One of the most promising technologies for the aspiring outer-space commuter is the space elevator. The concept, like quite a few others, was pressed into the public imagination by Arthur C. Clarke, who in his 1979 novel The Fountains of Paradise described a incredibly thin, incredibly strong carbon filament with one end anchored on Earth and the other extending up to a satellite in geostationary orbit. Now, a group of Japanese scientists are convinced that they can build a space elevator more quickly and cheaply than has been believed possible. Such a cable could convey cargo into space very cheaply and easily. Carriages would travel up and down the cable under modest power, not the vast expenditures of energy that are currently needed to send anything into orbit.
if space elevators became fairly common, couldn't there be a potential problem with travel by air (planes, helicopters, etc.)? or would they primarily exist on a temporary basis? there might be something i'm missing here, but it doesn't sound completely practical.
I believe that baseball needs instant replay and I completely agree that Major League Baseball's plan for instant replay is going to fail miserably, but I think the plan outlined in this article is flat out idiotic. The only thing that made sense was the idea of using the Hawk-Eye system. Of course, tennis is much different than baseball and implementing it to work properly in baseball stadiums (while great in theory) may be impossible at this time. MLB's idea of a central replay "war room" is dumb, but leaving the call in the hands of the very umpire(s) who messed up is even worse. Some umpires in the big leagues would rather say they were right the first time than get the call right. The challenge system serves no practical purpose in either college or professional football. In college every play is reviewed upstairs anyway, so why do they need challenges? In the NFL you need to challenge in order to have any chance of getting the play overturned, but get penalized a timeout for challenging. Penalizing a team for challenging makes no sense because they have no way of knowing what the outcome will be. This definitely includes the idea of adding strikes to the next batter for the team that lost the challenge. Whatever plan eventually gets implemented has to be approved by the owners, GMs, and the player's association. The players will NEVER approve a system that adds a strike to the count. It reduces their chances of getting a hit. Fewer hits means worse statistics. Worse statistics mean lower salaries. There needs to be a replay official in the booth (at the ballpark) that reviews every play and calls down with the decision (instead of a description). No challenges necessary. The only calls that can be reversed are ones that have something objective in question. No ball/strike judgments since they're subjective. Does the guy who wrote this article have any reasonably significant knowledge of the sport, or did he just decide to arbitrarily give his opinion on what may very well be a game-changing issue? Take it from someone who used to play baseball himself and whose father played, coached, and scouted for MLB teams; if done correctly, instant replay can change the sport for the better. But using plans such as those hastily outlined by MLB and in this article, the sport and its public image could enter into a downward spiral very quickly.


| regarding | user | just commented |
|---|---|---|
| Salt Water Rising | alxman2021 | Bryanallo, I'm sorry to |
| Can Thinking Make You Fat? | Unintended | become obese by thinking too |
| Intifada Tech | Unintended | I find this interesting but |
| Why Does War Breed More Boys? | Larisa | To Corry Gellatly: let's |
| If You Dropped a Corn Kernel From Space, Would it Pop During Re-Entry? | 11011 | water may boil at 212 F but |