You are whining because you don't trust a nuclear company with commercial interest.
In the past, US companies have exposed us to dangerous chemicals. US plastic manufacturers used BPA for plastic. We are banning BPA in the US; polycarbonate now uses BPS, which carries the same toxicity concerns but leeches in much greater concentrations. That means our BPA-Free polycarbonate is more toxic than BPA polycarbonate; BPA polycarbonate is roughly harmless.
Yes, it's trivially easy for small activists to create false fears in the minds of idiots who are at odds with professionals who know what they're doing. The professionals may be lying; but you're still an idiot if you don't actually understand what problems you're imagining up. For the professionals, it's clear: they're either lying to you or they're not. For you, it's hit-or-miss: you're screaming about something that's either a concern or it isn't, but it sounds scary in either case.
In this corner, we have the experts who have stake to lie to you.
In this corner, we have a bunch of local idiots being baited by some agenda-driven journalist who is likely to twist facts and probably doesn't understand nuclear safety anyway, so probably thinks non-issues are terrifying while making serious issues out of other things he knows are non-issues.
The number of times the stress must be applied is shown on the X axis. Essentially, steel can handle anything below some 30ksi for about infinite cycles--you can keep flexing and relaxing the steel *forever* and it won't break. Aluminum, not so much: even low amounts of stress repeatedly applied will cause it to break eventually.
The failure mode of steel is to deform a little. Repeat fatigue stress on steel will eventually start to bend it. Aluminum eventually cracks. As stated, steel has a rather high stress tolerance: it can cycle significant loads without experiencing any fatigue. Aluminum can't, and will steadily near its failure mode.
This doesn't make steel a better material for airplanes or bike frames. Aluminum bike frames will break eventually, but are lighter than steel; an aluminum frame can last 30 years under heavy non-professional use. The duty cycle a road warrior will put on a bicycle is a hell of a lot different than the duty cycle a highly-tuned professional athlete will put on a bicycle. Likewise, you can design an aluminum frame to handle the stresses provided by the duty cycle of a commercial airliner, such that the plane doesn't break in half over 30 years of flights.
I don't care about "cowardly attacks", I care about effective. Cowards who run and hide when they see others in need should be beaten severely. Men in bunkers taking action... they are protecting themselves. If they do what's needed, then they are an asset to us all.
I don't believe these actions are effective. They don't solve the problems at hand. Sometimes people need to die to restore peace and order; but this particular mode of execution causes indiscriminate collateral damage. We kill innocents, and we don't always know if there's any positive impact to killing the target in the first place. There is innocent blood on the hands of our nation's so-called leaders, those who should be our public servants but have taken it upon themselves to be our masters.
Sometimes innocent blood is an unfortunate cost of necessary war; and sometimes it's the cost of your arrogance and stupidity. We are facing the latter, as near as anyone can tell, and it is sickening.
The big bang was a hell of a lot more complex than that. If you ignited a miniature big bang in our universe, it would likely destroy the universe. Yes, even a really tiny one.
In Chaos theory, things appear random because they are deterministic but you don't have perfect information to calculate the result. Your lack of information introduces randomness. Dice, for example, fall based on their mass, their momentum, air density, the shape and material properties of the surface, etc. These things are themselves imparted by how they're thrown, by the temperature and humidity and make-up of the air, and so on. If you could know all of these things, you could predict exactly how the dice will land: the physical interaction between the dice, its thrower, the air, gravity, and the surface determine how the dice tumble and where they stop.
In quantum theory, things are actually random. A particle may or may not decay; an electron may or may not drop to a lower energy state and emit a photon. These quantum events represent the infinite variation in precise timing of the firing of neurons, impacting human decision and propagating to other decisions or physical outcomes (i.e. the split-second reaction to having a firearm pointed at you: one tenth of a second can decide whether you get shot or tackle your assailant unharmed).
At the edge of your field, you reach events which can occur from any number of inputs. Too many states could cause what you're seeing, and the likely events become unrestricted. Thus, to an extent, parts of the world you have such insignificant knowledge of are unknown, and do not exist. Whether a Chinese factory worker knocks a fountain pen nib off the line or not makes approximately zero difference to anything; it has and hasn't happened until the news is brought to you that it has. Quantum theory states that all such outcomes occur simultaneously, but that the observer is restricted to one set of outcomes: if the outcome is unobserved, it hasn't physically happened yet.
That means your world is unfixed until you observe it. Your friends who know of these things but have said nothing know of both states, and the state that has happened doesn't occur until they communicate one or the other to you--the only state that person has ever known. It's a tough concept, but think of it this way: there isn't just more than one world, but rather more than one outcome. The world is cobbled together from pieces.
It would be, but this statement is attacking a strawman, since none of us claimed it.
Here was the original quote:
Aluminum is the best example, being about three times lighter, but incredibly brittle.
Nothing else was said about aluminum. The poster went on to talk about carbon fiber.
Here was the response:
I'm sorry, but you know not what you speak. Aluminum is used on millions of planes for, what, almost a century?
"Aluminum is brittle" becomes "You don't know what you're talking about; they use aluminum in airplanes!" Either the response is wholly stupid or it's claiming aluminum is not brittle. Aluminum's particular weakness doesn't exclude it from aerospace applications: the load put on the fuselage may not be high enough to fail an aluminum frame. I don't care if the load's high, as long as it's not high enough to break the plane.
Steel is mostly good because it's cheap and has one of the more forgiving failure modes when overstressed.
Yeah, bent steel is easy to fix: bend it back and weld to strengthen. Not optimal, but the repairs are nearly good as new. But it also cycles well: if you flex steel less than what's needed to deform it, it just springs back. When you do this with aluminum, you stress the metal; it gets weaker each time, and eventually cracks.
Contradicting yourself here. Airplane aluminum IS different than what you'll find in something like a Soda Can. The alloy will be different, as well as treatment and forming techniques.
No, I covered that. Aluminum is brittle: it flexes until it bends and quickly breaks, and it handles cycling by weakening until it breaks. Different grades of aluminum will snap or will deform before breaking; but they'll all break with less effort than steel in substantially similar application (i.e. a steel fuselage versus aluminum fuselage, a steel bike frame versus aluminum). The materials also behave differently at different profiles, for example a soda can versus an H beam.
The grade of aluminum used on planes is different from other grades of aluminum; however, it compares to steel in the same way as the aluminum used for storm doors versus steel for storm doors: it's more brittle than suitable steel. It likely handles more cycling than the aluminum for your storm door--i.e. you can fly that plane more than five times without the fuselage cracking--but, eventually, that aluminum will age and wear down, and it will fail by simply snapping at a stress point. Steel won't.
The grade difference just means this aluminum will get you 20 or 30 or 50 years of operation, while that aluminum would get you 5 flights. Steel would undoubtedly get you INFINITE operation, because it can load cycle forever. You'd have to use a corrosion-resistant steel, or protect it (oil, galvanize, etc.), which is imperfect and will corrode if exposed to salt or acids or just dripping water (likely not pH neutral); aluminum is corrosion resistant, and will not fail in that way.
That's the point: It's still aluminum. It's still brittle. This grade of aluminum can handle this workload for this operating cycle without succumbing to its weaknesses; this other grade of aluminum can't. It has all the same weaknesses, some more or less pronounced. Steel is entirely different, and can carry carbide or titanium or chromium or molybdenum, and so steel and its alloys have their own properties which can be more or less pronounced. Engineered metal allows us to select for not just a set of properties, but a degree of expression of those properties: we can select aluminum or steel, and we can adjust their properties within the strengths and weaknesses of aluminum and steel.
Imagine if you got into an argument, whipped out an AK-47, and razed a half circle. You're in an open restaurant, the guy who pissed you off is dead, there's half a dozen others dead and dozens wounded, many dying, a few maimed for life.
You have a Pakistani friend, nice girl. Moved here to get away from all this bullshit.
She invited two of her cousins. They have friends as well, who were invited. One of those friends is a suspected--but not proven--terrorist. He's on a list of people who may or may not be associated with a terrorist cell which may or may not exist and may or may not be associated with Al Qaeda.
A missile comes in. You're at the edge of the crowd, fortunately; you get scraped up a little, but you're fine. You find yourself surrounded by the wounded, by pieces of bodies. The mangled upper half of your cute Pakistani friend lies beside you, silent, bloody, almost unrecognizable. There's nothing left of the maybe-could-be-might-not-be-terrorist, of course: we got him.
This is the story of many. For many more, there is no story: they were too close.
Aluminum will flex, too, if it's long or thin. A material's profile has a lot of impact on how it behaves.
Aluminum has severe cycling issues. When steel flexes, nothing happens; when aluminum flexes, it weakens. You can flex steel until deformation and weaken it, or you can flex it within deformation limits infinitely; aluminum flexed at all will weaken, and eventually crack.
Claiming that aluminum is not brittle because it's used on airplanes is silly. The aluminum used on airplanes isn't different; it's a grade of aluminum suitable for planes, with some of aluminum's weaknesses more pronounced and some less. It's not some kind of light steel with lower strength but otherwise all the behavior of steel; for that you use titanium steel alloys.
It's held in pretty high regard still. I've considering making some updates, but I can see much of the advice reflected in good writing (Wall Street Journal, Stephen R. Donaldson's writing, etc.) and ignored in bad writing.
If air support has been part of battle in the real world for a hundred years now, one would think that the Trade Federation would have invested in some jet aircraft
Of course, because we've brought jet air craft with us in interplanetary battles where most of the battle is fought in space or on the ground for the past 100 years, right?
Face it: The trade federation brought an interplanetary attack force to a backwater planet that didn't have jets or armies of battle droids. The United States would not send air support to invade a pygmy tribe in Brazil; they would send soldiers with guns and light armor.
The Hoth and Endor ground battles had ludicrous hardware. If they were itching to beat the Rebels on Endor, why didn't they just go Tet Offensive; burn the forest to the ground. We're talking about a bunch of teddy bears and a very small number of Rebels with little more than blasters. I get that the first squad was taken by surprise, but once they realized Death Star II's shield generator was about to be compromised, why fuck around at all? What, they don't have napalm in a galaxy far far away?
Again: they brought space support. They can blow up the planet, or they can run around with guns. Look at how these people operate: they often bring troop carriers, but not fighter crafts. The bad guys chronically underestimate guerrilla resistance. They took friggin' speeder bikes into the woods to look for entrenched rebels who could be hiding behind trees ready to pelt you with a rock and knock you off your high-speed floating motorcycle.
They also want intelligence. They wanted to determine if the base was there, capture any useful information, and capture any people with useful information. Scorched earth was considered sub-optimal.
Hoth was kinda weird though. Giant machines vulnerable to people in floating sports cars.
Electrolytic voltage ratings are somewhat meaningless. They specify one of infinite meaningful measurements for the same thing.
A 50V capacitor isn't just 50V; it's 50V rated for some operating hours. Let's say 10,000 hours. If your capacitor oscillates across 50V (say a GND+150VDC on one side and GND+100-150VAC on the other, or just 50VAC), you can run that capacitor for 10,000 hours. If we drop that voltage to 25V, it'll run 20,000 hours. Raise it to 100V, it'll run 5,000 hours.
Essentially, its useful life scales linearly with voltage. This cap has 500,000 / E hours of life for an AC voltage of E.
Why the f--- did the Trade Federation invest God knows how much on a bazillion combat droids that were so utterly fucking useless.
Support from Senator Palpatine. Money, lots and lots of money. Remember all the secret conferences they had?
"Trade Federation assholes, ever heard of fucking AIR SUPPORT!"
It's established that space ships don't work great in atmosphere. Both real physics and movie physics have continuously attested to this: space ships leave the atmosphere as quickly as possible. They likely didn't bring air support, instead having space fighters. They also made large tactical errors: the trade federation was certain of their superior firepower, considering they conquered the Naboo effortlessly in one sweep.
Also, the Naboo were part of the Republic; some level of hostility will eventually gain you bad attention. There's a difference between "trade dispute and invasion" and "endless bloodshed and slaughter". People like to think they can abandon their allies and keep their hands clean, while they know they have superior power to resist the same threats or, ironically, allies to come to their aid. When they see vicious attacks, they feel personally threatened and are motivated to do something about it. When pressed, diplomats will tell you they don't want to intervene and escalate a mainly-peaceful (!?) situation to violence--a comforting pile of horse shit.
I don't get the plot thing. I saw the pieces come together as they went, aside from Count Doku just suddenly appearing as Palpatine's apprentice. The 6 year gap kind of had things happen.
Most of the actors behaved exactly like real world people behave. From a 100-foot view we see they're doing dumb shit, but their perspective doesn't afford these benefits. Anakin was a child, then a teenager; he made distinctly not-adult decisions. Padme confided in and trusted Palpatine, who openly acted as her ally to her satisfaction, while subtly manipulating the larger chain of events in a way Padme didn't notice. These are all behaviors I've seen both in literature and in the real world.
It's not even that. Look at that quotes list. Awkward quote #1? Just Jar-Jar being Jar-Jar. That was an appropriate quote for the character and context. Quote #5 was a neutral way to avoid an awkward silence. #7 was Anakin being a 9-year-old boy--yes, 9-year-old boys say awkward stupid shit like this. Quotes #20 and #34 were frighteningly insightful: this is exactly what happened after 9/11.
Prequel complainers are just full of shit. They cry about movies that are roughly as good as the originals.
The question, "How much of the glutamate is monosodium glutamate," is meaningless. The relevant considerations are how much sodium and how much glutamate are present, as monosodium glutamate is, nutritionally and toxicologically, equivalent to sodium and glutamate.
In other words: if you have 1 gram of MSG, versus an identical amount of sodium (in some other non-toxic form, such as sodium chloride) and glutamate, you have the same things. This is unlike, say, sodium chloride versus straight sodium and some other chloride--where the free sodium is toxic.
You could ask what percentage of something is cheesy egg, when referring to eggs, and reach the same issue: eggs and cheese separate are the same as eggs and cheese mixed.
Slashdot Mirror
You are whining because you don't trust a nuclear company with commercial interest.
In the past, US companies have exposed us to dangerous chemicals. US plastic manufacturers used BPA for plastic. We are banning BPA in the US; polycarbonate now uses BPS, which carries the same toxicity concerns but leeches in much greater concentrations. That means our BPA-Free polycarbonate is more toxic than BPA polycarbonate; BPA polycarbonate is roughly harmless.
Yes, it's trivially easy for small activists to create false fears in the minds of idiots who are at odds with professionals who know what they're doing. The professionals may be lying; but you're still an idiot if you don't actually understand what problems you're imagining up. For the professionals, it's clear: they're either lying to you or they're not. For you, it's hit-or-miss: you're screaming about something that's either a concern or it isn't, but it sounds scary in either case.
In this corner, we have the experts who have stake to lie to you.
In this corner, we have a bunch of local idiots being baited by some agenda-driven journalist who is likely to twist facts and probably doesn't understand nuclear safety anyway, so probably thinks non-issues are terrifying while making serious issues out of other things he knows are non-issues.
Who will prevail?!
Is it time to water the tree of Liberty?
The number of times the stress must be applied is shown on the X axis. Essentially, steel can handle anything below some 30ksi for about infinite cycles--you can keep flexing and relaxing the steel *forever* and it won't break. Aluminum, not so much: even low amounts of stress repeatedly applied will cause it to break eventually.
The failure mode of steel is to deform a little. Repeat fatigue stress on steel will eventually start to bend it. Aluminum eventually cracks. As stated, steel has a rather high stress tolerance: it can cycle significant loads without experiencing any fatigue. Aluminum can't, and will steadily near its failure mode.
This doesn't make steel a better material for airplanes or bike frames. Aluminum bike frames will break eventually, but are lighter than steel; an aluminum frame can last 30 years under heavy non-professional use. The duty cycle a road warrior will put on a bicycle is a hell of a lot different than the duty cycle a highly-tuned professional athlete will put on a bicycle. Likewise, you can design an aluminum frame to handle the stresses provided by the duty cycle of a commercial airliner, such that the plane doesn't break in half over 30 years of flights.
I don't care about "cowardly attacks", I care about effective. Cowards who run and hide when they see others in need should be beaten severely. Men in bunkers taking action... they are protecting themselves. If they do what's needed, then they are an asset to us all.
I don't believe these actions are effective. They don't solve the problems at hand. Sometimes people need to die to restore peace and order; but this particular mode of execution causes indiscriminate collateral damage. We kill innocents, and we don't always know if there's any positive impact to killing the target in the first place. There is innocent blood on the hands of our nation's so-called leaders, those who should be our public servants but have taken it upon themselves to be our masters.
Sometimes innocent blood is an unfortunate cost of necessary war; and sometimes it's the cost of your arrogance and stupidity. We are facing the latter, as near as anyone can tell, and it is sickening.
Some of your friends, family, and neighbors are pedophiles and date rapists.
The big bang was a hell of a lot more complex than that. If you ignited a miniature big bang in our universe, it would likely destroy the universe. Yes, even a really tiny one.
Actually, quantum theory says nearly that.
In Chaos theory, things appear random because they are deterministic but you don't have perfect information to calculate the result. Your lack of information introduces randomness. Dice, for example, fall based on their mass, their momentum, air density, the shape and material properties of the surface, etc. These things are themselves imparted by how they're thrown, by the temperature and humidity and make-up of the air, and so on. If you could know all of these things, you could predict exactly how the dice will land: the physical interaction between the dice, its thrower, the air, gravity, and the surface determine how the dice tumble and where they stop.
In quantum theory, things are actually random. A particle may or may not decay; an electron may or may not drop to a lower energy state and emit a photon. These quantum events represent the infinite variation in precise timing of the firing of neurons, impacting human decision and propagating to other decisions or physical outcomes (i.e. the split-second reaction to having a firearm pointed at you: one tenth of a second can decide whether you get shot or tackle your assailant unharmed).
At the edge of your field, you reach events which can occur from any number of inputs. Too many states could cause what you're seeing, and the likely events become unrestricted. Thus, to an extent, parts of the world you have such insignificant knowledge of are unknown, and do not exist. Whether a Chinese factory worker knocks a fountain pen nib off the line or not makes approximately zero difference to anything; it has and hasn't happened until the news is brought to you that it has. Quantum theory states that all such outcomes occur simultaneously, but that the observer is restricted to one set of outcomes: if the outcome is unobserved, it hasn't physically happened yet.
That means your world is unfixed until you observe it. Your friends who know of these things but have said nothing know of both states, and the state that has happened doesn't occur until they communicate one or the other to you--the only state that person has ever known. It's a tough concept, but think of it this way: there isn't just more than one world, but rather more than one outcome. The world is cobbled together from pieces.
Point.
It would be, but this statement is attacking a strawman, since none of us claimed it.
Here was the original quote:
Aluminum is the best example, being about three times lighter, but incredibly brittle.
Nothing else was said about aluminum. The poster went on to talk about carbon fiber.
Here was the response:
I'm sorry, but you know not what you speak. Aluminum is used on millions of planes for, what, almost a century?
"Aluminum is brittle" becomes "You don't know what you're talking about; they use aluminum in airplanes!" Either the response is wholly stupid or it's claiming aluminum is not brittle. Aluminum's particular weakness doesn't exclude it from aerospace applications: the load put on the fuselage may not be high enough to fail an aluminum frame. I don't care if the load's high, as long as it's not high enough to break the plane.
Steel is mostly good because it's cheap and has one of the more forgiving failure modes when overstressed.
Yeah, bent steel is easy to fix: bend it back and weld to strengthen. Not optimal, but the repairs are nearly good as new. But it also cycles well: if you flex steel less than what's needed to deform it, it just springs back. When you do this with aluminum, you stress the metal; it gets weaker each time, and eventually cracks.
Contradicting yourself here. Airplane aluminum IS different than what you'll find in something like a Soda Can. The alloy will be different, as well as treatment and forming techniques.
No, I covered that. Aluminum is brittle: it flexes until it bends and quickly breaks, and it handles cycling by weakening until it breaks. Different grades of aluminum will snap or will deform before breaking; but they'll all break with less effort than steel in substantially similar application (i.e. a steel fuselage versus aluminum fuselage, a steel bike frame versus aluminum). The materials also behave differently at different profiles, for example a soda can versus an H beam.
The grade of aluminum used on planes is different from other grades of aluminum; however, it compares to steel in the same way as the aluminum used for storm doors versus steel for storm doors: it's more brittle than suitable steel. It likely handles more cycling than the aluminum for your storm door--i.e. you can fly that plane more than five times without the fuselage cracking--but, eventually, that aluminum will age and wear down, and it will fail by simply snapping at a stress point. Steel won't.
The grade difference just means this aluminum will get you 20 or 30 or 50 years of operation, while that aluminum would get you 5 flights. Steel would undoubtedly get you INFINITE operation, because it can load cycle forever. You'd have to use a corrosion-resistant steel, or protect it (oil, galvanize, etc.), which is imperfect and will corrode if exposed to salt or acids or just dripping water (likely not pH neutral); aluminum is corrosion resistant, and will not fail in that way.
That's the point: It's still aluminum. It's still brittle. This grade of aluminum can handle this workload for this operating cycle without succumbing to its weaknesses; this other grade of aluminum can't. It has all the same weaknesses, some more or less pronounced. Steel is entirely different, and can carry carbide or titanium or chromium or molybdenum, and so steel and its alloys have their own properties which can be more or less pronounced. Engineered metal allows us to select for not just a set of properties, but a degree of expression of those properties: we can select aluminum or steel, and we can adjust their properties within the strengths and weaknesses of aluminum and steel.
The Onion is serious business. Try reading it once, maybe you'll get a clue.
You don't always have to come out and say it to inform people.
Imagine if you got into an argument, whipped out an AK-47, and razed a half circle. You're in an open restaurant, the guy who pissed you off is dead, there's half a dozen others dead and dozens wounded, many dying, a few maimed for life.
Imagine you're at a wedding.
You have a Pakistani friend, nice girl. Moved here to get away from all this bullshit.
She invited two of her cousins. They have friends as well, who were invited. One of those friends is a suspected--but not proven--terrorist. He's on a list of people who may or may not be associated with a terrorist cell which may or may not exist and may or may not be associated with Al Qaeda.
A missile comes in. You're at the edge of the crowd, fortunately; you get scraped up a little, but you're fine. You find yourself surrounded by the wounded, by pieces of bodies. The mangled upper half of your cute Pakistani friend lies beside you, silent, bloody, almost unrecognizable. There's nothing left of the maybe-could-be-might-not-be-terrorist, of course: we got him.
This is the story of many. For many more, there is no story: they were too close.
Right. Strategic bombing was always a dumbass move.
Aluminum will flex, too, if it's long or thin. A material's profile has a lot of impact on how it behaves.
Aluminum has severe cycling issues. When steel flexes, nothing happens; when aluminum flexes, it weakens. You can flex steel until deformation and weaken it, or you can flex it within deformation limits infinitely; aluminum flexed at all will weaken, and eventually crack.
Claiming that aluminum is not brittle because it's used on airplanes is silly. The aluminum used on airplanes isn't different; it's a grade of aluminum suitable for planes, with some of aluminum's weaknesses more pronounced and some less. It's not some kind of light steel with lower strength but otherwise all the behavior of steel; for that you use titanium steel alloys.
You can use brittle materials on airplanes. Some airplanes are carbon fiber framed.
It's held in pretty high regard still. I've considering making some updates, but I can see much of the advice reflected in good writing (Wall Street Journal, Stephen R. Donaldson's writing, etc.) and ignored in bad writing.
If air support has been part of battle in the real world for a hundred years now, one would think that the Trade Federation would have invested in some jet aircraft
Of course, because we've brought jet air craft with us in interplanetary battles where most of the battle is fought in space or on the ground for the past 100 years, right?
Face it: The trade federation brought an interplanetary attack force to a backwater planet that didn't have jets or armies of battle droids. The United States would not send air support to invade a pygmy tribe in Brazil; they would send soldiers with guns and light armor.
The Hoth and Endor ground battles had ludicrous hardware. If they were itching to beat the Rebels on Endor, why didn't they just go Tet Offensive; burn the forest to the ground. We're talking about a bunch of teddy bears and a very small number of Rebels with little more than blasters. I get that the first squad was taken by surprise, but once they realized Death Star II's shield generator was about to be compromised, why fuck around at all? What, they don't have napalm in a galaxy far far away?
Again: they brought space support. They can blow up the planet, or they can run around with guns. Look at how these people operate: they often bring troop carriers, but not fighter crafts. The bad guys chronically underestimate guerrilla resistance. They took friggin' speeder bikes into the woods to look for entrenched rebels who could be hiding behind trees ready to pelt you with a rock and knock you off your high-speed floating motorcycle.
They also want intelligence. They wanted to determine if the base was there, capture any useful information, and capture any people with useful information. Scorched earth was considered sub-optimal.
Hoth was kinda weird though. Giant machines vulnerable to people in floating sports cars.
Electrolytic voltage ratings are somewhat meaningless. They specify one of infinite meaningful measurements for the same thing.
A 50V capacitor isn't just 50V; it's 50V rated for some operating hours. Let's say 10,000 hours. If your capacitor oscillates across 50V (say a GND+150VDC on one side and GND+100-150VAC on the other, or just 50VAC), you can run that capacitor for 10,000 hours. If we drop that voltage to 25V, it'll run 20,000 hours. Raise it to 100V, it'll run 5,000 hours.
Essentially, its useful life scales linearly with voltage. This cap has 500,000 / E hours of life for an AC voltage of E.
That explains Star Trek objects exploding all the time.
According to "The Elements of Style" by Strunk and White, "one tenth" is both correct and better. "One tenth" is shorter, thus a stronger statement.
Why the f--- did the Trade Federation invest God knows how much on a bazillion combat droids that were so utterly fucking useless.
Support from Senator Palpatine. Money, lots and lots of money. Remember all the secret conferences they had?
"Trade Federation assholes, ever heard of fucking AIR SUPPORT!"
It's established that space ships don't work great in atmosphere. Both real physics and movie physics have continuously attested to this: space ships leave the atmosphere as quickly as possible. They likely didn't bring air support, instead having space fighters. They also made large tactical errors: the trade federation was certain of their superior firepower, considering they conquered the Naboo effortlessly in one sweep.
Also, the Naboo were part of the Republic; some level of hostility will eventually gain you bad attention. There's a difference between "trade dispute and invasion" and "endless bloodshed and slaughter". People like to think they can abandon their allies and keep their hands clean, while they know they have superior power to resist the same threats or, ironically, allies to come to their aid. When they see vicious attacks, they feel personally threatened and are motivated to do something about it. When pressed, diplomats will tell you they don't want to intervene and escalate a mainly-peaceful (!?) situation to violence--a comforting pile of horse shit.
I don't get the plot thing. I saw the pieces come together as they went, aside from Count Doku just suddenly appearing as Palpatine's apprentice. The 6 year gap kind of had things happen.
Most of the actors behaved exactly like real world people behave. From a 100-foot view we see they're doing dumb shit, but their perspective doesn't afford these benefits. Anakin was a child, then a teenager; he made distinctly not-adult decisions. Padme confided in and trusted Palpatine, who openly acted as her ally to her satisfaction, while subtly manipulating the larger chain of events in a way Padme didn't notice. These are all behaviors I've seen both in literature and in the real world.
It's not even that. Look at that quotes list. Awkward quote #1? Just Jar-Jar being Jar-Jar. That was an appropriate quote for the character and context. Quote #5 was a neutral way to avoid an awkward silence. #7 was Anakin being a 9-year-old boy--yes, 9-year-old boys say awkward stupid shit like this. Quotes #20 and #34 were frighteningly insightful: this is exactly what happened after 9/11.
Prequel complainers are just full of shit. They cry about movies that are roughly as good as the originals.
Sorry, short version: It doesn't actually matter.
The question, "How much of the glutamate is monosodium glutamate," is meaningless. The relevant considerations are how much sodium and how much glutamate are present, as monosodium glutamate is, nutritionally and toxicologically, equivalent to sodium and glutamate.
In other words: if you have 1 gram of MSG, versus an identical amount of sodium (in some other non-toxic form, such as sodium chloride) and glutamate, you have the same things. This is unlike, say, sodium chloride versus straight sodium and some other chloride--where the free sodium is toxic.
You could ask what percentage of something is cheesy egg, when referring to eggs, and reach the same issue: eggs and cheese separate are the same as eggs and cheese mixed.