Please provide make, model and year of such an automobile that does not have any mechanical connection between the steering wheel and the steering gear box/tie rods/steering wheels.
Mercedes-Benz F200. Yeah, ok, that's a concept car and very probably not street-legal.
I'd still like to drive it.
Air planes have fly-by-wire systems where there is truly no mechanical connection to the control surfaces. However even those systems provide artificial feedback to the pilot via actuators on the sticks because feedback is that critical to proper control of a vehicle.
It's not, that what the instruments are for. An airliner absolutely cannot be flown "by feel".
While Boeing does provide some steering forces to the yoke, the Airbus sidestick doesn't
have "force feedback", so feedback via that channel can't be that critical...
This is just enough half-kowledge about philosophy of science
to be dangerous. That sentence is equally as non-universally true
as the infamous "correlation causation" thing.
Thing is, you often can prove a negative:
"If I let go of this stone in mid air, it will not float."
So basically, not finding items of historical value is better than finding them and destroying a bit of historically valuable surroundings?
Yes, in most cases.
Isn't the worth of historically relevant findings in the knowledge they provide rather than their existence?
No, because in archaeology, the context of a find is everything. Of course, valuable and beautiful objects make for
great exhibitions, but context is really the main part of what is interesting. You'll see an archaologist become much
more excited over an unusual and unexpected piece of wood than over "another roman gold coin. meh."
We have tens of thousands of roman gold coins already, and I doubt any of the coins this guy found are of
an unkown kind.
However, an amateur will not know to care for some fibres around the gold coins that may have been a
uniquely crafted bag, thereby proving trade contacts with $faraway_place. Of will discard a couple of shovels
full of dirt with bone fragments or plant seeds in them which would make this a unique and invaluable find.
If you find something, don't touch it and report it, but don't dig around yourself - you'll do way more
harm than good, and may even commit a crime.
Nevertheless, I am still correct. The 4th sat is only for precision.
No it's not.
It is not necessary for location.
Yes it is.
Quoting the Navy: "Therefore there are 4 unknowns at each timeline where a solution is computed, 3 for position and 1 for time. This is why the minimum number of satellites for a solution is 4."
Which seems to be the amount you know about everything.
That's not helpful.
GPS recievers indeed solve a 4D problem (3D space + time) which requires
4 sats. As expensive as the military units are, they may be able to bridge reception
gaps by keeping time by themselves for a while, so may for a while work with
only three sat signals.
But without a local timer with the precision of an atomic clock, that's the digital
equivalent to dead reckoning, and will only get you so far until you need your fourth
sat again.
Of course, if you are the Navy, one of your coordinates is known by default (at least
plus or minus a couple of meters), so maybe their gear is permanently set to a dedicated
2D mode. That would indeed work with 3 signals - but you still need four inputs for a 3D position, it's just that in this case one of those inputs doesn't come from space, but from looking out the window.
Maybe you will believe the Los Alamos Labs' GIS unit?
"If you require 3-dimensional coordinates (northerning, easting, and elevation), a minimum of four satellites is needed."
Yeah, but take into accountthat this is the compressed size – and it uses 1bit
"colour", so it compresses really well. Uncompressed, it's quite a bit more.
They're using the right colors, just slightly naming them wrong. magenta is a purplish red, cyan is a greenish blue. (I learned this stuff in an undergrad physics class, one of the most interesting classes I took. The part with lasers and holograms was especially cool.)
I learned about this in primary school art class, and you still have it backwards.
Hold a magnifying glass to some white area on your display, and you will
see very nice red, green, and blue subpixels. Ok, this might be trickier with
high-density displays nowadays. Use a good magnifying glass...
You'll see nothing purplish about the red or greenish about the blue. There's a perfectly
fine green subpixel right next to it anyway, so making blue greenish would also be
stupidly reducing the display's gamut.
Color mixing is different with pigments than with light. In pigments, the primaries are red, yellow, and blue. In light it's cyan, magenta, and yellow.
Ah crap. You should really tell display manufacturers, they've been doing it wrong for decades!
"Terrorists can already hit buildings from the air if they want to. They just have to use private planes."
Except planes have to file flight plans and its a bit more obvious doing that sort of thing at a controlled airport than doing it in a garage then just wheeling your flying car outside and taking off.
Mandatory flight plans for private (VFR) aviation? I don't think so.
And of course this wouldn't be done from JFK or another huge international airport, but from a smaller airfield somehere, where nobody cares.
No. The VLT's telescopes are machines very carefully designed to be able to detect the faintest amounts of light possible.
Pointing them at the sun would result in zero pictures and be followed by a Very Large Repair, essentially rebuilding everything that isn't the static support structure or the mirrors (and I'm not even sure about the mirrors).
That's a scandal on its own. Other places let their inmates vote and still haven't turned into Mad Max country.
They treat their prisoners better though - and also have a lot less of their population imprisoned...
Trying to compare Finland against a single US state, and then claiming that all other smaller states are deficient, solely based on size, is ignorant. Meaning, that it is an observation lacking in sophistication.
You did that comparison first. He just shot down another one of your "facts" with data.
"Hugo" also makes a very, very good case for higher frame rates:
There are a couple of long, fast panning scenes which are really
painful to watch because of all the juddering.
I take it you've never seen a wordlist for a dictionary password cracker. I don't have any on me to see if that specific string is in them (quite possible, based on some of what I remember), but I do know many dictionary cracking programs implement mixing of words on the list - meaning "correct horse staple battery" will be cracked in SECONDS, not centuries.
No it won't. I recommend some math instead of faulty intuition:
Let's assume a word list of 5000 entries (that's very low, the OED
counts over 150000 words in current use).
Four words out of this gives us 5000^4 (word repetitions are allowed),
or 6.25e14, that's 625 trillion. At a million cracking attemps per second,
that gives 19.8 years for an exhaustive search.
So, a random four-word passphrase made up from a 5000 word list
will take nearly 10 years (exhaustive/2). And that assumes the passphrase
only contains words from the list. Unlikely.
Of course, 10 years isn't that impressive. But even a single changed
character somewhere – or just a word not on the list! – will require a full
brute-force search on the character level instead of at the word level.
Slashdot Mirror
That isn't a file system bug, that is progress. Would you consider it a bug if a Linux system from 1998 caused corruption on an ext4 volume?
Hell yeah.
If it'd tell me it doesn't know the file system and has no idea what do do with it,
that would be perfectly fine.
But corrupting a file system just because it is unknown to/unsupported by the
system trying to read it would be a huge bug.
Please provide make, model and year of such an automobile that does not have any mechanical connection between the steering wheel and the steering gear box/tie rods/steering wheels.
Mercedes-Benz F200. Yeah, ok, that's a concept car and very probably not street-legal.
I'd still like to drive it.
Air planes have fly-by-wire systems where there is truly no mechanical connection to the control surfaces. However even those systems provide artificial feedback to the pilot via actuators on the sticks because feedback is that critical to proper control of a vehicle.
It's not, that what the instruments are for. An airliner absolutely cannot be flown "by feel".
While Boeing does provide some steering forces to the yoke, the Airbus sidestick doesn't
have "force feedback", so feedback via that channel can't be that critical...
No you cannot prove a negative assertion.
This is just enough half-kowledge about philosophy of science
to be dangerous. That sentence is equally as non-universally true
as the infamous "correlation causation" thing.
Thing is, you often can prove a negative:
"If I let go of this stone in mid air, it will not float."
I let go of the stone.
The stone drops.
Negative assertion proven.
But one day, all that R&D and manufacturing plants that were sent overseas will come to bite them in the ass.
What are you talking about?
All current-generation Intel fabs are in
the US (note that 65nm is far from being current).
So basically, not finding items of historical value is better than finding them and destroying a bit of historically valuable surroundings?
Yes, in most cases.
Isn't the worth of historically relevant findings in the knowledge they provide rather than their existence?
No, because in archaeology, the context of a find is everything. Of course, valuable and beautiful objects make for
great exhibitions, but context is really the main part of what is interesting. You'll see an archaologist become much
more excited over an unusual and unexpected piece of wood than over "another roman gold coin. meh."
We have tens of thousands of roman gold coins already, and I doubt any of the coins this guy found are of
an unkown kind.
However, an amateur will not know to care for some fibres around the gold coins that may have been a
uniquely crafted bag, thereby proving trade contacts with $faraway_place. Of will discard a couple of shovels
full of dirt with bone fragments or plant seeds in them which would make this a unique and invaluable find.
If you find something, don't touch it and report it, but don't dig around yourself - you'll do way more
harm than good, and may even commit a crime.
That's a fantastic explanation, thank you for writing this.
Bookmarked for future use.
Nevertheless, I am still correct. The 4th sat is only for precision.
No it's not.
It is not necessary for location.
Yes it is.
Quoting the Navy: "Therefore there are 4 unknowns at each timeline where a solution is computed, 3 for position and 1 for time. This is why the minimum number of satellites for a solution is 4."
Note the phrase: "computed time". Not measured time.
Yes. Computed from at least four sat signals.
Bozo.
Nice sig.
But I do know just a little about it.
Which seems to be the amount you know about everything.
That's not helpful.
GPS recievers indeed solve a 4D problem (3D space + time) which requires
4 sats. As expensive as the military units are, they may be able to bridge reception
gaps by keeping time by themselves for a while, so may for a while work with
only three sat signals.
But without a local timer with the precision of an atomic clock, that's the digital
equivalent to dead reckoning, and will only get you so far until you need your fourth
sat again.
Of course, if you are the Navy, one of your coordinates is known by default (at least
plus or minus a couple of meters), so maybe their gear is permanently set to a dedicated
2D mode. That would indeed work with 3 signals - but you still need four inputs for a 3D
position, it's just that in this case one of those inputs doesn't come from space, but from
looking out the window.
Maybe you will believe the Los Alamos Labs' GIS unit?
"If you require 3-dimensional coordinates (northerning, easting, and elevation), a minimum of four satellites is needed."
Actually, the same guy has already done the English Channel by wingsuit.
Yeah, but take into accountthat this is the compressed size – and it uses 1bit
"colour", so it compresses really well. Uncompressed, it's quite a bit more.
They're using the right colors, just slightly naming them wrong. magenta is a purplish red, cyan is a greenish blue. (I learned this stuff in an undergrad physics class, one of the most interesting classes I took. The part with lasers and holograms was especially cool.)
I learned about this in primary school art class, and you still have it backwards.
Hold a magnifying glass to some white area on your display, and you will
see very nice red, green, and blue subpixels. Ok, this might be trickier with
high-density displays nowadays. Use a good magnifying glass...
You'll see nothing purplish about the red or greenish about the blue. There's a perfectly
fine green subpixel right next to it anyway, so making blue greenish would also be
stupidly reducing the display's gamut.
It's print that is CMY(K).
Have a look at how additive and subtractive colouring work.
In none of them are the primary colours "red, yellow, and blue" by the way.
"Until power can be sent wirelessly as well, you'll need to at least plug it in to something."
It's called inductive charging, it exists.
Is it inductive charging mats all the way down?
Can you plug a USB connector in in any orientation?
Yes. Some of the orientations aren't recommended though.
Color mixing is different with pigments than with light. In pigments, the primaries are red, yellow, and blue. In light it's cyan, magenta, and yellow.
Ah crap. You should really tell display manufacturers, they've been doing it wrong for decades!
An embassy, by definition, is not on the host's soil, but its homeland's.
That's a very common belief. It's also entirely untrue.
"Terrorists can already hit buildings from the air if they want to. They just have to use private planes."
Except planes have to file flight plans and its a bit more obvious doing that sort of thing at a controlled airport than doing it in a garage then just wheeling your flying car outside and taking off.
Mandatory flight plans for private (VFR) aviation? I don't think so.
And of course this wouldn't be done from JFK or another huge international airport, but from a smaller airfield somehere, where nobody cares.
No. The VLT's telescopes are machines very carefully designed to be able to detect the faintest amounts of light possible. Pointing them at the sun would result in zero pictures and be followed by a Very Large Repair, essentially rebuilding everything that isn't the static support structure or the mirrors (and I'm not even sure about the mirrors).
it's optional on an American keyboard, because I can't be bothered to type one out. it's not on my keyboard = not worth my time for a /. post
That sure is a weird keyboard.
Which of the characters in "ä" don't you have?
The Germans don't call themselves German, in German. It's Deutschlander.
1) That's "Deutschländer". The umlaut is in no case optional.
2) No they don't.
Also lot of things makes you ineligible to vote.
That's a scandal on its own. Other places let their inmates vote and still haven't turned into Mad Max country.
They treat their prisoners better though - and also have a lot less of their population imprisoned...
I agree. A regulation is not what is needed.
What is needed is the capacity to run custom software on our hardware. let me explain.
Why not make it easy to run software developed to control the loudness of audio? A dynamic volume button if you will.
That's not going to be enough.
There is no magical postprocessing that can de-artifact music that has been overcompressed into clipping.
Trying to compare Finland against a single US state, and then claiming that all other smaller states are deficient, solely based on size, is ignorant. Meaning, that it is an observation lacking in sophistication.
You did that comparison first. He just shot down another one of your "facts" with data.
Go away.
For completely gimmick-free 3D film, try Hugo.
"Hugo" also makes a very, very good case for higher frame rates:
There are a couple of long, fast panning scenes which are really
painful to watch because of all the juddering.
I take it you've never seen a wordlist for a dictionary password cracker. I don't have any on me to see if that specific string is in them (quite possible, based on some of what I remember), but I do know many dictionary cracking programs implement mixing of words on the list - meaning "correct horse staple battery" will be cracked in SECONDS, not centuries.
No it won't. I recommend some math instead of faulty intuition:
Let's assume a word list of 5000 entries (that's very low, the OED
counts over 150000 words in current use).
Four words out of this gives us 5000^4 (word repetitions are allowed),
or 6.25e14, that's 625 trillion. At a million cracking attemps per second,
that gives 19.8 years for an exhaustive search.
So, a random four-word passphrase made up from a 5000 word list
will take nearly 10 years (exhaustive/2). And that assumes the passphrase
only contains words from the list. Unlikely.
Of course, 10 years isn't that impressive. But even a single changed
character somewhere – or just a word not on the list! – will require a full
brute-force search on the character level instead of at the word level.
Hello bazillions of years.