You want to strap that thing on your face and look absurd. GO FOR IT.
It will do nothing for you that the smart phone doesn't already do as well. While at the same time being on your face letting everyone know what a sucker you are for new gizmos that are poorly designed and conceived.
No no... Don't disagree. Put it on your face. More people need to know.
I am a strong supporter of live and let die. I offered my opinion... you want to do something dumb... Go for it. Not my problem.
The gravy train isn't disrupted by telling people that a resource they control will be more scarce. That would increase fuel prices and make them more wealthy.
Possibly I don't know what is meant by perpetual motion.
My understanding was something that would go on so long as it wasn't disturbed forever.
People keep bringing up situations where a machine or system can't sustain motion IF energy is taken out of the system.
That is not my understanding of what perpetual motion means in that I didn't think extracting free energy from it infinitely was a required parameter.
Obviously you can't extract energy from a planetary orbit infinitely without degrading the orbit. However, if left alone, my understanding... limited though it is... is that it will keep orbiting forever assuming the orbit is stable and is left alone.
When I said this looked like a perpetual motion machine and that was nothing that extraordinary that is what I was referring to... stable systems that don't degrade assuming you leave them alone.
If they had some crazy system that would infinitely emit energy no matter how small that would be sort of remarkable... but that sounds impossible.
The oil industry has been saying this for... generations. Who is honestly surprised here? If the oil industry thought it was about to run out of oil they'd sell off their stake in it and reinvest in something with a longer future. Look at what Kraft and several of the tobacco companies have done... They see declines in previously stable industries. Junk food and cigarettes. So what do they do? They diversify and actually start selling off assets that they don't feel will last.
Oil companies though? They're doubling down. True, many of them are shutting down refinaries or getting out of the distrubution business. But that has more to do with regulations. In extraction... discovery... They're spending more on it then they ever have because they see profit in it. They wouldn't do that if they thought it was going to dry up in the near future.
I don't know how to say this without ruffling ideological feathers. Upsetting people is not my intention here. Just saying... possibly there are certain camps with obvious biases that should be taken with a grain of salt going forward and certain other camps that you should possibly trust because no one is better informed on the issue. We can disagree as to whether they're lying or not. But you can't really disagree that they don't know. Who in the end is more trust worthy? A clueless ideologue that probably wouldn't know the right answer to save their live? Or the self interested industrialist that knows full well the correct answer but might fudge the facts to squeeze profit?
Both are unreliable but only one of them actually knows what they're talking about. The ideologue can be outright ignored. He doesn't know what he's talking about. The industrialist might lie to you. But at least he knows enough to know what is and isn't the truth. That's an interrogation with purpose. Interrogating the clueless is like drinking from a bone dry well.
yeah but extracting energy from it deliberately is what would violate the system. Perpetual motion machines don't need to claim to produce excess energy merely sustain input energy indefinitely.
Imagine two large objects in space orbiting each other... why would they ever stop? Why couldn't they spin around each other forever?
Why would they stop? What stops them? My understanding, and appreciate I am a laymen that makes no claim to a deep understanding of the subject, is that large bodies basically follow Newton's laws of motion. And that means they keep spinning unless something causes them to slow or stop.
Now, you're saying something always slows or stops galaxies. What are we talking about here? Galaxies colliding into each other?
I believe someone else said something about blackholes stopping glaxeys but in that case wouldn't it be more valid to say that the galaxy BECAME a black hole rather then saying the black stopped the galaxy? Especially since we're talking about the spin of the galaxy. And my understanding... limited though it might be... is that blackholes generally spin... very very quickly... with incredible energy.
Furthermore, is every galaxy destined to be sucked into a blackhole at its center? Certainly there would have to be some matter that was simply beyond its reach or moving at the wrong orbit or too fast or something to ever be pulled into THAT black hole. And that being the case couldn't that matter spin around the core forever.
I don't understand what force is supposed to stop the galaxies.
If I have a really big rock and I throw a golf ball so it orbits that really big rock... how is that not forever? Where is the entropy?
My understanding, and appreciate I am a layman, is that blackholes themselves spin and the spin of the blackhole is determined by the spin of things that fell into it. That is, the angular momentum of everything that falls below the event horizon is preserved.
I didn't know that anyone had a problem with perpetual motion on frictionless surfaces. After all... isn't that how galaxies keep spinning forever? If there's no friction then there's no entropy and of course you can keep doing it.
Yes, there are incidents where some kid takes his father's gun out and accidentally or intentionally kills someone or something that he shouldn't.
That said, the overwhelming majority of undesirable shootings wouldn't be stopped by fingerprint reading guns.
Furthermore, this is a radically less useful weapon in general. For one thing you have to charge up it's batteries which means you can't leave the gun in a safe place and then count on it operating months later. For another, the damn thing is likely to misread your print occasionally.
The fingerprint reading gun is stupid. Tell you what, get law enforcement or the US military to touch this thing with a ten foot pole and maybe it might be ready. Short of that... keep it in the comic books or the funnies.
Then you have to have more sophisticated calibration and quality control systems so that isn't a problem.
You don't need massive pieces to make these reasonable. But you do need a print area of about two feet by two feet by two feet to... is that two feet cubed? Not sure of the terminology there. But that's the sort of scale you need for one of these devices.
Currently they seem to be about eight inches or less which is just too small for anything but hobbyist applications.
I need a resolution of less then 1mm and no warping.
What is the cheapest machine that can deliver those specs?
Ideally the machine must also either be able to print in two mediums at once so it can build a "frame" for delicate parts that need to be supported during construction OR it has to be the powder system where implicitly everything is supported by the non-fused powder.
Well, I think it would be viable at 1000 dollars IF the quality were high enough. As it is now, the 1000 dollar printers are very low quality and very very small size.
It's very hard to print anything larger then a baseball and most of the time the quality on those prints is very poor.
reprap can't make printable guns. The printable guns are made by more expensive machines... you're talking about 30k at least for those... Cost needs to come down radically for those machines to be on desktops.
I don't consider the cheaper versions to be true 3d printers because they're so limited. The resolution is very poor on them. They have a hard time making things without warping or distorting the print. And they are extremely limited in the size of objects they can produce.
What we need is a higher resolution system that can handle larger objects.
Short of that... it won't work.
One thing that has puzzled me is why the 3d printers all have such a small print area. The size of the print area is largely defined by the length of the rods that move the extruder around. If you just expanded the size of the frame without really changing anything else you should be capable of printing larger objects.
A more serious problem though is the way the extruders print objects. The whole "squirting plastic out of a hot glue gun" system is probably not the ideal design. The powder method for all it's expense is much more flexible.
Greater thought also needs to be given to the medium that we're printing in... is plastic the best? Possibly consider something we can produce from waste materials. Can we make 3d print medium from saw dust? I don't know... but it would help the economy of the system if we could lose materials costs.
Random plastic parts perhaps but what about fully assembled plastic devices that have servo and circuit mounts?
You could very easily download a blueprint, buy an inexpensive circuit kit, and then install part 1 into part 2 to get nearly anything.
For that you need higher resolution printing machines.
The higher end ones for example can have fully assembled moving parts Reprap doesn't give you that. The resolution is too low. Warping occurs whenever you try to make something large. High end machines don't warp when you make larger objects.
There's nothing sinister here. You can question the literal material he's suggesting but I don't think there's any question that this is from the heart. He's encouraging something that won't cost anything and that might perhaps get kids to see the world in a different perspective.
The guy represents West Virginia. It is a part of the US in need of dreams.
Personally... I say why not. It can't hurt can it? And it isn't as if there aren't other books they read which are of roughly the same caliber... or less for that matter. I remember reading some absolutely terrible books in school. Any classic book... even a science fiction classic is likely to be better then some of the ALTERNATE options which are frequently not read at all outside of captive classrooms.
You'd wear that thing on your face at all times on the off chance that you might want to take an improtu picture?
If so... those are your needs and not only are they not mine but I suspect neither are they relevant to the majority of prospective consumers for this product.
It's half baked. If he wants to sell this thing he has to make it worth buying. I've seen all his demos. None of them offer a significant improvement over what we already have while also placing fashion, form, and economic constraints on everyone that uses it.
What if I don't want to look like a twit? Too bad. Google glass will make you look like a twit.
What if I don't wear glasses? Too bad, that thing is going on your face.
What if I don't want to buy a doubtless more expensive specialized device that is 99% redundant with existing technology?
This technology might have a place in the future. But that's like saying we might all drive around in solar powered cars and recycle our urine.
We probably will do it. But not today and for sound technological and logistical reasons.
The overlay doesn't track what is in front of you or dynamically insert content on top of real world content.
So... "based on" means about as much as "movie based on a true story"... eg... it gives the seeming of being based but in reality it doesn't deliver.
When it does, I'll look at it. Until then, it's like one of those flying cars from the 1950s that didn't actually fly. It just said "flying car" on the side and looked cool.
I watch developments with the bionic eye technology. The day when we can have hires video broadcast directly into our optic nerves will be in my life time. And I might well opt for such surgery electively.
I am not afraid of change.
My issue with the google glass is that I don't see the point of it. Am I do wear this thing over my face all the time so I can have a smartphone screen broadcast over my glasses? No thanks.
Now if you wanted to pitch something like this at me, then you might be able to do it with augmented reality. That is like virtual reality but it is instead the seamless blending of virtual and actual reality. You wear a head set and virtual images are super imposed on actual images. So for example you could walk through an empty lot and see a building that is planned to be built there in full scale. You could walk by a restaurant and see reviews for it scrawled on the wall in digital ink. You could have artists re-imagine your neighborhood by changing the architecture etc of the whole area without actually changing the layout.
THAT would be interesting. And I could see the point of that.
But google glass has no augmented reality capability. You need very precise accelerometers location awareness to properly superimpose the correct image over the correct object. who has had their GPS think they're walking a few blocks to the left or right? I've had that with some frequency especially in dense cities with tall buildings. It screws the GPS up. But augmented reality requires accuracy to the inch or LESS. And direction awareness to the degree. Couple inches one way or the other or a couple degrees off and the effect is spoiled.
That is my problem with google glass. Not that I am afraid of technology but that the product itself is lame. It does nothing interesting that my smartphone doesn't already do right now.
Come up with a "killer app" for it or its a stillborn blue baby. You can cry over it if you want but crying won't breath live into the dead.
And kindly don't tell me I'm afraid of change. When you treat my presumption to have an opinion with contempt I can feel nothing but contempt for your presumption to change or influence my opinion.
Slashdot Mirror
That let me know that about half the articles here are plants by various device retailers pushing their latest... whatever.
Security on BYOD is basically non-existent.
So if security doesn't matter at all then by all means go with that option. If it does... Then you have to do something else.
You want to strap that thing on your face and look absurd. GO FOR IT.
It will do nothing for you that the smart phone doesn't already do as well. While at the same time being on your face letting everyone know what a sucker you are for new gizmos that are poorly designed and conceived.
No no... Don't disagree. Put it on your face. More people need to know.
I am a strong supporter of live and let die. I offered my opinion... you want to do something dumb... Go for it. Not my problem.
And I could buy a literal laptop or desktop computer for whatever the glass is going to cost.
It does less then those systems while encumbering me.
The gravy train isn't disrupted by telling people that a resource they control will be more scarce. That would increase fuel prices and make them more wealthy.
Econ 101.
It's not that unique and the wearable aspect is just a monocle.
What does it let you do that a smart phone doesn't do already? And consider that it places so many burdens upon the user that previous tools do not.
Refine the technology RADICALLY and I might consider it.
This thing is crap. No one cares about it. Change the subject. Google Glass news is about as interesting as Segway news.
Possibly I don't know what is meant by perpetual motion.
My understanding was something that would go on so long as it wasn't disturbed forever.
People keep bringing up situations where a machine or system can't sustain motion IF energy is taken out of the system.
That is not my understanding of what perpetual motion means in that I didn't think extracting free energy from it infinitely was a required parameter.
Obviously you can't extract energy from a planetary orbit infinitely without degrading the orbit. However, if left alone, my understanding... limited though it is... is that it will keep orbiting forever assuming the orbit is stable and is left alone.
When I said this looked like a perpetual motion machine and that was nothing that extraordinary that is what I was referring to... stable systems that don't degrade assuming you leave them alone.
If they had some crazy system that would infinitely emit energy no matter how small that would be sort of remarkable... but that sounds impossible.
The oil industry has been saying this for... generations. Who is honestly surprised here? If the oil industry thought it was about to run out of oil they'd sell off their stake in it and reinvest in something with a longer future. Look at what Kraft and several of the tobacco companies have done... They see declines in previously stable industries. Junk food and cigarettes. So what do they do? They diversify and actually start selling off assets that they don't feel will last.
Oil companies though? They're doubling down. True, many of them are shutting down refinaries or getting out of the distrubution business. But that has more to do with regulations. In extraction... discovery... They're spending more on it then they ever have because they see profit in it. They wouldn't do that if they thought it was going to dry up in the near future.
I don't know how to say this without ruffling ideological feathers. Upsetting people is not my intention here. Just saying... possibly there are certain camps with obvious biases that should be taken with a grain of salt going forward and certain other camps that you should possibly trust because no one is better informed on the issue. We can disagree as to whether they're lying or not. But you can't really disagree that they don't know. Who in the end is more trust worthy? A clueless ideologue that probably wouldn't know the right answer to save their live? Or the self interested industrialist that knows full well the correct answer but might fudge the facts to squeeze profit?
Both are unreliable but only one of them actually knows what they're talking about. The ideologue can be outright ignored. He doesn't know what he's talking about. The industrialist might lie to you. But at least he knows enough to know what is and isn't the truth. That's an interrogation with purpose. Interrogating the clueless is like drinking from a bone dry well.
yeah but extracting energy from it deliberately is what would violate the system. Perpetual motion machines don't need to claim to produce excess energy merely sustain input energy indefinitely.
Imagine two large objects in space orbiting each other... why would they ever stop? Why couldn't they spin around each other forever?
Why would they stop? What stops them? My understanding, and appreciate I am a laymen that makes no claim to a deep understanding of the subject, is that large bodies basically follow Newton's laws of motion. And that means they keep spinning unless something causes them to slow or stop.
Now, you're saying something always slows or stops galaxies. What are we talking about here? Galaxies colliding into each other?
I believe someone else said something about blackholes stopping glaxeys but in that case wouldn't it be more valid to say that the galaxy BECAME a black hole rather then saying the black stopped the galaxy? Especially since we're talking about the spin of the galaxy. And my understanding... limited though it might be... is that blackholes generally spin... very very quickly... with incredible energy.
Furthermore, is every galaxy destined to be sucked into a blackhole at its center? Certainly there would have to be some matter that was simply beyond its reach or moving at the wrong orbit or too fast or something to ever be pulled into THAT black hole. And that being the case couldn't that matter spin around the core forever.
I don't understand what force is supposed to stop the galaxies.
If I have a really big rock and I throw a golf ball so it orbits that really big rock... how is that not forever? Where is the entropy?
My understanding, and appreciate I am a layman, is that blackholes themselves spin and the spin of the blackhole is determined by the spin of things that fell into it. That is, the angular momentum of everything that falls below the event horizon is preserved.
Is that wrong?
I didn't know that anyone had a problem with perpetual motion on frictionless surfaces. After all... isn't that how galaxies keep spinning forever? If there's no friction then there's no entropy and of course you can keep doing it.
Am I missing something here?
Yes, there are incidents where some kid takes his father's gun out and accidentally or intentionally kills someone or something that he shouldn't.
That said, the overwhelming majority of undesirable shootings wouldn't be stopped by fingerprint reading guns.
Furthermore, this is a radically less useful weapon in general. For one thing you have to charge up it's batteries which means you can't leave the gun in a safe place and then count on it operating months later. For another, the damn thing is likely to misread your print occasionally.
The fingerprint reading gun is stupid. Tell you what, get law enforcement or the US military to touch this thing with a ten foot pole and maybe it might be ready. Short of that... keep it in the comic books or the funnies.
Then you have to have more sophisticated calibration and quality control systems so that isn't a problem.
You don't need massive pieces to make these reasonable. But you do need a print area of about two feet by two feet by two feet to... is that two feet cubed? Not sure of the terminology there. But that's the sort of scale you need for one of these devices.
Currently they seem to be about eight inches or less which is just too small for anything but hobbyist applications.
I need a resolution of less then 1mm and no warping.
What is the cheapest machine that can deliver those specs?
Ideally the machine must also either be able to print in two mediums at once so it can build a "frame" for delicate parts that need to be supported during construction OR it has to be the powder system where implicitly everything is supported by the non-fused powder.
Well, I think it would be viable at 1000 dollars IF the quality were high enough. As it is now, the 1000 dollar printers are very low quality and very very small size.
It's very hard to print anything larger then a baseball and most of the time the quality on those prints is very poor.
reprap can't make printable guns. The printable guns are made by more expensive machines... you're talking about 30k at least for those... Cost needs to come down radically for those machines to be on desktops.
I don't consider the cheaper versions to be true 3d printers because they're so limited. The resolution is very poor on them. They have a hard time making things without warping or distorting the print. And they are extremely limited in the size of objects they can produce.
What we need is a higher resolution system that can handle larger objects.
Short of that... it won't work.
One thing that has puzzled me is why the 3d printers all have such a small print area. The size of the print area is largely defined by the length of the rods that move the extruder around. If you just expanded the size of the frame without really changing anything else you should be capable of printing larger objects.
A more serious problem though is the way the extruders print objects. The whole "squirting plastic out of a hot glue gun" system is probably not the ideal design. The powder method for all it's expense is much more flexible.
Greater thought also needs to be given to the medium that we're printing in... is plastic the best? Possibly consider something we can produce from waste materials. Can we make 3d print medium from saw dust? I don't know... but it would help the economy of the system if we could lose materials costs.
Random plastic parts perhaps but what about fully assembled plastic devices that have servo and circuit mounts?
You could very easily download a blueprint, buy an inexpensive circuit kit, and then install part 1 into part 2 to get nearly anything.
For that you need higher resolution printing machines.
The higher end ones for example can have fully assembled moving parts Reprap doesn't give you that. The resolution is too low. Warping occurs whenever you try to make something large. High end machines don't warp when you make larger objects.
I don't really want a reprap or similar printer. The print quality is too low. And the cost of the high end machines is prohibitive.
Depends on the book. And regardless, children are reading IN copyright books all the time.
Go to your public library and pick up a book.
That's all you'd have to tell the children to do... you could make it a two part assignment. Learn how the library works and get a book.
Regardless and again... they read books in copyright all the time.
But if you wanted to avoid copyrighted titles... They exist.
There's nothing sinister here. You can question the literal material he's suggesting but I don't think there's any question that this is from the heart. He's encouraging something that won't cost anything and that might perhaps get kids to see the world in a different perspective.
The guy represents West Virginia. It is a part of the US in need of dreams.
Personally... I say why not. It can't hurt can it? And it isn't as if there aren't other books they read which are of roughly the same caliber... or less for that matter. I remember reading some absolutely terrible books in school. Any classic book... even a science fiction classic is likely to be better then some of the ALTERNATE options which are frequently not read at all outside of captive classrooms.
You'd wear that thing on your face at all times on the off chance that you might want to take an improtu picture?
If so... those are your needs and not only are they not mine but I suspect neither are they relevant to the majority of prospective consumers for this product.
It's half baked. If he wants to sell this thing he has to make it worth buying. I've seen all his demos. None of them offer a significant improvement over what we already have while also placing fashion, form, and economic constraints on everyone that uses it.
What if I don't want to look like a twit? Too bad. Google glass will make you look like a twit.
What if I don't wear glasses? Too bad, that thing is going on your face.
What if I don't want to buy a doubtless more expensive specialized device that is 99% redundant with existing technology?
This technology might have a place in the future. But that's like saying we might all drive around in solar powered cars and recycle our urine.
We probably will do it. But not today and for sound technological and logistical reasons.
The overlay doesn't track what is in front of you or dynamically insert content on top of real world content.
So... "based on" means about as much as "movie based on a true story"... eg... it gives the seeming of being based but in reality it doesn't deliver.
When it does, I'll look at it. Until then, it's like one of those flying cars from the 1950s that didn't actually fly. It just said "flying car" on the side and looked cool.
Not interested.
I watch developments with the bionic eye technology. The day when we can have hires video broadcast directly into our optic nerves will be in my life time. And I might well opt for such surgery electively.
I am not afraid of change.
My issue with the google glass is that I don't see the point of it. Am I do wear this thing over my face all the time so I can have a smartphone screen broadcast over my glasses? No thanks.
Now if you wanted to pitch something like this at me, then you might be able to do it with augmented reality. That is like virtual reality but it is instead the seamless blending of virtual and actual reality. You wear a head set and virtual images are super imposed on actual images. So for example you could walk through an empty lot and see a building that is planned to be built there in full scale. You could walk by a restaurant and see reviews for it scrawled on the wall in digital ink. You could have artists re-imagine your neighborhood by changing the architecture etc of the whole area without actually changing the layout.
THAT would be interesting. And I could see the point of that.
But google glass has no augmented reality capability. You need very precise accelerometers location awareness to properly superimpose the correct image over the correct object. who has had their GPS think they're walking a few blocks to the left or right? I've had that with some frequency especially in dense cities with tall buildings. It screws the GPS up. But augmented reality requires accuracy to the inch or LESS. And direction awareness to the degree. Couple inches one way or the other or a couple degrees off and the effect is spoiled.
That is my problem with google glass. Not that I am afraid of technology but that the product itself is lame. It does nothing interesting that my smartphone doesn't already do right now.
Come up with a "killer app" for it or its a stillborn blue baby. You can cry over it if you want but crying won't breath live into the dead.
And kindly don't tell me I'm afraid of change. When you treat my presumption to have an opinion with contempt I can feel nothing but contempt for your presumption to change or influence my opinion.
Try again.