Slashdot Mirror

And fungus.

Viruses

What is the plural of penis and other latin looking words

And to quote the above article: 'Guessing the plural of a Latin word is one of those things where a little learning is a dangerous thing (but that's still "not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance," to quote Terry Pratchett'

And if 'a little learning' isn't the definition of the /. crowd, I don't know what is.

Think again. It's been done. :-)

Aha, but what about Newton?

Also, an article mentioned earlier says that Ethanol contains only about two-thirds as much energy per gallon as gasoline

Yeap, the second law of thermodynamics IS a problem. Let's see, efficiently convert ethanol into hydrogen? Fine. Have a fuel cell that efficiently converts hydrogen into power we can use? Great.

But it uses no fossil fuels? Well, maybe not directly, but... let's see, where do we get ethanol? Hmm. Well, most of it comes from corn. Corn treated with heat. That heat comes from natural gas, usually. So there's a fossil fuel. What else? Corn has to be harvested. Usually this involves tractors, harvesters, and other large pieces of farm equipment that generally run on.. d'oh! More fossil fuel!

According to the US Dept. of Energy, creating ethanol takes about 29% more energy than it provides. Since most of that energy going into the ethanol-creation process is fossil fuel-based, we'd probably be better off just burning the fossil fuels directly. Using ethanol just burns them up even faster.

A source for more ethanol numbers: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/031128.html

It notably does not use fossil fuels in the process.

It most certainly does use fossil fuels.

Ethanol takes energy to make. Lots of energy, possibly more than it contains. That energy comes from fossil fuels. Ethanol is not an energy source; it is a different way to store energy, and not a particularly efficient one.

Using Ethanol as a fuel is mostly a way to funnel money to Corn Belt farmers.

That said, I recently had an optometrist (mother of a friend of mine) claim that exposure to long amounts of screen viewing (TV or computer) at an early age was proven to do something to how one focusses one's eyes that later proves detrimental. *wry grin* Now admittedly, she had no actual article to cite, so that information may be suspect. Much like how your parents used to claim reading in low light would hurt your eyes. Possible explanation here.

If I'm not mistaken A and B batteries were for way old portable (tube-type) radios.

They're still around, along with E, F, G, J, N, and 6, according to Cecil.

That's not entirely true and certainly quite arguable.

"East is east and west is west and never the twain shall meet." That's the reason in a nutshell. Hardly a 19th century construct; the idea that Eurasia should be divided dates back to the ancients. Read this interesting article...

Hmmm, google is your friend. This page covers all three keys, but here is a little description of each:

The main intent of the Scroll Lock key was to allow scrolling of screen text up, down and presumably sideways using the arrow keys in the days before large displays and graphical scroll bars. You can see where this might have been handy in the DOS era, when screen output typically was limited to 80 characters wide by 25 rows deep. For some types of programs, spreadsheets being the obvious example, it's still handy now.

In layman's terms [...], "You can make a multitasking program manager monitor a specific location in your computer's hardware so it can do something cool, such as letting the user switch tasks, when the SysReq key is pressed." As it turned out, the developers of Windows didn't use SysReq when implementing task switching. Some new keyboards no longer feature this key, and its days seem numbered.

The Pause/Break key was used in the DOS command line environment to pause scrolling of text on the screen, which could, depending on the program and its method of text output to the screen, have the effect of pausing program execution.

Slightly different account from Cecil.

You would presumably place a copyright trap in your database.

Map makers, form companies, and the like are known to insert intentional errors in their maps in order to prevent somebody who has copied their information from claiming that the information was gathered independently.

The Straight Dope on Martian canals.

DUI

Cocaine (from a right wing puplication!)

I'm sure you can find more sources if you look, I just went as fast I could, and tried to pick sources that are generally trusted to be accurate.

There will always be those who say 'if the records aren't there, how can it be true?', but when you are in charge of who keeps them, where they are kept, and who has access to them, you can certainly manipulate them.

Does the head IT guy at a company ever get busted for looking at porn?...

Reminds me of Caligula ordering his army to fight back the incoming tide.

Canute . Caligula was the sister fucker.

Your teeth! They're brigher... but not exactly whiter... What is it? They're glowing! What is it?

Uranium

A quick google revealed this link from Straight Dope, which says that lesser Britain would be Brittany, in France. But I would say that in common usage, no, there's not.

Bullshit.

Not sure about the 727, but the 707 has been rolled.

The so-called "Twinkie Defense" was horribly distorted by the media (see The Straight Dope for a detailed account). Basically, counsel for the defense argued that the defendant was severely depressed, as evidenced by his over-consumption of junk food (including Twinkies). The media turned around and reported that the defendant's case was that the junk food caused his depression. It's a classic example of how news agencies repeatedly fail to understand the difference between correlation and causation.

French love Mickey Mouse more than Asterix from what I can see too

Living at the bottom of a troll-cave as you do, you can't see much:

"France has a park dedicated to Asterix The Gaul, which gets 3 times as many visitors as EuroDisney, and it makes lots of money." [blogspot]

Re: Jerry Lewis: See The Straight Dope

The Soft Walls FAQ (PDF) says:

6. How does Soft Walls relate to flight envelope protection?

As explained above, fly-by-wire aircraft have efficiency advantages over more conventional mechanical and hydraulic control systems. But because control is mediated by computer, such systems can also be made more intelligent. Airbus systems impose flight envelope protection schemes, where the computers ensure that the pilot does not force the aircraft beyond its safe performance parameters. For example, the computers can prevent the pilot from stalling the aircraft.

Flight envelope protection works very synergistically with Soft Walls. In particular, Soft Walls works by introducing a bias into the commands issued by the pilot when the aircraft approaches too close to a no-fly zone. To ensure that the aircraft does not enter the no-fly zone, the bias needs to increase as the craft gets closer until the bias overwhelms the commands that the pilot can issue. For instance, when the aircraft has penetrated the boundary sufficiently to be very close to the no-fly zone, the pilot may be commanding a hard turn to the right, but the bias will nonetheless force the aircraft to turn to the left, away from the nofly zone.

In aircraft with flight envelope protection, as for example most Airbus planes, the limits on pilot induced maneuvers are known (because they are imposed by the on-board computers).

Thus, the extent of the bias that must be applied is known.

Not all fly-by-wire aircraft have flight envelope protection. The Boeing 777, in particular, does not. The computers will permit the pilot to make maneuvers that exceed the safety specifications of the aircraft. Boeing argues that this is safer than flight envelope protection because these safety specifications conservative anyway, so allowing the pilot to exceed them gives the pilot the authority to consider and compare the risks in responding to an emergency.

Both approaches have their merits, but Boeing's approach requires that a Soft Walls system be more aggressive. In particular, for example, since there is no fixed limit on bank angle, there is no single amount of bias on bank angle that is guaranteed to exceed the pilot command. This complicates the design of the Soft Walls system, which must ensure that the bias it introduces does not take the aircraft outside the safety specifications.

To some degree, a Soft Walls system must realize some flight envelope protection. For example, if an aircraft is flying above a no-fly zone, then the Soft Walls system must prevent the pilot from stalling the aircraft. If it does not, then it cannot ensure that the aircraft will not enter the no-fly zone (because the stall could lead to loss of control).

Yep, some of the researchers are in the Airbus camp, where the software limits pilot maneuvers.

A case can be made that the pilot could save the plan by executing a loop or roll that was outside the specs of the plane that would be prohibited by the software.

Is Is it possible to loop or roll a 747 jet?

22Mb MPEG of a 707 barrel roll - seems to be corrupt?

However, the point of Soft Walls is to prevent disasters that harm more than a plane load of people (large plane crashes in to nuclear powerplant etc.)

I looked a little in to some of the Airbus fly by wire crashes and if I remember correctly, it seemed like some of the errors were UI problems, especially when a display or control had multiple purposes (modes). I'm not sure if I remember the above correctly, b

Barq's and A&W...are caffeine free.

Not so, says the Straight Dope, at least in respect to Barq's. And I quote: "'Caffeine.' Boom. You're done. Barq's Root Beer does contain caffeine..."

Perhaps you meant Mug?

Plan to invade Canada, interesting read.

Quote from it "U.S. plans to invade Canada after the First World War? This is one of the most bizarre stories I've come across on the Internet, and the most bizarre part is that it's true. The U.S. military really did develop a "Joint Army and Navy Basic War Plan--Red" in the 1920s and '30s, and it really did include provisions for an invasion of Canada by the United States."

If all the chinese jumped off a chair at once, would it affect the earth? Original answer from StraightDope is here

Having never seen this term in print before I decided to look it up. Straightdope.com reckons it's probably dead.

I am seeing cases where the environmental movement is wilfully exaggerating how bad things are, and is arguing that no matter what the choice, the environment is both the first and the only thing.

I am becoming more and more skeptical of the environmental movement. Too much of it seems to be pushing an anti-capitalist morality with which I do not agree....

The other side of the issue is that powerful economic interests in the USA are capable of buying legislation which sells out the public interest to protect their profits, and they are just as capable of manipulating the press, think tank reports and other coverage to blunt public backlash against them. Just because the watermelons are for something isn't necessarily a reason to oppose it; you have to look carefully at everything, preferably with an understanding of the underlying reasons and mechanisms. If you don't have this understanding yourself, take your cues from someone who both has one and has taken the time to explain it in ways which can be checked. Dogma is the enemy, we need to fight it with reason. I've read Lomborg's book, and it is very long on endnotes and short on real supporting evidence; worse, the researchers cited by Lomborg have often disagreed violently with the conclusions he reaches based on their work. This reflects poorly on Lomborg.

(OT re command economies and authoritarian regimes: China's pall of pollution is so bad that it is affecting crop yields. The sources I can find mention pollutants such as ozone and SO2, but I recall reading that soot directly reduces plant growth by cutting off the supply of energy (sunlight) to the plants. China in particular still uses lots of coal in individual coal stoves, leading to the same emissions which caused the killer fog in London in 1952 (here's the NPR feature). These emissions would be drastically reduced if China gasified that same coal in a central plant and piped it through cities as "town gas".)

Maybe you saw it here? Or maybe here?

To be fair, though, this satire was picked up by many newspapers, including the Guardian, which to their credit published a retraction.

IQ results for Bush are not available, but his SAT score was 1206 or mid 80-percentile compared to current SAT test-takers. The SAT is not an IQ test, but it has a positive correlation with IQ tests of about 0.7 to 0.8. Also, note that the percentile refers to test-takers, not the general public, and test-takers are going to on average have higher IQs than non-test-takers.

That makes it very unlikely he has below-average intelligence. You might want to examine your news sources a little more carefully.

Is this a joke? These are the worst "arguments" (if you can call them that against gay marriage I've heard yet.

- The primary purpose of a marriage is to grant legal status to a man and a woman for the purpose of raising a family. Same sexed couples cannot have children on their own, therefore they should not have be entitled to the protections of marriage.

First of all, same-sexed couples CAN adopt kids and raise a family. Many mixed-sex couples CANNOT have kids due to sterility or do NOT WANT kids. Moreover, many same-sexed couples already HAVE kids from previous relationships. Are you sanctioning gay marriage where one couple already has a child? Are you against hetero marriages where one or both couples are sterile or too old to raise children?

This argument is completely without merit.

- Marriage is 'special'. Places that have allowed same sexed marriages have seen increased divorce and infidelity. Same sexed marriage takes away the 'specialness' of marriage.

I'm not sure what "special" means, but you offer no statistics as far as divorce and infidelity. According to the Center for Disease Control, about 43 percent of straight marriages end in divorce. (further discusson here. Regardless of whether this percentage is higher or lower in gay couples, what relevence does this have? Do you want to ban all marriage because they have a high chance for failure? "Specialness" is not an argument.

- Marriage is not a right, it is, at best, a tradition or custom. Marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman.

Big whup. Slavery was also tradition and custom for the early part of our country's history, and not many people still argue for it. In case you hadn't noticed, traditions and customs tend to change over time.

As far as your "definition"-- defined by whom? The whole debate is about what the word "marriage" can encompass, so using your conclusion ("it's not for gay people") as the premise for your argument is ridiculous. I will argue back, "Marriage is defined as a union between two people who love each other, regardless of their gender". Hence, you are wrong.

The US programmers must mark their wages up 150% or more to pay the US taxes on their wages.

U.S. taxes are the lowest in the industrialized world.

Of course taxes are lower in developing nations - so is the quality and quantity of government service.

The difference has little to do with taxes, and more with total cost-of-living.

The new opposite of 'oll korrect'?

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_033.html

No its government for the people, by the people and of the people. You got the order a little mixed up.

What are you talking about? They don't have any "authority" in the traditional sense of the word beyond putting cds on retail shelves. And "underlings"? Do you think Shawn Fanning hasn't been vacationing in Barbados for the past few years? To me, an "underling" isn't someone who can write academic studies of network topology.

Think all the way back, changes in the recording industry, all the way to Thomas Edison, have resulted because a few people with a lot of money made changes. Magnetic Reel to Vinyl, Vinyl to Cassette, Cassette to CD (With the bastard child DAT in there somewhere), these changes all came about as a result of music industry exectives decreeing it.

What exactly is your point here? Are you saying that we would be better off listening to music imprinted on foil wrapped around a toilet paper roll so long as the tech was promoted by someone who couldn't afford to buy a suit? I'm really not sure what you're complaining about, but if it is limited to the media of distribution I can't help but note that I prefer cds to every medium that came before it -- including vinyl.

They hate downloading music because they didn't come up with it first.

Let me be blunt. They don't give a flying fuck about who came up with anything first at all. They care about their financial bottom line. Period.

It's superior to their physical distribution mechanisms...

No it isn't. CDs are relatively permanent, highly portable, easy to store, easy to find, recyclable at used record stores, sound better, and don't involve the consumer in a purile "moral" debate that would make Thomas Aquinas throw up his hands in exasperation.

... It takes... normal people like Jobs to put them in their place. I think it says alot about the music industry when Steve Jobs becomes the straight man.

I think you were joking about Jobs being "normal", but -- just in case -- I'd like to assert that normal people aren't self-made multi-millionares before age 25. As far as what iTunes says about the music industry I've got to note that the industry has already been trying it's own versions of iTunes for some time now, and that, again, I'm really not sure what you mean.

The capper, though, is the claim that it takes more energy to make a gallon of ethanol than you get by burning it. One of the most vocal proponents of this view is Cornell University ecology professor David Pimentel. In an analysis published in 2001 in the peer-reviewed Encyclopedia of Physical Sciences and Technology, Pimentel argued that when you add up all the energy costs--the fuel for farm tractors, the natural gas used to distill corn sugars into alcohol, and so on--making a gallon of ethanol takes 70 percent more energy than the finished product contains. And because that production energy comes mostly from fossil fuels, gasohol isn't just wasting money but hastening the depletion of nonrenewable resources.

It can fuck up more than just a filter.

The Straight Dope on third-rail urination. Evidently, it's happened at least once.

Cecil at Straight Dope (http://www.straightdope.com) has answered these and many other thousands of questions over the past 20-30 years. There is an archive with several hundred questions including the three in the parent.

Remember, kids: for good ol' fashioned batteries, you can't beat Radio Shack brand batteries, sez Consumer Reports. Plus, their alkaline D batteries really are Ds, and not Cs in D cases. Longest life, lowest price, non-deceptive -- what's not to like?

-Waldo Jaquith

The Straight Dope on in-flight irradiation -- I suppose your definition of "a lot more" is somewhat different than mine.

Walt was fried, not frozen.

Bah, Disney has been bringing anime over here for years.

Like That Atlantis Flick

And who can forget the Lion King
Disney's first original story in what seemed like forever. How DID they come up with that idea!?!?

But a more dramatic example of the slowness of cultural change is the fact that I am typing this on a QWERTY keyboard. Dvorak [mwbrooks.com] has been around for years but still we type on devices that show their Victorian age heritage. Even when there is no need at all for the random shuffling of the alphabet across the current keyboard in the way we use it!

You know that this is all a myth, don't you? It is one of those "geek myths" people keep on repeating to each other without really bothering to check the facts.

I know, I used to do tell this story as well. Then I read a bit more about it and realized that there was a bit more to the story than I thought.

Straightdope summarizes it well: "(1) the research demonstrating the superiority of the Dvorak keyboard is sparse and methodologically suspect; (2) a sizable body of work suggests that in fact the Dvorak offers little practical advantage over the QWERTY; (3) at least one study indicates that placing commonly used keys far apart, as with the QWERTY, actually speeds typing, since you frequently alternate hands; and (4) the QWERTY keyboard did not become a standard overnight but beat out several competing keyboards over a period of years. Thus it may be fairly said to represent the considered choice of the marketplace."

Don't forget possible changes to the weather. For instance, there are a number of areas whose climate and micro-climate are influenced by nearby bodies of water.

Were you envisioning covering the Great Lakes with this stuff?

I'd be willing to test the product in my toilet based on the assumption that it'd reduce the atomized crap on my toothbrush due to flushing.

The Straight Dope on in-flight irradiation.

This is great -- I would probably be 15 pounds lighter if Mtn Dew were low-cal.

Or if, you know, you, like, didn't drink so much Mountain Dew.

If your intake of soda is high enough that artificially sweetened ones would make a large difference in your caloric intake, you're drinking too much fscking soda.

Hell, why bother with artifical sweetners and fats? Just make like the Romans and vomit it back up again! (Though not in a "vomitorium".)

As they say in the british parlement. Here, Here!

When they say that, I think they mean "Hear, hear", not "Here, here".... Think about it: that phrase is something you say when you agree with what someone said.

Here's one explanation:

The correct term is, "hear, hear!" It is an abbreviation for "hear, all ye good people, hear what this brilliant and eloquent speaker has to say!"

Nope.

Cows themselves are 1000 pounds or so.

A quick search shows that a cow will eat 25 pounds of hay per day - and the average age when taken to slaughter is 4-5 years.

That means one cow requires 41,000 pounds of feed over it's life, that's 20 tons. The amount of usable meat is around 700 pounds (although only 100 pounds or so is used for hamburger meat, but that's just the typing of the meat).

So for every single pound of (hamburger) meat, you need 58 pounds of hay. (Fair deal if you ask me.)

.
We haven't added in the transportation and processing costs, which if we used current plant matter instead of 10,000,000 year old refined plant matter, would increase it by how much? (Sorry, I'm not going to do that calculation).