Or how else is this thing going to circle the city constantly if they only have one?
Seriously, though, the whole idea is wrong on so many levels it's not funny anymore. Privacy aside, couldn't they at least use a platform that's better suited to long-term surveillance, such as a small (drone-sized), unmanned airship?
Good catch. "We" (well, our actual researchers, not me) built a small-animal CT system that captures 2D images, rotating the animal instead of the gantry between views. That's very different from a clinical CT system.
Thinking about it - using a 2D-sensor is a logical evolution to get faster and better pictures. I mean, the very first generation didn't even use a linear sensor array, they used a single sensor that was moved in order to get the measurements at different points in space.
Then again, my last practical experience (as a patient) with a CT system was in the early 80s, when the whole procedure still took half an hour or more (at the same time, getting some MRI scans to three-and-a-half frickin' hours). Now, we're down to seconds for the CT and half an hours for the MRI.
5N thrust means it'll get 0.0000002 m/s^2 acceleration.
25,000 kg / (5 kg*m/s^2) = 0.0002 m/s^2
The moon is 384400 Km away, on average. Assuming we could just accelerate halfway there, and decelerate to a stop at the end (we can't, it's actually quite a bit more complicated, but bear with me), it would take just on 33 MONTHS to reach the moon.
s = 0.5 * a * t^2
t = sqrt(2 * s / a)
s = (384400 * 10^3m)/2 (only calculating the first leg of the trip, until deceleration starts)
a = 0.0002 m/s^2
t = 16.04 days
For CT, we acquire a bunch of 2D images through you from different angles,
Wasn't that "a whole bunch of 1D images, which are then computed into 2D-slices, which are then assembled into 3D volume representations"?
Last time I checked, CTs acquired one-dimensional images. However, it's been a while, and I work in a different field of biomedical engineering, so I haven't really kept up with more recent developments.
Or a news article where a gps unit tries to kill people?
Someone who puts the directions from his satnav over immediate safety concerns (like there's a frickin' fence up ahead) should have his license yanked. That's just plain dumb. There's always the possibility of the map data being inaccurate (all it takes is a little bit of road construction).
I can see it now - a SciFi short story in which a driver gets stranded because his navigation system fails, and there are no signs (not even street names) anywhere.
Now- Mr. Science, what do I do with the old tooth filling?
You should have just given it to your dentist. Since he has to deal with larger amounts of mercury than you, he probably has proper ways to dispose of the stuff. The second alternative would be to look for a place that disposes of hazardous waste. Where I live, there's just an extra can at the recycling center that you can put everything potentially hazardous in.
Amalgam fillings suck, by the way. Not only are they releasing minute amounts of mercury, they're also thermally conductive (since they're metal), which makes cold and hot foods a real pain in the neck if you have one or more deep fillings. And they're ugly as hell. I've had mine replaced with plastic ones when the old fillings wore out, and I haven't looked back ever since. By pure coincidence, I'm catching much fewer colds and throat infections than I used to when I had my mouth full of amalgam fillings, but I'm sure that not being exposed to a poisonous heavy metal all the time anymore has nothing to do with that.
So, there is no way the vessel will keep accelerating until the nuclear power plant runs out of fuel..... It will accelerate until it runs out of some sort physical propellant expelled as mass at the back of the ship.
You can always tune the system so that it runs out of reaction mass and reactor power at the same time (since retaining one of them is useless in absence of the other).
Are you saying that the conversion from 120V ac to 3V-dc wastes is 0.05 % efficient ?
At the ultra-low output power drawn by an IR detector, yes. Especially when the manufacturer does not put too much effort (design, components) into power efficiency.
Just think about a computer power supply - they can reach 80+% efficiency, but only under certain load conditions. Above or below such load their efficiency can be much worse.
Tvs and similar equipment with a stand-by mode also typically draw anything from 1w to 5w while doing so, which seems hugely wasteful when literally one thousanth of this should be sufficient.
Yep. Low output power draw, simple design and cheap components will result in abysmal efficiency.
I would guess that the most power efficient solution would be to charge a big-ass capacitor once in a while and run the whole system off that capacitor. However, the cost of such a solution would make the whole system unmarketable.
Here is (again) a real example: I have a 100W incandescent bulb. Because it is a pure resistive load, it has a power factor of 1. This means that the 100W = 100VA. Now, on the other hand, I have a CFL rated to draw 50 watts. But it has a power factor of.5, which means it still requires 100VA supply (50 /.5 = 100). In short, they require the exact same fuel supply from the generator and require the exact same fuel consumption.
And again your example is wrong. The 50-Watt CFL will require half the fuel supply from the generator, plus a little bit extra due to transmission losses (which will be equal to those of the 100W incandescent due to P=R*I^2).
So, if the utility company needs to produce 120W to power your 100W lightbulb (20W transmission loss), it will need to produce 70W to power your 50W CFL with a power factor of 0.5 (again 20W transmission loss, since the CFL draws the same current as the incandescent). Since utility companies usually don't charge their private customers for apparent power, it means that the utility company has to eat a 20% overhead for powering the incandescent, and a 40% overhead for powering the CFL. Of course they don't like that.
Any increase in overhead (Fuel, Taxes, Regulations, Environmental Stewardship, Waste handling, etc) will be passed on to the consumer to pay as part of their utility bill.
So, are there any laws that mandate minimum consumption for utility customers, or are customers free to change their behavior to lower their costs?
Seems people already know how to use their water in the most efficient manner.
Planting a lawn in the middle of a fscking desert is not using water in an efficient manner, no matter how many days per week you're allowed to water it.
I've got a wireless (RF) battery-operated doorbell. Logically, the receiving-end must be "on", listening for an incoming signal all the time, despite this a single pair of AA-batteries last for literally a year.
That's because you don't have the conversion inefficiency of going from 120/240V AC to something you can run an IR detector on. And you certainly don't want AA batteries in all of your IR-controlled lightbulbs, either.
Also, high-efficiency voltage converters probably don't come cheap. I'd guess that such a lamp would draw at least a few ten milliwatts, if not a few hundred milliwatts. If the manufacturer goes cheap, you might even end up with a Watt or more.
Slashdot Mirror
Ask your friendly neighborhood drug lord.
The next version of the plane is then going to be armed with 20mm cannons. Why just watch crime when you can stop it dead?
Btw, could someone tag the story "bluethunder"? I can't seem to add tags.
Seriously, though, the whole idea is wrong on so many levels it's not funny anymore. Privacy aside, couldn't they at least use a platform that's better suited to long-term surveillance, such as a small (drone-sized), unmanned airship?
Thinking about it - using a 2D-sensor is a logical evolution to get faster and better pictures. I mean, the very first generation didn't even use a linear sensor array, they used a single sensor that was moved in order to get the measurements at different points in space.
Then again, my last practical experience (as a patient) with a CT system was in the early 80s, when the whole procedure still took half an hour or more (at the same time, getting some MRI scans to three-and-a-half frickin' hours). Now, we're down to seconds for the CT and half an hours for the MRI.
25,000 kg / (5 kg*m/s^2) = 0.0002 m/s^2
The moon is 384400 Km away, on average. Assuming we could just accelerate halfway there, and decelerate to a stop at the end (we can't, it's actually quite a bit more complicated, but bear with me), it would take just on 33 MONTHS to reach the moon.
s = 0.5 * a * t^2
t = sqrt(2 * s / a)
s = (384400 * 10^3m)/2 (only calculating the first leg of the trip, until deceleration starts)
a = 0.0002 m/s^2
t = 16.04 days
So it'd take you about 32 days to get there.
For CT, we acquire a bunch of 2D images through you from different angles,
Wasn't that "a whole bunch of 1D images, which are then computed into 2D-slices, which are then assembled into 3D volume representations"?
Last time I checked, CTs acquired one-dimensional images. However, it's been a while, and I work in a different field of biomedical engineering, so I haven't really kept up with more recent developments.
I'd wager that they make more money by just paying the market price like everyone else and rake in the tax revenues.
Also, creating an area with artificially low prices of an easily transported commodity just invites all kinds of abuse.
Someone who puts the directions from his satnav over immediate safety concerns (like there's a frickin' fence up ahead) should have his license yanked. That's just plain dumb. There's always the possibility of the map data being inaccurate (all it takes is a little bit of road construction).
I keep a compass and a paper map in my car
Are there still signs on the side?
I can see it now - a SciFi short story in which a driver gets stranded because his navigation system fails, and there are no signs (not even street names) anywhere.
You should have just given it to your dentist. Since he has to deal with larger amounts of mercury than you, he probably has proper ways to dispose of the stuff. The second alternative would be to look for a place that disposes of hazardous waste. Where I live, there's just an extra can at the recycling center that you can put everything potentially hazardous in.
Amalgam fillings suck, by the way. Not only are they releasing minute amounts of mercury, they're also thermally conductive (since they're metal), which makes cold and hot foods a real pain in the neck if you have one or more deep fillings. And they're ugly as hell. I've had mine replaced with plastic ones when the old fillings wore out, and I haven't looked back ever since. By pure coincidence, I'm catching much fewer colds and throat infections than I used to when I had my mouth full of amalgam fillings, but I'm sure that not being exposed to a poisonous heavy metal all the time anymore has nothing to do with that.
What, they're going to add another one?
So, there is no way the vessel will keep accelerating until the nuclear power plant runs out of fuel... .. It will accelerate until it runs out of some sort physical propellant expelled as mass at the back of the ship.
You can always tune the system so that it runs out of reaction mass and reactor power at the same time (since retaining one of them is useless in absence of the other).
Are you saying that the conversion from 120V ac to 3V-dc wastes is 0.05 % efficient ?
At the ultra-low output power drawn by an IR detector, yes. Especially when the manufacturer does not put too much effort (design, components) into power efficiency.
Just think about a computer power supply - they can reach 80+% efficiency, but only under certain load conditions. Above or below such load their efficiency can be much worse.
Tvs and similar equipment with a stand-by mode also typically draw anything from 1w to 5w while doing so, which seems hugely wasteful when literally one thousanth of this should be sufficient.
Yep. Low output power draw, simple design and cheap components will result in abysmal efficiency.
I would guess that the most power efficient solution would be to charge a big-ass capacitor once in a while and run the whole system off that capacitor. However, the cost of such a solution would make the whole system unmarketable.
And you get better coffee to boot. Constantly heating coffee is one of the best ways to kill any flavor it might have had.
Why should the government lower its tax revenues?
Here is (again) a real example: I have a 100W incandescent bulb. Because it is a pure resistive load, it has a power factor of 1. This means that the 100W = 100VA. .5, which means it still requires 100VA supply (50 / .5 = 100).
Now, on the other hand, I have a CFL rated to draw 50 watts. But it has a power factor of
In short, they require the exact same fuel supply from the generator and require the exact same fuel consumption.
And again your example is wrong. The 50-Watt CFL will require half the fuel supply from the generator, plus a little bit extra due to transmission losses (which will be equal to those of the 100W incandescent due to P=R*I^2).
So, if the utility company needs to produce 120W to power your 100W lightbulb (20W transmission loss), it will need to produce 70W to power your 50W CFL with a power factor of 0.5 (again 20W transmission loss, since the CFL draws the same current as the incandescent). Since utility companies usually don't charge their private customers for apparent power, it means that the utility company has to eat a 20% overhead for powering the incandescent, and a 40% overhead for powering the CFL. Of course they don't like that.
You can drop off empty deposit bottles wherever they sell full ones.
Non-deposit glass containers still have to be dropped off at recycling centers and such, but the network is reasonably tight in most places.
So, are there any laws that mandate minimum consumption for utility customers, or are customers free to change their behavior to lower their costs?
"shift the burden from taxpayers to people who use power" is one of the dumber thing's I've heard come out of someone regarding Cap and Trade.
Electricity is one such product. If you use a lot, you'll pay more of this tax, if you use less, you'll pay less. How much you use is up to you.
Shift the burden from taxpayers to electricity users who are... us taxpayers.
How much electricity you use (and thus how much of the cap&trade cost you bear) is up to you.
Planting a lawn in the middle of a fscking desert is not using water in an efficient manner, no matter how many days per week you're allowed to water it.
No, just a unit conversion class. 1 ccm is 1ml, not 10. *sigh*
I've got a wireless (RF) battery-operated doorbell. Logically, the receiving-end must be "on", listening for an incoming signal all the time, despite this a single pair of AA-batteries last for literally a year.
That's because you don't have the conversion inefficiency of going from 120/240V AC to something you can run an IR detector on. And you certainly don't want AA batteries in all of your IR-controlled lightbulbs, either.
Also, high-efficiency voltage converters probably don't come cheap. I'd guess that such a lamp would draw at least a few ten milliwatts, if not a few hundred milliwatts. If the manufacturer goes cheap, you might even end up with a Watt or more.
18. Shoot self after realizing that you now have a $200k mortgage on a property with negative market value.