Forgot your password?

Comment: Implementation Fail (Score 2, Insightful) 84

by camperdave (#47915533) Attached to: MIT's Cheetah Robot Runs Untethered
If this is an implementation of a cheetah's running locomotion, it is a complete fail.
- When running, a cheetah's spine flexes. Not this robot.
- When running, a cheetah's hind legs land in front of its forelegs. Not this robot.
- When running, a cheetah's legs land with a full pacing stagger, ie left first then right. The feet on this robot land simultaneously.

Check out a real cheetah running. It's like they didn't do any research at all.

Comment: Re:Lua[0]? (Score 0) 725

Bookkeepers, shepherds, scientists and mathemaitcians have for centuries counted starting with 1. It is recent computer scientists that started this crazy standard break, as if they knew better how to count.

No. Computer scientists count starting from one, just like normal people. What we do not do is confuse cardinal numbers (which you use for counting) with ordinal numbers (which you use for coordinates, such as the position in an array).

Comment: Re:By far not the only design that does this. (Score 1) 199

by camperdave (#47822639) Attached to: Hitachi Developing Reactor That Burns Nuclear Waste

I agree that burning the crap off is a good thing, but why tack on an expensive piece of extra equipment when pretty much the same effect can be achieved by being smarter about core design? I'm just not seeing the big advantage here.

By all means, let's move forward on the smarter core designs. However, we still have lots of waste from the older cores to deal with.

Comment: Re:Already commented on this elsewhere (Score 1) 199

by camperdave (#47822615) Attached to: Hitachi Developing Reactor That Burns Nuclear Waste

option A: moderate toxicity/radioactivity for (hundreds of) thousands of years
option B: EXTREME toxicity/radioactivity for decades

Toxicity and Radioactivity do not necessarily correlate positively. You might wind up with highly toxic, low radioactive waste, or waste that has low toxicity but high radioactivity.

Comment: Re:Competition is good. (Score 1) 211

by camperdave (#47798571) Attached to: Battle of the Heavy Lift Rockets

fuel costs are a small portion of launch costs.

Really? What is the expensive part then?

Engine development/manufacture, mostly. The shuttle used 610 tons of oxygen and 100 tons of hydrogen which cost approximately $200,000 based on market prices. The cost of the solid rocket booster fuel is unknown, but one estimate is about $2,000,000. The cost to launch that bird was $450,000,000, so the fuel was half a percent of the launch costs.

SCCS, the source motel! Programs check in and never check out! -- Ken Thompson