Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of sleeping in too. But the important part of my comment was the "needing the government to trick you" bit, not the "getting up early" bit.
Every government agency (and every department of a corporation, for that matter) will complain of budget shortage, if asked...
True, but Amtrak (along with NASA) is one of the few that has a legitimate reason to complain.
While I agree with your opinion on the folly of highway subsidies (beyond the strategically-needed interstates), I must note, that certain commercial train-companies manage to compete with highways anyway. True, these are mostly cargo trains, but they compete against cargo-carrying tracks successfully in many markets.
Well, that's just because long-haul trucking is even more mind-bogglingly idiotic than commuting by car!
You got exactly the same amount of light that you would have gotten anyway. You just think there was more because you didn't sleep in as late as you usually would have.
Personally, I think anybody who needs the government to trick them into getting up early is a moron, but morons' opinions may differ...
Actually, I was referring to all "city cars" (aka "kei cars" in Japan) -- that includes the Smart, the Toyota Aygo, VW Fox, etc. (I think -- I'm American, so I might be getting some of this stuff wrong).
Although it would be incredibly expensive, a trans-Atlantic tunnel is at least technologically possible. In contrast, a chord-of-the-Earth tunnel is not.
So you're telling me that you would rather drive than cycle in NYC or San Francisco?
So you're telling me you'd rather cycle than drive in Atlanta, L.A., or indeed every city in the U.S. other than those in the northeast, Denver, or San Francisco?
Why's Denver an anomaly?
Because, from what I've read, Denver has an unusually large proportion of wealthy outdoorsy-type people (because it's a ski resort town), who would care more than average about exercise (e.g. walking to/from the transit stations) and the environment, and also have enough money to build transit.
You know, I understand the contempt for rice boys, but I do feel compelled to point out that there ARE little Japanese cars running around that can eat a viper for lunch and still have room left over for a ford GT and an enzo ferrari. They need their ground effects.
They aren't "ricers." The term exclusively applies to people that put on non-functioning aero devices, in order to make the cars look fast when they really aren't. For example, a person putting a wing on a stock (FWD) civic is a "ricer." A person putting a wing on a modified (RWD) Z is not a ricer.
In other words, your comment is irrelevant because I wasn't talking about that to begin with.
The moron-run Amtrak has purchased these wonder-trains without improving the tracks...
The moron-run Federal government won't give Amtrak enough money to improve the tracks, because it's spending it all subsidizing highways (while somehow expecting Amtrak to make a profit) instead.
Don't blame Amtrak for its inability to compete against a subsidy!
The US is lamentably far behind - Amtrack is stuck playing second fiddle to freight trains and has abysmal performance (I'm probably biased as I was once 17 hours late on a train...). Freight rail and passenger rail need different tracks and independent scheduling - freight can move more slowly over rougher tracks, but passenger rail needs to be rapid.
It also doesn't help that Amtrak is expected to turn a profit while roads get subsidized...
Except that it turns out that solution isn't practical for every use. And so we have locomotives too.
In the TGV's case it'd still need "locomotives" even if they didn't have engines in them, just because aerodynamics at that speed demand a different shape at each end of the train than in the middle.
25,000 hp sustained is a ton! I wonder how they keep it from melting. Top fuel drag cars are getting in the neighborhood of 8000 hp now...
...with an engine that has to fit on a tiny car. This is a train we're talking about, remember? There's plenty of space to make it huge and (relatively, compared to the dragster) heavy.
Besides, if you think 25,000 hp is a lot, just go look at the engines in a cargo ship or large aircraft...
I'm just wondering about the acceleration of such a device. How long would it take to reach top speed? Accelerating at 1G, it would take 228 seconds (just over 3.5 minutes) to reach this speed. That would probably be a little uncomfortable for the riders though. It would probably be a lot better to take 10 minutes or more for full acceleration.
And that's why it's suggested for a transatlantic tunnel. You need that much distance to make the whole thing possible -- if it were shorter you'd spend half the trip just getting up to speed (and immediately slow down again).
Also, transporting a copy (CD) is completely different than transporting the right to make a copy (download license).
Only in the drug-addled minds of the RIAA's lawyers. Sane people, on the other hand, see no difference. Sooner or later, the laws will reflect this fact of reality.
Second problem is that this car only gets 31 mpg in my daily commute. The non-S with the smaller engine gets 2 - 3 mpg better but it is still remarkably low (probably due to its boxy unaerodynamic shape) considering its size.
The Mini's problem is its weight, not aerodynamics. The real Mini, from the 60s, weighed half as much.
I don't know how some of the taller people find cars in the EU. I spent two weeks going out after work looking for a non SUV to replace my old Honda. The only non SUV's that could handle my height was a VW.
Funny because last time I looked at a map the United Kingdom was part of Europe.
The last time you looked at a map was during an ice age, then? 'Cause, you know, the last time I looked at a map, which was this century, the United Kingdom was an island.
Slashdot Mirror
Heck, a 590 might even be able to handle `emerge KDE` or `emerge openoffice`!
Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of sleeping in too. But the important part of my comment was the "needing the government to trick you" bit, not the "getting up early" bit.
True, but Amtrak (along with NASA) is one of the few that has a legitimate reason to complain.
Well, that's just because long-haul trucking is even more mind-bogglingly idiotic than commuting by car!
Nobody said they had to be in the same weight class; they just have to be valid passenger cars. And city cars are not the same as "soapbox racers!"
You got exactly the same amount of light that you would have gotten anyway. You just think there was more because you didn't sleep in as late as you usually would have.
Personally, I think anybody who needs the government to trick them into getting up early is a moron, but morons' opinions may differ...
Indeed, anybody that would have liked the old Mini ought to be buying a Honda Insight or something these days...
Actually, I was referring to all "city cars" (aka "kei cars" in Japan) -- that includes the Smart, the Toyota Aygo, VW Fox, etc. (I think -- I'm American, so I might be getting some of this stuff wrong).
What's this "outdoors" you speak of? Is that some kind of new RPG?
Although it would be incredibly expensive, a trans-Atlantic tunnel is at least technologically possible. In contrast, a chord-of-the-Earth tunnel is not.
Windows 2000.
So you're telling me you'd rather cycle than drive in Atlanta, L.A., or indeed every city in the U.S. other than those in the northeast, Denver, or San Francisco?
Because, from what I've read, Denver has an unusually large proportion of wealthy outdoorsy-type people (because it's a ski resort town), who would care more than average about exercise (e.g. walking to/from the transit stations) and the environment, and also have enough money to build transit.
What part of IN THE US did you not understand?
They aren't "ricers." The term exclusively applies to people that put on non-functioning aero devices, in order to make the cars look fast when they really aren't. For example, a person putting a wing on a stock (FWD) civic is a "ricer." A person putting a wing on a modified (RWD) Z is not a ricer.
In other words, your comment is irrelevant because I wasn't talking about that to begin with.
The moron-run Federal government won't give Amtrak enough money to improve the tracks, because it's spending it all subsidizing highways (while somehow expecting Amtrak to make a profit) instead.
Don't blame Amtrak for its inability to compete against a subsidy!
It also doesn't help that Amtrak is expected to turn a profit while roads get subsidized...
In the TGV's case it'd still need "locomotives" even if they didn't have engines in them, just because aerodynamics at that speed demand a different shape at each end of the train than in the middle.
...with an engine that has to fit on a tiny car. This is a train we're talking about, remember? There's plenty of space to make it huge and (relatively, compared to the dragster) heavy.
Besides, if you think 25,000 hp is a lot, just go look at the engines in a cargo ship or large aircraft...
And that's why it's suggested for a transatlantic tunnel. You need that much distance to make the whole thing possible -- if it were shorter you'd spend half the trip just getting up to speed (and immediately slow down again).
Only in the drug-addled minds of the RIAA's lawyers. Sane people, on the other hand, see no difference. Sooner or later, the laws will reflect this fact of reality.
The TGV already has ground effects*, you insensitive clod!
(*Unlike a ricer's, however, the TGV's ground effects actually work.)
Fluids don't work that way. If there's air in the tunnel, the tunnel walls will create friction due to the no-slip condition
Denver is an anomaly.
It's not Americans; the car companies are the ones who complained about CAFE.
The Mini's problem is its weight, not aerodynamics. The real Mini, from the 60s, weighed half as much.
You didn't look at the Scion xB, did you?
The last time you looked at a map was during an ice age, then? 'Cause, you know, the last time I looked at a map, which was this century, the United Kingdom was an island.