With all the talk lately about various Codecs (divx, sorenson, and now VP3, as well as the "mpeg-4" stuff we've heard about (that may or may not be a codec:) )), I've been wondering...
...has anyone put together a good test suite to compare the various codecs at various bit rates? I'm thinking something that'd have some fixed-images (test patterns), some high- and medium-intensity moving images, lots of colors, simple and complex sounds, etc. Then put that file through all the various systems, at various rates, and compare the quality somehow...
Not that it'll really make much difference to me, as an end-user, since I'll just watch whatever someone has already encoded, but I'd be curious to see something a little more substantial and quantitative than just "sorenson's cool" sort of postings...
If you could fool the goverment into thinking that spam is terrorism, I bet they would definitly do something about it;)
[Disclaimer, don't even try to take that seriously]
Why not?
According to the latest anti-terrorism acts, if I recall correctly, any "attack" on one or more computer systems resulting in an aggregate cost of more than $5000 qualifies as a Terrorist Attack on the computer systems in question.
So, if a SPAM sent to your ISP clogs up the mail server, and it takes more than $X to clean it up (in admin costs and, possibly, refunds to annoyed customers), or if this happens to your company's main email gateway, or if everyone in your organization gets it and it has a virus in it, or each email includes remotely-hosted HTTP images that pushes your burstable line into a higher bracket, then, well:
* Record everything you can about the email, who sent it, when, contents, how it got there, what it did, and most importantly, what it cost to clean up
* Publish this on some central spam-cop site
* when enough other victims have come together with similar experiences, that the total cost exceeds $5000, then get a good lawyer, demand a grand jury be empaneled to consider indictment of the perpetrator on terrorist computer attack charges, and see what happens next
Repeat as necessary.
Hey, worst case the act is thrown out as unconstitutional. Best case, you put a bunch of SPAMers in jail for life (for which you could argue, as the plaintiffs, for a reduced sentence and large fine).
But I'd argue that this is exactly what the act was supposed to do -- prevent against any computer-borne attack that causes $5000 or more in actual damage to one or more corporations. Right? Just because the DDOS came in the form of Email doesn't make the law less applicable than if it were an email virus, or a script-kiddie DDOS, right?
*EVERY* one of those notes has UPS's 1-800 number on it.
Bzzzt!
You think I'm so stupid that I don't scour the notes for a number? There never was a number. Trust me. I've tried. Maybe in recent years they've changed their sticker, but there were at least three situations where I had to go to the phone book to find a number, it was a national number, and since I didn't have any kind of package tracking number I couldn't get anywhere, anyway.
Don't blame UPS because you won't make the effort or that they can't read your mind
I made the effort. Trust me. UPS did not help. Like I said, maybe it's changed in the past couple years.
I've disliked UPS for a long while now, for other customer-service issues.
I've come home several times to find a sticker on my door saying "we came by, we'll come by again tomorrow." No way to simply leave a signature, or to request a time to have 'em come by, or to request that I go pick it up -- just "we came, we'll come again." Useless.
The other problem I've had is when tracking packages online. They tout this instant-update tracking system, but really, it's a "Revisionist History" system. I've seen a package hit a milestone at, say, 3:00 am, then nothing at all for two days, then on the third day (after I've finally received it), the tracking page updates to show milestones at 6:00 and 14:30 on the first day, 8:00 on the second day, and the actual delivery. I've also had it claim that a package was already delivered, when it hadn't even been shipped yet. Once, I had a package listed (for a week) as coming in two boxes. Then, when only one box shows up, I get all pissed, until I open it up and find everything in the one box. So I go back to the tracking page, and guess what? No sign of two boxes EVER being in the system.
Of course, the problem with FedEx is that I usually need to sign, so when that comes to my house I gotta arrange to go to their office to pick it up. And I've had USPS leave boxes on my lowermost step instead of next to my door (I'm in a townhouse, so this is only marginally better than leaving it at the curb), and once had a USPS package left in the pouring rain such that the box literally disolved when I opened it. Fortunately, the contents were in a plastic bag. Basically, they all suck, to varying degrees.
As for your situation, I'd say there MUST be some way you could sue them in small claims court or something. They may have disclaimed "no insurance," but they certainly have some amount of liability, otherwise they could just steal packages with impunity and never even bother to deliver. I'd check with a lawyer, seriously. Also ensure you've got GOOD photos and documentation (a lawyer should help you figure this part out, too). It could be that a nasty letter from a law firm would be enough to get 'em to do something. Remember also that they've probably got their own blanket insurance, anyway, for just such an emergency.
On the other hand, you could just be screwed. My condolances, especially with regards to all the "oh, it's just a Mac" comments here.
Major League Baseball is acting just as monopolistic as MS or the RIAA
Yeah, but I like to kid myself that, well, Baseball is a "Private Club." You pay $$ (really $$$$$) to join, you agree to certain rules, etc. One of those rules you agree to is that your club can be folded if baseball determines it's in the best interests of the league. I presume.
I do agree that there might be some kind of financial responsibility to a city or region which has spent money to support that club, but then again, shouldn't a team that moves (like in the musical-chairs NFL) have the same responsibility? I'm not sure any of the recently-moved NFL teams have paid any kind of compensation to the cities they've left.
Anyway, the way I see it, they are their own oranization, they can do as they please. Are they truly a monopoly? Have they stifled any new leagues lately? New leagues keep popping up to compete with the NFL, but I've never seen a new baseball league start.
To return closer to your point of view, though, I *am* a little bit annoyed that they're contracting, and not moving financially poor teams to cities that could support them better. The last time MLB moved a team was in, what, 1971, when the Senators became the Rangers. And at that point, MLB promised Washington, DC that "You're first on the list when we expand again." MLB has expanded, what, 6 or 8 teams since 1971? None of them have gone to DC. And now that there are two teams that could fold forever, MLB would rather close those teams down than allow one of them to move to the 7th largest market in the country.
If I were the owner of one of the teams designated to "contract," I'd sue to be allowed to move to DC, and see what happens then.
This was one of the big "cool features" promised way back when DVD was still being introduced. You'd be able to select different "versions" of a film, from a normal DVD player menu, and the player would pick-and-choose specific scenes automatically, and seamlessly (or just about so). The promise was to be able to have a single disc, with a single "super-duper-extra-beyond-director's-cut" version that you'd never, in practice, see. Then you select the "Theatrical Release" and see what you saw in the theater. Select the "Director's Cut" and see what the movie house didn't think would sell but all the rabid fans prefer. Select "TV" and see a cleaned-up version for TV. Select "Morman" and -- oh, nevermind.
Of course, I've never seen this happen, except on one movie (Crash), which allowed you to pick an R or NC-17 version of the same film.
I can think of MANY movies where I wish this feature was used. A good example is Blade Runner. There was the US theatrical release, there was a foreign release (with some additional, gorier footage), a later US release (basically the foreign release), a "Director's Cut" (with the unicorn in and the voice-over out), etc. Wouldn't it be great if you could get all those on a single disc? Or could mix-and-match? Gimme the director's cut, but WITH the narration. I won't even go into what you could do with Brazil (what, didn't the Criterion LD include three separate, complete, full-length cuts?)
Personally, I'd like to see this for many "normal" movies, too. For example, I'd love to recommend "Wild Things" to my mom -- it's a great mindfuck movie. But the sex scenes would probably make her want to stop watching. So she's missing out on a terrific movie.
And the worst of it is that all this capability already exists. The studios just don't want to do it.
So, something like this project seems really cool, especially for people using their own DVD player software to drive their home theater screen. Someone else talked about "Fan Edits." This might even make a good argument for an additional "Fair Use" for DeCSS technology -- providing a value-added service for DVD owners that the studios don't feel like doing.
DVD had such great promise, but very rarely do the studios actually deliver on those promises. How many movies nowadays come with alternate language tracks? With OBSCURE alternate languages? With decent subtitle selection? Now, how many come with "making of" featurettes, stupid storyboard-to-final "worksthops", or animated menus? Which delivers better value to the end user? Which is cheaper to produce?
Seriously, though everything you've accomplished is cool, how satisfying is it? I know a bunch of people with similar amounts of weird hardware, all interconnected, but it doesn't do much other than just sit there and process PINGs or mount files from each other (kinky).
I'm *personally* at the stage where I could care less about how many systems I could put together, and care more about integrating it seamlessly into my daily life -- like, say, voice-controlled MP3 player. Basically, I want StarTrek in my house (without the evil aliens).
I'm not trying to denigrate you or what you've done, I'm just curious whether it's the networking itself, rather than the uses that the resultant system might have, that holds your interest.
On the other hand, the DNS stuff you're doing sounds really great, and actually useful.
So, what *do* you do for a day job? And why do you think they wouldn't consider you for any of them? Sounds to me like you'd be a shoe-in for a network-level geeky job somewhere working with drivers for wireless or appliance stuff.
As for the bit about not caring for computers and having a nice suit -- there is more truth to that than I care to admit to. At least in some shops.
That's it. I was in a boring-as-hell lower-level CS class, and usually skipped it. One day, I went, though I sat in the back and read some novel or something. Late in the class, a couple guys from the university Consulting Lab (UMCP's faculty/staff computer help desk) got up to recruit. I joined the team a few weeks later, and got hurled into the marvelous world of admin when our VAXstation 2000 (X-windows, 40MB hard drive) crapped out and I had to rebuild it from a 10mb tar file on a remote server (an early NeXT cube, no less:) )
The rest, as they say, is history.
How would you get into it now? Don't really know. Certainly, it'd help to "play" with the stuff at home, but unless you've got 4-10 machines at home, networked, in regular use, you simply won't have the need to do a good job administering the server (and won't hit upon any of the major challenges).
Is 33 too old to start a tech career? From the standpoint of unconcious hiring discrimination, maybe you'll have a problem there. Plus, there's always the "why are you swtiching careers?" question. From the standpoint of being too old to learn -- bullshit. If you're smart, and can learn new tricks, you'll have a fighting chance.
Best advice -- learn to type fast, and find all the online documentation centers (man pages, web, etc.). If you type and can research the problem fast enough, nobody will ever know you don't know the answer ('cause you'll have just gotten the answer). After that, learn perl. Any time you find yourself doing the same thing more than once, spend the 20 minutes (or three hours) to write a script to do it instead. Then the next time it'll take 30 seconds to do, and you'll look smart.:)
Where do you teach english? If it's at a high school, you might be able to help part-time with in-house stuff, though I wouldn't be too surprised if a lot of that got given to students. If you're at a college, try the same tack with the help desk or whatever there... Then, maybe, look for jobs with contractors doing help desk in a UNIX or UNIX-Server shop (if you live in the Washington, DC area, there are LOTS of these jobs). You won't be doing admin, per se, but you'll be seeing the "lighter" side of it, especially the customer-side of things, and if you show enough aptitude and interest, you should be able to ease into a SysAdmin side. Another bonus for gov't contractor stuff -- they're used to "second careers" as military enlisted types retire and start working as geeks.
When the record companies try to charge for music on the web, as they are about to do with Napster, they'll be laughed at and ignored because we don't want to pay ANYTHING
Sure, free is better than non-free, but if a good, cheap, trusted source for online music comes about, I'll subscribe.
Why won't I pay for Napster? Because the content providers are people just like me. Who probably did a lousy job ripping with a cheap encoder at a low bit rate with erroneous tag info. If the content's being encoded for free, then dammit, I'm not going to pay for it, cause the quality is not guaranteed.
If, however, I could log into morpheus, enter (say) "Thela Hun Gingeet" and get back a list of two live and one original studio versions of the song, properly tagged and recorded at 160, 192, or 192 VBR, then that'd be great. Oh, and it's got to be an MP3 I can copy on all my machines, load on my hardware player, and even stick in an editor to listen to the hidden backward messages. (Bonus points for vorbis zealots if I can get a copy in ogg, or even any other format).
If it cost, say, $0.50 a track, I'd be there for everything I could find -- even for "converting" my 5-feet of vinyl to MP3 (damned if I'm gonna buy a full-price CD for something I've owned for 15 years). If it cost a buck a track, then I'd probably only do it for stuff that was rare, or for when I only want a couple songs off any given CD. If it cost $2 a track, then, dammit, that's too much.
A question -- do "the artists" get a dime from a USED CD sale? (yes, I'm aware that the record companies have tried to shut those down, too, and that SSSCA/DMCA might eventually force us into a scheme (ala Divxx) where such sales are impossible).
Yes, Morpheus is "under the gun" for music swapping. However, it's easy enough to start using it for other purposes.
For example, the next time a big distro releases a new version, if people put big tarballs on their local morpheus client(server)s, we could all get it that way -- instant mirroring. And the more people download, and keep a local copy in their shared folder, the better the selection of mirrors.
It'd be great if this concept could be extended, in some way, to serving up whole copies of web pages, pictures and links and all. And then port it all to Freenet, for guaranteed privacy.
Everyone's bemoaning the fact that these HDTV cards don't have linux drivers and use encryption. Well, is there any reason why we can't just build our own cards?
If the people at SlimDevices can create their own network-based MP3 player with off-the-shelf chips, why can't they (or someone similarly talented) create a little device that takes off-air HDTV signals, feeds it into standard chipsets, and outputs compressed (MPEG-2?) HDTV video over ethernet? Get the little thing responding to simple commands over IP (maybe port 80, just have something in your browser that can handle video/mpeg-2 streams), and you've got a great thing going.
Make 'em cheap, put a few of these in your basement, have 'em all stream to a big RAID box, and then all you need is for the same guys to build a nice ethernet-to-video box for the set-top.
Seriously, though -- how available are these chips? Could someone easily build something that takes "GET CHANNEL 37.3" on an IP port and streams MPEG back? If I recall correctly, off-air HDTV streams are *not* encrypted, right?
You need to put enough 802.11 stations around to cover your area
We've actually talked about 802.11 with directional, amplified antennas. (ignoring for now any interference issues...)
Of corse 30 people will need at least $100 to break even on the T1
Ding ding ding. That's where it all breaks down. So, you get more people, but now they *notice* the slowdown, so you get a fatter pipe, and you're back where you started. It's a lousy catch-22.
We might be able to simply offer the service to our existing customer base (maybe 200 subscribers, mostly dialup or web users), but, even then, what's it going to cost us? Best case -- we put a bunch of high-powered antennas on existing masts in the county (like some of the high ones out in centreville). Point one of 'em back to the ISP (in merrifield, also conveniently near a big mast). Even if we get subscribers to pay for their own Cisco Aironet (or whatever it's called) equipment for their home, we've still got a lot of repeater-like equipment to buy, to say nothing of leasing the space on the towers (and hiring someone with insurance and bonding to climb up there).
Again, it all, basically, sucks.
BTW, I think I know you. UMCP, 1986-1990ish? Engineering geek? Hung out with Kurt, et. al.? SUPC? Very scary.
How very idealistic of you. But, how, exactly, would a non-profit ISP do any better than all of the mom-and-pop ISPs who have gone under, and even the big ones that actually know what they're doing?
That's exactly the problem.
I'm not pushing "non-profit" for any idealistic reasons, I'm only saying that, as a non-profit, the ISP I'm on has very low overhead (most everything is done gratis by geeks), and can get at least some equipment via donations (which is how we got our big Bay dialup switch, I believe).
If you can't do any better, than shut your yap, please.
Um...well, I don't know whether we can do any better. Everyone here seems to talk about "just build your own WiFi network with your friends," but that's got serious problems with it, too. A low-cost, non-profit ISP is the next logical step up from a loose group of geeks with 802.11 equipment and a full-out, for-profit, telecomm-owned company. It gives us some degree of legal accountability (like, say, a way to collect fees), while keeping overhead low.
Anyway, what I was trying to say is that I keep hearing people here either say "hell with wireless, get DSL" or "just set up your own wireless network." Well, I'm asking, "How do we set up our own wireless network, knowing that we need a decent back-end (T1 or better), that such a connection will cost money, and that we'll need some way to recoup those costs while also guaranteeing that when the founding geeks move on, something's left behind for everyone else."
If nobody can explain how to do that, then I'd like everyone here who says "Just build your own wireless network" to shut their traps, as you so eloquently put it.
Many times on slashdot (or elsewhere, I hear the words "Just get a cable modem or DSL". Well, dammit, for many of us, that is not a possibility.
I live in one of the most well-connected areas of the country, and probably in the world. UUNET, AOL, MAE-EAST, and countless others are located out here. My county also has one of the oldest Cable-TV plants in the country. I live in one of the fastest growing sections of the county, and our CO is both overburdened and too far from my house for DSL.
In short, Fixed Wireless, had it even been available here, is the ONLY reasonable broadband option for me. (I'm not prepared to deal with satellite latencies).
People need to realize that losing these alternative systems is a phenomenally Bad Thing. I fully expect that in 2 years (just as the next-generation DSL that might have finally gotten me service comes online, maybe) DSL will be provided in my area by Verizon, and Verizon alone, and they won't bother upgrading, so I'll still have no DSL. And as for cable -- well, that *might* work, maybe, but I'll never get static IPs or a server-friendly AUP.
Sure, I might not have had that with Wireless, either, but with more competition, especially from different media, there'd be more service-level competition for DSL, and more urge to expand and improve service. With no competition, well, why bother?
It constantly depresses me, the state of technological affairs in this country. For pete's sake, we invented (more or less, perhaps) DSL, the Cell Phone, and countless other incredibly cool or useful technologies. But because "competition" and "the marketplace" is so vitally important to us (or at least to our well-funded politicians), we don't have any standards, we have incomplete rollouts, we have lousy service, and Microsoft.
And the worst of it is, most of the public at large doesn't realize that it doesn't have to be like this! We accept BSODs because, well, computers crash, don't they? We accept lousy DSL service because, well, we're running out of IPs, and we don't have any backbone fiber left, right? We accept reduced cell phone services because it's great that we have a choice between CDMA and TDMA and GSM, right? Geez.
Sorry for the rant. It's been a bad morning for me so far.
So, let's say, for the moment, that a bunch of smart geeks running a non-profit ISP were to get together and start an 802.11-based fixed wireless service. How much, really, would that cost? Where would we get startup money? If we're going to serve 50, 100, or 1000 subscribers over a 2-10 Mbps connection, is it really resonable to have only a single T-1 on the back side? How do we afford a fatter pipe, if the subscribers are willing to pay half the cost for fewer services over cable?
In short, we need these big businesses to build out these networks, to dip into their funds and live with losses for a couple years. We simply cannot do this ourselves.
If anyone knows how we can do it ourselves, please let me know, 'cause I know a bunch of smart geeks at a non-profit ISP who would love to do exactly this.
I can't get through to just about any Mac info site right now, but here's what I managed to sneak off MacNN before it got hosed again:
Apple's special event began slightly after its 10:00 am anticipated start time with Steve Jobs recapping Apple's digital hub vision. Jobs then introduced the iPod, a digital audio player with a 5GB drive, 20-minute skip protection, a FireWire port, and an advanced Lithium-polymer battery with up to 10 hours (and fully charges in just over an hour). The portable device is the about the "size of a deck of cards," with a backlit LCD display, and offers support for playlists, ID3 tags, and iTunes. The portable device fits in the palm of your hand (about the size of a credit card and less than an inch high), has a backlit LCD display, and offers support for playlists, ID3 tags, and iTunes.
No price info, though. I'm sure we'll see more later.
(apologies if someone else has already gotten this info into the discussion...)
Most recently, they've instituted a policy of 100% bag/package searches on entering buildings.
I'm more concerned why they're not checking your bags when you exit the buildings!
Truthfully, in the government world (especially in the Intelligence or Defense communities, but I can understand it happening in key health-related establishments like NIH, too), employees are subjected to more stringent security than in most private companies. Mostly, they're restricted to preventing guns going in or information going out.
I wouldn't be surprised if, eventually, the 100% check got reduced to a 50% spot check or something. But the big question still remains -- "how far can vigilance go before it becomes an invasion of our rights?"
I don't have an answer to that. In certain professions, you give up some 4th amendment rights (such as submitting to drug testing if you drive a train), in others, you give up certain rights of association (yes, they still ask you if you belong to the communist party when you get a clearance). I'd say it's a necessary balance between protecting the public (or nation) from risk, and protecting individual rights.
Hopefully, eventually, one will calculate the overall risk to the organization to certain threats. Like, what's the chance of someone bringing in a grenade? What would they have to gain from that action? What's the potential damage? It's a RISK = THREAT * DAMAGE calculation. Then you structure your security program around those calculations, for each risk type.
Eventually, they may determine that the risk associated with not having an in-bound bag check (that is, the sum of all risks that could be averted with such a check) may be at such a level that they can reduce the 100% bag check to a 100% badge check and 10% spot check on bags.
All this is simple risk management theory, though...where, the question was asked, is the line between group and individual rights? I'd suggest that you could perform an "Annoyance" measurement -- multiply frequency of checks by time wasted in line waiting your turn and by embarrasment caused when they find the bottle of, say, viagra in your briefcase, and you get some arbitrary measurement of the "SEARCH COST" against employees. Better to include, also, things like a measure of the chance that employees will get sick of the searches and find a new job, or that productivity will drop due to reduced morale.
The line, then, is when the ANNOYANCE level outweighs the RISK level. Something could be very annoying, like a 100% outbound bag check for departing toxins, but as long as the RISK is very high, it's reasonable. On the other hand, if someone decides to check for explosives in every package within every car upon entry to, say, a desert park where there are no humans for a hundred miles (and, thus, a low risk for harm), then your rights to privacy should win out.
Or something like that. Of course, all the numbers used in such a calculus are totally arbitrary, so it'd also be important to make up-front "value judgements" to calibrate the system against "obvious" cases where a search is good, or where it'd be bad...
You might try skimming FindLaw.com for stuff, I'm sure there's got to be some caselaw or opinions on this. It sort of relates to drug checks, sobriety checkpoints, and workplace monitoring, to some degree.
If you find any very good resources, or get real advice from an attorney, be sure to post a follow-up story...
most of the folks on Slashdot tend to have a Libratarian slant to their polictics: no unions, business is good, goverment bad
Sounds Republican to me.
Besides, this doesn't mean that it's not possible to find, in a dozen key geeky districts across the country (Northern Virginia, Silicon Valley, Boston, etc.), some lawyerly person who agrees with many of the opinions here without being too unpalatable to the rest of the masses. We just need candidates geeks will vote for, and the machine to get them noticed by everyone else (and to get the geeks to vote, dangit!)
Of course, when he filed suit against the RIAA, the RIAA realized they were trapped and fell on their sword.
They didn't fall on their sword, they threw it out of the picture and said "What sword?"
Which is the most chilling of all chilling effects -- they get to delay publication of information they're not happy with, then when someone calls their bluff they change their story and say they have no objections, and (according to the DOJ's interpretation), therefore, no prior restraint actually happened and you can't sue to prevent it from happening again.
You know, mid-term elections are happening in almost exactly a year. We all know that voter turnout sucks, especially for off years. What're the chance of a Slashdot party (hell, we're even Green) forming and fielding some geek candidates in key areas? I know my district has had the Republican incumbent running essentially unopposed for years. And we're home to Worldcom, AOL, and many other geek-heavy companies. Hell, these geek companies together probably employ as many people as voted in the entire district in '98, anyway.
The whale tank was plexiglass. That's what they traded the formula to transparent aluminum for.
I don't think so. I think they considered plexiglass, but the walls would have needed to be too thick, so they showed the manufacturer how to make transparent aluminum so he could build them thinner, stronger tank walls.
I think some of us tech geeks ought to go to Capitol Hill and point out that "Secure" websites also use encryption
That's a great point. Without an encryption system universally (work with me here) accepted as "secure," the Red Cross would not have been able to raise $1,000 a minute at Amazon.
Thanks to the entire slashdot community for dashing my dreams. Now I just have to figure out how to get LEDs for, lessee, a 1920x1080 array, and...umm...HOW MUCH would that cost?
Seriously, I'm glad I finally got a good rundown on some of the issues here, especially the feasibility of image retention for such a fast scan (doesn't work) and the problem of precision hardware. Someone else mentioned lasers, but even the little laser pointers scare the bejeesus out of me, and I certainly wouldn't advocate making a TV out of 'em.
*sigh*
Now, about that array of microscopic thermocouples to use as an air conditioner / power source....
d.
(anyone ever think it might be useful to have a "crazy ideas" website to discuss, well, crazy ideas?)
IANAEE, I got tired three credits short, but... (me, neither, but I gave up after I noticed I only did computer-related homework for two semesters.:) )
Using the `no free lunch' rule of physics
Heh. You probably don't believe in perpetual motion, either. Heathen.
you need to admit that a single LED is only going to provide enough light to adequatly illuminate 4 square inches.
Good point, and I agree heartily. However, I'm not suggesting you use a single LED to illuminate an entire image -- you SCAN the image, and rely on human image retention in the eyeball to make it look like a solid image. That'd be one key question -- whether you can scan fast enough to do this. You might even need to double-scan images (twice per visual field) or somesuch.
Also, you could (and probably would) use a 3x3, 6x6, or 9x9 array of LEDs per "pixel" to get the brightness up a bit, too...
I experimented with a similar lens arrangement like 15 years ago with a fresnel lens from an overhead projector. Neat idea, but, well, it sucked.
I've been wondering for years, and have wondered aloud here before but gotten no response, about the possibility for building a scanning projection TV out of LEDs and mirrors.
Basically, rather than projecting an entire image at once, like an LCD projector does (and, thus, limiting your resolution to how big your LCD or DLP array is), this would take the output of red, green, and blue LEDs and bounce them off a mirror vibrating in two directions (horizontally and vertically) to provide a raster scan. With today's high brightness LEDs (ever notice how blindingly bright the new LED traffic lights are?), I'd think this could, with the right focusing system, give you a quality image on a decent screen.
All that remains is to decode the video signal for processing by the projector. In a simple mode, you might even be able to simply take the HSYNC and VSYNC signals and, essentially, use them to mark the edges of your scanning motion, then simply vibrate the mirror back and forth within that time frame. (this is hard to describe, but hopefully it'll make sense to some of you).
For something like this, the most expensive bit would be the lens at the front. You'd have a bunch of $2 LEDs (running cool and quiet, too, unlike the bulbs in DLP/LCD projectors), a simple electro-magnetic mirror mount (speaker coil for a prototype, maybe?), and maybe $50 worth of electronics.
Any EEs out there who think this makes sense? Or should I just keep waiting for HDTV projectors to come down to a kilobuck?
Okay, so nobody's bothered to check up on google, yet. His web site includes a lot of more detailed information. Check it out, then let's discuss what's there, not just what's in the article.
Yes, the guy's a little, er, fringey -- one of his other projects is an antigravity machine. I'm not saying such a machine is impossible, just that I'd not expect anyone who's not, say, Stephen Hawking, to come up with one.
That bit of weirdness aside, what do people think about the engine itself?
First, the fuel. The article implies that it uses Hydrogen. We've discussed to death the problems with using straight hydrogen as a fuel, which ultimately (putting aside safety and infrastructure issues) comes down to energy density -- pound for pound (or liter for liter), Hydrogen gas just doesn't pack as much punch, specatcular disasters caught on tape notwithstanding, as gasoline. However, the page talks about using a mixture of Nitrous Oxide and Ammonia, ignited with a glowplug, not straight hydrogen. It does speak of a catalyzed reaction being researched to derive the fuels from solar power, air, and water.
Questions: Is it likely that such a catalytic reaction exists? If not, will it take more fossil- or nuclear-fuel energy to create, using other reactons, the needed amounts of nitrous and ammonia? Would that added cost be worth it to reduce fossil-fuel emissions from cars? (let's ignore issues of infrastructure for now...)
Next, there's the design of the engine itself. Basically, it appears that it's an angled plate in a cylinder, with the reactive explosion happening first on one side (causing the plate to rotate around the axis it's mounted on), then on the other. Nifty idea, simpler looking than the Wankel rotary engine, and MUCH simpler than the internal combustion engine.
Questions: Can such an engine really operate, with any fuel? Could you really run it at many different speeds, and if so, how would you manage that? (I'm not personally convinced that you could do without a transmission). Would the "chambers" formed by the rotating plate provide any compression for the fuel (a major requirement for traditional engines)?
Let's not dismiss this entirely, out of hand, as a wacko idea. Look at the web pages in detail, ignore his strong claims and "past performance", and just focus on the ideas presented. I'm intrigued, but don't know enough about chemistry or mechanical engineering to pass any kind of judgement (and I suspect most of the people here don't qualify, either.) Those who do qualify...what do you think?
Slashdot Mirror
With all the talk lately about various Codecs (divx, sorenson, and now VP3, as well as the "mpeg-4" stuff we've heard about (that may or may not be a codec :) )), I've been wondering...
...has anyone put together a good test suite to compare the various codecs at various bit rates? I'm thinking something that'd have some fixed-images (test patterns), some high- and medium-intensity moving images, lots of colors, simple and complex sounds, etc. Then put that file through all the various systems, at various rates, and compare the quality somehow...
Not that it'll really make much difference to me, as an end-user, since I'll just watch whatever someone has already encoded, but I'd be curious to see something a little more substantial and quantitative than just "sorenson's cool" sort of postings...
If you could fool the goverment into thinking that spam is terrorism, I bet they would definitly do something about it;)
[Disclaimer, don't even try to take that seriously]
Why not?
According to the latest anti-terrorism acts, if I recall correctly, any "attack" on one or more computer systems resulting in an aggregate cost of more than $5000 qualifies as a Terrorist Attack on the computer systems in question.
So, if a SPAM sent to your ISP clogs up the mail server, and it takes more than $X to clean it up (in admin costs and, possibly, refunds to annoyed customers), or if this happens to your company's main email gateway, or if everyone in your organization gets it and it has a virus in it, or each email includes remotely-hosted HTTP images that pushes your burstable line into a higher bracket, then, well:
* Record everything you can about the email, who sent it, when, contents, how it got there, what it did, and most importantly, what it cost to clean up
* Publish this on some central spam-cop site
* when enough other victims have come together with similar experiences, that the total cost exceeds $5000, then get a good lawyer, demand a grand jury be empaneled to consider indictment of the perpetrator on terrorist computer attack charges, and see what happens next
Repeat as necessary.
Hey, worst case the act is thrown out as unconstitutional. Best case, you put a bunch of SPAMers in jail for life (for which you could argue, as the plaintiffs, for a reduced sentence and large fine).
But I'd argue that this is exactly what the act was supposed to do -- prevent against any computer-borne attack that causes $5000 or more in actual damage to one or more corporations. Right? Just because the DDOS came in the form of Email doesn't make the law less applicable than if it were an email virus, or a script-kiddie DDOS, right?
*EVERY* one of those notes has UPS's 1-800 number on it.
Bzzzt!
You think I'm so stupid that I don't scour the notes for a number? There never was a number. Trust me. I've tried. Maybe in recent years they've changed their sticker, but there were at least three situations where I had to go to the phone book to find a number, it was a national number, and since I didn't have any kind of package tracking number I couldn't get anywhere, anyway.
Don't blame UPS because you won't make the effort or that they can't read your mind
I made the effort. Trust me. UPS did not help. Like I said, maybe it's changed in the past couple years.
I've disliked UPS for a long while now, for other customer-service issues.
I've come home several times to find a sticker on my door saying "we came by, we'll come by again tomorrow." No way to simply leave a signature, or to request a time to have 'em come by, or to request that I go pick it up -- just "we came, we'll come again." Useless.
The other problem I've had is when tracking packages online. They tout this instant-update tracking system, but really, it's a "Revisionist History" system. I've seen a package hit a milestone at, say, 3:00 am, then nothing at all for two days, then on the third day (after I've finally received it), the tracking page updates to show milestones at 6:00 and 14:30 on the first day, 8:00 on the second day, and the actual delivery. I've also had it claim that a package was already delivered, when it hadn't even been shipped yet. Once, I had a package listed (for a week) as coming in two boxes. Then, when only one box shows up, I get all pissed, until I open it up and find everything in the one box. So I go back to the tracking page, and guess what? No sign of two boxes EVER being in the system.
Of course, the problem with FedEx is that I usually need to sign, so when that comes to my house I gotta arrange to go to their office to pick it up. And I've had USPS leave boxes on my lowermost step instead of next to my door (I'm in a townhouse, so this is only marginally better than leaving it at the curb), and once had a USPS package left in the pouring rain such that the box literally disolved when I opened it. Fortunately, the contents were in a plastic bag. Basically, they all suck, to varying degrees.
As for your situation, I'd say there MUST be some way you could sue them in small claims court or something. They may have disclaimed "no insurance," but they certainly have some amount of liability, otherwise they could just steal packages with impunity and never even bother to deliver. I'd check with a lawyer, seriously. Also ensure you've got GOOD photos and documentation (a lawyer should help you figure this part out, too). It could be that a nasty letter from a law firm would be enough to get 'em to do something. Remember also that they've probably got their own blanket insurance, anyway, for just such an emergency.
On the other hand, you could just be screwed. My condolances, especially with regards to all the "oh, it's just a Mac" comments here.
Major League Baseball is acting just as monopolistic as MS or the RIAA
:) )
Yeah, but I like to kid myself that, well, Baseball is a "Private Club." You pay $$ (really $$$$$) to join, you agree to certain rules, etc. One of those rules you agree to is that your club can be folded if baseball determines it's in the best interests of the league. I presume.
I do agree that there might be some kind of financial responsibility to a city or region which has spent money to support that club, but then again, shouldn't a team that moves (like in the musical-chairs NFL) have the same responsibility? I'm not sure any of the recently-moved NFL teams have paid any kind of compensation to the cities they've left.
Anyway, the way I see it, they are their own oranization, they can do as they please. Are they truly a monopoly? Have they stifled any new leagues lately? New leagues keep popping up to compete with the NFL, but I've never seen a new baseball league start.
To return closer to your point of view, though, I *am* a little bit annoyed that they're contracting, and not moving financially poor teams to cities that could support them better. The last time MLB moved a team was in, what, 1971, when the Senators became the Rangers. And at that point, MLB promised Washington, DC that "You're first on the list when we expand again." MLB has expanded, what, 6 or 8 teams since 1971? None of them have gone to DC. And now that there are two teams that could fold forever, MLB would rather close those teams down than allow one of them to move to the 7th largest market in the country.
If I were the owner of one of the teams designated to "contract," I'd sue to be allowed to move to DC, and see what happens then.
(btw -- way off topic.
But nobody does it.
This was one of the big "cool features" promised way back when DVD was still being introduced. You'd be able to select different "versions" of a film, from a normal DVD player menu, and the player would pick-and-choose specific scenes automatically, and seamlessly (or just about so). The promise was to be able to have a single disc, with a single "super-duper-extra-beyond-director's-cut" version that you'd never, in practice, see. Then you select the "Theatrical Release" and see what you saw in the theater. Select the "Director's Cut" and see what the movie house didn't think would sell but all the rabid fans prefer. Select "TV" and see a cleaned-up version for TV. Select "Morman" and -- oh, nevermind.
Of course, I've never seen this happen, except on one movie (Crash), which allowed you to pick an R or NC-17 version of the same film.
I can think of MANY movies where I wish this feature was used. A good example is Blade Runner. There was the US theatrical release, there was a foreign release (with some additional, gorier footage), a later US release (basically the foreign release), a "Director's Cut" (with the unicorn in and the voice-over out), etc. Wouldn't it be great if you could get all those on a single disc? Or could mix-and-match? Gimme the director's cut, but WITH the narration. I won't even go into what you could do with Brazil (what, didn't the Criterion LD include three separate, complete, full-length cuts?)
Personally, I'd like to see this for many "normal" movies, too. For example, I'd love to recommend "Wild Things" to my mom -- it's a great mindfuck movie. But the sex scenes would probably make her want to stop watching. So she's missing out on a terrific movie.
And the worst of it is that all this capability already exists. The studios just don't want to do it.
So, something like this project seems really cool, especially for people using their own DVD player software to drive their home theater screen. Someone else talked about "Fan Edits." This might even make a good argument for an additional "Fair Use" for DeCSS technology -- providing a value-added service for DVD owners that the studios don't feel like doing.
DVD had such great promise, but very rarely do the studios actually deliver on those promises. How many movies nowadays come with alternate language tracks? With OBSCURE alternate languages? With decent subtitle selection? Now, how many come with "making of" featurettes, stupid storyboard-to-final "worksthops", or animated menus? Which delivers better value to the end user? Which is cheaper to produce?
gah. I gotta find something useful to do...
People like you scare me.
Seriously, though everything you've accomplished is cool, how satisfying is it? I know a bunch of people with similar amounts of weird hardware, all interconnected, but it doesn't do much other than just sit there and process PINGs or mount files from each other (kinky).
I'm *personally* at the stage where I could care less about how many systems I could put together, and care more about integrating it seamlessly into my daily life -- like, say, voice-controlled MP3 player. Basically, I want StarTrek in my house (without the evil aliens).
I'm not trying to denigrate you or what you've done, I'm just curious whether it's the networking itself, rather than the uses that the resultant system might have, that holds your interest.
On the other hand, the DNS stuff you're doing sounds really great, and actually useful.
So, what *do* you do for a day job? And why do you think they wouldn't consider you for any of them? Sounds to me like you'd be a shoe-in for a network-level geeky job somewhere working with drivers for wireless or appliance stuff.
As for the bit about not caring for computers and having a nice suit -- there is more truth to that than I care to admit to. At least in some shops.
That's it. I was in a boring-as-hell lower-level CS class, and usually skipped it. One day, I went, though I sat in the back and read some novel or something. Late in the class, a couple guys from the university Consulting Lab (UMCP's faculty/staff computer help desk) got up to recruit. I joined the team a few weeks later, and got hurled into the marvelous world of admin when our VAXstation 2000 (X-windows, 40MB hard drive) crapped out and I had to rebuild it from a 10mb tar file on a remote server (an early NeXT cube, no less :) )
:)
The rest, as they say, is history.
How would you get into it now? Don't really know. Certainly, it'd help to "play" with the stuff at home, but unless you've got 4-10 machines at home, networked, in regular use, you simply won't have the need to do a good job administering the server (and won't hit upon any of the major challenges).
Is 33 too old to start a tech career? From the standpoint of unconcious hiring discrimination, maybe you'll have a problem there. Plus, there's always the "why are you swtiching careers?" question. From the standpoint of being too old to learn -- bullshit. If you're smart, and can learn new tricks, you'll have a fighting chance.
Best advice -- learn to type fast, and find all the online documentation centers (man pages, web, etc.). If you type and can research the problem fast enough, nobody will ever know you don't know the answer ('cause you'll have just gotten the answer). After that, learn perl. Any time you find yourself doing the same thing more than once, spend the 20 minutes (or three hours) to write a script to do it instead. Then the next time it'll take 30 seconds to do, and you'll look smart.
Where do you teach english? If it's at a high school, you might be able to help part-time with in-house stuff, though I wouldn't be too surprised if a lot of that got given to students. If you're at a college, try the same tack with the help desk or whatever there... Then, maybe, look for jobs with contractors doing help desk in a UNIX or UNIX-Server shop (if you live in the Washington, DC area, there are LOTS of these jobs). You won't be doing admin, per se, but you'll be seeing the "lighter" side of it, especially the customer-side of things, and if you show enough aptitude and interest, you should be able to ease into a SysAdmin side. Another bonus for gov't contractor stuff -- they're used to "second careers" as military enlisted types retire and start working as geeks.
Good luck!
When the record companies try to charge for music on the web, as they are about to do with Napster, they'll be laughed at and ignored because we don't want to pay ANYTHING
Sure, free is better than non-free, but if a good, cheap, trusted source for online music comes about, I'll subscribe.
Why won't I pay for Napster? Because the content providers are people just like me. Who probably did a lousy job ripping with a cheap encoder at a low bit rate with erroneous tag info. If the content's being encoded for free, then dammit, I'm not going to pay for it, cause the quality is not guaranteed.
If, however, I could log into morpheus, enter (say) "Thela Hun Gingeet" and get back a list of two live and one original studio versions of the song, properly tagged and recorded at 160, 192, or 192 VBR, then that'd be great. Oh, and it's got to be an MP3 I can copy on all my machines, load on my hardware player, and even stick in an editor to listen to the hidden backward messages. (Bonus points for vorbis zealots if I can get a copy in ogg, or even any other format).
If it cost, say, $0.50 a track, I'd be there for everything I could find -- even for "converting" my 5-feet of vinyl to MP3 (damned if I'm gonna buy a full-price CD for something I've owned for 15 years). If it cost a buck a track, then I'd probably only do it for stuff that was rare, or for when I only want a couple songs off any given CD. If it cost $2 a track, then, dammit, that's too much.
A question -- do "the artists" get a dime from a USED CD sale? (yes, I'm aware that the record companies have tried to shut those down, too, and that SSSCA/DMCA might eventually force us into a scheme (ala Divxx) where such sales are impossible).
Yes, Morpheus is "under the gun" for music swapping. However, it's easy enough to start using it for other purposes.
For example, the next time a big distro releases a new version, if people put big tarballs on their local morpheus client(server)s, we could all get it that way -- instant mirroring. And the more people download, and keep a local copy in their shared folder, the better the selection of mirrors.
It'd be great if this concept could be extended, in some way, to serving up whole copies of web pages, pictures and links and all. And then port it all to Freenet, for guaranteed privacy.
Or something like that.
Everyone's bemoaning the fact that these HDTV cards don't have linux drivers and use encryption. Well, is there any reason why we can't just build our own cards?
If the people at SlimDevices can create their own network-based MP3 player with off-the-shelf chips, why can't they (or someone similarly talented) create a little device that takes off-air HDTV signals, feeds it into standard chipsets, and outputs compressed (MPEG-2?) HDTV video over ethernet? Get the little thing responding to simple commands over IP (maybe port 80, just have something in your browser that can handle video/mpeg-2 streams), and you've got a great thing going.
Make 'em cheap, put a few of these in your basement, have 'em all stream to a big RAID box, and then all you need is for the same guys to build a nice ethernet-to-video box for the set-top.
Seriously, though -- how available are these chips? Could someone easily build something that takes "GET CHANNEL 37.3" on an IP port and streams MPEG back? If I recall correctly, off-air HDTV streams are *not* encrypted, right?
You need to put enough 802.11 stations around to cover your area
We've actually talked about 802.11 with directional, amplified antennas. (ignoring for now any interference issues...)
Of corse 30 people will need at least $100 to break even on the T1
Ding ding ding. That's where it all breaks down. So, you get more people, but now they *notice* the slowdown, so you get a fatter pipe, and you're back where you started. It's a lousy catch-22.
We might be able to simply offer the service to our existing customer base (maybe 200 subscribers, mostly dialup or web users), but, even then, what's it going to cost us? Best case -- we put a bunch of high-powered antennas on existing masts in the county (like some of the high ones out in centreville). Point one of 'em back to the ISP (in merrifield, also conveniently near a big mast). Even if we get subscribers to pay for their own Cisco Aironet (or whatever it's called) equipment for their home, we've still got a lot of repeater-like equipment to buy, to say nothing of leasing the space on the towers (and hiring someone with insurance and bonding to climb up there).
Again, it all, basically, sucks.
BTW, I think I know you. UMCP, 1986-1990ish? Engineering geek? Hung out with Kurt, et. al.? SUPC? Very scary.
david.
How very idealistic of you. But, how, exactly, would a non-profit ISP do any better than all of the mom-and-pop ISPs who have gone under, and even the big ones that actually know what they're doing?
That's exactly the problem.
I'm not pushing "non-profit" for any idealistic reasons, I'm only saying that, as a non-profit, the ISP I'm on has very low overhead (most everything is done gratis by geeks), and can get at least some equipment via donations (which is how we got our big Bay dialup switch, I believe).
If you can't do any better, than shut your yap, please.
Um...well, I don't know whether we can do any better. Everyone here seems to talk about "just build your own WiFi network with your friends," but that's got serious problems with it, too. A low-cost, non-profit ISP is the next logical step up from a loose group of geeks with 802.11 equipment and a full-out, for-profit, telecomm-owned company. It gives us some degree of legal accountability (like, say, a way to collect fees), while keeping overhead low.
Anyway, what I was trying to say is that I keep hearing people here either say "hell with wireless, get DSL" or "just set up your own wireless network." Well, I'm asking, "How do we set up our own wireless network, knowing that we need a decent back-end (T1 or better), that such a connection will cost money, and that we'll need some way to recoup those costs while also guaranteeing that when the founding geeks move on, something's left behind for everyone else."
If nobody can explain how to do that , then I'd like everyone here who says "Just build your own wireless network" to shut their traps, as you so eloquently put it.
Many times on slashdot (or elsewhere, I hear the words "Just get a cable modem or DSL". Well, dammit, for many of us, that is not a possibility.
I live in one of the most well-connected areas of the country, and probably in the world. UUNET, AOL, MAE-EAST, and countless others are located out here. My county also has one of the oldest Cable-TV plants in the country. I live in one of the fastest growing sections of the county, and our CO is both overburdened and too far from my house for DSL.
In short, Fixed Wireless, had it even been available here, is the ONLY reasonable broadband option for me. (I'm not prepared to deal with satellite latencies).
People need to realize that losing these alternative systems is a phenomenally Bad Thing. I fully expect that in 2 years (just as the next-generation DSL that might have finally gotten me service comes online, maybe) DSL will be provided in my area by Verizon, and Verizon alone, and they won't bother upgrading, so I'll still have no DSL. And as for cable -- well, that *might* work, maybe, but I'll never get static IPs or a server-friendly AUP.
Sure, I might not have had that with Wireless, either, but with more competition, especially from different media, there'd be more service-level competition for DSL, and more urge to expand and improve service. With no competition, well, why bother?
It constantly depresses me, the state of technological affairs in this country. For pete's sake, we invented (more or less, perhaps) DSL, the Cell Phone, and countless other incredibly cool or useful technologies. But because "competition" and "the marketplace" is so vitally important to us (or at least to our well-funded politicians), we don't have any standards, we have incomplete rollouts, we have lousy service, and Microsoft.
And the worst of it is, most of the public at large doesn't realize that it doesn't have to be like this! We accept BSODs because, well, computers crash, don't they? We accept lousy DSL service because, well, we're running out of IPs, and we don't have any backbone fiber left, right? We accept reduced cell phone services because it's great that we have a choice between CDMA and TDMA and GSM, right? Geez.
Sorry for the rant. It's been a bad morning for me so far.
So, let's say, for the moment, that a bunch of smart geeks running a non-profit ISP were to get together and start an 802.11-based fixed wireless service. How much, really, would that cost? Where would we get startup money? If we're going to serve 50, 100, or 1000 subscribers over a 2-10 Mbps connection, is it really resonable to have only a single T-1 on the back side? How do we afford a fatter pipe, if the subscribers are willing to pay half the cost for fewer services over cable?
In short, we need these big businesses to build out these networks, to dip into their funds and live with losses for a couple years. We simply cannot do this ourselves.
If anyone knows how we can do it ourselves, please let me know, 'cause I know a bunch of smart geeks at a non-profit ISP who would love to do exactly this.
I can't get through to just about any Mac info site right now, but here's what I managed to sneak off MacNN before it got hosed again:
Apple's special event began slightly after its 10:00 am anticipated start time with Steve Jobs recapping Apple's digital hub vision. Jobs then introduced the iPod, a digital audio player with a 5GB drive, 20-minute skip protection, a FireWire port, and an advanced Lithium-polymer battery with up to 10 hours (and fully charges in just over an hour). The portable device is the about the "size of a deck of cards," with a backlit LCD display, and offers support for playlists, ID3 tags, and iTunes. The portable device fits in the palm of your hand (about the size of a credit card and less than an inch high), has a backlit LCD display, and offers support for playlists, ID3 tags, and iTunes.
No price info, though. I'm sure we'll see more later.
(apologies if someone else has already gotten this info into the discussion...)
Most recently, they've instituted a policy of 100% bag/package searches on entering buildings.
I'm more concerned why they're not checking your bags when you exit the buildings!
Truthfully, in the government world (especially in the Intelligence or Defense communities, but I can understand it happening in key health-related establishments like NIH, too), employees are subjected to more stringent security than in most private companies. Mostly, they're restricted to preventing guns going in or information going out.
I wouldn't be surprised if, eventually, the 100% check got reduced to a 50% spot check or something. But the big question still remains -- "how far can vigilance go before it becomes an invasion of our rights?"
I don't have an answer to that. In certain professions, you give up some 4th amendment rights (such as submitting to drug testing if you drive a train), in others, you give up certain rights of association (yes, they still ask you if you belong to the communist party when you get a clearance). I'd say it's a necessary balance between protecting the public (or nation) from risk, and protecting individual rights.
Hopefully, eventually, one will calculate the overall risk to the organization to certain threats. Like, what's the chance of someone bringing in a grenade? What would they have to gain from that action? What's the potential damage? It's a RISK = THREAT * DAMAGE calculation. Then you structure your security program around those calculations, for each risk type.
Eventually, they may determine that the risk associated with not having an in-bound bag check (that is, the sum of all risks that could be averted with such a check) may be at such a level that they can reduce the 100% bag check to a 100% badge check and 10% spot check on bags.
All this is simple risk management theory, though...where, the question was asked, is the line between group and individual rights? I'd suggest that you could perform an "Annoyance" measurement -- multiply frequency of checks by time wasted in line waiting your turn and by embarrasment caused when they find the bottle of, say, viagra in your briefcase, and you get some arbitrary measurement of the "SEARCH COST" against employees. Better to include, also, things like a measure of the chance that employees will get sick of the searches and find a new job, or that productivity will drop due to reduced morale.
The line, then, is when the ANNOYANCE level outweighs the RISK level. Something could be very annoying, like a 100% outbound bag check for departing toxins, but as long as the RISK is very high, it's reasonable. On the other hand, if someone decides to check for explosives in every package within every car upon entry to, say, a desert park where there are no humans for a hundred miles (and, thus, a low risk for harm), then your rights to privacy should win out.
Or something like that. Of course, all the numbers used in such a calculus are totally arbitrary, so it'd also be important to make up-front "value judgements" to calibrate the system against "obvious" cases where a search is good, or where it'd be bad...
You might try skimming FindLaw.com for stuff, I'm sure there's got to be some caselaw or opinions on this. It sort of relates to drug checks, sobriety checkpoints, and workplace monitoring, to some degree.
If you find any very good resources, or get real advice from an attorney, be sure to post a follow-up story...
most of the folks on Slashdot tend to have a Libratarian slant to their polictics: no unions, business is good, goverment bad
Sounds Republican to me.
Besides, this doesn't mean that it's not possible to find, in a dozen key geeky districts across the country (Northern Virginia, Silicon Valley, Boston, etc.), some lawyerly person who agrees with many of the opinions here without being too unpalatable to the rest of the masses. We just need candidates geeks will vote for, and the machine to get them noticed by everyone else (and to get the geeks to vote, dangit!)
Of course, when he filed suit against the RIAA, the RIAA realized they were trapped and fell on their sword.
They didn't fall on their sword, they threw it out of the picture and said "What sword?"
Which is the most chilling of all chilling effects -- they get to delay publication of information they're not happy with, then when someone calls their bluff they change their story and say they have no objections, and (according to the DOJ's interpretation), therefore, no prior restraint actually happened and you can't sue to prevent it from happening again.
You know, mid-term elections are happening in almost exactly a year. We all know that voter turnout sucks, especially for off years. What're the chance of a Slashdot party (hell, we're even Green) forming and fielding some geek candidates in key areas? I know my district has had the Republican incumbent running essentially unopposed for years. And we're home to Worldcom, AOL, and many other geek-heavy companies. Hell, these geek companies together probably employ as many people as voted in the entire district in '98, anyway.
Hm. Maybe I should repost this elsewhere...
To reverse engineer and duplicate a processor requires a superior understanding of processor design and construction.
To say nothing about the fact that it requires the resources to actually develop reliable, working chips in the first place.
I've had no end to trouble in my Abit board with Via chipset. USB, Zip, Sound, and other problems regularly blamed on the Via chips.
I wouldn't touch a Via CPU with a 10-foot pole (or a 6-foot Czech, for that matter).
The whale tank was plexiglass. That's what they traded the formula to transparent aluminum for.
I don't think so. I think they considered plexiglass, but the walls would have needed to be too thick, so they showed the manufacturer how to make transparent aluminum so he could build them thinner, stronger tank walls.
'course, it's been a while.
I think some of us tech geeks ought to go to Capitol Hill and point out that "Secure" websites also use encryption
That's a great point. Without an encryption system universally (work with me here) accepted as "secure," the Red Cross would not have been able to raise $1,000 a minute at Amazon.
Thanks to the entire slashdot community for dashing my dreams. Now I just have to figure out how to get LEDs for, lessee, a 1920x1080 array, and...umm...HOW MUCH would that cost?
Seriously, I'm glad I finally got a good rundown on some of the issues here, especially the feasibility of image retention for such a fast scan (doesn't work) and the problem of precision hardware. Someone else mentioned lasers, but even the little laser pointers scare the bejeesus out of me, and I certainly wouldn't advocate making a TV out of 'em.
*sigh*
Now, about that array of microscopic thermocouples to use as an air conditioner / power source....
d.
(anyone ever think it might be useful to have a "crazy ideas" website to discuss, well, crazy ideas?)
IANAEE, I got tired three credits short, but... :) )
(me, neither, but I gave up after I noticed I only did computer-related homework for two semesters.
Using the `no free lunch' rule of physics
Heh. You probably don't believe in perpetual motion, either. Heathen.
you need to admit that a single LED is only going to provide enough light to adequatly illuminate 4 square inches.
Good point, and I agree heartily. However, I'm not suggesting you use a single LED to illuminate an entire image -- you SCAN the image, and rely on human image retention in the eyeball to make it look like a solid image. That'd be one key question -- whether you can scan fast enough to do this. You might even need to double-scan images (twice per visual field) or somesuch.
Also, you could (and probably would) use a 3x3, 6x6, or 9x9 array of LEDs per "pixel" to get the brightness up a bit, too...
I experimented with a similar lens arrangement like 15 years ago with a fresnel lens from an overhead projector. Neat idea, but, well, it sucked.
I've been wondering for years, and have wondered aloud here before but gotten no response, about the possibility for building a scanning projection TV out of LEDs and mirrors.
Basically, rather than projecting an entire image at once, like an LCD projector does (and, thus, limiting your resolution to how big your LCD or DLP array is), this would take the output of red, green, and blue LEDs and bounce them off a mirror vibrating in two directions (horizontally and vertically) to provide a raster scan. With today's high brightness LEDs (ever notice how blindingly bright the new LED traffic lights are?), I'd think this could, with the right focusing system, give you a quality image on a decent screen.
All that remains is to decode the video signal for processing by the projector. In a simple mode, you might even be able to simply take the HSYNC and VSYNC signals and, essentially, use them to mark the edges of your scanning motion, then simply vibrate the mirror back and forth within that time frame. (this is hard to describe, but hopefully it'll make sense to some of you).
For something like this, the most expensive bit would be the lens at the front. You'd have a bunch of $2 LEDs (running cool and quiet, too, unlike the bulbs in DLP/LCD projectors), a simple electro-magnetic mirror mount (speaker coil for a prototype, maybe?), and maybe $50 worth of electronics.
Any EEs out there who think this makes sense? Or should I just keep waiting for HDTV projectors to come down to a kilobuck?
Okay, so nobody's bothered to check up on google, yet. His web site includes a lot of more detailed information. Check it out, then let's discuss what's there, not just what's in the article.
Yes, the guy's a little, er, fringey -- one of his other projects is an antigravity machine. I'm not saying such a machine is impossible, just that I'd not expect anyone who's not, say, Stephen Hawking, to come up with one.
That bit of weirdness aside, what do people think about the engine itself?
First, the fuel. The article implies that it uses Hydrogen. We've discussed to death the problems with using straight hydrogen as a fuel, which ultimately (putting aside safety and infrastructure issues) comes down to energy density -- pound for pound (or liter for liter), Hydrogen gas just doesn't pack as much punch, specatcular disasters caught on tape notwithstanding, as gasoline. However, the page talks about using a mixture of Nitrous Oxide and Ammonia, ignited with a glowplug, not straight hydrogen. It does speak of a catalyzed reaction being researched to derive the fuels from solar power, air, and water.
Questions: Is it likely that such a catalytic reaction exists? If not, will it take more fossil- or nuclear-fuel energy to create, using other reactons, the needed amounts of nitrous and ammonia? Would that added cost be worth it to reduce fossil-fuel emissions from cars? (let's ignore issues of infrastructure for now...)
Next, there's the design of the engine itself. Basically, it appears that it's an angled plate in a cylinder, with the reactive explosion happening first on one side (causing the plate to rotate around the axis it's mounted on), then on the other. Nifty idea, simpler looking than the Wankel rotary engine, and MUCH simpler than the internal combustion engine.
Questions: Can such an engine really operate, with any fuel? Could you really run it at many different speeds, and if so, how would you manage that? (I'm not personally convinced that you could do without a transmission). Would the "chambers" formed by the rotating plate provide any compression for the fuel (a major requirement for traditional engines)?
Let's not dismiss this entirely, out of hand, as a wacko idea. Look at the web pages in detail, ignore his strong claims and "past performance", and just focus on the ideas presented. I'm intrigued, but don't know enough about chemistry or mechanical engineering to pass any kind of judgement (and I suspect most of the people here don't qualify, either.) Those who do qualify...what do you think?
david.