The numbers in this article seem to be fishy as well. If you have a 25% sample and a 75% sample you would have to add an equal amount of both to get a 50% sample. That means that in the sample there were 50% industry funded. It also means that the industry sample found changes in exactly 1/3 as many cases as the non industry sample. The numbers are too perfect 25%, 50% 75%.
It looks to me that the scientist decided what the outcome would be and selected studies to fulfil that outcome.
In all the videos the foam was compressed but did not spring back. Would that mean that every time you hit something the foam would have to be replaced, much like the foam in a helmet? How many people would do this? How many cars would be going around with ineffective energy absorbers? There is a reason springs are used to absorb these impacts; repetition.
And OnStar is not satellite communications; it works off the cellular network. I worked for a small company that tracked and was able to disable (turn off ignition and lock doors) for an exotic car rental company. Slowing down the vehicle was done by cycling the ignition on and off. This has been done for years on bait cars.
A bit of math here. Escape velocity on earth is 10.735Km/sec, Acceleration at 6G = 9.8*6=58.8 M/Sec^2. 10735/58.8 = 182.5 Second to reach escape velocity Distance travelled during that that time 10.735*182.5/2 = 979 Km. Basically to accelerate a body to escape velocity with a steady 6G acceleration would require a tube almost 1000 KM long. Even popping up to 10G the tube would be 585Km long.
These calculations do not even take into consideration deceleration due to drag.
By the way, escape velocity is approximately Mach 31. Building a 1000 pound object that can go through the atmosphere at that speed would be difficult. Cannon rounds from an M1 only go Mach 5.
We have no way of knowing that the scenario did not start out just as you stated. What is not clear is the next step. Quite possibly what happened next was the officer was pelted with 50 snowballs in the next ten second knocking his badge from his hand and was continually pummelled until he drew his weapon.
A pistol does not become dangerous because it is removed from its holster. Standing in one spot with a weapon on safe and pointed at the ground gets the point across to stop what you are doing. Some people hyped up on "fun" activities would ignore anything less.
We can armchair quarterback all we want but the point is that we were not there from the start and did not see what prompted the officer to draw his weapon.
1. The picture in the story does not relate to the story at all. The illness the man has is in is spinal cord and would not require the bandaging as seen in the picture. 2. The summary states "The Supreme Court deemed this a non-accident since the man was was aware that having unprotected sex could result in him contracting a sexually transmitted disease, although he did not actually know that any of the women had genital herpes" even though the article states "He noted that neither the Court nor the insurance company was placing any emphasis on the fact that Mr. Gibbens engaged in unprotected sex."
This is a simple case of an accident policy not covering illness.
Accident insurance, no. Health Insurance, yes. Getting cancer is not an accident it is an illness. They are different types of insurance and have different premiums.
Read the article. The issue is that an accident policy is not a health policy. Crossing the street can lead to being struck by a moving vehicle, as stated in the article, would be covered by the policy but an illness is not. They went to great lengths to state that the riskiness of the behaviour had no impact in their decision.
A couple of things; First the video does not show what happened to the officer before he drew his weapon. It is quite possible that he had been pelted by quite a few snowballs while trying to call for assistance.
Second he did not "wave his gun around". He pointed it at the ground for a few seconds to instill the seriousness of the situation. He did not point it at anyone. He did not wander around with it out. He did not point it in the air.
He may have been able to retreat to his vehicle to call assistance but he did something else. He did not endanger anyone.
Royalties come in when someone gets paid for singing a song. If an employee sings a song he is being paid to sing the song. If a private citizen sings a song there is no payment and no royalty. (Yes, buskers would have to pay royalties under the law)
Pigeon was not commenting on the movie being filmed; he was commenting on "Happy Birthday" being sung. Every time you hear "Happy Birthday" sung in a restaurant they have to pay a royalty as it is an employee singing it. That is why most places have their own song they sing for birthdays. Private citizens do not pay that fee as they do not profit from singing it.
Most military lasers are chemical lasers. They all use reagents to create the light. Eventually they need to be re-fuelled. It would happen less often but when all the reagents have been used the system must return to base.
The laser shot down a UAV. Though they are aircraft, that have a tendency to be small, slow and fragile. The power requirements to shoot one down should not be too high. The weapon should be able to track quire easily thereby allowing a longer laser burst. I would be impressed if it shot down a jet.
The other issue is how many countries that the US may be dealing with use UAVs?
Not necessarily, if the technology was speced to handle 100,00 flights per day and they are trying to pump 200,00 flights per day through it, the software may not be able to handle it no matter how old it is.
Not receiving clearance means flight delays and flight cancellations. That translates to lost revenue to the airlines; inconvenience and possibly lost wages to the traveller; and inconvenience and possible lost revenue to to the travellers' employers. It is not a trivial matter as the losses could add up to millions of dollars per hour. Suer, no-one will die beczause of it but many will lose money.
To use one of your analogies; your garage door does not open, you are late for a sales meeting and lose a $1M contract. Not perfect but a cancelled flight may delay someone for a day.
I am not so sure having extra occupants in an apartment with free electricity is a no harm situation. The harm would be the extra cost of the extra power used by the extra occupant that is supposed to be covered by the extra occupant fee.
If it is a Word document. the creation date in the file is not editable. To change it would require bit editing the file which I doubt the supervisor could do. It is very easy to type a date into a document; not so easy to change the metadata. Even if it could be changed, one could probably go to a backup soon after the file was supposed to be created and notice that the file does not exist.
This system purports to be able to be use to increase mobility of the elderly; why are all the people in the demos young?
I think it is because it still needs quite a bit of strength and balance to use. Walking and balance are very complex. Look at the joints. They are all single plane actuators. You can not duplicate the complex movements of the hip with that. In the plane of the actuator you get a power boost but it does not help in other directions.
Take a look at the foot. A big part of balance is the big toe. It that is not strong enough it does not matter if the ankle is strong you will still fall.
What about the elderly where their inner ear is not functioning correctly. If the input to the system is incorrect the person will fall.
As a strength enhancer possible; as an elderly mobility device probably not
Funny how people can get things wrong. When the Pre came out it could sync with iTunes with no problem. As of iTunes update 8.2.1 the sync program checked to see if the device was an Apple product by checking it manufacturer ID. Since the Pre used its own ID it could not sync. Pre then changed to use the Apple ID so it could sync.
Apple did exactly the same thing that Microsoft is doing now; Pre just works around it.
Getting the space tug to meet up with the payload, move it to the space station and then dock with the station would use more fuel than the the payload of the capsule.
The only way a space tug would be viable is if it's fuel was derived from sunlight. We do not have that technology yet. At least not in a production stage.
Sorry but you missed the point. The electronics are one part. There also has to be liquid fuel thrusters to be able to dock with the space station. It would also need external guidance to be given commands to be able to dock. This is much more complex and fragile than a fin steered terminally guided laser seeking bullet.
I did get the equation a bit wrong in that the muzzle velocity if 6km/s not 3km/s. so the calculation should have been; 1.1/(6/2) =.36 6000/9.8/.36 =1700Gs.
If acceleration is constant and V0 is 0 then Average velocity is (V0 +Vt)/2 =Va Vt = 6km/s Va = (0+6)/2 = 3 therefore the time in the 1.1km barrel is 1.1/3=.36 Therefore the item accelerates from 0 to 6kms/sec in.36 seconds to convert that into acceleration 6000/.36 = 16667m/sec/sec converting to Gs by dividing by 9.8 = 1700Gs.
A simpler method would be to use Torricelli's equation Vf^2 = V0^2 +2AS A = Vf^2/(2S) A = 6000^2/(2*1100) =16363 m/sec/sec
Sure a gun/rocket can put something into orbit. How does one get the payload from that circular orbit to where it us actually needed? One would need much finer guidance and control to rendezvous with the IIS.
Slashdot Mirror
The numbers in this article seem to be fishy as well. If you have a 25% sample and a 75% sample you would have to add an equal amount of both to get a 50% sample. That means that in the sample there were 50% industry funded. It also means that the industry sample found changes in exactly 1/3 as many cases as the non industry sample. The numbers are too perfect 25%, 50% 75%.
It looks to me that the scientist decided what the outcome would be and selected studies to fulfil that outcome.
In all the videos the foam was compressed but did not spring back. Would that mean that every time you hit something the foam would have to be replaced, much like the foam in a helmet? How many people would do this? How many cars would be going around with ineffective energy absorbers? There is a reason springs are used to absorb these impacts; repetition.
And OnStar is not satellite communications; it works off the cellular network. I worked for a small company that tracked and was able to disable (turn off ignition and lock doors) for an exotic car rental company. Slowing down the vehicle was done by cycling the ignition on and off. This has been done for years on bait cars.
A bit of math here. Escape velocity on earth is 10.735Km/sec, Acceleration at 6G = 9.8*6=58.8 M/Sec^2. 10735/58.8 = 182.5 Second to reach escape velocity
Distance travelled during that that time 10.735*182.5/2 = 979 Km. Basically to accelerate a body to escape velocity with a steady 6G acceleration would require a tube almost 1000 KM long. Even popping up to 10G the tube would be 585Km long.
These calculations do not even take into consideration deceleration due to drag.
By the way, escape velocity is approximately Mach 31. Building a 1000 pound object that can go through the atmosphere at that speed would be difficult. Cannon rounds from an M1 only go Mach 5.
We have no way of knowing that the scenario did not start out just as you stated. What is not clear is the next step. Quite possibly what happened next was the officer was pelted with 50 snowballs in the next ten second knocking his badge from his hand and was continually pummelled until he drew his weapon.
A pistol does not become dangerous because it is removed from its holster. Standing in one spot with a weapon on safe and pointed at the ground gets the point across to stop what you are doing. Some people hyped up on "fun" activities would ignore anything less.
We can armchair quarterback all we want but the point is that we were not there from the start and did not see what prompted the officer to draw his weapon.
1. The picture in the story does not relate to the story at all. The illness the man has is in is spinal cord and would not require the bandaging as seen in the picture.
2. The summary states "The Supreme Court deemed this a non-accident since the man was was aware that having unprotected sex could result in him contracting a sexually transmitted disease, although he did not actually know that any of the women had genital herpes" even though the article states "He noted that neither the Court nor the insurance company was placing any emphasis on the fact that Mr. Gibbens engaged in unprotected sex."
This is a simple case of an accident policy not covering illness.
Accident insurance, no. Health Insurance, yes. Getting cancer is not an accident it is an illness. They are different types of insurance and have different premiums.
Read the article. The issue is that an accident policy is not a health policy. Crossing the street can lead to being struck by a moving vehicle, as stated in the article, would be covered by the policy but an illness is not. They went to great lengths to state that the riskiness of the behaviour had no impact in their decision.
A couple of things;
First the video does not show what happened to the officer before he drew his weapon. It is quite possible that he had been pelted by quite a few snowballs while trying to call for assistance.
Second he did not "wave his gun around". He pointed it at the ground for a few seconds to instill the seriousness of the situation. He did not point it at anyone. He did not wander around with it out. He did not point it in the air.
He may have been able to retreat to his vehicle to call assistance but he did something else. He did not endanger anyone.
For a complete article on "Happy Birtday" go here.
Royalties come in when someone gets paid for singing a song. If an employee sings a song he is being paid to sing the song. If a private citizen sings a song there is no payment and no royalty. (Yes, buskers would have to pay royalties under the law)
Pigeon was not commenting on the movie being filmed; he was commenting on "Happy Birthday" being sung. Every time you hear "Happy Birthday" sung in a restaurant they have to pay a royalty as it is an employee singing it. That is why most places have their own song they sing for birthdays. Private citizens do not pay that fee as they do not profit from singing it.
That's what I said; except for one point.
Most military lasers are chemical lasers. They all use reagents to create the light. Eventually they need to be re-fuelled. It would happen less often but when all the reagents have been used the system must return to base.
The laser shot down a UAV. Though they are aircraft, that have a tendency to be small, slow and fragile. The power requirements to shoot one down should not be too high. The weapon should be able to track quire easily thereby allowing a longer laser burst. I would be impressed if it shot down a jet.
The other issue is how many countries that the US may be dealing with use UAVs?
$1M missile vs firing a laser. I do not know how much it costs to fire a chemical laser but I bet it is a lot cheaper than firing a missile.
Not necessarily, if the technology was speced to handle 100,00 flights per day and they are trying to pump 200,00 flights per day through it, the software may not be able to handle it no matter how old it is.
Not receiving clearance means flight delays and flight cancellations. That translates to lost revenue to the airlines; inconvenience and possibly lost wages to the traveller; and inconvenience and possible lost revenue to to the travellers' employers. It is not a trivial matter as the losses could add up to millions of dollars per hour. Suer, no-one will die beczause of it but many will lose money.
To use one of your analogies; your garage door does not open, you are late for a sales meeting and lose a $1M contract. Not perfect but a cancelled flight may delay someone for a day.
I am not so sure having extra occupants in an apartment with free electricity is a no harm situation. The harm would be the extra cost of the extra power used by the extra occupant that is supposed to be covered by the extra occupant fee.
If it is a Word document. the creation date in the file is not editable. To change it would require bit editing the file which I doubt the supervisor could do. It is very easy to type a date into a document; not so easy to change the metadata. Even if it could be changed, one could probably go to a backup soon after the file was supposed to be created and notice that the file does not exist.
This system purports to be able to be use to increase mobility of the elderly; why are all the people in the demos young?
I think it is because it still needs quite a bit of strength and balance to use. Walking and balance are very complex. Look at the joints. They are all single plane actuators. You can not duplicate the complex movements of the hip with that. In the plane of the actuator you get a power boost but it does not help in other directions.
Take a look at the foot. A big part of balance is the big toe. It that is not strong enough it does not matter if the ankle is strong you will still fall.
What about the elderly where their inner ear is not functioning correctly. If the input to the system is incorrect the person will fall.
As a strength enhancer possible; as an elderly mobility device probably not
Funny how people can get things wrong.
When the Pre came out it could sync with iTunes with no problem.
As of iTunes update 8.2.1 the sync program checked to see if the device was an Apple product by checking it manufacturer ID. Since the Pre used its own ID it could not sync.
Pre then changed to use the Apple ID so it could sync.
Apple did exactly the same thing that Microsoft is doing now; Pre just works around it.
Getting the space tug to meet up with the payload, move it to the space station and then dock with the station would use more fuel than the the payload of the capsule.
The only way a space tug would be viable is if it's fuel was derived from sunlight. We do not have that technology yet. At least not in a production stage.
Sorry but you missed the point. The electronics are one part. There also has to be liquid fuel thrusters to be able to dock with the space station. It would also need external guidance to be given commands to be able to dock. This is much more complex and fragile than a fin steered terminally guided laser seeking bullet.
I did get the equation a bit wrong in that the muzzle velocity if 6km/s not 3km/s. so the calculation should have been; .36
1.1/(6/2) =
6000/9.8/.36 =1700Gs.
If acceleration is constant and V0 is 0 then
Average velocity is (V0 +Vt)/2 =Va
Vt = 6km/s
Va = (0+6)/2 = 3
therefore the time in the 1.1km barrel is 1.1/3=.36
Therefore the item accelerates from 0 to 6kms/sec in.36 seconds to convert that into acceleration
6000/.36 = 16667m/sec/sec converting to Gs by dividing by 9.8 = 1700Gs.
A simpler method would be to use Torricelli's equation Vf^2 = V0^2 +2AS
A = Vf^2/(2S) A = 6000^2/(2*1100) =16363 m/sec/sec
Sure a gun/rocket can put something into orbit. How does one get the payload from that circular orbit to where it us actually needed? One would need much finer guidance and control to rendezvous with the IIS.