He took pictures of a 17 year old.
I'd expect that there are child pornography charges involved too, no?

I'm not doubting that my 4oz "serving" of ice cream contains 300 kcal - I'm just saying that my body isn't getting anywhere near the same amount of energy out of the ice cream as the bomb calorimeter does, so eating 300 kcal doesn't require nearly 300 kcal of energy expenditure to compensate.

He's burning 400 kcal, and you claim that that would be erased by drinking 2 bottles of Gatorade - presumably because the nutritional information panel claims that it's got 400 kcal?

Well, I for one doubt that ingesting 400 kcal of food causes you to *keep* 400 kcal that needs to be burned off fully. I don't know how much you do keep, but I'm sure it's not 100%, and it probably varies a ton by the food type.

You do know how food calorie content is measured, right? They use a Bomb calorimeter, which burns the food in a high-pressure pure oxygen atmosphere, and measure how much heat comes off. Something tells me that your body's not getting nearly as much energy out of the food it ingests as that calorimeter does.

Not on purpose but I've been forgetful a number of times in the past.

I've never had anything go missing overnight at the office - and that includes wallets with cash and cell phones. Personally, I trust cleaning staff more than the typical office drone...

I don't doubt he's considered the issue; my point was that it's not mentioned in TFA. However, there's a lot of minor points not mentioned as well, because, well... they're minor.

An airplane flying at 30,000' has plenty of air available to pull in (about 0.3 atmospheres), and the composition of that air is similar to the air at sea level. The action of the plane flying through it, and the people respirating the O2 and producing CO2, basically doesn't affect the air.

The hyperloop tube on the other hand is about 0.01 atmospheres, and unless they're deliberately exchanging what little air is in the tube with outside air, it's essentially a closed tube, so using that air (pressurized by the front-end compressor presumably) for respiration will eventually deplete the O2 content.

Obviously it's a fixable problem - but it is nonetheless a problem.

Sure, it's pressurized - but pressurized with what? GP says it's like an airplane; but passenger jets are flying in pretty thick air compared to these tubes - the tube is almost a vacuum. As soon as your capsule is loaded, they essentially evacuate the airlock, and we've got to wait until that front-end compressor is sucking enough of that almost-vacuum to pump air through the capsule? So we're going to just accumulate CO2 and hope that somehow there's enough exchange somewhere (not mentioned) to replenish the O2 in the partial vacuum of the tube? I can't consider this one answered yet. I don't doubt it's a fairly simple problem (bottle a bit of air), just that it wasn't really talked about. If you were going to fly a hypersonic plane, I kind of doubt you'd be relying on external air for breathing, and this is basically the same deal.

As far as I can tell, TFA doesn't mention breathing air. Do we assume that there is bottled air provided on-board?

I suspect they'll have the craft rotate in the tube for turns. Passengers will still experience acceleration, but it'll be in the direction of their seat, not to their sides.

No, they'll use Emminent Domain like they've always done in USA.

drag coefficient of only 0.189 – similar to a bumblebee.

If a bumblebee has such a low drag coefficient I'd be completely astounded - I'd guess closer to 0.5.

I suppose Bicycling and Running aren't sports, then, either? While we're at it, rule out Mountain Climbing, Hiking, and probably numerous other mere activities. No sport for you, nidi says so. Ever see a runner grab a cup to drink as he passed by an aid station? Ever see a bicyclist reach down and grab a water bottle and drink?

I'd suggest we call it the Bureau of Sabotage. It would help a lot of things out.

I think Mark Zuckerberg has the right idea. Only eat animals that you are able to look in the eye and kill yourself.

You may want to read up on Chronic Wasting Disease before choosing your target.

Given that my 10mpg '66 Ford Galaxie Convertible pounds the ground with its 460 engine, the 20mpg replacement (...? Toyota Solara or something?) would be a miserable change... also consider that my 66 is driven perhaps 2500 miles a year; it's not on the list for replacement.

My wife's 20mpg (actually 23 average) Ford Freestyle on the other hand is driven probably 15,000 miles a year, and may get replaced soon, depending on what's available - being able to seat 7 passengers or carry considerably bulky items in a car-like vehicle definitely has its advantages, though now that our three kids will be in college next year the people-carrying capacity isn't as important - but then again, the amount of driving will probably be reduced as well.

Really what people need to consider when looking at fuel economy as an upgrade is this - does the overall economic picture substantiate the need for an upgrade? You're looking at helping the environment, but does buying a new car (the building of which probably incurred substantial environmental degradation in itself) actually save you and the environment anything?

Our station wagon (Freestyle) would get us perhaps $5k on the used market; buying a replacement which would function similarly though smaller (something Mazda3 hatchback sized, as we don't need to carry 7 people - mostly 2 or 3 and very occasionally 5) would get us a 8-10mpg increase but cost about $18k. Worth it? Probably not.