you should try living in a country which is about to criminalise anyone who doesn't register/license their fucking air weapons..
Seeing how doing so is 40 times less likely to be thwarted by getting shot than living in a country where the measure of personal safety is predicated on everyone being an action hero, I'll take this end of the spectrum any day.
How is this remotely insightful? Few to none of the issues with Apple Maps have anything to do with the map design, and everything to do with the data in it. This isn't about taking dumb routes to the right place, this is about the map features being in the wrong location, as well as quite often missing.
Given that the interface has some neat usability enhancements, and given that the mapping data is licensed directly from the well experienced and trusted giants of the mapping industry, it has almost certainly had plenty of work from "outdoors" types. If there's one developer type that they should have consulted more it's apparently the information theory PhDs, because Apple's biggest problem here has been their failure to get the data that they've clearly paid for off their cloud servers and onto mapping screens - and I suspect that is a fundamentally difficult matter of graph theory and data management, not insight into usability.
Parent comes across as an anti-academic knee-jerk rant saved up from several bad online mapping experiences gone by.
Guess how many of Chrome's major version updates have come with a you-shall-not-pass dialog while it checks for add-on compatibility? Hint: it's less than 22.
For the same reason people have home 2d printers, they will have 3d printers.
The reason people have home 2D printers is because they generate a huge amount of 2D data, some of which sometimes needs to be copied onto paper. Most data we put to paper is generated very soon before we print it, and the time we have to wait for it matters because once it is printed we usually spend very little time consuming it before disposing of it or filing it away.
We do not generate large amounts of 3D data, especially not the kind that we need to create in a physical form, and especially not the kind that is needed at short notice.
The applications you list (prototyping, repair, modelmaking and molding) are things that 90% of people would never do at home, and those that would will find in perpetuity that (unless they have a hobby that involves high-volume manufacture of one-off objects) on the rare occasions when they do want something made, the nearest commercial 3D printing service will be a more satisfactory solution than the more expensive, poorer quality, and most likely slower, 3D printer they could have cluttering up their home.
Yes, the regulations allow flywheels, and yes, Flybrid developed a compliant system in 2009, but it never made it onto a race car before use of KERS was suspended for 2010 and they've been very quiet ever since. Williams also developed one for their 2011 car but ultimately opted for a battery-powered system. Both have since supplied flywheel systems for endurance racing cars, but nobody has yet put one in an F1 car.
Simple... it's because just like powered flight in the early 20th century meant we would eventually all be driving flying cars everywhere, the development of a hands-free, any-geometry manufacturing process means we will soon be 3D printing all our material needs at home faster than they can be distributed to us from centres of mass manufacture.
Actually, all F1 cars that have ever raced using regenerative braking have stored their energy in batteries, not flywheels. The motor-alternator operates on the driveshaft, not the hubs, but the batteries are big enough-ass that the default presumed state requires mechanics to handle all parts of the car with thick rubber gloves until it's been confirmed there's no earth path to the them.
This advantage has proved infallible for established industries like the 18th-century colonial sugar industry and the 19th-century British shipbuilding industry...
Wouldn't a closer analogy, especially in the case of rape, be that somebody else kidnapped both you and the violinist, stole the violinist's kidneys and then hooked you up to him? (Assume that in nine months he will somehow regrow his kidneys.) You'd have to be pretty cruel in that scenario to let the guy die for the sake of your extra nine months of freedom. It's not as easy as that to escape the question of personhood of a fetus.
the stereotype of 3-d printed stuff being weak seems to be finally going away....
It's not a monocoque... this bodywork is just bolted onto a steel spaceframe. It's made from a polymer resin, so in some respects you could say 3D printing has caught up making things out of plastic, but there's not a great deal of load on these panels to stress it.
Human cells do not "tend to stick together" any more than sintering powder or ABS pellets tend to stick together. The mechanism for sticking them together and the triggering of that mechanism is a little bit more complicated than a bit of warming. I'm done here.
Human cells tend to stick together naturally (else we'd be perhaps living puddles of goo).
I think this quote is pretty sufficient demonstration that you don't know what you're talking about and are happy to fill in the gaps in your knowledge with flights of fancy to suit your argument. Well if the creation of rapid prototyped prostheses makes you feel any closer to the realisation of rapid prototyped than the normal passage of time then good for you, I guess.
I think it could be made to work, just with voxel based printing systems. As to the "make things hot" there are other ways to apply materials, for example via syringe. Cells are easy to squeeze like a paste (or maybe icing for a pastry). All you need is something to fix the cells into place and a means for keeping the organ alive both during and after construction.
Again, squeezing the paste is the easy bit. The "all you need" part of fixing cells in place is the bit which has nothing to do with existing 3D printing technology. Squeezing out finer pastes of molten polymers at a faster rate isn't useful. We can already squeeze cells through syringes just fine.
3D printing as it is currently practiced provides a tested system for building 3-D objects, which organs happen to be. I simply don't buy that this innovation is so paltry and simple, that it doesn't contribute to the potential technology of printing organs.
I suppose this depends if you viewed 2D printing as an exciting precursor to 3D printing. That is roughly the degree of relevance that I would ascribe 3D printing as we know it to organ printing as you describe it.
Maybe you are right and this will happen, but if it does, nothing about the current advances in 3D printing is advancing us anywhere towards that kind of technology. Everything that's being developed right now is about sticking voxels of material together by making them hot. I don't know how cells are held together in normal biological tissue but I'm pretty sure you don't stack them together like Legos and you definitely don't melt them. The bit which crosses over, controlling where cells are positioned, is the easy bit. We've been positioning things in 3D space for decades. The current craze for making the deposition resolution smaller and the fusion process faster has no relevance to printing organs.
It's hardly worth even doing numerically. Within the 85km thick shell where the atmosphere behaves anything like a Newtonian fluid, Earth's gravitational field strength only varies by about ±1.5%. The difference between any application of the analytical solution and the equivalent constant-g solution will be dwarfed in real life by chaotic atmospheric conditions. I suspect that as a differential equation with an unusual combination of second-order polynomials, there isn't much else you can transfer the solution to either.
As long as there are manual overrides -- and there will *always* be manual overrides
Why do you think this? Once the emergency situations you speak of become so rare that users of these cars don't stay familiar enough with driving in manual to be of any better use than the AI, cars will start to ship without the necessary controls to drive the car yourself. Once we are accustomed to cars doing the driving, consumers will love these cars for comfort and price, both of the car and its insurance. Once these are popular, if the drivers still driving manually are as big assholes as we expect, it won't be so hard to ban those cars from public roads altogether.
I should have been more specific, but the term "additive manufacturing" is usually used for processes that make 3D shapes out of homogeneous materials - especially in this context. Assembly, bonding, finishing, and other processes that combine materials are a different matter.
In the case of TFA, the assembly is all done by hand and the point of interest is the means of manufacture of the board that forms the structural base for the circuit. Never in a million years would you make a two-layer PCB that didn't have to be drilled before you put in the barrel inserts.
Incidentally, in the context of shaping materials, there are lots of processes which are neither additive nor subtractive like rolling, extrusion and anything involving moulds.
Slashdot Mirror
you should try living in a country which is about to criminalise anyone who doesn't register/license their fucking air weapons..
Seeing how doing so is 40 times less likely to be thwarted by getting shot than living in a country where the measure of personal safety is predicated on everyone being an action hero, I'll take this end of the spectrum any day.
How is this remotely insightful? Few to none of the issues with Apple Maps have anything to do with the map design, and everything to do with the data in it. This isn't about taking dumb routes to the right place, this is about the map features being in the wrong location, as well as quite often missing.
Given that the interface has some neat usability enhancements, and given that the mapping data is licensed directly from the well experienced and trusted giants of the mapping industry, it has almost certainly had plenty of work from "outdoors" types. If there's one developer type that they should have consulted more it's apparently the information theory PhDs, because Apple's biggest problem here has been their failure to get the data that they've clearly paid for off their cloud servers and onto mapping screens - and I suspect that is a fundamentally difficult matter of graph theory and data management, not insight into usability.
Parent comes across as an anti-academic knee-jerk rant saved up from several bad online mapping experiences gone by.
Guess how many of Chrome's major version updates have come with a you-shall-not-pass dialog while it checks for add-on compatibility? Hint: it's less than 22.
For the same reason people have home 2d printers, they will have 3d printers.
The reason people have home 2D printers is because they generate a huge amount of 2D data, some of which sometimes needs to be copied onto paper. Most data we put to paper is generated very soon before we print it, and the time we have to wait for it matters because once it is printed we usually spend very little time consuming it before disposing of it or filing it away.
We do not generate large amounts of 3D data, especially not the kind that we need to create in a physical form, and especially not the kind that is needed at short notice.
The applications you list (prototyping, repair, modelmaking and molding) are things that 90% of people would never do at home, and those that would will find in perpetuity that (unless they have a hobby that involves high-volume manufacture of one-off objects) on the rare occasions when they do want something made, the nearest commercial 3D printing service will be a more satisfactory solution than the more expensive, poorer quality, and most likely slower, 3D printer they could have cluttering up their home.
Yes, the regulations allow flywheels, and yes, Flybrid developed a compliant system in 2009, but it never made it onto a race car before use of KERS was suspended for 2010 and they've been very quiet ever since. Williams also developed one for their 2011 car but ultimately opted for a battery-powered system. Both have since supplied flywheel systems for endurance racing cars, but nobody has yet put one in an F1 car.
Simple... it's because just like powered flight in the early 20th century meant we would eventually all be driving flying cars everywhere, the development of a hands-free, any-geometry manufacturing process means we will soon be 3D printing all our material needs at home faster than they can be distributed to us from centres of mass manufacture.
I, myself, got the world's best D&D dice there, printed with Stainless Steel and a bronze finish.
Sums up the scope for mass-market applications of 3D printing really... upgrade to professional equipment and get small, HIGH-quality toys!
Pretty obviously a typo issue not a math issue. 256 MB is indeed 0.25 GB.
Actually, all F1 cars that have ever raced using regenerative braking have stored their energy in batteries, not flywheels. The motor-alternator operates on the driveshaft, not the hubs, but the batteries are big enough-ass that the default presumed state requires mechanics to handle all parts of the car with thick rubber gloves until it's been confirmed there's no earth path to the them.
This advantage has proved infallible for established industries like the 18th-century colonial sugar industry and the 19th-century British shipbuilding industry...
What we wouldn't have done to be in his shoes when he made that One Small Step.
Jumping on the bandwagon here, but I don't think he'd have appreciated it as the air rushed out of his pant legs...
Wouldn't a closer analogy, especially in the case of rape, be that somebody else kidnapped both you and the violinist, stole the violinist's kidneys and then hooked you up to him? (Assume that in nine months he will somehow regrow his kidneys.) You'd have to be pretty cruel in that scenario to let the guy die for the sake of your extra nine months of freedom. It's not as easy as that to escape the question of personhood of a fetus.
the stereotype of 3-d printed stuff being weak seems to be finally going away....
It's not a monocoque... this bodywork is just bolted onto a steel spaceframe. It's made from a polymer resin, so in some respects you could say 3D printing has caught up making things out of plastic, but there's not a great deal of load on these panels to stress it.
What happens if you then have a conversation with a bad parent? Send the kid back down the mines like the good old days?
Hopefully your homeschooling is still a work in progress and you will move on from correlation to causation soon.
Human cells do not "tend to stick together" any more than sintering powder or ABS pellets tend to stick together. The mechanism for sticking them together and the triggering of that mechanism is a little bit more complicated than a bit of warming. I'm done here.
Human cells tend to stick together naturally (else we'd be perhaps living puddles of goo).
I think this quote is pretty sufficient demonstration that you don't know what you're talking about and are happy to fill in the gaps in your knowledge with flights of fancy to suit your argument. Well if the creation of rapid prototyped prostheses makes you feel any closer to the realisation of rapid prototyped than the normal passage of time then good for you, I guess.
I think it could be made to work, just with voxel based printing systems. As to the "make things hot" there are other ways to apply materials, for example via syringe. Cells are easy to squeeze like a paste (or maybe icing for a pastry). All you need is something to fix the cells into place and a means for keeping the organ alive both during and after construction.
Again, squeezing the paste is the easy bit. The "all you need" part of fixing cells in place is the bit which has nothing to do with existing 3D printing technology. Squeezing out finer pastes of molten polymers at a faster rate isn't useful. We can already squeeze cells through syringes just fine.
3D printing as it is currently practiced provides a tested system for building 3-D objects, which organs happen to be. I simply don't buy that this innovation is so paltry and simple, that it doesn't contribute to the potential technology of printing organs.
I suppose this depends if you viewed 2D printing as an exciting precursor to 3D printing. That is roughly the degree of relevance that I would ascribe 3D printing as we know it to organ printing as you describe it.
Maybe you are right and this will happen, but if it does, nothing about the current advances in 3D printing is advancing us anywhere towards that kind of technology. Everything that's being developed right now is about sticking voxels of material together by making them hot. I don't know how cells are held together in normal biological tissue but I'm pretty sure you don't stack them together like Legos and you definitely don't melt them. The bit which crosses over, controlling where cells are positioned, is the easy bit. We've been positioning things in 3D space for decades. The current craze for making the deposition resolution smaller and the fusion process faster has no relevance to printing organs.
(you need court orders in those places)
It should be legally impossible for a man to take on responsibility for a newborn...
How do you expect to make a man take responsibility for a newborn except by court order?
You appear to be unaware what the word analytical means.
It's a problem where you plug in the initial numbers and out pops the answer. You don't need to do integration. a+b=c.
A differential equation finds an approximation which may be very very close, but it is not an analytical solution.
You appear to be unaware what the word solution means (hint: it's not a problem).
It's hardly worth even doing numerically. Within the 85km thick shell where the atmosphere behaves anything like a Newtonian fluid, Earth's gravitational field strength only varies by about ±1.5%. The difference between any application of the analytical solution and the equivalent constant-g solution will be dwarfed in real life by chaotic atmospheric conditions. I suspect that as a differential equation with an unusual combination of second-order polynomials, there isn't much else you can transfer the solution to either.
What else do computers do?
As long as there are manual overrides -- and there will *always* be manual overrides
Why do you think this? Once the emergency situations you speak of become so rare that users of these cars don't stay familiar enough with driving in manual to be of any better use than the AI, cars will start to ship without the necessary controls to drive the car yourself. Once we are accustomed to cars doing the driving, consumers will love these cars for comfort and price, both of the car and its insurance. Once these are popular, if the drivers still driving manually are as big assholes as we expect, it won't be so hard to ban those cars from public roads altogether.
I should have been more specific, but the term "additive manufacturing" is usually used for processes that make 3D shapes out of homogeneous materials - especially in this context. Assembly, bonding, finishing, and other processes that combine materials are a different matter.
In the case of TFA, the assembly is all done by hand and the point of interest is the means of manufacture of the board that forms the structural base for the circuit. Never in a million years would you make a two-layer PCB that didn't have to be drilled before you put in the barrel inserts.
Incidentally, in the context of shaping materials, there are lots of processes which are neither additive nor subtractive like rolling, extrusion and anything involving moulds.