My own argument just gave me a brilliant idea. Ripping Netflix streams should be legal as time shifting under current copyright law. Sure, you would be breaking the Netflix EULA, but you wouldn't be breaking ANY criminal copyright laws.
Just did the Google search. Yes apparently others find this to be a legally defensible action. Perhaps I should get a Netflix account for my father and sister who are out in the sticks and can't get anything better than dial-up where they live. Sadly enough, I bet most judges and DAs would ignore the letter of the law and side with the associations.
Topolsky's analogy was good, and it really demonstrates how irrational Emanuel is. The analogy though would better fit ISPs and hosting providers.
I have a slightly better analogy which I welcome interviewers to keep in their pocket for the media industry representatives anytime they try to do the censor Google and similar song and dance. It has the advantage that you have the interviewee agree to the fact that you are right before the question is posed, or they clearly demonstrate that they are indeed insane.
First, I would like to know whether you agree to a few basic premises of my question. 1) Libraries should exist and should be able to house any content which is legal and that content should be available to examination by all patrons. To my knowledge, the only significant content under the illegal category is child pornography. 2) Libraries should be able to index the content they carry, whether by the Dewey decimal system or keyword or any other metric they so choose. 3) If someone uses the knowledge gained from a library to commit a crime, such as creating an ammonium nitrate fertilizer bomb from reading chemistry or explosive making books, the library has no responsibility. Only the person who committed the crime bears the guilt of such an act. Another example would be someone who learns how to pick locks from locksmithing books and uses the knowledge to rob jewelry stores he looked up in the Yellow pages.
Now comes the obvious question.
So then, how is an organization such as Google, responsible for providing the address of where a person can go to steal goods. Google does not house or transfer the goods. Google is little more than the Yellow Pages or a library index, they don't even carry the books, but you want to hold them responsible for the content of other people's computers? This would be like reading an autobiography from a drug trafficer which mentions that their gang used to hide drugs under an old brass bell at 49th and Broadway and blaming the library, or much less, their use Dewey Decimal system, which allowed some thugs to steal and sell the drugs hidden beneath.
Further, consider another example. Consider if someone used a transcode tool to make unencrypted copies of everything they watched on a Netflix account and then distributed that content. No one in the content industry would blame Netflix if they were using proper industry standard methods to copy protect their feed. This was never an issue that Blockbuster was responsible for VHS piracy during the 80's when some people would dub video cassette rentals. Radio stations and boombox makers were never the issue when people made mix tapes from Radio broadcasts.
Where exactly do you derive the right to publicly espouse a view clearly in contrast with society, the companies for whom you work, and even yourself? Nobody in any of those groups would say that libraries should have censored or monitored indices or banned books on the basis that they could be used for illegal purposes.
Frankly, I think Emanuel would probably begin cursing and yelling even more when faced with such reality, not to mention display an extreme amount of cognitive dissonance palpable to the audience.
Most of what you point out has little to do with end user interaction, except as it pertains to development of program UIs. Universal Access, Dashboard, Stacks, and Spotlight come as exceptions there. They are great features I don't deny.
Regarding Universal Access especially, I'm a frequent commenter that software tort law changes for ADA issues for ALL software developed for end user consumption, Microsoft especially included due to Office's UI not scaling with system DPI settings. Similarly, either the OS developers or a large standards group needs to come up with a universal API for software to work effectively with Braille and TTS systems.
Microsoft does not care if Windows 8 is a dog in the corporate desktop world. That is why the features which people are most unhappy with are entirely features which are great on tablets and other touchscreen devices. They are working on getting Windows 8 right for the mobile space. It is entirely reasonable to think their plan is to let Windows 9 tie that effectively with the desktop. Also, the OEMs are starting to push touchscreen desktops substantially. Once Windows 8 gets some adoption, it wouldn't be surprising to see off the shelf monitors in the consumer / commodity price range pop up with touchscreens as cheap options. IR touchscreens are really cheap to add manufacturer side and fit great with existing LCD bezel design.
I would never say Apple hasn't made a lot of good changes to the backend of OSX, but the UI still feels worn and heavy. Sure, consistency is great, but it just says to me that people use their computers exactly the same way they did 10 years ago, and that is sad.
You've got it. Plus the skinning communities the article mentions did very little with emulating OSX outside of Y'z dock, AquaDock, and later ObjectDock. The larger communities where LiteStep and geoShell which espoused completely different, largely appliance or functionalist oriented desktop UIs along with the extreme minimalists. Few OSX themes ever came out. Some OSX style XP styles were popular, but had nothing to do with the actual OSX UI functionality.
I actually use Omnimo on a Windows 7 tablet, so I am very aware. Rainmeter, LiteStep, geoShell, and similar hacker oriented UIs were not within the scope of my discussion. I was talking at the original developer end or the discussion.
Already done. Most companies have hundreds of managers sharing the processing, memory, and storage facilities of one brain. Too bad the power and wasted space savings don't scale.
License dongle issues should be punted back onto the vendor of the software in question (repeatedly). It may not work the first time, but enough admins and their bosses raising hell with support and sales would hopefully push them to make their garbage compatible with ESXi, Xen, etcetera. USB pass-through compatibility is trivial and works for every consumer device using USB 1.1 and 2.0 standards. If they are giving you parallel or serial port dongles, then there are bigger problems with how the vendor does business.
Unfortunately, if you are at that level of software, you probably aren't in any position to fire the vendor and ditch their garbage. Best solution is the squeaky hinge gets the oil.
I think a lot of people are missing a few really smart choices it would appear Microsoft is intentionally making. First, they realize that corporate customers like their long term anchor software. They have done that with Windows 7 as the successor to XP as frequently mentioned. Second I think they are going to a release plan of Experiment followed by a Refinement release.
Consider first that Microsoft supports too many customers with too diverse of requirements to be doing miniscule yearly feature releases as with OSX and Linux. OSX can because they have fixed hardware to support and a vastly smaller software library. Linux can because the community doesn't have anywhere near the hardware support of Windows and software is not binary compatible a requires recompilation.
Faced with this issue, it only makes sense that Microsoft will release an OS filled with experimentation to find out what users and customers do a don't like and then make the next version the refinement, enhancement, and trimming of those features. Vista was full of UI experiments which were great ideas but only marginally implemented or just didn't flow easily. I couldn't stand Vista and only used it a few hours before going back to XP. I know I am by far not in a minority in having this experience. Windows 7 was taking all those features and fixing them, making them flow and interact together and getting rid of the development cruft. Windows 7 is great for many users, myself included.
Windows 8 is filled with great ideas. It's filled with original ideas and people are complaining. Sure, Metro came from WP7 development, but nobody else considered using the metaphors for desktop use or how to adapt them. Again the number one complaint is incompleteness or not enough UI interoperability with the manners in which users have become acclimated. If Microsoft continues the pattern, then sure, some consumers will be forced to be guinea pigs with Windows 8, especially if the Windows tablet market takes off appreciably. In the same stroke, Windows 9 could easily come as the refinement stage where it all makes better sense.
Who cares if Windows 8 is a dog. Vista was a dog and it led directly to 7. Give some credit to a company that could sit on it's old style of business like IBM in the late 70's, but instead challenges itself with products which can fail and are interesting and different.
Linux by comparison has no consistent desktop metaphors. You have to test drive at least 3 different distros before you are sure which one will work. The only nearly consistent interfaces are the ones released at the same time as XP in stripped down distros. Unity is not bad, but it's just not for me. The more recent release is really getting there though. It's great experimentation in a different direction for fusing the desktop, laptop, and tablet UI segments.
OSX is the opposite of where Linux and Windows have been experimenting. There is an extreme lack of interesting change since 2001 and only very small incremental refinements. Oooh, we just got a notification system, but really it's the one from our phones because we couldn't stand the thought of using a functional desktop one like in Windows 7 or Linux. You could actually load identical machines with OSX from 10 years ago and the latest Mountain Lion side by side and the average user wouldn't notice that they were different. If you think I am full of it, check this out: http://macgateway.com/featured-articles/a-decade-of-mac-os-x-a-retrospective/
Oh and skip the dive computer, too expensive. A $30 GM 3-bar MAP sensor coupled to an oil (or air) filled diaphragm and linear spring should be sufficiently sensitive and accurate after calibration with an air compressor as source. The linear spring is to recalibrate the range inside the diaphragm to the needed range of 10-12 bar. An Arduino would be able to read the MAP sensor as a DC voltage sensor input in the 0-5v range.
I should probably shoot some of these suggestions over to Mr. Stackpole.
I wonder how much increased depth the chassis could sustain from purging all air and filling it with mineral oil. The hydrostatic properties should make it structurally stronger, but could be an issue for the webcam optics. Alternately everything could be water proof coated and skip the sealed cylinder altogether. I'm pretty sure several layers of enamel or rubberized undercoating would sufficiently work for the home builder on the circuit boards and wire contacts. Old school would just be resin back fill everywhere, and that has worked for years.
Any sort of flooded arrangement would need pretty careful camera selection as one would be best served by a fully sealed unit that could handle the pressure at depth. Too many cheap webcams have nearly exposed CCD arrays or are vented cases for mics. Cameras sourced from cell phones are probably the most solid bet.
I would ditch the C-cells entirely and use relatively cheap LiPo batteries made for remote control aircraft for increased time and power. If he is using Cat 5/6, he should be able to dump power in though there reasonably easily as well.
Also, the new camera add-on for the Raspberry-Pi sounds like a potentially more compelling combination. I'm curious what manner of motor control he is using. Arduino would work fine with a Raspberry-Pi and is vastly cheaper than RC servo and motor controls, though at that point it might be just as easy to go completely Arduino and skip the PC brains. I do have to say the price point sounds a bit high, but I am guessing most of that is the custom plastic and steel molding and mill work. Fiberglass or even carbon fiber should be cheaper because you just need molds and cutting patterns or dies. Building everything for sub 200-psi pressure should be pretty easy.
In addition to patent licensing, which covers the registration and examination of the patent at the various international patent offices, I have an additional idea. I doubt I am the first one to think of this though.
How about we tax the value of the patent portfolios of every company holding patents as corporate assets. No longer should the balance sheet reflect the valuation of a patent as merely the filing fees. Instead, require that companies use standard metrics for evaluating the value of each patent, such as expected monthly royalties x 15. If a company nets substantially more in a 12 month period than the valuation, then haul their asses in for tax fraud, evasion, and high interest back taxes.
This would hopefully significantly reduce the number of patents produced as well as increase the willingness of companies to cross license their patents and call it even.
When asked for comment, China said they will continue just throwing 1000s of workers with pickaxes at large piles of rocks.
At least I didn't make the other joke I thought of. Well I guess, if you insist. When asked for comment, Chinese officials stated that the mere offer of bringing a 60 lb bloodhound to mining sites increased productivity by 18%. When we asked a foreman about the increase in productivity, he said the minor miners were famished and welcomed the company of a friendly meal.
I fond woman IT workers to be able to do their jobs very well, however it is different on how men do the work. For men IT is about building and concurring, for women it is about fixing and solving. I find that woman IT workers are happier in managing existing code, man are happier with building new code.
So your experience reinforces the societal dogma. Men plant the seeds, women raise the children. I'm not sure if you intended the irony, but it really gave me a nice laugh.
The amount of efficiency increase might be novel, or the input energy to remove the bubbles might be, but using an "acoustic field" is nothing new in industry. Lots of industrial systems use some form of vibrator to decrease bubble to surface adhesion for increased fluid heating speed and thus, efficiency. They also frequently use such systems to reduce surface foaming, especially in conjunction with vacuum systems to prevent fluid foaming or excess dissolved bubbles / gases.
You make all the correct arguments, which I would like to amplify with some of my own observations.
I can't understand all this Windows is insecure drivel. If you are on the current, updated versions of Windows, 7 & Server 2008, with proper security policies, you are relatively secure and equal to a similarly configured Linux machine. There are plenty of tasks I like Linux for, but they are almost exclusively some monolithic, single purpose server (e.g. a LAMP webserver).
On the desktop you have the same set of issues one encounters if for example one advocates for Windows 7 tablets over Android and iOS, use cases and killer apps (given design and use of the product). Let's say you have 50 employees. All 50 need an office productivity suite. Libre Office meets the needs equal to Office 2010 in your use cases (no major accounting in spreadsheets). Problem #1 is retraining users. If each of your employees is paid an average of 45k / year and they lose 8 hours of productivity the first month of migrating, you've already lost nearly the full cost of Office licenses. Now this is a pretty break even point here, so allow us to continue. Three people in the office use Dynamics to manage the larger scale corporate finances and payroll. Game over right there. Then consider all the other small 2-5 users in house applications. There is a wealth of niche applications in the Windows world for which there is no Linux version or which it is not known to users and administrators. Most of these small scale software pieces are poorly written and cause enough headaches on Windows machines, I couldn't even imagine what it would take to get them to work in Wine, much less than porting them if you could talk the developer into it.
Most of the users my company supports for example use a Windows only software package for managing contacts, contracts, resumes, and assignments for temp agencies and recruiters. As far as software design goes, the stuff is a bloody mess, and many host with us rather than deal with trying to get it working right on all of their workstations. Unfortunately in that industry though, it is the go-to software (your average high school drop out web "programmer" could throw together an equivalent in PHP in several months).
The problem a lot of people here are missing is that it isn't the core programs and mainstream programs, it's all the little bits and pieces between that most MS based businesses can't live without. The portion of the TCO just to locate alternatives is more than the licenses to keep on with what works. It was the same story in the creative industries 20+ years ago when everything 3D was done on Unix, Solaris, or Irix workstations and everything 2D was done on MacOS with Adobe products. Perhaps RedHat should look at investing more heavily in business process software and having it ported to Linux, much as MS has done in nearly every field that Unix and OS/2 dominated in the 80's. Competition comes from the top, not the bottom.
I never understand this. They have all the usage data, day after day, week after week. From an enterprise or utility level standpoint, they have ALL of the necessary infrastructure to implement rate control at the consumer site (DOCSIS v. whatever) and give everyone on a saturated segment equal or proportional reduced bandwidth, such that at least basic service levels would be available at 100% functionality. Plus bandwidth rationing would help to identify more clearly how much more bandwidth is needed for infrastructure improvements as well as massively improve the operation of the whole network during such times.
I'm sure in California if they could avoid rolling blackouts and instead use the power meter to throttle your amperage such that you had to pick between running the A/C or the combination of refrigerator + TV + vacuum + lights, that not only would most consumers be much safer and happier, but more interested in conservative technologies. Nobody sees the point of LED light bulbs in their home if the power is going to get pulled anyway. On the other hand, if you were restricted for the same period of time, you might actually find it worthwhile to invest in a new A/C that was double the efficiency of the old unit and put in a few LED lights.
I know that people as a society are too stupid to figure these things out, but the experts should be able to see all of this pretty clearly and come up with smarter solutions.
The only issue that such bandwidth rationing causing would be a data source demonstrating the degree to which resources are distributed unequally. In many cases I suspect that the cable companies would abuse lower income neighborhoods by rationing bandwidth almost all day, etc, without oversight.
Lastly, your statement that their costs are roughly proportional to use is exceptionally wrong with respect to internet traffic. Their costs are exclusively proportional to number of customers per a given area of land and infrastructure and engineering requirements to serve that parcel. Costs for operating an ISP do not scale in a remotely linear or similar fashion with bandwidth provided. Also technological upgrades at the backhaul side yield massive costs shifts that the consumer does not see. Such upgrades are insignificant compared to the original infrastructure.
As a slight over simplification, consider the following. Imagine that the fiber optic backhaul for an area was only using 20 frequencies of light, each at a rate of 1 MB/s, so the site had 20 MB/s of bandwidth. Two years later, a new transceiver comes out that can use 40 frequencies at 5 MB/s each. Laying lines and building site infrastructure was 100x the cost of the new transceiver board. For essentially 1% additional cost, they have upgraded by 10x their bandwidth. The argument that improving the speed of the infrastructure costs oodles more is only a result of the fact that sometimes the technology bumps are not in serialization due to stagnation, but instead requires parallelization which does require "more" infrastructure, but not by the amount you think.
It would be vastly better for the market and Comcast customers in particular if the cap stayed the same as usage increases. Eventually "average" users would be reporting the threats and garbage frequently enough for the FCC to take notice and tell Comcast to STFU and step in.
They are introducing a relatively high cap today, with seemingly reasonable terms. In less than 3 years, they will have the same terms and it will be a complete consumer disaster.
First they came for the cell phone data usage, and I said nothing because I did not use mobile data. Then they came for the Comcast users, and I did not speak because I didn't use cable. Now that they have come for my DSL usage cap, there is no one left to speak for me.
Slashdot Mirror
My own argument just gave me a brilliant idea. Ripping Netflix streams should be legal as time shifting under current copyright law. Sure, you would be breaking the Netflix EULA, but you wouldn't be breaking ANY criminal copyright laws.
Just did the Google search. Yes apparently others find this to be a legally defensible action. Perhaps I should get a Netflix account for my father and sister who are out in the sticks and can't get anything better than dial-up where they live. Sadly enough, I bet most judges and DAs would ignore the letter of the law and side with the associations.
Topolsky's analogy was good, and it really demonstrates how irrational Emanuel is. The analogy though would better fit ISPs and hosting providers.
I have a slightly better analogy which I welcome interviewers to keep in their pocket for the media industry representatives anytime they try to do the censor Google and similar song and dance. It has the advantage that you have the interviewee agree to the fact that you are right before the question is posed, or they clearly demonstrate that they are indeed insane.
First, I would like to know whether you agree to a few basic premises of my question.
1) Libraries should exist and should be able to house any content which is legal and that content should be available to examination by all patrons. To my knowledge, the only significant content under the illegal category is child pornography.
2) Libraries should be able to index the content they carry, whether by the Dewey decimal system or keyword or any other metric they so choose.
3) If someone uses the knowledge gained from a library to commit a crime, such as creating an ammonium nitrate fertilizer bomb from reading chemistry or explosive making books, the library has no responsibility. Only the person who committed the crime bears the guilt of such an act. Another example would be someone who learns how to pick locks from locksmithing books and uses the knowledge to rob jewelry stores he looked up in the Yellow pages.
Now comes the obvious question.
So then, how is an organization such as Google, responsible for providing the address of where a person can go to steal goods. Google does not house or transfer the goods. Google is little more than the Yellow Pages or a library index, they don't even carry the books, but you want to hold them responsible for the content of other people's computers? This would be like reading an autobiography from a drug trafficer which mentions that their gang used to hide drugs under an old brass bell at 49th and Broadway and blaming the library, or much less, their use Dewey Decimal system, which allowed some thugs to steal and sell the drugs hidden beneath.
Further, consider another example. Consider if someone used a transcode tool to make unencrypted copies of everything they watched on a Netflix account and then distributed that content. No one in the content industry would blame Netflix if they were using proper industry standard methods to copy protect their feed. This was never an issue that Blockbuster was responsible for VHS piracy during the 80's when some people would dub video cassette rentals. Radio stations and boombox makers were never the issue when people made mix tapes from Radio broadcasts.
Where exactly do you derive the right to publicly espouse a view clearly in contrast with society, the companies for whom you work, and even yourself? Nobody in any of those groups would say that libraries should have censored or monitored indices or banned books on the basis that they could be used for illegal purposes.
Frankly, I think Emanuel would probably begin cursing and yelling even more when faced with such reality, not to mention display an extreme amount of cognitive dissonance palpable to the audience.
You are cordially invited to dine at my estate to discuss this matter. Please dress appropriately, it will be an African-American tie dinner.
Most of what you point out has little to do with end user interaction, except as it pertains to development of program UIs. Universal Access, Dashboard, Stacks, and Spotlight come as exceptions there. They are great features I don't deny.
Regarding Universal Access especially, I'm a frequent commenter that software tort law changes for ADA issues for ALL software developed for end user consumption, Microsoft especially included due to Office's UI not scaling with system DPI settings. Similarly, either the OS developers or a large standards group needs to come up with a universal API for software to work effectively with Braille and TTS systems.
Microsoft does not care if Windows 8 is a dog in the corporate desktop world. That is why the features which people are most unhappy with are entirely features which are great on tablets and other touchscreen devices. They are working on getting Windows 8 right for the mobile space. It is entirely reasonable to think their plan is to let Windows 9 tie that effectively with the desktop. Also, the OEMs are starting to push touchscreen desktops substantially. Once Windows 8 gets some adoption, it wouldn't be surprising to see off the shelf monitors in the consumer / commodity price range pop up with touchscreens as cheap options. IR touchscreens are really cheap to add manufacturer side and fit great with existing LCD bezel design.
I would never say Apple hasn't made a lot of good changes to the backend of OSX, but the UI still feels worn and heavy. Sure, consistency is great, but it just says to me that people use their computers exactly the same way they did 10 years ago, and that is sad.
You've got it. Plus the skinning communities the article mentions did very little with emulating OSX outside of Y'z dock, AquaDock, and later ObjectDock. The larger communities where LiteStep and geoShell which espoused completely different, largely appliance or functionalist oriented desktop UIs along with the extreme minimalists. Few OSX themes ever came out. Some OSX style XP styles were popular, but had nothing to do with the actual OSX UI functionality.
I actually use Omnimo on a Windows 7 tablet, so I am very aware. Rainmeter, LiteStep, geoShell, and similar hacker oriented UIs were not within the scope of my discussion. I was talking at the original developer end or the discussion.
Already done. Most companies have hundreds of managers sharing the processing, memory, and storage facilities of one brain. Too bad the power and wasted space savings don't scale.
License dongle issues should be punted back onto the vendor of the software in question (repeatedly). It may not work the first time, but enough admins and their bosses raising hell with support and sales would hopefully push them to make their garbage compatible with ESXi, Xen, etcetera. USB pass-through compatibility is trivial and works for every consumer device using USB 1.1 and 2.0 standards. If they are giving you parallel or serial port dongles, then there are bigger problems with how the vendor does business.
Unfortunately, if you are at that level of software, you probably aren't in any position to fire the vendor and ditch their garbage. Best solution is the squeaky hinge gets the oil.
I think a lot of people are missing a few really smart choices it would appear Microsoft is intentionally making. First, they realize that corporate customers like their long term anchor software. They have done that with Windows 7 as the successor to XP as frequently mentioned. Second I think they are going to a release plan of Experiment followed by a Refinement release.
Consider first that Microsoft supports too many customers with too diverse of requirements to be doing miniscule yearly feature releases as with OSX and Linux. OSX can because they have fixed hardware to support and a vastly smaller software library. Linux can because the community doesn't have anywhere near the hardware support of Windows and software is not binary compatible a requires recompilation.
Faced with this issue, it only makes sense that Microsoft will release an OS filled with experimentation to find out what users and customers do a don't like and then make the next version the refinement, enhancement, and trimming of those features. Vista was full of UI experiments which were great ideas but only marginally implemented or just didn't flow easily. I couldn't stand Vista and only used it a few hours before going back to XP. I know I am by far not in a minority in having this experience. Windows 7 was taking all those features and fixing them, making them flow and interact together and getting rid of the development cruft. Windows 7 is great for many users, myself included.
Windows 8 is filled with great ideas. It's filled with original ideas and people are complaining. Sure, Metro came from WP7 development, but nobody else considered using the metaphors for desktop use or how to adapt them. Again the number one complaint is incompleteness or not enough UI interoperability with the manners in which users have become acclimated. If Microsoft continues the pattern, then sure, some consumers will be forced to be guinea pigs with Windows 8, especially if the Windows tablet market takes off appreciably. In the same stroke, Windows 9 could easily come as the refinement stage where it all makes better sense.
Who cares if Windows 8 is a dog. Vista was a dog and it led directly to 7. Give some credit to a company that could sit on it's old style of business like IBM in the late 70's, but instead challenges itself with products which can fail and are interesting and different.
Linux by comparison has no consistent desktop metaphors. You have to test drive at least 3 different distros before you are sure which one will work. The only nearly consistent interfaces are the ones released at the same time as XP in stripped down distros. Unity is not bad, but it's just not for me. The more recent release is really getting there though. It's great experimentation in a different direction for fusing the desktop, laptop, and tablet UI segments.
OSX is the opposite of where Linux and Windows have been experimenting. There is an extreme lack of interesting change since 2001 and only very small incremental refinements. Oooh, we just got a notification system, but really it's the one from our phones because we couldn't stand the thought of using a functional desktop one like in Windows 7 or Linux. You could actually load identical machines with OSX from 10 years ago and the latest Mountain Lion side by side and the average user wouldn't notice that they were different. If you think I am full of it, check this out: http://macgateway.com/featured-articles/a-decade-of-mac-os-x-a-retrospective/
My last reply to myself. Checked his forum, looks like the oil fill idea is already used commercially and was suggested by a commenter.
Oh and skip the dive computer, too expensive. A $30 GM 3-bar MAP sensor coupled to an oil (or air) filled diaphragm and linear spring should be sufficiently sensitive and accurate after calibration with an air compressor as source. The linear spring is to recalibrate the range inside the diaphragm to the needed range of 10-12 bar. An Arduino would be able to read the MAP sensor as a DC voltage sensor input in the 0-5v range.
I should probably shoot some of these suggestions over to Mr. Stackpole.
I wonder how much increased depth the chassis could sustain from purging all air and filling it with mineral oil. The hydrostatic properties should make it structurally stronger, but could be an issue for the webcam optics. Alternately everything could be water proof coated and skip the sealed cylinder altogether. I'm pretty sure several layers of enamel or rubberized undercoating would sufficiently work for the home builder on the circuit boards and wire contacts. Old school would just be resin back fill everywhere, and that has worked for years.
Any sort of flooded arrangement would need pretty careful camera selection as one would be best served by a fully sealed unit that could handle the pressure at depth. Too many cheap webcams have nearly exposed CCD arrays or are vented cases for mics. Cameras sourced from cell phones are probably the most solid bet.
I would ditch the C-cells entirely and use relatively cheap LiPo batteries made for remote control aircraft for increased time and power. If he is using Cat 5/6, he should be able to dump power in though there reasonably easily as well.
Also, the new camera add-on for the Raspberry-Pi sounds like a potentially more compelling combination. I'm curious what manner of motor control he is using. Arduino would work fine with a Raspberry-Pi and is vastly cheaper than RC servo and motor controls, though at that point it might be just as easy to go completely Arduino and skip the PC brains. I do have to say the price point sounds a bit high, but I am guessing most of that is the custom plastic and steel molding and mill work. Fiberglass or even carbon fiber should be cheaper because you just need molds and cutting patterns or dies. Building everything for sub 200-psi pressure should be pretty easy.
In addition to patent licensing, which covers the registration and examination of the patent at the various international patent offices, I have an additional idea. I doubt I am the first one to think of this though.
How about we tax the value of the patent portfolios of every company holding patents as corporate assets. No longer should the balance sheet reflect the valuation of a patent as merely the filing fees. Instead, require that companies use standard metrics for evaluating the value of each patent, such as expected monthly royalties x 15. If a company nets substantially more in a 12 month period than the valuation, then haul their asses in for tax fraud, evasion, and high interest back taxes.
This would hopefully significantly reduce the number of patents produced as well as increase the willingness of companies to cross license their patents and call it even.
When asked for comment, China said they will continue just throwing 1000s of workers with pickaxes at large piles of rocks.
At least I didn't make the other joke I thought of. Well I guess, if you insist.
When asked for comment, Chinese officials stated that the mere offer of bringing a 60 lb bloodhound to mining sites increased productivity by 18%. When we asked a foreman about the increase in productivity, he said the minor miners were famished and welcomed the company of a friendly meal.
Isn't trimming trees roughly equivalent enough? Or cleaning gutters?
I fond woman IT workers to be able to do their jobs very well, however it is different on how men do the work. For men IT is about building and concurring, for women it is about fixing and solving. I find that woman IT workers are happier in managing existing code, man are happier with building new code.
So your experience reinforces the societal dogma. Men plant the seeds, women raise the children. I'm not sure if you intended the irony, but it really gave me a nice laugh.
I would actually check with a few auto body & paint shops. I bet you could find one that would do it under $50 with a nice clear coat and finish.
You could actually check into finding vinyl wrap as well. That would be easier and non-warranty voiding.
What is this method you have written, "sudo_mod_me_up?"
Doh, my sub sits a little close to my case. Might be time to move some equipment.
Until you blow a speaker....
I kid, I kid. But seriously, don't blow the speakers.
The amount of efficiency increase might be novel, or the input energy to remove the bubbles might be, but using an "acoustic field" is nothing new in industry. Lots of industrial systems use some form of vibrator to decrease bubble to surface adhesion for increased fluid heating speed and thus, efficiency. They also frequently use such systems to reduce surface foaming, especially in conjunction with vacuum systems to prevent fluid foaming or excess dissolved bubbles / gases.
You make all the correct arguments, which I would like to amplify with some of my own observations.
I can't understand all this Windows is insecure drivel. If you are on the current, updated versions of Windows, 7 & Server 2008, with proper security policies, you are relatively secure and equal to a similarly configured Linux machine. There are plenty of tasks I like Linux for, but they are almost exclusively some monolithic, single purpose server (e.g. a LAMP webserver).
On the desktop you have the same set of issues one encounters if for example one advocates for Windows 7 tablets over Android and iOS, use cases and killer apps (given design and use of the product). Let's say you have 50 employees. All 50 need an office productivity suite. Libre Office meets the needs equal to Office 2010 in your use cases (no major accounting in spreadsheets). Problem #1 is retraining users. If each of your employees is paid an average of 45k / year and they lose 8 hours of productivity the first month of migrating, you've already lost nearly the full cost of Office licenses. Now this is a pretty break even point here, so allow us to continue. Three people in the office use Dynamics to manage the larger scale corporate finances and payroll. Game over right there. Then consider all the other small 2-5 users in house applications. There is a wealth of niche applications in the Windows world for which there is no Linux version or which it is not known to users and administrators. Most of these small scale software pieces are poorly written and cause enough headaches on Windows machines, I couldn't even imagine what it would take to get them to work in Wine, much less than porting them if you could talk the developer into it.
Most of the users my company supports for example use a Windows only software package for managing contacts, contracts, resumes, and assignments for temp agencies and recruiters. As far as software design goes, the stuff is a bloody mess, and many host with us rather than deal with trying to get it working right on all of their workstations. Unfortunately in that industry though, it is the go-to software (your average high school drop out web "programmer" could throw together an equivalent in PHP in several months).
The problem a lot of people here are missing is that it isn't the core programs and mainstream programs, it's all the little bits and pieces between that most MS based businesses can't live without. The portion of the TCO just to locate alternatives is more than the licenses to keep on with what works. It was the same story in the creative industries 20+ years ago when everything 3D was done on Unix, Solaris, or Irix workstations and everything 2D was done on MacOS with Adobe products. Perhaps RedHat should look at investing more heavily in business process software and having it ported to Linux, much as MS has done in nearly every field that Unix and OS/2 dominated in the 80's. Competition comes from the top, not the bottom.
I never understand this. They have all the usage data, day after day, week after week. From an enterprise or utility level standpoint, they have ALL of the necessary infrastructure to implement rate control at the consumer site (DOCSIS v. whatever) and give everyone on a saturated segment equal or proportional reduced bandwidth, such that at least basic service levels would be available at 100% functionality. Plus bandwidth rationing would help to identify more clearly how much more bandwidth is needed for infrastructure improvements as well as massively improve the operation of the whole network during such times.
I'm sure in California if they could avoid rolling blackouts and instead use the power meter to throttle your amperage such that you had to pick between running the A/C or the combination of refrigerator + TV + vacuum + lights, that not only would most consumers be much safer and happier, but more interested in conservative technologies. Nobody sees the point of LED light bulbs in their home if the power is going to get pulled anyway. On the other hand, if you were restricted for the same period of time, you might actually find it worthwhile to invest in a new A/C that was double the efficiency of the old unit and put in a few LED lights.
I know that people as a society are too stupid to figure these things out, but the experts should be able to see all of this pretty clearly and come up with smarter solutions.
The only issue that such bandwidth rationing causing would be a data source demonstrating the degree to which resources are distributed unequally. In many cases I suspect that the cable companies would abuse lower income neighborhoods by rationing bandwidth almost all day, etc, without oversight.
Lastly, your statement that their costs are roughly proportional to use is exceptionally wrong with respect to internet traffic. Their costs are exclusively proportional to number of customers per a given area of land and infrastructure and engineering requirements to serve that parcel. Costs for operating an ISP do not scale in a remotely linear or similar fashion with bandwidth provided. Also technological upgrades at the backhaul side yield massive costs shifts that the consumer does not see. Such upgrades are insignificant compared to the original infrastructure.
As a slight over simplification, consider the following. Imagine that the fiber optic backhaul for an area was only using 20 frequencies of light, each at a rate of 1 MB/s, so the site had 20 MB/s of bandwidth. Two years later, a new transceiver comes out that can use 40 frequencies at 5 MB/s each. Laying lines and building site infrastructure was 100x the cost of the new transceiver board. For essentially 1% additional cost, they have upgraded by 10x their bandwidth. The argument that improving the speed of the infrastructure costs oodles more is only a result of the fact that sometimes the technology bumps are not in serialization due to stagnation, but instead requires parallelization which does require "more" infrastructure, but not by the amount you think.
It would be vastly better for the market and Comcast customers in particular if the cap stayed the same as usage increases. Eventually "average" users would be reporting the threats and garbage frequently enough for the FCC to take notice and tell Comcast to STFU and step in.
They are introducing a relatively high cap today, with seemingly reasonable terms. In less than 3 years, they will have the same terms and it will be a complete consumer disaster.
First they came for the cell phone data usage, and I said nothing because I did not use mobile data. Then they came for the Comcast users, and I did not speak because I didn't use cable. Now that they have come for my DSL usage cap, there is no one left to speak for me.