It's not buying jets that you need, that would be fine. You need to do a search, and read up on all the pork-barrel projects used to funnel money into companies like boeing. For example, congress having the USAF lease 100 767 tankers from Boeing at a price billions of dollars above what it would have cost to buy them outright, and actually leaving the USAF with less tankers at the end of the day.
Oh, come on. We all know that the US government subsidizes Boeing and the like through military contracts and the like, so get off your frigging high horse. At least in Europe we're up front about subsidies, rather than the hypocritical US position of paying lip service to free market principles, while being protectionist as hell in reality.
I think I already have one of those. It takes the most annoying bastard commercials, and repeats the audio ad infinitum, especially when I'm trying to concentrate, until I want to start bashing my head on the wall.
Not much chance of seeing regexp searches, when they're all busy reenacting the search/portal mistakes of the past, and trying to push the boundaries of how much spam they can stuff into your results before their product becomes completely useless. Which is a shame, I just spent quite a while trying to do a particular search using lots of inclusions and exclusions, and hitting the maximum terms limit, when it would have been a trivial search if I could have used a regexp to match the urls I wanted.
We call this "passive radar", dude. You only see a "beam" of light from a headlamp if there's dust or fog to scatter the light. Otherwise you see a spot of light, just like what you see on your radar scope. If you "shone" your microwave beam through a cloud of iron filings, you'd probably see something remarkably akin to your headlamp-beam-through-fog.
True, but the same can be said for most forms of advertising, i.e. they get less effective the more you deluge the viewer with them, the impact is reduced as the viewer is over-exposed to that type of advertising.
Sadly the response from marketers to that diminished effectiveness is typically to increase quantity even more. Witness spam, popups/unders, flash ads etc on the internet.
Remember when Microsoft entered the handheld market, and everyone said "oh, Windows CE suck" "why should I give up my palm" etc etc? Now Microsoft rule that market.
See, Microsoft don't need you to give up your iPod. They do know how to play the long game. It took them a while to get Pocket PC somewhat right (then they broke it again, but that's another story), but they got there in the end. Moreover, they used the integration with Windows/Office as a selling point (WMP is on every Windows PC, you can see where that analogy leads).
Point is, they don't need this to be an instant success, they just need a foot in the door, the rest is down to time.
You got there before me. Well, Hawking once believed that time would reverse when the universe started contracting towards the big crunch, so this would have been news on the way back down the timeline;).
Actually, while methanol is indeed poisonous, the treatment for methanol poisoning is ethanol. So I'd say you can indeed get wasted on methanol, so long as you mix your drinks right;).
From Wikipedia:
If methanol has been ingested, a doctor should be contacted immediately. The usual fatal dose: 100-125 mL (4 fl oz). Toxic effects take hours to start, and effective antidotes can often prevent permanent damage. This is treated using ethanol or fomepizole[3]. Either of these drugs acts to slow down the action of alcohol dehydrogenase on methanol by means of competitive inhibition, so that it is excreted by the kidneys rather than being transformed into toxic metabolites.
The spreadsheet was the first "killer app" for the microcomputer, wasn't it? Be interesting for the humble spreadsheet to still wield such importance after all this time.
This could be big for Google, depending how they play it. It's not necessarily just the home user that could be the eventual target, the could offer the back end to businesses, ditto for other "office" apps. That would arguably be much more important, if in fact they are targetting taking on microsoft in that area, long term.
Pointlessly late reply, but for the benefit of anyone stumbling on this thread in the future:
Modern ultra high speed cameras of at least one type (the type with which I'm very familiar) consist of several effectively separate digital still cameras looking down the same optical axis via a beamsplitter. Special image intensifiers are used on each still camera module to provide "shuttering" and coincidently to amplify the light enough to get a decent picture at the ridiculously short exposure times used. In order to achieve frame rates of up to 1 billion frames per second (yes, billion), and exposures down to a few hundred picoseconds, a pulse is applied to each of the image intensifiers in rapid sequence. Although the exposure times may be less than a nanosecond, the captured image glows on the phosophor screen for many milliseconds, plenty of time to capture it on the CCDs.
Film-based cameras involving a rapidly spun reel as mentioned in the parent aren't capable of speeds of more than a few thousand fps. However film-based cameras involving a rapidly rotating mirror and a stationary loop of film can achieve frame rates in the millions.
Yes, it's kind of surprising. Ultra-high speed cameras (>1 million frames per second) can typically only take a handful of pictures. However for something lasting a third of a second, a regular high speed video camera (there are plenty that can do several thousand fps) would be ideal, you'd get hundreds of frames of this event.
Maybe they were having trouble with the initiation of the event, and running at low framerate/long duration to make sure they captured the event at some point.
Slashdot Mirror
They're a little like a slashdot, only smaller.
It's not buying jets that you need, that would be fine. You need to do a search, and read up on all the pork-barrel projects used to funnel money into companies like boeing. For example, congress having the USAF lease 100 767 tankers from Boeing at a price billions of dollars above what it would have cost to buy them outright, and actually leaving the USAF with less tankers at the end of the day.
Oh, come on. We all know that the US government subsidizes Boeing and the like through military contracts and the like, so get off your frigging high horse. At least in Europe we're up front about subsidies, rather than the hypocritical US position of paying lip service to free market principles, while being protectionist as hell in reality.
Yeah, it feels like these scientists are just stringing us along.
I think I already have one of those. It takes the most annoying bastard commercials, and repeats the audio ad infinitum, especially when I'm trying to concentrate, until I want to start bashing my head on the wall.
Thing is that shit works. I just clicked on the "breasts!" link, I couldn't help myself :).
Not much chance of seeing regexp searches, when they're all busy reenacting the search/portal mistakes of the past, and trying to push the boundaries of how much spam they can stuff into your results before their product becomes completely useless. Which is a shame, I just spent quite a while trying to do a particular search using lots of inclusions and exclusions, and hitting the maximum terms limit, when it would have been a trivial search if I could have used a regexp to match the urls I wanted.
Don't they know that filesharing is a threat to national security? I give them two weeks before the DHS comes a-knocking.
We call this "passive radar", dude. You only see a "beam" of light from a headlamp if there's dust or fog to scatter the light. Otherwise you see a spot of light, just like what you see on your radar scope. If you "shone" your microwave beam through a cloud of iron filings, you'd probably see something remarkably akin to your headlamp-beam-through-fog.
Well, politicians like to be seen to be doing something, and nothing sends out the "we're in charge and on the case" message like sending in the army.
Still I'm sure they have some idea how the army would be used. Locally deployed poison?
True, but the same can be said for most forms of advertising, i.e. they get less effective the more you deluge the viewer with them, the impact is reduced as the viewer is over-exposed to that type of advertising.
Sadly the response from marketers to that diminished effectiveness is typically to increase quantity even more. Witness spam, popups/unders, flash ads etc on the internet.
Yeah, cuz everyone thought of them as such a soft target before this...
Remember when Microsoft entered the handheld market, and everyone said "oh, Windows CE suck" "why should I give up my palm" etc etc? Now Microsoft rule that market.
See, Microsoft don't need you to give up your iPod. They do know how to play the long game. It took them a while to get Pocket PC somewhat right (then they broke it again, but that's another story), but they got there in the end. Moreover, they used the integration with Windows/Office as a selling point (WMP is on every Windows PC, you can see where that analogy leads).
Point is, they don't need this to be an instant success, they just need a foot in the door, the rest is down to time.
You got there before me. Well, Hawking once believed that time would reverse when the universe started contracting towards the big crunch, so this would have been news on the way back down the timeline ;).
I think you answered your own question. Obviously these designers have failed to create something that appeals to this market in terms of form.
From Wikipedia:
No, I ain't tried it.
The spreadsheet was the first "killer app" for the microcomputer, wasn't it? Be interesting for the humble spreadsheet to still wield such importance after all this time.
This could be big for Google, depending how they play it. It's not necessarily just the home user that could be the eventual target, the could offer the back end to businesses, ditto for other "office" apps. That would arguably be much more important, if in fact they are targetting taking on microsoft in that area, long term.
Actually, no. Assuming 365.25 days per year, OTOH
If it's utter crap after all these years, $500,000 isn't going to save their asses.
Shouldn't that be "Think north"? ;)
Pointlessly late reply, but for the benefit of anyone stumbling on this thread in the future:
Modern ultra high speed cameras of at least one type (the type with which I'm very familiar) consist of several effectively separate digital still cameras looking down the same optical axis via a beamsplitter. Special image intensifiers are used on each still camera module to provide "shuttering" and coincidently to amplify the light enough to get a decent picture at the ridiculously short exposure times used. In order to achieve frame rates of up to 1 billion frames per second (yes, billion), and exposures down to a few hundred picoseconds, a pulse is applied to each of the image intensifiers in rapid sequence. Although the exposure times may be less than a nanosecond, the captured image glows on the phosophor screen for many milliseconds, plenty of time to capture it on the CCDs.
Film-based cameras involving a rapidly spun reel as mentioned in the parent aren't capable of speeds of more than a few thousand fps. However film-based cameras involving a rapidly rotating mirror and a stationary loop of film can achieve frame rates in the millions.
Yes, it's kind of surprising. Ultra-high speed cameras (>1 million frames per second) can typically only take a handful of pictures. However for something lasting a third of a second, a regular high speed video camera (there are plenty that can do several thousand fps) would be ideal, you'd get hundreds of frames of this event.
Maybe they were having trouble with the initiation of the event, and running at low framerate/long duration to make sure they captured the event at some point.
That's right, we don't.
Oh bugger...
As mad as the world is right now, the strange fact is that it has never been more sane.
Worrying, isn't it.
Might be a stupid one, but what kind of legitimate peacetime missions would require such stealth?
Who said anything about legitimate?