Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Inside of cameras (Score 2) 117

by Animats (#47445151) Attached to: Scientists Have Developed a Material So Dark That You Can't See It

I didn't research so forgive my ignorance

It gets this property from its fine surface structure, which is a forest of tubes. Incoming light has to be reflected many times before it gets back out, so a black material is effectively made even less reflective. It's the optical-scale version of the pointed absorbers used in anechoic chambers.

It probably is not going to retain its blackness when exposed to water, dirt, or wear. Superhydrophobic coatings such as Never Wet have the same problem - they work because they're composed of tiny points, so droplets of liquid don't have a surface they can grab. But after some wear, the effect stops working. (See any of the many "NeverWet fails" videos on YouTube.)

This is likely to be great for protected environments, such as inside optical systems. It should be useful for optical sensors in space, too. But it's probably an inherently fragile surface. That limits its uses. (The "stronger than steel" probably refers to the individual carbon nanotubes, not the bulk material.)

This s a problem with a lot of surface chemistry stuff touted as "nanomaterials". They have interesting surface properties, but the surfaces are fragile, because they're some very thin surface layer with an unusual structure. If you protect that structure with some coating, you lose the effect.

Comment: Re:Does anyone oppose this? (Score 1, Informative) 95

by sumdumass (#47443925) Attached to: Fighting Climate Change With Trade

You don't and wont get it because you are not thinkibg like a true American liberal progresive.

You see, a premise to most of them is that taxes are an entitlement for others and government programs. Any reduction is a boom for the rich and harm for the poor. If you reduce tariffs only on some products, you are by default relying on taxes from the others for this entitlement. This now becomes a government subsidy in their minds purely because the other products still tariffed do not suffer from the same lack of government interference. So tax breaks are always subsidies because those effected do not pay their fair share.

Forget the logic that lack of involvement means less interference. Even if you support the intended goals. I personally think this is an outstanding way to encourage adoption of these technologies. And i should note that i'm typically called a denyer because i don't buy into the doomsday prophecies and think the problems if ever realized would be better dealt with as technology advances and over the long period of time it will take to have the sort of dooms day problems.

Comment: That's Fine (Score 5, Insightful) 85

If they want to go after a SEO company for not optimizing their search results, I don't see anything wrong with that. But has Seattle City Light considered just NOT SUCKING as a strategy to improve their reputation? Seems to me that analyzing the root cause of the problem ("Man, we REALLY suck!") and fixing it ("Hey, has anyone thought about maybe trying NOT sucking?") would be a good bit less expensive. Seems like only an idiot would say "Hey here's an idea! Let's pay 20 grand to some company and then we can keep sucking!" Of course, as a power company you kind of have a captive audience, so it seems like you could really suck all you want to as long as you don't capture the attention of various regulatory bodies in the process.

*shrug* I don't live in Seattle, so I don't know anything about it, but the internets say they suck pretty hard. I'm guessing their SEO company kind of sucks, too. Birds of a feather, eh?

Comment: Re:What's the point? (Score 4, Interesting) 110

Less exciting; but sufficiently dense pixels might also make subpixel defects less obnoxious, even if the actual resolution requirements are low enough that multiple physical pixels are driven as a single logical pixel to reduce computational costs or display link bandwidth. And more acceptable defects means fewer scrapped panels.

Comment: Re:So instead of "free" why don't they say "covere (Score 2) 244

you'd be guilty of various crimes, like tax evasion due to accounting fraud, and also price discrimination against some of your customers. Besides, you'd also be guilty of dumping, which is a variant of antitrust violation.

How so?

I mean building costs into pricing models has been around for quite a long time. Shipping is just one of those costs and costs come off the ledger for profit statements and tax purposes.

The US Postal Service has a flat rate box where if it fits, it ships anywhere for something like $15. If Amazon negotiates that to $10 and their average order qualifying for free shipping has 4 items in it, it is only $2.50 added onto the costs. So they take the retail price, discount it by 25% then add $3 to it and cover the costs of shipping without dipping too much into profits.

Businesses to this with taxes too. You place a fee or raise their rates and they just adjust their prices accordingly. It's easiest to do when the tax increase effects the entire industry too. Of course there has been some industries who got pissed and attached it as a separate fee specifically notating the law that caused the increase on the bill. Congress was really pissed when the telco industry started doing that.

Comment: Re:What is the motivation? (Score 1) 296

by sumdumass (#47441405) Attached to: A Skeptical View of Israel's Iron Dome Rocket Defense System

I suspected this hit piece was just an moral encouragement for hamas to keep up the fight.

I don't know if they are anti Israel or pro hamas or completely clueless but a lot of speculation could have been avoided if they waited until after this was resolved. As it stands now, Israel's citizens will likely be convinced it is useless and demand the military invade every time there is a rocket attack. There could be a lot more violent killing and subjugation than currently in place.

Don't hit the keys so hard, it hurts.

Working...