Our society needs to quit playing partisan games and starting calling out evil, regardless of who the perpetrators are.
Couldn't agree, more.
I think Langley and the Pentagon probably deserve about 800x the airtime as ISIS perpetrated evil, but hey. If you show us blowing little children to bits, or their flaming bodies running from wrecked buildings, then you stray too far away from propaganda and into the realm of journalism.
We need the enemy to be irrationally violent. We don't want them to appear like a group of people who have suffered countless deaths of their innocents against fire dropped from the sky and have been easily whipped into a religious furor in their grief by a group of clerics.
I do agree with you 100%. However, I also think apologists for imperial superpowers should witness where those bombs they see launch actually land. I think they should definitely watch the children in the streets blown to bits by smart bombs. The man crying and holding their little broken bodies. If someone did it to you, would you really decide that you will not retaliate? If you decided to retaliate, how would you do it against a superpower? Would you perhaps be perceptive to some psychopath fucked up dogma in your grief? Nobody says you're wrong, but your point of view is so goddamn narrow it hurts.
It most certainly did, but I think you're ignoring the environment that allowed a populist psychopath to rise and pull his people from the rubble that was imposed upon them. Hitler may have been the cause of WWII, but it's fundamentally dishonest for anyone in any Entente nation to disavow responsibility for putting the German populace where they would embrace such a monster.
To me, Fox's goal is very definitely to drive a wedge between the West and the Muslims. As they seem to share this goal with the likes of ISIS, They are literally working for them. However, one could also say ISIS is literally working for Fox. In fact, fundamentalist psychopaths seem to all be working for each other regardless of the continent they live on.
Work
verb
1. Be engaged in physical or mental activity in order to achieve a purpose or result, especially in one’s job; do work:
an engineer who had been working on a design for a more efficient wing
new contracts forcing employees to work longer hours
1.1 Be employed, typically in a specified occupation or field:
Taylor has worked in education for 17 years
1.8 Make efforts to achieve something; campaign:
we spend a great deal of our time working for the lacto-vegetarian cause
He used it quite literally. As did you. You seem to be the one trying to narrow the definition of the verb work to only fit your ridiculous argument.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...
DU is more studied than acute Uranium toxicity, or any of its compounds (for obvious reasons). Just because it tends to accumulate mostly in the Kidneys can't be construed as "it only affects the Kidneys".
Uranium is pyrophoric when finely divided.[28] It will corrode under the influence of air and water producing insoluble uranium(IV) and soluble uranium (VI) salts. Soluble uranium salts are toxic. Uranium slowly accumulates in several organs, such as the liver, spleen, and kidneys. The World Health Organization has established a daily "tolerated intake" of soluble uranium salts for the general public of 0.5 g/kg body weight, or 35 g for a 70 kg adult.
Epidemiological studies and toxicological tests on laboratory animals point to it as being immunotoxic,[85] teratogenic,[86][87] neurotoxic,[88] with carcinogenic and leukemogenic potential.[89] A 2005 report by epidemiologists concluded: "the human epidemiological evidence is consistent with increased risk of birth defects in offspring of persons exposed to DU."[10]
Early studies of depleted uranium aerosol exposure assumed that uranium combustion product particles would quickly settle out of the air[90] and thus could not affect populations more than a few kilometers from target areas,[91] and that such particles, if inhaled, would remain undissolved in the lung for a great length of time and thus could be detected in urine.[92] Violently burning uranium droplets produce a gaseous vapor comprising about half of the uranium in their original mass.[93] Uranyl ion contamination in uranium oxides has been detected in the residue of DU munitions fires.[94][95]
Approximately 90 micrograms of natural uranium, on average, exist in the human body as a result of normal intake of water, food and air. Most is in the skeleton. The biochemistry of depleted uranium is the same as natural uranium.
Now you've graduated to shameless arguing of semantics to fight off the feeling of being entirely full of shit on the Internet. I believe it was clear to everyone, including you if you can drop your blood pressure enough to accept that you're just wrong, that I didn't literally mean *everything*, and the context was biochemically.
It's ok, let it go. As everyone as pointed out, you really are ridiculously ignorant, amazingly overconfident, and have precisely no inhibition toward making shit up just to sound intelligent.
The point is if you sleep a few nights besides an unshielded 1kg bunch of Uranium, you likely die from it.
The prosecution rests. Go away, troll. You get some kind of award for sorest loser in the goddamn world. Also, your ethnocentrism is fucking disgusting.
You're getting caught up trying to dig your way out of being 100% wrong. It's really OK. I'll put the guns away. The part you're missing is that Uranium readily oxidizes in even "cold" water, and from there, the chemical possibilities expand dramatically.
But thanx for the links about alpha decay etc.:D pffft.
I felt the links describing alpha decay and alpha particles were pertinent since your initial claim, 6 goal posts ago, was that a 1kg sample of Uranium would kill you if you slept on it.
So, like to bring up a citation how "mere gloves" shield you from "fast neutrons"?
As I said, fast neutrons aren't a problem. They're only a result of spontaneous or induced fission. Since I'm going to assume you're not holding your chunk of fissile Uranium near a neutron source to do that (bad I assumption for you, possibly) I'm going to point out that spontaneous fission from 1kg of Uranium is ~6.18 neutrons/second / 2 (unless you're curled in a fetal position around your chunk of Uranium... also a possibility with you), or less than your exposure at ground level to simple cosmic ray bombardment fast neutrons.
Uranium is a "heavy metal" hence its chemical danger on the body. Which does not come from "it wants to react with everything"...
Not all heavy metals are toxic. Though Uranium is toxic both because it is a heavy metal, and... because it wants to react with everything.
However the claim to hold uranium in your hands is safe, is utter bollocks.
Uranium is an alpha emitter. Fission aside, the majority of radioactivity in a chunk of Uranium ends up as heat as alpha particles collide with the atoms of the material. The outer layers of the Uranium that are emitting alpha particles at your skin are not emitting nearly enough to even breach your epidermis.
In laboratories, Uranium is commonly held with nothing but gloves, and that is only for maximum safety. The real danger of Uranium is its chemical toxicity (it will react with just about everything), and how massively radioactive it becomes if you have enough of it's fissile isotopes in one place to undergo fission, as fast neutrons will blast holes in your DNA, skin and even lead lining be damned. That aside, don't breathe it. Don't eat it. And don't try to build a fissile stack with it, and you'll be OK.
Your post is complete poppycock, and absent any citations to support your claims, all I see is an ignorant foreigner attempting to ejaculate a wad of ethnocentrism all over this thread.
Someone has already figured all this out, there was a perfectly sound design for a rocket upper stage using a NERVA engine, I would suggest that as a point for further research.
I read that as if there were an "If" in front of it for some reason- no idea why, so I was referring to an upper stage.
From wiki:
The overall gross lift-off mass of a nuclear rocket is about half that of a chemical rocket, and hence when used as an upper stage it roughly doubles or triples the payload carried to orbit.
However, [citation needed].
I have also heard that same thing mentioned by people with knowledge in the field... Someone wanna do the math for us?
The radioactivity has everything to do with the half-life.
Short half-lifes are short because the atoms are destructively emitting radiation faster than things with long half-lifes.
It's quite safe to hold Uranium, even for extended periods of time. Just don't eat it, because it IS a heavy metal, and it is toxic.
An exception to the above is given for critical masses of Uranium that are are sustaining a fission reaction. You wouldn't want to hold that.
That code doesn't suffer from the problem you think it does.
readq is only defined in that code if undefined elsewhere, and is only used to read counters on 64-bit architectures.
on 32-bit architectures, that code uses readl to read the counter.
readq is undefined in some 32-bit architectures, so is defined there- but only used there to read the configuration register (not likely to roll over;)
Also, the actual reading of the counter is done indirectly: it's returned from the IRQ handler for the HPET. the direct reading is only done during calibration.
That was much easier with Christianity, because those things are not attributed to Him in the scripture — nor to any of His prophets.
This is pure bullshit. Are you aware what Deuteronomy *is*, and who Moses is claimed to *be*? There are plenty of sects of Christianity that absolutely take Mosaic Law, as given by Moses (God's Prophet) to be law, and are displeased that modern society allows their wives to cheat on them and live.
On contrast, the Koran is the verbatim word of God.
This is actually only true in the same way that some Christian sects consider the old and new Testaments to be the Word as inspired by Him.
If you've read the Quran, you'd be well aware it's not the verbatim word of God any more than the other main Abrahamic books are.
Also, even the "unedited" Christianity (with its "leaving Caesar's to Caesar") was still compatible with the Bill of Rights and the rest of the Constitution, whereas Islam (with theocracy being the only acceptable way of government) is not.
You literally are a mouthpiece for right-wing Islamophobic stereotypes. This is, again, no different than the other major Abrahamic religions.
And in literally no even marginally strict Christian sect is that which is rendered unto Caesar supreme to that which is rendered unto God. ie, Biblical Supremecy, as Christians who believe in that line of thinking call it. Yes, the Bible comes with a Supremecy Clause, you just only read half of it.
Like any Abrahamic religion, how barbaric you are comes down to which verses you decide to interpret. Secular Islamic governments and societies used to be common, and still exist to a point today. There are real reasons for the cultural reset that has occurred in much of the former Caliphate territories, and guess what- it's not the religion.
I think if you look for something else that correlates with the regions with problems, you'll find that something else correlates better with the phenomenon of terrorism and religious extremism than Islam.
The kind he is talking about is also using those cores to load a single page. He's arguing against parallel computing being the answer for mundane tasks. At the end of the day, improving the instructions/cycle (or cycles/second, but I think we're pretty close to tapped out in that department) performance of cores is more important than increasing the cores.
People arguing against him largely don't understand that's the argument he's making.
Adding 12 more cores to your quad core is not going to make the desktop perform better.
However, a 5% increase in instructions/cycle performance *will*
I keep a PS3 non-updated just so I can play around with the Cell in linux.
It certainly is a shitty ass part if you're just trying to write normal software for it- the HT PPC core in it is a total dog.
However, if one were bored and wanted to whip up a stupidly parallel task, like computing segments of a mandelbrot- then one could zoom down to precision failure in a second.
Ever generated a 40,000 x 40,000 mandelbrot? Sure it's not quite general-purpose, but my i7 desktop, Q9650 desktop, i3 work computer, i3 laptop, and i7 laptop running parallel generation software struggle to keep up. (Granted- no GPU assist on those)
I just wish I had come up with more workloads for it before I got bored.
I know that there is a wide variance in performance differences between compiled programs on 32-bit and 64-bit architectures, but I do a fair amount of work in assembler, and I assure you there are very large speedups to be had moving over to x86-64. First and foremost, increased register size and double the amount of general purpose registers.
If you want to go to a higher level, 64-bit pointers also allow for all kinds of very neat OS syscall latency related tricks like mapping stupidly-large files into memory.
64-bit is the way, my friend. If your software doesn't run faster in long-mode, it's because either you or your compiler just isn't quite with the program yet.
It's almost as if scientific learning and schools didn't exist before Christ. I bet if Christ hadn't come around, founded his Church, which eventually led to the Trinity College's formation, Newton would have been a mentally deficient chimney sweep.
Not ironic at all, really. Simply a misattribution of credit.
Now, you want some real irony?
Much of Newton's success in celestial mechanics and physical sciences hinged on work by al-Hassan Ibn al-Haytham, an Iraqi Muslim. So perhaps we have Muhammad to thank for Newtonian Physics?
Someone can condemn the enormity of the crimes Christians have committed against humanity in the name of their religion without condemning everyone who claims to be a Christian.
Sadly, that's rarely the case in my experience with the devout of any Abrahamic religion.
They all take blasphemy pretty seriously, the difference is it's a lot harder for Western Christians to get away with stoning you to death. The North-east Indian, African, and Lebanese Christians, however? They're happy to oblige.
Nonsense. Einstein gets all the credit for that. Every single weapon today is based on mass-energy equivalence.
Of course, if ballistic weaponry had not existed prior to Newton, you'd have a much better argument...
I'm not a Christian, but you've nailed it. It was an indictment of followers, not Christ. The only explanation for the outrage is their own insecurity. It's hard to back up blind faith, and even harder to defend it from attack and you yourself don't really understand it.
Slashdot Mirror
Our society needs to quit playing partisan games and starting calling out evil, regardless of who the perpetrators are.
Couldn't agree, more.
I think Langley and the Pentagon probably deserve about 800x the airtime as ISIS perpetrated evil, but hey. If you show us blowing little children to bits, or their flaming bodies running from wrecked buildings, then you stray too far away from propaganda and into the realm of journalism.
We need the enemy to be irrationally violent. We don't want them to appear like a group of people who have suffered countless deaths of their innocents against fire dropped from the sky and have been easily whipped into a religious furor in their grief by a group of clerics.
Ya, I'm glad we don't have a long history of killing entirely innocent people in that region of the world. We'd lose our moral high ground.
I do agree with you 100%. However, I also think apologists for imperial superpowers should witness where those bombs they see launch actually land. I think they should definitely watch the children in the streets blown to bits by smart bombs. The man crying and holding their little broken bodies. If someone did it to you, would you really decide that you will not retaliate? If you decided to retaliate, how would you do it against a superpower? Would you perhaps be perceptive to some psychopath fucked up dogma in your grief? Nobody says you're wrong, but your point of view is so goddamn narrow it hurts.
It most certainly did, but I think you're ignoring the environment that allowed a populist psychopath to rise and pull his people from the rubble that was imposed upon them. Hitler may have been the cause of WWII, but it's fundamentally dishonest for anyone in any Entente nation to disavow responsibility for putting the German populace where they would embrace such a monster.
To me, Fox's goal is very definitely to drive a wedge between the West and the Muslims. As they seem to share this goal with the likes of ISIS, They are literally working for them. However, one could also say ISIS is literally working for Fox. In fact, fundamentalist psychopaths seem to all be working for each other regardless of the continent they live on.
Work
verb
1. Be engaged in physical or mental activity in order to achieve a purpose or result, especially in one’s job; do work:
an engineer who had been working on a design for a more efficient wing
new contracts forcing employees to work longer hours
1.1 Be employed, typically in a specified occupation or field:
Taylor has worked in education for 17 years
1.8 Make efforts to achieve something; campaign:
we spend a great deal of our time working for the lacto-vegetarian cause
He used it quite literally. As did you. You seem to be the one trying to narrow the definition of the verb work to only fit your ridiculous argument.
DU is more studied than acute Uranium toxicity, or any of its compounds (for obvious reasons). Just because it tends to accumulate mostly in the Kidneys can't be construed as "it only affects the Kidneys".
Uranium is pyrophoric when finely divided.[28] It will corrode under the influence of air and water producing insoluble uranium(IV) and soluble uranium (VI) salts. Soluble uranium salts are toxic. Uranium slowly accumulates in several organs, such as the liver, spleen, and kidneys. The World Health Organization has established a daily "tolerated intake" of soluble uranium salts for the general public of 0.5 g/kg body weight, or 35 g for a 70 kg adult.
Epidemiological studies and toxicological tests on laboratory animals point to it as being immunotoxic,[85] teratogenic,[86][87] neurotoxic,[88] with carcinogenic and leukemogenic potential.[89] A 2005 report by epidemiologists concluded: "the human epidemiological evidence is consistent with increased risk of birth defects in offspring of persons exposed to DU."[10]
Early studies of depleted uranium aerosol exposure assumed that uranium combustion product particles would quickly settle out of the air[90] and thus could not affect populations more than a few kilometers from target areas,[91] and that such particles, if inhaled, would remain undissolved in the lung for a great length of time and thus could be detected in urine.[92] Violently burning uranium droplets produce a gaseous vapor comprising about half of the uranium in their original mass.[93] Uranyl ion contamination in uranium oxides has been detected in the residue of DU munitions fires.[94][95]
Approximately 90 micrograms of natural uranium, on average, exist in the human body as a result of normal intake of water, food and air. Most is in the skeleton. The biochemistry of depleted uranium is the same as natural uranium.
You're a troll, dude. Go die in a fire.
It's ok, let it go. As everyone as pointed out, you really are ridiculously ignorant, amazingly overconfident, and have precisely no inhibition toward making shit up just to sound intelligent.
The point is if you sleep a few nights besides an unshielded 1kg bunch of Uranium, you likely die from it.
The prosecution rests. Go away, troll. You get some kind of award for sorest loser in the goddamn world. Also, your ethnocentrism is fucking disgusting.
Please provide a link that supports your claim: "because it wants to react with everything."
Uranium is a highly reactive metal and reacts with almost of all the nonmetallic elements and many of their compounds. It dissolves in acids, but it is insoluble in alkalis.
http://www.chemicool.com/eleme...
http://www.pnl.gov/main/public...
http://www.bris.ac.uk/cabot/me...
You're getting caught up trying to dig your way out of being 100% wrong. It's really OK. I'll put the guns away. The part you're missing is that Uranium readily oxidizes in even "cold" water, and from there, the chemical possibilities expand dramatically.
But thanx for the links about alpha decay etc. :D pffft.
I felt the links describing alpha decay and alpha particles were pertinent since your initial claim, 6 goal posts ago, was that a 1kg sample of Uranium would kill you if you slept on it.
So, like to bring up a citation how "mere gloves" shield you from "fast neutrons"?
As I said, fast neutrons aren't a problem. They're only a result of spontaneous or induced fission. Since I'm going to assume you're not holding your chunk of fissile Uranium near a neutron source to do that (bad I assumption for you, possibly) I'm going to point out that spontaneous fission from 1kg of Uranium is ~6.18 neutrons/second / 2 (unless you're curled in a fetal position around your chunk of Uranium... also a possibility with you), or less than your exposure at ground level to simple cosmic ray bombardment fast neutrons.
Uranium is a "heavy metal" hence its chemical danger on the body. Which does not come from "it wants to react with everything" ...
Not all heavy metals are toxic. Though Uranium is toxic both because it is a heavy metal, and... because it wants to react with everything.
I have some suggested reading for you:
http://webmineral.com/help/Rad...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...
I sincerely hope you don't represent the state of German education.
However the claim to hold uranium in your hands is safe, is utter bollocks.
Uranium is an alpha emitter. Fission aside, the majority of radioactivity in a chunk of Uranium ends up as heat as alpha particles collide with the atoms of the material. The outer layers of the Uranium that are emitting alpha particles at your skin are not emitting nearly enough to even breach your epidermis.
In laboratories, Uranium is commonly held with nothing but gloves, and that is only for maximum safety. The real danger of Uranium is its chemical toxicity (it will react with just about everything), and how massively radioactive it becomes if you have enough of it's fissile isotopes in one place to undergo fission, as fast neutrons will blast holes in your DNA, skin and even lead lining be damned. That aside, don't breathe it. Don't eat it. And don't try to build a fissile stack with it, and you'll be OK.
Your post is complete poppycock, and absent any citations to support your claims, all I see is an ignorant foreigner attempting to ejaculate a wad of ethnocentrism all over this thread.
Someone has already figured all this out, there was a perfectly sound design for a rocket upper stage using a NERVA engine, I would suggest that as a point for further research.
I read that as if there were an "If" in front of it for some reason- no idea why, so I was referring to an upper stage.
From wiki:
The overall gross lift-off mass of a nuclear rocket is about half that of a chemical rocket, and hence when used as an upper stage it roughly doubles or triples the payload carried to orbit.
However, [citation needed].
I have also heard that same thing mentioned by people with knowledge in the field... Someone wanna do the math for us?
The radioactivity has everything to do with the half-life.
Short half-lifes are short because the atoms are destructively emitting radiation faster than things with long half-lifes.
It's quite safe to hold Uranium, even for extended periods of time. Just don't eat it, because it IS a heavy metal, and it is toxic.
An exception to the above is given for critical masses of Uranium that are are sustaining a fission reaction. You wouldn't want to hold that.
I'll take Allotropy for $400, Trebek
A +2 Troll, even...
Keep modding that troll up!
That code doesn't suffer from the problem you think it does.
;)
readq is only defined in that code if undefined elsewhere, and is only used to read counters on 64-bit architectures.
on 32-bit architectures, that code uses readl to read the counter.
readq is undefined in some 32-bit architectures, so is defined there- but only used there to read the configuration register (not likely to roll over
Also, the actual reading of the counter is done indirectly: it's returned from the IRQ handler for the HPET. the direct reading is only done during calibration.
That was much easier with Christianity, because those things are not attributed to Him in the scripture — nor to any of His prophets.
This is pure bullshit. Are you aware what Deuteronomy *is*, and who Moses is claimed to *be*? There are plenty of sects of Christianity that absolutely take Mosaic Law, as given by Moses (God's Prophet) to be law, and are displeased that modern society allows their wives to cheat on them and live.
On contrast, the Koran is the verbatim word of God.
This is actually only true in the same way that some Christian sects consider the old and new Testaments to be the Word as inspired by Him.
If you've read the Quran, you'd be well aware it's not the verbatim word of God any more than the other main Abrahamic books are.
Also, even the "unedited" Christianity (with its "leaving Caesar's to Caesar") was still compatible with the Bill of Rights and the rest of the Constitution, whereas Islam (with theocracy being the only acceptable way of government) is not.
You literally are a mouthpiece for right-wing Islamophobic stereotypes. This is, again, no different than the other major Abrahamic religions.
And in literally no even marginally strict Christian sect is that which is rendered unto Caesar supreme to that which is rendered unto God. ie, Biblical Supremecy, as Christians who believe in that line of thinking call it. Yes, the Bible comes with a Supremecy Clause, you just only read half of it.
Like any Abrahamic religion, how barbaric you are comes down to which verses you decide to interpret. Secular Islamic governments and societies used to be common, and still exist to a point today. There are real reasons for the cultural reset that has occurred in much of the former Caliphate territories, and guess what- it's not the religion.
I think if you look for something else that correlates with the regions with problems, you'll find that something else correlates better with the phenomenon of terrorism and religious extremism than Islam.
The kind he is talking about is also using those cores to load a single page. He's arguing against parallel computing being the answer for mundane tasks. At the end of the day, improving the instructions/cycle (or cycles/second, but I think we're pretty close to tapped out in that department) performance of cores is more important than increasing the cores.
People arguing against him largely don't understand that's the argument he's making.
Adding 12 more cores to your quad core is not going to make the desktop perform better.
However, a 5% increase in instructions/cycle performance *will*
You're so right :(
I keep a PS3 non-updated just so I can play around with the Cell in linux.
It certainly is a shitty ass part if you're just trying to write normal software for it- the HT PPC core in it is a total dog.
However, if one were bored and wanted to whip up a stupidly parallel task, like computing segments of a mandelbrot- then one could zoom down to precision failure in a second.
Ever generated a 40,000 x 40,000 mandelbrot? Sure it's not quite general-purpose, but my i7 desktop, Q9650 desktop, i3 work computer, i3 laptop, and i7 laptop running parallel generation software struggle to keep up. (Granted- no GPU assist on those)
I just wish I had come up with more workloads for it before I got bored.
Are you joking?
I know that there is a wide variance in performance differences between compiled programs on 32-bit and 64-bit architectures, but I do a fair amount of work in assembler, and I assure you there are very large speedups to be had moving over to x86-64. First and foremost, increased register size and double the amount of general purpose registers.
If you want to go to a higher level, 64-bit pointers also allow for all kinds of very neat OS syscall latency related tricks like mapping stupidly-large files into memory.
64-bit is the way, my friend. If your software doesn't run faster in long-mode, it's because either you or your compiler just isn't quite with the program yet.
It's almost as if scientific learning and schools didn't exist before Christ. I bet if Christ hadn't come around, founded his Church, which eventually led to the Trinity College's formation, Newton would have been a mentally deficient chimney sweep.
Not ironic at all, really. Simply a misattribution of credit.
Now, you want some real irony? Much of Newton's success in celestial mechanics and physical sciences hinged on work by al-Hassan Ibn al-Haytham, an Iraqi Muslim. So perhaps we have Muhammad to thank for Newtonian Physics?
Someone can condemn the enormity of the crimes Christians have committed against humanity in the name of their religion without condemning everyone who claims to be a Christian.
Sadly, that's rarely the case in my experience with the devout of any Abrahamic religion.
They all take blasphemy pretty seriously, the difference is it's a lot harder for Western Christians to get away with stoning you to death. The North-east Indian, African, and Lebanese Christians, however? They're happy to oblige.
Nonsense. Einstein gets all the credit for that. Every single weapon today is based on mass-energy equivalence.
Of course, if ballistic weaponry had not existed prior to Newton, you'd have a much better argument...
I'm not a Christian, but you've nailed it. It was an indictment of followers, not Christ. The only explanation for the outrage is their own insecurity. It's hard to back up blind faith, and even harder to defend it from attack and you yourself don't really understand it.