The only thing Windows is good for is playing games. Heh, I think you need to buy yourself a console to experience a platform that is actually good for playing games.
I once asked some of my comp sci lecturers why they didn't get students to do something useful, like work on open source, instead of assigning them pointless busy work projects. Two main answers:
1. it's too hard to grade 2. it's seen by many to be exploitative.
back in 2005 Jack Thompson almost made a good argument regarding Sims 2. He initially was demanding that EA show us "what's under the blur" over the rude bits on Sims, because he was of the belief that by using a cheat code you could see, *shock*, genitalia! So, EA responded and said no, Sims don't have genitalia.. they're more like Ken and Barbie dolls being perfectly smooth "down there".
So yeah, Jack is again revealed to be the overreacting retard that he is. 'cept, thing is, there *are* "expansion packs" out there that will provide your Sims with full nakedness, including genitalia. Both adults, and here's the creepy bit, kids. EA has taken a hands off approach to these expansion packs which are undoubtedly adored by pedophiles everywhere. They're not going to stop it, and why would they? Any third party add-on which expands their market share for the base game, especially in ways that they would never dare to do themselves, is good for business right?
The Urban Reasoning and Geospatial Exploitation Technology (URGENT) program is will develop a 3D urban object recognition and exploitation system that enables advanced mission planning and situation analysis capabilities for the warfighter operating in urban environments.
The recognition of targets in urban environments poses unique operational challenges for the warfighter. Historically, target recognition has focused on conventional military objects, with particular emphasis on military vehicles such as tanks and armored personnel carriers. In many cases, these threats exhibit unique signatures and are relatively geographically isolated from densely populated areas. The same cannot be said of today's asymmetric threats, which are embedded in urban areas, thereby forcing U.S. Forces to engage enemy combatants in cities with large civilian populations. Under these conditions, even the most common urban objects can have tactical significance: trash cans can contain improvised explosive devices, doors can conceal snipers, jersey barriers can block troop ingress, roof tops can become landing zones, and so on. Today's urban missions involve analyzing a multitude of urban objects in the area of regard. As military operations in urban regions have grown, the need to identify urban objects has become an important requirement for the military. Understanding the locations, shapes, and classifications of objects is needed for a broad range of pressing urban mission planning analytical queries (e.g., finding all roof top landing zones on three story buildings clear of vertical obstructions and verifying ingress routes with maximum cover for ground troops). In addition, it will enable automated time-sensitive situation analysis (e.g., alerting for vehicles found on a road shoulder after dark and estimating damage to a building exterior after an explosion) that will make a significant positive impact on urban operations.
Phase 1 of the URGENT program is developing techniques for the rapid exploitation of EO and LIDAR sensor data at the city scale to recognize urban objects down to the soldier scale. URGENT is applying image processing technology to geospatially registered 2D/3D data collected from airborne and terrestrial sources, yielding precise annotations for the objects in an urban area.
Phase 2 of the URGENT program will develop a 3D reasoning engine to query over object shapes, locations, and classifications for rapid urban mission planning, mission rehearsal, and situation analysis. Phase 3 will focus on the integration and transition of the URGENT system to the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA).
1) It's apparent that you didn't bother to RTFA; wouldn't it make somewhat more sense if you're going to seriously criticize their ideas to do so? I've read the report, and no, that's not what they've done. That's what they recommend be done.
I don't know if it's feasible or not. I'm still reading, but it seems like you're trying REALLY hard to explain why it's a waste of time to even consider it. That's practically Luddite. WTF? Dude, I'm a big supporter of solar power satellites. It's just really hard, right now, to find a way to make them profitable because of the insane launch costs.
in regards to your point 1: bwahahahahaha. in regards to your point 2: I took that into account with the cloud cover, etc. as for the 1kW/m^2, look in a physics book sometime.
In regards to wikipedia, when a reference is given, it's a good idea to read it.. and when one isn't given, it's a good idea to ignore or at least be extremely skeptical of the information given.
Linus is an idiot, what can I say. I'm trying to present his *claim* here that he doesn't see it as a "never ever ever" thing. There's a lot of people, and lawyers, invested in Linux now. If Linus decides he wants to change the license he won't have any trouble finding people to "track down" the contributors as everyone is always saying is impossible and he won't have any trouble finding new contributors to replace the stuff that was written by people who don't want to go along with the license change or are not contactable.
The sun provides, about 1367 W/m^2 in space (courtesy, Space Mission Analysis and Design third edition, page 432) and about 250 W/m^2 on the Earth's surface (FTFA). Hmm.. the first number is correct, but we don't have 100% efficient solar panels and won't any time soon (if ever) so you've gotta down rate that.
The second number, however is totally wrong. If you're going to talk about what "the sun provides", i.e., the theoretical 100% efficiency solar panel, then you get a figure of about 1000W/m^2 on the Earth's surface. You could say it is more like 800W/m^2 when you take cloud cover into consideration.. and then there's the fact that you only get that during daylight hours, so halve it to get 400W/m^2 but that's still a lot more than 250W/m^2. It *feels* like someone is downplaying the possible efficiency of solar panels on the Earth's surface vs the same solar panel in space in order to make their argument stronger. As you took that figure straight from the article, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but that's what it sounds like.
It's still a heck of a lot of difference though. You're talking nearly 3.5 advantage to putting your solar panels in space over leaving them on the ground.. but there *are* losses to transmitting the power as microwaves through the atmosphere, and there is the astronomical cost of launching anything into space.
Whenever I hear people talk about solar power satellites I'm reminded of the episode of Seinfeld where they stock the mail truck with bottles to collect the 5c deposit in the adjacent state. If you can get a free ride you might be able to make solar satellites work, but you've still gotta crunch a lot of numbers first, and no-one has done that successfully.
Seeing as you seem to be a big fan of this 50% you speak of.. here's another one for you: at night, solar panels on the ground receive no sunlight whereas, get this, in space they do. Now, whereas I'm plenty doubtful of your claims to the use of 50% I'm pretty certain of the almost 50% split between day and night.
Of course, I'm more of the belief that solar power satellites will not be practical until we have off earth resources to build them from and, as such, low tech heat exchange designs are a better solution than high tech solar panels as we might actually have a chance of making low tech stuff in space in the near term.
You don't see juries in civil trial cases say, "We find the defendant liable on all charges." They say guilty. No they don't. They say "we find for the plaintiff".
Slashdot Mirror
Windows sucks for playing games.
Kinda sounds like you define "knowledge" as "what I think" and obviously anyone editing your article is just decaying it.
In short: stop smelling your own farts.
I'm pretty sure the articles selected for the students to create would have related to whatever the class was about.
It's not Wiki Editing 101 we're talking about.
I once asked some of my comp sci lecturers why they didn't get students to do something useful, like work on open source, instead of assigning them pointless busy work projects. Two main answers:
1. it's too hard to grade
2. it's seen by many to be exploitative.
So there ya go.
What were you thinking?
back in 2005 Jack Thompson almost made a good argument regarding Sims 2. He initially was demanding that EA show us "what's under the blur" over the rude bits on Sims, because he was of the belief that by using a cheat code you could see, *shock*, genitalia! So, EA responded and said no, Sims don't have genitalia.. they're more like Ken and Barbie dolls being perfectly smooth "down there".
So yeah, Jack is again revealed to be the overreacting retard that he is. 'cept, thing is, there *are* "expansion packs" out there that will provide your Sims with full nakedness, including genitalia. Both adults, and here's the creepy bit, kids. EA has taken a hands off approach to these expansion packs which are undoubtedly adored by pedophiles everywhere. They're not going to stop it, and why would they? Any third party add-on which expands their market share for the base game, especially in ways that they would never dare to do themselves, is good for business right?
Or you could put real keys on the back in the same configuration, with the bumps on the F and J like we all know and love.
I bet the only reason there is no products on the market like this is because of patents.
Urban Reasoning and Geospatial Exploitation Technology (URGENT)
The Urban Reasoning and Geospatial Exploitation Technology (URGENT) program is will develop a 3D urban object recognition and exploitation system that enables advanced mission planning and situation analysis capabilities for the warfighter operating in urban environments.
The recognition of targets in urban environments poses unique operational challenges for the warfighter. Historically, target recognition has focused on conventional military objects, with particular emphasis on military vehicles such as tanks and armored personnel carriers. In many cases, these threats exhibit unique signatures and are relatively geographically isolated from densely populated areas. The same cannot be said of today's asymmetric threats, which are embedded in urban areas, thereby forcing U.S. Forces to engage enemy combatants in cities with large civilian populations. Under these conditions, even the most common urban objects can have tactical significance: trash cans can contain improvised explosive devices, doors can conceal snipers, jersey barriers can block troop ingress, roof tops can become landing zones, and so on. Today's urban missions involve analyzing a multitude of urban objects in the area of regard. As military operations in urban regions have grown, the need to identify urban objects has become an important requirement for the military. Understanding the locations, shapes, and classifications of objects is needed for a broad range of pressing urban mission planning analytical queries (e.g., finding all roof top landing zones on three story buildings clear of vertical obstructions and verifying ingress routes with maximum cover for ground troops). In addition, it will enable automated time-sensitive situation analysis (e.g., alerting for vehicles found on a road shoulder after dark and estimating damage to a building exterior after an explosion) that will make a significant positive impact on urban operations.
Phase 1 of the URGENT program is developing techniques for the rapid exploitation of EO and LIDAR sensor data at the city scale to recognize urban objects down to the soldier scale. URGENT is applying image processing technology to geospatially registered 2D/3D data collected from airborne and terrestrial sources, yielding precise annotations for the objects in an urban area.
Phase 2 of the URGENT program will develop a 3D reasoning engine to query over object shapes, locations, and classifications for rapid urban mission planning, mission rehearsal, and situation analysis. Phase 3 will focus on the integration and transition of the URGENT system to the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA).
Hmm, engineer who's book I've read, or random guy on Slashdot.. which should I believe. Such a hard decision.
to start SkyNet.
and who says geeks are mostly liberal.
in regards to your point 1: bwahahahahaha.
in regards to your point 2: I took that into account with the cloud cover, etc.
as for the 1kW/m^2, look in a physics book sometime.
In regards to wikipedia, when a reference is given, it's a good idea to read it.. and when one isn't given, it's a good idea to ignore or at least be extremely skeptical of the information given.
hehe, did you even look at any of the results?
Ya know, I think you should probably put down the crack pipe.
It's space, dude.
The orbit is 264,869 km around.
Actually, geostationary orbits is exactly where they intend to put them.
Linus is an idiot, what can I say. I'm trying to present his *claim* here that he doesn't see it as a "never ever ever" thing. There's a lot of people, and lawyers, invested in Linux now. If Linus decides he wants to change the license he won't have any trouble finding people to "track down" the contributors as everyone is always saying is impossible and he won't have any trouble finding new contributors to replace the stuff that was written by people who don't want to go along with the license change or are not contactable.
The second number, however is totally wrong. If you're going to talk about what "the sun provides", i.e., the theoretical 100% efficiency solar panel, then you get a figure of about 1000W/m^2 on the Earth's surface. You could say it is more like 800W/m^2 when you take cloud cover into consideration.. and then there's the fact that you only get that during daylight hours, so halve it to get 400W/m^2 but that's still a lot more than 250W/m^2. It *feels* like someone is downplaying the possible efficiency of solar panels on the Earth's surface vs the same solar panel in space in order to make their argument stronger. As you took that figure straight from the article, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but that's what it sounds like.
It's still a heck of a lot of difference though. You're talking nearly 3.5 advantage to putting your solar panels in space over leaving them on the ground.. but there *are* losses to transmitting the power as microwaves through the atmosphere, and there is the astronomical cost of launching anything into space.
Whenever I hear people talk about solar power satellites I'm reminded of the episode of Seinfeld where they stock the mail truck with bottles to collect the 5c deposit in the adjacent state. If you can get a free ride you might be able to make solar satellites work, but you've still gotta crunch a lot of numbers first, and no-one has done that successfully.
Seeing as you seem to be a big fan of this 50% you speak of.. here's another one for you: at night, solar panels on the ground receive no sunlight whereas, get this, in space they do. Now, whereas I'm plenty doubtful of your claims to the use of 50% I'm pretty certain of the almost 50% split between day and night.
Of course, I'm more of the belief that solar power satellites will not be practical until we have off earth resources to build them from and, as such, low tech heat exchange designs are a better solution than high tech solar panels as we might actually have a chance of making low tech stuff in space in the near term.
Just to confirm my theory, you have never had anything stolen, have you?
The majority of people don't think of it as stealing. You idiots who do have obviously never been stolen from.
Can you be any more offensive?
That's probably the most retarded semantic argument I've ever seen.