Please, intentionally misunderstanding people in order to mock them is not a substitute for an argument. If we play that game, then I could just mock you for "claiming" that Mendeleev used s, p, d, and f orbitals to place his elements, even though those were discovered half-a-century later. Of course, you never say that... but why not twist your words to satisy my own smugness, eh?
When a highschool sophomore walks in to class and sees the PT for the first time, one of the questions (s)he asks is "Why aren't the groups aligned logically?" It then becomes my job to explain why the groups *are* in fact ordered logically, both in terms of chemical properties and in terms of electron configurations.
The new periodic table makes immediate visual sense to a student in that regard. It makes the gaps seem reasonable, instead of arbitrary.
As you point out, it leaves a lot to be desired in other ways... which is why it will never be the primary PT in my class.
Yeah, that is weird... H is placed in the carbon group. I guess you could make the case that H is similar to carbon in that it has exactly half of the valence electrons needed to make a complete valence level.
But that's a REAAALLL stretch.
That's a feature that might make me rethink liking it.
That is correct. #113, 115 are undiscovered. #114, 116, 118 are un-named, unless it turns out that the data supporting their discovery was indeed incorrect, in which case they are also undiscovered.
In principle, the chart could spiral out forever. In practice, it can't because large nuclei (reflected by large atomic numbers) tear themselves apart with Coulombic (electrical) forces. The question marks are elements that either haven't yet been made (e.g., #113) or haven't yet been named (e.g., #118 -- although there's some controversy about whether it has been made)
I teach chemistry, and I like the chart. It conveys a sense of connectedness between both groups and periods. It also conveys the "periodic" nature of the groups much more effectively than the standard chart does, as the elements within a group line up *not* because they've been arbitrarily shoved into place, but because they spiral out to the appropriate location.
Still and all, I will probably have it only as a demo tool. The standard chart is much easier to read. It also shows electron configurations more clearly than the spiral does.
Actually, what I meant was that sequential access (tape) and random access (disk, whether floppy or hard or optical -- remember the games on laser disk?) were considered competitors at the time. Each has found its own niche now.
Interesting that tape and disk were competing media back in the day. Now they each have specialized uses (backup and storage, resp.).
My first 5.25" was a Commodore external drive. It cost me about $300, IIRC. I was so psyched! Until I went to college and saw the 30MB HDDs for Macs.:-)
Indirectly, he's correct. Low boiling points are correlated with higher vapor pressures, which are a measure of the rate of evaporation of a substance.
The evaporation process is the primary reason for the "cool" feeling on the skin, because the heat of vaporization is carried away by the gaseous ethanol as it leaves. Hence: lower boiling point --> cooler feeling.
Here are the numbers:
Skin temp: ~30 C.
vapor pressure of water @ 30 C: 32mmHg
Heat of vap. of water: 41 kJ/mol
vapor pressure of ethanol @ 30 C: 78mmHg
Heat of vap. of ethanol: 37 kJ/mol.
So, since mmHg are proportional to moles evaporated, the relative heat removal of ethanol to water is (37)(78)/((41)(32)) = 2.2.
I'm not interested in the U.S. "retaining" control of the 'Net, to whatever limited extent it *has* control over the 'Net.
No, I want the U.S., the UN, and anyone else for that matter to have *as little control over the 'Net as possible.* If you read the governing document to which the article links, the UN is trying to take a much more active controlling role than ICAAN currently does.
Your ITU analogy is flawed because 1) the amount of control exerted by the ITU over radio and phone services is far less than the control desired by the UN's group. For example, the ITU's regulations have almost no effect on radio broadcasting content in the U.S., a function handled entirely by the U.S. government (the FCC). By contrast, the UN grgoup wants to take responsibility for eliminating spam, leveling the costs of internet access globally, and solving "multilingualism" issues on the 'Net.
We don't need *any* group mandating a "solution" for spam. Bah.
RTFA. Section III of the document lists the issues that the new entity is supposed to take on:
Administration of root zones
Interconnection costs (can you say "tax"?)
Internet stability and cybercrime
Spam
"Meaningful participation in global development"
Capacity building
Allocation of domain names
IP addressing (not to deliberately quote Bill G., but shouldn't IPv6 be enough for us all?)
Intellectual Property Rights
Freedom of Expression
Data Protection and Privacy Rights
Consumer Rights
Multilingualism
There! That oughta keep us busy for a while!
Seriously, it's not anti-American sentiment. It's a somewhat back-door attempt for the UN to have a real governing ability over issues that they've never been able to address through resolutions. Some country isn't playing nice with regard to intellectual property? Hit 'em in the Internet. At least, that's my theory...
We're told a character is going to die. My prediction: Harry makes it up with Snape in this book, and Snape gets the ax trying to save Harry in some way.
I agree with your point. I should have said "...about 67% efficient, with theoretical efficiency of at least 83%." I was citing numbers from the links. I don't think large scale production of H2 has hit 90% efficiency, or we would all be driving hydrogen cars.:-)
In the U.S., it is at least a civil offense. Re-read your link. In P. 106, the owner of the copyright is the only one allowed to make copies. The definition of "copy" (P. 101) is
"Copies" are material objects, other than phonorecords, in which a work is fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. The term "copies" includes the material object, other than a phonorecord, in which the work is first fixed.
When you download the file from the Net, you are making a copy on your hard drive (or other medium, but HDD is most likely). So there it is. If you think I'm misinterpreting the law, then see here , especially the paragraph entitled Is it legal to download works from peer-to-peer networks and if not, what is the penalty for doing so? (at the bottom), for clarity.
Not that I agree with copyright law, you understand...
No intent to troll, that's for sure. It is my understanding that generating H2 by electrolysis is practically about 67% efficient, with Carnot efficiency of 83%... here and here
Combined with the efficiency of fuel cell cars, that leads to a total cost of about $4/gallon-equivalent, BUT with about 50 mpg efficiency, that translates to equivalent cost per mile driven.
Given lower environmental costs, I'd say that's pretty decent, wouldn't you?
Of course, if H2 could be made more efficiently by thermal processes, which is what GGGP appears to be insinuating, then great.
Even further OT...:-)
The word "Catholic" in the Athanasian Creed (formulated in or before 361) simply means "universal" -- it has nothing whatsoever to do with the Roman Catholic church over against the Eastern Orthodox or Protestant churches. And in fact, starting in line 3 of the creed, it spells out precisely what this universal, or "catholic", faith consists of...
I agree, I think, with your point that verbal assent to the creeds is not an indication of true belief. But in the case of Mormonism, verbal dissent is a pretty good indication of true unbelief.
Parent poster is justified in his claims. The Mormons do not subscribe to the standard creeds of Christianity: the Apostle's Creed, the Nicene Creed, the Athanasian Creed, etc. Those creeds have always been considered the benchmark that divides Christians from non-Christian cults, such as Gnosticism or Jehovah's Witnesses.
Protestants, Catholics, Orthodox, and Coptics all accept the creeds. Hence, whatever their differences, they (perhaps grudgingly) admit the name "Christian" to each other.
The Mormons, by contrast, differ from the Creeds on several significant points, all having to do with the divinity of Christ. For example, Mormons do not believe that Jesus is divine in the same sense of God the Father.
Hence, in the universe of Christian communities, Mormons are not accepted as Christian.
In the I, Robot stories, robots were most emphatically designed not to be weapons. Your rules would allow robot weaponry.
I'm not so sure that I, Robot portrays the rules as a "bad idea" but rather a source of inconsistency -- and therefore a source of great story material.
I think you will find most of them in the group who believe the Bible is properly regarded as a series of parables on morality and how we ought to live.
and
This is quite different from the historical belief that the Bible was the literal truth. Thus they have twisted their religion to accomodate their science.
So group 1 is characterized by regarding the Bible as a series of parables. I most emphatically do not believe the Bible as a whole is a series of parables, although it has parables in parts, usually clearly marked as such. I'm not in group 1.
Group 2 OTOH is characterized as "twisting their religion to accomodate their science" (did he actually mean "science to fit their religion"? That's how I took it... you seem also to have understood him to mean that). And, to the best of my ability and at least in my conscious intent, I don't do that either. I'm not in group 2, as much as anyone can be "objective." Conclusion? GGP is creating a false alternative. Ironically, he's (either ignorant of the existence of people like me or) forcing the facts to fit his viewpoint...
Second thought: The idea of Biblical inerrancy is complicated and cannot be summarized neatly as "literal word-for-word interpretation." Some sections of the Bible are clearly presented as historical and should be read as such. Other sections are clearly symbolic (i.e, most of Revelation, much of Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel) and should be read as such. The food fight then begins on passages which are, or might be, ambiguous. Genesis 1 is one such passage. The best way I know to summarize inerrancy is thus: "Scripture contains the words that the Holy Spirit intended to communicate, free from error in the original manuscripts." But affirming that does not affirm any program per se for understanding those words; it does not entail a belief, for example, that everything in the Bible must be taken literally, but only those things which are clearly intended as literal in meaning. The resurrection of Christ is a good example of the latter. The definition above is considered a standard one by thoughtful, "conservative" Christian scholars.
You can see that I *might* fit into your first group, even though I don't fit into either of GGP's groups.
Last thought: The term "Christian Scientist" (both caps) has unfortunately been co-opted by a cult started by Mary Baker Eddy in the 19th century (Google for it if interested). So I avoid using it and encourage others to do so also.
Slashdot Mirror
When a highschool sophomore walks in to class and sees the PT for the first time, one of the questions (s)he asks is "Why aren't the groups aligned logically?" It then becomes my job to explain why the groups *are* in fact ordered logically, both in terms of chemical properties and in terms of electron configurations.
The new periodic table makes immediate visual sense to a student in that regard. It makes the gaps seem reasonable, instead of arbitrary.
As you point out, it leaves a lot to be desired in other ways ... which is why it will never be the primary PT in my class.
BUT it places H in the wrong group! Yikes!
But that's a REAAALLL stretch.
That's a feature that might make me rethink liking it.
HLiNaKRbCsFr
BeMgCaSrBaRa
FClBrIAt
HeNeArKrXeRn
All of which can almost be pronounced as "words" and were easy for my students to remember.
That is correct. #113, 115 are undiscovered. #114, 116, 118 are un-named, unless it turns out that the data supporting their discovery was indeed incorrect, in which case they are also undiscovered.
In principle, the chart could spiral out forever. In practice, it can't because large nuclei (reflected by large atomic numbers) tear themselves apart with Coulombic (electrical) forces. The question marks are elements that either haven't yet been made (e.g., #113) or haven't yet been named (e.g., #118 -- although there's some controversy about whether it has been made)
Still and all, I will probably have it only as a demo tool. The standard chart is much easier to read. It also shows electron configurations more clearly than the spiral does.
Actually, what I meant was that sequential access (tape) and random access (disk, whether floppy or hard or optical -- remember the games on laser disk?) were considered competitors at the time. Each has found its own niche now.
My first 5.25" was a Commodore external drive. It cost me about $300, IIRC. I was so psyched! Until I went to college and saw the 30MB HDDs for Macs. :-)
The evaporation process is the primary reason for the "cool" feeling on the skin, because the heat of vaporization is carried away by the gaseous ethanol as it leaves. Hence: lower boiling point --> cooler feeling.
Here are the numbers:
Skin temp: ~30 C.
vapor pressure of water @ 30 C: 32mmHg
Heat of vap. of water: 41 kJ/mol
vapor pressure of ethanol @ 30 C: 78mmHg
Heat of vap. of ethanol: 37 kJ/mol .
So, since mmHg are proportional to moles evaporated, the relative heat removal of ethanol to water is (37)(78)/((41)(32)) = 2.2.
I'm not interested in the U.S. "retaining" control of the 'Net, to whatever limited extent it *has* control over the 'Net.
No, I want the U.S., the UN, and anyone else for that matter to have *as little control over the 'Net as possible.* If you read the governing document to which the article links, the UN is trying to take a much more active controlling role than ICAAN currently does.
Your ITU analogy is flawed because 1) the amount of control exerted by the ITU over radio and phone services is far less than the control desired by the UN's group. For example, the ITU's regulations have almost no effect on radio broadcasting content in the U.S., a function handled entirely by the U.S. government (the FCC). By contrast, the UN grgoup wants to take responsibility for eliminating spam, leveling the costs of internet access globally, and solving "multilingualism" issues on the 'Net.
We don't need *any* group mandating a "solution" for spam. Bah.
There! That oughta keep us busy for a while!
Seriously, it's not anti-American sentiment. It's a somewhat back-door attempt for the UN to have a real governing ability over issues that they've never been able to address through resolutions. Some country isn't playing nice with regard to intellectual property? Hit 'em in the Internet. At least, that's my theory...
We're told a character is going to die. My prediction: Harry makes it up with Snape in this book, and Snape gets the ax trying to save Harry in some way.
I agree with your point. I should have said "...about 67% efficient, with theoretical efficiency of at least 83%." I was citing numbers from the links. I don't think large scale production of H2 has hit 90% efficiency, or we would all be driving hydrogen cars. :-)
Not that I agree with copyright law, you understand...
No intent to troll, that's for sure. It is my understanding that generating H2 by electrolysis is practically about 67% efficient, with Carnot efficiency of 83% ... here and here
Combined with the efficiency of fuel cell cars, that leads to a total cost of about $4/gallon-equivalent, BUT with about 50 mpg efficiency, that translates to equivalent cost per mile driven.
Given lower environmental costs, I'd say that's pretty decent, wouldn't you?
Of course, if H2 could be made more efficiently by thermal processes, which is what GGGP appears to be insinuating, then great.
Even further OT ... :-)
The word "Catholic" in the Athanasian Creed (formulated in or before 361) simply means "universal" -- it has nothing whatsoever to do with the Roman Catholic church over against the Eastern Orthodox or Protestant churches. And in fact, starting in line 3 of the creed, it spells out precisely what this universal, or "catholic", faith consists of...
I agree, I think, with your point that verbal assent to the creeds is not an indication of true belief. But in the case of Mormonism, verbal dissent is a pretty good indication of true unbelief.
Parent poster is justified in his claims. The Mormons do not subscribe to the standard creeds of Christianity: the Apostle's Creed, the Nicene Creed, the Athanasian Creed, etc. Those creeds have always been considered the benchmark that divides Christians from non-Christian cults, such as Gnosticism or Jehovah's Witnesses.
Protestants, Catholics, Orthodox, and Coptics all accept the creeds. Hence, whatever their differences, they (perhaps grudgingly) admit the name "Christian" to each other.
The Mormons, by contrast, differ from the Creeds on several significant points, all having to do with the divinity of Christ. For example, Mormons do not believe that Jesus is divine in the same sense of God the Father.
Hence, in the universe of Christian communities, Mormons are not accepted as Christian.
Your last point is very odd. Generating hydrogen from water can be done at room temperature with a 2V power supply:
H2O --> H2 + O2 E0 = -2.06V
So any nuclear power plant could more than do the trick.
What did you have in mind?
9) Get a good butterfly book and teach them how to ID, photograph, and raise butterflies.
... like Venus Flytraps.
10) Let them help you with home repairs.
11) Teach them how to raise cool plants
In the I, Robot stories, robots were most emphatically designed not to be weapons. Your rules would allow robot weaponry.
I'm not so sure that I, Robot portrays the rules as a "bad idea" but rather a source of inconsistency -- and therefore a source of great story material.
GGP actually said there were two groups:
... you seem also to have understood him to mean that). And, to the best of my ability and at least in my conscious intent, I don't do that either. I'm not in group 2, as much as anyone can be "objective." Conclusion? GGP is creating a false alternative. Ironically, he's (either ignorant of the existence of people like me or) forcing the facts to fit his viewpoint...
I think you will find most of them in the group who believe the Bible is properly regarded as a series of parables on morality and how we ought to live.
and
This is quite different from the historical belief that the Bible was the literal truth. Thus they have twisted their religion to accomodate their science.
So group 1 is characterized by regarding the Bible as a series of parables. I most emphatically do not believe the Bible as a whole is a series of parables, although it has parables in parts, usually clearly marked as such. I'm not in group 1.
Group 2 OTOH is characterized as "twisting their religion to accomodate their science" (did he actually mean "science to fit their religion"? That's how I took it
Second thought: The idea of Biblical inerrancy is complicated and cannot be summarized neatly as "literal word-for-word interpretation." Some sections of the Bible are clearly presented as historical and should be read as such. Other sections are clearly symbolic (i.e, most of Revelation, much of Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel) and should be read as such. The food fight then begins on passages which are, or might be, ambiguous. Genesis 1 is one such passage. The best way I know to summarize inerrancy is thus: "Scripture contains the words that the Holy Spirit intended to communicate, free from error in the original manuscripts." But affirming that does not affirm any program per se for understanding those words; it does not entail a belief, for example, that everything in the Bible must be taken literally, but only those things which are clearly intended as literal in meaning. The resurrection of Christ is a good example of the latter. The definition above is considered a standard one by thoughtful, "conservative" Christian scholars.
You can see that I *might* fit into your first group, even though I don't fit into either of GGP's groups.
Last thought: The term "Christian Scientist" (both caps) has unfortunately been co-opted by a cult started by Mary Baker Eddy in the 19th century (Google for it if interested). So I avoid using it and encourage others to do so also.
Regards,
Jeff Cagle
I'm a Christian who teaches science. I'm not in your group, and I don't pick and choose my facts.
Expand your database, please.
You're right ... that's different. And I'm right...context matters a whole lot here. :-)