dstebbins

I am pretty sure crime is a social issue, not so much an enforcement one... at least in first world nations - but in poorer countries they just need regular cops and/or to clean up corruption, cyborgs are pretty much beside the point.

What about when they resist arrest? Some professional criminals are just as skilled in combat, have the same numbers, and have the samea aresenal of weaponry as police do; the only advantage cops can have at that point is the privilage of not being hit, but do you think the criminals are going to give a rat's ass about that? I doubt it. At that point, the best thing to do is get rid of the flesh and blood weakness.

Also, on this "social issue," there's a good chance that crime is so high in these places because the punishment is so lenient. The only crime that is universally worthy of the death penalty nowadays is treason. Even if you kill hundreds of people, you'll only get as many lives in prison as you've taken, which means if you kill one person, you might as well kill them all.

Abolish the 8th Amendment, and crime will go down because people will be intimidated into obeying the law. Imagine, for theft, you get whipped 'n' lashed for an amount of time proportional to the value of the item you stole (a can of soda is worth 3 lashes, one for each quarder for the vending machine, and a $15k car is worth 60,000 lashes, and if you die from it, too bad; you shouldn't have stolen that car). For homicide, you're frayed, and for rape, you're locked up for life, not in a prison cell, but (playing off the sexual nature of rape) in one of those BDSM cages, which a BDSM gag in your mouth so you can't scream out and irritate the wardens.

Yes, but remember that many of us live in a country with a higher per-capita murder rate than Ethiopia.

Thank you. I was going to say that, for a peaceful city, these robots aren't necessary, but what about crime-infested places like LA or Chicago?

The Robocop trilogy is considered science fiction, even by today's technological standards, but hot because of the hardware. You could have a webcam for his eyes, a speaker for his mouth, a pair of microphones for the ears, and some touch-sensitive pads all over the body, leaving only the sense of smell as a potential problem, but can easily be circumvented by having chemical detectors (for example, instead of saying "I smell crack" Robocop can detect trace elements of cocaine on the scene, effectively elminating the need for drug dogs).

However, it is not the hardware, but the software that makes Robocop merely science fiction; however who said he had to go off artificial intelligence? Why not have the robot RCed by a police officer miles away, in the safety of his headquarters, operating him much like one would a video game, controlling the robot entirely via sattelite?

The cops could train to do this on a real computer game (with experienced cops playing the criminals, since they have been around the block a time or two, and know what criminals usually do to resist arrest), with a half-second delay in the controls reaction to mimmick the actual sattelite delay, and if just one civilian is killed or injured in the resulting shootoff, it's game over.

At this point, the only potential problem I can foresee is the cost (honestly, we're building and maintaning a fully-mobile robot with programming to respond to RC commands), but if we can overcome that (for example, the cities may buy these things off computer companies through eminent domain), we can effectively have the intellect and improvisational abilities of humans with the physical lethality and indestructability of Robocop.

So, are you with me?

A towel presents a very porous and large surface that promotes its moisture to evaporate faster as there is large area of water contacting the air.

 

When water evaporates absorbs heat. 540 calories each gram. That cools the wet towel, and you in contact with it.

It is nothing out of the ordinary and well known effect.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evaporative_cooler

 

Miguel

Well, that leaves only one thing left:

Could a battery-powered cooling device that is attached to the back of the neck do the same thing?

First, by "specious," I hope you mean suspicious.

Second, think about it: The spinal cord is one of the most fundamental parts of the entire nervous system. Factor in the brain, and the spine is essentially second in command. It is basically the liaison between the brain and the minor nerve cells.

Therefore, if you can create a message yourself, and convince the spinal cord to deliver it to all the other nerve cells, it would. This is essentially what they say happens when you put something cold on the back of your neck, and that's how it decreases your entire body tempurature.

It makes sense to me; why not you? Is there something else I haven't considered?

My first taxpaying job was at Sonic as a cook. They recommended that, to prevent myself from passing out from the heat, I should soak a rag in water, stick it in their walk-in refridgerator, and, when it gets cold, drape it around my neck.

This made me think of an infomercial I saw some time prior: It was about a battery-powered cooling collar. They said that the science behind this was that, if you can cool down the back of your neck, the sensation will seep down into your spinal cord, and therefore, throughout your body.

My question: Is this technology legit, even if the product itself (by nature of being on an infomercial) is not? If it is, then why hasn't anyone come up with the idea yet, just at a price that doesn't make you suspicious?

Generally speaking, using it. Doing work means heat flow and generation of entropy, and that's a measurement of whatever is causing the breakdown. The change in entropy from natural decay (outside forces) is happening anyway. This assumes that you aren't doing maintenance, which shifts the increase in entropy to somewhere else so the local entropy is stable or possibly decreases.

 

Using your example of a house — the house will wear out if you aren't painting and cleaning it, etc., on some regular basis. The difference isn't just between use and disuse, it's between maintenance and no maintenance. Many things not used but well-maintained will stay in pretty good shape.

So, what you're saying is that decay (that must be the process of damage through disuse) is always happening anyway, and using it merely adds a method with which the damage can accumulate. Is that the gist of it?

Other than simply hacking away at an object with a weapon or tossing it off a building, there are two primary ways to have an object damaged. The first is to simply use it in the way it was intended, and the object will become damaged naturally. This process is called wear and tear.

The second is to simply let it sit, and the object will become damaged simply by not using it. A good example of this is an old, abandoned house. It will have cobwebs and unstable floors galore, simply due to years of not being lived in. I'm sure this phenomenon has a name, but I don't know what it is. Maybe one of you guys can tell me what it is.

My question is: If all else is equal, what will damage an object more: Using it, or not using it?

If you took even a high school-level course on chemistry, you are probably familiar with the "limiting reagent." Long story short, the least amount of a particular ingredient will be used up, and the rest of the raw ingredients will be "leftovers," kind of like how, if you have all sorts of sandwich supplies, but only two slices of bread, you'll either have one goliath of a sandwich, or a lot of leftovers.

When shopping for computer hardware, it's safe to assume that various pieces of hardware are loaded with limiting reagents. For example, if a CPU has a 3.0GHz processor, quad core, 1.5V voltage, 150W, and 4x2MB L2 cache, but its L3 cache is only 64kb, you've got a pretty crappy CPU on your hands. In this case, the L3 cache is the "limiting reagent."

What exactly would be the specs for a "perfect computer?" I'm talking about the individual, itty bitty specs for each piece of hardware (CPU, RAM, motherboard, etc.) so that there is absolutely no limiting reagents. If any part is used at its full capacity, there will be not one ounce of other spec sitting idly by; there are absolutely no "leftovers" in the specs.

I'd like to know this so I can bear it in mind when I shop for computers. Also, if I need a stronger or weaker computer, I'll just multiply all the specs by the same constant to calculate the specs I need. Thank you.

Did no one read my last post? I've gotten the problem solved already. It's in the parenthases.

A mod can lock this, now. I'm unsubscribing.

Hello....

Its really a very good thing that the bank is provided the loans against the Education and also with a low interests..

If some people is not rich or not have a money to study then in this problem the bank will help those persons with providing the loan for the education on 10 or 11 % interest.. Its a very helpful for all.

Wtf?

1) Can you try repeating that? In ENGLISH, perhaps?

2) What does all of that have to do with my (no solved) issue?

Okay, I've changed the size. Is it to your liking, now?

Youtube, like SFN, can be a source of good information or garbage as we witness here daily.

Yeah, I've got another idea: Why don't you get your scientific research from World Wrestling Entertainment, Incorporated? That sounds like just as reliable a source.

In addition, I have trouble focusing on anything other than your signature. Is there any particular reason why you think that your signature is the most important thing in your post (because it does get the biggest letters).

In addition to what?

Anyway, it's just a signature. What's wrong with it? It's not like I have a picture of two guys kissing in it.

I was just watching a rerun of the Tonight Show.

Scientists say they have developed a "virtual reality helmet" that recreates the sites, smells, sounds, and tastes of any environment. They say you can put this helmet on and it feels like your outside. Or, you could go OUTSIDE!

However, that news point doesn't say anything about the sense of touch. This would severely limit the possibilities of this helmet. I mean, if you can't feel where you are, then I guess... so much for having a roller coaster in my own home.

I mean, it's a helmet, isn't it? Can't they just cause the cranium part of the helmet to transmit messages to your brain, and therefore to the rest of your nervous system, to simulate these feelings?

But, I guess it isn't entirely worthless. I mean, I'd love to be able to go see a live professional wrestling show whenever the hell I feel like it, instead of waiting patiently for one to come to my area. I don't have to feel anything except excitement and adrenaline when I'm doing that.

However, even if it can have its moments, I think these moments will be short, few, and far between, due to the vision problems associated with having a TV screen flash videos less than an inch from your eyes. Nintendo Virtual Boy, anyone?

So, what during that rant was true, not true, and partially true?

Yes, animals have a sense of time. This video might help:

 

 

 

RjlpamhrId8

Oh yeah, Youtube is one of the best places on Earth (Internet or otherwise) to get your scientific sources.:|

In the Science Channel Documentary 2057, they talk about cars that drive themselves. They say that they're still working out the kinks, but I find that to be hard to believe, mostly because I've seen (and even operated on a small scale) this technology first-hand.

It's called an AGV (Automated Guided Vehicle). When I was in high school, I took a class called Technology Discovery, and one unit was on the AGV. Its course and work schedule are literally as easy to edit as the contents of a spreadhseet. If it finds a barrier, it will take a detour. Also, you can program it to stay on a dark black line (a "road" of sorts). The only problem is that this technology is so expensive that only companies can use it.

For the other half of the equation, we have GPS navigation technology. This basically tells you what route to go to get to your destination, but you are responsible for driving there. If you make a wrong turn, the GPS navigation system will recalculate your course in a matter of seconds. Granted, they are still working out all the kinks, but it's nowhere near the price of an AGV, so I guess you could say that you're paying for less bugs when it comes to an AGV. Besides, the Tom Tom brand of GPS is actually quite reliable as far as staying up-to-date is concerned, so I've heard.

Did it ever occur to anyone that we could just combine these two technologies, and make a smart car? The GPS technology automatically programs the AGV car, and the AGV car goes where it is told, and informs the GPS of any obstacles it encounters, so the GPS can rework the navigation, and the cycle continues.

I honestly don't see why guys like Donald Trump and Bill Gates (ESPECIALLY Gates, since this is a matter of COMPUTERS) haven't already gotten these smart cars, because for the life of me, aside from the cost, I cannot figure out a problem with it.

I've tried goal seek, but it says I need a formula.

Here's a screenshot to show you exactly what I'm talking about.

http://s270.photobucket.com/albums/jj93/dstebbin/?action=view&current=loanequationspreadsheet.jpg

Okay, new problem.

The whole reason I wanted this formula in the first place was because I'm writing a spreadsheet (open office calc) for my budget. I wanted to put the formula for the loan in a seperate sheet in the book, and include the payments in my recurring costs (as opposed to permanent costs). The total recurring costs (including other equipment and stuff) for a whole quarter of a year, combined with the permanent costs, would give me my start-up costs, which would be the principal of the loan I take out.

I wanted arrange all three of these cells (loan payment, start-up costs, and loan principal) to affect each other in a triangle-like relationship, so it would factor in the minimum amount I'd need to borrow for the rest of the costs, without me having to manually put in new payments, and then adjust the start-up costs accordingly.

Understand? Didn't think so.

Anyway, when I do this, I get a message in the cells that says Err:522. I'm pretty sure I know what that means; the question is: How do I circumvent it? I couldn't find anything in the help section about this.

So is X the amount of my payment?

Also, what's with the Y.F? Do you mean "Y multiplied by F?"

Also, so I can make my answer sound more relevant to you, please provide some ballpark figures (loan amound, annual interest + compounding period, time to repay if relevant and time between installments) so I can make my answer relevant to you instead of providing complicated algebra with terms you might not even need.

Well, I don't know exactly how much I'm going to be taking out, because factoring in the loan payments will alter my start up costs.

Let's just say I take out a loan, and have a principal and origination fee totaling P dollars (the amount I'll be in debt immediately after putting pen to paper). The interest rate is R, and it compounds F times per annum. I want to pay off the principal and interest, to the point where I am entirely free and clear, in Y years, making M payments per year (I say M because I'll probably be making monthly payments).

Are there any other variables you need to know? Thank you.

I'm trying to create a budget for a small business. I have to factor in the loan payments, but in order to figure how much they'll be, I'll need to know how much I'm going to be borrowing.

Various banks have calculators on their websites that tell you these things, but as I put in the loan payments, my costs fluctuate dramatically. This requires that I modify the amount to borrow for my start up funds, and I end up having to repeat this process over and over again.

Specifically, what equation do they use to factor my minimum loan payments? This way, I don't have to keep going back to this website calculator; I can do it myself.

Peter Woit ("Not Even Wrong") and Lee Smolin ("The Trouble with Physics") most likely agree with you. That said, string theory is as much about mathematics as it is about physics. Theory has a rather different meaning in mathematics than in science. Theory in mathematics means "body of knowledge". For example, chaos theory, K-theory, knot theory, measure theory, number theory, ...

But mathematics is the language of science. Also, math is a science in its own right; the science of abstract numbers.

Besides, this isn't a question of mathematics; this is a question of physics.

according to quantum mechanics Planck time is the smallest unit of time so 1/Planck time would probably be your theoretical maximum frame rate(physical limitations of photodetectors and memory will keep you from getting anywhere close), but as Baby Astronaut pointed out you have to wait for the photons to bounce off something and hit the camera before you see anything.

How much is a Plank Time?

The shutter has a non-zero mass, ergo it will not move at the speed of light.

not necessarily. If the distance the shutter has to travel to open and/or close all the way is really small, such as a milimeter, then the maximum speed is still c, but it has only a milimeter to go, not a whole meter. It is entirely possible to go .001 times the speed of light.

Even if you could make the frame-rates go that quickly, you wouldn't capture a room being lit slowly, however cool that might be. Why? The photons have to reach the camera in order to even see the light, and by then it's too late.

 

Unless a way exists to do it with rows of cameras lining the entire room, and then compile the videos so you somewhat get the effect you're looking for.

Well, what if we were to position the camera just an inch from the light source, so that it reacts with the camera relatively quickly.

Basically, what I'm asking is... does the "no speed of light" thing apply to framrates?