The U.S. government could steal Linux, and it could pay 3.6% of the bailout package.
Seriously, $25 billion is still small in terms of the real economy. For example, Microsoft's operating income is $22.5 billion.
Nitrogen is removed by distillation of liquified air. Air is liquified by compressing it so that it gets hotter, cooling it and then expanding adiabatically; the heat has been removed, so the air can only cool, and cool it does, to the point it liquifies. Now the question is how do you power the compressor? That's your energy expenditure. If it comes from the same power plant, all is well.
The real problem that I see here is that it is not carbon neutral. You're taking fossil carbon and making fossil carbon dioxide, and hope that it doesn't leak into the atmosphere quickly enough to matter. It doesn't solve the energy question and may not even solve the problem of carbon dioxide emissions.
Except that by publishing NeXTStep and not patenting the idea, they have killed any legal possibility of patenting it later. Nevertheless, obviously the USPTO rubberstamps it even if it's illegal.
The whole concept of patents today is designed to fail; when USPTO patents something, the patents leaves its jurisdiction. There's no incentive for USPTO to maintain the quality of patents. Consequently, in the US, you can patent virtually anything; no matter how obvious it is. You'll have to sue to kill the patent. Which you can't do unless you have a lot of extra cash or an omniously large patent portfolio of your own; and you'll have to be a megacorporation to have either. Hence, innovation is hindered, because you'll have to have backing of an oligarhic megacorp.
This reminds me of a pharmacology professor who showed us (the class) a drug that was hemiaminal of an amine and formaldehyde. He had no clue as to why it breaks down, if swallowed, into formaldehyde. Now imagine the hemiaminal was radiolabeled with carbon-14. How would interpret the results, if there was radiocarbon everywhere in the blood and in addition, the patient suddenly farted radioactive farts? (Clues: tetrahydromethanopterin and an idiot for a radiochemist.)
It's somewhat ironic if they learn good old hairy-knuckles industrial chemistry like electrophilic aromatic substitution, when the hepatotoxicity of benzene and derivatives follows from epoxidation, a completely different reaction.
On a related note, I find it incredible that it took so long to figure out why smoke (tobacco smoke) is carcinogenic. It contains so much poisonous Michael acceptors and carcinogenic polyaromatics that even if it didn't, you couldn't even bullshit someone and be believed, and then they argue for decades if it is carcinogenic. Sheesh. Just look at a DNA base and count the nucleophiles that can attack a Michael acceptor, like acrolein. On the contrary, there are many mostly harmless chemicals that are attacked by medical researchers like they caused the new black plague. Perhaps this deficiency is because the medical researches don't have clue about chemistry.
The proposal itself isn't really about banning organic chemistry altogether from medical students: "Ideally, instead of devoting time to a second semster [sic] of organic synthesis, college students could take a sequence of preparatory organic chemistry and basic principles of biochemistry," It is reasonable to consider what a medical student should learn. Topics that I bet would be essential: basics of pharmacokinetics (such as why orally active drug molecules usually conform to the rule of five), solubility behavior, nucleophiles and electrophiles, acid-base catalysis, alkylation (particularly of biomolecules), and most importantly, raising interest in finding out a mechanism of toxicity, for example. Rote memorization of structures of biomolecules is pointless.
So you've managed to turn the whole thing upside down. Let's re-explain it. If you take out a small population from a larger, unmixed one, then mix and mutate the remaining large population, then the small population stands as an "isolate". It's not because of different origins, it's because of different history.
Actually you can't ignore the structure of the language. Finnish basically doesn't have monosyllablic words except for common particles; two syllables is the minimum. This feature appears to be very old and integral to the language. So "two" has two syllables "kak-si" and "ten" is "kym-men-" (oblique form, "ten" alone is "kymmenen"). So when English goes twen-ty-two, Finnish has kak-si-kym-men-tä ("two of tens").
The second difference clearly exploited is the case agreement. In fact, "twenty two" is two words "kahdessa kymmenessä". Now because the last has the suffix -ssä, the rest of the entire expression also has the same -ssa, which is repeated for each word. So we get "kuudessa kymmenessä tuhannessa kahdessa sadassa viidessä" ("in 60205") for "kuusi kymmentä tuhatta kaksi sataa viisi" ("60205"). As you can see, this redundancy increases syllable count by 40-50%, without being really "complex" in the same sense of spelling bee words.
Another problem is that although it is not recommended to write together all possible compounds, for some reason all numerals are still faithfully written in long strings like that. You could write, in principle, all genitives together, like in German (think "Donaudampfschiff...").
Whereas Western forces were inferior in numbers to Soviet-controlled Warsaw Pact forces in Europe, and so the Soviets could afford a "no first strike" policy. The United States relied on a nuclear first strike should the Soviets attack with conventional forces.
Second, Soviet policy did not elevate nuclear weapons to the "fist of God" status as in the West. They didn't plan their policies based on the idea of Mutually Assured Destruction; Soviet doctrine fully involved the use of nuclear weapons.
So how do you count diagrams and math? Much of my "handwriting" is actually chemical structure diagrams, equations, etc.
Handwriting is necessary, because "punching in" equations into a computer is a pain, and even if chemical drawing programs are reasonably useful, you can't take the laptop anywhere. There's also no better way to actually understand an equation or process than write its derivation by hand.
The organism with 582969 base pairs was eaten by the one with 582970 base pairs, and so on. This is a type of case where complexity spontaneously arises.
Because you can't use a circular definition. You'd need to define standard conditions. And how? Temperature and pressure. Temperature is OK, but the unit of pressure, pascal, is defined as one newton per square meter. The unit newton is defined the force of one kilogram accelerating one meter per second squared. See the problem?
Here's a quick summary of Sweden's parliamentary politics. Although the parliament isn't divided between two parties, things are not as good this might lead you into thinking. Unlike in neighboring Finland, in parliamentary elections you can't vote for an individual. Sweden uses a closed list system, where the party draws up an order of preference, the closed list. You only get to vote for the list, not any individual candidate.
The implication is that you only need to buy the party bosses and the parliament is yours. The party boss can destroy or threaten to destroy an inconvenient MP's political career. This is easily done by simply not including him on the party's closed list. The party bosses don't even try to hide this; they have done this publicly and with impunity.
As you can see, there's corruption in the Nordic countries, too. It's only so institutionalized that no one recognizes it as such.
You really think that the bought politicians would voluntarily break the silence and sue Finland in the European Court of Justice for enforcing its own privacy laws? I see a slight chance of this tactic backfiring, with Sweden being sued...
Honeywell, JetBlue Airways, International Aero Engines, and Airbus. None of them is an oil company or in the energy business. The single most important problem (imho) with green fuel is that the right people are not working on it. It's a special, expensive, small-volume product; producers are startups or general chemical companies. They are not oil companies, which own the oil infrastructure and have expertise in energy and transport fuels, not speciality products.
When the renewable fuel is a speciality chemical, there's little or no focus on the actual scale-up. They may sell 0.01% of the market volume with a high price; this is just greenwashing, novelty, or "alternative energy" (I really hate that expression). As I understand, Honeywell is a speciality chemicals company. Such companies lack the expertise in oil refinery operations and energy infrastructure.
Commercial-scale fuel production will probably start with triterpene-producing algae, which have a high hydrocarbon yield. An oil refinery operation, hydrocracking, is used to convert triterpene into fuel. Expertise is also needed to process the massive volumes of organic waste; will they go to replace coal or to gasification and then Fischer-Tropsch diesel synthesis? All this should be done in an oil-company scale, not on the backyard scale or even on the plastics/specialities scale.
Because Iceland's geothermal energy extraction doesn't emit CO2. The extracted energy was going to leak to the atmosphere eventually anyway.
Only CO2 emission would increase global warming, which is, as the name says, global, not local. Just pumping thermal energy doesn't do so. Even huge emitters of pure thermal energy, like coastal nuclear power plants, have significant effects only in their immediate vicinity.
And your superior intellect can't notice the point I'm making? I actually had to make an effort to think stupider in order to understand what you're talking about.
Whereas when Iran was setting up an oil bourse, "ship anchors" coincidentally cut off Internet access to the Middle East. The U.S. dollar was not an allowed currency in the oil bourse; this threatens the U.S. government's seignorage, the unearned gains that come from selling dollars to international use in e.g. oil markets.
So when Antigua and Barbuda start distributing WaReZ thru submarine cables, the ships will begin laying anchors.
Pyrene is a hydrogen transfer catalyst that can contain 0.99% hydrogen if hydrogenated to 4,5-dihydropyrene. I did the same H2 content calculation for C60 and found that the current state of the art, one H2 in one fullerene or C60@H2, is 0.28% hydrogen. To be better than pyrene, you need to put in eight hydrogen atoms as four H2 molecules, or C60@4H2. To give that 8% storage capacity you need not less than 62 hydrogens, or C60@31H2. That's slightly more than one hydrogen per one carbon, which is a lot. (Gasoline is 16% hydrogen, btw.)
The major problem with this "discovery" (it's just a calculation, I'd say) is that you'll need to design a chemical synthesis that forces metallic hydrogen into a buckyball, without inducing hydrogenolysis (spontaneous production of hydrocarbons from hydrogen and carbon). Then you should be able to design molecular "hatch" that you can open and close while being under this enormous hydrogen pressure. A small obstacle to this being that I suspect nearly any heteroatom you'd need for the hatch would be immediately torn off by hydrogenolysis. My guesstimate would in fact be that the fullerenes themselves would be hydrogenolyzed on contact with metallic hydrogen. As you can see, it's the physicists and their phyucher flying cars again. It's interesting but no real problem has been solved.
And also, the problem of producing the hydrogen is still unsolved, no matter the hype. The problem that we want a reducing agent (H2), which unavoidably requires energy to produce. The major options are fossil and nuclear; the world runs out of arable land area if we try to produce it by agriculture. Actually the situation can be summarized like this:
1. Invent technologies to transport or spend existing hydrogen (fuel cells, hydrogen storage, etc.) 2. ??? 3. Hydrogen economy!
I agree, the article's crap. The first thing I'll have to complain about is how Frederick Taylor's achievement is always belittled like in TFA: "engineer Frederick Winslow Taylor's notion that workers are interchangeable cogs". Hell-o? Isn't this a slight modern standards bias? It was the 1880's, before the era of modern mass production, and no one had investigated shop management from a scientific or engineer's point of view before. It's like saying Aristotle was an idiot because he supported the theory of a geocentric universe (Sun orbiting Earth). Taylor's scientific management had to be invented before younger self-important management theorists could, in the first place, compare their theories to Taylor's original.
Jobs' successes are listed as "iMac, iPod, iPhone". Perhaps they sold a lot somewhere, but is it only me who thinks they don't match the hype? Imac is just a common computer, except that it looks like a cheap Japanese toy. Or a Rowenta iron. Ipod, more expensive than the alternatives and also looks like a Japanese toy. Iphone, a regular 2G phone, also more expensive with less functionality than in competing products. Getting one makes sense only in America, where 3G hasn't been implemented as yet. I'd rather buy a 3G phone that has 3G functionality and isn't Apple-crippled, even if it was twice as expensive. I've never really understood why people buy Mac products, unless they work in publishing.
Slashdot Mirror
The U.S. government could steal Linux, and it could pay 3.6% of the bailout package. Seriously, $25 billion is still small in terms of the real economy. For example, Microsoft's operating income is $22.5 billion.
Nitrogen is removed by distillation of liquified air. Air is liquified by compressing it so that it gets hotter, cooling it and then expanding adiabatically; the heat has been removed, so the air can only cool, and cool it does, to the point it liquifies. Now the question is how do you power the compressor? That's your energy expenditure. If it comes from the same power plant, all is well.
The real problem that I see here is that it is not carbon neutral. You're taking fossil carbon and making fossil carbon dioxide, and hope that it doesn't leak into the atmosphere quickly enough to matter. It doesn't solve the energy question and may not even solve the problem of carbon dioxide emissions.
Except that by publishing NeXTStep and not patenting the idea, they have killed any legal possibility of patenting it later. Nevertheless, obviously the USPTO rubberstamps it even if it's illegal. The whole concept of patents today is designed to fail; when USPTO patents something, the patents leaves its jurisdiction. There's no incentive for USPTO to maintain the quality of patents. Consequently, in the US, you can patent virtually anything; no matter how obvious it is. You'll have to sue to kill the patent. Which you can't do unless you have a lot of extra cash or an omniously large patent portfolio of your own; and you'll have to be a megacorporation to have either. Hence, innovation is hindered, because you'll have to have backing of an oligarhic megacorp.
This reminds me of a pharmacology professor who showed us (the class) a drug that was hemiaminal of an amine and formaldehyde. He had no clue as to why it breaks down, if swallowed, into formaldehyde. Now imagine the hemiaminal was radiolabeled with carbon-14. How would interpret the results, if there was radiocarbon everywhere in the blood and in addition, the patient suddenly farted radioactive farts? (Clues: tetrahydromethanopterin and an idiot for a radiochemist.)
It's somewhat ironic if they learn good old hairy-knuckles industrial chemistry like electrophilic aromatic substitution, when the hepatotoxicity of benzene and derivatives follows from epoxidation, a completely different reaction.
On a related note, I find it incredible that it took so long to figure out why smoke (tobacco smoke) is carcinogenic. It contains so much poisonous Michael acceptors and carcinogenic polyaromatics that even if it didn't, you couldn't even bullshit someone and be believed, and then they argue for decades if it is carcinogenic. Sheesh. Just look at a DNA base and count the nucleophiles that can attack a Michael acceptor, like acrolein. On the contrary, there are many mostly harmless chemicals that are attacked by medical researchers like they caused the new black plague. Perhaps this deficiency is because the medical researches don't have clue about chemistry.
The proposal itself isn't really about banning organic chemistry altogether from medical students: "Ideally, instead of devoting time to a second semster [sic] of organic synthesis, college students could take a sequence of preparatory organic chemistry and basic principles of biochemistry," It is reasonable to consider what a medical student should learn. Topics that I bet would be essential: basics of pharmacokinetics (such as why orally active drug molecules usually conform to the rule of five), solubility behavior, nucleophiles and electrophiles, acid-base catalysis, alkylation (particularly of biomolecules), and most importantly, raising interest in finding out a mechanism of toxicity, for example. Rote memorization of structures of biomolecules is pointless.
So what part of "INHALED" did you not understand? Inhaling paint or sunscreen would be quite extraordinary.
So you've managed to turn the whole thing upside down. Let's re-explain it. If you take out a small population from a larger, unmixed one, then mix and mutate the remaining large population, then the small population stands as an "isolate". It's not because of different origins, it's because of different history.
Actually you can't ignore the structure of the language. Finnish basically doesn't have monosyllablic words except for common particles; two syllables is the minimum. This feature appears to be very old and integral to the language. So "two" has two syllables "kak-si" and "ten" is "kym-men-" (oblique form, "ten" alone is "kymmenen"). So when English goes twen-ty-two, Finnish has kak-si-kym-men-tä ("two of tens").
The second difference clearly exploited is the case agreement. In fact, "twenty two" is two words "kahdessa kymmenessä". Now because the last has the suffix -ssä, the rest of the entire expression also has the same -ssa, which is repeated for each word. So we get "kuudessa kymmenessä tuhannessa kahdessa sadassa viidessä" ("in 60205") for "kuusi kymmentä tuhatta kaksi sataa viisi" ("60205"). As you can see, this redundancy increases syllable count by 40-50%, without being really "complex" in the same sense of spelling bee words.
Another problem is that although it is not recommended to write together all possible compounds, for some reason all numerals are still faithfully written in long strings like that. You could write, in principle, all genitives together, like in German (think "Donaudampfschiff...").
And commercially available hydrogen is a fossil fuel, being made from natural gas.
Moreover, a hot jet of ammonia/hydrazine is a reducing atmosphere that specifically would destroy perchlorates.
Whereas Western forces were inferior in numbers to Soviet-controlled Warsaw Pact forces in Europe, and so the Soviets could afford a "no first strike" policy. The United States relied on a nuclear first strike should the Soviets attack with conventional forces.
Second, Soviet policy did not elevate nuclear weapons to the "fist of God" status as in the West. They didn't plan their policies based on the idea of Mutually Assured Destruction; Soviet doctrine fully involved the use of nuclear weapons.
So how do you count diagrams and math? Much of my "handwriting" is actually chemical structure diagrams, equations, etc.
Handwriting is necessary, because "punching in" equations into a computer is a pain, and even if chemical drawing programs are reasonably useful, you can't take the laptop anywhere. There's also no better way to actually understand an equation or process than write its derivation by hand.
The organism with 582969 base pairs was eaten by the one with 582970 base pairs, and so on. This is a type of case where complexity spontaneously arises.
I'm delighted that the advertisers now know my taste in fiction. I'm pretty much the last person you should consult on that one.
"We entertain you, and you ARE entertained."
Because you can't use a circular definition. You'd need to define standard conditions. And how? Temperature and pressure. Temperature is OK, but the unit of pressure, pascal, is defined as one newton per square meter. The unit newton is defined the force of one kilogram accelerating one meter per second squared. See the problem?
A vision of a hallway of portraits of iMacs appears...
Here's a quick summary of Sweden's parliamentary politics. Although the parliament isn't divided between two parties, things are not as good this might lead you into thinking. Unlike in neighboring Finland, in parliamentary elections you can't vote for an individual. Sweden uses a closed list system, where the party draws up an order of preference, the closed list. You only get to vote for the list, not any individual candidate.
The implication is that you only need to buy the party bosses and the parliament is yours. The party boss can destroy or threaten to destroy an inconvenient MP's political career. This is easily done by simply not including him on the party's closed list. The party bosses don't even try to hide this; they have done this publicly and with impunity.
As you can see, there's corruption in the Nordic countries, too. It's only so institutionalized that no one recognizes it as such.
You really think that the bought politicians would voluntarily break the silence and sue Finland in the European Court of Justice for enforcing its own privacy laws? I see a slight chance of this tactic backfiring, with Sweden being sued...
Honeywell, JetBlue Airways, International Aero Engines, and Airbus. None of them is an oil company or in the energy business. The single most important problem (imho) with green fuel is that the right people are not working on it. It's a special, expensive, small-volume product; producers are startups or general chemical companies. They are not oil companies, which own the oil infrastructure and have expertise in energy and transport fuels, not speciality products.
When the renewable fuel is a speciality chemical, there's little or no focus on the actual scale-up. They may sell 0.01% of the market volume with a high price; this is just greenwashing, novelty, or "alternative energy" (I really hate that expression). As I understand, Honeywell is a speciality chemicals company. Such companies lack the expertise in oil refinery operations and energy infrastructure.
Commercial-scale fuel production will probably start with triterpene-producing algae, which have a high hydrocarbon yield. An oil refinery operation, hydrocracking, is used to convert triterpene into fuel. Expertise is also needed to process the massive volumes of organic waste; will they go to replace coal or to gasification and then Fischer-Tropsch diesel synthesis? All this should be done in an oil-company scale, not on the backyard scale or even on the plastics/specialities scale.
Because Iceland's geothermal energy extraction doesn't emit CO2. The extracted energy was going to leak to the atmosphere eventually anyway.
Only CO2 emission would increase global warming, which is, as the name says, global, not local. Just pumping thermal energy doesn't do so. Even huge emitters of pure thermal energy, like coastal nuclear power plants, have significant effects only in their immediate vicinity.
So let's not make an argument over it.
And your superior intellect can't notice the point I'm making? I actually had to make an effort to think stupider in order to understand what you're talking about.
Whereas when Iran was setting up an oil bourse, "ship anchors" coincidentally cut off Internet access to the Middle East. The U.S. dollar was not an allowed currency in the oil bourse; this threatens the U.S. government's seignorage, the unearned gains that come from selling dollars to international use in e.g. oil markets.
So when Antigua and Barbuda start distributing WaReZ thru submarine cables, the ships will begin laying anchors.
Pyrene is a hydrogen transfer catalyst that can contain 0.99% hydrogen if hydrogenated to 4,5-dihydropyrene. I did the same H2 content calculation for C60 and found that the current state of the art, one H2 in one fullerene or C60@H2, is 0.28% hydrogen. To be better than pyrene, you need to put in eight hydrogen atoms as four H2 molecules, or C60@4H2. To give that 8% storage capacity you need not less than 62 hydrogens, or C60@31H2. That's slightly more than one hydrogen per one carbon, which is a lot. (Gasoline is 16% hydrogen, btw.)
The major problem with this "discovery" (it's just a calculation, I'd say) is that you'll need to design a chemical synthesis that forces metallic hydrogen into a buckyball, without inducing hydrogenolysis (spontaneous production of hydrocarbons from hydrogen and carbon). Then you should be able to design molecular "hatch" that you can open and close while being under this enormous hydrogen pressure. A small obstacle to this being that I suspect nearly any heteroatom you'd need for the hatch would be immediately torn off by hydrogenolysis. My guesstimate would in fact be that the fullerenes themselves would be hydrogenolyzed on contact with metallic hydrogen. As you can see, it's the physicists and their phyucher flying cars again. It's interesting but no real problem has been solved.
And also, the problem of producing the hydrogen is still unsolved, no matter the hype. The problem that we want a reducing agent (H2), which unavoidably requires energy to produce. The major options are fossil and nuclear; the world runs out of arable land area if we try to produce it by agriculture. Actually the situation can be summarized like this:
1. Invent technologies to transport or spend existing hydrogen (fuel cells, hydrogen storage, etc.)
2. ???
3. Hydrogen economy!
I agree, the article's crap. The first thing I'll have to complain about is how Frederick Taylor's achievement is always belittled like in TFA: "engineer Frederick Winslow Taylor's notion that workers are interchangeable cogs". Hell-o? Isn't this a slight modern standards bias? It was the 1880's, before the era of modern mass production, and no one had investigated shop management from a scientific or engineer's point of view before. It's like saying Aristotle was an idiot because he supported the theory of a geocentric universe (Sun orbiting Earth). Taylor's scientific management had to be invented before younger self-important management theorists could, in the first place, compare their theories to Taylor's original.
Jobs' successes are listed as "iMac, iPod, iPhone". Perhaps they sold a lot somewhere, but is it only me who thinks they don't match the hype? Imac is just a common computer, except that it looks like a cheap Japanese toy. Or a Rowenta iron. Ipod, more expensive than the alternatives and also looks like a Japanese toy. Iphone, a regular 2G phone, also more expensive with less functionality than in competing products. Getting one makes sense only in America, where 3G hasn't been implemented as yet. I'd rather buy a 3G phone that has 3G functionality and isn't Apple-crippled, even if it was twice as expensive. I've never really understood why people buy Mac products, unless they work in publishing.