And how exactly is LIDAR going to read a speed limit sign or a red light?

"Many stories of people sleeping at the wheel in a Tesla, many more than any other kind of vehicle."

got a source for that? cuz I don't believe it.... Plenty of reports (and personal experiences) of people sleep at every wheel... At least the Tesla give you a buzz and tries to wake you up, unlike nearly every other car.

This is a well-known concept, called the Peter Principle: "People rise (advance) to their level of incompetence..."

As a Tesla Model 3 owner, I'd say the touch screen works "okay"...key functions are also physical controls like turn signals, wipers, obviously steering, etc. I "generally" don't find it an issue or distraction dealing with the touch screen -- in most cars one is momentarily diverting attention away from whats ahead anyways. I don't find it very much different.

HOWEVER, the touch screen can be a problem sometimes trying to hit precise screen controls while road/car vibrations are ongoing. That can be very frustrating.

Overall, I'd say its a mixed bag, not a total win with the touch screen, but "okay"...

David Bowie / Tesla clearly had one up on ST:TNG -- see The Prestige.

If building a copy is part of the process of the transport, it seems obvious that one could easily make multiple copies. And if that were true it would be much better than cloning yourself or even Battlestar Galactica style copies. That is, it isnt plausible that that capability wouldn't be exploit, in battle, when committing crimes etc.

You don't even support your "This is false" assertion with the slightest bit of logic. You argue that admin is being paid less than private sector, but that has nothing to do with the NUMBERS of administrators being hired by university, let alone how that compared with the numbers (and costs) of faculty being hired.

Look at, for example, https://www.forbes.com/sites/r...

"...administrative spending comprised just 26% of total educational spending by American colleges in 1980-1981, while instructional spending comprised 41%. Three decades later, the two categories were almost even: administrative spending made up 24% of schools’ total expenditures, while instructional spending made up 29%.

At public research institutions specifically, there has been a particularly marked rise in the number administrators. In 1990, there were approximately twice as many full-time faculty at public research institutions as administrators. In 2012, the two groups were nearly equal.

The number of administrators at universities has exploded, growing much faster than the faculty. At a typical university, there are more administrators than faculty. The Office of the President of the University of California in recent years has had roughly 2,000 (!!) employees -- none of whom teach."

Looking at the root cause of rising university costs it becomes apparent (at least in many institutions) that the funds spend on faculty are either stagnant or rising only slight while the costs (and numbers) of university administration has skyrocketed. Not unlike the fed gov't, those in control of the budgeting tend to expand and spend rapidly, while the real heart of the service/institution (university == education, research) hardly grows at all.

I guess my memory is fuzzy but I thought the 6502 instruction set was a bastardized version of the Motorola 6800... (and somewhat inferior to it), no?

Was 6502 assembly that much better than the PDP-11? I thought the 6800 (and 6502) were all 8-bit CPUs trying to be PDP-11s as much as feasible economically and silicon realestate-wise.

Well its not simply poor vs rich. Obviously more "rich" people don't have solar than do, at least at this point. So it is more accurate to say that everybody needs to help pay to improve the environment, particularly since everybody has been getting a free ride (i.e. not paying the true costs) of damaging the environment. And the now small numbers of "rich" people that invest in solar do need at least some incentive to do so, since it ultimately, hopefully, will reduce the total costs of living in the environment in the future, for everyone. The incentives don't need to be obscene, just enough to spur adoption of solar (and other "green" solutions).

These terms are too non-specific. Being an "engineer" is not sufficiently specified to be allow to design a bridge, or a commercial airplane, etc. Just like "scientist" or "accountant" or even "doctor" (MD? PhD? OD? PsyD? DSc? etc"). Therefore a licensing jurisdiction/agency, which of course is necessary, should not be hingeing certification on the title "engineer". Go certify "electric engineers', "mechanical engineers", "chemical engineers", just like there are CPA's.

So by this analysis, ANY movie, even one that costs $0 to make, won't break even until at least $100M or more in ticket sales...

no, most WinCE devices did not use x86....nearly all WM/WinCE smartphones did use ARM. They still sucked in battery life compared with the iPhone. Some could run (now ancient) versions of Android (like donut, eclair).... all ARM-based. But WinCE even on ARM was still a battery hog.

of course BlackBerry "existed" as did Symbian. Both were even further away from the modern smartphone than WM, and both were just as "destroyed" by IOS and later Android, as WM because they were entrenched in old UI's and old paradigms. Blackberry in particular was a messaging platform first, and never did have much of an Internet+app mindshare. At least with WM there was a pretty active app building community that was Internet-centric.

People forget that prior to the now ubiquitous CAPACITIVE touch screen of IOS/iPhone, the primary input means were keypad (WM, Blackberry), and RESISTIVE screen with STYLUS (WM).

Windows Mobile, built atop WinCE did its market damage by
killing PalmOS. It then ruled the smartphone market for
several years but stagnated with the forced Win desktop
on tiny RESISTIVE phone screens UI. Apple showed up
and the whole smartphone market changed nearly overnight.
MS was never going to dominate over IOS or Android (a "free" copy of IOS).

degree per degree, its (212-32)/100 = 180/100 or 1.8X
that is a degree in C is worth 1.8 (almost 2X) in F. so a 3.7C increase is almost a 7F increase