...Can it stop actual assault rifle bullets and not just slow elephant gun bullets?...
Assault Rifle: AK-47 uses 7.62x39mm ammunition which has a muzzle velocity of 710 m/s and a bullet weight of 7.97g, probably full metal jacket. "Elephant Gun": If we're talking about a proper elephant gun then it would fire something like the.460 Weatherby Magnum. That's a 29.16g bullet (usually pointed lead tip) with a muzzle velocity of 810 m/s.
You have a strange definition of "slow".
If this suit has really stopped shots from anything similar to the Weatherby load then I'm seriously impressed.
So here's how the conversation went the night before CES: Apple Lawyer (AL): We're never gonna get all this paperwork done tonight. Cisco Lawyer (CL): No kiddin'. I shoulda been a trial law god like on Boston Legal. AL: lol. I'm not stayin' up all night for this crap. We can finish next week. CL: Works for me. I'll have to sue you though. AL: That's cool. The boss will like the free publicity. CL: Oh crap. I don't have the boilerplate for TM filing on this new laptop. AL: Lamer. Why don't you keep that stuff on a flash? Here, I've got a copy on mine. CL: Oh cool. Thanks. I guess you'll be at the big Apple party tomorrow night. AL: Really, I was thinkin' of crashin' the Nintendo party. I hear the hot-pants chick from those Wii ads will be there. CL: Sweeet! I gotta meet her. AL: See ya there then. Later. CL: Later, dude.
...The intention is to produce a whole generation of computer-literate people. This requires that they have access to the internals, in order to learn to work with the hardware and software...
Well, there's a typical Slashdot-centric, OSS zealot response. Computer-literate does not require access to the internals of anything. The whole world doesn't need to be programmers and hardware techs. There is plenty of work to be done with a computer rather than to a computer. Having open source software on these machines is a great idea for various reasons; they just don't happen to be the reasons you stated.
...Longer answer: Our view of the universe is human-centric. The only reason you even notice the pollution is because it's impacting you. Is it really better if the most versatile form of life we know of becomes extinct than polluting some planets?
Pollution? That was here long before humans, and will still be here long after we're gone. How about urbanization, paving, mining, deforestation, irradiation, damming, habitat destruction, species exploitation. There's a long list of bad things we do to this planet that goes way beyond pollution. Everything we do that is vaguely beneficial to another species is either accidental, or an attempt to repair damage we've already done. I don't see how versatility imparts any special value to a species. If so then there are plenty of other species that can lay claim to that distinction - especially some of the microscopic ones that we put a lot of resources into destroying. Humans are certainly one of the most invasive members of the macrofauna, and we've demonstrated that we can inflict damage on a much broader scale than any other species.
Anyway, every planet in our solar system is lifeless on any kind of meaningful scale,...
So you ran out and checked them all, and developed a meaningful scale for measuring life? Sounds like the wrong guy got the medal.
Look around. Is this something you want to see done to every planet that can be made marginally habitable? And before you say it - no we haven't learned from our mistakes here. We're still doing the same old stuff. It's almost certain that we would molest every other planet just like we do this one. Space exploration is very educational and entertaining. It might even prove to have some real benefits of some sort, but colonization is a very bad idea. Humans are an insidious parasite that needs to stay quarantined on this one planet that we've already screwed over.
...Now think about the value of your time. You get ~100 years here on Earth and that's all. You are wired to spend about a third of that time unconscious. An entire third of your life will be spent not doing or experiencing anything.... What, then, would 33 extra years be worth?...
Oh! That would suck most egregiously! I hope I don't get 100yrs on this rock. My plans for the future are based on a statistical male longevity of ~71yrs in my family. If I live much beyond that I'm totally screwed. If you top that off with having to consciously experience 50% more of it then I'll probably have to check out early. The other night I dreamed I was at the beach and got to pet a baby whale that just swam right up to me. It was the most awesome feeling. And let's not forget those dreams where we get to fly around sans airplane. Nothing that cool is ever gonna happen while I'm awake.
Re:Sorry, I meant 10 Million instead of 20-30m. Et
on
Gears of War Review
·
· Score: 1
So would they have charged $120 - $180 for the fully fleshed-out version, or are they ripping off customers by charging full price for a game that's one third of what it could have been?
...Take a look at http://www.jwwaterhouse.com/ [jwwaterhouse.com] and tell me that at least one of these canvases are not perfect...
OK. At least one of them isn't perfect. They're all good if you're a fan of simulating the aged and dirty look of unrestored classics, but even with limited formal training in art critique I can spot problems - especially regarding proportions and positioning of limbs or extremeties. He also has occasional issues with perspective.
...Something that always bothered me was how Kenobi (in Jedi, I think) tells Luke about Anakin was already a great pilot when they met ("the best star pilot in the galaxy") -- that even then he detected that the force was very strong in him. Yet, in Phantom Anakin is a child, not a star pilot...
As I recall there was this small scene involving some sort of hovercraft-type racing machines. I think they might have even made a video game based on that race. "Star pilot" is still a bit of a stretch, but this is the same guy who didn't recognize the little blue robot that pulled his butt out of the fire numerous times.
"Currently, the minimum goal for response times should therefore be to get pages to users in no more than ten seconds, since that's the limit of people's ability to keep their attention focused while waiting." - Jakob Nielsen March 1st 1007...
Dang, he figured that out nearly a thousand years ago, and nobody is paying attention yet. And they were still hand writing every page back then.
Who created the stuff that participated in the Big Bang?
Probably, no one. But as I scientist, I get to ask that question and engage in a serious search for answers that will undergo critical theoretical and emperical testing.
That's the difference between science and religion. Christians believe in god based on no creditable evidence, and asking "who created god" is heresy--to ask that question puts you outside of the limited, narrow bounds of religion. Scientists believe based on plenty of strong evidence that there was a point in the past when the universe was extremely hot and dense, and has been expanding and cooling ever since (the Hot Big Bang). And asking "what caused the Big Bang" is still well within the broad bounds of science.
Do you see the difference? Or has your religion crippled your mind to the extent that this is incomprehensible to you?
Also as a scientist (sure, it's just a BS in Geology from a state school, but it's still science) I also get to ask questions. "Who created" was phrased to fit with the parent post. Now try it this way: WHERE did the stuff come from. That's my real point - cosmology and religion start at the same place. Either something that we refer to as God suddenly pops out of nothingness and the universe gets created, or the universe just creates itself out of nothing and proceeds to order itself. The two stories aren't really too different. They both have the same big fundamental problem at the beginning.
It's very unfortunate when scientists start to believe things based on strong evidence. That really gets in the way of proper science. The Big Bang appears to be a good theory, or at least a good working hypothesis. It's really still in it's infancy but it's a good place to start. Asking "how did God create the universe" is well within the broad bounds of religion.
No, religion hasn't crippled my mind, but it has helped me to grasp the fact that no matter how much I know there will always be an infinite amount that I don't know. Has intellectual hubris crippled your mind?
"The office of U.S. intelligence czar John Negroponte announced Intellipedia"
If anything disolves faith in elected officials and journalists, it's when they're naive or blasé enough to faddishly use a word which means emperor to describe the positions of public servants in places of authority.
They're just trying to be honest for a change. They thought it would be easier to start with something everybody knows anyway.
...Is a public broadcast of music from a CD I bought now illegal? I guess I'd better not EVER let anyone listen to a song off my iPod anymore -- they didn't buy the CD so unless they're lucky enough to hear the song on the radio between the 45 minutes of advertisments per hour they're just simply S.O.L.
Finally! A slashdotter who understands U.S. copyright laws.
But technically, if the door is in "straight through" mode It is no longer a revolving door... No?:) -- Think nothing is impossible? Try slamming a revolving door
Well, I guess it would depend on how many sections got slammed, rotational momentum, etc. Then there's the whole sort of existentialist thing about it being a revolving door when the slam started, but maybe not by the time it finished.
Slashdot Mirror
Assault Rifle: AK-47 uses 7.62x39mm ammunition which has a muzzle velocity of 710 m/s and a bullet weight of 7.97g, probably full metal jacket.
"Elephant Gun": If we're talking about a proper elephant gun then it would fire something like the
You have a strange definition of "slow".
If this suit has really stopped shots from anything similar to the Weatherby load then I'm seriously impressed.
So here's how the conversation went the night before CES:
Apple Lawyer (AL): We're never gonna get all this paperwork done tonight.
Cisco Lawyer (CL): No kiddin'. I shoulda been a trial law god like on Boston Legal.
AL: lol. I'm not stayin' up all night for this crap. We can finish next week.
CL: Works for me. I'll have to sue you though.
AL: That's cool. The boss will like the free publicity.
CL: Oh crap. I don't have the boilerplate for TM filing on this new laptop.
AL: Lamer. Why don't you keep that stuff on a flash? Here, I've got a copy on mine.
CL: Oh cool. Thanks. I guess you'll be at the big Apple party tomorrow night.
AL: Really, I was thinkin' of crashin' the Nintendo party. I hear the hot-pants chick from those Wii ads will be there.
CL: Sweeet! I gotta meet her.
AL: See ya there then. Later.
CL: Later, dude.
I guess it would depend on the size of the pies and their initial altitude.
Now how am I supposed to get any work done today with that image in my head?
Thanks a lot.
We've had the solution to that problem for decades - Global Thermonuclear War. Just eliminate everything that eats and you have no more hunger.
1) build rocket
2) put astronauts in rocket
3) fly rocket to moon
This concludes today's presentation on a strategy for returning to the moon. Thank you for attending.
Well, there's a typical Slashdot-centric, OSS zealot response. Computer-literate does not require access to the internals of anything. The whole world doesn't need to be programmers and hardware techs. There is plenty of work to be done with a computer rather than to a computer.
Having open source software on these machines is a great idea for various reasons; they just don't happen to be the reasons you stated.
Pollution? That was here long before humans, and will still be here long after we're gone. How about urbanization, paving, mining, deforestation, irradiation, damming, habitat destruction, species exploitation. There's a long list of bad things we do to this planet that goes way beyond pollution.
Everything we do that is vaguely beneficial to another species is either accidental, or an attempt to repair damage we've already done.
I don't see how versatility imparts any special value to a species. If so then there are plenty of other species that can lay claim to that distinction - especially some of the microscopic ones that we put a lot of resources into destroying. Humans are certainly one of the most invasive members of the macrofauna, and we've demonstrated that we can inflict damage on a much broader scale than any other species.
So you ran out and checked them all, and developed a meaningful scale for measuring life? Sounds like the wrong guy got the medal.
Look around. Is this something you want to see done to every planet that can be made marginally habitable?
And before you say it - no we haven't learned from our mistakes here. We're still doing the same old stuff. It's almost certain that we would molest every other planet just like we do this one.
Space exploration is very educational and entertaining. It might even prove to have some real benefits of some sort, but colonization is a very bad idea.
Humans are an insidious parasite that needs to stay quarantined on this one planet that we've already screwed over.
My VW doesn't use antifreeze at all.
I have more flaws than Oracle and SQL Server combined.
Oh! That would suck most egregiously!
I hope I don't get 100yrs on this rock. My plans for the future are based on a statistical male longevity of ~71yrs in my family. If I live much beyond that I'm totally screwed.
If you top that off with having to consciously experience 50% more of it then I'll probably have to check out early.
The other night I dreamed I was at the beach and got to pet a baby whale that just swam right up to me. It was the most awesome feeling. And let's not forget those dreams where we get to fly around sans airplane. Nothing that cool is ever gonna happen while I'm awake.
So would they have charged $120 - $180 for the fully fleshed-out version, or are they ripping off customers by charging full price for a game that's one third of what it could have been?
OK. At least one of them isn't perfect. They're all good if you're a fan of simulating the aged and dirty look of unrestored classics, but even with limited formal training in art critique I can spot problems - especially regarding proportions and positioning of limbs or extremeties. He also has occasional issues with perspective.
As I recall there was this small scene involving some sort of hovercraft-type racing machines. I think they might have even made a video game based on that race.
"Star pilot" is still a bit of a stretch, but this is the same guy who didn't recognize the little blue robot that pulled his butt out of the fire numerous times.
I was gonna ask how you know that. Then I decided I don't want to know.
No they won't. They'll terminate half of the workforce and expect the survivors to do twice the work for the same pay.
I don't know what planet you're living on.
Dang, he figured that out nearly a thousand years ago, and nobody is paying attention yet. And they were still hand writing every page back then.
Won't happen. The rest of the species on Earth are too smart to get tangled up with intelligence.
Also as a scientist (sure, it's just a BS in Geology from a state school, but it's still science) I also get to ask questions. "Who created" was phrased to fit with the parent post. Now try it this way: WHERE did the stuff come from. That's my real point - cosmology and religion start at the same place. Either something that we refer to as God suddenly pops out of nothingness and the universe gets created, or the universe just creates itself out of nothing and proceeds to order itself. The two stories aren't really too different. They both have the same big fundamental problem at the beginning.
It's very unfortunate when scientists start to believe things based on strong evidence. That really gets in the way of proper science. The Big Bang appears to be a good theory, or at least a good working hypothesis. It's really still in it's infancy but it's a good place to start. Asking "how did God create the universe" is well within the broad bounds of religion.
No, religion hasn't crippled my mind, but it has helped me to grasp the fact that no matter how much I know there will always be an infinite amount that I don't know. Has intellectual hubris crippled your mind?
Who created the stuff that participated in the Big Bang?
They're just trying to be honest for a change. They thought it would be easier to start with something everybody knows anyway.
Finally! A slashdotter who understands U.S. copyright laws.
Well, I guess it would depend on how many sections got slammed, rotational momentum, etc. Then there's the whole sort of existentialist thing about it being a revolving door when the slam started, but maybe not by the time it finished.