Re: ping
On 10/02/2010, at 1:12 PM, Trent Shipley wrote: Ping! That's the most expensive machine in the hospital. Charlie. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: ping
I have blink feeling that this is a big deal. Any thoughts? http://www.physorg.com/news184310039.html learner ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Spray-on glass (was Re: ping)
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 8:33 AM, Chris Frandsen lear...@mac.com wrote: I have blink feeling that this is a big deal. Any thoughts? http://www.physorg.com/news184310039.html It caught my eye, too. If it really does all that they say, it will have a tremendous impact. And the patent owner will acquire many of the dollars in the world. One of the odder things about it was that it protects against water, but it also helps protect plants because it is breathable. Clean freaks will spray everything in their homes, I predict. Nick ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Spray-on glass (was Re: ping)
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 9:08 AM, Nick Arnett nick.arn...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 8:33 AM, Chris Frandsen lear...@mac.com wrote: I have blink feeling that this is a big deal. Any thoughts? http://www.physorg.com/news184310039.html It caught my eye, too. If it really does all that they say, it will have a tremendous impact. And the patent owner will acquire many of the dollars in the world. I checked Nanopool's website, and one thing I did not see addressed was durability. A 1nm coating of quartz just does not sound very tough. One application they mentioned was coating corks for wine bottles. I find it hard to believe that the coating will completely adhere to the cork as it is jammed into the bottle, and then speared with a cork-screw and tugged out of the bottle. (Incidentally, is there any reason cork is used in wine bottles other than tradition? why not a conventional bottle-cap? Is it just wine connoisseur stubborness, I'd never drink wine with a bottle cap!) Another issue is silicosis. Small particles of SiO2 are known to cause lung disease. I would not want to be a test subject for spraying this stuff around the house or eating food grown or processed with it. I would think the first applications, if it is as good as they say, are for building materials. Coating stone, brick, wood, etc. But even for that, I would not want to be a guinea pig. What happens after years of weathering, expansion/contraction, etc? ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Spray-on glass (was Re: ping)
with a cork-screw and tugged out of the bottle. (Incidentally, is there any reason cork is used in wine bottles other than tradition? why not a conventional bottle-cap? Is it just wine connoisseur stubborness, I'd never drink wine with a bottle cap!) You're correct. While there is small selection of wine which requires a less than 100% airtight cork, most wines can simply be capped with ordinary bottle caps. While these cheap bottle caps outperform even costly corks (expect more than 0.50 EUR for a good quality cork!), they were, in the past, only found on cheap wines. So called glass corks are an alternative for the wine connoisseur. The manufacturer of these glass corks also offers plastic corks (identical, except made of plastic), but hasn't yet sold any of these cheaper variants. It's all just perceived quality. Especially if you happen to know that the glass corks are only airtight because of a *plastic* seal. I would think the first applications, if it is as good as they say, are for building materials. Coating stone, brick, wood, etc. But even for that, I would not want to be a guinea pig. What happens after years of weathering, expansion/contraction, etc? The glass coat is said to be flexible. However, I'd be wary of anything which could emit particles. OTOH, plastic spray has been around for decades. After the solvent has evaporated, it's also chemically neutral. Yet I've still to see any hygiene maniac who covered everything with plastic. Best regards, Klaus ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Weekly Chat Reminder
The Brin-L weekly chat has been a list tradition for over ten years. Way back on 27 May, 1998, Marco Maisenhelder first set up a chatroom for the list, and on the next day, he established a weekly chat time. We've been through several servers, chat technologies, and even casts of regulars over the years, but the chat goes on... and we want more recruits! Whether you're an active poster or a lurker, whether you've been a member of the list from the beginning or just joined today, we would really like for you to join us. We have less politics, more Uplift talk, and more light-hearted discussion. We're non-fattening and 100% environmentally friendly... -(_() Though sometimes marshmallows do get thrown. The Weekly Brin-L chat is scheduled for Wednesday 3 PM Eastern/2 PM Central time in the US, or 7 PM Greenwich time. There's usually somebody there to talk to for at least eight hours after the start time. If no-one is there when you arrive just wait around a while for the next person to show up! If you want to attend, it's really easy now. All you have to do is send your web browser to: http://wtgab.demon.co.uk/~brinl/mud/ ..And you can connect directly from the NEW new web interface! -- William T Goodall Mail : w...@wtgab.demon.co.uk Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ This message was sent automatically using launchd. But even if WTG is away on holiday, at least it shows the server is still up. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Spray-on glass (was Re: ping)
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 9:58 AM, John Williams jwilliams4...@gmail.comwrote: On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 9:08 AM, Nick Arnett nick.arn...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 8:33 AM, Chris Frandsen lear...@mac.com wrote: I have blink feeling that this is a big deal. Any thoughts? http://www.physorg.com/news184310039.html It caught my eye, too. If it really does all that they say, it will have a tremendous impact. And the patent owner will acquire many of the dollars in the world. I checked Nanopool's website, and one thing I did not see addressed was durability. A 1nm coating of quartz just does not sound very tough. One application they mentioned was coating corks for wine bottles. I find it hard to believe that the coating will completely adhere to the cork as it is jammed into the bottle, and then speared with a cork-screw and tugged out of the bottle. (Incidentally, is there any reason cork is used in wine bottles other than tradition? why not a conventional bottle-cap? Is it just wine connoisseur stubborness, I'd never drink wine with a bottle cap!) Screw-on caps are becoming more common, especially for white wine. I'm also seeing more and more plastic corks. I think all that is keeping corks in use is, indeed, tradition. Another issue is silicosis. Small particles of SiO2 are known to cause lung disease. I would not want to be a test subject for spraying this stuff around the house or eating food grown or processed with it. Oh, but the article assures us: the nano-scale glass coating bonds to the surface because of the quantum forces involved. And who can argue with quantum forces? Nick ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Brin on global warming
http://open.salon.com/blog/david_brin/2010/02/09/the_real_struggle_behind_climate_change_-_a_war_on_expertise ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Br?n on global warming
I believe that climate change is true, but that America's response must preserve the American way of life or to hell with the planet. So the solution has to be a magic technology fix. We cannot raise the cost of energy to solve climate change, especially not before the costs of climate change become apparent. Even then it may be more politically expedient to build levees than to increase the cost of energy. As for American energy security, that means coal, not uranium. Nick Arnett wrote: http://open.salon.com/blog/david_brin/2010/02/09/the_real_struggle_behind_climate_change_-_a_war_on_expertise ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Br?n on global warming
FYI, unless the word Brin in the subject is followed by a colon, he won't see it... so it's not really necessary to replace the i like that. On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 2:27 PM, Trent Shipley tship...@deru.com wrote: I believe that climate change is true, but that America's response must preserve the American way of life or to hell with the planet. So the solution has to be a magic technology fix. We cannot raise the cost of energy to solve climate change, especially not before the costs of climate change become apparent. Even then it may be more politically expedient to build levees than to increase the cost of energy. As for American energy security, that means coal, not uranium. Nick Arnett wrote: http://open.salon.com/blog/david_brin/2010/02/09/the_real_struggle_behind_climate_change_-_a_war_on_expertise ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Br?n on global warming
Trent wrote: I believe that climate change is true, but that America's response must preserve the American way of life or to hell with the planet. You're kidding right? If we go down we're taking the world with us? A little Bond-villain-esqe don't you think? Can't compromises be reached? The majority of Americans are willing to give up a great portion of civil rights during times of war. We can't change our lifestyles just a little to preserve a more stable future? Why not nuclear power? Less people have died in nuclear accidents than mining coal. Mining coal is more hazardous to your health than working in a modern nuclear power plant. It doesn't produce CO2. It doesn't produce environmental pollution other than the obvious radioactive waste that is slated to start being stored at Yucca Mountain starting in a few years, where it won't be a concern for tens of thousands of years. If the human contribution to global climate change is significant and is something that can significantly impact us within the next one or two centuries, then why not trade the more immediate global problem for one that is more localized and we will have a much longer time period to solve? Trent Shipley wrote: I believe that climate change is true, but that America's response must preserve the American way of life or to hell with the planet. So the solution has to be a magic technology fix. We cannot raise the cost of energy to solve climate change, especially not before the costs of climate change become apparent. Even then it may be more politically expedient to build levees than to increase the cost of energy. As for American energy security, that means coal, not uranium. Nick Arnett wrote: http://open.salon.com/blog/david_brin/2010/02/09/the_real_struggle_behind_climate_change_-_a_war_on_expertise ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
