Until there is support for Firefox, Mac, Linux etc...
How's that insightful? Of course that sucks that all of this isn't supported, but the fact that it doesn't doesn't make this service any less newsworthy.
Having an extra dimension of freedom seems to me like it'd make things safer. No criss-cross intersections, thus no traffic signals. Everything's flows that go around each other.
Exactly, basically you could create an aerial network of virtual roads (that might even be dynamic) where you would never get close to a car so that it might cause an accident. Plus, if something happened to your vehicle, you could have a chute deploying to make you land safely, no matter what. I honestly don't see how could things could get safer than that, while solving commuting issues.
Mmmh yeah, some more than the weight of the vehicle.
Do you know how hard it is to hover a VTOL aircraft?
Wait, I'm not saying that people in a few decades will pilot anything close to an Osprey, and then I just don't see people manually piloting such a machine, it would all be automated, and I don't think the automation should be that hard to do. Stop thinking about the VTOLs we have, and think about the VTOLs we could have.
As for the running out of gas/glider comment, there's a simpler way around this, make the vehicle check its gas levels before taking off.
BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO ANSWER MY QUESTION, I WANT YOU TO ANSWER.
I already answered, you triple idiot, I said ICBMs and submarine nukes.
Sure, you're eager to hear it (the causes of the peace that does exist)... and attack it.
Yeah, more like I was eager to hear it because I believed you wouldn't say it because you wouldn't dare after acting so pretentious towards "ignorant peaceniks".
But ok, trade makes sense, you don't want to attack a country you export so much to, you've got a good point. And I guess that comment about peaceniks had to do with anti-capitalist anti-globalisation hippies, and I'm with you on this one, but who gives a fuck about them anyways, everybody knows they're full of shit, I mean come on, these green hippie type guys spend their whole time cruising around in a humongous polluting ass ship, how could anyone take them seriously.
Now, imagine a world full of these drivers, flying their cars over our houses and schools. Oh yeah, joy.
Unless.. unless under a certain altitude (for take off and landing phases) piloting is entirely automated. Because that's the cool thing about stuff in the air, it's easier to automate such things because you have much less to know about the surroundings than on the ground. For example, that would be pretty hard to automate a regular car to just park into your garage, for the surrounding is complex. But when it comes to taking off vertically from a sort of helipad in your backyard and eventually driving you on an aerial road from this "helipad" to another, above all obstacles, things get much simpler, as all you have to do is make sure the vehicle follows a precise path.
That's why I'm pretty confident that once VTOL cars will be widely available, they will be so assisted/automated that they will be an order of magnitude safer than cars.
There are roads, not runways, in front of houses, grocery stores and office buildings.
Shouldn't flying cars be VTOLs? I always thought so. I don't think it would be a good idea if a "driver" couldn't just "pull over" (understand, get stationary) and had to properly land on an airport. Just imagine running out of gas in the middle of nowhere..
Anyways, somehow, I feel that in a few decades, we'll enjoy affordable and easily operatable (understand, mostly automated) flying cars, and that we'll mostly enjoy the greater safety, although it would seem counter-intuitive that a flying car would be safer than a normal car (but on a second thought it's easier to avoid trees and obstacles when you're 1,000 feet high, not to mention the cars in the opposite way lane wouldn't necessarily have to come as close as one foot from your vehicle, in the air you have more space).
But back on topic, I don't see people taking off and landing horizontally, too dangerous, VTOLs are a must.
Haha thanks for your comment. By the way I'm working on a rewrite of the program to make it much faster (and also a bit more ergonomic and polished), and I plan on releasing it within the next few weeks.
I know all of that, but thanks anyways. But do we know if in these very news we're talking about it applies to humans? Because both the summary and the article make it sound like it does apply to us, but it sounds more like misleading us in order to make it sound more interesting than anything else.
I hate this view that some how results of tests on animals don't apply to humans at all.
Hey slow down, it's not as if I was claiming "hey this thing doesn't apply to humans!". I'm just asking, and I believe this is a legitimate question, does that very thing apply to us, as it hasn't been mentioned, and you're not even answering to that. It's not because something works one on on mice that it's automatically working the same way in humans, mostly that our human brains have quite different capabilities and characteristics than mice brains.
how the hell are you offended by something that you can't access?
I know it's a comparison a bit far fetched, but somehow it's just like these "concerned parents" demonstrating in the streets for they're offended because their children have access to violent video games/music/shows/movies when the said children are not supposed to be allowed by their parents to have access to it in the first place. Makes me wonder why they don't also demonstrate against pornographers for making movies that are too obscene for children or even strip clubs for not being sufficiently family-friendly. I know it's different, but when you think about it it all boils down to the problem of access.
In other news, once undressed, I'm obscenely naked.
This guy uses underlines for things other than links on his web site.
Haha, despite how irrelevant this comment sounds, I had to think the same thing. That guy had me rolling over his underlined text to make sure these weren't links, and he's talking about rethinking a UI.
By the way, is it just me or is Photoshop CS3's interface perfectly fine and that guy sees issues where there aren't any?
How about we dedicate spare CPU cycles to cancer research (or some other worldwide disease like AIDS). Instead of finding life on distant planets, how about we fix life on ours.
While I mostly agree (which reminds me I should put F@H back on my machine, I don't even pay for power here), if we applied this philosophy to everything, we would spend most of the tax dollars on education, health, social security, science and research, we would make economic sacrifices to help "developing countries" out, we would force Pfizer and the likes to make cheaper medicines and to let "concurrence" sell AIDS-related medicines for as cheap as possible in Africa, we would give important amounts of money to the Red Cross and such, and we would make the rich pay more taxes, and the poor much less, and we'd try our best to do something about climate change.
Needless to say why this sort of way of ordering priorities is flawed, I mean come on, the terr'ists they try to make pull the troops out of Iraq!
Re:I suppose the real question is....
on
Is SETI Worth It?
·
· Score: 1
"Does SETI provide value?"
Weirdly enough, yes. Why? Because it's running on donations to hire people and to buy/rent hardware. Let me explain, people don't donate for anything for no reason, when people donate to something, in a way it makes them clients. Here's what I'm trying to say, in a way, donors are clients, they pay the SETI so that it continues providing its service, and in the meantime hires people, which in return makes the hired people spend their money and eventually create new jobs, and they buy/rent hardware, which gives money to the companies/governments selling/owning them who pay the people they hire etc etc..
In other words, the SETI is just like any other company. It creates added value, jobs and participate to the economic growth, just like any other company. The unintuitive about how the SETI creates added value is that the service they provide is apparently useless.
In simpler words, the SETI produces hope and sells it.
Slashdot Mirror
Isn't that a bit like coming in first place at the Special Olympics? You've "won", but you're still retarded.
Meh, I hope you recycle your trash as well as you recycle jokes.
Until there is support for Firefox, Mac, Linux etc...
How's that insightful? Of course that sucks that all of this isn't supported, but the fact that it doesn't doesn't make this service any less newsworthy.
Having an extra dimension of freedom seems to me like it'd make things safer. No criss-cross intersections, thus no traffic signals. Everything's flows that go around each other.
Exactly, basically you could create an aerial network of virtual roads (that might even be dynamic) where you would never get close to a car so that it might cause an accident. Plus, if something happened to your vehicle, you could have a chute deploying to make you land safely, no matter what. I honestly don't see how could things could get safer than that, while solving commuting issues.
Do you know how much thrust VTOLs need?
Mmmh yeah, some more than the weight of the vehicle.
Do you know how hard it is to hover a VTOL aircraft?
Wait, I'm not saying that people in a few decades will pilot anything close to an Osprey, and then I just don't see people manually piloting such a machine, it would all be automated, and I don't think the automation should be that hard to do. Stop thinking about the VTOLs we have, and think about the VTOLs we could have.
As for the running out of gas/glider comment, there's a simpler way around this, make the vehicle check its gas levels before taking off.
BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO ANSWER MY QUESTION, I WANT YOU TO ANSWER.
I already answered, you triple idiot, I said ICBMs and submarine nukes.
Sure, you're eager to hear it (the causes of the peace that does exist)... and attack it.
Yeah, more like I was eager to hear it because I believed you wouldn't say it because you wouldn't dare after acting so pretentious towards "ignorant peaceniks".
But ok, trade makes sense, you don't want to attack a country you export so much to, you've got a good point. And I guess that comment about peaceniks had to do with anti-capitalist anti-globalisation hippies, and I'm with you on this one, but who gives a fuck about them anyways, everybody knows they're full of shit, I mean come on, these green hippie type guys spend their whole time cruising around in a humongous polluting ass ship, how could anyone take them seriously.
Now, imagine a world full of these drivers, flying their cars over our houses and schools. Oh yeah, joy.
Unless.. unless under a certain altitude (for take off and landing phases) piloting is entirely automated. Because that's the cool thing about stuff in the air, it's easier to automate such things because you have much less to know about the surroundings than on the ground. For example, that would be pretty hard to automate a regular car to just park into your garage, for the surrounding is complex. But when it comes to taking off vertically from a sort of helipad in your backyard and eventually driving you on an aerial road from this "helipad" to another, above all obstacles, things get much simpler, as all you have to do is make sure the vehicle follows a precise path.
That's why I'm pretty confident that once VTOL cars will be widely available, they will be so assisted/automated that they will be an order of magnitude safer than cars.
There are roads, not runways, in front of houses, grocery stores and office buildings.
Shouldn't flying cars be VTOLs? I always thought so. I don't think it would be a good idea if a "driver" couldn't just "pull over" (understand, get stationary) and had to properly land on an airport. Just imagine running out of gas in the middle of nowhere..
Anyways, somehow, I feel that in a few decades, we'll enjoy affordable and easily operatable (understand, mostly automated) flying cars, and that we'll mostly enjoy the greater safety, although it would seem counter-intuitive that a flying car would be safer than a normal car (but on a second thought it's easier to avoid trees and obstacles when you're 1,000 feet high, not to mention the cars in the opposite way lane wouldn't necessarily have to come as close as one foot from your vehicle, in the air you have more space).
But back on topic, I don't see people taking off and landing horizontally, too dangerous, VTOLs are a must.
No, but you must understand it would be hard for you to function if you were cutting into your own, unless you really _are_ a fucking idiot.
You've never watched Hannibal now, have you? ;-)
I've got a knife, you've got a brain... let's study this on your brain. ;-)
Must I understand that you don't have a brain? ;-)
Haha thanks for your comment. By the way I'm working on a rewrite of the program to make it much faster (and also a bit more ergonomic and polished), and I plan on releasing it within the next few weeks.
I know all of that, but thanks anyways. But do we know if in these very news we're talking about it applies to humans? Because both the summary and the article make it sound like it does apply to us, but it sounds more like misleading us in order to make it sound more interesting than anything else.
Why is this article tagged with 'ronpaul' and 'ronpaulisanazi'?
I've been wondering the same thing. And now I'm wondering why you said that as a reply to my comment..
I hate this view that some how results of tests on animals don't apply to humans at all.
Hey slow down, it's not as if I was claiming "hey this thing doesn't apply to humans!". I'm just asking, and I believe this is a legitimate question, does that very thing apply to us, as it hasn't been mentioned, and you're not even answering to that. It's not because something works one on on mice that it's automatically working the same way in humans, mostly that our human brains have quite different capabilities and characteristics than mice brains.
The RTFA...
Err crap, I mean "TFA" of course..
This whole thing is about mice brains actually, how do we know how that applies to adult human brains? The RTFA doesn't seem to say much about that..
Where are the comments!!
OMG they stoled teh commants!!
lol wait what? I never heard of that before! (Got link?)
how the hell are you offended by something that you can't access?
I know it's a comparison a bit far fetched, but somehow it's just like these "concerned parents" demonstrating in the streets for they're offended because their children have access to violent video games/music/shows/movies when the said children are not supposed to be allowed by their parents to have access to it in the first place. Makes me wonder why they don't also demonstrate against pornographers for making movies that are too obscene for children or even strip clubs for not being sufficiently family-friendly. I know it's different, but when you think about it it all boils down to the problem of access.
In other news, once undressed, I'm obscenely naked.
The world economy IS severally affected by all the illegal sharing.
lol. Somehow the ridicule of that claim proves the opposite of your point.
While I'm sure you are the only one thinking that, I am also just as sure you are in the minority.
I hope you are, because if I'm the only one to think so, that's indeed quite a small minority I'm in!
Now that I think about it, the UI's not that great, but on the other hand, I'd say 75% of it shouldn't be changed..
This guy uses underlines for things other than links on his web site.
Haha, despite how irrelevant this comment sounds, I had to think the same thing. That guy had me rolling over his underlined text to make sure these weren't links, and he's talking about rethinking a UI.
By the way, is it just me or is Photoshop CS3's interface perfectly fine and that guy sees issues where there aren't any?
How about we dedicate spare CPU cycles to cancer research (or some other worldwide disease like AIDS). Instead of finding life on distant planets, how about we fix life on ours.
While I mostly agree (which reminds me I should put F@H back on my machine, I don't even pay for power here), if we applied this philosophy to everything, we would spend most of the tax dollars on education, health, social security, science and research, we would make economic sacrifices to help "developing countries" out, we would force Pfizer and the likes to make cheaper medicines and to let "concurrence" sell AIDS-related medicines for as cheap as possible in Africa, we would give important amounts of money to the Red Cross and such, and we would make the rich pay more taxes, and the poor much less, and we'd try our best to do something about climate change.
Needless to say why this sort of way of ordering priorities is flawed, I mean come on, the terr'ists they try to make pull the troops out of Iraq!
"Does SETI provide value?"
Weirdly enough, yes. Why? Because it's running on donations to hire people and to buy/rent hardware. Let me explain, people don't donate for anything for no reason, when people donate to something, in a way it makes them clients. Here's what I'm trying to say, in a way, donors are clients, they pay the SETI so that it continues providing its service, and in the meantime hires people, which in return makes the hired people spend their money and eventually create new jobs, and they buy/rent hardware, which gives money to the companies/governments selling/owning them who pay the people they hire etc etc..
In other words, the SETI is just like any other company. It creates added value, jobs and participate to the economic growth, just like any other company. The unintuitive about how the SETI creates added value is that the service they provide is apparently useless.
In simpler words, the SETI produces hope and sells it.
It seems to work just about as well as anything else they've tried.
Yeah, in other words, we're about as close to Strong AI as we've always been. lol.
Or better yet, if each node ran a small neural net. with each node connected to many other nodes, the whole system might gain consciousness!
Right, because every AI researcher knows "strong AI" is as simple as creating a huge neural network and letting the magic happen ;-)