Perhaps it is true that "plenty of scientists take the idea seriously" - but the summary links to a book commissioned by the International Space Elevator Consortium.
Well to be fair, it says: This study was conducted under the auspices of the International Academy of Astronautics (IAA) and benefited from review and comments by numerous members of the Academy, as well as the International Space Elevator Consortium.
Not to mention the electricity for the Tesla (tada!) isn't free. 24 cents per mile.
Nice try. They measured a drag race up to 111 miles per hour.
Actual representative cost per mile is available here and note that the cost per mile column is in CENTS, not dollars. (That chart largely agrees with Tesla's calculator on their official site.
Its a lot closer to 2.14 cents per mile in my state. Even in California, where your cherry was picked from the real cost is 3.82 cents per mile.
Any modern house wired for the possibility of an electric clothes dryer and/or electric range/oven is going to have 200amp service. Even if you have a gas water heater. 200amp service (minimum) has been pretty much standard for well over 30 years in most areas of North America.
(Houses build in the boom just after WWII, maybe not so much)
And yes, you would want to pay a contractor, specifically a licensed electrician, because if something goes wrong your insurance won't pay. I've installed many a circuit as just a home owner, but something this big is not the place for Joe Handyman.
And if you think you see a rational reason why DARPA should be involved you would be further misled:
Just how this work fits in to DARPA’s broader mission to create breakthrough technologies for national security is rather obscure. But a better understanding of the similarities and differences between cultures is surely in everyone’s interests.
You can't merge Coast Guard and Navy. The Constitution prohibits use of armed forces in policing the civilian population. That's why they're separate in the first place...
The Coast Guard is still a Civilian Police force, in the Department of Homeland Security.
They have port guarding duties and expertise in American Ports. Some units are transferred to the Navy in times of war or major conflict, and during those times they are part of the Navy, and no longer authorized to make arrests on American soil.
Because they spend a great deal of time on fishery patrols, territorial limit enforcement, and marine safety and law enforcement they are not likely to be merged with the Navy American waters (Although they were in WWII).
"Police are armed, but that doesn't make them "armed forces""
Given that any police force today would comprehensively outgun any armed forces around in the 18th century when the US constituation was written, the point is simply semantics and rather moot.
Given that the average group of avid shooters at any shooting range on any given Saturday could have pushed Gen. Charles Cornwallis's force into the sea during the revolution, the point is both real and pertinent. Times Change.
Police are armed to deal with the level of arms held by civilians at any given point in history. Armed forces are armed to deal with other countries and face other armies.
The Army and Air Force need to be merged and the Navy, Coast Guard, and Marines need to be merged.
What planet do you live on that there's any significant overlap between the Army and the Air Force?
I live just down the road a piece from Joint Base Lewis McChord. Army Base and Airforce base under one command structure. It use to be Fort Lewis and McChord Airforce Base. Now it is run as one.
In fact it might be useful for you to look up the term "Joint Base" in google, or visit the Wiki Page. Strict division of duties is old school thinking.
The air force does not like to provide air to ground combat support for the Army, (they would love to get rid of all the Warthogs), and they really don't like flying cargo or troops around, but what The Air Force fears most of all is that the Army might actually get a fixed wing aircraft bigger than a piper cub.
Despite all these challenges, a full seventy-six hours after leaving Los Angeles, the team rolled into New York City. The total trip was 3,427 miles and the team only spent 15 hours and 57 minutes tied to a charger.
So lets do the math: 76(Total time) - 16(charge time) = 60 hours drive time. 60h drive time is 4.75 greater than 16h charge time.
So somewhere your math went off the rails.
Of course most people sleep. So they can charge at home or on the road at a slower rate without inconveniencing themselves.
You know, its priced at 89K, but that does not indicate its cost, so your analysis is at best flawed, and that's being generous.
Some things are priced simply to get what the market will bear. Other things are priced to hold down demand, because they have only managed to build 30,000 of them, and they believe quality is more important than quantity. Some things are priced to pay back the investment, so that they can expand and add new production capacity and build battery plants. Somethings are priced high so that the labor can be paid a good wage.
But very few things (other than commodities) are priced based on the cost of raw materials that went into them.
Next time you go shopping, wander into a jewelry story and look at a Rolex (any Rolex) and compare it to a similar sized watch. Then come back and tell us how price is a good indication of resources consumed.
Or you could spend three times that on a Bentley and have a reupholstered Volkswagen Phaeton that delivers all the mileage of a 1980s pickup truck (and is also less reliable).
Over priced as the Model S is, that price is going no where but down, and range is going to go up.
The Consumer Reports article plus solid financial news and analyst forecasts for Tesla today and widely circulating speculation about their planned Gigafactory to be announced in a couple weeks with an aim of cutting battery costs by at least 50%, all lead to a surge in the stock today (2/25).
Even the confirmation that the Model X would indeed not surface until 2015 seemed to have no effect.
The stock was up as high as 17%, and closed up just under 14% (+$30 on the day to $248). With Morgan Stanley estimating a $320 price there is probably significant growth left, It seems they will have no problem funding that 5 to 7 Billion dollar battery plant. The "giga" refers to Tesla's need to build the equivalent of all of the world’s current production of lithium ion batteries under one factory roof. May be time to invest in on Lithium stocks as well.
Of course, the next drunk that crashes his car and lives to watch it burn will provide a stock dip, but that just sounds like importunity knocking.
Still, I predict Haters going to Hate. They should be arriving in about 3 seconds.....
However general legislation against using digital devices can be done right. The issue we start to run into is things like do touch screens built into the dashboard count or windscreen HUDs like what BMW has in the works.
I have a touch screen built into my dashboard, and I consider it amazingly distracting and dangerous. Luckily I can voice command my car to do pretty much what ever I can do on the touch screen. I really don't like doing anything on the touch screen while driving. I'm not aware of any statistics on the danger of in-dash touch screens, but I just know manipulating it distracts me personally.
However I also hate that it locks out entering of addresses for the Nav function while you are moving and both front seats are in use. You would think they would put a button on the passenger door that would unlock data entry on the screen for a few minutes. As it is, we installed a LockPick to enable passenger data entry when we travel.
I doubt Google Glass will be as distracting, as long as it has a built in driving mode, which would allow you to use the navigation system, and perhaps the camera, but not much else, specifically not reading email and web browsing etc. At least HUDs and Glass keep your eyes on the road so you don't slam into the guy ahead.
We are trending perilously close to throwing out the baby with the bathwater with some of these knee jerk legislative attempts to ban technology before it really arrives.
I would rather the campus be located away from urban area. Less traffic, less driving, cheap/free parking, cheaper food, less chance of crime happening to me or my properly while at or traveling to work and for most people closer to home. This is double so if locally aimed marketing and walk in customers are not very frequent.
Plus, the instant Google tried to build in blighted districts NYC would shut them down, not allow parking garages, refuse to provide garbage service complain because they used up all the seats on the buses and subways.
The same gentrification (black racism) marches would take place, and zoning would quickly prevent building any new housing.
Slashdot Mirror
And thus another duplicate ID is outed.
Well you might also remember that Clark predicted FTL drive in your rush to find a pedestal tall enough.
And maybe you should actually READ the study before dismissing it because it has too many big words.?
Oh, wait, this is Slashdot, we don't do that, do we.
Yeah, a whole 10 bucks for the Kindle version.
Perhaps it is true that "plenty of scientists take the idea seriously" - but the summary links to a book commissioned by the International Space Elevator Consortium.
Well to be fair, it says:
This study was conducted under the auspices of the International Academy of Astronautics (IAA) and benefited from review and comments by numerous members of the Academy, as well as the International Space Elevator Consortium.
I've never heard of this IAA, but the wiki page says they have been around since 1960:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...
Or, just read the linked report by a team of ACTUAL scientists instead of a SCIENCE FICTION story written 35 years ago.
Not to mention the electricity for the Tesla (tada!) isn't free.
24 cents per mile.
Nice try. They measured a drag race up to 111 miles per hour.
Actual representative cost per mile is available here and note that the cost per mile column is in CENTS, not dollars. (That chart largely agrees with Tesla's calculator on their official site.
Its a lot closer to 2.14 cents per mile in my state.
Even in California, where your cherry was picked from the real cost is 3.82 cents per mile.
Any modern house wired for the possibility of an electric clothes dryer and/or electric range/oven is going to have 200amp service.
Even if you have a gas water heater. 200amp service (minimum) has been pretty much standard for well over 30 years in most areas of North America.
(Houses build in the boom just after WWII, maybe not so much)
And yes, you would want to pay a contractor, specifically a licensed electrician, because if something goes wrong your insurance won't pay.
I've installed many a circuit as just a home owner, but something this big is not the place for Joe Handyman.
I opposed it because marriage is none of the Federal government's f*ing business.
This is where you are wrong and where everyone who keeps parroting this dumb line is conpletely wrong..
Marriage is irrespective of religion.
And this is where you jump to conclusions.
Nobody said anything about religion.
Perhaps you should reacquaint your self with the law of the land.
And if you think you see a rational reason why DARPA should be involved you would be further misled:
Just how this work fits in to DARPA’s broader mission to create breakthrough technologies for national security is rather obscure. But a better understanding of the similarities and differences between cultures is surely in everyone’s interests.
Maybe the Borg is closer than we think!
You can't merge Coast Guard and Navy. The Constitution prohibits use of armed forces in policing the civilian population. That's why they're separate in the first place...
But coastguard ships have cannons
What they have is not the point. What they do is.
The Coast Guard is still a Civilian Police force, in the Department of Homeland Security.
They have port guarding duties and expertise in American Ports. Some units are transferred to the Navy in times of war or major conflict, and during those times they are part of the Navy, and no longer authorized to make arrests on American soil.
Because they spend a great deal of time on fishery patrols, territorial limit enforcement, and marine safety and law enforcement they are not likely to be merged with the Navy American waters (Although they were in WWII).
"Police are armed, but that doesn't make them "armed forces""
Given that any police force today would comprehensively outgun any armed forces around in the 18th century when the US constituation was written, the point is simply semantics and rather moot.
Given that the average group of avid shooters at any shooting range on any given Saturday could have pushed Gen. Charles Cornwallis's force into the sea during the revolution, the point is both real and pertinent. Times Change.
Police are armed to deal with the level of arms held by civilians at any given point in history.
Armed forces are armed to deal with other countries and face other armies.
What planet do you live on that there's any significant overlap between the Army and the Air Force?
I live just down the road a piece from Joint Base Lewis McChord. Army Base and Airforce base under one
command structure. It use to be Fort Lewis and McChord Airforce Base. Now it is run as one.
In fact it might be useful for you to look up the term "Joint Base" in google, or visit the Wiki Page.
Strict division of duties is old school thinking.
The air force does not like to provide air to ground combat support for the Army, (they would love to get rid of all the Warthogs), and they really don't like flying cargo or troops around, but what The Air Force fears most of all is that the Army might actually get a fixed wing aircraft bigger than a piper cub.
So $89,000 car Minus 70,000 for your gas bill, leaves you enough money to buy and drive a $19,000 dollar for 800K miles?
I'm afraid I'll have to bow out. I'm not spending that much time in a $19,000 car. No thank you.
My typical powerstation is horrible at converting fossil fuels to electricity.
Now rain water, that it converts very well.
I save my best proof reading for those who pay me. But you're welcome.
expanding that to best vehicle is beyond absurd.
Not half as absurd as your examples.
vehicle that can drive, at most, 4 hours and then needs to recharge for 5 hours??
Quote:
Despite all these challenges, a full seventy-six hours after leaving Los Angeles, the team rolled into New York City. The total trip was 3,427 miles and the team only spent 15 hours and 57 minutes tied to a charger.
So lets do the math: 76(Total time) - 16(charge time) = 60 hours drive time.
60h drive time is 4.75 greater than 16h charge time.
So somewhere your math went off the rails.
Of course most people sleep.
So they can charge at home or on the road at a slower rate without inconveniencing themselves.
You know, its priced at 89K, but that does not indicate its cost, so your analysis is at best flawed, and that's being generous.
Some things are priced simply to get what the market will bear.
Other things are priced to hold down demand, because they have only managed to build 30,000 of them, and they believe quality is more important than quantity.
Some things are priced to pay back the investment, so that they can expand and add new production capacity and build battery plants.
Somethings are priced high so that the labor can be paid a good wage.
But very few things (other than commodities) are priced based on the cost of raw materials that went into them.
Next time you go shopping, wander into a jewelry story and look at a Rolex (any Rolex) and compare it to a similar sized watch.
Then come back and tell us how price is a good indication of resources consumed.
Wow, just about every professional reviewer disagrees with you.
But hey, haters going to hate.
Or you could spend three times that on a Bentley and have a reupholstered Volkswagen Phaeton that delivers all the mileage of a 1980s pickup truck (and is also less reliable).
Over priced as the Model S is, that price is going no where but down, and range is going to go up.
The Consumer Reports article plus solid financial news and analyst forecasts for Tesla today and widely circulating speculation about their planned Gigafactory to be announced in a couple weeks with an aim of cutting battery costs by at least 50%, all lead to a surge in the stock today (2/25).
Even the confirmation that the Model X would indeed not surface until 2015 seemed to have no effect.
The stock was up as high as 17%, and closed up just under 14% (+$30 on the day to $248). With Morgan Stanley estimating a $320 price there is probably significant growth left, It seems they will have no problem funding that 5 to 7 Billion dollar battery plant. The "giga" refers to Tesla's need to build the equivalent of all of the world’s current production of lithium ion batteries under one factory roof. May be time to invest in on Lithium stocks as well.
Of course, the next drunk that crashes his car and lives to watch it burn will provide a stock dip, but that just sounds like importunity knocking.
Still, I predict Haters going to Hate. They should be arriving in about 3 seconds.....
However general legislation against using digital devices can be done right. The issue we start to run into is things like do touch screens built into the dashboard count or windscreen HUDs like what BMW has in the works.
I have a touch screen built into my dashboard, and I consider it amazingly distracting and dangerous. Luckily I can voice command my car to do pretty much what ever I can do on the touch screen. I really don't like doing anything on the touch screen while driving. I'm not aware of any statistics on the danger of in-dash touch screens, but I just know manipulating it distracts me personally.
However I also hate that it locks out entering of addresses for the Nav function while you are moving and both front seats are in use. You would think they would put a button on the passenger door that would unlock data entry on the screen for a few minutes. As it is, we installed a LockPick to enable passenger data entry when we travel.
I doubt Google Glass will be as distracting, as long as it has a built in driving mode, which would allow you to use the navigation system, and perhaps the camera, but not much else, specifically not reading email and web browsing etc. At least HUDs and Glass keep your eyes on the road so you don't slam into the guy ahead.
We are trending perilously close to throwing out the baby with the bathwater with some of these knee jerk legislative attempts to ban technology before it really arrives.
I would rather the campus be located away from urban area. Less traffic, less driving, cheap/free parking, cheaper food, less chance of crime happening to me or my properly while at or traveling to work and for most people closer to home. This is double so if locally aimed marketing and walk in customers are not very frequent.
Plus, the instant Google tried to build in blighted districts NYC would shut them down, not allow parking garages, refuse to provide garbage service complain because they used up all the seats on the buses and subways.
The same gentrification (black racism) marches would take place, and zoning would quickly prevent building any new housing.
Hey NYC: Clean up your own mess.
Clearly you don't know any modern soldiers.
It won't reduce spending.
If you believe that you are delusional.