What highspeed rail where? I'm pretty sure people use the one they have in Europe, I'm pretty sure people are using the one in China. We don't have any in the US, which is why nobody uses them.
Precisely. What I'm wondering about is how scalable is this, and what are the maintenance costs going to be on maintaining a depressurized tube. Granted it won't be a complete vacuum, but you still have to maintain it.
Don't get me wrong, I'd love for this to be feasible, I just have my doubts about that. It's a crap load of expense to replace something that we already know how to build, but doesn't particularly promise to be a stepping stone to anything beyond either.
You wouldn't want to do that even if you could. Besides the issues of heat, you'd have to worry about plate tectonics. Not to mention that it would take centuries at the rate we currently excavate. Around here we've had several different deep bore tunnels being dug, I think for a total of about 100 miles between them, and they don't excavate more than about 7.5 meters per day.
And that's at the surface, without having to worry about the increased pressure of being deep within the earth's core.
8K projectors only make sense if you have a very large screen and have people relatively close up. If the viewing distance and size are handled appropriately with a 4k projector, there's no reason to upgrade. The reason for the 2K to 4K upgrade was that many theaters needed the resolution in order to have a better experience.
I wish people would stop blindly believing that more pixels are better. Sure, having a gigapixel might be able to let you make out individual faces at a quarter mile, but unless you're printing the pictures to cover a billboard, and you're looking relatively closely, you're not going to get a better picture than you would with a 50mp sensor.
Same thing here, if you're not seeing the pixels with 4k, then there's no reason to get an 8k projector when they are available. The 35mm projectors had a ton of detail, more than what you needed at the beginning, which is why they didn't go obsolete due to resolution issues. However, they did have issues with the width they could cover and so they were regularly competing with newer standards. Things like cinemascope.
That surprises me a bit, I'd expect it to be more expensive. Especially since the cost of the ticket almost entirely goes to pay for the movie, not the facilities. In the space of one car you can easily fit 8 seats. But, OTOH, you're not having to pay for most of the building that you would otherwise have to build to house a theater.
That's likely true, and most movie theaters make next to nothing on the actual ticket sales, if you want to support your theater, buy the concesssions or play the games in the arcade, because that's where they make their money.
Perhaps where you live, but around here fewer teens are bothering to get their licenses and the general experience driving is miserable enough to support the decision. I have a license now, but I tend to avoid driving whenever possible, just because it is so miserable.
Sometime I'd love to go to a drive in, just to see what the fuss is about, but realistically, as America shifts away from being a car culture due to the increased misery of driving and the increased cost, the portion of the population that can go, is going to decline somewhat.
No, it doesn't, once the party instigating the conversation is dead, that conversation ceases. Magic Johnson could have killed himself when he learned he had an incurable disease that killed most within a year or two. He opted instead to try and fight it and to start a debate about it.
Had he opted to kill himself, there wouldn't have been much to debate.
Fuel cells are generators. You put something in and you get electricity out. The specific mechanism may vary a bit, but ultimately, the point is that you wind up with electricity, so it's a generator.
If that's a concern, then I recommend you stop voting GOP. They're the ones that tend to be very vocally opposed to anything that might harm corporate profits.
What you're forgetting is that in WA we have some of the lowest prices on electricity in the country. Thanks to the WPA dams that the federal government gave us and the Californians that are incapable of producing enough electricity to cover their needs.
In much of the rest of the country, the cost of electricity is substantially higher, so one of these would be cost effective much more quickly.
This isn't a freedom of speech issue. Freedom of speech is there so that people can contribute to public discourse without having to worry about being sent to prison or killed.
If you're going to kill yourself before anybody has a chance to issue a rebuttal, there's no point in free speech at all. You could do that just fine in East Germany during the height of the Stazi.
Bottom line though is that freedom of speech isn't particularly useful if it's just a collection of sound bites where nobody is responding and or defending their position. Sure, it's better than having no freedom of speech, but it's not particularly useful.
People might do that, but that's not an argument in favor of leaving it legal, it's an argument for increasing the penalties and including texting as an aggravating factor when prosecuting vehicular homicide.
This is like that bullshit line about criminals being willing to break gun laws to get guns. It may be true, but it doesn't justify having a shit ton of easily accessible firearms for them to buy without a background check.
Sounds about right. I was curious what their basis for assuming that there would be a correlation here. The people that talk and text while driving aren't exactly the most forward thinking people out there; so I was curious why they would expect for free nights and weekends to make a difference.
I'm guessing they came up with their conclusion, then set about figuring out how to create a study that would back it up.
That would require me to give MS more money and I'm tired of wasting my time beta testing their software. I've got 7 on my laptop, but I will not be buying any more copies of Windows in the future.
The fact that they would even do something this stupid without asking, is a source of great consternation.
Which is fine as long as you don't mind the data corruption that comes from that. And you're not actually needing to use those files with any regularity.
What's more, that still requires good old fashioned HDDs, so I'm not sure how your suggestion makes SSDs and more desirable as the network is still going to be slower than any HDD that's presently on the market.
No, but try loading a media rich page today, it can easily take 5 minutes with a broad band connection, and rather more with a dial up connection. Thanks to buffer bloat, you end up getting latency for each of the 6 dozen scripts that they insist upon loading from random servers.
I would say that because it happened to me last month. It was complete bullshit and I had to do some haxxoring around in the registry to get Windows to undo the stupidity.
I don't agree with that. I like to have the ability to back up my data on the laptop. Now, granted it's not a true back up as you're still risking a disk failure, but for the more common things like fat fingering and filesystem corruption, it's perfectly fine.
Also, of that 1TB disk, you really only get to use about 750GB or so of it, when you factor in for the different units, leaving the 20% free and leaving space to restore things. Then when you account for the back up space, you're probably talking about only 250GB or so of space.
Wake me up when I can get multi-TB SSDs at an affordable price.
For most people, regular HDDs are better. Not to mention quite a bit cheaper. I use one of my for backup, and that many write-erase cycles would be murder on an SSD. What's more, getting an 2TB SSD would be rather challenging.
It scales better than the Hyperloop would and the energy efficiency is probably better than the Hyperloop as well. Unless of course there's a way of keeping the entire tube in a state of vacuum.
Slashdot Mirror
That's because most Americans live in or near a major city. Of course when you get away from the people the driving experience gets less miserable.
What highspeed rail where? I'm pretty sure people use the one they have in Europe, I'm pretty sure people are using the one in China. We don't have any in the US, which is why nobody uses them.
Precisely. What I'm wondering about is how scalable is this, and what are the maintenance costs going to be on maintaining a depressurized tube. Granted it won't be a complete vacuum, but you still have to maintain it.
Don't get me wrong, I'd love for this to be feasible, I just have my doubts about that. It's a crap load of expense to replace something that we already know how to build, but doesn't particularly promise to be a stepping stone to anything beyond either.
You wouldn't want to do that even if you could. Besides the issues of heat, you'd have to worry about plate tectonics. Not to mention that it would take centuries at the rate we currently excavate. Around here we've had several different deep bore tunnels being dug, I think for a total of about 100 miles between them, and they don't excavate more than about 7.5 meters per day.
And that's at the surface, without having to worry about the increased pressure of being deep within the earth's core.
8K projectors only make sense if you have a very large screen and have people relatively close up. If the viewing distance and size are handled appropriately with a 4k projector, there's no reason to upgrade. The reason for the 2K to 4K upgrade was that many theaters needed the resolution in order to have a better experience.
I wish people would stop blindly believing that more pixels are better. Sure, having a gigapixel might be able to let you make out individual faces at a quarter mile, but unless you're printing the pictures to cover a billboard, and you're looking relatively closely, you're not going to get a better picture than you would with a 50mp sensor.
Same thing here, if you're not seeing the pixels with 4k, then there's no reason to get an 8k projector when they are available. The 35mm projectors had a ton of detail, more than what you needed at the beginning, which is why they didn't go obsolete due to resolution issues. However, they did have issues with the width they could cover and so they were regularly competing with newer standards. Things like cinemascope.
That surprises me a bit, I'd expect it to be more expensive. Especially since the cost of the ticket almost entirely goes to pay for the movie, not the facilities. In the space of one car you can easily fit 8 seats. But, OTOH, you're not having to pay for most of the building that you would otherwise have to build to house a theater.
That's likely true, and most movie theaters make next to nothing on the actual ticket sales, if you want to support your theater, buy the concesssions or play the games in the arcade, because that's where they make their money.
Perhaps where you live, but around here fewer teens are bothering to get their licenses and the general experience driving is miserable enough to support the decision. I have a license now, but I tend to avoid driving whenever possible, just because it is so miserable.
Sometime I'd love to go to a drive in, just to see what the fuss is about, but realistically, as America shifts away from being a car culture due to the increased misery of driving and the increased cost, the portion of the population that can go, is going to decline somewhat.
No, it doesn't, once the party instigating the conversation is dead, that conversation ceases. Magic Johnson could have killed himself when he learned he had an incurable disease that killed most within a year or two. He opted instead to try and fight it and to start a debate about it.
Had he opted to kill himself, there wouldn't have been much to debate.
Fuel cells are generators. You put something in and you get electricity out. The specific mechanism may vary a bit, but ultimately, the point is that you wind up with electricity, so it's a generator.
If that's a concern, then I recommend you stop voting GOP. They're the ones that tend to be very vocally opposed to anything that might harm corporate profits.
What you're forgetting is that in WA we have some of the lowest prices on electricity in the country. Thanks to the WPA dams that the federal government gave us and the Californians that are incapable of producing enough electricity to cover their needs.
In much of the rest of the country, the cost of electricity is substantially higher, so one of these would be cost effective much more quickly.
Indeed, now we just have to find an alternative means of powering them, so they don't eat all our pills.
This isn't a freedom of speech issue. Freedom of speech is there so that people can contribute to public discourse without having to worry about being sent to prison or killed.
If you're going to kill yourself before anybody has a chance to issue a rebuttal, there's no point in free speech at all. You could do that just fine in East Germany during the height of the Stazi.
Bottom line though is that freedom of speech isn't particularly useful if it's just a collection of sound bites where nobody is responding and or defending their position. Sure, it's better than having no freedom of speech, but it's not particularly useful.
That makes no sense.
People might do that, but that's not an argument in favor of leaving it legal, it's an argument for increasing the penalties and including texting as an aggravating factor when prosecuting vehicular homicide.
This is like that bullshit line about criminals being willing to break gun laws to get guns. It may be true, but it doesn't justify having a shit ton of easily accessible firearms for them to buy without a background check.
Sounds about right. I was curious what their basis for assuming that there would be a correlation here. The people that talk and text while driving aren't exactly the most forward thinking people out there; so I was curious why they would expect for free nights and weekends to make a difference.
I'm guessing they came up with their conclusion, then set about figuring out how to create a study that would back it up.
That would require me to give MS more money and I'm tired of wasting my time beta testing their software. I've got 7 on my laptop, but I will not be buying any more copies of Windows in the future.
The fact that they would even do something this stupid without asking, is a source of great consternation.
Which is fine as long as you don't mind the data corruption that comes from that. And you're not actually needing to use those files with any regularity.
What's more, that still requires good old fashioned HDDs, so I'm not sure how your suggestion makes SSDs and more desirable as the network is still going to be slower than any HDD that's presently on the market.
No, but try loading a media rich page today, it can easily take 5 minutes with a broad band connection, and rather more with a dial up connection. Thanks to buffer bloat, you end up getting latency for each of the 6 dozen scripts that they insist upon loading from random servers.
I would say that because it happened to me last month. It was complete bullshit and I had to do some haxxoring around in the registry to get Windows to undo the stupidity.
I don't agree with that. I like to have the ability to back up my data on the laptop. Now, granted it's not a true back up as you're still risking a disk failure, but for the more common things like fat fingering and filesystem corruption, it's perfectly fine.
Also, of that 1TB disk, you really only get to use about 750GB or so of it, when you factor in for the different units, leaving the 20% free and leaving space to restore things. Then when you account for the back up space, you're probably talking about only 250GB or so of space.
Or that Windows just set the drive into PIO mode because of one too many UDMA errors. Even when the disk itself is perfectly fine.
Not really, you're talking about the difference between a couple seconds and 10-15 minutes.
Wake me up when I can get multi-TB SSDs at an affordable price.
For most people, regular HDDs are better. Not to mention quite a bit cheaper. I use one of my for backup, and that many write-erase cycles would be murder on an SSD. What's more, getting an 2TB SSD would be rather challenging.
It scales better than the Hyperloop would and the energy efficiency is probably better than the Hyperloop as well. Unless of course there's a way of keeping the entire tube in a state of vacuum.