The potential to spread "smart dust" in your home, or yard, or around downtown DC or Baghdad is quite scary....
Fortunately there's sufficient "dumb dust" around that the smart variety will be forced into small, unpopular cliques, where it will spend most of it's time playing RPGs and discussing the relative merits of Star Trek versus Firefly.
The loss of thrust to drag probably isn't significant in a craft this size and weight. It won't scale up, but then I suspect a design like this couldn't be used for people or cargo for safety reasons (I don't think it would autorotate if the engine fails, but I could be wrong).
One advantage with this is that the weight of the vehicle suspended directly below the fan makes it inherently stable; useful if the control system dies, because it will tend to return to neutral and hover in place. By comparison the Avrocar was top-heavy and attempted to balance on it's thrust, resulting in a design that was unstable even when hovering (you can see this in the test footage).
The second advantage of this design is that the engine's drive shaft can be directly coupled to the fan. Compared to a helicopter (which needs a complex transmission to allow vectored thrust) or an unobstructed ducted fan (requiring some kind of belt or rim-drive, and a weight to counterbalance the engine which would have to be mounted off-center to avoid drag), this system is extremely easy to maintain and has fewer failure modes.
A third advantage, particularly applicable to drones, is control simplicity: at a pinch you could get away with as few as two servos for complete control in the X and Z axes by mechanically linking the flaps on opposite sides with simple push-rods. I can't think of a simpler control mechanism for a hovering aircraft, but IANAAE.
Those examples are all from the lunatic fringe, and you know it.
"completely bewildered about science, ethics, morals and sexuality"
Yet we live in a predominately religious society (check the census data if you doubt it) that has a high level of technology, is controlled by a secular rule of law, and is one of the most sexually permissive in the world (after most of Europe and largely Catholic South America, of course). Not all the world has protestant hang-ups, you know.
"willing to fly into buildings"
Out of a global population of near 1 billion muslims, how many have actually done that? 10%? 1%? More like 0.000,02%. If you're trying to argue that religion is the only belief system that inspires people to kill/die for a cause, you'd be utterly wrong; communists, fascists, animal activists, Basque separatists, they all have their share of extremist nutters who have killed for their cause (some with far greater efficiency). I'd also point out that applying that standard so loosely to an entire group is called "bigotry", and is every bit as distant from logic as the religious beliefs you decry.
So I will counter your near-unique example with another near-unique example: I recently worked on a murder-mystery film set in the pornography industry, written and produced by two muslim women from Pakistan. I've also been bested in a drinking contest by a Catholic nun who believed the papal edict on condoms was stupid and unrealistic, and conducted her field work in AIDS-infested New Guinea accordingly. Has your head exploded yet?
"willing to scam old people for their last cent"
Churches, bed manufacturers, gazebo salesmen...any vulnerable group is subject to scams by unscrupulous people. That's what "vulnerable" means. The guy next door to you who goes to church every Sunday isn't Oral Roberts, and there are many more like him.
"fully intending to legislate their opinions onto the backs of others"
OK, let's look back at the first point: despite the fact that the majority of the population are religious in some way, we in the west have a reasonably liberal set of laws (depending on your exact location, of course). The intent to legislate does not equate to successfully doing so, and again, there are many secular groups that would introduce equally loony laws if they had the chance. The great thing about democracy is that the extreme minorities are overwhelmed by the moderate majority.
I reiterate: most people with religious beliefs are, except for the bit about the great sky spirit, quite sane and reasonable. If you want to prove you are a rational being, stop making ridiculous generalisations.
I'm not convinced that people are inherently logical; capable of logic to degrees depending on intelligence and education, but emotion, creativity and the ability to make intuitive leaps aren't definable in logical terms (if they were, AI would be a reality). I suspect that religion is actually part cause, part effect, but self sustaining because we are intellectually fallible.
But I think calling religion, which is essentially well intended for the most part, "child abuse" is trivialising genuine cases of trauma. In my experience most people with religious beliefs are happy, well adjusted and function perfectly well, even if they persist in holding views that defy reason.
I thought about it that option, but in my case the MacPro was cheaper, and I had an option on the video card.
If you're buying the 8 core box, and you're NOT buying a SATA raid w/card to go with it, you're pissing in the wind... because you'll NEVER keep the processors busy enough..
I can easily max out the processors on a quad with Cinema 4D, Final Cut or Shake, according to the Activity Monitor. You're just not trying hard enough.
Yes, I own a large render farm for GCI. I'm unaware of any other possible meaning of "Anonymous Coward", though....but before you attempt to use a word in your sig you should make sure it's spelled correctly.
Try changing your spell checker to UK English. Congratulations, you just demonstrated your ignorance.
Worse than that, I've seen posts that are factually incorrect modded up as Informative. I think the moderator guidelines should include the dictionary definitions of each moderator type, because there does seem to be some confusion.
FWIW, I don't think my post was insightful either; there's nothing bad you can say about lawyers that isn't blindingly obvious.
Slashdot Mirror
Does "an eternal stain on their souls" count as tax?
Imagine a Beowulf cloud of these...
The potential to spread "smart dust" in your home, or yard, or around downtown DC or Baghdad is quite scary....
Fortunately there's sufficient "dumb dust" around that the smart variety will be forced into small, unpopular cliques, where it will spend most of it's time playing RPGs and discussing the relative merits of Star Trek versus Firefly.
Then look closely at the moon and Martian surface. Those holes are not there just to look pretty.
You realise you just lowered the self esteem of a thousand crater-faced geeks, don't you?
Bloggers is a condition
Is it curable, or is it a chronic condition that can be managed with appropriate treatment? I ask because it's becoming an epidemic...
Why would we want to do that?
Revenge probing?
The loss of thrust to drag probably isn't significant in a craft this size and weight. It won't scale up, but then I suspect a design like this couldn't be used for people or cargo for safety reasons (I don't think it would autorotate if the engine fails, but I could be wrong).
One advantage with this is that the weight of the vehicle suspended directly below the fan makes it inherently stable; useful if the control system dies, because it will tend to return to neutral and hover in place. By comparison the Avrocar was top-heavy and attempted to balance on it's thrust, resulting in a design that was unstable even when hovering (you can see this in the test footage).
The second advantage of this design is that the engine's drive shaft can be directly coupled to the fan. Compared to a helicopter (which needs a complex transmission to allow vectored thrust) or an unobstructed ducted fan (requiring some kind of belt or rim-drive, and a weight to counterbalance the engine which would have to be mounted off-center to avoid drag), this system is extremely easy to maintain and has fewer failure modes.
A third advantage, particularly applicable to drones, is control simplicity: at a pinch you could get away with as few as two servos for complete control in the X and Z axes by mechanically linking the flaps on opposite sides with simple push-rods. I can't think of a simpler control mechanism for a hovering aircraft, but IANAAE.
When I was a kid I spent more time with my fingers up my nose ...
What was your high score?
Centipede was incredibly violent. Won't somebody think of the mushrooms?
Mmm, mushrooms...
Before you try to critisize a religion or hell even a topic you should at least have some understanding of it.
And hurtling towards us from the decaying supernova remnants is a probe with a single mysterious inscription on the side:
"You must be new here."
Those examples are all from the lunatic fringe, and you know it.
"completely bewildered about science, ethics, morals and sexuality"
Yet we live in a predominately religious society (check the census data if you doubt it) that has a high level of technology, is controlled by a secular rule of law, and is one of the most sexually permissive in the world (after most of Europe and largely Catholic South America, of course). Not all the world has protestant hang-ups, you know.
"willing to fly into buildings"
Out of a global population of near 1 billion muslims, how many have actually done that? 10%? 1%? More like 0.000,02%. If you're trying to argue that religion is the only belief system that inspires people to kill/die for a cause, you'd be utterly wrong; communists, fascists, animal activists, Basque separatists, they all have their share of extremist nutters who have killed for their cause (some with far greater efficiency). I'd also point out that applying that standard so loosely to an entire group is called "bigotry", and is every bit as distant from logic as the religious beliefs you decry.
So I will counter your near-unique example with another near-unique example: I recently worked on a murder-mystery film set in the pornography industry, written and produced by two muslim women from Pakistan. I've also been bested in a drinking contest by a Catholic nun who believed the papal edict on condoms was stupid and unrealistic, and conducted her field work in AIDS-infested New Guinea accordingly. Has your head exploded yet?
"willing to scam old people for their last cent"
Churches, bed manufacturers, gazebo salesmen...any vulnerable group is subject to scams by unscrupulous people. That's what "vulnerable" means. The guy next door to you who goes to church every Sunday isn't Oral Roberts, and there are many more like him.
"fully intending to legislate their opinions onto the backs of others"
OK, let's look back at the first point: despite the fact that the majority of the population are religious in some way, we in the west have a reasonably liberal set of laws (depending on your exact location, of course). The intent to legislate does not equate to successfully doing so, and again, there are many secular groups that would introduce equally loony laws if they had the chance. The great thing about democracy is that the extreme minorities are overwhelmed by the moderate majority.
I reiterate: most people with religious beliefs are, except for the bit about the great sky spirit, quite sane and reasonable. If you want to prove you are a rational being, stop making ridiculous generalisations.
I'm not convinced that people are inherently logical; capable of logic to degrees depending on intelligence and education, but emotion, creativity and the ability to make intuitive leaps aren't definable in logical terms (if they were, AI would be a reality). I suspect that religion is actually part cause, part effect, but self sustaining because we are intellectually fallible.
But I think calling religion, which is essentially well intended for the most part, "child abuse" is trivialising genuine cases of trauma. In my experience most people with religious beliefs are happy, well adjusted and function perfectly well, even if they persist in holding views that defy reason.
The Three Stooges used to run on banana peels, look where it got them.
There's plenty of religious software out there.
Forcing a logic device to deal with religion is just cruel.
No flux capacitor, but I've hacked together a nice oscillation overthruster using the tutorials on Maxon's web site.
So really you should be complaining that nobody has figured out how to compute at right angles to reality.
(Apologies to Douglas Adams).
As always you can get a similarly configured Dell for much less.
Funny you say that, because when I bought a MacPro two months ago the indentical configuration from Dell was AU$600 more expensive.
I thought about it that option, but in my case the MacPro was cheaper, and I had an option on the video card.
If you're buying the 8 core box, and you're NOT buying a SATA raid w/card to go with it, you're pissing in the wind... because you'll NEVER keep the processors busy enough..
I can easily max out the processors on a quad with Cinema 4D, Final Cut or Shake, according to the Activity Monitor. You're just not trying hard enough.
4d? Are you sending your rendered images into the past, or the future?
CG animation uses a timeline as well as three dimensional coordinates, so 4d is technically correct.
When you let stupid people buy computers.
You also get lower prices because of economies of scale. Pick your poison: expensive computers, or computers any idiot can afford.
/me slaps forehead.
Excel allowed you to use the 1-2-3 commands should you so desire - wonder if that feature still exists
If there's anyone who actually needs that feature, I demand to know which cryogenic facility they just stepped out of.
I know you are a farmer...
...but before you attempt to use a word in your sig you should make sure it's spelled correctly.
Yes, I own a large render farm for GCI. I'm unaware of any other possible meaning of "Anonymous Coward", though.
Try changing your spell checker to UK English. Congratulations, you just demonstrated your ignorance.
Worse than that, I've seen posts that are factually incorrect modded up as Informative. I think the moderator guidelines should include the dictionary definitions of each moderator type, because there does seem to be some confusion.
FWIW, I don't think my post was insightful either; there's nothing bad you can say about lawyers that isn't blindingly obvious.
I'd be assembling a team of rabid attack lawyers, and training them to go for the wallet.
You don't need to train lawyers to go for the wallet, that's the instinct that makes them lawyers in the first place.