Except that the RIAA have a history of sending out mistaken letters, and using legal threats as extortion. If the RIAA truly did their research, and only sent out letters to those who had actually been infringing their copyrights, you might have more of a point.
Also on the list of fees students don't have to pay is an "RIAA legwork" fee for having the school figure out which student to forward the letter on to.
R for an insulator can be very, very high. There's a layer of glass in between the electrodes in question. It would not surprise me at all if the current flow is under a nanoamp per pixel. That would leave a power consumption per screen on the order of milliwatts or less (voltages in question are low). It's hard to imagine that milliwatts per screen is a number worth worrying about.
I could be mistaken, but I believe turning on the LCD pixel implies an applied *voltage*, but no current flows through the pixel. Therefore, no actual power consumption. (Obviously it's not quite perfect, but I imagine changing state is a large power draw in comparison.) I expect the actual power difference to be microscopic. As the WSJ said, it was within the error margin of their (informal) test setup.
In non-technical usage, explosion can refer to a detonation or a deflagration. The distinguishing feature is a detonation has a supersonic reaction front, a deflagration is subsonic.
A pressure vessel rupture is an explosion for most purposes in terms of the results; ditto a deflagration. This appears to have been a deflagration -- damage is too light for a mass detonation on that scale.
Damage from explosions can come both from the overpressure, heat, flame, etc caused by the combustion, and also from the shock wave of a detonation. The shock wave will shatter hardened structures, the overpressure "just" moves things around. Also, with a detonation, the pressure rise time is *much* faster, and the overpressure can be *much* higher, so a comparable mass of substance will do much more damage if it detonates rather than deflagrates.
Nitroglycerin doesn't "ignite" in that there isn't a "flame", but the reaction that occurs is a combustion reaction -- the complex molecule ends up as a mix of N2, H2O, CO2, CO, etc. That reaction propagates at supersonic speeds. Interestingly, it will burn quietly if lit -- there's no pressure wave, just thermally-induced decomposition, and it won't transition on its own.
No, it most certainly does *not* need a fuel. It is an energetic chemical. In other words, 2N2O -> 2N2 + O2 + energy. Not TNT levels of energy, but not small amounts either. I don't have the numbers off hand, but the decomposition temperature is over 1000 Celsius. That reaction *can* happen in a detonation. However, the chemical is quite stable and relatively inert at normal temps (thermal decomposition starts a bit over 500C, iirc) -- at room temp it's far less reactive than oxygen. This accident may or may not have been that -- my understanding is it looks more like a pressure vessel burst and a fire from fuel + oxidizer, but we don't have enough details to know that. The trailer and tank you see overturned in that photo hold nitrous normally (I don't know what was full, or where the nitrous was at the time).
I've worked on that airport and seen these guys out testing. My condolences to the families.
They weren't firing the motor; apparently this was some sort of handling accident. Which also explains why people were close enough to be hurt. Why the fireball, I don't know. Also, nothing actually *detonated* here -- just a big fireball and modest overpressure. (At least, that's what informed commentary on the pictures I've seen says.)
It's also worth noting that given sufficient provocation, it is entirely possible for N2O to detonate by itself -- it's an energetic compound. It's just fairly non-reactive under most conditions, and even if it does start decomposing in a self-sustaining fashion it doesn't normally detonate. But it can, and if you have enough of it you don't even need a detonation to kill people.
I've been chasing news articles for a little while now.
Details are very scarce, but apparently this was a cold-flow test -- they weren't intending to light the motor, just flow nitrous through it. Tank ruptured, and a big fireball. Evidence visible from pictures etc suggests nothing detonated. Apparently people a couple miles away at the airport proper didn't hear an explosion -- they just saw clouds of dust and smoke, not abnormal for a motor test. I haven't seen anything about causes etc.
There were ten "bots"; which bot was in use was controlled by a "coach" program. They actually ran three different programs over the course of the tournament, and that setup actually lost to the humans. The coach / agent approach is an interesting one for a variety of reasons, and it is most definitely a valid strategy.
5164316: DNA construct for enhancing the efficiency of transcription
5196525: DNA construct for enhancing the efficiency of transcription
5322938: DNA construct for enhancing the efficiency of transcription
5352605: Chimeric genes for transforming plant cells using viral promoters
Yes, the first three have the same title. I haven't read any of them yet. You can find the full text on the USPTO web site. Search by patent number here.
Hardly more so than they are now -- the damage would be physical damage to the computers, just like it is now. Vibrations on the scale of Hz to tens of Hz won't impact a mechanical computer operating at many GHz any more than your car is affected by the "vibrations" caused by going up and down hills.
Sentence fragments, missing commas, extra commas, redundant phrases, its vs. it's... And that's just in the first two paragraphs. I stopped reading after that.
Mars is much friendlier to life. It has carbon (atmospheric CO2), probably water, and a much richer mineral environment than the moon. And the atmosphere helps with radiation protection.
The storms block light, which is a problem for the rovers, but the atmosphere is so thin it wouldn't be damaging in the same way a storm on Earth is.
Whether the Moon or Mars is easier to get to depends a lot on your assumptions. I'm of the opinion that since the delta-v (basically how much rocket power it takes) to get to Mars is *lower*, Mars is easier to get to -- even though the trip takes longer and you can't do a very short duration stay easily.
Anyway, sign me up for the Mars trip -- I, for one, want to go.
As I understand it, they were pretty sure they could add useful panel wipers -- not perfect, but useful. Or maybe peel-away disposable covers. Or any of several options. The eventual decision was that there were several viable methods, and they all would take the place of about 1 instrument. And the researchers decided they'd rather have another instrument, even if it meant shorter life. As it turns out, they got very lucky and mostly don't need the wipers.
Warrants should be required for the police to install the keylogger, and a court order or similar should be required for the AV program vendor to assist. If the necessary warrants and orders are in place, by all means, they ought to comply. But CheckPoint has said they don't feel a need to wait for such -- just the say-so of the police. That way lies abuse of power.
They might well be shielded; shielded doesn't mean perfect. I'd bet they're a lot better than non-shielded speakers.
If you cared, you could add your own shielding. Get some mu-metal foil, and put it between the speaker and the CRT. The exact positioning may be finicky; play with it till it seems best. You'll want to open up the speaker housing and put the foil close to the magnet, if only so you don't need as much foil -- it's kinda pricey. Also, be careful working with it -- edges can be sharp. A coworker cut himself on the stuff when he and I were trying to solve some interference problems.
I don't know what the cheapest / best place to buy it is, but we bought it from McMaster-Carr (www.mcmaster.com), part number 8912K32.
It can still be had but you are crazy if you think its not less available.
I've heard this repeatedly but I never hear anything to back it up. I've bought ammonium nitrate fertilizer post-9/11. 50 lb bags, $8/bag. I paid cash and didn't show ID. The purchase went something like this: I arrive in my decidedly-not-a-farm-vehicle sedan, with my typical geek pony tail. "You guys carry ammonium nitrate?" "Yep. $8 a bag." "OK then. Can I get two bags?" "You can get two tons if you want. Right this way."
Of course, fertilizer grade and bomb grade aren't the same thing -- the fertilizer is processed so as to make it more difficult to use in a bomb. I think it mostly has to do with how the prills are formed. I think in the UK it's adulterated with ammonium sulfate, which makes it harder to detonate.
Oh, and the anhydrous ammonia isn't exactly free of regulation -- the DEA cares about that one, because it can be used in methamphetamine and MDA production.
The fertilizer bombs haven't made it any less available. AIUI, the decline is more connected to rising use of anhydrous ammonia (which is cheaper). H2 can certainly be made from renewable sources, but making it from biomass would be much cheaper than urine.
The reason it's relevant is twofold: right now, it's made with fossil fuels, though that could change in the future. And secondly, it's an energy cost that has to be accounted for in determining whether the biofuel is energy positive and by how much. The 1.3 number (or whatever other number you come up with) doesn't care what the input energy source is.
Comparing prices also gets subsidies (especially corn subsidies, but also renewable energy subsidies) involved.
Those numbers certainly ought to include the energy content of the fertilizer -- it's decidedly non-trivial in comparison to the output energy, though I don't have a reference handy so I won't go quoting numbers. Most fertilizer is ammonium nitrate (or other nitrates), which is made from atmospheric N2 + H2 from fossil fuel sources (mostly natural gas, but also oil and coal to some extent). The ammonia is oxidized to nitric acid and reacted with more ammonia to form fertilizer AN, or used directly as anhydrous ammonia.
So? Are you arguing in favor of Not Invented Here? I have no idea whether there are other widget toolkits out there that are enough better than GTK to warrant switching, but if there are, the fact that GIMP created GTK in the past when those toolkits weren't around is not an argument in favor of keeping it.
And the software from the BD+ disc verifies the signature how, again? By asking very nicely if the VM would please run some code to check it? I remain unconvinced.
The funky hardware bit has a little bit of promise, but I'll refrain from commenting before I know more. But for now, I'm skeptical.
Slashdot Mirror
Except that the RIAA have a history of sending out mistaken letters, and using legal threats as extortion. If the RIAA truly did their research, and only sent out letters to those who had actually been infringing their copyrights, you might have more of a point.
Also on the list of fees students don't have to pay is an "RIAA legwork" fee for having the school figure out which student to forward the letter on to.
R for an insulator can be very, very high. There's a layer of glass in between the electrodes in question. It would not surprise me at all if the current flow is under a nanoamp per pixel. That would leave a power consumption per screen on the order of milliwatts or less (voltages in question are low). It's hard to imagine that milliwatts per screen is a number worth worrying about.
I could be mistaken, but I believe turning on the LCD pixel implies an applied *voltage*, but no current flows through the pixel. Therefore, no actual power consumption. (Obviously it's not quite perfect, but I imagine changing state is a large power draw in comparison.) I expect the actual power difference to be microscopic. As the WSJ said, it was within the error margin of their (informal) test setup.
In non-technical usage, explosion can refer to a detonation or a deflagration. The distinguishing feature is a detonation has a supersonic reaction front, a deflagration is subsonic.
A pressure vessel rupture is an explosion for most purposes in terms of the results; ditto a deflagration. This appears to have been a deflagration -- damage is too light for a mass detonation on that scale.
Damage from explosions can come both from the overpressure, heat, flame, etc caused by the combustion, and also from the shock wave of a detonation. The shock wave will shatter hardened structures, the overpressure "just" moves things around. Also, with a detonation, the pressure rise time is *much* faster, and the overpressure can be *much* higher, so a comparable mass of substance will do much more damage if it detonates rather than deflagrates.
Nitroglycerin doesn't "ignite" in that there isn't a "flame", but the reaction that occurs is a combustion reaction -- the complex molecule ends up as a mix of N2, H2O, CO2, CO, etc. That reaction propagates at supersonic speeds. Interestingly, it will burn quietly if lit -- there's no pressure wave, just thermally-induced decomposition, and it won't transition on its own.
No, it most certainly does *not* need a fuel. It is an energetic chemical. In other words, 2N2O -> 2N2 + O2 + energy. Not TNT levels of energy, but not small amounts either. I don't have the numbers off hand, but the decomposition temperature is over 1000 Celsius. That reaction *can* happen in a detonation. However, the chemical is quite stable and relatively inert at normal temps (thermal decomposition starts a bit over 500C, iirc) -- at room temp it's far less reactive than oxygen. This accident may or may not have been that -- my understanding is it looks more like a pressure vessel burst and a fire from fuel + oxidizer, but we don't have enough details to know that. The trailer and tank you see overturned in that photo hold nitrous normally (I don't know what was full, or where the nitrous was at the time).
I've worked on that airport and seen these guys out testing. My condolences to the families.
It was Scaled's facility; that much is obvious looking at the pictures (until recently I worked at the airport).
Burt wasn't at the site at the time.
They weren't firing the motor; apparently this was some sort of handling accident. Which also explains why people were close enough to be hurt. Why the fireball, I don't know. Also, nothing actually *detonated* here -- just a big fireball and modest overpressure. (At least, that's what informed commentary on the pictures I've seen says.)
It's also worth noting that given sufficient provocation, it is entirely possible for N2O to detonate by itself -- it's an energetic compound. It's just fairly non-reactive under most conditions, and even if it does start decomposing in a self-sustaining fashion it doesn't normally detonate. But it can, and if you have enough of it you don't even need a detonation to kill people.
I've been chasing news articles for a little while now.
Details are very scarce, but apparently this was a cold-flow test -- they weren't intending to light the motor, just flow nitrous through it. Tank ruptured, and a big fireball. Evidence visible from pictures etc suggests nothing detonated. Apparently people a couple miles away at the airport proper didn't hear an explosion -- they just saw clouds of dust and smoke, not abnormal for a motor test. I haven't seen anything about causes etc.
My condolences to the families.
There were ten "bots"; which bot was in use was controlled by a "coach" program. They actually ran three different programs over the course of the tournament, and that setup actually lost to the humans. The coach / agent approach is an interesting one for a variety of reasons, and it is most definitely a valid strategy.
5164316: DNA construct for enhancing the efficiency of transcription
5196525: DNA construct for enhancing the efficiency of transcription
5322938: DNA construct for enhancing the efficiency of transcription
5352605: Chimeric genes for transforming plant cells using viral promoters
Yes, the first three have the same title. I haven't read any of them yet. You can find the full text on the USPTO web site. Search by patent number here.
Hardly more so than they are now -- the damage would be physical damage to the computers, just like it is now. Vibrations on the scale of Hz to tens of Hz won't impact a mechanical computer operating at many GHz any more than your car is affected by the "vibrations" caused by going up and down hills.
Engineering is the art of making what you want out of what you have.
The best engineering solutions come not from large budgets, but small ones.
Sentence fragments, missing commas, extra commas, redundant phrases, its vs. it's... And that's just in the first two paragraphs. I stopped reading after that.
The linked article actually has worse editing than the slashdot summary. What is the world coming to?
I suppose asking the slashdot editors to link to high quality writeups is a little far-fetched, so I won't even bother.
Mars is much friendlier to life. It has carbon (atmospheric CO2), probably water, and a much richer mineral environment than the moon. And the atmosphere helps with radiation protection.
The storms block light, which is a problem for the rovers, but the atmosphere is so thin it wouldn't be damaging in the same way a storm on Earth is.
Whether the Moon or Mars is easier to get to depends a lot on your assumptions. I'm of the opinion that since the delta-v (basically how much rocket power it takes) to get to Mars is *lower*, Mars is easier to get to -- even though the trip takes longer and you can't do a very short duration stay easily.
Anyway, sign me up for the Mars trip -- I, for one, want to go.
As I understand it, they were pretty sure they could add useful panel wipers -- not perfect, but useful. Or maybe peel-away disposable covers. Or any of several options. The eventual decision was that there were several viable methods, and they all would take the place of about 1 instrument. And the researchers decided they'd rather have another instrument, even if it meant shorter life. As it turns out, they got very lucky and mostly don't need the wipers.
Warrants should be required for the police to install the keylogger, and a court order or similar should be required for the AV program vendor to assist. If the necessary warrants and orders are in place, by all means, they ought to comply. But CheckPoint has said they don't feel a need to wait for such -- just the say-so of the police. That way lies abuse of power.
They might well be shielded; shielded doesn't mean perfect. I'd bet they're a lot better than non-shielded speakers.
If you cared, you could add your own shielding. Get some mu-metal foil, and put it between the speaker and the CRT. The exact positioning may be finicky; play with it till it seems best. You'll want to open up the speaker housing and put the foil close to the magnet, if only so you don't need as much foil -- it's kinda pricey. Also, be careful working with it -- edges can be sharp. A coworker cut himself on the stuff when he and I were trying to solve some interference problems.
I don't know what the cheapest / best place to buy it is, but we bought it from McMaster-Carr (www.mcmaster.com), part number 8912K32.
It can still be had but you are crazy if you think its not less available.
I've heard this repeatedly but I never hear anything to back it up. I've bought ammonium nitrate fertilizer post-9/11. 50 lb bags, $8/bag. I paid cash and didn't show ID. The purchase went something like this: I arrive in my decidedly-not-a-farm-vehicle sedan, with my typical geek pony tail. "You guys carry ammonium nitrate?" "Yep. $8 a bag." "OK then. Can I get two bags?" "You can get two tons if you want. Right this way."
Of course, fertilizer grade and bomb grade aren't the same thing -- the fertilizer is processed so as to make it more difficult to use in a bomb. I think it mostly has to do with how the prills are formed. I think in the UK it's adulterated with ammonium sulfate, which makes it harder to detonate.
Oh, and the anhydrous ammonia isn't exactly free of regulation -- the DEA cares about that one, because it can be used in methamphetamine and MDA production.
The fertilizer bombs haven't made it any less available. AIUI, the decline is more connected to rising use of anhydrous ammonia (which is cheaper). H2 can certainly be made from renewable sources, but making it from biomass would be much cheaper than urine.
The reason it's relevant is twofold: right now, it's made with fossil fuels, though that could change in the future. And secondly, it's an energy cost that has to be accounted for in determining whether the biofuel is energy positive and by how much. The 1.3 number (or whatever other number you come up with) doesn't care what the input energy source is.
Comparing prices also gets subsidies (especially corn subsidies, but also renewable energy subsidies) involved.
Those numbers certainly ought to include the energy content of the fertilizer -- it's decidedly non-trivial in comparison to the output energy, though I don't have a reference handy so I won't go quoting numbers. Most fertilizer is ammonium nitrate (or other nitrates), which is made from atmospheric N2 + H2 from fossil fuel sources (mostly natural gas, but also oil and coal to some extent). The ammonia is oxidized to nitric acid and reacted with more ammonia to form fertilizer AN, or used directly as anhydrous ammonia.
Yes. We did. So why does the 'Dupe' tag not show up for it?
So? Are you arguing in favor of Not Invented Here? I have no idea whether there are other widget toolkits out there that are enough better than GTK to warrant switching, but if there are, the fact that GIMP created GTK in the past when those toolkits weren't around is not an argument in favor of keeping it.
Words are more fun when you verb them.
And the software from the BD+ disc verifies the signature how, again? By asking very nicely if the VM would please run some code to check it? I remain unconvinced.
The funky hardware bit has a little bit of promise, but I'll refrain from commenting before I know more. But for now, I'm skeptical.