Hey now, this is a true statement. Every bee keeper knows that feeding his bees with sugar, be it HFCS or cane syrup, sickens the bee.
This feeding occurs during the winter months. The normal way of caring for the bees during that time is to leave in the hive some fully capped honey frames to feed the bees. Greed (errrr, that's economy effficiency) makes the bee keepers to replace the frames with syrup.
The problem is that the sugars are harder on the bee's digestive system, making the bee weaker as she enters the spring. The winter generation dies anyway after less than 4 weeks after beginning the harvesting but a weak bee can't collect enough to feed the offsprings and the hive risks collapsing.
In a sense, corn syrup is to a bee what corn feed is to a cow.
See here. It's significantly harder than it seems, kudos to this guy for being able to "fly" it in a stable manner. The thing with the patent is shameful though.
Hey, you're mostly correct, but come on, you're painting the French as they had won every damn brawl since anno domine 1000 (I'm glad you didn't start with Clovis).
The thing is, prior to Napoleon Bonaparte (who was, bar none, one of the best, if not THE BEST, military commanders of all time), the French were defeated many more times they won. Azincourt pops up to mind, a very embarrasing defeat. Also, let's not forget the first Franco-German war of 1870-1871, miserably (pun intended) lost by the French army (WWI was sort of a revenge to this one).
Anyway, national slur always was a popular pass-time. People get more idiotic all the time and the broadcasting helps the scum have a stronger voice, hence all this mindless bashing.
I see that someone else replied with the relevant information (including the Michael Pollan's book reference - a very nice read).
Regarding the manure pollution issue, you clearly have not seen a manure pond. The manure from industrial-sized, corn-fed cattle farms is so toxic that farmers can't use it to fertilize their fields. For the time being, all this toxic waste is chanelled into huge ponds, from where it slowly infiltrates the underground water. Grass feeding, especially free roam grazing, "generates" safe poop, already dispensed where it needs to be, i.e. on the grass pasture, in a self-sufficient and efficient way.
If you're interested in the subject, check Joel Salatin's books.
I wonder who is the cretin who modded this Funny. This is a very Insightful post. The frigging cattle factories are based on feeding cows something they can't really digest properly: corn.
The cows actually get sick by living on a grain diet and thus need the huge quantity of antibiotics they're getting just to remain alive.
A cow needs grass, period. It actually makes the cow happy, healthy and all the products derived from it (milk and meat) are so much better, all via a feeding system that is cheaper than corn-fed cattle industry's (when you remove the corn subsidies). Plus, allowing the cows to forage in a grass field, one also eliminates the huge pollution issue the the big farms create.
Just a MIT professor trolling for grant money, why is this news?
B.t.w., many (most) car engines now running in US could be tweaked to increase their efficiency. Unfortunately, it looks like the efficiency peak and the emissions dip do not coincide and the car makers design their engines to lower the emissions (thus running the engine at a lower efficiency than possible).
B.t.w., a higher compression ratio obviously improves the cycle's yield, that's common knowledge. Unfortunately, unless the engine is fed pure oxygen, the NOx residues increase dramatically.
I was talking about the fact that each Boeing plane model is redesigned from ground up, while Airbus' modules are reused over and over again. This streamlines not only the design and bringing up new models, but also servicing (e.g., the cockpit being very similar, an A310 pilot could easily retrain for the A380; a 737 pilot needs a full skillset overhaul when moving to a modestly larger 747).
Personally, I definitely prefer to fly Airbus planes to either Boeing's or MDD's whenever I can. They seem quieter (inherent to the design) and spacier (carrier choice of remodelling).
If you are a Boeing, you may make the best airplanes, but you have a heavily government subsidized Airbus to go up against. In this particular case of course, Airbus, having nothing to lose but European tax payers money went way out on a limb with some bad technology and now Boeing is seeing the benefit. But several years ago Boeing outlook wasn't so certain, and several years from now (if Airbus gets their act together) that might be the case again. Very rarely though does our government step in to prop up a company that might be in trouble (Chrysler being a counter example), instead letting the chips fall where they may (as with Enron, Worldcom, etc.)
Bad technology, eh?
What a senile and misinformed view! Wow! Yes, it's very costly and risky to develop commercial aircraft products and, in the case of Aribus, the EU stepped in and funded part of the bussiness. B.t.w., from a strategic point of view it makes all the sense in the world to not have to depend on an American company in such an important field.
OTOH, Boeing is a mamouth of a company with fingers in many pies, including the very generous subsidies for military development coming from the US Government. Guess who's paying for these? you and me and every individual who's paying taxes, that's who.
Bottomline is, both companies are funded by the government, so whining about the unfair competition Boeing has to face in the commercial aircraft arena is pointless. Take a look at the different approach they have in developing new products and you'll understand why, despite setbacks regarding the A380, Airbus will win in the long run (i.e. in 20-30 years).
Yes, the LCD cold-cathode lamp(s) are driven with around 3000 volts DC. This comes from a little tiny circuit board, usually in the lid of the notebook to minimize the length of the high voltage wires. This circuit takes around 12 volts and turns out 3000.
False. The striking voltage may be 3kV pp, but the sustaining one (i.e. after the 1ms it takes for the CCFL to ionize) is much less, 500V or below. Still a respectable voltage, but I doubt that one can measure its leakage with a puny multimeter, as the frequency is in the 50 to 100kHz range, well above what ordinary DMMs can feel.
The current is very small, perhaps 10ma at most - that is 0.01 amps.
This is correct.
Coming into contact with the lamp power might tingle a little but it is doubtful you would notice it. Any serious current draw on this would completely fry the circuit that steps up the voltage.
This is not. The power level (5-20W) is high enough to cause at least burns and possibly interfere with the nervous system.
It is possible to get 50% of the mains current in a laptop because of a lack of proper grounding. It isn't likely to happen and it isn't going to be a lot of current, but it is possible.
No, it's not. There is no grounding involved as the AC adapter is a fully isolated switched converter. All the recalls in recent history that involved AC adapters were related to improper thermal design (i.e. too small body size for the power dissipated inside leading to overheating) and not to isolation failure, which is the single most important thing they take into account (ever wondered what the UL listing printed on them means?).
You're all being stupid here.
Overall, you may have some idea of what's going on, but try to refrain from calling names, sometimes they can be safely applied to you too.
Can anyone explain how exactely is the notebook electrically connected to the outlet? Unless the AC adapter is defective, there is ZERO connection between the two. There is way for the 110 mains voltage to reach the notebook.
For the electrical-engineering impaired, the notebook itself is powered from DC supplies (either the battery or the output of the AC adapter). The AC adapter is a fully isolated AC/DC converter; the power gets transferred through a switched transformer and the regulation feedback is passed through an optocoupler - zero galvanic connections between its input and output.
Your reasoning is flawed. There are two "US" sides: the one that carries the cost (i.e. me and you and everyone else who pays taxes) and the one that benefits from the war, not necessarily just from the oil.
Who pays and who benefits not being the same entity, there is no need to balance the checkbook.
The war is a simple method of transferring money from the first side to the second one (true, with a less than 100% efficiency) without anyone daring to cry "thieves!", 'cos that would be unpatriotic. Dwight was right.
You've rightly got modded as troll 'cos you're making silly and incorrect assertions. Was the "gave away some of their territory" sarcasm or showing a crass lack of reality understanding? Anyway, being rude and vulgar is not a good way to advance your point of view.
He is free to travel by... bus or train, entirely anonymously.
What is the procedure to travel by train without showing an ID?
The train station clerk would not cut me a ticket (paid in cash) without me showing the ID, and that's for a short Amtrak ride. Really annoying.
Thanks.
Fortunately, E85 is such a non-solution that it won't relieve the pressure if oil price (or tax on it) goes up. It's not about the cost of producing it (from corn kernel), it's about the biological capacity of the entire midwest agricultural land (SciAm cited a mere 7% of the US oil consumption being replaceable by US-produced E85).
Maybe next time we will invade a tropical country with large farming potential (Brazil?)...
Most poeple in China probably HAVE a DVD player, and...
Ha-ha-ha, that was a good one! Dude, do you have any clue on how many Chinese can afford to buy a DVD player? And no, I'm not talkinkg about the 100M people living in cities and industialized areas...
This is all good and dandy, but the description of tailgating in the traffic law is so vague and prone to interpretation that the law application is certainly arbitrary. Imagine following the speed limit regulations in a world where no car has built-in speedometers.
Tailgating is dangerous. However, to penalize it properly, the cars should have some sort of standardized sensor (based on radar or something), that lets you know when you're too close. If, despite the warning, you're still too close, a ticket for tailgating is warranted. Very similar to checking your speed and deciding whether driving with 80 on a 65 freeway is worth.
To me, this measure looks like a HP cash cow and will do nothing to eliminate the tailgating problem.
I guess you're a little slow [sic]... Your math is very good if you're doing 50mph at 5ft from a freaking wall. Then it's good for the genetic pool to slam into it, you deserved that.
In the real life, though, the car in front of you moves at the same speed as you. Since they can't decelerate in zero time, the math to compute the allowed reaction time is a little more complex.
1) because it's a SLR, you can't preview the picture you're goint to take. This makes more difficult to color-balance the image on the spot and typically means that you have to take several shots to get the one that looks OK. I know, there are some SLRs that have a secondary preview display, but since it's using a separate sensor, it's not really useful. 2) if you keep swapping the lenses, dust tends to accumulate on the sensor. Things that would not affect a film-based SLR become very annoying with a DSLR. If you expect swapping lenses, get the ones that have self-cleaning sensors (usually using ultrasound shaking).
Apart from these two shortcomings, SLR are much more versatile and create substatially better quality images (mostly due to the better optics).
Don't be stupid. Noise matters a lot if shooting in less than perfect illumination conditions. There's nothing more annoying than blacks with blue spots on them or green-dotted skin.
Please don't feed the troll (or is he just brain-dead?) It looks like this AskSlashdot's subject is bringing up jingoistic urges in one too many posters...
The lack of interesting titles may be an issue, but I doubt that the main usage would be reading books on it.
I am considering buying this thing just to be able to read documents (pdf docs, presentations etc) on a very easy to use "tablet" that has excellent contrast and battery life (expressed in page turns instead of minutes/hours). Instead of resorting to printing them on paper.
One thing that's intriguing is how does it support the Microsoft Word format. Any idea?
Slashdot Mirror
Geee, you get laid outside of his/her door? Yuck!
Hey now, this is a true statement. Every bee keeper knows that feeding his bees with sugar, be it HFCS or cane syrup, sickens the bee.
This feeding occurs during the winter months. The normal way of caring for the bees during that time is to leave in the hive some fully capped honey frames to feed the bees. Greed (errrr, that's economy effficiency) makes the bee keepers to replace the frames with syrup.
The problem is that the sugars are harder on the bee's digestive system, making the bee weaker as she enters the spring. The winter generation dies anyway after less than 4 weeks after beginning the harvesting but a weak bee can't collect enough to feed the offsprings and the hive risks collapsing.
In a sense, corn syrup is to a bee what corn feed is to a cow.
See here. It's significantly harder than it seems, kudos to this guy for being able to "fly" it in a stable manner. The thing with the patent is shameful though.
Hey, you're mostly correct, but come on, you're painting the French as they had won every damn brawl since anno domine 1000 (I'm glad you didn't start with Clovis).
The thing is, prior to Napoleon Bonaparte (who was, bar none, one of the best, if not THE BEST, military commanders of all time), the French were defeated many more times they won. Azincourt pops up to mind, a very embarrasing defeat. Also, let's not forget the first Franco-German war of 1870-1871, miserably (pun intended) lost by the French army (WWI was sort of a revenge to this one).
Anyway, national slur always was a popular pass-time. People get more idiotic all the time and the broadcasting helps the scum have a stronger voice, hence all this mindless bashing.
I see that someone else replied with the relevant information (including the Michael Pollan's book reference - a very nice read).
Regarding the manure pollution issue, you clearly have not seen a manure pond. The manure from industrial-sized, corn-fed cattle farms is so toxic that farmers can't use it to fertilize their fields. For the time being, all this toxic waste is chanelled into huge ponds, from where it slowly infiltrates the underground water. Grass feeding, especially free roam grazing, "generates" safe poop, already dispensed where it needs to be, i.e. on the grass pasture, in a self-sufficient and efficient way.
If you're interested in the subject, check Joel Salatin's books.
The cows actually get sick by living on a grain diet and thus need the huge quantity of antibiotics they're getting just to remain alive.
A cow needs grass, period. It actually makes the cow happy, healthy and all the products derived from it (milk and meat) are so much better, all via a feeding system that is cheaper than corn-fed cattle industry's (when you remove the corn subsidies). Plus, allowing the cows to forage in a grass field, one also eliminates the huge pollution issue the the big farms create.
Just a MIT professor trolling for grant money, why is this news?
B.t.w., many (most) car engines now running in US could be tweaked to increase their efficiency. Unfortunately, it looks like the efficiency peak and the emissions dip do not coincide and the car makers design their engines to lower the emissions (thus running the engine at a lower efficiency than possible).
B.t.w., a higher compression ratio obviously improves the cycle's yield, that's common knowledge. Unfortunately, unless the engine is fed pure oxygen, the NOx residues increase dramatically.
I was talking about the fact that each Boeing plane model is redesigned from ground up, while Airbus' modules are reused over and over again. This streamlines not only the design and bringing up new models, but also servicing (e.g., the cockpit being very similar, an A310 pilot could easily retrain for the A380; a 737 pilot needs a full skillset overhaul when moving to a modestly larger 747).
Personally, I definitely prefer to fly Airbus planes to either Boeing's or MDD's whenever I can. They seem quieter (inherent to the design) and spacier (carrier choice of remodelling).
Bad technology, eh?
What a senile and misinformed view! Wow! Yes, it's very costly and risky to develop commercial aircraft products and, in the case of Aribus, the EU stepped in and funded part of the bussiness. B.t.w., from a strategic point of view it makes all the sense in the world to not have to depend on an American company in such an important field.
OTOH, Boeing is a mamouth of a company with fingers in many pies, including the very generous subsidies for military development coming from the US Government. Guess who's paying for these? you and me and every individual who's paying taxes, that's who.
Bottomline is, both companies are funded by the government, so whining about the unfair competition Boeing has to face in the commercial aircraft arena is pointless. Take a look at the different approach they have in developing new products and you'll understand why, despite setbacks regarding the A380, Airbus will win in the long run (i.e. in 20-30 years).
False. The striking voltage may be 3kV pp, but the sustaining one (i.e. after the 1ms it takes for the CCFL to ionize) is much less, 500V or below. Still a respectable voltage, but I doubt that one can measure its leakage with a puny multimeter, as the frequency is in the 50 to 100kHz range, well above what ordinary DMMs can feel.
The current is very small, perhaps 10ma at most - that is 0.01 amps.
This is correct.
Coming into contact with the lamp power might tingle a little but it is doubtful you would notice it. Any serious current draw on this would completely fry the circuit that steps up the voltage.
This is not. The power level (5-20W) is high enough to cause at least burns and possibly interfere with the nervous system.
It is possible to get 50% of the mains current in a laptop because of a lack of proper grounding. It isn't likely to happen and it isn't going to be a lot of current, but it is possible.
No, it's not. There is no grounding involved as the AC adapter is a fully isolated switched converter. All the recalls in recent history that involved AC adapters were related to improper thermal design (i.e. too small body size for the power dissipated inside leading to overheating) and not to isolation failure, which is the single most important thing they take into account (ever wondered what the UL listing printed on them means?).
You're all being stupid here.
Overall, you may have some idea of what's going on, but try to refrain from calling names, sometimes they can be safely applied to you too.
Can anyone explain how exactely is the notebook electrically connected to the outlet? Unless the AC adapter is defective, there is ZERO connection between the two. There is way for the 110 mains voltage to reach the notebook.
For the electrical-engineering impaired, the notebook itself is powered from DC supplies (either the battery or the output of the AC adapter). The AC adapter is a fully isolated AC/DC converter; the power gets transferred through a switched transformer and the regulation feedback is passed through an optocoupler - zero galvanic connections between its input and output.
Your reasoning is flawed. There are two "US" sides: the one that carries the cost (i.e. me and you and everyone else who pays taxes) and the one that benefits from the war, not necessarily just from the oil.
Who pays and who benefits not being the same entity, there is no need to balance the checkbook.
The war is a simple method of transferring money from the first side to the second one (true, with a less than 100% efficiency) without anyone daring to cry "thieves!", 'cos that would be unpatriotic. Dwight was right.
You've rightly got modded as troll 'cos you're making silly and incorrect assertions. Was the "gave away some of their territory" sarcasm or showing a crass lack of reality understanding? Anyway, being rude and vulgar is not a good way to advance your point of view.
What is the procedure to travel by train without showing an ID?
The train station clerk would not cut me a ticket (paid in cash) without me showing the ID, and that's for a short Amtrak ride. Really annoying. Thanks.
Fortunately, E85 is such a non-solution that it won't relieve the pressure if oil price (or tax on it) goes up. It's not about the cost of producing it (from corn kernel), it's about the biological capacity of the entire midwest agricultural land (SciAm cited a mere 7% of the US oil consumption being replaceable by US-produced E85).
Maybe next time we will invade a tropical country with large farming potential (Brazil?)...
Ha-ha-ha, that was a good one! Dude, do you have any clue on how many Chinese can afford to buy a DVD player? And no, I'm not talkinkg about the 100M people living in cities and industialized areas...
This is all good and dandy, but the description of tailgating in the traffic law is so vague and prone to interpretation that the law application is certainly arbitrary. Imagine following the speed limit regulations in a world where no car has built-in speedometers.
Tailgating is dangerous. However, to penalize it properly, the cars should have some sort of standardized sensor (based on radar or something), that lets you know when you're too close. If, despite the warning, you're still too close, a ticket for tailgating is warranted. Very similar to checking your speed and deciding whether driving with 80 on a 65 freeway is worth.
To me, this measure looks like a HP cash cow and will do nothing to eliminate the tailgating problem.
I guess you're a little slow [sic]... Your math is very good if you're doing 50mph at 5ft from a freaking wall. Then it's good for the genetic pool to slam into it, you deserved that.
In the real life, though, the car in front of you moves at the same speed as you. Since they can't decelerate in zero time, the math to compute the allowed reaction time is a little more complex.
The book, that is.
Don't confuse it with the sucky movie trilogy (directed by PJ) just because it shares some character names and parts of the plot.
Sorry, you seem to confuse a Patent with a TradeMark. Only the TradeMark must be actively enforced.
1) because it's a SLR, you can't preview the picture you're goint to take. This makes more difficult to color-balance the image on the spot and typically means that you have to take several shots to get the one that looks OK. I know, there are some SLRs that have a secondary preview display, but since it's using a separate sensor, it's not really useful.
2) if you keep swapping the lenses, dust tends to accumulate on the sensor. Things that would not affect a film-based SLR become very annoying with a DSLR. If you expect swapping lenses, get the ones that have self-cleaning sensors (usually using ultrasound shaking).
Apart from these two shortcomings, SLR are much more versatile and create substatially better quality images (mostly due to the better optics).
Don't be stupid. Noise matters a lot if shooting in less than perfect illumination conditions. There's nothing more annoying than blacks with blue spots on them or green-dotted skin.
Please don't feed the troll (or is he just brain-dead?) It looks like this AskSlashdot's subject is bringing up jingoistic urges in one too many posters...
There is no tactile feeling.
The lack of interesting titles may be an issue, but I doubt that the main usage would be reading books on it.
I am considering buying this thing just to be able to read documents (pdf docs, presentations etc) on a very easy to use "tablet" that has excellent contrast and battery life (expressed in page turns instead of minutes/hours). Instead of resorting to printing them on paper.
One thing that's intriguing is how does it support the Microsoft Word format. Any idea?
Serban