The value of the US dollar comes from how much of it is in circulation.
The basis of the US dollar is in part on gold. But even moreso, the US dollar is backed by confidence in the US economy. It's also true that a majority of the currencies in the world are tied to the US dollar.
Even China's money is tied to the value of the US dollar in some way. Even when the Chinese government holds the value of the Chinese money at its current level, and holds the price of goods in China at its current level, the way that China interacts with markets foreign to China is tied to the US dollar.
Since the dollar was moved from the gold standard, because there isn't enough gold in the world to base the US dollar on, the basis has been purely on the US economy. That means if the gross domestic product is high in relation to how much foreign goods come into the US, the trade-deficit is reversed and that's a good thing for the US economy. It hasn't been that way for a long time. It's also the reason that the confidence in the US economy has a lot more aspects to it than just the trade-deficit. Housing, steel production, automotives, software production, etc. are all aspects of the US economy.
That's also why it's still true that if the US mint printed many times more federal notes (the technical term for money) than it does today, that the actual value of the federal note would decrease. That's also known as inflation. The value of the US dollar does fluctuate with the confidence of others in the US economy. That's why when the stock market drops, you'll usually see a drop in the value of the dollar.
I overheard a conversation today in which several people stated that open source security is a stupid idea. You have to close the source of the entire security, otherwise, people will take advantage of it.
I thought that was interesting. Especially because we have phone systems that are just like regular phones. Until you put a key in them and turn it. When you do that, the phone becomes secure and you can talk about things at various classification levels.
The short of that is that it's realized by some of the people around me that you can have a system that is unclassified, until the exact moment you put in your classified key. Yet they talk about closed source everything, and keeping the keys classified. That's the opposite approach to security than you stated. I just thought that was interesting.
And for the record, I'd rather use an open source algorithm, the validity and strength of which has been thoroughly tested by millions, with a key system separated (with hand carried keys, or special key generators), over using a closed source system that was likely tested at a company with a hundred employees working on it using keys from the same sources. I'd rather know about vulnerabilities in the system and have a proven track record with that system, than use one that is first fielded in your stuff. That way I can better evaluate how much I trust using that system.
I also know that there is a directive to use open source software wherever possible (to keep costs down), so I don't know how widespread the "closed-source mentality" is.
Re. radiation, I'd worry more about synchrotron radiation than Bremsstrahlung. Bremstrahlung is only important when you're imposing a very strong acceleration on the charge (i.e. smacking it into a solid target).
I thought that's what was implied with a change in the field strength? You're right though that synchroton radiation would be more important except when the accelerations approach instantaneous.
As for heating the reaction, couldn't you hold a core of hot plasma and flow the colder stuff around it? Or actually burn some of the colder stuff to maintain a tightly wound magnetic field (via the currents generated by the burned fuel)? A D-D reaction would work just fine there... of course you'd need some tritium to start it, but as long as you kept feeding dueterium into the thing, you'd sustain your reaction and be able to control the temperature better.
It seems to me that the geometry that you'd want for this would more closely resemble a spheromak than a tube. Unless you're talking about a pulsed FRC, that may do it, but the tearing of the field lines to get the FRC conditions would seem to be too energy intensive.
Your approach is definitely interesting. You may want to just consider singly ionized heavy atoms though. That way you can stay relatively cool, and not have to supply the energy needed to more highly ionize the heavy atoms.
As for a piston engine idling... that's when your fuel consumption is the lowest. Airplane engines can idle, but they suck fuel almost as fast as if they're at full throttle. It takes quite a bit to keep the compressor blades spinning at the rpms needed to sustain combustion.
And it's important because car driving doesn't involve flooring the gas and hauling ass. You tend to hold the gas at a certain level, and in some cases you let off the gas and coast. A jet engine can't operate like that. That's a huge plus to the piston engine compared to a turbofan/turbojet/turboprop.
It's obviously correct to say that airplane travel is faster and that's where the advantage lies.
But when increasing the magnetic field strength or decreasing it, you'd run into problems with ions and electrons hopping field lines or effects such as Bremstrahlung radiation from changing the angular momentum as your ions and electrons orbit a field line of varying strength.
I thought that's what he meant by saying that poor people were trapping themselves by shopping at Wal-mart?
That they are trapping themselves by using a cheaper product from a company that perpetuates their own poorness.
I'm just saying that there is no other option. It's not he poor's fault either. It's Wal-mart's. But Wal-mart only exists because there is a need for that kind of store.;)
Then why do they haul gravel on freight trains instead of airplanes? There is no way an airplane is more efficient than a train per ton-mile.
An airplane travels farther on a gallon of jet fuel than a diesel powered train does on a gallon. It may not be as cheap, but it's definitely more efficient with the fuel it uses.
You could look at it from an engine point of view: aircraft engines are extremely efficient at their fuel usage at high rpms when compared to reciprocating piston engines. Aircraft engines use a continuous Brayton cycle, which gives more bang for the gallon of gas than a diesel or car engine, both of which are limited in how well they use their fuel by their ability to contain the explosions generated in their cylinders.
As for the argument of planes vs. suburbans...
A plane will always use its fuel more efficiently than a suburban, unless you are sitting each of them at idle. Under load, a suburban will consistently fall behind (WAY behind) an aircraft in terms of efficient fuel consumption while under load. If the two are idling, then the suburban will kick the aircraft's ass.
Then there is the whole time issue that you pointed out. It's pointless to drive across country when you can fly; just as it's pointless to go to the grocery store in a plane when you can drive or walk.
You gotta realize that those same poor folk that buy Walmart products, are buying them because they are cheaper than elsewhere.
What would you do if you were poor and needed to buy clothes for your kids? Go to Bon-Macy's or Nordstrom? I certainly hope not.
I think you fail to understand that being poor happens to some folks and the best way to manage being in that situation is to buy the cheapest things you can until you can better yourself. I've been poor... I remember growing up and not having anything more than a slice of week old wonderbread and ketchup soup (made from ketchup packets from Mcdonald's) for dinner. My dad had been laid off by Boeing and went looking for work.
The only problem he ran into was that 25,000 other Boeing folks got laid off at the same time.
The only way to manage that is to do things at the absolute bare minimum that you can. And for low income folks that means shopping at Wal-Mart. They're not consciously enabling Walmart to keep them down, they're trying to stay alive.
Hell, when I shop at Walmart on occassion, it's because I'm looking for the cheapest price that I can find; not because I'm trying to force a poor man's job overseas, or keeping the poor down.
Even outside avionics, if you want to work with data of a higher precision, then go with a 32 bit machine. 8 bit machines don't work with 32 bit numbers as easily as 32 bit machines do.
High load has no bearing on whether you choose 8 bits or 32 bits. That comes down to how many instructions per second the processor can accomplish. An 8 bit machine running at 20 MIPS is still slower than a 32 machine running at 100 MIPS. Even when you have an 8 bit machine at 20 MIPS and a 32 bit machine at 20 MIPS, you'll get about the same speed. 32 bits will allow you to work with either more data at once or larger numbers (if you can program it properly... such as funky math tricks to do the same operation on a string of 32 bits that is actually four 8-bit numbers simultaneously), so that's where the "speed bonus" comes from for 32 bit machines.
And the article was stating that 32 bit SOCs are getting as cheap as 8 bit SOCs. That's quite an improvement, regardless of bit-addressing issues, memory size, or chip size.
Oh and FYI, avionics is just as general purpose as a router, a GPS unit, a cell phone, or whatever. Each one is suited to the tasks it is designed to handle. And in many systems you'll see the same chip used in several different ways. So saying that "avionics is hardly a general purpose task", is pretty much a moot point.
"32 bits" doesn't get you better precision, just fewer clock cycles. A Z80 will add 32-bit numbers just as well as any 32-bit processor, just more slowly (assuming the same clock speed).
Like I said, 32 bits give you better precision. With an 8 bit machine, you either have to use 4 8 bit numbers to represent a 32 bit number, or you have to cut your precision down to 8 bit precision. In the case of 4, 8 bit numbers, you have to use either at least 4 clock cycles, or 4 pipelines to manipulate the number. Going with a 32 bit machine is better in the case where you want a higher precision for your data.
That's why you'll see many data logging systems or system computers on aircraft using 32 bit processors over a 32 bit bus (or 16 bit processors over a 16 bit bus). Using an 8 bit machine to do the work grossly increases the amount of time it takes to manipulate a 32 bit number.
1) They've been using this idea for YEARS. (I'm pretty sure of this.)
2) Just because it's obvious after the fact of their filing doesn't negate the fact that they filed first and therefore were the "innovators" for the idea.
I may be wrong on that one, but I believe they use these things on some of their military electronics displays. Even if the display is manufactured by another company, they'll slap one of these bad boys on the ass end of it and the display will be like "WOW!" and put out more.
Most nitrogen compounds burn at very high temperatures compared to carbon compounds. Nitrous oxide is a simple molecule, but it doesn't burn until you get up to about 1000 F and even then it's still not being burned completely (until you get to about 4500 F). That's why nitrous oxides are one of the things to look for in a car's emissions: if your car has a lot of NOx's then it's burning the fuel at a relatively low temperature; in other words, it's not being efficient at burning the fuel. So you get these sort of "half-assed" nitrous oxides.
Every real material stretches a bit when put in that situation. Even diamond.
That kind of reaction is governed purely by the speed of sound in the material, which depends on the material density, and modulus of elasticity for solids (but temperature in fluids).
You can get things to happen faster than the speed of sound in the material though. Take det-cord for example. It's got a speed of sound that's roughly 1500 feet per second of the material. But if you ignite it, the shock that's created from the combustion of the material travels at close to 6000 feet per second.
There are two different types of combustion: deflagration and detonation. And the only difference between the two is the speed at which the explosion propagates.
The only situation that comes close to what you are describing with your very non-stretchable string would be a bose-einstein condensate, chilled to just barely above absolute zero. In theory, if you have a bunch of particles in a bose-einstein condensate, then they all share the same quantum state. You have basically a superfluid of atoms that are in exact lockstep with each other. Now, the theory goes that if you were to make the condensate very large, you'd have a large volume of stuff that behaves as though it were one piece; disturb one end and you get the same disturbance on the other.
BUT, the speed that the disturbance propagates is still limited to the speed of light. Just like waves on a still pond: that wave speed is fixed by the properties of the water. In the case of the universe, the speed of light is fixed by the properties of the universe.
I don't think he could just put the car in neutral. Some cars actually won't let you do things that would hurt their engines or transmissions.
Many manual transmissions can't be put into reverse if your travelling more than 10 mph in the forward direction for example. My Audi won't let me shift out of neutral and into reverse without requiring me to first put my foot on the brake. It's also got a locking mechanism so that if you're in park, you can't shift without pressing the brake pedal. I have heard of Audi owners having problems with this... one guy couldn't get his car to go into any of the non-forward-gear settings.
The transmission has a little computer-controlled actuator that does all that stuff.
And I had major engine work done on my car a while back. When I got the car back from the shop, the cruise control was screwed up; it wouldn't activate, then all of a sudden it would set itself and go. It was kind of neat until it got stuck on "accelerate". It got up to 115 before I got it to shut off by braking hard. Fortunately, I got it fixed (replaced a computer module that was shorted when they worked on the car previously), and I was out in the high desert of California when it happened (no one lives out there).
And I've seen cars whose throttle got stuck in the full open position, and whose drivers put the brakes on until they caught fire (local news video... quite a few years back). So stuff like this is fairly believable.
I think it's pathetic commentary on the Democratic party that they feel it necessary to pander to children. While there are many fine upstanding young adults under the age of 25, few have the life experiences and wisdom that are necessary to make decisions about governance.
The Democrat party caters to these impressionable and immature voters, catering to their adolescent tendancies of rebellion.
I know my politics are a heck of alot different before I was 25 then they were when I was past 25. I realize now that I was the stereotypical dumb kid, which is exactly what you should be, just not a dumb kid and enfranchised.
You are a fucking idiot. Just because you were an idiot before you were 25 (as you claim), EVERYONE else is an idiot too?
You making a decision for people that are legally able to smoke, joint the military, and *GASP* vote is plain wrong. What gives you the right to say that what you think and believe is more important or more right than others?
Some of us actually voted with the full knowledge of what our vote meant back then. Some of us could care less. But to NOT extrapolate that same division through all ages is plain stupidity. I've seen people older than me and younger than me complain, but never vote.
USAF is still FOUO. The other levels are the same. There is also an unofficial classification that is used called sensitive. Basically, anything that reveals personal info is sensitive and treated as FOUO, even if it's not marked that way.
It's a bit more than -1 + 1 = 0. In terms of net charge, you're correct. If you start with a particle and an anti-particle and get them to collide, you'll have no net charge left over.
Now, there's that other part of matter called mass. There's the rest mass of a particle (the particle has NO kinetic energy). And there's the mass associated with velocity (E=mc^2 comes from this... Kinetec Energy = 1/2 * m * v^2).
All the stuff that makes up the particles mass has an equivalent energy via E=mc^2. When you bring a particle and an anti-particle close enough that they react with each other, then the net charge of the two becomes neutral and the mass becomes so great that the new mass wants to find a more stable state. In order for the new mass to find a more stable state, it has to decay. (Now, the mass doesn't "know" or "think" about this, there are physical limits to the amount of mass that you can put into one particle.)
Since the super-particle isn't stable, it breaks up into smaller particles. It just so happens that when you bring an electron and a positron (anti-electron) just close enough that they barely touch with no excess kinetic energy beyond what is needed to make them react, then you'll get a super-particle that instantly decays into two high energy photons (gamma rays).
If you can get the anti-matter and matter to collide (not as easy as it sounds), then you'll get a reaction that produces two high energy photons (gamma rays). And depending on how much energy you add to the system to make the two particles collide, you could have anywhere from low energy photons (radio, IR) all the way up to another gamma. Beta radiation is possible as well, but not as likely. Alpha radiation is almost impossible from a positron-electron collision.
A hydrogen-antihydrogen reaction could produce an alpha particle, but gamma radiation is many times more likely.
The theoretical beauty of these things is that most, if not all, of the radiation is in the form of photons at various wavelengths in the EM spectrum.
And you can put anti-matter and matter in the same container... You just wouldn't want to heat that container up. The matter-antimatter reaction needs kinetic energy to bring the reactants close enough for a reaction.
Slashdot Mirror
The value of the US dollar comes from how much of it is in circulation.
The basis of the US dollar is in part on gold. But even moreso, the US dollar is backed by confidence in the US economy. It's also true that a majority of the currencies in the world are tied to the US dollar.
Even China's money is tied to the value of the US dollar in some way. Even when the Chinese government holds the value of the Chinese money at its current level, and holds the price of goods in China at its current level, the way that China interacts with markets foreign to China is tied to the US dollar.
Since the dollar was moved from the gold standard, because there isn't enough gold in the world to base the US dollar on, the basis has been purely on the US economy. That means if the gross domestic product is high in relation to how much foreign goods come into the US, the trade-deficit is reversed and that's a good thing for the US economy. It hasn't been that way for a long time. It's also the reason that the confidence in the US economy has a lot more aspects to it than just the trade-deficit. Housing, steel production, automotives, software production, etc. are all aspects of the US economy.
That's also why it's still true that if the US mint printed many times more federal notes (the technical term for money) than it does today, that the actual value of the federal note would decrease. That's also known as inflation. The value of the US dollar does fluctuate with the confidence of others in the US economy. That's why when the stock market drops, you'll usually see a drop in the value of the dollar.
Funny that you say that...
I overheard a conversation today in which several people stated that open source security is a stupid idea. You have to close the source of the entire security, otherwise, people will take advantage of it.
I thought that was interesting. Especially because we have phone systems that are just like regular phones. Until you put a key in them and turn it. When you do that, the phone becomes secure and you can talk about things at various classification levels.
The short of that is that it's realized by some of the people around me that you can have a system that is unclassified, until the exact moment you put in your classified key. Yet they talk about closed source everything, and keeping the keys classified. That's the opposite approach to security than you stated. I just thought that was interesting.
And for the record, I'd rather use an open source algorithm, the validity and strength of which has been thoroughly tested by millions, with a key system separated (with hand carried keys, or special key generators), over using a closed source system that was likely tested at a company with a hundred employees working on it using keys from the same sources. I'd rather know about vulnerabilities in the system and have a proven track record with that system, than use one that is first fielded in your stuff. That way I can better evaluate how much I trust using that system.
I also know that there is a directive to use open source software wherever possible (to keep costs down), so I don't know how widespread the "closed-source mentality" is.
Re. radiation, I'd worry more about synchrotron radiation than Bremsstrahlung. Bremstrahlung is only important when you're imposing a very strong acceleration on the charge (i.e. smacking it into a solid target).
I thought that's what was implied with a change in the field strength? You're right though that synchroton radiation would be more important except when the accelerations approach instantaneous.
As for heating the reaction, couldn't you hold a core of hot plasma and flow the colder stuff around it? Or actually burn some of the colder stuff to maintain a tightly wound magnetic field (via the currents generated by the burned fuel)? A D-D reaction would work just fine there... of course you'd need some tritium to start it, but as long as you kept feeding dueterium into the thing, you'd sustain your reaction and be able to control the temperature better.
It seems to me that the geometry that you'd want for this would more closely resemble a spheromak than a tube. Unless you're talking about a pulsed FRC, that may do it, but the tearing of the field lines to get the FRC conditions would seem to be too energy intensive.
Your approach is definitely interesting. You may want to just consider singly ionized heavy atoms though. That way you can stay relatively cool, and not have to supply the energy needed to more highly ionize the heavy atoms.
Interesting fact about trains. Thanks!
As for a piston engine idling... that's when your fuel consumption is the lowest. Airplane engines can idle, but they suck fuel almost as fast as if they're at full throttle. It takes quite a bit to keep the compressor blades spinning at the rpms needed to sustain combustion.
And it's important because car driving doesn't involve flooring the gas and hauling ass. You tend to hold the gas at a certain level, and in some cases you let off the gas and coast. A jet engine can't operate like that. That's a huge plus to the piston engine compared to a turbofan/turbojet/turboprop.
It's obviously correct to say that airplane travel is faster and that's where the advantage lies.
Good points...
But when increasing the magnetic field strength or decreasing it, you'd run into problems with ions and electrons hopping field lines or effects such as Bremstrahlung radiation from changing the angular momentum as your ions and electrons orbit a field line of varying strength.
I thought that's what he meant by saying that poor people were trapping themselves by shopping at Wal-mart?
;)
That they are trapping themselves by using a cheaper product from a company that perpetuates their own poorness.
I'm just saying that there is no other option. It's not he poor's fault either. It's Wal-mart's. But Wal-mart only exists because there is a need for that kind of store.
Then why do they haul gravel on freight trains instead of airplanes? There is no way an airplane is more efficient than a train per ton-mile.
An airplane travels farther on a gallon of jet fuel than a diesel powered train does on a gallon. It may not be as cheap, but it's definitely more efficient with the fuel it uses.
You could look at it from an engine point of view: aircraft engines are extremely efficient at their fuel usage at high rpms when compared to reciprocating piston engines. Aircraft engines use a continuous Brayton cycle, which gives more bang for the gallon of gas than a diesel or car engine, both of which are limited in how well they use their fuel by their ability to contain the explosions generated in their cylinders.
As for the argument of planes vs. suburbans...
A plane will always use its fuel more efficiently than a suburban, unless you are sitting each of them at idle. Under load, a suburban will consistently fall behind (WAY behind) an aircraft in terms of efficient fuel consumption while under load. If the two are idling, then the suburban will kick the aircraft's ass.
Then there is the whole time issue that you pointed out. It's pointless to drive across country when you can fly; just as it's pointless to go to the grocery store in a plane when you can drive or walk.
You gotta realize that those same poor folk that buy Walmart products, are buying them because they are cheaper than elsewhere.
What would you do if you were poor and needed to buy clothes for your kids? Go to Bon-Macy's or Nordstrom? I certainly hope not.
I think you fail to understand that being poor happens to some folks and the best way to manage being in that situation is to buy the cheapest things you can until you can better yourself. I've been poor... I remember growing up and not having anything more than a slice of week old wonderbread and ketchup soup (made from ketchup packets from Mcdonald's) for dinner. My dad had been laid off by Boeing and went looking for work.
The only problem he ran into was that 25,000 other Boeing folks got laid off at the same time.
The only way to manage that is to do things at the absolute bare minimum that you can. And for low income folks that means shopping at Wal-Mart. They're not consciously enabling Walmart to keep them down, they're trying to stay alive.
Hell, when I shop at Walmart on occassion, it's because I'm looking for the cheapest price that I can find; not because I'm trying to force a poor man's job overseas, or keeping the poor down.
Nah. All the words were spelled correctly that I saw, and there was no "terra".
Even outside avionics, if you want to work with data of a higher precision, then go with a 32 bit machine. 8 bit machines don't work with 32 bit numbers as easily as 32 bit machines do.
High load has no bearing on whether you choose 8 bits or 32 bits. That comes down to how many instructions per second the processor can accomplish. An 8 bit machine running at 20 MIPS is still slower than a 32 machine running at 100 MIPS. Even when you have an 8 bit machine at 20 MIPS and a 32 bit machine at 20 MIPS, you'll get about the same speed. 32 bits will allow you to work with either more data at once or larger numbers (if you can program it properly... such as funky math tricks to do the same operation on a string of 32 bits that is actually four 8-bit numbers simultaneously), so that's where the "speed bonus" comes from for 32 bit machines.
And the article was stating that 32 bit SOCs are getting as cheap as 8 bit SOCs. That's quite an improvement, regardless of bit-addressing issues, memory size, or chip size.
Oh and FYI, avionics is just as general purpose as a router, a GPS unit, a cell phone, or whatever. Each one is suited to the tasks it is designed to handle. And in many systems you'll see the same chip used in several different ways. So saying that "avionics is hardly a general purpose task", is pretty much a moot point.
"32 bits" doesn't get you better precision, just fewer clock cycles. A Z80 will add 32-bit numbers just as well as any 32-bit processor, just more slowly (assuming the same clock speed).
Like I said, 32 bits give you better precision. With an 8 bit machine, you either have to use 4 8 bit numbers to represent a 32 bit number, or you have to cut your precision down to 8 bit precision. In the case of 4, 8 bit numbers, you have to use either at least 4 clock cycles, or 4 pipelines to manipulate the number. Going with a 32 bit machine is better in the case where you want a higher precision for your data.
That's why you'll see many data logging systems or system computers on aircraft using 32 bit processors over a 32 bit bus (or 16 bit processors over a 16 bit bus). Using an 8 bit machine to do the work grossly increases the amount of time it takes to manipulate a 32 bit number.
what would 32-bits buy you?
Those 32 bits offer higher precision for certain applications. (Data logging, robotics, autonymous vehicles, remote sensing, etc.)
1) They've been using this idea for YEARS. (I'm pretty sure of this.)
2) Just because it's obvious after the fact of their filing doesn't negate the fact that they filed first and therefore were the "innovators" for the idea.
that use this?
I may be wrong on that one, but I believe they use these things on some of their military electronics displays. Even if the display is manufactured by another company, they'll slap one of these bad boys on the ass end of it and the display will be like "WOW!" and put out more.
Herpes isn't curable. It's treatable, but not curable.
And as another poster pointed out, syphillis can kill. And it's not a particularly fun way to go.
Most nitrogen compounds burn at very high temperatures compared to carbon compounds. Nitrous oxide is a simple molecule, but it doesn't burn until you get up to about 1000 F and even then it's still not being burned completely (until you get to about 4500 F). That's why nitrous oxides are one of the things to look for in a car's emissions: if your car has a lot of NOx's then it's burning the fuel at a relatively low temperature; in other words, it's not being efficient at burning the fuel. So you get these sort of "half-assed" nitrous oxides.
Every real material stretches a bit when put in that situation. Even diamond.
That kind of reaction is governed purely by the speed of sound in the material, which depends on the material density, and modulus of elasticity for solids (but temperature in fluids).
You can get things to happen faster than the speed of sound in the material though. Take det-cord for example. It's got a speed of sound that's roughly 1500 feet per second of the material. But if you ignite it, the shock that's created from the combustion of the material travels at close to 6000 feet per second.
There are two different types of combustion: deflagration and detonation. And the only difference between the two is the speed at which the explosion propagates.
The only situation that comes close to what you are describing with your very non-stretchable string would be a bose-einstein condensate, chilled to just barely above absolute zero. In theory, if you have a bunch of particles in a bose-einstein condensate, then they all share the same quantum state. You have basically a superfluid of atoms that are in exact lockstep with each other. Now, the theory goes that if you were to make the condensate very large, you'd have a large volume of stuff that behaves as though it were one piece; disturb one end and you get the same disturbance on the other.
BUT, the speed that the disturbance propagates is still limited to the speed of light. Just like waves on a still pond: that wave speed is fixed by the properties of the water. In the case of the universe, the speed of light is fixed by the properties of the universe.
I don't think he could just put the car in neutral. Some cars actually won't let you do things that would hurt their engines or transmissions.
Many manual transmissions can't be put into reverse if your travelling more than 10 mph in the forward direction for example. My Audi won't let me shift out of neutral and into reverse without requiring me to first put my foot on the brake. It's also got a locking mechanism so that if you're in park, you can't shift without pressing the brake pedal. I have heard of Audi owners having problems with this... one guy couldn't get his car to go into any of the non-forward-gear settings.
The transmission has a little computer-controlled actuator that does all that stuff.
And I had major engine work done on my car a while back. When I got the car back from the shop, the cruise control was screwed up; it wouldn't activate, then all of a sudden it would set itself and go. It was kind of neat until it got stuck on "accelerate". It got up to 115 before I got it to shut off by braking hard. Fortunately, I got it fixed (replaced a computer module that was shorted when they worked on the car previously), and I was out in the high desert of California when it happened (no one lives out there).
And I've seen cars whose throttle got stuck in the full open position, and whose drivers put the brakes on until they caught fire (local news video... quite a few years back). So stuff like this is fairly believable.
I think it's pathetic commentary on the Democratic party that they feel it necessary to pander to children. While there are many fine upstanding young adults under the age of 25, few have the life experiences and wisdom that are necessary to make decisions about governance. The Democrat party caters to these impressionable and immature voters, catering to their adolescent tendancies of rebellion. I know my politics are a heck of alot different before I was 25 then they were when I was past 25. I realize now that I was the stereotypical dumb kid, which is exactly what you should be, just not a dumb kid and enfranchised.
You are a fucking idiot. Just because you were an idiot before you were 25 (as you claim), EVERYONE else is an idiot too?
You making a decision for people that are legally able to smoke, joint the military, and *GASP* vote is plain wrong. What gives you the right to say that what you think and believe is more important or more right than others?
Some of us actually voted with the full knowledge of what our vote meant back then. Some of us could care less. But to NOT extrapolate that same division through all ages is plain stupidity. I've seen people older than me and younger than me complain, but never vote.
Thus... the need for a voter drive.
You're welcome.
Some salt crystals have been theorized to be able to hold an atom of anti-hydrogen in the crystal lattice.
USAF is still FOUO. The other levels are the same. There is also an unofficial classification that is used called sensitive. Basically, anything that reveals personal info is sensitive and treated as FOUO, even if it's not marked that way.
It's a bit more than -1 + 1 = 0. In terms of net charge, you're correct. If you start with a particle and an anti-particle and get them to collide, you'll have no net charge left over.
Now, there's that other part of matter called mass. There's the rest mass of a particle (the particle has NO kinetic energy). And there's the mass associated with velocity (E=mc^2 comes from this... Kinetec Energy = 1/2 * m * v^2).
All the stuff that makes up the particles mass has an equivalent energy via E=mc^2. When you bring a particle and an anti-particle close enough that they react with each other, then the net charge of the two becomes neutral and the mass becomes so great that the new mass wants to find a more stable state. In order for the new mass to find a more stable state, it has to decay. (Now, the mass doesn't "know" or "think" about this, there are physical limits to the amount of mass that you can put into one particle.)
Since the super-particle isn't stable, it breaks up into smaller particles. It just so happens that when you bring an electron and a positron (anti-electron) just close enough that they barely touch with no excess kinetic energy beyond what is needed to make them react, then you'll get a super-particle that instantly decays into two high energy photons (gamma rays).
If you can get the anti-matter and matter to collide (not as easy as it sounds), then you'll get a reaction that produces two high energy photons (gamma rays). And depending on how much energy you add to the system to make the two particles collide, you could have anywhere from low energy photons (radio, IR) all the way up to another gamma. Beta radiation is possible as well, but not as likely. Alpha radiation is almost impossible from a positron-electron collision.
A hydrogen-antihydrogen reaction could produce an alpha particle, but gamma radiation is many times more likely.
The theoretical beauty of these things is that most, if not all, of the radiation is in the form of photons at various wavelengths in the EM spectrum.
And you can put anti-matter and matter in the same container... You just wouldn't want to heat that container up. The matter-antimatter reaction needs kinetic energy to bring the reactants close enough for a reaction.
Nope. That's a store where you can buy games and some computer and gaming console items.