I work at a company that builds a laser system for blinding snipers in Iraq. It points a low power laser at the sniper temporarily blinding them. They chose temporary blindness because they couldn't be sure that the snipers in Iraq wouldn't use innocents as human shields.
Obviously it can be hooked up to sensors for automated target determination. The low power makes it a defensive weapon only.
High power lasers aren't going to create wounds any worse than shrapnel, bullets, or missiles. There is no metal ricocheting around in your body. Unfortunately, dead is dead no matter what weapon system gets you there.
I have a Control Systems wiki with a lot of content. Rather than copying my content to Wikipedia I made edits where things were in error or unclear and then linked to relevant pages on my site.
A couple of users decided that my edits violated the linking policy. Which it did on second reading but I felt that deleting the links was counter productive. The content I was editting needed a subject matter expert. Also, my site has a lot of content not quite right for Wikipedia.
My blog rant on my experiece is here.
We've attempted other types of "life" instruments and they didn't show anything. We've found multiple sites that show signs of or proof of the existence of liquid water at some point Martian history. So why not take a different approach from the previous efforts?
If any instrument detects life on Mars but can't bring that life back to Earth, the people who don't want to believe in life on Mars will argue that the life originated on Earth not Mars.
One of the benefits of a DNA instrument is that you are more likely to be able to eliminate the possibility that the microbe originated on Earth rather than Mars.
I imagine this has a hell of a lot of potential in combination with Segway like sensors and some artificial intelliegence. The exo requires user commands to define the user's current state - walking, sitting, etc. It seems that the Segway sensors and software could be made smart enough to figure this out. If you are keeping the legs rigid it seems like this is similar to the standard controls example of an inverted pendulum.
What the hell does God or religion have to do with the original post? Assuming you believe in a Western style God, and most Americans do, then you believe you have free will. God has left these decisions up to you.
As such you should understand the world you live in. That means science, math, literature, and history are important topics. Americans do not have nearly enough education in any of these topics to make me comfortable.
Case in point, McCain and Obama will both use a lot of advertising to sway voters. If you think you can watch these TV ads and be immune to their influence you don't understand how your brain works. A thorough understanding of the brain would change your attitude towards advertising. Some forms of learning happen through repitition, without conscious effort, and sometimes despite a conscious effort to not learn them. It's not quite brain washing but it's not that different either.
I've worked several aerospace engineering jobs that were all exempt. We filled out a timecard for every one of them. My current employer requires that I fill it in daily.
Timecards are partly because the gov requires it. Partly this is because some accounting yahoo got it in their heads that this was a good way to track labor costs. No one accurately estimates the engineering hours required for an aerospace program. (THere are several reasons for this that have nothing to do with timecards.)
I hate accounting for every 6 minutes of my work day on a timsheet. I also hate that companies are more than willing to let me work as many uncompensated overtime hours as they dictate but rarely, if ever, provide a dollar for overhead charges - i.e. no work, temporarily, but not charging vacation. Funny but I thought being salaried meant that you got the same paycheck no matter if the tasks took you 30 hours or 80 hours a week to accomplish. They've got the 80 hour part down pat.
My wife is on the business side and works in software. Over 3 companies and 10 years she's never had to take vacation on a 30 hour week or justify why she only worked 30 in any given week. She's salaried and paid to complete the tasks. If she works 80 hour weeks for 6 months and takes a couple of days off no one asks her to use vacation time.
If I work 80 hour weeks for 6 months and work a 39 hour week I need to take 1 hour vacation that week or work 41 the next. That's not just 1 company that's pretty much every company in aerospace.
And "people" wonder why there aren't more kids interested in science and engineering?!?!
Patents should die.
Intellectual property in the USA, as it stands now, is obsolete. It is preventing innovation not inspiring or accelerating it. Big companies use it kill small companies.
The length of protection is way too long for the fast pace things change now. The longer we hold on to these outdated models the more likely we are to be overrun by the Russians and Chinese who don't play by the same rules.
Our companies need to learn to compete in a world with little or no IP protection. Innovate or die. Not sue and sue and sue to protect the market share of old technology.
http://blogs.controltheorypro.com/2008/08/patents-should-die/
"The test, if confirmed, would mean that China could now theoretically shoot down spy satellites operated by other nations.
It would be the first such test since the 1980s, when both the US and the Soviet Union destroyed satellites in space."
From:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6276543.stm
Shooting down a satellite isn't new. Nor does it qualify as weaponization of space. My understanding of the treaty governing this is that the weapons have to reside in space not simply travel to space. The main item to prevent is nuclear weapons in space.
A nuke fired from space would hit its target with about half the warning an ICBM would. This would make a preemptive strike a lot more effective.
Also, I believe there are international standards dictating when a satelitte needs a controlled deorbit (to force it break up). I'm sure this standard is conservative, especially with regard to harzardous chemicals.
Given that we've demonstrated the capability of destroying a satellite in the 80s I'm not sure that there's a lot more to read into this.
While we are not allowed to put weapons in space, a space plane does allow us to demonstrate that we can put weapons in space with modifications to the vehicle. The modifications aren't simple but they aren't that hard.
Air power was the path to military dominance in the 20th century and space power is the path in the 21st century. The US signed a treaty and so have other countries. I don't believe for a second that this will prevent our country or any other from putting weapons in space if the advantages (military or economic) are big enough.
Slashdot Mirror
I work at a company that builds a laser system for blinding snipers in Iraq. It points a low power laser at the sniper temporarily blinding them. They chose temporary blindness because they couldn't be sure that the snipers in Iraq wouldn't use innocents as human shields. Obviously it can be hooked up to sensors for automated target determination. The low power makes it a defensive weapon only. High power lasers aren't going to create wounds any worse than shrapnel, bullets, or missiles. There is no metal ricocheting around in your body. Unfortunately, dead is dead no matter what weapon system gets you there.
I have a Control Systems wiki with a lot of content. Rather than copying my content to Wikipedia I made edits where things were in error or unclear and then linked to relevant pages on my site. A couple of users decided that my edits violated the linking policy. Which it did on second reading but I felt that deleting the links was counter productive. The content I was editting needed a subject matter expert. Also, my site has a lot of content not quite right for Wikipedia. My blog rant on my experiece is here.
We've attempted other types of "life" instruments and they didn't show anything. We've found multiple sites that show signs of or proof of the existence of liquid water at some point Martian history. So why not take a different approach from the previous efforts? If any instrument detects life on Mars but can't bring that life back to Earth, the people who don't want to believe in life on Mars will argue that the life originated on Earth not Mars. One of the benefits of a DNA instrument is that you are more likely to be able to eliminate the possibility that the microbe originated on Earth rather than Mars.
I imagine this has a hell of a lot of potential in combination with Segway like sensors and some artificial intelliegence. The exo requires user commands to define the user's current state - walking, sitting, etc. It seems that the Segway sensors and software could be made smart enough to figure this out. If you are keeping the legs rigid it seems like this is similar to the standard controls example of an inverted pendulum.
What the hell does God or religion have to do with the original post? Assuming you believe in a Western style God, and most Americans do, then you believe you have free will. God has left these decisions up to you. As such you should understand the world you live in. That means science, math, literature, and history are important topics. Americans do not have nearly enough education in any of these topics to make me comfortable. Case in point, McCain and Obama will both use a lot of advertising to sway voters. If you think you can watch these TV ads and be immune to their influence you don't understand how your brain works. A thorough understanding of the brain would change your attitude towards advertising. Some forms of learning happen through repitition, without conscious effort, and sometimes despite a conscious effort to not learn them. It's not quite brain washing but it's not that different either.
I've worked several aerospace engineering jobs that were all exempt. We filled out a timecard for every one of them. My current employer requires that I fill it in daily. Timecards are partly because the gov requires it. Partly this is because some accounting yahoo got it in their heads that this was a good way to track labor costs. No one accurately estimates the engineering hours required for an aerospace program. (THere are several reasons for this that have nothing to do with timecards.) I hate accounting for every 6 minutes of my work day on a timsheet. I also hate that companies are more than willing to let me work as many uncompensated overtime hours as they dictate but rarely, if ever, provide a dollar for overhead charges - i.e. no work, temporarily, but not charging vacation. Funny but I thought being salaried meant that you got the same paycheck no matter if the tasks took you 30 hours or 80 hours a week to accomplish. They've got the 80 hour part down pat. My wife is on the business side and works in software. Over 3 companies and 10 years she's never had to take vacation on a 30 hour week or justify why she only worked 30 in any given week. She's salaried and paid to complete the tasks. If she works 80 hour weeks for 6 months and takes a couple of days off no one asks her to use vacation time. If I work 80 hour weeks for 6 months and work a 39 hour week I need to take 1 hour vacation that week or work 41 the next. That's not just 1 company that's pretty much every company in aerospace. And "people" wonder why there aren't more kids interested in science and engineering?!?!
Patents should die. Intellectual property in the USA, as it stands now, is obsolete. It is preventing innovation not inspiring or accelerating it. Big companies use it kill small companies. The length of protection is way too long for the fast pace things change now. The longer we hold on to these outdated models the more likely we are to be overrun by the Russians and Chinese who don't play by the same rules. Our companies need to learn to compete in a world with little or no IP protection. Innovate or die. Not sue and sue and sue to protect the market share of old technology. http://blogs.controltheorypro.com/2008/08/patents-should-die/
"The test, if confirmed, would mean that China could now theoretically shoot down spy satellites operated by other nations. It would be the first such test since the 1980s, when both the US and the Soviet Union destroyed satellites in space." From: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6276543.stm Shooting down a satellite isn't new. Nor does it qualify as weaponization of space. My understanding of the treaty governing this is that the weapons have to reside in space not simply travel to space. The main item to prevent is nuclear weapons in space. A nuke fired from space would hit its target with about half the warning an ICBM would. This would make a preemptive strike a lot more effective. Also, I believe there are international standards dictating when a satelitte needs a controlled deorbit (to force it break up). I'm sure this standard is conservative, especially with regard to harzardous chemicals. Given that we've demonstrated the capability of destroying a satellite in the 80s I'm not sure that there's a lot more to read into this.
While we are not allowed to put weapons in space, a space plane does allow us to demonstrate that we can put weapons in space with modifications to the vehicle. The modifications aren't simple but they aren't that hard. Air power was the path to military dominance in the 20th century and space power is the path in the 21st century. The US signed a treaty and so have other countries. I don't believe for a second that this will prevent our country or any other from putting weapons in space if the advantages (military or economic) are big enough.