For heat exhanger systems (as this device is), the correct definition of heat capacity does not result in your units.
In the sciences, the difference between *specific* heat and heat *capacity* is units of mass. I'm quite sure of this, we teach this to freshmen every year. That's why water has a specific heat of 4.184 J/g/K, and 10g of water has a heat capacity of 41.84 J/K. I'd suggest you consult a basic chemistry or physics text, engineers often misuse terms which leads to confusion like this. I'm not particularly concerned with incorrect and field specific terminology pertaining to heat exchangers.
Heat capacity in a system with flow is (mass flow rate)*(specific heat), so metals are not penalized for higher mass.
If we're considering replacing conventional liquids with metals in a system with a fixed volume, then as I said a volume-based specific heat makes more sense than a mass-based one. Or one could simply not normalize at all.
Also, the units for specific heat are J/(g*K). Heat capacity is J/K. That is the unit I originally suggested, so it seems as if you agree. My original point was that specific heat (which has a unit of mass in the denominator) isn't as useful as an overall measure of energy or power per degree.
Incorporating a static vs. dynamic system makes no difference regardless as the only thing you've done is exchange J for W, which only differ by a factor of time.
While I understand that reasoning, from TFA: "founder Alfred Nobel once said he wanted to encourage "dreamers" who lacked funding."
Yeah, that ain't it anymore.;)
There reason they conflict is because most science isn't considered very "exciting" I'd like to see a prize set up more like the Grammy's. The most groundbreaking, innovative, or outright interesting research in a certain field in the last year. Plenty of glitz, some celebrities (Will Smith, George Lucas, and Steven Speilberg have made fortunes off of science-fiction, one would think they'd be happy to promote the science aspect), TV coverage. Follow up with the Nikeoldeon/Lego model and have another award where kids select winners. Sure you don't get as in-depth when kids are involved, but getting them interested at a young age and keeping them interested is essential.
Hmm, that's an interesting concept. Nothing wrong with more awards for the sciences in my opinion. I will say it's not like nothing of the sort existed - every society has some sort of "Young Innovator" award - but the getting kids involved bit is interesting.
I have to disagree with the celebrities though. All you'd have is a bunch of mouth breathers stealing attention and hilariously pretending and failing to grasp the scientific achievements being awarded.
Doesn't the same logic that says awarding the prize to a dead scientist does the world little good suggest that awarding the prize to a nearly dead scientist does the world little good?
Eh? No. It's hard to have a ceremony for a corpse. And the prize is more a celebration than some sort of tool to save the world. Presumably you already did that, which is why you *have* the prize.
It's about time. The Nobel Committee isn't living up to goals Alfred Nobel had for the prize. I read an article on the Nobel Prize and how to win it. Step 1 was live a long time, because it takes so long for your research to be recognized by the committee. IIRC, the average time between doing something Nobel worthy and being nominated for it is ~20 years.
Often it can take that long to truly estimate the impact of the sort of truly revolutionary discoveries that would warrant a prize. Also, because it's not awarded posthumously, it sometimes seems a race to award the prize to older scientists before they die.
But the first reason I mentioned seems the more important one. It's hard to have perspective when the research is first done, and you want to make sure it stands up and has a truly significant impact. You don't want to give it to flashy but less sound science that was the "flavor of the month."
To get around the heat capacity, one could just pump at a higher rate. I think that the specific heat would be more important in this situation.
Then as I said the more important measure would be the volume-based specific heat, not the mass based one. I don't see a reason why the mass would matter, and the size of the components would limit volume, not mass.
Pumping at a higher rate would help regardless of which metric you use, but metals shouldn't be penalized in this case for having higher mass.
In addition to the other (correct) points you make, the specific heat (in J/(g*K)) may be lower, but the heat capacity (in J/K) isn't. Since most of these systems are probably volume/area limited instead of mass limited, I'd consider heat capacity more relevant, and reveals an even greater advantage for metals. I'd use J/(g*L) or something like that if you want to use specific heat, that way you consider the higher density of metals.
Competition for what? Market share? Of free products?
What's the motivation here to compete?
You kind of hit it there. There's no motivation to actually build a "better" mousetrap as opposed to building your own mousetrap, as long as you're building said mousetrap in your freetime anyway. Is that a good thing? I dunno. It's not good for users if it goes too far, but it's kind of hard to knock it when you get it free as in beer.
The one problem that I think everyone will admit is "ego-forking," where a team splits because you have a bunch of prima donnas who can't work together and no employer to make them. But then thank $DEITY that it's possible, or we'd still be dealing with XFree86. So you win some, you lose some.
You mean false science, such as claiming outright labrats "would have jack" if a cell phone was held an inch from their heads, without ANY shreds of scientific scrutiny, calculations, citations, or even useful links?
No he didn't. He quite clearly explained the concept of the photoelectric effect and band structure to you, perhaps you missed it?
Actually, formally speaking, it doesn't mean a thing. Nobody has yet been able to prove that pi or e is normal (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/NormalNumber.html), although both are believed to be. Just because they show up in the same function doesn't make them more or less random.
Eh? If one can be determined from the other, then it's a pretty reasonable assumption that they should be equally random. Or that the difference in their randomness is related to the base in which you're performing the computation (ie, base 10) which wouldn't be interesting at all.
Webster's agrees, the second definition of clone: "one that appears to be a copy of an original form."
Then, by that definition, linux is not a clone of unix. Linux was not in any sense a copy of any existing unix system. It was an independent implementation of the POSIX standard.
Thus, "appears to be" unix. You're still botching the accepted (and dictionary) non-biological definition of "clone." Go look at the unix certification standards as well. To be classified as a Unix(TM), you do NOT have to have Sys V code.
With all the miraculous things he did for the world in the realm of science, one wonders what we'd have if he'd devoted his mind to politics, or computers.
Actually, it's a really false analogy. Like much of the media and political noise about the cloning issue, it mostly illustrates the total lack of understanding what the term "clone" means.
Actually, it doesn't. It shows that the term "clone" has meaning outside of biology. Perhaps you've heard of old IBM-compatibles being IBM-clones? Did you think there were little pieces of IBM in there?
For X to be a clone of Y, X must be primarily derived from pieces of Y. You clone a plant by taking a cutting and growing it into a new plant.
That's a graft, not a clone.
Linux is not in any meaningful sense a clone of unix, because its code wasn't taken from unix. The correct biological metaphor would be convergent evolution. That's how you describe two things that are physically and functionally similar, but of independent derivation.
As I said, the term clone exists outside biology, and the term in this case is not meant to evoke biology at all. Webster's agrees, the second definition of clone: "one that appears to be a copy of an original form."
Linux is not in any meaningful sense a clone of unix, because its code wasn't taken from unix. The correct biological metaphor would be convergent evolution. That's how you describe two things that are physically and functionally similar, but of independent derivation.
See dictionary definition above, it fits. Note the "appears" here. Linux was developed to look like a unix system - hence, clone.
For what it's worth, I'm a scientist, I fully understand whhat clone means in a biological setting, and don't care. You want scientific terms that are incorrectly used, try "quantum leap." The popular usage is actually a complete antonym to the scientific usage. "Clone" has multiple accepted usages. Mine is one of them.
Before you correct people, you generally want to make sure they're actually wrong. A dictionary might help you out in that regard in the future. Even if you were right - and you're not here - no one likes a pedant.
Bzzztt.... wrong, Thankyou for playing. As I learned firsthand when coding buffer overflows in a security class, it is a simple, easy, and wrong assumption to think that the stack growing down is the main reason you can do buffer overflows.
That's a great point, but you really negate it by being a dick with that "Bzzzt...wrong" crap. You're not a game show host. Get over yourself.
Microsoft "working with it's competitors" - that just isn't realistic, it would be kinda like the Goatse man getting a job as a children's TV presenter.
You mean like Pee Wee "jack off in a theater" Herman, aka Paul Reubens?
So, in some ways, you could say "Linux is a UNIX clone". In the same ways, you could say "Margarine is a Butter clone". Margarine was built from scratch, using entirely different ingrediants than butter, but with the aim of looking, smelling, and tasting like butter. But, margarine is not butter. However, I don't think anyone who went around calling margarine "Not Butter" is going to kill either industry.
That's a really nice analogy. But don't suggest it to the dairy council, because they'll probably subpoena the molecular formula for margarine to see if there's any animal protein in it. "Some butter has to be in here somewhere," they'll say. "Margarine couldn't be a world-class toast spread without it."
Well, considering Tiger sells computers and Apple is a (not only) computer seller
Right, but Apple's not renaming the company Tiger, just the OS. Tiger Direct doesn't make an OS. To claim that an OS infringes their reselling business, they'd have to claim their "Tiger" trademark covers anything to do with computers. Trademark decisions are always subjective, but that seems too broad to me.
and that using a competitors image in their product
Taking that literally, it makes a good point - the logos aren't remotely similar. Hurts a brand confusion case.
but potential loss of profit (the whole idea of market specific trademarks)
Only proveable damages would be through pagerank, and that would have been true if any big business called any product apple (like if McDonalds started promoting the hell out of their apple pies), so that argument is a bit non-unique.
In the end though, Apple will settle.
Personally, I doubt it, but that's just given Jobs' personality.
Apple is starting to take a lot more bad press recently than I've noticed above the background noise lately. Actually being dragged into court by someone else would be bad PR if nothing else.
And they have a thick enough skin not to care, it seems.
But, in most cases, if the offender changes before any damages are done, no harm, no foul. Apple could easily be the "bigger" company here and say, "Ok, we'll just call it [insert non-computer industry animal name or name of yet another type of apple].
You have any idea what that would cost at this point? Less than Tiger Direct's entire company is worth, I would imagine.
I'm just curious, because if I'm reading you correct, if even the software is for different tasks, two software packages with the same name wouldn't be trademark infringment?
I'm not sure, but I do know that the more generic the name, the higher the bar for infringement and the narrower the field of applicability for a trademark. As always, we'll see.
Also, I expect that the fact that Apple's been naming their OSs after big cats will go a long way to proving no harm was intended.
There is a difference in the discs - if you were stupid enough to get tape-deck-like CD-recorders that were marketed as audio equipment instead of just getting a computer, you need to buy the audio CD-Rs.
Hm,. I've never seen one - they actually require different discs? I'll take your word for it.
TigerSoftware could make a software program called Apple then?
Likely not. Apple makes software, and lots of it. Also, there's a brand recognition argument to be made, which naturally favors larger comanies. Like it or not.
Part of the problem is that since Apple is a very "vertical" company, there is little associated with a computer that Apple doesn't have a stake in. Not true for Tiger whatever company.
Pre-empting one line of thinking, let's assume their software is not an OS... let's say it's a music player. This is a far cry from Apple's own software, iTunes. This is a fair comparison, I believe.
But not the iPod, unfortunately. If Apple didn't make an iPod it could be OK. Compare this to Apple's discussions with Apple records.
At the end of the day, we'll see what happens. I doubt that 1) Apple will settle (call it pride/hubris/arrogance/"we don't negotiate with terrorists"). I also doubt this Tiger company will even get an injunction. They will have a hard time making a brand confusion argument, considering they are a computer *reseller*, and "Tiger" is an *operating system*. Sticking to the facts of this case it's hard to see confusion, and there's no case to be made of Apple intentionally "trading on the name" of Tiger Direct.
So, I predict that Tiger Direct's attempts at extortion will fail.
They own something as generic as "Apple" and they sue plenty over that name. Gimme a break. Better yet, mod me down again for trolling cause I descent from popular thought.:/
They don't "own" the word apple. Oddly enough, they haven't sued fruit growers yet, and there are plenty of businesses called "Apple" or that have "Apple" in their names.
Apple Computer Corp. have rights to "Apple" in specific markets in which they participate. Note that they were able to coexist with Apple records (which is actually older).
The UK does NOT have a tax on general CD media. Only the "Audio" versions have a tax, and guess how many of THOSE get sold!
Thanks, my mistake. Wow, that's incredible though. How did that come to be, anyway? Did someone in Parliament with a brain trick the recording industry? Are there people who actually think there's a difference in the discs?
-shrug- I'd accept an iPod tax if we got universal health care.
1. If universal health care worked as well in the US as universal education, I want no part of it. 2.You might have a point if the money from the iPod tax went to universal health care in any of those countries. It doesn't. It goes to the recording industry.
Slashdot Mirror
In the sciences, the difference between *specific* heat and heat *capacity* is units of mass. I'm quite sure of this, we teach this to freshmen every year. That's why water has a specific heat of 4.184 J/g/K, and 10g of water has a heat capacity of 41.84 J/K. I'd suggest you consult a basic chemistry or physics text, engineers often misuse terms which leads to confusion like this. I'm not particularly concerned with incorrect and field specific terminology pertaining to heat exchangers.
If we're considering replacing conventional liquids with metals in a system with a fixed volume, then as I said a volume-based specific heat makes more sense than a mass-based one. Or one could simply not normalize at all.
Also, the units for specific heat are J/(g*K). Heat capacity is J/K. That is the unit I originally suggested, so it seems as if you agree. My original point was that specific heat (which has a unit of mass in the denominator) isn't as useful as an overall measure of energy or power per degree.
Incorporating a static vs. dynamic system makes no difference regardless as the only thing you've done is exchange J for W, which only differ by a factor of time.
OK. It would be hard for a corpse to give a speech. Which is much of the point of the ceremony.
Yeah, that ain't it anymore. ;)
There reason they conflict is because most science isn't considered very "exciting" I'd like to see a prize set up more like the Grammy's. The most groundbreaking, innovative, or outright interesting research in a certain field in the last year. Plenty of glitz, some celebrities (Will Smith, George Lucas, and Steven Speilberg have made fortunes off of science-fiction, one would think they'd be happy to promote the science aspect), TV coverage. Follow up with the Nikeoldeon/Lego model and have another award where kids select winners. Sure you don't get as in-depth when kids are involved, but getting them interested at a young age and keeping them interested is essential.
Hmm, that's an interesting concept. Nothing wrong with more awards for the sciences in my opinion. I will say it's not like nothing of the sort existed - every society has some sort of "Young Innovator" award - but the getting kids involved bit is interesting.
I have to disagree with the celebrities though. All you'd have is a bunch of mouth breathers stealing attention and hilariously pretending and failing to grasp the scientific achievements being awarded.
Eh? No. It's hard to have a ceremony for a corpse. And the prize is more a celebration than some sort of tool to save the world. Presumably you already did that, which is why you *have* the prize.
Often it can take that long to truly estimate the impact of the sort of truly revolutionary discoveries that would warrant a prize. Also, because it's not awarded posthumously, it sometimes seems a race to award the prize to older scientists before they die.
But the first reason I mentioned seems the more important one. It's hard to have perspective when the research is first done, and you want to make sure it stands up and has a truly significant impact. You don't want to give it to flashy but less sound science that was the "flavor of the month."
Then as I said the more important measure would be the volume-based specific heat, not the mass based one. I don't see a reason why the mass would matter, and the size of the components would limit volume, not mass.
Pumping at a higher rate would help regardless of which metric you use, but metals shouldn't be penalized in this case for having higher mass.
In addition to the other (correct) points you make, the specific heat (in J/(g*K)) may be lower, but the heat capacity (in J/K) isn't. Since most of these systems are probably volume/area limited instead of mass limited, I'd consider heat capacity more relevant, and reveals an even greater advantage for metals. I'd use J/(g*L) or something like that if you want to use specific heat, that way you consider the higher density of metals.
What's the motivation here to compete?
You kind of hit it there. There's no motivation to actually build a "better" mousetrap as opposed to building your own mousetrap, as long as you're building said mousetrap in your freetime anyway. Is that a good thing? I dunno. It's not good for users if it goes too far, but it's kind of hard to knock it when you get it free as in beer.
The one problem that I think everyone will admit is "ego-forking," where a team splits because you have a bunch of prima donnas who can't work together and no employer to make them. But then thank $DEITY that it's possible, or we'd still be dealing with XFree86. So you win some, you lose some.
No he didn't. He quite clearly explained the concept of the photoelectric effect and band structure to you, perhaps you missed it?
Eh? If one can be determined from the other, then it's a pretty reasonable assumption that they should be equally random. Or that the difference in their randomness is related to the base in which you're performing the computation (ie, base 10) which wouldn't be interesting at all.
Don't forget sports gambling, as pointed out by Biff in "Back to the Future II."
Thus, "appears to be" unix. You're still botching the accepted (and dictionary) non-biological definition of "clone." Go look at the unix certification standards as well. To be classified as a Unix(TM), you do NOT have to have Sys V code.
Something a lot less worthwhile?
Actually, it doesn't. It shows that the term "clone" has meaning outside of biology. Perhaps you've heard of old IBM-compatibles being IBM-clones? Did you think there were little pieces of IBM in there?
For X to be a clone of Y, X must be primarily derived from pieces of Y. You clone a plant by taking a cutting and growing it into a new plant.
That's a graft, not a clone.
Linux is not in any meaningful sense a clone of unix, because its code wasn't taken from unix. The correct biological metaphor would be convergent evolution. That's how you describe two things that are physically and functionally similar, but of independent derivation.
As I said, the term clone exists outside biology, and the term in this case is not meant to evoke biology at all. Webster's agrees, the second definition of clone: "one that appears to be a copy of an original form ."
Linux is not in any meaningful sense a clone of unix, because its code wasn't taken from unix. The correct biological metaphor would be convergent evolution. That's how you describe two things that are physically and functionally similar, but of independent derivation.
See dictionary definition above, it fits. Note the "appears" here. Linux was developed to look like a unix system - hence, clone.
For what it's worth, I'm a scientist, I fully understand whhat clone means in a biological setting, and don't care. You want scientific terms that are incorrectly used, try "quantum leap." The popular usage is actually a complete antonym to the scientific usage. "Clone" has multiple accepted usages. Mine is one of them.
Before you correct people, you generally want to make sure they're actually wrong. A dictionary might help you out in that regard in the future. Even if you were right - and you're not here - no one likes a pedant.
That's a great point, but you really negate it by being a dick with that "Bzzzt...wrong" crap. You're not a game show host. Get over yourself.
You mean like Pee Wee "jack off in a theater" Herman, aka Paul Reubens?
If you can convince him, I'll spring for the concrete.
That's a really nice analogy. But don't suggest it to the dairy council, because they'll probably subpoena the molecular formula for margarine to see if there's any animal protein in it. "Some butter has to be in here somewhere," they'll say. "Margarine couldn't be a world-class toast spread without it."
Right, but Apple's not renaming the company Tiger, just the OS. Tiger Direct doesn't make an OS. To claim that an OS infringes their reselling business, they'd have to claim their "Tiger" trademark covers anything to do with computers. Trademark decisions are always subjective, but that seems too broad to me.
and that using a competitors image in their product
Taking that literally, it makes a good point - the logos aren't remotely similar. Hurts a brand confusion case.
but potential loss of profit (the whole idea of market specific trademarks)
Only proveable damages would be through pagerank, and that would have been true if any big business called any product apple (like if McDonalds started promoting the hell out of their apple pies), so that argument is a bit non-unique.
In the end though, Apple will settle.
Personally, I doubt it, but that's just given Jobs' personality.
Apple is starting to take a lot more bad press recently than I've noticed above the background noise lately. Actually being dragged into court by someone else would be bad PR if nothing else.
And they have a thick enough skin not to care, it seems.
But, in most cases, if the offender changes before any damages are done, no harm, no foul. Apple could easily be the "bigger" company here and say, "Ok, we'll just call it [insert non-computer industry animal name or name of yet another type of apple].
You have any idea what that would cost at this point? Less than Tiger Direct's entire company is worth, I would imagine.
I'm just curious, because if I'm reading you correct, if even the software is for different tasks, two software packages with the same name wouldn't be trademark infringment?
I'm not sure, but I do know that the more generic the name, the higher the bar for infringement and the narrower the field of applicability for a trademark. As always, we'll see.
Also, I expect that the fact that Apple's been naming their OSs after big cats will go a long way to proving no harm was intended.
Hm,. I've never seen one - they actually require different discs? I'll take your word for it.
Likely not. Apple makes software, and lots of it. Also, there's a brand recognition argument to be made, which naturally favors larger comanies. Like it or not.
Part of the problem is that since Apple is a very "vertical" company, there is little associated with a computer that Apple doesn't have a stake in. Not true for Tiger whatever company.
Pre-empting one line of thinking, let's assume their software is not an OS... let's say it's a music player. This is a far cry from Apple's own software, iTunes. This is a fair comparison, I believe.
But not the iPod, unfortunately. If Apple didn't make an iPod it could be OK. Compare this to Apple's discussions with Apple records.
At the end of the day, we'll see what happens. I doubt that 1) Apple will settle (call it pride/hubris/arrogance/"we don't negotiate with terrorists"). I also doubt this Tiger company will even get an injunction. They will have a hard time making a brand confusion argument, considering they are a computer *reseller*, and "Tiger" is an *operating system*. Sticking to the facts of this case it's hard to see confusion, and there's no case to be made of Apple intentionally "trading on the name" of Tiger Direct.
So, I predict that Tiger Direct's attempts at extortion will fail.
They don't "own" the word apple. Oddly enough, they haven't sued fruit growers yet, and there are plenty of businesses called "Apple" or that have "Apple" in their names.
Apple Computer Corp. have rights to "Apple" in specific markets in which they participate. Note that they were able to coexist with Apple records (which is actually older).
Thanks, my mistake. Wow, that's incredible though. How did that come to be, anyway? Did someone in Parliament with a brain trick the recording industry? Are there people who actually think there's a difference in the discs?
1. If universal health care worked as well in the US as universal education, I want no part of it. 2.You might have a point if the money from the iPod tax went to universal health care in any of those countries. It doesn't. It goes to the recording industry.
Anything else?