Because "they carry other black channels" is the same reasoning as saying that someone can't be racist because "they have a black friend." These things are not mutually exclusive as racism isn't black and white. Someone who locks their car doors when they see black people isn't as racist as neo-Nazi calling for purging of black people but it's still racist.
What's important to highlight in your comment is that Charter hasn't won or lost the lawsuit. This court ruling merely says the current lawsuit can't be dismissed behind a First Amendment defense and that a court has to decide on the merits. So Charter isn't being forced to carry channels by this ruling.
No, Antarctica is definite proof because it takes a lot of constant resources to establish a base there. It takes a lot of supplies and a whole lot of logistics. This is for a base they exists on this world. The sheer amount of logistics of going to another world with no breathable atmosphere is even more daunting.
First, even if I accept your claims as true, what you are saying is that everyone should discount the science expertise of a person who has a PhD in astrophysics because he did not know about one thing on the fringe of his field.
Radiation isn't determined by load, it's determined by load and inefficiency of the warhead.
Well that's most absurd thing I've ever read. Radiation is proportional to the amount of nuclear material in the warhead. Fat Man had 14lbs of Pu-239.
Now look at how many have been set off, I haven't lied just because you fail to look up all the details used to draw a comparison.
You said: "We've already set off as many nukes as we have in the global arsenal for testing purposes"
The link clearly says: 1054 test detonations, 4000 stockpile, 1800 active for the US alone. You lied. It's that simple.
It's not Plutonium or Uranium that put out the radiation, it's the daughter products, you idiot.
Bahahaha. You do know that each subsequent fission produces more radiation right? Pu-239 become U-235 which become Ba-141 and Kr-92 which then are radioactive and decay.
Again, look up how many have been tested.
I did. Clearly you did not. US: 1054, Russia 715. Both of them are far, far lower than the current stockpiles. They are also much lower than the peak stockpiles because both countries realized long ago they had more than enough warhead to assure mutual destruction. Again, you lied.
"Bikini Atoll remains uninhabitable for humans due to what United Nations special rapporteur Clin Georgescu reported in 2012 as 'near-irreversible environmental contamination.'"
None of those are examples in favor of the point you're attempting to make.
The point I made and you ignored that radiation doesn't go away easily. Radiation is still high in those areas and Fukushima nor Chernobyl were hit by bombs.
Sure, if you nuke one spot repeatedly that spot will be unlivable for a long time, but we don't have enough nukes to do that everywhere and we don't even have enough to nuke each spot once to begin with.
Again, the US and Russia have thousands of warheads and those are those that are currently in service not including ones that are awaiting dismantling or out of service. That also does not include other nations weapons.
The ecosystem recovers much faster than Humans in an area do, overall it's a net win for the environment when Humans nuke eachother because animals and plants other than Humans tend to have much more rapid lifecycles (not that that's a reason to justify or warrant nuking people, just that "but the environment" is a pretty lame argument against nukes.)
Please go to the Bikini Atoll and see for yourself. Go to Fukushima or Chernobyl and see for yourself if you don't believe me.
I think most people's concern is not that his expertise is at an elite level hacker who knows Assembly language and can code in binary. The concern is that he doesn't have basic experience with computers. Just like I don't expect a Secretary of Transportation to be able to change out my car's transmission but I would like that person to have driven a car before.
Sure if Facebook wants to get into the business of entirely supporting Linux laptops in their IT department. I am not aware that any major manufacturers like Dell or HP support Linux laptops. Linux servers, yes but not laptops.
Also the usage of Facebook on a laptop isn't necessarily dependent the OS but the browser. On phones, it is more tied to the phone OS.
In my reality the Mac Mini is 3.6 cm tall and the inside of one is not empty space. There are other components like fans that take up space.
Also in reality very few case manufacturers make an itx case as small as a Mac Mini. The Silverstone PT13 comes close; however, you have to use a special itx board and SO-DIMM and must use specific CPU fans.
The only models that really compete with the Mac Mini are Intel NUCs but they are custom boards with soldered CPUs. So before you accuse someone of being a shill, I suggest you check reality.
Are you discounting that thousands of megaton nuclear devices would leave a huge amount of radiation all over the Earth? Fukushima and Chernobyl did not involve detonations but humans can't live there. Bikini Atoll is still too irradiated for humans to return. Also you're discounting that the radiation will not stay in one place the dust will spread. Lastly you're ignoring that ecosystems will be so wrecked so humans (and most life) won't die out immediately but slowly over time.
What about power requirements and cooling? I imagine you cannot put a large CPU air or water cooler in the Mac mini if you decide you want a core i9 9900K or that the power supply of the Mac Mini could power the CPU.
When in the history of mankind have we seen the after effects of thousands of nuclear detonations? What we have seen is wild life being exposed to radiation in certain areas: Chernobyl, Fukushima, etc but these did not involve detonations. The last real detonations were done in the 50s and the Nagasaki and Hiroshima bombs were in the kiloton range, not the megaton that each warhead possesses. The Bikini atoll was bombed with megaton bombs; residents still have not been allowed to return due to high levels of radiation.
Again, my question has nothing to with anything that you said. There are two choices: notch or black bar. Sure you can make the black bar as thin as possible but it was still exist. My question again was if there was a third choice. My point was these are the only two choices and there isn't a third choice for phone. If a manufacturer chooses the black bar, you will have unused space to the left and right of the camera/speaker. The OP was giving Apple grief for picking notch but the trade off is you get less screen and unused space.
That's fine and all but you didn't remotely answer the question I asked. My question was not should we have Face ID. The question was where do you put camera and ear phone (or Face ID) if you don't want a notch or a black bar on top of the phone.. The previous poster said something about moving controls to the bezel which doesn't answer the question either.
The problem isn't that nukes will wipe out people directly. The impact of detonations alone will cause huge dust storms that could block out the sun for years. And those dust storms are full of radioactive material. Ecosystems will be wrecked and could no longer support life much less human life.
You think that the radiation will die down in a week? That's not consistent with the half-life of plutonium or uranium. If nuclear war happens there will be a lot of radiation. The vast majority of humanity will likely be targeted. Then you have residual effects where most if not all ecosystems are wrecked. If people are prepared with shelters they could survive for a few years but after that it is doubtful that the human species would live on.
The alternative is to have unused blank space to the left and the right of the front cameras. Maybe you like that design but some people want the display to be as large as possible. Moving the battery life and the carrier info next the notch means the rest of the rectangular screen is used for apps.
Extrapolation is not interpolation. Someone with the credentials you claim should know this. One month of Mars data doesn't begin to cover all the seasons of Mars. And all 4 Mars seasons take about 1.8 Earth years. I can't see how anyone can claim one month is enough data.
The difference is that the path to making computers more powerful was already known back then and it was a matter of further miniaturizing components in an IC. How humans will travel space for long periods of time when current life support systems are feasible for short terms? The energy requirements are also daunting. There are several ideas for better propulsion that are only in experimental stages at the moment.
So your answer really is you didn't have the slightest clue about the future. So what I said before: NASA doesn't have omnipotence. Funny how that applies to everyone.
As for Kepler fuel, you do understand that most things are designed with a 2X safety factor right? Kepler's original mission was 3.5 years. 2X would be 7 years; however, in 2013 (4 years into the mission) failure of a 2nd reaction wheel meant that mobility of the telescope was limited. Thus they didn't use as much fuel as they would have used if the wheels kept functioning.
In other words, Kepler was fully functional for only 4 years or so. NASA has been able to work around the failures for the last 5 years by refining what it could do. Which means you were basically dead wrong about Kepler.
Slashdot Mirror
Because "they carry other black channels" is the same reasoning as saying that someone can't be racist because "they have a black friend." These things are not mutually exclusive as racism isn't black and white. Someone who locks their car doors when they see black people isn't as racist as neo-Nazi calling for purging of black people but it's still racist.
What's important to highlight in your comment is that Charter hasn't won or lost the lawsuit. This court ruling merely says the current lawsuit can't be dismissed behind a First Amendment defense and that a court has to decide on the merits. So Charter isn't being forced to carry channels by this ruling.
No, Antarctica is definite proof because it takes a lot of constant resources to establish a base there. It takes a lot of supplies and a whole lot of logistics. This is for a base they exists on this world. The sheer amount of logistics of going to another world with no breathable atmosphere is even more daunting.
First, even if I accept your claims as true, what you are saying is that everyone should discount the science expertise of a person who has a PhD in astrophysics because he did not know about one thing on the fringe of his field.
Second, your claim has not been proven to be accurate.
Radiation isn't determined by load, it's determined by load and inefficiency of the warhead.
Well that's most absurd thing I've ever read. Radiation is proportional to the amount of nuclear material in the warhead. Fat Man had 14lbs of Pu-239.
Now look at how many have been set off, I haven't lied just because you fail to look up all the details used to draw a comparison.
You said: "We've already set off as many nukes as we have in the global arsenal for testing purposes"
The link clearly says: 1054 test detonations, 4000 stockpile, 1800 active for the US alone. You lied. It's that simple.
It's not Plutonium or Uranium that put out the radiation, it's the daughter products, you idiot.
Bahahaha. You do know that each subsequent fission produces more radiation right? Pu-239 become U-235 which become Ba-141 and Kr-92 which then are radioactive and decay.
Again, look up how many have been tested.
I did. Clearly you did not. US: 1054, Russia 715. Both of them are far, far lower than the current stockpiles. They are also much lower than the peak stockpiles because both countries realized long ago they had more than enough warhead to assure mutual destruction. Again, you lied.
Are you joking? Bikini Atoll is doing fine,
Another blatant lie?
"Bikini Atoll remains uninhabitable for humans due to what United Nations special rapporteur Clin Georgescu reported in 2012 as 'near-irreversible environmental contamination.'"
None of those are examples in favor of the point you're attempting to make.
The point I made and you ignored that radiation doesn't go away easily. Radiation is still high in those areas and Fukushima nor Chernobyl were hit by bombs.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki are doing fine today.
The strength of Little Boy (15 kt) and Fat Man (21 kt) are far, far less powerful than each warhead of a nuclear missile which ranges in the megatons.
We've already set off as many nukes as we have in the global arsenal for testing purposes, the radiation dissipates pretty rapidly.
Your first assertion is a complete and utter lie. The US and Russia each possess thousands of warheads each.
Your second assertion is also a lie as the half-life of Plutonium 239 is 24,000 years. The half-life of Uranium 235 is 703 million years.
Sure, if you nuke one spot repeatedly that spot will be unlivable for a long time, but we don't have enough nukes to do that everywhere and we don't even have enough to nuke each spot once to begin with.
Again, the US and Russia have thousands of warheads and those are those that are currently in service not including ones that are awaiting dismantling or out of service. That also does not include other nations weapons.
The ecosystem recovers much faster than Humans in an area do, overall it's a net win for the environment when Humans nuke eachother because animals and plants other than Humans tend to have much more rapid lifecycles (not that that's a reason to justify or warrant nuking people, just that "but the environment" is a pretty lame argument against nukes.)
Please go to the Bikini Atoll and see for yourself. Go to Fukushima or Chernobyl and see for yourself if you don't believe me.
I think most people's concern is not that his expertise is at an elite level hacker who knows Assembly language and can code in binary. The concern is that he doesn't have basic experience with computers. Just like I don't expect a Secretary of Transportation to be able to change out my car's transmission but I would like that person to have driven a car before.
If your Toyota was made and sold in the US, the UI was most likely designed by the American subsidiary of Toyota.
Sure if Facebook wants to get into the business of entirely supporting Linux laptops in their IT department. I am not aware that any major manufacturers like Dell or HP support Linux laptops. Linux servers, yes but not laptops.
Also the usage of Facebook on a laptop isn't necessarily dependent the OS but the browser. On phones, it is more tied to the phone OS.
In my reality the Mac Mini is 3.6 cm tall and the inside of one is not empty space. There are other components like fans that take up space.
Also in reality very few case manufacturers make an itx case as small as a Mac Mini. The Silverstone PT13 comes close; however, you have to use a special itx board and SO-DIMM and must use specific CPU fans.
The only models that really compete with the Mac Mini are Intel NUCs but they are custom boards with soldered CPUs. So before you accuse someone of being a shill, I suggest you check reality.
Are you discounting that thousands of megaton nuclear devices would leave a huge amount of radiation all over the Earth? Fukushima and Chernobyl did not involve detonations but humans can't live there. Bikini Atoll is still too irradiated for humans to return. Also you're discounting that the radiation will not stay in one place the dust will spread. Lastly you're ignoring that ecosystems will be so wrecked so humans (and most life) won't die out immediately but slowly over time.
You could easily put together a Mini ITX PC that was the same size as a Mac Mini...for quite a bit less money and with better specs.
I doubt you could fit in a power supply in the 2cm X 2cm area that is difference between a mini-itx case and the Mac Mini footprint.
What about power requirements and cooling? I imagine you cannot put a large CPU air or water cooler in the Mac mini if you decide you want a core i9 9900K or that the power supply of the Mac Mini could power the CPU.
Yes but mini-ITX is larger than the ham sandwich size that the OP mentioned.
When in the history of mankind have we seen the after effects of thousands of nuclear detonations? What we have seen is wild life being exposed to radiation in certain areas: Chernobyl, Fukushima, etc but these did not involve detonations. The last real detonations were done in the 50s and the Nagasaki and Hiroshima bombs were in the kiloton range, not the megaton that each warhead possesses. The Bikini atoll was bombed with megaton bombs; residents still have not been allowed to return due to high levels of radiation.
Again, my question has nothing to with anything that you said. There are two choices: notch or black bar. Sure you can make the black bar as thin as possible but it was still exist. My question again was if there was a third choice. My point was these are the only two choices and there isn't a third choice for phone. If a manufacturer chooses the black bar, you will have unused space to the left and right of the camera/speaker. The OP was giving Apple grief for picking notch but the trade off is you get less screen and unused space.
That's fine and all but you didn't remotely answer the question I asked. My question was not should we have Face ID. The question was where do you put camera and ear phone (or Face ID) if you don't want a notch or a black bar on top of the phone.. The previous poster said something about moving controls to the bezel which doesn't answer the question either.
The problem isn't that nukes will wipe out people directly. The impact of detonations alone will cause huge dust storms that could block out the sun for years. And those dust storms are full of radioactive material. Ecosystems will be wrecked and could no longer support life much less human life.
You think that the radiation will die down in a week? That's not consistent with the half-life of plutonium or uranium. If nuclear war happens there will be a lot of radiation. The vast majority of humanity will likely be targeted. Then you have residual effects where most if not all ecosystems are wrecked. If people are prepared with shelters they could survive for a few years but after that it is doubtful that the human species would live on.
In your design where does the camera go again? What about the IR sensors used for Face ID. You didn't seem to mention that .
The alternative is to have unused blank space to the left and the right of the front cameras. Maybe you like that design but some people want the display to be as large as possible. Moving the battery life and the carrier info next the notch means the rest of the rectangular screen is used for apps.
Extrapolation is not interpolation. Someone with the credentials you claim should know this. One month of Mars data doesn't begin to cover all the seasons of Mars. And all 4 Mars seasons take about 1.8 Earth years. I can't see how anyone can claim one month is enough data.
Hush! We all know the aliens who built the pyramids are coming back for their stuff. I've said too much.
The difference is that the path to making computers more powerful was already known back then and it was a matter of further miniaturizing components in an IC. How humans will travel space for long periods of time when current life support systems are feasible for short terms? The energy requirements are also daunting. There are several ideas for better propulsion that are only in experimental stages at the moment.
So your answer really is you didn't have the slightest clue about the future. So what I said before: NASA doesn't have omnipotence. Funny how that applies to everyone.
As for Kepler fuel, you do understand that most things are designed with a 2X safety factor right? Kepler's original mission was 3.5 years. 2X would be 7 years; however, in 2013 (4 years into the mission) failure of a 2nd reaction wheel meant that mobility of the telescope was limited. Thus they didn't use as much fuel as they would have used if the wheels kept functioning.
In other words, Kepler was fully functional for only 4 years or so. NASA has been able to work around the failures for the last 5 years by refining what it could do. Which means you were basically dead wrong about Kepler.