.net was for `network infrastructure' - Root nameservers, routers etc. Then it became extended to entities providing the above, and then it became meaningless. Then.org followed in it's wake. Oh, you forgot.mil(itary)
If they opened up the . namespace for registrations, then every *.com should be automatically given the registration for *, or all we will see on/. is cybersquatter lawsuits.
Having some inforced order is, IMHO, The Right Thing. Just wish it was better inforced.
The first thing I thought was - Yes, half the heat per processor x 4 chips = double the heat, right? Then I recalled that the reason for those blindingly fast chips is so that they can get through their present job and react in a timely manner to the next task. If you've got another chip or two waiting, then you can take your time, can't you! (I'm also sure that power usage could be shown to be exponential, so we will make gains then.) Hey, and who needs water? There's a few of those non-wetting liquids that we could use. Flow them around the die itself for maximum heat transfer! Lots of fun. (Until $RANDOM decides a glycol antifreeze would make a better chioce! Then EVEN MORE fun!)
When I read this, my first response was "Hmm, that's interesting". See, Jargon beomes so much a part of us that we stop recognising it. Probably the one to avoid is the "409 scam" - that would be recognised by very few outside of the field. Even "Nigerian Scam" would also be beyond most persons. So, simply, if you are talking of this to others, be aware that even such basic nouns as "spam" may well be missunderstood by them. It's our language. It's also our responsibility to translate.
Maybe it could lead to "service stations" not dying out - Instead, they have the massive energy delevery systems to cope with such blast charging.
As to hybrids: electro braking produces lots of energy fast: they would be able to do without the capacitors that temporarily store that charge. Coold lead to larger hybrid vehicles: it should be able to store the power from stopping a semi, or a train.
The engine could also run in a more efficient manner (Open throttle at mid-range revs) if the batteries can take the energy output. Most of the output of a standard car engine at cruise is used to pull air past the nearly-closed throttle.
All in all, a great avancement. All it needs is for the lawyers to keep out of the road.
The also appear to have achieved similar results: one claims 6-minute full charges, while the other states 80% charge in 1 minute, with full charging taking "only a few minutes more". Seems like it's just how you market it
As I see it, this patent covers, not the vibration device, but sensing that vibration in order to control it. So, we have 3 existing `technologies'(if we can call them that!) 1. Negative feedback control. One of the most basic electronic theories. Used in servos ever since vacuum tubes became good enough. 2. Vibration. Seems to cover rotation of an eccentric mass or other methods (coil-and-weight, like a speaker's voice coil.) Very basic stuff, Loads of prior art. 3. Force-feedback.
2 and 3 have been long connected. (I think the stick-shaker stall warning is a great example.) So this patent is for joining 1 and 2+3. Now, I'd call that interesting, and worthy of some thought. Yes, I'd label it as 'just possibly' inovative. Not a earth-shaking (Oh, sorry. Pun Police Protection Paid - P^4) idea, but, maybe, patentable.
You know, that is not the conclusion I was planning on coming up with!!!!
Just in case you have no access to the pdf either
on
Bang But No Splash
·
· Score: 0
1 Drop splashing on a dry smooth surface Lei Xu, Wendy W. Zhang, Sidney R. Nagel* The James Franck Institute and Department of Physics, The University of Chicago, 5640 South Ellis Avenue, Chicago, Illinois 60637, USA. *To whom correspondence should be addressed. Email: srnagel@uchicago.edu The corona splash due to the impact of a liquid drop on a smooth dry substrate is investigated with high speed photography. A striking phenomenon is observed: splashing can be completely suppressed by decreasing the pressure of the surrounding gas. The threshold pressure where a splash first occurs is measured as a function of the impact velocity and found to scale with the molecular weight of the gas and the viscosity of the liquid. Both experimental scaling relations support a model in which compressible effects in the gas are responsible for splashing in liquid solid impacts. 2 What is the mechanism for the violent shattering that takes place as a liquid drop hits a smooth dry surface and splashes? How does the energy, originally distributed uniformly as kinetic energy throughout the drop, become partitioned into small regions as the liquid disintegrates into thousands of disconnected pieces? It is not surprising that the velocity of impact, the drop size and shape, or the liquid surface tension has an important effect on the mass and energy distribution of the ejected droplets [1, 2]. However, it is perhaps more difficult to imagine that the surrounding air has a significant role to play in this all-too-common occurrence. More to the point, one would hardly expect the splash to disappear if the surrounding atmosphere were removed. Nevertheless this is the case. The elegant shapes formed during a splash have captured the attention of many photographers since the remarkable early images of Worthington showing the shapes that occur as milk or mercury hits a smooth substrate [3]. Many studies have focused on the fingering dynamics [4 7] and the effect of surface roughness [1, 2, 8]. In the present study, we focus only on a drop hitting a smooth substrate. The top row of Figure 1 shows four frames from a movie of an alcohol drop hitting a dry glass slide in a background of air at atmospheric pressure. The drop, after impact, spreads and creates a corona with a thickened rim which first develops undulations along the rim and then breaks up due to surface tension. During this process, the thin sheet comprising the corona surface retracts and rips into pieces. These images are reminiscent of the corona caused by a drop hitting a thin layer of fluid photographed by Edgerton and his colleagues [9]. However, in our case we have made sure that the slide is completely dry prior to impact. Our images illustrate an important puzzle: why do we see a corona form at all? At the substrate surface the liquid 3 momentum points horizontally outward. Without a layer of fluid to push against (such as in the photographs of Edgerton), how does the expanding layer gain any momentum component in the vertical direction? Fig. 1. Photographs of a liquid drop hitting a smooth dry substrate. A 3.4 ± 0.1 mm diameter alcohol drop hits a smooth glass substrate at impact velocity V0 = 3.74 ± 0.02 m/s in the presence of different background pressures of air. Each row shows the drop at four times. The first frame shows the drop just as it is about to hit the substrate. The next three frames in each row show the evolution of the drop at 0.276 ms, at 0.552 ms and at 2.484 ms after impact. In the top row, with the air at 100 kPa (atmospheric pressure), the drop splashes. In the second row, with the air just slightly above the threshold pressure, PT = 38.4 kPa, the drop emits only a few droplets. In the third row, at a pressure of 30.0 kPa, no droplets are emitted and no splashing occurs. However, there is an undulation in the thickness of the rim. In the fourth row, taken at 17.2 kPa, there is no splashing and no apparent undulation in the rim of the drop. 4 Our experiment is straightforward: Reproducible drops of diameter D = 3.4±0.1 mm were released from r
And whatever ones i have forgotten, and those that will be created. I use FreeBSD, and I prefer not to use linux compatability. Can I have itunes too? Not that I want it.
No, that is great. I'd mod you up if I wasn't the lowest grade of peon around here.
In fact, you are the first person to make the GPl zealots rantings understandable for me!
(BTW - BSD is a 'copycenter' licence (jargonfile))
Any broadband connection will provide enough bandwidth. (even dial-up could _just_ hack it.)
However, 2-way satelite can add up to 1200ms delay, as the signals go up and back (twice) to the geostationary satellite. This would be added to the ordinary delay.
We should make all open source licences this way.
Er Humph.
CLAUSE XVI
This licence is for a single processor core only. By using this code on a machine with multiple procesors, you will have accepted this licence multiple times. Just thought you'd like to know that.
Actually, I would be happy to see strange, derogatory and politically questionable comments in MS code. No code is without those bits that the programmer doesn't like, and these should be clearly marked.
As the existance of a hackish comunity within the Redmond giant is their only chance of redemption, one would hope that they would be couched in a hackishly humerous tone.
As a side note, however, I can see no place for profanity in any communication.
They have time to announce that they will be paching critical flaws in, like, 72 hours time
I would consider that an OS has failed miserably if they are aware of an unpached vulnerability for 72 hours. Unless it is very complex, 24 hours would be excessive.
Slashdot Mirror
Really! Armstrong could have been made a millionare by patenting "Walking on the Moon". And Suing Buzz Aldwin.
Everyone in the queue for "Walking on Mars" Patents. And they are discovering new planets every {day|week|month}. Get yours today!!!!
Maybe I should make a template patent and sell that!! All that's left is to say -
3. Profit!
.net was for `network infrastructure' - Root nameservers, routers etc. Then it became extended to entities providing the above, and then it became meaningless. .org followed in it's wake. .mil(itary)
Then
Oh, you forgot
..Or perhaps any other tld that people use for private netspaces? What then happens?
Sorry, but I do not agree.
/. is cybersquatter lawsuits.
If they opened up the . namespace for registrations, then every *.com should be automatically given the registration for *, or all we will see on
Having some inforced order is, IMHO, The Right Thing. Just wish it was better inforced.
The first thing I thought was - Yes, half the heat per processor x 4 chips = double the heat, right?
Then I recalled that the reason for those blindingly fast chips is so that they can get through their present job and react in a timely manner to the next task.
If you've got another chip or two waiting, then you can take your time, can't you!
(I'm also sure that power usage could be shown to be exponential, so we will make gains then.)
Hey, and who needs water? There's a few of those non-wetting liquids that we could use. Flow them around the die itself for maximum heat transfer!
Lots of fun.
(Until $RANDOM decides a glycol antifreeze would make a better chioce! Then EVEN MORE fun!)
When I read this, my first response was "Hmm, that's interesting". See, Jargon beomes so much a part of us that we stop recognising it. Probably the one to avoid is the "409 scam" - that would be recognised by very few outside of the field. Even "Nigerian Scam" would also be beyond most persons.
So, simply, if you are talking of this to others, be aware that even such basic nouns as "spam" may well be missunderstood by them.
It's our language. It's also our responsibility to translate.
Maybe it could lead to "service stations" not dying out - Instead, they have the massive energy delevery systems to cope with such blast charging.
As to hybrids: electro braking produces lots of energy fast: they would be able to do without the capacitors that temporarily store that charge. Coold lead to larger hybrid vehicles: it should be able to store the power from stopping a semi, or a train.
The engine could also run in a more efficient manner (Open throttle at mid-range revs) if the batteries can take the energy output. Most of the output of a standard car engine at cruise is used to pull air past the nearly-closed throttle.
All in all, a great avancement. All it needs is for the lawyers to keep out of the road.
The also appear to have achieved similar results: one claims 6-minute full charges, while the other states 80% charge in 1 minute, with full charging taking "only a few minutes more". Seems like it's just how you market it
As I see it, this patent covers, not the vibration device, but sensing that vibration in order to control it. So, we have 3 existing `technologies'(if we can call them that!)
1. Negative feedback control. One of the most basic electronic theories. Used in servos ever since vacuum tubes became good enough.
2. Vibration. Seems to cover rotation of an eccentric mass or other methods (coil-and-weight, like a speaker's voice coil.) Very basic stuff, Loads of prior art.
3. Force-feedback.
2 and 3 have been long connected. (I think the stick-shaker stall warning is a great example.) So this patent is for joining 1 and 2+3. Now, I'd call that interesting, and worthy of some thought. Yes, I'd label it as 'just possibly' inovative. Not a earth-shaking (Oh, sorry. Pun Police Protection Paid - P^4) idea, but, maybe, patentable.
You know, that is not the conclusion I was planning on coming up with!!!!
1 Drop splashing on a dry smooth surface Lei Xu, Wendy W. Zhang, Sidney R. Nagel* The James Franck Institute and Department of Physics, The University of Chicago, 5640 South Ellis Avenue, Chicago, Illinois 60637, USA. *To whom correspondence should be addressed. Email: srnagel@uchicago.edu The corona splash due to the impact of a liquid drop on a smooth dry substrate is investigated with high speed photography. A striking phenomenon is observed: splashing can be completely suppressed by decreasing the pressure of the surrounding gas. The threshold pressure where a splash first occurs is measured as a function of the impact velocity and found to scale with the molecular weight of the gas and the viscosity of the liquid. Both experimental scaling relations support a model in which compressible effects in the gas are responsible for splashing in liquid solid impacts. 2 What is the mechanism for the violent shattering that takes place as a liquid drop hits a smooth dry surface and splashes? How does the energy, originally distributed uniformly as kinetic energy throughout the drop, become partitioned into small regions as the liquid disintegrates into thousands of disconnected pieces? It is not surprising that the velocity of impact, the drop size and shape, or the liquid surface tension has an important effect on the mass and energy distribution of the ejected droplets [1, 2]. However, it is perhaps more difficult to imagine that the surrounding air has a significant role to play in this all-too-common occurrence. More to the point, one would hardly expect the splash to disappear if the surrounding atmosphere were removed. Nevertheless this is the case. The elegant shapes formed during a splash have captured the attention of many photographers since the remarkable early images of Worthington showing the shapes that occur as milk or mercury hits a smooth substrate [3]. Many studies have focused on the fingering dynamics [4 7] and the effect of surface roughness [1, 2, 8]. In the present study, we focus only on a drop hitting a smooth substrate. The top row of Figure 1 shows four frames from a movie of an alcohol drop hitting a dry glass slide in a background of air at atmospheric pressure. The drop, after impact, spreads and creates a corona with a thickened rim which first develops undulations along the rim and then breaks up due to surface tension. During this process, the thin sheet comprising the corona surface retracts and rips into pieces. These images are reminiscent of the corona caused by a drop hitting a thin layer of fluid photographed by Edgerton and his colleagues [9]. However, in our case we have made sure that the slide is completely dry prior to impact. Our images illustrate an important puzzle: why do we see a corona form at all? At the substrate surface the liquid 3 momentum points horizontally outward. Without a layer of fluid to push against (such as in the photographs of Edgerton), how does the expanding layer gain any momentum component in the vertical direction? Fig. 1. Photographs of a liquid drop hitting a smooth dry substrate. A 3.4 ± 0.1 mm diameter alcohol drop hits a smooth glass substrate at impact velocity V0 = 3.74 ± 0.02 m/s in the presence of different background pressures of air. Each row shows the drop at four times. The first frame shows the drop just as it is about to hit the substrate. The next three frames in each row show the evolution of the drop at 0.276 ms, at 0.552 ms and at 2.484 ms after impact. In the top row, with the air at 100 kPa (atmospheric pressure), the drop splashes. In the second row, with the air just slightly above the threshold pressure, PT = 38.4 kPa, the drop emits only a few droplets. In the third row, at a pressure of 30.0 kPa, no droplets are emitted and no splashing occurs. However, there is an undulation in the thickness of the rim. In the fourth row, taken at 17.2 kPa, there is no splashing and no apparent undulation in the rim of the drop. 4 Our experiment is straightforward: Reproducible drops of diameter D = 3.4±0.1 mm were released from r
Hmm. On dial-up, the flash intro loading timestamps are... all too real. Sigh.
And whatever ones i have forgotten, and those that will be created. I use FreeBSD, and I prefer not to use linux compatability. Can I have itunes too?
Not that I want it.
I think you both are drawing corollaries from Moore's `law', although I think Aaron's is closer. Moore's famous paper was more about cost than count.
"The number of transistors per chip that yields the minimum cost per transistor has increased at a rate of roughly a factor of two per year."(artechnica.com) for full article.
No, that is great. I'd mod you up if I wasn't the lowest grade of peon around here.
In fact, you are the first person to make the GPl zealots rantings understandable for me!
(BTW - BSD is a 'copycenter' licence (jargonfile))
Any broadband connection will provide enough bandwidth. (even dial-up could _just_ hack it.)
However, 2-way satelite can add up to 1200ms delay, as the signals go up and back (twice) to the geostationary satellite. This would be added to the ordinary delay.
We should make all open source licences this way. Er Humph. CLAUSE XVI This licence is for a single processor core only. By using this code on a machine with multiple procesors, you will have accepted this licence multiple times. Just thought you'd like to know that.
Actually, I would be happy to see strange, derogatory and politically questionable comments in MS code. No code is without those bits that the programmer doesn't like, and these should be clearly marked.
As the existance of a hackish comunity within the Redmond giant is their only chance of redemption, one would hope that they would be couched in a hackishly humerous tone.
As a side note, however, I can see no place for profanity in any communication.
They have time to announce that they will be paching critical flaws in, like, 72 hours time
I would consider that an OS has failed miserably if they are aware of an unpached vulnerability for 72 hours. Unless it is very complex, 24 hours would be excessive.