6 replacements on a 30 years old hammer. Sounds like a cruddy hammer to me. I've never broken a hammer (although I've had 4 "borrowed" by "friends" & never returned).
Oh wait, I did break my girlfriends hammer one time. It was some Wal-Mart piece of junk. Man, those heads can really get some distance when they come flying off midswing. Oops!
I definitely get your point. As a matter of fact, I totally agree with the phone thing. I've been looking for a well-built (solid, durable, non-flimsy) cell-phone for quite a while now. All I want is a phone that stores some numbers. No addresses or emails, no calendar, no ring tones or music, just a friggin' phone.
Unfortunately, all of my friends think I'm a bit of a wack-job when it comes to that. They all want the latest camera-music-PDA-phone with rocket thrusters & available satellite uplink (exaggeration, a bit).
I'm actually a bit surprised there isn't some sort of minimalist website that features stuff like that. Actually there probably is we just don't know about it.
I understand the minimalist viewpoint. However, what we're talking about here is a company trying to make money off a product. And I think we can agree that the MAJORITY of people enjoy (or think they do) the bells and whistles that come with new stuff. So if a company wants to MAXIMIZE profits, they will go after the largest part of the market. Which, unfortunately (for you), doesn't correspond to your desires/needs.
I do understand the philosophical stance that we really don't need all of these improvements. But let's face it, all that stance is is a philosophical one. In practice, it's a bunch of crap.
Nearly everything I own I would like to see improvements in. That includes my car, PDA, cell phone, wife (did I say that outloud), lawn mower, chewing gum, blah, blah, blah. And, being an engineer, it's my curse that I constantly think about ways to improve everything I own. It's the nature of the world we live in that someone will improve on things. And anyone who doesn't come along for the ride will go out of business (or at least experience massive profit losses).
I think the common/. problem is thinking from only their viewpoint. I want *thing* so that's what companies should make. If they don't, they're stupid or "The Man". Whatever, companies follow the money, and the money follows popular opinion. If you like to be the rebel & disagree with popular opinion, then don't come bitching when nobody makes what you want.
Oh yeah, well then you should go out and build yourself a car that lasts 50 years. Trust me, it's not the kind of thing that could last that long without being rebuilt many times. I mean, sure, the frame & certain pieces of the body could last, but that's about it. Say goodbye to any moving part, sensor, paint, etc.
The fact is, it would be very expensive to make a car that would last that long. And it would be very expensive to maintain it & replace parts. It's much cheaper to assemble a car on an assembly line (that's why they use them) than it is to pull it into a garage & replace parts piece by piece.
Besides, who the hell would want to drive a 50 year old car. We humans like to get new stuff with more features & pretty colors, blah, blah, blah. It's just human nature.
Now, the current cell phone/PDA/camera product cycles are seemingly ridiculous. But then, the technology is progressing so rapidly that the new products do usually have more features, run faster, etc. And people are entering the market for these things all the time, so it makes sense that they would want to current "best". So if company XYZ only offers a product based on technology from 2 years ago, but company ABC offers one from 2 months ago, I know which one I would buy.
So here's the deal, you go ahead & make yourself a car that last 50 years. Sell a bunch of them over the next couple years. Then just sit back & make absolutely no model changes or upgrades to your product. Pretty soon you won't sell a single one. Now that's a business plan.
Well, earlier in the thread it was stated that "the tether just hangs down & barely touches the ground" or something close. So I don't think he was necessarily talking about what you are talking about (although that is interesting in and of itself).
From WikiPedia:
"As a payload is lifted up a space elevator, it gains not only altitude but angular momentum as well. This angular momentum is taken from Earth's own rotation. As the payload climbs it "drags" on the cable, causing it to tilt very slightly to the west (lagging behind slightly on the Earth's rotation). The horizontal component of the tension in the cable applies a tangental pull on the payload, accelerating it eastward. Conversely, the cable pulls westward on Earth's surface, insignificantly slowing it. The opposite process occurs for payloads descending the elevator, tilting the cable eastwards and very slightly increasing Earth's rotation speed. In both cases the centrifugal force acting on the cable's counterweight causes it to return to a vertical orientation, transferring momentum between Earth and payload in the process."
That's what I was talking about. Man, talk about confusing.
Wouldn't it be kind of neat if you could just plug in your USB key from your keychain into any public (or private) terminal and be off & running with your own OS & all of your own customized settings, files, etc. Maybe you could even use your handheld as the "brains" of the operation.
That's true. I've heard that Bush has been real interested in the current state of the OS wars. He feels that by promoting Windows & MS, not only does he give money to his cronies, he also promotes a less secure system that is easier for his "men in black" to spy on.
Wrong. With that reasoning the skater's arm isn't actually part of the skater.
When considered as a closed system (a.k.a. Earth & everything attached to it) the skater analogy is correct. You are correct that significant weight must be outside of GEO, otherwise the centripetal acceleration I talk about would not be enough to keep the "arm" extended.
My point was, if a little 'bot climbs up the "rope" (since you don't like the word "tether"), then it will pull down slightly on the entire elevator structure. However, since signicant weight is beyond GEO, the rope will become taut as that portion of the elevator tries to "escape" & fly off into space.
So, where did that energy go? Well, since it's a CLOSED SYSTEM, it had to go somewhere. Conservation of angular momentum tells us that the higher moment of intertia resulting from the mass transfer means that the system as a whole must rotate slightly slower. A.K.A. THE EARTH SLOWS DOWN. However, this is so miniscule that it isn't even measurable.
Not really. The weight at the end of the rope is constantly forced directly outward. If a robot climbs out, then the weight might move slightly inward, only to be pushed back out by the centripetal forces. However, this would cause the rotation of the Earth to slow down somewhat. This can be negated though since the rotational inertia of the Earth is so great.
Think of it as a spinning ice-skater. As the skater moves weight away from the center of mass, maybe by extending her arm, she slows her rotational speed. This happens because, even though rotational momentum is conserved, the rotational moment of inertia has now increased (due to more weight farther out) & therefore the rotational speed must decrease to compensate & keep the same angular momentum.
The exact same phenomenon occurs when a weight would move out on the tether. The tether would stay tight but the Earth's rotation would slow down.
Well, the thickest part may need to be in the middle somewhere. Like I said, I'm not going to do the math. But I had just heard (and we both know how reliable that is) that it would need to be at the base.
I would be interested to see the strength comparison of spider-silk to carbon nanotube though. I wonder if spider-silk is too bouncy.
Yes & No! There are two forces acting on the rope. First, there is gravity pulling the rope toward the Earth. Second, there is the centripetal force both on the rope & the weight on the end of the rope (out in space). These two forces are balanced in such a way that the centripetal force just overcomes the gravitational force at the end of the rope in space, thereby keeping the rope taut.
Now, what most people in this thread don't get is that the rope itself is composed of significant mass. Therefore, the rope is being pulled toward Earth by gravity & pushed out toward space by centripetal forces as well. So, as you go along the length of the rope, you need to integrate in both directions for both of these effects. Therefore, each particular section will have a loading different from every other section.
Now, I'm not going to do the math, that's what the guys at the conference are doing. However, from what I've heard it sounds like the base (at Earth) of the rope will need to be very, very, very large to handle the load it sees. That is why we've been waiting for nano-tube technology. We need a strength-to-weight ratio that just wasn't achievable with previous materials. It has to be strong enough to handle the loads it sees, but not so heavy it rips itself apart.
Now, gravity does help, it helps ease some of that centripetal tension, but apparently not enough.
Don't be so sure that "the weight of the rope is usually trivial compared to the usable loading." That can be & often is a non-trivial issue in mountain climbing. Have you ever picked up 500 ft. of rope, it's not exactly light. And the topmost portion of the rope must carry this full load. Now, go ahead & extend that rope into space & you see that it becomes the limiting factor pretty quickly. That's why the "space elevator" needs to be a tapered rope, with the ground (actually the "top" in this case) needing to be the thickest.
As far as the flaws you are considering, this is precisely why ropes are made from hundreds of tiny fibers, braided together in patterns. Redundancy. If you figure the 1% chance of a flaw in 1' length, then you really won't have a useful manufacturing process if you want to make ropes over 10 or 15 feet. However, because of the braided nature of the rope, you achieve redundancy. So, even if there are 50 flaws in a 1' length, the other 500 strands take up the slack. So, by introducing a 1% chance of flaws, you don't limit the length, you just decrease the maximum strength by 1%. If you get my drift. And because of the frictional load between strands, a single strand can have multiple breaks over a 100' length & still carry load in the areas it does not have any breaks.
Another way to look at it is from a materials point of view. A "single-crystal" metallic material is technically stronger than a "multi-grained" material made of the same metal. However, if a single-crystal part gets a flaw & a crack forms, that crack quickly propagates through the entire part & can cause failure very quickly. Now, if a crack forms in a "weaker" multi-grained material, the crack only tends to propagate to the next grain boundary, which is usually just a fraction of millimeter away. Hence, if you have a local failure, you don't get a global failure. It's something we deal with all the time in the aerospace biz.
The above materials example extends to ropes if you cut a cross section through the rope. Each strand is a "grain" & any break in that strands can't propagate through the entire rope. So, you sacrifice a little bit of peak strength, realizing that you will never have a perfect strand for any longer lengths of rope.
Actually, I kind of wish the TV watching trends would freeze right where they are. Right now, I get a bunch of high quality (picture-wise) channels from my satellite & I TiVo a whole bunch of stuff. So it's commercial free TV for me at my convenience.
The problem is, if everybody was like me, we'd have to start paying more for programming. As it is, everybody who is forced to watch the advertisements is currently subsidizing my TV watching (Thanks!!).
Considering all of this, I do see all of us eventually migrating to either a per-channel or per-show based pricing scheme. And eventually I hope we all just receive our shows over the web, through some iTunes-like service (iTV??) Think of it as a download based TiVo.
While I agree with pretty much everything you said, I would have to take the other side on....
"One cannot fault said business for doing exactly what every other business is also attempting to do."
Well, yes I can. Just like I can fault anyone I want because they are doing something I feel is wrong. That doesn't mean I can throw them in jail, or beat them up, or whatever. But it sure as heck means that I can "fault" them.
I think this is a typical attitude in the business world today. "As long as there is no law preventing me from doing something, or if I can at least get around or find a loophole in that law, then I might as well go ahead & do it." I don't have time to go off on a rant about why this is a bad attitude, but I personally think it is a major downfall of our society.
That's why I love Google so much. "Do no evil!" That's awesome. It doesn't say, "Do no evil, unless you find a loophole, or really think you can get away with it." There's something to be said for self-imposed morals & honor.
Of course, I still have two Windows boxes at home....:(
I see it more as a problem with the way we've been trained to use computer monitors. Up until now we must look at this small screen area & fit everything we're working on into that area. If we want to see something else, we must bring it to the front.
But in the real world I think we tend to work in a larger space. I tend to spread stuff out over my desk to get the big picture.
It might just take some new "training" to get used to a bigger/wider monitor. Maybe move your chair away a little bit & allow your head to swivel somewhat as you view your workspace, instead of just moving the eyesockets.
As I write this, I'm starting to picture the big "Minority Report" screens where he's all over the place. Man, I would love to have a wrap around screen for my desktop so that I could immerse myself in what I'm working on.
So what happens if you're driving down the road, the tire flies off & hits a parked car? That isn't really any different from the parking thing. They are both functions the car is meant to perform (rolling vs. parking) & they both caused damage because the vehicle didn't perform as spec'ed. So who pay's in that case? You or the insurance company?
I'm a bit ashamed to say that I don't know the answer to this question myself. I should. Regardless, I think the two situations would be covered in the same way. And rates would be adjusted depending on whether the auto-parking feature caused more or less insurance claims.
Seems like a pretty easy thing to track & represent statistically.
Agent: Let's see, last year cars that have the "automatic parking" feature experienced a 27% lower chance of claiming parking related insurance money. Okay, a little adjustment here. "Hey everybody! If you insure an auto-parker with us, we'll give you a 5% discount on your rate."
I've always wanted a PDA with a detachable earpiece that acts as the phone function. I can imagine the speaker & a small mike boom detaching from the side or back of my PDA. I just insert the little guy in my ear & I'm off & talking. There would need to be some sort of wireless tech between the earpiece & the PDA, obviously.
Similarly, as small as cellphone are getting, I could see a little (1" x 0.5"??) flipphone detaching from my PDA as well. Just leave all the functionality possible in the PDA & make it a bare-bones phone. My biggest problem with the PDA phone is that it's so darn big to hold up to your head. Maybe this could solve the problem.
I obviously need to do a little more thinking on this.
That's one of the truly useful functions (besides fun stuff) that I get from carrying my PDA around all the time. I have a little "Mileage" worksheet that I just keep all this info in.
I'm currently at 5300 miles in my new '04 Toyota Matrix. Man, what a car. I would definitely recommend it to anyone interested in that particular style. Anyway, I'm averaging 33.5 mpg right now, that's with about 3000 miles of 50/50 highway/city split & 2300 miles of Indianapolis-to-New York-to-Boston-and-back highway driving. I've been very happy with the mileage as I repeatedly get more than EPA.
1. "Switching off a freezer for twenty minutes does not save any money."
Ah, but it does in this case, & in general as well. In the general case, by allowing your system to dip into a lower temperature differential between ambient & your desired temperature, you reduce the load necessary to keep it at that temperature. It takes less energy to allow the freezer to rise 3 or 4 degrees over 20 minutes, then bring it back up all at once, than it would to allow it to rise only 0.5 or 1 degrees & bring it back up multiple times.
The above would apply even without the price changes. With price changes, it would be even MORE beneficial to only power up when the prices are low.
3. "Increasing the temperature difference between inside and outside increase the flow of heat energy through the insulation."
This is true, however, if the price fluctuation is very much at all, the benefit will probably pay off. For example, if the typical freezer temp is 30 F & the typical ambient temperature is 73 F, this results in dT of 43 F. If dropping the temperature by 2 F just before "peak" periods will get you through it, this is an increase to a dt of 45 F, only 4.7%. Since the heat transfer coefficients both inside & outside the freezer remain constant at this small fluid temperature change, this corresponds to the increase in energy needed to keep it at this temperature. So, if the price increase during peak periods is more than 5 or 6% this would be worth it.
2. "Why not just turn the thermostat up a few degrees.. ?"
See above. You can play off of the stored "coolness" concept to keep below a maximum temperature while minimizing cost.
I keep hearing that the U.S. public was convinced that the war in Iraq was "good" because they had WMDs. While that was part of the concern for me, it wasn't the whole picture. It would be interesting to see a poll of "If it was known pre-war that there were no WMDs in Iraq, would you still have supported the war?" I'm guessing it would be more "No" that "Yes" answers, but I wonder by how much.
For me, the reasons were fourfold. The first three all add up to national security: 1) The need for regional stability in the Middle East. 2) The hostil actions of Iraq vs. the U.S. & 3) the possibility of WMDs (although this is only relevent because Saddam would have used them against us if he could). The last of the four would be the "humanitarian" one, that the people of Iraq needed to be freed from the rule of that vicious dictator.
For me, three of those four reasons still hold. I know they are all open to debate, but that's why I personally supported the war.
So let's see, money, because as we know the war has been very cheap. Oil, because now that we've occupied Iraq we're just shipping oil out to the U.S. by the boatload. And, of course, revenge because Bush & Daddy Bush were pretty pissed that it took 6 weeks to kick their butts last time & felt it should have only taken a week.
Yeah, good points.
Here's what I see. I see that the Middle East is about as stable as a drunken sailor. I see that, given all of that oil (read money) & hostility toward the U.S., this spells a time bomb. It is in the interest of the U.S. to ensure its national security but promoting & forcing stability in this area of the world.
Saddam was claiming to have WMD & our various intelligence resources indicated the same. As it turns out, after the fact, those indications were probably wrong. Now, there are all kinds of things we can argue about but I think we can all agree that Saddam is evil. I think we can also come to some agreement that his country was a threat to the U.S. and her allies. So, the administration felt war was justified, as well as most of America, and they followed through.
Now, some stuff has gone bad in the war. The occupation didn't go as well as hoped. No WMDs were found. There are still pockets of resistance. The people have not fully embraced democracy.
But none of these problems are solved by cutting & running. They're solved by doing exactly what we are doing. Keeping our forces there to try & enforce the peace. Working with the apparent Iraqi leaders to set up a new government. Working with international entities to try & get help. Etc., etc., etc.
I pray that the people of Iraq are truly given the chance, by themselves & their neighbors, to embrace democracy. They are a cultured & productive people. They have the ability to become a small world power, similar to much of Europe. They have never had a taste of true freedom. Perhaps when they get it, the word will spread throughout the Arab world & they will unite. I know, wishful thinking.
Slashdot Mirror
So are you arguing with me or agreeing?
6 replacements on a 30 years old hammer. Sounds like a cruddy hammer to me. I've never broken a hammer (although I've had 4 "borrowed" by "friends" & never returned).
Oh wait, I did break my girlfriends hammer one time. It was some Wal-Mart piece of junk. Man, those heads can really get some distance when they come flying off midswing. Oops!
I definitely get your point. As a matter of fact, I totally agree with the phone thing. I've been looking for a well-built (solid, durable, non-flimsy) cell-phone for quite a while now. All I want is a phone that stores some numbers. No addresses or emails, no calendar, no ring tones or music, just a friggin' phone.
Unfortunately, all of my friends think I'm a bit of a wack-job when it comes to that. They all want the latest camera-music-PDA-phone with rocket thrusters & available satellite uplink (exaggeration, a bit).
I'm actually a bit surprised there isn't some sort of minimalist website that features stuff like that. Actually there probably is we just don't know about it.
I understand the minimalist viewpoint. However, what we're talking about here is a company trying to make money off a product. And I think we can agree that the MAJORITY of people enjoy (or think they do) the bells and whistles that come with new stuff. So if a company wants to MAXIMIZE profits, they will go after the largest part of the market. Which, unfortunately (for you), doesn't correspond to your desires/needs.
/. problem is thinking from only their viewpoint. I want *thing* so that's what companies should make. If they don't, they're stupid or "The Man". Whatever, companies follow the money, and the money follows popular opinion. If you like to be the rebel & disagree with popular opinion, then don't come bitching when nobody makes what you want.
I do understand the philosophical stance that we really don't need all of these improvements. But let's face it, all that stance is is a philosophical one. In practice, it's a bunch of crap.
Nearly everything I own I would like to see improvements in. That includes my car, PDA, cell phone, wife (did I say that outloud), lawn mower, chewing gum, blah, blah, blah. And, being an engineer, it's my curse that I constantly think about ways to improve everything I own. It's the nature of the world we live in that someone will improve on things. And anyone who doesn't come along for the ride will go out of business (or at least experience massive profit losses).
I think the common
Oh yeah, well then you should go out and build yourself a car that lasts 50 years. Trust me, it's not the kind of thing that could last that long without being rebuilt many times. I mean, sure, the frame & certain pieces of the body could last, but that's about it. Say goodbye to any moving part, sensor, paint, etc.
The fact is, it would be very expensive to make a car that would last that long. And it would be very expensive to maintain it & replace parts. It's much cheaper to assemble a car on an assembly line (that's why they use them) than it is to pull it into a garage & replace parts piece by piece.
Besides, who the hell would want to drive a 50 year old car. We humans like to get new stuff with more features & pretty colors, blah, blah, blah. It's just human nature.
Now, the current cell phone/PDA/camera product cycles are seemingly ridiculous. But then, the technology is progressing so rapidly that the new products do usually have more features, run faster, etc. And people are entering the market for these things all the time, so it makes sense that they would want to current "best". So if company XYZ only offers a product based on technology from 2 years ago, but company ABC offers one from 2 months ago, I know which one I would buy.
So here's the deal, you go ahead & make yourself a car that last 50 years. Sell a bunch of them over the next couple years. Then just sit back & make absolutely no model changes or upgrades to your product. Pretty soon you won't sell a single one. Now that's a business plan.
Well, earlier in the thread it was stated that "the tether just hangs down & barely touches the ground" or something close. So I don't think he was necessarily talking about what you are talking about (although that is interesting in and of itself).
From WikiPedia:
"As a payload is lifted up a space elevator, it gains not only altitude but angular momentum as well. This angular momentum is taken from Earth's own rotation. As the payload climbs it "drags" on the cable, causing it to tilt very slightly to the west (lagging behind slightly on the Earth's rotation). The horizontal component of the tension in the cable applies a tangental pull on the payload, accelerating it eastward. Conversely, the cable pulls westward on Earth's surface, insignificantly slowing it. The opposite process occurs for payloads descending the elevator, tilting the cable eastwards and very slightly increasing Earth's rotation speed. In both cases the centrifugal force acting on the cable's counterweight causes it to return to a vertical orientation, transferring momentum between Earth and payload in the process."
That's what I was talking about. Man, talk about confusing.
Wouldn't it be kind of neat if you could just plug in your USB key from your keychain into any public (or private) terminal and be off & running with your own OS & all of your own customized settings, files, etc. Maybe you could even use your handheld as the "brains" of the operation.
That's true. I've heard that Bush has been real interested in the current state of the OS wars. He feels that by promoting Windows & MS, not only does he give money to his cronies, he also promotes a less secure system that is easier for his "men in black" to spy on.
Oh wait, he doesn't give a shit.
One of us missing something. Of course, I think it's you! :^)
But whatever, I give.
Wrong. With that reasoning the skater's arm isn't actually part of the skater.
When considered as a closed system (a.k.a. Earth & everything attached to it) the skater analogy is correct. You are correct that significant weight must be outside of GEO, otherwise the centripetal acceleration I talk about would not be enough to keep the "arm" extended.
My point was, if a little 'bot climbs up the "rope" (since you don't like the word "tether"), then it will pull down slightly on the entire elevator structure. However, since signicant weight is beyond GEO, the rope will become taut as that portion of the elevator tries to "escape" & fly off into space.
So, where did that energy go? Well, since it's a CLOSED SYSTEM, it had to go somewhere. Conservation of angular momentum tells us that the higher moment of intertia resulting from the mass transfer means that the system as a whole must rotate slightly slower. A.K.A. THE EARTH SLOWS DOWN. However, this is so miniscule that it isn't even measurable.
Not really. The weight at the end of the rope is constantly forced directly outward. If a robot climbs out, then the weight might move slightly inward, only to be pushed back out by the centripetal forces. However, this would cause the rotation of the Earth to slow down somewhat. This can be negated though since the rotational inertia of the Earth is so great.
Think of it as a spinning ice-skater. As the skater moves weight away from the center of mass, maybe by extending her arm, she slows her rotational speed. This happens because, even though rotational momentum is conserved, the rotational moment of inertia has now increased (due to more weight farther out) & therefore the rotational speed must decrease to compensate & keep the same angular momentum.
The exact same phenomenon occurs when a weight would move out on the tether. The tether would stay tight but the Earth's rotation would slow down.
Well, the thickest part may need to be in the middle somewhere. Like I said, I'm not going to do the math. But I had just heard (and we both know how reliable that is) that it would need to be at the base.
I would be interested to see the strength comparison of spider-silk to carbon nanotube though. I wonder if spider-silk is too bouncy.
Yes & No! There are two forces acting on the rope. First, there is gravity pulling the rope toward the Earth. Second, there is the centripetal force both on the rope & the weight on the end of the rope (out in space). These two forces are balanced in such a way that the centripetal force just overcomes the gravitational force at the end of the rope in space, thereby keeping the rope taut.
Now, what most people in this thread don't get is that the rope itself is composed of significant mass. Therefore, the rope is being pulled toward Earth by gravity & pushed out toward space by centripetal forces as well. So, as you go along the length of the rope, you need to integrate in both directions for both of these effects. Therefore, each particular section will have a loading different from every other section.
Now, I'm not going to do the math, that's what the guys at the conference are doing. However, from what I've heard it sounds like the base (at Earth) of the rope will need to be very, very, very large to handle the load it sees. That is why we've been waiting for nano-tube technology. We need a strength-to-weight ratio that just wasn't achievable with previous materials. It has to be strong enough to handle the loads it sees, but not so heavy it rips itself apart.
Now, gravity does help, it helps ease some of that centripetal tension, but apparently not enough.
Don't be so sure that "the weight of the rope is usually trivial compared to the usable loading." That can be & often is a non-trivial issue in mountain climbing. Have you ever picked up 500 ft. of rope, it's not exactly light. And the topmost portion of the rope must carry this full load. Now, go ahead & extend that rope into space & you see that it becomes the limiting factor pretty quickly. That's why the "space elevator" needs to be a tapered rope, with the ground (actually the "top" in this case) needing to be the thickest.
As far as the flaws you are considering, this is precisely why ropes are made from hundreds of tiny fibers, braided together in patterns. Redundancy. If you figure the 1% chance of a flaw in 1' length, then you really won't have a useful manufacturing process if you want to make ropes over 10 or 15 feet. However, because of the braided nature of the rope, you achieve redundancy. So, even if there are 50 flaws in a 1' length, the other 500 strands take up the slack. So, by introducing a 1% chance of flaws, you don't limit the length, you just decrease the maximum strength by 1%. If you get my drift. And because of the frictional load between strands, a single strand can have multiple breaks over a 100' length & still carry load in the areas it does not have any breaks.
Another way to look at it is from a materials point of view. A "single-crystal" metallic material is technically stronger than a "multi-grained" material made of the same metal. However, if a single-crystal part gets a flaw & a crack forms, that crack quickly propagates through the entire part & can cause failure very quickly. Now, if a crack forms in a "weaker" multi-grained material, the crack only tends to propagate to the next grain boundary, which is usually just a fraction of millimeter away. Hence, if you have a local failure, you don't get a global failure. It's something we deal with all the time in the aerospace biz.
The above materials example extends to ropes if you cut a cross section through the rope. Each strand is a "grain" & any break in that strands can't propagate through the entire rope. So, you sacrifice a little bit of peak strength, realizing that you will never have a perfect strand for any longer lengths of rope.
Per Channel? Screw that, give me per Show.
Actually, I kind of wish the TV watching trends would freeze right where they are. Right now, I get a bunch of high quality (picture-wise) channels from my satellite & I TiVo a whole bunch of stuff. So it's commercial free TV for me at my convenience.
The problem is, if everybody was like me, we'd have to start paying more for programming. As it is, everybody who is forced to watch the advertisements is currently subsidizing my TV watching (Thanks!!).
Considering all of this, I do see all of us eventually migrating to either a per-channel or per-show based pricing scheme. And eventually I hope we all just receive our shows over the web, through some iTunes-like service (iTV??) Think of it as a download based TiVo.
While I agree with pretty much everything you said, I would have to take the other side on....
:(
"One cannot fault said business for doing exactly what every other business is also attempting to do."
Well, yes I can. Just like I can fault anyone I want because they are doing something I feel is wrong. That doesn't mean I can throw them in jail, or beat them up, or whatever. But it sure as heck means that I can "fault" them.
I think this is a typical attitude in the business world today. "As long as there is no law preventing me from doing something, or if I can at least get around or find a loophole in that law, then I might as well go ahead & do it." I don't have time to go off on a rant about why this is a bad attitude, but I personally think it is a major downfall of our society.
That's why I love Google so much. "Do no evil!" That's awesome. It doesn't say, "Do no evil, unless you find a loophole, or really think you can get away with it." There's something to be said for self-imposed morals & honor.
Of course, I still have two Windows boxes at home....
All hail the benefits that stem from the natural competition that is capitalism!
Now, if we can just pass some laws that limit a single companies ability to form a monopoly, we'll be all set. Wait a minute.....
I see it more as a problem with the way we've been trained to use computer monitors. Up until now we must look at this small screen area & fit everything we're working on into that area. If we want to see something else, we must bring it to the front.
But in the real world I think we tend to work in a larger space. I tend to spread stuff out over my desk to get the big picture.
It might just take some new "training" to get used to a bigger/wider monitor. Maybe move your chair away a little bit & allow your head to swivel somewhat as you view your workspace, instead of just moving the eyesockets.
As I write this, I'm starting to picture the big "Minority Report" screens where he's all over the place. Man, I would love to have a wrap around screen for my desktop so that I could immerse myself in what I'm working on.
So what happens if you're driving down the road, the tire flies off & hits a parked car? That isn't really any different from the parking thing. They are both functions the car is meant to perform (rolling vs. parking) & they both caused damage because the vehicle didn't perform as spec'ed. So who pay's in that case? You or the insurance company?
I'm a bit ashamed to say that I don't know the answer to this question myself. I should. Regardless, I think the two situations would be covered in the same way. And rates would be adjusted depending on whether the auto-parking feature caused more or less insurance claims.
Seems like a pretty easy thing to track & represent statistically.
Agent: Let's see, last year cars that have the "automatic parking" feature experienced a 27% lower chance of claiming parking related insurance money. Okay, a little adjustment here. "Hey everybody! If you insure an auto-parker with us, we'll give you a 5% discount on your rate."
Seems easy enough.
I've always wanted a PDA with a detachable earpiece that acts as the phone function. I can imagine the speaker & a small mike boom detaching from the side or back of my PDA. I just insert the little guy in my ear & I'm off & talking. There would need to be some sort of wireless tech between the earpiece & the PDA, obviously.
Similarly, as small as cellphone are getting, I could see a little (1" x 0.5"??) flipphone detaching from my PDA as well. Just leave all the functionality possible in the PDA & make it a bare-bones phone. My biggest problem with the PDA phone is that it's so darn big to hold up to your head. Maybe this could solve the problem.
I obviously need to do a little more thinking on this.
That's one of the truly useful functions (besides fun stuff) that I get from carrying my PDA around all the time. I have a little "Mileage" worksheet that I just keep all this info in.
I'm currently at 5300 miles in my new '04 Toyota Matrix. Man, what a car. I would definitely recommend it to anyone interested in that particular style. Anyway, I'm averaging 33.5 mpg right now, that's with about 3000 miles of 50/50 highway/city split & 2300 miles of Indianapolis-to-New York-to-Boston-and-back highway driving. I've been very happy with the mileage as I repeatedly get more than EPA.
That's what revenge is for. She'll learn. Or not.
Out of order...
1. "Switching off a freezer for twenty minutes does not save any money."
Ah, but it does in this case, & in general as well. In the general case, by allowing your system to dip into a lower temperature differential between ambient & your desired temperature, you reduce the load necessary to keep it at that temperature. It takes less energy to allow the freezer to rise 3 or 4 degrees over 20 minutes, then bring it back up all at once, than it would to allow it to rise only 0.5 or 1 degrees & bring it back up multiple times.
The above would apply even without the price changes. With price changes, it would be even MORE beneficial to only power up when the prices are low.
3. "Increasing the temperature difference between inside and outside increase the flow of heat energy through the insulation."
This is true, however, if the price fluctuation is very much at all, the benefit will probably pay off. For example, if the typical freezer temp is 30 F & the typical ambient temperature is 73 F, this results in dT of 43 F. If dropping the temperature by 2 F just before "peak" periods will get you through it, this is an increase to a dt of 45 F, only 4.7%. Since the heat transfer coefficients both inside & outside the freezer remain constant at this small fluid temperature change, this corresponds to the increase in energy needed to keep it at this temperature. So, if the price increase during peak periods is more than 5 or 6% this would be worth it.
2. "Why not just turn the thermostat up a few degrees.. ?"
See above. You can play off of the stored "coolness" concept to keep below a maximum temperature while minimizing cost.
I keep hearing that the U.S. public was convinced that the war in Iraq was "good" because they had WMDs. While that was part of the concern for me, it wasn't the whole picture. It would be interesting to see a poll of "If it was known pre-war that there were no WMDs in Iraq, would you still have supported the war?" I'm guessing it would be more "No" that "Yes" answers, but I wonder by how much.
For me, the reasons were fourfold. The first three all add up to national security: 1) The need for regional stability in the Middle East. 2) The hostil actions of Iraq vs. the U.S. & 3) the possibility of WMDs (although this is only relevent because Saddam would have used them against us if he could). The last of the four would be the "humanitarian" one, that the people of Iraq needed to be freed from the rule of that vicious dictator.
For me, three of those four reasons still hold. I know they are all open to debate, but that's why I personally supported the war.
I'd still like to see that poll though.
What?!? Money, oil, & revenge?
So let's see, money, because as we know the war has been very cheap. Oil, because now that we've occupied Iraq we're just shipping oil out to the U.S. by the boatload. And, of course, revenge because Bush & Daddy Bush were pretty pissed that it took 6 weeks to kick their butts last time & felt it should have only taken a week.
Yeah, good points.
Here's what I see. I see that the Middle East is about as stable as a drunken sailor. I see that, given all of that oil (read money) & hostility toward the U.S., this spells a time bomb. It is in the interest of the U.S. to ensure its national security but promoting & forcing stability in this area of the world.
Saddam was claiming to have WMD & our various intelligence resources indicated the same. As it turns out, after the fact, those indications were probably wrong. Now, there are all kinds of things we can argue about but I think we can all agree that Saddam is evil. I think we can also come to some agreement that his country was a threat to the U.S. and her allies. So, the administration felt war was justified, as well as most of America, and they followed through.
Now, some stuff has gone bad in the war. The occupation didn't go as well as hoped. No WMDs were found. There are still pockets of resistance. The people have not fully embraced democracy.
But none of these problems are solved by cutting & running. They're solved by doing exactly what we are doing. Keeping our forces there to try & enforce the peace. Working with the apparent Iraqi leaders to set up a new government. Working with international entities to try & get help. Etc., etc., etc.
I pray that the people of Iraq are truly given the chance, by themselves & their neighbors, to embrace democracy. They are a cultured & productive people. They have the ability to become a small world power, similar to much of Europe. They have never had a taste of true freedom. Perhaps when they get it, the word will spread throughout the Arab world & they will unite. I know, wishful thinking.