If fewer girls are interested in STEM, and end up filling only 20% of the STEM related jobs, that's not harming them either. So why do we even need to put so much effort in changing that ?
Microminiature accelerometers are really cheap and very very light, and you don't have to wait for them to spin up or deal with their mechanical issues. I doubt you will see a gyro used as a sensor any longer.
Gyros are still required to detect changes in rotation. However, modern MEMS gyroscopes are tiny, and they don't rotate but use a vibrating element. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V...
You can get combinations of accelerometers and gyroscopes (and sometimes even magnetometers) all integrated in a single tiny device that's within reach of school kid projects: http://www.geekmomprojects.com...
What neither of you seem to grasp is that the size of the target isn't as relevant as you think, because you have to null your horizontal velocity regardless of the size of the target. It doesn't matter whether you're stopping on a postage stamp or anywhere in a given block - either way you still have to stop.
The problem of having to null both velocity and position at the same time is harder than just having to null velocity. The latter gives you a bigger solution space.
But that mass is not as big a factor as recovering those engines.
But maximizing payload mass is very important, since it's already a small fraction of total rocket mass, and it's paying for everything. Every pound of extra fuel you want to keep for landing is coming directly out of your payload budget.
So, yes, recovering the first stage is very important, but doing it in a mass optimized way is just as important.
Don't forget that you need to launch all that fuel to a suborbital trajectory first, this requires a bunch more fuel. The mass of all that extra fuel comes from your payload budget.
I expected a lot less capable MCU for the 1st generation.
The ARM Cortex series can be easily modified for the newest semiconductor processes. That makes for a smaller and less power hungry device than an older MCU made on an older process.
In the decades before the match, no amount of meetings, emails and long engineering nights managed to build a computer program that could beat the world champion at chess.
In fact, is past game analysis even a requirement for a chess computer to beat top human players these days?
No, strong computer programs can easily beat any top human player. That's why you don't see any more straight up computer-human matches. One of the more recent encounters was between Stockfish and GM Nakamura over 4 games. But in two of the games, Nakamura was allowed assistance of an older chess program on a laptop, while in the other two games, he had an extra pawn. The match was won 3-1 by the Stockfish program. The computer played all of its games without an opening book, and without endgame tablebases.
I don't know what the state of the art is(and it would presumably vary a bit depending on whether the phone was running the analysis or just acting as a nice UI for a remote server)
In 2009, a version of Pocket Fritz ran on a 528 MHz HTC Touch phone, and won the Copa Mercosur tournament in Argentina with 9 wins and 1 draw, and a performance rating of 2898. That's good enough to win most tournaments, and that was more than 5 years ago.
IMHO Kasparov played on a not level field, because his long career was open to study and his computer opponent's was not.
On the other hand, the computer program didn't study or understand his long career either. At best, the programmers could tune the evaluation algorithm a little bit towards the type of positions that Kasparov would like play, but that's hard to do, and there's no guarantee he would play in his usual style against a computer, especially because his usual style isn't very good against computers.
3) You have to put up with a work crew that is entirely women. If you don't like discussing The Bachelor, you're going to have to endure some very grating conversations.
What if her genes have shaped her brain not to be interested ? Several tests on the very youngest subjects already show gender specific preferences in toys. And the same preferences can be seen in monkeys.
And even if society plays a role in shaping people's interests, should you enforce a "correction" by preferring a woman over a man for a position where a woman is less qualified, just because other girls lost interest when they were young ?
And if so, why shouldn't we enforce a correction in the fields of school teachers, nurses and garbage collectors, and every other field where there's an "interest gap" between men and women ?
And they tell you "one of you has won the $200 million lottery. We'll give you a choice: You can all 20 each walk out with $10 million, or one walks out with $200 million and the rest with nothing".
I would take the $10 million, without any hesitation.
You could put the real computer in a locked room, and only provide serial access through a terminal. Add special hardware to the serial cable to log all data on a write-only system.
That was not a multi million dollar lottery, but a simple university lab with no money to afford a secure room and armed guards, and only a handful of servers to protect. Still, it was a cheap and effective solution. Outsiders didn't even know there was a hard paper copy, and even people working in the lab didn't have access to the closet.
Slashdot Mirror
If fewer girls are interested in STEM, and end up filling only 20% of the STEM related jobs, that's not harming them either. So why do we even need to put so much effort in changing that ?
Microminiature accelerometers are really cheap and very very light, and you don't have to wait for them to spin up or deal with their mechanical issues. I doubt you will see a gyro used as a sensor any longer.
Gyros are still required to detect changes in rotation. However, modern MEMS gyroscopes are tiny, and they don't rotate but use a vibrating element. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V...
You can get combinations of accelerometers and gyroscopes (and sometimes even magnetometers) all integrated in a single tiny device that's within reach of school kid projects: http://www.geekmomprojects.com...
What neither of you seem to grasp is that the size of the target isn't as relevant as you think, because you have to null your horizontal velocity regardless of the size of the target. It doesn't matter whether you're stopping on a postage stamp or anywhere in a given block - either way you still have to stop.
The problem of having to null both velocity and position at the same time is harder than just having to null velocity. The latter gives you a bigger solution space.
I can remember reading several articles which stated that cryonics doesn't work because the freezing process is not perfect
They get freezer burn.
The old Google Maps had far higher quality imagery, at least around me.
The grass is always greener on the old google maps...
But that mass is not as big a factor as recovering those engines.
But maximizing payload mass is very important, since it's already a small fraction of total rocket mass, and it's paying for everything. Every pound of extra fuel you want to keep for landing is coming directly out of your payload budget.
So, yes, recovering the first stage is very important, but doing it in a mass optimized way is just as important.
The cost of the fuel is not a factor, but the mass is.
Who cares about the fuel efficiency of landing?
Don't forget that you need to launch all that fuel to a suborbital trajectory first, this requires a bunch more fuel. The mass of all that extra fuel comes from your payload budget.
I expected a lot less capable MCU for the 1st generation.
The ARM Cortex series can be easily modified for the newest semiconductor processes. That makes for a smaller and less power hungry device than an older MCU made on an older process.
In the decades before the match, no amount of meetings, emails and long engineering nights managed to build a computer program that could beat the world champion at chess.
In fact, is past game analysis even a requirement for a chess computer to beat top human players these days?
No, strong computer programs can easily beat any top human player. That's why you don't see any more straight up computer-human matches. One of the more recent encounters was between Stockfish and GM Nakamura over 4 games. But in two of the games, Nakamura was allowed assistance of an older chess program on a laptop, while in the other two games, he had an extra pawn. The match was won 3-1 by the Stockfish program. The computer played all of its games without an opening book, and without endgame tablebases.
http://www.chess.com/news/stoc...
This guy used his iPhone to connect to the internet
It was probably connected to an Android phone in his car.
I don't know what the state of the art is(and it would presumably vary a bit depending on whether the phone was running the analysis or just acting as a nice UI for a remote server)
In 2009, a version of Pocket Fritz ran on a 528 MHz HTC Touch phone, and won the Copa Mercosur tournament in Argentina with 9 wins and 1 draw, and a performance rating of 2898. That's good enough to win most tournaments, and that was more than 5 years ago.
IMHO Kasparov played on a not level field, because his long career was open to study and his computer opponent's was not.
On the other hand, the computer program didn't study or understand his long career either. At best, the programmers could tune the evaluation algorithm a little bit towards the type of positions that Kasparov would like play, but that's hard to do, and there's no guarantee he would play in his usual style against a computer, especially because his usual style isn't very good against computers.
Wowie, and just as I thought that the whole gender stereotyping was a thing of the past...
You can only deny nature for so long.
3) You have to put up with a work crew that is entirely women. If you don't like discussing The Bachelor, you're going to have to endure some very grating conversations.
Simply file an harassment case.
Also in Sweden, if you protest Islam because of the institutional unequal treatment of women, you're an islamophobic bigot.
Neutralizing sexual discrimination is a multi-generation endeavor
How will you know when it's neutralized and fair ?
Let things be at least somewhat "corrected" for a generation or two
Let's start with getting more male teachers. Obviously, all these female teachers have the wrong influence on young girls.
What if her genes have shaped her brain not to be interested ? Several tests on the very youngest subjects already show gender specific preferences in toys. And the same preferences can be seen in monkeys.
And even if society plays a role in shaping people's interests, should you enforce a "correction" by preferring a woman over a man for a position where a woman is less qualified, just because other girls lost interest when they were young ?
And if so, why shouldn't we enforce a correction in the fields of school teachers, nurses and garbage collectors, and every other field where there's an "interest gap" between men and women ?
Affirmative action for women is not the same as sexism; it is a corrective for sexism
It's sexist if a woman has no interest in a pursuing a STEM career ?
Oh, you did say computers needed special hardware in order to not be psuedorandom.
Not terribly difficult, though. A $10 web cam with a lens cap on works well enough.
And actually, pseudo random works too, as long as you encrypt it with a secret key. The difficulty is ensuring that nobody knows the secret key.
And they tell you "one of you has won the $200 million lottery. We'll give you a choice: You can all 20 each walk out with $10 million, or one walks out with $200 million and the rest with nothing".
I would take the $10 million, without any hesitation.
You could put the real computer in a locked room, and only provide serial access through a terminal. Add special hardware to the serial cable to log all data on a write-only system.
That was not a multi million dollar lottery, but a simple university lab with no money to afford a secure room and armed guards, and only a handful of servers to protect. Still, it was a cheap and effective solution. Outsiders didn't even know there was a hard paper copy, and even people working in the lab didn't have access to the closet.