I remember reading an article in Popular Mechanics or Popular Science back in the mid to late seventies about an experimental wave-powered boat named "Gausefin". What stuck with me all these years was how cool the craft looked. It was a sleek monohull with a low deckhouse, not a catamaran like Suntory Mermaid II. Imagine the dream-like shape of a sailing yacht, but without the masts or sails. The fins that drove the vessel were flexible, and were the only moving parts of the propulsion system; there were no hinges or springs.
Does anyone else remember the Gausefin, or have any information about what happened to this craft? I haven't even been able to find it with Google, and I'm beginning to wonder if I imagined the whole thing.
Your concept was called the "Slugdrive" some years ago; they postulated a cruising speed of 300 mph or thereabouts. Forget where I read about it. And I got two of your three pop culture references, by the way. I loved the idea of the smartwheels in "Snow Crash" and I'm a huge fan of Schlock Mercenary (does it go without saying that I'm in love Dr. Bunnigus?); but what was "The Luggage"?
This sounds like the clarketech* that the Mercedes-Benz SilverFlow concept has been waiting for. At the 2057 Robocar Design Challenge in Los Angeles last year (wherein car manufacturers touted concepts for cars 50 years from now), Mercedes showed off "SilverFlow", a shape-changing car that melts into a pool of liquid metal when not in use. The vehicle's shape would be tailored for different usage scenarios through programming, and the entire concept revolves around micro-particles that combine in varied ways. But is this really feasible though? I suppose that it's within the realms of possibility, but are there any serious deal-breakers that could derail this vision? Any thoughts?
*From Arthur C. Clarke's well-known aphorism about sufficiently advanced technology being indistinguishable from magic, "clarketech" refers to tech so advanced that we don't know as yet how it would work. Love the term.
Did anyone else here feel the alarms going off at the mention of SAIC in the linked article? I read the March 2007 Vanity Fair piece about SAIC, and saw the accompanying PBS program about the investigation by the writers of the article, which names many former government officials and military officers who sit on the SAIC board of directors. Among them was David Kay, the former weapons inspector who was instrumental in making the case that Saddam Hussein was in possession of WMD's. SAIC is one of the lead beneficiaries of military and governmental contracts in Iraq, and while the Vanity Fair and PBS pieces don't explicitly say so, the question is raised as to whether SAIC helped manufacture a case for war in order to reap substantial rewards for their part in the aftermath.
For such a large and influential company (44,000 employees, more than half with security clearances), SAIC manages to operate well below the radar of public awareness, and in light of the many Washington insiders with links to the company, their ability to attract large numbers of enormously lucrative governmental contracts (9,000 at the time the article was published) appears to be a clear conflict of interests. For many years their largest customer was the NSA, and SAIC is notable for their failure to deliver on a number of huge contracts, only to be awarded follow-up contracts to fix the problems with the original deliveries.
In his farewell address, President Dwight D. Eisenhower popularized the term "military-industrial complex" when he presciently warned against its influence: "The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted." The existence of a company like SAIC probably has him spinning in his grave. People here like to call Microsoft evil, but SAIC makes them look like a bunch of dewy-eyed innocents. I urge everyone here to find out more about this shadowy corporation; I can guarantee that your skin will crawl.
Small comfort for road warriors accustomed to carrying a spare, but according to AppleInsider it requires a small Phillips screwdriver and about three minutes to replace the battery. The bottom cover of the MacBook Air is easily unscrewed and gives direct access to the battery, which is NOT soldered to the circuit board. The same screwdriver can be used to unscrew the battery, and a tug disconnects it from the circuit board. However, this begs the question of whether one can purchase replacement batteries (I'm sure that third parties will be quick to fill the gap), or if this operation will void the warranty (Magic 8-Ball says "Yes").
Apple has also announced that it intends to introduce an out-of-warranty battery replacement program. The announced cost is $129, mail-in of the MacBook Air is required, and turnaround time is 5 business days. I strongly suspect that this option will only be attractive to persons with fewer than ten thumbs, as well as time to burn. If they bought a MacBook Air they already have the money.
For example, the new software for the iPod touch is a $20 download. This is the same software that's a free update for the iPhone.
IANAL, but someone explained to me that, unlike with the iPhone, Apple doesn't account for the iPod Touch on a subscription basis, so they're required to charge something for upgrades in order to comply with the Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act of 2002, otherwise known as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (Thank you so much Enron, WorldCom, Tyco, et al). Apparently, this was also the reason why they initially charged users a $2 fee to enable 802.11n in Macs equipped with it (if you purchased an AirPort Extreme base station, the enabler is unnecessary). I have no idea why this requirement exists and the legal details made my head hurt, but I was further informed that the Apple TV upgrade was free because Apple is in fact accounting for Apple TV on a subscription basis. And I agree with you about the iTools/.Mac thing.
What I'm really waiting for is a several week ahead leak about 10.6 Officially being available for PCs.
Now THAT would would be a helluva rumor.
Macs are selling VERY well, growing in both market and mind share. If this trend continues, what reason would Apple have to boost rival hardware makers fortunes by licensing OS X to them? Especially when they're enjoying huge margins on their own gear? Your helluva rumor will most likely remain a rumor until, say, the heat death of the universe, or the official release of "Duke Nukem Forever", whichever comes first.
Good free publicity for them, they probably only go after people if the information is wildly off base, incorrect or slanderous.
It's EXCELLENT free publicity for Apple, and I think they realized it years ago. I also think that it's more accurate to say that they only go after people if the information is in fact closer to the truth. They appear to be much more interested in locating moles in the company than shutting down some college student's rumor site, for the reason that anybody inside Apple who knowingly supplies accurate information in violation of an NDA is in serious breach of contract and could be prosecuted, not just axed.
It's rumored that Apple will create false, compartmentalized, projects with separate code names for disparate parts just to see if a code name leaks. Then they can narrow the mole hunt to the team working in that code-named compartment. Apparently, they really do operate like an intelligence agency in terms of internal security.
...and probably much closer to what really happens behind the scenes in Cupertino than Apple fanboys care to believe. Read John Gruber's piece over at Daring Fireball about how Apple-watchers basically have to practice Kremlinology in order to separate the signal from the noise, or in the case of Apple, the clues from the silence: "When, in the face of white-hot speculation, Apple goes totally silent both officially and privately, that's when they have something big."
Gruber also makes an interesting case that Apple have become absolute masters at subtly meta-managing the "rumor economy" to their public relations benefit. It certainly translates into literally millions of dollars they save on marketing, and only adds to the company's mystique. That alone is priceless as far as the brand is concerned.
I think this was only modded "Flamebait" because you were being an asshole about it, and pretty much guaranteed that your insight wouldn't be taken seriously. Even fanboys are capable of being insulted, and no one likes to be compared to sheep.
Nice! I just checked back and you've been correctly modded "Insightful". Maybe there should be an "Insulting but Insightful" mod tag.
This is definitely the tip of the iceberg, and it makes me wonder how much experience people at Apple actually have at preventing viruses, once the world at large cares enough to target them.
Oh yes, the tired old "security by obscurity" meme. Hasn't that been put to sleep as yet? OS X has been popular enough to have gained public mindshare and attract the attention of malware writers for some time now, and has attained a market share of about 8%. Why isn't it accounting for 8% of all infections? If it were easy to crack it would have been a long time ago, if only for the "l33t haxxor" recognition the writer of the first exploit would receive. Plus the fact that silencing the idiotic Apple fanboys would probably be a strong enough secondary motivation for even the most reasonable person to want to rub the zealots' faces in an OS X security hole (I'm looking at you Maynor and Ellch). Frankly, anyone who can shut up the Mac-Idiots should be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, or something. (Disclaimer: I'm a Mac user who detests Apple fanboys.)
the ipod is not successful because it is the best, most full featured player out there.
Get it through your skulls. The iPod is successful because it IS the best player out there. And it's the best because it's not the most full-featured. It does exactly what most consumers want. To iterate: Slashdot readers are not most consumers. Apple could give a flying fuck at a rolling doughnut what Slashdot posters think; they're focused on Joe Sixpack, the poor sumbitch who thinks that setting the clock on a VCR is the bastard child of rocket science and voodoo.
What is it that you fail to understand? Apple's minimalist philosophy is the touchstone of their success in both hardware and software, and I see the hand of Jobs in it. I've used every version of OS X since the Public Beta, and it became clear to me that Apple only adds features if they can do it in a way that's easy and attractive to the average consumer. Case in point: virtual desktops. Of course OS X could support virtual desktops, as the many utilities that enable them handily demonstrated. Leopard only introduced Spaces when Apple came up with a Preference Pane simple and elegant enough (let's not forget "elegant") for the average consumer to grok. I was and am a huge fan of Virtue Desktops, but Spaces makes it much easier to understand and set up.
Same with the iPod. Only geeks actually care about the many "missing" features of iPod, as compared to the many other digital audio players out there. The average consumer only cares that he/she has an easy-to-use device in iPod, easy-to-use media management and synchronization software in iTunes, and a convenient and easy-to-use download service in iTMS. Period.
Do you honestly believe that the average consumer wouldn't pay 4 bucks to be able to have their own DVD's on their Macs and iPods and iPhones? These are the same people who've made fucking ringtones a multi-billion dollar industry. They'll gleefully pony up the extra without thinking about it, and Jobs damned well knows it. It also brings more clarity to their plans for the elephant in the room, Apple TV. Nobody's talking about it, but I think it's going to be much more significant than people realize. What if Apple TV is the only device that you can load your DVD's on? Suddenly that 160 GB hard-drive makes a helluva lot more sense.
it's in their interest to drive you to the apple store to purchase your content, not buy it somewhere else and rip it onto your ipod. as long as you can get it from iTMS apple is happy.
They're happy if you purchase content from iTMS. They're much, much happier if you purchase an Apple-branded device to utilize said content.
...or indeed any of the actors. It's Lucas. The actors can only do what the director wants. I posted about this after Episode 1 was released. Hayden Christensen has been fairly criticized for a terrible performance, but unfairly characterized as a terrible actor. He's anything but. In fact, he's actually quite talented, as anyone who saw his performances in "Life as a House" and "Shattered Glass" can attest. All the featured actors have proven in other films that they can act, but their performances in the prequel trilogy were uniformly cringe-worthy. The common denominator is the director: George Lucas.
I remember an interview with Carrie Fisher from maybe 1978, in which she talked about her experience in "Star Wars" as a young actress (I believe it was only her second film, and she was about 19 when it was shot). Fisher is quite witty, and it's a delight to read interviews with her. She said something to the effect that Lucas wasn't really an actor's director, and spoke particularly about the set-up for the scene in which Leia witnesses Alderaan being destroyed. She asked him what he wanted her to do: "I mean, there goes home, family, record collection, everything. He kind of grunted and waved his arm in the general direction that he wanted me to face. That was it."
Via Daring Fireball, here's Mark Pilgrim on The Future of Reading. John Gruber of Daring Fireball has raised some questions about the DRM in Kindle ebooks (he loathes it): it's not possible to share books, even with other Kindle owners.
You raise an interesting point about heat dissipation in an underground datacenter. I remember seeing something on NORAD years ago about the construction of the command center inside Cheyenne Mountain. One of the things that stuck with me was the fact that there was no dedicated heating system: they merely ducted the waste heat from their 150+ mainframes throughout the entire installation. Kept 'em all nice and toasty warm, even in a Colorado winter.
I was just funnin' witcha, man. Point taken, and frankly, I do agree with you about Archeology magazine's foray into poker-faced humor, what with April 1st well in the past.
Well, if those billions had been invested in the Transrapid instead, there would be also be an entire rail infrastracture, including trains, tracks, (less) tunnels, bridges, signal networks etc. which would be in use daily, carrying vast numbers of people safely and comfortably - only using less energy and faster. Not to mention that my commuter trains wouldn't be delayed several times a week because of the late ICEs sharing the same tracks.
Thanks for the information and your thoughts on the matter Lars. I'm quite surprised to hear that the ICE's share the same tracks as the regular train service; I can imagine that this would cause scheduling headaches. I certainly wasn't presuming to recommend that the money should be spent on the ICE, just that it would perhaps be more valuable to upgrade existing systems, and in light of your comment about the Transrapid system it's even more baffling to me why the maglev route was ever approved. This seems to me to be another case of politics trumping common sense.
Errm, no not really, bot Germany and France have invested many billions in new drivetrain, suspension, and rail technology. Did you think the TGV (or ICE) were free?
Thanks for the response Lars, but I'm certainly not naive enough to believe any such thing. Those many billions spent in France and Germany have produced an entire rail infrastracture, including trains, tracks, tunnels, bridges, signal networks etc. which is in use daily, carrying vast numbers of people safely and comfortably. I was questioning the value proposition of the planned maglev track, and wondering if Germany would not have been better served by re-investing that huge pile of euros in the ICE network, nothing more.
And yes, I'm fully aware that the record breaking TGV was custom-built for the purpose, and was never meant for passenger service. But just like experimental aircraft or concept cars, engineers have to push the edge to see what can safely be adapted for normal, daily usage, and what needs to be refined. Also, while everyone was going gee-whiz over the speed of the train, the thing that really impressed me about the trial was that the track and overhead lines could sustain it. And even though the pantograph was "sparking like a horror movie", as you put it, I'm sure that the engineers are looking to refine that as well. I'm sure they obtained tons of useful data from the tests, not just publicity.
Just for your information, the cruising speed of all TGV is 320 km/h, not simply 'over 160 km/h'.
Thanks, I'm aware of the cruising speeds. I was trying to point out the safety record, and obviously I wasn't clear. I believe that there have been fatal accidents at lower than cruising speed, but not one above a speed of 160 kph. I certainly wasn't trying to imply that 160 kph was the cruising speed of TGV.
Insightful comment, and I agree with you. Maglev technology is really an answer in search of a question. Until high-temperature superconductors become economically feasible, power consumption, and the concomitant pollution from power production, remain prohibitive. Remember that many countries, including China, Germany, and the U.S.A., rely on coal for power generation, and the real cost of the ecological damage and pollution from mining and burning coal doesn't enter the minds of most.
The real question, it seems to me, is why don't they invest those billions in new drivetrain, suspension, and rail technology. The French have achieved wonders with the TGV at a fraction of the cost, by continual refinement of well-proven engineering technology. And they've been in operation throughout France and much of western Europe for more than 25 years, without a single fatality over a speed of 160 kph. The recent successful trials during which a modified TGV set a speed record of 574 kph (357 mph), should be an indication of what is possible. The train had such refinements as more powerful electric motors, lighter axles, larger wheels, and in-cab signaling (the driver doesn't have to rely on trackside signals), and ran a route chosen with long, straight segments, and without sharp curves.
Revolution is sexy and makes the headlines, but the steady progress of evolution is not to be sneezed at. Hell, the x86 processor architecture is still alive and kicking, long after its demise was predicted. I guess nobody told Intel's engineers that it was obsolete, or that further refinements were impossible. Maglev makes headlines with its promise of a Star Trek future today, but TGV's simply keep on hauling millions of passengers in safety and comfort every year. On runs of three hours or less they have largely replaced air travel. Such routine, dependable, reliability is a remarkable achievement.
Slashdot Mirror
I remember reading an article in Popular Mechanics or Popular Science back in the mid to late seventies about an experimental wave-powered boat named "Gausefin". What stuck with me all these years was how cool the craft looked. It was a sleek monohull with a low deckhouse, not a catamaran like Suntory Mermaid II. Imagine the dream-like shape of a sailing yacht, but without the masts or sails. The fins that drove the vessel were flexible, and were the only moving parts of the propulsion system; there were no hinges or springs.
Does anyone else remember the Gausefin, or have any information about what happened to this craft? I haven't even been able to find it with Google, and I'm beginning to wonder if I imagined the whole thing.
Your concept was called the "Slugdrive" some years ago; they postulated a cruising speed of 300 mph or thereabouts. Forget where I read about it. And I got two of your three pop culture references, by the way. I loved the idea of the smartwheels in "Snow Crash" and I'm a huge fan of Schlock Mercenary (does it go without saying that I'm in love Dr. Bunnigus?); but what was "The Luggage"?
This sounds like the clarketech* that the Mercedes-Benz SilverFlow concept has been waiting for. At the 2057 Robocar Design Challenge in Los Angeles last year (wherein car manufacturers touted concepts for cars 50 years from now), Mercedes showed off "SilverFlow", a shape-changing car that melts into a pool of liquid metal when not in use. The vehicle's shape would be tailored for different usage scenarios through programming, and the entire concept revolves around micro-particles that combine in varied ways. But is this really feasible though? I suppose that it's within the realms of possibility, but are there any serious deal-breakers that could derail this vision? Any thoughts?
*From Arthur C. Clarke's well-known aphorism about sufficiently advanced technology being indistinguishable from magic, "clarketech" refers to tech so advanced that we don't know as yet how it would work. Love the term.
Did anyone else here feel the alarms going off at the mention of SAIC in the linked article? I read the March 2007 Vanity Fair piece about SAIC, and saw the accompanying PBS program about the investigation by the writers of the article, which names many former government officials and military officers who sit on the SAIC board of directors. Among them was David Kay, the former weapons inspector who was instrumental in making the case that Saddam Hussein was in possession of WMD's. SAIC is one of the lead beneficiaries of military and governmental contracts in Iraq, and while the Vanity Fair and PBS pieces don't explicitly say so, the question is raised as to whether SAIC helped manufacture a case for war in order to reap substantial rewards for their part in the aftermath.
For such a large and influential company (44,000 employees, more than half with security clearances), SAIC manages to operate well below the radar of public awareness, and in light of the many Washington insiders with links to the company, their ability to attract large numbers of enormously lucrative governmental contracts (9,000 at the time the article was published) appears to be a clear conflict of interests. For many years their largest customer was the NSA, and SAIC is notable for their failure to deliver on a number of huge contracts, only to be awarded follow-up contracts to fix the problems with the original deliveries.
In his farewell address, President Dwight D. Eisenhower popularized the term "military-industrial complex" when he presciently warned against its influence: "The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted." The existence of a company like SAIC probably has him spinning in his grave. People here like to call Microsoft evil, but SAIC makes them look like a bunch of dewy-eyed innocents. I urge everyone here to find out more about this shadowy corporation; I can guarantee that your skin will crawl.
I commented about this just yesterday.
Thanks for the clarification. And thank you for the simple, non-legalese explanation.
Small comfort for road warriors accustomed to carrying a spare, but according to AppleInsider it requires a small Phillips screwdriver and about three minutes to replace the battery. The bottom cover of the MacBook Air is easily unscrewed and gives direct access to the battery, which is NOT soldered to the circuit board. The same screwdriver can be used to unscrew the battery, and a tug disconnects it from the circuit board. However, this begs the question of whether one can purchase replacement batteries (I'm sure that third parties will be quick to fill the gap), or if this operation will void the warranty (Magic 8-Ball says "Yes").
Apple has also announced that it intends to introduce an out-of-warranty battery replacement program. The announced cost is $129, mail-in of the MacBook Air is required, and turnaround time is 5 business days. I strongly suspect that this option will only be attractive to persons with fewer than ten thumbs, as well as time to burn. If they bought a MacBook Air they already have the money.
It's EXCELLENT free publicity for Apple, and I think they realized it years ago. I also think that it's more accurate to say that they only go after people if the information is in fact closer to the truth. They appear to be much more interested in locating moles in the company than shutting down some college student's rumor site, for the reason that anybody inside Apple who knowingly supplies accurate information in violation of an NDA is in serious breach of contract and could be prosecuted, not just axed.
It's rumored that Apple will create false, compartmentalized, projects with separate code names for disparate parts just to see if a code name leaks. Then they can narrow the mole hunt to the team working in that code-named compartment. Apparently, they really do operate like an intelligence agency in terms of internal security.
...and probably much closer to what really happens behind the scenes in Cupertino than Apple fanboys care to believe. Read John Gruber's piece over at Daring Fireball about how Apple-watchers basically have to practice Kremlinology in order to separate the signal from the noise, or in the case of Apple, the clues from the silence: "When, in the face of white-hot speculation, Apple goes totally silent both officially and privately, that's when they have something big."
Gruber also makes an interesting case that Apple have become absolute masters at subtly meta-managing the "rumor economy" to their public relations benefit. It certainly translates into literally millions of dollars they save on marketing, and only adds to the company's mystique. That alone is priceless as far as the brand is concerned.
I think this was only modded "Flamebait" because you were being an asshole about it, and pretty much guaranteed that your insight wouldn't be taken seriously. Even fanboys are capable of being insulted, and no one likes to be compared to sheep.
Nice! I just checked back and you've been correctly modded "Insightful". Maybe there should be an "Insulting but Insightful" mod tag.
Get it through your skulls. The iPod is successful because it IS the best player out there. And it's the best because it's not the most full-featured. It does exactly what most consumers want. To iterate: Slashdot readers are not most consumers. Apple could give a flying fuck at a rolling doughnut what Slashdot posters think; they're focused on Joe Sixpack, the poor sumbitch who thinks that setting the clock on a VCR is the bastard child of rocket science and voodoo.
What is it that you fail to understand? Apple's minimalist philosophy is the touchstone of their success in both hardware and software, and I see the hand of Jobs in it. I've used every version of OS X since the Public Beta, and it became clear to me that Apple only adds features if they can do it in a way that's easy and attractive to the average consumer. Case in point: virtual desktops. Of course OS X could support virtual desktops, as the many utilities that enable them handily demonstrated. Leopard only introduced Spaces when Apple came up with a Preference Pane simple and elegant enough (let's not forget "elegant") for the average consumer to grok. I was and am a huge fan of Virtue Desktops, but Spaces makes it much easier to understand and set up.
Same with the iPod. Only geeks actually care about the many "missing" features of iPod, as compared to the many other digital audio players out there. The average consumer only cares that he/she has an easy-to-use device in iPod, easy-to-use media management and synchronization software in iTunes, and a convenient and easy-to-use download service in iTMS. Period.
Do you honestly believe that the average consumer wouldn't pay 4 bucks to be able to have their own DVD's on their Macs and iPods and iPhones? These are the same people who've made fucking ringtones a multi-billion dollar industry. They'll gleefully pony up the extra without thinking about it, and Jobs damned well knows it. It also brings more clarity to their plans for the elephant in the room, Apple TV. Nobody's talking about it, but I think it's going to be much more significant than people realize. What if Apple TV is the only device that you can load your DVD's on? Suddenly that 160 GB hard-drive makes a helluva lot more sense.
They're happy if you purchase content from iTMS. They're much, much happier if you purchase an Apple-branded device to utilize said content....or indeed any of the actors. It's Lucas. The actors can only do what the director wants. I posted about this after Episode 1 was released. Hayden Christensen has been fairly criticized for a terrible performance, but unfairly characterized as a terrible actor. He's anything but. In fact, he's actually quite talented, as anyone who saw his performances in "Life as a House" and "Shattered Glass" can attest. All the featured actors have proven in other films that they can act, but their performances in the prequel trilogy were uniformly cringe-worthy. The common denominator is the director: George Lucas.
I remember an interview with Carrie Fisher from maybe 1978, in which she talked about her experience in "Star Wars" as a young actress (I believe it was only her second film, and she was about 19 when it was shot). Fisher is quite witty, and it's a delight to read interviews with her. She said something to the effect that Lucas wasn't really an actor's director, and spoke particularly about the set-up for the scene in which Leia witnesses Alderaan being destroyed. She asked him what he wanted her to do: "I mean, there goes home, family, record collection, everything. He kind of grunted and waved his arm in the general direction that he wanted me to face. That was it."
Recipe for Star Wars Episode 1:
1) one shitty story;
2) liberal amounts of crappy script;
3) mix in lousy director;
$) PROFIT!!!
Repeat steps 1) through $) for Episodes 2 and 3.
Via Daring Fireball, here's Mark Pilgrim on The Future of Reading. John Gruber of Daring Fireball has raised some questions about the DRM in Kindle ebooks (he loathes it): it's not possible to share books, even with other Kindle owners.
You raise an interesting point about heat dissipation in an underground datacenter. I remember seeing something on NORAD years ago about the construction of the command center inside Cheyenne Mountain. One of the things that stuck with me was the fact that there was no dedicated heating system: they merely ducted the waste heat from their 150+ mainframes throughout the entire installation. Kept 'em all nice and toasty warm, even in a Colorado winter.
I was just funnin' witcha, man. Point taken, and frankly, I do agree with you about Archeology magazine's foray into poker-faced humor, what with April 1st well in the past.
Thanks for the response Lars, but I'm certainly not naive enough to believe any such thing. Those many billions spent in France and Germany have produced an entire rail infrastracture, including trains, tracks, tunnels, bridges, signal networks etc. which is in use daily, carrying vast numbers of people safely and comfortably. I was questioning the value proposition of the planned maglev track, and wondering if Germany would not have been better served by re-investing that huge pile of euros in the ICE network, nothing more.
And yes, I'm fully aware that the record breaking TGV was custom-built for the purpose, and was never meant for passenger service. But just like experimental aircraft or concept cars, engineers have to push the edge to see what can safely be adapted for normal, daily usage, and what needs to be refined. Also, while everyone was going gee-whiz over the speed of the train, the thing that really impressed me about the trial was that the track and overhead lines could sustain it. And even though the pantograph was "sparking like a horror movie", as you put it, I'm sure that the engineers are looking to refine that as well. I'm sure they obtained tons of useful data from the tests, not just publicity.
Insightful comment, and I agree with you. Maglev technology is really an answer in search of a question. Until high-temperature superconductors become economically feasible, power consumption, and the concomitant pollution from power production, remain prohibitive. Remember that many countries, including China, Germany, and the U.S.A., rely on coal for power generation, and the real cost of the ecological damage and pollution from mining and burning coal doesn't enter the minds of most.
The real question, it seems to me, is why don't they invest those billions in new drivetrain, suspension, and rail technology. The French have achieved wonders with the TGV at a fraction of the cost, by continual refinement of well-proven engineering technology. And they've been in operation throughout France and much of western Europe for more than 25 years, without a single fatality over a speed of 160 kph. The recent successful trials during which a modified TGV set a speed record of 574 kph (357 mph), should be an indication of what is possible. The train had such refinements as more powerful electric motors, lighter axles, larger wheels, and in-cab signaling (the driver doesn't have to rely on trackside signals), and ran a route chosen with long, straight segments, and without sharp curves.
Revolution is sexy and makes the headlines, but the steady progress of evolution is not to be sneezed at. Hell, the x86 processor architecture is still alive and kicking, long after its demise was predicted. I guess nobody told Intel's engineers that it was obsolete, or that further refinements were impossible. Maglev makes headlines with its promise of a Star Trek future today, but TGV's simply keep on hauling millions of passengers in safety and comfort every year. On runs of three hours or less they have largely replaced air travel. Such routine, dependable, reliability is a remarkable achievement.