Comments on: Failing to Understand Your Target Demographic

By: Coin

Coin — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 21:52:00 +0000

What is mainly making me scratch my head here is, let’s find a word that urban hipsters associate positive connotations with at this particular point in history. It’s not “carbon”.

“Carbon-free” or “carbon-neutral” is an even bigger selling point by now than “electrolytes”.

By: Hal S

Hal S — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 20:56:03 +0000

Buck 24

Most thermal imagers operate by displaying the temperature difference of objects in their view screen. There is a chance of “white out” of the imager for a period of time if it is focused directly on an intense fire.

I don’t know anything about the model you saw on TV but the following discusses the ability of new thermal imagers to display the emissive temperature of an object (which can be misleading because some things are highly reflective and this temperature may not reflect actual internal temperature)

http://www.isgfire.com/k90_oa.asp

By: buck

buck — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 19:14:23 +0000

talking of horrible ads, there was this one franklin templeton investments ad during the recent australian open where a bunch of firefighters rush into a burning building and can’t see a thing, a situation apparently remedied by infrared imaging technology for the firefighters, a technology in which the company “smartly” invested your money says the ad

but it made me wonder…would a body at 98F show up in an infrared imaging screen (the ad itself shows the ambient temperature in the room displayed on the infrared screen as 159F)? shouldn’t the entire screen be a single red color in which the “glowing bodies” of humans are camouflaged?

am i somehow wrong? or should i choose never to take investment advice from such an ignorant company? i mean, if they ok-ed the ad without checking the science, would they also ok such an investment without checking the science?

By: M

Sun, 27 Jan 2008 23:39:11 +0000

Actually, A=56 is a reasonable mass estimate for a Z=6 stable strangelet … I’d put it a bit on the low end, but the uncertainties are big enough to accommodate it. There’s your carbon 56: 62 up quarks, 62 down, 44 strange, with blah blah bag parameters etc. stabilizing it against beta decay. Nuclear charge +6 gives it carbon-like chemistry.

By: capitalistimperialistpig

capitalistimperialistpig — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 14:56:38 +0000

Sheesh people - you forgot to count the gluons and virtual photons that hold the whole thing together. Of course that has to be a wighted (I almost wrote weighted!) sum to account for the fact that they are off the mass shell, so after doing all the necessary averaging, I get …

By: Another silly nukyuler illiterate

Another silly nukyuler illiterate — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 22:55:30 +0000

Well, let’s see. Carbon 14 has 6 electrons and 14 nucleons. Each nucleon has 3 quarks, so that makes 42 quarks in the nucleus, plus 6 electrons makes 48, and, um, we’ll add 8 gremlins for the win. Oh well.

By: Odani of Overlapping Magisteria

Odani of Overlapping Magisteria — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 05:17:34 +0000

Carbon 56 = We’ve the State. Count the potrzebies on each side of the equation if you don’t believe me.

By: Carl Brannen

Carl Brannen — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 02:25:39 +0000

Maybe “We’ve The State” is a double babelfish translation of “I am The State”.

By: James

James — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 23:36:44 +0000

I’ve never looked for truth or enlightenment in advertising. I’ve never met an advertising exec who even had a passing interest in the periodic table of the elements. Not since high-school chemistry, anyway.
With that, I say let it go.

By: Lab Lemming

Lab Lemming — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 21:20:46 +0000

If they were talking about an isotope, the superscript would precede the element, not trail it. But evidently sup tags don’t work here…

By: Lord

Lord — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 20:31:15 +0000

I think it is just a clever attempt at carbon steel.

By: Dua

Dua — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 19:00:34 +0000

No! Don’t be fooled! It’s all a deadly plot by the Hard Ones!

By: Riaz

Riaz — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 18:17:44 +0000

the logo reminded me of buckyballs as well.. though 56 doesnt help there either..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fullerene

By: K

Wed, 23 Jan 2008 16:13:39 +0000

this posting on the web made them achieve part of their marketing goals…

By: carey

carey — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 15:59:27 +0000

Well, it sounds scientificky, so I can safely assume that Albert Einstein was on the architectural team.

By: Jon H

Jon H — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 14:13:47 +0000

Oops. Sorry. I’m typing with a broken right pinky.

By: Jon H

Jon H — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 14:12:38 +0000

I dunno, for a real estate development>/i>, carbon 56, however meaningless in scientific terms, is pretty damn good and defintitely unusual.

By: The Mighty Biff

The Mighty Biff — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 12:12:28 +0000

Maybe they’re up with the latest heavy isotope research :

http://www.nscl.msu.edu/magnesium40

Or perhaps not. At least they’re guaranteed a good page ranking on Google. Calling it Carbon 12 would have buried them.

By: jick

jick — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 09:11:52 +0000

Rest assured, it could have been much, much worse. We have “Tower Palace,” “Lotte Castle” and “We’ve The State” (sic) in Seoul… (Don’t ask me what the last one is supposed to mean.)

By: mj

mj — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 09:08:24 +0000

I used to work with fullerenes, and a collegue once had a lecture for first-year / high school students. When he told them that he was working with he was met with scepticism. “Shouldn’t carbon-60 be really unstable”, they asked.

However, in the picture above they use a superscript and not a subscript, which should indicate that they are indeed talking about an isotope. But not even the molecule is stable.