Motorways only account for a small part of the deaths.
If you look at the Toyota Prius, it's 4.5m long while an Aygo is 3.5 meter but then that one's intended as a city car.
At the risk of spelling out the obvious, I think the lightness is an illusion. In general a lot has been invested in providing a safe cage for the passengers that can survive heavy impact, while the extremities are sacrificed as crumple zones . Car constructors have become very good at it and that includes Toyota. So while a car has become a bit easier to wreck into a total loss it's become a lot safer. Current cars are pretty safe. Part of the increase in weight in the last 30 years is because of safety features like the much stronger cage and airbags. Midsize cars are 1500 kg now.
Weight stil matters. The Prius maybe be more competent in safeguarding its passengers than a big modern SUV when you drive into a bridge pillar, but in a frontal collision between the Prius and SUV the latter has the advantage of the extra mass , which may be enough to tilt the balance in favor of the SUV. Or not.
Overall, with the cars having become much safer I'd start looking at the driver. I'm guessing the two major factors in accidents are inattention(texting, talking,alcohol, weed) and aggressive driving (not keeping distance, thinking you'll get away with taking risks here and there).
Maybe Priuses (Prii, Priaeae) kill a bit less than average because they attract safer drivers, but as a rule, if you want a safer drive, just learn to drive defensively. I've done that and enjoyed it. I did it mainly because I know I like to drive fast and I don't want to be the cause of anyone's misery, but a slow driver will benefit just as much.
I think it requires some modeling, and maybe that's what the writer actually did. you take asteroids of different sizes and materials, and estimate the resulting distribution of fragment sizes. Now this buckshot technique is going to make sure the planet will be hit, but the fragments will be smaller, and many fragments will miss the earth. You don't need that much mass to wipe out a city,something like a 100m asteroid,
For a 100m diameter asteroid nuking it could be sensible. In principle you could make 8 50m fragments out of one 100m one, but it would require a very smart nuke. Another type of very smart nuke would create many fragments of a few meters so they would all burn up before they reach the ground.
In practice you might actually make things much worse for a sizable asteroid. A smart nuke can make many 100m asteroids out of one 500m asteroid.
There has always been a lack of killing efficiency in something like the tsar bomba.
From what I know -I've met some people there- Alcatel has some very serious development - and a lot of experience with being ripped of by chinese copycats. Not what you associate with patent trolls. So I'm a bit surprised by the wording in the article.Then again. I don't know Lucent.
I know that it is an op-ed, and therefore not the New York Times' opinion, but the New York Times still have a responsibility to do a basic fact check before posting it.
In defense of the nytimes, it does make sense to be a lot more careful when you're publishing something that will get you into trouble.It also makes sense to be risk averse and many editors are very risk averse.
Only, good journalism means looking for trouble. It means you're going after those with power - and unfortunately they can hit back.So good journalism easily gets squeezed out. Still, the nytimes is a large paper. I think it has room for good journalism, even if it doesn't make the first pages. But the high profile articles, they can really suck.
I think the main effect will be that the free malware market gets hold of the malware products made by your national security organisations and uses them to upgrade all their projects, making your enemies the least of your worries.
Julian Assange may be a bit cocky, but keep in mind that a lot of this "Cult of Assange" shit and a lot of the infighting reports came from Daniel Domscheit-Berg, a person of VERY questionable motives and honesty--to say the least.
I think this is the wrong focus. It's a diversion. Assange may be faulty and Domscheit-Berg may be faulty but why does all the attention keep going to their faults and the wikileaks flaws and so little to something that matters much more? To the need for wikileaks and to how it's being killed off? When wikileaks released a major batch of documents a while back the NYTimes' main focus was not on the documents but on Assange's flaws. I'll leave it open to what extents this diversion is a strategy or just something that comes naturally. In any case fixing wikileaks should not be our first worry.
The danger of focusing on whether all this internal wikileaks stuff is bullshit or not is that the idea of wikileaks is being eliminated by talking only about the flaws in the implementation.
If you look at the great evils in the world today you can pretty much name them the USA, China, and Russia. That's really lumping everything together here. The three are very different. The us is militaristic and hegemonic but if you accept them as the boss things can work out reasonably well. China is not militaristic and expansionist (in relative terms) despite all the noise, but dealing them is one huge rip-off horror where you're getting screwed on all sides. And Russia, well, it's a small player.
There's another thing, it's easy claiming that the US does more evil than anyone else but they also carry a lot more weight. So what if you set out the doing evil/global reach ratio instead?
It's kind of an analog wifi. I'm surprised they managed to make it work so soon, if you know how many engineers broke their teeth on analog computers. Probably not really analog then but with a digital machinery under the hood..
I think your position is too radical. Understanding is more than knowing what the result will be. Understanding is about - to put it in James Maxwell's words - knowing the particular go of it. And that is valid science. The twins paradox in special relativity can easily be dismissed on general principles but that isn't the same as understanding how it goes.
When someone proposes a perpetuum mobile it can instantly be dismissed by slapping a physics law on it, but that is a limited form of understanding. It's legitimate to ask what the actual mobile will do.
Of course, there's still a difference between wanting to know what the actual model will do and concluding that the basic laws are wrong. Then again, often it's hard to be sure that you haven't actually made some approximation that accidentally threw away an important factor.
I first thought this was about the Abraham-Lorentz reaction force. You can sure make some hairy paradoxes with that one.
AFAIK all the major contracts are gobbled up by the 4 belgian / dutch companies. De Nul, Dredging(Deme), Van Oord, or Boskalis. If you want some decent mudslinging done anywhere, there's only one place to go.
You can imagine a setup with a black body radiator and a theoretical lense and attempt to focus the black body radiation to heat another object to a higher temperature than the original black body. And it is not possible. The laws of thermodynamics apply of course but they don't explain the why. If you go through the motions and try to calculate how hot you can get the second object you find you can't get it hot enough. You can't focus the radiation to make it hotter.
I'm not going to claim it changes the result of the google fight between Einstein and Newton but I think there's more than one way to measure. You're looking at the effect but you can also look at the machinery to produce the effect. And 'paradigm' leans towards the second interpretation.
the difference in outcome between Newton and the Einstein 'math and mental machinery' is negligable in most cases. You can imagine theories and subjects where the difference in outcome really is small and maybe will remain small in the future. But it can still mean you have to revise an awful lot of mental machinery in order to get there and see a lot of things in a different way. And that's a valid measure. The extent your mind has to change to get things just right.
There's the implicit thought that if your mind has to change a lot with the new paradigm, it means there will necessarily be large consequences. I don't know.
Slashdot Mirror
farnsworth, n. The amount of energy generated by a Farnsworth fusor in one second.
I catch myself thinking that too! WTF is wrong with that guy! Oh wait, that's not what you ment..
Motorways only account for a small part of the deaths.
If you look at the Toyota Prius, it's 4.5m long while an Aygo is 3.5 meter but then that one's intended as a city car.
At the risk of spelling out the obvious, I think the lightness is an illusion. In general a lot has been invested in providing a safe cage for the passengers that can survive heavy impact, while the extremities are sacrificed as crumple zones . Car constructors have become very good at it and that includes Toyota. So while a car has become a bit easier to wreck into a total loss it's become a lot safer. Current cars are pretty safe. Part of the increase in weight in the last 30 years is because of safety features like the much stronger cage and airbags. Midsize cars are 1500 kg now.
Anyone remember this test between a Renault Modus and a volvo 940?
Weight stil matters. The Prius maybe be more competent in safeguarding its passengers than a big modern SUV when you drive into a bridge pillar, but in a frontal collision between the Prius and SUV the latter has the advantage of the extra mass , which may be enough to tilt the balance in favor of the SUV. Or not.
Overall, with the cars having become much safer I'd start looking at the driver. I'm guessing the two major factors in accidents are inattention(texting, talking,alcohol, weed) and aggressive driving (not keeping distance, thinking you'll get away with taking risks here and there).
Maybe Priuses (Prii, Priaeae) kill a bit less than average because they attract safer drivers, but as a rule, if you want a safer drive, just learn to drive defensively. I've done that and enjoyed it. I did it mainly because I know I like to drive fast and I don't want to be the cause of anyone's misery, but a slow driver will benefit just as much.
So do you consider a Prius a small fuel efficient car? It's not exactly a Smart is it?
I think it requires some modeling, and maybe that's what the writer actually did. you take asteroids of different sizes and materials, and estimate the resulting distribution of fragment sizes. Now this buckshot technique is going to make sure the planet will be hit, but the fragments will be smaller, and many fragments will miss the earth. You don't need that much mass to wipe out a city,something like a 100m asteroid,
For a 100m diameter asteroid nuking it could be sensible. In principle you could make 8 50m fragments out of one 100m one, but it would require a very smart nuke. Another type of very smart nuke would create many fragments of a few meters so they would all burn up before they reach the ground.
In practice you might actually make things much worse for a sizable asteroid. A smart nuke can make many 100m asteroids out of one 500m asteroid.
There has always been a lack of killing efficiency in something like the tsar bomba.
You mean, the bunker busters are going to make ice look like marshmallow fluff?
Probably not. After all being able to sink is the whole point of a submarine.
From what I know -I've met some people there- Alcatel has some very serious development - and a lot of experience with being ripped of by chinese copycats. Not what you associate with patent trolls. So I'm a bit surprised by the wording in the article.Then again. I don't know Lucent.
$5 a bottle to make ice cubes with for use in exclusive whisky. It might sell.
What, a dilution factor 2C or 4X? That won't be very potent . They'll think your'e a quack!
How about "Do you like xkcd?"
actually, they do. But it varies massively.
Here's a story about how it took three months of jumping through hoops to get a single op-ed published : http://mondoweiss.net/2012/02/how-sarah-schulman-managed-to-get-pinkwashing-into-the-new-york-times.html . It wasn't nice to Israel you see.
In defense of the nytimes, it does make sense to be a lot more careful when you're publishing something that will get you into trouble.It also makes sense to be risk averse and many editors are very risk averse.
Only, good journalism means looking for trouble. It means you're going after those with power - and unfortunately they can hit back.So good journalism easily gets squeezed out.
Still, the nytimes is a large paper. I think it has room for good journalism, even if it doesn't make the first pages. But the high profile articles, they can really suck.
It's the Monty Python Argument Clinic sketch. Everyone knows that.
No it's not.
I think the main effect will be that the free malware market gets hold of the malware products made by your national security organisations and uses them to upgrade all their projects, making your enemies the least of your worries.
I don't think Watergate was representative for the era, but I'd agree things have gotten worse since.
I think this is the wrong focus. It's a diversion.
Assange may be faulty and Domscheit-Berg may be faulty but why does all the attention keep going to their faults and the wikileaks flaws and so little to something that matters much more? To the need for wikileaks and to how it's being killed off? When wikileaks released a major batch of documents a while back the NYTimes' main focus was not on the documents but on Assange's flaws. I'll leave it open to what extents this diversion is a strategy or just something that comes naturally. In any case fixing wikileaks should not be our first worry.
The danger of focusing on whether all this internal wikileaks stuff is bullshit or not is that the idea of wikileaks is being eliminated by talking only about the flaws in the implementation.
If you look at the great evils in the world today you can pretty much name them the USA, China, and Russia. That's really lumping everything together here. The three are very different. The us is militaristic and hegemonic but if you accept them as the boss things can work out reasonably well. China is not militaristic and expansionist (in relative terms) despite all the noise, but dealing them is one huge rip-off horror where you're getting screwed on all sides. And Russia, well, it's a small player.
There's another thing, it's easy claiming that the US does more evil than anyone else but they also carry a lot more weight. So what if you set out the doing evil/global reach ratio instead?
On the other hand Astounding Stories predated Scifi radio shows by a few years.
It's kind of an analog wifi. I'm surprised they managed to make it work so soon, if you know how many engineers broke their teeth on analog computers. Probably not really analog then but with a digital machinery under the hood..
I think your position is too radical. Understanding is more than knowing what the result will be. Understanding is about - to put it in James Maxwell's words - knowing the particular go of it. And that is valid science. The twins paradox in special relativity can easily be dismissed on general principles but that isn't the same as understanding how it goes.
When someone proposes a perpetuum mobile it can instantly be dismissed by slapping a physics law on it, but that is a limited form of understanding. It's legitimate to ask what the actual mobile will do.
Of course, there's still a difference between wanting to know what the actual model will do and concluding that the basic laws are wrong. Then again, often it's hard to be sure that you haven't actually made some approximation that accidentally threw away an important factor.
I first thought this was about the Abraham-Lorentz reaction force. You can sure make some hairy paradoxes with that one.
AFAIK all the major contracts are gobbled up by the 4 belgian / dutch companies. De Nul, Dredging(Deme), Van Oord, or Boskalis. If you want some decent mudslinging done anywhere, there's only one place to go.
You can imagine a setup with a black body radiator and a theoretical lense and attempt to focus the black body radiation to heat another object to a higher temperature than the original black body. And it is not possible. The laws of thermodynamics apply of course but they don't explain the why. If you go through the motions and try to calculate how hot you can get the second object you find you can't get it hot enough. You can't focus the radiation to make it hotter.
I'm not going to claim it changes the result of the google fight between Einstein and Newton
but I think there's more than one way to measure. You're looking at the effect but you can also look at the machinery to produce the effect. And 'paradigm' leans towards the second interpretation.
the difference in outcome between Newton and the Einstein 'math and mental machinery' is negligable in most cases. You can imagine theories and subjects where the difference in outcome really is small and maybe will remain small in the future. But it can still mean you have to revise an awful lot of mental machinery in order to get there and see a lot of things in a different way. And that's a valid measure. The extent your mind has to change to get things just right.
There's the implicit thought that if your mind has to change a lot with the new paradigm, it means there will necessarily be large consequences. I don't know.
Generalizations and stereotypes are the stuff thoughts are made of. But some are better than others.