Let's put it this way - your method is only slightly more efficient than mining it. In the same way that it's slightly more efficient to swat an elephant with a toothbrush than with a toothpick.
Sadly, the summary pretty much contains the entire TFA... All the links are nothing but the submitter's editorial commentary with sketchy connections to TFA at best.
But there's another reason for 'duh!' science that he misses - quantification. Yeah, it's 'duh!' that driving ability worsens in the early stages of Alzheimer's. But can it be used as a diagnostic tool? Can the nature of the decrease (decreased cognition? slowed reflexes?) lead to further studies of what parts of the brain are affected and how and in what order? Etc... etc... But you don't even know to look for those things until you have the evidence that correlation exists in the first place.
Science isn't just about the Eureka!. It's also about the slow podding duh! that builds the foundation.
He described using this exact technology 60 years ago- a giant wheel maintaining momentum to keep the output predictable despite unpredictable input.
It's same general idea, but not really the same technology. He was using flywheels to smooth output voltage, while this system uses flywheels to smooth output power.
The summary would lead you to believe that - but really what they're doing is using flywheels like capacitors. That is, for very short bursts of supplemental power rather than as a steady source.
but it is rarely the case that your neighbor's discipline is just a pitiful subset of yours, engulfed in darkness and just waiting for you to enlighten them...
That doesn't stop the engineers and IT folks on Slashdot. Hell, it doesn't even slow them down.
Because I actually pay attention to and have a working understanding of engineering, physics, and chemistry.
There are a lot of discoveries that have already been made that do exactly what you said. The ducted fan design can be improved... GE is working on several designs that do exactly that. There are materials that do dramatically decrease weight... Carbon Fiber is an example...
They key words of course being "have already been made". Yeah, GE may be working on improved ducted fans, but that's hoping for the 1-2% improvement that will be huge for commercial aircraft, but nearly meaningless for this jet pack. Etc... etc...
Don't underestimate the power of the imagination to think things up. If someone sees a problem, an engineer somewhere is working on a solution to it.
Don't confuse the power of imagination with the reality of engineering either.
The pack is big and bulky enough that the addition of a small wing won't make much of a difference.
You're right - a small wing won't make difference, so it's stupid to add one. To get a weight/sq ft ratio low enough for any kind of performance is going to require a fairly large wing. The Rocket Man requires an eight foot wing just to *glide* - and he and his pack are almost certainly lighter (or very close to) the dry weight of just the [Martin] jet pack all by itself.
Apples and oranges. When portable phones were invented, the electronics in them were nowhere near their theoretical size limits. They had room to both shrink and grow in performance.
Jetpacks like this are already very near their theoretical limits just to fly at all. There's no magical chemical fuel waiting in the wings. (Excuse the pun.) There's no magical ducted fan or propeller design that will dramatically increase performance. There's no magical material that will dramatically decrease the weight. Etc... etc...
Hmm... Just watched the full video, and they've palmed a card. It flew to 5000ft *above sea level* - but it took off somewhere above sea level, so the total altitude gained was somewhat less.
Another interesting thing is that in the video, they mention that the unit weighed "250 lbs" (presumably at liftoff) - which is the weight of the *empty* pack. I.E. either he made a mistake, or they're obscuring the weight of the crash test dummy.
I'm normally a big NASA supporter, but when exactly did NASA get into law enforcement?
Somewhere around the day NASA came into being.
What they do is enforce Federal law on NASA facilities and over NASA property. If you have, for example, a NASA employee stealing government property - the local cops haven't the authority to investigate and arrest. Ditto for fraud against NASA, etc.. etc...
It's the same reason the Park Service has Rangers, and the Navy has the NCIS. There isn't a unified service like you might think, because while there is a core set of Federal laws they all enforce, many agencies/government branches have unique laws and regulations. (The UCMJ for NCIS, or the laws covering the postal service for the Post Office's equivalent.)
A sufficiently large impact should melt some rock that may look lite it was brought up from inside the moon.
No, rock melted by impact freezes/solidifies differently than volcanic rock - that's one of the ways they locate terrestrial impact craters that are otherwise no longer visible.
I have two nieces who routinely waste about half the food they put on their plates -- which pisses me off for a number of reasons -- but both are died-in-the-wool animal lovers. "How can you shoot a moose? They are soooo cute and cuddly!!!"...while throwing away 8 oz. of steak every night at dinner.
Maybe they should have been given smaller servings then. Or maybe, if they had steak 'every night', they need a greater variety of meals so as to avoid boredom.
Now, one could flip this around and also say that given that so many observers were able to so accurately get to the initial trigger for the failure in the absence of hard data, it must mean that this was a really common failure mechanism that should occurred in the field only as a result of the problem being repeatedly ignored.
One could also start calling one's arm a leg and be roughly as accurate. (Seriously, once you admit to being a layman, lay off the uniformed speculation. It just makes you look stupid. Try asking questions instead.)
It is a triumph of technology that the flight data recorder survived under such extreme conditions for so long. It was a triumph of technology, that it was located and retrieved from such an extreme location. Surely, a species with such (magical?) technical expertise could have expended the effort into preventing such a failure?
Welcome to real world. Stuff breaks here, regularly.
It's looks like the US marshals office in all of it's jock strap douchiness is celebrating the failure of an ohh evil intellectual, "We will use the technology that Kaczynski railed against" speaks very much of petty jealously.
Nah, you're reading into it more than is there.
Celebrating the the turning of mentally unstable people into non-persons by denying them any personal affects is really petty.
Nah, it's standard practice to sell off items seized as part of law enforcement investigations/prosecutions. The only thing notable here is who the property once belonged to.
Kaczynski's Montana property was sold last year. This is an auction of personal property, probably the items that were seized from the cabin as evidence.
I'm really starting to like this company. Free web browser, free word processor (and spreadsheet?), free language translation, free nudie pics, free scanned books, free email, free Usenet reader, and now this cool Dataset research tool.
Free in terms of cash yes, but cash isn't the only form a payment possible. With Google you barter your personal information and habits for all those 'free' things.
Dr Sarah Parcak should study her history - because she's "pioneered" a technique first used in the 30's from aircraft and more recently from any number of orbital platforms.
In Android, conversely, you long-press (stand-in for right-click) and bam, "New folder" is right there in the menu that comes up. Just like you're already used to.
I'm not used to 'long clicking' in a PC interface for anything except dragging items about. (A 'long click' may be a stand-in for right clicking, but it isn't right clicking.) In addition, to create an empty folder requires not only right clicking (not 'long clicking'), but also generally selecting from a menu.
So, no - the Android interface isn't actually any closer than the iOS interface.
When your cost model system says it will cost five times as much as it actually did, either your cost model system is utter bullstuff, or you've shoveled in a HUGE amount of gold-plating and featherbedding. Probably both.
You've forgotten that there are other options too. Maybe SpaceX left out a heap of the detailed testing and QA or cut other corners that a NASA or commercial program wouldn't. Maybe SpaceX hasn't accounted for the development costs of the Falcon 1 components that were used in the Falcon 9 in the same way that NASA would. Etc... etc... It's not as black-and-white as you'd like to believe.
So, pretty much the only way to reach your conclusion ("NASA is messed up, SpaceX is a priori innocent") is either bias or ignorance. Which is it?
Why do they insist on capsules? Why not take the advice of someone from FPA; build it at the space station and design it to refuel/load from there, eliminating the need to return to earth?
Because that takes considerably more lift capacity, more life support capacity, more time, and is much higher risk. Not to mention that the ISS is in an orbit that is difficult to get to from the US (imposing a large cargo penalty) and not very good for getting to anywhere from (imposing yet more of a cargo penalty).
We still have to get things up to the ISS, but that'll be left to the Russians and their superior rockets.
If Russian rockets were superior, you'd have a point. But when it comes to reliability, they're in pretty much the same 98-99% ballpark as everyone else. (Including the Shuttle.)
"Oh but what if they don't want to help us shuttle our crew/items up to the ISS one day?" No worries, Virgin and Japan/other countries are working on that! So we'll find one way or another to get to the ISS.
Virgin is building a suborbital amusement park ride, not an orbiter. Japan is building an umanned cargo vessel, not a manner orbiter.
That sound you heard was my point going over your head.
Certainly a human in direct control would be more efficient if you ignore the cost and difficulty of getting them there and keeping them operational/alive.
True, and if you paid attention to what I was writing, something I never argued against. The OP was praising the efficiency and effectiveness of robots as compared with humans - without realizing he had transposed his numbers. They aren't as efficient as humans. They aren't as effective as humans. (Not even close on either count.) Robots are cheaper, but as with everything else you get what you pay for.
I recall reading in Steven Squyres' book about how one of the rovers spent an entire week backing and filling so it could photograph a rock from all sides - something a human being could have done in minutes.
That may be true, but so what?
Duh, that robots are nowhere near as efficient as humans. Something I gave several examples of, and which you willfully ignore.
Perhaps the human performs well on Mars, but it would take 10-20 years and 100 billion dollars for us to develop the technology to get the person there.
Then we better start saving our pennies and getting on with the job.
Who would you rather hire: a contractor who takes a week to do a job, charges 100 dollars, and starts today, or a contractor who takes a day to finish, but charges 100,000 dollars, and won't be ready to start for ten years?
If the first contract could accomplish the same job as the second for that money - that would be a valid question. But he cannot, which is my point.
You have some very romantic, and very wrong, ideas about how capable and cheap robots are.
What we're seeing is a major technological transition. A new kind of hardware has emerged that's fundamentally superior to the old technology. It's analogous to stone being replaced by bronze. It's like clipper ships being replaced by steam, or battleships being replaced by carriers. It's like the typewriter being supplanted by the PC. And it's thrilling and deeply disturbing at the same time, because this time around, the hardware upgrade is personal. Very, very personal. Because the outmoded hardware that's being replaced is us.
Actually, it's more analogous to replacing bronze with wood, steam with sails, and PC's with stone tablets and chisels. Replacing 'us' is a giant step backwards.
Spirit traveled 4.8 miles in three years - the Apollo 15 Lunar Rover covered 17 miles in three hours. (And Spirit took the efforts of an entire backroom team to move every tortuous inch. The Apollo crews just got in and drove.) I recall reading in Steven Squyres' book about how one of the rovers spent an entire week backing and filling so it could photograph a rock from all sides - something a human being could have done in minutes.
The reality is that by the time we overcome the technological hurdles required to put humans on Mars, the technology of robots will have advanced. And they'll be able to move, to work, to do science, and to explore far more effectively in those environments than we will ever be able to do.
That's a romantic assumption, not a fact. It also fails to take into account that robots have to improve by multiple orders of magnitude just to be as efficient as a human being, let alone being more so.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's put it this way - your method is only slightly more efficient than mining it. In the same way that it's slightly more efficient to swat an elephant with a toothbrush than with a toothpick.
Sadly, the summary pretty much contains the entire TFA... All the links are nothing but the submitter's editorial commentary with sketchy connections to TFA at best.
But there's another reason for 'duh!' science that he misses - quantification. Yeah, it's 'duh!' that driving ability worsens in the early stages of Alzheimer's. But can it be used as a diagnostic tool? Can the nature of the decrease (decreased cognition? slowed reflexes?) lead to further studies of what parts of the brain are affected and how and in what order? Etc... etc... But you don't even know to look for those things until you have the evidence that correlation exists in the first place.
Science isn't just about the Eureka!. It's also about the slow podding duh! that builds the foundation.
It's same general idea, but not really the same technology. He was using flywheels to smooth output voltage, while this system uses flywheels to smooth output power.
The summary would lead you to believe that - but really what they're doing is using flywheels like capacitors. That is, for very short bursts of supplemental power rather than as a steady source.
That doesn't stop the engineers and IT folks on Slashdot. Hell, it doesn't even slow them down.
Because I actually pay attention to and have a working understanding of engineering, physics, and chemistry.
They key words of course being "have already been made". Yeah, GE may be working on improved ducted fans, but that's hoping for the 1-2% improvement that will be huge for commercial aircraft, but nearly meaningless for this jet pack. Etc... etc...
Don't confuse the power of imagination with the reality of engineering either.
You're right - a small wing won't make difference, so it's stupid to add one. To get a weight/sq ft ratio low enough for any kind of performance is going to require a fairly large wing. The Rocket Man requires an eight foot wing just to *glide* - and he and his pack are almost certainly lighter (or very close to) the dry weight of just the [Martin] jet pack all by itself.
Apples and oranges. When portable phones were invented, the electronics in them were nowhere near their theoretical size limits. They had room to both shrink and grow in performance.
Jetpacks like this are already very near their theoretical limits just to fly at all. There's no magical chemical fuel waiting in the wings. (Excuse the pun.) There's no magical ducted fan or propeller design that will dramatically increase performance. There's no magical material that will dramatically decrease the weight. Etc... etc...
Hmm... Just watched the full video, and they've palmed a card. It flew to 5000ft *above sea level* - but it took off somewhere above sea level, so the total altitude gained was somewhat less.
Another interesting thing is that in the video, they mention that the unit weighed "250 lbs" (presumably at liftoff) - which is the weight of the *empty* pack. I.E. either he made a mistake, or they're obscuring the weight of the crash test dummy.
Somewhere around the day NASA came into being.
What they do is enforce Federal law on NASA facilities and over NASA property. If you have, for example, a NASA employee stealing government property - the local cops haven't the authority to investigate and arrest. Ditto for fraud against NASA, etc.. etc...
It's the same reason the Park Service has Rangers, and the Navy has the NCIS. There isn't a unified service like you might think, because while there is a core set of Federal laws they all enforce, many agencies/government branches have unique laws and regulations. (The UCMJ for NCIS, or the laws covering the postal service for the Post Office's equivalent.)
Is a figment of your imagination, not a fact.
No, rock melted by impact freezes/solidifies differently than volcanic rock - that's one of the ways they locate terrestrial impact craters that are otherwise no longer visible.
Maybe they should have been given smaller servings then. Or maybe, if they had steak 'every night', they need a greater variety of meals so as to avoid boredom.
One could also start calling one's arm a leg and be roughly as accurate. (Seriously, once you admit to being a layman, lay off the uniformed speculation. It just makes you look stupid. Try asking questions instead.)
Welcome to real world. Stuff breaks here, regularly.
Nah, you're reading into it more than is there.
Nah, it's standard practice to sell off items seized as part of law enforcement investigations/prosecutions. The only thing notable here is who the property once belonged to.
Kaczynski's Montana property was sold last year. This is an auction of personal property, probably the items that were seized from the cabin as evidence.
Free in terms of cash yes, but cash isn't the only form a payment possible. With Google you barter your personal information and habits for all those 'free' things.
Dr Sarah Parcak should study her history - because she's "pioneered" a technique first used in the 30's from aircraft and more recently from any number of orbital platforms.
Not in any mall food court I've ever been in over the last thirty years. (And that includes many in the Seattle area.)
I'm not used to 'long clicking' in a PC interface for anything except dragging items about. (A 'long click' may be a stand-in for right clicking, but it isn't right clicking.) In addition, to create an empty folder requires not only right clicking (not 'long clicking'), but also generally selecting from a menu.
So, no - the Android interface isn't actually any closer than the iOS interface.
You've forgotten that there are other options too. Maybe SpaceX left out a heap of the detailed testing and QA or cut other corners that a NASA or commercial program wouldn't. Maybe SpaceX hasn't accounted for the development costs of the Falcon 1 components that were used in the Falcon 9 in the same way that NASA would. Etc... etc... It's not as black-and-white as you'd like to believe.
So, pretty much the only way to reach your conclusion ("NASA is messed up, SpaceX is a priori innocent") is either bias or ignorance. Which is it?
Because that takes considerably more lift capacity, more life support capacity, more time, and is much higher risk. Not to mention that the ISS is in an orbit that is difficult to get to from the US (imposing a large cargo penalty) and not very good for getting to anywhere from (imposing yet more of a cargo penalty).
If Russian rockets were superior, you'd have a point. But when it comes to reliability, they're in pretty much the same 98-99% ballpark as everyone else. (Including the Shuttle.)
Virgin is building a suborbital amusement park ride, not an orbiter. Japan is building an umanned cargo vessel, not a manner orbiter.
That sound you heard was my point going over your head.
True, and if you paid attention to what I was writing, something I never argued against. The OP was praising the efficiency and effectiveness of robots as compared with humans - without realizing he had transposed his numbers. They aren't as efficient as humans. They aren't as effective as humans. (Not even close on either count.) Robots are cheaper, but as with everything else you get what you pay for.
Duh, that robots are nowhere near as efficient as humans. Something I gave several examples of, and which you willfully ignore.
Then we better start saving our pennies and getting on with the job.
If the first contract could accomplish the same job as the second for that money - that would be a valid question. But he cannot, which is my point.
You have some very romantic, and very wrong, ideas about how capable and cheap robots are.
Actually, it's more analogous to replacing bronze with wood, steam with sails, and PC's with stone tablets and chisels. Replacing 'us' is a giant step backwards.
Spirit traveled 4.8 miles in three years - the Apollo 15 Lunar Rover covered 17 miles in three hours. (And Spirit took the efforts of an entire backroom team to move every tortuous inch. The Apollo crews just got in and drove.) I recall reading in Steven Squyres' book about how one of the rovers spent an entire week backing and filling so it could photograph a rock from all sides - something a human being could have done in minutes.
That's a romantic assumption, not a fact. It also fails to take into account that robots have to improve by multiple orders of magnitude just to be as efficient as a human being, let alone being more so.
AOL didn't have an address bar, because it didn't need them.