Given that the New Scientist article is about true thermal imaging (which Gizmodo has unhelpfully confused with image intensification a.k.a. "night vision"), I think that handheld units would certainly be a start.
When it's still too bright to use traditional image intensification devices (as the NS piece mentions) thermal cameras are able to function and are useful in looking for concealed enemy. And as it's not yet completely dark, an 'open' or 'exposed' screen wouldn't necessarily give away your own position.
I'll agree though, that some sort of HUD system would be preferable. Although in that case, they should really be pouring their money into bluetooth, don't you think?
I wouldn't relish the thought of being out in unfriendly territory, scanning the terrain looking for potential ambushes only to have a little error message flash onto my HUD: "Bluetooth peripheral device not found."
When it's still too bright to use traditional image intensification devices (as the NS piece mentions) thermal cameras are able to function and are useful in looking for concealed enemy. And as it's not yet completely dark, an 'open' or 'exposed' screen wouldn't necessarily give away your own position.
I'll agree though, that some sort of HUD system would be preferable. Although in that case, they should really be pouring their money into bluetooth, don't you think?
I wouldn't relish the thought of being out in unfriendly territory, scanning the terrain looking for potential ambushes only to have a little error message flash onto my HUD: "Bluetooth peripheral device not found."
It's possible that a lot of non-Brits will not have heard of Frankie Boyle, but if his stand-up material is anything to go by, his book will be a great deal less "family friendly" than the titles Apple has just removed.
@Tyrunn: My God, Curran trying a Dutch accent - I shudder at the very thought!
Perhaps it's just because I'm Dutch and have an acutely sensitive ear for accents, and therefore found a Glaswegian Van Gogh slightly jarring ("Arrre yoo frrrom Hohlland ligh' mee?") but this episode is actually one of the only ones I haven't liked very much. It seemed a little casually thrown together. Although now that I'm writing this and recalling the final scenes, I do remember that I did indeed have a tear in my eye so perhaps it was better than I thought....
At any rate, if you haven't seen the finale yet, you've got something great to look forward to. Without giving anything away, it was one of those moments where what you've just seen is so awesome you can hardly bear it. Makes you want to stand up and applaud.
At any rate, if you haven't seen the finale yet, you've got something great to look forward to. Without giving anything away, it was one of those moments where what you've just seen is so awesome you can hardly bear it. Makes you want to stand up and applaud.
@atkailash: Fight the power!
@CaptainYoshi: Backgrounder. That's the biggest (actually the only) reason why you should jailbreak your iPad. I did it, and if for no other reason than I can now listen to a Pandora feed while typing an email, I'm very happy that I did. You are correct though, in thinking that apart from that there is little functionality to be gained by jailbreaking at the moment.
@5erge: Ditto. And you really can't brick it by doing this. If something goes wrong (which is unlikely given how simple the process is), you just do a factory restore in iTunes.
@5erge: Ditto. And you really can't brick it by doing this. If something goes wrong (which is unlikely given how simple the process is), you just do a factory restore in iTunes.
@Jesus Diaz: Actually Mr. Diaz, the fundamentals of flight are called fundamentals for a reason. It's true that you need a specific type-rating to fly a 737, but really what we're talking about is familiarization with certain aircraft procedures and the details of how this particular aircraft behaves under certain conditions. The basics of flying are the same whether you're flying a single-engine prop or a multi-engine jet. Hell, FAA rules even allow holders of fixed-wing licenses to obtain rotary-wing licenses (helicopters) in less than half the time it would take if you started from scratch. Even when comparing fixed and rotary wing, the fundamentals are exactly that.
As for A.Jaswal: You can bank a 737. In fact, you can bank any aircraft ever made. If you couldn't, your aircraft could only take off, fly and land in a straight line. What you mean is that you can't exceed a certain angle of bank because you would scare the ever-loving crap out of your passengers. That's what bank means, it means to turn the aircraft by lowering one wing and raising the other, which is how all fixed wing aircraft turn. And the 737 airframe is rated for some very steep banking indeed. It's simply the case that you don't turn that steeply with passengers on board because they are liable to spill their sodas and become ill-tempered.
See this video (A 707, not a 737, but I think you'll find it enlightening):
As for A.Jaswal: You can bank a 737. In fact, you can bank any aircraft ever made. If you couldn't, your aircraft could only take off, fly and land in a straight line. What you mean is that you can't exceed a certain angle of bank because you would scare the ever-loving crap out of your passengers. That's what bank means, it means to turn the aircraft by lowering one wing and raising the other, which is how all fixed wing aircraft turn. And the 737 airframe is rated for some very steep banking indeed. It's simply the case that you don't turn that steeply with passengers on board because they are liable to spill their sodas and become ill-tempered.
See this video (A 707, not a 737, but I think you'll find it enlightening):
Why is it understandable, actually, to ban all "overtly sexual content"? If you find that kind of content offensive, then don't buy the f-ing stuff. And don't say it's to protect the children. Please. If there is anyone out there who honestly believes that todays thirteen year-olds aren't easily able to get their hands on porn, they are living in fantasy land. Presumably this means that Apple will also be blocking iPhone users from accessing porn sites from their phones, right? What is it about sex that scares you Americans so much? Violence, muder and mayhem? No problem. Biological reproduction? No! No! Think of the children! Time to grow up now, please.
As much as I've wanted a personal flying machine for as long as I can remember, I have some objections to the idea generally and this design particularly.
1. If you've ever spent any length of time living without furniture (long story) you know that lying on your stomach and looking ahead of you puts enormous strain on your neck. This is not a feasible flying position.
2. Why exactly will this aircraft be quieter than current models? The noise that you hear on the ground from small aircraft is mostly made by the props themselves. An electric engine really won't make that much difference.
3. The skies are crowded as it is, and getting more crowded every year (particularly in the US) as more and more airlines make the mistake of dumping the older system of fewer flights with larger aircraft in favor of almost constant streams of aircraft the size of a car. Adding a few thousand (or whatever, this concept is never going to work anyway, so the number is purely notional) of these things is simply impossible. Even if they were kept away from regular civilian traffic, can you imagine these things weaving between high-rises?
It's possible we'll see some form of aerial personal transport system in the future, but it will most certainly be computer controlled.
If only wishing made it so.... We'd have to have both the ability and the political will to launch something substantially more massive into space before we were in danger of accidentally killing ourselves in some sort of Roadrunner type incident involving dynamite and an anvil. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your perspective) we possess neither that ability, nor the political will to develop it any time soon. In the meantime though, we can continue to engineer our own disasters from the comforts of our very own SUV's.
I like it. Interesting little concept ending with a little jolt of self-recognition as I was given the type that I use on a daily basis. Neat indeed.
It is certainly true that traditional religion usually finds no place in the science fiction genre. The religious attitude to life and the world in general is more or less completely incompatible with the spirit of the sci-fi story. Science fiction is, at its heart, about people using science (and the attendant human qualities of ingenuity, logic and creative thinking) to solve the problems they encounter. Science fiction stories pit the protagonists against the full force of an indifferent universe where they must fight tooth and nail to survive and flourish. The appearance of an omnipotent God would seriously undermine the entire spirit of the enterprise. Having said that, I think that a great many (if not most) science fiction works abound with what Dawkins referred to as Einsteinian religion - that is to say an overwhelming awe for the majesty of the universe and the systems that govern it. The beauty of the cosmos and the laws of nature; the sheer elegance of the physical manifestations of those immutable laws is something that can (in my opinion) inspire some of the same feelings that religionists talk about when they refer to god. I challenge anyone here to read the works of Olaf Stapledon and not find themselves overcome with the essentially religious feelings of awe and reverence for the beauty of the universe.
@beatledud: ..."teens that still don't know how easy it is to find porn on the internet." Seriously? There are kids being raised by feral dogs in Siberia that know about internet porn. Unless there's a colony of teenaged monks being raised in isolation on the dark side of the Moon that I've somehow not heard about, I think the cat's pretty much out of the bag re: internet porn.
I gotta say, while I have a ferocious crush on Ellen Page and think that DiCaprio is a great actor, this looks jaw-droppingly stupid.
For the love of Christ, did the Cold War not teach you pansies anything at all? They aren't interested in actually using these missiles any more than the Russians were in using theirs. It's a political tactic designed to make it slightly more difficult for the US to push them around. Stop quaking in your boots and use your brains for a minute.
@twDarkflame: Isn't the plasma in force fields problem the thing that have been holding up that experimental fusion reactor? If that is the case, then we must at least be within shouting distance of a solution to that problem...
@[DFX] Deimos: I vote we sacrifice you first. #nucleartest
You know, I hate to say I told you so, BUT I TOLD YOU SO. #nooklending
@FigNinja: I'm not an expert on IP law, but I think this has something to do with the fact that certain books are handled by different publishers in different countries, and the physical location of the transaction determines which publisher gets the proceeds, so it looks to me like B&N either didn't want to or weren't able to negotiate a deal with overseas publishers. #internationalkindle
