The glass tube doesn't dissapear. Think of a fluorescent tube: when it is lit, it radiates light and non-visible EMR, but when it's off, it doesn't. Now ideally, a metallic antenna won't either, but since it's a conductive material, nearby electric and magentic fields will induce magnetic and electric fields which *could* be detected or, more practically, a metallic antenna will reflect EM waves that strike it whereas glass won't (or at least will do so to a far lesser extent).
A far more realistic problem is going to be maintaining a sealed glass tube of some kind on a battlefield, but there are many solutions to that problem as well: stronger glass, some kind of plastic perhaps, shielding the antenna in some kind of enclosure.
It's been a while since my inorganic chem classes, but can't ruby be synthesized? I seem to recall that high quality is difficult to acheive, but if you're just going to melt it down, you only need fairly small bits to be somewhat uniform. It may not be as tough as natural ruby (don't remember) but it's still going to be damn strong.
I would assume the same way you ground something in a car, which is isolated by rubber tires: a large mass of metal, usually the body or engine (or both), serves as the ground.
What will make the average person decide to stand up for their freedom The cancellation of American Idol, Survivor and the rest of the 'reality' programming tripe I fear.
- continuing the trend, graphics cards will keep needing increasingly more dedicated power connectors, and increasingly more pins on them. We started at 1 with 4 pins, and now we're at "ATI won't activate this or that function if you don't have 8 pins on the second power connector." I foresee that in 15 years we'll be at 6 power connectors with 16 pins each, just to bring enough currentto the graphics card.
Hmm, not sure I mentioned pins anwhere there. Did I? Nope:P
And don't worry if you didn't plan in advance and only brought a lighter, five minutes after takeoff, the flight attendants will kindly give you alcohol and napkins.
My last trip, I ended up sitting beside an elderly gentleman that managed to get rather smashingly drunk for a 90 minute flight.
When I was on a flight at the end of August, I had a short layover. I had one lighter in my carry-on and one in my checked baggage. The one in my baggage was empty, the one in my pocket was full. I was allowed on the first flight, no problems. While I was on layover, I aws pulled aside and made to rip apart my two bags to take the lighters out and, because I wanted to keep them, find an envelope and stamps to mail them to myself. Both lighters were Zippos. It was explained to me that I would have been permitted to carry a disposable plastic lighter on with me but not these. I was completely boggled that I could carry a small container of compressed, flamable gas onto the plane but not a non-compressed, though still flamable liquid. And perhaps even more so that I was able to just drop them into an envelope with several stamps attached and get them back several days later. It's apparently too dangerous to allow a service member, showing ID only a small plane with a metal lighter than it is to drop that same lighter anonymously into a mail box and have postal workers carry it around?
My experience, flying between St. John's and Halifax, Air Canada and WestJet are the exact same price, though Air Canada is usually a few bucks cheaper cause I can get discounts for no air miles, no preselected seats, no checked baggage etc. I don't save that much, but up to $50 if it's a short trip and I only need a single bag. Neither airline has special lounges, washrooms, etc. in my experience. The only difference with AC is that they do have an 'upgraded' service where you get to get off and on first (you're just sitting at the front of the single passanger compartment) and you get the $5 sandwich and $4 water for 'free'. I've always flown the cheapest fares available with both and I've never felt slighted by the staff of either airline. I stick with Air Canada because they tend to be a little cheaper with the option to waive certain services (WestJet is a flat fee, regardless of what you want/don't want) and because Air Canada's flight times tend to sync up with my schedule a little better.
Maybe it's because the aircraft on this route are smaller. I don't think I've seen more than a 60 passanger jet. Or maybe it's just because it's a short flight, a little less than two hours.
And for what it's worth, I find Air Canada's website much easier to use than WestJet's. When I select a given date (or dates), Air Canada's site shows me the fares on several days around my chosen dates in tabs that I can easily switch too if I have the flexibility to travel on different days. With WestJet, I've got to hit a 'next day' or 'previous day' button just to see the price. Not a huge deal by any stretch, but a minor annoyance that decreases ease of use.
In what would a Mars Rover be soluble, exactly? I can think of all sorts of compounds that would do the job. Few of them will be found on the surface of Mars however...
The real trick is to find a job alongside a bunch of nice, retired grandmothers. If you're pleasant and polite to them, they give you cookies and talk you up to any attractive young ladies that come into the shop!:P
I think that the article imples that PS3s aren't flying off the shelves as fast as Sony might like and thus are sitting in a warehouse somewhere, otherwise going unused. Even the article claims that this was done mostly because of the open platform presented by Sony and the fact that this researcher was able to get the consoles free from Sony. This is great for Sony because a sold console is money in Sony's pocket regardless of who buys it and what they do with it. If they can convince researchers to buy PS3s then it's probably a better deal than selling them to gamers. Few gamers would buy the equivalent of 7 PS3s (about $2800) worth of games and accessories. Some will, but most won't; even when they do, it's spread over the life of the console. A researcher goes and gets 8 consoles, cash up front and there's $3200 for Sony (less taxes, mfg. costs, etc).
Maybe it's jsut me, but that sounds like a pretty good deal from Sony
How do we define a 'super' computer?
Is it simply FlOps? Then at some point, every computer will be a super computer unless you scale the amount of operations with the speed of computers
Is it the 'classical' image of a huge room of boxes chugging away? Then as individual computers get faster and smaller, these rooms will be filled with more computing power as time goes on.
What about parallel processors? The PS3 has some form of parallel processing capability as I understand, so linking eight together isn't just 8 parallel processes it's 8*(parallel processes in one PS3)
Since some 'super' computers of ages past have less power than some modern desktops, I think that the first is more likely if you scale the threshold of a 'super' computer, e.g. the fastest 1-2% of computers out there. More generally, I think that most people conveice of a super computer being any computer system that can perform tasks that would take an unreasonable amount of time on a single, off-the-shelf machine.
The main benefit of human-robot marriage could be to make people who otherwise could not get married happier, "people who find it hard to form relationships, because they are extremely shy, or have psychological problems, or are just plain ugly or have unpleasant personalities," Nuff said.
Stealth technology is both offensive and defensive. If you have a fleet of aging, non-stealth aircraft, say soviet era MiGs, you'd think twice about attacking a country that has invisible aircraft patrolling its skies. Stealth is a force multiplier for an air force because, since you can't track them, they could be anywhere.
I agree that the internet is a far more complex place than it was almost 15 years ago when I first connected but content is not technology. The resources devoted to global networking have increased exponentially but despite increases in speed and volume, the technology remains fundamentally the same.
Slashdot Mirror
Or whether you honour your predecessors? :P
The glass tube doesn't dissapear. Think of a fluorescent tube: when it is lit, it radiates light and non-visible EMR, but when it's off, it doesn't. Now ideally, a metallic antenna won't either, but since it's a conductive material, nearby electric and magentic fields will induce magnetic and electric fields which *could* be detected or, more practically, a metallic antenna will reflect EM waves that strike it whereas glass won't (or at least will do so to a far lesser extent).
A far more realistic problem is going to be maintaining a sealed glass tube of some kind on a battlefield, but there are many solutions to that problem as well: stronger glass, some kind of plastic perhaps, shielding the antenna in some kind of enclosure.
It's been a while since my inorganic chem classes, but can't ruby be synthesized? I seem to recall that high quality is difficult to acheive, but if you're just going to melt it down, you only need fairly small bits to be somewhat uniform. It may not be as tough as natural ruby (don't remember) but it's still going to be damn strong.
No, you mean a thermionic valve. :P
While I empathize with your battles with claustophobia (acrophobia myself), dude, you need to calm down, maybe take a few more of those Xanax.
Yeah, I remember that myself, but after a quick look, the previous story seems to be preliminary results and this one is the 'official' results.
I would assume the same way you ground something in a car, which is isolated by rubber tires: a large mass of metal, usually the body or engine (or both), serves as the ground.
Hmm, not sure I mentioned pins anwhere there. Did I? Nope
And don't worry if you didn't plan in advance and only brought a lighter, five minutes after takeoff, the flight attendants will kindly give you alcohol and napkins.
My last trip, I ended up sitting beside an elderly gentleman that managed to get rather smashingly drunk for a 90 minute flight.
And my spelling means neither do I.
Chances are, if they're gettign 'sucked in', they're probably weren't much of a threat to you anyway. :P
Now get off my lawn, etc.
When I was on a flight at the end of August, I had a short layover. I had one lighter in my carry-on and one in my checked baggage. The one in my baggage was empty, the one in my pocket was full. I was allowed on the first flight, no problems. While I was on layover, I aws pulled aside and made to rip apart my two bags to take the lighters out and, because I wanted to keep them, find an envelope and stamps to mail them to myself. Both lighters were Zippos. It was explained to me that I would have been permitted to carry a disposable plastic lighter on with me but not these. I was completely boggled that I could carry a small container of compressed, flamable gas onto the plane but not a non-compressed, though still flamable liquid. And perhaps even more so that I was able to just drop them into an envelope with several stamps attached and get them back several days later. It's apparently too dangerous to allow a service member, showing ID only a small plane with a metal lighter than it is to drop that same lighter anonymously into a mail box and have postal workers carry it around?
Then you're obviously a stockholder. Especially on Slashdot.
My experience, flying between St. John's and Halifax, Air Canada and WestJet are the exact same price, though Air Canada is usually a few bucks cheaper cause I can get discounts for no air miles, no preselected seats, no checked baggage etc. I don't save that much, but up to $50 if it's a short trip and I only need a single bag. Neither airline has special lounges, washrooms, etc. in my experience. The only difference with AC is that they do have an 'upgraded' service where you get to get off and on first (you're just sitting at the front of the single passanger compartment) and you get the $5 sandwich and $4 water for 'free'. I've always flown the cheapest fares available with both and I've never felt slighted by the staff of either airline. I stick with Air Canada because they tend to be a little cheaper with the option to waive certain services (WestJet is a flat fee, regardless of what you want/don't want) and because Air Canada's flight times tend to sync up with my schedule a little better.
Maybe it's because the aircraft on this route are smaller. I don't think I've seen more than a 60 passanger jet. Or maybe it's just because it's a short flight, a little less than two hours.
And for what it's worth, I find Air Canada's website much easier to use than WestJet's. When I select a given date (or dates), Air Canada's site shows me the fares on several days around my chosen dates in tabs that I can easily switch too if I have the flexibility to travel on different days. With WestJet, I've got to hit a 'next day' or 'previous day' button just to see the price. Not a huge deal by any stretch, but a minor annoyance that decreases ease of use.
The real trick is to find a job alongside a bunch of nice, retired grandmothers. If you're pleasant and polite to them, they give you cookies and talk you up to any attractive young ladies that come into the shop! :P
I think that the article imples that PS3s aren't flying off the shelves as fast as Sony might like and thus are sitting in a warehouse somewhere, otherwise going unused. Even the article claims that this was done mostly because of the open platform presented by Sony and the fact that this researcher was able to get the consoles free from Sony. This is great for Sony because a sold console is money in Sony's pocket regardless of who buys it and what they do with it. If they can convince researchers to buy PS3s then it's probably a better deal than selling them to gamers. Few gamers would buy the equivalent of 7 PS3s (about $2800) worth of games and accessories. Some will, but most won't; even when they do, it's spread over the life of the console. A researcher goes and gets 8 consoles, cash up front and there's $3200 for Sony (less taxes, mfg. costs, etc).
Maybe it's jsut me, but that sounds like a pretty good deal from Sony
Is it simply FlOps? Then at some point, every computer will be a super computer unless you scale the amount of operations with the speed of computers
Is it the 'classical' image of a huge room of boxes chugging away? Then as individual computers get faster and smaller, these rooms will be filled with more computing power as time goes on.
What about parallel processors? The PS3 has some form of parallel processing capability as I understand, so linking eight together isn't just 8 parallel processes it's 8*(parallel processes in one PS3)
Since some 'super' computers of ages past have less power than some modern desktops, I think that the first is more likely if you scale the threshold of a 'super' computer, e.g. the fastest 1-2% of computers out there. More generally, I think that most people conveice of a super computer being any computer system that can perform tasks that would take an unreasonable amount of time on a single, off-the-shelf machine.
The parent already stated: they're called CCWVs in Texas.
Stealth technology is both offensive and defensive. If you have a fleet of aging, non-stealth aircraft, say soviet era MiGs, you'd think twice about attacking a country that has invisible aircraft patrolling its skies. Stealth is a force multiplier for an air force because, since you can't track them, they could be anywhere.
I agree that the internet is a far more complex place than it was almost 15 years ago when I first connected but content is not technology. The resources devoted to global networking have increased exponentially but despite increases in speed and volume, the technology remains fundamentally the same.
Yes, upon review I see that I mis-read your post, my apologies.