Lots of reports from lots of sources, and no details ...

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4029676 <- Lots of comments, no substance, now dead.

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4028756 <- Observing there are no details anywhere

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4029599 <- Ditto.

On this Memorial Day weekend, a military-themed example of how an analytic solution could improve a computed solution:

"The US army in Korea is equipped with Paladin anti-artillery guns that can trace enemy shells back to the guns and fire shells at the enemy guns with pin-point accuracy. However, it takes for the Paladins about 10 min to locate the enemy guns, during which time the Paladins would be targeted by the enemy guns Gen. Thomas A Schwartz, a former US army commander in Korea, stated that the US army in Korea would be destroyed in less than three hours."

http://www.rense.com/general37/nkorr.htm

Without actual news of his answer it's a rather boring story :P

In other news: my friend's baby invented cold fusion this morning.

His answer is 15 pages long and he left out explanations of steps so he wouldn't go over the limit set by Jugend forscht (youth researches). I'd assume they'll give it a work over before releasing it.

"... calculate exactly the path of a projectile under gravity and subject to air resistance".

One would think that an approximate solution would be good enough. How accurate does a projectile have to be, especially a nuke?

Someone found this solution? I would love to see it.