Of course such a window will let an 8x8 light beam into your place, and effectively brightly illuminate about the same surface area of the floor. So instead of a dim shack illuminated by the diffuse light seeping in through the cracks, you now have a blindingly bright rectangle on the floor. You'll see less than if you had the light seeping in - had you actually given it a thought, you'd know. Small windows suck, for a reason, and especially if they are in your roof.
The bottle acts as a simple optical system to diffuse the light. It's pretty neat.
We're talking about people living in tin shacks. Let's stay real. It's a great solution and I'd think it has no downsides for its intended audience. Never mind that it's nothing new, it has been around, out there, for more than a year, and I don't think anyone is complaining yet.
Last time Volvo tried to make their wire harnesses biodegradable, it cost them a lot of goodwill. Just sayin'. Either something is made to last or it's biodegradable. There's no in-between as far as I can see.
Emergency control? On what, a ducted fan? If you lose thrust, there better be a bunch of pyros that eject and forcibly unfurl a chute for you, otherwise you're dead.
The price is "a bit" impractical. If this 400lb includes the chute with an automatic ejector that triggers upon loss of thrust (measured by an accelerometer), then it's OK. It'd be a deathtrap without a chute that will unfurl and slow you down with a minimum loss of altitude. I'd think if the survivable loss-of-thrust altitude was 25m, I'd consider buying it after it dropped to $65k or so. This means that the chute must have pyro ejectors and whatnot, and it better be demonstrated that it actually works:)
Because trying to extract it is likely to result in a major release
What about forcing a major release and igniting it? As long as the shock wave and likely tsunami won't cause major damage on populated land, I think we'd be better off? Yes, I am aware that this would be like igniting megatons worth of a thermobaric weapon. I'd still take that over the 20-100x worse greenhouse effect...
I guess the real question is thus: is methane enough worse of a greenhouse gas than CO2, to warrant extracting it and burning it all just to combine it with oxygen, so that you'd get water vapor and CO2.
I'd dare say we know even less about modelling small chip pans of melting fat.
There's an overwhelming lot of science out there that could be done, but isn't because of there being no funding for it. You could even get an igNobel prize for such research:)
sea ice in the Arctic has melted at a much faster rate than it has expanded in the Southern Ocean
'nuff said. You can't look at it locally with a straight face. It doesn't matter what either pole is doing individually. You need to look at both of them combined.
You must have never dealt with any environmental data, then, to think that the data is not "edited". Of course it must be edited, because the point isn't to measure the necessarily local variations! What they want to measure is a proxy for the global CO2 concentration, they must be processing the data appropriately to reject the local variations that have known and well understood sources. It'd be completely stupid of them not to do so! Heck, if they didn't do that, you'd be kicking and screaming that they are using data points that are "known bad". You are a troll, I agree with the moderators.
Your analogy is silly. The better analogy would be: put the thermostat for your A/C on the other side of the kitchen. Every once in a while, if you open the window, the movement of air throughout the house will blow the warm humid air from the stove right over the thermostat. The condensing water vapor will get the thermostat real hot real quick. That's what happens there: when the rare circumstance (just look at the fucking raw data will you now) of the CO2-laden wind blowing over the sampling station happens, the readings are bonkers. There's way more variation due to CO2-depleted air being blown uphill (vegetation scrubs CO2 from the air). The sampling station isn't over a CO2 source, that'd be just totally silly. In prevailing winds it's upwind of the local CO2 source, and the closest upwind CO2 source is over a thousand miles away. You're completely off base in your assertion that anyone is measuring "while standing on a major source of that very same gas". That "major source" of "that very same gas" is miles away, in the wrong direction.
If you tell me that the source being miles away downwind doesn't matter, I can tell you quite categorically that no, it makes all the difference. I used to live upwind a couple of miles from a paper plant, and the rare days with no wind or wind blowing opposite of its usual direction we'd know right away. As long as the trade wind was there, you would never know anything about any paper plants.
I think that simple ISM band devices that are point-to-point should simply use broadband transmission with a gold code, like GPS does. Heck, they should use a keystream code, so that your neighbor won't be able to listen to your baby monitor. This would allow for very graceful degradation, since such transmissions look to everyone like an increase in the noise floor, not like narrowband interference. If there are two monitors in the household, they'll only have shorter range, there'll be no other signs of interference.
Of course there is a trade off: you lower the usable range for everyone. When the devices cooperate in a CSMA/CD scheme, the range is unaffected, but the bandwidth suffers. But then you have to have a coordinated scheme where everyone participates. This may be hard, as I doubt that cheap consumer devices like baby monitors or phones really want to be ad-hoc WiFi nodes...
In WiFi, the "collision galore" is even worse with directional antennas, since the collision detection protocol requires all nodes to hear each other, IIRC. There's RTS/CTS, but I'm not sure what kind of gear implements it, and if there are any deployments that enforce RTS/CTS and if it does help there.
Everybody who wants a good service may^W can use a satellite dish looking directly to AP in order to overpower them all.
That's actually very bad since WiFi by default suffers from hidden node problems. It'll break down the performance for everyone. In WiFi, the collision detection only works when nodes can all hear each other. Someone who knows better, feel free to correct me.
Of course it's entirely irrelevant whether processing is done by analog or digital means, it's the same processing in the end. Even when you're running a software-defined radio, there's a fixed allocation of resources that is not dependent on what is actually transmitted/received on a channel. I've seen some professional WiFi access points that are completely digitally tuned with fixed frequency heterodynes. It's pretty much a double-conversion wideband receiver where the A/D converter sees all of the channels, and channel selection is done on the digital representation of the signal. Heck, the particular one I've seen had the first IF way above the received signal's frequency - more like you'd have in a spectrum analyzer than in a radio where the 1st IF is usually lower than the received signal.
Given that modern hardware uses memory mapped I/O that doesn't require context switches, that's less of a concern. Even better, DMA usually takes care of actually accessing hardware's I/O space, so it's really hands off.
I'm not even sure that modern virtualization needs context switches on non-memory-mapped I/O. Someone familiar with Intel's voluminous documentation would be better suited to answer that. In any case, I'd think that all modern PCI bridges let you map I/O space into memory space anyway.
There's no such thing as an unmount in legacy DOS, I don't know about FreeDOS. When you're at the command line prompt, where writes don't "just happen", it's always safe to pull the plug. Again - as long as you don't have something like smartdisk doing delayed writes behind the scene.
DOS doesn't do delayed writing unless you explicitly enable it. If a power cycle while there are no filesystem writes in progress, there'll be no corruption.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course such a window will let an 8x8 light beam into your place, and effectively brightly illuminate about the same surface area of the floor. So instead of a dim shack illuminated by the diffuse light seeping in through the cracks, you now have a blindingly bright rectangle on the floor. You'll see less than if you had the light seeping in - had you actually given it a thought, you'd know. Small windows suck, for a reason, and especially if they are in your roof.
The bottle acts as a simple optical system to diffuse the light. It's pretty neat.
We're talking about people living in tin shacks. Let's stay real. It's a great solution and I'd think it has no downsides for its intended audience. Never mind that it's nothing new, it has been around, out there, for more than a year, and I don't think anyone is complaining yet.
Not recycle. Reuse. It's even better than recycling: the energy cost is much less to reuse than to recycle.
Last time Volvo tried to make their wire harnesses biodegradable, it cost them a lot of goodwill. Just sayin'. Either something is made to last or it's biodegradable. There's no in-between as far as I can see.
Well yes, I agree, it would be "the" estate sale to be at :) Now just good luck finding such an estate sale, and we're all set.
Nope, that's the deposit. The cheapest one (AIR) goes for $28,000 in kit form, with discount applied.
Emergency control? On what, a ducted fan? If you lose thrust, there better be a bunch of pyros that eject and forcibly unfurl a chute for you, otherwise you're dead.
The price is "a bit" impractical. If this 400lb includes the chute with an automatic ejector that triggers upon loss of thrust (measured by an accelerometer), then it's OK. It'd be a deathtrap without a chute that will unfurl and slow you down with a minimum loss of altitude. I'd think if the survivable loss-of-thrust altitude was 25m, I'd consider buying it after it dropped to $65k or so. This means that the chute must have pyro ejectors and whatnot, and it better be demonstrated that it actually works :)
Crazy. Perhaps I need to try that on my router/NAS - it seems to have slowly decayed as well.
Windows 95/98 installer, because IIRC NT-based ones use itself for the installer IIRC.
Because trying to extract it is likely to result in a major release
What about forcing a major release and igniting it? As long as the shock wave and likely tsunami won't cause major damage on populated land, I think we'd be better off? Yes, I am aware that this would be like igniting megatons worth of a thermobaric weapon. I'd still take that over the 20-100x worse greenhouse effect...
I guess the real question is thus: is methane enough worse of a greenhouse gas than CO2, to warrant extracting it and burning it all just to combine it with oxygen, so that you'd get water vapor and CO2.
I'd dare say we know even less about modelling small chip pans of melting fat.
There's an overwhelming lot of science out there that could be done, but isn't because of there being no funding for it. You could even get an igNobel prize for such research :)
sea ice in the Arctic has melted at a much faster rate than it has expanded in the Southern Ocean
'nuff said. You can't look at it locally with a straight face. It doesn't matter what either pole is doing individually. You need to look at both of them combined.
You must have never dealt with any environmental data, then, to think that the data is not "edited". Of course it must be edited, because the point isn't to measure the necessarily local variations! What they want to measure is a proxy for the global CO2 concentration, they must be processing the data appropriately to reject the local variations that have known and well understood sources. It'd be completely stupid of them not to do so! Heck, if they didn't do that, you'd be kicking and screaming that they are using data points that are "known bad". You are a troll, I agree with the moderators.
Your analogy is silly. The better analogy would be: put the thermostat for your A/C on the other side of the kitchen. Every once in a while, if you open the window, the movement of air throughout the house will blow the warm humid air from the stove right over the thermostat. The condensing water vapor will get the thermostat real hot real quick. That's what happens there: when the rare circumstance (just look at the fucking raw data will you now) of the CO2-laden wind blowing over the sampling station happens, the readings are bonkers. There's way more variation due to CO2-depleted air being blown uphill (vegetation scrubs CO2 from the air). The sampling station isn't over a CO2 source, that'd be just totally silly. In prevailing winds it's upwind of the local CO2 source, and the closest upwind CO2 source is over a thousand miles away. You're completely off base in your assertion that anyone is measuring "while standing on a major source of that very same gas". That "major source" of "that very same gas" is miles away, in the wrong direction.
If you tell me that the source being miles away downwind doesn't matter, I can tell you quite categorically that no, it makes all the difference. I used to live upwind a couple of miles from a paper plant, and the rare days with no wind or wind blowing opposite of its usual direction we'd know right away. As long as the trade wind was there, you would never know anything about any paper plants.
Where exactly are those antennas that you've replaced? Do you use access points or nodes with external, removable antennas?
I think that simple ISM band devices that are point-to-point should simply use broadband transmission with a gold code, like GPS does. Heck, they should use a keystream code, so that your neighbor won't be able to listen to your baby monitor. This would allow for very graceful degradation, since such transmissions look to everyone like an increase in the noise floor, not like narrowband interference. If there are two monitors in the household, they'll only have shorter range, there'll be no other signs of interference.
Of course there is a trade off: you lower the usable range for everyone. When the devices cooperate in a CSMA/CD scheme, the range is unaffected, but the bandwidth suffers. But then you have to have a coordinated scheme where everyone participates. This may be hard, as I doubt that cheap consumer devices like baby monitors or phones really want to be ad-hoc WiFi nodes...
In WiFi, the "collision galore" is even worse with directional antennas, since the collision detection protocol requires all nodes to hear each other, IIRC. There's RTS/CTS, but I'm not sure what kind of gear implements it, and if there are any deployments that enforce RTS/CTS and if it does help there.
Everybody who wants a good service may^W can use a satellite dish looking directly to AP in order to overpower them all.
That's actually very bad since WiFi by default suffers from hidden node problems. It'll break down the performance for everyone. In WiFi, the collision detection only works when nodes can all hear each other. Someone who knows better, feel free to correct me.
Of course it's entirely irrelevant whether processing is done by analog or digital means, it's the same processing in the end. Even when you're running a software-defined radio, there's a fixed allocation of resources that is not dependent on what is actually transmitted/received on a channel. I've seen some professional WiFi access points that are completely digitally tuned with fixed frequency heterodynes. It's pretty much a double-conversion wideband receiver where the A/D converter sees all of the channels, and channel selection is done on the digital representation of the signal. Heck, the particular one I've seen had the first IF way above the received signal's frequency - more like you'd have in a spectrum analyzer than in a radio where the 1st IF is usually lower than the received signal.
Given that modern hardware uses memory mapped I/O that doesn't require context switches, that's less of a concern. Even better, DMA usually takes care of actually accessing hardware's I/O space, so it's really hands off.
I'm not even sure that modern virtualization needs context switches on non-memory-mapped I/O. Someone familiar with Intel's voluminous documentation would be better suited to answer that. In any case, I'd think that all modern PCI bridges let you map I/O space into memory space anyway.
There's no such thing as an unmount in legacy DOS, I don't know about FreeDOS. When you're at the command line prompt, where writes don't "just happen", it's always safe to pull the plug. Again - as long as you don't have something like smartdisk doing delayed writes behind the scene.
So, in other words, you really like command line interface with a unified filename and contents namespace, and completion, right?
DOS doesn't do delayed writing unless you explicitly enable it. If a power cycle while there are no filesystem writes in progress, there'll be no corruption.