Well, for heaven's sake, talk to one of them, will you?
Wrong. This says otherwise.
No, it doesn't.
Do you know something scientists at Argonne National Labs don't?
No, but I know something that you don't, apparently the difference between the sentences "Distillation removes both ionic and
nonionic organic contaminants" and "Distillation removes all ionic and nonionic organic contaminants." Distillation can remove a large amount of contamination, especially if done repeatedly using industrial equipment. But the fact is that the distilled water you buy at the grocery store has got nothin' on the deionized water used to clean silicon waffers.
I am also curious how you know Calder is a "scientist at Argonne National Labs" and not a high school geometry teacher: (from your link) "NEWTON is an electronic community for Science, Math, and Computer Science K-12 Educators." I just find this funny because you took issue with my citing the site for a furnishing industry earlier.
Now, because I am getting tired of carrying on this stupid debate, here is a bunch of those fancy internet links you love so much:
Deionized water as a cleaner Question: Why not just use distilled if it has even less ion concentration? Why buy more expensive de-ionized water?
Lytron Fun quote: "Care must be exercised when using DI water. The very lack of ions also makes this coolant unusually corrosive. Called the "universal solvent," DI water is one of the most aggressive solvents known. In fact, to a varying degree, it will dissolve everything to which it is exposed. Therefore, all materials in the cooling loop must be corrosion-resistant."
Wikipedia entry Interesting quotes: Even distillation does not completely purify water, because of contaminants with similar boiling points and droplets of unvaporized liquid carried with the steam. However, 99.9% pure water can be obtained by distillation. Reverse osmosis is theoretically the most thorough method of large-scale water purification available, although perfect semi-permable membranes are difficult to create.
Note that there is a difference between household water purifiers (both distillers and deionizers) and industrial equipment. The later only run the process once, and the so the water has been distilled/deionized, but that doesn't mean it is deionized.
Now, I'm sure you can find a thousand more sites telling me how distilled water is actually so pure it will sometimes spontaneously develop sentience and how deionized water is not only good for you it can kill cancer and stop
Distilled water is deionized. That is why they use distilled water as the benchmark, deionized water is not as pure.
Haven't you ever taken chem? Destillation simply means boiling it and collecting the condensate. That does not give a pure sample, and that most certainly does not deionize it. (Granted, industrial processes are much more effective than a lab still and I imagine they would repeat the process several times.)
Deionization involves pushing water through a selectively permeable membrane using reverse osmosis. That takes out pretty much everything. In fact, it can filter out hydroxyls and make the water acidic (other treatment fixes this and pulls out the few remaining ions).
One of the primary reasons Intel uses deionized water is because pure water does not conduct electricity. It is a very nice thing to store microchips in and protect them from static discharge. Distilled water is not pure enough to have this quality.
You are hopeless, and you do not know what you are talking about.
I have explained clearly why what I say is true. If you do not understand some of that explanation I am more than happy to clarify. If you have some beef with the explanation than I expect you specify what you think's invalid and provide a logical reason why. I am in not impressed with your ability to parrot "but that's not true!" again and again.
From what you linked to: The difference in ion amounts between tap water and ordinary water is not enough to affect the body; the normal contribution of tap water to mineral and ions is small and will be made up by food. Rats have been fed for long periods on distilled water with no problems.
The site you linked to has a study on giving distilled water to rats. There is nothing there whatsoever about deionized water except in the header it is described as "distilled/deonized" as if they were the same thing. Now, one eats through metal, the other doesn't. I call that significant difference. I suppose, though, unless I publish a webpage saying so and link to it you will not believe me.
From the same site:
Documented: Water can be toxic.
Drinking too much water can lead to ionic imbalances, cerebral edema, and, in extreme cases, death.
Now, honestly, for crying out loud, how much rudimentary application of thought does it take to understand that if flushing out electrolytes with too much water can cause sickness and death, sucking them out with deionized water can do exactly the same thing? Really, how hard is it?
You do not need a case study to understand this. You just need to think about it a bit.
Here is what someone, who has spent 26 years working with blood products, on the page you linked to says: Kind of debunks your argument that de-ionized water is toxic when one drinks it.
I am not saying that deionized water is a toxin. Holroyd is absolutely correct in that if you drink a small glass of it, you would be perfectly fine. You would not be fine, however, if you tried to use it as a substitute for normal water.
If you spend the next two weeks drinking nothing but salt water, using salt water to brew your coffee, using saltwater to make your lemonade, you will get very sick and/or die. If you do the same thing with deionized water, you will die. The reason is not because either salt water or deionized water is toxic; they aren't. In the former case, it is because you can't flush electrolytes from your system (you have no way of pumping more electrolytes into a solution already chaulk full of them). In the latter case, it is because they are literally being stripped from your body.
That should have been your first clue you were way out in left field. If you make coffee with it, the water isn't de-ionized anymore now is it? Caffeine, tanins, proteins, sugars, lipids, all manner of electrically charged molecules are now in it. There isn't a whole lot a normal person would add to water which leaves it de-ionized.
No, the problem changes from the water being completely deprived of ions to its being largely deprived of ions. It will still suck out vitamins. And your list is somewhat deprived of "charged molecules". Lipids, for example, aren't even water soluble. They certainly will not contribute to rectifying the electrolytic imbalance. Proteins can be amphiphatic, but you will not find any that are going to dissolve like ions in water. Tannins are what you make inks out of, and most inks I've played have tended to be insoluble too. When you get down to it, coffee is probably not your best bet for quenching the ion-starved water. Even if you saturate it with table salt, because of the way diffusion works deionized water would still tend to leech out potassium ions and whatnot.
Moral of the story: If it can eat through metal, you probably should not drink it. (That goes for Coca-Cola too.:P)
Let's see... your link makes no mention of people at Intel, or diarrhea symptoms...
Well, that's because because, duh, you were not asking about the anecdote, unless you want to pretend you are stupid. If you honestly think I am going to cite for your news periodicles or research papers documenting how "some guys at intel did something stupid and got really sick" you are out of your mind.
In fact all you get is somebody, with no biological research credentials, talking in a metal industry forum on osmotic shock?
He could friggin' be a garbage collector, Baker explains the why and wherefore and your only excuse for not believing it is not understanding it.
I'd like to rebut the argument you linked to, but one of the replies RIGHT THERE ON THE PAGE already does it.
No, there isn't. Everyone makes perfectly clear that deionized water is a health hazard except for Woika, who only notes that upon contact with bodily fluids deoinized water will pull out ions and no longer be "ultrapure" and does not make clear that that is the reason deionized water is a health hazard.
Come on, you did read the link before posting it?
Yes. It seems that the ability to use google and to have a conceptual understanding of written passages are among the growing list of talents which unfairly skew this debate in my favor.
Interestingly enough, you probably don't want to drink that straight up. De-ionized water will kill you (it will cause an electrolytic imbalance in your system)
It happened at Intel some time ago that some guys thought "hey, this de-ionized stuff must be really great water" and decided to use it to make coffee and whatnot. A short while later they were essentially dying of diarrhea. Not fun.
You can not brute force a 256+ bit encryption. It'd be like every atom of earth (2^171) solving at 1THz (2^40) for a million years (2^45). So it must be an algorithm attack.
1. The entropy pool for/dev/urandom (especially if it is restarted when you reboot) is imperfect. Pseudo-random key generation only translates into protection if you don't know anything about the generation method, and cannot retrieve that information. What good does it do you to have such a great algorithm if the key is vulnerable?
Yeah it's so easy to win lawsuits, but Injured malpractice plaintiffs win before juries in only 23% of cases, and only 1.1% of medical malpractice plaintiffs who prevail at trial are awarded punitive damages. [centerjd.org]
Even 1.1% is great odds considering the potential pay off. Let's say you're suing for $1,000,000. Unless your costs exceed $11,000 you have an economic incentive to sue. And guess what? Losing parties don't have to pay court costs.
As it happens, the 1.1% number, while probably contrived (that's not exactly the most unbiased source you cited), is a strong indicator of just how bad the problem is. We might thus infer that 98.9% of the cases brought to trial are frivilous. This alone has got to be an economic burden for the doctors. Throw in the occasional dimwitted jury who awards the cute little girl $10,000,000 because she cried during the trial and you have a serious problem.
It is incredible how generous people can be with other people's money.
A video game is a form of expression, a work of art, just like a movie or music.
Alright, you tell me then, what is "Grand Theft Auto" trying to 'express'?
The correct answer is it's not trying to express anything, except maybe that the company that produces it wants to make money and the people who buy find it entertaining.
And, even if there were some great underlining artistic virtual all of collaborating programmers trying to thoroughly develop in the work, the fact that it extends that purpose renders any "freedom of expression" arguments invalid.
Imagine an assault rifle, skillfully engraved with a replica of the Mona Lisa--should that also be protected, and made available to the general public?
Fact is, there is no constitutional protection for video games. If you don't like the ban, I recommend writing your local representatives.
Let me get this straight. Someone doesn't want to sell it's own country's resources to the US, and you claim that it's grounds to go to war? That sounds remarkably like bullying to me.
So... if the supermarkets all decided they were going to stop selling you food (perhaps unless you did something they wanted you to do), that would be OK with you? Their food--they can sell it to whoever they want to?
You are right that the Arab countries have the right to sell goods as they see fit. BUT, once they do, and America's markets develop around this supply of goods, they don't have the right to suddenly kill the supply and cripple us. That is a hostile trade act and merit retributory action, perhaps even military action.
Now, they can stop selling us oil if they so desire, but they have to do it in a gradual, responsible manner, to avoid causing anyone undue harm in the process. But if they don't that, then it's not 'bullying'--as you put it--if we force them to be more polite about it.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, for heaven's sake, talk to one of them, will you?
Wrong. This says otherwise.
No, it doesn't.
Do you know something scientists at Argonne National Labs don't?
No, but I know something that you don't, apparently the difference between the sentences "Distillation removes both ionic and nonionic organic contaminants" and "Distillation removes all ionic and nonionic organic contaminants." Distillation can remove a large amount of contamination, especially if done repeatedly using industrial equipment. But the fact is that the distilled water you buy at the grocery store has got nothin' on the deionized water used to clean silicon waffers.
I am also curious how you know Calder is a "scientist at Argonne National Labs" and not a high school geometry teacher: (from your link) "NEWTON is an electronic community for Science, Math, and Computer Science K-12 Educators." I just find this funny because you took issue with my citing the site for a furnishing industry earlier.
Now, because I am getting tired of carrying on this stupid debate, here is a bunch of those fancy internet links you love so much:
These people manufacture deionized water. Suppose they wouldn't know anything about it. . .
Microelectronics and Nanotechnology Research Laboratory
Myron L Company
Deionized water as a cleaner Question: Why not just use distilled if it has even less ion concentration? Why buy more expensive de-ionized water?
Lytron Fun quote: "Care must be exercised when using DI water. The very lack of ions also makes this coolant unusually corrosive. Called the "universal solvent," DI water is one of the most aggressive solvents known. In fact, to a varying degree, it will dissolve everything to which it is exposed. Therefore, all materials in the cooling loop must be corrosion-resistant."
Semiconductor Glossary
another random newsgroup
Office of water quality technical memorandum
Early Death Comes from Drinking Distilled Water Very interesting article.
Wikipedia entry Interesting quotes: Even distillation does not completely purify water, because of contaminants with similar boiling points and droplets of unvaporized liquid carried with the steam. However, 99.9% pure water can be obtained by distillation. Reverse osmosis is theoretically the most thorough method of large-scale water purification available, although perfect semi-permable membranes are difficult to create.
Why I say no to distilled water Another interesting article on the health side effects of drinking distilled water.
Why purified water is bad to consume
Note that there is a difference between household water purifiers (both distillers and deionizers) and industrial equipment. The later only run the process once, and the so the water has been distilled/deionized, but that doesn't mean it is deionized.
Now, I'm sure you can find a thousand more sites telling me how distilled water is actually so pure it will sometimes spontaneously develop sentience and how deionized water is not only good for you it can kill cancer and stop
Haven't you ever taken chem? Destillation simply means boiling it and collecting the condensate. That does not give a pure sample, and that most certainly does not deionize it. (Granted, industrial processes are much more effective than a lab still and I imagine they would repeat the process several times.)
Deionization involves pushing water through a selectively permeable membrane using reverse osmosis. That takes out pretty much everything. In fact, it can filter out hydroxyls and make the water acidic (other treatment fixes this and pulls out the few remaining ions).
One of the primary reasons Intel uses deionized water is because pure water does not conduct electricity. It is a very nice thing to store microchips in and protect them from static discharge. Distilled water is not pure enough to have this quality.
I have explained clearly why what I say is true. If you do not understand some of that explanation I am more than happy to clarify. If you have some beef with the explanation than I expect you specify what you think's invalid and provide a logical reason why. I am in not impressed with your ability to parrot "but that's not true!" again and again.
From what you linked to: The difference in ion amounts between tap water and ordinary water is not enough to affect the body; the normal contribution of tap water to mineral and ions is small and will be made up by food. Rats have been fed for long periods on distilled water with no problems.
The site you linked to has a study on giving distilled water to rats. There is nothing there whatsoever about deionized water except in the header it is described as "distilled/deonized" as if they were the same thing. Now, one eats through metal, the other doesn't. I call that significant difference. I suppose, though, unless I publish a webpage saying so and link to it you will not believe me.
From the same site: Documented: Water can be toxic. Drinking too much water can lead to ionic imbalances, cerebral edema, and, in extreme cases, death.
Now, honestly, for crying out loud, how much rudimentary application of thought does it take to understand that if flushing out electrolytes with too much water can cause sickness and death, sucking them out with deionized water can do exactly the same thing? Really, how hard is it?
You do not need a case study to understand this. You just need to think about it a bit.
I am not saying that deionized water is a toxin. Holroyd is absolutely correct in that if you drink a small glass of it, you would be perfectly fine. You would not be fine, however, if you tried to use it as a substitute for normal water.
If you spend the next two weeks drinking nothing but salt water, using salt water to brew your coffee, using saltwater to make your lemonade, you will get very sick and/or die. If you do the same thing with deionized water, you will die. The reason is not because either salt water or deionized water is toxic; they aren't. In the former case, it is because you can't flush electrolytes from your system (you have no way of pumping more electrolytes into a solution already chaulk full of them). In the latter case, it is because they are literally being stripped from your body.
That should have been your first clue you were way out in left field. If you make coffee with it, the water isn't de-ionized anymore now is it? Caffeine, tanins, proteins, sugars, lipids, all manner of electrically charged molecules are now in it. There isn't a whole lot a normal person would add to water which leaves it de-ionized.
No, the problem changes from the water being completely deprived of ions to its being largely deprived of ions. It will still suck out vitamins. And your list is somewhat deprived of "charged molecules". Lipids, for example, aren't even water soluble. They certainly will not contribute to rectifying the electrolytic imbalance. Proteins can be amphiphatic, but you will not find any that are going to dissolve like ions in water. Tannins are what you make inks out of, and most inks I've played have tended to be insoluble too. When you get down to it, coffee is probably not your best bet for quenching the ion-starved water. Even if you saturate it with table salt, because of the way diffusion works deionized water would still tend to leech out potassium ions and whatnot.
Moral of the story: :P)
If it can eat through metal, you probably should not drink it. (That goes for Coca-Cola too.
Well, that's because because, duh, you were not asking about the anecdote, unless you want to pretend you are stupid. If you honestly think I am going to cite for your news periodicles or research papers documenting how "some guys at intel did something stupid and got really sick" you are out of your mind.
In fact all you get is somebody, with no biological research credentials, talking in a metal industry forum on osmotic shock?
He could friggin' be a garbage collector, Baker explains the why and wherefore and your only excuse for not believing it is not understanding it.
I'd like to rebut the argument you linked to, but one of the replies RIGHT THERE ON THE PAGE already does it.
No, there isn't. Everyone makes perfectly clear that deionized water is a health hazard except for Woika, who only notes that upon contact with bodily fluids deoinized water will pull out ions and no longer be "ultrapure" and does not make clear that that is the reason deionized water is a health hazard.
Come on, you did read the link before posting it?
Yes. It seems that the ability to use google and to have a conceptual understanding of written passages are among the growing list of talents which unfairly skew this debate in my favor.
Funny, I didnt' have any trouble coming up with stuff on google. Anyway, as requested, link.
Interestingly enough, you probably don't want to drink that straight up. De-ionized water will kill you (it will cause an electrolytic imbalance in your system) It happened at Intel some time ago that some guys thought "hey, this de-ionized stuff must be really great water" and decided to use it to make coffee and whatnot. A short while later they were essentially dying of diarrhea. Not fun.
until the moon people launch a full-scale retaliatory strike.
1. The entropy pool for /dev/urandom (especially if it is restarted when you reboot) is imperfect. Pseudo-random key generation only translates into protection if you don't know anything about the generation method, and cannot retrieve that information. What good does it do you to have such a great algorithm if the key is vulnerable?
2. Quantum computers.
Now, isn't that interesting? They're using the nation's 75 largest counties to generate statistics for the entire nation.
Of course, small counties couldn't *possibly* have different tort statistics than the large counties, could they?
And neither do I suppose it is going to make much difference if all the nation's large counties just so happen to lie in the western United States...
Even 1.1% is great odds considering the potential pay off. Let's say you're suing for $1,000,000. Unless your costs exceed $11,000 you have an economic incentive to sue. And guess what? Losing parties don't have to pay court costs.
As it happens, the 1.1% number, while probably contrived (that's not exactly the most unbiased source you cited), is a strong indicator of just how bad the problem is. We might thus infer that 98.9% of the cases brought to trial are frivilous. This alone has got to be an economic burden for the doctors. Throw in the occasional dimwitted jury who awards the cute little girl $10,000,000 because she cried during the trial and you have a serious problem.
It is incredible how generous people can be with other people's money.
Forward them discarded AOL discs.
A video game is a form of expression, a work of art, just like a movie or music. Alright, you tell me then, what is "Grand Theft Auto" trying to 'express'? The correct answer is it's not trying to express anything, except maybe that the company that produces it wants to make money and the people who buy find it entertaining. And, even if there were some great underlining artistic virtual all of collaborating programmers trying to thoroughly develop in the work, the fact that it extends that purpose renders any "freedom of expression" arguments invalid. Imagine an assault rifle, skillfully engraved with a replica of the Mona Lisa--should that also be protected, and made available to the general public? Fact is, there is no constitutional protection for video games. If you don't like the ban, I recommend writing your local representatives.
Let me get this straight. Someone doesn't want to sell it's own country's resources to the US, and you claim that it's grounds to go to war? That sounds remarkably like bullying to me. So... if the supermarkets all decided they were going to stop selling you food (perhaps unless you did something they wanted you to do), that would be OK with you? Their food--they can sell it to whoever they want to? You are right that the Arab countries have the right to sell goods as they see fit. BUT, once they do, and America's markets develop around this supply of goods, they don't have the right to suddenly kill the supply and cripple us. That is a hostile trade act and merit retributory action, perhaps even military action. Now, they can stop selling us oil if they so desire, but they have to do it in a gradual, responsible manner, to avoid causing anyone undue harm in the process. But if they don't that, then it's not 'bullying'--as you put it--if we force them to be more polite about it.
They already released it, but it was recalled because it was found to be trojaned with the iNlaw exploit.
A mOOse once bit my sister.