> Can you be compelled to open a safe?
Probably not, if it has a combination lock. With a warrant they can always break open a physical safe. But that method does not compel the owner to do anything.
Interestingly that article seems to imply you can be compelled to hand over a physical key, but not a combination as it is "contents of the mind." So if the key is stored on physical media it may not be considered "contents of the mind." And if it's stored in your mind, it can probably be brute forced fairly quickly.
It makes perfect sense. After enough time of disparaging the factory life, Americans are finally realizing that it beats the alternative.
I can make sense of it at an intellectual level, it's just my gut reaction to go "WTF" -- it's a bit counter-intuitive.
The news is welcome, I just wish American companies would start making things in USA again. I know we can do it. I suppose in time, we will.
It's already turning around. Tesla builds its cars in Fremont, CA and they're planning to open a battery factory somewhere in the US. SpaceX makes rockets in Hawthorne, CA. SolarCity bought Silevo and is planning to build a solar panel factory in NY. Now we just need to convince someone besides Elon Musk (which is actually happening.)
I admire Elon Musk. But he's dead wrong. Neil Degrasse Tyson is right.
I admire Neil Degrasse Tyson, but he's basically shilling for NASA. (I like NASA, more on their limits below.) And he is over simplifying what people's motivations where.
As others have pointed out, taking your company public means surrendering a significant amount of control over the long term. Board members and share holders like revenue. It's all about the next quarter. They don't like pet projects that are giant money sinks without the remote possibility of a return. Persist on that path post-IPO Elon, and watch yourself be fired from your own company, ala Steve Jobs.
Good thing Elon Musk has stated over and over that he won't take SpaceX public until all the long term development is done, specifically for those reasons.
NDGT is spot on the issue of exploration. It takes a government interested in (mostly) pure science without profit motivation.
You want to put people on Mars? I'll tell you what puts people on Mars - the U.S. government thumbing their nose in the face of Chinese ascendancy - Ala Cold War 2: Space Boogaloo.
Let the government, or team of governments blow tax dollars on building Mars mission tech. That tech will filter down to private enterprise years later, so the next generation of Elon Musks can farm minerals off asteroids, or some other future commercial endeavor.
NASA lives and dies by congressional funding and congressional funding is fickle. NASA has done great things, but those days are over and where basically a fluke. President's come in, they say they want to return to the Moon or go to Mars but they don't push congress to fund a coherent plan. Next president comes in, new plan, still not funded. When congress does fund something, the funding is based on getting jobs in their own districts not on what actually makes sense from an engineering standpoint. Look into the history of the "Space Launch System" (that's the rocket congress wants NASA to build that would be used to send people to Mars.) It's mandated that it must use components from Space Shuttle technology. In the space industry, the Space Launch System is known as "the rocket to nowhere." NASA's history is littered with cancelled projects due to the fickleness of Presidents and Congress.
At this point in history, the US Congress is incapable of funding an expensive and on going coherent space program. I don't see that changing in the next twenty years. NASA may land a man on Mars in the 2030s, but I doubt it. But even if NASA does land a human on Mars in the 2030s, they are not working on the technologies, infrastructure and transportation systems to put a colony there. If NASA puts humans on Mars, it will be just like when we landed on the Moon. Plant a flag, shout "we're #1", and then go home.
Elon is overreaching with this.
No, he's reaching. Something I wish more people would do even though they may fail.
Long live the oligarchy (and how sad is it that is our best hope?)
... Please focus on finishing what you started instead of constantly shifting focus like someone afflicted with attention deficit disorder.
Elon Musk is doing fine and luckily will ignore your advice.
"South American countries such as...Mexico"
No, the quote from the article did not contain the words "South America," so it's the submitter or editor that is poor at geography. And quoting. And the first sentence was not attributed to the Professor in the article nor in the summary.
In a place where the temperature is always well below freezing, "global warming" is not going to melt all the ice. That doesn't mean it isn't a problem elsewhere. Even if there were no net ice loss on earth, if we're losing ice in places we need it (such as mountain ranges that supply people with drinking water), and accumulate it in places that have no humans at all (Antarctica), that's an enormous problem.
But hey, let's confuse land ice and sea ice and create doubt about the actual science by cherry picking data, spreading half-truths and general misinformation.
So, is NASA currently paying a nearly 3x premium to SpaceX just to get their technology off the ground or what? Not that I object to such long-term thinking, quite the opposite in fact, but I could swear the SpaceX contract was marketed as a cost-saving maneuver.
It says here that it currently costs $10,000 to get a pound of payload into orbit, but from TFA SpaceX has a $1.6 billion contract for 12 launches, and if the current ~5000 pound payload is typical that works out to ~$27,000 per pound.
That $10,000 number does not include the price of the spacecraft/satellite (that you are trying to put into orbit). The $10,000/lb refers to the scenario where the spacecraft/satellite is the payload. NASA never sent anything to the ISS for $10,000 per pound, as missions to the ISS require a spacecraft to contain the actual cargo. The shuttle supposedly used to cost around $20,000/lb to deliver cargo to the ISS even though it use "reusable" (really it was refurbishable.)
Furthermore, the $10,000/lb is just to get something into orbit. SpaceX also returns cargo from the ISS back to Earth. So for the money NASA gets a launch vehicle and a spacecraft capable of carrying cargo to and from the ISS. All at a lower price than anyone else can offer. It really is a deal, and they really are not paying 3x the "going rate." As a matter of fact, the closest competition is Orbital Sciences and the are more expensive and can't return cargo to Earth. SpaceX is the only company that can do that for more small amounts of cargo.
No one said the Model S would be available for 35K in 5-7 years. The plan is to make a smaller, cheaper, lower-range model for 35K.
The 35K EVs out there today are an embarrasment.
Actually the plan is just smaller and cheaper. It will have similar range to the Model S.
Based on that set of axioms, it can be completely loving to encourage someone to repent of his sins and choose to follow Jesus. Practicing homosexuality is a sign that someone isn't doing that. It would therefore be unloving or even hateful to affirm homosexual relations.
His intent is not relevant, it's his actions that matter. The fact that he comes to these conclusions through religious beliefs makes them no less oppressive. The only reasons to oppose gay marriage are religious, or "ick factor." Neither have any business in a state's constitution.
I personally feel that boycotting FF over this is a bit much, but I think people have every right to do so.
Thinking one group of people is subhuman, and not worthy of the same rights isn't "an opposing view", it's bigotry.
This isn't a quip at you, but I'm interested in your response; It's an honest question. Am I a bigot because I consider child molestors, rapists and nazis subhuman? These are groups of people. Some with mental health problems, others with aggressive theological views... All scourge of the earth in my eyes.
Are you equating being gay to molesting children, raping and genocide of the jews, gypsies and homosexuals?
But laying this at the feet of "The Left" much less Obama is utter horseshit
Not really, no. This tactic of destroying people's livehoods by virtue of internet slacktivism is unquestionably a page out of the leftist playbook.
You're kidding right?
If you think that only liberals boycott companies and people they disagree with, you are living in a cognitive bubble.
2. Refusing to participate in/support an event that goes against one's religious beliefs. Similar bakery, but now someone (straight or gay) asks for a wedding cake for a gay wedding (with two grooms on top, say). If the baker has a religious belief that opposes gay marriage, must they still provide the cake?
If the baker has a genuine religious belief to oppose interracial marriages, can they deny providing a cake to an interracial couple? This is a real thing, people use Deuteronomy 7:3 among other verses to justify it. Their beliefs are repugnant, but "genuine." My answer is that if you sell to the public, you sell to the public. Selling someone a cake is not "supporting gay marriage." It's selling them a cake. The baker is free to have all the hateful, unloving, non-compassionate thoughts they want. Presumably God can read minds and will understand that they are good righteous people.
There are two ways to write error-free programs; only the third one works.
