Forgot your password?

Comment: False Premise (Score 2) 386

by JerryLove (#47968201) Attached to: Bioethicist At National Institutes of Health: "Why I Hope To Die At 75"

"It robs us of our creativity and ability to contribute to work, society, the world. It transforms how people experience us, relate to us, and, most important, remember us. We are no longer remembered as vibrant and engaged but as feeble, ineffectual, even pathetic."

For example: See the cast of the Expendables.

Emanuel says that Americans seem to be obsessed with exercising, doing mental puzzles, consuming various juice and protein concoctions, sticking to strict diets, and popping vitamins and supplements, all in a valiant effort to cheat death and prolong life as long as possible.

I believe this assertion to be false. Doing mental puzzles will not make you live longer, and exercise mostly prevents causes of death like falling or having a heart attack.

People don't do these things to live longer... they do these things to live better. So that, when they are 75, they won't be... how did the OP put it? "feeble, ineffectual, even pathetic"

My grandfater was still running his store in his 70s. My grandmother was daycare to several of her great-grandkids. One of my martial arts instructors is in his 80s (and I would lose a fight with him). The premise is BS, and the "75" number is arbitrary. Further: it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. If he isn't exercising, if he isn't eating well, if he isn't keeping his mind active, he is more likely to be "feeble, ineffectual, even pathetic".

Comment: Re:More importantly (Score 1) 389

by JerryLove (#47933959) Attached to: Is the Tesla Model 3 Actually Going To Cost $50,000?

Yea. I wish I could have managed anything like that for my 330i.

I remember when I was spec'ing out my new car (looked at a new 528, but ended up getting a 4-year-old 535) that the Lakeland BMW dealer had a 2005 550i asking $13k. I considered getting it but for the thousands I had had to put into my old 330i. I opted instead for something I could get under CPO. I've already had the fuel injectors replaced, the battery replaced, the part that was supposed to make the battery last longer but instead broke and fried the batter replaced, the windshield-wiper motor replaced, and one or two other things I'm not thinking of right this moment.

My old 330, among other things (those plastic bits you mentioned in the cooling system being one of them) lost the GenMod.

Comment: Re:More importantly (Score 1) 389

by JerryLove (#47933937) Attached to: Is the Tesla Model 3 Actually Going To Cost $50,000?

You might as well have written "I dont know anything about cars". It would have been quicker and faster.

A set of racing spec brake pads and rotors (Project Mu) for my 14 yr old Nissan S15 cost A$1000, that's racing spec (800 degrees C) for sustained track use. A set of povo spec rotors and pads from Supercheap Auto will cost in the vicinity of $300 and this is Australia, one of the most expensive countries in the world.

Also you dont have to replace the rotors with the pads (whoever fed you that line was probably making a mint from you). A set of rotors should last several sets of pads unless you're doing a lot of track days on stock rotors and heating them up until they crack.

In short: BMW uses thin rotors and the manufacturer recommends strongly against grinding them. It is therefore normal, assuming there was not a defect in the pad, that the rotor would be below spec or warped (and not grindable) when the pad wears out. It's not universal, but pretty normal.

The cheapest I've seen anyone claiming to sell the rotor is about $70ea (not sure that was the 330). The norm seems to be $120ea (looking at 2001 model 330 as that's what I used to own). So there's $480 and I've not gotten the pads yet, nor have I paid a mechanic to install them.

I suppose I have a choice. I can believe the manufacturer, dealer, and mechanic I usually used on my old BMW, as well as the bulk of what's said by owners on the forums... or I can believe you.

Due to regenerative breaking: this is one of many maintenance costs that will be significantly lower on a Tesla S than its competitors; offsetting a potential battery replacement later.

Comment: Re:More importantly (Score 2) 389

by JerryLove (#47930203) Attached to: Is the Tesla Model 3 Actually Going To Cost $50,000?

The battery is warrantied for 8 years. What percentage of cars are not scrapped by 9 years old (not zero to be sure, but not a lot I would guess); and that assumes (falsely I would suspect) that there is a mass failure right at 8 years. If the average is even 50% farther (12 years); we are coming into a siginifgant "scrapped anyway" territory.

Heck. At 12-years on a BMW, there are any number of wearbale parts that replacement may exceed car value (tires, brakes (you have to replace the rotors with the pads on a BMW), etc).

That said: Nissan sells a 24kWh battery replacement for their ccar for $5500 (I don't have pricing on the Tesla as none are old enough to need to be baught). I would suspect that, right now, replacements are $20k. Even if not: Tesla is investing billions in bringing down battery costs, so we can expect it to be much lower in 8 years.

Further: all that assumes a new battery. What will the recycled ones cost? I Suspect not a great deal.

Finally: Assuming 15k miles per year; you will have driven 120k miles in 8 years. If you are in, say, a BMW750 (19 combined MPG) you've used a bit more than 6300 gallons which, at current $3.50 is $22,050. That means, in your gas car, you will spend more on the gas than a Tesla owner will on the battery. Assuming you don't drive much. Assuming that battery costs don't go down. Assuming that the batteries die at a mere 120k miles. And, unlike our gasoline, the battery is recycleable.

As a note: If you do replace the battery; the actual replacement itself is simple and requires few tools.

Comment: Re:Lets not forget (Score 5, Interesting) 630

by JerryLove (#47910149) Attached to: Extent of Antarctic Sea Ice Reaches Record Levels

A "Carbon Tax" is not the way to solve the problems, and this is the solution that has been peddled by Al Gore and countless others trying to implement Agenda 21.

The first Cap-and-Trade program in the US was under Ronald Reagan and came out of his administration.

The Clean Air Act of 1990 includeds GHWB's cap-and-trade proposal for sulfur pollution.

GWB included a cap-and-trade proposal in his "clear skys" bill.

While running for president in 2008 McCain proposed to reduce global warming pollution via a cap-and-trade program.

I'm sorry. Tell me again how taxation (which is what cap-and-trade does) is a "Al Gore" idea.

Comment: Re:Meanwhile in the real world... (Score 1) 427

by JerryLove (#47861707) Attached to: UN Study Shows Record-High Increases For Atmospheric CO2 In 2013

We don't know what will happen. a 5C drop from the beginning of the industrial revolution would put much of the world under ice. The rise? Could we have a runaway greenhouse (as the Earth has experienced runaway snowballs in the past)? Maybe. We don't truly know where it will end, but it is going to suck

Comment: Re:Meanwhile in the real world... (Score 1) 427

by JerryLove (#47861669) Attached to: UN Study Shows Record-High Increases For Atmospheric CO2 In 2013

If climate != weather, then why is there always some global warming advocate on the news attributing every hurricane, tornado, drought, and heat wave to global warming?

Same reason there's always someone blaming God's wrath against immorality for disasters... because it sells.

Of course, I'm sure you're going to throw some "no true Scotsman" and say that those environmental advocates on the news aren't the REAL scientists. But if that's the case, then why aren't the REAL scientists shouting down all the fake ones?

That would be a tautological assertion that "true scientists" are defined as "those who support global warming".

Real scientists can be wrong. They are wrong all the time. But we are not discussing a scientist, nor a group of scientists. We are discussing the entire community of scientists over decades. (We are also discussing easliy accessed data, such as global average temperature).

Climate change will result in weather change (extreme dependence on initial conditions). It will also result in shifts in trends. I don't know what the specific support for, for example, an increase in hurricanes is. I don't know if that specific result is indeed caused by global warming or oother factors (though since hurricanes are powered by heat...).

But that's the point of putting up all the talking heads... so sew confusion and dobt into established science.

Comment: Re:No, that's not what it says (Score 1) 260

by JerryLove (#47856823) Attached to: Tesla Plans To Power Its Gigafactory With Renewables Alone

My last car was $24K brand new (not doing that again though) . You want me to pay 3x that price for a Tesla?

No. I really don't care what you do.

Not to mention that your price is about $25K too low. If you buy a Model S, with the big battery, internal fast charger and a home charging station (which is absolutely necessary if you intend to actually USE the car daily) you are going to be over $120K or so which is 5x what my last car cost and well beyond what 99.99% of us can afford to pay for a car.

The larger battery Tesla is $81k (assuming you aren't arguing you need the sport model; which would be specious at best). The wall connector is $1,200 (and you'll pay an electrician $200 to install it). So you are at $83k. Which is comparable to a moderately equipped BMW 550i.

Of course: I'll get between $7k and $10k back in tax incentives. Also: the 8-year warranty is standard (getting the CPO warranty and maintenance contracts on the BMW is going to push it's costs up almost $10k). So now Tesla has a $10k-$20k advantage. For simplicity, we'll just apply that as a credit to the Tesla (as opposed to a bill on the BMW) and we are now looking at the (equivalent cost) of a $60k BMW... a moderately appointed 528 or stripped 535.

Except that I'm also going to save a lot of money on gas.

Your 99% number is complete and utter crap. The 98th percentile (you know, the 1% after the top 1%) likely make about $250k annually (the IRS doesn't track, but it's a good guess). That would put a Tesla at about 40% of annual income. This would be equivilant to someone making $50k buying a $12k car (actually: more like someone making $50k buying an $8k car because not all expenses scale and disposable income is a higher percentage for upper income brackets)

Not going to do it. WAY too many reasons and it starts with PRICE. No way I'm making the payments on a Tesla and paying my mortgage too. No way I'm driving a car with maybe a 200 mile range and then takes 30 min to "refuel" for the next 100 miles. No way I'm buying a car that I cannot quickly refuel where the in-laws live, even though I could GET there on a charge, I'd be stuck there for the duration of the charging process using 110V15A extension cord, and believe you me, that's TOO long there. (3.7 miles per HOUR of charge! Ouch, I'm going to be there at least 1.5 days to get my empty battery back to 200 miles capacity...)

No, Tesla's are mostly for show, for the people who can afford to spend $100K on a toy. Few buy them for actually DRIVING someplace except for maybe work and back. Can you imagine trying to drive one of these cross country? Portland to LA? I'm sure it would be an adventure, but if all you got was 200 miles per charge, you are going to be on the road a LONG time.

On my recent trip from PA to FL, I saw two Tesla in the middle of a long-distance trip (at a charging station in NC where I stopped for the night).

But I own two cars. I don't use both for cross-country trips. If (when?) I get a Tesla it is likely to be used almost exclusively for destinations within 200miles.

That said: You can also change out batteries at a super-station. It costs $80, but you get fully charged in 1 minute. It's barely more expensive than the gas for the same trip and, when you aren't running cross-country, you have no costs at all.

It's not for you? Fine. Don't get one. But your caricature is false.

Comment: Re:No, that's not what it says (Score 1) 260

by JerryLove (#47855007) Attached to: Tesla Plans To Power Its Gigafactory With Renewables Alone

So they will be drawing power from Fossil fueled Electric plants just like the rest of us. So much for carbon emissions being ZERO. But we already knew that wasn't in the cards, given that they will have to hire trucks to haul their batteries around.

I applaud their effort, but they are going to loose money on this. Not that it matters to Tesla, they already sell high priced, get out of the environmental guilt trip jail credits at insane costs for the rich and famous who need to look like they care and can afford it.

The Tesla S is about the size of a BMW 5-series. Costs about as much as a mid-range BMW 5-series. Has performance similar to a high-end BMW 5-series. Has space in excess of a BMW 5-series. And is more economical to operate than a Toyota Prius.

One does not need to be "rich and famous" to buy a $70k car (look at the sales numbers from Cadillac, BMW, Mercedes, Lexus, Infinity, etc sometime); and one does not need to be on a guilt trip to buy one of the best cars in the price range.

Though if you are on a guilt trip: it's the nicest to the environment.
OTOH: If you are on a safety trip: It's also the safest car on the road.
OTOOH: If you are on a performance trip: that torque curve is amazing.
OTOOOH: If you want to haul 5 kids without getting a van/SUV: It's your only option.

Hrm. Seems like there's lots of reasons someone might want this car.

Comment: Kind-of already happens (Score 1) 448

by JerryLove (#47827569) Attached to: Could Tech Have Stopped ISIS From Using Our Own Heavy Weapons Against Us?

US equipment has a very high requirement for maintenance. This requires not only expertise but also replacement parts (This goes back a long way: Reagan's deal with Iran was to funnel spare parts for their F-14s to them against US and international law).

ISIL has many pieces of captured American hardware, but much of it was already non-functional due to Iraq's inability to maintain; and that percentage is only growing as time goes on.

Comment: Re:So what they need, then... (Score 1) 185

by JerryLove (#47725571) Attached to: New Research Suggests Cancer May Be an Intrinsic Property of Cells

And how do you transfer your mind, which is made up of an individual pattern of pathways of neurons and synapse unique to the individual? You can't transfer the brain because it too ages. The DNA overtime suffers replication transcription errors. You might the able to extend the telomeres or re-program the DNA using the CRISPR method...maybe.

I think this is it. The only way to "extend your life" is via procreation. Whatever knowledge you transfer to your child[ren] will be your long lasting legacy left behind.

A sufficiently advanced emulation of your brain would be more "you" than your children are "you".

As to maintaining DNA over an indefinite time. That's already done. That is the nature of binary fission (how cells reproduce). All cells are as old as the first parent cell billions of years ago.

When one cell splits into two: there isn't a "parent" and a "child". They are both the same cell. You are the same cell that your mother grew from and her mother before her. Want an even clearer example? How old is an amoeba?

Comment: Re:All that money... (Score 3, Insightful) 579

by JerryLove (#47702321) Attached to: Munich Reverses Course, May Ditch Linux For Microsoft

Yep. And then all that money that would be used to pay salaries that would be used on expenses locally, making the local economy work, will be redirected to Bill Gate's pockets.

Who in turn gave the vast bulk of his money to end disease, educate children, feed the world, etc.

I can live with that.

Considering Germany is a net exporter: I'm not sure "keeping the money local" is actually a need.

When in a few years, when all our documents will be locked in a proprietary cloud (that anyone with the right influence will have access) or stored locally in a format that you must pay to read, remember 2004.

MS uses XML to save documents. Put them wherever you like.

Use of cloud storage is hardly unique to MS. Want me to start citing Linux distros doing it?

Comment: Some details (Score 5, Informative) 94

by JerryLove (#47674601) Attached to: World's Fastest Camera Captures 4.4 Trillion Frames Per Second

First FTA: There's a mention of a previous camera...
"Back in 2011, researchers from MIT created a high-speed camera that captured light passing through an empty bottle in slow motion by acquiring visual data at one trillion frames a second – to the STAMP cam, more than four times faster than this, even the speed of light could be as stimulating as watching paint dry."

That's misleading. The camera in 2011 didn't do amazingly high FPS capture. What it did have was very short capture with precise timing. That video of a laser moving through a bottle was actually thousands of successive laser shots. More like stop-motion than video.

Now this camera I see fewer details on. I do see that one thing it seems to do is to divide a laser with a prism and use the separation to make virtual frames by using different receptors.

Let me make an analogy. If you took a normal RGB color sensor from a camera, and exposed it, and during that exposure you fired a red flash, then a green flash than a blue flash one after the other. Take your resulting picture and break it into three by color and you have 3 "frames". They appear to be doing this with a large number of wavelengths.

Comment: Re:What if there isn't any truth out there? (Score 1) 93

by JerryLove (#47118821) Attached to: Hunt Intensifies For Aliens On Kepler's Planets

That's kind of an ignorant view. Considering the amount of resources in the uninhabited parts of the universe (which is beyond a staggering amount) why would any one enter conflict over a small planet (us).

Any species capable of interstellar travel is going to be able to pull resources out of pure energy. They don't mine, or need our water. They don't care what we do, except maybe they observe us and snicker.

From "The Killing Star"

When we put our heads together and tried to list everything we could say with certainty about other civilizations, without having actually met them, all that we knew boiled down to three simple laws of alien behavior:

If an alien species has to choose between them and us, they won't choose us. It is difficult to imagine a contrary case; species don't survive by being self-sacrificing.

No species makes it to the top by being passive. The species in charge of any given planet will be highly intelligent, alert, aggressive, and ruthless when necessary.


That's just why they would be willing... but it gets worse: There's an imperative.

Once a certain amount of technology and capacity and know-how has fled the homeworld: we, as a species, become capable of attacking another species even if our homeworld is wiped out. In short: there's a limited window during which species A could reliably exterminate species B without worrying that some missed portion of species B could retaliate.

So imagine some alien sees us right now. If they killed everyone on Earth (perhaps bombarded us with relativistic weapons), we could neither mount a defense nor seek retribution. 200 years from now: perhaps there would be enough off-planet resources that, after the destruction of Earth we could secretly build relativistic weapons of our own and retaliate.

So the only way for that species to guarantee its own survival is to wipe out potential rivals early.

"Irrationality is the square root of all evil" -- Douglas Hofstadter