That guy looks as if he was born to wear his mom's sweaters. And I mean that in the nicest way possible. Clearly, the beard was grown to complete the look.
FWIW, I wasn't suggesting that that's where the people were, only that the population density of the country as a whole is quite low. The only place that reasonably compares to the Japanese, Chinese, and European clustering of cities where HSR is really viable is the North-East corridor. It's not a matter of how close everyone lives to the coast that makes HSR viable, it's a series of massive population centers a reasonable distance from one another (presumably with some commuter rail of their own).
HSR doesn't make any sense if the train never gets up to speed, so having frequent stops in a loop around the Floridian peninsula makes little sense.
Regardless of the fact that Acela is already there, if you want real, viable HSR in this country, the only place to put it is Boston-NYC-Philadelphia-Baltimore-DC. The distance between each is ideal and the largest of them already have commuter rail to further interconnect them. Once that is in place, and it is proved viable, then you start branching it out from there.
Again, I never suggested that infrastructure shouldn't be subsidized. You keep going on about the cost of building highways and airports, but your original post suggests that the government should be subsidizing Amtrak's operational cost.
I'm all for subsidized construction of HSR where it makes sense, but having the fed further subsidize Amtrak's operational expense to increase their on-time rate and thus their market viability seems not only the wrong direction, but the wrong use of federal money.
Airport and highway construction qualify as infrastructure. If you read, you'd notice that I'm all for assistance with infrastructure. GP appears to be requesting help for operational costs, which I think is ludicrous.
And, FYI, you do pay taxes and fees for use of both roadways and airports.
It's hardly unusual. The North East is just the only place in the US with the kind of population density to support it. It's popular in Europe because there's lots of big cities within relatively close proximity. It's popular in Japan and urban China for the same reason. The vast majority of this country is relatively low population farmland, which is why we don't have high speed rail crisscrossing the nation.
Fund Amtrak appropriately? Why does it need a subsidy? If it's such a viable means of travel, why can't it stand on it's own two feet?
Heck, I'm all for taxpayer money to help build the infrastructure, but taxpayer money for operations? That's where I draw the line. Operations should be completely dependent on revenue from ticket sales.
It's orbital velocity may be near 31 km/s (relative to the sun), however it's velocity relative to earth (which would be the figure you're citing for geosynch orbital velocity) is not that great. Earth's orbital velocity is about 1 km/s lower than that. Of course, you can't say that the relative velocity between the two is the difference since this is quite obviously a 3 dimensional problem.
However, you can say that this is within the range of velocity of a geosynch satellite (30km/s +/- 3km/s) relative to the sun.
I'll leave the orbital mechanics to the astrophysicists, but from what I've read - especially given opportunity of the slingshot event in 2029 - it seems entirely plausible that a cluster of ion/VASIMR thrusters could alter the trajectory enough such that the 2029 event would be a capture, rather than a near miss.
"Toy Story 3" was a hell of a lot better way to spend 2 hours than "The Kids are All Right." That movie was just dreadful, and yet I keep seeing it nominated for things.
NASA does a lot of terrestrial research in the Earth's most exotic environments (in order to gather information on possible extra-terrestrial environments).
Still, it would seem that perhaps the name "National Air and Space Administration" should be updated with the times.
Precisely the kind of things that would make valuable use of the bailout money. A trillion dollars will buy a lot of renewable energy.
Unfortunately, it's been squandered. Maybe next time!
TFA indicates that this'll be going about 100 miles on a charge.
Seems that 100 miles on a charge is something of a sweet spot between cost of battery and common user acceptability. Or at least thats what I assume their marketing data indicated.
We were bombing Iraq in 2001? Boy, that is news to me. Yeah, we bombed it a decade earlier (after it invaded Kuwait), but the premise of "if you stop bombing them, they'll stop bombing you" doesn't hold water. These aren't rational people, despite your attempts to paint them thusly.
Not offending a group of people. I think they've made that pretty clear. Heck, calling the 9/11 terrorists "muslims" offends Whoopi Goldberg. And you don't wanna fuck with Whoopi, because she'll storm off like a petulant child.
I guess my point is that, at very least, you'd see the USN scrambling Anti-Submarine Warfare assets like mad trying to find the thing (if they believed it was launched by a foreign entity). As far as I can tell, that didn't happen. And if I let my suspicions do the talking, I'd suspect they didn't even know it happened until it was reported on the news.
This leads me to believe that it wasn't detected as a missile launch (which surely a foreign entity SLBM launch would have been). Therefore, I can only conclude that it was something they knew was going to happen (they launched it) or an optical illusion from a completely ordinary event (airplane contrails).
Locating a submarine that gave it's position so clearly, and in such close proximity to so many military installations, should be trivial. It's not like these things get away at 200mph and could be anywhere in an hour. 30 knots only gets you so far, so fast, and you can expect within a very short amount of time there'd be aircraft in the area dropping a lot of active sonar.
Getting US Navy floating assets to the scene would certainly take longer, but we can track these things so close to our coast from the air quite easily until they do so.
Even if the intended goal is not to sink it, you can be sure there'd still be a measured response.
However, executing that demonstration would result in the sinking of your ship, and the loss of a portion of that capability.) With so many US military installations nearby, the submarine that did the launching, regardless of it's stealth characteristics, would be located in very short order.
Slashdot Mirror
You missed the other half of the comparison.
DC:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Metropolitan_Area
Population:5,358,130
Baltimore:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltimore_Metropolitan_Area
Population:2,668,056
Philadelphia:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philadelphia_metropolitan_area
Population:5,826,742
New York:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Metro_Area
Population:19,069,796
Boston:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro_Boston
Population:4,522,858
As compared to:
Orlando:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Orlando
Population:2,082,421
Miami:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miami_metro_area
Population:5,547,051
Tampa:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tampa_Bay_Area
Population:2,733,761
Jacksonville: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Jacksonville_Metropolitan_Area
Population:1,313,228
It may be viable, but it deserves no comparison. The entire state's population is still shy of the NY metro area alone.
That guy looks as if he was born to wear his mom's sweaters. And I mean that in the nicest way possible. Clearly, the beard was grown to complete the look.
FWIW, I wasn't suggesting that that's where the people were, only that the population density of the country as a whole is quite low. The only place that reasonably compares to the Japanese, Chinese, and European clustering of cities where HSR is really viable is the North-East corridor. It's not a matter of how close everyone lives to the coast that makes HSR viable, it's a series of massive population centers a reasonable distance from one another (presumably with some commuter rail of their own).
HSR doesn't make any sense if the train never gets up to speed, so having frequent stops in a loop around the Floridian peninsula makes little sense.
Regardless of the fact that Acela is already there, if you want real, viable HSR in this country, the only place to put it is Boston-NYC-Philadelphia-Baltimore-DC. The distance between each is ideal and the largest of them already have commuter rail to further interconnect them. Once that is in place, and it is proved viable, then you start branching it out from there.
Again, I never suggested that infrastructure shouldn't be subsidized. You keep going on about the cost of building highways and airports, but your original post suggests that the government should be subsidizing Amtrak's operational cost.
I'm all for subsidized construction of HSR where it makes sense, but having the fed further subsidize Amtrak's operational expense to increase their on-time rate and thus their market viability seems not only the wrong direction, but the wrong use of federal money.
Airport and highway construction qualify as infrastructure. If you read, you'd notice that I'm all for assistance with infrastructure. GP appears to be requesting help for operational costs, which I think is ludicrous.
And, FYI, you do pay taxes and fees for use of both roadways and airports.
I do too, but I don't think that's what they had in mind...
It's hardly unusual. The North East is just the only place in the US with the kind of population density to support it. It's popular in Europe because there's lots of big cities within relatively close proximity. It's popular in Japan and urban China for the same reason. The vast majority of this country is relatively low population farmland, which is why we don't have high speed rail crisscrossing the nation.
Fund Amtrak appropriately? Why does it need a subsidy? If it's such a viable means of travel, why can't it stand on it's own two feet?
Heck, I'm all for taxpayer money to help build the infrastructure, but taxpayer money for operations? That's where I draw the line. Operations should be completely dependent on revenue from ticket sales.
Madden is fun, but pretty far from realistic. Getting better though.
4 years, 3 months, and 12 days is a little shy of what I would term "many, many years."
It's orbital velocity may be near 31 km/s (relative to the sun), however it's velocity relative to earth (which would be the figure you're citing for geosynch orbital velocity) is not that great. Earth's orbital velocity is about 1 km/s lower than that. Of course, you can't say that the relative velocity between the two is the difference since this is quite obviously a 3 dimensional problem.
However, you can say that this is within the range of velocity of a geosynch satellite (30km/s +/- 3km/s) relative to the sun.
I'll leave the orbital mechanics to the astrophysicists, but from what I've read - especially given opportunity of the slingshot event in 2029 - it seems entirely plausible that a cluster of ion/VASIMR thrusters could alter the trajectory enough such that the 2029 event would be a capture, rather than a near miss.
"Toy Story 3" was a hell of a lot better way to spend 2 hours than "The Kids are All Right." That movie was just dreadful, and yet I keep seeing it nominated for things.
You lost me. My film tank doesn't have an empty light. What did I do wrong?
NASA does a lot of terrestrial research in the Earth's most exotic environments (in order to gather information on possible extra-terrestrial environments).
Still, it would seem that perhaps the name "National Air and Space Administration" should be updated with the times.
Precisely the kind of things that would make valuable use of the bailout money. A trillion dollars will buy a lot of renewable energy. Unfortunately, it's been squandered. Maybe next time!
The Yakovlev Yak-141 "freestyle" didn't enter production. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakovlev_Yak-141
Isn't that effectively what Intel does with processors?
TFA indicates that this'll be going about 100 miles on a charge.
Seems that 100 miles on a charge is something of a sweet spot between cost of battery and common user acceptability. Or at least thats what I assume their marketing data indicated.
We were bombing Iraq in 2001? Boy, that is news to me. Yeah, we bombed it a decade earlier (after it invaded Kuwait), but the premise of "if you stop bombing them, they'll stop bombing you" doesn't hold water. These aren't rational people, despite your attempts to paint them thusly.
I'd like to see an article about the TSA saving images. I've seen that the US Marshalls saved them, but those are two very different organizations.
Not offending a group of people. I think they've made that pretty clear. Heck, calling the 9/11 terrorists "muslims" offends Whoopi Goldberg. And you don't wanna fuck with Whoopi, because she'll storm off like a petulant child.
What were we bombing in September of 2001?
I guess my point is that, at very least, you'd see the USN scrambling Anti-Submarine Warfare assets like mad trying to find the thing (if they believed it was launched by a foreign entity). As far as I can tell, that didn't happen. And if I let my suspicions do the talking, I'd suspect they didn't even know it happened until it was reported on the news.
This leads me to believe that it wasn't detected as a missile launch (which surely a foreign entity SLBM launch would have been). Therefore, I can only conclude that it was something they knew was going to happen (they launched it) or an optical illusion from a completely ordinary event (airplane contrails).
Locating a submarine that gave it's position so clearly, and in such close proximity to so many military installations, should be trivial. It's not like these things get away at 200mph and could be anywhere in an hour. 30 knots only gets you so far, so fast, and you can expect within a very short amount of time there'd be aircraft in the area dropping a lot of active sonar.
Getting US Navy floating assets to the scene would certainly take longer, but we can track these things so close to our coast from the air quite easily until they do so.
Even if the intended goal is not to sink it, you can be sure there'd still be a measured response.
However, executing that demonstration would result in the sinking of your ship, and the loss of a portion of that capability.) With so many US military installations nearby, the submarine that did the launching, regardless of it's stealth characteristics, would be located in very short order.