mynameisyang

Check your premises.

I don't know much about rocket science, I think there is no doubt that we can achieve the moon landing, consider there are many incredible things we can do without contradict the laws of physics even with relatively primitive technology. If the action is an end in itself, then all one have to do is just perform exactly that action, with everything physics allowed. But if the action is a mean to something else, then the action itself became a "price" or a burden, one must calculate the ratio of investment vs profit, and conclude is it worth the trouble. May be the action is too expansive and there is a cheaper alternative. If I can get from point A to point B by walk, I will not chose to drive, unless Im moving some heavy cargo or enjoy the ride. Exotic scifi machines such as the flying car can be done with 20 year old technology, but it does not offer any real advantage than street cars consider its pricey construction, extra fuel consumption, regulation problems, and safety risk. Can we return to the moon? yes we can, the US is still a major technological and industrial power in the world, various obstacles can be overcome by intervention, force assemble a team with ability and passion, supply them with a mega budget, put that project on the top priority in the face of anything. But the real problem is: what do we what from it. Return to the moon will not have the same scale and magnitude of impact as the original 1969 mission. Back then, the moon landing was significant, because it represented the new ideas of human progress that challenges the current state of thinking during that time. Simply put, the original moon landing was NEW, it was something never been done but imagined by many generations. At last it also symbolized the "victory" of America over the USSR, who compete under the same goal. Today's world has already transformed by the space age idea, return to the moon will not offer any new idealogical nor technological challenges to our current state of existence. In order to achieve the same revolutionary impact of the original mission, we will need something like establish a moon base, which is something we cannot bet on NASA. Remember the first sentence in Kennedy's Speech at Rice University:"We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard..." What can we say about the return project? Sure it is not easy, but is it Hard?

Nature has no "beauty", beauty is part of human's evaluation of nature. In nature, both mountain and skyscrapers are just collections of matter. "Beauty" is only possible in the human perspective. Art, no matter what subject it is, always reflect the human's perspective, not the natures. "Beauty" is 100% man made, it doest not matter was it the matter processed by our hand, or information processed by our head. Mountain in art is more beautiful than mountain in nature, so as the skyscrapers in art being more beautiful than real skyscrapers.

If you live like that, you will regret when you are 80 years old.

Thanks Grames, I think I solved this problem, its actually kind silly. I did not closely exam those equations on Mathhailno, but it does remind me something about that color bar, the maximum stress was 1.2Mpa something, and in contrast to the 200Mpa yield strength, there should be no actual deformation. The computer did it correctly, so it has to be a problem with software setting. First, I change the material setting to plastic and conduct the same experiment. The result indicate the same deformation occurred with plastic, so I am sure the problem must caused by the software. Then I read the help file, I found that this is a feature of the display setting, the current result is showing an exaggeration. After I switched to the realistic deformation, I run the simulation again with steel and plastic with an applied force 1000N. No visible deformation occur on the steel bar and the plastic bar bend, this makes scene.

The length is 350mm, its in proportion with the rest of dimension given in the picture.

I have to do a load simulation for a steel structure frame, and I am using a software called Autodesk Inventor. The strange problem is that Im having a hard time to understand the analysis result. The simulation bend a 50x50x3mm square shaped "steel bar" with a force of 5N, to me, that does not make any sense, the force involved to break these thing were in the magnitude of kNs. 5N suppose not make any visitable deform in the geometry. The following images includes some details of the result: The steel frame bend 10degree just under 5N of force applied at top To make sure I didn't do anything wrong, I redo the experiment with only earth gravity applied, and this can't be possible. I double checked the mechanical properties for this material, the Yield and Tensile Strength were numbers form catalog, I didn't touch the rest of these values. If you know what they mean, feel free to explain. So, if any of you are professionals in this field, please tell me what I had done wrong or give some link to useful websites. Your help will be deeply appreciated.

Be it open source or not, I think many of these gadgets are not useful at all.

I think this controller will adapt in utility software before games, applications like 3D modeling, air plane, and construction vehicles. It can also help people to control mechanical replacement of there arm or legs. On an extreme case, this deceive can even change the way we do programming and translation. Gaming application is for sure, it will come sooner or later.

http://www.nordicsemi.com/index.cfm?obj=document&act=display&doc=425 This is incredible, although it still sound like science fiction, its actually been developed for sometime. This controller has the potential to solve many problems related to 3D navigation and maneuver on games and many other software. It will sent 360 Kinetic back to stone age.

Given the outcome of episode 1-3. I think he should leave StarWars alone for the rest of his life.

If you are trading a lesser value for a greater value, you are not making a sacrifice, you are doing a business. I think the common definition of that term is an emotional impression base on how much one have to throw in but never considered how much one can get out. If one thinks rationally, it doesn't make sense to generate profit from a sacrifice.

It seems the hair style has a Manga influence.

Then live or death become a matter of choice, you don't have to suffer, just kill yourself. If you are a machine, just pull the plug. If you are a program, just uninstall. If you are a organic molecule, you may do so with a little discomfit. If you are an energy being form black hole, your day has come. What is "suffering"? To the mortals its the percent of things that endanger its survival and wellbeing, such threat only exist base on the fact that life is fragile, it is vulnerable to the random fluctuation of matter and energy, forces of nature run amok in this unprofessional universe. If a being is incapable of death, then the forces that can destroy molecules and circuits cannot alter the state of the immortal. Therefore its not a sign of its own end, so why should it suffer and run away from the non-existent danger. If we can become such "immortal" being, it won't take a billion years for us to colonize the galaxy. If we are incapable of death, there is no reason for not outlaw the physics any further, in physics, you break one rule is equivalent to break them all. Incapability of death already smash tons of natural regulation, and in such reality there is no reason to not smash some more in order to get FTL. Actually immorality in its strict sense is irrational, because it contradicts with reality, nothing is incapable of "death" the entropy can turn any system into atoms. What we are talking about here is actually a way to improve our life, not to become a God.

I want to install my brain into some kind machine and avoid that bio mess all together.