...Russia's only viable winter port for the Russian fleet.
Russia's only viable winter port for access to the Mediterranean and Atlantic - they've got Vladivostok for year-round access to the Pacific.
THIS is the reason why Linux will never be a mainstream desktop.
Yep! and I'll add: if human beings don't stop competing with each other, we'll never become the dominant lifeform on the planet...
The advantage is that it will create a constant current in the canal.
Regardless of the length of the canal -- at least until evaporation becomes a factor.
The constant current can be leveraged to move boats, presumably fairly deep hulled so the really get in the way of the current, and said boats can carry whatever.
Two canals adjoining allows the boat to be moved from one to the other, and sent back to the other end, ad infinitum.
When you put a cork in a river, it'll go from the mountains to the sea, because the current carries it.
What I'm suggesting is create an artificial current using pumps. The two 'c's run in different directions, so you have a full transport loop.
All four ends are physically adjacent, so you only need one pumping station if you connect the two c's across one end.
Old time canals used donkeys and engines to navigate. This works like a river and a raft. You float to where you're going.
Fiattech.com is a VERY small mobile-centric site, with very little content and some presentation logic to optimize its mobile presentation on desktops.
The articles page for example shows 5 one-line article summaries at a time even on a 1920x1200 desktop. To see all 25 articles I need to page through 5 pages.
Its usable at this tiny content scale, but its hardly a good desktop design; and if there were much more content its usability limitations would become increasingly apparent.
Likewise, the home page, on desktop, is reflowing to a single 8-10 screen tall vertical column anything but gratuitous? Practically nobody on a desktop is going to want to USE the site like that.
Is horizontal scrolling really better?
On this site, yes. I think it would have been. If the user makes their window that small they probably are trying to just keep one piece of the page in the window, and reflowing forces them to have to re-locate that piece in a 10 page tall stack after they've resized the window, instead of it just staying put.
Additionally, they get rid of the menu button as the screen widens? Why do that? I don't object to them adding the menu to the title bar when it fits, but why lose the one element of common navigation between the two modes?
To sum up... yeah this isn't a bad site... but its barely more than a toy project. It does a decent job because there's almost nothing to it.
And I bet it cost then fortune.
> You're assuming you'll get free energy out of this?
Um... no... where would get such an idea?
Think about it. If you put a transport thing in there (think boat) with a nice deep hull, and there's a 5 knot current along the entire canal created by the transfer at the ends of the C, what will the boat do? Now add another boat at a reasonable interval, say another boat length.
Do you imagine doing this will slow down either the current or the other boat?
That's the point, and that's all I am assuming.
That depends on the DPI. My phone, very small indeed, is 1080x1920 (or 1920x1080 if I'm holding it funny.) One of the monitors on my 8-core desktop is 1280x1024.
The DPI difference between them is radical. Even so, any properly designed page will allow the user's browser to resize and reflow the content to fit the window if it's of any sane width (probably only wide enough to render the longest word in the content.) If it can't do that, the browser should hand you scroll bars. Be nice if the browser had a user setting "minimum width before scroll bars", too. That'd be a joy.
Fixed aspect / resolution webpages are horrible.
That, and "hover" menus and windows are the #1 reason why I surf away from web pages.
Tip to "designers": If I didn't CLICK on it, I didn't WANT it, and that means ITS IN MY FUCKING WAY
Desktop screens have had two sizes in the past 10 years to my knowledge: 4:3 and 16:9 (or close to it),
Irrelevant. All you really need to know is that pixels are square. It's been some time since we had to deal with non-square pixels. Everything else should be up to the user's browser window.
Ironically enough, my source for this idea was Walter Wink's "Powers" series, which is about taking a close look at the Bible and what it has to say about power (hence the name) and social institutions, and how these can be regarded as living things in their own right. And even more ironically, that idea meshes quite well with Dawkin's ideas about cultural memes being analogous to genetics.
> A single combination of web browser and operating system can be used on both low DPI displays and high DPI displays.
If the image is wider than the window, you get scroll bars; also, browsers can resize. It's not the server's job. We don't have a bandwidth shortage. We have a decently flexible content shortage. If you know it's a mac or a PC, you know it's got a desktop range of pixels. Likewise any particular smartphone. There's no mystery here worth noticing.
Don't resize images with the viewport. That's very annoying. They should reflow with the window according to the browser's settings. If you set a constant width, then you're asking for scroll bars if the window can't fit that width. This all works very well. It has for a long time. Stop trying to make it not work.
Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should do something. You could make both the text and the background black -- but you wouldn't, right? Because it's highly unfriendly, to say the least. Well, so is locking the user's browser view to particular widths and heights and sizes and positions. HTML was intended as the content provider; the browser intended to be the content formatter, using only hints -- lines, paragraphs, font styling, etc. The closer you can get to that in web page design, the better web page designer you are, because then the user gets to fit the thing into the window the user wants it to be in.
Every time I run into a page that makes me resize my browser to make the damn thing work, I curse. Every time. Every time some whackjob decides that menus should drop or windows should open when my mouse pointer crosses some object, I curse. Every time I run into some page (like liveaquaria.com's) that won't run its cart or checkout through the usual standard ports and protocols, when everything else from Amazon to the tiniest little retailer and back to EBay will, I try to find somewhere else to shop.
Stop trying to be clever with the page. Instead, be clever with what you put on the page.
T(w) [is less than] T(p) [is less than] T(s).
Yes, I know Slashdot character handling is a pain in the ass, and it catches me often too, when I try to express "greater than" or "less than". Even so, I'm not installing Sage right now. Better things to do. I have reasons for wanting it public-readable, and I will accept nothing else.
" But those are fixable problems if only Mashable management had the sense to correct the design."
"You're not claiming that the very opportunity to do width transitions wrong justifies removing the media queries feature entirely, are you?"
I'm claiming that proposing a responsive design using media queries as a solution to designing a site for desktop and mobile users is generally more work and harder to get right than just building two separate sites.
To make a (flying) car analogy:
"Responsive design" is to the problem of wanting a single website for mobile and desktop websites what "roadable aircraft" are to the problem of wanting a flying hover car. They are not simpler, or easier. They are a 'solution' only in the loosest sense of the word.
That's not to say that its not possible to build a decent one, but when you are working with a web developer on a site, and you say "ok, what about mobile?" and if he says "No problem, I'll use a responsive design" that's a HUGE red flag to run away screaming.
"Responsive designs", are called the "solution" to the problem of mobile and desktop design, but its a solution the same way roadable aircraft are a solution -- they're clumsy, they're fragile, they are vastly more expensive to produce and maintain, and most people don't really want to use one.
Should we take away the ability of people to produce them? Of course not, but web designers should pull their heads of out their collective asses and stop promising flying hovercars and then delivering poorly conceived roadable aircraft.
Anyway, badly done viewport width transitions are consistent with other problems I see on Mashable, such as that damn "infinite scrolling"
Agreed 100%. Although I contend that its not even all that good on mobiles either.
I've already showed you that the outer surface of an enclosing shell with an area ratio similar to Earth's warms to ~149.6F. I've explained that neglecting area ratios is a tricycle: a simple approximation that helps us learn. It's like the "frictionless pulley" or "massless rope" or "blackbody" approximations. Again, in this case the tricycle isn't too inaccurate compared to the bicycle, it's much easier to learn, and it provides a sanity check on the more complicated calculation. As the area ratio approaches "1.0" the bicycle should give the same answer as the simpler tricycle. And it does.
Bullshit. I quoted your exact words above. You don't get to plug later calculations back into your original erroneous analysis and call it good. And I have already explained why it is not possible to do this and still get valid answers. 2 * X is not the same as 1 * X. It is not valid to multiply your power output with no further power input. It's a violation of conservation of energy. So you're still falling off your tricycle.
Repeat: if we give the sphere which is the heat source, at 150 deg. F, an area of 1 m**2, and the outer area of the enclosing sphere an area of 2 m**2, and (as YOU have said), power in = power out, then the exterior surface cannot be the same temperature. This is not even advanced physics, it's simple damned algebra.
And even Spencer did not assume net heat transfer from the exterior walls, which is fine because the exterior walls cannot be of greater temperature so according to the S-B law there is no net heat transfer to the interior objects. T(w)
All else being equal, the amount of power input necessary to heat an object with 1 m**2 surface to 150 deg. F is not enough to heat an object of similar material with 2m**2 surface area to the same temperature! If you try to assume the same radiative temperature over greater area, you must have greater input, or else you have done your math badly. I have stated this to you a number of times. Your attempt at analyzing this challenge violates conservation of energy. Period. This is unequivocal.
And no, it's not like the blackbody approximations because we're talking about real objects here, so emissivity will not be same as absorptivity, BUT that's really irrelevant to this particular point. You're just clownishly hand-waving again, because even if they were black bodies, they would still have to obey S-B and you would still be wrong.
I quoted your actual analysis above, which you wrote some time ago and claimed it was a refutation of Latour. Your math is wrong. Further, it is not valid to take other calculations you did later, using different assumptions, plug them back into the original problem and claim that all is good. If you want to change your figures, then START OVER AND DO IT RIGHT. It isn't valid to make other assumptions then just plug those calculations back into the original problem as though that made no difference.
You are only illustrating why I have said all along that you're full of bull, and you have been all along. Either you are incapable of doing this properly, or you're just bullshitting everybody for reasons of your own. And as I have stated before, I believe it is your own strange way of further harassing me.
No, you linked to another PSI Sky Dragon Slayer.
Hahahahaha! Now, THIS is ad-hominem at its finest. I did write NASA when I meant ESA, but that is beside the point. It is the information content you must refute, not the person, and the information is clear: the chart (straight from ESA) contains a 0.5 factor because a plate has 2 sides, and you have to calculate emittance from BOTH sides. No matter what the shape of your object, you have to calculate emittance from ALL its surfaces if you want to get the correct answer for temperature. You don't get to take the total emittance and multiply it, which you implied in the analysis I quoted.
If you can do it better NOW, then do it better. Don't just take chunks from explanation A and toss them in with chunks of explanation B and call that a thorough treatment of the problem, because that's just more bullshit.
I have shown you unequivocally to be wrong, via simple algebra. If you can analyze the challenge properly, then do it properly, from beginning to end. No more prevaricating, no more bullshit.
So far you have failed to do so. Given your claim that you're going to devote your time to proving me wrong, then prove me wrong if you can. So far you have not even come close. And of course you still won't, because you're not capable.
At equilibrium, net heat flow out (in W/m^2) equals "electricity".
In an ideal circumstance with no losses. So, if (as in the statement you made that I quoted above), you say the outside of the passive sphere is the same temperature as the heat source (as you did), then your output power is a multiple of the input power. PLUS in your calculation of temperature you omitted the radiance of the interior surface, which you may not do.
It isn't even close to the same temperature, because (simple algebra again) it is easy to show that the total surface area (interior + exterior) of the enclosing plate must be AT LEAST twice the surface area of the spherical heat source.
I calculated 29.4 W/m^2, which is less than with the simpler blackbody plates because aluminum isn't a perfect emitter or absorber.
Show your calculations where we can see them. I'm not doing this just for me, I want to show other people just how much a clown you actually are. I am not going to install Sage today just to check your math, and probably neither is anybody else who sees this.
But I repeat: if we use a ballpark figure like the one you quoted earlier, 509W/m^2 at the surface of the heat source, and call that area 1 m^2, then the emittance at the exterior of the passive plate must be LESS THAN half this figure, because you have the same power spread over more than twice the surface area. But this is not what you actually claimed in the "analysis" I quoted, which is on your website. You claimed that at equilibrium the temperature of the outside of the passive plate would be THE SAME as at the surface of the heat source, or 150 deg. F.
But the total power output (your words) must be the same. The total radiant power emitted by 509 W/m^2 times 1 m^2 equals 509 Watts. (This is power.) The total power output of a surface at 509 W/m^2 times more than 2 m^2 is more than 1018 Watts. So you have contradicted yourself and "created" power from nowhere.
I am busy so I am not going to sit down and calculate the actual radiant temperature of using these figures right now. I shall later, or maybe tomorrow. Including realistic emissivities and absorptivities.
You don't get to do that, if you don't want me to keep calling you (and showing you to others to be) nothing more than a clown.
If your original "analysis" (which you have continued to reference as recently as yesterday) is wrong (it is), then show us a better one. Stop taking shortcuts, and just do it. Or shut up, because up to this point you have demonstrated yourself to be just plain wrong.
I will not accept calculations in some format that is not easily readable on the web. I'm not going to bother to read them and neither will anybody else. This isn't your office, it's Slashdot.
YOU are the one who claimed Latour was wrong. Two years now, I'm still waiting for you to prove it without violating any physical laws.
I might even use your dimensions. I'm not sure yet.
War has been avoided many times.
So it has. Humans are, after all, also living creatures with their own agendas, such as survival. But every time war is avoided, how is that treated? Like we had won a terrible fight against a great enemy?
Or simply read what you wrote. Yes, war has ben avoided. You could replace "war" with "the Great Cthulhu" or "Slenderman" in that sentence and it would make just as much sense. War is not just an unfortunate failure of diplomacy. It's more, a pattern of behaviours inherited from our ancestors that are always there, suggesting a particular response to any perceived situation. And that pattern has been activated once again, and is guiding people's responses towards WWIII.