Yea don't expect anyone to bother even reading the wiki about it. Also steel is not all that strong. There are stronger things. I always wonder why it is always "stronger than steel". Also what type of steel. Carbon steels cover a very wide range of material properties, and then there are nickel steels such as stainless steel (yea i know, still a carbon steel). And weight for weight even more things are stronger than steel such as aluminum alloys. And we haven't even got to composites.
Yea i am being slopy with the word stronger. I mean in a given context. For example if buckling is the main failure mode then the materials stiffness is important. etc. But in any given application you do have a set of numbers than can be approximately converted into "strength".
But your right. I am outraged. The first thing these stupid people say "OMG a Terrorist could use it!", as if they can't already use the alternative. If it something new. Jumping at every shadow. I remember when it was communists. Seriously you got into real trouble if you didn't say USSR/Communism==evil.
The shadows stay the same. Only the labels change.
Oh for fucks sake. You know why we don't have bombs going off every day. Because there are to first order zero fucking bombers. There are RC cars, plain cars, Quad copters, rc copters going back more than 20 years, taxis, plain old walking around and shit. Yet do you see bombs everywhere. How the fuck is this different from a courier bomb. Fed ex really don't check. Yet we get none.
Err really no. Photons as packets of light predates very briefly. But e=mc2 *is* relativity, and without that there is no such thing as zero rest mass. That would just be zero mass in *all frames of reference*.
Citation required. Show that it is non zero. Show the data. You may find it very hard to find. Outside puff pieces and youtube PR, they have done shit.
You are wrong, the force is statistically significant. Their measurement values are above the error bounds.
They already have statistically significant results, it's just not big enough to rule out other influences.
So they have shown no such force by your own omission. Did you even read this out loud?
Also your wrong. They measure forces in the noise of their own instruments. Secondly their controls give forces of the same levels. That is in the fucking noise. I don't care if it is the noise of the instrument or the estimated systematic errors. *it* *is* *not* *significant*. They even fucking say that in the abstract!
No it hasn't. Unless your idea of keep things running is to spend billions and billions for ZERO return. It has taught new meanings to white elephant. BTW we have had satellites and mars rovers do just fine on much smaller budgets.
The big inefficient government departments are not that way out of magic. It is, i believe just what happens when you have something big and complex that needs lots of humans doing different things. So yea i have seen it in big companies as well. And while you have a complex system that will require a lot of administration. It is always going to be inefficient.
The Fix is to simplify.
By the way EU has far less issues with the watchdogs being run by industry. Mostly because there are not stupid ways of selecting these people, and rules about conflicts of interest.
Relax i did go to the effort of reading the material on this thing. I did also regret wasting that time on it. But this is just bogus, has all the hall marks of bogus (literally made up terms and math that doesn't work) and worse still. Very sloppy experimental work and plain misleading statements.
For example the german dude (has a patent on an antigravity device i may add), showed no force out of the errors, yet claimed there was a force anyway. btw NASA does not endorse these results. Reputations based on "but nasa.." are way out of line here. Also if your any good at science reputations are worth shit. Show me the data! They can't they don't have any. They have no plausible mechanism why it word work. 300 years of results need to be wrong if this is true.
This is why we have peer review. It doesn't mean the results are correct or right, but it does at least get rid of the first order bullshit. And this is it i am afraid.
Yea some of us dream bigger than others. You know than in many EU countries if you don't have a job, you would get that much also. Basic income is as much as simplifying the welfare system as anything.
You have humans pick up the trash? We have machines, driven by just a few people do. Also the company that started all is doing *very* well for himself.
Well one of the arguments of basic income is to *reduce* benefit spending. As in the massive government departments that determine who gets what costs more than just giving it to everyone. There are similar ideas for greatly simplified tax systems. The idea again it just to get rid of huge, often ineffective and inefficient government departments.
Slashdot Mirror
Well go batshit insane with a gun on the train. He was quickly subdued. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-...
If you wanted to fly a plane into a building now you would have to steal an empty one first.
You would be surprised at how easy this would be.
The fact is there really haven't been a whole heap of attempts in the first place.
The Terrorists are a lie.
cast iron has too much carbon to be a steel :P.
Yea don't expect anyone to bother even reading the wiki about it. Also steel is not all that strong. There are stronger things. I always wonder why it is always "stronger than steel". Also what type of steel. Carbon steels cover a very wide range of material properties, and then there are nickel steels such as stainless steel (yea i know, still a carbon steel). And weight for weight even more things are stronger than steel such as aluminum alloys. And we haven't even got to composites.
Yea i am being slopy with the word stronger. I mean in a given context. For example if buckling is the main failure mode then the materials stiffness is important. etc. But in any given application you do have a set of numbers than can be approximately converted into "strength".
You will do well here.
So the United States of America is, by your definition, *not US citizens*? Did you say that out loud to yourself, or where you just dropped as a baby?
So what the fuck is the USA? Dirt? Shit? Syphilis? Have you read your own founding documents.
I was deliberately ignoring that.
But your right. I am outraged. The first thing these stupid people say "OMG a Terrorist could use it!", as if they can't already use the alternative. If it something new. Jumping at every shadow. I remember when it was communists. Seriously you got into real trouble if you didn't say USSR/Communism==evil.
The shadows stay the same. Only the labels change.
Then what the fuck is their job? Seriously AC. What is the FBIs job.
Oh for fucks sake. You know why we don't have bombs going off every day. Because there are to first order zero fucking bombers. There are RC cars, plain cars, Quad copters, rc copters going back more than 20 years, taxis, plain old walking around and shit. Yet do you see bombs everywhere. How the fuck is this different from a courier bomb. Fed ex really don't check. Yet we get none.
Because Terrorists are a lie.
The Unruh effect simply does not fit the data. Nice try but no cigar.
Err really no. Photons as packets of light predates very briefly. But e=mc2 *is* relativity, and without that there is no such thing as zero rest mass. That would just be zero mass in *all frames of reference*.
Citation required. Show that it is non zero. Show the data. You may find it very hard to find. Outside puff pieces and youtube PR, they have done shit.
You are wrong, the force is statistically significant. Their measurement values are above the error bounds. They already have statistically significant results, it's just not big enough to rule out other influences.
So they have shown no such force by your own omission. Did you even read this out loud?
Also your wrong. They measure forces in the noise of their own instruments. Secondly their controls give forces of the same levels. That is in the fucking noise. I don't care if it is the noise of the instrument or the estimated systematic errors. *it* *is* *not* *significant*. They even fucking say that in the abstract!
Shit science is shit science.
You need relativity to claim that a photon has no rest mass. There is no such concept in newtonian only physics.
No it hasn't. Unless your idea of keep things running is to spend billions and billions for ZERO return. It has taught new meanings to white elephant. BTW we have had satellites and mars rovers do just fine on much smaller budgets.
The big inefficient government departments are not that way out of magic. It is, i believe just what happens when you have something big and complex that needs lots of humans doing different things. So yea i have seen it in big companies as well. And while you have a complex system that will require a lot of administration. It is always going to be inefficient.
The Fix is to simplify.
By the way EU has far less issues with the watchdogs being run by industry. Mostly because there are not stupid ways of selecting these people, and rules about conflicts of interest.
Also man up. Stop posting AC coward.
Relax i did go to the effort of reading the material on this thing. I did also regret wasting that time on it. But this is just bogus, has all the hall marks of bogus (literally made up terms and math that doesn't work) and worse still. Very sloppy experimental work and plain misleading statements.
For example the german dude (has a patent on an antigravity device i may add), showed no force out of the errors, yet claimed there was a force anyway. btw NASA does not endorse these results. Reputations based on "but nasa.." are way out of line here. Also if your any good at science reputations are worth shit. Show me the data! They can't they don't have any. They have no plausible mechanism why it word work. 300 years of results need to be wrong if this is true.
This is why we have peer review. It doesn't mean the results are correct or right, but it does at least get rid of the first order bullshit. And this is it i am afraid.
Mark my words. You are just wrong and this is just *another* pile of BS.
And in europe where you can just not work *already*. I know people who do just that.
Yea some of us dream bigger than others. You know than in many EU countries if you don't have a job, you would get that much also. Basic income is as much as simplifying the welfare system as anything.
Some people would get better educated... in fact how much "underemployment" is there because some quite smart people simply cannot afford education.
You have humans pick up the trash? We have machines, driven by just a few people do. Also the company that started all is doing *very* well for himself.
Well one of the arguments of basic income is to *reduce* benefit spending. As in the massive government departments that determine who gets what costs more than just giving it to everyone. There are similar ideas for greatly simplified tax systems. The idea again it just to get rid of huge, often ineffective and inefficient government departments.