The "Science" of Physics was "settled" back in the time of Issac Newton. Oops, then came Einstein along!
Well, yes and no. Yes in relativistic environments (near light speed) you get a different physics. But this is only applicable to elementary particles and the like.
For the rest: all the calculations that were done previously using Newton's laws: the force needed to change the speed of an (not relativistic) object (cars, trains, elements of a machine...) are STILL calculated using newtons law.
And this is the hallmark of the true science denier: he wants to use the fact that science is allways in motion to promote the notion that nothing is ever certain. I can assure you that whatever new theories there will be found concerning the laws of physics they will have to comply with all known observations and therefore will have to be in compliance with newton's laws for normal day to day objects.
Einsteins theories have not supplanted Newton's theory gave an extension for elementary particles. BTW talking about Bohr and the theory of quantum mechanics: there is no sane way to apply these to macroscopic objects. For that you NEED newton's laws. So in that sense they are more complementary.
I don't think it is a different roll bar. In the original picture it doesn't look as if the console and the antenna on top were welded on. It seems more as if they were bolted on with a fitting around the bar. As to pointy and not: the roll bar is assymetrical. It has a pointy side and a more round side. The two photo's (old and new) are in reverse angle (you can see that by looking at the position of the roll bar and the wheels that have a different fitting fore and aft).
All of these are engeneering challenges and not insurmoutable barriers. Each and everyone of them has been studied and solutions proposed (how to handle the neutron flux, what materials to use, how to remove helium and how to make an efficient blanket of Lithium to assure self sustainable fueling starting from raw deuterium and lithium. These will all be sought out an tested on Iter and then Demo.
No. Cancer takes more time to develop, we're only 4 years after the disaster. The announcement is to soothe the local and international disgruntled commenters about Tepco actions and consequences. You see, the disaster had people develop cancer - but there's only one person affected.
Soothe? You think politicians and Tepco are so stupid to think admitting this as a disaster related victime will soothe anything? It revives the public interest that was slowly dwindeling and could cost Tipco a big amount of money. NOT something either of them would do voluntarly.
If they admitted this as a disaster related victim I'm sure they felt they had no choice...
[..] who is going to fork over ~$3,500 for a tablet?[..]assuming you didn't need a full terabyte of HDD space[..]
Umm, the one that really DOES need 1TB and desktop power in such a compact, light form factor??? If you're a designer/artist/... that is constantly on the move (in a factory, on a work site, at clients...) and this device allows you have all your stuff with you and you can do your work on the spot instead of aftherwards in the office this thing will pay itself back in no time... But it's not intended for your avarage mobile user who only needs internet and some storage for mail, photo's and moderate video stuff.
Indeed! It's a cost benefit analysis. Which means that if you don't use your car daily (which is your assumption 300 days a year) it will be much cheaper to use a rental service. Think about it: it pays exactly the same amount for the car as you do. Only the time your car sits in your driveway this car is used by other users. So you only pay the TCO for the actual time you use the car (offset by the overhead of the retal company).
And even if you use your car daily it may still be cheaper to rent one. Or to own only one car instead of two or three.
Another advantage is that all these automous vehicles allow for much more effective traffic management: instead of a mass of anonymous vehicles you have now traffic streams (you know their destination) that can be effectively managed (the cars will actually follow your route if that is the fastest way).
Because the car manufacturers don't like it. They have stalled the efforts (at least here in Europe) to have realistic test scenario's for many years: 'not objective' 'too expensive' etc.
Now Europe has said it will push formward this legilation which has been ready for years. It clearly wants to make use of the momentum while the car industry is on the defence...
Are you in the car industry? I'm sure they fully agree with you;-)
I think may of those variations can be actually controlled without testing on a dynamo meter in a lab: - Testing on a test track eliminates terrain, traffic and conditions of the car over time. - Having a clear test scenario and test profile will elliminate the drivers habits and if you drive one way and then the other the wind effects should be minimal.
Then you only need to add a maximum wind speed and a clear day and maximum and miminum temperatures to the testing requirements and you're pretty much set. Only the car manufactures won't like it of course. Especially if the independent tester picks the car at random from the production line...
Coal and Nuclear are as bad as each other but for different reasons. Nuclear kills people for subsequent decades as the radioactive effluents make their way through our water and food supply, it also reduces the birth rate because pregnancies fail to come to full term. The key thing is it happens very slowly and the majority of effects are still years away as opposed to coal whose effects are almost instantaneous in comparison.
"radioactive effluents"? You do realize that nuclear reactors don't release any radioactivity under normal operating conditions? Major releases are on the order of once a decade or more, and that's with our aging GenII reactors, world wide. GenIII would be a lot safer.
Also, citation on the birth rates. Citation on "majority of effects" being still years away - if anything we should be recovering from the effects of post WWII above ground nuclear bomb tests.
I would think the GP refers to the effluents released in an nuclear accident, no?
From my understanding of this technology it's spent fuel product is 233 Thallium, IIRC, which is characterized by many daughter products with short half lives. I'm not saying it isn't better reactor technology however it would seem the central issue of current reactor technology, the long term storage of spent fuel products, is an issue for thorium reactor technology as well.
Question, do you know what "short half lives" amounts to? It means that the material in question is much more radioactive - but that means it also decays in radioactivity much faster. Something with a half-life of 10 days will be virtually entirely gone within a year. Something with a half-life in the decades will still be churning a century from now, but it's initially safer to be around.(Safer being a relative quality).
But he said: daugther products with short half life. That implies (I think) that it decays (slowly over years and years) into short lived, highly radioactive daugther products. Which implies (again: I think) a fairly high level of radiation over a long period of time.
Until we have effective, geologically stable and appropriate spent fuel containment facilities then we will always have higher levels of risk with greater levels of impact as a result of accidents in the nuclear industry. For that reason it's important to reduce that level of risk and impact to the community regardless of what reactor technology is deployed.
Above ground caskets are working well. I figure that we'd be digging up anything we bury within a century to reprocess it anyways. Heck, let it sit in a cask for 40 years and so much of the 'hot' stuff has decayed that it should make reprocessing significantly cheaper.
Indeed. I tend to agree with you that storage under ground is pretty useless since you will have to monitor it systematically to check that the caskets are still ok. Only problem: no one wants that. The population in the area doesn't want a building containing highly radioactive products in their neighbourhood. And nuclear energy producers don't want the costs of constantly monitored storage. They are fixed on finding a container where they can put their waste in and a location where they can dump it. No monitoring, just cheap storage.
And this implies (for me) that Apple is likely NOT going to use traditional car building techniques which involves building a complete factory (Tela like). Instead I think they will use cheaper low volume techniques (3D printing??) and only ramp them up if demand is high.
I saw a video recently of a 3D printing car manufacturing technique where a car chassis was build entirely with 3D printed parts. The body pannels do not have to be from steel, making them much cheaper to produce. And then there is still the drive train (which is at the hart of the research that Apple has to do anyway)
I don't understand your logic. A drone is at most a bomb truck and a observation platform. Not really suited for the type of missions of the A10: working closely with people on the ground, often within visual range responding quickly and with very high precision.
Would you like a drone to drop a precision laser guided bomb from 10 000 ft on a target that's less than 1 km from where you're standing?? Or would you rather have an A10 flying over low and slow and take out the target with it's gun?
Logically the F-35 should be the one that is most likely to be replaced by a drone. Since it's manouverability is very low and all supporters of the plane describe it as a 'communication platform' and 'not intended for close combat'. That's something that a drone could easily do.
Nope. Navy has aircraft carriers with catapults and arrest kables. They don't need STOVL. Marine core does to replace their version of the Harrier. This is currently only in use by the marine core meaning that the Navy currently has no STOVL capabililty.
> How does any of this behavior differ in any way from any other organized crime ring?
It's not a crime to be wrong.
It's not about being wrong. The scientific communitiy is perfectly clear about global warming. It's about clouding the matter on purpose to protect you interests.
Think about cigarettes: in the 90's everyone 'knew' that they were harmfull. Still, large warnings about the dangers of smoking were systematically blocked since the tobacco industry said 'there is no proof'. They were conviced because they too clouded the public option on purpose by spreading false information on the scientific consensus. And not because they were wrong (their own investigation had shown years before exactly what the dangers were - just like the Exxon study in a recent/. article showed that the Oil companies are too well aware of the consequences).
Just like anybody else (I think) I am often amazed at how much money people are spending (again and again) on apple devices and particularly iPhones. And just like anybody else I often wonder how long this can go on. So, I'm convinced that somewhere in the future apple will either make some huge mistake or, alternatively, find their formula working less and less well for them because (like any market leader is bound to do) they keep on hammering on the same nail, not realizing the world has changed meanwhile.
That being said: I don't think this is the big stragegic mistake, nor do I think it is the start of their downfall...
So let me get this staight: a probe arrived to investigate Cere's 'mysterious' bright spot in more detail than ever... Well just hang on to the image in your head and don't look at the pictures from the article . You're bound to get dissapointed...
I just looked at the wikipedia article about the Macintosh link and it confirms what I remember from a documentary about the dawn of personal computer: the apple Macintosh was selling well (280 000 in the first year, outselling all other computers). It's just that Steve Jobs' expectations were so much higher still. And he had transferred these expectetions onto the potential buyers (business people) who were, initially, underwhelmed.
That Woz preferred the Lisa is no big misery. The Lisa was technically superior. Just unsellable. And if Jobs had continued on the Lisa project he would have left Woz alone on the Macintosh. As it was Jobs (in his typically 'I'm god' style) simply took his project over while he was away.
Am I the only one who initially read "the most prominent risks to software freedom today: Richard M. Stallman, and more."??? Let the controvercy begin (dramatic music).
CFC's and the ozone layer are not so much of a problem any more. They replaced CFC's as the main liquid for refrigiragion and other heat transfer systems. And that was effective. I think that (just my personal oppinion): a) There may not have been that much less cancers in the past. Just not as well recorded. b) Risk of cancer get really high if you get burned regularly (especially at young ages). There I think that people who live outside all year have less risk of getting burned than us living and working inside all day and then, during hollidays, go lying in the sun. c)We live longer ==> more chance of getting cancer.
This discussion reminds me of a metal box for Corn Flakes I once got for my kids. It gave on the side an account of how Kellogg's Corn Flakes (TM - duh) came into being. They were invented by Harvey Kellogg a stomatologist, who found that his patience didn't just profit from them but actually liked them. Like every day. Enter his brother William. Het took care of the 'productizing'. And guess who's signature is on every box "to distinguish the original"? W. K. Kellogg. The manager. The only thing he did was sell it. And I'm sure that if you would look up who got fithily rich out of the Kellogg company it will not be our good doctor.
So, I'm sure that Woz did the design of the original Apple I and II completely by himself...
I remember it a little differently. I thought the Lisa project was no success and that macintoch was the product that got apple out of the garage to the second largest PC maker for the next decade, until windows 95 arrived.
Slashdot Mirror
The "Science" of Physics was "settled" back in the time of Issac Newton. Oops, then came Einstein along!
Well, yes and no. Yes in relativistic environments (near light speed) you get a different physics. But this is only applicable to elementary particles and the like.
For the rest: all the calculations that were done previously using Newton's laws: the force needed to change the speed of an (not relativistic) object (cars, trains, elements of a machine...) are STILL calculated using newtons law.
And this is the hallmark of the true science denier: he wants to use the fact that science is allways in motion to promote the notion that nothing is ever certain. I can assure you that whatever new theories there will be found concerning the laws of physics they will have to comply with all known observations and therefore will have to be in compliance with newton's laws for normal day to day objects.
Einsteins theories have not supplanted Newton's theory gave an extension for elementary particles. BTW talking about Bohr and the theory of quantum mechanics: there is no sane way to apply these to macroscopic objects. For that you NEED newton's laws. So in that sense they are more complementary.
... or even worst: double speak (gniffle)
I don't think it is a different roll bar.
In the original picture it doesn't look as if the console and the antenna on top were welded on. It seems more as if they were bolted on with a fitting around the bar.
As to pointy and not: the roll bar is assymetrical. It has a pointy side and a more round side.
The two photo's (old and new) are in reverse angle (you can see that by looking at the position of the roll bar and the wheels that have a different fitting fore and aft).
All of these are engeneering challenges and not insurmoutable barriers. Each and everyone of them has been studied and solutions proposed (how to handle the neutron flux, what materials to use, how to remove helium and how to make an efficient blanket of Lithium to assure self sustainable fueling starting from raw deuterium and lithium.
These will all be sought out an tested on Iter and then Demo.
No. Cancer takes more time to develop, we're only 4 years after the disaster. The announcement is to soothe the local and international disgruntled commenters about Tepco actions and consequences. You see, the disaster had people develop cancer - but there's only one person affected.
Soothe? You think politicians and Tepco are so stupid to think admitting this as a disaster related victime will soothe anything? It revives the public interest that was slowly dwindeling and could cost Tipco a big amount of money. NOT something either of them would do voluntarly.
If they admitted this as a disaster related victim I'm sure they felt they had no choice...
[..] who is going to fork over ~$3,500 for a tablet?[..]assuming you didn't need a full terabyte of HDD space[..]
Umm, the one that really DOES need 1TB and desktop power in such a compact, light form factor???
If you're a designer/artist/... that is constantly on the move (in a factory, on a work site, at clients...) and this device allows you have all your stuff with you and you can do your work on the spot instead of aftherwards in the office this thing will pay itself back in no time...
But it's not intended for your avarage mobile user who only needs internet and some storage for mail, photo's and moderate video stuff.
Indeed! It's a cost benefit analysis. Which means that if you don't use your car daily (which is your assumption 300 days a year) it will be much cheaper to use a rental service. Think about it: it pays exactly the same amount for the car as you do. Only the time your car sits in your driveway this car is used by other users. So you only pay the TCO for the actual time you use the car (offset by the overhead of the retal company).
And even if you use your car daily it may still be cheaper to rent one. Or to own only one car instead of two or three.
Another advantage is that all these automous vehicles allow for much more effective traffic management: instead of a mass of anonymous vehicles you have now traffic streams (you know their destination) that can be effectively managed (the cars will actually follow your route if that is the fastest way).
Because the car manufacturers don't like it. They have stalled the efforts (at least here in Europe) to have realistic test scenario's for many years: 'not objective' 'too expensive' etc.
Now Europe has said it will push formward this legilation which has been ready for years. It clearly wants to make use of the momentum while the car industry is on the defence...
Are you in the car industry? I'm sure they fully agree with you ;-)
I think may of those variations can be actually controlled without testing on a dynamo meter in a lab:
- Testing on a test track eliminates terrain, traffic and conditions of the car over time.
- Having a clear test scenario and test profile will elliminate the drivers habits and if you drive one way and then the other the wind effects should be minimal.
Then you only need to add a maximum wind speed and a clear day and maximum and miminum temperatures to the testing requirements and you're pretty much set. Only the car manufactures won't like it of course. Especially if the independent tester picks the car at random from the production line...
Coal and Nuclear are as bad as each other but for different reasons. Nuclear kills people for subsequent decades as the radioactive effluents make their way through our water and food supply, it also reduces the birth rate because pregnancies fail to come to full term. The key thing is it happens very slowly and the majority of effects are still years away as opposed to coal whose effects are almost instantaneous in comparison.
"radioactive effluents"? You do realize that nuclear reactors don't release any radioactivity under normal operating conditions? Major releases are on the order of once a decade or more, and that's with our aging GenII reactors, world wide. GenIII would be a lot safer.
Also, citation on the birth rates. Citation on "majority of effects" being still years away - if anything we should be recovering from the effects of post WWII above ground nuclear bomb tests.
I would think the GP refers to the effluents released in an nuclear accident, no?
From my understanding of this technology it's spent fuel product is 233 Thallium, IIRC, which is characterized by many daughter products with short half lives. I'm not saying it isn't better reactor technology however it would seem the central issue of current reactor technology, the long term storage of spent fuel products, is an issue for thorium reactor technology as well.
Question, do you know what "short half lives" amounts to? It means that the material in question is much more radioactive - but that means it also decays in radioactivity much faster. Something with a half-life of 10 days will be virtually entirely gone within a year. Something with a half-life in the decades will still be churning a century from now, but it's initially safer to be around.(Safer being a relative quality).
But he said: daugther products with short half life. That implies (I think) that it decays (slowly over years and years) into short lived, highly radioactive daugther products. Which implies (again: I think) a fairly high level of radiation over a long period of time.
Until we have effective, geologically stable and appropriate spent fuel containment facilities then we will always have higher levels of risk with greater levels of impact as a result of accidents in the nuclear industry. For that reason it's important to reduce that level of risk and impact to the community regardless of what reactor technology is deployed.
Above ground caskets are working well. I figure that we'd be digging up anything we bury within a century to reprocess it anyways. Heck, let it sit in a cask for 40 years and so much of the 'hot' stuff has decayed that it should make reprocessing significantly cheaper.
Indeed. I tend to agree with you that storage under ground is pretty useless since you will have to monitor it systematically to check that the caskets are still ok. Only problem: no one wants that. The population in the area doesn't want a building containing highly radioactive products in their neighbourhood. And nuclear energy producers don't want the costs of constantly monitored storage. They are fixed on finding a container where they can put their waste in and a location where they can dump it. No monitoring, just cheap storage.
... or not (blocked)
Buy a Harley! Their emissions are terrible too. But nobody cares enough to lie about it
And this implies (for me) that Apple is likely NOT going to use traditional car building techniques which involves building a complete factory (Tela like).
Instead I think they will use cheaper low volume techniques (3D printing??) and only ramp them up if demand is high.
I saw a video recently of a 3D printing car manufacturing technique where a car chassis was build entirely with 3D printed parts. The body pannels do not have to be from steel, making them much cheaper to produce. And then there is still the drive train (which is at the hart of the research that Apple has to do anyway)
I don't understand your logic. A drone is at most a bomb truck and a observation platform. Not really suited for the type of missions of the A10: working closely with people on the ground, often within visual range responding quickly and with very high precision.
Would you like a drone to drop a precision laser guided bomb from 10 000 ft on a target that's less than 1 km from where you're standing?? Or would you rather have an A10 flying over low and slow and take out the target with it's gun?
Logically the F-35 should be the one that is most likely to be replaced by a drone. Since it's manouverability is very low and all supporters of the plane describe it as a 'communication platform' and 'not intended for close combat'. That's something that a drone could easily do.
Nope. Navy has aircraft carriers with catapults and arrest kables. They don't need STOVL. Marine core does to replace their version of the Harrier. This is currently only in use by the marine core meaning that the Navy currently has no STOVL capabililty.
> How does any of this behavior differ in any way from any other organized crime ring?
It's not a crime to be wrong.
It's not about being wrong. The scientific communitiy is perfectly clear about global warming. It's about clouding the matter on purpose to protect you interests.
Think about cigarettes: in the 90's everyone 'knew' that they were harmfull. Still, large warnings about the dangers of smoking were systematically blocked since the tobacco industry said 'there is no proof'. They were conviced because they too clouded the public option on purpose by spreading false information on the scientific consensus. /. article showed that the Oil companies are too well aware of the consequences).
And not because they were wrong (their own investigation had shown years before exactly what the dangers were - just like the Exxon study in a recent
...no Windows variant that would fit the bill?
The Bill? Oh, THAT Bill, I got it. Stupid pun.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post
What did you do to them? Showed them a homemade clock or drew them the shape of a gun? You should be in jail!
Just like anybody else (I think) I am often amazed at how much money people are spending (again and again) on apple devices and particularly iPhones. And just like anybody else I often wonder how long this can go on.
So, I'm convinced that somewhere in the future apple will either make some huge mistake or, alternatively, find their formula working less and less well for them because (like any market leader is bound to do) they keep on hammering on the same nail, not realizing the world has changed meanwhile.
That being said: I don't think this is the big stragegic mistake, nor do I think it is the start of their downfall...
So let me get this staight: a probe arrived to investigate Cere's 'mysterious' bright spot in more detail than ever...
Well just hang on to the image in your head and don't look at the pictures from the article . You're bound to get dissapointed...
I just looked at the wikipedia article about the Macintosh link and it confirms what I remember from a documentary about the dawn of personal computer: the apple Macintosh was selling well (280 000 in the first year, outselling all other computers). It's just that Steve Jobs' expectations were so much higher still. And he had transferred these expectetions onto the potential buyers (business people) who were, initially, underwhelmed.
That Woz preferred the Lisa is no big misery. The Lisa was technically superior. Just unsellable. And if Jobs had continued on the Lisa project he would have left Woz alone on the Macintosh. As it was Jobs (in his typically 'I'm god' style) simply took his project over while he was away.
Am I the only one who initially read "the most prominent risks to software freedom today: Richard M. Stallman, and more."???
Let the controvercy begin (dramatic music).
CFC's and the ozone layer are not so much of a problem any more. They replaced CFC's as the main liquid for refrigiragion and other heat transfer systems. And that was effective.
I think that (just my personal oppinion):
a) There may not have been that much less cancers in the past. Just not as well recorded.
b) Risk of cancer get really high if you get burned regularly (especially at young ages). There I think that people who live outside all year have less risk of getting burned than us living and working inside all day and then, during hollidays, go lying in the sun.
c)We live longer ==> more chance of getting cancer.
This discussion reminds me of a metal box for Corn Flakes I once got for my kids. It gave on the side an account of how Kellogg's Corn Flakes (TM - duh) came into being. They were invented by Harvey Kellogg a stomatologist, who found that his patience didn't just profit from them but actually liked them. Like every day.
Enter his brother William. Het took care of the 'productizing'. And guess who's signature is on every box "to distinguish the original"? W. K. Kellogg. The manager. The only thing he did was sell it. And I'm sure that if you would look up who got fithily rich out of the Kellogg company it will not be our good doctor.
So, I'm sure that Woz did the design of the original Apple I and II completely by himself...
I remember it a little differently. I thought the Lisa project was no success and that macintoch was the product that got apple out of the garage to the second largest PC maker for the next decade, until windows 95 arrived.