You would be correct, using the term bandwidth loosely, if the number of pigeons stayed constant. However, using the strict definition, bandwidth is totally unrelated to line latency/round trip time.
So, basically, what you are saying is "If you define 'bandwidth' according to a strict and unusual definition that nobody actually uses in real life, I'm precisely correct."
I don't care what your book or professor said bandwidth is defined as. In real life people define the word "bandwidth" to mean "the amount of data that can be transmitted per unit of time". Until now, I have never heard it used to mean anything else.
I have had top of the line Palms and PPCs with all the fixings and nowhere near paid that much. And these devices have *Loads* of software free and purchased on the market.
My top-of-the-line Sony Clie UX50 + 1GB memory stick cost nearly $1,000.
Not sure what definition you are using for "top-of-the-line", since a top-of-the-line Palm is definitely in this price range. $645 for a cool electronic gadget may not be "affordable" to everybody, but there is obviously no shortage of people who are willing to fork it out.
Sure they can, if the word "Kleenex" becomes so widespread that it is no longer a defensible trademark.
Don't believe me? Then you probably didn't know that "aspirin" and "cellophane", for example, were originally trademarks, not generic words. They were lost to common usage. It does happen, and companies will spend a fortune to try to stop it.
This also happens during flight, actually -- when the SR-71 refuels from a fuel tanker, it has to fly subsonic so that the tanker can keep up with it. This causes it to cool off enough that it starts to leak again, and it only tightens back up once it reaccelerates.
To what extent do the mission planners have to account for this effect? Can they even know for sure until they see what happens as they pass by Mercury those three times before orbital insertion?
Of course they can. We know the speed of the Sun and planets relative to us, and we know all of their masses. That's everything you need to do full relativistic calculations.
And yes, these are astrophysicists we're talking about. Of course they take this into account.
"Mach seven" really doesn't sound all that impressive.
The SR-71 Blackbird has an official top speed of around Mach 3.5, and unofficially several pilots have reported taking the plane to substantially higher speeds. The plane's airspeed indicator goes up to Mach 5, if that means anything.
At Mach 3.5, air resistance raises the plane's temperature to nearly a thousand degrees fahrenheit. Conventional aircraft aluminum would soften and lose its structural integrity at that temperature. For that reason, the SR-71's skin is made out of titanium. Thermal expansion causes the plane to be around six inches bigger while it's flying versus on the ground, which naturally caused nightmares for the plane's designers. The plane has a special cooling system which uses its jet fuel as a coolant liquid, circulated under the skin. After landing, ground crew must wait for a while before they can safely touch it, because the surface is so hot.
And that's only Mach 3.5. Does Mach 7 still not sound impressive to you?
I think there needs to be the addition of an atmosphere to be considered a planet. Really it's just a round rock without one. It pretty much classifies moons as planets without that qualifier.
First -- how much atmosphere? Every sizable rock will be able to hold onto at least a few gas molecules.
Second -- the Sun has stripped Mercury of its atmosphere. However, if Mercury were orbiting at the distance of Mars, it would have been able to retain quite a bit more air. Your definition is biased against close planets.
Third -- our atmosphere came largely from outgassing. A planet with a different composition (say, similar to the moon), or less active tectonics, might have dramatically less of an atmosphere.
So, you have now tied the definition of what is a planet to a complicated interplay between its size, composition, geology, distance from the sun, and who-knows-what-else factors.
Can't we just say "You need to be this big to be called a planet" and leave it at that?
The only reasons one COULD say that they're not are that they're small, and they're way far out there. Both of those 'arguments' are pretty pathetic, IMO.
If arguing that Sedna is not a planet based on size is pathetic, then you had best be prepared to grant full planet status to every single asteroid and comet in the solar system. For that matter, why stop there? Doesn't every speck of space dust orbiting the sun deserve to be called a planet?
Face it, size matters. We can hopefully all agree that Jupiter is a planet, and a speck of dust orbiting the sun isn't. Why do we call one a planet, and the other not?
Not composition -- the planets vary widely in composition, from rocky and metallic to ethereal and gaseous. Suppose the speck of dust has a composition similar to Mercury? It's still not a planet.
Not distance -- if we discovered something the size of Jupiter clearly orbiting the Sun, but at great distance, I very much doubt that it would be denied planetary status.
Not temperature -- they range from the super-hot Mercury and Venus to the icy-cold Neptune.
Not geology -- how big is Jupiter's core? Is it made of rock, metal, or some combination of the two? We don't have a clue, so obviously we aren't using that to decide whether or not it is a planet.
Not shape -- A billiard ball orbiting the sun is not a planet, despite its spherical shape.
Go ahead, try to come up with some characteristic that all of the planets have in common, and which is not shared by any of the non-planets. I very much doubt that you can come up with anything other than large size or great mass.
Pick one -- size or mass. I don't care which. Then agree on a number. Everything which orbits the sun and is bigger/more massive than that is a planet. Anything which fails that test is not. Period.
This is not a fundamental question of science. It's a matter of naming things. At some point we stop calling something an asteroid/planetoid and start calling it a planet. We just need agree on where exactly that point lies.
Imagine if those were stock charts... they'd be firing the board of directors!
The dollar is down around 15% against the pound year-over-year. Are you suggesting that a company's board of directors would get fired over a mere 15% drop in stock price?
It's not nearly as big of a deal as you suggest. I would hardly call a 15% drop "dying horribly".
No, they aren't. The first choice is "Gimme features baby!... Size, weight be dammed!" Does that sound like an unbiased, fair way to present a survey question?
This device is about the same size and weight as a Jornada, as the article summary says. Nobody is saying "size and weight be damned" -- but many of us would say "sure, an extra half ounce is no big deal".
I have very discerning ears and even at the highest bit rates, I can still hear audio artifacts with pretty much any codec.
And I'm sure you've actually done a well-controlled blind test with a significant number of trials, to rule out the possibility that you're just hearing what you want to hear...
In my opinion, writing a cheat tool is a perfectly valid strategy for playing the game -- a good aimbot or whatever isn't exactly easy to make.
I suppose you'd be okay with a boxer bringing weapons and armor into the ring, as long as he had built them himself?
Engagements -- whether sporting or gaming -- have rules. They have rules so that everybody can compete on an even footing, know what they are up against, and most of all have fun. They do not have rules so that annoying little assholes who use aimbots can ruin everybody else's day by not following them.
If the rules of a particular server allow cheating, then by all means go for it. Knock yourself out and have a blast. If the rules do not allow cheating, do everybody a favor and don't cheat.
Download.com and similar sites used to be good sources of freeware, but since they started charging to list your software, the freeware is gone; at best, the authors will want to recoup their listing fee.
The worst part is that they only charge the little guys. My company (big internet company) released a client-side application last year. Download.com approached us and offered to host it for free. They've served a ton of downloads and we've never paid them a cent. They even featured it for a while -- something we neither asked for nor discussed with them.
Yet the little guy that gets ten downloads a week actually has to pay for it...
These words have a negative meaning because, and only because of their connection to gay people, and that makes them homophobic.
And the word "sucks", as in "that sucks", was originaly a reference to performing a blow job. So? Does that mean that everyone who says "that sucks" is thinking about a blow job when they say it?
1. I'll say _you_, then, haven't spent days debugging a Java memory leak. Especially in a Swing program. One single listener you've forgot to explicitly remove can keep whole forms or even whole windows still loaded in memory. No, the garbage collector doesn't automatically free those.
I wrote a Swing application distributed by a major Internet company (trust me, you've heard of us). The application is well over a hundred thousand lines of code and has been downloaded millions of times.
Yes, you can leak memory in Java. Yes, failing to unregister a listener can lead to huge chunks of memory being retained. No, I can't see how it can take days to track such a problem down.
Java's -Xrunhprof option allows you to generate a complete map of the heap, including all references between objects. When faced with a problem like this, I took half an hour to write a program that would analyze the heap dump and tell me why a particular object was still held in memory.
Then I ran the program for a while, as memory steadily increased due to the leakage, and captured several heap dumps. A quick comparison between the various dumps pointed me towards some objects that seemed suspicious. A quick analysis, and I had an exact chain of pointers from the root set to the offending objects.
Total time to debug, including writing the heap analysis utility: under an hour.
If you have spent days debugging a problem like this, you need help. You make it sound as if the fact that you can accidentally retain an entire object graph is a problem, when it's actually a blessing in disguise. In C, you can easily leak four bytes at a time, and good luck finding it. In Java, leaks are A) much less common, and B) tend to involve many thousands of bytes, and the size of the leaks tends to makes it much easier to notice that there is a problem and subsequently track it down.
Even if, once in a great while, a Java memory leak is actually sticky enough to take days to track down, I still submit that it is light years better than the situation with C.
Swing is slow. It insists on painting every single pixel in the window personally. Basically if you have one form in a swing window, the whole window is one big canvas, on which the individual buttons/fields/toolbars/menus/etc are rendered in software, pixel by pixel. If that's your idea of a fun desktop, may I humbly suggest setting your X to use the VESA framebuffer instead of whatever accelerated driver you're using?
I humbly suggest that you take a look at the Java2D source and get a clue before you go around spouting nonsense like this. Java does indeed take advantage of hardware acceleration built into the video driver, and can even use OpenGL for its 2D rendering.
No. In Java, a Class is subject to garbage collection exactly like every other object (well, conceptually at least). When there are no more references to it, away it goes. Since a ClassLoader holds a reference to all of the Classes it loaded, and vice versa, Classes cannot be considered garbage unless their ClassLoader is also garbage.
To be able to garbage collect Classes, you have to load them using a new ClassLoader, and then be damned sure that all references to the classes and the ClassLoader are destroyed. Both the Classes and ClassLoader then become garbage and are eligible for cleanup.
Frankly, I don't think this is funny in the least.
The purposeful attempt to induce human-like intelligence in a lower species strikes me as one of the more vile and obscene pursuits a man of "science" [whatever that is] could possibly undertake. And, given the record of "scientists" and their truly vile and obscene pursuits throughout the ages, that's saying something.
Frankly, it strikes me as an affront against God.
"Affront against God" is one of those meaningless, yet highly emotionally charged, statements that can apply to almost anything.
First: I presume by "God" you are referring to the Christian God. Not everyone is Christian. Chances are that you would be offended if a Hindu person tried to shut down our scientific pursuits by declaring them "an affront against Vishnu", or tried to stop you from eating beef owing to the cow's status as a sacred animal. Why should a non-Christian care whether or not the Christian God is affronted?
Second: How do you know that the Christian God would be affronted in the first place? The Bible, to the best of my knowledge, does not tell us (even indirectly) not to tinker with mouse genes in an attempt to make them smarter. Even if the Bible does contain passages that might be interpreted in this fashion, A) it's a matter of interpretation, and B) modern-day Christians already ignore huge passages of the Bible, so what's one more?
Third: What makes this "vile and obscene"? A statement like that requires some exposition.
I have a Clie UX50, which actually has pretty crappy battery life compared to most PDAs. I can still watch a full 2hr movie on it, and in fact have been ripping DVDs to it for months.
merging a helium and it's anti-matter twin would be *REAL* cold fusion.
No, it wouldn't.
Fusion means slamming atomic nuclei together to form bigger atoms.
Irradiating U238 with neutrons, for instance, causes some of the U238 to absorb an extra neutron and become U239, which quickly decays into P239. You have added an extra subatomic particle into the nucleus of an atom and created a brand-new, heavier, element. But you have not performed fusion, because a neutron is not an atomic nucleus. Otherwise you could say that ordinary uranium fission reactors are also practicing fusion, and I've never heard anyone claim that.
Now, in your case, you talk about slamming matter and anti-matter together. No dice. First, anti-matter does not fit the "atomic nucleus" definition. Second, slamming helium into anti-helium would not result in a heavier element, the other requirement of fusion. It would instead result in the complete annihilation of both the helium and the anti-helium.
Now, matter-antimatter collisions are the single most efficient means of producing energy that we know of. Compared to the mass involved, they liberate an absolutely unbelievable amount of energy. The problem is that it takes even more energy (much, much more) to manufacture antimatter in the first place. Unless we A) find a natural source of significant quantities of antimatter somewhere, or B) figure out a vastly more efficient way to make it, antimatter is useless as a power source.
Once they get to that point, making robots bipedal will make sense... since these robots will then be able to go where we go.
No, a bipedal design is just silly. We are bipeds solely because the body plan from which we evolved only had four limbs with which to work. Compared to most other mammals -- quadripeds -- we are slow, clumsy, and prone to fall and crack our giant heads open like overripe canteloupes.
If you want a truly sensible design, you would make a body plan with at least four legs, with the torso mounted in the exact center. Like a centaur, except with the human body shifted back to the middle of the horse's body instead of the front. Compared to a biped, a creature (or robot) like that would be far more stable than a biped, much swifter, better able to navigate rough terrain, and less likely to seriously injure its vital parts (head/torso) in a fall. A six-limbed design just makes more sense than a four-limbed one, at least when you have to devote two of the limbs to manipulation rather than locomotion.
Note that even one would be enough to prove that the Bible is not completely true and therefore could not be the unadulterated word of God.
I am aware that Christians have a number of excuses for this (the word of God is perfect, but it was transcribed by imperfect humans, errors were introduced in translation, etc.) but the fact is that this must necessarily cast doubt on the accuracy of the entire work. If you are forced to admit that certain passages of the Bible are inaccurate, how can you know for certain that all of the other passages are accurate?
I must be insane too, because I preferred Mario Kart 64 to Super Mario Kart.
Oh dear... apparently I have an opinion that disagrees with yours. I will report myself to the Reeducation Center immediately so that this grevious situation may be corrected.
Slashdot Mirror
You would be correct, using the term bandwidth loosely, if the number of pigeons stayed constant. However, using the strict definition, bandwidth is totally unrelated to line latency/round trip time.
So, basically, what you are saying is "If you define 'bandwidth' according to a strict and unusual definition that nobody actually uses in real life, I'm precisely correct."
I don't care what your book or professor said bandwidth is defined as. In real life people define the word "bandwidth" to mean "the amount of data that can be transmitted per unit of time". Until now, I have never heard it used to mean anything else.
I have had top of the line Palms and PPCs with all the fixings and nowhere near paid that much. And these devices have *Loads* of software free and purchased on the market.
My top-of-the-line Sony Clie UX50 + 1GB memory stick cost nearly $1,000.
Not sure what definition you are using for "top-of-the-line", since a top-of-the-line Palm is definitely in this price range. $645 for a cool electronic gadget may not be "affordable" to everybody, but there is obviously no shortage of people who are willing to fork it out.
They can't say Joe's Kleenex on the box.
Sure they can, if the word "Kleenex" becomes so widespread that it is no longer a defensible trademark.
Don't believe me? Then you probably didn't know that "aspirin" and "cellophane", for example, were originally trademarks, not generic words. They were lost to common usage. It does happen, and companies will spend a fortune to try to stop it.
This also happens during flight, actually -- when the SR-71 refuels from a fuel tanker, it has to fly subsonic so that the tanker can keep up with it. This causes it to cool off enough that it starts to leak again, and it only tightens back up once it reaccelerates.
To what extent do the mission planners have to account for this effect? Can they even know for sure until they see what happens as they pass by Mercury those three times before orbital insertion?
Of course they can. We know the speed of the Sun and planets relative to us, and we know all of their masses. That's everything you need to do full relativistic calculations.
And yes, these are astrophysicists we're talking about. Of course they take this into account.
"Mach seven" really doesn't sound all that impressive.
The SR-71 Blackbird has an official top speed of around Mach 3.5, and unofficially several pilots have reported taking the plane to substantially higher speeds. The plane's airspeed indicator goes up to Mach 5, if that means anything.
At Mach 3.5, air resistance raises the plane's temperature to nearly a thousand degrees fahrenheit. Conventional aircraft aluminum would soften and lose its structural integrity at that temperature. For that reason, the SR-71's skin is made out of titanium. Thermal expansion causes the plane to be around six inches bigger while it's flying versus on the ground, which naturally caused nightmares for the plane's designers. The plane has a special cooling system which uses its jet fuel as a coolant liquid, circulated under the skin. After landing, ground crew must wait for a while before they can safely touch it, because the surface is so hot.
And that's only Mach 3.5. Does Mach 7 still not sound impressive to you?
The XBox already supports high-definition.
Yes, and something like five or six games actually take advantage of it. And none of them are high-profile, decent games. Whooo.
For all intents and purposes, current-generation consoles top out at 480p.
I think there needs to be the addition of an atmosphere to be considered a planet. Really it's just a round rock without one. It pretty much classifies moons as planets without that qualifier.
First -- how much atmosphere? Every sizable rock will be able to hold onto at least a few gas molecules.
Second -- the Sun has stripped Mercury of its atmosphere. However, if Mercury were orbiting at the distance of Mars, it would have been able to retain quite a bit more air. Your definition is biased against close planets.
Third -- our atmosphere came largely from outgassing. A planet with a different composition (say, similar to the moon), or less active tectonics, might have dramatically less of an atmosphere.
So, you have now tied the definition of what is a planet to a complicated interplay between its size, composition, geology, distance from the sun, and who-knows-what-else factors.
Can't we just say "You need to be this big to be called a planet" and leave it at that?
The only reasons one COULD say that they're not are that they're small, and they're way far out there. Both of those 'arguments' are pretty pathetic, IMO.
If arguing that Sedna is not a planet based on size is pathetic, then you had best be prepared to grant full planet status to every single asteroid and comet in the solar system. For that matter, why stop there? Doesn't every speck of space dust orbiting the sun deserve to be called a planet?
Face it, size matters. We can hopefully all agree that Jupiter is a planet, and a speck of dust orbiting the sun isn't. Why do we call one a planet, and the other not?
Not composition -- the planets vary widely in composition, from rocky and metallic to ethereal and gaseous. Suppose the speck of dust has a composition similar to Mercury? It's still not a planet.
Not distance -- if we discovered something the size of Jupiter clearly orbiting the Sun, but at great distance, I very much doubt that it would be denied planetary status.
Not temperature -- they range from the super-hot Mercury and Venus to the icy-cold Neptune.
Not geology -- how big is Jupiter's core? Is it made of rock, metal, or some combination of the two? We don't have a clue, so obviously we aren't using that to decide whether or not it is a planet.
Not shape -- A billiard ball orbiting the sun is not a planet, despite its spherical shape.
Go ahead, try to come up with some characteristic that all of the planets have in common, and which is not shared by any of the non-planets. I very much doubt that you can come up with anything other than large size or great mass.
Pick one -- size or mass. I don't care which. Then agree on a number. Everything which orbits the sun and is bigger/more massive than that is a planet. Anything which fails that test is not. Period.
This is not a fundamental question of science. It's a matter of naming things. At some point we stop calling something an asteroid/planetoid and start calling it a planet. We just need agree on where exactly that point lies.
...
Imagine if those were stock charts... they'd be firing the board of directors!The dollar is down around 15% against the pound year-over-year. Are you suggesting that a company's board of directors would get fired over a mere 15% drop in stock price?
It's not nearly as big of a deal as you suggest. I would hardly call a 15% drop "dying horribly".
The results are very telling...
No, they aren't. The first choice is "Gimme features baby!... Size, weight be dammed!" Does that sound like an unbiased, fair way to present a survey question?
This device is about the same size and weight as a Jornada, as the article summary says. Nobody is saying "size and weight be damned" -- but many of us would say "sure, an extra half ounce is no big deal".
I have very discerning ears and even at the highest bit rates, I can still hear audio artifacts with pretty much any codec.
And I'm sure you've actually done a well-controlled blind test with a significant number of trials, to rule out the possibility that you're just hearing what you want to hear...
In my opinion, writing a cheat tool is a perfectly valid strategy for playing the game -- a good aimbot or whatever isn't exactly easy to make.
I suppose you'd be okay with a boxer bringing weapons and armor into the ring, as long as he had built them himself?
Engagements -- whether sporting or gaming -- have rules. They have rules so that everybody can compete on an even footing, know what they are up against, and most of all have fun. They do not have rules so that annoying little assholes who use aimbots can ruin everybody else's day by not following them.
If the rules of a particular server allow cheating, then by all means go for it. Knock yourself out and have a blast. If the rules do not allow cheating, do everybody a favor and don't cheat.
This is just common fucking sense, people.
Download.com and similar sites used to be good sources of freeware, but since they started charging to list your software, the freeware is gone; at best, the authors will want to recoup their listing fee.
The worst part is that they only charge the little guys. My company (big internet company) released a client-side application last year. Download.com approached us and offered to host it for free. They've served a ton of downloads and we've never paid them a cent. They even featured it for a while -- something we neither asked for nor discussed with them.
Yet the little guy that gets ten downloads a week actually has to pay for it...
These words have a negative meaning because, and only because of their connection to gay people, and that makes them homophobic.
And the word "sucks", as in "that sucks", was originaly a reference to performing a blow job. So? Does that mean that everyone who says "that sucks" is thinking about a blow job when they say it?
1. I'll say _you_, then, haven't spent days debugging a Java memory leak. Especially in a Swing program. One single listener you've forgot to explicitly remove can keep whole forms or even whole windows still loaded in memory. No, the garbage collector doesn't automatically free those.
I wrote a Swing application distributed by a major Internet company (trust me, you've heard of us). The application is well over a hundred thousand lines of code and has been downloaded millions of times.
Yes, you can leak memory in Java. Yes, failing to unregister a listener can lead to huge chunks of memory being retained. No, I can't see how it can take days to track such a problem down.
Java's -Xrunhprof option allows you to generate a complete map of the heap, including all references between objects. When faced with a problem like this, I took half an hour to write a program that would analyze the heap dump and tell me why a particular object was still held in memory.
Then I ran the program for a while, as memory steadily increased due to the leakage, and captured several heap dumps. A quick comparison between the various dumps pointed me towards some objects that seemed suspicious. A quick analysis, and I had an exact chain of pointers from the root set to the offending objects.
Total time to debug, including writing the heap analysis utility: under an hour.
If you have spent days debugging a problem like this, you need help. You make it sound as if the fact that you can accidentally retain an entire object graph is a problem, when it's actually a blessing in disguise. In C, you can easily leak four bytes at a time, and good luck finding it. In Java, leaks are A) much less common, and B) tend to involve many thousands of bytes, and the size of the leaks tends to makes it much easier to notice that there is a problem and subsequently track it down.
Even if, once in a great while, a Java memory leak is actually sticky enough to take days to track down, I still submit that it is light years better than the situation with C.
Swing is slow. It insists on painting every single pixel in the window personally. Basically if you have one form in a swing window, the whole window is one big canvas, on which the individual buttons/fields/toolbars/menus/etc are rendered in software, pixel by pixel. If that's your idea of a fun desktop, may I humbly suggest setting your X to use the VESA framebuffer instead of whatever accelerated driver you're using?
I humbly suggest that you take a look at the Java2D source and get a clue before you go around spouting nonsense like this. Java does indeed take advantage of hardware acceleration built into the video driver, and can even use OpenGL for its 2D rendering.
No. In Java, a Class is subject to garbage collection exactly like every other object (well, conceptually at least). When there are no more references to it, away it goes. Since a ClassLoader holds a reference to all of the Classes it loaded, and vice versa, Classes cannot be considered garbage unless their ClassLoader is also garbage.
To be able to garbage collect Classes, you have to load them using a new ClassLoader, and then be damned sure that all references to the classes and the ClassLoader are destroyed. Both the Classes and ClassLoader then become garbage and are eligible for cleanup.
Frankly, I don't think this is funny in the least.
The purposeful attempt to induce human-like intelligence in a lower species strikes me as one of the more vile and obscene pursuits a man of "science" [whatever that is] could possibly undertake. And, given the record of "scientists" and their truly vile and obscene pursuits throughout the ages, that's saying something.
Frankly, it strikes me as an affront against God.
"Affront against God" is one of those meaningless, yet highly emotionally charged, statements that can apply to almost anything.
First: I presume by "God" you are referring to the Christian God. Not everyone is Christian. Chances are that you would be offended if a Hindu person tried to shut down our scientific pursuits by declaring them "an affront against Vishnu", or tried to stop you from eating beef owing to the cow's status as a sacred animal. Why should a non-Christian care whether or not the Christian God is affronted?
Second: How do you know that the Christian God would be affronted in the first place? The Bible, to the best of my knowledge, does not tell us (even indirectly) not to tinker with mouse genes in an attempt to make them smarter. Even if the Bible does contain passages that might be interpreted in this fashion, A) it's a matter of interpretation, and B) modern-day Christians already ignore huge passages of the Bible, so what's one more?
Third: What makes this "vile and obscene"? A statement like that requires some exposition.
I have a Clie UX50, which actually has pretty crappy battery life compared to most PDAs. I can still watch a full 2hr movie on it, and in fact have been ripping DVDs to it for months.
Antiprotons and positrons can be contained electromagnetically. No big deal there, as long as there isn't a power failure.
merging a helium and it's anti-matter twin would be *REAL* cold fusion.
No, it wouldn't.
Fusion means slamming atomic nuclei together to form bigger atoms.
Irradiating U238 with neutrons, for instance, causes some of the U238 to absorb an extra neutron and become U239, which quickly decays into P239. You have added an extra subatomic particle into the nucleus of an atom and created a brand-new, heavier, element. But you have not performed fusion, because a neutron is not an atomic nucleus. Otherwise you could say that ordinary uranium fission reactors are also practicing fusion, and I've never heard anyone claim that.
Now, in your case, you talk about slamming matter and anti-matter together. No dice. First, anti-matter does not fit the "atomic nucleus" definition. Second, slamming helium into anti-helium would not result in a heavier element, the other requirement of fusion. It would instead result in the complete annihilation of both the helium and the anti-helium.
Now, matter-antimatter collisions are the single most efficient means of producing energy that we know of. Compared to the mass involved, they liberate an absolutely unbelievable amount of energy. The problem is that it takes even more energy (much, much more) to manufacture antimatter in the first place. Unless we A) find a natural source of significant quantities of antimatter somewhere, or B) figure out a vastly more efficient way to make it, antimatter is useless as a power source.
And then rebuild all cars to support this new shape, or my new robot isn't going to be driving me anywhere any time soon.
Why would you want a robot to drive you anywhere? Just build the intelligence directly into the car.
Once they get to that point, making robots bipedal will make sense... since these robots will then be able to go where we go.
No, a bipedal design is just silly. We are bipeds solely because the body plan from which we evolved only had four limbs with which to work. Compared to most other mammals -- quadripeds -- we are slow, clumsy, and prone to fall and crack our giant heads open like overripe canteloupes.
If you want a truly sensible design, you would make a body plan with at least four legs, with the torso mounted in the exact center. Like a centaur, except with the human body shifted back to the middle of the horse's body instead of the front. Compared to a biped, a creature (or robot) like that would be far more stable than a biped, much swifter, better able to navigate rough terrain, and less likely to seriously injure its vital parts (head/torso) in a fall. A six-limbed design just makes more sense than a four-limbed one, at least when you have to devote two of the limbs to manipulation rather than locomotion.
The Bible is truth, but not exhaustive truth.
No, the Bible is not truth, and this is easy enough to prove. For it to be truth, it could not contain a single contradiction or factual innaccuracy.
Here is a page which lists a number of contradictions in the Bible.
Note that even one would be enough to prove that the Bible is not completely true and therefore could not be the unadulterated word of God.
I am aware that Christians have a number of excuses for this (the word of God is perfect, but it was transcribed by imperfect humans, errors were introduced in translation, etc.) but the fact is that this must necessarily cast doubt on the accuracy of the entire work. If you are forced to admit that certain passages of the Bible are inaccurate, how can you know for certain that all of the other passages are accurate?
I must be insane too, because I preferred Mario Kart 64 to Super Mario Kart.
Oh dear... apparently I have an opinion that disagrees with yours. I will report myself to the Reeducation Center immediately so that this grevious situation may be corrected.