How does that NOT only tell you that you have the same weight on both sides (and by proxy the same mass, under the assumption 'g' isn't changing across the relatively small dimensions of the device) ? If that's so then you still only have a way to compare a new mass to a reference mass.
Because a balance doesn't compare two masses, it compares two forces.
In this case, on one side of the balance, the force is generated using electricity,
with parameters tracing back to fundamental constants, which have defined values.
Once you get that, the explanation on how this can be used to
define a mass normal is not that complicated.
And if you tell me "well, it's a test mass on one side, and then electromagnetic force on the other", then surely the latter is then balancing against local 'g' and we're back to the variable 'g' problem.
But g in fundamental units is m/(s*s), so does not depend on the mass of your
object used to measure it, and thus is independent of the definition of the kg.
A precise measurement of g at the location of your balance can therefore be
used in defining the kg.
I think you better check out your physics. Explaining orbital motion correctly is impossible without using Relativity, since Mercury's orbit is Relativistic due to it's position in the sun's gravity field.
And how exactly would Special Relativity help me there?
It all depends on your frame of reference. You can pick a frame of reference where the earth is perfectly still. Granted, it's a non-inertial frame of reference which make celestial mechanics a bitch to deal with, but you can do it, and it will work.
How do you make the retrograde motion of planets work in a geocentric system? You really going to try to make planets jumping around in space "work"?
I'd suggest you do a quick primer on frames of reference in the theory of relativity. But who knows, maybe Einstein was wrong about all that stuff...
Bringing up Special Relativity when the subject is rotating non-inertial reference
frames doesn't really help your case. You might want to dial down your smugness.
They should maybe talk to a mathematician: During WWII, the allies had
exactly the same problem with the German tank production rate and their
tanks' sequential serial numbers.
It's known as the German tank problem, and statistical methods
delivered impressively accurate results at the time (results that were doubted by
the military, but that's another story...).
I would hope it would be hard to make that argument. Who would be dumb enough to fall for it? Basically what you are saying is "bet your business on me, and once you pay me you are on your own".
No, what I'm saying is:
"I'll help you with the setup, and if you want to, you can run
it yourself further on. I'll show your staff how everything works.
No need to keep paying me."
"I'll document it and show you how to fix everything yourself" pretty much means "besides the documentation, I have no special knowledge or skills that could help you if/when something goes wrong, but trust me, this is the best thing ever".
No, it means "I have all the special knowledge and skills that could help you,
but I won't withhold them from you to force you to keep on paying me:
I'll teach/show you how to do it yourself.
Of course, you can ask me for help any time if there's something you don't want to do alone."
would cost them about $bignum/10 for the initial setup, and then nothing to run for as long as they'd like.
So you are saying no service the moment it is set up, no help with bugs, no help with features missed in the initial spec. . Just a brand new legacy installation with nobody to maintain it.
That's quite far from what I'm saying. I have no idea how you came to that conclusion.
I'm quite happy to help further on. That's part of how I make a living.
I don't insist on a service contract however, and my existing
customers appreciate that quite a bit.
You also missed the part about "there's competent in-house staff".
So:
properly documented setup
clued in in-house technical staff
no mandatory recurring costs
no vendor lock-in (hire someone else if you want, it's all open and documented)
But thanks for the nice example of a weird misunderstanding I don't really understand.
A lot of live HD distribution is still done in MPEG2. Why? The coding delay for MPEG2 is a lot lower than for h264/HVEC/whatever the latest fancy is. Not a big deal when dealing with canned material, but a huge factor in dealing with live material. It's the difference between an 18Mbps stream (for MPEG2 HD) vs 6Mbps (h.264), but also the difference between 0.5 seconds of encoding delay vs 2 or 3 seconds.
I've set up live streams with x264 as an encoder with a guaranteed
encoding latency of under 150ms. On commodity hardware.
Also, the broadcast industry is incredibly stingy when it comes to spending money, especially capital expenditures. MPEG2 encoders are pretty cheap at this point, whereas MPEG4 are 10x the cost.
Yeah, commercial ones. I've been surprised several times by how free-software-averse
the whole broadcasting industry is: They'd rather buy a commercial encoder for $bignum
purchase + recurring $bignum2 support fee instead of using a superior setup that's based
on x264, would cost them about $bignum/10 for the initial setup, and then nothing to run for as
long as they'd like. I'd even deliver the whole documentation on how to run everything, so they
wouldn't need me again.
It's frustratingly hard to make "No need, I'll document and show you how to fix everything yourself"
an accepted answer to "But who do we call if something goes wrong?", even in cases where
they already have very capable and qualified people in-house.
Unfortunately, there's a pretty good inverse correlation between price and quality for H.264
encoders: The more expensive they are, the more they suck.
And that's were the latency problem tends to come in (and the encoding efficiency problem, and
the picture quality problem, and...).
Just extreme ones to make it obvious, there's nothing that makes those
different in kind from the steel ball with respect to the physics involved.
Of course in atmosphere -- terminal velocity is a property of fluids. So you need atmosphere. The difference between say 1 kg iron ball and 25000 kg iron ball is zero wrt terminal velocity.
Well, as you have written below: That's not true.
Thank you for correcting yourself by the way, that speaks well of you.
In music, the BACH motif is the motif, a succession of notes important or characteristic to a piece, B flat, A, C, B natural. In German musical nomenclature, in which the note B natural is written as H and the B flat as B, it forms Johann Sebastian Bach's family name.
That's what the article says, but I don't understand it. The only hand-written music on that Wikipedia web page shows B A C H written as four notes on a treble clef staff, not written as four letters. (This is on the right edge of the web page, half-way down.) So I don't know what they mean by saying that B natural is written as H, and B flat is written as B.
The explanation above is correct, but very unclearly worded.
In German nomenclature, the notes of the c major scale are read as:
C-D-E-F-G-A-H(-C)
There is a note called "B": The one a half tone under H.
So this is indeed read "B-A-C-H" in German
(where it would of course also be considered to be written as such...).
...and how many of those guns had > 100 mile range with 50 meter accuracy?
Zero. these are not in the same class of gun, except they are 'big' and on 'ships'. One is meant for pin point accuracy, the other is meant for wide-scale destruction.
Well... for a nuke, 50m CEP is indeed pretty much pinpoint, considering that its destructive radius
is 10 to 100 times larger than that.
For those projectiles, 50m CEP is lousy and not even close to "pinpoint", and means
you're more likely than not to bomb the wrong house. In other words: It is useless if what you
want to destroy is smaller than a city block (while leaving its surroundings standing).
Slashdot Mirror
How does that NOT only tell you that you have the same weight on both sides (and by proxy the same mass, under the assumption 'g' isn't changing across the relatively small dimensions of the device) ? If that's so then you still only have a way to compare a new mass to a reference mass.
Because a balance doesn't compare two masses, it compares two forces.
In this case, on one side of the balance, the force is generated using electricity,
with parameters tracing back to fundamental constants, which have defined values.
Once you get that, the explanation on how this can be used to
define a mass normal is not that complicated.
And if you tell me "well, it's a test mass on one side, and then electromagnetic force on the other", then surely the latter is then balancing against local 'g' and we're back to the variable 'g' problem.
But g in fundamental units is m/(s*s), so does not depend on the mass of your
object used to measure it, and thus is independent of the definition of the kg.
A precise measurement of g at the location of your balance can therefore be
used in defining the kg.
Ah, so slashdot breaks HTML links now too?
Let's try this again:
Why isn't it "Uk", then?
Why? Because you're American? The Guardian is a UK source, and they only capitalize (or capitalise) the first letter of the acronym, such as Nasa.
Why isn't it "Uk", then?
I think you better check out your physics. Explaining orbital motion correctly is impossible without using Relativity, since Mercury's orbit is Relativistic due to it's position in the sun's gravity field.
And how exactly would Special Relativity help me there?
How do you make the retrograde motion of planets work in a geocentric system? You really going to try to make planets jumping around in space "work"?
I'd suggest you do a quick primer on frames of reference in the theory of relativity. But who knows, maybe Einstein was wrong about all that stuff...
Bringing up Special Relativity when the subject is rotating non-inertial reference
frames doesn't really help your case. You might want to dial down your smugness.
For use at home, sure, but what about when dining out, which is what I'm talking about?
Bring your own (and occasionally explain why you do so).
How do you do handle this now? You can't tell me that all restaurants
are capable (and willing) to provide you with plastic cutlery upon request.
You assume Apple and Google will allow software decoding of AV1, which is extremely bad for battery life.
Apple : No, they wont. They have high stake in H265 patents. (I am actually surprised that there are part of the alliance)
Apple don't seem to be a member, see the list of alliance members
(scroll to "ALLIANCE MEMBERS", there's no anchor to link to...)
Electrical grids in Europe use DC for transmission lines.
Except for a handful of HVDC long-haul lines: No. They. Don't.
They should maybe talk to a mathematician: During WWII, the allies had
exactly the same problem with the German tank production rate and their
tanks' sequential serial numbers.
It's known as the German tank problem, and statistical methods
delivered impressively accurate results at the time (results that were doubted by
the military, but that's another story...).
I would hope it would be hard to make that argument. Who would be dumb enough to fall for it? Basically what you are saying is "bet your business on me, and once you pay me you are on your own".
No, what I'm saying is:
"I'll help you with the setup, and if you want to, you can run
it yourself further on. I'll show your staff how everything works.
No need to keep paying me."
"I'll document it and show you how to fix everything yourself" pretty much means "besides the documentation, I have no special knowledge or skills that could help you if/when something goes wrong, but trust me, this is the best thing ever".
No, it means "I have all the special knowledge and skills that could help you,
but I won't withhold them from you to force you to keep on paying me:
I'll teach/show you how to do it yourself.
Of course, you can ask me for help any time if there's something you don't want to do alone."
would cost them about $bignum/10 for the initial setup, and then nothing to run for as long as they'd like.
So you are saying no service the moment it is set up, no help with bugs, no help with features missed in the initial spec. . Just a brand new legacy installation with nobody to maintain it.
That's quite far from what I'm saying. I have no idea how you came to that conclusion.
I'm quite happy to help further on. That's part of how I make a living.
I don't insist on a service contract however, and my existing
customers appreciate that quite a bit.
You also missed the part about "there's competent in-house staff".
So:
But thanks for the nice example of a weird misunderstanding I don't really understand.
A lot of live HD distribution is still done in MPEG2. Why? The coding delay for MPEG2 is a lot lower than for h264/HVEC/whatever the latest fancy is. Not a big deal when dealing with canned material, but a huge factor in dealing with live material. It's the difference between an 18Mbps stream (for MPEG2 HD) vs 6Mbps (h.264), but also the difference between 0.5 seconds of encoding delay vs 2 or 3 seconds.
That's not an inherent problem of the spec, and hasn't been true for over half a decade:
http://web.archive.org/web/20150306225444/http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/archives/249
(it's even better today)
I've set up live streams with x264 as an encoder with a guaranteed
encoding latency of under 150ms. On commodity hardware.
Also, the broadcast industry is incredibly stingy when it comes to spending money, especially capital expenditures. MPEG2 encoders are pretty cheap at this point, whereas MPEG4 are 10x the cost.
Yeah, commercial ones. I've been surprised several times by how free-software-averse
the whole broadcasting industry is: They'd rather buy a commercial encoder for $bignum
purchase + recurring $bignum2 support fee instead of using a superior setup that's based
on x264, would cost them about $bignum/10 for the initial setup, and then nothing to run for as
long as they'd like. I'd even deliver the whole documentation on how to run everything, so they
wouldn't need me again.
It's frustratingly hard to make "No need, I'll document and show you how to fix everything yourself"
an accepted answer to "But who do we call if something goes wrong?", even in cases where
they already have very capable and qualified people in-house.
Unfortunately, there's a pretty good inverse correlation between price and quality for H.264
encoders: The more expensive they are, the more they suck.
And that's were the latency problem tends to come in (and the encoding efficiency problem, and
the picture quality problem, and...).
styrofoam/helium are pathological eg.
Just extreme ones to make it obvious, there's nothing that makes those
different in kind from the steel ball with respect to the physics involved.
Of course in atmosphere -- terminal velocity is a property of fluids. So you need atmosphere. The difference between say 1 kg iron ball and 25000 kg iron ball is zero wrt terminal velocity.
Well, as you have written below: That's not true.
Thank you for correcting yourself by the way, that speaks well of you.
higher momentum; terminal velocity is independent of mass (according to physics).
In an atmosphere? It absolutely is not.
In an atmosphere, the heavier a given shape is,
the faster its terminal velocity is.
It's pretty obvious: A one meter steel ball, a one meter
styrofoam ball, and a one meter helium balloon all fall at the
same rate in vacuum.
Add Earth's atmosphere, and they don't even all fall in the same direction.
I didn't see two parts of a Saturn V come in under rocket power for a simultaneous landing.
LM descent and ascent stage, on top of each other
In lunar gravity, and without atmosphere.
That's quite far from being the same thing.
I didn't read it as damage control, I read it as "Realist".
Has there been *any* successful on first go for a new rocket design?
There's this obscure (but well known in enthusiast circles) rocket called "Saturn V".
You don't own the .dev tld!
On a private network, yes, you do. You don't own it on the Internet, but on your own network, you own every domain and TLD.
OK, that's a valid view. But then why is your DNS server resolving those via the public root?
What has HTTP/HTTPS to do with HTML?
"HT"?
In music, the BACH motif is the motif, a succession of notes important or characteristic to a piece, B flat, A, C, B natural. In German musical nomenclature, in which the note B natural is written as H and the B flat as B, it forms Johann Sebastian Bach's family name.
That's what the article says, but I don't understand it. The only hand-written music on that Wikipedia web page shows B A C H written as four notes on a treble clef staff, not written as four letters. (This is on the right edge of the web page, half-way down.) So I don't know what they mean by saying that B natural is written as H, and B flat is written as B.
The explanation above is correct, but very unclearly worded.
In German nomenclature, the notes of the c major scale are read as:
C-D-E-F-G-A-H(-C)
There is a note called "B": The one a half tone under H.
So this is indeed read "B-A-C-H" in German
(where it would of course also be considered to be written as such...).
Or press the top left icon on the window bar (the one with the two overlapping squares),
BTW, in that mode you can also Cmd-F to search in the tab titles. How do you do that in other browsers again?
Firefox: type "% searchterm" in the address bar – there are several other useful operators as well.
It's not made clear at all in TFS, and could be read as if Netgear routers now supported more network stats available to the router's owner.
That's not it: "Analytics Data" collection is done by Netgear, remotely.
Diesel usually cannot be stored for longer than one or two years:
Diesel bug is a thing.
That's actually another reason for regular generator tests in backup facilities:
It frees up storage volume that can be filled with fresher fuel.
How the hell are you going to fence a Bugatti Veyron?
Longswords?
I concur. So what exactly is the point of and usecase for having that weapon?
...and how many of those guns had > 100 mile range with 50 meter accuracy?
Zero. these are not in the same class of gun, except they are 'big' and on 'ships'. One is meant for pin point accuracy, the other is meant for wide-scale destruction.
Well... for a nuke, 50m CEP is indeed pretty much pinpoint, considering that its destructive radius
is 10 to 100 times larger than that.
For those projectiles, 50m CEP is lousy and not even close to "pinpoint", and means
you're more likely than not to bomb the wrong house. In other words: It is useless if what you
want to destroy is smaller than a city block (while leaving its surroundings standing).