I agree. While it's not hard to RTFA, it certainly makes the summaries much more readable.
At the risk of being told to turn in my geek license, I'll also add that it would have been nice to add a 3-word description of what the fsck Juniper is; or maybe even put a hyperlink to their website. Do they do security? Hardware? Data mining? Human trafficking? What?
Why are folks so obsessed with literally reinventing the wheel?
The contact information at the bottom of the page gives it away if you know the guy, which I do: Steve Derby was my advisor and one of my professors at RPI just this past spring. He's the type of person who loves to tinker with new ideas and who will probably come up with a revolutionary solution to some problem. Our projects for that class involved coming up with an idea that interested us and running with it for a few weeks (using the methods we learned in the class, of course). Most of the class predictibly came up with half-baked ideas that needed a lot of work (mine fell into this category), but some of the people came up with some truly good ideas, and you could tell that Derby loved seeing these ideas and learning from them.
I don't know the other person who's listed there, but I would guess that he's an RPI alumnus.
Also, I can see this working without a "rotating turret of doom" mounted to it. Imagine one of these carts moving about a pitching and rolling ship (or even just a roling one, with a bit of thinking about it). I can't see how square wheels would be _practical_ for anything but a novelty, but maybe someone smarter than me will find a use for it.
I played through Lost Coast last night (1280x1024 2xAA 4xAF, full everything else). Now, I think that the HDR effects that I saw are amazing and they add a level of realism never before seen in video games; props to Valve for their excellent work. I'm also by no means an expert on graphics; all I wanted to add is that HDR as it is right now seems to more realistically represent a scene based on how a _camera_ would see it, not my eyes. I can't speak for other people, but when I look at something bright, I tend to squint which makes it get better a lot faster than a camera responds. Again, I'm not trying to nitpick, it's just something I noticed, and looking around the area where you first come into the game that's the frst thing that I noticed.
A few days ago, Fark had a link to an explanation of Kubrick's "2001". I didn't get the movie when I watched it a few years ago, but this explanation seems plausible and made sense (to me) where the movie didn't.
Disclaimer: I've only heard about this one so I have a vague description at best.
Take a big sheet of plexiglass and put it at a 45 degree angle behind a garage window. Mask off the area behind it with dark cloth. Put a tv with spooky images facing up at the plexiglass and put fake bats/spiders/etc behind the plexi. Apparently what it looks like is a bunch of floating images moving around right behind the window, depending on the video that you put on.
I'm feeling lazy so I'll let someone else search and post links.
Completely wrong. Guild and innocence only refer to criminal procedings, and is determined at the end of the trial rather than at the start. In civil procedings, the defendant can be found liable or not liable.
Like OJ
OK, I read the pretrial transcript where it said they'd meet again on July 8, and I'd like to read what happened on that day... Can anyone point me to a transcript of the July 8 meeting? I have no idea if it's even public record, (I'd imagine that it would be) or where to start looking (Google does nothing).
In his book," Sled Driver," SR- 71/ Blackbird pilot Brian Shul writes:
I'll always remember a certain radio exchange that occurred one day as Walt (my backseater) and I were screaming across Southern California 13 miles high. We were monitoring various radio transmissions from other aircraft as we entered Los Angeles airspace. Though they didn't really control us, they did monitor our movement across their scope. I heard a Cessna ask for a readout of its groundspeed. "90 knots" Center replied. Moments later, a Twin Beech required the same. "120 knots," Center answered. We weren't the only ones proud of our groundspeed that day as almost instantly an F-18 smugly transmitted, "Ah, Center, Dusty 52 requests groundspeed readout." There was a slight pause, then the response, "525 knots on the ground, Dusty." Another silent pause. As I was thinking to myself how ripe a situation this was, I heard a familiar click of a radio transmission coming from my backseater. It was at that precise moment I realized Walt and I had become a real crew, for we were both thinking in unison. "Center, Aspen 20, you got a groundspeed readout for us?" There was a longer than normal pause.... "Aspen, I show 1,742 knots." No further inquiries were heard on that frequency.
In another famous SR-71 story, Los Angeles Center reported receiving a request for clearance to FL 60 (60,000ft).
The incredulous controller, with some disdain in his voice, asked, "How do you plan to get up to 60,000 feet?
The pilot (obviously a sled driver), responded, " We don't plan to go up to it, we plan to come down to it..."
He was cleared...
http://www.mp3car.com/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f =71 - Help for Mac based car computers. The biggest reason that not many people use Macs in their carputers is because there are no decent frontends for MacOS. No one has made one with all the features everyone wants. Check out the forum though, someone just offered a cash proze for the first person to do it... maybe someone reading this post might be interested;-)
The tip of the rotor stays still in the air. The rest of the rotor is swinging toward the rear of the aircraft more slowly than the tip, and therefore moving forward in the air.
Good so far...
Thus, the blade moves backward relative to the surrounding air, though it is still travelling in the direction that is forwards for the helicopter.
You already forgot the lesson you tried teaching above? *sigh*
[pedantic=on]//Recent Mechanical Engineering graduate
First, let's assume that the helicopter and all its components are rigid (they don't bend, stretch, break, or change shape in any way whatsoever).
Next, let's define some terms:
N - Newtonian reference frame (earth).
H - Another reference frame fixed in the helicopter.
v - velocity of some point in some reference frame. A vector quantity.
v_t - Velocity of the tip of the rotors in whatever reference frame I designate at the time.
v_h - Velocity of the helicopter in N.
omega - Angular velocity of the rotors in H.
R - Radius of rotors.
|#| - Absolute value of #; also represents the magnitude of a vector.
Finally, let's simplify the math and just look at the case where the rotor forms a horizontal, flat disk in H.
Now at the instant where the blade's orientation is 90 degrees to the direction of v_h:
v_t = v_h + R x omega : (x denotes cross product, not multiplication)
Since we are looking at the easy case to analyze though, we can simplify this to:
v_t = v_h - R * |omega| : (* denontes multipication) (the sign change takes into account the direction of rotation and the information lost by simplifying the cross product)
What mu-1 means is that v_t = 0, so:
v_h = R * |omega| : only at mu-1
Now let's look at a normal helicopter by assuming omega remains constant but v_h decreases:
v_h < R * |omega|
That means that the direction of v_t in N is opposite the direction of v_h - it is moving backwards. Due to the orientation of the blade, the tip is certainly moving through the air leading-edge first. The problem with your argument is this: for some r < R, v_h = r * |omega|
That equation means that there is some point on the rotor blade with v = 0. Moving on, for some other even lesser value of r, v_h > r * |omega|
That means that at this new point on the rotor blade, it is still moving in the same direction as the helicopter, and your argument falls apart.
Look for yourself: grab a CD and pretend that it's the helicopter's rotor blades. Draw rotor blades on it if you can't visualize it as-is. Hold the center of the CD directly over the edge of the desk, look down at it, and rotate it in place; this is like hovering and as you put it, "the air only ever pushes against the _leading_ edge of the blade."
Now roll the edge of the CD along the edge of the desk; this is mu-1 and as you put it, "The air therefore pushes against the _trailing_ edge of the rotor blade (except at the tip, which experiences an eerie calm)."
Now if you were to "roll" the CD along the edge of the desk but not on the edge of the CD (the speed will be somewhere between hovering and mu-1), some points on the rotor blade will push against the air on the leading edge (over the table), some points will push against the air on the trailing edge (over the floor), and one point will experience an eerie calm.
I used to play Descent using just the keboard, and when I would go online I would find that I was doing just as well at 90% of the other people on the server; they would also be amazed when I told them that I was using nothing but a keyboard.
When I started using the WASD + mouse combination for regualar FPS games, though, my speed got much better. I still can't use a mouse for Descent, though:P
As yuo no, we are comited to protectng your prievecy adn as such we need u 2 veerify yuor account by going 2 this site CITIGROUP.COM adn entreing lots of peersonil info.
Tahnk you 4 ur help in tihs imprtnt matter
Signed, CITIGROUP
Wow, the 4-cylinder manual gets much better mileage, but at a lower speed.
My car was (past tense because it died) a '94, and I AVERAGED about 34 mpg. I also estimate that my best speed was about 75, because when I drove faster (granted I didn't have many chances to do so) I lost mpg fast. I never calculated the mileage vs speed because I was too lazy. All my claims are based on how much gas I needed to put in it after the same 3 hour drive...
Another Mazda owner who tested his mpg at speed? wow!
I didn't do as extensive tests as you did, but I used to drive to and from my gf's school fairly regularly and I would test all sorts of theories about gas mileage. I would drive the entire way with the windows down vs with the A/C on (better mileage with windows down), I would drive at different times of day (inconclusive), and I would drive at different speeds (approximately the same results as you).
One thing that I noticed was that I would always get better mileage on the return trip vs the outbound trip, and I realized that it waws because I was returning with a tailwind. The winds in upstate / central NY are consistently westerly, a fact that I noticed when I rode a motorcycle on that same trip; on the trip out I was buffeted severely and the return trip hardly bothered me at all even though m y ground speeds were the same. It all came together at a rest stop when I parked the motorcycle and noticed the wind: a westerly wind.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree. While it's not hard to RTFA, it certainly makes the summaries much more readable.
At the risk of being told to turn in my geek license, I'll also add that it would have been nice to add a 3-word description of what the fsck Juniper is; or maybe even put a hyperlink to their website. Do they do security? Hardware? Data mining? Human trafficking? What?
Wow. Someone else read that story? I thought I was reading obscure stuff (at least for 2005)!
You wouldn't even need Mindstorms, you could do it with regular Technix parts :)
Why are folks so obsessed with literally reinventing the wheel?
The contact information at the bottom of the page gives it away if you know the guy, which I do: Steve Derby was my advisor and one of my professors at RPI just this past spring. He's the type of person who loves to tinker with new ideas and who will probably come up with a revolutionary solution to some problem. Our projects for that class involved coming up with an idea that interested us and running with it for a few weeks (using the methods we learned in the class, of course). Most of the class predictibly came up with half-baked ideas that needed a lot of work (mine fell into this category), but some of the people came up with some truly good ideas, and you could tell that Derby loved seeing these ideas and learning from them.
I don't know the other person who's listed there, but I would guess that he's an RPI alumnus.
Also, I can see this working without a "rotating turret of doom" mounted to it. Imagine one of these carts moving about a pitching and rolling ship (or even just a roling one, with a bit of thinking about it). I can't see how square wheels would be _practical_ for anything but a novelty, but maybe someone smarter than me will find a use for it.
I agree with you that this is probably not the most powerful subwoofer out there, but I think that this one might be in the running.
I played through Lost Coast last night (1280x1024 2xAA 4xAF, full everything else). Now, I think that the HDR effects that I saw are amazing and they add a level of realism never before seen in video games; props to Valve for their excellent work. I'm also by no means an expert on graphics; all I wanted to add is that HDR as it is right now seems to more realistically represent a scene based on how a _camera_ would see it, not my eyes. I can't speak for other people, but when I look at something bright, I tend to squint which makes it get better a lot faster than a camera responds. Again, I'm not trying to nitpick, it's just something I noticed, and looking around the area where you first come into the game that's the frst thing that I noticed.
A few days ago, Fark had a link to an explanation of Kubrick's "2001". I didn't get the movie when I watched it a few years ago, but this explanation seems plausible and made sense (to me) where the movie didn't.
Disclaimer: I've only heard about this one so I have a vague description at best.
Take a big sheet of plexiglass and put it at a 45 degree angle behind a garage window. Mask off the area behind it with dark cloth. Put a tv with spooky images facing up at the plexiglass and put fake bats/spiders/etc behind the plexi. Apparently what it looks like is a bunch of floating images moving around right behind the window, depending on the video that you put on.
I'm feeling lazy so I'll let someone else search and post links.
I feel bad for your acquaintances that 1 isn't a prime number and 3 is...
Completely wrong. Guild and innocence only refer to criminal procedings, and is determined at the end of the trial rather than at the start. In civil procedings, the defendant can be found liable or not liable.
Like OJ
Actually it's doubly impressive because it was on Fark earlier and it withstood that too.
OK, I read the pretrial transcript where it said they'd meet again on July 8, and I'd like to read what happened on that day... Can anyone point me to a transcript of the July 8 meeting? I have no idea if it's even public record, (I'd imagine that it would be) or where to start looking (Google does nothing).
From TFA:
Filed: December 14, 2000
For the lazy... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captcha
In his book," Sled Driver," SR- 71/ Blackbird pilot Brian Shul writes:
I'll always remember a certain radio exchange that occurred one day as Walt (my backseater) and I were screaming across Southern California 13 miles high. We were monitoring various radio transmissions from other aircraft as we entered Los Angeles airspace. Though they didn't really control us, they did monitor our movement across their scope. I heard a Cessna ask for a readout of its groundspeed. "90 knots" Center replied. Moments later, a Twin Beech required the same. "120 knots," Center answered. We weren't the only ones proud of our groundspeed that day as almost instantly an F-18 smugly transmitted, "Ah, Center, Dusty 52 requests groundspeed readout." There was a slight pause, then the response, "525 knots on the ground, Dusty." Another silent pause. As I was thinking to myself how ripe a situation this was, I heard a familiar click of a radio transmission coming from my backseater. It was at that precise moment I realized Walt and I had become a real crew, for we were both thinking in unison. "Center, Aspen 20, you got a groundspeed readout for us?" There was a longer than normal pause.... "Aspen, I show 1,742 knots." No further inquiries were heard on that frequency.
In another famous SR-71 story, Los Angeles Center reported receiving a request for clearance to FL 60 (60,000ft).
The incredulous controller, with some disdain in his voice, asked, "How do you plan to get up to 60,000 feet?
The pilot (obviously a sled driver), responded, " We don't plan to go up to it, we plan to come down to it..."
He was cleared...
I assume you meant "Mac OS X"
Yes, my bad; a typo.
What's wrong with Aqua?
Aqua (if this is what you mean) isn't the kind of frontend you'd want to use in a carPC setup. I refer you to this thread to learn what is wanted.
And how difficult could it possibly be to mount a Mac Mini in your car?
Not difficult at all.
http://www.mp3car.com/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f =71 ;-)
- Help for Mac based car computers. The biggest reason that not many people use Macs in their carputers is because there are no decent frontends for MacOS. No one has made one with all the features everyone wants. Check out the forum though, someone just offered a cash proze for the first person to do it... maybe someone reading this post might be interested
The porn industry has grown by 2.5 million websites in the past year...
The tip of the rotor stays still in the air. The rest of the rotor is swinging toward the rear of the aircraft more slowly than the tip, and therefore moving forward in the air.
//Recent Mechanical Engineering graduate
Good so far...
Thus, the blade moves backward relative to the surrounding air, though it is still travelling in the direction that is forwards for the helicopter.
You already forgot the lesson you tried teaching above? *sigh*
[pedantic=on]
First, let's assume that the helicopter and all its components are rigid (they don't bend, stretch, break, or change shape in any way whatsoever).
Next, let's define some terms:
N - Newtonian reference frame (earth).
H - Another reference frame fixed in the helicopter.
v - velocity of some point in some reference frame. A vector quantity.
v_t - Velocity of the tip of the rotors in whatever reference frame I designate at the time.
v_h - Velocity of the helicopter in N.
omega - Angular velocity of the rotors in H.
R - Radius of rotors.
|#| - Absolute value of #; also represents the magnitude of a vector.
Finally, let's simplify the math and just look at the case where the rotor forms a horizontal, flat disk in H.
Now at the instant where the blade's orientation is 90 degrees to the direction of v_h:
v_t = v_h + R x omega : (x denotes cross product, not multiplication)
Since we are looking at the easy case to analyze though, we can simplify this to:
v_t = v_h - R * |omega| : (* denontes multipication) (the sign change takes into account the direction of rotation and the information lost by simplifying the cross product)
What mu-1 means is that v_t = 0, so:
v_h = R * |omega| : only at mu-1
Now let's look at a normal helicopter by assuming omega remains constant but v_h decreases:
v_h < R * |omega|
That means that the direction of v_t in N is opposite the direction of v_h - it is moving backwards. Due to the orientation of the blade, the tip is certainly moving through the air leading-edge first. The problem with your argument is this: for some r < R, v_h = r * |omega|
That equation means that there is some point on the rotor blade with v = 0. Moving on, for some other even lesser value of r, v_h > r * |omega|
That means that at this new point on the rotor blade, it is still moving in the same direction as the helicopter, and your argument falls apart.
Look for yourself: grab a CD and pretend that it's the helicopter's rotor blades. Draw rotor blades on it if you can't visualize it as-is. Hold the center of the CD directly over the edge of the desk, look down at it, and rotate it in place; this is like hovering and as you put it, "the air only ever pushes against the _leading_ edge of the blade."
Now roll the edge of the CD along the edge of the desk; this is mu-1 and as you put it, "The air therefore pushes against the _trailing_ edge of the rotor blade (except at the tip, which experiences an eerie calm)."
Now if you were to "roll" the CD along the edge of the desk but not on the edge of the CD (the speed will be somewhere between hovering and mu-1), some points on the rotor blade will push against the air on the leading edge (over the table), some points will push against the air on the trailing edge (over the floor), and one point will experience an eerie calm.
Actually I'm from upstate NY and have had a chance to try Ommegang beers; of the three that I've tried, all are excellent.
I've tried their Rare Vos, Hennepin, and self-named Ommegang beer: my favorite is the Rare Vos but I like them all.
I used to play Descent using just the keboard, and when I would go online I would find that I was doing just as well at 90% of the other people on the server; they would also be amazed when I told them that I was using nothing but a keyboard.
:P
When I started using the WASD + mouse combination for regualar FPS games, though, my speed got much better. I still can't use a mouse for Descent, though
As yuo no, we are comited to protectng your prievecy adn as such we need u 2 veerify yuor account by going 2 this site CITIGROUP.COM adn entreing lots of peersonil info.
Tahnk you 4 ur help in tihs imprtnt matter
Signed, CITIGROUP
Wow, the 4-cylinder manual gets much better mileage, but at a lower speed.
My car was (past tense because it died) a '94, and I AVERAGED about 34 mpg. I also estimate that my best speed was about 75, because when I drove faster (granted I didn't have many chances to do so) I lost mpg fast. I never calculated the mileage vs speed because I was too lazy. All my claims are based on how much gas I needed to put in it after the same 3 hour drive...
Another Mazda owner who tested his mpg at speed? wow!
I didn't do as extensive tests as you did, but I used to drive to and from my gf's school fairly regularly and I would test all sorts of theories about gas mileage. I would drive the entire way with the windows down vs with the A/C on (better mileage with windows down), I would drive at different times of day (inconclusive), and I would drive at different speeds (approximately the same results as you).
One thing that I noticed was that I would always get better mileage on the return trip vs the outbound trip, and I realized that it waws because I was returning with a tailwind. The winds in upstate / central NY are consistently westerly, a fact that I noticed when I rode a motorcycle on that same trip; on the trip out I was buffeted severely and the return trip hardly bothered me at all even though m y ground speeds were the same. It all came together at a rest stop when I parked the motorcycle and noticed the wind: a westerly wind.
They've had it integrated with Google maps for several years???? Where do you live???