The Replica Prop Forum
Very cool site I am also a member of
Friday, March 31, 2017
Nope Ada don't play, and neither does Noctis
Ada KNOWS that Noctis would start fighting in an instant if she thought it was necessary to protect Acantha. So Ada shortcuts the whole matter and takes Noctis in hand.
If you want to know what happens next, you need to click over to DataChasers.
Thursday, March 30, 2017
Kurzgesagt – In a Nutshell - Are GMOs Good or Bad? - Genetic Engineering & Our Food
Are GMOs bad for your health? Or is this fear unfounded?
Support us on Patreon so we can make more videos (and get cool stuff in return): https://www.patreon.com/Kurzgesagt?ty=h
Kurzgesagt merch here: http://bit.ly/1P1hQIH
Get the music of the video here:
Soundcloud: http://bit.ly/2okalIy
Bandcamp: http://bit.ly/2nCOQnR
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/epic-mountai...
THANKS A LOT TO OUR LOVELY PATRONS FOR SUPPORTING US:
Richard Martinez, Festive Madman, Christopher Jimenez, William Robertson, Peter, Christin Paul, Sitong Li, Noah T Blanchard, conquesttintin, Lukas Schopphoff, Vivian Wagner, Leon Klang, Max Wahrhaftig, Adrià, Vila Ruaix, Christian Fiedler, Adam Martin, Benjamin Bethea, Robert Smith, Stif, Alexandria Walters, Jack Neubauer, Gabriele Simeone, ComradKing, Michael Malocha, Paul Rozs, Mark Provan, oskars, Dar, Daria Blednova, Joshua Smith, Ke2theKe, Constantin-Marius Jaeck, Christopher Davidson, DK DK, Jon, Richter, Nova Kane, Someone, David Joseph, nsa smith, Husita, Robert Arnaud, SG2 Infinity, Jawnan, Dan Lukas Lundh, Jose Retana, Jake wirtanen, Abdulaziz Al-Kuwari, Roy Malamud, Krishna Yogi, Gonçalo Marques, Duke spork, itamar steigrad, I3aneFuL, Georg Kranz, Shiro Kawa, Janet Kim, Santina Lin, Chris Serdaris, Occam, Radek Starý, Abraham Callahan, Brent Charles, Emil Kampp, Scott Chamberlin-Wibbeke, Sebastian Gemal Vitting, Ray Jobbins, Jacques Quail, Scott Yanos, Tim Preuß, Attila Bögözi, Tarot, Noah Fechter-Dickson, Bogdan Bucur, James Bell, Jarek, Noah T-Blanchard, Adriana Vila
SOURCES:
#What is natural:
GM insulin:
http://bit.ly/2ncHaW5
Genetic engineering for thousands of years:
http://bit.ly/2eCHKfi
http://bit.ly/2mLCvPm
CRISPR:
http://bit.ly/2ncI2uN
# Are GMOs bad for your health
GMOs and gene flow:
http://bit.ly/2bKauBe
terminator seeds:
http://n.pr/2o0ADSZ
http://bit.ly/2obZ9NS
Plants that are destined to be eaten are evaluated by different agencies
http://bit.ly/2mLbU5g
http://bit.ly/2nGPtNy
http://bit.ly/2ncMXf0
GMOs are safe– various studies and reports by respected authorities:
National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine:
http://bit.ly/2o0IT55
An overview of the last 10 years of genetically engineered crop safety research:
http://bit.ly/2ot8tfH
Letter of 110 Nobel laureates vouching for GMOs:
http://bit.ly/295Nvg1
WHO:
http://bit.ly/1slbfSV
Various others:
http://bit.ly/1pEOq9T
http://bit.ly/1xq9iGn
http://bit.ly/14XU8yl
http://pewrsr.ch/1LqMLAe
http://bit.ly/2nduCOV
http://bit.ly/20BHOsU
Bt crops:
http://bit.ly/2nd9rg8
herbicide-resistant crops:
http://bit.ly/2o5kdJk
http://bit.ly/2o5nSGQ
# What good GMOs can do
Bt eggplants:
http://bit.ly/2nHbdsW
http://bit.ly/2nvmg89
Gm papaya:
http://bit.ly/2nbN0ab
http://bit.ly/2nvl6cz
http://bit.ly/2ndxPy0
# Look in the crystal ball:
drought-resistant crops:
http://bit.ly/2mLmnxf
plants that produce more nutrients:
http://bbc.in/1WxsfnJ
vitamin-fortified banana:
http://bit.ly/1MKS0sJ
nitrogen-fixing crops:
http://bit.ly/2mLN9Wn
http://bit.ly/2nc9mrZ
Chestnut tree:
http://bit.ly/1VqkL2D
Potential for landsparing:
http://go.nature.com/2oc18Sp
http://bit.ly/1T1J2NX
# Further reading:
Bt cotton in India:
http://bit.ly/2nH5AdZ
http://bit.ly/1JQKG1u
Article on popular science:
http://bit.ly/2o5oVqp
Blog series on GMOs:
http://bit.ly/2o18w5X
Ecomodernist manifesto:
http://bit.ly/1PSVE6n
Wednesday, March 29, 2017
How to make an FM Transmitter
In today's video, we learn the basics of FM Radio transmission and how to make a FM radio Transmitter. The most proactively use I can think of for this is just as a device to play music from your phone on your car's radio, although the principal could be scaled up, it is likely illegal without a radio license to broadcast to a large area. So yeah! Thanks guys! :)
Mail address:
PO box 1172
Orem, UT
List of Materials:
0. Transistor (Q1)- S9018.
1. R1- 2.2K
2. R2- 22K
3. R3- 2.2K
4. R4- 33 Ohm
5. R5- 33 Ohm
6. C1- 0.1uF(Code- 104)
7. C2- 0.1uF (Code- 104)
8. C3- 680pF(Code- 681)
9. C4- 30pF-120pF variable Capacitor
10. C5- 10pF(Code- 10)
11. C6- 30pF(Code- 30)
12. C7- 30pF(Code- 30)
13. C8- 0.1uF(Code- 104)
14. Inductor(L)- 0.1uH (5.5Turns coil).
15. Antenna- A short wire, 20cm long.
16. PCB
17. 9V battery terminal
18. AUX port/ jack
Issues
I will be out of town this weekend. I am helping my daughter and her fiance move down here back to my house.
My daughter is having some medical issues and has lost her job, her fiance has been taking care of her and just lost his job as a result.
So the next few months are going to be difficult as I spread my income to cover not just my bills but hers as well.
So if anyone would like to help out, you can send me a donation via my PayPal link: paypal.me/greylocke
It would be most appreciated.
My daughter is having some medical issues and has lost her job, her fiance has been taking care of her and just lost his job as a result.
So the next few months are going to be difficult as I spread my income to cover not just my bills but hers as well.
So if anyone would like to help out, you can send me a donation via my PayPal link: paypal.me/greylocke
It would be most appreciated.
Flattery will get you anywhere
Just how many guns ARE trained on Noctis? If you want to find out, you will need to click on the link over to DataChasers.
Tuesday, March 28, 2017
Android or ROBOT?
Over in the comment section of one of my most favorite WebComics, DataChasers, there is a lively discussion as to what constitutes an Android and what constitutes a ROBOT.
Part of the discussion so far.
xpacetrue 27th Mar 2017, 6:08 AM edit delete reply
Technically, that's not an android because it does not even vaguely resemble a human. It would be more appropriate to call it a robot. The unit may or may not have the same or similar type of synthetic brain as Ada. But, either way, he/she/it is still a robot and not an android.
I'm sorry to nitpick this. But it does irk me how often people get those terms confused.
Gilrandir 27th Mar 2017, 7:24 AM edit delete reply
We are talking panel two, right? Two arms, two legs, one head, operating what looks (to me) like a separate gun turret? How is that not an android? It definitely appears to have a bipedal humanoid shape to me.
megados 27th Mar 2017, 10:12 AM edit delete reply
@xpacetrue, a couple of pages back, Francine provided an example of an android that doesn't appear 'human'. Self-awareness here, is a defining factor. It is canon, that some androids do not even make an attempt at looking like humans. They have humanoid shapes but the main thing is the synth brain that gives them consciousness. Robots are mostly straight up logic devices, whereas the androids have consciousness and emotional capability. At least that is how I understand it.
xpacetrue 27th Mar 2017, 2:29 PM edit delete reply
@Gilrandir
" Two arms, two legs, one head, operating what looks (to me) like a separate gun turret? How is that not an android? "
Please, just Google 'android'... All androids are robots, but not all robots are androids. An android is a particular kind of robot. The terms 'robot' and 'android' are not interchangeable, despite public ignorance to the contrary.
Merely having two arms, two legs, and a single head does NOT an android make. That describes the vast majority of robots in sci-fi. Heck, I believe the entire line of Transformers and Go-Bots are/were like that and those were most definitely NOT androids.
Data from Star Trek is generally accepted as a definitive example of an "android". He was very human-like.
@megados
" Francine provided an example of an android that doesn't appear 'human'. Self-awareness here, is a defining factor. It is canon, that some androids do not even make an attempt at looking like humans. They have humanoid shapes but the main thing is the synth brain that gives them consciousness. Robots are mostly straight up logic devices, whereas the androids have consciousness and emotional capability. "
Please, look at the Tech page to see what's canon. It's right there at the top, in black and yellow:
QUOTE: "An android is a synthetic organism designed to look and act like a human. The term 'android' and its derivatives refer exclusively for such machines, and are not used to refer to robots or other 'intelligent' machines."
Even the Model 2-E like Dolly's old chassis and the archaic Model Zero roughly approximate a human body (more so, at least, than merely having two arms, two legs, and a head). At least some effort was made to "sculpt" or streamline them to make them appear human. Hence, they are androids.
I'm NOT saying that Francine does not deserve the respect of being talked about as a person. But if her chassis does not resemble a human's in the least little bit, then the term "android" does not fit - even if she has a synth brain like Ada. Does she at least have a vaguely human-like face? That might be enough to make her an android.
The current, commonly accepted definition of the word itself is that it must be a robot (or synthetic being) that looks like a person (human or alien).
MY UNDERSTANDING is that the existence or lack of self-awareness or sapience is irrelevant to the term. Absolutely, there can be such a thing as a self-aware robot - if such a thing is possible. Just read any number of classic sci-fi novels dating back many, many decades. I'd mention the works of Isaac Asimov in particular, since he wrote the 'Three Laws of Robotics' and he did tangle with the concept of a robot with self-awareness. If I wasn't so lazy, I'd give examples of self-aware robots that are not even humanoid.
And, yes, it also bugs me that the huge popularity of the Android OS for mobile phones has not only made it difficult to Google relevant robot-related search results, it threatens to all but supersede the old usage.
megados 27th Mar 2017, 3:22 PM edit delete reply
@xpacetrue, so Francine drops from being an android to being a robot simply for failure to purchase a facial glamour upgrade?
Gilrandir 27th Mar 2017, 4:01 PM edit delete reply
Well, Merriam-Webster (per their .com site) defines android as "a mobile robot usually with a human form". It does not suggest it must have a close resemblance, nor possibly be mistaken for human in dim light. I take "human form" to indicate the standard bipedal humanoid description: two legs, one trunk, two arms, one head with the legs used primarily for locomotion, the arms for manipulation, and the sensory cluster in the head. And all the mobile units in the hangar (excluding the Dart and CentComm's doll, of course) would seem to fall within that definition.
I agree that not all robots are androids. I further assert (using the above definition) that not all androids are persons and not all persons are androids. I am sure Google provides many examples of androids which bear strong and close resemblances to human beings. Your argument suggests that you don't consider C-3PO an android, while I would suggest he falls within the definition of possessing "human form". (I suspect we both agree that R2-D2 is not an android. ^_^)
Of course, as your reference to the Tech pages supports, there may well have been 'linguistic drift' in the DataChasers timeline to the point that 'android' is now exclusively reserved for those robots which could be mistaken for a human by a color-blind human -- in which case, as has been pointed out, Francine isn't an android even though the creatrices specifically refer to her with that term. I suspect that 'android', like most other terms is generally used in such a loose and casual manner as to mean whatever the speaker wants it to mean, with consequent loss of precision, clarity, and accuracy that inevitably befalls. When you use the term, how human for you is "human-enough" to qualify? Do the legally required differences for androids in New Troy which prevent them from being mistaken for humans mean they don't possess "human form"? Where do you draw the line? Or is it a case of "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it?"
This right here shows why I like reading DataChasers. We've had discussions about AI's (Artificial Intelligences), Sapience, and many, many more. The only thing which is OFF-LIMITS!!!! is current political discussion. Which I WHOLEHEARTEDLY agree with.
There are several other commenters who I disagree with as it comes to our current political situation, however we all realize that the DataChasers comment section is no place to discuss our disagreements. We do NOT want to damage the flow and family feeling we get there, so we agree to not discuss such things.
Part of the discussion so far.
xpacetrue 27th Mar 2017, 6:08 AM edit delete reply
Technically, that's not an android because it does not even vaguely resemble a human. It would be more appropriate to call it a robot. The unit may or may not have the same or similar type of synthetic brain as Ada. But, either way, he/she/it is still a robot and not an android.
I'm sorry to nitpick this. But it does irk me how often people get those terms confused.
Gilrandir 27th Mar 2017, 7:24 AM edit delete reply
We are talking panel two, right? Two arms, two legs, one head, operating what looks (to me) like a separate gun turret? How is that not an android? It definitely appears to have a bipedal humanoid shape to me.
megados 27th Mar 2017, 10:12 AM edit delete reply
@xpacetrue, a couple of pages back, Francine provided an example of an android that doesn't appear 'human'. Self-awareness here, is a defining factor. It is canon, that some androids do not even make an attempt at looking like humans. They have humanoid shapes but the main thing is the synth brain that gives them consciousness. Robots are mostly straight up logic devices, whereas the androids have consciousness and emotional capability. At least that is how I understand it.
xpacetrue 27th Mar 2017, 2:29 PM edit delete reply
@Gilrandir
" Two arms, two legs, one head, operating what looks (to me) like a separate gun turret? How is that not an android? "
Please, just Google 'android'... All androids are robots, but not all robots are androids. An android is a particular kind of robot. The terms 'robot' and 'android' are not interchangeable, despite public ignorance to the contrary.
Merely having two arms, two legs, and a single head does NOT an android make. That describes the vast majority of robots in sci-fi. Heck, I believe the entire line of Transformers and Go-Bots are/were like that and those were most definitely NOT androids.
Data from Star Trek is generally accepted as a definitive example of an "android". He was very human-like.
@megados
" Francine provided an example of an android that doesn't appear 'human'. Self-awareness here, is a defining factor. It is canon, that some androids do not even make an attempt at looking like humans. They have humanoid shapes but the main thing is the synth brain that gives them consciousness. Robots are mostly straight up logic devices, whereas the androids have consciousness and emotional capability. "
Please, look at the Tech page to see what's canon. It's right there at the top, in black and yellow:
QUOTE: "An android is a synthetic organism designed to look and act like a human. The term 'android' and its derivatives refer exclusively for such machines, and are not used to refer to robots or other 'intelligent' machines."
Even the Model 2-E like Dolly's old chassis and the archaic Model Zero roughly approximate a human body (more so, at least, than merely having two arms, two legs, and a head). At least some effort was made to "sculpt" or streamline them to make them appear human. Hence, they are androids.
I'm NOT saying that Francine does not deserve the respect of being talked about as a person. But if her chassis does not resemble a human's in the least little bit, then the term "android" does not fit - even if she has a synth brain like Ada. Does she at least have a vaguely human-like face? That might be enough to make her an android.
The current, commonly accepted definition of the word itself is that it must be a robot (or synthetic being) that looks like a person (human or alien).
MY UNDERSTANDING is that the existence or lack of self-awareness or sapience is irrelevant to the term. Absolutely, there can be such a thing as a self-aware robot - if such a thing is possible. Just read any number of classic sci-fi novels dating back many, many decades. I'd mention the works of Isaac Asimov in particular, since he wrote the 'Three Laws of Robotics' and he did tangle with the concept of a robot with self-awareness. If I wasn't so lazy, I'd give examples of self-aware robots that are not even humanoid.
And, yes, it also bugs me that the huge popularity of the Android OS for mobile phones has not only made it difficult to Google relevant robot-related search results, it threatens to all but supersede the old usage.
megados 27th Mar 2017, 3:22 PM edit delete reply
@xpacetrue, so Francine drops from being an android to being a robot simply for failure to purchase a facial glamour upgrade?
Gilrandir 27th Mar 2017, 4:01 PM edit delete reply
Well, Merriam-Webster (per their .com site) defines android as "a mobile robot usually with a human form". It does not suggest it must have a close resemblance, nor possibly be mistaken for human in dim light. I take "human form" to indicate the standard bipedal humanoid description: two legs, one trunk, two arms, one head with the legs used primarily for locomotion, the arms for manipulation, and the sensory cluster in the head. And all the mobile units in the hangar (excluding the Dart and CentComm's doll, of course) would seem to fall within that definition.
I agree that not all robots are androids. I further assert (using the above definition) that not all androids are persons and not all persons are androids. I am sure Google provides many examples of androids which bear strong and close resemblances to human beings. Your argument suggests that you don't consider C-3PO an android, while I would suggest he falls within the definition of possessing "human form". (I suspect we both agree that R2-D2 is not an android. ^_^)
Of course, as your reference to the Tech pages supports, there may well have been 'linguistic drift' in the DataChasers timeline to the point that 'android' is now exclusively reserved for those robots which could be mistaken for a human by a color-blind human -- in which case, as has been pointed out, Francine isn't an android even though the creatrices specifically refer to her with that term. I suspect that 'android', like most other terms is generally used in such a loose and casual manner as to mean whatever the speaker wants it to mean, with consequent loss of precision, clarity, and accuracy that inevitably befalls. When you use the term, how human for you is "human-enough" to qualify? Do the legally required differences for androids in New Troy which prevent them from being mistaken for humans mean they don't possess "human form"? Where do you draw the line? Or is it a case of "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it?"
This right here shows why I like reading DataChasers. We've had discussions about AI's (Artificial Intelligences), Sapience, and many, many more. The only thing which is OFF-LIMITS!!!! is current political discussion. Which I WHOLEHEARTEDLY agree with.
There are several other commenters who I disagree with as it comes to our current political situation, however we all realize that the DataChasers comment section is no place to discuss our disagreements. We do NOT want to damage the flow and family feeling we get there, so we agree to not discuss such things.
Vet Ranch - Dr Dave - Tiny Dog in Tiny Dress with Tiny Broken Bone
If Princess isn't the cutest thing you've ever seen, I don't know what is!!
Vet Ranch Shirts!!! http://www.magpul.com/vetranch
https://www.facebook.com/VetRanch
https://instagram.com/vet_ranch
If you are interested in helping with animals in the future, please visit our partners at http://www.abandonedpetproject.org to learn more and to donate if you would like. Abandoned Pet Project is a 501(c)(3), tax exempt non-profit organization. There is no shortage of pets in need, so every donation means more lives we can positively change.
Monday, March 27, 2017
How a Top Fuel Dragster Works
TOP FUEL ACCELERATION PUT INTO PERSPECTIVE
* One Top Fuel dragster 500 cubic-inch Hemi engine makes more horsepower (8,000 HP) than the first 4 rows at the Daytona 500.
* Under full throttle, a dragster engine consumes 11.2 gallons of nitro methane per second; a fully loaded 747 consumes jet fuel at the same rate with 25% less energy being produced.
* A stock Dodge Hemi V8 engine cannot produce enough power to merely drive the dragster's supercharger.
* With 3000 CFM of air being rammed in by the supercharger on overdrive, the fuel mixture is compressed into a near-solid form before ignition. Cylinders run on the verge of hydraulic lock at full throttle.
* At the stoichiometric 1.7:1 air/fuel mixture for nitro methane the flame front temperature measures 7050 degrees F.
* Nitromethane burns yellow. The spectacular white flame seen above the stacks at night is raw burning hydrogen, dissociated from atmospheric water vapor by the searing exhaust gases.
* Dual magnetos supply 44 amps to each spark plug.
This is the output of an arc welder in each cylinder.
* Spark plug electrodes are totally consumed during a pass. After 1/2 way, the engine is dieseling from compression plus the glow of exhaust valves at 1400 degrees F. The engine can only be shut down by cutting the fuel flow.
* If spark momentarily fails early in the run, unburned nitro builds up in the affected cylinders and then explodes with sufficient force to blow cylinder heads off the block in pieces or split the block in half.
* Dragsters reach over 300 MPH before you have completed reading this sentence.
* In order to exceed 300 MPH in 4.5 seconds, dragsters must accelerate an average of over 4 G's. In order to reach 200 MPH well before half-track, the launch acce leration approaches 8 G's.
* Top Fuel engines turn approximately 540 revolutions from light to light!
* Including the burnout, the engine must only survive 900 revolutions under load.
* The redline is actually quite high at 9500 RPM.
* THE BOTTOM LINE: Assuming all the equipment is paid off, the crew worked for free, & for once, NOTHING BLOWS UP, each run costs an estimated $1,000 per second.
0 to 100 MPH in .8 seconds (the first 60 feet of the run)
0 to 200 MPH in 2.2 seconds (the first 350 feet of the run)
6 g-forces at the starting line (nothing accelerates faster on land)
6 negative g-forces upon deployment of twin ‘chutes at 300 MPH An NHRA Top Fuel Dragster accelerates quicker than any other land vehicle on earth . . quicker than a jet fighter plane . . . quicker than the space shuttle.
The current Top Fuel dragster elapsed time record is 4.420 seconds for the quarter-mile (2004, Doug Kalitta). The top speed record is 337.58 MPH as measured over the last 66' of the run (2005, Tony Schumacher).
Putting this all into perspective:
You are driving the average $140,000 Lingenfelter twin-turbo powered Corvette Z06. Over a mile up the road, a Top Fuel dragster is staged & ready to launch down a quarter-mile strip as you pass. You have the advantage of a flying start. You run the 'Vette hard up through the gears and blast across the starting line & pass the dragster at an honest 200 MPH. The 'tree' goes green for both of you at that moment.
The dragster launches & starts after you. You keep your foot down hard, but you hear an incredibly brutal whine that sears your eardrums & within 3 seconds the dragster catches & passes you.
He beats you to the finish line, a quarter-mile away from where you just passed him. Think about it - from a standing start, the dragster had spotted you 200 MPH & not only caught, but nearly blasted you off the road when he passed you within a mere 1320 foot long race!
That's acceleration!
Told ya...
Amy now owes Anne 50 credits. That's what you get for betting against Ada. If you want to know how well Ada, Noctis and Acantha's arrival are received, you will have to click on the link to DataChasers.
Sunday, March 26, 2017
Saturday, March 25, 2017
Preparedness - Backup power - HF 2-cycle Generator
I have purchased 3 of these generators, one DIED, one was stolen and the third one is sitting in my tool room still in the box. I only have it to use to run a battery charger to charge my GC2 6v batteries if my solar panels don't.
But I found some videos for those who might have or be interested in getting one of these.
But I found some videos for those who might have or be interested in getting one of these.
Ada's on it
And Ada IS the Ace. To find out just why Amy and Anne think Ada is going to need the grapples, you need to click over to DataChasers to find out.
Friday, March 24, 2017
Vet Ranch - Dr Matt - How Bad is it Doc?
Get a free 30 day trial on Audible with an unmatched audiobook library!!! http://www.audible.com/vetranch
Hannah still needs a home. She is currently with http://www.godsdogsrescue.org/ Contact them if you'd like to meet her!
Vet Ranch Shirts!!! http://www.magpul.com/vetranch
https://www.facebook.com/VetRanch
https://instagram.com/vet_ranch
If you are interested in helping with animals in the future, please visit our partners at http://www.abandonedpetproject.org to learn more and to donate if you would like. Abandoned Pet Project is a 501(c)(3), tax exempt non-profit organization. There is no shortage of pets in need, so every donation means more lives we can positively change.
Thursday, March 23, 2017
Wednesday, March 22, 2017
Tuesday, March 21, 2017
Vet Ranch - Dr Matt - Bulldog Can't See, But Then.......
Dude... this dude is a cool dude.
Watch the vlog channel to see behind the scenes of Demolition and Vet Ranch. http://www.youtube.com/offtheranch
Vet Ranch Shirts!!! http://www.magpul.com/vetranch
https://www.facebook.com/VetRanch
https://instagram.com/vet_ranch
If you are interested in helping with animals in the future, please visit our partners at http://www.abandonedpetproject.org to learn more and to donate if you would like. Abandoned Pet Project is a 501(c)(3), tax exempt non-profit organization. There is no shortage of pets in need, so every donation means more lives we can positively change.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)