Immerman and kyosuke: Yes, the beam is already diverged owing to imperfections of the laser collimating optics. That's not the same thing as adding deliberately diverging optics. As I noted elsewhere, divergence makes the problem worse for pilots, because the beam is still very bright but at distance becomes 6' or more in diameter, making it very easy to target aircraft.
ShanghaiBill: you misunderstand the problem. The beam is already diverged owing to imperfections of the laser collimating optics. That makes the problem worse for pilots, because the beam is still very bright but at distance becomes 6' or more in diameter, making it very easy to target aircraft. It's the temporary blinding effect that is so dangerous, where pilots are unable to read their instruments for a critical period during takeoff or landing. It's happened to me, and is like having a bright searchlight suddenly flood the cockpit, destroying night vision and rendering instruments unreadable. You can find youtube videos illustrating the effect.
Dear sick: you are dumb and don't know what you're talking about. The risk is not pilot eye damage. It's pilot distraction or temporary blinding during a critical phase of flight. As a helicopter pilot, I can tell you that every phase of flight in a helo is critical, as we typically fly at 500' AGL by law and are constantly looking for obstacles to avoid. A laser that makes me not see and avoid the power lines ahead will kill me just as effectively as if it had been a photon torpedo fired from the USS Enterprise.
When an airliner is landing, this is also a critical phase of flight. Blinding the pilot then will make it impossible to read instruments, possibly if not probably resulting in the aircraft departing from the glide slope and runway centerline and into a collision with airport surroundings.
You're right that no aircraft in the US has been shot down yet by a laser, although some pilots have suffered permanent eye damage. This is where the part about you being dumb comes in. See, intelligent people try to be pro-active about foreseeable disasters and take action before anyone, even a dumb person, dies. So we're just looking out for you. Pity you're too dumb to realize that.
Swell: try this experiment. Get on a busy freeway during nighttime rush hour. Now point two high-intensity flashlights directly to into your retinas for thirty seconds. Then try driving.
It's not eye damage we're worried about. It's collision damage from the aircraft careening into a parking structure during final approach, killing everyone on board.
Too bad lasers blasted your eyes and you can't read. You would have read that we're talking about all-spectrum goggles. You should have paid attention to the t-shirt;)
But we're all buying from the same places. There is no way to reliably verify that a person is, say, a construction worker. Not without some kind of idiotic heavy-handed government licensing. You want that? Really?
That won't work because "the public" includes the many tradespeople and professionals that use lasers for surveying, construction, directional antenna alignment, and cat therapy.
Googles won't work, and neither will a filtering windshield. They'll just obscure vision. The wavelengths are all over the spectrum. The only thing that would filter them all is a piece of steel. Tough to land that way.
Even if you could protect pilots, what about the rest of the public? As with any dangerous product, the answer is not to make the general public armor themselves, but to simply demand responsibility from the product owners. Your idea is like requiring police to wear bullet-proof helmets so that children can have unfettered use of guns.
As with firearms and drones, people too stupid to use lasers responsibly should not be allowed to use them at all. But also as with guns and drones, the answer is not prohibition. It's education. You should be required to demonstrate safe lasing knowledge before buying, just as you must to buy a handgun most places.
DanDD,
Those requirements are not enough. The current international standard for aircraft traffic separation, for both VFR and IFR, is "see and void". The video bandwidth and coverage technology in drones is not nearly the equivalent of a pilot's swiveling stereo human optics and visual cortex. TCAS doesn't cut it. As an IFR pilot using TCAS I can tell you that it's useless without the optical component. The closest technology weighs hundreds of pounds, and is only used on drones weighing 1000 lbs or more. This attempted integration of drones into controlled airspace is far too early for the technology available.
I began to upgrade my O365 account to the Unlimited Preview but the App demanded access all my pics and addresses. Until I research this more, Microsoft can take an unconditional branch off a short pier. It seems a completely unnecessary privacy violation.
The politics of tech are legitimate topics for discussion on slashdot. Green energy is all about technology, and in the case of Germany's forced green energy policy, the politics got ahead of the technology. That's clear from both articles. If you think not, then cite specific examples of your claims. Don't just have your hands about.
In California price increases average 5-7% per year not counting inflation. That's compounded, of course, so that in just ten years we are paying 80% more for electricity than we did in 2004, again discounting inflation. And the trend is accelerating as a result of carbon caps and increase regulation.
My 'precious electronic toys' use about a tenth of the power that the ones I was using a decade ago for the same purpose did. Even lighting power consumption has dropped. My fridge, freezer and washing machine are the big electricity consumers in my home - efficiency has improved there, but nowhere near as fast as for gadgets.
And I'll wager that your energy costs have skyrocketed. Am I right?
Germany's green energy fantasy is a disaster because NONE of the promised benefits of forced green energy have come to pass, nor do they look likely to occur. The dependence on foreign energy is higher than ever, energy prices are higher than ever (and crippling citizens and businesses alike), and promised green energy yields are much lower than forecast. You have to read the NY Times article (which strains to put a good face on the disaster) to see the downward trend.
. Electricity prices in Germany are already among the highest in the world.
. The price of industrial electricity has risen about 37 percent since 2005.
. International energy experts say the country cannot meet its future needs solely through renewable sources as planned
. The unexpected drop in global energy prices through the emergence of abundant, low-cost natural gas in the United States, further degrades Germany's green energy economic plan
The U.S. government's track record for choosing technologies to invest in is horrible. Probably because, unlike capitalist investors, the government can't resist sullying markets with subsides and manipulative politics. Just look at the US solar efforts. Or the German government's solar disaster if you want to see an extreme fail.
Based on the govt's track record with the unconstitutional Do Not Fly list, does anyone doubt that the Feds would define a class of people "not entitled to communicate" via an unchallengeable and undiscoveraple device bricking list? "They can use the postal system," would be the rationalization.
There is no way to block abuse of any Off Switch technology. It must be opposed ruthlessly NOW!
According to the AFL/CIO's report "Women in the Professional and Technical Labor Force", in the manufacturing sector workers are 71% male, 29% female. Apple is a manufacturer, and as such has a range of employees in technical, clerical, and production categories that fit the manufacturing labor mix profile. So Apple's diversity is actually a tad better than the available workforce. You can't really "improve diversity" without affirmative-action-type job manipulation, which will lead to reduced productivity and innovation.
Even if the innocent recipient deletes it as irrelevant spam, the Great and Wize Google has already seen it and alerted police. It's well demonstrated that even an unfounded charge of pedophelia can destroy someone's career and relationships.
Slashdot Mirror
Even a minor eye injury could end his flying career.
Immerman and kyosuke: Yes, the beam is already diverged owing to imperfections of the laser collimating optics. That's not the same thing as adding deliberately diverging optics. As I noted elsewhere, divergence makes the problem worse for pilots, because the beam is still very bright but at distance becomes 6' or more in diameter, making it very easy to target aircraft.
ShanghaiBill: you misunderstand the problem. The beam is already diverged owing to imperfections of the laser collimating optics. That makes the problem worse for pilots, because the beam is still very bright but at distance becomes 6' or more in diameter, making it very easy to target aircraft. It's the temporary blinding effect that is so dangerous, where pilots are unable to read their instruments for a critical period during takeoff or landing. It's happened to me, and is like having a bright searchlight suddenly flood the cockpit, destroying night vision and rendering instruments unreadable. You can find youtube videos illustrating the effect.
Dear Sick: if you had bothered to put on your Google goggles you could have easily found instances of pilot eye damage:
http://abcnews.go.com/News/jet...
Dear sick: you are dumb and don't know what you're talking about. The risk is not pilot eye damage. It's pilot distraction or temporary blinding during a critical phase of flight. As a helicopter pilot, I can tell you that every phase of flight in a helo is critical, as we typically fly at 500' AGL by law and are constantly looking for obstacles to avoid. A laser that makes me not see and avoid the power lines ahead will kill me just as effectively as if it had been a photon torpedo fired from the USS Enterprise.
When an airliner is landing, this is also a critical phase of flight. Blinding the pilot then will make it impossible to read instruments, possibly if not probably resulting in the aircraft departing from the glide slope and runway centerline and into a collision with airport surroundings.
You're right that no aircraft in the US has been shot down yet by a laser, although some pilots have suffered permanent eye damage. This is where the part about you being dumb comes in. See, intelligent people try to be pro-active about foreseeable disasters and take action before anyone, even a dumb person, dies. So we're just looking out for you. Pity you're too dumb to realize that.
Swell: try this experiment. Get on a busy freeway during nighttime rush hour. Now point two high-intensity flashlights directly to into your retinas for thirty seconds. Then try driving.
It's not eye damage we're worried about. It's collision damage from the aircraft careening into a parking structure during final approach, killing everyone on board.
Too bad lasers blasted your eyes and you can't read. You would have read that we're talking about all-spectrum goggles. You should have paid attention to the t-shirt ;)
But we're all buying from the same places. There is no way to reliably verify that a person is, say, a construction worker. Not without some kind of idiotic heavy-handed government licensing. You want that? Really?
They don't.
Actually, Googles will work, and are excellent for education. Goggles won't work. ;)
That won't work because "the public" includes the many tradespeople and professionals that use lasers for surveying, construction, directional antenna alignment, and cat therapy.
Googles won't work, and neither will a filtering windshield. They'll just obscure vision. The wavelengths are all over the spectrum. The only thing that would filter them all is a piece of steel. Tough to land that way.
Even if you could protect pilots, what about the rest of the public? As with any dangerous product, the answer is not to make the general public armor themselves, but to simply demand responsibility from the product owners. Your idea is like requiring police to wear bullet-proof helmets so that children can have unfettered use of guns.
As with firearms and drones, people too stupid to use lasers responsibly should not be allowed to use them at all. But also as with guns and drones, the answer is not prohibition. It's education. You should be required to demonstrate safe lasing knowledge before buying, just as you must to buy a handgun most places.
And when you do let children use a laser you own, make sure you supervise them closely.
I have a great t-shirt from Meredith Instruments that reads "DANGER! LASER RADIATION! Do not expose beam to remaining eye."
DanDD, Those requirements are not enough. The current international standard for aircraft traffic separation, for both VFR and IFR, is "see and void". The video bandwidth and coverage technology in drones is not nearly the equivalent of a pilot's swiveling stereo human optics and visual cortex. TCAS doesn't cut it. As an IFR pilot using TCAS I can tell you that it's useless without the optical component. The closest technology weighs hundreds of pounds, and is only used on drones weighing 1000 lbs or more. This attempted integration of drones into controlled airspace is far too early for the technology available.
Charlie stosser a skiker plossing. Being green. Ans a moloko man in the dustbin. Crater him.
I began to upgrade my O365 account to the Unlimited Preview but the App demanded access all my pics and addresses. Until I research this more, Microsoft can take an unconditional branch off a short pier. It seems a completely unnecessary privacy violation.
The politics of tech are legitimate topics for discussion on slashdot. Green energy is all about technology, and in the case of Germany's forced green energy policy, the politics got ahead of the technology. That's clear from both articles. If you think not, then cite specific examples of your claims. Don't just have your hands about.
In California price increases average 5-7% per year not counting inflation. That's compounded, of course, so that in just ten years we are paying 80% more for electricity than we did in 2004, again discounting inflation. And the trend is accelerating as a result of carbon caps and increase regulation.
My 'precious electronic toys' use about a tenth of the power that the ones I was using a decade ago for the same purpose did. Even lighting power consumption has dropped. My fridge, freezer and washing machine are the big electricity consumers in my home - efficiency has improved there, but nowhere near as fast as for gadgets.
And I'll wager that your energy costs have skyrocketed. Am I right?
Germany's green energy fantasy is a disaster because NONE of the promised benefits of forced green energy have come to pass, nor do they look likely to occur. The dependence on foreign energy is higher than ever, energy prices are higher than ever (and crippling citizens and businesses alike), and promised green energy yields are much lower than forecast. You have to read the NY Times article (which strains to put a good face on the disaster) to see the downward trend.
I am happy to use Google for you.
Here's the Forbes article Germanys Green Energy Disaster a Cautionary Tale for World Leaders.
That was 2013. Here it is even worse a year later in the NY times article German Energy Push Runs Into Problems, reporting major troubles such as:
. Electricity prices in Germany are already among the highest in the world.
. The price of industrial electricity has risen about 37 percent since 2005.
. International energy experts say the country cannot meet its future needs solely through renewable sources as planned
. The unexpected drop in global energy prices through the emergence of abundant, low-cost natural gas in the United States, further degrades Germany's green energy economic plan
The U.S. government's track record for choosing technologies to invest in is horrible. Probably because, unlike capitalist investors, the government can't resist sullying markets with subsides and manipulative politics. Just look at the US solar efforts. Or the German government's solar disaster if you want to see an extreme fail.
Based on the govt's track record with the unconstitutional Do Not Fly list, does anyone doubt that the Feds would define a class of people "not entitled to communicate" via an unchallengeable and undiscoveraple device bricking list? "They can use the postal system," would be the rationalization.
There is no way to block abuse of any Off Switch technology. It must be opposed ruthlessly NOW!
According to the AFL/CIO's report "Women in the Professional and Technical Labor Force", in the manufacturing sector workers are 71% male, 29% female. Apple is a manufacturer, and as such has a range of employees in technical, clerical, and production categories that fit the manufacturing labor mix profile. So Apple's diversity is actually a tad better than the available workforce. You can't really "improve diversity" without affirmative-action-type job manipulation, which will lead to reduced productivity and innovation.
Even if the innocent recipient deletes it as irrelevant spam, the Great and Wize Google has already seen it and alerted police. It's well demonstrated that even an unfounded charge of pedophelia can destroy someone's career and relationships.
That's the last straw. Goodbye gmail.