Posts by DJO 1883 publicly visible posts • joined 28 Sep 2011
The problem is that it involves rotation
Everything is whizzing along and rotating around a point which in turn is rotating around another point which in turn ... and so on and so on...
The factor you missed out is "frame of reference". Inside a suitably large station the rotation would be barely noticeable. Although they would need to be careful about where they put the windows, the view from a spinning platform could be a bit vertiginous.
You do not need to build the whole wheel. Much cheaper would be something like a double headed hammer
A more efficient solution would be to spin up the sleeping pods.
Giving the astronauts 8 hours of gravity a day would probably be enough to maintain bone and muscle density.
Something like this would be essential for interplanetary craft if you don't want your astronauts to collapse under the gravity at their destination.
Indeed. But some do and some of those that do are exploiting the inmates for profit.
Pretty much the definition of slavery.
The fact that it occurs in even one prison is wrong in every way.
But you are right, I should have written something like:
"Slavery is potentially bigger now in the USA than ever"
There is the context of the labour provided too, if it is useful civil work like fire-fighting or sewing mailbags for the post office (a bit of history there) then there's a good argument for it. But providing cheap labour to commercial enterprises should be illegal.
No it wasn't. Slavery still exists in the USA for the prison population who are forced to work for no or negligible pay.
* Context Time *
The US over the space of 250 years imported 305,326 slaves
The current US prison population is 1.8 million
Slavery is bigger now in the USA than it has ever been. Changing the name does not change the practice.
As for your other point, people are indeed free to take any job but if the only jobs available where you live are for abusive employers then your options are limited, you could try to find housing elsewhere but that's not always a viable option.
I think you mean that vaccinated people are less likely to experience symptoms than unvaccinated people.
No I mean what I said and I said what I meant
Also, your point about vaccinated people "recovering sooner" is spurious
No it isn't. I said "in most cases" yes there will be outliers but on average unvaccinated people are sick for longer.
infectiousness is not directly related to symptoms at all
Never said it was, it is however related to how likely people are to contract C19 and to a lesser degree how long they are sick with it. These and other factors such as unvaccinated are more likely to object to basic health provisions such as masks and distancing mean that the unvaccinated are more of a risk to not just themselves but to everybody else too.
I could refute more but I really can't be bothered - I'm supposed to be working.
Slightly disingenuous way of looking at it.
Vaccinated people are less likely to contract C19 than unvaccinated people, therefore given 2 groups of the same size members of the unvaccinated group will be far more likely to transmit C19 because they are more likely to contract C19.
Also in most cases vaccinated people recover sooner so are contagious for less time.
So reports of people being infected with Delta, or Omicron despite being 'fully vaccinated'. But that's to be expected given vaccines don't always work
How many times must this be restated: The vaccines while not 100% effective in preventing infection they significantly reduce the effects if it is contracted.
So - No vaccine - risk possible death from contracting C19
Or - Vaccinated - risk inconvenience and feeling grotty for a week or so from contracting C19.
Also vaccinated people are far less likely to infect other people with C19 which is a vital tool to reduce spread.
How close are quantum computers to be of any use anyway
Depend on what you want to do. Quantum computing uses Shor's algorithm to factorise integers.
The current highest number factorised this way is 21, they tried to factorise 35 but failed because of accumulating errors.
So if your requirements are factorising small numbers then they are ready to go. If you actually want to do something useful then probably not for a long time, if ever.
Of course if something better and more fault tolerant than Shor's comes along then it may all change overnight.
The Long March 5C is not particularly compact, it needs a launch site, it's not something that can be silo launched so either they intend to design a new rocket specifically for the hypersonic weapon or this is willy waving of the highest order.
Unless they can launch dozens of them in one go it's next to useless as a first strike weapon. This is where ICBMs have an advantage, you can launch thousands of decoys to mask the few hundred real ones. Doubly so with MIRV warheads, that's the way to do a first strike.
Would work as a capital ship killer but there are already plenty of conventional missiles which do a better job by flying under the radar.
Possibly more of a propaganda weapon than a military weapon.
Wouldn't make a lot of difference, the fines come from increased prices to customers and lower (or not increasing) wages to staff and if all else fails, reduced dividends to shareholders.
The only people who do not suffer any fiscal penalty are the board of directors, ie the actually guilty party.
Fines need to come from the board personally starting with the overstuffed directors pension fund and then personally, seizing property if necessary and then prison time if their assets are inadequate to cover the penalties.
scrap the income tax (which is just a tool of the Left
The reason we learn history is to learn from it and to try to avoid being as stupid now as they were back then.
"Income tax was first implemented in by William Pitt the Younger in his budget of December 1798 to pay for weapons and equipment in preparation for the Napoleonic Wars"
There's no way that Wm Pitt cold ever be called "A leftie". Tax was introduced by the government to pay for wars, not a significant left wing aim.
Making up ridiculous and easily debunked claims is not a winning debating strategy.
cannot make the argument that 10% on everything you buy is regressive!
We have VAT, a set percentage on sales and it is recognised as being incredibly regressive.
Put in easy words for you: The poor spend a larger proportion of their income on essentials than the wealthy so proportionately more of their income goes to tax than it does for the rich person.
That pretty much the definition of "regressive" taxation.
Round here we are shielded from all sorts of radiation by the magnetosphere, the moon does not have a significant magnetosphere (if any) so all sorts of radio frequency crap bombard the moon.
Consequently a radio system either has to be powerful enough to punch through (Apollo era tech) or have robust error correction built in. 4G would seem to fit the bill nicely so why bother to develop new methods.
EU politicians seem unable...
Hilarious, if the UK negotiators had negotiated in good faith then we might be in a decent position but alas the UK government can no longer be trusted to keep it's word so any future negotiations will contain punitive penalties for any default by UK PLC.
Really until the UK government start behaving like adults instead of petulant 5-year-olds don't expect anything from the EU.
Of course if one reads the right wing press in this country the story one is fed is somewhat different - mainly fantasy and toeing the line from Central Office.
I don't see how data that anybody who could be bothered to turn up at every game could gather can be considered protected or privileged data, it's 100% in the public domain.
Any personal data however is a different matter but I doubt if the betting companies are interested in that.
Data collected behind closed doors (practice sessions etc) is probably owned by the clubs but could be a grey area but again I doubt if there's much that's relevant to the bookies.
Curious downvotes, I'm just quoting facts with references so the claims can be verified.
I suppose reality is a bit much for some people but I do wonder what the motivation is for some people to spread demonstrably false claims about how masks or the vaccine don't work. Are they misinformed or are they just sociopaths who want as many deaths as possible or do they really believe the rubbish they spout.
If there weren't lives at stake it'd be an interesting sociological study.
Dreadfully sorry, the actual number was 98.9% but I rounded it up.
That was perhaps just one hospital. The BMJ report a 11 times factor so 91% instead of 99% still massively significant.
https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n2282.
BBC: Out of more than 51,000 Covid deaths in England between January and July 2021, only 256 occurred after two doses. that's a 99.5% differential. (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-58545548)
So it seems there are many different results but the trend is unmistakeable, vaccination massively mitigates the damage C-19 can cause.
Page 3 of the report you linked to: (my emphasis)
2 doses of the vaccine remain highly effective, with 60 to 85% effectiveness against infection, 90 to 99% effectiveness against hospitalisation, 90 to 95% against mortality and 65 to 99% against symptomatic disease.
Did you actually read that report?
This very much depends on the definintion of "abused" they are using. If the system is used as it was designed it's not being "abused", the fact that the system itself could be termed "abusive" means it is working exactly as designed.
Also 10b selfies, only operating in the USA (pop 300m) so assuming 25% of that 300m post selfies that's means on average they must have posted over 100 each which seems unlikely so I'm suggesting they lied about the "only USA" bit.
A lot of people don't seem to understand that most large scale commercial applications don't involve much processing of data but do have a lot of moving data about and there I/O is the important factor.
That's why mainframes refuse to die, they're not that fast computationally but they can move huge amounts of data.
It's a bit of a chicken/egg situation.
Without exploitable resources available on the moon a moon base is not viable - shipping water & food up from the Earth would be unsustainable so the first step must be to develop systems to exploit the available resources.
Only then will a moon base be possible.
Depends on your definition of "profit".
If you have a base on the moon any resources that can be sourced from the moon rather than dragged up from Earth is a plus on the profit/loss account.
This is what it's about, resources to keep moon base occupants alive as well as fuel for rockets either back to Earth or out to Mars.
Biden was an idiot for sticking with the date
Far from it. The USA was committed so far better to get it over with at the start of his term and have 4 years to tidy up and allow the majority of the populace with their absurdly short attention spans to forget all about it.
From an electoral perspective it was the best thing he could do, from the perspective of everybody directly involved it was going to be a shitshow no matter when it happened.
The vast majority of files have a header that does not change, if suddenly a lot of files are having their headers muddled up then it's a high probability something wrong is happening.
That's the easiest approach, I assume they've got some other detection modes running.
As for miscreants fooling the detection, well inevitably after a while - not encrypting the first (and maybe last) few K of each file might be enough.
As with all white hat/black hat battles it's an ongoing effort of attack and counter-attack - as long as the firmware can be (safely and securely) updated, but that introduces a new attack vector so it can all rapidly get quite complicated.
Don't know, the electric vehicle should be a lot simpler and hence a lot cheaper to buy, run and maintain than a conventional helicopter but like Uber they hope to do away with one very expensive part, for Uber the driver, here they want to dispose of the extremely expensive helicopter pilot.
Is there's a sufficient market to support such a business? Time will tell but I as with Uber & Tesla I suspect they'll discover the hype on autonomous vehicles operating on public roads or airspace was somewhat exaggerated. As a piloted vehicle they have little to offer over an electric helicopter (if such a beast exists).
Probably because you are not using a proper work surface.
Work benches always have a small time-warp in a variable position, the consequence of this is you can put a small but vital part down in clear view and then it completely disappears and is impervious even to the most assiduous searching.
Then between 1 and 2 weeks later the part will reappear somewhere you have already searched at least 3 times. A time warp* is the only logical explanation for the observed facts.
* It's just a jump to the left, And then a step to the right...
Hydrogen over electric. It's just easier, cleaner and less environmental impact.
No.
Hydrogen in almost every role proposed is just greenwashing.
Generation of hydrogen is woefully inefficient - the only industrial scale production method is by high temperature catalytic breakdown of natural gas to hydrogen and CO2 (and water and some other odds & sods), you than have to clean it and compress it which is hugely energy intensive. Once you've got your hydrogen you then need some form of containment which is tricky to say the least, hydrogen will seep though everything, even solid steel.
Overall with the current technologies hydrogen is perhaps the worst possible fuel for motive power imaginable.
Well Boston Dynamics have a reasonable facsimile up and definitely running:
https://www.theregister.com/2021/08/18/boston_dynamics_parkour/
However they are rather quite about how long they can operate on internal battery power which is I suspect where the problems will arise for anybody considering robots of any kind.
I wouldn't consider what happens in the USA as the gold standard, much the opposite in fact. In countries where climate change is taken seriously food stock is not used for fuel.
As for CO2, yes it does generate CO2, but that CO2 was removed from the atmosphere in the preceding years so over say a 10 year cycle does not actually increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Contrast with fossil fuels where the CO2 was pulled from the atmosphere millions of years ago so burning those DOES cause a nett increase in CO2.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
