All of these statements of "natural" interfaces are garbage. There's nothing more natural in touching a monitor to control a cursor than there is using chopsticks to hold a fork. If we could manage to achieve a functional BCI (brain-computer interface, and not the scalp-electrode-based systems), then all these touch devices would be considered crude and simplistic. Everyone's vision of the future is always touch-screen tables or white rooms with floaty transparent screens that people touch to navigate menus; it just reminds me of the same in-the-box thinking when imagining how 2010 would be like to people in 1940. Touch screens are great for moving a zoomed-in picture or finger-painting, but not much more. If we could directly use our brains to control computers (moving objects like moving your arms/hands, writing messages like speaking words), then this would be a huge improvement over control systems now. If one had a BCI, then it would probably be reasonable to think that they would also want some sort of visual overlay in their eyes, and a portable functionality. The end result is somewhat like an implanted smart phone running on your body's fuel, with no screen or controls aside from integration with the person; this is a good bet on the future, since we're already half-way there.
I totally agree with you that the CRT display has several aspects that are superior to an LCD display (namely gamut, response time, black quality, etc.), but CRT TVs also have some terrible downsides. The issues I had with my CRTs were the poor resolution when hooked up to a computer, purple and green spots on the corners if feeding from a high-resolution source when the majority of the screen was white, 60 Hz v-scan flicker (I can always see it plain as day), contrast that degrades with time, visible horizontal lines, and high pitched noise during operation (close to the upper end of audible sound). It's not a clear-cut choice on which is better, specs-wise, but the LCD doesn't have the issues I listed above and my opinion is that they are quite worth it. If OLED displays ever get to replacing LCDs, then a lot of the points that you mention (and I agree with) would be non-issues.
In comparison to a gasoline piston engine, gas turbines are more efficient and smaller. In the 60s, Chrysler tried making cars with gas turbines, but went the "direct drive" route (which isn't fitting for the "stop and go" type of city driving); it didn't work out too well. Now that we have computer controllers and electric-drive cars, a (truly) small gas-turbine could be connected to a generator to charge batteries and/or drive electric motors of modern cars. This type of engine is arguably more fitting for a hybrid, and is able to be configured to run a wider selection of fuels.
If you're trying to maintain an constant temperature, all you have to do is add in the same amount of heat that is being lost to the environment. The better the tank is insulated, the less heat loss, and the less input required.
Mostly, this post is good input, but I would argue a couple things.
First, that steam turbines are actually pretty decent in terms of real efficiency (you may have been referring to the piston-type engines). It's something something similar to high-efficiency diesel engines.
Second, that a 1940s V8 is far from 50% efficiency. From what I could dig up, these engines have a compression ratio of somewhere between 4:1 and 7:1, which is truly dismal in terms of thermodynamic efficiency (which is related to compression ratio). Diesel engines are nice in terms of efficiency because of the high running compression ratios it can achieve (14:1 and higher).
Last, I just want to add that the downside of steam power is that a boiler is a (typically heavy) pressure vessel, water is also pretty damn heavy, and a ruptured boiler is really dangerous; this is probably why steam will never catch on in anything but things that don't move, or things that are extremely large and it's a wonder that they move at all (like a ship or something).
A garbage-to-oil process would solve a lot of these issues (thermal depolymerisation, perhaps), and then you can use whatever kind of engine you want; though, whether you can do it in a manner that is cost-effective is always the issue with this kind of thing.
This is impressive! The 32 kbit HE-AAC feed sounds about as good as a 128 kbit mp3 feed. A quick look at the spectral view (32 kbit HE-AAC was about 45 seconds behind the 128 kbit mp3) of the HE-AAC shows nicer high-frequency handling in the 128 kbit mp3 (not nearly as blocky; looks more like a regular recording).
Some archaeologist could probably find something that looks like it was made for a purpose, the purpose is unclear, and it doesn't resemble any known tool. Not saying it'd be conclusive (more than one way to skin a cat), but it'd probably be a good start to look for real "dead" tools.
Possibly HFCS everything; definitely most alternative medicine and new-age treatments; zealousness for unrealistic technologies; excessive fear about anything scientific.
The Mayan calendar is still in use by the US army (who will go on Defcon 3 on 2012-12-21)
If there is any truth to this, it's probably only because of the mass hysteria that has already been spread around the internet/country about that ridiculous date.
Cavity resonators are cheap and easy to make (particularly in the microwave region), and with PWM control ("inverter" type microwaves) of the transformer inside, it'll likely still be a good trade-off in price versus performance.
We could have electric cars too, but the patents on many batteries are owned by petroleum industry corporations.
If a company had a patent on an ultra-dense rechargeable battery, I would argue that there'd be much more to be made on that as a battery of that type would be used in many existing devices, and also make possible a whole new array of portable devices that were not possible in the past. Also, the less oil people have to buy, the more they can justify spending (charge more); not to mention fewer new wells need to be drilled
Toxicity is not a by-product of radioactivity. A [very mildly] radioactive metal like lead-204 is still lead, and will kill you like lead if you are exposed to too much; the fact that it is radioactive is trivial in a case like this. In a case like U-238, the radioactivity of the metal is quite low and the real danger of handling it is heavy metal poisoning.
Note that the percentages shown in exhibit 28-6 are misleading; they only show just how much fossil fuels are burned in the United States. Why does anything need subsidization?
The answer is pretty deep, but I will try to generalise for you. First, you need to know that (stemming from quantum mechanics) the possible energy levels of electrons in an atom are quantised (the distribution is discrete and not continuous). Another item that needs to be known from quantum mechanics is that two electrons cannot occupy the same state in a system (prescribed by orbital and spin).
Next, there are two types of "bands" in a material: valence band and conduction band. The valence band refers to the energy levels that would be filled if you started filling the energy levels from the bottom-up (least energy and upward). Conduction band refers to the first "unoccupied" energy levels (any moving electrons would be in this conduction band). Note that "unoccupied" is in quotes because at normal temperatures, there is some probability that electrons can spontaneously gain some energy to jump up in energy level, but if all the electrons "settled down" to the bottom, these would be unoccupied (i.e. at absolute zero).
For any element, the energy levels of all possible electron orbitals (filled, or excited states) can be superimposed on a graph, with the vertical representing increasing energy; the result is characteristic of the type of atom. If you look at the different types of conductors (metals, semiconductors, insulators) you will start to see similarities among the groups, and this is not a coincidence. In something like metals, there is little energy difference separating the valence band from the conduction band (and they actually may overlap). At normal temperatures in metals, many electrons can spontaneously enter these excited states (you can model it with a Fermi-Dirac distribution) and can then travel semi-freely through the material. In materials that are semiconductors, there is a notable (but not too large of a) gap between the valence band and the conduction band; this is a forbidden region where no electron energy states exist. Finite amounts of electrons can spontaneously get enough energy to enter the conduction band and then travel through the material (leaving what's referred to as a hole in the valence band). On a side note, doping semiconductors is a means of tweaking the distribution electrons that enter the conduction band.
Note that no badgap (conductor) means there are some electrons in the material that are just essentially "unbound" by nuclei (electrons are easily coaxed by electric fields to create currents, though the atoms do stay somewhat neutral). Materials with too large of a bandgap are essentially insulators, as it's difficult to get electrons into the conduction band.
Slashdot Mirror
All of these statements of "natural" interfaces are garbage. There's nothing more natural in touching a monitor to control a cursor than there is using chopsticks to hold a fork. If we could manage to achieve a functional BCI (brain-computer interface, and not the scalp-electrode-based systems), then all these touch devices would be considered crude and simplistic. Everyone's vision of the future is always touch-screen tables or white rooms with floaty transparent screens that people touch to navigate menus; it just reminds me of the same in-the-box thinking when imagining how 2010 would be like to people in 1940. Touch screens are great for moving a zoomed-in picture or finger-painting, but not much more. If we could directly use our brains to control computers (moving objects like moving your arms/hands, writing messages like speaking words), then this would be a huge improvement over control systems now. If one had a BCI, then it would probably be reasonable to think that they would also want some sort of visual overlay in their eyes, and a portable functionality. The end result is somewhat like an implanted smart phone running on your body's fuel, with no screen or controls aside from integration with the person; this is a good bet on the future, since we're already half-way there.
I totally agree with you that the CRT display has several aspects that are superior to an LCD display (namely gamut, response time, black quality, etc.), but CRT TVs also have some terrible downsides. The issues I had with my CRTs were the poor resolution when hooked up to a computer, purple and green spots on the corners if feeding from a high-resolution source when the majority of the screen was white, 60 Hz v-scan flicker (I can always see it plain as day), contrast that degrades with time, visible horizontal lines, and high pitched noise during operation (close to the upper end of audible sound). It's not a clear-cut choice on which is better, specs-wise, but the LCD doesn't have the issues I listed above and my opinion is that they are quite worth it. If OLED displays ever get to replacing LCDs, then a lot of the points that you mention (and I agree with) would be non-issues.
Are you implying that humanity is a failed experiment?
This really captures the usefulness (and limitations) of a system like this
But slurred speech does not ruin a monologue
Once you have had scientist brain, you can't go back!
In comparison to a gasoline piston engine, gas turbines are more efficient and smaller. In the 60s, Chrysler tried making cars with gas turbines, but went the "direct drive" route (which isn't fitting for the "stop and go" type of city driving); it didn't work out too well. Now that we have computer controllers and electric-drive cars, a (truly) small gas-turbine could be connected to a generator to charge batteries and/or drive electric motors of modern cars. This type of engine is arguably more fitting for a hybrid, and is able to be configured to run a wider selection of fuels.
If you're trying to maintain an constant temperature, all you have to do is add in the same amount of heat that is being lost to the environment. The better the tank is insulated, the less heat loss, and the less input required.
[static]
Mostly, this post is good input, but I would argue a couple things.
First, that steam turbines are actually pretty decent in terms of real efficiency (you may have been referring to the piston-type engines). It's something something similar to high-efficiency diesel engines.
Second, that a 1940s V8 is far from 50% efficiency. From what I could dig up, these engines have a compression ratio of somewhere between 4:1 and 7:1, which is truly dismal in terms of thermodynamic efficiency (which is related to compression ratio). Diesel engines are nice in terms of efficiency because of the high running compression ratios it can achieve (14:1 and higher).
Last, I just want to add that the downside of steam power is that a boiler is a (typically heavy) pressure vessel, water is also pretty damn heavy, and a ruptured boiler is really dangerous; this is probably why steam will never catch on in anything but things that don't move, or things that are extremely large and it's a wonder that they move at all (like a ship or something).
A garbage-to-oil process would solve a lot of these issues (thermal depolymerisation, perhaps), and then you can use whatever kind of engine you want; though, whether you can do it in a manner that is cost-effective is always the issue with this kind of thing.
This is impressive! The 32 kbit HE-AAC feed sounds about as good as a 128 kbit mp3 feed. A quick look at the spectral view (32 kbit HE-AAC was about 45 seconds behind the 128 kbit mp3) of the HE-AAC shows nicer high-frequency handling in the 128 kbit mp3 (not nearly as blocky; looks more like a regular recording).
Some archaeologist could probably find something that looks like it was made for a purpose, the purpose is unclear, and it doesn't resemble any known tool. Not saying it'd be conclusive (more than one way to skin a cat), but it'd probably be a good start to look for real "dead" tools.
So good. I wonder if this existed before the idiom, or the opposite?
Possibly HFCS everything; definitely most alternative medicine and new-age treatments; zealousness for unrealistic technologies; excessive fear about anything scientific.
The Mayan calendar is still in use by the US army (who will go on Defcon 3 on 2012-12-21)
If there is any truth to this, it's probably only because of the mass hysteria that has already been spread around the internet/country about that ridiculous date.
Cavity resonators are cheap and easy to make (particularly in the microwave region), and with PWM control ("inverter" type microwaves) of the transformer inside, it'll likely still be a good trade-off in price versus performance.
Unfortunately, North America's new motto has become "let someone else figure it out and pay for it"
We could have electric cars too, but the patents on many batteries are owned by petroleum industry corporations.
If a company had a patent on an ultra-dense rechargeable battery, I would argue that there'd be much more to be made on that as a battery of that type would be used in many existing devices, and also make possible a whole new array of portable devices that were not possible in the past. Also, the less oil people have to buy, the more they can justify spending (charge more); not to mention fewer new wells need to be drilled
U-238 is not very radioactive, and it's quite nephrotoxic; likely due to its chemical nature and *not* its radioactive nature.
Toxicity is not a by-product of radioactivity. A [very mildly] radioactive metal like lead-204 is still lead, and will kill you like lead if you are exposed to too much; the fact that it is radioactive is trivial in a case like this. In a case like U-238, the radioactivity of the metal is quite low and the real danger of handling it is heavy metal poisoning.
Note that the percentages shown in exhibit 28-6 are misleading; they only show just how much fossil fuels are burned in the United States. Why does anything need subsidization?
Doesn't mean the material needs to be exploded; it can be fizzled for useful power.
nailed it
The answer is pretty deep, but I will try to generalise for you. First, you need to know that (stemming from quantum mechanics) the possible energy levels of electrons in an atom are quantised (the distribution is discrete and not continuous). Another item that needs to be known from quantum mechanics is that two electrons cannot occupy the same state in a system (prescribed by orbital and spin).
Next, there are two types of "bands" in a material: valence band and conduction band. The valence band refers to the energy levels that would be filled if you started filling the energy levels from the bottom-up (least energy and upward). Conduction band refers to the first "unoccupied" energy levels (any moving electrons would be in this conduction band). Note that "unoccupied" is in quotes because at normal temperatures, there is some probability that electrons can spontaneously gain some energy to jump up in energy level, but if all the electrons "settled down" to the bottom, these would be unoccupied (i.e. at absolute zero).
For any element, the energy levels of all possible electron orbitals (filled, or excited states) can be superimposed on a graph, with the vertical representing increasing energy; the result is characteristic of the type of atom. If you look at the different types of conductors (metals, semiconductors, insulators) you will start to see similarities among the groups, and this is not a coincidence. In something like metals, there is little energy difference separating the valence band from the conduction band (and they actually may overlap). At normal temperatures in metals, many electrons can spontaneously enter these excited states (you can model it with a Fermi-Dirac distribution) and can then travel semi-freely through the material. In materials that are semiconductors, there is a notable (but not too large of a) gap between the valence band and the conduction band; this is a forbidden region where no electron energy states exist. Finite amounts of electrons can spontaneously get enough energy to enter the conduction band and then travel through the material (leaving what's referred to as a hole in the valence band). On a side note, doping semiconductors is a means of tweaking the distribution electrons that enter the conduction band.
Note that no badgap (conductor) means there are some electrons in the material that are just essentially "unbound" by nuclei (electrons are easily coaxed by electric fields to create currents, though the atoms do stay somewhat neutral). Materials with too large of a bandgap are essentially insulators, as it's difficult to get electrons into the conduction band.