if you knew anything about Hyperloop and had read the Alpha document you'd realize that not only is it not "a vacuum transport tube"
I think it's worth quoting the alpha document to get an idea what Musk has in mind.
The approach that I believe would overcome the Kantrowitz limit is to mount an electric compressor fan on the nose of the pod that actively transfers high pressure air from the front to the rear of the vessel. This is like having a pump in the head of the syringe actively relieving pressure.
It would also simultaneously solve another problem, which is how to create a low friction suspension system when traveling at over 700 mph. Wheels don’t work very well at that sort of speed, but a cushion of air does. Air bearings, which use the same basic principle as an air hockey table, have been demonstrated to work at speeds of Mach 1.1 with very low friction. In this case, however, it is the pod that is producing the air cushion, rather than the tube, as it is important to make the tube as low cost and simple as possible.
Whether it works and is economically viable... Well, I am not the one with a few successful multi-billion dollar companies that turned the impossible and uneconomical into reality.
It's the right to peaceably assemble or the ability to form a peaceful group. That doesn't mean a group of people get the same protections as those defined by the Civil Rights Act for employment. Any one able to form a group doesn't mean every employer has to recognize that group as if it were race, sex, religion and accommodate their hiring practices to your made up grup. Sure, you can assemble as your group all you want but that doesn't mean I have to hire you.
This was at the heart of Citizens United. Being a member of any group puts you under absolute legal protection according to that.
No, Citizens United was about what was considered speech and when can the government regulate that speech. If you form a company and spend all your money to elect someone, Citizens United says that so long as there wasn't quid pro quo then you can spend your money how you please the amount spent doesn't change your rights. Or to put it differently, it assumes that you are innocent if you spend money on politics and the government has to prove quid pro quo before it can crack down on you spending on your money.
The law only protects certain attributes from discrimination (race, religion, sex, etc). You can discriminate based on ideology, party participation, or union participation because those are not protected by law.
I find this recurring and interesting in and of itself. There are so many movements and ideas that "won" yet there are a lot of people that still hold on to some notion that it still needs to be solved or pushed despite it being the law of the land.
Participating in a union is not the same as a protected class (religion). It's just like seeing construction workers protesting a contract that hired non-union workers. I see them all the time.
When you understand chemistry and nuclear physics you have nuclear weapons. It's intrinsic to any science or technology that unlocks higher energy concentrations. More people died from gun powder and steel. Do you have similar sentiments to those technologies or are you irrationally afraid of that technology because "nuclear"?
Reality is a horrible place to live. If your not willing to claw, fight, and struggle to survive then mother nature will bitch slap you into the grave.
I understand the sentiment but when you apply your statement to the current context: "Just because we can eliminate genetic diseases don't mean we should." That is a horrible thing to say. If we can eliminate genetic disease we should. Those people that are plagued by those diseases will be better off. The human condition will be that much better and tolerable as it is the entire purpose of technology.
There are always going to be huge implications and no one will know how to deal with them until they show up. The best example I can think of are nuclear weapons. They changed the face of the planet in every conceivable manner. They were designed to kill indiscriminately as many humans as possible with little effort. Yet, the implication was that MADD created a relative lasting peace the world has never known before with humans. We are still trying to understand all the implications of nuclear weapons. Our struggle and problems are different. We have to perpetually maintain the peace MADD demands for every future generation that lives with nuclear weapons instead of living in wars that won't threaten our extinction.
We have the luxury to question 'should a technology be developed' because others recognized that it should even when they didn't understand all the huge implications. Our lives are better because of it.
But the EU is more of an economic confederation with open borders than a federalist union of semi-sovereign states. The current "United States" is USA 2.0. where as USA 1.0 was something more similar to the economic confederation of the EU. As brexit and the lack of an EU army is showing is that the central government is fairly weak in its ability to force certain actions or keep members from leaving (which may or may not be a good thing depending on who you are).
States within the US do not have wildly different values, cultures, and fiscal/financial policy like the "states" of the EU.
Yes you do. Do California and Alabama look anything a like in their values, cultures and fiscal/financial policy? If there were any similarities in values, cultures, and fiscal/financial policy you wouldn't get such heated elections like we did in 2016. I don't see anywhere in the EU losing their shit during election season to the same extent. Even with brexit it seemed tame compared to the shit show of Clinton and Trump. The point of free movement in the US is to vote with your feet. Don't like the local laws in your state? Move to one that a better fit for you or where the jobs.
What the US has are the same rights/core law, language, and currency. It seems to me that the EU is very close to that, except for the language ofc.
all the similar crap from rightists the previous eight years
8 years ago it was avoidable if you didn't want to see it. I could open up a gaming forum (as an example) and be not be inundated with -isms and -phobias. Today, it's every other thread.
The crap is more common and more in your face from both sides.
The way I see it, you're really focused myopically on the Senate
Initially the question was about repealing the 17th amendment. Additionally because what we have isn't that bad and we only need a few tweaks here and there and in some cases revert back to what we had changed. I do not want to consider anything more broadly until those tweaks have been made. Looking at the senate alone and how it has changed because of the 17th amendment is enough for me to know that we don't need broad changes. I also can understand that the change the 17th amendment brought was an issue the founding fathers tried to protect the government from or as James Madison put it "excessive democracy". Adding in popular vote to government functions is not an ideal fix for many functions.
even aside from your misguided focus on an already failed method.
Again, how was it failed before and how did the 17th amendment fix it? Is you issue a bicameral congress? Is your issue that you want direct democracy? I'm sorry but I would rather listen to the experts that crafted the constitution than the opinion of an A.C. And yes, they were experts that spent a lot of time researching different forms of government to see what worked and implemented a successful version that enshrined the philosophies of the Enlightenment into its very core that survives to this day.
Sounds like you're arguing for very strict immigration laws. Also, that is easily addressed by residency. There are rules each state have that you must do to attain residency.
The federal government is constrained as well via a limited tax base. A bigger pot of water will still boil over even if it takes longer.
The blind adherence to the political and economic theories developed in the past are no longer relevant in this post-technological era.
Technology doesn't change corruption. It doesn't change entitlement. It doesn't change any of our faults. Governments are still made of people and still must be constrained in ways to ensure people do not abuse the power of the government. Technology doesn't have an answer for that.
Civilization has finally developed the ability to make a paradise on Earth possible in real time, for every inhabitant of the planet, if only we can find the true grit to move past the superstitions and false traditions of the past.
Yes, if only we had the benevolent dictator to herald the new age of utopia.
yes but I would add that in theory it shouldn't change the demand. Single payer vs insurance are different mechanism to pay for the same thing. Point taken though.
But it does work in a lot of places, no?
I would say there is a unique problem in that there is a sizeable voting bloc that do not want it and that makes any implementation hard.
I applaud Utah for bringing proposals to repeal the 17th and will support those kind of initiatives and politicians. It's a slow process to get a super majority to amend the constitution and it starts by an idea and arguing the idea. How long did it take for the 17th to become ratified? From the initial ratification of the Constitution popularly elected Senate was discussed, gained traction in the mid to late 1800's and finally passed in 1914. Now that we have had time to allow that change to solve the problems it was set out to solve we can assess its efficacy. I think it has caused more problems than it solved and so do others. Amendments start by voicing that opinion and convincing others and supporting/electing politicians that are like minded on the topic such as Utah. If state legislatures selecting the senate doesn't work and popularly elected senators doesn't work, then it's time to come up with a different mechanism for electing the Senate because popular election of the Senate is causing problems by incentivizing a dysfunctional congress.
Which kind of eludes the idea that the costs are too great and will eventually lead to insolvency because there isn't a higher government above the feds to do any join funding. If it can't work on the state level I am highly skeptical it will work at the national level.
Slashdot Mirror
Tell that to the stock market.
You're a funny little troll. Aren't you?
if you knew anything about Hyperloop and had read the Alpha document you'd realize that not only is it not "a vacuum transport tube"
I think it's worth quoting the alpha document to get an idea what Musk has in mind.
The approach that I believe would overcome the Kantrowitz limit is to mount an electric compressor fan on the nose of the pod that actively transfers high pressure air from the front to the rear of the vessel. This is like having a pump in the head of the syringe actively relieving pressure.
It would also simultaneously solve another problem, which is how to create a low friction suspension system when traveling at over 700 mph. Wheels don’t work very well at that sort of speed, but a cushion of air does. Air bearings, which use the same basic principle as an air hockey table, have been demonstrated to work at speeds of Mach 1.1 with very low friction. In this case, however, it is the pod that is producing the air cushion, rather than the tube, as it is important to make the tube as low cost and simple as possible.
http://www.spacex.com/sites/sp...
Whether it works and is economically viable... Well, I am not the one with a few successful multi-billion dollar companies that turned the impossible and uneconomical into reality.
It's the right to peaceably assemble or the ability to form a peaceful group. That doesn't mean a group of people get the same protections as those defined by the Civil Rights Act for employment. Any one able to form a group doesn't mean every employer has to recognize that group as if it were race, sex, religion and accommodate their hiring practices to your made up grup. Sure, you can assemble as your group all you want but that doesn't mean I have to hire you.
This was at the heart of Citizens United. Being a member of any group puts you under absolute legal protection according to that.
No, Citizens United was about what was considered speech and when can the government regulate that speech. If you form a company and spend all your money to elect someone, Citizens United says that so long as there wasn't quid pro quo then you can spend your money how you please the amount spent doesn't change your rights. Or to put it differently, it assumes that you are innocent if you spend money on politics and the government has to prove quid pro quo before it can crack down on you spending on your money.
The law only protects certain attributes from discrimination (race, religion, sex, etc). You can discriminate based on ideology, party participation, or union participation because those are not protected by law.
they won the battle.
I find this recurring and interesting in and of itself. There are so many movements and ideas that "won" yet there are a lot of people that still hold on to some notion that it still needs to be solved or pushed despite it being the law of the land.
Participating in a union is not the same as a protected class (religion). It's just like seeing construction workers protesting a contract that hired non-union workers. I see them all the time.
When you understand chemistry and nuclear physics you have nuclear weapons. It's intrinsic to any science or technology that unlocks higher energy concentrations. More people died from gun powder and steel. Do you have similar sentiments to those technologies or are you irrationally afraid of that technology because "nuclear"?
Reality is a horrible place to live. If your not willing to claw, fight, and struggle to survive then mother nature will bitch slap you into the grave.
Is this a Poe? I honestly can't tell with how retarded anti-GMO people are.
I understand the sentiment but when you apply your statement to the current context: "Just because we can eliminate genetic diseases don't mean we should." That is a horrible thing to say. If we can eliminate genetic disease we should. Those people that are plagued by those diseases will be better off. The human condition will be that much better and tolerable as it is the entire purpose of technology.
There are always going to be huge implications and no one will know how to deal with them until they show up. The best example I can think of are nuclear weapons. They changed the face of the planet in every conceivable manner. They were designed to kill indiscriminately as many humans as possible with little effort. Yet, the implication was that MADD created a relative lasting peace the world has never known before with humans. We are still trying to understand all the implications of nuclear weapons. Our struggle and problems are different. We have to perpetually maintain the peace MADD demands for every future generation that lives with nuclear weapons instead of living in wars that won't threaten our extinction.
We have the luxury to question 'should a technology be developed' because others recognized that it should even when they didn't understand all the huge implications. Our lives are better because of it.
There are similarities but I think there is more of a difference enough so to cause resentment from both.
Thanks.
Just curious, could the individual countries in the EU agree to wavered visas like a pre-EU that ac was speaking of?
But the EU is more of an economic confederation with open borders than a federalist union of semi-sovereign states. The current "United States" is USA 2.0. where as USA 1.0 was something more similar to the economic confederation of the EU. As brexit and the lack of an EU army is showing is that the central government is fairly weak in its ability to force certain actions or keep members from leaving (which may or may not be a good thing depending on who you are).
States within the US do not have wildly different values, cultures, and fiscal/financial policy like the "states" of the EU.
Yes you do. Do California and Alabama look anything a like in their values, cultures and fiscal/financial policy? If there were any similarities in values, cultures, and fiscal/financial policy you wouldn't get such heated elections like we did in 2016. I don't see anywhere in the EU losing their shit during election season to the same extent. Even with brexit it seemed tame compared to the shit show of Clinton and Trump. The point of free movement in the US is to vote with your feet. Don't like the local laws in your state? Move to one that a better fit for you or where the jobs.
What the US has are the same rights/core law, language, and currency. It seems to me that the EU is very close to that, except for the language ofc.
all the similar crap from rightists the previous eight years
8 years ago it was avoidable if you didn't want to see it. I could open up a gaming forum (as an example) and be not be inundated with -isms and -phobias. Today, it's every other thread.
The crap is more common and more in your face from both sides.
It would be nice to stop hearing 'right-wing' and 'left-wing' used as insults. It's not an insult to disagree.
The way I see it, you're really focused myopically on the Senate
Initially the question was about repealing the 17th amendment. Additionally because what we have isn't that bad and we only need a few tweaks here and there and in some cases revert back to what we had changed. I do not want to consider anything more broadly until those tweaks have been made. Looking at the senate alone and how it has changed because of the 17th amendment is enough for me to know that we don't need broad changes. I also can understand that the change the 17th amendment brought was an issue the founding fathers tried to protect the government from or as James Madison put it "excessive democracy". Adding in popular vote to government functions is not an ideal fix for many functions.
even aside from your misguided focus on an already failed method.
Again, how was it failed before and how did the 17th amendment fix it? Is you issue a bicameral congress? Is your issue that you want direct democracy? I'm sorry but I would rather listen to the experts that crafted the constitution than the opinion of an A.C. And yes, they were experts that spent a lot of time researching different forms of government to see what worked and implemented a successful version that enshrined the philosophies of the Enlightenment into its very core that survives to this day.
or fight each other for it.
Let the space wars commence!
You are applying rationale to someone that was carrying pot illegally and stoned. The former will land you in jail alone.
People don't act rationally in normal circumstances much less in high stress circumstances when high.
Pot doesn't make people crazy.
No but it does change their behavior and rationale.
Saying "it is a drug" is almost meaningless. So is caffeine. So is Prozac
caffeine and prozac aren't illegal and wont' land you in jail in a traffic stop.
drugs make people act in irrational ways," is too ignorant to address.
Have evidence to support that ridiculous claim?
If the cop claims he was afraid because he smelled marijuana,.
If the cop was afraid because he saw him reaching when he smelled marijuana that could very much alter his perception of the stop.
he is an idiot and a murderer
the jury disagrees with you.
Sounds like you're arguing for very strict immigration laws. Also, that is easily addressed by residency. There are rules each state have that you must do to attain residency.
The federal government is constrained as well via a limited tax base. A bigger pot of water will still boil over even if it takes longer.
The blind adherence to the political and economic theories developed in the past are no longer relevant in this post-technological era.
Technology doesn't change corruption. It doesn't change entitlement. It doesn't change any of our faults. Governments are still made of people and still must be constrained in ways to ensure people do not abuse the power of the government. Technology doesn't have an answer for that.
Civilization has finally developed the ability to make a paradise on Earth possible in real time, for every inhabitant of the planet, if only we can find the true grit to move past the superstitions and false traditions of the past.
Yes, if only we had the benevolent dictator to herald the new age of utopia.
The more drugs you buy the cheaper they are?
yes but I would add that in theory it shouldn't change the demand. Single payer vs insurance are different mechanism to pay for the same thing. Point taken though.
But it does work in a lot of places, no?
I would say there is a unique problem in that there is a sizeable voting bloc that do not want it and that makes any implementation hard.
I applaud Utah for bringing proposals to repeal the 17th and will support those kind of initiatives and politicians. It's a slow process to get a super majority to amend the constitution and it starts by an idea and arguing the idea. How long did it take for the 17th to become ratified? From the initial ratification of the Constitution popularly elected Senate was discussed, gained traction in the mid to late 1800's and finally passed in 1914. Now that we have had time to allow that change to solve the problems it was set out to solve we can assess its efficacy. I think it has caused more problems than it solved and so do others. Amendments start by voicing that opinion and convincing others and supporting/electing politicians that are like minded on the topic such as Utah. If state legislatures selecting the senate doesn't work and popularly elected senators doesn't work, then it's time to come up with a different mechanism for electing the Senate because popular election of the Senate is causing problems by incentivizing a dysfunctional congress.
Good luck with that.
Which kind of eludes the idea that the costs are too great and will eventually lead to insolvency because there isn't a higher government above the feds to do any join funding. If it can't work on the state level I am highly skeptical it will work at the national level.