Slashdot Mirror

A very good website on this stuff: http://health.howstuffworks.com/viagra.htm

These are all RFID in action saving you money. They save you money because they save truckers money;

http://www.illinoistollway.com/portal/page?_pageid =57,1302257,57_1302270&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL

http://www.ezpassde.com/

http://www.sunpass.com/

http://www.prepass.com/

Weight in motion, which usually uses RFID;

http://science.howstuffworks.com/question626.htm

We've been doing RFID since 1996. It's not new technology. We are just talking about new applications.

You can learn a few things by taking apart an iPod. Compare, for example with a Creative Vision:M
http://www.anythingbutipod.com/archives/2006/02/ho w-to-disassemble-the-creative-zen-vision-m.php
http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/ipod3.htm

You will notice, for one thing, that the iPod's PCB is about half the size of the Vision's; this corresponds to the size of the mp3 player, and battery life. 1250mAH for the Vision and 700mAH for the iPod, and they both rate at 14 hours. The size of the mp3 player speaks about the engineering effort placed into designing the components.

Then the size of the batteries tell you about the efficiency of the MP3 player, since they both rate at 14hrs, while one is nearly twice as large.

It is also telling that the Vision:M was released AFTER the iPod with Video; so in that sense the Vision:M is a couple generations behind because isn't as power thrifty, nor as compact. Apple has steadily been making their devices both more power efficient and smaller.

with a 5.1, do you really need a sub, or will it work ok if your fronts are old style biggies with massive woofers?

Odd... That's not what I have been told. Big sharks, like bullsharks (and other so-called human eaters, usually mistake us for their normal prey. Their diet is high-fat, like seals and the like. Usually, they attack and release ASAP because we taste afwul to them. The first bite is usually a taste bite. Alas, their kind of tasting involves a lot of razor-sharp teeth which is very hazardous to our health. More information here

For Polar Bears, I don't know, but it might be part of the fact that they have much less prey in the regions that they live and thus "anything with meat on it is good enough". My guess is that they'll eat anything that moves...

Tiger-eating humans usually turn out to be old or wounded tigers that physically can't tackle their usual prey. Thus they revert to the easily killed naked apes. They probably don't like us at all, but it's better to eat a bad-tasting ape than to starve to death. More information here (They do talk about an exception, though.... which I didn't know of)

I'm not saying that we're not "prey", but more something like "second-class prey".

I had been taught that the greater kinetic energy on the black side caused the rotation. I decided to break with local tradition and do some research before calling you an idiot and a Microsoft spy -- apparently we're both wrong.

Check out the hinson supercar's FAQ where they talk about the benefits of swapping out the rotary for LS1 V8. It greatly improves all performance characteristics, and it's actually lighter than the rotary it replaces.

GMs new LS7 V8 (in the 06 Z06) has 7.0L of displacement (as opposed to the mear 5.7L of the LS1) for an extra 150HP all in the same small block chevy package.

Three moving parts (in a 2 rotor, the "standard" number for a rotary), 2 in a 1 rotor, 4 in a 3 rotor. You get the idea.

http://travel.howstuffworks.com/rotary-engine9.htm

Expanding further on the parents post, here are some animated examples to help his description.

Radial
stationary cylinders, rotating crank
stationary crank, rotating cylinders

Wankel
Wankel
Wankel

Expanding further on the parents post, here are some animated examples to help his description.

Radial
stationary cylinders, rotating crank
stationary crank, rotating cylinders

Wankel
Wankel
Wankel

http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/question273 .htm How light guns work

As for two engines: it is equally useless with RWD.... All cars with two engines that I know of are AWD, which is quite logical:

• Citroën 2CV 4x4 Sahara
• MTM Bimoto TT

"Going forward is easy. The hard part is not dying."

They just misspelled the work in the article. Its carrageenan

Oops, you're right http://auto.howstuffworks.com/power-brake.htm/prin table

I confused the brake booster with a vacuum pump.

I can only imagine that if the engine died while still in gear, you'd get a hell of a lot of engine braking.

Either way, I don't think the results would be all that safe in the end.

What are you talking about? Soap is in no way antibacterial by default.

I'm assuming he is talking about something like this.

For those who haven't heard the term before, sousveillance refers to the use of technology by members of society to watch and record the activities of others, particularly authority figures. It seems like it's becoming increasingly futile for organizations to try to resist sousveillance, as the police in the article attempted to do. As technology progresses, cameras and cameraphones are just getting smaller, cheaper, and harder to detect. Eventually it gets to the point where people have things like retinal implants and little remote-control cameras, and it becomes absurdly impractical to try to keep them away from all the things you want to keep secret.

I've recently started reading David Brin's The Transparent Society, which proposes the somewhat counterintuitive notion that instead of resisting government invasions of privacy, we instead ensure that everybody is able to watch everybody. In effect, the answer to the question "Who watches the watchers?" becomes "Make everybody a watcher." This of course has its problems and I'm still not sure what I quite think of it, but it's certainly an interesting idea. The first chapter of his book is available online. I highly recommend skimming through it.

Ah, but of course!

I kind of like this article on howstuffworks.com, on how light sabers work: http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/lightsaber5.h tm This is the page on practical uses of the light saber around the home.

Please point me to a source to confirm this, or explain yourself further. I understand that a catalytic converter only works when it is hot but i allso understand that it heats up pretty quickly after you start driving.

I found some more info on wikipedia and howstuffworks but nothing as alarming as you suggest

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalytic_converter
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question66.htm

FTFA: UIMA is about text analytics, which encompasses functions like search and pattern analysis. "It's able to create sophisticated solutions that extract insight from a large amount of unstructured data stored in computers," says Dr. Nelson Mattos, IBM VP of Information and Interaction. "The goal is to create an open standard for analytics."

In other words, it's now an opensource way of picking out themes in text. So, I guess you can (or the company you work for) have a version of Carnivore

Howstufworks also has a good overview.

I keep trying to tell people this, but nobody will listen.

Quite possibly, because your facts are inaccurate.

http://computer.howstuffworks.com/cd5.htm
http://computer.howstuffworks.com/cd-burner4.htm
It involves lasers.

apologies for the ugliness of the site, but at least it's accurate.

I keep trying to tell people this, but nobody will listen.

Quite possibly, because your facts are inaccurate.

http://computer.howstuffworks.com/cd5.htm
http://computer.howstuffworks.com/cd-burner4.htm
It involves lasers.

apologies for the ugliness of the site, but at least it's accurate.

The slingshot technique works because Jupiter is also moving--it's in orbit around the Sun, at about 30,000 mph (48,000 km/hr). When the probe approaches Jupiter from behind, the probe is gravitationally attracted to something (Jupiter) traveling at 30,000 mph, so it speeds up. Relative to Jupiter, you're right, it's a zero-sum game (i.e., the probe does seem to speed up and then slow down again, relative to the planet) but the velocity of concern is the so-called heliocentric velocity, or the velocity relative to the Sun, and that is greatly increased.

Note that there is conservation of energy, of course; Jupiter also slows down in its orbit slightly in response to the energy it adds to the probe, but the amount is unmeasurable due to the mass ratio between Jupiter and the probe. The speedup is therefore considered "free."

Google is your friend; see this page, this page, this page for more information.

Regarding your second question, the probe doesn't slow down again, and does do a very fast flyby. However, we know so close to nothing about Pluto that we don't have to get very close to get new information--for example, the resolution of the New Horizons cameras will exceed that of the best Earth telescopes (including Hubble) for 150 days. (Of course, it will take 4-9 months, depending on which estimate you like, to transmit the data back to the earth at the probe's minimum data rate--which it likely will use at that distance--of 800 bits/s.)

Quibble #1: This is not "nuclear medicine", it is "structural biochemistry."
The field of nuclear medicine is concerned with things like radiation therapy and PET scanning.

          http://science.howstuffworks.com/nuclear-medicine. htm
          http://jnm.snmjournals.org/
          http://www.biomedcentral.com/bmcnuclmed/

Quibble #2: Your second link is very outdated. Structures for several prion proteins were determined several years ago, using both X-ray diffraction and NMR methods. Science moves on, but many webpages are never updated.

I think the summary on this article missed the point of Nielsen's article---though in fairness to the article submitter, I think Nielsen's own abstract also misses the point.

The article summary says that search engines "extract too much of the Web's value." He never gives us any criterion to make such a decision, so I assume this to be a personal opinion. Personal opinion aside, I would agree with his assertion that the "advertising arms race" inherent in the pay-for-ranking system can siphon revenue---potentially a lot of revenue---from a company. Nielsen then goes on to explain several good suggestions that companies could use to counter this outflow problem. His closing idea---that successful websites need to learn how to make people come back, not how to keep them on the page for hours---is, I believe, correct. Wikipedia is a good example of this, as others have mentioned; I'm also a favor of howstuffworks.com.

I don't know why Nielsen hid a good idea in so much scaremongering language; I suspect he felt it necessary to be heard above the regular Internet "blog noise" (we're discussing the article, so I guess it worked). But scaremongering aside, this is a pretty informative article.

I agree completely with this. I had an end-user send a props email to my boss just because I explained the complexities of email systems to her using a cell phone analogy. She was so grateful to have someone explain a computer system to her in a way that really helped her to understand it.

PC Guide is an excellent example of this. It's somewhat out of date, but the author breaks down every component of a computer AND uses analogies and terms that Joe User could understand. It's pretty much how I taught myself about memory...among other things.

Another good example is How Stuff Works. They have an entire section on computers.

While I find books quite useful for learning about coding and such, many other non-technical people might find it more useful to use an online resource like http://computer.howstuffworks.com/

There are plenty of visual aids and easy to follow diagrams. Give that a shot and see if it helps or inspires your book.

(b) TCP/IP itself works by packet relay through unknown computers.

Uhhh - and that differs from a telephone conversation how?

Today, when you place a long-distance call, the switch in the local office accesses a database that contains a record for each phone number connected to the switch. The database contains what's called a PIC code (Primary Interchange Carrier code), which indicates which long-distance carrier you have chosen. (When you switch long-distance carriers, this PIC code is what changes.) The switch looks up the PIC code for your number and then connects to a long-distance switch for your long-distance carrier. Your long-distance carrier's switches route the call to the local carrier for your friend, and the local carrier completes the call to your friend.

This entire amazing and complicated transaction happens using billions of dollars worth of computers, switches, wire and fiber-optic cable, all in a blink of an eye.


from howstuffworks

Of course, if the government really wanted to conserve energy, we'd all be living in houses with 5.18 square metres of solar panels on them...

Well, I believe even if you play the CD for a "public performance" you are supposed to pay royalties.

Check out this, and this.

Actually, the best diagrams of the Prius drivetrain are here and a really cool animation is here.

From what I can gather the claim of patent infringement relates to the use of a planetary gearset for the drivetrain. However, the Solomon device used just electric motors whereas the Toyota uses two electric motors and a gas engine. Does that mean it doesn't infringe? Hey, I am not a patent lawyer.

Actually, the best diagrams of the Prius drivetrain are here and a really cool animation is here.

From what I can gather the claim of patent infringement relates to the use of a planetary gearset for the drivetrain. However, the Solomon device used just electric motors whereas the Toyota uses two electric motors and a gas engine. Does that mean it doesn't infringe? Hey, I am not a patent lawyer.

This is probably referring to a continuously variable transmission, which is a very cool device. If I'm not mistaken, the Prius has a CVT, which should allow for better fuel mileage for the gasoline engine.

Yes, and yes. The thing in question here is Toyota's Power Split Device, which is a constantly-engaged planetary gear set that acts as a transmission and drives (or is partially driven by) the electric motor/generator. Which appears to be exactly what the patent describes.

>if the road is dry, the stop time will be much shorter if the wheels lock and you skid.

This is simply not true. Dynamic friction (skidding) is lower than static friction.

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/brake4.htm

All the people who modded this informative should go back to physics class. Yes, dynamic friction is lower than static friction. But that's not the principle that applies when determining whether skidding will slow you faster than controlled braking. When you are skidding, the break pads lock to the wheels, and the wheels skid on the pavement. The braking force is provided by the dynamic friction of the wheels against the pavement. When you are not skidding, the wheels lock to the pavement, and the brake pads skid against the wheels. The braking force is provided by the dynamic friction of the brake pads against the wheels.

So, either way, dynamic friction is providing the braking force. The difference is which surfaces are sliding against each other.

Perhaps if someone came up with a little more open version of it, that ran Linux and let people create homebrews and sell them cheaply through the service it could actually do pretty well?

Someone did. It failed.

My car's ABS goes off way too easy. Until I started driving around it, it would often send me through an intersection. (Slopes usually make it happen the most).

Now I always pump my brakes and I always stop exactly where I want to, unless I want the ABS to activate, for instance if some assclown drunk pulls into my lane while I'm in it and I want to steer. It's all pretty much ingrained at this point.

ABS can also dramatically increase distances in certain conditions.

References a test done by a finnish mag with a VW Golf. (Can't find the link at the moment)

Stopping distance on ice at @ 50mph
Locked wheels - 255 m
ABS - 404 m

But most of the time it comes up in my car circles, people think it's always better then a person could do, which is obviously not always (or even often) true if the person knows how to threshold brake.

Oddly enough, this link on howstuff works references an IIHS study that found drivers with ABS were more likely to die.

I have problems with Traction Control too. Occasionally, if I hit a slight depression with the front tire (and Boston is full of depressions, ruts and everything else), it brakes that tire and jerks the wheel. The first time it happened, almost hit a guard rail. Was like a hand on the wheel. It was a nice day and the road was fine. Just a little bridge plate and it cinched up. I've learned to live with it and anticipate it as well. But to someone who is less experienced, I imagine the outcome might be different.

All bitching aside, every once in awhile, it works the way it's supposed to, when it matters and makes it worthwhile. Both have saved me from wrecking at least once. Though both have almost caused me to wreck more than once, so maybe it's a wash.

I'm not against tech assistance mind you , but people really should learn how to threshold brake and other skills. Perhaps it's because most of my previous cars were banged up shitboxes. Hell I drove on a donut for a year with one of them , knowing the cars limits were a requirement back in those days.

I think these devices give people a false sense of security. Like with 4 wheel drive. People thing they can just disregard the laws of physics. "I can take the icy corner at 90mph!", not realizing that in 4x4, as all tires are biting, it can skip out.

I'm going to stop right here. I could rant about Massachusett drivers all day.

To summarize, most people suck at driving.

>if the road is dry, the stop time will be much shorter if the wheels lock and you skid.

This is simply not true. Dynamic friction (skidding) is lower than static friction.

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/brake4.htm

Just because we understand something doesn't make it any less wonderful.

So, I live in Slovenia (I doubt any of you know where that is). But we have a nuclear plant. And it's been running for quite a while now. Because I've also studied physics I've found out, during some lectures, that the measurments taken around the nuclear plant show, that the grass around it recieves the exact same amount of the yearly dosage of radiation as something located far far away. Therefore, this energy is very clean, much cleaner than cole.

Right, so, then a disaster happens. Well, chances are very slim for a disaster. Today, we have a higher safety regulation for operating of nuclear power plants, and we are not competing on who gets to restart the turbines faster (check this) without using safety measures.

Besides disaster possibility, the problem is also waste dispossal as a poster pointed out before me. Where to put it. You simply cannot dissolve the waste, or this is to expensive. And I don't think the problem with space dumping is the image of Columbia blowing up. Waste baskets can be made that whitstand such blasts. It's more of the awarness that we can't already pollute the space, since we fuc*** up mother Earth. And it's becoming an increasing security concern too with all the terrorists roaming around. Imagine a break-in into the waste storage facility. It's easy to make a dirty bomb. Breaking into the plant itself is much harder, although it's still a possibility.

In conclusion, I think we have to accept the risks of possible danger (we fly with airlens, but those also crash don't they?) if in turn, we get back a possibility for a cleaner environment. And until we develop things than can use all the free enegry just lying around and as long as we use things that rely on our supply of power (computers among other things :-) ), we'll have to face it that we live in a world we created. Maybe we should build reactors underground, or in a separate nation somewhere in the middle of nowhere... It's all a possibility. Anything is better than coal.

. . . and the water cooling your car's internal engine is cooling the intake manifold, then the heads and then the block. Many times the amount of heat that you're dealing with in any PC power supply(according to howstuffworks, a gallon of gasoline contains the equivalent of 60 kilowatt hours worth of energy. If you're burning a gallon of gasoline per hour, you need to dissipate at least 75% of that much energy in waste heat. That's downright scary, considering that expansion/contraction needs to be constrainted to a couple thousandths of an inch for any given moving part!

Why do I mention this? As a comparison - cooling them in series isn't that big of deal when you're talking about a 180W power supply and 3/8" tubing, and ANY type of radiator to actually dissipate the heat. Given restrictions introduced by typical automotive thermostats, the effective flow for coolant in an automotive system won't be much better than the 3/8" tubing used in the XBox cooler for this article (in fact the auto thermostat is designed to restrict water flow, both to increase heat transfer and to help prevent the pump from bursting the radiator at high RPMs).

It is only a rumor at this point. Here is a quote from the article

"Here are some predictions for the media industry for 2006, based on interviews with industry analysts, executives and investors, along with a little intuition."

Oh come on. If you want dependable information on the future of IT you always go to industry analysts, executives, and investors. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to refill the iSmell attached to my Internet Appliance.

Take a good read here. Do you see the picture of the bag? That's what airport security sees on their screens and they determine whether the contents of the bags they check are a threat or not.

Well, reentry is ~3000F, so Titanium would work. But I sure would prefer something that was higher than that.

> well to wheel efficency of an Electric Vehicle is roughly equivalent to 50 MPG

LOL! Efficiency is measured in %, not in MPG. How many MPG does a fossil power plant get, full throttle down?

http://science.howstuffworks.com/fuel-cell4.htm

If they wanted to reclaim waste heat, it seems like they should have gone with a Stirling engine.

This is exactly what I thought when I read the article. For those of you that don't know. Stirling engines are not only more efficient than steam, they're safer because they don't have the explosive high pressures that steam does.

These total system efficiency calculations have already been done, they're of course at the basis of any serious research.

howstuffworks figures:
http://science.howstuffworks.com/fuel-cell4.htm

Wikipedia fuel cell article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_cell

Overall there is a considerable gain to be expected. And don't forget, fuel cell technology is still in its early stages, while internal combustion has already experienced over a century of improvements.

The parent was talking about a turbocharger which only revs up when exhaust gases are increased (during acceleration) where as a supercharger is always on and usually run by the crankshaft (I think?) this makes turbocharger more efficient than a supercharger. I know plenty of cars with turbochargers (the whole saab line and the subaru wrx's off the top of my head) and only a select few "muscle specific" cars with superchargers.

Having a 95 Saab 9000 turbo myself I usually get 30mpg with gentle driving and have plenty of torque and horsepower when I need it, if I loose a couple mpg's (30 is good enough for me) then be it.

What is the difference between a turbocharger and a supercharger on a car's engine?