Sure. Small birds are a very different problem though - they may cause engine issues when ingested, but are not heavy enough even if a lot of them hit to do minor structural damage.
http://avherald.com/h?article=... - also in africa. http://avherald.com/img/comair... - this damage was done by a red billed kite impact. Broadly similar amount of buckling, though in a different place. There are a lot of large birds in Africa, and aircraft frequently hit them.
The notion that any of these ideas is particularly innovative is ridiculous. All of the text-based ideas applied to the video world. Short messages, time-based messages, messages with silly effects,... all have been around since at least the 80s. The fact you applied an obvious thing to a new technology does not make you specially innovative in any way that deserves protection.
It's really not. They've been doing this for some considerable time - way before the most recent concerns in the US election. However - it does show that any new factory 'bringing jobs back' to the USA is only going to bring a tiny fraction of those jobs - there will be few if any assembly workers doing the same task on every phone that passes through the line.
It's getting less and less power-hungry to do that. Also, consider you only need to track the hands, to get a very useful answer. If you're the only one at home, then 'when did I last touch x' is equivalent to 'where is X'
What the other poster said. It all flows naturally from 'I have a lot of flying drones, and don't want to lose them'.
You want you drones to react sensibly to loss of any input. This is not a novel idea remotely - fault tolerant systems have been around forever. This means alternate means of control and navigation and orientation. Mesh networking, for example, is a truly obvious idea, if you have lost communication with your base and there is another nearby drone. As is switching to other localisation systems, and prioritising between them, and using ranging.
Yes, it is tricky to implement. However, the patent also fails utterly at the requirements for a patent. It fails to explain nearly all of these ideas in a way that would cut any meaningful time off implementing them from scratch, given a sheet of paper and the problem statement.
This is not a novel invention. This is trivially obvious from hitting the problem 'I am deploying lots of drones'. All of the above solutions are obvious and un-novel and in no way not obvious from prior art.
Android is very, very different to mainstream linux. The presence of much greater platform diversity, and massive revisions dropped from above with no warning or care about your fixes is a massive problem.
The number of people working on linux distributions is also far more than those working on android ones.
Of course, the problem here is that development of huge massive codebases involve needing people to work on the boring stuff. If this doesn't happen, then no, the code doesn't immediately break. But over time, it gets harder and harder for the average developer to build. And at some point, you have a couple of die-hards working on it, at which point it may as well be dead. I
Unless the thrust is 1/c newtons per watt - then the same problem arises - the exploitation simply gets harder. Some of the earlier Chinese tests reported thrusts in the exploitable range - 1N/2000W comes to mind.
I cannot find the thrust per watt of this latest claimed chinese verification.
'missions to far-away objects would no longer have their lifetimes limited by running out of fuel.' - well -... At the NASA EMdrive recent published thrust, there are no plausible long-distance missions it could be better at than a conventional ion engine. This is simply because the power generated per kilo of solar panels is small. This sets an acceleration limit, because you need power to accelerate, which means you're swapping several years of fuel for a ion engine for heavier solar panels, and it's not a win. Even if you say 'I'm willing to wait' - it doesn't work, as you rapidly move past the point at which solar panels work well, and the higher initial thrust of the ion engine now looks even better.
A major, major problem with the reports is that the results vary so much, and their error bars do not overlap.
If someone says "we have conclusively measured the height of Madonna, and she's 1.8m high +-0.1m" - that is one thing. If further investigation says "1.85+-.1" - then that's great, and is a confirmation.
If the next person to measure her comes out with 47m+-10m - then they have not meaningfully replicated the measurement, and disparity of measurements by various groups is a hallmark of something being wrong.
This, combined with the fact that some people don't get it to work at all leads to it being plausible that in fact nothing is happening.
It's a perpetual motion machine. If you have an engine that produces one newton per 10W of input power, then move it 20 meters a second, you can extract 20W from this. At 200m/s, 200W. Leaving 10 (or 190W) of free energy output after you subtract the first.
Government statements, or governmental body statements are usually not actually law. Law is set down in legislation and published rules. This does not usually have the codicil 'or whatever we decide on the day'.
Governmental agencies often make statements that reflect what they would like the law to mean. This is often clearly and unambiguously accurate. Sometimes however, it's taking the published law, and torturing it to say things it really doesn't, with the knowledge it doesn't really say that, but the hope people will comply because it's an agency saying it.
It can be reasonable to have a very skilled team of lawyers look at what the law actually says, and consider if all the costs of publically disagreeing with what is said about the law by the government is reasonable.
It may be, for example, that they are confident enough about the legal driver being the person sitting in the 'backup' driver seat, and the insurance covering all risks.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure. Small birds are a very different problem though - they may cause engine issues when ingested, but are not heavy enough even if a lot of them hit to do minor structural damage.
http://avherald.com/h?article=... - also in africa.
http://avherald.com/img/comair... - this damage was done by a red billed kite impact.
Broadly similar amount of buckling, though in a different place.
There are a lot of large birds in Africa, and aircraft frequently hit them.
The notion that any of these ideas is particularly innovative is ridiculous. ... all have been around since at least the 80s.
All of the text-based ideas applied to the video world.
Short messages, time-based messages, messages with silly effects,
The fact you applied an obvious thing to a new technology does not make you specially innovative in any way that deserves protection.
It's really not.
They've been doing this for some considerable time - way before the most recent concerns in the US election.
However - it does show that any new factory 'bringing jobs back' to the USA is only going to bring a tiny fraction of those jobs - there will be few if any assembly workers doing the same task on every phone that passes through the line.
It's getting less and less power-hungry to do that.
Also, consider you only need to track the hands, to get a very useful answer.
If you're the only one at home, then 'when did I last touch x' is equivalent to 'where is X'
I have to type some words here.
What the other poster said.
It all flows naturally from 'I have a lot of flying drones, and don't want to lose them'.
You want you drones to react sensibly to loss of any input. This is not a novel idea remotely - fault tolerant systems have been around forever.
This means alternate means of control and navigation and orientation.
Mesh networking, for example, is a truly obvious idea, if you have lost communication with your base and there is another nearby drone.
As is switching to other localisation systems, and prioritising between them, and using ranging.
Yes, it is tricky to implement.
However, the patent also fails utterly at the requirements for a patent.
It fails to explain nearly all of these ideas in a way that would cut any meaningful time off implementing them from scratch, given a sheet of paper and the problem statement.
This is not a novel invention.
This is trivially obvious from hitting the problem 'I am deploying lots of drones'.
All of the above solutions are obvious and un-novel and in no way not obvious from prior art.
Android is very, very different to mainstream linux.
The presence of much greater platform diversity, and massive revisions dropped from above with no warning or care about your fixes is a massive problem.
The number of people working on linux distributions is also far more than those working on android ones.
Of course, the problem here is that development of huge massive codebases involve needing people to work on the boring stuff.
If this doesn't happen, then no, the code doesn't immediately break.
But over time, it gets harder and harder for the average developer to build.
And at some point, you have a couple of die-hards working on it, at which point it may as well be dead.
I
It is a penalty, which is divisible by five.
Or perhaps you believe that governments have the power to fine you large amounts of money.
If that is true, then it may be essentially useless as a space drive, depending on the proportionality.
It doesn't, it just changes the numbers at which breakeven occurs to ones not easy to achieve on earth.
Unless you get to 1N/300000000W (in which case it is a well understood photon drive)
Unless the thrust is 1/c newtons per watt - then the same problem arises - the exploitation simply gets harder.
Some of the earlier Chinese tests reported thrusts in the exploitable range - 1N/2000W comes to mind.
I cannot find the thrust per watt of this latest claimed chinese verification.
The power density of RTGs is worse than solar.
'missions to far-away objects would no longer have their lifetimes limited by running out of fuel.' - well - ...
At the NASA EMdrive recent published thrust, there are no plausible long-distance missions it could be better at than a conventional ion engine.
This is simply because the power generated per kilo of solar panels is small.
This sets an acceleration limit, because you need power to accelerate, which means you're swapping several years of fuel for a ion engine for heavier solar panels, and it's not a win.
Even if you say 'I'm willing to wait' - it doesn't work, as you rapidly move past the point at which solar panels work well, and the higher initial thrust of the ion engine now looks even better.
A major, major problem with the reports is that the results vary so much, and their error bars do not overlap.
If someone says "we have conclusively measured the height of Madonna, and she's 1.8m high +-0.1m" - that is one thing. If further investigation says "1.85+-.1" - then that's great, and is a confirmation.
If the next person to measure her comes out with 47m+-10m - then they have not meaningfully replicated the measurement, and disparity of measurements by various groups is a hallmark of something being wrong.
This, combined with the fact that some people don't get it to work at all leads to it being plausible that in fact nothing is happening.
The thrusts reported don't overlap.
It's a perpetual motion machine.
If you have an engine that produces one newton per 10W of input power, then move it 20 meters a second, you can extract 20W from this.
At 200m/s, 200W. Leaving 10 (or 190W) of free energy output after you subtract the first.
And the automation is designed the same. Any control input by the driver turns off the automation.
Pretty much exactly the same arguments could be made for cruise control.
It should be assessed according to the law. That may be that it is all on the human in the vehicle, it may not.
If that interpretation is a reasonable one, yes.
Or bureaucrats who make statements thinly backed by what they would like the law to be.
Government statements, or governmental body statements are usually not actually law.
Law is set down in legislation and published rules.
This does not usually have the codicil 'or whatever we decide on the day'.
Governmental agencies often make statements that reflect what they would like the law to mean.
This is often clearly and unambiguously accurate.
Sometimes however, it's taking the published law, and torturing it to say things it really doesn't, with the knowledge it doesn't really say that, but the hope people will comply because it's an agency saying it.
It can be reasonable to have a very skilled team of lawyers look at what the law actually says, and consider if all the costs of publically disagreeing with what is said about the law by the government is reasonable.
It may be, for example, that they are confident enough about the legal driver being the person sitting in the 'backup' driver seat, and the insurance covering all risks.