Now, just give me a shotgun, a case of ammo, and a list of related addresses. It's about time we sent unsolicited E-Mailers some unsolicited lead pellets.
Does anyone have any sales figures on the original N-Gage? I can't imagine that the sales were decent enough that they felt they could give it another shot. Perhaps they just have a lot of extra money that they don't want to be burdened with. Money is a rather cumbersome thing for some people, I guess.
That's pretty damn shady... waiting for years, not mentioning a thing while your compression algorhythm becomes the standard, and only THEN informing people that you care about it. It seems like a pretty underhanded "get rich" scheme.
Hello. I have commandeered the only internet-capable computer in my country to relay this message. My operatives in your country reported to me this morning about your open-source project.
I will send you all of my top programmers to help you with development work right away. (They are adept at the state-of-the-art Pascal programming language) Expect a large, unmarked wooden crate to arrive at your house tomorrow. You may want to hose off the contents before opening the package.
Ah, it sounds like you're talking about the same thing I am a few posts below this. Yes, the tech for this was developed by the US at least 5 years ago, and probably much earlier. (the report, and the research I did, was back in 1999... who knows how long it had been in existence and "classified" before that)
I heard about this technology back in 1999, I had done a report on the unexposed spy technology of the United States. Those little buggers that they were holding in the picture closely resemble a prototype picture that I had found of the exact same kind of idea, being developed by US forces at that time.
The wingspan was similar (about 15 inches, if I remember correctly), and could be controlled remotely. A color video camera and microphone on the "plane" would record any needed information.
Another case of information sharing it seems. It's been about 5 years since I did that report, but I'll see if I can dig it up from the archives of my computer for the purposes of this conversation.
1337 nerds agree, the diameter of the Death Star would be nowhere *near* 100ft. According to one ultra-nerd site:
http://www.st-v-sw.net/STSWdeathstarsizes.html
Death Star I diameter: ~ 120km
Death Star II diameter: ~ 270km
... dear God, someone please Mod me down for posting that. I would delete this post and then shoot myself, but the humor of the fact that I took the time to find this information should be shared with the world. I'll just slink quietly away now...
... or God forbid, doable from a remote distance. I'm one of those people who tends to come awefully close to saying a lot of things that are better left unsaid...
Ah, very true as well! And for that matter, since he seems to be grabbing the windshield with his top hand, I could only imagine that the force being applied at that moment would have to result in the shattering of said windshield.
Ah, excellent! Lemme do some calculating... We'll estimate that it was on the average of the two values you gave, so let's say that the velocity was 35kph, or 9.7m/s.
(Walks downstairs to get his Physics textbook)
Okay... What we have here is an interaction between two rigid bodies. (Hmm, I went back to watch the video one more time before doing the calculations... seems the page doesn't exist any more... fascinating...) Anyways, from the point of impact the car seemed to move about a car length (about 4.7 meters) in about 1.5 seconds.
4.7m = 9.7m/s*1.5s + 1/2(a)(1.5s^2)
That gives us, after some brief calculation, a net acceleration of -8.75m/s^2 for the length of the impact.
Let's examine the forces at work on the Jeep at the time of impact: -mg (gravity) and mg (the normal force) in the vertical direction; F(robot) and F(kinetic) in the horizontal direction.
Each of these can be used to determine the F(robot). First, we must find the force of gravity so that we can find the Normal Force. F(g) = mg = 1818kg * (-9.8m/s^2) = -17816N. Utilizing that, we can determine the normal force: F(N) = 17816N.
Excellent, now we can get the F(kin). F(kin) = -Mu * F(N) =.015 * 17816N = -268N... Note that I'm using.015 as the coefficient now, because I just realized that I should be using the "rolling friction" and not simple dragging "kinetic friction".
Now, let's find out what the Fnet should be for the X direction. Fnet = ma = 1818kg * -8.75m/s^2 = -15908N. Now, Fnet in the X direction also equals F(robot) + F(kin).
Okay, so the force of the Robot on the Car is -15640N, and Netwon's laws dictate that an equal but opposite force must be on the robot by the car. Therefore the force on the Robot's hand as he attempts to stop the car is 15640N.
Now let us examine, as a comparative force, if the car was instead dropped on the robot from directly above. Fnet then = ma = 1818 * -9.8m/s^2 = -17816.4N, relatively close in force to the force being applied on the robot's hand.
I'm fairly new to utilizing physics (I'm taking a class right now =) ), and as such I don't know how to calculate things like the bending or breaking of metal and such, so I'm using a thought experiment now. It's reasonable to believe that if the car was dropped on the robot, the robot would likely be (at least partially) crushed. Since almost the same amount of force occurs against the robot trying to stop the car, some sort of deformation should be taking place.
Anyone who does know the calculations that I don't can feel free to step in here and give us a more accurate value for this stuff... I also feel that the friction of the robot on the pavement plays some part in it, but I'm having a hard time seeing it any further, so I'm going to leave it at this thought experiment until someone with a greater knowledge of Physics can run with the problem from here.
Okay, check this one out: http://www.r50rd.co.uk/research/internal/v2i/engin/videos/light_test.htm
The difference in shadow casting between the two objects, when they are both at roughly the same location, is so dramatic that it could not possibly be anything but a hoax.
I had a really long post that I was going to type about disproving the "robot stopping the jeep" through some ideal physics calculations, but my computer locked up on me (and I was lacking an initial velocity value for the Jeep). However, if anyone's a Physics guru and wants to give it a go, I compiled some initial data for it:
Weight of Jeep: ~1800kg.
Weight of Robot (assuming it's still about the same weight as the car it was made from): ~1483kg.
Coefficient of Friction for Car on pavement:.8
Coefficient of Friction for robot on pavement: ??? (Anyone know the M Time before stop: ~1.5sec
So what we'd really need is the coeff. of Kinetic Friction for metal on pavement, the initial velocity of the Jeep, and... can't think of anything else. We could then figure out the force, under ideal conditions, that the robot must have been under. My wager is that the force would be significant. But the light difference, as shown in the video linked to above, is proof enough I think. I'll believe the Robot story when I physically touch the thing.
This is precisely the reason why civillians should have access to intercontinental Ballistic Missiles.
"What the hell's that Pepsi ad doing in my skyline?" (Takes aim, presses the big red button. Moments later, the Pepsi sign shatters to a million pieces) "Ah, that's more like it."
To me, it seems to be more of a speed thing. They use that giant RAMDrive to basically store all of the information that they might possibly need for the cross check. The information is checked at blazing speed, and when the processing is complete the info can simply be wiped from the RAMDrive or overwritten by other cross-check(s). That's what I meant by them using the drive more like a Cache, and why they'd want to use RAM, as well as why the drive probably isn't for permanent storage as much as temporary usage.
I just thought of another interesting point too... if it is being used as a cache instead of direct storage, there's a high potential for it being used for thousands to tens of thousands of cross checks at a time... just hold the individual cross-check data in different sections of the Solid State drive. That could be scary, as it could potentially mean the scanning of everyone in, say, an entire city, all at the same time. Perhaps even larger than a city-wide radius worth of people, it depends on how much data each individual cross-check would need. But imagine if that was possible - the Government could be scanning entire cities at a time, looking for people who show signs of... well... whatever they want to look for at the time, and in mere moments. If I may make another popular culture analogy, I'll point at the lidless, flame-wreathed Eye of Mordor.
... it sounds to me, based on the article, that the theoretical use for it would be more like a giant, freakin' enormous Cache system than an outright storage system. In otherwords, on the beginning of a query, all pertinent info is copied to the Solid State drive for analysis. There it is analyzed, and wanted data extracted at astoundingly fast speeds.
Perhaps we should begin to consider the implications of this step in analytical ability. Every techie knows that the Government (in cooperation with major Corporations) has had the methods in place to track individuals... RFID tags, GPS locating (in automobiles as well as hand held units. You can tell your position, but the position is also transmitted back... Five Star anyone?), Cell Phone triangulating, and thanks to the Patriot Act, the Government now has legal access to the records of pretty much any transaction we make with bookstores, libraries, etc (and probably more places as well... and this isn't even taking into account information that they might be recieving in ways that we do not know of).
The thing that (we shall assume) they didn't have before was the ability to instantaneously cross check this information. (I assume this because... well... why would they have bought the drive otherwise?) Now that they can check such information so quickly, will we be brought into an era of "Total Information Awareness" as the government spoke of not too long ago? Does this smell the same as the Thought Police to anyone else?
To me, this presents at least the intent by the government to achieve total information awareness, if it doesn't actually achieve it. And the intent is bad enough. Perhaps they're not reading our minds, but the ability to monitor our actions in such vast varities of levels comes pretty close to doing so.
Some of their stuff has been insightful. Unfortunately, a great deal has been admittedly "borrowed" from other ideas.
For instance, I like.Net too... unfortunately, much of it's structure comes from Java's libraries.
Windows itself is, in a way, innovative (discounting the fact that Windowed GUI programs are "borrowed" from... correct me if I'm wrong... was it Zerox? I can't remember the specific company), but only to the extent that it must be to even consider the next product a "new" product.
Now, you must understand as well, I don't consider MS's lack of innovation to be a bad move on their part. If I were them, i'd do the same thing... because in the end, the masses seem to pay for the familiar and rebuke the concept of constantly paying for innovation.
I hate to provide the counterpoint, however...
on
Is Windows Worth $45?
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Now, don't get me wrong. I'm prefixing this strongly, because it's important that people understand my position. I abhor Microsoft's practices, and detest their muscling around of other companies. Heck, Microsoft became a success due to what could be construed as Corporate Theft.
Now, that being said, I believe in the importance of stating valid arguments against Microsoft. There are many, MANY valid arguments that can be made against them, but the argument above is (sadly) not one of them.
When it comes to Operating Systems, especially ones that end users count on, innovation is detracting. A typical end user wants something predicatble, and above all, something that they don't have to reinstall, upgrade, or pay for in often occurring intervals.
The hardware industry gets away with innovation because they can appeal to 2 select groups of users that doesn't mind having to pay at closer intervals than the mainstream: gamers and high-end businesses. And through them, it filters down to the masses who are convinced by their zealousness that buying a new computer is good (when, most of the time, it's not needed).
Operating Systems don't have that luxury. How many things can one add to an operating system before A) You run out of things or B) You run out of things that won't put you into the realm of Monopolizing (for example, take the integrated Web Browser debate). Add those up, and it's hard to come up with reasons to innovate in the OS world.
Now some OSes are inclined to be more innovative. By design (and cost, if you consider that distributions can be downloaded for free), Linux can position themselves to be innovative, and often is. More reason to use them. But for Operating Systems that cost money, and already run the risk of Monopolization, it's just not a good idea.
Slashdot Mirror
ROFL!!!! Woulda been funnier if you said "1600 Pennsylvania Avenue", but I caught the reference =) =)
Now, just give me a shotgun, a case of ammo, and a list of related addresses. It's about time we sent unsolicited E-Mailers some unsolicited lead pellets.
Ouch... brutal. In all honesty, marketing a TI calculator as a game system would probably have sold more copies. =)
Does anyone have any sales figures on the original N-Gage? I can't imagine that the sales were decent enough that they felt they could give it another shot. Perhaps they just have a lot of extra money that they don't want to be burdened with. Money is a rather cumbersome thing for some people, I guess.
So it would be a half-human, half-machine cyborg? This is starting to sound familiar... your name doesn't happen to be Sarah Connor, is it?
That's pretty damn shady... waiting for years, not mentioning a thing while your compression algorhythm becomes the standard, and only THEN informing people that you care about it. It seems like a pretty underhanded "get rich" scheme.
I will send you all of my top programmers to help you with development work right away. (They are adept at the state-of-the-art Pascal programming language) Expect a large, unmarked wooden crate to arrive at your house tomorrow. You may want to hose off the contents before opening the package.
-Fidel
Ah, it sounds like you're talking about the same thing I am a few posts below this. Yes, the tech for this was developed by the US at least 5 years ago, and probably much earlier. (the report, and the research I did, was back in 1999... who knows how long it had been in existence and "classified" before that)
The wingspan was similar (about 15 inches, if I remember correctly), and could be controlled remotely. A color video camera and microphone on the "plane" would record any needed information.
Another case of information sharing it seems. It's been about 5 years since I did that report, but I'll see if I can dig it up from the archives of my computer for the purposes of this conversation.
the RIAA has made a cool 59 million $$$ just by intimidating end users. Ouch.
"Michael Jackson, spoiler of youthful innocence or child molester? You decide."
http://www.st-v-sw.net/STSWdeathstarsizes.html
Death Star I diameter: ~ 120km Death Star II diameter: ~ 270km
... or God forbid, doable from a remote distance. I'm one of those people who tends to come awefully close to saying a lot of things that are better left unsaid...
Ah, very true as well! And for that matter, since he seems to be grabbing the windshield with his top hand, I could only imagine that the force being applied at that moment would have to result in the shattering of said windshield.
(Walks downstairs to get his Physics textbook)
Okay... What we have here is an interaction between two rigid bodies. (Hmm, I went back to watch the video one more time before doing the calculations... seems the page doesn't exist any more... fascinating...) Anyways, from the point of impact the car seemed to move about a car length (about 4.7 meters) in about 1.5 seconds.
4.7m = 9.7m/s*1.5s + 1/2(a)(1.5s^2)
That gives us, after some brief calculation, a net acceleration of -8.75m/s^2 for the length of the impact.
Let's examine the forces at work on the Jeep at the time of impact: -mg (gravity) and mg (the normal force) in the vertical direction; F(robot) and F(kinetic) in the horizontal direction.
Each of these can be used to determine the F(robot). First, we must find the force of gravity so that we can find the Normal Force. F(g) = mg = 1818kg * (-9.8m/s^2) = -17816N. Utilizing that, we can determine the normal force: F(N) = 17816N.
Excellent, now we can get the F(kin). F(kin) = -Mu * F(N) = .015 * 17816N = -268N... Note that I'm using .015 as the coefficient now, because I just realized that I should be using the "rolling friction" and not simple dragging "kinetic friction".
Now, let's find out what the Fnet should be for the X direction. Fnet = ma = 1818kg * -8.75m/s^2 = -15908N. Now, Fnet in the X direction also equals F(robot) + F(kin).
-15908N = F(robot) - 268N. Therefore F(robot) = 15640N.
Okay, so the force of the Robot on the Car is -15640N, and Netwon's laws dictate that an equal but opposite force must be on the robot by the car. Therefore the force on the Robot's hand as he attempts to stop the car is 15640N.
Now let us examine, as a comparative force, if the car was instead dropped on the robot from directly above. Fnet then = ma = 1818 * -9.8m/s^2 = -17816.4N, relatively close in force to the force being applied on the robot's hand.
I'm fairly new to utilizing physics (I'm taking a class right now =) ), and as such I don't know how to calculate things like the bending or breaking of metal and such, so I'm using a thought experiment now. It's reasonable to believe that if the car was dropped on the robot, the robot would likely be (at least partially) crushed. Since almost the same amount of force occurs against the robot trying to stop the car, some sort of deformation should be taking place.
Anyone who does know the calculations that I don't can feel free to step in here and give us a more accurate value for this stuff... I also feel that the friction of the robot on the pavement plays some part in it, but I'm having a hard time seeing it any further, so I'm going to leave it at this thought experiment until someone with a greater knowledge of Physics can run with the problem from here.
The difference in shadow casting between the two objects, when they are both at roughly the same location, is so dramatic that it could not possibly be anything but a hoax.
I had a really long post that I was going to type about disproving the "robot stopping the jeep" through some ideal physics calculations, but my computer locked up on me (and I was lacking an initial velocity value for the Jeep). However, if anyone's a Physics guru and wants to give it a go, I compiled some initial data for it:
Weight of Jeep: ~1800kg.
Weight of Robot (assuming it's still about the same weight as the car it was made from): ~1483kg.
Coefficient of Friction for Car on pavement:
Coefficient of Friction for robot on pavement: ???
(Anyone know the M
Time before stop: ~1.5sec
So what we'd really need is the coeff. of Kinetic Friction for metal on pavement, the initial velocity of the Jeep, and... can't think of anything else. We could then figure out the force, under ideal conditions, that the robot must have been under. My wager is that the force would be significant. But the light difference, as shown in the video linked to above, is proof enough I think. I'll believe the Robot story when I physically touch the thing.
Google Atmosphere, of course, being an anti-satellite missile system.
I think it would be time for some Civil Disobedience. Perhaps this very scenario was what Thoreau was envisioning! ;)
"What the hell's that Pepsi ad doing in my skyline?" (Takes aim, presses the big red button. Moments later, the Pepsi sign shatters to a million pieces) "Ah, that's more like it."
(I type as I get up from the floor)
Then again, that would take everything out as well as the giant RAMDrive itself... but no one said the solution had to be elegant. ;)
I just thought of another interesting point too... if it is being used as a cache instead of direct storage, there's a high potential for it being used for thousands to tens of thousands of cross checks at a time... just hold the individual cross-check data in different sections of the Solid State drive. That could be scary, as it could potentially mean the scanning of everyone in, say, an entire city, all at the same time. Perhaps even larger than a city-wide radius worth of people, it depends on how much data each individual cross-check would need. But imagine if that was possible - the Government could be scanning entire cities at a time, looking for people who show signs of... well... whatever they want to look for at the time, and in mere moments. If I may make another popular culture analogy, I'll point at the lidless, flame-wreathed Eye of Mordor.
Perhaps we should begin to consider the implications of this step in analytical ability. Every techie knows that the Government (in cooperation with major Corporations) has had the methods in place to track individuals... RFID tags, GPS locating (in automobiles as well as hand held units. You can tell your position, but the position is also transmitted back... Five Star anyone?), Cell Phone triangulating, and thanks to the Patriot Act, the Government now has legal access to the records of pretty much any transaction we make with bookstores, libraries, etc (and probably more places as well... and this isn't even taking into account information that they might be recieving in ways that we do not know of).
The thing that (we shall assume) they didn't have before was the ability to instantaneously cross check this information. (I assume this because... well... why would they have bought the drive otherwise?) Now that they can check such information so quickly, will we be brought into an era of "Total Information Awareness" as the government spoke of not too long ago? Does this smell the same as the Thought Police to anyone else?
To me, this presents at least the intent by the government to achieve total information awareness, if it doesn't actually achieve it. And the intent is bad enough. Perhaps they're not reading our minds, but the ability to monitor our actions in such vast varities of levels comes pretty close to doing so.
For instance, I like .Net too... unfortunately, much of it's structure comes from Java's libraries.
Windows itself is, in a way, innovative (discounting the fact that Windowed GUI programs are "borrowed" from ... correct me if I'm wrong... was it Zerox? I can't remember the specific company), but only to the extent that it must be to even consider the next product a "new" product.
Now, you must understand as well, I don't consider MS's lack of innovation to be a bad move on their part. If I were them, i'd do the same thing... because in the end, the masses seem to pay for the familiar and rebuke the concept of constantly paying for innovation.
Now, don't get me wrong. I'm prefixing this strongly, because it's important that people understand my position. I abhor Microsoft's practices, and detest their muscling around of other companies. Heck, Microsoft became a success due to what could be construed as Corporate Theft.
Now, that being said, I believe in the importance of stating valid arguments against Microsoft. There are many, MANY valid arguments that can be made against them, but the argument above is (sadly) not one of them.
When it comes to Operating Systems, especially ones that end users count on, innovation is detracting. A typical end user wants something predicatble, and above all, something that they don't have to reinstall, upgrade, or pay for in often occurring intervals.
The hardware industry gets away with innovation because they can appeal to 2 select groups of users that doesn't mind having to pay at closer intervals than the mainstream: gamers and high-end businesses. And through them, it filters down to the masses who are convinced by their zealousness that buying a new computer is good (when, most of the time, it's not needed).
Operating Systems don't have that luxury. How many things can one add to an operating system before A) You run out of things or B) You run out of things that won't put you into the realm of Monopolizing (for example, take the integrated Web Browser debate). Add those up, and it's hard to come up with reasons to innovate in the OS world.
Now some OSes are inclined to be more innovative. By design (and cost, if you consider that distributions can be downloaded for free), Linux can position themselves to be innovative, and often is. More reason to use them. But for Operating Systems that cost money, and already run the risk of Monopolization, it's just not a good idea.