Actually, I think the problem is that you CAN'T explain it, at least not with your current set of physic formuals. Too bad they are incomplete as you well know. No, the problem is that people like you know so little about physics that you think any degree of uncertainty at the cutting edge of research means that some simple "trick" can be found to subvert the basic foundations of physics. Really, if you knew anything about chemistry and had bothered to read TFA, you'd know that the "runs on water and air" claim is marketing hyperbole and that the real power source is revealed several paragraphs down. The system gets H2 from a "membrane electrode assembly" which works "similar to the mechanism that produces hydrogen by a reaction of metal hydride and water". They're describing a chemical reaction, which means this "membrane electrode" is being decomposed to provide the energy to split the H2O. There is no free lunch here. There is no secret "back door" in physics at work that scientists are too arrogant to see. There's just marketing hype and basic chemistry--- and smug, ignorant dumbfucks like you are eating it up like you always do. How long have people been claiming to have cars that run on water? Your plethora of links demonstrates it been a long freakin' time. So where are all these water cars? The oil industry somehow "bought them up"? Gimme a break.
The real questions are: What is in these membranes? How long do they last? What does it cost to renew the membranes? The company representative explicitly said "no external inputs except water". Are you suggesting that he isn't being truthful??? Suggesting? They basically call themselves liars when they admit it uses a chemical reaction similar to that of metal hydrides to generate the H2. That's a sacrificial reaction, not a catalytic one. They're just pumping up the hype machine with hot gas about "runs on air and water!" and hoping no one notices the footnote that says (H2 extraction system consumes something and therefore needs periodic replacement).
But your logic I think is flawed. Hypothetically, they would use some process to start it, and then feed back in as it goes.
In this case, it's describing sort of 'mining' hydrogen from the water. So it's not claiming a closed system is self sustaining, but that they burn hydrogen somehow in a way that yields more energy than goes into extracting it from the most stable source of it, water. No, your logic is flawed. That is a closed system (i.e. energy out with no energy in). You cannot get more energy out of combining 2 H2 and 1 O2 than you would need to split apart 2 H2O. There are no tricks, no catalysts, no magic beans that will make it possible. It just can't fucking be done! Really, this is basic chemistry. It's no different than physics with regard to perpetual motion. You can't get more than 1 Joule of work out of 1 Joule of work!
Doesn't it depend on how much energy is stored in the Hydrogen and Oxygen atoms? Is it more than the energy required to split the molecule? If I remember correctly, normally the answer is no, but adding the right catalyst can change that. No, the answer is always no. It might help you to think of it as analogous to kinetic energy. The amount of energy you can harvest from a weight falling one meter will never be more than the amount of energy required to lift an equal weight up one meter. Like a see-saw, it'll balance and remain static until either the end height of weight 2 is reduced by moving the fulcrum, or weight 1 is made heavier or weight 2 is made lighter. This is the basic reason why perpetual motion machines don't work. Chemistry is no different. You can't get more out than you put in. A catalyst can only "grease the wheels" of the reaction, reducing the amount of excess energy needed to start the reaction.
the process works with splitting the atom...splitting an atom leaves a whole lot of excess energy. Fission reactions have nothing to do with chemistry. Fission power takes advantage of nuclear physics. Chemistry is like reconfiguring lego blocks into different arrays, while fission is like smashing the blocks with a hammer.
...all it's employees... thry... monay... thay... furnature... knowlegable... Was the.com making a free online spelling and grammar check portal? If so, I think I know why it folded...
This is an inane argument. There is not a bit of evidence that Al Qaeda or any of the Islamic terrorist groups are trying to undermine America by eroding our civil liberties. You may not have noticed it, but Islamic terrorists are not exactly big libertarians. Religious fundamentalists tend not to be. The idea that they recognize the power of Jeffersonian ideals and are therefore trying to move us away from them is farcical.
If you want to argue that such erosion of civil liberties is bad for the United States, such a case can be made. But to argue that this was the terrorists' intent is to project your own beliefs onto them. Seriously, mod parent up. It has fuck-all to do with sophisticated plots to erode our systems from within. It's really just all about religion. Western civilization continually encroaches on the backwards traditions of the stiff, outdated religion that is Islam, and they think their book of fairy tales says to fight back, no matter how it defies rational civilized behavior. The heads of terrorist orgs may have college educations, but philosophically they are still in the 14th century. Having interacted with the less educated yokels in Afghanistan, I'd say they equate roughly to whacko fundamentalist Christians. Think a civil engineering student (Osama) couldn't possibly believe the US is the great satan and he'll get 47 virgins as a martyr? I've met a chemical engineer who believes in the Rapture. Education doesn't keep you from being a dumbass religionist.
Why do airline-security-related articles on/. always attract the racist chest-puffing macho buffoons, anyway..?
Because it's warranted, and I enjoy it. You gotta fucking problem with that AC bitch?! Chickenshits like to project their own lack of bravery on others. See, in his heart, he cannot believe that anyone could exhibit any such degree of intestinal fortitude, as he himself would surely crap his pants. What he's saying, in essence, is "I would crap my pants instantly, and therefore so would you". Some people just live in fear all the time like that.
Someday you'll find yourself looking down the business end of a real live gun, Been there, done that, have the stupid Purple Heart to show for it.
and I'll be standing off to the side laughing as you shit your pants! You know, not every person who says what he did is engaging in macho posturing. There's just no way to tell the difference over a text-only interface between the real thing and a 14 year old couch ninja. Bravery is also an interesting thing. Bravery is doing somewthing your every survival instinct is screaming at you not to do. It is strongest in those with a) a lot of discipline, and/or b) a certain degree of thick-headedness. So really, when you try to paint someone as a coward like you have, all you're saying is that they're intelligent and lacking in a certain category of professional discipline. The latter is likely true, but if you consider the people you meet on the street, how can you say with any surety that the former is true?
I'd move to another country if I knew of any better ones out there. Anyone know of a mostly English-speaking country that doesn't walk all over its citizens' rights? The funny part about statements like this is, they completely ignore the fact that none of these foreign countries necessarily want you to move there. Some marginally employable types my wife knew through a mutual acquaintance decided, after talking about doing it for years, to move to Canada because of their more permissive pot laws and more humane socialized medical system. No more than a few months later they got booted out, much to their surprise, because it seems that Canada doesn't want a bunch of unemployed potheads from the US. A fellow I know from the UK marvels at the irony of the degree of classic American conceit found among the "America hater" crowd when they say "if [Bush wins|whatever], I'm moving to [Canada|Australia|UK|NZ", as the underlying presumption is that those places would be glad to have such an enlightened American as them come live there. It's important to remember that just because they speak the same language doesn't mean you've got any easy "in" with immigration. Might be better off learning a foreign language and moving somewhere where they need your skill set badly enough to accept you.
I'm also a kiwi and can second that recommendation for the time being
Except for the "minor" inconvenience that you can't really just decide to go live in NZ, as there are fairly strict immigration requirements. Basically, if you don't already have a job lined up in a high-demand, high-skill field, forget it.
the gov't spends a LOT of time and money making no fly lists. Some of those people on that list are people that you and I don't want to be on a plane with. This is not imaginary, this is fact. See 9-11-01 for an example. What's the point of making all these lists if you are not going to require people to show ID before boarding the plane? What's the point of a no-fly list and mandatory ID if it's ridiculously easy to fabricate not just the ID, but even the supporting paperwork necessary to obtain a real ID based on false information?
seriously, the only thing keeping terrorists off planes now is the lack of a docile passengers willing to let them try the same trick again.
There are no terrorists. You might as well be talking about the intentions and capabilities of magical elves. Yes, and those guys shooting at me in Afghanistan were all peaceful farmers and herdsmen defending their homeland from the imperialist invaders!
(I know, you probably believe that, too. It's easy to be an "expert" from your mother's basement, isn't it...)
What about 9/11? Weren't those guys (the Arabs that carried out the attack I mean) terrorists? Yeah, but the trouble is, not a single policy enacted since that day was necessary to prevent a hijacking like those we had on 9/11. The hijackings that day were successful for one simple reason: surprise. Prior to that day, hijackings were classically "take me to Cuba" events, where the safest course of action was to comply with the hijackers instructions and wait for them to get whacked by Delta Force, or MI-5, or whoever after a couple days on the runway after landing.
9/11 raised the ante significantly. Now, all hijackings are automatically assumed to be attempted homicide. The first guy or guys that stand up and say "this is a hijacking" are going to get their nuts stuffed down their throats by fifty angry passengers who reasonably assume they have nothing to lose and everything to gain, regardless of the weapon brandished. Look what they did to Richard Reid, the shoe bomber. Hell, look at what they did on United 93 on 9/11*. The stakes had been raised no more than a quarter hour before and the passengers caught on right away. Hijackings with knives and shit are over. Just plain fucking OVER.
But no, the TSA isn't about logic or reason. It's pure reactionary theater by a bunch of fucking tards. Take, for a prime example, the ban on liquids on quantities greater than 3oz. This was enacted because a ring of would-be terrorists was broken up and their plans included either the premade smuggling of or onboard mixing of a "binary component" liquid explosive, TATP. Trouble is, it's complete bollocks. No chemist with half a brain would do anything but laugh at the notion of people trying to synthesize TATP on a plane without someone noticing. Likewise, no sensible knowledgeable person would take seriously the idea of anyone successfully smuggling in enough pre-made TATP to bring down a plane without blowing themselves up. But do we get a reasonable analysis of the threat and a reasonable security response? No, we get blanket bans that are the equivalent of swatting flies with a 4X8 sheet of plywood.
* If you think the plane was shot down, please, just shut the fuck up. You're an idiot.
Engadget did some speed tests on the new 3g iphone.. it's only 200kbps. Barely twice the speed of the EDGE iphone. Verizon's EVDO network, on the other hand, is 3 times as fast as the new "speedy" 3G AT&T network. That's not an AT&T issue. Either their test was in an area with poor HSDPA support, or it's an iPhone problem. I get 800+kBps from AT&T via my HTC TYTN II--- faster than the 614.4kBps you're seeing.
When the iPod was initially released, one could argue the Mp3 player market was already saturated with no clear winner. One could argue the cell phone market today is pretty similar. Except it isn't similar... at all. First, the iPhone is locked in with AT second, it's a GSM device and only 2 of the big US carriers are GSM; and third, an MP3 player needs to do only one thing: play MP3's. The smart phone market is rife with variations, each targetted to a different facet of the market. I guarantee you're NOT going to have Crackberry addicts or rabid texting teenagers going to the iPhone, with its predictive/presumptive bullshit "keyboard".
You do know that if you don't vote then you don't have any 'moral' right to complain about the result. Utterly false! Until they include a box to check that says "none of the above", the only way to register your dissatisfaction with our fucked-up system is to not vote at all.
I'm not a Hilldog fan, but her husband did serve under 8 years of economic prosperity. Serve under is the perfect way to describe it. Presidents can't really do jack shit to improve the economy, beyond the obvious strategy of "leave it alone". Bill Clinton was great in that regard because his obsession with "building a legacy" essentially kept him distracted by inconsequentialities, thereby preventing him from throwing any serious monkey wrenches into the works--- like starting an expensive, unnecessary war for example.
I live in California and after any significant earthquake this is exactly what happens. The telcos DO NOT have enough capacity for everyone to use the service at the same time. Granted, this happens less regularly than the traffic shaping at ISPs, but don't forget that your own example can suffer the same problem. The POTS network is a perfect example of how it should work, though. The POTS network is oversubscribed, but not underprovisioned. If the only time it gives you a reorder tone (fast busy) is when the lines are clogged by jackasses calling 911 to report an earthquake (!) and relatives from Ohio calling their cousin to see if he's dead (?), then it's not underprovisioned, it's just experiencing extraordinary traffic.
Now, if you got a fast busy most evenings between 5-7pm just because there were a shitload of people calling 1-900-PSYCHIC for their daily in-depth reading, then the phone network would definitely be underprovisioned. Similarly, the solution is to add more capacity, not to limit calls to 1-900-PSYCHIC to 5 minutes, or once a week, or whatever.
They know damn well the average usages of their customers The average usage is fine. It's the top 2% of users that create most of the congestion. If providing what they've sold is a problem because of those 2%, they need to specifically tailor their services "menu" to separate the 98% from the 2%. The problem is, they want to have their cake and eat it too: they want to offer unlimited transfers at high bitrates, but they don't want to increase capacity to handle a growing customer demand for what they promised in their ads. There are plenty of content-neutral technical measures they could employ that would do the trick. The only trouble is that they'd have to separate their service levels into "unlimited" and "limited, but adequate for 98% of users", and that just wouldn't sell as well. Really, it's as simple as that. They need to stop promising the moon for $15/mo.
Given that there are no providers selling truly non-oversubscribed bandwidth today, would you rather that the providers change their advertisements to say that, or raise their prices to sell dedicated bandwidth? False dichotomy. You're offering only the extremes as choices. The real question is "how should they deal with people using more and more bandwidth as time goes on". This is not just a P2P issue. The longer the internet exists, the larger the stuff people push around on it gets. This is practically a corollary of Moore's Law, here. Hard drives get bigger, cameras gain resolution, RAM increases, screen resolutions grow--- all of this translates to bigger and bigger files and data streams going over the same pipes.
Now, given that usage in general is never going to go back to the "email and text web pages" trickle of the late 90's and anyone with half a brain should realize this, what is an appropriate reaction by those who provide connectivity:
A) Build more capacity and adjust your rates accordingly to cover the cost
B) Choose a particular class of connection you "disapprove of" because it exposes the weakness of your network and throttle it.
Do you have any idea how much it costs to get uncontended internet? There's a wide gulf between full dedicated bandwidth for every endpoint and unilaterally throttling the crap out of certain customers on a shared pipe. In the absence of the specifics of their TOS, I can't say what they promised, but calling it a 1.5Mbps connection when it never gets 1.5Mbps because they're choking certain services, that's skating the edges of reason.
The ASIC could be 'logic probed' in the same way the ATMEL 2313 was with the lock bits set on the WT2, and the creation of the SU/SU2, once completed, an emulator coded. Nope. The fab process for the Atmel 2313 lends itself to logic probing. The way they make ASICs does not. They use multiple interconnect layers to arbitrarily link a fixed grid of logic gates. You can't reach any of the interconnect layers but the "top" one, and removing that layer to reach the underlying layers disconnects part of the logic you're trying to probe.
I think the people hacking dishnetwork right now can prove you wrong. Is fun watching how they come out with the fix by just looking at the communication between the card and the IRD, then they emulate those logic gates(MAPS). None of the Nagra or Nagra2 cards used by Dish contain an ASIC. My assertion stands.
Slashdot Mirror
...all it's employees... thry... monay... thay... furnature... knowlegable... Was theand I'll be standing off to the side laughing as you shit your pants! You know, not every person who says what he did is engaging in macho posturing. There's just no way to tell the difference over a text-only interface between the real thing and a 14 year old couch ninja. Bravery is also an interesting thing. Bravery is doing somewthing your every survival instinct is screaming at you not to do. It is strongest in those with a) a lot of discipline, and/or b) a certain degree of thick-headedness. So really, when you try to paint someone as a coward like you have, all you're saying is that they're intelligent and lacking in a certain category of professional discipline. The latter is likely true, but if you consider the people you meet on the street, how can you say with any surety that the former is true?
It's important to remember that just because they speak the same language doesn't mean you've got any easy "in" with immigration. Might be better off learning a foreign language and moving somewhere where they need your skill set badly enough to accept you.
I'm also a kiwi and can second that recommendation for the time being
Except for the "minor" inconvenience that you can't really just decide to go live in NZ, as there are fairly strict immigration requirements. Basically, if you don't already have a job lined up in a high-demand, high-skill field, forget it.seriously, the only thing keeping terrorists off planes now is the lack of a docile passengers willing to let them try the same trick again.
(I know, you probably believe that, too. It's easy to be an "expert" from your mother's basement, isn't it...)
9/11 raised the ante significantly. Now, all hijackings are automatically assumed to be attempted homicide. The first guy or guys that stand up and say "this is a hijacking" are going to get their nuts stuffed down their throats by fifty angry passengers who reasonably assume they have nothing to lose and everything to gain, regardless of the weapon brandished. Look what they did to Richard Reid, the shoe bomber. Hell, look at what they did on United 93 on 9/11*. The stakes had been raised no more than a quarter hour before and the passengers caught on right away. Hijackings with knives and shit are over. Just plain fucking OVER.
But no, the TSA isn't about logic or reason. It's pure reactionary theater by a bunch of fucking tards. Take, for a prime example, the ban on liquids on quantities greater than 3oz. This was enacted because a ring of would-be terrorists was broken up and their plans included either the premade smuggling of or onboard mixing of a "binary component" liquid explosive, TATP. Trouble is, it's complete bollocks. No chemist with half a brain would do anything but laugh at the notion of people trying to synthesize TATP on a plane without someone noticing. Likewise, no sensible knowledgeable person would take seriously the idea of anyone successfully smuggling in enough pre-made TATP to bring down a plane without blowing themselves up. But do we get a reasonable analysis of the threat and a reasonable security response? No, we get blanket bans that are the equivalent of swatting flies with a 4X8 sheet of plywood.
* If you think the plane was shot down, please, just shut the fuck up. You're an idiot.
Now, if you got a fast busy most evenings between 5-7pm just because there were a shitload of people calling 1-900-PSYCHIC for their daily in-depth reading, then the phone network would definitely be underprovisioned. Similarly, the solution is to add more capacity, not to limit calls to 1-900-PSYCHIC to 5 minutes, or once a week, or whatever.
Now, given that usage in general is never going to go back to the "email and text web pages" trickle of the late 90's and anyone with half a brain should realize this, what is an appropriate reaction by those who provide connectivity:
A) Build more capacity and adjust your rates accordingly to cover the cost
B) Choose a particular class of connection you "disapprove of" because it exposes the weakness of your network and throttle it.
yeah, I think the joke is probably dead...