It says right on the front page that it is against the law to copy them!
That doesn't mean that it actually is you know. I've got a little book here with the American constitution as virtually it's only content with a copyright notice on it.
Would you prefer the XML format they designed to be GPLed? Wouldn't that make it useless? Everyone could modify the format and then you wouldn't have a standard format?
Everyone can modify their standard. That's what the "X" in XML is all about, and this standard is just a modification of the XML standard.
Just like everyone and his brother modifies HTML.
You haven't read the license. It's virtually "GPL Lite."
The reason for that is fairly simple. It isn't a real license like the GPL. It's highly doubtful that it has any legal bearing at all other than as a justification to sick lawyers on you if they want. Since the license is indefensible at its very core, there isn't much point at throwing a lot of hard core legalese into the license. Just a few paragraphs anyone can read and understand and be done with it.
A DTD is a trade secret. Like the CSS stuff. Once it's distributed it ceases to be a trade secret. It doesn't need to be machine interpreted. It's simply knowledge anyone can carry around in their brain and transmit to another human brain through the medium of speech.
I might point out that guitar tab is music notation. Just one developed explicitly for a single instrument of a particular physical configuration. The standard notation is basically one that was developed for voice and keyboard, both instruments lacking in certain peculiarities of the guitar.
If I simply wish to transfer generic information about a particular score standard notation is fine.
If I wish to transfer information about how a particular piece is played, and thus even how it might sound, on a guitar I either have to mark up standard notation so badly it becomes really, really bad guitar tabulature. ..
The MusicXML DTD is available under a royalty-free license from Recordare. This license is modeled on those from the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). If you follow the terms of the license, you do not need to pay anyone to use MusicXML in your products or research
****
In theory, I suppose, you could try to make an XML DTD propriatary, if you wanted go around suing anyone with a pair of eyes (it isn't a file format, it's a Document Type Defintion. A human readable text file defining the tags for a human readable text file. You can save the XML text in any file format you like).
The "trade secret" is pretty much out of the bag as soon as you read the standard.
Yeah, well, ya always gotta tack that "standard conditions" disclaimer onto things. Sea level, flat, still air, Colnago, silks, yadda yadda yadda.
Pre Eddie B we had Stan Swaim and The Dorset Training Group in Vermont. That's about as close to a national program that there was. Anybody who felt they needed to tune up before a nationals or an Olympic tryout or something would head there. Lovely riding country and the altitude is just pleasant.
It was all very chummy and informal. Our international results stank. But I miss it.
Solar's nice, but it's flakey. I wouldn't want to stake a military operation on it, even in the desert. Silicon cells are damnably fragile, but the flexible ones have a fraction the efficiency. A couple percent for the very best of the them, compared to about 35 percent for the best silicon cells.
So you need a much larger surface area for the flexibles. Not necessarily a big deal for a command post but an issue in the field. Which is the only place battery life is an issue anyway. At a command post it simply becomes a supply issue.
And then there's the fact that in Iraq they did all the operations they could at night.
Night is definately one of the weaknesses of solar.
One of the major complaints of the troops in Iraq is battery life. Everything has batteries in it. Even the helmets have battery packs.
GPS was a necessary tool in the dessert. The land is kinda flat and sand colored. All of it. There are no reference points and navigating on land becomes equivilent to navigating at sea. The "map" is a sand colored chart you can plot your points on, not so much a reference you can use to get from one place to another.
They loved laptops, but only because they could power them from a vehicle. They were issued PDAs but found them fairly useless because the battery life was too short in the field.
It's the new, high tech army, sponsored by Duracell and the Energizer Bunny.
There are some obvious advantages to this display. Of course it's light, it uses little power, in some respects it can be used as a chart. You can mark it. It doesn't physically break anymore than a plastic placemat breaks. It's water proof. So long as it get data the single display can be any map the data source has access to so you don't need to be lugging around huge stacks of charts.
But the biggest thing that negates some of the advantages this display has is that it is inherently static state. That is to say it only needs to be powered to change the display. Not only does that mean very little power drain in use, it means once an image is displayed it can be completely disconected from the power and any other device and the image remains.
That's pretty frickin' cool.
I'm already planning (I've already read about this thing) to use a screen like this for the electronic navigation system of a new boat. Take a GPS reading, or display a bit of chart, turn it off and the reading/chart remains. One brief flash of power than off again.
On the other hand if you think I'm going bluewater without a chronometer and sextant you're nuts. I always expect electronic gear to fail about the second day out. I'm often right.
This is hardly their blind spot. They're working so hard to irrevocably tie all these things into the OS because they're painfully aware of the difference.
And that's why their doing so is an illegal monopolistic practice, forcing people into their fold outside the bounds of the OS proper by leveraging the power they have over the OS.
When judging the technical merits of an MS product obviously you use technical standards. But it's always a mistake to infer from those technical standards that MS is unaware of them. They choose/i. to violate good technical standards because their motivation is not technical.
It's money and power.
So it makes sense, from their perspective, to knowingly do technically daft things because technology isn't their goal, it's only their means.
And before I was researching bicycle dynamics (didn't really learn much about bicycles, but I learned a lot about data acquisition since I had to scratch build all my testing gear) I was a kid in Vermont shoveling shit in exchange for riding time.
Another reason the bicycle ended the reign of the horse. And all that shit happens because an idle horse burns fuel and requires maintainence, a lot of it.
Bicycles don't run up $3000 dollar vet bills and then die anyway either.
Still haven't been able to dig that one up. I've got some graphs here comparing human power output to that of a horse, but that's a horse of a different color.
On the other hand if you've done any riding of both it's surprising at first, but reflection bears it out.
If you try to sit on a horse like you do on a chair you'll get pounded to death. Your butt will turn to hamburger, your spine will get crunched (forensic examination of Custer's troops showed spinal degredation even among teenagers as I recall). You have to lift yourself up and down in stirrups in rythmn with the horse. Saves your butt and spine, but until you've done a fair amount of riding you'l come home with your legs aching. Riding a horse is a lot of work. This is why the genteel class prefered the surrey. Even if, for some reason, you choose to sit like a sack and take the pounding you'll burn a fair number of extra calories in the process. Riding a horse works all the muscles of the body, each burning calories, no matter how slightly.
On a bicycle you can simply sit; only the legs are really using extra calories; and fairly gentle pressure on the pedals will give you 8 mph or so on the level. Grandma can do this and keep it up all day. 12 mph is the speed a man with virtually depleted sugar stores can ride all day (although he won't enjoy it very much). An expert can ride at 15 mph until he falls asleep if he eats normally(the record average speed for crossing the US coast to coast is 15.3 mph, that average includes all downtime such as for sleeping. The clock started in California and stopped in Atlantic City NJ).
I have to note that all of this is highly speed dependant. For instance, it takes a world class athlete (horse or man) to hit 40 mph, but the jockey of a horse galloping at 40 mph is probably working at about the rate of a bicyclist going 20 mph; about.2 hp ( watch a horse race on the tube, the jockey ain't just sitting there), whereas it's obvious that a man on a bicycle going 40 mph is pushing the very limits of human capability. (I'll note though that American professional cyclist Jackie Simes III beat a trotter in a race at Saratoga Springs. I've ridden a bicycle race on the same track. Trust me, the horse was at the advantage here. I never, ever want to race a bicycle on a horse track again)
The bicycle is at the disadvantage going uphill or into the wind. On the other hand riding a bicycle downhill requires very little energy while riding a horse downhill requires more human energy.
None of it is very straight forward and thus the claim that a man on a horse uses more energy than a man on a bicycle is provisional based on the conditions.
As I recall the figure I have is for a horse at a trot of about 8 mph (which is why I chose that figure above) and a man bicycling at the same speed on the level in still air.
The man on the bicycle will be expending about.03 horsepower, barely more than walking to the fridge.
Yeah, in the mid 70s I was a bicycle researcher, which is why I have that chart, and why it is "somewhere," although I concentrated more on dynamics.
The computer was open architecture. A collection of parts, with the capability of freely swapping those parts out for others from any vendor. Those parts themselves, such as the Intel chips, were freely available on the open market. Making an IMB PC clone is no more "plagerizing" than making a car would be.
The BIOS was propriatary and it was the clean room reverse engineering of such that allowed the true clone.
You also have to understand the energy crisis culture at the time the fact that more scientific research went into bicycles in the previous ten years than probably all of thier history previous.
It was right about at that time that the number of bicycles in America once again outnumbered cars.
In 1980 in think there like 10,000 people in America who had ever heard of the Tour de France. In 1984 it was nearly as commonly known as the World Series.
Bicycle was actually a buzzword.
There is a species of albatros that lives entirely at sea for months at a time, generally soaring at little more than wave hight. It is so adapted to this enviroment and so efficeint in flight that it can sleep while so soaring.
Even though water is a dense medium animals that are adapted to it do not have to expend energy supporting their own weight. I've got the chart from MIT around here somewhere, but can't lay hands on it immediately, as I recall the dolphin and tuna and salmon topped the list for animal motion by its own power (a soaring bird may use little energy, but that's because it's not doing much of anything. Air and gravity are.) A Portugese Man-o-War simply floats with the tide, as a man in an innertube might. Torpor is very energy efficient.
So what animal is the most efficeint will change with your definition of "motion."
It is interesting to note, however, that not only is a man on a bicycle more energy efficient than a swimming dolphin, but he is more energy efficient than the same man riding a horse.
This is why the invention of the bicycle was such a stunning technological step that transformed society even before the advent of the motor car. The first smooth paved roads were made for the bicycle. The cars uspurped them.
I'll be aiming for the Orkneys from there with a BikeFriday stashed somewhere aboard. Spend the summer pottering about the British Isles, then run for the Azores when the weather starts to turn.
Gotta finish the boat the raise some cash first though.
i>1) If you "shut down" a PC and leave it plugged in, it draws exactly as much current as a PC that is hibernating and plugged in.
2) If you "shut down" a PC and unplug it, it draws exactly as much current (0 amps) as a PC that is hibernating and unplugged.
3) The only difference between a "shut down" PC and a hibernating PC (assuming the same state of "plugged in" or "unplugged"), is the configuration of the hard drive and the software that will be executed upon power-on.
We're in agreement here, right?
Yes. So we've got that out of the way right off the bat. But. ..you have described more than one state and they may go by the same name.
I imagine there must be a simple miscommunication here.
It would certainly seem.:)
I'm afraid this whole thing stems from a bit of silliness and when silly turns serious it can take a while (if ever) to scrub the silly out of it. I baited an offensive AC down a blind alley that I expected to get modbombed into oblivion and never read; and instead seem to have created a sideshow.
Your rhetorical questions appear to be missing the point. I'm aware that a VCR's state changes when you unplug it, as does an ACPI computer. I don't think anyone is disputing that. ..
Like many folks here, I built my ACPI PC, and am completely aware of the implications of ATX motherboards and power supplies.
Yeah, I didn't mean to be insulting or anything. I really was just trying to be as directly responsive to your questions and the way they were phrased as I could, in my own idiosnycratic beating about the bush way.:)
So, as far as airport security goes (which is where this sub-thread started, IIRC),. . .
Here's where we start getting into the messy part. From my perspective this sub-thread started with my statement that if you want to use the least amount of power possible, turn it off. That is the point, the premise. It is my premise, which is mine. I call it "my premise." The premise's name is. ..
Oh, sorry.
Anyway, some side issues to my premise have been raised on the basis of a bit of flippancy.
. . . a hibernating laptop is identical to a shut down laptop.
This is messy because neither I nor airport security are overtly concerned about whether a laptop is shutdown or hibernating, per se. We care about whether it is turned off. Airport security would be perfectly satisfied if you just turned the machine off without shutting down at all.
By shutdown I mean to follow the operating system procedure. By turn off I mean turn off the actual power switch. In certain cases turn off the power switch can mean either pull the plug or turn off the power strip it's plugged into, since many desktops these days don't actually have a power switch at all. If you shut down and then push the front panel button what you do is boot back up again.
Shutting down is an OS operation, one that has nothing logically to do with the hardware. The fact that the OS now turns off most of the hardware when it shuts down confuses the issue. On an AT machine you shut down the OS, then you can power down the machine by turning it off. The two processes remain logically clear and seperate.
So I havn't missed the point from my perspective because this difference between shutdown and turned off is what I'm interested in; and the fact that a machine that is shut down may not be turned off.
Other people are concerned about hibernating in particular. I am not. Just whether the machine is hot or not.
The issue with airport security comes about because if you shut down or hibernate as per above, by following the OS procedure, and do not turn off the front panel switch (which on a laptop is actually a breaker switch so as not to draw current from the battery) they will not consider that turned off, as well they shouldn't.
. . . do they really think they can mack it with at least some of the hot women they hire?
I have seen this happen in a small shop, yes. He had a pretty decent success rate too, despite being an obvious coked up scumbag, or perhaps because of it.
. . . does the man doing the hiring get to feel those tits?
In most cases the answer to this would be no.
So why bother hiring them?
Because men like to simply look at tits, I suppose in the same way that a female peacock likes to look at a nice bit of tail. It's hard wired. It isn't necessarily a tease unless the woman is a tease; and anyone who hires a tease is in for gobs of trouble. It's attractive.
I can understand your not understanding the attraction, because you don't necessarily have the same response to tits, but the response is a real phenomenon and can at least be understood at that level as fact.
Your friend bought a car that she thinks is beautiful. You think it's ugly on a stick. Think of it as a situation like that more than a crude sexual one. That doesn't mean the sexual overtones aren't there, because obviously that's what the hardwiring that makes tits attractive is all about, but it really just boils down to having an attractive office. Nice carpets, pretty wallpaper, a Ming vase in the corner and a pretty blonde with nice ones in the NOC or defragging drives.
But here's one for you. In certain customer relations businesses where the customer is just as likely to be a man or a women you'll find nearly all of the employees that face the public to be drop dead gorgeous women with great racks, because women will do more business with them as well as men.
I can barely figure out why men go to Hooters. Why do women?
Perhaps I should have been more explicit and said "per file." The only situation I have when I'm dealing with webpages allows me to zip 'em up and send 'em to someone else who uploads them to the site. I don't do site maintainence. Just code/content dicking.
Personally I'd far rather have dialup than satellite, but Taco's milage would probably be very different than mine.
Public domain means completely without protection of patent or copyright, theoretically in perpetuity.
When a patent is placed in the public domain the patent becomes an absolute legal nullity (absolute nullity is a legal term, not just a figure of speech). The title no longer exists and is as if it never existed. In contract terms it is dissolved. Poof! All gone. No one else can patent it because it is in the public domain. It doesn't matter by what process it got there.
Slashdot Mirror
No, he is not trolling. He has asked the only deeply relevant question in the thread.
"Why?"
And it turns out there's really no good answer other than just taking a ride on the buzz train.
On the other hand there are a ton of reasons why XML stinks to high heaven as a musical notation format.
You'll find a short but humorous look here:
Music XML
Now here's an example of a plain text encoded note that I just semi made up on the spot:
g"4
Human readable. Machine interpretable. And musician readable. A violnist could learn to sight read a score in this format in a matter of minutes.
I doubt a violinst could parse the XML for a single note. Hey, but at least the code takes up a quarter page.
If you need any clue as to how valid XML is for this sort of work consider the fact that people are making hardware XML accelerators.
For plain text files.
I'm sorry, but could you please stop the train? I want to get off.
KFG
It says right on the front page that it is against the law to copy them!
That doesn't mean that it actually is you know. I've got a little book here with the American constitution as virtually it's only content with a copyright notice on it.
The Constitution is still in the public domain.
KFG
Ah, but the RIAA has no jurisdiction over printed music. :)
Someone would have to found an MPAA, which would get confusing as all hell.
KFG
Would you prefer the XML format they designed to be GPLed? Wouldn't that make it useless? Everyone could modify the format and then you wouldn't have a standard format?
Everyone can modify their standard. That's what the "X" in XML is all about, and this standard is just a modification of the XML standard.
Just like everyone and his brother modifies HTML.
You haven't read the license. It's virtually "GPL Lite."
The reason for that is fairly simple. It isn't a real license like the GPL. It's highly doubtful that it has any legal bearing at all other than as a justification to sick lawyers on you if they want. Since the license is indefensible at its very core, there isn't much point at throwing a lot of hard core legalese into the license. Just a few paragraphs anyone can read and understand and be done with it.
A DTD is a trade secret. Like the CSS stuff. Once it's distributed it ceases to be a trade secret. It doesn't need to be machine interpreted. It's simply knowledge anyone can carry around in their brain and transmit to another human brain through the medium of speech.
KFG
Learn music notation?
.
I might point out that guitar tab is music notation. Just one developed explicitly for a single instrument of a particular physical configuration. The standard notation is basically one that was developed for voice and keyboard, both instruments lacking in certain peculiarities of the guitar.
If I simply wish to transfer generic information about a particular score standard notation is fine.
If I wish to transfer information about how a particular piece is played, and thus even how it might sound, on a guitar I either have to mark up standard notation so badly it becomes really, really bad guitar tabulature. .
Or use guitar tabulature.
KFG
From the faq:
Is MusicXML free?
The MusicXML DTD is available under a royalty-free license from Recordare. This license is modeled on those from the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). If you follow the terms of the license, you do not need to pay anyone to use MusicXML in your products or research
****
In theory, I suppose, you could try to make an XML DTD propriatary, if you wanted go around suing anyone with a pair of eyes (it isn't a file format, it's a Document Type Defintion. A human readable text file defining the tags for a human readable text file. You can save the XML text in any file format you like).
The "trade secret" is pretty much out of the bag as soon as you read the standard.
KFG
Yeah, well, ya always gotta tack that "standard conditions" disclaimer onto things. Sea level, flat, still air, Colnago, silks, yadda yadda yadda.
Pre Eddie B we had Stan Swaim and The Dorset Training Group in Vermont. That's about as close to a national program that there was. Anybody who felt they needed to tune up before a nationals or an Olympic tryout or something would head there. Lovely riding country and the altitude is just pleasant.
It was all very chummy and informal. Our international results stank. But I miss it.
KFG
Solar's nice, but it's flakey. I wouldn't want to stake a military operation on it, even in the desert. Silicon cells are damnably fragile, but the flexible ones have a fraction the efficiency. A couple percent for the very best of the them, compared to about 35 percent for the best silicon cells.
So you need a much larger surface area for the flexibles. Not necessarily a big deal for a command post but an issue in the field. Which is the only place battery life is an issue anyway. At a command post it simply becomes a supply issue.
And then there's the fact that in Iraq they did all the operations they could at night.
Night is definately one of the weaknesses of solar.
KFG
But the biggest thing that negates some of the disadvantages this display has is that it is inherently static state.
I hate when I do that.
KFG
One of the major complaints of the troops in Iraq is battery life. Everything has batteries in it. Even the helmets have battery packs.
GPS was a necessary tool in the dessert. The land is kinda flat and sand colored. All of it. There are no reference points and navigating on land becomes equivilent to navigating at sea. The "map" is a sand colored chart you can plot your points on, not so much a reference you can use to get from one place to another.
They loved laptops, but only because they could power them from a vehicle. They were issued PDAs but found them fairly useless because the battery life was too short in the field.
It's the new, high tech army, sponsored by Duracell and the Energizer Bunny.
There are some obvious advantages to this display. Of course it's light, it uses little power, in some respects it can be used as a chart. You can mark it. It doesn't physically break anymore than a plastic placemat breaks. It's water proof. So long as it get data the single display can be any map the data source has access to so you don't need to be lugging around huge stacks of charts.
But the biggest thing that negates some of the advantages this display has is that it is inherently static state. That is to say it only needs to be powered to change the display. Not only does that mean very little power drain in use, it means once an image is displayed it can be completely disconected from the power and any other device and the image remains.
That's pretty frickin' cool.
I'm already planning (I've already read about this thing) to use a screen like this for the electronic navigation system of a new boat. Take a GPS reading, or display a bit of chart, turn it off and the reading/chart remains. One brief flash of power than off again.
On the other hand if you think I'm going bluewater without a chronometer and sextant you're nuts. I always expect electronic gear to fail about the second day out. I'm often right.
KFG
This is hardly their blind spot. They're working so hard to irrevocably tie all these things into the OS because they're painfully aware of the difference.
And that's why their doing so is an illegal monopolistic practice, forcing people into their fold outside the bounds of the OS proper by leveraging the power they have over the OS.
When judging the technical merits of an MS product obviously you use technical standards. But it's always a mistake to infer from those technical standards that MS is unaware of them. They choose/i. to violate good technical standards because their motivation is not technical.
It's money and power.
So it makes sense, from their perspective, to knowingly do technically daft things because technology isn't their goal, it's only their means.
KFG
I suppose you'd be in sympathy with Welsh sailor Tristan Jones who always claimed he could smell a French boat long before it became visible? :)
KFG
"'Tis but a scratch. I've had worse. Running away, eh? Come back you yellow bastard! I'll bite your legs off!"
Well, I can dream, can't I?
KFG
And before I was researching bicycle dynamics (didn't really learn much about bicycles, but I learned a lot about data acquisition since I had to scratch build all my testing gear) I was a kid in Vermont shoveling shit in exchange for riding time.
Another reason the bicycle ended the reign of the horse. And all that shit happens because an idle horse burns fuel and requires maintainence, a lot of it.
Bicycles don't run up $3000 dollar vet bills and then die anyway either.
KFG
Still haven't been able to dig that one up. I've got some graphs here comparing human power output to that of a horse, but that's a horse of a different color.
.2 hp ( watch a horse race on the tube, the jockey ain't just sitting there), whereas it's obvious that a man on a bicycle going 40 mph is pushing the very limits of human capability. (I'll note though that American professional cyclist Jackie Simes III beat a trotter in a race at Saratoga Springs. I've ridden a bicycle race on the same track. Trust me, the horse was at the advantage here. I never, ever want to race a bicycle on a horse track again)
.03 horsepower, barely more than walking to the fridge.
On the other hand if you've done any riding of both it's surprising at first, but reflection bears it out.
If you try to sit on a horse like you do on a chair you'll get pounded to death. Your butt will turn to hamburger, your spine will get crunched (forensic examination of Custer's troops showed spinal degredation even among teenagers as I recall). You have to lift yourself up and down in stirrups in rythmn with the horse. Saves your butt and spine, but until you've done a fair amount of riding you'l come home with your legs aching. Riding a horse is a lot of work. This is why the genteel class prefered the surrey. Even if, for some reason, you choose to sit like a sack and take the pounding you'll burn a fair number of extra calories in the process. Riding a horse works all the muscles of the body, each burning calories, no matter how slightly.
On a bicycle you can simply sit; only the legs are really using extra calories; and fairly gentle pressure on the pedals will give you 8 mph or so on the level. Grandma can do this and keep it up all day. 12 mph is the speed a man with virtually depleted sugar stores can ride all day (although he won't enjoy it very much). An expert can ride at 15 mph until he falls asleep if he eats normally(the record average speed for crossing the US coast to coast is 15.3 mph, that average includes all downtime such as for sleeping. The clock started in California and stopped in Atlantic City NJ).
I have to note that all of this is highly speed dependant. For instance, it takes a world class athlete (horse or man) to hit 40 mph, but the jockey of a horse galloping at 40 mph is probably working at about the rate of a bicyclist going 20 mph; about
The bicycle is at the disadvantage going uphill or into the wind. On the other hand riding a bicycle downhill requires very little energy while riding a horse downhill requires more human energy.
None of it is very straight forward and thus the claim that a man on a horse uses more energy than a man on a bicycle is provisional based on the conditions.
As I recall the figure I have is for a horse at a trot of about 8 mph (which is why I chose that figure above) and a man bicycling at the same speed on the level in still air.
The man on the bicycle will be expending about
Yeah, in the mid 70s I was a bicycle researcher, which is why I have that chart, and why it is "somewhere," although I concentrated more on dynamics.
KFG
The computer was open architecture. A collection of parts, with the capability of freely swapping those parts out for others from any vendor. Those parts themselves, such as the Intel chips, were freely available on the open market. Making an IMB PC clone is no more "plagerizing" than making a car would be.
The BIOS was propriatary and it was the clean room reverse engineering of such that allowed the true clone.
KFG
So long as he moves to Nevada with a 40 mile line of sight, yeah. Outside of Ann Arbor line of sight is often described as "I'm touching it."
KFG
You also have to understand the energy crisis culture at the time the fact that more scientific research went into bicycles in the previous ten years than probably all of thier history previous.
It was right about at that time that the number of bicycles in America once again outnumbered cars.
In 1980 in think there like 10,000 people in America who had ever heard of the Tour de France. In 1984 it was nearly as commonly known as the World Series.
Bicycle was actually a buzzword.
There is a species of albatros that lives entirely at sea for months at a time, generally soaring at little more than wave hight. It is so adapted to this enviroment and so efficeint in flight that it can sleep while so soaring.
Even though water is a dense medium animals that are adapted to it do not have to expend energy supporting their own weight. I've got the chart from MIT around here somewhere, but can't lay hands on it immediately, as I recall the dolphin and tuna and salmon topped the list for animal motion by its own power (a soaring bird may use little energy, but that's because it's not doing much of anything. Air and gravity are.) A Portugese Man-o-War simply floats with the tide, as a man in an innertube might. Torpor is very energy efficient.
So what animal is the most efficeint will change with your definition of "motion."
It is interesting to note, however, that not only is a man on a bicycle more energy efficient than a swimming dolphin, but he is more energy efficient than the same man riding a horse.
This is why the invention of the bicycle was such a stunning technological step that transformed society even before the advent of the motor car. The first smooth paved roads were made for the bicycle. The cars uspurped them.
KFG
You can claim it is a compromise, if you want. . .
Q.E.D.
Please restate your premise with "i" not as a constant but as a variable that changes randomly and subjectively.
KFG
I'll be aiming for the Orkneys from there with a BikeFriday stashed somewhere aboard. Spend the summer pottering about the British Isles, then run for the Azores when the weather starts to turn.
Gotta finish the boat the raise some cash first though.
KFG
i>1) If you "shut down" a PC and leave it plugged in, it draws exactly as much current as a PC that is hibernating and plugged in.
.you have described more than one state and they may go by the same name.
:)
.
:)
.
2) If you "shut down" a PC and unplug it, it draws exactly as much current (0 amps) as a PC that is hibernating and unplugged.
3) The only difference between a "shut down" PC and a hibernating PC (assuming the same state of "plugged in" or "unplugged"), is the configuration of the hard drive and the software that will be executed upon power-on.
We're in agreement here, right?
Yes. So we've got that out of the way right off the bat. But. .
I imagine there must be a simple miscommunication here.
It would certainly seem.
I'm afraid this whole thing stems from a bit of silliness and when silly turns serious it can take a while (if ever) to scrub the silly out of it. I baited an offensive AC down a blind alley that I expected to get modbombed into oblivion and never read; and instead seem to have created a sideshow.
Your rhetorical questions appear to be missing the point. I'm aware that a VCR's state changes when you unplug it, as does an ACPI computer. I don't think anyone is disputing that. .
Like many folks here, I built my ACPI PC, and am completely aware of the implications of ATX motherboards and power supplies.
Yeah, I didn't mean to be insulting or anything. I really was just trying to be as directly responsive to your questions and the way they were phrased as I could, in my own idiosnycratic beating about the bush way.
So, as far as airport security goes (which is where this sub-thread started, IIRC),. . .
Here's where we start getting into the messy part. From my perspective this sub-thread started with my statement that if you want to use the least amount of power possible, turn it off. That is the point, the premise. It is my premise, which is mine. I call it "my premise." The premise's name is. .
Oh, sorry.
Anyway, some side issues to my premise have been raised on the basis of a bit of flippancy.
. . . a hibernating laptop is identical to a shut down laptop.
This is messy because neither I nor airport security are overtly concerned about whether a laptop is shutdown or hibernating, per se. We care about whether it is turned off. Airport security would be perfectly satisfied if you just turned the machine off without shutting down at all.
By shutdown I mean to follow the operating system procedure. By turn off I mean turn off the actual power switch. In certain cases turn off the power switch can mean either pull the plug or turn off the power strip it's plugged into, since many desktops these days don't actually have a power switch at all. If you shut down and then push the front panel button what you do is boot back up again.
Shutting down is an OS operation, one that has nothing logically to do with the hardware. The fact that the OS now turns off most of the hardware when it shuts down confuses the issue. On an AT machine you shut down the OS, then you can power down the machine by turning it off. The two processes remain logically clear and seperate.
So I havn't missed the point from my perspective because this difference between shutdown and turned off is what I'm interested in; and the fact that a machine that is shut down may not be turned off.
Other people are concerned about hibernating in particular. I am not. Just whether the machine is hot or not.
The issue with airport security comes about because if you shut down or hibernate as per above, by following the OS procedure, and do not turn off the front panel switch (which on a laptop is actually a breaker switch so as not to draw current from the battery) they will not consider that turned off, as well they shouldn't.
. . . do they really think they can mack it with at least some of the hot women they hire?
I have seen this happen in a small shop, yes. He had a pretty decent success rate too, despite being an obvious coked up scumbag, or perhaps because of it.
. . . does the man doing the hiring get to feel those tits?
In most cases the answer to this would be no.
So why bother hiring them?
Because men like to simply look at tits, I suppose in the same way that a female peacock likes to look at a nice bit of tail. It's hard wired. It isn't necessarily a tease unless the woman is a tease; and anyone who hires a tease is in for gobs of trouble. It's attractive.
I can understand your not understanding the attraction, because you don't necessarily have the same response to tits, but the response is a real phenomenon and can at least be understood at that level as fact.
Your friend bought a car that she thinks is beautiful. You think it's ugly on a stick. Think of it as a situation like that more than a crude sexual one. That doesn't mean the sexual overtones aren't there, because obviously that's what the hardwiring that makes tits attractive is all about, but it really just boils down to having an attractive office. Nice carpets, pretty wallpaper, a Ming vase in the corner and a pretty blonde with nice ones in the NOC or defragging drives.
But here's one for you. In certain customer relations businesses where the customer is just as likely to be a man or a women you'll find nearly all of the employees that face the public to be drop dead gorgeous women with great racks, because women will do more business with them as well as men.
I can barely figure out why men go to Hooters. Why do women?
KFG
Perhaps I should have been more explicit and said "per file." The only situation I have when I'm dealing with webpages allows me to zip 'em up and send 'em to someone else who uploads them to the site. I don't do site maintainence. Just code/content dicking.
Personally I'd far rather have dialup than satellite, but Taco's milage would probably be very different than mine.
KFG
Well, I guess I'd have to ask you to define "cheap", "real" and "city."
KFG
Public domain means completely without protection of patent or copyright, theoretically in perpetuity.
When a patent is placed in the public domain the patent becomes an absolute legal nullity (absolute nullity is a legal term, not just a figure of speech). The title no longer exists and is as if it never existed. In contract terms it is dissolved. Poof! All gone. No one else can patent it because it is in the public domain. It doesn't matter by what process it got there.
A public license is another story.
KFG