iBook. You forgot about the damned iBook. I have one of those. No CD burner, but I have a CD-RW drive in my Linux box, so that's not really a problem.
<rant>
However, I run Linux and MacOS 9 in MOL on it, and not OS X, which has horrible stability problems, and reminds me of Windows 95. Slow as molasses, too. Someone really needs to fix that monstrosity. And no, I'm not going to pay fscking money to them for the new, 'fixed' version; I should have gotten a working, usable OS when I bought it the first time.
But, since they obviously won't do that, I decided to be fair to Apple, and respond the way I respond to all cases of poor, commercial operating systems (most notably, Microsoft Windows) -- by flipping them the bird and installing Linux.
And yes, you're reading me correctly as equating Mac OS X to Microsoft Windows. I hate them both equally, because they both suck equally.
Consider switching to lower resolution if you need more constant filming time. My PowerShot S30 does 30 seconds at at time on 320x240, or 2 minutes on 160x120.
If you need even more, there are digital cameras out there that can record much more.
I noticed in the manual that the camera has some internal memory, besides the CF card. My suspicion is that the reason you can't fill the CF card with a single movie is that the CF card's write speed is too slow to write out all that data as fast as (or faster than) it is recorded. I've also noticed that when the camera is doing I/O with the CF card it doesn't do anything else (ie, it displays the 'busy' screen), so it might instead be an exclusivity problem -- the CPU has to devote its attention entirely to CF I/O until that's done with, and doesn't have to do that with the internal memory.
Anyone have any insights as to what the bottleneck is in these cameras' memory systems?
3) The infighting and fragmentation among several OSS camps (GNOME/KDE and, to a lesser extent, GPL/BSD licencing) can't help but make one wonder if OSS can stay united long enough to make any impact.
Hopefully, it won't. I myself would like the APIs and configurations unified more, but the desktops? Even Windows has it's detractors, like Litestep and Window Blinds. There are arguements, but you think there are nothing but congenial, ass kissing sessions in cloised source design meetings? Sure.
I really should point out that the 'infighting and fragmentation' is actually what's called competition. GNOME vs KDE is a form of competition, and at least partly because of that competition, both of them kick serious ass.
However, for those who aren't feeling like competing with each other, they also have the option of sharing with each other and cooperating. I glanced a headline about GNOME/KDE cooperation recently, so maybe that's what will happen here.
Though the Free Software world is a sort of socialist system, it is also a meritocracy, which is why competition still works in this setting. The exception, of course, is that the competition doesn't get really brutal like it can be in a capitalist setting, since playing outside the rules and striking low blows really won't gain you much here.
Microsoft doesn't have many morons to be sure. They do have a paranoid culture, however. Look at how they've reacted to what used to be thier greatest weakness in regard to Linux - security. I need not say more.
Personally, I think their new 'Trustworthy Computing' initiative is really just a marketing/PR stunt designed to increase sales and compensate for the deterioration of their reputation because of their poor security. This theory is supported by the fact that they came up with a new term for it -- 'Trustworthy Computing' -- instead of simply saying that they are going to take initiative in improving the security of their products. The TC name has PR stunt written all over it. I don't personally think their security improve enough to even displace Linux and *BSD.
Sorry - Linux is no skinny little kid in comparison to Microsoft, exept in perhaps market share. More like the tall kid who just takes the abuse, smiles and waits for his turn...
So far, Linux also seems to be not just taking the abuse, but also shrugging it off, and even taunting its enemies with the ability to shrug off whatever they come up with.
Li-ion and NiMH is because they're vastly more powerful than the obsolete NiCd batteries.
You might get away with saying that about NiMH, although NiCad is in a constant battle with NiMH for the position of most powerful. Li-ion doesn't even come close to holding the charge NiCad or NiMH does. Li-ion are only used because of: lack of memory effects, and ability to be quickly charged/discharged making them slightly better in VERY-High drain devices.
Then explain why I get so much more battery life out of my digital camera, cell phone, and laptop than the equivalent devices (with brand new NiCd or Alkaline batteries) with the Li-ion batteries they use?
As for the stacked idea of yours, each battery consists of an array of cells which are already connected in series. In other words, it's already done that way.
Well thank you all knowing battery god... Try this on for size. If you open up a rechargeable 9V battery you will see a series of 6 very small 1.2V batteries (smaller than Triple A's). So, it's obviously possible for them to make smaller batteries with appropriate voltages, conversly, it's no doubt possible for them to make 1.5V batteries.
Perhaps, but then their battery life would probably be pretty low, wouldn't it?
No. The reason people are paying attention to Li-ion and NiMH is because they're vastly more powerful than the obsolete NiCd batteries. In all likelihood, they haven't yet gotten past that 1100 mAh mark... I have some C size NiMH batteries here that unload a whopping 2200 mAh!
The other biggest problem with NiCd batteries is that the cadmium in them is extremely toxic. Don't get it on you! Alkaline batteries are acidic. Li-ion and NiMH are nicer, though they're not magic bullets either in this regard. The point is that NiCd is terrible and needs to roll over and die already.
As for the stacked idea of yours, each battery consists of an array of cells which are already connected in series. In other words, it's already done that way. If the battery were larger, you'd be able to get more voltage out of it, since the cells are connected in series. What do you need a full 1.5V for, anyway? Virtually all devices that use batteries are supposed to handle getting 1.2V without trouble, and, AFAICT, they generally do.
All the NiMH batteries I've been exposed to also have a 1.2V output, in case you care.
Who said anything about fixing it? We just want a battery that stores insane amounts of energy and can be recharged a lot. If we have to buy a $200 replacement every 3 years, I think the battery companies would make a good profit.
As mine is. I have a relatively new Samsung SCH-850 cell phone. The charging cradle for it won't try to charge its (Li-ion) battery if it's already fully charged (though it'll take a couple of minutes to make that determination and switch off). My phone has lost its battery power when left on for long periods of time (during which signal quality was very poor, so it probably switched to analog mode most of the time, which consumes a great deal more power -- I didn't check), but other than that, I have yet to have it die on me. It's a great phone with a great power system; I highly recommend it.
Woe to any atmosphere that flew through that beam, too, as it's likely to get really hot or something.
Yes, it's possible to focus a high-powered laser to 'beam' energy around, like from an orbital to a planet (which is actually a good idea, since the orbital's solar panels are a lot better than planetary solar panels). I guess you could focus other frequencies too, but I dunno about that.
In response to your questions, I'll answer as best as I can:
Electrically powered lasers (as opposed to chemically powered ones) are generally fairly weak, so being able to make a strong enough beam with just electrical energy is questionable. Also, in order to receive the energy being sent, you'd need to un-focus the beam somehow (a prism with a lot of faces, perhaps; you need to un-focus the beam to avoid burning a hole in your solar panels or whatever you are absorbing the energy with, because if you didn't, too much of the energy would be concentrated in too small a space), which might cause some lossage. Also, if you're going to be beaming energy around through an atmosphere, then there will be some lossage of energy, depending on how much atmosphere the beam passes through, and how much of the beam's energy the atmosphere absorbs/scatters.
You don't necessarily need a direct line of sight for a laser, as long as it's okay that you drill a hole through whatever's in the way...;) Yes, walking through a high-powered laser beam is more than enough to slice someone up, or something equally unpleasant. Walking through a maser (focused microwave) beam would cause the poor soul to get cooked. Walking through an xaser (focused x-ray) beam...well...let's not go there.
No. You can certainly point the beam at a specific target, though, which is a good way of insuring that only the target receives the energy being transported. The exception is if some obstacle shows up between the laser and the receiver.
No clue. Lasers would certainly work in theory, but perhaps other frequencies (or even particles other than photons) would be better.
If it's a laser, we won't, since it's directed energy. Some of the energy will be scattered around by the atmosphere, but this is usually minimal. It will need to be ensured that whatever the electromagnetic frequency is used doesn't get scattered around enough to hurt anyone, of course -- beaming around x-rays would probably be problematic at best. Visible light and infrared lasers are really the safest, for reasons that should be pretty obvious if you step outside on a sunny day...
Another thing to think about is that forming a beam is not necessarily the best way to transfer energy. As you may know, when you have two particles that are 'entangled', any changes made to the state of one will cause the other's state to change in the same manner, at the same time, without regard to distance, as if they were both the same particle. I don't know if this could be applied to energy transfer, though -- usually, if not always, the energy is itself a particle, such as an electron or photon. Note that I don't have much of an understanding for quantum physics, so most of this stuff is probably incorrect. Such things boggle my little brain...
What was the basis for the suspicion that it would set the atmosphere on fire, anyway? I know of no significant concentrations of flammable gases in the atmosphere.
Then you get a cheap way to throw a decent amount of radioactive material around a large area.
It should be noted that a battery wouldn't necessarily need a substantial quantity of radioactive material. If the needed quantity of material is low enough, then such a battery would (in theory) be as safe as a modern chemical-energy battery.
Contrary to popular belief, humans are capable of withstanding a certain amount of exposure to radiation without any discernible effects. One might argue that chronic exposure to even mild amounts of radioactives would be harmful, but exposure from the occasional breached battery or terrorist attack is hardly chronic (and terrorists have better ways of killing people anyway).
To my knowledge, the specific amount of such radiation that a human body can tolerate without discernible effects is measured in a unit called REM.
Also, besides the fact that the human body is simply not affected by a sufficiently mild dose of radiation, it does have some mechanisms for protecting itself against a small amount of radiation. Cells will try to repair DNA that has been damaged by radiation, for instance.
I've actually thought about this idea before. I envisioned replacing those lovely nuclear waste dumps with huge power plants using the used control rods (or some other radioactive waste) for the energy they are emitting. This means essentially free energy for a very long time.
Of course, if it's possible to make a battery with a small amount of such a material, then so much the better. The quantity does need to be small enough that breaching it won't cause a major ecological disaster. Risk of personal injury to whomever breaches it isn't really a problem, since they have those big warning labels on present-day batteries anyway, and they already contain plenty of hazardous chemicals.
If antimatter comes into contact with matter -- any matter -- you get a really big kaboom. Figuring out just how big the kaboom will be is a little trickier, but suffice it to say you won't want to be anywhere nearby. The more specific answer to such a question lies in Einstein's good old equation, E=mc^2. For those who don't know/remember, 'm' is mass, 'c' is the speed of light, and 'E' is the energy that said mass can be converted to (which is what happens when matter and antimatter contact -- they both get converted into energy).
Since the only ingredient required to make antimatter release its energy is matter, there is obviously plenty of 'fuel' to go around.
That's why moderators only get 5 mod points. It's also why there is a meta-moderation system.
And wouldn't you know it. Your post instead winds up +3, Informative, and no negative moderations. I always find it ironic when people rant about how their wonderfully intellectual posts are going to be modded down into oblivion, and they wind up getting modded up to +4 or +5.
The Flash SDK is not the source for a good, open specification on Flash. For that, go here. There's also some related source code and programs. All without the Nazi license agreements.
Actually you can do that on any arch (certainly not only mainframes) using User Mode Linux, which is, as the name might suggest, a Linux kernel that runs self-contained in a process on a 'parent' Linux kernel (which, in theory, could itself be a User Mode Linux kernel running in yet another 'parent' kernel, and so on).
You don't need a mainframe to give everybody their own little root.
Did I mention User Mode Linux is arch-independent? This also means you can run it on Sun boxes. (And why on earth would you want to run Solaris when you can run Linux?;)
Somehow, I have the irresistable urge to state my responses to this list.
Unix. Free. Fair use. None of the above (jEdit). Either of the above. GNOME. Java (and C++ when necessary). Linux (tradition is that one refers to an OS by the name of its kernel).
I was merely trying to cite an example. I couldn't think of any more, because most Free Software doesn't have backdoors to begin with, and proprietary software generally has the backdoors removed before the source is released. (Borland forgot to do that with Interbase.)
Also, I've been informed that the Interbase backdoor took a year or so to discover. See this post.
Slashdot Mirror
What exactly is wrong with Java?
All of which are potential fuel for nuclear batteries?
<rant>
However, I run Linux and MacOS 9 in MOL on it, and not OS X, which has horrible stability problems, and reminds me of Windows 95. Slow as molasses, too. Someone really needs to fix that monstrosity. And no, I'm not going to pay fscking money to them for the new, 'fixed' version; I should have gotten a working, usable OS when I bought it the first time.
But, since they obviously won't do that, I decided to be fair to Apple, and respond the way I respond to all cases of poor, commercial operating systems (most notably, Microsoft Windows) -- by flipping them the bird and installing Linux.
And yes, you're reading me correctly as equating Mac OS X to Microsoft Windows. I hate them both equally, because they both suck equally.
</rant>
If you need even more, there are digital cameras out there that can record much more.
I noticed in the manual that the camera has some internal memory, besides the CF card. My suspicion is that the reason you can't fill the CF card with a single movie is that the CF card's write speed is too slow to write out all that data as fast as (or faster than) it is recorded. I've also noticed that when the camera is doing I/O with the CF card it doesn't do anything else (ie, it displays the 'busy' screen), so it might instead be an exclusivity problem -- the CPU has to devote its attention entirely to CF I/O until that's done with, and doesn't have to do that with the internal memory.
Anyone have any insights as to what the bottleneck is in these cameras' memory systems?
Conceivably, you aren't paying full price. I'm sure they'd be happy to sell you the source for a huge heap of green.
However, for those who aren't feeling like competing with each other, they also have the option of sharing with each other and cooperating. I glanced a headline about GNOME/KDE cooperation recently, so maybe that's what will happen here.
Though the Free Software world is a sort of socialist system, it is also a meritocracy, which is why competition still works in this setting. The exception, of course, is that the competition doesn't get really brutal like it can be in a capitalist setting, since playing outside the rules and striking low blows really won't gain you much here.
Personally, I think their new 'Trustworthy Computing' initiative is really just a marketing/PR stunt designed to increase sales and compensate for the deterioration of their reputation because of their poor security. This theory is supported by the fact that they came up with a new term for it -- 'Trustworthy Computing' -- instead of simply saying that they are going to take initiative in improving the security of their products. The TC name has PR stunt written all over it. I don't personally think their security improve enough to even displace Linux and *BSD. So far, Linux also seems to be not just taking the abuse, but also shrugging it off, and even taunting its enemies with the ability to shrug off whatever they come up with.So, there isn't a vast stockpile of Pu-238? What is in those stockpiles? Pu-239? U-238?
You're right. I'm the one who claimed your posts are 'wonderfully intellectual'.
If it is, and there was a sudden, legal, and safe demand for it, I think its price would drop dramatically.
The other biggest problem with NiCd batteries is that the cadmium in them is extremely toxic. Don't get it on you! Alkaline batteries are acidic. Li-ion and NiMH are nicer, though they're not magic bullets either in this regard. The point is that NiCd is terrible and needs to roll over and die already.
As for the stacked idea of yours, each battery consists of an array of cells which are already connected in series. In other words, it's already done that way. If the battery were larger, you'd be able to get more voltage out of it, since the cells are connected in series. What do you need a full 1.5V for, anyway? Virtually all devices that use batteries are supposed to handle getting 1.2V without trouble, and, AFAICT, they generally do.
All the NiMH batteries I've been exposed to also have a 1.2V output, in case you care.
Who said anything about fixing it? We just want a battery that stores insane amounts of energy and can be recharged a lot. If we have to buy a $200 replacement every 3 years, I think the battery companies would make a good profit.
As mine is. I have a relatively new Samsung SCH-850 cell phone. The charging cradle for it won't try to charge its (Li-ion) battery if it's already fully charged (though it'll take a couple of minutes to make that determination and switch off). My phone has lost its battery power when left on for long periods of time (during which signal quality was very poor, so it probably switched to analog mode most of the time, which consumes a great deal more power -- I didn't check), but other than that, I have yet to have it die on me. It's a great phone with a great power system; I highly recommend it.
Make extra crispy style CowboyNeal bacon! Mmm-mm!
Woe to any atmosphere that flew through that beam, too, as it's likely to get really hot or something.
Yes, it's possible to focus a high-powered laser to 'beam' energy around, like from an orbital to a planet (which is actually a good idea, since the orbital's solar panels are a lot better than planetary solar panels). I guess you could focus other frequencies too, but I dunno about that.
In response to your questions, I'll answer as best as I can:
- Electrically powered lasers (as opposed to chemically powered ones) are generally fairly weak, so being able to make a strong enough beam with just electrical energy is questionable. Also, in order to receive the energy being sent, you'd need to un-focus the beam somehow (a prism with a lot of faces, perhaps; you need to un-focus the beam to avoid burning a hole in your solar panels or whatever you are absorbing the energy with, because if you didn't, too much of the energy would be concentrated in too small a space), which might cause some lossage. Also, if you're going to be beaming energy around through an atmosphere, then there will be some lossage of energy, depending on how much atmosphere the beam passes through, and how much of the beam's energy the atmosphere absorbs/scatters.
- You don't necessarily need a direct line of sight for a laser, as long as it's okay that you drill a hole through whatever's in the way...
;) Yes, walking through a high-powered laser beam is more than enough to slice someone up, or something equally unpleasant. Walking through a maser (focused microwave) beam would cause the poor soul to get cooked. Walking through an xaser (focused x-ray) beam...well...let's not go there.
- No. You can certainly point the beam at a specific target, though, which is a good way of insuring that only the target receives the energy being transported. The exception is if some obstacle shows up between the laser and the receiver.
- No clue. Lasers would certainly work in theory, but perhaps other frequencies (or even particles other than photons) would be better.
- If it's a laser, we won't, since it's directed energy. Some of the energy will be scattered around by the atmosphere, but this is usually minimal. It will need to be ensured that whatever the electromagnetic frequency is used doesn't get scattered around enough to hurt anyone, of course -- beaming around x-rays would probably be problematic at best. Visible light and infrared lasers are really the safest, for reasons that should be pretty obvious if you step outside on a sunny day...
Another thing to think about is that forming a beam is not necessarily the best way to transfer energy. As you may know, when you have two particles that are 'entangled', any changes made to the state of one will cause the other's state to change in the same manner, at the same time, without regard to distance, as if they were both the same particle. I don't know if this could be applied to energy transfer, though -- usually, if not always, the energy is itself a particle, such as an electron or photon. Note that I don't have much of an understanding for quantum physics, so most of this stuff is probably incorrect. Such things boggle my little brain...What was the basis for the suspicion that it would set the atmosphere on fire, anyway? I know of no significant concentrations of flammable gases in the atmosphere.
It should be noted that a battery wouldn't necessarily need a substantial quantity of radioactive material. If the needed quantity of material is low enough, then such a battery would (in theory) be as safe as a modern chemical-energy battery.
Contrary to popular belief, humans are capable of withstanding a certain amount of exposure to radiation without any discernible effects. One might argue that chronic exposure to even mild amounts of radioactives would be harmful, but exposure from the occasional breached battery or terrorist attack is hardly chronic (and terrorists have better ways of killing people anyway).
To my knowledge, the specific amount of such radiation that a human body can tolerate without discernible effects is measured in a unit called REM.
Also, besides the fact that the human body is simply not affected by a sufficiently mild dose of radiation, it does have some mechanisms for protecting itself against a small amount of radiation. Cells will try to repair DNA that has been damaged by radiation, for instance.
Of course, if it's possible to make a battery with a small amount of such a material, then so much the better. The quantity does need to be small enough that breaching it won't cause a major ecological disaster. Risk of personal injury to whomever breaches it isn't really a problem, since they have those big warning labels on present-day batteries anyway, and they already contain plenty of hazardous chemicals.
Since the only ingredient required to make antimatter release its energy is matter, there is obviously plenty of 'fuel' to go around.
And wouldn't you know it. Your post instead winds up +3, Informative, and no negative moderations. I always find it ironic when people rant about how their wonderfully intellectual posts are going to be modded down into oblivion, and they wind up getting modded up to +4 or +5.
The Flash SDK is not the source for a good, open specification on Flash. For that, go here. There's also some related source code and programs. All without the Nazi license agreements.
You don't need a mainframe to give everybody their own little root.
Did I mention User Mode Linux is arch-independent? This also means you can run it on Sun boxes. (And why on earth would you want to run Solaris when you can run Linux? ;)
Unix. Free. Fair use. None of the above (jEdit). Either of the above. GNOME. Java (and C++ when necessary). Linux (tradition is that one refers to an OS by the name of its kernel).
Also, I've been informed that the Interbase backdoor took a year or so to discover. See this post.
Then my memory obviously doesn't serve me correctly. Sorry.