There are CSS tricks used to correct for this. For example both my nexus 7" tablet and galaxy nexus phone have a 1280x720 screen. yet both get different versions of web pages based on the physical size of the screen and not just the resolution.
For phones sure. But for applications in VR Head Mounted Displays like http://www.oculusvr.com/ where the small screen takes up your entire field of view even 2560x1400 isn't going to be good enough.
To meet the resolution of the human eye (a murky subject but around 576 megapixels per eye for a 120 degree field of view) we're going to need screens that are around 24,000x24,000 pixels per eye. Plus these screens would have to be small enough to fit on a head mounted display (think 7" tablet or smaller).
Link to Original Source
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rh0SXBtT_lA (a more tacticool version)
personally I think these shotguns are a hell of a lot more dangerous and readily available than anything made with a crazy expensive 3d printer.
Cognitive Dissonance. People don't mind it as much when it's "their guy" doing it, or they simply ignore it and put it out of mind.
Well there is a very small amount of atmosphere at the orbit the ISS has, Breaking a projectile up into infinitely small bits would increase the surface area and (admittedly small) drag. Maybe just dispersing them enough that they wouldn't cause any damage.
Another idea would be to heat up one side of the projectile which could vaporize small amounts of the material giving it some thrust. That thrust could push them out of the way.
What about laser weapons? http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/08/17658147-navy-unveils-powerful-ship-mounted-laser-weapon?lite
Maybe it's possible to vaporize the smaller projectiles when there isn't enough time to dodge them.
I wonder if our radar tech is advanced enough to be able to see these small projectiles in time to intercept them.
Actually I'm pretty sure I copy/pasted the headline from the article, which means it was probably the editor who inserted the typo in the first place haha.
Oops my bad. Been on slashdot for more than 13 years you'd think i'd be more careful with my first submission haha.
In a ruling (PDF), the ITC said that Apple was not violating Motorola's U.S. patent covering proximity sensors, which the commission called "obvious." It was the last of six patents Motorola aimed at Apple as part of an October 2010 complaint."
Link to Original Source
Right. But if you make the 'track' sufficiently long like I mentioned you could do it with 12gs.
I added to it on my post on reddit:
I'd think that you would want a vehicle about the size of the space shuttle orbiter (109,000 kg loaded). so given:
E = 1/2 MV^2 The kinetic energy of something that massive moving at 10,000 m/s is 5,450,000,000,000 Joules. That would be a lot of juice. However, you wouldn't need it all at once since the acceleration would occur over about 69 seconds. Since 1 joule per second = 1 watt. 5,450,000,000,000 / 69 = 789,855,072,463 watts (790 gigawatts)
The largest power-plant in the world is the Three Gorges Damn in China with an estimated maximum output of around 22Gw.
The High Magnetic Field Laboratory Dresden at the Rossendorf Research Center has the worlds largest capacitor array which can store 50 megajoules and cost 10 million Euros .
So, unless we scale up nuclear power plants or create a capacitor array capable of storing 5.5 terawatts or reduce the size of the vehicle we're at least an order of magnitude off. But it still seems like it could work.
Looks right to me. This got me thinking about how long a 'track' would have to be to launch someone into space.
According to Wikipedia's article on g-force:
"Early experiments showed that untrained humans were able to tolerate 17 g eyeballs-in "
Eyeballs in means perpendicular to the spine such that the force pushes your eyes into your head.
and their article on Low Earth Orbit:
"Atmospheric and gravity drag associated with launch typically adds 1,500-2,000 m/s to the Delta-V launch vehicle required to reach normal LEO orbital velocity of around 7,800 m/s (17,448 mph)."
So lets assume 10,000 m/s because the atmosphere is so much denser near sea level. The sled would probably need more but that could be overcome with rockets on the sled itself which kick in after it leaves the track.
using v^2 = 2ax
yields a track length of 300.12km
I'm no rocket scientist but that seems possible to me.
To me, it looks like the robot is focused on keeping the acceleration due to gravity between the skis. I know it must be considering the centripetal force, Yet it does not seem capable of 'hanging it out there', in a turn steep enough to support an acc due to gravity that doesn't point between the skis. I think this is part of what's holding it back, and if so it would mean a snowboarding robot wouldn't work as well with the same tech.