They certainly can't say you're not allowed to have a data-capable phone which doesn't have a data plan.
Is that right? I thought that their networks are sufficiently under their control to allow them to exclude whomever (and whatever) they want. Am I wrong?
Perhaps a carrier like T-Mobile ignores out-of-defined-use of smartphones, but do other carriers?
I don't have a contract, and will never have another one again. When I was on a contract, I hated being locked in when I discovered that AT&T sucks in interior Alaska and couldn't switch without incurring a penalty. (While in Cantwell, I had a signal, but couldn't make a call: They couldn't tell me why. There were at least two more reasons I wanted to switch away.)
I have a vague memory, though, of reading that carriers can get the model of your phone, and will happily add data if they find you're using a smart phone without a data plan. Perhaps I should be more bold.
Right now, I'm paying $30/mo for a local plan, with an older phone. It includes unlimited calling ad unlimited texting with 1 GB of data and fantastic coverage. I don't have a strong incentive anymore for trying to dump the data fees, though I did give it serious thought and eliminated the possibility because of the limitations I perceived.
How did you (or she) manage that? Every carrier I've seen requires data with any smartphone connected to the network, and I thought I read that they can detect the phone. I've thought about doing exactly this, but haven't been bold enough to give it a go.
Sorry, I should have expounded a little more. I read the article and the discussion here intending to ask the same question that ericlowe did. I answered much too concisely after I looked up the definition, so I skipped some of the thought process.
I didn't mean to imply that it was successful, only that the machine deployed from its lander. I suppose that I would have been more complete had I said that it had deployed properly up to "x" point, then failed at "y." (In the example that dictionary.com provided, even if the landing gear of a plane deploys properly, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will "accomplish its mission" and land safely.)
I calculate the potential energy of water at about 2.7E6 J, while a gallon of gasoline has 130E6 J. A close equivalence, I think, is to assume that only 1/5 of the gasoline can be converted to mechanical energy at the wheels. That leaves about 26E6 J from a gallon of gasoline, ignoring any inefficiencies in the systems on the electric car, about 10X more energy than your hour-long (minimum, assuming an 8% grade) trek to grab water.
For every rhetorical question, there is an answer. I used to live in Beverly Hills, and was surprised when I learned that a permit is required for a garage sale. (I was amused to see in my search on Google that Beverly Hills, TX also requires a garage sale permit.)
I don't think that this is feasible. I ran a quick calculation, and assuming that you wanted to melt an inch of snow within one hour, and also assuming perfect heat transfer, you would need to supply 2.2HP, or about 1.7kW for the heat of fusion, assuming 1,000 sf of panels. (Somebody above suggested this as appropriate to completely supply a home and car.) This is nearly 15A at 120V for a heating circuit, and I've not yet accounted for heat loss or the latent heat to bring it up to 32F.
I've never before commented concerning moderation, so I hope that this carries some small weight in the moderation that follows my reaction. It seems to me that this should be (Score 2 or Score 3, Interesting), rather than the flamebait and troll that seem to dominate. This person has given a reasonable, though not fully considered, response to the grandparent. Please refer to the other responsive comments before you moderate.
If they are obviously jumping well outside of their field. ..
Are they? I'm not qualified to say that both of the editors are engaged outside their field. It certainly looks to me, though, like geophysics is closely related to studies of climate change. (The geophysical institute at the university I finished with some years ago has produced a number of researchers on both sides of this particular debate.)
. ..silly vanity press rag.
I don't think that you've looked or studied far enough to reach this conclusion: This paper, and lots more like it seem relevant to geophysics. I read the abstracts of the papers in the second edition and begin to sympathize with the publisher, but I'm not qualified to make a blanket statement that the editors are unqualified; are you?
. ..really, really skeptical about people whose science can be bought
My general position is so close to that which you've expressed in this posting that it sounds like words I may have said. This last bit, though, deserves a slightly cautionary warning. As my username makes clear, I'm not a scientist, but an engineer. For more than a decade, I worked as a consulting engineer preparing traffic, parking and other transportation studies, generally for private enterprise. Over the last 2 1/2 years, I've worked in the public sector designing highway safety improvements, as well as preparing parking studies. Right now, I'm repairing a parking study, initially prepared by other engineers, that is so badly skewed in the public favor, that I strongly suspect an ill-favored bias on the previous engineers' part, or perhaps a ridiculous incompetence in the subject matter. (Both positions are difficult, as I know the engineers involved in the previous study.)
While I used the previous paragraph to make a point, I'm going to use this one to counter it. I don't know about scientists, but engineers (ostensibly) work under a code of ethics that should prevent a bias. My experience in the private sector, with primarily private sector clients, and my work in the public sector with some truly outstanding people, suggests to me that the majority of engineers are mindful of the ethics governing our profession. (I want to be clear, here, that I'm not a scientist. My work was strictly a stochastic analysis of empirical data to hypothetical future conditions.
I don't know if geophysicists (or climate scientists) in Stockholm, Algiers, Timbuktu, or Bumfuck, Ohio are governed by a professional code of conduct. I tend to think, though, that most are really trying to do good work, even if I think some are misguided. Others will make their bias clear, while a few will be completely incompetent or have a problem with judgment (like our friend the water-dowser) that makes their professional work suspect.
The sum result of my blathering should be that you ought to be as suspicious of research funded by, edited by or done by the public sector or the WWF as you are of the same performed by a petroleum institute.
--
p.s. I don't give a pass to oil companies or to institutions in the field. My initial degree study (3 years) was for a BS in petroleum engineering. My first internship was with a drilling company; an internship which caused me to change my major. I also live in Alaska, whose legislature was recently convinced to change our taxes on oil production. I *know*, first-hand, how short-sighted and selfish these companies are. I also understand quite well how dependent the related academia is on money from the industry.
Apparently, the journal publishes more than just climate articles.
I was going to point out that I didn't think much of your conclusion that a geophysicist working for a school that specializes in teaching how to drill for oil should necessarily be viewed as acting in strictly political interests. I also thought that you were being disingenuous in not pointing out that there are two geophysicists, the other from Stockholm, who are co-editors.
That was until I realized that I recognized the name of the editor you don't mention: Nils-Axel Morner. Apparently, among his other talents, he douses water. Instead, I'm going to pull an "ad hominem" out of my hat and suggest that we should be skeptical of a journal edited in part by a water-douser.
I had a half page memo typed as to why you were wrong but I can't be bothered to type it out. ..
You need to see a doctor about this.
See Jane Q Public's response. ..
The freezing point of propylene glycol has little to do with what I said. Automotive antifreeze is most commonly ethylene glycol, while propylene glycol is marketed as a "green" alternative.
The rest of your statement just sounds truthy, but it's wrong.
I guess I've not been clear enough: There's coolant outside the engine block that can't freeze either, and isn't heated. Plus, you *really* don't want to lose an engine because you forgot to plug in the heaters. So, you don't prevent the coolant freezing by adding a heater, you prevent the coolant freezing by having the appropriate coolant mixture.
The amount of heat soaked into the block does in a small way help with cold starting but that isn't the primary purpose for a block heater.
Eh? How did you decide this? A block heater absolutely helps with starting, and by itself, doesn't warm the oil all that much. If it's cold enough for the oil to be a problem, you add an oil pan heater.
. ..and also to keep the coolant liquefied.
No, no, no. The coolant has to take care of itself. The block heater is only for the engine block, not for the radiator. If the coolant mixture isn't appropriate for the temperature, you'll have problems with or without a block heater.
Ah, how many untold lost hours I spent on those two games. I filled notebooks with information about areas to avoid, resources, et c. I was a little more fond of the first than the second, but both were great.
Alas, though, I don't have the time to spend on these any more. I wonder how many people of an age to remember the games still enjoy gaming? I've bought Humble Bundles three times, intending to have a little fun, but still haven't even bother to install anything I bought. These days, I might spend a few minutes on Slashdot, but my kids, wife, work and chores all conspire to fill my waking hours.
690.15 Disconnection of Photovoltaic Equipment
Means shall be provided to disconnect equipment, such as inverters, batteries, and charge controllers, from all ungrounded conductors of all sources. If the equipment is energized from more than one source, the disconnecting means shall be grouped and identified.
It's already there, and has been there for some time. There's lots more about location, manual operability, et c.
I started out intending to past a comment similar to yours, so I went through comments by mc6809e for about 20 minutes, and can't find any indications that mc6809e (McFhaie?) gives a fig one way or the other. I found one other post relating to climate (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3588831&cid=43296077) and one post indirectly discussing pollution (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3167773&cid=41568249).
Ah. Sorry, I made a bad assumption: I assumed that you were talking about US roads. (I was puzzled about the B-52 reference.) I'll try not to repeat the assumption here.
Slashdot Mirror
I had a hard time finding a translation "walgvogel" other than as dodo, so I'll put it here for others. From An Etymological Dictionary of the English Language I discovered that:
Walgvogel in Dutch means "nauseous bird;" it seems that the sailors killed them so easily that they were surfeited of them.
I also discovered that both dodo and booby (the bird) are probably portuguese words.
They certainly can't say you're not allowed to have a data-capable phone which doesn't have a data plan.
Is that right? I thought that their networks are sufficiently under their control to allow them to exclude whomever (and whatever) they want. Am I wrong?
Perhaps a carrier like T-Mobile ignores out-of-defined-use of smartphones, but do other carriers?
unlimited calling ad unlimited texting
That should be "and," rather than "ad." GCI doesn't serve up ads as you use their service.
I don't have a contract, and will never have another one again. When I was on a contract, I hated being locked in when I discovered that AT&T sucks in interior Alaska and couldn't switch without incurring a penalty. (While in Cantwell, I had a signal, but couldn't make a call: They couldn't tell me why. There were at least two more reasons I wanted to switch away.)
I have a vague memory, though, of reading that carriers can get the model of your phone, and will happily add data if they find you're using a smart phone without a data plan. Perhaps I should be more bold.
Right now, I'm paying $30/mo for a local plan, with an older phone. It includes unlimited calling ad unlimited texting with 1 GB of data and fantastic coverage. I don't have a strong incentive anymore for trying to dump the data fees, though I did give it serious thought and eliminated the possibility because of the limitations I perceived.
Do you mind sharing which carrier you use?
My daughter has an iPhone without a data plan. . .
How did you (or she) manage that? Every carrier I've seen requires data with any smartphone connected to the network, and I thought I read that they can detect the phone. I've thought about doing exactly this, but haven't been bold enough to give it a go.
Sorry, I should have expounded a little more. I read the article and the discussion here intending to ask the same question that ericlowe did. I answered much too concisely after I looked up the definition, so I skipped some of the thought process.
I didn't mean to imply that it was successful, only that the machine deployed from its lander. I suppose that I would have been more complete had I said that it had deployed properly up to "x" point, then failed at "y." (In the example that dictionary.com provided, even if the landing gear of a plane deploys properly, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will "accomplish its mission" and land safely.)
deploy
verb (used without object)
4. to come into a position ready for use: the plane can't land unless the landing gear deploys.
I calculate the potential energy of water at about 2.7E6 J, while a gallon of gasoline has 130E6 J. A close equivalence, I think, is to assume that only 1/5 of the gasoline can be converted to mechanical energy at the wheels. That leaves about 26E6 J from a gallon of gasoline, ignoring any inefficiencies in the systems on the electric car, about 10X more energy than your hour-long (minimum, assuming an 8% grade) trek to grab water.
For every rhetorical question, there is an answer. I used to live in Beverly Hills, and was surprised when I learned that a permit is required for a garage sale. (I was amused to see in my search on Google that Beverly Hills, TX also requires a garage sale permit.)
I don't think that this is feasible. I ran a quick calculation, and assuming that you wanted to melt an inch of snow within one hour, and also assuming perfect heat transfer, you would need to supply 2.2HP, or about 1.7kW for the heat of fusion, assuming 1,000 sf of panels. (Somebody above suggested this as appropriate to completely supply a home and car.) This is nearly 15A at 120V for a heating circuit, and I've not yet accounted for heat loss or the latent heat to bring it up to 32F.
I've never before commented concerning moderation, so I hope that this carries some small weight in the moderation that follows my reaction. It seems to me that this should be (Score 2 or Score 3, Interesting), rather than the flamebait and troll that seem to dominate. This person has given a reasonable, though not fully considered, response to the grandparent. Please refer to the other responsive comments before you moderate.
If they are obviously jumping well outside of their field. . .
Are they? I'm not qualified to say that both of the editors are engaged outside their field. It certainly looks to me, though, like geophysics is closely related to studies of climate change. (The geophysical institute at the university I finished with some years ago has produced a number of researchers on both sides of this particular debate.)
. . .silly vanity press rag.
I don't think that you've looked or studied far enough to reach this conclusion: This paper, and lots more like it seem relevant to geophysics. I read the abstracts of the papers in the second edition and begin to sympathize with the publisher, but I'm not qualified to make a blanket statement that the editors are unqualified; are you?
. . .really, really skeptical about people whose science can be bought
My general position is so close to that which you've expressed in this posting that it sounds like words I may have said. This last bit, though, deserves a slightly cautionary warning. As my username makes clear, I'm not a scientist, but an engineer. For more than a decade, I worked as a consulting engineer preparing traffic, parking and other transportation studies, generally for private enterprise. Over the last 2 1/2 years, I've worked in the public sector designing highway safety improvements, as well as preparing parking studies. Right now, I'm repairing a parking study, initially prepared by other engineers, that is so badly skewed in the public favor, that I strongly suspect an ill-favored bias on the previous engineers' part, or perhaps a ridiculous incompetence in the subject matter. (Both positions are difficult, as I know the engineers involved in the previous study.)
While I used the previous paragraph to make a point, I'm going to use this one to counter it. I don't know about scientists, but engineers (ostensibly) work under a code of ethics that should prevent a bias. My experience in the private sector, with primarily private sector clients, and my work in the public sector with some truly outstanding people, suggests to me that the majority of engineers are mindful of the ethics governing our profession. (I want to be clear, here, that I'm not a scientist. My work was strictly a stochastic analysis of empirical data to hypothetical future conditions.
I don't know if geophysicists (or climate scientists) in Stockholm, Algiers, Timbuktu, or Bumfuck, Ohio are governed by a professional code of conduct. I tend to think, though, that most are really trying to do good work, even if I think some are misguided. Others will make their bias clear, while a few will be completely incompetent or have a problem with judgment (like our friend the water-dowser) that makes their professional work suspect.
The sum result of my blathering should be that you ought to be as suspicious of research funded by, edited by or done by the public sector or the WWF as you are of the same performed by a petroleum institute.
--
p.s. I don't give a pass to oil companies or to institutions in the field. My initial degree study (3 years) was for a BS in petroleum engineering. My first internship was with a drilling company; an internship which caused me to change my major. I also live in Alaska, whose legislature was recently convinced to change our taxes on oil production. I *know*, first-hand, how short-sighted and selfish these companies are. I also understand quite well how dependent the related academia is on money from the industry.
. . .And I did it twice! :-) Thanks. It's been a long day.
Apparently, the journal publishes more than just climate articles.
I was going to point out that I didn't think much of your conclusion that a geophysicist working for a school that specializes in teaching how to drill for oil should necessarily be viewed as acting in strictly political interests. I also thought that you were being disingenuous in not pointing out that there are two geophysicists, the other from Stockholm, who are co-editors.
That was until I realized that I recognized the name of the editor you don't mention: Nils-Axel Morner. Apparently, among his other talents, he douses water. Instead, I'm going to pull an "ad hominem" out of my hat and suggest that we should be skeptical of a journal edited in part by a water-douser.
There are about 5.4 accidents per million vehicle miles travelled, so that's about one accident every 185,000 miles.
I had a half page memo typed as to why you were wrong but I can't be bothered to type it out. . .
You need to see a doctor about this.
See Jane Q Public's response. . .
The freezing point of propylene glycol has little to do with what I said. Automotive antifreeze is most commonly ethylene glycol, while propylene glycol is marketed as a "green" alternative.
The rest of your statement just sounds truthy, but it's wrong.
Nope.
I guess I've not been clear enough: There's coolant outside the engine block that can't freeze either, and isn't heated. Plus, you *really* don't want to lose an engine because you forgot to plug in the heaters. So, you don't prevent the coolant freezing by adding a heater, you prevent the coolant freezing by having the appropriate coolant mixture.
The amount of heat soaked into the block does in a small way help with cold starting but that isn't the primary purpose for a block heater.
Eh? How did you decide this? A block heater absolutely helps with starting, and by itself, doesn't warm the oil all that much. If it's cold enough for the oil to be a problem, you add an oil pan heater.
. . .and also to keep the coolant liquefied.
No, no, no. The coolant has to take care of itself. The block heater is only for the engine block, not for the radiator. If the coolant mixture isn't appropriate for the temperature, you'll have problems with or without a block heater.
Ah, how many untold lost hours I spent on those two games. I filled notebooks with information about areas to avoid, resources, et c. I was a little more fond of the first than the second, but both were great.
Alas, though, I don't have the time to spend on these any more. I wonder how many people of an age to remember the games still enjoy gaming? I've bought Humble Bundles three times, intending to have a little fun, but still haven't even bother to install anything I bought. These days, I might spend a few minutes on Slashdot, but my kids, wife, work and chores all conspire to fill my waking hours.
An F-350 *is* a light truck. Here are Ford's medium-duty trucks:
http://www.ford.com/commercial-trucks/f650-f750/
It must have been a 2WD with a limited slip differential. Most pickups have little traction until the front end is locked in.
From the 2014 NEC Handbook:
690.15 Disconnection of Photovoltaic Equipment
Means shall be provided to disconnect equipment, such as inverters, batteries, and charge controllers, from all ungrounded conductors of all sources. If the equipment is energized from more than one source, the disconnecting means shall be grouped and identified.
It's already there, and has been there for some time. There's lots more about location, manual operability, et c.
I started out intending to past a comment similar to yours, so I went through comments by mc6809e for about 20 minutes, and can't find any indications that mc6809e (McFhaie?) gives a fig one way or the other. I found one other post relating to climate (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3588831&cid=43296077) and one post indirectly discussing pollution (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3167773&cid=41568249).
Ah. Sorry, I made a bad assumption: I assumed that you were talking about US roads. (I was puzzled about the B-52 reference.) I'll try not to repeat the assumption here.