Comments

adam83

Technology

Armored Airbags to Protect Vehicles from RPGs and Roadside Bombs

By Jeremy Hsu Posted on 11.6.2009 18 Comments
Despite the vehicles' armor, rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs) can still take out Humvees and MRAP vehicles with ease. But a company wants to change that equation with airbags that neutralize incoming RPGs and prevent them from exploding.

11.7.2009 at 09:44pm - Comment by adam83

"Why not just get out of this war and you won't have to be concerned with adding more protection for our troops?" ...and getting rid of police officers would reduce crime rates (sarcasm). -OR- We could realize that there will always be reasons to maintain a military, and out of appreciation for the soldiers risking their lives we could try to find ways of keeping them alive. Side benefit: the same advancements we see in military tech will make their way to civilian tech... like the Internet (originally a DARPA project). "...we could've used that money to fix our economy..." Nice try, please show me how government spending has "fixed" the economy. Cash for clunkers? Home buyer grants? Please don't make me laugh. I would rather keep my money and spend it how I want rather than having it taxed and then "given" back to me.
Technology

"Pillownaut" Stays in Bed for the Sake of Science

By Rebecca Boyle Posted on 6.3.2009 6 Comments
When humans eventually live on the moon and Mars, the discomforts of eating freeze-dried food and drinking our own urine will hardly be our only space nuisances. Apparently, our feet will tingle, we'll get headaches and toothaches, our eyes will be runny, and we'll have chronically stuffy noses. Scientists have a pretty good notion of what will happen to your body when you're walking on the moon or traveling gravity-free for two years en route to Mars -- thanks to a cadre of bed-ridden test subjects.

6.9.2009 at 10:28am - Comment by adam83

My brother did this last summer! We visited him a few times while he was there. It was kinda funny, and yes that is a lot of money to get paid to lay around. He did a lot of reading and some programming. If I didn't have kids I would have loved to take the job myself. Once you finish your time you have to go through some physical therapy to build up your strength. I hope they are getting some good information out of the study.
Science

Update: What Happens in Texas Doesn’t Stay In Texas

By Christine Cyr Posted on 4.1.2009 111 Comments
For months, scientists, educators, and textbook publishers across the country have waited as members of the Texas Board of Education squabbled over whether to remove three little words in their sciences standards: “truths and weaknesses.” The controversy? The language—supported by creationists—requires biology teachers in Texas to discuss possible weaknesses in evolutionary theory, and has had implication for how evolution is taught across the country.

4.2.2009 at 07:42pm - Comment by adam83

Up front I must say, I am a Christian and I believe in creation. I also believe in scientific study. I am disappointed that PopSci has (in this and past articles) made anyone who doubts evolution out to be unintelligent, biased, political, or religious nutjobs. The progress of science often happens when someone reconsiders ideas that the scientific community has already denounced. I don't deny that some religious people (including Christians) are unintelligent, biased, political, or nutjobs, but then again the scientific community is well represented in those areas as well. Consider this hypothetically: if God were real, and creation not evolution was the true "origin of species" what would science find at the end of all their study? You may say science has disproved the existence of God. That simply isn't true. Science hasn't produced conclusive evidence for the existence of God. That is a different thing altogether. Besides science hasn't really been looking for God. To the commenters who have claimed that creationists and evolutionists are using different "axioms", I can't say that I completely agree. Sure not everyone will start with all the same assumptions, but it isn't as though Christians are all spiritual or philosophical and aren't interested in objective truth. As a Christian myself, I believe there really is a being/person whom I call God that really did make everything. I am not talking about a tree falling in the woods not making a sound. If God is real the way that I believe Him to be (based on evidence and interpretation in the same manner as the scientific method) then a scientist would be able to prove His existence if they knew the right way to conduct the experiment. It is important to see that reasonable Christians aren't just pushing a random belief system, they really believe (again based on evidence) that God is real. If I have come to the conclusions I have based on evidence, and another person comes to a different conclusion using mostly the same evidence, who is to say that the other person is more capable than me of coming to the correct conclusion? Don't dare invoke questions about IQ, mental health, or even agreement on the part of the scientific community. Only people who are smarter than the most intelligent Christian could question their IQ, there is no way that all Christians are crazy, and the scientific community has changed opinions on issues so often throughout history that I would be surprised if they could agree on the best way to tie a shoe. And there are far more legitimate scientists who doubt evolution than we are led to believe.
Science

The Fastest Internet Ever

By Posted on 7.28.2008 10 Comments
Sometimes, what futurist Ray Kurzweil calls the “ever-increasing rate of technology” is scary. (Who, exactly, wants to live forever? Or grant robots the same rights as humans?) But when singularity—the theory that technology will improve exponentially until it reaches a state of unprecedented progress—quickens the Internet’s pace by a hundredfold, I will gladly drink Kurzweil’s Kool-Aid. Scientists from the University of Sydney have inadvertently demonstrated this theory by making the Web 60 times faster than current top-notch speeds, and promising to raise that to 100 times in the near future.

7.29.2008 at 08:25am - Comment by adam83

The issue is not transmission speed, but processing speed for traffic. In current applications of transmitted data (including copper wire transmission) the limiting factor is the processing of the data. In order for a signal to reach its destination, routers have to examine packets of information and send it. This is a relatively slow process. The *real* reason that this is exciting is because the Internet as a whole will get faster. I have heard discussion that if consumers continue to get faster connections to the Internet it could potentially overload the routers that must process the information. Not only does faster processing mean that this is unlikely, but it also means that less equipment will be needed to do the job. This is likely to make Internet access cheaper. This new technology means that the speed of the Internet can continue to scale as it has been and it won't break the infrastructure. This might be research now, but you can believe if it is viable technology it won't be sitting around for long. What I would like to know is what effect if any will this have on processor speeds? What are the prospects of such an integrated circuit for use in a general purpose processor? If it can speed up the processing of signals in a network, can it be adapted for use as a general purpose processor? I for one wouldn't mind a graphics card that is 60 times faster than what I have now. Another issue however is the limit in internet addresses. The Internet continues to grow in speed but also in size. At some point we will have to take the plunge and switch to IP version 6 or some other solution.
The Environment

Global Warming: Not So Bad?

By Posted on 7.26.2008 31 Comments
So it looks like it's not all gloom and doom after all. A few recent studies have managed to find the slim silver lining of climate change. Below, a look at the three small positive outcomes of global warming.

7.29.2008 at 07:46am - Comment by adam83

Climate changes are inevitable because the Earth is in an unstable equilibrium. I personally don't believe that man is causing climate changes any more than any other animal, and besides processes in nature tend to bring conditions *back* toward a stable state. For example, increased CO2 causes plants to be able to grow faster. What is more important than my opinion is the need for handling the issue with intellectual integrity. Anyone not just parroting propaganda has to admit that the extent of our effect on the environment is debated. The article didn't attempt to deny that climate changes were occurring but instead pointed out that the effects of those changes may be less than some have predicted. Climate change has been happening on earth for a long time without our help, and if there wasn't large scale adaptation, all life would have been extinct long before there was any global warming discussion. One nice coincidence is that while much of the debate over man's impact centers around pollution and emissions, everyone on both sides of the issue recognizes that it is important to find more sustainable energy sources than fossil fuel. Anyone who has tried to breathe in Los Angeles knows that zero emissions vehicles would benefit people as well as the environment. If we all share many of the same goals regarding environmental responsibility, do we really need to have cloned opinions? Regarding the title of the article, I for one appreciate a little optimism regarding the future. Good article overall.