It is in a closed loop refrigeration system. The typical pressures for the "high" side of a typical system is 200-350 PSI. Needless to say, a leak in the system would result in already-heated liquid that is designed to vaporize at 15-25 PSI being released into the atmosphere (at zero PSI)... which makes converting it to a gaseous state a simple matter of poking a hole somewhere in either loop;
So it will evaporate, not aerosolize?
Can't be much more dangerous than gasoline, which can kill you under far less unusual circumstances.
Yes, if you drink it I suppose. But many people have been doused in gasoline and unless they are lit on fire, find that it simply stinks and itches.
Let's keep the comparison apples to apples, and either note that being doused in a fluorohydrocarbon will probably do little more than to cool you down a bit; or that being doused in carbon monoxide is not exactly the start of a good night on the town, either.
And in many cases, people have survived being burned by gasoline spills that have caught fire.
We don't know how that compares to this compound, all we know is that, under the right circumstances, it can produce HF, while the same can be said of gasoline and CO.
That depends. How much HF will be produced over how long time in a typical crash? Is there any reason to assume that the concentration will ever be problematic?
Just to be pedantic, wouldn't it take a majority of the computational power put into mining for the rules to change? Otherwise, lost bitcoins could make any change impossible.
But there's a problem with that, too, see. Last I checked (which wasn't very long ago), it was costing in the neighborhood of around $30 to mine a bitcoin, if you add up the amortized equipment cost, time and electricity. Yet Bitcoins went up as high as $250.
Wouldn't you like to be able to make something for $30 and sell it for $250? Yeah, me too. Of course it's down from that now but it's still selling for about 5 or 6 times what it costs to make. That's a pretty good markup. So people who are making bitcoins TODAY are making a killing. Not just the initial investors (though they did pretty well).
Which of course means more people will make Bitcoins, which means the price will come down, until the difficulty (cost) of making them is not that far from market price.
Isn't there a mechanism for adjusting the difficulty of mining depending on how much mining is done? Wouldn't that mean that the difficulty will go up if the price does, so that they will match?
You need to take account for indirect effects as well: with less people to choose between as employees, the productivity of companies would go down, leading to higher prices and lower quality products, and to less money being spent in the local economy. It would increase the loving conditions of the people competing with the H1B visa holders while decreasing them for everybody else. What it will mean for the mean living conditions depends on the balance of these effects, but if you include the living conditions of the people who would get a visa, limiting the number of visa will decrease the mean living conditions.
It isn't that obvious that the citizens are losing due to immigration. There are some really obvious downsides, but there are also some upsides: when corporations have an easier time finding the right people to hire, the price of their products are lowered and the quality goes up, and they and their employees spend more in the local economy. On the more abstract plane, this is just saying that specialization increases the efficiency. It is easy to only see the negative sides, as they are so obvious, while the positive sides are more indirect. That is not to say that the citizens always gain by it, but the full analysis is a bit harder to make.
The U.S. is the ONLY economy in the world where government *doesn't* work to make sure that their own citizens are first in line for jobs.
Making sure that your own citizens have a job by disadvantaging foreigners *is* protectionism. You can agree or disagree on whether it is a good thing, but it is protectionism.
Therefore -- and this is the heart of the matter -- Bitcoin should not fluctuate at all in DOLLAR value, except to the extent that computation time fluctuates in dollar value. And since computation time has not fluctuated much in value, then Bitcoin should also NOT have changed in $$ value.
Doesn't the difficulty of computations needed to mine Bitcoins change with how many people are mining (or, more technically, how long time it has lately taken to find hashes)? So the 10 hours is not a constant, meaning that the Bitcoin will fluctuate with the price of computation and how much computation it takes to mine them.
No, capitalism is working, with unanticipated inputs. That's the problem, and it's been discussed before. Economists expect people to act rationally, in their own interest, yet people don't.
That is a problem with economic models (that economists are aware of it and are trying to fix), but it is not relevant here. The buyers the GGP described are rational, their enjoyment from playing with their buddies are higher than the loss of enjoyment from the money they spent on the game, even considering that the game is hard to use otherwise.
If economists were right, nobody would ever drink at a bar or eat at a restaurant because taking a bottle home and cooking for yourself is so much cheaper, which misses about 90% of the point.
Only if you assume that everybody's time is free and the atmosphere is irrelevant, which economists don't assume. Or do you have a quote form where they assumed that?
Glass is not completely transparent, so the prism will get heated. You want a mirror with the reflective coating on the front to minimize the heating. Somebody mentioned a shiny metal object with water cooling internally, that might be the best guess.
It isn't just energy density, but also how fast that energy is released. IIRC, explosive power* of a brisant explosive is proportional to the third power of the density: The explosive power is proportional to the energy released per time unit, which is proportional to how much explodes. In a brisant explosive, this is proportional to the density times the volume of explosive swept by a detonation wave. The latter is proportional to the square of the speed of sound in the material, which is roughly proportional to the density. Last I checked, this was believed to be the reason why octanitrocubane had less explosive power than calculated before its synthesis, the density was lower than expected (but that was a long time ago, and I might remember wrongly).
*To the degree that you can quantitate explosive power
When all your writing is text, the whole point of Tex is lost, and you might as well use word.
No it isn't. Apart from the ease of writing equations, one major point for LaTeX is that you can just write the damn text and you don't have to worry about how it looks. The final result is going to be beautiful. In Word, you can choose the font and size of all levels of headings, the line spacing and the margins, and even when you have spent time doing that, it still doesn't look as good as LaTeX does out of the box.
As Samantha Wright have pointed out at other places in this discussion, things that are of no benefit for the microorganism is bound to disappear withing days, as it is broken by random mutations.
I was under the impression that, while the first versions of antiobiotic resistance made the bacteria ineffecient, we had seen evidence for the evolution of less expensive versions, allowing resistant bacteria to spread outside hospitals. Is that wrong?
No, you need a lot of DDT for it to affect an ecosystem. The reason POPs coudl do it was that we spread thousands of tonnes of them over our food supply, cities and nature. If you have the ability to do that to your enemy, traditional explosives would be much more effecient, and include much less risk for it to spread to your own food supply.
How often have Israel used their WMDs on enemy troops? How many times on their own population? As bad as Israel is, and as bad as it is what they have been allowed to do with the support of the US, there really is no comparison to Iraq under Saddam. Anyway, I don't read the GPP as saying that it was OK to invade anybody, he merely explained Saddams policies.
They could do that, but each time they did, they would risk somebody wondering how they knew, and if they do it enough times, one of these people are going to find another example, and write a blog, and Germany is going to change their encryption standards. Too much risk for no benefit for the NSA.
I think you are talking of tetrachromes, in which case it wouldn't be outside the normal range, but a fourth receptor in the normal range, thus giving them better ability to separate colors.
If there were enough baryonic matter in the universe to account for the dark matter as well, the ratios products of big bang nucleosynthesis would be different than what we observe. Furthermore, the study of the variations in the cosmic microwave background tells use that around five-sixths of the total matter is in a form which does not interact significantly with ordinary matter or photons. Both facts are mentioned in the WP article on dark matter.
It could even be existing bayronic matter that's masked by some advanced alien technology.
If there were enough baryonic matter in the universe to account for the dark matter as well, the ratios products of big bang nucleosynthesis would be different than what we observe.
Because they are trying to 'fill' the same gap in observed matter! Please, you must see the fallacy of your argument here. They start with the problem: we observe X but our *really good* calculations say it should be Y. Y-X=ammount any theory will have to account for.
No, the start is a step back from that: Starting with very different theories whose effects we can observe on earth, and expanding the theories to the galaxy or universe domain, they all give the same roughly/exactly the same Y. The simplest answer is that they all fail to take into account the same amount of matter, not that they all just happen to be wrong in just the right way to trick us.
In science, the 'best fit' theory is shorthand for saying the theory that doesn't solve a problem completely, but by consensus represents the best our human ability can offer in solving that problem at that time in history.
That is a description of all of science. It never gives us ultimate answers, just better and better approximations of the correct answer. All scientific theories are likely to be replace some day, but not by throwing them out. In stead, a new theory will be made, that contains the old theory as a special case, just like Newtonian mechanics is a special case of relativity.
We know it is not baryonic, matter as we have a pretty good idea about the concentration of baryons at the big bang from the distribution of nuclei from the big bang nucleosynthesis. Furthermore, the study of the variations in the cosmic microwave background tells use that around five-sixths of the total matter is in a form which does not interact significantly with ordinary matter or photons. Both facts are mentioned in the WP article on dark matter.
That would also make the contracts much more expensive, meaning that more tax needs to be collected to fulfill them, harming local business. Basically, it is the broken window fallacy.
Slashdot Mirror
It is in a closed loop refrigeration system. The typical pressures for the "high" side of a typical system is 200-350 PSI. Needless to say, a leak in the system would result in already-heated liquid that is designed to vaporize at 15-25 PSI being released into the atmosphere (at zero PSI)... which makes converting it to a gaseous state a simple matter of poking a hole somewhere in either loop;
So it will evaporate, not aerosolize?
Can't be much more dangerous than gasoline, which can kill you under far less unusual circumstances.
Yes, if you drink it I suppose. But many people have been doused in gasoline and unless they are lit on fire, find that it simply stinks and itches.
Let's keep the comparison apples to apples, and either note that being doused in a fluorohydrocarbon will probably do little more than to cool you down a bit; or that being doused in carbon monoxide is not exactly the start of a good night on the town, either.
And in many cases, people have survived being burned by gasoline spills that have caught fire.
We don't know how that compares to this compound, all we know is that, under the right circumstances, it can produce HF, while the same can be said of gasoline and CO.
That depends. How much HF will be produced over how long time in a typical crash? Is there any reason to assume that the concentration will ever be problematic?
Just to be pedantic, wouldn't it take a majority of the computational power put into mining for the rules to change? Otherwise, lost bitcoins could make any change impossible.
But there's a problem with that, too, see. Last I checked (which wasn't very long ago), it was costing in the neighborhood of around $30 to mine a bitcoin, if you add up the amortized equipment cost, time and electricity. Yet Bitcoins went up as high as $250.
Wouldn't you like to be able to make something for $30 and sell it for $250? Yeah, me too. Of course it's down from that now but it's still selling for about 5 or 6 times what it costs to make. That's a pretty good markup. So people who are making bitcoins TODAY are making a killing. Not just the initial investors (though they did pretty well).
Which of course means more people will make Bitcoins, which means the price will come down, until the difficulty (cost) of making them is not that far from market price.
Isn't there a mechanism for adjusting the difficulty of mining depending on how much mining is done? Wouldn't that mean that the difficulty will go up if the price does, so that they will match?
Living conditions, not loving conditions. Stupid smartphone keyboard.
You need to take account for indirect effects as well: with less people to choose between as employees, the productivity of companies would go down, leading to higher prices and lower quality products, and to less money being spent in the local economy. It would increase the loving conditions of the people competing with the H1B visa holders while decreasing them for everybody else. What it will mean for the mean living conditions depends on the balance of these effects, but if you include the living conditions of the people who would get a visa, limiting the number of visa will decrease the mean living conditions.
It isn't that obvious that the citizens are losing due to immigration. There are some really obvious downsides, but there are also some upsides: when corporations have an easier time finding the right people to hire, the price of their products are lowered and the quality goes up, and they and their employees spend more in the local economy. On the more abstract plane, this is just saying that specialization increases the efficiency. It is easy to only see the negative sides, as they are so obvious, while the positive sides are more indirect. That is not to say that the citizens always gain by it, but the full analysis is a bit harder to make.
What bullshit. "Protectionist" my ass.
The U.S. is the ONLY economy in the world where government *doesn't* work to make sure that their own citizens are first in line for jobs.
Making sure that your own citizens have a job by disadvantaging foreigners *is* protectionism. You can agree or disagree on whether it is a good thing, but it is protectionism.
Therefore -- and this is the heart of the matter -- Bitcoin should not fluctuate at all in DOLLAR value, except to the extent that computation time fluctuates in dollar value. And since computation time has not fluctuated much in value, then Bitcoin should also NOT have changed in $$ value.
Doesn't the difficulty of computations needed to mine Bitcoins change with how many people are mining (or, more technically, how long time it has lately taken to find hashes)? So the 10 hours is not a constant, meaning that the Bitcoin will fluctuate with the price of computation and how much computation it takes to mine them.
No, capitalism is working, with unanticipated inputs. That's the problem, and it's been discussed before. Economists expect people to act rationally, in their own interest, yet people don't.
That is a problem with economic models (that economists are aware of it and are trying to fix), but it is not relevant here. The buyers the GGP described are rational, their enjoyment from playing with their buddies are higher than the loss of enjoyment from the money they spent on the game, even considering that the game is hard to use otherwise.
If economists were right, nobody would ever drink at a bar or eat at a restaurant because taking a bottle home and cooking for yourself is so much cheaper, which misses about 90% of the point.
Only if you assume that everybody's time is free and the atmosphere is irrelevant, which economists don't assume. Or do you have a quote form where they assumed that?
Glass is not completely transparent, so the prism will get heated. You want a mirror with the reflective coating on the front to minimize the heating. Somebody mentioned a shiny metal object with water cooling internally, that might be the best guess.
It isn't just energy density, but also how fast that energy is released. IIRC, explosive power* of a brisant explosive is proportional to the third power of the density: The explosive power is proportional to the energy released per time unit, which is proportional to how much explodes. In a brisant explosive, this is proportional to the density times the volume of explosive swept by a detonation wave. The latter is proportional to the square of the speed of sound in the material, which is roughly proportional to the density.
Last I checked, this was believed to be the reason why octanitrocubane had less explosive power than calculated before its synthesis, the density was lower than expected (but that was a long time ago, and I might remember wrongly).
*To the degree that you can quantitate explosive power
When all your writing is text, the whole point of Tex is lost, and you might as well use word.
No it isn't. Apart from the ease of writing equations, one major point for LaTeX is that you can just write the damn text and you don't have to worry about how it looks. The final result is going to be beautiful. In Word, you can choose the font and size of all levels of headings, the line spacing and the margins, and even when you have spent time doing that, it still doesn't look as good as LaTeX does out of the box.
As Samantha Wright have pointed out at other places in this discussion, things that are of no benefit for the microorganism is bound to disappear withing days, as it is broken by random mutations.
OK, thank you for that, and thank you for bringing a lot of factual knowledge to the slashdot discussion, it is much appreciated.
I was under the impression that, while the first versions of antiobiotic resistance made the bacteria ineffecient, we had seen evidence for the evolution of less expensive versions, allowing resistant bacteria to spread outside hospitals. Is that wrong?
No, you need a lot of DDT for it to affect an ecosystem. The reason POPs coudl do it was that we spread thousands of tonnes of them over our food supply, cities and nature. If you have the ability to do that to your enemy, traditional explosives would be much more effecient, and include much less risk for it to spread to your own food supply.
How often have Israel used their WMDs on enemy troops? How many times on their own population? As bad as Israel is, and as bad as it is what they have been allowed to do with the support of the US, there really is no comparison to Iraq under Saddam. Anyway, I don't read the GPP as saying that it was OK to invade anybody, he merely explained Saddams policies.
They could do that, but each time they did, they would risk somebody wondering how they knew, and if they do it enough times, one of these people are going to find another example, and write a blog, and Germany is going to change their encryption standards. Too much risk for no benefit for the NSA.
I think you are talking of tetrachromes, in which case it wouldn't be outside the normal range, but a fourth receptor in the normal range, thus giving them better ability to separate colors.
If there were enough baryonic matter in the universe to account for the dark matter as well, the ratios products of big bang nucleosynthesis would be different than what we observe. Furthermore, the study of the variations in the cosmic microwave background tells use that around five-sixths of the total matter is in a form which does not interact significantly with ordinary matter or photons. Both facts are mentioned in the WP article on dark matter.
It could even be existing bayronic matter that's masked by some advanced alien technology.
If there were enough baryonic matter in the universe to account for the dark matter as well, the ratios products of big bang nucleosynthesis would be different than what we observe.
Because they are trying to 'fill' the same gap in observed matter! Please, you must see the fallacy of your argument here. They start with the problem: we observe X but our *really good* calculations say it should be Y. Y-X=ammount any theory will have to account for.
No, the start is a step back from that: Starting with very different theories whose effects we can observe on earth, and expanding the theories to the galaxy or universe domain, they all give the same roughly/exactly the same Y. The simplest answer is that they all fail to take into account the same amount of matter, not that they all just happen to be wrong in just the right way to trick us.
In science, the 'best fit' theory is shorthand for saying the theory that doesn't solve a problem completely, but by consensus represents the best our human ability can offer in solving that problem at that time in history.
That is a description of all of science. It never gives us ultimate answers, just better and better approximations of the correct answer. All scientific theories are likely to be replace some day, but not by throwing them out. In stead, a new theory will be made, that contains the old theory as a special case, just like Newtonian mechanics is a special case of relativity.
We know it is not baryonic, matter as we have a pretty good idea about the concentration of baryons at the big bang from the distribution of nuclei from the big bang nucleosynthesis. Furthermore, the study of the variations in the cosmic microwave background tells use that around five-sixths of the total matter is in a form which does not interact significantly with ordinary matter or photons. Both facts are mentioned in the WP article on dark matter.
That would also make the contracts much more expensive, meaning that more tax needs to be collected to fulfill them, harming local business. Basically, it is the broken window fallacy.