Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Perpetual Offended try to infiltrate Tesla (Score 1) 160

You know, it's companies like Tesla and people like Musk that are great at muddling the left-right division.

Develops electric cars! .... but leading the fight against UAW.
Left Trump's business council! .... but nonetheless willingly signed up for it anyway.
Helping rebuild power infrastructure in Puerto Rico! .... but also is a billionaire entrepreneur.
Smashing up UAW's monopoly position in rocketry! .... but also triumphing over government programmes (NASA) with the power of private enterprise.
Extreme scaleup of battery production to support mass deployment of renewables on the grid! .... but fires employees at the drop of a hat if he thinks they're underperforming, because there's always more lined up to take their place.

Can someone remind me which side is supposed to love him and which side is supposed to hate him? ;)

Comment Re:Payback (Score 1) 160

Similar to Tesla's response:

Media reporting on claims of discrimination at Tesla should bear a few things in mind: First, as one of the most highly reported-on companies in the world, anyone who brings claims against Tesla is all but assured that they will garner significant media coverage. Second, in the history of Tesla, there has never been a single proven case of discrimination against the company. Not one. This fact is conveniently never mentioned in any reporting. Third, as we have said repeatedly, even though we are a company of 33,000 employees, including more than 10,000 in the Fremont factory alone, and it is not humanly possible to stop all bad conduct, we care deeply about these issues and take them extremely seriously. If there is ever a case where Tesla is at fault, we will take responsibility. On the other hand, Tesla will always fight back against unmeritorious claims. In this case, neither of the two people at the center of the claim, Mr. Ferro and the person who he alleges to have mistreated him, actually worked for Tesla. Both worked for a third-party. Nevertheless, Tesla still stepped in to try to keep these individuals apart from one another and to ensure a good working environment. Regardless of these facts, every lawyer knows that if they name Tesla as a defendant in their lawsuit, it maximizes the chances of generating publicity for their case. They abuse our name, because they know it is catnip for journalists. Tesla takes any and every form of discrimination or harassment extremely seriously. There is no company on Earth with a better track record than Tesla, as they would have to have fewer than zero cases where an independent judge or jury has found a genuine case of discrimination. This is physically impossible.

Comment Re:First? (Score 4, Informative) 122

Not even close to "first electric truck of the century". Some companies have been at this for ages. Smith Electric Vehicles, for example, started with electric delivery trucks in the 1920s, switched to milk floats, then in the modern era back to full-sized electric delivery trucks.

Comment Re:Game changing? (Score 2) 95

"Reusing airplanes isn't game changing either. It's an improvement, but not a game changer." Would you argue that?

No, the simple fact that something is "reused" isn't on its own the be-all end-all situation; you have to have a high enough launch rate to overwhelm your overhead costs. But SpaceX definitely looks to be en route to that, and Blue Origin likely as well eventually. Both are making good use of the lessons of the past in their designs.

Just because the Shuttle was hobbled by NASA's extremely high overhead costs, major cutbacks in the design phase that hindered reusability and turnover time, and a number of design flaws, doesn't mean that the concept of reusability is wrong. It's in most contexts essential for low costs. And while rockets are in many ways more challenging than airplanes, they're not fundamentally on some totally different playing field.

Comment Re:I find it weird to place a $1000 deposit (Score 1) 63

I find it weird to place a $1000 deposit on a "car you've never even touched and which nobody has had on the road for any length of time, and is based on an entirely new platform from a manufacturer's previous vehicles."

Stats, looks, experience with the company's other models, professional reviews, amateur reviews, and interactions with owners online.

One thing I can't, however, say is how reliable it will be.

Comment Re:the Church of Elon will be here soon to complai (Score 5, Insightful) 63

As a Model 3 fan, I'm actually hear to say that I find it weird that you can rate the reliability of a car you've never even touched and which nobody has had on the road for any length of time, and is based on an entirely new platform from a manufacturer's previous vehicles.

Nothing, more, nothing less. Just strikes me as odd.

Comment Re:A sign of times (Score 1) 523

The difference is that current science requires a bit of pretty featureless mass energy to kick the whole thing off, then makes consistent, testable predictions from that point on, allowing us to build things like bridges, vaccines and stupid smartphone apps.

Genesis requires an omnipotent creator and doesn't really have any particular consistent explanatory, predictive, or even practical use beyond scaring children.

Comment How did I know that they were going to color Venus (Score 5, Interesting) 53

... orange? They always draw the surface orange or red.

Venus's surface is primarily basalts. Which are dark gray. More specifically MORBs, and in particular the gabbro family. Daylight is yellowish-orange, but the surface is not.

Anyway, it's a rather neat tool, so kudos to them for making it :)

Comment S process (Score 2) 109

I learned quite a bit about nucleosynthesis, but haven't revisited it in decades.

There are three main processes for synthesizing heavy elements. In the s-process (slow), neutrons are absorbed by heavy nuclei slowly enough that the nucleus has time to beta decay, if it is too neutron rich to be stable. The s-process happens in red giant stars, and the products can be released by stellar winds and planetary nebula formation.

In the r-process (rapid), neutrons are added very quickly to heavy nuclei, which absorb as many neutrons as they can and then, once the neutron bombardment ceases, beta decay back to stability. I don't recall whether we knew where the r-process happened when I was studying this, but this result would be r-process.

In the p-process (proton), nuclei grow by having protons added one at a time. This is presumed to happen in supernovae, and p-process nuclei are rare.

Isotopes coming from the s process will have abundances inversely proportional to their neutron cross section, because that cross section determines how quickly they move on. Also, while many isotopes can be produced by several of these processes, some can only be produced by one. My understanding is that these methods indicate that the s process is the predominant source of heavy elements. However this table (pointed out by other /. posters) contradicts my understanding, so possibly my knowledge has become outdated.

Can someone with more recent knowledge comment on how these new results can be reconciled with isotope abundances?

Slashdot Top Deals

"It may be that our role on this planet is not to worship God but to create him." -Arthur C. Clarke

Working...