It's a solid rocket motor, of course it needs to be replaced after every flight.
Actually, it is a hybrid rocket motor which has characteristics of both a solid and liquid motor. Wiki says they are changing the propellant which would explain the motor replacement.
'Major sponsors include Ford, General Motors, IMRA, Michigan Engineering, NYK, Qatar Airways and Siemens PLM Software.'
Why is that unfair? Other teams are permitted to get sponsors. It's their problem if they can't recruit good sponsors. Plus most of those companies hire Michigan engineering graduates so why wouldn't they sponsor the students they are likely to hire?
Sure, I think they should be able to get as much money as they want from sponsors. However, the article made it sound like they were getting engineering help from their sponsors. This is supposed to be a student competition, not a professional contest. In this case, the team that won didn't even build their car, they just drove a car built by previous students and sponsors. I guess they drove it competently, but in an engineering competition I would like to see more engineering on the part of the participants.
Except for the fact that it was the vehicle trials which occurred in the US (california, nevada), trials that demonstrated the safety of these vehicles and which have caused the UK to fully allow them on the roads in Jan 2014, rather than their initial plans for trials to occur by the end of 2013. While the article does not explicitly state this to be the reason for the change, I believe it to be a fair presumption that the 300,000 miles google's cars have driven in Califonia were taken into consideration.
Trials are different than allowing manufacturers to sell driverless cars or allowing the general public to drive them. Even the Nevada law just instructs the DOT to set safety standards for driverless cars, which they have not yet completed. That also doesn't address insurance, which all cars in the US are required to have to drive on public roads. If the insurance companies won't insure the cars because of the litigation-happy Americans, the only way to drive such a car would be to underwrite the insurance yourself (which generally involves posting a large bond).
Obviously the US will not have this for some time ("Oh my god, somebody might sue!"), it's nice to see at least some countries see the advantage of cars that can drive themselves better than humans can drive them, even if the self-driving cars are not perfect. I would expect initially they would require a licensed driver behind the wheel, at least until the technology has proven itself.
Mesa company bans workers from smoking, tests for nicotine
Workplaces ban not only smoking, but smokers themselves
Hospitals Shift Smoking Bans to Smoker Ban
Those are just the first three that came up in a Google search, there are many more.
There is not discrimination against smokers.
There are companies that will not hire you if you have nicotine in your system, if that isn't discrimination I don't know what is. I don't even smoke, but I do chew nicotine gum so I wouldn't be even considered for a position at these companies.
There's certainly hope that we can get another Kennedy/Reagan/Eisenhower* next time. Maybe if we try to choose based on COMPETENCE rather than just whoever most extremely mirrors our favored ideology.
* (Not an actual Kennedy of course, the good one is dead. HW Bush / Bush Jr. should have taught us something about electing a guy because he was related to a decent president.)
Good fucking luck. It's looking like 2016 is going to be Hillary (yet ANOTHER person who's only qualification for president is that she is related to one) and whatever republican manages to out-crazy the rest of them. It's going to be yet another episode of giant douche vs. shit sandwich. You can vote for the corporate tool or the corporate tool.
Why not? I was on a Delta flight the other day and the only way to purchase in-flight cocktails was via credit card. On another flight the same day, the same purchase could only be made in cash. I am not aware of any laws that require businesses to accept a certain form of payment, and why should there be? If a business doesn't accept cash (or credit cards, or chickens, or bitcoin) and their customers prefer that method of payment, it will show up in their bottom line. Why would the government need to intervene in such a transaction?
So are you going to take potshots at police and medical helicopers as well? Because they are "invading your privacy" just as much as a drone (police probably more, they tend to have powerful optics).
If you buy gasoline, it was probably your money they used.
No, it is their money that they used. Once you traded your money for gasoline, it's no longer your money. If you don't like that then don't make the trade, nobody is forcing you to do so.
I've always wondered how big of a generator you would need to keep an electric car running continuously, and whether it would be feasible to just tow it behind you on a trailer. Maybe make those available to rent so that people can make long trips on their electric car. It would probably be cheaper to rent than an actual car, and the money you'd save from using an electric car for most of the year would easily offset the cost of renting the generator once in a while.
Back when they first made the RAV4-EV there was a trailer that you could pull behind it to extend the range. It used a 500cc motorcycle engine and was not too big. I have been interested in this concept for a long time, it seems to be a great way to alleviate range anxiety.
No, it is not. It sounds like a great way to earn a whole bunch of money from somebody who is having repeated brain farts about what the law actually says.
Even if you win (and that's a big if, considering you are an individual vs. a company with armies of lawyers on staff) the most you will ever see is that your copyright gets upheld and you MAY recover attorney's fees. Unless you can prove Qualcomm maliciously and purposefully filed an false DMCA claim you aren't getting jack. If you are a contributor to an open source project are you really going to give up hundreds of hours of your life and thousands of dollars out of pocket to defend your portion of the copyright on the code? On the slight chance that judge says "yep that's your code" and pays your lawyers? Seems like a huge risk for a very modest reward, if you win you are only out the years it took to litigate the matter but if you lose you could wind up liable for damages for infriging copyright on your own code (now Qualcomm's code).
This is why the DMCA is bullshit, it's not enough that corporations have extended copyright to life+infinity, even if they don't own the copyright laws like this allow large corporations to abuse the already fucked-up system. Like global thermonuclear war, the only winning move is not to play.
"He was studied extensively by doctors for the rest of his life and died of coronary artery disease in 1987 at the age of 75. "
You sure about that 2007 thing?
GP was referring to the arrest of the Radioactive Boy Scout, not Atomic Man.
That's because the U.S. makes no attempt at incentivizing energy conservation through the tax system.
Why would not incentivizing energy conservation make it CHEAPER, if the US is not conserving energy wouldn't supply and demand make it more expensive?
Really, you're going to fix Feynman but not going to fix "Tell the tail" or Politzer?
He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion
