Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Conversation >

Random Q & A Thread - PART 2

Page: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7(8)9 10 11 12 13... 31

18:59 / 02.07.04

I think you're drawing a connection between chemical potential energy (in the form of molecular bonds) and radiation energy that isn't necessarily there, but I'm not sure. All the energy the earth receives from the sun is not used for life processes -- it heats up sand and water, causes droughts and other climate changes. So on that level, the planet-as-ecosystem could be made more efficient.

22:33 / 02.07.04

"Efficiency" immediately implies "purpose," a human concept. The machine we call Earth is not designed to actually "do" anything, so how can it be inefficient?

odd jest on horn

00:52 / 03.07.04

"Efficiency" immediately implies "purpose," a human concept. The machine we call Earth is not designed to actually "do" anything, so how can it be inefficient?

grant mentioned "planet-as-ecosystem".

I think a relatively impartial observer might measure the efficiency of an ecosystem as being in an inverse relationship with the time differential of earths entropy. I.e. radiation from the sun that gets turned into chemical energy in a plant, as opposed to infrared radiation, has suffered less entropy.

02:26 / 03.07.04

could you measure the efficiency of an animal or plant, organic machines evolved by chance rather than for a purpose?

isnt the planet a giant organism in a way?

10:40 / 05.07.04

Toksik:
if i remember physics class properly, E=MC2(apologies for the incorrect format) means that the energy to be found in an object is equal to the mass of the object multiplied by the speed of light squared…now, take a fish.
it eats another fish.
it certainly does not gain energy on anything like that scale, so it is not 100%efficient.
(if efficiency is 100% multiplied by total in/total out)

Just wanted to give a bit of an answer on this one, as I ended up thinking about this for about ½ an hour (and asking my ex, who teaches chemistry)
With chemical reactions, energy is consumed or produced – a by-product of what happens when electrons (resting on the perimeter of the atoms involved) are exchanged.
For instance, when you eat food, carbohydrates might be converted into carbon dioxide and water, which are expelled by the body. Some energy is released with this process which is where your body gets the energy from food. It’s an analogous process to combustion – a material combines with oxygen to create a new compound, with there being a release of energy.
Other chemical reactions consume energy overall – for instance, plants take in carbon dioxide and sunlight to create plant materials.
Worth mentioning that in either case (energy consuming or energy-releasing reactions), some degree of activation energy is needed. For instance, the movement of your hand when you spark a match.

In any event, with chemical reactions, matter is never converted directly into energy. The energy comes from the exchange of electrons between atoms (when new compounds are formed).
The energy released never even approaches that which is locked up in a piece of matter (vis E=mc2). This is because the energy stored in a piece of matter is mostly stored in the atomic nucleus.

This energy can be released in nuclear reactions like nuclear fusion (as takes place in the sun, where the nuclei of two hydrogen atoms are pushed together to form a helium nucleus) but generally this requires an enormous amount of energy to be put in to start the reaction off (fusion reactors store gases superheated to tens of thousands of degrees Celsius).

22:18 / 05.07.04

Jub, that's wonderfully helpful. Thank you so much.

17:00 / 13.07.04

JUB
i was mildly joshing when i brought up the ole E=lark, but i am glad you have covered the ground so well.

the chemical reactions will produce new chemicals(some as waste) and energy and not therefore be entirely consumed. makes sense.

still...
is the total energy in (in chemical and kinetic energy) the total energy out(in kinetic and chemical energy)?

if the waste is smaller than the foodsource, and the chemical energy of the waste is still relatively high, does that count as waste?

it might feed another organism, and the closed system that is earth will continue on, feeding itself... but then there is energy lost to space, and in more ways than one.

shit, this is a question with no real answer, isnt it?
or lots of little ones, maybe.

new question:
where does one go to report injustices perpetrated by a corporation, in this case a cinema group?
if someone is breaking laws or just plain has no good faith, who cares? officially?
TSA?

17:13 / 13.07.04

and another legal one...

when they say 'acts of god' as a legal term, what exactly do they mean?

i understand the term is a blanket one used for the unexpected or unpreventable, but what does it officially mean?

17:48 / 13.07.04

Act of God is usually included in contracts in order to trigger what is known as a 'Force Majeure' clause. In essence, this is a clause that absolves the supplier of the good or service of any responsibility in the event of something happening for which there can be no prevention or prediction. Acts of God are usually taken to mean natural forces such as hurricanes, tornadoes, severe hail- or snowstorms and the like. Things that are limited to what Mother Nature can pull out of her sleeve. Swarms of tiny locusts infesting your server and causing it to catch fire would be deemed an act of God. As would a tsunami washing it away.

Interestingly, Force Majeure clauses have been steadily expanding in scope in recent years. The major addition is that of terrorism, but things such as riots, wars, failure of subcontractors to peform, as well as labour- and civil unrest have found their way into these clauses.

pointless and uncalled for

06:40 / 14.07.04

toksik

Injustices performed by a corporation can be a little difficult to pursue but not impossible and can be worth doing, depending on how strongly you feel on the subject. Firstly you need to distinguish whether this "injustice" is a proper breach of the law or a greivance against operational procedure.

If it's a greivance against operation procedure then your statutory rights provide no real protection although you may have legal grounds to seek redress through a civil suit. However, because the vast majority of companies have them, mediation via a third party usually requires that you follow the "official complaints procedure". If a company has one then follow it and if you aren't satisfied then move on to the next stage. If they have no official complaints procedure then register your compaint with either the head of customer service if they have one (cinema chains usually do) or their CEO (a lackey will answer on their behalf). If you still aren't happy and they aren't offering third party mediation then go to either the Citizens Advice Bureau or the Trading Standards Office. These may have differnt names outside of the UK such as Better Business Bureau in the US.

On the other hand, if the company has broken a law then you don't need to be so nice about it. It is worth bearing in mind that officially seeking redress (registered complaint, etc) first will always count in your favour should you take legal action. Should you decide you can no longer deal with the company directly then you can either approach a solicitor or the CAB/TSO. The CAB/TSO should be able to give you advice or direction on how to engage in cost free or low cost options and the appropriate means to pursue a company. However, in legal matters they will have well defined limitations on how far they can act on your behalf.

If you have further information I may be able to give you better advice.

10:37 / 16.07.04

Does anyone know where gingerbop is? Maybe everyone knows that she's away travelling / hasn't got access to computer very often or whatever, but I wasn't there at that meeting.

I miss her boundless enthusiasm.

wembley can change in 28 days

17:12 / 17.07.04

Can't help you there, Jub, but I hope someone else can help me:

Question: What digital video camera do I want?
I've been put in charge of selecting a DV cam for my theatre group, because people assume I'm techie enough. I know jack about digital video photography. Here are the facts:

Budget up to €1500, including peripherals (case, tripod)
Should be able to record live theatre (Shows up to 2.5 or 3 hours; recording in low light and picking up sound well. If you're recording theatre, the point is never to make a sellable recording, it's just a record, because even an amazing recording of a theatre performance pales in comparison to the performance (assuming the performance was also amazing, of course).
They'd like to record to DVD (or transfer to DVD easily at least).
What are the sort of specs I should be after? Any recommendations?

22:16 / 17.07.04

Jub, G-Bop was in london last week, being what I'd imagine's her usual sparkling self, and now she's off to be an au pair in Devon, or somewhere.

13:56 / 19.07.04

wembley: If you want to transfer to DVD easily, then you need to get a unit with a firewire connection. I don't know what cameras go for in the EU -- the only firewire ones I know of over here are probably just a hair over your budget (Canon XLs or GLs), but I'm only peripherally familiar with the buying, selling and operating of DV cameras. They're the "pro-sumer" models. If you can find a regular "consumer" model with firewire (probably high-end), then go for it. Someone else here knows more, I'm sure.

Question: If we had a philology forum, I think this would go in it.

I want to know why the possessive word "have" is associated with things in the past ("I have eaten").

The reason why I ask this is because a similar construction shows up in Mandarin, where there's no real tense. If you want to say "Yesterday, I did not eat," you literally say "Gone-day, I not-have eat." The "not-have" bit (mei-yo) is exactly the same word you use to say you don't have something -- wu meiyo pijio means "I don't have beer," while zuo tien, wu meiyo pijio hu means, "Yesterday, I didn't drink beer (i not-have beer drink)." You don't say "Yesterday, I not-do beer drink," (bu-tso pijio hu) or even,as far as I know, "I not-drink beer" (bu hu-le pijio).

It just struck me as strange that in two such different languages, there'd be that common thing of having being something bygone. I can't think of why that should be.

15:44 / 20.07.04

I think that, in English, it's a different tense. They have a similar one in Spanish (IIRC, which I may not). Unfortunately my Spanish is so rotten that I can't remember a decent example, but it's the difference between 'I have forgotten' for example, and 'I forgot': he olvidado, I have forgotten, olvide (with an accent on the last 'e'), I forgot. The first is the present perfect tense, the second is the preterite. I suspect this is the same form as the English distinction. The sense seems to be, in the present perfect, that I, as I am now, am in the position of having done this thing; whereas with the preterite the sense that I, in the past, did this thing (I note I can't even attempt to express this without using the wretched things - where are the linguists?).

In German, I believe, you always use a present verb form with a past participle to express actions taking place in the past: Ich habe wurst gegessen, I ate sausage.

16:16 / 20.07.04

Yeah, I remember the Spanish he thing... although he isn't from tener (to have) but from hacer (to do/make) isn't it? Or is it from a different verb?

I understand that it has something to with a position of having done something, but I'm not sure why the "done" is owned. Or is it the position that belongs?

15:36 / 21.07.04

No, it is hacer, but the sense is the same. And the German one is definitely haben, to have. I dunno where I'm going with this really... but surely the structure is so different, what with Chinese not being Indo-European, that there can't be any meaningful relationship despite the similarities?

15:39 / 21.07.04

I don't think, also, that 'to have' is being used in the sense of 'to possess', is it? It's a different sense... not even the same as 'to have to do something'. argh.

17:09 / 21.07.04

Well, it doesn't seem to be the same sense -- but that's why the commonality between Mandarin and English stood out. It seems like too much of a coincidence. There has to be some kind of semantic/linguistic link!
("has" meaning "must be"!)

16:53 / 22.07.04

Last night someone explained to me that the origin of "cin cin" in the informal Italian toast, actually came from the Chinese. They also used this as a toast but the real meaning was actually, penis!, penis!

Is this even remotely true?

18:02 / 22.07.04

I'm not sure about the toast part, but among the words for "penis" are yin jing (obscured/private parts- stalk), diao (hangs from body), yang ju (masculine hill-having), and

.

This would be pronounced "shee-an" quickly and curtly, so could maybe be confused with "chin".

There are other "qian" words that seem likelier for a toast (and "jian" means "health," which is what most toasts are for regardless of language) but I don't really know -- it could be an Italian pronunciation thing that changes "health" to "penis," or it could be the usage of repetition (in Chinese, this is usually a diminutive thing, or a familiar thing).

18:24 / 22.07.04

Wow! That is fab Grant. Thank you.

I suppose there was some slight misunderstanding.

From now on however, I am going to toast, "To a healthy penis!" or "Penis!, Penis!". Especially at weddings.

21:00 / 22.07.04

on having read, having walked, having spat...

it feels to me like you do own something after having acted.
you own that action.

thinking on it, the phrase 'your actions' seems common... do you perhaps create a 'thing' in doing?

21:13 / 22.07.04

also, "i have to go to work" seems to describe another thing i own...

if you think of the infinitive as a substantive, it kinda works.

in my head, at least.

12:56 / 23.07.04

Huh. I like that sense of "owning" actions. Very California therapy, but fun.

I own that.

07:25 / 28.07.04

what's a good 'how to' of celtic knotwork?

08:10 / 28.07.04

toksik try this

18:15 / 28.07.04

i was originally looking for a book, but that seems more than good enough for now.

thankyouverymuch.

unheimlich manoeuvre

21:29 / 28.07.04

toksik - Dover Publications does good and cheap books on celtic knotwork and design.

The resistable rise of Reidcourchie

09:23 / 30.07.04

On the Prince album Sign of the Times is the track It's Gonna' Be A Beutiful Night a live one?

17:59 / 04.08.04

Many years ago, when the internet was young and free, I came across a hilarious 'investment chain'-type thing, based on a cow. It started out with using the cow as collateral to own shares in two more, then using the potential income as a means of acquiring controlling interest in future milk production, stuff like that. It finished with the original cow being dead and the entire strata of investments now running with nothing to back it up. Has anyone come across this? Do you have a copy?

(Note: This is not the 'two cows' explanation of political systems thing)

04:28 / 06.08.04

No idea, sorry.

What I'd like to know is when the best time to eat bananas is. Some people like eating them when they're green and some when they're slightly speckley-black.

What is the best time - nutritionally? and why?

pointless and uncalled for

09:09 / 06.08.04

It depends what you are planning on getting from them. Vitamins and fibre are better done in the green phase, sugar and protien in the brown phase.

12:32 / 07.08.04

Possibly a very dumb question about indicators in cars - more precisely the indictor switch/lever/stalk:
In a right hand drive car the indicator switch is on the left hand side of the steering wheel. To indicate a right turn, you push it up. To indicate left you push it down. And that feels really intuitive; I never have to remember that that's how it works. If the lever was on the right hand side of the wheel, I'd expect to push it up to go left and down to go right. But why? If you imagine the indicator switch is the hand of a clock pointing at 9, why does pushing it up to 10 more naturally represent a move to the right than knocking it down to 8?

12:46 / 07.08.04

Is it not because in both cases you are flipping the end of the indicator stalk in the same direction as you intend to turn the wheel?

Page: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7(8)9 10 11 12 13... 31