A quote on why Intel is building multple 300mm fabs: "Because their die is so goddamned big".
Hah! When's the last time you heard a suit say that in a public interview?!?!?
Just the other day, when the CEO of TSR, makers of Dungeons and Dragons, was speaking about why a bigger box would be needed for the next version of the popular game.
My documentation lives in a vacuum. My tech manuals live in a Hoover, and my user manuals live in a Sears Craftsman Shop Vac. I guess you could say my documentation system sucks
Here's why Linux isn't making up ground on the desktop.
If I had a dollar for every time some slashdotter made the claim that reason X was why Linux was never going to succeed on the desktop, I'd probably have enough money to take my other kidney out of hawk.
This is a fairly Microsoft oriented editorial, and a little light on meat at that. Examples: assumptions that C#,.NET, and VB.net do or will by years end account for the bulk of programming langauges, with an "also-ran" entry for Java.
As far as I know (not far?) C++ and C are still widely used in industry. The editor speaks of C++ significance as something of the past: 5-years ago.
GUI skins are discussed as a pretty weak analogy of language interfaces to common runtime libraries. Then of course, the editors example of a GUI skin is Windows XP.
Where I work, C++ is the prime langauge. But then, we're worried about cross-platform development. Maybe that's a thing of the past, too.
Calling HP Printers terrible is plain stupid, elitist, and damaging to the progress of Open Source
I disagree. Calling bad hardware "terrible" is neither stupid, elitist, or particularly damanging to Open Source (though this is more of a linux issue than a general Open Source issue). Here's why: supporting every single piece of hardware takes time. Most of this time is given freely by volunteers although some is supported by commercial distributions. Every piece of hardware someone chooses to support results in other hardware they don't support. If the hardware in question is poorly designed, has a bad interface, poor documentation, or some completely braindead feature like being a WinPrinter, then that hardware is going to probably take more time than it deserves.
This is hardly elitest or stupid or damaing to Open Source - this is reality. We don't have infinite resources. If you want to help with printers in particular, donate your time, or buy a distribution that is working on the problem.
People like you are the reason that Linux advocates are seen as belligerant pompous assholes. The claim that the print support in Linux sucks is true until HP printers are supported. I don't care if the HP print language is obfuscated assembler. I care that Linux can't print.
This is of course a selfish and wrong way of looking at linux (see above). Hardware companies that can't be bothered to make it easy on people voluntarily writing device drivers for linux will suffer by having their hardware poorly supported. People who buy said hardware are better off buying hardware know to be supported by linux or using another operating system (unless they want to help). Also, for every operating system out there, there is some hardware not supported. Therefore, by your argument, all operating systems suck.
No, wait - it's in "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?", right? Mercer says that to Deckard, near the end of the book, no? Shit, I must have read it 3 times. Goddamn old age.
I liked physics while I was getting my degree, and I got to work on some interesting things in the field after I graduated, but I found that I wasn't getting to do the king of problem solving that I liked in school. I kind of got stuck doing systems engineering / project management of projects that involved cool physics, I just wasn't doing the physics. I always liked to code, and it gave the same problem solving feeling, so a few years ago I made the career switch. Haven't regretted it.
Truce.;) Anyway, you're probably right that the distinction isn't all that important for the level of this forum. Opening that book reminded me why I like my new job as coder better than my previous life doing physics.
I've read them. Great, semiconductor lasers and crystal lasers both use crystals. You've really demostrated your great understanding of the subject. Guess what? They both use atoms too. They're both atom lasers. Woo hoo. To insist on repeating the fact that semiconductors are crystals in the context of a discussion of lasers is both pedantic and indiciative of a lack of knowledge of the subject. Thanks for breaking the ice in this thread with the first round of insults.
This is a pretty poor definition of a laser, and would include such things as glow in the dark toys, light bulbs, and just about any thing that emits light.
The key part of the laser acronym is "Stimulated". What happens is electrons are temporarily pumped to higher energy levels. What would normally happen is that the electron would spontaneously drop to a lower energy level resulting in an emitted photon (this happens in all kinds of material and light emitting devices). In a laser however, an existing photon passing the atom with the excited electron Stimulates the emission of the photon, and in doing so, the two photons will be in phase. This is how you get coherent light out of a laser. Of course, it takes special selection of materials, controlled electron pumping, and good optics for this process to build up to appreciable levels
Furthermore, this:
"some material (usually a crystal)"
is wrong: While the first lasers were cryptals (ruby), and some still are (Nd:Yag and others), I think you'll find that lasers these days are usually semiconductors (as measured by shear number - think CD/DVD players) or some variant of gas / chemical reaction (as measured by total power - think Chemical Oxygen Iodine Lasers (COIL) or HF/DF lasers)
The way I learned it in my laser physics class (a long time ago) was that lasers in general had these properties:
monochromatic
coherent
low-divergence/parallel
high intensity
The devices build in this article don't have the first two properties, at least. Indeed the device sounds more akin to a "white" light LED (white in the sense of broad spectrum, I know they are infrared).
Of course, these are just properties, and might not actually be a working definition of a laser - maybe if you satisfy the acronym, you're a LASER (light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation, for those that don't know).
I could reach behind me to look at Svelto's "Laser Physics" book, but I'm too lazy.
Slashdot Mirror
;)
Just the other day, when the CEO of TSR, makers of Dungeons and Dragons, was speaking about why a bigger box would be needed for the next version of the popular game.
My documentation lives in a vacuum. My tech manuals live in a Hoover, and my user manuals live in a Sears Craftsman Shop Vac. I guess you could say my documentation system sucks
Thank you, I'll be here all week.
How true! One only needs the proper "directions". Print this Manual out and leave near the computer for you SO to find:
At least we know what operating system they were using ;)
IIRC, "Dear God" was a fairly big hit, depending on your definitions of "Hit" and "Big" and also where you live.
HTH
LOL - wrong word, but still funny.
If I had a dollar for every time some slashdotter made the claim that reason X was why Linux was never going to succeed on the desktop, I'd probably have enough money to take my other kidney out of hawk.
This just in, every piece of network software ever written no longer works,
News at 11... <diconnect>
As far as I know (not far?) C++ and C are still widely used in industry. The editor speaks of C++ significance as something of the past: 5-years ago.
GUI skins are discussed as a pretty weak analogy of language interfaces to common runtime libraries. Then of course, the editors example of a GUI skin is Windows XP.
Where I work, C++ is the prime langauge. But then, we're worried about cross-platform development. Maybe that's a thing of the past, too.
Don't waste too many brain cells on this one.
I disagree. Calling bad hardware "terrible" is neither stupid, elitist, or particularly damanging to Open Source (though this is more of a linux issue than a general Open Source issue). Here's why: supporting every single piece of hardware takes time. Most of this time is given freely by volunteers although some is supported by commercial distributions. Every piece of hardware someone chooses to support results in other hardware they don't support. If the hardware in question is poorly designed, has a bad interface, poor documentation, or some completely braindead feature like being a WinPrinter, then that hardware is going to probably take more time than it deserves.
This is hardly elitest or stupid or damaing to Open Source - this is reality. We don't have infinite resources. If you want to help with printers in particular, donate your time, or buy a distribution that is working on the problem.
This is of course a selfish and wrong way of looking at linux (see above). Hardware companies that can't be bothered to make it easy on people voluntarily writing device drivers for linux will suffer by having their hardware poorly supported. People who buy said hardware are better off buying hardware know to be supported by linux or using another operating system (unless they want to help). Also, for every operating system out there, there is some hardware not supported. Therefore, by your argument, all operating systems suck.
QED.
Good luck
Hung over and ashamed, Scotch
DEVICE
HOW DEVICE WORKS
I'd say that is a definition, albeit an implied one.
YMMV
I've read them. Great, semiconductor lasers and crystal lasers both use crystals. You've really demostrated your great understanding of the subject. Guess what? They both use atoms too. They're both atom lasers. Woo hoo. To insist on repeating the fact that semiconductors are crystals in the context of a discussion of lasers is both pedantic and indiciative of a lack of knowledge of the subject. Thanks for breaking the ice in this thread with the first round of insults.
Well, the amplification happens because of the stimulation, so I would agree their both key.
Chapter 6: Types of Lasers
Section 6.2 Solid-State Lasers
Section 6.3 Gas Lasers
Section 6.4 Liquid Lasers (Dye Lasers)
Section 6.5 Chemical Lasers
Section 6.6 Semiconductor Lasers
Should I go on? Of course, most solid-state physics books, including the one I could pick up here, are useless in the context of Lasers Types.
Semiconductor lasers aren't crystal lasers.
The key part of the laser acronym is "Stimulated". What happens is electrons are temporarily pumped to higher energy levels. What would normally happen is that the electron would spontaneously drop to a lower energy level resulting in an emitted photon (this happens in all kinds of material and light emitting devices). In a laser however, an existing photon passing the atom with the excited electron Stimulates the emission of the photon, and in doing so, the two photons will be in phase. This is how you get coherent light out of a laser. Of course, it takes special selection of materials, controlled electron pumping, and good optics for this process to build up to appreciable levels
Furthermore, this:
"some material (usually a crystal)"
is wrong: While the first lasers were cryptals (ruby), and some still are (Nd:Yag and others), I think you'll find that lasers these days are usually semiconductors (as measured by shear number - think CD/DVD players) or some variant of gas / chemical reaction (as measured by total power - think Chemical Oxygen Iodine Lasers (COIL) or HF/DF lasers)
- monochromatic
- coherent
- low-divergence/parallel
- high intensity
The devices build in this article don't have the first two properties, at least. Indeed the device sounds more akin to a "white" light LED (white in the sense of broad spectrum, I know they are infrared).Of course, these are just properties, and might not actually be a working definition of a laser - maybe if you satisfy the acronym, you're a LASER (light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation, for those that don't know).
I could reach behind me to look at Svelto's "Laser Physics" book, but I'm too lazy.
Your guess is wrong - it's the drag skiiers are trying to reduce when they tuck. These guys are going over 60 mph - wind resistence is a big deal.