First, my credentials. I'm a CEO of a small corporation, and we've been proudly using Linux for two years, and counting.
I suppose Linux was a no-brainer for us. All of the people on the executive board are technical people (either engineers or CS majors). Also, as a smaller, private corporation, we didn't have a lot of money to cover startup costs...and starting a company of any kind ain't cheap.
At any rate, we (credit: IT people) were able to configure Linux to allow us to create a secure system to allow swipe card access to our building. This, among other things, would not have been possible under Windows. If I'm wrong, I stand corrected.This is a rather small example, but the idea is there: Linux is a cheap and, more importantly, mallable solution for us. I know the IT people love it, since things can be tailored. Sorry I can't specify, but I'm not a coder...that's how I got the CEO job.;-)
So I'm out here, telling other CEO's that I meet that making the switch is, in the long run, definately worth it. Our case was easier, since we started with Linux originally. My thought, however, is that this is also a trend; if the word about Linux spreads and is used by startup companies, EVENTUALLY Linux will be much more mainstream. Or, perhaps, we're the exception and have a crew of people on the EB that all have technical/coding/etc know-how (to some extent) and Linux will never catch on with startups.
Well, that's my two cents on the Free Source/Business issue. Hope it helps to some extent. End Sermon.;-)
...President Bush announced changes in his Energy plan. One of the changes includes running a superconducting wire from Denmark to California, abating the energy problem there. The ammendment was said to increase the viability of the plan "100 fold." Negotiations with the Russian and Chinese governments are pending.
In another related story, the Chinese are checking the wire for "cameras and other spy equipment."
Alright. You asked for a chemical engineer, you got it. Whether liquid nitrogen is cheap really depends on the process you use to compress it for reuse. To answer your question about the cold, yes, in this case it does have to be kept cold. However, you can liquify nitrogen at temperatures much higher than that at 1 atmosphere. It's all about phase diagrams, which are functions of temperature AND pressure. So, if you put enough pressure on the gas, you can have a liquid at relatively "high" temperatures. There is such a thing as a supercritical fluid, but that is way beyond the scope of this discussion.
The interesting part here, at least from a transport aspect, is going to be the heat transfer. That is, you have to REALLY insulate them lines, or else you will vaporize the liquid notrogen in the line and potentially lose the superconducting capability of the ceramic. This is especially true, since you have a difference in pressure accross the power line (this pressure drop is what allows the liquid to flow). Again, from phase diagrams, pressure and temperature dictate the phase. So unless Q (the heat flow in the system) inside the line is very low (close to adiabatic), this could be a very tough engineering problem. This is especially true when you consider that even a small change in the environment might cause an incredible amount of change in the process as a whole. My congratualtions to the team of engineers that pulled this one off.
Not only do you have to design the "torpedo" taking into account the Reynolds number, which will depend on the flow of the fluid past the body but, you have to take into account the pressure exerted on the bubble by the water. That is, just as planes have to move faster as they get higher (less air pressure), the same principles apply here; as you get deeper, you have to create a higher pressure bubble to push back against the water in order to retain the bubble and supercavitation. In order to be useful, you would have to be able to make fine adjustments to the torpedo before launch taking into account depth, range, etc.
What would be interesting is if they could use some cpmpound, like calcium oxide, to vaporize the water around the torpedo before using the rockets; it's easier and more efficient to get up to speed this way...then only the vapor fluid needs be considered in design.
Finally, if the torpedo can be started from a form of a bubble, then the task of keeping the bubble and moving thru it is simplified. Dimples, like that of a golf ball, can be used to create eddy currents, hence making the entire thing move thru the fluid easier...it's all a matter of trying to get the dimples (or overall shape) correct for the vapor/gas such that flow lines are as smooth as possible. But that's the fun part.
I agree. In actuality, it is very common for companies (I can't speak for the software industry) to get competitors products and reverse engineer them to see how they tick. How then is this different than leaving company A to work for company B? They both know what each others products are capable of because they have already deconstructed them, analyzed them and learned from it. That being said, what information can honestly be gained from hiring another companies' engineer?
Obviously there are going to be a lot of comments about the Xbox vs. the L600. Especially on Slashdot (Linux vs. M$...round 56,790). However, if I remember correctly, the Xbox isn't as upgradable as the L600. Supposedly, you can actually change the CPU with the push of a button, etc. Also, and this may be flamebait, but at least the L600 won't crash in mid game.
Additionally, either way this turns out, Linux wins. The Open Source community gains some game software for Linux and receives a new and usable GUI (as I am told the L600 will have). Again, either way, Linux wins.
Not sure if it will make a big difference in the long run, but the general trend is (if I can remember from my physics classes...anyone verify this?) good thermal conductors are good electrical conductors. This presents obvious problems if you try and make these things too big. Also, from a design standpoint, does this serverly limit the way chips can be built around these thermal conductors? Also, the cooling capacity is a function of surface area...perhaps a design can be made that can dissipate more (via more surface area). Comments?
I can just see the news stories now...
MIr completed it's decent into the atmosphere today in a flaming ball of fire. Before starting it's deorbit, however, Mir accidently hit the newly constructed International Space Station, destroying everything. There was only one surviving module: the Russian module.
We can't win!!
First, we have the fact that Rambus was part of JEDEC. As such, they didn't follow the rules about keeping things relatively open so that standards can be created in the best interest of everyone. This is where the JEDEC has power.
I think, however, the legal issue is a bit different. If I understand things correctly, Rambus used the standards commitee to steer the direction of computer technology (whether this is by staying silent or not being vocal is of no consequence). It *just so happens* that they have a patent on the technology. Can't this turn into a monopoly, and, hence, be taken care of by that means?
Also, a certian degree of common sense should be taken into account. If I can legally prove that the US government is technically illegal, does that mean that we should abolish the US government? I think not, and I extend the analogy to the current issue. That is, having one company control the future of technology (even if it is through legal means) is absolutely insane, impractical, and cannot be allowed. I just hope the courts feel the same.
I think we have learned from Microsoft, and I would hate to repeat the mistake. Rambus+MS=Trouble...lets just hope one doesn't buy the other.;-)
When I first read the article, one of the first things that popped into my mind was the movie, Swing Kids. In the movie, the Hitler youth require the Nazis-to-be to make reports on who supports Hitler and who doesn't (and actually used these reports). Although not totally analogous, it is something that might prove interesting to think about.
Conversely, however, cooperation is what makes our society exist: we all rely on one another. Take Neighborhood Watch, for example. It has proven, at least where I live, to be useful.
My point is, a good case can be made for either side, and neither extreme is desirable. I hope this comment isn't considered off topic or flamebait, as I merely hope to hear what people think about when it IS appropriate to tell, and when it is not, if at all.
When you say we should teach children what to think, I cannot help but think of Apple's Big Brother commercial in 1984 (I was only 3 at the time, so someone older can verify this).
Also, as a sophomore in college studying chemical engineering, I also cannot see the benefit of teaching people what to think. My professors never tell me what to think, but instead show me how to think (college, in general, does this). Every problem is different, and an understanding on how things work is the best way to solve dynamic problems.
Lastly, I believe that if you understand HOW to think, this leads to finding out WHAT you think; one fosters the other. It is this individualism and free thinking that makes our society work.
At least now we can learn a few things about our planet's history from this...all the dinosaurs were trying to do was save themselves from the ultimate heat death of the sun.;-)
Oh great. I can just see it now...why will my insurance company pay my family six figures if I die unexpectedly when they can just clone me for $50k? Too bad it won't lower my premiums.
"Here he is, ma'am...good as new!"
I agree: the drug should be patented, not the genes. If we can patent parts of the human genetic code, I'm running down to the patent office right now and patenting a few genes. Therefore, I would partially own the human populace and charge people royalties for existing.;-)
As I am sure some people have seen, it is possible to deposit single atoms, and react two specific atoms (leaving others untouched) using a technique that uses a scanning-tunnleing microscope. This could probably do the trick, but, again, raises very important questions as to how to mass produce the things. As a chemical engineer, I'll believe it when I see it...or my boss tries and make me design the blasted thing. Then again, as a chemical engineer, I can't see why you would want to just react two atoms at a time anyway;-)
Slashdot Mirror
...then I suppose it's a good thing we haven't found a cure for cancer yet!
I suppose Linux was a no-brainer for us. All of the people on the executive board are technical people (either engineers or CS majors). Also, as a smaller, private corporation, we didn't have a lot of money to cover startup costs...and starting a company of any kind ain't cheap.
At any rate, we (credit: IT people) were able to configure Linux to allow us to create a secure system to allow swipe card access to our building. This, among other things, would not have been possible under Windows. If I'm wrong, I stand corrected.This is a rather small example, but the idea is there: Linux is a cheap and, more importantly, mallable solution for us. I know the IT people love it, since things can be tailored. Sorry I can't specify, but I'm not a coder...that's how I got the CEO job.So I'm out here, telling other CEO's that I meet that making the switch is, in the long run, definately worth it. Our case was easier, since we started with Linux originally. My thought, however, is that this is also a trend; if the word about Linux spreads and is used by startup companies, EVENTUALLY Linux will be much more mainstream. Or, perhaps, we're the exception and have a crew of people on the EB that all have technical/coding/etc know-how (to some extent) and Linux will never catch on with startups.
Well, that's my two cents on the Free Source/Business issue. Hope it helps to some extent. End Sermon.In another related story, the Chinese are checking the wire for "cameras and other spy equipment."
The interesting part here, at least from a transport aspect, is going to be the heat transfer. That is, you have to REALLY insulate them lines, or else you will vaporize the liquid notrogen in the line and potentially lose the superconducting capability of the ceramic. This is especially true, since you have a difference in pressure accross the power line (this pressure drop is what allows the liquid to flow). Again, from phase diagrams, pressure and temperature dictate the phase. So unless Q (the heat flow in the system) inside the line is very low (close to adiabatic), this could be a very tough engineering problem. This is especially true when you consider that even a small change in the environment might cause an incredible amount of change in the process as a whole. My congratualtions to the team of engineers that pulled this one off.
What would be interesting is if they could use some cpmpound, like calcium oxide, to vaporize the water around the torpedo before using the rockets; it's easier and more efficient to get up to speed this way...then only the vapor fluid needs be considered in design.
Finally, if the torpedo can be started from a form of a bubble, then the task of keeping the bubble and moving thru it is simplified. Dimples, like that of a golf ball, can be used to create eddy currents, hence making the entire thing move thru the fluid easier...it's all a matter of trying to get the dimples (or overall shape) correct for the vapor/gas such that flow lines are as smooth as possible. But that's the fun part.
...but professor...my monitor was sick!!!
I agree. In actuality, it is very common for companies (I can't speak for the software industry) to get competitors products and reverse engineer them to see how they tick. How then is this different than leaving company A to work for company B? They both know what each others products are capable of because they have already deconstructed them, analyzed them and learned from it. That being said, what information can honestly be gained from hiring another companies' engineer?
Obviously there are going to be a lot of comments about the Xbox vs. the L600. Especially on Slashdot (Linux vs. M$...round 56,790). However, if I remember correctly, the Xbox isn't as upgradable as the L600. Supposedly, you can actually change the CPU with the push of a button, etc. Also, and this may be flamebait, but at least the L600 won't crash in mid game. Additionally, either way this turns out, Linux wins. The Open Source community gains some game software for Linux and receives a new and usable GUI (as I am told the L600 will have). Again, either way, Linux wins.
Not sure if it will make a big difference in the long run, but the general trend is (if I can remember from my physics classes...anyone verify this?) good thermal conductors are good electrical conductors. This presents obvious problems if you try and make these things too big. Also, from a design standpoint, does this serverly limit the way chips can be built around these thermal conductors? Also, the cooling capacity is a function of surface area...perhaps a design can be made that can dissipate more (via more surface area). Comments?
I can just see the news stories now... MIr completed it's decent into the atmosphere today in a flaming ball of fire. Before starting it's deorbit, however, Mir accidently hit the newly constructed International Space Station, destroying everything. There was only one surviving module: the Russian module. We can't win!!
I think, however, the legal issue is a bit different. If I understand things correctly, Rambus used the standards commitee to steer the direction of computer technology (whether this is by staying silent or not being vocal is of no consequence). It *just so happens* that they have a patent on the technology. Can't this turn into a monopoly, and, hence, be taken care of by that means?
Also, a certian degree of common sense should be taken into account. If I can legally prove that the US government is technically illegal, does that mean that we should abolish the US government? I think not, and I extend the analogy to the current issue. That is, having one company control the future of technology (even if it is through legal means) is absolutely insane, impractical, and cannot be allowed. I just hope the courts feel the same.
I think we have learned from Microsoft, and I would hate to repeat the mistake. Rambus+MS=Trouble...lets just hope one doesn't buy the other. ;-)
When I first read the article, one of the first things that popped into my mind was the movie, Swing Kids. In the movie, the Hitler youth require the Nazis-to-be to make reports on who supports Hitler and who doesn't (and actually used these reports). Although not totally analogous, it is something that might prove interesting to think about. Conversely, however, cooperation is what makes our society exist: we all rely on one another. Take Neighborhood Watch, for example. It has proven, at least where I live, to be useful. My point is, a good case can be made for either side, and neither extreme is desirable. I hope this comment isn't considered off topic or flamebait, as I merely hope to hear what people think about when it IS appropriate to tell, and when it is not, if at all.
When you say we should teach children what to think, I cannot help but think of Apple's Big Brother commercial in 1984 (I was only 3 at the time, so someone older can verify this). Also, as a sophomore in college studying chemical engineering, I also cannot see the benefit of teaching people what to think. My professors never tell me what to think, but instead show me how to think (college, in general, does this). Every problem is different, and an understanding on how things work is the best way to solve dynamic problems. Lastly, I believe that if you understand HOW to think, this leads to finding out WHAT you think; one fosters the other. It is this individualism and free thinking that makes our society work.
At least now we can learn a few things about our planet's history from this...all the dinosaurs were trying to do was save themselves from the ultimate heat death of the sun. ;-)
Oh great. I can just see it now...why will my insurance company pay my family six figures if I die unexpectedly when they can just clone me for $50k? Too bad it won't lower my premiums. "Here he is, ma'am...good as new!"
I agree: the drug should be patented, not the genes. If we can patent parts of the human genetic code, I'm running down to the patent office right now and patenting a few genes. Therefore, I would partially own the human populace and charge people royalties for existing. ;-)
As I am sure some people have seen, it is possible to deposit single atoms, and react two specific atoms (leaving others untouched) using a technique that uses a scanning-tunnleing microscope. This could probably do the trick, but, again, raises very important questions as to how to mass produce the things. As a chemical engineer, I'll believe it when I see it...or my boss tries and make me design the blasted thing. Then again, as a chemical engineer, I can't see why you would want to just react two atoms at a time anyway ;-)