Or they can decide to ban prosthetic limbs just like doping, or at least spin it off into a separate competitive category. Something that you should know about Pistorius. He is able to run because he got his legs amputated as a child, so he still had the mental flexibility to completely relearn moving with prosthetic legs. These limbs also cost a shit load. In other words, the only way to duplicate his performance now is to chop off some 5 year old's legs and make him decide to run as a living. Serious. No one will be able to pull off a Pistorius for at least another 10 years.
Lockheed also knows quite a lot about space and satellites. They built the satellite that the Hubble is housed in. They built the rocket upper stage that the Gemini went to space in, they built the Corona series spy satellites, and they built the Atlas V rocket. I'm sure there's more. As someone else pointed out, NASA generally doesn't build stuff. They contract out most things. Because paying companies who want to make money happens to be an excellent way to get stuff built.
You have to flex your ankle to use them as springs. He doesn't. If that doesn't convince you, consider this. When you squat up and down, your legs essentially work like springs. Squat up and down. You'll get tired around 20-30 reps. Now imagine an actual spring. It does not get tired.
No. But that is a false analogy. Laser eye surgery at best will not allow to see better than the human maximum, nor will it allow to see in a fundamentally different way. Pistorius' legs do. His efficiency is beyond the reach of any human, simply because he doesn't have to flex his large segments of his leg when he lands each stride. His race performance bares it out. He maintains an almost constant top speed for the entire race, something that is impossible for any human runner. His legs are BUILT for running. They are nearly impossible to balance on when walking or standing still. They are almost literally springs. This would be more like giving a shooter a scope, and adjustable laser pointer instead of laser eye surgery.
Normally when running, you tense up certain muscles just before foot strike, so your muscles acts like a spring to release part of that energy afterward. Normally, this means that you get tired cause your muscles are constantly in use (active energy storage). His legs are so set up so that they passively store this energy. He does not need put any effort into that part of the stride.
Not only that, the leg below the knee's importance in sprinting is relatively minor. Aside that the ankle/calf acting as an active shock absorber, nearly all the leg's energy is spent in the upper leg to drive the entire leg forward. His legs are considerably lighter than real human legs, and very much does make him run completely different.
Pistorius really does run differently. Because of the way his legs are constructed, his maximal running speed may never reach that of an unamputated human being, but his efficiency is beyond anything anyone else can achieve. He's running speed (measured in 10m segments) is far more consistent then any other runner, because he can maintain his full speed for much longer and with relatively less effort than anyone else.
This is not to say that he is an amazing athlete. He is. He has overcome incredible challenges, and he deserves recognition. But he does not belong in the Olympics the way that they are formulated right now. His artificial allow him to achieve feats of efficiency that simply cannot be reached with any human body no matter how well born and trained. I feel that many are letting themselves being clouded by the emotional aspect of this issue, and ignoring that this would be like letting someone on rollarblades grafted onto their feet compete in a standard track event.
Because very little people inside China knows what actually happened. China doesn't really care what the rest of the world knows, as long as it can keep it away from it's own people.
Not only this, China IS undergoing an incredible economical boom. The country, and nearly everyone in it is getting richer. There are opportunities for almost anyone to try to get in on the money. The Chinese government regardless of its social liberty has become significantly more economically more 'free' than in the past. It's kind of hard to argue against a government that A) you have been taught is the best government in the world and B) Is making your richer.
Depends what he made the wing out of. If it was fiberglass and/or composites, then probably not very well. If it was metal construction (I don't think it is), then it'll show up fine. It flies at like 200mph max I guess, so it reenters the realm of human aimed guns.
Because this looks nicer. Also, the blurring stuff was all done on stuff where there is a finite set of stuff to start with (fonts, spacing, colours) and then working from there. It's much harder to do that with faces. I think.
2. Yes. Planck time is considered the single smallest unit of time. To ask what happens <Planck Time after or
3. The proposed carrier for gravity is the graviton. We haven't found evidence for it (other than gravity itself). The carrier particle for magnetic force is the photon (the photon is the carrier for electromagnetic force). The carrier force for strong and weak nuclear force is the gluon and W/Z bosons respectively. I believe we have experimentally found the other three carrier particles.
Don't the two work out exactly the same way? It's the same amount of water, and the idea isn't to microwave the entire ballast, but rather it'll pull water out of the tanks, microwave it, and then pump them out, or back into another empty/clean tank.
A related question. If you had a blur applied to a video, would it be possible to use information from a lot of frames to end up building a 'deblurred' single frame?
What is destroyed by a botnet? What human lives are put at risk by overloading computers? As someone else stated, key systems should not be on the internet in the first place, while those which remain would certainly cause disruption, but no directly caused deaths. Consider that fact that we've managed to live 100 000 years as a race before we had the internet and computers. We managed multi-million population cities for at least half a century before the internet. This is hardly a weapon of mass destruction. WMD does not mean indiscriminate weapon. All weapons are indiscriminate. You get hit by a bullet, bomb, sword, or rock, you're going to die regardless. You get hit by a botnet, and you're severely inconvenienced.
No, I think that that makes perfect sense. If I make a derivative work based on some 19th century novel, then my work shouldn't be in the public domain.
I think the grandparent was talking about color resolution not angular/optical (or is it something else?) resolution. There is no arguing that human eyes are fundamentally limited by our lenses, and that gives us a pretty much fixed benchmark for maximal human sight in one measure. But when it comes to distinguishing colors, human vision is far less concrete. The fact that we have an auto adjusting white balance should be enough proof of that.
Re:I'd like to see a double-blind test...
on
A Billion-Color Display
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Get a 1024 pixel high/wide image. And then make a perfect white-black gradient. You should be able to tell between the two. As someone else pointed out, you only have 256 greys, so you end up with one grey forming a 4 pixel band (which is noticeable). The new displace will have one grey per pixel.. much harder to tell.
Because if a dog has a home, then someone has taken the responsibility of caring for the dog, and in the process takes upon them the responsibility (as defined by the law) of cleaning up after the dog when it craps on the ground.
Furthermore, a soldier's role on the battlefield is to achieve an objective. In general, this object involves removing the enemy. The general way to do so is to either kill them, or make them surrender/give up. Sometimes the situation is such that by killing a few selective people, you can make the group give up. Other times, you just have to kill everything coming at you, cause it's the only way. In all cases, better intel means less risk for the grunts. Sure, its not exactly fair. But that's not really the point of war is it?
It is absolute alright to kill with ever increasing efficiency on the battlefield, providing that the killing is just. If some group of crazy people tried to attack me, I would expect no less than the most efficient way to kill them back. The justness of a death has very little with how 'efficiently' it was carried out. Murder by pointy stick, and murder by bullet is all the same.
I'm sorry, but I thought that radiation in a nuclear power plant was completely different from radio waves. Which is why the whole cellphone use causes cancer thing is silly. And why do microwaves need to scatter waves? I thought the whole point was to create a standing wave inside the microwave? I think your confusing EM radiation with ionizing radiation (which is what the problem in space is).
Slashdot Mirror
Elite Beat Agents. Or the massive amount of relatively senseless Japanese puzzle games that are for some reason so addicting.
Or they can decide to ban prosthetic limbs just like doping, or at least spin it off into a separate competitive category. Something that you should know about Pistorius. He is able to run because he got his legs amputated as a child, so he still had the mental flexibility to completely relearn moving with prosthetic legs. These limbs also cost a shit load. In other words, the only way to duplicate his performance now is to chop off some 5 year old's legs and make him decide to run as a living. Serious. No one will be able to pull off a Pistorius for at least another 10 years.
Lockheed also knows quite a lot about space and satellites. They built the satellite that the Hubble is housed in. They built the rocket upper stage that the Gemini went to space in, they built the Corona series spy satellites, and they built the Atlas V rocket. I'm sure there's more. As someone else pointed out, NASA generally doesn't build stuff. They contract out most things. Because paying companies who want to make money happens to be an excellent way to get stuff built.
You have to flex your ankle to use them as springs. He doesn't. If that doesn't convince you, consider this. When you squat up and down, your legs essentially work like springs. Squat up and down. You'll get tired around 20-30 reps. Now imagine an actual spring. It does not get tired.
No. But that is a false analogy. Laser eye surgery at best will not allow to see better than the human maximum, nor will it allow to see in a fundamentally different way. Pistorius' legs do. His efficiency is beyond the reach of any human, simply because he doesn't have to flex his large segments of his leg when he lands each stride. His race performance bares it out. He maintains an almost constant top speed for the entire race, something that is impossible for any human runner. His legs are BUILT for running. They are nearly impossible to balance on when walking or standing still. They are almost literally springs. This would be more like giving a shooter a scope, and adjustable laser pointer instead of laser eye surgery.
Normally when running, you tense up certain muscles just before foot strike, so your muscles acts like a spring to release part of that energy afterward. Normally, this means that you get tired cause your muscles are constantly in use (active energy storage). His legs are so set up so that they passively store this energy. He does not need put any effort into that part of the stride.
Not only that, the leg below the knee's importance in sprinting is relatively minor. Aside that the ankle/calf acting as an active shock absorber, nearly all the leg's energy is spent in the upper leg to drive the entire leg forward. His legs are considerably lighter than real human legs, and very much does make him run completely different.
Pistorius really does run differently. Because of the way his legs are constructed, his maximal running speed may never reach that of an unamputated human being, but his efficiency is beyond anything anyone else can achieve. He's running speed (measured in 10m segments) is far more consistent then any other runner, because he can maintain his full speed for much longer and with relatively less effort than anyone else.
This is not to say that he is an amazing athlete. He is. He has overcome incredible challenges, and he deserves recognition. But he does not belong in the Olympics the way that they are formulated right now. His artificial allow him to achieve feats of efficiency that simply cannot be reached with any human body no matter how well born and trained. I feel that many are letting themselves being clouded by the emotional aspect of this issue, and ignoring that this would be like letting someone on rollarblades grafted onto their feet compete in a standard track event.
Because very little people inside China knows what actually happened. China doesn't really care what the rest of the world knows, as long as it can keep it away from it's own people.
Not only this, China IS undergoing an incredible economical boom. The country, and nearly everyone in it is getting richer. There are opportunities for almost anyone to try to get in on the money. The Chinese government regardless of its social liberty has become significantly more economically more 'free' than in the past. It's kind of hard to argue against a government that A) you have been taught is the best government in the world and B) Is making your richer.
Depends what he made the wing out of. If it was fiberglass and/or composites, then probably not very well. If it was metal construction (I don't think it is), then it'll show up fine. It flies at like 200mph max I guess, so it reenters the realm of human aimed guns.
Maybe something nice about the eeePc? It seems to genuinely be doing fairly well. Of course, its above the 300 dollar price point.
This is why the best football and baseball players don't get paid more than our top engineers... wait, what?
Because this looks nicer. Also, the blurring stuff was all done on stuff where there is a finite set of stuff to start with (fonts, spacing, colours) and then working from there. It's much harder to do that with faces. I think.
1. I don't know.
2. Yes. Planck time is considered the single smallest unit of time. To ask what happens <Planck Time after or
3. The proposed carrier for gravity is the graviton. We haven't found evidence for it (other than gravity itself). The carrier particle for magnetic force is the photon (the photon is the carrier for electromagnetic force). The carrier force for strong and weak nuclear force is the gluon and W/Z bosons respectively. I believe we have experimentally found the other three carrier particles.
Don't the two work out exactly the same way? It's the same amount of water, and the idea isn't to microwave the entire ballast, but rather it'll pull water out of the tanks, microwave it, and then pump them out, or back into another empty/clean tank.
A related question. If you had a blur applied to a video, would it be possible to use information from a lot of frames to end up building a 'deblurred' single frame?
What is destroyed by a botnet? What human lives are put at risk by overloading computers? As someone else stated, key systems should not be on the internet in the first place, while those which remain would certainly cause disruption, but no directly caused deaths. Consider that fact that we've managed to live 100 000 years as a race before we had the internet and computers. We managed multi-million population cities for at least half a century before the internet. This is hardly a weapon of mass destruction. WMD does not mean indiscriminate weapon. All weapons are indiscriminate. You get hit by a bullet, bomb, sword, or rock, you're going to die regardless. You get hit by a botnet, and you're severely inconvenienced.
No, I think that that makes perfect sense. If I make a derivative work based on some 19th century novel, then my work shouldn't be in the public domain.
I think the grandparent was talking about color resolution not angular/optical (or is it something else?) resolution. There is no arguing that human eyes are fundamentally limited by our lenses, and that gives us a pretty much fixed benchmark for maximal human sight in one measure. But when it comes to distinguishing colors, human vision is far less concrete. The fact that we have an auto adjusting white balance should be enough proof of that.
Get a 1024 pixel high/wide image. And then make a perfect white-black gradient. You should be able to tell between the two. As someone else pointed out, you only have 256 greys, so you end up with one grey forming a 4 pixel band (which is noticeable). The new displace will have one grey per pixel.. much harder to tell.
Because if a dog has a home, then someone has taken the responsibility of caring for the dog, and in the process takes upon them the responsibility (as defined by the law) of cleaning up after the dog when it craps on the ground.
In context, your interpretation is basically correct. Generally, to take another pass is to come at it again. As in pass-by again.
Furthermore, a soldier's role on the battlefield is to achieve an objective. In general, this object involves removing the enemy. The general way to do so is to either kill them, or make them surrender/give up. Sometimes the situation is such that by killing a few selective people, you can make the group give up. Other times, you just have to kill everything coming at you, cause it's the only way. In all cases, better intel means less risk for the grunts. Sure, its not exactly fair. But that's not really the point of war is it?
It is absolute alright to kill with ever increasing efficiency on the battlefield, providing that the killing is just. If some group of crazy people tried to attack me, I would expect no less than the most efficient way to kill them back. The justness of a death has very little with how 'efficiently' it was carried out. Murder by pointy stick, and murder by bullet is all the same.
A radar dish might put out a LOT of energy. But how much is that 10 kilometers away? Inverse-square law and all.
I'm sorry, but I thought that radiation in a nuclear power plant was completely different from radio waves. Which is why the whole cellphone use causes cancer thing is silly. And why do microwaves need to scatter waves? I thought the whole point was to create a standing wave inside the microwave? I think your confusing EM radiation with ionizing radiation (which is what the problem in space is).