I'd be anonymous too...
on
$1200 Cheap!
·
· Score: 2
if I didn't know the difference between an adapter sold seperately (or add on), as opposed to included equipment. But thanks for confirming my information.
Well you're half right.
on
$1200 Cheap!
·
· Score: 3, Informative
But it's not CE based. Operating System: Windows 2000 Kernel, DirectX API But the Gamecube will support HDTV outta the box, with MS it might be an add-on. Not that I want to help Mario and the Princess pick the most beautiful flowers, so no one crys at the garden party, in HDTV. Still Nintendo...if only I could expect Ikari warriors in stunning HDTV.... Nintendo is what you get when you listen to people who admonish others to "think about the children."
Man ya try to be a nice guy....
on
Super Hard Steel
·
· Score: 2
Tom Leykus is right, people just want to be treated like shit. But despite evidence that supports his theory, IN THIS THREAD, I will once again try to be decent.
From Mechanical Metallurgy by George E. Deiter 3rd Ed.
The hardness of a material is a poorly defined term which has many meanings depending upon the experience of the person involved. In general, hardness usually implies a resistance to deformation, and for metals the property is a measure of their resistance to permanent or plastic deformation. To a person concerned with the mechanics of material testing, hardness is most likely to mean the resistance to indentation, and to the design engineer it often means an easily measured and specified quantity which indicated something about the strength and heat treatment of the metal.
-- pg 325. Ch 9-1
After that the chapter briefly discusses how the different tests work, and some light derivation including a special case of finding the tensile strength. (Incidently, this conversation is why I provided a link to Powell's collection of Mechanics of Materials texts; I wanted to avoid it.) A link to convert hardnesses for steel into tensile strength. I might remark that given strength is simply a load over an area for a certain event, and any hardness test also uses a load over a slightly more complicated area (with some other considerations) one might readily and correctly assume they can be related. I might further add, that MY contention that strength and hardness are related is not even addressed in any of your definitions. I feel little need to offer anything in the way of proof, but since you seem to require it, this web site might be illuminating. Also any materials, and most mechanical, engineering departments will have a similar poster in their hardness testing labs.
Don't think me cruel, as I don't intend it in this fashion, but I had noticed the ASM site had a section called "Ask ASM" where you can pose questions, and thought it clearly marked. I suppose you could also write your local physics, mechanical, civil, or materials engineering departments as they almost certainly answer all sorts of questions. They are typically given to grad students to answer in math and physics departments.
I'm sorry you didn't see the value in links that I hoped you would find useful. I tried my best to keep everything simple and accurate, I hoped others would find it interesting. But it would seem you have little if any interest in finding answers, which is fine. But if you're not going to seek illumination beyond that of a poor dictionary, for the life of me I can't see why you quibble with mine. The fact is they created a new phase of steel (I took this as an obvious point from the press release, clearly I was in error). If you still believe they did not, you MUST also believe glass and quartz are the same. Which is your perogative. A new phase is better than simply a new alloy, as their figure of 16 GPa certainly shows. As a final token, here is a Iron-Carbon (Steel) phase diagram, note the lack of an amorphous phase (I realize it is quite busy, but it at least shows what steel fundementally is). In closing, you see what everyone else does, what you want to. Maybe this is what I get for picking nits.
In this episode of Different Strokes...
on
Super Hard Steel
·
· Score: 3, Informative
I want to be Todd Bridges.
Dictionary.com might agree with you, almost. But I would consider it to be technology on the scale of a billionth of a meter. So I prefer a more liberal interpretation. Certainly the materials are nanoscale, nanophase, and state of the art. I wonder if you'd feel the same about nanoarchitectured materials?
I am afraid that you are incorrect. Diamonds for examply are incredibly hard but are also extremely brittle and hence are not used in places where structural strength is required.
This is where it gets fun. You're confusing hardness or strength (they ARE interchangable ask ASM or your favorite Mechanics of Materials textbook), and Toughness. Toughness is the ability of a material to resist cracking, or if you prefer how brittle it is. Diamond is most certainly the king of strength, but, as you astutely observed, is brittle. Sillicon Carbide, carbon fiber, as well as glass share this quality. Again, I can't stress this enough, don't take my word for it. Tell me I'm full of shit, goto this website and find out for yourself.
Unfortunately the actual article made no such claims. They did not invent a stronger steel. They merely invented an extremely durable coating which bonds to steel. Sort of like a "super paint" actually.
They did invent a stronger steel. It happens to be a coating, but with a strength of I think 16 GPa, which is about 16 times better than a typical high strength structural steel and in the realm of about theoretical. Considering they believe the coating to be all but free of defects, this actually makes a lot of sence, as it is the defects which start the cracks that limit the strength of a material.
But it's funny, how people are. I prefer a liberal interpretation of nanotechnology, but ridgedly adhere to the indoctrination I was educated under. In anycase it certainly seems the press release was written with a reader like me in mind, and in so far as that was a good choice, it is correct. I would have expected it to have less resistance to chemical corrosion, but material science can be counter intuitive. In anycase I'm sure Powell's has at least a few good books on mechanics of materials if you're into that kinda thing.
A new Ginsu commerical. The self-sharpening steak knife of the new Millenium. Hosted by O.J. Simpson.
Not SO inaccurate.
on
Super Hard Steel
·
· Score: 3, Informative
The nanotechnology in question is the production of nanoscale materials. But it can also refer to the thermal spray process which is used to form the nanoscale materials.
As far as hardness and strength. They harder a material is the stronger it is. The actual relation isn't trivial to derive and depends on things like the tip you use for intentation, qualitatively, it isn't that difficult to grasp so I'll do my best to explain. Strength is the ability of a material to resist plastic deformation. Plastic deformation is when you stretch a material and it won't snap back, as opposed to elastic deformation where it will. Try bending a paper clip, very little at first, it will snap back like you never touched it. Now bend it around. Where you bent it, the bumps and twists, are now harder and resist bending more than the rest of the paper clip and make it look irregular. That's plasitically deformed. It won't ever be like it was unless you remake the paper clip. If you bend it a little more it should get a little bit harder, then stiff and easy to break. That's a qualitative stress-strain curve you can feel. Then same thing happens when you push an indentor into a material, some of it gets pushed out of the way to make room for the indentor, which isn't all that different from bending the paper clip. In fact hardness is so closely related to the strength of a material you can do a surface hardness test to find out what alloy something is made of without destroying it. One of those things. On the other hand, this is a coating, so it's always on the surface of something, and in that sence you're right. Hard coatings typically need less lubrication, experience less fretting (a form of mechanical corrosion), etc. They also mention that it has self-sharpening characteristics. So it might find its way into new anti-armor weapons, or just the sharper image catalog.
Yeah I would say this is front page stuff. Getting a metal to come near the theoretical ideal in strength is pretty impressive. This is at least as front page as anything else up there. A good overview of thermal spray can be found here.
If, in America, a freelance writer still owns the copyright for a digital representation of his work how can another party be held responsable for the writers actions reguarding a work the party doesn't own? Would it matter where the original writing of the work took place, or the local of the original agreement to produce the work? If it turned out that the writer in question owed the digital copyright to the work, wouldn't the lawyers for the paper simply state that fact to the British court?
Re:Black Comedians other than Bill Cosby.
on
Review: Rush Hour 2
·
· Score: 2
Tracy Morgan would occasionally play Betty Curry on SNL.
Wayne Brady is the guy who sings the best songs on ABC's Who's Line Is It Anyway, and is appearently getting a new sitcom or variety show.
And A for singular. I might make the same observaiont about any individual I could put in any group. For the record, Wayne Brady is probably about as *contemporary*, as opposed to *popular*, as a comedian can hope to be. One has to do with a place in time, as per your objection to Bill Cosby, and the other mass appeal, or popular if you prefer. Few individuals will be able to beat Bill in a popularity contest, in fact such a contest might be an interesting poll of sorts. Of all comedians Bill Cosby, Richard Prior, and Eddie Murphy would all be near the top, so would Jerry Sienfeld (personally I find him about as funny as a dead kitten in a sack, but that's me).
There were probably greater Star Wars fans than I, I never got dressed up or anything. But it came at a time in my childhood where I couldn't help but love it. What was different about Star Wars from so many other artifacts of my youth, is that my appreciation of it, most significantly The Empire Strikes Back, and Star Wars, grew. How rare it must be for something from ones youth to retain its luster upon further examination. Certainly Buck Rogers, and Battlestar Galactica, while they evoke a certain feeling of nostalgia, don't have the same staying power. Maybe looney toons, MASH, and Robotech have a similar quality, but I doubt anything had the impact Star Wars and its successors had. An amazing feat, truly remarkable, even incredible.
Which makes George Lucas' attempts to destroy and remove and in everyway obliterate all that was good and true so disturbing. Sure they're his creations, and he should be free to destroy them in anyway he sees fit, and even profit from it. But I'm not paying him or anyone anything to be insulted and assaulted by the insipid movies he feels compelled to make. For me the Star Wars saga will always be Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back, and sometimes Return of the Jedi. Everything else, including the rereleases, is just the evidence of a man trying to recapture the past glory of his greatest triumph. So the torch is passed to other series, perhaps The Matrix, or Lord of the Ring.
Sure, being one of the funniest people of all time, having two series in syndication, and being a cultural icon might not be current enough for some people. Ok you. But who am I to argue when it's so simple to provide other examples.
Tim Medows.
Tracy Morgan (Unless dressing up like Oprah Winfrey is too hip-hop and edgy for you).
Wayne Brady.
I might add, that you only requested A black comedian, and did not qualify the remark further. But in reality, would it even matter? You seem to insist on things existing in such appallingly simple terms. As if Chris Tucker is only one way, or anyone else for that matter. I can virtually guarantee that viewed in a similarly harsh light everyone, you and I included, would appear little more than a caricature.
Be careful what you wish for...it might be funny
on
Review: Rush Hour 2
·
· Score: 2
Hmm Black comedians who are funny? I can't seem to think of any, because I live in the woods and or spend too much time living vicariously through postings on slashdot. Or maybe I should mention Bill Cosby.
Everyone usually sees only what they want to see. It's not even because they don't understand the objective truth, they're just not comfortable with it. Likewise, it's not that you can't think of a black comedian who doesn't fit the aforementioned "style", it's that you don't care to. That is truly telling. Quite frankly, I could probably name ten black comedians off the tip of my tongue, and I'm just a run of the mill vitimin D deprived white guy. On the off chance that you're actually telling the truth, take a break from the MTV and HBO, you might be shocked at how big the world really is.
Are you sure you know what you're looking for/at? Is the number 42424242 one that you would search for first, or a pattern one found after the fact? These are VERY different things. If it was a pattern that was interesting, one must look at the space of all interesting patterns and look at the probability that one might be found. This is the difference between math and numerology, or astrology and astronomy. Coincidence has a role, why it should even be expected; for christs sake it is even predictable. Perhaps some of the people reading this are aware of the fact that if you get about thirty people or so, together two of them are likely to share a birthday. This does not mean that if you pick any person that someone else is likely to share their birthday. Rather of the group there is a good chance two of the individuals, whomever they may be, will likely share the birthday. If you pick 42424242 before hand, that makes it unlikely, if you don't it makes it coincidence.
First off, we can pretty well prevent the wasting that might otherwise occure during re-entry with ceramics such as those used by the space shuttle. Ceramics like those tend to be fairly fragile as well.
Something that might be useful would be depleted uranium encased in such a ceramic as a penetrator. It makes a nice penetrator not so much for its high density, but more for two other characteristics. The first of these are uranium is self sharpening. Instead of blunting, as it penetrates, the burs which are certain to form, and might blunt the point would instead peel back revealing an eversharp tip. The second quality of interest is it happens to be pyrophoric. While the penetrator itself might not detonate, the peices of metal that spall off it will be exceptionally hot and pretty well insure that such a penetrator incinerates anything living or useful. In this instance, the high density of the uranium would also serve to enhance the velocity of the penetrator, as the terminal velocity of an object is determined primarily by its density and surface area.
But a full on weapon that is designed to be lauched from a platform as ludicriously expensive as the one proposed would not likely be simple and cheap. One might certainly envision a large guided weapon with multiple warhead consisting of penetrators with explosives sitting at the front of a decent sized rocket. This weapon might glide to a few tens of thousands of feet above its target, them turn on its rocket for an extraboost before launching the warhead, which might scatter the individual penetrators just before impact. Or it may simply just be a warhead large, heavy and fast enough to dig down to and shatter any bunker.
While the signal to noise ratio might be better the signal also carries less information. It's a trade-off I guess. And sometimes the trolls are ammusing.
The article really didn't offer anything new. It looks as if the confirmed some of the timescale through a seperate method. I think I may well have read about it, but I'm quite sure I saw a little hour program about this in the discovery channel. Here's what google has to say. The program I saw may well have been this BBC documentary. I'm sure I saw this mid, or early 2000, and the linked slashdot article seems to add next to nothing. The beauty of this is, although the destruction would be on a scale not recorded, an ensuing ice age would certainly do a lot to assuage worries of global warming.
Now it seems I almost exclusivly watch the History channel, Discovery, PBS, and some Bravo, if at all. In my youth, it seemed like there were always three things to watch at the same time on the 5 channels we had. (Now I rarely find anything on 60.) So I lament the decline of television. When the internet came to me, I didn't lament the decline of TV so much. Then everyone got online, and so I lament the internet's decline. Now it seems I'm so jadded, I lament that I've nothing left to lament.
The minging company shot is a good one. My grandparents have a pie shaped hunk of mountain they acctually grew up on ala Little House on the Prairie. But no prairie, instead a couple of mountains with silver underneath them. The damage those mines did was incredible. You truly need to see this kind of thing to believe it. There are heaps of tailings that nothing at all will grow on, and basically mini moonscapes. A creek running on their property happens to run from an old mine, there some orange alge, nothing else. When I was about nine, I stuck my finger in to see if it felt different (the water was absolutely clear), my fingernail fell off a couple of days later and took quite a while to grow back. I've worked with toxic stuff HF (not a happy acid), but seeing what mining actually does puts it in a perspective you just can't get from a book. Not to mention, even the mining that takes place there to this day isn't even on the map as far as destructive. To see that you need to see what gold mining in the south west looks like (haven't seen it first hand, but to tell the truth I've seen enough). Think about it patches of land that haven't seen life on them in seventy years, and that's not the nasty stuff.
Now I'm not anti industry, why I even love metals. But you would think most people would at least take a little time to understand the evil that they are choosing.
But as far as his handouts? He's bought stuff from overseas, if only gas, he's benefited from police protection, even if indirectly, oh and a common currency to name a third. I know no one really things tariffs pay our enourmous military budget.
And just so I'm not just blowing sunshine up your skirt....
Why so crule? Can you really fault people for being ignorant? I can fault them for choosing ignorance, like the person you respond to who by his simple presence in the conversation proves he has access to the information. But what if you're not blessed with that. If you're born and bread in a mining town and come from an era where technology was more of a threat, and people tended to resist change more, how much access to the verifiable truth do you really have? I mean what kind of school system did they have? You know with it being a mining town, the school taught that mining was good, who was on the school board? Mine employees. It's a small society with certain barriers for access, and no one is trying hard to get in. It's not unlike being born into a cult. Maybe you can blame their parents, but then you really reach a level where no one "knew" and very few would have predicted the out come. I think in this way, we as the society who profited from them (and we certainly did), bare some of the responsiblity, albeit very diffusely. Look, they paid a price for their ignorance, cancer, and a nasty kind at that, not to mention a probable host of other problems. But we, the larger society, are the true beneficiaries, more so then they were, so we have an obligation to step in and give back. I might add that our system of government not only at least in practice recognizes this, thanks to liberals, but does a pretty good job of it all things considered. It's no secret, and no wonder, that liberal attitudes are correlated with higher education. High school dropouts like Rush like to claim that liberal institutions allow only liberal minds to succeed. But I think people who know more, better understand how interconnected the world really is, and act accordingly.
The total number of collisions that will occur in RHIC over ten years turns out to be far fewer than the number of potentially 'dangerous' iron-iron collisions that occur on the surface of the moon in a single day. For every production of a dangerous strangelet at RHIC, one expects one hundred thousand trillion to have been produced on the moon during its lifetime, any one of which would have converted the moon explosively to strange matter a phenomenon that is known not to have occurred.
Don't you get the impression they resented having to write this?
I was looking for info on Stars! Supernova (9/3/2001 BTW) when my browser seemed to jitter a little, then an ape in a transparet pop up for Planet of The Apes 'broke' through the page. It was actually a nice little effect. If I'm not inclined to see Markie Mark impersonate Charlton Heston as interprated by Tim Burton, I don't see how pestering me will increase those odds. Although if it was an enlarging penis that 'burst' through the page I probably would have bust out laughing. I bet Jurassic Park III probably has them too.
I've heard both. I like pellet as it refers to the skinner box nature of ATMs. Pigeon walks up presses a bar, out pops food. I think I picked it up from a psychology major I knew. But who knows.
The known quantity for looking at melting J-psi, or creating the quark-gloun plasma is energy in, the measured quantity is temperature, avg kinetic energy. There will be a region where energy increases but temperature does not, this is the temperature at which the phase transistion takes place.
Just bring your CD and receipt. Tell them the CD doesn't work, and you want your money back. The trick is to be polite but look like your mad, no one will want to push you over the edge. If the clerk says they won't, ask to speak to the manager and repeat. If they won't help, ask for the store manager if the former is an assitant. Be sure to be polite. No need to make idle threats, genuine ones that you'll write about your dissatisfaction with the service you've received and your bewilderment and how all of the people at this store refused to believe you could operate a/multiple CD player/s. Be insistant that you want your money back. When you get to the point of talking to a manager, you can even mention, politely, that you'd rather spend your money at a store that doesn't sell pre-broken stuff.
The trick is you don't want to be worth the hassel. No store gives a crap about a yuppie food pellet ($20). They rake in a few million a year taking a 25% cut. But more importantly who wants to spend $75 on the wages of 3 or more employees to ruin the day of everyone involved and end up with a customer who hates them even more than they did when they felt they got ripped off? I think I can safely say no one in the US.
I suppose the best thing would be for every US living slashdot reader to write a letter to the FTC about this group of companies using their undue market influence to deny their 'customers' choice in the market place. Of course the other side is will this make downloading music more or less popular?
IIRC this device was constructed primaily to provide insight into the quark gluon plasma that may have existed/did exist in the early universe.
The gold ions don't collide as such and shatter. IANAHEPPOAFYOLE (I am not a high energy plasma physicist or 15 year old leagal expert), but because they're traveling at relativistic speeds they pancake and pass through each other inelastically imparting some of their lost energy to the vacuum behind them. The vacuum, being unstable with this extra energy spots forth a soup of primordial particles. Particles, who's composition depends on its temperature, which in turn comes from the enegry imparted to the vacuum in the collision. One interesting particle to look at is J-psi. They could simply graph detections of J-psi artifacts vs temperature or energy density (variable the researchers control). It should look just like any phase transition diagram, such as one might do for ice to water. At a certain critical temperature J-psi should essentially 'melt' and then we would know our quark gluon soup is done. And if my hamerster is right, that should be at about 2 trillion degrees K. Careful, the soup's hot.
In a way, what is being done is looking, in extreamly fine detail, at what came before the cosmic background by something like 300,000 thousand years when our universe was about the size of the solar system.
I think someone published a paper that a device like this might impart enough energy to the local vacuum, that it might settle back down to a lower energy state and trigger a big bang giving birth to a new universe. (Now that would be the weapon of an evil genious worthy of James Bond.) Supposedly something like 5,000 similar lead - lead collisions take place every year in the universe, so it's probably pretty unlikely. But it would be pretty funny if they had to state man wouldn't destroy the universe from Long Island for the EPA. Of course it'd probably be even funnier if they were wrong.
You might want to check your juristiction to find out if oral sex is legal. I'd hate to think you were breaking the law, when following it is so important. After all, as you so diligently point out, the law is the law, no matter how stupid it is.
More over tremendously tiny 16k cells packaged into a more conventional format would yeild a rather impressive spike in memory density. After which time Moore's law might well continue as more and more of the conventional hardware finds itself being replaced by their analogs in the newer technology. Although at some point it would certainly have to plateau. Time to buy that HP stock I guess....
The US certainly did pick the job of Cop Of The World(TM). Even the a cursory glance at history will provide ample proof of that. It had more to do with the fortune of being a western power in a hemishpere seperated from most of europes challenges. And the blessings of industry and certain other resources that my ancestors had the good sence to steal from the people they slaughtered. This is in many ways what contributed to the US's national identity. In general I think citizens of the US have felt much less a part of a larger world (while this is probably less so, I would say I think this is still true even if more muted). There is also an attendant feeling of not so much invincibility, but security, a safe, warm feeling that comes from viewing other peoples problems from a comfortable distance and being glad they aren't yours. Naturally the cold war shattered this ideal for americans. Their, my, whatever, government lied to them and vastly overstated the Soviet threat to excuse all manner of weapons expansion and development programs. Quite frankly it wasn't until the 80's after the soviets had all but buried the smoldering remains of their economy that they achieved their goal of near parity. Why even the much vaunted space programs were little more than palatable PR for ICBM development programs, and groups of engineers on opposite sides of the world exchanging high tech "fuck you"s. But for all the fear, and duck and cover drills, this system of two teams with too much on the line to actually start fighting provided enourmous stability. No one really got to be all that neutral. Ya had to pick a side, ya didn't have to like it, but ya had to choose. In a world free from this threat the US might well have attempted to turn the clock back to the pre-war era and merily resume its isolationist America first policies. Was there a componant of america that wanted war with the axis powers? No. Not a single segment wanted war. However, there were those who knew the reckless, even insane, but certainly brutal policies of the axis powers would inevitably lead to war. Even Japan foolishly expected to buy oil from the US which likewise expected Japan to use that oil to wage an illigitimate war. The US knew full well, that the goal of Japanese military leaders, if not the actual will of the Emperor and people, was total domination of the eastern pacific, whos vast resources might vault them into an industrial power to rival the US. Likewise the US saw Japan as a thug experienced in bullying, and not one to be taken lightly, yet certainly not a "superpower", and besides there is a whole empty ocean between the two countries. This is where the military brilliance of the Japanese shined. They didn't ask what could or could not be done, that asked what must be done, and set out to do that. The "proof of concept" the British provided was as different from Pearl Harbor as Goddard's first liquid fuel rocket was from Sputnik. It took an attack of a foreign power on american soil, not just the killing of americans, to bring the US into the war. As to your allusion that FDR knew Pearl Harbor was the target: "Hindsight is 20/20, but everone sees only what they're looking for anyway." The simple fact is the raid on Pearl Harbor was spectacularly improbable, which is why it was a surprise. No one thought the Japanese even capable of such a feat. But with the end of the war, the US was inclined to attempt isolationism again, then came Korea, shortly after which the French needed assitance in Vietnam. Which in the intrests of our isolationism, we stupidly afforded.
Slashdot Mirror
if I didn't know the difference between an adapter sold seperately (or add on), as opposed to included equipment. But thanks for confirming my information.
But it's not CE based. Operating System: Windows 2000 Kernel, DirectX API
But the Gamecube will support HDTV outta the box, with MS it might be an add-on. Not that I want to help Mario and the Princess pick the most beautiful flowers, so no one crys at the garden party, in HDTV. Still Nintendo...if only I could expect Ikari warriors in stunning HDTV.... Nintendo is what you get when you listen to people who admonish others to "think about the children."
From Mechanical Metallurgy by George E. Deiter 3rd Ed.
-- pg 325. Ch 9-1After that the chapter briefly discusses how the different tests work, and some light derivation including a special case of finding the tensile strength. (Incidently, this conversation is why I provided a link to Powell's collection of Mechanics of Materials texts; I wanted to avoid it.) A link to convert hardnesses for steel into tensile strength. I might remark that given strength is simply a load over an area for a certain event, and any hardness test also uses a load over a slightly more complicated area (with some other considerations) one might readily and correctly assume they can be related. I might further add, that MY contention that strength and hardness are related is not even addressed in any of your definitions. I feel little need to offer anything in the way of proof, but since you seem to require it, this web site might be illuminating. Also any materials, and most mechanical, engineering departments will have a similar poster in their hardness testing labs.
Don't think me cruel, as I don't intend it in this fashion, but I had noticed the ASM site had a section called "Ask ASM" where you can pose questions, and thought it clearly marked. I suppose you could also write your local physics, mechanical, civil, or materials engineering departments as they almost certainly answer all sorts of questions. They are typically given to grad students to answer in math and physics departments.
I'm sorry you didn't see the value in links that I hoped you would find useful. I tried my best to keep everything simple and accurate, I hoped others would find it interesting. But it would seem you have little if any interest in finding answers, which is fine. But if you're not going to seek illumination beyond that of a poor dictionary, for the life of me I can't see why you quibble with mine. The fact is they created a new phase of steel (I took this as an obvious point from the press release, clearly I was in error). If you still believe they did not, you MUST also believe glass and quartz are the same. Which is your perogative. A new phase is better than simply a new alloy, as their figure of 16 GPa certainly shows. As a final token, here is a Iron-Carbon (Steel) phase diagram, note the lack of an amorphous phase (I realize it is quite busy, but it at least shows what steel fundementally is). In closing, you see what everyone else does, what you want to. Maybe this is what I get for picking nits.
Dictionary.com might agree with you, almost. But I would consider it to be technology on the scale of a billionth of a meter. So I prefer a more liberal interpretation. Certainly the materials are nanoscale, nanophase, and state of the art. I wonder if you'd feel the same about nanoarchitectured materials?
I am afraid that you are incorrect. Diamonds for examply are incredibly hard but are also extremely brittle and hence are not used in places where structural strength is required.
This is where it gets fun. You're confusing hardness or strength (they ARE interchangable ask ASM or your favorite Mechanics of Materials textbook), and Toughness. Toughness is the ability of a material to resist cracking, or if you prefer how brittle it is. Diamond is most certainly the king of strength, but, as you astutely observed, is brittle. Sillicon Carbide, carbon fiber, as well as glass share this quality. Again, I can't stress this enough, don't take my word for it. Tell me I'm full of shit, goto this website and find out for yourself.
Unfortunately the actual article made no such claims. They did not invent a stronger steel. They merely invented an extremely durable coating which bonds to steel. Sort of like a "super paint" actually.
They did invent a stronger steel. It happens to be a coating, but with a strength of I think 16 GPa, which is about 16 times better than a typical high strength structural steel and in the realm of about theoretical. Considering they believe the coating to be all but free of defects, this actually makes a lot of sence, as it is the defects which start the cracks that limit the strength of a material.
But it's funny, how people are. I prefer a liberal interpretation of nanotechnology, but ridgedly adhere to the indoctrination I was educated under. In anycase it certainly seems the press release was written with a reader like me in mind, and in so far as that was a good choice, it is correct. I would have expected it to have less resistance to chemical corrosion, but material science can be counter intuitive. In anycase I'm sure Powell's has at least a few good books on mechanics of materials if you're into that kinda thing.
A new Ginsu commerical. The self-sharpening steak knife of the new Millenium. Hosted by O.J. Simpson.
As far as hardness and strength. They harder a material is the stronger it is. The actual relation isn't trivial to derive and depends on things like the tip you use for intentation, qualitatively, it isn't that difficult to grasp so I'll do my best to explain. Strength is the ability of a material to resist plastic deformation. Plastic deformation is when you stretch a material and it won't snap back, as opposed to elastic deformation where it will. Try bending a paper clip, very little at first, it will snap back like you never touched it. Now bend it around. Where you bent it, the bumps and twists, are now harder and resist bending more than the rest of the paper clip and make it look irregular. That's plasitically deformed. It won't ever be like it was unless you remake the paper clip. If you bend it a little more it should get a little bit harder, then stiff and easy to break. That's a qualitative stress-strain curve you can feel. Then same thing happens when you push an indentor into a material, some of it gets pushed out of the way to make room for the indentor, which isn't all that different from bending the paper clip. In fact hardness is so closely related to the strength of a material you can do a surface hardness test to find out what alloy something is made of without destroying it. One of those things. On the other hand, this is a coating, so it's always on the surface of something, and in that sence you're right. Hard coatings typically need less lubrication, experience less fretting (a form of mechanical corrosion), etc. They also mention that it has self-sharpening characteristics. So it might find its way into new anti-armor weapons, or just the sharper image catalog.
Yeah I would say this is front page stuff. Getting a metal to come near the theoretical ideal in strength is pretty impressive. This is at least as front page as anything else up there. A good overview of thermal spray can be found here.
If, in America, a freelance writer still owns the copyright for a digital representation of his work how can another party be held responsable for the writers actions reguarding a work the party doesn't own? Would it matter where the original writing of the work took place, or the local of the original agreement to produce the work? If it turned out that the writer in question owed the digital copyright to the work, wouldn't the lawyers for the paper simply state that fact to the British court?
Tracy Morgan would occasionally play Betty Curry on SNL.
Wayne Brady is the guy who sings the best songs on ABC's Who's Line Is It Anyway, and is appearently getting a new sitcom or variety show.
And A for singular. I might make the same observaiont about any individual I could put in any group. For the record, Wayne Brady is probably about as *contemporary*, as opposed to *popular*, as a comedian can hope to be. One has to do with a place in time, as per your objection to Bill Cosby, and the other mass appeal, or popular if you prefer. Few individuals will be able to beat Bill in a popularity contest, in fact such a contest might be an interesting poll of sorts. Of all comedians Bill Cosby, Richard Prior, and Eddie Murphy would all be near the top, so would Jerry Sienfeld (personally I find him about as funny as a dead kitten in a sack, but that's me).
There were probably greater Star Wars fans than I, I never got dressed up or anything. But it came at a time in my childhood where I couldn't help but love it. What was different about Star Wars from so many other artifacts of my youth, is that my appreciation of it, most significantly The Empire Strikes Back, and Star Wars, grew. How rare it must be for something from ones youth to retain its luster upon further examination. Certainly Buck Rogers, and Battlestar Galactica, while they evoke a certain feeling of nostalgia, don't have the same staying power. Maybe looney toons, MASH, and Robotech have a similar quality, but I doubt anything had the impact Star Wars and its successors had. An amazing feat, truly remarkable, even incredible.
Which makes George Lucas' attempts to destroy and remove and in everyway obliterate all that was good and true so disturbing. Sure they're his creations, and he should be free to destroy them in anyway he sees fit, and even profit from it. But I'm not paying him or anyone anything to be insulted and assaulted by the insipid movies he feels compelled to make. For me the Star Wars saga will always be Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back, and sometimes Return of the Jedi. Everything else, including the rereleases, is just the evidence of a man trying to recapture the past glory of his greatest triumph. So the torch is passed to other series, perhaps The Matrix, or Lord of the Ring.
Tim Medows.
Tracy Morgan (Unless dressing up like Oprah Winfrey is too hip-hop and edgy for you).
Wayne Brady.
I might add, that you only requested A black comedian, and did not qualify the remark further. But in reality, would it even matter? You seem to insist on things existing in such appallingly simple terms. As if Chris Tucker is only one way, or anyone else for that matter. I can virtually guarantee that viewed in a similarly harsh light everyone, you and I included, would appear little more than a caricature.
Everyone usually sees only what they want to see. It's not even because they don't understand the objective truth, they're just not comfortable with it. Likewise, it's not that you can't think of a black comedian who doesn't fit the aforementioned "style", it's that you don't care to. That is truly telling. Quite frankly, I could probably name ten black comedians off the tip of my tongue, and I'm just a run of the mill vitimin D deprived white guy. On the off chance that you're actually telling the truth, take a break from the MTV and HBO, you might be shocked at how big the world really is.
Are you sure you know what you're looking for/at? Is the number 42424242 one that you would search for first, or a pattern one found after the fact? These are VERY different things. If it was a pattern that was interesting, one must look at the space of all interesting patterns and look at the probability that one might be found. This is the difference between math and numerology, or astrology and astronomy. Coincidence has a role, why it should even be expected; for christs sake it is even predictable. Perhaps some of the people reading this are aware of the fact that if you get about thirty people or so, together two of them are likely to share a birthday. This does not mean that if you pick any person that someone else is likely to share their birthday. Rather of the group there is a good chance two of the individuals, whomever they may be, will likely share the birthday. If you pick 42424242 before hand, that makes it unlikely, if you don't it makes it coincidence.
Something that might be useful would be depleted uranium encased in such a ceramic as a penetrator. It makes a nice penetrator not so much for its high density, but more for two other characteristics. The first of these are uranium is self sharpening. Instead of blunting, as it penetrates, the burs which are certain to form, and might blunt the point would instead peel back revealing an eversharp tip. The second quality of interest is it happens to be pyrophoric. While the penetrator itself might not detonate, the peices of metal that spall off it will be exceptionally hot and pretty well insure that such a penetrator incinerates anything living or useful. In this instance, the high density of the uranium would also serve to enhance the velocity of the penetrator, as the terminal velocity of an object is determined primarily by its density and surface area.
But a full on weapon that is designed to be lauched from a platform as ludicriously expensive as the one proposed would not likely be simple and cheap. One might certainly envision a large guided weapon with multiple warhead consisting of penetrators with explosives sitting at the front of a decent sized rocket. This weapon might glide to a few tens of thousands of feet above its target, them turn on its rocket for an extraboost before launching the warhead, which might scatter the individual penetrators just before impact. Or it may simply just be a warhead large, heavy and fast enough to dig down to and shatter any bunker.
The article really didn't offer anything new. It looks as if the confirmed some of the timescale through a seperate method. I think I may well have read about it, but I'm quite sure I saw a little hour program about this in the discovery channel. Here's what google has to say. The program I saw may well have been this BBC documentary. I'm sure I saw this mid, or early 2000, and the linked slashdot article seems to add next to nothing. The beauty of this is, although the destruction would be on a scale not recorded, an ensuing ice age would certainly do a lot to assuage worries of global warming.
Now it seems I almost exclusivly watch the History channel, Discovery, PBS, and some Bravo, if at all. In my youth, it seemed like there were always three things to watch at the same time on the 5 channels we had. (Now I rarely find anything on 60.) So I lament the decline of television. When the internet came to me, I didn't lament the decline of TV so much. Then everyone got online, and so I lament the internet's decline. Now it seems I'm so jadded, I lament that I've nothing left to lament.
Now I'm not anti industry, why I even love metals. But you would think most people would at least take a little time to understand the evil that they are choosing.
But as far as his handouts? He's bought stuff from overseas, if only gas, he's benefited from police protection, even if indirectly, oh and a common currency to name a third. I know no one really things tariffs pay our enourmous military budget.
And just so I'm not just blowing sunshine up your skirt....
Why so crule? Can you really fault people for being ignorant? I can fault them for choosing ignorance, like the person you respond to who by his simple presence in the conversation proves he has access to the information. But what if you're not blessed with that. If you're born and bread in a mining town and come from an era where technology was more of a threat, and people tended to resist change more, how much access to the verifiable truth do you really have? I mean what kind of school system did they have? You know with it being a mining town, the school taught that mining was good, who was on the school board? Mine employees. It's a small society with certain barriers for access, and no one is trying hard to get in. It's not unlike being born into a cult. Maybe you can blame their parents, but then you really reach a level where no one "knew" and very few would have predicted the out come. I think in this way, we as the society who profited from them (and we certainly did), bare some of the responsiblity, albeit very diffusely. Look, they paid a price for their ignorance, cancer, and a nasty kind at that, not to mention a probable host of other problems. But we, the larger society, are the true beneficiaries, more so then they were, so we have an obligation to step in and give back. I might add that our system of government not only at least in practice recognizes this, thanks to liberals, but does a pretty good job of it all things considered. It's no secret, and no wonder, that liberal attitudes are correlated with higher education. High school dropouts like Rush like to claim that liberal institutions allow only liberal minds to succeed. But I think people who know more, better understand how interconnected the world really is, and act accordingly.
Don't you get the impression they resented having to write this?
I was looking for info on Stars! Supernova (9/3/2001 BTW) when my browser seemed to jitter a little, then an ape in a transparet pop up for Planet of The Apes 'broke' through the page. It was actually a nice little effect. If I'm not inclined to see Markie Mark impersonate Charlton Heston as interprated by Tim Burton, I don't see how pestering me will increase those odds. Although if it was an enlarging penis that 'burst' through the page I probably would have bust out laughing. I bet Jurassic Park III probably has them too.
I've heard both. I like pellet as it refers to the skinner box nature of ATMs. Pigeon walks up presses a bar, out pops food. I think I picked it up from a psychology major I knew. But who knows.
The known quantity for looking at melting J-psi, or creating the quark-gloun plasma is energy in, the measured quantity is temperature, avg kinetic energy. There will be a region where energy increases but temperature does not, this is the temperature at which the phase transistion takes place.
The trick is you don't want to be worth the hassel. No store gives a crap about a yuppie food pellet ($20). They rake in a few million a year taking a 25% cut. But more importantly who wants to spend $75 on the wages of 3 or more employees to ruin the day of everyone involved and end up with a customer who hates them even more than they did when they felt they got ripped off? I think I can safely say no one in the US.
I suppose the best thing would be for every US living slashdot reader to write a letter to the FTC about this group of companies using their undue market influence to deny their 'customers' choice in the market place. Of course the other side is will this make downloading music more or less popular?
The gold ions don't collide as such and shatter. IANAHEPPOAFYOLE (I am not a high energy plasma physicist or 15 year old leagal expert), but because they're traveling at relativistic speeds they pancake and pass through each other inelastically imparting some of their lost energy to the vacuum behind them. The vacuum, being unstable with this extra energy spots forth a soup of primordial particles. Particles, who's composition depends on its temperature, which in turn comes from the enegry imparted to the vacuum in the collision. One interesting particle to look at is J-psi. They could simply graph detections of J-psi artifacts vs temperature or energy density (variable the researchers control). It should look just like any phase transition diagram, such as one might do for ice to water. At a certain critical temperature J-psi should essentially 'melt' and then we would know our quark gluon soup is done. And if my hamerster is right, that should be at about 2 trillion degrees K. Careful, the soup's hot.
In a way, what is being done is looking, in extreamly fine detail, at what came before the cosmic background by something like 300,000 thousand years when our universe was about the size of the solar system.
I think someone published a paper that a device like this might impart enough energy to the local vacuum, that it might settle back down to a lower energy state and trigger a big bang giving birth to a new universe. (Now that would be the weapon of an evil genious worthy of James Bond.) Supposedly something like 5,000 similar lead - lead collisions take place every year in the universe, so it's probably pretty unlikely. But it would be pretty funny if they had to state man wouldn't destroy the universe from Long Island for the EPA. Of course it'd probably be even funnier if they were wrong.
You might want to check your juristiction to find out if oral sex is legal. I'd hate to think you were breaking the law, when following it is so important. After all, as you so diligently point out, the law is the law, no matter how stupid it is.
More over tremendously tiny 16k cells packaged into a more conventional format would yeild a rather impressive spike in memory density. After which time Moore's law might well continue as more and more of the conventional hardware finds itself being replaced by their analogs in the newer technology. Although at some point it would certainly have to plateau. Time to buy that HP stock I guess....
The US certainly did pick the job of Cop Of The World(TM). Even the a cursory glance at history will provide ample proof of that. It had more to do with the fortune of being a western power in a hemishpere seperated from most of europes challenges. And the blessings of industry and certain other resources that my ancestors had the good sence to steal from the people they slaughtered.
This is in many ways what contributed to the US's national identity. In general I think citizens of the US have felt much less a part of a larger world (while this is probably less so, I would say I think this is still true even if more muted). There is also an attendant feeling of not so much invincibility, but security, a safe, warm feeling that comes from viewing other peoples problems from a comfortable distance and being glad they aren't yours. Naturally the cold war shattered this ideal for americans. Their, my, whatever, government lied to them and vastly overstated the Soviet threat to excuse all manner of weapons expansion and development programs. Quite frankly it wasn't until the 80's after the soviets had all but buried the smoldering remains of their economy that they achieved their goal of near parity. Why even the much vaunted space programs were little more than palatable PR for ICBM development programs, and groups of engineers on opposite sides of the world exchanging high tech "fuck you"s. But for all the fear, and duck and cover drills, this system of two teams with too much on the line to actually start fighting provided enourmous stability. No one really got to be all that neutral. Ya had to pick a side, ya didn't have to like it, but ya had to choose.
In a world free from this threat the US might well have attempted to turn the clock back to the pre-war era and merily resume its isolationist America first policies. Was there a componant of america that wanted war with the axis powers? No. Not a single segment wanted war. However, there were those who knew the reckless, even insane, but certainly brutal policies of the axis powers would inevitably lead to war. Even Japan foolishly expected to buy oil from the US which likewise expected Japan to use that oil to wage an illigitimate war. The US knew full well, that the goal of Japanese military leaders, if not the actual will of the Emperor and people, was total domination of the eastern pacific, whos vast resources might vault them into an industrial power to rival the US. Likewise the US saw Japan as a thug experienced in bullying, and not one to be taken lightly, yet certainly not a "superpower", and besides there is a whole empty ocean between the two countries. This is where the military brilliance of the Japanese shined. They didn't ask what could or could not be done, that asked what must be done, and set out to do that. The "proof of concept" the British provided was as different from Pearl Harbor as Goddard's first liquid fuel rocket was from Sputnik. It took an attack of a foreign power on american soil, not just the killing of americans, to bring the US into the war. As to your allusion that FDR knew Pearl Harbor was the target: "Hindsight is 20/20, but everone sees only what they're looking for anyway." The simple fact is the raid on Pearl Harbor was spectacularly improbable, which is why it was a surprise. No one thought the Japanese even capable of such a feat. But with the end of the war, the US was inclined to attempt isolationism again, then came Korea, shortly after which the French needed assitance in Vietnam. Which in the intrests of our isolationism, we stupidly afforded.
What's the last sporting event you attended?