Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Eliminate Daylight Wasting Time (Score 1) 170

Point is they run to a schedule, usually the same throughout the year. Without the adjustment for summer time you would have different schedules if you wanted the benefit that summer time brings. Then people might change schedules at different times and it all gets very confusing. There is little economic or energy benefit but at 52 degrees north it does feel necessary.

Schools are also an issue, people tend to have to fit work around children. There are a bunch of good economic reasons why keeping to roughly the same clock is useful to many industries and personal schedules.

The sun rising after 9 here in a winter summer time is problematic, it would also set before 5. In the summer it would rise at 3.30 on GMT and set at 8.30. It makes sense here. It may not be saving any daylight but it does make it more available in summer and possible to see in the winter.

Comment Re:Eliminate Daylight Wasting Time (Score 1) 170

The sun is setting at 3.50 or so here at the moment. So it'll be dark at the end of the day regardless. The hour of light in the morning is useful in the winter, else it'd be rising at 9.10 and setting at 4.50 with winter 'summer time' (I'm British, it's British Summer Time not DST for us). I understand for those at lower latitudes it isn't obviously good. It's light 'til after 9pm in the summer with BST too. So I personally like the change.

Comment Re:Thanks Science! (Score 3, Interesting) 253

I am aware of this, but they got the stone from near a river and they built the pyramids near the same river. It's impressive that they did it at all I grant and the technical details are interesting. But I'd really like to know how they built Stonehenge with Welsh stone. No river there.

Comment Re:Even More Simple (Score 1) 736

600km vacuum tube, unlikely. All that hot sun makes things stretch. loss of vacuum results in 10t per square metre of air rushing at you at ~700mph. I'm not sure what the 'best case' is, that's the most likely failure and it's not survivable. Also you are moving at 700mph, a similar energy to a bullet but just a bit heavier in a 15t coffin. It's just nonsense like going to Mars, the radiation and loss of bone will not be possible to survive.

Comment Re:Even More Simple (Score 1) 736

Ha, they definitely do. I have had tyres burst in my face and it was not fun, as the volume of air was low and the distance was a foot (bike tyre @120psi) or so the energy had dissipated to low levels but it was still a shock. Bursting lorry tyres can cause issues https://www.youtube.com/watch?... So please check your facts.

Comment Re:Even More Simple (Score 1) 736

1.68s is not 'instantaneous'. Trained soldiers and athletes would struggle with that. You'd also have to be strapped in like a fighter pilot to have a hope of surviving. 3g is likely the top end for 'people' and 1g is around where the comfort level is. Also you'd be talking 10x the energy of an F1 car.

Slashdot Top Deals

HELP!!!! I'm being held prisoner in /usr/games/lib!

Working...