I have a friend who experienced these for the first time not long ago in a Tokyo hotel. She reported that it was actually quite disconcerting at first to get up in the middle of the night to go to the bathroom, sit down on a warm toilet seat and practically jump right back up in fear that "someone else had just been sitting here!" She eventually got used to it though.
I'm circumcised and don't care one iota. The main argument I hear for why a man who has been circumcised should care that he was is that his penis is less sensitive as a result. This argument just makes me laugh. The last thing, I mean the absolute last thing I need during sex is to be more sensitive.
I think it's still done in part because a lot of people believe it's healthier in the long run (I've seen too much conflicting evidence here to be sure either way), but I also think it's so accepted for aesthetic reasons. Americans prefer circumcision for the same reason they prefer females shaving their underarms and legs - not circumcising (for men) or shaving (for women) may be perfectly natural, but it's considered "gross."
I'm a private, instrument rated pilot and have experienced interference on my instruments because of cell phones. I had a passenger on my plane forget to turn his off, and during the flight I couldn't figure out what the intermittent buzzing was that I kept hearing over the com system. It was definitely distracting. Eventually we realized it was his phone (I believe it was actually receiving a call). I didn't notice it interfering with the GPS, but I suppose it could have been and I just didn't realize it, and that could be a real danger if I was flying in IMC, especially if we were on an approach. Thankfully that was a VFR flight and I was not using the instruments for much.
And for whatever reason, on the occasions that I have forgotten to turn my own cell phone off when I go out flying, I haven't experienced this interference (and I know at least once a call had come in on my phone while in flight). I'm not sure what the difference between our phones or their service was that would account for that.
The same way Apollo's lunar lander did: via a different spacecraft.
This competition has zero to do with that other spacecraft (whatever it might ultimately be), and everything to do with going from lunar orbit to the lunar surface and back. From the Lunar Lander Challenge rules (linked from TFA):
The (TITLE) Lunar Lander Challenge is designed to accelerate technology developments supporting the commercial creation of a vehicle capable of ferrying cargo or humans between lunar orbit and the lunar surface. Such a vehicle would have direct application to NASA's space exploration goals.
A vehicle capable of winning the Level 2 prize would basically be capable of going to and from the moon's surface and lunar orbit (with refueling at each stop).
Ulitmately, NASA just might have a different competition for that other vehicle to get from the Earth to the Moon, but this isn't it.
How long was the DC-X able to fly (hover)? Because if it couldn't do the two "hops" required for this prize with one propellant load, then I doubt it would be able to meet the 30 min. max re-fuel time - I read that its turnaround time was 26hrs, and they set a record with that!
One really big thing they're overlooking in their challenge is the fact that lunar gravity is only 1/16 of Earth's.
They're overlooking no such thing. Here is their goal:
The (TITLE) Lunar Lander Challenge is designed to accelerate technology developments supporting the commercial creation of a vehicle capable of ferrying cargo or humans between lunar orbit and the lunar surface.
A vehicle cabable of doing the tasks necessary to win this prize on the Earth should be in the performance ballpark necessary to take off from the moon's surface and get to Lunar orbit, then return, or vice-versa. That is the goal.
Oh, and I assume you meant the Moon's gravity is 1/6th that of Earth's.
Heck, with only 25kg payload , the Bell Rocket Belt could almost do that
Too bad it's disqualified for having been developed with government money. And although the rules don't specify it yet, I suspect their definition of vehicle will end up clarifying that a rocket belt won't qualify as one.
It bothers the heck out of me when people take trivial tasks and act like they're just "One Step Away!" (TM) from a major task.
Well clearly, then, you are not the type of person these competitions are meant to inspire.
Hell, one of the primary tenets of christianity is "thou shall not kill."
Actually, no it isn't; not according to the bible, anyway. The actual commandment is "thou shall not murder," but it has been, unfortunately, mistranslated numerous times in the past. It would be great to see a poll on how many Christians actually know that, though.
It cost Paul Allen (with Mojave Aerospace Ventures through Burt Rutan and his Scaled Composites) more to win the original X-Prize than the prize awarded him. They won $10 million, but reportedly spent more than $20 million.
For them, it wasn't (just) about the X-Prize and its money. That was just icing on the cake; the "real money" will probably come afterwards (we'll see how well Virgin Galactic does). I could very easily see the same thing happening with this new prize and the people who are already interested in such DNA decoding.
Ah, yes... I hadn't considered this angle. Not being Catholic probably helped. I guess that helps brings this sub-thread back around to being a little more related to the main story.
This reminds me about how the capybara, the world's largest rodent and therefore a mammal, is classified as a fish by the Roman Catholic Church for the purposes of Lent (it spends much of its life in water). This was done so that Catholics in South America could eat it during Lent, since "meat" is forbidden.
"I'm guessing the original poster meant mammal, not animal."
I wouldn't be too sure; people have funny notions about words that classify, some times. We have a "vegetarian" at work, self-proclaimed because she doesn't eat meat. Only, she does eat fish... which... are vegetables, I guess?
"The 3:2 pulldown is created in software by the player."
Sure seems logical, but this is just not the case:
"There's a persistent myth that DVDs are inherently progressive, and all a DVD player needs to do to display a progressive signal is to grab the progressive frames off the disc and show them."
This is just one of the many, many well-written, technical articles out there that explain this issue. Unfortunately, as your post suggests, I just don't think this myth is ever going to go away.
So you can argue that it is a bad choice for whoever made the call on the DVD transfers (and in that case you'll be disagreeing with James Cameron and Stanley Kubrick in some cases), but it is not "BAD DVDs."
Yeah, you may not really be getting the framing the director/cinematographer wanted, but a DVD transfer can indeed get more picture than was shown theatrically.
And yet the JibJab guys still got threatened with a lawsuit last year, even though a), their Flash was satire/parody and should fall under fair use, and b), the song has been public domain since the 70s?
So was the publisher that claimed ownership and threatened the lawsuit just clueless?
Slashdot Mirror
I have a friend who experienced these for the first time not long ago in a Tokyo hotel. She reported that it was actually quite disconcerting at first to get up in the middle of the night to go to the bathroom, sit down on a warm toilet seat and practically jump right back up in fear that "someone else had just been sitting here!" She eventually got used to it though.
I'm circumcised and don't care one iota. The main argument I hear for why a man who has been circumcised should care that he was is that his penis is less sensitive as a result. This argument just makes me laugh. The last thing, I mean the absolute last thing I need during sex is to be more sensitive.
WTF? What the hell do Americans do this for?
I think it's still done in part because a lot of people believe it's healthier in the long run (I've seen too much conflicting evidence here to be sure either way), but I also think it's so accepted for aesthetic reasons. Americans prefer circumcision for the same reason they prefer females shaving their underarms and legs - not circumcising (for men) or shaving (for women) may be perfectly natural, but it's considered "gross."
That is so last millennium.
I'm a private, instrument rated pilot and have experienced interference on my instruments because of cell phones. I had a passenger on my plane forget to turn his off, and during the flight I couldn't figure out what the intermittent buzzing was that I kept hearing over the com system. It was definitely distracting. Eventually we realized it was his phone (I believe it was actually receiving a call). I didn't notice it interfering with the GPS, but I suppose it could have been and I just didn't realize it, and that could be a real danger if I was flying in IMC, especially if we were on an approach. Thankfully that was a VFR flight and I was not using the instruments for much.
And for whatever reason, on the occasions that I have forgotten to turn my own cell phone off when I go out flying, I haven't experienced this interference (and I know at least once a call had come in on my phone while in flight). I'm not sure what the difference between our phones or their service was that would account for that.
and how exactly does it get TO the moon?
The same way Apollo's lunar lander did: via a different spacecraft.
This competition has zero to do with that other spacecraft (whatever it might ultimately be), and everything to do with going from lunar orbit to the lunar surface and back. From the Lunar Lander Challenge rules (linked from TFA):
The (TITLE) Lunar Lander Challenge is designed to accelerate technology developments supporting the commercial creation of a vehicle capable of ferrying cargo or humans between lunar orbit and the lunar surface. Such a vehicle would have direct application to NASA's space exploration goals.
A vehicle capable of winning the Level 2 prize would basically be capable of going to and from the moon's surface and lunar orbit (with refueling at each stop).
Ulitmately, NASA just might have a different competition for that other vehicle to get from the Earth to the Moon, but this isn't it.
How long was the DC-X able to fly (hover)? Because if it couldn't do the two "hops" required for this prize with one propellant load, then I doubt it would be able to meet the 30 min. max re-fuel time - I read that its turnaround time was 26hrs, and they set a record with that!
One really big thing they're overlooking in their challenge is the fact that lunar gravity is only 1/16 of Earth's.
They're overlooking no such thing. Here is their goal:
The (TITLE) Lunar Lander Challenge is designed to accelerate technology developments supporting the commercial creation of a vehicle capable of ferrying cargo or humans between lunar orbit and the lunar surface.
A vehicle cabable of doing the tasks necessary to win this prize on the Earth should be in the performance ballpark necessary to take off from the moon's surface and get to Lunar orbit, then return, or vice-versa. That is the goal.
Oh, and I assume you meant the Moon's gravity is 1/6th that of Earth's.
why does it "have" to be vertical takeoff, why not horizontal like a plane? make use of air's capacity to lift
Because this is meant to simulate a Lunar Lander.
Heck, with only 25kg payload , the Bell Rocket Belt could almost do that
Too bad it's disqualified for having been developed with government money. And although the rules don't specify it yet, I suspect their definition of vehicle will end up clarifying that a rocket belt won't qualify as one.
It bothers the heck out of me when people take trivial tasks and act like they're just "One Step Away!" (TM) from a major task.
Well clearly, then, you are not the type of person these competitions are meant to inspire.
Can your X-Wing fighter model rocket do the following:
- Take off from point A and land within 10 meters of point B which is 100 to 200 meters away from point A?
- Can it stay in the air 90 to 180 seconds between points?
- After landing at point B can it then repeat the above back to point A within 30 minutes?
- And in doing all of that, can it carry a 25kg payload?
If it can then, yeah, you better get it out and dust it off because it's worth a lot of money!
Hell, one of the primary tenets of christianity is "thou shall not kill."
Actually, no it isn't; not according to the bible, anyway. The actual commandment is "thou shall not murder," but it has been, unfortunately, mistranslated numerous times in the past. It would be great to see a poll on how many Christians actually know that, though.
Apparently they thought it was "København Fried Chicken."
...on Isla Nublar with the Lysine Contingency. Didn't work out too well.
It doesn't look like it was modded at all. He/she just got a +1 karma bonus modifier. Click on the number next to the post to see that info.
It cost Paul Allen (with Mojave Aerospace Ventures through Burt Rutan and his Scaled Composites) more to win the original X-Prize than the prize awarded him. They won $10 million, but reportedly spent more than $20 million.
For them, it wasn't (just) about the X-Prize and its money. That was just icing on the cake; the "real money" will probably come afterwards (we'll see how well Virgin Galactic does). I could very easily see the same thing happening with this new prize and the people who are already interested in such DNA decoding.
Ah, yes... I hadn't considered this angle. Not being Catholic probably helped. I guess that helps brings this sub-thread back around to being a little more related to the main story.
This reminds me about how the capybara, the world's largest rodent and therefore a mammal, is classified as a fish by the Roman Catholic Church for the purposes of Lent (it spends much of its life in water). This was done so that Catholics in South America could eat it during Lent, since "meat" is forbidden.
"I'm guessing the original poster meant mammal, not animal."
I wouldn't be too sure; people have funny notions about words that classify, some times. We have a "vegetarian" at work, self-proclaimed because she doesn't eat meat. Only, she does eat fish... which... are vegetables, I guess?
"...rash of state constitutional amendments to bad gay marraige in 2004."
;)
Dr. Freud! Dr. Freud! Paging Dr. Freud!
"The 3:2 pulldown is created in software by the player."
c hmark-part-5-progressive-10-2000.html
Sure seems logical, but this is just not the case:
"There's a persistent myth that DVDs are inherently progressive, and all a DVD player needs to do to display a progressive signal is to grab the progressive frames off the disc and show them."
http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_7_4/dvd-ben
This is just one of the many, many well-written, technical articles out there that explain this issue. Unfortunately, as your post suggests, I just don't think this myth is ever going to go away.
"There is ONE recorded case of this I know of..."
/ aspectratios/widescreenorama2.html
r imer/WidescreenPrimer2.html
Well, then you're behind the times. Try the full screen DVDs of Air Force One, Terminator 2: Judgement Day, Titanic, and The Abyss for starters.
See here for explanations with examples (Other Options part):
http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/anamorphic
and here (Open Matte part):
http://www.michaeldvd.com.au/Articles/WidescreenP
So you can argue that it is a bad choice for whoever made the call on the DVD transfers (and in that case you'll be disagreeing with James Cameron and Stanley Kubrick in some cases), but it is not "BAD DVDs."
I think you've misunderstood what he's saying. See this:
r imer/WidescreenPrimer2.html
...especially the part about "open matte."
http://www.michaeldvd.com.au/Articles/WidescreenP
Yeah, you may not really be getting the framing the director/cinematographer wanted, but a DVD transfer can indeed get more picture than was shown theatrically.
And yet the JibJab guys still got threatened with a lawsuit last year, even though a), their Flash was satire/parody and should fall under fair use, and b), the song has been public domain since the 70s?
So was the publisher that claimed ownership and threatened the lawsuit just clueless?
Not knowing anything about him,[snip]
How do you know Medgur knows nothing about him? Sounds to me like he might know more about the situation than a neighbor would.
Yes, thank you! Why is this so hard to get right? (Though there was a time they spelled it "ID," as seen in the Wolfenstein 3d logo: http://www.d73online.co.uk/guy/art/wolftitle.gif)
And while we're at it, their name IS NOT pronounced "eye-dee." It rhymes with "kid."
Don't get me started on "gibs."