It's a pretty scary thought, to me, that aliens would have the maturity to travel light years and light years and decide to work only with governments. Consider, if they really did come for the benefit of all, the governments of the planet would be helpless to stop them from doing their bidding. So that means that they're using the existing "upper management" to their own will. What would be the possible use of that considering how badly everything is managed?
To be clear, these are different technologies with different drawbacks. Sound suppressors (or silencers) don't slow down the round to subsonic speeds, so even if fired with suppressor, the bullet will still make a loud sonic boom when it passes close to an object like a tree. In order to prevent that, you need to use subsonic rounds, which are already available and in use. The problem with subsonic rounds, and any bullet below the speed of sound, is the lack of range and power.
While this is true the weapon system in question still has to expel all of it's gas. The venting of it's gas is going to create sound unless you use the same technology that is already used on silencers. That's the point I'm coming to.
They already have something for that, it's called a silencer.
And the gas still needs to be vented either way. So there is still going to be a sound issue. Silencers will probably still be the best way to reduce noise for the foreseeable future.
While I think it's a neat concept and I wish them the best of luck with it, I certainly wouldn't want to be one of the advanced beta testers on the ground. There are so many elements in the field that can't be accounted for that even at this point and time some of the most tried and true designs are being improved on. I think something like this is going to have failure rates too high for combat/LE use for a long long time and the first guys out there are going to get a hard lesson in advanced technology.
The teaching resources are already out there. Maybe a bit heavy for a kid learning the ropes but he doesn't have to cram a course into 15 or so weeks.
My concern would be that if I just let him do a project that he wants to do he may not learn the overall picture. Maybe I'm wrong but I'd sooner have a rounded understanding of what's all there. I recall as a n00b with a fantastic Vic 20 that I just did what I wanted to do without following that fine manual page for page and while I learned a lot I also missed a lot. it wasn't until I got a C=64 and some intermediate programing guides that I found that some of the stuff I was doing was doing it the hard way.
But I didn't have anyone who knew how to code to help lead the way either. I was really in the dark with a candle, trying to find my way around.
That's not as good as it gets. Sorry that your service sucks but many of us have had better experiences with it.
Re:Can Oscar's be given posthumously?
on
Batman Discussion
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Yeah, Sidney Poitier has always been a solid actor. Oddly enough he was in In the Heat of the Night too. Both performances were great and worthy of an Oscar nod but he was never even nominated. While he has gotten an Oscar and a boatload of other awards he always seems to be one of those actors who was under appreciated.
No, it was when he was in the train wreck at the beginning of the film.
Re:Can Oscar's be given posthumously?
on
Batman Discussion
·
· Score: 1
I know that Spencer Tracy was nominated posthumously, he died before Guess Who's Coming to Dinner? was even released. Sadly he lost out to Rod Steiger for In the Heat of the Night.
Others have pointed out that it was awarded posthumously but I would have to dig further to see if anyone else was ever nominated posthumously. As much as I love both films Spence really should have won it. He was a giant on the silver screen.
Why is it that every fourth article around here has to proclaim the death of some technology in the next few years? When are we going to get over this stage of thinking? I have been hearing about the demise of Windows, floppies, ICEs, broadcast radio, light bulbs and just about every other technology that has been in the mainstream for more than 6 months for years around here. It never seems to happen.
Infact, I know of more working dot matrix printers at my place of employment than articles that have correctly predicted the death of technology!
But in matters of the space race? Can we keep it on topic? Even if Russia is pulling itself up by it's bootstraps I'm sure not many citizens are going to be happy throwing money at "fringe" projects anytime soon. Depressions tend to bring out the conservative side of people.
See, I don't know about this. I keep hearing around minable resources on the moon that might make good sense if we ever get the whole cold fusion thing working. If this is true (and excuse me if I'm not, see disclaimer for more info) it makes sense to me to get the technology off the ground today that could put those resources within easy reach to us as soon as possible. I would really really hate to see us get fusion down to a workable and safe energy solution to only have to wait another 10-20 years after that while the technology was developed to mine the resources that make it truely worthwhile and cost effective.
Again, I'm not in the know on the subject like some other users seem to be so maybe I'm talking out of my ass. I just think that developing technologies on a parallel track makes more sense than doing step one and wait to be able to do step two if they're solutions that can be worked out simultaneously.
No one (with power in NASA or gov't) is interested in getting back to the moon without a billion rules, regulations, and safety measures.
Also consider that astronauts were looked on as rough and tough guys doing their national duty in the days of Apollo. Today they're seen as geeks wasting cash on expensive toys.
1. Less funding. For as much as we use it as a dick wagging competition neither party has a real interest in seeing a very robust space program when those dollars could go to buying off voters with more useless ventures that put cash in the right pockets.
2. Speaking of dick wagging competitions, we've lost our main rival. While the argument could be made that the Chinese are going to beat us up in the space race in another couple of decades, most people just aren't that interested. The space race is no longer a spectator sport since Crazy Ivan is now regarded as either friendly or impotent. The same Joe Sixpacks who shell out hundreds to thousands of dollars each year on their favorite football team were keeping interest in the space program alive when it was competitive. They love The Right Stuff, they yawn at 2001.
"It's difficult to come up with a faux urine, explained NASA's Jim Lewis, the systems manager overseeing development of Orion's potty. 'That's why we depend on collections.'"
They can tell my sex, blood type, color of my eyes and hair, my favorite brand of cigarettes and my probability of being obese from a drop of my blood but they can't synthesize urine? Where there heck did things go so wrong?
Oh sure, probably we'll get either McCain or Obama this time, but if enough people vote outside the box it will encourage others to do the same.
I think it's an important step for those of us who vote and support third parties to look at smaller offices and not throw our money and time at a, as yet, brick wall.
One of the problems for smaller parties is that you mention Libertarian, Constitutionalist, etc etc you get a Joe Sixpack shrug. They don't know the party and they don't know the candidates. Now, if you had more of these third party politicians in lower forms of office you may get the party some recognition so that the party's ideology isn't so foreign to the man on the street.
I think this was reason that Ron Paul kept with it long after he was hopelessly left behind... to get the message out. It's a good idea and I hope it's opened some people up to third party or fringe main party candidates. Even the fringe of both major parties would bring enough stirring of the muck to make politics interesting again and maybe even progressive if they could pull down the large numbers.
So, while I do remain intent on voting third party for the presidential election, if I'm going to spend time of money on a candidate this election it will be on a local or state level. Not only do these candidates stand a larger chance of influencing my life and my immediate sphere but they would also open the door to stepping candidates up to larger offices.
It's hard to apply for high management position of a company and get taken seriously as an outsider. It's much easier to work one's way up the ladder.
"Coveted spot in the home computing world?" Care to expand on that?
Do I really have to? Seriously?
Let's face some real facts about Apple. Their spot in the home computing world comes largely from the cool facade that they've, literally, built for themselves. Apple has gone well out of it's way to force an image on the public. This image works for them because it appeals to people who think that computing is somehow not "fun" if it's not done on an Apple. Their commercials are some of the biggest misrepresentations of technology this side of Comcast it's not even funny. They've created fake problems for the consumer public to laugh about in an attempt to sway them from the PC/MS market.
Or do you think that those commercials are an accurate display of the Mac vs. PC world? If you do than you've been fooled by one of the great showmen of our times.
I was thinking the same thing, but Apple might have waited until they were sure they could win the suit.
Or had to.
Had this clone company flopped Apple could have walked away without ever lifting a finger. Now Steve Jobs has to pull the same kind of antics that Microsoft was endlessly bashed for.
After all, Apple likes to play it off like the cool slacker who has everything just work out in the end. It's going to look bad if they need to kick some ass to keep their coveted spot in the home computing world. It's going to make for a great Mac Vs. PC commercial, I'm sure.
I couldn't either, at a job I had a few years ago. But then I moved to another city, that has a city-layout that allows for my to be able to bike to work.
Than why bother asking me the same questions you should be able to answer?
And by not being able to ride a bike to work doesn't mean that I'm just running around and saying "fuck all, if it's not 100% it will be nothing at all" and commuting in a SUV.
I really think people have lost sight of the original intent of this conversation.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a pretty scary thought, to me, that aliens would have the maturity to travel light years and light years and decide to work only with governments. Consider, if they really did come for the benefit of all, the governments of the planet would be helpless to stop them from doing their bidding. So that means that they're using the existing "upper management" to their own will. What would be the possible use of that considering how badly everything is managed?
It simply doesn't make any real sense.
To be clear, these are different technologies with different drawbacks. Sound suppressors (or silencers) don't slow down the round to subsonic speeds, so even if fired with suppressor, the bullet will still make a loud sonic boom when it passes close to an object like a tree. In order to prevent that, you need to use subsonic rounds, which are already available and in use. The problem with subsonic rounds, and any bullet below the speed of sound, is the lack of range and power.
While this is true the weapon system in question still has to expel all of it's gas. The venting of it's gas is going to create sound unless you use the same technology that is already used on silencers. That's the point I'm coming to.
They already have something for that, it's called a silencer.
And the gas still needs to be vented either way. So there is still going to be a sound issue. Silencers will probably still be the best way to reduce noise for the foreseeable future.
the M-16 was originally developed my Mattel.
That high-pitched sound you hear is Eugene Stoner spinning in his grave.
While I think it's a neat concept and I wish them the best of luck with it, I certainly wouldn't want to be one of the advanced beta testers on the ground. There are so many elements in the field that can't be accounted for that even at this point and time some of the most tried and true designs are being improved on. I think something like this is going to have failure rates too high for combat/LE use for a long long time and the first guys out there are going to get a hard lesson in advanced technology.
The teaching resources are already out there. Maybe a bit heavy for a kid learning the ropes but he doesn't have to cram a course into 15 or so weeks.
My concern would be that if I just let him do a project that he wants to do he may not learn the overall picture. Maybe I'm wrong but I'd sooner have a rounded understanding of what's all there. I recall as a n00b with a fantastic Vic 20 that I just did what I wanted to do without following that fine manual page for page and while I learned a lot I also missed a lot. it wasn't until I got a C=64 and some intermediate programing guides that I found that some of the stuff I was doing was doing it the hard way.
But I didn't have anyone who knew how to code to help lead the way either. I was really in the dark with a candle, trying to find my way around.
Man, don't be so cynical. I did the Tour de France with a pack of Camels in my pocket and I didn't notice any difference.
That's not as good as it gets. Sorry that your service sucks but many of us have had better experiences with it.
Yeah, Sidney Poitier has always been a solid actor. Oddly enough he was in In the Heat of the Night too. Both performances were great and worthy of an Oscar nod but he was never even nominated. While he has gotten an Oscar and a boatload of other awards he always seems to be one of those actors who was under appreciated.
As much as I hate misappropriated technobabble I love that commercial.
Considering the article is over a year old might have something to do with it too.
No, it was when he was in the train wreck at the beginning of the film.
I know that Spencer Tracy was nominated posthumously, he died before Guess Who's Coming to Dinner? was even released. Sadly he lost out to Rod Steiger for In the Heat of the Night.
Others have pointed out that it was awarded posthumously but I would have to dig further to see if anyone else was ever nominated posthumously. As much as I love both films Spence really should have won it. He was a giant on the silver screen.
Bruce Willis really dead the entire film. That's why the kid can see him and everyone else ignores him!
What? Oh, sorry. Wrong film.
Because it is just about the only phone you can get with Wi-Fi and a touch screen.
Samsung i760. Owned one for 6 months and it works fine for me.
It also has at least a usable browser, something that no other phone I have used has had.
I will say it is neat and currently better than Picsel but if Picsel gets their heads out of their ass they could have a real sweet thing going.
As far as OSS, I really don't know. I've developed other apps for Windows Mobile so I never really had an issue with the OS that comes with the phone.
Why is it that every fourth article around here has to proclaim the death of some technology in the next few years? When are we going to get over this stage of thinking? I have been hearing about the demise of Windows, floppies, ICEs, broadcast radio, light bulbs and just about every other technology that has been in the mainstream for more than 6 months for years around here. It never seems to happen.
Infact, I know of more working dot matrix printers at my place of employment than articles that have correctly predicted the death of technology!
But in matters of the space race? Can we keep it on topic? Even if Russia is pulling itself up by it's bootstraps I'm sure not many citizens are going to be happy throwing money at "fringe" projects anytime soon. Depressions tend to bring out the conservative side of people.
Disclaimer: I'm not a scientist nor an engineer
See, I don't know about this. I keep hearing around minable resources on the moon that might make good sense if we ever get the whole cold fusion thing working. If this is true (and excuse me if I'm not, see disclaimer for more info) it makes sense to me to get the technology off the ground today that could put those resources within easy reach to us as soon as possible. I would really really hate to see us get fusion down to a workable and safe energy solution to only have to wait another 10-20 years after that while the technology was developed to mine the resources that make it truely worthwhile and cost effective.
Again, I'm not in the know on the subject like some other users seem to be so maybe I'm talking out of my ass. I just think that developing technologies on a parallel track makes more sense than doing step one and wait to be able to do step two if they're solutions that can be worked out simultaneously.
No one (with power in NASA or gov't) is interested in getting back to the moon without a billion rules, regulations, and safety measures.
Also consider that astronauts were looked on as rough and tough guys doing their national duty in the days of Apollo. Today they're seen as geeks wasting cash on expensive toys.
There's two major problems:
1. Less funding. For as much as we use it as a dick wagging competition neither party has a real interest in seeing a very robust space program when those dollars could go to buying off voters with more useless ventures that put cash in the right pockets.
2. Speaking of dick wagging competitions, we've lost our main rival. While the argument could be made that the Chinese are going to beat us up in the space race in another couple of decades, most people just aren't that interested. The space race is no longer a spectator sport since Crazy Ivan is now regarded as either friendly or impotent. The same Joe Sixpacks who shell out hundreds to thousands of dollars each year on their favorite football team were keeping interest in the space program alive when it was competitive. They love The Right Stuff, they yawn at 2001.
"It's difficult to come up with a faux urine, explained NASA's Jim Lewis, the systems manager overseeing development of Orion's potty. 'That's why we depend on collections.'"
They can tell my sex, blood type, color of my eyes and hair, my favorite brand of cigarettes and my probability of being obese from a drop of my blood but they can't synthesize urine? Where there heck did things go so wrong?
Oh sure, probably we'll get either McCain or Obama this time, but if enough people vote outside the box it will encourage others to do the same.
I think it's an important step for those of us who vote and support third parties to look at smaller offices and not throw our money and time at a, as yet, brick wall.
One of the problems for smaller parties is that you mention Libertarian, Constitutionalist, etc etc you get a Joe Sixpack shrug. They don't know the party and they don't know the candidates. Now, if you had more of these third party politicians in lower forms of office you may get the party some recognition so that the party's ideology isn't so foreign to the man on the street.
I think this was reason that Ron Paul kept with it long after he was hopelessly left behind... to get the message out. It's a good idea and I hope it's opened some people up to third party or fringe main party candidates. Even the fringe of both major parties would bring enough stirring of the muck to make politics interesting again and maybe even progressive if they could pull down the large numbers.
So, while I do remain intent on voting third party for the presidential election, if I'm going to spend time of money on a candidate this election it will be on a local or state level. Not only do these candidates stand a larger chance of influencing my life and my immediate sphere but they would also open the door to stepping candidates up to larger offices.
It's hard to apply for high management position of a company and get taken seriously as an outsider. It's much easier to work one's way up the ladder.
"Coveted spot in the home computing world?" Care to expand on that?
Do I really have to? Seriously?
Let's face some real facts about Apple. Their spot in the home computing world comes largely from the cool facade that they've, literally, built for themselves. Apple has gone well out of it's way to force an image on the public. This image works for them because it appeals to people who think that computing is somehow not "fun" if it's not done on an Apple. Their commercials are some of the biggest misrepresentations of technology this side of Comcast it's not even funny. They've created fake problems for the consumer public to laugh about in an attempt to sway them from the PC/MS market.
Or do you think that those commercials are an accurate display of the Mac vs. PC world? If you do than you've been fooled by one of the great showmen of our times.
I was thinking the same thing, but Apple might have waited until they were sure they could win the suit.
Or had to.
Had this clone company flopped Apple could have walked away without ever lifting a finger. Now Steve Jobs has to pull the same kind of antics that Microsoft was endlessly bashed for.
After all, Apple likes to play it off like the cool slacker who has everything just work out in the end. It's going to look bad if they need to kick some ass to keep their coveted spot in the home computing world. It's going to make for a great Mac Vs. PC commercial, I'm sure.
I couldn't either, at a job I had a few years ago. But then I moved to another city, that has a city-layout that allows for my to be able to bike to work.
Than why bother asking me the same questions you should be able to answer?
And by not being able to ride a bike to work doesn't mean that I'm just running around and saying "fuck all, if it's not 100% it will be nothing at all" and commuting in a SUV.
I really think people have lost sight of the original intent of this conversation.