That would be Grumman, who built the LM. With, of course, an assist by North American (CSM), McDonell-Douglas and Boeing (boosters).
Oh yeah, the government threw in some cash.
The private company that landed probes on nearly all of the closest planets?
Well, the USSR's the only "company" that landed anything on Venus. The first two Mars landers (Viking 1 and 2) were by Martin-Marietta, who built both the landers and the launch vehicles (Titan IIIs), again with the Feds throwing in some cash.
it is technologically and physically impossible to build a cyclotron in your back yard.
Not at all. There are limits to energy levels you can reach with a small cyclotron, but you can make one that fits on a desktop. Lawrence's first cyclotron was only four inches in diameter.
By my calculations, my red laser pointer (don't have it at hand to check the power level) will look about as bright as the sun if you look into the beam from a foot or so away. (Calculated by dividing beam power by the area of the beam spot. Sunlight, at a bit over a kilowatt per square meter, is a bit over 1 milliwatt per square millimeter.)
Uncomfortably bright, and you wouldn't want to look at it for very long, but it won't instantly blind you. (Caveat: this may NOT be true for higher power or better collimated beams.)
(Not that I've been stupid enough to actually try looking into the beam, mind, but I don't worry about specular reflections.)
Just out of morbid curiosity, to any of the discussions you've seen on Greedo or Han shooting first reflect on how that alters (if it does) the scene in Empire where Solo shoots first on entering the room upon Bespin where Darth Vader is waiting for them?
I guess it's okay to shoot first against Vader because we already know he's a bad guy? (Not that it did any good). Or is Lucas going to change that in the next Extra Special Edition Blu-Ray DVD?
I mean he would have to deal with moments of complete darkness, with only sounds to express what Ted is doing, or what state of mind he's in. Pretty difficult to do, but if done properly I would love to see that.
The original (NOT the remake) B&W version of the film "The Haunting" (also released as "The Haunting of Hill House" has a very effective scene shot in complete darkness, with just one of the characters talking to another. Creepy as hell, with a real (but subtle) shocker at the end of the scene when the light is turned on.
The director of that one knew that what you can imagine can be far scarier than anything the special effects folks can put on screen. (Although given the technology of the day, the (very few) FX are pretty darn creepy too -- making a thick oak panelled door bulge like that without CGI is a good trick.)
I maintained the source of our campus mainframe (Cyber 170) copy of "Collosal Cave" back in the day, and added some scenery and useless items to it. "The initials 'AS' are carved on the wall here" was one such.
"There is a collection of antique toast racks here."
Actually I thought the eye motion was well done -- that's pretty much how people's eyes track when they're looking at something -- a series of small jerks as different things briefly catch the attention. Someone whose eyes are moving slowly and smoothly isn't looking at anything.
It's creepy because although the rendering and small scale motions are well done, there are enough motion (or lack thereof) clues to tell you it's not real -- the motion is reminiscent the characters in the Final Fantasy movie or of Princess Fiona in Shrek (in human form -- the ogre form and the other characters are sufficiently inhuman we don't expect real motion, so don't find it's lack "creepy"). (In the stills you can look at detail long enough to pick out that it's rendered, not real.)
Take a look at Sample 1, where she raises her head. Well done: the blink, the hair movement, the way the eyes track. The giveaway: she manages to raise her head without moving her shoulders or (apparently) using any neck muscles. That's an unnatural motion.
In Sample 2, the hair is a bit odd -- it sways a little with head movement and ambient breeze, but should swing through nearly 90 degrees as she bends over (styling gel, maybe?). More significantly, the skin on the hands is far too smooth (no wrinkles on the knuckles), and the motion of the hand to the mouth (as in surprise) seems to have the wrong speed profile -- it's too slow and smooth, it should be faster and just a little jerky.
That latter tends to be the giveaway -- live creature motion is either fast and relatively smooth (a "preprogrammed" muscle sequence, as with eg. a gymnast or other athlete), or slow(er) with many minor "course corrections" through the feedback loop. It takes a lot of practise, coordination and concentration to move both slowly and smoothly -- people don't normally move like that, but androids and animations do.
Given the political sentiments of many left coast programmers, it's as likely to be BAM!, Kerry wins in an upset. Or even, Nader wins in a surprise upset.
Of course, there'd be an instant call (on all sides) for an investigation that made Florida 2000 look like a picnic.
There's a perfectly good 'halt' binary, with (at least on by SUSE box) symbolic links from 'shutdown', 'poweroff', and 'reboot'.
Initializing runlevel 6 starts all the S* scripts in/etc/init.d/rc6.d, in this case there's just one, which is linked to the 'halt' script in/etc/init.d. Of course, "init 6" could do just about anything, depending on how the runlevels are defined.
This sounds like it has far more to do with DBase than with AIX, so why even mention the OS? And what, exactly, is a "non-SQL format"? SQL is a language, not a database or file format.
Slashdot Mirror
tell me which company landed men on the moon.
That would be Grumman, who built the LM. With, of course, an assist by North American (CSM), McDonell-Douglas and Boeing (boosters).
Oh yeah, the government threw in some cash.
The private company that landed probes on nearly all of the closest planets?
Well, the USSR's the only "company" that landed anything on Venus. The first two Mars landers (Viking 1 and 2) were by Martin-Marietta, who built both the landers and the launch vehicles (Titan IIIs), again with the Feds throwing in some cash.
Ah, so that's why Napoleon resigned instead of invading Russia.
Oh, wait...
Probably because most people don't understand probability and statistics.
it is technologically and physically impossible to build a cyclotron in your back yard.
Not at all. There are limits to energy levels you can reach with a small cyclotron, but you can make one that fits on a desktop. Lawrence's first cyclotron was only four inches in diameter.
Oh, hey, no. It's great for disguising my pr0n collection:
Monopoly or not, Microsoft knows how to build a solid OS.
Dang, and me without points to mod this up (+1, Funny).
Besides, just because it's not funny doesn't mean it's not a joke.
;-)
Now that was funny.
Uh, if you can see the ground, you can see the laser somebody on the ground is pointing at you.
Are you suggesting that the pilots can't see the ground?
Yeah, you really don't want to open the evac doors on the side of the plane that has the pool of burning jet fuel.
By my calculations, my red laser pointer (don't have it at hand to check the power level) will look about as bright as the sun if you look into the beam from a foot or so away. (Calculated by dividing beam power by the area of the beam spot. Sunlight, at a bit over a kilowatt per square meter, is a bit over 1 milliwatt per square millimeter.)
Uncomfortably bright, and you wouldn't want to look at it for very long, but it won't instantly blind you. (Caveat: this may NOT be true for higher power or better collimated beams.)
(Not that I've been stupid enough to actually try looking into the beam, mind, but I don't worry about specular reflections.)
state of the art spy sattelites can supposedly read license plates
Which is pretty amazing, considering how hard it is to read license plates from overhead even if you're just standing on a bridge or overpass.
along with making you close to impossible to be followed by face recognition spy sattilites.
...
Well, face recogition, yeah. But since you're the only one out there wearing a tin foil sombrero,
(What, you didn't know about the hat recognition satellites?)
Why hasn't anyone yet considered the possibility that Han meant to shoot first but was too slow?
Um, perhaps because in the original, Han does shoot first? (Indeed, Greedo never gets off a shot.)
Just out of morbid curiosity, to any of the discussions you've seen on Greedo or Han shooting first reflect on how that alters (if it does) the scene in Empire where Solo shoots first on entering the room upon Bespin where Darth Vader is waiting for them?
I guess it's okay to shoot first against Vader because we already know he's a bad guy? (Not that it did any good). Or is Lucas going to change that in the next Extra Special Edition Blu-Ray DVD?
Er, sorry, I'll go take my meds now...
I mean he would have to deal with moments of complete darkness, with only sounds to express what Ted is doing, or what state of mind he's in. Pretty difficult to do, but if done properly I would love to see that.
The original (NOT the remake) B&W version of the film "The Haunting" (also released as "The Haunting of Hill House" has a very effective scene shot in complete darkness, with just one of the characters talking to another. Creepy as hell, with a real (but subtle) shocker at the end of the scene when the light is turned on.
The director of that one knew that what you can imagine can be far scarier than anything the special effects folks can put on screen. (Although given the technology of the day, the (very few) FX are pretty darn creepy too -- making a thick oak panelled door bulge like that without CGI is a good trick.)
Heh.
I maintained the source of our campus mainframe (Cyber 170) copy of "Collosal Cave" back in the day, and added some scenery and useless items to it. "The initials 'AS' are carved on the wall here" was one such.
"There is a collection of antique toast racks here."
Looks to me more like PuCd would be pronounced "puked".
Maybe so, but replicants are harder to figure out.
Actually I thought the eye motion was well done -- that's pretty much how people's eyes track when they're looking at something -- a series of small jerks as different things briefly catch the attention. Someone whose eyes are moving slowly and smoothly isn't looking at anything.
It's creepy because although the rendering and small scale motions are well done, there are enough motion (or lack thereof) clues to tell you it's not real -- the motion is reminiscent the characters in the Final Fantasy movie or of Princess Fiona in Shrek (in human form -- the ogre form and the other characters are sufficiently inhuman we don't expect real motion, so don't find it's lack "creepy"). (In the stills you can look at detail long enough to pick out that it's rendered, not real.)
Take a look at Sample 1, where she raises her head. Well done: the blink, the hair movement, the way the eyes track. The giveaway: she manages to raise her head without moving her shoulders or (apparently) using any neck muscles. That's an unnatural motion.
In Sample 2, the hair is a bit odd -- it sways a little with head movement and ambient breeze, but should swing through nearly 90 degrees as she bends over (styling gel, maybe?). More significantly, the skin on the hands is far too smooth (no wrinkles on the knuckles), and the motion of the hand to the mouth (as in surprise) seems to have the wrong speed profile -- it's too slow and smooth, it should be faster and just a little jerky.
That latter tends to be the giveaway -- live creature motion is either fast and relatively smooth (a "preprogrammed" muscle sequence, as with eg. a gymnast or other athlete), or slow(er) with many minor "course corrections" through the feedback loop. It takes a lot of practise, coordination and concentration to move both slowly and smoothly -- people don't normally move like that, but androids and animations do.
The wealthier you are, the higher the likelyhood that it will be republican-leaning.
Well, except in Hollywood.
Given the political sentiments of many left coast programmers, it's as likely to be BAM!, Kerry wins in an upset. Or even, Nader wins in a surprise upset.
Of course, there'd be an instant call (on all sides) for an investigation that made Florida 2000 look like a picnic.
Who uses 'init 6' to shutdown Linux?
/etc/init.d/rc6.d, in this case there's just one, which is linked to the 'halt' script in /etc/init.d. Of course, "init 6" could do just about anything, depending on how the runlevels are defined.
There's a perfectly good 'halt' binary, with (at least on by SUSE box) symbolic links from 'shutdown', 'poweroff', and 'reboot'.
Initializing runlevel 6 starts all the S* scripts in
This sounds like it has far more to do with DBase than with AIX, so why even mention the OS? And what, exactly, is a "non-SQL format"? SQL is a language, not a database or file format.
Space:1999 wasn't that early, it was mid-70s. As for what show used motion-control cameras, yeah, it might have been Cattlecar Galaxative.