What needs to be done is build more newer cities and job opportunities in them (cheaper outsourcing anyone?) so the infrastructure in the bigger cities gets a chance to catch up.
That's one way to do it. Another is to look at what's causing the emissions upwind and curb them. Could be power plants. Could be dirt roads. Could be the burning of all the litter/household trash. Could be two stroke engines. Now do two things: 1. implement (stricter) standards on pollutants for new equipment, and 2. work on retrofitting existing equipment to tighter emissions standards.
You don't need a new city to require motorcycles that pollute less or to improve the electric grid to burn less coal in central steam plants and less diesel fuel at local gensets.
Where do you think the power for that electric car comes from? 75% of that power on average comes from burning coal.
Who's average? The percentage of electricity generation fueled by coal in 2015 was 38%. (EIA source, with trend) Even regionally, electricity generation from coal sources exceeded 50% in only one region in 2015 -- the Northern Plans, which represent an area defined in the north by North Dakota to Wisconsin, by the south from Kansas to Illinois (excluding Chicago Land), and less than 10% of total generation in tUSA. And even in the Northern Plains, it was less than 75%. Please show up with data and facts, not horse apples.
lobbyists that prevent Tesla from selling in Michigan without going through dealerships
Lobbyists have no such power. Legislators have that power. Lobbyists advocate positions on areas of public policy, legislators write the laws and the governor (in the case of state government) signs or vetoes. Also, Schoolhouse Rocks.
lobbyists caused a town to lose it's working gigibit fibre internet
Again, lobbyists have no such power. legislators write laws, departments with heads appointed by the executive branch draft and execute regulations, and judicial or quasi-judicial agencies determine adherence. See: Rocks, Schoolhouse.
note that the democrats put up a billboard of Trump kissing Cruz
Nope. That billboard was put up by PlantingPeace.org, "a global nonprofit organization founded for the purpose of spreading peace in a hurting world." They may have ideas that align with the Democratic Party, and members and donors may be Democrats, but the billboard was decidedly not "put up [by] democrats[sic]."
note that the democrats put up... naked statues of Trump in several cities
Did you read your article? From TFA, "The work is signed Indecline, the name of an anonymous anarchist street art collective" By definition, anarchists are not Democrats. If, as you say, you "really want to know," I suggest you learn a little bit about American civics and read the articles you post. Or, maybe, just maybe, you're really just a shitposter yourself.
...a half-hour travel time between Stockholm and Helsinki, which is the equivalent of about 300 miles.
"The equivalent of about 300 miles"? What does that mean?
Oh, it means "about 300 miles". Or even "a distance of about 300 miles". Right. But this is a 'technical' topic, so we need to use more and bigger words. The best words.
Unless there's some sort of weird space-time physical equivalence principle the authors are alluding to, in which case a half hour is actually 300 miles long.
But regarding their testing, it was certainly a small scale test of known technology, but you underestimate the value of such tests. There's massive amounts of theoretical aspects they have to plow through first, move gradually to small scale live tests and finally piece it all together in one big PoC. After the small pieces are theorized and tested, it takes exponentially less time to piece them all together in the end.
I wouldn't say I underestimate the value of small-scale tests so much as I would say that Musk and company have been deliberately obscure about exactly what they were testing, and have been downright misleading about the distance between where they are now and what they claim they will be able to deliver. We were shown a dog-and-pony show constructed to meet an artificial publicity deadline, not a well-explained demonstration as part of a clearly-elucidated development roadmap.
When I read comments like yours, it reminds me of anti-innovation corporate voices I have to battle against on a daily basis.
Hmm. Do you misrepresent your progress and conceal the nature of your accomplishments to your corporate masters too, then? That could be your problem.
Look, I'm a scientist in an academic setting, but with private-sector collaborators. I do both "pure" and "applied" research. I contribute to both peer-reviewed papers and patent applications. I can tell the difference between healthy skepticism and blind anti-innovation. The problem with Musk's Hyperloop demo isn't the idea, or the technology, or the dream--it's that he doesn't tell us what the demo is actually doing. It's like writing a scientific paper that starts with the usual Abstract and Introduction, then jumps straight to a one-liner Conclusion and a big Discussion about the implications of the work and all the cool stuff that's going to happen in the future. He just skipped over the Materials & Methods and the detailed Results. We aren't told what we're actually looking at or what it can really do, just to take on faith that it's awesome. That's my issue.
Mod parent up.
The "first successful test" appears to have been a small test sled on a short, low-speed test track. Yes, they showed they could drive a piece of metal with a linear induction motor, but that's just demonstrating an application of known technology. Vancouver's SkyTrain has been using linear induction propulsion since 1985 as part of a regular, boring, functional public transit system. Similar technology appears in Toronto (the Scarborough Rapid Transit line), New York (the AirTrain JFK airport link), and at least a handful of other sites.
Practically speaking, one could have done the same demo by taking a 30-year-old SkyTrain car, stripping the body and seats out, and flipping the induction drive unit sideways to be compatible with the vertically-mounted induction track shown on the Hyperloop demo system. (You'd get great acceleration, too, since you can dump much of the car's weight--and you wouldn't care about the components surviving for more than a few seconds of photo op.) Maybe there were major technological advances under the hood, but the breathless hype all glosses over any meaningful description of what might have been accomplished.
"Alien-hunting telescope"? Really, guys?
A large-scale pure-science project. A tool that will advance modern astrophysical and astronomical research. A landmark technical achievement.
But it came from funny-looking furriners (not just funny-talking, like them ones from Yurp). So we must be sure to cast the headline in the most derisive terms possible. It's not a research tool that shoestring SETI projects will be able to snag a bit of time on--no, it's an "alien-hunting telescope".
I mean, my God--snippets of Aricebo's time have been used for alien-hunting (and alien-spamming) for decades. It was used to send publicity stunt messages to M13 in 1974, and to some nearer stars in 2009. SETI@home users have been crunching Aricebo data looking for little green men since 1999. And yet, oddly enough, no one ever seems to refer to Aricebo as an "alien-hunting telescope". Why is that?
You'd rather break someone else's bones than total a car where everyone escapes injury free? That's messed up.
Heck, it probably even falls down (er...) on a strict monetary cost basis. A broken bone caused by a vehicle colliding with a pedestrian likely has a bunch of associated soft tissue injury, which can lead to all kinds of expensive-to-manage (and -treat) damage. The straight-up hospital bills plus lost wages for pedestrian victim can very easily pile up to more than the insured value of a car--making those priorities a net loss for society even if we assign no value at all to preventing pain and suffering.
Of course, it's also silly to pretend that the car is "smart" enough to confidently and reliably predict what will be a moderate injury versus a potentially-fatal one. The car doesn't know if a wound is going to suffer a serious infection. The car doesn't know if a bone fragment is going to sever a major artery. The car doesn't know if the pedestrian will suffer a serious brain injury when her head hits the pavement. Pretending there's a firm choice between totalling the car and non-permanent injury is a fiction--the choice is between totalling the car and a risk of serious or fatal injury.
He did, via taxes. Thats the rub.. he gets to complain. Those that are a drain on the system don't.
By virtue of living in America, you get to complain. That's the 1st amendment.
By virtue of being a US citizen, 18+, and not subject to restrictions due to felony status, you get to vote. That's Article I, Section II, Clause I, as well as the 12th, 14th, 15th, 17th, 19th, 24th, and 26th amendments.
The amount of taxes you pay has nothing to do with the rights of Americans to complain or to vote. Your comments are, frankly, un-American (except for your exercising your right to make an un-American comment... that is distinctly American).
There's a lot of dumb posts on this story, but this one makes my top 5.
I'll just quote the front page of the American Red Cross' website:
Our hearts go out to all those who are affected by the tragic shooting in Orlando. The Red Cross has received a tremendous outpouring of support and we are grateful for all who have responded. The blood needs from this tragedy have been met. In the event of an emergency, it’s the blood already on the shelves that can help save lives. That’s why it’s important that eligible individuals schedule an appointment to give blood and platelets in the weeks and months ahead.
Emphasis added. Don't take it from me, take it from the Red Cross.
In every hierarchy the cream rises until it sours. -- Dr. Laurence J. Peter