Maybe. But that assumes that your GPU is just being used to render DX or OpenGL games.
I think Nvidia made a very wise business decision with Fermi. Right now there is NO DEMAND for a video card on Fermi's level. All of the popular games run at full quality in full HD with AA. There is no "Crysis" which nobody can run at a decent framerate. We've sort of plateaued at "Good enough" since most games are cross developed for consoles (which are running aging video cards) and PC. Both AMD and Nvidia have released gaming cards that are overkill. So Nvidia has decided to take a different tact. They've managed to release a gaming card that is competitive with the very best video card for gaming and also redesigned their cores to be fast GPGPUs.
In the AnandTech review the GTX400 is 2x-10x faster than the GTX 285 or Radeon 5870.
That might not do much for Modern Warfare 2 but Modern Warfare 2 already runs great. It will offer huge performance improvements in things like video encoding, photoshop or any other CUDA ready application.
As OpenCL gets used more in games for things like hair and cloth simulation or ray-traced reflections Nvidia will have an architecture ready to deliver that as well. At some point AMD is going to need to go through a large re-architecture as well. But the longer they wait the more likely they'll be trying to push out a competing product while the competition is fierce. If there is a time to deliver an average product and suffer huge delays it's during an economic turn down and a period where there is little reason to upgrade.
Call me naive but I fail to see how the government could abuse the power to decide whether a child should be gay.
Perhaps you could eliminate their reproduction abilities if they were men. But... there are so many ways around that already that I can't see it practically being abused to anyone's benefit.
Their priorities perfectly line up with their users. By forcing everything to run in managed space they can more easily develop a stable predictable environment. Once you open up core functionality then you get blue-screens of death and their ilk.
I'm sure we'll eventually get a full SDK. But the majority of apps can run fine as a managed application--the exception being something like a web browser.
Given that Microsoft already has an app store and hasn't made any motion to filter what goes into it... I think it's safe to say anyone will probably be able to release anything they please.
Just because there is a gate doesn't mean there is a gatekeeper.
They just need to put it onto a 5.25" floppy and then everyone will remember what the world used to be like.
A free demo is actually a relatively modern advancement circa 1998. Prior to the internet you didn't get free demos you had to either subscribe to a gaming magazine or buy a shareware disk.
I spend more per month on rent than An Xbox and a small LCD TV. Add in my car payment and I could buy an Xbox, a 40" TV and a few games every month. And I have relatively speaking pretty cheap rent for a decent apartment and my car isn't extravagant.
Then you take my food budget which thanks to eating out regularly could pay for a decent couch every month.
The mistake a lot of people make when evaluating the poor by their possessions is that they look at what they own and don't take into account that they live in a terrible part of town where their rent is practically $0 and subsidized and that it's relatively inexpensive to acquire quite a few trappings that would give the facade of a middle class lifestyle.
Compare an Xbox and a $600 LCD TV to saving for college which would have cost the parents $40k.
I used to live in an apartment that was above the garage of a $2m mansion. If you glanced inside my apartment or the mansion you would have seen that my home theater was much nicer. My furniture was comparable in style at face analysis. (The difference between a stylish modern table and a an expensive stylish modern table is one has veneer and one is solid wood, also about $3k.)
What your friend discovered was that we waste a lot of money in the middle class on things which have very little bang for the buck. When you're poor you do a better job of putting every dollar into something which has the maximum impact. There is a real diminishing returns effect on goods and services.
With just $3k you could buy a big TV. An Xbox. A nice looking couch. A nice looking chair. A couple of book cases and a few games. Or you could spend it on the sunroof option for your new car.
I have a tablet and I would consider it a DIVERGENCE device as well.
I would never rely on my tablet but that's not why I bought it. I mostly use it for browsing the web while watching TV (on my PC) and drawing while in a cafe.
It's taken 2 features of my PC and split them off for portability.
The reason the iPad is useless for me is that it only solves one of my two problems: browsing the web. I can't use it as a laptop for normal apps on the go or draw on it. So it's too divergent, it splits off sub features of my tablet.
Whether the iPad succeeds or fails will be imo the exact opposite of the gp's quote. I think it's too divergent. I think it solves too few problems. I spent $600 on my tablet and it does everything and more. I'm not going to spend $500 for something that ONLY solves my internet browsing needs. Tablets are already in that awkward place between internet device and laptop (or in the case of my hybrid is a slightly larger, clunkier laptop).
If you fly a number of times every year though it'll be worth its weight in gold (assuming you don't also need to bring a laptop). It browses the web. It plays movies. It has books and magazines. It's practically designed for an airplane seat.
I wonder what the actual numbers were of complications.
If it reduced deaths from 2 to 1 per 1,000 and only increased the rate of incontinance from 1 per hundred to 2 per hundred then that seems like a good trade off. But two unrelated statistics without the details are difficult to compare.
If you had a procedure that killed 70% of the people and could reduce it to 10% but only increased the chance of side effects by 1% then it's a no-brainer.
If your publisher gives you 10,000 hours for level design. And you're going over budget they're going to say to cut back. If you then tell them that you also want to release some $5 a copy DLC. Then they will tell you to bring people on for extra hours to get it done or bring in some more freelancers.
Just because it shipped simultaneously doesn't mean the dev resources existed to justify finishing it.
I think we have to be careful though with separating unjust prosecution of piracy and piracy itself.
Obama is exactly right. IP is going to be the foundation of any future economy. There needs to be a means by which efforts of the mind are as recognized legally as efforts of the body.
We're becoming a nation where digging ditches and assembling parts is going to be taken over more and more by automation and cheap overseas labor and it'll be up to our inventions and our software and our innovation in exporting ideas that continues to pay our bills and put roofs over our heads going forward.
While the RIAA and the MPAA might RIGHT NOW control intellectual property and be the face of IP in the future it's going to be the individual creators who no longer need a large corporate overlord who are going to need the same protections. So we need to be careful that an inventor in Iowa can fight off the mega corporation trying to simply steal his idea and profit off of his innovation without giving him any reward.
The RIAA's laws protect the indie artist FROM the RIAA more so than it protects the RIAA itself. If there were toothless IP laws then Universal Music could just start burning copies of some new popular band and not send them a penny. They have the market and the distribution power. They would overnight become the main source of some new indie band's music without offering any creativity of their own.
You weaken IP and it's not the large corporations that will lose money it's the little guys who will get screwed by the large distributors who have all the money and resources.
That's a great editorial. To everyone who says we owe the computer industry to NASA, you're partly right but much more so over the last 30 years to Intel and AMD.
I'm not a big 'open market' down with government person. I'm exactly the opposite. I think the government needs to invest lots of money into areas where the private sector is failing. But there IS a commercial interest in launch vehicles now. There IS private investment. NASA's budget is pathetic compared to someone like Intel. NASA is really good for seed money. Even the new promising Bloom Energy server stated as a NASA project. But there is a lot more money in the private sector once there is a demand.
There's no private investment in Mars exploration so we'll need to fund that through tax dollars.
So what you're saying is that we need a 200B rocket engine program in order to develop a compact low energy computer?
Everything the space program has to offer can be researched without putting human beings there except for the spectacle and inspiration. Is that worth the money? Maybe. But if you just want R&D then it's cheaper to skip the rocket and just develop all the things which we would need. If we need an extremely efficient hydrogen extraction we can save the money from the rocket and just put it into an efficient hydrogen extraction program.
In many ways NOT putting people into space right now is actually pushing technology further. We're investing that energy into AI programs to drive probes without human intervention. That's also useful.
Why not just do all the Research and skip building the 3 trillion dollar rocket?
If you're going to design a moon base, why not just build it in Antarctica. You would get all the research but save the cost of building a rocket which only has minimal advantage.
If you're concerned about humans surviving some sort of nuclear war or impact then why not colonize the ocean.
Depends if the bullet is already chambered or not.
If you don't cock a gun the trigger mechanism will do it for you which takes a little bit of strength to load the spring. If you've already chambered a round then you're just releasing a spring which has already been put under tension, which means the trigger weight could be next to nothing depending on the setting.
Fuck that. I want a lawyer of excellent caliber who would fight for me to sue Mother Teresa.
The legal system is by necessity complicated and diverse. I want the best lawyer on earth representing my interests. Without lawyers who aren't afraid to litigate the only people would have lawyers and the only people who would have good legal defense are the corporations.
If it's your 'simple country lawyer' vs the Apple legal team would you ever dare stand up to Apple if your life depended on it? I wouldn't. Even if they sued me for something I was pretty certain I was in the clear for I wouldn't call Apple's bluff. After all their lawyers could find a loop hole where I was guilty. It just "wouldn't be worth it".
Who would ever defend people who even looked like there was a CHANCE that they were guilty. If the government had manufactured evidence you would never find out because no lawyer would take a hopeless case. I hope that was how all those Frank Herbert books ended. Corporations running the planet and corrupt governments going unchallenged.
Both of these characters (while more recent) have actually had very little political impact
Try looking back a couple of decades. As a candidate Ralph Nader may have been insignificant but his consumer activism and continuing legacy in his foundations is pretty significant.
With every advancement in figuring out genetic diseases, I can't help but think that the combination of this plus drug testing will lead to genetic discrimination, or at least defamation. Plus, even then is there much we -can- do if we figure out something is genetic?
That would certainly be the pessimistic outlook. One which could easily be legislated away with a ban on discrimination.
The positive outlook would be that instead of discriminating or paying for expensive therapies we could actually... you know... fix the defects or find more effective treatments which cost less to develop.
Wouldn't you be a terrible candidate since you have so many abnormalities? I would think that you would want to sequence someone with one very specific and very extreme case of a disease.
Whether you believe in God or not is not the point. The point is that this country was founded on religious freedoms. Those same freedoms that allow you to post on boards like this. Without those religious fundamentalists fighting and dieing for their beliefs you would still be stuck under the rule of the Anglican church.
For those who didn't take 14 years of church history here is a little refresher on religious freedom. The people fleeing England weren't fleeing some oppressive conservative organization. They were mostly people who thought that religion has become to liberal.
So they all moved to America. At which point they did the exact same thing which they were fleeing. They began enforcing their even stricter and more conservative laws upon the land. The punishments were the same as they were in Europe: execution, imprisonment and beatings. This wasn't a peace loving open minded bunch of religious extremists who just wanted to be left alone. These were Christian Taliban who thought their home nations were becoming bastions of sin.
The people who really advocated religious freedom weren't either the Europeans or the Puritan extremists it was the Deists and the Quakers. The Quakers were tired of being persecuted by the religious extremists who founded the country and the Deists thought religion itself was unproductive and divisive. If the textbooks want to really "present the truth of this country to school children" the textbooks would clearly state that a large portion of those who wrote our constitution and advocated religious tolerance were practically atheists. Thomas Jefferson even rewrote the bible without any miracles or super natural powers... now, questioning Christ's divinity, that's heresy in any branch of modern Christianity.
If I had to choose between being stuck under the Anglican Church (a church founded in order to liberalize church law) and the Puritans (a church founded in order to further restrict law) I'll take the Anglicans. Saying the Puritans gave us religious freedom is like saying the Taliban liberated Afghanistan from the oppressive democracy which was destroying Islam.
Rollcage: Although it is not visually apparent the Martin Jetpack has an internal roll cage. The ducts currently have a carbon kevlar hoop. These are to protect the pilot from side impact. The control arms protect from the front and are designed to snap off in a hard impact, the ducts then further protect the pilot. The structure extends below the level of the spine to prevent injury from a hard landing. In effect the pilot is housed in a protective cocoon by the structure and engine. Further enhancements are planned for impact protection, the goal is to provide impact protection from 30 feet high.
Minimal Avoidance Curve: Helicopters and other VTOL aircraft normally have an avoidance curve. This is the height where an impact is not survivable but below which other procedures like "autorotation" are not possible. Currently we think that with good design and correct flying procedures the avoidance curve can be eliminated. This is one of the reasons we feel that the Jetpack will be safer than current "light helicopters".
My 2 cents: Most engine failures aren't instantaneous in my experience. If you're gaining altitude there is probably only 4 seconds during those hundreds of hours that you would feasibly be in the 'death zone'. I also reject your theory that most failures would take place during the initial climb. Considering the aircraft itself offers 0 lift climbing and hovering would probably be similar engine strain.
Also keep in mind that's a 4 cylinder 2 stroke. I find it unlikely you would encounter an engine problem which would take out the entire engine in mid flight. If a spark plug somehow went out or a single valve failed you would still most likely have enough power to descend safely. If we're talking about something like the fuel pump then that's just as likely to go out while sitting on the tarmac as the first 3 seconds of flight.
So even if you play a modern game set in say... Times Square you would vow off the video game because it accurately recreated the real world?
This seems like a stupid (and dishonest) assessment of the world. "I can only have fun if there are no ads in view." Do you live in a black vault free of marketing's evil reach?
Slashdot Mirror
There's also a fourth option: Make everybody bi-sexual.
Then they can choose on a case-by-case basis.
Maybe. But that assumes that your GPU is just being used to render DX or OpenGL games.
I think Nvidia made a very wise business decision with Fermi. Right now there is NO DEMAND for a video card on Fermi's level. All of the popular games run at full quality in full HD with AA. There is no "Crysis" which nobody can run at a decent framerate. We've sort of plateaued at "Good enough" since most games are cross developed for consoles (which are running aging video cards) and PC. Both AMD and Nvidia have released gaming cards that are overkill. So Nvidia has decided to take a different tact. They've managed to release a gaming card that is competitive with the very best video card for gaming and also redesigned their cores to be fast GPGPUs.
In the AnandTech review the GTX400 is 2x-10x faster than the GTX 285 or Radeon 5870.
That might not do much for Modern Warfare 2 but Modern Warfare 2 already runs great. It will offer huge performance improvements in things like video encoding, photoshop or any other CUDA ready application.
As OpenCL gets used more in games for things like hair and cloth simulation or ray-traced reflections Nvidia will have an architecture ready to deliver that as well. At some point AMD is going to need to go through a large re-architecture as well. But the longer they wait the more likely they'll be trying to push out a competing product while the competition is fierce. If there is a time to deliver an average product and suffer huge delays it's during an economic turn down and a period where there is little reason to upgrade.
Call me naive but I fail to see how the government could abuse the power to decide whether a child should be gay.
Perhaps you could eliminate their reproduction abilities if they were men. But... there are so many ways around that already that I can't see it practically being abused to anyone's benefit.
When you charge $100-$300 an hour $60 a year isn't exactly a financial leap of faith.
Based on the quality of your writing I think you're downplaying your intelligence.
You might be shocked to discover how sad 'average' actually is.
Their priorities perfectly line up with their users. By forcing everything to run in managed space they can more easily develop a stable predictable environment. Once you open up core functionality then you get blue-screens of death and their ilk.
I'm sure we'll eventually get a full SDK. But the majority of apps can run fine as a managed application--the exception being something like a web browser.
Given that Microsoft already has an app store and hasn't made any motion to filter what goes into it... I think it's safe to say anyone will probably be able to release anything they please.
Just because there is a gate doesn't mean there is a gatekeeper.
What the German government should do is release an open source application which switches your default browser.
A team of German security experts would make a bi-weekly security assessment and then set the default browser for the period. ;)
Of course this browser switcher would also be able to push patches as well. Automate their recommendations!
It's not exactly new though.
They just need to put it onto a 5.25" floppy and then everyone will remember what the world used to be like.
A free demo is actually a relatively modern advancement circa 1998. Prior to the internet you didn't get free demos you had to either subscribe to a gaming magazine or buy a shareware disk.
You just listed all the inexpensive stuff though.
I spend more per month on rent than An Xbox and a small LCD TV. Add in my car payment and I could buy an Xbox, a 40" TV and a few games every month. And I have relatively speaking pretty cheap rent for a decent apartment and my car isn't extravagant.
Then you take my food budget which thanks to eating out regularly could pay for a decent couch every month.
The mistake a lot of people make when evaluating the poor by their possessions is that they look at what they own and don't take into account that they live in a terrible part of town where their rent is practically $0 and subsidized and that it's relatively inexpensive to acquire quite a few trappings that would give the facade of a middle class lifestyle.
Compare an Xbox and a $600 LCD TV to saving for college which would have cost the parents $40k.
I used to live in an apartment that was above the garage of a $2m mansion. If you glanced inside my apartment or the mansion you would have seen that my home theater was much nicer. My furniture was comparable in style at face analysis. (The difference between a stylish modern table and a an expensive stylish modern table is one has veneer and one is solid wood, also about $3k.)
What your friend discovered was that we waste a lot of money in the middle class on things which have very little bang for the buck. When you're poor you do a better job of putting every dollar into something which has the maximum impact. There is a real diminishing returns effect on goods and services.
With just $3k you could buy a big TV. An Xbox. A nice looking couch. A nice looking chair. A couple of book cases and a few games. Or you could spend it on the sunroof option for your new car.
I have a tablet and I would consider it a DIVERGENCE device as well.
I would never rely on my tablet but that's not why I bought it. I mostly use it for browsing the web while watching TV (on my PC) and drawing while in a cafe.
It's taken 2 features of my PC and split them off for portability.
The reason the iPad is useless for me is that it only solves one of my two problems: browsing the web. I can't use it as a laptop for normal apps on the go or draw on it. So it's too divergent, it splits off sub features of my tablet.
Whether the iPad succeeds or fails will be imo the exact opposite of the gp's quote. I think it's too divergent. I think it solves too few problems. I spent $600 on my tablet and it does everything and more. I'm not going to spend $500 for something that ONLY solves my internet browsing needs. Tablets are already in that awkward place between internet device and laptop (or in the case of my hybrid is a slightly larger, clunkier laptop).
If you fly a number of times every year though it'll be worth its weight in gold (assuming you don't also need to bring a laptop). It browses the web. It plays movies. It has books and magazines. It's practically designed for an airplane seat.
I wonder what the actual numbers were of complications.
If it reduced deaths from 2 to 1 per 1,000 and only increased the rate of incontinance from 1 per hundred to 2 per hundred then that seems like a good trade off. But two unrelated statistics without the details are difficult to compare.
If you had a procedure that killed 70% of the people and could reduce it to 10% but only increased the chance of side effects by 1% then it's a no-brainer.
You know know the job was done.
If your publisher gives you 10,000 hours for level design. And you're going over budget they're going to say to cut back. If you then tell them that you also want to release some $5 a copy DLC. Then they will tell you to bring people on for extra hours to get it done or bring in some more freelancers.
Just because it shipped simultaneously doesn't mean the dev resources existed to justify finishing it.
I think we have to be careful though with separating unjust prosecution of piracy and piracy itself.
Obama is exactly right. IP is going to be the foundation of any future economy. There needs to be a means by which efforts of the mind are as recognized legally as efforts of the body.
We're becoming a nation where digging ditches and assembling parts is going to be taken over more and more by automation and cheap overseas labor and it'll be up to our inventions and our software and our innovation in exporting ideas that continues to pay our bills and put roofs over our heads going forward.
While the RIAA and the MPAA might RIGHT NOW control intellectual property and be the face of IP in the future it's going to be the individual creators who no longer need a large corporate overlord who are going to need the same protections. So we need to be careful that an inventor in Iowa can fight off the mega corporation trying to simply steal his idea and profit off of his innovation without giving him any reward.
The RIAA's laws protect the indie artist FROM the RIAA more so than it protects the RIAA itself. If there were toothless IP laws then Universal Music could just start burning copies of some new popular band and not send them a penny. They have the market and the distribution power. They would overnight become the main source of some new indie band's music without offering any creativity of their own.
You weaken IP and it's not the large corporations that will lose money it's the little guys who will get screwed by the large distributors who have all the money and resources.
That's a great editorial. To everyone who says we owe the computer industry to NASA, you're partly right but much more so over the last 30 years to Intel and AMD.
I'm not a big 'open market' down with government person. I'm exactly the opposite. I think the government needs to invest lots of money into areas where the private sector is failing. But there IS a commercial interest in launch vehicles now. There IS private investment. NASA's budget is pathetic compared to someone like Intel. NASA is really good for seed money. Even the new promising Bloom Energy server stated as a NASA project. But there is a lot more money in the private sector once there is a demand.
There's no private investment in Mars exploration so we'll need to fund that through tax dollars.
So what you're saying is that we need a 200B rocket engine program in order to develop a compact low energy computer?
Everything the space program has to offer can be researched without putting human beings there except for the spectacle and inspiration. Is that worth the money? Maybe. But if you just want R&D then it's cheaper to skip the rocket and just develop all the things which we would need. If we need an extremely efficient hydrogen extraction we can save the money from the rocket and just put it into an efficient hydrogen extraction program.
In many ways NOT putting people into space right now is actually pushing technology further. We're investing that energy into AI programs to drive probes without human intervention. That's also useful.
Why not just do all the Research and skip building the 3 trillion dollar rocket?
If you're going to design a moon base, why not just build it in Antarctica. You would get all the research but save the cost of building a rocket which only has minimal advantage.
If you're concerned about humans surviving some sort of nuclear war or impact then why not colonize the ocean.
Depends if the bullet is already chambered or not.
If you don't cock a gun the trigger mechanism will do it for you which takes a little bit of strength to load the spring. If you've already chambered a round then you're just releasing a spring which has already been put under tension, which means the trigger weight could be next to nothing depending on the setting.
Fuck that. I want a lawyer of excellent caliber who would fight for me to sue Mother Teresa.
The legal system is by necessity complicated and diverse. I want the best lawyer on earth representing my interests. Without lawyers who aren't afraid to litigate the only people would have lawyers and the only people who would have good legal defense are the corporations.
If it's your 'simple country lawyer' vs the Apple legal team would you ever dare stand up to Apple if your life depended on it? I wouldn't. Even if they sued me for something I was pretty certain I was in the clear for I wouldn't call Apple's bluff. After all their lawyers could find a loop hole where I was guilty. It just "wouldn't be worth it".
Who would ever defend people who even looked like there was a CHANCE that they were guilty. If the government had manufactured evidence you would never find out because no lawyer would take a hopeless case. I hope that was how all those Frank Herbert books ended. Corporations running the planet and corrupt governments going unchallenged.
Both of these characters (while more recent) have actually had very little political impact
Try looking back a couple of decades. As a candidate Ralph Nader may have been insignificant but his consumer activism and continuing legacy in his foundations is pretty significant.
With every advancement in figuring out genetic diseases, I can't help but think that the combination of this plus drug testing will lead to genetic discrimination, or at least defamation.
Plus, even then is there much we -can- do if we figure out something is genetic?
That would certainly be the pessimistic outlook. One which could easily be legislated away with a ban on discrimination.
The positive outlook would be that instead of discriminating or paying for expensive therapies we could actually... you know... fix the defects or find more effective treatments which cost less to develop.
Wouldn't you be a terrible candidate since you have so many abnormalities? I would think that you would want to sequence someone with one very specific and very extreme case of a disease.
Whether you believe in God or not is not the point. The point is that this country was founded on religious freedoms. Those same freedoms that allow you to post on boards like this. Without those religious fundamentalists fighting and dieing for their beliefs you would still be stuck under the rule of the Anglican church.
For those who didn't take 14 years of church history here is a little refresher on religious freedom. The people fleeing England weren't fleeing some oppressive conservative organization. They were mostly people who thought that religion has become to liberal.
So they all moved to America. At which point they did the exact same thing which they were fleeing. They began enforcing their even stricter and more conservative laws upon the land. The punishments were the same as they were in Europe: execution, imprisonment and beatings. This wasn't a peace loving open minded bunch of religious extremists who just wanted to be left alone. These were Christian Taliban who thought their home nations were becoming bastions of sin.
The people who really advocated religious freedom weren't either the Europeans or the Puritan extremists it was the Deists and the Quakers. The Quakers were tired of being persecuted by the religious extremists who founded the country and the Deists thought religion itself was unproductive and divisive. If the textbooks want to really "present the truth of this country to school children" the textbooks would clearly state that a large portion of those who wrote our constitution and advocated religious tolerance were practically atheists. Thomas Jefferson even rewrote the bible without any miracles or super natural powers... now, questioning Christ's divinity, that's heresy in any branch of modern Christianity.
If I had to choose between being stuck under the Anglican Church (a church founded in order to liberalize church law) and the Puritans (a church founded in order to further restrict law) I'll take the Anglicans. Saying the Puritans gave us religious freedom is like saying the Taliban liberated Afghanistan from the oppressive democracy which was destroying Islam.
From the website:
Rollcage:
Although it is not visually apparent the Martin Jetpack has an internal roll cage. The ducts currently have a carbon kevlar hoop. These are to protect the pilot from side impact. The control arms protect from the front and are designed to snap off in a hard impact, the ducts then further protect the pilot. The structure extends below the level of the spine to prevent injury from a hard landing. In effect the pilot is housed in a protective cocoon by the structure and engine. Further enhancements are planned for impact protection, the goal is to provide impact protection from 30 feet high.
Minimal Avoidance Curve:
Helicopters and other VTOL aircraft normally have an avoidance curve. This is
the height where an impact is not survivable but below which other procedures like "autorotation" are not possible. Currently we think that with good design and correct flying procedures the avoidance curve can be eliminated. This is one of the reasons we feel that the Jetpack will be safer than current "light helicopters".
My 2 cents:
Most engine failures aren't instantaneous in my experience. If you're gaining altitude there is probably only 4 seconds during those hundreds of hours that you would feasibly be in the 'death zone'. I also reject your theory that most failures would take place during the initial climb. Considering the aircraft itself offers 0 lift climbing and hovering would probably be similar engine strain.
Also keep in mind that's a 4 cylinder 2 stroke. I find it unlikely you would encounter an engine problem which would take out the entire engine in mid flight. If a spark plug somehow went out or a single valve failed you would still most likely have enough power to descend safely. If we're talking about something like the fuel pump then that's just as likely to go out while sitting on the tarmac as the first 3 seconds of flight.
So even if you play a modern game set in say... Times Square you would vow off the video game because it accurately recreated the real world?
This seems like a stupid (and dishonest) assessment of the world. "I can only have fun if there are no ads in view." Do you live in a black vault free of marketing's evil reach?