The 777 is an advance in the sense that the autopilot can do a lot of the flying of the aircraft by itself i.e. it has more computers onboard. Aerodynamically it is (barely) an incremental improvement over the 767. About going supersonic: If the 777 is capable of going supersonic (it might be, it has VERY powerful engines) it would be uncotrollable the very second it broke M=1, because the center of pressure moves once you are supersonic and the weight and lift vectors would make a torque couple that tends to point the nose down. In addition drag will increase A LOT and so supersonic flight will not be sustained for long. Personally, I think the Concorde and the 747 are pretty much at the peak as far as aerodynamics is concerned.
Twenty years ago, engineers wrote proposals and reports longhand, and made rough sketches and graphs; secretaries typed them; draftsmen and illustrators did pen-and-ink renderings of the graphics. The engineers proofed these and redlined them, and the corrections were often done directly on the originals. Design work was mostly hand-work, with lots of extrapolation and interpolation of graphical data; the few computer runs were expensive in both time and dollars, when they were done at all.
Yet these very same engineeris gave us:
the Concorde
SR-71
Apollo 11
Hydrogen Bomb
None of these have met their match in the last 30 years.
Fission waste has a halflife of less than a 1000 years. It's not exactly halflife, because it does not decay exponentially at first since some isotopes decay into other radioactive isotopes. Anyway, the estimate is that spent fuel activity from a normal light water reactor decreases to about the level of uranium ore in about 700 years. FYI uranium ore is not very active.
The space station would have to be pretty big to be made to rotate for artificial gravity. If it is not big enough, the crew would puke their guts out due to the Coriolis acceleration that messes up your equilibrium.
Dude, just google for "science jokes", press "I'm feeling lucky" and go to the physics proofs section (2.8) on the page that comes up. There are a lot of hilarious refutes to that proof too, including the quantum mechanical interpretation of Santa. That took me 30 seconds to find.
I said it's C++ because it won't compile as C. You are right, it's not object-oriented though. Why does it make "cool" to say C++? I hate C++ and I like C better, it's just that I was using Visual Studio for this and it will compile anything that resembles C or C++, probably even my grandma's cake recipe. Oh, and I'm not saying this code is the pinnacle of AI programming, it's just a quick&dirty implementation I used to try something.
Yeah I know, if you just use arrays it can be much shorter, most of it is test code anyway. I wasn't bragging or anything. There are 3 includes in the program, which one was missing?
Marvin Minsky is a moron. In the late 60s he said that Neural Networks have no future and singlehandedly set back the AI field 20 years because everyone trusted him, until people introduced the Backpropagation algorithm and started research into neural nets again in spite of him. By the way, here's my implementation of a generic neural net using backpropagation (150 lines of C++).
You read slashdot and you have never heard of P and NP? P and NP are two sets of problems. P is the set of problems that can be solved in time that is a polynomial function of their size. NP (Non-Deterministic Polynomial) is the set of problems, whose solution can be verified in polynomial time, but the only we can currently find actual solution runs in exponential time. Computer scientists still don't know if P=NP, in which case basically many hard problems would become easy to solve. It is generally considered that P!=NP, but if someone proves P=NP I'm sure he/she will get a Turing award the same year and probably ve on the cover of Time magazine.
My Discrete Math prof. in college said that if I proved that P=NP, I would be rich and famous. I always wondered if I'd get suspended from college if I really proved it though...
NASA uses metric consistently , but the contractor that built the polar lander used english units. So when NASA got data about the reentry engine burn from the contractor (IIRC Lockheed), it was in English units and NASA just took it for metric and hence a crash.
The electrons are bound in the ions. However, electrons have a very strong magnetic moment due to their small mass, so magnetism in matter is pretty much entirely due to free electrons (hence metals can be magnetized). The magnetic moment of an ion is much much smaller. For example for the proton (H+ ion), the magnetic moment is 1800 times smaller than the one for the electron.
Electromagnetic radiation travels in complete vacuum also, for example light from the Sun reaching Earth. It is not a sound wave and does not need a medium to travel through. Reception and transmission in the cellphone case is done by oscillating free electrons in a metal conductor -- electrons emit/absorb photons when they de/accelerate. There are not many free electrons floating around in your brain.
I don't get it. Electromagnetic waves from cellphones are just photons of energy of several micro-electron-volts (900MHz => 3 micro eV). This is not enough to ionize an atom, not even enough to excite vibration or rotation into a molecule. I mean, visible light is also electromagnetic radiation, with much higher energy than cellphone radiation and I haven't heard of anyone getting brain tumor from being outside too much. Exposure from sunlight is probably much more powerful -- about 0.1 Watts/sq.cm. of skin. Oh well, may be some weird resonant effect on biological tissue, if cellphone EM causes brain tumors indeed.
Here at Cornell U. there is an AP Comp. Sci. test that you can take the first week of class and you can use any language you like. I'm assuming other schools have that too, so it probably isn't that big of a deal for people who don't like Java.
I now have great difficulty focusing my abilities enough to truly use them to their fullest extent
Should have aimed for A+ then, eh? I have found this helped me, because I could get A's practically without studying...Of course your school may not give A+, in which case my advice is moot.
Funny, I think the Indian one was at most 1 meter resolution (probably less), so I assume they square the ratio (1m : 0.5m), since it is in two dimensions. Oh well, I was wrong then.
The US has excellent reconaisance and mapping satellites in orbit, but other countries are lagging far behind our level of tech and coverage.
I think currently India has the highest resolution publicly available satellite pictures. They launched their high-res observation sat a few years ago, so I might be wrong now though...
Not quite. If you have seen the CIE chromaticity diagram, you will know why. It looks sort of like a half ellipse. When you pick three primary colors, these form a triangle on the CIE chromaticity diagram, and all colors that are inside the triangles can be generated as linear combinations of those primaries. All colors outside, cannot be represented, even though they are visible and distinguishable by human eyes. Theoretically you would need an infinite number of monochromatic primaries, all lying on the edge of the cromaticity curve in order to represent all visible colors. Also, human eyes do have only three types of color sensitive receptors, but these have continuous response over a range of wavelengths (the response curve looks like a Gaussian). TV, film and printing work by playing a variety of tricks on the human eye and their quality cannot be compared to the quality with which we see the real world.
Slashdot Mirror
The 777 is an advance in the sense that the autopilot can do a lot of the flying of the aircraft by itself i.e. it has more computers onboard. Aerodynamically it is (barely) an incremental improvement over the 767. About going supersonic: If the 777 is capable of going supersonic (it might be, it has VERY powerful engines) it would be uncotrollable the very second it broke M=1, because the center of pressure moves once you are supersonic and the weight and lift vectors would make a torque couple that tends to point the nose down. In addition drag will increase A LOT and so supersonic flight will not be sustained for long. Personally, I think the Concorde and the 747 are pretty much at the peak as far as aerodynamics is concerned.
Twenty years ago, engineers wrote proposals and reports longhand, and made rough sketches and graphs; secretaries typed them; draftsmen and illustrators did pen-and-ink renderings of the graphics. The engineers proofed these and redlined them, and the corrections were often done directly on the originals. Design work was mostly hand-work, with lots of extrapolation and interpolation of graphical data; the few computer runs were expensive in both time and dollars, when they were done at all.
Yet these very same engineeris gave us:
the Concorde
SR-71
Apollo 11
Hydrogen Bomb
None of these have met their match in the last 30 years.
Fission waste has a halflife of less than a 1000 years. It's not exactly halflife, because it does not decay exponentially at first since some isotopes decay into other radioactive isotopes. Anyway, the estimate is that spent fuel activity from a normal light water reactor decreases to about the level of uranium ore in about 700 years. FYI uranium ore is not very active.
The space station would have to be pretty big to be made to rotate for artificial gravity. If it is not big enough, the crew would puke their guts out due to the Coriolis acceleration that messes up your equilibrium.
Correction: Lift/Drag = Weight/Thrust during flight, not Thrust/Weight, but for birds, that's still about 1. It's the force balance.
For birds L/D(max) is about 1. (that's Lift/Drag ratio which is basically the same as Thrust/Weight during flight).
Dude, just google for "science jokes", press "I'm feeling lucky" and go to the physics proofs section (2.8) on the page that comes up. There are a lot of hilarious refutes to that proof too, including the quantum mechanical interpretation of Santa. That took me 30 seconds to find.
I said it's C++ because it won't compile as C. You are right, it's not object-oriented though. Why does it make "cool" to say C++? I hate C++ and I like C better, it's just that I was using Visual Studio for this and it will compile anything that resembles C or C++, probably even my grandma's cake recipe. Oh, and I'm not saying this code is the pinnacle of AI programming, it's just a quick&dirty implementation I used to try something.
Yeah I know, if you just use arrays it can be much shorter, most of it is test code anyway. I wasn't bragging or anything. There are 3 includes in the program, which one was missing?
Marvin Minsky is a moron. In the late 60s he said that Neural Networks have no future and singlehandedly set back the AI field 20 years because everyone trusted him, until people introduced the Backpropagation algorithm and started research into neural nets again in spite of him. By the way, here's my implementation of a generic neural net using backpropagation (150 lines of C++).
You read slashdot and you have never heard of P and NP? P and NP are two sets of problems. P is the set of problems that can be solved in time that is a polynomial function of their size. NP (Non-Deterministic Polynomial) is the set of problems, whose solution can be verified in polynomial time, but the only we can currently find actual solution runs in exponential time. Computer scientists still don't know if P=NP, in which case basically many hard problems would become easy to solve. It is generally considered that P!=NP, but if someone proves P=NP I'm sure he/she will get a Turing award the same year and probably ve on the cover of Time magazine.
My Discrete Math prof. in college said that if I proved that P=NP, I would be rich and famous. I always wondered if I'd get suspended from college if I really proved it though...
NASA uses metric consistently , but the contractor that built the polar lander used english units. So when NASA got data about the reentry engine burn from the contractor (IIRC Lockheed), it was in English units and NASA just took it for metric and hence a crash.
The electrons are bound in the ions. However, electrons have a very strong magnetic moment due to their small mass, so magnetism in matter is pretty much entirely due to free electrons (hence metals can be magnetized). The magnetic moment of an ion is much much smaller. For example for the proton (H+ ion), the magnetic moment is 1800 times smaller than the one for the electron.
Electromagnetic radiation travels in complete vacuum also, for example light from the Sun reaching Earth. It is not a sound wave and does not need a medium to travel through. Reception and transmission in the cellphone case is done by oscillating free electrons in a metal conductor -- electrons emit/absorb photons when they de/accelerate. There are not many free electrons floating around in your brain.
I don't get it. Electromagnetic waves from cellphones are just photons of energy of several micro-electron-volts (900MHz => 3 micro eV). This is not enough to ionize an atom, not even enough to excite vibration or rotation into a molecule. I mean, visible light is also electromagnetic radiation, with much higher energy than cellphone radiation and I haven't heard of anyone getting brain tumor from being outside too much. Exposure from sunlight is probably much more powerful -- about 0.1 Watts/sq.cm. of skin. Oh well, may be some weird resonant effect on biological tissue, if cellphone EM causes brain tumors indeed.
Wrong. I don't like anime and Tolkien and yet I am a geek, or so they say...
Here at Cornell U. there is an AP Comp. Sci. test that you can take the first week of class and you can use any language you like. I'm assuming other schools have that too, so it probably isn't that big of a deal for people who don't like Java.
I now have great difficulty focusing my abilities enough to truly use them to their fullest extent
Should have aimed for A+ then, eh? I have found this helped me, because I could get A's practically without studying...Of course your school may not give A+, in which case my advice is moot.
There are so many spelling and grammar mistakes in that review that it makes me sick.
Funny, I think the Indian one was at most 1 meter resolution (probably less), so I assume they square the ratio (1m : 0.5m), since it is in two dimensions. Oh well, I was wrong then.
The US has excellent reconaisance and mapping satellites in orbit, but other countries are lagging far behind our level of tech and coverage.
I think currently India has the highest resolution publicly available satellite pictures. They launched their high-res observation sat a few years ago, so I might be wrong now though...
Not quite. If you have seen the CIE chromaticity diagram, you will know why. It looks sort of like a half ellipse. When you pick three primary colors, these form a triangle on the CIE chromaticity diagram, and all colors that are inside the triangles can be generated as linear combinations of those primaries. All colors outside, cannot be represented, even though they are visible and distinguishable by human eyes. Theoretically you would need an infinite number of monochromatic primaries, all lying on the edge of the cromaticity curve in order to represent all visible colors. Also, human eyes do have only three types of color sensitive receptors, but these have continuous response over a range of wavelengths (the response curve looks like a Gaussian). TV, film and printing work by playing a variety of tricks on the human eye and their quality cannot be compared to the quality with which we see the real world.
The scaremongers are always among us.
And you are one of them.
No, because the spectrum of sunlight is continuous, so you would need an infinite number of LED's at wavelengths between 400 and 700 nm.