Slashdot Mirror

A bunch of little airplanes would quickly fall from short pulses from:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1281536.html
or
http://blog.800hightech.com/airborne-military-laser-weapons/932/
One way to defeat this might be to spew optically (and gamma/x-ray) dispersive pollutants (water, foil, dust etc) in the path that the flock would take.

Fortunately "lowest cost" isn't actually a consideration, just something they said to make people feel a little better about throwing billions of dollars into an airplane for the king, oops I mean president. The fleet of next-generation Presidential helicopters , which he rides for a few minutes at a time, have been under development for years and years at a cost of $11.2 billion dollars. And then there's the new presidential limo. It is totally out of hand. (Nothing personal, Obama).

Actually, after reading TFA and looking at the comparison chart it really looks like the Direct Jupiter design is better, if only because of the reuse of SST components.

FTFA:

She [Anne H. Milley, director of technology product marketing at SAS] adds, "We have customers who build engines for aircraft. I am happy they are not using freeware when I get on a jet."

Good thing Boeing's not using fere software for aircraft simulation tools, space station labs, sub hunters, or moon rockets ;-)

New word announcement: "fere" - used to denote the application of open source (free) software in critical roles, striking fear in the uninformed masses.

Examples:
"The new software we're using to control our killbots is the latest fereware clone of the commercial Killdows Humans release."
"NASA is requesting support from the fere community for software that can accurately convert between metric and SAE units."

She [Anne H. Milley, director of technology product marketing at SAS] adds, "We have customers who build engines for aircraft. I am happy they are not using freeware when I get on a jet."

Good thing Boeing's not using fere software for aircraft simulation tools, space station labs, sub hunters, or moon rockets ;-)

Small plants are more expensive to build, more expensive to maintain, and intrinsically less efficient.

False. This obvious "invention" was available in the public domain through all the debates about wind power, in which monopolists claimed that only one wind speed could generate power for any given turbine. Not to take away from the team that has finally brought it to market, but neither an electronic switch nor variable resistance are novel concepts. The only reasonable explanation for this taking so long is industrial conspiracy, illegal collusion. The Third World can do it. Expense is not the reason that we have not.

Coercive monopolies for utilities guarantee that we use over-priced and obsolete technologies, nullifying the presumed benefits of "economies of scale". Only residential, user-owned solar and wind power will solve the United States' energy problems, which stem from the petroleum oligopoly and local utility monopolies. Nuclear power is for suckers, and our country's corporatist GOP "leadership" diminishes our credibility and negotiating power on nuclear energy with un-chummy countries like Iran and Pakistan, in addition to the pollution and fraudulent deception of US "customers" who are deprived of options by government collusion with petroleum corporations and Bechtel, the largest recipient of US nuclear tribute.

Most quality bulbs have a higher quality of light than incandescent bulbs. Here is a double blind test: http://www.popularmechanics.com/home_journal/how_to/4215199.html?page=1

All CFLs tested rated higher than the incandescent.

Warm and cool white are things of the past (and have been for about a decade).

(and once again, this is ILLEGAL, so you're at your own risk on this one)

If all of your critical utilities are on the same leg (110V), you can get away with just stripping down a couple of standard power cables (as every geek seems to have a pile of them around), and connect it to a circuit on that leg. If you want to play it safe, shut off EVERY circuit breaker in the house, and connect the suicide plug (I'm not kidding, that's really what the double-ended cord is called), to the circuit that you want to power up. Check it with a circuit tester if you have one -- reversed polarity can do nasty things to electrical gear.

Also make sure that the generator is outside, but isolated from the ground, or it'll (1) fill the house with carbon monoxide and kill you or (2) have a different ground and keep tripping itself off.

and you can also see Popular Mechanics's take on the situation

UPS is already investing in electrics. Lots of their transports are short-range (from the local depot to your door, though city traffic) with relatively small loads, which fits perfectly with small electrics.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/4234572.html?page=2

How about the fact that for every new car that GM sells they are covering $2000 in "legacy costs" thanks to UAW retirees? That doesn't go away with the new wage structure implemented this year that finally drops wages to a more reasonable level.

See: http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/4292379.html under #3

yeah, I did mean battery-powered cars. slip of the tongue there.

I just realised, my rant was somewhat indiscriminating. I'm aware that biodiesel can be gained from animal fat and the like. I think being annoyed that many politicians are willing to sacrifice essentials for commodities blind sided me there. whilst biodiesel would certainly make us less dependent on oil, it still isn't a long term solution for environmental problems, seeing as the emissions are as dirty if not dirtier (higher micro-particle count, etc).
the leading automobile association here (Germany, ADAC) advises not to use biodiesel in modern diesel cars. I forget the technicalities, but some components get clogged from the thicker and less pure biodiesel, forcing a more frequent exchange of these parts and shortening the life span of the vehicle. I do, however, take solace in the fact, that when the oil wells run dry, we will have an alternative for the transition period.

I agree with your stance on hydrogen - it is unsafe and inefficient. But as a type of capacitor that can use basically any form of power to be created, it's a great step forward.
I like your idea about synth'ed hydrocarbons. I know little about chemistry, sounds like something I should read up on.

I just remembered why I actually posted in the first place. The air powered car! it runs on compressed air! there might've even been a /. story about it. here are some googly hits:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/4217016.html
http://www.mdi.lu/english/
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Air_car_runs_on_compressed_air_0104.html
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=car+that+runs+on+compressed+air&btnG=Search
how about that then? all the benefits of hydrogen, very few of the drawbacks.

The NSA has had great success with Red Teams and competitions between security experts in helping learn how to better secure sensitive data and to keep up to date with the latest attack techniques.

What are your plans to utilize this powerful technique? If applied elsewhere, Red Team competitions can help better secure other aspects of the internet and to stay uptodate.

I've never seen someone take what could have been such a simplistic statement and turn it into an incredibly elaborate diatribe. Couldn't you have just said "People who watch football are gay" and saved us a bunch of time?

Back on topic - I read an article in Popular Mechanics a year or two ago about the physics of football.

A fighter pilot might experience 10 Gs in an extreme maneuver. Two football players ramming into each other (homosexual subtext not intended) briefly experience 150 Gs. Even for an instant, that's gotta hurt.

Why continue to send probes there (unless they are the terraforming type)

Agreed, send men instead.
Why I hope there's no life on Mars

I think you're being a bit unfair to Tesla. They do have more affordable models planned for the future. Early adopters are just shouldering the costs of refining the technology.

Also, while the Roadsters can in some instances be a "coal-fired" car, it's still more environmentally friendly to operate (I have no idea about lifecycle costs for all those batteries). Internal combustion engines run at about 10% well-to-wheel efficiency, whereas a coal plant operates at 30-40% efficiency. Once you factor in transmission, losses during recharging, etc., I believe it still works out to about 20 or 25% energy efficiency.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/4215681.html PM estimates that a Tesla has about half the per-mile operating costs of a Prius.

A calculation of the German version of the AAA, the ADAC, showed that the electric smart that is currently on the road, would actually create more CO2 per km than the combustion engine version, IF the power plant was solely coal based

This did not seem quite right, so I ran the numbers for the electric and non-electric versions of the MINI:

• The electric MINI has a 35 kWh battery which takes it 150 miles
• 35 kWh / 150 Miles == ~233 Wh/Mile
• Coal plants emit 2.095 pounds of CO2 per kWh generated
• New MINI Coopers generate an average of 6.7 tons of CO2 in 15000 miles
• 6.70 tons == 13,400 lbs

Electric Mini: 2.095 lbs CO2 * .233 kWh/mile == .488 lbs CO2/mile

Gas Mini: 13,400 lbs / 15000 Miles == .893 lbs CO2/mile

So it looks like a Gas MINI produces about twice the CO2 per mile... In the absolute worst case (For the electric version).

Thanks!

Reverse engineered or not, it is still patented. So, you've got another 10 years or so before anyone can make legal use of that reverse engineering.

example #1: http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/industry/4272628.html
I would not venture to prove apple was worse than many other wasteful corporate money machines (though I believe in many ways it is). I would argue that it is just as bad as several.

That would be the most valid excuse I have heard so far. At least the conspiracy theorists could then have a unified goal.

Look at these reasons though:

July 2008 - http://blogs.discovery.com/cosmic_ray/2008/07/the-top-reasons.html

6. Direct Observational Evidence
The six lunar lander descent stages left on the moon are about 15 feet across. Even the eagle-eyed Hubble Space Telescope can only see down to the width of a football field.

[just a comment from a poster, but still good info] - http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/4279691.html

"As was mentioned below, you would need a telescope with a 100m mirror just to get 1m resolution on the moon."

The Hubble doesn't have a 100m mirror, and can get greater than 1m resolution? strange.

Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Moon_Landing_hoax_accusations#Large_telescopes_and_the_Moon_hoax

Large telescopes and the Moon hoax

Another component of the moon hoax theory is based on the argument that professional observatories and the Hubble Space Telescope should be able to take pictures of the lunar landing sites. The argument runs that if telescopes can "see to the edge of the universe" then they ought to be able to take pictures of the lunar landing sites. This implies that the world's major observatories (as well as the Hubble Program) are complicit in the moon landing hoax by refusing to take pictures of the landing sites.

        * However, to see the 1.2 meter long flag left on the Moon, an Earth-based telescope would have to be 200 meters wide, whereas the largest telescope on Earth is only about 10 meters across. Furthermore, such a telescope would have to mitigate against the effects of seeing, beyond what is currently possible with adaptive optics. The Hubble Space Telescope can only see objects on the Moon as small as 60 meters across.[89][90]

So, 60m doesn't quite put the angular resolution of the Hubble quite good enough to capture a planet "3 to 5 times the mass of Jupiter" 26 light years away, does it?

I do like your explanation - but why hasn't it been offered before?

However, with the incredibly low occurrence rate for this duplication, fingerprints still reign as the current top method for human identity verification (DNA matching takes alot more time and still isn't 100% accurate).

This is flat-out wrong. Well, okay, DNA matching does take a lot more time and still isn't 100% accurate, but the accuracy rate of DNA matching is somewhere in the 99.999%-100% range. Fingerprinting(see page two) is somewhere in the 95%-99% range. It also hasn't been anywhere near as rigorously tested as DNA testing has.

So, sure, fingerprinting is the gold standard of conventional evidence, but it doesn't even hold a candle to DNA evidence.

Still, fingerprinting stands up better to rigorous studies than other methods(e.g., hair or ballistics matching), so I imagine it'll stand up better than smell matching will.

They already do that.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/how_to/4258805.html

That's an urban legend.

Not to mention impossible with current linear accelerator tech. First of all, I believe linear accelerators work with subatomic particles as projectiles, so I suspect he was thinking of a rail gun, which requires that the projectile be largely metallic, I believe and (AFAIK) we have none that will propel a 40lb. turkey (frozen or not) at a mere 100MPH. I know the US military has been fooling around with rail guns for years: . The projectile it fires is made of tungsten and weighs about 3.5Kg IRRC, but it moves out at over Mach 7.

I've heard/read a lot of variations on the frozen turkey (often it is described as being a frozen chicken and usually the Brits are claimed to have mimicked the test from what US aircraft manufacturers use to test what happens when an airplane suffers a bird strike while not realizing that the projectile bird was not frozen.

This article about the urban legend and the snippets of truth behind it is one of the best I've seen. Note that the launcher uses compressed air to hurl the bird, much the same way that Hollyweird SFX guys use compressed air powered devices to flip cars all over the place in action movies.

Hey NASA, I still have some old Evergreen 486 to Pentium conversion chips in my cpu junk box... pop out that old, tired 486, stick this puppy in the socket, and you're good to go with (the equivalent of) 75mhz Pentium power!

Here's a timely article all about it.

Just let me know if you want them. Some moon rocks or dust in return would be cool, if you've got any to spare, but no problem if not.

From http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/transportation/4232548.html?page=2 they appear to be saying maglev is about 36% the energy cost of airplanes and about 43% of conventional trains.

Not this one. That's just lame and very unimaginative.

NOW we're talking! A black-designed engery conversion system from a NASA nuclear engineer who built his first robot with jukebox and grill parts and fried chikkin, all powered by ethanol.

Here's to you, mister super-soaker designer. Your gradients have provided energy and entertainment for the adult in us who never forgot James Brown's early performances at the Apollo.

GO 'BAMA!

Not this one. That's just lame and very unimaginative.

NOW we're talking! A black-designed engery conversion system from a NASA nuclear engineer who built his first robot with jukebox and grill parts and fried chikkin, all powered by ethanol.

Here's to you, mister super-soaker designer. Your gradients have provided energy and entertainment for the adult in us who never forgot James Brown's early performances at the Apollo.

GO 'BAMA!

They're intentionally masking their whois domain information. According to Popular Mechanics, they can make toothpaste.

Very confusing. Why not just tell us what the base energy source is? Otherwise, it's just a perpetual motion machine.

In the process called burning, hydrocarbons combine with oxygen and release energy.

To reverse the process (which is what they're saying) you have to put an equal amount of energy back in ... if it's 100% efficient, which it won't be.

The only way to get a net gain is to add some free energy from somewhere. The only plausible source is sunlight, but there's no mention of that on their web site.

Fact is, there's no science at all on their web site, just plenty of links for "investors", "investor FAQs", NASDAQ stock quotes, etc.

For credibility they have a link to a Popular Mechanics article but it's for a completely different C02 treatment process.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4274541.html

To expand, I remember a story about a car in Leno's garage. At this point, it's around a hundred years old, but it's a 100% EV.

Originally intended for women, it has things like a makeup kit & mirror built in. Only has a few miles range, but is so dead silent that Leno's wife likes to use it to go looking at wildlife - it doesn't scare them.

Here we are.

EV's have as long of a history as IC vehicles - perhaps even longer! Steam engines predate both by a bit, but have fallen out of usage. It's just that in the course of history, EV's couldn't keep up, cost or feature wise, with the Otto cycle except in special circumstances - sealed buildings worried about exhaust, for example. Of course, after re-reading the article, I'm tempted to build a steam car again. ;)

The electric motor is mature, efficient, and durable. The only problem remaining is the energy storage system. If somebody could come up with a battery that holds twice as much power at half the cost, I figure we'd swap the percentages of electric and gasoline vehicles inside of a decade. Gasoline/diesel would be the special purpose.

The story about the fireworks can be found here for those interested BTW.

The Unmanned Pirate-Hunting boat is old news from 2006 but I didn't know Google was involved! But you can be certain Google knows about it... because I googled to find that article again.

Popular Mechanics certainly cannot be trusted with any scientific theory. They are not interested in logical inquiry; they are merely interested in simply arguing to get attention.

If tall buildings can fall symmetrically into heaps of powder and small pieces, then there is a problem. Either 1) it is unsafe to work or live in or near any tall buildings because they may have similar "structural weaknesses", or 2) there was a controlled demolition.

It is necessary to investigate all theories. If some of those theories are later determined to be wrong, the investigators are still to be praised, because they did necessary work.

If it can be proven that the fall of the three largest World Trade Center buildings was not due to controlled demolition, we are left with the idea that tall buildings can be completely and thoroughly demolished by heavy shocks. (But that has never happened before or since.) Earthquakes or hurricane damage could cause them to fall, for example. It would be foolish to accept the explanation that, "oh, in that case it was an unusual structural problem, but that could never occur in other buildings." If tall buildings can fall to small pieces, then it is not safe to work in or around them.

It is interesting to note that one of the brothers of George W. Bush was an executive in the security company that was responsible for the WTC buildings. I'm not saying there is a connection. I'm not claiming there is no connection. It is simply interesting.

Recently, in a TV program, Popular Mechanics labeled everyone who agreed with them "experts" and everyone who disagreed "conspiracy theorists". One of the Popular Mechanics presenters was so young, angry, and obviously immature that it is surprising he is allowed to be publically connected with the company. Popular Mechanics simply does the minimum necessary to get viewers, to appease its advertisers; it is not in my opinion a reputable company.

...for mentioning "his denial" in the summary, you just turned this into a damn forum for "truthers." You know, the people who are do deluded, they thing that Purdue University and Popular Mechanics are part of the "vast right wing conspiracy." Seriously, I've read some of their ideas on the boards. They'll literally go A->B->C->D->E->F->G and be like "and that proves Purdue University's study is faked by the gov't."

Popular Mechanics explains this. Not that I think it will matter to the conspiracy crowd.

Calculus gives you the power to forget special case solutions and derive as needed in a lot of cases, which is pretty damned awesome.

But it's beyond the scope of a basic physics class. You already know that the laws of physics are true, that the world can be explained by math. Kids in high school don't know that. This is the most important things kids learn in high school physics.

I found this article the other day, I think you should read it.

oh, and here are two more from last year or so:

Link (some on the "Deathstar" but not the main focus of the article.)

Link (Almost nothing on the hardware specs.)

why there was NO remainder of anything a passenger plane crash leaves in a crash site, and there were NO bodies, passenger belongings, pieces of bodies, ANYTHING but fairly intact TWO bodies in the scene.

Are you saying there were no bodies, or were you saying there were two?

Allyn E. Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers (a company involved in providing emergency engineering and post-collapse assistance) said "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts."

Of course, once you reach the level of batshitness you've achieved, you can simply ignore his testimony by saying "they got to him too!"

And I'm sure you simply don't accept the claim that the remains of 184 people were identified; surely "they" got to all 102 DNA analysts, sample processors, logistics staff, and administrative personnel at the Armed Forces DNA Identification Laboratory. It's a DOD facility, after all.

Are you saying there was no debris from the plane? That's simply incorrect; hell, you can even see photos of a bunch of it at this batshit conspiracy site. And photos of the plane debris inside the building (where, in answer to your question about the lawn, most of it ended up, in agreement with conservation of momentum) can be seen at this somewhat less batshit crazy site. And some more photos here. And more photos, with amazingly detailed analysis, here

But I'm sure "they" got to the owners of all of those sites.

tell me where the hell did the 767's huge tail has vanished.

757. If you can't get that much right after being corrected, I don't see any point in talking to you further.

Like most of the plane, the tail and wings got shredded, and ended up inside the building. As Mete Sozen, a structural engineer who studied the impact in computer simulation, put it, "At that speed, the plane itself is like a sausage skin. It doesn't have much strength and virtually crumbles on impact."

It's like shooting an aluminum foil origami crane out of an air cannon at high speed, through a stack of steel cheese graters, and then demanding "where's the crane's tail? There must be a trick!"

please, spare the bullshit. as if the world has never seen a passenger liner crash.

Into a building? One as hardened as the part of the Pentagon that was hit? Please, name me one similar crash.

Oh, and by the way, regarding your original question about simulating the piloting of the crash, see this:

Brian also consulted with a pair of commercial airline pilots who decided to try this kind of approach in a flight training simulator. Although the pilots were not sure the simulator models such scenarios with complete accuracy, they reported no significant difficulties in flying a 757 within an altitude of tens of feet at speeds between 350 and 550 mph (565 to 885 km/h) across smooth terrain. The only issue they encountered was constant warnings from the simulator about flying too fast and too low. These warnings were expected since the manufacturer does not recommend and FAA regulations prohibit flying a commercial aircraft the way Flight 77 was flown. These restrictions do not mean it is impossible for a plane to fly at those conditions but that it is extremely hazardous to do so, and safety was obviously not a concern to the terroris

I wouldn't knock electric or fuel cell vehicles. For one, have you seen the new Roadster from Tesla Motors? That sucker almost puts the average Ferrari to shame,... ;-) Plus, the Muthbusters recently put electric cars against gasoline cars . . . and electric won out! Read about it here.

It would suck if they accidentally knocked down the flag Buzz Lightyear planted up there.

It may or may not be cost effective. That's not why they do it. They do it because they are tinkerers, and if they weren't building electric cars, they would be building jet powered go carts. They money saved is just offsets the cost of their hobby.

Perhaps just coincidence that they shut it down the day after this look inside Cyber Commandwas published online:

"The black boxes are ClearCube computer terminals, and the fact that there are two of them at each station points to perhaps the most important defensive strategy of the Pentagon's Global Information Gridâ"known to its operators as the GIG. The box on top is plugged into the Nonclassified Internet Protocol Router Network, or NIPRNet, which is linked to the public Internet. The other black box connects to the Secret Internet Protocol Router Network, or SIPRNet, which contains the military's classified information. There are no physical connections between the two anywhere in the Defense Department's 5 millionâ"computer network, yet in the AFNOC, the Ethernet jacks are only 1 1/2 in. apart. That proximity got me wondering. 'What if someone connected them?' I asked information officer 2nd Lt. Mike Forostoski. He laughed in disbelief, as though I had asked him what would happen if a flaming nuclear blimp headed for the building. Then he answered with cautious understatement: 'That would be bad.'

Man's technology has exceeded his grasp. - 'The World is not Enough' Zealous Nobel Prize hungry Physicists are racing each other and stopping at nothing to try to find the supposed 'Higgs Boson'(aka God) Particle, among others, and are risking nothing less than the annihilation of the Earth and all Life in endless experiments hoping to prove a theory when urgent tangible problems face the planet. The European Organization for Nuclear Research(CERN) new Large Hadron Collider(LHC) is the world's most powerful atom smasher that will soon be firing subatomic particles at each other at nearly the speed of light to create Miniature Big Bangs producing Micro Black Holes, Strangelets and other potentially cataclysmic phenomena. CERN physicist Alvaro De Rújula in the BBC LHC documentary, 'The Six Billion Dollar Experiment', incredibly admits quote, "Will we find the Higgs particle at the LHC? That, of course, is the question. And the answer is, science is what we do when we don't know what we're doing." And CERN spokesmodel Brian Cox follows with this stunning quote, "the LHC is certainly, by far, the biggest jump into the unknown." The CERN-LHC website Mainpage itself states quote: "There are many theories as to what will result from these collisions,..." Again, this is because they truly don't know what's going to happen. They are experimenting with forces they don't understand to obtain results they can't comprehend. If you think like most people do that 'They must know what they're doing' you could not be more wrong. Some people think the same thing about medical Dr.s but consider this by way of comparison and example from JAMA: "A recent Institute of Medicine report quoted rates estimating that medical errors kill between 44,000 and 98,000 people a year in US hospitals." The second part of the quote reads "...but what's for sure is that a brave new world of physics will emerge from the new accelerator,..." A molecularly changed or Black Hole consumed Lifeless World? The end of the quote reads "...as knowledge in particle physics goes on to describe the workings of the Universe." These experiments to date have so far produced infinitely more questions than answers but there isn't a particle physicist alive who wouldn't gladly trade his life to glimpse the "God particle", and sacrifice the rest of us with him. This quote from National Geographic exactly sums this "science" up: "That's the essence of experimental particle physics: You smash stuff together and see what other stuff comes out." Find out more about that "stuff" below; http://www.sanescience.org/ http://www.lhcfacts.org/ http://www.risk-evaluation-forum.org/anon1.htm http://www.lhcdefense.org/ http://www.lhcconcerns.com/ Popular Mechanics - "World's Biggest Science Project Aims to Unlock 'God Particle'" - http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/extreme_machines/4216588.html"

Man's technology has exceeded his grasp. - 'The World is not Enough' Zealous Nobel Prize hungry Physicists are racing each other and stopping at nothing to try to find the supposed 'Higgs Boson'(aka God) Particle, among others, and are risking nothing less than the annihilation of the Earth and all Life in endless experiments hoping to prove a theory when urgent tangible problems face the planet. The European Organization for Nuclear Research(CERN) new Large Hadron Collider(LHC) is the world's most powerful atom smasher that will soon be firing subatomic particles at each other at nearly the speed of light to create Miniature Big Bangs producing Micro Black Holes, Strangelets and other potentially cataclysmic phenomena. CERN physicist Alvaro De Rújula in the BBC LHC documentary, 'The Six Billion Dollar Experiment', incredibly admits quote, "Will we find the Higgs particle at the LHC? That, of course, is the question. And the answer is, science is what we do when we don't know what we're doing." And CERN spokesmodel Brian Cox follows with this stunning quote, "the LHC is certainly, by far, the biggest jump into the unknown." The CERN-LHC website Mainpage itself states quote: "There are many theories as to what will result from these collisions,..." Again, this is because they truly don't know what's going to happen. They are experimenting with forces they don't understand to obtain results they can't comprehend. If you think like most people do that 'They must know what they're doing' you could not be more wrong. Some people think the same thing about medical Dr.s but consider this by way of comparison and example from JAMA: "A recent Institute of Medicine report quoted rates estimating that medical errors kill between 44,000 and 98,000 people a year in US hospitals." The second part of the quote reads "...but what's for sure is that a brave new world of physics will emerge from the new accelerator,..." A molecularly changed or Black Hole consumed Lifeless World? The end of the quote reads "...as knowledge in particle physics goes on to describe the workings of the Universe." These experiments to date have so far produced infinitely more questions than answers but there isn't a particle physicist alive who wouldn't gladly trade his life to glimpse the "God particle", and sacrifice the rest of us with him. This quote from National Geographic exactly sums this "science" up: "That's the essence of experimental particle physics: You smash stuff together and see what other stuff comes out." Find out more about that "stuff" below; http://www.sanescience.org/ http://www.lhcfacts.org/ http://www.risk-evaluation-forum.org/anon1.htm http://www.lhcdefense.org/ http://www.lhcconcerns.com/ Popular Mechanics - "World's Biggest Science Project Aims to Unlock 'God Particle'" - http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/extreme_machines/4216588.html"

Same applies to Iceland, of course.

Apple already requires third party accessory vendors to buy special authentication chips for things like iPod docks to work with iPods/iPhones. It's only a matter of time until they add similar chips to laptop and desktop hardware and some code in their OS's that must authenticate the chip for the machine to operate, thereby ending the Hackintosh business.

Some very cool driverless tech advances close to production here: http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/transportation/4272589.html

http://www.popularmechanics.com/home_journal/workshop/4272846.html?page=9

Today the Air Force released the first photos of the B-2 that crashed in Guam a couple months back. B-2 Stealth Bomber Crash Scene Photos: Exclusive First Look

Excellent article! Look at the timeline;

9:29 am /// Waterlogged /// During a preflight check, the pilot notices three air data sensors are malfunctioning. Unknown to the crew, water in the sensors is skewing the air-pressure readings too high.

9:34 am /// Recalibration /// A ground crewman, using a cockpit keyboard, recalibrates the three waterlogged sensors. The preflight checks continue, and the B-2 taxis to runway Zero-Six-Right (above, top left).

10:29 am /// Boiling Sensors /// Before takeoff, the pilot turns on the sensorsâ(TM) heaters. Water in the sensors evaporates; the readings are now normal, but the earlier fix skews air-pressure data too low.

10:30:12 am /// Slow Start /// The B-2 starts takeoff. The on-board flight computer displays the wrong airspeed, causing the pilot to lift off at 133 knots (153 mph) rather than the required 145 knots.

10:30:50 am /// Auto Override /// The flight computer, relying on bad air-pressure readings, concludes the aircraft is in a nose-low altitude and automatically raises the nose to 30 degrees (top right).

10:31:06 am /// Fiery Ending /// The B-2, going too slowly, with its nose angled too high, stalls. As the airplaneâ(TM)s wing scrapes the runway (bottom left), the pilot and commander safely eject. The B-2 crashes (bottom right).

There you go, HUMAN ERROR!!

Today the Air Force released the first photos of the B-2 that crashed in Guam a couple months back. B-2 Stealth Bomber Crash Scene Photos: Exclusive First Look

Have a look at this video, though there are a lot of resources online that talk about the concept.