Seret
-
Posts
1,859 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Posts posted by Seret
-
-
Did it also bother the OP that Scooby Doo could talk?
-
That's odd, it was on the front page when I replied. Maybe someone replied and deleted their post?
-
Agreed. And gorilla glass isn't armor. If you drop it, it'll break. If you have sand in your pocket, it'll scratch.
The problem is that the two types of damage you mention there require two different mechanical properties to resist, and unfortunately optimising for one generally means reducing performance for the other. Making a material very hard (resistant to plastic deformation such as scratches) generally makes it less tough (more likely to fracture or shatter). You can't have your cake and eat it. Most manufacturers go for a very hard screen to stop it picking up scratches, but the end is a screen that will go bang if you hit it hard enough.
-
Well you don't have to worry about it that much if you have a high quality smartphone.
Any screen will crack if you drop it the wrong way. Phones with glass backs are especially bad, double the chance of shattering. I know, I've been there with my Nexus.
-
There is that. The aircraft have g counters, which is the main reason the g reading is on the HUD. Grounding an aircraft due to pulling like Rambo won't impress your boss or win you a lot of friends among the groundies.
It's not actually the flight suit BTW. The g suit is a separate garment worn over the top. It's basically a pair of trousers.
-
These days high-g is just part of their day job, anybody flying any kind of fast jet pulls serious g every day. They do develop higher tolerance than normal people, and they're aware of their limits and how far they can push it.
Going all the way to full g-loc is bad flying. At low level and high speed it pretty much means crashing, and in a dog fight it'll mean the other guy kills you.
-
Now name something Apple doesn't have.
Good to see they're catching up on some of the missing features. Still a few to go though:
[a bit sweary, so somewhat NSFW]
Seriously though, it is good to see Apple have eaten a bit of humble pie and incorporated some of the successful developments from the Android phones. The user wins when this happens. It's a bit disappointing to see Apple seem content to give up its position as a leader though. They're capable of forcing everybody else to try harder, but they haven't been doing it for a while now.
It'll be interesting to see when they drop their stupid charging cables. IIRC the EU has mandated that all phones have to use micro USB from 2017. Everybody else has already transitioned, it's a bit odd that Apple have bothered with the Lightning plug when they're going to have to drop it in one of their major markets soon anyway. I hope they don't try and do something mental like ship different ports in different regions.
-
Having not seen this particular episode I wonder if there's some detail you're leaving out? How exactly does stealing 26 planets generate energy?
-
Thing is though. There is already max-attention.
Only amongst those whose attention is easily led astray. It's clearly just some younger members having fun. They're not hurting anyone. If you're not interested then just ignore it.
-
I've even read this thing about the Drake equation where it seeks to predict life through various parameters.
Strictly speaking the Drake Equation doesn't make any attempt to predict anything. It was originally devised by Frank Drake as a way of setting the agenda for a conference in the early days of SETI. His objective was to try and concentrate thinking around what parameters would influence the chance of detecting an alien civilisation. The fact that the equation has become so widely known speaks to the fact that Drake's thinking was sound.
However, people are bound to use it to try and put a number on the actual probability. That's fine, except for the fact that we don't have data for several of the variables. As long as you acknowledge that any attempt to plug numbers into those is really just a guess (and therefore carries no weight in serious conversation) then that's ok. From time to time people do try and quote it as if it's actually a scientific tool capable of making predictions, which is completely wrong.
-
That's because tons are the imperial unit. 1000kg = 1 tonne = 1.1 tons. Pronounced the same, spelled differently.
-
You can see plenty of pics just by doing an image search for the term LLRV if that site's blocked like it was for me.
For a very similar predecessor check out the "flying bedstead" that Rolls Royce used to research controlled hovering flight for the Harrier:
-
Fixed for you.
Inclined to agree, but we sometimes have to throw our less fortunate friends in the US a bone.
-
You should always default to metric for any kind of physics calculation. No exceptions.
-
The term "rocket scientist" is pretty vague. Are you talking about a manufacturer building vehicles, or an organisation (public or private) operating them? Even in the latter are you talking about flight or science? There will be people from all sorts of backgrounds.
-
I'd imagine modern spacecraft are considerably simpler if comparable advances in aircraft are anything to go by. I used to work on two main types, starting the engine on the 1960's vintage one was a complicated process involving several people and specialised GSE. The 1990's vintage one had a startup procedure of select "Master engine on", press "Engine start" and watch the RPM spool up.
-
The first AI on the US Supreme Court will be the first infallible Justice. Imagine the benefits of a Justice that is pre-programmed to be a constitutionally faithful leader.
Very high level judges such as those on your US Supreme Court are generally not simply applying existing legislation as written. Things generally get referred to that level because new precedents have to be set. Asking an AI to operate in that kind of blue sky arena and trusting it to come up with judgements that humans found just and satisfying would be an immense challenge for a machine. I think jobs like this would one of the very last to ever be occupied by an AI. Humans won't want to give up control of inherently subjective topics like justice and values.
-
So in KSP, all you have to do is a press a button and the rocket engine fires. I'm pretty sure this is not how it works in a real orbital vehicle
For some types of engines it pretty much is. Some engines are very simple, you open a valve and the two components of the fuel automatically ignite when they mix.
-
So, do you think that AIs should take control of something important (space mission, managing a space station, etc)
There wouldn't be much point in building them otherwise. An AI itself would be an extremely valuable machine, they'll be expected to earn back their cost by managing important expensive things better than could be done without them. I don't think we'll see truly general purpose AI any time soon. What you will see is extremely smart machines doing things like trading on the stock market and navigating unmanned ships. Spacecraft goes without saying IMO. They'll be highly intelligent and autonomous, but they'll be specialised for what they were designed to do.
Interstellar space exploration would pretty much necessitate powerful AI. At interstellar distances both remote control and a human crew are impractical, so any probes we ever send to other stars or planets will need to be highly autonomous and able to handle unexpected situations.
-
"People will maintain the robots." - Unlikely, machines can probably detect, troubleshoot, and fix machines better than people can.
That's certainly not the case currently. For a machine to outperform a human at a complex diagnostic task would essentially require a highly advanced problem-solving AI. Automated diagnostic machines for specific systems do exist, but they're not foolproof and are limited to the system they were designed to communicate with. They're also only able to detect a limited class of failures (generally electronic and comms problems). Asking a same machine to carry out the day to day jobs of a technician such as uploading new software to a motor controller, fault finding an electrical problem on a lighting circuit, replacing a faulty actuator, then testing the oil in a gearbox requires a board range of abilities well beyond anything robots will be capable any time soon.
-
Could the people saying that squad has completely abandoned resources site the source for that?
AFAIK there is no source, people are just reading between the lines. Squad knew announcing that they were stopping development of a resource system would be unpopular, so they softened the blow a bit by refusing to entirely rule it out.
What you definitely won't get is a resource system similar to the one they released teaser material from. Personally I don't think we'll get one at all, but you never know.
-
This is the problem with Indiegogo:
as of right now, the case only exists as a bunch of hand-drawn blueprints on my desk and a 3D model on my computer.Stay away from tech projects that don't even have a working prototype. Kickstarter do require folks to have at least got to that stage before asking people to fork over their hard-earned.
-
The general rule of thumb when planning someone's productivity is that you can't expect better than about 80%. People aren't machines.
-
It's a social activity, be friendly and try to have some fun. Us nerds can be bad at including new people, but if the group don't make at least a bit of an effort to make you feel welcome then it's probably not a great group.
G LOC i wonder does often happen to fighter pilot
in Science & Spaceflight
Posted
Yes, but that doesn't mean that it's always ok to take the aircraft right up to the limit. In my experience it's not unusual to have a lower limit imposed for operational or technical reasons. Continually thrashing the airframe will shorten its life, and could actually be dangerous on an airframe heading towards it's end of life phase.