The real issue with memory cells flipping is not cosmic rays -- at least not with terrestrially deployed memory, it's alpha particle emissions from radioactive decay of the plastics in the memory package. Yes, the plastics surrounding the silicon.
A lot of work has been done to reduce the radioactivity of plastics used in IC packaging from normal background levels that you don't worry about in day-to-day life, to as quiet as possible, by carefully selecting source materials that have few naturally occurring radioisotopes.
From my chip-designer days I recall that the minimum charge required on a dynamic memory cell (like the ones in your computer's DRAM) to prevent spurious bit flips is one million electrons, give-or-take. The various designs back then were coming up with ways to reduce the footprint of the elements used to store that charge.
That said, it's been about 10 years since I've been in that line of work, and things have probably changed -- strike that, they've definitely changed -- substantially.
"Her assertion should not be misread to infer that she never broke school rules," the district said of Ms. Redding in a brief, "only that she was never caught."
Funny, I seem to remember something about being presumed innocent until proven guilty. If she was never caught, then there could not have been any proof of guilt. Ergo, she must be presumed innocent.
This school district administration has shown itself to be less than competent and should be removed with prejudice. Then the members should be individually prosecuted for civil rights violations, of which there has apparently been a plethora. Given their expressed admiration for zero tolerance, I respectfully suggest that they be given the same treatment.
1. He bought damaged solar cells from a one-time vendor. There isn't a supply of them for anyone to make. They might have been stolen, they might have been a shipping write-off, whatever. They aren't new solar cells.
2. He scrounged materials, like glass, for free. Manufacturers can't do that. Most people don't have that opportunity.
3. He used wire that he "happened to have" (quoting the article). He bought it at some point, or found it. Again, not something you or I could normally do.
And so forth. Comparing the cost of doing something this way to buying a new cell is invalid and misleading. The summary is bad. And the Slashdot editors are responsible for validating and endorsing the summary, suggesting that they were asleep at the wheel.
Sheesh, can't we get some decent editing here? Has the entire field of news reporting gone to the dogs?
I'm glad to see that manufacturers are returning to the form factor that HP / Mitsubishi had in 1998 with the Omnibook Sojourn / Pedion: 0.65 inch thick, 12 inch display, full-sized keyboard, ultra light, decent battery life, fast (for the time) processor, elegant design, full-metal chassis (magnesium, back then), and so forth.
IMO, it is the perfect form factor, about the size and thickness of a pad of paper.
incidentally Carolyn Porco is now my favourite female scientist
A good link to provide for Dr. Porco is the imaging project she runs, CICLOPS http://ciclops.org/ , since it's a wonderful site and the project under her direction has produced some stunning photographs and fantastic discoveries.
But, and I say this having spent some time with Dr. Porco, none of that has anything to do with her being female whatsoever. She is not a female scientist, she is a scientist full stop. And a damned good one at that.
It's likely that her being female has affected her career path, but that is entirely independent of the quality of her work. So why continue to promulgate irrelevant aspects? Dr. Porco is Caucasian, why didn't you say that she's your favorite Caucasian female scientist? It's irrelevant. Dr. Porco is a scientist. And, if Dr. Porco happens to be your favorite scientist, I'd endorse that wholeheartedly, as she's one of my favorites as well.
Kutiman, the artist who did the Thu-You audiovideo compositions, did a marvelous job. As other posters have noted, these songs are generally good compositions, beyond the novelty effect.
But, seriously, there isn't that much new here. These really aren't even mash-ups, because such extensive editing has happened. The classic mash-up, Dark Side of The Moon played against The Wizard of Oz retains the originals in great part, and while their combination brings a sum that is greater than the individual parts, it would be difficult to argue that it would qualify for fair-use exception from copyright protection.
The Thru-You project deconstructs the source material into individual components and re-assembles as an entirely new whole. There is no question of copyright violation because it is clearly a derivative work. It's an exceptionally cool idea, and in this case done very well, but collaging isn't new, even within the music industry.
There are entire genres of popular music that are devoted to construction of new songs from sampled components of other songs. Perhaps the first genre where this happened with distinction was House music, starting, what, 20 years ago? Of course, the more technology advances, the more deconstructed-reconstructed the music can become, but still, someone like club master Stephane Pompougnac has been publishing his Hotel Costes line of recompositions for 10 years now.
>Sure, as long as you can find a 25000 watt outlet.
I don't think so...
Typical Miles per kilowatt hour is 4. A 100 mile fill-up = 25 kilowatt hours = 90,000,000 watt seconds. If you want that in 10 seconds, you'd need a 9 Megawatt outlet.
Not only that, even with a power transfer efficiency of 99.9%, you'd have almost ten kilowatts of dissipation at the transfer. You could not hold that in your hand.
That's the thing about gasoline refueling: it's an astonishingly fast and efficient way of transferring gobs and gobs of energy.
It's a clue for you to stop using a platform where you must run anti-virus software and to finally switch to something better and come to the 21 century of computing.
I've been using Linux not quite as long as some, but probably longer than most. Quite probably longer than someone, like the parent poster, who has a Slashdot user ID five times larger than mine, especially since I lurked on Slashdot for a few years before getting an account. For me, Linux has been my primary computing platform for over 15 years, and, before then, it was Unix, or, prior to that, one of the DEC predecessors leading back to the early 80s. I have used machines running ITS, one of the first timesharing systems, when they were still contemporary.
That said, I'm tired of this dribble. Unix (in the industrial versions) had / has nearly no viruses or malware because there were very few people using it in total numbers. There was and continues to be little to be gained by writing a virus for these systems: no press coverage, no botnet of millions of computers. It doesn't pay. It isn't worth the effort. Same for Linux: the market is still too small. Same used to be true for MacOS, but that's starting to change as it increases in popularity.
Contrast this with Windows boxes that are so ubiquitous that a half-talented virus writer has a decent chance of getting their malware into hardened sites like the Pentagon through social vectors (eg, an absent-minded worker who uses a USB key on both home and work computers by mistake).
Linux has no viruses because the market is too small. To think that it is immune to attack from malware is naive at best, and, more probably, self-deceptive. If Linux starts to enjoy 10, 20 or 30 percent market share, we will see Linux-targeted malware become a common nuisance. We already see Firefox-specific browser exploits (but for Windows boxes). FOSS isn't somehow magically immune from nuisance teenage activity or out-and-out criminal intent.
So, please, enough of the holier-than-thou attitude.
I'd like some anti-Microsoft news that at least appears reputable, and not overly sensationalized "ZOMG Balmer blew up M$ eats babies" crap like the stuff I've seen here for the past few weeks.
You're new around here, aren't you?
Or more likely, been around long enough to get tired of all the childish crap and instead want sane discussions about what happened and sane arguments over what to do about it.
From what I read Zach Snyder lived with a copy under his arm and so for once, mostly, the novelist and artist's vision are going to be implemented as they intended.
Zach Snyder did the same thing with 300, taking the graphic novel as a storyboard, recreating it nearly shot-for-shot. I picked up the book before the movie and was impressed with both. In one sense the movie 300 was a letdown because it did nothing to further the possible realizations of the graphic novel. But, in another, the movie was an almost perfect realization of the graphic novel, neither adding very much nor taking very much away.
So Watchmen won't be for once, but for twice that such precision has been used.
There are two main differences between the mainframe philosophy and the commodity server philosophy. Both have their proponents, and both have their advantages.
First, in a mainframe, you have redundant everything. CPUs, disks, powersupplies, even backplanes. Everything. And everything can be hot-swapped. Everything. Even the power supplies. Even the CPUs. Want to upgrade to the newest versions of the processors? Not a problem, unplug the old, plug in the new (just not all at once, naturally). Is there a problem with a bank of RAM? Replace it. Hot. The idea is that with a mainframe, it will never, ever go down. Ever, unless the owner wants it turned off. The design point is for vendors where the time for a reboot cycle means a loss of millions of dollars. Like, say, a stock market exchange.
The second difference is bandwidth to the I/O systems. Mainframe systems are what IBM invented optical links for. To the disks. Optical links! When you see the old, classic photos of mainframes with cabinet-upon-cabinet, those are mostly disk systems. Modern mainframes use advances in technology to squeeze that down into much smaller systems. But bandwidth is what it's all about. Massive bandwidth to the I/O systems, massive bandwidth to the memory systems, and massive bandwidth to the CPUs. Wide, wide paths.
Also, much music now explicitly incorporates electronic sounds that are sequenced -- synth arpeggios, drum machine patterns, etc. These are always precisely timed. Everyone else needs to be able to match them.
Interestingly, I remember reading an interview with one band (perhaps The Pet Shop Boys?) where the artists were complaining about the inherent inaccuracy in MIDI control. Seems they were able to hear the few milliseconds uncertainty that the article claimed was due to limitations of the MIDI spec. The band went to great lengths to control and minimize this timing slop.
I guess this goes to show that one man's crystalline perfect timing is another man's ear bleeding horror.
OpenWRT is something you set up, then forget. It doesn't need "themes" or "skins", or 3d effects. This is not "pimp my router".
Regrettably, it sounds like the contest is, exactly, Pimp My Route. And, as you point out, that sort of endeavor is a waste of time. I have spent perhaps a total of 10 minutes, cumulatively, with a router interface of one form or another. None was so horrible that it had me cursing or pulling my hair in frustration. Bang, set up, done. Polishing usability for something that is rarely used and for which a decent interface already exists? Utter waste of time.
My laboratory is working on treatments for blindness to restore vision. I could put that $200,000 to good use (and with a tax deduction for the company, too, since I work for a university hospital). And the CPU-months that will be spent? SETI@home, or any other distributed cpu-intensive project could use the cycles.
Stick a better anti-scratch coating on the data side of CDs (and DVDs), and they'll be much better than just cutting the pits and lands more accurately.
You realize that the data side of the CD is really the top, right? That the actual data layer is right THERE at the top, with almost nothing to protect it, right?
And that the DVD spec put the optical data layer in the MIDDLE of the disc, with polycarbonate layers on either side to protect it, right?
And that you can polish scratches in the polycarbonate just fine with various compounds, so that even a pretty serious scratch can be eliminated? Even massive all-over scratching from sand can be fixed with sufficient elbow grease.
However, I do most heartily agree: it would be nice to have CD/DVDs with harder outer coatings. Polycarbonate is far, far too soft.
Most of the comments here are negative. The criticisms about swappable drive bays being better and that ground should not be switched are all valid.
However, I think articles like this are good. More people should actually do stuff, even if they burn out a few harddrives or power supplies in the process.
More people should READ A LITTLE about what they're trying to do, rather than attempting to re-invent the wheel for the umpteenth time. The large number of comments about switching ground indicates that it really isn't that hard to learn about such things. Sure, it's easier to do something without first learning about it, but it leads, generally, to unintended and often negative consequences.
While I applaud the initiative of the original subject's authors, they should not design anything that the public safety or welfare depends on, ever. Ever. Why? Devil-may-care attitudes are good for some things, but, by-and-large, engineering is not one of them.
Note that I am not saying engineers should not be ambitious. Ambition and sound engineering principles are not mutually exclusive.
Most live-action movies have overdubbed sound. Not all, but it is the norm. So the difference between a live-action film and an animated film, in terms of creating a soundtrack, is quite small. Both have massive sound effects -- in a live-action film, each footstep, each door opening, each paper crinkling, each jingle of keys, each car passing, and every single uttered syllable, is likely dubed. And even if you do have live sound (which, nominally, you do), there's lots of manipulation that needs to be done to turn it into a soundtrack. Just like with an animated film, except you lack the live sound recording.
Having a look through Google Maps of the spot, the scale is wrong to be a city. It's about 100 miles (160 km) on a side! Not a city, and most certainly not an ancient city, as they were even smaller. Could well be an artifact.
If they arent disturbing anyone, why is it a problem? It only is going to effect their own grades.
Didn't affect your grades much, I guess, did it? What a fantastic example, a poster child for the issue at hand. Now, please, put your phone away and study the difference between affect and effect.
I agree with the grandparent post. It isn't the God particle. It isn't the be-all-end-all-explain-everything particle. Discovering the particle won't prove or disprove the existence of a deity. Using the term is annoying AND misleading.
I have a good thinking strategy that I go through before I open my mouth and say things like this. It basically figure that if I managed to think of this in only a few minutes there's probably a good chance that the many thousands of engineers from around the world over the past 30 years who are far more knowledgeable about this then me have also probably thought of it and have a good reason for not using it.
You've got my vote for most insightful Slashdot post of the year!
No, it is not. It means that the quanta of control are larger.
More granular means more grain like (not more grains), which means the grains are more evident. Because they are... LARGER. You are making exactly the same mistake as the OP: more granular does not mean there are more grains, but it is more grain-like. For a fixed parameter range more granular means the quanta are larger, and higher resolution means they are smaller.
When something is granular, it is made up of chunks. The opposite of being granular is being continuous, where there are no chunks at all. When something is more granular, the chunks are larger, it has more of the characteristics of being grainy. When it is less granular it is more continuous, less of the characteristics of being grainy. Granular and continuous are antonyms.
What the OP meant is that he achieved more fine grained control. Not more granular control; more granular control would be worse control than the original resolution.
But be careful, as often what you buy that's advertised as copper wool is actually copper plated steel wool.
Stainless steel wool, on the other hand, doesn't corrode much at all. That's the stuff you want.
Fill holes with stainless steel wool and then further seal with expanding foam (takes care of that flammability issue).
The proximal cause of flammability with metal wools is the oil used during cutting. While the metal can and does ignite, usually it's the oil that ignites first, triggering the metal combustion. If you can prevent the oil from burning, that's often sufficient. Thus, stainless steel wool AND expanding foam.
Slashdot Mirror
The real issue with memory cells flipping is not cosmic rays -- at least not with terrestrially deployed memory, it's alpha particle emissions from radioactive decay of the plastics in the memory package. Yes, the plastics surrounding the silicon.
A lot of work has been done to reduce the radioactivity of plastics used in IC packaging from normal background levels that you don't worry about in day-to-day life, to as quiet as possible, by carefully selecting source materials that have few naturally occurring radioisotopes.
From my chip-designer days I recall that the minimum charge required on a dynamic memory cell (like the ones in your computer's DRAM) to prevent spurious bit flips is one million electrons, give-or-take. The various designs back then were coming up with ways to reduce the footprint of the elements used to store that charge.
That said, it's been about 10 years since I've been in that line of work, and things have probably changed -- strike that, they've definitely changed -- substantially.
"Her assertion should not be misread to infer that she never broke school rules," the district said of Ms. Redding in a brief, "only that she was never caught."
Funny, I seem to remember something about being presumed innocent until proven guilty. If she was never caught, then there could not have been any proof of guilt. Ergo, she must be presumed innocent.
This school district administration has shown itself to be less than competent and should be removed with prejudice. Then the members should be individually prosecuted for civil rights violations, of which there has apparently been a plethora. Given their expressed admiration for zero tolerance, I respectfully suggest that they be given the same treatment.
The summary is bad.
1. He bought damaged solar cells from a one-time vendor. There isn't a supply of them for anyone to make. They might have been stolen, they might have been a shipping write-off, whatever. They aren't new solar cells.
2. He scrounged materials, like glass, for free. Manufacturers can't do that. Most people don't have that opportunity.
3. He used wire that he "happened to have" (quoting the article). He bought it at some point, or found it. Again, not something you or I could normally do.
And so forth. Comparing the cost of doing something this way to buying a new cell is invalid and misleading. The summary is bad. And the Slashdot editors are responsible for validating and endorsing the summary, suggesting that they were asleep at the wheel.
Sheesh, can't we get some decent editing here? Has the entire field of news reporting gone to the dogs?
I'm glad to see that manufacturers are returning to the form factor that HP / Mitsubishi had in 1998 with the Omnibook Sojourn / Pedion: 0.65 inch thick, 12 inch display, full-sized keyboard, ultra light, decent battery life, fast (for the time) processor, elegant design, full-metal chassis (magnesium, back then), and so forth.
IMO, it is the perfect form factor, about the size and thickness of a pad of paper.
incidentally Carolyn Porco is now my favourite female scientist
A good link to provide for Dr. Porco is the imaging project she runs, CICLOPS http://ciclops.org/ , since it's a wonderful site and the project under her direction has produced some stunning photographs and fantastic discoveries.
But, and I say this having spent some time with Dr. Porco, none of that has anything to do with her being female whatsoever. She is not a female scientist, she is a scientist full stop. And a damned good one at that.
It's likely that her being female has affected her career path, but that is entirely independent of the quality of her work. So why continue to promulgate irrelevant aspects? Dr. Porco is Caucasian, why didn't you say that she's your favorite Caucasian female scientist? It's irrelevant. Dr. Porco is a scientist. And, if Dr. Porco happens to be your favorite scientist, I'd endorse that wholeheartedly, as she's one of my favorites as well.
Kutiman, the artist who did the Thu-You audiovideo compositions, did a marvelous job. As other posters have noted, these songs are generally good compositions, beyond the novelty effect.
But, seriously, there isn't that much new here. These really aren't even mash-ups, because such extensive editing has happened. The classic mash-up, Dark Side of The Moon played against The Wizard of Oz retains the originals in great part, and while their combination brings a sum that is greater than the individual parts, it would be difficult to argue that it would qualify for fair-use exception from copyright protection.
The Thru-You project deconstructs the source material into individual components and re-assembles as an entirely new whole. There is no question of copyright violation because it is clearly a derivative work. It's an exceptionally cool idea, and in this case done very well, but collaging isn't new, even within the music industry.
There are entire genres of popular music that are devoted to construction of new songs from sampled components of other songs. Perhaps the first genre where this happened with distinction was House music, starting, what, 20 years ago? Of course, the more technology advances, the more deconstructed-reconstructed the music can become, but still, someone like club master Stephane Pompougnac has been publishing his Hotel Costes line of recompositions for 10 years now.
>Sure, as long as you can find a 25000 watt outlet.
I don't think so...
Typical Miles per kilowatt hour is 4.
A 100 mile fill-up = 25 kilowatt hours = 90,000,000 watt seconds.
If you want that in 10 seconds, you'd need a 9 Megawatt outlet.
Not only that, even with a power transfer efficiency of 99.9%, you'd have almost ten kilowatts of dissipation at the transfer. You could not hold that in your hand.
That's the thing about gasoline refueling: it's an astonishingly fast and efficient way of transferring gobs and gobs of energy.
It's a clue for you to stop using a platform where you must run anti-virus software and to finally switch to something better and come to the 21 century of computing.
I've been using Linux not quite as long as some, but probably longer than most. Quite probably longer than someone, like the parent poster, who has a Slashdot user ID five times larger than mine, especially since I lurked on Slashdot for a few years before getting an account. For me, Linux has been my primary computing platform for over 15 years, and, before then, it was Unix, or, prior to that, one of the DEC predecessors leading back to the early 80s. I have used machines running ITS, one of the first timesharing systems, when they were still contemporary.
That said, I'm tired of this dribble. Unix (in the industrial versions) had / has nearly no viruses or malware because there were very few people using it in total numbers. There was and continues to be little to be gained by writing a virus for these systems: no press coverage, no botnet of millions of computers. It doesn't pay. It isn't worth the effort. Same for Linux: the market is still too small. Same used to be true for MacOS, but that's starting to change as it increases in popularity.
Contrast this with Windows boxes that are so ubiquitous that a half-talented virus writer has a decent chance of getting their malware into hardened sites like the Pentagon through social vectors (eg, an absent-minded worker who uses a USB key on both home and work computers by mistake).
Linux has no viruses because the market is too small. To think that it is immune to attack from malware is naive at best, and, more probably, self-deceptive. If Linux starts to enjoy 10, 20 or 30 percent market share, we will see Linux-targeted malware become a common nuisance. We already see Firefox-specific browser exploits (but for Windows boxes). FOSS isn't somehow magically immune from nuisance teenage activity or out-and-out criminal intent.
So, please, enough of the holier-than-thou attitude.
I'd like some anti-Microsoft news that at least appears reputable, and not overly sensationalized "ZOMG Balmer blew up M$ eats babies" crap like the stuff I've seen here for the past few weeks.
You're new around here, aren't you?
Or more likely, been around long enough to get tired of all the childish crap and instead want sane discussions about what happened and sane arguments over what to do about it.
Yes, yes, yes.
From what I read Zach Snyder lived with a copy under his arm and so for once, mostly, the novelist and artist's vision are going to be implemented as they intended.
Zach Snyder did the same thing with 300, taking the graphic novel as a storyboard, recreating it nearly shot-for-shot. I picked up the book before the movie and was impressed with both. In one sense the movie 300 was a letdown because it did nothing to further the possible realizations of the graphic novel. But, in another, the movie was an almost perfect realization of the graphic novel, neither adding very much nor taking very much away.
So Watchmen won't be for once, but for twice that such precision has been used.
There are two main differences between the mainframe philosophy and the commodity server philosophy. Both have their proponents, and both have their advantages.
First, in a mainframe, you have redundant everything. CPUs, disks, powersupplies, even backplanes. Everything. And everything can be hot-swapped. Everything. Even the power supplies. Even the CPUs. Want to upgrade to the newest versions of the processors? Not a problem, unplug the old, plug in the new (just not all at once, naturally). Is there a problem with a bank of RAM? Replace it. Hot. The idea is that with a mainframe, it will never, ever go down. Ever, unless the owner wants it turned off. The design point is for vendors where the time for a reboot cycle means a loss of millions of dollars. Like, say, a stock market exchange.
The second difference is bandwidth to the I/O systems. Mainframe systems are what IBM invented optical links for. To the disks. Optical links! When you see the old, classic photos of mainframes with cabinet-upon-cabinet, those are mostly disk systems. Modern mainframes use advances in technology to squeeze that down into much smaller systems. But bandwidth is what it's all about. Massive bandwidth to the I/O systems, massive bandwidth to the memory systems, and massive bandwidth to the CPUs. Wide, wide paths.
This may be a little expensive up front, but it would cut down on enough fraud that it might pay for itself.
Or have customers pay for their own passphrase-generating device, like PayPal did.
Also, much music now explicitly incorporates electronic sounds that are sequenced -- synth arpeggios, drum machine patterns, etc. These are always precisely timed. Everyone else needs to be able to match them.
Interestingly, I remember reading an interview with one band (perhaps The Pet Shop Boys?) where the artists were complaining about the inherent inaccuracy in MIDI control. Seems they were able to hear the few milliseconds uncertainty that the article claimed was due to limitations of the MIDI spec. The band went to great lengths to control and minimize this timing slop.
I guess this goes to show that one man's crystalline perfect timing is another man's ear bleeding horror.
What's wrong with X-WRT?
OpenWRT is something you set up, then forget. It doesn't need "themes" or "skins", or 3d effects. This is not "pimp my router".
Regrettably, it sounds like the contest is, exactly, Pimp My Route. And, as you point out, that sort of endeavor is a waste of time. I have spent perhaps a total of 10 minutes, cumulatively, with a router interface of one form or another. None was so horrible that it had me cursing or pulling my hair in frustration. Bang, set up, done. Polishing usability for something that is rarely used and for which a decent interface already exists? Utter waste of time.
My laboratory is working on treatments for blindness to restore vision. I could put that $200,000 to good use (and with a tax deduction for the company, too, since I work for a university hospital). And the CPU-months that will be spent? SETI@home, or any other distributed cpu-intensive project could use the cycles.
Stick a better anti-scratch coating on the data side of CDs
(and DVDs), and they'll be much better than just cutting the pits and lands more accurately.
You realize that the data side of the CD is really the top, right? That the actual data layer is right THERE at the top, with almost nothing to protect it, right?
And that the DVD spec put the optical data layer in the MIDDLE of the disc, with polycarbonate layers on either side to protect it, right?
And that you can polish scratches in the polycarbonate just fine with various compounds, so that even a pretty serious scratch can be eliminated? Even massive all-over scratching from sand can be fixed with sufficient elbow grease.
However, I do most heartily agree: it would be nice to have CD/DVDs with harder outer coatings. Polycarbonate is far, far too soft.
Most of the comments here are negative. The criticisms about swappable drive bays being better and that ground should not be switched are all valid.
However, I think articles like this are good. More people should actually do stuff, even if they burn out a few harddrives or power supplies in the process.
More people should READ A LITTLE about what they're trying to do, rather than attempting to re-invent the wheel for the umpteenth time. The large number of comments about switching ground indicates that it really isn't that hard to learn about such things. Sure, it's easier to do something without first learning about it, but it leads, generally, to unintended and often negative consequences.
While I applaud the initiative of the original subject's authors, they should not design anything that the public safety or welfare depends on, ever. Ever. Why? Devil-may-care attitudes are good for some things, but, by-and-large, engineering is not one of them.
Note that I am not saying engineers should not be ambitious. Ambition and sound engineering principles are not mutually exclusive.
Here at Slashdot we nailed this whole "email" thing back in the 90's.
Or, early 80s for some of us!
Most live-action movies have overdubbed sound. Not all, but it is the norm. So the difference between a live-action film and an animated film, in terms of creating a soundtrack, is quite small. Both have massive sound effects -- in a live-action film, each footstep, each door opening, each paper crinkling, each jingle of keys, each car passing, and every single uttered syllable, is likely dubed. And even if you do have live sound (which, nominally, you do), there's lots of manipulation that needs to be done to turn it into a soundtrack. Just like with an animated film, except you lack the live sound recording.
Having a look through Google Maps of the spot, the scale is wrong to be a city. It's about 100 miles (160 km) on a side! Not a city, and most certainly not an ancient city, as they were even smaller. Could well be an artifact.
If they arent disturbing anyone, why is it a problem? It only is going to effect their own grades.
Didn't affect your grades much, I guess, did it? What a fantastic example, a poster child for the issue at hand. Now, please, put your phone away and study the difference between affect and effect.
I agree with the grandparent post. It isn't the God particle. It isn't the be-all-end-all-explain-everything particle. Discovering the particle won't prove or disprove the existence of a deity. Using the term is annoying AND misleading.
I have a good thinking strategy that I go through before I open my mouth and say things like this. It basically figure that if I managed to think of this in only a few minutes there's probably a good chance that the many thousands of engineers from around the world over the past 30 years who are far more knowledgeable about this then me have also probably thought of it and have a good reason for not using it.
You've got my vote for most insightful Slashdot post of the year!
More granular control is ambiguous.
No, it is not. It means that the quanta of control are larger.
More granular means more grain like (not more grains), which means the grains are more evident. Because they are ... LARGER. You are making exactly the same mistake as the OP: more granular does not mean there are more grains, but it is more grain-like. For a fixed parameter range more granular means the quanta are larger, and higher resolution means they are smaller.
Granular and continuous are antonyms.
When something is granular, it is made up of chunks. The opposite of being granular is being continuous, where there are no chunks at all. When something is more granular, the chunks are larger, it has more of the characteristics of being grainy. When it is less granular it is more continuous, less of the characteristics of being grainy. Granular and continuous are antonyms.
What the OP meant is that he achieved more fine grained control. Not more granular control; more granular control would be worse control than the original resolution.
But be careful, as often what you buy that's advertised as copper wool is actually copper plated steel wool.
Stainless steel wool, on the other hand, doesn't corrode much at all. That's the stuff you want.
Fill holes with stainless steel wool and then further seal with expanding foam (takes care of that flammability issue).
The proximal cause of flammability with metal wools is the oil used during cutting. While the metal can and does ignite, usually it's the oil that ignites first, triggering the metal combustion. If you can prevent the oil from burning, that's often sufficient. Thus, stainless steel wool AND expanding foam.