When a phone is in a lower power state, power management can do several things to extend longevity: run the processor slower, dim the screen, operate the cellular radio in a lower power state. A worn out battery could potentially cause one or more of these things to happen.
It wouldn't be if the OS would notify the user about the said throttle. For instance, Power Saving Mode.
I don't know for you, but when I'm buying a phone with great performance, I'm expecting the phone to be running at those spect at all time.
That makes it desirable, now what makes it good? Will the future of our far descendants be better if we spend an ever growing amount of resources on keeping people alive?
So...you're insinuating that this is bad?
May I add that we already spent an ever growing amount of ressources on the growing (and older) human population?
They probably are, but are for the most part so fast, small and unpredictable that they probably slip through the solar system without us noticing. The Pan-STARRS telescopes are some of the few large dedicated asteroid discovery/tracking telescopes on the planet and they focus mostly on likely NEO orbits and are only setup to discover decently sized objects. Maybe if we spent as much money on telescopes as we do on pool chemicals (around $5 Billion) we'd see a few more of them, along with, I don't know, cataloging all of the city/region killer asteroids out there.
I'm pretty sure the sample of "big" asteroid are a good representation of asteroid of all size. So if indeed 1/+500k of the asteroid discovered so far are extrasolar, I don't see how it would be any different for the smaller asteroid not detected by Pan-STARRS and other telescope.
Wow, I had no idea that extrasolar object were so rare. I thought it was pretty common.
Usually, by looking at the trajectory of every asteroid you can easily simulate it's origin. Of course, that trajectory can be pushed by an external force (impact with another object, friction from gaz etc.) but, as far as I know, it's pretty rare. I'm also guessing that the trajectory of pretty much every object observed (asteroid/comet) so far have been simulated. And since it seem we observed over 500k asteroid so far (quick google search), it mean that extrasolar object are indeed very, very rare.
It's striking that our whole galaxy, with so many star and light in the night star, is, in reality, so empty.
Am I the only one that find that comparing the GHG impact of the car and everything around it (the source of it's fuel/power production, the manufacturing process etc.) isn't giving us the real picture?
Yeah I understand, we can't ignore that electricity isn't always green. But the feeling I get from a study like this is almost like EV are responsible for the GHG impact of the electricity production. Hey, Tesla model S isn't so green when it's powered by a coal plant!
First, the choice of a car is a consumer one while the electricity production is (usually) government responsibility. So even if TFA told me that EV emit exactly the same GHG as diesel vehicle (and why diesel while I'm at it? Why not gas?), it's still a "mostly" consumer GHG responsibility VS a mostly government GHG responsibility. In my mind, this is an important factor that should be taking into consideration.
Furthermore, as many other said, it's stupid to put a "global average" of the GHG impact of electricity production while the standard deviation between country is so small (e.g. some country use mostly coal while others mostly nuclear and/or hydroelectric).
In the end, what I would like to know is the consumer GHG impact of EV vs Gas. Or, in other word, if we suppose that the electricity is 100% clean, what are the new number of this study?
... into investing their fortune into some pot of gold that waits at the end of the rainbow.
And BTW: If such a method actually worked well, people would rather not make this public, but use it in seclusion, knowing well that otherwise they would soon compete with way too many eternal-living people for resources on this planet.
Or would you think that somebody who's able to live for 1000 years would still want to work for others after the first 100?
Not gonna happen. At least not for long.
Such a discovery will require a lot of people. Lot of people with even more friend/families that you would need to shut up.
Add to this the greed. You live forever, but you could be rich by selling the thing to billionaire. And now you got even more people to shut up.
So it "eliminates" 50m CO2. How much geothermal energy does it use for this, and how much CO2 could be saved by not running this plant and instead using the power to power whatever is now being powered by a power plant burning coal, oil or gas?
This is a completely valid point.
No matter how much CO2 they remove from air with their "'Negative Emissions" plant, if they can't beat the amouth "created" by the most "Positive Emissions" on earth then it'll be more worth it to use that clean power to replace it.
Still, if we think like this we'll never work on this issue (removing CO2 from air) so I still find that this it worth it but, of course, I'll kept my doubt that they will ever reach those number. As the article said itself, removing the CO2 from air is a lot more harder than removing it from the source (the coal plant directly) and I don't see how it could be possible to remove the CO2 from air more efficiently than putting it there in the first place (in other words, clean energy, clean car., clean places). But, like the french say, I'll give a chance to the runner (and see how far he'll go).
I have been wondering one related thing: It seems that the Falcon 9 is built just around the maximum size they can manage to move by road.
Now that the rocket has become reusable, could they work around the transport issue by launching the empty rocket from the manufacturing plant and having it land right at the launch pad?
If this is actually viable it could be huge -- build wherever it's most comfortable to build, launch wherever it's most comfortable to launch. I imagine satellites are far easier to ship than the entire rocket, so this might even work to change the launch site to avoid bad weather.
Even if the cost of launch planned by SpaceX is way lower than the alternative, I'm pretty sure it'll be more than any shipping company. Degradation cost of the rocket not included.
This isn't news for nerds. I'm not even sure this is news for real estate agents.
Ooh a house sold for 40% over list price! So what. Ooh Silicon Valley is massively over-priced! Again, so what.
Well to be fair, I'm thinking it's safe to say that a good portion of/. community currently work, will work or are dreaming to work at the Silicon Valley.
Actually, when your goal is to make space travel mass market, making things aesthetically appealing is a key aspect. Musk's goal is not and never has been $25m trips to space for the select few; he wants to make space travel a common occurrence.
As for "solid spacesuit", I assume you mean like the NASA AX series, which are built more like atmospheric diving suits than traditional space suits. And the answer is the same reason why NASA doesn't use them - while mobility in them is superb, they're significantly heavier. About the only place in the solar system where it makes sense to use them at present (in combination with insulation and either a heat-absorbing material (akin to Venera) or a heat pump with cooling channels, and a bellows balloon) is the surface of Venus. A more popular research topic is hybrid pressure / hard suits, where you have certain parts rigid (such as the torso) and others inflated.
Well, here's the answer to the question I wanted to ask.
Still, I'm surprised that so much energy was put on aesthetic. I mean, how could you make a freaking "space/flight suit" unaesthetic? Even the original NASA space suit is so cool that people bring it at hockey games.
There's no shortage of workers. There are lots of people around who'd be willing to do this work. It's a shortage of employers willing to pay the wage required to properly compensate people for doing the work. Pay a proper wage and this "labor shortage" will disappear immediately.
Automation engineer here. I guess this is part of the argument that I see quite regularly.
When you work in that field, it's inevitable that you eventually ask yourself : "Am I destroying jobs?"
The way I see it, yes we do destroy job. But do you know what's even more efficient to destroy Western jobs? Chineses!
I'm surprised that we get so much hate while most manifacturing jobs have been lost to mondialisation during the 20th century. Are we already forgotten that about everything you buy in Walmart have a "Made in (insert asian country)" tag on it.
A Western worker will never compete with a chinese at 1/5 his wage. On the other hand, a Western worker with a robot doing 500% faster work might.
Watch what happens when their reusable rocket thing actually finally pans out. They're still somewhat in the experimentation/development phase of that. But once they can relyably reuse their rockets on a regular basis, price to orbit will drop by orders of magnitude and change humanities entire perspective on space travel, Neuromancer style. SpaceX could easily become the most valuable company ever on an entirely new scale.
Considering how things are going and how Elon Musk and the people he get's on board have a reputation for getting the job done this evaluation is entirely justified IMHO.
Well, from my understanding of the market (pretty slim), SpaceX, (like Tesla), is a big bubble of market speculation and, again from my understanding, the challenge is to change speculation into real value.
So, I think that SpaceX have a "speculative" value similar to what if should become in the most optimist schenario. Of course, at that time, SpaceX will still have some "speculative" value but I don't think it's gonna be as big as it is right now. Well, unless they present something as revolutionary to their reusables rockets than the revolution that they are right now.
But once they can relyably reuse their rockets on a regular basis, price to orbit will drop by orders of magnitude and change humanities entire perspective on space travel, Neuromancer style. SpaceX could easily become the most valuable company ever on an entirely new scale.
Orders of magnitude? No. Musk said fuel is currently about 3% of total launch cost. One order of magnitude would make that 30%, two orders would be 300%. Unless you can work magic in fuel efficiency and do the rest for free, not happening. Even with Musk's most generous long time full reuse scenario (where a booster has 1000 launches, tanker 100 and the spaceship 12 and the refurb costs are minimal like <0.1% on the booster and <1% on the tanker) he's estimating $140/kg to Mars surface. Until you got a working fuel production plant on Mars so the spaceship can return - a highly theoretical idea at the moment - then $520/kg. And I'm pretty sure that doesn't include development costs, this is purely marginal costs but let's ignore those.
So for a person ~$50k minimum ticket price, of course that doesn't include air, water, food, heating, shielding or anything else you'd need on a months-long trip through space. Or anything you'd need to survive on Mars a couple years, if not you personally then all the people working there maintaining the base and supporting you. I'm thinking $200k at least. So after being stuck in a tin can for months you're stuck in a slightly bigger dome for 2.5 years and even though you can go outside it's not exactly like home. Then some more months in a tin can before you land back on earth and discover your muscles haven't tried 1G for almost three years. And unlike a submarine that can actually abort and surface if they have to, that's not an option here.
I think the novelty of it will wear off real quick and after three years you'll feel more like a supermax prisoner that's finally out of jail than anyone who has had the experience of a lifetime. That is unless there's any system failure of any kind along the way where you'll most likely end up dead. Don't get me wrong, the first to go will be super-celebrities and all that so that will be cool. But when you're like the 834th person on Mars, eh... and it's not like you're climbing Mount Everest or something, you're probably doing routine maintenance most the time. I should probably also remind you that nobody has come up with any commercially viable business on Mars - at best it's reducing the costs so Earth won't have to pay as much to support a Mars outpost. It still takes political will to fund it, cost-plus or fixed price.
Or maybe I should put this in a TL;DR form: Even if Musk achieves everything he wants to do, most space sci-fi will remain fiction.
While I like you point, one thing to take into consideration is that not much have been done to reduce the cost of rocket fuel since, well, it's insignifiant.
When reusable launch system will become the norm and fuel will be the biggest cost of all launch, a lot more money will be put in R&D de develop cheaper fuel.
Of course, this is if we don't see a new technology overtaking it by then (Space Elevator or other cheap Non-rocket spacelaunch system).
I find it hard to believe the CEO of one of the largest tech companies in the world, whose services heavily rely on AI for recommendations, image recognition, etc, has a limited knowledge of the AI industry. I'm not saying Zuckerberg is one of the world's experts but he most likely has a very firm grasp on the subject.
And whether or not Zuckerberg is correct, it is certainly a reasonable opinion that those who drum up negative sentiment towards AI research are acting irresponsibly. It isn't to the level of Edison spreading fears about AC current by electrocuting animals, but spreading fear about new technologies is likely not a good thing. Instead of more reasonable debates over AI caused displacement of jobs or privacy concerns, Musk is doom-saying about a robot apocalypse. I wouldn't use the term irresponsible, but it's close enough to me to not disparage those who do accuse Musk of irresponsible behavior.
Why?
AFAIK, this is not a requierement for a CEO to know the deep technical details of it's product. I've working for a airplane manifacturing company and, by listening to a few of his speech, I'm pretty sure his technical knowledge of aircraft engineering is roughly the equivalent of my grandmother.
If there's no air in the tube, how do you breathe? I mean, there is air in the capsule but I assume that is finite. So how do they refresh the air and what do they do if there's a rupture?
Yeah....not like airplane doesn't have those problem...or does they?
People are having fewer children because we're so productive and good at keeping them alive, there isn't as much incentive to spawn half a dozen or more for extra farm labor. Household productivity is likewise vastly improved to the point where women can work part or full time outside of the house without the household falling into complete disarray so most of them don't want to sit around being a baby factory either. And its a good thing as well. The world doesn't need even more people when we haven't figured out how to make sure that the ones we have are all at a reasonable baseline and not committing various atrocities towards one and other.
Honnestly, I think you forgot the most important reason : We have Birth control now
Not sure why this have been modded up as it's pretty much common knowledge that there is Supercharger Stations about everyone in NA [tesla.com] that will charge 80% of your battery under 30min.
1. Learn to grammar.
2. You seem to be confusing "it's pretty much common knowledge" with "a lot of people that I know, know this". I asked because I didn't know the answer. Presumably those who modded me up also wanted to know.
3. If by "about everyone in NA" you meant "just about everywhere in North America", then that site you linked to says you're wrong. Based on their map, the entire state of Texas appears to currently contain a total of 25 supercharging stations, for example. If you live in New York City, you'd have to drive all the way out to the airport to reach your closest station. That's not exactly convenient!
4. The world is not only America.
1- Yes and I'm actually taking classes right, sorry if I annoyed you with my "not so perfect" English but it'll get better. It doesn't invalidate my post though. 2-Sorry, it's actually a Typo. What I meant was "it's pretty much common knowledge in Slashdot". And yeah we're talking a "lot" about the supercharging capability here and a quick google search will give you the information you need (actually, you can find everything you need to know inside the link of my last message). 3-Typo again (damn cellphone). And I would like you to share me a scenario where you'll have to drive over 300 km straight in a day without reaching one of those station. Personally, the only scenario I got in mind is in case you're delivering pizza or driving a client to the Airport (or in other words, "on-the-road" jobs). 4- Well, I said NA but Tesla opened hundreds Supercharger station in Europpe and Asia (see the link in my precedent post again). And this is ignoring Supercharging station no build by tesla (my company installed three fast charging station in the parking lot.
By charging and discharging your car batteries for uses other than moving your car, you would be consuming charge/discharge cycles on your relatively expensive batteries designed for your automobile rather than batteries designed for fixed location storage (which would likely be cheaper as weight and compactness and certain safety considerations would be substantially less costly for the fixed location storage batteries.).
The cost of what you describe can be a very expensive replacement of your electric car batteries or substantial reduction in resell value of your electric car. That's quite a bit above zero.
Using batteries from electric cars for fixed storage after the batteries don't hold enough of a charge for automotive use might be more cost effective (both financially and environmentally) than discarding and recycling them.
Actually, there's a quite simple way to analyse this.
Take the price (P) for a battery replacement. Take the number (A) of charge certified by a battery during it's lifetime. Take the price (U) that you'll get by selling your used battery.
(P - U) / A = C
C is the cost of the battery per charge.
If you receive more than C per cycle so they can use your battery, you'll make a profit.
The only question that really matters is: What is the charge time? 215 miles is a reasonable enough range; but if you're planning a 250 mile trip, you don't want to have to make an overnight stop! If you can charge the car enough in, say, a 15-minute rest break that it can keep going for another couple of hours, then it's a viable vehicle. If not, it's not.
Slashdot Mirror
When a phone is in a lower power state, power management can do several things to extend longevity: run the processor slower, dim the screen, operate the cellular radio in a lower power state. A worn out battery could potentially cause one or more of these things to happen.
It wouldn't be if the OS would notify the user about the said throttle. For instance, Power Saving Mode.
I don't know for you, but when I'm buying a phone with great performance, I'm expecting the phone to be running at those spect at all time.
Just asking,
Does that x1000 include the weight of the vaccum?
Because people in general don't want to die
That makes it desirable, now what makes it good?
Will the future of our far descendants be better if we spend an ever growing amount of resources on keeping people alive?
So...you're insinuating that this is bad?
May I add that we already spent an ever growing amount of ressources on the growing (and older) human population?
"I thought it was pretty common."
They probably are, but are for the most part so fast, small and unpredictable that they probably slip through the solar system without us noticing. The Pan-STARRS telescopes are some of the few large dedicated asteroid discovery/tracking telescopes on the planet and they focus mostly on likely NEO orbits and are only setup to discover decently sized objects. Maybe if we spent as much money on telescopes as we do on pool chemicals (around $5 Billion) we'd see a few more of them, along with, I don't know, cataloging all of the city/region killer asteroids out there.
I'm pretty sure the sample of "big" asteroid are a good representation of asteroid of all size. So if indeed 1/+500k of the asteroid discovered so far are extrasolar, I don't see how it would be any different for the smaller asteroid not detected by Pan-STARRS and other telescope.
Unless I'm missing something?
Wow, I had no idea that extrasolar object were so rare. I thought it was pretty common.
Usually, by looking at the trajectory of every asteroid you can easily simulate it's origin. Of course, that trajectory can be pushed by an external force (impact with another object, friction from gaz etc.) but, as far as I know, it's pretty rare. I'm also guessing that the trajectory of pretty much every object observed (asteroid/comet) so far have been simulated. And since it seem we observed over 500k asteroid so far (quick google search), it mean that extrasolar object are indeed very, very rare.
It's striking that our whole galaxy, with so many star and light in the night star, is, in reality, so empty.
Many of the fired worker because of bad performance were also pro-union? I'm so surprised!
Am I the only one that find that comparing the GHG impact of the car and everything around it (the source of it's fuel/power production, the manufacturing process etc.) isn't giving us the real picture?
Yeah I understand, we can't ignore that electricity isn't always green. But the feeling I get from a study like this is almost like EV are responsible for the GHG impact of the electricity production. Hey, Tesla model S isn't so green when it's powered by a coal plant!
First, the choice of a car is a consumer one while the electricity production is (usually) government responsibility. So even if TFA told me that EV emit exactly the same GHG as diesel vehicle (and why diesel while I'm at it? Why not gas?), it's still a "mostly" consumer GHG responsibility VS a mostly government GHG responsibility. In my mind, this is an important factor that should be taking into consideration.
Furthermore, as many other said, it's stupid to put a "global average" of the GHG impact of electricity production while the standard deviation between country is so small (e.g. some country use mostly coal while others mostly nuclear and/or hydroelectric).
In the end, what I would like to know is the consumer GHG impact of EV vs Gas. Or, in other word, if we suppose that the electricity is 100% clean, what are the new number of this study?
... into investing their fortune into some pot of gold that waits at the end of the rainbow.
And BTW: If such a method actually worked well, people would rather not make this public, but use it in seclusion, knowing well that otherwise they would soon compete with way too many eternal-living people for resources on this planet.
Or would you think that somebody who's able to live for 1000 years would still want to work for others after the first 100?
Not gonna happen. At least not for long.
Such a discovery will require a lot of people. Lot of people with even more friend/families that you would need to shut up.
Add to this the greed. You live forever, but you could be rich by selling the thing to billionaire. And now you got even more people to shut up.
This story make me remember the Credit Card Prank (Zug Website doesn't exist anymore, I had to search into web.archive.org).
So it "eliminates" 50m CO2. How much geothermal energy does it use for this, and how much CO2 could be saved by not running this plant and instead using the power to power whatever is now being powered by a power plant burning coal, oil or gas?
This is a completely valid point.
No matter how much CO2 they remove from air with their "'Negative Emissions" plant, if they can't beat the amouth "created" by the most "Positive Emissions" on earth then it'll be more worth it to use that clean power to replace it.
Still, if we think like this we'll never work on this issue (removing CO2 from air) so I still find that this it worth it but, of course, I'll kept my doubt that they will ever reach those number. As the article said itself, removing the CO2 from air is a lot more harder than removing it from the source (the coal plant directly) and I don't see how it could be possible to remove the CO2 from air more efficiently than putting it there in the first place (in other words, clean energy, clean car., clean places). But, like the french say, I'll give a chance to the runner (and see how far he'll go).
I have been wondering one related thing: It seems that the Falcon 9 is built just around the maximum size they can manage to move by road.
Now that the rocket has become reusable, could they work around the transport issue by launching the empty rocket from the manufacturing plant and having it land right at the launch pad?
If this is actually viable it could be huge -- build wherever it's most comfortable to build, launch wherever it's most comfortable to launch. I imagine satellites are far easier to ship than the entire rocket, so this might even work to change the launch site to avoid bad weather.
Even if the cost of launch planned by SpaceX is way lower than the alternative, I'm pretty sure it'll be more than any shipping company. Degradation cost of the rocket not included.
If you're to fail, fail hard and with style!
This isn't news for nerds. I'm not even sure this is news for real estate agents.
Ooh a house sold for 40% over list price! So what. Ooh Silicon Valley is massively over-priced! Again, so what.
Well to be fair, I'm thinking it's safe to say that a good portion of /. community currently work, will work or are dreaming to work at the Silicon Valley.
Actually, when your goal is to make space travel mass market, making things aesthetically appealing is a key aspect. Musk's goal is not and never has been $25m trips to space for the select few; he wants to make space travel a common occurrence.
As for "solid spacesuit", I assume you mean like the NASA AX series, which are built more like atmospheric diving suits than traditional space suits. And the answer is the same reason why NASA doesn't use them - while mobility in them is superb, they're significantly heavier. About the only place in the solar system where it makes sense to use them at present (in combination with insulation and either a heat-absorbing material (akin to Venera) or a heat pump with cooling channels, and a bellows balloon) is the surface of Venus. A more popular research topic is hybrid pressure / hard suits, where you have certain parts rigid (such as the torso) and others inflated.
Well, here's the answer to the question I wanted to ask.
Still, I'm surprised that so much energy was put on aesthetic. I mean, how could you make a freaking "space/flight suit" unaesthetic? Even the original NASA space suit is so cool that people bring it at hockey games.
There's no shortage of workers. There are lots of people around who'd be willing to do this work. It's a shortage of employers willing to pay the wage required to properly compensate people for doing the work. Pay a proper wage and this "labor shortage" will disappear immediately.
Automation engineer here. I guess this is part of the argument that I see quite regularly.
When you work in that field, it's inevitable that you eventually ask yourself : "Am I destroying jobs?"
The way I see it, yes we do destroy job. But do you know what's even more efficient to destroy Western jobs? Chineses!
I'm surprised that we get so much hate while most manifacturing jobs have been lost to mondialisation during the 20th century. Are we already forgotten that about everything you buy in Walmart have a "Made in (insert asian country)" tag on it.
A Western worker will never compete with a chinese at 1/5 his wage. On the other hand, a Western worker with a robot doing 500% faster work might.
Watch what happens when their reusable rocket thing actually finally pans out. They're still somewhat in the experimentation/development phase of that. But once they can relyably reuse their rockets on a regular basis, price to orbit will drop by orders of magnitude and change humanities entire perspective on space travel, Neuromancer style. SpaceX could easily become the most valuable company ever on an entirely new scale.
Considering how things are going and how Elon Musk and the people he get's on board have a reputation for getting the job done this evaluation is entirely justified IMHO.
Well, from my understanding of the market (pretty slim), SpaceX, (like Tesla), is a big bubble of market speculation and, again from my understanding, the challenge is to change speculation into real value.
So, I think that SpaceX have a "speculative" value similar to what if should become in the most optimist schenario. Of course, at that time, SpaceX will still have some "speculative" value but I don't think it's gonna be as big as it is right now. Well, unless they present something as revolutionary to their reusables rockets than the revolution that they are right now.
But once they can relyably reuse their rockets on a regular basis, price to orbit will drop by orders of magnitude and change humanities entire perspective on space travel, Neuromancer style. SpaceX could easily become the most valuable company ever on an entirely new scale.
Orders of magnitude? No. Musk said fuel is currently about 3% of total launch cost. One order of magnitude would make that 30%, two orders would be 300%. Unless you can work magic in fuel efficiency and do the rest for free, not happening. Even with Musk's most generous long time full reuse scenario (where a booster has 1000 launches, tanker 100 and the spaceship 12 and the refurb costs are minimal like <0.1% on the booster and <1% on the tanker) he's estimating $140/kg to Mars surface. Until you got a working fuel production plant on Mars so the spaceship can return - a highly theoretical idea at the moment - then $520/kg. And I'm pretty sure that doesn't include development costs, this is purely marginal costs but let's ignore those.
So for a person ~$50k minimum ticket price, of course that doesn't include air, water, food, heating, shielding or anything else you'd need on a months-long trip through space. Or anything you'd need to survive on Mars a couple years, if not you personally then all the people working there maintaining the base and supporting you. I'm thinking $200k at least. So after being stuck in a tin can for months you're stuck in a slightly bigger dome for 2.5 years and even though you can go outside it's not exactly like home. Then some more months in a tin can before you land back on earth and discover your muscles haven't tried 1G for almost three years. And unlike a submarine that can actually abort and surface if they have to, that's not an option here.
I think the novelty of it will wear off real quick and after three years you'll feel more like a supermax prisoner that's finally out of jail than anyone who has had the experience of a lifetime. That is unless there's any system failure of any kind along the way where you'll most likely end up dead. Don't get me wrong, the first to go will be super-celebrities and all that so that will be cool. But when you're like the 834th person on Mars, eh... and it's not like you're climbing Mount Everest or something, you're probably doing routine maintenance most the time. I should probably also remind you that nobody has come up with any commercially viable business on Mars - at best it's reducing the costs so Earth won't have to pay as much to support a Mars outpost. It still takes political will to fund it, cost-plus or fixed price.
Or maybe I should put this in a TL;DR form: Even if Musk achieves everything he wants to do, most space sci-fi will remain fiction.
While I like you point, one thing to take into consideration is that not much have been done to reduce the cost of rocket fuel since, well, it's insignifiant.
When reusable launch system will become the norm and fuel will be the biggest cost of all launch, a lot more money will be put in R&D de develop cheaper fuel.
Of course, this is if we don't see a new technology overtaking it by then (Space Elevator or other cheap Non-rocket spacelaunch system).
I find it hard to believe the CEO of one of the largest tech companies in the world, whose services heavily rely on AI for recommendations, image recognition, etc, has a limited knowledge of the AI industry. I'm not saying Zuckerberg is one of the world's experts but he most likely has a very firm grasp on the subject.
And whether or not Zuckerberg is correct, it is certainly a reasonable opinion that those who drum up negative sentiment towards AI research are acting irresponsibly. It isn't to the level of Edison spreading fears about AC current by electrocuting animals, but spreading fear about new technologies is likely not a good thing. Instead of more reasonable debates over AI caused displacement of jobs or privacy concerns, Musk is doom-saying about a robot apocalypse. I wouldn't use the term irresponsible, but it's close enough to me to not disparage those who do accuse Musk of irresponsible behavior.
Why?
AFAIK, this is not a requierement for a CEO to know the deep technical details of it's product. I've working for a airplane manifacturing company and, by listening to a few of his speech, I'm pretty sure his technical knowledge of aircraft engineering is roughly the equivalent of my grandmother.
If there's no air in the tube, how do you breathe? I mean, there is air in the capsule but I assume that is finite. So how do they refresh the air and what do they do if there's a rupture?
Yeah....not like airplane doesn't have those problem...or does they?
People are having fewer children because we're so productive and good at keeping them alive, there isn't as much incentive to spawn half a dozen or more for extra farm labor. Household productivity is likewise vastly improved to the point where women can work part or full time outside of the house without the household falling into complete disarray so most of them don't want to sit around being a baby factory either. And its a good thing as well. The world doesn't need even more people when we haven't figured out how to make sure that the ones we have are all at a reasonable baseline and not committing various atrocities towards one and other.
Honnestly, I think you forgot the most important reason : We have Birth control now
Not sure why this have been modded up as it's pretty much common knowledge that there is Supercharger Stations about everyone in NA [tesla.com] that will charge 80% of your battery under 30min.
1- Yes and I'm actually taking classes right, sorry if I annoyed you with my "not so perfect" English but it'll get better. It doesn't invalidate my post though.
2-Sorry, it's actually a Typo. What I meant was "it's pretty much common knowledge in Slashdot". And yeah we're talking a "lot" about the supercharging capability here and a quick google search will give you the information you need (actually, you can find everything you need to know inside the link of my last message).
3-Typo again (damn cellphone). And I would like you to share me a scenario where you'll have to drive over 300 km straight in a day without reaching one of those station. Personally, the only scenario I got in mind is in case you're delivering pizza or driving a client to the Airport (or in other words, "on-the-road" jobs).
4- Well, I said NA but Tesla opened hundreds Supercharger station in Europpe and Asia (see the link in my precedent post again). And this is ignoring Supercharging station no build by tesla (my company installed three fast charging station in the parking lot.
By charging and discharging your car batteries for uses other than moving your car, you would be consuming charge/discharge cycles on your relatively expensive batteries designed for your automobile rather than batteries designed for fixed location storage (which would likely be cheaper as weight and compactness and certain safety considerations would be substantially less costly for the fixed location storage batteries.).
The cost of what you describe can be a very expensive replacement of your electric car batteries or substantial reduction in resell value of your electric car. That's quite a bit above zero.
Using batteries from electric cars for fixed storage after the batteries don't hold enough of a charge for automotive use might be more cost effective (both financially and environmentally) than discarding and recycling them.
Actually, there's a quite simple way to analyse this.
Take the price (P) for a battery replacement.
Take the number (A) of charge certified by a battery during it's lifetime.
Take the price (U) that you'll get by selling your used battery.
(P - U) / A = C
C is the cost of the battery per charge.
If you receive more than C per cycle so they can use your battery, you'll make a profit.
The only question that really matters is: What is the charge time? 215 miles is a reasonable enough range; but if you're planning a 250 mile trip, you don't want to have to make an overnight stop! If you can charge the car enough in, say, a 15-minute rest break that it can keep going for another couple of hours, then it's a viable vehicle. If not, it's not.
Not sure why this have been modded up as it's pretty much common knowledge that there is Supercharger Stations about everyone in NA that will charge 80% of your battery under 30min.
And yeah the Model 3 will be compatible with those station.
Of course FFV, they added Star Fox 2 so why not FFV?
And Final Fantasy Mystic Quest, what the hell is that? Never heard of it! Nope! Never existed.
No Chrono Trigger??
Also, why not complete series like Mega Man X, X2, X3 and Donkey Kong Country 1, 2 and 3? The other two Final Fantasy would have been great too.