There are good reasons to ban that inefficient ancient technology. They served their purposes and did that well, people just cling to them for wrong reasons. The main difference with TFA is that incandescent lightbulbs are outdated, while TFA is about technology "to new" for them (dial telephones). So no, it's not the same.
Here in the Netherlands 15 minutes of rest every 1.5 to 2 hours of driving is advised. Then again, we have way more cars per km (almost double), so your attention has to be up for the whole time.
1. The automated vehicle would have stored all the data pertinent to the crash.
2. A smart salesman will have sold the car with the company liable for crashes (so they will sell, while a competitor doesn't: "We trust our cars, we even claim responsibility")
3. Someone from the company will make a beautiful animation of the crash, supported by photo's and data
4. The jury will not be able to see the crash the way the company wants them to see it
I do not want to pay attention to my driving. This should not prevent me from having a drivers license. Do you want to know why? I choose to pay attention. I do not use my phone when driving. Not because I want to pay attention, but because I must in order to prevent crashing into morons. I would prefer a self-driving car, but since they do not exist yet I can't.
Whether you want to pay attention should not be an issue. Whether you do should, and is (in the Netherlands). It's fined for EUR 150.
A smart sales manager turns that into a sales pitch: "If you have the car on full auto and it causes an accident we claim responsibility. You don't even have to insure the car". Of course they would have themselves insured against excesses.
If Linux is hoping to become mainstream then tar.gz installers must dissapear. The package managers may not be perfect, but I like my dependencies solved automatically, thank you. The package managers are far better than all the unsigned uncontrolled installers of M$. In fact, I would say this is a "killer app" for me.
When will they use the common installer system? Most software is simply available through some repository, but Adobe has to be different. Why can VLC be installed from a repository while they are not able to do so? Tar.gz is not a good way. The manual dependency resolving is so outdated. The simple fact they made the same mistake again will cause me not to install it. The opensource version may not run as smoothly but it is easy to install.
I just wish that I could have paid less for the laptop without the Windows tax.
w00t for Europe, in this case. Every PC vendor is REQUIRED to make it possible to buy the same system without windows. The cost of the windows license must be subtracted from the system cost, although they do not have to remove the actual license from the package. A friend of mine bought an Asus laptop and got the OEM price of XP off the cost. No problem. For some reason they did ship a license with it although he didn't pay for it. Caveats: It may be a loophole to create a package with Windows included for free, so the cost of the windows license is 0. The vendor is not required to help with drivers of course. The hardware warranty cannot be void by this.
They do not fuse for long...
A fusion bomb is started by a small fission bomb. The explosion of that causes a hell of a lot of radiation and fast neutrons. Those are contained for a fraction of a second by a fat lead or other heavy metal wall. The wall evaporates, but the sheer mass of it will contain the radiation and the neutrons long enough for the radiation and neutron pressure to rise enough to cause the deuterium to fuse. This fusion causes the radiation pressure to rise far above what's possible with plutonium. The wall is now far enough away for most of the radiation to leak out, but the sheer amount of radiation will sustain fusion for a short time. In the mean time the surroundings are flooded with radiation and everyone there is quite screwed.
This would not work for sustained fusion of course, so they looked at other ways. Dr Farnsworth (the real one) invented the Fusor, a quite cool device capable of fusion but unscalable (the efficiency starts at negative and lowers as you increase the size: you will always get less energy out of it than you put in it). Fleischmann and Pons claimed they have observed cold fusion that works and doesn't cost much energy to run, but it was impossible to repeat and the theory said it was impossible the way they claimed it went. The Tokamak has been chosen to pursue because it gets more efficient as the size increases, because it had been proved over and over again by different research groups and the theory works.
Yes they do: they are superconducting and will fail quite destructively when brought above the superconducting temperature (max 133 K at the moment). Yeah I know: that temperature can be several meters from the plasma, which makes it possible to maintain.
(for the one person here who doesn't know how: The magnetic forces push the plasma away from the wall, creating a vacuum. This insulates enough for high temperature ceramic materials to survive. The backside of the ceramic materials is cooled by the energy transfer to the steam turbine (with some steps in between). There is heavy duty insulation and then the superconducting coils, cooled to the right temperature.)
I think it's pobably outside both our knowledge domains to make a call
on this, unless you actually authored a well-researched report, with actual
calcs of construction costs for various scenarios, operational savings, and the
time to recoup the increased construction costs due to better operational
efficiency.
Nah, they shouldn't follow us blindly. That's all. We can talk about it and feel superior when we guessed correctly of course.
Since large is usually used for size and the electron degeneration causes heavier objects to be smaller, the largest diamond would theoretically be somewhere close to the size of Jupiter and about 100 jupiter masses (the chandrasekhar limit is around 1500 jupiter masses). A white dwarf at the chandrasekhar limit would be small in comparison (1Mm or smaller instead of 320Mm perhaps).
Not really. really heavy elements are not created in stars, just by stars. They cost energy to create and give no energy. They are created in the massive energy pulses called supernovae.
The sun is spot on to become a white dwarf. Both white and brown dwarfs are not fusing any matter (and thus they are not really stars) and are heavy enough for electron degeneration (and thus they are not planets). The difference is in the way they form, their mass and their size. Forming: A brown dwarf is a direct result of the star forming process. It has never fused matter. A white dwarf is a result of a burned out star. It has fused but the hydrogen and helium are gone Mass: A brown dwarf is 10-90 jupiter masses, a white dwarf is up to about 1500 Jupiter masses size: Due to electron degeneration a heavier object will actually get smaller. A brown dwarf is about 440 Mm, while a white dwarf at the max mass can be around a Mm. The star in this article is 4 Mm so it should be about 1.1 solar mass (the max has been calculated at 1.44 solar mass)
Mt. Whitney is 14k5 feet and fairly close to the equator. Closer to the equator means less fuel required to move to a geosync orbit and more speed due to the rotation of earth. The angle of the slope can be used to gain initial altitude AND orbital speed so the steep land actually helps.
There are some other issues. Modern systems are far from fast enough to correct the magnetic forces at high speeds. The whole system works like an mass spring system with a reverse dampener. Every fault causes the system to oscillate until you compensate. The speed limit is caused by the compensation time.
[assuming 0.01ms @ mach 5 is enough]
If you, for example, need a compensation time of max 0.01 ms @ mach 0.5 you'd need 0.005 ms @ mach 1 and 0.5 microseconds @ mach 10. To get some control with 100 A currents you'd need a PWM system with Mosfets. 16 bit PWM (for the high level control) at these speeds would require 0.5/(2^16)= 0.000008 microsecond = 8 nanosecond resolution. Can it be done?
[/assuming 0.01ms @ mach 5 is enough]
Warning: I am not hindered by much knowledge in this area.
It seems to me GPU's, with their massive amounts of stream processors, would be quite suitable to do this job. The separate rays do not interfere with each other but have the same operations applied to them: perfect for stream processing.
To get a 1280*720 display with 9 rays per pixel (to get the edges correct) working you'd need nearly 9.000.000 rays each frame.
With 400 stream processors (A little beyond EUR 100 (HD5670)) you'd need every stream processor to process 22500 rays each frame.
Assume every ray requires 1000 clock cycles.
Assume a frame rate of 40
The clock speed needs to be 1000*22500*40=900000000 Hz. => 900 MHz
900 MHz is almost possible. The GPU I chose worked at 775. It's not an expensive one and you can insert 2 of them for more stream processors
With some optimization this number may fall. Brute force is usually not the best way.
Where did I guess or think wrong? Would it already be possible for the cost of EUR 200?
Slashdot Mirror
There are good reasons to ban that inefficient ancient technology. They served their purposes and did that well, people just cling to them for wrong reasons. The main difference with TFA is that incandescent lightbulbs are outdated, while TFA is about technology "to new" for them (dial telephones). So no, it's not the same.
Here in the Netherlands 15 minutes of rest every 1.5 to 2 hours of driving is advised. Then again, we have way more cars per km (almost double), so your attention has to be up for the whole time.
CADIE will evolve into something like skynet and we all know where that will end.
Spears and bows are for wimps. Real men hunt by screaming so hard the pressure differential will make the lungs of the target implode.
the first step is difficult. Who did it?
(to bad a ??? entry isn't even required.)
I do not want to pay attention to my driving. This should not prevent me from having a drivers license. Do you want to know why?
I choose to pay attention. I do not use my phone when driving. Not because I want to pay attention, but because I must in order to prevent crashing into morons. I would prefer a self-driving car, but since they do not exist yet I can't.
Whether you want to pay attention should not be an issue. Whether you do should, and is (in the Netherlands). It's fined for EUR 150.
A smart sales manager turns that into a sales pitch: "If you have the car on full auto and it causes an accident we claim responsibility. You don't even have to insure the car". Of course they would have themselves insured against excesses.
If you have less problems with a tar.gz it means I may be doing something wrong. How do you resolve dependencies?
If Linux is hoping to become mainstream then tar.gz installers must dissapear. The package managers may not be perfect, but I like my dependencies solved automatically, thank you.
The package managers are far better than all the unsigned uncontrolled installers of M$. In fact, I would say this is a "killer app" for me.
When will they use the common installer system? Most software is simply available through some repository, but Adobe has to be different. Why can VLC be installed from a repository while they are not able to do so?
Tar.gz is not a good way. The manual dependency resolving is so outdated. The simple fact they made the same mistake again will cause me not to install it. The opensource version may not run as smoothly but it is easy to install.
I just wish that I could have paid less for the laptop without the Windows tax.
w00t for Europe, in this case. Every PC vendor is REQUIRED to make it possible to buy the same system without windows. The cost of the windows license must be subtracted from the system cost, although they do not have to remove the actual license from the package. A friend of mine bought an Asus laptop and got the OEM price of XP off the cost. No problem. For some reason they did ship a license with it although he didn't pay for it.
Caveats:
It may be a loophole to create a package with Windows included for free, so the cost of the windows license is 0.
The vendor is not required to help with drivers of course. The hardware warranty cannot be void by this.
Is it too old to run modern virusses and malware?
They do not fuse for long...
A fusion bomb is started by a small fission bomb. The explosion of that causes a hell of a lot of radiation and fast neutrons. Those are contained for a fraction of a second by a fat lead or other heavy metal wall. The wall evaporates, but the sheer mass of it will contain the radiation and the neutrons long enough for the radiation and neutron pressure to rise enough to cause the deuterium to fuse. This fusion causes the radiation pressure to rise far above what's possible with plutonium. The wall is now far enough away for most of the radiation to leak out, but the sheer amount of radiation will sustain fusion for a short time. In the mean time the surroundings are flooded with radiation and everyone there is quite screwed.
This would not work for sustained fusion of course, so they looked at other ways. Dr Farnsworth (the real one) invented the Fusor, a quite cool device capable of fusion but unscalable (the efficiency starts at negative and lowers as you increase the size: you will always get less energy out of it than you put in it). Fleischmann and Pons claimed they have observed cold fusion that works and doesn't cost much energy to run, but it was impossible to repeat and the theory said it was impossible the way they claimed it went. The Tokamak has been chosen to pursue because it gets more efficient as the size increases, because it had been proved over and over again by different research groups and the theory works.
Yes they do: they are superconducting and will fail quite destructively when brought above the superconducting temperature (max 133 K at the moment).
Yeah I know: that temperature can be several meters from the plasma, which makes it possible to maintain.
(for the one person here who doesn't know how: The magnetic forces push the plasma away from the wall, creating a vacuum. This insulates enough for high temperature ceramic materials to survive. The backside of the ceramic materials is cooled by the energy transfer to the steam turbine (with some steps in between). There is heavy duty insulation and then the superconducting coils, cooled to the right temperature.)
I think it's pobably outside both our knowledge domains to make a call on this, unless you actually authored a well-researched report, with actual calcs of construction costs for various scenarios, operational savings, and the time to recoup the increased construction costs due to better operational efficiency.
Nah, they shouldn't follow us blindly. That's all. We can talk about it and feel superior when we guessed correctly of course.
Since large is usually used for size and the electron degeneration causes heavier objects to be smaller, the largest diamond would theoretically be somewhere close to the size of Jupiter and about 100 jupiter masses (the chandrasekhar limit is around 1500 jupiter masses). A white dwarf at the chandrasekhar limit would be small in comparison (1Mm or smaller instead of 320Mm perhaps).
Not really. really heavy elements are not created in stars, just by stars. They cost energy to create and give no energy. They are created in the massive energy pulses called supernovae.
The sun is spot on to become a white dwarf.
Both white and brown dwarfs are not fusing any matter (and thus they are not really stars) and are heavy enough for electron degeneration (and thus they are not planets). The difference is in the way they form, their mass and their size.
Forming: A brown dwarf is a direct result of the star forming process. It has never fused matter. A white dwarf is a result of a burned out star. It has fused but the hydrogen and helium are gone
Mass: A brown dwarf is 10-90 jupiter masses, a white dwarf is up to about 1500 Jupiter masses
size: Due to electron degeneration a heavier object will actually get smaller. A brown dwarf is about 440 Mm, while a white dwarf at the max mass can be around a Mm. The star in this article is 4 Mm so it should be about 1.1 solar mass (the max has been calculated at 1.44 solar mass)
Mt. Whitney is 14k5 feet and fairly close to the equator. Closer to the equator means less fuel required to move to a geosync orbit and more speed due to the rotation of earth. The angle of the slope can be used to gain initial altitude AND orbital speed so the steep land actually helps.
There are some other issues. Modern systems are far from fast enough to correct the magnetic forces at high speeds. The whole system works like an mass spring system with a reverse dampener. Every fault causes the system to oscillate until you compensate. The speed limit is caused by the compensation time.
[assuming 0.01ms @ mach 5 is enough]
If you, for example, need a compensation time of max 0.01 ms @ mach 0.5 you'd need 0.005 ms @ mach 1 and 0.5 microseconds @ mach 10. To get some control with 100 A currents you'd need a PWM system with Mosfets. 16 bit PWM (for the high level control) at these speeds would require 0.5/(2^16)= 0.000008 microsecond = 8 nanosecond resolution. Can it be done?
[/assuming 0.01ms @ mach 5 is enough]
Yes. And if Spock's educated guess is correct you should even travel back in time!
Warning: I am not hindered by much knowledge in this area.
It seems to me GPU's, with their massive amounts of stream processors, would be quite suitable to do this job. The separate rays do not interfere with each other but have the same operations applied to them: perfect for stream processing.
To get a 1280*720 display with 9 rays per pixel (to get the edges correct) working you'd need nearly 9.000.000 rays each frame.
With 400 stream processors (A little beyond EUR 100 (HD5670)) you'd need every stream processor to process 22500 rays each frame.
Assume every ray requires 1000 clock cycles.
Assume a frame rate of 40
The clock speed needs to be 1000*22500*40=900000000 Hz. => 900 MHz
900 MHz is almost possible. The GPU I chose worked at 775. It's not an expensive one and you can insert 2 of them for more stream processors
With some optimization this number may fall. Brute force is usually not the best way.
Where did I guess or think wrong? Would it already be possible for the cost of EUR 200?
That would certainly be a problem with pr0n popups.
Also it would make a link to tubgirl even more disturbing.
Does the account holder know it's "borrowed"?