NO! In a democratic society, we should NEVER tolerate intolerance.

So, we should be intolerant of intolerance?

Look at the image at the top of the page. Do you see it? That's Mir's solar panels after about *10 years*. Hubble replaced its panels twice over a period of 13 years. Space absolutely sucks for solar panels.

The Hubble panels were replaced to provide more power, not because the panels were broken.

Note that since the last Hubble solar panel upgrade, Hubble has operated for longer than 12 years (13 so far). Currently, they're expecting the Hubble to be operational for another three years. At least.

So, with Hubble as a data point, and 2002-era solar panels, we're seeing an expected lifetime of 16+ years (there's no particular reason to believe Hubble is going to fail due to solar panel problems as opposed to other issues).

Note that 16 year lifetime for the solar panels would increase the numbers for the space-based system by 1/3. Still behind the ground-based system, but not by very much (~89%, comparing 2002-era solar panels in space to 2015-era panels on the ground). And that's a MINIMUM for the space-based system....

"To be or not to be", or, in it's C style syntax: "2b || !2b", is not a question at all. It is a tautology. It is true regardless of what semantic value you assign to 2b.

I gather you've never read the source material?
That particular soliloquy was Hamlet's musings on suicide as a solution to his problems....

I just took a look at that site, and while in general I agree with his conclusions, I am perplexed by some of the math that he uses.

I don't necessarily agree with his conclusions, but agree that some of his math is...perplexing.

For instance, he gives a ground-bases system a lifetime of 40 years, but a space-based system a lifetime of only 12 years. Off the top of my head, I can't see any particularly good reason why a space-based system should be shorter-lived than a ground-based system.

If, instead, he'd assumed a similar lifetime for the space-based system, his conclusions would have been the opposite, since he'd have increased the lifetime output of the space-based system by a factor of 10/3, moving the 40K+ to 130K+ (nearly twice the output of the ground based system).

Arguably, a space-based system will last less time than a ground-based system. On the other hand, arguably, a ground-based system endures more weather events that can break solar panels, so the reverse may be true as well...

As to the Tg, it is possible that it will have a better value for the space-based system, since it can be beamed down to a location near where the power will be used (thus reducing line losses). This is not mandatory however, so it's possible space-based Tg will be the same as anywhere else (no reason it should be worse exists, but better is certainly possible). Even with Tg the same as ground-based, space-based solar would come out considerably better than ground-based so long as you assumed essentially identical lifetimes for the systems.

So what? The theory does what it is supposed to do: explain the data.

A theory is supposed to make predictions that can be tested. Have any testable predictions been made that have since been proved true?

Safe until it kills millions when a plant blows up.

Unlike, say, coal, which kills millions under normal operations, right?

Or didn't you know that routine coal-mining fatalities are a couple of orders of magnitude more numerous than all fatalities associated with nuclear power? Hell, coal mining fatalities in the 20th century in the USA ALONE were comparable to the death-toll from the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings.

And then there's the rest of the world's coal mining casualties, plus secondary effects from the pollution.

And never mind that nuclear plants don't "blow up". Unless you fill them up with TNT and set it off, of course.

Nuclear is dead, I can't be bothered to argue about it. Ten years from now renewable energy will be a fraction of the cost of nuclear and will be the cheapest form of energy worldwide without any need for subsidy. 10 years from now if you suggest we use more nuclear energy, anybody who knows anything will frown at you like you're mad.

It's funny, but I remember hearing the same sort of comment back in the '70s during the energy crisis.

Oddly enough, it didn't seem to have worked out that way.

Surely not Clarke, he perfectly knew we will never be halfway to anywhere. He was a real scientist.

Which no doubt explains "Rendezvous with Rama" and 2001:a Space Odyssey"....

Clarke was enough of a scientist to know that we don't know the limits of the "possible" quite yet....

Wait until the SCOTUS tells states that immigration enforcement is a federal matter, and that states therefore cannot prevent illegal immigrants from voting or holding elected office.

While some elected office require citizenship, not all do, in case you are unaware.

However, voting requires citizenship at local, state, or federal level.

Which means that even if SCOTUS says that immigration enforcement is a Federal issue (it is, frankly), that won't result in any new voters until citizenship requirements are met. Though it might result in some new candidates for public office....

As far as we know, there may be no way to produce or find and mine hydrocarbons such as methane. Mars's atmosphere lacks significant hydrogen content. If there's subsurface minable water, that could solve the problem, but only if there's plenty of it.

Hmm, CH4...so methane is 1/4 H2 by mass, and 3/4 C...

Which means, absolute worst case, that we have to carry the H2 to Mars, thus giving us only a factor of four improvement over having to carry ALL the fuel to Mars.

If, as seems moderately probable, Mars has frozen water under its surface, you produce all the fuel there. Or, if our moon has H2O, as seems probable, then it's actually easier to ship fuel from Luna to Mars than to put the same fuel into Mars orbit FROM Mars.

Note that a mass-driver, a la "Moon is a Harsh Mistress" (which would also be workable on Mars, if you built one on steroids) would make the process even more efficient, in that all the H2O from Luna could be sent to Mars or LEO without having to burn any of it to get it off the moon.

The writer of the original article should be shot, hung, shot, and then boiled.

Hanged.

The writer may very well have twelve inches, but that's not important here. What's important is the past tense of "to hang" (in the sense of putting a man on the end of a rope) is "hanged"....

Like a demolition charge, it's utility is pretty limited, but when the right (or wrong, depending on perspective) situation comes up, there's no substitute....

Interesting that you'd pick those names. A quick google for wealth of US Presidents (adjusted for inflation), puts Bush at 15 (the elder) or 17 (the younger).

And this is as opposed to, say, John Kennedy (1), Lyndon Johnson (7), FDR (9), Clinton (10), who all have that peculiar D after their name.

And note that Obama is #21. Hardly poor by any definition of the term....

Note that I ignored the rest of the top 10 because they served far enough back that the Party they were part of had no real similarities to the current version of the Parties of the same name (once upon a time, the Republicans were the anti-slavery Party, not the Democrats, for instance).

a good discression

I really hope you meant "an indiscretion" here, otherwise I have no idea what you're talking about.

So, enquiring minds want to know: are you semiliterate, or are you trying to say something else entirely?