I think the whole point of removing the supply form the case is to make it easier to replace the fan with something else, especially since you won't have to worry about your mod having to fit back inside the case when you're done.
Just extend the heat sinks outside of the power supply's case. No water pumps, no piping, no motors... =Smidge=
There are no transistors in an LCD display. Only very small conductive traces. The thin film of liquid quartz crystal polarizes light when you put a voltage across it. By putting a polarized sheet of plastic on top of it, you can effectively block light from passing through the display.
That's why LCD screens need to be backlit.
What *I* want to know is, how sensative are these devices to light? =Smidge=
In NYC, there are cameras set up at every intersection. If you run a red light, they take a snapshot......about a week later you receive a ticket in the mail, with a photo of your car going through the intersection and a closeup of your license plate. Try and talk your way out of that ticket! =Smidge=
Ah, that seems to the be point of confusion. If the "radius" of the black hole is the radius of the event horizon instead of the actual core of mass, then at least the 1:1 mass/radius ratio isn't so counterintuitive:)
I'm right in saying "the Schwarzschild radius of a black hole is proportionate to its mass", but more properly it's directly proportional; i.e., the proportionality constant is 1.
Something about that seems... counterintuitive?
You're saying that if I have a black hole with a mass of x, it has radius y. Then you say if it has mass 2x, it has radius 2y?
If a black hole is a sphere, doubling it's radius increases it's volume by a factor or about 33 1/2! Since mass only doubled, it's density just dropped by a factor of 17?
I admit I'm not very experienced with black holes, but if anything it seems a black hole would condense to some maximum possible density, and it would maintain that maximum possible density regardless of how much mass you add to it... so it just seems strange that doubling it's mass would actually double it's radius. =Smidge=
Well, if everyone was afraid that the residing president would have them and their families killed if they didn't vote for him, I bet there would be a much better turnout at the polls too! =Smidge=
This is exactly why I said "Now, whether or not the "why" part is still High/Junior High School level is another matter..."
First, you really have to qualify exactly what you want to know when you ask "Why?". If that's your entire question, then you're no longer talking science, but philosophy. I'm tempted to say that science and philosophy are complete opposites, which is likely why you feel the "why" question is outside the realm of science. Assuming there's a reason for absolutely everything seems, at least to me, to be an attempt at making the ol' "Intelligent Design" argument. That's not science.
I'm sure if you ask the right question to the right person, they will have a decent answer.
And "nifty names" don't answer anything. They just put a handle on an otherwise complex or obscure nature or property. It's just human nature to place a label on everything. =Smidge=
As a result, it is very hard to find the point from all the fluff-talk, and next to impossible to create a good systematic understanding of the topic.
I'm not going to argue that textbooks are getting more and more "fluffy" and "pretty", and I agree that sometimes they really don't teach what they should.
However, I don't agree that textbooks in the K-12 (Especially the earlier years) should be completely dry and siccinct, especially for some of the more "advanced" topics.
Gaining a "symantic understanding" of electronics or kinematics is what college is for.
The idea here, I think, is to wet the student's appitite and hopefully draw them into college looking to further their understanding and develop their focus of study.
K-12 deals with breadth of knowledge, College develops depth in a set of core diciplines. Those diciplines are what people build careers on.
Personally speaking, especially with sciences, it's important to help the students link what they do in class with the "real world". How many times have you said to yourself: "Why are we learning this crap? When am I ever going to use this?"
Once you get a grasp of how what you're learning ties into the real world, you can begin to understand it better. Then you're better prepared for the abstract stuff (which doesn't link all that well to the real world, but links to the other stuff that links to the real world!)
If these textbooks can prevent one ditsy teenage girl from becoming a liberal arts major who has no fucking clue how to even use a ruler (and I knew one personally, no joke), then mission accomplished, I say. =Smidge=
I don't know what type of science you're talking about, but I can't really think of any subject at the High/Junior High School level that doesn't have a very good answer to the "why" question.
Now, whether or not the "why" part is still High/Junior High School level is another matter... =Smidge=
There's two things I'd like to bring up to expand on that idea, in a way. First, a quote:
"Millions long for immortality who don't know what to do on a rainy afternoon." -Susan Ertz
Which I think pretty much sums up the situation for most of the people who would buy into the treatment. (Just look at how many hollywood burn-outs keep hacking their bodies up trying to stay young!)
The second is an obligatory reference to the HHGTTG:
"Wowbagger the Infinitely Prolonged was --indeed, is - one of the Universe's very small number of immortal beings.
Those who are born immortal instinctively know how to cope with it, but Wowbagger was not one of them. Indeed he had come to hate them, the load of serene bastards. He had had his immortality thrust upon him by an unfortunate accident with an irrational particle accelerator, a liquid lunch and a pair of rubber bands. (snip) To begin with it was fun, he had a ball, living dangerously, taking risks, cleaning up on high-yield long-term investments, and just generally outliving the hell out of everybody." =Smidge=
If anything, technology has increased the rate we use paper.
I work at an engineering consultant office doing HV/P/E work. We got a laser-plotter a few years ago... want to check the drawings? Plot out a set. Only takes about 5 seconds per sheet (30" by 42"). After marking it up with highlighters and colored pens, there's a good chance the whole set will be plotted again with the changes we made.
Usually between 10 and 20 sheets for a job, sometimes as many as 80 sheets.
Before the laser plotter, we had an inkjet plotter. It would take nearly 10 minutes to plot out a single sheet on that thing! Corrections were done by printing out portions of the drawings on letter paper. You better believe we're going through a lot more paper now!
Especially when there's an obvious mistake. "Oh crap. Guess I'll have to reprint it..." *click click* *another 12 square feet of paper wasted* =Smidge=
I keep a copy of TomsRTBT in my bag, just in case. Not being a 'hardcore Linux user' I rarely need anything else to clean up a friend's machine. Hey, it fits on a floppy and runs on anything with more than 4MB RAM, and does everything you seem to need (and then some).
Not only that, but you *still* have to buy a Lexmark printer in the first place.
Of course, the company doesn't make any money on the printers (A one-time sale of $200-300)... all their profits are from ink, which you will always need to buy.
Another poster commented about how HP shold make "standard" cartrages for all their printers, makign the ink well seperate from the print head. That would work great, because even if you own an old printer, you still buy the same ink cartrage. That means you sell the same volume of ink, but one as one product, which would be cheaper to manufacture in vast bulk (and also cheaper because it's just a plastic container for ink!) =Smidge=
I wasn't aware that humans could 'hear' electromagnetic waves.:)
The reason transformers hum is because their cores are vibrating in response to the magnetic fields they're subjected to. Same with flourecent lights (which have transformers in them).
But yeah, just about every AC power appliance gives off a "Hum" of electromagnetic waves, and digital devices, with their constant pulsing, do it as well. And preventing the two from interacting is big business.
Some good examples from personal experience:
Trying to record some audio clips, but when I play them back, half of them have a STRONG buzz in the background. So loud you can barely hear the recording. Turns out my mom turned on her ceramic kiln in the basement (which sucks a lot of juice), creating strong interference. Sure enough, when the kiln turned off, the problem went away.
If I have the volume up, not only can I "hear" the screen redraws, but the mouse move, my keyboard pulse, and my network card go to work. If I have the headphones on and the volume all the way up, I can hear the hard drive working, too. (Interestingly, I'm reminded of this one government "safe room" that was specifically sheilded to stop these pulses, since it would be possible to catch and decode them to figure out what the input devices are doing. eg: passwords and other text)
=Smidge=
Re:How many lumens per watt?
on
Thin, Flat LEDs
·
· Score: 1
Assuming the LED chip is pretty much the same as any other LED semiconductor, then it's probably the same efficiency.
But the real trick here is that this device sends ALL of the light out over a fairly wide area and in ONE direction, using a fresnel-type reflector. That makes the device flat and relatively thin, but puts out a good deal of light over a large area. Somethingf you'ld probably need an array of standard LEDs or a (relatively) bulky parabolic reflector to do.
Of course, it's not exactly broundbreaking research. The geometric properties of Fresnel lenses has been known for a long time. This is just an example of a good, easy idea that everyone has just overlooked until now. =Smidge=
And where does the hydrogen to power these fuel cells come from? Most likely, electrolosis of water.
Where does the energy to do this come from? A power plant of some sort.
So by switching to fuel cells powered cars, you haven't really solved anything. You need to *manufacture* the fuel, which takes more energy that the fuel itself will give you in return. Energy which, more than likely, is coming from fossil fuels.
The only difference is the everyday citizen doesn't need to concern themselves with the pollution they're causing. Out of sight, out of mind.
Of course, this problem isn't really a problem if they use Nuclear as their power source... but only if they get those U-238 reactors operational! =Smidge=
Re:Chevrolet Trailblazer: Four or eight cylinders
on
10 Techno-Cool Cars
·
· Score: 1
Knowing someone who owned one, getting stuck in FOUR cylinder mode was the bigger problem.
maybe they've done a better job this time around, but I'm still wairy of it. And you're right, this is hardly a new idea. =smidge=
you should also hold the position that your experience of a consciousness is the result (by-product) of a physical process that is completely out of your control
By definition, consciousness is the result of consciousness. "I think, therefore I am." It doesn't matter HOW I think, the point is that I do.
By your same argument, even if God (or other supreme being etc) created the universe, that has no bearing on whether the universe is deterministic or not. Most people who believe the universe was "created" belive there's as reason behind it. If anything, that's even more deterministic.
But I do have control over what I do. Perhaps my choices are limited, but only based on past descisions. For example, I forgot to cash my paycheck yesterday, so my choices for what to buy for lunch later today are slightly more limited. That doesn't mean I'm destined for pizza. (Although that would be rather tasty!)
And no, I don't know what I will be thinking two seconds from now, because like most people my thoughts are more or less spontaneous. What I will be thinking about an hour from now will be in some way related to what I will be thinking or doing 59 minutes and 59 seconds from now.
So basically every "thought" you have is "evolved" from the previous "thought", and the cycle continues. If something happens, my body produces a stimulus to my brain that alters that pattern, and since humans kearn principally from experience, I interpret that stimulus in a way that makes sense to the situation, and a new sequence of "thoughts" may be started.
An excellent example: My pen just nearly fell off my desk.
At first I was thinking about your insane rambings, but suddenly my eyes picked up an unusual change in the pattern of light on my retinas and my ears detected an unusual sound, and I instinctually turned my eyes over to it's apprent source.
Once my eyes automatically focus on the object, my brain interprets the pattern of light, matches it to some past experience with that kind of pattern, and I recognise it as a pen. By the changing patters I see, and the sound I hear, I determine that the pen is rolling.
I then draw upon my experience to tell me that pens don't roll by themselves, so I assume the desk is slanted. I then draw upon more experience to make a prediction... the pen will continue to roll until it reaches the edge of my desk, and fall off.
My experience is based on not only seeing a lot of other objects that are moving towards the edge of things eventually fall off that edge, but also that this exact sequence of events has happened before. (Several times today, in fact.)
However, my experience also tells me that whenever something I identify as something I want (My pen) falls off my desk, I must get up out of my chair and pick it up again. I find this annoying and time consuming, so I consiously make a motion to stop the pen from rolling: I put my hand on it.
In doing so, I have altered the flow of history. I *could* have let the pen fall, but instead I decided to catch it. Two different outcomes, chosen by me.
Now... Even if your insane, paranoid delusion about having no control over my actions is correct, it doesn't matter because I believe I have control, and sure enough: if I think about doing it, I do it. And since I can't realy predict exactly what I will be thinking in the future with any kind of accuracy, it may as well be totally random. =Smidge=
I fail to see that either side of the origins issue has to do with free will of the individual... but it are you saying that God and his "Divine Plan" gives you more freedom than being the result of random chemical reactions?
And in the (paraphrased) words of George Carlin: "What's the use of being God when any shmuck with a $2 prayer book can come along and screw up your plan?"
But I dunno, being made supposedly for a specific purpose seems a lot more restrictive than being here for no reason at all.:) =Smidge=
Slashdot Mirror
I think the whole point of removing the supply form the case is to make it easier to replace the fan with something else, especially since you won't have to worry about your mod having to fit back inside the case when you're done.
Just extend the heat sinks outside of the power supply's case. No water pumps, no piping, no motors...
=Smidge=
"The 2-disc special edition set now available"
The description above goes on to list what makes it so special...
=Smidge=
Not to cause a panic, buuuuut....
y /0 ,4386,179331,00.html
http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/singapore/stor
"Uh oh."
=Smidge=
I suggest you upgrade your browser. Apparently it doesn't process the tag correctly.
=Smidge=
There are no transistors in an LCD display. Only very small conductive traces. The thin film of liquid quartz crystal polarizes light when you put a voltage across it. By putting a polarized sheet of plastic on top of it, you can effectively block light from passing through the display.
That's why LCD screens need to be backlit.
What *I* want to know is, how sensative are these devices to light?
=Smidge=
Proof: All odd numbers are prime.
Mathematitian: "1 is prime, 3 is prime, 5 is prime, 7 is prime. The rest are prime by induction."
Physisist: "1 is prime, 3 is prime, 5 is prime, 7 is prime, 9 is not but is likely to be experimental error, 11 is prime, 13 is prime..."
Engineer: ""1 is prime, 3 is prime, 5 is prime, 7 is prime, 9 is prime to a reasonable degree of accuracy, 11 is prime, 13 is prime..."
Computer Scientist: "1 is prime, 1 is prime, 1 is prime, 1 is prime..."
</joke>
=Smidge=
In NYC, there are cameras set up at every intersection. If you run a red light, they take a snapshot... ...about a week later you receive a ticket in the mail, with a photo of your car going through the intersection and a closeup of your license plate. Try and talk your way out of that ticket!
=Smidge=
Ah, that seems to the be point of confusion. If the "radius" of the black hole is the radius of the event horizon instead of the actual core of mass, then at least the 1:1 mass/radius ratio isn't so counterintuitive :)
Thanks for the clarification.
=Smidge=
I'm right in saying "the Schwarzschild radius of a black hole is proportionate to its mass", but more properly it's directly proportional; i.e., the proportionality constant is 1.
Something about that seems... counterintuitive?
You're saying that if I have a black hole with a mass of x, it has radius y. Then you say if it has mass 2x, it has radius 2y?
If a black hole is a sphere, doubling it's radius increases it's volume by a factor or about 33 1/2! Since mass only doubled, it's density just dropped by a factor of 17?
I admit I'm not very experienced with black holes, but if anything it seems a black hole would condense to some maximum possible density, and it would maintain that maximum possible density regardless of how much mass you add to it... so it just seems strange that doubling it's mass would actually double it's radius.
=Smidge=
Well, if everyone was afraid that the residing president would have them and their families killed if they didn't vote for him, I bet there would be a much better turnout at the polls too!
=Smidge=
This is exactly why I said "Now, whether or not the "why" part is still High/Junior High School level is another matter..."
First, you really have to qualify exactly what you want to know when you ask "Why?". If that's your entire question, then you're no longer talking science, but philosophy. I'm tempted to say that science and philosophy are complete opposites, which is likely why you feel the "why" question is outside the realm of science. Assuming there's a reason for absolutely everything seems, at least to me, to be an attempt at making the ol' "Intelligent Design" argument. That's not science.
I'm sure if you ask the right question to the right person, they will have a decent answer.
And "nifty names" don't answer anything. They just put a handle on an otherwise complex or obscure nature or property. It's just human nature to place a label on everything.
=Smidge=
As a result, it is very hard to find the point from all the fluff-talk, and next to impossible to create a good systematic understanding of the topic.
I'm not going to argue that textbooks are getting more and more "fluffy" and "pretty", and I agree that sometimes they really don't teach what they should.
However, I don't agree that textbooks in the K-12 (Especially the earlier years) should be completely dry and siccinct, especially for some of the more "advanced" topics.
Gaining a "symantic understanding" of electronics or kinematics is what college is for.
The idea here, I think, is to wet the student's appitite and hopefully draw them into college looking to further their understanding and develop their focus of study.
K-12 deals with breadth of knowledge, College develops depth in a set of core diciplines. Those diciplines are what people build careers on.
Personally speaking, especially with sciences, it's important to help the students link what they do in class with the "real world". How many times have you said to yourself: "Why are we learning this crap? When am I ever going to use this?"
Once you get a grasp of how what you're learning ties into the real world, you can begin to understand it better. Then you're better prepared for the abstract stuff (which doesn't link all that well to the real world, but links to the other stuff that links to the real world!)
If these textbooks can prevent one ditsy teenage girl from becoming a liberal arts major who has no fucking clue how to even use a ruler (and I knew one personally, no joke), then mission accomplished, I say.
=Smidge=
I don't know what type of science you're talking about, but I can't really think of any subject at the High/Junior High School level that doesn't have a very good answer to the "why" question.
Now, whether or not the "why" part is still High/Junior High School level is another matter...
=Smidge=
Gee, hope none of the contestants find this place, even though it's the first hit on Google...
=Smidge=
I think that was pretty much on topic..
There's two things I'd like to bring up to expand on that idea, in a way. First, a quote:
"Millions long for immortality who don't know
what to do on a rainy afternoon." -Susan Ertz
Which I think pretty much sums up the situation for most of the people who would buy into the treatment. (Just look at how many hollywood burn-outs keep hacking their bodies up trying to stay young!)
The second is an obligatory reference to the HHGTTG:
"Wowbagger the Infinitely Prolonged was --indeed, is - one of the Universe's very small number of immortal beings.
Those who are born immortal instinctively know how to cope with it, but Wowbagger was not one of them. Indeed he had come to hate them, the load of serene bastards. He had had his immortality thrust upon him by an unfortunate accident with an irrational
particle accelerator, a liquid lunch and a pair of rubber bands. (snip) To begin with it was fun, he had a ball, living dangerously, taking risks, cleaning up on high-yield long-term investments, and just generally outliving the hell out of everybody."
=Smidge=
Also, don't forget how devistating even a small leak in the tube of a solid-fuel rocket can have... Remember Challenger?
=Smidge=
If anything, technology has increased the rate we use paper.
I work at an engineering consultant office doing HV/P/E work. We got a laser-plotter a few years ago... want to check the drawings? Plot out a set. Only takes about 5 seconds per sheet (30" by 42"). After marking it up with highlighters and colored pens, there's a good chance the whole set will be plotted again with the changes we made.
Usually between 10 and 20 sheets for a job, sometimes as many as 80 sheets.
Before the laser plotter, we had an inkjet plotter. It would take nearly 10 minutes to plot out a single sheet on that thing! Corrections were done by printing out portions of the drawings on letter paper. You better believe we're going through a lot more paper now!
Especially when there's an obvious mistake. "Oh crap. Guess I'll have to reprint it..." *click click* *another 12 square feet of paper wasted*
=Smidge=
I keep a copy of TomsRTBT in my bag, just in case. Not being a 'hardcore Linux user' I rarely need anything else to clean up a friend's machine. Hey, it fits on a floppy and runs on anything with more than 4MB RAM, and does everything you seem to need (and then some).
=Smidge=
Not only that, but you *still* have to buy a Lexmark printer in the first place.
Of course, the company doesn't make any money on the printers (A one-time sale of $200-300)... all their profits are from ink, which you will always need to buy.
Another poster commented about how HP shold make "standard" cartrages for all their printers, makign the ink well seperate from the print head. That would work great, because even if you own an old printer, you still buy the same ink cartrage. That means you sell the same volume of ink, but one as one product, which would be cheaper to manufacture in vast bulk (and also cheaper because it's just a plastic container for ink!)
=Smidge=
I wasn't aware that humans could 'hear' electromagnetic waves. :)
The reason transformers hum is because their cores are vibrating in response to the magnetic fields they're subjected to. Same with flourecent lights (which have transformers in them).
But yeah, just about every AC power appliance gives off a "Hum" of electromagnetic waves, and digital devices, with their constant pulsing, do it as well. And preventing the two from interacting is big business.
Some good examples from personal experience:
Trying to record some audio clips, but when I play them back, half of them have a STRONG buzz in the background. So loud you can barely hear the recording. Turns out my mom turned on her ceramic kiln in the basement (which sucks a lot of juice), creating strong interference. Sure enough, when the kiln turned off, the problem went away.
If I have the volume up, not only can I "hear" the screen redraws, but the mouse move, my keyboard pulse, and my network card go to work. If I have the headphones on and the volume all the way up, I can hear the hard drive working, too. (Interestingly, I'm reminded of this one government "safe room" that was specifically sheilded to stop these pulses, since it would be possible to catch and decode them to figure out what the input devices are doing. eg: passwords and other text)
=Smidge=
Assuming the LED chip is pretty much the same as any other LED semiconductor, then it's probably the same efficiency.
But the real trick here is that this device sends ALL of the light out over a fairly wide area and in ONE direction, using a fresnel-type reflector. That makes the device flat and relatively thin, but puts out a good deal of light over a large area. Somethingf you'ld probably need an array of standard LEDs or a (relatively) bulky parabolic reflector to do.
Of course, it's not exactly broundbreaking research. The geometric properties of Fresnel lenses has been known for a long time. This is just an example of a good, easy idea that everyone has just overlooked until now.
=Smidge=
And where does the hydrogen to power these fuel cells come from? Most likely, electrolosis of water.
Where does the energy to do this come from? A power plant of some sort.
So by switching to fuel cells powered cars, you haven't really solved anything. You need to *manufacture* the fuel, which takes more energy that the fuel itself will give you in return. Energy which, more than likely, is coming from fossil fuels.
The only difference is the everyday citizen doesn't need to concern themselves with the pollution they're causing. Out of sight, out of mind.
Of course, this problem isn't really a problem if they use Nuclear as their power source... but only if they get those U-238 reactors operational!
=Smidge=
Knowing someone who owned one, getting stuck in FOUR cylinder mode was the bigger problem.
maybe they've done a better job this time around, but I'm still wairy of it. And you're right, this is hardly a new idea.
=smidge=
you should also hold the position that your experience of a consciousness is the result (by-product) of a physical process that is completely out of your control
By definition, consciousness is the result of consciousness. "I think, therefore I am." It doesn't matter HOW I think, the point is that I do.
By your same argument, even if God (or other supreme being etc) created the universe, that has no bearing on whether the universe is deterministic or not. Most people who believe the universe was "created" belive there's as reason behind it. If anything, that's even more deterministic.
But I do have control over what I do. Perhaps my choices are limited, but only based on past descisions. For example, I forgot to cash my paycheck yesterday, so my choices for what to buy for lunch later today are slightly more limited. That doesn't mean I'm destined for pizza. (Although that would be rather tasty!)
And no, I don't know what I will be thinking two seconds from now, because like most people my thoughts are more or less spontaneous. What I will be thinking about an hour from now will be in some way related to what I will be thinking or doing 59 minutes and 59 seconds from now.
So basically every "thought" you have is "evolved" from the previous "thought", and the cycle continues. If something happens, my body produces a stimulus to my brain that alters that pattern, and since humans kearn principally from experience, I interpret that stimulus in a way that makes sense to the situation, and a new sequence of "thoughts" may be started.
An excellent example: My pen just nearly fell off my desk.
At first I was thinking about your insane rambings, but suddenly my eyes picked up an unusual change in the pattern of light on my retinas and my ears detected an unusual sound, and I instinctually turned my eyes over to it's apprent source.
Once my eyes automatically focus on the object, my brain interprets the pattern of light, matches it to some past experience with that kind of pattern, and I recognise it as a pen. By the changing patters I see, and the sound I hear, I determine that the pen is rolling.
I then draw upon my experience to tell me that pens don't roll by themselves, so I assume the desk is slanted. I then draw upon more experience to make a prediction... the pen will continue to roll until it reaches the edge of my desk, and fall off.
My experience is based on not only seeing a lot of other objects that are moving towards the edge of things eventually fall off that edge, but also that this exact sequence of events has happened before. (Several times today, in fact.)
However, my experience also tells me that whenever something I identify as something I want (My pen) falls off my desk, I must get up out of my chair and pick it up again. I find this annoying and time consuming, so I consiously make a motion to stop the pen from rolling: I put my hand on it.
In doing so, I have altered the flow of history. I *could* have let the pen fall, but instead I decided to catch it. Two different outcomes, chosen by me.
Now... Even if your insane, paranoid delusion about having no control over my actions is correct, it doesn't matter because I believe I have control, and sure enough: if I think about doing it, I do it. And since I can't realy predict exactly what I will be thinking in the future with any kind of accuracy, it may as well be totally random.
=Smidge=
I fail to see that either side of the origins issue has to do with free will of the individual... but it are you saying that God and his "Divine Plan" gives you more freedom than being the result of random chemical reactions?
:)
And in the (paraphrased) words of George Carlin: "What's the use of being God when any shmuck with a $2 prayer book can come along and screw up your plan?"
But I dunno, being made supposedly for a specific purpose seems a lot more restrictive than being here for no reason at all.
=Smidge=