Let's get this over with:
As any discussion grows longer, the probability of anything being mentioned or pointed out approaches 1. The exception being Soviet Russia, where 1 approaches you.
I may be wrong about this one, but I'm also under the impression that you're not supposed to place a hyphen after "not", but rather after "non". If he wrote "non-Nazi" it would be permisable.
I imagine that if you ask fast enough, you could make a case for naming a search engine "Bing!"...
You could certainly name just about anything "Yahoo", or maybe "Yahoo?". I mean it's not like they could claim it's in the same industry as they're in. Yahoo's like Schrodinger's cat -- simultaneously in every industry and in no industry.
Another element that plays a role is Google's "ass-ness". Does anyone think for a second that they didn't bother *Googling* the damn name prior to release? There is and *was* a Wikipedia entry, it'd probably be one of the first results. They simply switched on the "Apple Mode" -- grab the name, and let's see who has the balls to sue.
The displacement will be very small - micrometers. Maybe it could be enough. But beware of resonances. Still this can be done, if only the method itself proves to be effective.
Remember that this is in combination with the panel being face-down. Just vibrating it, when it's face-up, will only move the dust around.
you can't replicate these experiments on earth, not easily at least -- most earth dust is organic
For a low, low sum of $1,000,000 I volunteer to build a test chamber that is large enough to contain the rover, and it will allow scientists to feed any materials into it as a dust source, even those that they didn't scoop up at the nearest garden:-) In fact, NASA has about a ton of genuine lunar dust, perhaps that's the best use for it.
I only mentioned that because you oversimplified your example -- "Try with your window, for example". That isn't a good test, you'd need to try it out under the right conditions.
Another idea -- move a statically charged rod over the surface
An AC replied to my initial comment and proposed static repulsor, and I replied with a link that says that something like that is being worked on. It's better to have no moving parts. Besides, if the electrostatic force was strong enough to dislodge dust some distance from the panel, it probably would be way too strong when the dust is in physical contact with the rod, making it hard to shake it off.
This surprises me, to be honest. I understand that it's not as simple of a problem as people think, but I think it's solvable. If there's an atmosphere, you could use that to artificially generate the naturally-occurring dust devils you find on mars (yes, it'd require additional motors and vents, but almost any solution would require additional mass/weight). If there isn't an atmosphere, then surely choosing the right coating on the solar panels, and then the right material for a type of wiper, would be possible. The panels could be coated with the helicopter-blade film used to protect touch panels, for example, and the wiper could have small strands made of flexible silicone. Maybe add piezoelectric vibration while this process takes place. It wouldn't last forever, but then what does?
Well I tried getting into the Thundercats vs. Gundam movie, but the sheer amount of cliches and two-dimensionality of Running with Pocahontas wore me out. I didn't have your "intellectual firepower" that was apparently necessary to not fall asleep, and laugh, at the same time.
You'd need quite a bit of dust to cover an entire surface to the point where it's ineffective, and you don't need to get the surface 100% clean -- even 50% efficiency would probably suffice (no atmosphere on the moon -- solar panels will be more effective than on either earth or mars). Use a piezoelectric surface on the panel (or a mesh of one, or a bunch of spots). Also, you can't replicate these experiments on earth, not easily at least -- most earth dust is organic, which is much finer, and often "stranded". Mineral dust is made up of larger particles (usually), and it almost never appears as a "string" shape, just chunks.
Another idea -- move a statically charged rod over the surface instead of a wiper. It doesn't need to touch the surface, just get close enough to make particles cling. Make the surface area of the rod larger (add fins). Once over the surface, vibrate the rod. Repeat as needed.
Most of the moon's surface is hard, and the gravity is low. You'd design for that terrain (I'm assuming tires?). As for the smoothness of the topology, you can pick a site with far better precision on the moon, so we wouldn't choose to land on a cliff. Another advantage, in this case, is the lack of an atmosphere -- wind won't get sand on the solar panels in the first place, and won't blow the rover on its side.
Specifically about the panels -- program it to flip them over and shake vigorously once a week (and also wash behind its ears...).
What if you could transfer your consciousness to the robots? Would that count? Just getting the genome off the planet is simple -- just send some human DNA up in a satellite. We need to better-define our goals.
Depends. Suppose you saw another robot before he noticed you. You could take several shots at him before knowing whether the first shot hit, just to be on the safe side. It's a matter of knowing how to handle lag.
I actually didn't notice that.. I thought that the females had 4 digits, since I only noticed that when Jake and Zoe Saldana were on screen together. I thought that was sexist, but if it's the case that the number of digits was due to the Avatar design -- then it's a flawed design. They wanted to blend in, didn't they? This made them instantly recognizable to the natives. What if the natives didn't have any digits on their feet, for example? Would the avatars still have toes?
Human engineers in sci-fi movies make such obvious mistakes.
I tend to hold Slashdot to a higher standard too, which is why I'm here rather than Digg/Reddit (where anything that draws clicks is welcome, and any discussion is, well, you know...). However, occasionally Slashdot will post bait stories (not necessarily "flaimbait", just "plain bait"), especially when it comes to anything regarding MS/Apple/YRO where the main purpose is to let people vent. In such cases, I don't really see it as a mistake, or "wrong", partly because anyone with high karma doesn't see ads, so at most it's "pandering", rather than something used to boost page views. In the case of this particular story, I imagine that the editor thought it would make a good discussion piece in its field, and the source (and even validity) was irrelevant because just the theory/concept will produce an interesting discussion (as users discuss the viability of such an undertaking).
I'd blame Gizmodo, if I visited the site directly, but I don't -- I let other filters point me there if they think there's anything interested posted. As for Slashdot, probably less so in this particular case. If they ignored the comment that you sent, then it changes the "judgment" somewhat, but it may still be arguable that the story was posted just for general interest, and the source/validity wasn't a factor. As you said, it's also (or primarily) up to individual editors, though I'd hope that they at least talk to one another and try to get minimal feedback prior to posting (I've no idea what their actual process is, of course).
Call me when they have any such model that's even remotely usable, on earth. This is fiction, almost as much as the 3m-tall smurfs with the indeterminate amount of digits on each hand.
Hey Jesus Diaz, were you sick the day of journalism school when they taught chasing up sources? Maybe if you called JSC and heard the exasperated public relations officer explain, again, that no there is no Project M but thanks for your call, you could save yourself some embarrassment.
Gizmodo: "jour-nal-ism?..."
It's also possible to blame/. for picking the story. But looking for journalism on Gizmodo or/. is unrealistic. I'm not mocking here, I'm regulating expectations -- expecting even the "established" blogs to look for multiple sources or contact a company for feedback prior to posting a story is setting the bar too high. It's up to the readers to be more discerning and critical, and most aren't.
Still no cron, still no real headless operation, still the same old windows crap.
You know, it's somewhat telling that those are the only two points that a linux advocate (I assume) could come up with. I used to split my computers into Win/Linux, but I find that the expense in time administering the Linux ones is demanding. I still "believe in" Free Software, and the distros have all made strides, but Windows 7 has made such a significant leap that it's difficult to compete with. With Vista, you needed a quantum computer to even boot the machine, so the division was simple: Vista on the heavier machines, and Linux on the lighter ones. Now though, considering that Win7 was pushed out with new computers at a comparatively low price, it's much harder to find a reason to use Linux even on weaker machines (I realize that the price drop came mainly from hardware price drops, but overall you pay a lot less for a full-features laptop, and Windows 7 will run just fine on it, unlike the sluggish Vista).
I still use OSS for anything that I possibly can, which is almost everything apart from CAD/CAM and some 2D graphics software (but then, I don't need to edit audio/video, otherwise there'd be that too). However, when it comes to the OS, making the decision that "Linux will better suit this machine" almost never happens apart from really old computers (which wasn't true during Vista).
As Tacvek has addressed in the post above, headless operation isn't really what Win7 is supposed to do, and cron can be handled either with the Scheduler, or an array of free software you can easily find. From a practical standpoint, MS has done very well with Windows 7.
No it can't. The pixels have no information about the direction from which each photon arrived. Without a lense each of your pixels will receive photons from every point in the scene with no way to sort them out.
...and 3 lines later in the post I said: "the angle of light would still be relevant, but this would be done on an individual sensor basis -- rather than one lens orchestrating the entire image".
A bit like fly's eye -- every sensor would only report on a single angle. Place an array of these sensors on a hemisphere (or an only slightly convex/concave surface), and make it dense enough, and you *could* do the rest in software.
Light speed: You're right. If you react fast enough to notice the difference between the highest speed optical sensors, and the lens reflection, then yes, you do indeed require light speed. And congratulations on having super powers.
Resolution: If you got a 1080p image into that tiny projector, would that be enough? How about a 4k image? At what point would the resolution be high enough?
Both of these characteristics will improve with time -- it won't be long before the clunky reflex mechanism is out.
you know, since hardware folk might mistake your linked image with some new, weed-whacker style floppy propeller system.
Well I just looked at your image and I think I'm looking at some matter-displacement, levitation/suspension technology that involves volume-altering materials... and possibly LSD.
That's being done away with as well. The newer LCDs reproduce a better representation of the photo you're going to shoot than the eyepiece. There are also digital eyepieces which replicate the image on a tiny projector. The term "Single Lens Reflex" will soon be done away with.
I can't reach the article you posted for some reason, but from what I recall there are several species that have eyes that are designed for low-light *and* high frequency -- owls are one example. If you want resolution, then hawks are able to see a moving target, the size of a mouse, from a mile away.
Of course, by giving any example found in nature you're setting the bar pretty high. If we wanted to replicate the functionality of the simplest plankton (like a Picoplankton), we'd probably need to construct a building-sized bio-processing facility.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's get this over with:
As any discussion grows longer, the probability of anything being mentioned or pointed out approaches 1. The exception being Soviet Russia, where 1 approaches you.
I may be wrong about this one, but I'm also under the impression that you're not supposed to place a hyphen after "not", but rather after "non". If he wrote "non-Nazi" it would be permisable.
I imagine that if you ask fast enough, you could make a case for naming a search engine "Bing!"...
You could certainly name just about anything "Yahoo", or maybe "Yahoo?". I mean it's not like they could claim it's in the same industry as they're in. Yahoo's like Schrodinger's cat -- simultaneously in every industry and in no industry.
Another element that plays a role is Google's "ass-ness". Does anyone think for a second that they didn't bother *Googling* the damn name prior to release? There is and *was* a Wikipedia entry, it'd probably be one of the first results. They simply switched on the "Apple Mode" -- grab the name, and let's see who has the balls to sue.
Use a piezoelectric surface on the panel
The displacement will be very small - micrometers. Maybe it could be enough. But beware of resonances. Still this can be done, if only the method itself proves to be effective.
Remember that this is in combination with the panel being face-down. Just vibrating it, when it's face-up, will only move the dust around.
you can't replicate these experiments on earth, not easily at least -- most earth dust is organic
For a low, low sum of $1,000,000 I volunteer to build a test chamber that is large enough to contain the rover, and it will allow scientists to feed any materials into it as a dust source, even those that they didn't scoop up at the nearest garden :-) In fact, NASA has about a ton of genuine lunar dust, perhaps that's the best use for it.
I only mentioned that because you oversimplified your example -- "Try with your window, for example". That isn't a good test, you'd need to try it out under the right conditions.
Another idea -- move a statically charged rod over the surface
An AC replied to my initial comment and proposed static repulsor, and I replied with a link that says that something like that is being worked on. It's better to have no moving parts. Besides, if the electrostatic force was strong enough to dislodge dust some distance from the panel, it probably would be way too strong when the dust is in physical contact with the rod, making it hard to shake it off.
This surprises me, to be honest. I understand that it's not as simple of a problem as people think, but I think it's solvable. If there's an atmosphere, you could use that to artificially generate the naturally-occurring dust devils you find on mars (yes, it'd require additional motors and vents, but almost any solution would require additional mass/weight). If there isn't an atmosphere, then surely choosing the right coating on the solar panels, and then the right material for a type of wiper, would be possible. The panels could be coated with the helicopter-blade film used to protect touch panels, for example, and the wiper could have small strands made of flexible silicone. Maybe add piezoelectric vibration while this process takes place. It wouldn't last forever, but then what does?
Ouch! An AC bit me!
Well I tried getting into the Thundercats vs. Gundam movie, but the sheer amount of cliches and two-dimensionality of Running with Pocahontas wore me out. I didn't have your "intellectual firepower" that was apparently necessary to not fall asleep, and laugh, at the same time.
You'd need quite a bit of dust to cover an entire surface to the point where it's ineffective, and you don't need to get the surface 100% clean -- even 50% efficiency would probably suffice (no atmosphere on the moon -- solar panels will be more effective than on either earth or mars). Use a piezoelectric surface on the panel (or a mesh of one, or a bunch of spots). Also, you can't replicate these experiments on earth, not easily at least -- most earth dust is organic, which is much finer, and often "stranded". Mineral dust is made up of larger particles (usually), and it almost never appears as a "string" shape, just chunks.
Another idea -- move a statically charged rod over the surface instead of a wiper. It doesn't need to touch the surface, just get close enough to make particles cling. Make the surface area of the rod larger (add fins). Once over the surface, vibrate the rod. Repeat as needed.
Most of the moon's surface is hard, and the gravity is low. You'd design for that terrain (I'm assuming tires?). As for the smoothness of the topology, you can pick a site with far better precision on the moon, so we wouldn't choose to land on a cliff. Another advantage, in this case, is the lack of an atmosphere -- wind won't get sand on the solar panels in the first place, and won't blow the rover on its side.
Specifically about the panels -- program it to flip them over and shake vigorously once a week (and also wash behind its ears...).
What if you could transfer your consciousness to the robots? Would that count? Just getting the genome off the planet is simple -- just send some human DNA up in a satellite. We need to better-define our goals.
Depends. Suppose you saw another robot before he noticed you. You could take several shots at him before knowing whether the first shot hit, just to be on the safe side. It's a matter of knowing how to handle lag.
On the moon? Would you be the one "steering" the realdoll? I'm not sure what the particular purpose/fantasy is here...
I actually didn't notice that.. I thought that the females had 4 digits, since I only noticed that when Jake and Zoe Saldana were on screen together. I thought that was sexist, but if it's the case that the number of digits was due to the Avatar design -- then it's a flawed design. They wanted to blend in, didn't they? This made them instantly recognizable to the natives. What if the natives didn't have any digits on their feet, for example? Would the avatars still have toes?
Human engineers in sci-fi movies make such obvious mistakes.
I tend to hold Slashdot to a higher standard too, which is why I'm here rather than Digg/Reddit (where anything that draws clicks is welcome, and any discussion is, well, you know...). However, occasionally Slashdot will post bait stories (not necessarily "flaimbait", just "plain bait"), especially when it comes to anything regarding MS/Apple/YRO where the main purpose is to let people vent. In such cases, I don't really see it as a mistake, or "wrong", partly because anyone with high karma doesn't see ads, so at most it's "pandering", rather than something used to boost page views. In the case of this particular story, I imagine that the editor thought it would make a good discussion piece in its field, and the source (and even validity) was irrelevant because just the theory/concept will produce an interesting discussion (as users discuss the viability of such an undertaking).
I'd blame Gizmodo, if I visited the site directly, but I don't -- I let other filters point me there if they think there's anything interested posted. As for Slashdot, probably less so in this particular case. If they ignored the comment that you sent, then it changes the "judgment" somewhat, but it may still be arguable that the story was posted just for general interest, and the source/validity wasn't a factor. As you said, it's also (or primarily) up to individual editors, though I'd hope that they at least talk to one another and try to get minimal feedback prior to posting (I've no idea what their actual process is, of course).
Call me when they have any such model that's even remotely usable, on earth. This is fiction, almost as much as the 3m-tall smurfs with the indeterminate amount of digits on each hand.
Hey Jesus Diaz, were you sick the day of journalism school when they taught chasing up sources? Maybe if you called JSC and heard the exasperated public relations officer explain, again, that no there is no Project M but thanks for your call, you could save yourself some embarrassment.
Gizmodo: "jour-nal-ism?..."
/. for picking the story. But looking for journalism on Gizmodo or /. is unrealistic. I'm not mocking here, I'm regulating expectations -- expecting even the "established" blogs to look for multiple sources or contact a company for feedback prior to posting a story is setting the bar too high. It's up to the readers to be more discerning and critical, and most aren't.
It's also possible to blame
Still no cron, still no real headless operation, still the same old windows crap.
You know, it's somewhat telling that those are the only two points that a linux advocate (I assume) could come up with. I used to split my computers into Win/Linux, but I find that the expense in time administering the Linux ones is demanding. I still "believe in" Free Software, and the distros have all made strides, but Windows 7 has made such a significant leap that it's difficult to compete with. With Vista, you needed a quantum computer to even boot the machine, so the division was simple: Vista on the heavier machines, and Linux on the lighter ones. Now though, considering that Win7 was pushed out with new computers at a comparatively low price, it's much harder to find a reason to use Linux even on weaker machines (I realize that the price drop came mainly from hardware price drops, but overall you pay a lot less for a full-features laptop, and Windows 7 will run just fine on it, unlike the sluggish Vista).
I still use OSS for anything that I possibly can, which is almost everything apart from CAD/CAM and some 2D graphics software (but then, I don't need to edit audio/video, otherwise there'd be that too). However, when it comes to the OS, making the decision that "Linux will better suit this machine" almost never happens apart from really old computers (which wasn't true during Vista).
As Tacvek has addressed in the post above, headless operation isn't really what Win7 is supposed to do, and cron can be handled either with the Scheduler, or an array of free software you can easily find. From a practical standpoint, MS has done very well with Windows 7.
That's completely unrelated. Apple sells magic. You'd need to have an expert witness, a *wizard*, to make your case there.
It seems you've come to a conclusion, then. Do let us know how that works out for you.
I'm waiting for the visualization software that will display the fight. Maybe you could place bets...
There's a joke to be made here about how disabling windows does not "adversely affect" a computer... But somebody funnier than I am should make it.
No it can't. The pixels have no information about the direction from which each photon arrived. Without a lense each of your pixels will receive photons from every point in the scene with no way to sort them out.
...and 3 lines later in the post I said: "the angle of light would still be relevant, but this would be done on an individual sensor basis -- rather than one lens orchestrating the entire image".
A bit like fly's eye -- every sensor would only report on a single angle. Place an array of these sensors on a hemisphere (or an only slightly convex/concave surface), and make it dense enough, and you *could* do the rest in software.
Light speed: You're right. If you react fast enough to notice the difference between the highest speed optical sensors, and the lens reflection, then yes, you do indeed require light speed. And congratulations on having super powers.
Resolution: If you got a 1080p image into that tiny projector, would that be enough? How about a 4k image? At what point would the resolution be high enough?
Both of these characteristics will improve with time -- it won't be long before the clunky reflex mechanism is out.
you know, since hardware folk might mistake your linked image with some new, weed-whacker style floppy propeller system.
Well I just looked at your image and I think I'm looking at some matter-displacement, levitation/suspension technology that involves volume-altering materials... and possibly LSD.
That's being done away with as well. The newer LCDs reproduce a better representation of the photo you're going to shoot than the eyepiece. There are also digital eyepieces which replicate the image on a tiny projector. The term "Single Lens Reflex" will soon be done away with.
I can't reach the article you posted for some reason, but from what I recall there are several species that have eyes that are designed for low-light *and* high frequency -- owls are one example. If you want resolution, then hawks are able to see a moving target, the size of a mouse, from a mile away.
Of course, by giving any example found in nature you're setting the bar pretty high. If we wanted to replicate the functionality of the simplest plankton (like a Picoplankton), we'd probably need to construct a building-sized bio-processing facility.