I'm guessing the orbit of the moon is not geosynchronous cause it moves across the sky.
So it would therefore not be possible to aim for the moon, and latch on.
The station could be connected to more ribbons for journeys on to the moon or beyond.
How do you connect the ribbons together without the entire system rotating with the original ribbon. Assuming you could only have certain times when you "crossover" to the next cable, you need a spinning anchor point for the next ribbon. Would the moon be spinning fast enough to hang one off there?
It sounds like a cool idea to get high enough initially, then zoom off on your own power from there. Don't know that it would work much more than that.
Food for thought: Surely we should make two on opposite sides of the earth, so as not to overbalance ourselves...
Adnan Osmani, 16, a student at Saint Finian's College in Mullingar, central Ireland spent 18 months writing...
Fair call about school ending at 16. The article states he is a student though.
Here in NZ, College goes to 17, but you can skip out at 16 if you don't want to carry on to uni. (You can still go to uni later, but it's harder to get accepted)
Slashback: Grids, Netscape, AMD Posted by timothy on Thu 12 Dec 12:59PM from the getting-ready-for-the-2k3-problem dept. Slashback tonight (is this number 200 already?) brings a few updates and amplifications on grid computing and AMD's plans vis a vis Intel. Also, it seems that some of the best features of Mozilla have finally infiltrated the world of Netscape. Read on the for the details.
Hmm. maybe this isn't refering to years... I don't understand what it's on about in that case.. why is 2300 a problem, and what is it refering to?
Only commercially available data (maps, images, other cartographic products) may be downloaded to the autonomous or chase vehicles prior to the race. Use of GPS is acceptable.
The reuse of some object-oriented code has caused tactical headaches for Australia's armed forces. As virtual reality simulators assume larger roles in helicopter combat training, programmers have gone to great lengths to increase the realism of their scenarios, including detailed landscapes and, in the case of the Northern Territory's Operation Phoenix, herds of kangaroos (since disturbed animals might well give away a helicopter's position).
The head of the Defence Science & Technology Organization's Land Operations/Simulation division reportedly instructed developers to model the local marsupials' movements and reactions to helicopters.
Being efficient programmers, they just re-appropriated some code originally used to model infantry detachment reactions under the same stimuli, changed the mapped icon from a soldier to a kangaroo, and increased the figures' speed of movement.
Eager to demonstrate their flying skills for some visiting American pilots, the hotshot Aussies "buzzed" the virtual kangaroos in low flight during a simulation. The kangaroos scattered, as predicted, and the visiting Americans nodded appreciatively... then did a double-take as the kangaroos reappeared from behind a hill and launched a barrage of Stinger missiles at the hapless helicopter. (Apparently the programmers had forgotten to remove that part of the infantry coding.)
The lesson? Objects are defined with certain attributes, and any new object defined in terms of an old one inherits all the attributes. The embarrassed programmers had learned to be careful when reusing object-oriented code, and the Yanks left with a newfound respect for Australian wildlife.
Simulator supervisors report that pilots from that point onward have strictly avoided kangaroos, just as they were meant to.
From June 15, 1999 Defence Science and Technology Organization Lecture Series, Melbourne, Australia, and staff reports
Well, I'm speaking from a my own point of view and experience here. My 100Hz TV with Digital Natural Motion looks awesome imho, I couldn't care less about what other people think, or try to tell you.
However, I am aware that normal 100Hz TVs suck. There is no real point in going to them, apart from a reduced flicker, as they can also introduce scan line artifacts and suchlike. Digital Natural Motion gets around this problem.
Here's an interesting bit of information for you: I have a friend who works in a TV store. He changed stores recently, and they don't do anything with 100Hz TVs in his new store (it's a small store). He is under strict instructions to tell consumers that 100Hz TVs are utter crap and should not be bought, this is to keep consumers buying their crappy 50Hz non digital natural motion TVs. Moral: never trust salesmen.
I've heard anecdotal evidence that it was `too real' for the cinema experience.
I can believe this comment. I have a Philips TV with 'Digital Natural Motion'. What this does is predict pixel movement, and fill in extra frames to effectively give you 100fps.
Picture quality is so crisp and smooth, that I've had comments like "it looks fake" or "it looks like the making of, not the actual movie".
Personally, I can't live without it. I go to the movies and think, crap, the pictures are all jumping round and blurry. I actually find it hard to follow action with such a low frame rate when I'm used to about 4x that. Flames and explosions look so crap without Digital Natural Motion.
Last I heard philips were going to put the Digital natural motion chips into DVD players and VCRs, so you don't have to buy the top of the line TV just to get natural motion. There are white papers on the net, but I can't find them just at the moment.
In short: I'm happy for movies to have 24fps, cause it all gets smoothed out to 100fps when I watch them anyway.
987,654,321,234,567,890,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 nine hundred and eighty seven thousand six hundred and fifty four billion, three hundred and twenty one thousand, two hundred and thirty four million, five hundred and sixty seven thousand eight hundred and ninetytrillion
You could call it a thousand billion or a trillion.
I guess the only thing that would start to confuse everyone is if I started talking about numbers like:
987,654,321,234,567,890
nine hundred and eighty seven thousand six hundred and fifty four billion, three hundred and twenty one thousand, two hundred and thirty four million, five hundred and sixty seven thousand eight hundred and ninety.
Which I guess you'd call:
nine hundred and eighty seven quadrillion six hundred and fifty four trillion, three hundred and twenty one billion, two hundred and thirty four million, five hundred and sixty seven thousand, eight hundred and ninety.
In Britain, France, and Germany, 10^18 or a million cubed.
In the USA and Canada, 10^12.
Hell, the word comes from 'tri' for third power, and million. Quite how the americans decided to make a trillion as a million to the power of two is beyond the rest of the world....
It's caused by a huge nuclear ball in the sky. This ball has such intense radiation that it physically burns your skin if you are in direct exposure to it.
Kinda like a big cellphone, cept the radiation actually does hurt you...
so what your saying is that it's virtually impossible to make a closed system, and subsequently evrything is going to be sufficiently complex to ensure the same results do not occur with given starting conditions.
This is a good argument, maybe a bit too philosophical for slashdot, but your coin flipping machine would effectively work - going along these lines.
Slashdot Mirror
No, that sucks, and I would find it offensive if I tried to send an email to someone and got a reply like that.
I'm guessing the orbit of the moon is not geosynchronous cause it moves across the sky.
So it would therefore not be possible to aim for the moon, and latch on.
The station could be connected to more ribbons for journeys on to the moon or beyond.
How do you connect the ribbons together without the entire system rotating with the original ribbon. Assuming you could only have certain times when you "crossover" to the next cable, you need a spinning anchor point for the next ribbon. Would the moon be spinning fast enough to hang one off there?
It sounds like a cool idea to get high enough initially, then zoom off on your own power from there. Don't know that it would work much more than that.
Food for thought: Surely we should make two on opposite sides of the earth, so as not to overbalance ourselves...
Adnan Osmani, 16, a student at Saint Finian's College in Mullingar, central Ireland spent 18 months writing ...
Fair call about school ending at 16. The article states he is a student though.
Here in NZ, College goes to 17, but you can skip out at 16 if you don't want to carry on to uni. (You can still go to uni later, but it's harder to get accepted)
the dudes 16.
He has to go to school at some stage...
Dude. You go to far.
That Leonard Nimoy song is just wrong...
Slashback: Grids, Netscape, AMD
Posted by timothy on Thu 12 Dec 12:59PM
from the getting-ready-for-the-2k3-problem dept.
Slashback tonight (is this number 200 already?) brings a few updates and amplifications on grid computing and AMD's plans vis a vis Intel. Also, it seems that some of the best features of Mozilla have finally infiltrated the world of Netscape. Read on the for the details.
Hmm. maybe this isn't refering to years... I don't understand what it's on about in that case.. why is 2300 a problem, and what is it refering to?
the . obviously.
It's more apparent when spoken than written.
A 'four k seven' resistor is shorter to say than a 'four point seven k' resistor.
Who knows where these things come from. It's just what everyone says.
in engineering, 2k3 is the shorthand way of writting 2.3k
and what's the big problem with 2003 anyway?
Also, why did my post get marked as offtopic. Surely it's on topic because it's regarding the news post...?
from the getting-ready-for-the-2k3-problem dept
What is the Y2K3 problem?
Should 2k3 actually be 2k003? or is it 2300?
I don't get it.
An engineer would say 25.7M
Nah, I'd write 25M7
Real engineers don't use decimal points.
yeah. Go on... hold up one knuckle...
5 and up is alright, but anything under 5 would just confuse people.
Mod this up. This article has PICTURES!!
Worth posting again if you ask me.
from the article (you did read it right?)
Navigation
Only commercially available data (maps, images, other cartographic products) may be downloaded to the autonomous or chase vehicles prior to the race. Use of GPS is acceptable.
I got it in email as follows:
The reuse of some object-oriented code has caused tactical
headaches for Australia's armed forces. As virtual reality
simulators assume larger roles in helicopter combat training,
programmers have gone to great lengths to increase the
realism of their scenarios, including detailed landscapes and,
in the case of the Northern Territory's Operation Phoenix,
herds of kangaroos (since disturbed animals might well give
away a helicopter's position).
The head of the Defence Science & Technology Organization's
Land Operations/Simulation division reportedly instructed
developers to model the local marsupials' movements and
reactions to helicopters.
Being efficient programmers, they just re-appropriated some
code originally used to model infantry detachment reactions
under the same stimuli, changed the mapped icon from a
soldier to a kangaroo, and increased the figures' speed of
movement.
Eager to demonstrate their flying skills for some visiting
American pilots, the hotshot Aussies "buzzed" the virtual
kangaroos in low flight during a simulation. The kangaroos
scattered, as predicted, and the visiting Americans nodded
appreciatively... then did a double-take as the kangaroos
reappeared from behind a hill and launched a barrage of
Stinger missiles at the hapless helicopter. (Apparently the
programmers had forgotten to remove that part of the
infantry coding.)
The lesson? Objects are defined with certain attributes,
and any new object defined in terms of an old one inherits
all the attributes. The embarrassed programmers had learned
to be careful when reusing object-oriented code, and the
Yanks left with a newfound respect for Australian wildlife.
Simulator supervisors report that pilots from that point
onward have strictly avoided kangaroos, just as they were
meant to.
From June 15, 1999 Defence Science and Technology Organization
Lecture Series, Melbourne, Australia, and staff reports
Right, now hit me with the karma baby!
1) Post profit jokes
2) ???
3) Profit!
Well said. I am however used to DNM, and see things the other way. Normal explosions look fake, and DNM explosions look real.
I suppose it's all just subjective.
Verne.
Well, I'm speaking from a my own point of view and experience here. My 100Hz TV with Digital Natural Motion looks awesome imho, I couldn't care less about what other people think, or try to tell you.
However, I am aware that normal 100Hz TVs suck. There is no real point in going to them, apart from a reduced flicker, as they can also introduce scan line artifacts and suchlike. Digital Natural Motion gets around this problem.
Here's an interesting bit of information for you: I have a friend who works in a TV store. He changed stores recently, and they don't do anything with 100Hz TVs in his new store (it's a small store). He is under strict instructions to tell consumers that 100Hz TVs are utter crap and should not be bought, this is to keep consumers buying their crappy 50Hz non digital natural motion TVs.
Moral: never trust salesmen.
I've heard anecdotal evidence that it was
`too real' for the cinema experience.
I can believe this comment. I have a Philips TV with 'Digital Natural Motion'. What this does is predict pixel movement, and fill in extra frames to effectively give you 100fps.
Picture quality is so crisp and smooth, that I've had comments like "it looks fake" or "it looks like the making of, not the actual movie".
Personally, I can't live without it. I go to the movies and think, crap, the pictures are all jumping round and blurry. I actually find it hard to follow action with such a low frame rate when I'm used to about 4x that. Flames and explosions look so crap without Digital Natural Motion.
Last I heard philips were going to put the Digital natural motion chips into DVD players and VCRs, so you don't have to buy the top of the line TV just to get natural motion. There are white papers on the net, but I can't find them just at the moment.
In short: I'm happy for movies to have 24fps, cause it all gets smoothed out to 100fps when I watch them anyway.
Verne.
agh, that's a quadrillion!!@#
Screw english. Let's all just say 10*10^42 and get along happily.
Check this out:
,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
;)
987,654,321,234,567,890
nine hundred and eighty seven thousand six hundred and fifty four billion, three hundred and twenty one thousand, two hundred and thirty four million, five hundred and sixty seven thousand eight hundred and ninety trillion
now, your turn plz...
10^12 is called a billion for most of the world.
We could both equally call it a million million.
You could call it a thousand billion or a trillion.
I guess the only thing that would start to confuse everyone is if I started talking about numbers like:
987,654,321,234,567,890
nine hundred and eighty seven thousand six hundred and fifty four billion, three hundred and twenty one thousand, two hundred and thirty four million, five hundred and sixty seven thousand eight hundred and ninety.
Which I guess you'd call:
nine hundred and eighty seven quadrillion six hundred and fifty four trillion, three hundred and twenty one billion, two hundred and thirty four million, five hundred and sixty seven thousand, eight hundred and ninety.
The systems screwy. I blame the americans.
I bet they don't even know what a trillion is...
:)
trillion
In Britain, France, and Germany, 10^18 or a million cubed.
In the USA and Canada, 10^12.
Hell, the word comes from 'tri' for third power, and million. Quite how the americans decided to make a trillion as a million to the power of two is beyond the rest of the world....
that's my rant for the day
Out.
It's caused by a huge nuclear ball in the sky. This ball has such intense radiation that it physically burns your skin if you are in direct exposure to it.
Kinda like a big cellphone, cept the radiation actually does hurt you...
a note on your sig,
try "cogito cogito, ergo, cogito sum, cogito..."
so what your saying is that it's virtually impossible to make a closed system, and subsequently evrything is going to be sufficiently complex to ensure the same results do not occur with given starting conditions.
This is a good argument, maybe a bit too philosophical for slashdot, but your coin flipping machine would effectively work - going along these lines.