Even if it doesn't become popular for civilian use because of the overwhelming popularity of GPS software and hardware, precise location fixes for military purposes is a no-brainer in 2014.
E.g., Imagine every solider fitted with a receiver/transmitter so that their location is known with a resolution of a few feet. Think that'll make it easier to save the wounded during operations?
It's supposed to cost $250 million (approx $25 million per year since it lasts 10 years). Cost seems wildy reasonable considering just the military benefits.
You don't have to imagine every soldier having that, there are already armed forces doing that now. The technologies have improved enough and the costs come down so low that it's affordable for even a mid-level country's armed forces to do it.
I've seen one of these systems demonstrated, which uses a cigarette-box sized unit with a GPS sensor, GSM modem, satellite transceiver, military radio connector and battery inside. Positions were encrypted and transmitted via least-cost routing to a centralised command and control system, showing the position of each soldier in real-time.
Of course, in real operations it becomes difficult to maintain line-of-sight radio communications over long distances, cellular service is spotty in combat zones and satellite communications are expensive even with small data packets. So the related infrastructure requires careful thinking too.
So I agree with you, this seems a worthwhile investment for the military benefits alone. It's one of the main reasons to have an indigenous space programme in the first place.
"Indian men have thicker hair and a higher hair density than their American counterparts. Adding to that, they often shave less frequently than American men, so they wind up shaving longer beards." .. "
"... observed men using a cup of water to shave. All the MIT students had running water. Without that, the razor stayed clogged."
I live in a first world country now, and still use a bowl of water when shaving: it's the environmentally kind thing to do. People who keep the water running all the time while they brush their teeth or shave drive me nuts. Ditto people who pull out three to four paper napkins from public restrooms after washing their hands. Take them one by one: one or two is probably enough.
End rant.
And on topic, I've found that the quality of the blade makes a huge difference. I think they intentionally put bad blades in the cheap razors. I wonder how good the blade on this one is.
> I live in a first world country now, and still use a bowl of water when shaving: it's the environmentally kind thing to do. People who keep the water running all the time while they brush their teeth or shave drive me nuts.
Haven't thought of simply turning the water off between rinses instead of using a cup?
> I think they intentionally put bad blades in the cheap razors.
Oh I think the likes of Gillette do far more devious things when it comes to the life of razors. For instance, I can almost swear that the blades on my Fusion razor seem to wear out much faster than the blades on my Mach 3, Sensor, Presto etc. (I've been nearly a lifelong Gillette razor user)
I think what Gillette does is to ensure that the lubricating strip wears out faster, thus causing discomfort while shaving and making one feel as though the razor itself has worn out.
> People who keep the water running all the time while they brush their teeth or shave drive me nuts.
Mixing valves have existed for a few decades now (unless you're in the UK, which is still waiting to discover plumbing I believe). There no reason to leave water running.
An extra bath probably spends more water than a month of my shaving, and making an extra serving of beef IIRC spends even much more freshwater than that. Should we really worry about trivially small amounts of water? There may be some warm fuzzies of 'doing something', but the actual impact is insignificantly small compared to other choices - such as which agricultural products are used, and if people choose to have a lawn.
The second sentence is a fallacy: it's NOT like a Britisher or American not being able to speak English. It's like a Spaniard not being able to speak Italian. Before unification each part of India was its own political entity.
Also read up on the debates in the constituent assembly. There were heated debates on the topic of Hindi as "national language", "only language" etc.
Also, I am pretty sure you are not aware of this, but the national education/language policy of the 1960s said that Hindi speaking areas will learn a non-Hindi language in school in addition to English. The so-called three-language formula of 1968.
It might be worth reflecting on why the three-language formula is not being adhered to.
E.g., Imagine every solider fitted with a receiver/transmitter so that their location is known with a resolution of a few feet. Think that'll make it easier to save the wounded during operations?
It's supposed to cost $250 million (approx $25 million per year since it lasts 10 years). Cost seems wildy reasonable considering just the military benefits.