There are up to a million words claiming to have been incorporated into the English lexicon. Are you seriously suggesting that in all the words you don't know, there does not exist one that more precisely specifies the meaning currently occupied by sloppy application of the word "Irony?"
That's BS. well it's not really BS, but if laptops are failing because batteries are being damaged by being left plugged in, they're not using proper charging circuitry. Or maybe they're not using any charging circuitry.
I mean, you spend $2k on a machine that doesn't even have a $0.50 charge controller IC or a coupla $0.0005 power transistors, an ADC, and a nice cheap software daemon to keep track of things?
Well yeah, but laptops are typically about a year behind desktops performance wise, so really, you're replacing them at the same level of "software just doesn't run like it used to"-ality.
For DC circuits, VA = Watts, but for AC circuits, it's a bit more complicated.
The problem is that the v(t) and i(t) may not be in phase, so you cannot simply multiply Vrms*Irms and get the power used. You can calculate the instantaneous power p(t) = |v(t)*i(t)|, and integrate that directly over one period to obtain the average power usage. You could also calculate <p>rms = sqrt(int(v(t)^2*i(t)^2 dt, 0..T)/T) to avoid using the discontinuous abs() function.
It's a little simpler if you assume that your power is monochromatic. The integrations have already been worked out, so all you need to know is the difference in phase and you can compute the real power (W) from the apparent power(VA_rms). We call the ratio of real power to apparent power the "Power Factor." It is always less than or equal to 1.
No, you don't. You pay for beer by the pint. The power company eats the loss from washing and keeping all those extra mugs due to the foam. (well technically, they fold that into your cost, but it's not your usage that counts it's the average of everybody's usage) Also, they may charge a surcharge if you're power factor is extreme.
Indeed. Also, you should switch all your lights for spotlights on computer controlled turrets with cameras. Set them up to track your head, and only turn on when they're pointed at the back of your head. Then you won't be wastefully illuminating the bits of the room you're not looking at.
The dishwasher will not disinfect the dishes unless you use a disinfectant soap. Otherwise it's not much more disinfectant than doing the dishes by hand. Fortunately, that's pretty much enough to do the job. Your dishwasher is not an autoclave. (although that would be pretty cool. No taking my idea, please.)
What failure of comprehension brought about such an ungainly idiom? And why has it become so popular amongst reporters describing everything from celebrity gossip to political intrigue?
Those might be fun, but why not just politely request to be put on their "do not call" list? If enough people do it, they won't be able to call anyone and it'll become an unprofitable waste of time as well. And it has the added benefit of immediately preventing them from ever calling you, personally, again.*
*unless at a later date, you establish a business relationship with them. But this can be rectified by a subsequent additional request to be taken off the list.
Now, understand that these people are paid by the hour. I'm not wasting their time, I'm wasting their employers time.
Where did you get that understanding? I had a few friends who worked in call centers for a bit and they were paid either by the call or based on successful calls. There's no reason not to be polite, they don't want to talk to people who don't want to talk to them any more than you want to talk to them. Just utter the magic words and save everyone some time.
"Please put me on your do not call list." That overrides any rights they might've had under the official do-not-call list. Even charities you have prior business arrangements with are forbidden from calling you after that.
You don't have to go to a private university. There are plenty of well-respected state schools which your G.I. bill will easily cover all or almost all of the cost of. In addition to other programs which might go so far as to obviate the GI bill money depending on not particularly onerous residency requirements.
I think you misunderstand. I'm not saying that "if you aren't a criminal, you have nothing to hide."
I'm saying that "If you are a criminal, you have no right to keep it secret." Obviously, you're still going to try.
It's a subtle trap we fall in trying to avoid tyranny. We end up defending people who really are criminals. But the laws aren't in place to protect the criminals, they're in place to protect law-abiding people from being harassed. People argue against speed cameras because they might be speeding and don't want to get caught, but that's really the wrong argument. You don't have a right to get away with stuff. You do have other rights which might conflict with attempts to rectify wrongdoing, but that is the price of protecting those rights, not the goal.
The people whose privacy we should be concerned with are the people who aren't criminals. Sneakily obfuscating the really bad stuff with hardcore pornography isn't an option to them, because the thing they want to hide is the hardcore pornography. It's actually a higher standard of privacy, because if you have the ability to conceal your embarrassing stuff and financial data that people would expect to find, you can easily hide criminal stuff, too.
Well the problem is.. you're talking about how to hide evidence of a crime, when the real issue is how to preserve privacy in non-crime but potentially embarrassing cases, or just to keep your financial data as private as possible. Once a warrant is issued, you really don't want to leave any doubt about whether you've cooperative. Obstruction of justice and all that.
A lot of people on/. seem to like to say, "I've got hidden volumes, one volume with the really bad stuff and one volume with just embarrassing stuff." But really, if your concern is privacy and not "getting away with a crime" the embarrassing stuff is the thing you want to hide. And financial stuff is going to be conspicuously not present to anyone looking.
Sorry, but I have to call bullshit on this one. Talk to ANY environmental activist, and they'll bring up wind power. I just went on the Walk Against Warming march in Sydney on the weekend ( 30,000 here, 30,000 in Melbourne, approx 150,000 Australia-wide ). The place was literally covered with windmill things on poles, and Greens banners. It was amazing. I think the only people who complain about wind are actually arsewipes from the big oil & nuclear industry, trying to throw a spanner in the works. NO serious environmentalist brings up the issues in your point.
No true scotsman would either. But wealthy "environmentalists" would.
Yes, for Uranium fission, the known supply is somewhat limited. However Thorium is much more abundant than uranium, if only we can get over our "no breeder reactor" paranoia.
There's not much waste if you process it back into fuel. You only get like 2% of the available energy out of it in a typical "can't make weapons for teh terrorists" reactor.
Also, consumer goods already ARE being made out of it. Depleted uranium isn't just for weapons you know. On a less "consumer goods" role, Strontium-90 and Cobalt-60 are also very useful elements. You might even have some in your motherboard.
High-level waste doesn't last long enough to be a problem. Low-level waste doesn't radiate enough to be a problem, and a lot of what's being called, "waste" right now is actually perfectly good fuel.
Gore never asked for a full recount. He asked for a recount in three counties. Three counties that happened to go heavily for Gore. It was quite obvious that what he wanted was to win by sneaky statistics:
Assume: a certain percentage, small but embarrassing, of votes fail to register for whatever reason.
Result: distribution of missed votes will follow the distribution of registered votes.
Recount result: As long as the hand recount is more accurate than the original machine count, they will register some fraction (up to 100%) of the missed votes in roughly the same proportion as the machine count, just more.
If you just recount a few heavily-something counties, you'll get more additional total votes in one party than the other. Averaging this into the statewide machine vote is irresponsible and takes advantage of the fact that many people do not understand statistics. Florida, being a "lottery state" actually runs ad campaigns mocking people who do understand statistics.
The request by Bush for the US Supreme Court to intervene was over whether Gore's requests were lawful. It followed Gore's request for a recount, Gore's cherry picking of counties, and Gore's Florida Supreme Court lawsuit to essencially change recount procedures as defined by Florida law.
Not to mention that the actual problems with the election couldn't possibly have been addressed by simply counting again: Some people were alleged to have been denied the ability to vote through last-minute changes to less convenient polling places and others claimed to have been confused by the ballot and having voted for a candidate they did not intend to. I believe there were also claims that sheriffs departments were actively preventing people from reaching polling places. I don't remember if they followed up with lawsuits or charges of their own.
None of those issues would have resulted in a single ballot which could turn up in the recount.
In the matter of recount requests, though, at no point did Bush look at Florida and say, "well it was close so let's count it out." For the simple reason that he won Florida. And then he won the first recount.
If all the Terrans you're going to have are in the first command center and just get "trained" by the barracks, how come you can hit the psi limit even after getting a hundred marines killed?
If you're talking about the 2000 election, Gore was the one who contested it. It would make no sense for Bush to contest since he was ahead at the time. Now, It was announced that Gore took the state based on exit polling an hour before voting closed due to time zone issues. Apparently, MSNBCNNBCBS doesn't have a map or something. But that was not the tally from the actual polls.
Recommended diet is typically between 1500 kcal and 2500 kcal depending on body type and other factors. It is, I believe, a measure of how much energy you would be able to extract from the food, rather than what you'd be able to obtain by burning it directly.
Anyway, if you use an average of 2000 kcal, whether that goes into heating or moving around, a control volume around yourself will experience the same thing: 2000 kcal of waste heat generated over the course of a day. Everything turns into waste heat, eventually. The chemical energy you are unable to extract from the food is irrelevant: it will be passed and remains available for something to extract in your refuse.
Further assuming that your usage of energy is mostly constant (i.e. that your physical exertions are << the things you keep doing to stay alive (generate heat, pump blood, etc)) you would assume that a person would, on average, be a 100 W heat source.
So, what does this mean for the professor's experiment? Well, obviously practical experience trumps theory, so it has to be reconciled with the 2000 kcal estimate on diet. Is the professor eating enough? He looks healthy. Perhaps he's not moving enough. Is the air-displaced relevant? I'd think correcting for it (they cleverly used a capacitance method) would reduce he estimates of the professor's output. Perhaps estimates of energy conversion are incorrect and need to be corrected.
The only glaring flaw I can see is that the breathing tube does not appear to have any temperature probes or flow meter. This is important because, due to the huge area of the lungs, every breath will reach equilibrium temperature inside the professor, so there is the question of how much is lost in that manner.
I've always heard ~50W, as well. Though the food-calc suggests otherwise. 50-100W isn't really a bad estimate though, since you'd only be using it to make order of magnitude calculations, anyway.
It was a very long-term thinking way to screw the middle class:
They created it ostensibly to keep the "rich" from being able to use too many loopholes to keep their cash. Because, apparently it's simpler than just doing away with the loopholes or something. But they set hard limits on the income that triggers it, and inflation is bringing those triggers down to the level of the ordinary middle class. All they have to do is refrain from updating it and its rolls will grow every year.
Slashdot Mirror
There are up to a million words claiming to have been incorporated into the English lexicon. Are you seriously suggesting that in all the words you don't know, there does not exist one that more precisely specifies the meaning currently occupied by sloppy application of the word "Irony?"
That's BS. well it's not really BS, but if laptops are failing because batteries are being damaged by being left plugged in, they're not using proper charging circuitry. Or maybe they're not using any charging circuitry.
I mean, you spend $2k on a machine that doesn't even have a $0.50 charge controller IC or a coupla $0.0005 power transistors, an ADC, and a nice cheap software daemon to keep track of things?
Well yeah, but laptops are typically about a year behind desktops performance wise, so really, you're replacing them at the same level of "software just doesn't run like it used to"-ality.
Do you really need your internet fix so bad that you'll take time out of a valuable visit home? You don't need broadband just to check email.
For DC circuits, VA = Watts, but for AC circuits, it's a bit more complicated.
The problem is that the v(t) and i(t) may not be in phase, so you cannot simply multiply Vrms*Irms and get the power used. You can calculate the instantaneous power p(t) = |v(t)*i(t)|, and integrate that directly over one period to obtain the average power usage. You could also calculate <p>rms = sqrt(int(v(t)^2*i(t)^2 dt, 0..T)/T) to avoid using the discontinuous abs() function.
It's a little simpler if you assume that your power is monochromatic. The integrations have already been worked out, so all you need to know is the difference in phase and you can compute the real power (W) from the apparent power(VA_rms). We call the ratio of real power to apparent power the "Power Factor." It is always less than or equal to 1.
No, you don't. You pay for beer by the pint. The power company eats the loss from washing and keeping all those extra mugs due to the foam. (well technically, they fold that into your cost, but it's not your usage that counts it's the average of everybody's usage) Also, they may charge a surcharge if you're power factor is extreme.
Indeed. Also, you should switch all your lights for spotlights on computer controlled turrets with cameras. Set them up to track your head, and only turn on when they're pointed at the back of your head. Then you won't be wastefully illuminating the bits of the room you're not looking at.
The dishwasher will not disinfect the dishes unless you use a disinfectant soap. Otherwise it's not much more disinfectant than doing the dishes by hand. Fortunately, that's pretty much enough to do the job. Your dishwasher is not an autoclave. (although that would be pretty cool. No taking my idea, please.)
Restaurant dishwashers use separate sterilizers.
What failure of comprehension brought about such an ungainly idiom? And why has it become so popular amongst reporters describing everything from celebrity gossip to political intrigue?
Those might be fun, but why not just politely request to be put on their "do not call" list? If enough people do it, they won't be able to call anyone and it'll become an unprofitable waste of time as well. And it has the added benefit of immediately preventing them from ever calling you, personally, again.*
*unless at a later date, you establish a business relationship with them. But this can be rectified by a subsequent additional request to be taken off the list.
Where did you get that understanding? I had a few friends who worked in call centers for a bit and they were paid either by the call or based on successful calls. There's no reason not to be polite, they don't want to talk to people who don't want to talk to them any more than you want to talk to them. Just utter the magic words and save everyone some time.
"Please put me on your do not call list." That overrides any rights they might've had under the official do-not-call list. Even charities you have prior business arrangements with are forbidden from calling you after that.
You don't have to go to a private university. There are plenty of well-respected state schools which your G.I. bill will easily cover all or almost all of the cost of. In addition to other programs which might go so far as to obviate the GI bill money depending on not particularly onerous residency requirements.
I think you misunderstand. I'm not saying that "if you aren't a criminal, you have nothing to hide."
I'm saying that "If you are a criminal, you have no right to keep it secret." Obviously, you're still going to try.
It's a subtle trap we fall in trying to avoid tyranny. We end up defending people who really are criminals. But the laws aren't in place to protect the criminals, they're in place to protect law-abiding people from being harassed. People argue against speed cameras because they might be speeding and don't want to get caught, but that's really the wrong argument. You don't have a right to get away with stuff. You do have other rights which might conflict with attempts to rectify wrongdoing, but that is the price of protecting those rights, not the goal.
The people whose privacy we should be concerned with are the people who aren't criminals. Sneakily obfuscating the really bad stuff with hardcore pornography isn't an option to them, because the thing they want to hide is the hardcore pornography. It's actually a higher standard of privacy, because if you have the ability to conceal your embarrassing stuff and financial data that people would expect to find, you can easily hide criminal stuff, too.
Well the problem is.. you're talking about how to hide evidence of a crime, when the real issue is how to preserve privacy in non-crime but potentially embarrassing cases, or just to keep your financial data as private as possible. Once a warrant is issued, you really don't want to leave any doubt about whether you've cooperative. Obstruction of justice and all that.
/. seem to like to say, "I've got hidden volumes, one volume with the really bad stuff and one volume with just embarrassing stuff." But really, if your concern is privacy and not "getting away with a crime" the embarrassing stuff is the thing you want to hide. And financial stuff is going to be conspicuously not present to anyone looking.
A lot of people on
Seriously? Not your power supply fan or heat sink fan?
No true scotsman would either. But wealthy "environmentalists" would.
Yes, for Uranium fission, the known supply is somewhat limited. However Thorium is much more abundant than uranium, if only we can get over our "no breeder reactor" paranoia.
There's not much waste if you process it back into fuel. You only get like 2% of the available energy out of it in a typical "can't make weapons for teh terrorists" reactor.
Also, consumer goods already ARE being made out of it. Depleted uranium isn't just for weapons you know. On a less "consumer goods" role, Strontium-90 and Cobalt-60 are also very useful elements. You might even have some in your motherboard.
High-level waste doesn't last long enough to be a problem. Low-level waste doesn't radiate enough to be a problem, and a lot of what's being called, "waste" right now is actually perfectly good fuel.
Gore never asked for a full recount. He asked for a recount in three counties. Three counties that happened to go heavily for Gore. It was quite obvious that what he wanted was to win by sneaky statistics:
Assume: a certain percentage, small but embarrassing, of votes fail to register for whatever reason.
Result: distribution of missed votes will follow the distribution of registered votes.
Recount result: As long as the hand recount is more accurate than the original machine count, they will register some fraction (up to 100%) of the missed votes in roughly the same proportion as the machine count, just more.
If you just recount a few heavily-something counties, you'll get more additional total votes in one party than the other. Averaging this into the statewide machine vote is irresponsible and takes advantage of the fact that many people do not understand statistics. Florida, being a "lottery state" actually runs ad campaigns mocking people who do understand statistics.
The request by Bush for the US Supreme Court to intervene was over whether Gore's requests were lawful. It followed Gore's request for a recount, Gore's cherry picking of counties, and Gore's Florida Supreme Court lawsuit to essencially change recount procedures as defined by Florida law.
Not to mention that the actual problems with the election couldn't possibly have been addressed by simply counting again: Some people were alleged to have been denied the ability to vote through last-minute changes to less convenient polling places and others claimed to have been confused by the ballot and having voted for a candidate they did not intend to. I believe there were also claims that sheriffs departments were actively preventing people from reaching polling places. I don't remember if they followed up with lawsuits or charges of their own.
None of those issues would have resulted in a single ballot which could turn up in the recount.
In the matter of recount requests, though, at no point did Bush look at Florida and say, "well it was close so let's count it out." For the simple reason that he won Florida. And then he won the first recount.
At least the zerg make sense.
If all the Terrans you're going to have are in the first command center and just get "trained" by the barracks, how come you can hit the psi limit even after getting a hundred marines killed?
If you're talking about the 2000 election, Gore was the one who contested it. It would make no sense for Bush to contest since he was ahead at the time. Now, It was announced that Gore took the state based on exit polling an hour before voting closed due to time zone issues. Apparently, MSNBCNNBCBS doesn't have a map or something. But that was not the tally from the actual polls.
Recommended diet is typically between 1500 kcal and 2500 kcal depending on body type and other factors. It is, I believe, a measure of how much energy you would be able to extract from the food, rather than what you'd be able to obtain by burning it directly.
Anyway, if you use an average of 2000 kcal, whether that goes into heating or moving around, a control volume around yourself will experience the same thing: 2000 kcal of waste heat generated over the course of a day. Everything turns into waste heat, eventually. The chemical energy you are unable to extract from the food is irrelevant: it will be passed and remains available for something to extract in your refuse.
Further assuming that your usage of energy is mostly constant (i.e. that your physical exertions are << the things you keep doing to stay alive (generate heat, pump blood, etc)) you would assume that a person would, on average, be a 100 W heat source.
So, what does this mean for the professor's experiment? Well, obviously practical experience trumps theory, so it has to be reconciled with the 2000 kcal estimate on diet. Is the professor eating enough? He looks healthy. Perhaps he's not moving enough. Is the air-displaced relevant? I'd think correcting for it (they cleverly used a capacitance method) would reduce he estimates of the professor's output. Perhaps estimates of energy conversion are incorrect and need to be corrected.
The only glaring flaw I can see is that the breathing tube does not appear to have any temperature probes or flow meter. This is important because, due to the huge area of the lungs, every breath will reach equilibrium temperature inside the professor, so there is the question of how much is lost in that manner.
I've always heard ~50W, as well. Though the food-calc suggests otherwise. 50-100W isn't really a bad estimate though, since you'd only be using it to make order of magnitude calculations, anyway.
"Alternative Minimum Tax"
It was a very long-term thinking way to screw the middle class:
They created it ostensibly to keep the "rich" from being able to use too many loopholes to keep their cash. Because, apparently it's simpler than just doing away with the loopholes or something. But they set hard limits on the income that triggers it, and inflation is bringing those triggers down to the level of the ordinary middle class. All they have to do is refrain from updating it and its rolls will grow every year.
Are you..
Are you playing Sim City.. with a real town?