Rather ironically, the Thinkpad series of laptops from Lenovo have excellent (in my experience) Linux compatibility. Lenovo even publishes compatibility certifications for them. I use Mint on a T450s and it worked nearly-perfectly out of the box (only issue I has is with the touchpad, but I prefer the nub mouse anyways and leave the touchpad disabled most of the time).
It's not even just Linux partitions, the update resulted in windows no longer recognizing the existence of an NTFS (non-boot) drive. All the data was still there, Windows just messed up the partition structure enough that it couldn't mount it. 3rd party recovery tools reconstructed it just fine.
She is either a criminal mastermind with the power, influence, and pull to continuously break the law and get away with it.
She doesn't have to be a mastermind. She's the wife of a former 2-term president, a former senator from New York, secretary of State for 4 years, current candidate for POTUS, and a lawyer who graduated from Yale. She is easily in the top ten most powerful people in the world, maybe top 5 (and easily top 5 in the US, maybe even second place behind Obama). And yet somehow you have a hard time believing she can get away with breaking the law? Please. She could get away with anything short of (and maybe actually including) straight-up murder (after all, she wouldn't be the first).
No! It really is special. In any frame except the CMB rest frame, a moving particle experiences Hubble drag from the expansion.
That's just not true. A particle moving in any reference frame will experience "Hubble drag" from expansion, with regard to that reference frame. There is no such thing as a "special" frame of reference: the laws of physics are invariant with regard to all frames of reference, inertial (special relativity) or not (general relativity). The expansion of the universe means that you can't establish a global inertial reference frame, which is why we need, so you need general relativity for cosmological expansion (though interestingly enough Newtonian cosmology arrives at the same end results, in many cases).
So in order to regain the exact same capability the last generation iPhone had, you have to spend more money? Well, that's... more or less exactly what I'd expect from Apple.
I don't follow European news, but I doubt that very much. The UK is ~14% of the total GDP of the EU (second largest in the EU): it dropping out without replacing the existing trade deals would be a massive economic blow to the EU. The EU may want to punish the UK for leaving, but I doubt they'd do it at the risk of collapsing the EU economy.
NMS works great and is quite fun on my PS4.
It's funny you should say that, because a lot of the reviews/ streams of the game on PS4 I've seen say it crashes not-infrequently, and can even corrupt your savefile in the process.
The missing mass is at a galactic level, not at the universe level. Stars in the galaxies, including our own, are moving too fast in their orbits around the galactic core to not shoot off into the space between galaxies if only visible matter is assumed to account for the gravity of each galaxy holding the stars in their orbits.
It actually exists at both levels. We can determine how much matter there is in the universe based on how it expanded, and we can determine how much baryonic (i.e. non-dark) matter there is in the universe based on our observations of the cosmic microwave background and a few other things that tells us about the early universe. From that we know there must be invisible matter that interacts gravitationally and *maybe* through the weak force with ordinary matter. Dark matter would probably not be widely accepted as a theory if we didn't have both these independent indications of it's existence (and there are still theorists looking for modifications of gravity instead to explain our observations, though they've had little luck so far).
You know how jerky is made? You take meat, cut it into slices, then let it dry (sometimes with salt, but you can do it without IIRC if you raise the temperature a bit so it dries faster). Same with breadcrumbs: you take slices of bread, and let it sit on the counter, separated so they can dry quicker (before mold has a chance to form), and then crumble the dried bread. That's all that happened: they made McDonald's jerky and dried bread. There's probably a bit of mold near the center of the burger, where it'd take much longer to dry out, but maybe not, since the burger is relatively thin and dry to begin with. You could do a similar thing with any foodstuffs thin and/or dry enough to dry out completely before it begins to rot.
This post is just... well, it's really just completely wrong. We have a well-established theory of the expansion of the universe, which comes naturally out of both Newtonian gravity and General Relativity (in fact, Einstein tried to modify General Relativity to avoid a non-static universe, as he thought at the time the universe had to be static. He was wrong).
Mainstream cosmology like "Big Bang" is based entirely, 100% on data that is by their own theory at the edge of what any sensor can detect and is therefore worthless based on everything we know about sensors. Sensors suck at the edges of what they can detect; all of them.
No, it's not. This is just straight up false. Mainstream cosmology is based primarily on observing the Cosmic Microwave Background and the current structure of the universe, neither of which is "at the edge of what any sensor can detect." The CMB is in fact very easy to detect (so easy, in fact, it was detected by a radio telescope by accident. It's so easy to see, if you turn on an old analogue TV, some of the static on the screen is the CMB). You can make predictions the number of neutrino species based on CMB observations. Those predictions agree exactly with results from particle accelerator experiments. You can predict the hydrogen to helium mass ratio (and the amounts of heavier elements) based on some simple thermodynamics/nuclear physics calculations. Those predictions (with the exception of the Lithium abundance) agree (again, as exactly as you can get in physics) with observations from astrophysics.
What if there is some sort of very weak force pulling on them, slowly shifting them red as they age, and we'd need a lab with a beam at least a few hundred light years long to start to detect it? We have no way of knowing what we don't know at that scale!
Actually, we do have such a lab. It's called "the universe". A few hundred light years is easy. All you have to do is look at the spectral lines of stars in our own galaxy (or distant ones, if you want to expand to hundreds of thousands of lightyears). "Tired light" has been proposed as a theory long ago, but it has not been supported by any observation.
That being the case, I've got to wonder exactly how insane the gravitational waves from a black hole merger are compared to the relatively steady fast-orbiting binary stars we can see via more traditional means? Are such waves theoretically too weak for us to detect with LIGO, or is it just that the signal-analysis is only looking for the distinctive "spike" from a black hole merger as a sort of low-hanging fruit to prove that gravity waves do in fact exist?
LIGO is looking for both, the problem is that such binaries don't emit a high-amplitude pulse, which is easy to see over the noise, you need to integrate over a large set of data to get a statistically significant SNR. As a result, it takes a lot more work, so they haven't published any findings on that yet.
Perhaps the more interesting question for me is, just how much will the proposed eLISA mission, with it's 250,000x longer arms (and I presume 250,000x greater sensitivity, plus much lower ambient noise levels) be able to detect? Being able to directionally detect the gravity waves from fast-orbiting binary stars, that we can then correlate with more traditional telescopy, could give us incredible insight into the workings of gravity waves including, in the case of binaries unmistakably spinning down, confirming whether the waves actually propagate at lightspeed.
While eLISA is a really cool and important next step, the advantage isn't entirely greater sensitivity (it's strain sensitivity is actually less than LIGO), it's that it can explore an entirely different frequency range of gravitational waves (think radio vs. infrared telescope: they see completely different things).
The news is about the chips being Chinese "designed" (quotes because I don't think anyone seriously thinks they designed them from scratch), but as a side note China actually only has a dozen or so semiconductor fabs. Most fabs are in the US, with Taiwan a (distant) second (assuming that list isn't woefully incomplete).
Manufacturing only goes to China because labor there is cheap. For stuff like semiconductor fabrication, offshoring to China makes very little sense, since much of the work is automated anyways (most of the cost is in the fab itself), and what isn't requires strict quality control and skilled labor.
However Tesla's promotional material about their system is not suggesting that; their promotions are all focused on technical ability but it's ignoring the fact that if you're in an emergency the system basically tosses control to you, so his argument is that Tesla's promotion of the technology gives drivers and users the wrong impression of what it's really doing.
So, when Tesla's presskit on Autopilot states that "Tesla requires drivers to remain engaged and aware when Autosteer is enabled. Drivers must keep their hands on the steering wheel.", what exactly do you think they're doing besides exactly what you claim they're not?
What the Volve engineer is doing is touting his own system's capabilities over and above the Tesla system. He's saying "look at how much more autonomous our system is!" It's advertising, and not much more. It's yet to be seen whether the Volvo system is actually safer or not in practice. In principle, fully autonomous driving is rather obviously safer than requiring manual intervention in the case of an emergency, but it remains to be seen if the Volvo system will realize that in practice.
I don't see robots doing work. I see people making pennies assembling iPhones in China, children working in sweatshops in Vietnam making Nike clothing. This man is a fool. The problem isn't robots. People are cheaper than robots are.
Because you're not looking. There's a reason the US is the second largest manufacturer in the world, and has grown in manufacturing capability over the last 15 years (except for a dip during the recession), while at the same time continueously employing fewer and fewer people in manufacturing jobs. It's called "robotics". Turns out it's cheaper in the US, where average/minimum wages are relatively high, to use robots than it is people, while in China, with it's much lower wages, it's still viable to use human labor. People are only cheaper if you live in a country with a shit average wage.
Is it possible that software is not like anything else, that it is meant to be discarded: that the whole point is to always see it as a soap bubble?
