I think you are misunderstanding the point here. Why would anyone ever finish the race with the battery full? The motors run off of electricity, and the fuel is extremely limited.
I didn't know the wait limit of the batteries when I posted before, so I went and looked it up. If you use Pb-acid (standard car battery), you are limited to 125 kg of battery. That's about triple the battery that a full-sized semi truck has, and enough to propel a little plexiglalss framed vehicle many, many km.
But, I doubt anyone would use lead acid after looking at the other choices:
LiFePO4: 40 kg
Li-polymer: 22 kg
Li-ion: 21 kg
NiMH: 70 kg
Wikipedia says that NiMH batteries produce 60-120 Wh/kg. That means that if you complete the race in 35 hours (just a little slower than the leader most years), then you are getting 120-240 Watts of power throughout the whole race, off of just the initial charge of the batteries. This would correspond to almost a full square meter of solar cells.
tl:dr: A good chunk of the power used in the race comes from the initial charge of the battery. They start full, end empty, and are very, very large.
In case it wasn't clear, the cars all start with full batteries.
The size of the batteries is restricted (based on the chemistry used in the batteries), but no matter what type of battery you use, you can start with it full.
I find it rather hard to evaluate how solar power has progressed because of this. What would the top average speed be if batteries started depleted?
Working your way through school is now impossible with a minimum wage job, since, you're looking at 35 hours a week at minimum wage to be able to afford only tuition - that doesn't include books or board.
After my freshman year of college, which was stupidly at a private college, I took a year off, and worked 65 hours a week at 3 jobs (paper routes in the morning, lab rat stuff during the day, package handling 2nd shift). I paid down as much as I could in a year, and then went back to school.
It's hard, but not impossible to pay your way through school today. It's not as fun as the lives of most college students, but it can certainly be done.
I can't tell whether or not you are joking. I'm not sure about Malda specifically, but I think it's clear that slashdot has turned the bitcoin market into what it is today.
All the slashdot articles made me seriously consider bitcoins, and convinced me to invest. The glut of articles convinced me to wait for a year or so, though, because you never want to buy at the same time the crowd is buying.
Seeing the powerdive, I'm glad I've waited. So, should I be buying now? Or wait another few months?
It's like packing your clothes in your suitcase when you travel. The neater you pack them the more you can carry.
Dr. Yang continued. "For speciality file systems, imagine you are travelling for a wedding, and you need to pack a suit. The extra meta data for the file system is stored in a container much like the suit compartment of your luggage."
Unfortunately, the metaphor did not stop there.
"Data read times have been improved also. Imagine again that the suitcase is packed neatly, but this time all clothes are on their sides. Now, imagine the suitcase is being spun in an x-ray device by the TSA. The tighter packing allows them to see more of what is packed in the suitcase during each arc of 30 degrees."
The rest of the conversation has been edited out, but it related seek times to finding shoes that match your outfit.
You are right, but this only confirms that the pressure was above 1 ATM.
When water changes states from liquid to gas, it does not immediately change temperature, unless the state change was due to evaporation, in which case the temperature drops.
So, to ever have steam at temperatures above 100 C, that means the water had to be above 100 C (which means it had to be in a pressurized vessel).
I really do want to believe, but after finding an article that has real facts about the E-Cat, it seems like a joke.
One argument skeptics are making about the most recent test performed is that the system was only allowed to self sustain for 35 minutes before the test was ended. Skeptics are trying to state that due to this short period of time, the energy expended that kept the water boiling was due to "thermal inertia." Simply put, they are trying to say that the heat retained in the metal and other materials in the device was enough to keep the water boiling for 35 minutes. This is absurd for many reasons.
Ok, when I have a rapidly boiling pot on the stove and turn it off, the boiling does stop in 1 minute, not 35. So, I can see why people are stumped after witnessing this "parlor trick."
The steam temperature of the E-Cat only dropped about 10 C (from 130 to 120 C) over the course of 35 minutes. This indicates that a very large amount of energy was being produced via a cold fusion reaction. If there was not a cold fusion reaction taking place, the water would have stopped boiling immediately, and the temperature would have dropped much more.
You and I have very definitions of "a very large amount of energy". We're talking about nuclear fusion, and you say that keeping a pot of water at 125 degrees qualifies as "a very large amount of energy"?
The Steam temperature is very different than the water temperature. I'm assuming that while the steam temp dropped from 130 C to 120 C, the water temp dropped from 400 C to 99 C. If you put the steam temp sensor far enough away from the production source, this seems about right. Even at 400 C, the water won't instantly boil away, and especially not if it is under pressure. I'm beginning to understand exactly how this parlor trick works.
The Wired article makes it sound as if the company has already designed the consumer unit, and is ready to put it in production. The facts I've listed above make it sound more like a strange phenomenon that warrants a bit of investigation. These are very different things. If the reaction in the lab isn't even self-sustaining, how can they be discussing the design of consumer units yet?
If you tap the Windows key and start typing, like in previous versions it will start searching for what you typed. So that still works the same, at least.
Wow, it's like they just completely cloned Gnome 3.
Because News Service Europe stores the infringing posts and makes them available. The judge has to honor the law and the company has to follow it not some self appointed RFC "cancel" procedure that may or may not work. Why is it that whenever a downloader gets cought people say: go for the hosters, when a hoster gets cought go for the provider when a provider....
Unfortunately, the ability to cancel someone else's post is just too much power, so that privilege is not freely given out. Chances are, this hoster has probably turned it off. Maybe just turning it back on would be considered "following the judges orders", but it would open a lot of new problems.
A better way to fight this is using Mere Conduit, which is similar to the Safe Harbor provisions we have in the DMCA.
Let's say the average customer pays $45/month today. If cable companies suddenly start sending people only 20% of the channels that they did before, they still are going to need to get an average of $45/month from each customer, or else they will no longer be solvent. I don't think this works out as you would like.
So, I am one of the sports-only type people that you are referring to. I would have dropped cable long ago, except that I need ESPN and the Big-10 network (a lot of my social life involves inviting friends over to watch sports). I would resubscribe with only those 2 channels. Let's say that they count as 3 channels each, because they are more expensive than most others.
You, on the other hand, choose 4 non-sports channels, possibly Discovery, and History, E!, and MSNBC.
Another family (single parent) wants 5 channels: Lifetime, TNT, TBS, Disney, and Cartoon Network.
I think this is a pretty good illustration of how people would buy channels with an a la carte system. The 3 customers above have bought an average of 5 channels each (counting my sports choices as triple). Comcast divides $45 by 5, and gets $9/basic channel, and $27/sports channel.
In summary, the consumers are paying pretty similar prices as before, but are getting far less channels. If a movie comes up on AMC that one of us wants to watch, none of us can. You are right that sports fans (like myself) suffer the most, but you are wrong about how. We don't just go and buy every channel like we did in the past, we just trim down to just 2 channels, and watch the heck out of those 2 channels.
Imagine you've spent three years in law school, two more years clerking, and the last decade trying to make partner — and now here comes a machine that can do much of your $400-per-hour job faster, and for a fraction of the cost. What do you do now?'"
The answer is: write the AI code for such a robot.
I'm assuming that a law-trained robot is not possible with just a small code base and a library of law texts. If such a robot is possible at all, it will require thousands of hours of laboriously writing the code for it. The only ones with the experience to write such code would be law professionals, so they still have jobs.
If, on the other hand, a team of 20 law professionals can write all the software for all situations themselves, then the rest of the industry will need to find new jobs. If this is the case, then we have to deduce that it was not a highly educated field after all, and that work in the law profession is actually manual labor after all.
Ask a silly question, get a silly answer, and all that...
I somewhat disagree. Their results met the criteria of scientific discovery and they (well, I certainly hope!) reviewed their process for any error. So even though they literally, by scientific standard, discovered FTL particles, they explicitly state that they don't actually think they did because it disagrees with existing theories. This is *biased* experimental physics.
There are a lot of factors to consider, far more than your puny paragraph can contain. To end the paragraph with a generalization like that is irresponsible.
The study stated that the margin of error was 10ns, and the difference was actually 60ns. Both values appear very small, but even 10ns is a large margin of error when compared to the study of SN1987A. SN1987A gives very strong evidence that that the speed of neutrinos is much, much closer to the speed of light than Project OPERA.
The fact that two experimental results conflict implies that we should be spending more time questioning the experimental procedures than dreaming up new theories.
I'm skeptical also. Here's how the detection of SN 1987A unfolded:
Approximately three hours before the visible light from SN 1987A reached the Earth, a burst of neutrinos was observed at three separate neutrino observatories. This is due to the neutrino emission (which occurs simultaneously with core collapse) preceding the emission of visible light (which occurs only after the shock wave reaches the stellar surface).
3 hours is pretty much nothing over that distance. The neutrinos and the light essentially arrived at the same time.
Does this mean that SMIL, or some equivalent my finally be available natively in browsers?
HTML 5 is pretty much just a marketing term. It did add video standards, which is part of what is needed to finally do away with Flash, but most of the things people attribute to HTML (Canvas and/or SVG) have existed long before the HTML 5 buzzword, and the HTML 5 standard just makes Canvas mandatory.
But, the real problem is the event model in Javascript. Controlling SVG or Canvas elements must be done with with Javascript, and it is rather terrible with events. In order to really kill off flash, something like SMIL is needed, and as of today, it still is not supported in any browsers (other than emulation through flash). SMIL is markup language, so it would play well with all other XHTML elements, if it was just available!
SMIL has been a W3C recommendation since 1998, so why don't we have it yet?
We have working Fusion reactors but none of them actually put out more energy then they take in.
Sorry about being pedantic, but we don't care about the ratio of energy in to energy out, but instead the ratio of energy in to the usable energy out.
Your illustration of an H-bomb would have been informative if used correctly. Even an H-bomb produces more energy than it takes, but very little of the energy can be harnessed. In all fusion reactors today (including the H-bomb), the usable energy produced is less than the energy supplied.
"Powerful magnets hamper our ability to lie" - New Scientist's article title "Magnetic Pulses to the Brain Make it Impossible to Lie: Study" - IB Times sensationalist article title
A couple very important lines from the article make it clear that the NS title is correctly worded, and the IBT article title is a straight lie: 'The volunteers were presented a series of coloured discs, and told they could tell the truth or lie' '"Spontaneous choice to lie more or less can be influenced by brain stimulation," researchers Karton and Bachmann wrote in Behavioural Brain Research.'
So the study had nothing to do with whether it was possible to lie based on magnetic interference. The study only checked whether a subject is more likely to lie or be truthful in a game where the outcome is meaningless.
Any test about truth taking has to have some risk or some reward associated with it. In this study, the subjects had no real reason to lie, and some of them still lied even with the magnetic interference. I'm not really sure how this even warrants a story, unless you accept the sensationalist title of the IBT article.
Changing from frames/sec to msec/frame doesn't fix the problem at all.
I was playing Minecraft the other day with a buggy mod installed, and was getting 240 fps, but choppy performance. Sometimes I'd get 1 second spikes, and the fps monitor would change to show something like 30fps before creeping back up to 240. If you convert that to msec/frame, those numbers still look really good.
Other games that run at 50fps looked much better than this buggy minecraft mod. Taking the inverse (as you suggest) doesn't help. Reporting the time for the worst case frame would be the simplest way to show how choppy my experience was. A new metric entirely is needed to show the difference here.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you are misunderstanding the point here. Why would anyone ever finish the race with the battery full? The motors run off of electricity, and the fuel is extremely limited.
I didn't know the wait limit of the batteries when I posted before, so I went and looked it up. If you use Pb-acid (standard car battery), you are limited to 125 kg of battery. That's about triple the battery that a full-sized semi truck has, and enough to propel a little plexiglalss framed vehicle many, many km.
But, I doubt anyone would use lead acid after looking at the other choices:
Wikipedia says that NiMH batteries produce 60-120 Wh/kg. That means that if you complete the race in 35 hours (just a little slower than the leader most years), then you are getting 120-240 Watts of power throughout the whole race, off of just the initial charge of the batteries. This would correspond to almost a full square meter of solar cells.
tl:dr: A good chunk of the power used in the race comes from the initial charge of the battery. They start full, end empty, and are very, very large.
In case it wasn't clear, the cars all start with full batteries.
The size of the batteries is restricted (based on the chemistry used in the batteries), but no matter what type of battery you use, you can start with it full.
I find it rather hard to evaluate how solar power has progressed because of this. What would the top average speed be if batteries started depleted?
Working your way through school is now impossible with a minimum wage job, since, you're looking at 35 hours a week at minimum wage to be able to afford only tuition - that doesn't include books or board.
After my freshman year of college, which was stupidly at a private college, I took a year off, and worked 65 hours a week at 3 jobs (paper routes in the morning, lab rat stuff during the day, package handling 2nd shift). I paid down as much as I could in a year, and then went back to school.
It's hard, but not impossible to pay your way through school today. It's not as fun as the lives of most college students, but it can certainly be done.
I can't tell whether or not you are joking. I'm not sure about Malda specifically, but I think it's clear that slashdot has turned the bitcoin market into what it is today.
All the slashdot articles made me seriously consider bitcoins, and convinced me to invest. The glut of articles convinced me to wait for a year or so, though, because you never want to buy at the same time the crowd is buying.
Seeing the powerdive, I'm glad I've waited. So, should I be buying now? Or wait another few months?
Dr. Yang continued. "For speciality file systems, imagine you are travelling for a wedding, and you need to pack a suit. The extra meta data for the file system is stored in a container much like the suit compartment of your luggage."
Unfortunately, the metaphor did not stop there.
"Data read times have been improved also. Imagine again that the suitcase is packed neatly, but this time all clothes are on their sides. Now, imagine the suitcase is being spun in an x-ray device by the TSA. The tighter packing allows them to see more of what is packed in the suitcase during each arc of 30 degrees."
The rest of the conversation has been edited out, but it related seek times to finding shoes that match your outfit.
Meaning: Contaldi didn't understand how OPERA did it, and thought they had commited a somewhat stupid mistake. OPERA says they didn't make that error.
OPERA says that they didn't make that error. But, they also learned about the mistake only through Contaldi's challenge.
Causality has been a bit off recently.
You are right, but this only confirms that the pressure was above 1 ATM.
When water changes states from liquid to gas, it does not immediately change temperature, unless the state change was due to evaporation, in which case the temperature drops.
So, to ever have steam at temperatures above 100 C, that means the water had to be above 100 C (which means it had to be in a pressurized vessel).
I wish there was more information available.
I really do want to believe, but after finding an article that has real facts about the E-Cat, it seems like a joke.
Ok, when I have a rapidly boiling pot on the stove and turn it off, the boiling does stop in 1 minute, not 35. So, I can see why people are stumped after witnessing this "parlor trick."
You and I have very definitions of "a very large amount of energy". We're talking about nuclear fusion, and you say that keeping a pot of water at 125 degrees qualifies as "a very large amount of energy"?
The Steam temperature is very different than the water temperature. I'm assuming that while the steam temp dropped from 130 C to 120 C, the water temp dropped from 400 C to 99 C. If you put the steam temp sensor far enough away from the production source, this seems about right. Even at 400 C, the water won't instantly boil away, and especially not if it is under pressure. I'm beginning to understand exactly how this parlor trick works.
The Wired article makes it sound as if the company has already designed the consumer unit, and is ready to put it in production. The facts I've listed above make it sound more like a strange phenomenon that warrants a bit of investigation. These are very different things. If the reaction in the lab isn't even self-sustaining, how can they be discussing the design of consumer units yet?
Ok, I've swung to the other side about WBC. These people are not sincere.
They just want to make headlines, and publicity is the only god that they worship.
Maybe now we're one step closer to ending the ridiculous interaction between medical research and anti-choice politics.
And maybe the anti-life people will finally realize that adult stem cells are "where it's at".
Let's all hold hands and make a circle!
If you tap the Windows key and start typing, like in previous versions it will start searching for what you typed. So that still works the same, at least.
Wow, it's like they just completely cloned Gnome 3.
Because News Service Europe stores the infringing posts and makes them available. The judge has to honor the law and the company has to follow it not some self appointed RFC "cancel" procedure that may or may not work. Why is it that whenever a downloader gets cought people say: go for the hosters, when a hoster gets cought go for the provider when a provider ....
An enormous FAQ on RFC cancel, cancel bots, forged cancels, cancel wars, etc. can be found here:
http://wiki.killfile.org/projects/usenet/faqs/cancel/
Unfortunately, the ability to cancel someone else's post is just too much power, so that privilege is not freely given out. Chances are, this hoster has probably turned it off. Maybe just turning it back on would be considered "following the judges orders", but it would open a lot of new problems.
A better way to fight this is using Mere Conduit, which is similar to the Safe Harbor provisions we have in the DMCA.
Let's say the average customer pays $45/month today. If cable companies suddenly start sending people only 20% of the channels that they did before, they still are going to need to get an average of $45/month from each customer, or else they will no longer be solvent. I don't think this works out as you would like.
So, I am one of the sports-only type people that you are referring to. I would have dropped cable long ago, except that I need ESPN and the Big-10 network (a lot of my social life involves inviting friends over to watch sports). I would resubscribe with only those 2 channels. Let's say that they count as 3 channels each, because they are more expensive than most others.
You, on the other hand, choose 4 non-sports channels, possibly Discovery, and History, E!, and MSNBC.
Another family (single parent) wants 5 channels: Lifetime, TNT, TBS, Disney, and Cartoon Network.
I think this is a pretty good illustration of how people would buy channels with an a la carte system. The 3 customers above have bought an average of 5 channels each (counting my sports choices as triple). Comcast divides $45 by 5, and gets $9/basic channel, and $27/sports channel.
In summary, the consumers are paying pretty similar prices as before, but are getting far less channels. If a movie comes up on AMC that one of us wants to watch, none of us can. You are right that sports fans (like myself) suffer the most, but you are wrong about how. We don't just go and buy every channel like we did in the past, we just trim down to just 2 channels, and watch the heck out of those 2 channels.
The story claims that this is about copyright, and then links another slashdot story that doesn't mention copyright once.
Every story I can find about this says that it is a trademark dispute, not copyright.
The answer is: write the AI code for such a robot.
I'm assuming that a law-trained robot is not possible with just a small code base and a library of law texts. If such a robot is possible at all, it will require thousands of hours of laboriously writing the code for it. The only ones with the experience to write such code would be law professionals, so they still have jobs.
If, on the other hand, a team of 20 law professionals can write all the software for all situations themselves, then the rest of the industry will need to find new jobs. If this is the case, then we have to deduce that it was not a highly educated field after all, and that work in the law profession is actually manual labor after all.
Ask a silly question, get a silly answer, and all that...
Since when has nitro glycerin been flamable?
I somewhat disagree. Their results met the criteria of scientific discovery and they (well, I certainly hope!) reviewed their process for any error. So even though they literally, by scientific standard, discovered FTL particles, they explicitly state that they don't actually think they did because it disagrees with existing theories. This is *biased* experimental physics.
There are a lot of factors to consider, far more than your puny paragraph can contain. To end the paragraph with a generalization like that is irresponsible.
The study stated that the margin of error was 10ns, and the difference was actually 60ns. Both values appear very small, but even 10ns is a large margin of error when compared to the study of SN1987A. SN1987A gives very strong evidence that that the speed of neutrinos is much, much closer to the speed of light than Project OPERA.
The fact that two experimental results conflict implies that we should be spending more time questioning the experimental procedures than dreaming up new theories.
I'm skeptical also. Here's how the detection of SN 1987A unfolded:
3 hours is pretty much nothing over that distance. The neutrinos and the light essentially arrived at the same time.
I know that abbreviation is long and complex, but since this article is mostly about them, can't you at least get it right in the summary?
You may hit them with "breach of contract", but in this case the added drama may increase book sales, more than anything else could.
It still may have been planned from the start, but the purpose of the plan may have been as simple as "free advertising".
Does this mean that SMIL, or some equivalent my finally be available natively in browsers?
HTML 5 is pretty much just a marketing term. It did add video standards, which is part of what is needed to finally do away with Flash, but most of the things people attribute to HTML (Canvas and/or SVG) have existed long before the HTML 5 buzzword, and the HTML 5 standard just makes Canvas mandatory.
But, the real problem is the event model in Javascript. Controlling SVG or Canvas elements must be done with with Javascript, and it is rather terrible with events. In order to really kill off flash, something like SMIL is needed, and as of today, it still is not supported in any browsers (other than emulation through flash). SMIL is markup language, so it would play well with all other XHTML elements, if it was just available!
SMIL has been a W3C recommendation since 1998, so why don't we have it yet?
We have working Fusion reactors but none of them actually put out more energy then they take in.
Sorry about being pedantic, but we don't care about the ratio of energy in to energy out, but instead the ratio of energy in to the usable energy out.
Your illustration of an H-bomb would have been informative if used correctly. Even an H-bomb produces more energy than it takes, but very little of the energy can be harnessed. In all fusion reactors today (including the H-bomb), the usable energy produced is less than the energy supplied.
Mod parent up!
"Powerful magnets hamper our ability to lie" - New Scientist's article title
"Magnetic Pulses to the Brain Make it Impossible to Lie: Study" - IB Times sensationalist article title
A couple very important lines from the article make it clear that the NS title is correctly worded, and the IBT article title is a straight lie:
'The volunteers were presented a series of coloured discs, and told they could tell the truth or lie'
'"Spontaneous choice to lie more or less can be influenced by brain stimulation," researchers Karton and Bachmann wrote in Behavioural Brain Research.'
So the study had nothing to do with whether it was possible to lie based on magnetic interference. The study only checked whether a subject is more likely to lie or be truthful in a game where the outcome is meaningless.
Any test about truth taking has to have some risk or some reward associated with it. In this study, the subjects had no real reason to lie, and some of them still lied even with the magnetic interference. I'm not really sure how this even warrants a story, unless you accept the sensationalist title of the IBT article.
Changing from frames/sec to msec/frame doesn't fix the problem at all.
I was playing Minecraft the other day with a buggy mod installed, and was getting 240 fps, but choppy performance. Sometimes I'd get 1 second spikes, and the fps monitor would change to show something like 30fps before creeping back up to 240. If you convert that to msec/frame, those numbers still look really good.
Other games that run at 50fps looked much better than this buggy minecraft mod. Taking the inverse (as you suggest) doesn't help. Reporting the time for the worst case frame would be the simplest way to show how choppy my experience was. A new metric entirely is needed to show the difference here.
Even though the article said "Google Gadgets", it actually links to Google Desktop Gadgets, not actually Google Gadgets.
One is web-like type apps running on your desktop. The other is desktop-like apps running on your webpage. A bit of confusion here is to be expected.