All I can say is "Thank God people like you don't run anything important.". Science deniers claiming that the Laws of Energy Conservation don't apply to this project are simply ignorant fools. GP didn't need to rebut bullshit, the Thunderf00t Videos (yes, that is plural. As in more than one) lay\ out all of the scientific principles for you. You simply pretend they don't exist.
Only if you ignore the Governments role in Capitalism. Exactly what I stated in my first post. Notice you do not claim Friedman or Smith are wrong, you simply avoid the topic to fit your biased narrative. Should everyone begin claiming that the DPRK really is a "Republican" form of Government since it's in the name the dictators have given the country? No, we have rules for what a Republic is which make the DPRK a Dictatorship. Same exact thing with Capitalism.
So where exactly are these massive 30 year projects in Switzerland and Germany? Are you attempting to claim that the LHC is a "hyperloop" now capable of human transport? That is the largest single vacuum system in the world, second only to Hyperloop's first test which was a tiny length of track, about 1/1000th of what would be needed to travel from LA to SF and lacked the diameter to move a human laying down.
Before you accuse others of posting bullshit, first prove that the laws of energy conservation are false. Then provide your citations for these 30 year programs from Germany and Switzerland, because I call bullshit on you. There are Maglev trains, but there are no massive lines of them being tested in massive vacuum chambers.
How much energy does it take to create the vacuum? That is what the chamber is storing, unless you somehow believe that energy conservation does not exist. It is not just the downward pressure of the atmosphere, as a basic physics class can teach you.
To argue your point you must completely deny basic physics principles, so how does the Hyperloop do this exactly? If you want to state that well established principles of physics are wrong, I demand you provide proof.
How much energy does it take to create that vacuum under 1 atmosphere? Are you attempting to claim that the laws of energy conservation don't exist when it's a rich guys pet project?
You mean that they are the only people that can vote to influence politics? I think you are simply in denial or delusional. If nothing else, Trump is proof that the people still have a measurable impact on politics.
Thunderf00t correctly points out that a small weakness in the structure will cause a full atmosphere of pressure to attempt to breach the vacuum and the initial tearing will become massive in a tiny fraction of a second. The energy required to create a vacuum is quite large, and all of that energy will be inverted in a split second. If you don't believe Thunderf00t's science, try Mythbusters who did something similar with a rail car tanker.
There is an amazing amount of science denial in this thread, and worse.. up moderation of flat out science denial.
If you wish to make such an asinine claim back it up with science. I gave a link to a guy who did all of the science and demonstrates the power required to create a vacuum.. Mythbusters did a similar episode again showing the _SCIENCE_ behind the energy required to create a vacuum.
Will you next attempt to claim that conversation of energy is wrong?
Airplanes don't fly through solid steel tubes that have to be able to withstand massive amounts of pressure from a vacuum. There is no recovery from accidents if Hyperloop was to get off the ground, and to be honest I don't believe this project will work. Thunderf00t has done some validation of this project, or should I say shown major failure points.
Not sure if this is a somewhat re-post, looks like my first response vanished.
We stop it from happening the same way we did for the majority of US History. Public education, and not just in reading, writing and arithmetic. Up until the 1930s we used a Classical education system which taught rhetoric, logic, political history (including our own), and ethics. That vanished under Democratic mandate and Federalization of Education. Something that the founders were set against if you read the Federalist papers. Further witnessed by the fact that there are no mentions of Federalized education in the US Constitution.
Today most citizens can't tell you what the Federalist and anti-Federalist papers are, and they barely understand the basics of the US Constitution. They have no idea what Federalism is even about, believing that the US Federal Government is supposed to be the only place to get Laws. How many people will tell you that the Constitution is supposed to be a "living" document, which runs exactly contrary to Article 5. So the answer is an educated public, something that has gone slid way down the shitter over the last 50 years.
While I agree with there being a big problem with the ultra wealthy in numerous regards, the problem is not Capitalism. The US is not practicing Capitalism, it's practicing a form of Mercantilism which we call "Crony Capitalism". The wealthy install politicians where they believe it suits their interests, and those politicians act as protectionists.
When Adam Smith defined Capitalism the primary role of Government was to prevent monopolies and break them up where they occurred. The Government was not supposed to allow the installment of Politicians by simple means of cash payment like we have today. Those are two very distinct issues with the current system. If you say "Capitalism led to the current state" I will tell you that is idiocy. The people need to behave as was intended and rule the Government, not the other way around. People have been ignorant and lazy, and allowed overreach.
Milton Friedman's "Capitalism and Freedom" is a modern easier read, which will tell you very similar to what Adam Smith did in "Wealth of Nations".
I agree with you that there are big problems at hand, but moving to Socialism will only make problems worse. Socialism fails when it runs out of other people's money to spend, and we have a large amount of history to sample to see the end of that line. The bigger the bureaucracy the more corrupt it becomes, which is why the US Government was founded on the principle of Minimum powers of the Federal Government (another thing we have lazily let go of).
I was very specific about the issue being a spontaneous stop or trip. Something that a majority of people do when driving outside of going to work. "Hey what's that store?" is pretty common, or "where does this road go?". Do that in a car you can't control and it's "re-routing" and at least a several minute detour to get back to where you could have just pulled in if you had control.
Let me also say that people worried about being "green" ignore the fact that many of these services will massively increase the amount of energy a car needs to run. I have yet to see a self-driving car figure out how to park in a busy parking lot, so I guess in your world people won't be able to actually go to a store and park and all of these self driving cars would either hog the road idling or drive in circles. Citation just because the dishonest are usually lazy. Do you hate the environment that much?
Your failure to recognize normal human behavior and real problems just shows that you are shilling, intentionally or not, for cars people have no ability to control. Shame on you!
Taxi and Ride sharing companies may like this, but the majority of people drive a car for freedom. No driver controls means that spontaneous trips, detours, and stops are not possible.
If you work on the assumption that people only drive to get to work and home you are incorrect, but that seems to be the position being pushed.
Tech rarely feels immediate impact from job growth. Consumer device sales come after people start to make more money, services grow as businesses make more money, and new tech does not come out until after that.
I think the better point to take away is that for the first time in 8 years there is optimism and measurable gains in the market. A dollar to donuts you will have at least as many anti President Trump post as positive, though I'd wager that the negative comments are higher and receive overall favorable moderation.
I see many of the same liberals you describe, but will point out what is making media coverage and talked about by Democratic politicians. Pelosi for example repeats all of the same extremist nonsense as those radicals. As did President Obama and Hillary Clinton, to an extent which they thought they could get away with (pay gap myth).
Have been around for at least 15 years, and correct the behavior you are referring to. At the DOD we used the John the Ripper dictionary and removed 1,2,3 character passwords. We added company acronyms, system IDs (AH64, M1A2, etc..) as a separate dictionary.
It's not a password policy that makes you more secure, it's enforcement. You need to perform standard dictionary checks to prevent "password1234", detect crap QWERTY strings, ensure the password has a reasonable length, and allow _all_ special characters (space, tab, &, *, etc..). That latter is a problem with many banks, who disallow most special characters if they allow any at all.
If you force people to use stronger passwords you will not be susceptible to brute force attacks unless you don't monitor or throttle login attempts. What you may have is people using sticky notes and plain text files stashed on their PCs, but pointing them to a good password manager (keepass/keepassx) fixes most users who find those more convenient than rooting around for files and papers.
I didn't say only disband, I said "destroy" as well. It's the same thing on a different scale than the Civil War. Revocation of the US Constitution is disbanding our Country. The Constitution is the law that holds the country together.
I was running clusters with 4000 nodes over 10 years ago with 512Gb and 8 CPUs (4 core back then) per node. For FEA work, it was not uncommon to assign 256 nodes with all 131Tb memory. Much more than average, or most people need, but looking at Google's memory footprint they can't run a medium sized dynamic analysis load.
Slashdot Mirror
All I can say is "Thank God people like you don't run anything important.". Science deniers claiming that the Laws of Energy Conservation don't apply to this project are simply ignorant fools. GP didn't need to rebut bullshit, the Thunderf00t Videos (yes, that is plural. As in more than one) lay\ out all of the scientific principles for you. You simply pretend they don't exist.
Which possibly explains why in the SF Bay area, our bills have shot up 200-400%. I'm sure the problem is not with the Smart meters..
Only if you ignore the Governments role in Capitalism. Exactly what I stated in my first post. Notice you do not claim Friedman or Smith are wrong, you simply avoid the topic to fit your biased narrative. Should everyone begin claiming that the DPRK really is a "Republican" form of Government since it's in the name the dictators have given the country? No, we have rules for what a Republic is which make the DPRK a Dictatorship. Same exact thing with Capitalism.
So where exactly are these massive 30 year projects in Switzerland and Germany? Are you attempting to claim that the LHC is a "hyperloop" now capable of human transport? That is the largest single vacuum system in the world, second only to Hyperloop's first test which was a tiny length of track, about 1/1000th of what would be needed to travel from LA to SF and lacked the diameter to move a human laying down.
Before you accuse others of posting bullshit, first prove that the laws of energy conservation are false. Then provide your citations for these 30 year programs from Germany and Switzerland, because I call bullshit on you. There are Maglev trains, but there are no massive lines of them being tested in massive vacuum chambers.
How much energy does it take to create the vacuum? That is what the chamber is storing, unless you somehow believe that energy conservation does not exist. It is not just the downward pressure of the atmosphere, as a basic physics class can teach you.
To argue your point you must completely deny basic physics principles, so how does the Hyperloop do this exactly? If you want to state that well established principles of physics are wrong, I demand you provide proof.
How much energy does it take to create that vacuum under 1 atmosphere? Are you attempting to claim that the laws of energy conservation don't exist when it's a rich guys pet project?
You mean that they are the only people that can vote to influence politics? I think you are simply in denial or delusional. If nothing else, Trump is proof that the people still have a measurable impact on politics.
Thunderf00t correctly points out that a small weakness in the structure will cause a full atmosphere of pressure to attempt to breach the vacuum and the initial tearing will become massive in a tiny fraction of a second. The energy required to create a vacuum is quite large, and all of that energy will be inverted in a split second. If you don't believe Thunderf00t's science, try Mythbusters who did something similar with a rail car tanker.
There is an amazing amount of science denial in this thread, and worse.. up moderation of flat out science denial.
If you wish to make such an asinine claim back it up with science. I gave a link to a guy who did all of the science and demonstrates the power required to create a vacuum.. Mythbusters did a similar episode again showing the _SCIENCE_ behind the energy required to create a vacuum.
Will you next attempt to claim that conversation of energy is wrong?
Nothing like making up your own false narratives.
Airplanes don't fly through solid steel tubes that have to be able to withstand massive amounts of pressure from a vacuum. There is no recovery from accidents if Hyperloop was to get off the ground, and to be honest I don't believe this project will work. Thunderf00t has done some validation of this project, or should I say shown major failure points.
Interesting ideas don't always pan out.
Not sure if this is a somewhat re-post, looks like my first response vanished.
We stop it from happening the same way we did for the majority of US History. Public education, and not just in reading, writing and arithmetic. Up until the 1930s we used a Classical education system which taught rhetoric, logic, political history (including our own), and ethics. That vanished under Democratic mandate and Federalization of Education. Something that the founders were set against if you read the Federalist papers. Further witnessed by the fact that there are no mentions of Federalized education in the US Constitution.
Today most citizens can't tell you what the Federalist and anti-Federalist papers are, and they barely understand the basics of the US Constitution. They have no idea what Federalism is even about, believing that the US Federal Government is supposed to be the only place to get Laws. How many people will tell you that the Constitution is supposed to be a "living" document, which runs exactly contrary to Article 5. So the answer is an educated public, something that has gone slid way down the shitter over the last 50 years.
While I agree with there being a big problem with the ultra wealthy in numerous regards, the problem is not Capitalism. The US is not practicing Capitalism, it's practicing a form of Mercantilism which we call "Crony Capitalism". The wealthy install politicians where they believe it suits their interests, and those politicians act as protectionists.
When Adam Smith defined Capitalism the primary role of Government was to prevent monopolies and break them up where they occurred. The Government was not supposed to allow the installment of Politicians by simple means of cash payment like we have today. Those are two very distinct issues with the current system. If you say "Capitalism led to the current state" I will tell you that is idiocy. The people need to behave as was intended and rule the Government, not the other way around. People have been ignorant and lazy, and allowed overreach.
Milton Friedman's "Capitalism and Freedom" is a modern easier read, which will tell you very similar to what Adam Smith did in "Wealth of Nations".
I agree with you that there are big problems at hand, but moving to Socialism will only make problems worse. Socialism fails when it runs out of other people's money to spend, and we have a large amount of history to sample to see the end of that line. The bigger the bureaucracy the more corrupt it becomes, which is why the US Government was founded on the principle of Minimum powers of the Federal Government (another thing we have lazily let go of).
Subject says it all. Rational criticism not allowed when SJWs and social engineers are around with mod points.
I was very specific about the issue being a spontaneous stop or trip. Something that a majority of people do when driving outside of going to work. "Hey what's that store?" is pretty common, or "where does this road go?". Do that in a car you can't control and it's "re-routing" and at least a several minute detour to get back to where you could have just pulled in if you had control.
Let me also say that people worried about being "green" ignore the fact that many of these services will massively increase the amount of energy a car needs to run. I have yet to see a self-driving car figure out how to park in a busy parking lot, so I guess in your world people won't be able to actually go to a store and park and all of these self driving cars would either hog the road idling or drive in circles. Citation just because the dishonest are usually lazy. Do you hate the environment that much?
Your failure to recognize normal human behavior and real problems just shows that you are shilling, intentionally or not, for cars people have no ability to control. Shame on you!
Taxi and Ride sharing companies may like this, but the majority of people drive a car for freedom. No driver controls means that spontaneous trips, detours, and stops are not possible.
If you work on the assumption that people only drive to get to work and home you are incorrect, but that seems to be the position being pushed.
Keyword you missed "optimism". Don't cherry pick to argue, read and argue the full point if you disagree.
Carry on my wayward son...
Tech rarely feels immediate impact from job growth. Consumer device sales come after people start to make more money, services grow as businesses make more money, and new tech does not come out until after that.
I think the better point to take away is that for the first time in 8 years there is optimism and measurable gains in the market. A dollar to donuts you will have at least as many anti President Trump post as positive, though I'd wager that the negative comments are higher and receive overall favorable moderation.
I see many of the same liberals you describe, but will point out what is making media coverage and talked about by Democratic politicians. Pelosi for example repeats all of the same extremist nonsense as those radicals. As did President Obama and Hillary Clinton, to an extent which they thought they could get away with (pay gap myth).
Have been around for at least 15 years, and correct the behavior you are referring to. At the DOD we used the John the Ripper dictionary and removed 1,2,3 character passwords. We added company acronyms, system IDs (AH64, M1A2, etc..) as a separate dictionary.
It's not a password policy that makes you more secure, it's enforcement. You need to perform standard dictionary checks to prevent "password1234", detect crap QWERTY strings, ensure the password has a reasonable length, and allow _all_ special characters (space, tab, &, *, etc..). That latter is a problem with many banks, who disallow most special characters if they allow any at all.
If you force people to use stronger passwords you will not be susceptible to brute force attacks unless you don't monitor or throttle login attempts. What you may have is people using sticky notes and plain text files stashed on their PCs, but pointing them to a good password manager (keepass/keepassx) fixes most users who find those more convenient than rooting around for files and papers.
I don't get it. Your post is a contradiction. Breitbart is pro Trump, and my post was not anti Trump but anti leftism.
I didn't say only disband, I said "destroy" as well. It's the same thing on a different scale than the Civil War. Revocation of the US Constitution is disbanding our Country. The Constitution is the law that holds the country together.
I was running clusters with 4000 nodes over 10 years ago with 512Gb and 8 CPUs (4 core back then) per node. For FEA work, it was not uncommon to assign 256 nodes with all 131Tb memory. Much more than average, or most people need, but looking at Google's memory footprint they can't run a medium sized dynamic analysis load.