The headline is fine, the summary is wrong. If you want to be precise.

He is stating there will be a rate of 100,000 cars per year. That is what the headline said and what he said. Neither the headline, nor Musk said it would be 100,000 cars for 2015.

The summary, however, did put the line in that says: CEO Elon Musk said the electric-car company would deliver 100,000 vehicles next year.
That is what is incorrect.

Although a production rate of 100,000 cars per year will eventually create an actual 100,000 cars in a year, it will only do so once the rate reaches that level and sustains or exceeds that rate for an entire year. In this case, the last of the 100,000 cars actually produced in a single year at that rate would be finished sometime in 2016.

Those who buy the rigs have money and business connections, but don't know how to build good rigs. Those who build them don't have money or connections, but plenty of experience making rigs.

Sometimes those two capabilities overlap, but there's a lot more investors out there than there are computer hardware experts.

Considering that bitcoin isn't big enough, nor has it been around long enough to bail out, using the bank bailouts as a comparison is a specious justification.

Just because a new system is different than a bad system, does not logically imply that it is a better system by default.

That all depends on the ratio of waste/toxic material produced between gold and Georgian wattage, which I don't think that anyone has solid facts on. I'm guessing that power generation in the Republic of Georgia isn't the cleanest that the world has ever seen, being that it is in a small, former Soviet republic.

So, despite the admitted use of some rather nasty chemicals and left overs from gold mining, what goes into those MW of power generation isn't necessarily any better.

I'd love it if someone posted some numbers.

I don't think anyone actually had the idea that they wanted to take the world with them in quite the same way Hitler did.

Hitler actually ordered scorched earth tactics, the superpowers were initially convinced that you could win with nuclear weapons (like the US did against Japan), and by the time they got into a arms race, it was mostly mechanical up to the point that both sides eventually realized that they both had enough weapons that there was no way that a first strike could succeed.

Once they both realized that nuclear war was unwinnable, they both came to the table. That is not even close to the same thing as Hitler, who would have been plainly aware that he had no forces, and wanted to take everyone down with him anyway.

Arms races, even very dangerous ones, are not the same things as insane dictators having delusions in bunkers. They move ahead for very different reasons.

Also, Soviet-style communism has surveillance since the Cheka. There was no need for fascism to bring that out. Soviet surveillance and purges quite clearly predated the rise of Nazism, let alone its demise. There was no such "infection" of Soviet communism, it was a feature from the very beginning, and one that would have been a hold over from Tsarist Russia, if anything.

Hitler loved his outsized, but impractical weapons, like the V1 and V2 and the ever increasing size and complexity of his tanks like the Maus. The V2 team members weren't shot for the same reason that Hitler thought he had more divisions while he was in the bunker. Hitler was grandiose and not completely connected with reality.

Hitler just *knew* that the revenge weapons would work and turn the war to his side, despite realistic arguments to the contrary, so he wasn't going to do something as silly as shoot their designers. I mean, that would have been dumb, right? Even insane people will have their own internal logic.

He knew, but he was trying to both make his dream come true, and also he understood that the regime was not one where he was unassailable.

He could have tried to sabotage the program, and the reality is that this is probably what he should have morally tried to do. Given the focus of the Nazi leadership on the rocket program, that would have almost certainly meant discovery and an untimely demise. So while that would have been the truly heroic path, it was also a death sentence. It also would have made almost no difference in the war effort, aside from possibly saving the lives of those civilians. Again, if he was heroic, he would have tried, but being willing to die to stop the uncertain possibility of future casualties is always a hard choice.

What happened is that he likely didn't want to sabotage his program, because it was his dream, and he understood that he needed to produce to both prevent it from being shut down, and also to keep himself out of the camps. In effect, he was the prototypical "normal scientist working for the evil villain". He understood that he alone could do nothing, and decided to make the best of the situation by moving forward the science. Not wholly reprehensible, but clearly un-heroic.

As I said elsewhere, I think he takes this criticism because his "heroic" stature and image when associated with NASA is contrasted with his work for Germany. The reality is that his actions were no more or less a feature of the place and time when he did his work. It is easy to be a saint in heaven, as they say. In the US, he was free to pursue his goals without having to accept slave labor or the need to make weapons, so he did neither.

The truth is probably a lot more complex, and honestly, much more human.

My guess is that he really wanted to make a spaceship, he got funding, got in over his head by showing dual use for his rockets, and then was pretty much co-opted into the war program.

He certainly was subject to arrest, and was arrested at one point. Only his particular position allowed him to avoid it becoming permanent. It is difficult to believe that after that, he was not actively trying to keep himself useful to the regime so that he wouldn't be arrested again.

Was he an Oskar Schindler? Almost certainly not. I'm guessing he simply saw the people assigned to him as what was needed to get the job done and that complaining about their fate would do nothing more than allow him to join them. I imagine he simply kept going and probably used his dream of building a spaceship to put a silver lining on the situation.

However, was he a committed Nazi? Also quite unlikely. If he could be accused of actual abuses, those were likely a mix of his overwhelming belief in the value of what he was doing and fear of what failure would expose him to. It is unclear what the mix was, but it is unlikely he was ideologically motivated. Instead, he was a technocrat, and like many technocrats, humane concerns can often fall by the wayside, a mindset that would certainly be enhanced by his need to survive.

The quotes show that he was certainly not invulnerable, and his actions are in line with the survival of a technocrat. This doesn't make him a hero, but there may be extenuating circumstances. We almost certainly would not have condemned him if he was some simple farm overseer expected to make use of slave labor to make a quota, but von Braun gets a lot of criticism in proportion to his future prominence in the US Space Program.

The person you are talking about was Brigadier General S.L.A. Marshall who wrote "Men Against Fire" about WWII experiences, which is where the low direct fire ratio theory came from.

And yes, it was very controversial and got debunked, but I've heard that factoid repeated to the present day. I think it gets repeated because it sounds both interesting and believable at the same time to people who haven't been shot at. For those who have been shot at (and shot back), it obviously does not ring true.

For extra irony, here's his Wikipedia entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...

The Irish were, by far, the majority in Ireland. Additionally, Ireland is fairly separate from Great Britian (the island) and there was no question of forcing the British out of their own homeland.

And of course, the British are *still* there. In Northern Ireland.

If anything, the Palestinians are already "independent" of Israeli rule, the majority Palestinian areas are part of the Palestinian state, like the majority Irish are in control of the Irish state.

So, Palestine is already "there". Most of the Irish stopped fighting after they got what Palestine has now. The Irish government, for the most part, didn't try and claim Northern Ireland as part of their "ancestral homeland" for very long. The IRA groups did, but they were never properly representative of the Irish. If anything, the Irish did what I would hope the Palestinians do today... took their independence and did what they could with it.

Independence isn't the Palestinian's problem. It's that they keep getting interfered with by Israel on one side, and their "friends" in the Muslim world, on the other. They need to stand up and stop doing what is pissing off the majority of Israelis, and then stand up to their so-called friends, and refuse to be their proxy soldiers anymore.

If Israel grabs the land of the Palestinians, they have to actually deal with the Palestinians.

What made most of the annexations possible is that war caused Palestinians to become refugees and they left. While it wasn't entirely voluntary, due to fear, it was a situation that opened up a considerable amount of now-Israeli territory to be further colonized without having to forcibly remove large numbers of people.

The Palestinians have nowhere else to go. If Israel wants their land, they need to take the Palestinians too. Does that mean apartheid or something in Israel? Perhaps it does. They also had apartheid in South Africa, once upon a time, but I am not sure it would come to that.

I don't think Israel truly wants the Territories. It would threaten the Jewish majority. What allows the Israelis to take more land is the wars that push people out of it and in that sense, the Palestinians are playing into the hands of either Israel or their "benefactors" in Iran or the Arab countries, who are more interested in attacking Israel by proxy to maintain the popularity of their own regimes.

I don't suggest that the Palestinians leave, although I wouldn't personally stay, but all they have to do is not go anywhere. They just need to stop indiscriminate civilian attacks. They can take defensive actions inside their borders, just stop the civilian attacks. The world will tire quickly of the Israeli army and air force mowing down people who are truly only defending themselves, if that even happens.

Note, I did not say that fighting to defend yourself in an invasion was the wrong thing to do. Of course people freshly invaded would have a right to fight back, and should fight to deter invaders.

This is about what the situation is after decades of war and failure. The invasion is over, the land is gone, the Israelis are going nowhere. Indeed, the Israelis have nowhere else to go. There's nowhere to send them back to, even if they were willing.

There is a generation, even two or three on both sides, that probably doesn't even remember Palestine before Israel and who has never lived in any other place. What made sense as demands even twenty years ago is starting to become worse than pointless. The youth of Palestine are being held down by the struggle of their forebears.

The fact is that people have been invaded and won, or lost, since time immemorial. The only time it ever gets any better for those who have lost is when they find another way other than constant conflict. As I said before, the Palestinian militants are puppets of those who want to antagonize Israel, Palestinians themselves will gain nothing from it other than poverty and death. They may try and take some Jews down with them, but what good is that to anyone?

As long as they keep firing rockets at people, using their own people as human shields, they might as well let Israel block humanitarian aid, because humanitarian aid isn't going to get through anyway.

What happens is that some of the stuff you mention will likely happen. No one is suggesting that the Israelis are saints here. It will take time for a peaceful solution to turn the tide. Is that worse than not only death, but decades of deaths that have been completely ineffectual?

The realization needs to be made that there will never be improvement while Hamas is shooting rockets at Israeli civilians. It is simply PR cover for hardliner Israeli politicians to keep circling the wagons.

You need a peaceful Israel that feels safe enough to not have to circle those wagons for them to purge the extremist elements that they can't quite get rid of now.

Palestine as a current state is the worst kind of place carved out of completely impractical considerations. It's a failed state before it even had a chance to succeed. It needs peace more than it needs anything else to even have a chance.

Hamas, is more like a gang that thrives from exploiting the misery and anger of its people more than it is an organization for freeing them. If Hamas was serious about protecting its people, it would unilaterally stop the rocket attacks and only use defensive measures, even if ineffectual. They *know* that the rocket attacks won't stop the Israeli reprisals, its just that they can only seem to respond to any crisis with violence, possibly because it is the only way they can maintain the backing of their supporters.

There is no war to be won here. Just constant bombing into the distant future. The Palestinians can't conquer their ground back, and the Israelis won't budge unless the Palestinians stop pretending that it is still 1949 and they have addresses in what is now Israel. The Israelis grabbed that land by right of conquest, and then defended it against all comers, pretty much like every conqueror before them. Israel is there to stay, and Palestine is a shithole that will only improve if they stop pretending and get on with their future.

This isn't the fair way for them to move forward, it's merely the only way they will move forward. Peace, even if unilateral, is the best option for the Palestinians as a people.

Communism is State Socialism. It should be wrong to say that it is the only socialism out there, but it is definitely socialism.

I admit that I don't know why they said it was "socialism" vs. "capitalism". Granted, the West had capitalism involved, but there was definitely some form of socialism in Western Europe too.

Perhaps the real difference was an authoritarian vs. a democratic upbringing. In authoritarian states of all stripe, people might be inclined to try and fight or deal with the system the only way they could.... by cheating it.

To tell the truth, I think Communism itself was a flawed system, specifically because it set up the groundwork for revolutionary tyranny based on wishful thinking, followed by Leninism which set the groundwork for state tyranny enshrined in a Party that ruled a state that never quite got around to withering away. The fact that an authoritarian system developed from that is no surprise, but I don't know that such a state is the only possible result of the other forms of socialism.

As much as I have sympathy for the Palestinians, their land is gone and it isn't coming back, no more than the Roman Empire is going to rise again and reclaim Palestine as a province for the Romans.

Is it fair that the land has left the hands of the Palestinians? Probably not. Did it happen? Yes. Will they ever get it back? Not in any meaningful way.

For their own sake, it is time to move on. If their answer is getting their own civilians killed, I'd think even unconditional surrender and exile would be preferable to any group that is actually concerned about their civilian population.

The Israelis are there. They aren't going anywhere, and they don't like the rhetoric that has been thrown at them about being cast into the sea. They remember genocide, and they aren't going back to Diaspora. The rocket attacks on the cities will only increase the resolve of a people who have the history that the Jews have.

Peaceful protest does work, probably better on a country that is a democracy like Israel than a war ever would. We've seen it work elsewhere. Israel can hold a hard line while rockets are shooting at their cities, but they cannot hide behind that excuse if the rockets stop falling. Violence has failed the Palestinians and their Arab allies for 70 years, and that isn't going to change now.

The time for what is "just" is over. It is now time to do what it takes to improve the future for everyone in Palestine. The bombs and rockets need to stop falling, and someone has to do it first. I think the Palestinians would have the most advantage from ending the struggle and adopting a policy that might actually net them more gains and fewer deaths of their own people. If Israel persists in extremist settlements and reprisals when there is nothing to reprise against, they will lose the support of their allies, and they need their allies. Painful as it would be, there is no military option for Palestine worth considering and so those actions should be set aside.