"I also doubt there are any extra terrestrial research going on in the government, think about it you need the best of the best to even think of starting it, and the government well its the government what other insult do I need to lob at it."
You ever hear of the Manhattan Project? How about Los Alamos? All of that was done in secrecy. Many of the people working the project didn't even know what they were working on. It only takes a few people that know the whole truth. Everyone else only knows there own part.
Now, I'm not saying I completely disagree with you, just that your logic is flawed.
Basically it comes down to technique. On most reasonable length, gradual (less than 4% grade) hills, you can find this happy zone where you really aren't pedaling any harder than on flat land. It took me about 3 or 4 months of solid riding (150+ mile weekends) to really find the timing and gearing. For me the easiest way to find it was to drop to my middle front ring with the smallest back ring and work down the gears from there. I am generally happy on long hills somewhere in the middle of the back rings and on my middle front ring, shifting up or down as my legs dictate.
As with computers, there isn't one "best" design for a bicycle. Different bikes are designed for different needs. A velo track rider doesn't use brakes...a mountain biker does. A recumbant bike (the one with the rider lower to the ground) is indeed mostly for an upright seating position, but also uses different muscles than a "standard" bicycle. Let's not forget the unicyclists out there either...though they are mostly just clownin around.
There have actually been a lot of changes, though most of them aren't obvious. The biggest and most effective design change has been in materials. carbon fiber, aluminum and lightweight alloys versus steel. (Yes many bikes still use steel but it isn't universal anymore.) There are also a lot of high end (>$3000 US) bikes that have serious frame shape changes, wheel design changes, even fork changes (Cannondale's "Leftie" is the most obvious of these), but those generally never make it to the broader mass market because they are so specialized.
As with everything else, the "best" design is the one that works with your individual needs.
Honestly, unless you really don't want to do your research and would rather spend your time compiling, why even consider it? Wouldn't your time be better spent the computers instead of maintaining them?
"Again, the width of the tire has nothing to do with the amount of friction (traction) they provide."
I assert that, if you change the tire width, it does make the friction different. Now this isn't because of the surface area, though, it's because of the weight difference.
I can make a huge difference in my speed on my road bike by changing from a 700x23 tire to a 700x25 tire. (By huge we're talking a couple miles an hour--for me at least) That extra 2 mm in width makes all the difference in the world for my top speed and length of time I can maintain a top speed. All because of the friction of my tires.
for more info check out this page: http://www.school-for-champions.com/science /fricti on.htm
A small excerpt "Independent of area
The most important thing about the friction law or equation is that friction is independent of the surface area in contact. In other words, it is just as difficult to move a 1 cm square object as a 1 meter square object, if they both are pressed to the surface with the same amount of force.
For example, it would take the same force to move a heavy desk across a wooden floor if the desk was on its side or if the desk was on its legs, provided the coefficient of friction was the same. Not intuitive
This is not intuitive. You would think that there is more friction when the surfaces are larger. But the friction law states otherwise. You can verify this with experiments."
Getting laid doesn't prove you ahve social skills. Lots of people who are complete assholes get laid. Lots of people who are incredibly charming don't get laid. I know nothing of Feynman, personally, so I can't say whether his approach is right or wrong (if there is such a thing).
Intellectual approaches can work, when tempered with some style or charm or other social trait. I think you will find that someone capable of doing both will always have the upper hand. Women (and men) almost always find intellect appealing, but rarely find a "brainiac" or "know-it-all" appealing. Why do you think that is? Social skills are what make the difference, and I'd be willing to bet Mr. Feynman has plenty of social skills to go along with his intellectual approach.
Thomas Shaddack wrote:
"Besides, it's pretty useful for the career building"
Unfortunately life isn't about building your career. Life is about living and enjoying yourself...which may mean building your career, but increasingly doesn't. The kid needs to have interaction with people "bigger and better" than he is...people he can look up to, not down on.
I knew early in life I was a lot smarter than most of the people around me. I was an asshole because of that, to people I thought were stupid or maybe even smart but not as smart as me. I was a lot like the OP describes his problem child it seems.
What eventually helped me see how much of an asshole I was and helped me learn some social skills was the fact that I participated in a lot of non-academic activities from sports to music to dancing to D&D etc...all of those activities did far more to develop me socially than publishing (had I been in a field where that would do some good) ever could have. There was always someone better than me at these activities and a little humility goes a long way. Just building your resume and getting recognition for being as smart as you already know you are doesn't help much.
Another thing I noticed made a big difference in me was watching home videos. Seeing on the television how I treated other people made me much more conscious of my own words and actions later in similar situations.
NO the sole reason for a jury isn't jury nullification. The reason for a jury is so that the legal system can't be bought. It's much harder to "buy" a jury of unknowns (at least until the trial starts) than it is to buy an individual judge or prosecutor who are both known well in advance of the actual trial date. The jury is supposed to ensure that everyday people have a chance at a trial that is equally as fair as some rich guy, and that some rich guy actually gets a trial and doesn't just walk away because he can pay to be released.
Of course we know this doesn't always work, but it works a hell of a lot better than if there was no jury system in place.
Actually, there are 4 full length highlander movies, though only the first and last count for anything. The first was the original, and the last was a sort of intro to the highlander telvision series. Problem is that all of them end up screwing the original movie's storyline.
"That way when some 5'5", black hair, brown eyed underage person presnts the ID and the data on the back shows 6'1", blonde hair, blue eyes, they know it's a fake."
So that's where my wallet went! Give it back you bastard runt!
"...but trying to say something informative/insightful/funny in the eyes of others every time you post is definitely an exercise in understanding people, and thus an exercise in social skills."
Maybe that's what I've been doing wrong. I don't post to be insightful or funny, I just post. I don't give a damn what anybody else thinks about what I have to say.
Did you read the article? There is already another company with a much less complex interface that is already FDA approved and doing human studies. Cyberkinetics' device certainly seems far more advanced and likely to produce usable results, but they won't be the first to do human testing.
See, the point is, Joe doesn't give a damn what an OS is. And he shouldn't, as long as it does the job. To an everyday user the OS should be completely invisible. It shouldn't matter to the user who is just trying to do their job/hobby/whatever.
Earhart and Lindbergh? One is famous for success, the other famous for success followed by collosal failure. Both were also the first to do what they were attempting. They were not just some guy trying to enjoy what his life has to offer. They were making history, he is spending time. There's a big difference.
In any case, the situation doesn't apply. If this guy had been successful, we might be reading a 2 line note on page 16 of the paper. Maybe. Not because his feat is any less impressive (had he been successful) but because it's already been done.
Don't confuse the issue. The man made a mistake. He's lucky he didn't go missing (like Earhar) and he should be thankful to be alive. Better planning on his part could have prevented the whole issue.
Nowhere does that passport say that the person in trouble defines what "assistance" is "necessary" though. This man has been given assistance to a reasonable measure. I don't think it likely that any government is going to help this guy out. It's just not worth the embarassment. He has been given reasonable options. Whether he chooses to accept them is entirely up to him and should have no bearing on his government. It's not like he's being held prisoner.
If I put myself in his shoes, I would have used my experience to recognize that I wasn't going to have enough fuel and turned around at an earlier point. In order to burn so much fuel that he couldn't make his destination, he would have had to have had extremely strong headwinds for at least an hour or two, or more likely, slightly strong headwinds for a much longer period of time. There is no excuse for poor planning or poor judgement. The man has already flown around the world several times in the same plane. It's not like he can claim he wasn't aware of the performance the plane was capable of giving.
Is it unfortunate that he's "stuck" in Antarctica? Most certainly, but he put himself there. He is alive, and safe and has alternatives for returning home just as safely. The people who are stationed at those Antartic bases can't really afford to sell him some of their gas, even if they were inclined to do so. They have to keep stores for their own emergencies and survival. That's the first rule of any "rescue" work...your own safety comes first. Period.
This man obviously has the money to afford to get himself and his aircraft home. He should take the offer given him and consider himself lucky to have survived with a simple lesson learned. No, it's not nice, but it's part of life. Sometimes you have to deal with the consequences of your own actions, whether you like them or not.
Crankystib, what exactly are you talking about? The US didn't tell the NZ government to shut this guy down (at least that any of us are aware of). The man built what is effectively an unmanned aircraft at this point. Had he labelled it as such, he likely wouldn't have been dealt with in the same manner. We'll never know for sure, but in any case the US government's policies aren't what's at issue here.
Was this man's intent really what it says it was? I don't know, but I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt while retaining a level of skepticism. Does he deserve punishment for "seeking attention"? Probably not, but as another poster noted, some of his comments seem to show a bit of spin-doctoring on his part...intentional or not. At this point, we are only getting his side of the story at this point (and likely that's all we'll get), so it's hard to say. No matter what a person's intent, they will always skew a situation to be viewed in their own favor...it's simply human nature. I'd like to hear what the NZ government has to say about the issue, but as I said, that is unlikely.
First, anyone planning to launch a DIY cruise missile isn't going to care about being "allowed in the sky". By the time anyone has time to say no, the deed is done. Second, with the right pre-planning, it's not difficult to program target coordinates and never need radio contact after launch. Just upload target coordinates and your guidance system adjusts based on current GPS location. The biggest issue with using GPS is speed. Some GPS units are better than others, but I don't know of any civilian units that will be accurate at the high speeds required for an effective cruise missile. (There may be some, but I have limited experience with GPS units.) I also don't know for sure if GPS units have unique IDs that can be used to track ownership after the fact, but as an essentially passive receiver, there is no real way to track it during usage. No warning available from that source. Assuming you can update position accurately using a civilian GPS unit, the target's most likely warning would be hearing the missile fly over, but then it's too late.
Even in areas where military units are on full alert, it will take at least 90 seconds to launch aircraft to mount a defense. That is 'After' the missile's presence is detected. How long does it take to travel 100 miles at mach 0.8? (Just an estimate of speed...I have no idea if this is a feasible number for a "homemade" pulse jet engine.) If you happen to have anti-aircraft units based on the ground in the respective target zone, you've got a much better chance of shooting the missile down, but you still have minimal warning, especially if the missile maintains a low altitude, which is also not very difficult using a "passive" GPS device.
Slashdot Mirror
"I also doubt there are any extra terrestrial research going on in the government, think about it you need the best of the best to even think of starting it, and the government well its the government what other insult do I need to lob at it."
You ever hear of the Manhattan Project? How about Los Alamos? All of that was done in secrecy. Many of the people working the project didn't even know what they were working on. It only takes a few people that know the whole truth. Everyone else only knows there own part.
Now, I'm not saying I completely disagree with you, just that your logic is flawed.
bkr
Just for my reference...a metric buttload is 1.83 Imperial buttloads, right?
I'm American, so I don't really use metric units that much.
bkr
Basically it comes down to technique. On most reasonable length, gradual (less than 4% grade) hills, you can find this happy zone where you really aren't pedaling any harder than on flat land. It took me about 3 or 4 months of solid riding (150+ mile weekends) to really find the timing and gearing. For me the easiest way to find it was to drop to my middle front ring with the smallest back ring and work down the gears from there. I am generally happy on long hills somewhere in the middle of the back rings and on my middle front ring, shifting up or down as my legs dictate.
bkr
As with computers, there isn't one "best" design for a bicycle. Different bikes are designed for different needs. A velo track rider doesn't use brakes...a mountain biker does. A recumbant bike (the one with the rider lower to the ground) is indeed mostly for an upright seating position, but also uses different muscles than a "standard" bicycle. Let's not forget the unicyclists out there either...though they are mostly just clownin around.
There have actually been a lot of changes, though most of them aren't obvious. The biggest and most effective design change has been in materials. carbon fiber, aluminum and lightweight alloys versus steel. (Yes many bikes still use steel but it isn't universal anymore.) There are also a lot of high end (>$3000 US) bikes that have serious frame shape changes, wheel design changes, even fork changes (Cannondale's "Leftie" is the most obvious of these), but those generally never make it to the broader mass market because they are so specialized.
As with everything else, the "best" design is the one that works with your individual needs.
bkr
PS: Yes the overly large wheel was on the front.
Wouldn't your time be better spent the computers instead of maintaining them?
--should read "USING" the computers instead of maintaining them...
damn I need to learn tags
bkr
Honestly, unless you really don't want to do your research and would rather spend your time compiling, why even consider it? Wouldn't your time be better spent the computers instead of maintaining them?
bkr
"Again, the width of the tire has nothing to do with the amount of friction (traction) they provide."
e /fricti on.htm
I assert that, if you change the tire width, it does make the friction different. Now this isn't because of the surface area, though, it's because of the weight difference.
I can make a huge difference in my speed on my road bike by changing from a 700x23 tire to a 700x25 tire. (By huge we're talking a couple miles an hour--for me at least) That extra 2 mm in width makes all the difference in the world for my top speed and length of time I can maintain a top speed. All because of the friction of my tires.
for more info check out this page:
http://www.school-for-champions.com/scienc
A small excerpt
"Independent of area
The most important thing about the friction law or equation is that friction is independent of the surface area in contact. In other words, it is just as difficult to move a 1 cm square object as a 1 meter square object, if they both are pressed to the surface with the same amount of force.
For example, it would take the same force to move a heavy desk across a wooden floor if the desk was on its side or if the desk was on its legs, provided the coefficient of friction was the same.
Not intuitive
This is not intuitive. You would think that there is more friction when the surfaces are larger. But the friction law states otherwise. You can verify this with experiments."
bkr
Someone please mod the parent up. Insightful and finally a level-headed response on /. A true rarity.
bkr
Getting laid doesn't prove you ahve social skills. Lots of people who are complete assholes get laid. Lots of people who are incredibly charming don't get laid. I know nothing of Feynman, personally, so I can't say whether his approach is right or wrong (if there is such a thing).
Intellectual approaches can work, when tempered with some style or charm or other social trait. I think you will find that someone capable of doing both will always have the upper hand. Women (and men) almost always find intellect appealing, but rarely find a "brainiac" or "know-it-all" appealing. Why do you think that is? Social skills are what make the difference, and I'd be willing to bet Mr. Feynman has plenty of social skills to go along with his intellectual approach.
bkr
Thomas Shaddack wrote:
"Besides, it's pretty useful for the career building"
Unfortunately life isn't about building your career. Life is about living and enjoying yourself...which may mean building your career, but increasingly doesn't. The kid needs to have interaction with people "bigger and better" than he is...people he can look up to, not down on.
I knew early in life I was a lot smarter than most of the people around me. I was an asshole because of that, to people I thought were stupid or maybe even smart but not as smart as me. I was a lot like the OP describes his problem child it seems.
What eventually helped me see how much of an asshole I was and helped me learn some social skills was the fact that I participated in a lot of non-academic activities from sports to music to dancing to D&D etc...all of those activities did far more to develop me socially than publishing (had I been in a field where that would do some good) ever could have. There was always someone better than me at these activities and a little humility goes a long way. Just building your resume and getting recognition for being as smart as you already know you are doesn't help much.
Another thing I noticed made a big difference in me was watching home videos. Seeing on the television how I treated other people made me much more conscious of my own words and actions later in similar situations.
bkr
Geek!
bkr
NO the sole reason for a jury isn't jury nullification. The reason for a jury is so that the legal system can't be bought. It's much harder to "buy" a jury of unknowns (at least until the trial starts) than it is to buy an individual judge or prosecutor who are both known well in advance of the actual trial date. The jury is supposed to ensure that everyday people have a chance at a trial that is equally as fair as some rich guy, and that some rich guy actually gets a trial and doesn't just walk away because he can pay to be released.
Of course we know this doesn't always work, but it works a hell of a lot better than if there was no jury system in place.
bkr
Actually, there are 4 full length highlander movies, though only the first and last count for anything. The first was the original, and the last was a sort of intro to the highlander telvision series. Problem is that all of them end up screwing the original movie's storyline.
bkr
"That way when some 5'5", black hair, brown eyed underage person presnts the ID and the data on the back shows 6'1", blonde hair, blue eyes, they know it's a fake."
So that's where my wallet went! Give it back you bastard runt!
bkr
"...but trying to say something informative/insightful/funny in the eyes of others every time you post is definitely an exercise in understanding people, and thus an exercise in social skills."
Maybe that's what I've been doing wrong. I don't post to be insightful or funny, I just post. I don't give a damn what anybody else thinks about what I have to say.
Did you read the article? There is already another company with a much less complex interface that is already FDA approved and doing human studies. Cyberkinetics' device certainly seems far more advanced and likely to produce usable results, but they won't be the first to do human testing.
bkr
See, the point is, Joe doesn't give a damn what an OS is. And he shouldn't, as long as it does the job. To an everyday user the OS should be completely invisible. It shouldn't matter to the user who is just trying to do their job/hobby/whatever.
OS Wars are stupid.
bkr
"But can they make a new non-stick pan surface out of it?"
Of course not you silly ElDuque. Everything sticks to it. That's why it sucks everything in.
No, but if the office is a wrokin' don't come a nockin'
bkr
Earhart and Lindbergh? One is famous for success, the other famous for success followed by collosal failure. Both were also the first to do what they were attempting. They were not just some guy trying to enjoy what his life has to offer. They were making history, he is spending time. There's a big difference.
In any case, the situation doesn't apply. If this guy had been successful, we might be reading a 2 line note on page 16 of the paper. Maybe. Not because his feat is any less impressive (had he been successful) but because it's already been done.
Don't confuse the issue. The man made a mistake. He's lucky he didn't go missing (like Earhar) and he should be thankful to be alive. Better planning on his part could have prevented the whole issue.
bkr
Nowhere does that passport say that the person in trouble defines what "assistance" is "necessary" though. This man has been given assistance to a reasonable measure. I don't think it likely that any government is going to help this guy out. It's just not worth the embarassment. He has been given reasonable options. Whether he chooses to accept them is entirely up to him and should have no bearing on his government. It's not like he's being held prisoner.
bkr
If I put myself in his shoes, I would have used my experience to recognize that I wasn't going to have enough fuel and turned around at an earlier point. In order to burn so much fuel that he couldn't make his destination, he would have had to have had extremely strong headwinds for at least an hour or two, or more likely, slightly strong headwinds for a much longer period of time. There is no excuse for poor planning or poor judgement. The man has already flown around the world several times in the same plane. It's not like he can claim he wasn't aware of the performance the plane was capable of giving.
Is it unfortunate that he's "stuck" in Antarctica? Most certainly, but he put himself there. He is alive, and safe and has alternatives for returning home just as safely. The people who are stationed at those Antartic bases can't really afford to sell him some of their gas, even if they were inclined to do so. They have to keep stores for their own emergencies and survival. That's the first rule of any "rescue" work...your own safety comes first. Period.
This man obviously has the money to afford to get himself and his aircraft home. He should take the offer given him and consider himself lucky to have survived with a simple lesson learned. No, it's not nice, but it's part of life. Sometimes you have to deal with the consequences of your own actions, whether you like them or not.
bkr
Crankystib, what exactly are you talking about? The US didn't tell the NZ government to shut this guy down (at least that any of us are aware of). The man built what is effectively an unmanned aircraft at this point. Had he labelled it as such, he likely wouldn't have been dealt with in the same manner. We'll never know for sure, but in any case the US government's policies aren't what's at issue here.
Was this man's intent really what it says it was? I don't know, but I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt while retaining a level of skepticism. Does he deserve punishment for "seeking attention"? Probably not, but as another poster noted, some of his comments seem to show a bit of spin-doctoring on his part...intentional or not. At this point, we are only getting his side of the story at this point (and likely that's all we'll get), so it's hard to say. No matter what a person's intent, they will always skew a situation to be viewed in their own favor...it's simply human nature. I'd like to hear what the NZ government has to say about the issue, but as I said, that is unlikely.
bkr
Seems to me at least one guy in New Zealand does.
bkr
First, anyone planning to launch a DIY cruise missile isn't going to care about being "allowed in the sky". By the time anyone has time to say no, the deed is done.
Second, with the right pre-planning, it's not difficult to program target coordinates and never need radio contact after launch. Just upload target coordinates and your guidance system adjusts based on current GPS location. The biggest issue with using GPS is speed. Some GPS units are better than others, but I don't know of any civilian units that will be accurate at the high speeds required for an effective cruise missile. (There may be some, but I have limited experience with GPS units.) I also don't know for sure if GPS units have unique IDs that can be used to track ownership after the fact, but as an essentially passive receiver, there is no real way to track it during usage. No warning available from that source. Assuming you can update position accurately using a civilian GPS unit, the target's most likely warning would be hearing the missile fly over, but then it's too late.
Even in areas where military units are on full alert, it will take at least 90 seconds to launch aircraft to mount a defense. That is 'After' the missile's presence is detected. How long does it take to travel 100 miles at mach 0.8? (Just an estimate of speed...I have no idea if this is a feasible number for a "homemade" pulse jet engine.) If you happen to have anti-aircraft units based on the ground in the respective target zone, you've got a much better chance of shooting the missile down, but you still have minimal warning, especially if the missile maintains a low altitude, which is also not very difficult using a "passive" GPS device.
bkr