> It's not worth his time ($150/hr) to learn how to do something he can get you to do for free.
If you'd bother to read his comment, you'd notice that it takes longer for him to get the other person to do the work than for him to do it himself.
The learning curve involved with this is practically zero. We're talking 1 minute. That's about $1 or $2 at $150 per hour. Cheaper than a short stack of CD-Rs.
>Professional event photographers have to follow a huge profit margin repeat customer business model, or they will go out of business.
Okay, I'm going to work out some numbers here. Let me know if I'm off:
I beleive a professional photographer would normally be paid about $2,000 for work at a wedding.
I also believe that in most parts of North America, a decent wage is $60,000 a year.
I think the equipment a professional photographer would use, minus what he needs for prints (he's a photographer, NOT a photo lab), will run about $30,000, and last at least 5 years, consumables costing, say, $10,000 yearly. We'll say the photographer has an office, costing $1,000 a month. And we'll throw his car into the equation to, including gas, for another $1,000 a month.
This means a photographer needs to make $124,000 for the first year, and $94,000 a year after that. That's 62 sets of wedding photos, or just over 1 set a week the first year, and just 47 sets of wedding photos, less than 1 set a week after that. If he works an 8 hour workday, 5 days a week (if only!), that means he spends 34 hours per set of photographs in the first year, and 44 hours per set of photographs after that.
And then, on top of that, the photographer thinks they need *more* money? Honestly, explain, how exactly it takes *more* than 44 hours to prepare and return wedding photos (how else can you justify trying to charge more in the future)? It's absolutely ludicrous. Artists *paint* pictures, some of which now worth millions, in less than that amount of time.
Heck, from my point of view, a photographer should charge no more than $500 for a wedding shoot (that'd be 11 hours spent on each set of photographs -- seems like plenty of time to me).
>Especially not if you've done something no one else has, risked your ass in an out of the way war-zone, spent time in prison, gotten arrested, whatever.
Yeah, well, there you have your difference, don't you?
Have you ever seen a wedding photographer shot at or go to prison (as a result of being at the wedding, not because they're idiots)?
My guess is, no.
So, why does a wedding photographer think they should enjoy the same rights as you? If anything, you should be PISSED OFF that a wedding photographer thinks they work as hard as you and deserves the same rights as you for so much less hard work.
>Why should the photographer give up to you a potential revenue stream for cheap?
I work in the satellite business and I know there's two kinds of installers.
There's the kind like me, who go to a person's house, point the dish, program the satellite receiver, and that's it. Customer is happy and they pay me. When the transponder list goes out of date, sometimes they'll come to my store and pay $15 to get me to update it (it only takes 10 minutes), or sometimes they'll just download a new one from satcodx or lyngsat. I don't get worked up about that, it's only $15.
Then there's type number two. They do the same work as me, but they spend an extra minute secretly setting the lockout code on the receiver. Then, when the transponder list is out of date, they charge another $75 to go out and push a few buttons.
Guess who sells, and eventually, makes more?
I do. Becuase, the people who bought the other guy's service come to me after and buy a new receiver to replace the one the other person wrecked, or, if they're lucky, they pay me $15 to find the generic unlock code for their receiver (often, but not always, available).
Get over yourself. You just make yourself look unprofessional by retaining rights to something that makes absolutely NO sense for you to own, and you encourage people to do the work for themselves (just as word gets out about the "lockout guy" people buy satellite meters from me and do the work themselves). Sure, they'll definately do a poorer job than you, just as people trying to point their own dishes rarely peak them properly, but as with photos they'd rather have an "OK" job over a "Great" one if they don't have to take the same asprin you're taking right now whenever they want reprints.
But hey, it's your business. All I know is, when my wedding comes up, I don't think I'll be bothering with a photographer. Not unless I find one that is willing to, at no extra cost, let me have the rights to the photos. Otherwise, fuck it, I'll just get buy a couple of nice cameras and ask the moms and dads to take the shots. I know my parents are competent to take a level shot, and since they know that if they don't take half decent photos, they're wrecking the wedding, they'll know well enough not to get completely smashed.
>Since most business is booked via word of mouth, you don't want someone showing some cheesy ink jet print off.
While, lucky for you, you have copyright to protect you from someone making a hash of photographs you take, car makers don't seem to enjoy that right.
IMHO, if it's possible, I'd tell the couple they may have a license to reproduce sample images as much as they like. You could then add, in an inconspicous part of the photograph, not just your address (in case the couple forgets, or worse yet, decides they *didn't* like your service and doesn't let people know), but that this print was NOT created by you.
That way you wouldn't be accused of doing a poor job of reprints, and the family is satisfied that if they email a few copies of the photos to distant relatives, they won't be going to jail.
>Do you know that quantity and density are not the same concepts? Perhaps you should go look them up.
I know it very well, because, unlike you, I own and run a small business.
Let me explain them to you, using my knowledge, and I am absolutely certain you will understand my reservations to applying an "algorithm" meant for small potatoes to big ones.
I sell satellite systems, retail, amongst other things. Normally, I, or my business partner, will travel to a set of distributors each week and pick up a full load of eqiupment for resale. I expect a certain amount of customers to buy, and, in general, I ensure the load I purchase will satisfy the amounts they require (quantity). On a standard day, I might do $1,500 in satellite sales (density).
At times, demand will randomly rise. I have had days where sales have broken $10,000 (high density). While those days look nice on paper, they aren't. It causes an entirely new set of problems. The amount of stock I have (quantity) drops to zero (1 week x $1,500 expected sales daily = $10,500). Should this happen on a day where the distributor will be unavailble for some time (example: Friday -- which is when this normally can happen), my sales for some time drop to zero (you can't sell what you don't have). So the $10,000 sales ruins the next set of days sales until I can get to the distributors and pick up more product.
So, why did I tell you all that?
An algorithm (the one I'm using to keep the store profitable) which is suited to an average quantity, and an average density, when applied to a situation of high density, but proportiantely low quantity, fails and causes chaos. I'm sure you will just say "Raise your prices!". It simply doesn't work that way, and as this debate isn't about my prices, its best I don't go into details as to why that's not possible and confuse the situation.
The same argument could easily be applied when trying to make New York City into Venice. Ask someone who deals with Macroeconomics just how damaging your idea would be to New York City, and, indirectly, to the rest of the world.
>Anyway, your total nonsequitur of total population is dismissed.
Your ad hominem attacks mean you don't get to use debating skills against me. Or did you forget you were the first to accuse me of being a troll?
Now, get lost. If you want to debate, come back. If you want to use your debating knowledge (which it appears you are, slowly, deciding to do), come on back. I'll be waiting. But, don't forget, you broke the debating rules first. So you're the one who has to do the "sucking up".
>There certainly comes a point of diminishing returns for society as a whole...
Absolutely. By refusing to spend 4 hours walking to work, and instead driving just 25 minutes, I help reduce the number of lives lost to commuting. Also, by living in an area allowing me to practice hobbies I enjoy, I help reduce the my number of visits (to zero) to a psychiatrist.
Note that venice is not even considered a major city by North American standards (a city in the US requires a population of over 1 million to be considered a metropolis -- while cities of the size of Venice are common, few to none are popularly known oustside of their respective states). Further note that disqualifies it as useful in your argument. Also note, that while I live in a town tiny enough few people know about it outside of my province (not to mention that few know of it INSIDE my province), it has a larger population than venice.
Notice the difference. See what I'm getting at? If not, perhaps you should ask the residents of Italy, why, if Venice is such a panacea, that the vast majority of them live in Rome instead?
But hey, try and troll me again, I feel like arguing tonight.
I continue to present your idea of making cities like venice as unworkable until it is proven to work with a population of 1 million+, which would be a sizeable city in North America, and not just an extremely tiny suburb, such as Venice would be here.
You're probably right on those accounts (I don't use OS X, so I can't be sure, but you seem knowledgeable).
However, what I'm saying is that this laptop from Toshiba appears to be unique in that it has video capture built in, rather than requiring external hardware to accomplish that task.
>You're not suggesting that Manhattan is ugly or impractical, are you?
a) Yes. b) 22 km is only 3 km less than I drive to work. Which means it doesn't fit the short walk to work idea at all. That would mean work is within, at most, maybe 2 km of your home (that's about a 15 minute walk 'n jog). c) You see my point?
>First place, you're conflating metric and imperial measurements. Use one or the other, for clarity's sake.
The only measurement that mattered was the speed, which I provided correctly converted. The marathon is measured in miles and it's expected to be listed as miles. Either way, that wasn't important.
>Second place, if everyone did this, people wouldn't travel 15 miles for a job.
And if that happened you'd have to walk up 200 flights of stairs because you'd be living in a skyscraper box apartment. There's no other way to house everyone within 10 blocks of their work. Don't mention NYC or other places like that -- many people there live in the 'burbs, too.
>There's probably no reason beside conveniece that you live 15 miles away from your job.
There's plenty of reasons. Allow me to list them:
- I own a 10 ft. C-Band dish.
- I have 4 other satellite dishes at home.
- I am a (newly licensed) HAM radio operator.
- I have a 40 ft. TV tower.
- I enjoy building things with power tools.
- Having a campfire at night is fun.
- I like(ed) having my own personal outdoor pool.
- Mowing the lawn can be fun, sometimes.
- I like to crank the stereo up to ear-bleeding volumes at 2 am, just because sometimes I'm busy at night, and it's fun.
- It's cool to have late night parties with lots of people.
- My home has never been broken into.
None of these can be done in a skyscraper apartment.
And convenience is having only one restaurant within a 15 minutes drive, and a single minimart that only opens between 6 am and 8 pm?
Not likely. I live there because "city folk" would want to strangle me for doing things that most people would consider normal, but definately NIMBY, activities.
I'm keeping my ass away from the city. As should most folk who don't want to end up on an episode of Friends.
>but I bet if you had to run to work everyday, you wouldn't be living 25km away...
And I bet if everyone were to do that, we'd have to build mile high skyscrapers all over the place and ruin any sort of beaty the city ever had. Oh, and walking up 200 flights of stairs can't be good for you either.
The idea won't work unless we kill, say, 75% of the earth's population. Then it might be workable.
>Laugh if you will, but we'd all be a lot healthier if we followed Fred's example and ran to and from the office, instead of hit cruise control after rolling drive-thru.
I doubt it. I think a lot of people would die of exhaustion, even professional runners.
For example, my drive is about 25 km. A marathon run of 26 miles takes over 2 hours for the worlds fastest runner (20 km/h). An average fit person who had not traied would easily take double that time (10 km/h), probably much more.
This means I, for an example, would be expected to run 4 hours per day with only a single break. I don't think you'll find a doctor on the entire planet that thinks that's actually a healthy thing.
But hey, if you want to delude yourself and run 4 hours a day, hey, what the hell, you're the one that'll die, not me.
(Not that exercise is a bad thing, but you're being silly)
>But if the Japanese were "considering" surrender, would it not have been better to see where that lead before dropping nuclear weapons on two heavily populated cities?
That would require a cease fire. The Japanese had no interest in such activities. Therefore, the Japanese surrender would either have to happen at random, or from a cause. "Waiting it out" would mean death of the Japanese culture, and death of a lot of American soldiers.
>Discussion and compromise is much better than nuclear holocaust.
I agree, but that is not what the Japanese Emperor was about during the war. He has no interest in discussion, and compromise would only happen if the people themselves felt so betrayed by their emperor that they would leave him. That would take a lot more lives and cities than we bombed.
>Which would make the US the bad guys in the Iraq war, and thus deserving of a nuke or two in some heavily populated cities?
If the situation called for it. If it appeared that by doing that, fewer Americans and Iraqis would die and the war would end sooner.
Of course, despite what appears to be an irrational comment, you know as well as I do that nuking America would GUARANTEE Iraq would become the most nuked and irradiated country in the world themselves.
So, no, it would be very foolish to do what you suggested, despite the fact that the war against Iraq is unjustified, and out of line.
>Many people have pointed out theat the Japanese were considering surrender before the bombings.
Considering and "doing" are very different things. Example: The US is "considering" pulling out of Afghanistan and Iraq.
>Have you ever pushed an amplifier into clipping? With a solid-state amp, it's a really harsh, nasty sound, while a tube amp pushed to clipping will overload much more
Yes, and I totally agree.
That's why when you buy solid state, you buy more amp then you need. Then it never goes into clipping. Since you can buy high powered solid state equipment, and have enough money left to buy the bank as compared to tube equipment which would be "just enough" for your present soundsystem, you never need to worry about clipping.
That is, unless you are running a club. In that case, you're still going all solid state.
I just don't see where a vacuum tube fits in to modern day purchases. It's not cost effective, it's not efficient, it's heavier, and it's probably worse for the environment.
Where's the benefit? I just can't see it.
>I don't know - maybe a DSP could make an overdriven amp sound less bad, but I doubt it.
That's not the point. The point is that if you like the distortion an overloaded tube amp gives, you can reproduce that distortion with a DSP for a solid state amplifier. And again, still have piles of money left over.
Then again, to me, distortion of ANY kind absolutely sucks. So, I "overbuy" my amp and never hear any. If I were a crazy millionaire, I'd do the same with a tube amp, too. Then I wouldn't hear any distortion (again).
>You're either totally missing th point, or I'm wasting my time responding to a troll.
NO! You're missing the point. The point is to faithfully reproduce music the way the author intended it to be done. Anything apart from that is fine, if you like that sound, but that becomes a personal taste issue, not a quality of sound issue. If your personal taste gravitates toward tubes, well, that's ok for you. However, solid state still sounds great to many people.
As long as you aren't overdriving either unit (tube or solid state) you can do this. The argument against tubes then becomes the fact they're expensive and inefficient.
>Come to think of it, the tubes/transistors debate is about as played out as the vi vs. emacs debate. I'm not going to get into which is analogous to which...:)
You know, that's true.:-) Although, it'd make just a little more sense if you had to pay for them.
>My position: Making good sound come out of a musical instrument is not science, it's art, and therefore not constrained by logic.
Yeah. Ok. Sure. It's "art". Therefore beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and we're both right.
art my ass. Sound reproduction is sound reproduction, and accuracy is key.
Inaccurate reproduction of any "art" is generally regarded as "bad", except, for some unknown (and likely moronic) reason, when you're dealing with audio.
Why is it that if you add a moustache to the Mona Lisa, they call you an idiot, but if you add unintended harmonics to music, it's all of a sudden high art?
I call bullshit.
>So i'm guessing you are a 11th grade student?
Just because you didn't bother to complete high school doesn't mean no one else did.
Since you probably can't read the datasheet, I'll let you in on what's important:
Collector Current (DC) = 25 A
That's just a cheapo $3 part. Imagine what a $30 part can do!
>Furthermore, EVERY high powered TV and Radio station you've ever heard of uses tubes for output amplification. So, take 700 WLW in cincinnati, outputting half a million watts. Thats all tubes.
Watts != current!
We learned this in GRADE 10 PHYSICS, for Christs' sakes!
Question: How many amps of current exit a small power generation station supplying 10 grids through high voltage mains (250,000 volts is typical)? The station is generating, oh, let's say 1,000,000 watts.
Let's do the math (why do I have to explain this again?)
P = I * V I = P / V I = 1,000,000 / 250,000 I = 4 amps.
But, why, you'll ask, does a power station do that?
Take a look at this AWG chart. Note how the wire is rated as ohms per feet.
Play about with those numbers in ohms law for a while.
Ahhhh. The answer hits you like a tonne of bricks.
So...
Tubes = High Voltage Transistors = High Current
Now. Speakers = High Conductivity. That means high currents if you want to drive them with lots of power.
You do the math.
Impedance matching transformers? YUCK! Why the hell would you want to further distort the sound? At least transistor based amps can direct drive your speakers. The last thing I dealt with that used impedance matching transformers was a PA system, and it sounded worse than a drive thru speaker.
If P = 3000 watts, and it's hooked up to a standard home speaker (8 ohms), rearranging, we get:
I^2 = P / R I = (P/R)^1/2 I = (3000/8)^1/2 I = (375)^1/2 I = 19.364916731037084425896326998912 amps
If you managed to squeeze 500 volts into your standard speaker, you'd have:
P = V^2 / R P = 500^2 / 8 P = 31,250 watts
At a current of:
I = V / R I = 500 / 8 I = 62.5 Amps
(I'd suggest using 00 AWG cable for that setup, LOL!) [ok, ok, you'd probably get away with 4 AWG]
Of course, input current would be higher. Also, speakers are a reactive device, so therefore these numbers are rough guesstimates. I don't feel like busting out my Algebra book to do the complex math required to give you an exact number.:)
>There's a reason why broadcasters opt for tubes for outputting high power RF transmissions.
And that reason is tubes are a great high voltage device, whereas most solid state devices are better at handling higher currents (when correctly designed).
Now, for fun, let's hook your favourite high power RF transmitter to a 4 ohm speaker rather than 50 ohm coax and watch it melt (wooohooo!). Hell, let's say the RF amplifier is tuned for shortwave. Hook that baby up to a cell phone antenna. MELTY MELTY!
"This means that the load resistance must be the same as the characteristic impedance of the transmission line, and the load must contain no reactance (that is, the load must be free of inductance or capacitance). In any other situation, the voltage and current fluctuate at various points along the line, and the SWR is not 1."
Considering most speakers are nothing but HUGE inductors, they're the exact antithesis of what you should hook up to an RF transmitter.
Slashdot Mirror
> It's not worth his time ($150/hr) to learn how to do something he can get you to do for free.
If you'd bother to read his comment, you'd notice that it takes longer for him to get the other person to do the work than for him to do it himself.
The learning curve involved with this is practically zero. We're talking 1 minute. That's about $1 or $2 at $150 per hour. Cheaper than a short stack of CD-Rs.
>Professional event photographers have to follow a huge profit margin repeat customer business model, or they will go out of business.
Okay, I'm going to work out some numbers here. Let me know if I'm off:
I beleive a professional photographer would normally be paid about $2,000 for work at a wedding.
I also believe that in most parts of North America, a decent wage is $60,000 a year.
I think the equipment a professional photographer would use, minus what he needs for prints (he's a photographer, NOT a photo lab), will run about $30,000, and last at least 5 years, consumables costing, say, $10,000 yearly. We'll say the photographer has an office, costing $1,000 a month. And we'll throw his car into the equation to, including gas, for another $1,000 a month.
This means a photographer needs to make $124,000 for the first year, and $94,000 a year after that. That's 62 sets of wedding photos, or just over 1 set a week the first year, and just 47 sets of wedding photos, less than 1 set a week after that. If he works an 8 hour workday, 5 days a week (if only!), that means he spends 34 hours per set of photographs in the first year, and 44 hours per set of photographs after that.
And then, on top of that, the photographer thinks they need *more* money? Honestly, explain, how exactly it takes *more* than 44 hours to prepare and return wedding photos (how else can you justify trying to charge more in the future)? It's absolutely ludicrous. Artists *paint* pictures, some of which now worth millions, in less than that amount of time.
Heck, from my point of view, a photographer should charge no more than $500 for a wedding shoot (that'd be 11 hours spent on each set of photographs -- seems like plenty of time to me).
>Especially not if you've done something no one else has, risked your ass in an out of the way war-zone, spent time in prison, gotten arrested, whatever.
Yeah, well, there you have your difference, don't you?
Have you ever seen a wedding photographer shot at or go to prison (as a result of being at the wedding, not because they're idiots)?
My guess is, no.
So, why does a wedding photographer think they should enjoy the same rights as you? If anything, you should be PISSED OFF that a wedding photographer thinks they work as hard as you and deserves the same rights as you for so much less hard work.
>Why should the photographer give up to you a potential revenue stream for cheap?
I work in the satellite business and I know there's two kinds of installers.
There's the kind like me, who go to a person's house, point the dish, program the satellite receiver, and that's it. Customer is happy and they pay me. When the transponder list goes out of date, sometimes they'll come to my store and pay $15 to get me to update it (it only takes 10 minutes), or sometimes they'll just download a new one from satcodx or lyngsat. I don't get worked up about that, it's only $15.
Then there's type number two. They do the same work as me, but they spend an extra minute secretly setting the lockout code on the receiver. Then, when the transponder list is out of date, they charge another $75 to go out and push a few buttons.
Guess who sells, and eventually, makes more?
I do. Becuase, the people who bought the other guy's service come to me after and buy a new receiver to replace the one the other person wrecked, or, if they're lucky, they pay me $15 to find the generic unlock code for their receiver (often, but not always, available).
Get over yourself. You just make yourself look unprofessional by retaining rights to something that makes absolutely NO sense for you to own, and you encourage people to do the work for themselves (just as word gets out about the "lockout guy" people buy satellite meters from me and do the work themselves). Sure, they'll definately do a poorer job than you, just as people trying to point their own dishes rarely peak them properly, but as with photos they'd rather have an "OK" job over a "Great" one if they don't have to take the same asprin you're taking right now whenever they want reprints.
But hey, it's your business. All I know is, when my wedding comes up, I don't think I'll be bothering with a photographer. Not unless I find one that is willing to, at no extra cost, let me have the rights to the photos. Otherwise, fuck it, I'll just get buy a couple of nice cameras and ask the moms and dads to take the shots. I know my parents are competent to take a level shot, and since they know that if they don't take half decent photos, they're wrecking the wedding, they'll know well enough not to get completely smashed.
>Since most business is booked via word of mouth, you don't want someone showing some cheesy ink jet print off.
While, lucky for you, you have copyright to protect you from someone making a hash of photographs you take, car makers don't seem to enjoy that right.
IMHO, if it's possible, I'd tell the couple they may have a license to reproduce sample images as much as they like. You could then add, in an inconspicous part of the photograph, not just your address (in case the couple forgets, or worse yet, decides they *didn't* like your service and doesn't let people know), but that this print was NOT created by you.
That way you wouldn't be accused of doing a poor job of reprints, and the family is satisfied that if they email a few copies of the photos to distant relatives, they won't be going to jail.
>Do you know that quantity and density are not the same concepts? Perhaps you should go look them up.
I know it very well, because, unlike you, I own and run a small business.
Let me explain them to you, using my knowledge, and I am absolutely certain you will understand my reservations to applying an "algorithm" meant for small potatoes to big ones.
I sell satellite systems, retail, amongst other things. Normally, I, or my business partner, will travel to a set of distributors each week and pick up a full load of eqiupment for resale. I expect a certain amount of customers to buy, and, in general, I ensure the load I purchase will satisfy the amounts they require (quantity). On a standard day, I might do $1,500 in satellite sales (density).
At times, demand will randomly rise. I have had days where sales have broken $10,000 (high density). While those days look nice on paper, they aren't. It causes an entirely new set of problems. The amount of stock I have (quantity) drops to zero (1 week x $1,500 expected sales daily = $10,500). Should this happen on a day where the distributor will be unavailble for some time (example: Friday -- which is when this normally can happen), my sales for some time drop to zero (you can't sell what you don't have). So the $10,000 sales ruins the next set of days sales until I can get to the distributors and pick up more product.
So, why did I tell you all that?
An algorithm (the one I'm using to keep the store profitable) which is suited to an average quantity, and an average density, when applied to a situation of high density, but proportiantely low quantity, fails and causes chaos. I'm sure you will just say "Raise your prices!". It simply doesn't work that way, and as this debate isn't about my prices, its best I don't go into details as to why that's not possible and confuse the situation.
The same argument could easily be applied when trying to make New York City into Venice. Ask someone who deals with Macroeconomics just how damaging your idea would be to New York City, and, indirectly, to the rest of the world.
>Anyway, your total nonsequitur of total population is dismissed.
Your ad hominem attacks mean you don't get to use debating skills against me. Or did you forget you were the first to accuse me of being a troll?
Now, get lost. If you want to debate, come back. If you want to use your debating knowledge (which it appears you are, slowly, deciding to do), come on back. I'll be waiting. But, don't forget, you broke the debating rules first. So you're the one who has to do the "sucking up".
Slashdot is breaking under the stress again!
>There certainly comes a point of diminishing returns for society as a whole...
Absolutely. By refusing to spend 4 hours walking to work, and instead driving just 25 minutes, I help reduce the number of lives lost to commuting. Also, by living in an area allowing me to practice hobbies I enjoy, I help reduce the my number of visits (to zero) to a psychiatrist.
Note that venice is not even considered a major city by North American standards (a city in the US requires a population of over 1 million to be considered a metropolis -- while cities of the size of Venice are common, few to none are popularly known oustside of their respective states). Further note that disqualifies it as useful in your argument. Also note, that while I live in a town tiny enough few people know about it outside of my province (not to mention that few know of it INSIDE my province), it has a larger population than venice.
For your reference.
Population of venice, italy: 275,368
Population of NY, NY: 8,084,316
Notice the difference. See what I'm getting at? If not, perhaps you should ask the residents of Italy, why, if Venice is such a panacea, that the vast majority of them live in Rome instead?
But hey, try and troll me again, I feel like arguing tonight.
I continue to present your idea of making cities like venice as unworkable until it is proven to work with a population of 1 million+, which would be a sizeable city in North America, and not just an extremely tiny suburb, such as Venice would be here.
You're probably right on those accounts (I don't use OS X, so I can't be sure, but you seem knowledgeable).
However, what I'm saying is that this laptop from Toshiba appears to be unique in that it has video capture built in, rather than requiring external hardware to accomplish that task.
I wonder what Apple will do to play catchup? It'll be nice to see direct video capture on a laptop without any added hardware!
>You're not suggesting that Manhattan is ugly or impractical, are you?
a) Yes.
b) 22 km is only 3 km less than I drive to work. Which means it doesn't fit the short walk to work idea at all. That would mean work is within, at most, maybe 2 km of your home (that's about a 15 minute walk 'n jog).
c) You see my point?
>First place, you're conflating metric and imperial measurements. Use one or the other, for clarity's sake.
The only measurement that mattered was the speed, which I provided correctly converted. The marathon is measured in miles and it's expected to be listed as miles. Either way, that wasn't important.
>Second place, if everyone did this, people wouldn't travel 15 miles for a job.
And if that happened you'd have to walk up 200 flights of stairs because you'd be living in a skyscraper box apartment. There's no other way to house everyone within 10 blocks of their work. Don't mention NYC or other places like that -- many people there live in the 'burbs, too.
>There's probably no reason beside conveniece that you live 15 miles away from your job.
There's plenty of reasons. Allow me to list them:
- I own a 10 ft. C-Band dish.
- I have 4 other satellite dishes at home.
- I am a (newly licensed) HAM radio operator.
- I have a 40 ft. TV tower.
- I enjoy building things with power tools.
- Having a campfire at night is fun.
- I like(ed) having my own personal outdoor pool.
- Mowing the lawn can be fun, sometimes.
- I like to crank the stereo up to ear-bleeding volumes at 2 am, just because sometimes I'm busy at night, and it's fun.
- It's cool to have late night parties with lots of people.
- My home has never been broken into.
None of these can be done in a skyscraper apartment.
And convenience is having only one restaurant within a 15 minutes drive, and a single minimart that only opens between 6 am and 8 pm?
Not likely. I live there because "city folk" would want to strangle me for doing things that most people would consider normal, but definately NIMBY, activities.
I'm keeping my ass away from the city. As should most folk who don't want to end up on an episode of Friends.
>Should we inject our kids with RFID tags?
Definately not. I am certain any kid that has that done will end up resenting their parents when they are older for violating them like that.
Heck, if it weren't for all the "normalcy" society places on it, circumcision would be a cause for resentment of one's parents, too.
At least an anklet can be taken off without leaving any permanent reminders.
>but I bet if you had to run to work everyday, you wouldn't be living 25km away...
And I bet if everyone were to do that, we'd have to build mile high skyscrapers all over the place and ruin any sort of beaty the city ever had. Oh, and walking up 200 flights of stairs can't be good for you either.
The idea won't work unless we kill, say, 75% of the earth's population. Then it might be workable.
>Laugh if you will, but we'd all be a lot healthier if we followed Fred's example and ran to and from the office, instead of hit cruise control after rolling drive-thru.
I doubt it. I think a lot of people would die of exhaustion, even professional runners.
For example, my drive is about 25 km. A marathon run of 26 miles takes over 2 hours for the worlds fastest runner (20 km/h). An average fit person who had not traied would easily take double that time (10 km/h), probably much more.
This means I, for an example, would be expected to run 4 hours per day with only a single break. I don't think you'll find a doctor on the entire planet that thinks that's actually a healthy thing.
But hey, if you want to delude yourself and run 4 hours a day, hey, what the hell, you're the one that'll die, not me.
(Not that exercise is a bad thing, but you're being silly)
[Is slashdot broken, AGAIN?]
>But if the Japanese were "considering" surrender, would it not have been better to see where that lead before dropping nuclear weapons on two heavily populated cities?
That would require a cease fire. The Japanese had no interest in such activities. Therefore, the Japanese surrender would either have to happen at random, or from a cause. "Waiting it out" would mean death of the Japanese culture, and death of a lot of American soldiers.
>Discussion and compromise is much better than nuclear holocaust.
I agree, but that is not what the Japanese Emperor was about during the war. He has no interest in discussion, and compromise would only happen if the people themselves felt so betrayed by their emperor that they would leave him. That would take a lot more lives and cities than we bombed.
>Which would make the US the bad guys in the Iraq war, and thus deserving of a nuke or two in some heavily populated cities?
If the situation called for it. If it appeared that by doing that, fewer Americans and Iraqis would die and the war would end sooner.
Of course, despite what appears to be an irrational comment, you know as well as I do that nuking America would GUARANTEE Iraq would become the most nuked and irradiated country in the world themselves.
So, no, it would be very foolish to do what you suggested, despite the fact that the war against Iraq is unjustified, and out of line.
>Many people have pointed out theat the Japanese were considering surrender before the bombings.
Considering and "doing" are very different things. Example: The US is "considering" pulling out of Afghanistan and Iraq.
>please take your warezing rear elsewhere or by a legit copy with a legit key.
That's a good idea. However, once I'm by a copy with a legit key, how can I read it with my ass?
>THIS is a transistor. /me salivates. 230 watts dissipation? 180 Amps? Nice!
>Have you ever pushed an amplifier into clipping? With a solid-state amp, it's a really harsh, nasty sound, while a tube amp pushed to clipping will overload much more
:)
:-) Although, it'd make just a little more sense if you had to pay for them.
Yes, and I totally agree.
That's why when you buy solid state, you buy more amp then you need. Then it never goes into clipping. Since you can buy high powered solid state equipment, and have enough money left to buy the bank as compared to tube equipment which would be "just enough" for your present soundsystem, you never need to worry about clipping.
That is, unless you are running a club. In that case, you're still going all solid state.
I just don't see where a vacuum tube fits in to modern day purchases. It's not cost effective, it's not efficient, it's heavier, and it's probably worse for the environment.
Where's the benefit? I just can't see it.
>I don't know - maybe a DSP could make an overdriven amp sound less bad, but I doubt it.
That's not the point. The point is that if you like the distortion an overloaded tube amp gives, you can reproduce that distortion with a DSP for a solid state amplifier. And again, still have piles of money left over.
Then again, to me, distortion of ANY kind absolutely sucks. So, I "overbuy" my amp and never hear any. If I were a crazy millionaire, I'd do the same with a tube amp, too. Then I wouldn't hear any distortion (again).
>You're either totally missing th point, or I'm wasting my time responding to a troll.
NO! You're missing the point. The point is to faithfully reproduce music the way the author intended it to be done. Anything apart from that is fine, if you like that sound, but that becomes a personal taste issue, not a quality of sound issue. If your personal taste gravitates toward tubes, well, that's ok for you. However, solid state still sounds great to many people.
As long as you aren't overdriving either unit (tube or solid state) you can do this. The argument against tubes then becomes the fact they're expensive and inefficient.
>Come to think of it, the tubes/transistors debate is about as played out as the vi vs. emacs debate. I'm not going to get into which is analogous to which...
You know, that's true.
>My position: Making good sound come out of a musical instrument is not science, it's art, and therefore not constrained by logic.
Yeah. Ok. Sure. It's "art". Therefore beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and we're both right.
art my ass. Sound reproduction is sound reproduction, and accuracy is key.
Inaccurate reproduction of any "art" is generally regarded as "bad", except, for some unknown (and likely moronic) reason, when you're dealing with audio.
Why is it that if you add a moustache to the Mona Lisa, they call you an idiot, but if you add unintended harmonics to music, it's all of a sudden high art?
I call bullshit.
>So i'm guessing you are a 11th grade student?
Just because you didn't bother to complete high school doesn't mean no one else did.
Welcome to the foes list.
>well, this just shows how little you know on the subject.
See, this just shows how stupidly pompously arrogant you are.
>Sorry, its TRANSISTORS that can't handle the current.
Oh. I guess that explains this then, right?
Since you probably can't read the datasheet, I'll let you in on what's important:
Collector Current (DC) = 25 A
That's just a cheapo $3 part. Imagine what a $30 part can do!
>Furthermore, EVERY high powered TV and Radio station you've ever heard of uses tubes for output amplification. So, take 700 WLW in cincinnati, outputting half a million watts. Thats all tubes.
Watts != current!
We learned this in GRADE 10 PHYSICS, for Christs' sakes!
Question: How many amps of current exit a small power generation station supplying 10 grids through high voltage mains (250,000 volts is typical)? The station is generating, oh, let's say 1,000,000 watts.
Let's do the math (why do I have to explain this again?)
P = I * V
I = P / V
I = 1,000,000 / 250,000
I = 4 amps.
But, why, you'll ask, does a power station do that?
Take a look at this AWG chart. Note how the wire is rated as ohms per feet.
Play about with those numbers in ohms law for a while.
Ahhhh. The answer hits you like a tonne of bricks.
So...
Tubes = High Voltage
Transistors = High Current
Now. Speakers = High Conductivity. That means high currents if you want to drive them with lots of power.
You do the math.
Impedance matching transformers? YUCK! Why the hell would you want to further distort the sound? At least transistor based amps can direct drive your speakers. The last thing I dealt with that used impedance matching transformers was a PA system, and it sounded worse than a drive thru speaker.
>I don't get the 20A thing, dude...
:)
V = I * R
P = I * V
therefore, substituting I*R for V, we get
P = I^2 * R
If P = 3000 watts, and it's hooked up to a standard home speaker (8 ohms), rearranging, we get:
I^2 = P / R
I = (P/R)^1/2
I = (3000/8)^1/2
I = (375)^1/2
I = 19.364916731037084425896326998912 amps
If you managed to squeeze 500 volts into your standard speaker, you'd have:
P = V^2 / R
P = 500^2 / 8
P = 31,250 watts
At a current of:
I = V / R
I = 500 / 8
I = 62.5 Amps
(I'd suggest using 00 AWG cable for that setup, LOL!) [ok, ok, you'd probably get away with 4 AWG]
Of course, input current would be higher. Also, speakers are a reactive device, so therefore these numbers are rough guesstimates. I don't feel like busting out my Algebra book to do the complex math required to give you an exact number.
Then why do I have an AOpen tube sound motherboard poster straight from AOpen themselves? Because they have lots of money to waste?
>There's a reason why broadcasters opt for tubes for outputting high power RF transmissions.
And that reason is tubes are a great high voltage device, whereas most solid state devices are better at handling higher currents (when correctly designed).
Now, for fun, let's hook your favourite high power RF transmitter to a 4 ohm speaker rather than 50 ohm coax and watch it melt (wooohooo!). Hell, let's say the RF amplifier is tuned for shortwave. Hook that baby up to a cell phone antenna. MELTY MELTY!
One is definately not the same as the other.
For more info, read this.
"This means that the load resistance must be the same as the
characteristic impedance of the transmission line, and the load must contain
no reactance (that is, the load must be free of inductance or capacitance).
In any other situation, the voltage and current fluctuate at various points
along the line, and the SWR is not 1."
Considering most speakers are nothing but HUGE inductors, they're the exact antithesis of what you should hook up to an RF transmitter.