They were actually more diligent than you, as the second link goes to a CNN article, which quotes from a press release that links to a different article, and this article indeed was reporting about six artificial sweeteners: "In this study, the relative toxicity of six FDA-approved artificial sweeteners (aspartame, sucralose, saccharine, neotame, advantame and acesulfame potassium-k (ace-k)) and that of ten sport supplements containing these artificial sweeteners, were tested using genetically modified bioluminescent bacteria from E. coli."
So before complaining, always wonder if it is your fault.
Almost all gasoline cars (except those with a crank) have a battery, if you really start nitpicking.
The big difference is the part that provides range. Hybrids can only ride a short distance on battery power, even with plugin hybrids mostly ranging between 20 and 30 miles. But for longer distances, the gas tank provides the range. The battery is only for short time storage of electric energy, and with plugin hybrids, the electric power train is more or less a replacement for a mechanical gear box.
Thats quite different from an all-EV, where the sole provider of range is the battery, and there is no other power train than the electric one.
A hybrid is not an EV. Hybrids are a completely different type of car. Hybrids are still ICE powered. They just have an added energy recuperation system. If the ERS fails, hybrids are normal gasoline cars in all aspects.
The gluons are not their own antiparticles, as they carry charges, color-charges in this case. The antiparticle for a red-antigreen-gluon for instance is an antired-green-gluon. The anti-particle to the W(+)-Boson is the W(-)-Boson.
As an OS guy, I would say: The operating system is the kernel. Everything else is shell and applications. When I took the CS courses on operating systems, the definition was: The OS is the program that manages the resources of a computer (memory, storage, processor, I/O etc.) and assigns them to or withdraws them from the applications. (And thus MS-DOS was no operating system, as it only managed the permanent storage resources, but not the processor and the I/O).
Something important to point out here. Over this long timeline, nothing has changed except the accuracy of the measurements. The first mention of the global effect was made in the late 1890's by Svante Arrhenius.
And even if the measurements are more exact now, we are talking one hundred ppm here, the ten thousandth part. In 1900, chemical analysis was good enough to separate Praseodymium and Neodymium (1879 Cleve, 1885 Auer von Welsbach), two Rare Earth elements which basically are identical in all chemical properties. Carl Auer von Welsbach repeated his separation method (fractioned crystallization) several hundred times(!) to actually split Didymium (supposed to be an element) into Praseodymium and Neodymium. 15 years later, analytical chemists were surely able to determine the share of Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere for five digits after the decimal point (something a teacher today can show his pupils).
So the actual numbers of 270 ppm and 410 ppm are not the problem (they even change a little over the course of a year due to different temperatures). They didn't change from 1900 to 2018 because Carbon dioxide can be better measured now. They changed because the share of Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere rose by 50 percent.
Carbon dioxide has strong absorption bands in the near infrared (namely 2.7 micrometer, 4.2 micrometer and 15 micrometer). That means, that infrared radiation with those wavelengths will not penetrate a layer of carbon dioxide very well, but instead heat the carbon dioxide (which in turn then radiates itself, but in all directions, thus reflecting 50% of the radiation back to Earth).
We also have carbon dioxide data for the atmosphere since about 250 years, when Joseph Priestley first found out that air is actually a mixture of different gasses, and started to measure the respective shares. We know for instance, that around 1900, the carbon dioxide share of the atmosphere was around 270 ppm (or 0,027 percent), as we can read in Anatol Leduc: Nouvelles recherches sur le Gaz (1899) or numerous other publications of the time. We know the carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere today (410 ppm or 0,041 percent), for instance measured in the Keeling Curve. So we know that the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere has risen 140 ppm, and we can calculate, how much carbon dioxide you need, given that the total pressure of the atmosphere is 1033 hPa or 103,3 kN/m. Of this pressure, 140 ppm is caused by additional carbon dioxide since 1900, giving 14 Pascal or 14 N/m. As the whole Earth has a surface of 510 million square kilometers or 510 trillion square meters, this means that the additional carbon dioxide lasts with around 7000 trillion Newtons on the Earth's surface. And because 1 kg causes a force of 9,81 N on the Earth's surface, we can calculate, that we need 700 trillion kilograms or about 700 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide to cause an increase of the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere from 270 ppm in 1900 to 410 ppm today.
And because carbon dioxide is made up of one atom of Carbon (12 g/mol) and two atoms of Oxygen (16 g/mol), we can calculate that we need to burn 200 billion metric tons of pure Carbon to cause an increase of the atmospheric carbon dioxide from 270 ppm to 410 ppm. And how much pure carbon (mainly as coal and crude oil) have we mined since 1900? About 270 billion metric tons (currently, it's about 4.1 billion metric tons per year). That means, if we have burned all our coal and crude oil mined since 1900, about 70% of its carbon content is still in the atmosphere (the other 30% are mainly solved in the oceans causing acidification, and some of it indeed was bound due to increased plant mass, because we have more forests now than we had in 1900).
And all those airport people mover have pedestrian level crossings, traffic lights, heavy trucks doing U-turns on their tracks, obstacles lying around in their way, trees falling down in heavy weather, cars piling up on their tracks because they share the lane with them etc.pp.
Do you know what happens if you drop something on the autonomous track in SFO or LAX? The whole system including all carts and stations shuts down until the obstacle is removed. Do you want that in a tram system serving a whole town?
Just because a tram or light rail has right of way doesn't mean that the track is always clear. There are traffic lights, there are people crossing the rails, there are obstacles, and there might even be stop and go if the track runs along a traffic lane. The amount of caution necessary to operate a tram or light rail is about the same than a car, just the number of possible reactions is limited.
And a tram needs mapping software too, as the switches are operated from the train, so for every branch, the autonomous tram has to know how to switch it, and it has to have a signalling mechanism in place to check the state of the rail switch.
It might be shitty bloatware, but there are no alternatives (other than those also running on Windows), and the complexity of the problem does not allow for an inhouse re-development, as there are not enough installs to rectify the cost.
A sensor hash won't work, as hashes have the inherent property, that similar inputs return completely disjunct outputs -- something you exactly don't want with a system that should be statistically good, e.g. have a cut-off where it does no longer consider two patterns similar enough.
Hashes work very well with completely binary data, where exactly one input is correct and all others aren't. Hashes don't work with data where you are looking for similarities, and where a whole bunch of inputs grouped closely together in the pattern space are considered correct. So the stored value and the encodings of the input have to be statistically similar enough to open the lock, meaning that all encodings have to have the property that similar inputs produce similar outputs.
Germany actually lags a little in E.U. wide track electrification. In the 1950ies and early 1960ies, there actually was some consensus that Diesel should replace Steam as the main power, and even the first high speed trains (like the BR VT 11.5) were diesel powered. Only with the Oil Crisis of 1973 and 1980, there was more emphasis on track electrification, and further high speed diesel plans were scrapped or replaced by electric traction.
The main lines in Germany are mostly electrified, but lots of the small branch lines are not, because the amount of traffic they carry doesn't justify the large investment necessary for electrification. And there are even some main lines not electrified yet (e.g. Nuremberg - Hof, Hamburg - Sylt and Dresden - Goerlitz).
If you could really show that there is no man-made global warming, the amount of grants you'll get even from a single coal or crude oil company or a crude exporting country will dwarf anything you will get from working at a climate lab somewhere in the world.
The price is out for grabs. And no one is claiming it. I wonder why.
This might be true for locomotives, which mostly max out the load allowed on tracks to provide for maximum pulling power. But here, we have a light rail train for passenger transport, where acceleration is king, and a low mass requires less power to accelerate. Yes, if you have only half the weight, the amount of force you can put to the rails halves too, but because of the half weight, you get the same acceleration with half the force, requiring only half the power and half the energy to accelerate.
As I wrote: It was Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who attached the words to her. And it wasn't a century later, he was a contemporary of Marie Antoinette. And yes, with a high probability, Marie Antoinette never said it. Jean-Jacques Rousseau made it stick anyway.
If one refuses to acquire marketable skills, one will remain poor even in a thriving economy.
It's often stated but wrong nonetheless. If you don't have the opportunity, the time and the money to acquire marketable skills, you will remain poor. If acquiring marketable skills takes more time than the time window the market wants those skills, you will remain poor. If you don't have the personal ability to acquire marketable skills you will remain poor, e.g. if you are shorter than 6', you can train as much as you want, you will never have marketable basketball skills.
Your statement simply ignores the sheer amount of luck you need to have the personal abilities, the opportunities, the financial background and the time to acquire the right skills at the right moment. And it comes with a big dose of Survivorship bias. It might be that most people you know have had that luck. But you would never have met them anyway if they didn't have that luck. This makes it easy to totally overlook the amount of chance that played a role in their and your life.
In this case, it's Marie Antoinette, Queen of France. Jean-Jacques Rousseau claimed that she once said "S'ils n'ont pas de pain, qu'ils mangent de la brioche." -- If they don't have bread, they should eat cake. Brioche, a special type of white bread baked with much butter and eggs, is mostly translated as cake, without really being one.
But lizards are poikilotherms, meaning that they become slow if not in the Sun. What sense does it make for them to dig tunnels which create an advantage for homeotherms like the humans?
Yes, there was the Robotron K 18xx series of mini computers from East Germany with the U80700 processor family of MicroVAX 78032 clones. The K 1840 was clone of the VAX 11/780, the K 1845 was supposed to be a VAX 11/785 replacement (but never came out of the prototype state), and the K 1820 was a MicroVAX II clone.
It was quite important, as former East Germany tried to clone the VAX architecture. By 1988/89, they had a VAX compatible 32 bit processor and one 1 Mbit RAM chip ready to create VAX clones (and there was much propaganda about how East Germany managed to close the gap to the U.S.).
Branch prediction is speculative execution. If I have a pipelined processor, and the process execution arrives at a branch statement, I can either hold execution until the condition for the branch statement is calculated. Then the pipelines of my processor run empty until the calculation of the condition has finished. Or I predict the branch the execution is going to and start to fill up the execution pipeline with the commands of the branch I predicted and start decoding and executing them. But that is speculative, as the exact value of my condition is not known yet.
Branch prediction was introduced to keep the pipelines of the processor as much filled as possible. Branch prediction without speculative execution does not make any sense. Why would I try to estimate beforehand what branch the process is taking when I don't use that estimate for anything?
The problem with bits and ratcheting handles is that they are much more prone to wearing out the screw than fixed screwdrivers. Bits also tend to fall out of the handles at inconvenient times and to disappear somewhere in smal holes and openings and to shortcut something there. If you look at the professionals, they seldom use bits, but have dedicated screwdrivers for each size.
Slashdot Mirror
They were actually more diligent than you, as the second link goes to a CNN article, which quotes from a press release that links to a different article, and this article indeed was reporting about six artificial sweeteners: "In this study, the relative toxicity of six FDA-approved artificial sweeteners (aspartame, sucralose, saccharine, neotame, advantame and acesulfame potassium-k (ace-k)) and that of ten sport supplements containing these artificial sweeteners, were tested using genetically modified bioluminescent bacteria from E. coli." So before complaining, always wonder if it is your fault.
The big difference is the part that provides range. Hybrids can only ride a short distance on battery power, even with plugin hybrids mostly ranging between 20 and 30 miles. But for longer distances, the gas tank provides the range. The battery is only for short time storage of electric energy, and with plugin hybrids, the electric power train is more or less a replacement for a mechanical gear box.
Thats quite different from an all-EV, where the sole provider of range is the battery, and there is no other power train than the electric one.
A hybrid is not an EV. Hybrids are a completely different type of car. Hybrids are still ICE powered. They just have an added energy recuperation system. If the ERS fails, hybrids are normal gasoline cars in all aspects.
If the subject was about a "vigilant engineer", then it would have been correct, as "vigilant" means "awake, watchful, alert, wary".
The gluons are not their own antiparticles, as they carry charges, color-charges in this case. The antiparticle for a red-antigreen-gluon for instance is an antired-green-gluon. The anti-particle to the W(+)-Boson is the W(-)-Boson.
As an OS guy, I would say: The operating system is the kernel. Everything else is shell and applications. When I took the CS courses on operating systems, the definition was: The OS is the program that manages the resources of a computer (memory, storage, processor, I/O etc.) and assigns them to or withdraws them from the applications. (And thus MS-DOS was no operating system, as it only managed the permanent storage resources, but not the processor and the I/O).
Something important to point out here. Over this long timeline, nothing has changed except the accuracy of the measurements. The first mention of the global effect was made in the late 1890's by Svante Arrhenius.
And even if the measurements are more exact now, we are talking one hundred ppm here, the ten thousandth part. In 1900, chemical analysis was good enough to separate Praseodymium and Neodymium (1879 Cleve, 1885 Auer von Welsbach), two Rare Earth elements which basically are identical in all chemical properties. Carl Auer von Welsbach repeated his separation method (fractioned crystallization) several hundred times(!) to actually split Didymium (supposed to be an element) into Praseodymium and Neodymium. 15 years later, analytical chemists were surely able to determine the share of Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere for five digits after the decimal point (something a teacher today can show his pupils).
So the actual numbers of 270 ppm and 410 ppm are not the problem (they even change a little over the course of a year due to different temperatures). They didn't change from 1900 to 2018 because Carbon dioxide can be better measured now. They changed because the share of Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere rose by 50 percent.
Carbon dioxide has strong absorption bands in the near infrared (namely 2.7 micrometer, 4.2 micrometer and 15 micrometer). That means, that infrared radiation with those wavelengths will not penetrate a layer of carbon dioxide very well, but instead heat the carbon dioxide (which in turn then radiates itself, but in all directions, thus reflecting 50% of the radiation back to Earth).
We also have carbon dioxide data for the atmosphere since about 250 years, when Joseph Priestley first found out that air is actually a mixture of different gasses, and started to measure the respective shares. We know for instance, that around 1900, the carbon dioxide share of the atmosphere was around 270 ppm (or 0,027 percent), as we can read in Anatol Leduc: Nouvelles recherches sur le Gaz (1899) or numerous other publications of the time. We know the carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere today (410 ppm or 0,041 percent), for instance measured in the Keeling Curve. So we know that the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere has risen 140 ppm, and we can calculate, how much carbon dioxide you need, given that the total pressure of the atmosphere is 1033 hPa or 103,3 kN/m. Of this pressure, 140 ppm is caused by additional carbon dioxide since 1900, giving 14 Pascal or 14 N/m. As the whole Earth has a surface of 510 million square kilometers or 510 trillion square meters, this means that the additional carbon dioxide lasts with around 7000 trillion Newtons on the Earth's surface. And because 1 kg causes a force of 9,81 N on the Earth's surface, we can calculate, that we need 700 trillion kilograms or about 700 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide to cause an increase of the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere from 270 ppm in 1900 to 410 ppm today.
And because carbon dioxide is made up of one atom of Carbon (12 g/mol) and two atoms of Oxygen (16 g/mol), we can calculate that we need to burn 200 billion metric tons of pure Carbon to cause an increase of the atmospheric carbon dioxide from 270 ppm to 410 ppm. And how much pure carbon (mainly as coal and crude oil) have we mined since 1900? About 270 billion metric tons (currently, it's about 4.1 billion metric tons per year). That means, if we have burned all our coal and crude oil mined since 1900, about 70% of its carbon content is still in the atmosphere (the other 30% are mainly solved in the oceans causing acidification, and some of it indeed was bound due to increased plant mass, because we have more forests now than we had in 1900).
And all those airport people mover have pedestrian level crossings, traffic lights, heavy trucks doing U-turns on their tracks, obstacles lying around in their way, trees falling down in heavy weather, cars piling up on their tracks because they share the lane with them etc.pp. Do you know what happens if you drop something on the autonomous track in SFO or LAX? The whole system including all carts and stations shuts down until the obstacle is removed. Do you want that in a tram system serving a whole town?
Just because a tram or light rail has right of way doesn't mean that the track is always clear. There are traffic lights, there are people crossing the rails, there are obstacles, and there might even be stop and go if the track runs along a traffic lane. The amount of caution necessary to operate a tram or light rail is about the same than a car, just the number of possible reactions is limited. And a tram needs mapping software too, as the switches are operated from the train, so for every branch, the autonomous tram has to know how to switch it, and it has to have a signalling mechanism in place to check the state of the rail switch.
It might be shitty bloatware, but there are no alternatives (other than those also running on Windows), and the complexity of the problem does not allow for an inhouse re-development, as there are not enough installs to rectify the cost.
Hashes work very well with completely binary data, where exactly one input is correct and all others aren't. Hashes don't work with data where you are looking for similarities, and where a whole bunch of inputs grouped closely together in the pattern space are considered correct. So the stored value and the encodings of the input have to be statistically similar enough to open the lock, meaning that all encodings have to have the property that similar inputs produce similar outputs.
This was just a number pulled out of my ass. You can do the same calculation with .8 of the weight or .652, if you want.
Germany actually lags a little in E.U. wide track electrification. In the 1950ies and early 1960ies, there actually was some consensus that Diesel should replace Steam as the main power, and even the first high speed trains (like the BR VT 11.5) were diesel powered. Only with the Oil Crisis of 1973 and 1980, there was more emphasis on track electrification, and further high speed diesel plans were scrapped or replaced by electric traction.
The main lines in Germany are mostly electrified, but lots of the small branch lines are not, because the amount of traffic they carry doesn't justify the large investment necessary for electrification. And there are even some main lines not electrified yet (e.g. Nuremberg - Hof, Hamburg - Sylt and Dresden - Goerlitz).
The price is out for grabs. And no one is claiming it. I wonder why.
This might be true for locomotives, which mostly max out the load allowed on tracks to provide for maximum pulling power. But here, we have a light rail train for passenger transport, where acceleration is king, and a low mass requires less power to accelerate. Yes, if you have only half the weight, the amount of force you can put to the rails halves too, but because of the half weight, you get the same acceleration with half the force, requiring only half the power and half the energy to accelerate.
As I wrote: It was Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who attached the words to her. And it wasn't a century later, he was a contemporary of Marie Antoinette. And yes, with a high probability, Marie Antoinette never said it. Jean-Jacques Rousseau made it stick anyway.
If one refuses to acquire marketable skills, one will remain poor even in a thriving economy.
It's often stated but wrong nonetheless. If you don't have the opportunity, the time and the money to acquire marketable skills, you will remain poor. If acquiring marketable skills takes more time than the time window the market wants those skills, you will remain poor. If you don't have the personal ability to acquire marketable skills you will remain poor, e.g. if you are shorter than 6', you can train as much as you want, you will never have marketable basketball skills.
Your statement simply ignores the sheer amount of luck you need to have the personal abilities, the opportunities, the financial background and the time to acquire the right skills at the right moment. And it comes with a big dose of Survivorship bias. It might be that most people you know have had that luck. But you would never have met them anyway if they didn't have that luck. This makes it easy to totally overlook the amount of chance that played a role in their and your life.
In this case, it's Marie Antoinette, Queen of France. Jean-Jacques Rousseau claimed that she once said "S'ils n'ont pas de pain, qu'ils mangent de la brioche." -- If they don't have bread, they should eat cake. Brioche, a special type of white bread baked with much butter and eggs, is mostly translated as cake, without really being one.
But lizards are poikilotherms, meaning that they become slow if not in the Sun. What sense does it make for them to dig tunnels which create an advantage for homeotherms like the humans?
Yes, there was the Robotron K 18xx series of mini computers from East Germany with the U80700 processor family of MicroVAX 78032 clones. The K 1840 was clone of the VAX 11/780, the K 1845 was supposed to be a VAX 11/785 replacement (but never came out of the prototype state), and the K 1820 was a MicroVAX II clone.
It was quite important, as former East Germany tried to clone the VAX architecture. By 1988/89, they had a VAX compatible 32 bit processor and one 1 Mbit RAM chip ready to create VAX clones (and there was much propaganda about how East Germany managed to close the gap to the U.S.).
Branch prediction was introduced to keep the pipelines of the processor as much filled as possible. Branch prediction without speculative execution does not make any sense. Why would I try to estimate beforehand what branch the process is taking when I don't use that estimate for anything?
The problem with bits and ratcheting handles is that they are much more prone to wearing out the screw than fixed screwdrivers. Bits also tend to fall out of the handles at inconvenient times and to disappear somewhere in smal holes and openings and to shortcut something there. If you look at the professionals, they seldom use bits, but have dedicated screwdrivers for each size.