That's interesting. Which modern cars have in-board brake location? I thought that many of them used the outboard position for cooling purposes.
CV joints and inboard motors would make packaging more difficult, and perhaps compromise efficiency a bit, but at least CVs are well-understood technology. That might be a good solution to the problem.
Absolutely right. Additionally, the new motor-in-wheel design also doesn't address the problem of dramatically increased unsprung weight. These new vehicles are going to ride very roughly over anything but the smoothest pavement.
I could care less about paper. Digital throughout would be fine with me. I also have no issues with the photographer selling albums to my relatives, if they wish to buy professionally assembled ones.
In other words, I am willing to see the photographer compensated for their labor...that's great. But I'm NOT willing to forfeit my rights to their creations, which I hired them to create.
As far as scheduling goes, that's a detail that will be worked out during negotiations. I don't have any problem paying a generous wage to a skilled tradesperson...I just won't tolerate any high-minded ideas about "artistic control". I, as the groom, and as the enforcer for the Ultimate Authority (my hypothetical bride) require the final say on how this deal goes down.
I'm willing to pay tradesman's wages ($35-50/hr) for the amount of time a photographer spends on my wedding. I am NOT interested in letting him lose/destroy the negatives of an important event in my life.
If you've already signed the contract with the photographer, you're SOL. However, I will not give money to a photographer who won't give me the original media.
He's absolutely welcome to reproduce those images in his portfolio, or frankly for just about any purpose he might want. But I will not allow anybody else to be responsible for preserving the originals.
(My parents' wedding photo negatives were destroyed in a fire at the photographer's. Guess he didn't believe in fire safes.)
There are electric motorgliders that do what you suggest...but they don't have a sufficient payload to replace a typical general aviation aircraft.
You're right, going conventional just because it's conventional is dumb. But, reinventing the wheel (or choosing a bad starting point for your task, like Helios for this application) are equally costly, both in performance and in design time.
So, yes, innovative aircraft design is a good idea, but one is wise to evaluate all possible solutions. These engineers have done so, and they're a lot farther along than I would have guessed. I'm not going to be rushing right out to buy one of these things (I think electric power is way overrated) but it's a neat exercise.
For what it's worth, aircraft design is what I will be doing for the next year. I'm working on one team to do a conceptual design of a mach 25 air-breathing SSTO spaceplane, and I'm a member of another team that will design and build a large r/c airplane for the AIAA Design-Build-Fly competition. For the SSTO, I'm trying to use J58 engines from the SR-71 for the "low speed" flight regime (up to Mach 3.5), because they're proven reliable technology. No sense re-inventing the thing. The airframe's going to look a lot like the failed NASP X-30, because that's really the only shape that makes a lot of sense at these speeds.
So, aircraft design has ALWAYS been about reimplementing good ideas in new designs. It's not an artifact of sloppy or un-creative thinking, but rather a decision to leverage pre-existing technology. Much like code re-use.
Wallah. The word you're looking for is "electric motorglider". There are several flavors available, and it's a really really cool idea. The solar panels don't provide enough power to continually run the motor, but they can supplement the batteries under powered flight and recharge them when in gliding flight. Some motorgliders have retractable propellers to improve performance while gliding.
Only problem with something like Helios is that you have to a) fly at an absurdly high altitude, so bring your space suit (and your FAA clearance) and b) fly at such an absurdly low speed that you'd be better off walking.
Helios is a good aircraft, for its task. Using a similar design to carry people, especially people trying to get to work, especially especially people who would like a vehicle that won't fold in half if they glare at it fiercely, will prefer "conventional" aircraft.
Many modern jets use fly by wire, which means that there is no mechanical linkage btw the pilot and the control surface. Just a flight computer, some wire, and an electric motor.
So, for those sorts of planes, you have to be real careful about how you engineer for lightning strikes. I know this has been a big concern with the ATF (F22) and JSF (F35) fighter programs.
See, I can talk to everybody in the universe with Trillian. I can talk to, like, four people with Jabber. What is the impetus to change? More to the point, what is the impetus that is going to convince my less-geeky friends to talk all their even less geeky friends into changing to Jabber? What's the win for a neophyte user?
I'll tell ya. Nuthin'. Trillian gives me all the interoperability I could want. If Jabber actually happens some day to be useful to me, I'm sure there will by that time be a Trillian plugin for it.
Oh, and I'm sure that the lobbyists with effectively unlimited budgets will just nap through the debate on that one.
I wish it could be that way. But until "campaign finance reform" is something other than a buzzword from the "let them eat cake!" legislature, dream on.
That is not the way science works. Science changes its laws if and only if somebody can prove, repeatedly, that the law mis-predicts an outcome.
Mr. Tilley is a shyster. That is my opinion, and until I see reputable claims to the contrary (or get to examine his discoveries myself), that will continue to be my opinion.
Being open minded doesn't mean you have to believe any stupid idea that comes along...
Ummm...how much does YOUR watch weigh? Mine weighs an insignificant amount compared to the pendulum (my left arm) that it is attached to. Therefore, recapturing the energy from the harmonic motion of my arms (which is ultimately powered by my muscles) is not a big deal.
Now, when you figure out how to run a car the same way, you write me a letter and I'll give you a cookie. Until then, I will continue my wrongheaded and irrational belief in the laws of thermodynamics.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. I know how to calculate how much power it takes to move a car at 100mph, and I can figure out how much power is stored in 12 batteries. If I do that math, and it doesn't work out, I'll dismiss they guy as a crank unless he can prove his case.
You show me when Tesla "sucked power out of one's environment". Sure, he did all sorts of interesting experiments, but "sucking power out of the environment" doesn't mean anything.
Some people (like me) will pay for aesthetics. Other people will not. What on Earth could be wrong with that?
I contend that it is not possible to take a stock beige box and turn it into a well-designed device (in the sense of good industrial design, like Apple has and nobody else does). If it were possible, I'd have done it already.
Good design requires an elegance that is difficult to retrofit. At least, that's my opinion.
(and no, cutting a window in the side and putting in neon does not constitute good design)
The liquid oxygen is the oxidizer for the fuel, which is liquid hydrogen. Both of these liquids are stored in the main fuel "tank", in separate compartments. This page has a picture showing the relative size of the H2 and the LOX tanks.
The first thing Desktop asks you when you install it is whether you use Outlook as your PIM. Me, I can't imagine why you'd use Outlook on purpose, but my dad uses it all the time with his Handspring Visor.
So, I still don't know what your issue is. And, incidentally, the Palm Desktop PIM is really superb. It's much more flexible and easy to use than Outlook, but YMMV.
The thing is, those proprietary hacks WORK, and they are being integrated back into Palm's OS. Yes, it's taking longer than I want it to, but frankly I'm not that disappointed that my PDA need not be upgraded as rapidly as my PC.
As far as desktop integration, I don't have any idea what your issue is. In what way is MS's "integration" superior to Palm's? What does it mean to "move seamlessly" to a PDA? I don't understand what problems you feel Palm is not addressing in this arena.
I take responsibility for my determinations of what is right and wrong. I'm not going to believe what I believe just because I'm told to, and I'm not going to write off my principles just because I happened to inherit parts of them from my parents and teachers.
My beliefs are mine, their relationship to those held by society at large is coincidental and irrelevant to their importance to me. YMMV.
Certainly, technology is going to have a dramatic effect on procreation and, by extension on our society. But those effects are not deterministic (IE they don't force any given human to believe any certain way) and are therefore not relevant to any individual's choices about what is Right and Wrong.
I'm certainly not trying to impose my ideals on everybody...I'm nowhere near wise enough to do that. But my ideals belong to me and me alone, as yours belong to you and you alone. We may share certain tenets, and I may even inherit some from you (or vice versa) but each one of us must take ownership of SOME ideal in order for their life to be meaningful. If you're just the walking-around expression of a selfish gene, I don't think that's a very fulfilling existence. If you're a free-willed, free-thinking individual, unique in your own perspective and empowered to evaluate the world around you, (or even if you BELIEVE yourself to be such a creature), I feel like that's a much more powerful statement of one's life.
I am ignoring the pill because it's irrelevant. The reason I don't cheat on my intended is not because I might get caught, it's because I believe it is wrong. The pill has nothing to do with that decision. So yeah, the human race as a whole might still be sorta confused about these new factors, but individuals need not be.
As far as gay marriages go, I don't understand the brouhaha. I'd be happy to have the law changed so that there are no tax considerations to marriage...I don't think it's appropriate for the State to get involved in what goes on in a bedroom, whether you're gay or straight. At that point, gay couples could put rings on each other's fingers, say "we're married!" and go on about their business. Everybody's happy.
Slashdot Mirror
That's interesting. Which modern cars have in-board brake location? I thought that many of them used the outboard position for cooling purposes.
CV joints and inboard motors would make packaging more difficult, and perhaps compromise efficiency a bit, but at least CVs are well-understood technology. That might be a good solution to the problem.
Absolutely right. Additionally, the new motor-in-wheel design also doesn't address the problem of dramatically increased unsprung weight. These new vehicles are going to ride very roughly over anything but the smoothest pavement.
I could care less about paper. Digital throughout would be fine with me. I also have no issues with the photographer selling albums to my relatives, if they wish to buy professionally assembled ones.
In other words, I am willing to see the photographer compensated for their labor...that's great. But I'm NOT willing to forfeit my rights to their creations, which I hired them to create.
As far as scheduling goes, that's a detail that will be worked out during negotiations. I don't have any problem paying a generous wage to a skilled tradesperson...I just won't tolerate any high-minded ideas about "artistic control". I, as the groom, and as the enforcer for the Ultimate Authority (my hypothetical bride) require the final say on how this deal goes down.
I'm willing to pay tradesman's wages ($35-50/hr) for the amount of time a photographer spends on my wedding. I am NOT interested in letting him lose/destroy the negatives of an important event in my life.
If you've already signed the contract with the photographer, you're SOL. However, I will not give money to a photographer who won't give me the original media.
He's absolutely welcome to reproduce those images in his portfolio, or frankly for just about any purpose he might want. But I will not allow anybody else to be responsible for preserving the originals.
(My parents' wedding photo negatives were destroyed in a fire at the photographer's. Guess he didn't believe in fire safes.)
There are electric motorgliders that do what you suggest...but they don't have a sufficient payload to replace a typical general aviation aircraft.
You're right, going conventional just because it's conventional is dumb. But, reinventing the wheel (or choosing a bad starting point for your task, like Helios for this application) are equally costly, both in performance and in design time.
So, yes, innovative aircraft design is a good idea, but one is wise to evaluate all possible solutions. These engineers have done so, and they're a lot farther along than I would have guessed. I'm not going to be rushing right out to buy one of these things (I think electric power is way overrated) but it's a neat exercise.
For what it's worth, aircraft design is what I will be doing for the next year. I'm working on one team to do a conceptual design of a mach 25 air-breathing SSTO spaceplane, and I'm a member of another team that will design and build a large r/c airplane for the AIAA Design-Build-Fly competition. For the SSTO, I'm trying to use J58 engines from the SR-71 for the "low speed" flight regime (up to Mach 3.5), because they're proven reliable technology. No sense re-inventing the thing. The airframe's going to look a lot like the failed NASP X-30, because that's really the only shape that makes a lot of sense at these speeds.
So, aircraft design has ALWAYS been about reimplementing good ideas in new designs. It's not an artifact of sloppy or un-creative thinking, but rather a decision to leverage pre-existing technology. Much like code re-use.
Wallah. The word you're looking for is "electric motorglider". There are several flavors available, and it's a really really cool idea. The solar panels don't provide enough power to continually run the motor, but they can supplement the batteries under powered flight and recharge them when in gliding flight. Some motorgliders have retractable propellers to improve performance while gliding.
In other words, it's a super-cool way to fly.
Only problem with something like Helios is that you have to a) fly at an absurdly high altitude, so bring your space suit (and your FAA clearance) and b) fly at such an absurdly low speed that you'd be better off walking.
Helios is a good aircraft, for its task. Using a similar design to carry people, especially people trying to get to work, especially especially people who would like a vehicle that won't fold in half if they glare at it fiercely, will prefer "conventional" aircraft.
What's so great about conventional? It WORKS.
Many modern jets use fly by wire, which means that there is no mechanical linkage btw the pilot and the control surface. Just a flight computer, some wire, and an electric motor.
So, for those sorts of planes, you have to be real careful about how you engineer for lightning strikes. I know this has been a big concern with the ATF (F22) and JSF (F35) fighter programs.
Say it with me.
/very/ thorough, since it's their ass on the line when the plane takes off.
Pro-to-type.
That means it's the first one, and they want to be awful damn sure that the thing's not going to fold its wing in half when they take off.
Test pilots are brave, but they are NOT stupid. They are also
See, I can talk to everybody in the universe with Trillian. I can talk to, like, four people with Jabber. What is the impetus to change? More to the point, what is the impetus that is going to convince my less-geeky friends to talk all their even less geeky friends into changing to Jabber? What's the win for a neophyte user?
I'll tell ya. Nuthin'. Trillian gives me all the interoperability I could want. If Jabber actually happens some day to be useful to me, I'm sure there will by that time be a Trillian plugin for it.
For what it's worth, the new "pay if you wanna" version of Trillian does that.
And I dig the program so much, I do believe that I do wanna pay. It just rocks out loud.
Oh, and I'm sure that the lobbyists with effectively unlimited budgets will just nap through the debate on that one.
I wish it could be that way. But until "campaign finance reform" is something other than a buzzword from the "let them eat cake!" legislature, dream on.
That is not the way science works. Science changes its laws if and only if somebody can prove, repeatedly, that the law mis-predicts an outcome.
Mr. Tilley is a shyster. That is my opinion, and until I see reputable claims to the contrary (or get to examine his discoveries myself), that will continue to be my opinion.
Being open minded doesn't mean you have to believe any stupid idea that comes along...
Ummm...how much does YOUR watch weigh? Mine weighs an insignificant amount compared to the pendulum (my left arm) that it is attached to. Therefore, recapturing the energy from the harmonic motion of my arms (which is ultimately powered by my muscles) is not a big deal.
Now, when you figure out how to run a car the same way, you write me a letter and I'll give you a cookie. Until then, I will continue my wrongheaded and irrational belief in the laws of thermodynamics.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. I know how to calculate how much power it takes to move a car at 100mph, and I can figure out how much power is stored in 12 batteries. If I do that math, and it doesn't work out, I'll dismiss they guy as a crank unless he can prove his case.
You show me when Tesla "sucked power out of one's environment". Sure, he did all sorts of interesting experiments, but "sucking power out of the environment" doesn't mean anything.
Some people (like me) will pay for aesthetics. Other people will not. What on Earth could be wrong with that?
I contend that it is not possible to take a stock beige box and turn it into a well-designed device (in the sense of good industrial design, like Apple has and nobody else does). If it were possible, I'd have done it already.
Good design requires an elegance that is difficult to retrofit. At least, that's my opinion.
(and no, cutting a window in the side and putting in neon does not constitute good design)
Then make up your own damn award and forbid any of that namby pamby fantasy stuff from consideration.
What exactly are you crying about? Don't like the selection criteria? Tough. It ain't your party, Skippy.
The liquid oxygen is the oxidizer for the fuel, which is liquid hydrogen. Both of these liquids are stored in the main fuel "tank", in separate compartments. This page has a picture showing the relative size of the H2 and the LOX tanks.
I'm certain you obsess over any number of things I consider non-necessary. I don't wonder about you. Why bother? To what end would you so wonder?
I wonder how much Microsoft's OS would cost if they actually did their own R&D instead of relying on Apple to do it for them.
The first thing Desktop asks you when you install it is whether you use Outlook as your PIM. Me, I can't imagine why you'd use Outlook on purpose, but my dad uses it all the time with his Handspring Visor.
So, I still don't know what your issue is. And, incidentally, the Palm Desktop PIM is really superb. It's much more flexible and easy to use than Outlook, but YMMV.
The thing is, those proprietary hacks WORK, and they are being integrated back into Palm's OS. Yes, it's taking longer than I want it to, but frankly I'm not that disappointed that my PDA need not be upgraded as rapidly as my PC.
As far as desktop integration, I don't have any idea what your issue is. In what way is MS's "integration" superior to Palm's? What does it mean to "move seamlessly" to a PDA? I don't understand what problems you feel Palm is not addressing in this arena.
I take responsibility for my determinations of what is right and wrong. I'm not going to believe what I believe just because I'm told to, and I'm not going to write off my principles just because I happened to inherit parts of them from my parents and teachers.
My beliefs are mine, their relationship to those held by society at large is coincidental and irrelevant to their importance to me. YMMV.
Certainly, technology is going to have a dramatic effect on procreation and, by extension on our society. But those effects are not deterministic (IE they don't force any given human to believe any certain way) and are therefore not relevant to any individual's choices about what is Right and Wrong.
I'm certainly not trying to impose my ideals on everybody...I'm nowhere near wise enough to do that. But my ideals belong to me and me alone, as yours belong to you and you alone. We may share certain tenets, and I may even inherit some from you (or vice versa) but each one of us must take ownership of SOME ideal in order for their life to be meaningful. If you're just the walking-around expression of a selfish gene, I don't think that's a very fulfilling existence. If you're a free-willed, free-thinking individual, unique in your own perspective and empowered to evaluate the world around you, (or even if you BELIEVE yourself to be such a creature), I feel like that's a much more powerful statement of one's life.
Up to you.
I am ignoring the pill because it's irrelevant. The reason I don't cheat on my intended is not because I might get caught, it's because I believe it is wrong. The pill has nothing to do with that decision. So yeah, the human race as a whole might still be sorta confused about these new factors, but individuals need not be.
As far as gay marriages go, I don't understand the brouhaha. I'd be happy to have the law changed so that there are no tax considerations to marriage...I don't think it's appropriate for the State to get involved in what goes on in a bedroom, whether you're gay or straight. At that point, gay couples could put rings on each other's fingers, say "we're married!" and go on about their business. Everybody's happy.
What is the "it" that "it" is "worth"? I seriously don't understand your point.