First lets deal with the ridiculous. An institution whose authorities have never experienced marriage and procreation presents itself as an authority on marriage and procreation.
Second and more relevant is the churches position on the status of a fertilized embryo. The church declares it to be human. I do not agree. I have that right. Therefore, the Pope's pronouncements on my personal reproductive choices are as arbitrary and ridiculous as if he had told me not to get a flu shot.
You sir are an apologist. It is not easy to adopt, there are simply not enough babies to go around. Third world adoption is not easy, and there are moral questions revolving around what practices it encourages in the countries the babies come from. Like, for example, the culling of female babies.
The root problem here is that this religion has made you feel empowered to pronounce upon and, had you the power, dictate the personal actions of others. Religion does that. If there is one thing the followers of most major religions can not do, it's mind their own business.
Thank you for your recent guidance on my medical issues, in particular my infertility. I have been wondering how to proceed. Now I understand it is God's will for me not to have children.
I will be sure to convey your disapproval to my sister that she allowed doctors to perform a Cesarean Section on her during a difficult childbirth. This was, after all, nothing more than medical intervention to allow procreation and must therefore be against God's will, correct?
I look forward to your continued leadership on these issues. In particular I will find inspiration in the way you will accept God's will by not seeking medical solutions to your future health issues.
FADEC = Full Authority Digital Engine Control. On the Rolls Royce Trent 800 engine its called an Electronic Engine Control System (EECS).
The article describes the EPR (Engine Pressure Ratio, a measure of the power output) as slowly decreasing in both engines at the same time. If thats true it doesn't sound like fuel starvation. One: the EPR would simply drop to zero, not tail off, and two: the engines are unlikely to both stop at the same time.
There was a 767 that ran out of fuel over the Atlantic some time ago, their salvation was that one engine ran for several minutes after the first one quit. In that case they were feeding off different tanks. I'm not a systems guy but I believe that's the normal way of doing things, because what's the point of having independent engine systems if the fuel source itself for the two engines isn't independent.
The 777 was the first twin to get ETOPS (Extended Twin Operations (or as some call it Engines Turn Or Passengers Swim)) to allow it to operate in situations where it might have to fly for two hours on one engine to get to the nearest airport. To get that certification the engine systems have been scrutinized by the FAA who are, shall we say, detail-oriented people.
Something as obvious as taking the fuel for both engines from the same tank is unlikely to be procedure on that plane.
Having said all that, maybe on landing the fuel system is configured differently than for cruise.
I just don't think it feels like a software thing. They tend to be catastrophic and weird and scary. I like the fuel contamination theory. It was coming from China right? Who knows what gets into fuel in China.
It's effectively the same thing but the weight ratio is more practical. The volume of jewellery is so small that reading the change in water level in a graduated cylinder is really hard. It's generally smaller than the meniscus.
Plus most jewellers are already set up to do the water-weighing.
It's hard to determine the density of something like a ring because even if you weight it you don't know its volume.
But there is a way around that, weigh the item in air then in water and take the ratio of the weights. A jewelry store would be more open to that idea than coming at the thing with a power tool. Here's the arithmetic:
volume of item = v
density titanium = d_t
density water = d_w
weight in air w_a = v*d*g
weight in water w_w = w_a - v*d_w*g
w_w/w_a = (w_a - v*d_w*g)/w_a = 1 - d_w/d_t
plugging in d_w = 1 g/cc d_t = 4.5 g/cc
w_w/w_a = 1 - 1/4.5 =.78
If it's steel:
w_w/w_a = 1 - 1/7.8 =.87
Most jewellers would have a setup that can weigh something immersed in water, it's how they tell themselves what the material is. If they say they don't then you are probably being had.
So, a guy like me goes to school for six years, learns some things, and can't for the life of me get my friends take a fair look at nuclear power. They used to go on and on about Browns Ferry and Yucca Mountain and all that. They just took their youthful rebelliousness and ran with it.
So, one such person, this woman, years later, finally decides to learn what "base load" power is? And she's been mouthing off all these years to anyone who will listen without knowing?
...you're armed with little more than those bullshit, hypocritical arguments...
Highly highly unfair toward the GP.
I discourage my friends from infringing copyright, and I don't do it myself. It's ethically and legally wrong.
It is wrong because it's copyright infringement, it is not wrong because it's theft. In Montreal we have ads before theater showings that have the tag line "Piracy...it's theft". No it's not theft. It's copyright infringement. Why does the industry get to redefine and incorrectly use language this way then use that language to justify new laws and police style organizations?
TFA:
film[ theft] costs foreign and domestic distributors, retailers and others $18 billion a year
according to the MPAA head. No, it's not theft. It is NOT theft. And yet the MPAA gets away with this re-definition of words for marketing purposes. It makes a person frustrated which explains the language of the OP. If I was 10 years younger I'd be using the same language.
The MPAA does not get the benefit of the doubt. I don't trust their numbers, their language, or their motivation. Particularly when I'm aware of an Industry Canada study that shows
"a strong positive relationship between peer-to-peer file sharing and CD purchasing. That is, among Canadians actually engaged in it, P2P file sharing increases CD purchases."
Unfortunately this misbehaviour by the MPAA makes it easy to dismiss everything they say, including the fact that copyright infringement is wrong. If geek culture wants to have it's voice heard in the mainstream it must be seen to be on the right side of that issue. The MPAA is scary, and illegal downloading is wrong. Both these things are true.
Not 9,000, but a multiple of 9,000. The damages should be based on the number of people who did not buy the song because they downloaded it.
There is a big difference between downloading some piece of crap song because it's there and it's free, and going out and buying a CD or paying iTunes. Even at.99 per song, you have to at least want it a little bit.
Let's say one out of ten people did not buy the song because they downloaded it. My intuition tells me thats reasonable. That would mean over 90,000 downloads were assumed.
RIAA would never agree with the 1 in 10 assumption, but honestly I think it's about right. Anybody who isn't a 14 year girl doesn't care about music that much, especially bland ordinary derivative manufactured music. But you might try it for free and listen to it a half a time.
It's old fashioned fatigue, and it isn't new. This paper quotes (2nd para) 1992 work that demonstrated fatigue in micron-sized silicon specimens.
Silicon is a typical low ductility material that does not tolerate cracks very well because there is very little plastic deformation at the crack tip (the process zone). Fracture mechanics is based on an energy balance, when the amount of energy absorbed by the creation of the fracture surfaces (the surface energy) plus the amount of energy required to do that plastic work in the pz is equal to the amount of strain energy in the structure that's released when the crack gets bigger (the strain energy release rate), the crack becomes unstable and the part goes bang.
The strain energy release rate varies with the load and crack size, for a given crack size at loads lower than the critical load, pre-existing cracks (there are always cracks even if they are microscopic) open a bit and the pz deforms. When the load is released, the pz doesn't go back to it's original configuration. Repeating the apply-load remove-load cycle progressively grows the pz which causes the crack to get bigger in some complicated ways. But think of it this way, the crack tip is theoretically infinitely sharp (the limit is the inter-atomic distance of the material). This discontinuity causes infinite theoretical stress which causes the atomic bonds to break at the tip. Process zones have been the subject of countless PhD theses.
In a low ductility material the energy absorbed by the pz is small compared to the energy absorbed by the surfaces created when the crack grows. Remember the pz is responsible for fatigue growth, the pz plus the surface energy is responsible for unstable crack propagation. So a small pz means you have to load the material close to the crack instability load to get fatigue growth. With a small enough pz it's impossible to load the material accurately enough to grow the crack without breaking the part. So THATS what they mean by silicon being immune to fatigue.
It seems like the reason this is not the case in microscopic silicon specimens is another PhD topic, the explanation is complicated. Oxidation caused by humidity in the air is a factor, as well as loading in the compression mode.
I just watched their promo video at SkySails. (The video is here). They can point as close as 50 degrees off the wind, so tacking is possible. In other words, if oil went up to $1000 a barrel they could theoretically sail either way across the Atlantic, albeit taking 2 or 3 times as long.
They show 30% fuel savings, but oil prices have gone up a lot recently, so it might well be closer to 50% now. It launches and recovers automatically and has an automatic control system.
He's got a massive ego, so people dismiss him as a bad loser. But his accusations of cheating aren't without merit.
My respect for him has gone up quite a bit because of this incident. I wonder if I would have the courage to stand up to police and arbitrary imprisonment, knowing what Russian jails must be like these days.
I hear lots of griping about the state of the world on/. and elsewhere, but I wonder if any of us would have the courage to put our beliefs into action like he has.
TFA refers to the Zeno effect, which I hadn't heard of before. This turns out to be an effect whereby the decay of a particle can be suppressed by continuous observation of the particle.
The thrust of the argument is that dark energy could spontaneously decay, resulting in a new big bang. The probability of decay decreases with time, and by observing dark energy the decay probability is reset back to its value at time zero due to the Zeno effect.
Being a very very amateur reader of quantum mechanics, all I can say to this is, OK if they say so. One thing I did run across is that wikipedia's entry for the Zeno effect claims it only applies to microscopic particles, not macro systems.
My question would be, wouldn't dark energy as a whole be considered a macro system? Surely an individual quantum of dark energy is not what humans observed. I would have no idea to whom I should address that question.
Type "define:revolve" in Google and you will find the definition of "revolve" encompasses the concept of "orbit". In fact, the word orbit is used in several definitions of the word revolve. If I had used the word "rotate" you might have had a point.
If once accepts Mr. Einstein's assertion that no frame of reference is to be preferred over another, then I may indeed chose to observe the Earth-Moon system from a point on the moon and say "the earth is revolving around me" and this is a perfectly legitimate point of view.
However, the equations of motion are more complicated if once choses a non-inertial frame of reference in this way. Which is why Johannes Kepler, being the towering intellect he was, chose to put his reference frame at the center of mass of the system, because mathematicians strive to reduce their results to the simplest, most reduced form. This in no way means such a coordinate frame is physically "right" while all others are "wrong".
So, anyone who accepts Michelson-Morley and special relativity can have the Earth revolving around the moon if they want. What is much much harder is to base humorous observations on this fact.
It's not a "comment system". It's a moderation system. The comment system is what I'm using to write this. The moderation system is to promote quality posts. Personally I thought it was funny, and the GP was absolutely hilarious but oh well.
Good nutter theories are supposed to be a little harder to disprove.
Oh another "good" theory snob. You and all those "good" scientists with their "good" theories and their "grants" and ect. ect. But just mention the popcorn theory of galactic gravity and all of a sudden your a "bad" scientist and you don't get invited to the vip area of the astrophysics seminar anymore.
How do they know the earth wasn't created by a collision with the moon? Cuz, the Earth does in fact revolve around the moon if you look at it that way and don't get all lazy with the math like those big slouches of history like Kepler did.
Canadian speaking. Yes you are right that people will curse at socialized medicine as we do. Like recently when I got a booboo on my finger (stupid hammer) and the emergency room wait was about 2 hours. This is annoying, but not deadly. I've had serious emergencies (an internal organ which will remain nameless went haywire) and I was wheeled in real fast and had a team of very serious people looking at me within seconds. To me the latter is far far more significant than the former.
As for the war vs health care dichotomy, that is false. Canada spends less on health care than the US does, although the reasons for that are hard to summarize and are not simply the oft-mentioned reduced overhead that results from eliminating the insurance companies (ref). Whatever the exact explanation, if magically the US woke up tomorrow with Canada-style health care, overall costs would go down. No extra money from the war budget or anywhere else would be needed.
Of course, Canada has it's share of bureaucratic nightmare government programs, but health care seems, for some reason, to be reasonably well run as such things go. It's probably because the people take the system personally and keep up the pressure on the politicians to deliver a workable system. In the wake of Katrina I suppose Americans are disinclined to believe such a thing is possible.
My reading of the blurb leads me to think their apparent contribution is finding an iridium based metal hydride that catalyzes both the oxidation and reduction sides, which I never thought about and didn't know platinum couldn't do. Your example above leads me to think it can so I'm wondering what this is really all about.
Also we have a new reason not to RTFA. The summary forbids us from doing so.
In "Dark Sun" by Richard Rhodes he mentioned Edward Teller's thoughts on 100-megaton class weapons. Teller's belief was that a bomb of this size would eject a 100-mile diameter plug of the Earth's atmosphere into space at escape velocity. Larger and larger bombs would not eject more atmosphere, but would eject the same amount at higher speeds. He also believed the 100 mile diameter area on the ground would be flattened.
Some think this detonation actually frightened Washington and the Kremlin by showing that such apocalyptic effects where well within reach, and eventually led to the test ban treaty.
Slashdot Mirror
I see you missed the subtleties of my meaning.
First lets deal with the ridiculous. An institution whose authorities have never experienced marriage and procreation presents itself as an authority on marriage and procreation.
Second and more relevant is the churches position on the status of a fertilized embryo. The church declares it to be human. I do not agree. I have that right. Therefore, the Pope's pronouncements on my personal reproductive choices are as arbitrary and ridiculous as if he had told me not to get a flu shot.
Do you see now?
You sir are an apologist. It is not easy to adopt, there are simply not enough babies to go around. Third world adoption is not easy, and there are moral questions revolving around what practices it encourages in the countries the babies come from. Like, for example, the culling of female babies.
The root problem here is that this religion has made you feel empowered to pronounce upon and, had you the power, dictate the personal actions of others. Religion does that. If there is one thing the followers of most major religions can not do, it's mind their own business.
Thank you for your recent guidance on my medical issues, in particular my infertility. I have been wondering how to proceed. Now I understand it is God's will for me not to have children.
I will be sure to convey your disapproval to my sister that she allowed doctors to perform a Cesarean Section on her during a difficult childbirth. This was, after all, nothing more than medical intervention to allow procreation and must therefore be against God's will, correct?
I look forward to your continued leadership on these issues. In particular I will find inspiration in the way you will accept God's will by not seeking medical solutions to your future health issues.
A Good Catholic
FADEC = Full Authority Digital Engine Control. On the Rolls Royce Trent 800 engine its called an Electronic Engine Control System (EECS).
The article describes the EPR (Engine Pressure Ratio, a measure of the power output) as slowly decreasing in both engines at the same time. If thats true it doesn't sound like fuel starvation. One: the EPR would simply drop to zero, not tail off, and two: the engines are unlikely to both stop at the same time.
There was a 767 that ran out of fuel over the Atlantic some time ago, their salvation was that one engine ran for several minutes after the first one quit. In that case they were feeding off different tanks. I'm not a systems guy but I believe that's the normal way of doing things, because what's the point of having independent engine systems if the fuel source itself for the two engines isn't independent.
The 777 was the first twin to get ETOPS (Extended Twin Operations (or as some call it Engines Turn Or Passengers Swim)) to allow it to operate in situations where it might have to fly for two hours on one engine to get to the nearest airport. To get that certification the engine systems have been scrutinized by the FAA who are, shall we say, detail-oriented people.
Something as obvious as taking the fuel for both engines from the same tank is unlikely to be procedure on that plane.
Having said all that, maybe on landing the fuel system is configured differently than for cruise.
I just don't think it feels like a software thing. They tend to be catastrophic and weird and scary. I like the fuel contamination theory. It was coming from China right? Who knows what gets into fuel in China.
ISPs To Filter Traffic For Copyright Holders?
How am I supposed to know that? Don't ask me, jeez I come here to read news not to report it.
However if you're offering me a job I'll go dig around and see what I can find out.
It's effectively the same thing but the weight ratio is more practical. The volume of jewellery is so small that reading the change in water level in a graduated cylinder is really hard. It's generally smaller than the meniscus.
Plus most jewellers are already set up to do the water-weighing.
It's hard to determine the density of something like a ring because even if you weight it you don't know its volume. But there is a way around that, weigh the item in air then in water and take the ratio of the weights. A jewelry store would be more open to that idea than coming at the thing with a power tool. Here's the arithmetic: volume of item = v density titanium = d_t density water = d_w weight in air w_a = v*d*g weight in water w_w = w_a - v*d_w*g w_w/w_a = (w_a - v*d_w*g)/w_a = 1 - d_w/d_t plugging in d_w = 1 g/cc d_t = 4.5 g/cc w_w/w_a = 1 - 1/4.5 = .78
If it's steel:
w_w/w_a = 1 - 1/7.8 = .87
Most jewellers would have a setup that can weigh something immersed in water, it's how they tell themselves what the material is. If they say they don't then you are probably being had.
So, a guy like me goes to school for six years, learns some things, and can't for the life of me get my friends take a fair look at nuclear power. They used to go on and on about Browns Ferry and Yucca Mountain and all that. They just took their youthful rebelliousness and ran with it.
So, one such person, this woman, years later, finally decides to learn what "base load" power is? And she's been mouthing off all these years to anyone who will listen without knowing?
Young people. Sheesh.
...you're armed with little more than those bullshit, hypocritical arguments...Highly highly unfair toward the GP.
I discourage my friends from infringing copyright, and I don't do it myself. It's ethically and legally wrong.
It is wrong because it's copyright infringement, it is not wrong because it's theft. In Montreal we have ads before theater showings that have the tag line "Piracy...it's theft". No it's not theft. It's copyright infringement. Why does the industry get to redefine and incorrectly use language this way then use that language to justify new laws and police style organizations?
TFA:
film[ theft] costs foreign and domestic distributors, retailers and others $18 billion a yearaccording to the MPAA head. No, it's not theft. It is NOT theft. And yet the MPAA gets away with this re-definition of words for marketing purposes. It makes a person frustrated which explains the language of the OP. If I was 10 years younger I'd be using the same language.
The MPAA does not get the benefit of the doubt. I don't trust their numbers, their language, or their motivation. Particularly when I'm aware of an Industry Canada study that shows
"a strong positive relationship between peer-to-peer file sharing and CD purchasing. That is, among Canadians actually engaged in it, P2P file sharing increases CD purchases."Ref
Unfortunately this misbehaviour by the MPAA makes it easy to dismiss everything they say, including the fact that copyright infringement is wrong. If geek culture wants to have it's voice heard in the mainstream it must be seen to be on the right side of that issue. The MPAA is scary, and illegal downloading is wrong. Both these things are true.
[engineer] gets [error] during [random load tests]
[engineer]: Hmm
[engineer] runs [random load test] 10 more times gets 10 more [errors]
[engineer] calls [manager] "Um, I have something to show you..."
[manager]: [expletive]
[manager] calls [vp]: "We may have discovered an issue..."
[vp]: [expletive expletive expletive]
[vp] calls Hector Ruiz: "Hector, remember when you said the next person that called with bad news would be wearing your guitar around his neck?
Hector: [?]
[vp]: "Well," [explains]
Hector: [expletive expletive expletive expletive expletive expletive expletive]
[vp]: "We have maybe a BIOS fix."
Hector: [expletive expletive expletive expletive expletive]
[vp]: "Ok we'll just go ahead and do that then..."
Hector: [expletive]
[vp]: "Ok then I'll see you later."
Hector: [expletive expletive expletive expletive] *click* [expletive]
Not 9,000, but a multiple of 9,000. The damages should be based on the number of people who did not buy the song because they downloaded it.
There is a big difference between downloading some piece of crap song because it's there and it's free, and going out and buying a CD or paying iTunes. Even at .99 per song, you have to at least want it a little bit.
Let's say one out of ten people did not buy the song because they downloaded it. My intuition tells me thats reasonable. That would mean over 90,000 downloads were assumed.
RIAA would never agree with the 1 in 10 assumption, but honestly I think it's about right. Anybody who isn't a 14 year girl doesn't care about music that much, especially bland ordinary derivative manufactured music. But you might try it for free and listen to it a half a time.
It's old fashioned fatigue, and it isn't new. This paper quotes (2nd para) 1992 work that demonstrated fatigue in micron-sized silicon specimens.
Silicon is a typical low ductility material that does not tolerate cracks very well because there is very little plastic deformation at the crack tip (the process zone). Fracture mechanics is based on an energy balance, when the amount of energy absorbed by the creation of the fracture surfaces (the surface energy) plus the amount of energy required to do that plastic work in the pz is equal to the amount of strain energy in the structure that's released when the crack gets bigger (the strain energy release rate), the crack becomes unstable and the part goes bang.
The strain energy release rate varies with the load and crack size, for a given crack size at loads lower than the critical load, pre-existing cracks (there are always cracks even if they are microscopic) open a bit and the pz deforms. When the load is released, the pz doesn't go back to it's original configuration. Repeating the apply-load remove-load cycle progressively grows the pz which causes the crack to get bigger in some complicated ways. But think of it this way, the crack tip is theoretically infinitely sharp (the limit is the inter-atomic distance of the material). This discontinuity causes infinite theoretical stress which causes the atomic bonds to break at the tip. Process zones have been the subject of countless PhD theses.
In a low ductility material the energy absorbed by the pz is small compared to the energy absorbed by the surfaces created when the crack grows. Remember the pz is responsible for fatigue growth, the pz plus the surface energy is responsible for unstable crack propagation. So a small pz means you have to load the material close to the crack instability load to get fatigue growth. With a small enough pz it's impossible to load the material accurately enough to grow the crack without breaking the part. So THATS what they mean by silicon being immune to fatigue.
It seems like the reason this is not the case in microscopic silicon specimens is another PhD topic, the explanation is complicated. Oxidation caused by humidity in the air is a factor, as well as loading in the compression mode.
Again, all this has been known for many years.
I just watched their promo video at SkySails. (The video is here). They can point as close as 50 degrees off the wind, so tacking is possible. In other words, if oil went up to $1000 a barrel they could theoretically sail either way across the Atlantic, albeit taking 2 or 3 times as long.
They show 30% fuel savings, but oil prices have gone up a lot recently, so it might well be closer to 50% now. It launches and recovers automatically and has an automatic control system.
He's got a massive ego, so people dismiss him as a bad loser. But his accusations of cheating aren't without merit.
My respect for him has gone up quite a bit because of this incident. I wonder if I would have the courage to stand up to police and arbitrary imprisonment, knowing what Russian jails must be like these days.
I hear lots of griping about the state of the world on /. and elsewhere, but I wonder if any of us would have the courage to put our beliefs into action like he has.
TFA refers to the Zeno effect, which I hadn't heard of before. This turns out to be an effect whereby the decay of a particle can be suppressed by continuous observation of the particle.
The thrust of the argument is that dark energy could spontaneously decay, resulting in a new big bang. The probability of decay decreases with time, and by observing dark energy the decay probability is reset back to its value at time zero due to the Zeno effect.
Being a very very amateur reader of quantum mechanics, all I can say to this is, OK if they say so. One thing I did run across is that wikipedia's entry for the Zeno effect claims it only applies to microscopic particles, not macro systems.
My question would be, wouldn't dark energy as a whole be considered a macro system? Surely an individual quantum of dark energy is not what humans observed. I would have no idea to whom I should address that question.
Relatedly, I find this paper to be very helpful.
Type "define:revolve" in Google and you will find the definition of "revolve" encompasses the concept of "orbit". In fact, the word orbit is used in several definitions of the word revolve. If I had used the word "rotate" you might have had a point.
If once accepts Mr. Einstein's assertion that no frame of reference is to be preferred over another, then I may indeed chose to observe the Earth-Moon system from a point on the moon and say "the earth is revolving around me" and this is a perfectly legitimate point of view.
However, the equations of motion are more complicated if once choses a non-inertial frame of reference in this way. Which is why Johannes Kepler, being the towering intellect he was, chose to put his reference frame at the center of mass of the system, because mathematicians strive to reduce their results to the simplest, most reduced form. This in no way means such a coordinate frame is physically "right" while all others are "wrong".
So, anyone who accepts Michelson-Morley and special relativity can have the Earth revolving around the moon if they want. What is much much harder is to base humorous observations on this fact.
It's not a "comment system". It's a moderation system. The comment system is what I'm using to write this. The moderation system is to promote quality posts. Personally I thought it was funny, and the GP was absolutely hilarious but oh well.
Oh another "good" theory snob. You and all those "good" scientists with their "good" theories and their "grants" and ect. ect. But just mention the popcorn theory of galactic gravity and all of a sudden your a "bad" scientist and you don't get invited to the vip area of the astrophysics seminar anymore.
How do they know the earth wasn't created by a collision with the moon? Cuz, the Earth does in fact revolve around the moon if you look at it that way and don't get all lazy with the math like those big slouches of history like Kepler did.
Canadian speaking. Yes you are right that people will curse at socialized medicine as we do. Like recently when I got a booboo on my finger (stupid hammer) and the emergency room wait was about 2 hours. This is annoying, but not deadly. I've had serious emergencies (an internal organ which will remain nameless went haywire) and I was wheeled in real fast and had a team of very serious people looking at me within seconds. To me the latter is far far more significant than the former.
As for the war vs health care dichotomy, that is false. Canada spends less on health care than the US does, although the reasons for that are hard to summarize and are not simply the oft-mentioned reduced overhead that results from eliminating the insurance companies (ref). Whatever the exact explanation, if magically the US woke up tomorrow with Canada-style health care, overall costs would go down. No extra money from the war budget or anywhere else would be needed.
Of course, Canada has it's share of bureaucratic nightmare government programs, but health care seems, for some reason, to be reasonably well run as such things go. It's probably because the people take the system personally and keep up the pressure on the politicians to deliver a workable system. In the wake of Katrina I suppose Americans are disinclined to believe such a thing is possible.
In the demo, the presenter overclocks a Phenom 9500 (2.2 GHz) to 3 GHz.
Here.
Every now and then...just sometimes...Slashdot comes roaring right on through. Boy there are some good people that post here.
Right, alcohol fuel cells already exist.
My reading of the blurb leads me to think their apparent contribution is finding an iridium based metal hydride that catalyzes both the oxidation and reduction sides, which I never thought about and didn't know platinum couldn't do. Your example above leads me to think it can so I'm wondering what this is really all about.
Also we have a new reason not to RTFA. The summary forbids us from doing so.In "Dark Sun" by Richard Rhodes he mentioned Edward Teller's thoughts on 100-megaton class weapons. Teller's belief was that a bomb of this size would eject a 100-mile diameter plug of the Earth's atmosphere into space at escape velocity. Larger and larger bombs would not eject more atmosphere, but would eject the same amount at higher speeds. He also believed the 100 mile diameter area on the ground would be flattened.
Some think this detonation actually frightened Washington and the Kremlin by showing that such apocalyptic effects where well within reach, and eventually led to the test ban treaty.