Slashdot Mirror

Australia, NZ, Argentina, Chile are all decent places to live and have over 30 paid days of time off per year by law. This isn't only in Europe -- this is most of the non-US world. Not everyone wants to "take over the world". Some of us just want to live comfortably and have some fun while we're here.

You clearly don't know the history of Argentina or Chile then. And Nordic countries with large nationalized oil funds to pay for expansive social programs are nice if you can get them but unless your country is lucky enough to have those properties, its likely that their policies won't work for you like you (all of us really) wish they might.

Separate research/publication and teaching as distinct abilities and reward each for what they are.

That would be a good start. My best college courses were taught by non-tenure-track lecturers. The worst instructors were old professors who wanted to be doing something else, and whose time was way more expensive than the lecturer.

Professors should do research and teach graduate seminars. Undergrad classes should be taught by professional instructors who know how to teach.

But colleges can also make much more use of technology. They could use online instruction for many of the lectures, and only meet in-class once per week, or even less, to focus on applying what was learned in the lectures, much like the flipped classroom model used in some high schools.

"If you're giving a presentation"

Usually a video cable....

Miracast is becoming pretty popular for presentations it is directly built into about half of our conference room monitors, allowing the presenter to be anywhere in the room untethered by a cable.

While it's good that they can intercept ICBMs, I suspect the only thing this will accomplish is spurring the development of anti-interception ICBMs. Naturally, development on anti-anti-interception ICMBs. The perpetual development of intercept and anti-intercept technology will continue back and forth ad nauseam.

Too late...Multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles

delusions of genocide

Did you maybe mean grandeur? I am not aware of any genocidal ambition on the part of Putin. Its not hard to believe he might hold some idea of racial superiority but I don't see him engaging in ethnic cleansing etc.

Let me introduce you to the Georgia-Russia War. A quick and nasty little bit of Russian military intervention. They are currently preparing the war crimes trials from this very short 5-day war. That's a bit quick for war crimes unless you really wanted to get rid of parts of the civilian population as a general principle. Then there is Russian takeover of Crimea and their intervention in Ukraine. I'm not sure many of the citizens of those places would agree with you. Ethnic tensions and playing on them is a major part of politics in that area of the world and Russia is no different.

This (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randall_L._Stephenson) is that asshole. If you see him in the street, you know what to do.

Russia already claimed quite a while back to have put uninterceptible hypersonic ICBMs into production, so if anything this news is too little, too late?

That's a common misconception by the left - that the red states oppose anything the left favors out of spite or ignorance. The left advocates a government-centric approach to decision-making. Some government official (elected via what's basically a popularity contest, not an appraisal of competency) decides or appoints people to decide what the population should do.

The red states don't oppose things the left favors per se. They typically favor a market-centric approach. So using your example of incandescent light bulbs, the red states would've preferred CFLs and LEDs compete with incandescents based solely on price. Once their savings in electricity and longevity versus incandescents made them a better buy, then people would've started buying them naturally and incadescents wold phase themselves out. It's pure democracy in action - every individual buyer gets to vote on what type of light bulb they prefer every time they buy one, unlike the statist top-down approach favored by the left. In that respect, the red states will "eventually fall in line". It was never a question of which technology was better long-term. It's a question of which technology is better now and how the transition should proceed.

Likewise, the right has no problem with solar or wind or EVs per se. If they're the better, more cost-effective product, the right will gladly embrace them. They just don't want those things shoved down their throats by government decree - they think every individual should be allowed to decide for themself whether or not to adopt these products.. But the left can't seem to grok this, so they concoct this fantasy where the right oppose anything the left advocates out of spite or ignorance.

Neither method is always right. The market approach can fail in the case of monopolies and certain niche cases summed up by the tragedy of the commons (pollution is the most common example) and the prisoner's dilemma. The government approach fails when the people deciding fail to anticipate unforeseen consequences to their actions (cable and phone monopolies are granted by the government in exchange for things like guarantees to cover low-income areas - arguably the harm of those monopolies far outweighs the good of covering the low income area), or don't adequately search the solution space before mandating a single solution (GSM nearly doomed us because it used TDMA which is horribly inefficient with bandwidth because it assigns a full bandwidth timeslice to users who only need a little or no bandwidth; fortunately the US allowed CDMA to compete and prove itself a superior solution; and eventually GSM adopted CDMA into its spec and modern standards like LTE are based on the orthogonal signaling proven by CDMA).

That's what makes the U.S. approach to government so effective. Tens of thousands of local governments get to try both the regulatory and free market approach. Those who picked one can compare notes with those who picked the other to see who seems to be doing better. If the regulatory approach seems to be working better than the market approach, then numerous states will try adopting it, while others will retain the market approach. And when a clear majority of the states see a benefit to the regulatory approach, then that creates enough political support to pass the regulation on a national level. When you immediately regulate at the national level without sufficient trials at the lower government levels, you short circuit this weeding-out process and could doom us with something like GSM, except we'll never know because you prohibited the alternative before it could ever be tested.

That's a common misconception by the left - that the red states oppose anything the left favors out of spite or ignorance. The left advocates a government-centric approach to decision-making. Some government official (elected via what's basically a popularity contest, not an appraisal of competency) decides or appoints people to decide what the population should do.

The red states don't oppose things the left favors per se. They typically favor a market-centric approach. So using your example of incandescent light bulbs, the red states would've preferred CFLs and LEDs compete with incandescents based solely on price. Once their savings in electricity and longevity versus incandescents made them a better buy, then people would've started buying them naturally and incadescents wold phase themselves out. It's pure democracy in action - every individual buyer gets to vote on what type of light bulb they prefer every time they buy one, unlike the statist top-down approach favored by the left. In that respect, the red states will "eventually fall in line". It was never a question of which technology was better long-term. It's a question of which technology is better now and how the transition should proceed.

Likewise, the right has no problem with solar or wind or EVs per se. If they're the better, more cost-effective product, the right will gladly embrace them. They just don't want those things shoved down their throats by government decree - they think every individual should be allowed to decide for themself whether or not to adopt these products.. But the left can't seem to grok this, so they concoct this fantasy where the right oppose anything the left advocates out of spite or ignorance.

Neither method is always right. The market approach can fail in the case of monopolies and certain niche cases summed up by the tragedy of the commons (pollution is the most common example) and the prisoner's dilemma. The government approach fails when the people deciding fail to anticipate unforeseen consequences to their actions (cable and phone monopolies are granted by the government in exchange for things like guarantees to cover low-income areas - arguably the harm of those monopolies far outweighs the good of covering the low income area), or don't adequately search the solution space before mandating a single solution (GSM nearly doomed us because it used TDMA which is horribly inefficient with bandwidth because it assigns a full bandwidth timeslice to users who only need a little or no bandwidth; fortunately the US allowed CDMA to compete and prove itself a superior solution; and eventually GSM adopted CDMA into its spec and modern standards like LTE are based on the orthogonal signaling proven by CDMA).

That's what makes the U.S. approach to government so effective. Tens of thousands of local governments get to try both the regulatory and free market approach. Those who picked one can compare notes with those who picked the other to see who seems to be doing better. If the regulatory approach seems to be working better than the market approach, then numerous states will try adopting it, while others will retain the market approach. And when a clear majority of the states see a benefit to the regulatory approach, then that creates enough political support to pass the regulation on a national level. When you immediately regulate at the national level without sufficient trials at the lower government levels, you short circuit this weeding-out process and could doom us with something like GSM, except we'll never know because you prohibited the alternative before it could ever be tested.

That's a common misconception by the left - that the red states oppose anything the left favors out of spite or ignorance. The left advocates a government-centric approach to decision-making. Some government official (elected via what's basically a popularity contest, not an appraisal of competency) decides or appoints people to decide what the population should do.

The red states don't oppose things the left favors per se. They typically favor a market-centric approach. So using your example of incandescent light bulbs, the red states would've preferred CFLs and LEDs compete with incandescents based solely on price. Once their savings in electricity and longevity versus incandescents made them a better buy, then people would've started buying them naturally and incadescents wold phase themselves out. It's pure democracy in action - every individual buyer gets to vote on what type of light bulb they prefer every time they buy one, unlike the statist top-down approach favored by the left. In that respect, the red states will "eventually fall in line". It was never a question of which technology was better long-term. It's a question of which technology is better now and how the transition should proceed.

Likewise, the right has no problem with solar or wind or EVs per se. If they're the better, more cost-effective product, the right will gladly embrace them. They just don't want those things shoved down their throats by government decree - they think every individual should be allowed to decide for themself whether or not to adopt these products.. But the left can't seem to grok this, so they concoct this fantasy where the right oppose anything the left advocates out of spite or ignorance.

Neither method is always right. The market approach can fail in the case of monopolies and certain niche cases summed up by the tragedy of the commons (pollution is the most common example) and the prisoner's dilemma. The government approach fails when the people deciding fail to anticipate unforeseen consequences to their actions (cable and phone monopolies are granted by the government in exchange for things like guarantees to cover low-income areas - arguably the harm of those monopolies far outweighs the good of covering the low income area), or don't adequately search the solution space before mandating a single solution (GSM nearly doomed us because it used TDMA which is horribly inefficient with bandwidth because it assigns a full bandwidth timeslice to users who only need a little or no bandwidth; fortunately the US allowed CDMA to compete and prove itself a superior solution; and eventually GSM adopted CDMA into its spec and modern standards like LTE are based on the orthogonal signaling proven by CDMA).

That's what makes the U.S. approach to government so effective. Tens of thousands of local governments get to try both the regulatory and free market approach. Those who picked one can compare notes with those who picked the other to see who seems to be doing better. If the regulatory approach seems to be working better than the market approach, then numerous states will try adopting it, while others will retain the market approach. And when a clear majority of the states see a benefit to the regulatory approach, then that creates enough political support to pass the regulation on a national level. When you immediately regulate at the national level without sufficient trials at the lower government levels, you short circuit this weeding-out process and could doom us with something like GSM, except we'll never know because you prohibited the alternative before it could ever be tested.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Sure, you can always improve shielding, but 'good enough' is good enough.

FYI you shield electric transmission by burying it. Like we've been doing with local service for decades now.

Shielding high voltage transmission is a difficult problem.

The stories about plastic in the oceans usually fail to mention that it got there because some countries allow plastic in their rivers! For example: Five Asian Countries Dump More Plastic Into Oceans Than Anyone Else Combined: How You Can Help (Apr 21, 2018)

Banning plastic bags is supported by paper bag manufacturers. Stores in and near Portland, Oregon stopped supplying plastic bags. The underlying reason appeared to be that International Paper (world map) has a plant near Portland. Grocery stores there don't fill the paper bags because the paper bags are fragile, especially when they get wet in the rain.

Paper is FAR more damaging to the environment. First, a huge truck must go to a place where there are trees. The trees are cut and trucked to a processing plant. The plant uses poisonous chemicals to make the paper.

There are MANY examples of paper plant pollution. Here is a Slashdot story: Chile Becomes First Country In Americas To Ban Plastic Bags.

"CMPC is a Chilean pulp and paper company, being one of the biggest in Latin America. ... Revenue: US$ 5.1 billion (2017)"

Another plant: CELCO Valdivia Pulp Mill pollution: "The company had been dumping more dioxins and heavy metals than had been approved by the regulating agencies into the river from a waste tube that had been approved by the authorities. It had also been producing far above levels approved in its Environmental Impact Assessment, and was cited for multiple violations of environmental and health laws."

"In July 2007 CELCO agreed to pay CLP$614 millions to Valdivian tourism companies to avoid legal actions for supposed losses of the tourism sector of Valdivia due to contamination of Carlos Anwandter Nature Sanctuary."

"The Secretary of State for the Environment said that, despite having large financial and technical resources, CELCO had an extremely poor environmental record."

We re-use plastic bags to line wastebaskets, and to throw away wet materials. We always throw paper bags away.

Paper buried in trash areas can eventually degrade, but that usually doesn't happen because there is usually not enough oxygen to support the breakdown process. How much oil is used to make plastic?: "Although crude oil is a source of raw material (feedstock) for making plastics, it is not the major source of feedstock for plastics production in the United States."

The natural gas used to make plastic bags is less polluting. Still a problem, but not as much of a problem as using oil.

The stories about plastic in the oceans usually fail to mention that it got there because some countries allow plastic in their rivers! For example: Five Asian Countries Dump More Plastic Into Oceans Than Anyone Else Combined: How You Can Help (Apr 21, 2018)

Banning plastic bags is supported by paper bag manufacturers. Stores in and near Portland, Oregon stopped supplying plastic bags. The underlying reason appeared to be that International Paper (world map) has a plant near Portland. Grocery stores there don't fill the paper bags because the paper bags are fragile, especially when they get wet in the rain.

Paper is FAR more damaging to the environment. First, a huge truck must go to a place where there are trees. The trees are cut and trucked to a processing plant. The plant uses poisonous chemicals to make the paper.

There are MANY examples of paper plant pollution. Here is a Slashdot story: Chile Becomes First Country In Americas To Ban Plastic Bags.

"CMPC is a Chilean pulp and paper company, being one of the biggest in Latin America. ... Revenue: US$ 5.1 billion (2017)"

Another plant: CELCO Valdivia Pulp Mill pollution: "The company had been dumping more dioxins and heavy metals than had been approved by the regulating agencies into the river from a waste tube that had been approved by the authorities. It had also been producing far above levels approved in its Environmental Impact Assessment, and was cited for multiple violations of environmental and health laws."

"In July 2007 CELCO agreed to pay CLP$614 millions to Valdivian tourism companies to avoid legal actions for supposed losses of the tourism sector of Valdivia due to contamination of Carlos Anwandter Nature Sanctuary."

"The Secretary of State for the Environment said that, despite having large financial and technical resources, CELCO had an extremely poor environmental record."

We re-use plastic bags to line wastebaskets, and to throw away wet materials. We always throw paper bags away.

Paper buried in trash areas can eventually degrade, but that usually doesn't happen because there is usually not enough oxygen to support the breakdown process. How much oil is used to make plastic?: "Although crude oil is a source of raw material (feedstock) for making plastics, it is not the major source of feedstock for plastics production in the United States."

The natural gas used to make plastic bags is less polluting. Still a problem, but not as much of a problem as using oil.

The stories about plastic in the oceans usually fail to mention that it got there because some countries allow plastic in their rivers! For example: Five Asian Countries Dump More Plastic Into Oceans Than Anyone Else Combined: How You Can Help (Apr 21, 2018)

Banning plastic bags is supported by paper bag manufacturers. Stores in and near Portland, Oregon stopped supplying plastic bags. The underlying reason appeared to be that International Paper (world map) has a plant near Portland. Grocery stores there don't fill the paper bags because the paper bags are fragile, especially when they get wet in the rain.

Paper is FAR more damaging to the environment. First, a huge truck must go to a place where there are trees. The trees are cut and trucked to a processing plant. The plant uses poisonous chemicals to make the paper.

There are MANY examples of paper plant pollution. Here is a Slashdot story: Chile Becomes First Country In Americas To Ban Plastic Bags.

"CMPC is a Chilean pulp and paper company, being one of the biggest in Latin America. ... Revenue: US$ 5.1 billion (2017)"

Another plant: CELCO Valdivia Pulp Mill pollution: "The company had been dumping more dioxins and heavy metals than had been approved by the regulating agencies into the river from a waste tube that had been approved by the authorities. It had also been producing far above levels approved in its Environmental Impact Assessment, and was cited for multiple violations of environmental and health laws."

"In July 2007 CELCO agreed to pay CLP$614 millions to Valdivian tourism companies to avoid legal actions for supposed losses of the tourism sector of Valdivia due to contamination of Carlos Anwandter Nature Sanctuary."

"The Secretary of State for the Environment said that, despite having large financial and technical resources, CELCO had an extremely poor environmental record."

We re-use plastic bags to line wastebaskets, and to throw away wet materials. We always throw paper bags away.

Paper buried in trash areas can eventually degrade, but that usually doesn't happen because there is usually not enough oxygen to support the breakdown process. How much oil is used to make plastic?: "Although crude oil is a source of raw material (feedstock) for making plastics, it is not the major source of feedstock for plastics production in the United States."

The natural gas used to make plastic bags is less polluting. Still a problem, but not as much of a problem as using oil.

Cisco stole IP from Stanford university. How's that for starters?

Cisco steals

There you go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

For comparison, FPL notes the battery system is equivalent to 100 million iPhone batteries, or 300 million AA batteries.

First of all, is it true there's only the equivalent of three AA batteries in an iPhone?

Yes, it is true. A typical alkaline AA battery has up to 2800 mAh capacity. Of course, this is at 1.5V, so the power capacity is around 4.2 Wh. So 3 of them would be around 12.6 Wh. A, iPhone Xs Max has a 3174 mAh battery, at about 4.2V. So around 12.6 Wh. So yes, about the same capacity.

South Australian grid using wind mills widely separated was the first one to go in with a 50 MW system. It stabilized the grid and flattened the spot market prices so much they saved millions of dollars. Every dollar saved by the utility is a dollar NOT EARNED by gas powered plants. The ROI on natural gas plants are going to take a serious rework, they are losing juicy profits in the spot markets.

Now, Florida. Cost of storage batteries is falling so rapidly, it is like the micro chip revolution in computing. There is a Moore's Law for batteries, with a time period of about 7 years.

The neck of the famous "duck curve" is after sunset in CA. Solar has stopped, but a/c load is yet to peak. That one hour after sunset is the last critical piece needed for solar to become totally effective against natural gas. It is at hand. It is very exciting for the renewable energy fans.

Some of the gas plants operating in the peak load are "quick response" gas turbine plants. Their quick response is still measured in tens of minutes. The batteries are responding in milliseconds. The key thing about spot market electricity is, the price can go negative. If the gas plant is producing power and the grid could not absorb it they need to pay someone to take their power. The gas plant will not throttle down for several minutes. Who can absorb that power and get paid? The Batteries! Once the battery systems reach a critical mass, all natural gas fired power will be sold at long term pre negotiated fixed contract prices. Not the spot market. This will seriously change the ROI calculations of these plants that were already built. I am expecting the owners of these plants to cry uncle and come with hat in hand asking for "relief" from the utility rate payers.

the most uncivilized elements of humankind must be dealt with

100% correct. Trigger happy police officers who shoot unarmed people must be dealt with.

I am merely grateful

Why are you grateful that the very people who protect you are so fucking trigger happy that they are likely to shoot you when you call for help, even if you're tiny white woman in her bathrobe? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Interactions with police are an example of a clash of an unpleasant element of society, but in the USA it is for all the wrong reasons.

You seem to be confused a bit. The Intel ME firmware is the locked down part. I was NOT talking about EFI, UEFI, BIOS, PCI boot ROMS, or even applying a vendor created and signed update.

I'm not confused one bit. The "ME" stands for Management Engine, and is in the PCH, platform controller hub, on the motherboard.

You can run your own software on it. I've done that exact thing. If it was "locked down part" then that shouldn't be possible.

It interfaces with everything you just said you aren't talking about right after you said you were talking about the ME that interfaces with those things...

Are you sure you know what you mean?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...

The cop opened the door expecting a shooter about to execute a number of people

Nonsense. He was standing on his front porch, unarmed, with his hands visible, and the cop shot him from across the street.

Go watch the videos on YouTube.

Or read the description of the shooting.

You probably don't know this. Epic have had more than just one hit game.

First released game appeared in 1992 as Epic (and one before that in 1991 with another company name) I really dare you to put out a full blown release of a game software product running on just one platform, even with today's free tools and git-ware. It takes a lot more time than you can imagine.

In Those 30 years, the tiny company Epic managed to outsmart Id, Sony, Nintendo, Electronic Arts, Valve, Microsoft, Ubisoft, Crytek, Take2, Vivendi, Infinity Ward, Bioware, Capcom, TT, SquareEnix Sierra, Dynamics, Microprose, ActiBliz, Rockstar, Naughty Dog, Mojang, Dice, Treyarch, Bethesda and many more. That's a hell of lot of industry competition to handle. They did not simply manage, they were setting the rules at every step of the way.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

One of these things is not like the others...

That was actually a mix up. Most of the people working in Intel's Santa Clara facility commute from the neighboring (and much larger) City of San Jose, California.

But when HR was told to "layoff those San Jose guys", they thought the CEO meant the other San Jose.

One of these things is not like the others...

That was actually a mix up. Most of the people working in Intel's Santa Clara facility commute from the neighboring (and much larger) City of San Jose, California.

But when HR was told to "layoff those San Jose guys", they thought the CEO meant the other San Jose.

Don't know where you live, but in 'Merica that is protect commercial speech and cannot be legislated against.

If the research is funded by tax money, the publication also ought to be funded by tax money for consistency.

Of course. But that is not the way it currently works.

There are efforts to change this: Fair Acess to Science and Technology Research Act

Let your congressperson know that this bill is something important to you. My congressperson, Zoe Lofgren, is one of the co-sponsors.

All publicly funded science should be available to the public.

It's a direct quote from an Apple senior vice president, Dan Riccio. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

The LG Prada. The iPhone was a blatant rip-off. Apple was going for a menu driven, resistive, phone before LG showed them how to do it.

Stop the current Mars atmospheric loss due to solar winds and atmospheric density and temperature will rise. The Sun provides the significant energy needed to create a runaway greenhouse effect on Mars, which really isn't that far away from an energy standpoint. Mars is, after all, in the habitable zone. The energy needed to power the artificial magnetosphere is not insignificant, but on the scale of existing human ability.

Around 600 BC some folks thought it would be fun to dig a 4 mile long canal across the Isthmus of Corinth. Cost, political intrigue, and superstition got in the way of completing that task for about 2,500 years, but lo and behold, the Corinthian Canal is a thing! A trivial, small, and no longer relevant thing, interesting only to tourists. And historians.

To what fate should humanity resign if not for thinking grand? Pyramids, canals, footprints on the moon, and a cure for the common cold... none of them sober thoughts but the blink of an eye ago.

In the 1930's a young man with naught but a bachelor's degree in physics set about to create a sustainable source of fusion energy - in a rented barn with dirt floors. In this quest he needed a way to visualize the path and behavior of ions in the vacuum tubes he made to create his early version of inertial electro-static confinement, which up until the 1960's, was the only method that could demonstrate any level of fusion. Inspired by the tedium of dragging a plow back and forth through fields, this young man modified the cathode ray tube to raster an electron beam and make a practical oscilloscope to help in his quest. The RCA corporation stole his invention and turned it into 'television'.

Excessive exposure to 'television' has cause mass hysteria and group-think the likes of which humanityt has never before seen. Your lack of ability to think outside the box and see a Martian world of possibilities is a prime example.

If 'sober' people like you are to review plans, we might as well close the patent office to save all that wasted overhead.

You can have: 1-A user pay for profit system (excludes the poor, divert research funds to profit), 2-a user pay co-op system(pay what you can is "unfair" and hard to organize), or 3-a taxpayer funded and run one (ick more taxes why do I need to pay for this?).

Or you could, you know, use a website, which costs almost nothing.

The Physics community has been using ArXiv since 1991. There is no good reason that other fields can't do the same.

A huge part (most) of the world's science is currently funded by government

That is paying for the research, not publication.

Rabies comes damned close!

I was thinking of the GeoThermal Heat Pump concept that is used as an efficient HVAC system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_heat_pump.

Those systems are buried at 20 feet or more to work. I don't know that you would need to go to that extreme as your not trying to keep it at a constant temperature, just keep it from getting too warm or to cold. Heck I would get a BBQ probe and dig a few holes and do a test on some very hot days, 20 degrees or more would be better than nothing.

Texas has some nice floods, but a good sealed box should work. Maybe a thick ABS plastic with seals. If your worried about a little water shorting things out, you could epoxy the electronics and leave exposed a heat sink on the cpu making the whole thing pretty water-proof. A layer of high temperature silicone poured over it might also work as well (the stuff used in baking ware).

In the end it might not work, but it was just a thought on how you might be able to keep the temperature a little more even throughout the year.

If I ever win the lottery I'm doing the whole Geothermal Heat Pump thing as I hate the sound of the compressor running (silent running my butt!)

Yeah, we'll need decoys and mobility. Extreme circumstances will call for extreme countermeasures.

"What's a station wagon?" ;)

Station wagons were effectively banned by the CAFE standards passed by congress in the late 1970s. People with a need for cargo space switched to less efficient and more polluting SUVs, trucks, or vans.

Yes, this was stupid and counter-productive, and yes, this is a great example of unintended consequences from poorly thought out regulation.

Not all people who have bad internet connection are poor.

In the early days of Usenet, a tape was sent to Australia everyday on a flight from the west cost of the US.

Sneakernet: Usage examples

Has anyone considered the mass of the turtles holding everything up? No? Where's my Nobel...

it'd rain "earlier" than it would in equivalent conditions on Earth.

It'd rain later. Sorry, but Kim Stanley Robinson knew he was playing fast and loose with the gas laws in his fiction, even if some people (Elon Musk, I'm looking at you!) have taken the fiction as fact.

We were freshman in IIT, having passed JEE, head high in the clouds, top 1000 All India Rank, all the orientation speakers calling us creme-de-la-creme of India. First Chemistry 101 class. Reading ahead for the class, our study group found there are some electron orbital stuff, n orbital, p orbital etc. One of them was described to be doughnut shaped. All of us were stumped. We did not know what a doughnut was or what it would look like.

Then one from our study group found an American chemistry text book with pictures. It spelled doughnut as donut, but had a picture. We exclaimed, "It is a damned torus! Why wouldn't they call it a torus? Why use this weird thing donut/doughnut". In the class Prof PJ Narayanan said, "... it says doughnut in the text book. Doughnut is like a vada but it is sweet not savoury, they make in the West..."

If slashdot is going to call itself "news for the nerds" the least it can do is to call that shape by its proper name, a torus.

It is the ghost-like that got me. What are the actual properties of a ghost? Sheet like with holes for eyes?

I haven't read the full study, so I'm not sure what they're positing.

I just did RTFP, and it is a lot more tentative than the press blurb makes out. As normal.

Could have been large impact-driven vaporization events that temporarily create a denser, water-rich atmosphere, perhaps?

They don't much discuss that, but throughout they emphasis that they're examining peak flow rates, not average (mean), median or modal flow rates. That is certainly compatible with thee flows only occurring in the period following large impacts releasing a substantial temporary increase in atmospheric pressure. Then, the water would rain out (over a period) as the atmosphere and planet surface cools, producing large if temporary run-offs. Then the CO2 would freeze out onto the ice caps and into the soil before being buried again by dust. Lather, rinse, repeat, with a caveat that when you put water high into the atmosphere, some of it gets photolytically stripped to release hydrogen to space and oxygen (which goes into the sol as iron-3 oxide). Much as has been modelled previously.

Their synthetic figure 5 certainly shows that sporadic precipitation events their vision, not continuous precipitation through the Amazonian, Noachian &/or Hesperian.

though I'm not sure how you'd sustain huge brine-filled rivers for billions of years;

That is certainly the image that many commentators here have. Possibly also the writers of the press blurb.

It's not in the paper.

It's not in their model.

It's not in their text.

It's not in their figures.

This is why reading the "puff" press releases is normally a complete waste of time. Just go get the paper - it's quicker than building up a idea which the scientists involved are simply not discussing, then having to tear down that misconception and start again from scratch.

Personally I'm more curious about Venus's rivers,[...] but most likely is that it's thermal erosion by rare (by Earth standards) types of low-temperature lavas, such as carbonatites or similar.

With a surface temperature in the region of 450degC, the cooling rates of lavas are going to be very different to what we're familiar with on Earth. Compounding that, the high ppCO2 in the atmosphere is going to reduce devolatilisation of the lavas, retaining their initial low viscosity for ... a hard to calculate amount. Don't get me wrong, carbonatites are fascinating (one of my friends while doing my degree was doing his PhD in UK carbonatites- fascinating rocks!), but such exotic melts are probably not necessary to postulate for these long Venusian channels (NB : Schiaparelli's warning : "channels" without implication about the origin of the structure). These magma types are "exotic" on Earth because they're at the end of a differentiation process - to form a cubic km of carbonatite melt you'd need to start with a couple of hundred cubic km of regular basalt, and you get that by processing around 10000 cubic km of mantle-like material (which is, unsurprisingly, close to the average of non-ice, non-H/He material in the solar system). Those many cubic km of other materials processed to produce your carbonatites will be somewhere, and you'll see the structures they generate far more often.

and rapidly oxidize to bright white after cooling.

That's probably materials like sodium carbonate and sodium hydrogen carbonate weathering out very rapidly as the rocks self-metamorphose on their own residual liquors. And it's the case for carbonatite lavas. Far larger volumes of carbonatites solidify below ground as relatively small bosses and cupolas on the margins of per-alkaline igneous intrusions.

Also tend to be very rich in valuable minerals)

They ca

Don't be so quick to dismiss dark matter! We have good reasons to speculate about the existence of a particle which doesn't normally interact with electromagnetic fields. In the example above, huge clusters of galaxies collided with each other and the ordinary matter slowed down as a result of the collision, but gravitational lensing suggests that the center of mass (i.e. dark matter) got separated during the collision. It's not a slam dunk, but it's an interesting result that suggests there's more going on than just an incomplete model of gravity.

Then one from our study group found an American chemistry text book with pictures. It spelled doughnut as donut, but had a picture. We exclaimed, "It is a damned torus! Why wouldn't they call it a torus? Why use this weird thing donut/doughnut". In the class Prof PJ Narayanan said, "... it says doughnut in the text book. Doughnut is like a vada but it is sweet not savoury, they make in the West..."

If slashdot is going to call itself "news for the nerds" the least it can do is to call that shape by its proper name, a torus.

This article includes several references on giving Mars an artificial magnetosphere with machine(s) that are within existing human capability to build. With a functional BFR class rocket, we would have the capability to actually deploy such a system.

Once such a machine were turned on the atmospheric pressure and temperature on Mars would rise sufficiently within a handful of years to remove the need to wear a space suit. Liquid water could (and would) exist in lakes, rivers, and rain. The people who deploy such a machine may be able to personally experience the result and take a stroll on Mars wearing nothing but a jacket and an oxygen mask. Doing without oxygen for a few minutes is no big deal for a human, thus greatly simplifying human habitation. If exposed to the vacuum of the current Martian atmosphere you could watch the water boil out of your eyes for the remaining 15 seconds of your consciousness. (goofy Total Recall eyes popping out scene)

Transforming the composition of the Martian atmosphere to something humans can breathe directly will take a bit longer, but we won't have to spend much money or effort on that, we've got some great organisms that can do the hard work for us.

This article includes several references on giving Mars an artificial magnetosphere with machine(s) that are within existing human capability to build. With a functional BFR class rocket, we would have the capability to actually deploy such a system.

Once such a machine were turned on the atmospheric pressure and temperature on Mars would rise sufficiently within a handful of years to remove the need to wear a space suit. Liquid water could (and would) exist in lakes, rivers, and rain. The people who deploy such a machine may be able to personally experience the result and take a stroll on Mars wearing nothing but a jacket and an oxygen mask. Doing without oxygen for a few minutes is no big deal for a human, thus greatly simplifying human habitation. If exposed to the vacuum of the current Martian atmosphere you could watch the water boil out of your eyes for the remaining 15 seconds of your consciousness. (goofy Total Recall eyes popping out scene)

Transforming the composition of the Martian atmosphere to something humans can breathe directly will take a bit longer, but we won't have to spend much money or effort on that, we've got some great organisms that can do the hard work for us.

The deer pisses out the Cs-137 just like the other isotopes of Cs they consume normally when eating mushrooms.
Only over a considerable amount of time, it is not like: oops I accidentally ate some Cs-137 and now need to go to pee quickly. As long as they eat the mushrooms they have a higher level ...

Heavy metals just don't work the same way as organic molecules. Of course not. They accumulate in the kidneys and leaver, or wander into the bone marrow ... or in this case, no idea why you neglect it: in he nervous system. I told you now several times that Cs is a potassium "ersatz". Everywhere where the body usually uses potassium, cesium is displacing it and thus cesium is bioaccumulated, in everything that is eating it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... scroll to: "Health and safety hazards"

Interesting read, too: accumulation of cesium in human bones: https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/a...

No idea where you got your misinformation about cesium from. It is an alkali metal, obviously it acts everwhere where other alkali metals act.

They already have a proud history of schemes like this that stretches back over hundreds of years:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

... or why they would want to extinguish all references to Persson.

I don't know why you have an issue with this.

I have an issues with this because, by all my research, you are wrong on this. You have failed to provide a citation proving this, I have failed to find a citation proving this. The math is NOT "right above". You have posted no math that I can see. Indeed, I keep encountering statements in documents that air core transformers can sometimes be preferred in order to prevent Hysteresis and Eddy loses, otherwise known as "iron losses". Air core works better at higher frequencies, Hmm.. I wonder what EV inductive chargers use... Ah yes, high frequencies. 85 kHz seems common, though some are much higher.

2. Coupling factor, as shown by my and your sources, is somewhat independent from the core material used. An iron core transformer CAN be less efficient than an air core transformer. YOUR citations show this.

You will never be as efficient when you terminate your charging system with a transformer (air core or iron core, although iron is more efficient) as compared to a hard-wired connector. Just not going to happen.

What do you meant terminate? The transformer is necessary regardless of connector -whether inductive or hard wired. You're going to need to match wall voltage to what the battery needs, and the best way to do that is with a transformer. It's also hardly the "end" of the circuit. You're still going to need to transform the power from AC to DC, for example, and likely are going to want to smooth it out.

Combined with your insistence that iron-core transformers are always more efficient than Air Core and other issues like seemingly being totally ignorant of the effects of frequency on transformer design, the general necessity to match wall voltage to battery voltage through the use of a transformer, etc... I don't believe that you are actually an EE. You're making too many basic mistakes about physics. If you are an EE, you're probably a very specialized one that doesn't deal with the same issues that will come up in designing an inductive charger for EVs.

I've also told you a couple times what you need to do to convince me.
1. Citations, Sources. I'm not taking your word on this stuff. Note that most of my posts are littered with citations. The one time you tried, you linked to sources that agreed with me!
2. Reasoning that goes beyond the transformer/inductive loop. As I've said, I'm looking at the complete system, not just the loop.

For example, what is your response to this?
Vermont Energy Investment Corporation, Transportation Efficiency Group
Average efficiency, level 2(240V) charge: 86.4%, level 1(120V): 83.7%.
Interestingly, temperature can change the charge efficiency by more than 2%!
Then the DOE chimes in, with a wireless charging system that is 90% efficient.
Plugless power, is getting 84-90%

The quoted official, Momentum Dynamics, it might be important to note that they've been targeting bus charging - 200kW. So, if the technology scales well, that could be part of their claiming high efficiency.

What's up with wireless EV charging - has an interesting writeup of what's going on under the hood. Though it mostly focuses on the cost, which can be cheaper for wireless? Interesting.

One reason f

in white supremacist rhetoric and memes, whether he realizes it or not. And the Southern Strategy has been used consistently to get white voters to vote against their own best interests as well as mine. These sort of petty race politics are how the ruling class divide us and get us fighting among ourselves while they take all the good stuff for themselves.

On the plus side Bernie Sanders has been calling this out in his rallies as part of a broader call for working class unity. I'd like to see more politicians doing that. I'm so sick of watching angry white men get taken advantage of while also being dragged down with them.

1. Find all the parts that make a computer.
2. Find the code to make all the parts that make a computer work with ARM.
3. Test the ARM OS and ARM ready computer parts.
4. Find a factory that makes the needed temperature tolerant enclosure.

Heat will need to be moved. A fan might become more of a problem over time/the ability to cool.

Look at people in the USA who make trail cameras/remote camera https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... .
Why? They know of all weather US conditions.
Software and hardware works.
Add power and backup networking as needed.
Talk to them about heat long term.

Made in the USA. Jobs for the USA.

Why don't all colleges provide free education, but in return, your wages are garnished for a period at a set percent?

Some colleges do offer these plans. There are also lenders that offer them.

Income Sharing Agreements

They have a mixed track record.

A big problem is that the students with the most earning potential (engineering, CS, MBA) are not stupid, and are the least likely to sign up. So the ISA programs are stuck with the liberal arts dregs who have little more earning potential than a high school graduate. So they end up with high default rates.

Instead of focusing on "How to fund college?" we should focus on "Why does college cost so much?" The cost of college has far exceeded inflation for decades, with no measurable increase in quality of outcomes.