man, who cares about that helium 3. it wont be useful till we have some fusion to use it in. now, im much more excited about all that mass and volatiles sitting in a positively mild gravity well.
wow dude. you managed to use the strict definition of something to point out a trivial fallacy in the article, then use that to make a patronising and trivial correction to make yourself seem smart. ooo. you used the word 'distinct' twice. in the same sentence. it must be the only 'fancy' word you know. i got a idea, unless you have something real to add to the conversation, shut the fuck up.
the reason payloads are expensive is that when weight costs 10k a pound, you will spend lots to shave weight off. if launch costs go down, the payloads will become less expensive.
lets not pretend that the shuttle was a advancement on anything that had come before. it set back spaceflight 30 years while it sopped up large swathes of NASA's budget, while dithering about in low earth orbit. roll on spacex say i.
it would be really cool to see this implemented with 3d glasses. cause then you have a nice pair of glasses you can put a beacon in to locate your eyes without all this video tomfoolery, and you get the depth perception of 2 properly calibrated viewpoints that take the location of your eyes and the screen into account.
if this system can locate your eyes in 3d space in front of the monitor, then it should be able to compensate for the distortion of looking at your monitor at a angle. that requires not only a change in the viewpoint like you see in this video, but also distortion to compensate for the plane of the monitor being closer to your eyes at some corners. thats why most of this video dosent diverge from a head on view much. they didnt bother to code this in. it just changes viewpoints.
electric engines in the wheels is a stupid idea. i know it appeals on a "ooo nifty" level, but people are stupid. you have to balance the electric motors in the hub, they get jolted around a lot more, you need one engine per wheel, then you got the unsprung weight, and dont forget waterproofing the electric engines in the wheel. and all that for what? a tiny amount of extra room in the car?
you talk about volume to strength ratio. no one cares about that. people care about weight to strength ratio. kevlar has a specific strength 10 times higher than that of steel. so yeah. a kg of kevlar is a hell of a lot stronger than a kg of steel.
your comment is like elephant shit. everyone can spot that its a shit from far far away. cause its so large. and then bear grylls squeezes it for moisture. the analogy breaks down a bit there, but its still mostly good.
you do realise they spent very large amounts of money to get that reliability rate that high. the shuttle dosent have a crew escape system, so everything has to be perfect, and work every time. and thats expensive.
i believe the shuttle ended up costing the same per launch as the saturn V, which, by the way, put 120 tonnes of payload into orbit vs the shuttles 20 tonnes.
the space shuttles were the most expensive and risky way to get people into orbit. this isnt dismantling the US manned space program. its dismantling the most wasteful parts of it to make way for much more efficient and safer ways to get people into orbit. and thats pretty fucking badass if you ask me.
one thing you might wanna consider is that ATIs support for stereoscopic 3d gaming using shutter glasses and 120hz monitors is weak to nonexistent, whereas nvidias support is excellent. hell, they have their own shutter glasses. and if your gonna drop $700 on a video card, your probably the sort of person wholl pay a bit extra for a 120hz monitor and shutter glasses for 3d gaming.
aaaaaaand those issues are made worse by keeping old reactor designs running while the newer, safer designs are held up by hand wringing legal challenges. also, i think you fail to appreciate just how little energy wind power generates.
Slashdot Mirror
man, who cares about that helium 3. it wont be useful till we have some fusion to use it in. now, im much more excited about all that mass and volatiles sitting in a positively mild gravity well.
wow dude. you managed to use the strict definition of something to point out a trivial fallacy in the article, then use that to make a patronising and trivial correction to make yourself seem smart. ooo. you used the word 'distinct' twice. in the same sentence. it must be the only 'fancy' word you know. i got a idea, unless you have something real to add to the conversation, shut the fuck up.
your a fucking idiot. shut the fuck up.
the reason payloads are expensive is that when weight costs 10k a pound, you will spend lots to shave weight off. if launch costs go down, the payloads will become less expensive.
lets not pretend that the shuttle was a advancement on anything that had come before. it set back spaceflight 30 years while it sopped up large swathes of NASA's budget, while dithering about in low earth orbit. roll on spacex say i.
i believe there was some tech that had the lenticular lens mechanically move around to keep the eyes that it was tracking in line with the sweet spot.
it would be really cool to see this implemented with 3d glasses. cause then you have a nice pair of glasses you can put a beacon in to locate your eyes without all this video tomfoolery, and you get the depth perception of 2 properly calibrated viewpoints that take the location of your eyes and the screen into account.
if this system can locate your eyes in 3d space in front of the monitor, then it should be able to compensate for the distortion of looking at your monitor at a angle. that requires not only a change in the viewpoint like you see in this video, but also distortion to compensate for the plane of the monitor being closer to your eyes at some corners. thats why most of this video dosent diverge from a head on view much. they didnt bother to code this in. it just changes viewpoints.
i think ill be taking this with a grain of salt. /badumpssht.
electric engines in the wheels is a stupid idea. i know it appeals on a "ooo nifty" level, but people are stupid. you have to balance the electric motors in the hub, they get jolted around a lot more, you need one engine per wheel, then you got the unsprung weight, and dont forget waterproofing the electric engines in the wheel. and all that for what? a tiny amount of extra room in the car?
im just thinking what this would do for light aircraft.
i wish there was a way to directly convert electricity into momentum.
tell me about it. didnt the concept of the worm originate here in australia?
you talk about volume to strength ratio. no one cares about that. people care about weight to strength ratio. kevlar has a specific strength 10 times higher than that of steel. so yeah. a kg of kevlar is a hell of a lot stronger than a kg of steel.
the vagina is pixelated. how modest of them.
your comment is like elephant shit. everyone can spot that its a shit from far far away. cause its so large. and then bear grylls squeezes it for moisture. the analogy breaks down a bit there, but its still mostly good.
you do realise they spent very large amounts of money to get that reliability rate that high. the shuttle dosent have a crew escape system, so everything has to be perfect, and work every time. and thats expensive.
what, cut the pork barrel ares and orion, and try and get more funding for COTS and spacex? which, by the way, are fucking awesome.
i believe the shuttle ended up costing the same per launch as the saturn V, which, by the way, put 120 tonnes of payload into orbit vs the shuttles 20 tonnes.
id say there being careful because of the hydrazine propellant involved in the manuvering thruster system. off the top of my head.
the space shuttles were the most expensive and risky way to get people into orbit. this isnt dismantling the US manned space program. its dismantling the most wasteful parts of it to make way for much more efficient and safer ways to get people into orbit. and thats pretty fucking badass if you ask me.
well, the real measure of this is to see where he is when hes like 25 or roundabout. theres been a lot of boy wonders who burnt out.
hey, i got a idea, they can do the benchmarks in stereoscopic shutter glasses 3d. that is, if amd has any real support for it yet.
one thing you might wanna consider is that ATIs support for stereoscopic 3d gaming using shutter glasses and 120hz monitors is weak to nonexistent, whereas nvidias support is excellent. hell, they have their own shutter glasses. and if your gonna drop $700 on a video card, your probably the sort of person wholl pay a bit extra for a 120hz monitor and shutter glasses for 3d gaming.
aaaaaaand those issues are made worse by keeping old reactor designs running while the newer, safer designs are held up by hand wringing legal challenges. also, i think you fail to appreciate just how little energy wind power generates.