Plenty of deseases are cureable. But the medical industrial complex wants to keep you dependened on drugs. E.g. those many psychopharmaca or the time when they claimed ulkus was not treatable while in fact it is just a bacteria or diabetes (not sure if it is type I or II, one is healabke with diet changes, the other one with transplants and or diet changes).
JSON can't be a protocol. It is a data format. On the other hand: every protocoll is code. Code that tells the 'other sode' in which state my side is, what action I expect from 'the other side' and in what state I will switch afterwards. Considering that, you can ofc. implement/represent the messages for the protocol in JSON, and then: it is code, and no longer data. Hint: read about a simple protocoll, e.g SMTP.
Then learn how to use your source code control tool. Delete the offending code instead of commenting it out. If you are forced to use a certain one and are not allowed to do single commits, install a local one of a different kind, e.g. if you use SVN you can locally use Git or even RCS just fine. Commit your code locally. Delete the stuff you usually would uncomment, commit if you want, continue your work. Everything can later be retrieved from the central or local repository... easily!
The big deal about indentation is actually in C. Or more precisely: the question where to place the { and } and how to indent them! I think the five or six most common (which means the lesser common ones of those share perhaps 10% of all C code base) even have names!! Like K&R, Awho, etc. The lack of {/} in Python at least relieves us from that war:) My next project involves me maintaining and developing a build system in Python (github, see BoB), I'm looking forward to get my hands on it.
Recruited is the wrong term. They where recruits and forced by gun point to clean up, or get court court martialed. Obviously most recruits where from "trouble zones" so they could kill two birds with one stone.
So, if more people die per kWh with X than Y This is a stupid metric.
People dropping from roofs die because they drop from roofs. Regardless what they do on the roof, having sex, installing antennas, watching stars, watching birds or installing solar panels.
And your idiotic metric is bollocks in 20 years anyway when half of earth power production comes from solar power.
Also, no one is has built a nuclear power plant like Chernobyl because the design was so unsafe. The design was not unsafe. The operators made many mistakes. That is all. And bottom line, Russia has about 100 more reactors of the exact same type, so has China, idiot.
When it comes crashing down, crushing people, electrocuting others, and contaminating the soil for decades to come and then say all solar power is dangerous, unsafe, and should never ever be tried again. So something related to a nuclear reactor can not crash down, crush people, or electro cute them? Are you sure nuclear reactors create electric energy?
It seems you've never heard of the pebble bed reactor. Yes, I heared of them. Germany had 2 research reactors. Facepalm. Both failed. And both cool the exhaust of the turbines with water. You don't even know what you are talking about. Yes, the reactor chamber contains "air"... but where does the steam come from to run the turbines? What happens to that steam? How to get water back into the reactor to run the turbines again?
Sorry: you have no clue how a reactor works... go home and read a book!!!
You are an idiot: Sure, you can. Then if we're going off into la-la land we can speculate about a nuclear reactor that converts 90+% of it's fuel into heatIt converts 100% into heat, a heat exchanger that turns 50+% of this heat into mechanical energyThat is impossible. The theoretical maximum is 42%, and a generator that can turn 90+% of that into electricity. That is plain dumb again, a generator converts 99% _PLUS_ into electric energy. You have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.
With the only known reactionless drive we have, the photon drive, First of all the term "reactionless" makes no sense. You mean: "without reaction mass". Secondly: the photon drive has a reaction mass, they are called "photons".
Of course a "normal" rocket is no PM, and neither is a EM drive, that was my point.
If EmDrive works it violates the conservation of momentum No. If it works, it does not violate the law of conservation of momentum, or it would not work. Plain and simple. You simply don't grasp how it conserves it. I suggest to read the wikipedia articles about the minimum 3 different EM drive variations we are researching right now.
My assertion was that the comings and goings of ice ages did not kill any of the species alive today, which is self-evidently true.
Ah, then I missed the point that you wrote a tautology.
when dinosaurs were roaming the forests of Antarctica 70 million years ago, the continent was still quite centered on the south pole. Which is wrong.
As seen in Alaska, trees can survive several months of no sunlight, if the temperature is warm enough. Alaska has not even one month of no sunlight. And the trees 70 millions years ago had not survived that anyway... they where bread for much higher temperatures.
Then just spin the wheel up until the EmDrive is moving fast enough that thrust * radius * angualr speed is greater than the power being used. And how should that be possible with an EM drive when it is impossible with any other "drive"?
However, fortunately or unfortunately (depending how you look on it and your background in science) the EM drive (and again, regardless if it works or not): has nothing to do with the laws of thermodynamics!
And those studies are bollocks. If you would think about it for 2 to 10 seconds you would realize that yourself. (* throwing more coal into the fire does not make the fire bigger, ah ha... interesting. Facepalm *)
I guess that was supposed to be cynical/sarcastically/funny. So for the idiot who clicked the wrong button: in Siberia in winter we will have about 3 month eternal night. Good luck in working in a T-Shirt then.
The tundra (as we know it) will remain to be a 3 month perma day, a 3 month perma night, and intermediate seasons that are called spring and autumn, but aren't compare able to a normal spring or autumn. So: no..the soil wont transform into something useful for agriculture, idiot.
CO2 as fertilization... oh, I already explained to you that you are an idiot. Don't want to repeat myself...
Thundras are not rich soil. They come just behind desert and swamp. And climate scientist would be idiots to buy land in Greenlands. First if all the evolving effects are to slow to make if a worthwhile investment. Most climate scientists are well above 30 years old. The 'catastrophe' will take about 30 years to establish. That greenland grounds are paying off (if at all) will be in 40 - 50 years. You forget: even with global warming Greenlands will be like Icelands: arctic winter with lots of darkness. Normal people don't want to live there.
The data is not dubious. The wording makes use of un aprobriated metaphors, and everyone, even the dumbest person, that excludes obviously all/. posters on that matter: understand that boiling away oceans are a metaphor.
You are an idiot. With current CO2 levels there most likely won't be any other glacier period again. And on top of that: the last glacier period ended 20k - 10k years ago. Without human intervention the next one would be somewhere in the future of 500k to 1000k years, not in 10k. Facepalm.
The last glacier periods (what you call ice ages) killed plenty of species. E.g. in the latest the Neanderthals died out, both, Neanderthals and cro magnon humans did not exist before the second latest. And you Antarctica reference is so much bollocks, it is unbelievable! Hint: continental drift. Antarctica was at the time you mentioned at the equator, not at the south pole. The south pole is aprox. 6 months a year 'at night'... perhaps ice free if there is no land but only open sea, but completely unsuited to grow trees.
I doubt this are 107 failed predictions by 'alarmists'. This are more likely 'scenarios' put out by idiots. And other idiots consider them as predictions... and again other idiots believe them, and then again other idiots come up years later and say: "see! alarmists make failed predictions! And the facts I don't agree with, and the conclusions from those facts, I don't agree with must be false predictions, too."
Sorry, the 'predictions' we have in our times are made by scientists.
I simply don't get it... We are talking about a drive that produces an incredible low amount of thrust for an incredible high amount of power used. It is completely impossible to make with that a device that produces enough electricity to power an EM drive. And at that point all your attempts to fabulate an PM fails apart.
Your idea is as idiotic as assuming you can run an 1.5V DC motor with a 1.5V generator attached and recharge the same battery that is running the motor with the power gained from the generator.
I'm not sure what you're arguing here. I'm arguing that IF the EM drive works as described then you can set up the system I described and you get the absurdity of perpetual motion. No. You described us a system that can not work. Regardless which what kind of drive you power it. Hence the connection to the EM drive is a logical no sequitur.
Power = torque * angular velocity That is wrong. Torque is mass times 'angular velocity'. So 'mass' times 'angular velocity' times 'angular velocity' yields angular or "turning motion kinetic energy". In other words you are mixing up the "fly wheel" _kinetic energy_ in your "construction" with power.
Forget the stupid torque, just use a sledge or a flying rock: energy is m*v^2... and that is not power. Your idea how to extract energy just because the "drive" is an EM drive (your idea would either work or not work with an ion drive, too, it is completely agnostic from the mechanism that powers it, facepalm) is silly at best and as you hang so much on it and don't grasp any counter argument I dare to say, it is not silly, but idiotic.
Slashdot Mirror
Plenty of deseases are cureable. But the medical industrial complex wants to keep you dependened on drugs. E.g. those many psychopharmaca or the time when they claimed ulkus was not treatable while in fact it is just a bacteria or diabetes (not sure if it is type I or II, one is healabke with diet changes, the other one with transplants and or diet changes).
JSON can't be a protocol. It is a data format.
On the other hand: every protocoll is code. Code that tells the 'other sode' in which state my side is, what action I expect from 'the other side' and in what state I will switch afterwards.
Considering that, you can ofc. implement/represent the messages for the protocol in JSON, and then: it is code, and no longer data.
Hint: read about a simple protocoll, e.g SMTP.
Considering that the muslimes comsider Islam an more 'evolved' version of judaism and catolizism this is a pretty tough statement :)
Then learn how to use your source code control tool. ... easily!
Delete the offending code instead of commenting it out.
If you are forced to use a certain one and are not allowed to do single commits, install a local one of a different kind, e.g. if you use SVN you can locally use Git or even RCS just fine.
Commit your code locally. Delete the stuff you usually would uncomment, commit if you want, continue your work.
Everything can later be retrieved from the central or local repository
The big deal about indentation is actually in C. :)
Or more precisely: the question where to place the { and } and how to indent them!
I think the five or six most common (which means the lesser common ones of those share perhaps 10% of all C code base) even have names!! Like K&R, Awho, etc.
The lack of {/} in Python at least relieves us from that war
My next project involves me maintaining and developing a build system in Python (github, see BoB), I'm looking forward to get my hands on it.
Recruited is the wrong term.
They where recruits and forced by gun point to clean up, or get court court martialed.
Obviously most recruits where from "trouble zones" so they could kill two birds with one stone.
So, if more people die per kWh with X than Y
This is a stupid metric.
People dropping from roofs die because they drop from roofs. Regardless what they do on the roof, having sex, installing antennas, watching stars, watching birds or installing solar panels.
And your idiotic metric is bollocks in 20 years anyway when half of earth power production comes from solar power.
Also, no one is has built a nuclear power plant like Chernobyl because the design was so unsafe.
The design was not unsafe. The operators made many mistakes. That is all. And bottom line, Russia has about 100 more reactors of the exact same type, so has China, idiot.
When it comes crashing down, crushing people, electrocuting others, and contaminating the soil for decades to come and then say all solar power is dangerous, unsafe, and should never ever be tried again. So something related to a nuclear reactor can not crash down, crush people, or electro cute them? Are you sure nuclear reactors create electric energy?
It seems you've never heard of the pebble bed reactor. ... but where does the steam come from to run the turbines?
Yes, I heared of them. Germany had 2 research reactors. Facepalm. Both failed. And both cool the exhaust of the turbines with water. You don't even know what you are talking about.
Yes, the reactor chamber contains "air"
What happens to that steam? How to get water back into the reactor to run the turbines again?
Sorry: you have no clue how a reactor works ... go home and read a book!!!
You are an idiot:
Sure, you can. Then if we're going off into la-la land we can speculate about a nuclear reactor that converts 90+% of it's fuel into heat It converts 100% into heat , a heat exchanger that turns 50+% of this heat into mechanical energy That is impossible. The theoretical maximum is 42% , and a generator that can turn 90+% of that into electricity. That is plain dumb again, a generator converts 99% _PLUS_ into electric energy.
You have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.
With the only known reactionless drive we have, the photon drive,
First of all the term "reactionless" makes no sense. You mean: "without reaction mass".
Secondly: the photon drive has a reaction mass, they are called "photons".
Of course a "normal" rocket is no PM, and neither is a EM drive, that was my point.
If EmDrive works it violates the conservation of momentum
No. If it works, it does not violate the law of conservation of momentum, or it would not work. Plain and simple. You simply don't grasp how it conserves it. I suggest to read the wikipedia articles about the minimum 3 different EM drive variations we are researching right now.
My assertion was that the comings and goings of ice ages did not kill any of the species alive today, which is self-evidently true.
Ah, then I missed the point that you wrote a tautology.
when dinosaurs were roaming the forests of Antarctica 70 million years ago, the continent was still quite centered on the south pole.
Which is wrong.
As seen in Alaska, trees can survive several months of no sunlight, if the temperature is warm enough. ... they where bread for much higher temperatures.
Alaska has not even one month of no sunlight. And the trees 70 millions years ago had not survived that anyway
Then just spin the wheel up until the EmDrive is moving fast enough that thrust * radius * angualr speed is greater than the power being used.
And how should that be possible with an EM drive when it is impossible with any other "drive"?
However, fortunately or unfortunately (depending how you look on it and your background in science) the EM drive (and again, regardless if it works or not):
has nothing to do with the laws of thermodynamics!
And those studies are bollocks. ... interesting. Facepalm *)
If you would think about it for 2 to 10 seconds you would realize that yourself.
(* throwing more coal into the fire does not make the fire bigger, ah ha
I guess that was supposed to be cynical/sarcastically/funny.
So for the idiot who clicked the wrong button: in Siberia in winter we will have about 3 month eternal night.
Good luck in working in a T-Shirt then.
The tundra (as we know it) will remain to be a 3 month perma day, a 3 month perma night, and intermediate seasons that are called spring and autumn, but aren't compare able to a normal spring or autumn. .the soil wont transform into something useful for agriculture, idiot.
So: no.
CO2 as fertilization ... oh, I already explained to you that you are an idiot. Don't want to repeat myself ...
Thundras are not rich soil. They come just behind desert and swamp.
And climate scientist would be idiots to buy land in Greenlands.
First if all the evolving effects are to slow to make if a worthwhile investment.
Most climate scientists are well above 30 years old. The 'catastrophe' will take about 30 years to establish. That greenland grounds are paying off (if at all) will be in 40 - 50 years.
You forget: even with global warming Greenlands will be like Icelands: arctic winter with lots of darkness. Normal people don't want to live there.
The data is not dubious. /. posters on that matter: understand that boiling away oceans are a metaphor.
The wording makes use of un aprobriated metaphors, and everyone, even the dumbest person, that excludes obviously all
You are an idiot.
With current CO2 levels there most likely won't be any other glacier period again.
And on top of that: the last glacier period ended 20k - 10k years ago. Without human intervention the next one would be somewhere in the future of 500k to 1000k years, not in 10k. Facepalm.
The Syrians, and other middle easts invading Europe right now, tell another story.
The last glacier periods (what you call ice ages) killed plenty of species. E.g. in the latest the Neanderthals died out, both, Neanderthals and cro magnon humans did not exist before the second latest. ... perhaps ice free if there is no land but only open sea, but completely unsuited to grow trees.
And you Antarctica reference is so much bollocks, it is unbelievable!
Hint: continental drift. Antarctica was at the time you mentioned at the equator, not at the south pole.
The south pole is aprox. 6 months a year 'at night'
I doubt this are 107 failed predictions by 'alarmists'. ... and again other idiots believe them, and then again other idiots come up years later and say: "see! alarmists make failed predictions! And the facts I don't agree with, and the conclusions from those facts, I don't agree with must be false predictions, too."
This are more likely 'scenarios' put out by idiots.
And other idiots consider them as predictions
Sorry, the 'predictions' we have in our times are made by scientists.
I simply don't get it ...
We are talking about a drive that produces an incredible low amount of thrust for an incredible high amount of power used.
It is completely impossible to make with that a device that produces enough electricity to power an EM drive. And at that point all your attempts to fabulate an PM fails apart.
Your idea is as idiotic as assuming you can run an 1.5V DC motor with a 1.5V generator attached and recharge the same battery that is running the motor with the power gained from the generator.
The faster it goes, the more surplus energy it generates.
No it does not. Facepalm. If that was the case every other drive had the "same problem".
If your math would be right, you could make a PM with every kind of drive. ;D
As we all learned in school, that we can't, I think your math is wrong
I'm not sure what you're arguing here. I'm arguing that IF the EM drive works as described then you can set up the system I described and you get the absurdity of perpetual motion.
No. You described us a system that can not work. Regardless which what kind of drive you power it. Hence the connection to the EM drive is a logical no sequitur.
Power = torque * angular velocity
That is wrong. Torque is mass times 'angular velocity'. So 'mass' times 'angular velocity' times 'angular velocity' yields angular or "turning motion kinetic energy". In other words you are mixing up the "fly wheel" _kinetic energy_ in your "construction" with power.
Forget the stupid torque, just use a sledge or a flying rock: energy is m*v^2 ... and that is not power. Your idea how to extract energy just because the "drive" is an EM drive (your idea would either work or not work with an ion drive, too, it is completely agnostic from the mechanism that powers it, facepalm) is silly at best and as you hang so much on it and don't grasp any counter argument I dare to say, it is not silly, but idiotic.