I can't stand this habit that companies are getting into of charging an increased recurring fee on a subscription for something that presents them with a one-off cost. In this case
What exactly are you referring to, this one-off cost?
It cost them once to set up the paywall, yes. There will be some maintenance, but it should be small.
But they're trying to make money here. Running a paper is expensive, and if they run their business well, they should be able to make a profit, and they do that by charging their customers recurring fees, where their customers are readers and advertisers. Readers pay to keep reading, and advertisers pay to keep including their advertising.
Other companies are the same. In general, they'll charge whatever amount in whatever way they think will maximize their profit.
And once somebody pulls up GPS tracks that show their speed at that one timestamp and uses that to get out of the ticket... they'll remove the timestamp from the photo, or drop the seconds entirely.
If the time difference is 0.363 seconds, there's not much time for acceleration. Assuming braking at 1 g (approximately the maximum a car can do) that's a difference of about 8 mph -- which is substantial, but the pictures show the brake lights as generally being off, suggesting a much lower rate of acceleration or deceleration.
Also, it's clever to invoke Heisenberg any time we're talking about velocity and position, but I think these objects are large enough to assume that the uncertainty is relatively small:)
The correct answer to the question you listed is "Yes, I do mind you searching my phone, No you may not search it".
There's lots of correct answers, not just one. Any answer that makes it clear you do not consent to a search is good. (A simple "Yes" or "No" to a vague question is not good.)
You don't need to talk like a lawyer, just make sure it's clear you do not consent.
But, speaking from experience, you can claim illegal search and seizure at preliminary trials, which can result in the charges being dropped..
Only if it is an illegal search.
If the cop asks "You don't mind if I check your phone, do you?" and you don't say "No, I do not consent to a search" (the cops often phrase it in an odd way to make it not clear if "Yes" or "No" is the correct answer, so answering in an um-ambiguous way is wise) and you actually let him search it (or your car, pockets, etc.)... then it's not an illegal search.
Not nearly enough people realize that when the cops ask that -- the proper answer is "No, I do not consent to a search". If you don't have anything to hide and you're SURE of that, then I guess you can let him search, but if there's any doubt -- absolutely not. It will *not* go easier on you.
Do a little research or maybe learn a bit about simple Wall Street evaluation before you spout off nonsense like AAPL being over priced. The price off the stock does not have anything to do with that.
*blink*
You don't think a company's stock price has anything to do with a company's stock being overpriced?
(I'm not saying I agree with any claims that the stock is overpriced, but your statement is ludicrous.)
The space-based-solar-power link said 144% not 44%
144% of X = 44% more than X. "144% of the maximum found on the surface of Earth", so if you take "the maximum found on the surface of Earth", add 44% -- you get the "Solar energy reaching Earth's orbit". So the *difference* is 44%, not 144%. (Or looking at it another way, at the maximum, 31% less solar energy reaches the Earth's surface as reaches Earth's orbit.)
However your insolation link leaves me confused with 1,366 W/m^2 at the top of the atmosphere and 1,000 W/m^2 at sea level. Typo somewhere or am I missing something subtle in "solar energy" vs "radiant power", visible spectrum maybe?
Confused about what? The difference between "44% more" and "36.6% more"? Or something else?
OK, so 44% more, not 30% more. This page gives an approximate value of 36% more (1000 watts/m^2 vs. 1366 watts/m^2). I meant to say "20-30% less on the Earth's surface" rather than "20-30% more in space". (About 27% less would be the proper figure.) My error, but not a large one.
Absolutely right about the more diverse wavelengths -- that's part of the "hostile environment" I referred to.
I would keep an eye on satellites. Break throughs like the one in this story might first appear in the environment of much higher solar intensity found in space.
Good plan.
The solar intensity isn't that much greater in space (20-30% more than noon day son at the equator?) but it's certainly a more difficult environment to deal with -- size and weight are at a premium, and the stuff has to keep working for a long time in a hostile environment, so they're going to want to send up the very best.
However, many breakthroughs are about price -- making solar panels (or whatever we use to create power from sunlight) cheaper. I wouldn't expect to see those up in space, as the cost of solar panels is a small factor compared to the cost of getting them up there (and the cost for space grade solar panels is massive!)
Ummm... Tell that to all the diesel-electric trains around the world. Arguably some of the most efficient vehicles in the world, I might add.
Trains are efficient because they're trains, not because they're diesel-electric.
Metal wheels on metal tracks keeping rolling resistance very small per unit weight, every car rides in the slipstream of the one ahead of it, so air resistance is a tiny factor. THIS is why they're efficient, not because of what's in the locomotive.
Diesel-electrics work well for trains. There's no guarantee that they'd work well for automobiles.
Why bother with transmissions, crankshafts, axels, and so on? Just extra weight to haul around. Hubless eletric motors on all wheels.
Extra weight that's really freakin' useful to carry around, you mean.
It's not entirely clear that engine+transmission+axles is heavier than engine+generator+motors on two wheels (no need for 4WD on most cars.) If batteries are included, then the weight goes up even more (but they have their own advantages, of course.)
If your paradigm worked so well, there's no reason we'd have to wait for a new type of engine to take advantage of it -- they could do it easily with existing engines.
But I have to ask, would it be OK to fund Al Qaeda's "feed the poor" programs as long as it didn't go toward their flight training programs?
So, Al Qaeda and Planned Parenthood are comparable to you?
An analogy is not needed here -- the situation is simple.
And besides, the US Government doesn't fund Al Qaeda, not even their humanitarian arm. (Not anymore, anyways -- the CIA used to fund them if I recall correctly.)
Currently, I'm pretty sure federal law prohibits any US citizen or the government from funding Al Qaeda in any capacity.
I notice you completely ignored the fact that Planned Parenthood takes tax payer dollars and uses it fund political campaigns.
Indeed I did. I don't think they can do that with federal dollars either.
I get it -- you don't like Planned Parenthood. Well, I do -- I think they do good work and I hope they keep on doing good work (and I'm not talking about abortion either, though I'm glad that service is available to women who need it.)
But Planned Parenthood is NOT about women's health
That pretty much says it all -- you have no clue what they do, or maybe you do, but the fact that they also do abortions overshadows everything else they do.
It could directly propel a vehicle if it wanted. It's probably as others have said -- it either takes a long time to spin up, or must always be run at full speed and/or power. Which could easily propel many vehicles, it's just poorly suited to cars -- *including* hybrids, I might add. (Though adding multiple smaller engines that are switched off as needed could help make it work for a hybrid car.)
As for a minimal amount of cooling being needed, that's less an issue of the design of the engine and more a function of it's efficiency -- if it's more efficient, that means less energy is wasted as heat, so less cooling is needed. Still, being 60% efficient rather than 20% efficient would reduce the cooling needed by a factor of six for a given power output -- pretty substantial. (I'm very skeptical of this 60% figure, however.)
And batteries are heavy. A 2010 Prius has a 150 lb battery that will contains about 2000 watt hours of energy -- so if you need 50 hp of energy out of that, it'll provide it for about three minutes. If they are planning on running the engine for a while to charge the battery, then shutting it off when the battery is full as the battery powers the car... they'll need a lot more batteries than a Prius has, sucking up any weight savings from a smaller engine and then some.
Also, hypothetically, if the spin-up time was ludicrously slow, a CV would not help a car go from a stopped position up to highway speed.
The only reason I can think of to have a ludicrously slow spin-up speed would be if it was really heavy -- but they explicitly say it's light.
But even if it takes a minute to speed up, they could just run it at full speed all the time and modulate the power it emits to whatever is needed to maintain speed. I do imagine that this would hurt efficiency somewhat. Perhaps put two or three in a car and shut 1 or 2 down when not needed? Unless it's always working at full power at full speed, of course.
Personally, I think it's not going to happen in any vehicle. This is hardly the first time we've been told about some grand new engine that is so much more efficient than what we've got, often even more efficient than the Carnot efficiency could be, and they never happen...
I'm always surprised at the low percentage of people voting in the US. Democracy is founded on the idea that people vote; if you do not, don't complain.
And I'm always surprised by these people who think your vote will fix everything.
Voting is only one way one can influence the political process -- and a single vote is a pretty ineffective thing. If you really want to make a difference, you need to do a whole lot more than simply vote. (For starters, you should try to change how a bunch of people vote, or perhaps change how a politician votes on your behalf.)
And even if you did vote, you still have to deal with what the politicians did, so go ahead and complain, in spite of what some guy in France (or many people here in the US, this is hardly a unique position) says. Voting does not make you special.
(And if you *really* want to make a difference, run for office. (And win, of course.))
As for cutting "women's health"... when you say women's health, you mean abortion. I do not want my tax dollars going to fund abortions. And even if my tax dollars do not go DIRECTLY toward abortions, if they pay the light bill, they are helping to pay for abortions.
I'm pretty sure when he says "women's health", he does not mean abortion.
As you're probably aware, the Hyde Amendment prohibits the government from paying for abortions with federal funds.
Considering that abortions are such a small part of what Planned Parenthood does and that part is not paid for by federal dollars (and I imagine they even account for a portion of the electric bill (and any other similar expenses, such as rent, payroll, etc.) when they make sure that government funds do not pay for abortions), your desire to shut them down entirely (or defund them, anyways) seems to be about more than simply not letting your tax dollars fund abortions.
And what's this thing about "the engine is only suited for hybrid-electric vehicles, but that's okay. "... what does THAT mean?
Most likely it means that the engine has terrible spin up/down times and/or is inefficient at doing them. Its best operated at constant speed, generating electricity for an electric motor which actually pushes you forward.
That would be my guess too.
But that could be handled with a CV transmission too.
Perhaps it can't be throttled down easily, so it's always putting out full power, so it either needs to be charging a battery or powering the car or shut off if neither is needed?
But even so, if it's 60% efficient, that's huge -- more efficient than our large turbines that power power plants, ships, etc. -- these things would easily tolerate an engine that takes a long time to spin up or down, or could only be run at full power or speed. It's not just hybrids.
The Wave Disk Generator uses 60 percent of its fuel for propulsion; standard car engines use just 15 percent. As a result, the generator is 3.5 times more fuel efficient than typical combustion engines.
They're claiming 60% efficiency? It's still a heat engine, so their absolute maximum efficiency is based on how hot they can get things and how cold it is outside, and I'm skeptical that they can get it hot enough for 60% efficiency from gasoline. (Actually, I don't think they said gasoline -- I don't think they said any specific fuel.)
And what's this thing about "the engine is only suited for hybrid-electric vehicles, but that's okay. "... what does THAT mean?
Somehow I doubt this is going to pan out quite like they say it will.
What's your (or their) proof that the acceleration due to gravity isn't a construct of my god(s)?
Science doesn't claim to have all the answers. That doesn't mean it's based on faith... what point were you trying to make, anyways?
And it's entirely possible that at some point, science will discover that gravity IS a construct of your gods (assuming that this is true, and that your gods haven't made it impossible to discover, just difficult.) Or, more to the point, some evidence could be found for this position, somebody would theorize that this is the case, and then further experiments could corroborate the position. Such a discovery would totally change the world, but science would still be just as valid as it was before -- it would just adapt to the new knowledge (unless these gods got angry at being discovered and changed all the rules, of course, in which case it might have to start over.)
Science certainly does not require that you take the non-existence of gods or other divine beings on faith -- but it hasn't really found evidence for them either. (Hmm, this isn't coming out right. Science doesn't concern itself with divine beings, at least for now -- if evidence of them appears, then it would.)
Science discovers what it can discover, explains what it can explain, and is always looking for more. But it never claimed to know all the answers.
Peer reviewed science won't burn you in eternal hellfire if you don't believe. A scientist (perhaps one named Pascal) might think about this and come up with Pascal's Gambit.
Except that you personally haven't demonstrated or repeated anything. When someone at FermiLab tells you it produced antihydrogen, you believe them.
The fact that a scientist can do the same thing over and over again and call it antihydrogen doesn't make it any more real to you than someone who tells you that they see miracles attributed to God every day.
That's the point.
But antihydrogen is only one tiny part of science.
When somebody at FermiLab tells you that gravity accelerates objects at 9.8 m/s^2 and uses this to calculate the trajectory of a ball very accurately, you believe them, because you can see this, and they can do it over and over and over. You can do the calculation on your own, and measure the dropping ball too. It works, and you can do it.
When religion tells you that God answers prayers, and then you pray for something and don't get it. Or you don't pray for it and do get it. Or good things happen to bad people. As said, science delivers. Religion... not so much. (And really, lots of religions have claimed that only the high priesthood could talk to their gods, or could understand them... it's not like being complicated is restricted to science.)
Perhaps not all of science is understandable and usable by the layperson... but lots of it is. If you're going to use antihydrogen as an example, the burning bush would be a fine counterexample -- sure, we understand it as we're told, but what proof is there? What proof could there ever be?
So no, science is not based on faith. Lay people certainly do have faith that what the scientists tell them is truth when it comes to the more esoteric stuff, but at least the scientists are always looking for ways to prove or disprove their beliefs, and if something is shown to be true, they'll try something else. Quantum mechanics is a theory -- fairly well supported, but science is ready to throw it out if it's disproven. Religion won't do that.
Nice list of automated systems, but the reality is that these are all optional -- disable every single one of the systems mentioned, and the car would still work.
You could list the things in the engine that automatically control it -- at least the car would stop if those failed -- but ultimately, when people talk about automatic cars, you know what they're talking about -- the important stuff. Computer control of the steering, brakes, throttle. Three analog channels. Everything else pales in comparison to those things.
Until the car can control those three variables on it's own (and I'm not talking about self parking cars, but that's getting close) -- the car will not "drive itself". That "pointing it in the direction we want to go" thing, that's called driving.
Slashdot Mirror
I can't stand this habit that companies are getting into of charging an increased recurring fee on a subscription for something that presents them with a one-off cost. In this case
What exactly are you referring to, this one-off cost?
It cost them once to set up the paywall, yes. There will be some maintenance, but it should be small.
But they're trying to make money here. Running a paper is expensive, and if they run their business well, they should be able to make a profit, and they do that by charging their customers recurring fees, where their customers are readers and advertisers. Readers pay to keep reading, and advertisers pay to keep including their advertising.
Other companies are the same. In general, they'll charge whatever amount in whatever way they think will maximize their profit.
Bingo.
And once somebody pulls up GPS tracks that show their speed at that one timestamp and uses that to get out of the ticket ... they'll remove the timestamp from the photo, or drop the seconds entirely.
Did you read the article?
If the time difference is 0.363 seconds, there's not much time for acceleration. Assuming braking at 1 g (approximately the maximum a car can do) that's a difference of about 8 mph -- which is substantial, but the pictures show the brake lights as generally being off, suggesting a much lower rate of acceleration or deceleration.
Also, it's clever to invoke Heisenberg any time we're talking about velocity and position, but I think these objects are large enough to assume that the uncertainty is relatively small :)
"I do not consent to a search" is adequate.
"I am not giving you permission to search my car/phone/rectum/etc." is adequate.
Keep it simple. No need to get fancy. And stick to your guns.
The correct answer to the question you listed is "Yes, I do mind you searching my phone, No you may not search it".
There's lots of correct answers, not just one. Any answer that makes it clear you do not consent to a search is good. (A simple "Yes" or "No" to a vague question is not good.)
You don't need to talk like a lawyer, just make sure it's clear you do not consent.
But, speaking from experience, you can claim illegal search and seizure at preliminary trials, which can result in the charges being dropped..
Only if it is an illegal search.
If the cop asks "You don't mind if I check your phone, do you?" and you don't say "No, I do not consent to a search" (the cops often phrase it in an odd way to make it not clear if "Yes" or "No" is the correct answer, so answering in an um-ambiguous way is wise) and you actually let him search it (or your car, pockets, etc.) ... then it's not an illegal search.
Not nearly enough people realize that when the cops ask that -- the proper answer is "No, I do not consent to a search". If you don't have anything to hide and you're SURE of that, then I guess you can let him search, but if there's any doubt -- absolutely not. It will *not* go easier on you.
Do a little research or maybe learn a bit about simple Wall Street evaluation before you spout off nonsense like AAPL being over priced. The price off the stock does not have anything to do with that.
*blink*
You don't think a company's stock price has anything to do with a company's stock being overpriced?
(I'm not saying I agree with any claims that the stock is overpriced, but your statement is ludicrous.)
The space-based-solar-power link said 144% not 44%
144% of X = 44% more than X. "144% of the maximum found on the surface of Earth", so if you take "the maximum found on the surface of Earth", add 44% -- you get the "Solar energy reaching Earth's orbit". So the *difference* is 44%, not 144%. (Or looking at it another way, at the maximum, 31% less solar energy reaches the Earth's surface as reaches Earth's orbit.)
However your insolation link leaves me confused with 1,366 W/m^2 at the top of the atmosphere and 1,000 W/m^2 at sea level. Typo somewhere or am I missing something subtle in "solar energy" vs "radiant power", visible spectrum maybe?
Confused about what? The difference between "44% more" and "36.6% more"? Or something else?
OK, so 44% more, not 30% more. This page gives an approximate value of 36% more (1000 watts/m^2 vs. 1366 watts/m^2). I meant to say "20-30% less on the Earth's surface" rather than "20-30% more in space". (About 27% less would be the proper figure.) My error, but not a large one.
Absolutely right about the more diverse wavelengths -- that's part of the "hostile environment" I referred to.
I would keep an eye on satellites. Break throughs like the one in this story might first appear in the environment of much higher solar intensity found in space.
Good plan.
The solar intensity isn't that much greater in space (20-30% more than noon day son at the equator?) but it's certainly a more difficult environment to deal with -- size and weight are at a premium, and the stuff has to keep working for a long time in a hostile environment, so they're going to want to send up the very best.
However, many breakthroughs are about price -- making solar panels (or whatever we use to create power from sunlight) cheaper. I wouldn't expect to see those up in space, as the cost of solar panels is a small factor compared to the cost of getting them up there (and the cost for space grade solar panels is massive!)
If the fuel is burned, it's a heat engine.
The only alternative would be a fuel cell or something that doesn't involve combustion -- but that would be a totally different beast.
Ummm... Tell that to all the diesel-electric trains around the world. Arguably some of the most efficient vehicles in the world, I might add.
Trains are efficient because they're trains, not because they're diesel-electric.
Metal wheels on metal tracks keeping rolling resistance very small per unit weight, every car rides in the slipstream of the one ahead of it, so air resistance is a tiny factor. THIS is why they're efficient, not because of what's in the locomotive.
Diesel-electrics work well for trains. There's no guarantee that they'd work well for automobiles.
Why bother with transmissions, crankshafts, axels, and so on? Just extra weight to haul around. Hubless eletric motors on all wheels.
Extra weight that's really freakin' useful to carry around, you mean.
It's not entirely clear that engine+transmission+axles is heavier than engine+generator+motors on two wheels (no need for 4WD on most cars.) If batteries are included, then the weight goes up even more (but they have their own advantages, of course.)
If your paradigm worked so well, there's no reason we'd have to wait for a new type of engine to take advantage of it -- they could do it easily with existing engines.
This is essentially a theoretical "possible future weapon" exercise - it has nothing to do with actual, realistic modern combat.
To be fair, there was a time that the machine gun, submarine and airplane fell into this category too.
Though I do have to admit ... the current guns and firearms and such do seem hard to beat.
But I have to ask, would it be OK to fund Al Qaeda's "feed the poor" programs as long as it didn't go toward their flight training programs?
So, Al Qaeda and Planned Parenthood are comparable to you?
An analogy is not needed here -- the situation is simple.
And besides, the US Government doesn't fund Al Qaeda, not even their humanitarian arm. (Not anymore, anyways -- the CIA used to fund them if I recall correctly.)
Currently, I'm pretty sure federal law prohibits any US citizen or the government from funding Al Qaeda in any capacity.
I notice you completely ignored the fact that Planned Parenthood takes tax payer dollars and uses it fund political campaigns.
Indeed I did. I don't think they can do that with federal dollars either.
I get it -- you don't like Planned Parenthood. Well, I do -- I think they do good work and I hope they keep on doing good work (and I'm not talking about abortion either, though I'm glad that service is available to women who need it.)
But Planned Parenthood is NOT about women's health
That pretty much says it all -- you have no clue what they do, or maybe you do, but the fact that they also do abortions overshadows everything else they do.
I did read the article. I didn't watch the video.
It could directly propel a vehicle if it wanted. It's probably as others have said -- it either takes a long time to spin up, or must always be run at full speed and/or power. Which could easily propel many vehicles, it's just poorly suited to cars -- *including* hybrids, I might add. (Though adding multiple smaller engines that are switched off as needed could help make it work for a hybrid car.)
As for a minimal amount of cooling being needed, that's less an issue of the design of the engine and more a function of it's efficiency -- if it's more efficient, that means less energy is wasted as heat, so less cooling is needed. Still, being 60% efficient rather than 20% efficient would reduce the cooling needed by a factor of six for a given power output -- pretty substantial. (I'm very skeptical of this 60% figure, however.)
And batteries are heavy. A 2010 Prius has a 150 lb battery that will contains about 2000 watt hours of energy -- so if you need 50 hp of energy out of ... they'll need a lot more batteries than a Prius has, sucking up any weight savings from a smaller engine and then some.
that, it'll provide it for about three minutes. If they are planning on running the engine for a while to charge the battery, then shutting it off when the battery is full as the battery powers the car
Also, hypothetically, if the spin-up time was ludicrously slow, a CV would not help a car go from a stopped position up to highway speed.
The only reason I can think of to have a ludicrously slow spin-up speed would be if it was really heavy -- but they explicitly say it's light.
But even if it takes a minute to speed up, they could just run it at full speed all the time and modulate the power it emits to whatever is needed to maintain speed. I do imagine that this would hurt efficiency somewhat. Perhaps put two or three in a car and shut 1 or 2 down when not needed? Unless it's always working at full power at full speed, of course.
Personally, I think it's not going to happen in any vehicle. This is hardly the first time we've been told about some grand new engine that is so much more efficient than what we've got, often even more efficient than the Carnot efficiency could be, and they never happen ...
I'm always surprised at the low percentage of people voting in the US.
Democracy is founded on the idea that people vote; if you do not, don't complain.
And I'm always surprised by these people who think your vote will fix everything.
Voting is only one way one can influence the political process -- and a single vote is a pretty ineffective thing. If you really want to make a difference, you need to do a whole lot more than simply vote. (For starters, you should try to change how a bunch of people vote, or perhaps change how a politician votes on your behalf.)
And even if you did vote, you still have to deal with what the politicians did, so go ahead and complain, in spite of what some guy in France (or many people here in the US, this is hardly a unique position) says. Voting does not make you special.
(And if you *really* want to make a difference, run for office. (And win, of course.))
As for cutting "women's health"... when you say women's health, you mean abortion. I do not want my tax dollars going to fund abortions. And even if my tax dollars do not go DIRECTLY toward abortions, if they pay the light bill, they are helping to pay for abortions.
I'm pretty sure when he says "women's health", he does not mean abortion.
As you're probably aware, the Hyde Amendment prohibits the government from paying for abortions with federal funds.
Considering that abortions are such a small part of what Planned Parenthood does and that part is not paid for by federal dollars (and I imagine they even account for a portion of the electric bill (and any other similar expenses, such as rent, payroll, etc.) when they make sure that government funds do not pay for abortions), your desire to shut them down entirely (or defund them, anyways) seems to be about more than simply not letting your tax dollars fund abortions.
And what's this thing about "the engine is only suited for hybrid-electric vehicles, but that's okay. " ... what does THAT mean?
Most likely it means that the engine has terrible spin up/down times and/or is inefficient at doing them. Its best operated at constant speed, generating electricity for an electric motor which actually pushes you forward.
That would be my guess too.
But that could be handled with a CV transmission too.
Perhaps it can't be throttled down easily, so it's always putting out full power, so it either needs to be charging a battery or powering the car or shut off if neither is needed?
But even so, if it's 60% efficient, that's huge -- more efficient than our large turbines that power power plants, ships, etc. -- these things would easily tolerate an engine that takes a long time to spin up or down, or could only be run at full power or speed. It's not just hybrids.
They're claiming 60% efficiency? It's still a heat engine, so their absolute maximum efficiency is based on how hot they can get things and how cold it is outside, and I'm skeptical that they can get it hot enough for 60% efficiency from gasoline. (Actually, I don't think they said gasoline -- I don't think they said any specific fuel.)
And what's this thing about "the engine is only suited for hybrid-electric vehicles, but that's okay. " ... what does THAT mean?
Somehow I doubt this is going to pan out quite like they say it will.
What's your (or their) proof that the acceleration due to gravity isn't a construct of my god(s)?
Science doesn't claim to have all the answers. That doesn't mean it's based on faith ... what point were you trying to make, anyways?
And it's entirely possible that at some point, science will discover that gravity IS a construct of your gods (assuming that this is true, and that your gods haven't made it impossible to discover, just difficult.) Or, more to the point, some evidence could be found for this position, somebody would theorize that this is the case, and then further experiments could corroborate the position. Such a discovery would totally change the world, but science would still be just as valid as it was before -- it would just adapt to the new knowledge (unless these gods got angry at being discovered and changed all the rules, of course, in which case it might have to start over.)
Science certainly does not require that you take the non-existence of gods or other divine beings on faith -- but it hasn't really found evidence for them either. (Hmm, this isn't coming out right. Science doesn't concern itself with divine beings, at least for now -- if evidence of them appears, then it would.)
Science discovers what it can discover, explains what it can explain, and is always looking for more. But it never claimed to know all the answers.
Peer reviewed science won't burn you in eternal hellfire if you don't believe. A scientist (perhaps one named Pascal) might think about this and come up with Pascal's Gambit.
Except that you personally haven't demonstrated or repeated anything. When someone at FermiLab tells you it produced antihydrogen, you believe them.
The fact that a scientist can do the same thing over and over again and call it antihydrogen doesn't make it any more real to you than someone who tells you that they see miracles attributed to God every day.
That's the point.
But antihydrogen is only one tiny part of science.
When somebody at FermiLab tells you that gravity accelerates objects at 9.8 m/s^2 and uses this to calculate the trajectory of a ball very accurately, you believe them, because you can see this, and they can do it over and over and over. You can do the calculation on your own, and measure the dropping ball too. It works, and you can do it.
When religion tells you that God answers prayers, and then you pray for something and don't get it. Or you don't pray for it and do get it. Or good things happen to bad people. As said, science delivers. Religion ... not so much. (And really, lots of religions have claimed that only the high priesthood could talk to their gods, or could understand them ... it's not like being complicated is restricted to science.)
Perhaps not all of science is understandable and usable by the layperson ... but lots of it is. If you're going to use antihydrogen as an example, the burning bush would be a fine counterexample -- sure, we understand it as we're told, but what proof is there? What proof could there ever be?
So no, science is not based on faith. Lay people certainly do have faith that what the scientists tell them is truth when it comes to the more esoteric stuff, but at least the scientists are always looking for ways to prove or disprove their beliefs, and if something is shown to be true, they'll try something else. Quantum mechanics is a theory -- fairly well supported, but science is ready to throw it out if it's disproven. Religion won't do that.
Nice list of automated systems, but the reality is that these are all optional -- disable every single one of the systems mentioned, and the car would still work.
You could list the things in the engine that automatically control it -- at least the car would stop if those failed -- but ultimately, when people talk about automatic cars, you know what they're talking about -- the important stuff. Computer control of the steering, brakes, throttle. Three analog channels. Everything else pales in comparison to those things.
Until the car can control those three variables on it's own (and I'm not talking about self parking cars, but that's getting close) -- the car will not "drive itself". That "pointing it in the direction we want to go" thing, that's called driving.