Theoretically: it's only a presumption and one that usually has a larger price tag. As with all supposedly long life media, we'll find out one day, when we still have our pictures and printouts and computer data... or we don't.
In a sense, everything is theoretical. Gravity for example, could up and decide tomorrow that it's going work opposite of the way we've known for the last several hundred years, and we'd have to adjust our theories. Furthermore, we don't understand the cause of gravity to say that it can't happen.
They just don't go around claiming that their inks will go a hundred years without fading without some good empirical evidence of that idea. There is such a thing as accelerated testing and simulation, consisting of a whole slew of well understood tests, and one or more of these tests are routinely done on most products that you buy. I expect that Epson did their research, and are fully capable of backing these claims up.
Just as accepting invitations to drive off with my car because I left it unlocked on my drive is a crime.. Just as when someone leaves chips on a card table and doesn't ask someone to keep an eye on them.. well that's an 'invitation' also..
Yeah, but is your car shouting over a loudspeaker, "Hey everyone, I'm the blue Toyota Celica sitting in the Wal-Mart parking lot and my license plate is "WLDTHNG", my doors are open, come in and take a load off! Hey, tell you what! While you're at it, take me for a spin, because I'm fucking bored! The keys are in the visor!"?
Say hello to the most accurate car analogy ever posted to slashdot.
Since when does that include blocking access to materials the school doesn't like or deem "good learning materials?" If I'm reading fiction in class should it be taken from me because it's full of nonsense?
Here's the way they should work this:
1) They shouldn't block wikipedia based on the fact that it's sometimes less than ideal as a resource for research purposes, based on that specious argument, the school district should also block most of the rest of the internet, excepting those sites which they deem to be good sources; and that act would be fine and dandy in my eyes because it would only server to further indicate their level of stupidity. 2) They should make it clear what exactly, a good resource is. Furthermore, the district should make it clear that if they use potentially bad resources like wikipedia as a reference in their research papers, and it turns out to be wrong, that any points the teacher takes off of their grades will be tripled!!!. This will at least teach the kids to cross check their references, which can never a bad thing, because even "good" reference books aren't infallible.
Well, I wouldn't be surprised to find out Ted Stevens was trolling slashdot as an AC, for one. However, I expect trolling congressional Democrats would prefer to stay logged in, for the potential karma if nothing else.
Fuck that. I do not want any more people under the delusion that politicians are meant to be leaders or moral guides. They are employees hired to run the country. They can be depraved ex-child molesters for all I care, so long as they do their jobs properly.
Alright, bub... Which congress-critter are you? Mmmm???
At last, the British have found a way to make computers leak oil!
However, as a new feature, British computer makers will design data centers to be suspended over blacktop, so that traffic passing by underneath will continuously re-pave the road surface.
I fly R/C helicopters that are about the same size, and probably about the same mass as this aircraft, and I can say this: either the guys flying these aircraft were very competent, or that little thing was pretty damned stable. I'm inclined to say the latter. I've seen guys who make it look easy, but most of them have their choppers loaded up with all sorts of crazy sensors and computers that fly the chopper as much, if not more than they do... And it's not apparent to me that this craft had those sorts of electronics, and the craft appeared to correct itself naturally, and quickly.
The Coanda effect was used for the lift of craft. It made the flow of air go across those little flappies on the sides, and straight down after that, providing downward thrust. The little flappies are apparently the counter-torque mechanism, and the bigger flaps on the bottom of the craft appear to the method of control.
He is referring to its ability to handle midair crashes
I don't think that's what he's referring to at all. Helicopters are very unstable machines, especially in hover mode, which is arguably the most important and most distinguishing feature of a helicopter. A helicopter requires hundreds of very precise control inputs a minute to remain in a hover. If you change one of the variables, you pretty much have to change all of the rest. For example, if you adjust the cyclic, you have to adjust your engine's torque and collective a tiny amount so you don't fall out of the sky, or alternatively, go flying up too fast, and you'll also have to nudge the tail rotor to account for the increased torque form the main rotor. You can think of it as a loop in a computer program that operates very quickly.
It looks like this guy's hovering craft aims to make the most advantageous feature of a helicopter much, much easier to preform, and hence the vehicle is "more stable" than a helicopter. It's probably more sturdy, too, but that's a side effect of not having blades swinging around in an arc that is considerably larger than the aircraft.
That's what the end of TFA says happened in Thailand and I doubt many people want to see the same thing in Japan:
Hell yeah, I'm totally happy with that happening in Thailand. Who cares? Few enough people care about the rest of the fucked up shit that happens in that country, so why should we be bothered that they can't get their video fix from some stupid website? Frankly, I wouldn't mind if it happened in Japan, either... But of course, we should realize that something like this would never happen in Japan in the first place, because Japan is actually a free country!
I don't think it will be that bad of a problem for service companies, not until the vast majority of people start using their own power generation systems, and here's why:
1) You don't get the nifty bulk energy rates for feeding energy into the grid that the big boys get. 2) They have the privilege of getting paid for service, even if you use zippo energy. Like phone companies, they get to charge surcharges and basic fees and other crap. 3) If you do put enough electricity back into the grid to pay your minimum services and go into the black, you're actually doing the company a favor... Because of #1, you're selling them power cheaper than they can buy it from anyone else, making it even more profitable to sell your electricity.
Re:But is the under-age sex still available?
on
Thailand Bans YouTube
·
· Score: 4, Informative
I mean, that's why people go there, right? Well the food too, but it's really the lady-boys. I hear it's a hot spot for various radio personalities.
Lady boys... But mostly perverts who like the child sex slaves.
Who are you to say whether people should have large families or not? That's a decision that you don't have any part of, given that in most cases those who choose to have the large family bear the full economic consequences themselves. Perhaps instead you advocate federal regulation to make it illegal for families to have more than one child? And then maybe if the child isn't the gender that the family wanted they can murder it to have another go at getting the gender they want?
I'm a citizen of this troubled world--as are my two offspring. As such, it's entirely within my rights to criticize people with what I believe to be prolific, unsustainable, and irresponsible reproduction habits; especially since we're no longer in an era where where a family needs to have so many children to safeguard their genes and their family name against diseases and other hardships. This is within my right, just the same as it is in my right to criticize owners of SUVs that consume a disproportionate amount of energy to the amount of people they transport, and just as it is in my right to ask my representatives to bring fourth laws that promote vehicles with better fuel economy. Just a hundred years ago it was possible, if not entirely likely, that a family of 10 could lose most of their children to contagious and congenital diseases, and to war and malnutrition. The chances of these kinds of losses happening today, due to vaccines, antibiotics, and first word health care systems are staggeringly unlikely in comparison.
This means that each of this person's 10 children are almost certainly going to have the opportunity to reproduce, and if each carries the same value system... Can you say "hello, exponential growth"? If a significant number of families continue going about things in this manner, the US may very well have to enact and enforce laws similar to the ones China has, within the lifetimes of our grandchildren, or great grandchildren, to avert what is an inevitable crisis. It's true, that our census says that our population is experiencing a less than 1% growth rate, for the last 10 years, or so, however, this does not accurately reflect our undocumented immigrant population. Regardless, the facts are that the census estimates we gain an estimated 2.5 million people PER YEAR, and we must recognize this to be a conservative estimate. China has half the growth rate we do, thanks to their laws, and yet, it's expected that their population is still going continuously grow for at least the next 30-40 years.
I suppose you won't be satisfied until we're stacked shoulder to shoulder and ten deep.
God bless? You mean to encourage this sort of thing?
I am hereby amending the bible: "May God teacheth thee the great and bountiful nature of contraceptives, or alternatively, shalt thou be not willing to learn, may God graciously spay or neuter thee in a most painful and bloody way."
Orion and afterburners are as well (well, I'm not certain about the latter, and the former is only "combustion" in the loosest of general definitions, but it is external. Hopefully).
Actually, what defines internal/external combustion is what fluid happens to be doing the work. You have to ask your self, "Is the fluid where the combustion is taking place also doing the work in the system?" If the answer is yes, then you have an internal combustion engine. This means that everything from the largest rockets to turbine engines, with or without afterburners, to your lowly lawnmower engine are all in fact, Internal Combustion Engines. Obviously, the Orion is nuclear engine, not combustion, so it doesn't really fit into this, unless you count nuclear reactions to be a type of combustion... Such a description is superficially analogous, at least.
Some examples of external combustion engines: steam engines, whether they be powered by coal, oil, natural gas, wood, or nuclear sources (again, if you count fission as a type of combustion), Stirling engines, and any other externally powered heat engine that may be powered by burning something (or anything). In these cases, the heat source heats up the working fluids, and the working fluids do the work separately of any combustion process.
Good jorb, I can mostly agree with this little writeup, save one part, which I feel is mostly erroneous:
A common example of a jet engine that uses a reciprocating internal combustion engine (typically two- or four-stroke) for power can be found in Sea-Doos [wikipedia.org], where a standard reciprocating internal combustion engine (like you would find in most automobiles) is used to drive an impeller that expels a jet of high-pressure water rearward of the craft, propelling the craft forward.
The engine in this instance is the reciprocating engine. The propulsor, a pump-jet, is a separate device, and is only related to a turbine engine (jet engine) in the most basic way. Sure, you might be able to call some such devices a "turbo pump", but that doesn't make a pump hooked up to a 2 stroke engine a "jet engine" any more than a paddle wheel makes an old river boat a jet engine powered craft.
You probably mean the external combustion engine, also known as the jet engine. Only small airplanes use pistons and such. And the answer is: of course not. This is yet another PR stunt aimed at the Gasoline Is Eeeeeeevil ninnies of the world who failed freshman chemistry.
In what way, exactly, is a jet engine not an internal combustion engine?
Sounds like someone failed basic understanding-of-how-things-work class. Grandma, is that you? I thought I told you stop trolling slashdot, damnit!
Bigger is better, that might go for diamonds, but it needs to be a laptop, not a luggable tv. TH e concpet of anything bigger on a laptop that should be transported (other than arround on your bosses desk) seems strange except for some nice users to me.
Oh, for crying out loud... Why do you think anyone who would care to afford a million dollar laptop would also be bothered with carrying it around? That price should include a 50" LCD, and a couple Sherpas to lug it around until it becomes obsolete. Now, that would have been an inventive feature, but nooooo....
Is that all? You're clearly forgetting how much a couple shark fins, a tiger penis, a pair of manatee eyeballs and a bald eagle beak could add to the design of such a luxury item. It still seems like I'm forgetting about something.... Mmmm! Oh, and we could give it a black-footed ferret foot for use as a kick-stand!
Douche means shower in a lot of countries http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douche. What does it mean in yours? One of the connotations at the bottom, I presume, if it's meant as an expletive.
Well, douche to us Americans is a sort of shower; an inverted, localized shower of the feminine hygiene variety, to be more specific...
Hey, maybe they should paint theaters with this stuff...
Fuck that, I'm all for painting cars belonging to people caught using cellphones while driving with this crap. I mean, windows and everything. Maybe we could arrange a dunking vat, you know, for quick, easy and thorough radio-wave proofing.
Slashdot Mirror
and Epson sold a special ink that lasted 100 yrs.
... or we don't.
Theoretically: it's only a presumption and one that usually has a larger price tag. As with all supposedly long life media, we'll find out one day, when we still have our pictures and printouts and computer data
In a sense, everything is theoretical. Gravity for example, could up and decide tomorrow that it's going work opposite of the way we've known for the last several hundred years, and we'd have to adjust our theories. Furthermore, we don't understand the cause of gravity to say that it can't happen.
They just don't go around claiming that their inks will go a hundred years without fading without some good empirical evidence of that idea. There is such a thing as accelerated testing and simulation, consisting of a whole slew of well understood tests, and one or more of these tests are routinely done on most products that you buy. I expect that Epson did their research, and are fully capable of backing these claims up.
That's bad news for Dr. Phil, as it implies that his audience will become dumber.
Nah... If they keep watching, it can be nothing but good news for Philly-boy..
Wow! And all this time I thought the US stood for United States.
Perhaps in theory... However, in practice, our country might have been better named were it called The Losely Associated States of America.
Assault Rifles are the fully or selective automatic mofo's you do not want to be on the wrong end of.
The only significant difference, semantics aside, between an assault weapon, and an assault rifle, is the person who might be expected to wield it.
Just as accepting invitations to drive off with my car because I left it unlocked on my drive is a crime.. Just as when someone leaves chips on a card table and doesn't ask someone to keep an eye on them.. well that's an 'invitation' also..
Yeah, but is your car shouting over a loudspeaker, "Hey everyone, I'm the blue Toyota Celica sitting in the Wal-Mart parking lot and my license plate is "WLDTHNG", my doors are open, come in and take a load off! Hey, tell you what! While you're at it, take me for a spin, because I'm fucking bored! The keys are in the visor!"?
Say hello to the most accurate car analogy ever posted to slashdot.
Since when does that include blocking access to materials the school doesn't like or deem "good learning materials?" If I'm reading fiction in class should it be taken from me because it's full of nonsense?
Here's the way they should work this:
1) They shouldn't block wikipedia based on the fact that it's sometimes less than ideal as a resource for research purposes, based on that specious argument, the school district should also block most of the rest of the internet, excepting those sites which they deem to be good sources; and that act would be fine and dandy in my eyes because it would only server to further indicate their level of stupidity. 2) They should make it clear what exactly, a good resource is. Furthermore, the district should make it clear that if they use potentially bad resources like wikipedia as a reference in their research papers, and it turns out to be wrong, that any points the teacher takes off of their grades will be tripled!!! . This will at least teach the kids to cross check their references, which can never a bad thing, because even "good" reference books aren't infallible.
Well, I wouldn't be surprised to find out Ted Stevens was trolling slashdot as an AC, for one. However, I expect trolling congressional Democrats would prefer to stay logged in, for the potential karma if nothing else.
Fuck that. I do not want any more people under the delusion that politicians are meant to be leaders or moral guides. They are employees hired to run the country. They can be depraved ex-child molesters for all I care, so long as they do their jobs properly.
Alright, bub... Which congress-critter are you? Mmmm???
At last, the British have found a way to make computers leak oil!
However, as a new feature, British computer makers will design data centers to be suspended over blacktop, so that traffic passing by underneath will continuously re-pave the road surface.
I fly R/C helicopters that are about the same size, and probably about the same mass as this aircraft, and I can say this: either the guys flying these aircraft were very competent, or that little thing was pretty damned stable. I'm inclined to say the latter. I've seen guys who make it look easy, but most of them have their choppers loaded up with all sorts of crazy sensors and computers that fly the chopper as much, if not more than they do... And it's not apparent to me that this craft had those sorts of electronics, and the craft appeared to correct itself naturally, and quickly.
The Coanda effect was used for the lift of craft. It made the flow of air go across those little flappies on the sides, and straight down after that, providing downward thrust. The little flappies are apparently the counter-torque mechanism, and the bigger flaps on the bottom of the craft appear to the method of control.
He is referring to its ability to handle midair crashes
I don't think that's what he's referring to at all. Helicopters are very unstable machines, especially in hover mode, which is arguably the most important and most distinguishing feature of a helicopter. A helicopter requires hundreds of very precise control inputs a minute to remain in a hover. If you change one of the variables, you pretty much have to change all of the rest. For example, if you adjust the cyclic, you have to adjust your engine's torque and collective a tiny amount so you don't fall out of the sky, or alternatively, go flying up too fast, and you'll also have to nudge the tail rotor to account for the increased torque form the main rotor. You can think of it as a loop in a computer program that operates very quickly.
It looks like this guy's hovering craft aims to make the most advantageous feature of a helicopter much, much easier to preform, and hence the vehicle is "more stable" than a helicopter. It's probably more sturdy, too, but that's a side effect of not having blades swinging around in an arc that is considerably larger than the aircraft.
That's what the end of TFA says happened in Thailand and I doubt many people want to see the same thing in Japan:
Hell yeah, I'm totally happy with that happening in Thailand. Who cares? Few enough people care about the rest of the fucked up shit that happens in that country, so why should we be bothered that they can't get their video fix from some stupid website? Frankly, I wouldn't mind if it happened in Japan, either... But of course, we should realize that something like this would never happen in Japan in the first place, because Japan is actually a free country!
I don't think it will be that bad of a problem for service companies, not until the vast majority of people start using their own power generation systems, and here's why:
1) You don't get the nifty bulk energy rates for feeding energy into the grid that the big boys get.
2) They have the privilege of getting paid for service, even if you use zippo energy. Like phone companies, they get to charge surcharges and basic fees and other crap.
3) If you do put enough electricity back into the grid to pay your minimum services and go into the black, you're actually doing the company a favor... Because of #1, you're selling them power cheaper than they can buy it from anyone else, making it even more profitable to sell your electricity.
I mean, that's why people go there, right? Well the food too, but it's really the lady-boys. I hear it's a hot spot for various radio personalities.
Lady boys... But mostly perverts who like the child sex slaves.
Who are you to say whether people should have large families or not? That's a decision that you don't have any part of, given that in most cases those who choose to have the large family bear the full economic consequences themselves. Perhaps instead you advocate federal regulation to make it illegal for families to have more than one child? And then maybe if the child isn't the gender that the family wanted they can murder it to have another go at getting the gender they want?
I'm a citizen of this troubled world--as are my two offspring. As such, it's entirely within my rights to criticize people with what I believe to be prolific, unsustainable, and irresponsible reproduction habits; especially since we're no longer in an era where where a family needs to have so many children to safeguard their genes and their family name against diseases and other hardships. This is within my right, just the same as it is in my right to criticize owners of SUVs that consume a disproportionate amount of energy to the amount of people they transport, and just as it is in my right to ask my representatives to bring fourth laws that promote vehicles with better fuel economy. Just a hundred years ago it was possible, if not entirely likely, that a family of 10 could lose most of their children to contagious and congenital diseases, and to war and malnutrition. The chances of these kinds of losses happening today, due to vaccines, antibiotics, and first word health care systems are staggeringly unlikely in comparison.
This means that each of this person's 10 children are almost certainly going to have the opportunity to reproduce, and if each carries the same value system... Can you say "hello, exponential growth"? If a significant number of families continue going about things in this manner, the US may very well have to enact and enforce laws similar to the ones China has, within the lifetimes of our grandchildren, or great grandchildren, to avert what is an inevitable crisis. It's true, that our census says that our population is experiencing a less than 1% growth rate, for the last 10 years, or so, however, this does not accurately reflect our undocumented immigrant population. Regardless, the facts are that the census estimates we gain an estimated 2.5 million people PER YEAR, and we must recognize this to be a conservative estimate. China has half the growth rate we do, thanks to their laws, and yet, it's expected that their population is still going continuously grow for at least the next 30-40 years.
I suppose you won't be satisfied until we're stacked shoulder to shoulder and ten deep.
Wow! Nine kids! God bless you.
God bless? You mean to encourage this sort of thing?
I am hereby amending the bible: "May God teacheth thee the great and bountiful nature of contraceptives, or alternatively, shalt thou be not willing to learn, may God graciously spay or neuter thee in a most painful and bloody way."
Maybe your roomba thinks this particular spot is especially dirty.
What exactly do you do there? Never mind, I don't really want to know! Sorry I asked.
Orion and afterburners are as well (well, I'm not certain about the latter, and the former is only "combustion" in the loosest of general definitions, but it is external. Hopefully).
Actually, what defines internal/external combustion is what fluid happens to be doing the work. You have to ask your self, "Is the fluid where the combustion is taking place also doing the work in the system?" If the answer is yes, then you have an internal combustion engine. This means that everything from the largest rockets to turbine engines, with or without afterburners, to your lowly lawnmower engine are all in fact, Internal Combustion Engines. Obviously, the Orion is nuclear engine, not combustion, so it doesn't really fit into this, unless you count nuclear reactions to be a type of combustion... Such a description is superficially analogous, at least.
Some examples of external combustion engines: steam engines, whether they be powered by coal, oil, natural gas, wood, or nuclear sources (again, if you count fission as a type of combustion), Stirling engines, and any other externally powered heat engine that may be powered by burning something (or anything). In these cases, the heat source heats up the working fluids, and the working fluids do the work separately of any combustion process.
Good jorb, I can mostly agree with this little writeup, save one part, which I feel is mostly erroneous:
A common example of a jet engine that uses a reciprocating internal combustion engine (typically two- or four-stroke) for power can be found in Sea-Doos [wikipedia.org], where a standard reciprocating internal combustion engine (like you would find in most automobiles) is used to drive an impeller that expels a jet of high-pressure water rearward of the craft, propelling the craft forward.
The engine in this instance is the reciprocating engine. The propulsor, a pump-jet, is a separate device, and is only related to a turbine engine (jet engine) in the most basic way. Sure, you might be able to call some such devices a "turbo pump", but that doesn't make a pump hooked up to a 2 stroke engine a "jet engine" any more than a paddle wheel makes an old river boat a jet engine powered craft.
Notice that the combustion takes place in the exhaust stream, heading out of the engine.
Oh, so you mean jet engines are continuous flow internal combustion engines?
here's a clue, boy'o: which fluid is the working fluid in an internal combustion engine?
Answer(ROT13): Gur bar jurer pbzohfgvba gnxrf cynpr, qhzzl!
You probably mean the external combustion engine, also known as the jet engine. Only small airplanes use pistons and such. And the answer is: of course not. This is yet another PR stunt aimed at the Gasoline Is Eeeeeeevil ninnies of the world who failed freshman chemistry.
In what way, exactly, is a jet engine not an internal combustion engine?
Sounds like someone failed basic understanding-of-how-things-work class. Grandma, is that you? I thought I told you stop trolling slashdot, damnit!
Bigger is better, that might go for diamonds, but it needs to be a laptop, not a luggable tv. TH e concpet of anything bigger on a laptop that should be transported (other than arround on your bosses desk) seems strange except for some nice users to me.
Oh, for crying out loud... Why do you think anyone who would care to afford a million dollar laptop would also be bothered with carrying it around? That price should include a 50" LCD, and a couple Sherpas to lug it around until it becomes obsolete. Now, that would have been an inventive feature, but nooooo....
I say we need to add elephant tusk too!
Is that all? You're clearly forgetting how much a couple shark fins, a tiger penis, a pair of manatee eyeballs and a bald eagle beak could add to the design of such a luxury item. It still seems like I'm forgetting about something.... Mmmm! Oh, and we could give it a black-footed ferret foot for use as a kick-stand!
Douche means shower in a lot of countries http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douche. What does it mean in yours? One of the connotations at the bottom, I presume, if it's meant as an expletive.
Well, douche to us Americans is a sort of shower; an inverted, localized shower of the feminine hygiene variety, to be more specific...
Hey, maybe they should paint theaters with this stuff...
Fuck that, I'm all for painting cars belonging to people caught using cellphones while driving with this crap. I mean, windows and everything. Maybe we could arrange a dunking vat, you know, for quick, easy and thorough radio-wave proofing.