Slashdot Mirror

Fruit Juice is not recommended as it contains the same number of calories as soda (or more depending on the type of fruit juice). I have has great success with flavoured and plain water (taken from a tap and put through a filter).
Source:
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=nutritional+value+of+100mL+of+fruit+juice
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=nutritional+value+of+100mL+of+soda

Fruit Juice is not recommended as it contains the same number of calories as soda (or more depending on the type of fruit juice). I have has great success with flavoured and plain water (taken from a tap and put through a filter).
Source:
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=nutritional+value+of+100mL+of+fruit+juice
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=nutritional+value+of+100mL+of+soda

That's practically next door.
200 ly as percentage of our galaxy radius.

nope.
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=what+flights+are+over+new+york

Does that mean Google is not a search engine because when I search Google for 2 + 3 it computes "2 + 3 = 5" without searching for pages that contain "2 + 3"?

And when I search for San Francisco on Wolfram Alpha, is it computing the population and other data is presents?

Just because Google can do a limited set of parlor tricks doesn't make it the equivalent of Alpha. Alpha may search to find the initial data but that's not it's primary purpose.

population of san francisco as a percentage of california's population

result

Arguing Alpha is a search engine is like arguing a car is an Air conditioner. A car may have an AC unit but that's air conditioning isn't what it's used for.

Does that mean Google is not a search engine because when I search Google for 2 + 3 it computes "2 + 3 = 5" without searching for pages that contain "2 + 3"?

And when I search for San Francisco on Wolfram Alpha, is it computing the population and other data is presents?

Just because Google can do a limited set of parlor tricks doesn't make it the equivalent of Alpha. Alpha may search to find the initial data but that's not it's primary purpose.

population of san francisco as a percentage of california's population

result

Arguing Alpha is a search engine is like arguing a car is an Air conditioner. A car may have an AC unit but that's air conditioning isn't what it's used for.

Is Wolfram|Alpha a search engine?

No. It's a computational knowledge engine: it generates output by doing computations from its own internal knowledge base, instead of searching the web and returning links.

Is that actually what it responds with? I don't have siri so I can't verify that. But the query works fine through wolfram.

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=What+is+the+status+of+flight+647+on+United+Airways%3F

My personal expectation would be that the question would be routed to wolfram which would respond with the primary answer: "en route to San Francisco, California (KSFO) from Washington, District of Columbia (KIAD)."

If it doesn't work, I'd think of this as an edge case as one of their service providers does in fact have the answer.

Minor/major nitpick: Siri/Apple developers has nothing to do with that. Thank Wolfram Alpha devs for this one.

No it's not. It provides computation engine. When you type

distance to mars in earth radii

Into wolfram alpha, it's not searching for the answer. It's computing the answer.

By contrast a search engine searches for websites based relevant to the words input.

These are totally different things.

Does that mean Google is not a search engine because when I search Google for 2 + 3 it computes "2 + 3 = 5" without searching for pages that contain "2 + 3"?

And when I search for San Francisco on Wolfram Alpha, is it computing the population and other data is presents?

No it's not. It provides computation engine. When you type

distance to mars in earth radii

Into wolfram alpha, it's not searching for the answer. It's computing the answer.

By contrast a search engine searches for websites based relevant to the words input.

These are totally different things.

Does that mean Google is not a search engine because when I search Google for 2 + 3 it computes "2 + 3 = 5" without searching for pages that contain "2 + 3"?

And when I search for San Francisco on Wolfram Alpha, is it computing the population and other data is presents?

Guess where that comes from?

No it's not. It provides computation engine. When you type

distance to mars in earth radii

Into wolfram alpha, it's not searching for the answer. It's computing the answer.

By contrast a search engine searches for websites based relevant to the words input.

These are totally different things.

Yes, you are very much incorrect:

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=10.8+TWh+times+0.126+dollar%2FkWh

I'd say about a thousand times.

I love this argument. So easy to beat.

Do the maths. (also use your brain).
The speed of light has no effect on bandwidth. (ok; possibly wrong, but bear with me).
Speed of light can only (in the long run) effect latency. If you can send 50 pulses per second. It doesn't matter how long those pulses take to get to the other end, they will arrive at the other end at the same rate.

So,
send 50 pulses per second, wait 10 minutes, receive 50pulses per second. vs
send 50 pulses per second, wait 1 minute, receive 50pulses per second.
Bandwidth the same, latency worse.
OK. So latency is what speed of light has an effect on. Awesome, progress. Your statement is already proven wrong. Wired/Fibre cannot be beaten for "Speed" (bandwidth). But can be beaten for "Latency". (maybe best thought of as accelleration?)

Now lets do some maths!

You are on a **really really long** run. You are 1000km away from your end point (for americans ~600 miles).
Speed of light in a vaccuum is ~300,000km per second.
I'll give you a really really horrible fibre material 1/3 * c (!!! horror a third!!)
at 100,000 km per second, it takes (while being careful to maintain units) 10 milliseconds.

Remember, that is at half the velocity of your "really slow" fibre.

Long-story short:
Speed of Light in your transmission medium does not matter
Bandwidth (number of bits per second) is the only thing that matters. Your major constraint on bandwidth is the number of people you share it with (by extension, the limitations on the parts you can use).
Wireless technologies by their definition share it with other people, and environmental factors. Once you have your fibre, you share it with each end-point of the fibre. (and the spectrum you use on a fibre is MUCH better at transporting large amounts of data, since it is higher frequency - you can use this with "wireless" technologies too, but then you are limited to line of sight. Line of Path is much more reliable.

...that the very modest overall difference in exercise, smoking, eating habits, etc...

That's quite an assumption you have made: http://www1.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=average%20weight%20USA%20vs%20China%20vs%20Canada&lk=2

We have over twice the rate of obesity as Canada. You consider that 'modest'?

However, if you want to be fair to the numbers there are 1285 acres water per person on the planet and plankton sequesters more carbon that grass.

Do you just keep pulling these numbers out of your ass?

Surface area, water: 361,132,000 km2[0]
Surface area, water, in acres: 89,000,000,000[1]
People on earth: ~7,000,000,000

Surface area (water, acres) divided by people: 89,000,000,000 / 7,000,000,000 ~= 13.

13. Thirteen. Not 1285. You're off by a factor of 100 this time!

Btw, not saying that "water surface area" has any relevance whatsoever in this case (it may or may not, I would have guessed volume mattered more than area, but I don't know) - but please, for the love of FSM, stop making numbers up just to use them in your arguments.

[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth
[1] http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=361%2C132%2C000+km2+in+acres

I do, and I also mail letters with the US Postal Service, which is a nice example of how efficient a government organization can be without partisan politics interfering. While the price of gas has gone up about 300% in the past 20 years, the price of mailing a letter (the USPS's primary source of funding) has gone up a whopping 55%.

The USPS now faces a budget crisis because Congress dropped 75 years of employee benefit funding on the organization, due in a span of only 10 years. This was, of course, the result of Congress's politicking.

When government organizations are insulated from the whims of politics, they can be very efficient. A national healthcare plan, managed by HHS, would likely still suffer from the backstabbing of its next political opponent, but a good leader can reduce the impact of such backstabbing on the public. That's why there are so many "Secretary shall determine" clauses, to give the administrator the ability to work around the idiocy brought on by politics.

The manufacturing energy & strip-mining of new materials & toxic chemicals plus shipping from the other side of the planet would far-exceed anything I would save by switching to LCD or a new iCore CPU.

That's probably not true.

I've heard this kind of thing said a number of time before, for example about electric cars, the theory being that it somehow costs more energy to manufacture a battery pack than it will ever save compared to an ICE engine.

However, a simple economic analysis shows this to be false in many cases. Energy is largely fungible, that is, it doesn't really matter if you're using electricity or oil, it's all pretty much just watt-hours at some fairly equal cost. There's variances of course -- electricity is cheaper near a hydroelectric dam, oil is cheaper in some countries, and both is cheaper to buy in bulk.

Manufacturers pay for energy the same as everyone else, and they're not just going to ignore that cost out of the goodness of their hearts, it's going to be baked right into the cost of manufacture. So, looking at the cost of a good gives you an idea of the maximum amount of energy it could have taken to produce. You don't need to know anything about the specifics of its manufacturing process, just the cost.

You can get a 23" Dell LED backlit LCD monitor for USD 170 delivered. Now, at most half of that is the manufacturing cost, because Dell has to pay taxes, make a profit, and this is the RRP that resellers can also make a profit on. Hence, lets say $85 manufacturing cost, including all design, materials, factory and equipment depreciation, etc... Of that, at most $40 would be energy costs, directly or indirectly, the other half would be paying for "man hours" in one way or another. These are rough numbers, but bear with me.

Now, taking that estimated $40 worth of energy, we can figure that at a typical cost of $0.15 per kWh, it cost 280 kWh of energy to make that monitor. Now, an energy efficiency review shows that that model uses 16.65W of power when on, so that means that after 9,930 hours of operation, it will have made back its own manufacturing energy cost in savings compared to your current 50W CRT. At 8 hours per day, that's just over 3 years, and you've had your CRT for 6 years.

Admittedly, this won't make it cost effective for you to personally purchase this monitor based on energy saving alone, that would take well over a decade of usage. However, it shows that it isn't wasteful environmentally to buy a new monitor, and you do get a new monitor that would look much better than your old CRT. Better colour gamut, no flicker, always perfectly sharp, no distortion, etc...

Your example of CFLs is even more clear, in which case you would be personally saving money quite quickly by switching away from incandescent bulbs. That's been true for pretty much all models of CFLs for years now, and LED lights promise to improve on those savings even further.

He's an idiot. Not only hiss spelling is deficient, he pulls his numbers out of his ass.
Just check it yourself.

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=number+of+tourists+in+the+USA

No you are correct, at 100000' it's ~680mph according to Wolfram Alpha.

http://m.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=sound+speed+at+100%2C000ft

If games were $50 in 2000, and $60 now, then the price has dropped. Going all the way back to 1980, the price has dropped a lot.

Litres are not gallons. The actual result is a bit over $8, although exchange rate fluctuations may change this.

There is a nearly endless supply of methane there

No. Not even remotely endless.

In the U.S., cattle emit about 5.5 million metric tons of methane per year into the atmosphere, accounting for 20% of U.S. methane emissions.

Because of their biology, cattle are the predominant source: landfills, wastewater treatment, etc. add up to a roughly equal amount, so let's say 12 million metric tons of methane from all biological sources total.

In contrast, the US consumes about 23 trillion cubic feet of natural gas a year, which works out to473 million metric tons/year.

All the farts in the nation add up to just 3% of the amount of natural gas we burn. In fact, in the US cows release less methane than the amount that accidentally leaks from natural gas pipes!

There is a nearly endless supply of methane there

No. Not even remotely endless.

In the U.S., cattle emit about 5.5 million metric tons of methane per year into the atmosphere, accounting for 20% of U.S. methane emissions.

Because of their biology, cattle are the predominant source: landfills, wastewater treatment, etc. add up to a roughly equal amount, so let's say 12 million metric tons of methane from all biological sources total.

In contrast, the US consumes about 23 trillion cubic feet of natural gas a year, which works out to473 million metric tons/year.

All the farts in the nation add up to just 3% of the amount of natural gas we burn. In fact, in the US cows release less methane than the amount that accidentally leaks from natural gas pipes!

There is a nearly endless supply of methane there

No. Not even remotely endless.

In the U.S., cattle emit about 5.5 million metric tons of methane per year into the atmosphere, accounting for 20% of U.S. methane emissions.

Because of their biology, cattle are the predominant source: landfills, wastewater treatment, etc. add up to a roughly equal amount, so let's say 12 million metric tons of methane from all biological sources total.

In contrast, the US consumes about 23 trillion cubic feet of natural gas a year, which works out to473 million metric tons/year.

All the farts in the nation add up to just 3% of the amount of natural gas we burn. In fact, in the US cows release less methane than the amount that accidentally leaks from natural gas pipes!

The problem were the safeguards that failed to exist in the first place. Enough emergency generators, sufficient distance between those to ward off common cause failure (you may notice research going on in that area for decades in nuclear power), filtered containment vents (aka safety valves, as you would find them in any pressure cooker) and passive autocatalytic recombiners to prevent hydrogen explosions, no matter if the vents work or not (as they also vent the hydrogen from both the containment and the building). And that's before considering such things as reinforcing the condensation chambers that were found to be too weak (and fixed) decades ago.

Japan, at least with regard to nuclear power, is anything but a modern country. That's part of the result of losing two decades of economic development.

About 11 years, as a matter off fact. Better pace yourself!

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=distance+to+the+moon+at+human+walking+speed

Computers cannot generate context.

They're getting better at it.
http://www.wolframalpha.com/

WA doesn't have very useful results for a lame example of what I might want to search for (although that's just a quick example...)

because it is the densest naturally occurring element

Siiiigggghhhh. Let's spend five seconds to find out if that's true.

Element density[g/cm^3]
Os 22.61
Ir 22.56
Pt 21.46
Re 21.02
Np 20.45
Pu 19.84
Au 19.28
W 19.25
U 18.95
[all the others]

It is perhaps more correct to say that uranium is one of the densest metals, and of the dense metals, has relatively high abundance (2.7 mg/kg of Earth's mass. All the others on this list, other than tungsten, are measured in micrograms/kg, or less).

Dude, your math is WAY off. How'd you go from mass to required energy without determining the specific heat of the earth?

Here, let me calculate the energy required to heat just the iron content of the earth (34.6% by mass) by 1 C: 9.278* 10^26 J, which is equivalent to 1.037 & 10^7 metric tonnes.

You are off by a LOT of decimal places. A mere 23kJ should have immediately tipped you off as not passing the smell test. That's less than 1/1000th of the energy released by burning 1 liter of gasoline!

Dude, your math is WAY off. How'd you go from mass to required energy without determining the specific heat of the earth?

Here, let me calculate the energy required to heat just the iron content of the earth (34.6% by mass) by 1 C: 9.278* 10^26 J, which is equivalent to 1.037 & 10^7 metric tonnes.

You are off by a LOT of decimal places. A mere 23kJ should have immediately tipped you off as not passing the smell test. That's less than 1/1000th of the energy released by burning 1 liter of gasoline!

So how does that translate to 160 tonnes a year? The total mass of earth is estimated as 5.9721986×10^24 kg or 5.9721986×10^21 tonnes. To raise that mass by 1 C requires 22,964.44 J of energy.

Ahem... 22,964.44 Joules of energy will not heat very much stuff up by 1 degree Celsius. That's less than the metabolic energy of 1 gram of fat. You missed something pretty important in your numbers.

Regardless, this was not talking about raising the average temperature of the entire mass of the Earth, but an increat in the "surface temperature" of the earth. There's a pretty big difference. However....

And it takes about 100 years to raise the temperature of earth by 1 C. So I'd say their math is way off.

I imagine it would take a pretty long time to raise the temperature of the entire mass of the earth by 1 degree Celsius. Not a "don't blink, or you'll miss it" timeframe like 100 years.

The calculations are below in the thread. It is off by 3 orders of magnitude if you look at only atmospheric heating.

Then don't just look at only atmospheric heating.

Of course that gets more complicated... maybe our napkin engineering isn't up to the task and it would take more time -- like enough time to write a research paper -- to come up with a more credible answer.

They are not, however, assuming the entire core (or even a significant fraction of the planet below the surface) gets heated to arrive at that number.

The earth is 34.6% iron. That would mean 9.278E26 J to heat just the iron content of earth by 1 degree, which means 1.032E7 metric tonnes.

The calculations are below in the thread. It is off by 3 orders of magnitude if you look at only atmospheric heating.

Then don't just look at only atmospheric heating.

Of course that gets more complicated... maybe our napkin engineering isn't up to the task and it would take more time -- like enough time to write a research paper -- to come up with a more credible answer.

They are not, however, assuming the entire core (or even a significant fraction of the planet below the surface) gets heated to arrive at that number.

The earth is 34.6% iron. That would mean 9.278E26 J to heat just the iron content of earth by 1 degree, which means 1.032E7 metric tonnes.

So now burning (hint, just a chemical action) some dead dinosaur is releasing the energy equivilent of 160 TONNES?

I'm pretty sure he means that if the surface temperature increases by 1 degree C, then that corresponds to a higher amount of energy in the planet. it has nothing to do with burning fuel or anything else.

So how does that translate to 160 tonnes a year? The total mass of earth is estimated as 5.9721986×10^24 kg or 5.9721986×10^21 tonnes. To raise that mass by 1 C requires 22,964.44 J of energy. That amount of energy translates to only 2.55514×10^-10 grams (a very tiny number). And it takes about 100 years to raise the temperature of earth by 1 C. So I'd say their math is way off.

The Library of Congress has " roughly 10 terabytes of uncompressed textual data." Wikipedia

12 terabytes is ~5 billion sheets of paper (typewritten), so assuming a linear relation then 10 terabytes = ~4.16 billion sheets. Neatorama

So with Wolfram Alpha this is about 20,800 metric tons, so a bit less than a quarter of the Costa Concordia gross weight. Wolfram Alpha

So what is the mass equivalent of 222,504,000 TeraWatthours if one gram of matter is equivalent to 10E+13 J of energy?

8912 metric tonnes.

*Actually, that "baseball at the speed of light" is classical kinetic energy. Using the relativistic kinetic energy equation, which seems appropriate at .999c, the answer turns out to be 2.78 x 10^17 Joules,, or about 66 1/2 megatons. Which is a bit more than the biggest weapon we've ever used in any setting. Still not a dinosaur-killer, but damned unpleasant to be anywhere near I'd bet.

Finally someone gets my point.

*Actually, that "baseball at the speed of light" is classical kinetic energy. Using the relativistic kinetic energy equation, which seems appropriate at .999c, the answer turns out to be 2.78 x 10^17 Joules,, or about 66 1/2 megatons. Which is a bit more than the biggest weapon we've ever used in any setting. Still not a dinosaur-killer, but damned unpleasant to be anywhere near I'd bet.

Finally someone gets my point.

or you could us accurate numbers:

Chevron 2011 profit = $27.07B
Apple 2011 profit = $32.98B

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=apple+2011+profits+vs+chevron+2011+profits

I'm gonna spell this out for you very slowly since, like all people IT, you have an IQ smaller than your shoe size.

Current
Adjective: Belonging to the present time; happening or being used or done now.

most
Adjective: Greatest in amount or degree: "they've had the most success"; "they had the most to lose".

Profitable
Adjective: (of a business or activity) Yielding profit or financial gain. Beneficial; useful.
Synonyms: lucrative - gainful - advantageous - beneficial - useful

Now lets look at some data.
Company: Current Net Income
Apple: $13.06 Billion
Exxon Moblie: $10.33 Billion
Chevron: $7.829 Billion
BHP: N/A (However they made ~22.3 Billion last year, No where near the top for most profitable enterprise)

Not about the phone, I've never heard of it. But in NZ they're advertising the Windows 7 OS. The TV ads are absolutely terrible.

One is a father and son both on laptops, the son gets dad to help with division on his computer(which you'd expect to be easy on a computer), and the son goes onto his dad's laptop. He then groovies up his powerpoint presentation with noise, wallpaper, and 3D extruded text and graphs.

Compare this to the elegant and elitist Mac ads. They make you think that one becomes stylish and cool with lots of good-looking friends of all races with perfect smiles. This is proper marketing. Mac is much better at it than MS.

I would rather have a baseball traveling the speed of light hit us rather then a 1000 ton pieces of stone impacting the earth at 55,000 km per hour.

Are you sure?

The "big rock hitting us pretty fast" case is a kinetic energy content of 1.167 x 10^14 Joules, or about 28 kilotons equivalent yield.

OTOH, that wee little 145 gram baseball at .999c is 6.5 x 10^15 Joules, or 1.55 megatons yield equivalent*.

Both of those are city-killers, I suppose, but the baseball will kill a bigger city deader.

Neither is a dinosaur-killer. Humanity has made, and used, weapons with as much energy release as that.

*Actually, that "baseball at the speed of light" is classical kinetic energy. Using the relativistic kinetic energy equation, which seems appropriate at .999c, the answer turns out to be 2.78 x 10^17 Joules,, or about 66 1/2 megatons. Which is a bit more than the biggest weapon we've ever used in any setting. Still not a dinosaur-killer, but damned unpleasant to be anywhere near I'd bet.

I would rather have a baseball traveling the speed of light hit us rather then a 1000 ton pieces of stone impacting the earth at 55,000 km per hour.

Are you sure?

The "big rock hitting us pretty fast" case is a kinetic energy content of 1.167 x 10^14 Joules, or about 28 kilotons equivalent yield.

OTOH, that wee little 145 gram baseball at .999c is 6.5 x 10^15 Joules, or 1.55 megatons yield equivalent*.

Both of those are city-killers, I suppose, but the baseball will kill a bigger city deader.

Neither is a dinosaur-killer. Humanity has made, and used, weapons with as much energy release as that.

*Actually, that "baseball at the speed of light" is classical kinetic energy. Using the relativistic kinetic energy equation, which seems appropriate at .999c, the answer turns out to be 2.78 x 10^17 Joules,, or about 66 1/2 megatons. Which is a bit more than the biggest weapon we've ever used in any setting. Still not a dinosaur-killer, but damned unpleasant to be anywhere near I'd bet.

I would rather have a baseball traveling the speed of light hit us rather then a 1000 ton pieces of stone impacting the earth at 55,000 km per hour.

Are you sure?

The "big rock hitting us pretty fast" case is a kinetic energy content of 1.167 x 10^14 Joules, or about 28 kilotons equivalent yield.

OTOH, that wee little 145 gram baseball at .999c is 6.5 x 10^15 Joules, or 1.55 megatons yield equivalent*.

Both of those are city-killers, I suppose, but the baseball will kill a bigger city deader.

Neither is a dinosaur-killer. Humanity has made, and used, weapons with as much energy release as that.

*Actually, that "baseball at the speed of light" is classical kinetic energy. Using the relativistic kinetic energy equation, which seems appropriate at .999c, the answer turns out to be 2.78 x 10^17 Joules,, or about 66 1/2 megatons. Which is a bit more than the biggest weapon we've ever used in any setting. Still not a dinosaur-killer, but damned unpleasant to be anywhere near I'd bet.

I would rather have a baseball traveling the speed of light hit us rather then a 1000 ton pieces of stone impacting the earth at 55,000 km per hour.

Are you sure?

The "big rock hitting us pretty fast" case is a kinetic energy content of 1.167 x 10^14 Joules, or about 28 kilotons equivalent yield.

OTOH, that wee little 145 gram baseball at .999c is 6.5 x 10^15 Joules, or 1.55 megatons yield equivalent*.

Both of those are city-killers, I suppose, but the baseball will kill a bigger city deader.

Neither is a dinosaur-killer. Humanity has made, and used, weapons with as much energy release as that.

*Actually, that "baseball at the speed of light" is classical kinetic energy. Using the relativistic kinetic energy equation, which seems appropriate at .999c, the answer turns out to be 2.78 x 10^17 Joules,, or about 66 1/2 megatons. Which is a bit more than the biggest weapon we've ever used in any setting. Still not a dinosaur-killer, but damned unpleasant to be anywhere near I'd bet.

I would rather have a baseball traveling the speed of light hit us rather then a 1000 ton pieces of stone impacting the earth at 55,000 km per hour.

Are you sure?

The "big rock hitting us pretty fast" case is a kinetic energy content of 1.167 x 10^14 Joules, or about 28 kilotons equivalent yield.

OTOH, that wee little 145 gram baseball at .999c is 6.5 x 10^15 Joules, or 1.55 megatons yield equivalent*.

Both of those are city-killers, I suppose, but the baseball will kill a bigger city deader.

Neither is a dinosaur-killer. Humanity has made, and used, weapons with as much energy release as that.

*Actually, that "baseball at the speed of light" is classical kinetic energy. Using the relativistic kinetic energy equation, which seems appropriate at .999c, the answer turns out to be 2.78 x 10^17 Joules,, or about 66 1/2 megatons. Which is a bit more than the biggest weapon we've ever used in any setting. Still not a dinosaur-killer, but damned unpleasant to be anywhere near I'd bet.

I would rather have a baseball traveling the speed of light hit us rather then a 1000 ton pieces of stone impacting the earth at 55,000 km per hour.

Are you sure?

The "big rock hitting us pretty fast" case is a kinetic energy content of 1.167 x 10^14 Joules, or about 28 kilotons equivalent yield.

OTOH, that wee little 145 gram baseball at .999c is 6.5 x 10^15 Joules, or 1.55 megatons yield equivalent*.

Both of those are city-killers, I suppose, but the baseball will kill a bigger city deader.

Neither is a dinosaur-killer. Humanity has made, and used, weapons with as much energy release as that.

*Actually, that "baseball at the speed of light" is classical kinetic energy. Using the relativistic kinetic energy equation, which seems appropriate at .999c, the answer turns out to be 2.78 x 10^17 Joules,, or about 66 1/2 megatons. Which is a bit more than the biggest weapon we've ever used in any setting. Still not a dinosaur-killer, but damned unpleasant to be anywhere near I'd bet.