people should have the right to choose if they want to go through shock therapy!
Yes, just like you get to choose the duration of your sentence, your cell mate, and the color of your cell when you commit a crime in your country./sarcasm
I'm not defending China for this (they themselves seem to be upset at the practice), but laws are different everywhere and if you commit a "crime", you have to pay the price, be it getting your ass caned, shocked or in the case of the US, raped.
Now they can go after the entire online porn industry? I have a feeling that it's all a bunch of sites owned by one person laughing demonically and getting you to click on links that never ever get you anywhe...
Hmmm, no, I've never done that. I don't know about those sites! Really!
I don't remember clicking on the EULA for this crap. Why do I have to be bound by what "a group of lawyers" thinks "best practices" are? Oh wait, I don't...
However, some editors have cited the American Psychological Association's statement that exposure of the images to the public is an unethical act, since prior exposure to the images could render them ineffective as a psychological test.
Which goes to show just how full of BS some psychologists are. Either the test is completely subjective and not dependent on the particular ink-blot pattern, so stop being lazy and make your own damned ink blots; OR some psychologists are depending too heavily on their interpretation of a Rorschach "test" during their practice.
As a physician I completely understand the subjective nature of psychoanalysis and I recognize its value in treating certain psychiatric disorders. However psychology is not entirely dependent on the Rorschach test and appropriate diagnoses can be reached easily without that test by any skilled practitioner, and anyone complaining about the diagrams being viewed by the public could also argue that all medical information should be with-held from the public. After all, we wouldn't want all those hypochondriacs and somatization disorder sufferers to get any ideas, right?
Also It would be interesting to send a FOIA request to NASA to see if the town ever went through proper diplomatic channels to make a claim against the US gov.
I don't seem to remember Skylab spending any time in Australian customs and excise, or being reviewed by an inspector, before entering Australian territory, either.
But wait - I seem to remember hearing of some Australian chap who was extradited and tried (and found guilty) in the US, where his internet related activities were illegal, despite being an Australian citizen and having not committed a crime in Australia.
Didn't bother to RTFA, eh? He isn't trying to make warm water cold. He's moving cold water into the warm water via pumps. That's a hell of a lot easier.
No, it's actually less efficient than a heat pump. Heat pumps are incredibly more efficient than electric motors and/or mechanical devices that lose a lot of energy as sound, vibrations and friction.
Basic physics will teach you that it doesn't matter which road you take, the energy required will be the same. That way you can work out how much energy is needed to raise a rock a certain distance above the ground using potential energy/kinetic energy formulae, OR by calculating the WORK involved (force times distance). Delta E is exactly the same.
Therefore if you have a heat pump working at close to 100% efficiency and a mechanical pump that at best is around 40% efficient, your mechanical pump will never "save" you energy. I chose the heat pump model to give the "theory" the greatest advantage possible, and still the amount of energy involved is staggering. Some people replied saying that 20MW is nothing, etc. I only used 1m depth (how long will 1m of water stay "cold"?), a 1 degree drop in temperature, and a 1km by 1km area. I am not sure that is what would be enough to stop a hurricane, since I'm not a meteorologist... The real cost in energy is probably several orders of magnitude greater.
But it's not my fault if you don't understand physics.
The idea is to decrease the surface temperature, reducing or eliminating the heat-driven condensation that fuels the giant storms.
Ludicrous, ridiculous, etc. NOTHING man can do on this planet can even begin to compare to the scale of energies involved in natural phenomena. There exists something called the British Thermal Unit. It's the amount of ENERGY required to heat (or cool) one pound of (fresh) water by one degree. Considering that one gallon of water is roughly 8 lbs, and one BTU is approximately equivalent to 1054 Joules, it takes close to 8000 Joules per gallon of water to cool it - in an hour. Plus I am assuming that an electric pump is just as efficient as a simple heat exchanger like an air conditioner, or a hot plate for that matter. Let's ignore all the friction in the kilometers of pipe, too.
Now exactly how many TRILLIONS of gallons of water does Mr. Gates wish to cool by one degree? Assuming all you want to cool is the first 1 meter of depth of a 1 km x 1km patch of water contains 1 billion litres of water (around 264 million gallons). This would require at least 2.1 * 10^12 Joules of energy. And remember you have to deliver it in a limited time, in the path of the storm (which can change at any time - in fact is MORE LIKELY to change if you start cooling water ahead of it)? And let's not forget during the daytime you have to also account for sunlight, which will make your cooling process less efficient.
Then let's not forget about all the life forms whose habitats will be altered by changing the water temperatures ever so slightly, especially by heating the bottom of the ocean by a few degrees (as if that was possible to be done by man).
It would probably be much more energy efficient to evacuate the entire population of the coasts involved AND rebuild the damage.
If the USPTO approves this, wait, no - they probably will. I at least would demand a working prototype, just like what was done for the warp drive someone tried to patent.
I have never heard anything so stupid come from someone so smart. But then again we live in an era where politicians would have us believe that we humans are responsible for global warming, too...
Take a bunch of kids that like to sit around playing games and browsing for porn, isolate them from friends and family, label them as "addicts", brainwash them, put rifles in their hands and train them how to kill people, then declare them "cured". I'm glad that society has its priorities right.
Seriously, wtf is wrong with the person writing the title? It's like saying "What's the importance of air for human beings?" or "What's the importance of water in the ocean?"
Graphics and eye candy should never be substituted for FUN gameplay, but they certainly enhance it.
I personally have "Nephrogenic Renal Diabetes Insipius". With my 5 gallons a day I will be powering a Chu-Chu Train!
As a physician I sympathize with your difficult condition. However as I stated in my previous post - it doesn't matter if you are urinating 1 litre (very roughly the standard daily urine volume) or 19 litres in your case, what is important here is urea. Urine is not the same as urea. Urine contains water, various electrolytes, and also urea. In your case, with diabetes insipidus (which is essentially a failure of the collecting duct to do it's job and re-concentrate urine), you are losing HUGE volumes of WATER per day. However your output of urea is probably not much more than a "normal" person. So although you are urinating almost non-stop, your urine is very dilute. If I was to take those 5 gallons and filter out the urea in all of them, it would probably be the same as a normal person, since your urine is not at all concentrated.
Urea is not a product of how much you urinate, but rather a product of how many proteins your body decides to de-aminate (ie. turn amino acids (from protein) into other stuff that isn't amino acids by removing those pesky NH2 groups). A person who does a lot of exercise will produce more urea in 24 hours than you do with your 5 gallons of urine. A person who eats 2 lbs of red meat in a day will produce far more urea than you do, since the body will have to find something to do with all those amino acids (from the protein in the red meat) - so it will de-aminate them (producing urea) and turn them into sugars then fats for storage.
I understand you were trying to be light-hearted, but I just can't help trying to get people to understand how their bodies actually work. I have to show something for 6 months of suffering through biochemistry classes!
My wife is going to be the Energy SuperHeroine. She has to pee about 20 times a day.
Either your wife has a small or irritable bladder, or she drinks a lot of water. In either case it's not going to help. If she has a small bladder she will be peeing all the time, but her total daily volume of urine will be within normal limits. If she drinks a lot of water, her urine volume will be above average, but the actual concentration of urea in her urine will be less.
Sorry to burst your bubble.
On the other hand, we doctors know that red meat and other protein rich foods - dairy products, eggs, etc - will substantially increase your production of urea (this is after all how the body gets rid of excess nitrogen produced when amino acids from proteins are turned into other stuff like sugars, fats, etc). So perhaps finally we'll be able to imprison all the snobbish vegans. Everyone will be forced to eat red meat and cheese all the time, and promptly die of heart attacks at 40, solving both the energy and the social security crises in one fell swoop.
There's also the whole moving furniture about the room and hanging paintings business, too. I think we're safe for a while, until they manage to train the apes properly.
Is not an statistical pure sample... is specifically people that wanted to take that survey.
No I will break it down even further for you: It's a sample of people who rate their time/bother/hassle for completing the survey at $0.25. Certainly not a representative sample. I post for free because I enjoy posting. However I refuse to do surveys, even for a $0.25 "reward".
Slashdot Mirror
No, that's because Indians rock!
Great culture, great food, and great sense of humor.
a new state department in India charged with assigning every living Indian an exclusive number and biometric ID card.
OK, 1 billion should just about cover all the Indians living in the UK, Canada and the US, but what about all the rest?
PS: It's a joke. I for one welcome our corner store/curry house operating Indian overlords. Thank you come again!
people should have the right to choose if they want to go through shock therapy!
Yes, just like you get to choose the duration of your sentence, your cell mate, and the color of your cell when you commit a crime in your country. /sarcasm
I'm not defending China for this (they themselves seem to be upset at the practice), but laws are different everywhere and if you commit a "crime", you have to pay the price, be it getting your ass caned, shocked or in the case of the US, raped.
Now they can go after the entire online porn industry? I have a feeling that it's all a bunch of sites owned by one person laughing demonically and getting you to click on links that never ever get you anywhe...
Hmmm, no, I've never done that. I don't know about those sites! Really!
I don't remember clicking on the EULA for this crap. Why do I have to be bound by what "a group of lawyers" thinks "best practices" are? Oh wait, I don't...
What the crap is an article about a newly found force that doesn't explain at least a theory as to the source of the force? Is it magnetic?
Don't worry. I'm sure some physicist somewhere will soon invent a particle to explain it.
Makes perfect sense. After all, fair use has been taken away from everyone else.
Good thing everyone's bashing Vista like it has no features of value
No, we bashed it because it didn't have features of $200+ value.
However, some editors have cited the American Psychological Association's statement that exposure of the images to the public is an unethical act, since prior exposure to the images could render them ineffective as a psychological test.
Which goes to show just how full of BS some psychologists are. Either the test is completely subjective and not dependent on the particular ink-blot pattern, so stop being lazy and make your own damned ink blots; OR some psychologists are depending too heavily on their interpretation of a Rorschach "test" during their practice.
As a physician I completely understand the subjective nature of psychoanalysis and I recognize its value in treating certain psychiatric disorders. However psychology is not entirely dependent on the Rorschach test and appropriate diagnoses can be reached easily without that test by any skilled practitioner, and anyone complaining about the diagrams being viewed by the public could also argue that all medical information should be with-held from the public. After all, we wouldn't want all those hypochondriacs and somatization disorder sufferers to get any ideas, right?
AFAIK web browsers cannot run for president...
oh wait, who were YOU talking about?
Also It would be interesting to send a FOIA request to NASA to see if the town ever went through proper diplomatic channels to make a claim against the US gov.
I don't seem to remember Skylab spending any time in Australian customs and excise, or being reviewed by an inspector, before entering Australian territory, either.
Your post is silly.
People are really going to play that game?
Redmond is counting on that old saying, "there's one born every minute"...
QED no crime was committed.
But wait - I seem to remember hearing of some Australian chap who was extradited and tried (and found guilty) in the US, where his internet related activities were illegal, despite being an Australian citizen and having not committed a crime in Australia.
It's not as "QED" as you think it may be.
Didn't bother to RTFA, eh? He isn't trying to make warm water cold. He's moving cold water into the warm water via pumps. That's a hell of a lot easier.
No, it's actually less efficient than a heat pump. Heat pumps are incredibly more efficient than electric motors and/or mechanical devices that lose a lot of energy as sound, vibrations and friction.
Basic physics will teach you that it doesn't matter which road you take, the energy required will be the same. That way you can work out how much energy is needed to raise a rock a certain distance above the ground using potential energy/kinetic energy formulae, OR by calculating the WORK involved (force times distance). Delta E is exactly the same.
Therefore if you have a heat pump working at close to 100% efficiency and a mechanical pump that at best is around 40% efficient, your mechanical pump will never "save" you energy. I chose the heat pump model to give the "theory" the greatest advantage possible, and still the amount of energy involved is staggering. Some people replied saying that 20MW is nothing, etc. I only used 1m depth (how long will 1m of water stay "cold"?), a 1 degree drop in temperature, and a 1km by 1km area. I am not sure that is what would be enough to stop a hurricane, since I'm not a meteorologist... The real cost in energy is probably several orders of magnitude greater.
But it's not my fault if you don't understand physics.
The idea is to decrease the surface temperature, reducing or eliminating the heat-driven condensation that fuels the giant storms.
Ludicrous, ridiculous, etc. NOTHING man can do on this planet can even begin to compare to the scale of energies involved in natural phenomena. There exists something called the British Thermal Unit. It's the amount of ENERGY required to heat (or cool) one pound of (fresh) water by one degree. Considering that one gallon of water is roughly 8 lbs, and one BTU is approximately equivalent to 1054 Joules, it takes close to 8000 Joules per gallon of water to cool it - in an hour. Plus I am assuming that an electric pump is just as efficient as a simple heat exchanger like an air conditioner, or a hot plate for that matter. Let's ignore all the friction in the kilometers of pipe, too.
Now exactly how many TRILLIONS of gallons of water does Mr. Gates wish to cool by one degree? Assuming all you want to cool is the first 1 meter of depth of a 1 km x 1km patch of water contains 1 billion litres of water (around 264 million gallons). This would require at least 2.1 * 10^12 Joules of energy. And remember you have to deliver it in a limited time, in the path of the storm (which can change at any time - in fact is MORE LIKELY to change if you start cooling water ahead of it)? And let's not forget during the daytime you have to also account for sunlight, which will make your cooling process less efficient.
Then let's not forget about all the life forms whose habitats will be altered by changing the water temperatures ever so slightly, especially by heating the bottom of the ocean by a few degrees (as if that was possible to be done by man).
It would probably be much more energy efficient to evacuate the entire population of the coasts involved AND rebuild the damage.
If the USPTO approves this, wait, no - they probably will. I at least would demand a working prototype, just like what was done for the warp drive someone tried to patent.
I have never heard anything so stupid come from someone so smart. But then again we live in an era where politicians would have us believe that we humans are responsible for global warming, too...
Take a bunch of kids that like to sit around playing games and browsing for porn, isolate them from friends and family, label them as "addicts", brainwash them, put rifles in their hands and train them how to kill people, then declare them "cured". I'm glad that society has its priorities right.
They gave the puppies to me...
Or nukular and nuclear, for that matter...
OP was modded flamebait, but I merely aim to prove that bad grammar crosses all racial boundaries...
you insensitive clod.
Seriously, wtf is wrong with the person writing the title? It's like saying "What's the importance of air for human beings?" or "What's the importance of water in the ocean?"
Graphics and eye candy should never be substituted for FUN gameplay, but they certainly enhance it.
I personally have "Nephrogenic Renal Diabetes Insipius". With my 5 gallons a day I will be powering a Chu-Chu Train!
As a physician I sympathize with your difficult condition. However as I stated in my previous post - it doesn't matter if you are urinating 1 litre (very roughly the standard daily urine volume) or 19 litres in your case, what is important here is urea. Urine is not the same as urea. Urine contains water, various electrolytes, and also urea. In your case, with diabetes insipidus (which is essentially a failure of the collecting duct to do it's job and re-concentrate urine), you are losing HUGE volumes of WATER per day. However your output of urea is probably not much more than a "normal" person. So although you are urinating almost non-stop, your urine is very dilute. If I was to take those 5 gallons and filter out the urea in all of them, it would probably be the same as a normal person, since your urine is not at all concentrated.
Urea is not a product of how much you urinate, but rather a product of how many proteins your body decides to de-aminate (ie. turn amino acids (from protein) into other stuff that isn't amino acids by removing those pesky NH2 groups). A person who does a lot of exercise will produce more urea in 24 hours than you do with your 5 gallons of urine. A person who eats 2 lbs of red meat in a day will produce far more urea than you do, since the body will have to find something to do with all those amino acids (from the protein in the red meat) - so it will de-aminate them (producing urea) and turn them into sugars then fats for storage.
I understand you were trying to be light-hearted, but I just can't help trying to get people to understand how their bodies actually work. I have to show something for 6 months of suffering through biochemistry classes!
My wife is going to be the Energy SuperHeroine. She has to pee about 20 times a day.
Either your wife has a small or irritable bladder, or she drinks a lot of water. In either case it's not going to help. If she has a small bladder she will be peeing all the time, but her total daily volume of urine will be within normal limits. If she drinks a lot of water, her urine volume will be above average, but the actual concentration of urea in her urine will be less.
Sorry to burst your bubble.
On the other hand, we doctors know that red meat and other protein rich foods - dairy products, eggs, etc - will substantially increase your production of urea (this is after all how the body gets rid of excess nitrogen produced when amino acids from proteins are turned into other stuff like sugars, fats, etc). So perhaps finally we'll be able to imprison all the snobbish vegans. Everyone will be forced to eat red meat and cheese all the time, and promptly die of heart attacks at 40, solving both the energy and the social security crises in one fell swoop.
There's also the whole moving furniture about the room and hanging paintings business, too. I think we're safe for a while, until they manage to train the apes properly.
wait - soon it's going to be everyone stick their arms out the window and flap real hard
It certainly did in ancient Greece. In fact, that's how you ended up paying your "tuition"!
Now get on all fours, boy, and we're going to talk about triangles again...
Is not an statistical pure sample... is specifically people that wanted to take that survey.
No I will break it down even further for you: It's a sample of people who rate their time/bother/hassle for completing the survey at $0.25. Certainly not a representative sample. I post for free because I enjoy posting. However I refuse to do surveys, even for a $0.25 "reward".