Not really. All of my estimates are very high (conversion of 100%, entire phone is covered in the sound-converting material, etc.), but the ambient noise level is the problem. In a crowded place like a restaurant, you're talking about maybe 60 dB of sound. An entire day's exposure to 60 dB of sound would get you less than 1 microwatt-hour. That's a uselessly tiny fraction of a battery's storage.
The human voice produces a hell of a lot more power than a cellphone, you can disagree if you want
Well, a human shouting is about 1 mW. A cell phone's antenna outputs in the ballpark of 250 mW.
Some quick back-of-the-envelope calculations suggest that if the entire area of a cell phone could pick up sound energy, the ambient sound level was at the pain threshold of 120 dB (1 W/m^w), and it achieved 100% energy conversion, this would generate about 15 mW. For just the 250 mW antenna, this means about 90 minutes of talk time per 24 hours exposure.
120 dB is very loud, and a far cry from how much sound a phone would normally be exposed to. Note that sound is measured on a logarithmic scale. If the phone was constantly exposed to 60 dB of sound, then it'd only generate 15 nanowatts.
Just remember Newton's Law of Energy Conservation... and remember that things powered by the car driving over a power capturing device is stealing gas from your tank indirectly.
It's not, it's recapturing wasted energy. The gas is expended producing those sound waves regardless of whether energy is harvested from them or not.
This is very different from, say, harvesting electricity from a power line.
It must depend on the system at the particular airport/country. As you indicate, he must've been going through the common terminal. There are places in the Newark airport that seem to be used for that purpose. On the other hand, if you're flying between smaller airports in the US using private prop planes, you don't even have to step in to the public terminal and nobody polices what you take aboard.
They don't. There's a big difference between a scientist who is employed by a government agency and one that is employed by a university or private research institution. While university research programs often receive funding through federal grants, they also receive other sources of funding, including non-government grants. People who work for universities aren't employed by the government, aren't directly answerable to government bureaucrats, and aren't subject to rules such as these about what papers they can publish.
Unless there's a process converting elemental mercury in landfills into methylmercury or ethylmercury, then you're fine. The tiny amount of elemental mercury in a CFL is not particularly toxic. The "mercury" that's in food (e.g., fish) is generally methylmercury, which is substantially more toxic.
you can see it on Windows systems on Intel PAE processors
Well, server versions of Windows. End-user versions limited physical memory to 4 GB anyway, because drivers touch physical memory pointers and were poorly-written (assumed physical memory pointers are 32-bit).
Also it makes task switching hit the system harder over all, because of the segmentation.
You already have to save and restore a ton of information on a context switch. PAE, for example, doesn't really use proper segmentation, but is implemented using the normal page tables (adding one layer), so a context switch is no more costly.
You are confusing "Jesus is God" with "God is Jesus". Christians disagree with Jews and Muslims on who Jesus is, but not who God is.
Also, Christians do not all agree that Jesus and God are one and the same. It is more or less required that one believe that Jesus is the son of God and the Messiah. Beyond that lies theological disagreement.
The theory that Allah is actually the Sumerian Hubal is widely-rejected. The term "Al-Ilah", meaning "the worshipable" was widely used enough that using it as an etymological basis is shaky at best.
And if you believe that, you betray your lack of intelligence and education.
Apparently along with nearly all other students of Abrahamic religions.
Not quite. It's more than that if it supports surrogate pairs and counts them as one character (instead of two). It's less than that if it doesn't. (If any Unicode character counts as a single character, it's about 2^20 bits per character. Otherwise, it's just shy of 2^16.)
I've seen some varying reports. There are at least a reasonable fraction of the population whose blood pressure is modified by sodium levels. (The rest of the population, their blood pressure may be sodium-independent.)
The problem is that the salt quantity difference between processed food and non-processed is dramatic. You can eat a ton of salt with non-processed food. It's tough to get up to the recommended sodium maximum if you're salting real food and using no processed food (without making everything taste super salty).
Oddly, after spending a while using no processed foods, my salt tolerance has changed and I can no longer eat many processed foods -- they're much too salty.
It's odd, yes, but the wines of the Champagne region of France are just a little bit more well-known.
I think it's equally odd that wines made in a particular region but in a different style (e.g., with different grapes) can't, in general, use the European place-name label.
I don't see where they're blaming Sony. They're calling out video games as a contributing factor in childhood obesity, which is probably true. Maybe instead of blaming Sony they could educate parents or something. I wonder how they might educate parents? I don't know, maybe some kind of graphic that shows the rise of childhood obesity and points out a lot of contributing factors that parents could work on avoiding? Something like that?
Bread and grains have been an enormous component of staple diets for ages. Even today, in a lot of third-world countries, people eat primarily starch. It's only recently that this has contributed to widespread obesity. I'm going to have to say that it's not as simple as people eating grains and other starches.
Maybe part of the problem is demonizing things that are the unpopular food item of the moment. Like saturated fat. Or starch.
To be fair, the basic laws behind statistical mechanics are equally simple, yet thermodynamic behaviors can be complex and non-obvious.
The epidemiology is: Why are people using less energy? Why are people consuming more energy? What subtle biochemical and metabolic effects might be involved?
There are a lot more subtle biochemical effects than one might initially suspect.
Between France and Australia? Absolutely. Provided the only variable I'm required to differentiate is between France and Australia. See, in the article you link to, they get zero information about the wine and have to guess all variables. Each variable provides a lot of variation, so getting anywhere near the mark when you're guessing multiple variables at once is challenging. If, on the other hand, you have a bunch of Pinot Noirs from France and Australia and you know they're all Pinot Noirs, it's substantially easier to differentiate between the regions.
Although, if you mix quality too much, life starts to get difficult. I wouldn't claim to be able to do a very good job if you pick all low-quality wines from France and all high-quality wines from Australia, for example.
You're splitting hairs. The city is properly written "Porto" or "Oporto" today. The name of the wine, "Port", is actually named after that city. The wine does in fact come from the region that includes that city, but the city exists and the wine is named after it.
The practice of using the name of a well-known wine to describe your product has two problems. One, it's actually much more recent that you suggest. Two, it was almost exclusively done to confuse consumers and get a higher price for your wine by suggesting that your wine is similar to this other, well-known style. Except that this was primarily done by early New World purveyors of crap wine (e.g., certain makers of jug wine).
In fact, the stigma caused by low-quality wine producers of a few decade ago using European place-names as false descriptors is bad enough that most good wine makers in all the New World countries do not label their wines in this fashion. This includes Australia, as a matter of fact. Good exported Australian wines all follow the grape-name convention and don't piggyback on European place-names. (One of the examples given, Tokay, is a weird exception. It's become common to refer to one of the grapes used for this wine as "Tokay", or variants. But then, there are a bunch of those old grapes that they're still trying to figure out the genetic history of.)
One of the major problems of borrowing European descriptors is that, outside of Europe, they're uncontrolled descriptors. That is, they have no legally-enforced restrictions on their use. I know you and other people here like to claim that they're useful to consumers, but that's simply not true. For wine, all uncontrolled descriptors are absolutely worthless, because they are widely abused. If you're in the U.S. and a wine calls itself "Burgundy", all you really know is that it'll probably be red. (You can also guess, because of the aforementioned stigma, that it'll suck.) If you want to make helpful comparisons, you can do it in the descriptive text, in which it's perfectly acceptable to say that the wine is made "in the style of X". The wine "name" and other front-label data should almost entirely use legally-controlled terms, because they're actually reliable and thus useful to the consumer.
Slashdot Mirror
Not really. All of my estimates are very high (conversion of 100%, entire phone is covered in the sound-converting material, etc.), but the ambient noise level is the problem. In a crowded place like a restaurant, you're talking about maybe 60 dB of sound. An entire day's exposure to 60 dB of sound would get you less than 1 microwatt-hour. That's a uselessly tiny fraction of a battery's storage.
The human voice produces a hell of a lot more power than a cellphone, you can disagree if you want
Well, a human shouting is about 1 mW. A cell phone's antenna outputs in the ballpark of 250 mW.
Some quick back-of-the-envelope calculations suggest that if the entire area of a cell phone could pick up sound energy, the ambient sound level was at the pain threshold of 120 dB (1 W/m^w), and it achieved 100% energy conversion, this would generate about 15 mW. For just the 250 mW antenna, this means about 90 minutes of talk time per 24 hours exposure.
120 dB is very loud, and a far cry from how much sound a phone would normally be exposed to. Note that sound is measured on a logarithmic scale. If the phone was constantly exposed to 60 dB of sound, then it'd only generate 15 nanowatts.
Just remember Newton's Law of Energy Conservation... and remember that things powered by the car driving over a power capturing device is stealing gas from your tank indirectly.
It's not, it's recapturing wasted energy. The gas is expended producing those sound waves regardless of whether energy is harvested from them or not.
This is very different from, say, harvesting electricity from a power line.
Key to puzzling this out: it's a computing cluster, and 800 isn't a power of 2 either.
It must depend on the system at the particular airport/country. As you indicate, he must've been going through the common terminal. There are places in the Newark airport that seem to be used for that purpose. On the other hand, if you're flying between smaller airports in the US using private prop planes, you don't even have to step in to the public terminal and nobody polices what you take aboard.
They don't. There's a big difference between a scientist who is employed by a government agency and one that is employed by a university or private research institution. While university research programs often receive funding through federal grants, they also receive other sources of funding, including non-government grants. People who work for universities aren't employed by the government, aren't directly answerable to government bureaucrats, and aren't subject to rules such as these about what papers they can publish.
Unless there's a process converting elemental mercury in landfills into methylmercury or ethylmercury, then you're fine. The tiny amount of elemental mercury in a CFL is not particularly toxic. The "mercury" that's in food (e.g., fish) is generally methylmercury, which is substantially more toxic.
you can see it on Windows systems on Intel PAE processors
Well, server versions of Windows. End-user versions limited physical memory to 4 GB anyway, because drivers touch physical memory pointers and were poorly-written (assumed physical memory pointers are 32-bit).
Also it makes task switching hit the system harder over all, because of the segmentation.
You already have to save and restore a ton of information on a context switch. PAE, for example, doesn't really use proper segmentation, but is implemented using the normal page tables (adding one layer), so a context switch is no more costly.
You are confusing "Jesus is God" with "God is Jesus". Christians disagree with Jews and Muslims on who Jesus is, but not who God is.
Also, Christians do not all agree that Jesus and God are one and the same. It is more or less required that one believe that Jesus is the son of God and the Messiah. Beyond that lies theological disagreement.
The anti-cheat systems require updating code and not updating data that is used by code?
The theory that Allah is actually the Sumerian Hubal is widely-rejected. The term "Al-Ilah", meaning "the worshipable" was widely used enough that using it as an etymological basis is shaky at best.
And if you believe that, you betray your lack of intelligence and education.
Apparently along with nearly all other students of Abrahamic religions.
Islamic world: "Die for insulting our moon god!"
Pro tip: Christians, Muslims, and Jews all have the same god.
I'm not a global warming denialist, mind you ... this obviously means that for the next 80 000 years the IPCC will not make a single wrong prediction !
You're not allowed to talk about statistics any more.
Nonsense. The best was Friday -- rectangular pizza day.
Not quite. It's more than that if it supports surrogate pairs and counts them as one character (instead of two). It's less than that if it doesn't. (If any Unicode character counts as a single character, it's about 2^20 bits per character. Otherwise, it's just shy of 2^16.)
Your estimates are roughly $25-50k / year. Lots of people raise children on substantially less than that.
I've seen some varying reports. There are at least a reasonable fraction of the population whose blood pressure is modified by sodium levels. (The rest of the population, their blood pressure may be sodium-independent.)
The problem is that the salt quantity difference between processed food and non-processed is dramatic. You can eat a ton of salt with non-processed food. It's tough to get up to the recommended sodium maximum if you're salting real food and using no processed food (without making everything taste super salty).
Oddly, after spending a while using no processed foods, my salt tolerance has changed and I can no longer eat many processed foods -- they're much too salty.
It's odd, yes, but the wines of the Champagne region of France are just a little bit more well-known.
I think it's equally odd that wines made in a particular region but in a different style (e.g., with different grapes) can't, in general, use the European place-name label.
You didn't bother looking at the graphic or the Let's Move website, did you?
I don't see where they're blaming Sony. They're calling out video games as a contributing factor in childhood obesity, which is probably true. Maybe instead of blaming Sony they could educate parents or something. I wonder how they might educate parents? I don't know, maybe some kind of graphic that shows the rise of childhood obesity and points out a lot of contributing factors that parents could work on avoiding? Something like that?
Bread and grains have been an enormous component of staple diets for ages. Even today, in a lot of third-world countries, people eat primarily starch. It's only recently that this has contributed to widespread obesity. I'm going to have to say that it's not as simple as people eating grains and other starches.
Maybe part of the problem is demonizing things that are the unpopular food item of the moment. Like saturated fat. Or starch.
To be fair, the basic laws behind statistical mechanics are equally simple, yet thermodynamic behaviors can be complex and non-obvious.
The epidemiology is:
Why are people using less energy?
Why are people consuming more energy?
What subtle biochemical and metabolic effects might be involved?
There are a lot more subtle biochemical effects than one might initially suspect.
"Californian crap wine" is wine that is both Californian and also crap. It is not a statement that all Californian wine is crap.
Between France and Australia? Absolutely. Provided the only variable I'm required to differentiate is between France and Australia. See, in the article you link to, they get zero information about the wine and have to guess all variables. Each variable provides a lot of variation, so getting anywhere near the mark when you're guessing multiple variables at once is challenging. If, on the other hand, you have a bunch of Pinot Noirs from France and Australia and you know they're all Pinot Noirs, it's substantially easier to differentiate between the regions.
Although, if you mix quality too much, life starts to get difficult. I wouldn't claim to be able to do a very good job if you pick all low-quality wines from France and all high-quality wines from Australia, for example.
You're splitting hairs. The city is properly written "Porto" or "Oporto" today. The name of the wine, "Port", is actually named after that city. The wine does in fact come from the region that includes that city, but the city exists and the wine is named after it.
The practice of using the name of a well-known wine to describe your product has two problems. One, it's actually much more recent that you suggest. Two, it was almost exclusively done to confuse consumers and get a higher price for your wine by suggesting that your wine is similar to this other, well-known style. Except that this was primarily done by early New World purveyors of crap wine (e.g., certain makers of jug wine).
In fact, the stigma caused by low-quality wine producers of a few decade ago using European place-names as false descriptors is bad enough that most good wine makers in all the New World countries do not label their wines in this fashion. This includes Australia, as a matter of fact. Good exported Australian wines all follow the grape-name convention and don't piggyback on European place-names. (One of the examples given, Tokay, is a weird exception. It's become common to refer to one of the grapes used for this wine as "Tokay", or variants. But then, there are a bunch of those old grapes that they're still trying to figure out the genetic history of.)
One of the major problems of borrowing European descriptors is that, outside of Europe, they're uncontrolled descriptors. That is, they have no legally-enforced restrictions on their use. I know you and other people here like to claim that they're useful to consumers, but that's simply not true. For wine, all uncontrolled descriptors are absolutely worthless, because they are widely abused. If you're in the U.S. and a wine calls itself "Burgundy", all you really know is that it'll probably be red. (You can also guess, because of the aforementioned stigma, that it'll suck.) If you want to make helpful comparisons, you can do it in the descriptive text, in which it's perfectly acceptable to say that the wine is made "in the style of X". The wine "name" and other front-label data should almost entirely use legally-controlled terms, because they're actually reliable and thus useful to the consumer.