For large businesses, I suspect that document compatibility isn't the real obstacle to migration that it's made out to be. Rather, it's the massive investment they've made in applications that are integrated with MS Office. There's a wealth of code out there written in VB and in Excel macros, and an army of programmers servicing them. In other words, it's all about the API...and unless OpenOffice is perfectly compatible with that, it won't get anywhere in the corporate market.
Yet people drive around with a tank full of gasoline which we all know is VERY explosive....and people cook with tanks full of propane that also is explosive. (no, I don't sell propane and propane accessories).
Liquid gasoline isn't explosive, it's flammable. If you atomize gasoline in air or oxygen, and ignite it in a confined space, then it's explosive. It's true though that, because it sticks around in liquid form, it makes for nasty, long-burning fires.
In addition to being flammable, liquid propane is moderately explosive because it is stored at pressure. But at room temperature the pressure in these tanks uusally doesn't exceed about 100psi. For comparison, racing bicycles usually have their fabric & rubber tires pumped to 125psi. A propane fire nasty because with fuels stored under pressure you will have expanding conflagration, but nothing much happens if the gas isn't ignited.
Hydrogen, however, doesn't liquefy above 20 Kelvins, so it has to be stored under extreme pressure (over 5000psi) in order to achieve a useful energy density. So a ruptured hydrogen tank is likely to explode even if the gas isn't ignited. Drop any scuba tanks lately?
Now keep in mind that in real car crashes (not the ones you see on TV), exceedingly few result in a fire. Which kind of fuel tank would you rather have in your car?
While you're correct that hydrogen isn't much more combustible than conventional fuels, the fact remains that it is a difficult fuel to store safely.
If you want to store molecular hydrogen in liquid form, you have to do so cryogenically since its boiling point is 20 Kelvins (-253C, -423F). Needless to say that's impractical for most applications.
If you store it at room temperature, very high pressures (over 5000 psi) are necessary to achieve an energy density comparable to conventional fuels. Storing anything at high pressure is dangerous, whether it's combustible or not (drop any scuba tanks lately?).
To make matters worse, molecular hydrogen is small -- at the molecular level nothing is "solid" and so hydrogen will pass through most conventional materials! Even hydrogen stored in steel tanks will leak away through the "solid" walls in a matter of days. It is also very reactive -- it will corrode and embrittle materials it is in contact with (especially metal). Not a good situation for something stored at high pressure!
While there are promising technologies on the horizon such as metal hydrides and carbon nanotubes, there is no economical means of storing hydrogen as of yet. For now it remains in the domain of niche applications.
Re:But it's not built with sustainable materials
on
Solar-Hydrogen Eco-House
·
· Score: 2, Funny
The last one specifically details the environmental advantages of concrete-based construction.
Oops, you got me on that one.
But it's not built with sustainable materials
on
Solar-Hydrogen Eco-House
·
· Score: 5, Informative
The designers should be commended for the power self-sufficiency of the house.
But I notice from the photo that the house has been constructed primarily from steel and concrete, which are hardly sustainable materials. The amount of energy that goes into extracting and processing steel or concrete is thousands of times more than that for wood or masonry. The net energy balance from both the construction and long-term operation of this house is likely to be very negative.
Well, like a polynomial of higher degrees, there are many roots to the problem. But anyway I'd agree with the one you've identified.
The problem is that it is very tough to get talented teachers to remain teaching. Moving into the private sector is much more profitable.
Touché.
I'm finishing my Bachelors in Mathematics. Everyone in my programme is thinking of Education as the backup plan for whatever their primary career choice is (actuaries, engineering, computing science, whatever): it has reasonable job security even if the pay is shitty and the little monsters are a pain to teach.
Therein lies the problem: the old adage "if you can't do, teach" holds true. If we want quality teachers in our schools, we need to a) drastically increase spending on education (both in teacher's salaries and general programme funding), and b) raise the qualification requirements for the teaching profession.
The problem isn't just in elementary/highschools. At the post-secondary level, all the really good instructors work at unglamourous community colleges. Most universities, on the other hand, employ legions of professors who do great research and pull grants like there's no tomorrow, but couldn't teach their way out of a paper bag.
Unfortunately our society always seems pathologoically incapable of investing in the future with truly effective education. All solutions bandied around are a hodge-podge of gimmicks and quick fixes. No child left behind? Yeah, right.
So wait... you're saying there exists this country where Mathemeticians and Engineers -- "geeks", essentially -- are held in higher social esteem than businessmen, athletes, and entertainers? A culture where geekhood beats money, athletic ability, and fame? And this is where? Can I move there? Are you sure you're not mistaking slashdot for a country?
Dude, open your eyes. Any poor country is like that, where your profession is respected for how reliably it puts food on your table. And, by the laws of supply and demand, the professions requiring the most training will garner the best compensation. A job is a job is a job: the glamour that might go with it is a luxury only affluent societies can afford.
Come on. It has nothing to do with being a prodigy. Different people are good at different things. I was never particularly good in English, but I don't go around saying the only people good at it are geniuses.
Did you even read what I wrote? Being good at something is certainly attainable for those of us who aren't prodigies, but, as I said, it involves hard work.
It's interesting to note that quite a few people have made it to the peak of Everest, and then died on the way down.
Interesting, perhaps, but not surprising. If you include the descent as part of the whole expedition, then the summit is really just the halfway mark. And the descent can be just as risky, if not as strenuous.
Making Math and Science kid friendly? Call me a curmudgeon, but that's a lost cause.
If you're not a prodigy, Math is difficult. Science is difficult. So what? Work hard and you'll get it eventually. Yes, its essential to have well designed curricula and competent teachers, but I think the primary problem facing educators today is the attitude of kids. A lot of them just aren't willing to put in the effort to learn. Why? Lots of reasons, but I'd say the biggest one is that affluence breeds complacency. Give kids a kick in the butt and they'll learn just fine.
Interestingly, both groups of researchers were working strictly with visual memory. I wonder whether the working memory used by programmers, mathematicians, etc. will be in the same place, or a different area altogether?
I would guess so, based on anecdotal evidence about myself. I read a lot and am very good at visual puzzles. So I'm guessing I'd score well in these visual memory cache tests.
But, in a verbal conversation, I have trouble keeping track of any information that is not presented sequential and dealt with one at a time.
What the hell is it with the tradition of dark foreboding metal enhanced settings?
For the same reason that the lights are dimmed in "romantic" settings: to let imagined perfection fill the shadows where flawed reality hides. Despite all its advances, current graphics technology still does a poor job of mimicking the real world.
All of the privacy fears surounding Gmail are based on Google breaching their own privacy policy, which would be an unethical violation of trust. But, since e-mail is unencrypted, every e-mail provider on the face of the Earth has the same ability to breach that trust, including MSN Hotmail, Yahoo, Earthlink, and whoever/whatever you trust your e-mail to.
The trouble is that these privacy policies can change anytime. And Yahoo has done so already on more than one occasion. Unless you're sharp enough to catch the changes and opt-out of whatever new bullshit they've automatically signed you up for, you're kinda screwed.
It's those Xenon HID headlights I hate. You know, the ultra-bright, kinda bluish ones that blind you late at night as they come around the curve. Those seem bright enough to be unsafe.
I know what you mean but I'll nitpick by claiming that, in fact, HID headlights aren't any brighter than incandescent ones. All headlights are designed to cast about the same amount of light onto the road ahead. The difference is that an HID beam is much more intense because the beam is narrower and more coherent (also by design).
Such a tight beam profile isn't possible with incandescent bulbs regardless of reflector design because the filament-source is relatively large. A large Fresnel lens is needed to minimize the incoherence of the beam. HIDs, however, are much more like point-sources, so the beam can be precisely shaped as desired.
Note that HIDs headlights could easily be designed to emit wider, more diffuse beam profiles similar to their incandescent predecessors, and I suspect that they eventually will be. For the moment however engineers are in love with the efficiency of a coherent beam, and stylists are in love with small headlights.
This is veering slightly off-topic, but fluoridation of water supplies is a controversial practice and no longer widespread. Some studies have shown that it actually excacerbates dental health (especially mottling of normal teeth), while others have shown a slight prevention in decay. The jury is still out on this issue.
Sorry, I'm too lazy to provide supporting links for my points right now.
As long as population continues to increase, conservation and other increases in efficiency are only short-term solutions. Sooner or later you MUST increase the supply, or you run out. Look at California's electricity problems for a good example of where this leaves you.
Your point would be valid were it not for how much water consumption per capita has increased. The U.S. population has increased by at most 15% in the last 30 years, yet water use has more than doubled. Wasteful water usage pervades every facet of society especially in agriculture, industry and in the home. Don't tell me people are drinking twice as much as they used to!
Overconsumption has been widely shown to be tied to flat-rate pricing: almost all cities that have switched to metered usage have recorded drastic reductions in consumption and found their existing water supply to be perfectly adequate. Every switch involves a few hiccups, but with refinement well-designed pricing schemes have been successful at eliminating wastage without penalizing reasonable, legitimate consumption.
In the end, all earthly resources are finite. Being renewable is not equivalent to being inexhaustible. Yes, overpopulation is one root cause of unsustainability. Overconsumption is the other. The two must be attacked in conjunction, not separately.
I suppose I should provide supporting links for my arguments, but at the moment I'm just too lazy. Sorry.
Pick a city, any city. Check out NTSB stats on that city's traffic accident rates. Now check out that city's municipal revenue from the traffic courts. For bonus points, do a time series. Correlate, interpret, conclude.
Since when, in a debate, has it been the obligation of your opponent to make your case for you? Grow up, that's not how the world works.
Who's to say we haven't taken any bacteria to mars the past few Yrs.?
NASA has very stringent procedures for disinfecting all space probes precisely to avoid contaminating the planets or moons that they investigate. Bar the infinitessimal possibility that the contamination came from Russian landers several decades back, any life on Mars is almost certainly indigenous.
Slashdot Mirror
For large businesses, I suspect that document compatibility isn't the real obstacle to migration that it's made out to be. Rather, it's the massive investment they've made in applications that are integrated with MS Office. There's a wealth of code out there written in VB and in Excel macros, and an army of programmers servicing them. In other words, it's all about the API...and unless OpenOffice is perfectly compatible with that, it won't get anywhere in the corporate market.
If we could only do something about my neighbour's pounding stereo.
;-)
*sigh* did you RTFA? Supersonic travel allows you to outrun the sound waves emanating from your neighbours stereo.
It'd be interesting if XCor beat Scaled Composites with the first sub-orbital flight but couldn't claim the $10 million prize."
;-)
Yeah...I'll bet that if that happened, Burt Rutan would eXCORiate everyone who worked for him
NASA has finally decided it's time the ISS had centrifugal artificial gravity.
...I've just picked up a fault in the AE35 unit. It's going to go 100% failure in 72 hours.
At inopportune moments, the engine might not start. Especially at around 10:04pm on dark stormy nights.
Yet people drive around with a tank full of gasoline which we all know is VERY explosive....and people cook with tanks full of propane that also is explosive. (no, I don't sell propane and propane accessories).
Liquid gasoline isn't explosive, it's flammable. If you atomize gasoline in air or oxygen, and ignite it in a confined space, then it's explosive. It's true though that, because it sticks around in liquid form, it makes for nasty, long-burning fires.
In addition to being flammable, liquid propane is moderately explosive because it is stored at pressure. But at room temperature the pressure in these tanks uusally doesn't exceed about 100psi. For comparison, racing bicycles usually have their fabric & rubber tires pumped to 125psi. A propane fire nasty because with fuels stored under pressure you will have expanding conflagration, but nothing much happens if the gas isn't ignited.
Hydrogen, however, doesn't liquefy above 20 Kelvins, so it has to be stored under extreme pressure (over 5000psi) in order to achieve a useful energy density. So a ruptured hydrogen tank is likely to explode even if the gas isn't ignited. Drop any scuba tanks lately?
Now keep in mind that in real car crashes (not the ones you see on TV), exceedingly few result in a fire. Which kind of fuel tank would you rather have in your car?
While you're correct that hydrogen isn't much more combustible than conventional fuels, the fact remains that it is a difficult fuel to store safely.
If you want to store molecular hydrogen in liquid form, you have to do so cryogenically since its boiling point is 20 Kelvins (-253C, -423F). Needless to say that's impractical for most applications.
If you store it at room temperature, very high pressures (over 5000 psi) are necessary to achieve an energy density comparable to conventional fuels. Storing anything at high pressure is dangerous, whether it's combustible or not (drop any scuba tanks lately?).
To make matters worse, molecular hydrogen is small -- at the molecular level nothing is "solid" and so hydrogen will pass through most conventional materials! Even hydrogen stored in steel tanks will leak away through the "solid" walls in a matter of days. It is also very reactive -- it will corrode and embrittle materials it is in contact with (especially metal). Not a good situation for something stored at high pressure!
While there are promising technologies on the horizon such as metal hydrides and carbon nanotubes, there is no economical means of storing hydrogen as of yet. For now it remains in the domain of niche applications.
The last one specifically details the environmental advantages of concrete-based construction.
Oops, you got me on that one.
The designers should be commended for the power self-sufficiency of the house.
But I notice from the photo that the house has been constructed primarily from steel and concrete, which are hardly sustainable materials. The amount of energy that goes into extracting and processing steel or concrete is thousands of times more than that for wood or masonry. The net energy balance from both the construction and long-term operation of this house is likely to be very negative.
For reference: stats, stats and more stats
or maybe just a root...
Well, like a polynomial of higher degrees, there are many roots to the problem. But anyway I'd agree with the one you've identified.
The problem is that it is very tough to get talented teachers to remain teaching. Moving into the private sector is much more profitable.
Touché.
I'm finishing my Bachelors in Mathematics. Everyone in my programme is thinking of Education as the backup plan for whatever their primary career choice is (actuaries, engineering, computing science, whatever): it has reasonable job security even if the pay is shitty and the little monsters are a pain to teach.
Therein lies the problem: the old adage "if you can't do, teach" holds true. If we want quality teachers in our schools, we need to a) drastically increase spending on education (both in teacher's salaries and general programme funding), and b) raise the qualification requirements for the teaching profession.
The problem isn't just in elementary/highschools. At the post-secondary level, all the really good instructors work at unglamourous community colleges. Most universities, on the other hand, employ legions of professors who do great research and pull grants like there's no tomorrow, but couldn't teach their way out of a paper bag.
Unfortunately our society always seems pathologoically incapable of investing in the future with truly effective education. All solutions bandied around are a hodge-podge of gimmicks and quick fixes. No child left behind? Yeah, right.
So wait... you're saying there exists this country where Mathemeticians and Engineers -- "geeks", essentially -- are held in higher social esteem than businessmen, athletes, and entertainers? A culture where geekhood beats money, athletic ability, and fame? And this is where? Can I move there? Are you sure you're not mistaking slashdot for a country?
Dude, open your eyes. Any poor country is like that, where your profession is respected for how reliably it puts food on your table. And, by the laws of supply and demand, the professions requiring the most training will garner the best compensation. A job is a job is a job: the glamour that might go with it is a luxury only affluent societies can afford.
Come on. It has nothing to do with being a prodigy. Different people are good at different things. I was never particularly good in English, but I don't go around saying the only people good at it are geniuses.
Did you even read what I wrote? Being good at something is certainly attainable for those of us who aren't prodigies, but, as I said, it involves hard work.
It's interesting to note that quite a few people have made it to the peak of Everest, and then died on the way down.
Interesting, perhaps, but not surprising. If you include the descent as part of the whole expedition, then the summit is really just the halfway mark. And the descent can be just as risky, if not as strenuous.
Dude, when you can speak French better than the poster speaks English, you have a right to be so snarky.
Making Math and Science kid friendly? Call me a curmudgeon, but that's a lost cause.
If you're not a prodigy, Math is difficult. Science is difficult. So what? Work hard and you'll get it eventually. Yes, its essential to have well designed curricula and competent teachers, but I think the primary problem facing educators today is the attitude of kids. A lot of them just aren't willing to put in the effort to learn. Why? Lots of reasons, but I'd say the biggest one is that affluence breeds complacency. Give kids a kick in the butt and they'll learn just fine.
Interestingly, both groups of researchers were working strictly with visual memory. I wonder whether the working memory used by programmers, mathematicians, etc. will be in the same place, or a different area altogether?
I would guess so, based on anecdotal evidence about myself. I read a lot and am very good at visual puzzles. So I'm guessing I'd score well in these visual memory cache tests.
But, in a verbal conversation, I have trouble keeping track of any information that is not presented sequential and dealt with one at a time.
Maybe I'm just a freak.
What the hell is it with the tradition of dark foreboding metal enhanced settings?
For the same reason that the lights are dimmed in "romantic" settings: to let imagined perfection fill the shadows where flawed reality hides. Despite all its advances, current graphics technology still does a poor job of mimicking the real world.
All of the privacy fears surounding Gmail are based on Google breaching their own privacy policy, which would be an unethical violation of trust. But, since e-mail is unencrypted, every e-mail provider on the face of the Earth has the same ability to breach that trust, including MSN Hotmail, Yahoo, Earthlink, and whoever/whatever you trust your e-mail to.
The trouble is that these privacy policies can change anytime. And Yahoo has done so already on more than one occasion. Unless you're sharp enough to catch the changes and opt-out of whatever new bullshit they've automatically signed you up for, you're kinda screwed.
It's those Xenon HID headlights I hate. You know, the ultra-bright, kinda bluish ones that blind you late at night as they come around the curve. Those seem bright enough to be unsafe.
I know what you mean but I'll nitpick by claiming that, in fact, HID headlights aren't any brighter than incandescent ones. All headlights are designed to cast about the same amount of light onto the road ahead. The difference is that an HID beam is much more intense because the beam is narrower and more coherent (also by design).
Such a tight beam profile isn't possible with incandescent bulbs regardless of reflector design because the filament-source is relatively large. A large Fresnel lens is needed to minimize the incoherence of the beam. HIDs, however, are much more like point-sources, so the beam can be precisely shaped as desired.
Note that HIDs headlights could easily be designed to emit wider, more diffuse beam profiles similar to their incandescent predecessors, and I suspect that they eventually will be. For the moment however engineers are in love with the efficiency of a coherent beam, and stylists are in love with small headlights.
Application of fluoride to prevent tooth decay.
This is veering slightly off-topic, but fluoridation of water supplies is a controversial practice and no longer widespread. Some studies have shown that it actually excacerbates dental health (especially mottling of normal teeth), while others have shown a slight prevention in decay. The jury is still out on this issue.
Sorry, I'm too lazy to provide supporting links for my points right now.
As long as population continues to increase, conservation and other increases in efficiency are only short-term solutions. Sooner or later you MUST increase the supply, or you run out. Look at California's electricity problems for a good example of where this leaves you.
Your point would be valid were it not for how much water consumption per capita has increased. The U.S. population has increased by at most 15% in the last 30 years, yet water use has more than doubled. Wasteful water usage pervades every facet of society especially in agriculture, industry and in the home. Don't tell me people are drinking twice as much as they used to!
Overconsumption has been widely shown to be tied to flat-rate pricing: almost all cities that have switched to metered usage have recorded drastic reductions in consumption and found their existing water supply to be perfectly adequate. Every switch involves a few hiccups, but with refinement well-designed pricing schemes have been successful at eliminating wastage without penalizing reasonable, legitimate consumption.
In the end, all earthly resources are finite. Being renewable is not equivalent to being inexhaustible. Yes, overpopulation is one root cause of unsustainability. Overconsumption is the other. The two must be attacked in conjunction, not separately.
I suppose I should provide supporting links for my arguments, but at the moment I'm just too lazy. Sorry.
Pick a city, any city. Check out NTSB stats on that city's traffic accident rates. Now check out that city's municipal revenue from the traffic courts. For bonus points, do a time series. Correlate, interpret, conclude.
Since when, in a debate, has it been the obligation of your opponent to make your case for you? Grow up, that's not how the world works.
There's gonna be assets left in SCO?
There's probably several thousand Herman Miller Aeron chairs kickin' around to be picked up.
Who's to say we haven't taken any bacteria to mars the past few Yrs.?
NASA has very stringent procedures for disinfecting all space probes precisely to avoid contaminating the planets or moons that they investigate. Bar the infinitessimal possibility that the contamination came from Russian landers several decades back, any life on Mars is almost certainly indigenous.