I think it utilises the difference in air and land speed relative to the cart, so it wouldn't work in a flat calm. But I don't understand the concept fully, and I don't have the theoretical insight to tell whether it is possible.
on Earth with some cleverness. What's the point of growing large perfect crystals of protein in space, when you can grow large enough protein crystals on Earth?
But you can't, not necessarily, anyway. Growing protein crystals is more art than science, and is not always possible. It depends very much on the protein, but after all, they were not meant to crystallise. It really is the perfect example, as you only need to grow one crystal of every protein, then you can take it down to earth and do X-ray crystallography.
I don't know if that is enough to justify the price tag, though. It is quite a lot of money to pay for a few crystals.
I like it (much more than the other one) for its bleakness and because it leaves the details up to your imagination. I think the protagonist is experiencing humanity having destroyed itself, but he might of course be mistaken. I always thought of a parallel to the first nuclear explosion lighting the atmosphere on fire, or to the case if we had used bromoflourocarbons in stead of chloroflourocarbons (CFCs) (by the time we would have noticed something being wrong, we would have released enough to eat away the entire ozone layer, the only thing that saved us was the price of bromine compared to chlorine). We have done incredibly stupid things where we should have known better (see Late lessons from early warnings: the precautionary principle 1896-2000)
Genetic drift would tend to remove such features, as there are many more ways for them not to work then there is for them to work. If they aren't useful, the alleles coding for broken variants will not be removed, and in time, there will be more of them then of the alleles coding for the working variants. Unless the alleles coding for the working variants also code for something else which is useful, or something like that (is placed close to important genes, etc.).
Technology has not progressed a whole lot this generation and its currently not moving at the exponential rate the population is.
Human population growth is not exponential, and have not been for at least the last 50 years.
The cycle doesn't go on forever.
It might. We don't know. But we certainly need to start working on new technology (probably a repeat of the green revolution should be first priority).
give them all jobs... doing what? all the livable jobs are filled
It is not a zero sum game.
Peak OIL: already hit it - if you think it amounts to output then you are grabbing the wrong stat. We can produce oil from shale at higher rates of output than ever before... if we wanted. The problem is that CHEAP to produce OIL has peaked and will never be any cheaper (barring the foolish trading games or government subsidies which only can go so far.)
Peak Copper - coming in a decade or two. Copper will still be around but it'll cost more-- recycling it costs more.
The system is designed around continual growth and there IS A LIMIT technology or not.
Why? If we can get a source of cheap energy, getting every element from sea water become very possible. Most of the money people spend in western countries are not used to buy raw materials anyway, but rather human work. That part can grow indefinitely, it just requires better and better tools, or more and more copyable work, such as design, programming, etc., and more people to use it.
Sure, we are far from there yet, and it will take a lot of work.
Sure, TeX is command line based, and that takes some getting used to. LyX is a graphical front-end for TeX which is much easier to get used to. It has a much flatter learning curve than TeX. I think it is quite nice, though I prefer the greater control of a command line interface.
That being said, for one- or two-page letters, invoices etc., why not use OO / Word? It is good enough.
If that's true how can one possibly explain why 99.9% of terrorists are muslim ?
Quite simple: It isn't true. What about IRA, ETA, FARC, the shining path, Hindu nationalists in India, Timothy McVeigh etc.?
Now, there are a lot of terrorists who use Islam to explain their actions, but there are many who don't. I don't even think Muslim terrorists are the majority, but I don't have the numbers.
It doesn't matter, the maximum energy stored per mass of flywheel is the specific tensile strength of the material. If the specks have higher specific tensile strength than the bulk, it would be more, though.
Yes, something happening almost surely will happen 100% of the time. By the way, what is the phrase for almost never in danish? Næsten aldrig? I have only come across the term in English sources.
"Almost surely" is the mathematical term in English, and it is distinct from "surely". So, a random real is almost surely not an integer. And then there's asymptotically almost surely. Mathematicians are wierd creatures.
To be fair, I have a feeling that this is only the situation in a few lines of business (at least restaurant employees and scaffolding). What I don't understand is that the rest of the unions aren't vocal against it, it severely damages the reputation of unions as a whole. I suppose solidarity with the other unions are more important for them.
Well, that, and the fact that the police refuses to do anything about blatant racketeering just because the unions are behind it.
What? Where aren't they monopolies? They certainly are in nice, cosy, social democratic Denmark. It is perfectly normal for scaffold set up by non-union members to get disassembled in the night. A few months ago, union leaders was filmed doing it. The reaction from the rest of the unions and the left parties was much shrugging (some of them even defended it), and the police won't do anything about it, as it is a conflict on the labour market.
It is not just in America that unions are just thinly veiled organised crime. Where isn't that the case? I would love to have counter examples, as I can see the good idea behind unions, but have not come across a place where they live up to that idea.
It would seem that they started with the simple experiment. If there had been an effect here, no need to go and do the complicated experiment. Now that there weren't an effect, make the same experiment, but with an alloy of gold-198 and manganese-54, and only measure the decay of manganese. Of course, just the proximity of gold-198 should be enough, so perhaps layers of foil of gold and manganese? Anyway, these experiment are more complicated to carry out, so it makes perfect sense to start with the simple experiment.
The change in neutrino flux due to shape was bigger than the neutrino flux from the sun is, so it must be much bigger than changes in the solar neutrino flux (if I read the summary correctly). If that change in neutrino flux does not induce a measurable change in the rate of decay, then neither will the solar neutrino flux. I think it is a very elegant experiment, testing just what the hypothesis said.
The effect might be different for different decays, so the hypothesis isn't completely dead. Now, if they made an alloy of gold-198 and the isotopes that is claimed to change decay rate...
I think it does. Good thing that it combines immediately with the hydrochloric acid that causes the breakdown to form table salt and water.
H+ reacts directly with HCO3-, forming H2CO3, which reacts to give H2O and CO2 (that reaction might be acid-catalysed, I don't know). No OH- is involved. Your description was the understanding in the early 1800's, and formally, it is correct, but it is nowhere near what happens.
Also I'm not too convinced that the hydrolysis of sucrose in the stomach is immediate. Doing it in a pan (making invert sugar) involves boiling with acid and water for about 20 minutes. At body temp this would take even longer.
Luckily, the body makes enzymes that work as catalysts to make the reaction run much faster.
Admittedly, [sucrose] is composed glucose and fructose structures, they are chemically bonded and is not metabolised the same way as either one of the monosaccharides (glucose and fructose).
Until the stomach, where sucrose is split to equal amounts of glucose and fructose. After that, cane sugar and HFCS is nearly the same for the body.
But, if that study is correct and fructose does cause certain cancer cells to divide more rapidly, well that could (for example) be something for cancer patients to be aware of when planning their menu. It wouldn't surprise me to find that increased use of corn syrup in the past few decades has increased the prevalence of certain kinds of cancer, and we may very well find other significant differences between cane sugar and corn syrup: more research is needed.
One more time: Sucrose, the sugar of table sugar, gets converted to equal amounts of glucose and fructose in the stomach. If fructose is bad in some way, table sugar is just as bad as HFCS (in fact, slightly worse, as the latter is sweeter per calorie, so less is needed for the same sweetness).
HCFS is NOT the same as sucrose, contrary to anything the industry has said on the subject. It's two monosaccarides instead of a disaccaride just for starters- it metabolizes completely differently with differing metabolic effects on you.
Yes, right until the stomach, where sucrose gets split into glucose and fructose, two monosaccharides.
But HFCS contains nearly as much glucose as it does fructose. Sucrose is exactly equal amounts of glucose and fructose, and gets converted to that in the stomach, so after the stomach there is only a very small difference between HFCS and sucrose. Except that HFCS is more sweeter per molecule of glucose and fructose, so for equally sweet products, the HFCS containing one will give you fewer calories in carbohydrates.
Like the search box in the start menu of my Kubuntu 10.04? Or like the search box I get when I press alt+F2? Bot of which searches all parts of the name and all words in the description.
Slashdot Mirror
All of the sudden, the deficit doesn't look that big, all things considered.
Value is added: The correction of prices between markets or points in time. Now, if that is more or less than they make is another question.
I think it utilises the difference in air and land speed relative to the cart, so it wouldn't work in a flat calm. But I don't understand the concept fully, and I don't have the theoretical insight to tell whether it is possible.
on Earth with some cleverness. What's the point of growing large perfect crystals of protein in space, when you can grow large enough protein crystals on Earth?
But you can't, not necessarily, anyway. Growing protein crystals is more art than science, and is not always possible. It depends very much on the protein, but after all, they were not meant to crystallise. It really is the perfect example, as you only need to grow one crystal of every protein, then you can take it down to earth and do X-ray crystallography.
I don't know if that is enough to justify the price tag, though. It is quite a lot of money to pay for a few crystals.
I like it (much more than the other one) for its bleakness and because it leaves the details up to your imagination. I think the protagonist is experiencing humanity having destroyed itself, but he might of course be mistaken. I always thought of a parallel to the first nuclear explosion lighting the atmosphere on fire, or to the case if we had used bromoflourocarbons in stead of chloroflourocarbons (CFCs) (by the time we would have noticed something being wrong, we would have released enough to eat away the entire ozone layer, the only thing that saved us was the price of bromine compared to chlorine). We have done incredibly stupid things where we should have known better (see Late lessons from early warnings: the precautionary principle 1896-2000)
http://www.365tomorrows.com/08/10/fleet-of-ages/ about bringing technology back through time.
http://www.365tomorrows.com/05/31/suspension-of-disbelief/ About time machines as a force for good.
Genetic drift would tend to remove such features, as there are many more ways for them not to work then there is for them to work. If they aren't useful, the alleles coding for broken variants will not be removed, and in time, there will be more of them then of the alleles coding for the working variants. Unless the alleles coding for the working variants also code for something else which is useful, or something like that (is placed close to important genes, etc.).
Technology has not progressed a whole lot this generation and its currently not moving at the exponential rate the population is.
Human population growth is not exponential, and have not been for at least the last 50 years.
The cycle doesn't go on forever.
It might. We don't know. But we certainly need to start working on new technology (probably a repeat of the green revolution should be first priority).
give them all jobs... doing what? all the livable jobs are filled
It is not a zero sum game.
Peak OIL: already hit it - if you think it amounts to output then you are grabbing the wrong stat. We can produce oil from shale at higher rates of output than ever before... if we wanted. The problem is that CHEAP to produce OIL has peaked and will never be any cheaper (barring the foolish trading games or government subsidies which only can go so far.)
Peak Copper - coming in a decade or two. Copper will still be around but it'll cost more-- recycling it costs more.
The system is designed around continual growth and there IS A LIMIT technology or not.
Why? If we can get a source of cheap energy, getting every element from sea water become very possible. Most of the money people spend in western countries are not used to buy raw materials anyway, but rather human work. That part can grow indefinitely, it just requires better and better tools, or more and more copyable work, such as design, programming, etc., and more people to use it.
Sure, we are far from there yet, and it will take a lot of work.
Sure, TeX is command line based, and that takes some getting used to. LyX is a graphical front-end for TeX which is much easier to get used to. It has a much flatter learning curve than TeX. I think it is quite nice, though I prefer the greater control of a command line interface.
That being said, for one- or two-page letters, invoices etc., why not use OO / Word? It is good enough.
According to the Danish law of animal ethics, only vertebrates can suffer*. So worms cannot suffer, no. Now, are rat neurons vertebrates?
*Yes, I know that the law only says that it only covers vertebrates, but the effect is that any animal testing on any non-vertebrate is just fine.
If that's true how can one possibly explain why 99.9% of terrorists are muslim ?
Quite simple: It isn't true. What about IRA, ETA, FARC, the shining path, Hindu nationalists in India, Timothy McVeigh etc.?
Now, there are a lot of terrorists who use Islam to explain their actions, but there are many who don't. I don't even think Muslim terrorists are the majority, but I don't have the numbers.
It doesn't matter, the maximum energy stored per mass of flywheel is the specific tensile strength of the material. If the specks have higher specific tensile strength than the bulk, it would be more, though.
Yes, something happening almost surely will happen 100% of the time.
By the way, what is the phrase for almost never in danish? Næsten aldrig? I have only come across the term in English sources.
"Almost surely" is the mathematical term in English, and it is distinct from "surely". So, a random real is almost surely not an integer. And then there's asymptotically almost surely. Mathematicians are wierd creatures.
To be fair, I have a feeling that this is only the situation in a few lines of business (at least restaurant employees and scaffolding). What I don't understand is that the rest of the unions aren't vocal against it, it severely damages the reputation of unions as a whole. I suppose solidarity with the other unions are more important for them.
Well, that, and the fact that the police refuses to do anything about blatant racketeering just because the unions are behind it.
What? Where aren't they monopolies? They certainly are in nice, cosy, social democratic Denmark. It is perfectly normal for scaffold set up by non-union members to get disassembled in the night. A few months ago, union leaders was filmed doing it. The reaction from the rest of the unions and the left parties was much shrugging (some of them even defended it), and the police won't do anything about it, as it is a conflict on the labour market.
It is not just in America that unions are just thinly veiled organised crime. Where isn't that the case? I would love to have counter examples, as I can see the good idea behind unions, but have not come across a place where they live up to that idea.
It would seem that they started with the simple experiment. If there had been an effect here, no need to go and do the complicated experiment. Now that there weren't an effect, make the same experiment, but with an alloy of gold-198 and manganese-54, and only measure the decay of manganese. Of course, just the proximity of gold-198 should be enough, so perhaps layers of foil of gold and manganese? Anyway, these experiment are more complicated to carry out, so it makes perfect sense to start with the simple experiment.
The change in neutrino flux due to shape was bigger than the neutrino flux from the sun is, so it must be much bigger than changes in the solar neutrino flux (if I read the summary correctly). If that change in neutrino flux does not induce a measurable change in the rate of decay, then neither will the solar neutrino flux. I think it is a very elegant experiment, testing just what the hypothesis said.
The effect might be different for different decays, so the hypothesis isn't completely dead. Now, if they made an alloy of gold-198 and the isotopes that is claimed to change decay rate...
I think it does. Good thing that it combines immediately with the hydrochloric acid that causes the breakdown to form table salt and water.
H+ reacts directly with HCO3-, forming H2CO3, which reacts to give H2O and CO2 (that reaction might be acid-catalysed, I don't know). No OH- is involved. Your description was the understanding in the early 1800's, and formally, it is correct, but it is nowhere near what happens.
Also I'm not too convinced that the hydrolysis of sucrose in the stomach is immediate. Doing it in a pan (making invert sugar) involves boiling with acid and water for about 20 minutes. At body temp this would take even longer.
Luckily, the body makes enzymes that work as catalysts to make the reaction run much faster.
Admittedly, [sucrose] is composed glucose and fructose structures, they are chemically bonded and is not metabolised the same way as either one of the monosaccharides (glucose and fructose).
Until the stomach, where sucrose is split to equal amounts of glucose and fructose. After that, cane sugar and HFCS is nearly the same for the body.
But, if that study is correct and fructose does cause certain cancer cells to divide more rapidly, well that could (for example) be something for cancer patients to be aware of when planning their menu. It wouldn't surprise me to find that increased use of corn syrup in the past few decades has increased the prevalence of certain kinds of cancer, and we may very well find other significant differences between cane sugar and corn syrup: more research is needed.
One more time: Sucrose, the sugar of table sugar, gets converted to equal amounts of glucose and fructose in the stomach. If fructose is bad in some way, table sugar is just as bad as HFCS (in fact, slightly worse, as the latter is sweeter per calorie, so less is needed for the same sweetness).
HCFS is NOT the same as sucrose, contrary to anything the industry has said on the subject. It's two monosaccarides instead of a disaccaride just for starters- it metabolizes completely differently with differing metabolic effects on you.
Yes, right until the stomach, where sucrose gets split into glucose and fructose, two monosaccharides.
Cane sugar is 50% fructose, in exactly the same way that baking soda (NaHCO3) is 50% lye (NaOH).>
So you are saying that baking soda breaks down to lye in the stomach?
But HFCS contains nearly as much glucose as it does fructose. Sucrose is exactly equal amounts of glucose and fructose, and gets converted to that in the stomach, so after the stomach there is only a very small difference between HFCS and sucrose. Except that HFCS is more sweeter per molecule of glucose and fructose, so for equally sweet products, the HFCS containing one will give you fewer calories in carbohydrates.
Like the search box in the start menu of my Kubuntu 10.04? Or like the search box I get when I press alt+F2? Bot of which searches all parts of the name and all words in the description.