or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by muppetry

Well, you probably have quite strong views on that issue yourself, so you may not be an impartial judge of the BBC coverage. I followed that issue quite closely and the BBC reporting seemed fairly balanced. I'm not clear what you mean by "buried articles". Articles by whom? In any case, the BBC has a long record of pissing off governments of both flavours on any number of issues, so the accusation that they are a state propaganda organ is just silly.
If there were other viable options then maybe, but I suspect that Apple's response would be that they do more good, long term, by working with these companies and driving changes in their behavior than by simply driving themselves out of business.
Just the expression "state-owned media", in implying "state-controlled media", misses the point to begin with. State control of the BBC has always been rather minimal. The license system does seem archaic but, historically, it has permitted a well-funded and high-quality source of news, documentaries and other programming without the annoying commercials that everyone else endures and without an imposed partisan bias. There is nothing wrong with government funding per se...
I suspect that you made an early judgement on the organization based on name and ownership, and then never actually checked it out as a news source. It's surprisingly balanced as far as I can tell. I have yet to see any content that could be interpreted as supporting terrorism. Which news sources do you prefer?
Except that it is clear that Apple is striving in this area, and is setting new standards. But because they have not been immediately and completely successful you feel able to condemn them and Capitalism? What an idiotic post.
It is worth noting that the BBC News website has given full coverage to Apple's response. The BBC anti-Apple slant has always been real, but patchy. Whether it was related to the Micro is hard to say, but that's an interesting hypothesis. The degeneration of parts of this thread into political ranting suggest that many here are simply unfamiliar with the BBC and its reporting which, by and large, is more factual and less partisan than almost anything originating here in...
I think you just answered your own question.
Quite exact, the way I was envisaging it, which was to adjust the rotation rate so that at impact, it is oriented as needed.But it occurs to me that they may do something rather different, especially since many dropped phones likely don't have much angular velocity to start with. Rigid-body rotations are stable about the two principle axes with the greatest and least moments of inertia, so two internal rotation systems, in principle, would be adequate to achieve any given...
But angular momentum is moment of inertia x angular velocity, so such a system can work with relatively low-mass components provided that they spin fast enough.
Interesting concept that I recall being discussed a year or two back. The issue with modifying angular momentum during a fall remains the need to know the exact height of the phone above the impact surface. That is the single, critical unknown. Without an ultrasonic method - mentioned as a more advanced enhancement - or something equivalent, it's hard to see how this can work.
New Posts  All Forums: