Comment oblig xkcd (Score 1) 212
Comment it can fly? (Score 0) 228
maybe im missing something, but unless this update is going to make it sprout wings, why does it need flight software when it's already landed
Comment On a related note... (Score 3, Interesting) 245
I've wondered what F1 would be like without all the restrictions. Modifying humans to this extreme is probably going to have unforeseen consequences in the long term.
However with F1, if you were to take out the human element and have AI or remote control, you needn't worry about human safety and could lift all sorts of restrictions, allowing R+D budgets to be spent on whole new automotive areas.
Comment Just use a bell curve (Score 5, Insightful) 131
sounds in principle like a fairly simple solution. Put together a separate histogram of the scores by each reviewer. From this you can estimate what an average score really is and how many standard deviations an individual score is above or below. The meta-score then becomes the average number of sigma's the game is above or below the various averages. If necessary this score can be sanitised to something easier to read for those less familiar with Gaussian statistics
Comment Re:I'll be impressed when... (Score 1) 804
scrap that, wrong thread, ignore me
Comment Re:I'll be impressed when... (Score 1) 804
that was I, just noticed I wasn't logged in.
Comment No skiing (Score 2) 44
The lubrication in skiing comes from a thin layer of the snow beneath the ski melting, it's the water lubricating you. Im going to assume that thise CO2 is still subliming on mars since liquid CO2 requires atleast 5atm of pressure. Therefore no lubrication even if liquid CO2 acts as a lubricant (does it?). At very low temperatures snow actually becomes incredibly hard to ski on because that thin layer no longer melts
Comment Hang on a minuite (Score 1, Funny) 53
You mean it can run linux?
Comment ill have double (Score 0) 150
with eggs and bacon
Comment Re:Not really nanoscale (Score 1) 39
as said in the OP, details in TFA suggests resolution is hundreds of nanometers. If NASA/ESA came up with a picture of the moons surface with half kilometer resolution, you wouldn't call it meter scale
ESL — a CRT-Based Replacement For CFL Lights Without the Mercury 348
New submitter An dochasac writes "Everyone knows incandescent lights are inefficient little space heaters which happen to convert 5% of their incoming energy to light. Compact Fluorescents (CFLs) are more efficient, but they contain toxic, brain-eating mercury and emit a greenish light. LEDs are also efficient and last longer, but if their blueish 'white' light doesn't mess up your melatonin balance, their price is high enough to wreck your checking account balance and give you the blues. A company called Vu1 has come up with something called Electron Stimulated Luminance (ESL) lights which claim to solve the mercury and price problem with a light based on Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) technology. These lights have the warm color balance of incandescents and are compatible with dimmer switches. The article has further ESL details along with an explanation of why it's still a bad idea to say these are 'trash can safe.'"
Comment Not really nanoscale (Score 5, Insightful) 39
It's stretching it a bit to call it nano-scale. The legend on the images puts the models in the region of 100um. 0.1mm is not really nano-scale, unless the hair on our head is nano-scale. With around 200 lines per layer, we're still talking about hundreds of nanometers for the print resolution.
small is not nano, regardless of how much SEO you're after
small is not nano, regardless of how much SEO you're after
Comment Re:Agreed (Score 5, Interesting) 241
22/7 is actually more accurate than 3.14 (0.05% vs 0.04%)
Comment Same thing in the uk. (Score 1) 498
In the UK, refusing/failing to provide a specimen of blood or breath carries the same punishment as providing a positive sample. This gets around people like you trying to avoid responsibility for their actions.
