Are you nuts? There's already a source of water in the car: the radiator, which (if you read the damn article) this system interfaces with. Additionally, the volume of steam you get from 30 gallons of water (especially at the 450C temperature it will be around) is staggeringly more than the volume of the car. You'd need to add at most a gallon of extra water, which, at 8 lbs, is probably an insignificant portion of the total weight of the system.
Now, you mentioned fuel economy and how detrimental this system will be to it. But the whole point of the system is to increase efficiency while increasing power. The system as a whole will increase fuel economy because you will get more power and more torque at lower RPMs so the ICE does not need to work as hard. And again, your obvious ignorance of anything discussed in the article is staggering. Even a cursory glance at the article (hell, if you just looked at the pretty pictures) would show you that the system is closed, meaning that you would never have to replace water because no water or steam can escape.
"When I need the seriuos power I use my desktop boxes sitting in the basement."
However, say someone, such as myself, who does development work or who need the serious power cannot afford more than one computer? A portable machine with a comparable amount of power to a desktop is the perfect solution. Judging from sales of Powerbooks, it seems that many people fall into this category. Obviously, for your needs, a lightweight laptop with humungo battery life is perfect, but your needs aren't everyones.
If something as horribly misbegotten as ActiveX is makes writing apps for an OS do-able, doesn't that say something about the rest of the OS? And I think you go a little bit way too far when you say that writing apps for Windows is more fun than Linux, and too far again when you say that you have installs that work (while implying that Linux doesn't). I can't count the number of times the setup wizard has stopped responding 99% of the way through an installation, while with any new package-based linux (debian distros especially) can update and/or install anything simply, most often through an easy-to-use graphical interface. Hell, linux can update the kernel on the fly. Can Windows?
Anybody trying to set up any type of GUI on windows is either masochistic, dumb or being forced to due to socioeconomic restraints; anybody trying to set up any type on GUI on linux is a crazy pinko-liberal. If you want a sensible (fun) programming environment that *just works*, try OS X.
Not necessarily true. Most laptop drives that one can purchase only run at 4200 rpm for the reason you state: they consume less energy. What is remarkable about the Seagate drive is that it runs at 5400 rpm while maintaining a similar energy consumption to a 4200 rpm drive. Its more hard drive bang for your energy buck.
I read the article, then I tried it out with iChat. When I tried to connect, a lovely little window popped up and said "Your username and password are about to be sent unencrypted." So, tell me mister know-it-all, where is this encryption?
Your anecdotal evidence is so inane that I feel like I need to counter it with some anecdotal evidence of my own. I recently finished high school. During my senior year, I was in an advanced calculus class consisting of four members: two male and two female. This is good evidence that men and women are equally capable. However, the males in that class also took an advanced computer science class at the same time. The females did not. When asked, point-blank, by the teacher why this is the case, they demurred and said that they weren't interested. Even when the teacher (who, too, was a woman) doggedly badgered them to take an introductory programming course, they said that they weren't interested.
It isn't ludicrous to assume that women don't get into programming because they don't feel like it. It is, however, ludicrous to not wonder why they don't feel like it.
I have no idea whether that is supposed to be a joke, or if you are actually living back in 1998. I suppose that an automated advertising service whose gross margins are as close to 100% as you can physically get is not at all profitable. Or that Google's profits are larger than Time-Warners means that nothing that they make is profitable. On the contrary: Google uses its simple, old technology as a massive cash-cow, that coupled with its killing in selling stock, is funding the development of "un-profitable" innovations. Except that those innovations are profitable. How can they be profitable if they are free as in beer? Because in Google's revenue model, the end user is NOT the customer. The sheer mass of end users is what makes Google so attractive to the customer: companies who need to advertise. Google's innovations expose end users to Google's customers more and more because end users use Google's nifty, useful innovations.
I only mention that specific "net myth" after reading it in fortune (why, indeed, the same magazine that published the article). But I most certainly bow to your superior knowledge.
Indeed, when Jobs took over Apple in '97, it had serious money problems. So the most ironic thing that Jobs did was approach Microsoft and convince them to buy $150 million in Apple stock. That investment is now worth over $1 billion. So yes, Gates and Microsoft own a good bit of Apple stock.
The scientists can observe without interfering in these ways:
The only way that the "probe" could interfere with the nuclear processes would be by reacting with either the DNA or the proteins that are replicating the DNA. Because the probes, called QDots, are chemically inert chunks of semi-conductor, they are chemically unreactive. So no, the nucleus doesn't have any reaction to a foreign body entering it, unless the foreign body chemically reacts with whatever is already in the nucleus, and the "probe" is not reactive.
The probes work by fluorescing, which is a physical property of some materials/chemicals. It works like this: a photon is absorbed by one of the bonds in the probe, and an electron gets excited; electrons don't like being excited, so they give off energy in the form of another photon. Now, everything will flouresce a little bit, but these QDots are very fluorescent. Think, if you would, of a geiger counter, background radiation and a sizable chunk of enriched uranium. Same sort of deal, except that the radiation given off by fluorescent things doesn't damage cellular processes.
Now, I'm not a biochemist, but my father is. In fact, doing this sort of thing is his job, and in summary, scientists can observe these processes without interfering because a) QDots are unreactive and b) nuclei are pretty transparent.
I don't believe that the European Commission negated any sort of democracy. Before I get mugged by a bunch of open-sourcers, I must say that I completely agree with the harsh language and condemnatory tone of the article, as well as with the idea of open source. However, a democracy cannot be negated; the fact is, a democracy is a form of government where the people as a whole have the final say. That is obviously not the case, as the European Commission as a whole (and the Microsoft puppet and failed Prime Minister of Portugal specifically) was able to have the "final" say. I find it really petty when people try to get a reaction out of people by using incorrect words that have a strong connotation (like freedom, liberty, democracy) instead of using the correct terminology.
If the news media as a whole, united entity is in fact left-leaning, is it better to conclude that every single manager in charge of content at news organizations is left-leaning, or that news (true information) itself is left-leaning? Simplicity makes me believe it is better to conclude the second. Additionally, what do we know about the bias of the authors of those reports? Couldn't they just be conservative, and so have their political bais influence their reports? If they authors were right-leaning, wouldn't they see a centrist news organization as left-leaning because it is more left-leaning than they are.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you nuts? There's already a source of water in the car: the radiator, which (if you read the damn article) this system interfaces with. Additionally, the volume of steam you get from 30 gallons of water (especially at the 450C temperature it will be around) is staggeringly more than the volume of the car. You'd need to add at most a gallon of extra water, which, at 8 lbs, is probably an insignificant portion of the total weight of the system.
Now, you mentioned fuel economy and how detrimental this system will be to it. But the whole point of the system is to increase efficiency while increasing power. The system as a whole will increase fuel economy because you will get more power and more torque at lower RPMs so the ICE does not need to work as hard. And again, your obvious ignorance of anything discussed in the article is staggering. Even a cursory glance at the article (hell, if you just looked at the pretty pictures) would show you that the system is closed, meaning that you would never have to replace water because no water or steam can escape.
7. PROFIT!!!!!!
...Unless Sony modified USB keyboard driver so that it didn't bind the Shift key on external keyboards to do anything...
"When I need the seriuos power I use my desktop boxes sitting in the basement." However, say someone, such as myself, who does development work or who need the serious power cannot afford more than one computer? A portable machine with a comparable amount of power to a desktop is the perfect solution. Judging from sales of Powerbooks, it seems that many people fall into this category. Obviously, for your needs, a lightweight laptop with humungo battery life is perfect, but your needs aren't everyones.
You forgot to add the ??? step...
If something as horribly misbegotten as ActiveX is makes writing apps for an OS do-able, doesn't that say something about the rest of the OS? And I think you go a little bit way too far when you say that writing apps for Windows is more fun than Linux, and too far again when you say that you have installs that work (while implying that Linux doesn't). I can't count the number of times the setup wizard has stopped responding 99% of the way through an installation, while with any new package-based linux (debian distros especially) can update and/or install anything simply, most often through an easy-to-use graphical interface. Hell, linux can update the kernel on the fly. Can Windows?
Anybody trying to set up any type of GUI on windows is either masochistic, dumb or being forced to due to socioeconomic restraints; anybody trying to set up any type on GUI on linux is a crazy pinko-liberal. If you want a sensible (fun) programming environment that *just works*, try OS X.
In Soviet Russia, ink changes YOU!
Sorry, but when you mention a Russian in the article, what do you expect?
Not necessarily true. Most laptop drives that one can purchase only run at 4200 rpm for the reason you state: they consume less energy. What is remarkable about the Seagate drive is that it runs at 5400 rpm while maintaining a similar energy consumption to a 4200 rpm drive. Its more hard drive bang for your energy buck.
You forgot step 5: PROFIT!!!
A science article, you say? Clearly this article is on the wrong section. We only like duplicate hoaxes here.
I read the article, then I tried it out with iChat. When I tried to connect, a lovely little window popped up and said "Your username and password are about to be sent unencrypted." So, tell me mister know-it-all, where is this encryption?
Yes, right after he fires you for being on slashdot all day...;-)
What's someone with a scrap of non-technical intelligence doing on slashdot? And moderators actually doing a good job? What is the world coming to?
There's a really good reason you don't know C#. You should pride yourself on it.
Your anecdotal evidence is so inane that I feel like I need to counter it with some anecdotal evidence of my own. I recently finished high school. During my senior year, I was in an advanced calculus class consisting of four members: two male and two female. This is good evidence that men and women are equally capable. However, the males in that class also took an advanced computer science class at the same time. The females did not. When asked, point-blank, by the teacher why this is the case, they demurred and said that they weren't interested. Even when the teacher (who, too, was a woman) doggedly badgered them to take an introductory programming course, they said that they weren't interested.
It isn't ludicrous to assume that women don't get into programming because they don't feel like it. It is, however, ludicrous to not wonder why they don't feel like it.
I have no idea whether that is supposed to be a joke, or if you are actually living back in 1998. I suppose that an automated advertising service whose gross margins are as close to 100% as you can physically get is not at all profitable. Or that Google's profits are larger than Time-Warners means that nothing that they make is profitable. On the contrary: Google uses its simple, old technology as a massive cash-cow, that coupled with its killing in selling stock, is funding the development of "un-profitable" innovations. Except that those innovations are profitable. How can they be profitable if they are free as in beer? Because in Google's revenue model, the end user is NOT the customer. The sheer mass of end users is what makes Google so attractive to the customer: companies who need to advertise. Google's innovations expose end users to Google's customers more and more because end users use Google's nifty, useful innovations.
Now why would the RIAA go and ban a genre of music that they already exploit?
You forgot about his mom...
I only mention that specific "net myth" after reading it in fortune (why, indeed, the same magazine that published the article). But I most certainly bow to your superior knowledge.
Indeed, when Jobs took over Apple in '97, it had serious money problems. So the most ironic thing that Jobs did was approach Microsoft and convince them to buy $150 million in Apple stock. That investment is now worth over $1 billion. So yes, Gates and Microsoft own a good bit of Apple stock.
The scientists can observe without interfering in these ways:
The only way that the "probe" could interfere with the nuclear processes would be by reacting with either the DNA or the proteins that are replicating the DNA. Because the probes, called QDots, are chemically inert chunks of semi-conductor, they are chemically unreactive. So no, the nucleus doesn't have any reaction to a foreign body entering it, unless the foreign body chemically reacts with whatever is already in the nucleus, and the "probe" is not reactive.
The probes work by fluorescing, which is a physical property of some materials/chemicals. It works like this: a photon is absorbed by one of the bonds in the probe, and an electron gets excited; electrons don't like being excited, so they give off energy in the form of another photon. Now, everything will flouresce a little bit, but these QDots are very fluorescent. Think, if you would, of a geiger counter, background radiation and a sizable chunk of enriched uranium. Same sort of deal, except that the radiation given off by fluorescent things doesn't damage cellular processes.
Now, I'm not a biochemist, but my father is. In fact, doing this sort of thing is his job, and in summary, scientists can observe these processes without interfering because a) QDots are unreactive and b) nuclei are pretty transparent.
I was simply quoting the article on that one. Maybe if you didn't succumb to /.itis, you would RTFA before posting.
You know, you'd figure that the entire field of solar power got one of those special deals with /. like the one Apple has...
I don't believe that the European Commission negated any sort of democracy. Before I get mugged by a bunch of open-sourcers, I must say that I completely agree with the harsh language and condemnatory tone of the article, as well as with the idea of open source. However, a democracy cannot be negated; the fact is, a democracy is a form of government where the people as a whole have the final say. That is obviously not the case, as the European Commission as a whole (and the Microsoft puppet and failed Prime Minister of Portugal specifically) was able to have the "final" say. I find it really petty when people try to get a reaction out of people by using incorrect words that have a strong connotation (like freedom, liberty, democracy) instead of using the correct terminology.
If the news media as a whole, united entity is in fact left-leaning, is it better to conclude that every single manager in charge of content at news organizations is left-leaning, or that news (true information) itself is left-leaning? Simplicity makes me believe it is better to conclude the second. Additionally, what do we know about the bias of the authors of those reports? Couldn't they just be conservative, and so have their political bais influence their reports? If they authors were right-leaning, wouldn't they see a centrist news organization as left-leaning because it is more left-leaning than they are.