Surely it would just look like light (with a different 'colour'). Things that block it would not appear to give off light, things that allow it to pass would appear to glow, and things that reflect it would just be visible if there is already some ambient wifi 'light' to reflect.
Is this actually how things work at these lower frequencies? Or would it work completely differently in regards to how it refracts/reflects etc?
This pretty much proves that a human athlete has enough power to provide enough thrust/downforce for lift. So my question is, would it be feasible to generate this same level of thrust in a smaller area using the same amount of power?
I'm guessing that by having such large rotors with low air speeds and low thrust per unit area, that efficiencies are kept high and this is why it works.
Would there be that huge an efficiency decrease if the same amount of thrust were generated on a smaller area? If that's what it boils down to, then we will never be able to make this work at 'reasonable' scales:(
I'd still be inclined to call this 2.5D or 3D at a stretch. Use of the terminology 'dimension' usually implies the ability to make use of that dimension an arbitrary amount. So X & Y can be as big as you can make the surface. That is your 2 true dimensions.
The Z, in this case, is only '3 layers'. Maybe in the future that can be an arbitrary size, but for now it's just 3 layers. Not really a full 'dimension'. Once they can go arbitrarily large in Z, then you can call it 3D.
As for 4 & 5 (size and orientation), there can only be a certain number of sizes and orientations that each bit could represent. Really this is just changing the storage from Base 2 (Or Base 10 to be/. pedantic) to Base N where N = number of orientations * number of sizes. Certainly a good idea, but it should, in my opinion, not be called a dimension. We could have really big values of N, but then it would be more analogous to analogue storage. I guess you could consider it as a dimension at that point, possibly, maybe.
Bah it's all just marketing anyway, right?
I will make one with dot colour as a factor. SIX DEE STORAGE!!!!
I remember reading about this a while ago when I discovered SPDY, and from what I understood is that in SPDY/HTTP2.0, the multiple transfers can be multiplexed. So rather than Connection A requesting resource 1 and then requesting resource 2 etc, it could theoretically request 'all resources I need to render this page above the fold' or something. Then those resources come down simultaneously. When the last one is finished, the page can display.
This would definitely save some overhead for re-requesting resources in the same connection.
Sure, you could help currently by inlining as much as you can and using CSS sprites to reduce image resource requests, but this way would keep things more modular/separated...
Yep, the static IP is nice, though it has to be said that I am getting on just fine with non-static and the dynamic dns services work just fine for me. The ~1-5min outage when it auto-updates is only a mild annoyance, but not a huge issue to me as I only use my home server for personal stuff and testing. I have a few servers 'out there' for production stuff.
And I hear you on the momentum thing. It's one reason I still have cable. I think their retentions dept is too good lol. But the moment I can find a legit way to watch F1 live, bye bye Rogers!
If you do decide to try out Teksavvy and laziness/momentum is an issue for you (it's an issue for me too, I have not upgraded to my cheaper-but-faster or more-expensive-but-much-faster-VDSL service yet and I am still on legacy 6/0.8:( ) then do be wary of the switch-over process. Though I painted them in a very good light above, they are ultimately at the whim of Rogers/Bell. One reason I have not yet gone to the 15/10 service is that Bell have been known to turn around and say, after the work order has been done, "sorry, you can only get 3Mbit/s up, so we'll put you on 15/1 which is not VDSL". I'm scared of that happening to me and there is nothing Teksavvy (or any other reseller) can do about it. Reality is, if my line only qualifies at 15/3, I'd rather get that and pay for 15/10 ($35) than get 15/1 ($33). But it's Bell/Rogers, what can you do?
There is also a VDSL modem fiasco holding me back (Thanks, again, to Bell).
I actually said in my original post: "But this would not apply if you were with one of the Big Two. Maybe that's what you meant? They barely count as internet service if you ask me. Rip-off merchants!"
By that I meant Rogers and Bell. Sorry to burst your bubble:(
And I was talking upload speeds, not download speeds; With Teksavvy, 15Mbit down/10Mbit up costs less than $50. Less than $60 if you want unlimited downloads.
For your $80-at-Rogers, you can get 25/10 with unlimited download or 50/10 with 300GB cap at Teksavvy.
What would actually happen with Rogers is, as you say, $155 or a disconnect, but at Teksavvy it would be ~16.5 days(if you used off-peak, or and no overage charges/cut-offs, like I said:)
BTW, your math is wrong*. If you only had 2Mbit/s upload, it would take you ~80 days. Unless you really meant you get 2MB/s upload, in which case you mean you get 30MB/s download which would put you at the 250Mbit/s product which costs $225/month. If you got that for $80, sign.me.up lol.
*I realise now that I had a typo in my original post and put 10MBps. I meant 10Mbit/s
Go on, do it:) (I am not affiliated with them, just a very happy customer)
Given that the longest a direct flight could be is currently about 18.5 hours, (Lets call it 20 due to time taken on either end), your transfer of 1.7TB would result in a throughput of about 200Mbps.
Not much of the world has a throughput that high, so the 'faster' part of your comment pretty much applies to the entire world:)
It would actually take a little over 2 months at 10MBps if you restricted it to the unmetered times (6 hours a day) (That's a TekSavvy example).
But this would not apply if you were with one of the Big Two. Maybe that's what you meant? They barely count as internet service if you ask me. Rip-off merchants!
I wonder if this would work. Would it be possible to treat some plain non GMO wheat with a low dosage of Roundup such that only, say. 50% of the wheat died. Use the surviving wheat and repeat this process. If the yield of surviving wheat increases with every generation, you have started the selection for Roundup resistance. You can then up the dosage until, finally, you end up with fully Roundup resistant wheat without breaking any patents.
You would need to ensure that you have ZERO GMO crop in there in the beginning as that would just survive and proliferate. The Monsanto DNA is probably so widespread that is not being there is pretty unlikely.
Of course, Monsanto would then claim that your Roundup resistant crop MUST be their IP. The only way to test this would be to do a DNA analysis and hope that whatever mechanism the selection pressure came up with is not the same as the Monsanto mechanism.
Even then, if it is the same mechanism, you are still not infringing the patent. I wonder how that would go down in court.
Given that attaining suitable velocity to get there in a reasonable timeframe with manageable fuel loads is probably one of the big issues of Mars travel, how does hitching a ride become advantageous? The differential velocity between you and the space rock would be way too high to dock, and even if you could 'grapple' it, you would likely slow it down too much.
To match its speed to board it would require just as much energy as accelerating yourself to the required travelling velocity in the first place.
Maybe a grapple with a winch could be a solution so that you can grab it while the velocity difference is high and apply a braking force to the winch mechanism until your speed matches. Then you could slowly wind yourself in. Would have to be a very long winch though. We'd probably have space elevator tech as a prerequisite to this.
I remember being so gutted that my Acorn Electron didn't support that teletext mode:(
Yeah, my first was the Electron. Saving to tape was sketchy at best, so every program I wrote out would only persist until the next power-down. I think I once managed to get an Elite save game.
As such, my progression was molasses slow at that point in my life. It didn't capture me as I would spend all my time copying code verbatim and not actually picking away at it & modifying it.
My progression really started in my DOS days and then I did a 'Computer graphics" module at Uni that was really just a course for this newfangled Java 1.0 thingy.
Watch it, take it in and then, please, comment on how anything in that video would not be possible. I know we have not recreated it in experiment yet, but as with most discovered processes, we had not recreated them before we recreated them. It may or may not be the process that happened, but you have to consider that it is a feasible possibility based in the realms of reality. If you think otherwise, please explain why.
Slashdot Mirror
Me too. I came here to post this :)
VALIDATE ME!!!
Surely it would just look like light (with a different 'colour'). Things that block it would not appear to give off light, things that allow it to pass would appear to glow, and things that reflect it would just be visible if there is already some ambient wifi 'light' to reflect.
Is this actually how things work at these lower frequencies? Or would it work completely differently in regards to how it refracts/reflects etc?
THIS!
Excuse me?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHepKd38pr0 (Bladerunner)
Bitch, please.
What medium are you throwing it in, treacle?
or you will GOTO Mech hell!
Explained perfectly. It's kind of what I *thought* in a fuzzy kind of way. Good to see it explained :)
Ta.
Congrats guys.
This pretty much proves that a human athlete has enough power to provide enough thrust/downforce for lift. So my question is, would it be feasible to generate this same level of thrust in a smaller area using the same amount of power?
I'm guessing that by having such large rotors with low air speeds and low thrust per unit area, that efficiencies are kept high and this is why it works.
Would there be that huge an efficiency decrease if the same amount of thrust were generated on a smaller area? If that's what it boils down to, then we will never be able to make this work at 'reasonable' scales :(
I'd still be inclined to call this 2.5D or 3D at a stretch. Use of the terminology 'dimension' usually implies the ability to make use of that dimension an arbitrary amount. So X & Y can be as big as you can make the surface. That is your 2 true dimensions.
The Z, in this case, is only '3 layers'. Maybe in the future that can be an arbitrary size, but for now it's just 3 layers. Not really a full 'dimension'. Once they can go arbitrarily large in Z, then you can call it 3D.
As for 4 & 5 (size and orientation), there can only be a certain number of sizes and orientations that each bit could represent. Really this is just changing the storage from Base 2 (Or Base 10 to be /. pedantic) to Base N where N = number of orientations * number of sizes. Certainly a good idea, but it should, in my opinion, not be called a dimension. We could have really big values of N, but then it would be more analogous to analogue storage. I guess you could consider it as a dimension at that point, possibly, maybe.
Bah it's all just marketing anyway, right?
I will make one with dot colour as a factor. SIX DEE STORAGE!!!!
I remember reading about this a while ago when I discovered SPDY, and from what I understood is that in SPDY/HTTP2.0, the multiple transfers can be multiplexed. So rather than Connection A requesting resource 1 and then requesting resource 2 etc, it could theoretically request 'all resources I need to render this page above the fold' or something. Then those resources come down simultaneously. When the last one is finished, the page can display.
This would definitely save some overhead for re-requesting resources in the same connection.
Sure, you could help currently by inlining as much as you can and using CSS sprites to reduce image resource requests, but this way would keep things more modular/separated...
Yep, the static IP is nice, though it has to be said that I am getting on just fine with non-static and the dynamic dns services work just fine for me. The ~1-5min outage when it auto-updates is only a mild annoyance, but not a huge issue to me as I only use my home server for personal stuff and testing. I have a few servers 'out there' for production stuff.
And I hear you on the momentum thing. It's one reason I still have cable. I think their retentions dept is too good lol. But the moment I can find a legit way to watch F1 live, bye bye Rogers!
If you do decide to try out Teksavvy and laziness/momentum is an issue for you (it's an issue for me too, I have not upgraded to my cheaper-but-faster or more-expensive-but-much-faster-VDSL service yet and I am still on legacy 6/0.8 :( ) then do be wary of the switch-over process. Though I painted them in a very good light above, they are ultimately at the whim of Rogers/Bell. One reason I have not yet gone to the 15/10 service is that Bell have been known to turn around and say, after the work order has been done, "sorry, you can only get 3Mbit/s up, so we'll put you on 15/1 which is not VDSL". I'm scared of that happening to me and there is nothing Teksavvy (or any other reseller) can do about it. Reality is, if my line only qualifies at 15/3, I'd rather get that and pay for 15/10 ($35) than get 15/1 ($33). But it's Bell/Rogers, what can you do?
There is also a VDSL modem fiasco holding me back (Thanks, again, to Bell).
Sorry, I'm babbling :)
Which product do you have? I don't see one with 30Mbit/s upload...
Oh and I also got a letter from Teksavvy about fees too...
That's right, they REDUCED them ;)
I actually said in my original post:
"But this would not apply if you were with one of the Big Two. Maybe that's what you meant? They barely count as internet service if you ask me. Rip-off merchants!"
By that I meant Rogers and Bell. Sorry to burst your bubble :(
And I was talking upload speeds, not download speeds; With Teksavvy, 15Mbit down /10Mbit up costs less than $50. Less than $60 if you want unlimited downloads.
For your $80-at-Rogers, you can get 25/10 with unlimited download or 50/10 with 300GB cap at Teksavvy.
What would actually happen with Rogers is, as you say, $155 or a disconnect, but at Teksavvy it would be ~16.5 days(if you used off-peak, or and no overage charges/cut-offs, like I said :)
BTW, your math is wrong*. If you only had 2Mbit/s upload, it would take you ~80 days. Unless you really meant you get 2MB/s upload, in which case you mean you get 30MB/s download which would put you at the 250Mbit/s product which costs $225/month. If you got that for $80, sign.me.up lol.
*I realise now that I had a typo in my original post and put 10MBps. I meant 10Mbit/s
Go on, do it :)
(I am not affiliated with them, just a very happy customer)
He said "inside the chip".
Faster, yes. Cheaper? No.
Given that the longest a direct flight could be is currently about 18.5 hours, (Lets call it 20 due to time taken on either end), your transfer of 1.7TB would result in a throughput of about 200Mbps.
Not much of the world has a throughput that high, so the 'faster' part of your comment pretty much applies to the entire world :)
I made a mistake. Uploads don't go towards your 300GB cap. So it would, in fact, only take ~16 days.
It would actually take a little over 2 months at 10MBps if you restricted it to the unmetered times (6 hours a day) (That's a TekSavvy example).
But this would not apply if you were with one of the Big Two. Maybe that's what you meant? They barely count as internet service if you ask me. Rip-off merchants!
OK then, sue 'Nature' for developing the same thing (With a little help lol).
Seriously, when natural processes end up creating something, can someone really claim prior art?
I wonder if this would work. Would it be possible to treat some plain non GMO wheat with a low dosage of Roundup such that only, say. 50% of the wheat died. Use the surviving wheat and repeat this process. If the yield of surviving wheat increases with every generation, you have started the selection for Roundup resistance. You can then up the dosage until, finally, you end up with fully Roundup resistant wheat without breaking any patents.
You would need to ensure that you have ZERO GMO crop in there in the beginning as that would just survive and proliferate. The Monsanto DNA is probably so widespread that is not being there is pretty unlikely.
Of course, Monsanto would then claim that your Roundup resistant crop MUST be their IP. The only way to test this would be to do a DNA analysis and hope that whatever mechanism the selection pressure came up with is not the same as the Monsanto mechanism.
Even then, if it is the same mechanism, you are still not infringing the patent. I wonder how that would go down in court.
Given that attaining suitable velocity to get there in a reasonable timeframe with manageable fuel loads is probably one of the big issues of Mars travel, how does hitching a ride become advantageous? The differential velocity between you and the space rock would be way too high to dock, and even if you could 'grapple' it, you would likely slow it down too much.
To match its speed to board it would require just as much energy as accelerating yourself to the required travelling velocity in the first place.
Maybe a grapple with a winch could be a solution so that you can grab it while the velocity difference is high and apply a braking force to the winch mechanism until your speed matches. Then you could slowly wind yourself in. Would have to be a very long winch though. We'd probably have space elevator tech as a prerequisite to this.
I remember being so gutted that my Acorn Electron didn't support that teletext mode :(
Yeah, my first was the Electron. Saving to tape was sketchy at best, so every program I wrote out would only persist until the next power-down. I think I once managed to get an Elite save game.
As such, my progression was molasses slow at that point in my life. It didn't capture me as I would spend all my time copying code verbatim and not actually picking away at it & modifying it.
My progression really started in my DOS days and then I did a 'Computer graphics" module at Uni that was really just a course for this newfangled Java 1.0 thingy.
And now we both look silly cos neither of us got modded lol.
I saw this yesterday and it seems like a very feasible process.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg
Watch it, take it in and then, please, comment on how anything in that video would not be possible. I know we have not recreated it in experiment yet, but as with most discovered processes, we had not recreated them before we recreated them. It may or may not be the process that happened, but you have to consider that it is a feasible possibility based in the realms of reality. If you think otherwise, please explain why.
I'm not sure if that was meant to be a whoosh or just incredibly funny :)