I've got no problem with slang or jargon in any form.
Just so long as they don't try to teach it in school (Ebonics, I'm looking at you), and as long as relatively standard english (large regional variations apply here) is spoken in professional environments.
A big push in the IT department where I work is to say the whole thing, rather than just the acronym. There is, of course, the issue of things like GNU (which is often used), but we're told to just treat it like a brand name.
Again, heat and temperature are different things - though I would guess that you're right (temp is heat per unit mass - I don't think I can wiggle around that). Water alone dissociates at about 900C (~1200K). I don't know the dissociation temp of CO2, but I'd guess that it's lower. The reaction would then become endothermic.
So, assuming the article is true, and discounting the impossible (a combustion process oxidizing into CO2 and water at 6000K), what are the possible input fuels?
Well, depending on the size of the combustion chamber, I'd say anything from steel to ceramic. It's the surface to mass ratio of the combustion chamber that matters, and in this case, I think it's likely high enough to allow for very high temperatures, even 6620K (calculated value for 95% efficiency at 100F room temp).
It's all about mass here; the amount of mass in the combustion chamber can't be much at all, so even if the gas is 6620K, the metal shouldn't quite get to the breakdown point of the liner material. Ceramic does a better job for this, as it's a poor conductor of heat, and thus will absorb less (keeping the heat in the chamber, rather than letting it pass to the rest of the machinery). Still, no matter what the gas is, it's gas; you need an awful lot of it (in terms of relative volume) to melt steel.
I'd say so. With such a tiny combustion chamber, it's entirely possible that the system can be at 6000C without problem. It's like the reason you don't get burned from an inch away from a cigarette butt; it's freakin' hot, but there's not enough thermal mass to heat much.
Still, I'd think about using it as a power source for vehicles, if I believed they could scale it from 100W to about 125kW. (125kW, given 80% motor efficiency, is about the right amount to get 0-60 in about ten seconds given a load of 1 tonne or 1,000 kg. It's an engineering magic number, so far as I'm concerned).
"If police do an 'illegal' search on a murderer's house and find a gun that proves his guilt, it proves his guilt. The mental mastribation that lawyers and judges go through to say that the gun is not admisable in court is pure unadulterated bullshit. It is throwing common sense and logic out the window."
I'm sure it is, but it's the penalty society takes for not following its own rules. I wouldn't want to be a member of a society that doesn't follow its own rules, or at least is not penalized for doing so. (actually, I don't want to be a member of this society for that very reason, but that's neither here nor there).
Meanwhile, if the police find something in an illegal search that *points* to smoking-gun-evidence in another location, the police can use it for their search and anything they find from that search is admissible; just not the fruits of the illegal search itself.
The law, in this case, is fair, and does make sense. A screen dump can be altered with relative ease, can refer to an IP adress that, while one user had it for a given period of time, doesn't necessarily point to the defendant. The file refered to by the screen dump could have a name which looks copyright infringing, but doesn't contain copyright infringing data.
The real way to get evidence in cases like this is to use 1) logs, 2) an actual download of the offending file, with a logging P2P client, and 3) a per-minute IP log from the ISP, linking the IP to the defendant, and 4) a bonded third party doing the investigation (since logs and downloads are very easily forged). This screenshot nonsense has gone on long enough. Yes, they're very pretty and easily understood. That doesn't make them valid evidence.
Well, as I understand it, Skype's pretty derned smart. I do believe it checks all reasonable avenues of connection before it resorts to third party connection.
Meanwhile, a program can't expect the router to follow port-binding rules, necessarily - though, it can always check.
Actually, the only reason this is done is that, for two computers without the ability to open up a listening port to Internet, they have trouble contacting one another. So, Skype uses one of its members as a through-way for a call. Calls done in this manner are reduced in quality to reduce the third-party's overhead (since you're essentially leeching off another human to do it).
It would be very nice to find a way to make a TCP/IP connection without having a listening port. I believe it could be done, still using the third party for setting up the connection, but using a spoof of some nature.
A possible way is: Caller (C) requests a connection via the Skype Network (SN) to Reciever (R). R is connected to SN, but has no incoming connection capabilities, so SN requests a transitional connection from a third party (T). C and R both call T. R tells T which local port its connection is on. T spoofs C, telling C that its IP address and port are those of T. T also spoofs R, telling it that its IP address is that of C, connecting on R's port(R effectively becomes the server, the router's outgoing port becoming the incoming port). R and C, knowing this will happen, do all the syn/ack stuff manually.
I'm not well enough versed in TCP/IP to do this (or even say whether it can be done), but perhaps someone is.
Good point. Still, there are other sorts of radioactive dating which can be used on the rock in which dino bones are embedded.
Still soft tissue, while surprising, still doesn't affect the debate in a significant manner; given the size of a T-Rex bone, it's not hard to believe that moisture would be sealed in proper by outer layers of fossilized bone.
"Upsampling will not put more information in the picture. It just makes it look better."
Upsampling at anything but the final-output end almost never 'looks better'; Essentially, you have to decode the video (and all it's compression errors), double it using some sort of interpolation / median filter (ie: make it blurry or make it blobby), and recompress it (hey, compression artifacts in TWO resolutions!).
"Or maybe the bank feels that the hole is obscure enough that it doesn't warrant spending boatloads of money fixing it (... more money than the "researcher" asked for, if he's smart...). But now, the bank no longer has the choice of ignoring the issue, it's either pay the researcher, or invest money in an otherwise unneeded (in the eyes of the bank) development."
The bank never had a choice in the first place. If it feels it has a responsibility to its customers, it's JOB is to remain always vigilant about its own security. Any less, and the bank is not to be trusted.
Slashdot Mirror
I've got no problem with slang or jargon in any form.
Just so long as they don't try to teach it in school (Ebonics, I'm looking at you), and as long as relatively standard english (large regional variations apply here) is spoken in professional environments.
A big push in the IT department where I work is to say the whole thing, rather than just the acronym. There is, of course, the issue of things like GNU (which is often used), but we're told to just treat it like a brand name.
Haven't you ever looked inside an iPod? There's at least six meters of internet tubes in there!
How much? I'm up for some easy money.
Great artists steal.
Neither am I.
Again, heat and temperature are different things - though I would guess that you're right (temp is heat per unit mass - I don't think I can wiggle around that). Water alone dissociates at about 900C (~1200K). I don't know the dissociation temp of CO2, but I'd guess that it's lower. The reaction would then become endothermic.
So, assuming the article is true, and discounting the impossible (a combustion process oxidizing into CO2 and water at 6000K), what are the possible input fuels?
Hence the 'I think'. Thanks for the explanation, though.
Meanwhile, do you happen to know the math, other than measuring the discrepancy between diffused heat and power input?
In a CPU, no actual physical work is done. All the power is dissipated as heat.
I think.
Hey, anybody know the math for this?
Thanks, I don't mind being shot down. But could you explain the technical reasons why it couldn't be made to work?
Well, depending on the size of the combustion chamber, I'd say anything from steel to ceramic. It's the surface to mass ratio of the combustion chamber that matters, and in this case, I think it's likely high enough to allow for very high temperatures, even 6620K (calculated value for 95% efficiency at 100F room temp).
It's all about mass here; the amount of mass in the combustion chamber can't be much at all, so even if the gas is 6620K, the metal shouldn't quite get to the breakdown point of the liner material. Ceramic does a better job for this, as it's a poor conductor of heat, and thus will absorb less (keeping the heat in the chamber, rather than letting it pass to the rest of the machinery). Still, no matter what the gas is, it's gas; you need an awful lot of it (in terms of relative volume) to melt steel.
I'd say so. With such a tiny combustion chamber, it's entirely possible that the system can be at 6000C without problem. It's like the reason you don't get burned from an inch away from a cigarette butt; it's freakin' hot, but there's not enough thermal mass to heat much.
"What's 5% of 100 watts?"
5 Watts, which isn't a lot of heat to remove.
Still, I'd think about using it as a power source for vehicles, if I believed they could scale it from 100W to about 125kW. (125kW, given 80% motor efficiency, is about the right amount to get 0-60 in about ten seconds given a load of 1 tonne or 1,000 kg. It's an engineering magic number, so far as I'm concerned).
"If police do an 'illegal' search on a murderer's house and find a gun that proves his guilt, it proves his guilt. The mental mastribation that lawyers and judges go through to say that the gun is not admisable in court is pure unadulterated bullshit. It is throwing common sense and logic out the window."
I'm sure it is, but it's the penalty society takes for not following its own rules. I wouldn't want to be a member of a society that doesn't follow its own rules, or at least is not penalized for doing so. (actually, I don't want to be a member of this society for that very reason, but that's neither here nor there).
Meanwhile, if the police find something in an illegal search that *points* to smoking-gun-evidence in another location, the police can use it for their search and anything they find from that search is admissible; just not the fruits of the illegal search itself.
'should'.
Isn't.
See the difference?
The law, in this case, is fair, and does make sense. A screen dump can be altered with relative ease, can refer to an IP adress that, while one user had it for a given period of time, doesn't necessarily point to the defendant. The file refered to by the screen dump could have a name which looks copyright infringing, but doesn't contain copyright infringing data.
The real way to get evidence in cases like this is to use 1) logs, 2) an actual download of the offending file, with a logging P2P client, and 3) a per-minute IP log from the ISP, linking the IP to the defendant, and 4) a bonded third party doing the investigation (since logs and downloads are very easily forged). This screenshot nonsense has gone on long enough. Yes, they're very pretty and easily understood. That doesn't make them valid evidence.
Well, as I understand it, Skype's pretty derned smart. I do believe it checks all reasonable avenues of connection before it resorts to third party connection.
Meanwhile, a program can't expect the router to follow port-binding rules, necessarily - though, it can always check.
Actually, the only reason this is done is that, for two computers without the ability to open up a listening port to Internet, they have trouble contacting one another. So, Skype uses one of its members as a through-way for a call. Calls done in this manner are reduced in quality to reduce the third-party's overhead (since you're essentially leeching off another human to do it).
It would be very nice to find a way to make a TCP/IP connection without having a listening port. I believe it could be done, still using the third party for setting up the connection, but using a spoof of some nature.
A possible way is: Caller (C) requests a connection via the Skype Network (SN) to Reciever (R). R is connected to SN, but has no incoming connection capabilities, so SN requests a transitional connection from a third party (T). C and R both call T. R tells T which local port its connection is on. T spoofs C, telling C that its IP address and port are those of T. T also spoofs R, telling it that its IP address is that of C, connecting on R's port(R effectively becomes the server, the router's outgoing port becoming the incoming port). R and C, knowing this will happen, do all the syn/ack stuff manually.
I'm not well enough versed in TCP/IP to do this (or even say whether it can be done), but perhaps someone is.
Good point. Still, there are other sorts of radioactive dating which can be used on the rock in which dino bones are embedded.
Still soft tissue, while surprising, still doesn't affect the debate in a significant manner; given the size of a T-Rex bone, it's not hard to believe that moisture would be sealed in proper by outer layers of fossilized bone.
Oh, man. The pungent aroma of sarcasm is almost too much to bear.
Man, if I had mod points, you'd get (+11, Fucking Hilarious)
Same impact as every other dinosaur bone.
"general debate about how petrification might happen quicker or slower than we currently know"
That debate ended when we figured out carbon dating. The bones are old as their radioactivity says they are.
"the US is a fundamentalist religious state"
It is? I gotta get outta here.
What?
"Upsampling will not put more information in the picture. It just makes it look better."
Upsampling at anything but the final-output end almost never 'looks better'; Essentially, you have to decode the video (and all it's compression errors), double it using some sort of interpolation / median filter (ie: make it blurry or make it blobby), and recompress it (hey, compression artifacts in TWO resolutions!).
How about electing a phd-spanking policy-centric macroeconomist?
Seems like the right sort of profession for the job.
Why is this marked troll? Mod Parent Up!
"Or maybe the bank feels that the hole is obscure enough that it doesn't warrant spending boatloads of money fixing it (... more money than the "researcher" asked for, if he's smart...). But now, the bank no longer has the choice of ignoring the issue, it's either pay the researcher, or invest money in an otherwise unneeded (in the eyes of the bank) development."
The bank never had a choice in the first place. If it feels it has a responsibility to its customers, it's JOB is to remain always vigilant about its own security. Any less, and the bank is not to be trusted.
At least, that's how I, a consumer, see it.