No, it's because the people who buy McDonald's coffee don't actually like coffee, and they then proceed to murder it with three creams and four sugars.
5 bars should drop in 16.666...% chunks. And it should be linear if possible because that's the simplest feedback you can give, and your course of action becomes quite obvious: if a couple bars are missing, recharge.
If it shows full for a week, and then dies over the course of a single day, that is not very helpful to a person who is away from home during the important part of that day. If they're not keeping track or charging every day for the hell of it, they could quickly run into a situation where they run out of power partway through the "need-to-charge indicated" day.
Ahh, but back during those days, I used to HOPE that it was due to the site timing out, rather than due to my browser/whole computer halting, yet again.
So.. the false progress bar was, in fact, an improvement: I knew more quickly when it was time to reach for the ol' reset button.
IFF you've got an electronic gas gauge. But if you're doing that, why bother with a float? Just measure the weight (and a reference weight), do some math and you're done.
burning uranium would be a phenomenally stupid way of generating electricity. I suppose it's possible, but it makes even less sense than burning steel wool for electricity.
The problem is: there never was a problem. Exactly what we (Smithians) said would happen is happening: The price goes up, and all these new and different techniques become economical.
The only real problem remaining is basically the same people who wouldn't let you build a coal, oil, or gas plants, are now clamoring to prevent nuclear, wind, and solar plants.
It is extra confusing, because BTUs are both a unit of energy, AND a unit of power. Much like "Knots" means either nautical miles or nautical miles per hour.
It is also similar to "tons of cooling" where the tons in question are "tons of ice melted per day".
I can never remember what the implied time unit is, though.
Perhaps. But you're talking about orders of magnitude more land area for plants of the same output, and the same "fuel source" And not only that, but "traditional" solar plants only need polished aluminum in any abundance. The materials which must withstand extreme temperatures are much better utilized in a concentrated location.
I'm not sure where your analogy was going, though. Both laptop and cell phone batteries are efficient* and compact *at least as compared to other mass-produced batteries. The solar tower you boost is neither.
That's neat and all, but the carnot efficiency of your wind generator is very low, so you have to use *much* greater area than with a traditional solar-thermal generator.
Ahh but the triple point of water is pretty close to zero C, so you have to check the phase diagram to see whether it melts or sublimes at mars surface temp.
If 95% of civil servants are dedicated, but overworked, and you've got a chain-of-permits ten-deep, you've got a very good chance (>40%) of running into at least one who cares more about his little tin fiefdom than about the people trying to actually accomplish something.
Are those numbers unreasonable? I certainly hope so.
Nevertheless, every regulatory hurdle is one more opportunity for someone to use the letter of the law to bully people.
Yeah, but you have to have the permit that takes 4 months to get, in order to get the other permit you need, that takes 6 months to get. It's not so bad, really, when you can get them all concurrently, but when you have to prove that you've done X before they'll let you do Y, and there's a chain of these things, and at any point, a capricious "civil servant" can put the brakes on anything because he's an ass..
Well, you can see how it takes a decade to start building a bridge or small port facility. Let alone a business involving huge energy expenditures and noise, and any number of dozens of things small minded curmudgeonly objectionists will latch onto.
The problem, as I see it, is that not enough people know an airline pilot personally. If they did, there'd be a lot more acceptance for "fully" automated systems. (as if the current system wasn't essentially fully automated already)
"eight hours from the bottle to the throttle" is not a mantra that inspires confidence.
Bluetooth needs more relative power because the transmitter and receiver are both omnis, whereas the phone-tower pair only has one omni directional antenna in there, and it would not be unreasonable for the towers to be able to get ~20 dB, which makes up for some of that r^2 "loss"
You could put directional antennas in the bluetooth devices, but that doesn't mean that that would be particularly practical. And more importantly, more sensitive and selective equipment is always also more expensive. The low price and chintzy designs of most blue-tooth devices does not speak to their overall quality, and therefore to their electronic design.
My point was that just because the distance is less does not mean it is reasonable to assume the devices are actually any lower in power. You have to look at the specs for that.
Ah.. no, it isn't. In fact the total amount of radiation in the microwave band is so small, you're going to have to write some custom functions to figure it out.
A very crude approximation suggests to me that it's within a few orders of magnitude of 10^-7 W/m^2, which is pretty small.
Note that my definition of "microwave radiation" was "all radiation below 300 GHz." Although I did use the fairly inaccurate, "single data point trapezoid rule" integration method.
"Bluetooth has an operating range of about 30-50 feet or so."
Ahh.. but why? Is it because they're lower power, have less sensitive receivers, use more bandwidth, have higher in-band noise? Is the signal attenuated through air?
Keep in mind, also, that the towers have directional antennas mounted on them, wheras bluetooth pairs must both be omnidirectional.
Range is not a particularly good indicator considering how greatly the other factors can vary. Frankly, given how cheaply most bluetooth equipment seems to be made, I wouldn't trust it to be particularly efficient with it's use of spectrum without looking at the specifications.
Heat is electromagnetic energy, too. The numbers are such that the energy of cell phone radiation after it spreads as it travels toward your head is small compared to the energy of the heat in the room and your body.
This makes no sense. Heat is kinetic energy. EM that is absorbed *becomes* heat, but so does the kinetic energy in bullets when they're absorbed. Just as it would absurd to comment on how low the "heat from bullets" compared to the "heat from the room and your body" it may be unhelpful to compare the heat imparted from cell phone's EM emissions.
And for reference, the heat isn't comparable at all. Cell phones transmit less than 1W. YOU on the other hand are a roughly 50W space heater. That's almost two orders of magnitude difference. So you're right about one thing: if the mechanism of damage is heating, cellphones are insignificant compared to environmental factors.
Unfortunately, the claims of the anti-cell phone crowd usually do not include damage by heating.
As to another of your claims, that the sun puts out more radiation than a cell-phone: this is true. It is also true however that the sun puts out quite a bit less radiation in the same band as the cell phone.
Please review your essay. It does the cause of skepticism no good to include pseudo-scientific reasoning against chicken-little techno-panicking.
Why fake a cover-up? To make it look like the government is capable of action on such a grand scale as a massive cover-up. Many would prefer the notion that their government is supremely competent, even if mostly evil, rather than face the comforting reality that its extreme incompetence is the only thing holding back its unfathomable evil.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it's because the people who buy McDonald's coffee don't actually like coffee, and they then proceed to murder it with three creams and four sugars.
5 bars should drop in 16.666...% chunks. And it should be linear if possible because that's the simplest feedback you can give, and your course of action becomes quite obvious: if a couple bars are missing, recharge.
If it shows full for a week, and then dies over the course of a single day, that is not very helpful to a person who is away from home during the important part of that day. If they're not keeping track or charging every day for the hell of it, they could quickly run into a situation where they run out of power partway through the "need-to-charge indicated" day.
Ahh, but back during those days, I used to HOPE that it was due to the site timing out, rather than due to my browser/whole computer halting, yet again.
So.. the false progress bar was, in fact, an improvement: I knew more quickly when it was time to reach for the ol' reset button.
IFF you've got an electronic gas gauge. But if you're doing that, why bother with a float? Just measure the weight (and a reference weight), do some math and you're done.
Good question. But no matter how many it is, none come out....
burning uranium would be a phenomenally stupid way of generating electricity. I suppose it's possible, but it makes even less sense than burning steel wool for electricity.
The problem is: there never was a problem. Exactly what we (Smithians) said would happen is happening: The price goes up, and all these new and different techniques become economical.
The only real problem remaining is basically the same people who wouldn't let you build a coal, oil, or gas plants, are now clamoring to prevent nuclear, wind, and solar plants.
It is extra confusing, because BTUs are both a unit of energy, AND a unit of power. Much like "Knots" means either nautical miles or nautical miles per hour.
It is also similar to "tons of cooling" where the tons in question are "tons of ice melted per day".
I can never remember what the implied time unit is, though.
Perhaps. But you're talking about orders of magnitude more land area for plants of the same output, and the same "fuel source" And not only that, but "traditional" solar plants only need polished aluminum in any abundance. The materials which must withstand extreme temperatures are much better utilized in a concentrated location.
I'm not sure where your analogy was going, though. Both laptop and cell phone batteries are efficient* and compact *at least as compared to other mass-produced batteries. The solar tower you boost is neither.
Even after reading the article, you can't think if *anything* that might be more efficient than the second most efficient material?
That's neat and all, but the carnot efficiency of your wind generator is very low, so you have to use *much* greater area than with a traditional solar-thermal generator.
He can't stop going to a fake doctor? Is that like being addicted to decaf or diet soda?
Nice asteroids pinch.
true, unless the dust blocks out the sun
Ahh but the triple point of water is pretty close to zero C, so you have to check the phase diagram to see whether it melts or sublimes at mars surface temp.
If 95% of civil servants are dedicated, but overworked, and you've got a chain-of-permits ten-deep, you've got a very good chance (>40%) of running into at least one who cares more about his little tin fiefdom than about the people trying to actually accomplish something.
Are those numbers unreasonable? I certainly hope so.
Nevertheless, every regulatory hurdle is one more opportunity for someone to use the letter of the law to bully people.
Yeah, but you have to have the permit that takes 4 months to get, in order to get the other permit you need, that takes 6 months to get. It's not so bad, really, when you can get them all concurrently, but when you have to prove that you've done X before they'll let you do Y, and there's a chain of these things, and at any point, a capricious "civil servant" can put the brakes on anything because he's an ass..
Well, you can see how it takes a decade to start building a bridge or small port facility. Let alone a business involving huge energy expenditures and noise, and any number of dozens of things small minded curmudgeonly objectionists will latch onto.
To be fair, Xenu flew a bunch of people he didn't like into a volcano, coach.
The problem, as I see it, is that not enough people know an airline pilot personally. If they did, there'd be a lot more acceptance for "fully" automated systems. (as if the current system wasn't essentially fully automated already)
"eight hours from the bottle to the throttle" is not a mantra that inspires confidence.
Bluetooth needs more relative power because the transmitter and receiver are both omnis, whereas the phone-tower pair only has one omni directional antenna in there, and it would not be unreasonable for the towers to be able to get ~20 dB, which makes up for some of that r^2 "loss"
You could put directional antennas in the bluetooth devices, but that doesn't mean that that would be particularly practical. And more importantly, more sensitive and selective equipment is always also more expensive. The low price and chintzy designs of most blue-tooth devices does not speak to their overall quality, and therefore to their electronic design.
My point was that just because the distance is less does not mean it is reasonable to assume the devices are actually any lower in power. You have to look at the specs for that.
Ah.. no, it isn't. In fact the total amount of radiation in the microwave band is so small, you're going to have to write some custom functions to figure it out.
A very crude approximation suggests to me that it's within a few orders of magnitude of 10^-7 W/m^2, which is pretty small.
Note that my definition of "microwave radiation" was "all radiation below 300 GHz." Although I did use the fairly inaccurate, "single data point trapezoid rule" integration method.
He's talking about the handset, which is cm from your face. Not the base station which is thousands of cm from your face.
"Bluetooth has an operating range of about 30-50 feet or so."
Ahh.. but why? Is it because they're lower power, have less sensitive receivers, use more bandwidth, have higher in-band noise? Is the signal attenuated through air?
Keep in mind, also, that the towers have directional antennas mounted on them, wheras bluetooth pairs must both be omnidirectional.
Range is not a particularly good indicator considering how greatly the other factors can vary. Frankly, given how cheaply most bluetooth equipment seems to be made, I wouldn't trust it to be particularly efficient with it's use of spectrum without looking at the specifications.
Erm..
This makes no sense. Heat is kinetic energy. EM that is absorbed *becomes* heat, but so does the kinetic energy in bullets when they're absorbed. Just as it would absurd to comment on how low the "heat from bullets" compared to the "heat from the room and your body" it may be unhelpful to compare the heat imparted from cell phone's EM emissions.
And for reference, the heat isn't comparable at all. Cell phones transmit less than 1W. YOU on the other hand are a roughly 50W space heater. That's almost two orders of magnitude difference. So you're right about one thing: if the mechanism of damage is heating, cellphones are insignificant compared to environmental factors.
Unfortunately, the claims of the anti-cell phone crowd usually do not include damage by heating.
As to another of your claims, that the sun puts out more radiation than a cell-phone: this is true. It is also true however that the sun puts out quite a bit less radiation in the same band as the cell phone.
Please review your essay. It does the cause of skepticism no good to include pseudo-scientific reasoning against chicken-little techno-panicking.
Why fake a cover-up? To make it look like the government is capable of action on such a grand scale as a massive cover-up. Many would prefer the notion that their government is supremely competent, even if mostly evil, rather than face the comforting reality that its extreme incompetence is the only thing holding back its unfathomable evil.