Well, it's correct for old jet engines, but the newer models are so fine-tuned to their specific fuel that they need a fair bit of tweaking before then can run anything else without having a significantly reduced power output and life span.
Well, they just proved that you cannot observe a photon going faster than light. Maybe photons just slow down to light speed when observed? Imagine someone setting up an experiment to "prove" that photons can only take a single path, and cannot go through two slits at the same time, by observing them and then saying "see, every single one of them went through one of the two slits!". I know I'm oversimplifying and misrepresenting things, it's just a thought.
In quantum mechanics, lots of things that seem to be obviously impossible turn out to be possible after all. Particles can tunnel through energy barriers, etc. In some theories of quantum mechanics, there was a possibility for individual photons to travel faster than light. A bit like tunneling, they should not be able to do it but they do it anyway. They would only be able to do it over very short distances, and in an unpredictable way, so this could not be used to transfer information. Any observable collection of photons in an actual experiment would still obey the law.
So anyway, it seems that that theory has been rendered less likely now.
Possession was declared a crime because it destroys the market for CP. Otherwise, you could download (buy) as much CP as you liked and, if you got caught, just go "I did not make it, so I'm not to blame". Now most people will stay away from these sites since just having those pics in you browser cache could be enough to send you to jail. If nobody buys CP anymore, it destroys the incentive for people to create it.
Of course some degree of common sense must be applied. For example, I once stumbled upon a child porn picture when browsing 4chan (after hearing outrage about some ISP blocking 4chan, just checking what all the fuss was about). In some places I technically could have been arrested for that, and put in jail if any trace of that unwanted image was left in some obscure cache location on my hard drive.
Also, I think people went a little bit overboard when arresting people for a cartoon featuring Bart and Lisa Simpson having sex. That's just ridiculous.
My question whas rhetorical. Of course you do get convection loops, but in general, on average, air does *not* go up just because the air above it is colder. In fact, the chimney effect has nothing to do with different temperatures at different heights, only with the fact that the hot air inside the chimney is less dense and therefore would require less pressure difference between bottom and top to support its weight. The pressure difference is imposed by the atmosphere, and will make the hot air rise. The excess pressure difference, and therefore the available power, is roughly proportional to the height of the chimney.
Indeed, I finally figured it out too. The effect has nothing to do with the air being colder at the top (bad article), only with the fact that the density of the air inside the chimney is lower, which results in a lower pressure gradient required to support its weight. The excess differential pressure imposed by the outside atmosphere, and therefore the available power, would be roughly proportional to the length of the chimney.
Things do get a bit more complicated when you add turbines at the bottom, since a turbine will reduce both the pressure and temperature of the air passing through it, but I imagine it works out fine anyway since the density does not change (much). I'm too lazy to work out the details, I imagine the designers have put enough thought into it.
Yes, but if that was all there was to it, a short chimney would be sufficient. The air is 50 degrees hotter than ambient at ground level, so it rises. This will happen no matter whether it's a short chimney or a long one. So what's the advantage of the tall chimney? The air is cooler around the top of a tall chimney, of course, but the air rising up through the chimney will cool as well. Would the temperature difference at the top of a tall chimney be greater than at the top of a short one?
As for the night problem, I know there will still be enough heat to cause air to rise, but will the tall chimney still be an advantage when there's a temperature inversion? I would expect the tall chimney to actually reduce efficiency in that case. The outside air at the height of the tower may well be warmer than the outside air at ground level.
I love how simplistic the article is when it comes to cold air at the top of the chimney etc. A tall chimney works better because air is colder at altitude? In that case, why doesn't all air rise all the time, leaving a vacuum on the ground? Oh, wait a minute, rising air cools while it's rising... So much for that theory about how the chimney works, then.
I'm sure there's a much better explanation, for example (I'm guessing) that the temperature gradient above the desert during the day is stronger than the cooling gradient of rising air. Or something like that, I'm actually curious. Oh, and how does that chimney work when there's a temperature inversion at night and in the early morning? I'm not saying the designers haven't thought of that, just that the article is a bit oversimplified as usual.
11 years if the construction price is according to plan. Which means about 44 years for the actual construction price once it's finished. If the output is according to plan, of course. Oh well, it's their money, it's good for the planet, and it's cool (OK, hot), so let them go right ahead!
Yes, but the hard part is taking a state. That requires a majority/plurality/whatever in that state. That's precisely what I think a third party cannot achieve.
I live in a country where the parliament consists of 12 different parties. I typically vote for more conservative, right wing parties, but even those would probably be considered libertarian or even socialist in the US.
That's very nice, but you'll need a huge number of votes to make any difference whatsoever. Even 30% would not be nearly enough. It's just the way your electoral system works. If you think you can realistically approach 40% or so, by all means go for it. Otherwise, maybe think twice.
More likely to have voted democrat if the big two had been the only options.
Besides which, allowing the mildly greater of two evils in while you try and actually change something, that seems like a good idea to me.
Good luck with that. By all means get the movement going, but don't actually participate in the elections just yet. Maybe if the movement gathered enough steam, you could push for a more honest election system. Until then, you're basically guaranteeing republican rule for decades to come if you do participate.
What if enough vote for a third party that other folks take notice, and then a few more, a few more, and eventually in a two or three more election cycles it's possible that a third party could mount a decent challenge?
The republicans would like nothing better than the situation where all former democratic votes would be split up fifty-fifty between democrats the third party. Of course they might lose a few too, but as long as they lose less than the democrats, they're basically sure of winning.
And the whole "take away votes" thing is a fallacy that assumes you are just deviating from the 'proper' behaviour in voting third party.
This is not about being "proper", it's about the objective result of your action. Basically you're saying "I voted for the right party, along with many thousands of others, so who cares if the worst one won as a direct result, I did the right thing". You are achieving the opposite of what you want, but at least you feel good about it. Not that any republicans will care about your "signal", they will just happily take power and do as they please.
It's not the effort that's disgusting, it's the perverse result that will inevitably happen. People voting for a liberal thinking internet party are more likely to be democrats, ergo the republicans will win the election. Sad but true.
And what exactly dd those few percentage points achieve in the American winner takes all system? All you managed to do, was take away votes for the major party that you would otherwise have voted for if only those two existed. So basically, you might as well have voted for the other major party that you want least.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for third parties, more choice, better ideas, etc... But in a system where the local winners are the only ones that count to the grand total, you are better off voting for the least of two evils rather than helping the other by voting for the third.
I disagree. Third parties have played a huge role in several elections in the past. By stealing votes from the democrats and thereby handing the victory to the republicans. Some might even say it was intentional.
quick answer: the firmware updates should be administered by physical port access by an in-store support clerk using a small handheld device that is in no way connected to the internet or any network. (10 second idea, and maybe even a good one!)
So whenever a bug in the firmware is discovered (batteries wearing out quicker than normal, overheating, etc), instead of pushing a firmware update over the internet, Apple should require all users to physically take their computers to an Apple store and wait in line or, worse, leave their computer behind for a few days?
If I remember correctly, blimps are not allowed to overfly Egypt. Something to do with the Hindenburg, probably. You never know, with all that explosive helium...
It might be that it was some other country (countries) over in that region, but I think it was Egypt. Someone I know was doing a cross country trip in a blimp and had to make a huge detour.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe the circuits were printed with green coloured ink?
Well, it's correct for old jet engines, but the newer models are so fine-tuned to their specific fuel that they need a fair bit of tweaking before then can run anything else without having a significantly reduced power output and life span.
But... they showed this beautiful model! You know, made on a computer! Shiny and everything! So this thing must be basically finished, right?
So what do you suggest then? Legalising child pornography?
Well, they just proved that you cannot observe a photon going faster than light. Maybe photons just slow down to light speed when observed? Imagine someone setting up an experiment to "prove" that photons can only take a single path, and cannot go through two slits at the same time, by observing them and then saying "see, every single one of them went through one of the two slits!". I know I'm oversimplifying and misrepresenting things, it's just a thought.
That's just because the Sun hacked your cell phone.
In quantum mechanics, lots of things that seem to be obviously impossible turn out to be possible after all. Particles can tunnel through energy barriers, etc. In some theories of quantum mechanics, there was a possibility for individual photons to travel faster than light. A bit like tunneling, they should not be able to do it but they do it anyway. They would only be able to do it over very short distances, and in an unpredictable way, so this could not be used to transfer information. Any observable collection of photons in an actual experiment would still obey the law.
So anyway, it seems that that theory has been rendered less likely now.
Possession was declared a crime because it destroys the market for CP. Otherwise, you could download (buy) as much CP as you liked and, if you got caught, just go "I did not make it, so I'm not to blame". Now most people will stay away from these sites since just having those pics in you browser cache could be enough to send you to jail. If nobody buys CP anymore, it destroys the incentive for people to create it.
Of course some degree of common sense must be applied. For example, I once stumbled upon a child porn picture when browsing 4chan (after hearing outrage about some ISP blocking 4chan, just checking what all the fuss was about). In some places I technically could have been arrested for that, and put in jail if any trace of that unwanted image was left in some obscure cache location on my hard drive.
Also, I think people went a little bit overboard when arresting people for a cartoon featuring Bart and Lisa Simpson having sex. That's just ridiculous.
My question whas rhetorical. Of course you do get convection loops, but in general, on average, air does *not* go up just because the air above it is colder. In fact, the chimney effect has nothing to do with different temperatures at different heights, only with the fact that the hot air inside the chimney is less dense and therefore would require less pressure difference between bottom and top to support its weight. The pressure difference is imposed by the atmosphere, and will make the hot air rise. The excess pressure difference, and therefore the available power, is roughly proportional to the height of the chimney.
Indeed, I finally figured it out too. The effect has nothing to do with the air being colder at the top (bad article), only with the fact that the density of the air inside the chimney is lower, which results in a lower pressure gradient required to support its weight. The excess differential pressure imposed by the outside atmosphere, and therefore the available power, would be roughly proportional to the length of the chimney.
Things do get a bit more complicated when you add turbines at the bottom, since a turbine will reduce both the pressure and temperature of the air passing through it, but I imagine it works out fine anyway since the density does not change (much). I'm too lazy to work out the details, I imagine the designers have put enough thought into it.
Yes, but if that was all there was to it, a short chimney would be sufficient. The air is 50 degrees hotter than ambient at ground level, so it rises. This will happen no matter whether it's a short chimney or a long one. So what's the advantage of the tall chimney? The air is cooler around the top of a tall chimney, of course, but the air rising up through the chimney will cool as well. Would the temperature difference at the top of a tall chimney be greater than at the top of a short one?
As for the night problem, I know there will still be enough heat to cause air to rise, but will the tall chimney still be an advantage when there's a temperature inversion? I would expect the tall chimney to actually reduce efficiency in that case. The outside air at the height of the tower may well be warmer than the outside air at ground level.
I love how simplistic the article is when it comes to cold air at the top of the chimney etc. A tall chimney works better because air is colder at altitude? In that case, why doesn't all air rise all the time, leaving a vacuum on the ground? Oh, wait a minute, rising air cools while it's rising... So much for that theory about how the chimney works, then.
I'm sure there's a much better explanation, for example (I'm guessing) that the temperature gradient above the desert during the day is stronger than the cooling gradient of rising air. Or something like that, I'm actually curious. Oh, and how does that chimney work when there's a temperature inversion at night and in the early morning? I'm not saying the designers haven't thought of that, just that the article is a bit oversimplified as usual.
I thought Arizona had an endless supply of cleaning volunteers from Mexico?
11 years if the construction price is according to plan. Which means about 44 years for the actual construction price once it's finished. If the output is according to plan, of course. Oh well, it's their money, it's good for the planet, and it's cool (OK, hot), so let them go right ahead!
Yes, whoever thinks you need a greenhouse to grow plants in the Arizona desert obviously has never been there.
Yes, but the hard part is taking a state. That requires a majority/plurality/whatever in that state. That's precisely what I think a third party cannot achieve.
I live in a country where the parliament consists of 12 different parties. I typically vote for more conservative, right wing parties, but even those would probably be considered libertarian or even socialist in the US.
That's very nice, but you'll need a huge number of votes to make any difference whatsoever. Even 30% would not be nearly enough. It's just the way your electoral system works. If you think you can realistically approach 40% or so, by all means go for it. Otherwise, maybe think twice.
More likely to "be" democrats?
More likely to have voted democrat if the big two had been the only options.
Besides which, allowing the mildly greater of two evils in while you try and actually change something, that seems like a good idea to me.
Good luck with that. By all means get the movement going, but don't actually participate in the elections just yet. Maybe if the movement gathered enough steam, you could push for a more honest election system. Until then, you're basically guaranteeing republican rule for decades to come if you do participate.
What if enough vote for a third party that other folks take notice, and then a few more, a few more, and eventually in a two or three more election cycles it's possible that a third party could mount a decent challenge?
The republicans would like nothing better than the situation where all former democratic votes would be split up fifty-fifty between democrats the third party. Of course they might lose a few too, but as long as they lose less than the democrats, they're basically sure of winning.
And the whole "take away votes" thing is a fallacy that assumes you are just deviating from the 'proper' behaviour in voting third party.
This is not about being "proper", it's about the objective result of your action. Basically you're saying "I voted for the right party, along with many thousands of others, so who cares if the worst one won as a direct result, I did the right thing". You are achieving the opposite of what you want, but at least you feel good about it. Not that any republicans will care about your "signal", they will just happily take power and do as they please.
It's not the effort that's disgusting, it's the perverse result that will inevitably happen. People voting for a liberal thinking internet party are more likely to be democrats, ergo the republicans will win the election. Sad but true.
And what exactly dd those few percentage points achieve in the American winner takes all system? All you managed to do, was take away votes for the major party that you would otherwise have voted for if only those two existed. So basically, you might as well have voted for the other major party that you want least.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for third parties, more choice, better ideas, etc... But in a system where the local winners are the only ones that count to the grand total, you are better off voting for the least of two evils rather than helping the other by voting for the third.
I disagree. Third parties have played a huge role in several elections in the past. By stealing votes from the democrats and thereby handing the victory to the republicans. Some might even say it was intentional.
quick answer: the firmware updates should be administered by physical port access by an in-store support clerk using a small handheld device that is in no way connected to the internet or any network. (10 second idea, and maybe even a good one!)
So whenever a bug in the firmware is discovered (batteries wearing out quicker than normal, overheating, etc), instead of pushing a firmware update over the internet, Apple should require all users to physically take their computers to an Apple store and wait in line or, worse, leave their computer behind for a few days?
If I remember correctly, blimps are not allowed to overfly Egypt. Something to do with the Hindenburg, probably. You never know, with all that explosive helium...
It might be that it was some other country (countries) over in that region, but I think it was Egypt. Someone I know was doing a cross country trip in a blimp and had to make a huge detour.