Just go back to nature, eschew all this horrible modern sanitation and antibiotics, they are all poisoning you. Of course you expected lifespan will be changed from ~80 to about 35, but at least you won't be destroying our precious internal ecosystem. Come on, take one for the team!
Or you know, you guys could just stop breaking shit up.
That's very insightful, because it was a real educational paradise before the US showed up. Unless you were a Christian. Or a Jew. Or a woman. Or believed in a slightly different form of Islam.
It's not just a matter of security. I would think you would want to verify, via some method (code review, etc) that the code is correct and provides the desired results, doesn't crash, is properly integrated, etc.
Something doesn't add up here. Why is i4i not simply willing to license the rights to use the patent to MS (for an exorbitant fee). Why ask for it to be removed? Seems like a license to print money.
It was terrible, but it wasn't even the worst Christmas special that year! That distinction goes to Shields and Yarnell at Disneyworld. Mimes, for God's sake!
It's the east coast bias, the same thing which makes a kitten getting stuck in a tree in the Bronx national news. There's a certain thing which seems to give them an undeserved sense of superiority.
Also why we always see Redskin, Cowboy, and Giants games disproportionately, no matter how miserable they all are.
Re:Eh, you give the answer. Food
on
A Requiem For Saab
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
What amuses me most is the episodes of myth-busters where they test fuel-efficiency myths in 3 ton gas guzzlers. That is because no american can drive anything less then a v8. Because you need those extra horsepowers if you ever need to accelarate fast for some idiotic safety reason (that you would accelerate faster in a lighter car with a better power to weight ratio is something no american can understand).
Once again, another moronic comment. Given that you actually do have to drive for long distances, as you note, you want the car to be the way it is. Included in those long distance drives are some interesting topological features we refer to as the Sierra Nevadas, the Wasatch range, the Rocky Mountains, the Siskyous, etc. Even in the middle of Nevada there are very long climbs up very long hills. You can get, say, a Chevy Monto Carlo with a V6. Start in Reno, drive to Salt Lake City on the interstate. About once an hour you will need to climb a big mountain you never heard of at 85 MPH. Please note your speed at the top of, say, Golconda Summit. If you don't blow the motor on the way up, presumably. Even better, drive the 40 miles from SLC to Park City. It will gut itself out for 15 straight minutes at 50 mph.
Yes, a very light Lotus Elise would have no problem climbing that hill with a 4-cylinder because it's light. But try doing that for 14-16 hours straight. For 2-3 days straight.
You guys have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. By the way, I do that trip 2-3 times a year in a Mazda mini-van, chosen because it has the best power-weight ratio and can climb the hills at full speed. And my other cars are a Lotus Esprit, a Porsche Cayman S, and until last wednesday, a Mustang Cobra SVT.
But what is it with Americans preferring numb cars that totally insulate them from what the car is doing? They all seem to like very mushy suspensions where the car tips around corners, and automatic transmissions. Then, because they drive very tippy cars with very high centre of gravity, they're deathly afraid of corners, and they nearly stop every time there's the slightest bend in the road.
Riiight - great insight there. Two important points - the US is *huge* and you try running across the country on I-80 with stiff springs. Its a little different from driving across whatever country you live in. That's also why you want cupholders - If you stop every 150 miles to get something to drink you won't get anywhere. Given good roads I could drive across Western Europe with no stops - my longest single stint is something like 525 miles with no stops. A 1200-mile day is not at all unusual, and then you get to do it again tomorrow. I just drove a European car 1900 miles on the interstate, and it was OK most of the time, then when going through LA I needed a kidney belt. Secondly - if American's loved squishy cars with super-soft suspension, how come GM, Ford, and Chrysler are going out of business? They can't give things like Monte Carlos away. If anybody wants a regular car, they get a Honda or Toyota.
I'm an American - and should you come around, I will happily do hot laps with you around a road course, and see how great you are.
To summarize - you don't know what the hell you are talking about.
This sort of BS analysis has been around forever. What do you think it going to happen with the $400 million? Think we are going to launch it into space? That goes to creating jobs, and the various space programs are *a lot* more effective than the close to $2 *trillion* spent on the other bogus stimulus plans in actual job creation. Even Governor Moonbeam himself has recognized the value of the space program in economic terms.
Now, if all we were going to do was pay someone to tell us what Titan is like, certainly the information would not be worth it. Pure science has never been and will never be the purpose of NASA. But building things to find out (and this creating movement in the economy and jobs) pays off.
The heatsink might be smaller but being immersed in liquid methane, or in a thick very cold atmosphere, ought to make it work like gangbusters - much better than in air on Earth at 70 deg. The real issue will be keeping it from freezing but the delta-T should be incredible.
For example, he assumes that a single country (or, presumably, group of countries) can't just go and deflect an asteroid using nuclear weapons, because of the Partial Test Ban Treaty. Really? If it seemed like the best option, everyone would just stop and not do it for fear of violating the Test Ban Treaty? Surely someone, the US or China or Russia or whoever had the capacity to do so, would simply ignore the treaty.
Of course. "Sorry, we have a treaty against that, I guess we are all going to die - it's the law!". It's a very bizarre notion, utterly absurd. Of course, so is the notion that you actually want to nuke it, which is almost certainly not a good idea. Which Schwiekart also knows.
I think you might want to talk to you cable company on that one. I know the effect you are seeing (it's by far the worst on local Public TV since they crammed 7 sub-channels into the same carrier), but network TV coverage of football in my area is pretty pristine for the most part. OTA is even better but cable is still awfully good.
Of course, by "talk to your cable company", I mean "do nothing" because talking to the cable company is a complete waste of time.
Hey, sorry, you can't go around threatening to kill someone and expect to get away with it. ALL civilized societies recognize limits to free speech. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater and you can't say you are going to kill someone in a public forum and have no consequences. Why is that so hard to understand? It is absolutely not the same as writing about the pointlessness of existence in a general way, and I think any rational person would be able to see the difference.
We know how to land in dense atmosphere (Earth, Venus) and in vacuum (the Moon). But there are no good solutions for landing in thin atmosphere (Mars). You can't use a parachute because there isn't enough atmosphere for it, and you can't use a rocket engine because incoming flow of atmospheric gases interferes with the engine (extinguishes flame and creates oscillations like in a whistle.) That's why robots are just dropped on Mars in a big airbag. But the deceleration is too high for a human.
What in the world are you talking about? Both parachutes and rocket-braked landings have successfully been used, in combination on the same mission. Parachutes are marginal due to the thin air, so you use rocket engines to slow it down. There is no significant issue with firing engines in thin air, it's a non-issue - the bit about "atmospheric gasses interfering with the engine" is 99% nonsense. The only issue with doing it entirely with rocket engines is that it takes so much fuel that you would have trouble getting it there without a huge rocket. So you aerodynamically brake it to some reasonable velocity, then finish it off with rocket engines. It's a relatively simple problem that was solved and proven i 1976 and repeated many times since.
Airbags are useful for smaller missions because it allows you to do less rocket-propelled braking and save fuel. But even the airbab missions used both parachutes and rocket braking. If you just let it fall at terminal velocity with no chute and no braking, no airbag is going to save it, you are going to dig a pretty deep hole.
The theory behind orbits in general is a solved problem, for some limited specific condtions (i.e. gravity as a point source, two bodies, and stuff like that). But that doesn't mean you know the actual parameters of the orbit (inclination, semi-major axis (period), etc) of any particular body. Any orbit "fit" is alwasy being refined.
The other issue is that gravity actually isn't a point source with a simple inverse-square law nor are there only two bodies involved. The gravity of any real physical body is lumpy, other bodies pull on it, too, so the orbits are far from completely predictable and will never be perfectly well known.
Slashdot Mirror
Just go back to nature, eschew all this horrible modern sanitation and antibiotics, they are all poisoning you. Of course you expected lifespan will be changed from ~80 to about 35, but at least you won't be destroying our precious internal ecosystem. Come on, take one for the team!
Brett
That's very insightful, because it was a real educational paradise before the US showed up. Unless you were a Christian. Or a Jew. Or a woman. Or believed in a slightly different form of Islam.
It's not just a matter of security. I would think you would want to verify, via some method (code review, etc) that the code is correct and provides the desired results, doesn't crash, is properly integrated, etc.
Brett
I was second post, how the fuck can it be redundant...
I like "Smilin' Joe Fission" - now that's art!
Something doesn't add up here. Why is i4i not simply willing to license the rights to use the patent to MS (for an exorbitant fee). Why ask for it to be removed? Seems like a license to print money.
It was terrible, but it wasn't even the worst Christmas special that year! That distinction goes to Shields and Yarnell at Disneyworld. Mimes, for God's sake!
Brett
Also why we always see Redskin, Cowboy, and Giants games disproportionately, no matter how miserable they all are.
Brett
http://images.wikia.com/en.futurama/images/6/6b/SpacePope.png
This is predated by at 6 years by the robotic model airplane built by Maynard Hill, et. al. http://www.barnardmicrosystems.com/L4E_atlantic_crossing_II.htm. Details are similar to this case, GPS, autonomous guidance, etc.
Brett
Once again, another moronic comment. Given that you actually do have to drive for long distances, as you note, you want the car to be the way it is. Included in those long distance drives are some interesting topological features we refer to as the Sierra Nevadas, the Wasatch range, the Rocky Mountains, the Siskyous, etc. Even in the middle of Nevada there are very long climbs up very long hills. You can get, say, a Chevy Monto Carlo with a V6. Start in Reno, drive to Salt Lake City on the interstate. About once an hour you will need to climb a big mountain you never heard of at 85 MPH. Please note your speed at the top of, say, Golconda Summit. If you don't blow the motor on the way up, presumably. Even better, drive the 40 miles from SLC to Park City. It will gut itself out for 15 straight minutes at 50 mph.
Yes, a very light Lotus Elise would have no problem climbing that hill with a 4-cylinder because it's light. But try doing that for 14-16 hours straight. For 2-3 days straight.
You guys have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. By the way, I do that trip 2-3 times a year in a Mazda mini-van, chosen because it has the best power-weight ratio and can climb the hills at full speed. And my other cars are a Lotus Esprit, a Porsche Cayman S, and until last wednesday, a Mustang Cobra SVT.
Brett
Riiight - great insight there. Two important points - the US is *huge* and you try running across the country on I-80 with stiff springs. Its a little different from driving across whatever country you live in. That's also why you want cupholders - If you stop every 150 miles to get something to drink you won't get anywhere. Given good roads I could drive across Western Europe with no stops - my longest single stint is something like 525 miles with no stops. A 1200-mile day is not at all unusual, and then you get to do it again tomorrow. I just drove a European car 1900 miles on the interstate, and it was OK most of the time, then when going through LA I needed a kidney belt. Secondly - if American's loved squishy cars with super-soft suspension, how come GM, Ford, and Chrysler are going out of business? They can't give things like Monte Carlos away. If anybody wants a regular car, they get a Honda or Toyota.
I'm an American - and should you come around, I will happily do hot laps with you around a road course, and see how great you are.
To summarize - you don't know what the hell you are talking about.
Brett
This sort of BS analysis has been around forever. What do you think it going to happen with the $400 million? Think we are going to launch it into space? That goes to creating jobs, and the various space programs are *a lot* more effective than the close to $2 *trillion* spent on the other bogus stimulus plans in actual job creation. Even Governor Moonbeam himself has recognized the value of the space program in economic terms.
Now, if all we were going to do was pay someone to tell us what Titan is like, certainly the information would not be worth it. Pure science has never been and will never be the purpose of NASA. But building things to find out (and this creating movement in the economy and jobs) pays off.
Brett
The heatsink might be smaller but being immersed in liquid methane, or in a thick very cold atmosphere, ought to make it work like gangbusters - much better than in air on Earth at 70 deg. The real issue will be keeping it from freezing but the delta-T should be incredible.
Brett
Of course. "Sorry, we have a treaty against that, I guess we are all going to die - it's the law!". It's a very bizarre notion, utterly absurd. Of course, so is the notion that you actually want to nuke it, which is almost certainly not a good idea. Which Schwiekart also knows.
I agree, that worked like gangbusters and didn't read as particularly awkward. That's quite an accomplishment.
Brett
I think you might want to talk to you cable company on that one. I know the effect you are seeing (it's by far the worst on local Public TV since they crammed 7 sub-channels into the same carrier), but network TV coverage of football in my area is pretty pristine for the most part. OTA is even better but cable is still awfully good.
Of course, by "talk to your cable company", I mean "do nothing" because talking to the cable company is a complete waste of time.
Brett
All 7 Zune owners are up in arms!
Yes
Send me your dictionary, and I will happily red-line it for you.
Hey, sorry, you can't go around threatening to kill someone and expect to get away with it. ALL civilized societies recognize limits to free speech. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater and you can't say you are going to kill someone in a public forum and have no consequences. Why is that so hard to understand? It is absolutely not the same as writing about the pointlessness of existence in a general way, and I think any rational person would be able to see the difference.
Brett
What the heck are you talking about? Michael Moore says Cuba is a sterling example of how we should be.
Brett
What in the world are you talking about? Both parachutes and rocket-braked landings have successfully been used, in combination on the same mission. Parachutes are marginal due to the thin air, so you use rocket engines to slow it down. There is no significant issue with firing engines in thin air, it's a non-issue - the bit about "atmospheric gasses interfering with the engine" is 99% nonsense. The only issue with doing it entirely with rocket engines is that it takes so much fuel that you would have trouble getting it there without a huge rocket. So you aerodynamically brake it to some reasonable velocity, then finish it off with rocket engines. It's a relatively simple problem that was solved and proven i 1976 and repeated many times since.
Airbags are useful for smaller missions because it allows you to do less rocket-propelled braking and save fuel. But even the airbab missions used both parachutes and rocket braking. If you just let it fall at terminal velocity with no chute and no braking, no airbag is going to save it, you are going to dig a pretty deep hole.
Brett
The theory behind orbits in general is a solved problem, for some limited specific condtions (i.e. gravity as a point source, two bodies, and stuff like that). But that doesn't mean you know the actual parameters of the orbit (inclination, semi-major axis (period), etc) of any particular body. Any orbit "fit" is alwasy being refined.
The other issue is that gravity actually isn't a point source with a simple inverse-square law nor are there only two bodies involved. The gravity of any real physical body is lumpy, other bodies pull on it, too, so the orbits are far from completely predictable and will never be perfectly well known.
Brett
Slashdot- fucking up wet dreams since 1997!