Firstly, within the CPU, there were multiple functional units... which could operate in parallel; so it could begin the next instruction while still computing the current one....
Secondly, the CPU itself contained 10 parallel functional units... so it could operate on ten different instructions simultaneously.
I'm sure Audi means that the synthesized fuel is functionally or practically identical, meaning same flash point, detonation point, emissions, etc. So why can't they say that? “Chemically identical” means you can put it through GCMS and get the same results, and I'm sure that's not the case.
Audi's statement is absurd. Extracted and refined hydrocarbon fuels are a complicated blend of probably hundreds of different chemicals, with their proportions varying by source and refinement process.
If Haynes has monetized his channel, then any filming he does for it is commercial filming. YouTube videos are a full-time job for some people.
If he owned a plane, took a camera on it, filmed stuff from it, and got money when people watched the film, that would be commercial flying. This is no different.
A perfect fit for the I, Robot universe: a conflict between the first and second laws, plus a question about the depth of the robot's understanding of its actions.
1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
Yet, despite the pressure and temperature gradients all the way down, despite having a liquid, molten outer core and a radioactive nickel-iron-cobalt inner core at over 4000 F, lets assume youve gone and physically created created something that will stabilize your cylindrical shaft going right through the Earths center.
nothing on these augmented displays will look right except from the driver's perspective
And only from one head position!
Every time some concept car âoeinventsâ video-cameras-instead-of-mirrors, I wonder whether it's occurred to anyone that mirrors show a different view depending on the position of the viewer. Is that so fundamental that we just forget it entirely?
Slashdot Mirror
Yep. They're jerks and this is stupid. Though hiding KB3035583 is (for now) enough to stop the nag.
It's still working for me. Would you like a screenshot of my Win7 tray with no Win10 nagger?
That's why I commented. I don't know why people are bothering with the registry to disable a program they can just not opt to install.
Just uninstall the update and hide it.
Of course, it will be unhidden in a month or so, but just check your updates before installing them and hide it again.
Okay, that is actually pretty tedious, and MS are jerks for putting us through it. But it is doable.
So that's why it takes so darn long to load each page when I scroll down through my old pictures!
The problem is that the public may not have access. In many places, the video is only accessible by the police.
And aren't these the same?
Oops, news to me.
These main cables form a parabola
A cable hanging under its own weight forms a catenary, not a parabola. I presume that still applies when you hang a roadway from it.
That's just a dramatic way of saying “>67% market share.”
There is (now?) a video of an F-35 performing a vertical takeoff and vertical landing in the comment you replied to.
Not only were rockets working, they had been in practical use for centuries.
Maybe this would be correct if we said “outer space rockets” specifically. The principles were pretty well understood, but we couldn't yet build one.
It's amazing that humanity has gotten here: that to find radio silence, we'd send people to the far side of the moon.
I thought MS was building this stuff in-house. What happened to HoloLens?
I used 8pen for a while. I found it to be about a wash against Swype for ease and speed, but it would seem to be very well suited to smart watches.
I'm sure Audi means that the synthesized fuel is functionally or practically identical, meaning same flash point, detonation point, emissions, etc. So why can't they say that? “Chemically identical” means you can put it through GCMS and get the same results, and I'm sure that's not the case.
Audi's statement is absurd. Extracted and refined hydrocarbon fuels are a complicated blend of probably hundreds of different chemicals, with their proportions varying by source and refinement process.
Google cache of Financial Times: Patent case could shift power balance in tech industry
Meanwhile, HOORAY! we're spending less than a quarter of that on real science education. I don't think people parse the numbers in news reports, when they get this big.
If Haynes has monetized his channel, then any filming he does for it is commercial filming. YouTube videos are a full-time job for some people.
If he owned a plane, took a camera on it, filmed stuff from it, and got money when people watched the film, that would be commercial flying. This is no different.
For even greater pleasure.
scrap their knees
I'm with you overall, but I'm gonna say, let the the kids keep their knees.
Slashdot summary:
in theory, it should be possible to construct one
Actual article:
Yet, despite the pressure and temperature gradients all the way down, despite having a liquid, molten outer core and a radioactive nickel-iron-cobalt inner core at over 4000 F, lets assume youve gone and physically created created something that will stabilize your cylindrical shaft going right through the Earths center.
nothing on these augmented displays will look right except from the driver's perspective
And only from one head position!
Every time some concept car âoeinventsâ video-cameras-instead-of-mirrors, I wonder whether it's occurred to anyone that mirrors show a different view depending on the position of the viewer. Is that so fundamental that we just forget it entirely?