A compound is an identically structured association of different types of atoms, participating in either covalent or ionic bonding, resulting in a substance that is fundamentally different from its constituent parts. Eg, mixing nitrogen and hydrogen gasses together in a tank will not be the same as a tank containing the same stoichiometric quantity of anhydrous ammonia.
In fact, ionized anhydrous ammonia is a perfect test subject for this debate.
Ionizing ammonia by ripping off a hydrogen atom causes it to become free amonium ion, a polyatomic ion, which you are asserting is not a compound. Under laboratory conditions, and in interstellar clouds, this substance does exist in free and unbound states. The mere fact that the molecule has a reasonably strong ionic charge, and a strong affinity for electron accepting metals and hydrogen (protium) atoms does not remove it from being in the "compound" class of substances. Ammonium ion behaves very differently from a mixture of ionized nitrogen and hydrogen gasses of similar charge.
Symantically, "compound" is a classification that is intended to differentiate between "mixtures", "solutions", and "colloids", and polyatomic molecules.
Components in a mixture retain their individual chemical identities, and can be seperated based on that retention of chemical identity.
A solution is one compound being dissolved into another. When the solvent is removed, the solute will reconstitute unchanged, but disperses eavenly within the solvent when mixed.
A colloid is a mixture of suspended microparticle of one substance, floating in a homeostatic suspension inside another substance.
A polyatomic molecule is comprised of homogenous atoms held together by covalent or ionic potentials. (Eg, N2, H2, O2, etc.)
A "polyatomic ion" can be a compound, but also not be a compound.
For instance, ozone (O3-) is a polyatomic ion that is NOT a compound. (It also tends to decompose rather than engage in an ionic bond, but in its free state, it is an electrically charged polyatomic molecule that is not a compound.)
NH3 is a polyatomic ion that *is* a compound, because it is comprised of discrete and identical quantities of heterogenous atoms. (All ammonium ions are the same: NH3.)
In this case, perchlorate is comprised of 4 oxygen atoms, 1 chlorine atom, and one hydrogen atom. It is therefor a polyatomic ion, that is also a compound.
Compound and polyatomic ion are not exclusive.
That is where the disconnect lies.
Returning to interstellar ammonium, the usual way to describe this is to call it ionized ammonia. This is to differentiate it at the macro level from ammonium ions suspended in water, or interacting with some other partner or solvent. This is simply to avoid confusion. Likewise, to describe perchlorate all by itself, one would likely refer to it as "anhydrous, ionized perchloric acid." (Given the strength of the ion, and the thermal instability of the ion, it is unlikely that this could form without radically unusual conditions though.)
The point here is that the burden to show that perchlorate is NOT a compound rests on your shoulders, and not the burden to show that perchlorate IS a compound on mine.
I have pointed to the established definition of what a compound is, which fully encompases all aspects of the perchloate ion. You now have to assert why the ion is not a compound.
Oh, as for it not being a mineral, you fail again. It is not produced by an organic process, does not contain carbon, and forms natural crystalline associations in soils. Perchlorates are minerals.
Eg, did you know that rock salt is a mineral? Geologists call it "halite".;) perchlorate complexes are indeed minerals my friend.
Try again after you learn the differences between compounds, molecular elemental quantities, mixtures, solutions, and coloids.
The perchlorate ion is a covalently bound molecule of oxygen, chlorine, and hydrogen. It is therefor a compound. It forms ionic associations with metals, and decomposes organic compounds via oxidation reactions.
It is a wicked oxydizer, and it does kill most terrestrial microbes almost instantly. (Its basically bleach.)
However, the degree of lethality is deprendent on concentration of the perchlorate salt (my understanding was that it was under 1% of the sample, suggesting it was a low yeild, but omnipresent mineral), as a small qualtity would be tolerable to extremophiles, which is what you would expect in the extreme conditions on mars.
Life on mars appears more and more to fall into a very narrow band of habitablility, like the photosynthetic soil microbes of antarctica, assuming it exists at all.
Missions like this one give us a better understanding of martian environmental conditions, and allow us to make better guesses about what areas of mars might potentially harbor life.
Perchlorate is a powerful oxydizer, yes. It has 4 bound oxygen atoms per molar quantity. That's a lot of oxygen. Further, it sheds the oxygen when heated, making it useful for a wide assortment of purposes, not just limited to propellants.
For instance, heating it in an oven will release breathable oxygen. If we ever establish martian habitats, perchlorate salts in the crust would be invaluable to maintaning a breathable atmosphere inside the enclosure.
Perchlorate is intriguing for a number of reasons that are tangental to the compound's intrinsic character.
First, it is a potentially biologically useful compound as an oxygen source for single cellular respiration in autochemotrophs.
Second, if concentrations are high enough, the salt lowers the melting point of water sufficiently that martian soil could be "moist" at sufficient depths.
Also, the compound usually only forms in nature from UV irridation of aqueous saline solutions. A high abundance of the mineral is very suggestive of a very different mars from what we see now.
Previous rovers have detected gypsum, and perchlorates at other locations. Additional samplings of perchlorates increases the probability that the mineral is very prevelent in the crust, which greatly increases the chances of finding microbiotic life.
The fact that perchlorate salts are about as "interesting" as O2, salt, silicon dioxide, and other inorganic substances here on earth does not mean that they are uninteresting in an environment that is radically different from our own.
Get one of those fancy 5 color jobs then. Fill the remaining tanks with pigments, and use the optical head calibration sensor in most modern inkjets to read the alignment pattern.
Then the process would be:
Print alignment matrix at the bottom of the sheet using tanks 4 and 5. Kick the sheet most of the way out, and wait 240 seconds for the pattern to dry real good. Pull the sheet back in, and look for the alignment pattern with the sensors. Slowly feed the sheet to the start position. Print the resist layer. Kick it most of the way out, and wait 240 seconds for it to dry. (Longer if needed...) pull the sheet back in, check for the alignment pattern. Advance to the start position. Lay down the nitrate and dextrose solutions. Kick the sheet most of the way out, and wait 10 minutes for it to cure. Kick the sheet out completely. Prompt for washing. Wash the sheet with distilled water and a mild surfactant. Dry the sheet. Load the sheet. Advance the sheet to find sheet edges, retract the sheet to find the alignment pattern. Advance to starting point, and lay down the varnish.
I am envisoning the use of a plastic substrate here, like an inkjet friendly transparancy film. That way the washing step is pretty harmless to the substrate.
You need to wash it, to remove the residual nitrate salts.
How about just an inkjet printer? Tri color cart, with the reservoir washed out. Fill one tank with silver nitrate, another with dextrose solution, and the third with a nonpolar resist solution. Fill the black cart with a clear varnish.
Print the resist layer, back out the sheet until it is dry, feed it back in, and then print the silver and dextrose layers. Back out again, allow to cure. Rinse sheet, reload it, print the varnish.
Done.
It would be like silvering a mirror, only more selective.
Some people can sculpt digitally, far better than they can physically. (I can do both.) For those that can do both, digital medium is far cheaper and inexhaustible in supply than quality clay.
Digitally sculpted items need only be sculpted once, then they can be printed many times after that. If you do work with minis, this allows you a great deal of flexibility. You can make your "master" digitally, 3d print an instance, treat it with resin to make it sturdy, then do a little physical cleanup, and then use it to make your whitemetal casting mold. If you screw up the process, you are not out all the many hours it took to make the original, like you would be if you were using a physical master. This would also be true of a small model car.
The 3d prototyping process is not to produce a finished product, but to make a molding plug.
(Whitemetal is painfully easy to cast with.)
This implies that creating the 3d printed plug is a prelude to being able to mass replicate a salable commodity. That is why such legal action would be iminent.
Public notaries are all over, and most banks have one. The point is that the small guy has to jump through a shitton of such hoops, JUST to avoid the "I don't trust you!" Phase, where the major company doing image work has no such problem, and can simply make use of the service.
This preferential treatment allows the major company to smply "assert" that an article or image is infringing, and results in the automatic revocation of service for small time persons.
Getting the notary to stamp your afidavit of ownership and originality only exhonerates the printhouse from culpability, by having a higher assurance to turn to. The reality is that said afidavit is nothing more than another person stamping a "yes, I saw this guy make this statement.", and does not really in any way improve the situation. The person with the art to print is still the underlying authority who is attesting to having the needed rights for reproduction, and to authorize reproduction. The notary just stamps off with a "yeah, I saw this guy legally attest as much! Uh huh!"
The notary does not check on any facts for you. It does not add any vetting to legitimize the claim. It is just an added layer of beauracratic silliness to a topheavy system.
They serve a REAL function in asserting that the paperwork filed in legal actions are originals and not ex post facto forgeries or redacted duplications, by being a ready made expert witness to the signing and filing of those documents. In that respect, a public notary is invaluable. But for getting an afidavit asserting your rights to your own artwork? Madness!
I imagine somebody who does miniatures gettng sued by WotC because the female spellcaster he digitally modeled and tried to have printed would compete with authorized minis produced by their partners, and simply being a mini of a popular type would simply be "too close to permit" in their opinion.
The print shop would prohibit production of such items until the legal issue was settled, and in that time, legitimate self-made models would be denied reproduction.
That's a very specific use case, but it could just as easily be miniature cars (like hotwheels), self-sculpted action figures of generic types, and other "hot selling" physical goods items.
For some people in business, "derivative work" has nothing to do whatsoever with a specific item in a product lineup, and has much more in common with a nebulous and poorly defined "category" of items in a product lineup. That is why somebody making a miniature AC Cobra in the hotwheels form factor, using meticulously made measurements and shape editing, might be slapped with a cease and desist from hotwheels company, with them insisting on the name of baby jesus, gandhi, mother theresa, and all the saints that the model in question is a derivative work, and not an independent piece of authorship. (I am just picking on hotwheels rhetorically. No libelous intent is to be assumed here.)
I have had similar problems when trying to get silly one-off posters printed at print shops, that were of my own design, and which were made with royalty free sources. The poster "looking too professional", as another poster earlier asserted, always resulted in failing to have them printed. When the printhouse assumes that you are abusing copyright, and you do all your work under a fictitious pseudonym like I do, you just get fucked. You can't prove you are said fictitious psuedonym to their satisfaction, and you can't easily prove that all the elements in your composition are indeed royalty free, without pulling out an encyclopedia of raw sources at the print house, and holding up the line.
Likewise, a "really well modeled" minitature AC cobra getting 3d printed is going to be very hard to get printed, because of the litigation paranoia.
The result is that skilled and talented people will be locked out of the service, because of false preconceptions that favor big industries that are all to willing to sue for even the slightest perception of a violation.
Ok, how about buying a carton of milk, and finding orange juice inside?
Buy a bottle of champaign and discover it is really white zinfendel?
The point is that simply because "its a liquid, and you can drink it", that does not make it interchangeable. Ordering a porche and getting a ford festiva delivered is NOT how you treat customers. They are both cars, and they both drive from point a to point b. But saying they are the same is disingeuous to say the least.
This is not a humble bundle offering any more than a delivered ford festiva is a porche.
Sticking a porche nameplate on said festiva and selling it as a porche is a very good way to destroy the brand.
The same is true here. People are angry, because of this.
"Humble bundle" is more or less in the same mental category as I would place "brand names".
It is a specific brand of name your price software offering, estalished on a set of core ideals.
It was those core ideals that made Humbe Bundle stand out from other name your price offerings.
This is not an offering true to the humble bundle ideals. It should not be labeled as being a humble bundle offering, unless they strip off the DRM, and FOSS the game afterwards, like the previous closed source games in the past did.
Unless they do BOTH of those things, this is an unacceptable offering, akin to opening a box of heineken and finding that it had been instead filled with old milwuakee.
People support the humble bundle brand for a reason. Throwing away that foundation to placate AAA studio developers is a betrayal of the user base, and a slap in the face to prior bundle participant developers.
No developer should get preferential treatment by the bundle. Ever.
But you also have to remember that the moon has 1/6 earth gravity. Once the initial habitats are made, you can do things with common materials that you simply can't do on earth. A stone roof could hold up 6x as much dirt before reaching the mechanical limits, etc.
You could easily have collosal vertical spaces and grand living accomodations underground; you could build a very nice house, INSIDE the habitat structure, have real windows on said house, and a real view of a low gravity fountain pool with plants living around it, for instance.
"Space age" materials (like 7057 aluminum alloy and pals, which is what you would get on the moon) would get you a lot of utility up there.
The major issue aside from basic habitability (air regeneration, food production, water treatment, atmospheric containment, and radiation protection) would be slow bone loss from the low gravity.
There was some research awhile back involving mice that showed that low frequency ocsillations can promote bone growth. Perhaps putting subwhoofers in the habitats would help alleviate the probem?
The 386 DX50 DID exist. It was uncommon, and was not routinely sold. It did exist however. I know, I distinctly remember that one. (Wikipedia is simply wrong. This is one of those cases where I wish I hadn't thrown it away. It was not an OCed 33. It was a straight up DX50. I ordered it from a computer shoppers magazine.)
It was also 20 years ago, I am human, getting older, and getting forgetful. But now that you mention it, I think that particular board went from a P66 to a P90.
(Owned too many to keep them all straight.)
For the 386, it probably was a DX, since it was socketed. (Not ZIF, No. Neither was the 8086. It was a PGA array that you needed to be especially careful with when you pulled and replaced chips with, since you have to crush it into place.) Probably a DX33. I remember distinctly going to the DX50 and having timing issues with games from the time. (Changed the bus clock!)
That wasn't the point though, Mr Pedantic.
The point was that I often upgrade CPUs in boards I buy. Not being able to have perfect 100% recall over the upgrade paths of over a dozen boards and 2 dozen CPUs over 30 years of being a computing enthusiast does not negate that.:P
It's possible they used a different capsid structure to deliver the payload, and delivered the RNA that way.
There is a whole class of viruses that deposit RNA instead of DNA. It isn't all that new.
In typical slashdot tradition, I did not read the article; if they are using some other mechanism besides a virus capsid to deliver the RNA, that would indeed be novel.
Even more novel still, would be an epigenetic approcah that alters the way human cytoplasm interacts with influenza mRNA, preventing "expected" synthesis by having cytoplasmic cofactors influence expression. (Happens with a lot of nuclear DNA sequences already.)
Still, all of those systems are sufficiently new as scientific fields that experimenting on humans is potentially quite risky. Epigentics is absurdly new, as is proteomics.
Not to say they aren't potentially viable, just not prudent to seriously pursue in humans at this time.
In the late 80s to mid 90s, there were several variants on common intel chips, with series IDs ending in "SL", eg, 386SL.
These chips were typically square packages for surface mount soldering, and were directly stuck to the motherboard with no options for replacement.
These systems were studiously avoided and called out on being the crap that they were way back then, by the very enthusiasts we are talking about here.
This decision to make "unsocketed" CPUs for direct surfacemount installation will only give AMD a leg up in the enthusiast market.
I would expect to see Intel CPUs soldered to riser cards that expose socket pins as a cottage industry.
I am not sure that the "cooked" turkey would actually be edible. The sodium brine inside most commercial holiday turkeys would almost certainly dissociate under the imposed conditions inside the turkey, and form free radicals under the imposed excitation. I doubt that an induction cooked bird would be even the slightest bit appetizing.
That wasn't the purpose of the question though. The submitter asked for the geekiest way. Not the most sensible way.:D
What I would conjecture is happening with the icecube isn't so much that water is polar, but that the ice's crysta structure produces small, but important paramagnetic domains which restrict the propogation of the reversing field, and leaving magnetic eddies that way. Those small eddies then interact with the constantly oscillating field, and get induced into resonant patterns. A frozen bird may cook better than a thawed one.
Wrap a coil of 10 gauge or thicker copper wire around a large stockpot to a height suitable for the intended purpose. Remove from stockpot, and attach coil to the charge controller.
Carefully lower the coil over and around the frozen turkey, taking care to assure that the coil does not short, and does not touch the turkey.
Turn the charge controller on, and observe carefully. A mysterious orange glow eminating from the frozen turkey is normal. It may be necessary to throttle back the voltage of the induction coil to avoid incineration of the turkey. Using a frozen turkey improves chances of first time success.
Keep children, pets, and the elderly away from the induction heater at all times, and always wear appropriate protective clothing and safety goggles.
Slashdot Mirror
That isn't how the language works.
A compound is an identically structured association of different types of atoms, participating in either covalent or ionic bonding, resulting in a substance that is fundamentally different from its constituent parts. Eg, mixing nitrogen and hydrogen gasses together in a tank will not be the same as a tank containing the same stoichiometric quantity of anhydrous ammonia.
In fact, ionized anhydrous ammonia is a perfect test subject for this debate.
Ionizing ammonia by ripping off a hydrogen atom causes it to become free amonium ion, a polyatomic ion, which you are asserting is not a compound. Under laboratory conditions, and in interstellar clouds, this substance does exist in free and unbound states. The mere fact that the molecule has a reasonably strong ionic charge, and a strong affinity for electron accepting metals and hydrogen (protium) atoms does not remove it from being in the "compound" class of substances. Ammonium ion behaves very differently from a mixture of ionized nitrogen and hydrogen gasses of similar charge.
Symantically, "compound" is a classification that is intended to differentiate between "mixtures", "solutions", and "colloids", and polyatomic molecules.
Components in a mixture retain their individual chemical identities, and can be seperated based on that retention of chemical identity.
A solution is one compound being dissolved into another. When the solvent is removed, the solute will reconstitute unchanged, but disperses eavenly within the solvent when mixed.
A colloid is a mixture of suspended microparticle of one substance, floating in a homeostatic suspension inside another substance.
A polyatomic molecule is comprised of homogenous atoms held together by covalent or ionic potentials. (Eg, N2, H2, O2, etc.)
A "polyatomic ion" can be a compound, but also not be a compound.
For instance, ozone (O3-) is a polyatomic ion that is NOT a compound. (It also tends to decompose rather than engage in an ionic bond, but in its free state, it is an electrically charged polyatomic molecule that is not a compound.)
NH3 is a polyatomic ion that *is* a compound, because it is comprised of discrete and identical quantities of heterogenous atoms. (All ammonium ions are the same: NH3.)
In this case, perchlorate is comprised of 4 oxygen atoms, 1 chlorine atom, and one hydrogen atom. It is therefor a polyatomic ion, that is also a compound.
Compound and polyatomic ion are not exclusive.
That is where the disconnect lies.
Returning to interstellar ammonium, the usual way to describe this is to call it ionized ammonia. This is to differentiate it at the macro level from ammonium ions suspended in water, or interacting with some other partner or solvent. This is simply to avoid confusion. Likewise, to describe perchlorate all by itself, one would likely refer to it as "anhydrous, ionized perchloric acid." (Given the strength of the ion, and the thermal instability of the ion, it is unlikely that this could form without radically unusual conditions though.)
The point here is that the burden to show that perchlorate is NOT a compound rests on your shoulders, and not the burden to show that perchlorate IS a compound on mine.
I have pointed to the established definition of what a compound is, which fully encompases all aspects of the perchloate ion. You now have to assert why the ion is not a compound.
Oh, as for it not being a mineral, you fail again. It is not produced by an organic process, does not contain carbon, and forms natural crystalline associations in soils. Perchlorates are minerals.
Eg, did you know that rock salt is a mineral? Geologists call it "halite". ;) perchlorate complexes are indeed minerals my friend.
Entry: "chemical compound"
Entry: "chemical compound"
Entry:"chemical compound"
What definition of "chemical compound" are you using exactly, that perchlorate ion would not be a chemical compound?
As for the question: calcium perchlorate.
chemistry fail AC.
Try again after you learn the differences between compounds, molecular elemental quantities, mixtures, solutions, and coloids.
The perchlorate ion is a covalently bound molecule of oxygen, chlorine, and hydrogen. It is therefor a compound. It forms ionic associations with metals, and decomposes organic compounds via oxidation reactions.
*raspberry*
It is a wicked oxydizer, and it does kill most terrestrial microbes almost instantly. (Its basically bleach.)
However, the degree of lethality is deprendent on concentration of the perchlorate salt (my understanding was that it was under 1% of the sample, suggesting it was a low yeild, but omnipresent mineral), as a small qualtity would be tolerable to extremophiles, which is what you would expect in the extreme conditions on mars.
Life on mars appears more and more to fall into a very narrow band of habitablility, like the photosynthetic soil microbes of antarctica, assuming it exists at all.
Missions like this one give us a better understanding of martian environmental conditions, and allow us to make better guesses about what areas of mars might potentially harbor life.
Perchlorate is a powerful oxydizer, yes. It has 4 bound oxygen atoms per molar quantity. That's a lot of oxygen. Further, it sheds the oxygen when heated, making it useful for a wide assortment of purposes, not just limited to propellants.
For instance, heating it in an oven will release breathable oxygen. If we ever establish martian habitats, perchlorate salts in the crust would be invaluable to maintaning a breathable atmosphere inside the enclosure.
Perchlorate is intriguing for a number of reasons that are tangental to the compound's intrinsic character.
First, it is a potentially biologically useful compound as an oxygen source for single cellular respiration in autochemotrophs.
Second, if concentrations are high enough, the salt lowers the melting point of water sufficiently that martian soil could be "moist" at sufficient depths.
Also, the compound usually only forms in nature from UV irridation of aqueous saline solutions. A high abundance of the mineral is very suggestive of a very different mars from what we see now.
Previous rovers have detected gypsum, and perchlorates at other locations. Additional samplings of perchlorates increases the probability that the mineral is very prevelent in the crust, which greatly increases the chances of finding microbiotic life.
The fact that perchlorate salts are about as "interesting" as O2, salt, silicon dioxide, and other inorganic substances here on earth does not mean that they are uninteresting in an environment that is radically different from our own.
Get one of those fancy 5 color jobs then. Fill the remaining tanks with pigments, and use the optical head calibration sensor in most modern inkjets to read the alignment pattern.
Then the process would be:
Print alignment matrix at the bottom of the sheet using tanks 4 and 5. Kick the sheet most of the way out, and wait 240 seconds for the pattern to dry real good. Pull the sheet back in, and look for the alignment pattern with the sensors. Slowly feed the sheet to the start position. Print the resist layer. Kick it most of the way out, and wait 240 seconds for it to dry. (Longer if needed...) pull the sheet back in, check for the alignment pattern. Advance to the start position. Lay down the nitrate and dextrose solutions. Kick the sheet most of the way out, and wait 10 minutes for it to cure. Kick the sheet out completely. Prompt for washing. Wash the sheet with distilled water and a mild surfactant. Dry the sheet. Load the sheet. Advance the sheet to find sheet edges, retract the sheet to find the alignment pattern. Advance to starting point, and lay down the varnish.
I am envisoning the use of a plastic substrate here, like an inkjet friendly transparancy film. That way the washing step is pretty harmless to the substrate.
You need to wash it, to remove the residual nitrate salts.
If the goal is "direct to market", then you are using 3d printing wrong.
3d printing is really to help you in an intermediate process. Like building a mold, or a die, or testing a layout without wasting a lot of prep time.
Hmm...
How about just an inkjet printer? Tri color cart, with the reservoir washed out. Fill one tank with silver nitrate, another with dextrose solution, and the third with a nonpolar resist solution. Fill the black cart with a clear varnish.
Print the resist layer, back out the sheet until it is dry, feed it back in, and then print the silver and dextrose layers. Back out again, allow to cure. Rinse sheet, reload it, print the varnish.
Done.
It would be like silvering a mirror, only more selective.
In this case, here was my line of reasoning:
Some people can sculpt digitally, far better than they can physically. (I can do both.) For those that can do both, digital medium is far cheaper and inexhaustible in supply than quality clay.
Digitally sculpted items need only be sculpted once, then they can be printed many times after that. If you do work with minis, this allows you a great deal of flexibility. You can make your "master" digitally, 3d print an instance, treat it with resin to make it sturdy, then do a little physical cleanup, and then use it to make your whitemetal casting mold. If you screw up the process, you are not out all the many hours it took to make the original, like you would be if you were using a physical master. This would also be true of a small model car.
The 3d prototyping process is not to produce a finished product, but to make a molding plug.
(Whitemetal is painfully easy to cast with.)
This implies that creating the 3d printed plug is a prelude to being able to mass replicate a salable commodity. That is why such legal action would be iminent.
No, it is just unnecessary beurocracy.
Public notaries are all over, and most banks have one. The point is that the small guy has to jump through a shitton of such hoops, JUST to avoid the "I don't trust you!" Phase, where the major company doing image work has no such problem, and can simply make use of the service.
This preferential treatment allows the major company to smply "assert" that an article or image is infringing, and results in the automatic revocation of service for small time persons.
Getting the notary to stamp your afidavit of ownership and originality only exhonerates the printhouse from culpability, by having a higher assurance to turn to. The reality is that said afidavit is nothing more than another person stamping a "yes, I saw this guy make this statement.", and does not really in any way improve the situation. The person with the art to print is still the underlying authority who is attesting to having the needed rights for reproduction, and to authorize reproduction. The notary just stamps off with a "yeah, I saw this guy legally attest as much! Uh huh!"
The notary does not check on any facts for you. It does not add any vetting to legitimize the claim. It is just an added layer of beauracratic silliness to a topheavy system.
They serve a REAL function in asserting that the paperwork filed in legal actions are originals and not ex post facto forgeries or redacted duplications, by being a ready made expert witness to the signing and filing of those documents. In that respect, a public notary is invaluable. But for getting an afidavit asserting your rights to your own artwork? Madness!
Vaugeries of "derivative works"...
I imagine somebody who does miniatures gettng sued by WotC because the female spellcaster he digitally modeled and tried to have printed would compete with authorized minis produced by their partners, and simply being a mini of a popular type would simply be "too close to permit" in their opinion.
The print shop would prohibit production of such items until the legal issue was settled, and in that time, legitimate self-made models would be denied reproduction.
That's a very specific use case, but it could just as easily be miniature cars (like hotwheels), self-sculpted action figures of generic types, and other "hot selling" physical goods items.
For some people in business, "derivative work" has nothing to do whatsoever with a specific item in a product lineup, and has much more in common with a nebulous and poorly defined "category" of items in a product lineup. That is why somebody making a miniature AC Cobra in the hotwheels form factor, using meticulously made measurements and shape editing, might be slapped with a cease and desist from hotwheels company, with them insisting on the name of baby jesus, gandhi, mother theresa, and all the saints that the model in question is a derivative work, and not an independent piece of authorship. (I am just picking on hotwheels rhetorically. No libelous intent is to be assumed here.)
I have had similar problems when trying to get silly one-off posters printed at print shops, that were of my own design, and which were made with royalty free sources. The poster "looking too professional", as another poster earlier asserted, always resulted in failing to have them printed. When the printhouse assumes that you are abusing copyright, and you do all your work under a fictitious pseudonym like I do, you just get fucked. You can't prove you are said fictitious psuedonym to their satisfaction, and you can't easily prove that all the elements in your composition are indeed royalty free, without pulling out an encyclopedia of raw sources at the print house, and holding up the line.
Likewise, a "really well modeled" minitature AC cobra getting 3d printed is going to be very hard to get printed, because of the litigation paranoia.
The result is that skilled and talented people will be locked out of the service, because of false preconceptions that favor big industries that are all to willing to sue for even the slightest perception of a violation.
Ok, how about buying a carton of milk, and finding orange juice inside?
Buy a bottle of champaign and discover it is really white zinfendel?
The point is that simply because "its a liquid, and you can drink it", that does not make it interchangeable. Ordering a porche and getting a ford festiva delivered is NOT how you treat customers. They are both cars, and they both drive from point a to point b. But saying they are the same is disingeuous to say the least.
This is not a humble bundle offering any more than a delivered ford festiva is a porche.
Sticking a porche nameplate on said festiva and selling it as a porche is a very good way to destroy the brand.
The same is true here. People are angry, because of this.
"Humble bundle" is more or less in the same mental category as I would place "brand names".
It is a specific brand of name your price software offering, estalished on a set of core ideals.
It was those core ideals that made Humbe Bundle stand out from other name your price offerings.
This is not an offering true to the humble bundle ideals. It should not be labeled as being a humble bundle offering, unless they strip off the DRM, and FOSS the game afterwards, like the previous closed source games in the past did.
Unless they do BOTH of those things, this is an unacceptable offering, akin to opening a box of heineken and finding that it had been instead filled with old milwuakee.
People support the humble bundle brand for a reason. Throwing away that foundation to placate AAA studio developers is a betrayal of the user base, and a slap in the face to prior bundle participant developers.
No developer should get preferential treatment by the bundle. Ever.
Initial habitats, perhaps.
But you also have to remember that the moon has 1/6 earth gravity. Once the initial habitats are made, you can do things with common materials that you simply can't do on earth. A stone roof could hold up 6x as much dirt before reaching the mechanical limits, etc.
You could easily have collosal vertical spaces and grand living accomodations underground; you could build a very nice house, INSIDE the habitat structure, have real windows on said house, and a real view of a low gravity fountain pool with plants living around it, for instance.
"Space age" materials (like 7057 aluminum alloy and pals, which is what you would get on the moon) would get you a lot of utility up there.
The major issue aside from basic habitability (air regeneration, food production, water treatment, atmospheric containment, and radiation protection) would be slow bone loss from the low gravity.
There was some research awhile back involving mice that showed that low frequency ocsillations can promote bone growth. Perhaps putting subwhoofers in the habitats would help alleviate the probem?
No, and No.
The 386 DX50 DID exist. It was uncommon, and was not routinely sold. It did exist however. I know, I distinctly remember that one. (Wikipedia is simply wrong. This is one of those cases where I wish I hadn't thrown it away. It was not an OCed 33. It was a straight up DX50. I ordered it from a computer shoppers magazine.)
The NEC V33 is also a real CPU. It is a variant of the V30, with wired logic instead of microcode.
It was also 20 years ago, I am human, getting older, and getting forgetful. But now that you mention it, I think that particular board went from a P66 to a P90.
(Owned too many to keep them all straight.)
For the 386, it probably was a DX, since it was socketed. (Not ZIF, No. Neither was the 8086. It was a PGA array that you needed to be especially careful with when you pulled and replaced chips with, since you have to crush it into place.) Probably a DX33. I remember distinctly going to the DX50 and having timing issues with games from the time. (Changed the bus clock!)
That wasn't the point though, Mr Pedantic.
The point was that I often upgrade CPUs in boards I buy. Not being able to have perfect 100% recall over the upgrade paths of over a dozen boards and 2 dozen CPUs over 30 years of being a computing enthusiast does not negate that. :P
It's possible they used a different capsid structure to deliver the payload, and delivered the RNA that way.
There is a whole class of viruses that deposit RNA instead of DNA. It isn't all that new.
In typical slashdot tradition, I did not read the article; if they are using some other mechanism besides a virus capsid to deliver the RNA, that would indeed be novel.
Even more novel still, would be an epigenetic approcah that alters the way human cytoplasm interacts with influenza mRNA, preventing "expected" synthesis by having cytoplasmic cofactors influence expression. (Happens with a lot of nuclear DNA sequences already.)
Still, all of those systems are sufficiently new as scientific fields that experimenting on humans is potentially quite risky. Epigentics is absurdly new, as is proteomics.
Not to say they aren't potentially viable, just not prudent to seriously pursue in humans at this time.
In the late 80s to mid 90s, there were several variants on common intel chips, with series IDs ending in "SL", eg, 386SL.
These chips were typically square packages for surface mount soldering, and were directly stuck to the motherboard with no options for replacement.
These systems were studiously avoided and called out on being the crap that they were way back then, by the very enthusiasts we are talking about here.
This decision to make "unsocketed" CPUs for direct surfacemount installation will only give AMD a leg up in the enthusiast market.
I would expect to see Intel CPUs soldered to riser cards that expose socket pins as a cottage industry.
No. He means when the FPU was a seperate die, and was optional.
Eg, 8087, 80287, 80387 and pals.
I think they stopped selling seperate FPUs after the 386, but still persisted in selling FPU neutered chips well into the 486 era.
Since you asked. :D
Intel 8086:
Intel 8086, ->NEC V33
(Intel 286, but kept standard cpu.)
Intel 386:
SX 25, ->DX50
Intel 486:
486 SX25 ->486 DX2/50
Socket7:
Pentium 66-> Pentium 150
Super socket7:
Pentium MMX 200-> AMD K6/2 300->AMD K6/2 500 (firmware patch)
Socket A:
Athlon 1200+ ->Athlon XP 2400+
(Skipped P4 generation. Used obsolete HW...)
(Now on an Intel i7, socket 1154)
I am not sure that the "cooked" turkey would actually be edible. The sodium brine inside most commercial holiday turkeys would almost certainly dissociate under the imposed conditions inside the turkey, and form free radicals under the imposed excitation. I doubt that an induction cooked bird would be even the slightest bit appetizing.
That wasn't the purpose of the question though. The submitter asked for the geekiest way. Not the most sensible way. :D
What I would conjecture is happening with the icecube isn't so much that water is polar, but that the ice's crysta structure produces small, but important paramagnetic domains which restrict the propogation of the reversing field, and leaving magnetic eddies that way. Those small eddies then interact with the constantly oscillating field, and get induced into resonant patterns. A frozen bird may cook better than a thawed one.
Experimentation would be required.
A common misconception. You an induction heat a solid block of ice.
http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=aLwaPP9cxT4&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DaLwaPP9cxT4
That turkey is science's bitch.
I can't vouch for the edibility of the finished product, but....
Take 1 frozen turkey, and remove plastic wrapping.
Place on a ceramic or glass pedistal.
Plug in your 5000v induction heater charge controller.
Wrap a coil of 10 gauge or thicker copper wire around a large stockpot to a height suitable for the intended purpose. Remove from stockpot, and attach coil to the charge controller.
Carefully lower the coil over and around the frozen turkey, taking care to assure that the coil does not short, and does not touch the turkey.
Turn the charge controller on, and observe carefully. A mysterious orange glow eminating from the frozen turkey is normal. It may be necessary to throttle back the voltage of the induction coil to avoid incineration of the turkey. Using a frozen turkey improves chances of first time success.
Keep children, pets, and the elderly away from the induction heater at all times, and always wear appropriate protective clothing and safety goggles.