"chances are that if 700 passengers are flown annually, up to 10 of them might not survive the flight in the first years of the operations."
most remarkable also the question who is to blame if a dead and burned space tourist corps comes crashing down from the sky into your car.
How sure is the information that a human body would not completely burn / ablate during atmospheric re-entry? I am not aware of any material ground tests in a plasma wind tunnel confirming that human tissue would survive re-entry from LEO.
Since a steak would not even be cooked by dropping it from very high altitudes (http://what-if.xkcd.com/28/) I would doubt that a space tourists body would desintegrate by atmospheric re-entry.
Funny link, however, some things are not clear enough:
1. Ablation rate is unknown
2. What are the entry conditions? The link suggests that the steak is just dropped (no initial velocity).
3. What about the ballistic coefficient?
4. How would the entry body orientation? It would be a quite non-steady state configuration I guess with heavy accelerations.
5. How would vacuum exposure impact on the water in the body/steak and what would be the consequence for ablation behaviour?
6. Does surface chemistry play a role (not ablation, but catalysis)?
My conclusion: the example with the steak is a funny and not so bad exercise, not more.
Funny article .... Reminds me a bit of Luzi :-)
And look at this phrase: am I in good or bad company ?
"Sergey Brin, a founder of Google, rarely leaves home without his Vibram FiveFingers nylon shoes."
In the article it is mentioned as a sign of particularly bad taste :-)
Interesting historical perspective. Progress since the late '80 really seems to be fairly slow.
?: Do we need to wait for the singularity until speech recognition works without flaws?
funny - tried just yesterday the one built in on mavericks: sending one email took three times as long at least as typing it
And now my speech PowerPoint
Funny, trade trust yesterday they're built in speech recognition in Mavericks sending one e-mail to at least three times a talk as long as typing it. Well this was actually quite okay and relatively fast cheers nice evening
"I thought I would give it a try on my android sexy seems to work pretty well and I'm speaking more less at normal speed"
Actually I was speaking as fast as I could because it was for the google search input - if you make a pause it will think you finished your input and start the query. Also you might notice that Android thinks it is "android sexy" - this was meant to be "on my Android. THIS seems to work...". Still it is not too bad - maybe in a year or two they have it working. Of course it might also be that I just use the word "sexy" randomly... :-\
The problem is that we don't yet understand how speech in humans actually works. As long as we merely build either inference or statistical language models we'll never get perfect speech recognition. A lot of recognition in humans has a predictive/expectational basis to it that stems from our understanding of higher lvl concepts and context awareness. Sadly I suspect that as long as machines remain unembodied in their perceptual abilities their ability to either properly recognize sounds/speech or objects and other features will never reach perfection.
All the satellite-related systems (except for the rocket to launch it) are DIY programs -- designed so that regular people may also have the chance of developing and eventually launching their own.
I was saying that mainly because of some flaws - the piggy-pack installation, no dedicated stage, the limited control, ...
It is so far very funny, but once he can fill all the gaps, it should be an excellent initiative - although careful about the debris if anyone has its own ;p
his quote: "when art becomes practical, we call it technology;
when technology becomes useless, we call it art" ...
this is probably the later one ....
This is an article on the problems of defining a scientific term. Or better how people can argue when trying to agree on a definition. Rather funny than important
And the winner is...
Finally I know why I'm so smart :D. Would like to meet Dr. Messerli (verry Swiss name, by the way) and have some dark Lindt chocolate together!
For a Few Dollars More ...
Except for this debatable purpose, this challenge seems interesting. They've made a presentation at ESTEC one month ago about that topic :
http://www.kiss.caltech.edu/study/asteroid/20120314_ESA_ESTEC.pdf
By the way, KISS is a funny name for a space institute.
must look funny ...
They calculate the properties of such a metatmaterial and how it might be constructed with a basic repeating unit in the form of a concrete cylinder some 18 metres in diameter, with four perpendicular holes in its sides (see picture).
These cylinders, perhaps varying in size to absorb a range of seismic wavelengths, would need to surround the foundations of a building in cylindrical shells some 60 metres across.
That needn't be prohibitively expensive but it would be a big structure that could only be constructed around isolated buildings (thereby somewhat negating the supposed benefit that other buildings in the earthquake 'shadow' might also be protected).
Optimization of locomotion on a range of different bipeds with nice visualisation and funny movie (definitely watch at 3:25 !!) Also simulations at lower/higher gravity
funny to read this post here ... I have been one of the "backers" of this on kickstarter .... will get some time on it to take pictures of my liking I think