Maybe, though it would be nice if Taco and Company would add another option. Something along the lines of Stupid, Idiot, Moron or You've Got to be Kidding!
Wrong. Mars does have an atmosphere though it is much less dense than our own. Read the Wiki about Mars exploration which talks about the parachutes. A quick Google will turn up much more information about atmospheric density, size of parachutes to compensate for a less dense atmosphere, size of objects to be parachuted, etc.
why in the world do we have a parachute on the lander?
Because it was too big and heavy to use the bouncing airbag routine the two rovers used to successfully land on Mars. Further, bouncing creates much more shock to the system than a one-off parachute deployment.
Also, "captured while its in the air" might not be an appropriate way to summarize the article as there is no air on Mars.
See my second comment. You are assuming something which is not correct.
Can someone please explain why we are wasting our money putting a parachute on the lander?
I just did.
And to think I gave up the opportunity to mod you a troll to explain something so basic.
I'm glad you brought that up. I mentioned this to my dad a while back (I used the figure of a 1/4 second but close enough) and he gave me that deer in the headlights look for a few seconds as it just dawned on him what I said.
It's funny to think we are living "behind" real time yet our body keeps (most of) us functioning normally. Evolution is interesting, isn't it?
With all the oddball names the folks at Ubuntu use, my first thought was they had named their next release and had kept in code that was on the chopping block.
You should do some homework regarding using H for power. First, being the lightest element, it does not like to be constrained and so seeps easily out of containers which are not properly sealed or, and this is key, thick enough.
Yes, thick enough. Do a Google for how thick tanks have to be to contain hydrogen and you will see that you are adding substantial amounts of weight to any vehicle which uses hydrogen as a power source. Why thick? Because you need a lot of H to do the same amount of work that gas does and the only way to get a lot of H into any area is to compress it. To keep it under pressure you need a strong containment vessel (or wessel as Chekov would say).
Second, you can't just have Joe Six Pack walk up to an H filling station, pull out the hose and start pumping. To use the compressed H (see above) it has to be liquified which means extremely cold temperatures. Usually, tranferring H to containers involves an automated process, not some guy with a cigarette hanging out his mouth, a cell phone in one hand and the other hand holding the valve open.
In the end, using H as a power source, while a nice idea, is not feasible. You're missing at least one, if not more, steps in your example above. The liquification stage. That takes large amounts of energy to do so by using your example, you'd have to build the liquification plant next to the nuclear plant which is doing the electrolysis. That's what we need, a large source of explosive material next to a nuclear plant.
This is not to say that we shouldn't use H where it can be easily applied but as a source to fuel cars, buses, planes, etc, it's simply a pipe dream.
As I said in my journal, I really tried to get into Heroes but I only lasted three episodes or so. Just not my thing. But at least the women look good. Because that's all that matters, right?
As a rule, I don't respond to ACs, but some of your comments are so ridiculous, they demand a response.
Regulations only serve to raise prices.
In the grand scheme of things, maybe. Companies always whine about being regulated and how much it will cost them to implement the regulations but they don't need an excuse to raise prices. Comcast does it all the time since it has a monopoly in the areas it serves. No new regulations have been passed requiring them to do anything more than they already do.
As I have said in other postings regarding Comcast, they have raised my rates but have not provided any new channels or services. In fact, they have taken channels away without replacing them. As they have a monopoly, government regulations, in this particular case, would benefit the community through (hopefully) lower prices for the same services. It would force real competition on the market instead of government sponsored monopoly that now exists.
Some regulations, such as increased environmental protection, handicapped accessible buildings and such, might increase short-term costs but in the long run provide lower costs. However, since American companies are only concerned with short-term gains, your comment is correct. Funny how companies like Honda, Toyota, LG and others don't have a problem implementing regulations and still increase their profits year after year while not increasing prices more than inflation.
Increasing taxes or costs of running just either: Forces companies to increase prices to mitigate losses
Um, what losses? If a company has to spend $1 million to implement a regulation, it's not a loss to the company, it's a cost. Unless you're trying to claim that all costs are losses. By that logic, paying employees is a loss as is having to pay for electricity, office space, etc.
driving up the price of the commodity and increasing costs to consumers
See above. Companies will raise prices and pass along the cost of doing business regardless of regulations. Someone has to pay for that million dollar pay package for the newest CEO. You think they work for free? And who is going to pay them when they run the company into the ground and get a multi-million dollar severance package?
Besides, the majority of companies have a profit margin they want to achieve. If they have to raise prices to keep those margins, they will, regardless of regulations. One could use oil companies as an example. Most are looking at a 15% margin of profit. They could lower their rate to 10% and still make billions which would in turn slightly reduce the cost of gasoline at the pump but they want to keep their margins so they won't. Regulations have nothing to do with Exxon wanting to keep its 15% margins.
If a company makes an investment, and thats precisely what infrastructure is, then that company has to make a profit on that investment, they are legally obliged to.
Whaattt!!?? No company has to make a profit on an investment. They are taking a risk that they will make a profit. There is no guarantee nor is there any legal obligation to do so. If every time a company that made an investment that didn't pan out got sued because of this supposed legal obligation, no one would make any investments.
Or the government can build it, and push your defecit up even more. Pick one.
Considering how much taxpayer money was given to cable and phone companies in the form of tax breaks, tax credits, grants and other goodies over a decade ago to upgrade our nationwide infrastructure, the government has already built it. And yes, the deficit did go up and the companies were the only ones who have made out because all the supposed benefits of the government giving these companies a break has not come to fruition. The logic behind the breaks was to allow more people access to highspeed connections which would increase worker productivity and thus, increase
And if one doesn't have broadband, how long do you expect me to wait to d/l one episode of BSG?
As I said in a posting last week, in my area I have 2 choices for broadband: Comcast and Verizon. In both cases they want $100/month for their triple play (phone, internet, tv) but refuse to offer those same services for $33/month. You must buy all three.
Since I can't get the service I want at the price I want, I stay with dial-up. It's all I need anyway. I'm not grabbing linux distros or full-length porn movies so I don't need the bandwidth.
To those who are complaining that they paid for unlimited usage and are now being told there is a limit, you should not be surprised. Nor should you be surprised that Comcast will not lower your monthly bill to make up for the loss of unlimited usage.
Comcast, because it has a monopoly in most areas it operates, does these kind of stunts on a regular basis. In my case, a year or so ago they stopped carrying two channels which were part of their Basic/Standard cable package. The one channel I really liked was out of New York (I live in Central PA) so I got to see news and such I wouldn't normally see.
When I called to inquire if there was a problem, I was told by the nice lady on the phone that Comcast had dropped the channel because it was "out of area service". Which is funny because they had been carrying that channel for at least a decade.
I asked if they were going to replace the channel with something else. Comcast had not decided on any replacement channel. Would my bill be reduced by the amount equal to the last channel? No, Comcast was not going to lower my bill. "I'm sorry you won't be able to see the Mets games sir."
"I don't care about Mets games. I just wanted to see the news out of New York."
"You can always get the WB on channel 12 sir."
"I don't care about the WB. I just wanted to see the news out of New York."
A few months later, I, and everyone else, get notice that Comcast is raising their cable rates because of all the extra channels and services they were going to provide. I called their 800 number (again) and asked the guy on the phone what new channels I would be getting for this increase in price.
"Oh, that only applies to our premium service sir. The Basic/Standard service is not affected."
"So in other words, I'm paying more but not only not getting anything in return, I've lost channels in the process."
Silence for a few moments
"Yes sir. Would you like to upgrade to our Premium service to take advantage of what we have to offer?"
"Thanks but no thanks."
So there you have it. This is what happens when there is a monopoly of service in an area. It's Econ 101 in action. No competition = higher prices and less service.
I'm just hanging on until the end of BSG then the subscription gets dropped. That extra $600 a year will come in handy.
Now look what you've done. Wasn't it bad enough the shuttle burned up? Now you've gone and burned up the server trying to show us pictures of the mangled hard drive from the burned up shuttle.
I always hoped that, even if my individual complaints weren't looked into, maybe they would aggregate complaints, and investigate the bigger offenders.
Last year, out of the blue, I received an envelope from our Commonwealth's Attorney General. My first thought was, "Huh. They finally caught up to me. Took them long enough."
I opened the envelope and inside was a letter and a check. The letter indicated that sometime back I had submitted a complaint to them about someone who had left repeated messages on my answering machine even though I was on the DNC list. After investigation, the company was fined and the check represented my portion of the settlement amount.
The federal list might take longer but at least in my case, Pennsylvania does investigate marketers who do not observe the list and penalizes them.
You're probably wondering about the check, aren't you? It was more than $10 but less than $100. Enough to fill up my tank a few times back when gas was less than $3/gallon.
Because I like to piss them off by not voting for who they think I should vote for and return their surveys indicating how wrong and stupid their policies are.
Whenever asked, I relentlessly harp on their narrow-minded, rights-infringing, budget-busting policies and laugh as they thrash about trying to justify how they've strayed so far from their supposed principles and now coddle religious nutjobs whose goals are similar to ones we're fighting in Afghanistan.
I figure if nothing else, they'll never contact me asking for money.
And honestly, don't you all think its kindof nice to have somebody on the inside that is pretty clearly a technical person?
Yes, it would be a welcome change from what we have now. Hopefully the San Diego arm of the Republican Party won't lose their emails detailing how to do more regime changes.
Do you think this guy is going to have any trouble understand WHY net neutrality should even be a question?
No, he understands it perfectly. But that won't make the large donations from telecoms to the Republican Party any less important.
Do you think it would be hard to explain to this guy why what the RIAA and MPAA are doing is a ridiculous waste of taxpayer money?
Considering how much money my party has wasted these last 7.3 years, I don't think being fiscally responsible enters into the equation.
because some dumbass saw shiny electronics in a studio and walked off with them.
No, it was because information wants to be free.
Besides, as many a person on here will tell you, there was no actual theft of music since it was all just 1's and 0's. Theft of hardware, certainly, but not music since it's not a physical item.
I'm pretty surprised how quickly Godwin was invoked here!!
That's ok. Israeli President Shimon Peres Godwinned his recent speech.
Of course the really fun part is how the term "never again" keeps popping up yet we've had Srebrenica, Rwanda, and now Darfur but no one, including Isreal, has lifted a finger to act upon "never again".
But hey, it's easier to talk the talk than it is to walk the walk.
The previews for this film really bug me, particularly the way that the cars are constantly fishtailing back and forth.
Ding! That too annoys the crap out of me. It's one thing to suspend belief when watching the cartoon and have springs come out from underneath the Mach 5, but the one thing that the cartoon seemed to get somewhat correct was the way the cars (and drivers) reacted when driving. This looks, as you said, like the producers are trying too hard.
As a rule, I don't watch commercials but out of sheer curiosity, I have watched one or two for this movie. The ONLY redeeming factors I can see are that they kept the sound of the springs when they are activated and Trixie looks hawt in her pink hot pants and boots. Other than that, the movie is most certainly going to be a dog.
He said that despite a tough economic climate, Comcast has been able to raise average revenue per-customer to $107 from $96 over the past 12 months.
In this case, he is Chairman Brian Roberts. In other words, because there is almost none to zero competitors in most of the markets Comcast serves, they can get away with continually raising prices. That is why the U.S. continues to lag the world in broadband.
Yes, there is the whole issue of running fiber and cable long distances in the U.S. compared to other countries like South Korea and Japan, but when you look at places such as New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, etc, you see the same pattern. Only one, or if you're lucky maybe two, providers from which to choose your broadband service.
In my area, we have two choices; Comcast or Verizon. I can pay $100/month for Comcast's triple-play or I can pay $100/month for Verizon's triple-play. But I can't pay $33/month for just the broadband access or $33/month for just the cable subscription (I currently pay $53.31/month for the combined Basic and Standard cable service).
This is the overwhelming reason broadband penetration in the U.S. continues, and will continue, to lag behind the rest of the world. The only solution is, unfortunately, government interference. Force the providers to offer their lines to others based on the logic that it was taxpayers who helped to subsidize the laying of all the cable and fiber through tax breaks and such. Either the companies open their lines and allow competition or they have to pay back all the subsidies they got when they originally promised to bring broadband to the U.S. Ten years ago.
Getting offended by what an idiot says is an awful expensive way to live your life, there are just to many idiots.
Or, as the quote of the day on my web site says:
Rogues are preferable to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest. - Alexandre Dumas
Flying suits of armor? I don't think so.
on
The Science of Iron Man
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
It's nice that Stuart Ross thinks he can develop rocketbelts to enable people to fly. However, until someone comes up with a way to store the, apparently, unlimited fuel necessary to power a suit such as Iron Mans, and have it weigh, again, apparently, next to nothing, we will never see flying suits of armor.
Forget for a moment that a large percentage of people can't safely drive a vehicle on the ground at 65 mph. We now want to develop suits of metal capable of flying hundreds of miles per hour (Iron Man can out run jets and other craft)?
Then there is all his armament that he carries within the suit. How many rounds of ammunition, not to mention various missiles and such, is he carrying? Yeah, I thought so.
Yeah, yeah, I realize this is all fantasy and it makes for good enjoyment. But let's not get ahead of ourselves and try to claim that everything developed in a fantasy environment is directly translatable to real life.
Super-duper computers capable of interacting with humans? Sure. It will take some time but it is feasible and most likely probable. New uber-compounds which can retain their shape or make repairs to themselves? Already happening. Suits of armor capable of flying hundreds of miles per hour? Not gonna happen.
On a side note, is it just me or do Downey's whoops and hollers sound flat? I realize he wasn't actually flying but his yelling just doesn't seem, to me, to be indicative of someone who's flying in a suit of armor.
Slashdot Mirror
You forgot spherical chickens in a vacuum.
Maybe, though it would be nice if Taco and Company would add another option. Something along the lines of Stupid, Idiot, Moron or You've Got to be Kidding!
Yes
If there is no atmosphere/air on Mars,
Wrong. Mars does have an atmosphere though it is much less dense than our own. Read the Wiki about Mars exploration which talks about the parachutes. A quick Google will turn up much more information about atmospheric density, size of parachutes to compensate for a less dense atmosphere, size of objects to be parachuted, etc.
why in the world do we have a parachute on the lander?
Because it was too big and heavy to use the bouncing airbag routine the two rovers used to successfully land on Mars. Further, bouncing creates much more shock to the system than a one-off parachute deployment.
Also, "captured while its in the air" might not be an appropriate way to summarize the article as there is no air on Mars.
See my second comment. You are assuming something which is not correct.
Can someone please explain why we are wasting our money putting a parachute on the lander?
I just did.
And to think I gave up the opportunity to mod you a troll to explain something so basic.
I saw the commercial last night (5/21). And I don't normally watch commercials!
One of the major networks but like above, not sure which one it was.
I'm glad you brought that up. I mentioned this to my dad a while back (I used the figure of a 1/4 second but close enough) and he gave me that deer in the headlights look for a few seconds as it just dawned on him what I said.
It's funny to think we are living "behind" real time yet our body keeps (most of) us functioning normally. Evolution is interesting, isn't it?
With all the oddball names the folks at Ubuntu use, my first thought was they had named their next release and had kept in code that was on the chopping block.
Imagine my surprise. . .
This is why, Flash must die!
You have a problem flying in a toaster? If it's good enough for Star Buck, it's good enough for you.
You should do some homework regarding using H for power. First, being the lightest element, it does not like to be constrained and so seeps easily out of containers which are not properly sealed or, and this is key, thick enough.
Yes, thick enough. Do a Google for how thick tanks have to be to contain hydrogen and you will see that you are adding substantial amounts of weight to any vehicle which uses hydrogen as a power source. Why thick? Because you need a lot of H to do the same amount of work that gas does and the only way to get a lot of H into any area is to compress it. To keep it under pressure you need a strong containment vessel (or wessel as Chekov would say).
Second, you can't just have Joe Six Pack walk up to an H filling station, pull out the hose and start pumping. To use the compressed H (see above) it has to be liquified which means extremely cold temperatures. Usually, tranferring H to containers involves an automated process, not some guy with a cigarette hanging out his mouth, a cell phone in one hand and the other hand holding the valve open.
In the end, using H as a power source, while a nice idea, is not feasible. You're missing at least one, if not more, steps in your example above. The liquification stage. That takes large amounts of energy to do so by using your example, you'd have to build the liquification plant next to the nuclear plant which is doing the electrolysis. That's what we need, a large source of explosive material next to a nuclear plant.
This is not to say that we shouldn't use H where it can be easily applied but as a source to fuel cars, buses, planes, etc, it's simply a pipe dream.
For your reading pleasure: eSkeptic
Especially with their newest piece of eye candy.
As I said in my journal, I really tried to get into Heroes but I only lasted three episodes or so. Just not my thing. But at least the women look good. Because that's all that matters, right?
Yup, my bad. That is how I wrote it so you can't blame the editors entirely. I should know better (B.S. in Paralegal Studies).
Sorry.
Regulations only serve to raise prices.
In the grand scheme of things, maybe. Companies always whine about being regulated and how much it will cost them to implement the regulations but they don't need an excuse to raise prices. Comcast does it all the time since it has a monopoly in the areas it serves. No new regulations have been passed requiring them to do anything more than they already do.
As I have said in other postings regarding Comcast, they have raised my rates but have not provided any new channels or services. In fact, they have taken channels away without replacing them. As they have a monopoly, government regulations, in this particular case, would benefit the community through (hopefully) lower prices for the same services. It would force real competition on the market instead of government sponsored monopoly that now exists.
Some regulations, such as increased environmental protection, handicapped accessible buildings and such, might increase short-term costs but in the long run provide lower costs. However, since American companies are only concerned with short-term gains, your comment is correct. Funny how companies like Honda, Toyota, LG and others don't have a problem implementing regulations and still increase their profits year after year while not increasing prices more than inflation.
Increasing taxes or costs of running just either: Forces companies to increase prices to mitigate losses
Um, what losses? If a company has to spend $1 million to implement a regulation, it's not a loss to the company, it's a cost. Unless you're trying to claim that all costs are losses. By that logic, paying employees is a loss as is having to pay for electricity, office space, etc.
driving up the price of the commodity and increasing costs to consumers
See above. Companies will raise prices and pass along the cost of doing business regardless of regulations. Someone has to pay for that million dollar pay package for the newest CEO. You think they work for free? And who is going to pay them when they run the company into the ground and get a multi-million dollar severance package?
Besides, the majority of companies have a profit margin they want to achieve. If they have to raise prices to keep those margins, they will, regardless of regulations. One could use oil companies as an example. Most are looking at a 15% margin of profit. They could lower their rate to 10% and still make billions which would in turn slightly reduce the cost of gasoline at the pump but they want to keep their margins so they won't. Regulations have nothing to do with Exxon wanting to keep its 15% margins.
If a company makes an investment, and thats precisely what infrastructure is, then that company has to make a profit on that investment, they are legally obliged to.
Whaattt!!?? No company has to make a profit on an investment. They are taking a risk that they will make a profit. There is no guarantee nor is there any legal obligation to do so. If every time a company that made an investment that didn't pan out got sued because of this supposed legal obligation, no one would make any investments.
Or the government can build it, and push your defecit up even more. Pick one.
Considering how much taxpayer money was given to cable and phone companies in the form of tax breaks, tax credits, grants and other goodies over a decade ago to upgrade our nationwide infrastructure, the government has already built it. And yes, the deficit did go up and the companies were the only ones who have made out because all the supposed benefits of the government giving these companies a break has not come to fruition. The logic behind the breaks was to allow more people access to highspeed connections which would increase worker productivity and thus, increase
And if one doesn't have broadband, how long do you expect me to wait to d/l one episode of BSG?
As I said in a posting last week, in my area I have 2 choices for broadband: Comcast and Verizon. In both cases they want $100/month for their triple play (phone, internet, tv) but refuse to offer those same services for $33/month. You must buy all three.
Since I can't get the service I want at the price I want, I stay with dial-up. It's all I need anyway. I'm not grabbing linux distros or full-length porn movies so I don't need the bandwidth.
To those who are complaining that they paid for unlimited usage and are now being told there is a limit, you should not be surprised. Nor should you be surprised that Comcast will not lower your monthly bill to make up for the loss of unlimited usage.
Comcast, because it has a monopoly in most areas it operates, does these kind of stunts on a regular basis. In my case, a year or so ago they stopped carrying two channels which were part of their Basic/Standard cable package. The one channel I really liked was out of New York (I live in Central PA) so I got to see news and such I wouldn't normally see.
When I called to inquire if there was a problem, I was told by the nice lady on the phone that Comcast had dropped the channel because it was "out of area service". Which is funny because they had been carrying that channel for at least a decade.
I asked if they were going to replace the channel with something else. Comcast had not decided on any replacement channel. Would my bill be reduced by the amount equal to the last channel? No, Comcast was not going to lower my bill. "I'm sorry you won't be able to see the Mets games sir."
"I don't care about Mets games. I just wanted to see the news out of New York."
"You can always get the WB on channel 12 sir."
"I don't care about the WB. I just wanted to see the news out of New York."
A few months later, I, and everyone else, get notice that Comcast is raising their cable rates because of all the extra channels and services they were going to provide. I called their 800 number (again) and asked the guy on the phone what new channels I would be getting for this increase in price.
"Oh, that only applies to our premium service sir. The Basic/Standard service is not affected."
"So in other words, I'm paying more but not only not getting anything in return, I've lost channels in the process."
Silence for a few moments
"Yes sir. Would you like to upgrade to our Premium service to take advantage of what we have to offer?"
"Thanks but no thanks."
So there you have it. This is what happens when there is a monopoly of service in an area. It's Econ 101 in action. No competition = higher prices and less service.
I'm just hanging on until the end of BSG then the subscription gets dropped. That extra $600 a year will come in handy.
And to think this similar sentiment was stated over forty years ago. See my sig.
Now look what you've done. Wasn't it bad enough the shuttle burned up? Now you've gone and burned up the server trying to show us pictures of the mangled hard drive from the burned up shuttle.
Last year, out of the blue, I received an envelope from our Commonwealth's Attorney General. My first thought was, "Huh. They finally caught up to me. Took them long enough."
I opened the envelope and inside was a letter and a check. The letter indicated that sometime back I had submitted a complaint to them about someone who had left repeated messages on my answering machine even though I was on the DNC list. After investigation, the company was fined and the check represented my portion of the settlement amount.
The federal list might take longer but at least in my case, Pennsylvania does investigate marketers who do not observe the list and penalizes them.
You're probably wondering about the check, aren't you? It was more than $10 but less than $100. Enough to fill up my tank a few times back when gas was less than $3/gallon.
Because I like to piss them off by not voting for who they think I should vote for and return their surveys indicating how wrong and stupid their policies are.
Whenever asked, I relentlessly harp on their narrow-minded, rights-infringing, budget-busting policies and laugh as they thrash about trying to justify how they've strayed so far from their supposed principles and now coddle religious nutjobs whose goals are similar to ones we're fighting in Afghanistan.
I figure if nothing else, they'll never contact me asking for money.
Yes, it would be a welcome change from what we have now. Hopefully the San Diego arm of the Republican Party won't lose their emails detailing how to do more regime changes.
Do you think this guy is going to have any trouble understand WHY net neutrality should even be a question?
No, he understands it perfectly. But that won't make the large donations from telecoms to the Republican Party any less important.
Do you think it would be hard to explain to this guy why what the RIAA and MPAA are doing is a ridiculous waste of taxpayer money?
Considering how much money my party has wasted these last 7.3 years, I don't think being fiscally responsible enters into the equation.
No, it was because information wants to be free.
Besides, as many a person on here will tell you, there was no actual theft of music since it was all just 1's and 0's. Theft of hardware, certainly, but not music since it's not a physical item.
That's ok. Israeli President Shimon Peres Godwinned his recent speech.
Of course the really fun part is how the term "never again" keeps popping up yet we've had Srebrenica, Rwanda, and now Darfur but no one, including Isreal, has lifted a finger to act upon "never again".
But hey, it's easier to talk the talk than it is to walk the walk.
Ding! That too annoys the crap out of me. It's one thing to suspend belief when watching the cartoon and have springs come out from underneath the Mach 5, but the one thing that the cartoon seemed to get somewhat correct was the way the cars (and drivers) reacted when driving. This looks, as you said, like the producers are trying too hard.
As a rule, I don't watch commercials but out of sheer curiosity, I have watched one or two for this movie. The ONLY redeeming factors I can see are that they kept the sound of the springs when they are activated and Trixie looks hawt in her pink hot pants and boots. Other than that, the movie is most certainly going to be a dog.
In this case, he is Chairman Brian Roberts. In other words, because there is almost none to zero competitors in most of the markets Comcast serves, they can get away with continually raising prices. That is why the U.S. continues to lag the world in broadband.
Yes, there is the whole issue of running fiber and cable long distances in the U.S. compared to other countries like South Korea and Japan, but when you look at places such as New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, etc, you see the same pattern. Only one, or if you're lucky maybe two, providers from which to choose your broadband service.
In my area, we have two choices; Comcast or Verizon. I can pay $100/month for Comcast's triple-play or I can pay $100/month for Verizon's triple-play. But I can't pay $33/month for just the broadband access or $33/month for just the cable subscription (I currently pay $53.31/month for the combined Basic and Standard cable service).
This is the overwhelming reason broadband penetration in the U.S. continues, and will continue, to lag behind the rest of the world. The only solution is, unfortunately, government interference. Force the providers to offer their lines to others based on the logic that it was taxpayers who helped to subsidize the laying of all the cable and fiber through tax breaks and such. Either the companies open their lines and allow competition or they have to pay back all the subsidies they got when they originally promised to bring broadband to the U.S. Ten years ago.
Or, as the quote of the day on my web site says:
Rogues are preferable to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest. - Alexandre Dumas
It's nice that Stuart Ross thinks he can develop rocketbelts to enable people to fly. However, until someone comes up with a way to store the, apparently, unlimited fuel necessary to power a suit such as Iron Mans, and have it weigh, again, apparently, next to nothing, we will never see flying suits of armor.
Forget for a moment that a large percentage of people can't safely drive a vehicle on the ground at 65 mph. We now want to develop suits of metal capable of flying hundreds of miles per hour (Iron Man can out run jets and other craft)?
Then there is all his armament that he carries within the suit. How many rounds of ammunition, not to mention various missiles and such, is he carrying? Yeah, I thought so.
Yeah, yeah, I realize this is all fantasy and it makes for good enjoyment. But let's not get ahead of ourselves and try to claim that everything developed in a fantasy environment is directly translatable to real life.
Super-duper computers capable of interacting with humans? Sure. It will take some time but it is feasible and most likely probable. New uber-compounds which can retain their shape or make repairs to themselves? Already happening. Suits of armor capable of flying hundreds of miles per hour? Not gonna happen.
On a side note, is it just me or do Downey's whoops and hollers sound flat? I realize he wasn't actually flying but his yelling just doesn't seem, to me, to be indicative of someone who's flying in a suit of armor.