Better still if we actually built a space STATION instead of a little orbiting box. I can remember reading about that proposed railgun spacelaunch system for (non-fragile) materials; with something like that floating in the pacific or atlantic coupled with research into low/zero gravity manufacturing, the space station could be much more impressive, and at relatively low cost compared to what it has been so far. Of course, it does all boil down to research in the direction of Von Neumann machines, which is what a self constructing space station you blast material at from earth would be. But for any realistic attempt at space exploration/colonisation, Von Neumann machines, or at least processes, are what we need.
That was a link to the patent. From another page on the same site:
"1929
The first portable hearing instrument with amplifying tube, built into a suitcase.
With further advancements in amplifier technology, vacuum tubes were used. These permitted high amplification, which meant a distinct improvement in the quality of sound reproduction.
The first hearing aids to fit inside a case or lady's handbag were produced in about 1934. However, these were still extremely unwieldy.
But miniaturization was also advancing, finally resulting in hearing aids that were small enough to fit into a pocket."
1928 woild be a little too early it would appear.
Not only video, but sound as well. If you reversed the purpose of the technology discussed here to delete particular sounds instead of focusing on them, you will soon be able to completely edit out anything you don't like, in real or near real time, from video feeds. Whatever about not trusting the spin or coverage of news these days, soon you won't even be able to trust what look like actual recordings of events.
science says free will doesn't exist. I'm pretty sure that means the Bible is a more valid work on the subject than all scientific publications combined.
Why is this modded troll? He had no choice but to post it.
I view swearing as a demonstration of a lack of emotional self control or evidence of a limited vocabulary to effectively express thoughts or feelings.
Most weapons are specialised for a certain way of fighting, or as a response to the fighting styles of others. Plate armour can be seen largely as a response to the greatswords used by the Celts, Picts and Saxons, which could cut right through a man from shoulder to opposite hip. When Knights began wearing plate, people didn't bother trying to hit them with swords; you used a crossbow to punch straight through or used a hooked polearm to get them on the ground and bash their head in with a hammer.
You could go on for hours about the tactics for use of different weapons in different situations, but all weapons still fit one or more of 5 descriptions; sharp things, pointy things, heavy things, fast things, or things that go boom.
Lots of us think your utter submission to your governments, preference for the safety of lawbreakers over personal self-defense, and general sheeple tendencies aren't admirable either. You've traded freedom for (the perception of) security as is your right, but that only works in certain situations and assumes benign government.
Funny, from what I've seen of the differences between European and American cultures, I would have said that Americans are more submissive to government. Europeans are, in my experience, more cynical, less nationalistic, and less ready to believe anything they are told by government or mass media, less ready to wave flags and die for what their leaders tell them to do, more likely to tell their politicians to go fuck themselves. There are things that Europeans accept that Americans would not put up with, like taxes, environmental regulations, etc. but I would see that more as a mark of societal maturity and acceptance of responsibility than you obviously see it, with your "sheeple" reference to Europeans.
Likewise when they speak of US losses, the US brought lots of military might that was crucial but it was Europeans doing most of the dying.
This one's interesting. If you look at military casualties for WW2, U.S. has 415k deaths, and actually ranks above any Allied European country except for the USSR and Yugoslavia. These are totals, but if you look by theater, then Americans have only lost ~100k dead fighting in the Pacific; so the remainder is mostly in Europe. Let's take that as 300k. Now the next European Allied country on the list, UK, lost 380k dead. Everyone else actually lags behind US losses in European theater alone. So the claim that "Europeans were doing most of the dying", while, perhaps, factually correct, is making a wrong point.
Which kinda makes sense when you remember the history of the war. The most massive losses on Allied side, by an extremely large margin, are the Soviets, because they bore the brunt of the war - the initial wearing out of German industry and manpower - and, ultimately, the victory in Europe. UK is high because it kept putting up the fight; US, because it intervened and kept going. Poland and France are also relatively high because they did put up some fight early on, and because they had significant military resistance to occupation afterwards. Yugoslavia is very high on the list mainly due to active guerrilla warfare against the occupying German forces (IIRC, the most active country in that regard of all occupied ones). Everyone else mostly just sat there waiting for the liberators after putting up some token resistance.
The picture is nowhere near the same if you look at all casualties of the war. 0.5% of all deaths in WWII were American servicemen; 58% of all deaths in WWII were allied civilians, few of them American. I don't have a breakdown of those deaths handy, I'm sure the vast majority were likely Chinese and Russian. But a lot of them were western European civilians.
Maybe some fines for bringing cases that are deemed to be obviously about bleeding dry the defendant? If the defendant has to stump up, say, 5 years salary to defend against a malicious case, then a corporation bringing the case is fined proprtionately, ie. 5 years profit.
If I understood the article correctly higher densities of neutrino emmisions are likely to cause faster decays. Do the neutrino emmisions from the sun increase or decrease over time?
The proper solution is to do absolutely nothing. A record of time should be as exact as possible, and people should not have to worry about seconds being added or deleted to account for inconsistencies in the length of an earth solar day. Yes they keep everything tidy for us here on a day to day basis, but if you want to make a time system that is both accurate and that is to be eventually used elsewhere than just earth, it is stupid to use leap seconds.
Getting rid of UTC only lets UTC "drift farther and farther from reality" in that noon would not be at the exact middle of the solar day. However the flip side would be that it would give an accurate record of time passed, instead of people having to take leap seconds into account if trying to calculate the amount of time since a specific point in time.
I disagree with the notion that removing Ds from the scale does nothing. What you achieve is a higher required score to pass; the logical conclusion is that when the failure rate goes up, as it inevitably will, the tests will dumbed down, eroding the quality of education provided.
It's not a good solution though. We should use renewable energy sources on earth whenever we can. The non-renewables, especially high energy/mass sources like fissionable materials, should be kept for space exploration.
I'm pretty sure that if they were building a floating island, the plastic would be mostly used as large air containers for buoyancy, and build the island on top of that base. But the numbers still seem wrong.
Yes you're right but at the same time, price-fixing ("pricing constraints") is not going to fix the problem.
I don't really see that as price fixing. The context was constraints on fees for using software processes that have been patented by other companies. I personally do not believe software patents should be allowed at all, so this is just throwing a bone in the direction of the larger companies involved, as they will now be able to maintain their large portfolios of allegedly original ideas and basically tax smaller software developers, but they will get slapped if they get too greedy. I dont see any price fixing going on, just free money for rich people.
Slashdot Mirror
Better still if we actually built a space STATION instead of a little orbiting box. I can remember reading about that proposed railgun spacelaunch system for (non-fragile) materials; with something like that floating in the pacific or atlantic coupled with research into low/zero gravity manufacturing, the space station could be much more impressive, and at relatively low cost compared to what it has been so far. Of course, it does all boil down to research in the direction of Von Neumann machines, which is what a self constructing space station you blast material at from earth would be. But for any realistic attempt at space exploration/colonisation, Von Neumann machines, or at least processes, are what we need.
That was a link to the patent. From another page on the same site:
"1929 The first portable hearing instrument with amplifying tube, built into a suitcase. With further advancements in amplifier technology, vacuum tubes were used. These permitted high amplification, which meant a distinct improvement in the quality of sound reproduction. The first hearing aids to fit inside a case or lady's handbag were produced in about 1934. However, these were still extremely unwieldy. But miniaturization was also advancing, finally resulting in hearing aids that were small enough to fit into a pocket."
1928 woild be a little too early it would appear.
but boy, this is unelegant.
Your spelling is pretty unelegant too.
Not only video, but sound as well. If you reversed the purpose of the technology discussed here to delete particular sounds instead of focusing on them, you will soon be able to completely edit out anything you don't like, in real or near real time, from video feeds. Whatever about not trusting the spin or coverage of news these days, soon you won't even be able to trust what look like actual recordings of events.
science says free will doesn't exist. I'm pretty sure that means the Bible is a more valid work on the subject than all scientific publications combined.
Why is this modded troll? He had no choice but to post it.
Damn you beat me to it.
Ssshhh dont give government ideas. They'll be sanitising polling station input if you show them that.
Assuming Irish Gaelic is anything like Scottish Gaelic, it actually means 'red island'.
Neither the Martians or Irish (or Scots) appear to have much of an imagination.
Damn NASA, that unimaginative joint Martian/Irish/Scots space agency.
I view swearing as a demonstration of a lack of emotional self control or evidence of a limited vocabulary to effectively express thoughts or feelings.
Stephen Fry would beg to differ.
Explosive whaling harpoons might come close.
Most weapons are specialised for a certain way of fighting, or as a response to the fighting styles of others. Plate armour can be seen largely as a response to the greatswords used by the Celts, Picts and Saxons, which could cut right through a man from shoulder to opposite hip. When Knights began wearing plate, people didn't bother trying to hit them with swords; you used a crossbow to punch straight through or used a hooked polearm to get them on the ground and bash their head in with a hammer.
You could go on for hours about the tactics for use of different weapons in different situations, but all weapons still fit one or more of 5 descriptions; sharp things, pointy things, heavy things, fast things, or things that go boom.
Lots of us think your utter submission to your governments, preference for the safety of lawbreakers over personal self-defense, and general sheeple tendencies aren't admirable either. You've traded freedom for (the perception of) security as is your right, but that only works in certain situations and assumes benign government.
Funny, from what I've seen of the differences between European and American cultures, I would have said that Americans are more submissive to government. Europeans are, in my experience, more cynical, less nationalistic, and less ready to believe anything they are told by government or mass media, less ready to wave flags and die for what their leaders tell them to do, more likely to tell their politicians to go fuck themselves. There are things that Europeans accept that Americans would not put up with, like taxes, environmental regulations, etc. but I would see that more as a mark of societal maturity and acceptance of responsibility than you obviously see it, with your "sheeple" reference to Europeans.
just maybe, hollywood will pick up the results and eventually come up with a zombie infestation that resembles reality.
And I thought modern Hollywood WAS a zombie infestation.
Likewise when they speak of US losses, the US brought lots of military might that was crucial but it was Europeans doing most of the dying.
This one's interesting. If you look at military casualties for WW2, U.S. has 415k deaths, and actually ranks above any Allied European country except for the USSR and Yugoslavia. These are totals, but if you look by theater, then Americans have only lost ~100k dead fighting in the Pacific; so the remainder is mostly in Europe. Let's take that as 300k. Now the next European Allied country on the list, UK, lost 380k dead. Everyone else actually lags behind US losses in European theater alone. So the claim that "Europeans were doing most of the dying", while, perhaps, factually correct, is making a wrong point.
Which kinda makes sense when you remember the history of the war. The most massive losses on Allied side, by an extremely large margin, are the Soviets, because they bore the brunt of the war - the initial wearing out of German industry and manpower - and, ultimately, the victory in Europe. UK is high because it kept putting up the fight; US, because it intervened and kept going. Poland and France are also relatively high because they did put up some fight early on, and because they had significant military resistance to occupation afterwards. Yugoslavia is very high on the list mainly due to active guerrilla warfare against the occupying German forces (IIRC, the most active country in that regard of all occupied ones). Everyone else mostly just sat there waiting for the liberators after putting up some token resistance.
The picture is nowhere near the same if you look at all casualties of the war. 0.5% of all deaths in WWII were American servicemen; 58% of all deaths in WWII were allied civilians, few of them American. I don't have a breakdown of those deaths handy, I'm sure the vast majority were likely Chinese and Russian. But a lot of them were western European civilians.
Maybe some fines for bringing cases that are deemed to be obviously about bleeding dry the defendant? If the defendant has to stump up, say, 5 years salary to defend against a malicious case, then a corporation bringing the case is fined proprtionately, ie. 5 years profit.
Says in the 1st line of the story that he played over 20k hours, so you want to cut that hourly rate in half. I'd still play for that price though.
...declined to dismiss Smallwood's claims for negligence, defamation, and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
You assume that mean solar time is reality. In fact the Earth is not a very good clock: it wiggles and wobbles and loses time at an erratic rate.
Stop misquoting me.
If I understood the article correctly higher densities of neutrino emmisions are likely to cause faster decays. Do the neutrino emmisions from the sun increase or decrease over time?
The proper solution is to do absolutely nothing. A record of time should be as exact as possible, and people should not have to worry about seconds being added or deleted to account for inconsistencies in the length of an earth solar day. Yes they keep everything tidy for us here on a day to day basis, but if you want to make a time system that is both accurate and that is to be eventually used elsewhere than just earth, it is stupid to use leap seconds.
Getting rid of UTC only lets UTC "drift farther and farther from reality" in that noon would not be at the exact middle of the solar day. However the flip side would be that it would give an accurate record of time passed, instead of people having to take leap seconds into account if trying to calculate the amount of time since a specific point in time.
I disagree with the notion that removing Ds from the scale does nothing. What you achieve is a higher required score to pass; the logical conclusion is that when the failure rate goes up, as it inevitably will, the tests will dumbed down, eroding the quality of education provided.
It's not a good solution though. We should use renewable energy sources on earth whenever we can. The non-renewables, especially high energy/mass sources like fissionable materials, should be kept for space exploration.
I'm pretty sure that if they were building a floating island, the plastic would be mostly used as large air containers for buoyancy, and build the island on top of that base. But the numbers still seem wrong.
Yes you're right but at the same time, price-fixing ("pricing constraints") is not going to fix the problem.
I don't really see that as price fixing. The context was constraints on fees for using software processes that have been patented by other companies. I personally do not believe software patents should be allowed at all, so this is just throwing a bone in the direction of the larger companies involved, as they will now be able to maintain their large portfolios of allegedly original ideas and basically tax smaller software developers, but they will get slapped if they get too greedy. I dont see any price fixing going on, just free money for rich people.