In theory, they last a lot longer. Well-built ones could even last more than the life of the owner.
However, LEDs are really sensitive to heat (even more than CFLs), and fixtures designed for incandescent bulbs often trap heat. A lot of manufacturers also build them fast and cheap, so expected lifetime can sometimes be measured in hours.
The Homeland Security Department has older equipment that can look for radioactivity, but it does not differentiate well between bomb fuel and innocuous materials that naturally emit radiation like cat litter, ceramic tiles and bananas — and sounds false alarms more often.
Other types of detectors work in nuclear power plants because nobody is trying to ship a boatload of coffee beans through the middle of a power plant.
And it reminds me of something -- when the Star Wars special editions were about to come out in '97, I was certain that Lucas was going to redo those computer effects, like from the Rebel briefing and on the Millennium Falcon's display during the TIE Fighter dogfight. Dead certain, because if anything dated the Star Wars movies (besides Hamill's hair) it was the computer effects.
Quite true. In fact, the original model effects of the whole battle still look pretty good, but other parts of the movie are quite dated, and not all of them were changed in the new versions. Another example is Yoda's death scene, where the muppet disappears and sheet slowly falls into the unoccupied space. It's an obvious piece of stop motion animation, and I'm surprised Lucas didn't redo it in CGI in some of the newer remakes of Star Wars (the ones where Han shoots at the same time). He already had a Yoda computer model by then from the prequels, which is half the work done right there.
I've never heard of getting "tired" from having inaudiable frequencies clipped off. There is something to be said for keeping the extreme low end range (you can feel those sounds rattle you around, even if you can't hear them), but even a decent home theater subwoofer probably won't reproduce it.
As for the mastering problems, that's quite true, and it's criminal. Search around YouTube for "Loudness War".
Old systems stick around because they work. City-wide traffic systems are very complicated affairs. Getting rid of a 40 year old system also means trashing 40 years of hard lessons.
There's already the 48V Power over Ethernet standard, if you want that. Which you don't, unless you just want to run a few switches off of it. At 48V, line losses hurt badly, even over short runs. Bad enough that it's better to have an AC-DC converter at whatever machine needs DC power. Which is exactly what we have now.
Things start looking better when you get up to around 500V DC. But as far as computers go, you'll still need to step that down to internal voltages of the system (there are a lot, just look at the pinout voltages of an ATX motherboard connector sometime). So you might still end up with a 240V plug beating it out. Which the US does not have at the moment for general use, unless you've specifically setup your house like that yourself.
According to wiki (and citing an offline magazine article), the director started reading the book, got board after a few chapters, and never picked it up again. But someone must have read the book on the writing staff, because at least a few bits are taken word-for-word.
However it's obvious that Verhoeven used this movie to express, let's say, a different point of view than Heinlein's.
Not just different, but complete opposite. No matter if you agree with Heinlein's views on the military (and there's plenty people have found to disagree with), don't name your movie "Starship Troopers" if you're going to go on a completely opposite theme.
The lack of Powered Armors is simply a reflection of an existing script being tweaked after the book was optioned. I don't think it matters so much in itself. Rather, like "Han shot first", the statement wraps together a lot of disgruntlement about the production in general.
Just going on its merits as a standalone movie, without the context of the book, I still think it's horrible. The death of every soldier was a cheesy event that quickly lost its impact. The SS-like uniforms of the intelligence branch make no sense. The movie doesn't give us any indication that society at large is particularly fascist (besides the news real-style propaganda, which was the only bit I enjoyed), so the uniforms don't really fit.
I realize that Verhoeven was going for a "War makes fascists of us all" theme (his words). I'm basically saying that he didn't develop this theme at all well, and is a complete turnabout from Heinlein's intent.
It is at least partially the estate's fault. They can always ask for at least a measure of creative control as part of the deal. No Ender's Game movie has been made, because Card won't give the rights to just anyone. Of course, in the case of an author's death, the inheritors usually aren't as good at this stuff as the original creator (Brian Herbert, this means you), so even if they didn't only care about cashing out, they will probably end up making a turd, anyway.
The other major problem with Hollywood is that they often have a vaguely related script kicking around somewhere, which they modify by changing some character names and adding a few lines and scenes from the book. IIRC, this is what happened to I, Robot, and is definitely what happened to Starship Troopers.
It's perfectly fine for the Internet to have walled-off sections like this, provided you can opt to go somewhere else if you want. If you don't like the way Apple's App Store has been going (and I don't much like it myself), don't buy an iPhone. There are alternatives both existing now and coming down the pipe soon.
The problem comes with ISPs want to create their own walled-off sections that their customers can't get out of. Since ISPs are often regional monopolies or duopolies, they have too much power to dictate terms to their users, which is why Net Neutrality activists focus on them.
It depends on the situation, but a lot of the laws out there do demonstrably make you less safe. Careful note: this does not include seat belt laws or helmet laws on motorcycles. Opponents of these often cite examples of these safety measures causing more harm, but statistically speaking, they vastly improve safety. Anecdotes are not data.
What is data is that child seats are crap. While seat belts clearly won't work for very young children, child seats make no difference for kids much over 2 years old. NHTSA's data was to compare child seats against using nothing at all. They are also only tested in head-on collisions, and fail hard in side collisions. They're also very hard to setup correctly, and any safety benefits they might have disappear when they're not.
The data also supports that going over the speed limit isn't as dangerous as many make it out to be. You should drive at whatever speed everyone else is driving, no matter what the speed limit is.
Most states have laws specifying that speed limits should be put at the 85% speed (the speed that 85% of the people are driving), but I think we can all list counterexamples of that in our respective areas, especially in small towns that like their speeding ticket revenue. Further, there are many circumstances where even very fast speed is safe. On an empty 3-lane highway with a car in good condition (especially tires), there's not much that can go wrong even at 150mph. Of course, doing the same at rush hour is very dangerous.
If you're driving through snow, you drive wherever the snow has been worn down by other drivers the most. If that happens to be straddling two lanes (assuming you can even see the line, which you probably can't), then so be it. Your tires will have their greatest traction there, so that's where you should be.
The most dangerous driver is the one that feels safe. Cell phones aren't so much a problem in themselves as the fact that the driver felt comfortable enough to use a cell phone. Safe drivers are paranoid. Sure, that guy might have his turn signal on, but is he really going to turn?
A common statement made by female SUV buyers is that it makes them feel safer. That's exactly what we don't want.
It's easy to say your rocket is safer when you've only launched it once, and not even with people on board.
What always got me about the Soviet shuttle was how closely the basic design followed the US version. There were quite a few designs floating around for a while in the US, and the design that was eventually used was a choosen as a result of US-specific politics. Particularly the need to make parts in every state to get congresscritters on board, and certain demands from the DoD so NASA could get the funds that congress refused to give (mainly the launch bay).
For the Soviets to work independently from a completely different political environment and come up with a even broadly similar design is almost preposterous. It's like they didn't even care to hide the fact that they were cheating off the smart kid's test.
The F150 is the #1 "car" because of fleet buyers, and because Toyota's equivalent too the Hylax here isn't quite as good as the European version (lot of the same parts, but different chassis). Incidentally, the Chevy Silverado would be the #1 "car" if a chunk of them weren't sold as GMCs. Plus, the new F150 released since that review is quite a bit better.
Fleet buyers are the same reason why Vauxhall exists despite being total pants.
Also, most of America is not the Deep South, and doesn't even like the Deep South very much.
If you're going to put even one person into space for any extended duration (i.e., something more than Mercury-style joyrides around the planet), you need to take a long a lot of oxygen, food, water, and other necessities, while also providing a reasonable level of safety. Plus, you need to get cargo to the ISS somehow, and the ISS is on a rather inconveniently inclined orbit.
Figure around 20 metric tons to LEO with a good sized crew. That's about what the shuttle does now, as does the Falcon 9 Heavy and Delta IV Heavy. Neither of the last two have flow with people on board (Falcon 9 hasn't flown yet at all, but should soon), which is why they have smaller variants.
And if you want to do anything beyond LEO, you're going to need something much bigger than any of those. Ares V may have a place, but given the other launchers out there, I'm less certain about Ares I. You already have a pick of options for launch capabilities in that range.
None that wouldn't have turned up in any other new rocket design.
Simulations show there are certain points during the liftoff process where the launch abort system (which is supposed to pull the Orion crew module clear of the rocket in case of disaster) cannot pull the module clear of the expected debris field.
The Launch Abort System didn't even exist on the Shuttle or Saturn rockets. It may not be 100% effective, but it doesn't need to be to at least provide a measure of additional safety.
There are much better arguments against the Ares I. Like why it needs to be done at all when it has similar capabilities to the Delta IV, Falcon 9, or one of the number of shuttle-derived concepts out there.
The study in TFA tested 48kbps AAC vs 160kbps OGG. I understand they're trying to test two different music services, which is fine, but the conclusions reached can only be applied to the relative merits of those services, not the bitrates or codecs.
More important than that, though, is that they also used a sample size of 16 people. That completely invalidates any conclusions they made.
There was this time, before Bush was even President, that I agreed with most criticism of the US from across the pond. But then it slowly got more inflammatory and silly, and now it sounds almost as bad to me as the teabaggers.
Atlantic City != Atlanta. Atlantic City is the New Jersey equivalent of Vegas. It was never as successful as Vegas, though. Where Vegas eventually shot off side industries in less shady businesses, Atlantic City just got more run down.
Anywhere, there are plenty of casinos and even blackjack tables in Atlantic City. Card counters aren't a huge threat in practice.
Difficult to do in America. You can be thrown out of private property for any reason the owner sees fit.
It's actually not all that common for casinos to throw out card counters, anyway. Most people who think they can do it will find that they don't have the discipline to stick to the strategy and end up losing. Most of the rest don't have the sort of full counting team that can make the system really effective, so they just bring in naive players who see a hot table--the casino still wins more than they lose. If the counter starts winning too much, then they can be thrown out. Counters caught that way can usually avoid getting stuck in a way that leads to the sort of backroom aggression seen in movies.
Not really. The count has to go at least over 10 before it becomes statistically meaningful. In a game where the deck is reshuffled every hand, it'll never get that high.
Poker has pot odds, but that's a little different from card counting.
[citation needed] I know courts in the US and Canada have held that card counting is a ligit strategy, but casinos can still kick out anyone they feel like.
Slashdot Mirror
In theory, they last a lot longer. Well-built ones could even last more than the life of the owner.
However, LEDs are really sensitive to heat (even more than CFLs), and fixtures designed for incandescent bulbs often trap heat. A lot of manufacturers also build them fast and cheap, so expected lifetime can sometimes be measured in hours.
Wow, didn't even read the summary:
The Homeland Security Department has older equipment that can look for radioactivity, but it does not differentiate well between bomb fuel and innocuous materials that naturally emit radiation like cat litter, ceramic tiles and bananas — and sounds false alarms more often.
Other types of detectors work in nuclear power plants because nobody is trying to ship a boatload of coffee beans through the middle of a power plant.
From the article:
And it reminds me of something -- when the Star Wars special editions were about to come out in '97, I was certain that Lucas was going to redo those computer effects, like from the Rebel briefing and on the Millennium Falcon's display during the TIE Fighter dogfight. Dead certain, because if anything dated the Star Wars movies (besides Hamill's hair) it was the computer effects.
Quite true. In fact, the original model effects of the whole battle still look pretty good, but other parts of the movie are quite dated, and not all of them were changed in the new versions. Another example is Yoda's death scene, where the muppet disappears and sheet slowly falls into the unoccupied space. It's an obvious piece of stop motion animation, and I'm surprised Lucas didn't redo it in CGI in some of the newer remakes of Star Wars (the ones where Han shoots at the same time). He already had a Yoda computer model by then from the prequels, which is half the work done right there.
I've never heard of getting "tired" from having inaudiable frequencies clipped off. There is something to be said for keeping the extreme low end range (you can feel those sounds rattle you around, even if you can't hear them), but even a decent home theater subwoofer probably won't reproduce it.
As for the mastering problems, that's quite true, and it's criminal. Search around YouTube for "Loudness War".
Hackers, nay. I was waiting for someone to reference Michael Caine being seen running flat out through side streets in a Mini.
Old systems stick around because they work. City-wide traffic systems are very complicated affairs. Getting rid of a 40 year old system also means trashing 40 years of hard lessons.
There's already the 48V Power over Ethernet standard, if you want that. Which you don't, unless you just want to run a few switches off of it. At 48V, line losses hurt badly, even over short runs. Bad enough that it's better to have an AC-DC converter at whatever machine needs DC power. Which is exactly what we have now.
Things start looking better when you get up to around 500V DC. But as far as computers go, you'll still need to step that down to internal voltages of the system (there are a lot, just look at the pinout voltages of an ATX motherboard connector sometime). So you might still end up with a 240V plug beating it out. Which the US does not have at the moment for general use, unless you've specifically setup your house like that yourself.
Or, you know, buy a competitor's product instead that already does what you want and save yourself the time.
According to wiki (and citing an offline magazine article), the director started reading the book, got board after a few chapters, and never picked it up again. But someone must have read the book on the writing staff, because at least a few bits are taken word-for-word.
However it's obvious that Verhoeven used this movie to express, let's say, a different point of view than Heinlein's.
Not just different, but complete opposite. No matter if you agree with Heinlein's views on the military (and there's plenty people have found to disagree with), don't name your movie "Starship Troopers" if you're going to go on a completely opposite theme.
The lack of Powered Armors is simply a reflection of an existing script being tweaked after the book was optioned. I don't think it matters so much in itself. Rather, like "Han shot first", the statement wraps together a lot of disgruntlement about the production in general.
Just going on its merits as a standalone movie, without the context of the book, I still think it's horrible. The death of every soldier was a cheesy event that quickly lost its impact. The SS-like uniforms of the intelligence branch make no sense. The movie doesn't give us any indication that society at large is particularly fascist (besides the news real-style propaganda, which was the only bit I enjoyed), so the uniforms don't really fit.
I realize that Verhoeven was going for a "War makes fascists of us all" theme (his words). I'm basically saying that he didn't develop this theme at all well, and is a complete turnabout from Heinlein's intent.
Why couldn't slamming things down as "elitism" have died with the McCain campaign?
It is at least partially the estate's fault. They can always ask for at least a measure of creative control as part of the deal. No Ender's Game movie has been made, because Card won't give the rights to just anyone. Of course, in the case of an author's death, the inheritors usually aren't as good at this stuff as the original creator (Brian Herbert, this means you), so even if they didn't only care about cashing out, they will probably end up making a turd, anyway.
The other major problem with Hollywood is that they often have a vaguely related script kicking around somewhere, which they modify by changing some character names and adding a few lines and scenes from the book. IIRC, this is what happened to I, Robot, and is definitely what happened to Starship Troopers.
There's this magical thing called "Java". Perhaps you've heard of it?
Haven't we been through this before? Nobody has taken the cross platform capabilities of Java seriously since "All Your Base" jokes went out of style.
Is the AppStore a neutral network? Should it be?
No, and no.
It's perfectly fine for the Internet to have walled-off sections like this, provided you can opt to go somewhere else if you want. If you don't like the way Apple's App Store has been going (and I don't much like it myself), don't buy an iPhone. There are alternatives both existing now and coming down the pipe soon.
The problem comes with ISPs want to create their own walled-off sections that their customers can't get out of. Since ISPs are often regional monopolies or duopolies, they have too much power to dictate terms to their users, which is why Net Neutrality activists focus on them.
It depends on the situation, but a lot of the laws out there do demonstrably make you less safe. Careful note: this does not include seat belt laws or helmet laws on motorcycles. Opponents of these often cite examples of these safety measures causing more harm, but statistically speaking, they vastly improve safety. Anecdotes are not data.
What is data is that child seats are crap. While seat belts clearly won't work for very young children, child seats make no difference for kids much over 2 years old. NHTSA's data was to compare child seats against using nothing at all . They are also only tested in head-on collisions, and fail hard in side collisions. They're also very hard to setup correctly, and any safety benefits they might have disappear when they're not.
The data also supports that going over the speed limit isn't as dangerous as many make it out to be. You should drive at whatever speed everyone else is driving, no matter what the speed limit is.
Most states have laws specifying that speed limits should be put at the 85% speed (the speed that 85% of the people are driving), but I think we can all list counterexamples of that in our respective areas, especially in small towns that like their speeding ticket revenue. Further, there are many circumstances where even very fast speed is safe. On an empty 3-lane highway with a car in good condition (especially tires), there's not much that can go wrong even at 150mph. Of course, doing the same at rush hour is very dangerous.
If you're driving through snow, you drive wherever the snow has been worn down by other drivers the most. If that happens to be straddling two lanes (assuming you can even see the line, which you probably can't), then so be it. Your tires will have their greatest traction there, so that's where you should be.
The most dangerous driver is the one that feels safe. Cell phones aren't so much a problem in themselves as the fact that the driver felt comfortable enough to use a cell phone. Safe drivers are paranoid. Sure, that guy might have his turn signal on, but is he really going to turn?
A common statement made by female SUV buyers is that it makes them feel safer. That's exactly what we don't want.
It's easy to say your rocket is safer when you've only launched it once, and not even with people on board.
What always got me about the Soviet shuttle was how closely the basic design followed the US version. There were quite a few designs floating around for a while in the US, and the design that was eventually used was a choosen as a result of US-specific politics. Particularly the need to make parts in every state to get congresscritters on board, and certain demands from the DoD so NASA could get the funds that congress refused to give (mainly the launch bay).
For the Soviets to work independently from a completely different political environment and come up with a even broadly similar design is almost preposterous. It's like they didn't even care to hide the fact that they were cheating off the smart kid's test.
The F150 is the #1 "car" because of fleet buyers, and because Toyota's equivalent too the Hylax here isn't quite as good as the European version (lot of the same parts, but different chassis). Incidentally, the Chevy Silverado would be the #1 "car" if a chunk of them weren't sold as GMCs. Plus, the new F150 released since that review is quite a bit better.
Fleet buyers are the same reason why Vauxhall exists despite being total pants.
Also, most of America is not the Deep South, and doesn't even like the Deep South very much.
If you're going to put even one person into space for any extended duration (i.e., something more than Mercury-style joyrides around the planet), you need to take a long a lot of oxygen, food, water, and other necessities, while also providing a reasonable level of safety. Plus, you need to get cargo to the ISS somehow, and the ISS is on a rather inconveniently inclined orbit.
Figure around 20 metric tons to LEO with a good sized crew. That's about what the shuttle does now, as does the Falcon 9 Heavy and Delta IV Heavy. Neither of the last two have flow with people on board (Falcon 9 hasn't flown yet at all, but should soon), which is why they have smaller variants.
And if you want to do anything beyond LEO, you're going to need something much bigger than any of those. Ares V may have a place, but given the other launchers out there, I'm less certain about Ares I. You already have a pick of options for launch capabilities in that range.
The ARES I has serious safety issues.
None that wouldn't have turned up in any other new rocket design.
Simulations show there are certain points during the liftoff process where the launch abort system (which is supposed to pull the Orion crew module clear of the rocket in case of disaster) cannot pull the module clear of the expected debris field.
The Launch Abort System didn't even exist on the Shuttle or Saturn rockets. It may not be 100% effective, but it doesn't need to be to at least provide a measure of additional safety.
There are much better arguments against the Ares I. Like why it needs to be done at all when it has similar capabilities to the Delta IV, Falcon 9, or one of the number of shuttle-derived concepts out there.
The study in TFA tested 48kbps AAC vs 160kbps OGG. I understand they're trying to test two different music services, which is fine, but the conclusions reached can only be applied to the relative merits of those services, not the bitrates or codecs.
More important than that, though, is that they also used a sample size of 16 people. That completely invalidates any conclusions they made.
There was this time, before Bush was even President, that I agreed with most criticism of the US from across the pond. But then it slowly got more inflammatory and silly, and now it sounds almost as bad to me as the teabaggers.
I could personally say that with a straight face, but only because Cadillac hasn't been the Cadillac of cars in decades.
Atlantic City != Atlanta. Atlantic City is the New Jersey equivalent of Vegas. It was never as successful as Vegas, though. Where Vegas eventually shot off side industries in less shady businesses, Atlantic City just got more run down.
Anywhere, there are plenty of casinos and even blackjack tables in Atlantic City. Card counters aren't a huge threat in practice.
Difficult to do in America. You can be thrown out of private property for any reason the owner sees fit.
It's actually not all that common for casinos to throw out card counters, anyway. Most people who think they can do it will find that they don't have the discipline to stick to the strategy and end up losing. Most of the rest don't have the sort of full counting team that can make the system really effective, so they just bring in naive players who see a hot table--the casino still wins more than they lose. If the counter starts winning too much, then they can be thrown out. Counters caught that way can usually avoid getting stuck in a way that leads to the sort of backroom aggression seen in movies.
Not really. The count has to go at least over 10 before it becomes statistically meaningful. In a game where the deck is reshuffled every hand, it'll never get that high.
Poker has pot odds, but that's a little different from card counting.
[citation needed] I know courts in the US and Canada have held that card counting is a ligit strategy, but casinos can still kick out anyone they feel like.