Recently, I needed a USB cable. I was aghast to discover pricing of $25 to $40 for a simple cable!!!! UG. Best Buy, Circuit City, even Sears had these prices. I know from my cable-making days (Good 'old RS-232 hand-soldered connections!) this was wrong.
Best as I can figure, the chain stores know you need a cable and can gouge you because usually you need it right now, and lots of people don't know how to shop online (yeah, sad, ain't it?).
A couple of years ago I came up with a design for a Viewpoint independent Holographic Viewer design. I thought it would work nicely and is actually feasible given current technology:
Picture this: * a glass sphere, approximately 1 meter in diameter, half-silvered on the inside, set on a base with about 1/3 of the sphere inside the base. * the sphere is filled with a mostly-transparent phosphorescent gas in a condition where if it is struck by enough laser light, it glows for as much as 100 milliseconds (1/10th of a second); * The base has at least 1 laser in it (3 lasers, in red/blue/green for color). * For purposes here, a 3-d volume of space, roughly cubical, within the sphere shall be called a 'voxel' (for 'volumetric pixel') * The laser is divided into 2 or more beams, each of which is directed at a spinning mirror assembly; * That assembly spreads and directs the laser light through a voxel within the sphere; * Any one laser shining through a voxel will be insufficient to cause the volume to glow. However, when multiple beams intersect, the energy intensity there is sufficient to cause the gas there to flouresce. * The gas need not be flourescent if the number of beams increases; 100 beams would make 100 gradiations of brightness at that point. * Computational requirements to figure out where the laser paths should go so as to ensure the laser beams do not intersect at any other random points might be significant;
This would create a 3-d viewer which is orientation independent, reasonably safe presuming the lasers were low power or a non-visible wavelength.
I would have patented this but I thought it was an obvious design given the SeaQuest DSV show where they had a fog they played an image onto to create a 3-d effect. Plus, I'm sure someone has already worked out the details better than me. Or, maybe not. I'd like to see one in action!
Of course, this kind of interface may come with risks. In my last job the project was called 'RAD' for 'Risk Assessment Database' and we wanted our logo to be a big yellow and black radiation sign. this was at a big bank in downtown Chicago. Unfortunately, it turned out one of the neighboring departments had an employee who either had cancer or whose wife had cancer, and the radiation signs kind of freaked him a bit, so we changed our logo. Alas. It would have been cool but for the whole oops-we're-insensitive-doofuses aspect.
Someone please contact the authors and ask the following questions:
* What is included in the cost measures? * Do these costs represent capital costs or recurring costs? * Is the cost per unit biomass (food) at market rates? * What temperature band does this work under? * Please cite patent numbers for those granted so we may link to them? * When you cite, "maximal theoretical electron transport rate" is this presuming some currently unavailable technology or the maximal rate you ran your demonstration at? * Are you using expensive fuel cell membranes, and if so, is the capital cost of these counted in? * Are you factoring in any losses due to leakage, probable losses of uptime to the facility from maintenance required by your technology, etc.?
Gotta be exact here, we're a tough crowd for 'free energy' stories, we've seen too many of them...
Humans are (from the research I've read), for survival reasons, in a default growth mode (not maintenance) because it results in bigger humans that are more of a match for the challenges we face (jumping large streams, running faster from predators, supporting our huge brains).
Thus, we crave foods that provide that growth. This includes high-energy-density foods with lots of fats and fast energy foods with lots of sugars.
Peanut butter contains LOTS of fats. If you're normal, you buy Skippy or Jiff (not organic PB), which have almost all the Peanut oil removed then soybean or other vegetable oils put back in (pure peanut oil sells for lots more than soybean oil). The taste isn't quite the same, but it's close, and no one seems to care. Organic PB only has peanuts, nothing else, and tastes much better, but the oil tends to separate while it's on the shelf, so you have to stir it each time you use it (a small price for some, a large price for others).
So, when you look at a chart that shows how healthy peanut oil is (ratio of saturated vs. unsaturated) compared to other things, rethink how healthy having lots of PB is. Yes, it's better than Ho-Ho's. No, it's much worse than a cucumber. The trick is keeping the 80% complex carbs 10%fat 10%protein thing going. Plus, that's complex carbs, NOT sugars or white bread, so we're talking about whole wheat, wheat germ, most vegetables, and limited fruits (lots of simple sugars there).
The American Dietetic Association has a great book on how to eat. I'm very surprised this kind of stuff isn't mentioned in Heath classes in schools (at least I didn't get it, and I suspect this is news to most people here, and it shouldn't be).
If you have alot of lower back pain but aren't fat, try drinking water ONLY for a few weeks.
Two meanings for this: 1. Go on a fasting diet where you don't eat food but do drink liquids; 2. Drink more water (several more glasses per day) to your normal diet;
The first concept, fasting, is of dubious value. BUT: According to the CRON diet people, and peer-reviewed research into longevity, the ONLY known way to extend the lifespan of a mouse is to reduce their available caloric intake while maintaining a proper nutritional diet. This forces the metabolism into a maintenance-mode (instead of growth-mode) so all energies are put into repairing cellular damage and decay. This method is proven to work in many animals, but is... somewhat tedious and uncomfortable for humans, since it involves eating lots of salads (80% of diet by calorie == complex carbs, 10% protein, 10% fat). Plus, it means walking around hungry all the time. Sure, you'll be healthy and feel great, but you'll also feel really hungry. Not sure I like the option.
The second is a reasonable response to your kidneys complaining; flush them out and keep them flushed for a bit, but don't go overboard, too much water can really put a strain on your kindeys, too, and in extreme cases (several gallons per day for many days straight) can be toxic, since your body loses electrolytes, and (b) cannot eliminate that much water.
If you constantly crave a certain type of food, whatever is in it may be lacking in your body.
Very true, but misleading. Doughnuts do not apply. If you crave carrots or broccoli or salt, this might mean you need these things or the nutrients they contain. If you crave Ho-Ho's, your body is just being gluttenous.
presume: "Cheap nuclear fusion" power plants generate electrical power for equivalent of 1 cent / KWh.
* Coal usage drops to drastically (still used in off-grid locations) * Oil production drops drastically; * Natural gas still produced as portable energy source; * someone figures out electrical generation of methane or propane (electricity + carbon + water) and cars start using that instead of OPEC oil; * OPEC countries have vast revenue drops, destabilize, and undergo drastic political change (read: civil war, followed by a stable form of government that we may/may not like); * Global CO2 emissions drastically drop due to no power plant emissions, but cars still use CO2 producing methods; * incentive to produce economical renewable energy sources (solar cells et al) drops to nil; * aluminum gets lots, lots cheaper; * battery technology gets a big boost in investment.
I taught an undergrad Astronomy discussion section at KU in 1989. The professor, Dr. Steven Shawl, set up the course structure to be one of Mastery Learning.
In the Mastery Learning method, the emphasis is on making sure the student has a completely solid understanding of a subject before moving on to the next subject. The point of this is to prevent the common situation (in my schooling, at least) of learning something and promptly forgetting it 10 minutes after the final exam.
In the mastery learning world, once you've mastered something, typically you've committed it to long term memory, understand the implications of things such that you can predict outcomes, etc.
Learning = Knowledge + Conceptual
There are two types of learning - concrete and theoretical. Concrete learning is memorizing facts; theoretical learning is understanding how those facts fit together. Different people learn differently; some naturally do one or the other more.
Montessori method focuses on inspiring people to learn the topics and subtopics that are the most interesting to them personally, tailoring the lesson plans to the individual student.
IIRC (from reading done on this and looking into it for my kids) Montessori students are, like home schooled students, often prone to difficulty adapting to highly structured learning environments. However, despite any adaptation problems, students tend to have much higher test scores.
I believe the mastery learning and Montessori teaching methods both touch on a common theme - avoiding the Open-brain-stuff-info-close-brain scenarios so common in American classrooms. The one-test-a-year methods of non-US school systems ironically provide more opportunity for mastery, because you can't "cram for the test" if you're cramming for 12 tests at the same time that demand a cumulative year's worth of knowledge. The downside to the once-a-year concept is the WAY HIGH pressure it places on students. I would wonder if the suicide rate in different countries correlates with testing standards...
Regardless, I'm a big fan of mastery learning because I saw what a great job it could do in helping our students have fun with the material and really gain confidence in themselves in the process.
Intel probably puts in serious bucks to R&D of their compilers so their chips look the fastest. This is logical; they'd want to do what they could do enhance speed regardless of if it was hardware or software doing the speedup.
But, the operative question is, who uses the Intel compiler anyway? If I was going to compile something, and I needed really fast results, I would probably use the compiler of the hardware manufacturer- be it Intel or AMD. I'm sure AMD has a compiler tuned to exploit every possible speedup you could ask for on an AMD chip.
Further, they'd be wise (if they don't do this already) to sell/give away technical manuals for compiler writers telling them how to squeeze every little bit of extra performance out.
Commercial compiler vendors include (my estimation, please reply with additions): * Intel * AMD * GCC * Microsoft * Watcom (still in business?) * Borland (still doing this?)
This obviously leaves out the computer science students worldwide. But, my point is, maybe this is a wake up call to anyone using an Intel compiler that they need to switch to one of the others above (GCC especially).
According to my religion instructor at Hamline University in St. Paul, MN, the definition of fundamentalism is "any ideology where doubt is a sign of weakness. If the idea is that faith is strongest when it is never in doubt, then this it is a fundamentalist faith.
The Opposite of Fundamentalism is (at least embodied in the Unitarian Church's perspective) that a questioned faith is the strongest. Where faith is a cognizant (thinking) recognition, that faith is strongest because it has been examined and no perspective is unworthy of discussion, that the truth of a situation depends on your viewpoint.
Fundamentalism can apply to any religious doctrine, just as it can apply to an unwavering faith in a person or institution, be they political or not.
Sounds like this is used to power Radioisotope Thermal Generators. this is a very good thing; we need more experience with RTGs to power spacecraft, both nearby (spy satellites) and far (science missions). It's the only power we can generate when we're beyond Mars orbit (solar cells are much less effective the farther you get from the Sun.
My wife brought up the pollution aspect - not from polluting outer space (I explained already about the fact that space is far more radioactive than the plutonium is, we're not 'polluting' space). Rather, the Hanford (Washington State USA) processing facility created / processed lots of plutonium during the cold war and ended up creating massive environmental damage with radionucleides in the groundwater, soil, etc.
Where exactly is this processing plant and is the DOD allowing the EPA to supervise environmental maintenance/protection?
(Note: I don't care where it is; if telling me hurts security that's fine I don't need to know, but I don't want this kind of a plant showing up next door to me without someone having filed an environmental impact statement).
Graduate of Great Bend High School, Great Bend, Kansas (population 20,000), which is the county seat of Barton County, Kansas, which is named for Clara Barton. Great Bend is named thusly due to its location near a large bend in the Arkansas river (pronounced there as "Ahhr-Kansas").
There are road signs visible to all people driving into Great Bend on the state highways that enter town, saying something to the effect of, "Great Bend, Birthplace of Nobel Prize Winner Jack Kilby".
* Didn't see an answer about which lifting gas - H2 or He?
* Wouldn't launching from the North Pole station in summer (now, really) mean no daily temperature cycles or sunlight-heating differentials?
* Does anyone from Russia's version of the National Science Foundation or any of the Russian science bureaus read Slashdot?
* Was there something specific that caused Russia to say no to overflight rights?
* Politics aside, what was the maximum probable mission time - just another day or two or (if going over Russia was possible) doubling to 14 or more days?
* Has anyone assigned probabilities to each of the various failure modes?
* If gondola weight determines spare gas capacity determines flying time, isn't there a way to just create an elastic balloon material that doesn't need a relief valve?
* Are the bureacrats Russian or American or someone else? (Somehow I'm confident it's not the Canadians...)
* If politics determines mission time regardless of the technical stuff, WHO IS WORKING ON THE POLITICS? (I know, international relations can be much more complicated than the science, but its frustrating to hear from my side, too. I like to read about the cool stuff you're doing). Who do we contact to help push this along for the next mission?
* When is the next mission? Is there a long reset time, or do you just fly the thing back to Sweden and start again next week?
The BLAST mission is touted as being for a set duration, lasting 5 to 7 days. I'm a little confused why this time length was chosen. Why not let the thing just float there forever?
* Are all failure modes catastrophic? * What is the primary failure mode? Loss of lifting gas? * Is use of Hydrogen instead of helium an option? In carefully controlled operations, the additional risk might be worth the extra lifting capacity... * Does H2 leak faster than helium (due to molecular size)? * Is it difficult to create a parachute and floatation system to sheild the payload in various failure modes? * What is the problem with just letting this thing float around until it doesn't ? * Is battery power an issue and is the payload powered by thinfilm solar cells? Is power a limitation? * What kind device or systems keep the orientation correct? Gyroscopes? * If there are gyroscopes, are they a major percent of payload weight? * What kind of ambient buffetting ocurrs at float altitude? Is there any percieved motion? * Is the limitation of a baloon the internal-to-external pressure differential? * What percent of the cost of the mission is the balloon, and what is the payload? Flight operations costs?
It would be cool if there was more data available on the BLAST website, but it's pretty scarce. Can someone contact them? Does anyone else know about this stuff?
encourage people to use less energy is to tax energy consumption heavily
I believe this is incorrect. We don't care about emission-free energy usage. We don't want people to use less energy. We want people (and our societies) to:
* create less global-warming-inducing greenhouse gasses like CO2; * reduce our interaction with and/or dependence on strife-ridden regions of the world that produce fossil fuels; * have the solution minimize any negative impacts on our economy; * have the solution (optimally) result in worldwide solutions to the problem not just local ones; * reduce mercury and other heavy metals emissions from coal-fired power plants; * reduce smog other asthma-inducing emissings (including nitrogen oxides) from all sources; * reduce risks of nuclear contamination as a result of both power plants and nuclear weapons proliferation; * reduce consequences of mining and drilling for coal, oil, etc. ecosystems both foreign and domestic.
Ideally, we should concentrate on accurately auditing and taxing the damage to the commons (atmosphere, water, land, etc.). I believe it would behove us to create protocols where we divide ownership and tax such emissions, and/or create a trading environment to allow free-market forces to reduce the levels of pollution. IANAE I'm not an economist, but this would seem prudent.
Let's not tax electricity blindly; exempt taxes for power from renewable and clean sources.
Eliminate the tragedy of the commons with protocols for the trading of rights to emit pollutants. The market will determine quickly how much a kg of CO2 costs to sequester, how much a kg of mercury likewise. At some point, all emitters must have permits they can purchase on the open market. To reduce emissions, have the government buy back the emission rights. Put a bounty on enforcement loopholes and you'll find cheaters. Free markets do great things, but we have to help with the 'commons' problems.
Any product that people are willing to pay $20K+ for is going to be as feature-rich as the manufacturers can make it, which dictates complexity.
Electric cars have (AFAIK) the following differences with gas cars: - no transmission (reduced complexity); - motors at the wheels (no U-joint, but bigger wheel wells);
In addition, if there's a fuel cell or battery (vs. electric power from a piston engine): - no engine cooling system (reduced complexity); - battery storage can be any configuration (more design flexibility); - more maneuverable (no u-joint, no heavy engine, weight can be more evenly distributed); - probably greater weight (batteries are notoriously heavy); - vastly fewer moving parts (reduced complexity);
Am I missing big stuff?
Anywhere there's 'reduced complexity', that usually means 'cheaper' and 'more reliable'.
I like the idea of a slightly different Apollo prize:
Get the government out of the 'just get there and back' mode and into the 'scientific research' mode.
NASA should just commit to paying: * $1 billion to deliver a science package of 1000 Kg to the lunar surface (with restrictions on max G load/g-shock for fragile materials) + * $50 million per hour of scientist time on the surface.
Payments to be made on delivery of the package, and on safe delivery back to Earth of the scientist(s).
The government supplies the scientist(s) (so Boeing won't hire Bill Nye instead of an actual expert in lunar geology (selenology?), etc.
Those attempting this would put up collateral of $200 million (or more?) against the loss/death of a scientist. We want a severe downside if they take too many risks.
After the first x number of deliveries/hours, the price drops by 10%, etc.
These prizes can be highly effective if we contract with the private sector in very specific ways that don't specify more than we need to specify (we don't care if they fly the scientist there in a oblong fruit basket or a square one, as long as he gets there and back alive).
In 'Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy' (the 'trilogy' of books, not the recent movie), it's mentioned that the babelfish has effectively started many, many wars. The reasons seem to be that any being can be rude to any other being without a serious set of translations that explain exactly what the rude terms mean and how they should be regarded.
I'm highly concerned for this warmongering that Google has undertaken.
Picture this: I write a blog entry with either bad punctuation or erroneous content. Under the old system (pre-Goolge translation), I would receive several flames about my idiocy. With Google translations:
* People around the world will be confused and angered about my punctuation; * Vastly larger numbers of people will complain about my erroneous content; * Other people will step up to my defense and a massive flame war will ensue; * Idiots eveywhere (who speak other languages) will echo my idiocy by believing the erroneous content I posted; * The signal to noise ratio of the net will rise markedly; * I will still be unsure of whether to count on my fingers starting with my thumb or forefinger depending on which European country I'm in.
I believe this pro-war, anti-peace, conflict-ridden idea of making everyone THINK they understand each other is ripe for critism. God made everyone else speak funny, I think it should stay that way! Only right thinking people speak my language anyway, and everyone else should just shut up and sit down!
(WARNING: above post contains carcinogenic levels of sarcasm, fasciousness, satire, irony, and adjectives. Please unplug brainstem and wipe with a clean, damp cloth before continuing.)
None. India is not a significant world exporter of petroleum products.
If the question really is, "How much comparative political & economic pull does India have vs. Saudi Arabia?", the answer would seem to be similar. However, India is not ruled by a monolithic elite family that would be easily offended by such a gesture.
The point is really moot. Foreign relations with neither country would be harmed materially by such a rule in the long term.
Foreign and domestic economic policy dictates (arguably) for the rest of the world to become industrialized and middle class folk. This is the ideal situation for the United States both militarily and economically. Militarily, if you pick any set of democratic, fully industrialized nations with large middle class populations, you'd be hard pressed to find them starting wars with each other (exclude the U.S. from this list since our superpower status is not at issue here).
Economically, if the rest of the world was populated by equally middle class democratically-ruled open societies, I daresay the richest countries would be the ones with the best educated and hardest working populaces. Cultural geography plays a role in this. Should we (the U.S.) educate the world's population freely (without blacklists or artificial hurdles)?
YES, but that doesn't mean we should blindly allow Iranian, North Korean, Myanmarian (pick a repressive regime / dictatorship) citizens to study Nuclear Engineering or get advanced degrees in aerospace engineering (missle tech).
Math, fine. Econ, fine. Architectural Engineering, fine. No bioweapons, nukes, or ICBMs, please.
...an admission that the Windows Server technology is not what it is cracked up to be
1. This could be viewed as a 'strategic acquisition' so as to provide 'leading edge technologies' from wherever they were. Then, they could release brain-dead and damaged versions of RedHat Linux that failed under certain conditions;...that Linux MIGHT have some redeeming qualities...
2. Admitting that Linux has redeeming qualities is not a problem given that the marketplace has already proved that. Like NASA's mantra, "Buy It and Kill It" (tm) would be an easy operation to undertake.
It would dramatically confuse the market
3. Dramatically confusing the market would work in Microsoft's favor. further, they would offer "upgrade paths" that start in Linux and go towards MS Server 2k3 in short order.
As a way to reduce competition, this might make total sense. Yes, it would be profoundly evil, and the antitrust authorities might look at it that way, too, but given the Bush administration's justice dept., any challenge to (potential or actual) big money donors seems unlikely.
Fogbugz (by Fog Creek Software) (at http://fogbugz.com/) is Excellent! We use it for our 5 person development team.
I know it's not free, but it is absolutely a wonderful product. It handles bug tracking in all its complexity with as much or as little info as you want to provide, and displays status quickly and easily.
It is $99 per user, though, so I'm not sure this is your cup of tea. If you want to have your management pony up for the ability to see your status better, this is one option.
Of course, open source means cheaper, but it may not mean better; I'm open to all those who disagree if they'd like to point out another competing open source product that has similar or better functionality... ?
Does Not Work on XP. And, what do you mean by, "Look At" the top left pixel? mouseover it? Of the desktop or of the minesweeper window? WTF? Sorry, have to ask here, this can't just be my inability to type.
ALSO: Derivative works should be unencumbered. That is, if person X translates a bestseller by person Y into Pig Latin, ONLY person X gets the royalties. The caveats: * the derivative cannot be in a format that can be easily used to recreate the original; * the derivative must differ substantially from the original (you can't change 1 word and resell a book).
Person Y cannot restrict the creation of the PigLatin version.
Slashdot Mirror
Recently, I needed a USB cable. I was aghast to discover pricing of $25 to $40 for a simple cable!!!! UG. Best Buy, Circuit City, even Sears had these prices. I know from my cable-making days (Good 'old RS-232 hand-soldered connections!) this was wrong.
Turned out http://hp.com/ had the cheapest ones, at about $3 each. http://pricegrabber.com/ did that for me. Don't get fooled.
Best as I can figure, the chain stores know you need a cable and can gouge you because usually you need it right now, and lots of people don't know how to shop online (yeah, sad, ain't it?).
A couple of years ago I came up with a design for a Viewpoint independent Holographic Viewer design. I thought it would work nicely and is actually feasible given current technology:
Picture this:
* a glass sphere, approximately 1 meter in diameter, half-silvered on the inside, set on a base with about 1/3 of the sphere inside the base.
* the sphere is filled with a mostly-transparent phosphorescent gas in a condition where if it is struck by enough laser light, it glows for as much as 100 milliseconds (1/10th of a second);
* The base has at least 1 laser in it (3 lasers, in red/blue/green for color).
* For purposes here, a 3-d volume of space, roughly cubical, within the sphere shall be called a 'voxel' (for 'volumetric pixel')
* The laser is divided into 2 or more beams, each of which is directed at a spinning mirror assembly;
* That assembly spreads and directs the laser light through a voxel within the sphere;
* Any one laser shining through a voxel will be insufficient to cause the volume to glow. However, when multiple beams intersect, the energy intensity there is sufficient to cause the gas there to flouresce.
* The gas need not be flourescent if the number of beams increases; 100 beams would make 100 gradiations of brightness at that point.
* Computational requirements to figure out where the laser paths should go so as to ensure the laser beams do not intersect at any other random points might be significant;
This would create a 3-d viewer which is orientation independent, reasonably safe presuming the lasers were low power or a non-visible wavelength.
I would have patented this but I thought it was an obvious design given the SeaQuest DSV show where they had a fog they played an image onto to create a 3-d effect. Plus, I'm sure someone has already worked out the details better than me. Or, maybe not. I'd like to see one in action!
The user interface should pop up a window with a big orange standard Radiation Hazard Warning and ask for confirmation that is what the user wanted to do.
Of course, this kind of interface may come with risks. In my last job the project was called 'RAD' for 'Risk Assessment Database' and we wanted our logo to be a big yellow and black radiation sign. this was at a big bank in downtown Chicago. Unfortunately, it turned out one of the neighboring departments had an employee who either had cancer or whose wife had cancer, and the radiation signs kind of freaked him a bit, so we changed our logo. Alas. It would have been cool but for the whole oops-we're-insensitive-doofuses aspect.
Someone please contact the authors and ask the following questions:
* What is included in the cost measures?
* Do these costs represent capital costs or recurring costs?
* Is the cost per unit biomass (food) at market rates?
* What temperature band does this work under?
* Please cite patent numbers for those granted so we may link to them?
* When you cite, "maximal theoretical electron transport rate" is this presuming some currently unavailable technology or the maximal rate you ran your demonstration at?
* Are you using expensive fuel cell membranes, and if so, is the capital cost of these counted in?
* Are you factoring in any losses due to leakage, probable losses of uptime to the facility from maintenance required by your technology, etc.?
Gotta be exact here, we're a tough crowd for 'free energy' stories, we've seen too many of them...
Humans are (from the research I've read), for survival reasons, in a default growth mode (not maintenance) because it results in bigger humans that are more of a match for the challenges we face (jumping large streams, running faster from predators, supporting our huge brains).
Thus, we crave foods that provide that growth. This includes high-energy-density foods with lots of fats and fast energy foods with lots of sugars.
Peanut butter contains LOTS of fats. If you're normal, you buy Skippy or Jiff (not organic PB), which have almost all the Peanut oil removed then soybean or other vegetable oils put back in (pure peanut oil sells for lots more than soybean oil). The taste isn't quite the same, but it's close, and no one seems to care. Organic PB only has peanuts, nothing else, and tastes much better, but the oil tends to separate while it's on the shelf, so you have to stir it each time you use it (a small price for some, a large price for others).
So, when you look at a chart that shows how healthy peanut oil is (ratio of saturated vs. unsaturated) compared to other things, rethink how healthy having lots of PB is. Yes, it's better than Ho-Ho's. No, it's much worse than a cucumber. The trick is keeping the 80% complex carbs 10%fat 10%protein thing going. Plus, that's complex carbs, NOT sugars or white bread, so we're talking about whole wheat, wheat germ, most vegetables, and limited fruits (lots of simple sugars there).
The American Dietetic Association has a great book on how to eat. I'm very surprised this kind of stuff isn't mentioned in Heath classes in schools (at least I didn't get it, and I suspect this is news to most people here, and it shouldn't be).
If you have alot of lower back pain but aren't fat, try drinking water ONLY for a few weeks.
Two meanings for this:
1. Go on a fasting diet where you don't eat food but do drink liquids;
2. Drink more water (several more glasses per day) to your normal diet;
The first concept, fasting, is of dubious value. BUT: According to the CRON diet people, and peer-reviewed research into longevity, the ONLY known way to extend the lifespan of a mouse is to reduce their available caloric intake while maintaining a proper nutritional diet. This forces the metabolism into a maintenance-mode (instead of growth-mode) so all energies are put into repairing cellular damage and decay. This method is proven to work in many animals, but is
Sure, you'll be healthy and feel great, but you'll also feel really hungry. Not sure I like the option.
The second is a reasonable response to your kidneys complaining; flush them out and keep them flushed for a bit, but don't go overboard, too much water can really put a strain on your kindeys, too, and in extreme cases (several gallons per day for many days straight) can be toxic, since your body loses electrolytes, and (b) cannot eliminate that much water.
If you constantly crave a certain type of food, whatever is in it may be lacking in your body.
Very true, but misleading. Doughnuts do not apply. If you crave carrots or broccoli or salt, this might mean you need these things or the nutrients they contain. If you crave Ho-Ho's, your body is just being gluttenous.
Okay, what if this does pan out?
presume: "Cheap nuclear fusion" power plants generate electrical power for equivalent of 1 cent / KWh.
* Coal usage drops to drastically (still used in off-grid locations)
* Oil production drops drastically;
* Natural gas still produced as portable energy source;
* someone figures out electrical generation of methane or propane (electricity + carbon + water) and cars start using that instead of OPEC oil;
* OPEC countries have vast revenue drops, destabilize, and undergo drastic political change (read: civil war, followed by a stable form of government that we may/may not like);
* Global CO2 emissions drastically drop due to no power plant emissions, but cars still use CO2 producing methods;
* incentive to produce economical renewable energy sources (solar cells et al) drops to nil;
* aluminum gets lots, lots cheaper;
* battery technology gets a big boost in investment.
I'm sure there's more, any ideas? Disagree?
I taught an undergrad Astronomy discussion section at KU in 1989. The professor, Dr. Steven Shawl, set up the course structure to be one of Mastery Learning.
In the Mastery Learning method, the emphasis is on making sure the student has a completely solid understanding of a subject before moving on to the next subject. The point of this is to prevent the common situation (in my schooling, at least) of learning something and promptly forgetting it 10 minutes after the final exam.
In the mastery learning world, once you've mastered something, typically you've committed it to long term memory, understand the implications of things such that you can predict outcomes, etc.
Learning = Knowledge + Conceptual
There are two types of learning - concrete and theoretical. Concrete learning is memorizing facts; theoretical learning is understanding how those facts fit together. Different people learn differently; some naturally do one or the other more.
Montessori method focuses on inspiring people to learn the topics and subtopics that are the most interesting to them personally, tailoring the lesson plans to the individual student.
IIRC (from reading done on this and looking into it for my kids) Montessori students are, like home schooled students, often prone to difficulty adapting to highly structured learning environments. However, despite any adaptation problems, students tend to have much higher test scores.
I believe the mastery learning and Montessori teaching methods both touch on a common theme - avoiding the Open-brain-stuff-info-close-brain scenarios so common in American classrooms. The one-test-a-year methods of non-US school systems ironically provide more opportunity for mastery, because you can't "cram for the test" if you're cramming for 12 tests at the same time that demand a cumulative year's worth of knowledge. The downside to the once-a-year concept is the WAY HIGH pressure it places on students. I would wonder if the suicide rate in different countries correlates with testing standards...
Regardless, I'm a big fan of mastery learning because I saw what a great job it could do in helping our students have fun with the material and really gain confidence in themselves in the process.
Intel probably puts in serious bucks to R&D of their compilers so their chips look the fastest. This is logical; they'd want to do what they could do enhance speed regardless of if it was hardware or software doing the speedup.
But, the operative question is, who uses the Intel compiler anyway? If I was going to compile something, and I needed really fast results, I would probably use the compiler of the hardware manufacturer- be it Intel or AMD. I'm sure AMD has a compiler tuned to exploit every possible speedup you could ask for on an AMD chip.
Further, they'd be wise (if they don't do this already) to sell/give away technical manuals for compiler writers telling them how to squeeze every little bit of extra performance out.
Commercial compiler vendors include (my estimation, please reply with additions):
* Intel
* AMD
* GCC
* Microsoft
* Watcom (still in business?)
* Borland (still doing this?)
This obviously leaves out the computer science students worldwide. But, my point is, maybe this is a wake up call to anyone using an Intel compiler that they need to switch to one of the others above (GCC especially).
According to my religion instructor at Hamline University in St. Paul, MN, the definition of fundamentalism is "any ideology where doubt is a sign of weakness. If the idea is that faith is strongest when it is never in doubt, then this it is a fundamentalist faith.
The Opposite of Fundamentalism is (at least embodied in the Unitarian Church's perspective) that a questioned faith is the strongest. Where faith is a cognizant (thinking) recognition, that faith is strongest because it has been examined and no perspective is unworthy of discussion, that the truth of a situation depends on your viewpoint.
Fundamentalism can apply to any religious doctrine, just as it can apply to an unwavering faith in a person or institution, be they political or not.
Sounds like this is used to power Radioisotope Thermal Generators. this is a very good thing; we need more experience with RTGs to power spacecraft, both nearby (spy satellites) and far (science missions). It's the only power we can generate when we're beyond Mars orbit (solar cells are much less effective the farther you get from the Sun.
My wife brought up the pollution aspect - not from polluting outer space (I explained already about the fact that space is far more radioactive than the plutonium is, we're not 'polluting' space). Rather, the Hanford (Washington State USA) processing facility created / processed lots of plutonium during the cold war and ended up creating massive environmental damage with radionucleides in the groundwater, soil, etc.
Where exactly is this processing plant and is the DOD allowing the EPA to supervise environmental maintenance/protection?
(Note: I don't care where it is; if telling me hurts security that's fine I don't need to know, but I don't want this kind of a plant showing up next door to me without someone having filed an environmental impact statement).
Graduate of Great Bend High School, Great Bend, Kansas (population 20,000), which is the county seat of Barton County, Kansas, which is named for Clara Barton. Great Bend is named thusly due to its location near a large bend in the Arkansas river (pronounced there as "Ahhr-Kansas").
There are road signs visible to all people driving into Great Bend on the state highways that enter town, saying something to the effect of, "Great Bend, Birthplace of Nobel Prize Winner Jack Kilby".
Great Bend's Paper, the Great Bend Tribune, covered a ceremony where the High School Commons area was renamed the Jack Kilby Commons.
Just FYI.
Surf's Up, Dude!
More questions from Kevin:
* Didn't see an answer about which lifting gas - H2 or He?
* Wouldn't launching from the North Pole station in summer (now, really) mean no daily temperature cycles or sunlight-heating differentials?
* Does anyone from Russia's version of the National Science Foundation or any of the Russian science bureaus read Slashdot?
* Was there something specific that caused Russia to say no to overflight rights?
* Politics aside, what was the maximum probable mission time - just another day or two or (if going over Russia was possible) doubling to 14 or more days?
* Has anyone assigned probabilities to each of the various failure modes?
* If gondola weight determines spare gas capacity determines flying time, isn't there a way to just create an elastic balloon material that doesn't need a relief valve?
* Are the bureacrats Russian or American or someone else? (Somehow I'm confident it's not the Canadians...)
* If politics determines mission time regardless of the technical stuff, WHO IS WORKING ON THE POLITICS? (I know, international relations can be much more complicated than the science, but its frustrating to hear from my side, too. I like to read about the cool stuff you're doing). Who do we contact to help push this along for the next mission?
* When is the next mission? Is there a long reset time, or do you just fly the thing back to Sweden and start again next week?
I'm always using my CPU, so I don't want it to go into low power mode. I support the Folding At Home and IBM's World Community Grid projects.
Even if I wasn't, I'm often still using my CPU for keeping Azereus running (Fedora distros).
I don't want it going offline. I want it doing my bidding full time.
The BLAST mission is touted as being for a set duration, lasting 5 to 7 days. I'm a little confused why this time length was chosen. Why not let the thing just float there forever?
* Are all failure modes catastrophic?
* What is the primary failure mode? Loss of lifting gas?
* Is use of Hydrogen instead of helium an option? In carefully controlled operations, the additional risk might be worth the extra lifting capacity...
* Does H2 leak faster than helium (due to molecular size)?
* Is it difficult to create a parachute and floatation system to sheild the payload in various failure modes?
* What is the problem with just letting this thing float around until it doesn't ?
* Is battery power an issue and is the payload powered by thinfilm solar cells? Is power a limitation?
* What kind device or systems keep the orientation correct? Gyroscopes?
* If there are gyroscopes, are they a major percent of payload weight?
* What kind of ambient buffetting ocurrs at float altitude? Is there any percieved motion?
* Is the limitation of a baloon the internal-to-external pressure differential?
* What percent of the cost of the mission is the balloon, and what is the payload? Flight operations costs?
It would be cool if there was more data available on the BLAST website, but it's pretty scarce. Can someone contact them? Does anyone else know about this stuff?
encourage people to use less energy is to tax energy consumption heavily
I believe this is incorrect. We don't care about emission-free energy usage. We don't want people to use less energy. We want people (and our societies) to:
* create less global-warming-inducing greenhouse gasses like CO2;
* reduce our interaction with and/or dependence on strife-ridden regions of the world that produce fossil fuels;
* have the solution minimize any negative impacts on our economy;
* have the solution (optimally) result in worldwide solutions to the problem not just local ones;
* reduce mercury and other heavy metals emissions from coal-fired power plants;
* reduce smog other asthma-inducing emissings (including nitrogen oxides) from all sources;
* reduce risks of nuclear contamination as a result of both power plants and nuclear weapons proliferation;
* reduce consequences of mining and drilling for coal, oil, etc. ecosystems both foreign and domestic.
Ideally, we should concentrate on accurately auditing and taxing the damage to the commons (atmosphere, water, land, etc.). I believe it would behove us to create protocols where we divide ownership and tax such emissions, and/or create a trading environment to allow free-market forces to reduce the levels of pollution. IANAE I'm not an economist, but this would seem prudent.
Let's not tax electricity blindly; exempt taxes for power from renewable and clean sources.
Eliminate the tragedy of the commons with protocols for the trading of rights to emit pollutants. The market will determine quickly how much a kg of CO2 costs to sequester, how much a kg of mercury likewise. At some point, all emitters must have permits they can purchase on the open market. To reduce emissions, have the government buy back the emission rights. Put a bounty on enforcement loopholes and you'll find cheaters. Free markets do great things, but we have to help with the 'commons' problems.
-- Kevin
Any product that people are willing to pay $20K+ for is going to be as feature-rich as the manufacturers can make it, which dictates complexity.
Electric cars have (AFAIK) the following differences with gas cars:
- no transmission (reduced complexity);
- motors at the wheels (no U-joint, but bigger wheel wells);
In addition, if there's a fuel cell or battery (vs. electric power from a piston engine):
- no engine cooling system (reduced complexity);
- battery storage can be any configuration (more design flexibility);
- more maneuverable (no u-joint, no heavy engine, weight can be more evenly distributed);
- probably greater weight (batteries are notoriously heavy);
- vastly fewer moving parts (reduced complexity);
Am I missing big stuff?
Anywhere there's 'reduced complexity', that usually means 'cheaper' and 'more reliable'.
I like the idea of a slightly different Apollo prize:
Get the government out of the 'just get there and back' mode and into the 'scientific research' mode.
NASA should just commit to paying:
* $1 billion to deliver a science package of 1000 Kg to the lunar surface (with restrictions on max G load/g-shock for fragile materials) +
* $50 million per hour of scientist time on the surface.
Payments to be made on delivery of the package, and on safe delivery back to Earth of the scientist(s).
The government supplies the scientist(s) (so Boeing won't hire Bill Nye instead of an actual expert in lunar geology (selenology?), etc.
Those attempting this would put up collateral of $200 million (or more?) against the loss/death of a scientist. We want a severe downside if they take too many risks.
After the first x number of deliveries/hours, the price drops by 10%, etc.
These prizes can be highly effective if we contract with the private sector in very specific ways that don't specify more than we need to specify (we don't care if they fly the scientist there in a oblong fruit basket or a square one, as long as he gets there and back alive).
-- Kevin
In 'Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy' (the 'trilogy' of books, not the recent movie), it's mentioned that the babelfish has effectively started many, many wars. The reasons seem to be that any being can be rude to any other being without a serious set of translations that explain exactly what the rude terms mean and how they should be regarded.
I'm highly concerned for this warmongering that Google has undertaken.
Reference Here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/hitchhikers/guide/belgi
Picture this: I write a blog entry with either bad punctuation or erroneous content. Under the old system (pre-Goolge translation), I would receive several flames about my idiocy. With Google translations:
* People around the world will be confused and angered about my punctuation;
* Vastly larger numbers of people will complain about my erroneous content;
* Other people will step up to my defense and a massive flame war will ensue;
* Idiots eveywhere (who speak other languages) will echo my idiocy by believing the erroneous content I posted;
* The signal to noise ratio of the net will rise markedly;
* I will still be unsure of whether to count on my fingers starting with my thumb or forefinger depending on which European country I'm in.
I believe this pro-war, anti-peace, conflict-ridden idea of making everyone THINK they understand each other is ripe for critism. God made everyone else speak funny, I think it should stay that way! Only right thinking people speak my language anyway, and everyone else should just shut up and sit down!
(WARNING: above post contains carcinogenic levels of sarcasm, fasciousness, satire, irony, and adjectives. Please unplug brainstem and wipe with a clean, damp cloth before continuing.)
None. India is not a significant world exporter of petroleum products.
If the question really is, "How much comparative political & economic pull does India have vs. Saudi Arabia?", the answer would seem to be similar. However, India is not ruled by a monolithic elite family that would be easily offended by such a gesture.
The point is really moot. Foreign relations with neither country would be harmed materially by such a rule in the long term.
Foreign and domestic economic policy dictates (arguably) for the rest of the world to become industrialized and middle class folk. This is the ideal situation for the United States both militarily and economically. Militarily, if you pick any set of democratic, fully industrialized nations with large middle class populations, you'd be hard pressed to find them starting wars with each other (exclude the U.S. from this list since our superpower status is not at issue here).
Economically, if the rest of the world was populated by equally middle class democratically-ruled open societies, I daresay the richest countries would be the ones with the best educated and hardest working populaces. Cultural geography plays a role in this. Should we (the U.S.) educate the world's population freely (without blacklists or artificial hurdles)?
YES, but that doesn't mean we should blindly allow Iranian, North Korean, Myanmarian (pick a repressive regime / dictatorship) citizens to study Nuclear Engineering or get advanced degrees in aerospace engineering (missle tech).
Math, fine. Econ, fine. Architectural Engineering, fine. No bioweapons, nukes, or ICBMs, please.
-- Kevin Rice
1. This could be viewed as a 'strategic acquisition' so as to provide 'leading edge technologies' from wherever they were. Then, they could release brain-dead and damaged versions of RedHat Linux that failed under certain conditions;
2. Admitting that Linux has redeeming qualities is not a problem given that the marketplace has already proved that. Like NASA's mantra, "Buy It and Kill It" (tm) would be an easy operation to undertake.
It would dramatically confuse the market
3. Dramatically confusing the market would work in Microsoft's favor. further, they would offer "upgrade paths" that start in Linux and go towards MS Server 2k3 in short order.
As a way to reduce competition, this might make total sense. Yes, it would be profoundly evil, and the antitrust authorities might look at it that way, too, but given the Bush administration's justice dept., any challenge to (potential or actual) big money donors seems unlikely.
Fogbugz (by Fog Creek Software) (at http://fogbugz.com/) is Excellent! We use it for our 5 person development team.
I know it's not free, but it is absolutely a wonderful product. It handles bug tracking in all its complexity with as much or as little info as you want to provide, and displays status quickly and easily.
It is $99 per user, though, so I'm not sure this is your cup of tea. If you want to have your management pony up for the ability to see your status better, this is one option.
Of course, open source means cheaper, but it may not mean better; I'm open to all those who disagree if they'd like to point out another competing open source product that has similar or better functionality... ?
Does Not Work on XP. And, what do you mean by, "Look At" the top left pixel? mouseover it? Of the desktop or of the minesweeper window? WTF? Sorry, have to ask here, this can't just be my inability to type.
ALSO: Derivative works should be unencumbered. That is, if person X translates a bestseller by person Y into Pig Latin, ONLY person X gets the royalties. The caveats:
* the derivative cannot be in a format that can be easily used to recreate the original;
* the derivative must differ substantially from the original (you can't change 1 word and resell a book).
Person Y cannot restrict the creation of the PigLatin version.