Umm...
First, volume isn't the point. You have to evacuate once, and then, the volume doesn't matter anymore.
Sure, you would have to pump out all the time because there will be minimal leaks. But that schould be okay.
Surface also doesn't really matter - only connections between two elements can be a problem. But with the current technologies, it isn't that hard to build such a tube. You just have to use one film and you can keep a good vacuum.
I have to admit that this will be very much harder in California (I won't say impossible, but today, it would be very very very expensive).
And now, please explain me, why that should be that dangerous. I would put the tube under the ground - there can't happen anything. Why should the train crash? The probability that there is an obstacle is very very low. What had do be ensured is that the tube - or the part in which the train is - had to be flooded with air as soon as there is something wrong.
But what do you think now - this thing would implode? If it was under the earth, this just can't happen. And that planes can't be dangerous for thousands of people not flying with it - we had som case last year... This system couldn't be used by terrorists, while planes can!
And the passengers in this train are much more likely to survive than if there goes something substantially wrong in a plane.
I don't have statistics for car accidents now, but what's most important - most people in car accidents don't die in the car, but they hit other people - bikers for example. And how many people they kill indirectly by pollution...
And I think you have to admit that trains are by magnitude safer than cars...
(And that noone misunderstands: even a tube which wouldn't be under the ground wouldn't be that dangerous. Sure, it could _partially_ implode, and it could happen that people are killed by that. But I dont think that you would put tubes on the surface where a city is around...
Did they build a road to the cabin? It wouldn't be that much more expensive to build railroad tracks.
Sure, railway won't take you door to door. But it is really that bad to walk five or ten minutes?
Re:From now on, we'll all travel in TUBES!
on
Pipeline Mass Transit?
·
· Score: 0, Troll
You claim the right to pollute the environment?
You refuse mass-transit because there are some corrupt corporations? And, is there less corruption in the car industrie? The oil industrie? Ridiculous, isn't it?
But probably not too hard to figure out by oneself...
It could be an interesting idea to make some kind of static magnetic mounting (excuse me, I don't know what the correct english term would be, I mean a kind of transrapid not requiring superconductors, but static magnets).
As they are planning tubes under the earth, I would propose a brachistochrone construction. Would be faster without requiring more energy.
And I don't. Another word which must be replaced every few years for that no misunderstandings occur (like "colored")? So, what comes next? Degrading "programmers" to "script kiddies"?
Re:They (SETI@Home) could fix this easily
on
Cheating at Seti@home
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
But my computers do 8... and they aren't the fastest you can get.
And additionally, this would do nothing to one of the points the article mentioned, where one unit is only processed once but submitted for different accounts.
Yes, and surely, Einstein was wrong. There is no limitation for the velocity in which information can be transmitted...
Don't you realise that after all current theories, the fastest way to communicate are electromagnetic waves? No kind of matter can be faster. And I think it's improbable that the basics of our physics knowledge are wrong. So, information can only be transmitted at light speed.
Ultimately, caches are a hack; an elastoplast solution to the fundamental problem, which is the mismatch between the rate at which a modern CPU can process data, and the rate at which memory can supply it. In an ideal system, there would be no CPU caches at all, because the CPU could get data from main memory fast enough to keep it fully occupied. Systems used to be built like this, before the current obsession with clock speeds.
But it seems fast memory isn't cheap enough... Because of that, I think the cache solution is okay as long as you don't have large amounts of data needing only minimal processing...
The mod for the parent is wrong. you don't save anything by sending crap. at the very last, somebody has to pay it. so, "interesting" doesn't seem a good mod for the parent.
But, somewhere, the data has to be decrypted. That means, if the chip is integrated in the CPU, you "only" have to listen to what comes over the corresponding connectors. Then you have the data unencrypted. And depending on the algorithm, maybe it's possible to find out the key with combined encrypted/unencrypted data.
Concerning patents, the author says what I think. But please remember: Without the copyright, there couldn't be a GPL. The central point of the GPL (that you have to include the source with every distribution or make it easily available) couldn't be enforced without the copyright.
Exactly my opinion. But it seems many people like the black boxes, and especially those connected to the TV. It's because they connect "TV" with more simplicity, while PCs are complicated (not my opinion, but what most people seem to think)
Computations consume no energy, because the state after the computation doesn't have a higher energy than the state before. All the energy used by a computer is absorbed as heat (as it is for the most things we do with energy).
So, if you built a computer with supraconductors, it wouldn't consume any energy - "consume" to be understood as "convert to heat"
I would propose 20 years for everything. Today, that's plenty for everything and it would boost productivity - companies could not simply live from their old merits, but they were forced to make new things.
The same should be true for patents!
Slashdot Mirror
Umm...
First, volume isn't the point. You have to evacuate once, and then, the volume doesn't matter anymore. Sure, you would have to pump out all the time because there will be minimal leaks. But that schould be okay.
Surface also doesn't really matter - only connections between two elements can be a problem. But with the current technologies, it isn't that hard to build such a tube. You just have to use one film and you can keep a good vacuum.
I have to admit that this will be very much harder in California (I won't say impossible, but today, it would be very very very expensive).
And now, please explain me, why that should be that dangerous. I would put the tube under the ground - there can't happen anything. Why should the train crash? The probability that there is an obstacle is very very low. What had do be ensured is that the tube - or the part in which the train is - had to be flooded with air as soon as there is something wrong.
But what do you think now - this thing would implode? If it was under the earth, this just can't happen. And that planes can't be dangerous for thousands of people not flying with it - we had som case last year... This system couldn't be used by terrorists, while planes can!
And the passengers in this train are much more likely to survive than if there goes something substantially wrong in a plane.
I don't have statistics for car accidents now, but what's most important - most people in car accidents don't die in the car, but they hit other people - bikers for example. And how many people they kill indirectly by pollution... And I think you have to admit that trains are by magnitude safer than cars...
(And that noone misunderstands: even a tube which wouldn't be under the ground wouldn't be that dangerous. Sure, it could _partially_ implode, and it could happen that people are killed by that. But I dont think that you would put tubes on the surface where a city is around...
Could you explain to me how this would violate thermodynamics?
Did they build a road to the cabin? It wouldn't be that much more expensive to build railroad tracks. Sure, railway won't take you door to door. But it is really that bad to walk five or ten minutes?
You claim the right to pollute the environment?
You refuse mass-transit because there are some corrupt corporations? And, is there less corruption in the car industrie? The oil industrie? Ridiculous, isn't it?
maintaining a vaccuum would be pretty difficult and expensive.
Less than it is to keep a plane in the air?
2) maintaining a vaccuum could conceivably be dangerous.
More dangerous than flying?
And cars are still much more dangerous.
But probably not too hard to figure out by oneself...
It could be an interesting idea to make some kind of static magnetic mounting (excuse me, I don't know what the correct english term would be, I mean a kind of transrapid not requiring superconductors, but static magnets).
As they are planning tubes under the earth, I would propose a brachistochrone construction. Would be faster without requiring more energy.
And I don't. Another word which must be replaced every few years for that no misunderstandings occur (like "colored")? So, what comes next? Degrading "programmers" to "script kiddies"?
But my computers do 8... and they aren't the fastest you can get.
And additionally, this would do nothing to one of the points the article mentioned, where one unit is only processed once but submitted for different accounts.
Yes, and surely, Einstein was wrong. There is no limitation for the velocity in which information can be transmitted... Don't you realise that after all current theories, the fastest way to communicate are electromagnetic waves? No kind of matter can be faster. And I think it's improbable that the basics of our physics knowledge are wrong. So, information can only be transmitted at light speed.
Ultimately, caches are a hack; an elastoplast solution to the fundamental problem, which is the mismatch between the rate at which a modern CPU can process data, and the rate at which memory can supply it. In an ideal system, there would be no CPU caches at all, because the CPU could get data from main memory fast enough to keep it fully occupied. Systems used to be built like this, before the current obsession with clock speeds.
But it seems fast memory isn't cheap enough... Because of that, I think the cache solution is okay as long as you don't have large amounts of data needing only minimal processing...
640 are plenty for all, I thought...
Free men go by bike or by train.
The mod for the parent is wrong. you don't save anything by sending crap. at the very last, somebody has to pay it. so, "interesting" doesn't seem a good mod for the parent.
But, somewhere, the data has to be decrypted. That means, if the chip is integrated in the CPU, you "only" have to listen to what comes over the corresponding connectors. Then you have the data unencrypted. And depending on the algorithm, maybe it's possible to find out the key with combined encrypted/unencrypted data.
No. That would be "free beer". But someone modifying the source and making binaries out of it wouldn't have to make the source available.
Concerning patents, the author says what I think. But please remember: Without the copyright, there couldn't be a GPL. The central point of the GPL (that you have to include the source with every distribution or make it easily available) couldn't be enforced without the copyright.
Exactly my opinion. But it seems many people like the black boxes, and especially those connected to the TV. It's because they connect "TV" with more simplicity, while PCs are complicated (not my opinion, but what most people seem to think)
Computations consume no energy, because the state after the computation doesn't have a higher energy than the state before. All the energy used by a computer is absorbed as heat (as it is for the most things we do with energy). So, if you built a computer with supraconductors, it wouldn't consume any energy - "consume" to be understood as "convert to heat"
Right! And why do we need money? For giving it to the FSF, /., UF.
so you can sign up with a nearly text browser
Doesn't he first state it should be "free" and not "open source" and later, he compares proprietary solution with open source?
The comparison sucks! Speed limit of 5 mph for cars) is a GOOD thing. DRM is EVIL.
...and the companies had to improve if they don't want to be just vanished when their IP protection expires.
I would propose 20 years for everything. Today, that's plenty for everything and it would boost productivity - companies could not simply live from their old merits, but they were forced to make new things.
The same should be true for patents!