Please, enlighten us more with your armchair-aerodynamicist wisdom.
I'd like to know your source for the quote "Theres no damn way that thing is leaving the ground. That thing can't fly." Flying wing designs had been explored by the Germans in WW2, and Northrop Grumman had developed a flying wing transport/bomber design. Very similar (flying wing, no tail, engines embedded in wings) designs had flown before, I can see no reason why engineers would doubt that the B-2 could. I don't see how the public would either given that once the B-2 was unveiled it was known that it had been top-secret and in dev for quite a while, and it's unlikely that the gov't would spend so much time developing something that couldn't actually get off the ground.
Next you'll be telling us how Bernoulli's law generates most of the lift?
Keep in mind, Boeing still has a large share in the F-22, F/A-18E, RAH-66, V-22 development programs, as well as various cruise missile programs. Boeing is still very much a defense contractor. The USAF and military couldn't care less about what Boeing's performance is in selling 737's, they only care about what Boeing makes for them, which is a lot of stuff even without the JSF.
Except that the Bird of Prey shares very little in design with X-32. The X-32 and BoP have differently shaped and positioned intakes, completely different wing designs as well as vastly different performance specifications. This is kind of moot though, since Boeing has stated what its purpose is and it is not that of a concept aircraft for the JSF, which is well popularized in the white world.
Context sensitive seems to be a significant trend. Macromedia relatively recently revamped their GUI's in their software to make heavy use of a primary context-sensitive panel, allowing them to remove several superfluous panels. Adobe in Photoshop 5 I believe added the context sensitive top bar, which displayed some options for whatever tool was being used. 3ds max is perhaps the piece of software featuring the heaviest usage of context-sensitive interface- the righthand bar automatically displays the relevant tools for what you're working on, i.e. polygon tools if you've selected a polygon object, inverse-kinematics settings if you've selected an IK-related object etc. Context-sensitivity is a great help since it basically does work for you, finding the stuff you need when you need it.
Right click menus are a major part of the GUI's in Maya (which otherwise has a very poor interface due to the excessive menu switching and poor menu item organization) and 3ds max, with Maya's being its trademark "hot box", displaying tools in a radial fashion and letting users access sub-groups of items just by rolling over them. 3ds max simply displays a whole lot of stuff in its right click menus, plus pretty colors. Right click menus are in my opinion still under-used... I find it incredibly convenient to access stuff in a single level menu accessible through a single click rather than searching through endless menu items, among different menus and different menu sets (in the case of Maya and Softimage, the former even having a menu item search tool).
One thing to avoid imo is a too linear GUI design. Lightwave features such a thing, in which one must frequently switch between different tabs of different tools depending on the situation. The scapegoat might be that Lightwave has clear and numerous keyboard shortcuts, but that does not alleviate all of the problem. A user should be able to use the software efficiently in whatever way appears intuitive, and not have to suffer learning some specific, somewhat esoteric and assumingly "better" method in order to be the most productive.
Avoiding that though could lead to redundancy in interface, which is another problem. In 3ds max, there are about 3 ways to create a parametric primitives I believe, cluttering the UI unnecessarily with menus, toolbars and tabs. In many other 3d graphics packages similar situations exist.
Overall, I would say the best GUI for very complex software would be one which makes extensive use of automation (context-sensitivity), clear unambiguous methods (make the user aware of what the workflow should be, without making it too strict), and simply a direct and clean organization (no superfluous crap, don't display many tools that can't be used at all in the situation).
There will probably be a million posts appearing saying the same generally bad information, much like in the "What makes a good web site design?" story. Linux users and pure coders are not exactly the best people to ask about GUI design.
Oh and... it's FDA approved, though it had been used in Europe before that. It's also accepted by the FAA for pilot use (not to be confused with allowance for USAF fighter pilots though).
Intacs are a relatively new technology that are being used to correct vision. It involves placing a circular piece of plastic into the lense, warping it into a correct shape. The process takes around 20 minutes, is completely reversible (the plastic can be removed), and people have experienced better than 20/20 vision. I'm not sure why it hasn't become more popular or widely known, since the method seems to be better in almost every way than LASIK (more effective, safer, a lot cheaper). More info:
http://www.keravision.com -the company that makes them http://www.getintacs.com/ -promotional intacs site http://www.allaboutvision.com/visionsurgery/ insert s.htm http://www.lasersite.com/intacs/
"For example, why do we use Linux? It's because we want to achieve freedom from the requirements, restrictions, fallacies, and roadblocks imposed by using solutions owned by big companies with who knows what code in them. We use Linux because we control it and it represents freedom from the restrictions of some other software maker."
In rosey hued glasses maybe. I bet most people use it because it's more stable, more secure and less expensive. If it were made by some mega-corporation, but still free as in cost and still a quality OS, I believe almost as many people would still use it. Face it, most Linux users are not those free thinkers who carefully weigh the pros and cons of a tool they use to get a job done based on what philosophies it represents. Sure, most may not admit it, some may characterize themselves as holy crusaders against Microsoft seeking to save civilization, but most, I think, use Linux because it's good. Of course I don't mean to say that no Linux users care about things such as software freedom, but I don't think it'd be accurate to say that that is the reason why all use it.
Yes. I had remembered that it was used to cool the skin but while I was verifying my facts, I read that the fuel was used to cool some internal components and in my haste only mentioned the latter in my post and not the former.
It will be quite an effective weapon if put into use, though I think it will be far from what some people are thinking it as being a magic weapon that can instantly disable vehicles from afar. Depending on the type of vehicle, the laser would have to be fired for different amounts of time, possibly long enough to endanger the safety of the attacking aircraft more than usual. Clouds and fog would also absorb some energy if not completely obscure the laser (not to be confused with the refraction caused by air mentioned in the article, cured by adapative optics) at times.
Somewhat unrelated to my main post, I wonder to what degree they intend for the laser to damage vehicles? Are they talking softening of parts of the airframe of an aircraft allowing for aeroelasticity to take its toll, or ruptured fuel tanks?
Re:Not the first time fuel has been used to cool
on
More on JSF Laser System
·
· Score: 2, Informative
They did not leak because of the low fuel temperature. They leaked because of loose sealings that had to exist due to the expansion of the materials in high-speed, high-friction flight. The JSF will not experience such heat and likewise will not need accomodations like this.
"If this is a pulsed laser, that'd be great, but if its a continious laser, I wonder how well it'll really work against a manuvering [sic] aircraft."
Laser tracking systems coupled with IR detection have already been developed for use against all types of aircraft. The limiting factors it would seem would be the turn rate of the laser turret and the accuracy of the tracking, both of which would appear not to be a problem judging by current systems (look at missile seekers, IRST, radar antennae in dogfight situations).
Aircraft with FLIR pods already have high-energy laser warnings.
Not the first time fuel has been used to cool
on
More on JSF Laser System
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
The legendary SR-71 (high altitude mach 3 spyplane) kept the fuel stored at an extremely low temperature in the tanks (sub zero initially I believe), then pumped it through fuel lines running throughout the aircraft. The fuel would absorb the heat from the various internal components of the plane before arriving at the engines.
A laser weapons system mounted inside an aircraft probably has a very different heat "profile" than your dual Athlon computer. In the article, they mention using cooling coils. Perhaps you should read it.
Yes this is true. Modern aircraft carry inert gas supplies or have Onboard Inert Gas Generation Systems (OBIGGS) which fill the empty space in the tank with nitrogen. It's considered an essential feature.
There was also... -first usage of an accumulation buffer ("T-buffer") on a consumer video card, creating the anti-aliasing craze that we have today -very fast memory architecture courtesy of Gigapixel subsidiary, said to influence the creation of LMA in the Geforce cards
Don't forget the Rampage (Geforce 3 killer, taped out days before 3dfx was bought by nvidia, some pictures of it in a lab are floating around on the net) which would have had some features that are only now being explored, such as:
-ability to accelerate Photoshop filters (potential for 3dlabs new "P10" architecture) -maximum memory capacity of 256MB -4 way onboard SLI, i.e. scalable multiple chip architecture -~12GB/s memory bandwidth, compared to Geforce 3's ~7
ATI's rapid development of the Radeon R100 and R200 chipsets didn't help things for 3dfx, either.
"Rapid"? Come on, the reason the ATi video cards based on those chips failed was that they were released months late. Many thought that the same mistake would occur with the later Radeon models, though thankfully it didn't.
The National Space Defense Force established a full military base on the moon meters away from the lunar lander site months before it landed. It's about time the truth was revealed, and people finally found out what happened to all those men who went missing and lost their lives, fighting for liberty on the lunar terrain against the Soviet forces of communism.
Slashdot Mirror
Please, enlighten us more with your armchair-aerodynamicist wisdom.
I'd like to know your source for the quote "Theres no damn way that thing is leaving the ground. That thing can't fly." Flying wing designs had been explored by the Germans in WW2, and Northrop Grumman had developed a flying wing transport/bomber design. Very similar (flying wing, no tail, engines embedded in wings) designs had flown before, I can see no reason why engineers would doubt that the B-2 could. I don't see how the public would either given that once the B-2 was unveiled it was known that it had been top-secret and in dev for quite a while, and it's unlikely that the gov't would spend so much time developing something that couldn't actually get off the ground.
Next you'll be telling us how Bernoulli's law generates most of the lift?
Keep in mind, Boeing still has a large share in the F-22, F/A-18E, RAH-66, V-22 development programs, as well as various cruise missile programs. Boeing is still very much a defense contractor. The USAF and military couldn't care less about what Boeing's performance is in selling 737's, they only care about what Boeing makes for them, which is a lot of stuff even without the JSF.
Except that the Bird of Prey shares very little in design with X-32. The X-32 and BoP have differently shaped and positioned intakes, completely different wing designs as well as vastly different performance specifications. This is kind of moot though, since Boeing has stated what its purpose is and it is not that of a concept aircraft for the JSF, which is well popularized in the white world.
"And how can something with a density only 1/100 of our Sun be called super-massive?"
Because "super-massive" refers to mass and not density nor volume?
Context sensitive seems to be a significant trend. Macromedia relatively recently revamped their GUI's in their software to make heavy use of a primary context-sensitive panel, allowing them to remove several superfluous panels. Adobe in Photoshop 5 I believe added the context sensitive top bar, which displayed some options for whatever tool was being used. 3ds max is perhaps the piece of software featuring the heaviest usage of context-sensitive interface- the righthand bar automatically displays the relevant tools for what you're working on, i.e. polygon tools if you've selected a polygon object, inverse-kinematics settings if you've selected an IK-related object etc. Context-sensitivity is a great help since it basically does work for you, finding the stuff you need when you need it.
Right click menus are a major part of the GUI's in Maya (which otherwise has a very poor interface due to the excessive menu switching and poor menu item organization) and 3ds max, with Maya's being its trademark "hot box", displaying tools in a radial fashion and letting users access sub-groups of items just by rolling over them. 3ds max simply displays a whole lot of stuff in its right click menus, plus pretty colors. Right click menus are in my opinion still under-used... I find it incredibly convenient to access stuff in a single level menu accessible through a single click rather than searching through endless menu items, among different menus and different menu sets (in the case of Maya and Softimage, the former even having a menu item search tool).
One thing to avoid imo is a too linear GUI design. Lightwave features such a thing, in which one must frequently switch between different tabs of different tools depending on the situation. The scapegoat might be that Lightwave has clear and numerous keyboard shortcuts, but that does not alleviate all of the problem. A user should be able to use the software efficiently in whatever way appears intuitive, and not have to suffer learning some specific, somewhat esoteric and assumingly "better" method in order to be the most productive.
Avoiding that though could lead to redundancy in interface, which is another problem. In 3ds max, there are about 3 ways to create a parametric primitives I believe, cluttering the UI unnecessarily with menus, toolbars and tabs. In many other 3d graphics packages similar situations exist.
Overall, I would say the best GUI for very complex software would be one which makes extensive use of automation (context-sensitivity), clear unambiguous methods (make the user aware of what the workflow should be, without making it too strict), and simply a direct and clean organization (no superfluous crap, don't display many tools that can't be used at all in the situation).
There will probably be a million posts appearing saying the same generally bad information, much like in the "What makes a good web site design?" story. Linux users and pure coders are not exactly the best people to ask about GUI design.
If he was quoting and mocking a Mac user, he'd probably get modded -1 Troll in a hearbeat.
"The author of the page -- who never identifies herself, and who could very easily be fictional or a composite sketch"
Oh and I suppose if they gave a name and showed a more "natural" looking person, there's no way it could be fake?
Oh and... it's FDA approved, though it had been used in Europe before that. It's also accepted by the FAA for pilot use (not to be confused with allowance for USAF fighter pilots though).
Intacs are a relatively new technology that are being used to correct vision. It involves placing a circular piece of plastic into the lense, warping it into a correct shape. The process takes around 20 minutes, is completely reversible (the plastic can be removed), and people have experienced better than 20/20 vision. I'm not sure why it hasn't become more popular or widely known, since the method seems to be better in almost every way than LASIK (more effective, safer, a lot cheaper). More info:
/ insert s.htm
http://www.keravision.com -the company that makes them
http://www.getintacs.com/ -promotional intacs site
http://www.allaboutvision.com/visionsurgery
http://www.lasersite.com/intacs/
This was reported in Popular Science a while ago.
"For example, why do we use Linux? It's because we want to achieve freedom from the requirements, restrictions, fallacies, and roadblocks imposed by using solutions owned by big companies with who knows what code in them. We use Linux because we control it and it represents freedom from the restrictions of some other software maker."
In rosey hued glasses maybe. I bet most people use it because it's more stable, more secure and less expensive. If it were made by some mega-corporation, but still free as in cost and still a quality OS, I believe almost as many people would still use it. Face it, most Linux users are not those free thinkers who carefully weigh the pros and cons of a tool they use to get a job done based on what philosophies it represents. Sure, most may not admit it, some may characterize themselves as holy crusaders against Microsoft seeking to save civilization, but most, I think, use Linux because it's good. Of course I don't mean to say that no Linux users care about things such as software freedom, but I don't think it'd be accurate to say that that is the reason why all use it.
Flame on...
"Interestling" indeed!
Yes. I had remembered that it was used to cool the skin but while I was verifying my facts, I read that the fuel was used to cool some internal components and in my haste only mentioned the latter in my post and not the former.
It will be quite an effective weapon if put into use, though I think it will be far from what some people are thinking it as being a magic weapon that can instantly disable vehicles from afar. Depending on the type of vehicle, the laser would have to be fired for different amounts of time, possibly long enough to endanger the safety of the attacking aircraft more than usual. Clouds and fog would also absorb some energy if not completely obscure the laser (not to be confused with the refraction caused by air mentioned in the article, cured by adapative optics) at times.
Somewhat unrelated to my main post, I wonder to what degree they intend for the laser to damage vehicles? Are they talking softening of parts of the airframe of an aircraft allowing for aeroelasticity to take its toll, or ruptured fuel tanks?
They did not leak because of the low fuel temperature. They leaked because of loose sealings that had to exist due to the expansion of the materials in high-speed, high-friction flight. The JSF will not experience such heat and likewise will not need accomodations like this.
"If this is a pulsed laser, that'd be great, but if its a continious laser, I wonder how well it'll really work against a manuvering [sic] aircraft."
Laser tracking systems coupled with IR detection have already been developed for use against all types of aircraft. The limiting factors it would seem would be the turn rate of the laser turret and the accuracy of the tracking, both of which would appear not to be a problem judging by current systems (look at missile seekers, IRST, radar antennae in dogfight situations).
Er, rather, aircraft with integrated IR-laser pods as well as attachable FLIR pods have laser warnings painted on them.
Well, obviously, if you haven't heard of it, there's no way it could possibly exist.
Aircraft with FLIR pods already have high-energy laser warnings.
The legendary SR-71 (high altitude mach 3 spyplane) kept the fuel stored at an extremely low temperature in the tanks (sub zero initially I believe), then pumped it through fuel lines running throughout the aircraft. The fuel would absorb the heat from the various internal components of the plane before arriving at the engines.
A laser weapons system mounted inside an aircraft probably has a very different heat "profile" than your dual Athlon computer. In the article, they mention using cooling coils. Perhaps you should read it.
Yes this is true. Modern aircraft carry inert gas supplies or have Onboard Inert Gas Generation Systems (OBIGGS) which fill the empty space in the tank with nitrogen. It's considered an essential feature.
There was also...
-first usage of an accumulation buffer ("T-buffer") on a consumer video card, creating the anti-aliasing craze that we have today
-very fast memory architecture courtesy of Gigapixel subsidiary, said to influence the creation of LMA in the Geforce cards
Don't forget the Rampage (Geforce 3 killer, taped out days before 3dfx was bought by nvidia, some pictures of it in a lab are floating around on the net) which would have had some features that are only now being explored, such as:
-ability to accelerate Photoshop filters (potential for 3dlabs new "P10" architecture)
-maximum memory capacity of 256MB
-4 way onboard SLI, i.e. scalable multiple chip architecture
-~12GB/s memory bandwidth, compared to Geforce 3's ~7
ATI's rapid development of the Radeon R100 and R200 chipsets didn't help things for 3dfx, either.
"Rapid"? Come on, the reason the ATi video cards based on those chips failed was that they were released months late. Many thought that the same mistake would occur with the later Radeon models, though thankfully it didn't.
The National Space Defense Force established a full military base on the moon meters away from the lunar lander site months before it landed. It's about time the truth was revealed, and people finally found out what happened to all those men who went missing and lost their lives, fighting for liberty on the lunar terrain against the Soviet forces of communism.
(Battlezone fans will recognize this one)