And don't give the whiny speech about how EU only does this to US companies, Microsoft or your granny.
And if one does, you could always remind him of the alleged incident where the US government forwarded Airbus bid information gathered through the ECHELON system to Boeing, allowing Boeing to undercut Airbus bid.
True - Except the EU makes tries to enforce its policies worldwide, not just within the EU.
You mean like the US government telling Russia that they cannot join the WTO if they don't enact the appropriate copyright laws and close down Allofmp3? Or like the US government threatening Sweden with the WTO watchlist for not closing down The Pirate Bay as demanded (they finally did that a year ago, just to have it open three days later).
I'd call that two blatant examples of trying to enforce your own policies worldwide.
If MS was 'from' Belgium, there would never have been a issue with anything they did in the first place.
Then I guess the US govenment would do what the EU does now. Let's face it, the US govenment is very protective of US industry vs foreign (such as EU) industries. It is only right that the EU is protective about EU industries vs e.g. US industries. There is a rumor that the US govenment (probably the NSA) obtained information (through signals intelligence or similar methods) about bids from Airbus on some large airplane order. This information was quickly forwarded to Boeing, enabling them to undercut the Airbus bid. I don't know of any strict evidence that this actually happened, but my gut feeling says it's probably true.
And by coincidence, the rates of children's crimes is disporportionately high in those same "civilized countries".
I have a hard time believing that, at least as a general rule. We don't have a disproportionately high rate of crimes perpetrated by children here (Sweden), at least not that I know of.
So, go on, beat you children, but to me you're a barbarian.
No but I expect a hungry crocodile to eat me, not to think "hey sup ? I am gonna snack on bamboo and other crap vegetables since killing living organisms is bad".
I am fairly sure that it only supports TKIP encryption and not AES since, like WEP, TKIP uses RC4
Actually, TKIP does not use RC4, since TKIP isn't an encryption system, but rather a protocol to switch keys every once in a while (TKIP = Temporal Key Integrity Protocol). Note that WPA2 which uses AES for encryption also employs TKIP.
Not to mention that it is quite fun to ride on a high-speed train. You are reminded of the speed just by looking out the window. In airplanes, it feels like you sit somewhere over a large map, moving very very slowly below you. The only time you really feel the speed is when passing though small clouds (cloud covers won't do), and at takeoff and landing.
A transport system is useless if it doesn't go where you want to. For rail, that's about 90% of all travel. And it's not just France, in almost all of the countries, rail makes up only about 10% of all travel.
If it would be useless, you would expect the trains to run empty. I hardly believe they do. In addition, all public transport systems share this problem, including airplanes, buses and ferries. In your world, only cars and motorcycles would be useful.
Put a rotating cone in the front and encompasses the whole of the train, and I'm sure drag will be reduced significantly.
You probably misunderstood why bullets are made to rotate when fired. The rotation does not affect drag, it affects the bullet's attitude stability. This is called spin stabilization. The rotation causes the bullet tip to keep pointing forward, instead of pointing somewhere else, which would greatly decrease accuracy and to an extent, range. Obviously, trains don't have this particular kind of problem, and thus do not need spin stabilization.
More information can be found in the article about rifling.
The US-centrism of you post is very obvious. There are other types of power plants that don't emit huge plumes of smoke, althogh they are not that common in the US.
The other downside is that our population centers are _far_ away from each other. People from Asian or European countries just don't understand how much space lies between American cities.
I do (I'm Swedish). I once visited California, and going there was an interesting experience. We changed planes in New York. The travel time to New York from Sweden was about eight hours, which isn't so strange, as the Atlantic is a large ocean. The interesting part was flying to San Francisco, which took six hours. In other words, we had only got about half the way when we arrived in New York.
From that experience, I'd say that the main problem in covering the entire US with a HS rail network are the vast expanses of (comparably unpopulated) land in the Rocky Mountains and surrounding area. After taking off from New York, We reached the Detroit area after less than one hour IIRC, and Chicago less than one hour after that. But then, there were a lot of nothingness, first an endless grid of farms, and then mountains and desert in the rockies before finally reaching California.
California could probably have a HS rail network, and so could the east coast. But the land in between is probably too large to hope for a HS rail network anytime soon. Maybe if/when the costs of maglev go down it could be done, but before that I don't think so. Besides, I don't think people would be willing to spend 24 hours on a high-speed (250 km/h, about 150 mph) run from coast to coast. A speed of 500 km/h (300 mph), cutting the trip to 12 hours, would be more tolerable.
My unsupported hunch is that a train would pollute more than a jet.
Non-polluting (relatively speaking) power plant types, such as hydro and nuclear power plants, are available. Thus electric trains don't have to generate pollution.
I would think that trains would have a lot more drag.
I don't really know how a train compares to a plane in this aspect, but I don't see why they would generate significantly higher drag. What I do know is that you can run very long trains with no extra drag added. The extra carriages run in the same "tunnel" of air created by the locomotive. Thus, you can substantially increase the capacity without incurring any extra drag. In addition, since a train can carry the equivalent amount of passengers of several large jets like the 747, even in their default configurations, I think that the "drag/passenger" ratio would be much lower for a train than for an airplane. Finally keep in mind that drag is proportional to the square of a vehicle's velocity, so doubling the speed incurs a quadrupled drag.
Also, you seem to be forgetting that electric trains still create air pollution; they just eject their pollution out of the nearest powerplant.
It does not have to. Considering that this article is about a french train in France, it would be a good idea to try not to be too US-centric (although I know Slashdot is a US site, the internet is international). France generates a large majority of its electricity aith nuclear power plants, which emit no air pollution to speak of. In Sweden, where I live, 50% of the electricity is generated by hydro power and about 45% from nuclear power.
Thus, electric trains don't have to create air pollution, not even indirectly.
As fopr a turbine, I've always been fond of the concept of turbo-electric. No idea if that could ever have comparable efficiency to internal combustion engine, but it has a certain elegance.
I think that the efficiency of a gas or steam turbine (or even a normal diesel engine) rises with size. That's why you mostly find them in large vehicles and power plants.
Sounds like a company I wouldn't want to work for anyway. I mean, anyone who is into computer programming at least knows that "hacking" has more than one meaning.
Slashdot Mirror
Didn't you know that everything that doesn't benefit Microsoft is socialism or communism? Linux doesn't benefit Microsoft, so it is communism.
And if one does, you could always remind him of the alleged incident where the US government forwarded Airbus bid information gathered through the ECHELON system to Boeing, allowing Boeing to undercut Airbus bid.
You mean like the US government telling Russia that they cannot join the WTO if they don't enact the appropriate copyright laws and close down Allofmp3? Or like the US government threatening Sweden with the WTO watchlist for not closing down The Pirate Bay as demanded (they finally did that a year ago, just to have it open three days later).
I'd call that two blatant examples of trying to enforce your own policies worldwide.
Then I guess the US govenment would do what the EU does now. Let's face it, the US govenment is very protective of US industry vs foreign (such as EU) industries. It is only right that the EU is protective about EU industries vs e.g. US industries. There is a rumor that the US govenment (probably the NSA) obtained information (through signals intelligence or similar methods) about bids from Airbus on some large airplane order. This information was quickly forwarded to Boeing, enabling them to undercut the Airbus bid. I don't know of any strict evidence that this actually happened, but my gut feeling says it's probably true.
I have a hard time believing that, at least as a general rule. We don't have a disproportionately high rate of crimes perpetrated by children here (Sweden), at least not that I know of.
So, go on, beat you children, but to me you're a barbarian.
They don't show up in Explorer, but they do show up in Microsoft Management Console where you (among others) manage your partitions.
In more civilized countries, beating a child is a serious crime.
Actually, plants are also living organisms.
Actually, TKIP does not use RC4, since TKIP isn't an encryption system, but rather a protocol to switch keys every once in a while (TKIP = Temporal Key Integrity Protocol). Note that WPA2 which uses AES for encryption also employs TKIP.
But the pollution is at least not put out into the atmosphere through the chimney.
But takes an equivalent of several 747s worth of passengers. Each train can literally hold thousands of passengers. What does the 747 carry? 350-400.
Not true, ask any university mathematician.
Not to mention that it is quite fun to ride on a high-speed train. You are reminded of the speed just by looking out the window. In airplanes, it feels like you sit somewhere over a large map, moving very very slowly below you. The only time you really feel the speed is when passing though small clouds (cloud covers won't do), and at takeoff and landing.
Then it's funny that most high-speed trains are abandoning locomotives for traction motors in every car. This includes the TGV successor, the AGV.
If it would be useless, you would expect the trains to run empty. I hardly believe they do. In addition, all public transport systems share this problem, including airplanes, buses and ferries. In your world, only cars and motorcycles would be useful.
It is totally electrified, the poster just seem to confuse the use of the words motor and engine.
You probably misunderstood why bullets are made to rotate when fired. The rotation does not affect drag, it affects the bullet's attitude stability. This is called spin stabilization. The rotation causes the bullet tip to keep pointing forward, instead of pointing somewhere else, which would greatly decrease accuracy and to an extent, range. Obviously, trains don't have this particular kind of problem, and thus do not need spin stabilization.
More information can be found in the article about rifling.
In the picture you linked to, there only seem to be two motors per bogie, which means four motors per locomotive.
OT: ICE is, funny enough, also the name of the german high-speed train.
The US-centrism of you post is very obvious. There are other types of power plants that don't emit huge plumes of smoke, althogh they are not that common in the US.
I do (I'm Swedish). I once visited California, and going there was an interesting experience. We changed planes in New York. The travel time to New York from Sweden was about eight hours, which isn't so strange, as the Atlantic is a large ocean. The interesting part was flying to San Francisco, which took six hours. In other words, we had only got about half the way when we arrived in New York.
From that experience, I'd say that the main problem in covering the entire US with a HS rail network are the vast expanses of (comparably unpopulated) land in the Rocky Mountains and surrounding area. After taking off from New York, We reached the Detroit area after less than one hour IIRC, and Chicago less than one hour after that. But then, there were a lot of nothingness, first an endless grid of farms, and then mountains and desert in the rockies before finally reaching California.
California could probably have a HS rail network, and so could the east coast. But the land in between is probably too large to hope for a HS rail network anytime soon. Maybe if/when the costs of maglev go down it could be done, but before that I don't think so. Besides, I don't think people would be willing to spend 24 hours on a high-speed (250 km/h, about 150 mph) run from coast to coast. A speed of 500 km/h (300 mph), cutting the trip to 12 hours, would be more tolerable.
Non-polluting (relatively speaking) power plant types, such as hydro and nuclear power plants, are available. Thus electric trains don't have to generate pollution.
I would think that trains would have a lot more drag.I don't really know how a train compares to a plane in this aspect, but I don't see why they would generate significantly higher drag. What I do know is that you can run very long trains with no extra drag added. The extra carriages run in the same "tunnel" of air created by the locomotive. Thus, you can substantially increase the capacity without incurring any extra drag. In addition, since a train can carry the equivalent amount of passengers of several large jets like the 747, even in their default configurations, I think that the "drag/passenger" ratio would be much lower for a train than for an airplane. Finally keep in mind that drag is proportional to the square of a vehicle's velocity, so doubling the speed incurs a quadrupled drag.
It does not have to. Considering that this article is about a french train in France, it would be a good idea to try not to be too US-centric (although I know Slashdot is a US site, the internet is international). France generates a large majority of its electricity aith nuclear power plants, which emit no air pollution to speak of. In Sweden, where I live, 50% of the electricity is generated by hydro power and about 45% from nuclear power.
Thus, electric trains don't have to create air pollution, not even indirectly.
I think that the efficiency of a gas or steam turbine (or even a normal diesel engine) rises with size. That's why you mostly find them in large vehicles and power plants.
Sounds like a company I wouldn't want to work for anyway. I mean, anyone who is into computer programming at least knows that "hacking" has more than one meaning.