|
Bloody Mayhem posted:I googled it and those were the first result I got: http://www.solio.com/charger/solio-charger-comparison-chart.html. The site looks nice and the price is reasonable (~100$). But I have no idea if they're any good or not. In any case, it'll have to do, because I've never seen solar-powered cameras (except surveillance stuff). That or he'll have to carry around with him a shitload of batteries. My friend bought a recharger for like $30 she said, I forget where, I'd check best buy.
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2010 17:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 20:00 |
|
|
Luffles posted:Can my apartment complex force me into a specific ISP? I assume they get some sort of kickback and don't want me to leave it, but FiOS is available here and I hope that I'm not actually stuck with Bright House at this new apartment. It might fall under the ruling the FCC made a while back that bans exclusive cable contracts. I can't remember the name of it but it was in 2007.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2010 18:15
|
|
|
I realize this is a pretty specific question, but does anyone know how I can go about fixing/getting a broken neon light fixed? I looked up neon sign specific repair places and the closest one is like an hour an a half from where I live. All it is is a crack in the glass tubing that needs to be fixed. I might be able to fix it myself, but I have NO clue what goes into this type of thing. Am I required to refill the drat thing with neon gas? The crack in the glass is circled below.  
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2010 18:30
|
|
|
Alderdash posted:I realize this is a pretty specific question, but does anyone know how I can go about fixing/getting a broken neon light fixed? I looked up neon sign specific repair places and the closest one is like an hour an a half from where I live. All it is is a crack in the glass tubing that needs to be fixed. If there is a crack in the tubing, the neon or other gas used (since some gases can be used instead of neon itself to better display different colors) has gotten out and would need to be replaced, assuming you could properly repair the thing in the first place. Likely, the whole tube with the crack will need to be removed and replaced with a brand new one. Fortunately, that tube looks like it should be easy to get replaced, but yeah there's not much hope of fixing it yourself.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2010 18:39
|
|
|
Pontius Pilate posted:Huh that's interesting. I don't watch the show frequently so I never picked up on that. So what Brits can do it the best? I was surprised to find out Bob Hoskins was English after seeing him in Who Framed Roger Rabbit. Christian Bale is pretty convincing. Heath Ledger, though not British, did a good American accent.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2010 18:41
|
|
|
How long does it take a letter and or small package to be delivered from the US to a soldier in Iraq?
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2010 19:57
|
|
|
There is a specific cinematic term used for the combination of horrible film scenes with happy background music and I've been looking for it for ages. If anyone can help me out I'd be really grateful!
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2010 21:05
|
|
|
General Venereal posted:There is a specific cinematic term used for the combination of horrible film scenes with happy background music and I've been looking for it for ages. If anyone can help me out I'd be really grateful! If the latter, I recommend thinking of a few examples of films that do this and looking them up on tvtropes and trying to find the term from there. Edit: Found it for you, http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SoundtrackDissonance
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2010 21:08
|
|
|
Orzo posted:By horrible do you mean artistically bad/cheesy, or gruesome/horrific? I'm thinking the archetypal example here would be A Clockwork Orange, the rape scene while he sings Singing in the Rain. Looking that up on tvtropes, we get Soundtrack Dissonance. I'm not sure that's a technical term, though it does go with cognitive dissonance. Edit: ^^^ well played
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2010 21:15
|
|
|
Before computers, how did they measure things? I mean, like, let's say you wanted to cut a piece of wood to the length of a foot. You take out a ruler and mark off a foot. But how did the manufacturer of the ruler know that he was making something that was a foot long? How was he so exact? What did he measure against? And if he used something, how was that thing created to be exactly a foot? Who knew they had exactly a foot?
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2010 22:24
|
|
|
the posted:Before computers, how did they measure things? I know there's a reference kilogram stored in a vault in France; by definition, it *is* the kilogram. They take it out from time to time and compare it with the copies to make sure all definitions are up to date, and then people can copy the copies and so forth. I don't know if there was ever an official reference foot, but if there was, the ruler manufacturers would have a copy of that they would base their rulers from.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2010 22:53
|
|
|
the posted:Before computers, how did they measure things? By using things like these. Also, what do computers have to do with it? e: There may or may not be a standard foot. But there is a standard meter, and an inch is defined as 2.54 cm, so there you go.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2010 22:55
|
|
|
the posted:Before computers, how did they measure things? Protip: before they worked out all the measures there would be a different length of the foot, different weight of the pound, and different volume of a cup if you went 100 miles away from home. For example though for a modern measure: Currently the meter is defined as the distance travelled by light in vacuum in 1⁄299,792,458 of a second. However this is just a back definition found after a meter was attempted to be defined as one ten-millionth of the distance from the Earth's equator to the North Pole at sea level by French scientists. It turned out what they got didn't actually match a 10 millionth of that distance so they had a bar made of the size they found and it became eventually defined as the current definition. Essentially it's just some length. The same happened with every other measure.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2010 23:05
|
|
|
In ancient Rome at least, all major marketplaces would have a set of weights against which merchants/customers could calibrate their own wares/purchases. They were pretty good at standardizing stuff so I imagine the soldiers that built the roads had some method of making sure they made them the proper width, too. Fun fact: a cubit is so called because cubitum is the Latin word for elbow, and a cubit is the length of a man's forearm from his elbow. When you're not dealing with super precise tiny mechanical things or computers, close enough is good enough.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2010 00:14
|
|
|
What TV show or movie has a squirrel or other small animal who drives a miniature car? I think he drives it drunk and crashes on one occasion.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2010 00:39
|
|
|
who cares posted:What TV show or movie has a squirrel or other small animal who drives a miniature car? I think he drives it drunk and crashes on one occasion. If you're not certain it's a TV show or movie it sounds like you're describing Todd from the webcomic Achewood.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2010 00:51
|
|
|
stubblyhead posted:Also, what do computers have to do with it? My question too. (Computers do almost nothing not 'computerish'.) Fun fact about standard for weights and measures: The standard Kilogram varies in weight for no known reason. The standard kilogram is one measure that is specifically defined based on a specific physical object, and that object varies in weight for no known reason.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2010 03:48
|
|
EVERYTHING I SAY ABOUT JAPAN OR LIVING IN JAPAN IS COMPLETELY WRONG, BUT YOU BETTER BELIEVE I'LL 
ABOUT IT.
|
kapalama posted:My question too. The standard kilogram varies in weight because it is a unit of mass and being in locations where the force of gravity changes changes the weight.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2010 03:58
|
|
|
fishmech posted:The standard kilogram varies in weight because it is a unit of mass and being in locations where the force of gravity changes changes the weight. The standard kilogram might be called a measure of mass, but since that mass is always determined by measuring its weight, to make a distinction in this case is stupid. They do not do any mass measuring tests; they use only weight measuring tests. The weight varies for reasons that are far from clear. The most important anomaly is the fact the the weight for some samples tend to vary more than the weight of others, and they do not vary consistently. And none of the primary standard samples move from their storage location, though the comparison samples do.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2010 04:51
|
|
|
A Violence Gang posted:If you're not certain it's a TV show or movie it sounds like you're describing Todd from the webcomic Achewood. Thanks, that's definitely it. Something must have got confused in my mind that made me think it was from TV.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2010 05:21
|
|
|
If I'm not mistaken, I believe the definition of a meter has changed a few times. In one case it's defined as 1/10,000,000 the length from the north pole to the equator as measured going through Paris. It's also been defined as 1/299,792,458 the length that the speed of light travels in one second.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2010 05:23
|
|
|
Elijya posted:If I'm not mistaken, I believe the definition of a meter has changed a few times. In one case it's defined as 1/10,000,000 the length from the north pole to the equator as measured going through Paris. It's also been defined as 1/299,792,458 the length that the speed of light travels in one second. The first definition was the original one, the latter is the current one. Every SI unit except the kilogram is now defined in terms of measurable properties of natural phenomena; the kilogram is still defined as the mass of the lump of metal in France.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2010 05:27
|
|
|
haveblue posted:The first definition was the original one, the latter is the current one. Every SI unit except the kilogram is now defined in terms of measurable properties of natural phenomena; the kilogram is still defined as the mass of the lump of metal in France. Question: What about the definition of a second? What phenomenon is that based on? And I thought there was some interrelation between the SI units? Something like 1 cubic meter of water (at room temperature sea-level pressure) is equal to precisely X kilograms? If the definition of a meter is based on the speed of light, wouldn't that in turn affect the measurement of a gram?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2010 06:02
|
|
|
Elijya posted:Question: What about the definition of a second? What phenomenon is that based on? IIRC, it's a certain number of vibrations of an atom of a particular isotope of cesium. That number was chosen to be identical to the previous length so those relationships would still hold, just now specified in a way that could be reproduced in any properly equipped lab instead of relying on something unique or arbitrary.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2010 06:07
|
|
|
kapalama posted:The standard kilogram might be called a measure of mass, but since that mass is always determined by measuring its weight, to make a distinction in this case is stupid. They do not do any mass measuring tests; they use only weight measuring tests. Gravity varies across the earth's surface bro. Move any object anywhere and the weight changes. Not so much that most people could feel it but a sensitive scale shows it. Elijya posted:Question: What about the definition of a second? What phenomenon is that based on? All units are actually arbitrary things, which we later hunted down precise measurements for. The second is 1/60 of a minutes and a minute is 1/60 of an hour and there are 24 hours in a day... except there's actually a teeny bit extra time, less than a second, in the length of the day. All SI units are supposed to be interrelated and a kilogram was supposed to be the mass of a liter of water at the densest point which was supposed to be 0 degrees celsius. But it turns out water is at its densest at 4 celsius, so noone could agree on which part 0 c or densest should be the definition, so they made a lump of iridium and other metals and said it's that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2010 06:12
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Gravity varies across the earth's surface bro. Move any object anywhere and the weight changes. Not so much that most people could feel it but a sensitive scale shows it. From what I recall, gravity is weakest in Sri Lanka. And y'all are talking about the wrong thing - the correct statement is, for unknown reasons, the international prototype kilogram's mass changes over time. Or rather, it changed relative to the copies; after all, no matter what the mass of that cylinder is, *that* is a kilogram. For example, one of the United States's copies, created in 1889 with a deviation of -39 micrograms (it weighed 39 micrograms short of being equal to the kilogram), was last measured in 1999 to be exactly the same, -39 ug. However, many other copies have been gaining in relation to the kilogram. Either the prototype kilogram is losing mass, or the copies are gaining mass.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2010 07:05
|
|
|
I just wonder what people used for measurements back in the day. I mean, we take for granted that a meter stick is... well... a meter, and that it's also (roughly) perfectly straight. But how did they make perfectly straight things of definite lengths hundreds of years ago? I mean, they BUILT huge structures, we can see them. How did they make the blocks so flat/straight/defined?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2010 07:09
|
|
|
the posted:I just wonder what people used for measurements back in the day. They probably cut most of the stuff on site, meaning they had something to compare the blocks against. And when putting them on the wall, could see that one was slightly smaller than the other, and chip away at the larger one.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2010 07:13
|
|
|
the posted:I just wonder what people used for measurements back in the day.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2010 07:15
|
|
|
Golbez posted:From what I recall, gravity is weakest in Sri Lanka. Simple answer: copies have been allowed to gather minute amounts of dust or other detritus.. Since the US takes care of its copy most carefully, it hasn't changed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2010 07:38
|
|
|
You don't think they thought of that? According to Wikipedia, kilograms are stored in sealed environments and cleaned according to standardized procedures and schedules. Also according to Wikipedia, there is currently no accepted explanation for the masses of the kilogram and its copies drifting away from each other.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2010 07:54
|
|
|
haveblue posted:You don't think they thought of that? According to Wikipedia, kilograms are stored in sealed environments and cleaned according to standardized procedures and schedules. Also according to Wikipedia, there is currently no accepted explanation for the masses of the kilogram and its copies drifting away from each other. Except that if mass is showing up, mass is being added somehow. The fact that the American copy isn't changing in mass relative to the master copy indicates that it's not a property inherent to all the copies. As you said either the original is losing mass or some of the copies or gaining mass right? Well how would the original lose mass? Nothing that's plausible. How could copies gain mass? Various stuff getting stuck to them. Simple case. We do want to know how certain countries get gunk onto their kilograms but it's clear it's happened. fishmech fucked around with this message at 08:11 on Nov 13, 2010 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2010 08:02
|
|
|
From an evolutionary perspective, what is the purpose of males being generally hairier than females, specifically in regards to facial hair? In other words, what purpose does a beard serve bilogically?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2010 08:47
|
|
|
Elijya posted:From an evolutionary perspective, what is the purpose of males being generally hairier than females, specifically in regards to facial hair? In other words, what purpose does a beard serve bilogically? It is notoriously difficult to establish answers to "why" questions like this. But it probably has to do with sexual selection: it is a physical marker selected for by females.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2010 08:54
|
|
man
|
Orzo posted:Edit: Found it for you, http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SoundtrackDissonance Thanks Orzo and Golbex! It had been bugging me for years, I can finally move on 
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2010 10:07
|
|
|
Anyone know how to make WIkipedia remember that I have given them money twice already so they quit showing me the "Cult of Personality" ego picture of that guy?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2010 10:22
|
|
|
Elijya posted:From an evolutionary perspective, what is the purpose of males being generally hairier than females, specifically in regards to facial hair? In other words, what purpose does a beard serve bilogically? dokmo posted:It is notoriously difficult to establish answers to "why" questions like this. But it probably has to do with sexual selection: it is a physical marker selected for by females. To expand on dokmo's answer, hair that grows on your arms/chest/back/face etc. grows as a result of a mixture of factors, though adrenaline contributes to faster and more prominent growth. Women that look "harier" will naturally produce higher levels of adrenaline than their less-hairy counter parts. As adrenaline is associated with fight-or-flight and therefore strength or weakness, women are naturally attracted to the stronger males, and by being hairy, men can show their "manliness" without beating up other tribes. e: I do say this tongue in cheek, the physiology and selection is there, but I'm not saying "hairy men get all da womenz."
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2010 10:30
|
|
|
kapalama posted:Anyone know how to make WIkipedia remember that I have given them money twice already so they quit showing me the "Cult of Personality" ego picture of that guy? Have you had a look for a Greasemonkey script for it? I'm sure one exists because I don't see anything like that. I have one called Wikipedia Ad Remover. My question: Why does cold water with detergent never form as good a lather as hot water? Or am I imagining this?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2010 14:23
|
|
|
kapalama posted:Anyone know how to make WIkipedia remember that I have given them money twice already so they quit showing me the "Cult of Personality" ego picture of that guy? well for me there's an X in the top right of the image. I just clicked it and the pic's gone now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2010 15:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 20:00 |
|
|
Is it possible to get American Airline points applied to your name if you've already purchased the tickets? We had them bought by a travel agent under our name.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2010 15:30
|
|
