When was DRM not about protecting business models? The book and movie industries apparently think they are different from the music industry who has (mostly) learned that if they sell content in a form people want and at a reasonable price, people will buy it. Charge too much or make it too hard to get and people will find other ways to get it. I bought a lot of CD's through the original mp3.com, then after the music industry shut it down, I stopped buying music and have never bought a single DRM protected song... but have picked up a few mp3 albums after non-DRM music started becoming available. But sadly, it's still often cheaper to buy a used (or sometimes new) physical CD and rip it myself than to purchase an electronic album.
It's a lot more energy intensive than mass transport, still. You are of course right about our yield from renewable energy sources - but can improve that quickly enough to meet demand?
Not every journey is going to be catered for by public transport, end to end. But surely the vast majority of everyone's daily mileage could be fulfilled with it.
Kudos to Toyota, though. As an automotive development this is a great thing.
Are fuel efficient cars really more energy intensive than mass transit when you're outside of dense urban areas? For example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_efficiency_in_transportation#Buses A diesel bus commuter service in Santa Barbara, California, USA, found average diesel bus efficiency of 6.0 mpg-US (39 L/100 km; 7.2 mpg-imp) (using MCI 102DL3 buses). With all 55 seats filled this equates to 330 passenger-mpg, with 70% filled the efficiency would be 231 passenger-mpg.[40] At the typical average passenger load of 9 people, the efficiency is only 54 passenger-mpg and could be half of this figure when many stops are made in urban routes.
So a Prius has about the same efficiency as some bus systems. Put 2 passengers in the Prius and it's twice as energy efficient as the bus.
Yet no one seems to care. 500 US troops die a year in the middle east and it's a huge deal. These are 35,000 deaths that can easily be avoided. And that's only in the United States Yeah there'll be a few deaths, but probably 99% of the 35,000 will be avoided.
For the record, 35,000 fatal crashes out of 230,000,000 cars on the road =.014 percent fatality rate. Eating pork has a higher fatality rate; thus, your argument is non-existent.
I got.015% when I did the math.
But in any case do you have a reference for this? If half the USA eats pork in a year (150M people), and there's a 0015% fatality rate, then there should be over 20,000 pork related deaths in a year.
I don't know anyone that's been killed from eating pork, but a number of acquaintances and relatives have been killed in car accidents. I do know one person that was injured by a pig, but he was drunk (the guy, not the pig) so I don't think that counts.
Everyone should be forced to own one of these considering how many pedestrians are run over. People have to get over their own greed to drive a car fast though.
Lemme guess; cyclist, right?
Does it matter? Cars hit pedestrians, cyclists, and each other with alarming frequency.
Truck driving may cease to be a job. But hijacking trucks, and then riding shotgun (literally), will replace it.
I mean, seriously, would you ship anything cross-country that could be tipped into a ditch and looted?
Aren't current trucks with drivers already subject to being forced into a ditch and looted? What about a driverless truck makes it more susceptible? Do criminals have such a strong conscience that they won't threaten a human driver?
At least a driverless truck will have photos of whoever forced it off the road, and can call 911 before it even stops moving.
Every quality film camera I've owned loads the film on the takeup spool upon loading, then as you take photos, it winds it back into the canister
I have never seen a camera that worked this way. Every film camera I've had, from snapshot cameras to SLRs from Nikon and Minolta have wound on to the spool and then needed to be rewound back into the canister when you had filled the roll. -- JimFive
I had a very short history with 35mm film cameras - my first was a Canon 35mm point and shoot in the late 80's, then I upgraded to a Canon Rebel in 1990 or '91 (then went digital around 2000 and never went back, though I still use some of the same lenses I used with my original Rebel). Both film cameras wound the entire film on the takeup spool to protect against exposure if the camera back was opened, so I assumed all the manufacturers did that on their non-entry level cameras. Dad had some SLR - (Nikon? Pentax? I can't remember which) that did the same thing.
At the time a Mercedes engineer said that on every Mercedes, and in his opinion on every car sold, the brakes are about four times stronger than the engine. In other words, you can bring _any_ car with working brakes easily to a standstill by hitting the brakes hard until the car stands still, no matter what the engine tries. The essential bit is hitting the _brake pedal_ and not any other pedal. And actually stopping the car; if you drive at 70mph with your engine revving and hitting the brake pedal to stay at that speed, then eventually the brakes will overheat and fail.
So which is it? Are the brakes four times stronger than the engine, or can the engine overpower the brakes?
On the one hand you say you can bring _any_ car with working brakes easily to a standstill by hitting the brakes hard until the car stands still, no matter what the engine tries, but on the other hand you say if you drive at 70mph with your engine revving and hitting the brake pedal to stay at that speed, then eventually the brakes will overheat and fail.
I went to Disney a few years ago, and i had my bag searched.
I was just thrilled to get to my hotel and find out that my bag had been searched, as well as my camera. They took the damn thing apart, and so I have no pictures of that vacation
I'd imagine they do something stupidly similar with Kindles.
I'm assuming this was a film camera? Every quality film camera I've owned loads the film on the takeup spool upon loading, then as you take photos, it winds it back into the canister - so if someone opened the camera, I'd only lose a photo or two since the rest would be safely inside the canister.
But even if they did manage to expose the entire film that was in the camera - are you saying that you'd only taken 24 (or 36) photos on your whole Disney vacation? Every time I've been to Disney I shot that many pictures on the drive to the parking lot.
It starts with the conventional "idiots who don't understand science think x-rays damage their electronics". But it quickly switches to the "more likely a static shock" line which is much more feasible. But then why is this a story? Static shock affects all electronic devices, the Kindle is no different.
If it's true that a static buildup from the drive belt is killing Kindles, that seems like poor electrical shielding (or the eInk display is particularly sensitive to static). I have a cheap Dell Netbook that gets zapped by static from my hand at least once a week in the winter and it's never had a problem.
However, my Kindle has been through dozens of flights with no ill effects, so I'm not so sure this is a real problem.
Bring a real book along with your Kindle. They still work if you drop them, too, which is a bonus.
I use my Kindle to keep up with news and for portability, and I definitely read a lot of books on it, but I still buy quite a few physical books, and I always take one with me when I fly - ideally one that I am just starting, so that I have lots of reading material if I need it.
For me, that kind of defeats the purpose of taking a Kindle with me when I fly - I don't *want* to carry around a bulky book. My Kindle is lightweight (6 oz) and fits neatly into my laptop bag. A book takes up more room and is heavier than the Kindle.
At home I still read paper books because they are often cheaper than eBooks, but when I'm on the road, I almost exclusively read eBooks. I even stopped carrying magazines because of the extra weight in my bag. There once was a time when I'd shove a couple books and magazines in my laptop bag for in-flight reading, but I paid a lot of money for a lightweight, portable laptop. I don't want to carry around paper that weighs almost as much as my laptop.
Lower your transmitters a little. Signals propagate horizontally (perpendicular from the antenna), this is why you need to have an AP on each floor in a house to get good signal. Not because you're on different floors so much as the signals just aren't going in the right directions.
I know you're trying to broadcast over the RVs, but going over them also means no signal is getting to them in this case.
He'd have to have seriously high gain antennas for 15 feet to be too high. I once set up a temporary Wifi network where the only accessible mounting locations were 45 feet off the ground (with 2 mounting locations about 50 feet apart), and people were going to be standing within a 150 foot radius of the Wifi nodes.
We used standard 7.5dB Omni's and got great coverage throughout the space even when standing directly under one of the Wifi antennas and 50 feet from the other one. We thought we'd have to tilt the antennas to get more signal on the ground sooner, but everything worked fine with the antennas perfectly vertical.
Even if he was using 9dB omni's, someone standing on the ground should get coverage 20 or 30 feet from the mounting point.
This immediately comes to mind, though admittedly I'm not good with wireless. My concern with this idea is will it fit your budget.
>
Depending on tree cover, 802.11n may not buy him much. 5Ghz gets attenuated by tree cover more than 2.4Ghz, and staying 2.4hz bonded channels reduces bandwidth for his backhauls.
May also want to swap out the router, depending on how old it is.
He said his ethernet conncetion is DSL -- it would have to be a seriously old router that can't keep up with typical DSL speeds. I've got a 12 year old Cisco 2514 that would be fine for DSL routing.
How about the Wikipedia database? Only 7GB (compressed) and will provide many hours of bedside reading.
Or, if you're feeling particularly generous, give them the full database including all revisions - only 28GB compressed with 7-Zip, so will fit nicely on a 32GB flash drive. This expands to over 5TB of data, so will provide many more hours of exciting reading.
Think about the companies they went after to date. Samsung and HTC both partner with microsoft on endeavours outside of Android (laptops and windows mobile). For both of those companies, caving in may have been considered a safer move from a business relationship move.
=
Or more likely, they were compensated on the Windows side. "Here, sign this secret agreement saying you'll pay us $X million for Android licenses, and we'll make sure you'll pay $X million less for Windows Phone licenses, and if you act now, we'll throw in another $Y million in marketing when you release your Windows Phone!"
1-Imagine if people could get unlimited data plan not for their Smartphone but at home. 2-Imagine if many (not most or all) people offered limited but free WIFI to Cell phones. (Don't ask how, just follow me on this) 3-Few people would need a data plan at all on their SmartPhones 4-Cell phone providers would have to lower their rates or die.
However, with great corruption comes draconian laws. Therefore, cell phone providers have little to fear.
Part of what you're asking for is already taking shape - a cell service provider (well ok, reseller - I think they use Sprint's network) leveraging Wifi to sell an unlimited everything cell plan for $19/month:
The catch is, you have to do most of your calls/text/data while on Wifi and (for now) it only works on their specific phones. They'll drop you if you start using significant cellular network resources.
But it sounds like a great plan for me, where most of the time I use my phone I'm either at home or work where I've got good Wifi coverage, but when I'm on the road and need to pull up a Google map or make a call, I still have the cellular network to fall back on.
Fine structure means slow flows -- you won't get much convection. Same as fiberglass insulation -- there's plenty of air, and it can get around, but it's very slow.
The structure may be fine, but in looking at the pictures (which admittedly aren't detailed enough to clearly see the structure, and it's hard to say if the internal structure differs from the visible outer structure), it looks like the gaps between the tubing might be a few mm wide, seems like plenty of room to allow for convective airflows.
If this nano-structure left nano-sized holes, then that'd be a different story, but these are definitely macro-size gaps.
I understand it'll be horribly expensive right now and that production prices will drop, but cheap enough for the likes of insulation?
Or are we talking space station stuff here?
They say it's a good insulator, but I don't understand why -- the picture makes it appear that there are significant holes throughout the material - seemingly enough to allow convective heat losses? I can believe that the metal is too thin for much conduction, but I don't see why convection is not an issue? Seems like Aerogel would make a better insulator.
Care to explain how it doesn't keep the carriers out of the phone? Last I checked, and yes employing traffic monitoring is standard on my network, there was no remote access nor capabilities to do so.
How did you check when you have no access to the IOS source code and no idea what it's really doing? Would you really know it if AT&T had some code buried in the kernel that sends your tracking data in some GSM control messages that aren't accessible in user-land on the phone? Making a phone work with a new carrier is more than just slapping a new radio in it -- there's software involved as well.
yeah, google is free because instead of doing the honest thing and asking the money up front, they portray android as a free OS, when its really a means for feeding you into the google data collection machine, which profits off USER GENERATED DATA.
mmm, love having my whole life run through an algorithm so the marketing fucks can develop better methods to manipulate my consumer activity.
And you think Apple and Microsoft aren't doing the same thing with your data?
That list is so freaking absurd that it just boggles the mind that Samsung, HTC, et al are actually paying hundreds of millions over it. My God, what have we become?
Here's a good conspiracy theory: Are they really paying money, or did MS say "Hey, if you "pay" this licensing fee for Android, we'll return it to you as credits on Windows Mobile licensing fees".
So Microsoft gets to spread FUD and tell everyone "Hey, these other guys paid up, so should you", while the companies may not be paying anything.
Since MS tried to require an NDA and confidentiality just to disclose the patents (which are already in the public domain), I wouldn't be surprised to find that they had some backroom deal to reward companies for paying for Anrdroid.
If he's looking to purchase new books to read - what about a Kindle DX with the font size jacked all of the way up?
When I first started thinking about it, a tablet or an e-reader such as the kindle was my very first suggestion. The problem with it was that, on a 10" screen, he needs things zoomed so high that he may only be able to view a single sentence at a time. The camera/monitor approach preserves the dead-tree look and feel (and the UI, hehe) but adds the ability to enlarge the text.
Wouldn't be a bad idea if there was a 24" kindle, though:)
How about the Kindle App on a PC plugged into a big monitor (where "big" is anywhere from a 22" to a 60" or larger LCD or Plasma TV)?
Add a wireless keyboard and/or Mouse for control.
Oh, and one more Kindle suggestion:
Depending on his tolerance for monotone computer generated speech, try the Kindle text-to-speech function to read books to him. Not nearly as good as a human voice with emotion and pacing that match the text, but I've used it to "read" some books on long car drives.
If he's looking to purchase new books to read - what about a Kindle DX with the font size jacked all of the way up?
When I first started thinking about it, a tablet or an e-reader such as the kindle was my very first suggestion. The problem with it was that, on a 10" screen, he needs things zoomed so high that he may only be able to view a single sentence at a time. The camera/monitor approach preserves the dead-tree look and feel (and the UI, hehe) but adds the ability to enlarge the text.
Wouldn't be a bad idea if there was a 24" kindle, though:)
How about the Kindle App on a PC plugged into a big monitor (where "big" is anywhere from a 22" to a 60" or larger LCD or Plasma TV)?
Are there any good, cheap, low-power Mini-ITX motherboard that have 4 (or 6) SATA ports instead of just 2? I've already filled my PCI slot, and I'd like to add some more SATA drives to make a RAID-5 array. As I understand it, I can't just hook up a SATA port multiplier to any old SATA port, the SATA controller has to support it.
Most of the news around here (Oklahoma) is saying probably not. The seismologists that have been on are saying that, while the earthquakes were shallow, they were still far too deep to be caused by fracking.
Hmm...the big Oklahoma quake was 3.1 miles deep (the smaller quakes leading up to it were around 2.5 - 3.5 miles deep). Fracking wells are typically 1 to 4 miles deep.
The Woodford shale formation under Oklahoma ranges from 5000 - 12000 feet. (around 1 to 2.25 miles)
Sounds like it's in the same ballpark, I'm not saying that the fracking and earthquakes are definitely related, but I wouldn't call the quake "far too deep" to have resulted from fracking.
Slashdot Mirror
When was DRM not about protecting business models? The book and movie industries apparently think they are different from the music industry who has (mostly) learned that if they sell content in a form people want and at a reasonable price, people will buy it. Charge too much or make it too hard to get and people will find other ways to get it. I bought a lot of CD's through the original mp3.com, then after the music industry shut it down, I stopped buying music and have never bought a single DRM protected song... but have picked up a few mp3 albums after non-DRM music started becoming available. But sadly, it's still often cheaper to buy a used (or sometimes new) physical CD and rip it myself than to purchase an electronic album.
It's a lot more energy intensive than mass transport, still. You are of course right about our yield from renewable energy sources - but can improve that quickly enough to meet demand?
Not every journey is going to be catered for by public transport, end to end. But surely the vast majority of everyone's daily mileage could be fulfilled with it.
Kudos to Toyota, though. As an automotive development this is a great thing.
Are fuel efficient cars really more energy intensive than mass transit when you're outside of dense urban areas? For example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_efficiency_in_transportation#Buses
A diesel bus commuter service in Santa Barbara, California, USA, found average diesel bus efficiency of 6.0 mpg-US (39 L/100 km; 7.2 mpg-imp) (using MCI 102DL3 buses). With all 55 seats filled this equates to 330 passenger-mpg, with 70% filled the efficiency would be 231 passenger-mpg.[40] At the typical average passenger load of 9 people, the efficiency is only 54 passenger-mpg and could be half of this figure when many stops are made in urban routes.
So a Prius has about the same efficiency as some bus systems. Put 2 passengers in the Prius and it's twice as energy efficient as the bus.
Yet no one seems to care. 500 US troops die a year in the middle east and it's a huge deal. These are 35,000 deaths that can easily be avoided. And that's only in the United States Yeah there'll be a few deaths, but probably 99% of the 35,000 will be avoided.
For the record, 35,000 fatal crashes out of 230,000,000 cars on the road = .014 percent fatality rate. Eating pork has a higher fatality rate; thus, your argument is non-existent.
I got .015% when I did the math.
But in any case do you have a reference for this? If half the USA eats pork in a year (150M people), and there's a 0015% fatality rate, then there should be over 20,000 pork related deaths in a year.
I don't know anyone that's been killed from eating pork, but a number of acquaintances and relatives have been killed in car accidents. I do know one person that was injured by a pig, but he was drunk (the guy, not the pig) so I don't think that counts.
Everyone should be forced to own one of these considering how many pedestrians are run over. People have to get over their own greed to drive a car fast though.
Lemme guess; cyclist, right?
Does it matter? Cars hit pedestrians, cyclists, and each other with alarming frequency.
Truck driving may cease to be a job. But hijacking trucks, and then riding shotgun (literally), will replace it.
I mean, seriously, would you ship anything cross-country that could be tipped into a ditch and looted?
Aren't current trucks with drivers already subject to being forced into a ditch and looted? What about a driverless truck makes it more susceptible? Do criminals have such a strong conscience that they won't threaten a human driver?
At least a driverless truck will have photos of whoever forced it off the road, and can call 911 before it even stops moving.
I have never seen a camera that worked this way. Every film camera I've had, from snapshot cameras to SLRs from Nikon and Minolta have wound on to the spool and then needed to be rewound back into the canister when you had filled the roll.
--
JimFive
I had a very short history with 35mm film cameras - my first was a Canon 35mm point and shoot in the late 80's, then I upgraded to a Canon Rebel in 1990 or '91 (then went digital around 2000 and never went back, though I still use some of the same lenses I used with my original Rebel). Both film cameras wound the entire film on the takeup spool to protect against exposure if the camera back was opened, so I assumed all the manufacturers did that on their non-entry level cameras. Dad had some SLR - (Nikon? Pentax? I can't remember which) that did the same thing.
At the time a Mercedes engineer said that on every Mercedes, and in his opinion on every car sold, the brakes are about four times stronger than the engine. In other words, you can bring _any_ car with working brakes easily to a standstill by hitting the brakes hard until the car stands still, no matter what the engine tries. The essential bit is hitting the _brake pedal_ and not any other pedal. And actually stopping the car; if you drive at 70mph with your engine revving and hitting the brake pedal to stay at that speed, then eventually the brakes will overheat and fail.
So which is it? Are the brakes four times stronger than the engine, or can the engine overpower the brakes?
On the one hand you say you can bring _any_ car with working brakes easily to a standstill by hitting the brakes hard until the car stands still, no matter what the engine tries, but on the other hand you say if you drive at 70mph with your engine revving and hitting the brake pedal to stay at that speed, then eventually the brakes will overheat and fail.
rendered useless by airport baggage handling
I went to Disney a few years ago, and i had my bag searched.
I was just thrilled to get to my hotel and find out that my bag had been searched, as well as my camera. They took the damn thing apart, and so I have no pictures of that vacation
I'd imagine they do something stupidly similar with Kindles.
I'm assuming this was a film camera? Every quality film camera I've owned loads the film on the takeup spool upon loading, then as you take photos, it winds it back into the canister - so if someone opened the camera, I'd only lose a photo or two since the rest would be safely inside the canister.
But even if they did manage to expose the entire film that was in the camera - are you saying that you'd only taken 24 (or 36) photos on your whole Disney vacation? Every time I've been to Disney I shot that many pictures on the drive to the parking lot.
Okay this article is weird.
It starts with the conventional "idiots who don't understand science think x-rays damage their electronics". But it quickly switches to the "more likely a static shock" line which is much more feasible. But then why is this a story? Static shock affects all electronic devices, the Kindle is no different.
If it's true that a static buildup from the drive belt is killing Kindles, that seems like poor electrical shielding (or the eInk display is particularly sensitive to static). I have a cheap Dell Netbook that gets zapped by static from my hand at least once a week in the winter and it's never had a problem.
However, my Kindle has been through dozens of flights with no ill effects, so I'm not so sure this is a real problem.
Bring a real book along with your Kindle. They still work if you drop them, too, which is a bonus.
I use my Kindle to keep up with news and for portability, and I definitely read a lot of books on it, but I still buy quite a few physical books, and I always take one with me when I fly - ideally one that I am just starting, so that I have lots of reading material if I need it.
For me, that kind of defeats the purpose of taking a Kindle with me when I fly - I don't *want* to carry around a bulky book. My Kindle is lightweight (6 oz) and fits neatly into my laptop bag. A book takes up more room and is heavier than the Kindle.
At home I still read paper books because they are often cheaper than eBooks, but when I'm on the road, I almost exclusively read eBooks. I even stopped carrying magazines because of the extra weight in my bag. There once was a time when I'd shove a couple books and magazines in my laptop bag for in-flight reading, but I paid a lot of money for a lightweight, portable laptop. I don't want to carry around paper that weighs almost as much as my laptop.
Lower your transmitters a little. Signals propagate horizontally (perpendicular from the antenna), this is why you need to have an AP on each floor in a house to get good signal. Not because you're on different floors so much as the signals just aren't going in the right directions.
I know you're trying to broadcast over the RVs, but going over them also means no signal is getting to them in this case.
He'd have to have seriously high gain antennas for 15 feet to be too high. I once set up a temporary Wifi network where the only accessible mounting locations were 45 feet off the ground (with 2 mounting locations about 50 feet apart), and people were going to be standing within a 150 foot radius of the Wifi nodes.
We used standard 7.5dB Omni's and got great coverage throughout the space even when standing directly under one of the Wifi antennas and 50 feet from the other one. We thought we'd have to tilt the antennas to get more signal on the ground sooner, but everything worked fine with the antennas perfectly vertical.
Even if he was using 9dB omni's, someone standing on the ground should get coverage 20 or 30 feet from the mounting point.
This immediately comes to mind, though admittedly I'm not good with wireless. My concern with this idea is will it fit your budget.
>
Depending on tree cover, 802.11n may not buy him much. 5Ghz gets attenuated by tree cover more than 2.4Ghz, and staying 2.4hz bonded channels reduces bandwidth for his backhauls.
May also want to swap out the router, depending on how old it is.
He said his ethernet conncetion is DSL -- it would have to be a seriously old router that can't keep up with typical DSL speeds. I've got a 12 year old Cisco 2514 that would be fine for DSL routing.
If it were me, I'd replace the $5000 scooter with a $500 bike and a $20 u-lock. Replace it when it gets stolen.
How about the Wikipedia database? Only 7GB (compressed) and will provide many hours of bedside reading.
Or, if you're feeling particularly generous, give them the full database including all revisions - only 28GB compressed with 7-Zip, so will fit nicely on a 32GB flash drive. This expands to over 5TB of data, so will provide many more hours of exciting reading.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Database_download#English-language_Wikipedia
Think about the companies they went after to date. Samsung and HTC both partner with microsoft on endeavours outside of Android (laptops and windows mobile). For both of those companies, caving in may have been considered a safer move from a business relationship move.
=
Or more likely, they were compensated on the Windows side. "Here, sign this secret agreement saying you'll pay us $X million for Android licenses, and we'll make sure you'll pay $X million less for Windows Phone licenses, and if you act now, we'll throw in another $Y million in marketing when you release your Windows Phone!"
1-Imagine if people could get unlimited data plan not for their Smartphone but at home.
2-Imagine if many (not most or all) people offered limited but free WIFI to Cell phones. (Don't ask how, just follow me on this)
3-Few people would need a data plan at all on their SmartPhones
4-Cell phone providers would have to lower their rates or die.
However, with great corruption comes draconian laws.
Therefore, cell phone providers have little to fear.
Part of what you're asking for is already taking shape - a cell service provider (well ok, reseller - I think they use Sprint's network) leveraging Wifi to sell an unlimited everything cell plan for $19/month:
http://techcrunch.com/2011/11/07/republic-wireless-officially-unveils-19month-service-unlimited-everything-no-contracts/
The catch is, you have to do most of your calls/text/data while on Wifi and (for now) it only works on their specific phones. They'll drop you if you start using significant cellular network resources.
But it sounds like a great plan for me, where most of the time I use my phone I'm either at home or work where I've got good Wifi coverage, but when I'm on the road and need to pull up a Google map or make a call, I still have the cellular network to fall back on.
Fine structure means slow flows -- you won't get much convection. Same as fiberglass insulation -- there's plenty of air, and it can get around, but it's very slow.
The structure may be fine, but in looking at the pictures (which admittedly aren't detailed enough to clearly see the structure, and it's hard to say if the internal structure differs from the visible outer structure), it looks like the gaps between the tubing might be a few mm wide, seems like plenty of room to allow for convective airflows.
If this nano-structure left nano-sized holes, then that'd be a different story, but these are definitely macro-size gaps.
You slap some paper on both the inner and outer side and you solve that problem ASAP.
Paper may air from outside getting inside your insulator, but what stops internal convection between the paper surfaces?
I understand it'll be horribly expensive right now and that production prices will drop, but cheap enough for the likes of insulation?
Or are we talking space station stuff here?
They say it's a good insulator, but I don't understand why -- the picture makes it appear that there are significant holes throughout the material - seemingly enough to allow convective heat losses? I can believe that the metal is too thin for much conduction, but I don't see why convection is not an issue? Seems like Aerogel would make a better insulator.
Care to explain how it doesn't keep the carriers out of the phone? Last I checked, and yes employing traffic monitoring is standard on my network, there was no remote access nor capabilities to do so.
How did you check when you have no access to the IOS source code and no idea what it's really doing? Would you really know it if AT&T had some code buried in the kernel that sends your tracking data in some GSM control messages that aren't accessible in user-land on the phone? Making a phone work with a new carrier is more than just slapping a new radio in it -- there's software involved as well.
yeah, google is free because instead of doing the honest thing and asking the money up front, they portray android as a free OS, when its really a means for feeding you into the google data collection machine, which profits off USER GENERATED DATA.
mmm, love having my whole life run through an algorithm so the marketing fucks can develop better methods to manipulate my consumer activity.
And you think Apple and Microsoft aren't doing the same thing with your data?
That list is so freaking absurd that it just boggles the mind that Samsung, HTC, et al are actually paying hundreds of millions over it. My God, what have we become?
Here's a good conspiracy theory: Are they really paying money, or did MS say "Hey, if you "pay" this licensing fee for Android, we'll return it to you as credits on Windows Mobile licensing fees".
So Microsoft gets to spread FUD and tell everyone "Hey, these other guys paid up, so should you", while the companies may not be paying anything.
Since MS tried to require an NDA and confidentiality just to disclose the patents (which are already in the public domain), I wouldn't be surprised to find that they had some backroom deal to reward companies for paying for Anrdroid.
If he's looking to purchase new books to read - what about a Kindle DX with the font size jacked all of the way up?
When I first started thinking about it, a tablet or an e-reader such as the kindle was my very first suggestion. The problem with it was that, on a 10" screen, he needs things zoomed so high that he may only be able to view a single sentence at a time. The camera/monitor approach preserves the dead-tree look and feel (and the UI, hehe) but adds the ability to enlarge the text.
Wouldn't be a bad idea if there was a 24" kindle, though :)
How about the Kindle App on a PC plugged into a big monitor (where "big" is anywhere from a 22" to a 60" or larger LCD or Plasma TV)?
Add a wireless keyboard and/or Mouse for control.
Oh, and one more Kindle suggestion:
Depending on his tolerance for monotone computer generated speech, try the Kindle text-to-speech function to read books to him. Not nearly as good as a human voice with emotion and pacing that match the text, but I've used it to "read" some books on long car drives.
If he's looking to purchase new books to read - what about a Kindle DX with the font size jacked all of the way up?
When I first started thinking about it, a tablet or an e-reader such as the kindle was my very first suggestion. The problem with it was that, on a 10" screen, he needs things zoomed so high that he may only be able to view a single sentence at a time. The camera/monitor approach preserves the dead-tree look and feel (and the UI, hehe) but adds the ability to enlarge the text.
Wouldn't be a bad idea if there was a 24" kindle, though :)
How about the Kindle App on a PC plugged into a big monitor (where "big" is anywhere from a 22" to a 60" or larger LCD or Plasma TV)?
Add a wireless keyboard and/or Mouse for control.
Are there any good, cheap, low-power Mini-ITX motherboard that have 4 (or 6) SATA ports instead of just 2? I've already filled my PCI slot, and I'd like to add some more SATA drives to make a RAID-5 array. As I understand it, I can't just hook up a SATA port multiplier to any old SATA port, the SATA controller has to support it.
Most of the news around here (Oklahoma) is saying probably not. The seismologists that have been on are saying that, while the earthquakes were shallow, they were still far too deep to be caused by fracking.
Hmm...the big Oklahoma quake was 3.1 miles deep (the smaller quakes leading up to it were around 2.5 - 3.5 miles deep). Fracking wells are typically 1 to 4 miles deep.
The Woodford shale formation under Oklahoma ranges from 5000 - 12000 feet. (around 1 to 2.25 miles)
Sounds like it's in the same ballpark, I'm not saying that the fracking and earthquakes are definitely related, but I wouldn't call the quake "far too deep" to have resulted from fracking.