The word you're looking for there is 'abrasive'. Abrasive. Not corrosive.
Re:Books for web browsers?
on
Firefox Secrets
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
You're missing the beauty of publishing a book about a web browser. You rake in cash from sales, and 6 months later the thing is obsolete so you can crank out a "2nd Edition" and cash in again.
The conspiracy theory is that the "cadets" know the show is fake, and the hoax is actually on the audience. It seems hard to believe that 3 people could really be this gullible, but I suppose if they're carefully fed information, who knows...
If a site wants traffic, search engines are great. If it doesn't want random traffic, it is very easy to prevent search engines from indexing a page. This is a total cash grab by greedy ass-hats.
Speaking of WRONG WRONG WRONG!, the Constitution certainly does NOT protect you from the consequences of what you say. Why don't you start by READING the vaunted First Amendment? What it DOES do is disallow the Government from making laws prohibiting free speech. There is nothing in there about a private school's actions.
This WILL be a PR nightmare for the school just for how bullheaded they handled the situation. They just stepped on the entire blogging community, and that is probably a bad idea. I think the punishment is wrong, and the school screwed up, but this has NOTHING to do with the Constitution.
Exactly. This is NOT a constitutional violation at all. The wrongheaded groupthink here is incredible. What this is is a student who got caught bad mouthing a professor and a PR nightmare for the school.
Yeah, they do. But they are visible red, and low powered and short range. To have a laser powerful enough to scan a bar code from across the room, you would need a SERIOUS laser (see previous post, sans capitalization), and THAT is what I wouldn't want constantly scanning everything in front of it (including my eyes).
I thought he forced his lab assistants to donate eggs. If that is the case, (which I'm not sure of), then this is all just spinnnnnn. Without the wishy washy "yeah, but's" this reads "Scientist forced to resign after attempting to hide the false source of eggs in cloning experiment."
Bar code readers have a pretty limited range unless you're using serious lasers. And I'd prefer to not have IR lasers zapping me constantly while I watch TV.
Oh, they wouldn't care about what product you're using. All they want is sell ads to the highest bidder. I suppose they could pit Levi and Wrangler into a bidding war over who gets to put denim on your butt...
Definitions:
a piece of information about circumstances that exist or events that have occurred; "first you must collect all the facts of the case"
a statement or assertion of verified information about something that is the case or has happened; "he supported his argument with an impressive array of facts"
an event known to have happened or something known to have existed; "your fears have no basis in fact"; "how much of the story is fact and how much fiction is hard to tell"
knowledge or information based on real occurrences; a thing that has been done; something shown to exist; something known to have existed; a real occurrence;
None of these really fit what Jackie boy spouts when a camera is on him.
Maybe, but the quoted 3.5g lateral load is with the 2100kg of force on the tires. Like I said, I have no idea what coefficient of friction and contact patch area those tires have and if someone can come up with the tire performance numbers for a F1 car and do the math, that'd be great.
Part of the story they missed is that modern shotgun barrels are a lot tougher than they used to be. The reason being that shot used to be made of lead. Well, spraying lead pellets into mashlands turned out to be not such a good idea so hunters were required to use steel shot (or non-lead of some sort) when hunting waterfoul.
So if they used an older "lead only" barrel, the mud plugged barrel probably would have let go in a banana peel fashion. When I took my "hunter safety" course ages and ages ago, we were shown slides of what happend to a plugged barrel, one of them was a banana peel and another was of a barrel that mushroomed out. It can (and has) happened.
The 2005 Ferrari F1 car (according to the internet...) weighs 605kg in racing trim. It was stated that these cars can generate 2.5x their weight in downforce. So: 605+(605x2.5)=2117.5kg of force between the tires and the road. Right?
Now, take the downforce generated less the vehicle's weight (since it is now acting against the downforce instead of with it) and you get 907.5kg of force on the wheels. Assuming a neutral balance that ends up being about 225kg per wheel (down from 530kg, less than half!) At the speed where an F1 car is generating "2.5 times its weight in downforce", there is a LOT of drag, which means there is a LOT of power needed to maintain the speed. That power needs to be transmitted through the rear wheels to the ground (well ceiling in this case...)
It's been a while since physics classes, but I'm thinking that there just isn't enough traction with that little force on the tires to maintain the car's speed. If someone wants to get the tire contact patch area, coefficient of friction and drag force from an F1 race car at max speed they could run the numbers and prove me wrong... or right.:) And if anyone has a video contradicting this, I'd LOVE to see it (that would be friggin cool)
First, DU won't cause radiation poisoning, but it IS toxic and it WILL cause "just plain poisoning".
Second, "see through clothing" technology isn't a myth. Imaging infrared allows you to see body heat, you do the math. There are airport X-ray machines that allow security screeners to see, well, what religon you are. And the merits versus the privacy issues of that are being debated.
Thirdly, I think you mean M-1A1 (or M-1A2) Abrams. The armor is a composite mixture of ceramics, steel and DU called Chobbam and it was actually developed in the UK. It's classified and expensive and impossible for civilians to get (legally), and how would you test it? Tank guns and anti-tank missiles aren't exactly legal either. Oh, and the M-1 isn't invulnerable. The heavy "impenetrable" armor only exists on the front glacis plate and turret front. The sides, top, rear and bottom (just like in every main battle tank) are not as well protected. There are many survivability features in the M-1, the armor is one part of that. Another is the design of the ammo storage area. In the event of an ammo hit the bay is designed to direct the explosion upwards out of the turret bustle, away from the crew.
Slashdot Mirror
Trouble is, that stuff is expensive and it evaporates. You'd need to build a radiator to cool the fluid because you wouldn't want it exposed to air.
The word you're looking for there is 'abrasive'. Abrasive. Not corrosive.
You're missing the beauty of publishing a book about a web browser. You rake in cash from sales, and 6 months later the thing is obsolete so you can crank out a "2nd Edition" and cash in again.
"...images suggest the mission very nearly worked...
You can't tell a thing from those images. NASA might as well say "Challenger very nearly made it to orbit".
Ah, see, there's your problem. You're assuming he is reading the legislation that passes across his desk. Tsk, tsk, tsk.
The conspiracy theory is that the "cadets" know the show is fake, and the hoax is actually on the audience. It seems hard to believe that 3 people could really be this gullible, but I suppose if they're carefully fed information, who knows...
Eye-dee ten-tee error:
:)
ID10T error. Only works spoken, can't use it in an email.
If a site wants traffic, search engines are great. If it doesn't want random traffic, it is very easy to prevent search engines from indexing a page. This is a total cash grab by greedy ass-hats.
Speaking of WRONG WRONG WRONG!, the Constitution certainly does NOT protect you from the consequences of what you say. Why don't you start by READING the vaunted First Amendment? What it DOES do is disallow the Government from making laws prohibiting free speech. There is nothing in there about a private school's actions.
This WILL be a PR nightmare for the school just for how bullheaded they handled the situation. They just stepped on the entire blogging community, and that is probably a bad idea. I think the punishment is wrong, and the school screwed up, but this has NOTHING to do with the Constitution.
Exactly. This is NOT a constitutional violation at all. The wrongheaded groupthink here is incredible. What this is is a student who got caught bad mouthing a professor and a PR nightmare for the school.
Is it better to stand and fight or curl up and die? I really hoped this article was a satire piece, but nope, I think the "author" is serious.
Sony is Evil now. Oh, and about yout TPS reports...
Mmmm, it smells like burning.
Yeah, they do. But they are visible red, and low powered and short range. To have a laser powerful enough to scan a bar code from across the room, you would need a SERIOUS laser (see previous post, sans capitalization), and THAT is what I wouldn't want constantly scanning everything in front of it (including my eyes).
I thought he forced his lab assistants to donate eggs. If that is the case, (which I'm not sure of), then this is all just spinnnnnn. Without the wishy washy "yeah, but's" this reads "Scientist forced to resign after attempting to hide the false source of eggs in cloning experiment."
Bar code readers have a pretty limited range unless you're using serious lasers. And I'd prefer to not have IR lasers zapping me constantly while I watch TV.
Oh, they wouldn't care about what product you're using. All they want is sell ads to the highest bidder. I suppose they could pit Levi and Wrangler into a bidding war over who gets to put denim on your butt...
Definitions:
a piece of information about circumstances that exist or events that have occurred; "first you must collect all the facts of the case"
a statement or assertion of verified information about something that is the case or has happened; "he supported his argument with an impressive array of facts"
an event known to have happened or something known to have existed; "your fears have no basis in fact"; "how much of the story is fact and how much fiction is hard to tell"
knowledge or information based on real occurrences; a thing that has been done; something shown to exist; something known to have existed; a real occurrence;
None of these really fit what Jackie boy spouts when a camera is on him.
Maybe, but the quoted 3.5g lateral load is with the 2100kg of force on the tires. Like I said, I have no idea what coefficient of friction and contact patch area those tires have and if someone can come up with the tire performance numbers for a F1 car and do the math, that'd be great.
Because he states these facts so loudly
You misspelled "misguided opinions" in your post.
I take it you don't actually watch the show...
Part of the story they missed is that modern shotgun barrels are a lot tougher than they used to be. The reason being that shot used to be made of lead. Well, spraying lead pellets into mashlands turned out to be not such a good idea so hunters were required to use steel shot (or non-lead of some sort) when hunting waterfoul.
So if they used an older "lead only" barrel, the mud plugged barrel probably would have let go in a banana peel fashion. When I took my "hunter safety" course ages and ages ago, we were shown slides of what happend to a plugged barrel, one of them was a banana peel and another was of a barrel that mushroomed out. It can (and has) happened.
Here's the "this less this" explained:
:) And if anyone has a video contradicting this, I'd LOVE to see it (that would be friggin cool)
The 2005 Ferrari F1 car (according to the internet...) weighs 605kg in racing trim. It was stated that these cars can generate 2.5x their weight in downforce. So: 605+(605x2.5)=2117.5kg of force between the tires and the road. Right?
Now, take the downforce generated less the vehicle's weight (since it is now acting against the downforce instead of with it) and you get 907.5kg of force on the wheels. Assuming a neutral balance that ends up being about 225kg per wheel (down from 530kg, less than half!) At the speed where an F1 car is generating "2.5 times its weight in downforce", there is a LOT of drag, which means there is a LOT of power needed to maintain the speed. That power needs to be transmitted through the rear wheels to the ground (well ceiling in this case...)
It's been a while since physics classes, but I'm thinking that there just isn't enough traction with that little force on the tires to maintain the car's speed. If someone wants to get the tire contact patch area, coefficient of friction and drag force from an F1 race car at max speed they could run the numbers and prove me wrong... or right.
You're thinking of this: http://www.mulsannescorner.com/chaparral2j.html
Ok, couple of things here.
First, DU won't cause radiation poisoning, but it IS toxic and it WILL cause "just plain poisoning".
Second, "see through clothing" technology isn't a myth. Imaging infrared allows you to see body heat, you do the math. There are airport X-ray machines that allow security screeners to see, well, what religon you are. And the merits versus the privacy issues of that are being debated.
Thirdly, I think you mean M-1A1 (or M-1A2) Abrams. The armor is a composite mixture of ceramics, steel and DU called Chobbam and it was actually developed in the UK. It's classified and expensive and impossible for civilians to get (legally), and how would you test it? Tank guns and anti-tank missiles aren't exactly legal either. Oh, and the M-1 isn't invulnerable. The heavy "impenetrable" armor only exists on the front glacis plate and turret front. The sides, top, rear and bottom (just like in every main battle tank) are not as well protected. There are many survivability features in the M-1, the armor is one part of that. Another is the design of the ammo storage area. In the event of an ammo hit the bay is designed to direct the explosion upwards out of the turret bustle, away from the crew.