Hook the drink cooler up with an arduino, temp sensor, power switch and an heating element and you'd be able to maintain that temperature as long as you'd like.
You are correct. You can simulate this by filling your lungs with air at 10 m under water and then rise quickly to the surface while holding your breath. It would be analog to filling your lungs with 2atm at sea level. Boom.
The diving comparison comes up a lot with these space exposure questions. Even the article mentions Scuba diving. But diving is applicable in many ways not just in terms of physiology, but behavior and psychology as well.
I remember there was once also an experiment in an undersea lab where a group of people spent time to see what would happen on similar long duration space missions.
Diving comparisons can actually give us real-world examples of Hollywood style decompression too. In real life human bodies don't explode when decompressed in space, but if you depressurize a diving bell on the surface then all bets are off: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byford_Dolphin#Diving_bell_acci...
1atm->0atm won't do it, but apparently 9atm->1atm can.
Mythbusters did something similar. They tested what would happen to a diver if you cut the hose in one of those old-school diving suits that had a hose connecting them to the surface. It's not pretty: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEY3fN4N3D8
Pure oxygen at low pressure might actually work. I'm pretty sure the lungs can take 0.1 atm pressure differential, and it should be enough oxygen to stay conscious indefinitely.
The numbers I found were that people can blow about 1-2 PSI (obtained by random people on the internet blowing into their scuba gauges), which implies that you could probably handle at least 0.07-0.14 atmospheres of positive pressure in your lungs without exploding.
The peak of Mount Everest is about 1/3 atmosphere, and base camp is in about 1/2 atmosphere. This means the partial pressure of oxygen at those locations is about 0.07 and 0.1 atmospheres, respectively. People who have not acclimated to high altitudes (by spending 2 months at base camp) will pass out on the peak (and it still sucks pretty hard even if you're acclimated).
So, it seems like pure oxygen at 0.1 atmosphere should work, although I suspect it'd be hella uncomfortable even without the vacuum, since it'd probably feel like you were trying to blow up the worlds largest balloon while standing on Mount Everest.
But it does let us move on. So you're standing in a vacuum (on the Moon, maybe) sucking on 0.1 atmosphere of pure oxygen. How long can you survive for?
That's what's interesting to me - the emergency scenario where the oxygen situation is (uncomfortable but) survivable. How long would it take for the exposure to kill you?
Didn't we just have an article about a liquid, injectable oxygen for emergency medical use? How about skipping the lungs as O2 input, keep them just for CO2 removal, and take an IV containing the liquid oxygenator?
You might need to keep a small amount of lung pressure (say, less than that used to blow up party balloons) to slow the egress of oxygen through the lungs.
The next problem is likely that your lungs catch fire as the O2 concentration builds up in them. One thing at a time though.
Seems similar to the technology demonstrated in this article [1]. However, it does seem that IndoorAtlas Ltd had a better opportunity recognition radar.
Since 1981 the real wages have risen with 65 % in Norway, i.e. people can buy 65 % more stuff now than back in 1981. However, if the growth in buying power instead of being used to fulfill materialistic 'wants' was translated into leisure time, that would mean three day working weeks. That put things in perspective, albeit might be considered to be a fallacy since the growth would probably not be as great if people did not increase their consumption since 1981.
I guess the reason why companies with a high application volume (like Google) tend to be biased towards "top" school and using your GPA as a selection criteria, is that it is so much easier to "cut the pile in half" and still have a decent number of good candidates, only the average talent might be higher. It reduces the overhead in the HR department.
That means a lot of smart people never get the opportunity to try out for the interview. In my opinion, you have to market yourself better and differently if you want to increase the odds of getting to the interview, where you get a chance to prove yourself beyond what is on paper.
What you say makes sense for the screening rounds - resume shortlisting and a phone screen. These are centered around rejecting candidates. But face to face interviews are supposed to be the other way. As far as I know, Google asks for the GPA mostly towards the end. That doesn't save them any time. It shows they care about academics.
On a general note, is there any company that tries to extract patterns out of their employees performance track records; like a feedback loop into their interview process?
[1] http://www.netatmo.com/en-US/product/community/station#view2