I'm sure you're just being funny, but if they find a chemical receptor in the mouth that is specifically activated by an "apple" flavor molecule, then yes, yes they will.
My French is not very good, but it sure looked like the French text on the package had correct spelling and grammar, while the English text was abysmal! That cracks me up. I wonder if Google translate (or whatever package they used; machine translation errors tend to be common in Chinese products) is better at Chinese-to-French than Chinese-to-English...
No, they added a 5th when they discovered a 5th receptor in the mouth (savory/umami). The classic "4 tastes" are a much older idea than modern bioscience, so you can expect to see some updates.
I'm pretty sure it's assuming the event occurs during Nothern Latitude Summer, so it's safe to assume that during Southern Summer you'd be on the receiving end of the fun. Your distance from the equator is also important.
"The most efficient single-cycle turbines have reached 40% efficiency. 'Combined-cycle power plants, in which exhaust heat from a gas turbine driving an electrical generator is used to make steam to power a separate [steam] turbine driving yet another electrical generator, can see efficiencies as high as 58 percent.'"
So, really we're talking about a few % difference in thermodynamic efficiency between a billion dollar gas turbine power plant and a Bloom Box. With that, you need to start analyzing manufacturing and operating costs, because they're going to make up the real difference.
Thermodynamics governs the maximum efficiency of all powerplants, end of story. We can approach but we can't exceed their maximum efficiencies.
With that said, I'd be curious about an actual comparison of the theoretical efficiency of cracking natural gas to get hydrogen and then using a fuel cell vs. running that gas through a gas turbine.
THIS! There's a lot of half-baked "well, all the pollution is in one place with a powerplant" posts here that miss the point completely: the laws of thermodynamics are on the side of powerplants. If you burned a ton of gasoline in a car or a ton of gasoline in a powerplant, you'd release the same amount of CO2 but get at least twice as much useable energy from the powerplant.
And that's coupled with the added benefit that you can use the same electric infrastructure to deliver power from sustainables like hydro and solar.
People talking about CO2 sequestering and other science fiction apparently can't see the forest for the trees.
Pre-iPod there were ubiquitous CD players made by everybody and a handful of random companies making MP3 players that only slashbots were buying (e.g. Creative Nomad). The MP3 player market may have been crowded for its size, but it barely existed.
The iPod entered the very small, but crowded market for MP3 player, and while it did take sales from its competitors it mostly did what the Nintendo Wii did for console gaming: it opened up a huge new segment of the market. And then they got the CD player business because they were in the perfect position to ride the paradigm shift from discrete media (CDs) to digital mass storage.
The iPod never really competed with CD players, because they were essentially obsolete when it was introduced. Saying they were "competitors" is like saying that buggy whips were competitors for steering wheels.
I also don't buy that a market is crowded just because there are "competitors" in it. If a market is much smaller than its potential (e.g digital music sales pre-iTunes), then how can you call it crowded?
Why would anyone get an iPhone if they've got a Moto Razr and an iBook?
Why would anyone get an iBook if they've got a Dell on their desk?
Why would anyone get a Dell on their desk if they've got a terminal at work?
Why would anyone need a terminal at work, if they've got a punchcard machine three halls down?
That person may not need one "right now," but in a year or two they might either decide that they convergence device (of which I'm generally skeptical) either does the job just as well as a batman utility belt of other devices, or they may go for it as a lifestyle item, to replace their old gadgets. Or who knows, they might NOT have an iPhone and a Kindle... and let's face it, a lot of us don't.
We're talking about an airplane in which major sections are literally baked together in a kind of giant oven.
I'm pretty sure that Burt Rutan would use that same sentence as a compliment, not the "wooh, scary" crap you're trying to pull. Composites aren't something we came up with yesterday to test tomorrow; we've been baking parts together since the 50s. That part of the technology is mature. Engineering problems can come up any time novel structures are made, whether they're made from composites or metal alloys; that's why we have a test-and-review system. Aluminum has been great for us so far, but composites will continue to replace it, because our composites are already excellent design candidates (and in practice, not just on paper) and are getting better, while Aluminum technology hasn't really improved since the Eisenhower administration.
...aircraft design, we seem to be relying too much on computer models
HOLY CRAP ARE YOU KIDDING? You say it like you think computer models are some oracle we pray to without understanding. Like we built HAL-9000 and asked him, "So...whad'ya think about this new plane of ours? Oh, and we're gonna make it out of some material nobody ever saw before. Cool? OK, it's going into production tomorrow, kthxbai." Do you even fucking realize what a "computer model" is, or what engineers would do without "computer models?"
ANSWER: THEY WOULD DO THE EXACT SAME DESIGN MODELING AND ANALYSIS BY HAND, PROBABLY WITH LESS PRECISION/RESOLUTION, AND THEY WOULD TAKE THOUSANDS OF TIMES LONGER!
That's it! "Computer Models" are just a way to speed up calculations we fucking learn to do with pencils and paper when we're in engineering school!! How do you think people wrote those programs in the first place?!? And then when the calculations are done, you build and test! This is how engineers have been doing things since *math* was invented!!! So yes, they DO rely on computer models, because the alternative is to hire thousands of people to do tedious calculations, with a much higher error rate, and much longer time requirement.
I mean, really! In what way, exactly, would you have them rely *less* on "computer models?" Would you like them to do *fewer* analyses before testing? Would you like them to mock it up in a big block of clay, and then put it in the wind tunnel, and then call it good? Should they kill chickens and read the entrails? What kind of design models do you think they'd use if they weren't using software models? And what makes you think that they don't do both?
THIS! I would add:
- Cheap balsa gliders
- Lego Technics!!
- and a book like The American Boy's Handy Book--it'll get them into more of the "good kind" of trouble than any hundreds of dollars on toys.
A Stuka wasn't much bigger than the fighters of its day, which weren't as big as the fighters of our day. You're confusing "bomber," the generic term, with "strategic bomber," the term for monsters like the B-52.
Hurr durr. I googled it already, and I actually READ the links and couldn't find anything to suggest nickel metal hydride BATTERIES were bad for the environment--everything was about the mining process being polluting.
So if you're feeling smart again, why don't you point me to a link that contributes something to the discussion?
A complete non-sequiter. The wikipedia information makes *no* mention of marine toxicity (the topic at hand), and is mostly about contact allergies, nickel dust in air, and nickel carbonyl gas--NONE of which are related to what the GP was talking about.
Citation? I did a little googling, and it doesn't appear to be a hot topic by any standard. The biggest problems with nickel seem to be in its production, not its disposal, and I didn't see any references to nickel toxicity itself.
Plus, we're talking about battery disposal here. The odds are much better that they'd be dumped in landfills than that they'd be dumped in rivers, lakes, and oceans. With landfills, you'd be more worried about aquifer pollution, and I didn't see much concern there, either.
This is speculation, but I have a feeling that what you're talking about was a clever way to help create a "flat" screen.
If you have a single CRT and you want the beam to be focused on every part of your screen, you have to project onto a section of a sphere--which is why a CRT TV screen has a "bulge" to it.
If you project onto a flat surface, and have the beam focal point at the distance to the center of the screen, then it'll be out of focus as you move away from the middle (since the depth from the gun is changing).
A smaller section of a spherical shell is going to more closely approximate to a "flat surface." So to make a flat CRT screen, you could use one gun and a very small screen, or you could use multiple guns, each displaying a small segment on a larger flat screen.
Slashdot Mirror
Seconded.
And something being bad is not a valid argument about how bad something else is.
No, but assessing comparable risks to put the "badness" in perspective is valid for argument.
I'm sure you're just being funny, but if they find a chemical receptor in the mouth that is specifically activated by an "apple" flavor molecule, then yes, yes they will.
My French is not very good, but it sure looked like the French text on the package had correct spelling and grammar, while the English text was abysmal! That cracks me up. I wonder if Google translate (or whatever package they used; machine translation errors tend to be common in Chinese products) is better at Chinese-to-French than Chinese-to-English...
Any francophiles care to comment?
No, they added a 5th when they discovered a 5th receptor in the mouth (savory/umami). The classic "4 tastes" are a much older idea than modern bioscience, so you can expect to see some updates.
I'm pretty sure it's assuming the event occurs during Nothern Latitude Summer, so it's safe to assume that during Southern Summer you'd be on the receiving end of the fun. Your distance from the equator is also important.
Because I live in Phoenix, you insensitive clod!!
"The most efficient single-cycle turbines have reached 40% efficiency. 'Combined-cycle power plants, in which exhaust heat from a gas turbine driving an electrical generator is used to make steam to power a separate [steam] turbine driving yet another electrical generator, can see efficiencies as high as 58 percent.'"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_turbine#Industrial_gas_turbines_for_electrical_generation
So, really we're talking about a few % difference in thermodynamic efficiency between a billion dollar gas turbine power plant and a Bloom Box. With that, you need to start analyzing manufacturing and operating costs, because they're going to make up the real difference.
Thermodynamics governs the maximum efficiency of all powerplants, end of story. We can approach but we can't exceed their maximum efficiencies.
With that said, I'd be curious about an actual comparison of the theoretical efficiency of cracking natural gas to get hydrogen and then using a fuel cell vs. running that gas through a gas turbine.
THIS! There's a lot of half-baked "well, all the pollution is in one place with a powerplant" posts here that miss the point completely: the laws of thermodynamics are on the side of powerplants. If you burned a ton of gasoline in a car or a ton of gasoline in a powerplant, you'd release the same amount of CO2 but get at least twice as much useable energy from the powerplant.
And that's coupled with the added benefit that you can use the same electric infrastructure to deliver power from sustainables like hydro and solar.
People talking about CO2 sequestering and other science fiction apparently can't see the forest for the trees.
The insides look a little bit wobbly to me, but you sure gotta respect the hack.
Believe it or not, you don't.
Pre-iPod there were ubiquitous CD players made by everybody and a handful of random companies making MP3 players that only slashbots were buying (e.g. Creative Nomad). The MP3 player market may have been crowded for its size, but it barely existed.
The iPod entered the very small, but crowded market for MP3 player, and while it did take sales from its competitors it mostly did what the Nintendo Wii did for console gaming: it opened up a huge new segment of the market. And then they got the CD player business because they were in the perfect position to ride the paradigm shift from discrete media (CDs) to digital mass storage.
The iPod never really competed with CD players, because they were essentially obsolete when it was introduced. Saying they were "competitors" is like saying that buggy whips were competitors for steering wheels.
I also don't buy that a market is crowded just because there are "competitors" in it. If a market is much smaller than its potential (e.g digital music sales pre-iTunes), then how can you call it crowded?
Why would anyone get an iPhone if they've got a Moto Razr and an iBook?
Why would anyone get an iBook if they've got a Dell on their desk?
Why would anyone get a Dell on their desk if they've got a terminal at work?
Why would anyone need a terminal at work, if they've got a punchcard machine three halls down?
That person may not need one "right now," but in a year or two they might either decide that they convergence device (of which I'm generally skeptical) either does the job just as well as a batman utility belt of other devices, or they may go for it as a lifestyle item, to replace their old gadgets. Or who knows, they might NOT have an iPhone and a Kindle... and let's face it, a lot of us don't.
Down's Syndrome generally means that you won't be having any offspring.
What are you smoking? Your own article says 10.7% share for Q4 2008, with quarterly growth of 116%.
It's called scientific notation. Nobody really uses metric prefixes.
We're talking about an airplane in which major sections are literally baked together in a kind of giant oven.
I'm pretty sure that Burt Rutan would use that same sentence as a compliment, not the "wooh, scary" crap you're trying to pull. Composites aren't something we came up with yesterday to test tomorrow; we've been baking parts together since the 50s. That part of the technology is mature. Engineering problems can come up any time novel structures are made, whether they're made from composites or metal alloys; that's why we have a test-and-review system. Aluminum has been great for us so far, but composites will continue to replace it, because our composites are already excellent design candidates (and in practice, not just on paper) and are getting better, while Aluminum technology hasn't really improved since the Eisenhower administration.
...aircraft design, we seem to be relying too much on computer models
HOLY CRAP ARE YOU KIDDING? You say it like you think computer models are some oracle we pray to without understanding. Like we built HAL-9000 and asked him, "So...whad'ya think about this new plane of ours? Oh, and we're gonna make it out of some material nobody ever saw before. Cool? OK, it's going into production tomorrow, kthxbai." Do you even fucking realize what a "computer model" is, or what engineers would do without "computer models?"
ANSWER: THEY WOULD DO THE EXACT SAME DESIGN MODELING AND ANALYSIS BY HAND, PROBABLY WITH LESS PRECISION/RESOLUTION, AND THEY WOULD TAKE THOUSANDS OF TIMES LONGER!
That's it! "Computer Models" are just a way to speed up calculations we fucking learn to do with pencils and paper when we're in engineering school!! How do you think people wrote those programs in the first place?!? And then when the calculations are done, you build and test! This is how engineers have been doing things since *math* was invented!!! So yes, they DO rely on computer models, because the alternative is to hire thousands of people to do tedious calculations, with a much higher error rate, and much longer time requirement.
I mean, really! In what way, exactly, would you have them rely *less* on "computer models?" Would you like them to do *fewer* analyses before testing? Would you like them to mock it up in a big block of clay, and then put it in the wind tunnel, and then call it good? Should they kill chickens and read the entrails? What kind of design models do you think they'd use if they weren't using software models? And what makes you think that they don't do both?
It's clear that you don't know crap about crap.
THIS!
I would add:
- Cheap balsa gliders
- Lego Technics!!
- and a book like The American Boy's Handy Book--it'll get them into more of the "good kind" of trouble than any hundreds of dollars on toys.
Aircraft that Drops Bombs = Bomber
A Stuka wasn't much bigger than the fighters of its day, which weren't as big as the fighters of our day. You're confusing "bomber," the generic term, with "strategic bomber," the term for monsters like the B-52.
Hurr durr. I googled it already, and I actually READ the links and couldn't find anything to suggest nickel metal hydride BATTERIES were bad for the environment--everything was about the mining process being polluting.
So if you're feeling smart again, why don't you point me to a link that contributes something to the discussion?
A complete non-sequiter. The wikipedia information makes *no* mention of marine toxicity (the topic at hand), and is mostly about contact allergies, nickel dust in air, and nickel carbonyl gas--NONE of which are related to what the GP was talking about.
Citation? I did a little googling, and it doesn't appear to be a hot topic by any standard. The biggest problems with nickel seem to be in its production, not its disposal, and I didn't see any references to nickel toxicity itself.
Plus, we're talking about battery disposal here. The odds are much better that they'd be dumped in landfills than that they'd be dumped in rivers, lakes, and oceans. With landfills, you'd be more worried about aquifer pollution, and I didn't see much concern there, either.
This is speculation, but I have a feeling that what you're talking about was a clever way to help create a "flat" screen.
If you have a single CRT and you want the beam to be focused on every part of your screen, you have to project onto a section of a sphere--which is why a CRT TV screen has a "bulge" to it.
If you project onto a flat surface, and have the beam focal point at the distance to the center of the screen, then it'll be out of focus as you move away from the middle (since the depth from the gun is changing).
A smaller section of a spherical shell is going to more closely approximate to a "flat surface." So to make a flat CRT screen, you could use one gun and a very small screen, or you could use multiple guns, each displaying a small segment on a larger flat screen.
Pretty sure it's a play on a different word:
Multics: multiple
Unix: one (latin: unus)
How do you think the water is getting there right now--by helicopter?