I agree with your "bullshit" call, but not your excuse.
I bet they start with giant rolls of plastic film, then paint on the adhesive as they roll it onto small, long rolls of a few meters of tape each, then chop it off and slice it into various widths and start the next output roll.
It'd be darned interesting if they just fed resin pellets in one end and took wrapping-tape rolls off the other, but I doubt that's how it goes. Having the offloading and onloading part of the process gives you a chance to deal with problems on one end or the other of the process, while still running the other end. And to use either end with differing types of other ends.
Interestingly, they originally filed suit against Intel in part to counter suits Intel had filed against Via. This happened ten years ago.
So somehow, rather than cross-license rights, VIA ended up with money. And because of that they certainly should feel confident they can get money out of anyone using their patent, rather than being stuck in a profitless cross-license situation.
There are reference frames where that happens now. Just put the sender behind a thick wall of glass between the observer and sender, and nothing between the observer and receiver.
In fact, make the "receiver" just a mirror that reflects the signal to the observer.
Now you can see a photon in the mirror before it propagates through the glass. Easy-peasy, and causality is not violated.
Or you could just rejigger your philosophy to include speed-of-neutrino. Then when the observer converts receipt-of-neutrino into sending-of-photon-to-observer, the observer will simply see it as volitional sending on the part of the original receiver, or conjecture that a neutrino signal was sent from the original sender to the original receiver.
But that's just parlor tricks. No neutrino is going to cause any of the effects in the receiver that photons would. And nothing is going to happen before it actually happened. There's still an event horizon and a cone of causality in spacetime. It's just a little quicker if the major effects are mediated by neutrinos.
Except that this has no practical significance to the progress of energy company profits, so there's no chance it will be mangled by astroturf and sophistry.
This won't affect causality anyway. Neutrinos aren't causing atoms to do much of anything useful in any situation. And unless you can get them to affect atoms reliably, there's nothing useful for them to do.
Also, they're not going back in time. They're just beating photons to the other side of the room.
We haven't looked at neutrinos on small scales at all, which is why we've never noticed. They're a total beast to detect.
And this wouldn't affect causality. 99.99999% of what "happens" in our universe is electromechanical, nuclear, or gravitational. Neutrinos are probably the least of anyone's worries. Maybe there were enough jammed into one place in the Big Bang to make a difference to anything of significant scope, but now, you're lucky you detect one each time you run an experiment that uses 2% of the planet as its apparatus.
1. general relativity. If these things are travelling appreciably underground, lower gravity may be speeding them up. but it would do the same for photons and neutrinos.
2. material properties. the speed of light is the speed of light in a perfect vaccuum. in any other material, photons slow down. i highly doubt they have a straight, evacuated pipe running 732 km through the bulk of the Alps. neutrinos, on the other hand, don't give a badger's ass about anything in their way. so whatever they're using to sync this thing may be moving slower than they think. there are ways to eliminate comparison biases, so hopefully they tried a few.
It's not a definition, it's an answer to the question that was asked. I didn't find it, I derived it from the description of the process and structure.
This isn't the same doping you find in semiconductor technology, where only a tiny fraction of the total thickness of the substrate wafer gets infused with other elements. But even there, if you consider the rest of the substrate to be nothing more than mechanical support, or consider thin-film semiconductors, where it literally is nothing but mechanical support, then the doping does become an appreciable portion of the mass of the active layer. Spread the dopant atoms too far out, and the quantum lattice does not set up for avalanche to occur when the right charge is injected, so all you have is a lossy conductor. (Still wondering if I know what doping means?)
In order for these folks' doping to have any effect, it's going to have to put doping atoms near most of the other atoms on the crumpled 2-dimensional matrix, so as to create the pattern of energy wells into which these hydrogen atoms will fall. And in order for it to be reasonably more efficient than just pressurizing the hydrogen to liquefy it at room temperature would be, those wells will have to be very close together. Lots and lots of heavy atoms of Pt in amongst lots and lots of light atoms of C and H. Up to half the mass of the substance, altogether. If it's even a quarter of it, you're talking hundreds if not thousands of grams of Platinum in every tank.
And that stuff ain't made of sand and chemical byproducts. It's Platinum. Typically more expensive than Gold. Though these days Gold is something of a commodities-speculation rock star, so it could be inverted.
I believe the Swedish police. They have credibility built on history, and accountability for their words and actions. I don't believe you, to whom the exact converse applies.
Doped means it's a significant portion of the chemical stoichiometry of the assembly, when the assembly is essentially a massive-surface manifold. Which makes it a significant portion of the mass. And that stuff ain't cheap. And we're not talking $800 catalytic converter, here. This thing will have to be an appreciable portion of a cubic meter in size. And this implementation will create an enhanced demand for the commodity. Not less than kilodollars, just for your gas tank. And you don't get that savings back with simplified systems elsewhere in the vehicle, as you do with batteries.
>This story that coal kills more people than nuclear is rather misleading.
If you mean that coal doesn't kill more people then nuclear, then it's not misleading, you're just wrong.
If you mean that the story overestimates the extent by which it does, then it may be misleading.
if you mean that the story underestimates the extent by which it does, then it may also be misleading.
Nuclear is unsafe only if you don't make it safe. The means to make it safe are simple acts of design and maintenance. Coal is not safe. It is not possible to make it safe and still have it be a major portion of the energy supply. Simply using it is unsafe for everyone in the world who chooses to breathe air.
These are professional publishers. They're probably used to all sorts of things going wrong with relationships with writers, and don't just hand over advances without something in the wording to protect them.
They almost certainly bought the right to publish anything Assange gives them with the first dollar they handed him. They almost certainly also bought an exclusive right to do so.
What they didn't get in terms of cooperation in completing the book is balanced by what he won't get in terms of further pay.
Whether he thinks he should get more or not is going to be up to him suing them. They certainly have no reason to sue him. They have the data; and they know how to edit. Game, set, match: Publisher.
Slashdot Mirror
It's graphene, not kevlar. The hard part is not tearing it.
I agree with your "bullshit" call, but not your excuse.
I bet they start with giant rolls of plastic film, then paint on the adhesive as they roll it onto small, long rolls of a few meters of tape each, then chop it off and slice it into various widths and start the next output roll.
It'd be darned interesting if they just fed resin pellets in one end and took wrapping-tape rolls off the other, but I doubt that's how it goes. Having the offloading and onloading part of the process gives you a chance to deal with problems on one end or the other of the process, while still running the other end. And to use either end with differing types of other ends.
Giant?
Graphene is significantly less than a nanometer thick. A million layers of that is still only a millimeter.
This "giant roll" could have the diameter of a roll of toilet paper. If the cardboard tube is a decimeter across.
Interestingly, they originally filed suit against Intel in part to counter suits Intel had filed against Via. This happened ten years ago.
So somehow, rather than cross-license rights, VIA ended up with money. And because of that they certainly should feel confident they can get money out of anyone using their patent, rather than being stuck in a profitless cross-license situation.
Or maybe they'll get free iPhones for life.
My connection's a little lossy today. I read that as "VIA...patents...Centaur!"
There are reference frames where that happens now. Just put the sender behind a thick wall of glass between the observer and sender, and nothing between the observer and receiver.
In fact, make the "receiver" just a mirror that reflects the signal to the observer.
Now you can see a photon in the mirror before it propagates through the glass. Easy-peasy, and causality is not violated.
Or you could just rejigger your philosophy to include speed-of-neutrino. Then when the observer converts receipt-of-neutrino into sending-of-photon-to-observer, the observer will simply see it as volitional sending on the part of the original receiver, or conjecture that a neutrino signal was sent from the original sender to the original receiver.
But that's just parlor tricks. No neutrino is going to cause any of the effects in the receiver that photons would. And nothing is going to happen before it actually happened. There's still an event horizon and a cone of causality in spacetime. It's just a little quicker if the major effects are mediated by neutrinos.
Except that this has no practical significance to the progress of energy company profits, so there's no chance it will be mangled by astroturf and sophistry.
Nothing is faster than the speed of hype.
This won't affect causality anyway. Neutrinos aren't causing atoms to do much of anything useful in any situation. And unless you can get them to affect atoms reliably, there's nothing useful for them to do.
Also, they're not going back in time. They're just beating photons to the other side of the room.
We haven't looked at neutrinos on small scales at all, which is why we've never noticed. They're a total beast to detect.
And this wouldn't affect causality. 99.99999% of what "happens" in our universe is electromechanical, nuclear, or gravitational. Neutrinos are probably the least of anyone's worries. Maybe there were enough jammed into one place in the Big Bang to make a difference to anything of significant scope, but now, you're lucky you detect one each time you run an experiment that uses 2% of the planet as its apparatus.
I think they may be missing two things:
1. general relativity. If these things are travelling appreciably underground, lower gravity may be speeding them up. but it would do the same for photons and neutrinos.
2. material properties. the speed of light is the speed of light in a perfect vaccuum. in any other material, photons slow down. i highly doubt they have a straight, evacuated pipe running 732 km through the bulk of the Alps. neutrinos, on the other hand, don't give a badger's ass about anything in their way. so whatever they're using to sync this thing may be moving slower than they think. there are ways to eliminate comparison biases, so hopefully they tried a few.
Call them "alarmists" a few dozen times.
It's not a definition, it's an answer to the question that was asked. I didn't find it, I derived it from the description of the process and structure.
This isn't the same doping you find in semiconductor technology, where only a tiny fraction of the total thickness of the substrate wafer gets infused with other elements. But even there, if you consider the rest of the substrate to be nothing more than mechanical support, or consider thin-film semiconductors, where it literally is nothing but mechanical support, then the doping does become an appreciable portion of the mass of the active layer. Spread the dopant atoms too far out, and the quantum lattice does not set up for avalanche to occur when the right charge is injected, so all you have is a lossy conductor. (Still wondering if I know what doping means?)
In order for these folks' doping to have any effect, it's going to have to put doping atoms near most of the other atoms on the crumpled 2-dimensional matrix, so as to create the pattern of energy wells into which these hydrogen atoms will fall. And in order for it to be reasonably more efficient than just pressurizing the hydrogen to liquefy it at room temperature would be, those wells will have to be very close together. Lots and lots of heavy atoms of Pt in amongst lots and lots of light atoms of C and H. Up to half the mass of the substance, altogether. If it's even a quarter of it, you're talking hundreds if not thousands of grams of Platinum in every tank.
And that stuff ain't made of sand and chemical byproducts. It's Platinum. Typically more expensive than Gold. Though these days Gold is something of a commodities-speculation rock star, so it could be inverted.
I believe the Swedish police. They have credibility built on history, and accountability for their words and actions. I don't believe you, to whom the exact converse applies.
You say that, but there's nothing stopping you from taking over his job now, and yet you don't, even though it's clear he's no longer doing it.
Doped means it's a significant portion of the chemical stoichiometry of the assembly, when the assembly is essentially a massive-surface manifold. Which makes it a significant portion of the mass. And that stuff ain't cheap. And we're not talking $800 catalytic converter, here. This thing will have to be an appreciable portion of a cubic meter in size. And this implementation will create an enhanced demand for the commodity. Not less than kilodollars, just for your gas tank. And you don't get that savings back with simplified systems elsewhere in the vehicle, as you do with batteries.
>This story that coal kills more people than nuclear is rather misleading.
If you mean that coal doesn't kill more people then nuclear, then it's not misleading, you're just wrong.
If you mean that the story overestimates the extent by which it does, then it may be misleading.
if you mean that the story underestimates the extent by which it does, then it may also be misleading.
Nuclear is unsafe only if you don't make it safe. The means to make it safe are simple acts of design and maintenance. Coal is not safe. It is not possible to make it safe and still have it be a major portion of the energy supply. Simply using it is unsafe for everyone in the world who chooses to breathe air.
he neutered himself with the sex-crime thing
they probably would have dropped him in the north atlantic if he hadn't done that
he's the one convincing people to leak
pop off the head, and the rest would be less likely to follow in his footsteps
"Platinum-doped activated-carbon lattice" is not the material that comes to mind when I think of "inexpensively".
Is it like "Ewen"? "Yawn"? "Evan"? "Yohan"? "Eeeeeeee-yooooo, e-yo, eleven"?
They're just looking for a way to push to the top of your feed.
Put them on a planet spinning at the speed of sound, going around in circles until they die.
Oh wait...
He may not have broken anything.
These are professional publishers. They're probably used to all sorts of things going wrong with relationships with writers, and don't just hand over advances without something in the wording to protect them.
They almost certainly bought the right to publish anything Assange gives them with the first dollar they handed him. They almost certainly also bought an exclusive right to do so.
What they didn't get in terms of cooperation in completing the book is balanced by what he won't get in terms of further pay.
Whether he thinks he should get more or not is going to be up to him suing them. They certainly have no reason to sue him. They have the data; and they know how to edit. Game, set, match: Publisher.
Man. I'm not sure why the spooks haven't just capped Assange yet, but I'm glad they haven't. This dude is more entertaining than Mike Tyson on crack.