Actually, my bad. The summary should have read 30 miles for the Tempest drones, and 11 mi for the Cicadas. But your (impressive) 380 mi/sq radius is of course correct.
Huh...so, you're defining "kook" as someone who's beliefs are not the same as yours? Sounds kind of close minded to me. No, wait - us kooks are the closed-minded ones. My bad.
Huh...so, you're defining "kook" as someone who's beliefs are not the same as yours? Sounds kind of close minded to me. No, wait - us kooks are the closed-minded ones. My bad.
I think you're making a logical leap that is unfounded. It could be that either the king is taking credit for something that was already built, or that the scholars are wrong about it being the original tower. I do agree with you about the timing of the original tower, though.
You got me dude...you've uncovered a vast conspiracy between me and that hotbed of right wing propaganda - The Discovery Channel! BTW, if you had managed to read the article, they also allude to this reference as well. Because it's relevant.
Need to do a bit more reading, my friend. The account doesn't have anything to do with women performing manual labor:
"(The Babylonians) said to each other, “Come, let’s make bricks and bake them thoroughly.” They used brick instead of stone, and tar for mortar. 4Then they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves and not be scattered over the face of the whole earth.”
5But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower that the men were building. 6The Lord said, “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. 7Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.”
8So the Lord scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city. 9That is why it was called Babelc—because there the Lord confused the language of the whole world. From there the Lord scattered them over the face of the whole earth."
So, it had nothing to do with labor practices. Many scholars think the tower was some sort of astrological artifact, and that the scrambling of the languages had to do with dispersing the population of the earth. That is, according to the scripture.
Thanks Fencepost - that was indeed the one I was trying to post. The Slashdot submission form was being quite evil, and submitted the article before I had the chance to link it up correctly. Also the reason for some of the cut and past errors.
I actually looked around for articles from some other source before I posted this, but couldn't find any. Most of the other sources talked about the non-tech (or non-nerd if you will) aspects of the case. I just wanted to focus on the stuff I thought would be interesting to the/. crowds.
What's worse, the daydreaming adolescents, or those that act like they have something better to do but keep droning on about how bad it is. If you don't like it so much, why don't you actually contribute something to the discussion?
That's an amazingly good guess for the payload of a six engine jet. The Antonov 225 (currently the largest aircraft in the world) has six engines as well, and it has a max payload of 550,000. Still, there are a couple of things that could balance out this number. The spacecraft might make some aerodynamic compromises in order to hold the spaceship (lessening the payload). Just look at the shape of the carrier compared with the An225. However, one could also argue that the engines for the spaceship might be more powerful. That seems pretty weak to me, though.
Yeah, I totally agree with you. I just hadn't seen anyone else point out that there were probably some contingencies in place to deal with navigation once a drone has been jammed. A lot of this is just pure speculation anyway (unless you happen to be on the RQ-170 development team), but probably educated speculation.
Actually, many drones are programmed to just fly home if the signal is lost. From Wired: "Like just about every spy drone operating today, the RQ-170 can follow GPS waypoints, instead of being steered by a remote operator. And when drones like the Sentinel loses radio or satellite contact with their human overlords, they are usually programmed to do something reasonable, ranging from circling until contact is resumed to continuing with the mission autonomously to flying home. Moreover, Pentagon spokesman Capt. John Kirby told reporters there was no indication the Sentinel was brought down by “hostile activity of any kind.”"
If you read the updates on this article, there's still some doubt:
Congratulations. But what you didn't figure out was how to fix the problem. It's easy to just say it looks funny over a few beers, but knowing the cognitive mechanisms behind it will hopefully help us develop more natural movement, etc.
The distinction is between consciousness (or awareness) versus "conscious awareness", which is the awareness that one IS conscious.
Actually, what you're describing is called metacognition by us cognitive scientists. I was trying to make the point that the GP seemed to be confusing the two.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, my bad. The summary should have read 30 miles for the Tempest drones, and 11 mi for the Cicadas. But your (impressive) 380 mi/sq radius is of course correct.
You are right, of course. The Tempest drones fly *30* miles, and the Cicadas add an extra 11 miles beyond that.
Huh...so, you're defining "kook" as someone who's beliefs are not the same as yours? Sounds kind of close minded to me. No, wait - us kooks are the closed-minded ones. My bad.
Huh...so, you're defining "kook" as someone who's beliefs are not the same as yours? Sounds kind of close minded to me. No, wait - us kooks are the closed-minded ones. My bad.
Thanks, nice reference. It's nice to know where that came from. Note that the Baruch is considered pseudepicgraphical.
Reference plz? I have never heard that aspect of it before.
I think you're making a logical leap that is unfounded. It could be that either the king is taking credit for something that was already built, or that the scholars are wrong about it being the original tower. I do agree with you about the timing of the original tower, though.
Are those the same scholars that told you the account was a women's right issue?
You got me dude...you've uncovered a vast conspiracy between me and that hotbed of right wing propaganda - The Discovery Channel! BTW, if you had managed to read the article, they also allude to this reference as well. Because it's relevant.
Need to do a bit more reading, my friend. The account doesn't have anything to do with women performing manual labor:
"(The Babylonians) said to each other, “Come, let’s make bricks and bake them thoroughly.” They used brick instead of stone, and tar for mortar. 4Then they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves and not be scattered over the face of the whole earth.”
5But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower that the men were building. 6The Lord said, “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. 7Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.”
8So the Lord scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city. 9That is why it was called Babelc—because there the Lord confused the language of the whole world. From there the Lord scattered them over the face of the whole earth."
So, it had nothing to do with labor practices. Many scholars think the tower was some sort of astrological artifact, and that the scrambling of the languages had to do with dispersing the population of the earth. That is, according to the scripture.
Thanks Fencepost - that was indeed the one I was trying to post. The Slashdot submission form was being quite evil, and submitted the article before I had the chance to link it up correctly. Also the reason for some of the cut and past errors.
Cheers
Hey AC,
I actually looked around for articles from some other source before I posted this, but couldn't find any. Most of the other sources talked about the non-tech (or non-nerd if you will) aspects of the case. I just wanted to focus on the stuff I thought would be interesting to the /. crowds.
smitty777
What's worse, the daydreaming adolescents, or those that act like they have something better to do but keep droning on about how bad it is. If you don't like it so much, why don't you actually contribute something to the discussion?
That's an amazingly good guess for the payload of a six engine jet. The Antonov 225 (currently the largest aircraft in the world) has six engines as well, and it has a max payload of 550,000. Still, there are a couple of things that could balance out this number. The spacecraft might make some aerodynamic compromises in order to hold the spaceship (lessening the payload). Just look at the shape of the carrier compared with the An225. However, one could also argue that the engines for the spaceship might be more powerful. That seems pretty weak to me, though.
Wow, you should really check your sources a little more carefully before you turn the flame on.
Yeah, I totally agree with you. I just hadn't seen anyone else point out that there were probably some contingencies in place to deal with navigation once a drone has been jammed. A lot of this is just pure speculation anyway (unless you happen to be on the RQ-170 development team), but probably educated speculation.
Actually, many drones are programmed to just fly home if the signal is lost. From Wired: "Like just about every spy drone operating today, the RQ-170 can follow GPS waypoints, instead of being steered by a remote operator. And when drones like the Sentinel loses radio or satellite contact with their human overlords, they are usually programmed to do something reasonable, ranging from circling until contact is resumed to continuing with the mission autonomously to flying home. Moreover, Pentagon spokesman Capt. John Kirby told reporters there was no indication the Sentinel was brought down by “hostile activity of any kind.”"
If you read the updates on this article, there's still some doubt:
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/12/iran-drone-video/
"they called it the "fundamental error of assumption""...
I think you mean the fundamental attribution error?
You mean they were the "first to create a real 3D flight simulator?"
Next thing you know, people will have them in their bedrooms
Congratulations. But what you didn't figure out was how to fix the problem. It's easy to just say it looks funny over a few beers, but knowing the cognitive mechanisms behind it will hopefully help us develop more natural movement, etc.
http://www.lolpark.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Human-Animal-Funny-Photo.jpg
You insensitive clod! I work at the Actiniaria Rescue Shelter.
Man...and I just used up all my mod points. Nice one.
Why stop there? Just ban pet ownership and take care of the whole problem.
The distinction is between consciousness (or awareness) versus "conscious awareness", which is the awareness that one IS conscious.
Actually, what you're describing is called metacognition by us cognitive scientists. I was trying to make the point that the GP seemed to be confusing the two.