Slashdot Mirror

Mobile phones. Even as recently as 1980, when cellphones were already a reality, nobody saw the ubiquitous pocket phone coming.

1980?

How about Dick Tracy in 1946?
http://f00.inventorspot.com/images/Dt2wrr.jpg

got a problem? invent a product :)

http://inventorspot.com/articles/milkmate_easily_converts_round_cup_holders

Possible, merely theoretical solutions that have no basis in what would happen:
* Confiscate Cameras: http://www.infowars.com/cops-confiscate-cameras-at-ohio-congressmans-town-hall/
* Delete data: http://www.pixiq.com/article/chicago-police-delete-journalism-professors-video-footage
* Destroy phone/camera: http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2011/06/miami_police_destroy_cell_phon.php
* Use of a live streaming/storage to avoid confiscation/destruction? There's tech for that:
** http://inventorspot.com/articles/spy_technology_how_disable_a_cell_phone_15035
** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phone_jammer
* Wiretapping laws: http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/03/05/1954216/Leave-a-Message-Go-To-Jail?from=twitter
* Camera blocking devices:
** http://www.gizmag.com/norte-photoblocker-club-beer-cooler/20820/
** Unable to find it, but I'm sure I remember Kipkay having a video showing how to make glasses that would blind any camera sensitive to infrared.

Some of this, such as the wiretapping cellphone case, has been overturned. I believe. This is just off the top of my head. I'm sure there is more for real cynics with time to list.

For a long time I have wondered why we don't just use massive helium balloons to carry rockets much closer to space. Even if the balloon only gets a quarter of the way to orbit, it gets through the thickest air before the rocket fires.

Unless helium is more expensive than rocket fuel, but helium can be collected from alpha decay right, so it seems like it would be cheaper.

Even if it isn't feasible for big payloads, there are several high class hobbyist rockets out there that can reach 100k feet. Why not ride a balloon up to 70-80k, and then launch the rocket?

We don't use helium balloons for a couple of reasons, it's getting expensive, and also because there's a shortage of it .

I know that someone has to build those robots,

http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/may05/selfrep.ws.html

and someone else has to create the control software for those robots,

http://www.profactor.at/en/production/forschung-entwicklung/robotik-und-automation-bis-losgroesse-1/selbstprogrammierende-robotersysteme-fbirescope-flexpaint.html

and someone else has to provide the knowledge for those robots,

http://www.research.ibm.com/deepqa/deepqa.shtml

and someone else has to maintain those robots,

http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/may05/selfrep.ws.html

and if factory robots then someone else has to design the stuff those robots build,

http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/e/sac/meem/public/old_issue/vol02iss04/MEEM020404.pdf

and someone else has to oversee and control those robots

Wishful thinking. There may be one temporary job here - but only until it's recognized that the system can do a better job of monitoring itself. http://inventorspot.com/robot_demonstrates_self_awareness

, ..., point is, there'll be always jobs, you just have to find and adapt.

True. There may still be extremely low paying jobs for tasks that are simply too unnecessary to justify spending the capital on a robotic system - such as feeding (or burying) the 6 billion uneducated/unemployed meatbags that on longer serve a purpose other than to consume resources.

If only more of them had a clit...

Like this one?

If the weight ratio is too great, you could simply have two planes and suspend the pilot on a line between the wings.

You just need some additional thrust... http://inventorspot.com/articles/solar_powered_fan_hat_wearable_gadget_looks_and_feels_cool_24822

• System admins get a day.
• Teachers get a week.
• Farmers get a day
• Armed forces get a day
• Presidents get a day
• Doctors get a day
• Heck, even Plumbers get a day.

Why not programmers?

Perhaps you could point to the post your referencing. I looked and saw several comments of yours in this total thread but none that seem to explain anything to what you posted or suggest what you were attempting to convey.

Well, unless your talking about the other post to me you made which ironically is after this part of the thread (probably how I sort it) which makes it sort of confusing on my end. But truthfully, I'm sort of at a lost to what your trying to convey here.

The two articles I references to the parent are here
http://inventorspot.com/articles/spacebased_solar_cells_could_bea_7507

And the one the article referenced.
I hope this gets us on the same page.

And just WHAT is the efficiency of this? I've got far better ideas than this nonsense. How inefficient is this going to be? It's already bad enough you're having to fight the inverse law on the light to begin with, why not let it hit the surface and capture it there? Hell, PG&E is full of morons.

Actually, traditional earth based solar has a few draw backs that this would solve.

The first being that the strength of the solar particles we are dealing with is greatly diminished by the time it hits the earth. In space, you can generate roughly 5 (or was it 20) times more energy from the same processes as on earth. In fact, it's estimated that "A single kilometer-wide band of geosynchronous earth orbit experiences enough solar flux in one year (approximately 212 terawatt-years) to nearly equal the amount of energy contained within all known recoverable conventional oil reserves on Earth today (approximately 250 TW-yrs)," according the report. "This far exceeds the projected 30TW of annual demand in mid-century."

The next benefit is that it's always on. All they would have to do is adjust it's orientation and they will have full sun 24 hours a day. No night time shortages, no bad weather brownouts, not building 10 times as many solar cells as necessary to complete projected output numbers in the winter or bad weather and so on.

But the best benefit is no need to find a storage solution for when the above happens on earth. Full sun all day long means full power all day long.

So the space solution, provided that we can get it there reasonably enough, can overcome inefficiencies inherent to earth based installations, overcome the inconveniences inherent to them, solve the environmental damage potential of them, and even if there is a loss on the transmission of the energy, it can still be more efficient in the end because it's a complete solution that starts out creating way more energy in the first place.

Skyscaper farming is nothing new on /.

Plants (especially plants like alfalfa or grasses as depicted) have massive root systems requiring literally tons of soil to be healthy.

Grasses may require a lot of soil but not all crop plants do. Some grow quite well hydropnically. From TFA linked to: "After a strawberry farm in Florida was wiped out by Hurricane Andrew, the owners built a hydroponic farm. By growing strawberries indoors and stacking layers on top of each other, they now produce on one acre of land what used to require 30 acres." The article "In "Urban Farming," Crops Grow in Skyscrapers" says "More than 100 crops can be grown indoors by taking advantage of a technique called "hydroponics," where plants grow using mineral nutrient solutions instead of soil."

Falcon

Just try draw anything on paper using coffee.

Don't mind if he does...

Seems like McD is moving quick:

http://inventorspot.com/articles/mcdonalds_japan_goes_nobrand_with_quarter_pounder_shops_19505

But it had much less of an impact given that Miyamoto collects schoolgirls' used panties and watches butterdog vids before the million-dollar cocaine-fueled bare bear parties.

We have. This "news" is literally decades old.

http://www.google.com/search?q=liquid+telescope+moon&sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS264US264

http://inventorspot.com/articles/liquid_lunar_telescope_5345 That one says that it was first suggested in 1991. I bet someone thought of it earlier.

will NOT BE THAT MAN....

In Israel, that product may be CALLED "ReWalk", but in the US, it will probably mean "NO FLY".

That chair says, "Quicky", and that makes all sorts of things come to mind. I wonder what kind of "charge" the chair position offers. Quick-charge?

And, to need crutches to balance... why not just build servo-gyro circular/shaft motors (which, hopefully won't burn out every 5,000 steps) to dispense with the crutches. Now, if the crutches are a cover story for machine guns....

Well, Machine Girl has that beat...

http://www.horror-movies.ca/horror-movie.php?id=6678

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1072131/machine_gun_breasts/

http://www.movierapture.com/machinegirl.htm

http://inventorspot.com/articles/bizarre_breast_massage_robot_rea_11148

Broken link in parent, try this

"Since no amount of cosmetic surgery will make actual human eyes larger, some girls are trying another way to up their cute quotient: extra-wide contact lenses!"

Well, there is the crazy shit known as "eye tattooing". It's still a young procedure and I don't know if they can blend a tattoo that close to the iris.

Broken link in parent, try this

the old method was liquid mirrors http://inventorspot.com/articles/liquid_lunar_telescope_5345

We have to reduce consumption regardless.

No, we do not have to reduce consumption. I see this fallacious argument everywhere. What we have to do is either reduce consumption or develop sustainable energy. There is no need to reduce consumption if:
fusion
non-food biofuel
Thermal depolymerization
molten salt
or any other of several technologies, or any combination of the above come to fruiction. Are you seriously proposing that there will never be a source of energy sufficient to maintain the world at first-country usage levels? Wear your mortification-colored glasses if you want, but I say again, we do not need to reduce consumption.

LOL,

The Japanese are known for wasting both time and money on useless ventures. It is almost a Halmark of being Japanese!

Hmmmm where shall we start....

http://www.japantoday.com/jp/news/420236/all

http://inventorspot.com/articles/melody_road_gives_whole_new_mean_8235

http://www.japanprobe.com/?p=622

This Fingerprinting and photographing are not designed to prevent terrorism. Terrorism in Japan has been traditionally conducted by groups that are exempt from the fingerpritning process.

This is being done specifically to track foreigners, especially the foreigners who live here. Some of it is being done to prevent illegal immigration.

Personally, living here, it impacts me as I have to travel a lot throught the Asia Pacific region, and now immigration is going to be a royal pain. I stopped going through the US because my Japanese wife needs to get fingerprinted and photographed there, but unfortunately, leaving Japan right now is not an option for me.

Shoganai ne!

Physically, they look very similar.

Mitsubishi fighter: http://inventorspot.com/files/images/P-DN-061116-02E.img_assist_custom.jpg/

F22: http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/AIR_F-22_10-Oc_Over_Mountains_lg.jpg/