Slashdot Mirror

NiMH prefers what NiCd hates: a partial charge/discharge. I am told the NiMH batteries in a Toyota Prius are charged only to 55% of capacity, and allowed to run down only to 45% before charging begins. The car carries 10x as much battery capacity as it actually uses, supposedly to maximize battery life. I don't know for sure if it works that way, but that's what I heard.

Close, it's about a 45-75% range:

To get maximum life out of the Prius battery pack, the car's computer brain does not allow the battery to fully charge or discharge. Toyota says that for the best service life, the Prius battery likes to be kept at about a 60 percent charge. In normal operation, the system usually lets the charge level vary only 10-15 percentage points. Therefore, the battery is rarely more than 75 percent charged, or less than 45 percent charged.

If you're familiar with the Prius, you know there's a battery-charge indicator on the instrument panel. Toyota says this isn't the charge level per se, but rather a state-of-charge window. The top of the window represents about a 75 percent charge, the bottom about 45 percent charge.

The take-away should be: if you buy a modern device, it should have on-board power management to take care of this. For example the new Macbooks with non-replaceable batteries do similar battery management to maintain life.

Text messages were traditionally transmitted through Control Channel

if you live near high voltage cables run cables beneath to tap of electricity by induction

BUSTED: Mythbusters did it.
You don't get nearly enough power.
video here

That's like saying we shouldn't remove deadly exploding cars from the roads...

There are still Ford Pintos being driven on the road today.
I saw one last week, driven by what appeared to possibly be the original owner. Beautiful condition (the car, not the owner).

I wonder how much the fine would have been if each spam message contained a song "owned" by one of the MAFIAA. You could generate a fine larger than the entire money supply of the whole world put together. This feels almost like a challenge now.

4,366,386 messages x $200,000 = $873,277,200,000 or $873.3 billion. Would it be theoretically possible for him to walk into the court, and pay in cash?

No. Let's say that the largest bill = $100,000. Let's also say that that bill weighs 25 grams (an approximation and lower bound). Now, 8,732,772 x 25 grams = 218 319.3 kilograms. I mean, it's about 218 tonnes. He could bring it in a truck (weight-wise), but he'd need one OMGWTFBBQ truck for that.

So definitely no walking.

(and this doesn't even touch upon the dimensions of that heap of bills)

You'd be mistaken. Hybrid cars produce as much as 300 volts.

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-efficiency/hybrid-technology/hybrid-car-voltage.htm/printable

I believe it tends to be low amperage, but I'm not certain. It's the voltage that will let the charge get across those thin gloves though.

I believe you may be mistaken about the mileage of the 1960s Chrysler turbines...

"However, the firm never divulged mileage figures, which were apparently embarrassing."

"and there are legitimate, legal ways to prevent/limit valuable employees from doing so... another is to require those employees to sign non-compete agreements (which must be properly limited in scope, duration, and geographic area in order to be held valid)..."

Actually a non-compete is far worse than what they're being accused of. Saying "you can not be hired by any of my competitors" lays a broad blanket across everything compared to "You can not be hired by Google".

I think it's completely reasonable what they did. Rather than run around suing employees after breaking a non-compete they instead went to their main competitor and said "we won't steal your employees if you don't steal ours". Seems reasonable, they didn't stop their employees from ever getting another job, just don't work for XYZ.

"another is to pay your employees a fair market wage for their talents and abilities, so that they'll actually want to remain your employee..."

I call BS on that. If you're not getting paid what you're worth and not happy you're going to quit and find another job irregardless of the fact that company XYZ can't hire you. Even if you're just a animator or search engine programmer there's many more companies than just Disney and Pixar using animators or Google and Yahoo that need search experts, in fact I'm sure putting Pixar, Disney, Google or Yahoo on a resume gets you a job almost anywhere.

This isn't Foxconn where employees are literally killing themselves, these are some of the best companies in the world to work for, with amazing perks like Google's onsite medical staff and swimming pools. Everyone already wants to work for them, and now someone's claiming they're not being treated fairly? Give me a break!

Dietary supplements like Herbs are covered under the DSHEA and that changes the rules. Essentially the roles are reversed and the burden falls on the FDA to disprove any claims being made rather than the manufacturer to prove any claims.

http://health.howstuffworks.com/wellness/food-nutrition/vitamin-supplements/fda-regulate-herbal-supplements2.htm

"Herbs' classification as dietary supplements comes from the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA). The act essentially ties the regulatory hands of the FDA. Producers of pharmaceutical and over-the-counter (OTC) drugs alike must first demonstrate that their products are effective and safe. After an average of 8.5 years' worth of tests, conducted first in labs and then in clinical trials at universities, drug producers file an appeal for FDA approval. The FDA then reviews the claims and either approves the drug, classifying it as an OTC or prescription drug. If the FDA doesn't approve the drug, it cannot be sold in the United States. Only about 0.1 percent of the compounds first tested in labs ever receive FDA approval [source: FDA].

There is no similar process for herbs. Under the DSHEA, the burden of proof to demonstrate an herbal supplement or its ingredients are unsafe is transferred from the producer to the FDA [source: Doogan]. Essentially, anyone who can package, market and distribute supplements with herbal ingredients can do so with no oversight by the FDA. As such, herbal supplement manufacturers can make wide claims concerning the benefits their products provide people who pop them. Only after a drug has been proven an "unreasonable" health risk or "imminent hazard to public safety" can the FDA compile a complaint, file it and hope for the best [source: Doogan]."

http://www.fda.gov/food/dietarysupplements/consumerinformation/ucm110417.htm

"Unlike drug products that must be proven safe and effective for their intended use before marketing, there are no provisions in the law for FDA to "approve" dietary supplements for safety or effectiveness before they reach the consumer. Under DSHEA, once the product is marketed, FDA has the responsibility for showing that a dietary supplement is "unsafe," before it can take action to restrict the product's use or removal from the marketplace."

New dietary supplements still need a sign off from the FDA even if they have no burden to prove their claims. However, the GRAS or "generally recognized as safe" clause exempts supplements with a long history of safe use from even these requirements.

And yes, according to these rules whole marijuana clearly falls into the GRAS food additive category and should be completely unregulated by the FDA. It is improperly classified as schedule I by the FDA in contradiction to their own rules. Even so I believe there are other federal prohibiting marijuana and I know there are treaties we've agreed to requiring such laws.

It's been awhile since I've worked in satellite communications but you can use it to pick up free Satellite TV.

Most satellites that broadcast TV have a few stations broadcasting in the clear i.e no encryption but you need a few things. A basic guide for sat TV here http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/satellite-tv.htm needs to be read. You will need an LMB (Low Noise Block) to filter out background noise. It's my understanding that mos satellite receivers now days already come with LMBs built in these days so check specs. The predominately used receiver is most likely a Scientific Atlanta DSR. Some of transponders still broadcast on VCII but I doubt you'll find much in North America. With Digital satellite TV you can fit 12 channels on a signal transponder while analog it's one transponder one channel. You'll probably be using analog signal to start with since it's just easier.

Now you need a list of satellites for North America (or wherever you're from) can be found here http://www.lyngsat.com/ which has a complete listing would over. They will also detail type of feed channels and transponders of the satellites as well as type of encryption encoding etc. Again check specs on potential receivers.

Next you need to point it at a bird. 5 seconds on Google gave me this guide. http://searchwarp.com/swa40134.htm one thing we used to do is look up a channel broadcasting in the clear on the satellite we were aiming at on the Lyngsat site and then tune the satellite receiver to that transponder, channel and polarity so we could see how close we were getting to it by looking at clairty of signal on a TV.

In other words it's a big pain in the ass. You are probably better off using it as a bird feeder.

RFID chips need to be right up close in order to charge, (assuming they don't have their own battery, which the ones attached to higher ticket items do), but once they transmit, the read distance is only limited by the sensitivity of your receiver. To me, that means, "From Orbit".

Maybe I'm over-simplifying, but 200 feet with home brew technology is pretty impressive. I have a feeling that the military has invested a few more pennies in radio technology over the years than Chris Paget.

But that's not the point, because when it comes to tracking people, you don't need to do it from orbit. Heck, this page referenced from the article makes it pretty clear that ubiquitous readers and internet communication is on the horizon. Heck, it's almost here.

People worry about being 'chipped', and maybe they will be, but I think it's kind of pointless. Everybody already carries around their wallet wherever they go, and I know when my credit card expires, the replacement will be armed and ready. That just annoys me! They don't need to read my card from orbit, because in order to track me, all I need to do is walk around the city. Past any random RFID machine which happens to be active. You know, like at doorways to every second retail outlet.

I wonder what would happen if I microwave the chip in my card? Would the magnetic strip still work?

Skit the tinfoil hat. I want my wallet lined with silver!

-FL

http://blogs.howstuffworks.com/2010/08/16/is-our-technology-sapping-our-brains/

The compressor is central to the vehicle and the air lines enter the tires through the center of the hub. Check out http://auto.howstuffworks.com/self-inflating-tire2.htm. Yay current technology!

I'll agree with what you're saying, but just for the record, this page, http://auto.howstuffworks.com/1969-1970-ford-mustang-specifications.htm, has a mustang's weight at "Curb-weight range, pounds: 2,690-3,210 (1969); 2,721-3,240 (1970)". That's actually less than they weigh now.

"Thank you for this post, your insight is invaluable."

Thank you Mr./Ms. A.C. :-)

I put some more comments on the How Stuff Works blog entry; an excerpt from there as I ping-pong these back and forth:
http://blogs.howstuffworks.com/2010/08/06/makes-you-think-in-america-we-realize-that-our-children-will-do-worse-than-their-parents/
"""
To add something new and state the obvious, someone with business and technical savvy and a track record of creating interesting companies could probably create a huge company doing this, and ideally, would do that in a globally cooperative way as much as possible, within an organizational framework informed by Alfie Kohn's book "Punished by Rewards: The Trouble with Gold Stars, Incentive Plans, A's, Praise, and Other Bribes".
    Maybe SAS could expand into this area, given it already has the social aspects of such an organization? :-) But they historically don't do open source. Or maybe Kitware or RedHat could expand into this area, given they already have the open source aspects? :-) [Although they may not get the Alfie Kohn Punished By Rewards aspects that SAS understands?] Or maybe there could be a spinoff from some existing organization that focuses on how stuff works? :-) Or maybe it would be best to have an entirely new set of organizations, especially a non-profit foundation that shepherds related standards in an open way, similar to how Debian/SPI, Apache, the PSF, or the FSF works perhaps?
    As I see it, there is no point in doing this stuff in "secret". And also, citing Alfie Kohn, the people who do this best are not going to be the ones focused on the material rewards side of it. We will no doubt eventually see a bunch of different cooperating organizations that work towards such goals, each with their own strengths and weaknesses in different situations. And it might be fun for many people to be part of it and make their own diverse free and open source contributions to it from whatever motivations.
    But one thing is for sure IMHO: trying to make sense of what is going on in a time of rapid technological and social transitions, to collaboratively think about how stuff works on a global scale, is a huge potential industry with billions of US$ on the table every year even now (most of it apparently wasted according to Wired), and the long-term stakes in this game are even higher (as Elizabeth Warren details). So, rather than fight over slices of that particular pie, we might all be better off trying to grow that open source intelligence pie right now. :-)
"""

And there is some further related discussion on the "Open Manufacturing" list in this thread.
http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing/browse_thread/thread/413f03f03243029d

I posted two comments related to this issue of open source sensemaking tools to understand how socio-politico-techno-economic stuff works at the following URL in response to a larger issue raised by Marshall Brain on the USA's ongoing economic decline:
http://blogs.howstuffworks.com/2010/08/06/makes-you-think-in-america-we-realize-that-our-children-will-do-worse-than-their-parents/

In short, I feel open source tools for collaborative structured arguments, multiple perspective analysis, agent-based simulation, and so on, used together for making sense of what is going on in the world, are important to our democracy, security, and prosperity. Imagine if, instead of blog posts and comments on topics, we had searchable structured arguments about simulations and their results all with assumptions defined from different perspectives, where one could see at a glance how different subsets of the community felt about the progess or completeness of different arguments or action plans (somewhat like a debate flow diagram), where even a year of two later one could go back to an existing debate and expand on it with new ideas. As good as slashdot is, such a comprehensive open source sensemaking system would be to slashdot as slashdot is to a static webpage. It might help prevent so much rehashing the same old arguments because one could easily find and build on previous ones. Hopefully in a better way than this classic: :-)
"Argument Clinic Sketch by Monty Python"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

As I mention in my comments to Marshall Brains' blog entry, Elizabeth Warren did a terrific job of socio-economic sensemaking, in terms of "The Two Income Trap" and her presentation on the struggles of US middle-class families in the video Marshall Brain linked to. But why should even Harvard Law professors essentially wing it as far as sensemaking with only email, spreadsheets, and word processors, probably working mostly alone, and in a way that she can not easily share all the details of her explorations? Especially when the USA has invested, probably, literally billions of dollars to create software to help groups of people collectively understand complex social and economic issues? And given the US is likely to spend billions more in this area? And given that, if we have any faith in "truth", one would hope that helping everyone in the world come to a better understanding of various truths and a better understanding of each other would, in general, lead to less conflict rather than more?

I also commented on that idea about a year ago:
"[p2p-research] FOSS modeling tools (was Re: Earth's carrying capacity and Catton)"
http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/2009-August/004130.html

I tried a little to put together a non-profit foundation to do that, so far to not much success.

And here is why I feel the (non-secret) results of any public funding should be open source rather than proprietary:
http://www.pdfernhout.net/open-letter-to-grantmakers-and-donors-on-copyright-policy.html
http://www.pdfernhout.net/on-funding-digital-public-works.html

I feel there is room here for an entirely new approach towards structured collaboration across the internet. It has its roots in Doug Englebart's Augment ideas from the 1960s, and in scale may well be the next Red Hat, Wikipedia, or even Google (whether for-profit or non-profit). Or, it is possible it may be some bunch of related companies and non-profits, all using a common infrastructure

Its right there in the summary. "Ribbe thinks he can modify the enzyme so it could produce gasoline" THINKS? *reads article*. "The new enzyme can only make two and three carbon chains" Wait.. how many carbon chains do we need? *googles* oh. http://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-efficiency/alternative-fuels/question1051.htm "The chains from C7H16 through C11H24 are blended together and used for gasoline" 7-11. So basically ... they are nowhere close. Tell me when they are dealing with efficiency issues of generating the gasoline or developing a system in which to recycle it. This is non-news. If they were talking about refining the tech they have to produce propane (which is what they accomplished) it would still be on the "oh another alternative energy idea that will probably still fall flat on it's face due to cost, efficiency etc"

If you have read the article How Helium Balloons Work, then you know that a liter of air at sea level weighs about 1.25 grams. A liter is 1,000 cubic centimeters, or about 61 cubic inches -- the size of a 1-liter soda bottle. A liter of helium, on the other hand, weighs about 0.18 grams. If you weigh a 1-liter bottle filled with air and then weigh the same bottle filled with helium, it will weigh about 1.07 grams less. If the bottle itself weighed less than a gram, you couldn't weigh it at all -- it would float! You could turn the scale upside down and put it above the floating bottle to check its negative weight! Generally, a balloon has to be several liters in size before the 1-gram-per-liter weight difference of helium vs. air is enough to overcome the weight of the balloon itself and float.

If you could somehow fill a 1-liter bottle with a vacuum, it would float even better. A perfect vacuum weighs zero grams, so a liter of perfect vacuum weighs 0.18 grams less than a liter of helium. The problem, of course, is that building a lightweight container that can hold a vacuum is not nearly as easy as building a fabric envelope that can hold helium. The phrase Nature abhors a vacuum sums it up nicely. If you could figure out a way to do it, however, you would be set -- your vacuum balloon would float!

Note that you would not need to have a perfect vacuum. Any air that you take out of the envelope will lower the weight and cause lift.

source

I can't see getting excited about millimeter wave images. Big deal. You get to see the body outline. Compared to Z-backscatter X-ray images, they don't even show very much.

I'd rather go through a millimeter wave scanner at nightclubs than be pawed by the security goons.

Over 40, cs degree '81, assembly, cobol, big iron. "Retired" early 90s. I got back into the business several years ago.
Don't know exactly what you want to do, but here is how I learned the modern industry.
0) Read this http://catb.org/esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

1) Learn/Use linux. This is what got me back into the business. I could have my own real operating system.
2) Learn ip networking.
3) Learn the bash shell, learn bash scripting.
4) Install and experiment with apache and mysql.
5) Learn C. C is the granddaddy of all modern programming languages. This is the best tutorial I have ever found http://www.howstuffworks.com/c.htm
6) learn Google

If you do these things you'll be able to talk-the-talk.
The kids think C is old school, not thinking that nearly everything they execute today includes code written in C. I'm successful because I learned systems from the bottom up, starting with hardware and assembly languages, this is the old guy's edge. The young guys all started with a gui and worked their way down, not saying that is bad, just a different perspective.
We have "production environment" skills, most of the kids grew up with "break it and fix it" on their own personal systems. Again, not a bad thing, but it can be a hard habit to break.
I am not coding for a living, a few years ago I started working for a small hosting company. Working with the 20somethings is a blast, these are some sharp young folk, intelligent, hard working, creative and inquisitive.
I was so excited in the early 2000s to find the state of the open source community. All the software, and documentation I had to beg, borrow, steal, back in the 80s is available free now. I sold my record collection, and invested in a garage sale pc and fast internet.
I do work with windows, but not much. If you are looking for a big corporate, commercial, closed source, or proprietary, environment, I cannot help much. If you just want to get rich, don't start a job, start a business.
I'm just an old geek, who wants to be stimulated, educated, and challenged. I am well paid. I have a side business in case I want to get rich.

> Good, I will keep a window open with the picture of a rabbit with a pancake on its head and have my cursor on it most of the time. Let them figure out what targeted ads to show me then.

It seems that you'll get something like:

* Enjoy TLC's delicious Bunny Pancakes with Strawberry Butter
* Buy Easter Bunny Pancakes
* Make Bunny Rabbit Pancakes in your microwave!

measure the surrounding background heat levels and *match them*, like a chameleon matches background visual colors

How invisibility cloaks work http://www.howstuffworks.com/invisibility-cloak.htm

Imagine the smell when all 120 lost climbers thaw.

http://adventure.howstuffworks.com/dead-everest.htm

Just curious: what do you fly?

I put about 40 hours/year in a C-182 in my flight club.

Strangely, it's actually much cheaper for me to "have" a private plane in the flight club than it is to pay for my 2005 Toyota Matrix, and it's just a little economy car!

It appears to be operating well within expectations, looking at the linked website from the Japanese space administration, it's looking to be well within expectations.

But even so, we're talking about a very, very small acceleration effect - if you were on board, you basically wouldn't notice it at all. It's what, 2/10,000 of a pound of thrust, with a 700 pound payload? Since it takes 1 pound of thrust acting on 1 pound of material to equal 1 G, the amount of accelleration on this is something like 2/(10,000 * 700) or 1/3,500,000 of 1 G.

Unless I missed something basic, this satellite is going to be accelerating for a *long* time...

Apparently the US Department of Homeland Security is looking into this technology - but they want to combine this with the phenomenon of Internet Hunting - they view this as a more expensive alternative to the highly-effective Drone Aircraft in use in various theaters of operation...

Maybe you should do routine maintenance on your Studebaker?

"A new 164.3-cid six-cylinder engine was designed expressly for the lightweight Champion and made for sprightly performance and sparkling economy. It wasn't long before owners were bragging of 25-mpg economy and 80-mph top speed. In various forms, this durable L-head would be a staple at Studebaker through model year 1960.

Sparked by early reports of its miserly ways, the Champion topped 30,000 sales in its introductory year. Thousands of over-the-road salespeople took a real liking to this economical traveler, and Studebaker enjoyed its best year since 1928. "
http://www.howstuffworks.com/1939-studebaker-champion.htm

Granted, you don't want to run any vehicle at it's top speed all the time - but the Studebaker can be expected to run 65 to 70 mph, which means you can keep up with the flow of traffic almost everywhere.

All cell phones emit some amount of electromagnetic radiation. Given the close proximity of the phone to the head, it is possible for the radiation to cause some sort of harm to the 118 million cell-phone users in the United States. What is being debated in the scientific and political arenas is just how much radiation is considered unsafe, and if there are any potential long-term effects of cell-phone radiation exposure.

There are two types of electromagnetic radiation:

        Ionizing radiation - This type of radiation contains enough electromagnetic energy to strip atoms and molecules from the tissue and alter chemical reactions in the body. Gamma rays and X-rays are two forms of ionizing radiation. We know they cause damage, which is why we wear a lead vest when X-rays are taken of our bodies.

        Non-ionizing radiation - Non-ionizing radiation is typically safe. It causes some heating effect, but usually not enough to cause any type of long-term damage to tissue. Radio-frequency energy, visible light and microwave radiation are considered non-ionizing.

http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/cell-phone-radiation.htm/printable

http://science.howstuffworks.com/question493.htm

Also, I think I've heard it said to be a carcinogen. Don't know squat about that though, other than a colleague ranting about those ion-air filter gizmos.

Why is it always cars for the analogies? Why not ducks? Or oranges?

Why that's like asking a NASCAR engineer why do they need engines with extremely radical cam profiles!

P.S.: The joke is probably funnier if you are like me and know nothing about cars.

Their cars run on DC motors (or at least get power from a DC source). Yet the company is named after a man who is acknowledged as the father of the alternating current (at least in the US).

Only the batteries are DC. The motor is AC and driven by an inverter in the car's Power Electronics Module.

I very much doubt that any man on the planet has ever had the luxury to have lunch above "a vat of gold".

Source.

Except for Bond villains, of course.

Considering that the annual amount of produced gold every year would fit in a cube that is about 4.3 meters (about 14 feet) on each side, and that the estimated amount of gold that was ever mined by man would fit in a cube roughly 25 meters (about 82 feet) on a side, I very much doubt that any man on the planet has ever had the luxury to have lunch above "a vat of gold".

Source.

I'm more of a fan of NASA's Symphonies Of The Planets: http://blogs.howstuffworks.com/2009/09/15/symphonies-of-the-planets/

Beautiful, haunting, ethereal and contemplative.

I don't think blaming the cost and poor service of Insurance companies on government interference, is really supported by the facts

Facts? You don't want facts, you want what supports your beliefs. Fact is is I am covered by government insurance and it sucks. Well, that's not really a fact, it is my opinion, but many others share it. If government wants to make sure people can afford insurance allow people to cross state lines to buy insurance then give people that buy insurance the same tax deductions employers get for offering insurance to employees. Health insurance for individuals cost is high because there is no free market in it. Employers get tax deductions for offering insurance but if the employer wants to pay employees more, so the employee can buy their own insurance, both employer and employee pay more in taxes. With potentially millions of people wanting to buy health insurance on their own they way they want it, instead of being given a limited choice by their employer, then insurance companies will compeat with each other for those millions of people.

Another thing government could do, for those who still could not afford insurance, give them money so they can buy their own insurance. If I could afford it I'd buy catastrophic health insurance for major expenses but use a health savings account to pay for normal expenses. Many doctors, and other medical professionals, will lower their bills if the patient pays out of pocket. That is because it cost money to file insurance claims. So by paying when the doc is seen lowers the doc's expenses and they'll offer lower cost services themselves.

More directly, insurance premiums have risen at a scale completely unrelated to their costs. Including the cost of malpractice suits, which - despite the hype - have remained relatively stable. There has not been an increase in government interference from 2000 to 2009 - why did their premiums rise?

First it's not just insurance premiums that have risen, so has costs. I known you say one is unrelated to the other but they are related. Second, there is no free market in health insurance. When an employer offers health insurance to employees government gives that employer a tax deduction. Does government give someone a tax deduction if they buy insurance on their own? Say if you go to Mutual of Omaha where you buy health insurance, do you think government will give you a tax deduction? If you thought "yes" you are wrong, you will not get a tax deduction. Next, do you think you and your employer will pay as much in taxes if your employer pays you more so you can buy insurance? Not only will neither of you get a deduction but you'll both have to pay more taxes. This is a massive intervention in the markets. Another intervention is from the state governments. Each state decides which companies can sell insurance in the state, if knowing crossing a state line I could buy cheaper insurance I should be able to, but I can not.

It seems to me more like a case that they raised the premiums because they could - and their customers have no choice but to either pay or lose their insurance

They can get away with it because there is little competition.

Falcon

Even if we ignore the fact that the Federal Marshals use regular .357 hollow points nowadays (as that wiki article even states), as far as I am aware the idea of de-pressurising a plane with a bullet is greatly exaggerated.

Yes because NASA never invented anything we use every single day.

We get HUGE bang for our buck in NASA. If you want to cut wasteful spending, you could cut NASA's budget several dozen times over from the military and they'd barely feel it. NASA is probably the best example we have of a government organization gone right, and all people seem to want to do is cut it because they don't understand how science works. Things like NASA exist because all of their inventions came out of necessity of the incredibly complex things they were doing. Those inventions make billions of dollars for many companies. We probably wouldn't have invented half the stuff NASA has come out with because the current stuff we had was "good enough" for life down here on Earth.

Here you go. It was rare for feudal "government positions" to be passed down more than one generation, and increasingly rare beyond two, because any position was only yours until someone stronger took it from you, or your boss, or his boss, etc. Pretty much the only way to build wealth was to take land from someone else to gain some land for yourself (not always directly, but land somewhere was the usual reward for backing the winning side), and there was little outlet other than that for ambition.

And neither art nor sports require knowledge or mental discipline to be successful.

Really? You think you could learn to make one of these without knowledge and mental discipline? You think you could learn to hit a 100mph fastball without mental discipline?

http://computer.howstuffworks.com/windows-vista.htm

Oh Really?

It does????

http://computer.howstuffworks.com/windows-vista.htm

Oh Really?

That's the same thought I had when I saw the pictures. The reason it works is because the sun gear provides the counterforce to get the planet gears in motion. If there's a load on the planet gears it'll push back against both ring gear and sun gear, meaning the drive force on those will have to be equal. No use having a weak motor driving the sun gear.
Just have a look at how an automatic gearbox works. (I already learned about those over 20 years ago when I was taught about cars instead of computers)

You mean besides all the technical innovation which has been supported and used by NASA? There is a list of 10 at HowStuffWorks.com but there are more out there. Those billions thrown at human space flight results in science and robots.

The FBI does not prosecute cases. It provides investigative information to United States attorneys, who then use that information to decide whether to prosecute.

Never underestimate the stupidity of ordinary slashdot commenters. The "red queen jumping around" part was an incredibly obvious reference to the game of three card monte, a well-known scam that only suckers or Marxists would fall for.

This high enough?

http://blogs.howstuffworks.com/2008/02/01/world-record-9-the-fastest-human-and-the-highest-skydive/

Check this out:

http://health.howstuffworks.com/extracellular-matrix.htm

but wikipedia says it might be unremarkable:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regeneration_(biology)

Actually, black is bad. It's a golden color if good.

http://money.howstuffworks.com/question212.htm

If you have a bar code reader, or online bar code reader application, you can read the barcode yourself.

Or, you know, eyes. http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/upc-ch.jpg

Of course if the number is just a nonce, it won't actually tell you anything interesting.

Apparently you don't know what you're talking about -- again.