And it's not like it's *wrong* in these regimes. It's just *undefined* - you're getting an indeterminate value - 0/0 or infinity/infinity or 0 times infinity or such. It means you need a different set of principles to determine the actual value and GR simply doesn't solve these cases.
If they could charge e.g. $0.05 per article - pre-purchase 20 article tokens, you can read the preview for free and access the rest by spending a token. That way if I spend every day reading new articles, I'll even get over that $1. If I read less than 20 articles per year, $1 covers a year.
Then, when I realized I'm paying $12 a year for the 'privilege' of reading pages upon pages of ads with trace amounts of content in between, I moved on.
Ads should help provide the content at reduced price. Instead, the content becomes a lousy quality bait to shove more ads down your throat.
Also: Charge as much as you need to cover the costs of your site. Don't try to make a fortune on it, and the slippery slope won't happen.
When you begin considering options for automatic ad placement on your site without you personally reviewing each ad, it means you lost the purpose somewhere along the way.
Something that is curable with a lot of effort and possibly expense, doesn't kill anytime soon but is very inconvenient, can infect others who interact with you, and will kill you eventually if not treated for long enough, with your condition continuously deteriorating.
STILL failing to address the issue of addresses not in the Hosts file. STILL lacking basic reading comprehension. And calling OTHERS 'cretin' on top of that. So pathetic.
Lots of them were made redundant by satellites. There are increasingly fewer climate-related measurements that require local presence instead of a satellite measurement.
Joke all you want, thermal stresses of tectonic plates are a thing. If the temperature 50m deep was consistently 4C throughout all seasons, and it grows to 5C, things WILL quake.
For this particular case the science is settled. Yes, it will.
Higher derivatives are a work in progress, though it seems third derivative (jerk) is non-zero already, so even the acceleration will be accelerating. Exponential progress seems like a likely model.
While the climate in the past saw changes on a larger scale than visible currently, it never faced them at this pace. They were changes spanning many decades.
2015 was not only the top record hot year in history of weather reports. It was also the record-breaker by the highest margin relative to any prior record-breakers, and with a good margin on top of that. And it's forming a trend with the previous years, not a one-odd.
Not only the *value* of yearly temperature is growing. Not only the *value growth* is increasing (speed). The *increase of value growth* is growing too (acceleration)
That means the third derivative is non-zero. We're facing a growth that is at least of order of t^3, It's definitely not something Earth has seen in the past.
My uncle died when working with a chemistry set and standing upwind. He was just reducing CuO with Mg, standing upwind, when a drunk truck driver drove an 18-wheeler into his house killing him instantly.
Now if he only stood downwind, these 3 meters would have saved his life.
Wait, is there any nutritional content that gets lost through sweat?
I mean, I ate 3000kcal worth of food, shat out 1000kcal worth of shit, that would mean I acquired 2000kcal of energy which I either burned through activity or accumulated in fat or blood sugar.
Or do you imply, if I in the meantime, sweated out 500ml of sweat, if we dehydrate that sweat, what is left can be burned for any reasonable amount of calories?
With the way calories are counted... what's the official calorie value of a box of tissues? 'cause cellulose burns pretty well, but contributes a flat 0 to human nutrition.
Recently mother, extremely unnerved, called me - claiming her dog brought a dud firework home and it exploded, nearly causing a fire.
Later it was revealed it was not a firework. The dog stole a Li-Ion battery for my phone from my room. Biting into it shorted it, and the battery exploded hard, shooting ribbons of burning lithium all around like a true firework.
The atmosphere does great most of the deceleration, including slowing the lateral speed. You only need to slow down enough not to burn up, and that is an engineering issue - especially that it's only 1.6km/s vs Soyuz's 8km/s. Energy proportional to square of velocity, Soyuz kinetic energy despite being so much lighter is still 6 times higher, and concentrated in a much smaller package - lesser radiation/absorption/conduction area. I also believe in that phase a classic parachute would be a mistake; instead it should be a kind of a solid metal airbrake/heatshield discarded once it overheats.
As for cutting the chute, it starts falling in a semi-chaotic fashion (still somewhat weighed down with whatever clamp was holding it to the rocket, but no longer burdened by the many tons of the rocket), at something like 5m/s. Meanwhile the rocket quickly drops to the landing pad and finishes the landing before the chute reaches it (and needs to be extremely unlucky to tangle into it once it falls, I mean, wind direction reversing or something like that...)
Slashdot Mirror
Until it enters consumer space.
You had no means to check special relativity at home 50 years ago. Today, grab a GPS chip and pick its firmware apart at will.
And it's not like it's *wrong* in these regimes. It's just *undefined* - you're getting an indeterminate value - 0/0 or infinity/infinity or 0 times infinity or such. It means you need a different set of principles to determine the actual value and GR simply doesn't solve these cases.
They are different in what they were TRYING to measure. But they ACTUALLY measure the same thing.
Yep, reasonable method, unreasonable amount.
If they could charge e.g. $0.05 per article - pre-purchase 20 article tokens, you can read the preview for free and access the rest by spending a token. That way if I spend every day reading new articles, I'll even get over that $1. If I read less than 20 articles per year, $1 covers a year.
What site was that?
Just so that I know what to avoid?
Then, when I realized I'm paying $12 a year for the 'privilege' of reading pages upon pages of ads with trace amounts of content in between, I moved on.
Ads should help provide the content at reduced price. Instead, the content becomes a lousy quality bait to shove more ads down your throat.
Also: Charge as much as you need to cover the costs of your site. Don't try to make a fortune on it, and the slippery slope won't happen.
When you begin considering options for automatic ad placement on your site without you personally reviewing each ad, it means you lost the purpose somewhere along the way.
Herpes.
Something that is curable with a lot of effort and possibly expense, doesn't kill anytime soon but is very inconvenient, can infect others who interact with you, and will kill you eventually if not treated for long enough, with your condition continuously deteriorating.
STILL failing to address the issue of addresses not in the Hosts file.
STILL lacking basic reading comprehension.
And calling OTHERS 'cretin' on top of that.
So pathetic.
Because extremes are hardly indicative of anything - they are coincidence of a set of momentary conditions.
Plot the yearly averages, you'll see the trend.
Lots of them were made redundant by satellites. There are increasingly fewer climate-related measurements that require local presence instead of a satellite measurement.
Joke all you want, thermal stresses of tectonic plates are a thing. If the temperature 50m deep was consistently 4C throughout all seasons, and it grows to 5C, things WILL quake.
For this particular case the science is settled. Yes, it will.
Higher derivatives are a work in progress, though it seems third derivative (jerk) is non-zero already, so even the acceleration will be accelerating. Exponential progress seems like a likely model.
While the climate in the past saw changes on a larger scale than visible currently, it never faced them at this pace. They were changes spanning many decades.
2015 was not only the top record hot year in history of weather reports. It was also the record-breaker by the highest margin relative to any prior record-breakers, and with a good margin on top of that. And it's forming a trend with the previous years, not a one-odd.
Not only the *value* of yearly temperature is growing.
Not only the *value growth* is increasing (speed).
The *increase of value growth* is growing too (acceleration)
That means the third derivative is non-zero. We're facing a growth that is at least of order of t^3, It's definitely not something Earth has seen in the past.
And worst of all, Siberia will become a friendly and welcoming place with a mild climate!
Considering they record browsing mode along with the cached data, that doesn't look like a mistake.
"Mostly"?
My uncle died when working with a chemistry set and standing upwind. He was just reducing CuO with Mg, standing upwind, when a drunk truck driver drove an 18-wheeler into his house killing him instantly.
Now if he only stood downwind, these 3 meters would have saved his life.
Still, it does a poor job at quantifying the hazard because even if it gives concentration of the gases, there's no data on how harmful they are.
Branchable?
That's the gist of the patent - a branchable serial bus.
There's still a possibility that a daisy chain master device is one of slaves on a daisy chain, creating a branch.
You can do this on the 1-wire bus for example.
Wait, is there any nutritional content that gets lost through sweat?
I mean, I ate 3000kcal worth of food, shat out 1000kcal worth of shit, that would mean I acquired 2000kcal of energy which I either burned through activity or accumulated in fat or blood sugar.
Or do you imply, if I in the meantime, sweated out 500ml of sweat, if we dehydrate that sweat, what is left can be burned for any reasonable amount of calories?
With the way calories are counted... what's the official calorie value of a box of tissues?
'cause cellulose burns pretty well, but contributes a flat 0 to human nutrition.
You don't know the difference between authentication and authorization.
Recently mother, extremely unnerved, called me - claiming her dog brought a dud firework home and it exploded, nearly causing a fire.
Later it was revealed it was not a firework. The dog stole a Li-Ion battery for my phone from my room. Biting into it shorted it, and the battery exploded hard, shooting ribbons of burning lithium all around like a true firework.
So... would this new invention prevent it?
The atmosphere does great most of the deceleration, including slowing the lateral speed. You only need to slow down enough not to burn up, and that is an engineering issue - especially that it's only 1.6km/s vs Soyuz's 8km/s. Energy proportional to square of velocity, Soyuz kinetic energy despite being so much lighter is still 6 times higher, and concentrated in a much smaller package - lesser radiation/absorption/conduction area. I also believe in that phase a classic parachute would be a mistake; instead it should be a kind of a solid metal airbrake/heatshield discarded once it overheats.
As for cutting the chute, it starts falling in a semi-chaotic fashion (still somewhat weighed down with whatever clamp was holding it to the rocket, but no longer burdened by the many tons of the rocket), at something like 5m/s. Meanwhile the rocket quickly drops to the landing pad and finishes the landing before the chute reaches it (and needs to be extremely unlucky to tangle into it once it falls, I mean, wind direction reversing or something like that...)