Doesn't that assume that the source of the gravity is a point at the center of a planet? Is that how planetary gravity actually works in practice?
For any collection of mass, if you are further from its center of mass than any part of that collection, then yes in 100% of the possible arrangements of that mass.
Also not commonly known is that when you are closer to the center of mass than any part of that collection, then you are 100% "weightless" in all the possible arrangements of that mass.
The problem, of course, is that corporations mostly just do what the government wants.
You would too if the alternative was targeted malicious acts of discretionary prosecution against your corporation. This is the government that got caught red handed sicking the IRS on the enemies off the regime, something Nixon was impeached for.
unless of course you count the fact that you can't create a CISC CPU with just as many registers that can be used to store data, manipulate data, etc sans a cache hit as a RISC CPU given the same die size
Yes you can.
It appears that you think that the additional decoder depth (multiple u-ops per instruction decoded) that CISC requires isnt a tradeoff for the additional decoder width (more decoders to equal the same effective u-ops per cycle) that RISC requires for the same performance characteristics.
You would be wrong. You are the classic example of the guy that learned one fucking little thing and then imagined an entire imaginary universe from it. Yes, Intels CISC decoders are bigger, but Intel needs less of them than RISC does for the same u-ops per cycle fed into the pipeline and Intel also doesnt need as much memory bandwidth feeding its decoders. Both of the things that RISC needs to match performance also cost the precision silicon, that one thing you knew about for CISC but amazingly were completely ignorant about for CISC. You knew one fucking thing. You imagined a universe. You blew it. You ignorant twat.
Now, simply shut the fuck up and let the REAL nerds discuss.
No, the benefit of RISC is that you have many more on chip registers
Nothing about RISC makes more registers inherent, and nothing about CISC makes less registers inherent. Now shut the fuck up and let the real nerds discuss.
the Sun holds 98% of all the matter in our solar system. If the "missing mass" were normal cold matter, such a great quantity would effectively block the light of the stars we can see
This simply doesnt compute unless you make assumptions about the distribution of the missing mass, and in this case your argument assumes its distributed evenly (nebula) while also taking advantage of the fact that the actual visible mass (stars) isnt.
Let me translate the flaw so you understand: You are claiming that there is no place to put 100 of these brown dwarfs near a star that wouldnt block the stars light from reaching any of the rest of the universe. (and before you go there, I didnt pull 100 out of my ass. I actually did the relative mass calculation. This brown dwarf is about 1/100th the mass of our star.)
I am not arguing that there isnt good reason to believe that the missing matter cannot be baryons. I am arguing that your understanding of the real arguments is complete and utter bullshit and this explanation is complete and utter bullshit.
Even under 100x magnification, the actual visible stars are unresolvable pinpricks of light. Billions of them literally cover ~zero area of the celestial sphere. Since billions of stars cover almost zero area of the sky, billions of smaller things also cover almost zero area of the sky. Their ability to block out the light of the universe is virtually zero unless we make a low-density assumption (such as what your argument does.) Yet in fact these brown dwarfs are 10 times as dense as our sun, the exact opposite of low density.
The primary reason we exclude brown dwarfs like these as being the dark matter within the galaxies that effects its gravity is the lack of gravitational microlensing that such matter would cause. Its not at all the obstruction of light (that you theorize) as the reason, its the lack of bending of light.
So not only is your theory wrong, its antithetical to the real reason. If we expected the proper amount of brown dwarfs that would explain dark matter to block light, we wouldnt be able to expect the microlensing we actually looked for.
Now dont discuss this subject any more unless you learn at least a few basic things.
The question is, how come it took a 13 year old student to find the fungus that is literally growing on the trees in the area where they knew the fungus had to be?
Did nobody at all think to go look for it before this 13 year old girl? Seriously?
Binoculars won't cut it if you want to see Jupiter's moons or Saturn's rings.
The problem with this argument is that you've just listed the only things he will be missing with a budget purchase. Ideal viewing times for these come rarely, and at the magnifications required he would also need a very expensive tracking mount in order to really enjoy them.
Astronomy binoculars have many benefits in the budget arena. They are rugged, low maintenance, both eyes is nice, and most importantly portable.
The other reply had mentioned that a downside is that they are hard to hold steady. Thats what a tripod is for.
The problem with reflectors is that they are not low enough maintenance for children. They are cheaper for the same light collecting ability, but you absolutely cannot expect a kid to be able to collimate one and they are not nearly as rugged as you would like.
This means the parent becomes the gatekeeper of reflectors. The telescope only gets used when the parent is willing to set it up.
Refractors cost a bit more for the same aperture, but they are so much closer to point-and-look rugged and low maintenance. 90mm refractors can be had for $150 which are more or less equivalent to 100mm reflectors in regards to light collection. If the tripod gets knocked over by the child you will cringe but it is unlikely to be damaged unless this happened on concrete.
Someone above had mentioned low-magnification large-lens binoculars and I think that they are probably a much better introduction, as they are also rugged and low maintenance but have the added advantage that they serve useful purposes in daylight. Many are made especially for astronomy and come with tripods (a critique of one of the replies was the incorrect assertion that telescopes have tripods and binoculars dont.)
Low magnification isnt a downside. There is very little to really see at high magnifications unless you have a telescope with really good optics, which is not happening on a budget and isnt recommended for children. Sure, rings of saturn... a few moons of jupiter.. and then nothing else really benefits from high magnification on a budget. Meanwhile the sky is filled with nebula...
For a long time the idiots would say,"Well who cares if the corporations buy off the government? The corporations need the people to survive so they act in the people's best interest."
For a long time the idiots would say, "Well who cares if government regulation harms corporations? The government needs to regulate so that the corporations will act in peoples best interest."
Except we find that when you attack a group they don't just sit their and take it. They defend themselves. In this case they first defend themselves by influencing government to not harm them, and then since that influence came so damn easy they leverage that influence for offense as well as defense.
Since a never ending series of honest regulators is impossible (surely you admit it) then each additional regulation has its own chance to be a corrupted regulation. Now even if the probability of a particular regulation being corrupt were quite small (and surely you admit that the probability is higher than you are comfortable with) then the effect of having extremely large numbers of them guarantees that there exists large numbers of corrupted regulations.
15 years ago the official listing of all federal regulations in effect, contained a total of 134,723 pages in 201 volumes. Thats just federal.
Since the real problem is that not all regulators are honest then clearly we both thus conclude that the problem is not solvable by regulation. The problem is only solvable by identifying and booting corrupt regulators before they can regulate. All these shallow attempts to place the blame on corporations falls short of the problem.
realclimate makes claims about people and journals that dare publish what their coveted journals reject, which surely are not in the "scientific literature."
..perhaps you didnt notice the bashing because you wanted to do some swinging of the stick yourself...
And this is on top of the for-a-long-time-now well known blatant censorship at realclimate...
The people that run and moderate realclimate are precisely the "high priests" at the center of the issue. Their standard operating procedure when a paper finds its way into a journal they dont control which casts doubt on their own research is to (a) bash the journal, (b) bash the authors, and (c) post a fallacy-filled rebuttal that ultimately declares victory over the straw they constructed.
Water is a liquid as well, yet I'm breathing it as humidity every day
When I open up the tap in my kitchen sink, am I "blowing off water straight to atmosphere" ???
Of course not, showing us all that you didnt know that Carbon tetrachloride was a liquid while making your first post blaming a bunch of people that you clearly have other different issues with. You assumed that this stuff was a gas and because you have such a great track record with assumptions you didnt even both to verify it. This seems to be a repeating pattern in your life because for some strange fucking reason its not important to you to be informed before opening your fucking mouth..
The correct order of operations is (1) Theory, (2) Evidence, (3) Conclusion. It is not what you have been doing which is (1) Conclusion, (2) Evidence, (3) Theory.
I find it more interesting that if you graph the density of black holes of varying mass/radius, that you see that the required mass density to form a black hole drops as the mass/radius increases. The radius of the event horizon of a mass equal to the estimated mass of the visible universe (just the ordinary matter) is about 15 billion light years and has a density of only 8.703E-27 kg per cubic meter (about 29 orders of magnitude less than the density of ordinary water at sea level.)
Even more obvious is that even todays CPU's dont perform any calculation in a single clock cycle. The distances involved only effects latency, not throughput. The fact that a simple integer addition operation has a latency of 2 or 3 clock cycles doesnt prevent the CPU from executing 3 or more of those additions per clock cycle.
Even AMD's Athon designs did that. Intels latest offerings can be coerced into executing 5 operations per cycle that are each 3 cycle latency, and then thats on a single core with no SIMD.
Its not how quickly the CPU can produce a value.. its how frequently the CPU can retire(*) instructions.
Pretty much yes. Official taxis charge regulated, metered rate, which ends up being very cheap.
So what you are saying is that if the vehicle is clean, has a working AC, and is very cheap.. then its 100% certain to be an official taxi?
Perhaps you have a really severe problem with reading? You are claiming that if these things are true, then it is 100% certain to be an official taxi?
You are claiming that there isnt even one single non-official taxi that is clean, has working AC, and is very cheap. Not a single one. Zero of them. Not 4 of them. Not 3 of them. Not 2 of them. Not 1 of them. None of them.
Irrelevant. By your logic, the only thing worth doing is whatever magically solves the problem on the planet, and anything else is useless.
Thats not my logic. Thats the logic of the stupid justification to give TESLA special treatment.
Lets state your position exactly: Its OK to give TESLA special treatment that avoids State environmental laws because while TESLA will be directly harmful to the environment this harm will in theory be less than the environmental benefits. While this is a theory we pulled out of our ass instead of based on any actual study that estimated both, we believe that its accurate.
Now lets suppose the claim is correct that the Gigafactory will have a net benefit on the environment even though it directly harms it. Doesnt that mean that the States environmental laws are harmful? The laws actually hurt the environment?
Now here we are, the States laws are admittedly harmful by both you and the State itself, and the solution both you and the State support is to give special treatment to a chosen one. And you (but not the State, yet) justify this special treatment on the grounds that it in theory provides a net benefit.
We can only conclude that net benefits are the only thing important to you. So it is your theory, not mine, that wreaks of the very thing you claim of others. What a special person you must be to not be guilty while you go off claiming that others are guilty of what you yourself have not only introduced, but used as a justification. It is your argument, not mine, that (and I quote) "the only thing worth doing is whatever magically solves the problem on the planet"
Heaven forbid the State had sane environmental laws or at least wanted to treat everyone fairly. Heaven forbid. Instead we have the State picking winners and losers as usual and you justifying it with fucking crap logic, by your own admission.
A coke oven is a chemical? Or did you not read the sentence fully?
So we go after someone for not culling the "complete" list of things that cause cancer to include only chemicals, even though quite clearly there are well over a hundred chemicals in this list?
Slashdot Mirror
Doesn't that assume that the source of the gravity is a point at the center of a planet? Is that how planetary gravity actually works in practice?
For any collection of mass, if you are further from its center of mass than any part of that collection, then yes in 100% of the possible arrangements of that mass.
Also not commonly known is that when you are closer to the center of mass than any part of that collection, then you are 100% "weightless" in all the possible arrangements of that mass.
The problem, of course, is that corporations mostly just do what the government wants.
You would too if the alternative was targeted malicious acts of discretionary prosecution against your corporation. This is the government that got caught red handed sicking the IRS on the enemies off the regime, something Nixon was impeached for.
unless of course you count the fact that you can't create a CISC CPU with just as many registers that can be used to store data, manipulate data, etc sans a cache hit as a RISC CPU given the same die size
Yes you can.
It appears that you think that the additional decoder depth (multiple u-ops per instruction decoded) that CISC requires isnt a tradeoff for the additional decoder width (more decoders to equal the same effective u-ops per cycle) that RISC requires for the same performance characteristics.
You would be wrong. You are the classic example of the guy that learned one fucking little thing and then imagined an entire imaginary universe from it. Yes, Intels CISC decoders are bigger, but Intel needs less of them than RISC does for the same u-ops per cycle fed into the pipeline and Intel also doesnt need as much memory bandwidth feeding its decoders. Both of the things that RISC needs to match performance also cost the precision silicon, that one thing you knew about for CISC but amazingly were completely ignorant about for CISC. You knew one fucking thing. You imagined a universe. You blew it. You ignorant twat.
Now, simply shut the fuck up and let the REAL nerds discuss.
No, the benefit of RISC is that you have many more on chip registers
Nothing about RISC makes more registers inherent, and nothing about CISC makes less registers inherent. Now shut the fuck up and let the real nerds discuss.
the Sun holds 98% of all the matter in our solar system. If the "missing mass" were normal cold matter, such a great quantity would effectively block the light of the stars we can see
This simply doesnt compute unless you make assumptions about the distribution of the missing mass, and in this case your argument assumes its distributed evenly (nebula) while also taking advantage of the fact that the actual visible mass (stars) isnt.
Let me translate the flaw so you understand: You are claiming that there is no place to put 100 of these brown dwarfs near a star that wouldnt block the stars light from reaching any of the rest of the universe. (and before you go there, I didnt pull 100 out of my ass. I actually did the relative mass calculation. This brown dwarf is about 1/100th the mass of our star.)
I am not arguing that there isnt good reason to believe that the missing matter cannot be baryons. I am arguing that your understanding of the real arguments is complete and utter bullshit and this explanation is complete and utter bullshit.
Even under 100x magnification, the actual visible stars are unresolvable pinpricks of light. Billions of them literally cover ~zero area of the celestial sphere. Since billions of stars cover almost zero area of the sky, billions of smaller things also cover almost zero area of the sky. Their ability to block out the light of the universe is virtually zero unless we make a low-density assumption (such as what your argument does.) Yet in fact these brown dwarfs are 10 times as dense as our sun, the exact opposite of low density.
The primary reason we exclude brown dwarfs like these as being the dark matter within the galaxies that effects its gravity is the lack of gravitational microlensing that such matter would cause. Its not at all the obstruction of light (that you theorize) as the reason, its the lack of bending of light.
So not only is your theory wrong, its antithetical to the real reason. If we expected the proper amount of brown dwarfs that would explain dark matter to block light, we wouldnt be able to expect the microlensing we actually looked for.
Now dont discuss this subject any more unless you learn at least a few basic things.
The question is, how come it took a 13 year old student to find the fungus that is literally growing on the trees in the area where they knew the fungus had to be?
Did nobody at all think to go look for it before this 13 year old girl? Seriously?
Refractors will always produce low-quality images. A good pair of binoculars will cost less and show you more.
[whisper] Pssst. Hey buuddy. Binoculars are refractors. Nobody makes reflecting binoculars because that would be stupid.[/whisper]
Binoculars won't cut it if you want to see Jupiter's moons or Saturn's rings.
The problem with this argument is that you've just listed the only things he will be missing with a budget purchase. Ideal viewing times for these come rarely, and at the magnifications required he would also need a very expensive tracking mount in order to really enjoy them.
Astronomy binoculars have many benefits in the budget arena. They are rugged, low maintenance, both eyes is nice, and most importantly portable.
The other reply had mentioned that a downside is that they are hard to hold steady. Thats what a tripod is for.
The problem with reflectors is that they are not low enough maintenance for children. They are cheaper for the same light collecting ability, but you absolutely cannot expect a kid to be able to collimate one and they are not nearly as rugged as you would like.
This means the parent becomes the gatekeeper of reflectors. The telescope only gets used when the parent is willing to set it up.
Refractors cost a bit more for the same aperture, but they are so much closer to point-and-look rugged and low maintenance. 90mm refractors can be had for $150 which are more or less equivalent to 100mm reflectors in regards to light collection. If the tripod gets knocked over by the child you will cringe but it is unlikely to be damaged unless this happened on concrete.
Someone above had mentioned low-magnification large-lens binoculars and I think that they are probably a much better introduction, as they are also rugged and low maintenance but have the added advantage that they serve useful purposes in daylight. Many are made especially for astronomy and come with tripods (a critique of one of the replies was the incorrect assertion that telescopes have tripods and binoculars dont.)
Low magnification isnt a downside. There is very little to really see at high magnifications unless you have a telescope with really good optics, which is not happening on a budget and isnt recommended for children. Sure, rings of saturn... a few moons of jupiter.. and then nothing else really benefits from high magnification on a budget. Meanwhile the sky is filled with nebula...
Most likely they will comply with the law by moving their corporate headquarters to the Bahamas.
Shhhhh!
Don't let the liberals in on the consequences of their beliefs. It only affords them the opportunity to think up incorrect excuses much sooner.
For a long time the idiots would say,"Well who cares if the corporations buy off the government? The corporations need the people to survive so they act in the people's best interest."
For a long time the idiots would say, "Well who cares if government regulation harms corporations? The government needs to regulate so that the corporations will act in peoples best interest."
Except we find that when you attack a group they don't just sit their and take it. They defend themselves. In this case they first defend themselves by influencing government to not harm them, and then since that influence came so damn easy they leverage that influence for offense as well as defense.
Since a never ending series of honest regulators is impossible (surely you admit it) then each additional regulation has its own chance to be a corrupted regulation. Now even if the probability of a particular regulation being corrupt were quite small (and surely you admit that the probability is higher than you are comfortable with) then the effect of having extremely large numbers of them guarantees that there exists large numbers of corrupted regulations.
15 years ago the official listing of all federal regulations in effect, contained a total of 134,723 pages in 201 volumes. Thats just federal.
Since the real problem is that not all regulators are honest then clearly we both thus conclude that the problem is not solvable by regulation. The problem is only solvable by identifying and booting corrupt regulators before they can regulate. All these shallow attempts to place the blame on corporations falls short of the problem.
realclimate makes claims about people and journals that dare publish what their coveted journals reject, which surely are not in the "scientific literature."
..perhaps you didnt notice the bashing because you wanted to do some swinging of the stick yourself...
And this is on top of the for-a-long-time-now well known blatant censorship at realclimate...
The people that run and moderate realclimate are precisely the "high priests" at the center of the issue. Their standard operating procedure when a paper finds its way into a journal they dont control which casts doubt on their own research is to (a) bash the journal, (b) bash the authors, and (c) post a fallacy-filled rebuttal that ultimately declares victory over the straw they constructed.
Water is a liquid as well, yet I'm breathing it as humidity every day
When I open up the tap in my kitchen sink, am I "blowing off water straight to atmosphere" ???
Of course not, showing us all that you didnt know that Carbon tetrachloride was a liquid while making your first post blaming a bunch of people that you clearly have other different issues with. You assumed that this stuff was a gas and because you have such a great track record with assumptions you didnt even both to verify it. This seems to be a repeating pattern in your life because for some strange fucking reason its not important to you to be informed before opening your fucking mouth..
The correct order of operations is (1) Theory, (2) Evidence, (3) Conclusion. It is not what you have been doing which is (1) Conclusion, (2) Evidence, (3) Theory.
ensure blowing off straight to atmosphere every time.
Its a liquid. Please make arguments that at least show that you have a clue.
use typedef's if you don't want to spend your time typing std::someType::some_const_iterator)
Why not just #define
Nobody is proposing we instantaneously divert megawatts halfway across the country on a moment's notice
Nobody except the gut you are defending.
Here is an idea.. head before heart.
I find it more interesting that if you graph the density of black holes of varying mass/radius, that you see that the required mass density to form a black hole drops as the mass/radius increases. The radius of the event horizon of a mass equal to the estimated mass of the visible universe (just the ordinary matter) is about 15 billion light years and has a density of only 8.703E-27 kg per cubic meter (about 29 orders of magnitude less than the density of ordinary water at sea level.)
Even more obvious is that even todays CPU's dont perform any calculation in a single clock cycle. The distances involved only effects latency, not throughput. The fact that a simple integer addition operation has a latency of 2 or 3 clock cycles doesnt prevent the CPU from executing 3 or more of those additions per clock cycle.
Even AMD's Athon designs did that. Intels latest offerings can be coerced into executing 5 operations per cycle that are each 3 cycle latency, and then thats on a single core with no SIMD.
Its not how quickly the CPU can produce a value.. its how frequently the CPU can retire(*) instructions.
(*) Thats actually a technical term.
Even if we use the Schwarzschild radius, the radius is so large that we cannot rule out actually being in a black hole anyways.
The House refused to provide funding for implementation.
...besides the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on it?
Pretty much yes. Official taxis charge regulated, metered rate, which ends up being very cheap.
So what you are saying is that if the vehicle is clean, has a working AC, and is very cheap.. then its 100% certain to be an official taxi?
Perhaps you have a really severe problem with reading? You are claiming that if these things are true, then it is 100% certain to be an official taxi?
You are claiming that there isnt even one single non-official taxi that is clean, has working AC, and is very cheap. Not a single one. Zero of them. Not 4 of them. Not 3 of them. Not 2 of them. Not 1 of them. None of them.
So what you are saying is that if the vehicle is clean, has a working AC, and is very cheap.. then its 100% certain to be an official taxi?
Have you actually learned to read, or are you just spouting Statist defenses?
what was learned by actually building them?
How to successfully apply for grant money.
Irrelevant. By your logic, the only thing worth doing is whatever magically solves the problem on the planet, and anything else is useless.
Thats not my logic. Thats the logic of the stupid justification to give TESLA special treatment.
Lets state your position exactly: Its OK to give TESLA special treatment that avoids State environmental laws because while TESLA will be directly harmful to the environment this harm will in theory be less than the environmental benefits. While this is a theory we pulled out of our ass instead of based on any actual study that estimated both, we believe that its accurate.
Now lets suppose the claim is correct that the Gigafactory will have a net benefit on the environment even though it directly harms it. Doesnt that mean that the States environmental laws are harmful? The laws actually hurt the environment?
Now here we are, the States laws are admittedly harmful by both you and the State itself, and the solution both you and the State support is to give special treatment to a chosen one. And you (but not the State, yet) justify this special treatment on the grounds that it in theory provides a net benefit.
We can only conclude that net benefits are the only thing important to you. So it is your theory, not mine, that wreaks of the very thing you claim of others. What a special person you must be to not be guilty while you go off claiming that others are guilty of what you yourself have not only introduced, but used as a justification. It is your argument, not mine, that (and I quote) "the only thing worth doing is whatever magically solves the problem on the planet"
Heaven forbid the State had sane environmental laws or at least wanted to treat everyone fairly. Heaven forbid. Instead we have the State picking winners and losers as usual and you justifying it with fucking crap logic, by your own admission.
A coke oven is a chemical? Or did you not read the sentence fully?
So we go after someone for not culling the "complete" list of things that cause cancer to include only chemicals, even though quite clearly there are well over a hundred chemicals in this list?
Apparently so.
Why do we do that?