Then why can i download my bought via steam HL2 (or anything else there, for the matter) as often as i want? Its MUCH more Mbyte/$, and still there dont seem to be problems.
One nuke could mean an american aircraft carrier down, or 1000s of troops wiped out, in case of an attack. Thats enough deterrent to prevent an invasion.
And iraq has taught a hard lesson to all rogue states: If you DONT get WMD, you dont have them to defend yourselfs when the GIs invade.
They dont support 64bit floating point, and never have. And one big reason why it wouldnt fly on nvidea cards is that the latest ATI cards are MUCH MUCH faster when doing conditional stuff, which DOES happen in that kind of statement.
The raw throughput is irrelevant if one cards slows down an order of magnitude just because it cant handle an "if"...
I was surprised myself, about the the whole miles-buissness.
But than i looked into the papers of my airline, and there is TONS of stuff that boosts the miles. Going first class? ==miles*5 Spending money for extra stuff(reservations, ect)? +xk miles bonus using a senator card? Getting miles shoved into your ass for sneezing (figurtively spoken. IIRC, the highest bonus multipliers were like 10 or 15 or so. Like a pinball machine)
And how should that work? Those chips have different memory controllers on board. Different signal outs/ect.
How could a socket possibly exist that fits the old 939 while still providing the _different_ pinouts needed for ddr2? You cant just add a row at the outer rim or something...
Sure, the human body is a result of evolution, but that doesnt mean that its not sophisticated at all. Its the result of a billion years of "everything thats not good enough died", starting from the level of cellular chemistry up to the general layout.
Well, thats easy. The original source is multiple band photographs and height information. As the "top down" view cannot really present that information, those are renderings using the height-field and texture data the probe collected.
Looking at the concept (starting with a 1:1 mirror of wikipedia, adding all new articles from wikipedia, mirroring wikipedia changes in imported articles that havent been changed locally) it makes no sense.
if the current base is really so bad and unreliable as he makes it look, this will result in taking over everything bad but shutting out the broad mass of eyes that could spot a error and correct it.
Even worse, seeing the much lower editor/article ratio, i cannot see how he thinks to ever archive some kind of quality census. A random article browsed there will be with a very high likelyhood just a copy of the wiki article. So trying to get people to think its more reliable (and thus view it with less suspicion/ less "thinking") is a bit like cheating the user.
Thats of course true. There is no "magic pull" towards the black hole.
But you have to consider that just because of thermal motion, atoms hit each other all the time. In solid matter, they are just reflected by their electron cloud. Black holes dont have them, so atoms that _would_ hit them just merge with them. The chance for a direct hit IS small, but there are LOTS and LOTS of particle interactions per second, so if it has a few barn crossection it WILL hit stuff readily enough.
Which opens another point: A whole so small would radiate so strongly that it would shrink faster than it could grow that way. Not to mention that the radiation pressure would actually keep the atoms away from it.
ANOTHER point is: the black hole has no real reason to drop to the center of the earth. If its created in a collision experiment, it is very likely to have more than a few km/s speed relatively to the laboratory frame, and as it doesnt feel real friction at all, its most likly just to fly away out of the earth gravity well.
So to create such a black hole to kill the earth, the experiment would inject enormous mass into the hole (which we cannot) as to make it evaporate slower than it can feed (a good guess for a value would be a few tons of mass. Just use e=mc*c to see how unlikely we will ever be to create such energies in a accelerator). And on top of it, the experiment would have to be finetuned in a way that will have the black hole nearly motionless afterwards. And thats not ganna happening.
With a post like this, here you will just attract hordes of unwashed sociopaths who will tell you that your daughter is so fucked because she doesnt chainsaw people in half. And how this will inhibit her personal growth.
Disclaimer: no, its utterly impossible for a black hole to be created that way. But even if one magically appeared:
No. It wont be that quick. A small black hole is TINY, and it grows only VERY slow. I mean, its smaller than a nuclear core, even in the dense enviroment of the earths core it will only gobble up mass atom per atom.
It could take weeks or months until the "big crunch", enough times for earthquakes, floods, volcanic activity in unknown extend while earth SLOWLY starts shrinking.
Standing on a spot for a longer time is actually LESS comfortable than walking around.
I would rather walk than stand put on that little platform, as is. if it were twice as fast, then it would make sense (but than again, its autostabilisation would crap its virutal pants when dealing with 4 times the kinetic energy).
I met one once in real live, and while it was faster than walking pace, i could effortlessly drive a lot faster on a bike (which is cheaper, has "unlimited range", a physical autostabilisation called "rotational inertia" and light enough to just pick up and carry up some stairs)
Slashdot Mirror
Then why can i download my bought via steam HL2 (or anything else there, for the matter) as often as i want?
Its MUCH more Mbyte/$, and still there dont seem to be problems.
Totally wrong mindset.
One nuke could mean an american aircraft carrier down, or 1000s of troops wiped out, in case of an attack.
Thats enough deterrent to prevent an invasion.
And iraq has taught a hard lesson to all rogue states: If you DONT get WMD, you dont have them to defend yourselfs when the GIs invade.
They dont support 64bit floating point, and never have.
And one big reason why it wouldnt fly on nvidea cards is that the latest ATI cards are MUCH MUCH faster when doing conditional stuff, which DOES happen in that kind of statement.
The raw throughput is irrelevant if one cards slows down an order of magnitude just because it cant handle an "if"...
This claim doesnt need backing up, its entirely obvious when you look at the orbit parameters.
Dont underestimate the energy of chemical reactions.
With 100W at 95% efficiency, it doesnt output more CO2 than a human breathing.
I was surprised myself, about the the whole miles-buissness.
But than i looked into the papers of my airline, and there is TONS of stuff that boosts the miles.
Going first class? ==miles*5
Spending money for extra stuff(reservations, ect)? +xk miles bonus
using a senator card? Getting miles shoved into your ass for sneezing (figurtively spoken. IIRC, the highest bonus multipliers were like 10 or 15 or so. Like a pinball machine)
And how should that work?
Those chips have different memory controllers on board. Different signal outs/ect.
How could a socket possibly exist that fits the old 939 while still providing the _different_ pinouts needed for ddr2?
You cant just add a row at the outer rim or something...
my problem with prey was not how short it was.
It was how it managed to be short AND repetitive.
How often did you have to ghostwalk through a forecefield to deactivate it?
How many laser-activated autoguns you had to ghostwalk around?
How many times did you have to kill the allways-the-same enemies?
And those stupid vehicle levels...
In 2 or 3 centuries maybe.
Sure, the human body is a result of evolution, but that doesnt mean that its not sophisticated at all. Its the result of a billion years of "everything thats not good enough died", starting from the level of cellular chemistry up to the general layout.
You forget that the GPL is about as viral as AIDS.
If they didnt anything further than running a stock linux system, they would have a hard time not releasing own source, too.
Well, thats easy.
The original source is multiple band photographs and height information.
As the "top down" view cannot really present that information, those are renderings using the height-field and texture data the probe collected.
Sorry, you misspelled "oil prices".
Those two are entirely different matters at times.
Looking at the concept (starting with a 1:1 mirror of wikipedia, adding all new articles from wikipedia, mirroring wikipedia changes in imported articles that havent been changed locally) it makes no sense.
if the current base is really so bad and unreliable as he makes it look, this will result in taking over everything bad but shutting out the broad mass of eyes that could spot a error and correct it.
Even worse, seeing the much lower editor/article ratio, i cannot see how he thinks to ever archive some kind of quality census. A random article browsed there will be with a very high likelyhood just a copy of the wiki article. So trying to get people to think its more reliable (and thus view it with less suspicion/ less "thinking") is a bit like cheating the user.
Obviously, you never had any education about electrodynamics, or you would recognise your example as bullshit.
Any electronic retailer has them for like 5EUR.
(i know that reichelt, ELV and conrad catalogues have them listed)
I had about 1-2 bulbs breaking a year.
About 4-5 years ago, i started replacing the broken ones with fluorescent bulbs.
Not a single of those ever died.
Even as a child i wondered just HOW that robotic arm could lift up a car... if its connected to a rather normal shoulder....
well, its better than something arbitrarily stupid like "i-pod". At least it rhymes with "tune".
Thats of course true.
There is no "magic pull" towards the black hole.
But you have to consider that just because of thermal motion, atoms hit each other all the time. In solid matter, they are just reflected by their electron cloud. Black holes dont have them, so atoms that _would_ hit them just merge with them.
The chance for a direct hit IS small, but there are LOTS and LOTS of particle interactions per second, so if it has a few barn crossection it WILL hit stuff readily enough.
Which opens another point: A whole so small would radiate so strongly that it would shrink faster than it could grow that way. Not to mention that the radiation pressure would actually keep the atoms away from it.
ANOTHER point is: the black hole has no real reason to drop to the center of the earth. If its created in a collision experiment, it is very likely to have more than a few km/s speed relatively to the laboratory frame, and as it doesnt feel real friction at all, its most likly just to fly away out of the earth gravity well.
So to create such a black hole to kill the earth, the experiment would inject enormous mass into the hole (which we cannot) as to make it evaporate slower than it can feed (a good guess for a value would be a few tons of mass. Just use e=mc*c to see how unlikely we will ever be to create such energies in a accelerator). And on top of it, the experiment would have to be finetuned in a way that will have the black hole nearly motionless afterwards.
And thats not ganna happening.
With a post like this, here you will just attract hordes of unwashed sociopaths who will tell you that your daughter is so fucked because she doesnt chainsaw people in half. And how this will inhibit her personal growth.
Which of course means you are exactly right.
Disclaimer: no, its utterly impossible for a black hole to be created that way. But even if one magically appeared:
No. It wont be that quick.
A small black hole is TINY, and it grows only VERY slow. I mean, its smaller than a nuclear core, even in the dense enviroment of the earths core it will only gobble up mass atom per atom.
It could take weeks or months until the "big crunch", enough times for earthquakes, floods, volcanic activity in unknown extend while earth SLOWLY starts shrinking.
Werent those bombs non-programmable?
They dont even compete in the eniac vs zuse-2 match...
Or why not just driving a bike more slowly?
Still twice as fast as a segway, and no sweat and stuff...
Standing on a spot for a longer time is actually LESS comfortable than walking around.
I would rather walk than stand put on that little platform, as is.
if it were twice as fast, then it would make sense (but than again, its autostabilisation would crap its virutal pants when dealing with 4 times the kinetic energy).
I met one once in real live, and while it was faster than walking pace, i could effortlessly drive a lot faster on a bike (which is cheaper, has "unlimited range", a physical autostabilisation called "rotational inertia" and light enough to just pick up and carry up some stairs)
Looks like something made by a 15year old in coreldraw.
Well, whoever really spends time to read that godaweful "text" picture deserves to be "brain manipulated"