Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Alternate use for this technology (Score 1) 177

by K. S. Kyosuke (#47445613) Attached to: DARPA Successfully Demonstrates Self-Guiding Bullets

Expect that Hellfire missile is useless against areas and people. It is directed anti-tank missile what does basically nothing to surroundings.

Of course it is. But many drones simply don't have any other weapon system to use, which is probably the reason why Anwar al-Awlaki was killed by Hellfires. And that's also the reason why I've mentioned it. Using precision anti-tank weapons against individuals simply seemed like a terrible waste to me.

Comment: Re:Wow. (Score 1) 180

by Rei (#47444479) Attached to: Rocket Scientist Designs "Flare" Pot That Cooks Food 40% Faster

That I actually have done ;) On a 60-degree slope down into a deep canyon nonetheless! Also there's manmade objects and yes, *gasp* trees in some places ;) The country isn't totally treeless!

But yes, it's not exactly a very practical solution for Iceland. I'd really prefer something more designed for both roles, hanging and on the ground.

Comment: Re:Does anyone oppose this? tsarkon reports (Score 1) 118

by K. S. Kyosuke (#47443949) Attached to: Fighting Climate Change With Trade

The Jurassic period. O2 in atmosphere was 130% modern levels. CO2 was at 1950ppm, 5-7 times modern levels. The temperature was a whole 3 DEGREES C over modern times! Oh noes!

And the continents were of completely different shape, and the solar constant was something like 2 % lower, which corresponds to an equilibrium temperature 1.5K lower. (I don't even remember the orbital parameters of Earth at that time, ditto for the axial tilt.) So it's not like the things you're mentioned are the only variables.

Comment: Re:Wow. (Score 1) 180

by Rei (#47443739) Attached to: Rocket Scientist Designs "Flare" Pot That Cooks Food 40% Faster

Are you talking about a Hennessy? I love mine. And I live in Iceland, where it's harder to use. I have no clue where you're getting that they're heavy. Unless you're comparing the regular nylon version to a silnylon tent, rather than nylon to nylon, silnylon to silnylon. The one-man silnylon versions are in the ballpark of 800 grams, including the fly. You kind of have to adapt them to use them as tents on the ground, though, they're not designed for that (but it is possible). Another criticism of them I have is that underside insulation seems to be an afterthought, and I'm not a big fan of their insulation kit (there's no reason it should be foam, I'd like a self-inflating mat). Their snakeskin packing system works well, but you can't pack up the hammock with the insulation on it; honestly, I'd love it if I could have my sleeping bag, hammock, and insulation all roll up as one element. And if had been designed to work both a tent and a hammock from the beginning, the insulation could double as a sleeping pad.

Comment: Re:Wow. (Score 5, Insightful) 180

by Rei (#47442911) Attached to: Rocket Scientist Designs "Flare" Pot That Cooks Food 40% Faster

Not to mention that as a mountaineer, I'd think he'd care more about cooking efficiency than cook time. And while it's great to utilize the flame energy more efficiently, there's a far more significant optimization one can do - make insulated cozies that fit your pots. Bring to a boil, shut off the heat, put the pot it in the cozy and let it cook. For my pots, I made an underpiece and a lid that fits over each other, both out of aluminized foam; it works very well.

(Of course, he could be one of those people that doesn't eat any "cooked" meals, only the "just add boiling water" meals. In that case, then I guess it's all about the efficiency of using the energy from the flame

What I want to see in backpacking is a full integrated system. Where the tent is a hammock is a backpack is a ground cloth is a pack cover is a camp chair and so on down the line, where most components serve multiple uses. When I think about how much "fabric" and "rigid structures" I carry with me that if designed properly could be eliminated, it just seems like a waste.

Comment: Re:What's the point? (Score 1) 119

Virtual reality, perhaps? Combine this with an eye tracker to render portions of the screen selectively, since doing the whole screen at full resolution would be prohibitive. You might have to combine this with real-time region updates. Sounds like an interesting problem...

Comment: Re:Ted Postol very bias opinion. (Score 4, Insightful) 323

by Rei (#47440615) Attached to: A Skeptical View of Israel's Iron Dome Rocket Defense System

Actually, the key thing for them is "cheap". They need to keep costing sub-$1k missiles in the ballpark of these Iron dome systems - the more, the better. They might as well just omit the warheads to save money and increase range. Every $50k shot Israel fires with those systems costs 25 Israelis' annual tax contribution to the IDF. Every $55m system they deploy costs 27.500 Israelis' IDF tax contributions.

Palestinians are poor, but they're not *that* poor that they can't leverage those kind of lopsided financial ratios.

Comment: Re:Subject bait (Score 3, Insightful) 323

by Rei (#47440537) Attached to: A Skeptical View of Israel's Iron Dome Rocket Defense System

No, in the case of Iron Dome, that's only PR too. They're shooting $50k+ missiles at $800 rockets. Even after factoring in that Israel's per-capita GDP is 20 times that of Palestine's, that's still a losing proposition, even *if* they had a 100% hit rate (which this article is suggesting it's anything-but) and assuming that you get the launcher, radar, etc for free instead of the actual $55 million per unit. It's in Palestine's best interests that Israel deploy as many of them as possible and try to shoot down every last rocket, because every shekel they spend on Iron Domes and missiles is a shekel they don't spend on jets, tanks, and bombs.

The reason that every major university maintains a department of mathematics is that it's cheaper than institutionalizing all those people.

Working...