IUPAC uses both words about equally often and considers both valid - and they're the authority on the issue (this is actually a change from their earlier stance, where they had tried to force aluminium as the standard).
In no way is the root of aluminum "alumini". It's either "alumin" or just "alum". Again, calling it "alumium" would be just fine. But "aluminium" is just wrong. And ahistorical.
Humphry Davy, the man who isolated it, never called it that. He called it "aluminum" and "alumium". Never aluminium. The latter was suggested by an anonymous critic who said that he didn't like the sound of aluminum, that it didn't sound "classical" enough to him. Never mind that the classical elements were overwhelmingly -um, not -ium: ferrum, plumbum, argentum, stannum, cuprum, aurum, hydrargyrum, etc. The first element ending in -um added to the known elements since ancient times was platinum, also not a -ium. Also discovered before aluminum were molybdenum and tantalum.
The reason that many elements started getting endings of -ium rather than just -um wasn't because "-ium was more classical" - it's because they were often named after the things they were isolated from which often had i near the end, making it a convenient joining stem - magnesium from magnesia, zirconium from zirconia, yttrium from yttria, and on and on. Some did it indirectly as well, such as beryllium, which was originally glucium (from glucina), but had the gluc- replaced with beryl to distinguish it from other sweet-compound-forming elements. If you want to use -i as the joining stem on aluminum, it should be called alumium - which is one of the names Davy suggested. It comes from alumina, not "aluminia".
Call it alumium if you want (that would be a perfectly reasonable name), but your added, ahistorical syllable addition in "aluminium" will continue to grate on my ears. There's no such thing as "aluminia"
Come on, if you're going to insert letters the element's name, at least call it "Nihilonium" - an element that doesn't care whether anything continues to exist or not.;)
On the other hand, some things can be easier underwater - for example, moving heavy objects (with buoyancy), long distance communication, etc. And of course the main drivers for advancement still exist, things like farming, hunting, armaments, defense, etc.
Electricity still works underwater (though AC not as well, and of course insulation is important). The same basic lines of progression work underwater. You can still make a "potato battery" type cell underwater with native copper, you can move lodestones next to a conductor, all of the usual stuff. Working metal underwater would be kind of an interesting challenge, of course - it would require better insulation and a good source of heat in a non-oxidizing atmosphere. But there are all sorts of oxidizers that can be made (or could exist naturally) other than O2, and other potential sources of heat beyond combustion.
Except that it ignores subsurface oceans, which seem to be quite stable over long timeperiods and quite likely to be very abundant in the universe.
Sure, a species evolved to an undersea environment faces challenges in getting to their surface and beyond... but if we can get out of this deep gravity well after such a (geologically) short period of time after our species' evolution, sentient species in subsurface oceans with hundreds of millions or billion years on their "hands" would surely deal with the technical difficulties.
And of course there's also the possibility of LNAWKI, but let's just stick with LAWKI for now.
My personal suspicion is that a wide variety of factors work together to keep complex life rather rare on a per-planet basis, great distances dilute any signals from any that do achieve sentience, and the speed of light and difficulty of propagating a civilization outward at near that limit keeps the vast majority far away. Basically, rarity + dilution. But that's just my suspicion.
I'm sorry, but do you live in a world where whenever any high profile geek gets accused of rape, his legions of fans line up to condemn him? Because in the world I've been living in, they line up to accuse it of being a giant conspiracy and his accusers of being lying sluts paid by the NSA.
I know there are some truths we don't want to acknowledge, but the reality is that polls of women show that about 1 in 6 report having been sexually assaulted during their lives, and there's an expected lifetime incidence of about 1 in 4. These are anonymous polls, they have nothing to gain by lying in them. Who the heck do you think it is that's assaulting all these women? Do you think it's just something like five guys, lurking in the shadows? The fact is that there are a lot of people in the general population committing rape. Something confirmed by anonymous surveys of men. A rather clever approach used to poll the other side of the equation (Lesak & Miller 2002, McWhorter 2009, etc) is, rather than to use the word rape in the surveys, simply survey about their various sexual experiences, and include some experiences in the list that are rape, without using the word rape to describe them. Depending on the group and the study, usually in the ballpark of 10% of young men confess to having committed rape at least once, and about a third of them to having done it multiple times. Which are numbers that correlate well with the victim reporting incidence.
Rape is not rare. Rapists are not rare. But convictions are. And victims know this latter fact, and few want to go through hell for something that is almost certain to be futile.
You can start lecturing other people about how it's "report your sexual abuse to the police immediately or it didn't happen" when you've actually gone through sexual abuse yourself.
News flash: most people never report even outright rape, let alone lesser predatory behavior. Because, first off, nobody sets out for the evening with "get raped" on their TODO list. Coming to acceptance with what happened takes time. I've known people who outright started *dating* their rapist afterward, just so that they could self-justify to tell themselves that it wasn't really rape. It can take a long time to get past making excuses for them and trying to pretend it never happened. Just taking the (very common) issue of cases where the person was intoxicated or drugged out of the equation.
Even for those who come to terms with it immediately, tell me, how fun does it sound to go in for intrusive exams, talk with strangers about what you just went through, put yourself on the line, and have your name dragged through the mud by everyone who likes the guy as a liar and a slut? Times a thousand if the guy is well known and popular.
There are reasons why most assaults are never reported. Most people would rather focus on trying to get past it emotionally and not think about it than have to relive it and go through the hell of trying to get a prosecution that, in practice, stands very little odds of actually succeeding. In cases where victims find out that others have been reporting the same behavior from the individual, it becomes a lot easier to step forward together.
Not sure what happeend to my response, as I already replied to this:P
Too bad you don't know how cars work
No, too bad you don't know how Teslas work. Teslas actually contain a homebrew Linux box specifically for logging and systems management. When people speak of "the logs" in a Tesla, that is what they're referring to. You download them by plugging in a USB stick. Accelerator stats are are in field 10 (DR1S), offset 12. Value 0 is 0% throttle, value 255 is 100% throttle. It's logged once per second.
I seriously doubt the accelerator itself actually records a constant, internal high-resolution reading of the outputs of each of its sensors. When Tesla wants to investigate a problem, they pull The Logs(TM) as described above. And that's clearly what they did here.
Then the vast majority of the population is fucked. Great plan.
This almost never happens.
A mechanical linkage is either attached or not attached.
That depends on your design
Yes, depending on the failure scenario, it might or might not get stuck in an on or off position. With a single-point failure in a dual-sensor electronic linkage, it's always failsafe (and single-point failures always detected since the reported values disagrees or is absent). Only simultaneous failures can lead to a non-failsafe situation. And even in that case, that only brings you to a "maybe" situation, depending on the scenario. For example, simultanous failures may simultaneously fail to 0; they may simultaneously fail to no signal; etc. In those cases, you still get failsafe.
Slashdot Mirror
IUPAC uses both words about equally often and considers both valid - and they're the authority on the issue (this is actually a change from their earlier stance, where they had tried to force aluminium as the standard).
Which grouping of words is real?
#1
Alumina
Aluminate
Aluminosilicate
Aluminothermic
#2:
Aluminia
Aluminiate
Aluminiosilicate
Aluminiothermic
In no way is the root of aluminum "alumini". It's either "alumin" or just "alum". Again, calling it "alumium" would be just fine. But "aluminium" is just wrong. And ahistorical.
I know, it's weird to have a strong opinion about an issue like this...
Ugh... that should have read "Länthanum"... way to ruin my own joke ;)
Länthium! Länthium!
Wow, reading into things much?
You can never have too many elements named after tiny Swedish villages. I'm voting for Luspebrygganium next! ;)
I'm sorry, but "aluminium" is outright wrong.
Humphry Davy, the man who isolated it, never called it that. He called it "aluminum" and "alumium". Never aluminium. The latter was suggested by an anonymous critic who said that he didn't like the sound of aluminum, that it didn't sound "classical" enough to him. Never mind that the classical elements were overwhelmingly -um, not -ium: ferrum, plumbum, argentum, stannum, cuprum, aurum, hydrargyrum, etc. The first element ending in -um added to the known elements since ancient times was platinum, also not a -ium. Also discovered before aluminum were molybdenum and tantalum.
The reason that many elements started getting endings of -ium rather than just -um wasn't because "-ium was more classical" - it's because they were often named after the things they were isolated from which often had i near the end, making it a convenient joining stem - magnesium from magnesia, zirconium from zirconia, yttrium from yttria, and on and on. Some did it indirectly as well, such as beryllium, which was originally glucium (from glucina), but had the gluc- replaced with beryl to distinguish it from other sweet-compound-forming elements. If you want to use -i as the joining stem on aluminum, it should be called alumium - which is one of the names Davy suggested. It comes from alumina, not "aluminia".
Call it alumium if you want (that would be a perfectly reasonable name), but your added, ahistorical syllable addition in "aluminium" will continue to grate on my ears. There's no such thing as "aluminia"
Come on, if you're going to insert letters the element's name, at least call it "Nihilonium" - an element that doesn't care whether anything continues to exist or not. ;)
Greece was offered a leave. They turned it down.
Turns out (shock of all shocks) they were just using the threat of leaving as a negotiating tactic.
On the other hand, some things can be easier underwater - for example, moving heavy objects (with buoyancy), long distance communication, etc. And of course the main drivers for advancement still exist, things like farming, hunting, armaments, defense, etc.
Electricity still works underwater (though AC not as well, and of course insulation is important). The same basic lines of progression work underwater. You can still make a "potato battery" type cell underwater with native copper, you can move lodestones next to a conductor, all of the usual stuff. Working metal underwater would be kind of an interesting challenge, of course - it would require better insulation and a good source of heat in a non-oxidizing atmosphere. But there are all sorts of oxidizers that can be made (or could exist naturally) other than O2, and other potential sources of heat beyond combustion.
LAWKI = Life As We Know It
LNAWKI = Life Not As We Know It
There are lots of variants of the latter, while the former is pretty standardized.
And that may well happen; we'll have to wait and see.
Except that it ignores subsurface oceans, which seem to be quite stable over long timeperiods and quite likely to be very abundant in the universe.
Sure, a species evolved to an undersea environment faces challenges in getting to their surface and beyond... but if we can get out of this deep gravity well after such a (geologically) short period of time after our species' evolution, sentient species in subsurface oceans with hundreds of millions or billion years on their "hands" would surely deal with the technical difficulties.
And of course there's also the possibility of LNAWKI, but let's just stick with LAWKI for now.
My personal suspicion is that a wide variety of factors work together to keep complex life rather rare on a per-planet basis, great distances dilute any signals from any that do achieve sentience, and the speed of light and difficulty of propagating a civilization outward at near that limit keeps the vast majority far away. Basically, rarity + dilution. But that's just my suspicion.
I'm sorry, but do you live in a world where whenever any high profile geek gets accused of rape, his legions of fans line up to condemn him? Because in the world I've been living in, they line up to accuse it of being a giant conspiracy and his accusers of being lying sluts paid by the NSA.
I know there are some truths we don't want to acknowledge, but the reality is that polls of women show that about 1 in 6 report having been sexually assaulted during their lives, and there's an expected lifetime incidence of about 1 in 4. These are anonymous polls, they have nothing to gain by lying in them. Who the heck do you think it is that's assaulting all these women? Do you think it's just something like five guys, lurking in the shadows? The fact is that there are a lot of people in the general population committing rape. Something confirmed by anonymous surveys of men. A rather clever approach used to poll the other side of the equation (Lesak & Miller 2002, McWhorter 2009, etc) is, rather than to use the word rape in the surveys, simply survey about their various sexual experiences, and include some experiences in the list that are rape, without using the word rape to describe them. Depending on the group and the study, usually in the ballpark of 10% of young men confess to having committed rape at least once, and about a third of them to having done it multiple times. Which are numbers that correlate well with the victim reporting incidence.
Rape is not rare. Rapists are not rare. But convictions are. And victims know this latter fact, and few want to go through hell for something that is almost certain to be futile.
I know right, how did people who worked on Tor manage to put together something as complicated as a website?
He's only 6 years older than Clinton. She's 68.
You can start lecturing other people about how it's "report your sexual abuse to the police immediately or it didn't happen" when you've actually gone through sexual abuse yourself.
News flash: most people never report even outright rape, let alone lesser predatory behavior. Because, first off, nobody sets out for the evening with "get raped" on their TODO list. Coming to acceptance with what happened takes time. I've known people who outright started *dating* their rapist afterward, just so that they could self-justify to tell themselves that it wasn't really rape. It can take a long time to get past making excuses for them and trying to pretend it never happened. Just taking the (very common) issue of cases where the person was intoxicated or drugged out of the equation.
Even for those who come to terms with it immediately, tell me, how fun does it sound to go in for intrusive exams, talk with strangers about what you just went through, put yourself on the line, and have your name dragged through the mud by everyone who likes the guy as a liar and a slut? Times a thousand if the guy is well known and popular.
There are reasons why most assaults are never reported. Most people would rather focus on trying to get past it emotionally and not think about it than have to relive it and go through the hell of trying to get a prosecution that, in practice, stands very little odds of actually succeeding. In cases where victims find out that others have been reporting the same behavior from the individual, it becomes a lot easier to step forward together.
Like an Ecuadorian election early next year which Correa won't be standing for? ;)
Hi paranoid conspiracy theorist!
But what about the asylum seekers? Will they be turned back at the border?
Julian Assange has previously done great work unmasking the nefarious schemes of Google to enslave the world.
Not sure what happeend to my response, as I already replied to this :P
No, too bad you don't know how Teslas work. Teslas actually contain a homebrew Linux box specifically for logging and systems management. When people speak of "the logs" in a Tesla, that is what they're referring to. You download them by plugging in a USB stick. Accelerator stats are are in field 10 (DR1S), offset 12. Value 0 is 0% throttle, value 255 is 100% throttle. It's logged once per second.
I seriously doubt the accelerator itself actually records a constant, internal high-resolution reading of the outputs of each of its sensors. When Tesla wants to investigate a problem, they pull The Logs(TM) as described above. And that's clearly what they did here.
Then the vast majority of the population is fucked. Great plan.
A mechanical linkage is either attached or not attached.
Yes, depending on the failure scenario, it might or might not get stuck in an on or off position. With a single-point failure in a dual-sensor electronic linkage, it's always failsafe (and single-point failures always detected since the reported values disagrees or is absent). Only simultaneous failures can lead to a non-failsafe situation. And even in that case, that only brings you to a "maybe" situation, depending on the scenario. For example, simultanous failures may simultaneously fail to 0; they may simultaneously fail to no signal; etc. In those cases, you still get failsafe.
Would you describe what you're meaning to differentiate "sensor" from "channel", then?
And your examples are.....?