Rockets do not take long to pass through controlled airspace and they pass through it vertically so they should not need a huge area around them to be closed for extended periods of time
I suppose they are allowing for the possibility or likelihood of the rocket blowing up, Challenger style, and sending a spinning Tesla a long way in a random direction.
People got along just fine before the USofA existed and before English was even spoken as well. So what is your point?
So we should adopt Nordic runes Egyptian hieroglyphs then? The point is that we need to adopt some character set for URLs and the Latin character set is the best candidate - better than Unicode. As someone else said, we are talking about the name of the URL, not the content of the page. I'm fine with eg Japanese readers reading Japanese literature in Japanese characters.
But you will find that Japanese who are using the Web are quite capable of recognising Latin characters well enough to recognise an URL they are looking for. Otherwise, I'd be quite happy if eg the Japanese went off and created their own internet with their own character set (ie their particular sub-set of Unicode) throughout; the Western Internet could still be accessible to them and theirs to the West, but you would know where you were and there could be no Unicode trickery with the URL.
Thinking a war can be won in 13 minutes because of what
I could have won the Battle of Hastings (and hence the war of the Norman invasion) for the Saxons in less than 13 minutes if I had been there with a machine gun. Was there a point to this excercise?
Towards the end, the Nazi's did have a rudimentary ballistic missile though. You should brush up on your technology history a little bit. Plus, I doubt very much if a "Fat Boy" type device could fit on a V1.
You are implying that the V1 was a ballistic missile. It wasn't - it was a sacrificial pilotless plane, or cruise missile as they are now called. You do not mention the V2 which was a ballistic missile, very advanced for the time as a vehlce, enough to form the technical starting point of the US space program. The V2 was let down by a poor guidance system, even by the standards of the day. The Germans were developing a longer range version of the V2, with a reach to hit the USA with the nuclear bomb they were also developing.
States they don't have any deal beyond the transit buses, and sounds like the plan is just to run them around the Apple campus. So no need to worry about data sharing.
... just to run them around the Apple campus... FTTB, but this is likely the start of something much wider. And I don't think the data sharing is the main worry here, it is cars crashing into concrete barriers in full daylight.
Fine advice, but all you are doing is re-arranging the queue. The basic problem, in the West at least, is that there are far more men wanting sex than there are women wanting (or willing to have) sex. Feminism, equal pay, and predominantly male immigration have seen to that, plus the nowadays social acceptablity of single women having a child (or two) and then giving up any further relationships at a relatively early age - while the father is back in the dating scene the very next day..
These days young guys are lucky even to encounter girls for long enough (or at all) to attempt your recommendations of "being kind, truthful and competent". Most girls go by first impressions, in particular how instantly "entertaining" a guy is, as to whether they continue a conversation or turn away to the next guy in the "queue". Your recommendations are really for maintaining an existing relationship, not for initial attraction.
Newspapers are not academic statiticians, they are out to sell copies. Tesla crashes sell copies. Musk has largely brought this publicity on himself by deliberately adopting a high profile and pumping out hype.
Since it seems you (Rei) might be a Musk insider, care to respond to AP's complaint that Tesla will not release mileage figures, by giving us those figures? We are all agog here.
I think it's pretty indisputable that "vehicular sensors and constant attention" plus "human senses and reasoning" is going to be by far the safest option.
I would dispute it. If humans think that driving control can be left to automation, then most of them are not going to pay much attention. So if the safety does depend partly on the driver it is likely to fall between two stools. Automated driving needs to be all or nothing.
Since Tesla and Musk are in the news almost every day
Musk loves publicity, he courts it. Too bad that it is not all good. If Musk himself had kept a lower profile, the crashes might have had a lower profile too.
Why do you think Musk's loop carts will be as large as conventional trains?
???? I don't. As I said, I'm assuming they will carry only 16 passengers because that is what TFA said.
Roadway vehicles typically carry 1 passenger per vehicle during rush hour, but roadways still have enormous capacity
Actually, they do not have enormous capacity in terms of passengers per hour per width.
.... because the vehicles are seconds/single-digit feet apart.
Single digit feet apart? Only if they are driving illegally, insanely tailgating, or only at walking pace. The official recommendation on UK motorways is a 2 second gap, which is over 200 feet at 70 mph
I would imagine these carts will similarly be very close together. Autonomous carts merging into a high-speed lane with not much distance between vehicles is certainly a problem to be solved, but how is it much different than an autonomous car merging into a crowded freeway?
Keep imagining. The reason it is a lot different from cars is braking distance. The braking distance with steel wheels on steel rails (as I understand the Loop will be) is far more than rubber on tarmac. The Loop cars will not be programmed to travel closer together than their braking distance, just as autonomous cars will not be.
Irrespective of braking distance, It still remains that Musk's carts (call them what you like) skipping stations (call them what you like) will be impeded by carts ahead of them which are stopping at them and needing to pull in and out. Of course there can be off and on ramps ("slip roads" in the UK) but for 150 mph and remembering that poor braking distance (and anyway, passenger tolerance of acceleration/decelleration) they are going to be very long ramps, which goes against the suggestion that I have heard that the Loop city stations could be very close together.
I'm quite sure that Musk will get one or more city Loops built, but the more the project unfolds, the more we will see a convergence with conventional subway technology. We have already seen a shift from it carrying cars to carrying people. Some common sense will overtake the hype, even if its promotors and fans continue religiously to avoid using conventional railway teminology.
Differentiate point-to-point from a fixed route...
I think they mean that instead of having a number of subway lines with large capacity trains each keeping always to the same line, there will be small "vehicles" or "carts" that can change lines and miss out the stations that the passengers on board do not need. With existing subway systems, to get from one point on the system to another can involve changes onto different lines and also multiple stops at intermediate stations that you do not require yourself.
But there are many problems and flaws with Musk's idea. Firstly, assuming the vehicles/carts take 16 passengers, you will need to wait around at the starting point until there are 15 other passengers who happen to be going to the same place as yourself (unless the vehicles are allowed to run nearly empty which will kill the system's capacity). Secondly, if the vehicles can skip stations there will need to be passing loops for the though traffic, and the vehicles leaving and joining the loops (inevitably at lower speeds because there is a limit on acceleration) will delay the through traffic anyway (ie there will need to be a sizeable gap in the through traffic if it is doing the claimed 150 mph). Thirdly, individual vehicles, no matter how many there are, and even if full of 16 passengers, will mean that the line will have far less capacity (in terms of passengers per hour) than conventional trains, because the gaps between the vehicles will still need to be as large (or in fact, at 150 mph, much larger).
As a city subway (the "Loop" versions) it will have nowhere near the capacity of the conventional London Underground for example, even taking one or two changes of trains into account on the latter, and you will probably have a longer journey time due to the wait to get those 16 fellow-travellers together. London Underground trains are only two minutes apart at the peak time so changing trains is no big deal, especially if only cross-platform. Musk's Loop as a city subway will only be advantageous to the passenger if it is very lightly used, like at quiet times, and if it's vehicles allowed to run with only one or two passengers. It would be a drop in the ocean compared with other forms of city rush hour traffic.
What part of my explanation assumes it acts like a substance and not just a whole bunch of electrons stored in the battery material that just needs to be allowed to migrate away from the battery material?
Your belief that the battery stores electrons, as if they are like a substance, and your belief that they can be discharged into the ground. In fact there are no more electrons in a charged battery than a discharged one. Instead, when being charged or discharged, electrons flow between the positive and negative plates within it and continue around the external circuit wiring back to where they started. This is accompanied by chemical changes. "Ground" (ie literally the ground under the car) does not come into it.
claiming that I don't understand how electricity works reeks of a very low effort straw man.
No straw man intended, and I'd keep the discussion technical if I were you.
Smaller tunnels require removing a lot less material, and also mean having to use less material to line the tunnel.
Brilliant. Why did no-one else think of that? Let's have 2ft diameter tunnels and fit people along them lengthways.
With a focus on faster transport and using the available space efficiently they should be able to get throughput as good or better than the traditional large tunnels.
You are not going to fill space more efficiently than existing subways. London Underground trains (with which I am familiar) almost scrape their tunnels (and really do occasionally) and the passengers are jam-packed inside at peak times. http://www.londontravelwatch.o... http://mkshft.org/observed-cro...
To beat the London Underground, Musk's Loop will need to be able to move over 40,000 passengers per hour along each tunnel. You won't do that with lots of little separate vehicles, partly because of the gaps ("headway") needed between them (a conventional train zeros the gaps between its constituent vehicles) and partly because of the Loop's inefficiency with passenger loading. With a conventional train, all its constituent vehicles are loading simultaneously; with Loop vehicles each vehicle loads separately and hence sequentially.
Of the 35 names of victims in that article, only 10 of them are recognisable as native English names. In fact most of the attacks are feuds between immigrants.
Loop is underground PRT (Personal Rapid Transit). Relatively small vehicles take either people or cars. People generally - and cars always - go directly to their destination, rather than on fixed routes..
The capacity is going to be tiny, especially with cars (probably with a single occupant) occupying some of the vehicles. As for not being fixed routes, I think you will find that tunnels are pretty fixed, and fixed routes has always been a drawback with railways, which is what this is, although I know Americans hate the word.
At peak traffic times, passenger capsules get routed to optimal paths with a few stops on each end that group together people going from and to the same general areas... Access to and from the surface is from numerous small pod elevator shafts rather than fewer, larger stations
If there are going to be numerous stations (your elevator shafts), you are going to be waiting around for some time to collect enough people going to the same destination or near it to fill a vehicle (even a smallish one) - unless it is a major destination (eg airport) in which case you would be better off with one of those old-fashioned large stations.
Going back to the "fixed route" point, it would be faster to take vehicles on fixed routes and change once or even twice to get to a particular destination (as now with conventional suburban railways) than to wait around to fill a pod with people going the same place as yourself. I used to commute daily by London Underground, and got to recognise the regular people who got on the same station as I did. None of them went to the same destination as I did, or near it. I'd probably have needed to wait all day to fill a Loop vehicle (with what? 8 people?) even if then.
Feeder tunnels branch on and off (again, akin to a highway system rather than a subway system). Control is 100% automated
Conventional subways have those too.
. Access to and from the surface is from numerous small pod elevator shafts..... the surface footprint is 1-2 parking spaces per shaft (the surface footprint use is justified by how many vehicles it takes off the roads
You mean parking spaces on the road? Musk really believes he will be granted free city-centre land for his stations? Good luck with that.
...makes another claim no-one sane would believe, but the press and tech illiterates eat up.
Not sure what claim you are referring to. If you mean his claim that he will build a deep level subway [= underground railway] under a city, then there is no reason to disbelieve it considering that such railways were first built over 100 years ago (over 150 years ago if you include the shallow cut and cover method) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.... It is established technology.
But Musk's tunnels are tiny, as are the "trains" - single pods that will each carry only a few people (or a car I gather). The capacity will be a drop in the ocean and will do very little to "solve traffic woes" except for the small number of people it can carry. Compare London Underground tube trains which each carry around 1000 passengers and run at 90 second intervals in the peak.
Reading the comments on that Instagram video is nauseating. The fanbois there seem to think that Musk has invented subways.
Probably also because Musk is an attention whore with a messiah complex.
This ^^
Musk is a showman; 100 years ago he would have been running a freak show at a fairground, standing out front with lightbulbs over his costume, and with megaphone calling anyone who walked on past his booth an arsehole.
Trouble is, these days it is not just the good publicity that gets the coverage he seeks : the bad news gets the high publicity too.
Slashdot Mirror
fans cheered as Musk topped himself
Musk topped himself? End of his problems then.
Oh, I see from Wikipedia that it has a different meaning in US slang from UK slang.
Rockets do not take long to pass through controlled airspace and they pass through it vertically so they should not need a huge area around them to be closed for extended periods of time
I suppose they are allowing for the possibility or likelihood of the rocket blowing up, Challenger style, and sending a spinning Tesla a long way in a random direction.
People got along just fine before the USofA existed and before English was even spoken as well. So what is your point?
So we should adopt Nordic runes Egyptian hieroglyphs then? The point is that we need to adopt some character set for URLs and the Latin character set is the best candidate - better than Unicode. As someone else said, we are talking about the name of the URL, not the content of the page. I'm fine with eg Japanese readers reading Japanese literature in Japanese characters.
But you will find that Japanese who are using the Web are quite capable of recognising Latin characters well enough to recognise an URL they are looking for. Otherwise, I'd be quite happy if eg the Japanese went off and created their own internet with their own character set (ie their particular sub-set of Unicode) throughout; the Western Internet could still be accessible to them and theirs to the West, but you would know where you were and there could be no Unicode trickery with the URL.
Thinking a war can be won in 13 minutes because of what
I could have won the Battle of Hastings (and hence the war of the Norman invasion) for the Saxons in less than 13 minutes if I had been there with a machine gun. Was there a point to this excercise?
Towards the end, the Nazi's did have a rudimentary ballistic missile though. You should brush up on your technology history a little bit. Plus, I doubt very much if a "Fat Boy" type device could fit on a V1.
You are implying that the V1 was a ballistic missile. It wasn't - it was a sacrificial pilotless plane, or cruise missile as they are now called. You do not mention the V2 which was a ballistic missile, very advanced for the time as a vehlce, enough to form the technical starting point of the US space program. The V2 was let down by a poor guidance system, even by the standards of the day. The Germans were developing a longer range version of the V2, with a reach to hit the USA with the nuclear bomb they were also developing.
Percentage of people using it: 1% /.: 100%
Number of people using it who have ever touched a boob: 0
Percentages of people using it who also post on
Mac User :
https://s8.favim.com/orig/72/b...
Windows user :
https://farm4.static.flickr.co...
Linux User :
http://78.media.tumblr.com/926...
Down-modded LoL! - someone must own a Jetta
"The project has suffered from repeated changes in direction
Did they mean that literally? Sounds like when a kid first rides a bike.
Bit of a blow to Apple's self image,
Not at all, it makes sense. VW are 4 out of the top 10 gay cars, with the VW Jetta in top place :-
https://roygbiv.jezebel.com/th...
States they don't have any deal beyond the transit buses, and sounds like the plan is just to run them around the Apple campus. So no need to worry about data sharing.
Fine advice, but all you are doing is re-arranging the queue. The basic problem, in the West at least, is that there are far more men wanting sex than there are women wanting (or willing to have) sex. Feminism, equal pay, and predominantly male immigration have seen to that, plus the nowadays social acceptablity of single women having a child (or two) and then giving up any further relationships at a relatively early age - while the father is back in the dating scene the very next day..
These days young guys are lucky even to encounter girls for long enough (or at all) to attempt your recommendations of "being kind, truthful and competent". Most girls go by first impressions, in particular how instantly "entertaining" a guy is, as to whether they continue a conversation or turn away to the next guy in the "queue". Your recommendations are really for maintaining an existing relationship, not for initial attraction.
Come on people need to take responsibility for there actions .. if you don't want naked pictures of yourself then stop taking them.
Or use a camera that does not promptly upload its contents to the internet without asking. Or don't such things exist any more?
It will save having to pay salaries to all those cold-call marketing guys and phone scammers.
Newspapers are not academic statiticians, they are out to sell copies. Tesla crashes sell copies. Musk has largely brought this publicity on himself by deliberately adopting a high profile and pumping out hype.
Since it seems you (Rei) might be a Musk insider, care to respond to AP's complaint that Tesla will not release mileage figures, by giving us those figures? We are all agog here.
I think it's pretty indisputable that "vehicular sensors and constant attention" plus "human senses and reasoning" is going to be by far the safest option.
I would dispute it. If humans think that driving control can be left to automation, then most of them are not going to pay much attention. So if the safety does depend partly on the driver it is likely to fall between two stools. Automated driving needs to be all or nothing.
Since Tesla and Musk are in the news almost every day
Musk loves publicity, he courts it. Too bad that it is not all good. If Musk himself had kept a lower profile, the crashes might have had a lower profile too.
Why do you think Musk's loop carts will be as large as conventional trains?
???? I don't. As I said, I'm assuming they will carry only 16 passengers because that is what TFA said.
Roadway vehicles typically carry 1 passenger per vehicle during rush hour, but roadways still have enormous capacity
Actually, they do not have enormous capacity in terms of passengers per hour per width.
.... because the vehicles are seconds/single-digit feet apart.
Single digit feet apart? Only if they are driving illegally, insanely tailgating, or only at walking pace. The official recommendation on UK motorways is a 2 second gap, which is over 200 feet at 70 mph
I would imagine these carts will similarly be very close together. Autonomous carts merging into a high-speed lane with not much distance between vehicles is certainly a problem to be solved, but how is it much different than an autonomous car merging into a crowded freeway?
Keep imagining. The reason it is a lot different from cars is braking distance. The braking distance with steel wheels on steel rails (as I understand the Loop will be) is far more than rubber on tarmac. The Loop cars will not be programmed to travel closer together than their braking distance, just as autonomous cars will not be.
Irrespective of braking distance, It still remains that Musk's carts (call them what you like) skipping stations (call them what you like) will be impeded by carts ahead of them which are stopping at them and needing to pull in and out. Of course there can be off and on ramps ("slip roads" in the UK) but for 150 mph and remembering that poor braking distance (and anyway, passenger tolerance of acceleration/decelleration) they are going to be very long ramps, which goes against the suggestion that I have heard that the Loop city stations could be very close together.
I'm quite sure that Musk will get one or more city Loops built, but the more the project unfolds, the more we will see a convergence with conventional subway technology. We have already seen a shift from it carrying cars to carrying people. Some common sense will overtake the hype, even if its promotors and fans continue religiously to avoid using conventional railway teminology.
Differentiate point-to-point from a fixed route...
I think they mean that instead of having a number of subway lines with large capacity trains each keeping always to the same line, there will be small "vehicles" or "carts" that can change lines and miss out the stations that the passengers on board do not need. With existing subway systems, to get from one point on the system to another can involve changes onto different lines and also multiple stops at intermediate stations that you do not require yourself.
But there are many problems and flaws with Musk's idea. Firstly, assuming the vehicles/carts take 16 passengers, you will need to wait around at the starting point until there are 15 other passengers who happen to be going to the same place as yourself (unless the vehicles are allowed to run nearly empty which will kill the system's capacity). Secondly, if the vehicles can skip stations there will need to be passing loops for the though traffic, and the vehicles leaving and joining the loops (inevitably at lower speeds because there is a limit on acceleration) will delay the through traffic anyway (ie there will need to be a sizeable gap in the through traffic if it is doing the claimed 150 mph). Thirdly, individual vehicles, no matter how many there are, and even if full of 16 passengers, will mean that the line will have far less capacity (in terms of passengers per hour) than conventional trains, because the gaps between the vehicles will still need to be as large (or in fact, at 150 mph, much larger).
As a city subway (the "Loop" versions) it will have nowhere near the capacity of the conventional London Underground for example, even taking one or two changes of trains into account on the latter, and you will probably have a longer journey time due to the wait to get those 16 fellow-travellers together. London Underground trains are only two minutes apart at the peak time so changing trains is no big deal, especially if only cross-platform. Musk's Loop as a city subway will only be advantageous to the passenger if it is very lightly used, like at quiet times, and if it's vehicles allowed to run with only one or two passengers. It would be a drop in the ocean compared with other forms of city rush hour traffic.
What part of my explanation assumes it acts like a substance and not just a whole bunch of electrons stored in the battery material that just needs to be allowed to migrate away from the battery material?
Your belief that the battery stores electrons, as if they are like a substance, and your belief that they can be discharged into the ground. In fact there are no more electrons in a charged battery than a discharged one. Instead, when being charged or discharged, electrons flow between the positive and negative plates within it and continue around the external circuit wiring back to where they started. This is accompanied by chemical changes. "Ground" (ie literally the ground under the car) does not come into it.
claiming that I don't understand how electricity works reeks of a very low effort straw man.
No straw man intended, and I'd keep the discussion technical if I were you.
Smaller tunnels require removing a lot less material, and also mean having to use less material to line the tunnel.
Brilliant. Why did no-one else think of that? Let's have 2ft diameter tunnels and fit people along them lengthways.
With a focus on faster transport and using the available space efficiently they should be able to get throughput as good or better than the traditional large tunnels.
You are not going to fill space more efficiently than existing subways. London Underground trains (with which I am familiar) almost scrape their tunnels (and really do occasionally) and the passengers are jam-packed inside at peak times.
http://www.londontravelwatch.o...
http://mkshft.org/observed-cro...
To beat the London Underground, Musk's Loop will need to be able to move over 40,000 passengers per hour along each tunnel. You won't do that with lots of little separate vehicles, partly because of the gaps ("headway") needed between them (a conventional train zeros the gaps between its constituent vehicles) and partly because of the Loop's inefficiency with passenger loading. With a conventional train, all its constituent vehicles are loading simultaneously; with Loop vehicles each vehicle loads separately and hence sequentially.
Of the 35 names of victims in that article, only 10 of them are recognisable as native English names. In fact most of the attacks are feuds between immigrants.
Loop is underground PRT (Personal Rapid Transit). Relatively small vehicles take either people or cars. People generally - and cars always - go directly to their destination, rather than on fixed routes..
The capacity is going to be tiny, especially with cars (probably with a single occupant) occupying some of the vehicles. As for not being fixed routes, I think you will find that tunnels are pretty fixed, and fixed routes has always been a drawback with railways, which is what this is, although I know Americans hate the word.
At peak traffic times, passenger capsules get routed to optimal paths with a few stops on each end that group together people going from and to the same general areas ... Access to and from the surface is from numerous small pod elevator shafts rather than fewer, larger stations
If there are going to be numerous stations (your elevator shafts), you are going to be waiting around for some time to collect enough people going to the same destination or near it to fill a vehicle (even a smallish one) - unless it is a major destination (eg airport) in which case you would be better off with one of those old-fashioned large stations.
Going back to the "fixed route" point, it would be faster to take vehicles on fixed routes and change once or even twice to get to a particular destination (as now with conventional suburban railways) than to wait around to fill a pod with people going the same place as yourself. I used to commute daily by London Underground, and got to recognise the regular people who got on the same station as I did. None of them went to the same destination as I did, or near it. I'd probably have needed to wait all day to fill a Loop vehicle (with what? 8 people?) even if then.
Feeder tunnels branch on and off (again, akin to a highway system rather than a subway system). Control is 100% automated
Conventional subways have those too.
. Access to and from the surface is from numerous small pod elevator shafts ..... the surface footprint is 1-2 parking spaces per shaft (the surface footprint use is justified by how many vehicles it takes off the roads
You mean parking spaces on the road? Musk really believes he will be granted free city-centre land for his stations? Good luck with that.
...makes another claim no-one sane would believe, but the press and tech illiterates eat up.
Not sure what claim you are referring to. If you mean his claim that he will build a deep level subway [= underground railway] under a city, then there is no reason to disbelieve it considering that such railways were first built over 100 years ago (over 150 years ago if you include the shallow cut and cover method) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.... It is established technology.
But Musk's tunnels are tiny, as are the "trains" - single pods that will each carry only a few people (or a car I gather). The capacity will be a drop in the ocean and will do very little to "solve traffic woes" except for the small number of people it can carry. Compare London Underground tube trains which each carry around 1000 passengers and run at 90 second intervals in the peak.
Reading the comments on that Instagram video is nauseating. The fanbois there seem to think that Musk has invented subways.
Probably also because Musk is an attention whore with a messiah complex.
This ^^
Musk is a showman; 100 years ago he would have been running a freak show at a fairground, standing out front with lightbulbs over his costume, and with megaphone calling anyone who walked on past his booth an arsehole.
Trouble is, these days it is not just the good publicity that gets the coverage he seeks : the bad news gets the high publicity too.
Elecrticity does not work like that. You seem to think it acts like a substance.