The problem is that the rotational speed, is not a constant, it doesn't even change at a constant rate. The only way to do what you suggest is if we can accurately find an equation that describes the variations in the earth rotational speed, but since that depends on things like earthquakes (the tsunami caused a significant change), it is impossible to do such a thing.
So, the only accurate thing to do is to look at the sun and the stars around us, deduct how fast the earth has rotated, and add/subtract a second when necessary.
Right, try watching a video with alternating black and white lines on a TV monitor. It will not show horizontal lines, but it will blink at 59.94Hz... Very annoying but interesting.
You are the one with errors. Follow the links in my original posting for full explanations. Basically, you're forgetting about the chrominance bands in the space between channels, and the resulting luminance bandwidth for broadcast/cable TV.
That luminance bandwidth is the restricting factor of how many alternating black and white pixels you can _see_ on the tube of your TV.
It all has to do with the NTSC modulation. It has nothing to do with the CCIR656/601 standards for digital video, nor with the square pixels of your computer monitor.
If you grab from your TV antenna or cable signal, NTSC is your input, and it's luminance bandwidth limits the horizontal resolution. Oversampling does not increase the resolution.
I didn't believe that when I read it, and was ready to call it bull.
But I looked up the facts, and found that the broadcast NTSC luminance bandwidth is 4.2Mhz even when using a comb filter, and the active time of a single line is 52.66 of 63.555 s, resulting in:
2*4.2e6/525/29.97*52.66/63.555 = 442.35 active pixels per line.
Wow.
Directly at the camera/dvd player, and using S-Video, that is usually more though. You're just not looking at all the pixels on a normal TV monitor, plus you're making them more fuzzy if you hook it up using a simple composite cable...
But when your are receiving analog TV signals from air or cable, and displaying on your big glass tube, only 442 pixels is what you get...
Ugh.
By the way, 2*5e6/525/29.97 = 636, so even from a 5Mhz luminance signal and no inactive pixels, you don't get to 640 individual pixels.
Now, of course, when sampling close to the Nyquist-Shannon frequency, you get aliasing problems, so that should explain why we're digitizing analog video into more pixels than what the analog source can contain.
Oh, come on. The space station has been up there for a long time, and the first link you come up with starts with only forward looking statements:"A substantial revenue source will be the manufacture of new materials and products in free-flying, Micro Gravity Geode Modules surrounding the Space Island ring station."
That is not an example of science being done today on the ISS. It's just an example of _development_ somebody _thinks_ they may do _sometime_ in the future on some kind of space station, based on some experiments done in the past on the Space Shuttle ( !=ISS ).
What you forgot to mention is that he bought himself into that position with Grandpa's money... At least, after what was left of it after he already wasted/lost a large chunk of it in some very bad business decisions.
Oh, and now he's crying that he wants Apple's toys.
Well, yahoo financial tells us that MSFT has a quarterly revenue growth of 9.4%, and GOOG has it at 97.7%. That is why GOOG gets 4-5 times higher P/E than MSF _right_ _now_. In fast growing companies, investors tend to look at the forward P/E more than the current P/E.
Look at it this way, part or all of the expected earnings growth for next year is already prices in into the stock price of both MSFT and GOOG. And since GOOG is expected to grow much faster than MSFT, it has a higher _current_ P/E.
Now, if GOOG doesn't show the earnings growth analysts are expecting, then you are correct, GOOG is overvalued, but if it does show that, the 'P' of GOOG will not go down, because the 'E' part of the P/E will go up.
Now, GOOG is young and 'expected' to grow fast, so much of this _is_ speculation, but it's not based on hot air money-losing companies like in the dotcom boom, but based on real earnings today with expected growth of their fledgeling business.
Remember, when thinking about where MSFT stock will go in the future, that results achieved in the past are no guarantee for the future. The world where MSFT operates is not the same as the last 20 years, it's continuously changing, and GOOG is part of the change.
Well... When the dude, in even more words than mine, said that educating users was a stupid idea, because that problem slowly solves itself as a 'new crop' of fresh, more educated users automagically show up... I formed my opinion and stopped reading the rant.
Here is the analogy: Is it stupid to call the fire department to put out a fire that, eventually, will automagically stop burning when it runs out of fuel?
Hmm, scrap cells from here get 1.3 Watts out of 2x4 inch. That is approx approx half size for 11.7WattHour per day, so five times better power/area.
That means even with DC systems that would get 5-15 miles/day of free driving, depending on how much roof area you have, and if you want to cover your hood...
"At 19cm x 5 cm you would have to have one heck of a large car to hold them all."
19cm x 500cm, or maybe as 76 cm x 1.25 meter (approx 2.5 x 4 foot).
Lots of cars have that much roof space. Maybe even double that. Counting the hood, triple.
So, one mile eh? hmm. Saving, say, a gallon per month. Probably not enough to pay for 100 of those cells.
I hope there are better cells available somewhere that can increase that to 5-10 miles, that would be nice.
At least, covering the roof and hood with 300 of those cells in an AC system may get that to around 6 miles/day with cells available today. Getting interesting.
Now that you're making calculations anyway, imagine I have an electric or hybrid car, then if I put solar panels on the roof of my car, park it in the Florida sun all day, then how many free miles (feet/meters?) per day of driving would I get per square foot (meter) of solar panel?
"You can have a huge people carrier with a 2 litre diesel engine that does 40 to 50 mpg."
If only the car manufacturers would sell such cars in the US. Even most regular sedan card on the dealers lots get 30MPG. They advertize proudly if they have some models that get ~35mpg.
I hope the manufacturers start working on the MPG. I loved it when I read about people modding their hybrids, with the record holder getting 200MPG (!). Of course, that was with plugging in, but I like to imagine the combination of such trickt with a solar panel the size of the roof+hood. How many miles per day of gasoline-free driving would that be?
Slashdot Mirror
I call your bull. Please explain why it also includes the "largetbl" table from lame?
The problem is that the rotational speed, is not a constant, it doesn't even change at a constant rate. The only way to do what you suggest is if we can accurately find an equation that describes the variations in the earth rotational speed, but since that depends on things like earthquakes (the tsunami caused a significant change), it is impossible to do such a thing.
So, the only accurate thing to do is to look at the sun and the stars around us, deduct how fast the earth has rotated, and add/subtract a second when necessary.
Can anybody please translate this post? I don't speak Kansas English, and I don't know the Kansas meaning of most of his words.
Right, try watching a video with alternating black and white lines on a TV monitor. It will not show horizontal lines, but it will blink at 59.94Hz... Very annoying but interesting.
You are the one with errors. Follow the links in my original posting for full explanations. Basically, you're forgetting about the chrominance bands in the space between channels, and the resulting luminance bandwidth for broadcast/cable TV.
That luminance bandwidth is the restricting factor of how many alternating black and white pixels you can _see_ on the tube of your TV.
It all has to do with the NTSC modulation. It has nothing to do with the CCIR656/601 standards for digital video, nor with the square pixels of your computer monitor.
If you grab from your TV antenna or cable signal, NTSC is your input, and it's luminance bandwidth limits the horizontal resolution. Oversampling does not increase the resolution.
I have the factor of two in there, it's the first number on the first calculation.
Basically, you're saying that in Kansas, they don't speak English anymore at school.
"but in practice, that amouts to 440"
I didn't believe that when I read it, and was ready to call it bull.
But I looked up the facts, and found that the broadcast NTSC luminance bandwidth is 4.2Mhz even when using a comb filter, and the active time of a single line is 52.66 of 63.555 s, resulting in:
2*4.2e6/525/29.97*52.66/63.555 = 442.35 active pixels per line.
Wow.
Directly at the camera/dvd player, and using S-Video, that is usually more though. You're just not looking at all the pixels on a normal TV monitor, plus you're making them more fuzzy if you hook it up using a simple composite cable...
But when your are receiving analog TV signals from air or cable, and displaying on your big glass tube, only 442 pixels is what you get...
Ugh.
By the way, 2*5e6/525/29.97 = 636, so even from a 5Mhz luminance signal and no inactive pixels, you don't get to 640 individual pixels.
Now, of course, when sampling close to the Nyquist-Shannon frequency, you get aliasing problems, so that should explain why we're digitizing analog video into more pixels than what the analog source can contain.
For some quick ideas see: http://www.spaceislandgroup.com/manufacturing.html
:"A substantial revenue source will be the manufacture of new materials and products in free-flying, Micro Gravity Geode Modules surrounding the Space Island ring station."
Oh, come on. The space station has been up there for a long time, and the first link you come up with starts with only forward looking statements
That is not an example of science being done today on the ISS. It's just an example of _development_ somebody _thinks_ they may do _sometime_ in the future on some kind of space station, based on some experiments done in the past on the Space Shuttle ( !=ISS ).
And that is exactly what the "Security Enhanced Linux policy enhancements" are for in Linux... see the other /. story...
Good point, but /proc/kmem can easily be disabled too.
What you forgot to mention is that he bought himself into that position with Grandpa's money... At least, after what was left of it after he already wasted/lost a large chunk of it in some very bad business decisions.
Oh, and now he's crying that he wants Apple's toys.
Well, yahoo financial tells us that MSFT has a quarterly revenue growth of 9.4%, and GOOG has it at 97.7%. That is why GOOG gets 4-5 times higher P/E than MSF _right_ _now_. In fast growing companies, investors tend to look at the forward P/E more than the current P/E.
Look at it this way, part or all of the expected earnings growth for next year is already prices in into the stock price of both MSFT and GOOG. And since GOOG is expected to grow much faster than MSFT, it has a higher _current_ P/E.
Now, if GOOG doesn't show the earnings growth analysts are expecting, then you are correct, GOOG is overvalued, but if it does show that, the 'P' of GOOG will not go down, because the 'E' part of the P/E will go up.
Now, GOOG is young and 'expected' to grow fast, so much of this _is_ speculation, but it's not based on hot air money-losing companies like in the dotcom boom, but based on real earnings today with expected growth of their fledgeling business.
Remember, when thinking about where MSFT stock will go in the future, that results achieved in the past are no guarantee for the future. The world where MSFT operates is not the same as the last 20 years, it's continuously changing, and GOOG is part of the change.
That space elevator would have to be more like a tubular net than a single strand or cable to be repairable after such collisions.
For the geeks: Think a RAID10 cable...
Ah, a TLA, well: you choose which meaning you prefer.
I personally prefer Expanded Memory Specification, ah the memories.
Well... When the dude, in even more words than mine, said that educating users was a stupid idea, because that problem slowly solves itself as a 'new crop' of fresh, more educated users automagically show up... I formed my opinion and stopped reading the rant.
Here is the analogy: Is it stupid to call the fire department to put out a fire that, eventually, will automagically stop burning when it runs out of fuel?
Hmm, scrap cells from here get 1.3 Watts out of 2x4 inch. That is approx approx half size for 11.7WattHour per day, so five times better power/area.
That means even with DC systems that would get 5-15 miles/day of free driving, depending on how much roof area you have, and if you want to cover your hood...
That's enough to cover my commute!
"At 19cm x 5 cm you would have to have one heck of a large car to hold them all."
19cm x 500cm, or maybe as 76 cm x 1.25 meter (approx 2.5 x 4 foot).
Lots of cars have that much roof space. Maybe even double that. Counting the hood, triple.
So, one mile eh? hmm. Saving, say, a gallon per month. Probably not enough to pay for 100 of those cells.
I hope there are better cells available somewhere that can increase that to 5-10 miles, that would be nice.
At least, covering the roof and hood with 300 of those cells in an AC system may get that to around 6 miles/day with cells available today. Getting interesting.
Now that you're making calculations anyway, imagine I have an electric or hybrid car, then if I put solar panels on the roof of my car, park it in the Florida sun all day, then how many free miles (feet/meters?) per day of driving would I get per square foot (meter) of solar panel?
Ahh, finally. Somebody on /. who apparently gets it.
Very refreshing.
There are too many people comparing MPG values with gasoline, and talking about nuclear and other bull.
According to the National Center for Photovoltaics, only 7% of the surface area's of cities have to be photovoltaic to supply _all_ power.
Don't underestimate the power of the future solar rooftop.
"You can have a huge people carrier with a 2 litre diesel engine that does 40 to 50 mpg."
If only the car manufacturers would sell such cars in the US. Even most regular sedan card on the dealers lots get 30MPG. They advertize proudly if they have some models that get ~35mpg.
I hope the manufacturers start working on the MPG. I loved it when I read about people modding their hybrids, with the record holder getting 200MPG (!). Of course, that was with plugging in, but I like to imagine the combination of such trickt with a solar panel the size of the roof+hood. How many miles per day of gasoline-free driving would that be?
Tsssk. Just image your bank doing something like that.
"I'm sorry, we can't authorize that payment, because we don't like it that people buy television sets".
Exactly where does slashdot claim to be a Linux based website?
/.?, and what do you think it runs on?
/.'s past, cmdrtaco, and it's current owner?
Holy crap. Are you serious?
In the FAQ: who owns
Or maybe you are one of those people who needs to hear it in terms of something like NasdaqNM:LNUX?
Do you know anything of
"when idealism meets reality and it is about putting food on the table that IT staff go with Windows."
Because, as any good IT staffer knows, Windows needs more staffers per server, and more hours worked is more food on the table.
That was exactly the point of the article: Linux servers are less work to run.
Cheaper for the company, less jobs for the people pushing the reset buttons.