I think that the reason you don't see it happening today is because the most prominent printing standard today, inket, tends to use very expensive consumables, and a price-conscious consumer is not likely to want to waste a lot of money printing frivolous things. Printing on a dot matrix printer was cheap in comparison... probably more than an order of magnitude cheaper, even in today's dollars.
Inkjet cartridges expire so quickly after being opened because they contain ink... which is wet, and evaporates, leaving dry residue in the compartment which cannot be used.
You will save money in the long run in printing costs if you just buy a laser printer, because toner is dry, and does not evaporate from the container. The cartridges are more expensive, but you will buy them so much less frequently that you will actually save a lot of money in the end.
So pick a voltage... any voltage, and just calculate the actual energy used if that's what you want. You'll get more energy the more voltage that you use, but that's because the more voltage that you have, the more cells that you've needed to cram into your battery to get there, which has made it heavier. The limiting factor in this will tend to be how much charge you can cram into a cell, which is charge density, and why it is relevant to energy you can get from it.
Nothing you've said is invalid, but how much energy you can deliver is going to be limited by how much charge you have available. Voltage is a measurement of how much work you can do per unit of cf charge. If you have more charge available, it immediately follows that you can do more work for the same application (which tends to have some relatively fixed power specification, requiring a certain amount of voltage and current anyways). The greater the density that you can put charges into a battery (which is going to be some fixed mass), the more charge it can hold, and the more energy you will be able to extract from that battery by drawing electricity.
If you have more charge available, it tends to be the case that you will have the ability to actually supply more power in the first place In practice, you will limit the voltage and current to whatever the application demands, and the more charge that you have available, the more energy you will be able to produce for that application.
It *IS* immaterial... because for any given application you are going to be using a constant voltage anyways. Regardless of the specific applications actual power demands, the amount of charge that you have available is still directly proportional to how much energy you will get out of it. Amp-hours is, as I said, a power agnostic evaluation of how much energy something actually has. What that evaluates to in terms of actual joules may be a function of voltage just as certainly as exactly how many km you go on a tank of gas depends on the fuel efficiency of your car... but that doesn't mean that the size of your car's gas tank is not directly proportional to that distance, and the larger that tank is, the further the car would go.
Seriously? If you were actually as indifferent about it as you seem to claim, you wouldn't have bothered to respond at all.
I wasn't disagreeing with the facts that were cited, only pointing out that the amount of work that you are going to get out of a particular amount of charge for a given application is directly proportional to that amount of charge, regardless of what the current or voltage levels are, because for any single given electrical application, the power demands tend to be invariant. Under such circumstances, more charge available means powering that particular application for more time, which results in more work being done.
If you have a battery that has certain number of mAh of charge in it, it will power device X for Y hours...whereas the same voltage of battery with twice that number of mAh in it will power the exact same device for twice as long, and thus will have done more work. For *ANY* given application, charge density directly translates to energy density, even though they are not in the same units.... it's a convenient form because the specification is agnostic to what application it is being used for.
Ampere-hours is a unit of charge (3600 coulombs) that provides an estimate of how much energy can be produced in about the same way that a gasoline tank's size can provide an estimate of how far a car can go without refueling. Even though they are not the same units, there is a direct correlation and one can be computed from the other by multiplying by a constant.
My point being that a given application for electricity generally demands a specific amount of power to operate it, and with more charge available, one can supply that amount of power for a longer period of time. Since energy equals power multiplied by time, charge is therefore proportional to energy, and so charge density is directly proportional to energy density. for any given application.
When the potential difference is constant. having more charge available in a battery means that it will run longer and thus will have been able to do more work before it is depleted.
Often, however, the total available charge ends up translating directly to how much voltage you can actually produce in the first place, so you end up being able to push out more energy that way. If you regulate the voltage to a smaller fixed amount, then you end up with something lasting longer, as mentioned above.
Either way, more charge translates to more energy.
Each coulomb of charge represents a specific number of electrons. It stands to reason that the more electrons you have available to push through a wire, the more work you are going to end up being able to do with those electrons You still need a potential difference to actually do any work, and draw the electrons through, but the amount of work that you will end up being able to do will still be directly proportional to how many electrons you had put into that end of the wire. Since batteries tend to work at a more or less constant voltage, more coulombs means more energy.
Charge is as much a measurement of quantity of electricity as volume is a measurements of a quantity of matter. The more coulombs of charge you have to pump through a wire, the more electricity you will have used, and the more work you will be able to do with it.
I never said it was a measurement of energy. I said it was a unit of charge. With more charge, you can do more work. It is as valid a gauge of how much work you can do as knowing how full your gas tank is tells you how far you can get without refueling
An amp hour is a unit of charge, equal to 3600 coulombs, and is immaterial to current or voltage used. With more charge you can do more work, so charge/mass is perfectly reasonable to represent energy density.
The voltage is immaterial. The energy density stage same regardless of the voltage, since amp-hours s au it of charge, indent of how much current or voltage is actually used. If you hold voltage and current constant, you can always do more work with more charge, so charge/kg is a reasonable representation of energy density.
Actually, people take BSD code and put it in closed-source products all of the time. (eg, Xcode).
I'm not saying that everything should be GPL....it's entirely fine to use BSD if that's what the creator wants. But it's important to realize that in the longer term, GPL is going to give a future developer more freedom to customize the work to their own tastes, regardless of what kind of evolution it has gone through since originally developed, and regardless of whose hands it has passed through to get there.
Many people who advocate BSD over GPL do so because they stand by the conviction that a person ought to be allowed to close up the source code of a work that they built... and even I am compelled to objectively agree with this proposition, but when it comes to the matter of derivative works, it isn't necessarily just what they built anymore... it is still ultimately copyrighted by the original distributor.
And bearing in mind that under plain ordinary copyright, you actually need to get permission from the copyright holder in order to make a derivative work of something at all, the only real difference between BSD and the GPL is that the requirements for getting permission with BSD (keep the copyright notices intact) vs getting permission with the GPL (agree to the terms of the license, and release your changes under the same license), is that the former's requirements are lax enough that someone is able to take whatever they want for nothing more than credit and not offer anything back. In the longer run. GPL offers more freedom for future developers than BSD does, since with BSD, the amount of freedom can only monotonically decrease as the work evolves over time, passing through different hands, while with the GPL it is guaranteed to remain stable for as long as the terms of the original copyright stand.
The problem comes when a developer may have received a proprietary version of the software for some particular architecture (eg, say it was modified from the original codebase to work under a non-X gui), and where the provider decided to not make their changes from the original BSD codebase available, and the developer wants to make some additional customizations specific to their own needs. Their only option, if they otherwise wanted the features that their provider of the program provided, is to either reimplement all of the changes that their provider of that implementation did.... from scratch. Doable, perhaps... but damn annoying. Hardly a situation that feels "free".
That's the BS. With BSD licensed code, the user can also maintain the system.
Only if they received it from somebody who also utilized an open source license. If they received it from somebody who decided to make modifications and close it up, then the user is SOL, unless they go to the original BSD code and reimplement from scratch all of the changes that the person they received it from originally did.
The *real* difference between the GPL and BSD is that with the GPL, you really do need the copyright holder's permission to copy the work (fair use notwithstanding), which is really the default status under ordinary copyrright anyways. The GPL license merely grants such permission to everyone who abides by its terms, whether they do so out of deliberate choice or if their complaince is simply the result of what they would have done anyways. While technically you still need the copyright holder's permission to copy BSD works as well, the lack of any obligation on the part of anyone who may desire to copy the work ends up being equivalent to not needing any permission at all, and for most practical purposes, is very nearly equivalent to public domain.
So to be perfectly honest, and in all practicality, it might as well just be perfectly legal, since they are just going to do it anyways... and telling them it's illegal won't make them stop.
I think you'd be surprised, actually.... there are an almost unlimited number of mnemonics that a person can use to customize a password within the constraints I mentioned, and make it almost as easy to remember as reciting the alphabet.
Slashdot Mirror
I think that the reason you don't see it happening today is because the most prominent printing standard today, inket, tends to use very expensive consumables, and a price-conscious consumer is not likely to want to waste a lot of money printing frivolous things. Printing on a dot matrix printer was cheap in comparison... probably more than an order of magnitude cheaper, even in today's dollars.
Inkjet cartridges expire so quickly after being opened because they contain ink... which is wet, and evaporates, leaving dry residue in the compartment which cannot be used.
You will save money in the long run in printing costs if you just buy a laser printer, because toner is dry, and does not evaporate from the container. The cartridges are more expensive, but you will buy them so much less frequently that you will actually save a lot of money in the end.
And what difference did it make when it was found out that they did? They still went right on doing it.
So pick a voltage... any voltage, and just calculate the actual energy used if that's what you want. You'll get more energy the more voltage that you use, but that's because the more voltage that you have, the more cells that you've needed to cram into your battery to get there, which has made it heavier. The limiting factor in this will tend to be how much charge you can cram into a cell, which is charge density, and why it is relevant to energy you can get from it.
Nothing you've said is invalid, but how much energy you can deliver is going to be limited by how much charge you have available. Voltage is a measurement of how much work you can do per unit of cf charge. If you have more charge available, it immediately follows that you can do more work for the same application (which tends to have some relatively fixed power specification, requiring a certain amount of voltage and current anyways). The greater the density that you can put charges into a battery (which is going to be some fixed mass), the more charge it can hold, and the more energy you will be able to extract from that battery by drawing electricity.
A valley. Just an impressively large one.
If you have more charge available, it tends to be the case that you will have the ability to actually supply more power in the first place In practice, you will limit the voltage and current to whatever the application demands, and the more charge that you have available, the more energy you will be able to produce for that application.
It *IS* immaterial... because for any given application you are going to be using a constant voltage anyways. Regardless of the specific applications actual power demands, the amount of charge that you have available is still directly proportional to how much energy you will get out of it. Amp-hours is, as I said, a power agnostic evaluation of how much energy something actually has. What that evaluates to in terms of actual joules may be a function of voltage just as certainly as exactly how many km you go on a tank of gas depends on the fuel efficiency of your car... but that doesn't mean that the size of your car's gas tank is not directly proportional to that distance, and the larger that tank is, the further the car would go.
Seriously? If you were actually as indifferent about it as you seem to claim, you wouldn't have bothered to respond at all.
I wasn't disagreeing with the facts that were cited, only pointing out that the amount of work that you are going to get out of a particular amount of charge for a given application is directly proportional to that amount of charge, regardless of what the current or voltage levels are, because for any single given electrical application, the power demands tend to be invariant. Under such circumstances, more charge available means powering that particular application for more time, which results in more work being done.
If you have a battery that has certain number of mAh of charge in it, it will power device X for Y hours...whereas the same voltage of battery with twice that number of mAh in it will power the exact same device for twice as long, and thus will have done more work. For *ANY* given application, charge density directly translates to energy density, even though they are not in the same units.... it's a convenient form because the specification is agnostic to what application it is being used for.
Ampere-hours is a unit of charge (3600 coulombs) that provides an estimate of how much energy can be produced in about the same way that a gasoline tank's size can provide an estimate of how far a car can go without refueling. Even though they are not the same units, there is a direct correlation and one can be computed from the other by multiplying by a constant.
My point being that a given application for electricity generally demands a specific amount of power to operate it, and with more charge available, one can supply that amount of power for a longer period of time. Since energy equals power multiplied by time, charge is therefore proportional to energy, and so charge density is directly proportional to energy density. for any given application.
When the potential difference is constant. having more charge available in a battery means that it will run longer and thus will have been able to do more work before it is depleted.
Often, however, the total available charge ends up translating directly to how much voltage you can actually produce in the first place, so you end up being able to push out more energy that way. If you regulate the voltage to a smaller fixed amount, then you end up with something lasting longer, as mentioned above.
Either way, more charge translates to more energy.
Each coulomb of charge represents a specific number of electrons. It stands to reason that the more electrons you have available to push through a wire, the more work you are going to end up being able to do with those electrons You still need a potential difference to actually do any work, and draw the electrons through, but the amount of work that you will end up being able to do will still be directly proportional to how many electrons you had put into that end of the wire. Since batteries tend to work at a more or less constant voltage, more coulombs means more energy.
Charge is as much a measurement of quantity of electricity as volume is a measurements of a quantity of matter. The more coulombs of charge you have to pump through a wire, the more electricity you will have used, and the more work you will be able to do with it.
I never said it was a measurement of energy. I said it was a unit of charge. With more charge, you can do more work. It is as valid a gauge of how much work you can do as knowing how full your gas tank is tells you how far you can get without refueling
An amp hour is a unit of charge, equal to 3600 coulombs, and is immaterial to current or voltage used. With more charge you can do more work, so charge/mass is perfectly reasonable to represent energy density.
The voltage is immaterial. The energy density stage same regardless of the voltage, since amp-hours s au it of charge, indent of how much current or voltage is actually used. If you hold voltage and current constant, you can always do more work with more charge, so charge/kg is a reasonable representation of energy density.
Actually, people take BSD code and put it in closed-source products all of the time. (eg, Xcode).
I'm not saying that everything should be GPL....it's entirely fine to use BSD if that's what the creator wants. But it's important to realize that in the longer term, GPL is going to give a future developer more freedom to customize the work to their own tastes, regardless of what kind of evolution it has gone through since originally developed, and regardless of whose hands it has passed through to get there.
Many people who advocate BSD over GPL do so because they stand by the conviction that a person ought to be allowed to close up the source code of a work that they built... and even I am compelled to objectively agree with this proposition, but when it comes to the matter of derivative works, it isn't necessarily just what they built anymore... it is still ultimately copyrighted by the original distributor.
And bearing in mind that under plain ordinary copyright, you actually need to get permission from the copyright holder in order to make a derivative work of something at all, the only real difference between BSD and the GPL is that the requirements for getting permission with BSD (keep the copyright notices intact) vs getting permission with the GPL (agree to the terms of the license, and release your changes under the same license), is that the former's requirements are lax enough that someone is able to take whatever they want for nothing more than credit and not offer anything back. In the longer run. GPL offers more freedom for future developers than BSD does, since with BSD, the amount of freedom can only monotonically decrease as the work evolves over time, passing through different hands, while with the GPL it is guaranteed to remain stable for as long as the terms of the original copyright stand.
The problem comes when a developer may have received a proprietary version of the software for some particular architecture (eg, say it was modified from the original codebase to work under a non-X gui), and where the provider decided to not make their changes from the original BSD codebase available, and the developer wants to make some additional customizations specific to their own needs. Their only option, if they otherwise wanted the features that their provider of the program provided, is to either reimplement all of the changes that their provider of that implementation did.... from scratch. Doable, perhaps... but damn annoying. Hardly a situation that feels "free".
Only if they received it from somebody who also utilized an open source license. If they received it from somebody who decided to make modifications and close it up, then the user is SOL, unless they go to the original BSD code and reimplement from scratch all of the changes that the person they received it from originally did.
Not that I'm doubting you, but when and where was this given as the reason for what you suggest?
The *real* difference between the GPL and BSD is that with the GPL, you really do need the copyright holder's permission to copy the work (fair use notwithstanding), which is really the default status under ordinary copyrright anyways. The GPL license merely grants such permission to everyone who abides by its terms, whether they do so out of deliberate choice or if their complaince is simply the result of what they would have done anyways. While technically you still need the copyright holder's permission to copy BSD works as well, the lack of any obligation on the part of anyone who may desire to copy the work ends up being equivalent to not needing any permission at all, and for most practical purposes, is very nearly equivalent to public domain.
This was honestly the first thing I thought of when I read the summary...
This.
What is the point of saying it is illegal at all?
So to be perfectly honest, and in all practicality, it might as well just be perfectly legal, since they are just going to do it anyways... and telling them it's illegal won't make them stop.
I think you'd be surprised, actually.... there are an almost unlimited number of mnemonics that a person can use to customize a password within the constraints I mentioned, and make it almost as easy to remember as reciting the alphabet.
Who said I was talking about password requirements for a website?