Tümü
← Back to Squawk list
The Air Force Is Putting Death Rays on Fighter Jets. Yes, Death Rays.
Lasers will help older fighters stay alive while flying the deadly skies. The U.S. Air Force envisions placing laser weapon systems on fighter jets by the mid-2020s. The service is banking on a defense contractor’s SHiELD laser system, a pod-mounted laser that will protect fighters from incoming missiles. (www.popularmechanics.com) Daha Fazlası...Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
Surprised there isn't development of mini railguns to shoot missiles down with hypersonic darts.
Well, let's just say that taking your technology cues from Popular Mechanics is about one step above Buck Rogers.
While not every prediction comes true, there are things that have.
Your point being? It may be fun to see what technological developments are being played with and that is what PM does - provide entertainment for technology fans. Nothing wrong with that (I used to read Popular Science regularly when I was a kid - PM at that time really stuck to, well, mechanics). But one really shouldn't look to PM for an analysis of those technologies or read their articles as predictions of winners or losers. They are reporting, not analyzing.
That even a reknowed magazine can get it wrong. Don't forget, that even in this day and age in which information is kept in the ether, it relies on mechanical devices of some type somewhere.
My suggestion is that one will get it wrong when one doesn't care about getting it right. That headline was so contrived and absurd to suggest beyond reasonable doubt that there wasn't any care given by Popular Mechanics to get it right. Unless the definition of getting it right is manipulating people into clicking a fake news headline to then make money by feeding them ads. As a discerning reader, I expect more from publications that want to be respected.
PM has been making predictions since its inception, you may have missed reading them. Even in this article, the subheading states such.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/flight/g462/future-that-never-was-next-gen-tech-concepts/
"Popular Mechanics is in the business of predicting. Whether it's tech trends, concept cars or tomorrow's top science, we have been looking forward on the printed page throughout our 100-plus-year history. And it's not always accurate."
What you may remember about it and what I remember about it appear to be 2 different things. Their prediction in 1968 about watches being communication devices as well as time pieces was off by a few years, but surprisingly close as to function with the inception of the Apple Watch.
We can agree to disagree.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/flight/g462/future-that-never-was-next-gen-tech-concepts/
"Popular Mechanics is in the business of predicting. Whether it's tech trends, concept cars or tomorrow's top science, we have been looking forward on the printed page throughout our 100-plus-year history. And it's not always accurate."
What you may remember about it and what I remember about it appear to be 2 different things. Their prediction in 1968 about watches being communication devices as well as time pieces was off by a few years, but surprisingly close as to function with the inception of the Apple Watch.
We can agree to disagree.
You are on some other point that I did not make.
Nowhere in the article does it substantiate use of the term 'Death Rays'. And in case we might have misinterpreted the headlines meaning, it is repeated. 'Yes, Death Rays'. The use of the term had one purpose only. To get clicks by misrepresenting the facts into something absurd.
Nowhere in the article does it substantiate use of the term 'Death Rays'. And in case we might have misinterpreted the headlines meaning, it is repeated. 'Yes, Death Rays'. The use of the term had one purpose only. To get clicks by misrepresenting the facts into something absurd.
And PM has been using such article headlines since its inception as well.
Too bad. That does not speak at all well of the editors.