So, the CEO's side of the story is that it's all somebody else's fault.
OK, that's not surprising. That's one side of the story. And, the other side says?
...while Obama (and everyone else) are doing the same shit.
That's a great link, AC... but it says the opposite of what you said it does. It does not at any point say Obama is doing this-- in fact, the one "sock puppet army" that it says it has unmasked is actually against Obama.
From page 4 of the article you reference, referring to what that article calls a "sock puppet army" and the article here calls "professional internet trolls":
"These accounts had consistent multi-faceted views: They were generally pro-Palestine and anti-Israel; they wrote “We (USA)” to present themselves as Western; were against Syria and US President Barrack Obama, and attempted to project themselves as pro-Islam with derogatory comments against Christianity.
“Who is this sock puppet army? It’s difficult to speculate"
Right, I was referring to the article referenced, not the slashdot thread.
It's amusing that in the comments on this article about pro-Russia propaganda-trolls, most of the comments are by the very pro-Russia propaganda trolls that the article exposes, belittling the article and blaming the west
You're aware that lithium is a rare earth element, right?
First, lithium is not a rare earth element.
Second, you do know that the rare earth elements are not actually "rare," right? They are roughly the same abundance as copper.
There's no such thing as lithium ore.
Sure there are. "Ore" is just a word meaning "a mineral deposit containing a desired substance in economically recoverable concentrations." Lithium ores are typically lithium-containing phyllosilicate minerals, often in the form of evaporite deposits.
You strip mine millions of tons, process it and get a few tons in return.
"If you could, either relativity is wrong, or you can use this to make a time machine to access the past."
Well, relativity is most certainly 'wrong', in the sense that there is more to the universe that it does not cover.
Saying "there are things it doesn't cover" is not the same as saying "it's wrong."
Of course, that's not really wrong, any more than Newton was wrong. Newton was not attempting to model relativistic effects, and Einstein was not attempting to model string theory. And luckily, we are not made out of light, so the speed of light has little to do with
The phrase "speed of light" is historical usage. An equally accurate phrase would be the universal conversion factor from units of space (meters) to units of time (seconds). It doesn't apply just to light, it is a universal constant that applies to pretty much everything in the universe, not just light. Most particularly, it applies to gravity.
a machine designed to alter a local region's gravitational constant,
If you alter the gravitational potential, the gravitational time dilation will mean that external observers will observe your speed of light as having changed. If you're in a gravity well, your clocks have slowed down, so it looks (from the outside) as if light has slowed down. But, inside the region of altered gravitational potential, if you measure the speed of light, it's still moving at the speed of light. You can't travel faster than the speed of light where you are.
that can travel at arbitrary speeds relative to the destination because it carries it's own engine with it. Relativity does not forbid a starship.
If you could travel at arbitrary speed (in any direction, in any reference frame), relativity says you could make a time machine. Space is time. If you can travel faster than the speed of light you can travel backwards or forward in time.
But none of that would ever allow you to travel back in time. That would be akin to traveling in a negative direction.
Right. If you can travel faster than the speed of light, but only one direction, then you can't make a time machine.
Lithium is relatively rare compared to, say, silicon in the Earth's crust, but we're not going to run out.
What you mean to say it, we need to develop better techniques to refine lithium out of lower-grade ores.
This is strange. "20 to 40% power loss" seems to be an awfully poor inverter; existing inverters are 4-8 % loss.
Rather than rewire every house in America, wouldn't it make more sense to just design better inverters?
Nothing can go as fast as light. Slower or faster, sure, but not c.
Light goes as fast as light.
More specifically, you can't send MATTER, ENERGY, or INFORMATION faster than the speed of light IN VACUUM.
The fact that there are "things" that travel faster than light (such as phase velocities) is well known; in these neither the matter nor the energy travels faster than light, and they don't carry information.
If you could, either relativity is wrong, or you can use this to make a time machine to access the past.
And, how does this all relate to the much-feared, much-publicized "global warming".
Short answer: it isn't. They are unrelated phenomena.
I must note that the hottest decade on record was the same decade in which the ozone layer was most depleted.
The actual article seems to only say that one web site, titled "What really happened to the dinosaurs", appears in response to one particular search query, "What happened to the dinosaurs".
That's annoying and stupid... but it's not the same as the hyped headline "creationists manipulating results."
The problem is...
The problem is that there are tens of millions of children needing education.
A school teaching tens of children (that have been hand-selected to attend) may be heartwarming, but it's irrelevant by factors of millions. With sufficient resources, it's easy to teach ten or twenty students (especially if you're allowed to select which ones).
It's replicating that by a million times that's hard.
I notice she skipped addressing the questions dealing with the EV1.
Probably necessary, since there is not going to be much more she's likely to be able to add to the subject, but it would be worth hearing anything she did have to say.
I mean with all the technical miracles NASA pulled off on that mission, they somehow managed to underestimate the longevity of the mission by 45x.
To be fair, 90 days was not, in fact, the estimated lifetime of the mission. It was the design specification of the mission. That is, each of the subsystems was designed with the specification "design a system that will operate for a minimum of 90 (Martian) days, even under worst-case conditions."
Think of it as a 90-day warranty-- after 90 days, it wasn't expected to be dead, it was just out of warranty.
(and note that since the engineering specification was validated by testing the subsystems to either three times design life, or testing to design life under three-sigma worst-case conditions, it would have been very difficult to design for 4000 days...)