Considering that the gasoline engine in a Prius is *horribly* designed, and can produce only 75KW @ 5000 rpm.
If they wre really mechanically- and eco- minded, they would have put in a 1 or 2 cylinder diesel instead of a far heavier, and far less efficient (Screw MPG, I'm talking mechanical efficiency: 75W of work, not electricity, @ 5000 rpm really is inefficient for a 6 cylinder gasoline engine) 6 cylinder gasoline engine. Considering that a diesel engine can convert approx. 25% of the enrgey in diesel fuel into work, and a gasoline engine is capable approx. 12%, you would think they would have thought of this.
Anyone who has spent time working with diesels will tell you they are longer lasting, and more mechanically efficient engines.
What's more is that the diesel engine could provide more low end output for hills and loads, would last much, much longer than a gasoline engine, and would put out more work per pound of engine weight, at a lower rpm, than the weak 6 cylinder engine the Prius has. The gasoline engine the Prius has can barely generate enough work to carry 5 people up the hill to my house, and have had to listen to it's owner complain about it. And if you fool with the gearing between the engine and the electrical generator that charges the batteries, you could probably meet the amount of electricity generated per revolution than the gasoline engine can, since diesels put out more low-end torque, which, with the corret gearing ratios, would allow for a faster generator speed, and thus, more electricity. Of course, mechanical power output would depent on the number of cylinders, cylinder size, and electrical generation would depend on gear ratio. A three cylinder turbo diesel would probably do it.
If Toyota put any thought into it, a diesel-engined Prius would blow away the current gasoline-engined models, especially with the reduced engine weight, engine size, and fuel costs. Engine value would stay pretty much the same over use. The ultimate hybrid would be a biodiesel- powered Prius.
Of course, this is all off the top of my head. I'm not knocking the Prius, I'm just questioning why they use a large 6 cylinder gas engine, instead of a smaller, more efficient diesel engine.
They are just mad because they got caught breaing the law and now have to suffer the consequences of their own bad decisions.
If people were able to hold copyrights on works that they forged or counterfeited, then everyone who copied a DVD or CD would then become the copyright holder of works that some other entity created.
The morons are just like the criminals who hurt themselves, or are hurt by the people that they are violating, in the commission of their crime(s) and feel that they should be compensated for the troubles they had to endure while committing their crimes.
Only in California do criminals get to have rights *while* they commit their crimes. I guess it's starting to infect New York as well.....
$72.6 Billion to VETERANS who FOUGHT WARS and put their country before their lives.....and.....
$367.0 Billion to people who sit on their asses, and put their lives before their country.
Yes, I know that there are the few who are truly disabled and truly CANNOT work, but most "Disabled" are obviously just milking the system, but nobody wants to openly say that. Unfortunaly, most "Disabled" are still capable of performing work. Maybe not the kind of work they would want to be doing, or working at all, but unless you are mentally retarded, parapalegic, quadriplegic, or a vegtable, you can still work. Boo hoo.
Since YouTube is located in the United States, and there is no way that anybody here in the U.S. would consider insulting a leader to be illegal (we treasure that ability), is it possible for YouTube to say "Go fu-k yourselves!" and ignore the Thais?
Does YouTube even have to honor such a bastardly frivolous suit? Sine they are based in the U.S., the content is in the U.S., and The serving is done from the U.S., how on Earth could they be held liable for breaking a law in a foreign country, when said actions are Constitutionally protected free speech inside the United States?
It's the exact same thing as if someone were to call the king a monkey (and after this egocentric display of arrogance, he IS a monkey), and then be jailed in Thailand for breaking their laws while inside a country where no laws were broken.
YouTube should simply say "So sue me!", followed by a loud "Neener neener!"
If you don't like it here, then go back to where you came from. Immigrants, especially those here in the U.S., have this idea that everybody should change because they don't want to. It is an extremely self-centered way of thinking and I'm not sure how on Earth they can think that it is OK.
I am sick an tired of those nutjub "Illegal Immigrant-rights" groups saying that people are entering the US because there is no clear path for legal immigration. In reality, there is a clear path: VISA FORM. It even has little boxes that tell you what to put in them.
I'm not anti-immigrant, I'm anti ILLEGAL immigrant. Why the hell should I let someone who immigrated into this country ILLEGALLY, doesn't bother learning English, and sucks up taxpayer money tell me how to live my life, what views I should hold, and that I should accept them. You wouldn't let a stranger into you house, so why should I let strangers into my country? Coming to the United States is a PRIVILIDGE, yet people are starting to think that because they are poorer than us, and less fortunate than us, that that gives them some kind of right to enter the U.S. and to hell with the laws we enact to keep ourselves safe.
Illegal is Illegal is ILLEGAL. Funny, my family is 100% immigrant, and despite how poor and hungry we were, we still managed to figure out how to fill out visa applications, learn English, and abide by the laws of the United States. Immigrants nowadays have become a selfish, self-centered, rude, obnoxious bunch of punks who think they are entitled to skirt the rules and laws because they are less fortunate than the rest of us. If they don't like having that image, then THEY should work to change it, not us.
HOWEVER, there are some illegals who follow the law, are courteous and freindly, speak English, and have jobs. Still, even all that doesn't make them LEGAL.
If you don't want to follow the law trying to get into the U.S., then stop waving our flag, beause it represents people who did what was necessary to get in here legally.
You are precisly right. Sometimes, people's genes just simply do not give them the ability to accomplish certain tasks, and I would rather find out ahead of time then after something happened.
Now, the camera operator will hear what I'm saying when I say "Fuck Big Brother" to the camera.
Seriously, we are having our privacy reduced to only whatever is enclosed within our skin.
The solution to reducing crime is not to punish everyone by putting them under constant surveillance and making them legally liable for defending themselves. The answer to reducing crime is to train police better, giving them less paperwork, giving victims more rights, and taking away rights from criminals during the commission of their crime.
One of the problems, especially here in California, is that if you hurt a criminal in the act of robbing/assaulting you, they can sue you and take you for everything you are worth. We need to give the police better training and less paperwork, and victims a thick legal sheild from criminals and their families who are unhappy with reaping the consequences of the crimial committing crimes.
I hate it here in Kalifornia. You have to think about how you could get into trouble by defending yourself from a violent criminal before you actually begin to defend yourself. In a crimes, you have to defend yourself FROM THE CRIMINAL during the commission of the home invasion, and then IN COURT when he or his family sues you when you put two shots into him.
If you don't want to put yourself in danger and suffer pain and/or death by committing a crime, then don't committ the crime. If criminals knew they could not sue the homeowner who shot or beat them while they committed their crime, then I'll bet crime would go down.
This is such a fucked up state. I SHOULD have the right to defend myself from criminals without having to worry about defending myself in court, but I don't. The criminals have more rights than the victims.
".....illuminate the most appropriate escape signs in an emergency."
In an emergency, isn't pretty much EVERY way out appropriate? I mean, aside from the obvious no-no of trying to run through an exit that is engulfed in flames or smoke, I could give a damn about which exits save money.
Besides, who is stupid enough to care about energy conservation when they are trying to escape a building fire?
"HEY YOU! Get your ass back here and turn off the air conditioning if you're gonna leave! By the way, you also left your monitor on and the coffee pot running! I don't care if there is a fire- WE'RE TRYING TO BE GREEN AND I'LL BE DAMNED IF WE'RE NOT!"
(sounds of eco-nut being trampled to death by fleeing workers)
If everything needs to be connected to a special reciever for the pad to work, then what's the point of the pad? The only way such a "Transmission Sheet" would be logical is if it could power/recharge appliances SANS adapter.
So what if you could power a laptop? Here's the current method of powering a laptop versus their way:
Current Method: 1) Plug AC adapter into appliance. *OR* 1) Plug appliance directly into wall.
Proposed Method: 1) Plug appliance into adapter. 2) Place appliance onto pad. 3) Plug AC adapter into pad
Most people have either an AC adapter at work, at home, or both, and the AC adapter is usually left plugged into the wall all the time. Plus, with a corded AC adapter, I can walk around the room, moving between the couch, chair, table, or floor without having to unplug or find a hard surface to plug my laptop into.
A pad is just another useless pice of crap idea to get in the way. It's a fancy way of being less efficient:
1) With a pad, you would need to find a flat surface to put it on, so the pad won't slide off of the surface and the laptop won't slide off the pad, and the pad will make uniform contact with the adapter. 2) The pad will, most likely, require it's own AC adapter. Another annoying cord to get in the way. 3) The adapter will probably plug into the existing AC adapter socket on the laptop, which means that if you want to use a regular AC adapter, you would first have to detach the adapter. I suppose you could put a corded ACA socket on the pad adapter, but then you would need to get the correct voltages, polarity, and post/barrel sizes (if your laptop uses a generic post/barrel configuration), or whichever adapter type the laptop's manufacturer uses. Additionally, you would need even more adapters is you want to use the thing on a plane, and finding space for your pad is unlikely, except if you travel First Class or Business Class. What's more is that a rigid plastic pad is going to take up space, and a flexible plastic pad could get creased, torn, or otherwise damaged. 4) The pad will have to be taken EVERYWHERE you take the laptop. If you want to take the laptop anywhere, you will be balancing the laptop on the pad. This also means that flexible "Power Sheets" are impractical. 5) Expect maddeningly slow recharge times compared to current bare-contact AC adapters. lage power transmission would most likeley result in a field that could possibly damage electronic circuis contained within the appliance.
With a standard AC adapter, all you do is plug in/unplug. Easy. If you want to travel, all you do is wind up the cord and stick it in your case. Most good AC adapters have interchangeable attachments for car and air travel that take up almost no additional space. Plus, AC adapter cords stay secured to the laptop. You can also move about the room carrying just the laptop: No additional equipment.
While interesting, this idea was a massive waste of time, effort, and money, since the old, low-tech plug/unplug method is far simpler and more adaptable then this whole "Power Sheet" concept.
The reason this technology hasn't gone very far past being used in toothbrushes, RFID, Maglev, and stovetops is because it is impractical to use it anywhere else.
High Tech? Yes. Practical? Hardly. Better than current Low-Tech technology? Definitely not!
It's not cordless: The pad still requires a cord to power it. Plus a specialized adapter sill has to be plugged into the laptop/appliance.
This was a pretty obvious conclusion. If you compress water (or anything), then you reduce the amount of space that molecules have to move around. When you compress it to the point that the water molecules are only allowed to vibrate in the same amount of space that they do in a solid, then you have, in effect, created a solid. Even though water molecules are in a crystal lattice when they are in a solid state, they still vibrate.
If you compress liquid water to a density of 0.92 g/cm, then it is no suprise that it will act like a solid. It's like same a saying that nitrogen acts like a liquid when it is compressed.
For example, in a cigarette lighter, liquid butane acts like a liquid because it is compressed to the point where the pressure of the gas has reached a density of 0.584 g/cm3, therefore allowing most of the liquid butane to remain liquid above its boiling point. Some of the liquid will revaporize inside the gas compartment until the pressure within the gas compartment is high enough to keep the remaining liquid at or above the minimum liquid density threshold.
So, if you wer to take a liquid gas, and compress it even further, then you would continue to reduce the volume in which the liquid's component molecules has in which to move. Compress it far enough and the molecules will eventusally cease movement (with the exception of the inherent vibrations of any atom or molecule at temperatures above 0K). Viola! A solid.
I'd have to say that for smart people, you'd think that they should have been able to figure this out pretty easily on their own.
Thin water. Soon to be all the rage of nutty health food people who claim to be so smart, yet are stupid enough to shell out $2.50 for something that is less healthful than water they can get for free.
THIN WATER! BUY IT! BUY IT NOW! YOU WANT IT! DO IT! DO IT NOW!
Is it at all possible to defy ICANN? I mean, if I were to create an ISP, with my own network and such, albeit a small one, is it possible to defy ICANN?
Back in the '60s and '70s, some guy out near me got tired of all the BS with Ma Bell, so he created his own telephone system. Could the same be done as a way to get around ICANN?
If you keep changing the definition of 'Chocolate', then why bother defining it at all? You need to stop letting trade groups bastardize food label types (e.g. 'chocolate' vs. 'chocolate flavored' just so they can save a few bucks. If they want to change the formula, then they should call it something else. Period
I remember watching an episode where they said that it was impossible for a bird to fly through an aircraft windshield because it dissipated it's energy to fast.
Not only does the length of energy dissipation not have anything to do with proving that birds cannot fly through windshields, but there conclusions were actually WRONG. Not only can a bird destroy a windshield, but also a massive jet turbofan made out of titanium and aluminum. Furthermore, there have been dozens of reports of geese and other birds rocketing through helicopter and airplane windscreens.
I think I'll believe the dozens of FAA reports than one BADLY conducted and haphazard TV episode. Kind of ironic how the entire premise of the show is the debunking of popular myths and urban legends through the use of the scientific method, yet they manage to blow all but the most obvious "experiments" ("obvious experiments" being the legends and myths that anyone with a brain stem can figure out the answer) with shoddy analysis and half-assed conclusions.
If you are going to demonstrate the scientific method, THEN DO IT CORRECTLY! If you can't demonstrate it correctly, for whatever reasons, then please don't do it at all.
Sad to say, the MythBusters are becoming to Science what the Porn Industry has become to Art.
In the Soviet Union, there is freedom of speech and freedom of thought. In the United States, there is freedom *after* speech and freedom *after* thought!
I wonder who is controlling Putin..... Dogbert, maybe?
Is this the kind of Government censorship that we are going to get when cities start installing WiFi? There should be a law that if public WiFi is going to be installed, nobody should be able to block any part of it.
Why should we be letting some bureaucrat telling us that our tax dollars are going to be spent giving the community free WiFi, and then telling us that our tax dollars are going to be spent restricting us from content accessible through a network that our tax dollars paid for in the first place?
If you really think about it, city officials decide how our taxes are spent within the city, not us. So, if they are going to regulate what is accessible through WiFi, why the hell should we be forced to pay for it ourselves? I mean, why should we be paying for something with compulsory tax dollars, and then have some worthless bureaucrat appoint themselves "Official City Parent" and tell us what we can and cannot access thought a publicly funded system?
If someone is going to regulate and censor public WiFi, then I don't want my tax dollars to pay for it. If people want to regulate and censor it, then they alone should bear the entire cost, and let us free thinkers fend for ourselves. Period.
I already have two parents, and that's more than I can take.
Slashdot Mirror
Considering that the gasoline engine in a Prius is *horribly* designed, and can produce only 75KW @ 5000 rpm.
If they wre really mechanically- and eco- minded, they would have put in a 1 or 2 cylinder diesel instead of a far heavier, and far less efficient (Screw MPG, I'm talking mechanical efficiency: 75W of work, not electricity, @ 5000 rpm really is inefficient for a 6 cylinder gasoline engine) 6 cylinder gasoline engine. Considering that a diesel engine can convert approx. 25% of the enrgey in diesel fuel into work, and a gasoline engine is capable approx. 12%, you would think they would have thought of this.
Anyone who has spent time working with diesels will tell you they are longer lasting, and more mechanically efficient engines.
What's more is that the diesel engine could provide more low end output for hills and loads, would last much, much longer than a gasoline engine, and would put out more work per pound of engine weight, at a lower rpm, than the weak 6 cylinder engine the Prius has. The gasoline engine the Prius has can barely generate enough work to carry 5 people up the hill to my house, and have had to listen to it's owner complain about it.
And if you fool with the gearing between the engine and the electrical generator that charges the batteries, you could probably meet the amount of electricity generated per revolution than the gasoline engine can, since diesels put out more low-end torque, which, with the corret gearing ratios, would allow for a faster generator speed, and thus, more electricity.
Of course, mechanical power output would depent on the number of cylinders, cylinder size, and electrical generation would depend on gear ratio. A three cylinder turbo diesel would probably do it.
If Toyota put any thought into it, a diesel-engined Prius would blow away the current gasoline-engined models, especially with the reduced engine weight, engine size, and fuel costs. Engine value would stay pretty much the same over use. The ultimate hybrid would be a biodiesel- powered Prius.
Of course, this is all off the top of my head. I'm not knocking the Prius, I'm just questioning why they use a large 6 cylinder gas engine, instead of a smaller, more efficient diesel engine.
Natural sunlight.
These people are about as stupid as you can get.
They are just mad because they got caught breaing the law and now have to suffer the consequences of their own bad decisions.
If people were able to hold copyrights on works that they forged or counterfeited, then everyone who copied a DVD or CD would then become the copyright holder of works that some other entity created.
The morons are just like the criminals who hurt themselves, or are hurt by the people that they are violating, in the commission of their crime(s) and feel that they should be compensated for the troubles they had to endure while committing their crimes.
Only in California do criminals get to have rights *while* they commit their crimes. I guess it's starting to infect New York as well.....
Pathetic.
Disgraceful.....
.....and.....
$72.6 Billion to VETERANS who FOUGHT WARS and put their country before their lives
$367.0 Billion to people who sit on their asses, and put their lives before their country.
Yes, I know that there are the few who are truly disabled and truly CANNOT work, but most "Disabled" are obviously just milking the system, but nobody wants to openly say that. Unfortunaly, most "Disabled" are still capable of performing work. Maybe not the kind of work they would want to be doing, or working at all, but unless you are mentally retarded, parapalegic, quadriplegic, or a vegtable, you can still work. Boo hoo.
Since YouTube is located in the United States, and there is no way that anybody here in the U.S. would consider insulting a leader to be illegal (we treasure that ability), is it possible for YouTube to say "Go fu-k yourselves!" and ignore the Thais?
Does YouTube even have to honor such a bastardly frivolous suit? Sine they are based in the U.S., the content is in the U.S., and The serving is done from the U.S., how on Earth could they be held liable for breaking a law in a foreign country, when said actions are Constitutionally protected free speech inside the United States?
It's the exact same thing as if someone were to call the king a monkey (and after this egocentric display of arrogance, he IS a monkey), and then be jailed in Thailand for breaking their laws while inside a country where no laws were broken.
YouTube should simply say "So sue me!", followed by a loud "Neener neener!"
The King Is A Fink.
No, they all have the same view. Keep your identity, but don't make me change mine because you don't feel like playing by the rules.
DAMN STRAIGHT!
If you don't like it here, then go back to where you came from. Immigrants, especially those here in the U.S., have this idea that everybody should change because they don't want to. It is an extremely self-centered way of thinking and I'm not sure how on Earth they can think that it is OK.
I am sick an tired of those nutjub "Illegal Immigrant-rights" groups saying that people are entering the US because there is no clear path for legal immigration. In reality, there is a clear path: VISA FORM. It even has little boxes that tell you what to put in them.
I'm not anti-immigrant, I'm anti ILLEGAL immigrant. Why the hell should I let someone who immigrated into this country ILLEGALLY, doesn't bother learning English, and sucks up taxpayer money tell me how to live my life, what views I should hold, and that I should accept them. You wouldn't let a stranger into you house, so why should I let strangers into my country? Coming to the United States is a PRIVILIDGE, yet people are starting to think that because they are poorer than us, and less fortunate than us, that that gives them some kind of right to enter the U.S. and to hell with the laws we enact to keep ourselves safe.
Illegal is Illegal is ILLEGAL. Funny, my family is 100% immigrant, and despite how poor and hungry we were, we still managed to figure out how to fill out visa applications, learn English, and abide by the laws of the United States. Immigrants nowadays have become a selfish, self-centered, rude, obnoxious bunch of punks who think they are entitled to skirt the rules and laws because they are less fortunate than the rest of us. If they don't like having that image, then THEY should work to change it, not us.
HOWEVER, there are some illegals who follow the law, are courteous and freindly, speak English, and have jobs. Still, even all that doesn't make them LEGAL.
If you don't want to follow the law trying to get into the U.S., then stop waving our flag, beause it represents people who did what was necessary to get in here legally.
If I still had mod points, I'd mod up.
You are precisly right. Sometimes, people's genes just simply do not give them the ability to accomplish certain tasks, and I would rather find out ahead of time then after something happened.
If virtual crimes are just as illegal as real crimes, then God help me.
I just launched an 18 nuke offensive against a GLA stronghold in the Command & Conquer internet game I just finished.
Whoops.
Top Ten Changes At China's "Disneyland":
10: Every conceivable surface is painted red.
9: Skeletons, vampires, and other scary images replaced with pictures of famous American capitalists.
8: The "Mickey Mouseketeer Club" replaced with "Children Of The Chinese Communist Party"
7: Replaced the cars in "Autopia" with T-72 tanks
6: "Rocketship" ride has been replaced with "Nuclear Missile" ride.
5: Replaced the pirates in "Pirates Of The Caribbean" with American Capitalists.
4: Replaced mechanical puppets in "It's A Small World" with brainwashed dissidents singing at bayonet point.
3: Inserted subliminal propaganda messages into the "Tiki Hut" song.
2: Renamed Disnyland restaurant "Mickey Mao's"
1: Doubled the MSG content of the corndogs.
----
Now, the camera operator will hear what I'm saying when I say "Fuck Big Brother" to the camera.
Seriously, we are having our privacy reduced to only whatever is enclosed within our skin.
The solution to reducing crime is not to punish everyone by putting them under constant surveillance and making them legally liable for defending themselves. The answer to reducing crime is to train police better, giving them less paperwork, giving victims more rights, and taking away rights from criminals during the commission of their crime.
One of the problems, especially here in California, is that if you hurt a criminal in the act of robbing/assaulting you, they can sue you and take you for everything you are worth. We need to give the police better training and less paperwork, and victims a thick legal sheild from criminals and their families who are unhappy with reaping the consequences of the crimial committing crimes.
I hate it here in Kalifornia. You have to think about how you could get into trouble by defending yourself from a violent criminal before you actually begin to defend yourself. In a crimes, you have to defend yourself FROM THE CRIMINAL during the commission of the home invasion, and then IN COURT when he or his family sues you when you put two shots into him.
If you don't want to put yourself in danger and suffer pain and/or death by committing a crime, then don't committ the crime. If criminals knew they could not sue the homeowner who shot or beat them while they committed their crime, then I'll bet crime would go down.
This is such a fucked up state. I SHOULD have the right to defend myself from criminals without having to worry about defending myself in court, but I don't. The criminals have more rights than the victims.
In California, criminals sue YOU!!!
That is one stupid site.
Sorry, but it is.
".....illuminate the most appropriate escape signs in an emergency."
In an emergency, isn't pretty much EVERY way out appropriate? I mean, aside from the obvious no-no of trying to run through an exit that is engulfed in flames or smoke, I could give a damn about which exits save money.
Besides, who is stupid enough to care about energy conservation when they are trying to escape a building fire?
"HEY YOU! Get your ass back here and turn off the air conditioning if you're gonna leave! By the way, you also left your monitor on and the coffee pot running! I don't care if there is a fire- WE'RE TRYING TO BE GREEN AND I'LL BE DAMNED IF WE'RE NOT!"
(sounds of eco-nut being trampled to death by fleeing workers)
.....The building spies on YOU!
If everything needs to be connected to a special reciever for the pad to work, then what's the point of the pad? The only way such a "Transmission Sheet" would be logical is if it could power/recharge appliances SANS adapter.
So what if you could power a laptop? Here's the current method of powering a laptop versus their way:
Current Method:
1) Plug AC adapter into appliance.
*OR*
1) Plug appliance directly into wall.
Proposed Method:
1) Plug appliance into adapter.
2) Place appliance onto pad.
3) Plug AC adapter into pad
Most people have either an AC adapter at work, at home, or both, and the AC adapter is usually left plugged into the wall all the time. Plus, with a corded AC adapter, I can walk around the room, moving between the couch, chair, table, or floor without having to unplug or find a hard surface to plug my laptop into.
A pad is just another useless pice of crap idea to get in the way. It's a fancy way of being less efficient:
1) With a pad, you would need to find a flat surface to put it on, so the pad won't slide off of the surface and the laptop won't slide off the pad, and the pad will make uniform contact with the adapter.
2) The pad will, most likely, require it's own AC adapter. Another annoying cord to get in the way.
3) The adapter will probably plug into the existing AC adapter socket on the laptop, which means that if you want to use a regular AC adapter, you would first have to detach the adapter. I suppose you could put a corded ACA socket on the pad adapter, but then you would need to get the correct voltages, polarity, and post/barrel sizes (if your laptop uses a generic post/barrel configuration), or whichever adapter type the laptop's manufacturer uses. Additionally, you would need even more adapters is you want to use the thing on a plane, and finding space for your pad is unlikely, except if you travel First Class or Business Class. What's more is that a rigid plastic pad is going to take up space, and a flexible plastic pad could get creased, torn, or otherwise damaged.
4) The pad will have to be taken EVERYWHERE you take the laptop. If you want to take the laptop anywhere, you will be balancing the laptop on the pad. This also means that flexible "Power Sheets" are impractical.
5) Expect maddeningly slow recharge times compared to current bare-contact AC adapters. lage power transmission would most likeley result in a field that could possibly damage electronic circuis contained within the appliance.
With a standard AC adapter, all you do is plug in/unplug. Easy. If you want to travel, all you do is wind up the cord and stick it in your case. Most good AC adapters have interchangeable attachments for car and air travel that take up almost no additional space. Plus, AC adapter cords stay secured to the laptop. You can also move about the room carrying just the laptop: No additional equipment.
While interesting, this idea was a massive waste of time, effort, and money, since the old, low-tech plug/unplug method is far simpler and more adaptable then this whole "Power Sheet" concept.
The reason this technology hasn't gone very far past being used in toothbrushes, RFID, Maglev, and stovetops is because it is impractical to use it anywhere else.
High Tech? Yes. Practical? Hardly. Better than current Low-Tech technology? Definitely not!
It's not cordless: The pad still requires a cord to power it. Plus a specialized adapter sill has to be plugged into the laptop/appliance.
So much for Japanese efiiciency.
This was a pretty obvious conclusion. If you compress water (or anything), then you reduce the amount of space that molecules have to move around. When you compress it to the point that the water molecules are only allowed to vibrate in the same amount of space that they do in a solid, then you have, in effect, created a solid. Even though water molecules are in a crystal lattice when they are in a solid state, they still vibrate.
If you compress liquid water to a density of 0.92 g/cm, then it is no suprise that it will act like a solid. It's like same a saying that nitrogen acts like a liquid when it is compressed.
For example, in a cigarette lighter, liquid butane acts like a liquid because it is compressed to the point where the pressure of the gas has reached a density of 0.584 g/cm3, therefore allowing most of the liquid butane to remain liquid above its boiling point. Some of the liquid will revaporize inside the gas compartment until the pressure within the gas compartment is high enough to keep the remaining liquid at or above the minimum liquid density threshold.
So, if you wer to take a liquid gas, and compress it even further, then you would continue to reduce the volume in which the liquid's component molecules has in which to move. Compress it far enough and the molecules will eventusally cease movement (with the exception of the inherent vibrations of any atom or molecule at temperatures above 0K). Viola! A solid.
I'd have to say that for smart people, you'd think that they should have been able to figure this out pretty easily on their own.
Thin water. Soon to be all the rage of nutty health food people who claim to be so smart, yet are stupid enough to shell out $2.50 for something that is less healthful than water they can get for free.
:-)
THIN WATER! BUY IT! BUY IT NOW! YOU WANT IT! DO IT! DO IT NOW!
Science project, or clever marketing campaign?
Is it at all possible to defy ICANN? I mean, if I were to create an ISP, with my own network and such, albeit a small one, is it possible to defy ICANN?
Back in the '60s and '70s, some guy out near me got tired of all the BS with Ma Bell, so he created his own telephone system. Could the same be done as a way to get around ICANN?
ICANN-OT
Really? I never saw the correction, but then again, I was never a regular viewer, since I wasn't to find of their testing processes.
Must look for that episode. I'd like to see what happened. Thanks for the update!
French voting..... .....As well engineered as the Maginot Line!
"Not to worry, Mr. De Gaulle. The Germans will never come through the forest."
If you keep changing the definition of 'Chocolate', then why bother defining it at all? You need to stop letting trade groups bastardize food label types (e.g. 'chocolate' vs. 'chocolate flavored' just so they can save a few bucks. If they want to change the formula, then they should call it something else. Period
I remember watching an episode where they said that it was impossible for a bird to fly through an aircraft windshield because it dissipated it's energy to fast.
Not only does the length of energy dissipation not have anything to do with proving that birds cannot fly through windshields, but there conclusions were actually WRONG. Not only can a bird destroy a windshield, but also a massive jet turbofan made out of titanium and aluminum. Furthermore, there have been dozens of reports of geese and other birds rocketing through helicopter and airplane windscreens.
I think I'll believe the dozens of FAA reports than one BADLY conducted and haphazard TV episode. Kind of ironic how the entire premise of the show is the debunking of popular myths and urban legends through the use of the scientific method, yet they manage to blow all but the most obvious "experiments" ("obvious experiments" being the legends and myths that anyone with a brain stem can figure out the answer) with shoddy analysis and half-assed conclusions.
If you are going to demonstrate the scientific method, THEN DO IT CORRECTLY! If you can't demonstrate it correctly, for whatever reasons, then please don't do it at all.
Sad to say, the MythBusters are becoming to Science what the Porn Industry has become to Art.
I hear that the Restaurant At The End Of The Universe has a great bar called Cosmic Ray's.....
In the Soviet Union, there is freedom of speech and freedom of thought.
In the United States, there is freedom *after* speech and freedom *after* thought!
I wonder who is controlling Putin..... Dogbert, maybe?
Is this the kind of Government censorship that we are going to get when cities start installing WiFi? There should be a law that if public WiFi is going to be installed, nobody should be able to block any part of it.
Why should we be letting some bureaucrat telling us that our tax dollars are going to be spent giving the community free WiFi, and then telling us that our tax dollars are going to be spent restricting us from content accessible through a network that our tax dollars paid for in the first place?
If you really think about it, city officials decide how our taxes are spent within the city, not us. So, if they are going to regulate what is accessible through WiFi, why the hell should we be forced to pay for it ourselves? I mean, why should we be paying for something with compulsory tax dollars, and then have some worthless bureaucrat appoint themselves "Official City Parent" and tell us what we can and cannot access thought a publicly funded system?
If someone is going to regulate and censor public WiFi, then I don't want my tax dollars to pay for it. If people want to regulate and censor it, then they alone should bear the entire cost, and let us free thinkers fend for ourselves. Period.
I already have two parents, and that's more than I can take.