You should wrap yourself in tin foil while you're at it. Those "secret debug modes" have been well known and documented since they were added. To put the processor in debug mode, you need ring 0 access, so any program that can do this already has kernel privileges. The hidden debug mode your link talks about is just a small (but useful) undocumented extension of this existing debug mode. Could the NSA use this to spy on you? Sure, but with kernel privileges they could do anything.
Back at the atomic level, particles that bounce off the bottom of the volume get an extra "push", and bounce back a bit higher.
Actually, more accurate would be to say that the particles that bounce off the bottom of the volume will not hit it hard enough and frequently enough to repel all the particles from the denser volume below. So the top boundary of that denser volume will rise, moving the bottom of the less-denser volume upwards, causing the particles in that volume to bounce slightly higher.
"The first mistake is to assume that helium rises. The truth is that it falls down towards the earth just like any other object. The reason for what you see is much simpler: It does not rise; it's just that everything else simply falls harder." (Freely translated from memory and German)
That is actually very misleading, to the point of being incorrect.
At the atomic level, a molecule of Oxygen falls at the same rate as an atom of Helium (about 9.8 m/(s^2), depending on altitude), so nothing really "falls harder".
What actually happens is the process of buoyancy. A He atom weighs about 16x less than an O molecule. A volume of air at specific temperature and pressure will contain the same number of particles (atoms or molecules).
If the volume contains relatively more He, the total mass of the volume will be less (lower density). If you surround this volume with volumes of higher density and place them in a gravitational field, then the sum of the pressure forces on the volume will not be in equilibrium. There will be a net force pushing the volume upwards.
At the atomic level, all the particles are falling constantly, bouncing off particles of lower layers (electrostatic repulsion), bouncing up again. At the macroscopic level, volumes of particles with lower density rise because the net forces on them are unbalanced. Back at the atomic level, particles that bounce off the bottom of the volume get an extra "push", and bounce back a bit higher.
The gravity of the body at the center is pulling the object in, the velocity vector is pushing the orbiting body out, but as they are equally matched the net result is a nice perfect circular orbit (not accounting for the fact that true circular orbits probably only occur in theory and also avoiding all those horrible to write as formulas elliptical orbits). Isn't that the same thing?
No. While the amplitude of the velocity vector remains the same, its direction changes constantly, the result of the gravitational force.
Or is the first law simply saying that a body with movement will continue to keep moving as long as nothing interacts with it?
That is exactly what it says. Or in other words: the velocity vector only changes when a net force is applied to the object.
If there are two opposite but equal forces being applied with a new force of zero, would that not be allowed to be the same thing?
That is the case, but here there is only one real force working (gravity). The centrifugal force that balances the orbit is not a real force, but a result of the object's velocity.
No it doesn't. It only applies when there is no net force on the object (as the law clearly states), and in orbit there is a gravitational force that constantly changes the velocity vector. What you are talking about is general relativity, not classical mechanics.
Well, these may well be the most extreme regions in space-time and the maths are some of the most difficult to solve (and honestly way over my head). Plus we would have to be able to marry GR and QM to fully describe black holes.
The way I see it, the vacuum fluctuations can form many kinds of virtual pairs, and when that pair consists of photons, then there is no problem at all since they always move at c and hence can escape the gravitational well (but they will be red shifted due to the extreme gravity). So most of the Hawking radiation will always be EM radiation.
Mass-bearing particles will form with the same small/limited energy from the vacuum, and their momentum and thus initial speed will be small too. In a normal gravitational well they would almost immediately fall back towards the event horizon, due to the extreme gravitation (it requires thrust for any mass to change/leave orbit, and these are not even in orbit).
In the ergosphere of a rotating black hole, nothing can remain stationary relative to the rest of the universe because that would require faster than light movement. This means particles are forced to move, even when initially stationary, and hence they gain momentum, which in turn can lead to the particle escaping the gravitational potential.
Of course, that is when only taking into account gravitational effects. The extreme magnetic fields surrounding black holes will also accelerate charged particles, and will probably have a bigger effect than frame dragging.
Instead, it can take a few swings around the black hole in a rapidly decaying orbit, until it slingshots out on a hyperbolic path. The smaller the black hole gets, the more definite the position is for every matter/antimatter particle pair, and by Heisenberg's uncertainty principle applied to position-momentum, this makes it easier for one of the two particles to escape.
Erm, that's not how orbital/slingshot mechanics work. In fact, a mass-bearing particle (from a virtual pair) could never escape a stationary black hole, because it wouldn't have enough energy to do so, and normal orbital mechanics wouldn't increase its energy.
Instead, you'd need a rotating black hole with an ergosphere. This is a weird area where space-time is dragged along the black hole faster than the speed of light relative to outer space. Here it is possible to extract energy from the black hole with what is called the Penrose process, and thus the electrons/positrons may gain enough speed to escape.
If dumping in XML format, that info is preserved, otherwise it seems to be discarded. If a DB has a combo of MyISAM and InnoDB tables and you're backing up / replicating with mysqldump, that info is... lost. As far as I can tell. Unless I'm doing something wrong.
Dunno, I never had any problems with this (5.5.x). Doing a standard mysqldump in SQL format adds the storage engine to the end of each table create statement.
If you can change the chip logic, you can get custom behaviours at top speed.
That's what we thought about FPGAs, but it didn't quite work out that way. Using this technology won't change that, it will just allow us to make better FPGAs.
Reprogramming an FPGA is slow (many switches to reconfigure, usually serially), which means it would only increase overal performance if you can use the custom function long enough, and it only works if you don't have to switch functions too often.
Writing software for an FPGA is difficult (it's more logic design than software) and requires specialized software. Reconfiguring it in a wrong way could damage the silicon (though modern devices and software have some protections and checks). So any custom functionality would come in the form of libraries, written by specialists.
The amount of extra interconnect and transistors needed to make a CPU reprogrammable are also significant, resulting in higher die area (and thus cost), lesser transistor density (=slower speed), and overall higher energy consumption.
The result of all this is that FPGAs are only used in very custom hardware (usually low volume), with the programming remaining largely static, only to be altered when there are bugs found or improvements needed (once a month or less).
Oh, but that means you need to learn C, and not some platform specific language.
C is a very platform specific language (been there, done that). The only reason (non trivial) C programs work at all on different platforms is because the developers used copious amounts of defines and pragmas, and thus wrote the program for all platforms.
This in contrast with Java where I can take a Jar created for one system/OS and run it on another system/OS without any changes at all (provided it doesn't deeply integrate with the host OS). This is of course because the Java VM is the actual system/OS.
By your logic it would be against the law to demand that movie goers switch off their cell phone, because that would disrupt their essential service.
With all the reinforced concrete and metal ducts in a building, it wouldn't surprise me if they put a cellphone repeater (micro cell) inside the theater in the first place, to give everyone perfect reception (in the snack/drinks area).
While turning a theater into a Faraday cage isn't violating the text of the law, it does violate the spirit of it and can be subject to litigation.
Nonsense. The FCC gets the power to enforce their regulations by law, but FCC regulations themselves are not law. In any case, the "spirit" here is not to cause radio interference in the regulated spectrum, so a Faraday cage is perfectly fine. In fact, a lot of building materials already inadvertently turn rooms into Faraday cages.
Then you had NO RIGHT to bitch about Open Office or Java or anything else that tells you to piss off when it comes to user contributions, after all you have the source so you can just fork it!
Why do you assume I did? It sounds like you desperately want to prove your point.
Slashdot Mirror
Slashdot
nobody.reads.TFA
news.for.nerds
(or maybe that was too obvious?)
You should wrap yourself in tin foil while you're at it.
Those "secret debug modes" have been well known and documented since they were added.
To put the processor in debug mode, you need ring 0 access, so any program that can do this already has kernel privileges.
The hidden debug mode your link talks about is just a small (but useful) undocumented extension of this existing debug mode.
Could the NSA use this to spy on you? Sure, but with kernel privileges they could do anything.
Back at the atomic level, particles that bounce off the bottom of the volume get an extra "push", and bounce back a bit higher.
Actually, more accurate would be to say that the particles that bounce off the bottom of the volume will not hit it hard enough and frequently enough to repel all the particles from the denser volume below. So the top boundary of that denser volume will rise, moving the bottom of the less-denser volume upwards, causing the particles in that volume to bounce slightly higher.
"The first mistake is to assume that helium rises. The truth is that it falls down towards the earth just like any other object. The reason for what you see is much simpler: It does not rise; it's just that everything else simply falls harder." (Freely translated from memory and German)
That is actually very misleading, to the point of being incorrect.
At the atomic level, a molecule of Oxygen falls at the same rate as an atom of Helium (about 9.8 m/(s^2), depending on altitude), so nothing really "falls harder".
What actually happens is the process of buoyancy. A He atom weighs about 16x less than an O molecule. A volume of air at specific temperature and pressure will contain the same number of particles (atoms or molecules).
If the volume contains relatively more He, the total mass of the volume will be less (lower density). If you surround this volume with volumes of higher density and place them in a gravitational field, then the sum of the pressure forces on the volume will not be in equilibrium. There will be a net force pushing the volume upwards.
At the atomic level, all the particles are falling constantly, bouncing off particles of lower layers (electrostatic repulsion), bouncing up again. At the macroscopic level, volumes of particles with lower density rise because the net forces on them are unbalanced. Back at the atomic level, particles that bounce off the bottom of the volume get an extra "push", and bounce back a bit higher.
The gravity of the body at the center is pulling the object in, the velocity vector is pushing the orbiting body out, but as they are equally matched the net result is a nice perfect circular orbit (not accounting for the fact that true circular orbits probably only occur in theory and also avoiding all those horrible to write as formulas elliptical orbits). Isn't that the same thing?
No. While the amplitude of the velocity vector remains the same, its direction changes constantly, the result of the gravitational force.
Or is the first law simply saying that a body with movement will continue to keep moving as long as nothing interacts with it?
That is exactly what it says. Or in other words: the velocity vector only changes when a net force is applied to the object.
If there are two opposite but equal forces being applied with a new force of zero, would that not be allowed to be the same thing?
That is the case, but here there is only one real force working (gravity). The centrifugal force that balances the orbit is not a real force, but a result of the object's velocity.
First law of motion works for orbits
No it doesn't.
It only applies when there is no net force on the object (as the law clearly states), and in orbit there is a gravitational force that constantly changes the velocity vector.
What you are talking about is general relativity, not classical mechanics.
Well, these may well be the most extreme regions in space-time and the maths are some of the most difficult to solve (and honestly way over my head). Plus we would have to be able to marry GR and QM to fully describe black holes.
The way I see it, the vacuum fluctuations can form many kinds of virtual pairs, and when that pair consists of photons, then there is no problem at all since they always move at c and hence can escape the gravitational well (but they will be red shifted due to the extreme gravity). So most of the Hawking radiation will always be EM radiation.
Mass-bearing particles will form with the same small/limited energy from the vacuum, and their momentum and thus initial speed will be small too. In a normal gravitational well they would almost immediately fall back towards the event horizon, due to the extreme gravitation (it requires thrust for any mass to change/leave orbit, and these are not even in orbit).
In the ergosphere of a rotating black hole, nothing can remain stationary relative to the rest of the universe because that would require faster than light movement. This means particles are forced to move, even when initially stationary, and hence they gain momentum, which in turn can lead to the particle escaping the gravitational potential.
Of course, that is when only taking into account gravitational effects. The extreme magnetic fields surrounding black holes will also accelerate charged particles, and will probably have a bigger effect than frame dragging.
Instead, it can take a few swings around the black hole in a rapidly decaying orbit, until it slingshots out on a hyperbolic path. The smaller the black hole gets, the more definite the position is for every matter/antimatter particle pair, and by Heisenberg's uncertainty principle applied to position-momentum, this makes it easier for one of the two particles to escape.
Erm, that's not how orbital/slingshot mechanics work. In fact, a mass-bearing particle (from a virtual pair) could never escape a stationary black hole, because it wouldn't have enough energy to do so, and normal orbital mechanics wouldn't increase its energy.
Instead, you'd need a rotating black hole with an ergosphere. This is a weird area where space-time is dragged along the black hole faster than the speed of light relative to outer space. Here it is possible to extract energy from the black hole with what is called the Penrose process, and thus the electrons/positrons may gain enough speed to escape.
Here's a less "flashy" one, a few months older:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=3sCuse5TZGA
Looking at the picture of the implant, it was more like 75% op his skull cap. I don't think losing 75% of your skull would be survivable.
This is very useful to me too. Now I can finally find out where Waldo was hiding all this time...
In other news: Nearly Every NYC Crime Involves Shoes.
I'm pretty sure the semicolon should come before the closing curly brace...
The proper term is Surface Tension.
Yeah, but it contains a lot of hot air, so you can use that to drive a turbine. Unless they sell it first.
The effort invested into Reactos would make much more sense if invested into Wine instead.
ReactOS uses the higher level libraries and services from Wine, so any improvements they make in those will improve Wine too (and vice versa).
Besides that, everyone is free to invest their time and efforts in whatever they want.
Clearly the "Fragmentation" concept is fragmentated :o)
It has the effect of software automation being able to take down stuff without any oversight.
FTFY
If dumping in XML format, that info is preserved, otherwise it seems to be discarded. If a DB has a combo of MyISAM and InnoDB tables and you're backing up / replicating with mysqldump, that info is... lost. As far as I can tell. Unless I'm doing something wrong.
Dunno, I never had any problems with this (5.5.x). Doing a standard mysqldump in SQL format adds the storage engine to the end of each table create statement.
If you can change the chip logic, you can get custom behaviours at top speed.
That's what we thought about FPGAs, but it didn't quite work out that way. Using this technology won't change that, it will just allow us to make better FPGAs.
Reprogramming an FPGA is slow (many switches to reconfigure, usually serially), which means it would only increase overal performance if you can use the custom function long enough, and it only works if you don't have to switch functions too often.
Writing software for an FPGA is difficult (it's more logic design than software) and requires specialized software. Reconfiguring it in a wrong way could damage the silicon (though modern devices and software have some protections and checks). So any custom functionality would come in the form of libraries, written by specialists.
The amount of extra interconnect and transistors needed to make a CPU reprogrammable are also significant, resulting in higher die area (and thus cost), lesser transistor density (=slower speed), and overall higher energy consumption.
The result of all this is that FPGAs are only used in very custom hardware (usually low volume), with the programming remaining largely static, only to be altered when there are bugs found or improvements needed (once a month or less).
To keep a magnetic field going (small as it might be) you need to have a current flowing...
And that's why I have wires and batteries connected to all my fridge magnets...
Oh, but that means you need to learn C, and not some platform specific language.
C is a very platform specific language (been there, done that). The only reason (non trivial) C programs work at all on different platforms is because the developers used copious amounts of defines and pragmas, and thus wrote the program for all platforms.
This in contrast with Java where I can take a Jar created for one system/OS and run it on another system/OS without any changes at all (provided it doesn't deeply integrate with the host OS). This is of course because the Java VM is the actual system/OS.
By your logic it would be against the law to demand that movie goers switch off their cell phone, because that would disrupt their essential service.
With all the reinforced concrete and metal ducts in a building, it wouldn't surprise me if they put a cellphone repeater (micro cell) inside the theater in the first place, to give everyone perfect reception (in the snack/drinks area).
While turning a theater into a Faraday cage isn't violating the text of the law, it does violate the spirit of it and can be subject to litigation.
Nonsense. The FCC gets the power to enforce their regulations by law, but FCC regulations themselves are not law.
In any case, the "spirit" here is not to cause radio interference in the regulated spectrum, so a Faraday cage is perfectly fine.
In fact, a lot of building materials already inadvertently turn rooms into Faraday cages.
Then you had NO RIGHT to bitch about Open Office or Java or anything else that tells you to piss off when it comes to user contributions, after all you have the source so you can just fork it!
Why do you assume I did? It sounds like you desperately want to prove your point.
If you seriously want to add code to mainstream Android, feel free to follow the procedure:
http://source.android.com/source/submit-patches.html .