You say read it and yet you said that a launch that only needs to reach 800 meters "requires a reasonably well controlled vehicle with a delta-V of about 4,5 km/s or so"? That speed would mean you'd hit the required altitude in a little under 0.2 seconds. There is no possible interpretation of the requirements that would result in that statement.
the only reason you said that is that you DIDN'T READ THE REQUIREMENTS and you're fucking pathetic at lying to cover it up after the fact.
It's an analogy between two things, not a patent application.
It's normal for the thing you're talking about to be mentioned first and said to be like the more commonly known thing. Reversing it would have people thinking that you're talking about jet fighters for the rest of the paragraph.
The Challenge would award prizes for successful demonstration of an end-to-end autonomous operation to sequentially accomplish the following tasks: picking up the sample, inserting the sample into a single stage rocket in a horizontal position, erecting the rocket, launching the rocket to an altitude not less than 800m, deploying a sample container with the cache internally sealed and landing the container at less than 6m/s terminal velocity.
$50,000 will be awarded to the team with the lowest total system mass that completes all tasks.
The goal is not to get someone to build a Mars lander for $250k. The goal is to get get amateurs to think about innovative ideas for how to solve some of the problems in the hope that some of those ideas will be useful when NASA designs a real lander.
Sure, but... "new rules were put in place requiring officers to document that both antennas were in place at the beginning and end of each shift. To guard against officers removing the antennas during their shifts, Tingirides said he requires patrol supervisors to make unannounced checks on cars."
"Since the new protocols went into place, only one antenna has been found missing,"
As soon as it became likely that the vandalism be caught, the vandalism suddenly dropped to almost zero despite the fact that only the officers knew of the change.
So no... it's not possible that the public is vandalizing the cars.
...why do people have the ridiculous assumptions that..
1. coding is "fun" and it's something kids/adults would just love spending time doing "if we just exposed them to it"
Nobody is making that assumption other than you. The point is to expose kids to programming so that the ones who will enjoy it can discover that fact and pursue it. It's that whole "broadening your horizons" thing that school is supposed to do.
We would end up watching complete and total crap, because we were paying for it and felt obligated to watch it.
That says more about you than it does about television.
Do you have an unlimited plan for your cell phone? Do you feel obligated to use it constantly and feel guilty about not using it? Probably not.
Do you have unlimited internet? Do you download large files constantly in order to maximize your usage? Probably not.
Do you go to all-you-can-eat buffets and eat as much as you possibly can and make yourself sick? Probably not.
If you get out of the "gotta get my money's worth!" mindset and you'll find that a lot of things are more enjoyable, but you'll never escape that mindset until you stop blaming everything else and accept that the problem is your mindset.
Some of us can tell exactly where it's going to land.
No, you can't. Calculus can tell you exactly how far the ball will travel down to the last millimeter if you account for all of the variables.
You can make an educated guess, but you'll completely fail to catch the ball if you then close your eyes and assume that it will be exactly where you predicted it to be. If you can tell exactly where is going to land, why would you need to see it and make corrections?
Only an idiot would believe that they can tell exactly where a ball is going to land from the instant they see it being thrown. And here you are claiming just that.
If they could do that, they wouldn't have to keep watching the ball as they ran and caught it. There's a reason they keep their eyes on the ball. Constant corrections.
It really isn't. Catching a thrown ball requires practice, during which you learn more or less how a ball moves after being thrown without any actual understanding of the math behind it.
If you were doing calculus, you'd know exactly where the ball was going as soon as you saw it moving and you could simply put your hand in the right place and wait for the ball to arrive.
In reality, you get yourself into what looks like it might be the path the ball is going to take, then you constantly correct your position as the ball gets closer. It's more like a series of guesses where you're constantly told whether you're getting closer or further away from the correct answer and that is not calculus.
It sounds that way, but it's intentionally deceptive. The trick is that the income inequality that Greenspan is referring to is the inequality between skilled and unskilled workers, not the disparity between CEOs and everyone else.
He's arguing that programmers should be paid more like McDonald's burger flippers, not that CEOs shouldn't make hundreds or thousands of times more than their lowest paid employees.
Expanding the H1-B program would increase competition and drive down wages, but only in the middle class. In fact, the added profits from paying workers less would probably increase the bonuses that CEOs get and create even more income inequality.
Re:I cant buy Pi day greeting cards.....
on
Happy Pi Day
·
· Score: 1
No, it has nothing to do with paying to continue using something.
Every month, members get to borrow a book that they don't own and keep it for the month. When they pick out a book the following month, they have to return the one they borrowed the month before. They don't buy the book, so they don't own it.
No one is supposing that alfalfa growing is violating the conservation of mass or sending water into the fourth dimension never to be seen again.
Actually, that is exactly what the person I was replying to was implying with the question "what happens if the source is exhausted?"
The only demonstrations of the Dunning-Kruger affect here are the person asking what happens when the rivers run dry and you demonstrating that you couldn't comprehend the that I was responding to that person's question, not the actual problems with California agriculture.
The main question is: Where does the water California is watering its crops come from, and what will California do if the source is exhausted?
The water California is watering its crops with comes primarily from rivers. The rivers are watershed from rain which condensed out of water vapor in the atmosphere. Most of that water they use then evaporates and becomes water vapor in the atmosphere where it eventually condenses and falls as rain again and feeds the rivers.
It's the water cycle that you should have learned about in elementary school.
The only reason the rivers that are the source of the water would be exhausted is if it stops raining. If that happens, it won't be because we were raising too much alfalfa.
That's how it's written on the actual website, too. The only place it's in all caps is in the logo.
LabOnFoil is the acronym chosen to designate the project named "Laboratory Skin Patches and SmartCards based on foils and compatible with a smartphone"
The author of the gizmag article is a dumbass who copied and pasted text, then went out of his way to fuck up the capitalization and needlessly capitalize "on foil" when the people behind the project are doing no such thing.
But then it's an article on gizmag, so what do you really expect?
That's not his point either. His point is that he thinks we should stop researching walking robots because they wouldn't work for making cheap vacuum cleaners To support his point, he makes the unfounded argument that research into walking robots is holding back the rest of the robotics field.
My point is that he's a short-sighted fool who is ignoring the fact that vacuum cleaners are not the end-all-be-all of robotics, nor are wheels always the best method of locomotion. My suggestion that he lose a leg (or have both broken) so that he spends some time in a wheelchair was a way of pointing out one of the most desirable outcomes of the research on walking robots; replacement of missing and damaged legs for humans.
A bit extreme, perhaps, but consider the end result; the CEO who thinks that wheels are better than legs would suddenly have to contend with being in a wheelchair (at least for a while) and would get direct experience with just how limited wheels are and how versatile legs are in comparison.
So maybe instead of losing a leg, he just breaks them both and has to be in a wheelchair for a couple months.
Tens of thousands of robots put together cars, furniture and other things every day. They don't have legs and most are bolted to a concrete floor and are little more than an arm.
The Roomba, Google's self-driving car, drones, spacecraft, the mars landers... we've made a shitload of robots that don't have legs. There's no shortage of non-legged robot research and production going on.
The CEO quoted in the article has a bug up his ass about one small area of R&D and is making idiotic excuses for why it should be eliminated. My hope is that gets in an accident and loses a leg. Maybe then he'll see the value in the R&D that's been done on robotic legs.
Slashdot Mirror
You say read it and yet you said that a launch that only needs to reach 800 meters "requires a reasonably well controlled vehicle with a delta-V of about 4,5 km/s or so"? That speed would mean you'd hit the required altitude in a little under 0.2 seconds. There is no possible interpretation of the requirements that would result in that statement.
the only reason you said that is that you DIDN'T READ THE REQUIREMENTS and you're fucking pathetic at lying to cover it up after the fact.
Here you go
It's an analogy between two things, not a patent application.
It's normal for the thing you're talking about to be mentioned first and said to be like the more commonly known thing. Reversing it would have people thinking that you're talking about jet fighters for the rest of the paragraph.
You clearly didn't read the actual challenge.
The Challenge would award prizes for successful demonstration of an end-to-end autonomous operation to sequentially accomplish the following tasks: picking up the sample, inserting the sample into a single stage rocket in a horizontal position, erecting the rocket, launching the rocket to an altitude not less than 800m, deploying a sample container with the cache internally sealed and landing the container at less than 6m/s terminal velocity.
$50,000 will be awarded to the team with the lowest total system mass that completes all tasks.
The goal is not to get someone to build a Mars lander for $250k. The goal is to get get amateurs to think about innovative ideas for how to solve some of the problems in the hope that some of those ideas will be useful when NASA designs a real lander.
It is possible people are vandalizing the cars
Sure, but... "new rules were put in place requiring officers to document that both antennas were in place at the beginning and end of each shift. To guard against officers removing the antennas during their shifts, Tingirides said he requires patrol supervisors to make unannounced checks on cars."
"Since the new protocols went into place, only one antenna has been found missing,"
As soon as it became likely that the vandalism be caught, the vandalism suddenly dropped to almost zero despite the fact that only the officers knew of the change.
So no... it's not possible that the public is vandalizing the cars.
The next version will have 47% more than 26% neck-ache annually. That's down from last year - hold your applause.
...why do people have the ridiculous assumptions that..
1. coding is "fun" and it's something kids/adults would just love spending time doing "if we just exposed them to it"
Nobody is making that assumption other than you. The point is to expose kids to programming so that the ones who will enjoy it can discover that fact and pursue it. It's that whole "broadening your horizons" thing that school is supposed to do.
We would end up watching complete and total crap, because we were paying for it and felt obligated to watch it.
That says more about you than it does about television.
Do you have an unlimited plan for your cell phone? Do you feel obligated to use it constantly and feel guilty about not using it? Probably not.
Do you have unlimited internet? Do you download large files constantly in order to maximize your usage? Probably not.
Do you go to all-you-can-eat buffets and eat as much as you possibly can and make yourself sick? Probably not.
If you get out of the "gotta get my money's worth!" mindset and you'll find that a lot of things are more enjoyable, but you'll never escape that mindset until you stop blaming everything else and accept that the problem is your mindset.
You need something to pass the time during your refractory period.
Calculus is not a series of guesses. If you think it is, you should probably go back to school.
Some of us can tell exactly where it's going to land.
No, you can't. Calculus can tell you exactly how far the ball will travel down to the last millimeter if you account for all of the variables.
You can make an educated guess, but you'll completely fail to catch the ball if you then close your eyes and assume that it will be exactly where you predicted it to be. If you can tell exactly where is going to land, why would you need to see it and make corrections?
Only an idiot would believe that they can tell exactly where a ball is going to land from the instant they see it being thrown. And here you are claiming just that.
Fom the thrower's release, your brain has likely already determined 1) approximately how much time before the ball reaches you
Calculus will tell you exactly how long it will take for a ball to get to you, not an approximate guess.
You've confused "being familiar with thrown balls so that you can make a good guess" with "actually doing math."
If they could do that, they wouldn't have to keep watching the ball as they ran and caught it. There's a reason they keep their eyes on the ball. Constant corrections.
you catching a ball is way, way more calculus.
It really isn't. Catching a thrown ball requires practice, during which you learn more or less how a ball moves after being thrown without any actual understanding of the math behind it.
If you were doing calculus, you'd know exactly where the ball was going as soon as you saw it moving and you could simply put your hand in the right place and wait for the ball to arrive.
In reality, you get yourself into what looks like it might be the path the ball is going to take, then you constantly correct your position as the ball gets closer. It's more like a series of guesses where you're constantly told whether you're getting closer or further away from the correct answer and that is not calculus.
It sounds that way, but it's intentionally deceptive. The trick is that the income inequality that Greenspan is referring to is the inequality between skilled and unskilled workers, not the disparity between CEOs and everyone else.
He's arguing that programmers should be paid more like McDonald's burger flippers, not that CEOs shouldn't make hundreds or thousands of times more than their lowest paid employees.
Expanding the H1-B program would increase competition and drive down wages, but only in the middle class. In fact, the added profits from paying workers less would probably increase the bonuses that CEOs get and create even more income inequality.
Pi day greeting cards. No, not from Hallmark, but you can still buy them.
After that rant, I'm guessing that speak like a pirate day actually causes you to have a grand mal seizure each year.
No, it has nothing to do with paying to continue using something.
Every month, members get to borrow a book that they don't own and keep it for the month. When they pick out a book the following month, they have to return the one they borrowed the month before. They don't buy the book, so they don't own it.
No one is supposing that alfalfa growing is violating the conservation of mass or sending water into the fourth dimension never to be seen again.
Actually, that is exactly what the person I was replying to was implying with the question "what happens if the source is exhausted?"
The only demonstrations of the Dunning-Kruger affect here are the person asking what happens when the rivers run dry and you demonstrating that you couldn't comprehend the that I was responding to that person's question, not the actual problems with California agriculture.
The main question is: Where does the water California is watering its crops come from, and what will California do if the source is exhausted?
The water California is watering its crops with comes primarily from rivers. The rivers are watershed from rain which condensed out of water vapor in the atmosphere. Most of that water they use then evaporates and becomes water vapor in the atmosphere where it eventually condenses and falls as rain again and feeds the rivers.
It's the water cycle that you should have learned about in elementary school.
The only reason the rivers that are the source of the water would be exhausted is if it stops raining. If that happens, it won't be because we were raising too much alfalfa.
That's how it's written on the actual website, too. The only place it's in all caps is in the logo.
LabOnFoil is the acronym chosen to designate the project named "Laboratory Skin Patches and SmartCards based on foils and compatible with a smartphone"
The author of the gizmag article is a dumbass who copied and pasted text, then went out of his way to fuck up the capitalization and needlessly capitalize "on foil" when the people behind the project are doing no such thing.
But then it's an article on gizmag, so what do you really expect?
That's not his point either. His point is that he thinks we should stop researching walking robots because they wouldn't work for making cheap vacuum cleaners To support his point, he makes the unfounded argument that research into walking robots is holding back the rest of the robotics field.
My point is that he's a short-sighted fool who is ignoring the fact that vacuum cleaners are not the end-all-be-all of robotics, nor are wheels always the best method of locomotion. My suggestion that he lose a leg (or have both broken) so that he spends some time in a wheelchair was a way of pointing out one of the most desirable outcomes of the research on walking robots; replacement of missing and damaged legs for humans.
A bit extreme, perhaps, but consider the end result; the CEO who thinks that wheels are better than legs would suddenly have to contend with being in a wheelchair (at least for a while) and would get direct experience with just how limited wheels are and how versatile legs are in comparison.
So maybe instead of losing a leg, he just breaks them both and has to be in a wheelchair for a couple months.
But they should be building refineries in North Dakota,
Ha ha, build a refinery? In the US? With the EPA and every environmental group in the world standing in the way?
One is being built in North Dakota right now. It should be in operation by the end of the year.
In other news, you and the person you responded to should take ten seconds to do a Google search before making fools of yourselves in public.
Tens of thousands of robots put together cars, furniture and other things every day. They don't have legs and most are bolted to a concrete floor and are little more than an arm.
The Roomba, Google's self-driving car, drones, spacecraft, the mars landers... we've made a shitload of robots that don't have legs. There's no shortage of non-legged robot research and production going on.
The CEO quoted in the article has a bug up his ass about one small area of R&D and is making idiotic excuses for why it should be eliminated. My hope is that gets in an accident and loses a leg. Maybe then he'll see the value in the R&D that's been done on robotic legs.