I worked with fuel cells for about 7 years, and I'm fairly certain they will never be used in cars on any appreciable scale. They were used as an excuse by the auto industry for a while. ("Don't make us do battery cars. Wait for fuel cells!") Now that battery cars are about to become economical, the excuse is no longer needed, so automotive fuel cell programmes will be scrapped. (There are applications where fuel cells do make sense, but cars is not one of them.)
The main arguments agianst fuel cells are: * Efficiency. Making hydrogen from electricity on an economcial scale has an efficiency of about 50 %. Charging a battery is better than 90 %. Converting hydrogen back to electricity in a fuel cell is again about 50 % efficiency (so 25 % round trip). Discharging a battery is again better than 90 % (so 80 % round trip). * Complexity. A fuel cell needs a supply of moist air to function. This requires a compressior, a humidifier, a water tank, lots of pipes, etc. All of this costs money, adds weight, and introduces potential problems. * Cost. Fuel cells require platinum catalysts that are expensive. * Reliability. Fuel cells just aren't as reliable as batteries. * Lifespan. Again, batteries are better than fuel cells in automotive applications, and since they are also cheaper, they have a much better price/lifespan ratio.
Modern batteries can actually re-charge quite quickly if you have a powerful enough charger. (A car draws much more power than a house, so residential chargers cannot be very powerful.)
I imagine in the future there will be robots at gas stations that switch batteries in your car faster than you could refill a gas tank.
...says TFS while linking to a video of two speakers, each about four times the size of the flame. Given the low frequencies that such large speakers can produce, it's more about wind than sound. So DARPA figured out that you can put out a fire by blowing on it. That's tax money well spent.
But if capitalizing on the accused's inability to weather the risks and costs of trial are an unacceptable tactic, doesn't that mean plea deals by prosecutors are also unacceptable?
Even if they built the world's most tamper-proof application, I could still circumvent it by opening up an old mouse and soldering a $5 relay switch to the button.
...but only because anyone who's dumb enough to pay US$185,000 for a gTLD won't realize he can hire a programmer for five minutes and get a greasemonkey script that clicks the "submit" button at exactly the right time (minus network lag).
Thank you for this! So to summarize (assuming this is his solution. I'd still like a link to something written by him that includes the equations.)
He considered the 2-dimensional problem of a projectile under influence of gravity and a frictional force that is proportional to the square of its speed.
He "solved" it in the velocity (u,v) plane. To get the (x,y) trajectory you'd have to integrate in time (which would be tricky because you don't have u and v as functions of time, see below).
The "solution" is a function f(u,v) that is constant on the trajectory. It does not tell you u(t) or v(t). In fact, t is not in f. Nor does it give you an expression for u(v) or v(u), because f can't be inverted analytically. For any of that, you still have to do numeric calculations.
Here's a crowdsourcing solution: You log into the site, and get a few faces to rank for attractiveness. The computer then finds other people that you'll also find attractive using the netflix algorithm, and tells you what bar they're in.
(With premium membership, you can upload a photo of a persion you're stalking^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H interested in meeting, and they will use face recognition software to send you a message whenever he/she enters a bar.)
The basic idea is: you use satellites detect the nozzle flame of ICBM:s as they launch, then use other satellites to destroy their fuel tanks or payloads with lasers.
The only difference between Civ2 and real life is that in Civ2 it works.
A mathematical model is a simplification of the underlying system. That means it is worthless unless validated against experiments. Even after validation, the model cannot make predictions ouside the range where it has been validated.
Statements like "huge variations in your daily food intake will not cause variations in weight, as long as your average food intake over a year is about the same" seem go way outside where there could possibly have been any experimental validation, and suggest that this MIT researcher doesn't know what he's doing. (Either that, or TFS is wrong, but that would never happen on/. )
Because our eyes perceive light on a logarithmic scale, and adapt to the ambient brightness. With the right marketing, there's really no limit on how many lightbulbs you could persuade people that they need.
Try posting a picture of a woman breastfeeding. It is banned because it offends the American Puritans.
Why shouldn't Facebook also cater to other religions? Their goal is to increase profits, so it makes sense to make the maximum number of customers happy.
That's the same reasoning as when I bought a 9600 baud modem a while back. "It can transmit and receive faster than I can read or write! Surely I will never need more than that!"
Also, never update the app, or the OS on the iPad. If the patent trolls win the lawsuit, and force the maker of the app to issue an "update" that disables it, you're screwed.
Yeah, I know. Godwin's law and all that, but there are situations were it makes sense, and is important, to make comparisons to the Nazis. The Holacaust would never have been possible without a way of separating the undesirables from the "good guys". Hence the Nazis invented the "Aryan Certificate" - a document confirming that you had passed a background check.
Now the U.S.A. has "Precheck" - a document confirming that you have passed a background check. The exact selection criteria are of course classified, but I'm sure it's hard to get one if you belong to certain religions or political organizations. Right now its only for airline travelers (what's the harm in speeding up security checks?) Then it will be mandatory for teachers and public employees (Think of the children!) Then there will be security checks on trains and subways (Terrorists! Besides, almost everyone has Precheck these days, so what's the problem?) Then, Precheck will be required to drive a car (it could be loaded with explosives!) If you object, then you're sympathizing with terrorists, and you might not get your Precheck card renewed.
Making sure the Holocaust does not happen is not as simple as "don't re-elect Hitler" - He's dead. It's not even about Nazis - They will never again have any real power. To make sure we never see another Holocaust, we must realize that it is always possible for evil people to get into positions of power, and make sure we never put systems in place that enables systematic discrimination of any group of people.
In the olde days, a Google search would produce the same results for the same search term. Not so anymore. If I search for "waterboarding" I get Wikipedia, NPR, and a number of human-rights activist sites. If Dick Cheney searches for the same term, he gets "Waterboarding magazine", "50 fun ways of torturing a PoW", and newamericancentury.org So to be re-usable the URL must include lots of information about the person who did the search, like age, religion, political beliefs, sex (with whom, how often), and so on. I'm actually impressed they can fit all that in 250 characters.
The judge is not doing this for the value of the IP. It is a message to copyright holders. "If you give your IP to scumbags, you may loose all rigths to it."
With a corner reflector? No problem at all! I do this all the time when I'm on my bike. Little pieces of plastic full of corner reflectors reflects light back from the headlights of cars onto the drivers, making me more visible.
Slashdot Mirror
I worked with fuel cells for about 7 years, and I'm fairly certain they will never be used in cars on any appreciable scale. They were used as an excuse by the auto industry for a while. ("Don't make us do battery cars. Wait for fuel cells!") Now that battery cars are about to become economical, the excuse is no longer needed, so automotive fuel cell programmes will be scrapped. (There are applications where fuel cells do make sense, but cars is not one of them.)
The main arguments agianst fuel cells are:
* Efficiency. Making hydrogen from electricity on an economcial scale has an efficiency of about 50 %. Charging a battery is better than 90 %. Converting hydrogen back to electricity in a fuel cell is again about 50 % efficiency (so 25 % round trip). Discharging a battery is again better than 90 % (so 80 % round trip). * Complexity. A fuel cell needs a supply of moist air to function. This requires a compressior, a humidifier, a water tank, lots of pipes, etc. All of this costs money, adds weight, and introduces potential problems.
* Cost. Fuel cells require platinum catalysts that are expensive.
* Reliability. Fuel cells just aren't as reliable as batteries.
* Lifespan. Again, batteries are better than fuel cells in automotive applications, and since they are also cheaper, they have a much better price/lifespan ratio.
Modern batteries can actually re-charge quite quickly if you have a powerful enough charger. (A car draws much more power than a house, so residential chargers cannot be very powerful.)
I imagine in the future there will be robots at gas stations that switch batteries in your car faster than you could refill a gas tank.
Really? Because on their web page, they say the provide a $1 million liability insurance.
The headline is on par with "Bear observed defecating in forest."
If Yahoo had left the hole wide open, THAT would have been news.
...says TFS while linking to a video of two speakers, each about four times the size of the flame. Given the low frequencies that such large speakers can produce, it's more about wind than sound. So DARPA figured out that you can put out a fire by blowing on it. That's tax money well spent.
But if capitalizing on the accused's inability to weather the risks and costs of trial are an unacceptable tactic, doesn't that mean plea deals by prosecutors are also unacceptable?
Yes.
Poland has a much smaller population than California.
California 37.7 million. (2012)
Poland 38.4 million. (2011)
California: 87 kg (191 lbs)
Poland: 76 kg (168 lbs)
FTFY
You'd only have sunlight to power each laser about 50 % of the time.
To which AmeriCash shouted back, loud enough for everyone to hear:
"A thousand dollars? Are you nuts? Just come over here and see how much I care about my wife!"
Even if they built the world's most tamper-proof application, I could still circumvent it by opening up an old mouse and soldering a $5 relay switch to the button.
...but only because anyone who's dumb enough to pay US$185,000 for a gTLD won't realize he can hire a programmer for five minutes and get a greasemonkey script that clicks the "submit" button at exactly the right time (minus network lag).
I for one welcome overlord Obama's new right to throw anyone in jail that displeases him.
Thank you for this! So to summarize (assuming this is his solution. I'd still like a link to something written by him that includes the equations.)
He considered the 2-dimensional problem of a projectile under influence of gravity and a frictional force that is proportional to the square of its speed.
He "solved" it in the velocity (u,v) plane. To get the (x,y) trajectory you'd have to integrate in time (which would be tricky because you don't have u and v as functions of time, see below).
The "solution" is a function f(u,v) that is constant on the trajectory. It does not tell you u(t) or v(t). In fact, t is not in f. Nor does it give you an expression for u(v) or v(u), because f can't be inverted analytically. For any of that, you still have to do numeric calculations.
Here's a crowdsourcing solution: You log into the site, and get a few faces to rank for attractiveness. The computer then finds other people that you'll also find attractive using the netflix algorithm, and tells you what bar they're in.
(With premium membership, you can upload a photo of a persion you're stalking^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H interested in meeting, and they will use face recognition software to send you a message whenever he/she enters a bar.)
The basic idea is: you use satellites detect the nozzle flame of ICBM:s as they launch, then use other satellites to destroy their fuel tanks or payloads with lasers.
The only difference between Civ2 and real life is that in Civ2 it works.
A mathematical model is a simplification of the underlying system. That means it is worthless unless validated against experiments. Even after validation, the model cannot make predictions ouside the range where it has been validated.
Statements like "huge variations in your daily food intake will not cause variations in weight, as long as your average food intake over a year is about the same" seem go way outside where there could possibly have been any experimental validation, and suggest that this MIT researcher doesn't know what he's doing. (Either that, or TFS is wrong, but that would never happen on /. )
If you don't want advertising, wait a year, then go buy the DVD boxes which don't have them.
FTFY
Because our eyes perceive light on a logarithmic scale, and adapt to the ambient brightness. With the right marketing, there's really no limit on how many lightbulbs you could persuade people that they need.
Try posting a picture of a woman breastfeeding. It is banned because it offends the American Puritans.
Why shouldn't Facebook also cater to other religions? Their goal is to increase profits, so it makes sense to make the maximum number of customers happy.
Counterfeit, in this context, usually means made with inferior materials that wear out faster.
That's the same reasoning as when I bought a 9600 baud modem a while back. "It can transmit and receive faster than I can read or write! Surely I will never need more than that!"
Also, never update the app, or the OS on the iPad. If the patent trolls win the lawsuit, and force the maker of the app to issue an "update" that disables it, you're screwed.
Yeah, I know. Godwin's law and all that, but there are situations were it makes sense, and is important, to make comparisons to the Nazis. The Holacaust would never have been possible without a way of separating the undesirables from the "good guys". Hence the Nazis invented the "Aryan Certificate" - a document confirming that you had passed a background check.
Now the U.S.A. has "Precheck" - a document confirming that you have passed a background check. The exact selection criteria are of course classified, but I'm sure it's hard to get one if you belong to certain religions or political organizations. Right now its only for airline travelers (what's the harm in speeding up security checks?) Then it will be mandatory for teachers and public employees (Think of the children!) Then there will be security checks on trains and subways (Terrorists! Besides, almost everyone has Precheck these days, so what's the problem?) Then, Precheck will be required to drive a car (it could be loaded with explosives!) If you object, then you're sympathizing with terrorists, and you might not get your Precheck card renewed.
Making sure the Holocaust does not happen is not as simple as "don't re-elect Hitler" - He's dead. It's not even about Nazis - They will never again have any real power. To make sure we never see another Holocaust, we must realize that it is always possible for evil people to get into positions of power, and make sure we never put systems in place that enables systematic discrimination of any group of people.
In the olde days, a Google search would produce the same results for the same search term. Not so anymore. If I search for "waterboarding" I get Wikipedia, NPR, and a number of human-rights activist sites. If Dick Cheney searches for the same term, he gets "Waterboarding magazine", "50 fun ways of torturing a PoW", and newamericancentury.org
So to be re-usable the URL must include lots of information about the person who did the search, like age, religion, political beliefs, sex (with whom, how often), and so on. I'm actually impressed they can fit all that in 250 characters.
The judge is not doing this for the value of the IP. It is a message to copyright holders. "If you give your IP to scumbags, you may loose all rigths to it."
With a corner reflector? No problem at all! I do this all the time when I'm on my bike. Little pieces of plastic full of corner reflectors reflects light back from the headlights of cars onto the drivers, making me more visible.