They're called blades
I wonder if the engines could be useful even without the plane?
Strap a bunch of them, some disposable LH2 tanks and a parachute onto the side of a Falcon and drop them when you hit Mach 5. Should improve the mass ration no end.
Assuming the astronomers are right, the way it happened is this:
About 420 million years after the Big Bang, this clump of gas formed into a small galaxy and emited a lot of light. At that time, about 1 billion light years away, and moving away at close to the speed of light was another clump of gas.
13 billion years later according to clocks on that other clump of gas, the light "overhauls" the other clump of gas, and is seen by Hubble.
There are other points of view that assign different numbers to some bits of this, but they all agree on the actual facts.
James Blish had the solution in his "Cities in Flight" books fifty years ago. Fit a suitable number of spindizzies and fly New York off into the galaxy to look for work.
You tube however is in your country. Can you get seek an injunction on them to takedown the video based on the fact you can prove the other side is perjuring itself.
PR works well where this is a substantial centre party (eg Germany) and badly where there isn't (eg Israel). Most systems also have a lower cutoff, so you have to get 5 or 10% of the vote before you get any seats, which excludes the real loonies.
It is EASY to create the world's shortest laser pulse: emit a single photon. It is monochromatic, coherent (so it meets the laser defninition), and has the shortest possible pulse.
No, by cleverly combining multiple photons of different frequencies you can produce a pulse that concentrates its energy in a shorter timespan. Calling it a laser pulse is actually stretching a point a bit, it is triggered by laser light, but the pulse itself is not monochromatic.
It's true, of course, that there are many more apparent imminent catastrophes (AICs) than actual catastrophes, especially as we are still here to argue about it.
Some AICs arise from incomplete understanding, some from politically motivated woolly thinking and will go away if ignored. Some are real risks and we just get lucky. Others are partially mitigated by actions taken in response to the apparent threat (Y2K for instance). Some may be fully genuine threats averted by prompt action. Nuclear war between NATO and Warsaw pact in the 60s or 70s might be argued to fall into this category. CND and others successfully undermined the notion of "winnable nuclear war" and made sure that no Western politicians would risk nuclear war.
However, NONE OF THIS MEANS THAT THE NEXT ONE WILL NOT BE REAL. Probably it won't, but we can't just assume it isn't a real threat because the last one wasn't. We have to study each plausible threat, do our best to estimate the risk and where the risk appears significant, do what we can to mitigate it. The universe does not owe us continued existence, let alone continued civilization.
Quantities needed are tiny. It's a surface coating on a few square meters of first wall per gigawatt scale power plant. Not a problem.
No, Victor's machine makes a random choice of whether to entangle or not and makes it AFTER Alice & Bob make their measurements.
I'm talking 10 years out, as I have said a couple of times. I doubt there will be zero bars anywhere in Europe or North America except perhaps national parks by then. Anyway, the JS could probably support most of your work locally and resync when it gets a chance.
Plugging hardware in is the equivalent of installing an app. Standardized interfaces and pre-approved standardized products. My guess is that compiling and installing software IN 5-10 YEARS will feel like installing a PCI card or DIMMs now -- not impossible, or unheard of, but a bit scary, voids your warranty and not something most people do.
Software development will form just as negligible a part of the personal computing market in 10 years as it does now.
will be about as strange as installing hardware on it is now. Not unheard of, but old-fashioned and unusual.
It's my understanding that any device for creating, as opposed to a device primarily for viewing, will require some sort of "special training or experience."
This is often true, but the handful of exceptions have been HUGE hits -- mobile phone cameras with facebook integration, for instance. The content created is mostly not very interesting to anyone except the creator and a few friends, of course, but that's hardly new.
There will always be niche markets. My personal guess is that in ten years they will basically all be presented as peripherals for your phone/tablet. They may, in fact, be many times more powerful, and essentially take over when you are using them, but the experience will be a continuation of the "smartphone" experience, in the sense that your preferences/identity/data/etc. will all be the same.
Two things. One is that I doubt many people do software development on the bus. The things I want to do on the bus work fine on the tablet -- read some papers, check my mail (as of last network connection) , play a game to while away the journey.
The other is that we are looking a few years ahead here. We're talking about companies positioning themselves for how they see the market in 2-5 years, not how they see it now.
There are two things a tablet can do that a desktop, or even a laptop won't do:
1. Weigh less than 1kg and fit in a handbag or large pocket
2. Be usable (at least for some purposes) by random members of the public with no special training or experience.
To most (not all, and probably not you) users, these trump the things a desktop PC can do that a tablet can't.