Where I went to there were quite a few official/school robot projects/teams and various ones started by students (some of which had school funding). If you go to college you may try looking around and see if any exist, they may be happy to let you on even if you don't know much. Do keep in mind that if they let you do anything important (ie: not the code/soldering monkey) don't hold high hopes for the project getting far.
Also if its a student run team with nothing solid pushing them (ie: failing a class if it doesn't work, an angry professor) then there may be a problem with things getting done (schoolwork, more important activities, etc.). On the plus side if you do dedicate your time to such a team you may very well get to do anything you want without paying for anything. Just don't take it too seriously in such cases; last time I did I got a non-working robot (it was for a competition)), 4 days without sleep and 4 days of telling people what to do while getting gradually more angry and annoyed (I became the de-facto leader of the team I think as I think I was the only one who knew how everything worked).
It occurred to me that you may not understand a very simple concept I am using so let me explain: the heat lighbulbs generate does not come about from some magic process. It comes from electricity just as the light does; as a result that heating is equivalent to any other form of electric heating although with sub-optimal placement. You are in essence paying some large percentage of the cost of running a lighbulb to pay for that heating. It's not free; you pay for it and pay more for it than other forms of heating (due to placement and using electricity).
The new efficient lighbubls will not have this added cost. As a result you can use the money saved, in other words the money not spent to pay for the electricity which generates the heat, to run a more cost efficient heating system. Even a well placed electric heater will be more efficient, by placement alone, however I assume that other forms of heating (oil, gas) will save even more money over lightbulb heating. As you already have a heating system, most likely well placed and designed, you will simply need to run it a bit more.
4- "your heater"???? IT'S AN ADDED HEAT SOURCE! Sheesh, for the THIRD TIME! Not "the" heat source, the lights chip in. Chip. In. As in "contribute".
And I nicely explained why that statement is utterly stupid already; you will SAVE money on heating by changing to more efficient lighbulbs. While you will need to run your other heating system more it costs less to heat your house using that non-lightbulb source. The energy/money saved by new efficient lighbulbs will more than offset the extra cost.
I love how you're simply digging yourself into a deeper and deeper hole with every reply. Did you simply not understand my previous post or something? If that's the case I'm sorry for overestimating your mental capacity, I'll be sure to use smaller words and simpler logic in future replies.
Ah... *sigh*, third time I've said this, think it's gonna be enough to stop the flood of assine reply based on the erroneous assumption that I'm using lightbulbs as the single heating system? Ya think?
Are you simply illiterate or something, I even assumed you have a much more efficient heating source in your house. The only way your argument makes is IF light bulbs are your only source of heating.
Wow, some people just lack any common sense or ability to think. Let's say a 75W light bulb produced 50W of heat in its very inefficient location using equally inefficient (price wise) electricity for heating. So now the new light bulb doesn't produce any, but instead you need to supply those extra say 25W of heating (remember light bulbs are not positioned for optimal heating) using your conventional, and less expensive/W, heating system. So if before you paid $1 to run the light bulb, you now will spend 0.33 for the new light bulb and maybe $0.20 for the extra heating resulting in a saving of 50% or so.
You probably have a "communcator" in your pocket right now - don't you?
That your argument? One device which is in hundreds of science fiction, fantasy and god knows what books and movies?
We have now teleported particles - one at a time, albiet;)
Given that the teleporter was in Star Trek because shuttle landings cost too much money to film you're not making a good case for yourself at all. Again most of fantasy has some teleportation in it.
String theory and loop quantum gravity theory don't seem to mind the idea of warp or hyperspace either - but I will admit that those two theories are both pretty fantastic in and of themselves.
Yay to miss the point, have you even watched star trek? The original one was pure space opera, because we all know you'll find gangsters and roman gladiators on every other planet. The other poster got it perfectly regarding the new series, its pure BS wrapped in a light science coating. If you say enough random crap some of it will look almost but not quite like reality, doesn't make it at all scientific just a lot of BS.
I agree, Star Trek is not "hard sci-fi" like Stephen Baxter. But nonetheless, there is a scientific basis for the vast majority of their technologies.
There is hard science fiction, there is soft science fiction and then there is star trek.
Scientific basis requires thinking "science says X, what if I extend it." Star Trek is "I want X to happen, how can I make it look like science" or in some cases "how can I explain X using pseudo-scientific terms" (ie: how to make the original star trek make any sense at all). Or in other cases it's "I read about this cool thing X, let me disregard most of the science behind it or the broad ranging implications of including it and just shove it in as a plot point then forget about it."
Star Trek and the like are at least Science Fiction: not based upon the supernatural, but instead upon testable, and currently tested theories and ideas.
Star Trek based on science? Muahahahah, *wipes eye* that was hilarious. It's like the definition of unrealistic and unscientific sci-fi, a fantasy series with a weak blanket of "science" shoved on top.
It's everything else that you need to deal with that's hard. Quite a few people don't edit wikipedia even though they can because of all the crap that is involved (making your addition grammatically correct, stylistically correct, NPOV correct then dealing with potential reversion wars, justifying what you post, not upsetting people with too much free time, not posting links that people don't like,etc.). Look in the comments section of some articles, people post things there instead of the main article probably due to intimidation and assume someone who knows more will add it in.
Also for those people for whom the web isn't and has never been an important part of their lives getting to that edit button is also problem.
That's like saying we should never have appeals for executions since most of the people there are guilty, why care about the few who aren't. Your argument is idiotic, the exceptions are there for a reason and it's a good reason. The end result is that you stop all the legitimate fair use and the pirates still get their free copy.
Or they're just utterly confused at what drugs caused a large company to perform such a counter-productive and down-right idiotic stunt. There is fun and there is stupid, they are not the same except to some teenagers (including mental teenagers no matter the age).
1) He hasn't had to reverse a linked list in 23 years. 2) There are framework functions to reverse a linked list. Who cares how they work.
It's an easy problem, being unable to solve it without pre-made functions shows an inability for critical thinking. Heck the question is more valid for experienced programmers as out of college students will have it memorized not have to derive it on the spot.
Another good one is Sea3D (http://www.s3dconnector.net/) althrough the makers are making a new version from the ground up atm (last I heard they've got a workign version of that, mostly).
No, what I'm saying is that children challenge a parent in ways that are unforseen and unexplainable. What I'm saying is that the act of being responsible for another persons life and existence from day 1 makes you grow, change, and mature. What I'm saying is that raising a child was a bigger learning experience in my life then 4 years of college and 3 years in the USMC combined.
What I'm saying is exactly what I said: Your perspective on things changes.
Ah but none of those require one to be a parent, simply to have known responsibility and even observing it yields very similar information. As I said in my post, being a parent may very well make you LESS able to discuss this issue correctly. While you do have some extra knowledge it is mired with your own perceptive of things, ego and emotions. Your view of things is constricted and narrowed as a result, and will be for many years to come. It seems that parents also become often enough obsessive over their children's short term "safety" without realizing the potential long term dangers such actions may cause.
Re-read the first line of my post. Your perspective on this changes as you raise a child. All this post has done is further cement the accuracy of that statement.
Give it up.
So you're saying that once you have a child you will have an emotional vested interest which keeps you from being able to logically consider the situation and find the best solution (instead going for the one that makes you feel most fuzzy inside even if not best for the child)?
and apparently your never heard that the failure rate of pretty much all contraceptives is five times higher amoung teens than non-teens.
Nothing magical about them being teens, simply that they used them improperly. Most likely they had shit for sex-ed and never learned in the first place.
All Shanho and the others are advocating is taking some reasonable precautions as opposed to simply releasing your child into the wild and hoping for the best.
Honestly if you can't trust your kids and they can't trust you then restrictions won't do much.
That's not to say that many parents don't go too far but simply requiring the bedroom remain open is hardly a case of extreme parental control.
The kid will simply have sex someplace else, I remember quite a few cases of that in my HS bathrooms.
Well I'd damn well make sure my daughter knows about safe sex. It's not like I can really stop her from having sex if she really wants to, the most one can do is to limit the bad that can ahppen and try to be aware of what is going on. And honestly if I had a daughter I'd prefer she fuck some 16 year old than some 25 year old in a motel room.
Psychologically and neurologically the brain is not mature till around 20 or a bit after, so using 18 is rather arsine from a scientific point of view. From what I've seen 18 is NOT the average for maturity, ever seen how college students act?
With all the work-a-holics and lottery players in the US money seems to be very important. It's also the most logical of all those things to desire. Even if, like me, you have little current need for money itself (ie: don't need to buy/want to buy expensive things, etc.) it still provides a security blanket. If shit hits the fan the more money you have the better your chances of getting through things.
Seems to have done the same in the past (ie: RTFA), and I remember that when he "published" his proof of the Poincare conjecture he did so with minimal fanfare (ie: dumped it on his website and ignored questions about it). It's odd only because most people want to be famous, make lots of money, be respected, be well known and so on even if they claim the contrary. I guess for this guy match is all that matters and everything else would just be a distraction.
Apple was smart to have left it out of OS X, and Microsoft should have left it out of Win95, or killed it with XP.
A lot of people use 1024x768 monitors and maximizing is darn useful, and many more were using them when XP came out.
For the first week, it's annoying to drag the corners of the windows around, until you realize how much more productive you can be by having two pieces of work side-by-side.
Which is annoying given the size of the average persons monitor.
Heck, even for single-tasking, multiple windows are great. If I'm writing a research paper on Shakespeare, I can have a copy of Hamlet open right alongside the paper for quick reference and easy quotations.
And that is why I use dual monitors, no need to deal with crap like aligning windows and so on. One click and it moves to the other monitor.
Both completly suck compared to overhead slides writen by hand.
My experience is that overhead slides are usually barely worth anything, as the effort to update/re-do them is such that they're sub-par in design and presentation.
Slashdot Mirror
Where I went to there were quite a few official/school robot projects/teams and various ones started by students (some of which had school funding). If you go to college you may try looking around and see if any exist, they may be happy to let you on even if you don't know much. Do keep in mind that if they let you do anything important (ie: not the code/soldering monkey) don't hold high hopes for the project getting far.
Also if its a student run team with nothing solid pushing them (ie: failing a class if it doesn't work, an angry professor) then there may be a problem with things getting done (schoolwork, more important activities, etc.). On the plus side if you do dedicate your time to such a team you may very well get to do anything you want without paying for anything. Just don't take it too seriously in such cases; last time I did I got a non-working robot (it was for a competition)), 4 days without sleep and 4 days of telling people what to do while getting gradually more angry and annoyed (I became the de-facto leader of the team I think as I think I was the only one who knew how everything worked).
It will still cost at least $50/lb to get things into space, so shipping it there will be downright cheap.
It occurred to me that you may not understand a very simple concept I am using so let me explain: the heat lighbulbs generate does not come about from some magic process. It comes from electricity just as the light does; as a result that heating is equivalent to any other form of electric heating although with sub-optimal placement. You are in essence paying some large percentage of the cost of running a lighbulb to pay for that heating. It's not free; you pay for it and pay more for it than other forms of heating (due to placement and using electricity).
The new efficient lighbubls will not have this added cost. As a result you can use the money saved, in other words the money not spent to pay for the electricity which generates the heat, to run a more cost efficient heating system. Even a well placed electric heater will be more efficient, by placement alone, however I assume that other forms of heating (oil, gas) will save even more money over lightbulb heating. As you already have a heating system, most likely well placed and designed, you will simply need to run it a bit more.
4- "your heater"???? IT'S AN ADDED HEAT SOURCE! Sheesh, for the THIRD TIME! Not "the" heat source, the lights chip in. Chip. In. As in "contribute".
And I nicely explained why that statement is utterly stupid already; you will SAVE money on heating by changing to more efficient lighbulbs. While you will need to run your other heating system more it costs less to heat your house using that non-lightbulb source. The energy/money saved by new efficient lighbulbs will more than offset the extra cost.
I love how you're simply digging yourself into a deeper and deeper hole with every reply. Did you simply not understand my previous post or something? If that's the case I'm sorry for overestimating your mental capacity, I'll be sure to use smaller words and simpler logic in future replies.
Ah... *sigh*, third time I've said this, think it's gonna be enough to stop the flood of assine reply based on the erroneous assumption that I'm using lightbulbs as the single heating system? Ya think?
Are you simply illiterate or something, I even assumed you have a much more efficient heating source in your house. The only way your argument makes is IF light bulbs are your only source of heating.
Wow, some people just lack any common sense or ability to think. Let's say a 75W light bulb produced 50W of heat in its very inefficient location using equally inefficient (price wise) electricity for heating. So now the new light bulb doesn't produce any, but instead you need to supply those extra say 25W of heating (remember light bulbs are not positioned for optimal heating) using your conventional, and less expensive/W, heating system. So if before you paid $1 to run the light bulb, you now will spend 0.33 for the new light bulb and maybe $0.20 for the extra heating resulting in a saving of 50% or so.
Yup but don't forget natural gas (~50% coal, ~20% nuclear, ~16% natural gas, ~8% hydro, ~1-2% oil).
You probably have a "communcator" in your pocket right now - don't you?
;)
That your argument? One device which is in hundreds of science fiction, fantasy and god knows what books and movies?
We have now teleported particles - one at a time, albiet
Given that the teleporter was in Star Trek because shuttle landings cost too much money to film you're not making a good case for yourself at all. Again most of fantasy has some teleportation in it.
String theory and loop quantum gravity theory don't seem to mind the idea of warp or hyperspace either - but I will admit that those two theories are both pretty fantastic in and of themselves.
Yay to miss the point, have you even watched star trek? The original one was pure space opera, because we all know you'll find gangsters and roman gladiators on every other planet. The other poster got it perfectly regarding the new series, its pure BS wrapped in a light science coating. If you say enough random crap some of it will look almost but not quite like reality, doesn't make it at all scientific just a lot of BS.
I agree, Star Trek is not "hard sci-fi" like Stephen Baxter. But nonetheless, there is a scientific basis for the vast majority of their technologies.
There is hard science fiction, there is soft science fiction and then there is star trek.
Scientific basis requires thinking "science says X, what if I extend it." Star Trek is "I want X to happen, how can I make it look like science" or in some cases "how can I explain X using pseudo-scientific terms" (ie: how to make the original star trek make any sense at all). Or in other cases it's "I read about this cool thing X, let me disregard most of the science behind it or the broad ranging implications of including it and just shove it in as a plot point then forget about it."
Star Trek and the like are at least Science Fiction: not based upon the supernatural, but instead upon testable, and currently tested theories and ideas.
Star Trek based on science? Muahahahah, *wipes eye* that was hilarious. It's like the definition of unrealistic and unscientific sci-fi, a fantasy series with a weak blanket of "science" shoved on top.
pressing the edit button on Wikipedia isn't.
,etc.). Look in the comments section of some articles, people post things there instead of the main article probably due to intimidation and assume someone who knows more will add it in.
It's everything else that you need to deal with that's hard. Quite a few people don't edit wikipedia even though they can because of all the crap that is involved (making your addition grammatically correct, stylistically correct, NPOV correct then dealing with potential reversion wars, justifying what you post, not upsetting people with too much free time, not posting links that people don't like
Also for those people for whom the web isn't and has never been an important part of their lives getting to that edit button is also problem.
That's like saying we should never have appeals for executions since most of the people there are guilty, why care about the few who aren't. Your argument is idiotic, the exceptions are there for a reason and it's a good reason. The end result is that you stop all the legitimate fair use and the pirates still get their free copy.
Or they're just utterly confused at what drugs caused a large company to perform such a counter-productive and down-right idiotic stunt. There is fun and there is stupid, they are not the same except to some teenagers (including mental teenagers no matter the age).
1) He hasn't had to reverse a linked list in 23 years.
2) There are framework functions to reverse a linked list. Who cares how they work.
It's an easy problem, being unable to solve it without pre-made functions shows an inability for critical thinking. Heck the question is more valid for experienced programmers as out of college students will have it memorized not have to derive it on the spot.
Another good one is Sea3D (http://www.s3dconnector.net/) althrough the makers are making a new version from the ground up atm (last I heard they've got a workign version of that, mostly).
No, what I'm saying is that children challenge a parent in ways that are unforseen and unexplainable. What I'm saying is that the act of being responsible for another persons life and existence from day 1 makes you grow, change, and mature. What I'm saying is that raising a child was a bigger learning experience in my life then 4 years of college and 3 years in the USMC combined.
What I'm saying is exactly what I said: Your perspective on things changes.
Ah but none of those require one to be a parent, simply to have known responsibility and even observing it yields very similar information. As I said in my post, being a parent may very well make you LESS able to discuss this issue correctly. While you do have some extra knowledge it is mired with your own perceptive of things, ego and emotions. Your view of things is constricted and narrowed as a result, and will be for many years to come. It seems that parents also become often enough obsessive over their children's short term "safety" without realizing the potential long term dangers such actions may cause.
Re-read the first line of my post. Your perspective on this changes as you raise a child. All this post has done is further cement the accuracy of that statement.
Give it up.
So you're saying that once you have a child you will have an emotional vested interest which keeps you from being able to logically consider the situation and find the best solution (instead going for the one that makes you feel most fuzzy inside even if not best for the child)?
and apparently your never heard that the failure rate of pretty much all contraceptives is five times higher amoung teens than non-teens.
Nothing magical about them being teens, simply that they used them improperly. Most likely they had shit for sex-ed and never learned in the first place.
All Shanho and the others are advocating is taking some reasonable precautions as opposed to simply releasing your child into the wild and hoping for the best.
Honestly if you can't trust your kids and they can't trust you then restrictions won't do much.
That's not to say that many parents don't go too far but simply requiring the bedroom remain open is hardly a case of extreme parental control.
The kid will simply have sex someplace else, I remember quite a few cases of that in my HS bathrooms.
Well I'd damn well make sure my daughter knows about safe sex. It's not like I can really stop her from having sex if she really wants to, the most one can do is to limit the bad that can ahppen and try to be aware of what is going on. And honestly if I had a daughter I'd prefer she fuck some 16 year old than some 25 year old in a motel room.
Psychologically and neurologically the brain is not mature till around 20 or a bit after, so using 18 is rather arsine from a scientific point of view. From what I've seen 18 is NOT the average for maturity, ever seen how college students act?
With all the work-a-holics and lottery players in the US money seems to be very important. It's also the most logical of all those things to desire. Even if, like me, you have little current need for money itself (ie: don't need to buy/want to buy expensive things, etc.) it still provides a security blanket. If shit hits the fan the more money you have the better your chances of getting through things.
Huh? When did I say anything to the contrary, seems like you're the dumbass here.
Seems to have done the same in the past (ie: RTFA), and I remember that when he "published" his proof of the Poincare conjecture he did so with minimal fanfare (ie: dumped it on his website and ignored questions about it). It's odd only because most people want to be famous, make lots of money, be respected, be well known and so on even if they claim the contrary. I guess for this guy match is all that matters and everything else would just be a distraction.
You have white space on the right if you use ANY resolution over 800x640, which is shitty design plain and simple.
Apple was smart to have left it out of OS X, and Microsoft should have left it out of Win95, or killed it with XP.
A lot of people use 1024x768 monitors and maximizing is darn useful, and many more were using them when XP came out.
For the first week, it's annoying to drag the corners of the windows around, until you realize how much more productive you can be by having two pieces of work side-by-side.
Which is annoying given the size of the average persons monitor.
Heck, even for single-tasking, multiple windows are great. If I'm writing a research paper on Shakespeare, I can have a copy of Hamlet open right alongside the paper for quick reference and easy quotations.
And that is why I use dual monitors, no need to deal with crap like aligning windows and so on. One click and it moves to the other monitor.
Even without that the site looks confusing and intimdiating at first look.
Both completly suck compared to overhead slides writen by hand.
My experience is that overhead slides are usually barely worth anything, as the effort to update/re-do them is such that they're sub-par in design and presentation.