You can do this now, with a big battery (or store the energy by pumping water up a slope, heating up a rock, or however you like to store your energy)
You then pump electricity back into the electrical grid, making your meter spin backwards. People out in windy / sunny country have been doing this for a while, I thought, using the network as a battery: this allows you to buy a wind generator just big enough to power your AVERAGE consumption, because you suck your peak from the net, but sell your overflow back offpeak.
I really don't see where the hydrogen comes into the picture. *actually reads article* Oh, I get it now. Nobody's suggesting to DISTRIBUTE hydrogen, merely use it as a convenient storage device.
whatever. why not just give HUGE taxbreaks on home generators, to allow people to overbackup their houses, so that the overflow can be pumped into the net?
After posting that, I found such a graph. The rods (or is it cones, always get the two mixed up) which respond to luminance more than chroma have their sensitivity max right about the cyan range, a bit greenish.
Well, light is continous, so you can get turquoise either by mixing B (450nm) and G (550nm), or by just have C (500nm) light.
I guess that light is like a vector space: any base vectors will do as long as they are... crap, my memory sucks... independent? (what you want is that no base vector is the linear combination of the others)
The truly weird thing is that R+B = M, because R and B are on far ends of the scale. We perceive the color palette as a wheel, when it really is linear.
Depends on film. The pixels in film are the light grains, and are bigger the faster (more light sensitive) the film is. Better films will have smaller grains for any given speed.
Then you start comparing to medium format cameras (think fashion fotographer peering down into camera infront of chest), and digital falls even further behind.
OT comment: Digital is better than film for 90% of the population. The key is that people take a whole lot more pictures with digital cameras, thus taking pictures they never would with a film camera, and any picture you take is MUCH better than the picture you didn't. And, the more pictures you take, the higher your chances of snapping a gem by sheer luck (I know skill plays no part in my photography).
I've taken several pictures with a digital camera where I was bummed there wasn't more cropping availible, but I would never have taken the pictures at all if I had to lug an SLR or 35 mm "compact" (compared to digital compacts, that's a bit of a joke) along with me.
And under infra-red light, you can see trough the black highlighter (well, ink at least. I'm guessing this applies to dried ink as well). If your job is to redact documents, and you do that poor a job of it, you may not be an idiot, but you are incompetent.
turns out it's no. 2. Interestingly, this strong-force potential is what gives us fission. It turns out that when a Uranium atom decays to two smaller atoms (call them X and Y), the potential energy in X and Y doesn't add up to the potential energy of Uranium. The difference in energy in released as kinetic energy, temperature, and gamma rays.
I'd heard similar things, where the expected payout is larger if you let the machine randomly pick, as you'll not cluster with others who pick meaningful numbers.
But on the otherhand, there ought to be really "meaninless" sequences, with no numerological value. So anything representing a date is out, for example. Picking from this pool would be even better than a truly random pick, because it would avoid all those clusters (which could be randomly picked by the machine).
Or, you could not play at all, whish has by far the highest expected payout.
Thanks for the reply. However, you (and the previous poster) both STATE that which I want explained:
>the nucleus has energy levels just like electrons but they are not effected by the surronding atoms like electons are.
How? In electron shells, the energy is stored in the potential energy of the shell, which is due to the charge attraction between the electron and the nucleus. We can thus model('cause it's actually a wavefunction...) the electron's potential energy as a small orbital system, with s/gravity/charge attraction/g.
Now, if a nucleus has energy levels these need to be stored somehow. Possible candidates are: 1) E=mcc, using a neutron for storage. Quite a large quanta... 2) different configurations of the nucleus, as different arragements of protons and neutrons (think particle buckyballs) will have different potential energies of the strong force, or 3) something completely different.
not hung up at all on decay. I am hung up on nucleus tho. Is the energy stored in the nucleus somehow, or in the electron shells? The latter I could understand, but that isn't the nucleus...
but if you took those 100 daisy cutters and dropped those over a random dispersal pattern, I imagine you'd cause more damage than one nuclear bomb of similar size.
I'm assuming that your blast radius is actually the result of a blast volume (which I'm assuming is proportional to yield), and since radius grows as the cube root of the volume, you'd be more effective if you drop several small ones.
Lots of assumptions needed to get from there to this conclusion, tho.
I'm trying to figure out how you stimulate the nucleus, and then have it decay, without fissioning, and how this can be anything BUT nuclear. Perhaps nuclear has shifted meaning to denote precisely chain fission reaction.
anyways. Are we sure they don't just mean that hafnium atoms are more stable than others at keeping electrons in exited states, and that the device is pumped by priming all of them to a high energy and then causing them all to collapse simultaneously? That I could easily fit into my phy-100 framework.
Otherwise, if the energy is stored in the nucleus... where does it go? Are there different nucleus configurations (protons/neutrons packed differently), or do we change isotopes, losing a neutron?
Lastly, how likely is it that the high energy density during the explosion causes som fission, thereby dirtying the bomb? (the article talks about dispersing excited halfnium: not the same thing).
As far as I know, a run of numbers has never won the lottery, so this is your chance. The run is more likely to come up, since one hasn't already, in all this time.
I had a creative card under Win98 (well, I guess I still have the card, but the OS commited suicide), and that card (the sblive 5.1, or somesuch) was a PITA to use. It had more sliders and controls than houston ground control, and only one precise combination thereof would allow me to forward from mic to line out. As far as I could tell, there was no way of saving the settings, so I ended up printing screenshots of when I finally got it working, and had those folded up under my monitor for whenever I wanted to watch TV on the All-In-Wonder. (you could save something but it wasn't the mixer settings. No, they were not obvious, and turning on seemingly unrelated switches would stop it working.)
I think I may be using the MB built-in audio these days... only use it for previewing downloaded songs, before I play them on the real mp3 player (which is an I-Opener with usb audio spdif, btw).
In general, getting multimedia to do the right thing has been MUCH easier for me under linux than windows. But then, perhaps the very automatic trust-us-we-know-best attitude that makes it just work for mom and pop make it hard for me to figure out what they mean.
> And they dont support all the hardware accelerated directx modes.
hardware accelerated sound?! My mind boggles. Obviously you and I put soundcards to VERY different uses.
actually, there are clear economic reasons why private enterprise *is* more competent than government: their ass is on the line.
Governments however have a monopoly on government services, and answer only to public pressure, which is much more abstract than not getting any customers.
The tradgedy of the commons, writ large, is another way of seeing it.
So I'd say that not only do governments *tend* to start from a less efficient organisation than the private sector, the pressures to make them improve are also less efficent. Not a neurosis: a fact.
And yes, the private sector does make a lot of mistakes, but also deals with its mistakes more efficiently. If a company overcharged you for a product or service, you'd get a refund damn quickly. Try that with your local government.
ya. Since they rasterize onto a roll and then print the whole page at once, it would seem logical that the speediness of the postscript interpreter and its memory management routines would play the major role.
But then, I'm a languages guy rather than a printer guy, so perhaps my choice of hammer is affecting which nails I see.
I've sucessfully resized FAT partitions on several computers using free / demo tools, but what about NTFS? IIRC, XP is part of the NT branch, and thus uses an NTFS variant.
Or was that 2000? I can never keep these names straight.
Anyways, I don't know whether the internal structure of NTFS lends itself to simple resizing: in much the same way that ext2 doesn't seem to. If anyone can find me an ext2 splitter, I'll be eternally grateful. I have a 30GB partition, and I'd like to make the 20GB/home tree a separate partition, but don't have the disk space to copy it, so need to do it in place. The tool would need to shuffle files around so that the whole home tree was on one end of the partition, and / was on the other.
I've often wondered: on what grounds are they allowed to detain you? Am I allowed to detain random people, or do they have extra rights because they are a business? Is this some sort of citizen's arrest (which I don't even know exists, or is some myth).
hell, every time you go to the store, pick up a pack, and put it down somewhere else before checkout.
Eventually, they'll have you tagged as a shoplifter, and hassle you. In the states, people have sure department stores for "embarassment" for being falsely accused for shoplifting, but in britiain, I guess the best you can do is to raise a huge fuss about intrusive measures and what not.
And then be asked not to come back to that store. Convenience or principles: you choose.
Slashdot Mirror
You can do this now, with a big battery (or store the energy by pumping water up a slope, heating up a rock, or however you like to store your energy)
You then pump electricity back into the electrical grid, making your meter spin backwards. People out in windy / sunny country have been doing this for a while, I thought, using the network as a battery: this allows you to buy a wind generator just big enough to power your AVERAGE consumption, because you suck your peak from the net, but sell your overflow back offpeak.
I really don't see where the hydrogen comes into the picture. *actually reads article* Oh, I get it now. Nobody's suggesting to DISTRIBUTE hydrogen, merely use it as a convenient storage device.
whatever. why not just give HUGE taxbreaks on home generators, to allow people to overbackup their houses, so that the overflow can be pumped into the net?
hey! are you the duff who devised a device, or instead some insouciant impostor?
After posting that, I found such a graph. The rods (or is it cones, always get the two mixed up) which respond to luminance more than chroma have their sensitivity max right about the cyan range, a bit greenish.
Good guess.
Well, light is continous, so you can get turquoise either by mixing B (450nm) and G (550nm), or by just have C (500nm) light.
I guess that light is like a vector space: any base vectors will do as long as they are... crap, my memory sucks... independent? (what you want is that no base vector is the linear combination of the others)
The truly weird thing is that R+B = M, because R and B are on far ends of the scale. We perceive the color palette as a wheel, when it really is linear.
This I cannot figure out.
Just to amplify parent:
Depends on film. The pixels in film are the light grains, and are bigger the faster (more light sensitive) the film is. Better films will have smaller grains for any given speed.
Then you start comparing to medium format cameras (think fashion fotographer peering down into camera infront of chest), and digital falls even further behind.
OT comment: Digital is better than film for 90% of the population. The key is that people take a whole lot more pictures with digital cameras, thus taking pictures they never would with a film camera, and any picture you take is MUCH better than the picture you didn't. And, the more pictures you take, the higher your chances of snapping a gem by sheer luck (I know skill plays no part in my photography).
I've taken several pictures with a digital camera where I was bummed there wasn't more cropping availible, but I would never have taken the pictures at all if I had to lug an SLR or 35 mm "compact" (compared to digital compacts, that's a bit of a joke) along with me.
regressing perhaps, but I digress.
glass of foam == 0.2 glass of beer
you are a very silly man and I am not going to humor you.
And under infra-red light, you can see trough the black highlighter (well, ink at least. I'm guessing this applies to dried ink as well). If your job is to redact documents, and you do that poor a job of it, you may not be an idiot, but you are incompetent.
Or is competence no longer a job requirement?
cryptogram-filter
turns out it's no. 2. Interestingly, this strong-force potential is what gives us fission. It turns out that when a Uranium atom decays to two smaller atoms (call them X and Y), the potential energy in X and Y doesn't add up to the potential energy of Uranium. The difference in energy in released as kinetic energy, temperature, and gamma rays.
Fantastic.
I'd heard similar things, where the expected payout is larger if you let the machine randomly pick, as you'll not cluster with others who pick meaningful numbers.
But on the otherhand, there ought to be really "meaninless" sequences, with no numerological value. So anything representing a date is out, for example. Picking from this pool would be even better than a truly random pick, because it would avoid all those clusters (which could be randomly picked by the machine).
Or, you could not play at all, whish has by far the highest expected payout.
Thanks for the reply. However, you (and the previous poster) both STATE that which I want explained:
>the nucleus has energy levels just like electrons but they are not effected by the surronding atoms like electons are.
How? In electron shells, the energy is stored in the potential energy of the shell, which is due to the charge attraction between the electron and the nucleus. We can thus model('cause it's actually a wavefunction...) the electron's potential energy as a small orbital system, with s/gravity/charge attraction/g.
Now, if a nucleus has energy levels these need to be stored somehow. Possible candidates are: 1) E=mcc, using a neutron for storage. Quite a large quanta... 2) different configurations of the nucleus, as different arragements of protons and neutrons (think particle buckyballs) will have different potential energies of the strong force, or 3) something completely different.
Any thoughts?
not hung up at all on decay. I am hung up on nucleus tho. Is the energy stored in the nucleus somehow, or in the electron shells? The latter I could understand, but that isn't the nucleus...
I thought that was the neutron bomb.
Neutron != photon.
Or perhaps neutrons were the production mechanism for the photons?
but if you took those 100 daisy cutters and dropped those over a random dispersal pattern, I imagine you'd cause more damage than one nuclear bomb of similar size.
I'm assuming that your blast radius is actually the result of a blast volume (which I'm assuming is proportional to yield), and since radius grows as the cube root of the volume, you'd be more effective if you drop several small ones.
Lots of assumptions needed to get from there to this conclusion, tho.
Is there a physicist in the house?
I'm trying to figure out how you stimulate the nucleus, and then have it decay, without fissioning, and how this can be anything BUT nuclear. Perhaps nuclear has shifted meaning to denote precisely chain fission reaction.
anyways. Are we sure they don't just mean that hafnium atoms are more stable than others at keeping electrons in exited states, and that the device is pumped by priming all of them to a high energy and then causing them all to collapse simultaneously? That I could easily fit into my phy-100 framework.
Otherwise, if the energy is stored in the nucleus... where does it go? Are there different nucleus configurations (protons/neutrons packed differently), or do we change isotopes, losing a neutron?
Lastly, how likely is it that the high energy density during the explosion causes som fission, thereby dirtying the bomb? (the article talks about dispersing excited halfnium: not the same thing).
TIA
As far as I know, a run of numbers has never won the lottery, so this is your chance. The run is more likely to come up, since one hasn't already, in all this time.
oh, wait...
I had a creative card under Win98 (well, I guess I still have the card, but the OS commited suicide), and that card (the sblive 5.1, or somesuch) was a PITA to use. It had more sliders and controls than houston ground control, and only one precise combination thereof would allow me to forward from mic to line out. As far as I could tell, there was no way of saving the settings, so I ended up printing screenshots of when I finally got it working, and had those folded up under my monitor for whenever I wanted to watch TV on the All-In-Wonder. (you could save something but it wasn't the mixer settings. No, they were not obvious, and turning on seemingly unrelated switches would stop it working.)
I think I may be using the MB built-in audio these days... only use it for previewing downloaded songs, before I play them on the real mp3 player (which is an I-Opener with usb audio spdif, btw).
In general, getting multimedia to do the right thing has been MUCH easier for me under linux than windows. But then, perhaps the very automatic trust-us-we-know-best attitude that makes it just work for mom and pop make it hard for me to figure out what they mean.
> And they dont support all the hardware accelerated directx modes.
hardware accelerated sound?! My mind boggles. Obviously you and I put soundcards to VERY different uses.
... erm why not? It's not like the french would put up a fight...
too easy. I know.
actually, there are clear economic reasons why private enterprise *is* more competent than government: their ass is on the line.
Governments however have a monopoly on government services, and answer only to public pressure, which is much more abstract than not getting any customers.
The tradgedy of the commons, writ large, is another way of seeing it.
So I'd say that not only do governments *tend* to start from a less efficient organisation than the private sector, the pressures to make them improve are also less efficent. Not a neurosis: a fact.
And yes, the private sector does make a lot of mistakes, but also deals with its mistakes more efficiently. If a company overcharged you for a product or service, you'd get a refund damn quickly. Try that with your local government.
ya. Since they rasterize onto a roll and then print the whole page at once, it would seem logical that the speediness of the postscript interpreter and its memory management routines would play the major role.
But then, I'm a languages guy rather than a printer guy, so perhaps my choice of hammer is affecting which nails I see.
I've sucessfully resized FAT partitions on several computers using free / demo tools, but what about NTFS? IIRC, XP is part of the NT branch, and thus uses an NTFS variant.
/home tree a separate partition, but don't have the disk space to copy it, so need to do it in place. The tool would need to shuffle files around so that the whole home tree was on one end of the partition, and / was on the other.
Or was that 2000? I can never keep these names straight.
Anyways, I don't know whether the internal structure of NTFS lends itself to simple resizing: in much the same way that ext2 doesn't seem to. If anyone can find me an ext2 splitter, I'll be eternally grateful. I have a 30GB partition, and I'd like to make the 20GB
I've often wondered: on what grounds are they allowed to detain you? Am I allowed to detain random people, or do they have extra rights because they are a business? Is this some sort of citizen's arrest (which I don't even know exists, or is some myth).
hell, every time you go to the store, pick up a pack, and put it down somewhere else before checkout.
Eventually, they'll have you tagged as a shoplifter, and hassle you. In the states, people have sure department stores for "embarassment" for being falsely accused for shoplifting, but in britiain, I guess the best you can do is to raise a huge fuss about intrusive measures and what not.
And then be asked not to come back to that store. Convenience or principles: you choose.