or some kind of journalists?
> If the drone was operating between 800 and 900 feet off the ground, it was well out of any potential collision zone.
Why, these thingies are nailed on the sky, they can't change altitude, e.g. when someone who's already asshole enough to risk lives is also clueless about the range of the device (flying out of range may cause an altitude shift), the powered time, or proper flight safety?
Also, wouldn't a firefighting plane pull up aggressively if it came a bit too close to the ground, objects or the fire, or if it encountered something unusual?
The drone pilot attempted manslaughter and caused both monetary and fire damage, and he should get the proportionate penalty.
Yes, for example, by dumping flame retartant to the controller.
FD dumps fire retardant on drone pilot, problem solved.
> Catch the guy who flew the fucking drone and charge him with attempted murder. After all, that's what he was trying to do by making the fire spread.
We'd see a huge, circular dirt road on the moon if it were the case.
No, I meant that the entire thing is all weld, as you say. In fact, I found way too much sudden change in the geometry, many of them just mimicking shapes that were developed before 3D printing, e.g. how two dumb pipes are welded together in an acute angle. You should give more credit to FEM, it's not like a dark art to go beyond uniform thickness and diameter, circular shape and grid or prismatic patterns. Even 20 year old bicycle designs featured non-uniform wall thickness (around joins) and non-circular shape. Architecture and mechanical engineering is accustomed to roughly designing shapes according to forces and static and dynamic load bearing, and having it refined via FEM or analogous processes.
Invent a hoverboard that hovers over asphalt, soil and water with no friction, send a prototype and I'll gladly equip it with a friction generating mechanism that comes into play when the user leans in a direction. I'll just make it work by putting the friction eliminator that you built in in reverse.
It's been long known from practice, and Finite Element Methods, that pipes of uniform diameter or thickness are suboptimal, from a uniform strength load bearing standpoint. But of course, it's easy to manufacture pipes of uniform length, and overprovision the diameter and/or thickness, i.e. waste material and add weight. Also, in traditional engineering, joins are weak links, because of disruption of uniformity and often, weaker or less uniform bonds, welding or fitting. This also adds a lot of weight.
3D printing (or 'additive manufacturing') is meant to address these. The design is no longer constrained to uniform pipe diameters, or even, circular pipes. Also, what with the incredibly high ratio of materials that are there purely for the fitting? The whole thing looks like a traditionally welded set with all the possible known wastes, except maybe some weight savings due to more uniform joins, as obviously, welding is not needed. Or rather, the entire thing is welded from scratch (dust)! So I suspect it's a publicity stunt.
A design that's more obvious in benefitting from 3D printing must be way more organic looking, because circular pipes of uniform diameter are a manufacturing convenience, rather than the best resulting shape that you get if you work with static and dynamic load bearing forces, impact etc. So something like this, at least on the surface, does a better job of showing load bearing structures made possible by 3D printing: http://wordlesstech.com/edag-l...
Correlation is not causation, they may have common causes, for example
No need to be cubes, it's sufficient to be in 3D. Also, I don't think it's healthy for a 2m person to have the same girth as a healthy 160cm man who is thin or just right even for his height.
In the meantime, unless there is study to the contrary, the cubic ratio is the most reasonable assumption to go by, especially around the population mean or median.
> Three sentences is
> Just enough information
> For stupid people
A dumb, Haiku-loving person, reading an article on Slashdot, which used to stand for 'News for Nerds', encounters an article about a novel news service. The blurb is using terms which the reader might be unfamiliar with, such as 'sentence', and mistakes it with 'row'; he also fails to take into account the possibility for complex and/or compound sentences. Having demonstrated his lack of grasp on the matter publicly - with the foresight of posting as an Anonymous Coward however -, somebody else, who on the other hand hasn't read TFA, comes and points out the irony for him.
In a humorous way, GP anon makes the valid point that, ObjC can become marginalised over time if Swift gains followers in the general population, despite the fact that iOS / OS X system libraries will continue to exist, or be created in ObjC. For there are a _lot_ more people working on 'apps' than there are people making ObjC or C++ libraries that work under the hood, beneath opaque APIs (typically Apple employees, for libraries like Core Animation, Metal etc.). From the application developer's viewpoint, it usually doesn't matter if the system library beneath an API is implemented in C, assembly, Swift, Fortran etc. as he just calls the API functions from within, e.g., Swift. The GP, mind you, doesn't make the point that Swift will prevail over ObjC among app developers, just challenges the notion that the use through an API of an opaque library written in language X makes you a user of language X, or in some way make you count toward the use of language X.
Disgust for the convicted monopoly-abuser microsoft is a better reason for ripping off the windows key than sheer utility. In fact, a screwdriver is a pretty gentle tool - another version is if you don't buy a laptop or keyboard that has an 'in your face' ms marketing key in a prime location. Thinkpads held up for a good while. Btw. the GP probably has better motor control than you, evidenced by your untreated La Tourette syndrom, or worse, emotional need for behaving this way.