I think we should throw all those reckless people with windshields on their cars in jail. I mean, the sun can reflect off a windshield and the beam of photons could hit a pilot! In the EYE!
This is a ridiculous, fear-mongering bit of legislative idiocy.
I think we ought to make an example of him too. If you do something, that has no possibility whatsoever of harming anybody under any circumstances, nothing should happen to you.
I'm annoyed at the media attention too. I'm even more annoyed at the fact that this guy might do hard time for something no more dangerous than spitting on the sidewalk.
After all, somebody MIGHT slip on the loogie and fall in front of a bus and make the bus driver swerve and hit a gasoline truck and make the truck blow up and people might DIE.
"This laser pointer incident is caused by the same type of idiocy that compels people to fire guns into the air on New Year's day"
No. It's actually possible to harm people at long range with guns. We're talking about a FREAKIN' LASER POINTER here. I wouldn't point one at my eye, no...but I don't like looking directly at flashlights either.
Just TRY to put an industrial complex in or near Yellowstone. The greenies would refrain from vegetarianism long enough to eat you and your entire family. Alive.
In this particular case, I don't really disagree with them. Pass the steak sauce.
It's easy to conflate the two issues. It's a subtle distinction: What is a "source" and what is a "fuel"? I mean, we don't pour raw out-of-the-ground crude into our cars. It needs to be refined. There's no reason that you couldn't argue that H2 is "refined" from sea water. Sure, the energy cost to crack H20 is higher for a given "fuel" energy output than refining crude, but the processes are analogous.
The conclusion you get to is the same one I get to, and it's one the article sorta touches on. H2 is not going to solve our energy needs. H2 technology will give us some useful ways to move energy around, but that energy is still going to come from a heat cycle somewhere.
It's really annoying that everybody has been trained to fear nuclear power so much.
Re:horrible aerodynamic drag on paddle-wheel tires
on
Reinventing the Wheel
·
· Score: 1
"The top of a rotating tire has an air speed that is twice the vehicle speed"
But the bottom of a rotating tire has an air speed of ZERO. So, if you compute the ratio of the top air speed 2A to the bottom air speed 0A you get a divide by zero so it must be impossible to make wheels that work! EVERY WHEEL YOU'VE EVER SEEN IS IMPOSSIBLE!
I wonder if the engineers thought about the problems that you managed to spot when you examined the marketing image for four seconds. Nah, probably not. Stupid engineers.
"Also: by draining off some of the heat from the supervolcano"
I don't buy that. I think you could run the electric grid for the planet off a giant steam turbine running off the supervolcano's heat for a hundred years, and I don't think it'd make a measurable change in the temperatures down there.
If you can run cars on it, it's a replacement for fossil fuels. No, it doesn't come from the Tooth Fairy (it has to be refined from other materials, which takes a lot of energy), but if I can go to the hydrogen station and fill my car, it replaces fossil fuels.
What's wrong with using plain ol' nuclear fission as the energy generation source?
Just out of curiosity, what's your affiliation with UC Berkeley?
Your apparent IP address will change as you move from network to network. How will the routers predict where you're going to be when you need this particular packet?
OK, that's a fair cop. The article was all melty when I tried to read it...hence the jerking of my knee.
There's no reason to fear a nuclear rocket with a properly contained fissile core. It's happened before, and there's no reason it shouldn't happen again. The risk is not zero, but it's also not overwhelming.
And I'm 30 years old, and still find it amazing that airplanes fly.
The point is, everybody needs to find something to wonder at. Throwing up your hands and saying "Kids just like video games" is a) stupid and b) irresponsible.
The only thing the "pilot" does on spacecraft launches is refrain from pulling the abort lever. Shuttle actually takes a human to land it, but again the pilot's regimen is basically "Don't do any of the million and six things that will result in you and your crew being scattered over a substantial fraction of your home country".
Pilots are good for slow airplanes. Computers are good for rockets.
Slashdot Mirror
"Also, what if the damage is for more than a few seconds and affects both pilot and co-pilot?"
Then it didn't come from a dinky little laser pointer.
I think we should throw all those reckless people with windshields on their cars in jail. I mean, the sun can reflect off a windshield and the beam of photons could hit a pilot! In the EYE!
This is a ridiculous, fear-mongering bit of legislative idiocy.
...which is why laws about terrorism are such a bad idea.
Terrorism is a thought crime.
IF he could hold the beam steady enough (which he couldn't) and IF the laser could blind the pilot (which it couldn't), then you might have a point.
But you don't.
Doing something that's not dangerous is not idiotic. It might be silly. People are allowed to be silly.
I think we ought to make an example of him too. If you do something, that has no possibility whatsoever of harming anybody under any circumstances, nothing should happen to you.
I'm annoyed at the media attention too. I'm even more annoyed at the fact that this guy might do hard time for something no more dangerous than spitting on the sidewalk.
After all, somebody MIGHT slip on the loogie and fall in front of a bus and make the bus driver swerve and hit a gasoline truck and make the truck blow up and people might DIE.
"This laser pointer incident is caused by the same type of idiocy that compels people to fire guns into the air on New Year's day"
No. It's actually possible to harm people at long range with guns. We're talking about a FREAKIN' LASER POINTER here. I wouldn't point one at my eye, no...but I don't like looking directly at flashlights either.
My question was not "Did he intentionally point his laser at an airplane", my question was "Did he intend to blind pilots?".
I don't think it's possible to inflict any harm on any aircraft with a laser pointer.
This was a harmless bit of mischief.
Would you please explain to me how a hand-held laser pointer could result in the death of anybody, ever?
Was this guy using his laser pointer to intentionally blind pilots?
Just TRY to put an industrial complex in or near Yellowstone. The greenies would refrain from vegetarianism long enough to eat you and your entire family. Alive.
In this particular case, I don't really disagree with them. Pass the steak sauce.
No, no it wouldn't.
See, H2 is lighter than air. It doesn't stay down here where we can get to it.
Drill a hole, get some oil.
It's easy to conflate the two issues. It's a subtle distinction: What is a "source" and what is a "fuel"? I mean, we don't pour raw out-of-the-ground crude into our cars. It needs to be refined. There's no reason that you couldn't argue that H2 is "refined" from sea water. Sure, the energy cost to crack H20 is higher for a given "fuel" energy output than refining crude, but the processes are analogous.
The conclusion you get to is the same one I get to, and it's one the article sorta touches on. H2 is not going to solve our energy needs. H2 technology will give us some useful ways to move energy around, but that energy is still going to come from a heat cycle somewhere.
It's really annoying that everybody has been trained to fear nuclear power so much.
"The top of a rotating tire has an air speed that is twice the vehicle speed"
But the bottom of a rotating tire has an air speed of ZERO. So, if you compute the ratio of the top air speed 2A to the bottom air speed 0A you get a divide by zero so it must be impossible to make wheels that work! EVERY WHEEL YOU'VE EVER SEEN IS IMPOSSIBLE!
I wonder if the engineers thought about the problems that you managed to spot when you examined the marketing image for four seconds. Nah, probably not. Stupid engineers.
"Also: by draining off some of the heat from the supervolcano"
I don't buy that. I think you could run the electric grid for the planet off a giant steam turbine running off the supervolcano's heat for a hundred years, and I don't think it'd make a measurable change in the temperatures down there.
If you can run cars on it, it's a replacement for fossil fuels. No, it doesn't come from the Tooth Fairy (it has to be refined from other materials, which takes a lot of energy), but if I can go to the hydrogen station and fill my car, it replaces fossil fuels.
What's wrong with using plain ol' nuclear fission as the energy generation source?
Just out of curiosity, what's your affiliation with UC Berkeley?
"but I havent seen nearly as much progression as they've said"
Yeah, because most revolutionary changes in industrial infrastructure happen in a fiscal quarter.
What the hell is your benchmark?
I've got an idea. Do an experiment. Go outside and collect all the hydrogen you can find. Try for a whole day! See how much you can get!
Or read the article and learn something.
"The wealthy"=="the economy" in those countries.
Your apparent IP address will change as you move from network to network. How will the routers predict where you're going to be when you need this particular packet?
Block the ports?
OK, that's a fair cop. The article was all melty when I tried to read it...hence the jerking of my knee.
There's no reason to fear a nuclear rocket with a properly contained fissile core. It's happened before, and there's no reason it shouldn't happen again. The risk is not zero, but it's also not overwhelming.
And I'm 30 years old, and still find it amazing that airplanes fly.
The point is, everybody needs to find something to wonder at. Throwing up your hands and saying "Kids just like video games" is a) stupid and b) irresponsible.
Who said anything about piloted?
The only thing the "pilot" does on spacecraft launches is refrain from pulling the abort lever. Shuttle actually takes a human to land it, but again the pilot's regimen is basically "Don't do any of the million and six things that will result in you and your crew being scattered over a substantial fraction of your home country".
Pilots are good for slow airplanes. Computers are good for rockets.
I think you misspelled "After they had performed their doodie". Apart from that, you're spot on.