I know you're being sarcastic, but responding anyway.
NPR fortunately also does not make the rules. Refusing to use the word 'spooky' because someone might imagine racial connotations creates those very connotations, while continuing to use it the regular way prevents those connotations from creeping in.
Those looking to be offended, especially on behalf of others, are ofcourse free to do so, and they are also free to be offended at being publicly ridiculed when they attempt to use their cultivated sensitivity to redefine acceptable discourse.
I have a music box that uses a paper tape, it was an extra as I was making a gift for a family member and Thinkgeek (long before the Gamestop acquisition) accidentally sent me two. It was actually a lot of fun to make extra songs for it, the toy becomes interactive for the player. Which is a much better thing for kids than something that can only ever play 10 songs, and which they cannot alter in any meaningful sense.
Vouched for your comment because I thought it was an interesting view. Not sure why it was downvoted.
Why can't it be both? Suppose I buy t-shirts from Walmart. At the checkout counter, the cashier asks me to donate $5 to feed hungry children in Malaysia. I take a quick look at the tag on my $3 t-shirt. Turns out it was made by hungry children in Malaysia.
In this case, giving the $5 would be both justice and charity. The way the workers who made the shirt are underpaid and hungry is unjust, so taking a step towards rectifying this probably counts as justice. On the other hand, it's undeniably a voluntary payment made to a poor person because they are poor. It's not something I have to do, nor is it something I can reasonably count on many other people doing. So it's charity.
i think the humor is in the juxtaposition of the abstract nature of chinese philosophy against the abstract nature of copyright law, not that the author of one should be somehow immune to the effects of the other
tldr bird respiratory system is very effective, they breathe in one end of their lungs and out the other, always with either a full breath in their lungs or two breaths in their air sacs (one fresh, one ready to be exhaled)
I think I've over simplified the bird method but basically they inhale and exhale at the same time as required. They literally have double ended lungs, you push air in at one end and exhale CO2 at the other end. We mammals use the same route in and out of our lungs and the whole thing is driven by our diaphragm which pumps the bottom of our pleural cavity.
The bird mechanism is obviously efficient for oxygenation but it must have a cost that our body plan discarded or at least failed to even consider many millennia ago.
> ... it must have a cost that our body plan discarded ...
Our body plan didn't discard this mechanism, any more than it discarded wings or beans. We never had any of those features in our ancestry, because mammals aren't descended from birds. Our most recent common ancestor is much, much earlier than bird ancestors began evolving any mechanisms related to flight or high-altitude breathing.
Is this 'just' continuously blowing out from air stored in cheeks, while breathing as normal through the nose? I have said 'just', but it doesn't seem easy!
It doesn't seem to me that the lungs are being used differently (to normal breathing). I could be wrong.
(Edited to add text in parenthesis in 3rd sentence)
Yes, take a glass of water and fill your mouth, pretend to be a fountain spitting a stream of water, and breath through your nose. That is how I was tought to learn it anyways.
1) jet engines are interesting because of the continuous flow and also that all the rotating parts rotate in the same direction, a huge advantage over reciprocating engines. So jet engines can do 50,000 rps, while piston under 20,000 rps.
Note that sleeve piston engines like the Rolls Royce Crecy, are much more efficient than valves, but development stopped at the end of WW2 and resources focused on jet engines.
Rolls Royce Crecy - The Most Advanced Piston Aero Engine Never Made
2) the exception to continuous flow is the WW2 V-1 pulsejet engine, which has a gate that is closed at combustion time, about 42 Hz.
The pulsejet is a very interesting engine in that it's the simplest possible jet engine - literally an empty metal tube with spray nozzles and a sparkplug.
The V-1 was the first mass-produced cruise missile. The Germans also had air-to-ground (anti-ship) guided missiles both wire-guided and radio-guided with a TV screen(!)
But the US Navy was the first to build precision-guided autonomous missiles, both the all-analog Sidewinder and Wall-eye, which shared modules. The Wall-eye made the famous Gulf War photos you've seen of entering via windows. It had analog circuitry to do edge-detection in real-time.
Well this seems interesting... So from my knowledge of high school honors bio, blood vessels have these long slow muscles that also help pump blood. If a heart pumps continuously, wouldn't that create back pressure on the vein/artery muscles, which would in turn increase your blood pressure whenever the vessel muscles contract to pump? And if you got an artificial heart, I'd think higher blood pressure is a bad thing?
From my quick research just now, it seems continuous flow hearts are not better because they pump differently. That's just a side effect with no benefit that's noted in studies. A continuous pump is much smaller, and for long-term total heart replacement, is the only thing that can be small enough to fit in the body. In fact, it's noted in a case study that they're not sure about the long term effects of not having pulses, and that's something that will need to be studied.
Now as far as the lungs - I think that would be a bad idea too. We'd need separate flow-through pathways to inhale and exhale. So two necks, or an exit hole in the chest. That takes up space and is another vector for infection. In addition, exhaling moisturizes the tissue, so you'd need much harsher intake tubes, and your exhale tubes would be constantly dripping water. All that extra space has to come from somewhere - meaning you now have less space for actual oxygenating tissue, resulting in worse oxygen capture. Now the diaphragm has to pump harder, because you're not extracting as much oxygen from your air intake.
Anywise, you had a funny comment, which I hopefully made funnier by responding to it seriously. We're a good team. Team Heart & Lungs they call us.
Yes, Medlife Crisis talks about the issue of continuous flow artifixcal heart and mentioned that work is happening on one than mimmics the heart better in one of his videos.
so when I google "medlife crisis continuous flow heart," the first result is your comment. the one i'm replying to right now. which is pretty funny. do you have a link or good thing to search for, because I can't find it on the 1st couple of pages of results. not "asking for a source" - just bored and looking for something to read.
Apparently swans (and similar) birds have long necks to provide a constant amount of re-breathed air (eg a built-in inefficiency threshold).
Because their lungs are tied to their flight muscles, they would overbreath at cruising speed. So the long necks provide just the right amount of re-breathed CO2 to offset this.
Some falcons have nostrils that are designed to slow down the air flow so that they can continue to breathe while diving at very high speeds. Even though they exercise hard to catch their prey they aren’t winded as a result. Unlike say cheetahs that are completely out of breath at the end of a chase and have to breathe for a bit before they can eat..
there does seem to be some kind of push against it, as if it's either triggering to anyone who hasn't seen one in real life, or maybe the ui designer is afraid someone will think they're old and out-of-touch?
the alternative seems to be pictures of folders and clouds with arrows going in and out of them, when the extremely distinctive floppy disk icon unambiguously means whatever form of 'save' is most intuitive and useful
