For those of you that are interested in participating, but don't like having to deal with the limitations of their client (the console version is cool, but still no where near as nice, imho, as the distributed.net client) you can find some good info on setting them up as services, and running two clients (for all my dual-CPU peeps out there)here. Yeah, it's kind of a pain to set up, but the client is very stable and once you've got this configured, you'll never have to touch it again.
I had a few warts on one hand, and after trying this (and others) what ended up working was some kind of beetle juice (no, I am not kidding, this was what the doctor said it was). A little was put on one wart, and within a month they were all gone.
I'd still take that 1/2 Jack Daniels though, just to be on the safe side.
The article clearly states that he survived the video gaming, it was only when he went to the bathroom that he died. In response to tragic events like this, Prez. Bush is calling for a "war on toilets," which will entail ad campaigns targeted towards teens to drastically exaggerate the dangers posed by toilets and bathrooms.
No, it couldn't, or at least not like you mean. Imagine taking a square block of material (like the fog) and only being able to cut it away at right angles from the x, y, or z surface (no diagonal cuts). You have no way to control depth, how would you make a sphere? I'm assuming a certain method for trying to accomplish this, but I really see no way that it would be possible, without many projectors and or some way to accurately focus light at a 3D point in space, regardless of projector position.
This _not_ any kind of 3D display. There is no real depth, the source is 2D, and the main piece of equipment is a 2D projector. All it is is a way of adding what appears to be thickness to the display; things like the image of the hand will have depth but not hand-shaped depth, that is it will look like an extruded cookie-cutter of illuminated fog.
It's kind of cool, but beyond the novelty and perhaps some real niche applications, pretty pointless.
And this was posted some time ago, either in the comments or as a story, although I couldn't find it with a few searches.
Delays like that were programmed into the system to compensate for the way neurons worked and communicated, different impulses had to be selectively delayed to perform the desired motion. Didn't really have anything to do with the connection....
Just because it happens two years ago doesn't not make it news. They need to evaluate, verify, and understand the results, and a number of the experiments have been ongoing in that intervening time. Do you think they're going to get a result from a preliminary experiment and publish it the next day? That's the kind of thing that leads to inaccuracies/lack of checking that has resulted in a few prominent recent examples of scientific misconduct. Sheesh, you yell at them when it's inaccurate, and yell at them when they take the time to verify it. You people....
Had you actually read the article, you would have found out that they later hooked up a monkey to control a cursor on the screen via neuronal impulses, and the monkey was able to control it with no physical movement. The article also goes into how this kind of feedback allowed their software to increase its precision. In conclusion, RTFA. Same goes for you mods that modded up this guy.
How about short range radio supplemented by LOS communication via smaller, guided-missle style craft, which communally are capable of providing constant (encrypted) communication. I suppose, however, EMP would be an issue, but would they be in any worse shape than current fighter jets, whose control system is entirely electronic?
Advances in maneuverability are great, but pilots are, and have been for some time, the limiting factor. The current generation of fighter jets can produce G forces that greatly exceed what even well-trained humans can endure. I think the next major advance will be fully remote fighter jets. If the military had some sense they'd be using cameras on the jets and some kind of vr for the pilots. Voila, war is video games, and all of a sudden I'm an elite fighter pilot! And my millions of hours logged in Counter-Stike are merely preparation for remote-controlled human-like spec ops. Yeah....
Well, among other considerations, I think things like pepper spray need to be pretty much directly applied to the eyes to work - you need to shoot a stream or spray of it at someone's face. Paintballs explode on impact, but not in any kind of covering way - you'd end up with little splotched of pepper spray on you, and unless you were shot in the face (both painful and stupid - who would turn their faces towards firing weapons?) it wouldn't really do much. It might be feasible as a means of delivering more localized tear gas, but I'd guess that they use tear gas for large enough crowds that the kind of coverage offered by current canister systems is preferable.
It doesn't look like any of these inventions are particularly new, the US police force and riot response teams have been using/testing rubber bullet, bean bag bullets, nets, foam, sonic weapons, and other for the past several years. They've started deploying them to more and more officers, apparently it's lead to a number of situations where they were able to incapacitate and arrest someone they usually would have shot. So it sounds like a movement in the right direction, although I think these weapons get used more against rioters, drunks, the mentally ill, etc. I'm pretty sure they still shoot supervillains... or promote them.
I'm not sure why you try to tie everything to landing on the moon, as if the one person whose actions can be directly tied to this even should have everything named after them, while everyone else shoud just do their uncreative and uninspired administrative duties.
Anyway, my original point didn't have anything to do with the moon, but rather that administrators are important, and while I certainly don't know the history and exploits of any of these individuals, I'd generally trust NASA's judgment and if they say this guy was a signficant positive factor in the space program, then I see no reason to argue with their choice.
Damn straight, CMU/. trolls represent! Between this and that guy who made hardrives play music (and successfully hosted video that everyone was actually capable of accessing), I'd say CMU has a clear monopoly on the kind of random, cool, and often (mostly) pointless stuff/. _loves_. By the way, MCS rules.
I couldn't agree more. Comedy Central tried to take something that's interesting and entertaining in its combination of technical details and battle, and dumbed it down to a level that pained anyone who tried to enjoy what makes robots fighting worth watching. I got really excited the first season, and kept hoping they'd move away from the dumb-as-fuck annoucers and babes, and towards the more detailed descriptions like what Bill Nye (went to my high school:) would provide. But they didn't, so the show sucked, and refused to watch. Fuck them, it's a viable format/content for a show, so someone will get it right we'll get robot-fighting goodness.
I think your comment is pretty contradictory. In the first part, you argue that administrators merely perform their duties as specified in the job description, independent of their individual personality/skills/whatever. Yet, in the second part, you argue that JFK, the administrator-in-chief, should be the one to get things named after him. First of all, what's the difference between the two, except degree of power? I'll agree that, clearly, JFK substantially advanced NASA and our space efforts, but how do you know that Webb did not, in his somewhat-less-powerful capacity, move the space program along?
I think the administrators are absolutely crucial in the success of any endeavor, and to be good they must do much more than simply fill a role that anyone else could have easily and homogenously filled. They must decide between vying projects, decide which research to follow; their guidance is absolutely critical and those that do their job well are invaluable. Just because they don't personally discover that E=MC^2 or somesuch, does not make their position any less important, or individually brilliant. It takes intelligence, foresight, and a great deal of skill to lead science forward.
Sheesh, make a little joke and get labeled flamebait. It wasn't some argument-starter about stability, just a quick note that it could happen (and probably will). Fucking mods. now _this_ is flamebait
aha, i see, i supposed he was referring to a method of saving on taxes/other fees or somesuch. Seems like an awful hassle to avoid paying whatever % PP charges, but I suppose for larger transactions it would be relevent. I decided against mafioso some time ago, but not due to a lack of deviousness (you heard of Microsoft? yeah, that was one of my crueler, trickier ideas, back in the day), but rather because I couldn't possible consume that much spaghetti. Not to imply that mafiosos are all italian, but judging from movies, um, yeah they are.
You're missing my point. I'm not referring to surcharges/cashout fees/whatever, I'm referring to the fact that if you gamble with $100, statistically speaking, you're going to end up with less than $100. So even if you save money on surcharges or fees or whatnot with paypal, your net profit is negative (or your net loss is positive). Unless you're one of those uber-l33t MIT cardcounters, you are _not_ going to make money off gambling of this nature. These sites are a business like any other, and are structured to ensure a reliable profit margin. This is all statistically speaking, of course, so none of that "you're wrong, I gambled $10 and won $500! muahahahahaha, i finally found a get-rich-quick scheme that actually works!". Although, at least w/ most of the sites, there's some established winning ratio, so you'll only lose like 25% of your money in long-term. Beats the stock market, which is a total crap shoot these days.
Yes, I can see how that would save you money. If only it weren't counteracted by the fact that all gambling providers (both physical and online) will _always_ make money off of you (in other words, you will lose money). While it's smart to save some $$ when you do win, wouldn't you be better off not purchasing the services of the gambling industry in the first place?
Slashdot Mirror
Good idea, it might actually have enough processing power not to start chugging when Outlook opens.
no google html version.... : /
Shameless plug for 2cpu team, ranked 25th & rising!
Hrm, I'm not entirely sure if you're joking, but it's from Star Wars, of course :P
The scene where Obi Wan warns Vader in the death star hanger.
I had a few warts on one hand, and after trying this (and others) what ended up working was some kind of beetle juice (no, I am not kidding, this was what the doctor said it was). A little was put on one wart, and within a month they were all gone.
I'd still take that 1/2 Jack Daniels though, just to be on the safe side.
The article clearly states that he survived the video gaming, it was only when he went to the bathroom that he died.
In response to tragic events like this, Prez. Bush is calling for a "war on toilets," which will entail ad campaigns targeted towards teens to drastically exaggerate the dangers posed by toilets and bathrooms.
No, it couldn't, or at least not like you mean. Imagine taking a square block of material (like the fog) and only being able to cut it away at right angles from the x, y, or z surface (no diagonal cuts). You have no way to control depth, how would you make a sphere?
I'm assuming a certain method for trying to accomplish this, but I really see no way that it would be possible, without many projectors and or some way to accurately focus light at a 3D point in space, regardless of projector position.
This _not_ any kind of 3D display. There is no real depth, the source is 2D, and the main piece of equipment is a 2D projector. All it is is a way of adding what appears to be thickness to the display; things like the image of the hand will have depth but not hand-shaped depth, that is it will look like an extruded cookie-cutter of illuminated fog.
It's kind of cool, but beyond the novelty and perhaps some real niche applications, pretty pointless.
And this was posted some time ago, either in the comments or as a story, although I couldn't find it with a few searches.
Delays like that were programmed into the system to compensate for the way neurons worked and communicated, different impulses had to be selectively delayed to perform the desired motion. Didn't really have anything to do with the connection....
Just because it happens two years ago doesn't not make it news. They need to evaluate, verify, and understand the results, and a number of the experiments have been ongoing in that intervening time. Do you think they're going to get a result from a preliminary experiment and publish it the next day? That's the kind of thing that leads to inaccuracies/lack of checking that has resulted in a few prominent recent examples of scientific misconduct. Sheesh, you yell at them when it's inaccurate, and yell at them when they take the time to verify it.
You people....
Had you actually read the article, you would have found out that they later hooked up a monkey to control a cursor on the screen via neuronal impulses, and the monkey was able to control it with no physical movement. The article also goes into how this kind of feedback allowed their software to increase its precision.
In conclusion, RTFA.
Same goes for you mods that modded up this guy.
How about short range radio supplemented by LOS communication via smaller, guided-missle style craft, which communally are capable of providing constant (encrypted) communication. I suppose, however, EMP would be an issue, but would they be in any worse shape than current fighter jets, whose control system is entirely electronic?
Advances in maneuverability are great, but pilots are, and have been for some time, the limiting factor. The current generation of fighter jets can produce G forces that greatly exceed what even well-trained humans can endure. I think the next major advance will be fully remote fighter jets. If the military had some sense they'd be using cameras on the jets and some kind of vr for the pilots. Voila, war is video games, and all of a sudden I'm an elite fighter pilot!
And my millions of hours logged in Counter-Stike are merely preparation for remote-controlled human-like spec ops. Yeah....
Well, among other considerations, I think things like pepper spray need to be pretty much directly applied to the eyes to work - you need to shoot a stream or spray of it at someone's face. Paintballs explode on impact, but not in any kind of covering way - you'd end up with little splotched of pepper spray on you, and unless you were shot in the face (both painful and stupid - who would turn their faces towards firing weapons?) it wouldn't really do much. It might be feasible as a means of delivering more localized tear gas, but I'd guess that they use tear gas for large enough crowds that the kind of coverage offered by current canister systems is preferable.
It doesn't look like any of these inventions are particularly new, the US police force and riot response teams have been using/testing rubber bullet, bean bag bullets, nets, foam, sonic weapons, and other for the past several years. They've started deploying them to more and more officers, apparently it's lead to a number of situations where they were able to incapacitate and arrest someone they usually would have shot. So it sounds like a movement in the right direction, although I think these weapons get used more against rioters, drunks, the mentally ill, etc. I'm pretty sure they still shoot supervillains... or promote them.
I'm not sure why you try to tie everything to landing on the moon, as if the one person whose actions can be directly tied to this even should have everything named after them, while everyone else shoud just do their uncreative and uninspired administrative duties.
Anyway, my original point didn't have anything to do with the moon, but rather that administrators are important, and while I certainly don't know the history and exploits of any of these individuals, I'd generally trust NASA's judgment and if they say this guy was a signficant positive factor in the space program, then I see no reason to argue with their choice.
and it case that doesn't show up, why the fuck doesn't
Damn straight, CMU /. trolls represent! /. _loves_.
Between this and that guy who made hardrives play music (and successfully hosted video that everyone was actually capable of accessing), I'd say CMU has a clear monopoly on the kind of random, cool, and often (mostly) pointless stuff
By the way, MCS rules.
I couldn't agree more. Comedy Central tried to take something that's interesting and entertaining in its combination of technical details and battle, and dumbed it down to a level that pained anyone who tried to enjoy what makes robots fighting worth watching. I got really excited the first season, and kept hoping they'd move away from the dumb-as-fuck annoucers and babes, and towards the more detailed descriptions like what Bill Nye (went to my high school :) would provide. But they didn't, so the show sucked, and refused to watch. Fuck them, it's a viable format/content for a show, so someone will get it right we'll get robot-fighting goodness.
I think your comment is pretty contradictory. In the first part, you argue that administrators merely perform their duties as specified in the job description, independent of their individual personality/skills/whatever. Yet, in the second part, you argue that JFK, the administrator-in-chief, should be the one to get things named after him. First of all, what's the difference between the two, except degree of power? I'll agree that, clearly, JFK substantially advanced NASA and our space efforts, but how do you know that Webb did not, in his somewhat-less-powerful capacity, move the space program along?
I think the administrators are absolutely crucial in the success of any endeavor, and to be good they must do much more than simply fill a role that anyone else could have easily and homogenously filled. They must decide between vying projects, decide which research to follow; their guidance is absolutely critical and those that do their job well are invaluable. Just because they don't personally discover that E=MC^2 or somesuch, does not make their position any less important, or individually brilliant. It takes intelligence, foresight, and a great deal of skill to lead science forward.
Sheesh, make a little joke and get labeled flamebait. It wasn't some argument-starter about stability, just a quick note that it could happen (and probably will). Fucking mods.
now _this_ is flamebait
Fuck! My picture frame crashed!
aha, i see, i supposed he was referring to a method of saving on taxes/other fees or somesuch. Seems like an awful hassle to avoid paying whatever % PP charges, but I suppose for larger transactions it would be relevent.
I decided against mafioso some time ago, but not due to a lack of deviousness (you heard of Microsoft? yeah, that was one of my crueler, trickier ideas, back in the day), but rather because I couldn't possible consume that much spaghetti. Not to imply that mafiosos are all italian, but judging from movies, um, yeah they are.
You're missing my point. I'm not referring to surcharges/cashout fees/whatever, I'm referring to the fact that if you gamble with $100, statistically speaking, you're going to end up with less than $100. So even if you save money on surcharges or fees or whatnot with paypal, your net profit is negative (or your net loss is positive). Unless you're one of those uber-l33t MIT cardcounters, you are _not_ going to make money off gambling of this nature. These sites are a business like any other, and are structured to ensure a reliable profit margin.
This is all statistically speaking, of course, so none of that "you're wrong, I gambled $10 and won $500! muahahahahaha, i finally found a get-rich-quick scheme that actually works!". Although, at least w/ most of the sites, there's some established winning ratio, so you'll only lose like 25% of your money in long-term. Beats the stock market, which is a total crap shoot these days.
Yes, I can see how that would save you money. If only it weren't counteracted by the fact that all gambling providers (both physical and online) will _always_ make money off of you (in other words, you will lose money). While it's smart to save some $$ when you do win, wouldn't you be better off not purchasing the services of the gambling industry in the first place?