search results matching tag: expansion

» channel: motorsports

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds

    Videos (215)     Sift Talk (15)     Blogs (10)     Comments (687)   

Quake Champions Quakecon 2016 Gameplay

Mordhaus says...

The only issue I have is that they need to realize that you can't ship a multiplayer versus game without anti-cheat capability. Doom shipped without it, doesn't even support VAC (valve's shoddy anti-cheat), and it is riddled with people using aimbots.

I mean, this is 2016. Shipping a multiplayer game without anti-cheat, the ability to host servers, no server browser, no way to pre-check latency until you are in the match, and fairly shoddy network code is ludicrous.

I wouldn't be worried that they would do it for Quake Champions other than the fact that they know about these issues from the playerbase and yet they chose to not fix them. Instead they released a 15 dollar DLC expansion for MP.

Farm of the Future Uses No Soil and 95% Less Water

MilkmanDan says...

Good questions. My family operates farms for wheat and corn, and I've been involved in that process, so I can take a stab at answering the last bit:

Corn stalks get quite tall -- 6 feet / 2 meters or so. Each stalk usually has 1 or 2 ears of corn. On our farm, the experience I had suggests that each plant needs quite a lot of healthy leaves for Photosynthesis as well as quite a lot of available ground water. Irrigated corn often produces 2-3 times as many bushels per acre as compared to "dryland" / non-irrigated corn.

So the issues I can see potentially clashing between corn production and vertical farming are:

1) You'd have a greater space requirement for layers of corn since you'd need probably 8-10 feet per layer, as compared to what looks like 2-3 feet per layer for leafy vegetables in the video. Approximately one story per layer wouldn't allow for the massive footprint savings like in leafy plants without getting extremely tall, which would be expensive for water pumping etc.

2) Corn root systems are pretty deep to support a tall and relatively bulky stalk. Getting that to bite into a thin layer of fabric / recycled plastic to provide structural support for the plant would be difficult. I think you'd need to have a thicker bottom layer *and* to manually place further support lines on the stalks as the plants grow, which would get very labor intensive and therefore expensive.

3) The vertical nature of a corn stalk suggests that the overhead motion of the sun might be pretty important for getting light exposure onto all of the leaves. Fixed overhead lights might mean that the top leaves get plenty of light but the ones lower on the stalk would be shaded by those above and get nothing -- which isn't a problem if the sun progresses through low angles at sunrise/set to overhead at noon throughout a day. So you might have to have lighting that hits from all sides to account for that with corn, which would again add expense.

4) To maximize the output, corn needs a LOT of water. Pumping that up the vertical expanse to get lots of levels could easily get problematic. Corn will grow without optimal / abundant watering, and their misting system would likely be more efficient than irrigating to add ground water, but the main benefit of vertical farming seems to be high output in a small land footprint on the ground. So without LOTS of water, you'd be limiting that benefit.


So basically, my guess is that vertical farms are a fantastic idea for squat, spread out plants like lettuce, but a lot of the advantages disappear when you're talking about something tall like corn. I could easily be wrong about any/all of that though.

sixshot said:

This looks really promising. So what kind of vegetable can they grow? And what about strawberries? Can that system accommodate for that as well? And corn?

Americas Forgotten Concordes - Boeing 2707 - Lockheed L-2000

artician says...

Oh “American National Pride”… Just look where that’s gotten you…

Absolutely ca-razy about the material expansion at supersonic speeds though. And burning 2-tons of fuel just taxiing on the runway. Wow.

Doom (Zero Punctuation)

shagen454 says...

The game is fucking awesome, but I think you are right that it doesn't really warrant a $60.00 price tag. I feel more convinced of this after paying $25 for the latest Fallout 4 expansion, Far Harbor - DOOM for $60, Overwatch for $40 and Witcher 3's latest expansion Blood and Wine for $19.99.

Blood and Wine is a god damn exemplary piece of video gaming. The amount of content and quality in that *expansion* surpasses most AAA games and all of the aforementioned games - for less.

Anyway, back to DOOM gripes; most of the side missions are fucking way too linear and aggravating. There's nothing special about the multiplayer and the Snapmap thing is basically a level shitter-outer.

That said, the multiplayer was created by an external team but Id software are working on correcting the multiplayer. If they correct the multiplayer and make something interesting out of it, release a real editor to get a decent mod scene going - then I think the game would be worth $60.00 for quite a while and they could go all Blizzard about it and keep it at that price for years.

Payback said:

The more I hear about this game, the longer I'm waiting to play it. Seems to be about $25 max.

Goat Simulator: Waste of Space

The limits of how far humanity can ever travel - Kurzgesagt

robdot says...

The speed of the expansion of the universe is known, its the hubble constant. And the further away points in space are from us, the faster they are accelerating away.
The closest galaxy to us is 25.000 light years away. A light year is 6 trillion miles. So, its 25.000 x 6 trillion miles. So,no,we are not gonna get there. And for sure not outside our local group.

SDGundamX said:

If I'm doing the math correctly, the universe is expanding at around 46 miles per second, which is around 165,000 mph. Is there some reason why humans could not overcome this speed limit? It doesn't seem that exceptionally fast (no where near as fast as the speed of light), and if you accelerate slowly to it, like over several days or weeks, the g-forces involved wouldn't be that extreme, would they? The video didn't really explain why we could never go fast enough to overcome the expansion rate.

Also, I thought most theortical physicists like Stephen Hawking believe that in the future technology could advance enough to allow us bend space-time and hence travel "faster than the speed of light" without actually travelling faster than the speed of light, basically like folding a piece of paper and sticking a pin through both sides. When you lay the paper down flat, the two holes will seem quite far away from each other, but when you fold the paper, the holes are right next to each other. Our current understanding of physics doesn't rule out the possibility (at least from a mathematical perspective) although generating the energy necessary to perform such a feat would of course be problematic.

The limits of how far humanity can ever travel - Kurzgesagt

newtboy says...

What I can find said at 1g acceleration it will take just over 1 year (ship time, slightly longer to outside observers) to reach the speed of light.

That's 46 miles per second per megaparsec (roughly 3.2 million light years) not for the whole universe.

The local group is over 3 megaparsecs across....I can't find how far the nearest group is, but it's likely >thousands of megaparsecs away, meaning if it's just 1000 away, that's 46000mps (miles per second) added to a trip that would already take 3200000000years at the speed of light. 31,536,000 seconds per year X >46000mps= >14506560000000 extra miles per year X 3200000000years =>4.6420992e+21miles, or >789606940 light years, or >263 megaparsecs of expansion during the 1000 megaparsec trip (if I did the math right, and that's not compounded by the second as it should be, that would make those numbers far larger). This means if we only ever get to 1/4 light speed, expansion already is faster than we'll ever go, and every day there's more space to expand, so it's expanding faster.

Even if we somehow managed light speed and the excessively long trip, after well over 4 billion years at light speed, we would have long since ceased to be human and evolved into something else ....and that's the closest groups, farther away is already well out of reach even at full light speed.

EDIT: about the wormhole thing, 'could' means they haven't ruled it out yet, not that we do, or ever will have the ability, or even that physics allows it.

SDGundamX said:

If I'm doing the math correctly, the universe is expanding at around 46 miles per second, which is around 165,000 mph. Is there some reason why humans could not overcome this speed limit? It doesn't seem that exceptionally fast (no where near as fast as the speed of light), and if you accelerate slowly to it, like over several days or weeks, the g-forces involved wouldn't be that extreme, would they? The video didn't really explain why we could never go fast enough to overcome the expansion rate.

Also, I thought most theortical physicists like Stephen Hawking believe that in the future technology could advance enough to allow us bend space-time and hence travel "faster than the speed of light" without actually travelling faster than the speed of light, basically like folding a piece of paper and sticking a pin through both sides. When you lay the paper down flat, the two holes will seem quite far away from each other, but when you fold the paper, the holes are right next to each other. Our current understanding of physics doesn't rule out the possibility (at least from a mathematical perspective) although generating the energy necessary to perform such a feat would of course be problematic.

The limits of how far humanity can ever travel - Kurzgesagt

SDGundamX says...

If I'm doing the math correctly, the universe is expanding at around 46 miles per second, which is around 165,000 mph. Is there some reason why humans could not overcome this speed limit? It doesn't seem that exceptionally fast (no where near as fast as the speed of light), and if you accelerate slowly to it, like over several days or weeks, the g-forces involved wouldn't be that extreme, would they? The video didn't really explain why we could never go fast enough to overcome the expansion rate.

Also, I thought most theortical physicists like Stephen Hawking believe that in the future technology could advance enough to allow us bend space-time and hence travel "faster than the speed of light" without actually travelling faster than the speed of light, basically like folding a piece of paper and sticking a pin through both sides. When you lay the paper down flat, the two holes will seem quite far away from each other, but when you fold the paper, the holes are right next to each other. Our current understanding of physics doesn't rule out the possibility (at least from a mathematical perspective) although generating the energy necessary to perform such a feat would of course be problematic.

VideoSift Podcast Episode 2 (Sift Talk Post)

kulpims says...

Continuum season one is ok, but don't bother watching the rest cause it sucks. there's a great new sci-fi show called The Expanse and I've also been watching The Colony which is quite promising so far ... As for Life on Mars I'd recommend watching the british version. I found Limitless extremely boring and unimaginative, didn't watch it past episode two
btw -- Choggie, are you there, you reading this? I miss your cajun cooking videos on yt

Stephanie Kelton: Understanding Deficits in a Modern Economy

greatgooglymoogly says...

So just perpetual expansion for ever and ever? I don't know why having a balanced budget is such a bad thing. Increasing the money supply simply devalues all the existing money, essentially a property tax.

I wish she had used some real numbers, say it's 2030 and the debt is 26 trillion, and you are starting to get some huge deficits to pay for social security. Keep borrowing and by 2050 pay 50% of your budget in interest payments? Start printing money and by 2050 have an inflation rate of 8%? If the gov't needs to run continual deficits, why not just keep a balanced budget then drop cash out of helicopters on the 4th of July? Same money added to the system.

Really disappointed she didn't mention the Federal Reserve. Why is the US paying interest to a private entity that creates money out of thin air? Are they more credit worthy than a government that can also create money out of thin air?

Daredevil -- Season 2 Trailer

The Expanse - Opening Title

Martin Shkreli on Drug Price Hikes

Trancecoach says...

Don't hate the player. Hate the game.
The drug costs $0.10 in India but, thanks to the prohibitive restrictions imposed by the FDA on the manufacture of more generic medicines like Deraprim, it's unavailable to Americans for less than $750. It's true that there are likely to be quality issues with Indian generics, but Pyrimethamine is widely available in Europe and an approval elsewhere ought to translate with reciprocal approval here. It used to cost $1 million to bring a generic to market; now it costs $10 million and that's the direct result of big pharmaceutical companies lobbying the FDA to make it cost prohibitive to bring competitive generics to the market. This is the consequence of government-created monopolies, so this is not so much a issue of "price gouging" and "CEO greed" as it is about government greed and its pursuit of an ever increasing expansion of its political power. But haters gonna hate based on preconceived biases and there's no reasoning or common sense among irrational people.

The Israel-Palestine conflict: a brief, simple history

newtboy says...

1)As if they DID know what the future would hold when they left? EDIT: Those things you mention had not happened when the Jewish people invaded Palestine in the 30's, and NO ONE KNEW what was coming 10 years later.
2)Yes. The European Jews invaded FIRST. Before that, the Arabs and Jews lived peacefully in the region from all history I can find. There was no 'civil war', it was a war against invaders coming from all over Europe in an effort to 'create' a nation.
3)The Jewish population was not growing in relation to the Arab population, so it was still <8% when the European Jewish invasion began, an invasion of foreigners, not a native population boom which the Arabs had. Duh.
4)'standing army' is hardly a measure of applicable force. If it were, we would be Iraqis today. They had far more men in their army when we walked over them with advanced technology, exactly like the Jews did. I've been over that. We (the US) supplied them advanced weapons making enlisted numbers meaningless...
...also, you ignore that ALL 'Israeli' are in the army, 100%. The 'standing army' number is only the professional soldiers, not the entire force by far.
...AND....The Jews didn't need to mount any defense if they had not invaded.
5)What should they have done? Much better minds than mine have failed on a solution that pleases everyone, but stealing another people's property using deadly force, and then subjugating the survivors for decades to the stone age in concentration camps is absolutely NOT the right answer.
That said....If they were truly 'refugees', they should go to refugee camps (as should the Syrians, I don't get why they are spreading all over Europe, but I digress) until they can either be assimilated in other cultures or return home. Period.

Once again...things being bad at home does not give one the right to just move in on someone else's land and push them off. That's what Israel is, a land theft by overwhelming force, and an expansion of that theft continuing to this day. EDIT: It's akin to me stating 'my brother abuses me at home, so I'm moving into your house and you're moving out, and my buddy's with big guns gave me some to force that to happen.' Is that OK? If so, what's your address?

6)Have you seen the stuff right wingers used to wright about Jews...how about the KKK? How about Palin and her cohorts? If some idiot spouting hatred is a reason to run, the entire planet would be on the run all the time.
Would you support blacks invading any European countries they choose because they are treated poorly here in the US? With money and arms? Displacing the current residents and subjugating any that stay as sub human non citizens? I doubt it. EDIT: Would you also make the argument then that it's OK because the invaders are a smaller military than the country they invade, even though they have far better weapons and more of them? What's the difference?

if blizzard were 100% honest with us

shagen454 says...

Whatever, Blizz gets so much hate non-stop. I just want to say that I own pretty much every game and expansion they've ever put out. But, to relegate it to their newest crop of games : their F2P games both rock, I've spent probably $200 on Hearthstone over time, and nothing on Heroes of the Storm and I play HoS all the time.

All of their expansions are always worth the loot. And the games themselves and their longevity is worth the money as well. They continue to support their games well after launch marketing has died down.



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon