360fly | Pittsburgh, PA | ONSITE
Hiring Android and iOS engineers. Possibly others too. We make panoramic 360 degree video cameras. Our apps act as primary experience for camera hardware. Our product is in national retail stores now. Bluetooth, graphics programming, OpenGL, math. Strong engineering team.
Apply at careers.360fly.com
The distance from Chicago to Houston is roughly 1100 miles. Non-stop flights from O'Hare to Houston Hobby are listed on Kayak.com at 2 hours and 45 minutes. Add approx. 1 hour for pre-flight check-in, security and an average delay factor (it's O'Hare after all). That's a 3 hour and 45 minute trip time. We could add post-flight transportation from the airport to where you actually want to be and probably add another hour, but let's ignore that detail.
In 2007, the French TGV set a speed record on conventional track of 357 mph. The unconventional track (maglev) record belongs to the Japanese SCMaglev and is 368 mph [0]. These were set under very experimental conditions, but if it were possible to realize equivalent speeds in a practical setting (perhaps via underground tunnels), the train trip from Chicago to Houston would require only 3 hours(!).
But let's assume the above is impossible in real operating conditions. French TGV passenger routes regularly attain speeds of 200mph. This makes our Houston trip a little under 5 1/2 hours. That strikes me as quite efficient.
I'm not an expert, but given the deplorable state of American infrastructure, especially rail, implementation of a system like this would most likely require starting from scratch. As such, equivalence of the French TGV seems very attainable.
More likely, new innovation would lead to performance improvements over their system, which was conceived in the 1970s. Is 300mph attainable? I don't know, but it seems like a reasonable goal. That brings our Houston trip to roughly the equivalent of a flight, when including pre-flight check-in procedures. Of course, trains are safer, less energy and infrastructure intensive and a lot more pleasant.
All of this without mentioning the fact that SCNF, the operator of the French TGV, achieved a $1.75 billion operating profit in 2007.
Amtrak issued a report saying that SNCF and other European rail companies only report "profits" because they have higher public subsidies which are unaccounted for.
Did you read the report, or is that innuendo? The report makes actual arguments about the structure of the public financing that European trains get. Refute one of them.
The top operating speed of the TGV is in the neighborhood of 230MPH, isn't it?
If you can cost-effectively deploy rail that averages 300MPH, rail becomes more attractive. But the average speed of the Shanghai Maglev is 155MPH. It's nothing close to 300MPH.
It is extraordinarily unlikely that any train using current technology is going to average 200MPH between Chicago and Houston. Even with TGV-comparable trains, the trip from Chicago to Houston will take 8+ (heh) hours --- and that presumes an expenditure of public resources unparalleled in the last 50 years... all to get to a place where it would still be still be irrational not to take one of the many tens of airliner trips between those two cities every day.
Unattributed, but per Wikipedia: "In mid-2011, scheduled TGV trains operated at the highest speeds in conventional train service in the world,[citation needed] regularly reaching 320 km/h (200 mph) on the LGV Est, LGV Rhin-Rhône and the LGV Méditerranée." [0] You're right, though, that this is different than average speed.
Still, 300 mph would be a stretch goal for sure, but it doesn't seem ridiculous if you're starting from scratch today. The Shanghai system was built over a decade ago. At minimum, automated computer controls should be significantly improved.
I'm also operating with the assumption that the budget for such a project would be unlimited, since it's just a thought exercise.
Again: average speed. Peak doesn't matter. Your stretch goal doubles the average speed of one of the fastest trains in the world, running on a route built from scratch to accommodate it.
I'm thinking boldly here. The French are able to peak at 200-230mph on operating trains running on conventional track. The Japanese and Chinese can push Maglevs up to 360+ mph. As a "disruptive" technology, 300 mph seems like it's attainable or at least worth considering.
It may require new approaches. It would be a monumental engineering effort. It would probably ensure full employment for a decade or more. But I don't think it's any more ridiculous than, say, sending a manned mission to Mars.
It's pretty silly to compare the average speed of the Shanghai Maglev. It's like a 7 minute trip with 1 minute at top speed. There's several, traditional HSR, routes in china with faster average speeds.
The Paris-Lyon TGV averages 140MPH. Wuhan-Guangzhou managed to average 195, but was reduced to 186. Beijing-Tianjin 146. Japan has 130-145MPH. So:
* None of these average speeds would make Chicago-Houston competitive with air. Even if you add the hour on both ends for the air trip, the fastest train in China operating above the Chinese speed limit still loses to Southwest Airlines.
* None of these average speeds make a 300MPH average speed train any more realistic.
Once again: I was comparing the peak speed of one rail line to that of another. Read in context. This snark doesn't even make sense on this part of the thread.
This strikes me as one of those (many) pieces where TechCrunch (and the Silicon Valley elite) are too far removed to make an accurate assessment. Like colonial explorers, amazed by the "crude" methods of the peoples they encounter.
Libraries are one of few effective public resources that function to address class inequalities in our society. It's not just about access to information, but also a community guide for everything from how to vote, apply to jobs, and file a tax return. They provide entertainment by lending DVDs and CDs (think Netflix for those who can't afford $9/month), as well as books and magazines. They also provide free gathering space for tutoring, job training, and community building.
For millions in America, an iPad or eBook reader is equivalent to two weeks pay or more. For them, the end of libraries would be another sign that they're being abandoned and continue to erode the pretense that an "American Dream" exists for everyone.
I think the most concrete example of what you're describing is the "pattern" we saw with tobacco. Science suggested for a long time that cigarette smoking might be bad for you. As the evidence grew stronger, tobacco companies ran ads with Joe DiMaggio about how healthy their brand was[1].
Eventually the evidence was so irrefutable, and there were enough "casualties," that most reasonable people were forced to accept it.
This seems like a pattern that repeats itself. It begins with anecdotal evidence, followed by a long period of scientific research, then propaganda campaigns and eventual acceptance.
We're currently seeing it, about halfway through the curve, in the food industry with sugar. It's also happened previously with lead, seatbelts, asbestos, gambling, mercury, alcohol & driving, cholesterol, tanning booths, etc.
And now, perhaps, it's starting on the effect of information consumption. I use the term "information consumption" because it seems to be about much more than just teenagers and their phones.
In the grand scheme of things, going paperless is not really a significant tactic to mitigate climate change or other environmental impacts. The paper industry has one of the best environmental track records and paper is one of the only truly sustainable products in existence.
In contrast, computers, data centers, mobile phones, and communication networks are well on their way to becoming one of the biggest sources of carbon emissions on the planet. Heavy metals, lead, and other hazardous materials are also frequently present in electronic products.
Paper itself is one of the most recycled products. Its production often lends itself to easy use of renewable energy sources (like hydro power) and proper forest management provides a sustainable source of raw materials as well as a carbon-sink [1].
You are wrong. My dictionary defines consensus as "general agreement" and this is clearly the case when it comes to climate science.
No one in the climate science arena disagrees that the changes in CO2 levels are 1) created by burning fossil fuels 2) driving the observed warming effect and 3) that the observed warming trends are outside the levels of natural variability.
The IPCC Third Assessment Report [1] outlines this in much detail. This report has been signed-off on by dozens of international science academies, including the Science Council of Japan, the US National Academy of Sciences, and the Russian Academy of Sciences.
Other institutions endorsing the IPCC report include NASA's Goddard Institute, NOAA, the American Meteorological Society, the Royal Society of the United Kingdom, the American Geophysical Union, and the Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society.
If this doesn't constitute "consensus" then I would like to hear what you WOULD consider sufficient. There are MANY debates in climate science, but they are generally about the HOW's not the IF's or WHY's.
CO2 is not the single driver. If it were, how do you explain we do not see significant temperature increase over the past few years while there is more and more CO2 in the atmosphere. You cant have it both ways.
And I repeat again, there is no consensus. Consensus in science is not like a democratic vote. The consensus in science is obtained when there is NO ONE debating anything anymore. Just like noone is casting doubt on Einstein s relativity theory in physics. Do we have that level of scientific certitude regarding climate? Hell no.
"June broke or tied 3,215 high-temperature records across the United States. That followed the warmest May on record for the Northern Hemisphere – the 327th consecutive month in which the temperature of the entire globe exceeded the 20th-century average, the odds of which occurring by simple chance were 3.7 x 10-99, a number considerably larger than the number of stars in the universe." (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/global-warmings-te...)
You clearly have an opinion on this topic, but everything you've asserted in this thread is simply wrong. Debate on these issues is always fine (even with a scientific consensus, it does not mean 'no further debate') but you do the opposing camp a disservice when you promote falsehoods.
The temperature has been rising for ~150 years or more.
Of course the most recent half of the trend is higher than the average. It's meant to sound scary when it's just a plain fact that a rising trend will have most of the later part of the trend higher than the entire average.
A probability of the last part of a series being higher than the average would only be interesting if the series was random. The temperature series isn't random - it has a trend upwards. So the probability business is just nonsense. It's just a ridiculous way of saying the temperature series has trended up for a long time. (Long in human lifetime measurements, but not geological lifetime)
Hence : in the last 327 months of my life, I'm taller than my lifetime average. Because it would be very unlikely that the opposite would be the case.
Temperatures have not been rising for 150 years or more. You need to check your facts.
Direct instrumental measurements only go back ~150 years, but another direct mechanism exists: borehole measurements [1]. This gives us a very good measurement of temperature over ~500 years. These show that at no time have temperature averages been as high as they are now.
We can go back even further, to the tune of 1000 years, through proxy data obtained via things like tree rings, coral growth, stalagmite layers, etc. This covers the so-called "Medieval Warm Period" and these data show the last century to be warmer than any other in the data set.
Not enough? Antarctic ice core analysis provides a record of the glacial-interglacial cycle over 100s of thousands of years. These data show that current average temperatures are higher than they've been over the last 100,000+ years. This is documented in Figure 2.22 of the IPCC Third Assessment Report [2].
The cranks who claim Einstein is wrong have no means to prove he is.
However, when a scientist argues against the lack of long term data to discuss global warming, and the inconsistencies of the theory, he is met with disapproval, insults, and shunning. There is a lack of scientific discussions because there is a huge political agenda behind it, and it is not a surprise to see most of 'climate scientists' funded by governments who approve of that theory and want to have this on their agenda.
Kind of hard to keep a straight face as a scientist when your funding depends on the theory itself. Of course youd be fighting to make sure it remains the 'mainstream' theory.
- disclaimer: student of environmental physics here -
Uhm, no. We can still do climate science without the problems, and there will be funds (maybe not as much, but that's ok). Climate is still something we want and need to understand, even if there is no problem at the moment (just imagine another ice age.. )
All the researchers here (Heidelberg) would be happy - euphoric! - to be able to disprove the theory. Just image, you'd be able to tell everyone it's gonna be ok.. but it's most probably not. And there are so many students and grad students working on the data - if there was a problem, can you really imagine that not a single student would be idealistic enough to speak up? (I totally would, but then I might be in already.)
You can download raw data if you want, and look at them yourself. Most projects actually have a data base, and if not just ask. If there is a problem in the way the data has been taken and evaluated, notice the authors. But a lot of people have looked over it already.As I said, everyone would be unbelievably happy if the problem didn't exist.
Look here for some oceanic data, for example:
http://woce.nodc.noaa.gov/wdiu/
Wouldn't that apply equally to almost all scientific research being conducted? Just about everybody has some result they're hoping for. This sounds more like bias on your part ("They could be exaggerating, and I'd like them to be, so I'll make the leap from mere possibility to certainty") than a fact-based analysis of the climate scientists' research.
