Posts by noem

Re: Irritating

@bazza

I've never said which way I actually preferred to have search operate, I akin search to a tool. You use the correct one for the job, Google will give you a ton of results, but something might be relevant. Other search engines might thin the results too much. I generally pick the tool that fits the job or try them all until I find what works. Rather than complaining my hammer does not work well with screws, I use a screwdriver (or a butter knife if I can't find the screwdriver). Some tools are better at certain tasks than others, the one size fits all is rarely that (the hammer screwdriver hybrid is less than ideal). Failing to use the proper tool is user error, ignorance or arrogance. Continuing to use the improper tool for the same task knowing full well it does not work and expecting a different result is insanity.

User error: "I just type in the search bar and it returns results from the whole interweb, right?"

Ignorance: "I can use something other than Bing?!?"

Arrogance: "Google is the best why would I use anything else!"

Insanity: "The last time bob used a fork in the electrical socket to get better AM reception, it shocked him bad, I was there. You're sure it won't do the same to me"

You can save yourself from google's shoddy work, by wait for it...using something else or continue to complain that your arm is numb and you don't feel so well, while carrying on with the fork.

The second part where I talk about comments not being especially relevant was meant to illustrate the irony of your own post, there's a pretty specific topic that that the legal case concerns and you've posted something that is not entirely relevant to the legal issue. You are exactly the same as the search engine you despise, you've created a new piece of data (ie. returned an irrelevant result) for users to wade through in order to get at the actual subject. Given that the comments should center on the merits of either side and the consequences of such a ruling on search usability/marketplace competition vs brand dilution/trademark. Given I've had to explain myself I've added another piece of irrelevancy to the comments section and ruined the joke to boot, this comment is in itself ironic!

Re: Ahem.

I was going to make some kind of joke about local sourced products vs out sourced as a play on Hear! Hear! decided it was too long a rant and then forgot to remove Here! Here! Have an up vote!

Re: I wonder...

If you watch the ARGUS drone video from a few years ago at about 1 minute in the system demonstrates that it is able to catalog and track individual objects. If we presume that each satellite can do similar processing, the actual imagery need not be sent back to its minders. Considering that who went where, and with whom are the primary questions that a "real time" system would seek to answer it makes even less sense to send the actual imagery rather than just the data.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBfSbdAC-3k

Re: Key aspect?

spark core. Use their cloud for testing, building and deployment of IoT devices (free), or deploy your own servers (when they release the source). Depending on what you're doing you should take a look. cheers!

https://www.spark.io/

While I too do enjoy eco-friendly technologies, I do have to wonder if this will actually pan out. Given your average joe goes to work between 9-5 (the hours the sun is up), the solar concentrator would have to be at a place of business to be of any use other than on the weekend. I cant imagine what the interior of that car must be like or even the door handles, steering wheel after sitting for several hours. While the concentrator is certainly a way to improve the collection of energy, I have to wonder how long those panels will last at the higher operating temperature. All in all it's nice to see an automotive giant like ford producing eco-friendly vehicles, but it seems a bit half baked.

Re: The Wild-West days are here again

I think that because they seem to be the subject of much pulpy space adventure from the golden age of scifi, that a lot of people discount lasers or DEWs. A DEW would only have to heat a target spacecraft to a temperature that causes component failure, given a spacecraft's relatively small mass and poor heat dissipation this task seems workable. Of course building a single death ray would be less than optimal and probably quite hard to do, so instead the weapon would most likely be composed of the most efficient single power output for a single DEW module times number of modules required to form an array of DEWs to arrive at a desired total weapon output power. While throwing rocks is effective, a weapon that has near unlimited range (compared to conventional weaponry), is highly scaleable, has near unlimited ammunition and travels at c would be terrifying indeed to spacecraft, especially considering it would take months to get that rock to arrive at the target destination.

Re: Progress

A quick gander at the Wikipedia world population page will show you just how much we've grown from just the 1800s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population). The sheer amount of people that need to be satisfied by a given resource is not even remotely the same as "a few millennia" ago, even if we were to shorten the time period to a single century ago it would still not even be close. Part of adapting to the pressure of having more people on the planet is utilizing resources in the most efficient way possible. Here's some quick critical thinking questions that should alleviate your suspicions:

If no new juveniles make it to adulthood, what does that do to a dwindling population's genetic diversity?

How does decreased genetic diversity hurt a species when its environment changes?

If each person has to eat a set portion of fish a day and a juvenile weighs a tenth of the adult weight how many fish do you have to catch to get the same portion?

If you catch one adult for every ten juvenile how many more fish can be born when the juveniles mature?

If you change from standard commercial fishing practice to solely utilizing weirs, how does that change the ratio of juvenile to adult caught?

Is a population considered sustainable if there are no new breeding stock?

Given that weir catch smaller fish what does this do to the cost (energy, time, cost to end consumer) of processing a set tonnage of fish?

Over fishing is a serious problem, and the fact that weirs kill many times the fish for the same tonnage only compounds it. Ultimately it creates a condition where there is less available breeding stock. When you consider the question of genetic diversity and expected environmental changes to occur in the next few decades (global warming), the genetic stagnation that weirs uniquely induce is especially troubling. That is not to say that commercial over fishing is OK, it's still very bad, but your proposal that juveniles be caught instead of adults, doesn't make sense when all you would have to do is over fish the juvenile population for as short a period as the average adult life span for the given species and it would then be trivial to demonstrate the cause for a particular fish's extinction.

Re: Let's look at this...

There are quite a few 8-bit AVRs (ATtiny series, etc) that are more than happy on a couple uWatts and I even heard that some ARM variants could too. Paired with a super capacitor or small coin cell an embedded sensors life could well out last your lifetime. However, I think it's important to note that this seems to be more of a demonstration for metamaterials in manufacturing than an actual attempt. As devices become more efficient and power harvesting techniques improve, wireless power could become viable in the consumer arena.

Re: Value?

"Only for limited tactical use, a robot is incapable of holding a position. You can't win a war if you don't put your people on the ground to hold territory."

-Try looking at this from a logistical standpoint, humans require much more supplies and are more expensive force to maintain than robots. I think that everyone can agree that automation of most activities generally drives the cost down. Just a couple hints: What does it take to support a human day to day? What is the total cost of casualties? (think the valuation of a human life during wrongful death legal actions as a loss to GDP over time), What are the expected medical and disability claims for veterans? By keeping costs low, a force can be maintained for somewhat longer than it would be otherwise. Drones could switch to a low power state or wake intermittently, a situation in which very little supplies are used. In a situation where work that can be done by robots vs having a human do the task means that costs are reduced and thus a more effective force maintained.

"Drones also have the really bad side effect of causing colossal amounts of collateral damage and really angering civilian populations. Even the most successful strategies are of little value if you've turned the general population into enemies as opposed to neutral civilians. Neutral civilians being the largest group in any conflict."

-Humans are just as capable of making mistakes as drones (see apache helicopter kills journo on youtube), one could argue that being in the "heat of the moment" rather than disconnected makes for more rash judgement. Drones can afford the luxury to shoot LAST preventing collateral damage, humans cannot. Remember that guided munitions are a simple form of expendable drone, I don't think that anyone would argue the efficacy of these weapons vs the carpet style bombing reminiscent of the vietnam era especially when it comes to collateral.

"Organized military forces never do well against plain clothes enemies no matter their superior numbers or firepower."

-That is true to a point, but drones allow an organized force to do better than without them. The largest problem with "plain clothes" combatants is identifying combatants from civilians, drones are well suited to this with enough ARGUS-IS type drones and additional ground intelligence the process of identifying combatants could be greatly simplified. It is hard to argue that having less information is better.

I don't think that anyone imagines drones responsible every facet of warfare, but I do think that you would be hard pressed to say that having fewer options is a better prospect than having more options. Ultimately drones are just another option that can do a particular job more cheaply and safely than their human counterparts and that seems to be the VALUE of drones/robots. If you would like a real world example to the efficacy of modern developments you may compare the two afghan wars (soviet era and US) both around the same length, region, modern forces, time (happened just over one decade apart), vastly different collateral and causalities.