That's actually a pretty good concept, if the engineers agree. A battery built for fast charge that is good enough for a regular commute and a battery built for max energy density.

Of course, if you're heading off on a 2000 km trip you're probably not going to like having to stop every 100 km after the first half of the trip.

Wherever he was, I'm certain that progressives will insist that:
- this is an alt-right lie
- it may not be a lie but he wasn't there
- ok he was there, but it wasn't relevant
- yeah it might have been relevant but this is all blown out of proportion by the alt-right media
- there are perhaps scores of bodies but they were bad people anyway
- turns out they were innocents but there are way more important things we should be focusing on.

That's pretty much the script, isn't it?

I once convinced my landlady I wasn't going to try and sacrifice her and her son in an effort to summon Satan after she found out I played D&D.

OK, she wasn't terrified or anything, but she was seriously concerned for a few minutes until I managed to explain the game to her.

Yes, it has that figurative meaning but there's also an ACTUAL meaning to the words, no.

AmiMoJos statement was stupid and I'm explaining how **using an example in the PRECISE context that he/she did, the transfer of wealth to/from government**.

For example if I called you a "routinely sanctimonious cunt", I mean it figuratively, not to anthropomorphize that your actual vagina has feelings of superiority. I would assume your cunt routinely has no emotions, in reality.

"Slashdot reader AmiMoJo commented: "This is perhaps the biggest transfer of wealth in American history."

You mean aside from the $2.66 TRILLION the US (federal) government collects every year from taxpayers?

Is a new functional economic system that rewards useful work without the runaway conditions that lead to billionaires.

Unfortunately, they're well entrenched and will actively resist changes to the current system.

Wheels, at least macroscopic scales, are probably impossible for evolution to produce. Anything that has to freely rotate, in fact.

But it would be fun if that weren't true - I'd expect to see fish with propellers for tails.

The best concept I've seen involved a robot with knee and toe wheels. When presented with a smooth surface, it knelt and could travel at high speed. It only used legs when obstacles required the extra flexibility.

"But it's both sad and ironic that those traits may also spell the end of mankind."

Ah, I see from this and other posts that we're entering a new cycle of the "oh no, the world's end is imminent because of: (check all that apply, according to your therapist)
( ) climate change
( ) pollution
( ) overpopulation
( ) COVID (deprecated)
( ) Trump
( ) Illegals
( ) Illegals being prosecuted
( ) Trans people not being allowed to strip in front of kids anymore
( ) (Other) _________________"

This has been a persistent neurosis especially peculiar to the West since what, 990AD? What's old is new again.

In fact, the existence of nuclear weapons has given us 75 years of Great Power peace, something unheard-of in the modern era.

Arguably, you left out Canada and Mexico. And Venezuela and Cuba and Iran. Maybe Denmark.

You're arguing that since a woodworker works with materials that make violins he's "obviously" the right person to give an expert opinion on that Mozart symphony?

Let's observe that physicists in particular have insisted atomic war is literally imminent pretty much since the moment the weapons were invented ... two generations ago.

It isn't.

>What would you spend all the money on if you knew we'd all be gone in 50 years?

I think this is one of those really character revealing questions if you can get an honest answer from someone. Most of us will be dead in 50 years no matter what, but you're probably not living like that's all that matters. Even while you're alive, you should probably give a shit about your fellow human beings and the quality of their lives.

If you're response is, "what the hell, let's burn it all down" then you're probably not a great person to know. I'd like to keep things going at least as nice as they are until I'm gone, and I think it's not the worst idea to try and help others have a decent life too.

On the other hand, if your response is, "Well, we probably shouldn't invest in anything that takes more that 50 years to return value", that I can get behind.

Pretty much anything past the frost line starts requiring prohibitive amounts of solar panel to get decent power, and Voyager is much, much further than that.

If you could send a refueling mission, it would be for sentimental reasons only. Any vessel you send that could catch up to Voyager would be much better utilized simply carrying a new and improved instrumentation and communications package.

If you give up your nuclear weapons, the next greedy sociopath to lead a neighboring nuclear power is going to kill you.

If you have nuclear weapons and are self-sufficient in critical areas, and you don't go around making enemies every time you open your mouth, you're fine.

Pakistan and India haven't nuked each other, because the people in control of the weapons want to live. If only one of them had nukes, the other would be gone by now.

The "animals" as you describe them, had the chance in 1948 to accept the two-state solution offered by the British Mandate.

They refused it, quite explicitly because their leadership believed they (with the assistance of adjacent Arab states) had the ability genocide the Jewish populations of the region. Subsequently they, or their paymasters in Tehran, haven't hidden even slightly that their goal isn't coexistence, it's extermination.

They said, in effect, "No thank you, we don't want to share this land, we would rather kill them all".
And they're still not kidding; since 1994 the total international contributions to the Palestinians has been >$40bn. Did they build power plants? Water desalination? Ports? Infrastructure? Nope. They used it for terrorist-hiding tunnels, weapons, and rockets.

I agree, the reaction IS worse than the unprovoked attack. This is how punishment and conditioning works. https://intersol.ca/news/organ... Even in 'enlightened' systems, if someone shoplifts a $100 shirt, we don't simply take $100 from them as a 'commensurate' punishment. We put them in jail.*

*ok I realize the concept of jailing shoplifters in 2026 is hilariously outdated; we don't do this any more unless they're white or asian or hispanic, and even then it's rarely done. I submit the societal consequences as further proof of the point.