If you're going through all the trouble of building an articulating exoskeleton with most of the range of human motion, then why stuff and extra 80kg of meat-sac in it? Just replace the human with some remote controls and you can throw out all that inconvenient padding, air conditioning, and restrictions on G-forces. Then you basically have a land drone.
Eh, people who code multithreaded programs already feel like this is happening anyway, so this is just a special instance of a race condition for those guys =P
I'm assuming that congress is wrecking the USPS for the same reason Parliament is wrecking the Royal Mail, namely so they can prove their flawed ideology that all government run stuff must be bad and use that as an excuse to sell it off to some of their cronies.
Except you can't sell off the USPS without a constitutional amendment or a revolution because, you know, supreme law of the land and all that.
Obviously the moon was built, shaped, and positioned by an advanced galaxy-wide race of artificial intelligences that died off in a pan-galactic struggle against a genocidal race of usurpers over half a million years ago. It was positioned precisely to shield us from major meteor strikes and to create complete solar eclipses to encourage and foster our interest in space travel.
maybe we can make a ship that runs on helium 3! helium 3! its magic stuff!
You joke, but if it turns out to be a good fuel for fusion power plants it would be bordering on trivial to use it as a fusion power plant on a spaceship for an ion or plasma drive. If you have enough juice to power it just sling any old mass (water would probably work well) behind you after accelerating it to half the speed of light and you've got a pretty good thruster system. From that perspective it wouldn't matter if it took more energy to get the He3 to earth than you got out of it, if the energy you were burning to do it was cheap as hell because you fuel up in space.
More to the point we wouldn't have much use for that much energy to be used on the surface of the earth. I could see spaceships and all human activity reaching the petawatt range pretty easily, but it wouldn't all be dumped on Earth's surface.
Laws are essentially the terms of the social contract. We agree to be a part of society, as such we agree to abide by the laws put in place by our society. As with any other contract, violating the terms comes with certain consequences, but also as with civil contracts, these consequences only come about if someone notices/catches you/proves it.
The problem today is that scientists can't do anything without acceptance from the moral masses. Want to cure cancer, you can, just don't you dare have a cage full of diseased mice in your lab because that is wrong. Want to cure genetic diseases, you can, just don't you dare try to use stem cells because some people consider that abortion. Want to solve world hunger, you can, just don't you dare splice a tomato gene with an eggplant. Want to prove the world is round, you can, just be respectful of those that believe in 2000 years of lies and intolerance to truth.
I agree there are obvious scientific research that is immoral and unacceptable, but the problem now is that if this study is a truthful indication of the state of scientific research today, then science will fail, and with it, our civilization will collapse.
Why is it obviously immoral or unacceptable? Who is the arbiter of that? To an evangelical Christian using embryonic stem cells in genetic therapy research is "obviously" immoral. You're quibbling about where to draw the line. If you want to make an argument like that then you need to build a solid foundation to rest it on. You need a framework to go off of - and if that's not a religious framework then it needs to be a rigorous philosophical framework and you really need to get it accepted by the majority to have it fly. The big problem we're experiencing right at the moment is that we don't agree on the framework underpinning our moral philosophy. So what is fine and good for 20% of the population is abhorrent for another 20% who all want to do something that offends another 20%. Everyone wants to go their own way and chaos is resulting.
The etymology of the word traces back to the Latin adamantem, the singular of adamas meaning unbreakable or hardest iron. The Greeks apparently used it figuratively to describe someone's character. Source
That's the great thing about symbolic logic. It is a harsh, emotionless beast that does not care one whit for absurdities, and yet you can claim that bizarre statements are logically valid and be completely correct. Those who best (mis)use its power end up as politicians and lawyers.
In the instant case it translates roughly as (For all Females)(If (Female is cute, blonde, and co-worker) implies (Female worships poster)). This is perfectly valid for all cases where (Female is cute, blonde, and co-worker) is the null set because either False implies True or False implies False is correct, logically. You get away with it when no one calls you on it. A false premise always tautologically builds a correct and valid logical construct.
Honestly surviving single car collisions into (relatively) immobile objects has a lot more to do with crumple zone and energy dispersion than weight. If you go from 60 --> 0 in 0.1 s that's like 30g and will likely mess you up. If it's 60 --> 0 in 0.5s that's "only" 6g and more likely survivable. Weight doesn't factor in at all really.
My wife made what could be called an enchilasagna this week (though the recipe calls it the far more mild "enchilada casserole"), and I can tell you that it is absolutely the food of the gods themselves. If we show up to Mars and there turns out to be an advanced civilization living under the surface, enchilasagna could be our only hope of convincing them not to destroy us.
Where I live we hit 122 degrees in *June*. It was something like a 50-year record high. When people think of Southern California they forget that half of it is the frickin' Mojave Desert.
It goes in cycles. First we thought the sun went around the earth. Then we discovered that it makes more sense to view the earth as going around the sun. Then we progressed to realizing that the sun is really going around the galaxy every ~250 million years. Finally we came to the realization that, for certain reference frames, the sun *does* go around the earth, the maths are just much more difficult to work with. Similarly the earth is flat in the sense that its surface can be viewed as a two dimensional object and it is all confusingly dependent on how you look at it.
And companies are like raids. You've got your tank (CEO/General Manager), your healers (middle/front line management) and your DPS (worker bees). You don't want your best DPS trying to tank, even though he probably can a little, because he'll suck at it, he won't like it, and your raid will suffer because of it. Same thing with companies. You don't want to promote your most talented people to management positions because they're making you the best money where they are getting stuff done. Maybe pay them more if they're worth it, or offer other incentives (more vacation, free coffee, shorter days), but there's no shame in doing a job and doing it well for 40 years and then retiring.
You know, I thought about that, but two problems: model rocket motors are not very powerful. Your standard D12 motor is designed to output 12N of thrust. Your.25kg phone* +.25kg rocket** is being pulled to the earth with a force of (.5 * 9.8) = 4.9N. So you get a net upward thrust of 7.1N for right about 1.5s. For the hypothetical half-kilo load you get 14.2 m/s^2 for 1.5s. This gives you a max vertical distance (discounting wind resistance and suchlike) of d = 1/2(14.2)*((1.5)^2) = 7.1 * 2.25 = 15.975 ~= 16m. You could probably just throw it higher than that.
Model rockets use cardboard and balsa wood specifically to keep things as absolutely light as possible. If you get your weight down to say.1kg total then you're at ~120m and it looks really impressive.
*I know the iPhone weighs about half this much, it's just convenient for the number crunching, and results don't change substantially. **Because you would need special mounts and housing to keep the phone in place on the rocket. Maybe you could cut this in half by being clever, but again, not a huge change in the numbers.
Based on my limited understanding, proving P = NP would not necessarily and automatically provide a manner of constructing reductions. It might. But there are proofs in computation theory that demonstrate limit complexities but do not provide the algorithms that might implement them, nor do they (currently, visibly) provide any indication of how that algorithm may be arrived at.
You are technically correct, but certainly the quickest and most direct proof is to show a general solution for an NP-complete problem that runs in P time. And while proving P=NP would not necessarily provide the manner of constructing reductions in the general case, solving any NP-complete problem in P time does absolutely provide automatic solutions for *all* NP-complete problems in P time since, by definition, all NP-complete problems are reducible to each other. And factoring is an NP-complete problem.
In my understanding, the problem is that the spent shots that sit in waterways contaminate them. They can also be ingested by ducks, fish, etc. Then those critters get eaten and the lead bio-accumulates.
In California at least it is mandated that steel shot be used for duck hunting. I presume because of this very concern. It ends up about 3/4 the weight of lead shot in the same volume (so 3/4 oz. steel shot loads are similar in volume to 1 oz. lead shot loads), but it is just as satisfactorily lethal. Downside is that it's a good 20-30% more expensive.
If you're deer hunting with a slug I would argue that you're doing it wrong. They're less accurate over long ranges than a bullet fired from a proper rifle. Add in that the bullet is often jacketed and your lead exposure goes way down. In fact, lets just say no hunting deer with a 12 gauge in general.
Slashdot Mirror
If you're going through all the trouble of building an articulating exoskeleton with most of the range of human motion, then why stuff and extra 80kg of meat-sac in it? Just replace the human with some remote controls and you can throw out all that inconvenient padding, air conditioning, and restrictions on G-forces. Then you basically have a land drone.
Eh, people who code multithreaded programs already feel like this is happening anyway, so this is just a special instance of a race condition for those guys =P
hauntem? Sounds like a new Discovery Channel reality show.
I'm assuming that congress is wrecking the USPS for the same reason Parliament is wrecking the Royal Mail, namely so they can prove their flawed ideology that all government run stuff must be bad and use that as an excuse to sell it off to some of their cronies.
Except you can't sell off the USPS without a constitutional amendment or a revolution because, you know, supreme law of the land and all that.
If by Christmas presents you mean divorce papers, then yes, I expect they did find out early.
Obviously the moon was built, shaped, and positioned by an advanced galaxy-wide race of artificial intelligences that died off in a pan-galactic struggle against a genocidal race of usurpers over half a million years ago. It was positioned precisely to shield us from major meteor strikes and to create complete solar eclipses to encourage and foster our interest in space travel.
maybe we can make a ship that runs on helium 3! helium 3! its magic stuff!
You joke, but if it turns out to be a good fuel for fusion power plants it would be bordering on trivial to use it as a fusion power plant on a spaceship for an ion or plasma drive. If you have enough juice to power it just sling any old mass (water would probably work well) behind you after accelerating it to half the speed of light and you've got a pretty good thruster system. From that perspective it wouldn't matter if it took more energy to get the He3 to earth than you got out of it, if the energy you were burning to do it was cheap as hell because you fuel up in space.
More to the point we wouldn't have much use for that much energy to be used on the surface of the earth. I could see spaceships and all human activity reaching the petawatt range pretty easily, but it wouldn't all be dumped on Earth's surface.
Laws are essentially the terms of the social contract. We agree to be a part of society, as such we agree to abide by the laws put in place by our society. As with any other contract, violating the terms comes with certain consequences, but also as with civil contracts, these consequences only come about if someone notices/catches you/proves it.
The problem today is that scientists can't do anything without acceptance from the moral masses. Want to cure cancer, you can, just don't you dare have a cage full of diseased mice in your lab because that is wrong. Want to cure genetic diseases, you can, just don't you dare try to use stem cells because some people consider that abortion. Want to solve world hunger, you can, just don't you dare splice a tomato gene with an eggplant. Want to prove the world is round, you can, just be respectful of those that believe in 2000 years of lies and intolerance to truth.
I agree there are obvious scientific research that is immoral and unacceptable, but the problem now is that if this study is a truthful indication of the state of scientific research today, then science will fail, and with it, our civilization will collapse.
Why is it obviously immoral or unacceptable? Who is the arbiter of that? To an evangelical Christian using embryonic stem cells in genetic therapy research is "obviously" immoral. You're quibbling about where to draw the line. If you want to make an argument like that then you need to build a solid foundation to rest it on. You need a framework to go off of - and if that's not a religious framework then it needs to be a rigorous philosophical framework and you really need to get it accepted by the majority to have it fly. The big problem we're experiencing right at the moment is that we don't agree on the framework underpinning our moral philosophy. So what is fine and good for 20% of the population is abhorrent for another 20% who all want to do something that offends another 20%. Everyone wants to go their own way and chaos is resulting.
The etymology of the word traces back to the Latin adamantem, the singular of adamas meaning unbreakable or hardest iron. The Greeks apparently used it figuratively to describe someone's character. Source
That's the great thing about symbolic logic. It is a harsh, emotionless beast that does not care one whit for absurdities, and yet you can claim that bizarre statements are logically valid and be completely correct. Those who best (mis)use its power end up as politicians and lawyers.
In the instant case it translates roughly as (For all Females)(If (Female is cute, blonde, and co-worker) implies (Female worships poster)). This is perfectly valid for all cases where (Female is cute, blonde, and co-worker) is the null set because either False implies True or False implies False is correct, logically. You get away with it when no one calls you on it. A false premise always tautologically builds a correct and valid logical construct.
It really shouldn't come as a surprise that synthetic testosterone makes people more aggressive, since natural testosterone does the same thing.
Honestly surviving single car collisions into (relatively) immobile objects has a lot more to do with crumple zone and energy dispersion than weight. If you go from 60 --> 0 in 0.1 s that's like 30g and will likely mess you up. If it's 60 --> 0 in 0.5s that's "only" 6g and more likely survivable. Weight doesn't factor in at all really.
My wife made what could be called an enchilasagna this week (though the recipe calls it the far more mild "enchilada casserole"), and I can tell you that it is absolutely the food of the gods themselves. If we show up to Mars and there turns out to be an advanced civilization living under the surface, enchilasagna could be our only hope of convincing them not to destroy us.
Where I live we hit 122 degrees in *June*. It was something like a 50-year record high. When people think of Southern California they forget that half of it is the frickin' Mojave Desert.
It goes in cycles. First we thought the sun went around the earth. Then we discovered that it makes more sense to view the earth as going around the sun. Then we progressed to realizing that the sun is really going around the galaxy every ~250 million years. Finally we came to the realization that, for certain reference frames, the sun *does* go around the earth, the maths are just much more difficult to work with. Similarly the earth is flat in the sense that its surface can be viewed as a two dimensional object and it is all confusingly dependent on how you look at it.
And companies are like raids. You've got your tank (CEO/General Manager), your healers (middle/front line management) and your DPS (worker bees). You don't want your best DPS trying to tank, even though he probably can a little, because he'll suck at it, he won't like it, and your raid will suffer because of it. Same thing with companies. You don't want to promote your most talented people to management positions because they're making you the best money where they are getting stuff done. Maybe pay them more if they're worth it, or offer other incentives (more vacation, free coffee, shorter days), but there's no shame in doing a job and doing it well for 40 years and then retiring.
someone puts their phone in a model rocket
You know, I thought about that, but two problems: model rocket motors are not very powerful. Your standard D12 motor is designed to output 12N of thrust. Your .25kg phone* + .25kg rocket** is being pulled to the earth with a force of (.5 * 9.8) = 4.9N. So you get a net upward thrust of 7.1N for right about 1.5s. For the hypothetical half-kilo load you get 14.2 m/s^2 for 1.5s. This gives you a max vertical distance (discounting wind resistance and suchlike) of d = 1/2(14.2)*((1.5)^2) = 7.1 * 2.25 = 15.975 ~= 16m. You could probably just throw it higher than that.
Model rockets use cardboard and balsa wood specifically to keep things as absolutely light as possible. If you get your weight down to say .1kg total then you're at ~120m and it looks really impressive.
*I know the iPhone weighs about half this much, it's just convenient for the number crunching, and results don't change substantially.
**Because you would need special mounts and housing to keep the phone in place on the rocket. Maybe you could cut this in half by being clever, but again, not a huge change in the numbers.
Based on my limited understanding, proving P = NP would not necessarily and automatically provide a manner of constructing reductions. It might. But there are proofs in computation theory that demonstrate limit complexities but do not provide the algorithms that might implement them, nor do they (currently, visibly) provide any indication of how that algorithm may be arrived at.
You are technically correct, but certainly the quickest and most direct proof is to show a general solution for an NP-complete problem that runs in P time. And while proving P=NP would not necessarily provide the manner of constructing reductions in the general case, solving any NP-complete problem in P time does absolutely provide automatic solutions for *all* NP-complete problems in P time since, by definition, all NP-complete problems are reducible to each other. And factoring is an NP-complete problem.
Depleted uranium?
Or put the phone in airplane mode and start the app on takeoff. No fancy case required =)
In my understanding, the problem is that the spent shots that sit in waterways contaminate them. They can also be ingested by ducks, fish, etc. Then those critters get eaten and the lead bio-accumulates.
In California at least it is mandated that steel shot be used for duck hunting. I presume because of this very concern. It ends up about 3/4 the weight of lead shot in the same volume (so 3/4 oz. steel shot loads are similar in volume to 1 oz. lead shot loads), but it is just as satisfactorily lethal. Downside is that it's a good 20-30% more expensive.
If you're deer hunting with a slug I would argue that you're doing it wrong. They're less accurate over long ranges than a bullet fired from a proper rifle. Add in that the bullet is often jacketed and your lead exposure goes way down. In fact, lets just say no hunting deer with a 12 gauge in general.
8. Enslave foreign population living in your land.
9. Persecute them for 400 or so years.
10. Plagues