Given that you were looking at EUR 5,000 projectors, I suspect your interpretation of "decent projector" is not the same as someone who is asking for advice on doing things on the cheap. Used/discontinued/refub projectors are in the few hundred dollar range (and USD 1000 will buy a new projector that you'll be able to watch in daylight if you don't mind the image being not too large). But they won't give you HD or above resolution, which is why I wrote they "[do] nearly as well."
Buy used equipment. 1 or 2 generation-old stuff is dirt cheap. Craigslist is your friend, there. Yard sales. Look for going-out-of-business sales (see recent stories on Best Buy closing stores). Buy refurbs.
Lots of people will tell you to put in wires in the walls. Wireless APs are so good now that this is just a waste of money in nearly every case. Buy good wireless APs (see "buy refurbs" above). This is one exception to the previous-generation rule of thumb above (I've just put in Netgear WNDR3700, bought from advice given in responses to someone else's Ask Slashdot question, and couldn't be happier... highly flexible, plenty of signal, fast assocation, dual band, and all of the interference problems from neighbors, etc., have disappeared).
Big wide-screen LCD / plasma TVs are great, but a ceiling-mounted projector does nearly as well, can create a much bigger image, and often can be had for much less. Used stereo components (assuming you want such) are available on eBay by the dozen. Same for gaming consoles, etc. See Craigslist, too. Buying tech on Black Friday or Cyber Monday can save a ton. Since you don't have money, then you'll have to spend something else: namely, time.
In short, you'll need to compromise, either on buying the latest-greatest, or on buying new, or on the exact technology. You won't end up being the envy of your tech friends, but you'll have fun.
Finally, a word of advice: if the tech stuff is going to be appreciated more by you than your spouse, then make sure you're finding ways to improve the home that will be appreciated more by your spouse than by you. Domestic harmony is more important than any gadget.
Software-defined filters can be arbitrarily good. Hardware filters are much more severely cost-limited. Sofware filters can be a-causal (assuming you are doing post-hoc processing) with characteristics impossible to build in hardware, like zero phase delay for all input frequencies. You can build 100-pole filters in software; sure you can do that in hardware, but it's going to get very expensive, large, and potentially noisy. You can build filters with frequency characteristics that *exactly* match the design parameters, not merely to within the tolerances of the components you use. Software filters *add* *no* *noise*. They have *zero* temperature drift. They have *zero* aging effects. They have essentially infinte power supply rejection. They don't suffer from interference. They can be re-programmed on the fly. They can be crazy non-linear (eg., if you watched the linked video, you can create a softare filter to detect and block whistlers only when they're happening and only affecting the frequencies where the whistlers are, removing only the whistler signal and nothing else, including the background; good luck doing that in analog). You can get close to all of these characteristics in pure analog hardware, but it is far more difficult and far more expensive than doing it digitally.
Given how inexpensive digital hardware has become, most of the assumptions that go into creating standard analog reciever and transmitter hardware need to be re-examined. On the reciever side, for example, the only reason you have an IF stage is because it's prohibitively expensive to use a non-superhet design and get the same performance... unless the signals are processed digitally.
Have you seen the amazing (and highly non-linear) filters available in Photoshop for processing images? Imagine applying the same sort of technology to radio: difficult things become easy, and radical things become possible.
How about spending less time on... stuff... like this, and more time on learning how to write headlines, how to select good submissions, how to avoid duplicate stories, how to perform even cursory verification of content, how to avoid typographical errors, and how to copyedit poor text? You know, things that enhance quality.
My lay understanding is that generally, US laws do not apply abroad, but that should not be taken as a 100% certainty. Moreover, there are certain US laws which have been written that specifically claim extra-territorial jurisdiction.
If Google had won a wireless spectrum auction (they didn't), then Google Voice could've been the core of Google's competition with the telco network.
Very insightful. However, there's nothing to say that Google won't obtain wireless spectrum through some other means, like a future auction, or outright acquisition of an extant carrier. Given that AT&T and T-Mobile USA were slow dancing before the FTC turned on the lights, one can readily assume either one might be approachable with an offer. Google has tons of cash on hand, too.
Aegean Airlines serves (largely) excellent food. There has been the odd exception, but generally, their food is really quite good in my experience.
The issue is the amount of money the typical airline meal costs the airline to produce. I can't locate the page at present, but recall that among domestic US carriers, Alaska Air spent the most on its food. From what I recall (take that with necessary salt), the overal industry average was below $2 per meal. The average first class meal cost something like $5.
Note that I'm talking about the cost of producing the meal, not the amount that gets charged to the customer now that meal fees have been unbundled from transportation fees.
The word "facebook" was in use for decades before Zuckerman came along and... copied it from then-common usage among colleges for a book that contains the photos of the freshman class. I have a handful of copies of my undergraduate school's facebooks still, which state "facebook" on the cover from when Zuckerberg was a come-hither look in his mother's eyes. I never understood how the company got their initial trademark given the widespread existing usage when it was issued.
1) Huge unexpected oil reserve found. 2) Breakthrough in some alternative energy technology 3) Mass change in lifestyle 4) A Major industry converts to natural gas, etc.
5) OPEC decides to adjust prices.
You seem to have forgotten that oil prices are not determined solely by market forces (including futures), but that there is also a large influence exterted by political cartels.
I have 12 desktops under Linux. That neatly, and intentionally, corresponds to the 12 Fn keys across the top of most keyboards. I program the hot keys so that the single keystroke from Fn takes me to Desktop n (and, yes, that overrides F5, F1, and whatever other functionality is available standard... I prefer to forego those shortcuts in favor of being able to switch desktops with a single keystroke).
Using these 12 desktops, I allocate each application I use frequently to a single desktop. While there is a rhyme and reason for the particular allocation I use, it isn't worth explaining because it won't necessarily work for anyone else. Desktops 1 and 2 have local shells. Desktop 3 has an editor (emacs). Desktops 4 and 5 have xterms to non-local machines. Desktop 6 has Firefox. Desktop 7 has Chrome. Desktop 8 has a root shell (and xosview). Desktop 9 is scratch. Desktop 10 is a PIM. Desktop 11 is scratch. Desktop 12 is for media players. When I log in, all of these applications get automatically opened so I don't waste my time screwing around with configuration.
I keep my windows full screen, except under very unusual circumstances when there might be two next to each other as you suggest. While I might use only one or two windows in a concentrated stretch of time, I'm not willing to search for windows when I need to see something else. Unlike you, I never have difficulty finding the window I want because hitting the correct Fn selects exactly the necessary window, immediately and directly. ("I... usually don't have difficulty finding the window that I want," isn't good enough.) I also turn off all desktop animations because they only serve to delay getting to my target.
I'd love to have the same setup on my Windows boxes, but all of the virtual deskops I've tried thus far are buggy, slow, or both. I'm excited to evaluate some of the suggestions from this thread because it appears I've missed some good possibilities.
Indeed. I'd have been far more intriegued by knowing exactly how they managed to get a laser small and light enough to mount on the head along with an appropriate focusing mechanism without deleteriously affecting the kinematics. How sensitive is this to vertical displacement? Moreso than a normal GMR head?
The real question is why she doesn't want to use FES (Functional Electrical Stimulation) of her existing musculature. The interface is going to be the same as with a fully mechanical robotic hand, and the aesthetic outcome far superior.
The reason you should not be reading your kindle, or have a laptop out during takeoff and landing, or any reasonably hard-edged, dense object is that it has the potential to become a projectile upon sudden deceleration. The less crap raining horizontally through the cabin upon impact, the better the chances of survivability.
This is the way it should be. Any Joe Programmer can make an app that makes it look like stolen goods are behind that closed door. Taking evidence from theft prevention and tracking apps is the exact same as taking the victim's word for it.
Except that the report from the theft prevention software should be independently verifiable by the police, and presumably contains serial numbers that the claiming victim can demonstrate match his property by using paperwork from the original purchase.
Now, it could be that the claiming victim actually sold the iPad to the accused, and is trying to use the legal system to steal it back, but that's for a court to decide based on presented evidence.
I covet your UID and trust, given the low digit count that implies a certain age and level of wisdom, you understand the meaningfulness of that particular number. Moreover, I agree with your post: we should all be able to reprsent ourselves in court for the vast majority of non-violent matters.
There was an instance of non-lethal weapon abuse by a Boston policeman who shot a Red Sox reveler with a projectile that's supposed to only cause the sensation of burning, like pouring hot sauce on the skin. It's like a targeted remote pepper spray. Problem is, the policeman hit this poor woman in the eye. She died as a result of the injury.
The words "non-lethal weapon" should more accurately be written as "not-usually-lethal weapon". A weapon designed to hurt enough to seriously distract everyone it is used against cannot be non-lethal in all cases, given the wide range of physiologies found in humans, and the wide ranges of unanticipated potential uses. While one might argue whether the officer in question above should have aimed at this student's head (if the weapons are so inaccurate that they cannot be controlled well enough to avoid hitting someone in the head, or if the officer was inadequately trained or prepared to do so, then that is another matter entirely), because he did hit her in the head that must therefore be an anticipated use. Thus this particular paintball-like weapon, and by extension, all non-lethal weapons, must be considered less lethal, but certainly not non-lethal.
And ignoring the transportation costs of getting the fuel to your home, too.
Electric heat is commonly seen as an inefficient way to heat one's house. This is not true; it is a perfect way to heat one's house, from the standpoint of the home owner, except that it can be prohibitively expensive to do so in many parts of the US. At present, doing the same thing with natural gas will be about 1/40th as expensive, although less efficient (the lower efficiency due primarily to heat losses in the exhaust from combustion). Home owners are going to be more concerned about the order-of-magnitude difference in cost, not the 80% efficiency of natural gas vs 100% efficiency of electricity.
Common confusion about resistive heating being inefficient: it is, in fact, 100% efficient at converting the source power (electrical current) to heat. What it isn't is inexpensive compared to most chemical sources of power (oil, natural gas) that are converted to heat by combustion.
The semiconductor PN junction is amazing. That's what's fundamentally inside LEDs. When appropriately tuned, PN junctions (a) permit electron flow in only one direction, demonstrating their diode nature, (b) convert current into light, like an LED, (c) convert current into a heat differential, like a Peltier junction cooler, (d) convert light into current, like a photo cell, (e) convert heat differential into current, like a solid-state thermionic energy converter, (f) act like a voltage-tunable capacitor, like a varactor, and more. In fact, to a very coarse first approximation, all PN junctions exhibit each of these characteristics to a greater or lesser degree.
So what's this group done? Shown that an appropriately tuned PN junction (or stack of them, I'd imagine) can be used to simultaneously act as a solid-state thermionic energy converter *and* an LED. Thus, it converts applied electricity to photons, but also converts a heat differential to electricity, which gets converted to photons as well, meaning it's sucking heat out of its immediate evironment. Cool stuff, if you'll pardon the pun.
Hasn't this business model been tried before, and quashed by the M/RIAA? Perhaps even somewhat famously? Perhaps even more than once? Perhaps even with a much simpler interface that didn't require driving to the store?
Indeed. One of the overlooked but highly important issues with sampling rates is that although you can represent up to Nyquist in a periodically sampled signal, that is the limit for infinite length recordings. For finite-length recordings, it isn't all or nothing, represented perfectly or not at all -- instead the uncertainty (read: representation error) increases as you approach Nyquist. The engineering rule-of-thumb is to not attempt representing anything over 1/5 the sampling rate. For 20 KHz upper limit, that would be about 100 Ksamp/sec. 192 Ksamp/sec is a convenient number sufficiently above that to ensure excellent reconstruction of the signal. Using 24 bits is also a good idea because with only 16 bits, you have to compress the audio or clip the peaks.
Slashdot Mirror
Given that you were looking at EUR 5,000 projectors, I suspect your interpretation of "decent projector" is not the same as someone who is asking for advice on doing things on the cheap. Used/discontinued/refub projectors are in the few hundred dollar range (and USD 1000 will buy a new projector that you'll be able to watch in daylight if you don't mind the image being not too large). But they won't give you HD or above resolution, which is why I wrote they "[do] nearly as well."
Buy used equipment. 1 or 2 generation-old stuff is dirt cheap. Craigslist is your friend, there. Yard sales. Look for going-out-of-business sales (see recent stories on Best Buy closing stores). Buy refurbs.
Lots of people will tell you to put in wires in the walls. Wireless APs are so good now that this is just a waste of money in nearly every case. Buy good wireless APs (see "buy refurbs" above). This is one exception to the previous-generation rule of thumb above (I've just put in Netgear WNDR3700, bought from advice given in responses to someone else's Ask Slashdot question, and couldn't be happier ... highly flexible, plenty of signal, fast assocation, dual band, and all of the interference problems from neighbors, etc., have disappeared).
Big wide-screen LCD / plasma TVs are great, but a ceiling-mounted projector does nearly as well, can create a much bigger image, and often can be had for much less. Used stereo components (assuming you want such) are available on eBay by the dozen. Same for gaming consoles, etc. See Craigslist, too. Buying tech on Black Friday or Cyber Monday can save a ton. Since you don't have money, then you'll have to spend something else: namely, time.
In short, you'll need to compromise, either on buying the latest-greatest, or on buying new, or on the exact technology. You won't end up being the envy of your tech friends, but you'll have fun.
Finally, a word of advice: if the tech stuff is going to be appreciated more by you than your spouse, then make sure you're finding ways to improve the home that will be appreciated more by your spouse than by you. Domestic harmony is more important than any gadget.
Software-defined filters can be arbitrarily good. Hardware filters are much more severely cost-limited. Sofware filters can be a-causal (assuming you are doing post-hoc processing) with characteristics impossible to build in hardware, like zero phase delay for all input frequencies. You can build 100-pole filters in software; sure you can do that in hardware, but it's going to get very expensive, large, and potentially noisy. You can build filters with frequency characteristics that *exactly* match the design parameters, not merely to within the tolerances of the components you use. Software filters *add* *no* *noise*. They have *zero* temperature drift. They have *zero* aging effects. They have essentially infinte power supply rejection. They don't suffer from interference. They can be re-programmed on the fly. They can be crazy non-linear (eg., if you watched the linked video, you can create a softare filter to detect and block whistlers only when they're happening and only affecting the frequencies where the whistlers are, removing only the whistler signal and nothing else, including the background; good luck doing that in analog). You can get close to all of these characteristics in pure analog hardware, but it is far more difficult and far more expensive than doing it digitally.
Given how inexpensive digital hardware has become, most of the assumptions that go into creating standard analog reciever and transmitter hardware need to be re-examined. On the reciever side, for example, the only reason you have an IF stage is because it's prohibitively expensive to use a non-superhet design and get the same performance ... unless the signals are processed digitally.
Have you seen the amazing (and highly non-linear) filters available in Photoshop for processing images? Imagine applying the same sort of technology to radio: difficult things become easy, and radical things become possible.
Indeed, that's the sort of care and action that is to be lauded, not punished.
How about spending less time on ... stuff ... like this, and more time on learning how to write headlines, how to select good submissions, how to avoid duplicate stories, how to perform even cursory verification of content, how to avoid typographical errors, and how to copyedit poor text? You know, things that enhance quality.
US laws don't apply except in the US.
Not entirely true. Here's but one web page describing laws that restrict individual and corporate action outside the US:
http://www.bu.edu/globalprograms/global-toolkit/getting-established/us-laws-abroad/
Also, certain parts of the IRS code apply to US citizens with foreign income, even if they are no longer US residents.
And, various laws regarding sex with underage minors, even when legal in the foreign country, still apply to US citizens when abroad.
Not surprisingly, children born to US citizens while abroad are eligible for US citizenship, by US law.
Here's another link with a more scholarly discussion of extra-territorial juristiction:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CDIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fcorporatecompliance.org%2FContent%2FNavigationMenu%2FResources%2FLibrarymembersonly%2FUS_JurisdictionAbroad.pdf&ei=YyJyT4idOaT20gH-zom2AQ&usg=AFQjCNGOlnjQJ6uhrNRE243R7iDhYXy3FA
Here's a preview of another scholarly article:
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2203461?uid=3739696&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=47698810512577
My lay understanding is that generally, US laws do not apply abroad, but that should not be taken as a 100% certainty. Moreover, there are certain US laws which have been written that specifically claim extra-territorial jurisdiction.
If Google had won a wireless spectrum auction (they didn't), then Google Voice could've been the core of Google's competition with the telco network.
Very insightful. However, there's nothing to say that Google won't obtain wireless spectrum through some other means, like a future auction, or outright acquisition of an extant carrier. Given that AT&T and T-Mobile USA were slow dancing before the FTC turned on the lights, one can readily assume either one might be approachable with an offer. Google has tons of cash on hand, too.
Aegean Airlines serves (largely) excellent food. There has been the odd exception, but generally, their food is really quite good in my experience.
The issue is the amount of money the typical airline meal costs the airline to produce. I can't locate the page at present, but recall that among domestic US carriers, Alaska Air spent the most on its food. From what I recall (take that with necessary salt), the overal industry average was below $2 per meal. The average first class meal cost something like $5.
Note that I'm talking about the cost of producing the meal, not the amount that gets charged to the customer now that meal fees have been unbundled from transportation fees.
And, you forgot Facebook.
Huh?
The word "facebook" was in use for decades before Zuckerman came along and ... copied it from then-common usage among colleges for a book that contains the photos of the freshman class. I have a handful of copies of my undergraduate school's facebooks still, which state "facebook" on the cover from when Zuckerberg was a come-hither look in his mother's eyes. I never understood how the company got their initial trademark given the widespread existing usage when it was issued.
1) Huge unexpected oil reserve found.
2) Breakthrough in some alternative energy technology
3) Mass change in lifestyle
4) A Major industry converts to natural gas, etc.
5) OPEC decides to adjust prices.
You seem to have forgotten that oil prices are not determined solely by market forces (including futures), but that there is also a large influence exterted by political cartels.
I have 12 desktops under Linux. That neatly, and intentionally, corresponds to the 12 Fn keys across the top of most keyboards. I program the hot keys so that the single keystroke from Fn takes me to Desktop n (and, yes, that overrides F5, F1, and whatever other functionality is available standard ... I prefer to forego those shortcuts in favor of being able to switch desktops with a single keystroke).
Using these 12 desktops, I allocate each application I use frequently to a single desktop. While there is a rhyme and reason for the particular allocation I use, it isn't worth explaining because it won't necessarily work for anyone else. Desktops 1 and 2 have local shells. Desktop 3 has an editor (emacs). Desktops 4 and 5 have xterms to non-local machines. Desktop 6 has Firefox. Desktop 7 has Chrome. Desktop 8 has a root shell (and xosview). Desktop 9 is scratch. Desktop 10 is a PIM. Desktop 11 is scratch. Desktop 12 is for media players. When I log in, all of these applications get automatically opened so I don't waste my time screwing around with configuration.
I keep my windows full screen, except under very unusual circumstances when there might be two next to each other as you suggest. While I might use only one or two windows in a concentrated stretch of time, I'm not willing to search for windows when I need to see something else. Unlike you, I never have difficulty finding the window I want because hitting the correct Fn selects exactly the necessary window, immediately and directly. ("I ... usually don't have difficulty finding the window that I want," isn't good enough.) I also turn off all desktop animations because they only serve to delay getting to my target.
I'd love to have the same setup on my Windows boxes, but all of the virtual deskops I've tried thus far are buggy, slow, or both. I'm excited to evaluate some of the suggestions from this thread because it appears I've missed some good possibilities.
Indeed. I'd have been far more intriegued by knowing exactly how they managed to get a laser small and light enough to mount on the head along with an appropriate focusing mechanism without deleteriously affecting the kinematics. How sensitive is this to vertical displacement? Moreso than a normal GMR head?
The real question is why she doesn't want to use FES (Functional Electrical Stimulation) of her existing musculature. The interface is going to be the same as with a fully mechanical robotic hand, and the aesthetic outcome far superior.
The reason you should not be reading your kindle, or have a laptop out during takeoff and landing, or any reasonably hard-edged, dense object is that it has the potential to become a projectile upon sudden deceleration. The less crap raining horizontally through the cabin upon impact, the better the chances of survivability.
This is the way it should be. Any Joe Programmer can make an app that makes it look like stolen goods are behind that closed door. Taking evidence from theft prevention and tracking apps is the exact same as taking the victim's word for it.
Except that the report from the theft prevention software should be independently verifiable by the police, and presumably contains serial numbers that the claiming victim can demonstrate match his property by using paperwork from the original purchase.
Now, it could be that the claiming victim actually sold the iPad to the accused, and is trying to use the legal system to steal it back, but that's for a court to decide based on presented evidence.
Which part of the panel has turned dark brown? An outer plastic layer that could be refreshed to get you back up to nearly 100%?
Just waiting for a shareholder initiative to kill the 20% developer personal research time off.
Last week, I just happened to pay a personal visit to some Google employees in Moutain View who are friends of mine. The 20% is already gone.
I covet your UID and trust, given the low digit count that implies a certain age and level of wisdom, you understand the meaningfulness of that particular number. Moreover, I agree with your post: we should all be able to reprsent ourselves in court for the vast majority of non-violent matters.
I'm certainly fine with less lethal, as the thrust of my argument was that non-lethal was a misnomer.
There was an instance of non-lethal weapon abuse by a Boston policeman who shot a Red Sox reveler with a projectile that's supposed to only cause the sensation of burning, like pouring hot sauce on the skin. It's like a targeted remote pepper spray. Problem is, the policeman hit this poor woman in the eye. She died as a result of the injury.
The words "non-lethal weapon" should more accurately be written as "not-usually-lethal weapon". A weapon designed to hurt enough to seriously distract everyone it is used against cannot be non-lethal in all cases, given the wide range of physiologies found in humans, and the wide ranges of unanticipated potential uses. While one might argue whether the officer in question above should have aimed at this student's head (if the weapons are so inaccurate that they cannot be controlled well enough to avoid hitting someone in the head, or if the officer was inadequately trained or prepared to do so, then that is another matter entirely), because he did hit her in the head that must therefore be an anticipated use. Thus this particular paintball-like weapon, and by extension, all non-lethal weapons, must be considered less lethal, but certainly not non-lethal.
And ignoring the transportation costs of getting the fuel to your home, too.
Electric heat is commonly seen as an inefficient way to heat one's house. This is not true; it is a perfect way to heat one's house, from the standpoint of the home owner, except that it can be prohibitively expensive to do so in many parts of the US. At present, doing the same thing with natural gas will be about 1/40th as expensive, although less efficient (the lower efficiency due primarily to heat losses in the exhaust from combustion). Home owners are going to be more concerned about the order-of-magnitude difference in cost, not the 80% efficiency of natural gas vs 100% efficiency of electricity.
Common confusion about resistive heating being inefficient: it is, in fact, 100% efficient at converting the source power (electrical current) to heat. What it isn't is inexpensive compared to most chemical sources of power (oil, natural gas) that are converted to heat by combustion.
The semiconductor PN junction is amazing. That's what's fundamentally inside LEDs. When appropriately tuned, PN junctions (a) permit electron flow in only one direction, demonstrating their diode nature, (b) convert current into light, like an LED, (c) convert current into a heat differential, like a Peltier junction cooler, (d) convert light into current, like a photo cell, (e) convert heat differential into current, like a solid-state thermionic energy converter, (f) act like a voltage-tunable capacitor, like a varactor, and more. In fact, to a very coarse first approximation, all PN junctions exhibit each of these characteristics to a greater or lesser degree.
So what's this group done? Shown that an appropriately tuned PN junction (or stack of them, I'd imagine) can be used to simultaneously act as a solid-state thermionic energy converter *and* an LED. Thus, it converts applied electricity to photons, but also converts a heat differential to electricity, which gets converted to photons as well, meaning it's sucking heat out of its immediate evironment. Cool stuff, if you'll pardon the pun.
Hasn't this business model been tried before, and quashed by the M/RIAA? Perhaps even somewhat famously? Perhaps even more than once? Perhaps even with a much simpler interface that didn't require driving to the store?
Indeed. One of the overlooked but highly important issues with sampling rates is that although you can represent up to Nyquist in a periodically sampled signal, that is the limit for infinite length recordings. For finite-length recordings, it isn't all or nothing, represented perfectly or not at all -- instead the uncertainty (read: representation error) increases as you approach Nyquist. The engineering rule-of-thumb is to not attempt representing anything over 1/5 the sampling rate. For 20 KHz upper limit, that would be about 100 Ksamp/sec. 192 Ksamp/sec is a convenient number sufficiently above that to ensure excellent reconstruction of the signal. Using 24 bits is also a good idea because with only 16 bits, you have to compress the audio or clip the peaks.