from the minor-oversights dept.
BuzzSkyline writes "Improvements in helmets have helped modern soldiers survive bullets and blasts that would have killed them in past wars. But increasing numbers of soldiers are suffering long lasting brain damage from explosions, partly as a result of what appears to be a flaw in helmet designs. Although the blast itself may not accelerate the brain inside a soldier's head enough to cause injury, shockwaves that make it through the space between a helmet and a soldier's head can cause the skull to flex, leading to ripples in the skull that can create damaging pressures in the brain. Simulations that relied on 'code originally designed to simulate how a detonated weapon rattles a building or tank' could lead to new helmets that reduce the traumatic brain injuries that many soldiers suffer as a result of improvised explosive devices and other moderate-sized blasts. The research is due to be published in Physical Review Letters, but a pre-print of the entire article is currently available on the Physics ArXiv."
Do you have an argument for the validity of the old standard other than an appeal to tradition? Anyone who cares and who needs to read those books or papers can certainly learn that before a certain date, an older definition was used.
Given how often I see articles claiming that "print media is in trouble, everything's online now", is investing R&D into video advertisements, not to mention increasing printing costs with this gimmick, REALLY the way to go? Are you trying to tell me that the only thing killing print media this whole time has been it's lack of flash ads!?
At my high school, you were allowed to have cell phones if you turned them off in class. If your cell went off in class, though, you could be sure of getting detention. Since turning off cell phones during meetings and the like is good etiquette outside of high school too, I say let the students have their phones if only for a valuable learning experience.