I'll skip over half of your message since I don't live in USA and don't care about SAT, Catholic school system and what else. I also think my opinion is not only correct (that is trivially true of all opinions) it is also accepted practice and common sense. Hence my willingness to contact your employer and ask for a clarification. "I heard that such and such practices are admissible at your university, is that true?" not "Someone who goes by nickname toddbu on/. admitted to extremly unethical practices, will you fire her?"
Nobody is has to live by your rules just because they happen to take a class from you. Teaching doesn't (that is both "can't" and "shouldn't") make you a dictator. You just can't enforce a random rule. Your bonus rule is no more relevant to skills you are supposed to teach than "all blondes has to score %50 higher than non-blondes for the same grade." You can make rules as you fit, as long as they are pertinent to course material. Beyond that, you have no right.
Come on, you know you suck. You are an idiot with self confidence issues. A student doesn't have to follow any of your instructions, let alone hints, to learn material you teach. They are supposed to be knowing it after you tried to teach them. It doesn't even matter whether they really learned from your teaching or by themselves. As long as they do demonstrate they know the stuff, you can't punish them for not doing things the way you want them to.
I should have been more specific: when I say creationism, I mean literal interpretation of Genesis stuff. With an unspecified god who has unspecified motives, creationism is ID.
Can you come up with a reason for a mammalian middle ear? The ID "god" might just wanted to show off (or reuse some code), evolution actually explains why it is that way but God of the Bible has no reason whatsoever to create such an abomination. It has a very trivial function, yet it has way too many components required for that function. But it also works perfectly most of the time. And when it fails to work perfectly, it fails because of the existance of a cavity, not because of overly complicated and ridiculous bone structure (well, most of the time.)
I'm not saying that this question can't possibly be answered by creationists but I think it will be just dodged by something like "well, just because we don't see why He made it that way doesn't mean it is not the best possible way." But anyone who buys that line is already lost and noone using that line will convert anyone.
I'm a staunch evolutionist, but "Why would God do X?" questions are not the way to fight Creationism. You are trying to claim you know what some immense superbeing would optimally do when creating a self-sustaining planetary ecosphere, and that's actually worse than the ID-ers arguments.
You are mixing two things up. The maker in the ID is unspecified. The only thing assumed about her is she made life on Earth. It is quite arrogant to claim you spotted one of her mistakes as that implies you know how to design a complete ecosystem better than her. This is just what is wrong with ID, no scientific argument can falsify it (short of designing a brand new ecosystem not modelled after Earth, performing better than Earth on some objective basis.)
OTOH, Creationism's designer is already specified. He has some characteristics that doesn't allow him to do all stuff he wants to (eg. he can't possibly select random souls for eternal damnation, that wouldn't in character.) So, it is possible to attack creationism with arguments about design flaws in living beings. That would just be biological version of problem of evil.
I don't know about performance characteristics of jet fuel but I can provide some insight into non-convertibility of BD into any fuel. It is possible that jet fuels are similar to BD to begin with, so the differences might be made irrelevant by modification of jet engines and/or alcohol used in BD production and/or by utilization of additives. I'll assume that isn't the case.
The great thing about biodiesel is that you don't really convert oil into something completely different. The oil is almost completly esters of FFAs with an alcohol (glycerin), the BD is almost completly esters of FFAs with another alcohol (mostly methyl alcohol). In case of methyl ester biodiesels, the difference between a oil and BD produced from it is extra 4 hydrogen atoms per ~1200 au and 2 fewer C-C bonds per ~45 C-C bonds. Energy content and burning characteristics are barely affected by these small changes. In contrast, the average molecular weight of BD is about 1/3 of the oil. This greatly reduces viscosity and chance of gummy polymerisation and oxidation product formation. The current diesel engines are built for low viscosity fuels and the fuel injection systems assume the fuel is almost clean of soild and semi-solid impurities. So these physical changes make BD a much more suitable fuel than straight vegetable oils for current diesel engines; had the engines have been built with SVO fuel in mind, the difference would have been less pronounced.
Of course one doesn't have to make so few changes to the molecule. In principle, as SVO already has the necessary atoms so one can sythesise any organic compound starting from SVO, including jet fuel. But breaking bonds require energy and even if enough energy is provided randomly breaking them is not good for sythesis of a particular product. You have to break specific bonds (or break randomly and separate useful molecules from the others, which require quite a bit of energy) and bond to specific sites after that for a successful synthesis (or you can bond randomly and separate useful stuff, with the same energy consumption curse as with breaking them randomly.) There are only two kinds of specific sites that you can make easy and predictable modifications to a triglyceride(SVO molecule): The double C=C bonds and ester links between alcohol and the rest of the molecule. If no chemical reactions at these sites leads to an acceptable jet fuel, producing jet fuel from SVO is not an energy efficient option.
If a practically unlimited energy source is available, you can transform SVO into whatever organic compound you wish. In that scenario, the fuel produced from SVO is more like a battery than an energy source, similar to hydrogen.
Methanol is not a catalyst, it is a reactant. The fact that there is some unreacted methanol at the end of the process is because it is used in excess of the stochiometric amount. Typically 150%-500% (160%-200% typical) of the minimum required amount of methanol is used and the excess 50%-400% is recovered at the end of the process. Use more methanol and you get better conversion and somewhat faster reaction but you need more energy to recover the methanol at the end of the process.
I don't understand what being most popular on the charts has to do with it...
Do you like Spastic Ink, Spiral Architect, Aghora, Orphaned Land? Chances are you have no idea. You probably don't know who they are and you don't know whether you would like them or not. OTOH, you probably know whether you like Korn or BS. Unless you are living in a cave, you don't have to find about chart-toppers via p2p.
Exactly. It is easy to bond a surfactant molecule to a dye (even easier to do that with a pigment, as there are many dispersants tailored for this exact purpose.)Of course if you don't even even know the name of the surfactant let alone chemistry of it, it becomes rather hard. A catalogue from a surfactants company (such as BYK) could have saved him 8 of those 11 years.
The colored bubbles idea is genious, though. I will try that ASAP, without the disappearing dye (of course).
The muslims believe though that the only way to understand the Koran is to read it in arabic.
That is mostly irrelevant and also not quite true. The belief is not that Koran can be only be properly understood in (any) Arabic, but Koran can only be understood if you read what God wrote without any interpreter or translator meddling with the text. A translation of Koran in modern Arabic is no different from an English translation. Koran's language is different enough from contemporary arabic that even arabs has to formally study the language to study Koran. As a result, people neither learn ancient arabic to chat nor do they learn modern arabic to read Koran.
Something like that. The proccess would take exactly 5000*(k+1) days if SCS succeeds in each of those 5000 day epochs. Since it is possible that either not everybody can signal or the counter is unable to collect the last signal in 5000 days, the SCS may fail in 5000 days. In that case the whole 5000 days is lost as counter is reset in every epochs first day. So we may need mor than (k+1) epochs.
We don't want to waste an epoch without counter being able to register 100 prisoners in that epoch because the epoch is too short, but we also don't want to make epochs very long as we will need ad least (k+1) of them. If the probability of reaching a count of 100 in n days is p(n), there is a minimum to the function (k+1)*n/(p(n)**(k+1)). The n at that minimum is the optimum epoch length and the process will take (k+1)*n/(p(n)**(k+1)) days to succeed on average.
Under your assumptions, this may take less time: the simple counter solution (one designated counter, everybody else signals only once) needs something like 5000 days with k=0. So everybody restart the SCS every 5000 days. When counter reaches 100 in k+1 of those epochs, there is at least one epoch during which all prisoners visited the room.
I can't give you any speed rating, I have no idea. However given a benchmark completed in X1,X2 seconds using Y1,Y2 seconds of CPU time with reiser4 and another filesystem, you can deduce a conservative limit of the relative CPU speed where r4 should still be faster or just as fast. r4 has at least Y2-Y1 seconds to burn CPU. if the CPU is X1/(Y2-Y1+X1) times fast, benchmark wt r4 will not take more than Y2 seconds complete. Even if other filesytem is unaffected by slower CPU, r4 will still be faster.
This calculation gives you a very conservative estimate (it assumes all CPU time used by benchmark is due to filesystem in r4 case, and none of the CPU time is used by filesystem during benchmark wt. another fs) and it may not even be in the ballpark of the true value.
Most plastics contain plasticizers that help improve flexibility and handling properties, but which slowly evaporate leaving the material brittle (anyone ever see what happens to a plastic milk jug left in the sun for a year?).
Obviously they will either use non-volatile plasticizers or won't use any at all. It is not that hard to plasticize a polymer without any external plasticizer. Single functional "monomer" (or is that a "halfomer"?) plasticizers do the job nicely as does inherently flexible backbones (as in polyether backbone of polyether polyols used in polyurethanes.) That said, I guess they can't possibly use any plasticizer at all, because they need very good mechanical properties and plasticizers invaribly worsen them.
I don't know what your milk jugs are made of but I guess they become brittle because of excessive crosslinking on exposure to UV radiation, rather than plasticizer migration/evaporation.
I used to be a chemical engineer. And I like to assume I'd been a good one. Nowadays the company is so big that I can't do all R&D by myself anymore (and therein lies my claim for being a successful engineer), so we sought someone to help me. After the newspaper ad, it turned out there were many qualified for the job, and many more overqualified for it. We ended up hiring four of them.
Now I'm a manager. I don't know what to do with it. Everyone we hired is expected to know more about either chemistry or chemical engineering more than I do and I'm supposed to make them work efficiently. It is really hard. Much harder than working efficiently myself. It is not that we are clueless, but we frequently have to hire people who know more than we do. Cut us managers some slack.
I have this vision of a raging fireball in an epic battle with unending floods, courtesy of one percent more oxygen and 3 feet higher oceans. Perhaps I could turn that in to direct to DVD movie. Thanks/.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll skip over half of your message since I don't live in USA and don't care about SAT, Catholic school system and what else. I also think my opinion is not only correct (that is trivially true of all opinions) it is also accepted practice and common sense. Hence my willingness to contact your employer and ask for a clarification. "I heard that such and such practices are admissible at your university, is that true?" not "Someone who goes by nickname toddbu on /. admitted to extremly unethical practices, will you fire her?"
I'm entirely willing to ask your employer for a clarification and conclude this discussion before it is archived. You can contact me via email.
Nobody is has to live by your rules just because they happen to take a class from you. Teaching doesn't (that is both "can't" and "shouldn't") make you a dictator. You just can't enforce a random rule. Your bonus rule is no more relevant to skills you are supposed to teach than "all blondes has to score %50 higher than non-blondes for the same grade." You can make rules as you fit, as long as they are pertinent to course material. Beyond that, you have no right.
Come on, you know you suck. You are an idiot with self confidence issues. A student doesn't have to follow any of your instructions, let alone hints, to learn material you teach. They are supposed to be knowing it after you tried to teach them. It doesn't even matter whether they really learned from your teaching or by themselves. As long as they do demonstrate they know the stuff, you can't punish them for not doing things the way you want them to.
Can you come up with a reason for a mammalian middle ear? The ID "god" might just wanted to show off (or reuse some code), evolution actually explains why it is that way but God of the Bible has no reason whatsoever to create such an abomination. It has a very trivial function, yet it has way too many components required for that function. But it also works perfectly most of the time. And when it fails to work perfectly, it fails because of the existance of a cavity, not because of overly complicated and ridiculous bone structure (well, most of the time.)
I'm not saying that this question can't possibly be answered by creationists but I think it will be just dodged by something like "well, just because we don't see why He made it that way doesn't mean it is not the best possible way." But anyone who buys that line is already lost and noone using that line will convert anyone.
You are mixing two things up. The maker in the ID is unspecified. The only thing assumed about her is she made life on Earth. It is quite arrogant to claim you spotted one of her mistakes as that implies you know how to design a complete ecosystem better than her. This is just what is wrong with ID, no scientific argument can falsify it (short of designing a brand new ecosystem not modelled after Earth, performing better than Earth on some objective basis.)
OTOH, Creationism's designer is already specified. He has some characteristics that doesn't allow him to do all stuff he wants to (eg. he can't possibly select random souls for eternal damnation, that wouldn't in character.) So, it is possible to attack creationism with arguments about design flaws in living beings. That would just be biological version of problem of evil.
The great thing about biodiesel is that you don't really convert oil into something completely different. The oil is almost completly esters of FFAs with an alcohol (glycerin), the BD is almost completly esters of FFAs with another alcohol (mostly methyl alcohol). In case of methyl ester biodiesels, the difference between a oil and BD produced from it is extra 4 hydrogen atoms per ~1200 au and 2 fewer C-C bonds per ~45 C-C bonds. Energy content and burning characteristics are barely affected by these small changes. In contrast, the average molecular weight of BD is about 1/3 of the oil. This greatly reduces viscosity and chance of gummy polymerisation and oxidation product formation. The current diesel engines are built for low viscosity fuels and the fuel injection systems assume the fuel is almost clean of soild and semi-solid impurities. So these physical changes make BD a much more suitable fuel than straight vegetable oils for current diesel engines; had the engines have been built with SVO fuel in mind, the difference would have been less pronounced.
Of course one doesn't have to make so few changes to the molecule. In principle, as SVO already has the necessary atoms so one can sythesise any organic compound starting from SVO, including jet fuel. But breaking bonds require energy and even if enough energy is provided randomly breaking them is not good for sythesis of a particular product. You have to break specific bonds (or break randomly and separate useful molecules from the others, which require quite a bit of energy) and bond to specific sites after that for a successful synthesis (or you can bond randomly and separate useful stuff, with the same energy consumption curse as with breaking them randomly.) There are only two kinds of specific sites that you can make easy and predictable modifications to a triglyceride(SVO molecule): The double C=C bonds and ester links between alcohol and the rest of the molecule. If no chemical reactions at these sites leads to an acceptable jet fuel, producing jet fuel from SVO is not an energy efficient option.
If a practically unlimited energy source is available, you can transform SVO into whatever organic compound you wish. In that scenario, the fuel produced from SVO is more like a battery than an energy source, similar to hydrogen.
Methanol is not a catalyst, it is a reactant. The fact that there is some unreacted methanol at the end of the process is because it is used in excess of the stochiometric amount. Typically 150%-500% (160%-200% typical) of the minimum required amount of methanol is used and the excess 50%-400% is recovered at the end of the process. Use more methanol and you get better conversion and somewhat faster reaction but you need more energy to recover the methanol at the end of the process.
I'm not disputing any of that. I merely point out if you are on top of charts, exposure on p2p is superfluous.
Do you like Spastic Ink, Spiral Architect, Aghora, Orphaned Land? Chances are you have no idea. You probably don't know who they are and you don't know whether you would like them or not. OTOH, you probably know whether you like Korn or BS. Unless you are living in a cave, you don't have to find about chart-toppers via p2p.
The colored bubbles idea is genious, though. I will try that ASAP, without the disappearing dye (of course).
That is mostly irrelevant and also not quite true. The belief is not that Koran can be only be properly understood in (any) Arabic, but Koran can only be understood if you read what God wrote without any interpreter or translator meddling with the text. A translation of Koran in modern Arabic is no different from an English translation. Koran's language is different enough from contemporary arabic that even arabs has to formally study the language to study Koran. As a result, people neither learn ancient arabic to chat nor do they learn modern arabic to read Koran.
One last thought, 50 years ago Turkey was 50% Muslim, today it is over 95% Muslim.
Care to point out where you got this fantastic piece of information?
We don't want to waste an epoch without counter being able to register 100 prisoners in that epoch because the epoch is too short, but we also don't want to make epochs very long as we will need ad least (k+1) of them. If the probability of reaching a count of 100 in n days is p(n), there is a minimum to the function (k+1)*n/(p(n)**(k+1)). The n at that minimum is the optimum epoch length and the process will take (k+1)*n/(p(n)**(k+1)) days to succeed on average.
Under your assumptions, this may take less time: the simple counter solution (one designated counter, everybody else signals only once) needs something like 5000 days with k=0. So everybody restart the SCS every 5000 days. When counter reaches 100 in k+1 of those epochs, there is at least one epoch during which all prisoners visited the room.
I found a solution as long as k is known to prisoners. King can't ruin the solution despite the knowledge of prisoners' strategy.
Given the current scare against muslims, I think it is probably the other way around. Igor, of course, would have worked much better 50 years ago.
This calculation gives you a very conservative estimate (it assumes all CPU time used by benchmark is due to filesystem in r4 case, and none of the CPU time is used by filesystem during benchmark wt. another fs) and it may not even be in the ballpark of the true value.
You are totally broke, aren't you?
How did you write that HTML+CSS2? One finger tied to shift key during eight keypresses or did you just press caps-lock twice and shift once?
Obviously they will either use non-volatile plasticizers or won't use any at all. It is not that hard to plasticize a polymer without any external plasticizer. Single functional "monomer" (or is that a "halfomer"?) plasticizers do the job nicely as does inherently flexible backbones (as in polyether backbone of polyether polyols used in polyurethanes.) That said, I guess they can't possibly use any plasticizer at all, because they need very good mechanical properties and plasticizers invaribly worsen them.
I don't know what your milk jugs are made of but I guess they become brittle because of excessive crosslinking on exposure to UV radiation, rather than plasticizer migration/evaporation.
Now I'm a manager. I don't know what to do with it. Everyone we hired is expected to know more about either chemistry or chemical engineering more than I do and I'm supposed to make them work efficiently. It is really hard. Much harder than working efficiently myself. It is not that we are clueless, but we frequently have to hire people who know more than we do. Cut us managers some slack.
Partitioning. You'll just love it.
I have this vision of a raging fireball in an epic battle with unending floods, courtesy of one percent more oxygen and 3 feet higher oceans. Perhaps I could turn that in to direct to DVD movie. Thanks /.
Actually the correct units would be stone.furlongs/(fortnight.fortnight) grandparent got his dimensions wrong.