Most software people wouldn't---I recall that something like 80% of software developed is never sold to the public. The developers are most likely being paid for their actual work, rather than the software's use.
You'd be best off leaving the job of determining the districts to an apolitical body (as opposed to giving the job to politicians), like much of the rest of the world does (and some parts of the US, I'm led to understand).
It's valid because this appears to be a variant of the PEM fuel cell. This is why he points to the lack of a need for oxygen and a steady stream of hydrogen---the fundamental principle is the same as that of a fuel cell.
Oxidation means loss of electrons, so yes, it is being ionised.
Remember: Oxidation Is Loss (of electrons), Reduction Is Gain (of electrons)
While oxidation is named because it was most commonly observed with oxygen, its current meaning is related to electron transfer. Oxygen is rather electronegative (ie. likes electrons), and hence will often take electrons from another substance during reactions, causing it to commonly oxidise things.
In Australia, the Flying Doctor service apparently has an emergency response time below 90 minutes (source). I doubt that such an airship that could only make 150km/h would be of much use, at least for emergency services, since their current aircraft make 500km/h. Wikipedia suggests that they also do primary care, so perhaps an airship would be useful for that.
Saying that hydrogen is dangerous because the alkali metals are dangerous is more like saying that chlorine is dangerous because it is a halogen (the analogy doesn't work exactly because of the large atomic radii of the more metallic halogens).
If you're referring to biological interactions, you're right. However, hydrogen is in group I, hence will be very reactive.
Here ends the reply---an explanation of what I just said for the non-chemical people follows.
The periodic table is structured in such a way that elements in the same column have similar electron-shell structures. Once the transition metals (in the d-block, in the middle, joining the s-block, with the first two columns, and the p-block, with the six on the far-right) become involved, things become more complicated. Until then, we can make some simplifications. The electrons in the atoms/ions stay in a few well-defined orbits (shells), electrons filling up the first, then the second, and so forth. It is best, at this stage, to assume that the first electron shell can take two electrons, the second eight electrons, and the third also eight (note that this corresponds to the rows of the table, called periods). This is as far as we can go without making things more complex---after electron #20, you have to start splitting these shells up.
The columns of the table, called groups, show the number of electrons in the outer shell---those in the far left column have one electron, while those in the far-right column have two (for Helium), or eight (for the others, up to Argon). It is favourable for an atom to fill its outer shell, and it can do this by either removing all of its outer electrons, or gaining enough electrons to fill the shell. This happens most easily for the group I (far-left) elements, with one electron to lose, and the group VII elements, in the second column from the right, which only need to gain one electron to fill up the shell. This means that the group I elements (eg. H, Li, Na, etc.) and group VII elements (eg. F, Cl, etc.) are the least stable. Those in the far-right column have naturally-full outer shells, and are almost entirely non-reactive.
Following on from this, and merely as background, one should notice that hydrogen is far more stable than sodium, and, similarly, that iodine is far less reactive than fluorine. Remember that, as you move through the table, more electrons are in the atom, and more shells are filled up. Therefore, the [negatively-charged] electrons in the outer shell, as you move towards the bottom of the table, are further away from the [positively-charged] nucleus. Therefore, there is less attraction between the outer electrons and the nucleus. Think about this with relation to the previous point---as you move down group I, there is less and less attraction between the nucleus and that single outer electron. This makes it easier for the atom to lose it in a reaction, making the lower-down elements, such as sodium, more reactive than the higher-up elements. Similarly, on the other side of the table, the smaller attractive force makes it harder to get an electron to stay in the shell. Therefore, the smaller elements, like fluorine, in group VII (the halogens), are far more reactive than the larger elements, like iodine.
While this is not the whole story (hydrogen bonds differently to the metals, sharing its single electron rather than giving it up), it gives a reasonable idea as to why hydrogen is so reactive. The differences between hydrogen and the other group I metals lead it to be presented with a gap between them in many periodic tables.
Slashdot chemists, feel free to correct my mistakes and oversimplifications. I studied this topic mostly in Year 11 chemistry, so there may be a few issues.
Many (most?) fixed missile launchers use radar guidance, which wouldn't be affected by the laser. Not to mention using radar-guided missiles/guns from an aircraft that could shoot the plane down while it wasn't over a metro area.
This isn't really a problem that comes up all that often.
Actually, if I recall correctly, voting is compulsary. It just happens that the existence of the secret ballot is considered more important that enforcing it. I remember hearing of a few incidents of people being fined for encouraging others to lodge invalid votes.
In other words, it would have worked for "years and years and years", except for one year where this wasn't the case? That is why you have to keep a backup supply of ballots ready---there is always a minimal chance of an outlier appearing. That said, deciding what to do the next year would be a bit tough.
Statistics can't predict everything, but it can minimise costs over long periods of time. Human involvement doesn't make something immune to statistical analysis, though it may increase the variance such that the short-term gains of its use are reduced.
Call in a mathematician and get them to figure out how many ballots should be needed to keep costs to a minimum, assuming you leave open the option of printing more ballots, in case the 5/1/0.01% probability comes back to bite you---whether printing it off with a printer on-site, or keeping a large-scale printer on standby in the event that it looks like you are to run out.
The maths isn't exactly difficult---with sufficient historical data, one learns all that's necessary in high school, at least down my way.
That said, we have compulsory voting down our way (Australia), so it's not really an issue that comes up. For that matter, does the risk of printing ~600 sheets of paper too many matter that much? It shouldn't be a problem.
It becomes a bit more difficult if you want to do preferential voting. But here (Australia) we just write numbers in the boxes, and we know who the new government is by ten or eleven.
It puts carbon into the atmosphere, but the carbon was removed from the atmosphere when the feedstock was grown, so there are no net carbon dioxide emissions.
Not to nitpick (well, actually, yes, I do mean to nitpick), but rabbits were actually released for hunting. You would be correct had you mentioned cane toads, though. Not to say that the rabbits are a good thing---we've introduced viruses to try to control them on twooccasions, to a certain degree of success.
There is another type (PRK) that is allowed for pilots (the article there talks about eligibility). Most people don't use it, though, because it's apparently rather painful and takes longer to recover from. LASIK is not allowed.
If you just dropped a whole lot of calcium on there, you'd end up with calcium sulphate, rather than calcium carbonate, because of the sulphuric acid. So you would probably need even more.
Slashdot Mirror
Most software people wouldn't---I recall that something like 80% of software developed is never sold to the public. The developers are most likely being paid for their actual work, rather than the software's use.
Presumably the point is that any random person could learn to sketch something, but they can't make a three-dimensional model.
You'd be best off leaving the job of determining the districts to an apolitical body (as opposed to giving the job to politicians), like much of the rest of the world does (and some parts of the US, I'm led to understand).
It's valid because this appears to be a variant of the PEM fuel cell. This is why he points to the lack of a need for oxygen and a steady stream of hydrogen---the fundamental principle is the same as that of a fuel cell.
Oxidation means loss of electrons, so yes, it is being ionised.
Remember:
Oxidation Is Loss (of electrons), Reduction Is Gain (of electrons)
While oxidation is named because it was most commonly observed with oxygen, its current meaning is related to electron transfer. Oxygen is rather electronegative (ie. likes electrons), and hence will often take electrons from another substance during reactions, causing it to commonly oxidise things.
In Australia, the Flying Doctor service apparently has an emergency response time below 90 minutes (source). I doubt that such an airship that could only make 150km/h would be of much use, at least for emergency services, since their current aircraft make 500km/h. Wikipedia suggests that they also do primary care, so perhaps an airship would be useful for that.
Saying that hydrogen is dangerous because the alkali metals are dangerous is more like saying that chlorine is dangerous because it is a halogen (the analogy doesn't work exactly because of the large atomic radii of the more metallic halogens).
If you're referring to biological interactions, you're right. However, hydrogen is in group I, hence will be very reactive.
Here ends the reply---an explanation of what I just said for the non-chemical people follows.
The periodic table is structured in such a way that elements in the same column have similar electron-shell structures. Once the transition metals (in the d-block, in the middle, joining the s-block, with the first two columns, and the p-block, with the six on the far-right) become involved, things become more complicated. Until then, we can make some simplifications. The electrons in the atoms/ions stay in a few well-defined orbits (shells), electrons filling up the first, then the second, and so forth. It is best, at this stage, to assume that the first electron shell can take two electrons, the second eight electrons, and the third also eight (note that this corresponds to the rows of the table, called periods). This is as far as we can go without making things more complex---after electron #20, you have to start splitting these shells up.
The columns of the table, called groups, show the number of electrons in the outer shell---those in the far left column have one electron, while those in the far-right column have two (for Helium), or eight (for the others, up to Argon). It is favourable for an atom to fill its outer shell, and it can do this by either removing all of its outer electrons, or gaining enough electrons to fill the shell. This happens most easily for the group I (far-left) elements, with one electron to lose, and the group VII elements, in the second column from the right, which only need to gain one electron to fill up the shell. This means that the group I elements (eg. H, Li, Na, etc.) and group VII elements (eg. F, Cl, etc.) are the least stable. Those in the far-right column have naturally-full outer shells, and are almost entirely non-reactive.
Following on from this, and merely as background, one should notice that hydrogen is far more stable than sodium, and, similarly, that iodine is far less reactive than fluorine. Remember that, as you move through the table, more electrons are in the atom, and more shells are filled up. Therefore, the [negatively-charged] electrons in the outer shell, as you move towards the bottom of the table, are further away from the [positively-charged] nucleus. Therefore, there is less attraction between the outer electrons and the nucleus. Think about this with relation to the previous point---as you move down group I, there is less and less attraction between the nucleus and that single outer electron. This makes it easier for the atom to lose it in a reaction, making the lower-down elements, such as sodium, more reactive than the higher-up elements. Similarly, on the other side of the table, the smaller attractive force makes it harder to get an electron to stay in the shell. Therefore, the smaller elements, like fluorine, in group VII (the halogens), are far more reactive than the larger elements, like iodine.
While this is not the whole story (hydrogen bonds differently to the metals, sharing its single electron rather than giving it up), it gives a reasonable idea as to why hydrogen is so reactive. The differences between hydrogen and the other group I metals lead it to be presented with a gap between them in many periodic tables.
Slashdot chemists, feel free to correct my mistakes and oversimplifications. I studied this topic mostly in Year 11 chemistry, so there may be a few issues.
Many (most?) fixed missile launchers use radar guidance, which wouldn't be affected by the laser. Not to mention using radar-guided missiles/guns from an aircraft that could shoot the plane down while it wasn't over a metro area.
This isn't really a problem that comes up all that often.
Actually, if I recall correctly, voting is compulsary. It just happens that the existence of the secret ballot is considered more important that enforcing it. I remember hearing of a few incidents of people being fined for encouraging others to lodge invalid votes.
While I don't like to cite webcomics, girlfriends will not like that.
In other words, it would have worked for "years and years and years", except for one year where this wasn't the case? That is why you have to keep a backup supply of ballots ready---there is always a minimal chance of an outlier appearing. That said, deciding what to do the next year would be a bit tough.
Statistics can't predict everything, but it can minimise costs over long periods of time. Human involvement doesn't make something immune to statistical analysis, though it may increase the variance such that the short-term gains of its use are reduced.
Why must they use heavy paper? All of the ballots I've seen have used paper of normal mass.
Call in a mathematician and get them to figure out how many ballots should be needed to keep costs to a minimum, assuming you leave open the option of printing more ballots, in case the 5/1/0.01% probability comes back to bite you---whether printing it off with a printer on-site, or keeping a large-scale printer on standby in the event that it looks like you are to run out.
The maths isn't exactly difficult---with sufficient historical data, one learns all that's necessary in high school, at least down my way.
That said, we have compulsory voting down our way (Australia), so it's not really an issue that comes up. For that matter, does the risk of printing ~600 sheets of paper too many matter that much? It shouldn't be a problem.
Article 51 throws all of the previous articles out, so the document doesn't actually mean anything.
Actually, if I recall correctly, it was because they had to convert between SI and Imperial a lot, and the conversion errors built up.
The 50m chunk of rock will have its orbit affected rather significantly.
In the past (don't know about now; I'm on Internode), WestNet did a 512k unmetered plan. I'm not sure if it's still available now.
It becomes a bit more difficult if you want to do preferential voting. But here (Australia) we just write numbers in the boxes, and we know who the new government is by ten or eleven.
He was originally from Adelaide, but I believe he is an American citizen now.
It puts carbon into the atmosphere, but the carbon was removed from the atmosphere when the feedstock was grown, so there are no net carbon dioxide emissions.
Apparently it's mandated by the GSM spec, so it's understandable that people outside of the EU would believe that it was mobile-specific.
Not to nitpick (well, actually, yes, I do mean to nitpick), but rabbits were actually released for hunting. You would be correct had you mentioned cane toads, though. Not to say that the rabbits are a good thing---we've introduced viruses to try to control them on two occasions, to a certain degree of success.
Didn't the TPMs get removed a while back? I was under the impression that they were only in the early boards.
There is another type (PRK) that is allowed for pilots (the article there talks about eligibility). Most people don't use it, though, because it's apparently rather painful and takes longer to recover from. LASIK is not allowed.
If you just dropped a whole lot of calcium on there, you'd end up with calcium sulphate, rather than calcium carbonate, because of the sulphuric acid. So you would probably need even more.