Compare the Oblivion PC screenshots to the Oblivion console screenshots. I don't care how good the graphics chipset is. If the result is being displayed on flickering, grainy, interlaced, 1960s display technology it can never be immersive or photorealistic. For current and even nextgen consoles it doesn't matter what goes in because it's always Garbage Out.
Or maybe you will be interested in purchasing a Samsung HL-R6768W for $7000 when it is released this summer. Personally I'd rather invest in Dual X850s and 16x antialiasing on an autostereoscopic LCD screen and a dual 1280x1024 HMD with headtracker. I could have all of it for a fraction of the cost of a 1080p HDTV.
why do I want to spend $500 on this GeForce 8900 again?
Why do I want to spend $5000 for a 1080p HDTV when I can buy a state of the art monitor with higher resolutions and refresh rates for $500-$1000 and even an HMD with a head tracker or autostereoscopic 3D monitor for far less money? Can you answer that for me? Consoles are kiddie-computers. They are only popular because little kids are the largest demographic of game players.
You forgot to mention that most console games are still targeted at child gamers. I realize that thirty-somethings like myself are a minority in the gaming market, but for us hardware comparisons are largely irrelavent. Even if/when consoles add qwerty keyboards and monitor connections, there really is (almost) nothing for us to play.
I already went through that arcade game phase with Atari 2600 and Atari 400/800 (or Apple II) games in the early 80s and again with IBM PC first person shooter games (i.e. Wolf3D) in the early 90s. I played Pac-man, Donkey Kong, Space Invaders, Frogger, and Pole Position and enjoyed them when I was ten. Although even as a preteen I found them kind of boring. I prefered Archon, Castle Wolfenstein, Choplifter, and Crush, Crumble and Chomp. I could play those for hours. Graphics have improved by orders of magnitude but gameplay has mostly stayed the same. That sort of gameplay is great when you are 12. It is much easier to entertain children. Games aimed at a younger crowd don't need to be as sophisticated overall and are much cheaper to make.
There are (still) hardware differences of course. Even the best computer monitors are much cheaper (and smaller/lighter) than 1080p HDTVs and keyboards are useful for complex games. Display-wise game machines should really have moved on to autostereoscopic LCD monitors, HMDs with head trackers, shutter glasses, and other immersive gaming options that are relatively easy to do on a dedicated gaming machine. NTSC televisions are display technology from the 1960s (PAL is only slightly more advanced). Great for hooking up an Atari 2600 to play Pong or Breakout but completely ridiculous as a display for the kind of graphics technology in an Xbox 360 or PS3. Juvenile clickfest, hand-eye coordination exercises, displayed on a grainy, flickering, TV just don't hold much interest for me anymore.
Are you aware of how the rating system actually works? Did you call up the SciFi channel to let them know that your TV was on and tuned to their station? You should at least have let them know if you wanted to be counted. It doesn't happen automagically.
Someone at the SciFi channel is obviously a Roger Corman fan. Don't we have enough of those 50s and 60s style monster movies? It's like the new century's answer to Creature Features. Most of them are BAD. So bad as to be completely unwatchable. As if to be truly authentic, even the acting is bad (wooden) in some of them. I did see a SciFi made vampire movie (can't remember the name) that was pretty good though. I'd like to see them continue that story. If I want to see cheese, I'll actually queue up an old Toho Studios film to watch miniature cities get stomped on by dancing japanese guys in rubber suits.
Great spoilers and all (wish I hadn't read it) but who is going to be doing the writing?
I hope they have axed Carla Robinson and Jeff Flaming and hopefully even Bradley Thompson and David Weddle from the writer lineup. They suck. They aren't science fiction writers and can't write. They are responsible for the only bad episodes in season one. And why in the name of god is it necessary to use a different writer for each episode? It's so fracking stupid. Obviously the episodes are going to be uneven if you do that.
David Eick, RDM, and Michael Angeli should be doing all the writing. They actually know how to write. Toni Graphia is not that bad either. I pray to the Lords of Cobol that these folks will be doing all the writing for season 2. We don't need any more filler episodes like Secrets and Lies or You Can't Go Home Again. I'd rather have fewer episodes and better writing.
By the time "computationally intensive" is a thing of the past, we would probably have figured out the DNA thing. Be careful of your assumptions. Predicting the future is difficult and Moore's Law is dead, at least for the moment. We are certainly complex machines, but I believe the need for processor power is infinite. There will never be "enough".
They just figure out what not to do by watching the Yanks across the pond. They at least realize that a team of writers is not capable of writing consistently good scripts. Just take a look at Battlestar Galactica for an example. The only way to go is with one or maybe two writers with a shared vision of the show. Not that I would hold up the new Doctor Who as anything special. I was just watching because Billie is so hot.
I actually think that is the problem. I suspect that the whole typecasting thing is a red herring. He was probably horrified after actually watching himself acting in such a "silly" show, but he didn't want to offend anyone by saying that. I'd bet quite a few quid that that is more or less what happened. Reading a script is one thing but actually seeing it on screen is another.
Can't we just bring back Tom Baker? To me, he will always be the real Doctor Who. Everyone else is just a bad copy.
IMO, the real reason he quit is that Billie Piper is married. It's not like it's his first gig. Better to get on a series or film with a hot female costar who is single.
A car driving at the same speed as you in your blind spot is going to be hard to see
Yup. I'd have to say that he would be downright invisible since he is in your blind spot. I have also noticed that if I cover my monitor screen with a black sheet the image suddenly vanishes. Strange world we live in.
As to your main point. Movement can enhance contrast making an object (especially a distant one) easier to "see", but it is more difficult to track and focus on a moving object making a detailed inspection of said object more difficult. For humans at least (and I suspect birds as well) stationary objects are easier to get detailed images of.
Well... if the target isn't moving, and the "system" requires movement... and there are only two parts that can be moving.
And the relevance of this is what exactly? The context of this discussion was whether a bird can see stationary objects, based on whether a (alleged) distant relative of the bird we call a T-rex could see them. Some of us are just trying to correct the ridiculous notion (an urban myth?) that birds can only see objects when they are in motion. All you are doing is muddying the waters by trying to redefine the definition of "moving". The fact that motion is relative makes the whole discussion even more laughable. Since living organisms are always moving to some degree, in relative terms there is simply no such thing as a stationary object.
So you are admitting that they can see objects that are perfectly still. All they have to do is move a fraction of a nanometer. Just breathing should do the trick. That birds (and snakes for that matter) can see perfectly still objects can be demonstrated empirically. There is no need to get into all kinds of complex theories about synapse firings etc.
Try this experiment. Go to a pet store with a large macaw on a stand or in a cage. Watch. Sooner or later you will see him eat. Notice that the food does not move and he is still able to find it. If you are going to claim that he is navigating by smell, then place a toy quietly behind the bird and see if he notices it when he turns around. Get back to us when you finish with this "experiment".
Birds too, I believe, cannot see things that do not move
This is wrong. In fact it is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard. Cite your source. I can't believe people modded you up. Birds can most definitely see things that do not move. Unless you wan't to argue that no living creature is capable of a true lack of motion even when asleep, which would make the point mute anyway. I hope this isn't one of those cases where there is a joke that I'm missing here.
obligatory turtles all the way down reference
on
Donald Knuth On NPR
·
· Score: 1
All it does is create the new essentially identical question, "Well who made the creator". It's an endless progression with nothing gained. By taking that step, it can seem like you have done away with the ignorance of not knowing the universe's origin,
A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun in turn, orbits around the center of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy. At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: "What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise." The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, "What is the tortoise standing on?" "You're very clever, young man, very clever," said the old lady. "But it's turtles all the way down!"
Bertrand Russell, also a bright guy, attempted the opposite and failed. He later said that he could not decide whether he was an agnostic or an atheist, since he was unable to demonstrate the non-existence of God.
Actually it's not so hard. The trick is to first know what you are actually talking about. Theists tend to keep their God definitions pretty muddy, but once you pin them down to an actual, specific definition of the creature they are claiming to exist it is (usually) a piece of cake to disprove it. Why? Because most such beliefs are in some way logically inconsistent. They make it too easy! Not that the theists will care anyway. Most don't believe in their personal deity for logical reasons but for emotional ones.
Of course, even a "god" that is actually somewhat plausible logically which to most of us would be more akin to a powerful alien race of creatures (see relevant ST:TNG episode) requires evidence. But people who believe in the idea of Aliens so advanced that they are indistinguishable from truly magical beings are not usually thought of as being thiests. Why? Because we are still talking about organisms subject to the same laws of nature even if their technology and/or evolutionary advances make them appear godlike in their power. The word g-o-d is usually used to denote a creature which is able to violate/create laws of nature and is not subject to them.
The distinction between an atheist and an agnostic is academic. It is not a very useful distinction. To most religious people they are the same. Just like I don't know the difference between a protestant and a catholic (no please don't tell me).
The difference is supposed to be that agnostics realize that the existence of said magical/supernatural creature is not just unknown but unknowable. A good point and one that most atheists would not disagree with.
For whatever reason agnostics are unwilling to take it one step further and actually say that they don't believe in something unknowable. This unwillingness to actually come out and say it (Hemlock anyone?) is probably the most fundamental distinction. Whether this is due to fear of being unpopular among religious people or feeling some responsibility to defend one's views all the time I don't know. Either way I have no doubt that agnostics are really atheists. The "I can't really know one way or another" is just a red herring, an excuse for not having to stand up for an unpopular lack of belief. There is a lot of truth to the idea that "agnostics are just atheists without the courage of their convictions".
I am an atheist, and I agree with your points about magical, undetectable creatures of any kind (including most God myths) being unknowable. I agree that even if such creatures did exist it would be pointless for us to even discuss such things since we could not (by definition) ever know of them.
You seem to believe that atheists are making some kind of positive claim to something. We are not. We simply examine any specific God legend for logical consistency (is it self-contradictory or otherwise clearly in violation of various laws of existence?) and examine whatever evidence is presented to us for said belief. The fact is that most God-creatures are magical, supernatural and quite impossible to exist. I think it is our realization of this fact (i.e. the famous square circle analogy) that most distinguishes an atheist from an agnostic.
The first question I want to ask when someone tells me they believe in a god legend is whether "it" is animal, vegetable of mineral. Just what is it exactly that they are claiming exists? That's where things get real fuzzy. It makes me wonder about the difference between not believing in something and actually believing specifically in nothing per se.
Our immune systems are pretty versatile. If the alien microbes are so different from our own that it makes our immune systems useless then it will probably be too foreign to do anything to us. How often have you caught a cold from your dog? Those microbes would have evolved to attack other kinds of animals. They would most likely be harmless to us.
Taxes don't have to go up. They could even go down. Just drastically reduce government "services" until we have paid off our debts. Of course neither republicans nor democrats have any intention of doing this. I find it amusing when tax and spenders see our overspending as a justification for taxing more. That is an endless feedback loop which will result in nearly 100% income taxes eventually. Then you will get your wish. The government should not be allowed to borrow money. Period. If they cannot raise enough money through taxes, then they need to lower their spending. When are you going to realize that the only real difference between democrats and republicans is their speeches. Everything else is just marketing and spin. They choose to sell themselves in different ways. That's all.
She didn't use duct tape, she used (it looked like) something like a jacket, since there would of been the huge pressure difference, it would of been lodged in there really good and long as it was large enough that it wouldn't be pushed out, theoretically it COULD work
Okay, Mr. Feynman. Ever opened the window of a car doing 130MPH? How about 15000MPH? Care to ride on a space shuttle launch with a hole of that size closed by a jacket? Do you have any idea of the kinds of forces you would be dealing with? Even on airplanes traveling a mere 550 mph people have been sucked out to their deaths due to a hole in the fuselage. And these people weighed a lot more than a jacket.
I am not a physicist (IANAP) either, but I did take high school and college physics. At the speeds she seemed to be traveling through the planetary atmosphere I have to even wonder why the jacket did not just burn up. Maybe it was made of some super-duper material. It would have been pulled/sucked out by the huge pressure difference (even a shop-vac could probably have grabbed it), by friction from the atmosphere, or even by the huge g-forces (inertial changes) with the accelerations and maneuvers she was doing.
As a Libertarian, my vote never gets anyone elected, even in local elections. So I am used to that. I have a comfortable chair.
This country used to be known as a country of individualists and, yes, anarchists to an extent. 'Tis no longer true of course, but I stand by our proud tradition of thumbing our noses at our government, poking fun at our ratlike leaders and ignoring laws and any other rules that I don't agree with. This is what makes me an American.
Here in my country, candidates are given campaign money by huge corporations, because the more you spend to advertise the greater return you get at the voting booth.
That sums it up nicely. Tit for tat. What a cute system!
I suggest placing a few large water tanks underneath the foundation with inlets and outlets to be plumbed up through the concrete. Then you can put water blocks on all of the CPUs and GPUs in your entire house and use the entire earth as your heat sink. You may or may not need a small pump to help circulate the cool water up and hot water down.
Another CPU cooling idea is to place Tees in your water pipes before they reach your water heater. Then connect a water cooling loop to it and run all of your water right through your CPU/GPU water blocks. It may also preheat some of your water before it gets to the water heater. A hot water circulator could circulate the hot water from the CPU to the water heater inlet.
Slashdot Mirror
Compare the Oblivion PC screenshots to the Oblivion console screenshots. I don't care how good the graphics chipset is. If the result is being displayed on flickering, grainy, interlaced, 1960s display technology it can never be immersive or photorealistic. For current and even nextgen consoles it doesn't matter what goes in because it's always Garbage Out.
Or maybe you will be interested in purchasing a Samsung HL-R6768W for $7000 when it is released this summer. Personally I'd rather invest in Dual X850s and 16x antialiasing on an autostereoscopic LCD screen and a dual 1280x1024 HMD with headtracker. I could have all of it for a fraction of the cost of a 1080p HDTV.
why do I want to spend $500 on this GeForce 8900 again?
Why do I want to spend $5000 for a 1080p HDTV when I can buy a state of the art monitor with higher resolutions and refresh rates for $500-$1000 and even an HMD with a head tracker or autostereoscopic 3D monitor for far less money? Can you answer that for me? Consoles are kiddie-computers. They are only popular because little kids are the largest demographic of game players.
You forgot to mention that most console games are still targeted at child gamers. I realize that thirty-somethings like myself are a minority in the gaming market, but for us hardware comparisons are largely irrelavent. Even if/when consoles add qwerty keyboards and monitor connections, there really is (almost) nothing for us to play.
I already went through that arcade game phase with Atari 2600 and Atari 400/800 (or Apple II) games in the early 80s and again with IBM PC first person shooter games (i.e. Wolf3D) in the early 90s. I played Pac-man, Donkey Kong, Space Invaders, Frogger, and Pole Position and enjoyed them when I was ten. Although even as a preteen I found them kind of boring. I prefered Archon, Castle Wolfenstein, Choplifter, and Crush, Crumble and Chomp. I could play those for hours. Graphics have improved by orders of magnitude but gameplay has mostly stayed the same. That sort of gameplay is great when you are 12. It is much easier to entertain children. Games aimed at a younger crowd don't need to be as sophisticated overall and are much cheaper to make.
There are (still) hardware differences of course. Even the best computer monitors are much cheaper (and smaller/lighter) than 1080p HDTVs and keyboards are useful for complex games. Display-wise game machines should really have moved on to autostereoscopic LCD monitors, HMDs with head trackers, shutter glasses, and other immersive gaming options that are relatively easy to do on a dedicated gaming machine. NTSC televisions are display technology from the 1960s (PAL is only slightly more advanced). Great for hooking up an Atari 2600 to play Pong or Breakout but completely ridiculous as a display for the kind of graphics technology in an Xbox 360 or PS3. Juvenile clickfest, hand-eye coordination exercises, displayed on a grainy, flickering, TV just don't hold much interest for me anymore.
I wanted the show to survive here in the US.
Are you aware of how the rating system actually works? Did you call up the SciFi channel to let them know that your TV was on and tuned to their station? You should at least have let them know if you wanted to be counted. It doesn't happen automagically.
Someone at the SciFi channel is obviously a Roger Corman fan. Don't we have enough of those 50s and 60s style monster movies? It's like the new century's answer to Creature Features. Most of them are BAD. So bad as to be completely unwatchable. As if to be truly authentic, even the acting is bad (wooden) in some of them. I did see a SciFi made vampire movie (can't remember the name) that was pretty good though. I'd like to see them continue that story. If I want to see cheese, I'll actually queue up an old Toho Studios film to watch miniature cities get stomped on by dancing japanese guys in rubber suits.
Great spoilers and all (wish I hadn't read it) but who is going to be doing the writing?
I hope they have axed Carla Robinson and Jeff Flaming and hopefully even Bradley Thompson and David Weddle from the writer lineup. They suck. They aren't science fiction writers and can't write. They are responsible for the only bad episodes in season one. And why in the name of god is it necessary to use a different writer for each episode? It's so fracking stupid. Obviously the episodes are going to be uneven if you do that.
David Eick, RDM, and Michael Angeli should be doing all the writing. They actually know how to write. Toni Graphia is not that bad either. I pray to the Lords of Cobol that these folks will be doing all the writing for season 2. We don't need any more filler episodes like Secrets and Lies or You Can't Go Home Again. I'd rather have fewer episodes and better writing.
By the time "computationally intensive" is a thing of the past, we would probably have figured out the DNA thing. Be careful of your assumptions. Predicting the future is difficult and Moore's Law is dead, at least for the moment. We are certainly complex machines, but I believe the need for processor power is infinite. There will never be "enough".
They just figure out what not to do by watching the Yanks across the pond. They at least realize that a team of writers is not capable of writing consistently good scripts. Just take a look at Battlestar Galactica for an example. The only way to go is with one or maybe two writers with a shared vision of the show. Not that I would hold up the new Doctor Who as anything special. I was just watching because Billie is so hot.
I actually think that is the problem. I suspect that the whole typecasting thing is a red herring. He was probably horrified after actually watching himself acting in such a "silly" show, but he didn't want to offend anyone by saying that. I'd bet quite a few quid that that is more or less what happened. Reading a script is one thing but actually seeing it on screen is another.
Can't we just bring back Tom Baker? To me, he will always be the real Doctor Who. Everyone else is just a bad copy.
IMO, the real reason he quit is that Billie Piper is married. It's not like it's his first gig. Better to get on a series or film with a hot female costar who is single.
We shall soon discover that the earth is only 18 years old. The last laugh will be on us.
A car driving at the same speed as you in your blind spot is going to be hard to see
Yup. I'd have to say that he would be downright invisible since he is in your blind spot. I have also noticed that if I cover my monitor screen with a black sheet the image suddenly vanishes. Strange world we live in.
As to your main point. Movement can enhance contrast making an object (especially a distant one) easier to "see", but it is more difficult to track and focus on a moving object making a detailed inspection of said object more difficult. For humans at least (and I suspect birds as well) stationary objects are easier to get detailed images of.
Well... if the target isn't moving, and the "system" requires movement... and there are only two parts that can be moving.
And the relevance of this is what exactly? The context of this discussion was whether a bird can see stationary objects, based on whether a (alleged) distant relative of the bird we call a T-rex could see them. Some of us are just trying to correct the ridiculous notion (an urban myth?) that birds can only see objects when they are in motion. All you are doing is muddying the waters by trying to redefine the definition of "moving". The fact that motion is relative makes the whole discussion even more laughable. Since living organisms are always moving to some degree, in relative terms there is simply no such thing as a stationary object.
By moving relative to the perch/bowl/etc.
So you are admitting that they can see objects that are perfectly still. All they have to do is move a fraction of a nanometer. Just breathing should do the trick. That birds (and snakes for that matter) can see perfectly still objects can be demonstrated empirically. There is no need to get into all kinds of complex theories about synapse firings etc.
Try this experiment. Go to a pet store with a large macaw on a stand or in a cage. Watch. Sooner or later you will see him eat. Notice that the food does not move and he is still able to find it. If you are going to claim that he is navigating by smell, then place a toy quietly behind the bird and see if he notices it when he turns around. Get back to us when you finish with this "experiment".
Birds too, I believe, cannot see things that do not move
This is wrong. In fact it is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard. Cite your source. I can't believe people modded you up. Birds can most definitely see things that do not move. Unless you wan't to argue that no living creature is capable of a true lack of motion even when asleep, which would make the point mute anyway. I hope this isn't one of those cases where there is a joke that I'm missing here.
Such beliefs are certainly
popular though.
Bertrand Russell, also a bright guy, attempted the opposite and failed. He later said that he could not decide whether he was an agnostic or an atheist, since he was unable to demonstrate the non-existence of God.
Actually it's not so hard. The trick is to first know what you are actually talking about. Theists tend to keep their God definitions pretty muddy, but once you pin them down to an actual, specific definition of the creature they are claiming to exist it is (usually) a piece of cake to disprove it. Why? Because most such beliefs are in some way logically inconsistent. They make it too easy! Not that the theists will care anyway. Most don't believe in their personal deity for logical reasons but for emotional ones.
Of course, even a "god" that is actually somewhat plausible logically which to most of us would be more akin to a powerful alien race of creatures (see relevant ST:TNG episode) requires evidence. But people who believe in the idea of Aliens so advanced that they are indistinguishable from truly magical beings are not usually thought of as being thiests. Why? Because we are still talking about organisms subject to the same laws of nature even if their technology and/or evolutionary advances make them appear godlike in their power. The word g-o-d is usually used to denote a creature which is able to violate/create laws of nature and is not subject to them.
The distinction between an atheist and an agnostic is academic. It is not a very useful distinction. To most religious people they are the same. Just like I don't know the difference between a protestant and a catholic (no please don't tell me).
The difference is supposed to be that agnostics realize that the existence of said magical/supernatural creature is not just unknown but unknowable. A good point and one that most atheists would not disagree with.
For whatever reason agnostics are unwilling to take it one step further and actually say that they don't believe in something unknowable. This unwillingness to actually come out and say it (Hemlock anyone?) is probably the most fundamental distinction. Whether this is due to fear of being unpopular among religious people or feeling some responsibility to defend one's views all the time I don't know. Either way I have no doubt that agnostics are really atheists. The "I can't really know one way or another" is just a red herring, an excuse for not having to stand up for an unpopular lack of belief. There is a lot of truth to the idea that "agnostics are just atheists without the courage of their convictions".
I am an atheist, and I agree with your points about magical, undetectable creatures of any kind (including most God myths) being unknowable. I agree that even if such creatures did exist it would be pointless for us to even discuss such things since we could not (by definition) ever know of them.
You seem to believe that atheists are making some kind of positive claim to something. We are not. We simply examine any specific God legend for logical consistency (is it self-contradictory or otherwise clearly in violation of various laws of existence?) and examine whatever evidence is presented to us for said belief. The fact is that most God-creatures are magical, supernatural and quite impossible to exist. I think it is our realization of this fact (i.e. the famous square circle analogy) that most distinguishes an atheist from an agnostic.
The first question I want to ask when someone tells me they believe in a god legend is whether "it" is animal, vegetable of mineral. Just what is it exactly that they are claiming exists? That's where things get real fuzzy. It makes me wonder about the difference between not believing in something and actually believing specifically in nothing per se.
And if they hadn't already heard about it they have now. So who spoiled it for you?
Our immune systems are pretty versatile. If the alien microbes are so different from our own that it makes our immune systems useless then it will probably be too foreign to do anything to us. How often have you caught a cold from your dog? Those microbes would have evolved to attack other kinds of animals. They would most likely be harmless to us.
Taxes don't have to go up. They could even go down. Just drastically reduce government "services" until we have paid off our debts. Of course neither republicans nor democrats have any intention of doing this. I find it amusing when tax and spenders see our overspending as a justification for taxing more. That is an endless feedback loop which will result in nearly 100% income taxes eventually. Then you will get your wish. The government should not be allowed to borrow money. Period. If they cannot raise enough money through taxes, then they need to lower their spending. When are you going to realize that the only real difference between democrats and republicans is their speeches. Everything else is just marketing and spin. They choose to sell themselves in different ways. That's all.
The first one who mentions freenet gets a piece of candy...
This law is insane. Goodbye to every ISP in Australia if they actually enforce this. I am guessing that it won't really be enforced.
Okay, Mr. Feynman. Ever opened the window of a car doing 130MPH? How about 15000MPH? Care to ride on a space shuttle launch with a hole of that size closed by a jacket? Do you have any idea of the kinds of forces you would be dealing with? Even on airplanes traveling a mere 550 mph people have been sucked out to their deaths due to a hole in the fuselage. And these people weighed a lot more than a jacket.
I am not a physicist (IANAP) either, but I did take high school and college physics. At the speeds she seemed to be traveling through the planetary atmosphere I have to even wonder why the jacket did not just burn up. Maybe it was made of some super-duper material. It would have been pulled/sucked out by the huge pressure difference (even a shop-vac could probably have grabbed it), by friction from the atmosphere, or even by the huge g-forces (inertial changes) with the accelerations and maneuvers she was doing.
Or, sit on your ass and suck it up...
As a Libertarian, my vote never gets anyone elected, even in local elections. So I am used to that. I have a comfortable chair.
This country used to be known as a country of individualists and, yes, anarchists to an extent. 'Tis no longer true of course, but I stand by our proud tradition of thumbing our noses at our government, poking fun at our ratlike leaders and ignoring laws and any other rules that I don't agree with. This is what makes me an American.
Here in my country, candidates are given campaign money by huge corporations, because the more you spend to advertise the greater return you get at the voting booth.
That sums it up nicely. Tit for tat. What a cute system!
I suggest placing a few large water tanks underneath the foundation with inlets and outlets to be plumbed up through the concrete. Then you can put water blocks on all of the CPUs and GPUs in your entire house and use the entire earth as your heat sink. You may or may not need a small pump to help circulate the cool water up and hot water down.
Another CPU cooling idea is to place Tees in your water pipes before they reach your water heater. Then connect a water cooling loop to it and run all of your water right through your CPU/GPU water blocks. It may also preheat some of your water before it gets to the water heater. A hot water circulator could circulate the hot water from the CPU to the water heater inlet.