npts2020

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?

This (the bold part) I am in favor of regardless of where and how electricity is generated.

I would love to see a perpetual motion machine but I have never seen any design that I would believe to work (having looked at dozens of designs), based on my knowledge of physics, engineering, materials and the like. If someone were to make up a blueprint for one, I would bet any money that I or someone else could tell whether or not it will work and why without even building it. It's not like nobody ever tried to do it before. Submit a blueprint or better yet actually build it, I look forward to eating my words on this but somehow believe I will not have to.

Yep. Ya jes can't trust them 'lectronic machines.

Padren; You are welcome. I didn't fully read the executive summary since I read the whole report but I want to be clear that Ms Economides and Mr Longbottom are looking at it from the perspective of having a mixed use (some vehicles not automated) system for a time and not the radical full changeover I am in favor of. IMO the main thing this might achieve is enabling people who are not competent to drive to get on the highways, definitely a good thing but not a much better system than we already have. It may be that is the way it will have to be done but it will be much more expensive in the long run. Another problem will be the speed with which any system can be built, people will not accept closures on many of the main roads for months and years. Is anyone interested in working on a patent for prefabricated roadways? I see no reason why miles of road cannot be put in place by a single crew every day using this method. It will also facilitate repairs if all you have to do is yank out a section and replace and level it.

Well here is the executive summary from a study completed last year for the Texas DoT about this very subject. There are links to the full study (quite a slog to read through but very comprehensive) and entities working on various forms of personal rapid transit. The final conclusion was that all of the technical hurdles would be solved in less than seven years if there is research in that direction. Pangloss is correct in saying that the main obstacle is acceptance. IMO this is completely irrational and largely due to the fact that few people can visualize how such a system would work. I would think that crashes should be at least as rare as in commercial aviation in a well designed system. The current roadways could be automated as is but other than possibly being safer, would not be much of an improvement. Enclosing the system would enable higher speeds, greater safety, far fewer closures because of weather related problems and less wear and tear from weather. Furthermore, we could upgrade and protect our power grid and other utilities in conjunction with automation and power the whole system with renewable sources. (if you want to attach the last couple of posts to my thread on automated cars, please do so)

Well IMO there is a far greater possibility of catastrophe in the next century or so (on Earth anyway) from global warming than from any astronomical event. While it is true that a strike by some massive celestial body is virtually inevitable, the likelihood of it occurring during the lifetime of any person now alive is exceedingly low. On the other hand, when it comes to global warming, I would say that anyone alive even fifty years from now will see noticable effects. We can argue until then about what those exact effects will be but I can't imagine that the most sudden shift to a warmer climate in the history of the planet will be a net positive thing.

Seeing as skinning alive has been used at different times in human history, and AFAIK is considered to be a particularly torturous death, I can't imagine it not being one of the most painful things you could do