An interesting point of speculation - up till now, cancer has been considered, and successfully attacked, as a family of diseases. But (highly speculative) something like this experiment pans out, showing that all, or most, cancers are cured by attacking this CD47 problem. Then, one might think, that cancers (or some large group of them) can be reconsidered as, in fact, one disease with many manifestations. The disease in that case might be thought of as 'overexpression of CD47', or perhaps 'uncompensated expression of CD47'. Symptoms and treatment would of course vary with the locale and tissue type. This might be a useful way for some researchers to think of the problem, potentially leading to some other related advances. Not that our present approach should be dropped, by any means! It's just another angle to attack the problem from.
That bag of worms has been open for many years. It's not unlike a complaint that the slob next door has allowed his trash to build up to the point where it's sliding down the pile into my yard, or that he continues to encourage his dog to poop in my yard. A single, casual instance isn't usually (AFAIK, IANAL) grounds but obviously, intentionally and especially repeatedly offending in these ways is more likely to be grounds.
+1 for you - so far you're the only one who has made a ska reference!:D I was thinking about something on the lines of "Weren't the Beatles inspired by ska?" - but didn't come up with anything funny enough to post by itself.
Coincidentally, I recall a story from SA a year or two ago where some geeks proved that the throughput by carrier pigeon between two points was better than their ISP.:D Latency, of course, sucked.
My view, and although I am not a scientist but a journalist, is that ultmately there will be two SKA's on OZ and SA, linked together.
I was thinking of posting this as a suggestion (not that anyone is likely to listen to me) - in the long run this would provide orders of magnitude better resolution, double the flexibility and better compensation for atmospherics and light pollution.
Having said that, the point in one of the earlier comments about the probability of encroachment in SA due to nearby population growth gave me some concern.
Yes. Someone should prosecute Monsanto for criminal trespass. (No joke, it's a valid legal principle - companies and people have been prosecuted criminally and also sued for damages for allowing their critters, fumes, liquids, waste etc. to escape their property and cause damage on others' property. With respect to Monsanto, it's a bit more complicated because Monsanto is essentially allowing, encouraging and forcing their customers to do the trespassing. I suppose that could be considered conspiracy?
Actually from what I've read and heard lately, driving is far safer now than it used to be. When I was a mere youth, there were an average of 55,000 people killed on the US highways each year, a rate of about 5.25 deaths per 100 million miles. (Stats from 1957-1997 here.) By 1997 the total was down to about 41,000 with many more miles driven, for a rate of about 1.64 deaths per 100 million miles. And according to The NHTSA itself, the death rate is now (2009) about 33,000 for a rate of about 1.14 deaths per 100 million miles.
Of course, there is a valid position that says one is too many, and that is the charter of NHTSA. The rational economic way to view this is to balance the various costs (assuming that one can 'monetize' costs like loss of a loved one), and find the most cost effective balance between deaths due to accidents and the loss of lifetime and value in becoming too safety-conscious. Obviously we could ban automobiles entirely, but the cost in human time that would accrue - wasting an entire day going to the store to buy groceries is a real loss in effective useful lifespan - is patently unreasonable. So all these things can be balanced out. Limiting speeds would make the highways safer, but again how much time do we want to lose? So there are things that can be done, and some of them are a good idea. I've been in one accident in the last year-plus, where the guy who hit me might well have been toast had it not been for his air bag. Both cars were junked but both of us came out well under the circumstances.
It's perfectly safe for a driver on an open highway to use a cell phone.
Unfortunately on the evidence, your mostly wrong on this one. Numerous tests have shown that the average driver really does lose track of the road while using a phone - even hands free phones. Of course you might be different - we know that slashdotters are all above average!:D
I also just read an article that showed that as people get older, they tend to lose track of time a bit when directing their attention at something else, and don't return to the main task swiftly enough - in a car that can be fatal. I've noticed in myself that on the few occasions I've been talking on the phone while driving that if the conversation gets at all involved, my thought process gets directed more to the conversation and less to driving. So, even before it was banned here, I stopped using the phone while driving. It's easy enough to pull over, or just ignore the ringing nuisance (my personal preference)!
Here in Massachusetts they mark cross-streets only, not the road you are on.
Amen - I HATE that. It's like they are saying, "If you are lost, we are not going to tell you where you are."
I already ranted about why MA was the last straw that made me finally get a GPS - I'm glad to see someone else confirm my experience.
I once lived in the Pittsburgh area. In much of the area there were no street signs, or there had been some but they fell down. When I asked for directions, folks did not use street names. It was common for people to say "go down three blocks to where the gas station used to be, then left a mile to where they tore down the mill, then take a right over past the grocery store that isn't there any more." Those directions worked fine for someone who had lived there for 40 years. And Pittsburgh has lots of twisty roads too. But I never had as much trouble finding my way there as I have had in central and eastern MA. MA is what finally drove me to get a GPS.
I often use my cruise control to help keep me from lead-footing inadvertently. Here in New England a complication is that most people drive as much as 10 mile per hour faster than the limit, and the cops don't ticket those folks most of the time. Since I'm not familiar with the traditions around here, I often don't know what the 'agreed' speed is - shall I go 10 miles over, and not block traffic but I might get a ticket? Or should I go closer to the speed limit, and get tailgated? Mostly I've settled on about five to seven miles over - faster than the slowest but slower than the fastest. No tickets so far.
Hah!:) You've never lived in New England. I never used a GPS until I moved here - having lived in several different states, some of them twice or three times, I felt that I could navigate on my own using maps and my 'sixth sense'. When I moved to a new place, I bought maps (or got the ones from AAA), and I was good to go. When I moved to New England, it was over two weeks before I managed to get from where I lived (in Worcester, MA) to my new job 14 miles away and back without getting lost. Now, after five plus years, I can manage to get from home to certain places that I frequent a lot but going to anything at all different from the five or six standard routes, I can get lost in two seconds. I finally gave up trying to figure my way around about two years ago, and bought a GPS. My trip time and frustration level immediately improved drastically.
This area has major roads that look like driveways and driveways that look like roads. Names change every 1/2 mile. Roads may say 'South' when you are going north, and actually may be going south in a mile or two at which time the signs will say 'East'. Nothing goes the direction it starts to go. I used to second-guess the GPS because I thought there must be a faster/shorter way. A few times I was right, but I've found that it's right far more often than it is wrong. It's sad, because I know that when I use the GPS I really don't get the 'lay of the land', I just follow the directions mindlessly. Even with the GPS I will have wrong turn issues once on average in any trip over an hour.
New England roads were essentially designed by cows and horses in the 1600s, and are maintained by... well, I won't go there. There is no urge here to make roads straighter, more efficient, or to go to the local-collector-major-highway hierarchy of most places. A two-lane twisty road 20 feet wide may very well be the main road - for a mile or two. Then a hidden turn off (with signs that direct you in the wrong direction) will take the 'highway' off thataway, while what you thought was still the road will become someone's driveway.
For a while I kept the GPS in 'north up' map mode, but found that while this helped me keep a good feeling for where I was in space, it was completely unhelpful in getting me through the crazy intersections that plague the road network here. The only way to really get a feel for how to get through to the one of nine different cow paths that branch off over the next 400 feet is to use the 3D view. Even then it's not uncommon for me to end up in a parking lot or having to drive a mile down, turn around and try again.
And remember - I am one who has prided himself on being able to navigate in dozens of other locations. I am not a navigationally-challenged idiot. But this place is hopeless unless you grew up here - in fact even folks who live here confess they don't know how to get around outside of their very small local neighborhood.
I like it. Although it might reduce the enjoyability of the garden - somehow I'm getting images of confusing my garden with a sleazy bar at 2 AM. "Hey honey, who you goin' home with? You got a car? I can make ya feel real good."
"It's not often you find a wine that goes well with your dinner and you can burn in your furnace."
Man, I've had that wine. My neighbor many years ago used to make his own. His purpose was not drinkability, it was alcohol content. He was breeding yeasts that would survive in higher levels of alcohol, so he could get 'hardness' without illegally distilling.
Actually it's a classic how-geeks-do-things story. He was an electrical engineer, who came from a family of botanists. Being of Swedish extraction, his tolerance for alcohol was very high - for 20 years he had an eight ounce glass of vodka for breakfast, and then went off to work designing the first 700 KV DC intertie for Bonneville Power, delivering power over 1000 miles from the Columbia River to Sacramento. He ran through a fifth of vodka every day. This was expensive.
(Side note - being a geek he figured out that he was getting all the calories he needed from the vodka, but he needed minerals, vitamins, protein, etc. - so he made a special bread that provided all the other needs, and ate a sandwich every day.)
As it happened, he had an 'in' at the local college that had a small nuclear reactor for medical isotopes. So over several years he regularly irradiated yeast cultures to accelerate mutations, and then subjected them to increasing levels of alcohol, selecting for tolerance.
After several years, he got to the point of making wine (from blackberries on my family's place) that was 26 % alcohol - 52 proof. It tasted worse than paint thinner and a five ounce glass would put me out for the rest of the evening. But it was a totally legal home-brewed 'wine'.
Nowadays (in all cases that I'm aware of, but I don't pay much attention) the standard wine bottles are 0.75 liter and 1.5 liter ('Magnum'). My big bottle of Jim Beam is 1.75 liters. Wikipedia, of course, has the full explanation, but one fifth (0.20 US gallon) is 0.757 liters, so the 'new' sizes are slightly smaller than the old.
Ask many geeks about NI3, and they will have at least one story either first or third person about a prank involving NI3. Friction sets it off nicely. At my college someone painted NI3 on the seats in the cafeteria - in thin layers it's basically invisible. After it dried, as everyone sat down for the fancy Sunday dinner, they all got a spanking!:D
In fact, as I note that the squirrels tended to jump to the top of the bird feeder, while birds tend to land on the feeder ledge, one could paint little dots of NI3 on the roof so when the squirrels land their little feet would get spanked. Make many little dots, separated so one does not set off the others.
Add a little ammonia or cat pee, or methyl mercaptan to the water, or maybe some kind of stuff that gets sticky as it dries, to keep the squirrel occupied for a while. Also, since he's mainly interested in keeping them off the feeder, he could mount the gun next to the feeder and fire it remotely, hitting the squirrel at close range with significantly more force and wetness.
I had a friend long ago who had trouble with dogs chasing his bicycle on his regular route to work. By adding a very small percentage of ammonia into a squirt gun, he found that if he squirted the dog right in the face, the dogs weren't hurt, but were stopped instantly in their tracks, and went off to occupy themselves with rubbing their noses and eyes with their front paws. It only took about three trials to stop any dog from bike and car chasing. Lemon juice might work as well. (Plain water did not work.)
If I were more devilish I might suggest nitrogen tri-iodide in the water. I'm not sure that it would work unless in high concentrations, but it might be amusing once it dries on the squirrel - and/or on the roof of the feeder. The experimentalist in me wants to know - purely for the knowledge to be gained, of course!
The next step (already in the R&D phase at various places in Silly Valley from what I read a year or so ago) is to print the whole thing on a web press, from the back to the front like a big electronic newspaper. All of the individual components have been successfully done this way - even most of the 'chips'. Once we get to that point, the cost of manufacturing may be so low that it's pointless to fix even if it were possible - it would be one solid unit like pages of newsprint glued together. Just grind it up, separate the materials, reconstitute and reprint a new one.
I wouldn't be surprised if this were already possible for a lower performance device.
A long time ago my then-wife bought a luggable CD player/radio from Radio Shack for $99 or thereabouts. One day after the one-year warranty expired, the CD failed. We talked to Radio Shack about getting it fixed. They told us that it would cost $100 to have them look at it and decide if it could be fixed - and then we would be on the hook for the actual repair as well, with a minimum cost of $35 for the repair. So we would either be out $100 and still have a broken machine, or out $135 with a repaired machine.
Seriously, who approves these lossy geothermal systems in deserts?
Interesting point. As I recall (from long before my time), J Paul Getty's oil company was infamous for the cheap, quick and dirty way they drilled, then used the well's natural pressure to grab the easy oil and left, leaving 2/3 of the oil unrecoverable by tech available at the time. I think most oil wells now use injection of water and other materials to maintain well pressure and recover the maximum amount of oil. You would think that geothermal systems would be best done by drilling one well where water is pumped down, and one or more nearby wells where heated water is pumped up, with fracked passages between (or vice versa - many down, one up) - at least in locations where the hot water source is not constantly refilled naturally.
Well done! Thanks. For those who don't want to bother going to Wikipedia:
The earliest citation given in the Oxford English Dictionary for any word used as a name for this element is alumium, which British chemist and inventor Humphry Davy employed in 1808 for the metal he was trying to isolate electrolytically from the mineral alumina. The citation is from the journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London: "Had I been so fortunate as to have obtained more certain evidences on this subject, and to have procured the metallic substances I was in search of, I should have proposed for them the names of silicium, alumium, zirconium, and glucium."[62][63]
Davy settled on aluminum by the time he published his 1812 book Chemical Philosophy: "This substance appears to contain a peculiar metal, but as yet Aluminum has not been obtained in a perfectly free state, though alloys of it with other metalline substances have been procured sufficiently distinct to indicate the probable nature of alumina."[64] But the same year, an anonymous contributor to the Quarterly Review, a British political-literary journal, in a review of Davy's book, objected to aluminum and proposed the name aluminium, "for so we shall take the liberty of writing the word, in preference to aluminum, which has a less classical sound."[65]
The -ium suffix conformed to the precedent set in other newly discovered elements of the time: potassium, sodium, magnesium, calcium, and strontium (all of which Davy isolated himself). Nevertheless, -um spellings for elements were not unknown at the time, as for example platinum, known to Europeans since the 16th century, molybdenum, discovered in 1778, and tantalum, discovered in 1802. The -um suffix is consistent with the universal spelling alumina for the oxide, as lanthana is the oxide of lanthanum, and magnesia, ceria, and thoria are the oxides of magnesium, cerium, and thorium respectively.
Slashdot Mirror
Well put.
An interesting point of speculation - up till now, cancer has been considered, and successfully attacked, as a family of diseases. But (highly speculative) something like this experiment pans out, showing that all, or most, cancers are cured by attacking this CD47 problem. Then, one might think, that cancers (or some large group of them) can be reconsidered as, in fact, one disease with many manifestations. The disease in that case might be thought of as 'overexpression of CD47', or perhaps 'uncompensated expression of CD47'. Symptoms and treatment would of course vary with the locale and tissue type. This might be a useful way for some researchers to think of the problem, potentially leading to some other related advances. Not that our present approach should be dropped, by any means! It's just another angle to attack the problem from.
I come for the centerfolds. :D
That bag of worms has been open for many years. It's not unlike a complaint that the slob next door has allowed his trash to build up to the point where it's sliding down the pile into my yard, or that he continues to encourage his dog to poop in my yard. A single, casual instance isn't usually (AFAIK, IANAL) grounds but obviously, intentionally and especially repeatedly offending in these ways is more likely to be grounds.
+1 for you - so far you're the only one who has made a ska reference! :D I was thinking about something on the lines of "Weren't the Beatles inspired by ska?" - but didn't come up with anything funny enough to post by itself.
Coincidentally, I recall a story from SA a year or two ago where some geeks proved that the throughput by carrier pigeon between two points was better than their ISP. :D Latency, of course, sucked.
My view, and although I am not a scientist but a journalist, is that ultmately there will be two SKA's on OZ and SA, linked together.
I was thinking of posting this as a suggestion (not that anyone is likely to listen to me) - in the long run this would provide orders of magnitude better resolution, double the flexibility and better compensation for atmospherics and light pollution.
Having said that, the point in one of the earlier comments about the probability of encroachment in SA due to nearby population growth gave me some concern.
Yes. Someone should prosecute Monsanto for criminal trespass. (No joke, it's a valid legal principle - companies and people have been prosecuted criminally and also sued for damages for allowing their critters, fumes, liquids, waste etc. to escape their property and cause damage on others' property. With respect to Monsanto, it's a bit more complicated because Monsanto is essentially allowing, encouraging and forcing their customers to do the trespassing. I suppose that could be considered conspiracy?
Actually from what I've read and heard lately, driving is far safer now than it used to be. When I was a mere youth, there were an average of 55,000 people killed on the US highways each year, a rate of about 5.25 deaths per 100 million miles. (Stats from 1957-1997 here.) By 1997 the total was down to about 41,000 with many more miles driven, for a rate of about 1.64 deaths per 100 million miles. And according to The NHTSA itself, the death rate is now (2009) about 33,000 for a rate of about 1.14 deaths per 100 million miles.
Of course, there is a valid position that says one is too many, and that is the charter of NHTSA. The rational economic way to view this is to balance the various costs (assuming that one can 'monetize' costs like loss of a loved one), and find the most cost effective balance between deaths due to accidents and the loss of lifetime and value in becoming too safety-conscious. Obviously we could ban automobiles entirely, but the cost in human time that would accrue - wasting an entire day going to the store to buy groceries is a real loss in effective useful lifespan - is patently unreasonable. So all these things can be balanced out. Limiting speeds would make the highways safer, but again how much time do we want to lose? So there are things that can be done, and some of them are a good idea. I've been in one accident in the last year-plus, where the guy who hit me might well have been toast had it not been for his air bag. Both cars were junked but both of us came out well under the circumstances.
Sigh... "You're", not "your" - I can't believe my fingers did that.
It's perfectly safe for a driver on an open highway to use a cell phone.
Unfortunately on the evidence, your mostly wrong on this one. Numerous tests have shown that the average driver really does lose track of the road while using a phone - even hands free phones. Of course you might be different - we know that slashdotters are all above average! :D
I also just read an article that showed that as people get older, they tend to lose track of time a bit when directing their attention at something else, and don't return to the main task swiftly enough - in a car that can be fatal. I've noticed in myself that on the few occasions I've been talking on the phone while driving that if the conversation gets at all involved, my thought process gets directed more to the conversation and less to driving. So, even before it was banned here, I stopped using the phone while driving. It's easy enough to pull over, or just ignore the ringing nuisance (my personal preference)!
Here in Massachusetts they mark cross-streets only, not the road you are on.
Amen - I HATE that. It's like they are saying, "If you are lost, we are not going to tell you where you are."
I already ranted about why MA was the last straw that made me finally get a GPS - I'm glad to see someone else confirm my experience.
I once lived in the Pittsburgh area. In much of the area there were no street signs, or there had been some but they fell down. When I asked for directions, folks did not use street names. It was common for people to say "go down three blocks to where the gas station used to be, then left a mile to where they tore down the mill, then take a right over past the grocery store that isn't there any more." Those directions worked fine for someone who had lived there for 40 years. And Pittsburgh has lots of twisty roads too. But I never had as much trouble finding my way there as I have had in central and eastern MA. MA is what finally drove me to get a GPS.
I often use my cruise control to help keep me from lead-footing inadvertently. Here in New England a complication is that most people drive as much as 10 mile per hour faster than the limit, and the cops don't ticket those folks most of the time. Since I'm not familiar with the traditions around here, I often don't know what the 'agreed' speed is - shall I go 10 miles over, and not block traffic but I might get a ticket? Or should I go closer to the speed limit, and get tailgated? Mostly I've settled on about five to seven miles over - faster than the slowest but slower than the fastest. No tickets so far.
Hah! :) You've never lived in New England. I never used a GPS until I moved here - having lived in several different states, some of them twice or three times, I felt that I could navigate on my own using maps and my 'sixth sense'. When I moved to a new place, I bought maps (or got the ones from AAA), and I was good to go. When I moved to New England, it was over two weeks before I managed to get from where I lived (in Worcester, MA) to my new job 14 miles away and back without getting lost. Now, after five plus years, I can manage to get from home to certain places that I frequent a lot but going to anything at all different from the five or six standard routes, I can get lost in two seconds. I finally gave up trying to figure my way around about two years ago, and bought a GPS. My trip time and frustration level immediately improved drastically.
This area has major roads that look like driveways and driveways that look like roads. Names change every 1/2 mile. Roads may say 'South' when you are going north, and actually may be going south in a mile or two at which time the signs will say 'East'. Nothing goes the direction it starts to go. I used to second-guess the GPS because I thought there must be a faster/shorter way. A few times I was right, but I've found that it's right far more often than it is wrong. It's sad, because I know that when I use the GPS I really don't get the 'lay of the land', I just follow the directions mindlessly. Even with the GPS I will have wrong turn issues once on average in any trip over an hour.
New England roads were essentially designed by cows and horses in the 1600s, and are maintained by ... well, I won't go there. There is no urge here to make roads straighter, more efficient, or to go to the local-collector-major-highway hierarchy of most places. A two-lane twisty road 20 feet wide may very well be the main road - for a mile or two. Then a hidden turn off (with signs that direct you in the wrong direction) will take the 'highway' off thataway, while what you thought was still the road will become someone's driveway.
For a while I kept the GPS in 'north up' map mode, but found that while this helped me keep a good feeling for where I was in space, it was completely unhelpful in getting me through the crazy intersections that plague the road network here. The only way to really get a feel for how to get through to the one of nine different cow paths that branch off over the next 400 feet is to use the 3D view. Even then it's not uncommon for me to end up in a parking lot or having to drive a mile down, turn around and try again.
And remember - I am one who has prided himself on being able to navigate in dozens of other locations. I am not a navigationally-challenged idiot. But this place is hopeless unless you grew up here - in fact even folks who live here confess they don't know how to get around outside of their very small local neighborhood.
I like it. Although it might reduce the enjoyability of the garden - somehow I'm getting images of confusing my garden with a sleazy bar at 2 AM. "Hey honey, who you goin' home with? You got a car? I can make ya feel real good."
"It's not often you find a wine that goes well with your dinner and you can burn in your furnace."
Man, I've had that wine. My neighbor many years ago used to make his own. His purpose was not drinkability, it was alcohol content. He was breeding yeasts that would survive in higher levels of alcohol, so he could get 'hardness' without illegally distilling.
Actually it's a classic how-geeks-do-things story. He was an electrical engineer, who came from a family of botanists. Being of Swedish extraction, his tolerance for alcohol was very high - for 20 years he had an eight ounce glass of vodka for breakfast, and then went off to work designing the first 700 KV DC intertie for Bonneville Power, delivering power over 1000 miles from the Columbia River to Sacramento. He ran through a fifth of vodka every day. This was expensive.
(Side note - being a geek he figured out that he was getting all the calories he needed from the vodka, but he needed minerals, vitamins, protein, etc. - so he made a special bread that provided all the other needs, and ate a sandwich every day.)
As it happened, he had an 'in' at the local college that had a small nuclear reactor for medical isotopes. So over several years he regularly irradiated yeast cultures to accelerate mutations, and then subjected them to increasing levels of alcohol, selecting for tolerance.
After several years, he got to the point of making wine (from blackberries on my family's place) that was 26 % alcohol - 52 proof. It tasted worse than paint thinner and a five ounce glass would put me out for the rest of the evening. But it was a totally legal home-brewed 'wine'.
Nowadays (in all cases that I'm aware of, but I don't pay much attention) the standard wine bottles are 0.75 liter and 1.5 liter ('Magnum'). My big bottle of Jim Beam is 1.75 liters. Wikipedia, of course, has the full explanation, but one fifth (0.20 US gallon) is 0.757 liters, so the 'new' sizes are slightly smaller than the old.
Ask many geeks about NI3, and they will have at least one story either first or third person about a prank involving NI3. Friction sets it off nicely. At my college someone painted NI3 on the seats in the cafeteria - in thin layers it's basically invisible. After it dried, as everyone sat down for the fancy Sunday dinner, they all got a spanking! :D
In fact, as I note that the squirrels tended to jump to the top of the bird feeder, while birds tend to land on the feeder ledge, one could paint little dots of NI3 on the roof so when the squirrels land their little feet would get spanked. Make many little dots, separated so one does not set off the others.
Add a little ammonia or cat pee, or methyl mercaptan to the water, or maybe some kind of stuff that gets sticky as it dries, to keep the squirrel occupied for a while. Also, since he's mainly interested in keeping them off the feeder, he could mount the gun next to the feeder and fire it remotely, hitting the squirrel at close range with significantly more force and wetness.
I had a friend long ago who had trouble with dogs chasing his bicycle on his regular route to work. By adding a very small percentage of ammonia into a squirt gun, he found that if he squirted the dog right in the face, the dogs weren't hurt, but were stopped instantly in their tracks, and went off to occupy themselves with rubbing their noses and eyes with their front paws. It only took about three trials to stop any dog from bike and car chasing. Lemon juice might work as well. (Plain water did not work.)
If I were more devilish I might suggest nitrogen tri-iodide in the water. I'm not sure that it would work unless in high concentrations, but it might be amusing once it dries on the squirrel - and/or on the roof of the feeder. The experimentalist in me wants to know - purely for the knowledge to be gained, of course!
The next step (already in the R&D phase at various places in Silly Valley from what I read a year or so ago) is to print the whole thing on a web press, from the back to the front like a big electronic newspaper. All of the individual components have been successfully done this way - even most of the 'chips'. Once we get to that point, the cost of manufacturing may be so low that it's pointless to fix even if it were possible - it would be one solid unit like pages of newsprint glued together. Just grind it up, separate the materials, reconstitute and reprint a new one.
I wouldn't be surprised if this were already possible for a lower performance device.
A long time ago my then-wife bought a luggable CD player/radio from Radio Shack for $99 or thereabouts. One day after the one-year warranty expired, the CD failed. We talked to Radio Shack about getting it fixed. They told us that it would cost $100 to have them look at it and decide if it could be fixed - and then we would be on the hook for the actual repair as well, with a minimum cost of $35 for the repair. So we would either be out $100 and still have a broken machine, or out $135 with a repaired machine.
We gave it to Goodwill - the radio stlil worked.
... or were you talking about basically running a closed loop recirculating system (like the opposite of a radiator)? That would indeed be better.
Seriously, who approves these lossy geothermal systems in deserts?
Interesting point. As I recall (from long before my time), J Paul Getty's oil company was infamous for the cheap, quick and dirty way they drilled, then used the well's natural pressure to grab the easy oil and left, leaving 2/3 of the oil unrecoverable by tech available at the time. I think most oil wells now use injection of water and other materials to maintain well pressure and recover the maximum amount of oil. You would think that geothermal systems would be best done by drilling one well where water is pumped down, and one or more nearby wells where heated water is pumped up, with fracked passages between (or vice versa - many down, one up) - at least in locations where the hot water source is not constantly refilled naturally.
Well done! Thanks. For those who don't want to bother going to Wikipedia:
The earliest citation given in the Oxford English Dictionary for any word used as a name for this element is alumium, which British chemist and inventor Humphry Davy employed in 1808 for the metal he was trying to isolate electrolytically from the mineral alumina. The citation is from the journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London: "Had I been so fortunate as to have obtained more certain evidences on this subject, and to have procured the metallic substances I was in search of, I should have proposed for them the names of silicium, alumium, zirconium, and glucium."[62][63]
Davy settled on aluminum by the time he published his 1812 book Chemical Philosophy: "This substance appears to contain a peculiar metal, but as yet Aluminum has not been obtained in a perfectly free state, though alloys of it with other metalline substances have been procured sufficiently distinct to indicate the probable nature of alumina."[64] But the same year, an anonymous contributor to the Quarterly Review, a British political-literary journal, in a review of Davy's book, objected to aluminum and proposed the name aluminium, "for so we shall take the liberty of writing the word, in preference to aluminum, which has a less classical sound."[65]
The -ium suffix conformed to the precedent set in other newly discovered elements of the time: potassium, sodium, magnesium, calcium, and strontium (all of which Davy isolated himself). Nevertheless, -um spellings for elements were not unknown at the time, as for example platinum, known to Europeans since the 16th century, molybdenum, discovered in 1778, and tantalum, discovered in 1802. The -um suffix is consistent with the universal spelling alumina for the oxide, as lanthana is the oxide of lanthanum, and magnesia, ceria, and thoria are the oxides of magnesium, cerium, and thorium respectively.
:D