We've flown probes through comet dust tails. We've captured particles of the dust and ice in comet tails in aerogel and returned them to Earth. We know what they are made of.
not the holding of the device, as anybody who'd thought this through even for a second was saying back when "hands-free" was being touted as a safety feature.
It should also be obvious, by the same reasoning, that turn-by-turn voice-guidance on GPS units would increase accident rates. (And indeed they do.)
At the very least, every unit should have an option to turn off the voice guidance system (separately from muting the whole system), but none of them ever do. Some of them don't even have any kind of mute.
10 hour days, 100 minute hours and 100 second minutes for a total of 100,000 seconds in a day.
[sigh] That's not what metric means. You're still using an imperial-type system, with hours, minutes and seconds as separately defined units. Using ten instead of twelve or sixty doesn't make it "metric".
Clearly the unit you are basing your system around is the day. So logically, that would be your metric, in place of the second. Thus the divisions would be decimal fractions of a Standard Day. Using SI units (which you are confusing "metric" with), you'd use millidays, microdays, etc, for convenience to describe parts of a day. The time is simply then the decimal part of the date. Since it is roughly 670mD local time, the full time/date is 2014.3.28.670. But if you're going to change the entire system, eliminating time-zones seems obvious, so it would be 235mD GMT. And combined with a 13 month calendar, but not the one in TFA, it is 2014.4.2.235 Universal Metric Time. And ignoring months entirely, it is 87.235 Days, in the current year.
Don't forget he also wanted to licence 3d printers during the 3d-printed gun hysteria.
"While I am as impressed as anyone with 3-D printing technology and I believe it has amazing possibilities, we must ensure that it is not used for the wrong purpose with potentially deadly consequences," said Yee. "I plan to introduce legislation that will ensure public safety and stop the manufacturing of guns that are invisible to metal detectors and that can be easily made without a background check.".
Musk says Q1, 2015. In reality, we'll probably see the first launch six months later.
But by 2018 (four years), it'll have several flights under its belt, and will be available for the proposed mission at just $125-175m per 50+ tonne launch.
Tesla gets its acceleration from briefly over-volting the motor. That's why it's only available during acceleration. That's also why the top speed is much lower than an equivalent-acceleration ICE sedan. Whereas constant power (not just acceleration up to speed) is what is required to drag those ridiculous armoured limos around.
You're competing with a 7lt diesel light-truck engine.
if the Prez flew commercial it wouldn't be such a big deal.
Nixon did that. [Turned out they were flying AF-1 along behind him, just in case he needed a fast return trip.]
Might as well fly on a military transport. Saves buying dedicated aircraft. And the President gets nice photo-ops in a military-style flight-suit, walking down the loading ramp of a C-130.
Which might solve the problem of the next Presidential limo. Just use a few off-the-shelf APCs. Problem solved.
That's certainly my situation. Fortunately there were no irreversible upgrades, unlike the AC. But I'm pretty much forced to cancel all attempted updates because the phone won't handle them. (Mainly memory. I don't have enough on-phone memory to run just the raw OS (and vendor shit) once I accept upgrades. I freed up over a third of my memory by rolling back upgrades of the core Google apps.) Thankfully they clearly separate security upgrades from brand-upgrades. Oh wait, no, they don't.
[The phone's still under warranty, so I've waiting before I try Cyanogen. By then, perhaps FFOS will be an option.]
[The point of the phrase is that if you are too overprotective or risk adverse, you won't achieve anything. Otherwise, what the hell is the aphorism actually for?]
My response was intentionally arrogant-flippant as a joke. But in all seriousness, we coddle the young too much. I understand in industrial practice it makes sense, we should be seeing gains in working conditions over time. It's the 21st Century, we shouldn't have to break people to run an economy. But the young evolved to have fast reflexes, fast healing, amazing learning by exposure, and a natural tendency to take risks and experiment. Shutting them behind walls of cotton wool does not allow them to utilise their incredible gifts in order to learn about their environment before those gifts start to dry up, plus it also prevents our society from expanding. (Coz I sure as hell am not climbing over the next hill. I'm tired and my stories are on.)
There's a saying from... well I heard it somewhere in northern Europe... that "a childhood without a broken leg is a wasted life."
Having weaker safety in university labs, getting stronger as you move through industry, reflects how we naturally learn and age. It's how society should work.
the FAA regulates the National Airspace System in which this RC aircraft was flying.
The FAA only gets to regulate objects within the "airspace" within very narrow limits. It has deliberately tried to blur those limits to include RC devices as "aircraft". This judge slapped them down for overreach.
Do I need a NOTAM to throw a frisbee, or fly a kite? And what magically happens to turn a 5 foot wide foam glider from an unregulated toy into a regulated "aircraft" because it was used commercially. Did it suddenly become more dangerous because the footage was going to be sold commercially, and if so... how did it know?
It doesn't matter what you're flying,
Judge seems to disagree.
The FAA doesn't regulate cars, RC or otherwise so the RC car example is not relevant.
Well done you for deliberately missing the point. That's always so productive.
And if you don't have sloppy health and safety standards in your lab, how can you accidentally discover new phenomena.
If Fleming maintained correct use of an autoclave... If Spencer hadn't walked in front of that unshielded magnetron... If Goodyear had a proper hood over his stove... If the Coca-Cola guy had properly labelled his supplies... If Becquerel properly stored his equipment and samples... If Hoffman (LSD) and Schlatter (Aspartame) had worn gloves or just hadn't licked their fingers after working with chemicals...
[If I hadn't regurgitated the first result of typing "accidental di"]
Assuming the "one person had to take evasive measures" wasn't an aircraft, how is it an FAA matter? If he'd been using a large RC car in a public park to harass people, would it be dangerous driving because it's less than 50 feet from a road?
Most regions already have "creating a public nuisance" and "endangering the public" type laws that could already cover this. Even "Conducting a business activity in a public space without a permit". This likely could have been taken care of at the city/county level, turning it into a Federal case is unnecessary. Overcharging and regulatory creep should never be condoned. Not just the inherent dangers to us when TPTB use a law beyond its original intent; but also because, as in this example, if it annoys the judge, TPTB may end up with a legal precedent that might be manipulated in a case where the law is intended to apply.
The proposal is to automate as much of the operations as possible. So I assumed that. (Human astronauts spending that long in space would require breakthroughs in radiation shielding (or some kind of medical breakthrough.))
Teleoperation is easier in theory, but even designing a teleoperated repair 'bot of the complexity required is be beyond current robotic state-of-the-art. To get the dexterity/flexibility you need, the thing would still require highly advanced controls and sensors. (In the same way you've got nerve cells in your body, not just your brain.) I used "AI" as a short-hand for all that.
Radiation in space would quickly kill anything advanced enough to operate such a robot (even if the "higher functions" were remotely guided by humans on Earth). Space-hardened electronics is dumber than what is used for high end robotics, and the requirements for ribbon repair (amongst other systems) are beyond the capability of any robotic system in the lab today, so sufficiently adaptable and space hardened 'bots are multiple generations away. Technology might advance enough to allow such systems one day, perhaps even fully autonomous systems, but we don't know that it will.
It's the same with ISRU production for the towers. It might be possible, but it's currently well beyond the capability of any system on Earth. It's not just a matter of adapting technology to a more difficult environment of space, there's nothing there to adapt. I sincerely hope it becomes possible one day, but today it isn't, and we don't know that it ever will be, or what it'll look like when it arrives.
747s exist. We know they are possible. But the Wright Bros could not build a 747, no matter how much money you gave them. But most importantly, and something I should have said three or four posts ago but honestly I only just thought of it, the Wright Brothers couldn't even understand how to design the very concept of a 747, so they likely would have gone off on in the wrong direction, chasing something that actually isn't possible, even with 2014 technology.
Many of the technologies required for the lunar elevator are things we don't even know if they are possible. They seem likely; mere extensions of things we're already working on. But... well, you only need to read any old futurism article about what technology would be like today.
That's why people focus on things like the ribbon material. That's just physics. Materials either are, or aren't, strong enough. Possible, or impossible.
Slashdot Mirror
Will they be selling consumer versions as pets?
Mohammed K. (2001). On The Effects Of Passenger Aircraft On Steel Frame Buildings. Proceedings on International Terrorism: 223-225. New York.
It's the "often" that he's objecting to, not the "compared".
Ie, "How can the outcomes of the new method (which we've used once) "often" be better than the old method?"
What, no analogue 1/4" TRS audio jacks? Weak.
We've flown probes through comet dust tails. We've captured particles of the dust and ice in comet tails in aerogel and returned them to Earth. We know what they are made of.
not the holding of the device, as anybody who'd thought this through even for a second was saying back when "hands-free" was being touted as a safety feature.
It should also be obvious, by the same reasoning, that turn-by-turn voice-guidance on GPS units would increase accident rates. (And indeed they do.)
At the very least, every unit should have an option to turn off the voice guidance system (separately from muting the whole system), but none of them ever do. Some of them don't even have any kind of mute.
13 month calendars go back to the 18th century at least. So pre-date LSD.
That's decimal, not metric.
right after trying to trick the genie into giving me more wishes.
Idiot. Wishing for more wishes is how you become a trapped genie, until the next idiot makes the same mistake and thus takes your place.
We have had these units as a common nearly world-wide standard for a long, long time.
And the key is that they are standard.
There isn't surveyors time, ship time, milliners time, etc. Which was the reason linear and volume units were so obnoxious.
10 hour days, 100 minute hours and 100 second minutes for a total of 100,000 seconds in a day.
[sigh] That's not what metric means. You're still using an imperial-type system, with hours, minutes and seconds as separately defined units. Using ten instead of twelve or sixty doesn't make it "metric".
Clearly the unit you are basing your system around is the day. So logically, that would be your metric, in place of the second. Thus the divisions would be decimal fractions of a Standard Day. Using SI units (which you are confusing "metric" with), you'd use millidays, microdays, etc, for convenience to describe parts of a day. The time is simply then the decimal part of the date. Since it is roughly 670mD local time, the full time/date is 2014.3.28.670. But if you're going to change the entire system, eliminating time-zones seems obvious, so it would be 235mD GMT. And combined with a 13 month calendar, but not the one in TFA, it is 2014.4.2.235 Universal Metric Time. And ignoring months entirely, it is 87.235 Days, in the current year.
Actually it's a bit later, but my watch is slow.
Frankly, I think this is the best alternate calendar design I've seen in a long while.
You haven't seen 13 month calendars before?
But if you can give me the exact orbital parameters, that'd be great.
Second link in the summary.
Don't forget he also wanted to licence 3d printers during the 3d-printed gun hysteria.
"While I am as impressed as anyone with 3-D printing technology and I believe it has amazing possibilities, we must ensure that it is not used for the wrong purpose with potentially deadly consequences," said Yee. "I plan to introduce legislation that will ensure public safety and stop the manufacturing of guns that are invisible to metal detectors and that can be easily made without a background check.".
Musk says Q1, 2015. In reality, we'll probably see the first launch six months later.
But by 2018 (four years), it'll have several flights under its belt, and will be available for the proposed mission at just $125-175m per 50+ tonne launch.
Tesla gets its acceleration from briefly over-volting the motor. That's why it's only available during acceleration. That's also why the top speed is much lower than an equivalent-acceleration ICE sedan. Whereas constant power (not just acceleration up to speed) is what is required to drag those ridiculous armoured limos around.
You're competing with a 7lt diesel light-truck engine.
Nixon did that. [Turned out they were flying AF-1 along behind him, just in case he needed a fast return trip.]
Might as well fly on a military transport. Saves buying dedicated aircraft. And the President gets nice photo-ops in a military-style flight-suit, walking down the loading ramp of a C-130.
Which might solve the problem of the next Presidential limo. Just use a few off-the-shelf APCs. Problem solved.
That's certainly my situation. Fortunately there were no irreversible upgrades, unlike the AC. But I'm pretty much forced to cancel all attempted updates because the phone won't handle them. (Mainly memory. I don't have enough on-phone memory to run just the raw OS (and vendor shit) once I accept upgrades. I freed up over a third of my memory by rolling back upgrades of the core Google apps.) Thankfully they clearly separate security upgrades from brand-upgrades. Oh wait, no, they don't.
[The phone's still under warranty, so I've waiting before I try Cyanogen. By then, perhaps FFOS will be an option.]
[The point of the phrase is that if you are too overprotective or risk adverse, you won't achieve anything. Otherwise, what the hell is the aphorism actually for?]
My response was intentionally arrogant-flippant as a joke. But in all seriousness, we coddle the young too much. I understand in industrial practice it makes sense, we should be seeing gains in working conditions over time. It's the 21st Century, we shouldn't have to break people to run an economy. But the young evolved to have fast reflexes, fast healing, amazing learning by exposure, and a natural tendency to take risks and experiment. Shutting them behind walls of cotton wool does not allow them to utilise their incredible gifts in order to learn about their environment before those gifts start to dry up, plus it also prevents our society from expanding. (Coz I sure as hell am not climbing over the next hill. I'm tired and my stories are on.)
There's a saying from... well I heard it somewhere in northern Europe... that "a childhood without a broken leg is a wasted life."
Having weaker safety in university labs, getting stronger as you move through industry, reflects how we naturally learn and age. It's how society should work.
Eggs. Omelets.
Serendipity will still happen in labs if you wear safety glasses.
Sure it might, but am I willing to that risk with my students? No.
the FAA regulates the National Airspace System in which this RC aircraft was flying.
The FAA only gets to regulate objects within the "airspace" within very narrow limits. It has deliberately tried to blur those limits to include RC devices as "aircraft". This judge slapped them down for overreach.
Do I need a NOTAM to throw a frisbee, or fly a kite? And what magically happens to turn a 5 foot wide foam glider from an unregulated toy into a regulated "aircraft" because it was used commercially. Did it suddenly become more dangerous because the footage was going to be sold commercially, and if so... how did it know?
It doesn't matter what you're flying,
Judge seems to disagree.
The FAA doesn't regulate cars, RC or otherwise so the RC car example is not relevant.
Well done you for deliberately missing the point. That's always so productive.
And if you don't have sloppy health and safety standards in your lab, how can you accidentally discover new phenomena.
If Fleming maintained correct use of an autoclave... If Spencer hadn't walked in front of that unshielded magnetron... If Goodyear had a proper hood over his stove... If the Coca-Cola guy had properly labelled his supplies... If Becquerel properly stored his equipment and samples... If Hoffman (LSD) and Schlatter (Aspartame) had worn gloves or just hadn't licked their fingers after working with chemicals...
[If I hadn't regurgitated the first result of typing "accidental di"]
Assuming the "one person had to take evasive measures" wasn't an aircraft, how is it an FAA matter? If he'd been using a large RC car in a public park to harass people, would it be dangerous driving because it's less than 50 feet from a road?
Most regions already have "creating a public nuisance" and "endangering the public" type laws that could already cover this. Even "Conducting a business activity in a public space without a permit". This likely could have been taken care of at the city/county level, turning it into a Federal case is unnecessary. Overcharging and regulatory creep should never be condoned. Not just the inherent dangers to us when TPTB use a law beyond its original intent; but also because, as in this example, if it annoys the judge, TPTB may end up with a legal precedent that might be manipulated in a case where the law is intended to apply.
The proposal is to automate as much of the operations as possible. So I assumed that. (Human astronauts spending that long in space would require breakthroughs in radiation shielding (or some kind of medical breakthrough.))
Teleoperation is easier in theory, but even designing a teleoperated repair 'bot of the complexity required is be beyond current robotic state-of-the-art. To get the dexterity/flexibility you need, the thing would still require highly advanced controls and sensors. (In the same way you've got nerve cells in your body, not just your brain.) I used "AI" as a short-hand for all that.
Radiation in space would quickly kill anything advanced enough to operate such a robot (even if the "higher functions" were remotely guided by humans on Earth). Space-hardened electronics is dumber than what is used for high end robotics, and the requirements for ribbon repair (amongst other systems) are beyond the capability of any robotic system in the lab today, so sufficiently adaptable and space hardened 'bots are multiple generations away. Technology might advance enough to allow such systems one day, perhaps even fully autonomous systems, but we don't know that it will.
It's the same with ISRU production for the towers. It might be possible, but it's currently well beyond the capability of any system on Earth. It's not just a matter of adapting technology to a more difficult environment of space, there's nothing there to adapt. I sincerely hope it becomes possible one day, but today it isn't, and we don't know that it ever will be, or what it'll look like when it arrives.
747s exist. We know they are possible. But the Wright Bros could not build a 747, no matter how much money you gave them. But most importantly, and something I should have said three or four posts ago but honestly I only just thought of it, the Wright Brothers couldn't even understand how to design the very concept of a 747, so they likely would have gone off on in the wrong direction, chasing something that actually isn't possible, even with 2014 technology.
Many of the technologies required for the lunar elevator are things we don't even know if they are possible. They seem likely; mere extensions of things we're already working on. But... well, you only need to read any old futurism article about what technology would be like today.
That's why people focus on things like the ribbon material. That's just physics. Materials either are, or aren't, strong enough. Possible, or impossible.