+1. My old Nokia broke 3 months ago, and there's basically no cheap durable dumbphone à la Nokia anymore on the market. So I've bought my first smartphone, a 2nd hand Moto G 1st Gen. It does everything I need and much more, and it would be like an upgrade to an iPhone 12 for someone already used to modern smartphones. Obligatory relatex XKCD : https://xkcd.com/606/
Plus, with the current grid system and the rise of intermittent renewable energy sources, any cheap and scalable way of producing efficient batteries would make you the richest man on Earth in a short period of time. The barriers towards this goal seem to be physical, not just technological.
Later regular, old fashion, tungsten bulbs reappeared but were no longer called light bulbs, but rather heating elements.
What a coincidence! Cars are actually very efficient heating devices. It's easy to heat 5 flats with one average car. If you use a Porsche Cayenne Turbo, you actually can heat a small quarter of well insulated houses.
I took a speed reading course where you run your finger down the middle of the page and was able to read 'War and Peace' in twenty minutes. It's about Russia.
Thermodynamics is basically statistics with huge numbers of particles : it is really important to carefully define (i.e. be pedantic about) every system, process and properties. You can get very wrong results very fast otherwise. So no, "heat transfer" doesn't transfer "heat", but thermal energy. Heat is just the name for thermal energy flowing from one system to another. It stops being heat as soon as it arrives.
You can speak of the heat in an object
You *cannot* speak of the heat in an object. It is mathematically undefined. Heat is a process function, and can only be defined for a process. For a given object, you can speak of temperature, pressure or e.g. internal energy, because they are all state functions, and clearly defined for a given object in a given state.
the heat that could be transferred to another object or to an environment at some reference temperature, perhaps 0
You're probably talking about internal energy, which is a state function. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... As you said, it needs a reference, for example at 0K. It isn't "heat", though.
change in heat
It is, once again, undefined. For a given system during a given process, you can talk about temperature change or change in internal energy.
My understanding of heat is it's the kinetic energy of molecules.
No, that would be temperature. It's defined for a given body, and yes, it's a measure of its average kinetic energy. Heat is thermal energy that is being transferred from one body to another, due to a difference in temperature between those two bodies. It's defined for a given process (e.g. radiation between sun and earth). It's wrong to talk about "the heat of a molecule". Don't worry, you're not the only one confusing heat and temperature, I've known a few physics teachers that were teaching the same mistake. Since you like real life examples : * Putting your thumb on an air pump hole and compressing the air raises the air temperature, without heat being transferred anywhere. The temperature difference is achieved via work alone. * Letting water boil at 100C on your stove will transfer heat to the water, but will not raise its temperature. Heat and temperature are related, but not equal. Usually, transferring heat to a system will raise its temperature, but not always.
I might be an idiot, but you'll have to prove it;) His proof is still flawed. It looks like mathematical induction (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_induction), but it really only is the base case, and there's no inductive step. Let's say that 12407, 12887, 13258, 13794 are the first uninteresting numbers, because they don't have any special property, and for example don't appear in https://oeis.org/. 12407 is the first uninteresting number, so let's agree this property makes it interesting. What about 12887? It's still uninteresting, and it cannot be the first uninteresting number, because then, what would happen to 12407? They cannot be both the first uninteresting numbers, can they? You might consider the second uninteresting number to be interesting, but what about the 13794th uninteresting number?
PS: I suppose this argument cannot be settled, because "interesting/uninteresting" isn't properly defined.
Sorry if I wasn't clear : the allowed emission per capita is just the sum of CO2 sinks divided by world population, which is about 1.7t CO2 per person. It isn't defined by the world average CO2 emissions, but simply by how much the Earth absorbs back every year. No nationality involved! For all the rich countries that don't have a high fertility rate but huge emissions per capita, see my post above concerning the possible solutions : "Smaller cities, less car, less meat, no planes, less useless gadgets that break after 1 year, smaller flats,....".
Good joke, and interesting story. I'm kinda good at maths, but an old pal is a few sigmas better than me. During our (math) studies, teachers realized pretty fast that he was more talented than they were. We were jealous of him, not only because he was *that* good, but also because he could write "That's obvious" 10 times in a row during an exam, skip every question till the very last, write only a few sentences and still get the best grade.
There are no uninteresting numbers. Proof: Assume N is the smallest uninteresting number. That property in itself makes it interesting. Therefore there can be no smallest uninteresting number, so logically uninteresting numbers cannot exist. QED.
Your proof is flawed, because it cannot work recursively. What about the second smallest uninteresting number? Your argument only reduces the set of uninteresting numbers by one, and until proven otherwise, there are an infinity of uninteresting numbers. BTW, 12407 seems to be the smallest uninteresting number http://www.kevinhouston.net/bl..., which, as you mentioned, makes it interesting. The next smallest uninteresting number really is uninteresting, and I don't even know which one it is:)
Oh, shoot, you're right, I "just" inverted China and India:) http://www.manicore.com/anglai... China is already way above the allowed emission per capita (compared to existing CO2 sinks), India is just a the correct level.
You missed the most important, and most difficult to swallow solution: reduce the population.. by a lot.
You're right, sorry about that. It's still a lot easier to make less children than to have to kill your neighbour. Everytime I see ads for a charity sending food to starving children, I have to think it would be much more efficient to just send condoms to men and education books to women.
Slashdot Mirror
200 Swiss Francs? That should be enough for a sandwich and coke, there.
1 year is a *long* time if you want to avoid spoilers on the Internet.
To be fair, I think those points are much more valid when talking about the over-financialization of capitalism.
+1. My old Nokia broke 3 months ago, and there's basically no cheap durable dumbphone à la Nokia anymore on the market.
So I've bought my first smartphone, a 2nd hand Moto G 1st Gen. It does everything I need and much more, and it would be like an upgrade to an iPhone 12 for someone already used to modern smartphones.
Obligatory relatex XKCD : https://xkcd.com/606/
Yeah, right.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Finally, here's the long-awaited technological breakthrough to fight against climate change and peak oil!
Ubuntu server is actually very decent : no unity bullshit.
Linux Mint + MATE is just about perfect for my desktop needs,
Look at those awful diagrams. If Tufte were dead, he'd roll in his grave!
Plus, with the current grid system and the rise of intermittent renewable energy sources, any cheap and scalable way of producing efficient batteries would make you the richest man on Earth in a short period of time.
The barriers towards this goal seem to be physical, not just technological.
What a coincidence! Cars are actually very efficient heating devices.
It's easy to heat 5 flats with one average car. If you use a Porsche Cayenne Turbo, you actually can heat a small quarter of well insulated houses.
Oh yes he is :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I took a speed reading course where you run your finger down the middle of the page and was able to read 'War and Peace' in twenty minutes. It's about Russia.
I'll leave you with your ignorance, then!
PS: Wouldn't you write something if I insisted that browser and OS are the same thing?
Thermodynamics is basically statistics with huge numbers of particles : it is really important to carefully define (i.e. be pedantic about) every system, process and properties. You can get very wrong results very fast otherwise.
So no, "heat transfer" doesn't transfer "heat", but thermal energy. Heat is just the name for thermal energy flowing from one system to another. It stops being heat as soon as it arrives.
You *cannot* speak of the heat in an object. It is mathematically undefined. Heat is a process function, and can only be defined for a process.
For a given object, you can speak of temperature, pressure or e.g. internal energy, because they are all state functions, and clearly defined for a given object in a given state.
You're probably talking about internal energy, which is a state function. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
As you said, it needs a reference, for example at 0K. It isn't "heat", though.
It is, once again, undefined. For a given system during a given process, you can talk about temperature change or change in internal energy.
Yes
NO
Yes.
Dura lex, sed lex!
I think you're describing the same process, but thanks for the clarification!
[Citation needed.]
That sounds wrong, probably because it is wrong.
No, that would be temperature. It's defined for a given body, and yes, it's a measure of its average kinetic energy.
Heat is thermal energy that is being transferred from one body to another, due to a difference in temperature between those two bodies. It's defined for a given process (e.g. radiation between sun and earth). It's wrong to talk about "the heat of a molecule".
Don't worry, you're not the only one confusing heat and temperature, I've known a few physics teachers that were teaching the same mistake.
Since you like real life examples :
* Putting your thumb on an air pump hole and compressing the air raises the air temperature, without heat being transferred anywhere. The temperature difference is achieved via work alone.
* Letting water boil at 100C on your stove will transfer heat to the water, but will not raise its temperature.
Heat and temperature are related, but not equal. Usually, transferring heat to a system will raise its temperature, but not always.
I might be an idiot, but you'll have to prove it ;)
His proof is still flawed. It looks like mathematical induction (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_induction), but it really only is the base case, and there's no inductive step.
Let's say that 12407, 12887, 13258, 13794 are the first uninteresting numbers, because they don't have any special property, and for example don't appear in https://oeis.org/.
12407 is the first uninteresting number, so let's agree this property makes it interesting. What about 12887? It's still uninteresting, and it cannot be the first uninteresting number, because then, what would happen to 12407? They cannot be both the first uninteresting numbers, can they? You might consider the second uninteresting number to be interesting, but what about the 13794th uninteresting number?
PS: I suppose this argument cannot be settled, because "interesting/uninteresting" isn't properly defined.
Sorry if I wasn't clear : the allowed emission per capita is just the sum of CO2 sinks divided by world population, which is about 1.7t CO2 per person. ....".
It isn't defined by the world average CO2 emissions, but simply by how much the Earth absorbs back every year.
No nationality involved!
For all the rich countries that don't have a high fertility rate but huge emissions per capita, see my post above concerning the possible solutions : "Smaller cities, less car, less meat, no planes, less useless gadgets that break after 1 year, smaller flats,
Good joke, and interesting story.
I'm kinda good at maths, but an old pal is a few sigmas better than me. During our (math) studies, teachers realized pretty fast that he was more talented than they were. We were jealous of him, not only because he was *that* good, but also because he could write "That's obvious" 10 times in a row during an exam, skip every question till the very last, write only a few sentences and still get the best grade.
Your proof is flawed, because it cannot work recursively. What about the second smallest uninteresting number? Your argument only reduces the set of uninteresting numbers by one, and until proven otherwise, there are an infinity of uninteresting numbers. :)
BTW, 12407 seems to be the smallest uninteresting number http://www.kevinhouston.net/bl..., which, as you mentioned, makes it interesting. The next smallest uninteresting number really is uninteresting, and I don't even know which one it is
and /. summaries!
Oh, shoot, you're right, I "just" inverted China and India :)
http://www.manicore.com/anglai...
China is already way above the allowed emission per capita (compared to existing CO2 sinks), India is just a the correct level.
Almost every country has a problem : either too much CO2 per capita or too many people.
India actually has both problems.
You're right, sorry about that. It's still a lot easier to make less children than to have to kill your neighbour.
Everytime I see ads for a charity sending food to starving children, I have to think it would be much more efficient to just send condoms to men and education books to women.