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.

Not silly at all-

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.