A quick perusal of the linked website turns up this gem:
Modern pop astrology has tended to reduce Venusâ(TM) ancient meanings to those of a loved-up Barbie doll, but there is a surprising amount to contemplate when one investigates more deeply.
"Modern pop astrology"? I find it hillarious to think of curmungeonly old astrologers complaining about the kids these days reading the stars all wrong! Add to that the chuckle-fest of mumbojumbo mixed with a curious sprinkling of scientific terminology:
The Sun's immense nuclear and spiritual power fuels our lives from within and without.
They talk breezily about nuclear power, and yet promulgate superstitious nonsense from the middle ages. How people like this sleep with the raging cognitive dissonance in their heads, I shall never know.
I'm a research scientist working on UAV systems - something that is arguably useful and a hot topic right now, and I'm finding it brutal to get access to funding. The money just isn't there, especially when you're competing with people who are developing vaccines and novel methods of leveraging social networks to sell tchotchkies. Unless you can show a serious payoff for your research within 5 years or so, nobody is interested in funding you, government or otherwise.
That's something completely fascinating that I never knew before! It's days like this that remind me what it was like to be young - when everything was new and exciting. Thanks, internet!
Pilots like to attack with the sun behind them; that means that if you are expecting attack, you need to be looking at the sun because that's where the attack is likely to come from.
Obvious troll is obvious. The moment you used "patriarchy" I knew you weren't earnest (or at least not a modern feminist). I've been involved with feminist advocacy in the workplace, and nobody uses 'patriarchy' as an excuse anymore... at least, not without irony. The GP didn't say females weren't smart enough to get in male-dominated programs - he said they didn't want to. And he's absolutely right.
Women in Engineering (the local Australian female advocacy group at the university I'm at) recognises that the problem isn't that women are some how barred from getting into engineering. They know how many women apply to the courses, how many are admitted and how many leave before completing. Simply, females apply to engineering programs in far fewer numbers; it's ridiculous to suggest they're being barred or forced out by the existing engineering populace, before their uni applications even arrive. It will be four years at least before those women even experience the current work force.
Women in Engineering goes to great length to get female undergrads in engineering. In fact, in my undergrad there were 7 scholarships females could apply for (compared to the three who actually enrolled) vs 2 scholarships males could apply for. The gates were wide open. Double the number of students could take the course, with full financial support. Nothing is stopping them from signing up, they simply don't want to.
The problem is that young women finish their high school certificates, look deep within and don't see engineering there. It simply isn't 'them'. Engineering has an image problem amongst women. It is often seen (perhaps rightly) as a competitive, technically-focussed bandsaws-and-soldering-irons sort of job that alienates you from other people, best suited to career introverts. Few woman wants to work in an environment that they feel is isolating - especially not one which does have a reputation of being 'not for women'.
The sad truth is that there are lots of opportunities for working with other people, and for having growing experiences outside of simple technophile interest. The women I work with in my job enjoy the collaborative parts of coming up with a solution, getting it to work and then getting it out the door. They enjoy what they do. But how do you communicate that to the women looking at career choices just now?
And if you don't believe me, then I urge you to sign up for an engineering program at your local university and find out for yourself - see if anyone tells you "Sorry you can't do engineering: you're a woman". I'm sure they won't. We'd love to have you.
You are a fool if you think the M.A.D. doctrine won't be used somewhere, somehow again.
It's fortunate, then, that that's neither what I said, nor what I think.
A nuclear weapon is a deterrent - a political bargaining tool to stop people invading you - that's what it does. As long as you have a couple lying around, your Bomb (capital B) needs are met. You never expect to actually use them, and so long as the ones you have are reliable enough to credibly be expected to work if actually called upon to (and after 40 years of development, we can be sure they are), there really isn't much point in spending lots of money modernising them.
A better way to spend those funds is in developing stealth smart weapons that -can- be used at low political cost, and be used to influence the policy of those who do not have The Bomb.
The truth is, nuclear weapons are a dead-end technology. There is zero point in developing a weapon that is too radiologically dangerous to use tactically, too politically sensitive to use strategically (or tactically, for that matter), and which requires constant monitoring. We now have conventional explosives that rival the power of low-end nukes, and which have only a fraction of the emotional baggage. Simply put, there was more utility in saying "Let's all not make nukes!" for the political gain of being seen to Do The Right Thing, than actually developing them.
Really, you only need to show you have one or two nukes for use in MAD scenarios so the political risk of attacking you becomes to high. That's what they're for - a weapon that you'll never use - and it doesn't make a difference if the count-down timer display is made of blue LEDs or nixie tubes.
It's perfectly possible to test a gun-type nuclear weapon without actually detonating it. It's simple: test-fire the gun mechanism. If the two non-nuclear test-masses strike each other with the right velocity, then the neutron denstity will instantenously rise far enough to start the critical reaction. Critical reactions have been extensively tested in the past and the operational geometry is well known - it's all about getting the two pieces of uranium close enough together, fast enough.
The ladder is easy, the entire thing can be solved before the robot even starts moving.
You're obviously a CS guy.:)
Any real system has unmodelled mechanics, sensor noise and disturbances, all of which lead to uncertainty. You cannot "solve" the problem open-loop; you need feedback control and updates to your trajectory as you go, because over time your position will drift. And that's just for ladders. As you increase the problem to unstructured problems like walking on rubble or object manipulation, the difficulty increases by leaps and bounds. I agree that changing the pump will likely be the hardest part of the problem.
That always confounded me - why on earth would an earnest religious person turn away someone from their church, just because they were a sinner? Aren't non-christians the people you -want- to come to church? Afterall, Christ did lunch with sinners, and preached love and compassion. It's become clear to me that many christians (but not all) are not interested in saving souls, but only about their social club that lets them feel superior to people who are not Them - the other, the different, the outsider. It used to be the jews and gypsies until it became unpopular to ostracise them - now it's the gays and muslims.
I would come to the aid of a downed enemy airman during wartime. I would provide first aid and medical treatment as best I could, and then take him to the authorities. Just because they are enemy soldiers doesn't obviate the need to render humanitarian care. Now, on the other hand, providing him succor and then helping him escape back to the other side would be treason.
The tense is past, whether simple past or past participle in the passive voice (which for "drag" happen to be the same). The GP's statement was correct. Furthremore, some dialects happen to not be 'correct' English, as understood by National Socialist linguistics.
Except you won't. The control components of the landers were in the ascent stage that carried the astronauts back to the service module in orbit. All that remains on the surface are the descent stage on lander legs.
Apologies - I have a faculty job now. It makes the care-free days of surfing/. during my post-doc seem like some far off paradise... sigh. Next stop: tenure.
I'd be curious if this sort of mapping technology plus an old school movie makeup artist could produce a better looking "Orc" than say a regular 3d modeling doing it all by hand.
This is what they did for the LotR films. It worked very well and was extremely cost-effective. Their sculpted clay models were scanned and then animated using actors with motion capture. Relatively little direct computer animation tweaking.
Slashdot Mirror
Modern pop astrology has tended to reduce Venusâ(TM) ancient meanings to those of a loved-up Barbie doll, but there is a surprising amount to contemplate when one investigates more deeply.
"Modern pop astrology"? I find it hillarious to think of curmungeonly old astrologers complaining about the kids these days reading the stars all wrong! Add to that the chuckle-fest of mumbojumbo mixed with a curious sprinkling of scientific terminology:
The Sun's immense nuclear and spiritual power fuels our lives from within and without.
They talk breezily about nuclear power, and yet promulgate superstitious nonsense from the middle ages. How people like this sleep with the raging cognitive dissonance in their heads, I shall never know.
Do you know how rare it is to find somebody that understands both Australian and either US or UK English?
'struth!
How the hell are you being funded?
I'm a research scientist working on UAV systems - something that is arguably useful and a hot topic right now, and I'm finding it brutal to get access to funding. The money just isn't there, especially when you're competing with people who are developing vaccines and novel methods of leveraging social networks to sell tchotchkies. Unless you can show a serious payoff for your research within 5 years or so, nobody is interested in funding you, government or otherwise.
The caffeine extends life. The caffeine expands consciousness. The caffeine is vital to space travel.
The caffeine must flow!
That's something completely fascinating that I never knew before! It's days like this that remind me what it was like to be young - when everything was new and exciting. Thanks, internet!
They call it "Skynet".
Pilots like to attack with the sun behind them; that means that if you are expecting attack, you need to be looking at the sun because that's where the attack is likely to come from.
It's a planet!
Obvious troll is obvious. The moment you used "patriarchy" I knew you weren't earnest (or at least not a modern feminist). I've been involved with feminist advocacy in the workplace, and nobody uses 'patriarchy' as an excuse anymore... at least, not without irony. The GP didn't say females weren't smart enough to get in male-dominated programs - he said they didn't want to. And he's absolutely right.
Women in Engineering (the local Australian female advocacy group at the university I'm at) recognises that the problem isn't that women are some how barred from getting into engineering. They know how many women apply to the courses, how many are admitted and how many leave before completing. Simply, females apply to engineering programs in far fewer numbers; it's ridiculous to suggest they're being barred or forced out by the existing engineering populace, before their uni applications even arrive. It will be four years at least before those women even experience the current work force.
Women in Engineering goes to great length to get female undergrads in engineering. In fact, in my undergrad there were 7 scholarships females could apply for (compared to the three who actually enrolled) vs 2 scholarships males could apply for. The gates were wide open. Double the number of students could take the course, with full financial support. Nothing is stopping them from signing up, they simply don't want to.
The problem is that young women finish their high school certificates, look deep within and don't see engineering there. It simply isn't 'them'. Engineering has an image problem amongst women. It is often seen (perhaps rightly) as a competitive, technically-focussed bandsaws-and-soldering-irons sort of job that alienates you from other people, best suited to career introverts. Few woman wants to work in an environment that they feel is isolating - especially not one which does have a reputation of being 'not for women'.
The sad truth is that there are lots of opportunities for working with other people, and for having growing experiences outside of simple technophile interest. The women I work with in my job enjoy the collaborative parts of coming up with a solution, getting it to work and then getting it out the door. They enjoy what they do. But how do you communicate that to the women looking at career choices just now?
And if you don't believe me, then I urge you to sign up for an engineering program at your local university and find out for yourself - see if anyone tells you "Sorry you can't do engineering: you're a woman". I'm sure they won't. We'd love to have you.
You are a fool if you think the M.A.D. doctrine won't be used somewhere, somehow again.
It's fortunate, then, that that's neither what I said, nor what I think.
A nuclear weapon is a deterrent - a political bargaining tool to stop people invading you - that's what it does. As long as you have a couple lying around, your Bomb (capital B) needs are met. You never expect to actually use them, and so long as the ones you have are reliable enough to credibly be expected to work if actually called upon to (and after 40 years of development, we can be sure they are), there really isn't much point in spending lots of money modernising them.
A better way to spend those funds is in developing stealth smart weapons that -can- be used at low political cost, and be used to influence the policy of those who do not have The Bomb.
Or, to put it another way "Nuclear fission is just like fire: the secret is to bang the rocks together."
There can be only one!
The truth is, nuclear weapons are a dead-end technology. There is zero point in developing a weapon that is too radiologically dangerous to use tactically, too politically sensitive to use strategically (or tactically, for that matter), and which requires constant monitoring. We now have conventional explosives that rival the power of low-end nukes, and which have only a fraction of the emotional baggage. Simply put, there was more utility in saying "Let's all not make nukes!" for the political gain of being seen to Do The Right Thing, than actually developing them.
Really, you only need to show you have one or two nukes for use in MAD scenarios so the political risk of attacking you becomes to high. That's what they're for - a weapon that you'll never use - and it doesn't make a difference if the count-down timer display is made of blue LEDs or nixie tubes.
It's perfectly possible to test a gun-type nuclear weapon without actually detonating it. It's simple: test-fire the gun mechanism. If the two non-nuclear test-masses strike each other with the right velocity, then the neutron denstity will instantenously rise far enough to start the critical reaction. Critical reactions have been extensively tested in the past and the operational geometry is well known - it's all about getting the two pieces of uranium close enough together, fast enough.
Unfortunately, those pictures would be caught by his filter.
The ladder is easy, the entire thing can be solved before the robot even starts moving.
You're obviously a CS guy. :)
Any real system has unmodelled mechanics, sensor noise and disturbances, all of which lead to uncertainty. You cannot "solve" the problem open-loop; you need feedback control and updates to your trajectory as you go, because over time your position will drift. And that's just for ladders. As you increase the problem to unstructured problems like walking on rubble or object manipulation, the difficulty increases by leaps and bounds. I agree that changing the pump will likely be the hardest part of the problem.
This.
That always confounded me - why on earth would an earnest religious person turn away someone from their church, just because they were a sinner? Aren't non-christians the people you -want- to come to church? Afterall, Christ did lunch with sinners, and preached love and compassion. It's become clear to me that many christians (but not all) are not interested in saving souls, but only about their social club that lets them feel superior to people who are not Them - the other, the different, the outsider. It used to be the jews and gypsies until it became unpopular to ostracise them - now it's the gays and muslims.
I would come to the aid of a downed enemy airman during wartime. I would provide first aid and medical treatment as best I could, and then take him to the authorities. Just because they are enemy soldiers doesn't obviate the need to render humanitarian care. Now, on the other hand, providing him succor and then helping him escape back to the other side would be treason.
That's no past tense
The tense is past, whether simple past or past participle in the passive voice (which for "drag" happen to be the same). The GP's statement was correct. Furthremore, some dialects happen to not be 'correct' English, as understood by National Socialist linguistics.
If being in contempt of DHS was punishable, we would all be in jail.
Except you won't. The control components of the landers were in the ascent stage that carried the astronauts back to the service module in orbit. All that remains on the surface are the descent stage on lander legs.
Apologies - I have a faculty job now. It makes the care-free days of surfing /. during my post-doc seem like some far off paradise... sigh. Next stop: tenure.
This is the first meaningful use of capslock I have ever seen on the internet. Good show.
Can some one point to ... where congress amended the constitution to allow this?
Now don't go giving them ideas!
I'd be curious if this sort of mapping technology plus an old school movie makeup artist could produce a better looking "Orc" than say a regular 3d modeling doing it all by hand.
This is what they did for the LotR films. It worked very well and was extremely cost-effective. Their sculpted clay models were scanned and then animated using actors with motion capture. Relatively little direct computer animation tweaking.