Your formula is a just a low-speed approximation of the actual formula for kinetic energy, and it is not accurate at relativistic speeds. In the actual relativistic formula, the amount of energy increases towards infinity as the mass approaches the speed of light.
sounds suspiciously like people in the government doing science work and that's verboten. turn those nerds into ICE deputies.
"Sir, we need to know how fast the earth spins so we can aim our missiles."
Very well then. Carry on, ensign.
Not sure off the top of my head, but I'm pretty certain that it has something to do with Planck units.
It wasn't that long ago that people were making posts on this site confidently claiming that "Maybe machines can beat humans at chess, but they will never be able to beat the best human players at go!"
More importantly, how will they be able to spot the trojans in the code that are part of the AI's plan to eliminate humans and take over the world?
The only place with a serious water issue is California
Thanks for making it clear that you're a fucking ignoramus and that everything you say can safely be ignored.
It sure is a pity that there's not multiple types of evidence from biological and geological data that corroborates and extends thermometer readings.
Oh wait, there is.
Let me save you the effort of your predictable reply: "I don't believe any of it. It's all bullshitt!!!!!!! Naah naah!!!"
This great conflation of fission power generation with nuclear weapons is the reason the only realistic solution to climate change is sitting on a dusty shelf.
Historically, any given nation's level of interest in the former has been strongly correlated with their desire to develop the latter. It's been means to an end.
If you want a fusion power reactor, by far the most viable fuel is D+T. You'd need orders of magnitude more tritium than is could ever be extracted from trace fission byproducts.
The idea to obtain this much tritium is to use the extra neutrons from the fusion reactor itself to breed it from lithium. This is supposedly a demonstration of that process.
In fact, it is UNETHICAL to use a placebo control in any clinical trial of an investigational product for which the existing standard of care already includes a product on the market.
In plain English, it is entirely unethical to give participants a placebo to test the efficacy of a new flu vaccine when we already have existing vaccines on the market. Doing so denies participants in the study from accessing effective treatment. If you have to test against a placebo, it will be impossible to recruit participants, because nobody will take the chance to receive placebo when they could just go to the pharmacy and get vaccinated.
There are only two possible explanations for such a position: either gross ignorance of basic scientific and ethical principles for conducting medical research in humans, or deliberate malicious intent to stop all research of investigational drugs. It doesn't actually matter which one is the reason. Both are entirely unacceptable.
The fact that a huge segment of the American population does not understand even the most basic scientific principles is the reason why many people will die needlessly.
Great we heard the same shit five years ago
I won't be impressed until the AI has better recommendations than 4 out of 5 dentists.
geoengineering and other high-tech approaches. But none of those are satisfying for the people who want to control how you run your life.
Of all the things an elite group of people could do to control everyone else's lives, geoengineering schemes have to rank up there at the very top.
This was a pre-emissions model (the car wasn't new when I got it). The only pollution control I remember it having was a PCV valve. After adjusting net vs gross HP, the 5.7L engine was rated for similar power as my current (non turbo) 2.5L. It also probably burned through 2.5X the fuel, and produced orders of magnitude more smog.
The new car is probably heavier, but I assume that a wider power band and more efficient transmission give my current car the overall edge in performance specs. The old car probably had better bottom-end torque, so it could do burnouts easier. That, along with the loud noise, rattling chassis and very scary handling characteristics probably made it feel faster than the current car, but that's nothing but psychology.
And those who had to drive up a hill. Or merge onto a highway safely.
What a load of bunk.
The 0-60 time of my base-model mid-sized family sedan with a naturally aspirated 4-banger beats the 350 cubic inch 4bbl equipped muscle car that I had 45 years ago. It has no problem merging onto highways.
This ought to be really easy to rectify:
Ask me anything...
>> Hey, how are you doing on all those audits?
No problems.
>> Great! Keep up the good work.
Radioactive cats have 18 half-lives.
