|
Can anyone explain what defines an element?
I mean, this new one, just discovered breaks down in a few tenths of a second and is, thus, unstable. What's the use in taking it up in the periodic table?
Can you "build" something with it? Can you form new substances?
|
|
|
|
|
Yes - but you've got to be really, really quick. 
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952)
Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe MS is going to use it for a new technology which is then deprecated and abandoned by them.
I will never again mention that Dalek Dave was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel.
How to ask a question
|
|
|
|
|
I dunno - 18~40 milliseconds is quite a good life for Microsoft technology!
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952)
Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
|
|
|
|
|
Elements are a classification of matter. Each element has chemical properties that all atoms of that element share (modulo minute differences between isotopes caused be the mass difference). There's no rule that says that an element has to be useful, even the rule that such a class of matter has to have at least one confirmed member in it is a little tenuous - though an element has to be confirmed to "exist for real" to be put on "The Periodic Table", the extended table[^] doesn't care about such trivialities and contains a lot of elements that no one has ever seen and perhaps some that no humans will ever see - and yet some properties of those elements can be predicted, which is exactly the point of the periodic table.
|
|
|
|
|
 I thought elements = atoms and they make up matter?
eg.
H(ydrogen) and O(xygen) are able to bond and form the substance H20 or "reusable" groups like OH-.
|
|
|
|
|
Atoms make up matter, elements are types of atoms (with isotopes as subtypes).
V. wrote: H(ydrogen) and O(xygen) are able to bond and form the substance H20 or "reusable" groups like OH-.
Ok, sure. But it's the actual instances, ie atoms, that end up doing it. The formulas say which types those atoms must have.
|
|
|
|
|
Well...yes...but it's a little more complicated than that, in that an element can exist in a number of isotopes, each of which has a different atom - the same number of protons, but a different number of neutrons.
And an atom is the smallest "part" of an element: if you split it any further, you don't have the element any more.
A pile of sand would be of Sand element, while the grains that made the pile would be atoms of Sand (but only if when you "broke" a grain of Sand you got two or more things, none of which are Sand)
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952)
Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
|
|
|
|
|
I nearly forgot, there is also Dark Matter, which is about 96% of the matter in the universe - we can see only about 4%. If my memory serves correctly, it's made up entirely of AOL and Compuserve CDs...
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952)
Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
|
|
|
|
|
I thought it was made up of unpaired socked and mobile phone chargers
|
|
|
|
|
No, I can see a pile of unmatched socks, and have a drawer full of mobile phone chargers!
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952)
Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the table itself, being 'periodic', looks 'unstable'.
Veni, vidi, vici.
|
|
|
|
|
What's da matter here? Uus gotta problem wid it? If uus ask me, it's really heavy. 
It was broke, so I fixed it.
|
|
|
|
|
S Houghtelin wrote: What's da matter here? Uus gotta problem wid it? If uus ask me, it's really heavy.
It was broke, so I fixed it.
So Gluon the broken bit again...
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952)
Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Even if it's too short lived for us to build something with it, it might temporarily come into existance somewhere in extremely volatile and energetic environments, e. g. on a neutron star or quasar. Classifying it helps understand the chemical reactions that may happen under such extreme conditions.
Besides, even a few tenths of a second is in fact quite a long time from a scientific point of view: we wouldn't understand half of the subatomic physics if we weren't able to register and classify particles with a lifetime of less than a microsecond! Some of these are in fact so short-lived that they can't be witnessed/measured directly: their (temporary) existance can only be deducted by the traces of chemical reaction products measured by the detectors.
|
|
|
|
|
My XP desktop is in need of an update (no really! ), as it is about 5yrs old. I definitely want to go to Win7 or 8, from 2GB memory to 6 or 8GB, I want to put an SSD in and increase my HDD capacity.
I'm debating a new motherboard / GPU.
I'd like to move to a 64bit system. But what about i5 vs i7? Are i7s worth the extra money? If I go there though, that's effectively a new machine - the price of which probably won't fly with the wife!
Typically I've been updating my machine to make it 'game-capable' for specific games - it was HL2 last time, this time Titanfall and (eventually) Elite:Dangerous.
What do recent updaters think? Will an updated OS, more memory and an SSD compensate for an old (dual core) CPU and GPU for a while longer? Or would money on those updates be 'wasted' being held back by the old components?
|
|
|
|
|
At today's prices and given the age I would buy new.
Check out my upgrade article here[^].
|
|
|
|
|
I finally figured out that it is less expensive to buy new rather than upgrade old systems. Seems like a waste, but cost effective.
You can donate the old equipment to a good cause and your conscience will be clear.
Pleasing your wife is another kettle of fish. 
The report of my death was an exaggeration - Mark Twain
Simply Elegant Designs JimmyRopes Designs
I'm on-line therefore I am.
JimmyRopes
|
|
|
|
|
JimmyRopes wrote: Pleasing your wife is another kettle of fish.
I love reading between the lines  .
I will never again mention that Dalek Dave was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel.
How to ask a question
|
|
|
|
|
As the others have said: buy new.
Upgrading RAM is a PITA: you normally find that the old ram is unsuitable to run with the new, so you have to chuck that. And then, does the motherboard take the amount you want? And then there's the processor...and the hard disk...and the video card...and an SSD would be nice...and hang on, does the PSU supply enough power?
You end up paying more for the upgrade than you would have for the new system most of the time, particularly when you are trying to catch up 5 years!
The only drawback is that a new system is likely to come with Win8 - but you may be able to pay a little extra for an upgrade to Win7...
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952)
Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: he only drawback is that a new system is likely to come with Win8 - but you may be able to pay a little extra for an upgrade to Win7...
You are evil.
The report of my death was an exaggeration - Mark Twain
Simply Elegant Designs JimmyRopes Designs
I'm on-line therefore I am.
JimmyRopes
|
|
|
|
|
A 5 year old box is past the point where substantial upgrades make sense; time to replace it entirely. You're probably only a year or two from starting to see component failures that will junk it. No sense throwing good money after bad now.
If you're planning to keep your system more than a few years and use it for either gaming or dev work, I'd suggest going all the way to 16GB of ram. Windows will use it as disk cache now for a minor speedup and as your software continues its inevitable bloating it'll protect you from swapping. DDR4 is expected to start appearing in high end systems late this year and in mainstream ones sometime next year, so the DDR3 the box you build now will use isn't going to get much cheaper in the future; easier just to buy the extra ram now and not worry about it.
In the short term, an i7 probably doesn't offer a whole lot. Relatively few games can take advantage of more than 4 cores (although with PS4/XBOne both having 8 core CPUs this may change in a few years); and unless you're building really large applications you won't be able to parallelize the build enough to benefit from 8 cores much. If you can afford it, I'd still tend to lean toward an i7, it's only $100 on top of a $1k+ system, just for future proofing; but if you need to cut costs for wife approval this is a relatively safe place to do so.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
Definitely, if you can, get a new machine. It'll be worth the extra money.
If you can stand it, get Windows 8. I know many people around here aren't fans of 8, but it does, in most cases, run faster and lighter than XP and 7 (and definitely Vista ).
|
|
|
|
|
My personal recommendation to my customers is if it was originally running Windows XP then you may as well buy new.
The newer hardware generally has more or different requirements for ventilation.
If you want more than 2 Gig of Memory then you will need to go to 64 bit. There are also certain things built into the 64 bit that is not in the 32 bit that can help protect the system.
As far as the processor you have to look very close at the part numbers to decide on what you need and want.
They don’t make it easy to break thru the hype on what is what for either Intel or AMD. I even tried to contact them thru the Intel partner chat.
With some of the research I have done for finding a new laptop, if you were going to be multi tasking you may want to go with an I 7, again look at the part numbers they are not all the same and most of the new systems put the less effective ones in them. Take Note of the wattage too, or “Max TDP”
You can start here http://ark.intel.com/[^] and here
http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/processors/processor-numbers.html?iid=prod_core2duo+body_processornumbers[^]
Another thing you will want to look at is the video they support.
If I had the only choice of Windows 7 or Windows 8 I would go with Windows 7 mainly because I have no use for the new, um, “Features” that Windows 8 brings and the difficult way to navigate the UI.
One problem that has been discovered for people trying to “Upgrade” Windows 8 to Windows 7 is the lack of proper drivers for the systems when going to Windows 7.
Hope that helps some.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
