hmmmm. Yeah, sorry. That was written in a hurry, and I left extra in there.
A number of Criticism came out on the BWB as a passenger hauling aircraft:
Not enough experience with BWB's. They are trickier, but the simply fact is, that the B2 and the drones are showing that extremely flyable.
No windows that so many ppl have come to expect. Ccameras combined with seat-back videos have proven to be a hit, so this is a none issue.
The number of exits will be tricky, though the designers say they have it covered. Considering that the same was said of 380, I would say a none issue.
HOWEVER, the real interesting one is that ppl will feel more forces during a roll, or even in turbulance. Watch the wings next time you fly. A lot of bounce is in there.
That last one is the only one with bite. The old 707 was a fairly stiff wing and lead to the hull being bounced a lot. Airlines feel that passengers will object to this aircraft due to the bounce. My argument (and many others), is that those who object will fly wing/tubes for a time, OR will fly the center seats. OTH, those who enjoy even moderate amusement park rides, will have no issues with flying the outer edges. Given the fuel economy of this design (30-50%) of which fuel now accounts for more than 50% of the costs, I think that this aircraft will take off quickly. Of course, it would be better if used by the military, followed by cargo haulers next (who will also be extremely happy with the craft's fuel savings).
Ok, so we have loads of experience with Blended wing bodies in the military. How about applying that tech back to the BWB and getting it built. It can be used for Tanker, Cargo, and even bombers for the military. Likewise, it can be used for freight airlines. Then over time, we will see the regular airlines pick this up, put cargo on the outer edges and avoid the issues with having a regular airline pick it up. Why? Because it will use 30-50% less fuel.
Actually, I worked there in early 90 (for watson). And that was not what did the company in. It was the change that was coming in the industry and IBM fighting against it. They wanted their high profits in the same area as PCs. It did not work that way.
Still, these things weren't enough to make Saturn profitable, and your scheme is just bread from ignorance.
No, it was not. Saturn started off with a LOT less than what they have NOW. Add in Hummer (even the H3 has a number of innovations that makes nice for offroad; though most of the real IP will likely remain with AMGen), and Volvo (heavy IP in safety), and a GOOD ceo COULD turn it around. Combine these together, and it will be hard. HOWEVER, the also COMPLEMENT each other. Bringing Saturn back into the GM really helped nothing. Why? Because Saturn cars were similar.
What I can tell you is that if they bring another person in from the automotive industry to run, they would be slitting their throat. Far better to bring in somebody from outside that prefers engineers over accounts, but KNOWS that costs must be contained. At the least, it must be contained in the first year or more.
Seriously, Google SHOULD consider the idea of funding a number of these folks in small start-ups to force competition. Basically, HONEST competition is GREAT for the industry and for Google. The problem comes in when you have a monopoly that uses their weight and money to buy out established competitors and try hard to create a small oligolopoly, or an illegal monopoly (typically tied to a set of closed products like an OS and a office suite).
In fact, if GM REALLY wanted to excel, they would break themselves up, and have the divisions compete. The problem with the situation for GM, Chrysler and Ford was that it was too few CEO's and worse, they were incestuous (had to come up through the industry). Heck, rather than sell volvo, saturn, and hummer to China, they would be better off rolling them into one company, giving them a CEO from outside of the industry, and then allowing them to compete against others, esp GM itself. It will mean that the company would have to shrink, but, within 4 years they would be ready for IPO, or would be bankrupt.
Stupid black holes are now being emitted and going into power plants. Thank God that it was done in an area that believes in science. Here in the states, we would have a large group (republicans) screaming that it goes against God and we are not suppose to find out nature's secrets (unless it can be turned into a new WMD as laid out by the bible ) and a very small group of ppl screaming that it is destroying the environment (extremist greenies).
Yes, it is. It is working great. I read and hear from friends that tell me that they are constantly taking out taliban and AQ, one right after the other.
We need to fly a couple of VERY HIGH FLYING DRONES loaded with weapons. This is so stupid. Far too many countries have paid so these uneducated guys have found an easy way to make money.
Instead the initial attack will likely be local wifi's set up to relay their signals. It is trivial to rig and will take longer than an hour or two for Indian police to figure out what is going on and to get them. Then it will be via different cell phones after a pre-determined length of time. Basically, communication is VERY easy to establish and difficult to stop.
Oh, gee, I don't know; Perhaps the possible build-up of allergies, the possibility to pass along virus or prions that infect humans; and that is not considering what the religious nutjobs will be saying.
This is EXACTLY what patents were developed for. A mechanical system like this has a FAIRLY LIMITED LIFETIME (unlike copyrights).
As it is, I think that the approach that they are taking is actually the wrong way. OTH, It is better than what is currently done. Others like MS could license it. More likely MS will introduce a similar patent and it will go through due to how stupid the US patent office has become.
Once this working, how soon will we see one of the processors start growing human cells? Seriously, it seems like Germany and other countries (including America) have a fetish these days for cannibalism. There would be no legal means of obtaining the meat from a real source, so no competition, though hopefully a SMALL market.
First, I really was not criticizing him (though you might think so in the last line). In that last line, that is the same comment that I hear all over. It is one that prevents some of the NASA staff from moving forward
But to be honest, I doubt that the average joe cares one way or another. Heck, who many average joes know about the x-prize or who won it?
And that is a big part of the problem.
Not really true. Man has THOUSANDS of years of business experience to back up Wall Street. Rockets have less than 70 years. The reality is that rocket science is not science. It is still very much in an art form. This is more true due to the high costs to build these systems. Once we have a number of systems and have tried various things, THEN and ONLY THEN will you really see the death rate go down.
Now, you speak about 'Morally acceptable', but those that fly(actually ride) these vehicle KNOW THE SCORE. THEY ARE ALL VOLUNTEERS. These are ppl that are not going into this in a stupid fashion. They know what can and can not go wrong. Heck, If I can get a free ride on the shuttle, I will gladly take it right now. Why? Because I, like many ppl througout the world as well as all the astronauts, find it plenty safe and most certainly 'morally acceptable'.
NASA can not afford accidents, not because of the sanctity of human life or any nonsense like that, but because it will kill NASA and probably manned spaceflight in this country in general.
Somewhat agree. The reality is that we continue in spite of the fact that we had 2 major loses on the shuttle system and one on the apollo.
Even privately funded spaceflight will get shut down (in this country at least) if it has too many high profile accidents. Even if in reality the cost in lives is minuscule compared to what we lose daily in car accidents or lung cancer from smoking, a few big accidents in a row and the politicians will see "stopping the reckles endangerment of human lives" as a way to score some cheap votes.
Somewhat true. The reality is that if we have MULTIPLE businesses in this, they will all try to be safer than the other. The reason is that it will be VERY VISIBLE for each and ever crash.
But the private industry CAN afford to take more hits than NASA, IF they are cheaper.
If human beings were rational and logical, you'd have a point, but we aren't, and too many astronaut funerals on TV will inevitably cause a kneejerk reaction.
In spite of the fact that your reaction IS a kneejerk reaction, I think that America/World will do just fine even if we lose a few high profiles like Bill Gates.
Seriously, Rutan had it right when he said that we are not killing enough. The simple fact is, that to be cutting edge WILL involve loss of life. Yet, NASA is talking all about safety rather than designing/building new rockets.
Yes, but that may be a serious mistake for Google. MS is looking to take on Google by using their monopoly. They have nearly 40 years of showing that they have NO ISSUE with doing illegal and immoral actions to win to destroy another company (I would NOT be surprised to find out that those 2 bozos have had ppl murdered). The only way to win long term with ANY monopoly like this is to the fight out of their backyard. That is what happened to us @ IBM when I worked there.
Basically, Google should be make a concerted effort to have the best stuff ported to Linux (even *nix) where they will force MS to compete FAIRLY.
Get the distros to encourage it. I am thinking of the strides that Apple made with Safari by encouraging users to tell them when a website failed, and then QUIETLY called the businesses to work with them to do the right things. It has helped Safari have better penetration through the market @ a relatively quick clip.
I get tired of ppl trying to paint Google at this time, with the same brush that applies to MS. Google has been very heavily into creating NEW ideas as well as being VERY consumer friendly. OTH, MS has a long and tired history of taking other ppls ideas and developing them on their platform and then selling them cheaply (or giving them away) to drive out competition. Once they have done that, THEN they jack up the prices. Even in the early days of MS, they stole the idea of the all encompassing IDE from Borland, and then encouraged others to steal it from them. Gates openly said that it was taking money from Borland( They do the same in China by charging less than $5 for what is over $200 here. ). OTH, Google has created new ideas and even give them away, as well as encourage others to make use of them.
With that said, I do think that if MS CAN hurt Google, then I can see the day coming where Google will allow business ppl to take over. At that time, they will be just like AOL, Intuit, E-bay, Novell, IBM, yahoo, etc. and their days will be numbered. MS has a major advantage with their illegal obtained monopoly.
I grew up in northern ill about 20 minutes south of Lake Geneva, Wisc. We had a town of less than 500 (now up to 1600 according to city-data). We had numerous libraries all around. Exactly why do you think that the libraries in this fairly rural area would be on fire? In fact, why would you think that all libraries are gone? Or for that matter, the majority? As it is, China, makes heavy use of Neutron bombs, which will have less of a firebomb.
And that is just in America. All of the developed countries have loads of libraries, and the majority of the undeveloped nations will not see a nuke, just radiation.
Besides, I seriously doubt that it would be nukes. Instead, it is more likely to be something like Avian Flu or some other virus spread by mother nature, or even terrorists (like say Al Qaeda; it is trivial to make this happen; Thank God that they have religious restrictions, though I do wonder what will happen when we have them on the ropes).
Besides, what does it matter? The idea is that nations that tax is there to dissuade nations from allowing pollution. The real trick is to implement it SLOWLY, so that damage to the economy does not occur, but instead encourages ALL nations and ALL business to work at lowering the CO2 in their area. Otherwise, we are going to see more of what is occurring; Oil companies going to Brazil, India, China, and Russia where they can emit at will and then import the item with ZERO impact. In fact, if America's current energy bill goes through, I am betting that the southwest will import Electricity from MEXICO with NO POLLUTION CONTROL and medium level CO2 emitting coal.
In America, I would like us put part of the money into Energy RD, help move us off of oil/Coal, some should go back into a fund to help those nations that WILL have issues, and most importantly, balance OUR GD BUDGET (and then pass an balanced budget amendment). In the end, it is up to each nation to decide what to do.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, I have such a difficult time telling the difference between those two.
A number of Criticism came out on the BWB as a passenger hauling aircraft:
That last one is the only one with bite. The old 707 was a fairly stiff wing and lead to the hull being bounced a lot. Airlines feel that passengers will object to this aircraft due to the bounce. My argument (and many others), is that those who object will fly wing/tubes for a time, OR will fly the center seats. OTH, those who enjoy even moderate amusement park rides, will have no issues with flying the outer edges. Given the fuel economy of this design (30-50%) of which fuel now accounts for more than 50% of the costs, I think that this aircraft will take off quickly. Of course, it would be better if used by the military, followed by cargo haulers next (who will also be extremely happy with the craft's fuel savings).
Ok, so we have loads of experience with Blended wing bodies in the military. How about applying that tech back to the BWB and getting it built. It can be used for Tanker, Cargo, and even bombers for the military. Likewise, it can be used for freight airlines. Then over time, we will see the regular airlines pick this up, put cargo on the outer edges and avoid the issues with having a regular airline pick it up. Why? Because it will use 30-50% less fuel.
Actually, I worked there in early 90 (for watson). And that was not what did the company in. It was the change that was coming in the industry and IBM fighting against it. They wanted their high profits in the same area as PCs. It did not work that way.
Still, these things weren't enough to make Saturn profitable, and your scheme is just bread from ignorance.
No, it was not. Saturn started off with a LOT less than what they have NOW. Add in Hummer (even the H3 has a number of innovations that makes nice for offroad; though most of the real IP will likely remain with AMGen), and Volvo (heavy IP in safety), and a GOOD ceo COULD turn it around. Combine these together, and it will be hard. HOWEVER, the also COMPLEMENT each other. Bringing Saturn back into the GM really helped nothing. Why? Because Saturn cars were similar.
What I can tell you is that if they bring another person in from the automotive industry to run, they would be slitting their throat. Far better to bring in somebody from outside that prefers engineers over accounts, but KNOWS that costs must be contained. At the least, it must be contained in the first year or more.
Seriously, Google SHOULD consider the idea of funding a number of these folks in small start-ups to force competition. Basically, HONEST competition is GREAT for the industry and for Google. The problem comes in when you have a monopoly that uses their weight and money to buy out established competitors and try hard to create a small oligolopoly, or an illegal monopoly (typically tied to a set of closed products like an OS and a office suite).
In fact, if GM REALLY wanted to excel, they would break themselves up, and have the divisions compete. The problem with the situation for GM, Chrysler and Ford was that it was too few CEO's and worse, they were incestuous (had to come up through the industry). Heck, rather than sell volvo, saturn, and hummer to China, they would be better off rolling them into one company, giving them a CEO from outside of the industry, and then allowing them to compete against others, esp GM itself. It will mean that the company would have to shrink, but, within 4 years they would be ready for IPO, or would be bankrupt.
Stupid black holes are now being emitted and going into power plants. Thank God that it was done in an area that believes in science. Here in the states, we would have a large group (republicans) screaming that it goes against God and we are not suppose to find out nature's secrets (unless it can be turned into a new WMD as laid out by the bible ) and a very small group of ppl screaming that it is destroying the environment (extremist greenies).
Yes, it is. It is working great. I read and hear from friends that tell me that they are constantly taking out taliban and AQ, one right after the other.
We need to fly a couple of VERY HIGH FLYING DRONES loaded with weapons. This is so stupid. Far too many countries have paid so these uneducated guys have found an easy way to make money.
Instead the initial attack will likely be local wifi's set up to relay their signals. It is trivial to rig and will take longer than an hour or two for Indian police to figure out what is going on and to get them. Then it will be via different cell phones after a pre-determined length of time. Basically, communication is VERY easy to establish and difficult to stop.
Oh, gee, I don't know; Perhaps the possible build-up of allergies, the possibility to pass along virus or prions that infect humans; and that is not considering what the religious nutjobs will be saying.
This is EXACTLY what patents were developed for. A mechanical system like this has a FAIRLY LIMITED LIFETIME (unlike copyrights).
As it is, I think that the approach that they are taking is actually the wrong way. OTH, It is better than what is currently done. Others like MS could license it. More likely MS will introduce a similar patent and it will go through due to how stupid the US patent office has become.
Once this working, how soon will we see one of the processors start growing human cells? Seriously, it seems like Germany and other countries (including America) have a fetish these days for cannibalism. There would be no legal means of obtaining the meat from a real source, so no competition, though hopefully a SMALL market.
First, I really was not criticizing him (though you might think so in the last line). In that last line, that is the same comment that I hear all over. It is one that prevents some of the NASA staff from moving forward
But to be honest, I doubt that the average joe cares one way or another. Heck, who many average joes know about the x-prize or who won it?
And that is a big part of the problem.
Not really true. Man has THOUSANDS of years of business experience to back up Wall Street. Rockets have less than 70 years. The reality is that rocket science is not science. It is still very much in an art form. This is more true due to the high costs to build these systems. Once we have a number of systems and have tried various things, THEN and ONLY THEN will you really see the death rate go down.
Now, you speak about 'Morally acceptable', but those that fly(actually ride) these vehicle KNOW THE SCORE. THEY ARE ALL VOLUNTEERS. These are ppl that are not going into this in a stupid fashion. They know what can and can not go wrong. Heck, If I can get a free ride on the shuttle, I will gladly take it right now. Why? Because I, like many ppl througout the world as well as all the astronauts, find it plenty safe and most certainly 'morally acceptable'.
NASA can not afford accidents, not because of the sanctity of human life or any nonsense like that, but because it will kill NASA and probably manned spaceflight in this country in general.
Somewhat agree. The reality is that we continue in spite of the fact that we had 2 major loses on the shuttle system and one on the apollo.
Even privately funded spaceflight will get shut down (in this country at least) if it has too many high profile accidents. Even if in reality the cost in lives is minuscule compared to what we lose daily in car accidents or lung cancer from smoking, a few big accidents in a row and the politicians will see "stopping the reckles endangerment of human lives" as a way to score some cheap votes.
Somewhat true. The reality is that if we have MULTIPLE businesses in this, they will all try to be safer than the other. The reason is that it will be VERY VISIBLE for each and ever crash. But the private industry CAN afford to take more hits than NASA, IF they are cheaper.
If human beings were rational and logical, you'd have a point, but we aren't, and too many astronaut funerals on TV will inevitably cause a kneejerk reaction.
In spite of the fact that your reaction IS a kneejerk reaction, I think that America/World will do just fine even if we lose a few high profiles like Bill Gates.
Seriously, Rutan had it right when he said that we are not killing enough. The simple fact is, that to be cutting edge WILL involve loss of life. Yet, NASA is talking all about safety rather than designing/building new rockets.
Yes, but that may be a serious mistake for Google. MS is looking to take on Google by using their monopoly. They have nearly 40 years of showing that they have NO ISSUE with doing illegal and immoral actions to win to destroy another company (I would NOT be surprised to find out that those 2 bozos have had ppl murdered). The only way to win long term with ANY monopoly like this is to the fight out of their backyard. That is what happened to us @ IBM when I worked there. Basically, Google should be make a concerted effort to have the best stuff ported to Linux (even *nix) where they will force MS to compete FAIRLY.
Sketch?
Gtalk client?
etc, etc, etc
Get the distros to encourage it. I am thinking of the strides that Apple made with Safari by encouraging users to tell them when a website failed, and then QUIETLY called the businesses to work with them to do the right things. It has helped Safari have better penetration through the market @ a relatively quick clip.
I get tired of ppl trying to paint Google at this time, with the same brush that applies to MS. Google has been very heavily into creating NEW ideas as well as being VERY consumer friendly. OTH, MS has a long and tired history of taking other ppls ideas and developing them on their platform and then selling them cheaply (or giving them away) to drive out competition. Once they have done that, THEN they jack up the prices. Even in the early days of MS, they stole the idea of the all encompassing IDE from Borland, and then encouraged others to steal it from them. Gates openly said that it was taking money from Borland( They do the same in China by charging less than $5 for what is over $200 here. ). OTH, Google has created new ideas and even give them away, as well as encourage others to make use of them.
With that said, I do think that if MS CAN hurt Google, then I can see the day coming where Google will allow business ppl to take over. At that time, they will be just like AOL, Intuit, E-bay, Novell, IBM, yahoo, etc. and their days will be numbered. MS has a major advantage with their illegal obtained monopoly.
I grew up in northern ill about 20 minutes south of Lake Geneva, Wisc. We had a town of less than 500 (now up to 1600 according to city-data). We had numerous libraries all around. Exactly why do you think that the libraries in this fairly rural area would be on fire? In fact, why would you think that all libraries are gone? Or for that matter, the majority? As it is, China, makes heavy use of Neutron bombs, which will have less of a firebomb.
And that is just in America. All of the developed countries have loads of libraries, and the majority of the undeveloped nations will not see a nuke, just radiation.
Besides, I seriously doubt that it would be nukes. Instead, it is more likely to be something like Avian Flu or some other virus spread by mother nature, or even terrorists (like say Al Qaeda; it is trivial to make this happen; Thank God that they have religious restrictions, though I do wonder what will happen when we have them on the ropes).
I am curious. What is your idea of what it takes to survive in the future world?
Besides, what does it matter? The idea is that nations that tax is there to dissuade nations from allowing pollution. The real trick is to implement it SLOWLY, so that damage to the economy does not occur, but instead encourages ALL nations and ALL business to work at lowering the CO2 in their area. Otherwise, we are going to see more of what is occurring; Oil companies going to Brazil, India, China, and Russia where they can emit at will and then import the item with ZERO impact. In fact, if America's current energy bill goes through, I am betting that the southwest will import Electricity from MEXICO with NO POLLUTION CONTROL and medium level CO2 emitting coal.
In America, I would like us put part of the money into Energy RD, help move us off of oil/Coal, some should go back into a fund to help those nations that WILL have issues, and most importantly, balance OUR GD BUDGET (and then pass an balanced budget amendment). In the end, it is up to each nation to decide what to do.