well as several groundwater tritium leaks that went on for months with denial of any contaminated or leaking pipes. Things like this only reinforce public sentiment against nuclear power (problem #1), and work against the nuclear industry's long-term viability in favor of short-term stop-loss corporate horseshit.
3. Disposition and disposal of waste products. You vaguely dismiss this issue with some odd and completely unsubstantiated claims including a citation of NASA that has no backing or reference whatsoever. The reality is this: the United States has no commercial waste reprocessing facilities at all, and it would take massive infrastructure spend to get them, which won't happen until #1 is solved. It's a shame too, as upwards of 95% of "spent" fuel is actually still useable fuel, mixed with neutron-absorbing waste that prevents reaction. However, any reprocessing activity is using essentially the same techniques as extraction of weapons materials, so it must be closely monitored and has been banned in the US due to "leadership by example" in the very noble efforts to prevent nuclear weapons proliferation. In addition, even though Federal law requires it under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, the US Government has not been able to provide a repository for the nuclear waste from commercial reactors due to intractable political concerns (See: problem #1). Therefore any new reactors we cannot build today (again, #1) will necessarily also be places to store and secure highly radioactive material (causing part of problem #2), substantially adding to both construction costs, operational expense (leading to the corner-cutting in problem #2), and political ill-will (yet again, #1).
4. Decommissioning of aging, obsolete, and borderline-dangerous designs. The United States has 100 or so commercial reactors running right now, producing ~20% of the energy on the grid. Many of those are 1950s and 60s designs, built in the 1960s and 70s, license-uprated in the 1980s, and license-extended in the 2000s because we're not replacing them, and can't afford to do without them. These aging reactors are running longer, and harder than they were originally designed to, and they won't last forever; the longer they operate the more chance there is of failure. Plus, they still have to store all the spent fuel on-site for the extended operation due to license extension (contributing to problem #3). It would be great to replace them with something much better designed and more efficient, but it's hard to put any trust in the current designs when the nuclear industry has such a history replete with lies and exaggerations about safety, costs, and operational lifespan (problem #2). Oh, and there's still problem #1 preventing any construction of replacement infrastructure.
Fix those completely insurmountable issues (get the public to change their collective mind all of a sudden, cause the commercial nuclear industry and the US Government to start being responsible actors all of a sudden, and then wish into existence hundreds of billions of dollars of reprocessing infrastructure and waste internment sites) and I guess we're good to go?
If we could make different font sizes on Slashdot comments, I would use the absolute largest size available for a
[Citation Needed]
for your figures that you have pulled directly from your transverse colon. Fossil fuel subsidies per annum are 2x the world's total GDP? How does that math work, exactly?
Sure, but the "if it isn't perfect we shouldn't do it at all" crowd around here will argue and obstruct every step of the way.
Oh, well as long as someone else is worse, then you're doing just fine.
Is that really the tack you want to take?
Hard to be smug when the best argument you have is a race to the bottom.
So clearly because your small circle of acquaintances aren't in the market, that means nobody in the 330 million US citizens is?
Something about extrapolating statistics from meaningless sample sizes [here].
Model 3 allows you to push the left stalk forward and get high beams, just like any other car
Model 3 allows you to pull the left stalk forward for flash-to-pass momentary high beams, just like any other car
Model 3 has a button on the left stalk to activate the windshield wipers.
What were you complaining about again?
Yeah good plan, because it always goes better when they try to cover it up and instead get hauled in front of Congress, testifying under oath.
What does that do to the stock price?