Re:It's just a heatsink and fan?
on
PeltierBeer
·
· Score: 1
They're neat, but there's not much innovative about Peltier junctions anymore. However, it *is* more than just a heatsink and a fan.
Or are you just trolling?
Re:Wouldn't this heat the beer?
on
PeltierBeer
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Hi, MacDork. Yes, your understanding of thermodynamics is probably ok. It's your ability to read the article and grok it that's coming up short.
He used a Peltier junction. Look it up. It's an active, solid-state, heat transfer device. It can move heat against the thermal gradient, when supplied with power.
IOW, run current through a Peltier and one side gets colder than ambient, and the other side gets warmer. Reverse the current, reverse the effect. Add a fan to the hot side to get rid of the heat, because they are limited to a max temp differential between the sides.
We have a lightning research group (previously mentioned on Slashdot here and here). We use LabView 6.1, on RedHat (7?), to communicate with PIC microcontroller-based instrument control boxes out in the field, to continously monitor the local electric field (which is a good indicator of the favorability of lightning initiation, either natural or triggered), and to arm, calibrate, and disarm all of the oscilloscopes in the various experiments. We leave the system unattended during the winter months, just in case a frontal storm comes through and we get a strike within a half kilometer or so...
We use the Comedi drivers to interface with our National Instruments DAQ card..VI files are available to access the Comedi drivers from LabVIEW, and our fields monitoring program appears to have been running, unattended, without restart, for over 100 days on our dual Athlon MP 1900+ box.
And if you can't program in LabVIEW, you might oughta practice asking if I want fries with that burger.
Horrible? to an audiofile maybe, but I don't think it's all that bad for a prosumer. in fact it serves as a kind of compressor/limiter which for non-pro people can be quite beneficialr a prosumer. in fact it serves as a kind of compressor/limiter which for non-pro people can be quite beneficial.
Thus explaining why it's worth the extra money. ATRAC *does* sound like crap, and people who CAN hear the difference are often willing to pay extra for a piece of gear which *doesn't* sound like crap.
It's pro gear, records in a pro format, and costs pro money. What's the problem? Oh, yeah, this quote: "I'm no expert on audio, but..." STOP!
How about "I'm no expert in video cards, but why is this $500 nVidia card better than my $10 ATI Rage 3D? They both display at 1024x768..."
It's better because it's better. Got tin ears? You don't need a recorder that does 24/96. Go buy a walkman.
AAC is better at compressing a wider dynamic source spectrum? At least compared to AIFF/ADAT?
Wider than ADAT? Last time I checked, ADAT was an uncompressed format. A 16-bit ADAT recording is thus capable of >90dB s/n, and frequency response from below 20Hz to just a bit past 20kHz. In what way do you imagine that a compressed format, even one compressed by the masters of signal distortion at Dolby, is going to surpass that?
Algorithms for encoding means, in this application, "ways to throw away parts of the signal unobtrusively". The ADAT isn't compressed, and so doesn't throw anything away (saving the 24/96 vs 16/44.1 argument for a more informed opponent).
Now, not being a Mac geek, I'm not up on AIFF files. But I thought they were uncompressed as well.
NO compression format is going to sound better than the uncompressed unless there's a significant problem with the original recording that the compressor covers up. But that's a recording problem, not a format feature.
Thus, the answer is that it's not any harder to imagine than imagining me getting busy with Milla Jovovich. However, it's less likely to actually happen.
Well, now, two good points have been made here. One, copyright violation is copyright violation, regardless of how the artists themselves are being treated. Agreed. I did go off on a rant, there. Point that I buried in there somewhere is this: Claiming that $14.99 for a CD is reasonable because the label has to cover recording, promotion, and other costs is a false statement. The artist bears those costs, not the label. Does that mean copyright infringement is OK? No. Is the argument that the RIAA is protecting the artist's right valid? Not at all. Which leads us to the second point, the risk factor on the part of the label. Yep. Correct again. Album doesn't sell, label loses money. Album does sell, label gets all that money back PLUS the profits on the sales. Band gets profits after label gets paid back for costs that Blake213 thinks the record label is charging for in the CD price. Yes. The RIAA member companies risk a large amount of money in expectation of most bands failing, and a few hitting it really big. That's fair. What's not fair is how the profits are shared. Still doesn't justify copyright infringement, and I never said it did. Frankly, the whole issue of artist-label interaction is much more complex than is reasonable to describe here on Slashdot. I just wanted to point out that of the $14.99-$20.99 being charged for CD's, only the first $1 actually goes to studio or promotion costs, and that, effectively, the artist is bearing those costs and not the label.
I'm curious. What part of my comment did you disagree with?
If you're saying that many electronic artists have appreciable net income despite comparitively few record sales, I'm perfectly willing to agree. This is, however, a very non-standard case. Several reasons:
1. Album production costs are minimal, and often are borne completely by the artist in the artist's home studio. Fair enough. This also works because much of the actual engineering was done by the people who a) played and recorded the original music which is sampled and/or b) designed and programmed the synths, etc. It's much easier (and thus cheaper) to produce a release-quality electronic album than it is to produce a release-quality rock band album. 2. Touring costs are also minimal. Box of LP's, couple of turntables, a smaller mixer than your average touring keyboard player, and the house PA. You don't need a pile of mikes and cables, FOH mixer, monitor mixer, road crew, props, etc. Much leaner touring, more money into artist's pocket. 3. Practically non-existent promotion by the record company. Word of mouth. No airplay, no MTV. (No big loss, if'n you ask me.) Record companies tend to leave electronic artists alone, if they sign them at all.
All of that is great. I heartily approve of this business model (unless you're sampling my stuff!). Without getting into the question of whether a DJ is a musician, I will just say that the first two are practically impossible to pull off with a band which contains multiple members playing acoustic or amplified instruments. And once you've gone to all the extra expense of having those pesky instruments involved, going without promotion means MUCH more trouble turning a profit.
Q: How many of the "producers in the electronic scene" you refer to actually have recording contracts with RIAA-member music labels? Rough percentage is fine.
But replication is probably the cheapest step of the CD-making process. Next on the list is the actual studio time spent recording the CD. But the real money-burner is promotion and distribution. Thousands, hundreds of thousands are spent on replication and distribution and marketing just so regular people (including the non net-savvy) can hear about new music.
And I suppose you think that the record company pays for those costs, right?
Last time I checked, most contracts for smaller artists included studio time and promotion as recoupable costs. In other words, they are fronted by the record company and the recouped out of the artist's royalties. That's right, the $1 per disc (if that) that the artist gets FIRST goes to pay back the costs of making the recording in the first place, and (usually at least part of) the costs of promotion, etc. You're right, those things are expensive. But the label is just loaning that money, not giving it. And if the label happens to own the recording studio, do you think they charge the artist at a discounted rate? Ha! How about if the artist buys discs, at distibutor prices, from the label to sell at shows? Guess what - they don't get royalties off of those! Nor do they get diddly-squat ($0.05?) for those Columbia House discs.
Fact is, even if your first album goes Platinum you probably wind up owing your record company a shitpot of money.
Cry for the RIAA if you want to, but you're a sucker if you do.
See, I think the lack of html capability is a good thing. That's because I don't like html in email. I actively encourage people who send me html-encoded email to stop.
You could always just cut-and-paste, but then you'd have to know how to insert bold and italic tags in a text editor.
And really - your criterion on the useworthiness of a browser is whether the embedded email client can generate html email? Whatever, dude.
If you want something to smack it around for, try the consistent difficulty with getting Java to work, or the fact that (at least prior to 7.10) getting non-standard webpages to render correctly is a hit-or miss prospect, or the arcane way of getting font anti-aliasing to work, or the serious problems with plugins and removing them after the program is closed, or the fact that closing one tabbed window seems to freeze the browser for 5 seconds or so......but html in the mail client? WTF do you need an email client in your browser anyway? Opera, at least, is perfectly happy calling any email client you want to use.
Ah, well. It's your $39, dude. I suggest you keep it.
Hey, can we extend this April Fool thing another day? Maybe we could get some other stories duped as well, not just the fiendishly clever and daringly sophisticated RFC3514 repeat joke? Heh. That was really funny, too. Ha. No, no, I mean it. Ha.
Man, these Slashdot editors know how to party, huh? Parodying themselves, posting the same story Over and OVER and OVER, like they sometimes do UNintentionally... ha. It'd be even funnier if... if... well, if it were funny at all.
April Fool's Day on Slashdot stopped being funny years ago. But now, we get DUPE April Fool's Day stories?
Same editor. Same story. 2 hours, 28 minutes apart. Is this intended as a joke? Because it's even less funny than the story itself...
Hint for geeks who are still trying to cultivate a sense of humor: If it's not as funny the second time, it's REALLY not as funny the 350th time. Yes, that includes All Your Base, Natalie Portman's hot grits, etc.
And no, dupe posts of a semi-funny joke aren't funny.
It's not that USB can't work. It's just that the ACPI implementation in the kernel currently sucks rocks, and most Sony laptops seem to use ACPI to assign IRQ's. Add the ACPI patch from the acpi project and all that problem goes away. SuSE 8.1 does that for you, and their kernel maintainer keeps a cutting edge, functional kernel around. The Linux-Sony Mailing Lists have all the info needed to get everything working under Linux. Everything.
I have an SRX-87, which is significantly smaller than an iBook, functioning completely and without exception with Mandrake 9.0 and a patched vanilla kernel. Firewire, USB, 802.11b, DVD - the works. Wait - I haven't tried the modem. I hear it works too, though.
It's the same thing that Emperor Linux rebadge, and lots cheaper from BestBuy.
I'm very happy with mine.
Re:Gosh, that was quick
on
Baked Apple
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Hmmm... no, try this link instead; it may contain more suitable content.
http://homepage.mac.com/aaronsteele/Personal8.ht ml
Gosh, that was quick
on
Baked Apple
·
· Score: 2, Funny
Yes, that's right, we get paid to shoot rockets into thunderstorms. It may be the coolest job I've ever had - maybe, hell! It is.
Not only that, but our launch site runabouts are Army surplus deuce-and-a-half trucks. We have another mobile launcher on the boom of a bucket truck. I've got the most kick-ass set of home movies...
Plus, of course, we work with top-notch researchers from around the world, doing real science.
Oh, and we're very pro-Linux around the ICLRT.
Did I mention we get paid? The money's not anything to start a family on, but the tuition waiver for those of us in the grad program is worth it.
Hmmm... methinks we need more website action going on.
200 lines that VHS records is horizontal resolution, and really oughta be more like 250 lines. That means that as the little beam scans from left to right it can make 250 dots in a single line. 525 lines, however, is the number of those horizontal lines that exist in the picture. Your TV probably shows 480 of them. This means that what you see, on the screen, when playing a VHS tape is about 480x250 (or 200, if you orefer).
Summary: You've confused lines of horizontal resolution with the number of horizontal lines. It's easy to do. Comparing 200 lines to 525 lines is not correct.
The NTSC format is, as I'm sure you're aware, 525 vertical lines. An average TV shows around 480 of those. Depending on quality, an average 19" TV probably is capable of better than 500 lines of horizontal resolution - the current version of my JVC 27" is capable of over 600 lines of horizontal resolution. Depending on how the signal gets to your TV, you may (OK, will) get lower effective resolution... but the source is what we're discussing here, isn't it?
I've worked as a truck engineer in television production for the last 7 years, and regardless of what the local cable company may do to my signal you may rest assured that it's appreciably nicer than 352x240 when it goes up on the bird.
Seriously. 352x240 on my home TV? If you've got $400 to spend on an Archos Jukebox, you aren't watching an 8" B&W portable.
The picture quality is MOST DEFINITELY not full DVD quality. See this: Archos's website. It's limited to "MPEG4 video compatible with DivX? (CIF format - 352x288 pixels, 25 frames/sec.)".
Thanks, but no thanks. The reviewer mentions some pixelization - I think I know why!:-)
In related news, Ernie and Bert reported today that kids who scrub with soap and water can clean off 99% of dirt AND grime.
The Cookie Monster suggested that this wasn't exactly news, but Ernie and Bert were kinda desperate for content and figured, "Kids aren't very smart anyway, so what the hell?"
Slashdot Mirror
They're neat, but there's not much innovative about Peltier junctions anymore. However, it *is* more than just a heatsink and a fan.
Or are you just trolling?
Hi, MacDork. Yes, your understanding of thermodynamics is probably ok. It's your ability to read the article and grok it that's coming up short.
He used a Peltier junction. Look it up. It's an active, solid-state, heat transfer device. It can move heat against the thermal gradient, when supplied with power.
IOW, run current through a Peltier and one side gets colder than ambient, and the other side gets warmer. Reverse the current, reverse the effect. Add a fan to the hot side to get rid of the heat, because they are limited to a max temp differential between the sides.
We have a lightning research group (previously mentioned on Slashdot here and here). We use LabView 6.1, on RedHat (7?), to communicate with PIC microcontroller-based instrument control boxes out in the field, to continously monitor the local electric field (which is a good indicator of the favorability of lightning initiation, either natural or triggered), and to arm, calibrate, and disarm all of the oscilloscopes in the various experiments. We leave the system unattended during the winter months, just in case a frontal storm comes through and we get a strike within a half kilometer or so...
.VI files are available to access the Comedi drivers from LabVIEW, and our fields monitoring program appears to have been running, unattended, without restart, for over 100 days on our dual Athlon MP 1900+ box.
We use the Comedi drivers to interface with our National Instruments DAQ card.
And if you can't program in LabVIEW, you might oughta practice asking if I want fries with that burger.
Horrible? to an audiofile maybe, but I don't think it's all that bad for a prosumer. in fact it serves as a kind of compressor/limiter which for non-pro people can be quite beneficialr a prosumer. in fact it serves as a kind of compressor/limiter which for non-pro people can be quite beneficial.
Thus explaining why it's worth the extra money. ATRAC *does* sound like crap, and people who CAN hear the difference are often willing to pay extra for a piece of gear which *doesn't* sound like crap.
It's pro gear, records in a pro format, and costs pro money. What's the problem? Oh, yeah, this quote: "I'm no expert on audio, but..." STOP!
How about "I'm no expert in video cards, but why is this $500 nVidia card better than my $10 ATI Rage 3D? They both display at 1024x768..."
It's better because it's better. Got tin ears? You don't need a recorder that does 24/96. Go buy a walkman.
AAC is better at compressing a wider dynamic source spectrum? At least compared to AIFF/ADAT?
Wider than ADAT? Last time I checked, ADAT was an uncompressed format. A 16-bit ADAT recording is thus capable of >90dB s/n, and frequency response from below 20Hz to just a bit past 20kHz. In what way do you imagine that a compressed format, even one compressed by the masters of signal distortion at Dolby, is going to surpass that?
Algorithms for encoding means, in this application, "ways to throw away parts of the signal unobtrusively". The ADAT isn't compressed, and so doesn't throw anything away (saving the 24/96 vs 16/44.1 argument for a more informed opponent).
Now, not being a Mac geek, I'm not up on AIFF files. But I thought they were uncompressed as well.
NO compression format is going to sound better than the uncompressed unless there's a significant problem with the original recording that the compressor covers up. But that's a recording problem, not a format feature.
Thus, the answer is that it's not any harder to imagine than imagining me getting busy with Milla Jovovich. However, it's less likely to actually happen.
Well, reading it on Slashdot comes to mind...
Oops, forgot the sarcasm tags.
Well, now, two good points have been made here. One, copyright violation is copyright violation, regardless of how the artists themselves are being treated.
Agreed. I did go off on a rant, there. Point that I buried in there somewhere is this: Claiming that $14.99 for a CD is reasonable because the label has to cover recording, promotion, and other costs is a false statement. The artist bears those costs, not the label. Does that mean copyright infringement is OK? No. Is the argument that the RIAA is protecting the artist's right valid? Not at all.
Which leads us to the second point, the risk factor on the part of the label. Yep. Correct again. Album doesn't sell, label loses money. Album does sell, label gets all that money back PLUS the profits on the sales. Band gets profits after label gets paid back for costs that Blake213 thinks the record label is charging for in the CD price.
Yes. The RIAA member companies risk a large amount of money in expectation of most bands failing, and a few hitting it really big. That's fair. What's not fair is how the profits are shared.
Still doesn't justify copyright infringement, and I never said it did.
Frankly, the whole issue of artist-label interaction is much more complex than is reasonable to describe here on Slashdot. I just wanted to point out that of the $14.99-$20.99 being charged for CD's, only the first $1 actually goes to studio or promotion costs, and that, effectively, the artist is bearing those costs and not the label.
I'm curious. What part of my comment did you disagree with?
If you're saying that many electronic artists have appreciable net income despite comparitively few record sales, I'm perfectly willing to agree. This is, however, a very non-standard case. Several reasons:
1. Album production costs are minimal, and often are borne completely by the artist in the artist's home studio. Fair enough. This also works because much of the actual engineering was done by the people who a) played and recorded the original music which is sampled and/or b) designed and programmed the synths, etc. It's much easier (and thus cheaper) to produce a release-quality electronic album than it is to produce a release-quality rock band album.
2. Touring costs are also minimal. Box of LP's, couple of turntables, a smaller mixer than your average touring keyboard player, and the house PA. You don't need a pile of mikes and cables, FOH mixer, monitor mixer, road crew, props, etc. Much leaner touring, more money into artist's pocket.
3. Practically non-existent promotion by the record company. Word of mouth. No airplay, no MTV. (No big loss, if'n you ask me.) Record companies tend to leave electronic artists alone, if they sign them at all.
All of that is great. I heartily approve of this business model (unless you're sampling my stuff!). Without getting into the question of whether a DJ is a musician, I will just say that the first two are practically impossible to pull off with a band which contains multiple members playing acoustic or amplified instruments. And once you've gone to all the extra expense of having those pesky instruments involved, going without promotion means MUCH more trouble turning a profit.
Q: How many of the "producers in the electronic scene" you refer to actually have recording contracts with RIAA-member music labels? Rough percentage is fine.
But replication is probably the cheapest step of the CD-making process. Next on the list is the actual studio time spent recording the CD. But the real money-burner is promotion and distribution. Thousands, hundreds of thousands are spent on replication and distribution and marketing just so regular people (including the non net-savvy) can hear about new music.
And I suppose you think that the record company pays for those costs, right?
Last time I checked, most contracts for smaller artists included studio time and promotion as recoupable costs. In other words, they are fronted by the record company and the recouped out of the artist's royalties. That's right, the $1 per disc (if that) that the artist gets FIRST goes to pay back the costs of making the recording in the first place, and (usually at least part of) the costs of promotion, etc.
You're right, those things are expensive. But the label is just loaning that money, not giving it. And if the label happens to own the recording studio, do you think they charge the artist at a discounted rate? Ha! How about if the artist buys discs, at distibutor prices, from the label to sell at shows? Guess what - they don't get royalties off of those! Nor do they get diddly-squat ($0.05?) for those Columbia House discs.
Fact is, even if your first album goes Platinum you probably wind up owing your record company a shitpot of money.
Cry for the RIAA if you want to, but you're a sucker if you do.
See, I think the lack of html capability is a good thing. That's because I don't like html in email. I actively encourage people who send me html-encoded email to stop.
...but html in the mail client? WTF do you need an email client in your browser anyway? Opera, at least, is perfectly happy calling any email client you want to use.
You could always just cut-and-paste, but then you'd have to know how to insert bold and italic tags in a text editor.
And really - your criterion on the useworthiness of a browser is whether the embedded email client can generate html email? Whatever, dude.
If you want something to smack it around for, try the consistent difficulty with getting Java to work, or the fact that (at least prior to 7.10) getting non-standard webpages to render correctly is a hit-or miss prospect, or the arcane way of getting font anti-aliasing to work, or the serious problems with plugins and removing them after the program is closed, or the fact that closing one tabbed window seems to freeze the browser for 5 seconds or so...
Ah, well. It's your $39, dude. I suggest you keep it.
Yesterday, I requested that the April Fool gag be continued beyond April 1. I also requested that more stories be duplicated.
I have been heard. My wishes have clearly been your command. Let's see, what shall I ask for now? How about...
Oh, yeah, here's a good one. HOW ABOUT SOME EDITORS WITH A FSCKING CLUE?
Dorks.
I mean, Ha! Ha, Ha. Ha. Ha.
Ha. Ha. No, really. Ha. Seriously.
Hey, can we extend this April Fool thing another day? Maybe we could get some other stories duped as well, not just the fiendishly clever and daringly sophisticated RFC3514 repeat joke? Heh. That was really funny, too. Ha. No, no, I mean it. Ha.
Man, these Slashdot editors know how to party, huh? Parodying themselves, posting the same story Over and OVER and OVER, like they sometimes do UNintentionally... ha. It'd be even funnier if... if... well, if it were funny at all.
Whoops, I meant, "Ha. That was funny, yo."
[yawn]
April Fool's Day on Slashdot stopped being funny years ago. But now, we get DUPE April Fool's Day stories?
Same editor. Same story. 2 hours, 28 minutes apart. Is this intended as a joke? Because it's even less funny than the story itself...
Hint for geeks who are still trying to cultivate a sense of humor: If it's not as funny the second time, it's REALLY not as funny the 350th time. Yes, that includes All Your Base, Natalie Portman's hot grits, etc.
And no, dupe posts of a semi-funny joke aren't funny.
Sigh.
Same story. Same editor. Two hours, 28 minutes apart.
I realize that April Fool's on Slashdot stopped being funny years ago, but this is ridiculous.
BZZZTTT! Wrong!
It's not that USB can't work. It's just that the ACPI implementation in the kernel currently sucks rocks, and most Sony laptops seem to use ACPI to assign IRQ's. Add the ACPI patch from the acpi project and all that problem goes away. SuSE 8.1 does that for you, and their kernel maintainer keeps a cutting edge, functional kernel around. The Linux-Sony Mailing Lists have all the info needed to get everything working under Linux. Everything.
I have an SRX-87, which is significantly smaller than an iBook, functioning completely and without exception with Mandrake 9.0 and a patched vanilla kernel. Firewire, USB, 802.11b, DVD - the works. Wait - I haven't tried the modem. I hear it works too, though.
It's the same thing that Emperor Linux rebadge, and lots cheaper from BestBuy.
I'm very happy with mine.
Hmmm... no, try this link instead; it may contain more suitable content.
t ml
http://homepage.mac.com/aaronsteele/Personal8.h
Surely, not slashdotted already?
Yes, that's right, we get paid to shoot rockets into thunderstorms. It may be the coolest job I've ever had - maybe, hell! It is.
Not only that, but our launch site runabouts are Army surplus deuce-and-a-half trucks. We have another mobile launcher on the boom of a bucket truck. I've got the most kick-ass set of home movies...
Plus, of course, we work with top-notch researchers from around the world, doing real science.
Oh, and we're very pro-Linux around the ICLRT.
Did I mention we get paid? The money's not anything to start a family on, but the tuition waiver for those of us in the grad program is worth it.
Hmmm... methinks we need more website action going on.
Not only that, but we drive bucket trucks and Army surplus deuce-and-a-half trucks around in the sand.
The tower's only about 11 meters, though.
Wow, man, I'd be impressed except for one thing.
It's neither wrong nor a fad.
Why isn't there a -1, Just Plain Wrong mod option?
200 lines that VHS records is horizontal resolution, and really oughta be more like 250 lines. That means that as the little beam scans from left to right it can make 250 dots in a single line. 525 lines, however, is the number of those horizontal lines that exist in the picture. Your TV probably shows 480 of them. This means that what you see, on the screen, when playing a VHS tape is about 480x250 (or 200, if you orefer).
Summary: You've confused lines of horizontal resolution with the number of horizontal lines. It's easy to do. Comparing 200 lines to 525 lines is not correct.
That should, of course, read, "525 lines of vertical resolution". I should proofread better.
Does nice mean newer than 1940's?
The NTSC format is, as I'm sure you're aware, 525 vertical lines. An average TV shows around 480 of those. Depending on quality, an average 19" TV probably is capable of better than 500 lines of horizontal resolution - the current version of my JVC 27" is capable of over 600 lines of horizontal resolution. Depending on how the signal gets to your TV, you may (OK, will) get lower effective resolution... but the source is what we're discussing here, isn't it?
I've worked as a truck engineer in television production for the last 7 years, and regardless of what the local cable company may do to my signal you may rest assured that it's appreciably nicer than 352x240 when it goes up on the bird.
Seriously. 352x240 on my home TV? If you've got $400 to spend on an Archos Jukebox, you aren't watching an 8" B&W portable.
The picture quality is MOST DEFINITELY not full DVD quality. See this: Archos's website. It's limited to "MPEG4 video compatible with DivX? (CIF format - 352x288 pixels, 25 frames/sec.)".
:-)
Thanks, but no thanks. The reviewer mentions some pixelization - I think I know why!
Rob
In related news, Ernie and Bert reported today that kids who scrub with soap and water can clean off 99% of dirt AND grime.
The Cookie Monster suggested that this wasn't exactly news, but Ernie and Bert were kinda desperate for content and figured, "Kids aren't very smart anyway, so what the hell?"