That's only required to make electrics practical for the last 3-4% of transportation needs. Several standard deviations of our driving can be met with existing technology. Overnight charging at 6-12 kW is ideal because it's cheapest, and it happens while you do other things (like sleep), and it's when the grid is the cleanest.

I'm glad you weren't in charge of Apollo 13. : ) Seriously, I think your interpretation is unusual (or maybe we're talking about different documents). The CAIB pretty clearly says the scenarious were plausible. Obviously risky, with no guarantee of success, but not impossible. I can't see how you got from that to "certain doom".

This claim was solidly refuted in the official accident investigation report, which explores parallel scenarios--one for rescue, and another for improvised repair while on orbit.

The report is a fascinating read, by the way, and highly recommended. It manages to be satisfyingly technical without going over the head of a typical engineer or even lay person.

Winking is great, but I want the hut hut.

More is better to a point, but productivity does not scale linearly with the number of lines of code displayed simultaneously.

I'm open minded, but unconvinced that it's especially better than two (or three) modest size displays. I'd be interested to hear from others who have tried both approaches (enormous display vs. a few smaller ones).

I'm sending in more trains!

I assume the technology is for export, because line of sight in China should be good for, oh, about twenty feet or so.

That depends on how you account for the strip mining, fracking, CO2 and things like radiation (from coal plants) spewing into the atmosphere (which we all share). There aren't low carbon sources that are both cheaper than nuclear and suitable for base load.

And for perspective, coal plants emit more radiation when working normally, 24x7.

Are possible, and much safer technology (than was in place at any of the high-profile incidents) exists today.

Actually, it also confirms that the GP is wrong about the financial arguments, since it's exceedingly well documented that executing prisoners costs about an order of magnitude more than the alternative.

Alas, it was an open-faced sandwich.

Pedophiles are mentally ill, and while it's common to equate mental illness with criminality, I don't understand it. Pedophiles find children attractive, and they need to be stopped, but this is a social problem and not a criminal one.

The rest of us who don't "molest" children don't refrain because we're simply in better control of our urges, it's that we don't find children sexually attractive.

Agreed. Mini-USB, on the other hand, is way more robust, and is not significantly larger.

This was a discussion about the costs of solar thermal vs. solar photovoltaic, so you're correct: I'm not much interested in your oil/coal tangent. You're way off topic.

The answer is "irrelevant" because we're not within a factor of 100 of having more solar energy online than we can use in real time. The only people who back their PV with battery systems are 1) fools willing to pay a fortune for the privilege of thinking they're giving the utility company "the finger", and 2) people who absolutely can't get a grid connection (and are thus paying a fortune for their battery-backed PV).

It's also "irrelevant with prejudice" because the $7/watt thermal plant in question most obviously does not come with a 30-year warranty either. In fact, no one seems to want to talk about its operating costs, which are probably staggering.

I'm thinking and typing. And you're acting like an asshole in public.