Yeah, I dunno about that... I just this year finished a project designing the mechanical systems (hvac, plumbing, medical gas, fire, etc...) for a rather large hospital.
It was done almost entirely in 3d, on very basic workstations with off the shelf consumer hardware (not to mention a few mid-range laptops). Not the most spectacular performance, but the consumer stuff got the job done. To give an idea of assembly/sub-assembly resolution, a single file might have 1,000 assemblies, approx. 100 of which are unique. Some of these might have 2 levels of sub-assemblies with 10 components each, so around 100 components. For the most part, and for conservative figuring, figure an assembly might have 10 components... So here I'm working in cad with a file which has orders of magnitude greater numbers of assemblies/components than in your example, and the DX10 seems to workout fine... Could you explain what might be different about the components in my building system drawings vs. the 100 part assembly you mentioned in your example?
But if you watch the behind-the-scenes video I saw, then you would see Kerry explaining to said cops about how the phrase "Leave that Kid Alone" was actually code for "Taser that annoying son of a bitch."
I really cannot see colonies on any distant planets within 50 years, I'd be surprised if there is even a large, long term presence on the moon by that time.
AHH!! But you see, Russia just resumed strategic (nuke) bomber runs over the arctic...
Next year (after the election) we'll have politicians screaming about a "bomber gap" at which point we'll increase funding on the missile defense network. Russia answers back with the development of "stealth" missiles less susceptible to defense measures employed by our network.
You know whats happening? COLD WAR BABY!
Add to Russia's bomber shenanigans, China's recently announced plans for a lunar base, and... you get the idea.
Nothing like an arms race to spur innovation and establish intergalactic presence.
HereHere! So often the people who complain about NASA fail to recognize that NASA's job is to send people into space... ON THE BACK OF A GIANT FUCKING MISSILE. I'd say they've done a great job, all things considered.
It's commonly known in the Navy, that if you're a going to be a Radar tech, you should not expect to have male children. I don't know that there are conclusive studies, but there is a visibly large disparity in the number of Radar tech offspring which are female, compared to offspring which are male. While it doesn't kill, is it possible that radar changes or destroys some kind of protein or what-have-you of Y-chromosone in the nads? Any biochemists with physics degrees (or inverse) in the house?
Despite what the Dilbert strips will show, being a CEO is generally much more difficult/mentally draining than being a technical grunt with a well defined job. Take a look at a construction related industry for example: some steel worker setting beams for a structure curses the engineer all day, because the engineer has an "easy job", and sits in an office, and "doesn't know what he's doing." As someone whose been on both sides, I can tell you: being an engineer is much more difficult/stressful/ambiguous/stressful, than being the laborer. If this analogy isn't enough, think back to frosh economics, and try to explain why the supposedly "easier" job makes more money. So this engineer/worker analogy applies to the CEO/engineer comparison as well. As someone whose been on both sides, I can tell you: being a CEO is much more difficult/stressful/ambiguous/stressful. Specifically, a CEO, practically by definition, deals with more uncertainty and ambiguity than anyone else in the organization. While you think you're a rock star, because you have a well defined(or at least semi-defined) job, that you, well, rock; the CEO (the successful ones anyways) must continually "micro-invent"(yes, my phrase) in the face of near complete ambiguity, all the while playing the whole political side with investors/boards/etc... In summary, the laborer who knocks the engineer doesn't know shit, which is why: a)he makes less than the engineer. & b)he knocks the engineer. And the engineer that knocks the ceo, doesn't know shit, which is why: a) he makes less than the ceo. & b)he knocks the ceo.
I know, its all generalizations, and isn't meant to be taken as a catch all for every person/ceo/engineer. But you get the idea-- I'd take physical labor any day (all other things(salary)constant, of course).
need to see documents to figure this out?
--
And doesn't using the word "reveal" imply that our government's gross incompetence has been a big secret until now?
Debacles and massive failures aside, how about our civil rights?
Wiretaps, secret prisons, censorship, gun laws, intermingling of religion and government, the complete trouncing of the tenth amendment (powers not specifically named to the feds are powers of the states and/or people)...
There was a time in my life when I was proud to be an American-- Now I just feel like the embarrassed dinner companion of the US in the restaurant of the world, as Uncle Sam walks around spewing tourettes outbursts, and shitting on the tables of the other patrons.
A cloaked sith lord sits in an ominous rotating chair aboard the google-star, as he reads the law suit: "Excellent, everything is going precisely as planned. Ready my ship commander."
Really. Your response to my post would make sense, IF I had said that a sane person must verify everything which they believe. The ability to verify and actually verifying are different.
The will and the ability to do something are 2 different things. Though you don't have the will to go through what is necessary to acquire control of the tools necessary to verify the shape of the earth, the fact remains that you CAN, however difficult or improbable your success in doing so might be.
I don't see how you're refuting my loon statement, though I'm open to your clarification.
Believing in something you can't see is called faith.
It's also insane; schizophrenic, specifically.
People of 'faith' find it useful to say/imply that atheism is a religion, and that it requires an equal amount of 'faith' to subscribe to.
However, atheism is accepting only that which you can observe and verify; this is not faith.
You should take it personally when someone bashes you for your illogical-by-definition belief system.
Take it personally when people insult you for things which you do that don't make sense.
Take it personal, and make the necessary changes.
Faith is illogical, by admission of it's own definition.
Believing in something which can not be 'seen'* occurs outside religion solely in mental illness, most notably, schizophrenia. - Believing in something that's not there is INSANE. - And how is being anti religion buying into something?.
*I put the word 'seen' in single quotes because inevitably, some loon** will propose that my belief in relativity or what-have-you is illogical because I can't 'see' it. 'Seen' in this context refers to verification of any objective means, visual or otherwise...
**loon, refers to a person who believes something which they can't verify for themselves.
I agree...
And on a slight tangent,
At what point does an individual component of a given system become generally accepted as a standard offering of said system? I.E., an automatic transmission in a vehicle may of at one time have been considered an option but is now fairly standard on most vehicles. I'm sure there's a better automotive analogy, but you get the idea. At some point, antivirus (as viri are a fact of life) is going to become as standard as the gui. Note that at one point in the not-to-distant past, the GUI was (still is for some users) considered a separate entity from the os.
Slashdot Mirror
And she calls herself Lill, but everyone knows her as Nancy.
Yeah, I dunno about that... I just this year finished a project designing the mechanical systems (hvac, plumbing, medical gas, fire, etc...) for a rather large hospital. It was done almost entirely in 3d, on very basic workstations with off the shelf consumer hardware (not to mention a few mid-range laptops). Not the most spectacular performance, but the consumer stuff got the job done. To give an idea of assembly/sub-assembly resolution, a single file might have 1,000 assemblies, approx. 100 of which are unique. Some of these might have 2 levels of sub-assemblies with 10 components each, so around 100 components. For the most part, and for conservative figuring, figure an assembly might have 10 components... So here I'm working in cad with a file which has orders of magnitude greater numbers of assemblies/components than in your example, and the DX10 seems to workout fine... Could you explain what might be different about the components in my building system drawings vs. the 100 part assembly you mentioned in your example?
But if you watch the behind-the-scenes video I saw, then you would see Kerry explaining to said cops about how the phrase "Leave that Kid Alone" was actually code for "Taser that annoying son of a bitch."
I know this music...
But damn, wouldn't it be beautiful irony if in fact, they did plummet to the ground at terminal velocity tethered to golden parachutes?
HereHere!
So often the people who complain about NASA fail to recognize that NASA's job is to send people into space... ON THE BACK OF A GIANT FUCKING MISSILE.
I'd say they've done a great job, all things considered.
Or perhaps... It's the Microsoft-hive-brain itself writing the article!
It's commonly known in the Navy, that if you're a going to be a Radar tech, you should not expect to have male children. I don't know that there are conclusive studies, but there is a visibly large disparity in the number of Radar tech offspring which are female, compared to offspring which are male. While it doesn't kill, is it possible that radar changes or destroys some kind of protein or what-have-you of Y-chromosone in the nads? Any biochemists with physics degrees (or inverse) in the house?
Despite what the Dilbert strips will show, being a CEO is generally much more difficult/mentally draining than being a technical grunt with a well defined job. Take a look at a construction related industry for example: some steel worker setting beams for a structure curses the engineer all day, because the engineer has an "easy job", and sits in an office, and "doesn't know what he's doing." As someone whose been on both sides, I can tell you: being an engineer is much more difficult/stressful/ambiguous/stressful, than being the laborer. If this analogy isn't enough, think back to frosh economics, and try to explain why the supposedly "easier" job makes more money. So this engineer/worker analogy applies to the CEO/engineer comparison as well. As someone whose been on both sides, I can tell you: being a CEO is much more difficult/stressful/ambiguous/stressful. Specifically, a CEO, practically by definition, deals with more uncertainty and ambiguity than anyone else in the organization. While you think you're a rock star, because you have a well defined(or at least semi-defined) job, that you, well, rock; the CEO (the successful ones anyways) must continually "micro-invent"(yes, my phrase) in the face of near complete ambiguity, all the while playing the whole political side with investors/boards/etc... In summary, the laborer who knocks the engineer doesn't know shit, which is why: a)he makes less than the engineer. & b)he knocks the engineer. And the engineer that knocks the ceo, doesn't know shit, which is why: a) he makes less than the ceo. & b)he knocks the ceo. I know, its all generalizations, and isn't meant to be taken as a catch all for every person/ceo/engineer. But you get the idea-- I'd take physical labor any day (all other things(salary)constant, of course).
need to see documents to figure this out? -- And doesn't using the word "reveal" imply that our government's gross incompetence has been a big secret until now? Debacles and massive failures aside, how about our civil rights? Wiretaps, secret prisons, censorship, gun laws, intermingling of religion and government, the complete trouncing of the tenth amendment (powers not specifically named to the feds are powers of the states and/or people)... There was a time in my life when I was proud to be an American-- Now I just feel like the embarrassed dinner companion of the US in the restaurant of the world, as Uncle Sam walks around spewing tourettes outbursts, and shitting on the tables of the other patrons.
involving duct tape, and a massive array of conventional telephone receivers.
The Second Rule of Digital Bedouin Club... is DON'T TALK ABOUT DIGITAL BEDOUIN CLUB.
-
Just had to reiterate.
{feel free to mod as redundant}
A cloaked sith lord sits in an ominous rotating chair aboard the google-star, as he reads the law suit: "Excellent, everything is going precisely as planned. Ready my ship commander."
Really. Your response to my post would make sense, IF I had said that a sane person must verify everything which they believe. The ability to verify and actually verifying are different.
The will and the ability to do something are 2 different things. Though you don't have the will to go through what is necessary to acquire control of the tools necessary to verify the shape of the earth, the fact remains that you CAN, however difficult or improbable your success in doing so might be. I don't see how you're refuting my loon statement, though I'm open to your clarification.
Believing in something you can't see is called faith. It's also insane; schizophrenic, specifically. People of 'faith' find it useful to say/imply that atheism is a religion, and that it requires an equal amount of 'faith' to subscribe to. However, atheism is accepting only that which you can observe and verify; this is not faith. You should take it personally when someone bashes you for your illogical-by-definition belief system. Take it personally when people insult you for things which you do that don't make sense. Take it personal, and make the necessary changes.
Faith is illogical, by admission of it's own definition. Believing in something which can not be 'seen'* occurs outside religion solely in mental illness, most notably, schizophrenia. - Believing in something that's not there is INSANE. - And how is being anti religion buying into something?. *I put the word 'seen' in single quotes because inevitably, some loon** will propose that my belief in relativity or what-have-you is illogical because I can't 'see' it. 'Seen' in this context refers to verification of any objective means, visual or otherwise... **loon, refers to a person who believes something which they can't verify for themselves.
They're more like... guidelines! ARGHH MATEY!!!
I agree... And on a slight tangent, At what point does an individual component of a given system become generally accepted as a standard offering of said system? I.E., an automatic transmission in a vehicle may of at one time have been considered an option but is now fairly standard on most vehicles. I'm sure there's a better automotive analogy, but you get the idea. At some point, antivirus (as viri are a fact of life) is going to become as standard as the gui. Note that at one point in the not-to-distant past, the GUI was (still is for some users) considered a separate entity from the os.
HAHAHA.. he said "fuckweasels". love it.
No, 450k REPORTED, crashes.
The 50k clicked the other button.