In the past, I have suggested Si as an alternative to C. Unfortunately, people immediately think "semiconductors" and label the suggestion as AI science fiction. Thank you for a rational response.
Once they realize that the law is incomprehensibly simple to bypass, they'll enact a new law (rather than fix the old one) that makes it illegal to re-sell or otherwise transfer ownership of your prepaid cell phone without a Class 3 Federal Telecom License.
In true Radar O'Reily fashion, they'll probably take the FFL form, scratch out "destructive device", and write in "cell phone."
That's fine, as long as you inflict earth's environmental conditions on your exoplanet. What happens if liquid water isn't available? Say, for example, the temperature is lower, or the atmospheric pressure is low. Water and carbon may not be the sweet spot anymore. Are you willing to make an arrogant statement like "There is no liquid water, therefore life is impossible"? I certainly wouldn't say something like that.
Liquid methane is a candidate - we've observed it elsewhere. Same thing goes for ammonia. Ammonia also has a dipole moment, making it polar like water.
Regardless, your statement about not taking vast quantities of energy to reform molecules is spot on. We definitely need to be looking toward the "simple" end of the periodic table. Maybe Boron-based life with an Ammonia "water" cycle?
Since when did the State (or in this case, agents for the State) magically bypass the Constitution and grant themselves the authority to arbitrarily seize personal property? The candy has zero intrinsic value, but that's not the point. They are prohibited from randomly taking things from people. If the candy-possession presented a danger to other students, take it and call the cops. There's a due-process structure already in place. If the candy-possession was creating a situation disruptive to other students, take it to the school office where the parents can retrieve it later. The disruption is the problem, not the item.
Attending school doesn't require that you surrender your property ownership. This is one of those camel's nose events, and should be smacked down really hard.
Actually it's quite different. The bomb threat is made against a third party. The posting to Craislist is simply following through after you threaten your kids with doing so. It's right up there with "I brought you into this world, I can take you back out." I beleive eBay has an official policy against listing your children for sale, no matter how insolent they are. Apparently it's also against the rules to list your grandmother on eBay.
Why do I hold this control? because its my information to start with. I gave you access to it in return for something under some contractual terms.. Now you are trying to change them after the fact without my option or giving me anything in return. More importantly, you are trying to do something I likely would never have agreed to in the first place.
Sounds like copyright legislation and every instance where our elected representatives have extended the term.
You commented that you can't sustain 200W, so a cow cannot sustain 10 times that.
No, go read it again. I never drew that conclusion.
The data regarding human power capabilities was setting the context for athlete vs. average-joe. That sets an expectation in terms of something the reader can directly relate to (most folks can't relate watts to human power output.)
The big math post was a "put up or shut up" moment. I don't think a cow can do this. I did the math. The math supports my earlier statement.
Further, if cows could produce 2kW beyond their needs, farmers would have hitched them to plows instead of using horses or oxen. 2kW is almost 3hp. If you want to infer something in the original post, you may prepend "Based on my observations of cows," to "A cow that could sustain 2kW would be a frightening beast."
Was it the math? I mean, I never questioned that a cow could provide more power that the average human could, only that the 2kW number seems "exceedingly optimistic" under even the best conditions. The math provides a context for interpreting the numbers.
I'm sorry, I don't follow. Moving the cow vertically against gravity is an energy proposition. With a block and tackle, I can lift said cow with my relatively puny frame.
Moving a cow vertically against gravity at a specified rate is a power proposition. That's a horse of a different color... so to speak.
So I'm imagining a cow wandering up a gentle incline. Gravity is keeping it from floating off into deep space. Now what?
Oh, alright, you've baited me into doing a basic physics problem. We will consider only the gravitational potential energy consequences, and ignore the acceleration issues (which is reasonable, as the acceleration ability of a cow is pretty low.) So y'all hop up here on Uncle MM's knee...
Gravitational potential energy is expressed as U=mgh
. U = energy, in Joules
. m = mass, in kilograms
. g = gravitation (9.8 m/s^2 on earth)
. h = height delta, in meters
We were provided a power number - 2000 watts, which equals 2000 Joules/second. If we divide both sides of the above equation by "seconds," we get a power proposition:
U/s = mgh/s
U/s is power. We assign that to 2000 watts. The 2000 lb cow is about 1000 kg (yes, napkin math here.) g as mentioned is 9.8 m/s^2.
2000 = 1000 * 9.8 * (h/s)
Note that (h/s) has units of meters/second... which is a vertical velocity.
(h/s) = 2000 / (1000 * 9.8) = 0.2 m/s
So our cow will increase it's gravitational potential energy at a rate of 2000 J/s if it can maintain a vertical climbing rate of 0.2 m/s. That's one meter every five seconds.
One minute into the cow's climb, it should have increased it's altitude by 12m. One hour in, it should be 720m above were it started (vertically.)
Honesly, I don't see a cow climbing 3/4 km every hour as a sustainable proposition.
Did some measurements in prep for a human-powered race. I agree - a very in-shape athlete can sustain 200W on a recumbent bike for a couple of hours. The average Joe cannot - he can sustain about 70W continuous, occasionally bursting to 250W.
A cow that could sustain 2kW would be a frightening beast.
The following text is copyrighted by me, using ROT-13 as a technical copy-protection measure. It is rumored that you can circumvent the copy protection using nothing more than pencil and paper, though I highly recommend against doing so.
I completely agree that we are ultimately to blame, either that we elected these representatives, or that we tolerated them negotiating for us in bad faith. Either way, it's our fault.
Also, I believe an act of Congress trumps contract law, though I'd love to see how that would be resolved when the original contract was *with* Congress.
No, the **AA are in material breach of contract with the American people. For a limited time, the RIAA and their ilk were granted a limited monopoly on their wares, in return for releasing the works into the public domain at the end of the term. Joe Public held up his end of the bargain, but the RIAA has lobbied, repeatedly, to get the term extended.
Why is this material breach of contract? Because a contract requires three elements - offer, acceptance, and exchange of consideration. The extensions are invalid because the RIAA didn't offer consideration to the public (we already had the "revert to the public domain" element from the original contract.)
And this betrayal was brokered by our elected representatives.
Actually, that's the root of the problem. When the credit card company pushes the burden of loss onto the merchant, they have no incentive to shoulder the expense of stopping fraud. If they had to absorb the loss themselves, and were prohibited from shoving this onto the merchants, you can bet their attitude toward fraud would change immediately.
Several years ago, I tried to get Fios service. In spite of being in a city-density suburban environment, Verizon didn't offer the service in my neighborhood of single-family homes. They had much higher priorities - build out the high-density townhouse and condo/apartment areas. Several years passed, and Fios was still not offered to me. However, the Verizon fiber crews showed up in my front yard one afternoon to string fiber along the utility poles. Yep, they brought Fios in... to the community on the other side of mine. I couldn't get service to save my life, in spite of being 4000 ft. from the local CO, but Verizon was more than happy to transit my property on the mandated right-of-way easement.
So this is what I'm bitchy about. The private for-profit company is using the state-mandated utility corridor on my property, but won't provide me access to the service. I got to clean up the mess after the installation crews chewed the crap out of my yard. I receive no benefit from this situation.
The cable companies are using eminent domain to run their wires through the right-of-way in my yard (buried, on the pole... doesn't matter.) That little tidbit should force the neutrality issue upon them. Don't like it? Fine, contract with each and every individual for compensation for running the cables through private properties. If the FCC doesn't have jurisdiction on this, the states certainly should.
Arresting him was probably overkill, but limiting contact with children until the whole thing is cleared up makes some sense.
So let me get this straight - if someone broke into your house and swiped your car keys, then sent them along with an empty whiskey bottle to the cops, accusing you of DUI, you'd be just fine with having your driving privileges suspended while the cops investigate? I mean, after all, this completely circumstantial evidence *might* be true, right?
Law Enforcement's "chain of custody" is a tremendously important concept. The "evidence" the police received is horribly tainted, and shouldn't have merited more than a knock on the door and a conversation with the man being joe-jobbed.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, I have renewed respect for Jim Henson.
Or you could go old school:
mahna mahna, ba teeee ba tee pee
the wife hates it when I stick this song into her head
In the past, I have suggested Si as an alternative to C. Unfortunately, people immediately think "semiconductors" and label the suggestion as AI science fiction. Thank you for a rational response.
I found a nice PDF describing The Basics of Silane Chemistry. Does a nice job comparing it to Carbon equivalents.
Once they realize that the law is incomprehensibly simple to bypass, they'll enact a new law (rather than fix the old one) that makes it illegal to re-sell or otherwise transfer ownership of your prepaid cell phone without a Class 3 Federal Telecom License.
In true Radar O'Reily fashion, they'll probably take the FFL form, scratch out "destructive device", and write in "cell phone."
That's fine, as long as you inflict earth's environmental conditions on your exoplanet. What happens if liquid water isn't available? Say, for example, the temperature is lower, or the atmospheric pressure is low. Water and carbon may not be the sweet spot anymore. Are you willing to make an arrogant statement like "There is no liquid water, therefore life is impossible"? I certainly wouldn't say something like that.
Liquid methane is a candidate - we've observed it elsewhere. Same thing goes for ammonia. Ammonia also has a dipole moment, making it polar like water.
Regardless, your statement about not taking vast quantities of energy to reform molecules is spot on. We definitely need to be looking toward the "simple" end of the periodic table. Maybe Boron-based life with an Ammonia "water" cycle?
Huh? We're talking about fending off saber-toothed critters bent on eating your young, not being an anorexic cutter.
Chicks dig scars. Probably triggers a paleolithic reaction that infers you'll protect the young-uhns from predators..
Since when did the State (or in this case, agents for the State) magically bypass the Constitution and grant themselves the authority to arbitrarily seize personal property? The candy has zero intrinsic value, but that's not the point. They are prohibited from randomly taking things from people. If the candy-possession presented a danger to other students, take it and call the cops. There's a due-process structure already in place. If the candy-possession was creating a situation disruptive to other students, take it to the school office where the parents can retrieve it later. The disruption is the problem, not the item.
Attending school doesn't require that you surrender your property ownership. This is one of those camel's nose events, and should be smacked down really hard.
Damn, I'm going to try to sneak that into casual conversation.
Actually it's quite different. The bomb threat is made against a third party. The posting to Craislist is simply following through after you threaten your kids with doing so. It's right up there with "I brought you into this world, I can take you back out." I beleive eBay has an official policy against listing your children for sale, no matter how insolent they are. Apparently it's also against the rules to list your grandmother on eBay.
Sounds like copyright legislation and every instance where our elected representatives have extended the term.
No, go read it again. I never drew that conclusion.
The data regarding human power capabilities was setting the context for athlete vs. average-joe. That sets an expectation in terms of something the reader can directly relate to (most folks can't relate watts to human power output.)
The big math post was a "put up or shut up" moment. I don't think a cow can do this. I did the math. The math supports my earlier statement.
Further, if cows could produce 2kW beyond their needs, farmers would have hitched them to plows instead of using horses or oxen. 2kW is almost 3hp. If you want to infer something in the original post, you may prepend "Based on my observations of cows," to "A cow that could sustain 2kW would be a frightening beast."
Was it the math? I mean, I never questioned that a cow could provide more power that the average human could, only that the 2kW number seems "exceedingly optimistic" under even the best conditions. The math provides a context for interpreting the numbers.
Oh, and there are no stairs in my house.
I'm sorry, I don't follow. Moving the cow vertically against gravity is an energy proposition. With a block and tackle, I can lift said cow with my relatively puny frame.
... so to speak.
...
... which is a vertical velocity.
Moving a cow vertically against gravity at a specified rate is a power proposition. That's a horse of a different color
So I'm imagining a cow wandering up a gentle incline. Gravity is keeping it from floating off into deep space. Now what?
Oh, alright, you've baited me into doing a basic physics problem. We will consider only the gravitational potential energy consequences, and ignore the acceleration issues (which is reasonable, as the acceleration ability of a cow is pretty low.) So y'all hop up here on Uncle MM's knee
Gravitational potential energy is expressed as U=mgh
. U = energy, in Joules
. m = mass, in kilograms
. g = gravitation (9.8 m/s^2 on earth)
. h = height delta, in meters
We were provided a power number - 2000 watts, which equals 2000 Joules/second. If we divide both sides of the above equation by "seconds," we get a power proposition:
U/s = mgh/s
U/s is power. We assign that to 2000 watts. The 2000 lb cow is about 1000 kg (yes, napkin math here.) g as mentioned is 9.8 m/s^2.
2000 = 1000 * 9.8 * (h/s)
Note that (h/s) has units of meters/second
(h/s) = 2000 / (1000 * 9.8) = 0.2 m/s
So our cow will increase it's gravitational potential energy at a rate of 2000 J/s if it can maintain a vertical climbing rate of 0.2 m/s. That's one meter every five seconds.
One minute into the cow's climb, it should have increased it's altitude by 12m. One hour in, it should be 720m above were it started (vertically.)
Honesly, I don't see a cow climbing 3/4 km every hour as a sustainable proposition.
Did some measurements in prep for a human-powered race. I agree - a very in-shape athlete can sustain 200W on a recumbent bike for a couple of hours. The average Joe cannot - he can sustain about 70W continuous, occasionally bursting to 250W.
A cow that could sustain 2kW would be a frightening beast.
The following text is copyrighted by me, using ROT-13 as a technical copy-protection measure. It is rumored that you can circumvent the copy protection using nothing more than pencil and paper, though I highly recommend against doing so.
"n oevrs cbrz
qrzbafgengvat grpuabybtvpny npuvrirzrag
fnqarff
lbh ner va ivbyngvba bs gur QZPN"
I completely agree that we are ultimately to blame, either that we elected these representatives, or that we tolerated them negotiating for us in bad faith. Either way, it's our fault.
Also, I believe an act of Congress trumps contract law, though I'd love to see how that would be resolved when the original contract was *with* Congress.
No, the **AA are in material breach of contract with the American people. For a limited time, the RIAA and their ilk were granted a limited monopoly on their wares, in return for releasing the works into the public domain at the end of the term. Joe Public held up his end of the bargain, but the RIAA has lobbied, repeatedly, to get the term extended.
Why is this material breach of contract? Because a contract requires three elements - offer, acceptance, and exchange of consideration. The extensions are invalid because the RIAA didn't offer consideration to the public (we already had the "revert to the public domain" element from the original contract.)
And this betrayal was brokered by our elected representatives.
Actually, that's the root of the problem. When the credit card company pushes the burden of loss onto the merchant, they have no incentive to shoulder the expense of stopping fraud. If they had to absorb the loss themselves, and were prohibited from shoving this onto the merchants, you can bet their attitude toward fraud would change immediately.
Definitely Pencilshopped. I'm certain I've seen this on PencilshopDisasters.com.
Several years ago, I tried to get Fios service. In spite of being in a city-density suburban environment, Verizon didn't offer the service in my neighborhood of single-family homes. They had much higher priorities - build out the high-density townhouse and condo/apartment areas. Several years passed, and Fios was still not offered to me. However, the Verizon fiber crews showed up in my front yard one afternoon to string fiber along the utility poles. Yep, they brought Fios in ... to the community on the other side of mine. I couldn't get service to save my life, in spite of being 4000 ft. from the local CO, but Verizon was more than happy to transit my property on the mandated right-of-way easement.
So this is what I'm bitchy about. The private for-profit company is using the state-mandated utility corridor on my property, but won't provide me access to the service. I got to clean up the mess after the installation crews chewed the crap out of my yard. I receive no benefit from this situation.
The cable companies are using eminent domain to run their wires through the right-of-way in my yard (buried, on the pole ... doesn't matter.) That little tidbit should force the neutrality issue upon them. Don't like it? Fine, contract with each and every individual for compensation for running the cables through private properties. If the FCC doesn't have jurisdiction on this, the states certainly should.
So let me get this straight - if someone broke into your house and swiped your car keys, then sent them along with an empty whiskey bottle to the cops, accusing you of DUI, you'd be just fine with having your driving privileges suspended while the cops investigate? I mean, after all, this completely circumstantial evidence *might* be true, right?
Law Enforcement's "chain of custody" is a tremendously important concept. The "evidence" the police received is horribly tainted, and shouldn't have merited more than a knock on the door and a conversation with the man being joe-jobbed.
I may be planning to build a small nuclear reactor as well. Maybe. At some point in the future.
Haven't decided on the hero/villain aspect, but I'm not a big fan of capes, regardless.
Where's Godzilla when you need him? He could dispatch your attacking killer electon-atoes without breaking a sweat.