"How hard would it be to let the pad track where you tap on the button area and have an option let it send left/center/right events?"
You need one of the multitouch trackpads, but.... Right Click: System Preferences -> Trackpad -> "Tap Trackpad Using Two Fingers Sends Secondary Click". Alas no builtin solution for middle click, but try this: http://clement.beffa.org/labs/projects/middleclick/
Err, you don't touch the neutral with 240Volt (this is assuming US wiring) either. 120V, 240V, and 3-Phase 208V systems have 1, 2, or 3 hot wires. All of the hot's have a 120VAC potential relative to neutral/ground. For a 240V setup, it's two hots that are 180 degrees out of phase with each other. 208 volts is 3 hots which are 120 degrees out of phase. If you build a 240 volt device that uses two 20 amps at 120V circuits and sends back through neutral, the neutral will carry between 0 and 20 amps depending on how balanced your load is between the two phases, which is why you need a neutral that is sized to carry the same maximum load as the hots.
How, exactly, is a dumb charger supposed to tell the iPhone that it can supply *more* than 500mA if not for the voltage dividers? And yes, it won't fry the port if it draws too much, but if the port shuts down power due to overcurrent, it won't charge either. I'm somewhat dubious, too, about a $5 wall wart from Fry's having overcurrent protection. I'm not sure what the iDevices do if you plug them into a real USB host interface that can actually talk. My guess is that they will honor whatever power spec the port claims (my Dell Mini 9 Hackintosh seems to only supply 300mA if you're on battery).
But for dumb chargers, it looks for the resistors. If it doesn't see the "Apple resistor values", it charges at the spec'd 500mA. If it does see the Apple special, it charges at more current. Apparently, if it sees *no* resistors, it doesn't charge at all. But why should Apple support an out of spec USB charger? 2 15k resistors aren't exactly going to cost you much money.
And by the way, my iPhone is currently charging on a $5 thing I got at Fry's the last time I was in CA. It most decidedly isn't certified by Apple so I don't know where you're getting your statement about having to buy an Apple approved charger.
That's not quite true. The iPhone is capable of drawing more power than the USB spec allows to charge (USB allows 500mA at 5V, the iPhone can draw up to 1A, IIRC). However, so as not to fry a USB port that is not rated to drive the phone, it looks for the voltage divider resistors. The charger you made should have had 15k pull-down resistors on D+ and D- in it to be a compliant USB host interface. I suspect few, if any, devices check for it, but the charger you made does not meet the USB spec. Any charger that meets the spec will work fine with iPhone, it just will charge at 500mA max, but it *will* charge. Check out the "Minty Boost" schematic here.
I don't think Apple actually documents what you have to do to get it to charge at full power, which is kinda cheesy, but it's well documented by people who've reverse engineered it.
Also, none of this is related to the actual article. The firmware in the battery is well beyond the point where the stuff you're talking about is checked. It's there to keep the battery from catching fire. All Lithium-Ion batteries have it. I strongly suspect that this bug is not unique to Apple.
Light Peak is 4 lanes of PCI Express Gen 2 (or, at least, that's what Intel demo'd at IDF 2009) *or* Display Port. So, fundamentally, it should be able to do pretty much anything out the other end that you can run across PCIe, which includes SATA and USB, etc.
While I couldn't really say for sure from the picture, other people are saying copper-only for Thunderbolt, which, if true, is a major disappointment.
That's nice. Go talk to the people who actually work for one of those companies and complain to them. Until then, it's a product name and it's going to keep getting spelled the way the manufacturer spells it...
No, but it would affect the ability of someone to trademark the name, and since Lustre has always been the project of a commercial company (originally Cluster File Systems, then Sun, then Oracle, and now OpenSFS and this company), that is something that would be considered...
It certainly *can* be used with commodity hardware, but the majority (or maybe all?) of Lustre installations are in high performance computing with thousands, or tens of thousands, of clients (usually the nodes of a supercomputer) accessing the shared file system.
Where more commodity hardware can come in is the installation of the filesystem servers themselves. A system's Object Storage Targets and Metadata Servers (pieces of Lustre) can be external to the Cray and connected via some interconnect such as Infiniband. It should be noted that even the "commodity" hardware for the filesystem isn't exactly cheap if you want a huge capacity and high reliability...
The stuff that I found most interesting is on page 12. The machines named Jaguar and Franklin are Cray's running Lustre. Bassi and Jacquard are both running GPFS. On page 15 they claim that they can make up for the deficiency in Lustre's default settings for shared access to a single file by tuning it.
Unsurprisingly, the type of operation you're doing ends up determining which filesystem is best for your application.
In terms of scalability, from the Wikipedia page for the Jaguar system at Oak Ridge National Labs (a large Cray XT5), their Lustre filesystem is 10 petabytes with read/write performance of approximately 240GB/sec (not sure what benchmark was used to get that number).
You need the same background context of Christmas Carol that you need in Star Trek. However, I think it's fairly hard to grow up in the United States and not have seen the story of Christmas Carol at some point.
A show doesn't have to be poorly written to require context. August Wilson's plays are phenomenal, but if you don't have any context in the history of racism in the US, they won't make anywhere near as much sense.
So, having now seen the show upwards of 30 times (as the sound and sometimes light designer over 4 years), I think the show would be extremely hard to understand if you literally knew *none* of the Star Trek references. For instance, all the talk of "honor" and "warriors" only makes sense because most people probably know that about Klingons, whether or not they've seen Star Trek. Obviously, you can *follow* the plot by reading the subtitles but actually understanding why anything is happening requires more context.
Re:If it's a retelling based on Klingon culture...
on
A Klingon Christmas Carol
·
· Score: 3, Informative
This is, in fact, what the show is. A direct translation wouldn't work. Here's the official description of the show from our website: "Scrooge has no honor, nor any courage. Can three ghosts help him to become the true warrior he ought to be in time to save Tiny Tim from a horrible fate? Performed in the Original Klingon with English Supertitles, and narrative analysis from The Vulcan Institute of Cultural Anthropology.
The Dickens classic tale of ghosts and redemption adapted to reflect the Warrior Code of Honor and then translated into tlhIngan Hol (That's the Klingon Language)."
-- Forest (Sound Design/KCC Twin Cities for 3 of the years the show has run and light design the other year)
We will be back in both the Minneapolis/St. Paul and Chicago areas next year! (I've sound designed the show 3 years in the Twin Cities and light designed it two years [yes, it's only run 4 years, but I did both one year]:)
Hrm. Looks like they changed things slightly. I'd now have to certify that I'm using all available spectrum between channels 7 and 51 before I get to register in the database. Which may mean that I get to purchase a whole new set of wireless mics if I don't happen to be able to tune to the right channels. Lovely.
In any case, I couldn't care less if the government is tracking me (not that they could) via this database (I'm not the original poster).
The idea is that if I'm doing a show, I'll go to the database and register the location and frequencies I'm using, and the dates I'll be using them. They also set aside two TV channels in every area to be used by wireless mics (and other similar devices). That'll be great if a) I can fit into two TV channels (which is likely) and b) my mics actually hit the right frequencies (unlikely). If I need more spectrum or I'm not on the right channels, then I've gotta register.
You know, that's kinda what I thought would happen but.... I've done "The Klingon Christmas Carol" (http://cbtheatre.org/Klingon-Xmas-Carol.html) as a sound/light designer for 3 years (and I'm about to do a 4th) and we've basically sold out every year. Plus, we got a gig for Paramount doing a few excerpts from Klingon Hamlet that are on the Star Trek VI BluRay.
Not commenting on the merits of the amendment you propose, but the Constitution takes into account that the Senate and House may not wish to amend the Constitution. Article V (the one dealing with amendments to the Constitution) provides two ways. Way #1 is for 2/3 of the Senate and the House to propose an amendment. Way #2 is for 2/3 of the state legislatures can create a Constitutional Convention to propose amendments. The only restrictions are that before 1808, amendments couldn't change to a non-proportional tax or ban slavery. Also, for "all time", no amendment can reduce the number of Senators a state has without that state's consent. Obviously, both ways of getting amendments proposed (and then they must be ratified by 3/4 of the states) is really hard, but that's kind of the point. I think California is a good example of what happens when it's too easy.
So I just imagined getting stopped on I25 between Las Cruces and Albuquerque at a Customs and Border Patrol checkpoint? I had to prove I had insurance (!?!?), a valid driver's license, and was asked if they could search my trunk? I'm a US citizen from Minnesota. I'm white, so they weren't even profiling me.
Your BP agent friend is either lying or drinking the Cool-Aid. Sounds like the bus companies are rich enough to actually sue. I'm not. And I was in a hurry, so I let them search. If I'd had time, I would've refused permission for a search.
So what gear should I have bought? No gear exists that is both able to be operated legally and comes even close to working. You should realize the every single Broadway show is also operating illegally. They can't get licensed either. The FCC has, for all practical purposes, said that they are going to ignore the violations. This is why you have to either enforce rules or no have them. You can't have a rule there and unenforced for 30 years and then say "oh, hey, we just changed our minds".
All that being said, you probably still don't care. So what would you say to a small town TV station with little money that has $40k invested in wireless gear? They *are* licensed and legal. Are you ok with their investment going poof as well?
So you support patent trolls, then? It's the same thing - wait for an entire industry to get built and then hold it hostage. I can't get licensed nor can I purchase any gear that works and is, technically, legal. Neither can any Broadway show. The FCC doesn't enforce the rule. To suddenly change their minds would be incredibly unfair. In any case, there are a number of licensed users. Are they supposed to eat their investments as well?
Your assertion that I can just "go show the boss the new mic" and he'll cough up the cash would be great if there *were* cash. While some of users of these things have more cash than Warren Buffett, there are a lot of people like me, in the community theater world (and churches, schools, small theaters, etc...) who made what is, for them, massive investments in these mics expecting them to last 10 or 15 years. They simply don't have the money to upgrade gear because the FCC suddenly decides they want to use the spectrum.
I'd love to see unlicensed internet devices. I'd also love to *not* see my $9,000 of wireless microphones become worthless overnight. Until someone accomplishes the latter, I'm not willing to support the former.
I'm guessing that he got here thinking he was at "SlapShot" not "Slashdot". A slap shot in hockey is where you shoot the puck by swinging the stick back to about waist height and "slapping" the puck with it (as opposed to a wrist shot where you shoot the puck by flicking your wrists).
I answered your question in my 2nd sentence. The answer is that most people could tell the difference between two violins, even two of the exact same maker. I don't see how you could possibly do a double blind test because the player will instantly be able to tell the difference. Every instrument plays slightly differently. The reason I brought up a scientific intrument was to show that you could see it scientifically as well as with human ears.
As for constructing an instrument with identical accousitics, even Stradavarious couldn't do that. *All* instruments that are hand made will sound slightly different. I can't claim that I think a Strad sounds significantly *better* than, say, a Guarnarius or a Galeano, but I can sure as heck tell the difference.
Um, actually, no. Most people can tell violins apart. Even two Strad violins sound different. If a person was good enough at writing audio analysis tools (I'm not), it should be possible to write a program that can tell them apart. Then the question becomes whether you think the sound is better or not. However, it most certainly is *different*.
I've seen a number of posts from audiophile people where they will say the equivalent of "well, you can't see it on an oscilloscope but it's real!". Well, you *can* see the difference between a Strad and, well, any other violin - even other Strad's, on a scope.
According to violinists, one of the main reasons that Strad's are prized as instruments is that it is easier to get the violin to sound the way they want it to. In particular, controlling volume level from extremely soft to filling a concert hall, is apparently easier on better instruments.
As to the Joshua Bell experiment, you will note that most of the people, when asked, thought he sounded quite a bit better than an average street musician, but they didn't bother to stop. That study says way more about our society's lack of appreciation for our surroundings than anything else.
Yeah, it's not ideal, but there really isn't an ideal solution. Cordless phones sync the base station and the transmitter. You resync when the transmitter gets shut off or the battery dies. That's perfect for a home situation, but in a theater situation, if the battery dies, I need to have a stagehand change it and get the mic online again *FAST* and the receiver may well be several hundred feet away from the mic at the time.
In practice, it's rare to have problems of conflict between two shows. The only time you'd be in serious trouble is if you had two Broadway sized shows next to each other (each of which may well use 30 channels, and likely the *same* channels as the show next door). Then you may have problems finding enough valid frequencies. The most frequencies I've ever used at the same time is for my current show where I have 20 channels.
Slashdot Mirror
"How hard would it be to let the pad track where you tap on the button area and have an option let it send left/center/right events?"
You need one of the multitouch trackpads, but....
Right Click: System Preferences -> Trackpad -> "Tap Trackpad Using Two Fingers Sends Secondary Click".
Alas no builtin solution for middle click, but try this: http://clement.beffa.org/labs/projects/middleclick/
Err, you don't touch the neutral with 240Volt (this is assuming US wiring) either. 120V, 240V, and 3-Phase 208V systems have 1, 2, or 3 hot wires. All of the hot's have a 120VAC potential relative to neutral/ground. For a 240V setup, it's two hots that are 180 degrees out of phase with each other. 208 volts is 3 hots which are 120 degrees out of phase. If you build a 240 volt device that uses two 20 amps at 120V circuits and sends back through neutral, the neutral will carry between 0 and 20 amps depending on how balanced your load is between the two phases, which is why you need a neutral that is sized to carry the same maximum load as the hots.
How, exactly, is a dumb charger supposed to tell the iPhone that it can supply *more* than 500mA if not for the voltage dividers? And yes, it won't fry the port if it draws too much, but if the port shuts down power due to overcurrent, it won't charge either. I'm somewhat dubious, too, about a $5 wall wart from Fry's having overcurrent protection. I'm not sure what the iDevices do if you plug them into a real USB host interface that can actually talk. My guess is that they will honor whatever power spec the port claims (my Dell Mini 9 Hackintosh seems to only supply 300mA if you're on battery).
But for dumb chargers, it looks for the resistors. If it doesn't see the "Apple resistor values", it charges at the spec'd 500mA. If it does see the Apple special, it charges at more current. Apparently, if it sees *no* resistors, it doesn't charge at all. But why should Apple support an out of spec USB charger? 2 15k resistors aren't exactly going to cost you much money.
And by the way, my iPhone is currently charging on a $5 thing I got at Fry's the last time I was in CA. It most decidedly isn't certified by Apple so I don't know where you're getting your statement about having to buy an Apple approved charger.
That's not quite true. The iPhone is capable of drawing more power than the USB spec allows to charge (USB allows 500mA at 5V, the iPhone can draw up to 1A, IIRC). However, so as not to fry a USB port that is not rated to drive the phone, it looks for the voltage divider resistors. The charger you made should have had 15k pull-down resistors on D+ and D- in it to be a compliant USB host interface. I suspect few, if any, devices check for it, but the charger you made does not meet the USB spec. Any charger that meets the spec will work fine with iPhone, it just will charge at 500mA max, but it *will* charge. Check out the "Minty Boost" schematic here.
I don't think Apple actually documents what you have to do to get it to charge at full power, which is kinda cheesy, but it's well documented by people who've reverse engineered it.
Also, none of this is related to the actual article. The firmware in the battery is well beyond the point where the stuff you're talking about is checked. It's there to keep the battery from catching fire. All Lithium-Ion batteries have it. I strongly suspect that this bug is not unique to Apple.
Light Peak is 4 lanes of PCI Express Gen 2 (or, at least, that's what Intel demo'd at IDF 2009) *or* Display Port. So, fundamentally, it should be able to do pretty much anything out the other end that you can run across PCIe, which includes SATA and USB, etc.
While I couldn't really say for sure from the picture, other people are saying copper-only for Thunderbolt, which, if true, is a major disappointment.
That's nice. Go talk to the people who actually work for one of those companies and complain to them. Until then, it's a product name and it's going to keep getting spelled the way the manufacturer spells it...
No, but it would affect the ability of someone to trademark the name, and since Lustre has always been the project of a commercial company (originally Cluster File Systems, then Sun, then Oracle, and now OpenSFS and this company), that is something that would be considered...
It certainly *can* be used with commodity hardware, but the majority (or maybe all?) of Lustre installations are in high performance computing with thousands, or tens of thousands, of clients (usually the nodes of a supercomputer) accessing the shared file system.
Where more commodity hardware can come in is the installation of the filesystem servers themselves. A system's Object Storage Targets and Metadata Servers (pieces of Lustre) can be external to the Cray and connected via some interconnect such as Infiniband. It should be noted that even the "commodity" hardware for the filesystem isn't exactly cheap if you want a huge capacity and high reliability...
Obviously, we have internal benchmarks that tend to show that Lustre is good but I can't talk about specifics on those. What I can do, though, is link to this: http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~chrisc/COURSES/PARALLEL/SPRING-2009/papers/MADbench2-2009.pdf
The stuff that I found most interesting is on page 12. The machines named Jaguar and Franklin are Cray's running Lustre. Bassi and Jacquard are both running GPFS. On page 15 they claim that they can make up for the deficiency in Lustre's default settings for shared access to a single file by tuning it.
Unsurprisingly, the type of operation you're doing ends up determining which filesystem is best for your application.
In terms of scalability, from the Wikipedia page for the Jaguar system at Oak Ridge National Labs (a large Cray XT5), their Lustre filesystem is 10 petabytes with read/write performance of approximately 240GB/sec (not sure what benchmark was used to get that number).
You need the same background context of Christmas Carol that you need in Star Trek. However, I think it's fairly hard to grow up in the United States and not have seen the story of Christmas Carol at some point.
A show doesn't have to be poorly written to require context. August Wilson's plays are phenomenal, but if you don't have any context in the history of racism in the US, they won't make anywhere near as much sense.
So, having now seen the show upwards of 30 times (as the sound and sometimes light designer over 4 years), I think the show would be extremely hard to understand if you literally knew *none* of the Star Trek references. For instance, all the talk of "honor" and "warriors" only makes sense because most people probably know that about Klingons, whether or not they've seen Star Trek. Obviously, you can *follow* the plot by reading the subtitles but actually understanding why anything is happening requires more context.
This is, in fact, what the show is. A direct translation wouldn't work. Here's the official description of the show from our website:
"Scrooge has no honor, nor any courage. Can three ghosts help him to become the true warrior he ought to be in time to save Tiny Tim from a horrible fate? Performed in the Original Klingon with English Supertitles, and narrative analysis from The Vulcan Institute of Cultural Anthropology.
The Dickens classic tale of ghosts and redemption adapted to reflect the Warrior Code of Honor and then translated into tlhIngan Hol (That's the Klingon Language)."
-- Forest (Sound Design/KCC Twin Cities for 3 of the years the show has run and light design the other year)
We will be back in both the Minneapolis/St. Paul and Chicago areas next year! (I've sound designed the show 3 years in the Twin Cities and light designed it two years [yes, it's only run 4 years, but I did both one year] :)
Hrm. Looks like they changed things slightly. I'd now have to certify that I'm using all available spectrum between channels 7 and 51 before I get to register in the database. Which may mean that I get to purchase a whole new set of wireless mics if I don't happen to be able to tune to the right channels. Lovely.
In any case, I couldn't care less if the government is tracking me (not that they could) via this database (I'm not the original poster).
A summary as it relates to wireless mics is here: http://www.televisionbroadcast.com/article/106892
The idea is that if I'm doing a show, I'll go to the database and register the location and frequencies I'm using, and the dates I'll be using them. They also set aside two TV channels in every area to be used by wireless mics (and other similar devices). That'll be great if a) I can fit into two TV channels (which is likely) and b) my mics actually hit the right frequencies (unlikely). If I need more spectrum or I'm not on the right channels, then I've gotta register.
You know, that's kinda what I thought would happen but.... I've done "The Klingon Christmas Carol" (http://cbtheatre.org/Klingon-Xmas-Carol.html) as a sound/light designer for 3 years (and I'm about to do a 4th) and we've basically sold out every year. Plus, we got a gig for Paramount doing a few excerpts from Klingon Hamlet that are on the Star Trek VI BluRay.
Not commenting on the merits of the amendment you propose, but the Constitution takes into account that the Senate and House may not wish to amend the Constitution. Article V (the one dealing with amendments to the Constitution) provides two ways. Way #1 is for 2/3 of the Senate and the House to propose an amendment. Way #2 is for 2/3 of the state legislatures can create a Constitutional Convention to propose amendments. The only restrictions are that before 1808, amendments couldn't change to a non-proportional tax or ban slavery. Also, for "all time", no amendment can reduce the number of Senators a state has without that state's consent. Obviously, both ways of getting amendments proposed (and then they must be ratified by 3/4 of the states) is really hard, but that's kind of the point. I think California is a good example of what happens when it's too easy.
So I just imagined getting stopped on I25 between Las Cruces and Albuquerque at a Customs and Border Patrol checkpoint? I had to prove I had insurance (!?!?), a valid driver's license, and was asked if they could search my trunk? I'm a US citizen from Minnesota. I'm white, so they weren't even profiling me.
Your BP agent friend is either lying or drinking the Cool-Aid. Sounds like the bus companies are rich enough to actually sue. I'm not. And I was in a hurry, so I let them search. If I'd had time, I would've refused permission for a search.
So what gear should I have bought? No gear exists that is both able to be operated legally and comes even close to working. You should realize the every single Broadway show is also operating illegally. They can't get licensed either. The FCC has, for all practical purposes, said that they are going to ignore the violations. This is why you have to either enforce rules or no have them. You can't have a rule there and unenforced for 30 years and then say "oh, hey, we just changed our minds".
All that being said, you probably still don't care. So what would you say to a small town TV station with little money that has $40k invested in wireless gear? They *are* licensed and legal. Are you ok with their investment going poof as well?
So you support patent trolls, then? It's the same thing - wait for an entire industry to get built and then hold it hostage. I can't get licensed nor can I purchase any gear that works and is, technically, legal. Neither can any Broadway show. The FCC doesn't enforce the rule. To suddenly change their minds would be incredibly unfair. In any case, there are a number of licensed users. Are they supposed to eat their investments as well?
The transition period would *have* to be years.
Your assertion that I can just "go show the boss the new mic" and he'll cough up the cash would be great if there *were* cash. While some of users of these things have more cash than Warren Buffett, there are a lot of people like me, in the community theater world (and churches, schools, small theaters, etc...) who made what is, for them, massive investments in these mics expecting them to last 10 or 15 years. They simply don't have the money to upgrade gear because the FCC suddenly decides they want to use the spectrum.
I'd love to see unlicensed internet devices. I'd also love to *not* see my $9,000 of wireless microphones become worthless overnight. Until someone accomplishes the latter, I'm not willing to support the former.
I'm guessing that he got here thinking he was at "SlapShot" not "Slashdot". A slap shot in hockey is where you shoot the puck by swinging the stick back to about waist height and "slapping" the puck with it (as opposed to a wrist shot where you shoot the puck by flicking your wrists).
I answered your question in my 2nd sentence. The answer is that most people could tell the difference between two violins, even two of the exact same maker. I don't see how you could possibly do a double blind test because the player will instantly be able to tell the difference. Every instrument plays slightly differently. The reason I brought up a scientific intrument was to show that you could see it scientifically as well as with human ears.
As for constructing an instrument with identical accousitics, even Stradavarious couldn't do that. *All* instruments that are hand made will sound slightly different. I can't claim that I think a Strad sounds significantly *better* than, say, a Guarnarius or a Galeano, but I can sure as heck tell the difference.
Um, actually, no. Most people can tell violins apart. Even two Strad violins sound different. If a person was good enough at writing audio analysis tools (I'm not), it should be possible to write a program that can tell them apart. Then the question becomes whether you think the sound is better or not. However, it most certainly is *different*.
I've seen a number of posts from audiophile people where they will say the equivalent of "well, you can't see it on an oscilloscope but it's real!". Well, you *can* see the difference between a Strad and, well, any other violin - even other Strad's, on a scope.
According to violinists, one of the main reasons that Strad's are prized as instruments is that it is easier to get the violin to sound the way they want it to. In particular, controlling volume level from extremely soft to filling a concert hall, is apparently easier on better instruments.
As to the Joshua Bell experiment, you will note that most of the people, when asked, thought he sounded quite a bit better than an average street musician, but they didn't bother to stop. That study says way more about our society's lack of appreciation for our surroundings than anything else.
Yeah, it's not ideal, but there really isn't an ideal solution. Cordless phones sync the base station and the transmitter. You resync when the transmitter gets shut off or the battery dies. That's perfect for a home situation, but in a theater situation, if the battery dies, I need to have a stagehand change it and get the mic online again *FAST* and the receiver may well be several hundred feet away from the mic at the time.
In practice, it's rare to have problems of conflict between two shows. The only time you'd be in serious trouble is if you had two Broadway sized shows next to each other (each of which may well use 30 channels, and likely the *same* channels as the show next door). Then you may have problems finding enough valid frequencies. The most frequencies I've ever used at the same time is for my current show where I have 20 channels.