Slashdot Mirror

Stereoscopic images are not the same as 3D.
The difference is 2 pictures versus a line of pictures.

A 2D array of 2D cameras give 4D.
Here is a picture of it:

http://images.gizmag.com/hero/3d360camera.jpg

The flaw is an inefficiency of about 100 due.

If I were the Taliban, I would target these things, they would stick out like a sore thumb. Its not like 'not shooting medics' has ever really been respected lately (by both sides).

I'm sure it can be made more discrete (more in the vein of a typical soldier, albeit identifiable by its weird movement). The Taliban can shoot at it all they want: it's ideal to have them shooting at the robot rather than anyone else. (Honestly that is a silly priority for them to have given that the 'anyone else' is likely to be trying to kill them.) Doubtless you can put a lot of armor on it. Even if they're making a point of trying to kill the wounded individual (again, a bad priority on their part) the robot is still serving the invaluable function of eliminating the "do we risk injuring more guys to save our wounded guy" dilemma. That's a major tactical boon even if the robot's effectiveness is somewhere between poor and mediocre.

As for its versatility, it actually looks quite capable. You can see two sets of treads connected on an arm. I'd imagine it could even go up stairs.

I'm on the battlefield, wounded, afraid and possibly delerious, and up rolls the bastard offspring of Wall-E and pedobear?

Some of those games are quite realistic nowadays.

http://www.gizmag.com/lucas-ordoez-the-first-virtual-to-real-race-driver/11623/

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/from-virtual-racing-champion-to-real-world-race-winner-iracingcom-driver-wyatt-gooden-takes-volkswagen-jetta-tdi-cup-race-at-mid-ohio-97071469.html

I like how StrongBad got into the mix

I don't know if this helps or isn't applicable at all, but http://www.gizmag.com/axsotic-3d-spheric-mouse-precision-digital-object-manipulation/16832/?utm_source=Gizmag+Subscribers&utm_campaign=2e0cc2ef16-UA-2235360-4&utm_medium=email#comments

And this batpod is street legal.

FYI - Subaru has been working on electric cars for years. Take this article from 2007 - Subaru doubles the battery range on its electric car concept. From what I've read, they've also been working on hybrid tech that will work well with AWD drivetrains that have come to define their brand.

Usually when you invade you knock out the enemies power before you go in.

The airforce was interested in this: mit plane that lands on a wire

But thats something youd use before the war starts or in the ensuing insurgency.
--
  windows media codec pack

How hot are we talking about? The safe maximum operating temperature for discharging a Lithium ion battery is typically 140 degrees Fahrenheit. There's no place on Earth that gets that hot naturally....

The notion that heat in cargo holds might ignite laptop batteries is patently absurd unless the cargo hold is on fire. It's more accurate to say that heat from an actively failing battery can start nearby cells on fire, which is a great big "duh".

Lithium ion battery fires are usually caused by dendritic growth inside the cell. There's no good way to determine when this might occur short of scanning electron microscopy, and there is no safe temperature at which this is not a problem....

The only time heat is a factor in Lithium cell failure is typically during a charge cycle (or occasionally during a very fast discharge cycle), when temperatures shoot way up into the mid 100s Fahrenheit. If they go way outside that range, they can go through thermal runaway.

That said, the charge circuits in the battery packs normally make this impossible unless a cell is defective. They shut down in such a way that the pack cannot be charged if the cell voltage drops below a minimum threshold because the charge current required would be high enough to pose a fire risk. Similarly, they disable charging above a maximum threshold to keep the batteries from becoming overcharged.

In short, if these things are burning up in flight, the cells were defective to begin with, period, and odds are good that they were improperly charged, too. There's just no way the cargo hold of an airplane gets hot enough to be a problem unless one of the cells shorts out internally, at which point the temperature really doesn't matter much anyway.

Industrial gas turbines hooked up to a heat recovery steam generator (HRSG) are barely 60% thermally efficient for the latest technology, most are in the 40-55% range. The turbine alone might be 30-35%. Micro gas turbines are between 25-35% and they are not hooked up to an HRSG.

What they do have going for them is a high power to weight ratio, comparable efficiency, and lower emissions because of the fuels they can run on. According to this other article, you're saving 220 lbs when comparing to a similarly powerful ICE.

The manufacturer of the turbines in this car is Bladon Jets.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I seem to remember a Slashdot thread last year on this. What I am clear on is that this is the same scientist and the same material shown over at Gizmag Dec/2009.
http://www.gizmag.com/paper-battery-nanotechnology/13537/
This appears to be more of a refinement of the discovery and methods first reported by Dr. Yi Cui and team. Now the question is. When will we finally see products? Another year?

fail troll. Have you even read on the subject? A qucik search on Google says: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/igeneration/micro-usb-to-be-universal-eu-phone-charger/1964 and http://www.gizmag.com/standard-micro-usb-charger-europe/12108/

"There’s one other interesting thing to note here. The manufacturers include all the biggies – Nokia, Sony Ericsson, Motorola, LG, NEC and so on – that control about 90% of the European market. But, surprisingly, Apple has also agreed to incorporate the micro-USB port into the iPhone. It’ll be interesting to see how the company reconciles its dock connector with the new standard. And, ultimately, whether this European strategy has a knock-on effect for the rest of the world."

"As of yet, the agreement is undertaken by such names as Nokia, Sony Ericsson, Motorola, Research in Motion who make the BlackBerry (which most BlackBerry devices already have this port - did RIM see this coming?), Samsung, and even Apple which make the iPhone. What is surprising about the last company is that this may cause the end and death of the almighty Dock connector. However, there is no legal reason why these companies can go ahead with using other ports. The agreement undertaken by these companies is not legally binding and only voluntary. On the other hand, this port agreement could open up different levels of possibility, as the micro-USB port is not only a charging port but can also be used as a data connector."

Well at the top of the list is cost. That LED on your computers isn't putting out much, it's just a little blip. Enough to actually illuminate a room is very costly. Here's a quote from and article about LED bulbs from GE in April this year:

The bad news the bulbs are expected to retail for between US$40-50, but that initial cost is more than offset by their long life. (source)

As much as that might be true, it's a hard sell to pay $50 now to save money in 10-20 years. Most people do the exact opposite, they have credit cards and will pay a damn lot later to avoid paying now.

http://www.gizmag.com/realtouch-virtual-sex-device-for-men/14126/

Actually, Michelin did sort of what you're asking for a few years back -- the TWEEL.
http://www.gizmag.com/go/3603/

Apparently it hasn't been all that disruptive. At least not yet... :)

The predator drones, yes, I'd imagine they need someone close by. The global hawks? Not so much. Also, UAVs can now be refueled in the air, there is no need for them to land if done properly. Not only do the global hawks have a much longer range, they also have a greater payload, and longer loiter capability.

http://www.google.com/search?q=air+refueling+uav

http://www.gizmag.com/uav-autonomous-aerial-refueling/8460/

    I saw a video of a prototype of that once several years ago. It was the BMW "Gina". The whole skin of the car was a stretchable fabric, which did away with most of the body panel seams. Neat idea. Too expensive to produce.

    It's silly to think that a car that changes shape is a good idea. It's easier for them to produce an aerodynamic car which performs well at the intended max speed, yet leaves enough room inside for the passengers. Why would you want to build a car with a suboptimal aerodynamic profile, for it to just change to the optimal profile when driving at high speed? It's not like they're building cars that need to transit the sound barrier or something, and the body does not provide lift (hopefully). Something like an F-14 needed to be able to change its configuration for low and high air speeds, but obviously that isn't necessary since most supersonic aircraft don't do it.

An image in TFA has a guy in one of these exoskeletons standing and using a lathe or some sort of an electric sharpener tool. It's all good, but really, this REX thing is about $150,000 so that what, someone can use a lathe? I am not saying you shouldn't, I just don't see the cost/benefit if the idea is that people will get these expensive machine then to work in some low paying jobs sharpening knives or whatever.

Sorry, but if you read the followup to the article, you'll see it's pretty much the Prius transmission:

So it's not possible to run the control shafts using a small electric motor as we said in the video - in fact, the engineering report is quite clear on the fact that the 'control' motor needs to be just as powerful as the 'input' motor

The D-Drive does indeed operate as an epicyclic gearset. It does indeed operate in a similar way to the Hybrid Synergy drive on the Toyota Prius - and this is a matter of some pride to Steve Durnin, who designed it with none of Toyota's considerable resources behind him.

Like this does?

http://www.gizmag.com/go/4909/

The XBox 360 has already been successfully used for scientific computing. Microsoft should move in for the kill with a modified 360 that includes a complete tool chain and a new clustering API.

http://www.gizmag.com/bullet-proof-polo-shirt/10187/

http://www.gizmag.com/visually-impaired-see-the-world-sound/12164/ Instead of using electric pulses that the person has to translate, sound pulses are used. I still think it'd be cool if they made a completely artificial eyeball or something like that because i seriously doubt translating signals like that is even close to the 1337nessof real eyesight.

how about provide a braille e-book reader? If somebody made one Amazon would probably support it.

like this? http://www.yankodesign.com/2009/04/17/braille-e-book/

or this? http://gadgets.softpedia.com/news/Electronic-Braille-Reader-Helps-The-Blind-Surf-The-Internet-2492-01.html

or this? http://www.humanware.com/en-usa/products/blindness/deafblind_communicator/_details/id_118/deafblind_communicator.html

or this? http://www.gizmag.com/go/5876/

The tech is almost there, perhaps the DOJ would front some MONEY to Amazon to make a kindle compatible braille reader based on one of these technologies? Of course then the people that hand-type braille pages at $$ per page will resent being out of a job...

You can use a joystick or a wheel/yoke to control an airplane. Older planes tend to have wheel/yoke, modern planes and especially fighter planes tend to use a joystick.

Likewise for boats. Smaller boats tend to use a simple rod attached to the rudder or outboard prop. Bigger boats tend to have a wheel for show. Boats are going through the same revolution now, however, with joystick control setups in production. Given a couple more generations, the wheel in the boats will probably go away entirely.

The idea of a amateur homebrew helicopter is truly frightening...

There are several flying examples in the U.S. of amateur-built helicopters. Granted, most of them are built from professionally manufactured kits (i.e., the manufacturer builds a prefab kit, and the "builder" assembles the parts), some of which are relatively sophisticated. Google Rotorway and Mini-500 (I think the Mini-500 is defunct now, but there were several built back in the '90s).

...but *anybody* can dream, especially if he doesn't realize how incompetent he really is.

I would argue that often times, those who don't realize how incompetent they really are are, in fact, the ones who make the biggest advancements. They don't know it's impossible before they try, therefore they are the ones who go ahead and do it anyway. "The Ark was built by amateurs; the Titanic was built by professionals." ;)

The next step up is the human powered guy. He needs a long carbon fiber boom as the main longitudinal structural component, and probably another one to carry the lift generated along the wings to the main boom. That's pretty expensive. Once he has that, then the drivetrain is bicycle technology.

Human powered flight is about as difficult as aviation gets, at least for right now. The problem is that it takes more energy than most people realize to lift a human body; we simply don't have the strength or endurance to generate that much power for very long. I believe the current record is 199km -- not too shabby, and much better than I thought before I looked it up just now. FWIW, building the carbon fiber boom isn't difficult (although the carbon fiber is relatively expensive -- but less so than most power plants for experimental aviation). I did the calculations for a carbon fiber wing spar about a decade ago, and estimated a ~1500 pound airplane stressed for a max G-loading of +6/-4 (plus reserve) would cost around $1000 - $2000. It isn't cheap, but it's certainly within the realm of possibility for someone of reasonable means. There was also a guy in Arizona about ten years ago who built a foot-launched sailplane called the Carbon Dragon, that would probably be worth studying if you were interested in trying to build a DIY human powered airplane. He sold plans for the airplane, but I believe he died a few years ago, so they might be a little hard to find now.

The rest of the wings and pilot's nacelle are fairly sophisticated, but within the capability of a weekend tinkerer to construct. The key is the sophisticated materials you can buy. You make a basketwork out of lightweight wood and Kevlar tape, then heat shrink polyester sheeting on it to create a skin.

That's not a bad way to do it. I remember reading magazines dating from the late '60s (I read them in the '90s, though) about people who had build entire airplanes with this method. My experimental airplane uses a slightly different method, that also might work. The wing spar is an aluminum tube with foam ribs glued to it. The leading edge is 2024T3 aluminum wrapped over the ribs to make a stiff skin over the first 1/4 of the wing, then the entire wing is covered a material made by 3M for building greenhouses called Tedlar (as the story goes, 3M freaked and pulled Tedlar from the market after hearing people were building airplanes out of it; I haven't verified the story). It looks like a full-scale model airplane wing covered in clear Monokote ;) For human powered flight, I would probably replace the aluminum spar with carbon fiber, like you mentioned earlier, but the principle is the same.

The guy who is working on a certifiable electric aircraft needs to have the most money. He needs a real mach

Multi-touch is not supported by windows yet.

Kindle goes multitouch on Windows 7

Dell SX2210T - multi-touch, Windows 7 ready, full HD monitor

Windows 7 could hasten touch-screen computers

Crumple zone.

Excerpt from http://www.gizmag.com/vfr1200-tourer-worlds-safest-bike/13201/

When a conventional bike's front wheel hits an object like the side of a car, the bike's natural tendency is to pitch forwards, as it's center of gravity is higher than the impact point. As a result, the rider is thrown forward. If you get lucky, you'll be pitched over the car, but all too often that means the rider hits upper part of the car almost as soon as the impact occurs, with very little of his momentum being absorbed by the bike.

Last time I saw this, it was part of GM's Autonomy program which had the additional goal of separating the car's chassis for it's base aka the skateboard. Autonomy used a drive-by-wire wheel, but did away w/ the foot controls. I vaguely recall having seen evidence that this move improved driver reaction time; something about one mode of reaction (hand controls only) out performing two modes of reaction (foot & hand), but I can't dig up the details.

thus additional pros:
ability to radically redefine chassis
improved safety (provided I'm recalling correctly)

Someone missed the news - Apple's new mouse has no buttons.

And it's dumb - just like all these MS has been playing with http://www.gizmag.com/microsoft-multi-touch-mouse-prototypes/13081/ .

Looks like I need to stock up on mice as well as keyboards now.
This is the only keyboard layout I will accept: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16823126013 (I could do without the stupid circle bumps and ms logo on the windows key, though)

Notice the non-retarded layout - nothing is curved, separated, or oddly angled for some bullshit ergonomic reasons. The return key isn't a fucking sea cow, and backspace isn't a damned midget. Backslash is right where it should be, and it has a respectable size. (Sandslash is right where he should be too, in my pokeball, bitches.)
I've got a 3(horizontal)x2(vertical) layout for my home bank, I've got a full numpad, and I still have my scroll lock and pause/break keys.

For mice, I want two real buttons. A scroll wheel is nice to have, too. And if it's there, is should be clickable. Give it a left/right tilt if you want, but I don't give a shit. 2 buttons on the left side by my thumb are fine too, but anything else is overkill. Sorry lefties.

Don't want a fucking led screen, fucking weights, fucking 8 million dpi, or whatever other bullshit the think of. I won't be doing fucking gestures instead of a single button click.

http://www.gizmag.com/michelin-active-wheel-production-electric-car-by-2010/10489/

Now we can just print the electronics http://www.gizmag.com/go/4749/ directly on the cardboard box and just re-use the shipping crate for the computer

Having seen the conditions of some shipping boxes after being shipped, I'm going to say that's a bad idea. Also, the computer needs to be protected against banging, so it would have to be put in Styrofoam, which in turn would have to be put... in a box.

Now we can just print the electronics http://www.gizmag.com/go/4749/ directly on the cardboard box and just re-use the shipping crate for the computer and capacitive touch sensing keyboard. Now if we could just invent a switching power supply and power cord made entirely of paper it would be almost completely recyclable. Maybe Organic LED printed solar panels instead? Hmmmm, it better not rain much...

The article refers to the FeelSpace project as the originators of this idea. Wired wrote a more in-depth story on FeelSpace back in 2007 that is still available online.

The net of it, which I found fascinating, was the idea that brain is not "hardcoded" to the standard 5 senses of input, but rather can potentially integrate and synthesize additional sensory type data. This idea is at also the root of technologies like BrainPort, "seeing" with the tongue for the visually impaired.

3 words for you: 103 inch LCD.

Yay for fist size pixels. Way to go Panasonic. Useless on a PC.
Works fine as a TV though I suppose.

3 words for you: 103 inch LCD.

This is the sort of thing the guy was referring to.

There's an article here discussing a new electric car battery that Chrysler will be using that can take an 80% charge in 5 minutes!

http://www.gizmag.com/chrysler-a123-batteries-electric-vehicles/11497/

Pity nobody has thought of this before

Trouble is, ordinary kinetic weapons don't scale down all that well to applications where size and weight are at a real premium

Actually they do. Here's a 105mm rifle mounted on a Jeep. Ordinarily weapons of that caliber involve more weight than a (classic US military) jeep can handle. Even lighter is the RPG; no carriage or combustion pressure. Just a lightweight aiming tube. More the point arming small UAVs has already been done, at least in prototype.

This is "fueled by air" in the same way an internal combustion engine is.

Dang, you mean this new invention will be no more useful than the internal combustion engine? Snore.

Actually it sounds good to me. There's a reason we don't use rocket engines in our cars. Oxygen is highly reactive and available on earth everywhere there's air. Most batteries don't take advantage of that, so this one might be better. I liked the idea of the methanol-powered fuell cell "batteries" that several companies tried to launch, but being able to recharge from the wall instead of finding a bottle of methanol would be a huge advantage.

GM sells the Malibu in a 'hybrid' version. A 'mild hybrid'.

The engine has an oversized starter motor and a 36V battery pack in the spare wheel well. At a stop, the motor shuts down and is restarted in 500ms when the driver presses the acclerator pedal. Apparently, the Belt-Alternator-Starter system also can kick in and add a power boost to help with accleration, and in the city can improve MPG by 10-20% Interesting concept, and saves gas, but hybrid? Not by a mile. At least not IMHO.

But GM will claim it, and plenty of people will buy it. It does save gas, this is good. But it is an example of the slow, painful, scratching-and-clawing approach Detroit is taking towards hybrids.

I'm not very hopeful for an alternative fuel either. My personal choice is some form of ultracapacitor. A capacitor makes a lot more sense than a battery; quick recharge, fewer chemicals hopefully, lots of available current hopefully. Still got the issue of the catastrophic release of energy if the capacitor got damaged, but batteries blow up too.

I'n not hopeful we are gong to see ultracapacitors within 10 years. A long time to wait.

wind dont have to kill birds:
http://www.gizmag.com/flodesign-high-efficiency-wind-turbine-based-on-jet-engine-technology/10556/

if a bird gets shredded in that thing, i would say darwin was right...

as for spoiling the view, that imo is a lesser price to pay for true clean power...

http://www.gizmag.com/go/6542/

This is news?
It's novel, but it's not new.

This is so old the dolphin has died of arthritis: http://fast-world.com/index.php/Interesting/Dolphin-Submarine.html

Why not show a few newer pictures: http://www.bionicdolphin.com/cms/

http://www.gizmag.com/go/4095/

Jeez, compared to the news this part of Slashdot is even more outrageous.

http://www.gizmag.com/go/3603/

As is usual whenever electric cars comes up, it's time for some mythbusting.

No, they don't increase pollution and overload the grid; precisely the opposite (more specifically, the only pollutant that goes up is particulate matter, and it's displaced away from population centers. NOx and SOx remain the same, CO2 drops, and CO and VOCs are nearly eliminated; the grid gets to make use of its surplus off-peak capacity and, with smart charging, can eliminate the supply/demand fluctuations that are currently so troublesome).

Yes, they are far more energy efficient than their alternatives.

No, modern batteries don't take forever to charge. The phosphates, titanates, modern spinels, and others can all charge in 5-20 minutes, given sufficient power.

Yes, fast chargers exist. The SAE J1772 standard covers Level 3 charging at hundreds of kilowatts. Yes, chargers as strong as 250kW exist. Yes, there's already a network of 60kW Level 3 chargers in place around Oahu. Install one yourself.

No, the batteries are not toxic. Current li-ions are only mildly toxic, and this only because of their cobalt-based cathode. The phosphates and spinels eliminate this cathode in favor of nontoxic elements.

No, lithium is not running out.

Yes, the batteries last a long time. The phosphates last 7000+ gentle cycles, having only 20% capacity loss after 1000 abusive cycles. The titanates? 20,000 cycles. Accelerated aging tests suggest LG Chem's packs will last 40+ years in typical use.

Yes, both rapid charging stations and EVs make financial sense.

Hmm, did I miss any?

But this is cool if it works:

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/15.03/bemore.html

http://www.gizmag.com/go/7214/

Why not use a radio transmitter in the tennis ball (or soccer ball or whatever) to record its exact position? I am certain this has been discussed and I wouldn't be surprised if it's already in use. The article's "Hawkeye" just works by optical analysis.

It's been tried in soccer. The latest attempts were prior to the last couple of World Cups IIRC, but the systems were plagued with problems, not the least of which was the survival of the transmitter.

http://www.gizmag.com/go/2790/