Toothpaste is designed not only to be all bubbly and tasty, but to make our mouth more basic (raise the pH) as well. That's why there is sodium flouride in toothpaste. The flouride ion attaches to the free hydrogen ions that are making our saliva acidic.
Hydrofluoric acid (HF) is a strong acid whose conjugate base is the fluoride ion (F-). In toothpaste, it is generally added as the soluble sodium salt (NaF). The pKa of HF is ~3.2. Unless your saliva pH is lower than 3.2, addition of F- won't help. The pH of toothpaste is, to my knowledge, above 7, meaning it is slightly basic and capable of countering the acidic environment produced by bacteria. However, it's not the fluoride ion that's responsible for this.
Is "free" a sufficiently low cost for virtualization? I very quickly installed Ubuntu using the instructions below on a Win2k and XP machine. The article links to a more complex instruction set on hackaday.com. The comments in that article include information about generating new file systems from scratch using qemu.
Linux is not up to the task. There are a number of perfectly competent consumer-level Windows applications in the $100 range that will satisfy your needs. Adobe Premiere Elements, Sony Vegas Studio, and Ulead's video application come to mind*.
As for hardware, the easiest approach is to simply make sure you have firewire. I'm assuming that if you're editting videos, you're also shooting them, probably on a digital video camera. Most such cameras have an analog video input. Digitizing an analog source using a DV camera is probably the easiest way to import the analog video into a computer. It avoids the cost of the capture card, the hassle of installing it, and any possible driver issues, and it completely negates problems with your computer dropping frames because, say, the anti-virus software fired up mid-capture. The only downside is the additional time required to dub and then import the analog video, but since neither process requires baby sitting, it may not be a big deal.
*Pinnacle Studio is another possibility, but I had a video project that, after spending many hours working on, decided it would not render until I had removed and re-inserted the various video transitions. Quite obnoxious.
I make no claim that the US's actions were any more or less self-serving than those of France. I was simply pointing out that WWI was another time when American and French interests coincided and resulted in the protection of the French homeland.
Your comments regarding Roosevelt and Pearl Harbor are exceedingly controversial and have not been proven.
I understand your interest in fighting French bashing, but that particular bit of cut and paste isn't all that great. Of primary importance, France's goals in aiding the colonists in the US's War of Independence was based as much on "good will" as was the US's invasion of Iraq. A better summary of the reasons for the intervention is given here http://xenophongroup.com/mcjoynt/allianc2.htm and goes as follows:
# There was certainly a significant desire for 'revenge' -- to see the British lose in North America, where the largest French real estate had been lost in recent war that ended in 1763. # There were broader French 'policy goals'. One goal was to improve French world-wide economic advantages. More broadly framed, the goal was to weaken Britain [France's main rival] and redress 'the balance of power' which had shifted in Britain's favor following the Seven Years' War. # France sought to improve the security of her fishing areas off Newfoundland, and the lucrative trading islands in the West Indies. Both were vulnerable to possible conquest by the North American colonists, assisted by the British navy. Separating the colonists from Britain had a very distinct, defensive advantage for the French. Contrary to American perceptions at the time, and carelessly asserted in many history articles, the French foreign minister was not interested in regaining Canada. This had been 'written off' French objectives when they transferred their Louisiana territory to Spain in 1762. The French did anticipate an opportunity to possibly acquire more islands in the West Indies, at the expense of the British. # Some sympathy for the American revolt was held by a few of the French intellectual elite [Philosophes] who idealistically favored the principles of democracy, and to a lesser degree of republicanism. Many envisioned a half-measure, with democracy applied under an enlightened monarchy being conceivable. Such feelings were also shared by a small group of English intellectuals. While the words of such intellectuals would often be quoted in association with the Franco-American Alliance, such individuals did not have the power to effect political or military actions. # There was a growing population of 'unemployed' military officers looking for employment. The French military reforms led to a reduction of active officer positions -- at least in contrast to the prior war years. A 'streamlining' of the army units was concurrent with material improvements ['force modernization'] being undertaken with infantry muskets, artillery pieces, etc., as well as an expanding naval ship inventory. # There were some cautionary arguments against French involvement in a possible American rebellion. The French Controller General Turgot feared the financial strain of another war with England. Louis XVI was also not enthusiastic about supporting a rebellion against a monarch.
It's also worth noting that "liberty, equality and fraternity" was the motto of the French revolution... in 1789, a few years after the War of Independence. And finally, the US came to the aid of France in WWII _and_ in WWI.
All that said, as an American, I do appreciate that Statue of Liberty, forcing Cornwallis to surrender to Washington, and the really great deal we got on the Louisiana Purchase. The wine's good too.
Yes, but "refresh rate" has completely different implications CRT's and LCD's. The CRT recreates its entire display at its refresh rate: every pixel on a 75Hz screen *blinks* at 75Hz. Blinking at low ratees can result in significant eye strain.
The refresh rate for an LCD is simply how often it can change a pixel. LCD displays don't blink (well, unless you tell them to).
The only thing going for the LCDs is the Power Usage. Pollution has yet to be decided.
Using less power probably contributes significantly to pollution reduction.
Another thing going for the CRTs is that they can provide true collor every time while LCDs can only aproximate it.
This should be of huge importance to, oh, less than 1% of the market -- or whatever the percentage is that have color calibratiion devices for their monitor.
how about car insurance based on mileage.. rather, make a gas tax that provides car insurance with the fill up. If you have gas in your car, you have insurance
The down-side to this is, of course, that it doesn't do much to correct bad and/or dangerous drivers. I've seen proposals for this type of no-fault insurance and they're interesting. I'm just not sure I want to let the 10-ticket driver of the Prius pay less than the 0-ticket driver of a Camry for the same coverage.
Trucks can't be electric because the sheer amount of torque needed to simply budge that 80,000 lbs of cargo.
Freight trains run on electric motor powered either by overhead electric lines or diesel turbines. Torque is not an issue for electric motors. Power storage would be the primary concern.
What about those of us who live in areas where public transportation is not an option, and the nearest set of places to work a --real-- job are roughly 15-25 miles away at least?
Sufficiently high gas prices will generate an interest in public transportation. Car pooling already exists. Telecommuting is occasionally possible. Working under the assumption (which can be argued) that burning gas "is bad", there must be an economic pressure against it.
Why should I be forced to pay more for something I have little control over? My car gets 30+ mpg, isn't a hybrid, and I have to drive quite a ways to get anywhere (Gotta love GA Suburbia) - so again I ask - why should I - when faced with little other choice - be forced to pay more?
Why not you? You're using a lightly-used road that is probably incurring more per-car costs than a heavily-used road. You're not car pooling. You have ~40 mile daily commute. Who, would you argue, should pay? I'm sure you have a very good reason for not moving closer to your work. That's fine! But there's no reason the economics of transportation should be excluded from such decisions. You already drive a reasonably fuel efficient car -- great! You will bear less of a burden than the H2 drivers making the same commute. And when you buy your next car, there will be even more efficient cars than you current one on the market due to demand.
LOL! I knew Georgians were weird but I didn't know y'all were zombies. Anyway, surely the CDC is pulling a few brains already. Come to think of it, shouldn't they be dealing with the zombies?
You've hammered away at taxes on gas but argue that CAFE-like legislation is the right direction. Consider this counter argument:
Increasing the fuel efficiency of cars through CAFE-type legislation decreases the cost/mile required to operate them. This does not provide any incentive for a vehicle user to travel a shorter distance, rather it allows them to travel further. Legislation like CAFE alone does not work because it does not hit the end user, the consumer, in the one place where she or he will feel it: the pocketbook.
A gas tax is a better solution in a market-driven economy. It hits the end-user where they will feel it and creates a new demand, in this case for fuel-efficient car. There's a reason that small Japanese cars became popular in the 70's and it sure as heck wasn't fuel efficiency related legislation.
The government doesn't need to "tell" to megacorporations anything in this case: they'll go where the money is, whether it's in H2's or hybrids.
Will a primus will do less damage to the road than a light truck or a small car? The answer is: it depends on the vehicle we're comparing it to. Those batteries are heavy.:D
Surely you saw this coming. A Prius weighs 2890lb, a Civic EX (AT) weighs 2668lb. Pretty negligible.
Let's be honest here, Not everyone can drive a primus around. Trucks and other gas powered will always be needed, expecially for rural and long distance driving.
A Prius with a low-ball mpg rating of 44 (a real-world number I've heard) and its 11.9 gallon tank can go over 500 miles. How far apart are gas stations where you're talking about? I think the basic problem here is you're assuming the Prius is electric. It's not; it's a hybrid. So why can't the truck be a hybrid?
If we continue down taxing gas usage only, we'll get to a point where rural areas are paying a significant part of the taxes for upkeep of the road, while the city population, which would be near 100% electric in 10 ~ 30 years, gets off tax free.
No, people in rural areas will use more efficient vehicles. Last I checked, electric power also made it out there -- why do you think an all-electric vehicle wouldn't be practical in 10-30 years?
Taxing gas is the incorrect tool for the job.
No, it's the perfect tool. It pays for the impact of vehicles in the same way as gambling, smoking, and alcohol pay for their impact: through a sin tax. A gas tax encourages more efficient vehicles, shorter commutes, and public transportation. Taxing mileage only encourages the latter two.
"I don't know everything, but I know where to find it when I need it"
With thanks to Rumsfeld, the problem is not the known unknowns, for which information can be found. Rather, the problem is the unknown unknowns, those things which you not only don't know, but don't know that you don't know.
This would argue that the key is to read the titles and abstracts of publications, but not delve into them until you know you need them.
Yes, this entire post was just an excuse to get to play with the Rumsfeldian logic.
I don't remember these from my youth, and that's unfortunate. The "gifts" are actually a series of educational toys to help in child development. They were created by a crystallographer who also happened to invent kindegarten. There's a surprising amount of math buried in the toys.
We're splitting hairs at this point -- I'd pull my car over to let someone smoke, but there's no way I'd allow them to smoke *in* the car (or befoul my car's ash tray:) ).
Politeness dictates that we reach a compromise, not that I yield completely
Thanks for your permission, but I suggest you drop the whole "holier-than-thou" attitude if you ever expect to get anywhere in life.
Given the research on the topic, you might be confusing "holier-than-thou" with "smarter-than-thou". Of course if you're familiar with the whole lung cancer thing and cool with it, "more-sane-than-thou" might be even more appropriate.
And California banning smoking in all public places is a bloody enlightened policy. It's great that the state protects the personal freedom of non-smokers not to smoke.
Nope, no more dangerous than sucking bus exhaust, inhaling sewer gas, or hanging out near the wrong end of a fume hood. You know, the kind of stuff most people try to work into their daily schedule.
Well, better go to the medical supply store, buy a rather large 02 tank, and a face mask. Come to think of it, a biohazard suit would work well.
That would be one approach. Alternatively, we could have closed sewer systems, call for electric and/or natural-gas buses, and force fume hoods to be vented away from where people are breathing.
From what I've seen, many outspoken and staunch anti smokers are subject to several hazardous environmental variables, aside from cigarettes. It is one of the hazards of living in a densly populated and modern society.
You'll forgive me if I don't find the "pollution is just part of modern life" argument terribly compelling.
Nope. 'Secondary smoke' is no more dangerous than anything else.
Nope, no more dangerous than sucking bus exhaust, inhaling sewer gas, or hanging out near the wrong end of a fume hood. You know, the kind of stuff most people try to work into their daily schedule.
Now, of course a polite smoker will ask those around him if they mind him smoking;
I'm not familiar with any person like that. Sure, they might ask the people at their table, but they never bother with the groups downwind.
and of course polite non-smokers will reply that they do not.
No, the polite non-smoker (who still has a sense of smell) would reply, "I'm sorry, I'm rather sensitive to cigarette smoke; but I'll happily wait here if you'd like to take a break." That the smoker even asked the question acknowledges the fact that smoking is something many people find unpleasant to be around. Saying the non-smoker should accept it is rather like someone saying, "Please, kick me in the head!" just because they were asked politely.
I suspect that a growing population on non-expert Linux users could be a potential security vulnerability.
Reminds me of the joke about boy scouts and bears. If the troop's attacked by a bear, you don't have to run faster than the bear, just faster than one of the other scouts.
Perhaps inundating the internet with new linux users will prove to be a boon to those who can run their systems in a secure fashion. Assuming, of course, you don't have to network with the new guys.
This has been on CNN (TV) for a while now. Supposedly "Republican observers" noted that machines at one location had registered 1300 votes before the polls had opened. "Poll officials" and some "impartial observers" checked the machines. The 1300 votes were actually the votes cast using that machine over its lifetime, not number of votes recorded today.
The mayor of Philadelphia seemed to think this was Republican shenanigans. I think it's more likely that the observers had one two many double espressos this morning.
Slashdot Mirror
Hydrofluoric acid (HF) is a strong acid whose conjugate base is the fluoride ion (F-). In toothpaste, it is generally added as the soluble sodium salt (NaF). The pKa of HF is ~3.2. Unless your saliva pH is lower than 3.2, addition of F- won't help. The pH of toothpaste is, to my knowledge, above 7, meaning it is slightly basic and capable of countering the acidic environment produced by bacteria. However, it's not the fluoride ion that's responsible for this.
Is "free" a sufficiently low cost for virtualization? I very quickly installed Ubuntu using the instructions below on a Win2k and XP machine. The article links to a more complex instruction set on hackaday.com. The comments in that article include information about generating new file systems from scratch using qemu.
p layer-hacked.html
http://valentinlaube.blogspot.com/2005/10/vmware-
Good luck!
Perhaps in another 20 years, we'll all learn what the plural form of "virus" is.
But otherwise, you have some good points.
Yes, but it's an english translation...
Linux is not up to the task. There are a number of perfectly competent consumer-level Windows applications in the $100 range that will satisfy your needs. Adobe Premiere Elements, Sony Vegas Studio, and Ulead's video application come to mind*.
As for hardware, the easiest approach is to simply make sure you have firewire. I'm assuming that if you're editting videos, you're also shooting them, probably on a digital video camera. Most such cameras have an analog video input. Digitizing an analog source using a DV camera is probably the easiest way to import the analog video into a computer. It avoids the cost of the capture card, the hassle of installing it, and any possible driver issues, and it completely negates problems with your computer dropping frames because, say, the anti-virus software fired up mid-capture. The only downside is the additional time required to dub and then import the analog video, but since neither process requires baby sitting, it may not be a big deal.
*Pinnacle Studio is another possibility, but I had a video project that, after spending many hours working on, decided it would not render until I had removed and re-inserted the various video transitions. Quite obnoxious.
I make no claim that the US's actions were any more or less self-serving than those of France. I was simply pointing out that WWI was another time when American and French interests coincided and resulted in the protection of the French homeland.
Your comments regarding Roosevelt and Pearl Harbor are exceedingly controversial and have not been proven.
It's also worth noting that "liberty, equality and fraternity" was the motto of the French revolution... in 1789, a few years after the War of Independence. And finally, the US came to the aid of France in WWII _and_ in WWI.
All that said, as an American, I do appreciate that Statue of Liberty, forcing Cornwallis to surrender to Washington, and the really great deal we got on the Louisiana Purchase. The wine's good too.
Cheers!
The refresh rate for an LCD is simply how often it can change a pixel. LCD displays don't blink (well, unless you tell them to).
Using less power probably contributes significantly to pollution reduction.
This should be of huge importance to, oh, less than 1% of the market -- or whatever the percentage is that have color calibratiion devices for their monitor.
Why not you? You're using a lightly-used road that is probably incurring more per-car costs than a heavily-used road. You're not car pooling. You have ~40 mile daily commute. Who, would you argue, should pay? I'm sure you have a very good reason for not moving closer to your work. That's fine! But there's no reason the economics of transportation should be excluded from such decisions. You already drive a reasonably fuel efficient car -- great! You will bear less of a burden than the H2 drivers making the same commute. And when you buy your next car, there will be even more efficient cars than you current one on the market due to demand.
LOL! I knew Georgians were weird but I didn't know y'all were zombies. Anyway, surely the CDC is pulling a few brains already. Come to think of it, shouldn't they be dealing with the zombies?
Cheers from WA, on the other side of the country!
Is the brain drain expected because those with brains drive gas guzzlers or because they don't like being tracked?
I'll hope for the latter... If it's the former, GA can keep them.
You've hammered away at taxes on gas but argue that CAFE-like legislation is the right direction. Consider this counter argument:
Increasing the fuel efficiency of cars through CAFE-type legislation decreases the cost/mile required to operate them. This does not provide any incentive for a vehicle user to travel a shorter distance, rather it allows them to travel further. Legislation like CAFE alone does not work because it does not hit the end user, the consumer, in the one place where she or he will feel it: the pocketbook.
A gas tax is a better solution in a market-driven economy. It hits the end-user where they will feel it and creates a new demand, in this case for fuel-efficient car. There's a reason that small Japanese cars became popular in the 70's and it sure as heck wasn't fuel efficiency related legislation.
The government doesn't need to "tell" to megacorporations anything in this case: they'll go where the money is, whether it's in H2's or hybrids.
A Prius with a low-ball mpg rating of 44 (a real-world number I've heard) and its 11.9 gallon tank can go over 500 miles. How far apart are gas stations where you're talking about? I think the basic problem here is you're assuming the Prius is electric. It's not; it's a hybrid. So why can't the truck be a hybrid?
No, people in rural areas will use more efficient vehicles. Last I checked, electric power also made it out there -- why do you think an all-electric vehicle wouldn't be practical in 10-30 years?
No, it's the perfect tool. It pays for the impact of vehicles in the same way as gambling, smoking, and alcohol pay for their impact: through a sin tax. A gas tax encourages more efficient vehicles, shorter commutes, and public transportation. Taxing mileage only encourages the latter two.
With thanks to Rumsfeld, the problem is not the known unknowns, for which information can be found. Rather, the problem is the unknown unknowns, those things which you not only don't know, but don't know that you don't know.
This would argue that the key is to read the titles and abstracts of publications, but not delve into them until you know you need them.
Yes, this entire post was just an excuse to get to play with the Rumsfeldian logic.
I don't remember these from my youth, and that's unfortunate. The "gifts" are actually a series of educational toys to help in child development. They were created by a crystallographer who also happened to invent kindegarten. There's a surprising amount of math buried in the toys.
Froebel Gifts
We're splitting hairs at this point -- I'd pull my car over to let someone smoke, but there's no way I'd allow them to smoke *in* the car (or befoul my car's ash tray :) ).
Politeness dictates that we reach a compromise, not that I yield completely
Cheers!
And California banning smoking in all public places is a bloody enlightened policy. It's great that the state protects the personal freedom of non-smokers not to smoke.
No, the polite non-smoker (who still has a sense of smell) would reply, "I'm sorry, I'm rather sensitive to cigarette smoke; but I'll happily wait here if you'd like to take a break." That the smoker even asked the question acknowledges the fact that smoking is something many people find unpleasant to be around. Saying the non-smoker should accept it is rather like someone saying, "Please, kick me in the head!" just because they were asked politely.
This has been on CNN (TV) for a while now. Supposedly "Republican observers" noted that machines at one location had registered 1300 votes before the polls had opened. "Poll officials" and some "impartial observers" checked the machines. The 1300 votes were actually the votes cast using that machine over its lifetime, not number of votes recorded today.
The mayor of Philadelphia seemed to think this was Republican shenanigans. I think it's more likely that the observers had one two many double espressos this morning.