Slashdot Mirror

Well, for the record, 2006_05_31.pdf.

For the record, cellulose IS sugar, it's just a polymerized version of it (as is glycogen in people, and starch in potatos.) However, not just everything can break down the cellulose polymer. Plants, bacteria, and some unicellular animals can, but not multicellular animals unless they have an intestinal system full of aforementioned unicellular beasties. If you're really curious here's a diagram of the structural difference between starch and cellulose.

Rehovot, Israel, September 22, 2005 - Mirage Innovations, an innovator in the field of personal display technologies, today announced that it has concluded a $7.5 million round of financing from Gemini Israel Funds, Benchmark Capital and existing investor Landa Ventures.

The patented NanoPrism(TM) technology developed by Mirage Innovations is based on diffractive optics.

NanoPrism(TM) enables the creation of ultra-lightweight, compact, affordable and cyberstress- free personal display devices. Binocular displays based on this technology, such as the Mirage Innovations LiteVuT personal display, are the only cyber-stress-free personal display devices on the market.

"The rapid convergence of video content and media-capable portable devices has created a very exciting market for Mirage Innovations. The company's focus on innovative, enabling technology, combined with a seasoned management team, was very attractive to the investors" said Yossi Sela, managing partner of Gemini Israel Funds.

Mirage Innovations will continue to focus its product and business development strategy on this promising opportunity and will use the proceeds of the financing to complete the development and accelerate the commercial deployment of the technology.

"Mirage Innovations is poised to provide a real solution to meet the demand for alternative portable display systems" said Tal Cohen, the CEO of Mirage Innovations. "The demand for media-capable portable devices is being fueled by the enormous increase in content for MobileTV and Personal Media Players, which has become available only in the last couple of years." He concluded by stating that the management team at Mirage Innovations is "delighted to have such an influential and innovative group of investors backing the company."

About Mirage Innovations

Mirage Innovations offers its breakthrough NanoPrism(TM) technolog

Condensed Matter, abstract cond-mat/0502336: Achieving Transparency with Plasmonic Coatings

There is not enough information in the Guardian article to judge whether the approaches to transparency are similar or not. It is definitely interesting to note that there are at least these two fairly mature theoretical research/engineering projects underway.

Who has not had a dream of having the power of invisibility? Such a power could be fun, useful, and dangerous. If it were invented, how would people use it? How would governments use it? Although the research is early stage and there are practical bugs for implementation, the science and general engineering are good and it is only a matter of time before such a device is demonstrated.

Here are additional references on the nanoplasmonic research:

• Nature 28 February 2005: Engineers Devise Invisibility Shield

  PDF: Nanofocusing_in_Tapered_Plasmonic_Waveguides

The neutrino flux from the SNS should be much higher than the solar neutrino flux locally: ~10^6 nu/cm*s from the sun compared to ~10^15 nu/s (note different units) due to the SNS. The proposed neutrino detector can therefore achieve much higher flux by putting it close to the source (although it will only cover a small solid angle). Here's a link on the estimated solar neutrino flux: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/Astro/s olneu.html

BZA teaches CogSci 160 at UCSD during the summer on brain computer interfaces. The material covered in the class is found at http://www.cis.gsu.edu/brainlab/PapersOtherWriting s.htm if anyone's interested. Last year I remember he had the record for the highest data rate on record for some EEG interface. Great professor, great class, and great reality check on what these interfaces can actually do now or relatively soon (bring access to the disabled, perform simple games) and what they aren't even meant to do (Johnny Mnemonic).

[ from http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nucene/ nucprob.html#c3 ]
The nuclear fission of uranium-235 produces large quantities of intermediate mass radioisotopes. The mass distribution of these radioisotopes peaks at about mass numbers 95 and 137 , and most of them are radioactive. The most dangerous for environmental release are probably cesium and strontium because of their intermediate half-lives and propensity for reconcentration in the food chain.

When spent fuel assemblies are removed from nuclear reactors, they are transported to "swimming pool" storage facilities to dissipate the heat of decay of short-lived isotopes as well as for isolation from the environment. The long term disposal of these wastes remains a major problem. It was assumed that these wastes would be encased in glass and placed in geologic disposal sites in underground salt domes. The site at Yucca Mountain was chosen as a first site, but both technical and political problems have thus far blocked its implementation.

I disagree. Read about Brown's Ferry. Here's Fermi. Ginna wass more minor, but variants of it have been repeated numerous times. There are plenty of other major nuclear power accidents to mention, however. Want more? Start at SL-1, which impaled an operator with a control rod when it exploded and fried two other people, leaving a heavily irradiated hulk behind for cleanup.

Even then pure resistive heating is inefficient from a thermodynamic point of view. Electricity used to run a heat pump can result in greater heat transfer than is generated by resistance heating. In most parts of the US a heat pump can generate twice as much heat as using the same amount of electricity in a resistive heater.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/ heatpump.html#c2

The whole concept that there is no energy wasted in waste heat thrown during lighting is just wrong - that electrical energy has efficency costs in generation, tranmission and in inefficient use.

It seems to me the more heat I produce from my bulb/processor, the less my temperature regulator will pull energy from my heating system (based on gas, which is becoming more expensive). What's wrong with this way of thinking ?

Most of us aren't stupid enough to live in Alaska. See, there's this little thing called "Summer"...

Plus, a heat pump is about 300%-400% as energy efficient as resistive heating. Excepting a handful of latitudes, anyone who can afford a heat pump and doesn't get one ought to do the rest of us a favor and just off themselves right now, instead of using up oxygen while waiting around for the inevitable Darwin Award.

I beleive you. I think most businesses fail 'cause most folks just jump in. It sounds like you do your homework.

Alice DeKoning at Georgia State University does research on serial entrepreneurs, such as yourself.

The problem arises at high speeds. If I walk away from a fixed point at 3 m/s and you walk away in the opposite direction 5 m/s, it's reasonable to assume that we will be moving away from each other at 8 m/s. In fact, it's essentially true. The problem occurs when we both take off at speeds more like 200,000,000 m/s away from a common point in opposite directions. The simple addition would say that we're moving away from each other at 400,000,000 m/s. At those velocities, the effects of relativity become important, so the actual velocity turns out to be quite a bit less than 400,000,000 m/s. The equation used to add velocities is described here. If you look carefully at the equation, you'll notice that for velocities significantly less than c (the speed of light), the equations more or less reduce to simple addition of velocities. At high veolcities, relativity becomes very relevant and all bets are off when it comes to intuition.

3% over what increment? If it's 3% per light year, or even 3% per 100 light years, or 3% per 100 million light years, then the iteration is definitely significant. Since astronomers rely on red shifting to measure distances between stars within our own galaxy, though, it stands that the impact is significant. I'm not saying it's an issue. I don't want to debate it. I said it's a consideration to think about.

According to this page a red shift of z=4.25, a recession speed of 0.93c, corresponds to a distance of 12-15 million light years. Nine years ago when I was studying nuclear physics I could probably have told you more distinctly what that means. Assuming it's the velocity remaining, a 7% decrease equates to 12-15 million light years. Assuming a linear relationship (unlikely, but I'm doing the math in my head) then light traveling 440 million light years would experience a decrease of around 250%. That means the gamma rays, by the time they reached Earth, are 2.5 times lower in energy than from the originating point. That's not an order of magnitude but it's definitely significant.

There's a basic explanation of the known forces (Strong, Electronmagnetic, Weak and Gravity

There are quite a few ideas kicking about:

scalar-tensor-vector gravity (STVG)

Modified Newtonian Dynamics
General Relativity,
Quantum Gravity,
The http://www.halexandria.org/dward155.htm">Zero-poin t Field,
Superstring Theory,
M-theory,
Inflation/Cosmology,
Yilmaz gravitation, and
Membrane Gravity

Law of Universal Gravitation,

And there's also Intelligent Gravity

Unfortunately, there is no one simple experiment to prove any of these either true or false.

Gravitons are supposed to be the exchange particle for gravitation, as the photon is for electromagnetic force. The graviton and photon are chargeless, massless particles, differentiated by their spin. The strong and weak nuclear forces are also mediated by exchange particles (W & Z for the weak, Gluons for strong quark interactions, Pions for strong nucleon interactions). The graviton's importance is in serving as a moderator of the gravitational force; if this theory is correct, then it won't be long before someone will come up with an idea for exposing the graviton to the light of day.

Hate replying to myself, but I forgot to add a link explaining why relativistic mass is just a (pretty but bad) idea.

"It is not good to introduce the concept of the mass of a moving body for which no clear definition can be given. It is better to introduce no other mass concept than the 'rest mass' m. Instead of introducing M it is better to mention the expression for the momentum and energy of a body in motion."

-- Albert Einstein

I dont know what school you went to, but there is a relationship between all four natural forces (strong nuclear, magnetic, gravitational, and weak). Its been proven that you can levitate objects with strong magnetic fields, heres some video for you to throw your old text books at:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/solids/ maglev.html

According to the projections of Uranium reserves on this page, conventional nuclear power won't get us very far: http://www.financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/petch /2005/0703.html

However,if we ever get past the "pilot plant" stage in designing and building breeder reactors: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nucene/ fasbre.html ,which actually create more fuel than is used, then the viabilty of nuclear fission as an alternate energy source might be enhanced considerably: http://www.argee.net/DefenseWatch/Nuclear%20Waste% 20and%20Breeder%20Reactors.htm The final waste products from plutonium fission have much safer radioactive by-products in terms of half-life, but plutonium itself presents problems as it is an extreme security risk and a very hazardous material

On the other hand, the supply of Deuterium and Tritium is vast, and the fusion reaction is clean, except for the need to absorb the free neutrons that are carrying the most of the energy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion

1) Stars do disappear, in fact all low mass stars, stars with a solar mass of less than 8, will disappear eventually. It just so happens that it takes an inordinate amount of time for them to do so, on the order of 50 billion years for stars with a post supergiant solar mass of less than 1.4. (See Chandrasekhar Limit for more information.) Such stars would have long since stopped burning hydrogen and helium, the only two elements such stars would be able to use as an intenral energy source. Additionally, such stars are known as white dwarves (WD). Since they no longer have internal energy sources, and because there is not enough gravitational potential energy to overcome electron degeneracy pressure, these proverbial hot bricks will simply radiate thermal energy until they reach the ambient temperature of space, about three degrees kelvin. (That is to say nothing of black holes, which become singularities, which will also eventually disappear. However that's much more difficult to explain than WD.)

2) Only stars with a solar mass of greater than 8 will burn elements like carbon, silicon and oxygen, all the way down the nuclear potential energy well until it reaches iron, which is, at least from a nuclear standpoint, inert. Stars of less mass do not have enough gravitation potential energy to burn fuse carbon, which takes a temperature of approximately 500 million K to fuse.

3) Binary stars are not remarkably identical. In fact, if I recall correctly, all binary systems must have in common to be classified as binary are a gravitational proximity. Roughly fifty percent of stars are binary or multiple star systems.

4) Circular orbits are not impossible, they are just unlikely given the way gravity works. A circle is just an ellipse with an eccentricity equal to zero or, in otherwords, an elipse with a single focal point. In fact, there are many objects in circular orbit around the earth:

"The circular orbit is a special case since orbits are generally ellipses, or hyperbolas in the case of objects which are merely deflected by the planet's gravity but not captured. Setting the gravity force from the univeral law of gravity equal to the required centripetal force yields the description of the orbit. The orbit can be expressed in terms of the acceleration of gravity at the orbit. (1)

six light years is about (really 4 light years) the distance to the star (Proxima Centauri) nearest to our sun. of course, interstellar distances are very hard to get a good grasp of... so i am not certain that this is giving you any perspective. try this http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/starlog /strclos.html for some insight into how far away it is.

strike

You are correct. The problem we have here is that these "volumes of density" are abstract. But your reasoning is exactly the problem we encounter with the Michelson-Morley Experiment right? We seem to find that light is the same speed in all directions, proving that the "ether" doesn't exist. The basic problem with the "old ether" is that ether was some kind of substance. I find this view of ether silly since space-time itself isn't a "substance" it is the opposite of substance, of matter itself...it is "space". As in, what is the volume that surrounds matter? SPACE. In my original analogy, imagine again that nothing exists except for "air". Matter then would be "configurations" of "air". Matter would be some kind of "vortices" or foldings of "air". Light then would be seen as a "vibration" in the "air". And since we, being made of "air" in this analogy, could never move faster than, vibrations in air.

So how could we "prove" this model...this analogy? Well take our original glass sphere the size of a basket ball. I said you can't put a house in a basket ball right? Well what would happen if we placed a marble sized black hole inside that basket balls volume? Assuming for the moment that the glass sphere would not be crushed by the black holes high density of space-time around it (gravity), then we should be able to put very large things in there right? The problem with this analogy is that the "glass spheres" volume would neccessarily cause it to shrink, or become more dense. If space-time actually works the way we're suggesting, then you cannot have a "rigid frame of reference" made of matter, since matter itself is made of space-time. But isn't this actually the state of affairs encountered with these experiments?

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ /mmhist.html

From this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether of the Wikipedia..."Another, completely different, attempt to save "absolute" aether was made in the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction hypothesis, which posited that everything was affected by travel through the aether. In this theory the reason the Michelson-Morley experiment "failed" was that it contracted in length in the direction of travel. That is, the light was being affected in the "natural" manner by its travel though the aether as predicted, but so was the experiment itself, cancelling out any difference when measured. Even Lorentz was not very happy with this suggestion, although it did neatly solve the problem. Later this idea received additional support from the Kennedy-Thorndike experiment in 1932, as Kennedy and Thorndike concluded that both a Lorentz contraction as well as time dilation occur, thus "confiming special relativity".

In order for these analogies to work, you'd have to have a "four dimensionally" rigid volume for which to measure the "density" of the 3 dimensional space-time. At least, I think. So that might mean that indeed, there is something "outside" of our own "space-time" way of measuring things.

U238 might (or might not) result in a significant chemical toxicity problem, but no worries about nuclear explosions http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nucene/ fission.html

Plutonium, on the other hand ... I get your point!

And all these billions of years, these electrons haven't bothered to make this energy transition until you came along because...?


Quantum theory predicts that the electrons can never get close enough to the protons because quantum flux keeps adding orbital energy to electrons. Even chilling Hydrogen down to close to absolute zero doesn't stop this.

From their web site, the basic principle is that they take water, apply electrolysis to split the water into hydrogen and oxygen, discard the oxygen atoms, split the H2 molecules into atoms. Potassium and strontium is then used to absorb the orbital energy of the electrons from the Hydrogen atoms, by absorbing the energy from the Hydrogen electrons faster than it can build up.

The last bit is the controversial bit, but it would seem to be the same principle as laser cooling.

Simply stating:

H + B -> 3 He + ~10.000.000 eV
H2O + ~10eV -> H2 + O2

See, for example, this and this.

We can see that this reaction is really benefical, because it removes dihydrogen monoxide from the environment. ;-)

Even the slightly less intelligent and significantly more aggressive common chimps have social structures similar to our own (the 'alpha male' is determined by who has the most supporters / thugs).

Please read up on the Carnot cycle http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/ carnot.html

Cold = 80f ~= 300k
Hot = 100f ~= 310k which is way hotter than you want to run your CPU's
Max efficiency :3.2% which means your probably wasting your time trying to do anything with that heat unless your up north in which case you can use it to help heat the building. As the Carnot cycle efficiency also works the other way so it takes at least that much energy to generate that much heat.

That would be nice, but breeder reactors are prohibited by some nuclear weapons treaty we (the US) signed, along with uh, some other nations.

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty does NOT prohibit breader reactors. Nor does any other treaty the US has signed. What does prohibit breader reactors in the US is an execuitive order signed by Jimmy Carter. In fact, France uses breeder reactors. The only reason Carter banned them is that they produce plutonium. This plutonium can still be used in power plants and still requires special refining in order to be used in weapons, if it is even possible (See second link below, it is believed to be impossible due to the purity requirements).

The only problem is, as you mention, the NIMBYs. Although I do recall a group attempting to start building a new reactor in the US. Sorry, can't find a link on it. I personally would have no problem living near a nuclear power plant.

Look at the French Super-Phoenix breeder reactor at the bottom of this page:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nucene/ fasbre.html#c6

Jimmy Carter Execuitive Order mentioned here and some info on the weapons grade material:
http://www.argee.net/DefenseWatch/Nuclear%20Waste% 20and%20Breeder%20Reactors.htm

And even then, the operators of Chernobyl had to go out of their way in order to cause the accident.

(Note: Link is from another Slashdot post.)

There are well known principles of physics that prevent the Hubble from seeing anything clearly. You just have to do the math:

Rayleigh Criterion

Between that and Google Calculator, you can figure out how big a mirror you need to be able to see a 1 meter wide object on the moon. The moon is 250,000 miles away, so the angle subtended by such an object is

a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=arcsin% 281+m+%2F+250000+miles%29+in+radians&btnG=Google+S earch">2.5 x 10^-9 radians.

Plugging that in for the desired angle in the Rayleigh Criterion equation, you can see that you need a mirror of almost 300 meters in diameter to resolve this image. That's 1000 feet. The Hubble has a mirror that is about 8 feet wide.

Here are some interesting links that tell more about how carbon dating works. The link you posted is just creationist talk and not even the best of its kind. You need to know more about the intrinsics of the method before you can judge the scientific merit.

science.howstuffworks.com/carbon-14.htm

230nsc1.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/cardat.html

www.c14dating.com/int.html

I think you slighly misunderstand Heisenberg. As I see it, the relevant equation is delta E*delta t > h_bar/2, so if they increase the frequency enough, they're also gonna need to increase the energy used.

Before you run around flaunting your amazing grammar and spelling skills you should know what you are talking about. Arguement can be spelled two ways: Both the traditional - Arguement, and the Americanized - Argument. http://www2.gsu.edu/~wwwesl/egw/jones/differences. htm I am Canadian and we carry a lot of our spelling quirks over from the British for obvious reasons. The more you know moron....

Ah, so you would like a blackbody handbag?

"Most internal combustion engines operate at about 35 per cent efficiency."

Isn't this efficiency topped by the Carnot Efficiency? The only way he can improve on this
theoretical efficiency, is by driving up the
temperature.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/ carnot.html

Take a course in biology and you'll learn that high-frequency noises are indeed related to loss of hearing.

The cochlea (inner ear) uses tiny "hair cells" to "catch" sounds (vibrations) and transform them into a signal that the auditory nerve can get to the brain. Different lengths of hair cells catch different wavelength of sound. Higher frequency noises (shorter wavelength) are caught by the shorter hair cells.
Those cells being shorter (thus smaller), they are somehow more fragile than their longer counterparts, so they are the first ones to die with age / hearing of loud noises.
Loss of hearing happens usually with the higher-frequency noises first, because of the reason stated above. This is the reason why old people have a hard time understanding what women say (higher-pitched voice) while being able to hear men much better (lower-pitched voice, higher chance that hair-cells for that frequency are still alive).

High-frequency noises will always be the firsts to go when going partially deaf. They all go eventually though. Higher wave amplitude (volume) will make that happen sooner. Canceling out low and mid frequency noises will keep some hair cells from being hurt, but if the high-frequency sounds still go through, short hair cells still get hurt.

Linky
Linky
Linky

How very religious of you, you missed out the first law.
The first law of thermodynamics is the application of the conservation of energy principle to heat and thermodynamic processes

because the universe always goes from state A to state B and never from state B to state A

On a Macro scale over a short period of time this may be true, but over the life of the universe scientists still don't know if were going to end up in a 'big crunch' or not and we could always have another 'big bang' like the reset switch being flipped. It's almost stupid to even try to guess what 'created' the universe but from all the available evidence is reasonable to ASSUME that the universe created itself (just like the Universe created you, and the thoughts you have).

The rest you say don't make any sense.
The rest of the comment was to try and keep my post on topic.

I actually had a discussion about this some years ago here on slashdot :)

The energy transmitted by a blackbody is proportional to the difference of the fourth power of the temperature of the two bodies: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/ stefan.html

Now for a radiator pointing at the sky at night we radiate to a 4K sink. But the radiation is reflected and absorbed (which effectively reduces difference in temp - also known as insulation) by various gases, mainly water. So it must be a clear night, with low humidity. Deserts are ideal, and they generally have a swing of more than 60C each day as a result.

The air itself (O2 and N2) is practically transparent to the IR wavelengths and have no effect on the transmission, no matter what their temperature. The reason it doesn't work during the day is that the sun fills the sky with lots of IR scattered from dust and ice crystals, giving the sky a temperature of about 250K, which is nowhere near as effective for cooling things down.

It's an interesting phenomenon, and you can easily test it yourself - leave a foam box outside with some water in it on a clear cool night (adding some dye may help). Make sure that the water can't 'see' anything apart from the sky. for comparison put a similar body of water under a tree, or in a heat conductive container (plastic bucket).

A classic bush survival technique is to use a space blanket (the metal ones) to cover a black plastic sheet on the ground during the day to get it cold, then take it off at night - it will quite rapidly collect water - I collected 1L/m^2 when I tried it, which, over our 4m^2 tarp, was most of our daily water requirement.

Pluto is 2274 km in diameter. You can get the estimate of the diameter of 2003 UB313 by:

• Getting the distances from Earth and the Sun.
• Getting the magnitudes from the discoverer's paper.
• Using these equations.

Or, you could just look on the discoverer's page and get 97%.

You already know the brown marble is bigger by .1 inch, yet you claim since the polished white marble is brighter it is bigger?

No, I claim that by knowing the distance, albedo, and brightness of the marbles, we can calculate their size. When we measure these quantities and run them through the equations, the brown marble will be shown to be bigger.

Furthermore, if I move that polished white marble up next to the brown one, it gets brighter, right?

Yes, due to the inverse square law.

So by your definition, that polished marble will GROW bigger in diameter.

No, it appears brighter due to the fact that it's closer.

What I'm trying to convey to you is that there is NOT a 1:1 relation between reflectivity and size.

I didn't make that claim.

Maybe if you could provide a link to how these guys actually measure these distances and sizes WITHOUT actually being able to take a tape measure to them (or send a probe)

OMG, are you for real? Did you even try to Google it?

If they can find a good way to locate large amounts of deuterium they will be one step closer to making nuclear fusion a viable source of energy.

/me points at the big body of seawater off the coast near my hometown.

Tritium is the main problem.

What they could be used for.

If they can find a good way to locate large amounts of deuterium they will be one step closer to making nuclear fusion a viable source of energy.

/me points at the big body of seawater off the coast near my hometown.

Tritium is the main problem.

What they could be used for.

Those are two different things. In the case of you agreeing to Blizzard's EULA as written, they have a team of lawyers that crafts the EULA. When they include the EULA with their product and have their software ask you whether or not to accept it, that constitutes Blizzard accepting the terms of the EULA. Then when you install the software and click "accept", or in the case of TOS agreements, click "accept" when running the game, you're indicating your acceptance of the agreement. Boom, a contract is formed - they agree to supply you with entertainment, and you agree to abide by the rules they set out when consuming that entertainment.

With your scenario, Blizzard writes up an EULA, constituting their agreement to it. You modify the EULA and agree to your new version. Nowhere in there did Blizzard get the opportunity to review your revisions, and so you never agreed to the terms that constitute the only way that Blizzard will agree to your usage of the software. The way you put it, I could edit the copy of the agreement on my computer to include a clause that says, "Blizzard agrees to give me one million dollars American", click agree, and then file a lawsuit against Blizzard when they don't pay up. I'd be laughed out of court if I tried that. You certainly can't do that with paper contracts, and you can't do that with online/electronic contracts either.

A similarly "clever" route is to modify the software or run extra software that clicks the "agree" button for you or prevents you from seeing the EULA. That doesn't work either, for two reasons. One, when a company includes a legally binding EULA with their software, you have two choices: agree to the EULA and use the software, or don't agree to the EULA and don't use the software. If you try to be clever and get someone/something else to agree to the EULA for you, and then you use the software, you're using it unlicensed (without permission). Two, the act of trying to circumvent the EULA is proof of knowledge of its existence, and your circumvention also indicates an unwillingness to read the terms. One could argue that by actively bypassing the EULA, you demonstrate your acceptance of the terms without bothering to read the EULA.

As for your personal opinion, it doesn't matter much in the face of legal opinion. Courts have already ruled numerous times that as long as a license agreement is conspicuous, requires people to view it before going on to install/use the software, and doesn't require the user to pay unrefundable money before having the opportunity to review the license agreement, then that agreement is legal and becomes legally binding once the user clicks "agree".

First of all there is no reason for this project to come so far along. It had to be cancelled long time back. The problem in Academic literature is called "Escalation of Commitment". it is not software per se, but a combination of psychological, social, organizational and social factors contributing to such big failure.... Mark Keil http://www.cis.gsu.edu/~mkeil has done a lot of work in this area. He published some recommendations based on the case study of DIA, that it needed to be abandoned long time back. http://www.misq.org/archivist/vol/no24/issue3/vol2 4n3art3.html Atleast now we can learn some lessons

ftp://131.96.244.6/pub/
ftp://lab753-09.cs.gsu.edu/pub/

ftp://131.96.244.6/pub/quake3-1.32b-source.zip

Note that it only allows about 25 connections since it is an 700MHz Athlon.

Ok, I've had some time to think about it... This is a fun idea, regardless of how practical...
One idea I had was that the force pulling the wire loop apart could be offset with gravitational pull, if you ran a wire in space in orbit around Mars. One kicker is the current required. According to this web site:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magneti c/curloo.html#c2
A loop with the same radius as Mars that could generate close to the .5 gauss magnetic field we have here on Earth would need almost 300,000,000 amps of current. Putting Mars in the middle would reduce this, since there's clearly a lot of iron in Mars, but at even 1/10th of this, we'd still need 30 million amps. The best I've read about on the web for a single superconducting wire has been 20,000 amps/cm^2, so we'd need about at least 150 strands of 1-cm cross-sectional area super-conducting wire, stretching for over 10 thousand kilometers. It'd be a bit like those huge cables holding up the Golden Gate Bridge, but made of super-conductors instead of steel, and it'd have to be MUCH longer... Sounds fun!
Of course, if ANY portion of the wire EVER rose to above around 100 degrees Kelvin, the whole thing would instantly vaporise, if not worse.
I guess that doesn't mean that a magnetic deflector shield closer to the Sun couldn't do the job with a lot less material, using lots of smaller loops rather than one large one, but you still have the problem of the omnidirectional radiation.

This incident included a hydrogen-oxygen explosion and the melting of some uranium fuel, yet the release was contained. It's just that the days when everything goes wrong at the nuclear plant are pretty scary.

Would you happen to know his reasons for banning them and if they may still be valid?

Fast breeder reactors produce Plutonium 239. For those others who don't know Pu-239 is the form of plutonium used in nuclear weapons. As for carter, See this post.

Whether or not a molecule emits energy in the form of light has nothing to do with the number of atoms. It has to do with the energy levels of the electrons in the outer shell.

As the electrons fall back from their excited state they emit a photon of light at a particular wavelenght, related to the energy drop. If you have a small drop then the wavelength will be large, ie red or infra-red light. If you have a large drop then the wavelength will be smaller, ie green, blue, violet.

Don't forget that when hydrogen reacts it produces water was well 2H2 + O2 -> 2H2O, so you'll have your triatomic molecule you want.

The reason that corn brooms are used to detect flames is that the flame from a slow hydrogen leak is not very intense, made up almost exclusively with blue and violet photons. These are hard to see.

Have a look at http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hyde.ht ml to see the spectra of hydrogen. It's got some visible lines in it.

Here's a picture of a hydrogen flame, faint but visible. http://jchemed.chem.wisc.edu/JCESoft/CCA/CCA3/STIL LS/CLH/CLH/64JPG48/2.JPG

Charles

Look into Time Dilation.

Oh wow, you took junior high physics too! That's nice, but Thermodynamics doesn't get taught, at least at UIUC, until sophomore standing.

First of all, for god's sake, if you're gonna use a physics link use some like Hyperphysics

Secondly, he's talking about heat pumps - so the first law of themodynamics would say that delta U = Q - W, and since the work is being done by the peltier to the system (car interior), it's negative, so you get the delta U = Q + W, where resistive heating would only get you delta U = W, hence > 100% heating efficiency.

Knee jerk reactions based on very limited phyiscs knowledge make you look both arrogant and stupid.

Oh wow, you took junior high physics too! That's nice, but Thermodynamics doesn't get taught, at least at UIUC, until sophomore standing.

First of all, for god's sake, if you're gonna use a physics link use some like Hyperphysics

Secondly, he's talking about heat pumps - so the first law of themodynamics would say that delta U = Q - W, and since the work is being done by the peltier to the system (car interior), it's negative, so you get the delta U = Q + W, where resistive heating would only get you delta U = W, hence > 100% heating efficiency.

Knee jerk reactions based on very limited phyiscs knowledge make you look both arrogant and stupid.