I have had pretty good success (and some random failures) with this design. Alas I can not find a reference to it online, and more than likely the name I have for it is incorrect. I found the design when I was a younger child, the design was in a book of paper plane designs.
The design is fairly simple though:
Start folding a traditional paper plane: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper_plane using the example image on the wikipedia page, before performing the middle/centre step in the image, insert an additional step.
The additional step is:Fold the tip down so that it touches the tail of the plane at the centre line, then fold it back up again so that an additional crease is made about 2cm from the one made just before.
Continue with the instructions on the wikipedia page.
The result will be a traditional dart with a tiered nose, which will fly a bit more stabler than a traditional dart. You may need to gently tweak the trailing edge of the wings to create a bit more upward direction (lift is probably the wrong word). You can also play with the positioning of the creases made in the additional step to adjust the balance, which will probably achieve the same results as the wing tweaking.
I agree, the voice recognition is far superior to the default android system. It's quite possible that Evi has decent i18n, where as the android sytem currently only caters for american-like accents.
Nope, Internet access is deemed a basic human right. However, the article doesn't mention if you can opt back out again. It's possible that subscription can be reversed.
Kevin Lacy, chief traffic engineer for the state DOT, and the one who filed a complaint with the N.C. Board of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors, protested that in trying to have Computer Scientist David Cox investigated for his detailed complaint about a traffic intersection while not licensed as a professional engineer, "I'm not trying to hush him up."
I disagree that jumping out of ones environment is a smart move, especially if you don't know what's on the other side.
I disagree that dolphins are dumb because they get caught in nets because:
a) how do you jump over a net if you find your self in the absolute center?
b) maybe most do 'just jump over' and the ones caught are the dumb few.
c) if a dolphin doesn't jump over a net it will become sushi, a dolphin probably doesn't know that it should jump over a net unless it knows it's dangerous, if a dolphin knows the net is dangerous - it's probably already been caught (see sushi statement).
d) nets (i think) are designed to be fairly invisible, dolphins aren't known for having excellent eyesight and I don't know if their echo location is good enough to spot a net...
Let's have a fish off and stick a dolphin and a goldfish in a tank and see who wins... actually to make it fair lets stick quite a few goldfish in there...
I prefer the current good old theft of identity. It seems physically less painless.
I rather not have to lose a limb/digit/section of skin when a "career criminal" wants my credit.
If I'm searching for something, I want to find it. I don't want to have to search through extra data. This article seems to point out that it is "estimating" the amount of results returned. Which I think is un-important. What I think is important is the validity of the results to the query I type. I don't see how these figures show "Quality" any more than "Quantity".
Finger-prints were ok, as your average Joe could see for himself that one set matched another, and that no special equipment was really needed (except perhaps a eye-glass). We assume that the prediction about "no two people have the same fingerprint" as being correct, as it seems to make sense.
But there is no way a Jury of average people would be able to 'understand or produce the information from a sample of DNA required to match it with another' by their loansome. I feel a little worried about this, as the information is given on trust of the reporter of the information. Evidence doesn't lie but people do.
I remember seeing something on TV regarding old designs by such people as DV. The Scientists made a few design modifications and hey presto it failed... However when they went back to the original designs they found the the devices worked as intended by the designer. I also recall reading something of one such designer where; not wanting the devices to be used for "evil"; built a very simple but obvious design flaw in to each one.
Sorry about being so vaugue
Is there software within the OS's we use, that allthough aren't malicious or that are infact an integral part of the OS's; that could fit the description of spyware?
First one then the other. Good Guess!
No actually, His laptop and video camera were nicked, and the only way in to his room is: a. via the roof (which has no public access (unless you're a monkey or a french rock climber as its about three stories up)) and b. via his open window (also needing a monkey etc. (see a.)
Now you may be thinking that perhaps a door was left open or something, well no it wasn't and even if it was there were actually two people home in different parts of the house when it happened.
meh, possestions.
Having just moved to London From New Zealand, I found the amount of CCTV cameras a little surreal. They are everywhere. But non-the-less; it is nice to know that perhaps even if just a placebo, they cameras tend to make things a bit safer. However, as my flatmate found out, cameras don't protect your household.
The streets may be safer, but your possesions still arent - Perhaps thats is why insureance is so high over here.
Slashdot Mirror
Living in London is no better than living in a nuclear disaster fallout zone?
is to become a researcher...?
This is still a problem on OSX even. It's depressing seeing all the cool new games on steam and not being able to play them.
I'm just here to watch all the old-timers post.
I have had pretty good success (and some random failures) with this design. Alas I can not find a reference to it online, and more than likely the name I have for it is incorrect. I found the design when I was a younger child, the design was in a book of paper plane designs.
The design is fairly simple though:
The result will be a traditional dart with a tiered nose, which will fly a bit more stabler than a traditional dart. You may need to gently tweak the trailing edge of the wings to create a bit more upward direction (lift is probably the wrong word). You can also play with the positioning of the creases made in the additional step to adjust the balance, which will probably achieve the same results as the wing tweaking.
The following SVG should give you a hint: http://pastebin.com/PnsaGPzK
I agree, the voice recognition is far superior to the default android system. It's quite possible that Evi has decent i18n, where as the android sytem currently only caters for american-like accents.
This does have the potential for abuse.
Nope, Internet access is deemed a basic human right. However, the article doesn't mention if you can opt back out again. It's possible that subscription can be reversed.
I like the idea, but what I think this means, what is meant and what will be delivered are probably quite disparate.
Kevin Lacy, chief traffic engineer for the state DOT, and the one who filed a complaint with the N.C. Board of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors, protested that in trying to have Computer Scientist David Cox investigated for his detailed complaint about a traffic intersection while not licensed as a professional engineer, "I'm not trying to hush him up."
It does my head in.
Anything that increases choice is a good thing.
I'm not entirely convinced
I disagree that jumping out of ones environment is a smart move, especially if you don't know what's on the other side. I disagree that dolphins are dumb because they get caught in nets because: a) how do you jump over a net if you find your self in the absolute center? b) maybe most do 'just jump over' and the ones caught are the dumb few. c) if a dolphin doesn't jump over a net it will become sushi, a dolphin probably doesn't know that it should jump over a net unless it knows it's dangerous, if a dolphin knows the net is dangerous - it's probably already been caught (see sushi statement). d) nets (i think) are designed to be fairly invisible, dolphins aren't known for having excellent eyesight and I don't know if their echo location is good enough to spot a net... Let's have a fish off and stick a dolphin and a goldfish in a tank and see who wins... actually to make it fair lets stick quite a few goldfish in there...
A guy set up a very cheap .5TB raid 5 system. go check it out. www.digg.com
Thats a big squid
I prefer the current good old theft of identity. It seems physically less painless. I rather not have to lose a limb/digit/section of skin when a "career criminal" wants my credit.
If I'm searching for something, I want to find it. I don't want to have to search through extra data. This article seems to point out that it is "estimating" the amount of results returned. Which I think is un-important. What I think is important is the validity of the results to the query I type. I don't see how these figures show "Quality" any more than "Quantity".
http://downloads.oreilly.com/make/cisco.mov
Well informative, though I know very little about cisco or routers in general. I quite enjoyed this article.
Finger-prints were ok, as your average Joe could see for himself that one set matched another, and that no special equipment was really needed (except perhaps a eye-glass). We assume that the prediction about "no two people have the same fingerprint" as being correct, as it seems to make sense.
But there is no way a Jury of average people would be able to 'understand or produce the information from a sample of DNA required to match it with another' by their loansome. I feel a little worried about this, as the information is given on trust of the reporter of the information. Evidence doesn't lie but people do.
I remember seeing something on TV regarding old designs by such people as DV. The Scientists made a few design modifications and hey presto it failed... However when they went back to the original designs they found the the devices worked as intended by the designer. I also recall reading something of one such designer where; not wanting the devices to be used for "evil"; built a very simple but obvious design flaw in to each one. Sorry about being so vaugue
I wonder if a larger scale version of spaceship one would do?
yeah and if you lose they reclaim your body fluids.
Is there software within the OS's we use, that allthough aren't malicious or that are infact an integral part of the OS's; that could fit the description of spyware?
First one then the other. Good Guess! No actually, His laptop and video camera were nicked, and the only way in to his room is: a. via the roof (which has no public access (unless you're a monkey or a french rock climber as its about three stories up)) and b. via his open window (also needing a monkey etc. (see a.) Now you may be thinking that perhaps a door was left open or something, well no it wasn't and even if it was there were actually two people home in different parts of the house when it happened. meh, possestions.
Having just moved to London From New Zealand, I found the amount of CCTV cameras a little surreal. They are everywhere. But non-the-less; it is nice to know that perhaps even if just a placebo, they cameras tend to make things a bit safer. However, as my flatmate found out, cameras don't protect your household.
The streets may be safer, but your possesions still arent - Perhaps thats is why insureance is so high over here.