Actually, you can pen&paper logical operations like that as well, using logical notation.
This sort of appeal could cripple the likes of MPEG-LA and pals though, because codecs are essentially fancy math at the core.
Hell, is you accept mathematical notations, then hand-written code samples with worked out code execution should also be applicable, because at the most abstracted level they are essentially tha same kind of construct.
(Mathematical notation is just a limited language for dealing with quantities, using a linear process. Logical notation does the same thing but with relations, and computer source code does both and has extentions for repeated processes.)
Correction. Soldiers swear to uphold the US constitution, not to obey orders.
As for the latter--
Bombing the shit out of (oil rich country) so that uncle sam's 'all american oil interests international' can come in and 'help rebuild' is just the international version of assaulting and harassing private citizens so that (local elction bid project, by 'mayor's nephew construction co.') Can be pulled off without a hitch. Similar to the vietnam 'Uncle Sam's Heroin Inc." Is just the larger version of "corrupt cops on the take."
The difference is simply one of which 'enforcement' agency is involved.
You must not watch much fox news, or listen to the talking heads on talk radio. (Something I am sadly subjected to by ideologue relatives.)
While I could see the reason to divide 'blame the soldiers' with 'blame the govt that sent them' I also must stress that 'I was only following orders' does not absolve persons of guilt in cases of wrongdoing.
As for the 'Support our troops' line not being purposefully confused by the media and from DOD representatives to de-facto imply that you MUST support the stupid wars we have sent our people to die in, I simply have to question what form of domestic reporting you have been consuming. IIRC, we were demonizng people left and right under the bush admin ("America, love it or GTFO" type slurs against people critical of our occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq, and also later of GITMO) for suggesting that our actions were out of line. The public controversy over "The dixie chicks" spings instantly to mind--
Further, with the Vietnam confict there was an involuntary draft. These days they just pressure people to enlist through bogus government "shcolarship" programs. Choosing to become complicit with the destructive whims of our current government for cash is quite worthy of some level of contempt in my book.
Mostly because of the following appeal to emotion type argument:
"The police face dangerous people every day, and need to be able to respond to percieved threats accordingly. Enforcing more strict controls over police escallation of violence places our public servants (The people who protect us from violent offenders) at risk. You dont want to be responsible for letting criminals run loose because you prevented the police from reacting, do you?"
This argument bears a superficial resemblence to the "Support our TRUUPES!" argument:
"Our men and women in uniform fight to protect our freedoms from dangerous terrorists overseas. If you dont support our men and women in the armed forces, you are selling out our country, and are complicit in the terrorist's cause."
Both provide "Enforcement" agencies with Carte Blanc to do pretty much watever they feel like, because if you disagree with the tactics or reasons for their activities, "You are a criminal/terrorist sympathizer."
No self-respecting politician with any hope of being re-elected will act on either agency in any fashion besides a stern wrist slapping, because of the danger of violating the de-facto taboo that these appeals to emotion invoke, regardless of how desperately these entities actually need such corrective action. (This is why the GITMO prisoner torture was downplayed, and why "Wiretapping" charges keep getting lodged against citizens reporting and recording instances of police wrongdoing.)
Additionally, the egregious activities of these agencies work hand-in-hand with power hungry parent entities (City, State, and Federal governments), because slowly escellating violence against both foriegn and domestic entities desensitizes the public, and allows for greater abuses of power at higher levels without causing moral panic or alarm.
Without some form of mass moral outrage against these practices, and I mean *RIGHT NOW*, there will be no going back and this country will continue to fast-track toward a police-state.
Evolution favors local optima, not general optima.
Photosynthetic lifeforms use either anthrocyanins, or chlorophylls. (Or both)
Each reacts to a different band of energy. Chloropyll reacts predominantly to yellow and red light, but totally ignores other kinds of light, like UV, or blue light. (Chlorophyll does faintly flouresce under uv light, but does not use it for photosynthesis).
Making plantlife that can absorb even just the whole of the visible spectrun (which would make them black instead of green) would mean a great deal for renewable fuel production. Being able to harvest very high energy photons, like UV even more so. (While UV light constitutes less than 3% of our solar spectrum, the individual photons themselves pack considerably more energy. That is why UV is ionizing radiation.)
Properly used, "black algae" would greatly increase the energy production capability of biofuels per square meter space used.
Nature did not produce such a thing because nature only finds 'good enough' solutions. The algae we have gets enough energy to thrive, and is not under any pressure to become more efficient.
If something similar happens with thorium, it 'might' induce decay reactions through antimatter reactions in the already unstable nuclei of the thorium...
On the other hand, creating engineered novel protiens and biomechanics could open the doors to a whole range of "Very very cool" things.
Take for instance, slime molds modified to produce long chain carbon nanofiber as they crawl along, or plants able to extract energy from a wider frequency band than is currently possible with photosynthesis (Or even to do so more efficiently.)
Simply because the substance is artifically engineered does not necessarily mean it is going to cause problems. (and if it does, it will just spark a flash of evolutionary progression in impacted species, much like antibiotics have done for microbes.)
I can see this being used in foodstuffs, especially where Monsanto is involved, but where I see this really shining is in materials science. Microbes are the most efficient nano-machines in existence. Being able to custom program them to make novel substances and materials is a fundemental leap on technology.
Strange, I was under the impression that there was a constitutional right to prevent such things.. You know, the 5th amendment, which clearly says:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
The definition of "Just" in "Just compensation" is debatable, or course--- (In the case of it rendering a farm useless, what would be considered just compensation? Compensation for the loss of production, or just for the base-price of the property itself?) but your view on emminent domain is quite clearly not what was intended by the framers of the constitution.
In the rare occurance where you are not being sarcastic---- Please allow me to slap you silly.
Second law of thermodynamics: In a closed system entropy can only increase, and not dissipate.
In a nut-shell--- The energy you expend to control the heat, will produce more heat than you process, making the problem even worse.
The only useful solution would be to find a way to radiate the heat into space more efficiently than the earth currently does on its own. This would be difficult to do without something exotic like a space elevator with a great big honking heatsink on it, that radiates shitpiles of BTUs of blackbody energy directly into space.
Even *IF* you did that, then you would have the same long term problem that the voyager anomaly has--- the emitted blackbody radiation would act as low-level thrust against the planet, and would subtly disrupt the earth's orbit over time.
The glaringly obvious answers are:
1) Put a cap on energy use on the planet, so that energy production does not exceed thermal dissipation of the earth's atmosphere.
2) Move a substantial portion of our population off the earth.
By the numbers everything else will fail, barring a self-correcting catastrophe or two.
It was about win7, and the lack of GDI+ only fallback rendering. As another poster pointed out, you can disable uxsms, and force win7 to use GDI+, but my own research on that topic points out that it is not accelerated, and uses software only rendering when you do that.
It could be point data, rendered through a subpixel renderer.
Instead of 3d voxels in the traditional sense, it would be 1d points in 3d space, with luminance, specularity, and fuzziness variables assigned. After that it is just lighting and pixel shading, which would be embarrassingly parallel. You would render the scene as a 2d canvas that fills the whole viewport.
LOD would be based on the available viewport resolution.
High quality voxel graphics with dynamic deformation would allow a whole new level of user-generated content.
Imagine something like world of warcraft meets second life, but without all the furries. (Something where if you take a shovel, and dig, you can dig up rocks, and other bits-- or even bury loot, or build a house out of ambient materials, and have it be persistent.)
Some people might complain that it opens the doors to world vandalism ([sarcasm]Oh dear, somebody wrote the word "Penis" in 30 foot letters on the ground by making trenches! They even drew one next to the word! Oh, think of the children! [/sarcasm]) but I think such vandalism would actually allow a richer and more dynamic character interaction to such a world, because it would motivate people to go clean it up.
Think-- sandcastles at the beach, Footprints in the sand, and other immersive details that could result.
The idea here is not to try to entertain the user directly, but to supply the user with what they need to entertain themselves, or others.
Ok, First, let me apologize for the violent tone of this reply--- This is something I feel very strongly about, because it directly impacts how well I can do my work, and could be solved fairly painlessly If redmond would be a little more considerate, I think.
That said:
(As a home user) I refuse to use an operating system that treats me like I dont know what an ACL is, or how to set up user accounts as more than just "User" or "administrator". (For starters.)
Windows 2000 at least had reasonably transparent access to filesystem and registry ACLs, and didnt try to bilk me for "Premium!" just so I can make a limited user that can manage print jobs, and can see/delete what is in other user's home folders. (Think, parents wanting to see what is in their kids accounts, without being so stupid as to run as the administrator). XP started doing bullshit there with Home when they axed the local users and groups MMC snap-in, but otherwise it gets a "Passable" score.
Further, (as both a corporate user and as a home user) I hate it that windows 7 forces the issue with the UI, and consider it deal-breaking.
Yes. I realize that GPUs are much more powerful now. The same issue with "I want to get fucking shit done, not watch bouncing shit on my screen." applies. That is why you have XFCE and other minimalist window managers, even on very very modern linuxes with obscene hardware. Some people DONT LIKE THAT SHIT, and I AM ONE OF THEM. (Hell, I have seen linux WMs that are basically just an XTerm window, so I *KNOW* I am not alone here.)
Now then-- For the "Rather than being wasted" argument...
Did it ever occur to you that there are useful windows programs that make heavy use of GPU hardware that AREN'T GAMES? I am a CAD/CAM draftsman, and I have literally KILLED GPUs (as in, "melted solder WITH proper cooling" killed) under heavy use before. I *HATE* sharing resources *THAT I NEED* with animated icons, Transparency effects and stupid desktop widgets. (*ESPECIALLY ones I cannot fully disable, because "that would make it look tacky" or similar crap that I would expect from Cupertino, and not Redmond. Stevie Wonder and his magic liver, along with his white plastic worshiping hipsters can take a long walk off a short pier. I hate the influence they have had over computing environments, and no-- they did not invent the GUI, XEROX PARC did, and theirs wasn't bloated.)
When you are rendering a complex industrial assemblage (Think half of a whole jumbo jet, including fasteners--In NURBS solids--) for engineering purposes, you need all you can get. Being able to actually, you know-- TURN OFF the bloated GUI would be "Thoughtful", don't you think?
Acting like the GPU is "being wasted" while in normal desktop space kinda precludes that notion, doesn't it? I am not asking that everyone be stuck in 1990s 2D blitting mode because of my preferences--- I am just asking for *THE OPTION* to turn it off, and I mean REALLY turn it off. (My case should not be considered "edge" either-- There are any number of other disciplines besides engineering that would benefit greatly by not having vital resources considered "wasted" unless the GUI is gobbling them down-- Like crypto-analysis, protein folding simulations, and anything that uses the GPU for massively parallel processing.)
I could tolerate XP, because I could turn on classic interface, turn off all the BS and be done. I cant do that with Win7. Microsoft has forced the issue with "You will go where we *say* today!" and abandoned "Where do you WANT to go today?" What I *NEED* is an x64 windows box, WITHOUT the window dressing. That is *NOT* what microsoft is offering. XP x64 DOES offer that, but it has serious lack of driver support. I have it on one of my systems at home that is dedicated to off the clock engineering time, and it works adequately. Sadly I can't have that at work, because it was never released in such a capacity from Microsoft.
That is why I use Linux for my home desktop, and at work, I am counting the days un
A friend of mine still runs windows 2000, and that only at my extreme nudging that he should drop 9X flavored kernels several years ago.
Given how I dislike Microsoft's current move toward treating users like cattle (Really, how else can you explain the current incarnation of the control pannel?) I can't make myself push him to upgrade again.
I'd push him to Linux, if Wine could support his "Really old graphic arts software" he runs.
He is very much computing in a 90s timewarp, and doesnt want to leave it.
(at least he is very mindful about what kinds of TCP/UDP connections are open when he is on the internet. He has gone so far in the past as to abandon software because it opens mystery ports.)
I would really like to point him toward a power-user friendly 64bit microsoft OS, since windows is what he is familar with, but the closest thing I can find is XP x64, which is by no small stretch of the term "Not user friendly", especially when it comes to finding drivers that will work with it.
I can understand why microsoft needs to release new OSes every 3 to 5 years--- They HAVE to make new sales to stay in business--- But, what I dont understand is why they moved away from 'Clean and efficient', and toward "So full of eyecandy it gives me a toothache in my eyeballs".
Really, the drab, simplistic UI of the 2000 era was great. I can't be the only one who uses a computer to get shit done, rather than be "entertained" by having my desktop picture cycle every X minutes, or by some resource consuming desktop widget.
(which is precisely why I personally have switched to Linux, and use a minimalist window manager.)
I suspect a large part of the "I Dont like Vista and windows 7" users that this article is bagging on, dislike those two new options for many of the same reasons.
Can't microsoft just add a boot.ini switch or something to turn off "Dumbshit mode" or something?
Several experiments were conducted in the 60s and 70s on children raised in gender neutral parenting conditions, that focused on toy choices. The experiment was intended to show the impact of societal imperitives on children and gender identities and gender specific behaviors, using toy preferences as metric.
The result of the test STILL had little girls favoring dollies with bright colors, and boys favoring machines and soldier type toys, even when very carefully imposed gender neutrality parenting was in effect, even from very young ages. This is somewhat reinforced by more modern research into the physiological differences between male and female nervous systems.
The idea that men and women might intrinsically focus more on different concepts (and thus, relate to their environments differently from each other, and as such, describe them differently in literature) is not really all that far-fetched. It is simply politically incorrect to state that women might actually have a biological proclevity toward being the "Domestic" partner in relationships given the current political climate of our western post-sufferage societies.
Somehow, "Staying home, taking care of babies, and doing the chores all day." is seen as a degrading thing, while "Standing in an assembly line inserting part A into assembly B ad nauseum all day" is somehow seen in an idealized fashion as a kind of "Freedom"-- however sick that might be in reality not withstanding.
Now, if you want to complain about women being statistically paid less than men, I will strongly support your argument that it (the practice) is based on pure bull--- But the statement that men and women are innately gender neutral and get conditioned exclusively by stereotypes? that is not supported by behaviorists.
Gender stereotypes simply reinforce already existent behaviors, for better or for worse.
Forgive me if I am wrong (I dont mean to sound like a total fuckwad or anything...).. But isn't it impossible for photon to be totally massless, given that it can decay into an electron/positron pair while traversing vaccuum?
A truly massless vector particle would have a local time of 0, since it would be traveling at the maximum allowed velocity...(and thus it would take an infinite amount of time in any other reference frame for it to even initiate decay...) This was part of why Neutrinos were re-evaluated, when it was discovered that they could change flavors en-route from the sun to the earth. (It means they cannot be massless, because they change over time/can decay.)
While the mass of a photon would be so tiny as to be unmeasurable, it MUST have a mass, because it is ABLE to decay.
One of the problems with LiON cells is that the logic controller can get the wrong impression about the state of the cell it is controlling. (This is for various reasons, but the most common is that it uses a function of charge/discharge time, and voltage output per cell to determine if the cell is bad or not.)
Some charging solutions "Pulse charge" a cell to bring the voltage back up to the point where the charge logic will turn the cell back on again, but this is dangerous because the pulsing can make lithium dendrites in the cell. (Solutions like "Battery conditioners" that try to revive "dead" batteries.)
By being able to hotwire the firmware, you should be able to force the charge logic to re-enable cells using a more sophisticated host-processor controlled logic formula, to better detect truly bad cells, and turn "Not really bad, but miscalibrated" cells back on again.
Such a thing could be a very hot seller, especially given Apple's proclevity for insisting that batteries never be removed or serviced.
I had a random idea several months ago that I think might work but would be impractical in the "We need metric shit-tons of energy *NAOW!*" climate we live in.
Basically, the main problems with current fusion systems are the following:
Concentrating the plasma tight enough to release over unity energy directly often causes pinching of the magnetic confinement feild, cutting off plasma flow, and killing the fusion reaction. (A little like turning the gas up too high on a cutting torch blows the flame out, only in this case the confinement snaps the plasma stream, making it stop conducting electricity, causing the plasma to disperse violently, such as in Z-Pinch type devices.)
Instances where the magnetic confinement field does not pinch off the plasma flow often are extremely expensive to operate under, requiring lots of power to contain/maintain the fusion. (Currently more than is usefully generated by the reaction-- Such as in Tokamak style fusors.)
Low energy confinement fusion favors production of neutrons which are useless for power generation, and difficult to shield. (Such as found in Farnsworth type fusors.)
It was the last one that gave me the idea:
Carbon 14 is a neutron bombardment synthesized isotope of carbon, created from nitrogen atoms. It is also beta-voltaic. It decays back into nitrogen after emitting a high energy electron, and a (Tau?) neutrino. When assembled into nanostructures, it is also highly conductive in and of itself, just like carbon 12.
Because of these properties of carbon 14, I had the strange idea that if you surrounded a farnsworth type fusor (The easiest to construct of the 3 types above.) with a large metal spherical capsule, filled with carbon aerogel and liquid nitrogen (which does not need to be refrigerated or circulated once installed. The vessel is meant to be pressurized to maintain fluidity of the contents.) you could effectively use this shell as a neutron conversion catalyst to convert neutron emissions into high energy electron emissions, gather them up, and channel them for power generation.
The carbon aeogel inside the vessel does not need to be C14. It can be ordinary C12 and work just fine. It functions as the cathode matrix for the beta-voltaic emissions of the C14 that gets developed inside the converter. Since it is ALREADY a highly porous nanostructural carbon material, it conducts electricity fairly well, and can be totally immersed in the liquid nitrogen reactant.
As the neutrons from the farnsworth fusor pass through the catalyst, they get absorbed by the nitrogen atoms, turning them into C14 atoms. These atoms would be energetic, and would tend to "cling" to the existing carbon nano-structures of the aerogel. As they decay, the turn back into nitrogen, and detach.
After a sufficient incubation period, the device should be capable of turning an otherwise "Hobby novelty only" farnsworth into a useful power generating device.
Problems:
Size. The catalyst chamber would need to be very large to have reasonably good statistical rate of neutron capture, even with highly pressurized nitrogen inside.
Cost. Carbon aerogel is expensive... (Liquid nitrogen is fairly cheap. Cheaper than beer.)
Time. It would take a considerable charging period before useful power output would be detected from the catalyst system.
Pros:
C14 has an obscenely long half-life. The catalyst layer would continue to produce electrical energy for extended periods of time, even with the fusion reaction totally shut off. (Arguably thousands of years.....)
Production of carbon isotopes intrinsically within the catalyst layer would actively regenerate damage to the nanostructures of the cathode, which normally plagues betavoltaic devices. The high energy nature would help to ensure tight ring structures like fullerene cages and the like.
Unknowns: Ideal hardness and energy level of harvested neutronic emissions for ideal C14 creation in the cataylst. Reason: Fucking paywalls. Ideal thickness of catalyst layer for optimal absorbtion. Reason: Fucking paywalls.
We lack the ability to self-actualize without being hemmed in by artificial constraints.
"You can't do that, because*..."
*where the reason could be any one or more of the following non-exclusive things:
Only rich people can do that, and you are not rich enough. The government says you can't. You will be seen as batshit crazy if you do it- (possibly comitted.) It will have negative consequences toward your employment. (EG, HR datamining social networking before hiring, etc..) Your new mechanical project resembles a bomb to your neighbors. Your insistence on doing science at home raises the hackles of civil administrators, regardless of how many state and industry certifications you hold. (Where science could be as simple as analytical chemistry [Administrator: OMG, A METH LAB!], high energy physics [OMG! A BOMB!], cryptographic research [OMG! A CYBER TERRORIST!] Simple evolutionary research on algae [OMG! BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS!] and a host of other kneejerk reactions to simple, and harmless to society, but still useful research paths that could be done at home...) Because thats what terrorists do. Because "that makes baby Jesus cry" Because we already patented that, and you didnt pay us money.......
The short of it, is that people are leading un-fulfilling lives, because they cannot satisfy their dreams and aspirations, for a whole host of reasons-- Most of which are artificial, and arbitrary in nature. (Usually implemented to protect some other person's financial bottom line.)
Most americans have conflated "Money" with happiness, rather than seeing it as a means to attain happiness. (A tool, like a screwdriver, or a wrench. A screwdriver turns screws, a wrench turns bolts-- and money turns arbitrary restraints your way so you can self-actualize. Unless used, these tools do nothing.)
As such, most americans fret over money, use it inappropriately, and labor endlessly to obtain it, leaving little if any time for developing real happiness.
EG-- corporate dad is fucking LOADED with money-- but still misses his child's ball games, and has a shitty home life, because--- he is married to the office. (why? because he wrongly conflates money with happiness/success, and thinks more is always better.)
On the flip side of that spectrum, you have those that overspend their money, and live hand-to-mouth while also having big screen televisions, etc..... they impact lower levels of the hierarchy (basic needs) by having a loss of security (no money to pay bills == no food, no water, no electricity, etc...)
People engage in both behaviors because of social engineering by financially interested parties-- Corporations, banks, churches, etc... "Your manliness is in question if you don't drive a huge ass truck with a V8 Hemi in it!", or "You arent really a woman unless you look like Jessica Alba!" or "You are only as important as your financial portfolio." "You owe 10% of your income to Jesus!" etc.. etc.
People in the US are unhappy because of these things as well:
Paranoia: Be it terrorists, drunk drivers, pedophiles, Democrats, Republicans, communists, heathen sinners, heathen scientists, conservatives, liberals, arabs, asians, russians, WHATEVER--- The US has had a revolving culture of paranoia since the 50s. We now ACTIVELY LOOK for threats, even when there arent any, and take the absence of such threats as being an indication of grand conspiracies. Because of our paranoia, we are unable to engage in worthwhile, and satisfying activities like--- Letting our kids play outside, or talking with the neighbor. Instead we envision Chester the Molester with a box of candy in one hand and duct tape in the other pulling up in a panel van--- or envision scary cultists as being our neighbors. Very unhealthy.
Superiority complex: The US has a fixation on being "Number 1!"-- whatever the fuck that means. Number 1 at what-- percentage of the population incarcerated? -- Regardless, being "Number 1" creates a c
That was not the intention with that statement, though I suppose it could be interpreted in that fashion.
What I was getting at, is that it would be an obvious evolution of a handheld device for its contents to reorient like that, given the already existing technology of multi-axis accelerometers, and of self-reorienting displays of other technical origin.
This ties in with the "Clock radio" argument, like this:
Apple did not invent the multi-axis accelerometer (at least, I don't think they did...), nor did they invent the touch screen. (though they do hold patents for multitouch.) They are claiming the reorienting touchscreen as a brand new invention, after essentially attaching one with the other, in much the same fashion as the creation of an alarm clock radio.
I was pointing out that the claimed prior art of reorienting displays makes the only remaining "novel" part of the patent request not so novel, because the idea of a reorienting display is quite old.
This is like trying to patent the alarm clock radio "Now made with LEDs instead of nixie tubes, and small enough to fit on a watch!" as being an independent, and distinct invention from your ordinary alarm clock radio.
Now, if the display was some radically new technology, I would accept a patent on the radically new technological component-- but not a blanket patent on all self-orienting displays that make use of accellerometers, like this one tries to do.
Forgive me, but that's like saying something like:
"Yes, you have prior art for an alarm clock, and for a radio, but my patent is for an alarmclock radio!"
The same reasons why you would want a display that can auto-rotate the contents based on screen orientation on a large fixed display would be equally applicable to a portable one, thus making the invention fail the obviousness requirement.
Duh-- If you are holding something in your hand, you would consider it useful for it to rotate when you turned it over, so you arent reading it upside down or sideways. Same with rotating a fixed display.
There is a serious problem with blanket reasoning like this:
I live in a 3 bedroom, 1 bath house, with 2 stories. It costs a whopping 25k. I make 35k every year.
The reason my house is so cheap? I live out in timbuktu. It is literally a 40 minute commute. You know, the kind of place that this kind of broadband deployment is meant to service.
Computations on house price discounts the quality of the homes being purchased. My house is pretty nice actually. It is just inconveniently located. The adjusted price it would fetch if it was in a major city would be closer to 100k+. (In CA, it would probably be closer to 250k+. HELL, when I went on vacation to the valley area last year, I saw a realestate ad for a FUCKING SHACK WITHOUT RUNNING WATER and dubious utility permits being sold for 280k. My house is leaps and bounds better than that! --- At less than 1/10th the price!)
Then there is the financial income disconnect, which as stated appears to completely disregard local economic factors that change the cost of living. In CA, my 35k/year would have me living in a garbage can. I wouldn't even be able to buy food on that. Yet, where I live right now, I can afford to eat out pretty much every day, afford over 100$/week on gas, and I can easily afford broadband. I pay 70$/mo for DSL, in fact.In fact, I am fortunate enough that the tiny town I live in could garner enough clout to *get* DSL (Probably because it houses the state's largest Rodeo event every year, depite having less than 1000 residents.) . It is not the most fantastic DSL in the world, but at least I can freaking GET it.
Most other rural people in Kansas cannot get even reliable telephone service! (My mom for instance. Landline phones? HAH! The telephone infrastructure out there is over 50 years old, and I am NOT kidding. The lines hiss, pop, crackle, and are useless for even voice communication, let alone data. The amount of crosstalk on the circuits is obscene. I have actually TESTED her dialup performance out there-- Less than 28.8, on a GOOD day, with a GOOD hardware-based modem! Dont even ask what your typical software flow control winmodems get... We are talking 3rd world country style connects here.) We had to break down and get her and my dad cellular telephones just to have reliable voice service, and even that isnt terribly reliable. I am fully expecting to have to build a utility pole in their back yard with a cellular repeater on the top of it to get them reliable service.
The only reason why there is telephone service *AT ALL* in most rural places in Kansas, is because an act of congress similar to the discussed one went through in the late 40s/early 50s.
(This is also the EXACT reason why the telephone infrastructure is literally 50 year old technology, with manual copper tie-ins, and the whole enchelada. It went in, and they promptly forgot that it existed--- Oh, except to charge for fees, of course.)
The real reason why reports like this one, disparaging the implementation of such directives, get created and passed around is because telephone operators, and now data network operators (Is there really a difference?) REALLY enjoy their natural wire monopolies, and like to offer the minimal level of service, regardless of the region being serviced. This is why San Francisco residents get the same crappy DSL service (Comparable anyway) that I get in Nowheresville Ks.
So, the reasons for this report, and others like it, boil down to these basic things:
1) The telecom companies like to get fat paychecks without investing in infrastructure, regardless of the venue.
2) Because of 1, they like to build out in areas of high population density-- Not because it is easier to service (That is merely a tangental issue)-- but because you can get a higher density of fat paychecks for minimal service, per service franchise area. That is to say, it is less about cost of maintenance, and all about cashflow density per LEGAL interaction.
3) Also because of 1, such buildouts are the minim
Given that lasers are plasma ablative, ordinary ceramic armors would probably be more effective, and would have the added bonus of also stopping conventional weapons.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, you can pen&paper logical operations like that as well, using logical notation.
This sort of appeal could cripple the likes of MPEG-LA and pals though, because codecs are essentially fancy math at the core.
Hell, is you accept mathematical notations, then hand-written code samples with worked out code execution should also be applicable, because at the most abstracted level they are essentially tha same kind of construct.
(Mathematical notation is just a limited language for dealing with quantities, using a linear process. Logical notation does the same thing but with relations, and computer source code does both and has extentions for repeated processes.)
Correction. Soldiers swear to uphold the US constitution, not to obey orders.
As for the latter--
Bombing the shit out of (oil rich country) so that uncle sam's 'all american oil interests international' can come in and 'help rebuild' is just the international version of assaulting and harassing private citizens so that (local elction bid project, by 'mayor's nephew construction co.') Can be pulled off without a hitch. Similar to the vietnam 'Uncle Sam's Heroin Inc." Is just the larger version of "corrupt cops on the take."
The difference is simply one of which 'enforcement' agency is involved.
You must not watch much fox news, or listen to the talking heads on talk radio. (Something I am sadly subjected to by ideologue relatives.)
While I could see the reason to divide 'blame the soldiers' with 'blame the govt that sent them' I also must stress that 'I was only following orders' does not absolve persons of guilt in cases of wrongdoing.
As for the 'Support our troops' line not being purposefully confused by the media and from DOD representatives to de-facto imply that you MUST support the stupid wars we have sent our people to die in, I simply have to question what form of domestic reporting you have been consuming. IIRC, we were demonizng people left and right under the bush admin ("America, love it or GTFO" type slurs against people critical of our occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq, and also later of GITMO) for suggesting that our actions were out of line. The public controversy over "The dixie chicks" spings instantly to mind--
Further, with the Vietnam confict there was an involuntary draft. These days they just pressure people to enlist through bogus government "shcolarship" programs. Choosing to become complicit with the destructive whims of our current government for cash is quite worthy of some level of contempt in my book.
Mostly because of the following appeal to emotion type argument:
"The police face dangerous people every day, and need to be able to respond to percieved threats accordingly. Enforcing more strict controls over police escallation of violence places our public servants (The people who protect us from violent offenders) at risk. You dont want to be responsible for letting criminals run loose because you prevented the police from reacting, do you?"
This argument bears a superficial resemblence to the "Support our TRUUPES!" argument:
"Our men and women in uniform fight to protect our freedoms from dangerous terrorists overseas. If you dont support our men and women in the armed forces, you are selling out our country, and are complicit in the terrorist's cause."
Both provide "Enforcement" agencies with Carte Blanc to do pretty much watever they feel like, because if you disagree with the tactics or reasons for their activities, "You are a criminal/terrorist sympathizer."
No self-respecting politician with any hope of being re-elected will act on either agency in any fashion besides a stern wrist slapping, because of the danger of violating the de-facto taboo that these appeals to emotion invoke, regardless of how desperately these entities actually need such corrective action. (This is why the GITMO prisoner torture was downplayed, and why "Wiretapping" charges keep getting lodged against citizens reporting and recording instances of police wrongdoing.)
Additionally, the egregious activities of these agencies work hand-in-hand with power hungry parent entities (City, State, and Federal governments), because slowly escellating violence against both foriegn and domestic entities desensitizes the public, and allows for greater abuses of power at higher levels without causing moral panic or alarm.
Without some form of mass moral outrage against these practices, and I mean *RIGHT NOW*, there will be no going back and this country will continue to fast-track toward a police-state.
T-mobile has 4g GSM.
I used it to send this message.
Evolution favors local optima, not general optima.
Photosynthetic lifeforms use either anthrocyanins, or chlorophylls. (Or both)
Each reacts to a different band of energy. Chloropyll reacts predominantly to yellow and red light, but totally ignores other kinds of light, like UV, or blue light. (Chlorophyll does faintly flouresce under uv light, but does not use it for photosynthesis).
Making plantlife that can absorb even just the whole of the visible spectrun (which would make them black instead of green) would mean a great deal for renewable fuel production. Being able to harvest very high energy photons, like UV even more so. (While UV light constitutes less than 3% of our solar spectrum, the individual photons themselves pack considerably more energy. That is why UV is ionizing radiation.)
Properly used, "black algae" would greatly increase the energy production capability of biofuels per square meter space used.
Nature did not produce such a thing because nature only finds 'good enough' solutions. The algae we have gets enough energy to thrive, and is not under any pressure to become more efficient.
I remember reading that "absurdly powerful" laser light on contact with a gold target will generate copious antimatter emmisions.
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/12/01/antimatter-laser.html
If something similar happens with thorium, it 'might' induce decay reactions through antimatter reactions in the already unstable nuclei of the thorium...
On the other hand, creating engineered novel protiens and biomechanics could open the doors to a whole range of "Very very cool" things.
Take for instance, slime molds modified to produce long chain carbon nanofiber as they crawl along, or plants able to extract energy from a wider frequency band than is currently possible with photosynthesis (Or even to do so more efficiently.)
Simply because the substance is artifically engineered does not necessarily mean it is going to cause problems. (and if it does, it will just spark a flash of evolutionary progression in impacted species, much like antibiotics have done for microbes.)
I can see this being used in foodstuffs, especially where Monsanto is involved, but where I see this really shining is in materials science. Microbes are the most efficient nano-machines in existence. Being able to custom program them to make novel substances and materials is a fundemental leap on technology.
Strange, I was under the impression that there was a constitutional right to prevent such things.. You know, the 5th amendment, which clearly says:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
The definition of "Just" in "Just compensation" is debatable, or course--- (In the case of it rendering a farm useless, what would be considered just compensation? Compensation for the loss of production, or just for the base-price of the property itself?) but your view on emminent domain is quite clearly not what was intended by the framers of the constitution.
In the rare occurance where you are not being sarcastic---- Please allow me to slap you silly.
Second law of thermodynamics: In a closed system entropy can only increase, and not dissipate.
In a nut-shell--- The energy you expend to control the heat, will produce more heat than you process, making the problem even worse.
The only useful solution would be to find a way to radiate the heat into space more efficiently than the earth currently does on its own. This would be difficult to do without something exotic like a space elevator with a great big honking heatsink on it, that radiates shitpiles of BTUs of blackbody energy directly into space.
Even *IF* you did that, then you would have the same long term problem that the voyager anomaly has--- the emitted blackbody radiation would act as low-level thrust against the planet, and would subtly disrupt the earth's orbit over time.
The glaringly obvious answers are:
1) Put a cap on energy use on the planet, so that energy production does not exceed thermal dissipation of the earth's atmosphere.
2) Move a substantial portion of our population off the earth.
By the numbers everything else will fail, barring a self-correcting catastrophe or two.
Uhm? The complaint was not about XP.
It was about win7, and the lack of GDI+ only fallback rendering. As another poster pointed out, you can disable uxsms, and force win7 to use GDI+, but my own research on that topic points out that it is not accelerated, and uses software only rendering when you do that.
It could be point data, rendered through a subpixel renderer.
Instead of 3d voxels in the traditional sense, it would be 1d points in 3d space, with luminance, specularity, and fuzziness variables assigned. After that it is just lighting and pixel shading, which would be embarrassingly parallel. You would render the scene as a 2d canvas that fills the whole viewport.
LOD would be based on the available viewport resolution.
High quality voxel graphics with dynamic deformation would allow a whole new level of user-generated content.
Imagine something like world of warcraft meets second life, but without all the furries. (Something where if you take a shovel, and dig, you can dig up rocks, and other bits-- or even bury loot, or build a house out of ambient materials, and have it be persistent.)
Some people might complain that it opens the doors to world vandalism ([sarcasm]Oh dear, somebody wrote the word "Penis" in 30 foot letters on the ground by making trenches! They even drew one next to the word! Oh, think of the children! [/sarcasm]) but I think such vandalism would actually allow a richer and more dynamic character interaction to such a world, because it would motivate people to go clean it up.
Think-- sandcastles at the beach, Footprints in the sand, and other immersive details that could result.
The idea here is not to try to entertain the user directly, but to supply the user with what they need to entertain themselves, or others.
Ok, First, let me apologize for the violent tone of this reply--- This is something I feel very strongly about, because it directly impacts how well I can do my work, and could be solved fairly painlessly If redmond would be a little more considerate, I think.
That said:
(As a home user) I refuse to use an operating system that treats me like I dont know what an ACL is, or how to set up user accounts as more than just "User" or "administrator". (For starters.)
Windows 2000 at least had reasonably transparent access to filesystem and registry ACLs, and didnt try to bilk me for "Premium!" just so I can make a limited user that can manage print jobs, and can see/delete what is in other user's home folders. (Think, parents wanting to see what is in their kids accounts, without being so stupid as to run as the administrator). XP started doing bullshit there with Home when they axed the local users and groups MMC snap-in, but otherwise it gets a "Passable" score.
Further, (as both a corporate user and as a home user) I hate it that windows 7 forces the issue with the UI, and consider it deal-breaking.
Yes. I realize that GPUs are much more powerful now. The same issue with "I want to get fucking shit done, not watch bouncing shit on my screen." applies. That is why you have XFCE and other minimalist window managers, even on very very modern linuxes with obscene hardware. Some people DONT LIKE THAT SHIT, and I AM ONE OF THEM.
(Hell, I have seen linux WMs that are basically just an XTerm window, so I *KNOW* I am not alone here.)
Now then-- For the "Rather than being wasted" argument...
Did it ever occur to you that there are useful windows programs that make heavy use of GPU hardware that AREN'T GAMES? I am a CAD/CAM draftsman, and I have literally KILLED GPUs (as in, "melted solder WITH proper cooling" killed) under heavy use before. I *HATE* sharing resources *THAT I NEED* with animated icons, Transparency effects and stupid desktop widgets. (*ESPECIALLY ones I cannot fully disable, because "that would make it look tacky" or similar crap that I would expect from Cupertino, and not Redmond. Stevie Wonder and his magic liver, along with his white plastic worshiping hipsters can take a long walk off a short pier. I hate the influence they have had over computing environments, and no-- they did not invent the GUI, XEROX PARC did, and theirs wasn't bloated.)
When you are rendering a complex industrial assemblage (Think half of a whole jumbo jet, including fasteners--In NURBS solids--) for engineering purposes, you need all you can get. Being able to actually, you know-- TURN OFF the bloated GUI would be "Thoughtful", don't you think?
Acting like the GPU is "being wasted" while in normal desktop space kinda precludes that notion, doesn't it? I am not asking that everyone be stuck in 1990s 2D blitting mode because of my preferences--- I am just asking for *THE OPTION* to turn it off, and I mean REALLY turn it off. (My case should not be considered "edge" either-- There are any number of other disciplines besides engineering that would benefit greatly by not having vital resources considered "wasted" unless the GUI is gobbling them down-- Like crypto-analysis, protein folding simulations, and anything that uses the GPU for massively parallel processing.)
I could tolerate XP, because I could turn on classic interface, turn off all the BS and be done. I cant do that with Win7. Microsoft has forced the issue with "You will go where we *say* today!" and abandoned "Where do you WANT to go today?" What I *NEED* is an x64 windows box, WITHOUT the window dressing. That is *NOT* what microsoft is offering. XP x64 DOES offer that, but it has serious lack of driver support. I have it on one of my systems at home that is dedicated to off the clock engineering time, and it works adequately. Sadly I can't have that at work, because it was never released in such a capacity from Microsoft.
That is why I use Linux for my home desktop, and at work, I am counting the days un
A friend of mine still runs windows 2000, and that only at my extreme nudging that he should drop 9X flavored kernels several years ago.
Given how I dislike Microsoft's current move toward treating users like cattle (Really, how else can you explain the current incarnation of the control pannel?) I can't make myself push him to upgrade again.
I'd push him to Linux, if Wine could support his "Really old graphic arts software" he runs.
He is very much computing in a 90s timewarp, and doesnt want to leave it.
(at least he is very mindful about what kinds of TCP/UDP connections are open when he is on the internet. He has gone so far in the past as to abandon software because it opens mystery ports.)
I would really like to point him toward a power-user friendly 64bit microsoft OS, since windows is what he is familar with, but the closest thing I can find is XP x64, which is by no small stretch of the term "Not user friendly", especially when it comes to finding drivers that will work with it.
I can understand why microsoft needs to release new OSes every 3 to 5 years--- They HAVE to make new sales to stay in business--- But, what I dont understand is why they moved away from 'Clean and efficient', and toward "So full of eyecandy it gives me a toothache in my eyeballs".
Really, the drab, simplistic UI of the 2000 era was great. I can't be the only one who uses a computer to get shit done, rather than be "entertained" by having my desktop picture cycle every X minutes, or by some resource consuming desktop widget.
(which is precisely why I personally have switched to Linux, and use a minimalist window manager.)
I suspect a large part of the "I Dont like Vista and windows 7" users that this article is bagging on, dislike those two new options for many of the same reasons.
Can't microsoft just add a boot.ini switch or something to turn off "Dumbshit mode" or something?
Not entirely true I am afraid.
Several experiments were conducted in the 60s and 70s on children raised in gender neutral parenting conditions, that focused on toy choices.
The experiment was intended to show the impact of societal imperitives on children and gender identities and gender specific behaviors, using toy preferences as metric.
The result of the test STILL had little girls favoring dollies with bright colors, and boys favoring machines and soldier type toys, even when very carefully imposed gender neutrality parenting was in effect, even from very young ages.
This is somewhat reinforced by more modern research into the physiological differences between male and female nervous systems.
The idea that men and women might intrinsically focus more on different concepts (and thus, relate to their environments differently from each other, and as such, describe them differently in literature) is not really all that far-fetched.
It is simply politically incorrect to state that women might actually have a biological proclevity toward being the "Domestic" partner in relationships given the current political climate of our western post-sufferage societies.
Somehow, "Staying home, taking care of babies, and doing the chores all day." is seen as a degrading thing, while "Standing in an assembly line inserting part A into assembly B ad nauseum all day" is somehow seen in an idealized fashion as a kind of "Freedom"-- however sick that might be in reality not withstanding.
Now, if you want to complain about women being statistically paid less than men, I will strongly support your argument that it (the practice) is based on pure bull--- But the statement that men and women are innately gender neutral and get conditioned exclusively by stereotypes? that is not supported by behaviorists.
Gender stereotypes simply reinforce already existent behaviors, for better or for worse.
Forgive me if I am wrong (I dont mean to sound like a total fuckwad or anything...).. But isn't it impossible for photon to be totally massless, given that it can decay into an electron/positron pair while traversing vaccuum?
A truly massless vector particle would have a local time of 0, since it would be traveling at the maximum allowed velocity...(and thus it would take an infinite amount of time in any other reference frame for it to even initiate decay...) This was part of why Neutrinos were re-evaluated, when it was discovered that they could change flavors en-route from the sun to the earth. (It means they cannot be massless, because they change over time/can decay.)
While the mass of a photon would be so tiny as to be unmeasurable, it MUST have a mass, because it is ABLE to decay.
No?
One of the problems with LiON cells is that the logic controller can get the wrong impression about the state of the cell it is controlling. (This is for various reasons, but the most common is that it uses a function of charge/discharge time, and voltage output per cell to determine if the cell is bad or not.)
Some charging solutions "Pulse charge" a cell to bring the voltage back up to the point where the charge logic will turn the cell back on again, but this is dangerous because the pulsing can make lithium dendrites in the cell. (Solutions like "Battery conditioners" that try to revive "dead" batteries.)
By being able to hotwire the firmware, you should be able to force the charge logic to re-enable cells using a more sophisticated host-processor controlled logic formula, to better detect truly bad cells, and turn "Not really bad, but miscalibrated" cells back on again.
Such a thing could be a very hot seller, especially given Apple's proclevity for insisting that batteries never be removed or serviced.
Fusion?
I had a random idea several months ago that I think might work but would be impractical in the "We need metric shit-tons of energy *NAOW!*" climate we live in.
Basically, the main problems with current fusion systems are the following:
Concentrating the plasma tight enough to release over unity energy directly often causes pinching of the magnetic confinement feild, cutting off plasma flow, and killing the fusion reaction. (A little like turning the gas up too high on a cutting torch blows the flame out, only in this case the confinement snaps the plasma stream, making it stop conducting electricity, causing the plasma to disperse violently, such as in Z-Pinch type devices.)
Instances where the magnetic confinement field does not pinch off the plasma flow often are extremely expensive to operate under, requiring lots of power to contain/maintain the fusion. (Currently more than is usefully generated by the reaction-- Such as in Tokamak style fusors.)
Low energy confinement fusion favors production of neutrons which are useless for power generation, and difficult to shield. (Such as found in Farnsworth type fusors.)
It was the last one that gave me the idea:
Carbon 14 is a neutron bombardment synthesized isotope of carbon, created from nitrogen atoms. It is also beta-voltaic. It decays back into nitrogen after emitting a high energy electron, and a (Tau?) neutrino. When assembled into nanostructures, it is also highly conductive in and of itself, just like carbon 12.
Because of these properties of carbon 14, I had the strange idea that if you surrounded a farnsworth type fusor (The easiest to construct of the 3 types above.) with a large metal spherical capsule, filled with carbon aerogel and liquid nitrogen (which does not need to be refrigerated or circulated once installed. The vessel is meant to be pressurized to maintain fluidity of the contents.) you could effectively use this shell as a neutron conversion catalyst to convert neutron emissions into high energy electron emissions, gather them up, and channel them for power generation.
The carbon aeogel inside the vessel does not need to be C14. It can be ordinary C12 and work just fine. It functions as the cathode matrix for the beta-voltaic emissions of the C14 that gets developed inside the converter. Since it is ALREADY a highly porous nanostructural carbon material, it conducts electricity fairly well, and can be totally immersed in the liquid nitrogen reactant.
As the neutrons from the farnsworth fusor pass through the catalyst, they get absorbed by the nitrogen atoms, turning them into C14 atoms. These atoms would be energetic, and would tend to "cling" to the existing carbon nano-structures of the aerogel. As they decay, the turn back into nitrogen, and detach.
After a sufficient incubation period, the device should be capable of turning an otherwise "Hobby novelty only" farnsworth into a useful power generating device.
Problems:
Size. The catalyst chamber would need to be very large to have reasonably good statistical rate of neutron capture, even with highly pressurized nitrogen inside.
Cost. Carbon aerogel is expensive... (Liquid nitrogen is fairly cheap. Cheaper than beer.)
Time. It would take a considerable charging period before useful power output would be detected from the catalyst system.
Pros:
C14 has an obscenely long half-life. The catalyst layer would continue to produce electrical energy for extended periods of time, even with the fusion reaction totally shut off. (Arguably thousands of years.....)
Production of carbon isotopes intrinsically within the catalyst layer would actively regenerate damage to the nanostructures of the cathode, which normally plagues betavoltaic devices.
The high energy nature would help to ensure tight ring structures like fullerene cages and the like.
Unknowns:
Ideal hardness and energy level of harvested neutronic emissions for ideal C14 creation in the cataylst. Reason: Fucking paywalls.
Ideal thickness of catalyst layer for optimal absorbtion. Reason: Fucking paywalls.
We lack the ability to self-actualize without being hemmed in by artificial constraints.
"You can't do that, because*..."
*where the reason could be any one or more of the following non-exclusive things:
Only rich people can do that, and you are not rich enough. ... ...
The government says you can't.
You will be seen as batshit crazy if you do it- (possibly comitted.)
It will have negative consequences toward your employment. (EG, HR datamining social networking before hiring, etc..)
Your new mechanical project resembles a bomb to your neighbors.
Your insistence on doing science at home raises the hackles of civil administrators, regardless of how many state and industry certifications you hold. (Where science could be as simple as analytical chemistry [Administrator: OMG, A METH LAB!], high energy physics [OMG! A BOMB!], cryptographic research [OMG! A CYBER TERRORIST!] Simple evolutionary research on algae [OMG! BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS!] and a host of other kneejerk reactions to simple, and harmless to society, but still useful research paths that could be done at home...)
Because thats what terrorists do.
Because "that makes baby Jesus cry"
Because we already patented that, and you didnt pay us money.
The short of it, is that people are leading un-fulfilling lives, because they cannot satisfy their dreams and aspirations, for a whole host of reasons-- Most of which are artificial, and arbitrary in nature. (Usually implemented to protect some other person's financial bottom line.)
Most americans have conflated "Money" with happiness, rather than seeing it as a means to attain happiness. (A tool, like a screwdriver, or a wrench. A screwdriver turns screws, a wrench turns bolts-- and money turns arbitrary restraints your way so you can self-actualize. Unless used, these tools do nothing.)
As such, most americans fret over money, use it inappropriately, and labor endlessly to obtain it, leaving little if any time for developing real happiness.
EG-- corporate dad is fucking LOADED with money-- but still misses his child's ball games, and has a shitty home life, because--- he is married to the office. (why? because he wrongly conflates money with happiness/success, and thinks more is always better.)
On the flip side of that spectrum, you have those that overspend their money, and live hand-to-mouth while also having big screen televisions, etc..... they impact lower levels of the hierarchy (basic needs) by having a loss of security (no money to pay bills == no food, no water, no electricity, etc...)
People engage in both behaviors because of social engineering by financially interested parties-- Corporations, banks, churches, etc... "Your manliness is in question if you don't drive a huge ass truck with a V8 Hemi in it!", or "You arent really a woman unless you look like Jessica Alba!" or "You are only as important as your financial portfolio." "You owe 10% of your income to Jesus!" etc.. etc.
People in the US are unhappy because of these things as well:
Paranoia: Be it terrorists, drunk drivers, pedophiles, Democrats, Republicans, communists, heathen sinners, heathen scientists, conservatives, liberals, arabs, asians, russians, WHATEVER--- The US has had a revolving culture of paranoia since the 50s. We now ACTIVELY LOOK for threats, even when there arent any, and take the absence of such threats as being an indication of grand conspiracies. Because of our paranoia, we are unable to engage in worthwhile, and satisfying activities like--- Letting our kids play outside, or talking with the neighbor. Instead we envision Chester the Molester with a box of candy in one hand and duct tape in the other pulling up in a panel van--- or envision scary cultists as being our neighbors. Very unhealthy.
Superiority complex:
The US has a fixation on being "Number 1!"-- whatever the fuck that means. Number 1 at what-- percentage of the population incarcerated? -- Regardless, being "Number 1" creates a c
That was not the intention with that statement, though I suppose it could be interpreted in that fashion.
What I was getting at, is that it would be an obvious evolution of a handheld device for its contents to reorient like that, given the already existing technology of multi-axis accelerometers, and of self-reorienting displays of other technical origin.
This ties in with the "Clock radio" argument, like this:
Apple did not invent the multi-axis accelerometer (at least, I don't think they did...), nor did they invent the touch screen. (though they do hold patents for multitouch.) They are claiming the reorienting touchscreen as a brand new invention, after essentially attaching one with the other, in much the same fashion as the creation of an alarm clock radio.
I was pointing out that the claimed prior art of reorienting displays makes the only remaining "novel" part of the patent request not so novel, because the idea of a reorienting display is quite old.
This is like trying to patent the alarm clock radio "Now made with LEDs instead of nixie tubes, and small enough to fit on a watch!" as being an independent, and distinct invention from your ordinary alarm clock radio.
Now, if the display was some radically new technology, I would accept a patent on the radically new technological component-- but not a blanket patent on all self-orienting displays that make use of accellerometers, like this one tries to do.
Forgive me, but that's like saying something like:
"Yes, you have prior art for an alarm clock, and for a radio, but my patent is for an alarmclock radio!"
The same reasons why you would want a display that can auto-rotate the contents based on screen orientation on a large fixed display would be equally applicable to a portable one, thus making the invention fail the obviousness requirement.
Duh-- If you are holding something in your hand, you would consider it useful for it to rotate when you turned it over, so you arent reading it upside down or sideways. Same with rotating a fixed display.
There is a serious problem with blanket reasoning like this:
I live in a 3 bedroom, 1 bath house, with 2 stories. It costs a whopping 25k. I make 35k every year.
The reason my house is so cheap? I live out in timbuktu. It is literally a 40 minute commute. You know, the kind of place that this kind of broadband deployment is meant to service.
Computations on house price discounts the quality of the homes being purchased. My house is pretty nice actually. It is just inconveniently located. The adjusted price it would fetch if it was in a major city would be closer to 100k+. (In CA, it would probably be closer to 250k+. HELL, when I went on vacation to the valley area last year, I saw a realestate ad for a FUCKING SHACK WITHOUT RUNNING WATER and dubious utility permits being sold for 280k. My house is leaps and bounds better than that! --- At less than 1/10th the price!)
Then there is the financial income disconnect, which as stated appears to completely disregard local economic factors that change the cost of living. In CA, my 35k/year would have me living in a garbage can. I wouldn't even be able to buy food on that. Yet, where I live right now, I can afford to eat out pretty much every day, afford over 100$/week on gas, and I can easily afford broadband. I pay 70$/mo for DSL, in fact.In fact, I am fortunate enough that the tiny town I live in could garner enough clout to *get* DSL (Probably because it houses the state's largest Rodeo event every year, depite having less than 1000 residents.) . It is not the most fantastic DSL in the world, but at least I can freaking GET it.
Most other rural people in Kansas cannot get even reliable telephone service! (My mom for instance. Landline phones? HAH! The telephone infrastructure out there is over 50 years old, and I am NOT kidding. The lines hiss, pop, crackle, and are useless for even voice communication, let alone data. The amount of crosstalk on the circuits is obscene. I have actually TESTED her dialup performance out there-- Less than 28.8, on a GOOD day, with a GOOD hardware-based modem! Dont even ask what your typical software flow control winmodems get... We are talking 3rd world country style connects here.) We had to break down and get her and my dad cellular telephones just to have reliable voice service, and even that isnt terribly reliable. I am fully expecting to have to build a utility pole in their back yard with a cellular repeater on the top of it to get them reliable service.
The only reason why there is telephone service *AT ALL* in most rural places in Kansas, is because an act of congress similar to the discussed one went through in the late 40s/early 50s.
(This is also the EXACT reason why the telephone infrastructure is literally 50 year old technology, with manual copper tie-ins, and the whole enchelada. It went in, and they promptly forgot that it existed--- Oh, except to charge for fees, of course.)
The real reason why reports like this one, disparaging the implementation of such directives, get created and passed around is because telephone operators, and now data network operators (Is there really a difference?) REALLY enjoy their natural wire monopolies, and like to offer the minimal level of service, regardless of the region being serviced. This is why San Francisco residents get the same crappy DSL service (Comparable anyway) that I get in Nowheresville Ks.
So, the reasons for this report, and others like it, boil down to these basic things:
1) The telecom companies like to get fat paychecks without investing in infrastructure, regardless of the venue.
2) Because of 1, they like to build out in areas of high population density-- Not because it is easier to service (That is merely a tangental issue)-- but because you can get a higher density of fat paychecks for minimal service, per service franchise area. That is to say, it is less about cost of maintenance, and all about cashflow density per LEGAL interaction.
3) Also because of 1, such buildouts are the minim
Given that lasers are plasma ablative, ordinary ceramic armors would probably be more effective, and would have the added bonus of also stopping conventional weapons.
Conversely, there are fundemental limitations of what this muddy dirtball can handle, and limits to what technology can accomplish.
The ideal course is to understand both, and proceed accordingly.
To do otherwise is to invite disaster.