There's an app for that!
Seriously though, lithium polymer batteries *can't* explode since they have no metal canister to hold the outgassing pressure. They simply 'vent with flame'.
What you say is very misleading. While that is true on a proton basis, you are neglecting the 115 billion protons per packet, with 2808 packets per beam. This puts your calculation off by 15 orders of magnitude. Unless your finger can flick a typical scobie up to mach 2.
Perhaps it tumbled into position and the crater(s) are some distance away. It looks highly unusual as it is sitting too high up above the surface indicating that it was not deposited along with the rest of the material which *guessing* is why they were able to identify it as a possible meteorite from such a far away distance. Besides the color presumably not matching the surrounding material.
I am not a GW denier, but what really chaps my hide is the lack of understanding of the problem and the certanity of people to act now but without a realistic understanding of the consequences of action.
The cost of global warming, in my estimate, is past the quintillion dollar mark because it will adversely affect the entire economy of the planet for hundreds - to thousands (perhaps) of years to come. The cost of just acting without knowing what is real and what is just wish thinking on the part of people who want to enforce thier will on all under the guise of altruism can be staggering without any real benefit. The real motives usually resolve down to personal bank account totals. Not knowing quite enough science got us into this mess, and it should be sound science that gets us out.
From more than just the above, as far as I have been able to tell, we have spent less money than the womens shoe market in one year on the all time effort of solving a human life ending enviornment problem - does that make sense to anyone???
I think anyone who objectively steps back, realizing that the data so far suggests we need to act now, will realize we need to have that understanding now. I can only conclude that the bulk of the world either dosen't believe its true, dosent care (afterall you will be most likely be dead before it ruins the planet), or are just insane.
"extended play has been observed to depress activity in the frontal cortex of the brain which controls executive thought and function, produces intentionality and the ability to plan sequences of action, and is the seat of self-reflection, discipline and self-control."
From this I can only conclude: Senator you must be one hell of a gamer...
The mercury is in mostly vapor form in the actual flourescent bulb - which is the UV source. You can take the phosphors that have 50 years of engineering behind them and place them on a UV diode (no mercury) and probably get a cheaper, more efficient and longer lasting product.
Considering this is almost exactly how a flourescent bulb works (UV->flourescence->light) I wonder if this is actually cheaper, longer lasting or more efficent in some way, or just a neat bit of science with no future in terms of practical application.
GW research dollars women's shoe market!
on
Sunspots Return
·
· Score: 1
I am not a GW denier, but what really chaps my hide is the lack of understanding of the problem and the certanity of people to act now but without a realistic understanding of the consequences of action.
The cost of global warming, in my estimate, is past the quintillion dollar mark because it will adversely affect the entire economy of the planet for hundreds - to thousands (perhaps) of years to come. The cost of just acting without knowing what is real and what is just wish thinking on the part of ignorant people who want to enforce thier will on all under the guise of altruism can be staggering without any real benefit. Not knowing quite enough science got us into this mess, and it should be sound science that gets us out. The whole albedo posts above just illustrates how important it is to *really* understand the problem so an efficient means of reducing the problem can be found.
I think anyone who objectively steps back, realizing that the data so far suggests we need to act now, will realize we need to have that understanding now. I can only conclude that the bulk of the world either dosen't believe its true, dosent care (afterall you will be most likely be dead before it ruins the planet), or are just insane.
Correct me if I am wrong (or hell this is/. correct me in any case) but I wonder if it hit too close to home to most of thier US audience. It will be nice when people are able to get all of this messy business of imperfect copying and editing proceedures mucking up the details. Not being a scholar, I was a bit suprised to find most (if not all) of the resection references to be missing. But I am sure a small detail like that won't shake anyones faith in what is real...
So, since I am vaugely familiar with the entire digestion process, I think a crucial step is missing here... It needs to be able to remove most of the moisture (BTW I have a seperate liquid venting system idea!) and create nice sausage link shaped compressed pellets with the extra material once the energy is spent.
Not sure how easy it would be to teach the table to flush though...
If they last a month in my laptop, are cheap to replace, and can be conveniently dropped into a recycling bin where I pick up my new batteries, then I don't care so much.
If you consider a standard laptop run time of 3 hours, which is probably on the longer end of an average run time, then 10x the energy density and the same battery size would yield 30 hours. That wouldn't carry the average person a month - and the average slashdotter would probably have only a few days worth of use.
Given 10x energy density it is only fair to say you would need 1 new spare primary battery for each 10 charges of a lithium battery today. For an average laptop lithium battery, 500 charges is not out of the question. How green is it to dispose of 50 batteries when you can recharge a single one? In terms of enviormental impact, everything from the shipping costs of the batteries and materials to make them, plus the recycling costs would be almost two orders of magnidude more.
At this point the challenges are such that its more of a lithium metal vaporware battery.
With the cost of global warming and enviornment change so devistating to the world, it is odd how we spend more on one year of the women's shoe market than all of global warming research ever undertaken - for all time. So much remains to be understood - and the penality for acting without understanding is very high.
Lol, the batteries in the article are 'primary' batteries which are one use then throw away batteries. Last time I checked the market for one use laptop batteries was quite small, but what do I know compared to the overwhelming editorial prowess that we all have come to cherish in slashdot summaries?
FWIW the polyplus website says they are interested in pursuing research on lithium air secondary batteries down the road.
Will this even work for realistic bulb lifetimes if the suface is prone to sputtering? If its just a surface treatment, then any blemish will ruin the nano structures and thus revert the filiment back to standard operation.
So it looks as if we spend more money on the world womens' shoe market in one year than all of global warming research ever done. Guess we have our priorities in order when you consider the cost of global warming is probably not quadrillions but quintillions of dollars (think massive impact to world economy for 1000 years and possible end of market). I like my planets like I like my women!
Really either nobody really believes this threat is real, or the world is massively insane for not trying to understand the problem... You decide.
The free ware version of eagle is not for profit. So do this only if you don't mind stuffing the people at eagle out of some cash.
Eagle has great layout and schematic features, and has a good user interface. It is also one of the cheapest cad software packages for the feature set if you decide that you want to pony up the cash.
I do not understand why more attention is not paid to the free will through complexity argument.
It takes a super computer facility to model a few subatomic particles - and in nowhere near real time. Yet the facility is made up of something on the order of 10^28 particles or more. While you can simply this (the center of mass of the facility for example) the complexity of the universe as time progresses is many orders of magnitude greater than what can be rendered.
Because each particle infulences others, the degree of complexity is truly staggering. Relativity can't help because as you warp time, the rest of the universe ages around you which only compounds the problem. Free will can exist because even if the rules of the universe are knowable, and even if you could determine the 'hidden variables' (though they don't exist) of quantum mechanics, then you would still be forced to swallow calculations or *thoughts* about the universe in simplified terms - never achieving full fidelity of understanding. Thus determinism, as in being able to make predicitions based on past universe states, can never be fully accomplished with full fidelity and thus is not plausable to implement.
Free will is just being able to make choices - and without the requirement of full understanding of where that decision comes from. Thus free will can be fully deterministic - yet at the same time, from the perspective of the thinking entity, be indistinguashable from free.
Slashdot Mirror
Courtesy of Melkor Publishing Inc...
There's an app for that! Seriously though, lithium polymer batteries *can't* explode since they have no metal canister to hold the outgassing pressure. They simply 'vent with flame'.
Next weeks news...
What you say is very misleading. While that is true on a proton basis, you are neglecting the 115 billion protons per packet, with 2808 packets per beam. This puts your calculation off by 15 orders of magnitude. Unless your finger can flick a typical scobie up to mach 2.
Perhaps it tumbled into position and the crater(s) are some distance away. It looks highly unusual as it is sitting too high up above the surface indicating that it was not deposited along with the rest of the material which *guessing* is why they were able to identify it as a possible meteorite from such a far away distance. Besides the color presumably not matching the surrounding material.
Nuff' said.
Just because you have a low uid dosen't mean that you actually read/post to slashdot and obviously i'm to lazy to check your profile!
Anyhows I was commenting more on the second part of the article. A press secretary should have known better.
Nobody RTFA. Obviously you must be new here.
Why not post those pictures - afterall she's probably 18.
Or the top 10 reasons my boss is an asshole.
Hello people - it's called social networking for a reason.
And I got a nasty rash just reading the summary.
The cost of global warming, in my estimate, is past the quintillion dollar mark because it will adversely affect the entire economy of the planet for hundreds - to thousands (perhaps) of years to come. The cost of just acting without knowing what is real and what is just wish thinking on the part of people who want to enforce thier will on all under the guise of altruism can be staggering without any real benefit. The real motives usually resolve down to personal bank account totals. Not knowing quite enough science got us into this mess, and it should be sound science that gets us out.
That being said, Obama's plan for global warming research dollars is 400 million in 2009 http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjcyODIyZGM2MGU1ZDdkNDgxZDc3OTNjYjM4ZDY1ODI= whereas the womens shoe market in 1996 is 37 billion dollars: http://www.packagedfacts.com/sitemap/product.asp?productid=130270
From more than just the above, as far as I have been able to tell, we have spent less money than the womens shoe market in one year on the all time effort of solving a human life ending enviornment problem - does that make sense to anyone???
I think anyone who objectively steps back, realizing that the data so far suggests we need to act now, will realize we need to have that understanding now. I can only conclude that the bulk of the world either dosen't believe its true, dosent care (afterall you will be most likely be dead before it ruins the planet), or are just insane.
From this I can only conclude: Senator you must be one hell of a gamer...
Why do you have to post such rye comments? Sheesh.. I guess that's what I get on slashdot for not using spell check.
The mercury is in mostly vapor form in the actual flourescent bulb - which is the UV source. You can take the phosphors that have 50 years of engineering behind them and place them on a UV diode (no mercury) and probably get a cheaper, more efficient and longer lasting product.
Considering this is almost exactly how a flourescent bulb works (UV->flourescence->light) I wonder if this is actually cheaper, longer lasting or more efficent in some way, or just a neat bit of science with no future in terms of practical application.
The cost of global warming, in my estimate, is past the quintillion dollar mark because it will adversely affect the entire economy of the planet for hundreds - to thousands (perhaps) of years to come. The cost of just acting without knowing what is real and what is just wish thinking on the part of ignorant people who want to enforce thier will on all under the guise of altruism can be staggering without any real benefit. Not knowing quite enough science got us into this mess, and it should be sound science that gets us out. The whole albedo posts above just illustrates how important it is to *really* understand the problem so an efficient means of reducing the problem can be found.
That being said, Obama's plan for global warming research dollars is 400 million in 2009 http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjcyODIyZGM2MGU1ZDdkNDgxZDc3OTNjYjM4ZDY1ODI= whereas the womens shoe market in 1996 is 37 billion dollars: http://www.packagedfacts.com/sitemap/product.asp?productid=130270 As far as I have been able to tell, we have spent less money than the womens shoe market in one year on the all time effort of solving a human life ending enviornment problem - does that make sense to anyone???
I think anyone who objectively steps back, realizing that the data so far suggests we need to act now, will realize we need to have that understanding now. I can only conclude that the bulk of the world either dosen't believe its true, dosent care (afterall you will be most likely be dead before it ruins the planet), or are just insane.
Unless I am totally high, I remember the CNN article to have wording almost identical to this source when orginally posted:
http://www.bilalaliproductions.com/religion/oldest-known-bible-goes-online/
Correct me if I am wrong (or hell this is /. correct me in any case) but I wonder if it hit too close to home to most of thier US audience. It will be nice when people are able to get all of this messy business of imperfect copying and editing proceedures mucking up the details. Not being a scholar, I was a bit suprised to find most (if not all) of the resection references to be missing. But I am sure a small detail like that won't shake anyones faith in what is real...
Not sure how easy it would be to teach the table to flush though...
If they last a month in my laptop, are cheap to replace, and can be conveniently dropped into a recycling bin where I pick up my new batteries, then I don't care so much.
If you consider a standard laptop run time of 3 hours, which is probably on the longer end of an average run time, then 10x the energy density and the same battery size would yield 30 hours. That wouldn't carry the average person a month - and the average slashdotter would probably have only a few days worth of use.
Given 10x energy density it is only fair to say you would need 1 new spare primary battery for each 10 charges of a lithium battery today. For an average laptop lithium battery, 500 charges is not out of the question. How green is it to dispose of 50 batteries when you can recharge a single one? In terms of enviormental impact, everything from the shipping costs of the batteries and materials to make them, plus the recycling costs would be almost two orders of magnidude more.
At this point the challenges are such that its more of a lithium metal vaporware battery.
With the cost of global warming and enviornment change so devistating to the world, it is odd how we spend more on one year of the women's shoe market than all of global warming research ever undertaken - for all time. So much remains to be understood - and the penality for acting without understanding is very high.
Lol, the batteries in the article are 'primary' batteries which are one use then throw away batteries. Last time I checked the market for one use laptop batteries was quite small, but what do I know compared to the overwhelming editorial prowess that we all have come to cherish in slashdot summaries? FWIW the polyplus website says they are interested in pursuing research on lithium air secondary batteries down the road.
Will this even work for realistic bulb lifetimes if the suface is prone to sputtering? If its just a surface treatment, then any blemish will ruin the nano structures and thus revert the filiment back to standard operation.
The trivial solution would be a cavity filled with water same shape and size as the submarine, at the same position as the submarine.
Sure, as long as you assume the chicken is speherical and in a vaccuum - it could work!
Obama's plan for global warming research dollars is 400 million in 2009 http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjcyODIyZGM2MGU1ZDdkNDgxZDc3OTNjYjM4ZDY1ODI=
Size of the market for women's shoes in 1996 is 37 billion dollars: http://www.packagedfacts.com/sitemap/product.asp?productid=130270
So it looks as if we spend more money on the world womens' shoe market in one year than all of global warming research ever done. Guess we have our priorities in order when you consider the cost of global warming is probably not quadrillions but quintillions of dollars (think massive impact to world economy for 1000 years and possible end of market). I like my planets like I like my women!
Really either nobody really believes this threat is real, or the world is massively insane for not trying to understand the problem... You decide.
The free ware version of eagle is not for profit. So do this only if you don't mind stuffing the people at eagle out of some cash. Eagle has great layout and schematic features, and has a good user interface. It is also one of the cheapest cad software packages for the feature set if you decide that you want to pony up the cash.
It takes a super computer facility to model a few subatomic particles - and in nowhere near real time. Yet the facility is made up of something on the order of 10^28 particles or more. While you can simply this (the center of mass of the facility for example) the complexity of the universe as time progresses is many orders of magnitude greater than what can be rendered.
Because each particle infulences others, the degree of complexity is truly staggering. Relativity can't help because as you warp time, the rest of the universe ages around you which only compounds the problem. Free will can exist because even if the rules of the universe are knowable, and even if you could determine the 'hidden variables' (though they don't exist) of quantum mechanics, then you would still be forced to swallow calculations or *thoughts* about the universe in simplified terms - never achieving full fidelity of understanding. Thus determinism, as in being able to make predicitions based on past universe states, can never be fully accomplished with full fidelity and thus is not plausable to implement.
Free will is just being able to make choices - and without the requirement of full understanding of where that decision comes from. Thus free will can be fully deterministic - yet at the same time, from the perspective of the thinking entity, be indistinguashable from free.