Yeah, that and addition is usually bundled up in a LEA. Some architectures, like DSPs, also support modulo addressing in a LEA, I'm sure. But it's not a general-purpose multiplication operation. The AC was just confused or trolling.
Since the "body" is nonlinear, taking it through a slightly different path when in contact with the "floor" may in fact transfer some of the energy that would be otherwise wasted -- our body only got so many degrees of freedom, and a moving tile could supply virtual degrees of freedom that potentially make our gait more efficient, and then simply bring the efficiency back down by retrieving the energy that's now not wasted in our musculoskeletal system. This requires a completely active system, though, with the tiles actuated probably in all 6 degrees of freedom (3 translations and 3 rotations). I'm thinking that whatever energy could be retrieved this way is less than inefficiencies in the actuators and their control electronics, though, unless you optimized the heck out of the tile. It'd be one expensive tile.
To do it with a tile that only moves in one direction (vertical) is a pipe dream -- you can only simulate a virtual incline, and add extra effort to walking. You're not recovering any energy that's wasted, you're adding extra effort and recovering that, the losses remain same in absolute sense. Now be careful with cheerful marketing, because if you look at losses in relative sense (say as % of total calories expended), it may well be that the losses decrease as a percentage -- while the total energy needed increases! But it's just that -- happy marketing, as the losses in the absolute sense have not decreased at all, but actually increased!
To get any sort of real recovery of "wasted" energy, you'd have to replace parts of our musculoskeletal system. Perhaps bypassing instead of replacement would work OK enough, but that still implies an exoskeleton, and those aren't particularly efficient at the moment either.
The tiles cannot tap a whole lot into energy "wasted" as heat and sound without replacing part of our musculoskeletal system, or at least part of our shoes. Those losses are, after all, produced by work done inside of our body and in the shoe, not within a solid floor! The only way they could possibly tap some of that otherwise lost energy is if they had a fine-tuned dynamic response that exploits nonlinearities in our musculoskeletal system. They'd have to take our lower limb through a slightly different path, and because the body's response is nonlinear, this could (and only this!) reduce losses. I don't think this is feasible when you're constrained to vertical motion only. The tiles would probably have to slide as well as sink! The tiles, though would have to spring back to original height at least, otherwise they can't but also extract energy from gravitational potential energy of our body, and that's cheating -- you make a virtual incline.
If they walk as much as 500m on their entire shopping trip, I'd consider it a success:) Mostly they park as close to front entrance as they can, then zip to the nearest electric scooter. Then load up a pallet of two of pop into the cart:( There are plenty of poor families who still drink only pop and nothing else.
I wonder what happens to all the liquid helium in the system. Isn't it worth on the order of 100k USD? Perhaps it could be sold of and turned into a scholarship?
I know where you're going of course, but I still have a problem with prioritization. If one claims that something is most important, that means prioritization. It's most important, therefore others are less important. I don't think that could be meant as a means of abbreviating -- as in "if you must obey only one thing, obey this". Alas, I may be wrong of course.
MD5 or SHA-256 checksum of every file in the archive, even if you don't do anything with it
You mean something like the below? for f in/dev/sd?; do dd if=$f iflag=direct bs=4096 of=/dev/null; doneI think it should be better because it guarantees nothing comes from the cache anywhere. Of course the cache would have been read from the drive fairly recently, but with direct access there's no question about it.
NASA is mostly not in the manufacturing business. Pretty much all NASA hardware has been made by for-profit, publicly traded enterprises and their for-profit subcontractors. There's nothing new to what NASA is doing, except that they are looking for contractors who are leaner and not as wasteful as the legacy big boys.
OK count me uneducated then. The only 1:10 scale model I ever saw fly first-hand had wings made out of machined aluminum honeycomb glued to aluminum skins and had, IIRC, wing loading in the 50kg/m^2 area, that's an order of magnitude more than 15oz/ft^2. The guy had several 200 kg/m^2 models, too, supposedly with same wing loading as the originals they were scale models of (no idea what warbirds those were). IIRC the take-off speeds were comparable or a tad above things they were scale models of, and you needed a stretch of road to take off. And some active tracking to actually fly the thing remotely, with telemetry for artificial horizon, vertical speed and airspeed. And a big bunch of productive farmland to pay for the hobby;)
Those were not small models (1.5m or longer fuselage), and I don't recall him ever lifting one. I tried lifting it by the tail and it felt like lifting a handle of a half-loaded wheelbarrow. I think one of his larger models had a refurbed milspec sperry gyro unit, those babies are heavy as hell by themselves if online pictures are anything to go by...
What does it mean that it's the most important commandment? How can you prioritize such things? Or, better yet, what does it mean that any other commandment/law is less important. How can we use that fact for anything?
It's all about wing area, other things being reasonably equal, IIRC. So 1:10 scale means 100x less payload. Given that the full-size thing carries tons of stuff, we're still talking about tens of kilograms, not few pounds (unless your few is on the order of 100).
Suppose you really get that 757 going. Say 0.9 mach close to sea level: 300m/s. The airplane is 54 m long. It takes about 0.1s for the engines to hit whatever it is that you're hitting. Your thrust will last 0.1s, and that's pretty close to "upon" in my book. Alas, I've already shown that engine thrust during that time accounts for a mere 1kg of TNT worth of energy. I'd bet that kinetic energy stored in rotating parts is way more than that. So I still maintain that thrust is immaterial once there is any contact between airframe and target.
Engine thrust is immaterial. It ceases upon impact, and the incremental amount of energy it could transfer in the milliseconds the plane is in contact with the target until engines get wipes out is tiny. Assume we have two highest-rated 757 engines that produce 43,000 lbf of thrust each. Assuming conservatively that none of the thrust is lost to air friction, this thrust will provide energy to the target on a path that's at most half the length of the fuselage, or 178ft/2 in case of a 757-300. So the overall energy is 43,000 lbf * 178 ft = 10MJ. That's about as much energy as coming from detonating 1kg of TNT.
Wait a minute. A 1:1 scale plane hauls your ass and literally tons of fuel and armament, but something 10x smaller can only carry a couple ounces?! Have you ever dealt with 1:10 scale models? All I know is that my friend's pastime was to drop water balloons at cows in the farmland. The load was a couple kg of water-filled balloons, and the plane didn't handle all that bad. As in: he'd do drops from the top of a loop, by pushing some negative g's as to eject the load upwards.
I know nothing about the project, but I wonder whether your hardware is fast enough to do whatever pppoe needs done to push data faster. Isn't your DSL link limiting the speed to what you see? How did you verify that it's DD-WRT's problem? Just asking.
Sorry about that. I meant to add the link to the article in Current Biology, but somehow forgot about it before clicking "Submit".
Alas, in my defense, the story was submitted and posted less than a week after the "embargo" was lifter by the publisher -- IIRC, it appeared online on Current Biology's website last Thursday at noon (maybe EST?). At least I didn't wait a year to submit:)
TFA clearly shows that it's indeed the static field that causes this effect:) Of course it doesn't affect living tissue directly, it just so happens there's a liquid plunger with a constant-enough current flowing through it, at the right orientation, inside of our inner ear. This is a very simple kind of an effect, no tinfoil hat required, and no magic either:)
It must be understood that individual sensitivity to vertigo and suppression of nystagmus varies a lot. Some people will feel like getting off the pilot centrifuge, some will ask "what did you say, again?".
That's just too silly. They clearly showed that it's the static field. Gradients, both spatial and temporal, are not needed at all. The ionic current is already there, oriented just right. All you need is a correctly oriented static external field. It just so happens that we have semicircular canals sensitive in three almost-orthogonal axes, so the precise orientation doesn't matter all that much, unless you are looking at nystagmus in a single axis only. For all I know you could induce torsional nystagmus, I don't recall if they actually recorded it or not. It may be hard without access to an open MRI machine where you have more freedom in orienting subject's head.
A bit of background: our semicircular canals are aligned with ocular muscles, because their output drives ocular muscles almost directly. The vestibulo-oculomotor reflex also works in torsion, although its range is limited to about +/- 5 degrees, and you can have torsional nystagmus.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, that and addition is usually bundled up in a LEA. Some architectures, like DSPs, also support modulo addressing in a LEA, I'm sure. But it's not a general-purpose multiplication operation. The AC was just confused or trolling.
Since the "body" is nonlinear, taking it through a slightly different path when in contact with the "floor" may in fact transfer some of the energy that would be otherwise wasted -- our body only got so many degrees of freedom, and a moving tile could supply virtual degrees of freedom that potentially make our gait more efficient, and then simply bring the efficiency back down by retrieving the energy that's now not wasted in our musculoskeletal system. This requires a completely active system, though, with the tiles actuated probably in all 6 degrees of freedom (3 translations and 3 rotations). I'm thinking that whatever energy could be retrieved this way is less than inefficiencies in the actuators and their control electronics, though, unless you optimized the heck out of the tile. It'd be one expensive tile.
To do it with a tile that only moves in one direction (vertical) is a pipe dream -- you can only simulate a virtual incline, and add extra effort to walking. You're not recovering any energy that's wasted, you're adding extra effort and recovering that, the losses remain same in absolute sense. Now be careful with cheerful marketing, because if you look at losses in relative sense (say as % of total calories expended), it may well be that the losses decrease as a percentage -- while the total energy needed increases! But it's just that -- happy marketing, as the losses in the absolute sense have not decreased at all, but actually increased!
To get any sort of real recovery of "wasted" energy, you'd have to replace parts of our musculoskeletal system. Perhaps bypassing instead of replacement would work OK enough, but that still implies an exoskeleton, and those aren't particularly efficient at the moment either.
The tiles cannot tap a whole lot into energy "wasted" as heat and sound without replacing part of our musculoskeletal system, or at least part of our shoes. Those losses are, after all, produced by work done inside of our body and in the shoe, not within a solid floor! The only way they could possibly tap some of that otherwise lost energy is if they had a fine-tuned dynamic response that exploits nonlinearities in our musculoskeletal system. They'd have to take our lower limb through a slightly different path, and because the body's response is nonlinear, this could (and only this!) reduce losses. I don't think this is feasible when you're constrained to vertical motion only. The tiles would probably have to slide as well as sink! The tiles, though would have to spring back to original height at least, otherwise they can't but also extract energy from gravitational potential energy of our body, and that's cheating -- you make a virtual incline.
If they walk as much as 500m on their entire shopping trip, I'd consider it a success :) Mostly they park as close to front entrance as they can, then zip to the nearest electric scooter. Then load up a pallet of two of pop into the cart :( There are plenty of poor families who still drink only pop and nothing else.
I think you're probably the lone person on this planet who thinks of it as some sort of a career-ending thing.
I wonder what happens to all the liquid helium in the system. Isn't it worth on the order of 100k USD? Perhaps it could be sold of and turned into a scholarship?
I know where you're going of course, but I still have a problem with prioritization. If one claims that something is most important, that means prioritization. It's most important, therefore others are less important. I don't think that could be meant as a means of abbreviating -- as in "if you must obey only one thing, obey this". Alas, I may be wrong of course.
What does it mean to be sued for one's patents?
MD5 or SHA-256 checksum of every file in the archive, even if you don't do anything with it
You mean something like the below? /dev/sd?; do dd if=$f iflag=direct bs=4096 of=/dev/null; doneI think it should be better because it guarantees nothing comes from the cache anywhere. Of course the cache would have been read from the drive fairly recently, but with direct access there's no question about it.
for f in
NASA is mostly not in the manufacturing business. Pretty much all NASA hardware has been made by for-profit, publicly traded enterprises and their for-profit subcontractors. There's nothing new to what NASA is doing, except that they are looking for contractors who are leaner and not as wasteful as the legacy big boys.
OK count me uneducated then. The only 1:10 scale model I ever saw fly first-hand had wings made out of machined aluminum honeycomb glued to aluminum skins and had, IIRC, wing loading in the 50kg/m^2 area, that's an order of magnitude more than 15oz/ft^2. The guy had several 200 kg/m^2 models, too, supposedly with same wing loading as the originals they were scale models of (no idea what warbirds those were). IIRC the take-off speeds were comparable or a tad above things they were scale models of, and you needed a stretch of road to take off. And some active tracking to actually fly the thing remotely, with telemetry for artificial horizon, vertical speed and airspeed. And a big bunch of productive farmland to pay for the hobby ;)
Those were not small models (1.5m or longer fuselage), and I don't recall him ever lifting one. I tried lifting it by the tail and it felt like lifting a handle of a half-loaded wheelbarrow. I think one of his larger models had a refurbed milspec sperry gyro unit, those babies are heavy as hell by themselves if online pictures are anything to go by...
What does it mean that it's the most important commandment? How can you prioritize such things? Or, better yet, what does it mean that any other commandment/law is less important. How can we use that fact for anything?
It's all about wing area, other things being reasonably equal, IIRC. So 1:10 scale means 100x less payload. Given that the full-size thing carries tons of stuff, we're still talking about tens of kilograms, not few pounds (unless your few is on the order of 100).
Suppose you really get that 757 going. Say 0.9 mach close to sea level: 300m/s. The airplane is 54 m long. It takes about 0.1s for the engines to hit whatever it is that you're hitting. Your thrust will last 0.1s, and that's pretty close to "upon" in my book. Alas, I've already shown that engine thrust during that time accounts for a mere 1kg of TNT worth of energy. I'd bet that kinetic energy stored in rotating parts is way more than that. So I still maintain that thrust is immaterial once there is any contact between airframe and target.
Engine thrust is immaterial. It ceases upon impact, and the incremental amount of energy it could transfer in the milliseconds the plane is in contact with the target until engines get wipes out is tiny. Assume we have two highest-rated 757 engines that produce 43,000 lbf of thrust each. Assuming conservatively that none of the thrust is lost to air friction, this thrust will provide energy to the target on a path that's at most half the length of the fuselage, or 178ft/2 in case of a 757-300. So the overall energy is 43,000 lbf * 178 ft = 10MJ. That's about as much energy as coming from detonating 1kg of TNT.
Wait a minute. A 1:1 scale plane hauls your ass and literally tons of fuel and armament, but something 10x smaller can only carry a couple ounces?! Have you ever dealt with 1:10 scale models? All I know is that my friend's pastime was to drop water balloons at cows in the farmland. The load was a couple kg of water-filled balloons, and the plane didn't handle all that bad. As in: he'd do drops from the top of a loop, by pushing some negative g's as to eject the load upwards.
I know nothing about the project, but I wonder whether your hardware is fast enough to do whatever pppoe needs done to push data faster. Isn't your DSL link limiting the speed to what you see? How did you verify that it's DD-WRT's problem? Just asking.
Sadly, you can find a quote for every quacko viewpoint out there.
Yeah, because high static magnetic fields cause things to get hot. And it's obviously easy to produce them on a large scale, here on Earth. Yee haw.
Agreed. It shouldn't matter.
Sorry about that. I meant to add the link to the article in Current Biology, but somehow forgot about it before clicking "Submit".
Alas, in my defense, the story was submitted and posted less than a week after the "embargo" was lifter by the publisher -- IIRC, it appeared online on Current Biology's website last Thursday at noon (maybe EST?). At least I didn't wait a year to submit :)
Yep, there is a constant current, and just ever so conveniently it flows across the channel (diametrally across the smallest cross-section).
TFA clearly shows that it's indeed the static field that causes this effect :) Of course it doesn't affect living tissue directly, it just so happens there's a liquid plunger with a constant-enough current flowing through it, at the right orientation, inside of our inner ear. This is a very simple kind of an effect, no tinfoil hat required, and no magic either :)
It must be understood that individual sensitivity to vertigo and suppression of nystagmus varies a lot. Some people will feel like getting off the pilot centrifuge, some will ask "what did you say, again?".
That's just too silly. They clearly showed that it's the static field. Gradients, both spatial and temporal, are not needed at all. The ionic current is already there, oriented just right. All you need is a correctly oriented static external field. It just so happens that we have semicircular canals sensitive in three almost-orthogonal axes, so the precise orientation doesn't matter all that much, unless you are looking at nystagmus in a single axis only. For all I know you could induce torsional nystagmus, I don't recall if they actually recorded it or not. It may be hard without access to an open MRI machine where you have more freedom in orienting subject's head.
A bit of background: our semicircular canals are aligned with ocular muscles, because their output drives ocular muscles almost directly. The vestibulo-oculomotor reflex also works in torsion, although its range is limited to about +/- 5 degrees, and you can have torsional nystagmus.