Go for Ting or one of the other MVNOs. $6 per month per device, and pay-as-you-go by separate buckets for voice, text and data. Don't use cellular data? You pay nothing for it. But if you really need to (say) check a weather warning when you're out of WiFi range, the first 100MB in a month will cost you $3. If you go back to zero usage the next month, you get charged zero for data the next month.
Yes, you have to pay for your phone up front. There are several low-end or older-gen smartphones for $120 or less. If you're going to be picky about what's "decent" under a limited budget, well, you get what you pay for -- or, under the traditional pay-over-a-two-year-contract "cheap phone" arrangement, much less than you pay for.
Density of liquid hydrogen = 70.8kg/m^3 = 0.0708kg/l
Density of gaseous hydrogen = a whole lot less than liquid hydrogen at any achievable pressure. I think getting to 0.35kg/l would require something like 7000 atmospheres.
So, what do they plan on putting in that 4.347-liter tank that holds 1.5kg of hydrogen? Room-temperature superconducting liquid hydrogen metal? If so, I hope they publish some papers on how they stabilize it. Or maybe they've found a way to make a cubic meter of diamond with a 5-liter void in the middle...
I got a Crucial 960GB SSD for $270 at Newegg last April. Sub-$300 for around a TB was the price point I was waiting for. I'm a bit surprised I haven't seen much better since.
One question, though. Did you really mean to talk about "archaic species" if they were close enough to interbreed and re-merge? I understand that there are lots of subtleties, but the concept of species as lines distinct enough not to interbreed was drilled into us pretty heavily at school...
At least, it was for a six-year-old kid. It fell victim to the "maybe we shouldn't have kids handling 400-degree hot molds" mindset, with an added dose of "maybe all those volatile organic fumes aren't the greatest thing for your kid to be huffing".
If they genuinely wanted a good customer experience, they would do the same as with the cars: one battery fits all a new one fits the model you bought 10 years ago.
10 years ago, I had an analog cell phone. (Analog service wasn't discontinued in the US until around 2008.) All my TVs tuned in analog signals, too.
You may have a good point, but the car analogy ruins it. The pace of change in consumer electronics is unlike anything else in history, and it's not just companies trying to get more of your money (although, of course, that's what most companies always want).
I don't really care that my new smartphone won't seat into the cups of my 300-baud acoustic coupler modem. Backward compatibility isn't everything.
By the way, BeauHD, as part of your introduction to SlashDot editing, let's turn our attention to what happens when you paste smart-quotes into a system that's still using 20th-century character-handling logic.
The Cliff's Notes version: (1) Don't paste smart-quotes. (2) Read over the submission before approving it, to make sure you didn't let some through by accident.
...except, of course, about quantum interactions ("God does not play at dice" and "spooky action at a distance"). Or the unified field theory that he spent the last decades of his life chasing unsuccessfully.
You don't have to be right every time to be a scientific giant.
I'm sorry, what "personal anecdote" are you referring to? I've tracked all the way back to the root of this subthread, AND read the summary AND the article, and I can't tell what you mean.
Meh. Aldi stores around here do that if you try to pay with a credit card or check. They have a large sign in the entrance saying that they don't accept those payment methods, but it doesn't stop people from trying. And the constant, low-volume stream of abandoned carts isn't enough to make them change the policy.
Of course, as you say, there are good reasons for a store to prefer cash. My point is that when stores restrict the forms of payment they accept, it upsets some potential customers, but that may not be enough to have a significant impact on their profits.
If you were right, nobody's household would need greater than 100-amp or so (240v) service, and that hasn't been true for ages.
In my house, if the heating system (heat-pump based) activates its backup electric strip heaters, it can draw 10kW all by itself.
If I turn on the oven and all my stovetop burners, that's another 10kW.
We replaced our electric water heater (3-6kW) and clothes dryer (~5kW) with gas units; had we not done so, going over 25kW would have been easy. As it is, we're unlikely to exceed that mark, but it's quite achievable (1.3kW microwave, 1.3kW toaster oven, 1.5kW hair dryer, 1kW vacuum cleaner, maybe 1kW of electric lights, and that's not even starting to consider computers, dishwasher, fridge, hobby equipment...)
This is a pretty cool concept, but I'm having some trouble convincing myself that nanoscopic swimming platinum/graphene tubes are really THAT much more effective than just, um, agitating the sample with the fluorescent agent?
FWIW, I just installed it without incident on an instance of 10.6.8. That's pretty far back, and the site indicates there's at least some chance it'll work on even older releases.
I don't think N. Korea can miniaturize their bombs to that degree. It's probably about 10 tons and bomb-looking as hell.
If that's so, it seems to support GP's point. 10 tons is greater than the throw weight of the largest ICBM in history (8800 kg). The Taepodong-2 vehicle's payload capacity at maximum range (which would only reach the western US, btw) is estimated to be 500 kg or less.
If they want to launch it at us, they've pretty much got to get it small enough to fit in a car.
Disclaimer: this is not my field. I'm probably missing a lot of things.
Maybe. It's possible that some rats are more predisposed to see this particular brain benefit, or it could be that some rats are more predisposed to receive benefits in general from aerobic exercise.
We all hear the litany of reasons for aerobic exercise -- cardiovascular benefits, mental health, insulin response, and so on. The statistical association is overwhelming. But we also all know people who don't exercise and still score well on these factors, as well as people who do exercise and still fall victim to them.
So, which is it here? Are some rats predisposed to see brain benefits, or are some predisposed to see exercise benefits in general? This being biology, I assume the answer is "yes" (both), but I wonder.
That's a brilliant piece of similar-triangles analysis, but it begs a couple of questions.
It assumes an airplane directly approaching the telescope at a distance of 1.6km. Otherwise, those "huge headlights" wouldn't be pointing at you, and the plane would be through your visual field in a small fraction of a second. How often will this happen?
It assumes a telescope directly pointing at the approaching airplane. How often will you be observing something low enough to the horizon to make this possible, never mind in the precise direction from which the airplane is approaching?
Please, though, go ahead and provide some references to vision hazards associated with pointing large telescopes at anything other than the Sun or a laser emitter. I haven't come across any in the past, I didn't turn up any with a couple of quick Google searches, and I don't think you'll find any professional or advanced amateur astronomers who agree with you.
Think about the distance to an airplane in flight. Next, think about the area of the sphere with that radius, and how little of that area even a giant telescope's mirror will intercept. You're not going to be blinded. You might be surprised, and you might lose your dark adaptation, but you're not going to be blinded.
Now, think about the area subtended by the telescope's field of view -- in the example above, a circle perhaps one minute of arc in diameter. What are the odds that a bright meteor will pass through that area during an observing session, slowly enough to linger long enough to cause damage? Pretty darn tiny. (Your odds may actually be worse if you aren't using the telescope, because then you're more vulnerable to a really bright meteor crossing your wide native field of view.)
The "real reason" eyepieces are rarely fitted to huge telescopes is because it's wasteful. The human eye is much less sensitive than the instruments normally fitted to such a telescope, and it doesn't record its perceptions for later analysis. Demand for real scientific observations from a large telescope always exceeds available time, so nobody wants to waste the machine's capability for some momentary sensual gratification.
As for safety, until planes are outfitted with multi-watt lasers specifically targeting telescope facilities, or until we're ambushed by a dense swarm of very bright meteors again targeting telescopes (so their apparent motion is slow enough to make them linger in a tiny field of view), our visual observers are pretty darn safe.
Besides, you only look through the eyepiece with one eye at a time, so you'll have a spare...
Slashdot Mirror
Go for Ting or one of the other MVNOs. $6 per month per device, and pay-as-you-go by separate buckets for voice, text and data. Don't use cellular data? You pay nothing for it. But if you really need to (say) check a weather warning when you're out of WiFi range, the first 100MB in a month will cost you $3. If you go back to zero usage the next month, you get charged zero for data the next month.
Yes, you have to pay for your phone up front. There are several low-end or older-gen smartphones for $120 or less. If you're going to be picky about what's "decent" under a limited budget, well, you get what you pay for -- or, under the traditional pay-over-a-two-year-contract "cheap phone" arrangement, much less than you pay for.
0.9L per 100km
483 km range
1.5kg tank
483km/100km * 0.9L = 4.347L
1.5kg/4.347L = 0.345kg/l
Density of liquid hydrogen = 70.8kg/m^3 = 0.0708kg/l
Density of gaseous hydrogen = a whole lot less than liquid hydrogen at any achievable pressure. I think getting to 0.35kg/l would require something like 7000 atmospheres.
So, what do they plan on putting in that 4.347-liter tank that holds 1.5kg of hydrogen? Room-temperature superconducting liquid hydrogen metal? If so, I hope they publish some papers on how they stabilize it. Or maybe they've found a way to make a cubic meter of diamond with a 5-liter void in the middle...
I got a Crucial 960GB SSD for $270 at Newegg last April. Sub-$300 for around a TB was the price point I was waiting for. I'm a bit surprised I haven't seen much better since.
It's useless as a crappy substitute for an RSS feeder, or to find out what Justin Bieber is thinking.
Well, there it is, my New Thing for today: a reason to consider getting on Twitter.
I wish I had mod points for this.
One question, though. Did you really mean to talk about "archaic species" if they were close enough to interbreed and re-merge? I understand that there are lots of subtleties, but the concept of species as lines distinct enough not to interbreed was drilled into us pretty heavily at school...
At least, it was for a six-year-old kid. It fell victim to the "maybe we shouldn't have kids handling 400-degree hot molds" mindset, with an added dose of "maybe all those volatile organic fumes aren't the greatest thing for your kid to be huffing".
Let's hope the new one is worth of the name.
If they genuinely wanted a good customer experience, they would do the same as with the cars: one battery fits all a new one fits the model you bought 10 years ago.
10 years ago, I had an analog cell phone. (Analog service wasn't discontinued in the US until around 2008.) All my TVs tuned in analog signals, too.
You may have a good point, but the car analogy ruins it. The pace of change in consumer electronics is unlike anything else in history, and it's not just companies trying to get more of your money (although, of course, that's what most companies always want).
I don't really care that my new smartphone won't seat into the cups of my 300-baud acoustic coupler modem. Backward compatibility isn't everything.
After all, it's not as though reproduction has ever had any influence on your life, right?
By the way, BeauHD, as part of your introduction to SlashDot editing, let's turn our attention to what happens when you paste smart-quotes into a system that's still using 20th-century character-handling logic.
The Cliff's Notes version: (1) Don't paste smart-quotes. (2) Read over the submission before approving it, to make sure you didn't let some through by accident.
Okay, that's actually not what TFA is saying. But I'm sure it will trigger some productive discussion here.
...except, of course, about quantum interactions ("God does not play at dice" and "spooky action at a distance"). Or the unified field theory that he spent the last decades of his life chasing unsuccessfully.
You don't have to be right every time to be a scientific giant.
I know "robust against pathological clock-frobbing" was the main factor that drove me to choose Android.
I'm sorry, what "personal anecdote" are you referring to? I've tracked all the way back to the root of this subthread, AND read the summary AND the article, and I can't tell what you mean.
Meh. Aldi stores around here do that if you try to pay with a credit card or check. They have a large sign in the entrance saying that they don't accept those payment methods, but it doesn't stop people from trying. And the constant, low-volume stream of abandoned carts isn't enough to make them change the policy.
Of course, as you say, there are good reasons for a store to prefer cash. My point is that when stores restrict the forms of payment they accept, it upsets some potential customers, but that may not be enough to have a significant impact on their profits.
If you were right, nobody's household would need greater than 100-amp or so (240v) service, and that hasn't been true for ages.
In my house, if the heating system (heat-pump based) activates its backup electric strip heaters, it can draw 10kW all by itself.
If I turn on the oven and all my stovetop burners, that's another 10kW.
We replaced our electric water heater (3-6kW) and clothes dryer (~5kW) with gas units; had we not done so, going over 25kW would have been easy. As it is, we're unlikely to exceed that mark, but it's quite achievable (1.3kW microwave, 1.3kW toaster oven, 1.5kW hair dryer, 1kW vacuum cleaner, maybe 1kW of electric lights, and that's not even starting to consider computers, dishwasher, fridge, hobby equipment...)
This is a pretty cool concept, but I'm having some trouble convincing myself that nanoscopic swimming platinum/graphene tubes are really THAT much more effective than just, um, agitating the sample with the fluorescent agent?
Truth in advertising?
FWIW, I just installed it without incident on an instance of 10.6.8. That's pretty far back, and the site indicates there's at least some chance it'll work on even older releases.
It remains to be seen what this will do for the future of MySpace
The what, now?
I don't think N. Korea can miniaturize their bombs to that degree. It's probably about 10 tons and bomb-looking as hell.
If that's so, it seems to support GP's point. 10 tons is greater than the throw weight of the largest ICBM in history (8800 kg). The Taepodong-2 vehicle's payload capacity at maximum range (which would only reach the western US, btw) is estimated to be 500 kg or less.
If they want to launch it at us, they've pretty much got to get it small enough to fit in a car.
Disclaimer: this is not my field. I'm probably missing a lot of things.
Maybe. It's possible that some rats are more predisposed to see this particular brain benefit, or it could be that some rats are more predisposed to receive benefits in general from aerobic exercise.
We all hear the litany of reasons for aerobic exercise -- cardiovascular benefits, mental health, insulin response, and so on. The statistical association is overwhelming. But we also all know people who don't exercise and still score well on these factors, as well as people who do exercise and still fall victim to them.
So, which is it here? Are some rats predisposed to see brain benefits, or are some predisposed to see exercise benefits in general? This being biology, I assume the answer is "yes" (both), but I wonder.
So I guess there's no reason to spend any more money on microbiology or antibiotics research.
Um, cows?
That's a brilliant piece of similar-triangles analysis, but it begs a couple of questions.
It assumes an airplane directly approaching the telescope at a distance of 1.6km. Otherwise, those "huge headlights" wouldn't be pointing at you, and the plane would be through your visual field in a small fraction of a second. How often will this happen?
It assumes a telescope directly pointing at the approaching airplane. How often will you be observing something low enough to the horizon to make this possible, never mind in the precise direction from which the airplane is approaching?
Please, though, go ahead and provide some references to vision hazards associated with pointing large telescopes at anything other than the Sun or a laser emitter. I haven't come across any in the past, I didn't turn up any with a couple of quick Google searches, and I don't think you'll find any professional or advanced amateur astronomers who agree with you.
No. No, they won't.
Think about the distance to an airplane in flight. Next, think about the area of the sphere with that radius, and how little of that area even a giant telescope's mirror will intercept. You're not going to be blinded. You might be surprised, and you might lose your dark adaptation, but you're not going to be blinded.
Now, think about the area subtended by the telescope's field of view -- in the example above, a circle perhaps one minute of arc in diameter. What are the odds that a bright meteor will pass through that area during an observing session, slowly enough to linger long enough to cause damage? Pretty darn tiny. (Your odds may actually be worse if you aren't using the telescope, because then you're more vulnerable to a really bright meteor crossing your wide native field of view.)
The "real reason" eyepieces are rarely fitted to huge telescopes is because it's wasteful. The human eye is much less sensitive than the instruments normally fitted to such a telescope, and it doesn't record its perceptions for later analysis. Demand for real scientific observations from a large telescope always exceeds available time, so nobody wants to waste the machine's capability for some momentary sensual gratification.
As for safety, until planes are outfitted with multi-watt lasers specifically targeting telescope facilities, or until we're ambushed by a dense swarm of very bright meteors again targeting telescopes (so their apparent motion is slow enough to make them linger in a tiny field of view), our visual observers are pretty darn safe.
Besides, you only look through the eyepiece with one eye at a time, so you'll have a spare...