Would a machine gun or a sniper be more dangerous?
It depends entirely on the situation in which they are deployed. A full and proper turret mounted machine gun, which are normally used for A)Suppressive/cover fire to support and protect the troops on the ground. B)For causing rapid destruction of targets, whether those targets are people or vehicles, as long as the right gun and ammunition is in use, they can easily handle both. For example, a .50 Cal machine gun with armour piercing rounds is going to be able to destroy most lightly armoured vehicles. Even with normal ammunition it is going to easily destroy a car/truck that isn't armoured, not to mention the devastation it would cause to an oncoming force of people. They would be pretty much wiped out in seconds, if they were stupid enough to stay within its line of fire once it started that is.On the other hand, a machine gun posted 2000 yards away from anyone/anything isn't likely to cause much damage. Just as a sniper rifle wouldn't be much use in a close quarters battle scenario. Yes it could easily shoot one person at a time but, with its long barrel and single shot capacity, even a semi automatic sniper rifle, is going to struggle against multiple armed assailants in different rooms during a building clearance for example.However, a sniper rifle placed 2000 yards away could pick out targets all day long and no one would be any the wiser as to where those shots where coming from for quite a while.Each are incredibly deadly in there own areas, the specificity of their design and the roles they were made for, makes them both incredibly deadly. And as such your question doesn't make much sense. It would be like asking which would be better to kill someone with a baseball bat or a nuclear bomb, they are both entirely capable but, it all depends on how they are utilised.
What is the difference between cognitive computing and machine learning?
The way I look at it is as follows:Machine Learning refers to the mathematical algorithms you use to accomplish a particular task. The task may be anything. For example it may mean reading through a large set of literature related to diagnosing cancer and also reading through the latest health record of the patient, both represented as text.Now, leveraging machine learning to extend the ability of the oncologist to diagnose cancer efficiently by helping him discover diagnosis patterns that he may not observe all by himself is cognitive computing. Cognitive computing refers to this end-end ecosystem that has machine learning as a part of it.
Is there a time machine in the process of being made?
No. Time travel is like perpetual motion: Paradoxically, it's both unavoidable and impossible. Let me explain: At the microscopic level, time-travel is unavoidable. Elementary particles routinely go backward in time; there's no difference between an antiparticle moving forward in time and its antiparticle moving backward in time. So, a "particle-antiparticle" pair creation can also be described as a particle which changes the direction of its "time flow". Now, can we harness this basic mechanism to make coherent systems consisting of many particles (and carrying definite information with them) go back in time? The answer is as much of a "no" as what applies to the related question of whether it's possible to transform brownian motion into coherent motion (that would be what's called perpetual motion "of the second kind"). If you don't believe in one, you don't believe in the other... Of course, science is not supposed to be about beliefs, but it is (to a degree). It's a much more productive belief (from a scientific standpoint) to assume that perpetual motion can't exist than the opposite... In one case, you'll refine the basic laws of thermodynamics. In the other case, you may waste your life on doomed tinkering. Similarly, the impossibility of time-travel imposes useful constraints on the very laws of fundamental physics we are aiming to formulate. It's almost certainly the more useful of two possible beliefs, to put it in provocative terms. This does not mean you can't have fun thinking about the paradoxes of time-travel. However, those very paradoxes should be an indication that attempts at building an actual time-machine are as doomed as attempts to build a perpetual motion machine. Or vice-versa.
How do hindus and sikhs get along in present day pinjab after 1984?
You wil hear many things on the news and posted on Youtube and what not concerning this, But surveys and polls only do so much here, To answer? there is really no way to accurately answer this except for you to personally make a trip thetre and evaluate this yourself. Hinduhs and Sikhs have of course different religions and as such their will be flair ups, from time to time, some more severe than others, no way to really tell.
What's the difference between a .50 caliber and a .500 BMG?
he .50 Browning Machine Gun (12.7x99mm NATO) or .50 BMG is a cartridge developed for the Browning .50 Caliber machine gun in the late 1910s. Entering service officially in 1921, the round is based on a greatly scaled-up .30-06 cartridge. The cartridge itself has been made in many variants: multiple generations of regular ball, tracer, armor piercing, incendiary, and saboted sub-caliber rounds. The rounds intended for machine guns are linked using metallic links. The .50 BMG cartridge is also used in long-range target and sniper rifles, as well as other .50 machine guns. The use in single-shot and semi-automatic rifles has resulted in many specialized match-grade rounds not used in .50 machine guns. A McMillan Tac-50 .50 BMG sniper rifle was used by Canadian Corporal Rob Furlong to bring off the longest-range confirmed sniper kill in history, when he shot a Taliban combatant at 2,430 meters (2,657 yards) during the 2002 campaign in Afghanistan.[1] The previous record for a confirmed long-distance was set by US Marine sniper Carlos Hathcock in 1967, the distance was 2,286 meters (2,500 yards) or 1.42 miles (2.29 km). Hathcock used the same round in an M2 Browning Machine Gun equipped with a telescopic sight. This weapon was used by other snipers, and eventually purpose-built sniper rifles were developed especially for this round. The previous standard for ammunition for sniper rifles was .30-06, but the .50 round is more accurate at extreme range. A wide variety of ammunition is available, and the availability of match-grade ammunition has increased the usefulness of .50 caliber rifles by allowing more accurate fire than lower quality rounds.
What's the difference between these drum kits?
The Roland TR-808 is an analog synthesizer purpose-built to mimic the sound of a drum kit, which it did and does very poorly. But it came out in the early 1980s, a time when novelty was particularly cool. The TR-808 was discontinued in 1984 and replaced by drum machines that were much better at reproducing drum sounds accurately. The newer units did not rely on analog synthesis. Rather, they used digital samples to produce sounds. In 1989, the market for used TR-808s was swamped and the resale price was extremely low. Anyone still using one with the serious intention of mimicking real drums would have been a laughed out of town. But aspiring rap artists didn't care about that. They were able to pick up the TR-808 for a song. Indeed, it was all that many of them could afford. That is when the instrument's unique sound became the defacto standard for rhythm sounds in rap, dance, and techno music. There remains to this day a vigorous used-market for the TR-808, but this is largely driven by the instrument's status as a coveted collector's item, not because it's difficult to recreate TR-808 sounds using any number of contemporary devices. The Boss DR-880 is also a Roland product. (Boss is a division of Roland.) It represents decades of development of drum machine technology. It includes dozens of sounds typical of the TR-808 as well as several other classic drum machines, has many detailed samples of acoustic drums, and adds a multitude of bass sounds to boot. That's not to say it can do everything the TR-808 could do; it can't. But it is, in fact, a much more capable and versatile unit. If you plan to self-produce modern electronic music, it's a no-brainer that the DR-880 should be your choice. If you're looking for a drum machine to sound like a real drummer playing a real drum kit, it is by far the better choice. (That said, if you're looking to produce music in any of the more organic sounding genres, there is still no substitute for a skilled human being playing a well-maintained acoustic drum kit.) If you're after a highly collectible classic, then there is nothing more classic than the TR-808.
Is it true that the British Army Bren gun was 'too accurate' to be effective as a light machine gun?
Well if by “accurate” you mean it would fire round after round into the same place, then yes it was.I fired one back in the eighties, five rounds single fire then twenty rounds automatic on a 25 metre range. When we were all finished and we went to check the targets there were seven holes on the target, the five single shots in a cluster and two larger holes. The reason there were two larger holes was because I shifted slightly when firing on auto.The weapon was extremely accurate, but in order to spread the rounds around a little the bipod mount has a bit of looseness built in but that cane be overcome by just holding the stock a little tighter.
What is the difference between PMM1 and PMM2?
Keeping it simple, short and accurate.PMM stands for “ Perpetual Motion Machine”. There are three kinds of PMM. All the three are different from each other……still they are similar in the sense that they all are impossible to construct.PMM-1 : A device which produces work continuosly without consuming any form of energy. Practically impossible as it violates the “First law of Thermodynamics”. Example: Your Bike running without petrol. What a wonderful moment that would be :P.PMM-2 : A device which completly converts Heat into Work. Its impossible to construct as Losses are unavoidable (in the form of Frictional losses, leakages etc) but nevertheless they can be minimised. It violates “Second law of Thermodynamics” Example: Thank God your bike is now running on petrol :P….but without silencer. I hope you can corelate.PMM-3 : A device which completly runs in the absence of friction. Again impossible to construct as a machine is made up of different moving parts, having relative motions with each other. And whenever there is motion, any of the two forms of Friction comes into play.Hope this helps. Cheers !!