In this latest test, which was the first against a maritime target, the disabling of a military-grade boat by puncturing its multiple-layer rubber hull required a sustained laser burst for 30 seconds. It demonstrated the ability of the ADAM system to lock on to a single point of a weaving, bobbing target at a distance of approximately 1.6 km (1 mi) with super-accuracy for sustained periods of time.
I know there are systems that can do trajectory tracking, and systems that can do laser targeting of slower moving objects from a stationary base, but to keep a beam with the accuracy required on a particular spot of the target, from a moving base, to object without a straight trajectory, seems to be something a bit more challenging. You don't have to be very accurate for a missile target.
I'll add that maybe what is most impressive is not the laser power, but the control system required to keep the beam on a moving target at a mile away. The author seemed to miss that part of the technology.
I don't think the goal has changed, only the writer of the article is saying that. This test is basically a status report, which tells us they still have a long way to go. The real question is how much $$ and effort should they keep putting in?
I only scanned the article, but what I think may be missing is the shift to outsourced manufacturing. Apple has few manufacturing assets, compared to the old days when IBM was building all of its own PCs. If that manufacturing asset is private, it won't show up in the totals. If it is public it will show up in the totals, but may be valued lower due to location or other factors. And finally, the efficiency of the asset to deliver more for less is not factored in. We should expect the trend to continue as long as mass centralized outsourced manufacturing increases.
But there are plenty of people who don't know enough about computers even today to make a smart purchase choice, and often make poor choices or rely on the help of others to do it right. Not because they are stupid, but because they lack specific experience.
As for cars, some people like to do test drives, to see all the different options in person, and learn the 'less than obvious' details about a car before they buy, and some like to know there is capable service nearby. You can call them dumb if that makes you feel smart, but they are certainly part of the market and catering to them is smart.
The PC business became commoditized & barrier to entry became almost zero, therefore the business model shifted to a service model for IBM, which changed the company significantly. Even with EVs, cars do not appear to be on that path.
You may be right, but unfortunately the guy is always vague on what and where he actually did anything, and seems to purposely conflate his simulator hacks with his real world ones. Seeing data that is passed one way from the primary flight control system is not the same as having control withing that system. I still would be surprised if primary controls were not isolated from generic data networks on the plane. There could be a plane data network that passed information to both, or between systems as well.
Simulators are almost always architecturally different because it is easier to just put it all on one platform. I would imagine only the manufacturers have invested in architecturally accurate test setups that are stimulated.
Car systems I would not be surprised to see security issues, as there is little regulation involved and a very different risk profile.
Good point. I would not assume that flight information is from the nav and control systems. But it could be, in which case they could use one-way data isolation devices to eliminate the possibility of anything on the entertainment system negatively impacting navigation controls. That would technically be a "tie", but not one that could be exploited.
There's no way that entertainment/wifi/anything-accessible-to-a-passenger could in anyway be connected to those critical systems...is there?
There should be no tie between the control and entertainment networks. I would be surprised if there aren't regulations that forbid it. My guess is this simulated system was not like the real ones. It certainly isn't clear what really was done.
What good will it do to make him suffer for the rest of his life in prison?
It won't bring the three dead people back, it doesn't solve anything, and while
his guilt is not in question it helps perpetuate a system that has flaws, which
cannot be corrected if an innocent person spends his life in jail.
Why is cost a factor? Why do you prefer to watch him suffer in a cage forever? What would you prefer if he killed your kids? Would you like that horror to remain on this planet so that the victims families can get regular reminders of the horror? What if they want that horror gone from this earth so they can put it behind them?
I don't understand how people think life in a cage is some kind of social sign of progress compared to the death penalty. I guess they prefer to watch someone suffer for as long as possible.
My favorite single use kitchen appliance of all time was the Presto Hot-Dogger. Something about the beauty of simplicity combined with being inches away from a mini-electrocution chamber that I can't find in today's boring appliances.
I find it hard to believe this is the really first Turkish loggerhead turtle to receive a 3D printed titanium jaw. Maybe someone did it before and we just never heard about it.
But you have to admit, the fact that even reasonable people might think my story was plausible is a sign of just how wrapped around the axle we've become on these matters.
You know, you are probably right. But it kind of makes a point, that we need to get over the little stuff and be real with ourselves as well as others. I personally like juvenile humor, I think many do but won't admit it. Doesn't mean I don't appreciate more thoughtful things as well. Yeah, it crosses the line of workplace acceptability, but maybe somewhere along the line we decided that something is offensive for the wrong reasons.
I actually find most people regardless of sex or sexual orientation can actually giggle a little about the same stupid things.
Slashdot Mirror
In this latest test, which was the first against a maritime target, the disabling of a military-grade boat by puncturing its multiple-layer rubber hull required a sustained laser burst for 30 seconds. It demonstrated the ability of the ADAM system to lock on to a single point of a weaving, bobbing target at a distance of approximately 1.6 km (1 mi) with super-accuracy for sustained periods of time.
I know there are systems that can do trajectory tracking, and systems that can do laser targeting of slower moving objects from a stationary base, but to keep a beam with the accuracy required on a particular spot of the target, from a moving base, to object without a straight trajectory, seems to be something a bit more challenging. You don't have to be very accurate for a missile target.
That is laser siting, totally different technology.
I'll add that maybe what is most impressive is not the laser power, but the control system required to keep the beam on a moving target at a mile away. The author seemed to miss that part of the technology.
I don't think the goal has changed, only the writer of the article is saying that. This test is basically a status report, which tells us they still have a long way to go. The real question is how much $$ and effort should they keep putting in?
I only scanned the article, but what I think may be missing is the shift to outsourced manufacturing. Apple has few manufacturing assets, compared to the old days when IBM was building all of its own PCs. If that manufacturing asset is private, it won't show up in the totals. If it is public it will show up in the totals, but may be valued lower due to location or other factors. And finally, the efficiency of the asset to deliver more for less is not factored in. We should expect the trend to continue as long as mass centralized outsourced manufacturing increases.
But there are plenty of people who don't know enough about computers even today to make a smart purchase choice, and often make poor choices or rely on the help of others to do it right. Not because they are stupid, but because they lack specific experience.
As for cars, some people like to do test drives, to see all the different options in person, and learn the 'less than obvious' details about a car before they buy, and some like to know there is capable service nearby. You can call them dumb if that makes you feel smart, but they are certainly part of the market and catering to them is smart.
The PC business became commoditized & barrier to entry became almost zero, therefore the business model shifted to a service model for IBM, which changed the company significantly. Even with EVs, cars do not appear to be on that path.
You may be right, but unfortunately the guy is always vague on what and where he actually did anything, and seems to purposely conflate his simulator hacks with his real world ones. Seeing data that is passed one way from the primary flight control system is not the same as having control withing that system. I still would be surprised if primary controls were not isolated from generic data networks on the plane. There could be a plane data network that passed information to both, or between systems as well.
Simulators are almost always architecturally different because it is easier to just put it all on one platform. I would imagine only the manufacturers have invested in architecturally accurate test setups that are stimulated.
Car systems I would not be surprised to see security issues, as there is little regulation involved and a very different risk profile.
Good point. I would not assume that flight information is from the nav and control systems. But it could be, in which case they could use one-way data isolation devices to eliminate the possibility of anything on the entertainment system negatively impacting navigation controls. That would technically be a "tie", but not one that could be exploited.
There's no way that entertainment/wifi/anything-accessible-to-a-passenger could in anyway be connected to those critical systems...is there?
There should be no tie between the control and entertainment networks. I would be surprised if there aren't regulations that forbid it. My guess is this simulated system was not like the real ones. It certainly isn't clear what really was done.
Trying to decide whether or not I am surprised that someone carrying so much gear would not include condoms.
With all those tools, he can fabricate one.
What good will it do to make him suffer for the rest of his life in prison?
It won't bring the three dead people back, it doesn't solve anything, and while his guilt is not in question it helps perpetuate a system that has flaws, which cannot be corrected if an innocent person spends his life in jail.
Why is cost a factor? Why do you prefer to watch him suffer in a cage forever? What would you prefer if he killed your kids? Would you like that horror to remain on this planet so that the victims families can get regular reminders of the horror? What if they want that horror gone from this earth so they can put it behind them?
I don't understand how people think life in a cage is some kind of social sign of progress compared to the death penalty. I guess they prefer to watch someone suffer for as long as possible.
HA!. I just want to push a button.
>> does having a single- or limited-purpose device make really make sense for consumables that aren't coffee?
>
Start with the list of consumables that many use on a daily or almost daily basis;
Water
Toilet Paper
Soap?
Beer
Bullets
Those are all covered by existing devices, and don't require heating/processing before serving. So the answer seems to be leaning toward no.
Unless they come up with a hot soft pretzel dispenser, they likely won't get me for a customer.
Keurig is kind of like a drive thru, vs getting out of the car and getting it yourself.
My favorite single use kitchen appliance of all time was the Presto Hot-Dogger. Something about the beauty of simplicity combined with being inches away from a mini-electrocution chamber that I can't find in today's boring appliances.
It may not turn out to have many practical uses, but it sure is clever.
I understand extrusion machines, but how can you print titanium?
Most likely a sintering process, using layers of titanium powder.
I find it hard to believe this is the really first Turkish loggerhead turtle to receive a 3D printed titanium jaw. Maybe someone did it before and we just never heard about it.
A fish blooded worm.
Phrases evolve, you need to ketchup with the times.
Well then "almost gotcha!".
But you have to admit, the fact that even reasonable people might think my story was plausible is a sign of just how wrapped around the axle we've become on these matters.
Gotcha!
now chill and take the joke. Its OK.
You know, you are probably right. But it kind of makes a point, that we need to get over the little stuff and be real with ourselves as well as others. I personally like juvenile humor, I think many do but won't admit it. Doesn't mean I don't appreciate more thoughtful things as well. Yeah, it crosses the line of workplace acceptability, but maybe somewhere along the line we decided that something is offensive for the wrong reasons.
I actually find most people regardless of sex or sexual orientation can actually giggle a little about the same stupid things.