and things can be funny without being TRULY funny - there's sick funny, geek funny, prepubescent funny (boobies! BAHAHAHA!), etc. Truly funny things transcend genres.
Well, I'll grant that I certainly didn't ask my question well:)
I was wondering how the plane is able to fly straight in plane mode, given that the blade/wing on the left will be tilted down and the one on the right will be tilted up (or vice versa) - I don't think it'd do barrel rolls as I originally stated, but I think there'd be a definite tendency to fly in circles due to the unaerodynamicness of the improperly tilted wing.:)
From what I know of the topic (disclaimer: not a whole lot), the general rules are as follows:
IT'S OKAY IF... -Both people are under 18 and there's less than a two-year difference between them (i.e. 16yr old and 14yr old is okay; 16yr old and 13yr old is not) -Both people are over 18
otherwise it's bad. My girlfriend is 3 days younger than me. Had we been going out two years ago, I would not have been legally allowed to have sexual contact with her during those three days after my birthday but before hers. I strongly disagree with this, but understand why it's there.
It's been said, but I'll say it again - the author was trying to find the computers that "...had the biggest impact on the way people use computers in their homes today". Fairly straightforward, I think.
(and why do you americans keep making lists?)
Besides the potential marketing perspective ("Do all 10 share a trait or three? If so, if we incorporate said trait(s) in OUR next machine..."), they're fun to read and reminesce over.
I used to have my Dad's old Newton (I've since passed it down to my younger brother), and I have to say I agree. It's got sound output, incredible handwriting recognition software (NOT Graffiti, either), an infrared transender, and a lot of other nifty features that it took the rest of the computing world how many more years? to come out with. Bravo.
Actually, that should at least get a "funny", considering that "Amiga Rulez" was one of the comments the article's author mentioned receiving a lot of. My belief is that the OP was just being silly:)
I'd have to agree. The iMac had influence even beyond the field of computers - at the Target store I work at (general merchandise retailer, for you non-Americans:), we sell colored irons, grills, glasses, and everything else you can think of.
The iMac also helped to jumpstart the USB industry by only having USB ports - thus creating demand for USB floppy drives (which had the biggest demand by a HUGE margin), printers, keyboards, mice, and joysticks.
why would you walk into a theatre with a camcorder if you weren't planning to record the movie?
if you actually had a legitimate reason for having it (i can't think of any, but let's assume that there is one for the sake of argument), i'm sure the theatre management would be more than happy to hold the camcorder and/or the batteries for you for the duration of the film. Or check it before and after. Or something.
Perhaps the person doing the recording is a selfish bastard who wishes only to keep a copy for themself. Or maybe they'll just share it with their friends. There's plenty of other possibilities besides the one you reference. Yes, yours is a valid one, but there is ALWAYS another view to look at.
I'm fairly confident that if they cannot prove you were using, or intended to use, it for illegal purposes, you'd be fine. INAL, though, so I could be wrong.
what i was hoping to imply was that to me, there was no question about how it was stealing, and since stealing is illegal, recording from a movie theatre would also be illegal.
It is discrimination to not allow you to record. Not all people have equal powers of memory, thus if you have more trouble remembering a good part of a movie, you should get an equal chance to recall it compared to someone who has a better memory. Other wise you have to pay more for less.
...no. That's simply wrong. See, it's really a simple process: if you KNOW that you have difficulty remembering things, then you shouldn't spend money to see something you have a good chance of forgetting. Wait until it comes out on VHS or DVD. Then you can watch it over and over again, legally, for just one purchase price.
I had actually thought that this was already a law. I mean, at each and every live theatre preformance I've attended, before the show starts, we are told that all recording devices are to be shut off and put away at this time. I assume that failure to comply will result in eviction. Why wouldn't or shouldn't it be the same in a movie theatre?
As I understand it, a helicopter's main rotor blades are angled so as to produce lift (i.e. you can't pull the helicopter up by just slicing through the air, you have to DO something with it). That part makes sense. It'd look like a ceiling fan.
The plane only has two blades in chopper-mode, from what I can tell. If you look at a ceiling fan with four blades or more, you'll notice an immediate problem with this: While each blade is tilted in the same clockwise/counterclockwise direction as the others, the opposing pairs' tilts oppose each other.
I know I'm not making a lot of sense here, but lemme try and pull this off with some amount of poise - how come the plane isn't continuously doing barrel rolls while flying? Can the rotor blades/wings be rotated independently of each other?
This is acomplished by putting extremely large propeller (turboprop) engines on the end of the wings. The largest damn propellers you are ever going to see. The ends of the wings actually rotate 90 degrees to facilitate take off and landings.
OHHHHH...yeah, I remember some of it now. Guess I'm more of a visual thinker than I thought:-\
could just be that i'm misremembering - heck, i have trouble remembering what i had for dinner last night, let alone a news story from a couple years back...:-\
That's a rather odd viewpoint to have - it sounds about the same as "I love how the recruitment posters just have to include one of these soldiers shooting a rifle" to me. The plane is being designed for MILITARY use. This means that people are going to be taking potshots at it whether its manned or not. That picture, in particular, depicts the manned version of the Dragonfly. Would you really want to send a soldier into hostile territory without some kind of defense? I don't think that's the kind of move the government wants to try. Nor would the government want to lose a multi-million dollar drone if it could avoid doing so by giving it something to hit back with, eh?
Slashdot Mirror
that'd be the one, yes. :-\
and things can be funny without being TRULY funny - there's sick funny, geek funny, prepubescent funny (boobies! BAHAHAHA!), etc. Truly funny things transcend genres.
i don't think anything like this will ever be truly funny. i mean, the heisenburg isn't truly funny.
;)
now dead babie jokes - THOSE are funny. know what the difference is between a pile of dead babies and a ferarri?
There's not a ferarri in my garage
my mirror is just of the .zip file, which contains the thumbs and html stuff. None of the big jpgs are there, as far as i can tell. just so you know.
Mirrored here - I'm not sure what my school's server can take, though, so please don't hurt it too bad :)
Looks like his web server's made of Lego too.
:)
Well, this might be a tad too literal, but hey. A Lego Case Mod is still pretty cool, right?
hehe - http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=40 1825 - it's a monkey :)
mebee he gets a special discount for bulk orders?
Well, I'll grant that I certainly didn't ask my question well :)
:)
I was wondering how the plane is able to fly straight in plane mode, given that the blade/wing on the left will be tilted down and the one on the right will be tilted up (or vice versa) - I don't think it'd do barrel rolls as I originally stated, but I think there'd be a definite tendency to fly in circles due to the unaerodynamicness of the improperly tilted wing.
the wing doesn't rotate when it's not in plane mode, i don't think.
From what I know of the topic (disclaimer: not a whole lot), the general rules are as follows:
IT'S OKAY IF...
-Both people are under 18 and there's less than a two-year difference between them (i.e. 16yr old and 14yr old is okay; 16yr old and 13yr old is not)
-Both people are over 18
otherwise it's bad. My girlfriend is 3 days younger than me. Had we been going out two years ago, I would not have been legally allowed to have sexual contact with her during those three days after my birthday but before hers. I strongly disagree with this, but understand why it's there.
somebody explain this to me!
It's been said, but I'll say it again - the author was trying to find the computers that "...had the biggest impact on the way people use computers in their homes today". Fairly straightforward, I think.
(and why do you americans keep making lists?)
Besides the potential marketing perspective ("Do all 10 share a trait or three? If so, if we incorporate said trait(s) in OUR next machine..."), they're fun to read and reminesce over.
I used to have my Dad's old Newton (I've since passed it down to my younger brother), and I have to say I agree. It's got sound output, incredible handwriting recognition software (NOT Graffiti, either), an infrared transender, and a lot of other nifty features that it took the rest of the computing world how many more years? to come out with. Bravo.
Actually, that should at least get a "funny", considering that "Amiga Rulez" was one of the comments the article's author mentioned receiving a lot of. My belief is that the OP was just being silly :)
I'd have to agree. The iMac had influence even beyond the field of computers - at the Target store I work at (general merchandise retailer, for you non-Americans :), we sell colored irons, grills, glasses, and everything else you can think of.
The iMac also helped to jumpstart the USB industry by only having USB ports - thus creating demand for USB floppy drives (which had the biggest demand by a HUGE margin), printers, keyboards, mice, and joysticks.
why would you walk into a theatre with a camcorder if you weren't planning to record the movie?
if you actually had a legitimate reason for having it (i can't think of any, but let's assume that there is one for the sake of argument), i'm sure the theatre management would be more than happy to hold the camcorder and/or the batteries for you for the duration of the film. Or check it before and after. Or something.
Perhaps the person doing the recording is a selfish bastard who wishes only to keep a copy for themself. Or maybe they'll just share it with their friends. There's plenty of other possibilities besides the one you reference. Yes, yours is a valid one, but there is ALWAYS another view to look at.
I'm fairly confident that if they cannot prove you were using, or intended to use, it for illegal purposes, you'd be fine. INAL, though, so I could be wrong.
heh - sorry, i guess that was a bit unclear.
:)
what i was hoping to imply was that to me, there was no question about how it was stealing, and since stealing is illegal, recording from a movie theatre would also be illegal.
Hope that works better
It is discrimination to not allow you to record. Not all people have equal powers of memory, thus if you have more trouble remembering a good part of a movie, you should get an equal chance to recall it compared to someone who has a better memory. Other wise you have to pay more for less.
...no. That's simply wrong. See, it's really a simple process: if you KNOW that you have difficulty remembering things, then you shouldn't spend money to see something you have a good chance of forgetting. Wait until it comes out on VHS or DVD. Then you can watch it over and over again, legally, for just one purchase price.
I had actually thought that this was already a law. I mean, at each and every live theatre preformance I've attended, before the show starts, we are told that all recording devices are to be shut off and put away at this time. I assume that failure to comply will result in eviction. Why wouldn't or shouldn't it be the same in a movie theatre?
As I understand it, a helicopter's main rotor blades are angled so as to produce lift (i.e. you can't pull the helicopter up by just slicing through the air, you have to DO something with it). That part makes sense. It'd look like a ceiling fan.
The plane only has two blades in chopper-mode, from what I can tell. If you look at a ceiling fan with four blades or more, you'll notice an immediate problem with this: While each blade is tilted in the same clockwise/counterclockwise direction as the others, the opposing pairs' tilts oppose each other.
I know I'm not making a lot of sense here, but lemme try and pull this off with some amount of poise - how come the plane isn't continuously doing barrel rolls while flying? Can the rotor blades/wings be rotated independently of each other?
This is acomplished by putting extremely large propeller (turboprop) engines on the end of the wings. The largest damn propellers you are ever going to see. The ends of the wings actually rotate 90 degrees to facilitate take off and landings.
:-\
OHHHHH...yeah, I remember some of it now. Guess I'm more of a visual thinker than I thought
Curse you and your ability to get to the point quickly and concisly! (see here and compare post times ;)
could just be that i'm misremembering - heck, i have trouble remembering what i had for dinner last night, let alone a news story from a couple years back... :-\
That's a rather odd viewpoint to have - it sounds about the same as "I love how the recruitment posters just have to include one of these soldiers shooting a rifle" to me. The plane is being designed for MILITARY use. This means that people are going to be taking potshots at it whether its manned or not. That picture, in particular, depicts the manned version of the Dragonfly. Would you really want to send a soldier into hostile territory without some kind of defense? I don't think that's the kind of move the government wants to try. Nor would the government want to lose a multi-million dollar drone if it could avoid doing so by giving it something to hit back with, eh?