Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:So wait, shotguns are more accurate than the bi (Score 1, Troll) 303

Nope. You're just presenting a more subtle version of numerological bullshit.

Having only one significant digit means that the actually value for 10 is somewhere between 6 and 14 and the value for 30 is somewhere between 26 and 34. Measurements were not that inaccurate (you don't really think they only have a 15 foot rope to measure with and absolutely nothing else, do you?).

10 and 30 have 2 significant digits even if you assume that they rounded to whole numbers and didn't want to use fractions or decimals. Rounding to whole numbers, a circle with a measure of 10 cubits across will measure 31 cubits around.

That passage of the bible is incorrect. Period.

Comment: Re:Seriously, $250,000? (Score 1) 44

by GrumpySteen (#46730085) Attached to: NASA Setting Up $250,000 Mars Lander Competition

You say read it and yet you said that a launch that only needs to reach 800 meters "requires a reasonably well controlled vehicle with a delta-V of about 4,5 km/s or so"? That speed would mean you'd hit the required altitude in a little under 0.2 seconds. There is no possible interpretation of the requirements that would result in that statement.

the only reason you said that is that you DIDN'T READ THE REQUIREMENTS and you're fucking pathetic at lying to cover it up after the fact.

Comment: Don't reverse that (Score 1) 65

It's an analogy between two things, not a patent application.

It's normal for the thing you're talking about to be mentioned first and said to be like the more commonly known thing. Reversing it would have people thinking that you're talking about jet fighters for the rest of the paragraph.

Comment: Re:Seriously, $250,000? (Score 5, Informative) 44

by GrumpySteen (#46724173) Attached to: NASA Setting Up $250,000 Mars Lander Competition

You clearly didn't read the actual challenge.

The Challenge would award prizes for successful demonstration of an end-to-end autonomous operation to sequentially accomplish the following tasks: picking up the sample, inserting the sample into a single stage rocket in a horizontal position, erecting the rocket, launching the rocket to an altitude not less than 800m, deploying a sample container with the cache internally sealed and landing the container at less than 6m/s terminal velocity.

$50,000 will be awarded to the team with the lowest total system mass that completes all tasks.

The goal is not to get someone to build a Mars lander for $250k. The goal is to get get amateurs to think about innovative ideas for how to solve some of the problems in the hope that some of those ideas will be useful when NASA designs a real lander.

Comment: Re:The simple solution is make them document it (Score 5, Insightful) 322

It is possible people are vandalizing the cars

Sure, but... "new rules were put in place requiring officers to document that both antennas were in place at the beginning and end of each shift. To guard against officers removing the antennas during their shifts, Tingirides said he requires patrol supervisors to make unannounced checks on cars."

"Since the new protocols went into place, only one antenna has been found missing,"

As soon as it became likely that the vandalism be caught, the vandalism suddenly dropped to almost zero despite the fact that only the officers knew of the change.

So no... it's not possible that the public is vandalizing the cars.

Comment: Re:i dont understand this (Score 2) 226

by GrumpySteen (#46685807) Attached to: Should Microsoft Give Kids Programmable Versions of Office?

...why do people have the ridiculous assumptions that..

        1. coding is "fun" and it's something kids/adults would just love spending time doing "if we just exposed them to it"

Nobody is making that assumption other than you. The point is to expose kids to programming so that the ones who will enjoy it can discover that fact and pursue it. It's that whole "broadening your horizons" thing that school is supposed to do.

Comment: Re:A simple solution (Score 1, Insightful) 97

We would end up watching complete and total crap, because we were paying for it and felt obligated to watch it.

That says more about you than it does about television.

Do you have an unlimited plan for your cell phone? Do you feel obligated to use it constantly and feel guilty about not using it? Probably not.

Do you have unlimited internet? Do you download large files constantly in order to maximize your usage? Probably not.

Do you go to all-you-can-eat buffets and eat as much as you possibly can and make yourself sick? Probably not.

If you get out of the "gotta get my money's worth!" mindset and you'll find that a lot of things are more enjoyable, but you'll never escape that mindset until you stop blaming everything else and accept that the problem is your mindset.

Comment: Re:how calculus? (Score 1) 107

by GrumpySteen (#46545137) Attached to: Flies That Do Calculus With Their Wings

Some of us can tell exactly where it's going to land.

No, you can't. Calculus can tell you exactly how far the ball will travel down to the last millimeter if you account for all of the variables.

You can make an educated guess, but you'll completely fail to catch the ball if you then close your eyes and assume that it will be exactly where you predicted it to be. If you can tell exactly where is going to land, why would you need to see it and make corrections?

Only an idiot would believe that they can tell exactly where a ball is going to land from the instant they see it being thrown. And here you are claiming just that.

Comment: Re:how calculus? (Score 1) 107

by GrumpySteen (#46545087) Attached to: Flies That Do Calculus With Their Wings

Fom the thrower's release, your brain has likely already determined 1) approximately how much time before the ball reaches you

Calculus will tell you exactly how long it will take for a ball to get to you, not an approximate guess.

You've confused "being familiar with thrown balls so that you can make a good guess" with "actually doing math."

"Love is an ideal thing, marriage a real thing; a confusion of the real with the ideal never goes unpunished." -- Goethe