Each state issuing its own currency leads to great differences in value. Silver and gold, change value from country to country, from state to state - just ask Auric Goldfinger. Soon you end up with worthless paper. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wildcat_banking
Which naturally, leads to financial crises. Which, since you now lack a system to balance it out, affect some MUCH harder than the others. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1857
"A continual debate rages about the nature of color blue. 'What is blue?' Thanks to RGB and CMYK and other color models and scales we know what exactly means Cyan or 0.0.255 or 0000FF, but the common "blue" remains elusive."
Seriously, Orrin. You're old. And ignorant. And closed-minded. And petty and small. Shut the fuck up already. Utah hates you-- You just haven't let the truth sink in yet.
Somehow... I doubt that he reads slashdot...
Maybe a letter... or a youtube video explaining why you find him "a blight on the land" might do the trick. Make it fun, catchy and snappy. And don't forget to send a copy to CNN's iReport. A slow news day is always just around a corner... you might become famous as a bonus.
In developing "The Idea of a Tree", Mischer'traxler were drawn towards both automated machines and the concept that "a tree is a product of its specific time and place. It reacts and develops according to its surrounding and constantly records various environmental impacts in its growth process. Each single tree tells its own story of development." In their "Idea of a Tree" project they create a product that is a immediately linked to the environment in which it is produced, and fittingly each product bears a stamp notating the date and place where it was created.
The point of the project was to try to emulate a tree and the way it produces fruit. Which is inherently not a very productive process. That is why trees employ redundancy. A lot of it.
Basically, they have developed a very complicated replacement for a "Made in" stamp.
Point of the X-prize is not in the money given out to the winner. Money is a nice bonus, and a short term incentive but...
Actual prize is in the credentials and the publicity that the winner would receive. Credentials from a body of experts certifying that your invention works and is a solid investment, and the publicity surrounding the prize makes certain that your future investors hear about you.
Both of those work in any case. Batteries, space, cupcakes...
Did you even bother to look at the video? Like at 1:39 and 2:11 where the guy rests his hand on the robot's "knees" - while standing upright and on the same level as the robot. Or when he puts his hands inside it at 2:29 clearly showing that robot's lower half is at about the height of the man's chest.
Do you have any idea how much is 18 feet? That is nearly 5.5 meters. Height of 3 tall men. Or 2 Yao Mings plus a 3 feet tall midget. Or you can just have Yao Ming standing on the table and his clone standing on his head.
I've rarely seen such obtuseness. I truly hope that you are just trolling and that IRL you have better command over your primary mental faculties. Cause, you know, it is just no fun trying to point out a logical error to a person of diminished mental capabilities.
See the giant robot? See its giant head? How about that giant plate across its giant chest and the triangular formation in between the chest-plate and the head? Now scroll down and take a look at the other photo.
See that triangular formation and robot's chin? And the giant human inside the robot?
See the chest-plate and the human inside the robot? Also, note that the robot's leg-plates are just slightly wider than human legs and that the distance from the top of the leg plates to the robots chin is about 4-4.5 feet (height of a 6-foot human minus the lower half of the leg) - give or take a couple of inches.
During the war here in Bosnia even without blackouts (as in "turn of that light, the enemy is watching") we often had no more than couple of hours of electricity per day. Me and my sister would often stare for hours at the stars which were the brightest I've ever seen and there was more of them than ever. Cause not only was there no light pollution, but with scarcity of gasoline and any other kind of fuel the air was much cleaner.
Still, as soon as the power would come on I'd sit at my C64 to make up the lost time.
As for the San... I am guessing that you have never actually spent more than couple of days away from the civilized world and its benefits - ranging from polio shots and penicillin to running water and safety of concrete. Giving idyllic connotations to a neolithic life has often been a favorite pastime of people who have never actually had to grow, gather and hunt their own food or never had a chance to outlive 10 or so of their siblings by the time they are 14.
Early spring was the hardest season - a hot dry period following the cool, dry winter. Villages were concentrated around the waterholes, most plants were dead or dormant, and supplies of autumn nuts were exhausted. Meat was particularly important in the dry months when wildlife could never range far from the receding waters.
Because of their low-fat diet, women typically had late first menstruations and did not begin bearing children until about 18 or 19 years of age. Births were spaced four years apart, due to lack of enough breast milk and requirements of mobility that made feeding and carrying more than one child at a time difficult.
In the 1990s, they switched to farming as a result of government-mandated modernization programs as well as the increased risks of a hunting and gathering lifestyle in the face of technological development.
Give them a generation or two and then try to take away that new way of life from them and see how they react. Also - they did understand the concept of private property, they just didn't use barter or market economy. They exchanged gifts. Which is fine for a neolithic way of life where everyone is from the same tribe/family anyway and all that there is to give has been gathered from the Earth. Giving gifts, taking gifts and obligation to reciprocate is fine and dandy until rare things of great value appear.
...Living far away from civilized centers, like in the center of African forests and deserts or on top of mountains and other places which have not yet been reached by the black asphalt snakes of progress. How happy they are to have the Milky Way as their roof and the sound of crickets as their entertainment. I am certain that they would never trade such freedom and comfort for those ghastly artificially illuminated roads, constant hum of the civilization and such trivialities as proximity to health-care and formal education.
Airbus with some kind of problem circling for hours to burn off fuel before making a landing because it had no capacity to manually dump the fuel, as a Boeing does.
A320 but also Boeing 737, DC-9 and Boeing 717 don't have manual fuel dump. Boeing 767, 777, Airbus A300, A310, and A330 have it optionally - customer decides.
It is the abnormal, non-routine flight where landing weight can be an issue. If a flight takes off at the maximum structural takeoff weight and then faces a situation where it must return to the departure airport (due to certain mechanical problems, or a passenger medical issue), there will not be time to consume the fuel meant for getting to the original destination, and the aircraft may be over the maximum structural landing weight to land back at the departure point. Fuel dumping point of an Airbus A340-311
As jets began flying with U.S. airlines in the late 1950s and early 1960s, the FAA rule in effect at the time mandated that if the ratio between an aircraft's maximum structural takeoff weight and its maximum structural landing weight was greater than 105%, the aircraft had to have a fuel dump system installed. Accordingly, aircraft such as the Boeing 707 and 727 and the Douglas DC-8 had fuel dump systems. Any of those aircraft needing to return to a takeoff airport above the maximum structural landing weight would simply jettison an amount of fuel sufficient to reduce the aircraft's total weight to below that maximum structural landing weight limit, and then land.
During the 1960s, Boeing introduced the 737, and Douglas the DC-9, the original models of each being for shorter routes; the 105% figure was not an issue, thus they had no fuel dump systems installed. During the 1960s and 1970s, both Boeing and Douglas "grew" their respective aircraft as far as operational capabilities were concerned via Pratt & Whitney's development of increasingly powerful variants of the JT8D engines that powered both aircraft series. Both aircraft were now capable of longer duration flights, with increased weight limits, and complying with the existing 105% rule became problematic due to the costs associated with adding a fuel dump system to aircraft in production. Considering the more powerful engines that had been developed, the FAA changed the rules to delete the 105% requirement, and FAR 25.1001 was enacted stating a jettison system was not required if the climb requirements of FAR 25.119 (Landing Climb) and FAR 25.121 (Approach Climb) could be met, assuming a 15-minute flight. In other words, for a go-around with full landing flaps and all engines operating, and at approach flap setting and one engine inoperative, respectively.
Since most twinjet airliners can meet these requirements, most aircraft of this type such as the Boeing 737 (all models), the DC-9/MD80 and Boeing 717, the A320 family and various regional jet ("RJ") aircraft do not have fuel dump systems installed. In the event of an emergency requiring a return to the departure airport, the aircraft circles nearby in order to consume fuel to get down to within the maximum structural landing weight limit, or if the situation demands it, simply lands overweight without delay. Modern aircraft are designed for possible overweight landings in mind, but this is not done except in cases of emergency, and various maintenance inspections are required afterwards.
...
Longer-range twin jets such as the Boeing 767 and 777 and the Airbus A300, A310, and A330 may or may not have fuel dump systems, depending upon how the aircraft was ordered, since on some aircraft they are a customer option. Three- and four-engine jets like the Lockheed L-1011, McDonnell Douglas DC-10 / MD-11, Boeing 747 and Airbus A340 usually have difficulty meeting the requirements of FAR 25.119 near maximum structural takeoff weight, so most of those have jettison systems. A Boeing 757 has no fuel dump capability as its maximum landing weight is similar to the maximum take-off weight.
Well... you don't really need to have it down to 1/30th of a second unless you want real time 2D-3D conversion and playback. You could convert it to a 3D video for later viewing, but it would have to work faster than 15 minutes per a second of the movie (30 seconds mentioned above times 30 frames per second).
The REAL problem in such a case would not be the length of time it took to "3D-ify" the movie. After all... faster processors and dedicated hardware would cut that down in time.
Making a 3D copy of the movie would probably breach the copyright though.
I didn't mean it as way to build the elevator from the ground up.
You could use it as a testbed for materials, procedures and techniques involved in building the actual space elevator. Just the safety and security procedures developed would streamline the job immensely.
Building an F-15 is not the same as strapping a jet engine onto a Sopwith Camel but many of the principles get carried over. Particularly regarding how to actually use one for its intended purposes.
15 km high superstructure? Pretty good place to start if you are working on a space-elevator-thingy. Knowledge gained in its creation would be invaluable for future work on the space elevator. Also, highest place you can put a telescope at without actually launching it into space.
And just imagine the radio coverage from that place. A lot lower than a communication satellite but also sure as hell taller than the highest radio tower.
Did idea of vertical take-off and landing aircraft die out because of the development of aerodynamic lift aircraft? How about propeller aircraft after development of jet engines? Or lighter than air and other unpowered aircraft after development of powered aircraft?
How about Macs? Does anyone anywhere use them at all since Windows came out? Is Linux dead?
Slashdot Mirror
Each state issuing its own currency leads to great differences in value.
Silver and gold, change value from country to country, from state to state - just ask Auric Goldfinger. Soon you end up with worthless paper.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wildcat_banking
Which naturally, leads to financial crises. Which, since you now lack a system to balance it out, affect some MUCH harder than the others.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1857
So you end up in a state of increased sectionalism and separatism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antebellum
And then people start killing each other.
Not trolling or anything, I just find the comment intriguing and would like to hear more about that.
"A continual debate rages about the nature of color blue. 'What is blue?'
Thanks to RGB and CMYK and other color models and scales we know what exactly means Cyan or 0.0.255 or 0000FF, but the common "blue" remains elusive."
Stephen Baldwin and Dirk Benedict.
Dibs on the bigger one!
This sounds like censorship for the sake of censorship
You mean there is another kind?
Seriously, Orrin. You're old. And ignorant. And closed-minded. And petty and small. Shut the fuck up already. Utah hates you-- You just haven't let the truth sink in yet.
Somehow... I doubt that he reads slashdot...
Maybe a letter... or a youtube video explaining why you find him "a blight on the land" might do the trick.
Make it fun, catchy and snappy. And don't forget to send a copy to CNN's iReport.
A slow news day is always just around a corner... you might become famous as a bonus.
The elephants DONATE the crap. Frogs "give a crap" about the donated crap.
There, I believe that clears up that question. Next?
From TFA:
In developing "The Idea of a Tree", Mischer'traxler were drawn towards both automated machines and the concept that "a tree is a product of its specific time and place.
It reacts and develops according to its surrounding and constantly records various environmental impacts in its growth process.
Each single tree tells its own story of development."
In their "Idea of a Tree" project they create a product that is a immediately linked to the environment in which it is produced, and fittingly each product bears a stamp notating the date and place where it was created.
The point of the project was to try to emulate a tree and the way it produces fruit.
Which is inherently not a very productive process. That is why trees employ redundancy. A lot of it.
Basically, they have developed a very complicated replacement for a "Made in" stamp.
... as the Earth falls down a giant black hole.
Point of the X-prize is not in the money given out to the winner. Money is a nice bonus, and a short term incentive but...
Actual prize is in the credentials and the publicity that the winner would receive.
Credentials from a body of experts certifying that your invention works and is a solid investment, and the publicity surrounding the prize makes certain that your future investors hear about you.
Both of those work in any case. Batteries, space, cupcakes...
Did you even bother to look at the video?
Like at 1:39 and 2:11 where the guy rests his hand on the robot's "knees" - while standing upright and on the same level as the robot.
Or when he puts his hands inside it at 2:29 clearly showing that robot's lower half is at about the height of the man's chest.
Do you have any idea how much is 18 feet? That is nearly 5.5 meters. Height of 3 tall men.
Or 2 Yao Mings plus a 3 feet tall midget. Or you can just have Yao Ming standing on the table and his clone standing on his head.
I've rarely seen such obtuseness.
I truly hope that you are just trolling and that IRL you have better command over your primary mental faculties.
Cause, you know, it is just no fun trying to point out a logical error to a person of diminished mental capabilities.
Note the human on the left and the barrel on the right?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ploFd9su_n4
At 1:59 you can see all three in relation to the ground and each other.
So what are you saying?
That the robot is actually as tall as the Statue of Liberty only it is really far in the back?
Take a look at the photos in TFA:
http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2009-05/man-machine
See the giant robot? See its giant head? How about that giant plate across its giant chest and the triangular formation in between the chest-plate and the head?
Now scroll down and take a look at the other photo.
See that triangular formation and robot's chin? And the giant human inside the robot?
How about that other photo at ZDnet?
http://content.zdnet.com/2346-9595_22-11979-1.html
See the chest-plate and the human inside the robot?
Also, note that the robot's leg-plates are just slightly wider than human legs and that the distance from the top of the leg plates to the robots chin is about 4-4.5 feet (height of a 6-foot human minus the lower half of the leg) - give or take a couple of inches.
Unless Carlos Owens and Theodore Agranat are 9-10 feet tall.
http://content.zdnet.com/2346-9595_22-11979-2.html
During the war here in Bosnia even without blackouts (as in "turn of that light, the enemy is watching") we often had no more than couple of hours of electricity per day.
Me and my sister would often stare for hours at the stars which were the brightest I've ever seen and there was more of them than ever.
Cause not only was there no light pollution, but with scarcity of gasoline and any other kind of fuel the air was much cleaner.
Still, as soon as the power would come on I'd sit at my C64 to make up the lost time.
As for the San...
I am guessing that you have never actually spent more than couple of days away from the civilized world and its benefits - ranging from polio shots and penicillin to running water and safety of concrete.
Giving idyllic connotations to a neolithic life has often been a favorite pastime of people who have never actually had to grow, gather and hunt their own food or never had a chance to outlive 10 or so of their siblings by the time they are 14.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushmen
Early spring was the hardest season - a hot dry period following the cool, dry winter.
Villages were concentrated around the waterholes, most plants were dead or dormant, and supplies of autumn nuts were exhausted.
Meat was particularly important in the dry months when wildlife could never range far from the receding waters.
Because of their low-fat diet, women typically had late first menstruations and did not begin bearing children until about 18 or 19 years of age.
Births were spaced four years apart, due to lack of enough breast milk and requirements of mobility that made feeding and carrying more than one child at a time difficult.
In the 1990s, they switched to farming as a result of government-mandated modernization programs as well as the increased risks of a hunting and gathering lifestyle in the face of technological development.
Give them a generation or two and then try to take away that new way of life from them and see how they react.
Also - they did understand the concept of private property, they just didn't use barter or market economy. They exchanged gifts.
Which is fine for a neolithic way of life where everyone is from the same tribe/family anyway and all that there is to give has been gathered from the Earth.
Giving gifts, taking gifts and obligation to reciprocate is fine and dandy until rare things of great value appear.
There are mechanical and maintenance errors listed as causes.
Who is responsible for those? Cherubs? Gremlins? Spanish Inquisition?
He WAS David Carradine!
...Living far away from civilized centers, like in the center of African forests and deserts or on top of mountains and other places which have not yet been reached by the black asphalt snakes of progress.
How happy they are to have the Milky Way as their roof and the sound of crickets as their entertainment.
I am certain that they would never trade such freedom and comfort for those ghastly artificially illuminated roads, constant hum of the civilization and such trivialities as proximity to health-care and formal education.
Airbus with some kind of problem circling for hours to burn off fuel before making a landing because it had no capacity to manually dump the fuel, as a Boeing does.
A320 but also Boeing 737, DC-9 and Boeing 717 don't have manual fuel dump.
Boeing 767, 777, Airbus A300, A310, and A330 have it optionally - customer decides.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_dumping
It is the abnormal, non-routine flight where landing weight can be an issue. If a flight takes off at the maximum structural takeoff weight and then faces a situation where it must return to the departure airport (due to certain mechanical problems, or a passenger medical issue), there will not be time to consume the fuel meant for getting to the original destination, and the aircraft may be over the maximum structural landing weight to land back at the departure point.
Fuel dumping point of an Airbus A340-311
As jets began flying with U.S. airlines in the late 1950s and early 1960s, the FAA rule in effect at the time mandated that if the ratio between an aircraft's maximum structural takeoff weight and its maximum structural landing weight was greater than 105%, the aircraft had to have a fuel dump system installed. Accordingly, aircraft such as the Boeing 707 and 727 and the Douglas DC-8 had fuel dump systems. Any of those aircraft needing to return to a takeoff airport above the maximum structural landing weight would simply jettison an amount of fuel sufficient to reduce the aircraft's total weight to below that maximum structural landing weight limit, and then land.
During the 1960s, Boeing introduced the 737, and Douglas the DC-9, the original models of each being for shorter routes; the 105% figure was not an issue, thus they had no fuel dump systems installed. During the 1960s and 1970s, both Boeing and Douglas "grew" their respective aircraft as far as operational capabilities were concerned via Pratt & Whitney's development of increasingly powerful variants of the JT8D engines that powered both aircraft series. Both aircraft were now capable of longer duration flights, with increased weight limits, and complying with the existing 105% rule became problematic due to the costs associated with adding a fuel dump system to aircraft in production. Considering the more powerful engines that had been developed, the FAA changed the rules to delete the 105% requirement, and FAR 25.1001 was enacted stating a jettison system was not required if the climb requirements of FAR 25.119 (Landing Climb) and FAR 25.121 (Approach Climb) could be met, assuming a 15-minute flight. In other words, for a go-around with full landing flaps and all engines operating, and at approach flap setting and one engine inoperative, respectively.
Since most twinjet airliners can meet these requirements, most aircraft of this type such as the Boeing 737 (all models), the DC-9/MD80 and Boeing 717, the A320 family and various regional jet ("RJ") aircraft do not have fuel dump systems installed. In the event of an emergency requiring a return to the departure airport, the aircraft circles nearby in order to consume fuel to get down to within the maximum structural landing weight limit, or if the situation demands it, simply lands overweight without delay. Modern aircraft are designed for possible overweight landings in mind, but this is not done except in cases of emergency, and various maintenance inspections are required afterwards.
Longer-range twin jets such as the Boeing 767 and 777 and the Airbus A300, A310, and A330 may or may not have fuel dump systems, depending upon how the aircraft was ordered, since on some aircraft they are a customer option. Three- and four-engine jets like the Lockheed L-1011, McDonnell Douglas DC-10 / MD-11, Boeing 747 and Airbus A340 usually have difficulty meeting the requirements of FAR 25.119 near maximum structural takeoff weight, so most of those have jettison systems. A Boeing 757 has no fuel dump capability as its maximum landing weight is similar to the maximum take-off weight.
...of crashes due to computer error and pilot errors in crashes covered in episodes of Air Crash Investigations (Mayday).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Mayday_episodes
Hint: There were no crashes due to computer error.
Well... you don't really need to have it down to 1/30th of a second unless you want real time 2D-3D conversion and playback.
You could convert it to a 3D video for later viewing, but it would have to work faster than 15 minutes per a second of the movie (30 seconds mentioned above times 30 frames per second).
The REAL problem in such a case would not be the length of time it took to "3D-ify" the movie.
After all... faster processors and dedicated hardware would cut that down in time.
Making a 3D copy of the movie would probably breach the copyright though.
I didn't mean it as way to build the elevator from the ground up.
You could use it as a testbed for materials, procedures and techniques involved in building the actual space elevator.
Just the safety and security procedures developed would streamline the job immensely.
Building an F-15 is not the same as strapping a jet engine onto a Sopwith Camel but many of the principles get carried over.
Particularly regarding how to actually use one for its intended purposes.
15 km high superstructure? Pretty good place to start if you are working on a space-elevator-thingy.
Knowledge gained in its creation would be invaluable for future work on the space elevator.
Also, highest place you can put a telescope at without actually launching it into space.
And just imagine the radio coverage from that place.
A lot lower than a communication satellite but also sure as hell taller than the highest radio tower.
Did idea of vertical take-off and landing aircraft die out because of the development of aerodynamic lift aircraft?
How about propeller aircraft after development of jet engines?
Or lighter than air and other unpowered aircraft after development of powered aircraft?
How about Macs? Does anyone anywhere use them at all since Windows came out?
Is Linux dead?