Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Terrorist target? (Score 1) 55

If you're going to detonate bombs large enough to take out a concrete column for a big steel pipe, why wouldn't you do it where you'd kill a lot more people rather than "hopefully lucking into causing enough deflection (by increasing the span) right before the next capsule arrives that it can't decelerate sufficiently in time to handle said deflection, and possibly killing or injuring one capsule's worth of people"?

Airplane attacks were popular because of the ability to kill hundreds of people at once, or to hijack planes and use them as weapons. Not exactly applicable to Hyperloop. And even airplane attacks seem to be falling out of popularity, in favour of coordinated shootings and plowing through crowds.

Comment Re:Hornby set? Maglev is "new"? (Score 1) 55

If you think the pressure maintenance figures in the Hyperloop Alpha document are unreasonable, cite the actual numbers you disagree with and explain why.

The main advantages over air travel are that the pressure is much lower, frontal area much lower, allowable spacings far closer (no "air traffic"), no noise pollution, no air pollution, and efficient, direct acceleration of the vehicles, with the tube itself serving as a mounting point for the solar panels that power it.

You clearly have never read the Hyperloop Alpha design document. It does include diversion options. There are regularly spaced emergency exits across the track. Vehicles brake to a stop then roll on wheels to the nearest emergency exit.

As for security: the cars are about the size of monorail cars. So if you're going to assert random things about what security will be like, why not assert it'll be like monorail security?

Yes, the design fundamentally does not work if it's not driverless (you really should read the design document before discussing it).

The costs of tunneling are included in the budgeting in the design document (again, you really should read it). There is no "50km long 7,6m diameter undersea tunnel" leg to it.

Comment Re:Think of why maglev is expensive... (Score 1) 55

Why are you under the impression that putting it in a tube makes handling turbing forces, stopping forces and control more difficult? Inside a tube, all motion is perfectly constrained, and you have a tremendous amount of surface area to magnetic brake against.

The turning radii issues are of course real, and are highly addressed in the Hyperloop Alpha document. Likewise for dimensional precision. For smoothness, their solution is a radial polisher which drives down the tube behind the pipelaying crew and smoothing out each orbital weld (and the pipe itself). For straightness, alignment is maintained by the same suspension/alignment system they use to deal with earthquakes.

As for why maglev trains are expensive - trains are expensive for a wide variety of reasons. Land acquisition and permitting is often the most expensive. Tunnels and viaducts are often a very large component as well. Maglev technology itself often tends to have high bills.

Hyperloop (as per Hyperloop Alpha, not the student competition) isn't maglev, it's an air bearing system. Skis, basically. The pipe is built the same as oil pipeline, and the budget is similar to that of oil pipeline budgeting per unit area per unit distance (oil pipelines have harder environmental issues to overcome and much higher loadings, more significant temperature management issues, etc, but lower precision / straightness requirements, so it's probably a wash). Tunnel cost is minimized by minimizing tube size (the budgeted tunnels are standard rates for tunneled pipe in non-urban areas). Viaduct costs are minimized by a key design feature of Hyperloop - minimizing peak loadings by having frequent, small vehicle launches rather than infrequent, large vehicle launches. Viaduct costs tend to track their peak loading.

As for land acquisition, the costs in Hyperloop Alpha are kept down by a combination of design and cheating. As per design, it's designed to be small enough to fit elevated into highway medians, with the low peak loadings, making overhead suspension an affordable option. Such places are state land, and already permitted for far more environmentally harmful activity (road traffic). This of course requires state buy-in to the concept, but states often specifically pursue high speed transport options. Private land acquisition is limited to places needed to maximize turning radii, and in-city for stations. The latter is the other place that they cheat - Hyperloop Alpha avoids cities. LA and San Francisco are served by it, according to the design, like airports on the outskirts of town; people have to get connecting legs into town. But that would be an unpopular decision, and you would expect the state to insist on greater accessibility (airports are only out of town because they have to be, not because that's a desirable location). Likewise it bypasses cities en route, unlike HSR. Basically, it's designed as something halfway in-between HSR and air travel (both in terms of service and throughput), but targeting much lower prices, higher speeds, and a lower energy footprint.

In short, it's budget savings vs. HSR are somewhat of a combination of cheating (cutting out a lot of what HSR does) and design (keeping track loadings down, profile small, build in the same manner as an established industry (pipeline), and moving your hardware (capital expense) through the system as quickly as you can.

Comment Re:Distances (Score 1) 55

Why?

Part of the whole point of Hyperloop is that the low pressures aren't extreme (it's not a hard vacuum), and are thus easier to maintain with a regular series of vacuum pumps. And it has no "joints" (the only interruptions being periodic emergency exits, and the pumps themselves). All of the pipe segments are orbital welded and then polished smooth.

Comment Re:Use that low pressure air (Score 1) 55

Wheels at low speed, not maglev.

Of course, the "Hyperloop competition" blurred the line as to what counts as "hyperloop" anymore, because it was based around a bunch of purely maglev options that were radically different from the Hyperloop Alpha design (in many ways beyond just the levitation means).

Comment Re:I don't even like Uber but (Score 1) 589

Nobody who works full time should live in poverty. Period.

NOBODY IS FORCING THEM TO DO ANYTHING. Get it through your head.

Oh really? Nobody is forced by circumstances to take any work out of desperation? I hope the world's a bit more understanding when you get laid off and have to dismount from your high horse.

Comment Re:I don't even like Uber but (Score 1) 589

So go work elsewhere with better conditions? I mean you guys act like someone is forcing them to do this. There are lots of jobs for people who want to work. Go find one that treats you like a human being.

Fine. Bring back slavery then. If employers are under no obligation to pay a living wage, why insist on them paying anything?

Comment Re:I don't even like Uber but (Score 4, Insightful) 589

It IS a company's job to pay a living wage to its workers. We had this discussion during the civil war. Slavery is now illegal. It's a moral issue. In any case there's also the economic argument that impoverishing the middle class (who drive economic growth through consumption) is a bit of a silly idea.

Comment Re:I don't even like Uber but (Score 1) 589

If you have such a low opinion of your workers that you dismiss them all as making "poor lifestyle choices" then you should not be in business. And no. I did not say that someone starting a business has an automatic right to be successful, but someone starting a business should have enough money on hand to pay for what he uses, be it materials or labor.

Comment Re:I don't even like Uber but (Score 1) 589

I'm sorry, but there are certain jobs in society that really aren't meant for a person to fully support themselves. Even moreso when the person is trying to support themselves and their family. Delivering the local newspaper was great job when I was 12 and I wanted to buy some hockey cards and music CDs. It's not a job that really requires any skills, and even if you are doing it full time, I couldn't see it being a job that's likely to pay a living wage.

Same with the job I had flipping burgers at McDonald's. I was making minimum wage and even if I was working full time, there's no way that I really deserved to make a living wage in that job. Again, it required very little skill and they didn't really expect much from me other than to show up and make some hamburgers. But that's fine because I was in highschool and just wanted some money for CDs, computer games, and going out to the movies.

Theses were great jobs to get me used to working, and if they weren't allowed to pay me such low wages, I wouldn't have had the opportunity to work at all. Especially in the year 2016. They will just get a robot to do your job if it becomes too expensive for a person to do it.

If you want to make a living wage, be prepared to get some real skills. You don't deserve money for doing nothing, or for doing a job that requires almost no skills.

Sorry but this is complete and utter bullshit.

A paper round, by definition, only takes a limited amount of time in the morning and could never become full time, so your comparison is irrelevant. As for flipping burgers, some people do this work because they need to support a family. If you spend 40 hours per week flipping burgers then you should not need to work a second and third job just to pay your bills because some other people have made a value judgment about how important your job is.

Flipping burgers is no less skilled than a lot of production line jobs in manufacturing industry, and in the days when the west was a manufacturing economy, workers were paid enough to keep a roof over their heads and raise a family.

Christ. Even in the days of domestic service, rich people ensured that their butlers, maids, and other personal servants had food to eat and a roof over their heads.

I say again that too many people have been conditioned into thinking that it's acceptable to pay starvation wages to the hardest working people in society, and conditioned into demonizing those at the bottom end of the pay scale. If that's not class warfare then I don't know what is.

Comment Re:I don't even like Uber but (Score 1, Insightful) 589

"I left my job thinking this would work, and it's getting harder and harder," Howard said. "They have to understand that some of us have decided to make this a full-time career." Howard

Yeah, fuck you. The world doesn't owe you anything and even Uber's own ad campaigns bend over backwards to emphasize that this is supposed to be a side gig to make some extra money.

No, fuck you. It doesn't matter if Uber insist that it's supposed to be a side gig. If they're willing to let people work full time then they should be willing to pay full time wages. If someone's working 40 hours per week then they shouldn't be sleeping in their car out of exhaustion because they're struggling to pay their bills. Nobody who works full time should live in poverty. Period.

I can't believe that so many people have been conditioned into thinking that poverty is something that's okay to inflict on people for making a non-glamorous career choice. If a business can't afford to pay its workers enough to get by on, it shouldn't be in business.

Comment Re:As someone with a masters in this -exact field- (Score 1) 272

If you are a true master, you should be able to explain concepts in a way that even a child can understand

This is, in a word, horse pucky. It's the same reasoning my niece uses to justify her anti-vaxxer beliefs: the quacks and charlatans she listens to are more credible than epidemiologists and immunologists because they're easier to understand. This is the real-life equivalent of the joke about searching for the $20 bill under the street light because where you actually lost it is inconveniently dark.

If it were true that a child could understand anything, there wouldn't be a need for education. You'd just find a "true expert" to explain, say, fluid dynamics to a random bunch of people off the street and then set those randos to work designing aircraft. Or cryptographic systems.

There's an unfortunate cultural trend to devalue anything that requires mental effort and dedication to understand as elitist bullshit. This is a dangerous development, especially when combined with our national vanity: ever since the Moon landing we see technological and scientific leadership as a birthright. It's not. It's something we have to earn, and continue earning every day by dint of hard labor.

The humbling truth is that real understanding in many things requires trekking a long and arduous road. It's a near certainty that you don't actually understand General Relativity; crude analogies about balls and rubber sheets notwithstanding. General Relativity is like a mountain that looks easy to tackle from a great distance, but the fact is it takes years of toil before you can even grasp how arduous the foothills of Mount Einstein are.

Comment Re:Leave. (Score 1) 433

There is no way to trace what they did, no way to confirm their methods. Sadly the masses are not equipped to scrutinize the nonsense. [Steve A Morris, 2017-01-11]

You can trace what Hausfather et al. 2017 did by downloading the code they made freely available at bit.ly/2jXSy7G. You can confirm their methods by reading the full paper and following the links at the end which lead to all the data they used. Interested members of the public can read or watch the background they shared.

... they simply don't use 1/3 of the ARGO datasets because its data is "more ambiguous". Translation: "It doesn't fit our needs." [Lonny Eachus, 2017-01-11]

Read the paper to see if Lonny's "translation" is reasonable: "... Two of the three Argo near-SST records assessed, APDRC and H2008, agree well with the buoy-only and satellite-based records and suggest a cool bias in ERSSTv3b during the 2005-2015 period, when sufficient Argo data are available (Fig. 3). The RG2009 series is more ambiguous, with trends that are not significantly different (P > 0.05) from either ERSSTv3b or ERSSTv4. ..."

Lonny Eachus is wrong to claim that Hausfather et al. "simply don't use 1/3 of the ARGO datasets" (presumably a reference to RG2009). They used 3 independent Argo near-SST (near sea surface temperature) datasets, and reported the results from all 3 datasets. Anyone who reads the full paper will see that they mention RG2009 a total of 17 times while reporting the results of using that dataset.

... the study's argument is rather weak. ARGO data has best coverage, best instruments. Yet they arbitrarily throw out 1/3 of the ARGO data sets because they don't agree with their preconceptions. ... In sum, it appears that this paper committed the same likely error as Karl et al. That is to say: ignoring arguably better data because it doesn't fit their preconceptions. [Lonny Eachus, 2017-01-11]

Wrong. Hausfather et al. didn't "throw out" or "ignore" 1/3 of the Argo datasets. Look at figure 3 (backup). They show the results of all three Argo datasets, including four instances using the RG2009 dataset which Lonny baselessly accuses them of "arbitrarily throwing out" and "ignoring".

Paper: (1) "We constructed our own data set from other data sets." (2) Oops. But we left some out. "(3) "We find MOST of the data we used does not match our new contrived data set. So we will ignore it." [Lonny Eachus, 2017-01-11]

Again, Hausfather et al. didn't "leave out" or "ignore" the RG2009 dataset. Look at figure 4 (backup). They show the results of all 3 Argo datasets, including the RG2009 dataset which Lonny baselessly accuses them of "ignoring".

Figure 4 examines four composite SST records: ERSSTv4, ERSSTv3b, HadSST3, and COBE-SST. These composite SST records are compared to instrumentally homogenous datasets (which just means "from a single type of instrument"): buoys, CCI (satellite), and all three Argo near-SST datasets. Figure 4 subtracts all those datasets from each composite SST record, then calculates the trend. If a differenced trend includes "zero" inside its 95% confidence interval, scientists say that particular instrument's trend agrees with that particular composite SST record's trend at the 95% confidence level.

For both examined timespans, buoys and CCI agree with ERSSTv4 at the 95% confidence level, and disagree with all the other composite SST records. The H2008 Argo dataset disagrees with all composite SST records because it shows more warming than all composite SST records, although ERSSTv4 is the closest match. The APDRC Argo dataset agrees with ERSSTv4 and COBE-SST. The RG2009 Argo dataset (which Lonny wrongly claims they "ignored") is in fact the last dataset shown in figure 4. RG2009 agrees with all four composite SST records at the 95% confidence level. That's what Hausfather et al. meant when they said RG2009 is "more ambiguous".

Paper: (1) "We constructed our own data set from other data sets." (2) Oops. But we left some out. "(3) "We find MOST of the data we used does not match our new contrived data set. So we will ignore it." [Lonny Eachus, 2017-01-11]

Presumably Lonny's "new contrived data set" is ERSSTv4, which Jane/Lonny has complained about ad nauseam. Look at figure 4 again. Buoys and CCI satellite datasets agree with ERSSTv4. The Argo APDRC and RG2009 datasets agree with ERSSTv4, but they also agree with other composite SST records so those results are more ambiguous. The Argo H2008 dataset disagrees with all composite SST records because H2008 shows more warming than all of them including ERSSTv4, though ERSSTv4 is the best match.

In other words, they didn't ignore any data, and most of the data matches ERSSTv4. In fact, the RG2009 dataset which Lonny wrongly claims they "simply don't use" is "more ambiguous" precisely because it does match ERSSTv4 (and all the other tested composite SST records). The Argo H2008 dataset is the only one which doesn't have a trend matching ERSSTv4 at the 95% confidence level (because H2008 shows more warming than ERSSTv4) and it also shows that ERSSTv4 is a closer match than any other tested composite SST record.

That really is what they did, though. As I described. They transformed data in ways that are not 100% clear. [Lonny Eachus, 2017-01-11]

No, what Lonny described really isn't what Hausfather et al. 2017 did. In fact, it's hard to imagine how Lonny's description could have been more wrong. See above. Or just read the paper to see that they didn't ignore data and made their methodology 100% clear by making their code freely available.

I find it amusing that climate scientists are prone to argue "surface temp. records are better than satellite". But then claim that the satellite record is "better" than ARGO floats. Just as they did with satellites, climate scientists crowed about their new ARGO floats. "Best thing ever." Then, just like satellites, when the new data does not fit their preconceptions, they just omit it. That has been a very noticeable pattern in the field of climate science. ... a pattern of behavior is a pattern of behavior. Always excuses to omit inconvenient data. [Lonny Eachus, 2017-01-11]

Again, Lonny's delusional narrative where "scientists crowed" about satellite data before "omitting" them is completely baseless. And even though he probably won't ever admit it, deep down Lonny should realize that his new delusional narrative about Hausfather et al. "omitting" data was also just shown to be completely baseless.

Again, Lonny's just projecting. Jane/Lonny previously cited ocean heat content (OHC) measurements based on Argo and satellite data until I showed him that those data doesn't support his incorrect claims that there hasn't been any global warming for 18 years. For years, Lonny has shown a pattern of behavior where he ignores the "best measure" of global warming: OHC data from Argo which reveal ~90% of Earth's added heat. Maybe Lonny omits those data because they don't fit his preconceptions?

Slashdot Top Deals

"Floggings will continue until morale improves." -- anonymous flyer being distributed at Exxon USA

Working...