I didn't mind him trying to make the Hobbit part of the LOTR cycle. it wasn't originally written that way, but as the other reply stated, Tolkien wanted to do that too. in fact, some of the dialogue changes he made when the book was re-released DID change certain things to make the Hobbit fit better with the later books. And I guess he pulled in some of the pieces of The Quest of Erebor and the Similarrion (sp?) to try to tie things together. But really, the main difference is that The Hobbit was written as a children's story for children. The Lord of the Rings was written for young adults. since these movies are produced in reverse, they want the LOTR audience to enjoy the Hobbit, and adjusted accordingly.

Here's the Michael Geist narrative:

http://www.authorama.com/free-culture-11.html

they're talking about moving heat, not converting heat. sure, there's an entropy gain with moving heat. but it's not nearly as large a penalty as you'd get from conversion. so, less to get angry about. Heat reclamation is just a form of smart design. hence all of the "this isn't anything new!?!" comments.

because the 2nd law's a bitch. you lose in the end.

I would love to know which laptop models are using this or similar heat recovery technology.

"What is we ran the exhaust alongside some materials like this"

you mean like this:
http://www.gentherm.com/page/automotive-0
http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=107768&p=irol-newsArticle_print&ID=1326140&highlight=
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2011/08/bmwthermal-20110830.html

or this:
http://www.serdp.org/Program-Areas/Energy-and-Water/Energy/Conservation-and-Efficiency/EW-1651
http://www.navysbir.com/10_3/8.htm
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012SPIE.8377E..15S

The problem is usually in actually getting that level of total conversion efficiency. By the time you take all of the efficiency chain fractions into account, you're far below the theoretical 15% (which only occurs at peak, steady conditions).

that is awesome. just curious though. there are some publication localities and time periods where public domain is difficult to determine.

http://wiki.librivox.org/index.php/Copyright_and_Public_Domain#Determining_Copyright_Status_in_the_United_States

This page doesn't list good bibliographical data. a review/comment mentions 'BBC sound lab'. I know these guys are diligent, but am I missing something?

"random object picked up in a field or thrift store used as a key".

doesn't matter. that thing will have a characteristic impedance that can likely be emulated by a not-too-difficult-to-make matching network. you might as well just have a keypad.

or, put in car analogy terms:

if functional, this could be useful for your car to identify who you most likely are for the purposes of automatically implementing your custom settings for seat position, climate control, radio stations, etc. But NOT for granting access to or starting the car. And definitely not for determining to whom to send the automated red light camera ticket.

Pretty sure the GP meant businesses == companies. Other businesses have survived, some have not. hence, the buggy-whip market had to substantially adjust expectations when the automobile came around.

"I don't know why anyone would buy a used game when they can buy a brand new one for $5 more"
because it's the exact same game. For $5 less. Unless they're getting more value for that $5, they see no reason to spend $5 more.

"I also don't know why they would turn around and sell it a couple weeks later for half of what they paid for it."
Because they're done with it. They've played it through and there's no replay value, or they've played enough to realize they don't want to play it anymore. Why wouldn't you opt for half your money back that you could put toward another game. Either you'd enjoy it more, or could repeat the process. If he doesn't want to play it any more, then it has zero value to him on the shelf, but a value of 50% of retail if he trades it in.

The "why's" are based on simple math. Now, you might not do it, because you have a different criteria for placing value on things. But the industry evidence points to the process above being the norm.

So, when people started selling cars, before completing the first sale the industry made sure that there was a system of used car dealers is place to handle the expected used car market? No, the used car market appeared to fill a need, to facilitate the transfer of value while value was still present. New car dealers will buy used cars, and maybe sell them, but there are used car dealers who do nothing but used cars. no money to the manufacturer, but they fill a marketplace need.

"Perhaps they should set themselves up that way"
They have. Gamestop is the equivalent to the Used Car Dealer. The use of the car as a downpayment on another car is equivalent to what Gamestop's doing here: trade in your old ___, we give you some credit toward the purchase of a __. the credit is less than what we'll resell for so we can make a profit despite the overhead. Oh, and your credit can be applied toward either a new ___ or a used ___." You missed that part of the car analogy. While the ability to trade in a car can put money toward a new car, it often goes toward a slightly newer used car.

If there is a problem with the car/home analogy, it's not in trying to compare items of different magnitude in value. It's in how they lose value. Physical goods lose value through both wear and time, whereas video games only lose value with time. That car loses thousands in value the minute you drive it off the lot, because it's lost its 'virgin' state. Physical condition and quality can no longer be absolutely guaranteed. Not so with a game. The game has almost zero loss of value over the first few weeks/months. Hence, the resale market for new releases is skewed.

let me point you to Angry Birds, Zombies vs Aliens, and many of the early, top-selling Wii games. You make a fun game, price it right, people will buy it and play. If you can't make a high cost game and recoup your costs, too bad. You played and lost. such is business, maybe next time you'll do a better cost-benefit analysis.

"But it's irrelevant."

how on earth is it irrelevant? It doesn't matter if I'm buying a $10 watch at Walmart. If it has resale _value_, that is something that will and should affect the initial 'price that the market will bear' for the good.

Things have value. Houses have value in the fact that they are still good for their intended purpose after many years of use. When you move, you sell them instead of abandoning them because they still have value, and you can trade on that value. The 'price the market will bear' for your house is based on it's value to the market.

A used car has value in proportion to its features and how much useful life it still has. It wears down over the years, and by the time mileage reaches 100k it has significantly less value than it did at 20k. But value has not reached zero, hence I can find someone to buy it for a few thousand dollars because to them, it has value worth paying for.

If publishers are insisting that people throw away the value left in the good that they would normally resell, then the prices better come down to reflect that loss of value in the product.

Cars and houses have high prices because of the value present in the resale market. The fact that there is Value left in the items is the cause, the prices are not. The used game market being what it is shows that there is still value in used games, just as there is in used books, electronics, cars, houses, etc.

because of this tidbit in the Bloomberg article:

"Using what is called steganography, Cunningham said, a programmer can embed malicious computer code that infects computers, opens ports, steals data or gains access to networks when photos, videos or other files are downloaded."

Now, THAT's news. So, now, instead of malware writers using steganography to hide commands or payload data accessed by normal executable malware code, we have steganographic malware that autoexecutes just by being downloaded! I'll get started on the GIMP payload filter...