Stock up on canned tuna while it's cheap. Blue fin and albacore are going to get hit hard in the coming handful of years.
Stock up on all canned food any water too maybe.
Fuck that, Oregon Trail rules. Zero food, three thousand bullets.
You have shot five thousand pounds of food. You can only carry 100 back to the wagon.
Really since I have to walk home at times 5+ miles from the store I can understand why it was only 100 pounds as even with modern stuff carrying stuff sucks
+3
Options
ShadowenSnores in the morningLoserdomRegistered Userregular
I don't even know what half that article is talking about but something called time crystals are real and made by humans. Apparently they're kind of energyless (as in they have no energy output) perpetual motion machines?
If we don't destroy the world we are gonna save the fucking universe someday.
Mr_Rose83 Blue Ridge Protects the HolyRegistered Userregular
Yeah, these guys are talking about a phase of matter with functionally zero internal entropy. This is potentially a Big Deal, but I'm not gonna get too excited until they're self-sustaining, i.e. not living off the entropy of an excitation laser.
Until then, though they're still accidentally parsing out the fundamental mathematics of life as a function of the universe so I'm gonna let it slide. Maybe they'll figure out why proteins are such a bitch to regular-crystallise?
Yea spider designs are going to be better for almost all cases due to the stability. I could see bipedal or quadrupedal for applications requiring speed over rough terrain, especially since as a robot you could probably go from quadrupedal to a more splayed spider like shape.
Bipedal works in humans because it frees up the hands for tool use, but in a robot you can still keep four legs on the ground and have a set of hands, or two, or however many you want and still work. I bet Centaur style designs will become popular for heavy industry exoskeletons. Four on the floor and still have a set of hands for manipulation.
The biggest problem with Mechs is all this stuff supposes them as a weapons platform, and height is the biggest enemy of any land based weapons system. Look at tank design, all the cutting edge designs biggest efforts are to reduce the profile of the tank against anti armor munitions. I giant walking mech is a huge target for troop fired anti armor weapons.
Give me a person sized exoskeleton though. double a persons strength and allow them to hold things without inducing muscle strain? A ton of building and manufacturing trades would be revolutionized. Being able to hold lumber or metal plating over head without getting tired? Being able to lock your exoskeleton in place and operate a second set of manipulators to fasten things together? Goddamn that would be amazing.
Tanks can't dodge. Nor do they have particularly extensive countermeasures besides smoke grenades.
As for verticality, mechs will be able to go prone.
I don't even know what half that article is talking about but something called time crystals are real and made by humans. Apparently they're kind of energyless (as in they have no energy output) perpetual motion machines?
If we don't destroy the world we are gonna save the fucking universe someday.
If crystals have an atomic structure that repeats in space, like the carbon lattice of a diamond, why can’t crystals also have a structure that repeats in time? That is, a time crystal?
For the rest of my life I will regret not being high as fuck when I read this.
+19
Options
JedocIn the scupperswith the staggers and jagsRegistered Userregular
I don't even know what half that article is talking about but something called time crystals are real and made by humans. Apparently they're kind of energyless (as in they have no energy output) perpetual motion machines?
If we don't destroy the world we are gonna save the fucking universe someday.
If crystals have an atomic structure that repeats in space, like the carbon lattice of a diamond, why can’t crystals also have a structure that repeats in time? That is, a time crystal?
For the rest of my life I will regret not being high as fuck when I read this.
Carl Sagan approves this post. Also, I'm guessing all other theoretical physicists, forever. I mean, the whole one-electron universe dialog just sounds like a couple of dangerously stoned grad students, you know?
+1
Options
Donovan PuppyfuckerA dagger in the dark isworth a thousand swords in the morningRegistered Userregular
Yea spider designs are going to be better for almost all cases due to the stability. I could see bipedal or quadrupedal for applications requiring speed over rough terrain, especially since as a robot you could probably go from quadrupedal to a more splayed spider like shape.
Bipedal works in humans because it frees up the hands for tool use, but in a robot you can still keep four legs on the ground and have a set of hands, or two, or however many you want and still work. I bet Centaur style designs will become popular for heavy industry exoskeletons. Four on the floor and still have a set of hands for manipulation.
The biggest problem with Mechs is all this stuff supposes them as a weapons platform, and height is the biggest enemy of any land based weapons system. Look at tank design, all the cutting edge designs biggest efforts are to reduce the profile of the tank against anti armor munitions. I giant walking mech is a huge target for troop fired anti armor weapons.
Give me a person sized exoskeleton though. double a persons strength and allow them to hold things without inducing muscle strain? A ton of building and manufacturing trades would be revolutionized. Being able to hold lumber or metal plating over head without getting tired? Being able to lock your exoskeleton in place and operate a second set of manipulators to fasten things together? Goddamn that would be amazing.
Tanks can't dodge. Nor do they have particularly extensive countermeasures besides smoke grenades.
As for verticality, mechs will be able to go prone.
Yea spider designs are going to be better for almost all cases due to the stability. I could see bipedal or quadrupedal for applications requiring speed over rough terrain, especially since as a robot you could probably go from quadrupedal to a more splayed spider like shape.
Bipedal works in humans because it frees up the hands for tool use, but in a robot you can still keep four legs on the ground and have a set of hands, or two, or however many you want and still work. I bet Centaur style designs will become popular for heavy industry exoskeletons. Four on the floor and still have a set of hands for manipulation.
The biggest problem with Mechs is all this stuff supposes them as a weapons platform, and height is the biggest enemy of any land based weapons system. Look at tank design, all the cutting edge designs biggest efforts are to reduce the profile of the tank against anti armor munitions. I giant walking mech is a huge target for troop fired anti armor weapons.
Give me a person sized exoskeleton though. double a persons strength and allow them to hold things without inducing muscle strain? A ton of building and manufacturing trades would be revolutionized. Being able to hold lumber or metal plating over head without getting tired? Being able to lock your exoskeleton in place and operate a second set of manipulators to fasten things together? Goddamn that would be amazing.
Tanks can't dodge. Nor do they have particularly extensive countermeasures besides smoke grenades.
As for verticality, mechs will be able to go prone.
I've been thinking about this, for completely unrelated reasons, and I don't think that mech going prone will be either a good thing or a realistic thing.
For starters there's the size problem. A person can go prone behind a low wall, or a tree, or a particularly small outcrop of rock. A small mech would still need something roughly the size of a house or a winnebego. Outside of a city, they would find it hard to find adequate cover.
Then there's the muscular problem. If a person drops prone, they can still fire from prone and get up quickly. Current tech doesn't allow for anything like that for mechs. We don't have anything that allows something that large and that heavy to do anything quickly, much less lift it's own weight like that in order to get it from prone to standing. Now, smaller robots can do it, but they are not pushing the weight limits of materials tech right now, and they are not quick about it.
Wasn't the reason why Otacon built the mech in Metal Gear Solid his love for anime
Seems realistic
+8
Options
JedocIn the scupperswith the staggers and jagsRegistered Userregular
Listen, you people are missing the point. You know how the male peacock's feathers are huge and colorful and heavy? And they kind of make him more likely to get eaten by a predator? The only reason they have any kind of evolutionary advantage is because they're big and awesome and scream to female peacocks "Yo, ladies, I'm such a badass specimen of birdmanity that I thought the whole predator/prey dynamic was too easy, and decided to handicap myself. Let's touch cloacae."
Mechs are going to be the same thing. They're going to be fielded by military forces who already have complete superiority over the battlefield, but need a more efficient way to strike terror into the hearts of enemies who don't have the technical sophistication to realize why that tiny triangle in the sky is such bad news. They're going to be a giant stomping billboard that says "You're conquered, but we don't have time to explain our orbital strike platform to every teenage asshole with a Kalashnikov." They're going to be a big dragging peacock's tail, grabbing everyone's attention and saying "Wouldn't it be easy to shoot an RPG at me? Why don't you try it and see what happens?"
Efficient killing power hasn't been a military priority since World War II. The challenge these days is convincing the suicidally optimistic guerrillas to lay down arms and get in line.
Efficient killing power hasn't been a military priority since World War II. The challenge these days is convincing the suicidally optimistic guerrillas to lay down arms and get in line.
How about investing in education and development
+3
Options
JedocIn the scupperswith the staggers and jagsRegistered Userregular
Efficient killing power hasn't been a military priority since World War II. The challenge these days is convincing the suicidally optimistic guerrillas to lay down arms and get in line.
How about investing in education and development
That's exponentially more effective, and I would rather our foreign policy pour billions of dollars into building schools instead of mechs.
I know it's not as much fun as tearing people into bloody bits while they scream
0
Options
JedocIn the scupperswith the staggers and jagsRegistered Userregular
Depends on the teacher, I guess. I had one who handed out gumballs in exchange for A's, and even let you twist the crank on the gumball machine. That was pretty fun.
Listen, you people are missing the point. You know how the male peacock's feathers are huge and colorful and heavy? And they kind of make him more likely to get eaten by a predator? The only reason they have any kind of evolutionary advantage is because they're big and awesome and scream to female peacocks "Yo, ladies, I'm such a badass specimen of birdmanity that I thought the whole predator/prey dynamic was too easy, and decided to handicap myself. Let's touch cloacae."
Mechs are going to be the same thing. They're going to be fielded by military forces who already have complete superiority over the battlefield, but need a more efficient way to strike terror into the hearts of enemies who don't have the technical sophistication to realize why that tiny triangle in the sky is such bad news. They're going to be a giant stomping billboard that says "You're conquered, but we don't have time to explain our orbital strike platform to every teenage asshole with a Kalashnikov." They're going to be a big dragging peacock's tail, grabbing everyone's attention and saying "Wouldn't it be easy to shoot an RPG at me? Why don't you try it and see what happens?"
Efficient killing power hasn't been a military priority since World War II. The challenge these days is convincing the suicidally optimistic guerrillas to lay down arms and get in line.
It's not about being efficient, and invisible to the naked eye drones are already enough to strike terror in people anywhere they happen. It's that mechs are unrealistic in terms of military battlefield use. For contractors and in building it's useful, but not so much in terms of actually fighting and firing. Meanwhile we have aging basic military equipment like body armor and vehicles that need money to replace and update. The non-flashy stuff that allows the military to be effective is more important than unnecessary boondoggles like Mechs.
Listen, you people are missing the point. You know how the male peacock's feathers are huge and colorful and heavy? And they kind of make him more likely to get eaten by a predator? The only reason they have any kind of evolutionary advantage is because they're big and awesome and scream to female peacocks "Yo, ladies, I'm such a badass specimen of birdmanity that I thought the whole predator/prey dynamic was too easy, and decided to handicap myself. Let's touch cloacae."
Mechs are going to be the same thing. They're going to be fielded by military forces who already have complete superiority over the battlefield, but need a more efficient way to strike terror into the hearts of enemies who don't have the technical sophistication to realize why that tiny triangle in the sky is such bad news. They're going to be a giant stomping billboard that says "You're conquered, but we don't have time to explain our orbital strike platform to every teenage asshole with a Kalashnikov." They're going to be a big dragging peacock's tail, grabbing everyone's attention and saying "Wouldn't it be easy to shoot an RPG at me? Why don't you try it and see what happens?"
Efficient killing power hasn't been a military priority since World War II. The challenge these days is convincing the suicidally optimistic guerrillas to lay down arms and get in line.
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
Isn't it Ironic?
God will judge the world again -- with fire!
Someone call Alanis Morissette, we have some strong competition for worse use of irony.
Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but dies in the process.
Really I do find it sad and interesting a lot of home schooling text books are secular in nature but with the choices our government recently has in education I see a lot of children getting home schooled
0
Options
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
Really I do find it sad and interesting a lot of home schooling text books are secular in nature but with the choices our government recently has in education I see a lot of children getting home schooled
Secular means not having a religious basis. I am not sure what you said is what you're trying to communicate.
Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but dies in the process.
I don't know as my info about home schooling is really limited
I just remembered a lot of textbooks were religious even vaguely
Just with the people being selected for Education sec and the dismal state of schooling anymore I can see the appeal of home schooling children just how if you want a standard non religious education the question
I went to Catholic school and we didn't get anti-science indoctrination like that. That stuff showing up in any legitimate educational setting makes me furious.
I went to Catholic school and we didn't get anti-science indoctrination like that. That stuff showing up in any legitimate educational setting makes me furious.
I went to a nondenominational Christian school up through sixth grade, and my sixth grade teacher said, and I quote, "The Earth is no older than, at the oldest, 10,000 years old. Dinosaurs are no problem. I have proof."
When a young, inquisitive mind asked for said proof, they got sent to the office for being insubordinate.
+6
Options
BroloBroseidonLord of the BroceanRegistered Userregular
I went to Catholic school and we didn't get anti-science indoctrination like that. That stuff showing up in any legitimate educational setting makes me furious.
I went to a nondenominational Christian school up through sixth grade, and my sixth grade teacher said, and I quote, "The Earth is no older than, at the oldest, 10,000 years old. Dinosaurs are no problem. I have proof."
When a young, inquisitive mind asked for said proof, they got sent to the office for being insubordinate.
see?
you were learning important life lessons about questioning those in power
Yeah catholic school is basically 1 degree shy from public school in general. AFAIK, the only real difference is the focus on abstinence in sex ed, but they teach science and sex ed (excluding the abstinence) in practically the same way as most liberal public schools.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
0
Options
JedocIn the scupperswith the staggers and jagsRegistered Userregular
Catholic institutions, even in America, tend to have a pretty good track record when it comes to science. No young-earth creationism, no efforts to try and prove the Flood actually happened.
The worst offenders tend to be the Protestant denominations that were founded in America, and specifically those founded or schismed during the last quarter of the nineteenth century. There were some deeply weird theological influences floating around for a few decades there, and the result is that the stricter your church is about booze and dancing, the more likely they are to be strict Young Earthers. Bonus points if they don't allow musical instruments in church.
Scientists testing out procedure to allow people completely paralyzed with ALS or Lou Gehrig's disease to answer yes/no questions.
The patterns were consistent about 70 percent of the time. And the researchers moved on to open-ended questions, including “You have back pain,” “I love to live,” and “I rarely feel sad.”
Of the four patients, all of whom had been completely locked in for years, three said they were happy and loved to live. The fourth, a 24-year-old woman who had rapid onset of the disease, was not asked because her parents feared she was in a delicate mental state, MIT Technology Review reports.
One patient was asked if he would give his blessing for his daughter to marry her boyfriend. He repeatedly responded “no."
Posts
Really since I have to walk home at times 5+ miles from the store I can understand why it was only 100 pounds as even with modern stuff carrying stuff sucks
Time. Crystals.
I don't even know what half that article is talking about but something called time crystals are real and made by humans. Apparently they're kind of energyless (as in they have no energy output) perpetual motion machines?
If we don't destroy the world we are gonna save the fucking universe someday.
Until then, though they're still accidentally parsing out the fundamental mathematics of life as a function of the universe so I'm gonna let it slide. Maybe they'll figure out why proteins are such a bitch to regular-crystallise?
Nintendo Network ID: AzraelRose
DropBox invite link - get 500MB extra free.
You been playing Infinity, mate?
Screw the wagon
I'm making a tent out of the carcass and settling in Buffalo Hollow to live like a greasy carnivorous king
For the rest of my life I will regret not being high as fuck when I read this.
Carl Sagan approves this post. Also, I'm guessing all other theoretical physicists, forever. I mean, the whole one-electron universe dialog just sounds like a couple of dangerously stoned grad students, you know?
Nup. Is it good?
Best tabletop skirmish game I've ever played
I've been thinking about this, for completely unrelated reasons, and I don't think that mech going prone will be either a good thing or a realistic thing.
For starters there's the size problem. A person can go prone behind a low wall, or a tree, or a particularly small outcrop of rock. A small mech would still need something roughly the size of a house or a winnebego. Outside of a city, they would find it hard to find adequate cover.
Then there's the muscular problem. If a person drops prone, they can still fire from prone and get up quickly. Current tech doesn't allow for anything like that for mechs. We don't have anything that allows something that large and that heavy to do anything quickly, much less lift it's own weight like that in order to get it from prone to standing. Now, smaller robots can do it, but they are not pushing the weight limits of materials tech right now, and they are not quick about it.
Seems realistic
Mechs are going to be the same thing. They're going to be fielded by military forces who already have complete superiority over the battlefield, but need a more efficient way to strike terror into the hearts of enemies who don't have the technical sophistication to realize why that tiny triangle in the sky is such bad news. They're going to be a giant stomping billboard that says "You're conquered, but we don't have time to explain our orbital strike platform to every teenage asshole with a Kalashnikov." They're going to be a big dragging peacock's tail, grabbing everyone's attention and saying "Wouldn't it be easy to shoot an RPG at me? Why don't you try it and see what happens?"
Efficient killing power hasn't been a military priority since World War II. The challenge these days is convincing the suicidally optimistic guerrillas to lay down arms and get in line.
How about investing in education and development
That's exponentially more effective, and I would rather our foreign policy pour billions of dollars into building schools instead of mechs.
It's not about being efficient, and invisible to the naked eye drones are already enough to strike terror in people anywhere they happen. It's that mechs are unrealistic in terms of military battlefield use. For contractors and in building it's useful, but not so much in terms of actually fighting and firing. Meanwhile we have aging basic military equipment like body armor and vehicles that need money to replace and update. The non-flashy stuff that allows the military to be effective is more important than unnecessary boondoggles like Mechs.
But will the mechs touch cloacae?
Hey, baby. They don't call them chicken walkers for nothing.
https://i.imgur.com/gzr56BN.gif
but also 20mb
That camera has a really good zoom lens.
Someone call Alanis Morissette, we have some strong competition for worse use of irony.
Secular means not having a religious basis. I am not sure what you said is what you're trying to communicate.
I just remembered a lot of textbooks were religious even vaguely
Just with the people being selected for Education sec and the dismal state of schooling anymore I can see the appeal of home schooling children just how if you want a standard non religious education the question
I went to a nondenominational Christian school up through sixth grade, and my sixth grade teacher said, and I quote, "The Earth is no older than, at the oldest, 10,000 years old. Dinosaurs are no problem. I have proof."
When a young, inquisitive mind asked for said proof, they got sent to the office for being insubordinate.
see?
you were learning important life lessons about questioning those in power
The worst offenders tend to be the Protestant denominations that were founded in America, and specifically those founded or schismed during the last quarter of the nineteenth century. There were some deeply weird theological influences floating around for a few decades there, and the result is that the stricter your church is about booze and dancing, the more likely they are to be strict Young Earthers. Bonus points if they don't allow musical instruments in church.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/02/after-years-of-being-locked-in-patients-communicate-say-theyre-happy/