search results matching tag: technologies
» channel: learn
go advanced with your query
Search took 0.008 seconds
Videos (1000) | Sift Talk (113) | Blogs (112) | Comments (1000) |
Videos (1000) | Sift Talk (113) | Blogs (112) | Comments (1000) |
Not yet a member? No problem!
Sign-up just takes a second.
Forgot your password?
Recover it now.
Already signed up?
Log in now.
Forgot your password?
Recover it now.
Not yet a member? No problem!
Sign-up just takes a second.
Remember your password?
Log in now.
Black Pearl
Black sails, eh? Better stay out of the Aegean.
*quality sailing technology
*promote
The Future of War and How It Affects YOU - Smarter Every Day
Algorithms are autonomous, and already shape your thinking----I mean, nothing to see here. Robots are not a danger to you, humans.
RFlagg (Member Profile)
Your video, How Technology Destroyed The Truth, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.
Godfrey Comedian Roast Suburban White Kids Wearing Durags
Yo, Godfrey, why are you appropriating white culture with those clothes, that language, that technology......aaaahahaha, look at you, trying to be a white boy....that's crazy.
Duh. Sounds pretty stupid turned around, doesn't it?
And that's not a wave haircut, that's a kid with wavy hair.
Duh again.
I find the claims of "cultural appropriations" asinine, some people have never heard America is called the melting pot, where cultural assimilation is the goal I guess. Damn, do we ever need to reinstate civics classes.
The Ancient Hawaiian Art of Bark Cloth
*promote *quality cultural technologies or we will lose them.
F-18 Criticisms in the 80's mirror those of the F-35 today
The reason why we still have human pilots in fighters is because you can't jam or hijack a pilots brain. Any machine that is remotely controlled can be jammed at the very least. Leaving it unresponsive to commands. The exception here is that it could be pre programmed to perform a specific bunch of tasks, perhaps even something as advanced as air to air combat but, it loses a lot of flexibility. And it can be easily exploited.
E. G. you know a robot fighter jet is on it's way. Jam it so it cannot be called to cancel it's mission. Put some children into the target area.... That can happen and does with real pilots too, but they are able check and recheck as many times as they feel necessary either their JTACs or the amazing optics on modern jets giving a clear picture from over 10 miles away.
And that if course is with the ethical concerns of having an automatic killing machine fly around, which people like Stephen hawking warn us about. Perhaps in the immediate future the danger is quite low with only collateral incidents, but can you imagine say Trump with this kind of power. A trained soldier regardless of being broken in during training and even with all of the testosterone and adrenaline flowing through his body is still a compassionate and thinking human being. The likelihood of ordering a military wide atrocity is very low compared to an army of machineswhich will carry out any tasks no matter how gruesome. Can you imagine what Trump would do if people were no longer in the loop to share the responsibilities and burden of war? And by extention, that technology would likely be used to control the populace. You think the police in the US have there fair share of power tripping jackasses slipping into the service, well imagine if every officer was basically a silicon version of Trump. That's the worst ki d of robocop movie ever lol
Lockheed Martin and the Pentagon say the F-35’s superiority over its rivals lies in its ability to remain undetected, giving it “first look, first shot, first kill.”
Hugh Harkins, a highly respected author on military combat aircraft, called that claim “a marketing and publicity gimmick” in his book on Russia’s Sukhoi Su-35S, a potential opponent of the F-35. He also wrote, “In real terms an aircraft in the class of the F-35 cannot compete with the Su-35S for out and out performance such as speed, climb, altitude, and maneuverability.”
Other critics have been even harsher. Pierre Sprey, a cofounding member of the so-called “fighter mafia” at the Pentagon and a co-designer of the F-16, calls the F-35 an “inherently a terrible airplane” that is the product of “an exceptionally dumb piece of Air Force PR spin.” He has said the F-35 would likely lose a close-in combat encounter to a well-flown MiG-21, a 1950s Soviet fighter design.
Robert Dorr, an Air Force veteran, career diplomat and military air combat historian, wrote in his book “Air Power Abandoned,” “The F-35 demonstrates repeatedly that it can’t live up to promises made for it. … It’s that bad.”
The development of the F-35 has been a mess by any measurement. There are numerous reasons, but they all come back to what F-35 critics would call the jet's original sin: the Pentagon's attempt to make a one-size-fits-all warplane, a Joint Strike Fighter.
History is littered with illustrations of multi-mission aircraft that never quite measured up. Take Germany's WWII Junkers Ju-88, or the 1970s Panavia Tornado, or even the original F/A-18. Today the Hornet is a mainstay of the American military, but when it debuted it lacked the range and payload of the A-7 Corsair and acceleration and climb performance of the F-4 Phantom it was meant to replace.
Yeah, the F/A-18 was trash when it first came out and it took YEARS and multiple changes/fixes to allow it to fully outperform the decades old aircraft it was designed to beat when it was released.
The F35 is not the best at anything it does, it is designed to fully be mediocre at all roles in order to allow it to be a single solution aircraft. That may change with more money, time, and data retrieved from hours spent in actual combat, but as it stands it is what it was designed to be. A jack of all trades and master of none, not something I would want to be flying in a role where I could encounter a master of that role.
As @ChaosEngine says, it is far beyond time that we move to a design where the pilot is not in the plane. There is no reason at this time that we cannot field a plane that could successfully perform it's role with the pilot in a secure location nearby. Such planes could be built cheaper, could perform in g-forces that humans cannot withstand, and would be expendable in a way that current planes are not. However, this would mean that our corporate welfare system for huge defense contractors would take a massive hit. We can't have that, can we?
Ladder beats wall
*doublepromote the *quality advancements Mexico has recently made after discovering ladder technology.
With luck, this evidence of how easily a wall is defeated would make Trump rethink holding government workers hostage for wall funding....unlikely though, since it's not a meant to be a serious security measure, it's meant to be a monument.
Mordhaus (Member Profile)
Your video, Primitive Technology: Stone Yam planters, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.
This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 352 Badge!
Trump to Give Primetime Address on the Shutdown
I like his new plan, to take the money directly from the military for the monument to his own stupidity. Republicans should love that.
He's going to be really upset to learn that Mexico has developed ladder technology, making fences and walls obsolete.
Networks should refuse to air his speech and cite President Trump who repeatedly said he might yank the broadcasting license of networks that air fake news and lies as the reason.
Vicious Dog Pack Attack
My thoughts exactly.
Elysium had the fantasy saviour satellite with technology capable of fixing most of the world's problems just waiting to be ordered to do so. In reality, there is no army of multipurpose robots in shining armor poised to fly down and save humanity from itself.
We don't even have president Camacho.
We are so hosed.
My idea of hell is the current world we live in, which we saw in that movie: Idiocracy.
Growing up in the 1950s - Home Movies
That might be, weirdly, the source of a confused correlation for some voters. Living standards for middle class voters ("my kid can do better than me") continued to rise through about the mid to late 1970s---and after that, flat-lined for a more than a generation, all the way to today.
The correlation that some people draw is "immigrants", "civil rights", etc...
Though, perhaps, academics might point them in a different direction---trade, tax policy, the decline of unions (driving middle class wages) in the face of a shifting industrial base, technological change, and the rise of competitors who finally recovered from World War II...
It would be nice if there was a rising tide that lifted all middle class (of all backgrounds) households still...
What a fantastic idyllic life. Not a single black, hispanic, or asian face in view.
All I could think was GET OUT!!!
Non-Invasive Brain Surgery
I can't see this kind of technology ever going wrong or getting misused.
Can This Change Everything for DJs
First off they use DVS technology which has been around and has nothing to do with what Phase is. I had no idea this was even a thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinyl_emulation_software
https://www.digitaldjtips.com/2017/06/a-beginners-guide-to-digital-vinyl-systems/
With Phase you don't need the special time coded vinyl record or needles.
https://youtu.be/keNa-i8toTU
There may be a better explanation somewhere but that's what i got in 15 min using google.
I have questions.
Maybe I missed it, but I feel like they didn’t really explain what it is or how it works.
I guess it’s some kind of replacement for a record needle, that uses an accelerometer(?) or something, but I’d really like more details.
Also (and I know nothing about DJing, so tell me if I’m being an idiot), surely using this kind of digital wireless thing (again not sure how it works) would defeat the purpose of using analog vinyl in the first place?
China Flies Drones Disguised As Birds To Spy On Citizens
It was the one video I could find that summed it up well. You can read more here: https://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/inventions/china-looks-to-bolster-surveillance-network-with-birdlike-drones/news-story/fbef8af0169a08cb6
4ebddbf6cf44981
Fox News sooo.... True? Unbiased.
Hypersonic Missile Nonproliferation
A big part of the Zero's reputation came from racking up kills in China against a lot of second-rate planes with poorly-trained pilots. After all, there was a reason that the Republic of China hired the American Volunteer Group to help out during the Second Sino-Japanese War – Chinese pilots had a hard time cutting it.
The Wildcat was deficient in many ways versus the Zero, but it still had superior firepower via ammo loadout. The Zero carried very few 20mm rounds, most of it's ammo was 7.7mm. There are records of Japanese pilots unloading all their 7.7mm ammo on a Wildcat and it was still flyable. On the flip side, the Wildcat had an ample supply of .50 cal.
Stanley "Swede" Vejtasa was able to score seven kills against Japanese planes in one day with a Wildcat.
Yes, the discovery of the Akutan Zero helped the United States beat this plane. But MilitaryFactory.com notes that the Hellcat's first flight was on June 26, 1942 – three weeks after the raid on Dutch Harbor that lead to the fateful crash-landing of the Mitsubishi A6M flown by Tadayoshi Koga.
Marine Captain Kenneth Walsh described how he knew to roll to the right at high speed to lose a Zero on his tail. Walsh would end World War II with 17 kills. The Zero also had trouble in dives, thanks to a bad carburetor.
We were behind in technology for many reasons, but once the Hellcat started replacing the Wildcat, the Japanese Air Superiority was over. Even if they had maintained a lead in technology, as Russia showed in WW2, quantity has a quality all of it's own. We were always going to be able to field more pilots and planes than Japan would be able to.
As far as Soviet rockets, once we were stunned by the launch of Sputnik, we kicked into high gear. You can say what you will of reliability, consistency, and dependability, but exactly how many manned Soviet missions landed on the moon and returned? Other than Buran, which was almost a copy of our Space Shuttle, how many shuttles did the USSR field?
The Soviets did build some things that were very sophisticated and were, for a while, better than what we could field. The Mig-31 is a great example. We briefly lagged behind but have a much superior air capability now. The only advantages the Mig and Sukhoi have is speed, they can fire all their missiles and flee. If they are engaged however, they will lose if pilots are equally skilled.
As @newtboy has said, I am sure that Russia and China are working on military advancements, but the technology simply doesn't exist to make a Hypersonic missile possible at this point.
China is fielding a man portable rifle that can inflict pain, not kill, and there is no hard evidence that it works.
There is no proof that the Chinese have figured out the technology for an operational rail gun on land, let alone the sea. We also have created successful railguns, the problem is POWERING them repeatedly, especially onboard a ship. If they figured out a power source that will pull it off, then it is possible, but there is no concrete proof other than a photo of a weapon attached to a ship. Our experts are guessing they might have it functional by 2025, might...
China has shown that long range QEEC is possible. It has been around but they created the first one capable of doing it from space. The problem is, they had to jury rig it. Photons, or light, can only go through about 100 kilometers of optic fiber before getting too dim to reliably carry data. As a result, the signal needs to be relayed by a node, which decrypts and re-encrypts the data before passing it on. This process makes the nodes susceptible to hacking. There are 32 of these nodes for the Beijing-Shanghai quantum link alone.
The main issue with warfare today is that it really doesn't matter unless the battle is between one of the big 3. Which means that ANY action could provoke Nuclear conflict. Is Russia going to hypersonic missile one of our carriers without Nukes become an option on the table as a retaliation? Is China going to railgun a ship and risk nuclear war?
Hell no, no more than we would expect to blow up some major Russian or Chinese piece of military hardware without severe escalation! Which means we can create all the technological terrors we like, because we WON'T use them unless they somehow provide us a defense against nuclear annihilation.
So just like China and Russia steal stuff from us to build military hardware to counter ours, if they create something that is significantly better, we will began trying to duplicate it. The only thing which would screw this system to hell is if one of us actually did begin developing a successful counter measure to nukes. If that happens, both of the other nations are quite likely to threaten IMMEDIATE thermonuclear war to prevent that country from developing enough of the counter measures to break the tie.
When you have neither speed nor maneuverability, it's your own durability that is in question, not the opponents durability.
It took the capture of the Akutan zero, its repair, and U.S. flight testing, to work out countermeasures to the zero.
The countermeasures were basically :
- One surprise diving attack and run away with momentum, or just don't fight them.
- Else bait your pursuer into a head-on pass with an ally (Thatch weave) (which, is still a bad position, only it's bad for everyone.)
Zero had 20mm cannons. The F4F had .50's. The F4F did not out gun the zero. 20mms only need a couple rounds to down a plane.
Durability became a factor later in the war, after the U.S. brought in better planes, like the F4U, F6F, Mustang, etc... while the zero stagnated in near-original form, and Japan could not make planes like the N1K in meaningful quanitties, or even provide quality fuel for planes like the Ki84 to use full power.
History is history. We screwed up at the start of WW2. Hubris/pride/confidence made us dismiss technologies that came around to bite us in the ass hard, and cost a lot of lives.
Best rockets since the 1960's? Because it had the biggest rocket?
What about reliability, consistency, dependability.
If I had to put my own life on the line and go to space, and I had a choice, I would pick a Russian rocket.
-scheherazade