Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (180781)	1/17/2004 1:20:51 AM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576893

Nation & World: Saturday, January 10, 2004 After $2.4 billion, Japan's maglev train has no clear future By Kenji Hall The Associated Press TSURU, Japan — With a slight jerk and a high-pitched whine, the world's fastest train accelerates from a standstill so quickly that the excited passengers are pushed deep into their seats. Reaching 310 mph takes less than 90 seconds for Japan's maglev train, which derives its name from its use of an electromagnetic cushion that supports and propels the train instead of wheels. Officials point to the high-tech showpiece as the future of mass transit. But after four decades and $2.4 billion spent on research, the Japanese maglev has just one station, no ticket booths — and no clear future. "We want to build the line as soon as possible," said Yutaka Osada, deputy chief of Central Japan Railway's maglev research division. "But the government has to decide because it will pay to start construction." In April, a government panel of experts applauded the progress. But the experts said the project's costs are still too high, and said they would reassess the situation in 2005. Skeptics, who claim prestige, not pragmatism, drives the project, say the maglev may never travel beyond its 11.4-mile test track in Tsuru, west of Tokyo. Experts concede that the trains are no more environmentally friendly than existing electric railways, notably the Shinkansen "bullet trains" that traverse the mountainous countryside and connect major cities at up to 186 mph. Few countries have poured as many resources into maglev development. China began daily runs of the world's first commercially operated maglev on Jan. 1, but the $1.2 billion German-built system in Shanghai spans only 18 miles. Earlier plans for an 800-mile Shanghai-to-Beijing line were canceled. Germany, meanwhile, has scrapped plans for its own line between Hamburg and Berlin. Central Japan Railway wants to build a maglev line from Tokyo to Osaka, linking the nation's two largest cities in just one hour, the same as commercial flights. Its bullet trains require 2-½ hours to make the 310-mile trip. Building the train's electromagnetic guideway could set back taxpayers $85 billion, or roughly $274 million per mile. That's three times what it costs to lay bullet-train tracks. Maglev trains would tack on another $6.48 billion. The technology is certainly cutting edge. To float 4 inches above its tracks, the maglev is equipped with superconducting magnets that must be cooled to around minus 500 degrees Fahrenheit. The concrete guideway, crammed with power cables, sensors and two types of magnets, is smooth and safer than rails during an earthquake. Tunnels are shaped to keep the shock waves of a speeding train from shattering windows on nearby buildings. Central Japan Railway's Osada says his team is simplifying parts to make the system cheaper. A new lead car with a flatter, elongated nose has cut noise and turbulence. The prototype maglev has traveled more than 207,000 miles — equal to eight times around the globe — and carried nearly 70,000 people in tests without an accident. There's almost no danger of derailing because the guideway walls are half as tall as the train. In a power outage, air-flap brakes like those airplanes use and retractable wheels would be deployed to bring the train to a gradual stop. But the ride is still more roller coaster than mass transit: exhilarating and bumpy. It's also noisier inside than on bullet trains. Copyright © 2004 The Seattle Times Company archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com

To: tejek who wrote (180781)	1/22/2004 4:50:15 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576893

Had I not been right you wouldn't have had to stick in the word, violently, in your rewrite of your original post. Posting with you has become a pssing contest as opposed to getting at the truth.* Without the "violently" you don't get much of an imposition of our will. Having bases in other countries isn't imposing our will violently or otherwise. Also the "violently imposing our will" came in response to your mentioning our bases in these countries which was in turn a response to my comment "As for imposing our politics on the region - Certainly we have been involved in the region but outside of Iraq we haven't been that forceful about it." Sorry if changing "forceful" to "violently" upsets you that much. OK change my comment to "None of which is an example of forcefully imposing our politics or policies." Does that make you happier. It wasn't much of a country at the time. It was violent near anarchy. We tried to save lives and keep everything from totally going down the tubes. Its been a country far longer than we have. That is irrelevant. It doesn't change the fact that it wasn't much of a country at the time. Also we didn't try to impose a solution on the competing factions, it was more of a humanitarian mission. You didn't answer the question. How would you like if Iran came over here ostensibly to protect their ships? Iran would have every right to ensure passage of its ships through international waterways. If the US was trying to sink Iranian tankers or not allow there passage across the world Iran would have the right to forcibly resist even if they would not have the practical ability to do so. Iran was the aggressor in this situation. We were not violating their sovereignty or initiating the conflict with them. "If defending someone against naked aggression is "imposing our politics and will", then there is nothing wrong with imposing our politics and will." No surprise there.......you come from the position that might makes right. There is no sense of morality. With that attitude, you better hope the US stays on top. No surprise there... you misunderstand or ignore what I say. I didn't say might makes right nor did I imply that might makes right. I said it was ok to defend other nations against naked aggression. "Usually such a phrase would only be used for one initiating force or attempting conquest. If we were imposing our will by force then Kuwait was trying to impose its will by force when it shot back at the Iraqis. Should we consider their limited defense to be a negative or unjust act?" There is nothing analogous in the comparison. The analogy is very strong. Just as a person or nation has a right to defend themselves against aggression, they also have a right to defend others. Tim