The same power as 17 Teslas in a golf ball, I wonder what range you get out of one of those.

Why would suppliers provide electricity at negative prices? Can't they just waste it somehow, just install a bunch of resistors in a big swimming pool and run the excess electricity through there?

Of course storing it for later use, for example by pumping up water that can be routed through turbines later, would be even better but would also require a serious investment. But certainly from the provider's point of view, simply wasting it is better than selling at negative prices?

Yes, that's a different law: if a headline ends in a question mark, the author of the article got everything backwards.

Except for certain Prince songs.

It will be 800 km in "extended cruise mode", meaning constant low speed, the way car manufacturers used to measure range before better standards were invented. In other words, they're cheating. Actual real world range will be about the same as a Tesla S 85.

Only just: a model S 60 is $69,900. And I imagine refilling with hydrogen at a gas station will cost a fair bit more than plugging in at home, making the Tesla cheaper and much easier to operate.

The S 60 has 2/3 the range of that concept FCV (208 miles vs. 300 according to Wikipedia), certainly way more than a fifth as stated in the article, and for $10,000 more you get an S 85 with a 265 mile range.

Actually, it goes about the same distance. When they say "5 times the range of an electric car", they are probably comparing with their own abysmal electric carts. According to Wikipedia, the Toyota FCV concept will actually have a range of 480 km (300 miles) which is pretty close to that of a Model S 85 (426 km according to the same Wikipedia article, assuming it uses the same method of range measurement).

And you can't fill it up in your own home, and a refill will cost more, etc...

Nope, I'm not getting one.

But as long as you keep more than 50% of the shares, you still have full control of the company, right? As long as you don't mislead the shareholders (which might lead to lawsuits) and make it clear from the start that this is a long term company which is just taking shareholders along for the ride without them having anything to say, what are the risks for SpaceX?

What I don't get is: who cares about hedge fund managers? Just do an IPO for the general public, small investors all over the world are more than eager to pour their money into SpaceX, they are literally asking him for it! Sure, it's a risky investment, and Elon's primary objective doesn't seem to be profit, but why say no to all that crazy excited volunteer funding? Unless he really has all the money he needs right now and wouldn't have any efficient use for more?

Maybe the blood doesn't actually boil, but you may get the bends (vapour bubbles forming in your blood) which will probably be lethal.

Wind chill works because of evaporation on the skin, right? I don't think anyone is going to be walking around on Mars outside a biosphere, in a T-shirt. If you're wearing a space suit, wind chill is totally irrelevant or am I missing something?

You might be on to something there, if you plan it carefully. The text doesn't say it has to be a justified arrest. So you might indeed say "I pointed a laser at an aircraft", get arrested, then explain "but it was my own plane parked in a hangar", get released, but still qualify for the bounty because you did actually get arrested.

You can travel the distance, but by the time you get there, that galaxy will be much further away. You'll never catch up with it.

Even then, you'll still never see it happen :-)

That's exactly why it would be unlikely that any technological breakthrough would allow us to get to those places. If we can do that, then you can set up a thought experiment sending things back in time by juggling coordinate systems.