This is more about putting an end to "range anxiety". Efficiency is a separate problem, though it should still be cheaper per mile than fossil fuels while putting less carbon into the air.

Trailers might be easier to swap out, but if shops and cars are designed to support a rapid replacement of an internal battery, you don't have to deal with the awkwardness of a separate object trailing behind you (prone to theft, tricky to park). Musk had already demonstrated a quick-swap battery a while back meant to make refueling as quick as putting in gas.

That's not a very good way to describe it. It's like blaming Boyle's Law for not predicting nuclear fusion. The Standard Model is anything but half-assed. It made a lot of predictions, including previously unseen quarks, mesons, and the Higgs Boson.

Nobody was trying to say that it was the final theory. They know it doesn't incorporate gravity; that's why there's string theory and alternatives (and the challenge of putting together an experiment with sufficient energy to show the discrepancies between general relativity and the Standard Model). They know it doesn't explain all of its own parameters; that's why they're looking for supersymmetry (or alternatives) and the presence of unpredicted particles to narrow it down.

It's all just physics. That's how science works. It's a process. It seems weak to run down the process for not being finished, when it's clear that the process does make progress (and when it comes to these questions, it's the only thing that makes progress).

That's correct: there were discrepancies that might-could-possibly have been caused by a Higgs+.

Or by any of a zillion other things, but it was a hypothesis that merited further experimentation.

The data go a long way to ruling out the Minimal Supersymetric Standard Model (MSSM), but other SUSY theories are still in the running. The MSSM has the advantage of being, well, minimal, but there's no special reason to expect the universe to have made it that easy on us.

It's hard to say which theory this points us to, if any, but the Two Higgs Doublet Model (2HDM) is a part of several. Those theories will help refine what kind of data to look for and what kinds of experiments to configure.

The theory is that this is just one guy. He can introduce all the legislation he wants but requires over 200 others to also be on his side. A judge, by contrast, holds unique power in the room (or at least, one of a very small number).

In fact, given the difficulties in trying to reach a 60 vote threshold in the Senate, which has become essentially mandatory, the odds of this legislation going anywhere are extremely low. If it gets anywhere at all, it will be subject to the votes of the rest of the Congressmen, who have to face reelection.

Corporations can push to elect candidates who are predisposed to be favorable to them. They can't fund campaigns directly, but they can put out advertising to influence those voters, but voters are subject to a lot of influence, and it's easier to get other Congressmen to say "no" than "yes".

I'm not trying to defend the system; it's obviously a damn mess. But it's also the essence of representative democracy, a fundamentally antagonistic system. Judges aren't supposed to be in an antognistic relationship; they're intended to seek balance while juries make the actual decisions. (The top-level federal courts do work antagonistically, and that's actually a disaster in the making.)

You can't have legislators drop out due to conflict of interest: "interest" is what they were elected to do. The voters are supposed to be the brake on that: no matter what corporate push they get the voters can still dump them if they don't like it.

Whether the voters will actually do so on an abstruse issue like the FCC... well, there's democracy for you, and I have no further comment.

As I read the application, it doesn't even require the period. It's confusingly written, as it says "The literal element of the mark consists of PI." where the period is part of the sentence, not the mark, and the mark is described simply as "PI", with no period. The images all depict the period, though what's being trademarked is the character, not the image; it is not restricted about font, color, size, or style. One image depicts the actual letters P and I, with no period.

The domain is "athletic apparel", and as far as I know the mark is not in wide use for that purpose, though it's surely not the first use of pi on a tee shirt.

So I'm a bit baffled as to just what has been trademarked here. The Declaration specifically says that they are the "owner" of the mark, and I can't conceive of how Paul Ingrisiano could claim to own either a single character or two letters, even just in the domain of athletic apparel.

G+ isn't a Q&A site, and it's a really poor substitute for one since its whole point is just to link you up with your social circle. Q&A sites are designed to attract people by interest without having to become socially acquainted (even virtually).

Google did have a Q&A site, Google Answers, but it never really got going. It's too bad, since they were nearly unique in trying to actually pay for good answers. I'm not sure why it didn't work out, though of course trying to monetize anything has always been a pain in the butt so I assume it's just that kind of thing. They canned it (as Google is wont to when things aren't working out as well as they'd hoped.)

He *is* producing stuff. It's just stuff that people want to read, rather than physical stuff. Advertising is how he gets paid to produce it, simply because it's awkward to charge $.0001 directly to the reader for a page-view. The advertising, in turn, is intended to draw people to other things that they might want to buy, usually stuff that comes in bigger units and so is easier to pay for with money.

Very little of it is necessary. The bare necessities were a problem solved long ago, and require the efforts of a tiny fraction of the population. The rest is various forms of luxury. I'm actually pretty happy about that. If the mechanism by which producers are linked to consumers is awkward and ungainly, I'm content to live with that until a better system comes along. I strongly suspect the GP would be happier getting paid directly, but most consumers would rather pay in the form of a microscopic portion of attention.

Honestly... if McVeigh is his hero, I'm pretty happy about never having to be stuck in a tin can 35,000 feet up with him. Maybe he'd like to be a martyr to his cause, but I don't wish to be.

You can't fit even the shortest of his books into 640K of RAM. AGoT clocks in at 298k words, which is going to take up considerably more than 640k.

I suspect he's probably got each chapter in a separate file. And if I remember correctly the CP/M version of Wordstar had an overlay feature that was a kind of primitive virtual memory. So yeah, I believe it's possible, and there's a lot to be said for Just A Plain Glorified Typewriter. (I got to review the draft of a book by one of the Mac's original designers; it was done in double-spaced Courier with crude hand-drawn illustrations. The formatting was to be done by those who did formatting.)

I'm increasingly using Google Docs for my work because I like the fact that it doesn't allow, and thus doesn't require, much formatting. Less time fiddling is more time working.

Thanks for confirming that. I had a feeling this was gibberish and had to scroll down a long, long way to find a post that wasn't either a joke or sci-fi blithering.

Can you actually fly a parabolic flight in a light plane like that? Safely, I mean? I'm sure it's designed to have that within its tolerance, but is it really possible to do that without dramatically increasing risk of getting pushed outside the tolerances by the unexpected?

Good point, though I note that the moratorium expires in July. I am not aware of the status of any attempt to extend it.

Except, of course, for the countries that make huge sums of money producing land mines, and the countries (and non-country actors) with a grudge against somebody and a disposition to not care who else it blows up.

So according to this site, land mine usage is nearly flat despite the treaty.

It would be great to get the US to give up making land mines, but unfortunately China and Russia would almost certainly ramp up production to fill any shortfall. That's not a good enough reason for us to keep doing it, but it also wouldn't save many lives. (Worse, it deprives us of a negotiating point to try to force reductions from other top producers, but since those negotiations are largely nonexistent anyway that too is a bad reason.)

They're also moving a lot slower. On surface streets they're often not moving much more than 10-12 mph even when they're moving, so they're getting a good view of the whole intersection for quite some time before approaching it. It's even longer when you take into account that they're slowing down.

I have no trouble believing that it's perfectly safe to have cyclists do a rolling stop when they can clearly see a lack of traffic. The pause is so awkward (especially for cyclists wearing clipless cleats) that the acceleration time puts them in more danger in the middle of the intersection than just rolling through when they can.