No... I'm afraid that you are the prejudiced idiot here, looking for validation of your persecution complex or whatever that shit you have is.
Cause, as seen in my followup post above... VICE typists ARE retarded and can't put a sentence together. But YOU are the one who manages to find an attack on your personal causes and favorites in a badly written, and thus made ambiguous, summary of a clear cut statement. I.e. To see something THAT ISN'T EVEN THERE!
How's that paranoia working out? Who's spyin an hatin on you today? NSA? Russians? ISIL? Disney? Cats? Smurfs? Everyone as usual? Boy, that must be fun. Never a dull moment in your life with all those imaginary enemies.
And now... for your personal amusement... just so you could not say you haven't seen it...
Quote from the shitty VICE text:
The scientists say the finding is reason enough to zoom out from fracking, and take stock of the operations of the entire established fossil fuel industry.
And the actual statement from the American Geographical Union article they are quoting:
"The results are indicative that emissions from established fossil fuel harvesting techniques are greater than inventoried," Kort said. "There's been so much attention on high-volume hydraulic fracturing, but we need to consider the industry as a whole."
The scientists say the finding is reason enough to zoom out from fracking, and take stock of the operations of the entire established fossil fuel industry.
And the actual statement from the American Geographical Union article they are quoting:
"The results are indicative that emissions from established fossil fuel harvesting techniques are greater than inventoried," Kort said. "There's been so much attention on high-volume hydraulic fracturing, but we need to consider the industry as a whole."
Considering that the shitty *ngh* Vice *retch* article also states how "The hot spot predates fracking", maybe the equivocal suggestion to "zoom out from fracking" is meant as a call to stop looking at fracking as the main culprit (i.e. "zoom out" from it) for the release of methane? Meaning that someone should "take stock of the operations of the entire established fossil fuel industry" INSTEAD.
But it's nice to see where one's preferences and loyalties lie.
But wouldn't periodical burning of something made mostly out of carbon fix that, at least until enough humans arrive?
I'm not saying it has to be a bonfire or even a candle lit dinner... but a small object, burned in a burning chamber of some kind? And hemp grows anywhere, right?
You've raised the cost of an attack to stealing N boats (where N is the number of boats required to overrun the drones' defense) plus (more importantly) N crews. My guess is that finding people who are both willing to go on a suicide mission AND proficient at piloting a boat and setting off explosives is the bottleneck, not the theft/purchase of a boat.
Plus even if/when someone does get past the drones, it's likely that bypassing the drones will have bought the ship enough time to bring up its internal defenses to deal with them. (come to think of it, perhaps they should convert a few dozen of these to land duty and place them on the White House lawn...)
Nope.
You don't need more than two crews nor do you need to overrun the drones. One boat dragging another boat, which detaches from the main boat and continues to approach the main ship or the drones on inertia alone, is two potential threats. Threats which drones have to control by limiting the movement of the potential threat - NOT the other way around. Attack boats don't have to engage a single drone - just keep it busy.
And with each additional boat, which can be added cheaply and with an inexhaustible supply of boats to steal or even purchase or make (anything that floats is a threat) the number of potential threats rises easily while the number of drones remains constant. If their effectiveness is at maximum at 13:1, falls to 50% at 13:2... It is obvious that at 6 decoys + 1 attack boat they can no longer block or intercept all boats at the same time. That's when only 6 boats are covered by 2 drones each, and one drone is left covering the +1 boat. Now, if you're not sure, just add another boat.
To encircle one boat they need the minimum of 4 drones. To block it from advancing towards the ship they need 3. 2 drones per boat can only block 180 degrees of area around the incoming boat - and the same goes for the area they can protect around the main ship. So, at 13 drones, 7 is the magic number. And that's for all drones being exactly the same. Which they are not.
Now... Instead of boats, just drag behind a boat a barge loaded with crates. Have it detach from the boat, spilling floating crates in the water. Or make it balloons. Or make it a line of floating "dangerous looking" oily color. Now set it on fire.
They are trying to win an asymmetric war where the goal is NOT to win but to keep engaging the opponent - by providing the enemy with more targets. Enemy does not care if it kills soldiers or just damages property. The "Glorious goal" for them is to die fighting their enemy.
And assuming that US admirals are not all complete retards - this is an attempt to wage a bloodless war. For the US side, at least. Except, the enemy is just fine with shooting empty boats with RPGs and kidnapping and beheading journalists and tourists from time to time - until they provoke another bloody war.
This is the same old, not just dishonest (you have to know the truth to be dishonest) but RETARDED, 18th century way of thinking in the line of Thomas Robert Malthus. I.e. Prediction of the future anchored in the inability to imagine or even comprehend change.
And while all 13 boats are busy flashing lights and playing Metallica at the decoy boat, the other boat does whatever it was planning to do. For the price of 13 robotic boats they've raised the cost of an attack to... stealing two boats instead of one?
And then the decoy rushes at the boats around it and explodes, taking out or damaging at least some of the robotic boats as well.
Sure... You can tell it's the future cause the vaporware now comes as vaporwear.
From TFA:
Absolutely no information about availabilty seems to be listed anywhere, but if you head on over to the official website (linked to below), you can add your email to the company's mailing list to keep up-to-date.
And videos are just your run of the mill advertisement for imaginary products. Showing diddly-squat of actual operation or even wearing of the product, while showing instead obviously fake videos of them throwing the "prototype" off screen (which does not even clip on to the hand at this point) and "drone footage" which is too well focused and stabilized to be from a wrist-mountable drone camera, obviously NOT wrist-mountable drones flying around, 3D renderings, and not even a single 360-degree shot to prove it was done with at least a camera hanging off of a drone (or a movable crane).
Oh... It's a part of a contest sponsored by Intel? With prizes of $50,000 to finalists (10) and a $500,000 grand prize (1)?
Well why didn't you say so? I've got a design for a floating cloud sofa I could have entered. It's like this only with an "intel inside" logo taped to it.
Seriously you're living in your own world if you think Irish people are a "poor minority" in the social justice warrior sense.
What kind of a world do you live in when out of 4 distinct tropes you pick one as if it is the only one?
Weaker sex. Poor minority. Multiculturalism. "Do no evil." Scout's honor.
And who mentioned anything about social justice warriors? I'm not saying that Google is promoting any brand of "social justice". Whatever that may mean, as from my experience so far it means so many different things to so many people.
I'm saying that they are exploiting people's preconceived notions about what constitutes "Doing no evil", for the purposes of self-promotion as a "Do no evil" company. Which they are, in this case, achieving by exploiting children for their various superficial and preconceived racial/gender/ethnic/economic_status/etc attributes and connotations attached to said attributes. Instead of awarding them according to the merits of their projects.
Not sex and race. Exploitation of perceived image which goes with certain sex, race, ethnicity...
Why do YOU think that helps them the most?
Because if you are a "first world" multibillion dollar behemoth, it is good for your image to offset some of the connotations that come with that territory, making you look like a big brotherish soulless corporation. By presenting yourself as aligned with those on the opposite part of that spectrum. I.e. The poor, the powerless, the weak... through exploitation of well known tropes.
Weaker sex. Poor minority. Multiculturalism. "Do no evil." Scout's honor.
Here's one for you. Why is this photo of kids winning a science fair, "better" than both this one and this one? And I'm not talking about technical details like resolution or a nicer stage someone threw more money on. I'm talking about kids.
What is it about them that makes them more appealing? Here's a hint. It has to do with the image of both the army and corporations in general and while it is a part of the two not-Google-fair images it is utterly obliterated from the Google's photo of kids.
Another hint - it's not the gender or the race of those kids. Some or all of those elements are in all the photos.
Slashdot Mirror
No... I'm afraid that you are the prejudiced idiot here, looking for validation of your persecution complex or whatever that shit you have is.
Cause, as seen in my followup post above... VICE typists ARE retarded and can't put a sentence together.
But YOU are the one who manages to find an attack on your personal causes and favorites in a badly written, and thus made ambiguous, summary of a clear cut statement.
I.e. To see something THAT ISN'T EVEN THERE!
How's that paranoia working out? Who's spyin an hatin on you today? NSA? Russians? ISIL? Disney? Cats? Smurfs? Everyone as usual?
Boy, that must be fun. Never a dull moment in your life with all those imaginary enemies.
And now... for your personal amusement... just so you could not say you haven't seen it...
Quote from the shitty VICE text:
The scientists say the finding is reason enough to zoom out from fracking, and take stock of the operations of the entire established fossil fuel industry.
And the actual statement from the American Geographical Union article they are quoting:
"The results are indicative that emissions from established fossil fuel harvesting techniques are greater than inventoried," Kort said. "There's been so much attention on high-volume hydraulic fracturing, but we need to consider the industry as a whole."
Quote from the shitty VICE text:
The scientists say the finding is reason enough to zoom out from fracking, and take stock of the operations of the entire established fossil fuel industry.
And the actual statement from the American Geographical Union article they are quoting:
"The results are indicative that emissions from established fossil fuel harvesting techniques are greater than inventoried," Kort said. "There's been so much attention on high-volume hydraulic fracturing, but we need to consider the industry as a whole."
Considering that the shitty *ngh* Vice *retch* article also states how "The hot spot predates fracking", maybe the equivocal suggestion to "zoom out from fracking" is meant as a call to stop looking at fracking as the main culprit (i.e. "zoom out" from it) for the release of methane?
Meaning that someone should "take stock of the operations of the entire established fossil fuel industry" INSTEAD.
But it's nice to see where one's preferences and loyalties lie.
Are you perchance "weird" al-vin-rod?
Cause a suggestion such as that reminds me of only person that would keep that much tin-foil handy.
The basic problem is that the writers are not smart, let alone geniuses, so they simply do not know enough to write a show about geniuses.
But wouldn't periodical burning of something made mostly out of carbon fix that, at least until enough humans arrive?
I'm not saying it has to be a bonfire or even a candle lit dinner... but a small object, burned in a burning chamber of some kind?
And hemp grows anywhere, right?
You've raised the cost of an attack to stealing N boats (where N is the number of boats required to overrun the drones' defense) plus (more importantly) N crews. My guess is that finding people who are both willing to go on a suicide mission AND proficient at piloting a boat and setting off explosives is the bottleneck, not the theft/purchase of a boat.
Plus even if/when someone does get past the drones, it's likely that bypassing the drones will have bought the ship enough time to bring up its internal defenses to deal with them. (come to think of it, perhaps they should convert a few dozen of these to land duty and place them on the White House lawn...)
Nope.
You don't need more than two crews nor do you need to overrun the drones.
One boat dragging another boat, which detaches from the main boat and continues to approach the main ship or the drones on inertia alone, is two potential threats.
Threats which drones have to control by limiting the movement of the potential threat - NOT the other way around.
Attack boats don't have to engage a single drone - just keep it busy.
And with each additional boat, which can be added cheaply and with an inexhaustible supply of boats to steal or even purchase or make (anything that floats is a threat) the number of potential threats rises easily while the number of drones remains constant.
If their effectiveness is at maximum at 13:1, falls to 50% at 13:2...
It is obvious that at 6 decoys + 1 attack boat they can no longer block or intercept all boats at the same time.
That's when only 6 boats are covered by 2 drones each, and one drone is left covering the +1 boat.
Now, if you're not sure, just add another boat.
To encircle one boat they need the minimum of 4 drones.
To block it from advancing towards the ship they need 3.
2 drones per boat can only block 180 degrees of area around the incoming boat - and the same goes for the area they can protect around the main ship.
So, at 13 drones, 7 is the magic number. And that's for all drones being exactly the same. Which they are not.
Now... Instead of boats, just drag behind a boat a barge loaded with crates.
Have it detach from the boat, spilling floating crates in the water. Or make it balloons. Or make it a line of floating "dangerous looking" oily color. Now set it on fire.
They are trying to win an asymmetric war where the goal is NOT to win but to keep engaging the opponent - by providing the enemy with more targets.
Enemy does not care if it kills soldiers or just damages property.
The "Glorious goal" for them is to die fighting their enemy.
And assuming that US admirals are not all complete retards - this is an attempt to wage a bloodless war.
For the US side, at least.
Except, the enemy is just fine with shooting empty boats with RPGs and kidnapping and beheading journalists and tourists from time to time - until they provoke another bloody war.
This is the same old, not just dishonest (you have to know the truth to be dishonest) but RETARDED, 18th century way of thinking in the line of Thomas Robert Malthus.
I.e. Prediction of the future anchored in the inability to imagine or even comprehend change.
They send out a decoy first.
And while all 13 boats are busy flashing lights and playing Metallica at the decoy boat, the other boat does whatever it was planning to do.
For the price of 13 robotic boats they've raised the cost of an attack to... stealing two boats instead of one?
And then the decoy rushes at the boats around it and explodes, taking out or damaging at least some of the robotic boats as well.
Pretty sure that the same argument can be applied to justify eating human babies.
...And that would prevent them from becoming a burden to their parents or country while making them beneficial to the publick.
Is that the one with the piece on the navel gazing back at you?
Eating bush meat is not advised.
Or fucking it.
...babies TASTE best.
I'm guessing it tastes much like a bicycle.
You mean like buffalo and wild boar?
I'm guessing somewhere between plenty and a hell of a lot.
The key word is "dependent". Panda is dependent on humans to survive. Pigs... nope.
You never know where that idiot has been and what he got himself/herself into.
Meh... It's merely some guy's idea what human flesh tastes like based on stuff he read from questionable sources.
Maybe on Mars.
Is there a secret New Yorker colony on Mars that I'm not aware of? I woke up late today.
Captain America says that babies test best.
Hell, we once had a color coded scare-o-meter to tell people how nervous they should feel on any given day.
They should be numerically graded.
How else are we to know EXACTLY how nervous we should be?
And I'm not talking about the defunct currency.
http://shameproject.com/profil...
But he does prefer the big money over small.
Sure... You can tell it's the future cause the vaporware now comes as vaporwear.
From TFA:
Absolutely no information about availabilty seems to be listed anywhere, but if you head on over to the official website (linked to below), you can add your email to the company's mailing list to keep up-to-date.
And videos are just your run of the mill advertisement for imaginary products.
Showing diddly-squat of actual operation or even wearing of the product, while showing instead obviously fake videos of them throwing the "prototype" off screen (which does not even clip on to the hand at this point) and "drone footage" which is too well focused and stabilized to be from a wrist-mountable drone camera, obviously NOT wrist-mountable drones flying around, 3D renderings, and not even a single 360-degree shot to prove it was done with at least a camera hanging off of a drone (or a movable crane).
Oh... It's a part of a contest sponsored by Intel?
With prizes of $50,000 to finalists (10) and a $500,000 grand prize (1)?
Well why didn't you say so? I've got a design for a floating cloud sofa I could have entered.
It's like this only with an "intel inside" logo taped to it.
...that's Godzilla.
Coming back to show the dissatisfaction with mere 6.8 imdb score for the latest iteration of the venerational spectacle.
Seriously you're living in your own world if you think Irish people are a "poor minority" in the social justice warrior sense.
What kind of a world do you live in when out of 4 distinct tropes you pick one as if it is the only one?
Weaker sex.
Poor minority.
Multiculturalism.
"Do no evil." Scout's honor.
And who mentioned anything about social justice warriors?
I'm not saying that Google is promoting any brand of "social justice". Whatever that may mean, as from my experience so far it means so many different things to so many people.
I'm saying that they are exploiting people's preconceived notions about what constitutes "Doing no evil", for the purposes of self-promotion as a "Do no evil" company.
Which they are, in this case, achieving by exploiting children for their various superficial and preconceived racial/gender/ethnic/economic_status/etc attributes and connotations attached to said attributes.
Instead of awarding them according to the merits of their projects.
You seem to think it's about sex and race.
Not sex and race.
Exploitation of perceived image which goes with certain sex, race, ethnicity...
Why do YOU think that helps them the most?
Because if you are a "first world" multibillion dollar behemoth, it is good for your image to offset some of the connotations that come with that territory, making you look like a big brotherish soulless corporation.
By presenting yourself as aligned with those on the opposite part of that spectrum.
I.e. The poor, the powerless, the weak... through exploitation of well known tropes.
Weaker sex.
Poor minority.
Multiculturalism.
"Do no evil." Scout's honor.
Here's one for you.
Why is this photo of kids winning a science fair, "better" than both this one and this one?
And I'm not talking about technical details like resolution or a nicer stage someone threw more money on.
I'm talking about kids.
What is it about them that makes them more appealing?
Here's a hint.
It has to do with the image of both the army and corporations in general and while it is a part of the two not-Google-fair images it is utterly obliterated from the Google's photo of kids.
Another hint - it's not the gender or the race of those kids. Some or all of those elements are in all the photos.