Jacqui Smith? The lady who clamed hubby's porn on expenses?
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
And the reference fan designs are quite crap.
I'm not a chemical enginner (just a chemist), but I doubt you can just use the same piping which you used for propane/butane for hydrogen. A lot of the energetics of manipulation of hydrogen are quite different (it heats on expansion - Joule-Thompson), I'd imagine there might be issues with valves and seals along the distribution network, and finally, hydrogen requires much stricter safety specs than hydrocarbons (at least in our labs, you need a special cert to use H2, while anyone can use C2H4 etc.).
How about bundling the hydrogen with, I don't know, carbon?
I'm not a nutritionist, but from what I've read about sports training, I'd guess it's not the muscle tissue which is being consumed, but rather the locally-stored glycogen reservoirs (each of which comes with 3 water molecules). This can be done via both aerobic and anaerobic glygocenolysis in fast muscles (FOG and FG).
So what part of "if you burn more than you eat, you will lose weight" is not true? If your net output is higher than gross input, you're definitely running off reserves - whether it's glycogen, glucose, or fat.
The reverse ("if you eat more than you burn, you will gain weight") is not necessarily true.
I'm sorry but it clearly is excess calories. If you burn more than you eat, you will lose weight. It's basic thermodynamics.
The reason why your caloric intake is such as it is, why your burning efficiency is lower, or why you're less active and hence burn less are obviously quite a complex set of conditions, but in the end, it's really just about energy conservation.
That's a good one, thanks.
I really liked the comment here: discussion.theguardian.com/comment-permalink/19421618
Hey, where's your trigger warning? I trigger on hats!
I'm renting a flat where there is an active VM connection in the landlords' name. Asking for unblocked porn would be fun...
It was the same with me and my girlfriend when watching Bones. In the first couple of seasons, they mainly fucked up the IT, and maybe anthropology. When I said the stuff they do on the PC's is impossible, she wouldn't believe me.
However, both being chemists, the first time they used "a mass spec" for something it just can't do (like DNA sequencing or whatnot), she agreed with me...
Yes, and look where it got them: Intel HD 4600 is still blown apart by an integrated GPU from an AMD APU costing half the price, and the Iris Pro (5200) is only on a BGA chip so far, and is rumoured to cost as much as my whole desktop built a year ago...
I'll give you the power, though.
To be fair, on properly threaded applications, 4x Xeon E5-4650 system (>15000 GBP) is measurably better than the 4x Opteron 6380 (>4000 GBP) - it's approximately 10% difference in SpecFP and SpecINT 2006. The E7-8870 is actually worse than the E5-4650 in a 4-socket configuration, as the E5 is a Sandy Bridge part, while the E7 is Westmere.
We'll be buying two of the Opteron machines to run quantum chemistry and CFD on them.
Not in Britain. It's an Excise duty, and some vehicles are exempt.