Yes, because we all know you can compare CPU's because they both have the same amount of cores right? Wile the AMD Six-Core is allot cheaper than Intel's offering, that's because the AMD chip only competes with the quad core i7 chips (not with Intel's Six-Core chips, top AMD vs top Intel Six-Core chips, you would have to hit 4GHz+ OC on the AMD to even get close to the Intel at stock speeds) and for price reasons is far more accurate to compare with those. That is NOT to say that AMD's chips are not a a good buy, for the performance you get, the prices are quite nice, and depending on the use, might be better suited.
Then please state where you live, or provide a link to your States Vehicle Code showing this. As I have never heard of such a thing, where someone who is jaywalking holds no responsibility for causing the incident.
Actually, if the person was jaywalking, they are often found mostly or fully responsible for the events. Wile courts do tend to apply a higher standard of care to drivers than they do to pedestrians, it would still be the pedestrians fault. If the pedestrian does not have a marked crossing section where cars are required by law to yield or does not have a signaled crossing where the car has to yield (say like a secured WiFi, which you have to yield at, or "stop" at) then it is the responsibility of the pedestrian to yield.
Not really true, seeing as both chips are "EE" (Extreme Edition) most of the time the prices on these stay pretty level, just like the Core2 Extreme Edition chips were still 1k at the time the i7's had well been out, come to think of it, look up the QX9770 right now and you will still see them selling for over 1k. These chips are sold to people who don't know better and/or can't/wont/don't know how to over clock. Anyone who has ever built a PC will wait until the "normal" line comes out and pay half the price and OC it to well past the stock clock of the Extreme Edition chip.
It has, but it's only available in The Word format. The source code is not allowed to be edited, and is punishable by eternal damnation. That's why Apple (which we all know is the fruit of Satan) is trying to get in on the action with it's own account of events.
Compare this to the cost of a minor traffic accident where a tail light is cracked. No, you cannot replace the lens or any individual part, just the whole assembly. Instead of $100-$200 for an incandescent bulb assembly expect to pay $1500-$2000 for the LED tail light.
LED tail lights are far from the $1500 range. Just look at all the aftermarket tail light kits out there, allot of them are even cheaper than OEM replacements. And in most tail light set ups you CAN just replace the lens housing, as the bulbs twist in. And many LED tail lights are going the same route to where they can be more readily replaced.
The only time you are going to see a 1500+ price on a light is on high end cars such as Mercedes, we had one in the shop just a few weeks ago and the headlights ran 1200 each (and that's shop cost). Luxury car tail lights don't cost allot because of the LED's in them but because they are high end cars and the owners can afford to shell out the money for it.
Don't forget about magnesium as well. All 3 work well as sacrificial anodes. But these are only forms of cathodic protection and are only a small part of defeating a corrosion cell.
As an alternate form of cathodic protection (called
impressed current) provides an electrical current to
oppose the current of the corrosion cell.
Along with Barrier and Inhibitive coatings.
I only did a quick search of Google and came up with this (Yes, it's a "Christian" site) http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/ancient/ancient .htm/ and countless others of cave drawings of dinosaurs (or dragons). You should try doing a search of OOPARTS (Out Of Place Artifacts) some time, some really weird stuff out there.
But I really doubt we are taking cave drawings as proof these days other wise you would be believing in some truly odd things. But I don't see how cave drawings have any bearings on whether or not something existed as there are countless things and animals not depicted in any cave drawing. Not all civilizations practiced cave drawing anyway, which shows why we have so many artifacts, tablets, containers and the like which also depict animals long thought extinct.
But I am sure whether or not you believe these things are real I am sure you will just pass them off as chance or pure imagination. Heck, with enough time I am sure they could have formed by chance! Yep, thats it!
All the ones I listed are just other choices, not saying anyone of them is right, but they all do occur http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift/. Which ever you believe to be the cause I guess is your choice.
Using the cyclic model which is a unproven theory to try and debunk the laws of thermodynamics is foolish I believe. In theory it may be able make up for it, but it is far from being proven, and until then the known laws take precedence for me. But I guess you like me, were just giving other choices.
Today most people agree that there was a beginning, where the real argument is at is in when and how.
Someone said something about the Oscillatory Universe and though at one time it was the hot new thing, when they started looking they found there to be to little mass in the universe to stop the "expansion". But expansion is not the only answer to the red-shift in light.
The first answer most people give is stellar motion (expansion). Which is the loss of light energy and its wavelength stretched or red-shifted from the light source moving away.
There is also gravitation, in which the star's own gravity may lengthen the wavelength of the light and/or from starlight passing near a massive object, like a galaxy.
Second-order doppler effect (Transverse doppler shift) can also explain the red-shift. As a light source moving at right angles to an observer will always be red-shifted. And when you use this for an answer, it implies that the universe may be in circular motion instead of expansion. However it could be all of them, it does not have to be just one answer.
As far as there being a beginning, it's just a matter of thermodynamics, as someone else said everything is falling apart which means it had to start at some point because if it was infinite all energy would be at equilibrium, meaning it would be the same everywhere, which is just not the case.
There are some propelleants like H202 (hydrogen peroxide)which is injected into a catalyst, they are very powerful motors. However very expensive and the min. 90% h202 you have to use is also hard to come by (equipment as well), not to mention that H202 that strong will burn you like acid.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, because we all know you can compare CPU's because they both have the same amount of cores right? Wile the AMD Six-Core is allot cheaper than Intel's offering, that's because the AMD chip only competes with the quad core i7 chips (not with Intel's Six-Core chips, top AMD vs top Intel Six-Core chips, you would have to hit 4GHz+ OC on the AMD to even get close to the Intel at stock speeds) and for price reasons is far more accurate to compare with those. That is NOT to say that AMD's chips are not a a good buy, for the performance you get, the prices are quite nice, and depending on the use, might be better suited.
Then please state where you live, or provide a link to your States Vehicle Code showing this. As I have never heard of such a thing, where someone who is jaywalking holds no responsibility for causing the incident.
Actually, if the person was jaywalking, they are often found mostly or fully responsible for the events. Wile courts do tend to apply a higher standard of care to drivers than they do to pedestrians, it would still be the pedestrians fault. If the pedestrian does not have a marked crossing section where cars are required by law to yield or does not have a signaled crossing where the car has to yield (say like a secured WiFi, which you have to yield at, or "stop" at) then it is the responsibility of the pedestrian to yield.
Not really true, seeing as both chips are "EE" (Extreme Edition) most of the time the prices on these stay pretty level, just like the Core2 Extreme Edition chips were still 1k at the time the i7's had well been out, come to think of it, look up the QX9770 right now and you will still see them selling for over 1k. These chips are sold to people who don't know better and/or can't/wont/don't know how to over clock. Anyone who has ever built a PC will wait until the "normal" line comes out and pay half the price and OC it to well past the stock clock of the Extreme Edition chip.
It has, but it's only available in The Word format. The source code is not allowed to be edited, and is punishable by eternal damnation. That's why Apple (which we all know is the fruit of Satan) is trying to get in on the action with it's own account of events.
Compare this to the cost of a minor traffic accident where a tail light is cracked. No, you cannot replace the lens or any individual part, just the whole assembly. Instead of $100-$200 for an incandescent bulb assembly expect to pay $1500-$2000 for the LED tail light.
LED tail lights are far from the $1500 range. Just look at all the aftermarket tail light kits out there, allot of them are even cheaper than OEM replacements. And in most tail light set ups you CAN just replace the lens housing, as the bulbs twist in. And many LED tail lights are going the same route to where they can be more readily replaced.
The only time you are going to see a 1500+ price on a light is on high end cars such as Mercedes, we had one in the shop just a few weeks ago and the headlights ran 1200 each (and that's shop cost). Luxury car tail lights don't cost allot because of the LED's in them but because they are high end cars and the owners can afford to shell out the money for it.
Don't forget about magnesium as well. All 3 work well as sacrificial anodes. But these are only forms of cathodic protection and are only a small part of defeating a corrosion cell. As an alternate form of cathodic protection (called impressed current) provides an electrical current to oppose the current of the corrosion cell. Along with Barrier and Inhibitive coatings.
I only did a quick search of Google and came up with this (Yes, it's a "Christian" site) http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/ancient/ancient .htm/ and countless others of cave drawings of dinosaurs (or dragons). You should try doing a search of OOPARTS (Out Of Place Artifacts) some time, some really weird stuff out there.
But I really doubt we are taking cave drawings as proof these days other wise you would be believing in some truly odd things. But I don't see how cave drawings have any bearings on whether or not something existed as there are countless things and animals not depicted in any cave drawing. Not all civilizations practiced cave drawing anyway, which shows why we have so many artifacts, tablets, containers and the like which also depict animals long thought extinct.
But I am sure whether or not you believe these things are real I am sure you will just pass them off as chance or pure imagination. Heck, with enough time I am sure they could have formed by chance! Yep, thats it!
All the ones I listed are just other choices, not saying anyone of them is right, but they all do occur http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift/. Which ever you believe to be the cause I guess is your choice.
Using the cyclic model which is a unproven theory to try and debunk the laws of thermodynamics is foolish I believe. In theory it may be able make up for it, but it is far from being proven, and until then the known laws take precedence for me. But I guess you like me, were just giving other choices.
Today most people agree that there was a beginning, where the real argument is at is in when and how.
Someone said something about the Oscillatory Universe and though at one time it was the hot new thing, when they started looking they found there to be to little mass in the universe to stop the "expansion". But expansion is not the only answer to the red-shift in light.
The first answer most people give is stellar motion (expansion). Which is the loss of light energy and its wavelength stretched or red-shifted from the light source moving away.
There is also gravitation, in which the star's own gravity may lengthen the wavelength of the light and/or from starlight passing near a massive object, like a galaxy.
Second-order doppler effect (Transverse doppler shift) can also explain the red-shift. As a light source moving at right angles to an observer will always be red-shifted. And when you use this for an answer, it implies that the universe may be in circular motion instead of expansion. However it could be all of them, it does not have to be just one answer.
As far as there being a beginning, it's just a matter of thermodynamics, as someone else said everything is falling apart which means it had to start at some point because if it was infinite all energy would be at equilibrium, meaning it would be the same everywhere, which is just not the case.
Indeed it is, just a very expensive oxidizer, but has the unique abilty to be used as a monopropellant.
No, however the question I answered was not about sold propelleant, just nonflammable, that is untill a fuel is added.
There are some propelleants like H202 (hydrogen peroxide)which is injected into a catalyst, they are very powerful motors. However very expensive and the min. 90% h202 you have to use is also hard to come by (equipment as well), not to mention that H202 that strong will burn you like acid.