Slashdot Mirror
Domain: sciencenewsforkids.org
Stories and comments across the archive that link to sciencenewsforkids.org.
Comments · 7
-
Re:Saturation
... There is also no reason a drone needs to cost $275,000. About 8 years ago some hobbyists built a balsa wood model aircraft that flew autonomously across the Atlantic with an on-board auto pilot and telemetry for less than $500. That's a 2500-3000nm range, with simple electronics (which are even less expensive and more powerful today) with the ability to receive data and track the location of said drone for less than $500. Scale that up a little, and a VERY cheap, albeit slow and vulnerable cruise missile is entirely possible.
You mean this one? An 11 lb airplane that flew at 50 mph (not too much faster than a ship can steam) for 1888 miles (1640 nm) with zero payload (unless you want to count the 2 kilos of gas)? Scaling it up large enough to carry a payload of 500-750 lb (like a real bomb or missile would) is a 200-fold scale up in size. If the cost per pound is the same then the cost comes in at $100,000, not too much lower than the figure I used for a real airplane. Your very-long range with a substantial payload does not come for free.
Sorry - real airplanes that carry real payloads cost real money.
-
Re:So instead of a monster gas tank
> Thus the most interesting part of making a better electric car isn't making a better car, it is making a better battery.
Or making a better hydrocarbon fuel cell and better ways of converting hydrogen + CO2 to hydrocarbons: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer%E2%80%93Tropsch_process#Carbon_dioxide_reuse
If you have cheap enough nuclear power even if the total efficiency isn't that good initially, you may not care if the oil prices go up and up.
Better batteries are an important problem to solve, but so is the hydrocarbon problem. While better batteries are likely to be invented in the near future, it is unlikely that in the near future we will have battery powered planes with 950kph cruising speeds and >10 hour flight times. Even less likely they'd be able to fly at mach 2.
FWIW, I find it rather impressive that some birds can fly nonstop for 9 days and travel a total of 7100 miles: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/25/science/25migrate.html?pagewanted=all
It's not very fast, but it does show our technology is still inferior in many ways. Yes we had that flying fuel tank fly around the world, but try to build an autonomous UAV as small as one of those birds with a 7100 mile range (so far there's rather big one that crossed the Atlantic: http://www.sciencenewsforkids.org/articles/20031217/Feature1.asp ). Even more challenging would be something as small as a dragonfly: http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_8149000/8149714.stm
-
Re:Very Poor Taste
Greetings, I bring (Yoda here...:-)) Interesting this is! Poe, the Raven you mention...
Oh, now you've done it...you've mentioned the poem the Raven by Poe...which instantly brings to mind of geeks everywhere, the immortal poem by Mike Keith, "Near a Raven", a play on Poe, if you wish...But Keith's BRILLIANT poem in actually pi...to 740 digits...each word is the length of a digit of pi!
Here's a sample:
http://www.sciencenewsforkids.org/pages/puzzlezone/muse/muse1004.asp
Poe, E.
Near a RavenMidnights so dreary, tired and weary.
Silently pondering volumes extolling all by-now obsolete lore.
During my rather long nap--the weirdest tap!
An ominous vibrating sound disturbing my chamber's antedoor.
"This," I whispered quietly, "I ignore."Perfectly, the intellect remembers: the ghostly fires, a glittering ember.
Inflamed by lightning's outbursts, windows cast penumbras upon this floor.
Sorrowful, as one mistreated, unhappy thoughts I heeded:
That inimitable lesson in elegance--Lenore--
Is delighting, exciting . . . nevermore. -
Re:Why Artificial Intelligence may never exist
The most obvious counterexample to the "AI" nonsense is to consider that, back around 1800 or any time earlier, it was obvious to anyone that the ability to count and do arithmetic was a sign of intelligence. Not even smart animals like dogs or monkeys could add or subtract; only we smart humans could do that.
Interestingly, in recent years, many animals have been found to be able to perform simple mathematical tasks.
Dolphins:
http://www.apa.org/monitor/sep05/marine.html
Monkeys:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,317526,00.html
Dogs can do calculus:
http://www.sciencenewsforkids.org/articles/20031008/Feature1.asp -
Re:Save Jack!The arguments aren't flawed because of the people spitting them forth. The arguments are flawed because the premise is ridiculous. Are you sure?
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/16099971/
Researchers at the Indiana University School of Medicine say that brain scans of kids who played a violent video game showed an increase in emotional arousal - and a corresponding decrease of activity in brain areas involved in self-control, inhibition and attention.
http://www.sciencenewsforkids.org/articles/20070124/Feature1.asp
Despite what these readers say, many scientific studies clearly show that violent video games make kids more likely to yell, push, and punch, says Brad Bushman. He's a psychologist at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. Bushman and his colleagues recently reviewed more than 300 studies of video media effects. Across the board, he says, the message is clear. "We included every single study we could find on the topic," Bushman says. "Regardless of what kids say, violent video games are harmful."
http://www.schillerinstitute.org/new_viol/videos_brain.html Recently released medical studies indicate that violent video games damage the brain, possibly permanently.
It's funny how this much evidence proves global warming but the link between violent video games and violent behavior is still a myth.
I think the saddest thing here is that the above comment got a 5 for insightful when the facts seem to clearly contradict the statement. Is it because we like video games that we ignore the facts and promote the fiction? -
Re:Yup
-
Re:So..., yes
http://www.sciencenewsforkids.org/pages/puzzlezon
e
Paper didn't appear to work, so she decided to use gold foil--only 11 millionths of an inch thick. Working with soft artists' brushes, rulers, and tweezers, she managed to fold a 4-inch-by-4-inch square of gold foil in half 12 times without tearing the extremely delicate sheet.