bullets have muzzle velocities in the order of 700 to 1000m/s, weigh about 3 to 4g.
e=4*(700^2)= 1.96MJ
So the goose has 2 orders of magnitude more kinetic energy than the bullet. so far it looks like the goose wins, doesn't it? however, the goose has an order of magnitude more surface area compared to the goose, (say 50cm^2 compared to 1cm^2) and also the goose is made of flesh and bones and will dissipate energy through squashing a lot more than the bullet win.
ie, the goose will dissipate some of its 300MJ over a volume of 30cm^2 * 50+cm^2 = 1500cm^3, compared to the bullet, 1cm^2 * 2 cm^2 = 2cm^3.
ie energy per volume is 0.2MJ/cm^3 for the goose, 1MJ/cm^3 for the bullet (assume uniform mass distribution). so i'd say the bullet is well capable of applying more/force/ to the windscreen.
there was a case a few years back of a BA mid-body that suffered a bird strike while cruising.
the captain was actually nearly sucked out of the cockput. his complete upper torso was out the window and 'flapping' in the 500MPH+ breeze until the co-pilot managed to manhandle him back into the cockpit.
if a goose@500MPH can break those windows then a bullet certainly will too.
part of the problem with one of the AMD (the 1.4GHz palamino iirc, but why not read the articel yourself?) chips was that the temperature diode does not react fast enough at a mere 1c/s.
by the time the sensor indicates a dangerous temperature on that cpu it's/too late/.
they weren't, but the US was, and yesterdays attack was targeted at the US, not those individuals specificaly.
basically, the US is far from innocent. You have provided the funding that led to many many people across the world being killed and tortured, eg Pinochet in Chile, Panama, Nicaragua, lots of african countries, and dare i say it, the Taliban in Afghanistan!
Yep, Osama Bin-Laden probably fought russians with weapons and training funded by you, the american taxpayer.
The monsters you face are of your own creation.
And before you talk to me from your moral high-ground, perhaps you should first open some history books and find out what your Govt. has done in your name in other countries.
But WWII was caused by WWI. WWI was caused by various tensions that were due to various wars of the 1800s.
WWII also did not bring peace to all. It failed to resolve the balkan situation (which was the spark that ignited WWI) and the balkans flared up again in the 90s.
There is the irony of it all, Bosnia-Herzegovina sparked WWI which led to WWII, which failed to make peace in the Balkans, so that at the end of the century we saw war in the very place we started fighting about in the early century.
Also... all the slashdot big mouths who demand "immediate retaliation" etc.. etc. Have you ever seen war? Have you even talked to people who have seen it?
It is a most dreadful thing, that sows misery amongst all that feel it.
Only a fool of the highest order would jump into war.
well, israel only came about in 48 or so, through land the brits allocated, which the arabs felt belonged to them.
anyway, the arab's hate the israeli's and arab fanatics suicide bomb them. the israeli's hate the arabs and discriminate terribly against arabs that live in israeli controlled territory, not to mention kill them.
you presumably are israeli, you reserve the right to bomb arabs.
so go on, you keep bombing/shooting arabs. the arabs can keep bombing you.
and it can go on like that, till maybe one day all the israeli and arab fanatics have bombed each other to bits, undoubtably taking many innocents with them. then perhaps the ones left over can start to talk peace.
they didn't screw with you for years? eh... what about lockerbie? WTC bombing in.. (93??)
The bombings against libya in '85, they were reagan's reaction to acts of terrorism in Rome and Vienna against El Al, the Isreali state airline. Since the US's unilateral violent interventation, nearly all the international acts of terrorism since then have been against the US (embassy attacks, WTC 93, US warship in Yemen ).
What does this tell you?
Violence begets violence. All the bombings of Libya in '86 accomplished was to draw even more terrorism towards the US!
Wake up... bombing and killing might satisfy your lust for vengeance and appeal to that sense of "Gung-Ho"[5] that is all too prevalent amongst Americans. But the goal is peace. And violence, be it terrorism or state sanctioned, is a most extreme end towards that goal. To achieve peace through violence means you must understand the consequences and be willing to accept them and more importantly see it through despite those consequences. Violence only wins if it consumes all.
War between nation states is one area where violence has a small/chance/ of/eventually/ bringing about peace. But even in this scenario, war more often causes festering hatred that will eventually just lead to more violence.
But what you are dealing with now is not a clear cut case of a well defined nation state as the aggresor. there is no clear body for you to defeat. You are dealing with terrorists, and you don't even know which ones! They are underground, they could be anywhere. They are fanatics - each one you kill becomes a weapon they can use to recruit more to their cause.
And there is the key. their cause. you can "attack" that. and you do that by removing the grounds for their cause.
Look at northern ireland. for many years terrorism was a substantial fact of life there. the british government tried to fight fire with fire. Northern Ireland became a police state. Civil liberties were severaly curtailed in the fight against terrorism, police could you lock you up indefinitely, they could even shoot you dead with little consequence. the SAS infiltrated terrorist cells, and assasinated terrorist leaders.
But never did the british govt. succeed with these tactics to defeat terrorism, the violence just escalated.
Instead, in the early 90s they moved on a different tack, and in conjunction with the govt. of the Republic of Ireland, and the moderate political groups in the north, they started on a course of dialogue to attempt to bring the parties closer together. And now the north is at a stage where the guns have been quiet for 3 years, and where the "war" is now confined to elected representatives throwing words at each other in the media and legislature. The divisions are now expressed in words, rather than bullets and violence.
The cause was, to an extent, greater representation for the republican POV in northern ireland. As the genuine and worthy wants of this movement were acknowledged, and as the possibility of working this out peacefully and democratically became more and more certain, so the violence instigated by the extremists became less and less.
The lesson for the US to learn, when dealing with these terrorists once they become known, is that perhaps you should, however hard it is, set aside the bloodshed they have caused, and examine whether there actually are genuine and worthy wants they have that the US can help resolve. Eg, if it turns out to be Arabs, then perhaps you should examine why it is that feelings exist amongst them that would drive some to such an extreme. perhaps you should step back from your wholehearted support from israel, and instead pressure israel to work towards peace with the Arabs.[4]
In the long-term, examing the causes as to why a group of people feel aggrieved enough that some turn to extremism, and then undertaking dialogue between all the parties concerned will be far more constructive towards lasting peace than killing people.
--paulj
. just look at the history of europe. we've only had peace since WW2. WW2 was a direct consequence of WW1. WW1 was a consequence of many simmering rivalries borne out of previous wars, which were... etc.. And even WW2 did not bring peace for all. The Balkan situation, which was the spark for WW1, was unresolved and it reignited during the 90s.
. but it could just as easily be some of the US's own lunatic fringe.
. as opposed to kill palestinians with often american made guns, helicopters and rockets.
4. the current middle east situation is borne out of mistakes made the british in the past, but unfortuntately for the US "you're it" at the moment. bomb the arabs, they'll just hate you more.
5. war is a most awful thing. go talk to someone who has experienced it, if they'll actually talk about it that is. war should not be entered into lightly.
you are following the path the perpetrators of these acts intend you to follow. their motive is to stir up hatred amongst men and to strengthen existing divisions.
so every arab to you is now a terrorist, or at least a terrorist sympathiser. no doubt you want them punished. why not round up all the arabs in the US and intern them? sure, why not all muslims?
And bomb afghanistan, libya too, ah, why not iran and yemen aswell? that'll should quieten them and make the extremists think twice about terrorism!
that should ensure even more Anti-US ill-feelings are stirred up amongst Arabs, and guarantee more support for Arab extremists leading to ever-increasing circle of terrorist violence -> retaliation -> terrorist violence.. etc.
Dear God/$DEITY, please let the US be measured, rational and enlightened in response to this terrible act of terrorism, for the alternative is surely a road to darker days for this world.
yes they'd do the "go" bit on full throttle+afterburners. doing the touch part like that would be interesting to watch, but probably not useful in terms of killing many of the pilots before completing their training.:)
My dad managed to get permission to bring me to walk around and in concorde once while it was in prestwick. amazing machine..
here's a question, did Compaq actually/sell/ to intel? Everything i read uses words like "deal". nowhere have i seen anything that says "sold" or references to money about the recent Compaq/Intel Alpha thing.
it's almost as if Compaq/gave/ it to Intel for the promise of being best buddies for IA64.
i used to live a few miles from prestwick airport, and concorde would be on training runs every now and then, including touch-and-go's on full throttle+afterburner. the noise is/unbelievable/.
concorde would use INS - inertial navigation system, gyro stabilised.
good for an error of under 10miles for a trans-atlantic flight. which is, what, an error of less than 1% in order of magnitude? (transatlantic is maybe 3000miles?)
Balls... just cause you've read people posting "compaq sold alpha to intel" does not make it true.
Compaq sold/gave various pieces of technology related to Alpha, and also groups like the compiler writers to intel.
Intel already had fab rights to make Alpha a/long/ time ago, from the DEC PentiumPro IP settlement. As part of that Intel got things like the StrongARM, the DEC Hudson, MA, fab and rights to Alpha. The FTC jumped in cause Alpha then was a prospective competitor to IAxx - which is why IBM and Samsung also have rights to fab Alpha, it was a precondition of the FTC's that supply of Alpha would not be solely in Intel's hands.
Compaq still 'own' a lot of the technology behind Alpha. And they surely still have rights to use and develop whatever technology they signed over to Intel, as do Samsung and APi, and probably IBM too.
SGIs *are* being used in renderfarms. The post i was replying to linked to an article containing a photo of/rackfuls/ of/SGI/ systems (Origin200 i think).
Obviously SGIs are/also/ used outside of the renderfarm for modelling and other interactive 3D design stuff. And afaik their use in this field is far more prevalent than in renderfarms. Also the mood seems to be that Hollywood, SGI etc.. will also try to move their desktop/interactive 3D stuff to Linux too, eventually. This makes sense as SGI are slowly abondoning MIPS - their current range of workstations are not really competitive anymore except in certain specialised areas. (Octane and it's 48bit RGBA colour). So we will see linux taking over the Hollywood 3D desktop too as the SGI MIPS hardware becomes increasingly less competitive wrt latest PC hardware.
But this thread was purely about the renderfarm side. Linux/has/ that already - anyone setting up a rendering farm would have to be mad to go with anything but cheap PCs and Linux. Well, ok, maybe FreeBSD instead of linux.:)
yes.... and that very article also makes the point that they drive to linux renderfarms is because of the huge cost of having an SGI MIPS or other non-PC renderfarm.
Slashdot Mirror
and even animals have social rules...
yes it does, see coda for example.
void * : linus definitely frowns upon these, and show me where in the VFS api things are not properly typed.
ah ok..
i stand corrected.
e=mv^2
/force/ to the windscreen.
500mph=500*1.6lKmh^-1 = 800Km/h = 220m/s
7kg goose at 800km/h =
e = 7000*(220^2) = 0.34*10^9 = 0.34GJ = 340MJ
bullets have muzzle velocities in the order of 700 to 1000m/s, weigh about 3 to 4g.
e=4*(700^2)= 1.96MJ
So the goose has 2 orders of magnitude more kinetic energy than the bullet. so far it looks like the goose wins, doesn't it? however, the goose has an order of magnitude more surface area compared to the goose, (say 50cm^2 compared to 1cm^2) and also the goose is made of flesh and bones and will dissipate energy through squashing a lot more than the bullet win.
ie, the goose will dissipate some of its 300MJ over a volume of 30cm^2 * 50+cm^2 = 1500cm^3, compared to the bullet, 1cm^2 * 2 cm^2 = 2cm^3.
ie energy per volume is 0.2MJ/cm^3 for the goose, 1MJ/cm^3 for the bullet (assume uniform mass distribution). so i'd say the bullet is well capable of applying more
the cockpit glass would probably break.
there was a case a few years back of a BA mid-body that suffered a bird strike while cruising.
the captain was actually nearly sucked out of the cockput. his complete upper torso was out the window and 'flapping' in the 500MPH+ breeze until the co-pilot managed to manhandle him back into the cockpit.
if a goose@500MPH can break those windows then a bullet certainly will too.
read the article....
/too late/.
part of the problem with one of the AMD (the 1.4GHz palamino iirc, but why not read the articel yourself?) chips was that the temperature diode does not react fast enough at a mere 1c/s.
by the time the sensor indicates a dangerous temperature on that cpu it's
--paulj
they weren't, but the US was, and yesterdays attack was targeted at the US, not those individuals specificaly.
basically, the US is far from innocent. You have provided the funding that led to many many people across the world being killed and tortured, eg Pinochet in Chile, Panama, Nicaragua, lots of african countries, and dare i say it, the Taliban in Afghanistan!
Yep, Osama Bin-Laden probably fought russians with weapons and training funded by you, the american taxpayer.
The monsters you face are of your own creation.
And before you talk to me from your moral high-ground, perhaps you should first open some history books and find out what your Govt. has done in your name in other countries.
ah good old WWII.
But WWII was caused by WWI. WWI was caused by various tensions that were due to various wars of the 1800s.
WWII also did not bring peace to all. It failed to resolve the balkan situation (which was the spark that ignited WWI) and the balkans flared up again in the 90s.
There is the irony of it all, Bosnia-Herzegovina sparked WWI which led to WWII, which failed to make peace in the Balkans, so that at the end of the century we saw war in the very place we started fighting about in the early century.
Also... all the slashdot big mouths who demand "immediate retaliation" etc.. etc. Have you ever seen war? Have you even talked to people who have seen it?
It is a most dreadful thing, that sows misery amongst all that feel it.
Only a fool of the highest order would jump into war.
well, israel only came about in 48 or so, through land the brits allocated, which the arabs felt belonged to them.
anyway, the arab's hate the israeli's and arab fanatics suicide bomb them. the israeli's hate the arabs and discriminate terribly against arabs that live in israeli controlled territory, not to mention kill them.
you presumably are israeli, you reserve the right to bomb arabs.
so go on, you keep bombing/shooting arabs. the arabs can keep bombing you.
and it can go on like that, till maybe one day all the israeli and arab fanatics have bombed each other to bits, undoubtably taking many innocents with them. then perhaps the ones left over can start to talk peace.
ah... what about the Gulf war?
what about the many people who died under those many tin-pot dictatorships that the US has supported because it suited business interests?
they didn't screw with you for years? eh... what about lockerbie? WTC bombing in .. (93??)
/chance/ of /eventually/ bringing about peace. But even in this scenario, war more often causes festering hatred that will eventually just lead to more violence.
... etc.. And even WW2 did not bring peace for all. The Balkan situation, which was the spark for WW1, was unresolved and it reignited during the 90s.
The bombings against libya in '85, they were reagan's reaction to acts of terrorism in Rome and Vienna against El Al, the Isreali state airline. Since the US's unilateral violent interventation, nearly all the international acts of terrorism since then have been against the US (embassy attacks, WTC 93, US warship in Yemen ).
What does this tell you?
Violence begets violence. All the bombings of Libya in '86 accomplished was to draw even more terrorism towards the US!
Wake up... bombing and killing might satisfy your lust for vengeance and appeal to that sense of "Gung-Ho"[5] that is all too prevalent amongst Americans. But the goal is peace. And violence, be it terrorism or state sanctioned, is a most extreme end towards that goal. To achieve peace through violence means you must understand the consequences and be willing to accept them and more importantly see it through despite those consequences. Violence only wins if it consumes all.
War between nation states is one area where violence has a small
But what you are dealing with now is not a clear cut case of a well defined nation state as the aggresor. there is no clear body for you to defeat. You are dealing with terrorists, and you don't even know which ones! They are underground, they could be anywhere. They are fanatics - each one you kill becomes a weapon they can use to recruit more to their cause.
And there is the key. their cause. you can "attack" that. and you do that by removing the grounds for their cause.
Look at northern ireland. for many years terrorism was a substantial fact of life there. the british government tried to fight fire with fire. Northern Ireland became a police state. Civil liberties were severaly curtailed in the fight against terrorism, police could you lock you up indefinitely, they could even shoot you dead with little consequence. the SAS infiltrated terrorist cells, and assasinated terrorist leaders.
But never did the british govt. succeed with these tactics to defeat terrorism, the violence just escalated.
Instead, in the early 90s they moved on a different tack, and in conjunction with the govt. of the Republic of Ireland, and the moderate political groups in the north, they started on a course of dialogue to attempt to bring the parties closer together. And now the north is at a stage where the guns have been quiet for 3 years, and where the "war" is now confined to elected representatives throwing words at each other in the media and legislature. The divisions are now expressed in words, rather than bullets and violence.
The cause was, to an extent, greater representation for the republican POV in northern ireland. As the genuine and worthy wants of this movement were acknowledged, and as the possibility of working this out peacefully and democratically became more and more certain, so the violence instigated by the extremists became less and less.
The lesson for the US to learn, when dealing with these terrorists once they become known, is that perhaps you should, however hard it is, set aside the bloodshed they have caused, and examine whether there actually are genuine and worthy wants they have that the US can help resolve. Eg, if it turns out to be Arabs, then perhaps you should examine why it is that feelings exist amongst them that would drive some to such an extreme. perhaps you should step back from your wholehearted support from israel, and instead pressure israel to work towards peace with the Arabs.[4]
In the long-term, examing the causes as to why a group of people feel aggrieved enough that some turn to extremism, and then undertaking dialogue between all the parties concerned will be far more constructive towards lasting peace than killing people.
--paulj
. just look at the history of europe. we've only had peace since WW2. WW2 was a direct consequence of WW1. WW1 was a consequence of many simmering rivalries borne out of previous wars, which were
. but it could just as easily be some of the US's own lunatic fringe.
. as opposed to kill palestinians with often american made guns, helicopters and rockets.
4. the current middle east situation is borne out of mistakes made the british in the past, but unfortuntately for the US "you're it" at the moment. bomb the arabs, they'll just hate you more.
5. war is a most awful thing. go talk to someone who has experienced it, if they'll actually talk about it that is. war should not be entered into lightly.
Cockpit Voice Recorders will tell the tale of what happened on the 4 planes that went down.
that'll be christianity then won't it?
oh yes,
how do we even know the perpetrators were middle-east extremists? The US does not lack for home-grown extremists.
--paulj
congratulations...
you are following the path the perpetrators of these acts intend you to follow. their motive is to stir up hatred amongst men and to strengthen existing divisions.
so every arab to you is now a terrorist, or at least a terrorist sympathiser. no doubt you want them punished. why not round up all the arabs in the US and intern them? sure, why not all muslims?
And bomb afghanistan, libya too, ah, why not iran and yemen aswell? that'll should quieten them and make the extremists think twice about terrorism!
shouldn't it?
i thought this was an excellent comment, till i realised the comment was not ironic and that you are actually serious.
nukes? invade afghanistan? ???
don't pour petrol on a burning fire.
excellent idea!!!
that should ensure even more Anti-US ill-feelings are stirred up amongst Arabs, and guarantee more support for Arab extremists leading to ever-increasing circle of terrorist violence -> retaliation -> terrorist violence.. etc.
Dear God/$DEITY, please let the US be measured, rational and enlightened in response to this terrible act of terrorism, for the alternative is surely a road to darker days for this world.
--paulj
LOL...
:)
yes they'd do the "go" bit on full throttle+afterburners. doing the touch part like that would be interesting to watch, but probably not useful in terms of killing many of the pilots before completing their training.
My dad managed to get permission to bring me to walk around and in concorde once while it was in prestwick. amazing machine..
but astoundingly loud..
here's a question, did Compaq actually /sell/ to intel? Everything i read uses words like "deal". nowhere have i seen anything that says "sold" or references to money about the recent Compaq/Intel Alpha thing.
/gave/ it to Intel for the promise of being best buddies for IA64.
it's almost as if Compaq
i used to live a few miles from prestwick airport, and concorde would be on training runs every now and then, including touch-and-go's on full throttle+afterburner. the noise is /unbelievable/.
beautiful airplane. tiny inside though.
concorde would use INS - inertial navigation system, gyro stabilised.
good for an error of under 10miles for a trans-atlantic flight. which is, what, an error of less than 1% in order of magnitude? (transatlantic is maybe 3000miles?)
Concorde's nose is only down for landings. all other times nose is up.
/lots/ of private jets.
<bragging>
you wouldn't believe how cramped the cockpit of concorde is. i had difficulty getting into the seat, and i was a nimble teenager then!
oh yes... i've also flown in
</bragging>
Balls... just cause you've read people posting "compaq sold alpha to intel" does not make it true.
/long/ time ago, from the DEC PentiumPro IP settlement. As part of that Intel got things like the StrongARM, the DEC Hudson, MA, fab and rights to Alpha. The FTC jumped in cause Alpha then was a prospective competitor to IAxx - which is why IBM and Samsung also have rights to fab Alpha, it was a precondition of the FTC's that supply of Alpha would not be solely in Intel's hands.
Compaq sold/gave various pieces of technology related to Alpha, and also groups like the compiler writers to intel.
Intel already had fab rights to make Alpha a
Compaq still 'own' a lot of the technology behind Alpha. And they surely still have rights to use and develop whatever technology they signed over to Intel, as do Samsung and APi, and probably IBM too.
SGIs *are* being used in renderfarms. The post i was replying to linked to an article containing a photo of /rackfuls/ of /SGI/ systems (Origin200 i think).
/also/ used outside of the renderfarm for modelling and other interactive 3D design stuff. And afaik their use in this field is far more prevalent than in renderfarms. Also the mood seems to be that Hollywood, SGI etc.. will also try to move their desktop/interactive 3D stuff to Linux too, eventually. This makes sense as SGI are slowly abondoning MIPS - their current range of workstations are not really competitive anymore except in certain specialised areas. (Octane and it's 48bit RGBA colour). So we will see linux taking over the Hollywood 3D desktop too as the SGI MIPS hardware becomes increasingly less competitive wrt latest PC hardware.
/has/ that already - anyone setting up a rendering farm would have to be mad to go with anything but cheap PCs and Linux. Well, ok, maybe FreeBSD instead of linux. :)
Obviously SGIs are
But this thread was purely about the renderfarm side. Linux
yes.... and that very article also makes the point that they drive to linux renderfarms is because of the huge cost of having an SGI MIPS or other non-PC renderfarm.
--paulj