This is old news. Halton Arp (a famous and controversial astronomer) found this in the 1970s. But this discovery didn't fit with the galaxy models of the time (dark matter hadn't been introduced yet), so the finding was ignored.
We are not talking about tiny distances that you even need to mark-off... Most ABSs seriously increase braking distance, at higher speeds. Try braking at 70MPH, and you'll see a difference of more than a car-length between ABS and standard brakes.
I've seen many tests where ABS decreased the braking distance, and none where it increased it. If you want to claim the contrary, please do a test and measure the distances. And do it with 10 different drivers, not just only you. You may be the best driver in the world, but then, if you want to claim that ABS increases stopping distance, you need to add "for me only".
No. That's only true if ABSs do an absolutely PERFECT job, which is realistically impossible...
And how realistic is that a human driver can do an absolutely perfect job?
I can tell you from experience that disabling ABS (on numerous cars) results in much better braking distances.
Whas that your impression, or did you actually measure the stopping distance? Without measures, impressions are meaningless. I suspect the percentage of people able to brake better than an ABS is well under 1%, which probably excludes you too. If you want to claim the contrary, measure your stopping distance in the same car with and without ABS and we'll see.
You sound confused. ABS isn't power-assisted braking, it's antilock braking. That means it limits the ammount of force you can exert on the brakes to keep the wheels from locking
I agree, it's antilock braking. Antilock will help you stop faster, because if you lock the wheels you'll skid, and if you skid your stopping distance will increase.
What you are confusing is the power that you apply to the brakes, versus the braking power that the wheels actually have on the asphalt. Even if you press harder on the pedal, the wheels will not magically brake more when they start to skid. On the contrary, they'll brake much less. ABS helps you keeping the braking force exactly at the locking threshold, which is exactly what's required to brake in the minimum theoretically possible distance.
That's particularly true on dry asphalt.
ABS works best on asphalt, dry or not. In rough conditions (snow, gravel) it will slightly increase stopping distance because: when you brake in the snow, you not only count on the wheel friction with the snow, but also on the hill of snow that forms ahead of your wheel when it's locked. You can beat ABS stopping distance on snow and gravel, but not on asphalt.
When you have to slam on your brakes, but you still roll into an accident, you can thank ABS for that...
Why? if you don't have ABS, you'll just slam in the car in front of you at a higher speed. Don't think you can brake as hard as an ABS. You can't in any normal road condition (dry or wet asphalt).
the stop time will be much shorter if the wheels lock and you skid.
If you believe this urban mith, you are a DANGEROUS driver. You want to skid when you brake??? It's exactly the other way around. The stopping time will be shorter if you don't skid.
ABS is as good as the best human driver when it comes to stop in a short distance. Actually, it's better, since it can change the braking force for each wheel independently, and you can't.
Is it possible for light to actually orbit a black hole at a certain radius?
Yes, but you are unlikely to ever see it. The only possible orbital radius is exactly the same as the event horizon. Larger, and it will spiral out of the hole. Smaller, it's already in and will fall in the singularity.
which states that entropy in a closed system can never decrease. They like to use this as an argument as to why organisms couldn't evolve.
That argument is very weak. The Earth is not a closed system. There's that big ball of gas calling the Sun which sends us 1 kilojoule per second per square meter since five billion years ago. That's a lot of energy.
Most European cars don't have automatic transmission because most Europeans don't want an automatic, they want a manual. You have way more control over the car.
Are you reporting some factw or are you making them up? I don't find in the article history the edit war you were involved in, and there's nothing on the talk page. So, were are you edits?
I don't know about your box, but mine (Athlon XP2000+) can decompress JPEGs at a rate of around only 3MB per second. My disk drives, OTOH, are a hell of a lot faster than that.
No they aren't. Unless you are only reading very large files (from several megabytes up), seek time will kill your transfer rate. And paging memory seems to require lots of seeks.
This is *partly* due to the way memory allocation and freeing work at the system call level. In a nutshell, memory that you free does not actually become free for other programs to use until your process exits. (As bad as this sounds, it's preferable to the situation wherein the system doesn't know what process owns the memory, so if an app has a leak the only way to reclaim it is to restart the whole system.)
Are you sure? Leaked memory is memory which is still allocated to the leaking process, so you can safely allocate all freed memory to other processes. And when the leaking process exits, all memory is given back. No need for reboots.
muslim? Saddam's iraq? The one with girls in miniskirts before the wars with Iran and the US started? It was the most secular state in the area. While the most fanatical of them all (Saudi Arabia) is a great US ally. Kinda strange, ain't it?
So how do you test this? You flip the spin on one of them so that instead of spinning up it is spinning down or vice versa. Then you measure them both and if they are not mutually defined (as one would normally expect) you would expect them to now be the same. After all they were different and you switched one, right? Wrong. They are still mutually defined, so flipping one will flip the other.
To elaborate on this, it's not that you can take one electron, start flipping it up and down, and communicate istantaneously with your buddy who is looking at other electron, say, 50000 miles away. Once you measure one electron, it is defined by itself andnot mutually with the other.
What you can do is making a lot of operations that will change the spin of one electron, without actually checking which is the current spin. Kinda like "reverse the current spin". All the other entangled electrons will reverse too, until you try to measure one of them.
Hense we can say that the heating effciency of an incandecent lightbulb is pretty close overall to 100% so it really is pretty close to being on par with natural gas and other energy sources such as oil.
You are talking about "efficiency" looking at prices. When looking at the energy efficiency, it goes like this:
Incandescent lightbulb: natural gas/coal/oil is burned in the power plant, heat is generated, water is boiled, steam moves turbine, turbine moves alternator, electricity is generated, electricity is sent to your house, you power the lightbulb and generate heat, your house is warmer.
Natural gas: natural gas is burned, heat is generated, your house is warmer.
One of those two heating methods is wasteful. Finding which one is left as an excercise for the reader.
My firefox prompted me a few hours ago about an "important upgrade", which I did. But it didn't say what this upgrade was about, and therefore I don't know if I'm running RC3 or not. It would be nice to know what has been downloaded.
It absolutely infuriates me to see electric vehicle owners claiming they're "doing the environment good" by plugging in their car to the grid each night. Some of them say "I'm buying GREEN electricity".
They are correct. A power plant is much more efficent than an internal combustion engine, so while they are still using oil, natural gas & co. to power their cars, they are using less than gasoline cars.
I tried unsuccessfully, verbally, to get a Phd in comp Sci with embedded management experience to believe me it is 100% sound.... argued for 40 minutes. The guy never had a clue.
The guy had a clue. Your algorithm is a busy-wait loop, so your CPUs will be maxed at 100% while waiting, and the thread will be pushed by the scheduler to lower priority, and so on...
soon we _will_ have replacement...and much better.
Not exactly. Herschel (once called FIRST) is a far-infrared telescope. It doesn't make images in the visibile range, nor in the near ultraviolet which was one of the Hubble's bigger strengths.
Slashdot Mirror
$1mm
What's that? A small form factor $1 banknote with a 1mm side?
There are a lot of them around. Google for "single board computer", here's an example: http://www.versalogic.com/Products/DS.asp?ProductI D=170.
But you have to sacrifice the speed a bit.
This is old news. Halton Arp (a famous and controversial astronomer) found this in the 1970s. But this discovery didn't fit with the galaxy models of the time (dark matter hadn't been introduced yet), so the finding was ignored.
We are not talking about tiny distances that you even need to mark-off... Most ABSs seriously increase braking distance, at higher speeds. Try braking at 70MPH, and you'll see a difference of more than a car-length between ABS and standard brakes.
I've seen many tests where ABS decreased the braking distance, and none where it increased it. If you want to claim the contrary, please do a test and measure the distances. And do it with 10 different drivers, not just only you. You may be the best driver in the world, but then, if you want to claim that ABS increases stopping distance, you need to add "for me only".
No. That's only true if ABSs do an absolutely PERFECT job, which is realistically impossible...
And how realistic is that a human driver can do an absolutely perfect job?
I can tell you from experience that disabling ABS (on numerous cars) results in much better braking distances.
Whas that your impression, or did you actually measure the stopping distance? Without measures, impressions are meaningless. I suspect the percentage of people able to brake better than an ABS is well under 1%, which probably excludes you too. If you want to claim the contrary, measure your stopping distance in the same car with and without ABS and we'll see.
You sound confused. ABS isn't power-assisted braking, it's antilock braking. That means it limits the ammount of force you can exert on the brakes to keep the wheels from locking
I agree, it's antilock braking. Antilock will help you stop faster, because if you lock the wheels you'll skid, and if you skid your stopping distance will increase.
What you are confusing is the power that you apply to the brakes, versus the braking power that the wheels actually have on the asphalt. Even if you press harder on the pedal, the wheels will not magically brake more when they start to skid. On the contrary, they'll brake much less. ABS helps you keeping the braking force exactly at the locking threshold, which is exactly what's required to brake in the minimum theoretically possible distance.
That's particularly true on dry asphalt.
ABS works best on asphalt, dry or not. In rough conditions (snow, gravel) it will slightly increase stopping distance because: when you brake in the snow, you not only count on the wheel friction with the snow, but also on the hill of snow that forms ahead of your wheel when it's locked. You can beat ABS stopping distance on snow and gravel, but not on asphalt.
When you have to slam on your brakes, but you still roll into an accident, you can thank ABS for that...
Why? if you don't have ABS, you'll just slam in the car in front of you at a higher speed. Don't think you can brake as hard as an ABS. You can't in any normal road condition (dry or wet asphalt).
the stop time will be much shorter if the wheels lock and you skid.
If you believe this urban mith, you are a DANGEROUS driver. You want to skid when you brake??? It's exactly the other way around. The stopping time will be shorter if you don't skid.
ABS is as good as the best human driver when it comes to stop in a short distance. Actually, it's better, since it can change the braking force for each wheel independently, and you can't.
Is it possible for light to actually orbit a black hole at a certain radius?
Yes, but you are unlikely to ever see it. The only possible orbital radius is exactly the same as the event horizon. Larger, and it will spiral out of the hole. Smaller, it's already in and will fall in the singularity.
which states that entropy in a closed system can never decrease. They like to use this as an argument as to why organisms couldn't evolve.
That argument is very weak. The Earth is not a closed system. There's that big ball of gas calling the Sun which sends us 1 kilojoule per second per square meter since five billion years ago. That's a lot of energy.
Polaris B, like our Sun, is about 1000x more massive than Jupiter. That's a lot of gas giants to merge.
The minimum size for a star is a brown dwarf, which is about 70 times more massive than Jupiter. Stars are big.
Automatic transmission?
Most European cars don't have automatic transmission because most Europeans don't want an automatic, they want a manual. You have way more control over the car.
Are you reporting some factw or are you making them up? I don't find in the article history the edit war you were involved in, and there's nothing on the talk page. So, were are you edits?
...gravity generators
Sure proof that those onboard deserve to be laughed at, assuming that they aren't paid actors.
I don't know about your box, but mine (Athlon XP2000+) can decompress JPEGs at a rate of around only 3MB per second. My disk drives, OTOH, are a hell of a lot faster than that.
No they aren't. Unless you are only reading very large files (from several megabytes up), seek time will kill your transfer rate. And paging memory seems to require lots of seeks.
This is *partly* due to the way memory allocation and freeing work at the system call level. In a nutshell, memory that you free does not actually become free for other programs to use until your process exits. (As bad as this sounds, it's preferable to the situation wherein the system doesn't know what process owns the memory, so if an app has a leak the only way to reclaim it is to restart the whole system.)
Are you sure? Leaked memory is memory which is still allocated to the leaking process, so you can safely allocate all freed memory to other processes. And when the leaking process exits, all memory is given back. No need for reboots.
fanatical muslim regime
muslim? Saddam's iraq? The one with girls in miniskirts before the wars with Iran and the US started? It was the most secular state in the area. While the most fanatical of them all (Saudi Arabia) is a great US ally. Kinda strange, ain't it?
So how do you test this? You flip the spin on one of them so that instead of spinning up it is spinning down or vice versa. Then you measure them both and if they are not mutually defined (as one would normally expect) you would expect them to now be the same. After all they were different and you switched one, right? Wrong. They are still mutually defined, so flipping one will flip the other.
To elaborate on this, it's not that you can take one electron, start flipping it up and down, and communicate istantaneously with your buddy who is looking at other electron, say, 50000 miles away. Once you measure one electron, it is defined by itself andnot mutually with the other.
What you can do is making a lot of operations that will change the spin of one electron, without actually checking which is the current spin. Kinda like "reverse the current spin". All the other entangled electrons will reverse too, until you try to measure one of them.
Hense we can say that the heating effciency of an incandecent lightbulb is pretty close overall to 100% so it really is pretty close to being on par with natural gas and other energy sources such as oil.
You are talking about "efficiency" looking at prices. When looking at the energy efficiency, it goes like this:
Incandescent lightbulb: natural gas/coal/oil is burned in the power plant, heat is generated, water is boiled, steam moves turbine, turbine moves alternator, electricity is generated, electricity is sent to your house, you power the lightbulb and generate heat, your house is warmer.
Natural gas: natural gas is burned, heat is generated, your house is warmer.
One of those two heating methods is wasteful. Finding which one is left as an excercise for the reader.
My firefox prompted me a few hours ago about an "important upgrade", which I did. But it didn't say what this upgrade was about, and therefore I don't know if I'm running RC3 or not. It would be nice to know what has been downloaded.
It absolutely infuriates me to see electric vehicle owners claiming they're "doing the environment good" by plugging in their car to the grid each night. Some of them say "I'm buying GREEN electricity".
They are correct. A power plant is much more efficent than an internal combustion engine, so while they are still using oil, natural gas & co. to power their cars, they are using less than gasoline cars.
I tried unsuccessfully, verbally, to get a Phd in comp Sci with embedded management experience to believe me it is 100% sound.... argued for 40 minutes. The guy never had a clue.
The guy had a clue. Your algorithm is a busy-wait loop, so your CPUs will be maxed at 100% while waiting, and the thread will be pushed by the scheduler to lower priority, and so on...
But it _will_ do images in visible range
? fobjectid=31361, where it says: Wavelength - Infrared: 60 to 670 microns. That's not visible range.
Not according to ESA's own page: http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm
soon we _will_ have replacement...and much better.
Not exactly. Herschel (once called FIRST) is a far-infrared telescope. It doesn't make images in the visibile range, nor in the near ultraviolet which was one of the Hubble's bigger strengths.
The oceans are continuously replenished with uranium via rivers.
So the "inexhaustible supply of uranium" is on the land. And what is it?