It's not water that is being injected, it's hydrogen. Very big difference. Injecting hydrogen into the engine along with gasoline has been shown to increase combustion efficiency and lower emissions. This has even been covered on Slashdot before.
"Through electrolysis, the Hydrogen Fuel Injection (HFI) kit generates hydrogen and oxygen, which are injected directly into the intake manifold. Published data show that hydrogen burns nearly one order of magnitude faster than petroleum fuels, thus approaching ideal thermodynamic cycle; and hydrogen has a shorter flame quench distance, allowing flames to travel closer to the cold zones, thus improving combustion. These hydrogen properties improve engine performance and emissions."
Sorry, my previous comment made the assumption that you were going to use explosives to break up the asteroid. I'm not sure where I got that from since you never mentioned how to proceed breaking up the asteroid:P But explosives would really be the only practical way to do it. The article refers to an asteroid the size of two football fields as small. I can't imagine trying to break up a normal sized asteroid with anything but explosives.
You're banking on the asteroid breaking into many, many, many small pieces. What if it only breaks up into two pieces? Or three? And they're all headed towards Earth? Now instead of dealing with one asteroid you've got three. And instead of striking Earth in one location, they'll strike in three separate locations, increasing the area of destruction.
With very small asteroids, you might get away with using explosives. Trying this with larger asteroids will be like playing Russian Roulette.
I think most people are fine with the coexistence of religion and science. The real problem though is that Intelligent Design advocates are trying to blur the lines of science such that they can fit in their own religion-based theory. Unfortunately, the ID definition of the word theory does not meet the rigorous and well-defined scientific definition of theory. And then you have people trying to get it into the classrooms, kids get involved, and everybody starts throwing tantrums.
As many other Slashdotters have stated, its would be fine to teach religion in school. But it would break the very ideals of science to teach religion as a science.
An ID-equivalent action would be requiring churches to quietly note that their beliefs may be wrong, and in addition requiring churches to teach evolution. People would be *really* polarized then.
The real crux of the issue is that Intelligent Design advocates are attacking the very ideals of science. They're attempting to muddy the waters to insert their own agenda into science classrooms through sleight of hand tactics. The scientific process is very well-defined, Intelligent Design advocates are trying to blur that definition such that they can include their own "theory" under "science."
Science has nothing against religion. Most scientists are perfectly fine with the fact that science coexists with religion. I also judge that it works the other way around, too. Its just a specific group of people making large amounts of trouble over an issue that really shouldn't be an issue.
As many other Slashdotters have stated, it would be alright to teach religion in school. Just not in a science class.
I thought of that too, but the article mentions destroying tumors without destroying surrounding tissue. How can this be possible if the wand destroys cell membranes indiscriminately?
So now I'm curious, what exactly can OpenOffice Draw do besides the basic? I don't see anything particularly special about OpenOffice Draw when I open it up, maybe I'm missing something?
Sorry, in my previous post I misunderstood your point about Katrina. Katrina clearly wasn't caused by global warming, that's true. The argument is that it was particularly severe as a result of global warming, which isn't something I can really comment on.
Let's put it this way, when weather forecasts start nearing 100% accuracy then we can start to say for sure that we understand weather and our climate fully and can start taking stock in these doomsday predictions.
We will not reach that point for a very long time, if ever. Until then, doomsday predictions can serve their own purpose in that they help us to plan what to do next, help us make specific decisions. Without such doomsday predictions, we probably wouldn't care about such things as cutting back on emissions and power consumption. So even if one doesn't subscribe to such doomsday predictions, they can still serve as useful thinking exercises that can have very real implications in the way our society operates.
The problem is that we're not talking about just 5-10 years. We've always been affecting the environment, its just that we're doing it at an ever increasingly rapid rate. I'd say we ought to consider the effects that we've had ever since the start of the Industrial Revolution, which extends 5-10 years to 100-200 years.
Also, most people don't realize that there over 6 billion of us on the planet. We may all be contributing only a small amount, but on the whole, we may be contributing more than we think. 6 billion is a number we can't reasonably reconstruct in our mental representation of the world. We may really be underestimating what is going on.
I must have been sleeping when I wrote this. Several mistakes:
1) interace -> interface 2) you'd be able to get to it relatively quickly -> you'd be able to get to a song relatively quickly 3) You are willing to sacrifice cost for functionality -> You are willing to sacrifice functionality for cost
So essentially you're willing to do the work yourself. Your player only has basic functionality, but you can extend that functionality through manpower.
The iPod can do a large number of useful things on its own. For example, iTunes can automatically fill unused space with random songs of high ranking. The iPod can automatically play songs with higher ranking more frequently. While you're listening to a song, you can change its rating. Once its hooked up to the computer again, that rating will automatically be uploaded back to iTunes such that your library will slowly get a better idea of what you like to listen to. iTunes automatically downloads songs into appropriate folders, and the iPod automatically organizes music by id3 tags such that you don't need to worry about putting things into separate folders.
I'm certain you can duplicate all of that functionality manually. I'm also certain that you can change all of your OS settings through a text editor. Now you might be willing to sacrifice functionality for cost, but I'd dare say that the majority of people prefer it the other way.
Also, the iPod's physical interace runs circles around the NEX IIe's button. You need to put in effort to make NEX IIe's button work efficiently. On the iPod, even if you stuck all of the songs in a single list, you'd be able to get to it relatively quickly.
I don't understand why you get so mad, it just boils down to personal preference anyway. You are willing to sacrifice cost for functionality, almost everyone else wants it the other way around. What's the big deal?
Select Artists. Scroll down to Wu-Tang Clan. Hit play. Or if you prefer, select Albums, scrowl down to On Enter 36 Chambers, hit play.
And I meant clumsy in terms of the physical interface, not software.
I'm going to guess that you organized your music yourself. If not, how do you know where each song is listed since songs can fall under multiple genres? So if you're organizing it yourself, just how long does that take?
These numbers are completely made up. At these rates, flash memory is cheaper than using hard drives. There is absolutely no way that could be normally possible.
Let's race. We both try to get to a specific song in 4gb storage (~800 songs). You get the NEX IIe with its crappy controls. I'll take the iPod Nano.
Ready, set, go.
Absolutely no comparison.
I haven't seen Creative put out anything particularly innovative recently. Their strategy thusfar appears to be: do whatever Apple does. Imitation is the best form of flattery.
People don't pay for iPods just because its white and has a good name. I would personally buy it because it works infinitely better than almost all of the DAP market.
Also, they were collecting data that entire year. I can only imagine that it would be easier eliminating local sources of background noise rather than asking for a year's worth of data from a remote location. It would be asking a lot for that remote location, and in addition the researchers involved would have less control over the project.
Go read the article. MIT didn't newly discover this principle, they spent the year trying to eliminate its effects.
If you want to hear a little bit of the Big Bang, you're going to have to turn down your stereo.
That's what neighbors of MIT's Haystack Observatory found out. They were asked to make a little accommodation for science, and now the results are in: Scientists at Haystack have made the first radio detection of deuterium, an atom that is key to understanding the beginning of the universe.
In my other comment, I pwned your one sole example. I would now like to ask, why are you expecting perfection in the first place? All mapping sites are bound to make mistakes. Good job, you found one. You blame Google for it, but how do you know that this was systematically Google's fault rather than the natural course of things. One example does not prove a pattern. Not even several.
You imply that your one example shows that Google is an ineffective company. However, Mapquest returns the same result. Are you thereby making the same statement about Mapquest?
I'm not aware of any mapping sites where you can type in "675 S Sixth, 95112" and get a proper result. Mapquest, for example, requires you to separate the address from the zipcode. In addition, Mapquest gives back two results, just like Google.
Re:deja vu? didn't this one get /.'d a while back?
on
The Solar Death Ray
·
· Score: 1
Hm, increasing the number of mirrors wouldn't increase power output, it would only make the solar array more focused. The only way to really increase power output is to increase the amount of sunlight that you are catching, which would require a larger base.
I think he had to be there to manually adjust the distribution of fuel within the airplane since the fuel was such a large percentage of the airplane's weight. I'm sure he also had to make a few decisions on how best to make use of jetstreams. Not necessarily tasks that autopilot can really do, at least not at the moment.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not water that is being injected, it's hydrogen. Very big difference. Injecting hydrogen into the engine along with gasoline has been shown to increase combustion efficiency and lower emissions. This has even been covered on Slashdot before.
"Through electrolysis, the Hydrogen Fuel Injection (HFI) kit generates hydrogen and oxygen, which are injected directly into the intake manifold. Published data show that hydrogen burns nearly one order of magnitude faster than petroleum fuels, thus approaching ideal thermodynamic cycle; and hydrogen has a shorter flame quench distance, allowing flames to travel closer to the cold zones, thus improving combustion. These hydrogen properties improve engine performance and emissions."
Sorry, my previous comment made the assumption that you were going to use explosives to break up the asteroid. I'm not sure where I got that from since you never mentioned how to proceed breaking up the asteroid :P But explosives would really be the only practical way to do it. The article refers to an asteroid the size of two football fields as small. I can't imagine trying to break up a normal sized asteroid with anything but explosives.
You're banking on the asteroid breaking into many, many, many small pieces. What if it only breaks up into two pieces? Or three? And they're all headed towards Earth? Now instead of dealing with one asteroid you've got three. And instead of striking Earth in one location, they'll strike in three separate locations, increasing the area of destruction.
With very small asteroids, you might get away with using explosives. Trying this with larger asteroids will be like playing Russian Roulette.
I think most people are fine with the coexistence of religion and science. The real problem though is that Intelligent Design advocates are trying to blur the lines of science such that they can fit in their own religion-based theory. Unfortunately, the ID definition of the word theory does not meet the rigorous and well-defined scientific definition of theory. And then you have people trying to get it into the classrooms, kids get involved, and everybody starts throwing tantrums.
As many other Slashdotters have stated, its would be fine to teach religion in school. But it would break the very ideals of science to teach religion as a science.
An ID-equivalent action would be requiring churches to quietly note that their beliefs may be wrong, and in addition requiring churches to teach evolution. People would be *really* polarized then.
The real crux of the issue is that Intelligent Design advocates are attacking the very ideals of science. They're attempting to muddy the waters to insert their own agenda into science classrooms through sleight of hand tactics. The scientific process is very well-defined, Intelligent Design advocates are trying to blur that definition such that they can include their own "theory" under "science."
Science has nothing against religion. Most scientists are perfectly fine with the fact that science coexists with religion. I also judge that it works the other way around, too. Its just a specific group of people making large amounts of trouble over an issue that really shouldn't be an issue.
As many other Slashdotters have stated, it would be alright to teach religion in school. Just not in a science class.
Sorry that was me, for some reason browser didn't log me in.
Its a puzzle, not a response. Its a "proof" that proves 1=0, your job is to spot what is wrong with it.
I thought of that too, but the article mentions destroying tumors without destroying surrounding tissue. How can this be possible if the wand destroys cell membranes indiscriminately?
So now I'm curious, what exactly can OpenOffice Draw do besides the basic? I don't see anything particularly special about OpenOffice Draw when I open it up, maybe I'm missing something?
h ot1_thumb.jpgh ot4_thumb.jpg
As for what Xara X can do, I went to the linked website and found the following screenshots:
http://www.xaraxtreme.org/img/screenshots/screens
http://www.xaraxtreme.org/about/screenshot3.jpg
http://www.xaraxtreme.org/img/screenshots/screens
http://www.xaraxtreme.org/about/screenshot6.jpg
Sorry, in my previous post I misunderstood your point about Katrina. Katrina clearly wasn't caused by global warming, that's true. The argument is that it was particularly severe as a result of global warming, which isn't something I can really comment on.
Let's put it this way, when weather forecasts start nearing 100% accuracy then we can start to say for sure that we understand weather and our climate fully and can start taking stock in these doomsday predictions.
We will not reach that point for a very long time, if ever. Until then, doomsday predictions can serve their own purpose in that they help us to plan what to do next, help us make specific decisions. Without such doomsday predictions, we probably wouldn't care about such things as cutting back on emissions and power consumption. So even if one doesn't subscribe to such doomsday predictions, they can still serve as useful thinking exercises that can have very real implications in the way our society operates.
The problem is that we're not talking about just 5-10 years. We've always been affecting the environment, its just that we're doing it at an ever increasingly rapid rate. I'd say we ought to consider the effects that we've had ever since the start of the Industrial Revolution, which extends 5-10 years to 100-200 years.
Also, most people don't realize that there over 6 billion of us on the planet. We may all be contributing only a small amount, but on the whole, we may be contributing more than we think. 6 billion is a number we can't reasonably reconstruct in our mental representation of the world. We may really be underestimating what is going on.
I must have been sleeping when I wrote this. Several mistakes:
1) interace -> interface
2) you'd be able to get to it relatively quickly -> you'd be able to get to a song relatively quickly
3) You are willing to sacrifice cost for functionality -> You are willing to sacrifice functionality for cost
So essentially you're willing to do the work yourself. Your player only has basic functionality, but you can extend that functionality through manpower.
The iPod can do a large number of useful things on its own. For example, iTunes can automatically fill unused space with random songs of high ranking. The iPod can automatically play songs with higher ranking more frequently. While you're listening to a song, you can change its rating. Once its hooked up to the computer again, that rating will automatically be uploaded back to iTunes such that your library will slowly get a better idea of what you like to listen to. iTunes automatically downloads songs into appropriate folders, and the iPod automatically organizes music by id3 tags such that you don't need to worry about putting things into separate folders.
I'm certain you can duplicate all of that functionality manually. I'm also certain that you can change all of your OS settings through a text editor. Now you might be willing to sacrifice functionality for cost, but I'd dare say that the majority of people prefer it the other way.
Also, the iPod's physical interace runs circles around the NEX IIe's button. You need to put in effort to make NEX IIe's button work efficiently. On the iPod, even if you stuck all of the songs in a single list, you'd be able to get to it relatively quickly.
I don't understand why you get so mad, it just boils down to personal preference anyway. You are willing to sacrifice cost for functionality, almost everyone else wants it the other way around. What's the big deal?
Select Artists. Scroll down to Wu-Tang Clan. Hit play. Or if you prefer, select Albums, scrowl down to On Enter 36 Chambers, hit play.
And I meant clumsy in terms of the physical interface, not software.
I'm going to guess that you organized your music yourself. If not, how do you know where each song is listed since songs can fall under multiple genres? So if you're organizing it yourself, just how long does that take?
These numbers are completely made up. At these rates, flash memory is cheaper than using hard drives. There is absolutely no way that could be normally possible.
Let's race. We both try to get to a specific song in 4gb storage (~800 songs). You get the NEX IIe with its crappy controls. I'll take the iPod Nano.
Ready, set, go.
Absolutely no comparison.
I haven't seen Creative put out anything particularly innovative recently. Their strategy thusfar appears to be: do whatever Apple does. Imitation is the best form of flattery.
People don't pay for iPods just because its white and has a good name. I would personally buy it because it works infinitely better than almost all of the DAP market.
Tell me where I can get this sweet $30 package.
You've almost definitely been had. Please visit these links for more information:
How can I tell the difference between a real PayPal email and a fake one?
What should I do if I receive a fake email?
Hm, disregard that last comment, I misunderstood your point. However, see the comment by (negative video)
Actually that's not what you said originally.
Also, they were collecting data that entire year. I can only imagine that it would be easier eliminating local sources of background noise rather than asking for a year's worth of data from a remote location. It would be asking a lot for that remote location, and in addition the researchers involved would have less control over the project.
Go read the article. MIT didn't newly discover this principle, they spent the year trying to eliminate its effects.
If you want to hear a little bit of the Big Bang, you're going to have to turn down your stereo.
That's what neighbors of MIT's Haystack Observatory found out. They were asked to make a little accommodation for science, and now the results are in: Scientists at Haystack have made the first radio detection of deuterium, an atom that is key to understanding the beginning of the universe.
In my other comment, I pwned your one sole example. I would now like to ask, why are you expecting perfection in the first place? All mapping sites are bound to make mistakes. Good job, you found one. You blame Google for it, but how do you know that this was systematically Google's fault rather than the natural course of things. One example does not prove a pattern. Not even several.
You imply that your one example shows that Google is an ineffective company. However, Mapquest returns the same result. Are you thereby making the same statement about Mapquest?
I'm not aware of any mapping sites where you can type in "675 S Sixth, 95112" and get a proper result. Mapquest, for example, requires you to separate the address from the zipcode. In addition, Mapquest gives back two results, just like Google.
d dress&country=US&addtohistory=&searchtab=home&addr ess=675+S+Sixth&city=&state=&zipcode=+95112
http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?searchtype=a
Hm, increasing the number of mirrors wouldn't increase power output, it would only make the solar array more focused. The only way to really increase power output is to increase the amount of sunlight that you are catching, which would require a larger base.
I think he had to be there to manually adjust the distribution of fuel within the airplane since the fuel was such a large percentage of the airplane's weight. I'm sure he also had to make a few decisions on how best to make use of jetstreams. Not necessarily tasks that autopilot can really do, at least not at the moment.