Is a cell phone that does everything. Yes, I've heard the whining from people who just want a cell phone to be a phone, but from my perspective, the fewer devices I have to manage, the better.
Imagine you're going on vacation. You could pack:
Your camcorder
MP3 player
digital camera
PDA
Personal video player
Personal tv
Cellphone
Or, you could just take your:
Cellphone
Right now, we do have the technology to incorporate all of these features into one device with the form factor of a small notebook or PDA. Instead, people spend 5 times the amount of money on discrete appliances, and then have the added burden of having to carry them all. And then they whine because their phone isn't just a phone - as if they enjoy having dozens of electronic gadgets lying around the house, waiting to get lost, stolen, forgotten, etc...
I'm tired of using a dozen different gadgets to do what could easily be integrated into one. If cellphone manufacturers are going to break into new markets, their phones are going to have to be more than just phones.
being found to be liable in Canada for something they said in Washington DC
So their website was only accessible from DC?
Anything posted on the net is basically said everywhere. One has to keep in ming the net makes no distinctions regarding geographical or national boundaries. You can't really fault the judge in this case, because the libel did occur in his jurisdiction. Even though the Post was physically located in DC, their internet presence extended to every place with internet accessibility. If they were concerned about not breaking Canadian laws, they should have blocked Canada from accessing their web site.
Yeah, it is kind of chilling. But the net is an international medium; you can't assume that just because something is legal in your country that you can posted it on your internationally visible website.
Of course, you shouldn't be allowed to lie about anyone - and the Post is lucky he wasn't allowed to sue in America (home of the *Big Money* *Cash Prizes* legal firms...)
of the Chicagoland area, I've learned a few things about the way things are done in Chicago:
Mayor Daley almost always gets his way.
If this goes through, you can bet it would be nigh illegal to run a "non-authorized" WAP within city limits. Or you'd have to pay hefty licensing fees to the city for the privelege.
You can also be likewise assured that coffee shop owners and the like would have to pay a tax for their customers' use of WiFi. And no, they wouldn't be allowed to setup their own WiFi either, as this would be against rule 2.
Granted, I like the idea of a city-wide WiFi network. But I know that if Chicago adopted WiFi, Daley and Co. would find some way to poison the well and ruin everything for everybody.
I listen to what people are tell me about their computer experience:
If it's filled with complaints about how often their system crashes, freezes, or slows down, I'll inform them that I could fix this if they're willig to try something new (Linux).
If, OTOH, they complain about not being able to play the latest games, or run the latest applications they bought at Best Buy, I'll recommend they learn to use a firewall, AV software, etc...
It still amazes me the number of people who are willing to ditch Windows completely and learn something new. As long as you clearly explain the pros and cons of running Linux, most people are willing to try Linux. Where you see Linux get a bad rap is when a flaming OSS zealot installs Linux over a crashed Windows installation without first explaining to the user that their previous system, as they knew it, will be completely gone.
And contrary to popular/. opinion, Linux is not always the best choice:
There are still a class of users who prefer to format and reinstall every 6-12 months because it is easier for them than learning to use Linux.
Let's not forget gamers - most of whom would be mighty unpleased if some OSS zealot "restored" their system and *lost* all of their games.
I think the key to being a successful OSS advocate is simply to listen to needs of people. Many idealistic people would run FOSS software, but don't because they don't have the requisite knowledge (or time) to understand it. That's where a good OSS zealot can help people out. But at the same time, we have to realize that for those users who rely on Windows-centric "features", installing Linux would not be doing them a favor.
Somebody actually noticed that non-embryonic stem cells are being used to treat diseases today. Kind of ironic that while adult stem cell therapies are being tested in clinical trials, the Bush administration is taking heat because they didn't fund ethically suspect embryonic stem cell research - research which has yet to produce even a single cure.
Probably what I've already done: Stop watching tv.
The ironic thing is that, as part of my job, I already know enough to build a broadcast flag filter. It doesn't seem too terribly difficult. To defeat the broadcast flag, one merely needs a high-frequency sampling circuit and a fast computer - you simply pull the signal from the tuner and ignore whatever bits you don't like. The signal itself is pretty easy to pick out from the "other" things - like Macrovision, broadcast flag, etc...
But why bother? Why spend time in front of the tv when you could be surfing the net, learning new things, and - gasp! - actually expanding your mind as opposed to turning it into a vegetable. There's a lot better content than what's on tv, and you'd probably be a better person for it.
Cable Company: You can't build a municipal broadband network - it's against state law.
City Hall: Hmm..., you're right. We can't legally build a municipal broadband network. But we can most certainly legally tax it and regulate it. So what will it be? Are you going to offer cheap broadband or will we start writing tax laws?
Why not just use the car's odometer. Those who travel out of state frequently could merely sign an affidavit attesting to the out of state miles.
Why not just tax gasoline? Such a tax would be directly proportional to the fuel economy and miles driven.
Why would you need to use GPS, unless you wanted to track an individual's movements for ulterior purposes?
If taxes were the true motive for this proposal, they would have found a simpler way. This isn't about taxation, it's about tracking citizens - taxation is just a red-herring used to deflect criticism.
Um, how exactly is this going to affect those who already don't pay for movies?
So Macrovision puts more copy protection on a DVD:
Consumers who bought legitimate copies can no longer make backups of their DVDs.
Downloaders don't care - they didn't pay for their movies before, and they're not going to pay now.
Pirates don't care - they're using bulk DVD copiers which do a bitwise copy, including the Macrovision protection. I'm sure both the studios and pirates are glad that pirated DVDs won't be copyable either.
So basically, when it comes down to it, Macrovision affects only those who get their movies through legitimate means. It won't have any effect on those already breaking the law, and it will only further reduce any incentive of using the DVD format.
Why do I watch downloaded movies? Why don't I buy many DVD's? Because DVD copy prevention sucks. It's that simple - I don't feel like buying something from an organization that regards me as somehow criminal because I have an interest in their product.
Conspiracy is an overused word. Technically speaking, Congress is a conspiracy. And so is the European Union. So what? There's really no need to call it a conspiracy; people are just protecting their interests, which shouldn't surprise anyone. That's just human nature.
And it shouldn't surprise anyone that Europe is pushing this whole global-warming thing - after all, they stand to benefit from it.
So GW's scientist claim global warming doesn't exist. But the rest of the world's scientists do. So who's right? No matter which way you argue, you can claim to have science on your side. What it comes down to is that if you spend enough money, you can get a scientist to say whatever you like - which kind of destroys the credibility of science in general...
Ok, I know it's troll bait, but your post basically dismisses the scientific method as mere myth. Americans simply apply it with more rigor than the Europeans, which explains why Europe thought the Earth was the center of the Universe for almost two millenia. Questioning of evolution only shows that we Americans want to ensure that something is true before we believe it.
Witness the manner in which the American President's scientists have basically denied the global warming trend. I suppose if we just laid down and believed everything "science" says, we'd continue to drive SUV's and burn coal for electricity.
What I'm afraid a lot of thinking people aren't seeing is the manner in which supposedly scientific opinion can be manipulated by politics. Of course Europe is going to believe there's a global warming trend:
If the U.S. reduced its oil consumption, the demand for oil would fall, and consequently, the price.
Europeans don't like spending about four times what the Americans do for oil.
If Europe can convince the rest of the world that there's a global warming trend, which requires a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, they'll end up paying less for oil.
You might think the world's scientists are altruistic, and perhaps they are. But the problem is that too many scientists have sacrificed their objectivity by lending their credibility to political agendas. Americans who question evolution aren't doing so merely because of some inherent bias against thought, but rather because they aren't as naive as those who take as gospel everything that scientists say. Science has, unfortunately, become a means to gain political power, and as such, has lost a considerable amount of the objectivity it needs to wield authority in its subject matter.
Galileo Galilei, for example, was forced to change his mind because the backwards church demanded it
Actually, Galileo didn't change his mind. The Church did not oppress science, but rather, Galileo snubbed the Pope, after which the Pope refused permission to publish his work. So what initially might appear as oppression of science by the Church was in fact nothing more than a personal dispute.
Friends and family who call me for PC repairs generally don't pay in money - that would be too easy. Instead, they have to listen to me:
Explain the advantages of Linux, and
Explain that if they continue to run Windows that they will continue to have problems and,
Hear me offer to install Linux for free, and,
Should they insist on running Windows, I require them to listen to my lessons on spyware, firewalls, and running AV software...
Remind them of the value of regular backups.
When its all said and done, I figure the effort on their part has probably cost them as much as it would have been to hire someone in the first place. I do understand that some people can't switch from Windows because of compatibility with their existing software, or employment, etc... In such cases, the best I can do for them is to convince them to do a good backup and restore every few months. While most users won't understand all of the intricacies of Windows, almost everyone can understand how to burn their data to CD and reinstall the OS every 6-12 months.
And btw, I've found the best way to get myself invited over for dinner on a regular basis is to reinstall Windows. Inevitably, it's going to break before the year's up, and I'll get myself another good home-cooked meal...
All that said, security is a worthy and necessary use of processing power, and the alternatives are worse: spyware and viruses can consume incredible amounts of time. Another common cause of slow computers, at least for Windows users, is an accumulation of any number of programs that snoop on traffic, pop up advertisements, or otherwise make themselves indispensable to a marketer somewhere. [emphasis mine]
Interestingly, Windows seems to be the only platform in which security comes at a substantial performance cost.
While the other things he talks of, like anti-aliased fonts and drop shadows apply equally well to all platforms, Windows is the only platform in which system security requires a substantial amount of CPU cycles and bus bandwidth. Had Microsoft the foresight to design a secure OS in the first place, Macs might actually have to run faster than 1 GHz to compete with 3 GHz Windows desktops.
Just because a programming language allows you to write bad code doesn?t mean that you have to do it.
I've often advocated the use of assembly language, and every time I do, the flames begin:
It seems as if some people can't understand concepts such as modularity and object oriented coding. They think that assembly can't be done in an object oriented manner, in spite of the fact that their compiler converts C++ into assembly during compilation.
Then there are those who can't understand that maintainable, readable code can be written in assembly - they're apparently so used to not commenting their code that they just can't see an assembly programmer doing it. Nor can they understand how an assembly programmer will break a complex task up into discrete functions and use those to accomplish a more difficult task.
Now, I realize there's probably some pretty ugly assembly code out there. But when you look at what an idiot programmer can do in other languages, it doesn't seem so bad:
A clueless coder need only write one function in C and C++: main().
Imagine a Java enterprise app with only one class. Yes, it's legal Java!
So often times we are quick to blame the language for what is really ineptitude on the part of programmers. A good programmer will write good code in any language, but a poor programmer requires a specific language in order to write good code. And a malicious programmer can write bad code in any language...
And the best part is that neither having the source to Linux nor having Microsoft support make any real difference when it comes getting hardware working. I don't have time to debug the Linux source code, and the Windows support folks (on the hw vendor end) don't have a clue...
A perfect example of the "as well" chasm is Linux. It's significantly cheaper than Windows, yet for most folks, doesn't work as well.
I do run Linux, and I'm not trying to troll, but Linux has a long way to go when it comes to some things. Compare installing a new piece of hardware in Linux vs. Windows*:
Linux: Lookup hardware compatibility info on web. (30 minutes)
Windows: Buy hardware, bring home.(30 minutes)
Linux: Go to store.(30 minutes)
Windows: Install hardware. (15 minutes)
Linux: Go to a different store because 1st store doesn't have the model you need.(another 30 minutes)
Windows: insert drivers CD and install drivers. (15 minutes)
Linux: Your device now works! But now, for some reason, sound no longer works...
And I haven't even covered the cases where the drivers won't compile, or the vendor changes chipsets and the device won't work with Linux at all.
Granted, you only have to setup Linux once. But I've found that installing Linux and getting the hardware to work typically takes between two and three times what it would take under Windows, if it is supported at all. I can talk someone through reinstalling Windows over the phone, but I wouldn't dare try that with Linux. (Of course, you might never have to do the latter, so it might be a moot point).
So what happens when a cure is discovered, and the discarded embryos from fertility clinics can no longer meet the demand? Then even embryos which would have otherwise become people will be "harvested". You can't discover a cure with embryonic stem cells without the attendant reality that such a cure will create pressure to destroy potential lives.
That non-embrionic stem cells are already being used in the United States, today, to cure illnesses?
It's amazing that people are continuing to push for embrionic stem cell research - which to date has shown no serious prospect of curing people - when we are already using non-embrionic stem cells in clinical trials to cure people.
I could understand the debate if embrionic stem cells were actually better than non-embrionic stem cells, or showed more promise for curing disease, but they don't. People are already being cured of diseases such as Parkinson's using non-embrionic stem cell therapies.
The push for embrionic stem cell research is just plain immoral. Even were it to provide the cures its proponents claim, it would still come at the moral expense of having a human being arbitrarily decide who should live, and who should die. Thus, human life will be viewed not as something sacred or sacrosanct, but rather in terms of the its value to society; and the criterion of this judgement will be based not upon some objective standard, but rather on whatever is most expedient for those in power. To push for embrionic stem cell research is to regard the dignity of persons to be worth less than the value of scientific research. Furthermore, it bastardizes science in that rather than science being judged in light of its contribution to humanity, humanity is judged in light of its contribution to science. Science should exist to service humanity, not the other way around.
Yes, but one has to keep in mind that HP and Compaq still sell laptops that are, in some cases, twice the weight of their competition. For the extra four pounds in a Compaq laptop, one might as well add the power supply as well.
The problem with inductive coupling is that it requires a fairly strong magnetic field to work well. And we all know what magnetic fields do to things like floppy disks and hard drives...
Though I'm no physicist, it seems to me the magnetic flux required to get a usable inductive transfer would also be strong enough to erase data from a laptop hard drive or nearby floppy. Even if it doesn't erase data, the presence of a strong magnetic field could have a negative effect on the useful life of a hard drive.
A simpler, easier solution would be just to integrate the laptop's power supply into the unit itself, so you could recharge the laptop with an ordinary extension cord. Why bother lugging around a laptop and power brick when it could be integrated into the unit?
But otherwise, it sounds pretty cool. It would definitely be an improvement for things such as PDA's and cell phones.
There really isn't much point in opening up the specs because the software that runs in these devices is usually far more complicated than a PC. For example, on a recent project, the datasheet for the CPU alone was more than 1000 pages.
Typically, an embedded system like a camera will integrate the video processor, USB interface, serial io, and flash controller on the same silicon with the CPU. Even if you had the complete specs for the device, there isn't much you could do - usually, the board has just enough flash to hold the system, and just enough RAM to get the job done. And the peripheral devices - like the navigation buttons - are usually hard-wired to input pins on the CPU. There's no PCI bus to plug extra devices into, and the memory bus is hardwired to address only a narrow range of memory addresses.
Hate to rain on your parade, but there's generally not much extra functionality that you could get out of such a device. I understand the hacker instinct, but the only thing you're likely to do is break something that already works well enough as it is.
And did I mention the perils of trying to re-solder a ball-grid-array processor to the board? Not exactly for the unskilled...
Slashdot Mirror
Is a cell phone that does everything. Yes, I've heard the whining from people who just want a cell phone to be a phone, but from my perspective, the fewer devices I have to manage, the better.
Imagine you're going on vacation. You could pack:
- Your camcorder
- MP3 player
- digital camera
- PDA
- Personal video player
- Personal tv
- Cellphone
Or, you could just take your:Right now, we do have the technology to incorporate all of these features into one device with the form factor of a small notebook or PDA. Instead, people spend 5 times the amount of money on discrete appliances, and then have the added burden of having to carry them all. And then they whine because their phone isn't just a phone - as if they enjoy having dozens of electronic gadgets lying around the house, waiting to get lost, stolen, forgotten, etc...
I'm tired of using a dozen different gadgets to do what could easily be integrated into one. If cellphone manufacturers are going to break into new markets, their phones are going to have to be more than just phones.
being found to be liable in Canada for something they said in Washington DC
So their website was only accessible from DC?
Anything posted on the net is basically said everywhere. One has to keep in ming the net makes no distinctions regarding geographical or national boundaries. You can't really fault the judge in this case, because the libel did occur in his jurisdiction . Even though the Post was physically located in DC, their internet presence extended to every place with internet accessibility. If they were concerned about not breaking Canadian laws, they should have blocked Canada from accessing their web site.
Yeah, it is kind of chilling. But the net is an international medium; you can't assume that just because something is legal in your country that you can posted it on your internationally visible website.
Of course, you shouldn't be allowed to lie about anyone - and the Post is lucky he wasn't allowed to sue in America (home of the *Big Money* *Cash Prizes* legal firms...)
of the Chicagoland area, I've learned a few things about the way things are done in Chicago:
Granted, I like the idea of a city-wide WiFi network. But I know that if Chicago adopted WiFi, Daley and Co. would find some way to poison the well and ruin everything for everybody.
I listen to what people are tell me about their computer experience:
It still amazes me the number of people who are willing to ditch Windows completely and learn something new. As long as you clearly explain the pros and cons of running Linux, most people are willing to try Linux. Where you see Linux get a bad rap is when a flaming OSS zealot installs Linux over a crashed Windows installation without first explaining to the user that their previous system, as they knew it, will be completely gone.
And contrary to popular /. opinion, Linux is not always the best choice:
I think the key to being a successful OSS advocate is simply to listen to needs of people. Many idealistic people would run FOSS software, but don't because they don't have the requisite knowledge (or time) to understand it. That's where a good OSS zealot can help people out. But at the same time, we have to realize that for those users who rely on Windows-centric "features", installing Linux would not be doing them a favor.
Why not 1024 grams?
Somebody actually noticed that non-embryonic stem cells are being used to treat diseases today. Kind of ironic that while adult stem cell therapies are being tested in clinical trials, the Bush administration is taking heat because they didn't fund ethically suspect embryonic stem cell research - research which has yet to produce even a single cure.
Probably what I've already done: Stop watching tv.
The ironic thing is that, as part of my job, I already know enough to build a broadcast flag filter. It doesn't seem too terribly difficult. To defeat the broadcast flag, one merely needs a high-frequency sampling circuit and a fast computer - you simply pull the signal from the tuner and ignore whatever bits you don't like. The signal itself is pretty easy to pick out from the "other" things - like Macrovision, broadcast flag, etc...
But why bother? Why spend time in front of the tv when you could be surfing the net, learning new things, and - gasp! - actually expanding your mind as opposed to turning it into a vegetable. There's a lot better content than what's on tv, and you'd probably be a better person for it.
You can't fight city hall...
Cable Company: You can't build a municipal broadband network - it's against state law.
City Hall: Hmm..., you're right. We can't legally build a municipal broadband network. But we can most certainly legally tax it and regulate it. So what will it be? Are you going to offer cheap broadband or will we start writing tax laws?
Why not just use the car's odometer. Those who travel out of state frequently could merely sign an affidavit attesting to the out of state miles.
Why not just tax gasoline? Such a tax would be directly proportional to the fuel economy and miles driven.
Why would you need to use GPS, unless you wanted to track an individual's movements for ulterior purposes?
If taxes were the true motive for this proposal, they would have found a simpler way. This isn't about taxation, it's about tracking citizens - taxation is just a red-herring used to deflect criticism.
Um, how exactly is this going to affect those who already don't pay for movies?
So Macrovision puts more copy protection on a DVD:
So basically, when it comes down to it, Macrovision affects only those who get their movies through legitimate means. It won't have any effect on those already breaking the law, and it will only further reduce any incentive of using the DVD format.
Why do I watch downloaded movies? Why don't I buy many DVD's? Because DVD copy prevention sucks. It's that simple - I don't feel like buying something from an organization that regards me as somehow criminal because I have an interest in their product.
Conspiracy is an overused word. Technically speaking, Congress is a conspiracy. And so is the European Union. So what? There's really no need to call it a conspiracy; people are just protecting their interests, which shouldn't surprise anyone. That's just human nature.
And it shouldn't surprise anyone that Europe is pushing this whole global-warming thing - after all, they stand to benefit from it.
So GW's scientist claim global warming doesn't exist. But the rest of the world's scientists do. So who's right? No matter which way you argue, you can claim to have science on your side. What it comes down to is that if you spend enough money, you can get a scientist to say whatever you like - which kind of destroys the credibility of science in general...
Ok, I know it's troll bait, but your post basically dismisses the scientific method as mere myth. Americans simply apply it with more rigor than the Europeans, which explains why Europe thought the Earth was the center of the Universe for almost two millenia. Questioning of evolution only shows that we Americans want to ensure that something is true before we believe it.
Witness the manner in which the American President's scientists have basically denied the global warming trend. I suppose if we just laid down and believed everything "science" says, we'd continue to drive SUV's and burn coal for electricity.
What I'm afraid a lot of thinking people aren't seeing is the manner in which supposedly scientific opinion can be manipulated by politics. Of course Europe is going to believe there's a global warming trend:
You might think the world's scientists are altruistic, and perhaps they are. But the problem is that too many scientists have sacrificed their objectivity by lending their credibility to political agendas. Americans who question evolution aren't doing so merely because of some inherent bias against thought, but rather because they aren't as naive as those who take as gospel everything that scientists say. Science has, unfortunately, become a means to gain political power, and as such, has lost a considerable amount of the objectivity it needs to wield authority in its subject matter.
Actually, Galileo didn't change his mind. The Church did not oppress science, but rather, Galileo snubbed the Pope, after which the Pope refused permission to publish his work. So what initially might appear as oppression of science by the Church was in fact nothing more than a personal dispute.
Friends and family who call me for PC repairs generally don't pay in money - that would be too easy. Instead, they have to listen to me:
When its all said and done, I figure the effort on their part has probably cost them as much as it would have been to hire someone in the first place. I do understand that some people can't switch from Windows because of compatibility with their existing software, or employment, etc... In such cases, the best I can do for them is to convince them to do a good backup and restore every few months. While most users won't understand all of the intricacies of Windows, almost everyone can understand how to burn their data to CD and reinstall the OS every 6-12 months.
And btw, I've found the best way to get myself invited over for dinner on a regular basis is to reinstall Windows. Inevitably, it's going to break before the year's up, and I'll get myself another good home-cooked meal...
Interestingly, Windows seems to be the only platform in which security comes at a substantial performance cost.
While the other things he talks of, like anti-aliased fonts and drop shadows apply equally well to all platforms, Windows is the only platform in which system security requires a substantial amount of CPU cycles and bus bandwidth. Had Microsoft the foresight to design a secure OS in the first place, Macs might actually have to run faster than 1 GHz to compete with 3 GHz Windows desktops.
73 percent of high school students think downloading music for free is a constitutionally protected exercise of their first ammendment rights...
I've often advocated the use of assembly language, and every time I do, the flames begin:
Now, I realize there's probably some pretty ugly assembly code out there. But when you look at what an idiot programmer can do in other languages, it doesn't seem so bad:
So often times we are quick to blame the language for what is really ineptitude on the part of programmers. A good programmer will write good code in any language, but a poor programmer requires a specific language in order to write good code. And a malicious programmer can write bad code in any language...
And the best part is that neither having the source to Linux nor having Microsoft support make any real difference when it comes getting hardware working. I don't have time to debug the Linux source code, and the Windows support folks (on the hw vendor end) don't have a clue...
A perfect example of the "as well" chasm is Linux. It's significantly cheaper than Windows, yet for most folks, doesn't work as well.
I do run Linux, and I'm not trying to troll, but Linux has a long way to go when it comes to some things. Compare installing a new piece of hardware in Linux vs. Windows*:
And I haven't even covered the cases where the drivers won't compile, or the vendor changes chipsets and the device won't work with Linux at all.
Granted, you only have to setup Linux once. But I've found that installing Linux and getting the hardware to work typically takes between two and three times what it would take under Windows, if it is supported at all. I can talk someone through reinstalling Windows over the phone, but I wouldn't dare try that with Linux. (Of course, you might never have to do the latter, so it might be a moot point).
* - based on a true story...
Even if they manage to take my hard drive, the data won't last until the trial...
So what happens when a cure is discovered, and the discarded embryos from fertility clinics can no longer meet the demand? Then even embryos which would have otherwise become people will be "harvested". You can't discover a cure with embryonic stem cells without the attendant reality that such a cure will create pressure to destroy potential lives.
That non-embrionic stem cells are already being used in the United States, today, to cure illnesses?
It's amazing that people are continuing to push for embrionic stem cell research - which to date has shown no serious prospect of curing people - when we are already using non-embrionic stem cells in clinical trials to cure people.
I could understand the debate if embrionic stem cells were actually better than non-embrionic stem cells, or showed more promise for curing disease, but they don't. People are already being cured of diseases such as Parkinson's using non-embrionic stem cell therapies.
The push for embrionic stem cell research is just plain immoral. Even were it to provide the cures its proponents claim, it would still come at the moral expense of having a human being arbitrarily decide who should live, and who should die. Thus, human life will be viewed not as something sacred or sacrosanct, but rather in terms of the its value to society; and the criterion of this judgement will be based not upon some objective standard, but rather on whatever is most expedient for those in power. To push for embrionic stem cell research is to regard the dignity of persons to be worth less than the value of scientific research. Furthermore, it bastardizes science in that rather than science being judged in light of its contribution to humanity, humanity is judged in light of its contribution to science. Science should exist to service humanity, not the other way around.
Yes, but one has to keep in mind that HP and Compaq still sell laptops that are, in some cases, twice the weight of their competition. For the extra four pounds in a Compaq laptop, one might as well add the power supply as well.
The problem with inductive coupling is that it requires a fairly strong magnetic field to work well. And we all know what magnetic fields do to things like floppy disks and hard drives...
Though I'm no physicist, it seems to me the magnetic flux required to get a usable inductive transfer would also be strong enough to erase data from a laptop hard drive or nearby floppy. Even if it doesn't erase data, the presence of a strong magnetic field could have a negative effect on the useful life of a hard drive.
A simpler, easier solution would be just to integrate the laptop's power supply into the unit itself, so you could recharge the laptop with an ordinary extension cord. Why bother lugging around a laptop and power brick when it could be integrated into the unit?
But otherwise, it sounds pretty cool. It would definitely be an improvement for things such as PDA's and cell phones.
Disclaimer: IAEE (I'm an embedded engineer)
There really isn't much point in opening up the specs because the software that runs in these devices is usually far more complicated than a PC. For example, on a recent project, the datasheet for the CPU alone was more than 1000 pages.
Typically, an embedded system like a camera will integrate the video processor, USB interface, serial io, and flash controller on the same silicon with the CPU. Even if you had the complete specs for the device, there isn't much you could do - usually, the board has just enough flash to hold the system, and just enough RAM to get the job done. And the peripheral devices - like the navigation buttons - are usually hard-wired to input pins on the CPU. There's no PCI bus to plug extra devices into, and the memory bus is hardwired to address only a narrow range of memory addresses.
Hate to rain on your parade, but there's generally not much extra functionality that you could get out of such a device. I understand the hacker instinct, but the only thing you're likely to do is break something that already works well enough as it is.
And did I mention the perils of trying to re-solder a ball-grid-array processor to the board? Not exactly for the unskilled...