I challenge you to name any branch of science that Newtonian physics forms the bassis for. Unless you are speaking of things only on the order of f = ma and conservation of momentum and such.
Unless of course you mean the first thing many people are taught when going into the study of several sciences. But that has a lot more to do with it's being an ok approximation and really easy (and thus a good first thing to learn) then any sort of truth to it.
I'm in agreement with the other posters about your objection to the word mundane, but I also think your entire reasoning is flawed.
Though being such a good approximation, it would have been nice if either:
1) They followed it
2) More note were make that the force lets them do it
In english, and at least most other languages this is already worked out. There are two ways to describe a time of day, absolute and relative. Numerical specifications are absolute, especially in a 24 hour spec. 0330 is 0330. If you go home from work at 17:30 then that's that. ..
The key is that there also exists another way of describing time. Words such as "morning", "midnight", "noon", etc. all describe a tiem relative to where the sun is, not relative to an absolute time.
Does it really matter is morning happes around 0800 or 1800? If I say morning then you know that the sun has recently risen and thus have all of the contextual knowledge that you need. If I say 1400 then you know it's an absolute time that is invariant over position.
I really don't see why people are so stuck to the notion of doing things at a certain time as measured by a clock. THe only function of that is when you are required to coordinate actions with other people and you need a common reference. As it's just a reference does it really matter what it says so long as you all agree what it means?
That's kind of the point of a democracy, acting upon the will of the people. Nowhere in the definition of democracy does it state that the people are going to be well informed and want useful things done with their money.
Sad, but true. A democracy full of stupid people is a stupid democracy.
Because if an account is compromised, then at the very least they will probably be able to mount a somewhat effective Denial Of Service. That though it may not kill the server (depending upon what sort of restrictions are placed on the applications) will decrease it's usefullness and may be enough to push it from 80% load to 120% load.
Obviously not as bad as if they got a root account, but still annoying that other peoples incompetence could bring down your site.
I'm aware that it was in jest, but I don't think iPods are much of a problem. As they and all other "personal electronic devices capable of transmitting information and/or data." are on the controlled articles list and are not permitted in a LANL security area.
Beware the horrible approximations that follow. ..
Assuming. . . . 100 Tons of Blimp (1x10^5 kg)
Assuming. . . . The ion drives expend 0.1kg of fuel per second (absurdly high for ion drives).
Recall conservation of momentum.
Recall kinetic energy. (k = (1/2)mv^2)
Plug some numbers. . .
We need a force of (F = ma = (1x10^5kg)(0.1m/s)) 10,000 newtons.
Rocket thrust is roughly (dm/dt)(V)
dm\dt = 0.1kg
V is dependant upon our accelerating potential, but must be high enough to give 0.1kg enough momentum such that 10,000n = (0.1kg)(V), v = 100,000 m/s. Luckily this is non-relativistic which makes life easier.
k = (1/2)mv^2 = 0.5 * 0.1kg *100,000m/s^2 = 5x10^8j
To summarize.
In order for a 100 ton blimp, to achieve an acceleration of ~0.1g, and a fuel expendature of 0.1kg/s (360kg/hour -> 8.64 tons/day). It would require 500MW of power generation.
The moral of the story?
Ion engines are useful only for low thrust applications. If you want to drop the mass expendature of that engine further, it will require an unfortunatly large amount of energy to power the damn thing and get a large thrust out of it.
To quote myself "The problem it seems would be outputting enough power to have a noticable effect on a non-volatile slug in that small of a timeframe. "
It was tacked on in the end there, easy to miss I suppose.
It's a point that a bullet is an inert kinetic kill weapon. In order for the system to be effective it would have to either vaporize the bullet, or vaporize enough of it to knock it significantly off course. I'd give you a better answer, but I don't feel like looking up the thermodynamic stats for lead. It's dense though, so it's probably going to be a pain in the ass.
Supersonic ~ 335m/s
Light (Radar, etc.) ~ 300,000,000 m/s
Consider the muzzle velocity of a.50cal bullet, ~3000 ft/sec. Consider a very close range shot from 300ft. You have 100ms to respond to the threat correct?
100ms is a long time.
Normal RADAR has crappy resolution, this is a problem. 40GHz RADAR has ~7.5 mm wavelength, which is far too large for accuracy. The solution of course would be to move to a higher frequency detection method. Some of the research done in the 10^12Hz range might be promissing in another decade. Or something in the 10^14 to 10^15Hz range (IR, visible). Any of those would give the required accuracy to track a bullet sized object.
Processing time for tracking is negligable. Positioning and pointing of the beam shouldn't be to much of a problem either, not given ~100ms to do it (and if it is then one could just limit the angle of effect for a single system). The problem it seems would be outputting enough power to have a noticable effect on a non-volatile slug in that small of a timeframe.
Lots of problems sure, but not totally impossible to consider in the not so distant future.
Perhaps they are in stereo so that the left/right channel information in a stereo recording does not ahve to be combined into a single waveform before being output. This should result in a cleaner audio path, and if you're building that crazy of a sound room, no detail is too little. . .
Or it could simply be for reasons of output. Two horns would get you ~3dB more at a given power per speaker.
As for the recording. . ..yeah, I've gotta agree with you, you have to use non-standard things to record that low with any fidelity. But ya know if you've got the crazy system you'll probably be able to find SOMETHING to play on it. . . .
And I know a few DVDs have effects that go below 20Hz.
Of course they are effected by the weather, it's a propagating EM wave. It's got all sorts of fun with scattering and absorption. I am not disputing in any way that weather effects radio.
Nor am I disputing that EM waves travel in a linear fashion (with corrections for GR and peculiarities of the medium).
I fail to see how this is relevent to the discussion at hand though.The point is that certain wavelengths show a degree of reflection off of the ionosphere, we agree on this correct? It follows then that a range greater then could be achieved without reflection is possible correct?
I'm not sure I understand your last point, are you saying that if the ionoshpere reflects then how did the radio signals escape? The ionosphere is not a perfect reflector, a portion of the wave is reflected and a portion is transmitted.
I stumbled upon your post at a very unfortunate time, and my reply was made in haste and at wits end. It was a very petty and unprofessional thing to do, but it seemed to sum up, exactly, the attitude that was, at that very moment causing me such grief.
you have my formal appology for what was written previously. Allow me to make another attempt at it.
My experiance with Pre K7 chips from AMD (a K5, a K6-2 and a K6-3) left me with a very bad taste in my mouth as to the performance of early AMD chips. In three words "It was shit", this all changed when the K7 line came out, but AMD hasn't always been the paragon of virtue and excellent design. If I remember correctly, there were Bad Things involving floating point calculations. (Though not as bad as the Pentium FPU 'issue')
The artical stated that the tech was old and that Intel ahd been using it for a while. The news worthy part of it was that they were publicly releasing their technique. I would assume that they would not do this if their top competitor had not already been using the same, or an equivelent, technique. Thus it's old news to everybody it matters to, but nifty to know how it works.
Your offhand dismissal of things is a big part of why my reply was so heated, and why I'm sure you got moderated as flamebait. (Which, as a point of note, your post was, as it collected a few flames). As an example "Not to mention with AMD's new 64 bit architecture this silicon stressing will really be just to keep up with AMD." 64 bit architecture is old hat in fields of Very Serious Computing, it's new to the desktop though and that's something spiffy. But it's not "AMD's new 64 bit. . " The G5 is 64 bit, Intel has a 64 bit chip. AMD has just brought it to market the best.
Yes it 'just focuses on the clock speed of a processor', yes a 20% boost in clock speed is not a 20% boost in performance over all situations, but it is a valid increase in performace in many situations.
"Switching faster won't increase the bandwidth, maybe it will just be able to push more through the same amount of space then?" I presume you're talking about RAM CPU bandwidth? Once again the performance inpact that this has is highly dependent upon the code being excecuted. If you do not believe this then please go learn assembly, it may be a very rewarding and enriching experiance.
Perhaps, in the future, if you worded you posts more like you were one of "those who are actually trying to improve upon their own knowledge" and less like you were stating Immutable Truths of the Universe, you would recieve more friendly replies.
As I briefly stated in the first post, I am a very happy AMD consumer, and I use AMD chips in every desktop that I've built for myself or others in the last several years. My current desktop is an AthlonXP (2400+) running at 2.3GHz on a 200MHz FSB, I love that chip. It was inexpensive, and has awsome performance. But that does not preclude me from admiring some of the accomplishments Intel ahs brought to the board in terms of pushing clockspeed (which, don't forget, is pretty much the primary requirement if you're going to be running instructions which MUST be excecuted in serial). Interl has done some very interesting things, but right now AMD kicks ass.
Don't let your love of something blind you to it's flaws or to the virtues of others.
Undoubtably this post is filled with spelling and grammer errors. But I never clamed to know anything about those. . .
This is why slashdot needs a "Moron: -1" or "No longer on speaking terms with reality:-2" Moderation. ..
RTFA, the tech is old, the story is they are giving away the technique. And thank you for demonstrating that you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to chip design.
The sort of blind zealotry you are exhibiting frightens me deeply, did you even think about what you wrote? Do you REMEMBER what utter CRAP AMD chips used to be???
Note: Every system I've built in the last 3 years has been an AMD.
Slashdot Mirror
Unless of course you mean the first thing many people are taught when going into the study of several sciences. But that has a lot more to do with it's being an ok approximation and really easy (and thus a good first thing to learn) then any sort of truth to it.
I'm in agreement with the other posters about your objection to the word mundane, but I also think your entire reasoning is flawed.
Though being such a good approximation, it would have been nice if either:
1) They followed it
2) More note were make that the force lets them do it
Pretty pointless if you ask me. I was just clarifying issues of dimensionality :-)
0D: point with non-zero length in 0 directions
1D: line with non-zero length in only 1 direction
2D: etc. . .
Though in most discussion it is easier and makes an equivelent amount of sense to descripe an object of dimension 1xn where n >> 1 as 1D.
I'm pretty sure 1D would be a line, with zero thickness. . .
In english, and at least most other languages this is already worked out. There are two ways to describe a time of day, absolute and relative. Numerical specifications are absolute, especially in a 24 hour spec. 0330 is 0330. If you go home from work at 17:30 then that's that. . .
The key is that there also exists another way of describing time. Words such as "morning", "midnight", "noon", etc. all describe a tiem relative to where the sun is, not relative to an absolute time.
Does it really matter is morning happes around 0800 or 1800? If I say morning then you know that the sun has recently risen and thus have all of the contextual knowledge that you need. If I say 1400 then you know it's an absolute time that is invariant over position.
I really don't see why people are so stuck to the notion of doing things at a certain time as measured by a clock. THe only function of that is when you are required to coordinate actions with other people and you need a common reference. As it's just a reference does it really matter what it says so long as you all agree what it means?
That's kind of the point of a democracy, acting upon the will of the people. Nowhere in the definition of democracy does it state that the people are going to be well informed and want useful things done with their money.
Sad, but true. A democracy full of stupid people is a stupid democracy.
Because if an account is compromised, then at the very least they will probably be able to mount a somewhat effective Denial Of Service. That though it may not kill the server (depending upon what sort of restrictions are placed on the applications) will decrease it's usefullness and may be enough to push it from 80% load to 120% load.
Obviously not as bad as if they got a root account, but still annoying that other peoples incompetence could bring down your site.
Which, if you ever have read a transcript of, you will find to be potentially the most chilling and disturbing thing you've ever read.
There is nothing that makes me squeamish, except the destruction of the mind (i.e. head injuries). Ugh.
Yeah, sure would be a shame if something on that "100 billion dollar space station" broke and they couldn't fix it. . .
I'm aware that it was in jest, but I don't think iPods are much of a problem. As they and all other "personal electronic devices capable of transmitting information and/or data." are on the controlled articles list and are not permitted in a LANL security area.
And really if it were my processor temp at those temps (-30ish) I'd prefer they were in F, not C. . .
X-Boxes have not.
Cars are understood, they are 'An American Thing To Do.'
X-Boxes involve computers, computers are SCARRY.
Beware the horrible approximations that follow. . .
Assuming. . . . 100 Tons of Blimp (1x10^5 kg)
Assuming. . . . The ion drives expend 0.1kg of fuel per second (absurdly high for ion drives).
Recall conservation of momentum.
Recall kinetic energy. (k = (1/2)mv^2)
Plug some numbers. . . We need a force of (F = ma = (1x10^5kg)(0.1m/s)) 10,000 newtons.
Rocket thrust is roughly (dm/dt)(V)
dm\dt = 0.1kg
V is dependant upon our accelerating potential, but must be high enough to give 0.1kg enough momentum such that 10,000n = (0.1kg)(V), v = 100,000 m/s. Luckily this is non-relativistic which makes life easier. k = (1/2)mv^2 = 0.5 * 0.1kg *100,000m/s^2 = 5x10^8j
To summarize.
In order for a 100 ton blimp, to achieve an acceleration of ~0.1g, and a fuel expendature of 0.1kg/s (360kg/hour -> 8.64 tons/day). It would require 500MW of power generation.
The moral of the story?
Ion engines are useful only for low thrust applications. If you want to drop the mass expendature of that engine further, it will require an unfortunatly large amount of energy to power the damn thing and get a large thrust out of it.
Obviously there could be no human reaction in the response loop. It would have to be a fully automated system. As you said, people are too slow.
To quote myself "The problem it seems would be outputting enough power to have a noticable effect on a non-volatile slug in that small of a timeframe. "
It was tacked on in the end there, easy to miss I suppose.
It's a point that a bullet is an inert kinetic kill weapon. In order for the system to be effective it would have to either vaporize the bullet, or vaporize enough of it to knock it significantly off course. I'd give you a better answer, but I don't feel like looking up the thermodynamic stats for lead. It's dense though, so it's probably going to be a pain in the ass.
Supersonic != fast.
.50cal bullet, ~3000 ft/sec. Consider a very close range shot from 300ft. You have 100ms to respond to the threat correct?
Supersonic ~ 335m/s Light (Radar, etc.) ~ 300,000,000 m/s
Consider the muzzle velocity of a
100ms is a long time.
Normal RADAR has crappy resolution, this is a problem. 40GHz RADAR has ~7.5 mm wavelength, which is far too large for accuracy. The solution of course would be to move to a higher frequency detection method. Some of the research done in the 10^12Hz range might be promissing in another decade. Or something in the 10^14 to 10^15Hz range (IR, visible). Any of those would give the required accuracy to track a bullet sized object.
Processing time for tracking is negligable. Positioning and pointing of the beam shouldn't be to much of a problem either, not given ~100ms to do it (and if it is then one could just limit the angle of effect for a single system). The problem it seems would be outputting enough power to have a noticable effect on a non-volatile slug in that small of a timeframe.
Lots of problems sure, but not totally impossible to consider in the not so distant future.
Perhaps they are in stereo so that the left/right channel information in a stereo recording does not ahve to be combined into a single waveform before being output. This should result in a cleaner audio path, and if you're building that crazy of a sound room, no detail is too little. . .
.yeah, I've gotta agree with you, you have to use non-standard things to record that low with any fidelity. But ya know if you've got the crazy system you'll probably be able to find SOMETHING to play on it. . . .
Or it could simply be for reasons of output. Two horns would get you ~3dB more at a given power per speaker.
As for the recording. . .
And I know a few DVDs have effects that go below 20Hz.
Ohh come now, isn't this why we have robots? Just give them a nice central not-quite-AI and I'm sure everything will go fine. . .
TV: 13" screen, mono sound out of crappy speaker
Computer: 21" Screen, very nice 5.1 channel surround (NOT computer speakers, real speakers)
Yeah, I know where I'm watching my movies. TV tunner cards are what, like a nickle these days?
Perhaps a better example, friends of mine have a computer outputting to an overhead projector. How big was that TV of yours again?
No, you cannot.
Of course they are effected by the weather, it's a propagating EM wave. It's got all sorts of fun with scattering and absorption. I am not disputing in any way that weather effects radio.
Nor am I disputing that EM waves travel in a linear fashion (with corrections for GR and peculiarities of the medium).
I fail to see how this is relevent to the discussion at hand though.The point is that certain wavelengths show a degree of reflection off of the ionosphere, we agree on this correct? It follows then that a range greater then could be achieved without reflection is possible correct?
I'm not sure I understand your last point, are you saying that if the ionoshpere reflects then how did the radio signals escape? The ionosphere is not a perfect reflector, a portion of the wave is reflected and a portion is transmitted.
Not sure about this particular source, but it was top on google, and its a very well documented effect.t m
http://www.realscience.com/propagation.h
In related news, Maxwell says "Suck it".
The window of spectrum used by HAM is special purely because it is capable of reaching very long distances. Yay for the ionosphere. . .
This is a most unfortunate conflict of interest as I would LOVE symetric 1mbps for $30/mo.
But there are other ways of getting high speed access, there isn't another frequency range that transmits as well.
Yeah! The bastards are stealing our air too! WTF?
I seriously hope you were being sarcastic.
I stumbled upon your post at a very unfortunate time, and my reply was made in haste and at wits end. It was a very petty and unprofessional thing to do, but it seemed to sum up, exactly, the attitude that was, at that very moment causing me such grief.
you have my formal appology for what was written previously. Allow me to make another attempt at it.
My experiance with Pre K7 chips from AMD (a K5, a K6-2 and a K6-3) left me with a very bad taste in my mouth as to the performance of early AMD chips. In three words "It was shit", this all changed when the K7 line came out, but AMD hasn't always been the paragon of virtue and excellent design. If I remember correctly, there were Bad Things involving floating point calculations. (Though not as bad as the Pentium FPU 'issue')
The artical stated that the tech was old and that Intel ahd been using it for a while. The news worthy part of it was that they were publicly releasing their technique. I would assume that they would not do this if their top competitor had not already been using the same, or an equivelent, technique. Thus it's old news to everybody it matters to, but nifty to know how it works.
Your offhand dismissal of things is a big part of why my reply was so heated, and why I'm sure you got moderated as flamebait. (Which, as a point of note, your post was, as it collected a few flames). As an example "Not to mention with AMD's new 64 bit architecture this silicon stressing will really be just to keep up with AMD." 64 bit architecture is old hat in fields of Very Serious Computing, it's new to the desktop though and that's something spiffy. But it's not "AMD's new 64 bit. . " The G5 is 64 bit, Intel has a 64 bit chip. AMD has just brought it to market the best.
Yes it 'just focuses on the clock speed of a processor', yes a 20% boost in clock speed is not a 20% boost in performance over all situations, but it is a valid increase in performace in many situations.
"Switching faster won't increase the bandwidth, maybe it will just be able to push more through the same amount of space then?" I presume you're talking about RAM CPU bandwidth? Once again the performance inpact that this has is highly dependent upon the code being excecuted. If you do not believe this then please go learn assembly, it may be a very rewarding and enriching experiance.
Perhaps, in the future, if you worded you posts more like you were one of "those who are actually trying to improve upon their own knowledge" and less like you were stating Immutable Truths of the Universe, you would recieve more friendly replies.
As I briefly stated in the first post, I am a very happy AMD consumer, and I use AMD chips in every desktop that I've built for myself or others in the last several years. My current desktop is an AthlonXP (2400+) running at 2.3GHz on a 200MHz FSB, I love that chip. It was inexpensive, and has awsome performance. But that does not preclude me from admiring some of the accomplishments Intel ahs brought to the board in terms of pushing clockspeed (which, don't forget, is pretty much the primary requirement if you're going to be running instructions which MUST be excecuted in serial). Interl has done some very interesting things, but right now AMD kicks ass.
Don't let your love of something blind you to it's flaws or to the virtues of others.
Undoubtably this post is filled with spelling and grammer errors. But I never clamed to know anything about those. . .
This is why slashdot needs a "Moron: -1" or "No longer on speaking terms with reality:-2" Moderation. . .
RTFA, the tech is old, the story is they are giving away the technique. And thank you for demonstrating that you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to chip design.
The sort of blind zealotry you are exhibiting frightens me deeply, did you even think about what you wrote? Do you REMEMBER what utter CRAP AMD chips used to be???
Note: Every system I've built in the last 3 years has been an AMD.