Huh? It is a publicly traded comapany that started it's life as "The St. Louis Bread Company", was bought by Au Bon Pain, was divested and had a name/ticker symbol change in there also. No Starbucks that I can see.
Ok. The space shuttle incident involved transporting a lot of heat from the external atmosphere that was generated by braking friction to the interior of the lander. The air was heated a lot by friction, slightly more by being compressed, and then cooled slightly by the expansion. The net was still really hot air. A couple of thousand degrees. No vorticies needed.
Hypergolics work because the compounds involved are "HIGHLY" unstable. Things like hydrazine and nitrogen tetraoxide. Hypergolics are chemical reactions that are extremely exothermic. There is no heat needed to initiate the reaction. This is like pouring vinegar on baking soda, except that that reaction isn't energetic enough to lift a rocket.;)
1. Pulse Detonation is a modified version of the pulse jet that has a detonation as part of the cycle instead of only deflagration. The most common engine, which is experimental like all PD engines, uses a deflagration to detonation conversion. You are right that they don't want hydrogen for these engines. It's not because it is so dangerous, but because it has lousy energy density. Kerosene has a lot more energy per kilo lifted into the air than pressurised hydrogen. Therefore the plane is lighter, and can go farther. A car doen't have to drive across a continent in a couple of hours. You don't have to have that kind of energy density.
2. I was being a bit pedantic.
As to the last, there ARE LPG vehicle fueling stations. Several companies and municipalities have converted their vehicles to run on LPG. As for natural gas, they pipe it into about half of the buildings in the USA, which is where I live. In neither of these situations is this some type of major safety issue.
p.s. Before you bring it up, yes, there are a few house explosions a year. There are also fires at petrochemical plants and refineries. Fuels are dangerous. All of them.
Ok. Your math doesn't quite make sense to me, but it's been many years since high school chem.
You still haven't said how hydrogen leaks are somehow self igniting, which you have stated several times. The hydrogen is under pressure in the system. When you get the leak the hydrogen moves fron the no longer closed system to atmosphere due to the pressure differential. As it enters the atmosphere it expands. Quickly. This expansion is and endothermic reaction. It sucks heat from the surrounding enviroment, so it isn't supplying it's own ignition source there. Where is the energy coming from for this self ignition you claim?
To get the scenerios that you keep proposing, you would have to get a massive amount of hydrogen into an oxygen rich environment really quickly, and then an ignition source would have to set it off.
I'm not seeing it, and you are not supplying us with any sources. Please point me to some sources that show that hydrogen leaks from pressurized systems are somehow inherently explosive.
1. Yes I have. I don't remember anything to do with it being because it was explosive, but because it burns so hot. Once again, I don't have my research materials at hand, but the hydrogen oxygen combustion is hotter, not more explosive. This means that the non combustive portion of the exhaust, nitrogen and such, expand more giving a greater thrust. Delta Vee is everything in these situations.
2. Hydrogen does not stop burning with a blue flame just because it is outdoors, or daytime. It has the same combustion characteristics no matter when or where. I agree that it is harder to see a flame in bright daylight than in the dark, but that applies to any flame, and still doesn't change the color of the flame.
Hydrogen burns. It burns readily and hot, I admit, but it is no more dangerous than handling natural gas or LPG (Liquified Petrolium Gas). Look up the Piper Alpha disaster. LPG has a LOT of energy. Gasoline has a much higher energy density than compressed hydrogen, and is a little harder to ignite, but hydrogen fires go straight up, where gasoline fires spread as the fuel seeks the lowest point. That is why you see the retaining dikes around the big above ground storage tanks. This is to keep the fuel confined in case of a spill or fire.
In regards to 1. That does not jibe with what I have read, but I do not have my research materials with me, so I cannot address this statement at this time with any confidence.
In regards to 2, from my days in chem labs, hydrogen burned with a pale blue flame, not a "clear" flame, whatever that is. The use of dowel rods and broom handles to find leaks in high preasure lines has nothing to do with flames. It has to do with the fact that a pin hole leak in a very high preasure line cuts the soft wood. They used them to detect steam leaks at the coal fired power plant where my father worked.
One is if the immovable object is the source of the irresistable force. There would be no conflict. The second would be if the irresitable force simply moved to the immovable object since it is an irresistable force and it cannot move the object. Sort of like sticking a small, but strong magnet, to the side of a steel building, only on a universal scale.;) Now you can start throwing in all kinds of caveats like the force is also immovable or some such which would make it a mutually exclusive situation, but as posited it is not.
Your logic seems fine right up until you invoke semantics. Then it falls apart. There are at least two ways that the object and force can coexist happily from a logic viewpoint without playing games with the meanings of the words. Once you start playing with the semantics, you can have all kinds of fun. Playing with the definition of movable and resistable could keep people busy for days. Ah, well. On to the main question.
Can an invulnerable man commit suicide? Well, first off, death is not harmful. Smoking is harmful. Catching javelins is harmful. Death is a condition, a state of being, or nonbeing, depending on your point of view. Now we need to decide which definition of invulnerable we are working with. The classic meaning is impervious to attack/can't be wounded. The etymology is "in" - meaning not, and "vulner" - which is latin for wound. Soooo. Not woundable. There are TONS of ways to die without being wounded. Suffocation, poison, the list could go on and on. If you want to use a more modern meaning like can't be harmed, then we need to define harm, and since the boss is coming, I'll leave that exercise for later.
Umm. Actually you don't need tags. Right there next to the Submit and Preview buttons is a drop down menu that allows you to select three other formatting options.
OK. Odds aren't stacked aginst you when you play table poker, but the house does take a cut of the table, so that when the winners and losers walk away, the total funds are less than when they sat down. The other games do have a legally recognized house advantage.
As to the second point, being intelligent in one area does not make you intelligent in all areas. I was specificaly addressing people who, knowing that the odds are aginst them, still believe that they are somehow special, and can beat the odds. That type of reality disconnect is what I was trying to convey.
Well, they don't play the Neopets games, but I do play poker, blackjack, gin (and other rummy games), pinnochle, and eucher with my kids. I guess I should expect DFS to show up and haul me away.;)
Playing games, even games of chance, does not lead to gambling addiction. Being dumb as a rock, and thinking that you can win when the games are legally stacked aginst you, that can lead to gambling addiction.
Orriginally from the "Newhart" show I believe. "Hi, My name is Larry. This is my brother Daryl, and this is my other brother Daryl." All three brothers were fairly... mmmm... Slow?!?! Yeah, slow. Well, and neither Daryl ever spoke. they just used body gestures like nodding and shaking their heads.
Todd Yohn just lifted them, and used them in the song.
"15,000 votes for the green party?!?! That can't be right." Said the Democratic representative scratching his arse. "You just wanna split them evenly between the two that count"?
"Sure," said the Repubican as he reached for another doughnut.
Not as far as I can see. All this says, is that if the RIAA wishes to subpoena the personal information of an ISPs customer, they must actually file a lawsuit to have a basis for access to this data, rather than simply demanding the data.
If you were "stealing" misic for stuffing into your iPod, the RIAA can file a John Doe lawsuit, subpoena your personal data from your ISP, correct the personal data in the lawsuit to reflect this, and sue you, or settle, as they see fit.
Well, my wife told me if I try that she'll divorce me. Hmm...;)
Re:Removing motivation to create innovative IP
on
Is IP Property?
·
· Score: 1
Several of the atrists you named were concerned with making a profit from their arts. They just used a different method to obtain said profit rather than copyright and patent.
Artists used to work mostly under patronage, and for commision to the best of my knowledge. The ability to make accurate copies quickly, pretty much ruined this though. The patrons and commisioners of the art to be produced no longer were willing to pay if they didn't have control over the product they paid for.
I think the concept of a limited time monopoly is a good balance for the benefit of both the artist and the public, but the important part is the "limited time" 20 years for patents is getting a bit excessive, and don't even get me started on...
So, lets take a look at inventions and their use under the patent system you propose. If you don't patent it, you simply have security through obscurity, which rarely works. If the inventor patents the "invention", he has no guarentee that he will realize any profit from the invention, which he doesn't now either, but at least under the existing system he would have the right to control it's implimentation for 20 years. Hmmm. So, I guess I'm missing your systems impetus for the inventor to expend time, effort, and money to create new inventions.
That is the reason for patent as I understand it. A system that, for a limited time period, gives the the inventor/s a monopoly on the implimentation of the invention as the incentive, with the understanding that the invention falls into the public domain at the end of the patent period.
I am not sure if he is refering to the Milgram experiment, the Nuremburg Code, or the Nuremburg Trials. The Nuremburg Code addresses the ethical framework for performing scientific experiments on humans.
Slashdot Mirror
Pole to GEO is 42635.
.2842333323... seconds. 284 ms is not great for a ping, but not too bad.
Pole to pole through GEO is 85270.
Using 300,000km/sec as the speed of light, we get...
Huh? It is a publicly traded comapany that started it's life as "The St. Louis Bread Company", was bought by Au Bon Pain, was divested and had a name/ticker symbol change in there also. No Starbucks that I can see.
Cool. Maybe I found a use those mils that my grandpa gave me back when I was a kid.
"Bunch of streetwalkers, they are."
:)
No, streetwalkers have standards.
Ok. The space shuttle incident involved transporting a lot of heat from the external atmosphere that was generated by braking friction to the interior of the lander. The air was heated a lot by friction, slightly more by being compressed, and then cooled slightly by the expansion. The net was still really hot air. A couple of thousand degrees. No vorticies needed.
;)
Hypergolics work because the compounds involved are "HIGHLY" unstable. Things like hydrazine and nitrogen tetraoxide. Hypergolics are chemical reactions that are extremely exothermic. There is no heat needed to initiate the reaction. This is like pouring vinegar on baking soda, except that that reaction isn't energetic enough to lift a rocket.
Ok.
1. Pulse Detonation is a modified version of the pulse jet that has a detonation as part of the cycle instead of only deflagration. The most common engine, which is experimental like all PD engines, uses a deflagration to detonation conversion. You are right that they don't want hydrogen for these engines. It's not because it is so dangerous, but because it has lousy energy density. Kerosene has a lot more energy per kilo lifted into the air than pressurised hydrogen. Therefore the plane is lighter, and can go farther. A car doen't have to drive across a continent in a couple of hours. You don't have to have that kind of energy density.
2. I was being a bit pedantic.
As to the last, there ARE LPG vehicle fueling stations. Several companies and municipalities have converted their vehicles to run on LPG. As for natural gas, they pipe it into about half of the buildings in the USA, which is where I live. In neither of these situations is this some type of major safety issue.
p.s. Before you bring it up, yes, there are a few house explosions a year. There are also fires at petrochemical plants and refineries. Fuels are dangerous. All of them.
Ok. Your math doesn't quite make sense to me, but it's been many years since high school chem.
You still haven't said how hydrogen leaks are somehow self igniting, which you have stated several times. The hydrogen is under pressure in the system. When you get the leak the hydrogen moves fron the no longer closed system to atmosphere due to the pressure differential. As it enters the atmosphere it expands. Quickly. This expansion is and endothermic reaction. It sucks heat from the surrounding enviroment, so it isn't supplying it's own ignition source there. Where is the energy coming from for this self ignition you claim?
To get the scenerios that you keep proposing, you would have to get a massive amount of hydrogen into an oxygen rich environment really quickly, and then an ignition source would have to set it off.
I'm not seeing it, and you are not supplying us with any sources. Please point me to some sources that show that hydrogen leaks from pressurized systems are somehow inherently explosive.
1. Yes I have. I don't remember anything to do with it being because it was explosive, but because it burns so hot. Once again, I don't have my research materials at hand, but the hydrogen oxygen combustion is hotter, not more explosive. This means that the non combustive portion of the exhaust, nitrogen and such, expand more giving a greater thrust. Delta Vee is everything in these situations.
2. Hydrogen does not stop burning with a blue flame just because it is outdoors, or daytime. It has the same combustion characteristics no matter when or where. I agree that it is harder to see a flame in bright daylight than in the dark, but that applies to any flame, and still doesn't change the color of the flame.
Hydrogen burns. It burns readily and hot, I admit, but it is no more dangerous than handling natural gas or LPG (Liquified Petrolium Gas). Look up the Piper Alpha disaster. LPG has a LOT of energy. Gasoline has a much higher energy density than compressed hydrogen, and is a little harder to ignite, but hydrogen fires go straight up, where gasoline fires spread as the fuel seeks the lowest point. That is why you see the retaining dikes around the big above ground storage tanks. This is to keep the fuel confined in case of a spill or fire.
In regards to 1. That does not jibe with what I have read, but I do not have my research materials with me, so I cannot address this statement at this time with any confidence.
In regards to 2, from my days in chem labs, hydrogen burned with a pale blue flame, not a "clear" flame, whatever that is. The use of dowel rods and broom handles to find leaks in high preasure lines has nothing to do with flames. It has to do with the fact that a pin hole leak in a very high preasure line cuts the soft wood. They used them to detect steam leaks at the coal fired power plant where my father worked.
One is if the immovable object is the source of the irresistable force. There would be no conflict. The second would be if the irresitable force simply moved to the immovable object since it is an irresistable force and it cannot move the object. Sort of like sticking a small, but strong magnet, to the side of a steel building, only on a universal scale. ;) Now you can start throwing in all kinds of caveats like the force is also immovable or some such which would make it a mutually exclusive situation, but as posited it is not.
Oooh, oooh, can I play the semantics game too?
Your logic seems fine right up until you invoke semantics. Then it falls apart. There are at least two ways that the object and force can coexist happily from a logic viewpoint without playing games with the meanings of the words. Once you start playing with the semantics, you can have all kinds of fun. Playing with the definition of movable and resistable could keep people busy for days. Ah, well. On to the main question.
Can an invulnerable man commit suicide? Well, first off, death is not harmful. Smoking is harmful. Catching javelins is harmful. Death is a condition, a state of being, or nonbeing, depending on your point of view. Now we need to decide which definition of invulnerable we are working with. The classic meaning is impervious to attack/can't be wounded. The etymology is "in" - meaning not, and "vulner" - which is latin for wound. Soooo. Not woundable. There are TONS of ways to die without being wounded. Suffocation, poison, the list could go on and on. If you want to use a more modern meaning like can't be harmed, then we need to define harm, and since the boss is coming, I'll leave that exercise for later.
Umm. Actually you don't need tags. Right there next to the Submit and Preview buttons is a drop down menu that allows you to select three other formatting options.
They work well.
OK. Odds aren't stacked aginst you when you play table poker, but the house does take a cut of the table, so that when the winners and losers walk away, the total funds are less than when they sat down. The other games do have a legally recognized house advantage.
As to the second point, being intelligent in one area does not make you intelligent in all areas. I was specificaly addressing people who, knowing that the odds are aginst them, still believe that they are somehow special, and can beat the odds. That type of reality disconnect is what I was trying to convey.
Well, they don't play the Neopets games, but I do play poker, blackjack, gin (and other rummy games), pinnochle, and eucher with my kids. I guess I should expect DFS to show up and haul me away. ;)
Playing games, even games of chance, does not lead to gambling addiction. Being dumb as a rock, and thinking that you can win when the games are legally stacked aginst you, that can lead to gambling addiction.
Orriginally from the "Newhart" show I believe. "Hi, My name is Larry. This is my brother Daryl, and this is my other brother Daryl." All three brothers were fairly... mmmm... Slow?!?! Yeah, slow. Well, and neither Daryl ever spoke. they just used body gestures like nodding and shaking their heads.
Todd Yohn just lifted them, and used them in the song.
"15,000 votes for the green party?!?! That can't be right." Said the Democratic representative scratching his arse. "You just wanna split them evenly between the two that count"?
"Sure," said the Repubican as he reached for another doughnut.
Not as far as I can see. All this says, is that if the RIAA wishes to subpoena the personal information of an ISPs customer, they must actually file a lawsuit to have a basis for access to this data, rather than simply demanding the data.
If you were "stealing" misic for stuffing into your iPod, the RIAA can file a John Doe lawsuit, subpoena your personal data from your ISP, correct the personal data in the lawsuit to reflect this, and sue you, or settle, as they see fit.
No, what we have here is most likely a liquidated "used game" store.
Wasn't it Robert Bakker(sp?) who said something along the lines of, "shut up and eat your Thanksgiving raptor." :)
Yes, but the issue is whether the FCC can mandate the honoring of the broadcast flag in the digital TVs and recorders, I believe.
Sweet malt beverages? - Check. Had them for years. Zima, Malt Duck, ...
:)
Caffinated beer? - Check. Coffee stouts have been around for a looong time. My 30 year old homebrewing manual has a few recipies.
Mixing the concepts? - Priceless! Because you couldn't pay me to drink the stuff.
Well, my wife told me if I try that she'll divorce me. Hmm... ;)
Several of the atrists you named were concerned with making a profit from their arts. They just used a different method to obtain said profit rather than copyright and patent.
Artists used to work mostly under patronage, and for commision to the best of my knowledge. The ability to make accurate copies quickly, pretty much ruined this though. The patrons and commisioners of the art to be produced no longer were willing to pay if they didn't have control over the product they paid for.
I think the concept of a limited time monopoly is a good balance for the benefit of both the artist and the public, but the important part is the "limited time" 20 years for patents is getting a bit excessive, and don't even get me started on...
So, lets take a look at inventions and their use under the patent system you propose. If you don't patent it, you simply have security through obscurity, which rarely works. If the inventor patents the "invention", he has no guarentee that he will realize any profit from the invention, which he doesn't now either, but at least under the existing system he would have the right to control it's implimentation for 20 years. Hmmm. So, I guess I'm missing your systems impetus for the inventor to expend time, effort, and money to create new inventions.
That is the reason for patent as I understand it. A system that, for a limited time period, gives the the inventor/s a monopoly on the implimentation of the invention as the incentive, with the understanding that the invention falls into the public domain at the end of the patent period.
I am not sure if he is refering to the Milgram experiment, the Nuremburg Code, or the Nuremburg Trials. The Nuremburg Code addresses the ethical framework for performing scientific experiments on humans.