Expensive watches have sapphire faces because sapphire is one of the hardest materials that can be made into a thin, transparent sheet for a reasonable price. That makes it very scratch resistant. It's not bling, it's very practical.
Sapphire is almost certainly more scratch resistant, because it's harder. Gorilla glass may well be less likely to break, since it's not as hard. Scratch and break resistance are usually difficult to get together. You're right, the real question is, in the real world, which is the more important property? Are scratches or breaks more common? Can other design features mitigate scratches or breaks more effectively?
I would think some rubber buffer around the glass could be used to add a lot of break resistance. Other than putting a film over the screen, scratches are pretty hard to prevent without making the surface itself more resistant.
Jump suits aren't made to keep you alive for hours. You jump, you fall. A space suit might work. Even then, it's not a guarantee. Generally with a space suit you have to be careful about what part of you comes into contact with heat conducting objects, particularly contact for long periods of time. But someone's going to notice you hiking out to the tarmac in one anyway.
You've clearly never experienced real cold. Well prepared mountaineers with sherpas to carry their equipment for them die on Everest when a storm traps them out longer than expected, in temperatures that are generally above -40C. The wheel well of an airplane is a more extreme environment, and no sherpas.
Yes, it's possible. Also likely expensive, highly impractical and still quite dangerous. And no, you don't do it just as well on the cheap at the cost of some "aesthetics."
Yes, you could turn the gear bay into a little house. It wouldn't be very practical to sneak all of the stuff onto the tarmac though. Airport security may not be very good, but they'd notice that.
If you had to pressurize your little gear bay house you'd be completely screwed. Even so, for long high flights you're going to need a good bit of O2 to keep your brain working. That's going to be heavy and bulky. More stuff you have to smuggle in and somehow find room to stow.
The megapixel figure is the comparable number. The Lytro not only has a Bayer filter, it also has another filter that uses multiple pixels to measure the direction of the light. So you take your raw sensor, that might capture 40 MP, divide that by whatever number you like for Bayerization to get colour, and divide that by some other number (about 10 for Lytro's products) for the directional sensing.
No, you can't. The simplest tradeoff that you might switch lenses for is aperture versus focal length. A larger aperture is good for low light. A longer focal length is good for things that are far away. You can fake a longer focal length by cropping your picture, but that reduces resolution (something this camera already has a problem with) and requires a lens with much higher resolving power (which is ALSO something this camera has a problem with).
You might be able to do it on a short flight that doesn't go up too high. You'd need some specialized equipment to do it "safely" on a trip that wouldn't be easier and cheaper to take on a bus.
You can survive -20 pretty easily with a good coat, boots, pants, hat and balaclava. -40 is harder, particularly when you can't move, much of you is pressed up against large amounts of metal (conducts heat better than air and also compresses insulation, making it less effective). Colder than that is going to be a serious challenge. Remember, you need to schlep all of this equipment out to the plane, without getting caught. And no matter how many blankets you have, you still have to breathe.
You can't just haul along a SCUBA tank. SCUBA tanks aren't meant for holding oxygen, and probably wouldn't last long enough anyway. You'd need actual oxygen tanks, meant for high altitude use. The kind Everest climbers use. Since the plane might be going up higher than Everest, you might need to modify them as well.
If you got everything just right, you might make it. Probably not without losing some toes, fingers, the tip of your nose or ears though.
21% is not an amount. It's a proportion. As others have pointed out, the partial pressure of oxygen is what matters. Decrease the pressure but increase the proportion of oxygen and you keep the amount the same.
This story is about monkeys that can do symbolic addition. They're not identifying whether one pile of food is bigger than another.
There are several tasks that various animals, generally primates, dolphins or various birds, can do that children of various ages can't. It seems more and more unlikely all the time that our brains are really much different than those of many other animals. We've just got a little more capacity (eventually) and a whole lot of nonlinear network effect.
Well, if someone were to explode a nuke above the US, policy is pretty much to do your best to turn the source of that nuke into a crater. That's called second strike and is pretty essential to the whole "mutually assured destruction" thing. That series of events is generally referred to as "nuclear war" and has some pretty widely acknowledged concerns attached to it.
Unhyperbolizing, a high altitude nuclear blast can create an EMP that travels a thousand miles and causes damage to power grids and things hooked up to them without surge suppressors. It's not going to cause your pacemaker to die.
Quebec got hit with an EMP form a flare that took out the power grid, which has wires that are hundreds or thousands of kilometres long. You would need a MUCH more powerful EMP to hurt something small like a car. These exist, but they are special focused, narrow bandwidth devices that may also be modulated specifically for the application. There's no way we know about to create such an EMP on a large scale. Solar flares and nukes produce wide-band radiation, which means the total power has to be MUCH higher because most of it isn't in the narrow range where electronics are particularly vulnerable.
The power grid is vulnerable to natural and nuclear EMPs because of very long wires so an EMP can cause a lot of damage over a wide area. Small devices (like cars) can be targeted by a special tuned EMP, but we don't know how to create those on a large scale.
Aircraft may or may not have serious problems. Many modern aircraft use fibre optics, and failure of the computerized bits usually doesn't lead to unavoidable flaming death. Also, critical aircraft systems are usually hardened to some extent. Aircraft are often hit by lightning. Loss of ATC would be a problem, but loss of aircraft radio would be worse. Still, most planes would probably make it down. Pilots are pretty well trained and there are procedures that every pilot should know for landing safely without a radio.
All of that, and cars too, is completely independent of hardening the power grid, which is what the summary/article purports to be about.
Well, if more people like you stopped saying "it's impossible" maybe some of your countrymen would stop thinking it was. Some might even start thinking about how to change it.
I've noticed many Americans seem to have a strange habit of dismissing or often completely ignoring (as you just did) anything that happens outside of the US. Clearly representative democracy must invariably result in two parties with an unshakeable grip on power! Except that most of the time it doesn't. Just in the USA.
Do what people in other places in the world have done. Get off your ass, stop saying it's impossible, and work for change. Go find a third party you can support and volunteer for them. Or run yourself. Sure you'll lose, today. Maybe not tomorrow.
Ireland didn't exactly have a war of secession (not a successful one, anyway). The modern republic of Ireland was created through negotiation. India's independence was mostly peaceful as well, with some early agitators giving way to peaceful civil disobedience a la Gandhi, transition to a dominion in 1947, then independence in 1950. Likewise, Canada, Newfoundland, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Morocco, all gained their independence diplomatically. The US is the only country I can think of at the moment that's had a war of independence and become a successful democracy afterward.
Giving him change to buy cigarettes or alcohol with doesn't help him eat either. Neither does giving him cigarettes to feed his addiction. You can afford to be an addict. He can't.
Donating (or volunteering) at the local soup kitchen, THAT helps him eat.
Actually, nothing says disposable income like smoking. Ear phones are nothing in comparison, unless you've got them plugged into one of those diamond encrusted bling phones. I can't afford to smoke, there's no way I'm going to give money to someone who can.
Many of the genuinely homeless are that way because they have addictions or other mental disorders that make them waste money on drugs or other bad decisions. If you want to help, vote for social treatment and rehabilitation programs. If you can't do that, donate to a decent charity that has a low administrative overhead.
It is hard when your job as a "submitter" consists of copying and pasting the first paragraph of the article. At least they usually remember to put quotes around it.
Slashdot Mirror
Really? You got modded up for that?
Expensive watches have sapphire faces because sapphire is one of the hardest materials that can be made into a thin, transparent sheet for a reasonable price. That makes it very scratch resistant. It's not bling, it's very practical.
Sapphire is almost certainly more scratch resistant, because it's harder. Gorilla glass may well be less likely to break, since it's not as hard. Scratch and break resistance are usually difficult to get together. You're right, the real question is, in the real world, which is the more important property? Are scratches or breaks more common? Can other design features mitigate scratches or breaks more effectively?
I would think some rubber buffer around the glass could be used to add a lot of break resistance. Other than putting a film over the screen, scratches are pretty hard to prevent without making the surface itself more resistant.
You're making assumptions again. Wrong ones.
Jump suits aren't made to keep you alive for hours. You jump, you fall. A space suit might work. Even then, it's not a guarantee. Generally with a space suit you have to be careful about what part of you comes into contact with heat conducting objects, particularly contact for long periods of time. But someone's going to notice you hiking out to the tarmac in one anyway.
You've clearly never experienced real cold. Well prepared mountaineers with sherpas to carry their equipment for them die on Everest when a storm traps them out longer than expected, in temperatures that are generally above -40C. The wheel well of an airplane is a more extreme environment, and no sherpas.
Yes, it's possible. Also likely expensive, highly impractical and still quite dangerous. And no, you don't do it just as well on the cheap at the cost of some "aesthetics."
Yes, you could turn the gear bay into a little house. It wouldn't be very practical to sneak all of the stuff onto the tarmac though. Airport security may not be very good, but they'd notice that.
If you had to pressurize your little gear bay house you'd be completely screwed. Even so, for long high flights you're going to need a good bit of O2 to keep your brain working. That's going to be heavy and bulky. More stuff you have to smuggle in and somehow find room to stow.
The megapixel figure is the comparable number. The Lytro not only has a Bayer filter, it also has another filter that uses multiple pixels to measure the direction of the light. So you take your raw sensor, that might capture 40 MP, divide that by whatever number you like for Bayerization to get colour, and divide that by some other number (about 10 for Lytro's products) for the directional sensing.
No, you can't. The simplest tradeoff that you might switch lenses for is aperture versus focal length. A larger aperture is good for low light. A longer focal length is good for things that are far away. You can fake a longer focal length by cropping your picture, but that reduces resolution (something this camera already has a problem with) and requires a lens with much higher resolving power (which is ALSO something this camera has a problem with).
You might be able to do it on a short flight that doesn't go up too high. You'd need some specialized equipment to do it "safely" on a trip that wouldn't be easier and cheaper to take on a bus.
You can survive -20 pretty easily with a good coat, boots, pants, hat and balaclava. -40 is harder, particularly when you can't move, much of you is pressed up against large amounts of metal (conducts heat better than air and also compresses insulation, making it less effective). Colder than that is going to be a serious challenge. Remember, you need to schlep all of this equipment out to the plane, without getting caught. And no matter how many blankets you have, you still have to breathe.
You can't just haul along a SCUBA tank. SCUBA tanks aren't meant for holding oxygen, and probably wouldn't last long enough anyway. You'd need actual oxygen tanks, meant for high altitude use. The kind Everest climbers use. Since the plane might be going up higher than Everest, you might need to modify them as well.
If you got everything just right, you might make it. Probably not without losing some toes, fingers, the tip of your nose or ears though.
21% is not an amount. It's a proportion. As others have pointed out, the partial pressure of oxygen is what matters. Decrease the pressure but increase the proportion of oxygen and you keep the amount the same.
That's what we smartass reviewers call a conclusion unsupported by the evidence.
This story is about monkeys that can do symbolic addition. They're not identifying whether one pile of food is bigger than another.
There are several tasks that various animals, generally primates, dolphins or various birds, can do that children of various ages can't. It seems more and more unlikely all the time that our brains are really much different than those of many other animals. We've just got a little more capacity (eventually) and a whole lot of nonlinear network effect.
Well, if someone were to explode a nuke above the US, policy is pretty much to do your best to turn the source of that nuke into a crater. That's called second strike and is pretty essential to the whole "mutually assured destruction" thing. That series of events is generally referred to as "nuclear war" and has some pretty widely acknowledged concerns attached to it.
You noted the conclusions of that military EMP vs. pacemaker study, right?
Unhyperbolizing, a high altitude nuclear blast can create an EMP that travels a thousand miles and causes damage to power grids and things hooked up to them without surge suppressors. It's not going to cause your pacemaker to die.
Quebec got hit with an EMP form a flare that took out the power grid, which has wires that are hundreds or thousands of kilometres long. You would need a MUCH more powerful EMP to hurt something small like a car. These exist, but they are special focused, narrow bandwidth devices that may also be modulated specifically for the application. There's no way we know about to create such an EMP on a large scale. Solar flares and nukes produce wide-band radiation, which means the total power has to be MUCH higher because most of it isn't in the narrow range where electronics are particularly vulnerable.
The power grid is vulnerable to natural and nuclear EMPs because of very long wires so an EMP can cause a lot of damage over a wide area. Small devices (like cars) can be targeted by a special tuned EMP, but we don't know how to create those on a large scale.
You think people in elevators would eat each other after half an hour?
Aircraft may or may not have serious problems. Many modern aircraft use fibre optics, and failure of the computerized bits usually doesn't lead to unavoidable flaming death. Also, critical aircraft systems are usually hardened to some extent. Aircraft are often hit by lightning. Loss of ATC would be a problem, but loss of aircraft radio would be worse. Still, most planes would probably make it down. Pilots are pretty well trained and there are procedures that every pilot should know for landing safely without a radio.
All of that, and cars too, is completely independent of hardening the power grid, which is what the summary/article purports to be about.
Well, if more people like you stopped saying "it's impossible" maybe some of your countrymen would stop thinking it was. Some might even start thinking about how to change it.
I've noticed many Americans seem to have a strange habit of dismissing or often completely ignoring (as you just did) anything that happens outside of the US. Clearly representative democracy must invariably result in two parties with an unshakeable grip on power! Except that most of the time it doesn't. Just in the USA.
Do what people in other places in the world have done. Get off your ass, stop saying it's impossible, and work for change. Go find a third party you can support and volunteer for them. Or run yourself. Sure you'll lose, today. Maybe not tomorrow.
Interferes with someone in the lawful use of data would seem to cover it.
You are engaging in learned helplessness.
Ireland didn't exactly have a war of secession (not a successful one, anyway). The modern republic of Ireland was created through negotiation. India's independence was mostly peaceful as well, with some early agitators giving way to peaceful civil disobedience a la Gandhi, transition to a dominion in 1947, then independence in 1950. Likewise, Canada, Newfoundland, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Morocco, all gained their independence diplomatically. The US is the only country I can think of at the moment that's had a war of independence and become a successful democracy afterward.
Giving him change to buy cigarettes or alcohol with doesn't help him eat either. Neither does giving him cigarettes to feed his addiction. You can afford to be an addict. He can't.
Donating (or volunteering) at the local soup kitchen, THAT helps him eat.
Actually, nothing says disposable income like smoking. Ear phones are nothing in comparison, unless you've got them plugged into one of those diamond encrusted bling phones. I can't afford to smoke, there's no way I'm going to give money to someone who can.
Many of the genuinely homeless are that way because they have addictions or other mental disorders that make them waste money on drugs or other bad decisions. If you want to help, vote for social treatment and rehabilitation programs. If you can't do that, donate to a decent charity that has a low administrative overhead.
People are continuous, you insensitive clod!
It is hard when your job as a "submitter" consists of copying and pasting the first paragraph of the article. At least they usually remember to put quotes around it.
Why yes, I have been to Iceland.