Slashdot Mirror

Popular Science: The Weekly World News of Tech

To be fair, I think that comparison works a bit better for Popular Mechanics. Just look at some of their cover headlines:

• jingoistic claptrap
• alarmist fearmongering
• UFO stories
• wild-eyed "area 51" speculation
• hotrods 'n' bare midriffs
• sci-fi pseudoscience

Et cetera. And that's just from this year's issues. Past issues have dealt with such mainstream scientific topics as the forensics of Jesus, the space elevator pipe dream, "Science solves MORE ancient mysters of the bible!", how the government spies on you, and on and on and on it goes.

Popular Science may a bit superficial, but it's nowhere near as silly as PM.

Popular Mechanics is like the version of "Soldier of Fortune" that made it past the 8th grade -- barely.

Popular Science: The Weekly World News of Tech

To be fair, I think that comparison works a bit better for Popular Mechanics. Just look at some of their cover headlines:

• jingoistic claptrap
• alarmist fearmongering
• UFO stories
• wild-eyed "area 51" speculation
• hotrods 'n' bare midriffs
• sci-fi pseudoscience

Et cetera. And that's just from this year's issues. Past issues have dealt with such mainstream scientific topics as the forensics of Jesus, the space elevator pipe dream, "Science solves MORE ancient mysters of the bible!", how the government spies on you, and on and on and on it goes.

Popular Science may a bit superficial, but it's nowhere near as silly as PM.

Popular Mechanics is like the version of "Soldier of Fortune" that made it past the 8th grade -- barely.

Popular Science: The Weekly World News of Tech

To be fair, I think that comparison works a bit better for Popular Mechanics. Just look at some of their cover headlines:

• jingoistic claptrap
• alarmist fearmongering
• UFO stories
• wild-eyed "area 51" speculation
• hotrods 'n' bare midriffs
• sci-fi pseudoscience

Et cetera. And that's just from this year's issues. Past issues have dealt with such mainstream scientific topics as the forensics of Jesus, the space elevator pipe dream, "Science solves MORE ancient mysters of the bible!", how the government spies on you, and on and on and on it goes.

Popular Science may a bit superficial, but it's nowhere near as silly as PM.

Popular Mechanics is like the version of "Soldier of Fortune" that made it past the 8th grade -- barely.

Popular Science: The Weekly World News of Tech

To be fair, I think that comparison works a bit better for Popular Mechanics. Just look at some of their cover headlines:

• jingoistic claptrap
• alarmist fearmongering
• UFO stories
• wild-eyed "area 51" speculation
• hotrods 'n' bare midriffs
• sci-fi pseudoscience

Et cetera. And that's just from this year's issues. Past issues have dealt with such mainstream scientific topics as the forensics of Jesus, the space elevator pipe dream, "Science solves MORE ancient mysters of the bible!", how the government spies on you, and on and on and on it goes.

Popular Science may a bit superficial, but it's nowhere near as silly as PM.

Popular Mechanics is like the version of "Soldier of Fortune" that made it past the 8th grade -- barely.

Popular Science: The Weekly World News of Tech

To be fair, I think that comparison works a bit better for Popular Mechanics. Just look at some of their cover headlines:

• jingoistic claptrap
• alarmist fearmongering
• UFO stories
• wild-eyed "area 51" speculation
• hotrods 'n' bare midriffs
• sci-fi pseudoscience

Et cetera. And that's just from this year's issues. Past issues have dealt with such mainstream scientific topics as the forensics of Jesus, the space elevator pipe dream, "Science solves MORE ancient mysters of the bible!", how the government spies on you, and on and on and on it goes.

Popular Science may a bit superficial, but it's nowhere near as silly as PM.

Popular Mechanics is like the version of "Soldier of Fortune" that made it past the 8th grade -- barely.

Popular Science: The Weekly World News of Tech

To be fair, I think that comparison works a bit better for Popular Mechanics. Just look at some of their cover headlines:

• jingoistic claptrap
• alarmist fearmongering
• UFO stories
• wild-eyed "area 51" speculation
• hotrods 'n' bare midriffs
• sci-fi pseudoscience

Et cetera. And that's just from this year's issues. Past issues have dealt with such mainstream scientific topics as the forensics of Jesus, the space elevator pipe dream, "Science solves MORE ancient mysters of the bible!", how the government spies on you, and on and on and on it goes.

Popular Science may a bit superficial, but it's nowhere near as silly as PM.

Popular Mechanics is like the version of "Soldier of Fortune" that made it past the 8th grade -- barely.

Popular Science: The Weekly World News of Tech

To be fair, I think that comparison works a bit better for Popular Mechanics. Just look at some of their cover headlines:

• jingoistic claptrap
• alarmist fearmongering
• UFO stories
• wild-eyed "area 51" speculation
• hotrods 'n' bare midriffs
• sci-fi pseudoscience

Et cetera. And that's just from this year's issues. Past issues have dealt with such mainstream scientific topics as the forensics of Jesus, the space elevator pipe dream, "Science solves MORE ancient mysters of the bible!", how the government spies on you, and on and on and on it goes.

Popular Science may a bit superficial, but it's nowhere near as silly as PM.

Popular Mechanics is like the version of "Soldier of Fortune" that made it past the 8th grade -- barely.

Popular Science: The Weekly World News of Tech

To be fair, I think that comparison works a bit better for Popular Mechanics. Just look at some of their cover headlines:

• jingoistic claptrap
• alarmist fearmongering
• UFO stories
• wild-eyed "area 51" speculation
• hotrods 'n' bare midriffs
• sci-fi pseudoscience

Et cetera. And that's just from this year's issues. Past issues have dealt with such mainstream scientific topics as the forensics of Jesus, the space elevator pipe dream, "Science solves MORE ancient mysters of the bible!", how the government spies on you, and on and on and on it goes.

Popular Science may a bit superficial, but it's nowhere near as silly as PM.

Popular Mechanics is like the version of "Soldier of Fortune" that made it past the 8th grade -- barely.

Peace is all well and good until the people you are trying to make it with ask for something you aren't willing to give up.

That's a political debate, not a technical one. It's also a little naive as there are other bullies on the playground (whether or not you think we are one of them) that will push us around regardless of what we happen to be doing.

Unfortunately most military equipment isn't shielded. The problem is that the shielding is expensive. And if you have n shielding that will protect you against a devise of n output, it is easier for the attackers to build an n+1 device than it is for you to upgrade all your shielding.

As a side note, this puts a different spin on the whole concept of the suicide attack. I don't care how many people you've got in your cause or how committed they are, it would be much easier to find people who would set these off than to find people who are willing to strap explosives to their chests. At least it seems that way to me.

If people start building these and then EMPing city blocks in say, Manhattan, the effects would be devastating but at the same time the psychological resolve required to do it seems to be me to be less. Its still an attack at your enemy but you're not actually killing anyone (or yourself). If articles like this are at all accurate - how long do you think it'll be before people start popping these suckers off?

Oh well, the stone age wasn't all bad... lots of time outside, fresh air and excersize, cave-babes in fur bikinis... I'd better practice up on my stone tool making.

A similar article was published in September 2001 in Popular Mechanics magazine.

http://popularmechanics.com/science/military/2001/ 9/e-bomb/print.phtml

Yep. And in numerous other movies.

And here is another nice article on the threat they really are.

~$400 to take out a small city? Scary.

Burt Rutan's Boomerang twin-engine airplane has always used a PowerBook for instrumentation and navigation although the Boomerang's PowerBook installation is more functional than as pretty as the one in the iCar.

Burt Rutan's Boomerang twin-engine airplane has always used a PowerBook for instrumentation and navigation although the Boomerang's PowerBook installation is more functional than as pretty as the one in the iCar.

The cost of war just went up by $699

Personally, I'd love to see Darl try to collect from someone with next-gen battle gear and one of these...

Popular Mechanics just recently did a of the Honda Civic Hybrid and the conventional Honda Civic EX. Aside from the key driveline differences, they are basically the same car. The Hybrid cost $1440 more than the EX and they determined that it would take 144,000 to recoup that cost premium if your driving habits did not change.
That's not to mention that Honda sells these hybrids for significantly slimmer profit margins, and sometimes a loss, simply because it boosts their public image, and the Feds give them extra credit as well.

Popular Mechanics just recently did a of the Honda Civic Hybrid and the conventional Honda Civic EX. Aside from the key driveline differences, they are basically the same car. The Hybrid cost $1440 more than the EX and they determined that it would take 144,000 to recoup that cost premium if your driving habits did not change.
That's not to mention that Honda sells these hybrids for significantly slimmer profit margins, and sometimes a loss, simply because it boosts their public image, and the Feds give them extra credit as well.

IBM is an evil corporation, don't get me wrong, but it's nice to see them excercising a little enlightened self interest and playing chicken with SCO.

They're playing chicken all right, but IBM's a Euclid R260 and SCO's a Honda Civic.

When playing chicken, NEVER play against someone who won't take any damage if they don't turn.

Real Pirates kill people and steal their tangible property.

Like the Jules Verne Gun. Saw this on a discovery or history channel show about super guns. Interesting, and presumably a much cheaper way to launch small payloads (eventually).

One similar device is the Jules Verne Gun -- essentially it is a huge cannon that fires things into space, at about 1000 g's. The idea originated from Jules Verne's book From The Earth To The Moon. Popular Mechanics had a write-up about it a few years back (check out the pictures on page 2!) -- apparently some guy at Lawrence Livermore National Labs is trying to build one that actually works. :^)

One similar device is the Jules Verne Gun -- essentially it is a huge cannon that fires things into space, at about 1000 g's. The idea originated from Jules Verne's book From The Earth To The Moon. Popular Mechanics had a write-up about it a few years back (check out the pictures on page 2!) -- apparently some guy at Lawrence Livermore National Labs is trying to build one that actually works. :^)

If you listen to the Pentagon, they showed that HTK could work 15 years ago (although some think the tests were a little, uh, rigged).

What I think would have the greatest chance of success against suborbital ballistics would be some descendant of this.

SB

The OICW was my first thought, too. A decent intro is here for the interested. Love the URL. :-)

Except for the caseless ammo which never seems to work quite right, you just discribed the HK OICW which has been in field trials since 1998 or so.

The military will always have their own weapons; they won't be stuck using something so failure-prone.

Are you sure about that?

The GM Hy-Wire

You should also read Wired's article on the Hy-Wire, Popular Mechanics' article and How Stuff Works: GM Hy-Wire for more details.

I recommend you go take a look at some back-issues of Popular Mechanics. The US armed forces have discovered how to build an EMP 'bomb' without the need of a nuclear weapon.

Here's a link:

http://popularmechanics.com/science/military/2001/ 9/e-bomb/print.phtml

All of the problems you mentioned can be solved. With the kind of computing power that we have today we could insist that such vehicles be piloted by computer only with a redundant computer system much like the shuttle,( no MS crap) 5 computers that all do the same computation and they vote on the answer.

They make airplane parachutes that can actually prevent a hard crash.

As I said, these are not unsurmountable problems. The solutions to these problems are available today.

Cat

This article(From science and computers, a new face of Jesus) on CNN website shows the face of Jesus re-created by scientists. "The Jesus plastered on the cover of this month's Popular Mechanics has a broad peasant's face, dark olive skin, short curly hair and a prominent nose. He would have been 5-foot-1-inch tall and weighed 110 pounds, if the magazine is to be believed...". Wow !!! Truth finally comes out...

This article(From science and computers, a new face of Jesus) on CNN website shows the face of Jesus re-created by scientists. "The Jesus plastered on the cover of this month's Popular Mechanics has a broad peasant's face, dark olive skin, short curly hair and a prominent nose. He would have been 5-foot-1-inch tall and weighed 110 pounds, if the magazine is to be believed...". Search the web for more pictures...

This article(From science and computers, a new face of Jesus) on CNN website shows the face of Jesus re-created by scientists. "The Jesus plastered on the cover of this month's Popular Mechanics has a broad peasant's face, dark olive skin, short curly hair and a prominent nose. He would have been 5-foot-1-inch tall and weighed 110 pounds, if the magazine is to be believed...". Search the web for more news on this !!

This article(From science and computers, a new face of Jesus) on CNN website shows the face of Jesus re-created by scientists. "The Jesus plastered on the cover of this month's Popular Mechanics has a broad peasant's face, dark olive skin, short curly hair and a prominent nose. He would have been 5-foot-1-inch tall and weighed 110 pounds, if the magazine is to be believed...".

This article(From science and computers, a new face of Jesus) on CNN website shows the face of Jesus re-created by scientists. "The Jesus plastered on the cover of this month's Popular Mechanics has a broad peasant's face, dark olive skin, short curly hair and a prominent nose. He would have been 5-foot-1-inch tall and weighed 110 pounds, if the magazine is to be believed...". I am glad that scientists are working hard to bring the real truth to life and dispel the existing myths.

Another intersting link for the masses, this one with some details on his brain and the studies that they've been doing on it. Turns out he really was a bit different then the rest of us.

Einstein's Brain

Popular Mechanics gave them a chipper write-up last year. As I suggested, all my knowledge of the creatures is second-hand. I'll have to take a look. As for comparisons to an Apache, I've heard complaints about those ... but they do pack a wallop.

As a former fixed-wing owner, I've taken care of my aircraft-owning bug. :)

Actually, you may want to check out what GM already has planned... a Sierra Hybrid truck. You can check the article here

The ability to transmit tactile data (and pornographic images!) across the Atlantic has existed for nearly 160 years. Patents for fax-by-telegraph devices were filed as early as 1843.

Check it out:

Image Transmission By Telegraph: A Brief History Of The Fax Machine

Cheers,

Not to be outdone in whoring a corporate icon, BMW is marketing a skateboard.

This waste of engineering is a little different than the laptop in that it looks like it was actually designed by the car company, and not a family member.

EMP-Bomb

The US Airforce Space Warfare center is in Colorado:

map

I have also read that Area 51, the 'secret' research base was moved to a remote location in CO. I can't find a link about htis right now.

Essentially, because fuel-cells allow a radically different organization of cars' structures, GM is betting it can make cars cheaper. This despite the fact they'd be running on the famously expensive fuel cell. Wired wrote about this"billion dollar bet" in its August issue and quotes a GM exec: "If we're not there by 2010, we'll have dug too deep a hole to recover the time value of that money."

In other words: call us bad businessmen if you can't drive one of these by 2010. This is some good reading for those wanting to know more about what GM's plans to do with its fuel cell "platform" that it hopes to use for virtually every vehicle it makes in the future. Of course, as Wired notes, a fairly heavy dose of skepticism is NOT optional. It's very much required.

---- SNIP ----
oh yeah, hehe

• 2002-08-14 21:28:24 The first pictures of GM's "Billion Dollar Bet (articles,news) (rejected)

Note: grousing about rejected submissions is Offtopic and usually gets moderated that way. It happens, don't take it personally.

Moderators: Do your worst ;-). But there are some intersting links in there, so be fair!

I think it's important to note that Think wasn't really about electric "cars" it was about electric vehicles. The venture was very much an "outside the box" and it's product line makes that obvious. (Mostly they are small vehicles designed for short trips around town) Not surprisingly, people like cars and don't want

That said... Here's a rejected slashdot story submission about what *I* think was a fairly interesting news. I post it because I think it's on topic and intersting and I put some time in typing it up--obviously, sometimes slashdot doesn't have the space... so no hard feelings. (Maybe I just spelled everything right ;-) )

The jist is that GM is betting on fuel cells. Not electric and not "conventional" hyrbids.


Popular Mechanics is carrying an article (with pic's) of GM's latest fuel-cell concept car. The pictures are our first look (mine at least) at GM's new strategy to redefine the basic systems every car they make. It's called AUTOnomy and was written about a little while back in Popular Science. Essentially, because fuel-cells allow a radically different organization of cars' structures, GM is betting it can make cars cheaper. This despite the fact they'd be running on the famously expensive fuel cell. Wired wrote about this"billion dollar bet" in its August issue and quotes a GM exec: "If we're not there by 2010], we'll have dug too deep a hole to recover the time value of that money." In other words: call us stupid if you can't drive one of these by 2010. This is some good reading for those wanting to know more about what GM's plans to do with its fuel cell "platform" that it hopes to use for virtually every vehicle it makes in the future. Of course, as Wired notes, a fairly heavy dose of skepticism is NOT optional. Itís required.

Popular Mechanics has an article regarding an orbital elevator here.
The problem regarding the center of gravity is solved by using an asteroid as a sort of space anchor. I guess NASA figures that if they can build the rest of the elevator, wrangling up a suitable asteroid for a counterweight would be easy.

Popular Mechanics has an article regarding an orbital elevator here.
The problem regarding the center of gravity is solved by using an asteroid as a sort of space anchor. I guess NASA figures that if they can build the rest of the elevator, wrangling up a suitable asteroid for a counterweight would be easy.

Here's a sure fire way to do the trick. EMP Bomb. Same principal, but unspeakably more devastating. :) -Guanno

The Anonymous, not-for-Karma, God has SPOKEN!

Something like this on a smaller scale. An AMRAAM missile frame, maybe? No direct or shrapnel hits required. Heck, you don't even have to destroy the fighter outright to keep it from it's target...

Gmanske.

Not only that. I remember some coverage about weaponry to be deployed in Kosovo - I can't remember of it actually was, or not, but the gist of the articles I read was this:
Take one large microwave valve.
Drop from an aircraft over a target (e.g. electricity substation)
Chuck enough power through said valve while it's pointing downwards to completely destroy it.
Ta-da! No more substation control systems.

The valves were, of course, designed to be efficiently one-shot, and I think the power actually came from a detonation (might have been a cap bank, though).
There's a link here to something similar, but I don't remember this as being the same thing.
By the way, from that link, does anyone here know what shape field would come out of an FCG? How directional would they be?