Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:GMOs have so many different problems (Score 1) 187 187

Oh please. The reason the FDA cracked down on colloidial silver manufacturers has NOTHING to do with the eeebil drug companies and EVERYTHING to do with the fact that there is no proper scientific evidence showing it is safe and effective. Is there some special reason colloidial silver should be exempt from this requirement?

So do the work required to get it approved by the FDA. Sure it takes a lot of money, but you're the ones claiming that the money and the ability to recoup it is of no importance.

Comment: Re:And how do they deal with the G-Forces? (Score 1) 152 152

First, I am not assuming anything, I am just reading their document.

It seems there are some recent developments you may not have heard of. These are called stairs, ramps, elevators, and escalators. These new technologies allow places like Chicago and Disney World to have magical transportation systems 20ft in the air, without having to ever come to ground level. Other cities are even starting to use these amazing new things to put transportation systems under the ground! You should check it out.

Also, in the still-unread document, they list projected costs, including $700M for tunneling, and $1B for land and permitting. Where do you get this idiotic 'for free' idea?

Comment: Re:And how do they deal with the G-Forces? (Score 3, Interesting) 152 152

Someone else who didn't bother to read the proposal, but knows all about it. The references to gas pipelines are about construction techniques, not layout. The thing is proposed to be built on pylons 20 to 100 feet tall. All those dips and valleys and hills and streams just went away. There is a tunnel through a mountain that is too high.

Comment: Re:Sure ... (Score 1) 152 152

Now that I look at it more, that math is a big WTF. The 'A' in that formula is not in units of 'G's, it is in m/s^2. Since 1G is about 9.8m/s^2, the correct formula is 10.78 = (166)^2/r or r=(166)^2/10.78, or 2.5km.

Instead of just assuming you know what they are doing, and using bad math to prove them wrong, why not actually READ the document and see what they are ACTUALLY proposing?

Comment: Re:Sure ... (Score 1) 152 152

I think your math is off. According to their whitepaper, the turning radius at 1220km/h (339m/s) is 23.5km. Plugging that into your formula gives a centripetal acceleration of 4.9m/s^2, or 0.5g.

While they are mostly following I-5, they deviate when necessary to smooth the turns. That is one of the reasons it is built on pylons.

People who go to conferences are the ones who shouldn't.

Working...