No, anti-theist think religion is a really bad idea and are verbally opposed to it. Anti-theist don't think it's a sin to believe in God, they don't believe in sin. They think that we make up the rules and that taking religious doctrine seriously has real world consequences. Like denying people rights - today the gays, in the past, women, minorities, holders of other religious beliefs. Like spreading lies about the efficacy of condoms and withholding information on safer-sex practices. I won't list all of it, you get the idea. And yes, I know there are plenty of loving, peaceful, accepting religious people. Unfortunately, the major religions' actual canon provide plenty of theologically justifiable ammo to do great harm and say "God demands it!"

But somehow having a strong opinion and trying to get the government out of the business of endorsing a specific religion is "just the same" as trying to force everyone to conform to religious law through supposedly secular institutions.

It might get them to consider the fact that the government sanctioning ANY religion is a bad thing.

So what is your suggestion? Continue to support their delusion that American was founded as a Christian nation and that they can keep forcing others to abide by their specific religion's so called morals?

It's not a "bullshit legal decision," it is enforcing the 1st amendment that explicitly states that the government stays out of the religion business.

This will change the minds of people that see the hypocrisy. It will remove religious endorsement from government property. It will give those that have other beliefs the courage to stand up for their rights. That's good enough.

Well, if it was some biblical justification for slavery, then yes, Martin Luther King would have down something. And Ghandi was a Hindu, so yeah. He may have had an issue with Britain claiming India was a nation founded on Christian values if anyone ever tried to claim such a thing. But this is all a non sequitur.

I hope Tesla keeps working on reducing the amount of energy wasted. But lets use those same numbers for cars that actually get driven and see how the Tesla compares:

Given the average US driver drives 13476 miles per year, which is 1123 miles per month. And the average new car gets 24.9 miles per gallon. Therefore the kWh equivalent for the average ICE car is: 1123/24.9*34.7 = 1564 kWh / month

Whereas the Tesla consumes 38 kWh/100 miles. So for the Tesla we have: 38/100 * 1123 = 427 kWh driving per month, plus 33 kWh wasted per month gives a grand total of 460 kWh / month.

In other words, for people that actually drive their cars, the Tesla uses less than 1/3 of the energy of an ICE. Which seems relevant to the conversation.

Now, to be fair. I bet that people drive their Teslas more aggressively and get less than the EPA 38 kWh/100 miles. And there is the drain of accessories, etc. But that is a lot of headroom, I doubt any of the similar sized ICEs ever come close to the Tesla in energy efficiency.

So you hate Elon Musk because you imagine that people (who are not Elon Musk) are not adequately upset by all the "problems" that Falcon 9 has experienced? Are you sure fanbois (nice ad hominem by the way) refuse to acknowledge the "problems," it seems to me you are blowing them out of proportion. What Falcon 9 problems are out of line for developing a completely new rocket, including engines? I'm not saying there haven't been problems and I know it took longer than they thought, but I don't see anything out of the ordinary in the course of developing a new rocket. Also, kindly list any comparable rockets that had fewer problems during their development and shakedown phases. Most currently flying rockets have had catastrophic failures during their development and service. The "worst" incident so far for the Falcon 9 was an engine failure, and it still reached orbit and deployed it's cargo - albeit in a lower than optimal orbit. Here is a sampling of some respectable rockets, from respectable companies having real problems:

1. First launch of the Ariane 5
2. Ariane 5 Mission Failure
3. Proton-M launch failure
4. Soyez launch failure
5. Progress fails to reach orbit
6. Taurus XL fails to reach orbit
7. Delta II launch failure
8. Zenit-3SL/ NSS-8 Sea Launch rocket vehicle failure

No rocket technology has ever been perfect right off the drawing board and most rockets flying today are using engines originally designed in the 60s and 70s. Those engines failed a lot during their early flights.

The only currently inservice rocket (that I am aware of) that has not had an outright failure is the Atlas V. That thing is amazing, but it costs 4x as much to launch as a Falcon 9 even though ULA gets launch subsidies. Orbital Services' Antares also looks like a solid platform. Its first flight was originally planned to be in December 2010 (when it was called the Taurus II). Its first launch was actually late April 2013. Two and a quarter years behind schedule (which is about the same delay as the Falcon 9.) Yet it's a much less capable rocket than the Falcon 9, using "off the shelf" engines and therefore should have been easier to design and build. But it turns out that building rockets is hard, even for companies that have been doing it for decades.

I want to be clear, I'm not bagging on any of the existing manufacturers nor their rockets. I just don't understand your animosity towards SpaceX, Elon Musk, and those of us excited that space flight is becoming less expensive.

And I feel the same way about Tesla. I don't expect a car to be perfect. It seems like a damn cool car and most the people that own one seem more than pleased with it. As for this problem existing for quite a while, it sounds like Tesla addressed it once they where made aware of it.

You didn't list any actual facts and calling people fanbois and terminally clueless is pretty rude.

First of all, don't conflate the Democrats with progressives, we don't have a progressive party in the US. Second, US conservatives are just as (or more) authoritarian as it's so-called liberals. Don't get me wrong, I'm no longer a fan of Obama but Romney would have been no better. Second, look at all the votes for the Patriot Act in 2001 and 2006: the overwhelming majority of nay votes (and those abstaining) were Democrats. Third, who is passing all the laws requiring women to be vaginally probed before they can get an abortion? Who wants to force their religious values on others? Etc... The Republicans want just as big of a police state as the Democrats, they only have a couple of minor differences on what to enforce. The NSA has been with us for a long time, through multiple power shifts and no one has reigned it in.

In summary. The US does not have a party that is "left of center." Democrats suck. Republicans suck more.

Not evil, just short sighted at times. Maybe a bit unaware and selfish too. But we've come a long way on both counts, so there's hope even if the current trend is to bag on people for the crime of giving a shit.

Because summarizing valid and semi-insightful point by calling people:

for the intolerable crime of:

Is kindof douchey, but sadly Slashdot does not have a kind of douchey choice for the moderators.

And then there is the point that landfills aren't really an unlimited resource, none of the articles accused the US of anything, plastic bags wash out to sea from storm drains in the US (even if other countries contribute most of the trash.) And finally, what's so funny about peace, love, and understanding?

There is no way SpaceX ramps up its production line without customers paying something up front, and I'm pretty sure that one of the requirements to get the $56.5 M price is payment in full before launch. Either way, according to SpaceX and many comments from Musk, SpaceX is already profitable and cash-flow positive. They have development funds from NASA for the Dragon capsule and $1.6 billion in Falcon 9 launches alone. At this point, they seem to be a viable enterprise and will have to screw up really seriously to run out of money.

SpaceX doesn't need funding, they have paying customers. And unless something goes terribly wrong, they are about to get a bunch more.

Third, to reinforce how strongly we feel about the low risk of fire in our cars, we will be amending our warranty policy to cover damage due to a fire, even if due to driver error. Unless a Model S owner actively tries to destroy the car, they are covered. Our goal here is to eliminate any concern about the cost of such an event and ensure that over time the Model S has the lowest insurance cost of any car at our price point. Either our belief in the safety of our car is correct and this is a minor cost or we are wrong, in which case the right thing is for Tesla to bear the cost rather than the car buyer.

I think it is clear that the Tesla is more likely to have a fire if you hit something hard enough to puncture the vehicle's armor plating and pierce the battery pack. It's a specific mode of failure and I don't know how common of an event this will be in the long run. I also don't think it's as big of a deal as the media is making. It doesn't "explode" or unexpectedly burst into flames that engulf the passenger compartment. A cluster of events does not define a trend in my mind.

I really like the low center of gravity, the balanced fore-aft weight distribution and the ridiculous amounts of trunk space the "skateboard" design allows. It makes for a great handling car, which improves safety. It also means huge crumble zones to absorb kinetic energy in a crash, which also improves safety. To me, it's a design trade-off. The real measure of the trade off will be whether people are safer, on average, or not. So far there have been no deaths or serious injuries, but the sample size and time frame is small for that to be really meaningful. But I'm hopeful, and if I could afford one, I'd buy one.

Citation please, because the Model S Owner's Manual says the exact opposite:

The most important way to preserve the Battery is to LEAVE YOUR MODEL S PLUGGED IN when you’re not using it. This is particularly important if you are not planning to drive your Model S for several weeks. When plugged in, Model S wakes up when needed to automatically maintain a charge level that maximizes the lifetime of the Battery.

There is no advantage to waiting until the Battery’s level is low before charging. In fact, the Battery performs best when charged regularly. Never allow the Battery to fully discharge

Maybe the confusing is with the MAX charging option. As part of its battery management, Tesla intentionally does not charge to 100% unless you explicitly request it on the charging menu. People on the forums are still getting over 200 miles on the standard charge. With the MAX charge they're getting over 250 miles and the common practice is to use MAX for road trips. As long as you are using the standard charge settings, you can plug it in all the time and not worry about it killing the battery.

From TFA:

And for what it's worth, he's clearly stated he won't be involved with the HyperLoop because he's too busy with Tesla and Space X. And what's so terrible about having ideas?

I don't remember the details, but Tesla did a lot of fine tuning of the battery management system that leverages having around 8000 cells. On the Model S they worked with Panasonic to tweak the battery chemistry and internals of the cells. Anyway, according to the Model S Owner's Manual:

The Roadster uses standard Panasonic 18650s and it's manual also suggests leaving the car plugged in. I don't think charging frequently is as much of an issue for Tesla as it is for other EVs.

It's a type of clam known to live extremely long lives that people are studying to understand aging. It was part of a haul of clams caught on a field trip of Bangor University’s School of Ocean Sciences. And it's a clam. You know, one of those things we catch and eat by the millions every year without shedding a tear.

But God forbid a scientist kills one and actually learns something. And since one of the many things we might learn is how the climate has changed over the last 500 years, we get to blame climate science.

In summary:

• Over Fishing entire species to near extinction: Fine.

• Kill one clam that turns out to be really old add to our understanding of the oceans and climate: Evil, arrogant, and self-centered!

WTF?

It could be a typo. A quick google for "Dark Friday" shows that it's not in common use at all, so as far as I can tell there's no reason to make any assumptions for why Roblimo used it.