Robots can do, at best, what they are designed to do plus maybe a bit more. Humans can do vastly more than that, but require things like oxygen and food and heat. Until we have truly intelligent machines there will be a place for both.
he describes here that he was driving 80mph, would bump the cruise to 81, allow the car to accelerate, and then bump it up again, to 82, etc, until about 84 when the car just starts accelerating beyond the setting of the cruise control. He isn't talking about getting so far ahead of the car that it has to accelerate like crazy to catch up.
You mean potential explanation. You have no evidence that the suggested explanation is what is causing the problem Woz describes. Note that he only mentions one bump per mph, not a dozen all at once before the car can catch up.
The newer BMWs are starting to do away with the throttle plate completely. Instead, it varies how much the valves open in order to regulate the air input.
The body shell for the roadster is going out of production because ***Lotus*** is retooling to prepare for it's next generation models. Tesla just has to go along for the ride because they don't make the body shells.
Lotus is halting production of the roadster body shell because it shares production lines with it's other models, and those models are being redesigned. Tesla has no choice, they just have to wait for Lotus to complete the retooling.
Most families have multiple cars, and most people drive far less than 100 miles per day. That means that in general a particular family only needs one gasoline powered car (for road trips), and the others can be electric so long as they have about a 100 mile range.
Yep, every day in traffic, about 45min-1hr each way. I too love driving a stick, but currently drive an auto so that the wife can drive it if necessary. But after having the auto for less than a year I've already told my wife that the next car I buy is going to me a manual and she'll just have to learn if she wants to drive it.:-)
The constellation program has been a mess from the start. Particularly Ares 1. The only reason that the Ares rockets were chosen is that Ares was the NASA administrator's own pet project. There were other options suggested that were arguably superior to the Ares concept, but that didn't matter since the administrator had the power to sway the decision.
I am convinced that the decision to axe the constellation program, though a hard pill to swallow, will actually be a great thing for the future of space exploration. Stop what we are doing and start over with a better plan for the future. The Moon is neat, because everyone can look up at it, but it doesn't make much sense as a base for further exploration. The Lagrange points, or even geostationary orbit are much better places for that. In the end, we will have a better space program than we would have if we continued this push to go back to the Moon.
Everyone always says this, but I've driven a manual in traffic, and the only time that it is a pain is when traffic is moving at less than an idling pace. Moving at slower than an idle means constantly using the clutch, which gets tiring.
Yes, you can install block heaters on gasoline engine cars. It isn't all that necessary if you have a newer car and temps don't go below -20, but if you live farther north, then a block heater becomes almost mandatory if you have to park outside.
good luck with that... unless that GM-free food was grown many many miles away from any GM food, then it most likely is at least a little bit cross pollinated, such that at least some of the corn kernels, beans, rice, whatever are genetically modified, even if the field was planted with non-GM seeds.
Yeah. I wonder how many people started looking for cracks in places that they hadn't bothered to look at in years once they heard that a geologist was handing out repair money.
The problem is that in this case a threat is suggested by her later comment about looking forward to her "embalming therapy".
It would be like stating that you still desire to rob a bank, and then making a comment the next day that you are "really looking forward to going to the bank today". You didn't directly threaten the bank with robbery, but you suggested that it is a possibility.
How do you know that there was no motive? Perhaps there has been some past interaction between teacher and student that could cause the student to overreact. Means are easy, she was going to a class in a lab where embalming needles would be commonplace. All she would need to do is pick one up.
Granted, it probably isn't likely that any given outburst is going to be acted upon, but if you felt that you were personally the target of a "kill list" of a person whom you don't know very well, would you be able to just brush it off as being no big deal?
but her later statement, that she was looking forward to her embalming therapy, suggested that she was considering following through with her desire. Also, if she hadn't been so coy about who she desired to kill, ie "I still want to stab my ex-boyfriend in the neck... " rather than "a certain someone" I doubt this would have been such a big deal.
No kidding. I doubt the teacher was just cruising facebook looking at students comments. One of this persons own friends most likely tipped off the teacher. That a friend was concerned is more indicative of a problem. And who knows what interactions have occurred in the past between the teacher and student.
Hey, back when HAARP was big news, wasn't there some theory that ionospheric heating could be used as a shield if powerful enough?
Step one: Set up ionospheric heating based shield....Notice that a big spiral-y thing in the sky is an artifact of the shield.
Step two: Fire missile at the shield, leaving an odd blue trail.
Step three: Claim that it was just a failed missile test.
This is my last response, so feel free to have the last word if you like.
No, the difference is I actually enumerate the problems and discuss them
No, you enumerate the problems with an idea and then state that the person that suggested the idea is living in a fantasy land. That a problem exists with no obvious solution is not a proof that no solution exists, yet this is how you act. It is an unscientific viewpoint.
As I said - facts are neutral, neither positive or negative.
And I agree, but as I stated, your approach is negative in that all you do is point out problems (and then tell people they live in a fantasy.) Take for example the suggestion of scaling up something like the Pegasus. You point out that the Pegasus is already very heavy [Fact]. Someone else points out that aircraft exist that could support a load as heavy as a Delta IV [Fact]. You pointed out that the DeltaIV couldn't handle the stress of being held horizontally while fueled [Fact], but ignore that the parent likely wasn't suggesting that a Delta IV be launched that way, rather that a Delta IV is a more massive rocket, and thus scaling up a Pegasus is not directly limited by the weight an aircraft can carry [Fact]. You counter by stating that the high lifting capacity aircraft cited is not capable of carrying/dropping a large rocket [Fact], while ignoring that the poster likely was not implying that the specific aircraft mentioned carry the rocket, rather that an aircraft could be designed to do so. [Most likely true].
Notice the pattern yet? Every one of your comments brings up problems. The responses suggest solutions. A good engineer needs to be a devils advocate, but they must also thrive on finding solutions. Your goals appear to focus on the former as a way of putting the dreamers (the ones looking for solutions) in their place.
Before one can solve a problem, one must define the background and boundary conditions. Then you can move forward to a valid solution.
Yep, I doubt that anyone here would disagree with you.
What the space advocacy community does is leap from assumption to conclusion without validating their assumptions against reality
No, what they do is "leap" from facts:
- The Pegasus rocket is aircraft-launched.
- Rockets larger than Pegasus exist.
- Aircraft exist that can carry weights greater than Pegasus.
To theory:
- It should be possible to build a larger aircraft-launched rocket than Pegasus.
They aren't saying that the above facts are proof that their theory is correct. You are taking that upon yourself and then setting out to prove them wrong, apparently because you never got your Christmas pony and thus was forced into cold harsh reality, making you the curmudgeon you are.
Have fun continuing to only point out problems. The rest of us are making our money by doing that AND solving them.
You suggest that you call yourself a realist, but really you are a pessimist. An engineer that looks at problems the way that you do would not get far. Nobody here is saying that there are no problems to work through. There definitely are. The difference is that you act as though those problems are practically insurmountable. The others posting here believe that they can be solved.
Also, by negative, i meant that you do not contribute positively to the conversation. Instead of looking at the problems, and suggesting ways they might be solved, or an alternative method that doesn't result in that problem, you just dismiss the whole idea as being a ridiculous fantasy. That sort of comment is unhelpful, and doesn't move anything forward.
Slashdot Mirror
Robots can do, at best, what they are designed to do plus maybe a bit more. Humans can do vastly more than that, but require things like oxygen and food and heat. Until we have truly intelligent machines there will be a place for both.
he describes here that he was driving 80mph, would bump the cruise to 81, allow the car to accelerate, and then bump it up again, to 82, etc, until about 84 when the car just starts accelerating beyond the setting of the cruise control. He isn't talking about getting so far ahead of the car that it has to accelerate like crazy to catch up.
You mean potential explanation. You have no evidence that the suggested explanation is what is causing the problem Woz describes. Note that he only mentions one bump per mph, not a dozen all at once before the car can catch up.
The newer BMWs are starting to do away with the throttle plate completely. Instead, it varies how much the valves open in order to regulate the air input.
He did provide the steps. Right here
Are you suggesting that Woz doesn't own a video camera?
The body shell for the roadster is going out of production because ***Lotus*** is retooling to prepare for it's next generation models. Tesla just has to go along for the ride because they don't make the body shells.
Lotus is halting production of the roadster body shell because it shares production lines with it's other models, and those models are being redesigned. Tesla has no choice, they just have to wait for Lotus to complete the retooling.
Most families have multiple cars, and most people drive far less than 100 miles per day. That means that in general a particular family only needs one gasoline powered car (for road trips), and the others can be electric so long as they have about a 100 mile range.
The Jetta TDI is also hard to find (at least around here it is), thus pushing up its resale value.
Yep, every day in traffic, about 45min-1hr each way. I too love driving a stick, but currently drive an auto so that the wife can drive it if necessary. But after having the auto for less than a year I've already told my wife that the next car I buy is going to me a manual and she'll just have to learn if she wants to drive it. :-)
The constellation program has been a mess from the start. Particularly Ares 1. The only reason that the Ares rockets were chosen is that Ares was the NASA administrator's own pet project. There were other options suggested that were arguably superior to the Ares concept, but that didn't matter since the administrator had the power to sway the decision.
I am convinced that the decision to axe the constellation program, though a hard pill to swallow, will actually be a great thing for the future of space exploration. Stop what we are doing and start over with a better plan for the future. The Moon is neat, because everyone can look up at it, but it doesn't make much sense as a base for further exploration. The Lagrange points, or even geostationary orbit are much better places for that. In the end, we will have a better space program than we would have if we continued this push to go back to the Moon.
No, but it makes sense that the crust of a planet would be made up of solids that are less dense than the liquids below.
Everyone always says this, but I've driven a manual in traffic, and the only time that it is a pain is when traffic is moving at less than an idling pace. Moving at slower than an idle means constantly using the clutch, which gets tiring.
Yes, you can install block heaters on gasoline engine cars. It isn't all that necessary if you have a newer car and temps don't go below -20, but if you live farther north, then a block heater becomes almost mandatory if you have to park outside.
good luck with that... unless that GM-free food was grown many many miles away from any GM food, then it most likely is at least a little bit cross pollinated, such that at least some of the corn kernels, beans, rice, whatever are genetically modified, even if the field was planted with non-GM seeds.
Yeah. I wonder how many people started looking for cracks in places that they hadn't bothered to look at in years once they heard that a geologist was handing out repair money.
The problem is that in this case a threat is suggested by her later comment about looking forward to her "embalming therapy".
It would be like stating that you still desire to rob a bank, and then making a comment the next day that you are " really looking forward to going to the bank today". You didn't directly threaten the bank with robbery, but you suggested that it is a possibility.
How do you know that there was no motive? Perhaps there has been some past interaction between teacher and student that could cause the student to overreact. Means are easy, she was going to a class in a lab where embalming needles would be commonplace. All she would need to do is pick one up.
Granted, it probably isn't likely that any given outburst is going to be acted upon, but if you felt that you were personally the target of a "kill list" of a person whom you don't know very well, would you be able to just brush it off as being no big deal?
but her later statement, that she was looking forward to her embalming therapy, suggested that she was considering following through with her desire. Also, if she hadn't been so coy about who she desired to kill, ie "I still want to stab my ex-boyfriend in the neck... " rather than "a certain someone" I doubt this would have been such a big deal.
No kidding. I doubt the teacher was just cruising facebook looking at students comments. One of this persons own friends most likely tipped off the teacher. That a friend was concerned is more indicative of a problem. And who knows what interactions have occurred in the past between the teacher and student.
Hey, back when HAARP was big news, wasn't there some theory that ionospheric heating could be used as a shield if powerful enough?
...Notice that a big spiral-y thing in the sky is an artifact of the shield.
Step one: Set up ionospheric heating based shield.
Step two: Fire missile at the shield, leaving an odd blue trail.
Step three: Claim that it was just a failed missile test.
No, the difference is I actually enumerate the problems and discuss them
No, you enumerate the problems with an idea and then state that the person that suggested the idea is living in a fantasy land. That a problem exists with no obvious solution is not a proof that no solution exists, yet this is how you act. It is an unscientific viewpoint.
As I said - facts are neutral, neither positive or negative.
And I agree, but as I stated, your approach is negative in that all you do is point out problems (and then tell people they live in a fantasy.) Take for example the suggestion of scaling up something like the Pegasus. You point out that the Pegasus is already very heavy [Fact]. Someone else points out that aircraft exist that could support a load as heavy as a Delta IV [Fact]. You pointed out that the DeltaIV couldn't handle the stress of being held horizontally while fueled [Fact], but ignore that the parent likely wasn't suggesting that a Delta IV be launched that way, rather that a Delta IV is a more massive rocket, and thus scaling up a Pegasus is not directly limited by the weight an aircraft can carry [Fact]. You counter by stating that the high lifting capacity aircraft cited is not capable of carrying/dropping a large rocket [Fact], while ignoring that the poster likely was not implying that the specific aircraft mentioned carry the rocket, rather that an aircraft could be designed to do so. [Most likely true].
Notice the pattern yet? Every one of your comments brings up problems. The responses suggest solutions. A good engineer needs to be a devils advocate, but they must also thrive on finding solutions. Your goals appear to focus on the former as a way of putting the dreamers (the ones looking for solutions) in their place.
Before one can solve a problem, one must define the background and boundary conditions. Then you can move forward to a valid solution.
Yep, I doubt that anyone here would disagree with you.
What the space advocacy community does is leap from assumption to conclusion without validating their assumptions against reality
No, what they do is "leap" from facts:
- The Pegasus rocket is aircraft-launched.
- Rockets larger than Pegasus exist.
- Aircraft exist that can carry weights greater than Pegasus.
To theory:
- It should be possible to build a larger aircraft-launched rocket than Pegasus.
They aren't saying that the above facts are proof that their theory is correct. You are taking that upon yourself and then setting out to prove them wrong, apparently because you never got your Christmas pony and thus was forced into cold harsh reality, making you the curmudgeon you are.
Have fun continuing to only point out problems. The rest of us are making our money by doing that AND solving them.
You suggest that you call yourself a realist, but really you are a pessimist. An engineer that looks at problems the way that you do would not get far. Nobody here is saying that there are no problems to work through. There definitely are. The difference is that you act as though those problems are practically insurmountable. The others posting here believe that they can be solved.
Also, by negative, i meant that you do not contribute positively to the conversation. Instead of looking at the problems, and suggesting ways they might be solved, or an alternative method that doesn't result in that problem, you just dismiss the whole idea as being a ridiculous fantasy. That sort of comment is unhelpful, and doesn't move anything forward.
This is not tourism, yet.
As soon as they launch a paying passenger, it becomes tourism. The passengers don't have to stay in space for a week for it to be defined as tourism.