npts2020

Only if it spins at the rate of the yoyo and isnt geared down. (think about a grandfather clock that uses weights) I haven't decided on the bounce part yet but am thinking it may require more than one spindle or an offset one.

I argue until them becomes us.

You were to set your clock back one second to make 2008 longer. As swansont rightly points out it is the atomic clocks that need reset and not ones measuring terrestrial time.

Also, an automated system could use rails, but that will add significant cost to the system and likely rule out any possibility of mixed use until conversion is completed (not necessarily a bad thing IMO).

Increse drag with a flywheel of some kind that expands with speed and drags on the string. You should be able to set it at nearly any speed from zero to free fall. I will have to think about how to get it to bounce all the way down the string but it seems to me you could rig a ratchet mechanism of some kind to make it do that instead of stopping.

Even if every historian in the world agrees, how does that apply to the field of economics?

Unfortunately, you live in a period of human history where it is pretty much impossible to learn the entire breadth of human knowledge. Even if you already knew everything humans knew now, it is doubtful you would have time enough to read and understand everything that is put out on a daily basis by humans. Maybe someday it will be possible to just "download" everything into your brain but until then you will just have to accept being a human and try to focus in particular areas of interest.

Feel free to play devils advocate I am interested in any arguments someone could put forth. First of all, there is no rail that goes even close to 300mph (record American trial speed is 295 kph-see wikipedia/high speed rail) in the United States. Furthermore, it is doubtful that one could run trains that fast on the current infrastructure (crossing and signal issues, current condition of rails, etc.). Every high speed rail I have seen is separated from everything else by being elevated, having a fence, or being underground in all places they operate at near max speeds. I would like to see your source for the mpg of a rail because I can't believe a train pulling as few as only three or four cars could even get up to speed using any acceleration on a gallon of gas much less go 400+ miles after. I understand that rush hour mass transit in highly urbanized areas is by far the most efficient transportation option, and should be continued in many places. Unfortunately that is only a fraction of the miles travelled on an annual basis by Americans. People who live near public transit and only basically only travel to and from work generally do not own cars, that is not the vast majority of us. Also, on an automated system you would not have to get youself to wherever public transit is then get to where you want to go from wherever it ends. An automated car would show up in your driveway and take you to the driveway of wherever you were going. While it is probable that some will not like "giving up control", that sentiment is totally illogical. We "give up control" every time we take a cab, fly on a commercial plane, take public transportation, or ride with a buddy to go play golf. So far as "forcing" anyone to take the system, I really don't see your point since I am not advocating making cars illegal. Right now I am "forced" to use a car because there is no viable alternative where I live, how is having a choice of one or the other forcing anyone to do anything? In order to not write a book here, I will finish by saying that cost of various methods of automation is a subject I have been pursuing for over six months now. As you say there is no working models at present (of the sort I advocate leastways), this makes getting good cost analysis information very difficult. Suffice it to say, it is not complete speculation when I claim that the system I have envisioned will be less expensive, in the long run, than high speed rail and if it is powered with wind and solar energy, efficiency becomes less of an issue.

If any and all drugs were legalized, the prices could be set through taxation and the government could keep far better track of those individuals who are users. I find it very difficult to believe that there would be much increase in use of any drug simply by it legalization. Did America suddenly become a nation of drunks with the end of prohibition? The main reason you see few advocates of legalizing all drugs is that incremental change is far more likely to happen, so advocates work on the most popular one. I might add that prices of illegal items are nearly always much higher than if they were legal.

It seems to me a good way to increase the time is to have it do a series of bounces while descending where after the last bounce you are at the end of the string. I also thought about some sort of ratchet mechanism but am unsure how you could do it without making the yoyo stop (against the rules).

I have read the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights on more than one occassion. They have a lot to say about personal freedom and the pursuit of happiness but I can't recall anything about competing in the global economy. If the goal is to make sure everyone maximizes their productivity, a ban makes sense but it seems to me diametrically opposed to the spirit and ideals embodied in the aforementioned documents.

Many in the crowd when the Marines pulled down the statue of Saddam were throwing their shoes at the statue. Here is a good description of the shoe throwing incident with some brief commentary. Apparently that brand of shoes is selling like hotcakes in the Arab world. Do you think if somebody backed over GWB in an SUV Tahoes and Explorers would start selling again?

Pretty much. What's good for one branch of gov must be good for the others, right? Isn't that how we got things like Guantanamo Bay, Abu Graib, warrantless wiretapping and data mining, by making it up as we go?

You don't see those same people advocating closing down the roadways and airports because of all of the animals killed by the vehicles using them either.

The difference between a hit man and a serial killer is that a hit man acts at another person's behest for some tangible gain, whereas a serial killer generally acts alone and for some intangible personal benefit. I might note as well that a soldier who kills many people is often considered to be a hero.

I would like to add that a meteorite the size of the one that fell in Tunguska might destroy a city and its surroundings but global warming will affect every location on earth. I will have to read more about the Younger Dryas Period but it seems as if it was a sudden and short-lived (on geological scales) cooling from an overall warming trend. In addition, the warming that caused the end of it began at a significantly lower temperature than we are beginning with today. From what little I have read, the time period of the warming is somewhat under dispute although everyone seems to agree it was fairly sudden. For someone who disagrees with the conclusions of the vast majority of climate scientists, JohnB, you seem to have a lot of confidence in this one debatable fact. Even if that was a period of faster warming than we are now experiencing the rates are very similarly fast. I would like for anyone to explain to me how this is going to be a net benefit for a majority of the denizens of this planet vs. how they will be harmed by trying to keep CO2 levels below their historic levels during Earth's warmest periods. BTW I find it highly unlikely I ever used any of the adjectives in JohnB's post to describe anyone in this forum, but if I did, I apologize.

Well, for one thing mass transit is very inefficient if not heavily utilized. If the vehicles are more the size of a car, it would not make so much difference if you were the only one in the vehicle, plus they wouldn't even run if nobody was using them. Enclosure is going to be necessary for any high-speed transportation. IMO we have more than maxed out our speed limit for safe travel the way our current system is built. I have seen pretty serious and fatal accidents from nothing other than a deer or stray dog wandering onto the interstate. As padren points out you would never have to wait for a transfer, as well. Sisyphus rightly points out the cost for such an undertaking but any option will require trillions of dollars in investment. Upgrading and automating our current roadways is the least expensive option I have seen for any significant improvement of speed, safety, and convenience. What it will one day come down to is are we going to subsidize both a mass transit system and a public road system, cut out one or the other, or convert the public road system to automated personal transit and do away with mass transit altogether? Finally, I would like to know exactly what technology is required that is not available today? AFAIK the only thing required to build a working model is to write the computer algorithms required for control, which requires no new technology, only adapting what we already have.

Are you asking if it is possible to accelerate an atom to the point of leaving its electrons behind?

Well, you will have to go to court about it. That's the only way things like this get settled.

Don't forget to add a second onto your timepieces at midnight GMT. Apparently we have to do this so that high noon won't be at 1 pm in a few hundred years.

You mean I should change my avatar from the invisible man to the invisible dog?

I would think the vast majority of vehicles would be public (I can't imagine myself buying one if there are publicly available ones). The Economides/Longbottom solution to this is the mixed use roadway which is not a bad solution for the short term since older cars could be retrofitted but imo will ultimately make signifcantly improving speed and safety more difficult. At any rate, such a system will take longer to build than your average car's useful life. It would be a big mistake to begin building without having enough cars ready to use the system by the time the first section is completed. In the plan I have envisioned there would be two parts of the system. One part (the high-speed interstate part) would be fully enclosed, the other (the part that goes to everybodies house, workplace, or shopping venue) could be open and possibly have mixed use but would use much lower speeds.

Although I have never been addicted to either, friends have told me that quitting their smoking addiction was harder than quitting their heroin addiction. Does anyone know if this is due to physical or social factors (ie smoking is more accepted and prevalent)?

Would the CMB not be more red-shifted than any radiation from stars or galaxies? I thought this was how astronomers took into account other sources?

I thought it was marginally funny but then I have been known to laugh at stupid Irishmen (I am of Irish-German decent) jokes too. If some "Wierd" Al wannabe wants to go around singing something like that I have no quarrel about it. The problem is that someone who wants to be a leader is promoting it and saying that it is ok to basically use slander to describe your opponent(s). Gee, I wonder what kind of political discourse this leads to?