Slashdot Mirror

Here's the supposed printer-friendly page: http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/industry/4234444.html?do=print

That's not printer-friendly, and only partly reader-friendly! (OK, so I gave away the real reason I'm using the printer-friendly page)

The very-mainstream-Microsoft-is-a-big-advertiser Popular Mechanics has been a surprising proponent of open source for the past several months. They published a similar article a few months ago comparing mass market apps to their open source counterparts, and last week they began offering a Popular Mechanics-themed Ubuntu download!

The very-mainstream-Microsoft-is-a-big-advertiser Popular Mechanics has been a surprising proponent of open source for the past several months. They published a similar article a few months ago comparing mass market apps to their open source counterparts, and last week they began offering a Popular Mechanics-themed Ubuntu download!

that's the coleman flashcell?.

I would be interested to know exactly what the scores where and how they were derived. From reading the Popular Mechanics (blog) and Register (blog) reports, it sounds like Stanford might have gotten a bit of the raw end of the stick.

Specifically, the Register is reporting that it DARPA counted the up to 20min Stanford's car was stuck sandwiched between two other cars due to Cornell's robot screwing up against it, and Popular Mechanics is reporting that DARPA says Stanford lost to Carnegie Mellon by about 20min.

Sounds like it would have been a extremely close race if DARPA had been applying more reasonable (from the principle of trying to eliminate luck as a large factor) accounting principles.

I would be interested to know exactly what the scores where and how they were derived. From reading the Popular Mechanics (blog) and Register (blog) reports, it sounds like Stanford might have gotten a bit of the raw end of the stick.

Specifically, the Register is reporting that it DARPA counted the up to 20min Stanford's car was stuck sandwiched between two other cars due to Cornell's robot screwing up against it, and Popular Mechanics is reporting that DARPA says Stanford lost to Carnegie Mellon by about 20min.

Sounds like it would have been a extremely close race if DARPA had been applying more reasonable (from the principle of trying to eliminate luck as a large factor) accounting principles.

Documenting, as the invevitable next step, every impractical wish list available (i.e. Flying Car, Regional Heliocopter Airports, internet connected toasters, space elevators, and hydrogen fuel cell cars): Popular Mechanics and Popular Science.

I'm really not that cynical, and I like the magazines, but reporting on likely, sensical new technology is not their forte (or mission).

Maybe this is part of some bigger plan... The US comes up with the idea for a new technological advancement that "accidentally" falls into the hands of Chinese spies. The Chinese spend billions of yuan designing, developing, and testing this new technology. Once successfully deployed, the US just steals it back - thereby outsourcing burden of development and cost to China.

I mentioned the same above and have been doing some more digging. This popular mechanics interview with Greg Olsen was interesting. Here is the part that got it to pop up in my search:

PM: Soyuz costs $50 million a mission--the space shuttle costs more than $2.5 billion to get back up, and under the best conditions it costs $500 million ...
GO: That's tough. Remember, we could not have built the ISS without the shuttle. The shuttle has a huge cargo-carrying capacity. The Soyuz cannot do that, as reliable as it is. The shuttle has had its drawbacks, but it is the workhorse, and it was necessary in order to do the ISS.

They give more about cost - and he gives one view about the shuttle's capacity that adds a different perspective.

Now Slashdot has been invaded! Is there nowhere I can go to escape these conspiracist nutbags? I will make a feeble attempt to counteract this inane review of an inane book, with a list of various debunking links:

September 11th
http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/911myths/
http://www.debunking911.com/index.html
http://www.911myths.com/
http://wtc.nist.gov/

Income Tax and the Federal Reserve
http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/IncomeTax.htm
http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/flaherty/Federal_Reserve.html

Other
http://www.debunker.com/conspiracy.html
http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000140.html

General
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory
http://www.urban75.org/info/conspiraloons.html
http://www.csicop.org/si/9012/critical-thinking.html

Whatever is used by the military will find its way to the increasingly paramilitary law enforcement of major metropolitan areas. UAVs are just one example, http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/4213464.html

Where is the limit on automated surveillance before privacy becomes nonexistent or a crime? At least with people watching people, the watchers eventually become bored and move on, that or the cost of surveillance becomes to high for the expected reward. With cheap hardware, you can spy on anyone all the time looking for whatever you fancy. Think of it as Google for the state.

Popular Mechanics' space correspondent, who's been in the trenches with Burt Rutan, Steve Fossett and Buzz Aldrin, comes out HARD against the lunar X Prize, calling it a publicity stunt. And why not?

Glenn Derene is running a great follow-up to his advanced mourning of the iconic clickwheel, using the Rick Rubin story we talked about earlier—and the iTunes Wi-Fi Music Store announcement—as fuel for a call for an all-you-can-eat, flat-rate iTunes store. Feasible? Probably not. User's dream? Definitely.

Glenn Derene is running a great follow-up to his advanced mourning of the iconic clickwheel, using the Rick Rubin story we talked about earlier—and the iTunes Wi-Fi Music Store announcement—as fuel for a call for an all-you-can-eat, flat-rate iTunes store. Feasible? Probably not. User's dream? Definitely.

The cover story in the current issue of Popular Mechanics deals with this same concept of looking ahead to the next half-century of spaceflight, and they've just posted a round-up of "expert" predictions, with everyone from Buzz Aldrin to Arthur C. Clarke and Burt Rutan to Tom Wolfe. Good stuff...

"One final ingredient: 400 lbs of ice for cooling, which will melt in seconds once the car gets up to speed."

According to an article published at Popular Mechanics last summer, the cost to make hydrogen is $3 per kg on a GE's 10' x 20' machine. It looks pretty easy indeed.

Someone earlier mentioned the movie "Who Killed The Electric Car" and I whole-heartedly recommend that you view this if you ever get a chance. Consider the distribution of electricity in this country. Certainly, THAT is a doable technology TODAY!

You might want to watch Tesla Motors, although most of us cannot afford their current offering (about $100,000.00), 0-60 mph in 4 seconds with a 200 mile range proves the technology is here. They intend to offer a sedan around the $50k mark in 2008 and a commuter car around $25k in 2009.

Popular Mechanics also test drove the Electric Mini-Cooper which you can buy today for around $50k.

While a hydrogen powered vehicle might work for rocket scientists, it's essentially worthless to you and me. The longer we ignore VIABLE alternatives and focus on pipe dreams, the longer we will remain dependant on oil.

A Popular mechanics article of last summer said it would be $3 per kilogram.

10 questions from the film's scientific advisor, a CERN physicist: http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/science_news /4219685.html

Helium - 3

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/ 1283056.html?page=3

Maybe not a good reason to go to Mars, but it is more than enough reason to go to the moon which is rich in it. Do some digging around, I'm always shocked that more people don't seem to know about this, also shocked more effort hasn't gone into attempting to figure out a system to mine it and deliver it safely back to earth.

Agreed! But look closer: FTFA:

The funny thing about all those expert opinions: They're not really based on hard data about actual airline accidents. A look at real-world crash stats, however, suggests that the farther back you sit, the better your odds of survival. Passengers near the tail of a plane are about 40 percent more likely to survive a crash than those in the first few rows up front.

That's the conclusion of an exclusive Popular Mechanics study that examined every commercial jet crash in the United States, since 1971, that had both fatalities and survivors. The raw data from these 20 accidents has been languishing for decades in National Transportation Safety Board files, waiting to be analyzed by anyone curious enough to look and willing to do the statistical drudgework.

What *I* would like to see: a comparison of severity of injury vs seating location. They used only two statistical baskets: dead or not-dead.

How many survived UNinjured? Where were THEIR seats? Of those who were injured, how severe were the injuries, and where were THEY seated? Sure, there's a gray area there, but isn't that what is done with triage? (see: triage, Simple Triage And Rapid Treatment, and also Emergency department).

For example, the article states a survival rate of 56 percent in the section behind first/business class and ahead of the wing and the SAME 56 percent survival rate for those in the section OVER the wing. (See the picture.) And were the various injuries equally distributed, too? What about burns? (Isn't the jet fuel primarily stored in the wings? Hmmm, how many of the crashes were on takeoff, during flight, or during landing?)

So, I commend them for taking this first look at the data, but I would love to see them perform a follow-up analysis. Ideally, publishing the data they found in machine-readable form for others who are interested to perform more in-depth analysis.

The author of "How to Survive a Robot Uprising" says marching 'bots like RunBot won't be terrorizing our towns anytime soon. We sure about that?

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/ 4218443.html?do=print

And if you need a laugh
http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20070627 [proof al gore invented the internet]

It's the defining characteristic of the iPod, and Apple says the iPhone is "our best iPod yet." So where did that clickwheel go? Good column on this here

here

Link to printable version without 4 pages of ads.

http://www.911myths.com/
http://www.debunking911.com/
http://www.jnani.org/mrking/writings/911/king911.h tm
http://911debunker.livejournal.com/
http://www.no911conspiracy.com/mythsvsfacts.html
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/militar y_law/1227842.html?page=1
http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/sciam/
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home

Flood insurance and large styrofoam feet on your electronics, or, if you wanna get really ridiculously futuristic (and fictional...), some form of device to trigger inflation of rubber raft devices on the bottom of whatever expensive hardware you have. Really though: How about one of those new M$ multi-touch coffee table computer dealies? Those looked pretty cool and seem futuristic enough for what you're looking for. Here's a Popular Mechanics article on it, if you don't know what I'm talking about.

The projector resolution is currently 1024 x 768, according to the Popular Mechanics article. The "touchscreen" camera resolution works out to about 1280 x 960. Not exactly high; hopefully this can be improved by the time I need to replace my coffee table...

There's some good details in that article, a nice diagram and some more in-depth videos too.

It doesn't have to melt it, it only needs to weaken it to further contribute to structural failure.
http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm

"7a. How could the steel have melted if the fires in the WTC towers weren't hot enough to do so?
OR
7b. Since the melting point of steel is about 2,700 degrees Fahrenheit, the temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit and Underwriters Laboratories (UL) certified the steel in the WTC towers to 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours, how could fires have impacted the steel enough to bring down the WTC towers?

In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36).

However, when bare steel reaches temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius, it softens and its strength reduces to roughly 10 percent of its room temperature value. Steel that is unprotected (e.g., if the fireproofing is dislodged) can reach the air temperature within the time period that the fires burned within the towers. Thus, yielding and buckling of the steel members (floor trusses, beams, and both core and exterior columns) with missing fireproofing were expected under the fire intensity and duration determined by NIST for the WTC towers.

UL did not certify any steel as suggested. In fact, in U.S. practice, steel is not certified at all; rather structural assemblies are tested for their fire resistance rating in accordance with a standard procedure such as ASTM E 119 (see NCSTAR 1-6B). That the steel was "certified ... to 2000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours" is simply not true." http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.ht m

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/militar y_law/1227842.html?page=4

"The towers collapsed only after the kerosene fuel fire compromised the integrity of their structural tubes: One WTC lasted for 105 minutes, whereas Two WTC remained standing for 47 minutes. "It was designed for the type of fire you'd expect in an office building--paper, desks, drapes," McNamara said. The aviation fuel fires that broke out burned at a much hotter temperature than the typical contents of an office. "At about 800 degrees Fahrenheit structural steel starts to lose its strength; at 1,500 degrees F, all bets are off as steel members become significantly weakened," he explained" http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/sciam/

Stuff your paranoid delusions.

http://www.911myths.com/
http://www.debunking911.com/
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/12 27842.html?page=1&c=y
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home

You actually can operate it with your butt, and you can operate it after a drink has been spilled on it.

It works by sensing a change in the way that infrared light is reflected back from a part of the surface that is being touched.

Take a look here: http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/industr y/4217348.html?page=2

what grade of structural steel are these "grills" made of?

occording to PM, these things are getting up into melt-down temperatures fro structural steel

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/militar y_law/1227842.html?page=4

or like jet fuel (kerosene) burning in a starved environment (orange flame w/ black smoke), do they leave the hamburger in tact and still in its paper wrapping (like humans in cotton suits), while it melts all the steel around it?

If fire was fire, then we'd never have cars that ran on multiple fuel sources, Diesal would work for all. Fire can be a VERY different thing, If you don't know anything about aircraft or it that's fine but don't act like it's the same thing, small prop planes use a significantly higher grade of fuel than is available at pumps. Jets require even more power. The type of fuel put into a jet on average is greatly more powerful than "diesel" that people consider.

So I could be wrong.. I really could, so I did a 5 minute search on the internet for "jet fuel temperatures" and I found this site. http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/militar y_law/1227842.html?page=4

Funny it's a well known paper it's a reasonably well respected and from a quick look at the other parts of the article I find these facts that the story presented refuted. So why should I expect the other 24 to be so highly correct when this one is blatant falsehoods that have already been disproven.

No, because its based on pseudo-science and conspiracy theories. It is to such a ridiculous level that aMaddox even covered it. You can find numerous refutations if you take 3 seconds to search.

http://media.popularmechanics.com/documents/Fuel_o f_the_Future-e852.pdf Your turn to provide a link.

yeah but here's an interesting article about the areas to the north & northwest: http://www.popularmechanics.com/outdoors/adventure s/4212314.html

Pre-beta, better than beta, multiplayer awesomeness: http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/technology_n ews/4216595.html

This stuff is pretty cool, but The New Yorker's incredible science writer (who basically told the rest of the world about global warming) had a more in-your-face profile of the LHC last week, and Popular Mechanics has officially dubbed it "The World's Biggest Science Project." Sweet.

Shouldn't we be worried that computers won't remember enough? Interesting breakdown of an entire era of human history becoming lost because of changing file formats and irrecoverable data here: http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/industr y/4201645.html?series=21

That prefrontal cortex, he explains, allows the brain to pick up patterns quickly, but it also exercises a powerful impulse control, inhibiting false alarms. EEG would essentially allow the binoculars to bypass this inhibitory reaction and signal the wearer to a potential threat.

After reading this test:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/home_journal/home_ improvement/4215199.html

I went out and bought a few of the n:Vision soft white bulbs because of their high rating. "Slow to warm" is true. When I first turned this on, I thought I was jaundiced because the light was actually too yellow. After a good warmup, they're a little better, but I still might try something a little brighter and bluer.

On light quality with CFLs, you might find this interesting.

Real D and the 3D "revolution" have been reported on here, as part of a larger look at the future of "Digital Hollywood"

Real D and the 3D "revolution" have been reported on here, as part of a larger look at the future of "Digital Hollywood"

It's just you.

Popular Mechanics tested a bunch of CFL bulbs against incandescents, and the CFLs scored higher than the incandescents.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/home_journal/home_ improvement/4215199.html?series=15

Looking at the diagram of the kit, there is actually a "mouse" (item D) for controlling user input. I don't really understand the need for that, especially since disabled people (and maybe fighter pilots) have menu systems that are controlled directly by sight. Having to put down your weapon just to read a map in order to find out where everyone else is, doesn't really seem a good idea. Couldn't they just overlay a number of coloured rectangles (scaled by distance) with name-tags over the normal view, so that the guy could get an idea of where everyone is?