Oh, THIS is why yellow isn't percieved as colour mix (green-red), while cyan (green-blue) and purple (blue-red) is. I have wondered about that for a long time, and now it makes sense. Thank you:-)
Wouldn't that make it stellar in stead of solar? Unless the sun have gone nova since I last checked *looks out of the window* No, it is still shining. So if it has gone nova, it is less then 8 minutes ago.
The analogy still works, that would be analogous to users paying more for faster internet connections, which they do. The toll roads do not, however, send invoices to the car manufacturers when people use the toll roads with bigger cars.
No, Sodium-sulphur batteries scale down horribly. They need to run hot enough for the sulphur to be molten*, and keeping large things hot is easier than keeping small things hot, as the thermal energy scale with the cube of the size, but the escaped heat scales with the square. I don't know how small they can get, though.
*According to wikipedia, they need to run even hotter, 300-350 degree celsius
Surprisingly, the keeping of conventions is to quite a large extend for the psychological health of your own soldiers. Killing people, even in a war, is psychologically taxing, and knowing that you abide by rules to limit unnecessary suffering makes for fewer breakdowns.
Not in Denmark, here any connection to the internet faster than 256 kbit/s (IIRC, perhaps it is 128) is taxed, even if it is a 3G connection on a cellphone. And it is quite hard to get a connection slower than that, I'm not even sure where I would go to get a dial-up connection anymore, so in effect, it is a tax on having internet connection.
But investing in bonds is not "doing nothing", it is lending the money to others, who can use them to take proactive steps. So, if other people have a better idea at making a proactive step*, you are better off lending them the money to do that than you are to take your own proactive step. See, it is much more reasonable that way.
* How proactive the step the other person is going to take is may vary according to your definition of proactive, but it is a step which yields a higher payback or cost reduction than your proactive step would have.
Metastable indicates that the outcome is random. Think of it as a ball placed on top of a hill, with a valley on each side. If the ball is truly on the top of the hill, which side it will roll down is random. Now, the differences you mention would mean that every hill had its own topography, which would of course affect the probability of the ball going in each direction, so it might not be even odds for 0 and 1 for every bit, but it would still be random event, and biases can be corrected for (at the cost of fewer bits of randomness).
The energy lost in a irreversible bit flip is on the order of kT, so assuming that the server operates at 300 K, one megabyte consumes at least 3.5*10^-14 joule, which is equivalent to 3.9*10^-31 kg of relativistic mass, or about a third of the mass of one electron, so storage need to become quite a lot lighter before the bits used to purchase it weighs less then it.
When I was younger, I could clearly feel when I drove under a high-voltage power line. I tried it with my eyes closed, same thing, a clear sensation. Then I tried to close my eyes half a mile before we passed the high-voltage lines, so I wouldn't know exactly when we passed them. All of the sudden, I couldn't feel a thing. I never really could sense the electromagnetic fields, but I had convinced myself that I could, enough that I could clearly feel it. The moral is that until you do a blind experiment, it is extremely easy to convince yourself that you can feel something, even though you are just reacting to the knowledge that the stimulus is there. You might be able to feel X-rays (they do tissue damage, after all), but without a blind experiment, you can't know.
It seems to be closer to the polish spelling. But that will just lead us to a violent discussion of whether russian or polish vodka is better/truer/more original...
Ahh, thank you for the explanation for the heightened toxicity while being hung over, I think I have heard it before, but have forgotten it (and thus made a rather erroneous post), and for the toxicological angle on which NSAID to take against hangovers.
However, your explanation does not explain the lower level of p-acetyl-benzoquinone in the blood if paracetamol is taken while drunk. IANAToxicologist, so I might have missed something in the article, though, or it might just be a type I error.
There seems to be a better explanation than the one I gave for the heightened toxicity of paracetamol while having a hangover. However, that does not explain the data for people being drunk...
Actually, paracetamol seems to be less toxic if taken while drunk, but more so if taken the day after. The enzyme (a cytochrome P450 oxidase) that transforms paracetamol to the toxic substance (N-acetyl-iminoquinone) can also oxidize alcohol. If there is alcohol present, the transformation of paracetamol goes slower and/or by other routes, so taking it while drunk leads to lower blood concentrations of N-acetyl-iminoquinone*. However, when there is alcohol present, the liver produces more cytochrome P450 to detoxify it quicker, and that surplus is still there the day after, so the degradation of paracetamol to N-acetyliminioquinone is faster, making paracetamol more toxic. So don't use it to combat hangovers.
*This have been investigated in a double-blind experiment, where people either got a alcohol-contaning og non-alcoholcontaining intravenous drop (IIRC). When I first read this article, I was rather amused about the idea that people should be unable to tell the difference, but placebo intoxication seems to be rather powerful.
As most household appliances are inductive loads and CFL's are capacitive, their 1 power factor actually improves the overall power factor of a home, so if anything, CFL's will slightly reduce the electric loses.
Hmm, electrons exciting phosphor doesn't sound that energy efficient to me. But of course, it is close to the way CFL's does it. Let's check the web site:
For energy efficiency,Vu1 is targeting to be two-thirds more efficient than the incandesent[sic] bulb
I read that as meaning 1.67 times more lumen/watt than incandescents. So, according to WP, that would be 5/3*15.2 lm/W=25.3 lm/W, contrasted to CFL's of 46-72. And that is their target, so they are not there yet. Besides, as I mentioned, the technology seems very close to CFL, so I would think it would be hard to get a better spectrum than CFL's. But there might be more/better phosphors available for electrons than for UV.
b) he's simplified the science to the point where people who don't know better can poke holes in it and think they're right.
I don't think misrepresenting data counts as simplifying. It is extremely unfortunate that Al Gore felt the need to state his case stronger than the data supported, as it makes it far to easy to attack him, and makes the case for AGW seem much weaker than it is. It is a bit ironic that people promoting a more long-term point of view does it in such a shortsighted manner.
Slashdot Mirror
And it will be much harder to get funding for a start-up if you can't give the investors shares.
Of course, there will always be loopholes, "this guy works for us, as a consultant, about 1 hour a week/month/year, from home. So he can own stocks".
Oh, THIS is why yellow isn't percieved as colour mix (green-red), while cyan (green-blue) and purple (blue-red) is. I have wondered about that for a long time, and now it makes sense. Thank you :-)
Wait, how do you know that my super secret super hero identity is Peter Pedant, with the ability ruin fun points in an instant?
Wouldn't that make it stellar in stead of solar? Unless the sun have gone nova since I last checked *looks out of the window* No, it is still shining. So if it has gone nova, it is less then 8 minutes ago.
The analogy still works, that would be analogous to users paying more for faster internet connections, which they do. The toll roads do not, however, send invoices to the car manufacturers when people use the toll roads with bigger cars.
No, Sodium-sulphur batteries scale down horribly. They need to run hot enough for the sulphur to be molten*, and keeping large things hot is easier than keeping small things hot, as the thermal energy scale with the cube of the size, but the escaped heat scales with the square. I don't know how small they can get, though.
*According to wikipedia, they need to run even hotter, 300-350 degree celsius
Surprisingly, the keeping of conventions is to quite a large extend for the psychological health of your own soldiers. Killing people, even in a war, is psychologically taxing, and knowing that you abide by rules to limit unnecessary suffering makes for fewer breakdowns.
http://whatstheharm.net/chiropractic.html
Not in Denmark, here any connection to the internet faster than 256 kbit/s (IIRC, perhaps it is 128) is taxed, even if it is a 3G connection on a cellphone. And it is quite hard to get a connection slower than that, I'm not even sure where I would go to get a dial-up connection anymore, so in effect, it is a tax on having internet connection.
But investing in bonds is not "doing nothing", it is lending the money to others, who can use them to take proactive steps. So, if other people have a better idea at making a proactive step*, you are better off lending them the money to do that than you are to take your own proactive step. See, it is much more reasonable that way.
* How proactive the step the other person is going to take is may vary according to your definition of proactive, but it is a step which yields a higher payback or cost reduction than your proactive step would have.
Metastable indicates that the outcome is random. Think of it as a ball placed on top of a hill, with a valley on each side. If the ball is truly on the top of the hill, which side it will roll down is random. Now, the differences you mention would mean that every hill had its own topography, which would of course affect the probability of the ball going in each direction, so it might not be even odds for 0 and 1 for every bit, but it would still be random event, and biases can be corrected for (at the cost of fewer bits of randomness).
The energy lost in a irreversible bit flip is on the order of kT, so assuming that the server operates at 300 K, one megabyte consumes at least 3.5*10^-14 joule, which is equivalent to 3.9*10^-31 kg of relativistic mass, or about a third of the mass of one electron, so storage need to become quite a lot lighter before the bits used to purchase it weighs less then it.
1994. Hmm, this might be a better description.
When I was younger, I could clearly feel when I drove under a high-voltage power line. I tried it with my eyes closed, same thing, a clear sensation. Then I tried to close my eyes half a mile before we passed the high-voltage lines, so I wouldn't know exactly when we passed them. All of the sudden, I couldn't feel a thing. I never really could sense the electromagnetic fields, but I had convinced myself that I could, enough that I could clearly feel it. The moral is that until you do a blind experiment, it is extremely easy to convince yourself that you can feel something, even though you are just reacting to the knowledge that the stimulus is there. You might be able to feel X-rays (they do tissue damage, after all), but without a blind experiment, you can't know.
It seems to be closer to the polish spelling. But that will just lead us to a violent discussion of whether russian or polish vodka is better/truer/more original...
Ahh, thank you for the explanation for the heightened toxicity while being hung over, I think I have heard it before, but have forgotten it (and thus made a rather erroneous post), and for the toxicological angle on which NSAID to take against hangovers.
However, your explanation does not explain the lower level of p-acetyl-benzoquinone in the blood if paracetamol is taken while drunk.
IANAToxicologist, so I might have missed something in the article, though, or it might just be a type I error.
There seems to be a better explanation than the one I gave for the heightened toxicity of paracetamol while having a hangover. However, that does not explain the data for people being drunk...
Actually, paracetamol seems to be less toxic if taken while drunk, but more so if taken the day after. The enzyme (a cytochrome P450 oxidase) that transforms paracetamol to the toxic substance (N-acetyl-iminoquinone) can also oxidize alcohol. If there is alcohol present, the transformation of paracetamol goes slower and/or by other routes, so taking it while drunk leads to lower blood concentrations of N-acetyl-iminoquinone*. However, when there is alcohol present, the liver produces more cytochrome P450 to detoxify it quicker, and that surplus is still there the day after, so the degradation of paracetamol to N-acetyliminioquinone is faster, making paracetamol more toxic. So don't use it to combat hangovers.
*This have been investigated in a double-blind experiment, where people either got a alcohol-contaning og non-alcoholcontaining intravenous drop (IIRC). When I first read this article, I was rather amused about the idea that people should be unable to tell the difference, but placebo intoxication seems to be rather powerful.
Except for things living under water... It really is quite hard to kill a planet full of life.
We don't? I would think you could not inherit after a person you had killed, which would be a special law to counter that. Isn't there such a law?
And that is called paying the Dane-geld
But we’ve proved it again and again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
You never get rid of the Dane.
As most household appliances are inductive loads and CFL's are capacitive, their 1 power factor actually improves the overall power factor of a home, so if anything, CFL's will slightly reduce the electric loses.
For energy efficiency,Vu1 is targeting to be two-thirds more efficient than the incandesent[sic] bulb
I read that as meaning 1.67 times more lumen/watt than incandescents. So, according to WP, that would be 5/3*15.2 lm/W=25.3 lm/W, contrasted to CFL's of 46-72. And that is their target, so they are not there yet.
Besides, as I mentioned, the technology seems very close to CFL, so I would think it would be hard to get a better spectrum than CFL's. But there might be more/better phosphors available for electrons than for UV.
b) he's simplified the science to the point where people who don't know better can poke holes in it and think they're right.
I don't think misrepresenting data counts as simplifying. It is extremely unfortunate that Al Gore felt the need to state his case stronger than the data supported, as it makes it far to easy to attack him, and makes the case for AGW seem much weaker than it is. It is a bit ironic that people promoting a more long-term point of view does it in such a shortsighted manner.
Yes, Surely such mistakes could never happen. To be fair, there were pirates on board the vessel (they had hijacked it), but also the original crew, and it was a trawler, not a "pirate mother ship".