> That pressure is going to move as a fairly thick wave
Why?
If there's a leak, then the rate the air can enter is limited by size of the hole. The air isn't going to obediently stay in one place so it can pool up and make your massive thick air wall--it's going to *very quickly* diffuse all the way down the tube, leading to a gradual increase in air pressure as the pod travels through.
There's just no way that the pod is still moving at 760mph by the time it experiences anything close to 1 atm. And all you have to do to soften the deceleration is make the pod more aero-dynamic and leave sufficient gaps between the pod and the tube for the air to escape around it.
Your physics fantasy is based around an absurd set of strawmen, designed specifically to crap on a new technology because you don't like the 'hype' and you think it makes you look smart.
It doesn't, it makes you look like a childish luddite.
I'll put that one right next to:
1. Electric cars will never happen
2. Self driving cars will never happen
3. Solar power will never happen
4. SpaceX will never happen
So part of the tube is at near vacuum and part of it is at 1 atm? That's a neat trick, how do you plan to keep the air to stay put so you can create that perfect "air wall"?
I'm no big city lawyer, but it seems to me that any leak or rupture would cause a gradual increase in air pressure over a long segment of the tube. The train would encounter this and start gradually slowing down. Also, the pod would be aerodynamic, I'm not sure what makes you think it would be flattened by an increase in external air pressure. Are planes flattened when they descend?
He has this sort of flaccid response to any green technology. He also predicts that less than 50K of the Tesla Model 3 reservations will turn into real orders.
People wanted hardware & software compatibility, were willing to pay for it, the technology was possible without too much compromise, and the free market provided it.
That never happened in portable form factors (not even with laptops, really) because the intrinsic technology constraints are more difficult and people didn't care as much about serviceability of portable devices.
When we get to the point where politicians are writing engineering design requirements then innovation slows down dramatically. Be very, very careful what you wish for.
Because: 1. My "friends and family" IT support role drops to basically 0 when those friends and family have Apple products. 2. As a nerd, I know good engineering when I see it.
Lots of nerds like Apple products. In my experience people who really understand technology have respect for Apple products & Apple's philosophy (even if it doesn't fit their needs).
The people who hate Apple, by and large, are tech wannabees who think that spending all day on stackoverflow to figure out how to print to a wireless printer makes them l33t or something. I find this group of people to be boring and stupid--and I'm glad that Apple doesn't try to appeal to them.
They have a high P/S ratio because they are a fast-growing company and the market is betting they are going to have much larger revenue eventually. Any company that went through a rapid growth phase will have a high P/S ratio.
Tesla has a high valuation because they are a first mover & technology leader in the EV market. They have good engineering, a solid battery supply chain, a global fast-charging network, and have already sold >$20B worth of EVs. They're also a leader in self-driving and it is clear the world is heading that way; and certainly self-driving has a significant software dimension--but you are hopelessly clueless if you think 99% of Tesla's value comes from software.
Calling Tesla a software company is about as accurate as calling them a "leather seat" company.
Tesla spends billions of dollars on R&D in mechanical, electrical, industrial, and chemical engineering. They have a huge manufacturing infrastructure, and large sales & support network.
But they also employ some software engineers for self-driving software and the on-board infotainment system--and their headquarters is in SV. Therefore they are a *software* company.
In densely populated areas it is pretty easy to add electric outlets adjacent to nearly every parking space. The parking meters already have power running to them.
Most Manhattan parking garages already have destination Tesla fast-chargers.
It won't happen overnight, and this will slow the penetration of EVs into cities, but it'll get there eventually. The public health benefits of getting ICEs off the roads will be more than enough incentive to distribute the power.
The vast majority of people can and will recharge at night via a convenient plug. You can easily recharge your typical daily drive amount over night from a standard plug.
There is a large network of quick chargers that can supply 130KW *right now*, that is good enough to recharge 170 miles in 30 minutes. That covers long trips & the occasional day of heavy local driving.
There are plans to go over 350KW in a few years. There are no insurmountable hurdles here; electricity is pretty easy to work with and humanity has quite a bit of practice.
1. it's only listening for "Hey Siri", until then there's no IO from the mic subsystem
2. it only talks over the network when you make a request
3. communicatons to/from the server are anonymized and encrypted
There's not a lot of tech detail there, but they did talk about it and Apple business model is clearly based on user privacy (not sure what rock you've been living under).
The engineers who designed every facet of the computer you are using right now did not have any sort of state-granted license. The state license law does not apply to engineers engaged in R&D for private companies. Intel is in Oregon and they employ thousands of degreed engineers (and they are called engineers in the job listings, LinkedIn profiles, tax forms, etc.)--and they don't have any state license.
To the first order, PE licenses are for people who design roads and dams and bridges. There is a whole lot of engineering that does not fall into that category.
Most engineers in the US don't have any sort of license--it's just absurd to get & maintain one if you work in a field where it is irrelevant.
You have to be licensed to work as an engineer in certain narrow fields related to public safety. There are thousands of engineers at Intel [for example] in Oregon who do not have any PE license.
There are thousands of working engineers in Oregon who do not have any "Professional Engineer" licensure but yet have engineering degrees, refer to themselves as engineers, practice engineering, and get paid for it. For example, think of the thousands upon thousands of engineers that work at Intel in Oregon. Is there a PE exam for semiconductor engineering? Hardware design verification?
You DO NOT need a state license [even in Oregon] to get hired as an engineer by a private company. If you are an engineer working for Intel, you don't need a license. The PE license is focused on engineers who market themselves to the public and/or work on public works projects (bridges, buildings, drainage, etc.)--the idea being that you need some level of state license to prevent charlatans from building bridges that collapse.
Now it turns out that if you read the letter of the law in Oregon, they have pretty restrictive laws on referring to oneself as an "engineer"--whereas most states just protect the term "Professional Engineer" (or similar). However those laws are clearly not enforced, or enforced very asymmetrically, because it would take 5 minutes on LinkedIn to find 10,000 violators.
Name a single "innovation" from any company and I will [easily] show how that was an incremental step from some previous idea. This notion that new technology has to be "completely new and not based on any previous tech" is a BS concept that is only ever applied to Apple. There has literally been no new technology ever by that definition.
If the word "innovation" has any meaning at all, then it simply has to apply to the seminal products that launched entirely new categories of electronics.
Slashdot Mirror
> That pressure is going to move as a fairly thick wave Why? If there's a leak, then the rate the air can enter is limited by size of the hole. The air isn't going to obediently stay in one place so it can pool up and make your massive thick air wall--it's going to *very quickly* diffuse all the way down the tube, leading to a gradual increase in air pressure as the pod travels through. There's just no way that the pod is still moving at 760mph by the time it experiences anything close to 1 atm. And all you have to do to soften the deceleration is make the pod more aero-dynamic and leave sufficient gaps between the pod and the tube for the air to escape around it. Your physics fantasy is based around an absurd set of strawmen, designed specifically to crap on a new technology because you don't like the 'hype' and you think it makes you look smart. It doesn't, it makes you look like a childish luddite.
I'll put that one right next to: 1. Electric cars will never happen 2. Self driving cars will never happen 3. Solar power will never happen 4. SpaceX will never happen
So part of the tube is at near vacuum and part of it is at 1 atm? That's a neat trick, how do you plan to keep the air to stay put so you can create that perfect "air wall"? I'm no big city lawyer, but it seems to me that any leak or rupture would cause a gradual increase in air pressure over a long segment of the tube. The train would encounter this and start gradually slowing down. Also, the pod would be aerodynamic, I'm not sure what makes you think it would be flattened by an increase in external air pressure. Are planes flattened when they descend?
always so convinced that they've found the fundamental flaw that all those smart people actually working on the technology have completely missed.
Quick, let's ground all aircraft before everyone dies.
He has this sort of flaccid response to any green technology. He also predicts that less than 50K of the Tesla Model 3 reservations will turn into real orders.
https://slashdot.org/comments....
already do this. They accept any returned electronics and they recycle them.
People wanted hardware & software compatibility, were willing to pay for it, the technology was possible without too much compromise, and the free market provided it.
That never happened in portable form factors (not even with laptops, really) because the intrinsic technology constraints are more difficult and people didn't care as much about serviceability of portable devices.
When we get to the point where politicians are writing engineering design requirements then innovation slows down dramatically. Be very, very careful what you wish for.
Whenever I feel sad I look at this old post and laugh:
https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=8966633&cid=51864323 "gotta watch the conditionals, folks" (Score:3, Insightful)
by argStyopa ( 232550 ) Alter Relationship on Thursday April 07, 2016 @07:35PM (#51864323) Journal
"...If it sells every car that's been reserved..."
I'm going to call it here, that less than 100,000 - maybe even less than 50k - actually turn into real orders.
Because:
1. My "friends and family" IT support role drops to basically 0 when those friends and family have Apple products.
2. As a nerd, I know good engineering when I see it.
Lots of nerds like Apple products. In my experience people who really understand technology have respect for Apple products & Apple's philosophy (even if it doesn't fit their needs).
The people who hate Apple, by and large, are tech wannabees who think that spending all day on stackoverflow to figure out how to print to a wireless printer makes them l33t or something. I find this group of people to be boring and stupid--and I'm glad that Apple doesn't try to appeal to them.
They have a high P/S ratio because they are a fast-growing company and the market is betting they are going to have much larger revenue eventually. Any company that went through a rapid growth phase will have a high P/S ratio.
Tesla has a high valuation because they are a first mover & technology leader in the EV market. They have good engineering, a solid battery supply chain, a global fast-charging network, and have already sold >$20B worth of EVs. They're also a leader in self-driving and it is clear the world is heading that way; and certainly self-driving has a significant software dimension--but you are hopelessly clueless if you think 99% of Tesla's value comes from software.
Calling Tesla a software company is about as accurate as calling them a "leather seat" company.
Tesla spends billions of dollars on R&D in mechanical, electrical, industrial, and chemical engineering. They have a huge manufacturing infrastructure, and large sales & support network.
But they also employ some software engineers for self-driving software and the on-board infotainment system--and their headquarters is in SV. Therefore they are a *software* company.
problem solved
That's absurd. You don't need an 100kW charger for each parking spot, these are for nighttime charging.
Your entire premise is absurd.
In densely populated areas it is pretty easy to add electric outlets adjacent to nearly every parking space. The parking meters already have power running to them.
Most Manhattan parking garages already have destination Tesla fast-chargers.
It won't happen overnight, and this will slow the penetration of EVs into cities, but it'll get there eventually. The public health benefits of getting ICEs off the roads will be more than enough incentive to distribute the power.
The vast majority of people can and will recharge at night via a convenient plug. You can easily recharge your typical daily drive amount over night from a standard plug.
There is a large network of quick chargers that can supply 130KW *right now*, that is good enough to recharge 170 miles in 30 minutes. That covers long trips & the occasional day of heavy local driving.
There are plans to go over 350KW in a few years. There are no insurmountable hurdles here; electricity is pretty easy to work with and humanity has quite a bit of practice.
nt
1. it's only listening for "Hey Siri", until then there's no IO from the mic subsystem
2. it only talks over the network when you make a request
3. communicatons to/from the server are anonymized and encrypted
There's not a lot of tech detail there, but they did talk about it and Apple business model is clearly based on user privacy (not sure what rock you've been living under).
The engineers who designed every facet of the computer you are using right now did not have any sort of state-granted license. The state license law does not apply to engineers engaged in R&D for private companies. Intel is in Oregon and they employ thousands of degreed engineers (and they are called engineers in the job listings, LinkedIn profiles, tax forms, etc.)--and they don't have any state license.
To the first order, PE licenses are for people who design roads and dams and bridges. There is a whole lot of engineering that does not fall into that category.
Most engineers in the US don't have any sort of license--it's just absurd to get & maintain one if you work in a field where it is irrelevant.
You have to be licensed to work as an engineer in certain narrow fields related to public safety. There are thousands of engineers at Intel [for example] in Oregon who do not have any PE license.
There are thousands of working engineers in Oregon who do not have any "Professional Engineer" licensure but yet have engineering degrees, refer to themselves as engineers, practice engineering, and get paid for it. For example, think of the thousands upon thousands of engineers that work at Intel in Oregon. Is there a PE exam for semiconductor engineering? Hardware design verification?
You DO NOT need a state license [even in Oregon] to get hired as an engineer by a private company. If you are an engineer working for Intel, you don't need a license. The PE license is focused on engineers who market themselves to the public and/or work on public works projects (bridges, buildings, drainage, etc.)--the idea being that you need some level of state license to prevent charlatans from building bridges that collapse.
Now it turns out that if you read the letter of the law in Oregon, they have pretty restrictive laws on referring to oneself as an "engineer"--whereas most states just protect the term "Professional Engineer" (or similar). However those laws are clearly not enforced, or enforced very asymmetrically, because it would take 5 minutes on LinkedIn to find 10,000 violators.
Name a single "innovation" from any company and I will [easily] show how that was an incremental step from some previous idea. This notion that new technology has to be "completely new and not based on any previous tech" is a BS concept that is only ever applied to Apple. There has literally been no new technology ever by that definition.
If the word "innovation" has any meaning at all, then it simply has to apply to the seminal products that launched entirely new categories of electronics.
This is the sort of brilliant forward-thinking analysis I come to /. for.
All three of them originated from Apple when it was already a big company.
So I guess it's pretty hard.