Its because realistically its inpractical. In theory, we could run out of every single fossil fuel. Would you stop using electricity right now? Using a practical example, do you think that using our limited electricity is worth spending it on all the computers running the Internet?
Well, golly! With all of these scintillating conversations and valuable posts here on/. (yes, this one counts)... DAMN RIGHT our limited and polluting electricity is worth it!
Damn! And so the point is, to clean up fluorinert liquids, you pump the bulk of it into a holding tank to be reused (it's expensive stuff!), and put fans on the rest of it. Smells a little fruity for a while (it's not TOTALLY unreactive), but it's safe and almost sane to just vent the vapor to the outer air. There's no bloody way you'll get away with doing this with Hg.
The way you clean up spilled Mercury is to sprinkle zinc dust all over, and then sweep it up. It's one of the very few toxic substances that Environmental Health and Safety people will let an "untrained" chemistry or physics person clean up without a lot of shoulder-peeking. Hell, they even hand out these "special" sponges, which are essentially just a regular sponge with zinc bits glued on.
The point is that Mercury WILL stick to zinc (amalgam, anyone?) and copper, but zinc is a bit less toxic than copper to have around.
Similarly, I work with 3M's fluorinert liquids quite a bit, although not for cooling. They're useful for some of their other properties (which I'm not revealing right now, because my research could get scooped -- that's science in action!), but the BEST property is that they're STABLE, and they're awfully nonreactive with organics (humans). There've been studies where fish were immersed in fluorinert liquids for long times. Just bubble some oxygen through the stuff so the fish can breathe, and choose the right density, and the fish do fine. Choose the wrong densities, though, and the fish'll be bobbing about on the surface, wondering how the hell to deflate their swim bladders.
The scaling represented must go something like:
Probability of developing ADHD as a function of hours of TV per day = P[x] (where x is in hours);
P[x] = k*P[0]*x , where P[0] is the "normal" probability of a kid who doesn't watch ANY TV to develop ADHD, and k is a (constant) proportionality factor.
One gets nonsensical results if k is large enough that increasing x enough gives P[x]/P[0] > 1. Thus, I propose that k is a function of x, such that k[x] "softens", or k[x] has a downward curvature for larger x ( or d^2(k[x])/dx^2 0 ).
Perhaps taking this way out of proportion (pun somewhat intended), but this is BAD reporting at the very least, and probably bad science.
That's funny, really. They must've forgotten to include this:
Every hour of watching per day (on average) tends to raise a kid's chances of ADHD by 10%, for small amounts of watching. If this law doesn't break down for more hours, then one makes the physically impossible conclusion that watching 25 hours of TV per day makes one 250% as likely to develop ADHD, or 2.5 times as likely. Is there a "cap" of 2.4 times as likely, then? We're going into MOD 24 hours somehow?
Methinks there's a nonlinear relationship hidden in there, somehow, and that things have got to break down for more than 3-4 hours of watching per day. This is good (a "softening potential" of developing ADHD. But is it good enough?
I work in an environment (acoustics lab, where we have nice big water tanks) where one of these would come in really handy to drive stepper motors, etc. My thermocouples are waterproof, my contact meters are waterproof... it'd be nice to have a waterproof way to move things around!
Besides which, can you surf pr0n on it? Somehow, a waterproof case would be nice for that, too...
Heck, my college (no names named for the moment), when I got there in 1995, taught PASCAL, and we debugged our code at the teletypes. Of course, this whole thread is going to start a "Well, I dumped chads from our punchcard machine in the toilet..." stories. But I am somewhat aghast when I think of a school program using teletypes in 1995 for a CS class.
Then again, those CS majors did awfully well out in the real world.
Perhaps you read the article, but they DO state that there are MANY codecs out there, but they chose four of the most popular ones. They do acknowledge that the movies they chose aren't necessarily what everyone would want to compress, but that they, again, are representative of a huge proportion of movies, and encompass action, slow scenes, and wide contrast/hue ranges. Finally, they DO NOT say "THIS codec is the best, and the others suck."
I am not thoroughly familiar w/ ExtremeTech's reviews, and what you say may apply to a lot of them. But in this case, you've misapplied your disappointment with the site.
Slashdot Mirror
Its because realistically its inpractical. In theory, we could run out of every single fossil fuel. Would you stop using electricity right now?
/. (yes, this one counts)... DAMN RIGHT our limited and polluting electricity is worth it!
Using a practical example, do you think that using our limited electricity is worth spending it on all the computers running the Internet?
Well, golly! With all of these scintillating conversations and valuable posts here on
Damn! And so the point is, to clean up fluorinert liquids, you pump the bulk of it into a holding tank to be reused (it's expensive stuff!), and put fans on the rest of it. Smells a little fruity for a while (it's not TOTALLY unreactive), but it's safe and almost sane to just vent the vapor to the outer air. There's no bloody way you'll get away with doing this with Hg.
The way you clean up spilled Mercury is to sprinkle zinc dust all over, and then sweep it up. It's one of the very few toxic substances that Environmental Health and Safety people will let an "untrained" chemistry or physics person clean up without a lot of shoulder-peeking. Hell, they even hand out these "special" sponges, which are essentially just a regular sponge with zinc bits glued on.
The point is that Mercury WILL stick to zinc (amalgam, anyone?) and copper, but zinc is a bit less toxic than copper to have around.
Similarly, I work with 3M's fluorinert liquids quite a bit, although not for cooling. They're useful for some of their other properties (which I'm not revealing right now, because my research could get scooped -- that's science in action!), but the BEST property is that they're STABLE, and they're awfully nonreactive with organics (humans). There've been studies where fish were immersed in fluorinert liquids for long times. Just bubble some oxygen through the stuff so the fish can breathe, and choose the right density, and the fish do fine. Choose the wrong densities, though, and the fish'll be bobbing about on the surface, wondering how the hell to deflate their swim bladders.
Bravo ;) Wish I had mod points today!
SpyBot's worth a try.
Hear-hear!
Porn like weeds has its roots deep and will surface and thrive in any scrap of dirt, through the tiniest of cracks.
Anyone else turned on by this sentence?
Mmm... cinnamon rolls!
Yeesh. How can this be modded up to +5 insightful? Only the pr0n reference could possibly do that... and this to my own post!
The scaling represented must go something like:
Probability of developing ADHD as a function of hours of TV per day = P[x] (where x is in hours);
P[x] = k*P[0]*x , where P[0] is the "normal" probability of a kid who doesn't watch ANY TV to develop ADHD, and k is a (constant) proportionality factor.
One gets nonsensical results if k is large enough that increasing x enough gives P[x]/P[0] > 1. Thus, I propose that k is a function of x, such that k[x] "softens", or k[x] has a downward curvature for larger x ( or d^2(k[x])/dx^2 0 ).
Perhaps taking this way out of proportion (pun somewhat intended), but this is BAD reporting at the very least, and probably bad science.
That's funny, really. They must've forgotten to include this:
Every hour of watching per day (on average) tends to raise a kid's chances of ADHD by 10%, for small amounts of watching. If this law doesn't break down for more hours, then one makes the physically impossible conclusion that watching 25 hours of TV per day makes one 250% as likely to develop ADHD, or 2.5 times as likely. Is there a "cap" of 2.4 times as likely, then? We're going into MOD 24 hours somehow?
Methinks there's a nonlinear relationship hidden in there, somehow, and that things have got to break down for more than 3-4 hours of watching per day. This is good (a "softening potential" of developing ADHD. But is it good enough?
I work in an environment (acoustics lab, where we have nice big water tanks) where one of these would come in really handy to drive stepper motors, etc. My thermocouples are waterproof, my contact meters are waterproof... it'd be nice to have a waterproof way to move things around!
Besides which, can you surf pr0n on it? Somehow, a waterproof case would be nice for that, too...
1st rule of protocol/format dev is: do NOT talk about protocol/format dev!
_Snow_Crash_, of course, has DaVid. What an annoying name to read!
Alan is awfully good. Neato!
;)
However, statements from Alan like "I see. You are glad also Are me amused. Cool." aren't exactly parsing
Especially since it hides your comments and makes it hard.
You're just flirting w/ the parent poster, aren't you?
Heh. Are you trying to seduce me by posting on /.?
(0)
This'll get modded as redundant, as well it should. But... holy crap:
http://www.cyberlife-research.com/diary/0104.htm
Heck, my college (no names named for the moment), when I got there in 1995, taught PASCAL, and we debugged our code at the teletypes. Of course, this whole thread is going to start a "Well, I dumped chads from our punchcard machine in the toilet..." stories. But I am somewhat aghast when I think of a school program using teletypes in 1995 for a CS class.
Then again, those CS majors did awfully well out in the real world.
Perhaps you read the article, but they DO state that there are MANY codecs out there, but they chose four of the most popular ones. They do acknowledge that the movies they chose aren't necessarily what everyone would want to compress, but that they, again, are representative of a huge proportion of movies, and encompass action, slow scenes, and wide contrast/hue ranges. Finally, they DO NOT say "THIS codec is the best, and the others suck."
I am not thoroughly familiar w/ ExtremeTech's reviews, and what you say may apply to a lot of them. But in this case, you've misapplied your disappointment with the site.
...real-time geographical load distribution
Say no more, guv'nor.
...innovative content delivery right here.
You're soooo new here, aren't you?