Because no one would dare drive on a strip of concrete that stretched all the way across the Mississippi River or the San Francisco Bay. What would you do with the temperature changes? Take out one support, and the whole thing comes crashing down. And how would anyone get up there to replace those cables if one broke?
As long as it's above ground it won't take much thinking from someone to find a way to puncture the tube, so security-wise it's a nightmare.
Kind of like how I could derail a train today with nothing more that a crowbar? Just go pull some nails in a turn. Or how about welding a piece of the crowbar to a spot on the track?
I could also take down an airplane with a handful of nails. Just toss them out near the end of the runway.
I could take out the substation near your house with a.22 rifle. I actually got off work one night due to that happening.
Building against terrorist attack isn't done anywhere today. Why would we do it for any sort of hyper loop?
But, with more people, there will be less money and space spent on infrastructure. A train can carry 10x more people if it can travel 10x faster. The other option is to build 10x as many rail lines.
I like how you think. It addresses some of the worst problems I saw when trying to use the train in the US. The whole train has to stop at every podunk station along the rail.
Instead, passengers getting off at the next station move to the rear car. When near, it disconnects and takes a side track into the station. Another car, loaded and ready, uses it's battery pack to accelerate and catch the main train that never stopped. When it catches up, it connects. People not getting off at the next stop move forward. People looking to get off at the next stop move back. Most people never stop.
And this is probably how we will see the technology really build out. High speed trains will be slowly covered in tunnels. Then the operators will start to evacuate the tunnels so they can increase the speed. They'll pressurize the cars for passenger comfort, which will allow a higher level of vacuum. They'll basically sneak up on the hyper loop.
It won't be that hard to build in sweeping curves that account for expansion. Other than that, ever flown through turbulence, which often is invisible? At least the train engineers will be well accustomed to where the bumps are.
A plane CAN go, but generally the route is so tight is might as well be on rails.
And a semi can only follow the road, and can't stop if a bridge is out. A train can't stop if there is a loose rail. Straw men can't stop burning if they catch on fire.
The data mining is used to determine who to "investigate", not arrest. Once they determine that you're a poser, they laugh at you and send you on your way (maybe fining you first because you don't have a receipt for the bill from that one time you went to the emergency room).
Before college, I ran a truck as an owner-operator. Had to buy a $200 tax stamp. You could not purchase a license plate until you paid it. I was hiring on to a company in a different state, the DOT wouldn't take a personal check, so I had to buy a money order to pay it. The "receipt" for the money order was 0.5" x 3.0".
The next year, I got a nasty gram from the IRS that I had not paid the tax stamp. I explain, of course I did, how else could I have purchased plates. They said I had to have a receipt for the money order.
It went back and forth for three months, and finally they gave up when someone saw the light and only charged me $10 in interest on the $200. The bent logic there hurt my head, and I just sent them a certified check just to end the ordeal.
Filter the unquestionably, demonstrably fake news. Forget all the questionable or biased stuff, just focus on the total bullshit that has no basis in reality. Pizzagate, Brietbart articles about churches on fire that photographic evidence incontrovertibly proves to be false, blog posts claiming that the Clintons murdered dozens of people, Euro myths that have been widely debunked since the 1990s.
Left a few out:
Women only make 75% of what men do for the same work. Guns are the cause of violence. GMO foods are unhealthy. Vaccines are deadly.
The problem is, using the defence of free speech to defend neo-nazis is ultimately self defeating.
You lack imagination.
Firstly, Nazi's are people who want to deny a large number of inalienable rights to people because they have the wrong colour skin or believe in the wrong sky faerie. And we're not just talking about free speech, of your So claiming their having their rights taken away (especially when they aren't) is hypocritical in the extreme. Of your bill of rights, white supremacists and nazis wish to see numbers 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of your bill of rights denied to those they view as subhuman (and I'm assuming that 3 and 10 don't apply to the situation).
And they are completely powerless to enforce their wants until they garner enough support to win elections. The response to them is not to violently shut them down. The response is to intelligently point out how wrong they are. They want to keep a statue in a park. You want it removed. They have just as much a right to ask for it to remain as you have to ask that it be removed. NEITHER of you have the right to violently silence the other!!
Secondly, if the best defence you can think of to justify what a group is saying is that it is literally not illegal to say it, you've defeated your own argument. You've admitted that their points have no merit.
The merit of what they have to say is not a factor. Neither you nor I get to decide on the merit of what anyone else has to say. Stop trying to be a dictator.
Finally, their right to free speech is not being taken away, they wont be arrested for being hateful little shits. However that does not mean everyone else has to listen to their bullshit and silently agree. They're being told that no-one wants to hear their bollocks and to go away (#9 on aforementioned bill of rights). Just because they can say something, does not mean everyone else should be forced to listen.
This is the most self delusional statement I've seen on/. If a group applies for a permit, is refused, but then wins the right to march in a court of law, then on the day of the march, large numbers of people show up to pelt them with rock, urine and feces, they have in fact had their right to free speech taken away. If you don't want to hear what they have to say, stay out of the park that day, but they do have right to say things loudly in the park. They have just as much a right to speak as people wearing vagina hats.
Logical fallacies: Hasty generalization: Some people chanting that they won't be replaced, is not all people chanting. Hasty generalization: Just because some of the people were bad does not mean they all were. You claim to know the marcher's motives. Do you know them all? Just plain wrong: He was not defending Nazis, he was defending the right of people to speak out. They have the RIGHT, whether you agree or not. Just plain wrong: Supporting Nazis when his daughter, a trusted supporter that he keeps close, is Jewish would be ridiculous. Flying to support Israel while being a Nazi support would be ridiculous.
I think you must be from a different part of the country and just misunderstood the President. To be clear "he was a disgrace to himself, his family, and his country" is considered a STRONG condemnation in most parts of the US.
Yes, but then I hear CNN saying that there is a constitutional crisis in the country because the President pardoned Sheriff Arapio. The hysteria of proclaiming that the President is causing a constitutional crisis by using one of the powers granted to the President by the Constitution leaves me wondering if the President is really all that bad, or if it is just media hysteria.
Some jerks organize to protest the removal of a statue. Some more jerks come out to throw rocks, urine and feces at them. Things escalate to violence, to the point someone dies. The President says there is enough blame to go around. Immediately, the media goes into a frenzy as if the apocalypse has arrived. Then I wonder if the President is all that bad, or if it is media hysteria.
So, yes. I wonder just how bad Trump is. But, then I have to wonder how bad he may not be.
Slashdot Mirror
Because no one would dare drive on a strip of concrete that stretched all the way across the Mississippi River or the San Francisco Bay. What would you do with the temperature changes? Take out one support, and the whole thing comes crashing down. And how would anyone get up there to replace those cables if one broke?
On the other hand, you could have teenagers dropping rocks off of overpasses into heavy traffic.
Not that that has ever happened.
As long as it's above ground it won't take much thinking from someone to find a way to puncture the tube, so security-wise it's a nightmare.
Kind of like how I could derail a train today with nothing more that a crowbar? Just go pull some nails in a turn. Or how about welding a piece of the crowbar to a spot on the track?
I could also take down an airplane with a handful of nails. Just toss them out near the end of the runway.
I could take out the substation near your house with a .22 rifle. I actually got off work one night due to that happening.
Building against terrorist attack isn't done anywhere today. Why would we do it for any sort of hyper loop?
But, with more people, there will be less money and space spent on infrastructure. A train can carry 10x more people if it can travel 10x faster. The other option is to build 10x as many rail lines.
I like how you think. It addresses some of the worst problems I saw when trying to use the train in the US. The whole train has to stop at every podunk station along the rail.
Instead, passengers getting off at the next station move to the rear car. When near, it disconnects and takes a side track into the station. Another car, loaded and ready, uses it's battery pack to accelerate and catch the main train that never stopped. When it catches up, it connects. People not getting off at the next stop move forward. People looking to get off at the next stop move back. Most people never stop.
And this is probably how we will see the technology really build out. High speed trains will be slowly covered in tunnels. Then the operators will start to evacuate the tunnels so they can increase the speed. They'll pressurize the cars for passenger comfort, which will allow a higher level of vacuum. They'll basically sneak up on the hyper loop.
It won't be that hard to build in sweeping curves that account for expansion. Other than that, ever flown through turbulence, which often is invisible? At least the train engineers will be well accustomed to where the bumps are.
In aviation, the saying is that the chances of survival or inversely proportional to the angle of impact.
A train derailment results in cars sliding across the ground and (relatively) slowly piling up. The train and ground are basically parallel.
The head on collision is a perpendicular impact for the lead cars, but much more like a derailment for the following.
All of the hyper loop concepts deal with a car protected by a tube. There isn't much to impact.
60mph, and stops in every podunk town along the track.
A plane CAN go, but generally the route is so tight is might as well be on rails.
And a semi can only follow the road, and can't stop if a bridge is out. A train can't stop if there is a loose rail. Straw men can't stop burning if they catch on fire.
I hope you realize that most of that energy spent getting to 30k is recovered when they come back down.
The data mining is used to determine who to "investigate", not arrest. Once they determine that you're a poser, they laugh at you and send you on your way (maybe fining you first because you don't have a receipt for the bill from that one time you went to the emergency room).
In that case, considering the record of the two major candidates, then the grandparent had the number fairly close.
Before college, I ran a truck as an owner-operator. Had to buy a $200 tax stamp. You could not purchase a license plate until you paid it. I was hiring on to a company in a different state, the DOT wouldn't take a personal check, so I had to buy a money order to pay it. The "receipt" for the money order was 0.5" x 3.0".
The next year, I got a nasty gram from the IRS that I had not paid the tax stamp. I explain, of course I did, how else could I have purchased plates. They said I had to have a receipt for the money order.
It went back and forth for three months, and finally they gave up when someone saw the light and only charged me $10 in interest on the $200. The bent logic there hurt my head, and I just sent them a certified check just to end the ordeal.
Which is clear proof that the tax laws in the my country are asinine.
Requiring every citizen to play accountant and archivist once per year is ridiculous.
But, we know from Comey that if you flagrantly flout the law, but can claim that you didn't mean to, no prosecutor would deem it worthy of a trial.
Congregate in the aisles and complain about management like the rest of us?
Filter the unquestionably, demonstrably fake news. Forget all the questionable or biased stuff, just focus on the total bullshit that has no basis in reality. Pizzagate, Brietbart articles about churches on fire that photographic evidence incontrovertibly proves to be false, blog posts claiming that the Clintons murdered dozens of people, Euro myths that have been widely debunked since the 1990s.
Left a few out:
Women only make 75% of what men do for the same work.
Guns are the cause of violence.
GMO foods are unhealthy.
Vaccines are deadly.
The problem is, using the defence of free speech to defend neo-nazis is ultimately self defeating.
You lack imagination.
Firstly, Nazi's are people who want to deny a large number of inalienable rights to people because they have the wrong colour skin or believe in the wrong sky faerie. And we're not just talking about free speech, of your So claiming their having their rights taken away (especially when they aren't) is hypocritical in the extreme. Of your bill of rights, white supremacists and nazis wish to see numbers 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of your bill of rights denied to those they view as subhuman (and I'm assuming that 3 and 10 don't apply to the situation).
And they are completely powerless to enforce their wants until they garner enough support to win elections. The response to them is not to violently shut them down. The response is to intelligently point out how wrong they are. They want to keep a statue in a park. You want it removed. They have just as much a right to ask for it to remain as you have to ask that it be removed. NEITHER of you have the right to violently silence the other!!
Secondly, if the best defence you can think of to justify what a group is saying is that it is literally not illegal to say it, you've defeated your own argument. You've admitted that their points have no merit.
The merit of what they have to say is not a factor. Neither you nor I get to decide on the merit of what anyone else has to say. Stop trying to be a dictator.
Finally, their right to free speech is not being taken away, they wont be arrested for being hateful little shits. However that does not mean everyone else has to listen to their bullshit and silently agree. They're being told that no-one wants to hear their bollocks and to go away (#9 on aforementioned bill of rights). Just because they can say something, does not mean everyone else should be forced to listen.
This is the most self delusional statement I've seen on /.
If a group applies for a permit, is refused, but then wins the right to march in a court of law, then on the day of the march, large numbers of people show up to pelt them with rock, urine and feces, they have in fact had their right to free speech taken away. If you don't want to hear what they have to say, stay out of the park that day, but they do have right to say things loudly in the park. They have just as much a right to speak as people wearing vagina hats.
Given the state of the Democrat party's election results, I'd have to agree with you about the incoherent and unorganized.
You mean like the "Women make 75% of what men do for the same work" type bias?
Or, how about the "Blue states have higher income that red states" bias (ignoring that blue states have much higher costs of living)?
Logical fallacies:
Hasty generalization: Some people chanting that they won't be replaced, is not all people chanting.
Hasty generalization: Just because some of the people were bad does not mean they all were. You claim to know the marcher's motives. Do you know them all?
Just plain wrong: He was not defending Nazis, he was defending the right of people to speak out. They have the RIGHT, whether you agree or not.
Just plain wrong: Supporting Nazis when his daughter, a trusted supporter that he keeps close, is Jewish would be ridiculous. Flying to support Israel while being a Nazi support would be ridiculous.
I think you must be from a different part of the country and just misunderstood the President. To be clear "he was a disgrace to himself, his family, and his country" is considered a STRONG condemnation in most parts of the US.
Well, elections have consequences and he has a pen. So, there.
Yes, but then I hear CNN saying that there is a constitutional crisis in the country because the President pardoned Sheriff Arapio. The hysteria of proclaiming that the President is causing a constitutional crisis by using one of the powers granted to the President by the Constitution leaves me wondering if the President is really all that bad, or if it is just media hysteria.
Some jerks organize to protest the removal of a statue. Some more jerks come out to throw rocks, urine and feces at them. Things escalate to violence, to the point someone dies. The President says there is enough blame to go around. Immediately, the media goes into a frenzy as if the apocalypse has arrived. Then I wonder if the President is all that bad, or if it is media hysteria.
So, yes. I wonder just how bad Trump is. But, then I have to wonder how bad he may not be.