It was to be Boeing's innovative attempt to shoot past Airbus in the civilian aircraft industry, having sold fewer civilian planes than Airbus for the past 5 years. Unfortunately, the Sonic Cruiser was too little too late.
It was Sonic- not supersonic, compared to the nearly Mach 2 Concord. Current aircraft fly at around Mach.8 at altitude, while the Sonic Cruiser might have done a bit past.9. Not a huge difference in flight times. Then, what else did it have? There was nothing significant in capacity or operating costs, and was relatively poor in noise pollution. It would have had to go through the gestation period of every somewhat radical aircraft, with the usual quirks and small troubles having to be sorted out. It was risky in concept, and even if it performed to its specifications, it wouldn't have been that much better than what's out there already (besides looking cool).
One area in which Star Office could be improved is its user interface. A good 90% of SO users probably use only 30% of the tools on the default toolbars. Why don't they just hide all those generally unused icons then? The power users by their nature would still find those hidden functions, in menus and/or perhaps customizing the toolbars to their liking. With a cleaner, streamlined interface they could attract new users with not only cost and power, but also ease of use and efficiency. More importantly, it would attach a significant benefit to Star Office for those who already own Microsoft Office and encourage them to switch. Cost doesn't matter to those who've already paid, and Microsoft Office is already powerful enough- only something more efficient could make people change their ways.
"...this machine combines the many of the attributes of helicopters and conventional aircraft, but not by combining the worst aspects of both like the V-22 Osprey."
If that were true, the worst aspect of a helicopter would be its VTOL ability, and of a conventional aircraft the high cruising speed. I'd like to know what you think are the good aspects then.
I have also beeb unemployed for a few months, and was asked by my ex-boss to help him out. After his subsequent rude behavior, I concluded that there was only one solution; murder.
Smaller in physical size that is. What will really be nice is if we have a disc that is 19 times smaller in physical size, but with the capacity of current DVD's. It'll pave the way for PDA's that can play movies and decrease the size of disk drives dramatically, making for much smaller and lighter laptops.
Linux does not run many graphics applications that I use (3ds max, After Effects, Premiere, Illustrator, the list goes on...), does not run many games that I like (Half-Life/Counter-strike, Medieval: Total War, Falcon 4.0, Battlefield 1942), and does not support some of my hardware (Aureal Vortex 1 based soundcard, winmodem). The alternatives in graphics applications are inferior (I do not consider Maya or Lightwave on linux as alternatives to 3ds max, I use those software on Windows already and each is suited to certain tasks). Installing most open source software (notable exceptions; Open Office, Phoenix, no doubt there are others) that I'd like to try is also a tedious ordeal.
" You must be mistaken. According to Microsoft, Windows 2000 NEVER BSODs. And neither do XP, NT4, Me, 98, 95, WfW, 3.1, or 3.0 either." First of all... in one Microsoft ad campaign it was specifically pointed out as one of the advantages of upgrading to XP was the absence of blue screens, so according to Microsoft, versions of its OS previous to XP did get blue screens. Second of all why are you attempting to point out that what Microsoft says about their own products isn't true? The person to whom you responded used personal experience to support his opinion and did not cite Microsoft. You're attacking a point with irrelevant information.
You know, just because Alias|wavefront advertises excessively about companies using their software, it doesn't mean that's all they use. If you only listened to A|W you'd think that the only software ILM uses is Maya when they actually use, among others, Softimage and Lightwave.
"A significant percentage of the Mac user population screams if somebody in Cupertino doesn't wipe his/her hands after going to the bathroom, much less when Apple 'does something wrong.'"
Of course usually their "complaints" are just coy expressions of canine loyalty ("Oh no! Apple has removed the smiley face which displayed during system start up!", or "Apple isn't doing enough to market the Mac!")
There's quite a dispute over this. Some think that a lucky bullet or stray piece of shrapnel managed to hit the F-117, ruining its radar stealth. The aircraft was then detected, tracked and shot down.
"The Bird of Prey technology demonstrator pioneered breakthrough low-observable technologies and revolutionized aircraft design, development and production. Developed by the Boeing Phantom Works advanced research-and-development organization, the Bird of Prey was among the first to initiate the use of large, single-piece composite structures; low-cost, disposable tooling; and 3-D virtual reality design and assembly processes to ensure the aircraft was affordable as well as high-performing."
Really? I've heard that radar reflectors are always installed onto stealth aircraft in civil situations. And I thought some US military aircraft (the F-16 Block 50/60 for example) did not carry transponders, especially stealth aircraft.
"Heat-sensitive infrared radar systems"? What are those? Radar stands for RAdio Detecting and Ranging. Infra-red detection systems are typically called infra-red search and tracking systems (IRST), and all stealth aircraft have been designed to avoid those as well. In the F-117 it was wide exhaust inlet that would expose the hot air more to the cold air in the atmosphere. In the B-2 it was that as well as exhaust ports that are completely above the wing, hidden from the detectors from below.
Long-wavelength radar's ability to detect stealth aircraft has been widely publicized, but few countries have the ability to construct facilities extensive enough to be useful against stealth aircraft. They have emitter and receivers typically require areas in the range of square kilometers. They're quite elaborate, though lots of cool potential not just in detecting stealth a/c.
That's because it's impossible to completely mask radar cross section short of active radar cancellation (and even that probably wouldn't get the job completely done). Everything reflects radar, even clouds and ocean waves (of course radar is designed to ignore such things). And stealth is general term that has been warped by the media; all "stealth" aircraft today are designed not only to reduce radar reflections but infra-red, aural and optical (i.e. painting it dark and unobtrusive shape, not referring to that color-changing active camouflage stuff which isn't really around now, or so they say...).
"I seriously doubt that this thing will produced in any significant quantities - the decision for fighter spending has already been made. It might, however, be important from a development point of view - testing new technologies and so on."
The name of the F-22 "Raptor" can also be translated to mean "bird of prey". Not much is in a name, though I'm not sure what you mean by "hunt and destroy" (is that some media term that CNN reporters throw around?). Just about any fighter-bomber today could be classified as "hunt and destroy".
The author of that article is not PopSci's usual contributing writer on aerospace (Bill Sweetman, a guy who really knows his stuff). He exposes his ignorance concerning aircraft weaponry when he says that aircraft need to slow down in order to drop bombs accurately.
Slashdot Mirror
It was to be Boeing's innovative attempt to shoot past Airbus in the civilian aircraft industry, having sold fewer civilian planes than Airbus for the past 5 years. Unfortunately, the Sonic Cruiser was too little too late.
.8 at altitude, while the Sonic Cruiser might have done a bit past .9. Not a huge difference in flight times. Then, what else did it have? There was nothing significant in capacity or operating costs, and was relatively poor in noise pollution. It would have had to go through the gestation period of every somewhat radical aircraft, with the usual quirks and small troubles having to be sorted out. It was risky in concept, and even if it performed to its specifications, it wouldn't have been that much better than what's out there already (besides looking cool).
It was Sonic- not supersonic, compared to the nearly Mach 2 Concord. Current aircraft fly at around Mach
Originally (according to a 1998 issue of Popular Science), the ISS was to be completed by 2003.
Oh and I just listed hiding icons as an example of a way of improving the UI. I'd expect something much more extensive to really effect a turnover.
One area in which Star Office could be improved is its user interface. A good 90% of SO users probably use only 30% of the tools on the default toolbars. Why don't they just hide all those generally unused icons then? The power users by their nature would still find those hidden functions, in menus and/or perhaps customizing the toolbars to their liking. With a cleaner, streamlined interface they could attract new users with not only cost and power, but also ease of use and efficiency. More importantly, it would attach a significant benefit to Star Office for those who already own Microsoft Office and encourage them to switch. Cost doesn't matter to those who've already paid, and Microsoft Office is already powerful enough- only something more efficient could make people change their ways.
Then again, maybe I'm just being pessimistic...
It's just typical slashdot pessimism.
"...this machine combines the many of the attributes of helicopters and conventional aircraft, but not by combining the worst aspects of both like the V-22 Osprey."
If that were true, the worst aspect of a helicopter would be its VTOL ability, and of a conventional aircraft the high cruising speed. I'd like to know what you think are the good aspects then.
I have also beeb unemployed for a few months, and was asked by my ex-boss to help him out. After his subsequent rude behavior, I concluded that there was only one solution; murder.
My job now is truly done.
Smaller in physical size that is. What will really be nice is if we have a disc that is 19 times smaller in physical size, but with the capacity of current DVD's. It'll pave the way for PDA's that can play movies and decrease the size of disk drives dramatically, making for much smaller and lighter laptops.
Linux does not run many graphics applications that I use (3ds max, After Effects, Premiere, Illustrator, the list goes on...), does not run many games that I like (Half-Life/Counter-strike, Medieval: Total War, Falcon 4.0, Battlefield 1942), and does not support some of my hardware (Aureal Vortex 1 based soundcard, winmodem). The alternatives in graphics applications are inferior (I do not consider Maya or Lightwave on linux as alternatives to 3ds max, I use those software on Windows already and each is suited to certain tasks). Installing most open source software (notable exceptions; Open Office, Phoenix, no doubt there are others) that I'd like to try is also a tedious ordeal.
"
You must be mistaken. According to Microsoft, Windows 2000 NEVER BSODs. And neither do XP, NT4, Me, 98, 95, WfW, 3.1, or 3.0 either."
First of all... in one Microsoft ad campaign it was specifically pointed out as one of the advantages of upgrading to XP was the absence of blue screens, so according to Microsoft, versions of its OS previous to XP did get blue screens. Second of all why are you attempting to point out that what Microsoft says about their own products isn't true? The person to whom you responded used personal experience to support his opinion and did not cite Microsoft. You're attacking a point with irrelevant information.
You know, just because Alias|wavefront advertises excessively about companies using their software, it doesn't mean that's all they use. If you only listened to A|W you'd think that the only software ILM uses is Maya when they actually use, among others, Softimage and Lightwave.
"A significant percentage of the Mac user population screams if somebody in Cupertino doesn't wipe his/her hands after going to the bathroom, much less when Apple 'does something wrong.'"
Of course usually their "complaints" are just coy expressions of canine loyalty ("Oh no! Apple has removed the smiley face which displayed during system start up!", or "Apple isn't doing enough to market the Mac!")
Closed headphones with a moderate amount of isolation (16dBa) get the job done for me...
There's quite a dispute over this. Some think that a lucky bullet or stray piece of shrapnel managed to hit the F-117, ruining its radar stealth. The aircraft was then detected, tracked and shot down.
"looked like an f15 with the body of a violin"
In other words, it looked like an apple but with the body of a fork, if you know what I mean.
"The Bird of Prey technology demonstrator pioneered breakthrough low-observable technologies and revolutionized aircraft design, development and production. Developed by the Boeing Phantom Works advanced research-and-development organization, the Bird of Prey was among the first to initiate the use of large, single-piece composite structures; low-cost, disposable tooling; and 3-D virtual reality design and assembly processes to ensure the aircraft was affordable as well as high-performing."
Emphasis mine.
270 million people in a fairly free society don't exactly keep secrets well.
Really? I've heard that radar reflectors are always installed onto stealth aircraft in civil situations. And I thought some US military aircraft (the F-16 Block 50/60 for example) did not carry transponders, especially stealth aircraft.
"Heat-sensitive infrared radar systems"? What are those? Radar stands for RAdio Detecting and Ranging. Infra-red detection systems are typically called infra-red search and tracking systems (IRST), and all stealth aircraft have been designed to avoid those as well. In the F-117 it was wide exhaust inlet that would expose the hot air more to the cold air in the atmosphere. In the B-2 it was that as well as exhaust ports that are completely above the wing, hidden from the detectors from below.
Long-wavelength radar's ability to detect stealth aircraft has been widely publicized, but few countries have the ability to construct facilities extensive enough to be useful against stealth aircraft. They have emitter and receivers typically require areas in the range of square kilometers. They're quite elaborate, though lots of cool potential not just in detecting stealth a/c.
That's because it's impossible to completely mask radar cross section short of active radar cancellation (and even that probably wouldn't get the job completely done). Everything reflects radar, even clouds and ocean waves (of course radar is designed to ignore such things). And stealth is general term that has been warped by the media; all "stealth" aircraft today are designed not only to reduce radar reflections but infra-red, aural and optical (i.e. painting it dark and unobtrusive shape, not referring to that color-changing active camouflage stuff which isn't really around now, or so they say...).
That would probably be considered just a ventral fin rather than an actual tail by most people.
"I seriously doubt that this thing will produced in any significant quantities - the decision for fighter spending has already been made. It might, however, be important from a development point of view - testing new technologies and so on."
Maybe that's because it's a concept demonstrator?
The name of the F-22 "Raptor" can also be translated to mean "bird of prey". Not much is in a name, though I'm not sure what you mean by "hunt and destroy" (is that some media term that CNN reporters throw around?). Just about any fighter-bomber today could be classified as "hunt and destroy".
The author of that article is not PopSci's usual contributing writer on aerospace (Bill Sweetman, a guy who really knows his stuff). He exposes his ignorance concerning aircraft weaponry when he says that aircraft need to slow down in order to drop bombs accurately.