Just because something is hyped, or is a fad, or otherwise popular, does not mean it has any merit, and I'm quite certain that most programmers worth their salt of re-invented some wheel that outperformed a popular wheel in every way. Your way of thinking applies pressure to otherwise good programmers to be mediocre and pump out software built upon shitty frameworks, because lazy.
I see it a lot from executive-level management when they decide they want buzzwords inserted into a project.
All one needs to do is look at the swaths of projects that have been replaced with something better and saner over time to realize that nothing that is popular is sacred or necessarily good, and a lot of it truly is quite bad.
Right. But if that learning has the potential to contradict tribal history (see Kennewick Man [wikipedia.org]) archaeological sites have to be closed, bulldozed over and remains returned to tribes. Because tribal memory* that says they were 'always there', can't be questioned.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you... But isn't this a poor example, as in this case... recent genetic analysis of Kennewick Man has concluded that he is in fact closest related to one of the tribes claiming ownership?
Just some clarification from an amateur ECU hacker, with extensive experience in direct OBD2/CAN comms with various controllers in cars (including VWs):
The various vehicle speed sensors (individual wheel speed/ABS, differential/transmission speed/speedometer, accelerometer/gyro for ESC) are not CAN-connected. They connect into the various controllers directly (ABS/accel -> ABS/TC/ESC computer, speedo -> ECU)
The controllers themselves communicate over CAN.
Specifically here, the TC/ESC logic absolutely has its hands in engine performance. That's the principle method of traction control- limit engine output when traction is lost. Secondary remedial measures are automatic brake application.
Any ABS equipped car needs those for at least 3, and usually 4 wheels so that ABS works properly.
Any car built past ~1985 with electronic transmission speed sensors for the speedometer will do the job for you without ABS wheel speed sensors, even.
The author is entirely ignorant, and speaking from a position of feigned authority and research. He should be drowned in his own bullshit.
Many abolitionists were racist. Slavery was considered evil by most of the western world at that time period, but racism was more or less expected due to beliefs of white supremacy.
That's not to say that you aren't at least in part correct. I'm confident the majority of Union combatants weren't really fighting to end slavery. Most likely they were simply marching to their nation's drum, which was currently fighting to preserve the Union after the South opened fire on a Federal fort, but there was a very solid belief that slavery was in fact an intolerable evil in the north.
We have brain circuitry that facilitates that ability. They do not.
Broca's area, when damaged, makes one talk very similar to how an Ape who has been taught sign language does.
Wernicke's area, when damaged, while Broca's area is not, renders someone who can speak fluently and without labor... but makes no sense in the words they are using.
The apes seem to have at least a somewhat evolved Wenicke's area, but absolutely no Broca's area.
The important factor here- is even a person, with both of those areas damaged, is likely just as intelligent and emotional as they were before- but you would never know, by anything but their facial expressions.
Our ability to process language and speak in complex syntactic structures isn't a product of our intelligence, it's some very specific brain circuitry that evolved out of our existence as a social species that wasn't very high on the food chain.
Bare minimum for an object with no momentum, yes.
Bare minimum impact velocity? certainly not. Though it's hard to imagine the scenario where Charon gently overcomes and bumps something with similar orbital characteristics
I was driving in some suddenly icy conditions once, and had just crested a large hill that went steeply downward after the crest. ABS, by some miracle of technology brought my car to a stop before the bottom, saving me from sliding right into a busy de-iced street with 45mph traffic flowing.
It pains me every time I hear uber-drivers talking about how they hate ABS.
I concur emphatically.
My first forays into machine code (manually constructed with a book and poked) was on a Z80... And it really was an amazingly fun experience.
These days, dealing with assembly in modern ARM and MIPS processors, while so much more capable, and having features that make writing assembly ridiculously powerful, I do miss the utter simplicity of that Z80- so simple a kid was able to pick it up.
It really was great fun.
No, because those millions of small pieces release the same amount of energy into the Earth system, just now into the atmosphere now rather than the planet surface
You start with an incontrovertible claim,
Rather than ejecting material, earthquakes, tsunamis, you flash fry the hemisphere
And you use it to justify pure poppycock?
The atmosphere is big. The earth- it's also really goddamn big. The energy required to raise a hemisphere's atmospheric temperature enough to "fry" us is so goddamn big that there's no point in worrying about it. If something the size of Texas is about to hit us, we're just fucked.
The beast that (I guess contentiously, now?) knocked out the dinosaurs, spread across an entire hemisphere would yield about 193MW/m^2, to dissipate through a 100km column, giving us... 1.9kW/m^3 of dissipation, assuming impossibly worst case scenario (instantaneous thermal conversion across entire air volume)... which is quite survivable.
Realistically, the dissipation will be far better distributed over time and area (a lot of impactors will take long paths through the atmosphere, being not direct hits, better improving their dissipation at high altitudes)
It's not a... "good" thing, for sure... But it's not the total annihilation of a hemisphere.
What sort of nuclear engine are you envisioning that would match the thrust of bombs boiling off the asteroid's surface in a big plasma wave?
I'm pretty confident that absorbing half of the energy output of a significantly sized fusion explosive (say, dozens of megatons) is going to do a lot more for you than just the ablative propulsion effects of the vaporized surface.
You're still going to send a pressure wave through that rock that is going to be a very formidable force in comparison to the very weak gravity holding it together.
This obviously isn't too helpful for a world-ending impactor (hundreds of miles+), but I'm guessing highly dangerous ones of that size and smaller could be reduced to buck shot.
One NASA-funded plan involved hitting it with an impactor first and then having the nuclear explosive follow it in. Even more energy absorption, and even more fertile ground for a very serious pressure wave.
The 5MT device detonated 1.8km deep on Amchitka lifted the ground at the surface by 20 feet. Imagine what that'd be like without 9.8m/s^2 of force pulling it back together, and without the weight of nearly 2km of rock to fight the expansion.
Unlikely. This isn't a stationary object, and the velocity of it is almost stupid. Sure you'll slow a lot of pieces down a lot, but I sincerely doubt you'll reverse their trajectory.
That's assuming that the nuke actually blows it up. Nukes are FAR less effective in space because there's no atmosphere for the thermal energy to create a big shockwave, and there's no solid ground beneath it to amplify the intended direction of said shockwave.
That's ok, rock absorbs high energy photons and neutrons even better than air. The shockwave of a nuke causes the serious damage away from the fireball, but I assure you the people within the area of atmospheric ignition due to high-energy radiation couldn't give two squirts of piss about the pressure of the atmosphere there. Definitely detonate close to the bolide.
IMO if you want to blow up an NEO, you'll probably want some kind of kinetic weapon akin to a giant bullet, maybe a space born railgun or something.
You could be right... But I doubt it. Someone would have to do the math to see what portion of the energy output of a large hydrogen bomb would hit the object, how much the object would absorb, and how it would react to the incidental heating. (my guess is very traumatic explosion of the object itself)
Still though, nudging is probably a better approach.
Come on, now.
Your second sentence is certainly correct, however, your first couldn't be more wrong in its conclusion.
Which would you rather be hit with? A ~150J.22LR round, or a ~320J baseball?
Contact area of the kinetic energy matters. The atmosphere is going to do a great job of absorbing nearly ALL of the kinetic energy of a large impactor, if you can reduce it to small enough rubble, while it isn't going to do shit against a big dense bolide with a minimal contact area.
I'll take atmospheric buck shot over a.50 cal any day.
Yikes, put the shovel down man.
Your definition is correct, now, insert into your sentence.
How are you acting physically on, or having an effect on change?
You quite clearly used it in the way that the verb effect is used, which is "to cause".
Nope.
You effect change, and whatever you effected the change upon has been affected by the effect you caused.
It's confusing as fuck- nobody should look down on someone who messes it up. Plus it doesn't affect the point you were making in any way;)
Done. Still stands. Your argument is vindicated because you argued with someone who disagreed with you, and used information from their side against them. They lost, but you sure as hell didn't win.
By that bizarre logic the earth itself is an infection.
That's so non sequitur I'm unsure how to respond to it. An infection upon what? The solar system? For the destabilizing influence it has upon it? The Universe? Help me.
Given that the earth has never had a stable climate, your notions are entirely alien to nature itself.
This is nonsense. The glacial/interglacial oscillation of the current ice age is quite stable. The fact that catastrophes have occurred to destabilize it on 2-3 occasions in the last million or so years does not unstable make.
No, you refer to watermelons, the leftist interpretation of environmentalism - which has very firm roots among the monied classes of the 19th century, to say nothing of conservationism whose earliest manifestations can be tracked back a full thousand years earlier. Much like social welfare systems and every other ostensible social good Marxists have latched onto since Karl hoisted the first of many, many alcoholic beverages, this stuff has been around for a very long time.
You'd think you people would learn, I mean Russia has wound up somewhere to the right of Genghis Khan and China's busily returning to its imperial roots, complete with caste system. What you do is create reactions which eventually end up consuming any gains you might have made, a process which will inevitably end up being replicated even in the enlightened and much reviled (by the left) west.
Leftists believe me to be a conservative reationary, conservatives call me a progressive swine, I'm quite content to watch all of you idiots get hoisted by your own petards.
It's funny that you make it political. Your colors are showing:)
I'm no leftist. I would classify myself as socially liberal, for sure, however, I'm as capitalist as the next guy.
Both leftists and conservatives should call you what you are- A person who thinks only in partisanship. The very problems of the world for you can't be seen as anything but right-wing or left-wing.
I don't care who Big Oil votes for today. Their loyalty lies only in the price of their commodity. They have no ideology beyond that. But they and their blind supporters (which admittedly do tend to be conservative, however, that's simply because that's who the conservative football team is playing for right now. It could change next election.) are the opposing side I referred to.
Dry fact sadly. The reality is that the information I linked to above comes as a major shock to many anthropogenic global warming proponents when it should already be widely known, one fellow I was discussing it with lately proudly declared that we're going through the quickest global warming in 45 million years while earnestly claiming the imprimatur of science. Ask yourself why that might be the case.
Erm. Ignorance by people on my side of the debate certainly doesn't debunk my side of the debate. Since the information you pulled was from a panel that can most certainly be characterized as an "anthropogenic global warming proponent," I think that makes your paragraph entirely circuitous.
The problem is people who regard this notion as a good thing and refer to human civilisation as an infection.
Only when it behaves as such. The Earth is our host. If we seek to alter its ecosphere uncontrolled, then we most certainly are an infection. If we seek equilibrium and stability, we're not.
Who do you refer to when you say "our"?
I refer to any of the people who are not included in the group of people who believe that we should pull every fucking ounce of carbon sequestered in the dirt and inject it wholesale into the extant cycle. You'd think the opposed group of people would be small, as that viewpoint is shamelessly reckless and narrow, but it's not. Legislatively speaking, it's quite massive. Moneyed interests and all that.
Slashdot Mirror
That kind of thinking is a cancer.
Just because something is hyped, or is a fad, or otherwise popular, does not mean it has any merit, and I'm quite certain that most programmers worth their salt of re-invented some wheel that outperformed a popular wheel in every way. Your way of thinking applies pressure to otherwise good programmers to be mediocre and pump out software built upon shitty frameworks, because lazy.
I see it a lot from executive-level management when they decide they want buzzwords inserted into a project.
All one needs to do is look at the swaths of projects that have been replaced with something better and saner over time to realize that nothing that is popular is sacred or necessarily good, and a lot of it truly is quite bad.
Right. But if that learning has the potential to contradict tribal history (see Kennewick Man [wikipedia.org]) archaeological sites have to be closed, bulldozed over and remains returned to tribes. Because tribal memory* that says they were 'always there', can't be questioned.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you... But isn't this a poor example, as in this case... recent genetic analysis of Kennewick Man has concluded that he is in fact closest related to one of the tribes claiming ownership?
Who uses 32-bit pointers anymore?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Your grasp of irony is simply masterful. I salute you.
Just some clarification from an amateur ECU hacker, with extensive experience in direct OBD2/CAN comms with various controllers in cars (including VWs):
The various vehicle speed sensors (individual wheel speed/ABS, differential/transmission speed/speedometer, accelerometer/gyro for ESC) are not CAN-connected.
They connect into the various controllers directly (ABS/accel -> ABS/TC/ESC computer, speedo -> ECU)
The controllers themselves communicate over CAN.
Specifically here, the TC/ESC logic absolutely has its hands in engine performance. That's the principle method of traction control- limit engine output when traction is lost. Secondary remedial measures are automatic brake application.
Author is still an idiot.
Any ABS equipped car needs those for at least 3, and usually 4 wheels so that ABS works properly.
Any car built past ~1985 with electronic transmission speed sensors for the speedometer will do the job for you without ABS wheel speed sensors, even.
The author is entirely ignorant, and speaking from a position of feigned authority and research. He should be drowned in his own bullshit.
Many abolitionists were racist. Slavery was considered evil by most of the western world at that time period, but racism was more or less expected due to beliefs of white supremacy.
That's not to say that you aren't at least in part correct. I'm confident the majority of Union combatants weren't really fighting to end slavery. Most likely they were simply marching to their nation's drum, which was currently fighting to preserve the Union after the South opened fire on a Federal fort, but there was a very solid belief that slavery was in fact an intolerable evil in the north.
Like Cape Canaveral?
We have brain circuitry that facilitates that ability. They do not.
Broca's area, when damaged, makes one talk very similar to how an Ape who has been taught sign language does.
Wernicke's area, when damaged, while Broca's area is not, renders someone who can speak fluently and without labor... but makes no sense in the words they are using.
The apes seem to have at least a somewhat evolved Wenicke's area, but absolutely no Broca's area.
The important factor here- is even a person, with both of those areas damaged, is likely just as intelligent and emotional as they were before- but you would never know, by anything but their facial expressions.
Our ability to process language and speak in complex syntactic structures isn't a product of our intelligence, it's some very specific brain circuitry that evolved out of our existence as a social species that wasn't very high on the food chain.
And that's the bare minimum impact velocity
Bare minimum for an object with no momentum, yes.
Bare minimum impact velocity? certainly not. Though it's hard to imagine the scenario where Charon gently overcomes and bumps something with similar orbital characteristics
I was driving in some suddenly icy conditions once, and had just crested a large hill that went steeply downward after the crest. ABS, by some miracle of technology brought my car to a stop before the bottom, saving me from sliding right into a busy de-iced street with 45mph traffic flowing.
It pains me every time I hear uber-drivers talking about how they hate ABS.
Yes, and as a group, we have consistently failed that test.
Individually, plenty of us do fine, but you wanted to test us as a group.
Instead, I want *all* of my cores to be hung on some advertisements embedded javascript!
I concur emphatically.
My first forays into machine code (manually constructed with a book and poked) was on a Z80... And it really was an amazingly fun experience.
These days, dealing with assembly in modern ARM and MIPS processors, while so much more capable, and having features that make writing assembly ridiculously powerful, I do miss the utter simplicity of that Z80- so simple a kid was able to pick it up.
It really was great fun.
No, because those millions of small pieces release the same amount of energy into the Earth system, just now into the atmosphere now rather than the planet surface
You start with an incontrovertible claim,
Rather than ejecting material, earthquakes, tsunamis, you flash fry the hemisphere
And you use it to justify pure poppycock?
The atmosphere is big. The earth- it's also really goddamn big. The energy required to raise a hemisphere's atmospheric temperature enough to "fry" us is so goddamn big that there's no point in worrying about it. If something the size of Texas is about to hit us, we're just fucked.
The beast that (I guess contentiously, now?) knocked out the dinosaurs, spread across an entire hemisphere would yield about 193MW/m^2, to dissipate through a 100km column, giving us... 1.9kW/m^3 of dissipation, assuming impossibly worst case scenario (instantaneous thermal conversion across entire air volume)... which is quite survivable.
Realistically, the dissipation will be far better distributed over time and area (a lot of impactors will take long paths through the atmosphere, being not direct hits, better improving their dissipation at high altitudes)
It's not a... "good" thing, for sure... But it's not the total annihilation of a hemisphere.
What sort of nuclear engine are you envisioning that would match the thrust of bombs boiling off the asteroid's surface in a big plasma wave?
I'm pretty confident that absorbing half of the energy output of a significantly sized fusion explosive (say, dozens of megatons) is going to do a lot more for you than just the ablative propulsion effects of the vaporized surface.
You're still going to send a pressure wave through that rock that is going to be a very formidable force in comparison to the very weak gravity holding it together.
This obviously isn't too helpful for a world-ending impactor (hundreds of miles+), but I'm guessing highly dangerous ones of that size and smaller could be reduced to buck shot.
One NASA-funded plan involved hitting it with an impactor first and then having the nuclear explosive follow it in. Even more energy absorption, and even more fertile ground for a very serious pressure wave.
The 5MT device detonated 1.8km deep on Amchitka lifted the ground at the surface by 20 feet. Imagine what that'd be like without 9.8m/s^2 of force pulling it back together, and without the weight of nearly 2km of rock to fight the expansion.
Some of them will go in the opposite direction
Unlikely. This isn't a stationary object, and the velocity of it is almost stupid. Sure you'll slow a lot of pieces down a lot, but I sincerely doubt you'll reverse their trajectory.
That's assuming that the nuke actually blows it up. Nukes are FAR less effective in space because there's no atmosphere for the thermal energy to create a big shockwave, and there's no solid ground beneath it to amplify the intended direction of said shockwave.
That's ok, rock absorbs high energy photons and neutrons even better than air. The shockwave of a nuke causes the serious damage away from the fireball, but I assure you the people within the area of atmospheric ignition due to high-energy radiation couldn't give two squirts of piss about the pressure of the atmosphere there. Definitely detonate close to the bolide.
IMO if you want to blow up an NEO, you'll probably want some kind of kinetic weapon akin to a giant bullet, maybe a space born railgun or something.
You could be right... But I doubt it. Someone would have to do the math to see what portion of the energy output of a large hydrogen bomb would hit the object, how much the object would absorb, and how it would react to the incidental heating. (my guess is very traumatic explosion of the object itself)
Still though, nudging is probably a better approach.
I think we all agree here
A gigaton of energy spread over the entire face of the Earth isn't as bad as you make it sound.
It's about 2T/km^2. It might be fun to watch, it might even raise temps a bit, but we're not going to all incinerate in hellfire.
Come on, now.
.22LR round, or a ~320J baseball?
.50 cal any day.
Your second sentence is certainly correct, however, your first couldn't be more wrong in its conclusion.
Which would you rather be hit with? A ~150J
Contact area of the kinetic energy matters. The atmosphere is going to do a great job of absorbing nearly ALL of the kinetic energy of a large impactor, if you can reduce it to small enough rubble, while it isn't going to do shit against a big dense bolide with a minimal contact area.
I'll take atmospheric buck shot over a
+1. Haven't heard that one.
Normally, I say something like,
You effect a change to affect something with an effect.
Yikes, put the shovel down man.
Your definition is correct, now, insert into your sentence.
How are you acting physically on, or having an effect on change?
You quite clearly used it in the way that the verb effect is used, which is "to cause".
Nope. ;)
You effect change, and whatever you effected the change upon has been affected by the effect you caused.
It's confusing as fuck- nobody should look down on someone who messes it up. Plus it doesn't affect the point you were making in any way
Kinda how I see it. Don't let the door hit you on the ass, gents.
Give that a little thought.
Done. Still stands. Your argument is vindicated because you argued with someone who disagreed with you, and used information from their side against them. They lost, but you sure as hell didn't win.
By that bizarre logic the earth itself is an infection.
That's so non sequitur I'm unsure how to respond to it. An infection upon what? The solar system? For the destabilizing influence it has upon it? The Universe? Help me.
Given that the earth has never had a stable climate, your notions are entirely alien to nature itself.
This is nonsense. The glacial/interglacial oscillation of the current ice age is quite stable. The fact that catastrophes have occurred to destabilize it on 2-3 occasions in the last million or so years does not unstable make.
No, you refer to watermelons, the leftist interpretation of environmentalism - which has very firm roots among the monied classes of the 19th century, to say nothing of conservationism whose earliest manifestations can be tracked back a full thousand years earlier. Much like social welfare systems and every other ostensible social good Marxists have latched onto since Karl hoisted the first of many, many alcoholic beverages, this stuff has been around for a very long time. You'd think you people would learn, I mean Russia has wound up somewhere to the right of Genghis Khan and China's busily returning to its imperial roots, complete with caste system. What you do is create reactions which eventually end up consuming any gains you might have made, a process which will inevitably end up being replicated even in the enlightened and much reviled (by the left) west. Leftists believe me to be a conservative reationary, conservatives call me a progressive swine, I'm quite content to watch all of you idiots get hoisted by your own petards.
It's funny that you make it political. Your colors are showing :)
I'm no leftist. I would classify myself as socially liberal, for sure, however, I'm as capitalist as the next guy.
Both leftists and conservatives should call you what you are- A person who thinks only in partisanship. The very problems of the world for you can't be seen as anything but right-wing or left-wing.
I don't care who Big Oil votes for today. Their loyalty lies only in the price of their commodity. They have no ideology beyond that. But they and their blind supporters (which admittedly do tend to be conservative, however, that's simply because that's who the conservative football team is playing for right now. It could change next election.) are the opposing side I referred to.
Dry fact sadly. The reality is that the information I linked to above comes as a major shock to many anthropogenic global warming proponents when it should already be widely known, one fellow I was discussing it with lately proudly declared that we're going through the quickest global warming in 45 million years while earnestly claiming the imprimatur of science. Ask yourself why that might be the case.
Erm. Ignorance by people on my side of the debate certainly doesn't debunk my side of the debate. Since the information you pulled was from a panel that can most certainly be characterized as an "anthropogenic global warming proponent," I think that makes your paragraph entirely circuitous.
The problem is people who regard this notion as a good thing and refer to human civilisation as an infection.
Only when it behaves as such. The Earth is our host. If we seek to alter its ecosphere uncontrolled, then we most certainly are an infection. If we seek equilibrium and stability, we're not.
Who do you refer to when you say "our"?
I refer to any of the people who are not included in the group of people who believe that we should pull every fucking ounce of carbon sequestered in the dirt and inject it wholesale into the extant cycle. You'd think the opposed group of people would be small, as that viewpoint is shamelessly reckless and narrow, but it's not. Legislatively speaking, it's quite massive. Moneyed interests and all that.