Yes, of course. I don't support this ridiculous notion that we shouldn't try to get something useful out of the experiment just because we can't explain the theory.
When Microsoft loses exclusivity with Windows then Microsoft eventually loses. They've hardly ever competed in the market based on capabilities and quality
Let me guess, you're still bitter from WinME?
Look at what's actually making money. Hint: it's mostly Office, not Windows, and it has been that way for many years now. Why would Office for iOS or Android, say, make any less money than Office for Windows?
Or, say, Azure. It's a money maker, despite playing catch-up with AWS.
What I see is only a way to let over developers make apps which only run on Windows.
Yeah, that's why Code runs on Linux: to let people who use Linux make apps that only run on Windows. Makes perfect sense.
Are you saying that you would completely ignore the repeatedly reproducible result of an experiment if there were no good theoretical physical explanation for said result?
I mean, it's your choice, but it sounds extremely stupid. If the thing works, figuring out why it works is definitely a very interesting question well worth devoting resources to, but making it useful doesn't require fully understanding the theory.
Note that this is the fifth experiment so far that has reproduced the effect (and every new experiment tries to account for some explanation that could possibly invalidate the previous one; e.g. for the last one, they ran it in vacuum).
A few physicists have already ripped it apart (and the fact that the physics is unsound is why it took so long for anyone to actually try to properly reproduce it). Basically, the thing may well work, but if it does work, it's very unlikely that the explanation that its inventor has provided is legitimate.
Consider, for example, the momentum from a photon. We can clearly generate photons through, say, an LED, emit them, and increase momentum of one object without a violation of the conservation of momentum. The thing is that we don't think that energy has momentum
Of course energy has momentum. Photons, in particular, have momentum. That's why there's nothing strange about the experiment as you describe it - you increase the momentum of your rocket, but that increase is exactly counterbalanced by the momentum of the emitted photon. And when that photon hits something eventually, it will transmit its momentum to that thing etc. Overall, momentum is conserved, not just "right now", but at any future point. This doesn't seem to be the case with this engine.
The acceleration graph is definitely not linear. They have tried to model the relation so far, and if it holds, then it will peak at about 1 newton per watt, which is insane if it really works that way - forget ion thrusters, we could throw away the car engines!
The "intended environment" is not necessarily space. If it produces thrust (which it does, since that's what they are measuring), it doesn't matter where it does that, it's still useful work that can be tapped.
"They" are many different people here. The experiment has been reproduced by, what, five different teams all across the world by now? As I understand, only the guy with the original idea is making outlandish claims; everyone else is just trying to figure out what the hell is going on.
One observation that the other teams did make is that the observed output seems to be scaling nonlinearly with input, which implies that there's a peak of efficiency. They have a model that tries to guess what that is, which seems to be consistent with the results to date. If that model is right, the peak efficiency is very high - high enough for practical uses not just in space. That is speculation, of course, but it's strictly fact-driven (and comes with a very big "if" - if the engine actually works by itself).
About that "Yalova Peninsula massacres" (which are the usual Turkish rediculus lies created just to justify the Armenian/Greek genocides/pogroms)
Not that I expected anything else from you - you're literally not any different from the Turks who deny the Armenian genocide, after all - but I do have to note, for the benefit of any other readers, that those "usual Turkish ridiculous lies" were painstakingly documented and investigated by foreigners. The massacres were sufficiently large in scale that a commission was created by WW1 allies (UK, US, France) to investigate them. The commission concluded that:
"A distinct and regular method appears to have been followed in the destruction of villages, group by group, for the last two months... there is a systematic plan of destruction of Turkish villages and extinction of the Muslim population. This plan is being carried out by Greek and Armenian bands, which appear to operate under Greek instructions and sometimes even with the assistance of detachments of regular troops."
I AM NOT A TURK - I AM A GREEK! We Greeks don't genocide people - and that is one more reason why i am not a Turk.
You're Greek because your family was Greek and raised you as Greek, you idiot. There's no "reason" to it, and it's not a choice of your own. The only choice you have is what to do about it, if anything. In your case, for example, you deny crimes against humanity perpetrated by people of the same ethnicity as yours, while Turkish nationalists do the same for their own. And so you retards will keep trying to kill each other for many more years to come, for the fear that otherwise people like you on the other side will come and kill you if you don't kill them first. It's exactly what you did in 1920s, and it seems that you haven't learned anything ever since.
The irony is that more likely that not, you have a healthy dose of Turkish blood in you, especially if your relatives lived in the areas significantly affected by the pogroms, like Smyrna.
We Greeks know about extreme nationalism when Turks (and other barbarians - a Greek word!) were still hanging from trees, and thanks to our extreme nationalism we Greeks managed to civilize most barbarians - our extreme nationalism was NOT "xeno-phobic" (a Greek compound word, with the first part -"xeno"- meaning foreign, but also used for "hospitality" - Zeus is called "Xenios Zeus").
You're so proud of your claim (wrong, of course) to have invented hating other people. In this day and age, the civilized world calls people like you barbarians.
But even if i wrote that i/we hate Turks just because we hate them, why that would be "bad"? DO YOU KNOW WHAT TURKS DID TO MY FAMILY AND TO OTHER GREEKS? Do you demand to love them?
It's perfectly normal to hate the specific people who did it to your family. It's not normal to arbitrarily extend the target of your hate to an entire ethnicity or nationality.
it's true that i would be happy with an apology from Turks to us Greeks - why you have a problem with apologies from people THAT DID HORRIBLE THINGS?
Because vast majority of the Turks who live today participated in the Armenian genocide or Greek pogroms?
An apology from Turkey as a state that considers itself the legal successor to the Ottoman Empire and the Republic of Turkey that carried out those atrocities - yes, that would be meaningful. But you cannot expect an individual Turk to apologize to you for something that some other Turks have carried out. There's no collective responsibility on account of one's ethnicity.
If you disagree, I would like to hear your apology as a Greek on the matter of, say, Yalova Peninsula massacres?
ecause, yes, Turks are "horrible people" AND I PERSONALY (as any capable Greek does) take measures defending ourselves from Turks
Would you say that if it were possible to pre-emptively exterminate those horrible Turks to ensure that they never bother any Greeks or Armenians ever again (since you seem to believe that they will keep trying), it would be good to carry it out?
Are you aware of the fact that US has actually been exporting more oil than it imports lately? Or that it is the single biggest oil producer in the world?
Google already vets advertised sites according to their own set of rules (e.g. they prohibit gun adverts). Given that they already have some form of private censorship, is it really surprising when people start complaining about them not censoring something that they believe should be? They've made their bed, now they lie in it.
It seems that what you've "learned from Turks" first and foremost is extreme nationalism bordering on xenophobia. You say that you "hate Turks", and demand apology "from the Turks", and go on basically ranting about how Turks are such horrible people whom you will "take measures against".
I don't think that censoring is what is expected here - they should be able to speak their mind on the matter. The problem is that the way Google as a platform is set up, they can buy the most prominent spot for their opinion, on top of everyone's else (unless that everyone has more money, I guess) - and that is questionable.
Yes, I understand that Google is a private company and it's up to them to decide what messages they carry and in what fashion, generally speaking. However, when 90% of the people start with Google as the first place to search anything, I'm not sure that we can reasonably say so in practice.
Slashdot Mirror
Granted, they are not writing apps for it (yet)
Well, except for all these.
Yes, of course. I don't support this ridiculous notion that we shouldn't try to get something useful out of the experiment just because we can't explain the theory.
When Microsoft loses exclusivity with Windows then Microsoft eventually loses. They've hardly ever competed in the market based on capabilities and quality
Let me guess, you're still bitter from WinME?
Look at what's actually making money. Hint: it's mostly Office, not Windows, and it has been that way for many years now. Why would Office for iOS or Android, say, make any less money than Office for Windows?
Or, say, Azure. It's a money maker, despite playing catch-up with AWS.
What I see is only a way to let over developers make apps which only run on Windows.
Yeah, that's why Code runs on Linux: to let people who use Linux make apps that only run on Windows. Makes perfect sense.
If Microsoft ends up making money doing applications for Linux, it means that Microsoft has won, as well.
The nice thing about this is that there doesn't have to be a losing party.
Are you saying that you would completely ignore the repeatedly reproducible result of an experiment if there were no good theoretical physical explanation for said result?
I mean, it's your choice, but it sounds extremely stupid. If the thing works, figuring out why it works is definitely a very interesting question well worth devoting resources to, but making it useful doesn't require fully understanding the theory.
Note that this is the fifth experiment so far that has reproduced the effect (and every new experiment tries to account for some explanation that could possibly invalidate the previous one; e.g. for the last one, they ran it in vacuum).
A few physicists have already ripped it apart (and the fact that the physics is unsound is why it took so long for anyone to actually try to properly reproduce it). Basically, the thing may well work, but if it does work, it's very unlikely that the explanation that its inventor has provided is legitimate.
Consider, for example, the momentum from a photon. We can clearly generate photons through, say, an LED, emit them, and increase momentum of one object without a violation of the conservation of momentum. The thing is that we don't think that energy has momentum
Of course energy has momentum. Photons, in particular, have momentum. That's why there's nothing strange about the experiment as you describe it - you increase the momentum of your rocket, but that increase is exactly counterbalanced by the momentum of the emitted photon. And when that photon hits something eventually, it will transmit its momentum to that thing etc. Overall, momentum is conserved, not just "right now", but at any future point. This doesn't seem to be the case with this engine.
As long as you don't change power input, acceleration is always linear.
I assume the question was rather whether acceleration (i.e. force) scales linearly with power input. In the experiment, it did not.
The acceleration graph is definitely not linear. They have tried to model the relation so far, and if it holds, then it will peak at about 1 newton per watt, which is insane if it really works that way - forget ion thrusters, we could throw away the car engines!
The "intended environment" is not necessarily space. If it produces thrust (which it does, since that's what they are measuring), it doesn't matter where it does that, it's still useful work that can be tapped.
"They" are many different people here. The experiment has been reproduced by, what, five different teams all across the world by now? As I understand, only the guy with the original idea is making outlandish claims; everyone else is just trying to figure out what the hell is going on.
One observation that the other teams did make is that the observed output seems to be scaling nonlinearly with input, which implies that there's a peak of efficiency. They have a model that tries to guess what that is, which seems to be consistent with the results to date. If that model is right, the peak efficiency is very high - high enough for practical uses not just in space. That is speculation, of course, but it's strictly fact-driven (and comes with a very big "if" - if the engine actually works by itself).
The rest of it is the usual journalist pop sci.
A good thing then that one of the pieces of Atom that this replaces is the editor ...
Like GP said, it's a fork with significant changes. The editor is replaced entirely, and then there's the whole .NET integration story.
"Tesla’s selling price to installers is $3500 for 10kWh and $3000 for 7kWh. (Price excludes inverter and installation.) "
They specifically point out that the $3.5k price tag does NOT include the inverter and installation costs.
You realize that there are places in US that don't need AC most of the time, and don't use electricity for heating?
You can google the numbers yourself, as well. Look them up for 2013.
About that "Yalova Peninsula massacres" (which are the usual Turkish rediculus lies created just to justify the Armenian/Greek genocides/pogroms)
Not that I expected anything else from you - you're literally not any different from the Turks who deny the Armenian genocide, after all - but I do have to note, for the benefit of any other readers, that those "usual Turkish ridiculous lies" were painstakingly documented and investigated by foreigners. The massacres were sufficiently large in scale that a commission was created by WW1 allies (UK, US, France) to investigate them. The commission concluded that:
"A distinct and regular method appears to have been followed in the destruction of villages, group by group, for the last two months... there is a systematic plan of destruction of Turkish villages and extinction of the Muslim population. This plan is being carried out by Greek and Armenian bands, which appear to operate under Greek instructions and sometimes even with the assistance of detachments of regular troops."
I AM NOT A TURK - I AM A GREEK! We Greeks don't genocide people - and that is one more reason why i am not a Turk.
You're Greek because your family was Greek and raised you as Greek, you idiot. There's no "reason" to it, and it's not a choice of your own. The only choice you have is what to do about it, if anything. In your case, for example, you deny crimes against humanity perpetrated by people of the same ethnicity as yours, while Turkish nationalists do the same for their own. And so you retards will keep trying to kill each other for many more years to come, for the fear that otherwise people like you on the other side will come and kill you if you don't kill them first. It's exactly what you did in 1920s, and it seems that you haven't learned anything ever since.
The irony is that more likely that not, you have a healthy dose of Turkish blood in you, especially if your relatives lived in the areas significantly affected by the pogroms, like Smyrna.
We Greeks know about extreme nationalism when Turks (and other barbarians - a Greek word!) were still hanging from trees, and thanks to our extreme nationalism we Greeks managed to civilize most barbarians - our extreme nationalism was NOT "xeno-phobic" (a Greek compound word, with the first part -"xeno"- meaning foreign, but also used for "hospitality" - Zeus is called "Xenios Zeus").
You're so proud of your claim (wrong, of course) to have invented hating other people. In this day and age, the civilized world calls people like you barbarians.
But even if i wrote that i/we hate Turks just because we hate them, why that would be "bad"? DO YOU KNOW WHAT TURKS DID TO MY FAMILY AND TO OTHER GREEKS? Do you demand to love them?
It's perfectly normal to hate the specific people who did it to your family. It's not normal to arbitrarily extend the target of your hate to an entire ethnicity or nationality.
it's true that i would be happy with an apology from Turks to us Greeks - why you have a problem with apologies from people THAT DID HORRIBLE THINGS?
Because vast majority of the Turks who live today participated in the Armenian genocide or Greek pogroms?
An apology from Turkey as a state that considers itself the legal successor to the Ottoman Empire and the Republic of Turkey that carried out those atrocities - yes, that would be meaningful. But you cannot expect an individual Turk to apologize to you for something that some other Turks have carried out. There's no collective responsibility on account of one's ethnicity.
If you disagree, I would like to hear your apology as a Greek on the matter of, say, Yalova Peninsula massacres?
ecause, yes, Turks are "horrible people" AND I PERSONALY (as any capable Greek does) take measures defending ourselves from Turks
Would you say that if it were possible to pre-emptively exterminate those horrible Turks to ensure that they never bother any Greeks or Armenians ever again (since you seem to believe that they will keep trying), it would be good to carry it out?
Are you aware of the fact that US has actually been exporting more oil than it imports lately? Or that it is the single biggest oil producer in the world?
Slashdot does support Unicode. It just strips out most of the characters in it, by (an extremely bad) design.
Google already vets advertised sites according to their own set of rules (e.g. they prohibit gun adverts). Given that they already have some form of private censorship, is it really surprising when people start complaining about them not censoring something that they believe should be? They've made their bed, now they lie in it.
It seems that what you've "learned from Turks" first and foremost is extreme nationalism bordering on xenophobia. You say that you "hate Turks", and demand apology "from the Turks", and go on basically ranting about how Turks are such horrible people whom you will "take measures against".
I don't think that censoring is what is expected here - they should be able to speak their mind on the matter. The problem is that the way Google as a platform is set up, they can buy the most prominent spot for their opinion, on top of everyone's else (unless that everyone has more money, I guess) - and that is questionable.
Yes, I understand that Google is a private company and it's up to them to decide what messages they carry and in what fashion, generally speaking. However, when 90% of the people start with Google as the first place to search anything, I'm not sure that we can reasonably say so in practice.