Until we know a lot of them, we simply don't know. However, considering the galactic plane is tilted with respect to our own ecliptic, I suspect the working theory is that no, the two have little to nothing to do with each other.
About 85 degrees, so almost perpendicular in fact. Which is quite handy for Kepler, since it can look down our Sagittarius arm without worrying about the sun (or anything else in the solar system) getting in the way.
Personally, I'm guessing the galactic picture looks a lot like our solar system does. The overall angular momentum is strongly aligned in a plane. However, just like the individual planets have moon systems that may or may not be aligned with that plane, so to are stellar systems not necessarily aligned since they're dominated by local gravity and angular momentum. Maybe systems closer to the center of the galaxy are more likely to be aligned, like our moon is very close to the ecliptic. I dunno, it seems the galactic core may be less dense relative to the rest of the galaxy than the sun is compared to the planets. But I'm too lazy to go find out.:)
I'd be curious the percentages of stars that a mission like Kepler is looking at, that actually have planets transiting them. And if that percentage is roughly equal to what you'd expect with a random distribution of ecliptics. It would not surprise me in the least if the numbers matched.
Well that'd mean we'd have to make an assumption as to how many stars have planets at all. Given how fast we're finding them, though, if the Kepler data matched a random distribution under the assumption that nearly every star had a system, I'd take that in a cautiously optimistic fashion as good evidence.
only bizarre if you continue to ignore the electric universe. gas that is that hot is not "hot gas" it's plasma. plasma is electrically conductive. a spiral is exactly the form you'd expect a birkeland current in glow discharge mode to take. no mystery there unless you absolutely insist on viewing it in terms of mechanical shock waves. then it's strange indeed.
1) There is no mystery here in conventional cosmology whatsoever. This is exactly what you'd expect to see when the source of the emission is moving in a circle. The Slashdot submission painted it as "strange", welcoming you to make the false inference that this means "unexplained", only revealing at the end why this is unusual, but not actually mysterious: It's a binary system. The stars are circling each other, and so it is completely expected that their emissions would form a spiral. But you were happy to assume "conventional cosmology cannot explain this" even though it was both unstated and unsupported.
2) Astrophysicists are well aware that stars and their emissions consist of plasmas; it's an important component of modern solar models. They are also aware that while plasmas are conductive if of sufficient density, a sufficiently dense plasma will also be quasi-neutral and the negatively and positively charged particles therein cannot move in the same direction under the influence of an electric field. Electric cosmologists forget this when trying to explain stellar emissions like the solar wind, which has been experimentally shown to be quasi-neutral (as would be expected by anyone who actually understood plasmas).
Leaping on non-existent failings of conventional theory, while ignoring the blatant contradictions between EU and experiment, are par for the course however.
This video is not even worth my time wasting it on this video.
I dunno, I watched the whole thing, and I thought it was very much worth it for all the laughs.
I loved how it was all still shots of a video feed. What, no consecutive shots showing the same phenomenon? How bizarre! I guess the Jupiter-sized comet and the wormhole just pop in and out of existence between frames.
I loved how it was definitely a wormhole because it was vaguely funnel-shaped. Can you imagine what this person would think if they looked at real space phenomenon? Oh my god, the Horsehead Nebulae is actually a real Space Horse!
But I think my favorite part was "This I'm not sure of... maybe a propulsion system?" Oh! Well, as long as you admit you aren't sure about something, then surely you're just a rational mind going where the evidence leads you and not just using your Jump to Conclusions mat that has a single square labeled "It's teh aliens!" Cus you can be totally sure that really was a wormhole.
Well, as long as we're cross-referencing the reports of alien abductees, with an analysis of photography premised on the non-existence of noise, with the properties of fictional devices, then I must take back my criticism as there is no possible flaw in this analysis. There's only one reasonable conclusion:
We could stack chips today except for the fact that it's impossible to cool the middle layers and the thing would almost instantly melt itself down.
Not if it's low enough power. Major chip makers have already considered the minimal level of chip stacking when the "bottom" chip is something relatively low power.
If the promise of using even less power than current flash memory holds true, they may not have any problem stacking chips several layers deep.
Is this really Hawking speaking? Has he finally lost his mind?
Yes. It's not that this is a single quote taken out of context from an entire book. He surely never mentions Conservation of Energy or entropy in this book. The statement is obviously not the conclusion of a lengthy argument, but rather the entirety of the argument and conclusion contained together in one sentence. Ergo your observations are undeniably correct and Hawking has no idea what he's talking about.
That there exist governments that were worse than anarchy is hardly a ringing endorsement for anarchy. That such an example government would be one which collapsed into anarchy is just another reason why it is not particularly impressive that things got better. That the gangs which effectively undermined the power of the weak central government became the de-facto rulers after the collapse, ending the reality of "anarchy" before it began, is just a demonstration of anarchy's fundamental and inescapable flaw.
It will take more than 300 years to erase the motivations that cause people to leverage the rules to their advantage, or to ruthlessly exploit a lack of rules.
It's a wonderful ideal, the idea that people can rule themselves. It's more optimistic than Gene Roddenberry's vision of the future of mankind, and less realistic. History is clear on this: Strong centrally organized nation-states have dominated and obliterated the unorganized.
I do agree that governments must get smaller to protect the people from abuse. However, I think it is foolhardy to believe that the limit should be no government at all, as this would only allow another vector for force and fraud to run rampant. There is an ideal level of people-mandated centralized authority that both minimizes abuse from that authority, and abuse from other sources.
Hey, just a couple days ago I saw The Last Day of the Dinosaurs followed immediately by Bad Universe talking about actually realistic methods of averting catastrophic meteor impacts. Both were awesome.
There's a lot of crap on Discover these days, but they still have interesting shows.
NASA won't actually be paying for the flights until they have flown successfully
NASA has actually bought something here without specifying the requirements in infinite detail
Basically undoing the two things (in decreasing order of importance) that have caused so many problems and budget problems in the past.
The ridiculously detailed specifications not only meant the developer was highly constrained, it virtually guarantees that what you get is going to be a one-off made of fully custom parts which means ridiculous cost.
But when you hand that specification to the contractor, along with mega-bucks for them to develop it, then you virtually guarantee that the contractor will be late and then basically dare you not to send good money after bad, and admit you wasted mega-bucks.
I'd heard that part of the new plan for NASA involved changing how they did procurement -- paying for results, not for development. I'm highly excited to see it put into action.
The old TI's like the 81 and 85 have the screen inside the calculator, which is protected by a clear plastic lens. This makes it harder to see the LCD, but the screen kind of sits loose inside, it's nearly immune to breaking when the calculator is dropped (my TI-85 has withstood an amazing amount of abuse and still works flawlessly). Note that the newer TI's (83+, 89) have the screen mounted like the HP's and thus seem more prone to breaking in the same manner.
That makes a lot of sense. Like I said I don't have much experience with the HPs, but I do remember thinking the screen was exposed. If the later TIs are similar, that plus a healthy dose of penny-pinching would explain the claims of fragility.
Second, it's better to cite the Wikipedia article itself than the thing that the article itself cites. You don't lose any information by citing the article itself -- anyone can look at the article and follow the citation. But you do gain information -- the fact that the article is cited by Wikipedia. This increases the chance that the source is correct, even if only by a little bit. Mathematically, given a claim X and a paper by Professor Bob saying that X is true,
P ( X | Bob says X is true && Wikipedia says X is true) > P (X | Bob says X is true)
Okay, first, that relation is not the same as the one you said in text. "Bob" here is the original source which Wikipedia cites. Your relation makes it look like Bob and Wikipedia are two separate sources, when it's really one. It should be:
P ( X | Bob says X is true && Wikipedia cites Bob) > P (X | Bob says X is true)
Which, sure, may be true for any random Bob on the internet. However,
P ( X | Bob says X is true && Bob is a recognized authority on X ) == P ( X | Bob says X is true && Bob is a recognized authority on X && Wikipedia cites Bob)
In other words, the Wikipedia cite modifies your conditional probability that Bob is a good source if and only if you otherwise have no clue as to whether or not Bob is a good source, and the WP link is your only hint. And yes, it should only modify the probability by a tiny bit. Meaning that if a WP cite is your only hint that the source is good, you should probably not cite that source in serious papers or in court.
Also, if you are not deciding whether or not Bob is a trustworthy source to cite, but rather hearing Charlie quote information that allegedly came from Bob originally, then:
P (X | Charlie cites recognized expert Bob saying X) > P ( X | Charlie cites Wikipedia which cites recognized expert Bob saying X)
Because if Charlie isn't citing Bob, but rather what Wikipedia says Bob says, then that's just another possible source of error and mis-quoting. Charlie should be citing Bob's work directly if he wants to claim Bob says something.
Basically, having the Wikipedia citation only improves things in a situation you should never find yourself in when writing a scholarly paper of making an argument in court. Being in that situation is itself bad, citing Wikipedia in any other situation is bad, ergo citing Wikipedia is bad.
In this particular case, the DSM-IV is the authoritative reference on the subject matter at hand. The fact that WP cites the DSM does not change the authoritativeness of the DSM one jot, and citing the WP to cite the DSM just means the citation is more likely to be incorrect.
Assuming the signals travel in a straight line. If you look at current motherboards and video cards, you'll notice that many of the copper traces are "wiggly", not straight. That is done in order to get bits in parallel buses to arrive at the same time, and conductor traces on the chips must be designed similarly, it's the longest distance that any of the bits must travel that limits the others.
Besides, there are capacitance and inductance effects to be considered. Transitions from one to zero and vice-versa aren't instantaneous and that must be taken into account.
You'll rarely find that kind of technique used in on-chip busses. It is of course the longest trace that constraints the bus overall, and that they are affected by parasitic capacitance and inductance, but it usually isn't a problem when other signals arrive early so there's no need to make a trace artificially longer. Especially when the clock wavelength is well above propagation time, you can just view the bus trace as a LRC load.
Off-chip traces are long enough that they need to be considered transmission lines, so the situation is more complicated than just LRC. Also because of their length and the greater potential delta between shortest and longest, the fact that you're recovering your clock from another bus trace and not an on-chip clock tree, it's possible for a trace that is sufficiently shorter than the clock to actually transition to a new bit of data before the previous one has been captured. There are other signal integrity reasons to try to keep all the traces matched, but that's probably the biggest one.
An XFI-SFI interconnect runs up to 10.3 Gbps on a single serial link. It is double-pumped (bit on each end of the clock) so the clock rate is half that.
For those following along at home, it's important to keep in mind that the clock rate is half the bits-per-second because clock rate is describing the frequency of full oscillations, while bits-per-second is describing the number of transitions. Comparing apples to apples, the data and clock frequencies are the same. Which is why double-pumped busses are good, because otherwise the clock frequency is twice the frequency of the data lines so the signal integrity of the clock line easily dominates and restricts frequency.
Now every data line has constraints nearly as tight as the clock, but that's better than the alternative.
Yeah, and according to the comments he left, since he really needed a calculator he ended up buying a new one before finishing this project, so the aluminum TI-89 sits at home instead of traveling with him. So the lack of shock resistance in the new case is probably not a big issue anyway.
I don't think it's bad because there exists an interpretation that was wrong. If it was misleading, then sure, but were you seriously misled into thinking they'd discovered how to machine complicated electronics and a display directly out of aluminum? I think the misleading part there would be making it sound like a fun hobbyist project rather than a revolution in physics and technology!
That's odd. When I was in school, TI calculators were preferred precisely for being designed to withstand drops from table height. Since the school was loaning them to students who didn't have one, this was a real concern. They were dropped onto the hard floor all the time, but breakage was really rare (and usually came from something like dropping them down a flight of stairs). I owned one for years that had been dropped I don't know how many times without a problem. Then it got swiped. Oh well it was a crappy 81, and the school loaned me an 85. Yay?
There weren't many HPs around, so no real experience on their durability. But the TIs were fine.
Granted this was over a decade ago. Quality degradation is pretty common.
I like how half your rant is the result of you not understanding the difference between "stationed" and "deployed". I especially liked the part where you actually specified the distinction, not realizing it had already been made. Classic.
I think the basic difference between us, and please correct me if I am wrong, is that you don't believe that people lie to one another or that they manipulate or try to control one another, or that if they do, people are too smart for these tactics to ever succeed.
Haha, no. Oh no. No, no, no. See, I believe people lie and manipulate other people all the time, and that they also lie to and manipulate themselves.
The reason science works is because science recognizes this and thus the metric is not whether someone says what you want to hear or something you don't, something that conforms to the mainstream or is wildly outside it, their authority or rejection of it. These dichotomies you have created with you standing on one side of them are meaningless; either way it could just be lies. What matters is data. And not just a little data, from one experiment and one source. But reams of data from around the world. Data from sources that would love for the conclusion to go the other way, are striving for it. That's how you root out lies, both the deliberate falsehood and the subconscious self-delusion, and arrive at facts that demonstrably apply in the real world.
That's how the Aether was concluded not to exist despite the fervent desire of the ones conducting the experiment for it to be real. It's how we discovered, out of all the various myths about how to prevent scurvy, the one that was actually truth. The rest were just lies, mostly the innocent self-deluding kind caused by selection and confirmation bias, but lies nonetheless. How did we know? Data.
So when someone tells me something that flies in the face of mountains of real-world evidence, and says they don't need to provide data to prove it, that only the closed minded require data, well...
They're lying. They're either lying to me, or lying to themselves. I don't much care which it is. Lies are lies.
Really? You think I exist in a perma-state of rebellion for no reason other than it suits me? Like a fashion or sense of self? Assumptions, if you are not careful, will often say a great deal about the person making them, so you might want to watch where you fling yours. No, you are making a false reading of me.
Oh? But isn't that exactly what you're right now? You're declaring "mainstream science IS domgatic", either oblivious to or deliberately ignoring that today's "mainstream dogma" was yesterday's revolution. A revolution that was only one because it made demonstrably effective predictions in the real world, sufficient that skeptics were convinced. And no matter what you think, there are many scientists out there right now seeking out the next revolution in the kinds of things you can't even imagine.
Feel free to demonstrate my assumption, backed only by a few scant posts worth of data, to be wrong by providing contrary data (for very loose definitions of "data" of course but I'm willing to relax). Come on.
Hardly. The industrial revolution was carefully shaped. The out-of-the-box thinkers were guided and allowed to believe whatever they wanted.
Haha, oh yes. All the scientific revolutions were really just the deliberate lies of the establishment designed to cloud their minds. What cute little conspiracy theories you have!
Illuminati: Hey science, here's Quantum Electrodynamics. Make it your new dogma, or else! Science: Wow, this has unprecedented predictive power for being just a pack of lies! It's going to be super useful. Thanks! Illuminati: You're welcome. We're here to help. Science: Wouldn't it be ironic if someone decried the methodology which brought us this, using technology that only works as a consequence? Illuminati: You can't spell "Illuminati" without the three I's: Irony, Idiocy, and Insanity. Science: Ha ha, you're so funny Illi'. I can't wait until the next "dogma" you hand down that miraculously agrees with reality to 15 decimal places.
Slashdot Mirror
Until we know a lot of them, we simply don't know. However, considering the galactic plane is tilted with respect to our own ecliptic, I suspect the working theory is that no, the two have little to nothing to do with each other.
About 85 degrees, so almost perpendicular in fact. Which is quite handy for Kepler, since it can look down our Sagittarius arm without worrying about the sun (or anything else in the solar system) getting in the way.
Personally, I'm guessing the galactic picture looks a lot like our solar system does. The overall angular momentum is strongly aligned in a plane. However, just like the individual planets have moon systems that may or may not be aligned with that plane, so to are stellar systems not necessarily aligned since they're dominated by local gravity and angular momentum. Maybe systems closer to the center of the galaxy are more likely to be aligned, like our moon is very close to the ecliptic. I dunno, it seems the galactic core may be less dense relative to the rest of the galaxy than the sun is compared to the planets. But I'm too lazy to go find out. :)
I'd be curious the percentages of stars that a mission like Kepler is looking at, that actually have planets transiting them. And if that percentage is roughly equal to what you'd expect with a random distribution of ecliptics. It would not surprise me in the least if the numbers matched.
Well that'd mean we'd have to make an assumption as to how many stars have planets at all. Given how fast we're finding them, though, if the Kepler data matched a random distribution under the assumption that nearly every star had a system, I'd take that in a cautiously optimistic fashion as good evidence.
only bizarre if you continue to ignore the electric universe. gas that is that hot is not "hot gas" it's plasma. plasma is electrically conductive. a spiral is exactly the form you'd expect a birkeland current in glow discharge mode to take. no mystery there unless you absolutely insist on viewing it in terms of mechanical shock waves. then it's strange indeed.
1) There is no mystery here in conventional cosmology whatsoever. This is exactly what you'd expect to see when the source of the emission is moving in a circle. The Slashdot submission painted it as "strange", welcoming you to make the false inference that this means "unexplained", only revealing at the end why this is unusual, but not actually mysterious: It's a binary system. The stars are circling each other, and so it is completely expected that their emissions would form a spiral. But you were happy to assume "conventional cosmology cannot explain this" even though it was both unstated and unsupported.
2) Astrophysicists are well aware that stars and their emissions consist of plasmas; it's an important component of modern solar models. They are also aware that while plasmas are conductive if of sufficient density, a sufficiently dense plasma will also be quasi-neutral and the negatively and positively charged particles therein cannot move in the same direction under the influence of an electric field. Electric cosmologists forget this when trying to explain stellar emissions like the solar wind, which has been experimentally shown to be quasi-neutral (as would be expected by anyone who actually understood plasmas).
Leaping on non-existent failings of conventional theory, while ignoring the blatant contradictions between EU and experiment, are par for the course however.
This video is not even worth my time wasting it on this video.
I dunno, I watched the whole thing, and I thought it was very much worth it for all the laughs.
I loved how it was all still shots of a video feed. What, no consecutive shots showing the same phenomenon? How bizarre! I guess the Jupiter-sized comet and the wormhole just pop in and out of existence between frames.
I loved how it was definitely a wormhole because it was vaguely funnel-shaped. Can you imagine what this person would think if they looked at real space phenomenon? Oh my god, the Horsehead Nebulae is actually a real Space Horse!
But I think my favorite part was "This I'm not sure of... maybe a propulsion system?" Oh! Well, as long as you admit you aren't sure about something, then surely you're just a rational mind going where the evidence leads you and not just using your Jump to Conclusions mat that has a single square labeled "It's teh aliens!" Cus you can be totally sure that really was a wormhole.
Well, as long as we're cross-referencing the reports of alien abductees, with an analysis of photography premised on the non-existence of noise, with the properties of fictional devices, then I must take back my criticism as there is no possible flaw in this analysis. There's only one reasonable conclusion:
ZOMG TEHYR SHOOTIN OUR SUN WIT DERE SPACE LAZORS!
Because they're too busy trying to figure out the SPACE LAZORS!
Sheesh, does that moron even know what a laser is?
Right, which human beings versed in natural language communication automatically interpret as "Official spokespersons for NASA said".
You'll have to work on that before you can pass the Turing Test. :)
We could stack chips today except for the fact that it's impossible to cool the middle layers and the thing would almost instantly melt itself down.
Not if it's low enough power. Major chip makers have already considered the minimal level of chip stacking when the "bottom" chip is something relatively low power.
If the promise of using even less power than current flash memory holds true, they may not have any problem stacking chips several layers deep.
Is this really Hawking speaking? Has he finally lost his mind?
Yes. It's not that this is a single quote taken out of context from an entire book. He surely never mentions Conservation of Energy or entropy in this book. The statement is obviously not the conclusion of a lengthy argument, but rather the entirety of the argument and conclusion contained together in one sentence. Ergo your observations are undeniably correct and Hawking has no idea what he's talking about.
That there exist governments that were worse than anarchy is hardly a ringing endorsement for anarchy. That such an example government would be one which collapsed into anarchy is just another reason why it is not particularly impressive that things got better. That the gangs which effectively undermined the power of the weak central government became the de-facto rulers after the collapse, ending the reality of "anarchy" before it began, is just a demonstration of anarchy's fundamental and inescapable flaw.
It will take more than 300 years to erase the motivations that cause people to leverage the rules to their advantage, or to ruthlessly exploit a lack of rules.
It's a wonderful ideal, the idea that people can rule themselves. It's more optimistic than Gene Roddenberry's vision of the future of mankind, and less realistic. History is clear on this: Strong centrally organized nation-states have dominated and obliterated the unorganized.
I do agree that governments must get smaller to protect the people from abuse. However, I think it is foolhardy to believe that the limit should be no government at all, as this would only allow another vector for force and fraud to run rampant. There is an ideal level of people-mandated centralized authority that both minimizes abuse from that authority, and abuse from other sources.
Hey, just a couple days ago I saw The Last Day of the Dinosaurs followed immediately by Bad Universe talking about actually realistic methods of averting catastrophic meteor impacts. Both were awesome.
There's a lot of crap on Discover these days, but they still have interesting shows.
Richard M. Nixon, after successfully driving to repeal the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, goes on to third and fourth presidential terms.
Thanks in no small part to Dr. Manhattan winning Vietnam for us.
Actually, I have a friend who told me about a missile project where a stray -1 resulted in exactly that...
NASA won't actually be paying for the flights until they have flown successfully
NASA has actually bought something here without specifying the requirements in infinite detail
Basically undoing the two things (in decreasing order of importance) that have caused so many problems and budget problems in the past.
The ridiculously detailed specifications not only meant the developer was highly constrained, it virtually guarantees that what you get is going to be a one-off made of fully custom parts which means ridiculous cost.
But when you hand that specification to the contractor, along with mega-bucks for them to develop it, then you virtually guarantee that the contractor will be late and then basically dare you not to send good money after bad, and admit you wasted mega-bucks.
I'd heard that part of the new plan for NASA involved changing how they did procurement -- paying for results, not for development. I'm highly excited to see it put into action.
The old TI's like the 81 and 85 have the screen inside the calculator, which is protected by a clear plastic lens. This makes it harder to see the LCD, but the screen kind of sits loose inside, it's nearly immune to breaking when the calculator is dropped (my TI-85 has withstood an amazing amount of abuse and still works flawlessly). Note that the newer TI's (83+, 89) have the screen mounted like the HP's and thus seem more prone to breaking in the same manner.
That makes a lot of sense. Like I said I don't have much experience with the HPs, but I do remember thinking the screen was exposed. If the later TIs are similar, that plus a healthy dose of penny-pinching would explain the claims of fragility.
Okay, first, that relation is not the same as the one you said in text. "Bob" here is the original source which Wikipedia cites. Your relation makes it look like Bob and Wikipedia are two separate sources, when it's really one. It should be:
P ( X | Bob says X is true && Wikipedia cites Bob) > P (X | Bob says X is true)
Which, sure, may be true for any random Bob on the internet. However,
P ( X | Bob says X is true && Bob is a recognized authority on X ) == P ( X | Bob says X is true && Bob is a recognized authority on X && Wikipedia cites Bob)
In other words, the Wikipedia cite modifies your conditional probability that Bob is a good source if and only if you otherwise have no clue as to whether or not Bob is a good source, and the WP link is your only hint. And yes, it should only modify the probability by a tiny bit. Meaning that if a WP cite is your only hint that the source is good, you should probably not cite that source in serious papers or in court.
Also, if you are not deciding whether or not Bob is a trustworthy source to cite, but rather hearing Charlie quote information that allegedly came from Bob originally, then:
P (X | Charlie cites recognized expert Bob saying X) > P ( X | Charlie cites Wikipedia which cites recognized expert Bob saying X)
Because if Charlie isn't citing Bob, but rather what Wikipedia says Bob says, then that's just another possible source of error and mis-quoting. Charlie should be citing Bob's work directly if he wants to claim Bob says something.
Basically, having the Wikipedia citation only improves things in a situation you should never find yourself in when writing a scholarly paper of making an argument in court. Being in that situation is itself bad, citing Wikipedia in any other situation is bad, ergo citing Wikipedia is bad.
In this particular case, the DSM-IV is the authoritative reference on the subject matter at hand. The fact that WP cites the DSM does not change the authoritativeness of the DSM one jot, and citing the WP to cite the DSM just means the citation is more likely to be incorrect.
The rule is very rational, as is this ruling.
Assuming the signals travel in a straight line. If you look at current motherboards and video cards, you'll notice that many of the copper traces are "wiggly", not straight. That is done in order to get bits in parallel buses to arrive at the same time, and conductor traces on the chips must be designed similarly, it's the longest distance that any of the bits must travel that limits the others.
Besides, there are capacitance and inductance effects to be considered. Transitions from one to zero and vice-versa aren't instantaneous and that must be taken into account.
You'll rarely find that kind of technique used in on-chip busses. It is of course the longest trace that constraints the bus overall, and that they are affected by parasitic capacitance and inductance, but it usually isn't a problem when other signals arrive early so there's no need to make a trace artificially longer. Especially when the clock wavelength is well above propagation time, you can just view the bus trace as a LRC load.
Off-chip traces are long enough that they need to be considered transmission lines, so the situation is more complicated than just LRC. Also because of their length and the greater potential delta between shortest and longest, the fact that you're recovering your clock from another bus trace and not an on-chip clock tree, it's possible for a trace that is sufficiently shorter than the clock to actually transition to a new bit of data before the previous one has been captured. There are other signal integrity reasons to try to keep all the traces matched, but that's probably the biggest one.
An XFI-SFI interconnect runs up to 10.3 Gbps on a single serial link. It is double-pumped (bit on each end of the clock) so the clock rate is half that.
For those following along at home, it's important to keep in mind that the clock rate is half the bits-per-second because clock rate is describing the frequency of full oscillations, while bits-per-second is describing the number of transitions. Comparing apples to apples, the data and clock frequencies are the same. Which is why double-pumped busses are good, because otherwise the clock frequency is twice the frequency of the data lines so the signal integrity of the clock line easily dominates and restricts frequency.
Now every data line has constraints nearly as tight as the clock, but that's better than the alternative.
I loved the TI-99 (probably only because I couldn't get a C64), but "sleek" isn't one of the adjectives I'd use to describe it. :)
Yeah, and according to the comments he left, since he really needed a calculator he ended up buying a new one before finishing this project, so the aluminum TI-89 sits at home instead of traveling with him. So the lack of shock resistance in the new case is probably not a big issue anyway.
Since this project would have been for a machining class, not a case design class, I'd think a higher grade than that would be appropriate.
I don't think it's bad because there exists an interpretation that was wrong. If it was misleading, then sure, but were you seriously misled into thinking they'd discovered how to machine complicated electronics and a display directly out of aluminum? I think the misleading part there would be making it sound like a fun hobbyist project rather than a revolution in physics and technology!
Or were you just hoping for aluminum buttons?
That's odd. When I was in school, TI calculators were preferred precisely for being designed to withstand drops from table height. Since the school was loaning them to students who didn't have one, this was a real concern. They were dropped onto the hard floor all the time, but breakage was really rare (and usually came from something like dropping them down a flight of stairs). I owned one for years that had been dropped I don't know how many times without a problem. Then it got swiped. Oh well it was a crappy 81, and the school loaned me an 85. Yay?
There weren't many HPs around, so no real experience on their durability. But the TIs were fine.
Granted this was over a decade ago. Quality degradation is pretty common.
I like how half your rant is the result of you not understanding the difference between "stationed" and "deployed". I especially liked the part where you actually specified the distinction, not realizing it had already been made. Classic.
That Beltway traffic is ridiculous. It is a conspiracy perpetrated by the road workers.
Yeah, the Road Workers for Cthulhu Union. Gazing upon His Eldritch Tentacleness is less likely to cause insanity than driving on the beltway.
I think the basic difference between us, and please correct me if I am wrong, is that you don't believe that people lie to one another or that they manipulate or try to control one another, or that if they do, people are too smart for these tactics to ever succeed.
Haha, no. Oh no. No, no, no. See, I believe people lie and manipulate other people all the time, and that they also lie to and manipulate themselves.
The reason science works is because science recognizes this and thus the metric is not whether someone says what you want to hear or something you don't, something that conforms to the mainstream or is wildly outside it, their authority or rejection of it. These dichotomies you have created with you standing on one side of them are meaningless; either way it could just be lies. What matters is data. And not just a little data, from one experiment and one source. But reams of data from around the world. Data from sources that would love for the conclusion to go the other way, are striving for it. That's how you root out lies, both the deliberate falsehood and the subconscious self-delusion, and arrive at facts that demonstrably apply in the real world.
That's how the Aether was concluded not to exist despite the fervent desire of the ones conducting the experiment for it to be real. It's how we discovered, out of all the various myths about how to prevent scurvy, the one that was actually truth. The rest were just lies, mostly the innocent self-deluding kind caused by selection and confirmation bias, but lies nonetheless. How did we know? Data.
So when someone tells me something that flies in the face of mountains of real-world evidence, and says they don't need to provide data to prove it, that only the closed minded require data, well...
They're lying. They're either lying to me, or lying to themselves. I don't much care which it is. Lies are lies.
Really? You think I exist in a perma-state of rebellion for no reason other than it suits me? Like a fashion or sense of self? Assumptions, if you are not careful, will often say a great deal about the person making them, so you might want to watch where you fling yours. No, you are making a false reading of me.
Oh? But isn't that exactly what you're right now? You're declaring "mainstream science IS domgatic", either oblivious to or deliberately ignoring that today's "mainstream dogma" was yesterday's revolution. A revolution that was only one because it made demonstrably effective predictions in the real world, sufficient that skeptics were convinced. And no matter what you think, there are many scientists out there right now seeking out the next revolution in the kinds of things you can't even imagine.
Feel free to demonstrate my assumption, backed only by a few scant posts worth of data, to be wrong by providing contrary data (for very loose definitions of "data" of course but I'm willing to relax). Come on.
Hardly. The industrial revolution was carefully shaped. The out-of-the-box thinkers were guided and allowed to believe whatever they wanted.
Haha, oh yes. All the scientific revolutions were really just the deliberate lies of the establishment designed to cloud their minds. What cute little conspiracy theories you have!
Illuminati: Hey science, here's Quantum Electrodynamics. Make it your new dogma, or else!
Science: Wow, this has unprecedented predictive power for being just a pack of lies! It's going to be super useful. Thanks!
Illuminati: You're welcome. We're here to help.
Science: Wouldn't it be ironic if someone decried the methodology which brought us this, using technology that only works as a consequence?
Illuminati: You can't spell "Illuminati" without the three I's: Irony, Idiocy, and Insanity.
Science: Ha ha, you're so funny Illi'. I can't wait until the next "dogma" you hand down that miraculously agrees with reality to 15 decimal places.
But of course,