Read up on the Ford Explorer / Firestone issues...
OK, make that "the last time you heard of a Japanese/Korean/Australian car crashing due to mechanical failure".:P
(Hey, I got a modded Troll for no good reason on my last one, probably by someone who stacked it and then blamed dodgy brakes or something, I figure I might as well earn it...;)
Wow, someone even less capable to fill in the blanks with 'best guess' assumptions than I am... that's not something I encounter every day!:P
Assume the car is driving in the most common environment for a car doing 100km/h. Which is a highway of some sort, possibly without even a central dividing barrier. So say you're within 20cm of the ground, and intermittently within 1-2m of stationary obstacles and/or (in worst case) oncoming traffic.
Assume the air vehicle is landing on a similar highway (since this is a personal air vehicle intended to replace cars). When it lands, all of the above apply equally. When it's still in the air, it's further from each and every one of those factors while travelling at the same speed - ergo, more reaction time and hence larger margin for error.
When was the last time you heard of someone crashing their car due to mechanical failure, in or out of warranty? And I mean actual failure ('the suspension arm broke', or 'brakes failed' or whatever) rather than just "I need something to blame for my incompetence". I'm trying but I can't think of any real examples. The only case that comes to mind is that one time that the wheel came off dad's car because the garage only finger-tightened the nuts...
Another point is that compared to falling from building-type altitudes, the speeds that we travel at in cars are quite fast. The classic example is that hitting a brick wall at 100km/h is the same as being dropped nose-first off a 10 story building.
We have had flying cars for some time, now. At least two decades.
But to alow regular people access to those vehicles would cause far more problems than it's worth. They can barely stay on a road, you think they're going to fare better in the air?
I see your point about most people not being remotely competent to control a couple of tons of hot, rapidly moving metal in ANY circumstance - but operating an aircraft is generally easier than operating a car, and you *definitely* have more of a margin for error. It is, admittedly, more dangerous in terms of mechanical failures but modern engineering is pretty darn reliable.
OK, I think we have crossed definitions here. The picture from the CRT is 'virtual' because it's built up over time by a bright dot moving around, using your definition? If so I see what you're saying, and I'm not disputing it.
I was using the term 'real' in the sense used in optics. So the CRT image is 'real' because the retina-lens-screen system has the screen at one focus point and the retina at the other. The laser doesn't have a 'real' image because there's nothing at the second focus point.
You misunderstood the point about the laser being an emitter. A CRT has a scanning electron beam but there's still a 'real' image for the eye to project, comprised of glowing phosphors. This approach uses your retina directly for the screen, the pattern of laser light doesn't form an image anywhere outside your eye.
It is very different. This system uses a scanning system to disperse the light energy over the retinal display area. If the scanning system fails for any reason and the laser stays focused on one "pixel" for an extended period of time, all the energy will be focused in one spot. Result: instant scitoma.
Very interesting point! In fact, to take it further, the brightness of the laser spot increases linearly with the number of pixels. Are there any nasty chemical reactions or anything that could be caused by very brief, very bright flashes? Bear in mind that a 1080p image (which would cover about 1/3 of your fovea with one pixel per cone cell) would have a laser spot 2 MILLION times brighter than the overall image.
Do you believe in the theory of evolution? If so, why?
Evolution is the obvious consequence of reproduction coupled with imperfect trait heritability. I don't 'believe' in it dogmatically, I accept it as a self-evident description of what occurs due to these traits.
The theory is quite incomplete and there could be many other factors that influenced/influence the development of different species.
I think your understanding of evolution is flawed. There aren't "other factors that influence the development of species", because any possible factor that affects survival in any way is part of the fitness function. If you accept that traits are heritable between parent and offspring, and that small changes in the set of inherited traits occur, then you must accept evolution as a description of what happens when any organism interacts with the environment over long time periods.
Do you believe in Big Bang cosmology? If so, why?
I believe it's our current best guess as to what happened. I don't believe it any more or less than the religious view of "a wizard did it" but if a wizard DID do it, I'd like to know how. It may amuse you to know that when I first heard of the Big Bang theory, I took it as scientific evidence of Genesis. Not many things fit the phrase "let there be light" better than an entire universe exploding out of nothing.
Now, along come climatologists and [...] the Slashdot community [...] makes thinly veiled accusations of hidden agendas and scientific malpractice. I'll tell you why this is so - it's all political.
Actually, it's because we have long empirical evidence of our total inability to predict whether it'll be rain or sunshine next Tuesday, much less in 50 years' time. Meteorology is incredibly imprecise and we know thanks to chaos theory that it will NEVER be much more precise than it is. Fairly or not, climatology gets lumped in with meteorology as being next to useless over time spans of more than a week.
A much more honest approach, for those who want to continue their carbon-positive lifestyle, is to admit to not caring about the future climate of the earth.
I think my sig sums up my attitude appropriately, although 'not caring' isn't quite accurate. From the research I've done, I'm firmly of the opinion that the Earth will be quite alright, and in fact be just as habitable after we burn every last drop of fossil fuel. I'm not saying the climate will be the same, and sure, there may be changes in sea level and weather, but quite frankly, that sounds like it'll be interesting. Humanity needs new challenges to keep us keen. Selfish? Maybe, but the world changes, and we have to change with it. That's just how life is.
Obligatory Princess Bride quote:
Miracle Max: Go away or I'll call the brute squad!
Fezzik: I'm ON the brute squad.
Miracle Max:[opens door] You ARE the brute squad!
I guess I was thinking of the stereotypical 'big game' hunter trying to bag a lion, but as you say, many mid- to large-sized animals can have severe environmental impacts when they start overpopulating.
And as for the 200lb buck - I wouldn't know about yer' fancy northern hemisphere quadrupeds but a male Big Red kangaroo will weigh up to 90kg (200lb) and often presents itself nicely at windscreen height. There's a reason that most people who drive regularly in the bush here fit 'roo bars' to their cars. And as with your white-tail, the lack of natural predators coupled with sudden (ecologically speaking) availability of farm crops they can eat has resulted in populations reaching plague proportions in some areas, and an annual cull quota for hunters.
This is true, except for one facet - you have to remember that one life form's pollution is another life form's food. Us mammals eat plants and breath oxygen and emit carbon dioxide and manure. Plants take in manure and sunlight and carbon dioxide and grow and emit oxygen. Upping the atmosphere's CO2 content will just encourage plants and bacteria that thrive on CO2, and the system will pull itself back into line.
Read up on the Earth's temperature over geological time scales. It's fascinating - the world we live on is far more than a passive ball of rock.
For your example, the tank of water has an axolotl in it which blocks the leak when the water gets low enough. It's also situated next to a thirsty giraffe which can only drink water out of it when it's nearly full.
I guess what I'm getting at is that there are so many factors affecting the climate on a scale we couldn't dream of doing with present-day technology that while we may perturb it slightly, whether or not the global climate messes up to a degree which threatens life on the planet is way out of our control. (Obligatory blog whoring link, read it if you agree with me so we can engage in a round of "hear hear"ing and drinking port and smoking cigars in the drawing room.)
I agree. I'll kill and eat anyone who wants to eat my dog then.
That should strike enough fear into would be dog eaters to leave my dog alone. (sarcasm)
Not only that, but you're most likely creating a bigger overall carbon footprint saving...;)
If you don't mind 6'5" sweedish guys named Magnus showing up at your door, you could probably make 50 or so and sell them on eBay.
You're saying they might object if you take their copyrighted work and make it available to others for a small personal gain and without compensating them? No way!
Actually, in the past he was right but 'correct' common usage these days, especially among more literal-minded technical types, is for the punctuation to precede the quotation mark only if it forms part of the quoted text. This is more consistent and less open to multiple interpretations.
The Dutch court is neither brain-dead, nor has the translation real flaws. TPB had no in depth technical defense to counter the flawed arguments from Stichting Brein. The judge just wasn't fed with the proper arguments and has to deal with what lies before him. I simply hope that a higher court later on will have all real issues on the table before ruling...
Um, the court gave them three months to remove a list of torrents that are active now. That's pretty brain-dead. When was the last time you found a torrent more than a month old that had more than that one guy sitting at 45% on it?
Slashdot Mirror
Read up on the Ford Explorer / Firestone issues...
OK, make that "the last time you heard of a Japanese/Korean/Australian car crashing due to mechanical failure". :P
;)
(Hey, I got a modded Troll for no good reason on my last one, probably by someone who stacked it and then blamed dodgy brakes or something, I figure I might as well earn it...
Wow, someone even less capable to fill in the blanks with 'best guess' assumptions than I am... that's not something I encounter every day! :P
Assume the car is driving in the most common environment for a car doing 100km/h. Which is a highway of some sort, possibly without even a central dividing barrier. So say you're within 20cm of the ground, and intermittently within 1-2m of stationary obstacles and/or (in worst case) oncoming traffic.
Assume the air vehicle is landing on a similar highway (since this is a personal air vehicle intended to replace cars). When it lands, all of the above apply equally. When it's still in the air, it's further from each and every one of those factors while travelling at the same speed - ergo, more reaction time and hence larger margin for error.
Consider a car travelling at 100km/h compared to a STOL personal air vehicle landing at 100km/h. Which one is closest to obstacles?
When was the last time you heard of someone crashing their car due to mechanical failure, in or out of warranty? And I mean actual failure ('the suspension arm broke', or 'brakes failed' or whatever) rather than just "I need something to blame for my incompetence". I'm trying but I can't think of any real examples. The only case that comes to mind is that one time that the wheel came off dad's car because the garage only finger-tightened the nuts...
Another point is that compared to falling from building-type altitudes, the speeds that we travel at in cars are quite fast. The classic example is that hitting a brick wall at 100km/h is the same as being dropped nose-first off a 10 story building.
We have had flying cars for some time, now. At least two decades.
But to alow regular people access to those vehicles would cause far more problems than it's worth. They can barely stay on a road, you think they're going to fare better in the air?
I see your point about most people not being remotely competent to control a couple of tons of hot, rapidly moving metal in ANY circumstance - but operating an aircraft is generally easier than operating a car, and you *definitely* have more of a margin for error. It is, admittedly, more dangerous in terms of mechanical failures but modern engineering is pretty darn reliable.
I'm curious which ethnic group you think AC was being racist towards?
OK, I think we have crossed definitions here. The picture from the CRT is 'virtual' because it's built up over time by a bright dot moving around, using your definition? If so I see what you're saying, and I'm not disputing it.
I was using the term 'real' in the sense used in optics. So the CRT image is 'real' because the retina-lens-screen system has the screen at one focus point and the retina at the other. The laser doesn't have a 'real' image because there's nothing at the second focus point.
Yep, cheaper overall unless you count that pesky emotional fulfilment clause. Also, I would use a firewall to prevent burning when IP.
Exactly. I was going to post something along the lines of "Thank god! The Mayan doomsday thing was just about to become falsifiable, too!"
You misunderstood the point about the laser being an emitter. A CRT has a scanning electron beam but there's still a 'real' image for the eye to project, comprised of glowing phosphors. This approach uses your retina directly for the screen, the pattern of laser light doesn't form an image anywhere outside your eye.
It is very different. This system uses a scanning system to disperse the light energy over the retinal display area. If the scanning system fails for any reason and the laser stays focused on one "pixel" for an extended period of time, all the energy will be focused in one spot. Result: instant scitoma.
Very interesting point! In fact, to take it further, the brightness of the laser spot increases linearly with the number of pixels. Are there any nasty chemical reactions or anything that could be caused by very brief, very bright flashes? Bear in mind that a 1080p image (which would cover about 1/3 of your fovea with one pixel per cone cell) would have a laser spot 2 MILLION times brighter than the overall image.
2015: But still no aids, due to 2013.
Do you believe in the theory of evolution? If so, why?
Evolution is the obvious consequence of reproduction coupled with imperfect trait heritability. I don't 'believe' in it dogmatically, I accept it as a self-evident description of what occurs due to these traits.
The theory is quite incomplete and there could be many other factors that influenced/influence the development of different species.
I think your understanding of evolution is flawed. There aren't "other factors that influence the development of species", because any possible factor that affects survival in any way is part of the fitness function. If you accept that traits are heritable between parent and offspring, and that small changes in the set of inherited traits occur, then you must accept evolution as a description of what happens when any organism interacts with the environment over long time periods.
Do you believe in Big Bang cosmology? If so, why?
I believe it's our current best guess as to what happened. I don't believe it any more or less than the religious view of "a wizard did it" but if a wizard DID do it, I'd like to know how. It may amuse you to know that when I first heard of the Big Bang theory, I took it as scientific evidence of Genesis. Not many things fit the phrase "let there be light" better than an entire universe exploding out of nothing.
Now, along come climatologists and [...] the Slashdot community [...] makes thinly veiled accusations of hidden agendas and scientific malpractice. I'll tell you why this is so - it's all political.
Actually, it's because we have long empirical evidence of our total inability to predict whether it'll be rain or sunshine next Tuesday, much less in 50 years' time. Meteorology is incredibly imprecise and we know thanks to chaos theory that it will NEVER be much more precise than it is. Fairly or not, climatology gets lumped in with meteorology as being next to useless over time spans of more than a week.
A much more honest approach, for those who want to continue their carbon-positive lifestyle, is to admit to not caring about the future climate of the earth.
I think my sig sums up my attitude appropriately, although 'not caring' isn't quite accurate. From the research I've done, I'm firmly of the opinion that the Earth will be quite alright, and in fact be just as habitable after we burn every last drop of fossil fuel. I'm not saying the climate will be the same, and sure, there may be changes in sea level and weather, but quite frankly, that sounds like it'll be interesting. Humanity needs new challenges to keep us keen. Selfish? Maybe, but the world changes, and we have to change with it. That's just how life is.
No. If you believe in a theory then you're not doing science.
Well spoken.
It IS a Beowulf cluster.
Obligatory Princess Bride quote:
Miracle Max: Go away or I'll call the brute squad!
Fezzik: I'm ON the brute squad.
Miracle Max: [opens door] You ARE the brute squad!
I guess I was thinking of the stereotypical 'big game' hunter trying to bag a lion, but as you say, many mid- to large-sized animals can have severe environmental impacts when they start overpopulating.
And as for the 200lb buck - I wouldn't know about yer' fancy northern hemisphere quadrupeds but a male Big Red kangaroo will weigh up to 90kg (200lb) and often presents itself nicely at windscreen height. There's a reason that most people who drive regularly in the bush here fit 'roo bars' to their cars. And as with your white-tail, the lack of natural predators coupled with sudden (ecologically speaking) availability of farm crops they can eat has resulted in populations reaching plague proportions in some areas, and an annual cull quota for hunters.
This is true, except for one facet - you have to remember that one life form's pollution is another life form's food. Us mammals eat plants and breath oxygen and emit carbon dioxide and manure. Plants take in manure and sunlight and carbon dioxide and grow and emit oxygen. Upping the atmosphere's CO2 content will just encourage plants and bacteria that thrive on CO2, and the system will pull itself back into line.
Read up on the Earth's temperature over geological time scales. It's fascinating - the world we live on is far more than a passive ball of rock.
For your example, the tank of water has an axolotl in it which blocks the leak when the water gets low enough. It's also situated next to a thirsty giraffe which can only drink water out of it when it's nearly full.
I guess what I'm getting at is that there are so many factors affecting the climate on a scale we couldn't dream of doing with present-day technology that while we may perturb it slightly, whether or not the global climate messes up to a degree which threatens life on the planet is way out of our control. (Obligatory blog whoring link, read it if you agree with me so we can engage in a round of "hear hear"ing and drinking port and smoking cigars in the drawing room.)
I agree. I'll kill and eat anyone who wants to eat my dog then. That should strike enough fear into would be dog eaters to leave my dog alone. (sarcasm)
Not only that, but you're most likely creating a bigger overall carbon footprint saving... ;)
So based on the inefficiency of eating meat, I presume you would see big game hunting as the ultimate act of ecological conservation? :P
If you don't mind 6'5" sweedish guys named Magnus showing up at your door, you could probably make 50 or so and sell them on eBay.
You're saying they might object if you take their copyrighted work and make it available to others for a small personal gain and without compensating them? No way!
Actually, in the past he was right but 'correct' common usage these days, especially among more literal-minded technical types, is for the punctuation to precede the quotation mark only if it forms part of the quoted text. This is more consistent and less open to multiple interpretations.
The Dutch court is neither brain-dead, nor has the translation real flaws. TPB had no in depth technical defense to counter the flawed arguments from Stichting Brein. The judge just wasn't fed with the proper arguments and has to deal with what lies before him. I simply hope that a higher court later on will have all real issues on the table before ruling...
Um, the court gave them three months to remove a list of torrents that are active now. That's pretty brain-dead. When was the last time you found a torrent more than a month old that had more than that one guy sitting at 45% on it?
Um... four corner simultaneous 4-day time cube in only 24 hour rotation?