the friction isn't anything insane no, but at the speeds normal trains travel air resistance is un-important, hense they arn't sleek unless your talking bullet train. until about 45 mile/hr drag doesn't do much of anything. In the end though it still take a large amount of energy to keap it moving. there will always be things like gravity involved. also your going to have friction in the seal of the tube where these capsules are, (you need a air tight passage in there to get out of the thing).
there is a big differance from a low pressure/low oxygen environment and a vacuum. The first can cause problems but basic systems will keap you alive. Finding yourself in a vacuum would result in instant death. People don't die in planes when the roof flies off, aside from those who were not buckled in. When the roof flies off the space shuttle in space being buckled in isn't much of your concern.
keap air in one plane is much easier than a few thousand mile long tube. also planes leak a bit, but they make up for the lost air very quickly making up for leaks in a vacuum is much harder
No to get to Penn State you get off on the Belfonte exit from I-80 and go to Pleasant Gap and turn Right take to 26, keap left to State College, PSU on the Right side.
PA with it's forest and and farms is far better than NJ with it's cities, smells, malls, superfund sites, and beach which most who don't live there could give a rats ass about.
And if PA is so bad why did you come to school here, maybe because the only school NJ has thats worth a damn is Princton and you couldn't get in.
There is a reason for tollbooths to leave NJ , no one would pay to enter, and it's easy to get people to pay to get out.
Now if NJ would split off at the Delaware River and fall into the ocean PA would be even better, well if it takes Philly with it (like it's part of PA anyways).
There is a bakery company in the PA, NY area i belive spelled the same way or something similar. I don't know anything of a Fraunhofer Group. Also i thought MP3 codec belonged to someone else
What it looks like they are doing is using Simulink, a program withing matlab. It's a visual design tool. You basicly connect lines between differant boxes. Each box has a function. From this you can build very complex models. It's also used alot for control systems. You can do things like stateflow and other very complicated task with great ease. Also it makes testing your code much easier since you can basicly have virtual hardware and replace it with real hardware as your project progresses.
Once you have your simulink code the program turns it into C code, (also can do Fortran if you like), From there it uses 1 of many compilers on your system to compile the C code. (I don't belive it can use GCC, i have only seen it list some commerical fortran and C compilers like MS Visual Studio and such). From there it complies it and it runs on top of Dos. Also I belive it will work on freedos, and it has an option about running it onto of win98, NT, 2k . This is call xPC. Once it has done this it prompts use to load the code on the target computer, via rs232 or ethernet and then hit +tg and your controller is running. You can also set it up so your controler can boot your code from a disk pretty much anything.
Want to make a change just tweak your simulink file and repeat and a few moments later your back in business. It's very easy, and very nice for working with groups since people can't write there own bits of code and merge them together quickly.
Matlab Simulink xPC is used alot in industry and prototyping since it removes the need for CS majors great in a project. A Mechanical engineer who designed the machine can rather easily do the control system for the machine which reduces headaches all around of trying to explain to the CS how the machine works and such.
It's a very nice program to use. And makes for very reliable controls and is far more freindly than trying to decifer someones C code. We trust it in our prototype HEV's and it is so much better than doing it in the tradition straight C code methods.
thrust and lift are the same thing, it's more a matter of direction. if the trust is anything but horizontal it's creating lift. There probably is some lift properties to their bodies but not much. They don't have the classic airfoil shape. On planes like the F-117 their was uncertiany it would fly till it actully took off.
i don't need to do some reading on this. I deal with this everyday.
Look at a F-17 fighter it has no air foil. Actully most (all?) super sonic planes (the stealth is not supersonic though) don't have air foils. They just use the wings for control surfaces. They use their engines to just give it so much push all they need it to point it the right way. Basic they fly like rocket or missles. Also why these kind of plane need a computer for flight since they are unstable in all axis's (sp?). You can make anything fly with a big enough engine and some control surfaces.
This is normal for a turbine. It's much the same for a turbo charger in a car, you can't just turn most of them off without destroying them, you have to let them cool down. Most trains keap the engines running even when parked anyways since the engines don't care for being turned on and off. Also they don't put anti freeze in there cooling systems for some reason. Something to do with reacting with other things on the train if i remember right. So in cold weather they will never turn them off.
Turbines just arn't ideal for this kind of thing. Other problems are turbines loose efficency when you scale them down. These are pretty big turbines but still near the low end of the size scale.
First I don't know if you were trying to help me or make fun.
I wasn't going for the look of it.
Maybe i should say it dufferantly.
There can be many peices of software out there that do what your looking for. Some do it very well, some do it very poor. Some are free, some are not. Some are closed source, some are not etc.
It may be that the best tool for the job (IE has the best features and functinality for you, or is just what your looking for) isn't everything you want. It has a drawback you don't like. Such as you don't like the liscense for it. On the other hand there is a very similar app that is pretty close to what you want or is like the other but not as good and has a liscense you like. You can A go with the first one that is superior but has things you don't like, or you can go with the not as superior one but get a liscense you do like. Ether way you have to obey the rules set forth by each vendor. If something is a better product but has things you don't like you have to balance whether or not it's worth it to you. ether way if you go with one you have agreed to obey their rules therefore you don't have room to complain.
Note: I am in no way saying opensource is better than closed, or free is better than not free, or anything of that sense or vise versa.
Note: if my first phrasing seamed vague maybe it was because i wasn't trying to be specific. I wasn't applying it to be only for this situation. It was vaque so that you could think about it in the tense of other things. There is nothing wrong with that phrasing.
I was going towards is general philosophy against closed source. I wasn't pointing towards this particular case when talking about the car thing.
Still if you worked for one car company and then went to work for another you would have to obey former agreements not to give info to your new employer about your old. Even agreeing to a companies NDA's and such it would be shady to do the same work for another company. It would be a big grey area to be able to know when your not breaking such an agreement. Therefor a company saying in your contract if you leave you can't work on the same thing for the compitition would be understandable. Now that may not be fair but you would have known this going into the first company when you signed the contract. and if the company had a line in your contract saying they could change the rules of the contract at anytime you signed into that. So you would then not be able to cry foul. There is nothing bad or evil about things like the EULA and such. You agreed to them. You don't have to. there is a "i do not accept" option.
there is reasons for agreements. the reason is so two parties have something to go to that they agreed on. You can't go through life trying to get out of everything you agreed to. Life doesn't always go the way you like. That doesn't mean life is wrong.
The sentance makes sense, maybe it could use a "," or two in there but it makes sense. If you don't get it maybe you just need to read it a few more times and think about it before calling me a troll.
Also you could explain what doesn't make sense in it.
How many people out there would like to see RMS be completely isolated away from the opensource movement?
When I read what he says such as this it makes me not want to have anything to do with opensource, "free" software , GNU.
He seams to be one of the most detrimental forces around. His idea's of having freedom by only wanting people to do as he says just send chills down my spine.
Also does he ever use any closed source software? or has he? does he alow for any such usage?
This is sorta a trick question since he does if he has say a car built in the last 15 years and a few other things since they have closed source software in them. How does he feel about that?
You don't buy the source code when you buy a peice of software. Nothing is being kept from you that belongs to you.
If you don't like that you can't tinker with the software don't buy it. If the only one that does what you like but doesn't give you the ability to do everything you want shut up and ether buy it and go with their rules, or go with one that isn't as good as you like but alows you to do what you want, or go write your own.
also cars are slowling making it so you can't tinker with them. in time there will be more things on them that won't let you see how they work. But you bought the car for the car, not for the ability to see how it works and modify it (In most cases). When you buy somehting you agree to their rules. It doesn't matter if you like it or not. If you don't go else where. IN the case of cars their all going to be in the same situation so your just going to have to deal with it.
Also cars have hoods you can open and tinker cause they are a physical object. Software is not a phyiscal object for the most part. You can't see software (hence it's soft). you can only see a product/representation of it.
you should drive by a plant for one of these companies and look at the parking lots. Employees driving other companies cars is common. I don't think to many people go extreme over things.
not exsactly true. While normaly you charge batteries slowly you can charge them very fast in some applcations. Take EV's and HEV's while it would take many hours to charge their battery packs through a charger they charge their batteries very quickly when doing things like regenerative braking (as in charge a huge battery pack in seconds). In a HEV's I work on we can only do so much regen do to the size of the battery pack, they can take the charge quiet fast (though there is a limit) the big problem is running out of space (as in energy storage) to quick. But any charging cycle slowly kills batteries. The severity only ajust the time line. This is where ultra capacitors will begin to come into play.
Slashdot Mirror
the friction isn't anything insane no, but at the speeds normal trains travel air resistance is un-important, hense they arn't sleek unless your talking bullet train. until about 45 mile/hr drag doesn't do much of anything. In the end though it still take a large amount of energy to keap it moving. there will always be things like gravity involved. also your going to have friction in the seal of the tube where these capsules are, (you need a air tight passage in there to get out of the thing).
there is a big differance from a low pressure/low oxygen environment and a vacuum. The first can cause problems but basic systems will keap you alive. Finding yourself in a vacuum would result in instant death. People don't die in planes when the roof flies off, aside from those who were not buckled in. When the roof flies off the space shuttle in space being buckled in isn't much of your concern.
keap air in one plane is much easier than a few thousand mile long tube. also planes leak a bit, but they make up for the lost air very quickly making up for leaks in a vacuum is much harder
No to get to Penn State you get off on the Belfonte exit from I-80 and go to Pleasant Gap and turn Right take to 26, keap left to State College, PSU on the Right side.
PA with it's forest and and farms is far better than NJ with it's cities, smells, malls, superfund sites, and beach which most who don't live there could give a rats ass about.
And if PA is so bad why did you come to school here, maybe because the only school NJ has thats worth a damn is Princton and you couldn't get in.
There is a reason for tollbooths to leave NJ , no one would pay to enter, and it's easy to get people to pay to get out.
Boston broke New Jersey, go Boston!
Now if NJ would split off at the Delaware River and fall into the ocean PA would be even better, well if it takes Philly with it (like it's part of PA anyways).
This has to be a setup or a trick or something.
But then again I see MS gave Linus a beautiful giant wooden penquin this morning. Things are looking up
yeah guess it should have been attractive/repulsive
I can find/make you a 4600lb magnet. But I can't promise it having much attractive force.
There is a bakery company in the PA, NY area i belive spelled the same way or something similar. I don't know anything of a Fraunhofer Group. Also i thought MP3 codec belonged to someone else
How does a bakery company come into play with a story on telematics?
What it looks like they are doing is using Simulink, a program withing matlab. It's a visual design tool. You basicly connect lines between differant boxes. Each box has a function. From this you can build very complex models. It's also used alot for control systems. You can do things like stateflow and other very complicated task with great ease. Also it makes testing your code much easier since you can basicly have virtual hardware and replace it with real hardware as your project progresses.
Once you have your simulink code the program turns it into C code, (also can do Fortran if you like), From there it uses 1 of many compilers on your system to compile the C code. (I don't belive it can use GCC, i have only seen it list some commerical fortran and C compilers like MS Visual Studio and such). From there it complies it and it runs on top of Dos. Also I belive it will work on freedos, and it has an option about running it onto of win98, NT, 2k . This is call xPC. Once it has done this it prompts use to load the code on the target computer, via rs232 or ethernet and then hit +tg and your controller is running. You can also set it up so your controler can boot your code from a disk pretty much anything.
Want to make a change just tweak your simulink file and repeat and a few moments later your back in business. It's very easy, and very nice for working with groups since people can't write there own bits of code and merge them together quickly.
Matlab Simulink xPC is used alot in industry and prototyping since it removes the need for CS majors great in a project. A Mechanical engineer who designed the machine can rather easily do the control system for the machine which reduces headaches all around of trying to explain to the CS how the machine works and such.
It's a very nice program to use. And makes for very reliable controls and is far more freindly than trying to decifer someones C code. We trust it in our prototype HEV's and it is so much better than doing it in the tradition straight C code methods.
thrust and lift are the same thing, it's more a matter of direction. if the trust is anything but horizontal it's creating lift. There probably is some lift properties to their bodies but not much. They don't have the classic airfoil shape. On planes like the F-117 their was uncertiany it would fly till it actully took off.
i don't need to do some reading on this. I deal with this everyday.
it was a joke, from the classic line
"If you can't fix it, feature it"
Look at a F-17 fighter it has no air foil. Actully most (all?) super sonic planes (the stealth is not supersonic though) don't have air foils. They just use the wings for control surfaces. They use their engines to just give it so much push all they need it to point it the right way. Basic they fly like rocket or missles. Also why these kind of plane need a computer for flight since they are unstable in all axis's (sp?). You can make anything fly with a big enough engine and some control surfaces.
IBM isn't trying to make up for a flaw on their part, their trying to introduce a new feature to everyone.
This is normal for a turbine. It's much the same for a turbo charger in a car, you can't just turn most of them off without destroying them, you have to let them cool down. Most trains keap the engines running even when parked anyways since the engines don't care for being turned on and off. Also they don't put anti freeze in there cooling systems for some reason. Something to do with reacting with other things on the train if i remember right. So in cold weather they will never turn them off.
Turbines just arn't ideal for this kind of thing. Other problems are turbines loose efficency when you scale them down. These are pretty big turbines but still near the low end of the size scale.
This thing is probably one coffee spill away from a bad day.
First I don't know if you were trying to help me or make fun.
I wasn't going for the look of it.
Maybe i should say it dufferantly.
There can be many peices of software out there that do what your looking for.
Some do it very well, some do it very poor.
Some are free, some are not.
Some are closed source, some are not
etc.
It may be that the best tool for the job (IE has the best features and functinality for you, or is just what your looking for) isn't everything you want. It has a drawback you don't like. Such as you don't like the liscense for it. On the other hand there is a very similar app that is pretty close to what you want or is like the other but not as good and has a liscense you like. You can A go with the first one that is superior but has things you don't like, or you can go with the not as superior one but get a liscense you do like. Ether way you have to obey the rules set forth by each vendor. If something is a better product but has things you don't like you have to balance whether or not it's worth it to you. ether way if you go with one you have agreed to obey their rules therefore you don't have room to complain.
Note: I am in no way saying opensource is better than closed, or free is better than not free, or anything of that sense or vise versa.
Note: if my first phrasing seamed vague maybe it was because i wasn't trying to be specific. I wasn't applying it to be only for this situation. It was vaque so that you could think about it in the tense of other things. There is nothing wrong with that phrasing.
I was going towards is general philosophy against closed source. I wasn't pointing towards this particular case when talking about the car thing.
Still if you worked for one car company and then went to work for another you would have to obey former agreements not to give info to your new employer about your old. Even agreeing to a companies NDA's and such it would be shady to do the same work for another company. It would be a big grey area to be able to know when your not breaking such an agreement. Therefor a company saying in your contract if you leave you can't work on the same thing for the compitition would be understandable. Now that may not be fair but you would have known this going into the first company when you signed the contract. and if the company had a line in your contract saying they could change the rules of the contract at anytime you signed into that. So you would then not be able to cry foul. There is nothing bad or evil about things like the EULA and such. You agreed to them. You don't have to. there is a "i do not accept" option.
there is reasons for agreements. the reason is so two parties have something to go to that they agreed on. You can't go through life trying to get out of everything you agreed to. Life doesn't always go the way you like. That doesn't mean life is wrong.
The sentance makes sense, maybe it could use a "," or two in there but it makes sense. If you don't get it maybe you just need to read it a few more times and think about it before calling me a troll.
Also you could explain what doesn't make sense in it.
From reading slashdot over the years and such
and just how i react to RMS i have a question
How many people out there would like to see RMS be completely isolated away from the opensource movement?
When I read what he says such as this it makes me not want to have anything to do with opensource, "free" software , GNU.
He seams to be one of the most detrimental forces around. His idea's of having freedom by only wanting people to do as he says just send chills down my spine.
Also does he ever use any closed source software? or has he? does he alow for any such usage?
This is sorta a trick question since he does if he has say a car built in the last 15 years and a few other things since they have closed source software in them. How does he feel about that?
You don't buy the source code when you buy a peice of software. Nothing is being kept from you that belongs to you.
If you don't like that you can't tinker with the software don't buy it. If the only one that does what you like but doesn't give you the ability to do everything you want shut up and ether buy it and go with their rules, or go with one that isn't as good as you like but alows you to do what you want, or go write your own.
also cars are slowling making it so you can't tinker with them. in time there will be more things on them that won't let you see how they work. But you bought the car for the car, not for the ability to see how it works and modify it (In most cases). When you buy somehting you agree to their rules. It doesn't matter if you like it or not. If you don't go else where. IN the case of cars their all going to be in the same situation so your just going to have to deal with it.
Also cars have hoods you can open and tinker cause they are a physical object. Software is not a phyiscal object for the most part. You can't see software (hence it's soft). you can only see a product/representation of it.
you should drive by a plant for one of these companies and look at the parking lots. Employees driving other companies cars is common. I don't think to many people go extreme over things.
>> All in all, it probably isn't going to be any more difficult to find a supply of fuel than it is to find a 110v 60hz outlet in Nepal.
Try finding one out side of north america.
not exsactly true. While normaly you charge batteries slowly you can charge them very fast in some applcations. Take EV's and HEV's while it would take many hours to charge their battery packs through a charger they charge their batteries very quickly when doing things like regenerative braking (as in charge a huge battery pack in seconds). In a HEV's I work on we can only do so much regen do to the size of the battery pack, they can take the charge quiet fast (though there is a limit) the big problem is running out of space (as in energy storage) to quick. But any charging cycle slowly kills batteries. The severity only ajust the time line. This is where ultra capacitors will begin to come into play.