Re:Impossible
on
Lego Segway
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Two sensors? For an object to maneuver itself in 3D space it would need 3 sensors
Before we draw too many conclusions we must ask what type of sensor we are dealing with. If it is a sophisticated radar, then perhaps one is sufficient. If it is a proximity sensor, that only gives you the distance of the closest object directly ahead, then numerous sensors are preferable. And, if it is something more like a camera with processing equipment then (as uncountable other posts have pointed out) 2 sensors will do, as can be seen on almost all animals on the planet.
My brother, who is in med school, decided that he wanted to do something completely different for a semester.
He contacted a freight company and got a simple job onboard a ship. The job was pretty simple (e.g., removing rust) but not that demanding (only 8 hrs a day). Being the only one educated among the sailors, he was often invited to have dinner and discussions with the captain, who had a lot of stories to tell. And of course, it was always plenty of fun when he and the other sailors were 'let loose' in some port for a couple of days.
Sounds wonderful, but one limitation that jumps immediately to mind is that the 3d effect is limited to a single viewer.
Yes, but is this really that much of a limitation? Obviously for most computer work (or play) there is only one user so then it does not matter. In fact, it could even be an advantage, since the guy next to you on the airplane would not realize that you are watching pr0...er, see your sensitive business documents. For other uses, say family video night, you would have to replace one screen with several of these devices. That would not have to be very expensive, especially not compared to getting one of those enormous TVs that everybody has these days.
A lot of research goes into undertanding how proteins and other bio molecules fold and fit together.
This can be difficult to understand for a researcher that is looking at a flat screen. Also hard disk needs for doing this 3D would not that ridiculous, as the view from different angles can be calculated from scratch based on the chemical composition (rather than stored than having the computer storing the information of each possible angle).
7 Two girls ahead of you starting to argue, standing up and yelling at each other, then kicking and punching, and pulling each others hair (the style of which was the cause of the argument)
Yes, it did happen to me. Seriously, if people started to behave I could stand the $10 or $20 or whatever. It is nice with a big screen. Maybe someone could start a theatre where you would have to pass an IQ test with a minimum of 75 to be let in...
for the vast majority of applications - since people normally start and begin their day in a place where the the laptop can be recharged (through electricity or etanol or whatever).
10 hours will make it possible to use the thing on long flights or to spend a day working in the park/ on the beach. Not so with 4 hours.
OK, there have been uncountable posts now that discuss the pros and cons of WordStar.
The issue was not that everybody used WordStar and that now they have to switch. The issue was they everybody used a zillion different programs (of which WordStar was one example).
The idea is, as many other have pointed out, to improve communications. A first step is to make sure that applications are standardized. If everybody had used WordStar, they could probably have made this happen with that program, but in reality M$ Word was probably much more common.
With the risk of getting a flamebait mod, perhaps it is worth pointing out that the technology is not all bad.
So it is creepy to get a genetic test, but also it can be quite useful. If you have predisposition for an illness then you are much better off knowing it in advance so that you can test frequently and adapt your behavior (e.g., diet).
And of course, if you still don't like it, you don't have to.
Now somebody will predict that insurance companies will force everyone to do the test, I'll save you the trouble and reply right away. The scenario is unlikely, because there are quite a few legal limitations on what these companies can and cannot ask for - and the majority of registered voters are very sceptical.
But even if it did happen, would it necessarily be so bad? Widespread testing would make the total, and therefore the average, cost of insurance lower. This is because it is easier and cheaper to treat illnesses at an early stage. Certainly those with certain predispositions would get a higher premium, but would not even that be preferable over paying a standard premium and then getting an illness that could have been averted by frequent tests and say the right diet? One could also think of taxes and subsidies supporting those that got higher premiums. Since the total medical costs would go down, it is at least theoretically possible to come up with a system where everyone is better off.
Sure, you can find a few statistical correlations between a few very dangerous diseases and genetic markers, but as the story points out, they still don't know enough to say for certain that a person will get breast cancer at age 47 1/2, or have a heart attack at 53 while climbing 3 flights of stairs.
And they never will, because the cancer is very dependent on certain random events (incorrect cell duplications), and heart attacks on diet and amount of exercise.
Normally I wouldn't correct spelling. But it's "GATTACA". Get it? Guanine, Adenosine, Thymine, Cytosine.
No, I don't get it. I mean, thanks for pointing out the correct spelling, but you can't fix the error by remembering the nucleotides. How does Thymine and Cytosine make it so that it should be an 'a', rather than an 'i', between 't' and 'c'?
Well, actually it is quite some ways, they have to go from checking to manipulation.
Gattica was an intresting movie, but there were a lot of things that did not make sense. For one thing, the genetic tests were omnipresent - they alone determined what job you would get and whom you would date. They even had to take genetic tests to get into work every day, and the company would search through its facilities to make sure that nobody with inferior genes was present.
On the other hand, the main character did not have 'improved' genes, and so he had to falsify his identity to get a job. However, he appeared to be just as competent as all the other people where he worked, perhaps more so. Therin lies the contradiction - why would corporations go through great lengths to exclude people with inferior genes, if those are not real indicators of performance?
A different scenario is that genetic manipulation really does make people smarter and more competent. But then this could probably be identified through normal tests and interviews.
A high speed train from San Diego to Seattle would be profitable within a decade and instantaneously take half the market from airlines (not for going all the way from San Diego to Seattle, but from LA to SF, from SF to Seattle, etc).
What do you base this claim on? If it is true, why are not the privately operated train companies constructing such a line?
In the 1970s, the first mag-lev trains were designed. (magnetic levitation, using the power of super-cooled hydrogen shot through a jet nozzle to propel a train hovering over a hyper-metallic track). The US Congress nearly passed legislation requiring each state to reserve a percentage of its budget to implement such an infrastructure. Unfortunately, the auto companies (GM/Ford/Dodge) "got to them" (the senators) before the Senate was able to vote on it.
I am glad it got stopped. Even today, after the discovery of 'high temperature' superconductors and other break-through technologies these systems are extremely expensive to build and run.
Don't take me wrong here, I would love to see a network of fast, clean maglev trains. But it has to be after technology makes it economically feasible rather than because some politician had a dream and decided to spend a shitload of tax dollars. Better to spend a reasonable amount on research instead.
Tor
Re:Umm, have we invented electricity yet?
on
Jet Turbine Locomotives
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
You know, the state of North American railways is in many ways worse than in some third world countries. Why can't we get proper electic locomotives like everyone else has?
Because North America is very big, and relatively sparsly populated. It is not at all certain, that electrifying the entire grid is an economically optimal solution. In remote areas there are no power plants, so either you have to construct new ones in the middle of nowhere or the power has to go through very long cables (which causes a lot of losses).
The US should shelve its hubris and buy a proven japanese design rather than investing in more white elephants
Actually there are good reasons for using different technologies. Japan is very small and has and the railroads are all electrified.
One of the main advantages cited by the article was that this technology would make it possible to keep 'using existing track and without the prohibitive cost of electrifying rail networks.'
I don't know which is less interesting; that somebody makes electricity monitoring equipment that runs Linux, or that somebody managed to exchange a drive on his Mac.
Please put up something more thrilling. Otherwise I might have to return to work.
The fact that Earth is generating some heat is hardly any news - and yes this geothermal energy can be harnessed in certain areas (for example Iceland).
The new model is an alternative explanation for the energy - not a discovery that it is there.
Digging to the center of the earth seems extremely unlikely, the deepest mines today are only a few km deep. On the other hand, we can build nuclear power plants that work exactly the same way.
There is little connection between the two topics.
The 'reactors' are of different types, and the center of earth one is something that is only predicted by a controversial model.
The surface reactors in Africa are extremely interesting and have been known for quite some time now.
They are also a powerful argument for nuclear power plants.
After all, here is an example of how the radiocative by-products of fission have been stored safely for millions of years - without any sophisitcated protection technology.
Yeah right... next you will be telling me the plural of sheep is "sheep".;)
I am always amused when I get to teach native English speakers (?) their own language.
Platinum does not have a plural, it is a noun but you can't count it. Thus 'two platinum' is incorrect (try two platinum coins, instead). Sheep does have plural, it is just that that the plural form coincides with the singular form.
No, the noun platinum has neither singular nor plural. This is of course true for silver and gold too. You can, however, say things like 'one (two) platinum coin(s)'.
Slashdot Mirror
Two sensors? For an object to maneuver itself in 3D space it would need 3 sensors
Before we draw too many conclusions we must ask what type of sensor we are dealing with. If it is a sophisticated radar, then perhaps one is sufficient. If it is a proximity sensor, that only gives you the distance of the closest object directly ahead, then numerous sensors are preferable. And, if it is something more like a camera with processing equipment then (as uncountable other posts have pointed out) 2 sensors will do, as can be seen on almost all animals on the planet.
Tor
My brother, who is in med school, decided that he wanted to do something completely different for a semester.
He contacted a freight company and got a simple job onboard a ship. The job was pretty simple (e.g., removing rust) but not that demanding (only 8 hrs a day). Being the only one educated among the sailors, he was often invited to have dinner and discussions with the captain, who had a lot of stories to tell. And of course, it was always plenty of fun when he and the other sailors were 'let loose' in some port for a couple of days.
Sounds like something for you?
Tor
Sounds wonderful, but one limitation that jumps immediately to mind is that the 3d effect is limited to a single viewer.
Yes, but is this really that much of a limitation? Obviously for most computer work (or play) there is only one user so then it does not matter. In fact, it could even be an advantage, since the guy next to you on the airplane would not realize that you are watching pr0...er, see your sensitive business documents. For other uses, say family video night, you would have to replace one screen with several of these devices. That would not have to be very expensive, especially not compared to getting one of those enormous TVs that everybody has these days.
Tor
A lot of research goes into undertanding how proteins and other bio molecules fold and fit together.
This can be difficult to understand for a researcher that is looking at a flat screen. Also hard disk needs for doing this 3D would not that ridiculous, as the view from different angles can be calculated from scratch based on the chemical composition (rather than stored than having the computer storing the information of each possible angle).
Tor
7 Two girls ahead of you starting to argue, standing up and yelling at each other, then kicking and punching, and pulling each others hair (the style of which was the cause of the argument)
Yes, it did happen to me. Seriously, if people started to behave I could stand the $10 or $20 or whatever. It is nice with a big screen. Maybe someone could start a theatre where you would have to pass an IQ test with a minimum of 75 to be let in...
Tor
for the vast majority of applications - since people normally start and begin their day in a place where the the laptop can be recharged (through electricity or etanol or whatever).
10 hours will make it possible to use the thing on long flights or to spend a day working in the park/ on the beach. Not so with 4 hours.
Tor
OK, there have been uncountable posts now that discuss the pros and cons of WordStar.
The issue was not that everybody used WordStar and that now they have to switch. The issue was they everybody used a zillion different programs (of which WordStar was one example).
The idea is, as many other have pointed out, to improve communications. A first step is to make sure that applications are standardized. If everybody had used WordStar, they could probably have made this happen with that program, but in reality M$ Word was probably much more common.
Tor
This is an attitude one cannot afford if one wants to keep the status of the leading military force on the planet.
Tor
With the risk of getting a flamebait mod, perhaps it is worth pointing out that the technology is not all bad.
So it is creepy to get a genetic test, but also it can be quite useful. If you have predisposition for an illness then you are much better off knowing it in advance so that you can test frequently and adapt your behavior (e.g., diet).
And of course, if you still don't like it, you don't have to.
Now somebody will predict that insurance companies will force everyone to do the test, I'll save you the trouble and reply right away. The scenario is unlikely, because there are quite a few legal limitations on what these companies can and cannot ask for - and the majority of registered voters are very sceptical.
But even if it did happen, would it necessarily be so bad? Widespread testing would make the total, and therefore the average, cost of insurance lower. This is because it is easier and cheaper to treat illnesses at an early stage. Certainly those with certain predispositions would get a higher premium, but would not even that be preferable over paying a standard premium and then getting an illness that could have been averted by frequent tests and say the right diet? One could also think of taxes and subsidies supporting those that got higher premiums. Since the total medical costs would go down, it is at least theoretically possible to come up with a system where everyone is better off.
Tor
Sure, you can find a few statistical correlations between a few very dangerous diseases and genetic markers, but as the story points out, they still don't know enough to say for certain that a person will get breast cancer at age 47 1/2, or have a heart attack at 53 while climbing 3 flights of stairs.
And they never will, because the cancer is very dependent on certain random events (incorrect cell duplications), and heart attacks on diet and amount of exercise.
Tor
Normally I wouldn't correct spelling. But it's "GATTACA". Get it? Guanine, Adenosine, Thymine, Cytosine.
No, I don't get it. I mean, thanks for pointing out the correct spelling, but you can't fix the error by remembering the nucleotides. How does Thymine and Cytosine make it so that it should be an 'a', rather than an 'i', between 't' and 'c'?
Tor
Well, actually it is quite some ways, they have to go from checking to manipulation.
Gattica was an intresting movie, but there were a lot of things that did not make sense. For one thing, the genetic tests were omnipresent - they alone determined what job you would get and whom you would date. They even had to take genetic tests to get into work every day, and the company would search through its facilities to make sure that nobody with inferior genes was present.
On the other hand, the main character did not have 'improved' genes, and so he had to falsify his identity to get a job. However, he appeared to be just as competent as all the other people where he worked, perhaps more so. Therin lies the contradiction - why would corporations go through great lengths to exclude people with inferior genes, if those are not real indicators of performance?
A different scenario is that genetic manipulation really does make people smarter and more competent. But then this could probably be identified through normal tests and interviews.
I don't know which scenario is scarier.
Tor
A high speed train from San Diego to Seattle would be profitable within a decade and instantaneously take half the market from airlines (not for going all the way from San Diego to Seattle, but from LA to SF, from SF to Seattle, etc).
What do you base this claim on? If it is true, why are not the privately operated train companies constructing such a line?
Tor
In the 1970s, the first mag-lev trains were designed. (magnetic levitation, using the power of super-cooled hydrogen shot through a jet nozzle to propel a train hovering over a hyper-metallic track). The US Congress nearly passed legislation requiring each state to reserve a percentage of its budget to implement such an infrastructure. Unfortunately, the auto companies (GM/Ford/Dodge) "got to them" (the senators) before the Senate was able to vote on it.
I am glad it got stopped. Even today, after the discovery of 'high temperature' superconductors and other break-through technologies these systems are extremely expensive to build and run.
Don't take me wrong here, I would love to see a network of fast, clean maglev trains. But it has to be after technology makes it economically feasible rather than because some politician had a dream and decided to spend a shitload of tax dollars. Better to spend a reasonable amount on research instead.
Tor
You know, the state of North American railways is in many ways worse than in some third world countries. Why can't we get proper electic locomotives like everyone else has?
Because North America is very big, and relatively sparsly populated. It is not at all certain, that electrifying the entire grid is an economically optimal solution. In remote areas there are no power plants, so either you have to construct new ones in the middle of nowhere or the power has to go through very long cables (which causes a lot of losses).
Tor
The US should shelve its hubris and buy a proven japanese design rather than investing in more white elephants
Actually there are good reasons for using different technologies. Japan is very small and has and the railroads are all electrified.
One of the main advantages cited by the article was that this technology would make it possible to keep 'using existing track and without the prohibitive cost of electrifying rail networks.'
Tor
What were the typcial savings that could be achieved when these systems were installed?
Which of the companies would you recommend?
Tor
I don't know which is less interesting; that somebody makes electricity monitoring equipment that runs Linux, or that somebody managed to exchange a drive on his Mac.
Please put up something more thrilling. Otherwise I might have to return to work.
Tor
The fact that Earth is generating some heat is hardly any news - and yes this geothermal energy can be harnessed in certain areas (for example Iceland).
The new model is an alternative explanation for the energy - not a discovery that it is there.
Digging to the center of the earth seems extremely unlikely, the deepest mines today are only a few km deep. On the other hand, we can build nuclear power plants that work exactly the same way.
Tor
Clock for clock, proving that MHz is not an absolute comparable measure, here [ucla.edu] you can see...
Clearly MHz is irrelevant in itself - but so is 'computational power per MHz', which you seem to believe is what matters.
Rather, I was looking for performance curves for say the latest PC vs the latest Mac, as well as those for two units with the same price.
Thanks for the link, but it does not seem to give me this (also it is more than a year old).
Tor
There is little connection between the two topics.
The 'reactors' are of different types, and the center of earth one is something that is only predicted by a controversial model.
The surface reactors in Africa are extremely interesting and have been known for quite some time now.
They are also a powerful argument for nuclear power plants.
After all, here is an example of how the radiocative by-products of fission have been stored safely for millions of years - without any sophisitcated protection technology.
Tor
The G4 chips outperform Intel and...
Are there any benchmarks to prove this claim? It would be interesting to see a comparison - especially if made by an independent party.
Tor
1 Open any old Slashdot topic
2 Search for the string (Score:5, Informative)
3 If the post below contains a link, record where it leads
4 GOTO 1 for mor data points
Tor
The plural of platinum is simply "platinum"
;)
Yeah right... next you will be telling me the plural of sheep is "sheep".
I am always amused when I get to teach native English speakers (?) their own language.
Platinum does not have a plural, it is a noun but you can't count it. Thus 'two platinum' is incorrect (try two platinum coins, instead). Sheep does have plural, it is just that that the plural form coincides with the singular form.
Tor
The plural of platinum is simply "platinum" ;).
No, the noun platinum has neither singular nor plural. This is of course true for silver and gold too. You can, however, say things like 'one (two) platinum coin(s)'.
Tor