There are many applications for this innovation for the military. Think Recon/Surv drones. They need no excessive payload as they are filled with electronics and cameras. The payload/power ratio would allow for more fuel as opposed to payload thus allowing longer flight times.
A reconnaissance platform needs survivability. A design such as this does not appear to offer any sort of low-observabilty, or alternatively, high speed for defensive requirements. This particular design could be brought down with the lowest-tech of weaponry. That said, it might serve well as a surveillance platform for peacetime uses, if it had loiter time that made the development effort worthwhile - if such a wing/propeller design could handle heavy weather well, and hold together for long periods of time (you are rotating a large mass at a high speed in this design). A development effort for a large passenger-carrying aircraft such as depicted in the google cache of the photos can be a several hundred million dollar process to meet FAA certification requirements to have people on board.
Because of the design expense, an aircraft needs to be focused to a particular market segment. However, paraphrasing Bill Lear, who designed the Lear jet, the trick is to discern that market before others. This particular aircraft has a unique wing and lift-engine design, but that doesn't mean at endgame that it'd be a worthwhile development effort, since the technology in use now has made great strides in efficieny and cost. But it's certainly worth studying at a certain level of investment (of time and money), since who knows what will turn out to be the better mousetrap.
Capitalizing on such technological improvements in design approach, material availability, market desire for a particular platform, etc, is hard work and a lot of luck to make it a cost-effective endeavor considering the (necessary for safety) expense of certification.
Is Linux being used by goverments and large clients as a "bargaining chip" to gain consessions
from M$?
Quite likely. This is a good thing. It's called competition. It's what happens when there is a free market allowed to flourish instead of a restricted market (recognizing closed APIs as status-quo protecting restrictions).
Competition here, from a product that is more than sufficient for the majority of people, is forcing the status quo to reposition itself to better meet the needs of customers to remain viable. It's a winning situation for the customer to now be able to make choices.
The problem from the cusomter's perspective is when governments control so much of a person's life - another way of saying there is a loss of freedom (yes, that nastry freedom word that so many love to diss Richard Stallman for because he always starts from that principle). When governments, being the largest buyer of many products, refuse to evaluate alternatives to their status quo, then the people lose. And the sad part is that loss can come at such a cheap price - a few million dollars supporting the appropriate candidate or a few million dollars given to the cause-du-jour - neither of which has anything to do with evaluating the technical or freedom-encouraging merits of one choice over another.
Linux is forcing improvements in everything it competes against - either better, cheaper, or faster - and it's a tough competitor itself because it starts from a basic principle - it's free for people to evolve it as required to meet their needs.
Slashdot Mirror
A reconnaissance platform needs survivability. A design such as this does not appear to offer any sort of low-observabilty, or alternatively, high speed for defensive requirements. This particular design could be brought down with the lowest-tech of weaponry. That said, it might serve well as a surveillance platform for peacetime uses, if it had loiter time that made the development effort worthwhile - if such a wing/propeller design could handle heavy weather well, and hold together for long periods of time (you are rotating a large mass at a high speed in this design). A development effort for a large passenger-carrying aircraft such as depicted in the google cache of the photos can be a several hundred million dollar process to meet FAA certification requirements to have people on board.
Because of the design expense, an aircraft needs to be focused to a particular market segment. However, paraphrasing Bill Lear, who designed the Lear jet, the trick is to discern that market before others. This particular aircraft has a unique wing and lift-engine design, but that doesn't mean at endgame that it'd be a worthwhile development effort, since the technology in use now has made great strides in efficieny and cost. But it's certainly worth studying at a certain level of investment (of time and money), since who knows what will turn out to be the better mousetrap.
Capitalizing on such technological improvements in design approach, material availability, market desire for a particular platform, etc, is hard work and a lot of luck to make it a cost-effective endeavor considering the (necessary for safety) expense of certification.
Disclosure: I work in the business - www.avtechgroup.com
"This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a means of communication." -- Western Union internal memo, 1876.
"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers." -- Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943.
"There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home." -- Ken Olson, president/founder of Digital Equipment Corp., 1977.
"640K ought to be enough for anybody." -- Bill Gates, 1981.
Quite likely. This is a good thing. It's called competition. It's what happens when there is a free market allowed to flourish instead of a restricted market (recognizing closed APIs as status-quo protecting restrictions).
Competition here, from a product that is more than sufficient for the majority of people, is forcing the status quo to reposition itself to better meet the needs of customers to remain viable. It's a winning situation for the customer to now be able to make choices. The problem from the cusomter's perspective is when governments control so much of a person's life - another way of saying there is a loss of freedom (yes, that nastry freedom word that so many love to diss Richard Stallman for because he always starts from that principle). When governments, being the largest buyer of many products, refuse to evaluate alternatives to their status quo, then the people lose. And the sad part is that loss can come at such a cheap price - a few million dollars supporting the appropriate candidate or a few million dollars given to the cause-du-jour - neither of which has anything to do with evaluating the technical or freedom-encouraging merits of one choice over another.
Linux is forcing improvements in everything it competes against - either better, cheaper, or faster - and it's a tough competitor itself because it starts from a basic principle - it's free for people to evolve it as required to meet their needs.
One must also consider the often overlooked cost of not changing over...
Better average education level?
The sooner these drugs are discovered then the cheaper they will be when you need them.