heating

I hear this annoying argument all the time: I live in a cold climate so my {home server, tube amp, idle set-top box, microwave oven display} doesn't waste electricity, it just helps keep my house warm.
I understand that resistive space heaters are popular in the U.S., but in the rest of the world some people like heat pumps better. The heat output from both resistive space heaters and microprocessors or all other electronics is equal to the electrical energy drawn from the grid. The heat output from a heat pump-based device is higher than the electrical energy input, the difference resulting from cooling the outside air. Just like air conditioning in the summer, but in reverse. So there, your inefficient technology is not only helping keep your home warm, it's also wasting electricity that could otherwise be used to heat it more efficiently.

oops

I found this nice, classic "beware of macros" bug:

#define MAX(a, b)    ((a) > (b) ? (a) : (b))

[ ... ]

int x = MAX(foo, bar++); // incremented either once or twice

Oops.

supercrapinal

Scientists studying neutrino oscillations have recently managed to screw up their measurements and come up with a speed for the particles that's higher than the speed of light. For those of you not familiar with particle physics, think of neutrinos as very light electrons but without the electrical charge. Having no electrical charge they seldom interact with matter and can pass through thousands of miles of rock undisturbed. So they generate the neutrinos at CERN and measure the time it takes for them to arrive in Italy. Of course, according to all we know so far and according to countless experiments, no particle travels faster than light. This paper, the authors of which could easily fill up a large bus or maybe a small train, details their method. The paper is properly written and simply presents their method and results; it makes no extraordinary claims, but rather states that the authors have yet to identify any more sources of error and are searching for those. Of course the media have picked up the story. The respectable outlets maintain the cautious tone, but several are trying to make this into a sensationalist news story: "Einstein's Relativity could be wrong". No. The chances of Relativity being wrong are extremely slim. The chances that an undetected error screwed up the measurements is overwhelming. The time measurement and calculation error from known sources is about 10 nanoseconds and the particles have supposedly arrived 60 ns too early. Given the complicated system used to do the measurements, whose systematic (fixed) errors that had to be calibrated are much higher than that, it's very likely that this result is due to an equipment problem or a mistake. For example, does the circuitry always have the same delay? Does that 8km-long optical fiber always have the same delay? Are those delays during the experiment equal to the ones that have been measured while not doing the experiment? 60 ns is a pretty long time, given that one light-nanosecond is about 30 cm. But it could easily arrive from faulty equipment or bad measurement techniques. I'm sure that in the following weeks or months these errors will be identified. Until then, supernova measurements indicate that neutrinos arrive at the same time as light, not earlier. If they were really going faster, then the signal measured from a supernova that's thousands of light-years away would precede the optical telescope detection by days or weeks, which we're not seeing. So neutrinos don't travel faster than light. One might think that there's a small region, near the area where the high-energy reaction that creates the neutrinos takes place, where some extraordinary phenomenon might be happening, and that is causing the effect - once they leave that area they behave normally. This is also highly unlikely. It's true that Relativity has to be adjusted at small scales and high energies, but those scales are very far off and a space-time distortion large enough to cause 60 ns or 18 meters of error is surely going to be noticed and cause some very weird shit so to speak.
So there. Calm down and wait for that defective satellite to fall on your heads tomorrow.

web

The discussion on this article on Slashdot caught my attention. The article is complaining about the direction that Firefox development is taking, and many comments go along those lines. I won't discuss those comments and I won't discuss said development policies further than saying that one has every right to argue against those decisions in a civilized manner.
What pisses me off is people arguing in large numbers for web developers to drop Firefox support because of the new rapid-release cycle. I've noticed a pattern of people complaining that dealing with bug reports and generally supporting their web applications running on a large number of Firefox versions is painful and will cause them to drop Firefox support altogether.
Let me first say that this is a precise illustration of some of the many reasons for which I hate web developers, web programmers, Web 2.0 proponents and all the other web-*. With a few exceptions of course.
Furthermore, let me say that if your so-called application wasn't a monstrous, attack-prone, inefficient, poorly-documented, hastily-written-on-the-back-of-a-napkin-over-dunch, non-standards-compliant, unclear-specification-bending, latest-buzzstuff-incorporating, user-agent-string-dependent piece of spaghetti-code seasoned to taste with data, metadata and metacode, then maybe it would display OK and function OK in all reasonably recent versions of all mainstream web-browsers. I've worked (not a pleasure believe me!) with what I'm told are crappy CMS platforms and even those function reasonably well even in IE6, let alone Firefox, Chrome, Opera and that thing that Macs are using.
Now, even if your application isn't a monstrous, inefficient, undocumented, poorly-designed, badly written piece of html-css-js-xml-php-sql-jpeg-mashed-potatoes, that's still no excuse for being plain lazy with customer support.
But why so much venom? Why do I care? Because I'm forced to work with products that exhibit the above-mentioned characteristics on a regular basis, and that's costing me time and energy. I don't generally hate people who write bad applications, and I can always write applications that run on my PC if I don't like the ones that are around - at least theoretically I have that freedom, but I can't do that with someone else's web applications. It's when I'm forced to use some kid's late-night, inebriated brain-vomit that he calls a web platform, that I get pissed off, and I want to use this opportunity to say: I sincerely hate you. At the same time, I fully understand that somebody has to collect my garbage and somebody has to unclog my sewer, so you've got all my respect and thank God you're not programming critical infrastructure, I hope.
Getting back to the matter, I remember when I was a kid I came across a code sample from Microsoft on how to "sign"-or-something your ActiveX control that you wrote in Visual Basic so that Internet Explorer wouldn't warn the user that an ActiveX control is going to execute from the web page they're visiting, with the default IE settings at least. Yeah. ActiveX controls were IE's non-standards-compliant way of providing a 'rich web experience' or whatever it was called back then, and many businesses developed 'web applications' around said technology. Sadly ActiveX controls are not web applications, they're normal applications that contain normal machine code that's directly executable by the processor of the client computer and has access to all normal operating system functions, i.e. it is not sandboxed within the browser. Needless to say, that code can in principle do anything its writer wants with your machine. So yeah, go ahead and not support Firefox, and while you're at it complain that it's fat and slow, but remember that it's Mozilla who played an important part in promoting compliance to open web standards and distancing the web from the state described above. At least give them some credit for that, or just go ahead and implement your web application in platform-independent, not-quite-ActiveX Flash or Java or something and shut up.
Oh, and a late Happy 20th Birthday, Web, and a Happy 30th Birthday, PC. May you survive all this crap for decades to come and continue to bring us entertainment and prosperity.

internet

I'm on a long scientific visit at a scientific institute, I'm accomodated at a student guesthouse that's on the institute's scientific network and am not allowed to use the Internet for anything other than scientific purposes. I'm also not allowed to transfer more than 420MB/day or thereabout. Their leaflet says they'd let me but they can't because their traffic is metered and they're paying by amount of data transferred. I'm not a furious downloader, especially when I know I'm on a limited network. I just want to relax, read Slashdot and stream a news channel at some few 100 kb/s. But I can't because the institute's traffic is metered.

P.S. Oh shit this post is not scientific enough I'll be punished! [hides]

unfortunate

There's a growing trend around here for newspapers to offer various book collections, probably to try to counteract their plummeting sales or something. Under slogans having to do with investing in one's culture and stuff, they're offering a new book each week for a relatively small price, and you're encouraged to buy them all to own the complete collection. While not bad in itself, this affair gets funny when the competition gets tough and the companies start getting really creative with their advertising. For instance, one collection is currently advertised along these lines: [display frog] For those who read, this is a future prince. For the others, it's just a frog. Yeah, pretty original, until they get to this week's book: The Marquis de Sade. WTF.
On a totally different thread, I've been wanting for a very long time to comment on dr. Michio Kaku's pet show Sci-Fi Science, which I also find very unfortunate. His take on the possible real-world implementation of various sci-fi memes is sometimes plausible, at few times interesting, at many times outrageous, and the show itself is worth watching if you're otherwise terribly bored. I personally liked him much more when he was making brief appearences in various science shows than as the star in his own project. On to the point:
1. About one in three 'problems' has negative matter as a solution. Enough with the negative matter that falls upwards, it's purely theoretical, there are some clues as to its possible existance, but for now it's pure speculation.
2. Let's make a sci-fi-style force field/shield, only it's not a force field it's a matter+laser shield. Reasonable, until the enemy spaceship attacks you with lasers, which your carbon-nanotube-or-whatever-future-material shield can't supposedly withstand. His idea - coat it with "photocromatic materials", which change color in response to light exposure, just like those adaptive sunglasses. Those are supposed to absorb the laser. Why on Earth would he use photocromatic materials instead of a mirror or nothing is beyond me. The energy absorbed by the shield with or without said materials is basically the same. It either melts or it doesn't. Maybe it absorbs more so that the laser doesn't pass through the shield and on to the ship? Who knows. That doesn't solve the shield melting problem though. It just looks like a half-baked hack with a lot of buzztech.
3. He suggests that teleportation might work by digitising a human, memories included, sending the data along a series of laser beams (x-ray laser beams IIRC, for the added coolness and information density) and reconstructing the human at the destination. He openly admits to this resulting in two identical humans, memories and personality included, but states that we've got enough time to work the kinks out of this problem. I find this "brute force" approach questionable and I've got a big problem with it. Would you like to be killed at point A after being copied to point B? There's got to be a more elegant solution. Even if it were possible to clone me with little error and come up with an identical self-aware being, the two of us would be disconnected. The new mind would be a different mind. Sure, to my friends I might look the same and they might never notice, but I sincerely doubt that what I call "me" would be the same. Kill the first body and the second would surely function OK as a new person with my exact same traits, but I strongly doubt that I'll awake inside it as if nothing happened.
And the list goes on.
There are of course the cool solutions such as the self-reconfigurable robot, but many of them are, as I said, unfortunate.
Some might label me pathetic for picking on a low-budget pop-sci entertainment show, but there's a deeper thought here. Some time ago being a geek was something to be proud of, as geeks could display high levels of skill and competence, and in a larger sense, a greater understanding of the world. Now there's a new breed of geek, the sci-fi/fantasy game geek, who also takes great pride in their passion but often times lacks the high levels of practical skills and only displays a great understanding of some fantasy world. It can of course be argued that this projects positively into the real world, but generally the fiction geek combines all the disadvantages of being a geek with none of the advanges of being a geek. Everyone who watched Sci-Fi Science would agree with me.
After all, some people watch a movie or read a book and enjoy it as such, some find parallels with human society, some dream of being princesses and frog-princes, and some dream of being Jedi wielding extendable porous ceramic lightsabres with nuclear batteries, adamantium cooling fans and superconducting plasma confinement magnets. Or something like that. There's nothing wrong with either case, and of course there's always money to be made.

aliens

Just about every popsci show I've seen in the last few years favors the idea of aliens being everywhere. I'm sick and tired of hearing "reputable scientists" utter the stereotypical sentencte: "The Universe is probably teeming with life". Just because a lot of extrasolar planets have been found lately and just because alcohol's been found in deep space (along with other organic chemicals such as aminoacids) and just because bacteria can live everywhere on Earth doesn't mean that life just appears everywhere there's water and heat. And then becomes intelligent. A few decades ago you didn't see this almost-consensus that aliens must exist with high probability. Now everyone's being disgustingly optimistic about "not being alone in the Universe".
There are a lot of problems with the whole extraterrestrial life issue.
First, you can't do statistics on a sample of one. Therefore, you can't scientifically predict anything about life elsewhere. If we were to find life on Mars or Jupiter's moons or wherever, we'd have a sample of 2, which would still be insufficient, but a lot better than 1. To be pedantic, we don't even have a clear, universal definition of life, or a clear method to identify it; we can only speculate that if it existed, it'd be similar to what we see on Earth because the physics and chemistry are the same everywhere.
Second, we are very limited in our capabilities to detect extraterrestrial life. Radio searches have so far yielded nothing and I personally doubt they ever will, because radio "leakeage" from aliens would be too weak to be detectable. The whole "our TV shows have already reached dozens of stars" is bullshit, the signals are too weak to be detectable. A 100 kilowatt radio source on Earth would shine just about 10^-24 watts of power on a generous alien antenna (one square kilometer) placed not very far away (10 light years), for the same reason that distant stars appear so dim to us. If that antenna were connected to an incredibly sensitive receiver, say cooled to a tenth of a degree above absolute zero, the electronic noise due to thermal motion would still be 1000 times stronger. They could probably barely receive Morse code, which takes a lot less bandwith than human speech. Ramp up the distance to 100 light years and the signal gets 100 more times weaker. So in order for the aliens to hear us, either they'd have to have incredibly advanced receiver technology, or our beam would have to be focused and directed towards them. We're faced with the same problem when trying to detect alien radio signals. We could probably detect a signal if it was being intentionally broadcast, but we haven't yet. This raises another problem: how many times, and for how long, did we transmit such signals into space? Not that many, not that long. Maybe the aliens are doing likewise.
What other means of detection could we use? Take artificial lighting for instance. City lights on Earth can be seen from space, and they have a very distinct spectral signature. Aliens would possibly also use artificial lighting at night, but light has the same problem as radio signals. Maybe if we had a telescope powerful enough to see planets around other stars, we'd be able to detect these hypothetical lights. At least we'd know what to look for, given that aliens would probably see in the same frequency range as we do, because their eyes or whatever they have would adapt to the spectrum of their star, which would be similar to ours. If we watched the planet from the right angle, we could possibly even see these lights turning on in the evening and off in the morning. The total power coming out of our lights is much bigger than the power from our radio transmitters, so things might be the same on their planet. Light is also easier to detect than decoding radio signals.
Another thing that comes to mind are nuclear explosions. Any sufficiently developed aliens would do them, even if just for testing. They would be strong enough to be detectable, but did we ever see any sudden flash of light near a star? Did we ever look for one? I have no idea.
Finally, contrary to what some may think, there's not a shred of physical evidence that aliens have ever visited us. That might be due to the difficulty of interstellar travel, but nonetheless it hasn't happened.
So yeah, even if aliens exist, they can't get to us and we can't get to them. Relativity, which is pretty much proven to model this world correctly, while not forbidding faster-than-light travel, predicts that such travel would result in grandfather paradoxes and such. We also can't talk to them, because information, however we send it, radio, lasers, X-rays, whatever, only travels so fast. Maybe in a "parallel reality" we could, but not in this one. So there. We are alone.

power

Are you deeply concerned with pollution, global warming, nuke accidents and all the shit that comes with modern, power-hungry technology? Are you thinking green, feeling green, living green? Caring about the environment? Celebrating Earth Hour by switching off the lights and burning stuff? Or are you just concerned with your electricity bill, netbook battery, or living in Japan where the power grid's flaky after the quake?
Well, then use a goddamn low-power web browser while you surf for pr0n!

chrome

Had to set up a little website and wanted to test it on my server which doesn't use port 80. Works great under Firefox, wanted to also test it in Chrome.

A few months ago a similar setup worked just fine, but it seems some c0der/suit/whatever got smart and now I get

The webpage at http://example.com:1234/ might be temporarily down or it may have moved permanently to a new web address. (Gee, really? It was there 30 seconds ago!)
More information on this error.
Below is the original error message
Error 312 (net::ERR_UNSAFE_PORT): Unknown error.

Hey, it's mah puter and I read whatever port I want, bitch!
Furthermore, it seems there's no easy way to disable this stupid behaviour.

Can I say "Fuck Chrome" on a Google-owned blogging platform? Ok, I won't say it.

LE: There actually is an easy way to enable a list of ports; my bad for stopping on "recompile from source" in the bug discussion. Thanks Lucian. Still stupid behaviour.

research

Hey look, this researcher working with both CERN and Fermilab writes that the protons in my ass might contain higher generation quarks. (do search the article for "ass"). I always thought life was made up of ups and downs... but I'm now feeling strangely charmed.

fail

Recently the ubuntu guys decided to move the buttons to the left of the window and eliminate the icon, like so:Worst idea ever. When I browse in a maximized browser or when I keep my Pidgin on the right edge of the screen it seems like the window is falling off into the void, because the space on the top-right corner is so empty.
Fortunately, this being an open system, you can change this, but not from some user-friendly application like the theme selector (where by the way, the sample window decorations are still drawn the classic way -- double fail), no, you have to use the gconf-editor, a kind of registry editor for Linux (ugh) and modify the button_layout under apps/metacity/general:

http

One morning I was webbrowsing:

ret@ret-laptop:~$ telnet some-server.com 80
Trying some.ip.address...
Connected to some-server.com
Escape character is '^]'.
GET /32452tr534tfgr4 HTTP/1.1
Host: some-host.com

HTTP/1.1 404 Not Found
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 12:07:12 GMT
Server: NOYB
Connection: close
Transfer-Encoding: chunked
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1

...404 and so on.
WTF? No shame:

# Server masking is optional
#fake server banner - NOYB used - no one needs to know what we are using
SecServerSignature "NOYB"

Hey, NOYB yourself, fucker! You know I'm OK with you bragging about how secure you are and everything, but what makes you think you can abuse protocol like that? It doesn't hurt to be polite, you know! Is it so hard to come up with something decent like "hidden"? So much for user interface. Kids these days...
Anyway, here's the rest of the reply:
(some-html-tags-that-blogger-chokes-on)

Apache/1.3.34 Server at www.some-host.com Port 80

(some-other-html-tags)

LOL.

Later edit: oddly enough there actually is a www.some-server.com which obviously has nothing to do with this post, please substitute www.example.com in the text above :P

mutex

I got an email offer to attend a web seminar ("webinar" :-& ) by some company selling Real-Time Operating Systems. A RTOS is an operating system that, unlike usual PC operating systems, can guarantee that some task will be performed before some future moment, if properly used. The guys were charging $39 for the exquisite privilege of attending their online seminar about mutexes and semaphores. Not any seminar about mutexes and semaphores, but an introductory seminar on mutexes and semaphores. Mutexes and semaphores are used so that two programs don't work on the same data at the same time, in order to avoid corrupting said data. Here's an introduction to mutexes and semaphores. Enjoy.
P.S. Some time ago a colleague was asked by a professor what "methods" does a semaphore have ("P" and "V"). "And which one of them increments the semaphore?" Dude, how the fuck should I know, I don't speak Dutch and I don't care for Verhogen! Can't you just call them increment and decrement or up and down like normal people?

ads

I was browsing the Web for Information. There it was, the front page. An annoyingly blinking red-on-green banner was announcing that I am the 999999th visitor and it was congratulating me. I would've smiled if it weren't blinking red-green/green-red. Of course I couldn't have been the 1e6-1th visitor because (a) that's too improbable and (b) that site claims to have one million visitors, yeah right! So I scroll down, trying to ignore the ad, and I see this other banner, a vertical one this time. This one is blinking red/blue. It's saying that I'm the 10000th visitor, but this time, "this is no joke!". This time I laugh. At least this number was plausible, visitor-count-wise. Of course it would've been much cooler to be the 999999th visitor because (a) the number is almost 100 times bigger and (b) it's not one million, it's one million minus one (that's being creative!). But sadly, the lesser number was more probable, and besides, that wasn't a joke. Deciding that I had to settle for ten thousand, I scroll down and laugh again when another red-green/green-red banner (this time neither horizontal nor vertical, but squareish) informs me that I'm the 999999th visitor after all! OK, now I'm confused.
I fire up a new browser but this time under the guest user so that my files would stand a lesser chance of being trashed by malware. Wow, now I'm suddenly the 12796869939th visitor! That site must have a lot of traffic, given that I was at most the 999999th about 10 minutes ago. The "this is no joke" banner disagrees by a much smaller percentage this time, indicating 12769870797. The square one says 12796871217, but there's a twist: I'm the 12796bla-blath visitor to see "this lucky banner", so maybe there are other sites showing the same banner and there goes my "not enough visitors visiting this crap" argument down the toilet. The small difference could even be explained by the different times my browser queried the ad server for the three banners while loading the crap. [must be a very big server.] I hit Refresh and lo and behold, I'm either the 999999th or the 10000th visitor again. This clearly can't be, because I already visited the site before as both the 999999th and the 10000th, under a different identity.

So I hold my breath and click the first banner.

It asks for my name, address, and e-mail address. There you go. Move along, nothing to see here, and quit clicking stupid adverts and quit encouraging spammers by opening their e-mails and clicking on their links and buying their cockpills, because if you encourage spammers and spammers send me spam, then you're indirectly to blame. The fuck!

bits

I've had to learn the hard way that whenever you're taking a business trip (or a leisure trip for that matter) there are certain essentials that you have to bring with you, such as your towel. While having a laptop with your familiar environment and your favorite tools and music can make your life easier, it's not absolutely essential, given that you probably have an Internet-accessible box at home or at work. What is essential is a quick, straightforward way to get the job done. You need to be able to link your bits with their bits and measures. A simple way to patch your technological know-how into their system. Thanks to Microsoft et al deprecating "legacy" serial and parallel ports, now there isn't any simple, immediate way to interface stuff directly to a PC-class computer. You usually interface stuff directly to a microcontroller-class computer, but even that needs to be PC-linked to be programmed. So even if you're certain that you can find all the needed parts on-site, you still must always bring your own USB AVR programmer.

foolcoffee doubleclock

I had a Digital Computers course where we had these logic design and implementation lab classes. We had to implement various modules in Verilog and run them in a low-end FPGA. But during the first lab we weren't yet familiar with Verilog, so we were supposed to enter a digital schematic graphically. The schematic was designed the hardcore, old-school way, by building a state machine on paper, assigning bits to states, writing equations, translating them to flip-flops and gates et cetera. The state machine was for a (famous with past and current students at our faculty) "coke vending machine". It never worked as supposed and I suspect (being too lazy to prove though) that the equations suggested in the lab documentation were wrong. Years have gone by and, while having a break in the faculty hallway, I found that maybe one of our graduates, now employed at a vending machine company, has finally got it working:

vi

vi in an ancient text editor present on Unix-like operating systems, known for its two modes: a normal mode where letters and numbers mean commands such as move one word to the left, delete 3 lines et cetera, and an insert mode where chars are inserted into the text. Normal chars can also be deleted with backspace, but somehow \n (newline) can't. If you accidentally press q in the middle of the line, you can press Backspace and undo that. If you accidentally press Enter in the middle of the line, or for some reason you want to join two lines, you hit Esc to exit insert mode, then Shift-j to Join the lines, then i to enter insert mode again. That's wonderful ain't it? Now, on large computers people can use whatever editor they want if they hate vi. But on small embedded systems such as home routers and set-top boxes, vi seems to be preferred (due to its inclusion in the BusyBox userland, which is probably due to it being part of the UNIX standard), and even though there are ways to install other software, it takes time which I may not want to waste. Therefore - fuck vi, vi sucks.

copyright

Came up with this while drinking with other computer engineers. Steps to become a rich lardass:
1. Write computer malware (virus, internet worm, whatever, can be mostly harmless)
2. Let it spread
3. Go public
4. Spend zero to 6 months in jail or do community service or pay a small fine or something
5. Sue antivirus companies for copyright infringement because of your virus signature that they include in their product which they distribute without your written permission
6. Collect $5 per antivirus copy/update distributed

Then, foreach virus_writer joe in earth.people {the above}
And suddenly you can't have antiviruses anymore. Dude, sick, what the fuck.

urth our

This evening was Earth Hour again. Earth Hour is a rotating, evening-following event lasting approx. one local hour and 24 global hours. People are supposed to turn off their lights as a message towards wasting less energy. Instead, they gather and light candles, which as some including myself point out, is actually very energy-inefficient. Early news reports show people gathering under slogans such as "screw current events" (ro: nu fi la curent), obviously referring to electrical current, and lighting tons of candles. This is incredibly stupid. Electricity is one of the cleanest means to transport energy, and is readily obtained from solar radiation, wind et cetera. Candles release toxic gases into the atmosphere and some are actually made from fossil fuels (paraffin wax). Their luminous efficiency is shit, compared to even the most inefficient incandescent light bulbs and electrical power plants. Way to go dudes, way to go. Now it's actually cool and eco to burn oil derivatives, at least as long as it's diesel which doesn't need electric sparks, because, you know, electricity is satanic and stuff mwahahah \m/.
As a response to critics, the World Wildlife Fund (who came up with Earth Hour) said it's purpose is not to save energy or money, but symbolic. LOL!
Therefore I say: the purpose of hunting is not to kill animals and endanger more species, but symbolic. It's also fun. Not that I endorse it, but I can certainly see how some people find hunting challenging, rewarding, fun. Coincidentally, about 1 hour ago I saw a documentary claiming that the guy whose killing started World War One was a prolific hunter who used to travel the Austrohungarian Empire by train shooting every animal in sight. He supposedly killed about 300 k before being shot to death himself.
Sometimes I just get tired of ranting. Sometimes I just accept the fact that I live in a defective world full of defective people, including myself. For instance, if astronauts can phrase their speeches in such defective ways as to suggest that space smells, what the fuck can I expect from normal people? Please spare me the "it's metaphoric, dude!" explanation -- many people actually don't know that void can't carry sound or smell and many people couldn't care less, sadly. Wordings like "space smells of ozone" and "a whiff of vacuum" do nothing to help that.
After all, why the hell do I expect stuff from astronauts. Astronauts are more like soldiers than like scientists. They get too much hype anyway: Dood, let's off the lights and light them candles and watch the space shuttel land and celebrate urth our!!
Whatever makes you happy, people.

lemons

Embedded Systems exam at the Bucharest Polytechnic.
"A lemon battery can supply an average of 0.1mA at 1V for about an hour.
1. How many lemon batteries are needed to run a 100W light bulb?
2. How many instructions can an ATmega128L execute while running from a lemon battery? Assume that an ATmega128L uses an average of 4nJ to execute an instruction."
At the students' request, further (obvious) assumptions were specified:
a) To simplify, assume that the lemon has an ideal U-I characteristic (it can deliver anything up to 0.1mA at 1V).
b) It also has an ideal U-t characteristic (at 0.1mA, it holds 1V for one hour then suddenly drops to zero).
c) Assume there is an ideal DC-DC converter between the lemon and the ATmega128L, providing it with the required voltage.
After thinking about it, and after remembering the jokes about ideal spherical lemons in vacuum, I decided that additionally, the ATmega128L's clock frequency should be set such that it draws exactly 0.1mA from the 1V lemon supply, or that it should enter very low power sleep modes as needed.
Answers:
1. 100W/(1V*0.1mA) == one fucking million (whoa)
2. 1V*0.1mA*3600s/4nJ == 90 fucking million (yeah).
Required frequency for ATmega128L to complete 90Minstr in 3600s:
f = 90M/3600s = 25kHz.
Current drawn by ATmega128L at 2.7V (minimum operating voltage) in order to assure 0.1mA from lemon, given ideal converter: 0.1mA*1V/2.7V = 37uA.
Typical current drawn by real ATmega128L at 2.7V at 25kHz, extrapolated from datasheet graph: 50uA (pretty close actually).
So there you go: light a bulb long enough to take a shit, or execute 10 trillion 8-bit computer instructions. Meanwhile, a high-end "PC" processor would do maybe 4 trillion 64-bit instructions, making it better than the microcontrollers, but not that much better. Moral of story: do something useful -- turn off lights, run computers (*).