FTA "Currently this service does not exist because the movie studios are concerned about protecting their content, and making sure that it cannot be stolen or used illegally."
No, obviously this isn't DRM, it is a technology to protect their rights to their digital content. Completely different. Not related. Nothing to see here, move along. Here, look at the monkey. Look at the silly monkey!
don't see why they would have such a "fake jackpot" option installed in a casino floor machine.
Many digital machines (not spinning reels) have a display mode that "simulates" a jackpot, because it catches your eye. It is basically a show put on by the machine, but it swaps into several display modes when no one is playing. This appears to be a stuck jackpot mode that is reset when the machine is opened or cleared, ie: a bug or stupid code left in.
So what? It still an experience to have, and up to the experiencee to add the meaning.
That is all fine and dandy, but if you read the actual summary, he clearly states:
I have access to a supposedly haunted house and been tempted to run a proper scientific investigation.
The point that I made is that you are wasting your time if you are trying to run a proper scientific investigation. You can't prove a negative, and we already have plenty of pseudoscience videos of ghost hunters on YouTube. If he wants to just go an have fun in a haunted house, then it he would have stated so, and it wouldn't be (ideally) posted on/.
In short, if he wants to do science, he *is* wasting his time.
At this point, there has been enough claims without evidence to simply say "I don't think they exist, and you are free to show me evidence contrary", and then explore from that point. Going out to that town's resident "ghost house" on a whim to try to prove one thing or another isn't science. He might as well go to the ocean and prove there is or isn't sea monsters. In both instances, the net result won't be Science®, and isn't even good, interesting or unique pseudoscience.
If you actually RTFA, in all fairness, what they are accusing the man of IS cracking with the help of social engineering. This isn't some "tap the side of the box three times and put in two coins" trick, it requires getting an employee to open the machine, set an option that is usually NOT set, then using a precise set of button pushes, it creates a FALSE jackpot, which might have been put there for testing or display only, as the machine doesn't record it as a jackpot at all. The guy didn't even put a coin in the machine. It is a dishonest crack, with the intention of defrauding the casino. If he is doing what they say he is doing, then obviously he should be arrested and punished. It isn't "proof of concept" or white hat hacking, it is theft by fraud.
Lets not celebrate an (alleged) common criminal, even if he uses uncommon methods.
You are correct, and this is demonstrated by the fact that the average keyboard is not that different than a typewriter from 100 years ago, in basic layout. With the exception of Windows keys (which come off easily using a screw driver...) a good keyboard still has a tactile feel that gives instant feedback to the user allowing them to speed along at a rate most comfortable to them. Screens that will create "click" sounds and other feedback will never compare because "feeling" with the ears is not the same as feeling with the fingers. You are never quite sure if you hit the right key. With a tactile keyboard, I know instantly if I hit the wrong key or didn't strike heavy enough.
Same thing with voice activated typing. Simply put, it both are distracting and interfere with the thought process, while typing can be done with confidence, almost subconsciously, allowing you to actually THINK about what you are typing just before you type it. Not such a big deal if you are inputing your name and address, but a huge deal if you are actually typing ideas as you come up with, or programming.
Exactly. That is why the humidity isn't such a problem the hotter it gets. Just because hotter air can hold more water, that doesn't magically make water appear. Instead the relative humidity goes down, reducing any possibility of condensation. Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_humidity for more info. If that still doesn't make sense, you will just have to trust the grown ups on this one.
Isn't this precisely what we learned in Nineteen Eighty Four, that you just simply rewrite history, and the new version is simply The Truth®? Of course, who ever is given the responsibility of rewriting history has all the power, and of course, it will be the government or The Party. Imagine that: "Freedom of speech? We've never had that, that would be too dangerous." and don't even think about Rights during the two minute Hate, else the Thought Police will come a knocking on your door.
I thought that hot things in cold climates didn't produce condensation, it was cold things in hot climates that did. Like your glass of ice tea, or the AC coils in your HVAC system. By definition, a hotter item will increase the ambient temperature directly around itself, which automatically lowers the humidity (dew point) which makes condensation impossible.
That would makes sense, as it takes tons of heat to produce cold air, and simply using the existing cold air has a much lower carbon footprint (corporations don't really care, to them it means lower power bills). As for humidity, it should be lower inside the barn than outside, as the heat from the systems will still raise the temperature enough to drop the relative humidity to more reasonable levels. Probably still higher than optimal, but like you said, who cares if you are running cheap enough gear, you would replace it more often anyway.
Reading Wikipedia seems to indicate that it is much drier there than eastern Washington anyway. You could likely balance the humidity with the temperature, ie: if you want lower humidity, you vent less and put up with higher temps within the barn. If it is anything like Spokane, then the main humidity is in the winter, when the air is holding less water to start with and allowing the temp to go up (vent less) will do no harm, while dramatically dropping the humidity. There aren't a lot of places this would work, but this area might just fine.
I guess my point is, if we all stopped driving cars and started using bicycles, how much would oil consumption in the US drop?
So 3 hours to work, 3 hours to get home every day? No thanks. Actually, it would take me longer since bikes are illegal on the interstate (80 of the 100 miles a day I drive). The average commute in the US is 16 miles, which would be an easy hour or more considering traffic stops, turns, etc. Its a nice thought, in a tree hugging way, but Americans aren't going to switch in significant numbers. They might drive less, but it won't be to bike that much more.
In 2009, we were down around 10% from our peak at 18,771,000 barrels per day total oil consumption (peak 2005, 20.8m). Around 9m barrels were for gasoline (not counting motor oil and other uses in cars), or just under half. 3.6m went to "Distillate Fuel Oil" (mainly diesel and a little for home heating oil I believe). Another 1.4m went to aviation. The rest goes to petrochemical, plastics, lubricants and other uses.
You might note that total oil consumption has dropped much more dramatically than gasoline consumption. My guess is that this is due to the gutting of manufacturing in the US. Total consumption is around 1998 levels, while current gasoline consumption is around 2003 levels, or down less than 3% of peak levels in 2006. Even the biggest recession since The Depression didn't change that much.
FTFS: "...why not the possibility of "peak travel" when a clear plateau has been reached?' "
They are saying a possibility of it being a peak, and clearly said the evidence points to a plateau right now. Would appear what they are doing is speculation, but they got the terms right.
It does go somewhere, it goes into producing photons of visible light instead of waste heat. I promise they really do generate different amounts of heat, not my magic but by physics. Keep in mind that in any electronics system, heat is "waste energy", ie: energy that was used to produce something besides "work". Whether it is a TV, a light bulb or a guitar amp. Many of the new ballast systems are in the 98%+ range. That doesn't account for heat at the lamp itself, but the higher frequencies (100k hertz vs 60 hertz) are able to excite the mercury atoms at a much lower power level than the original fluorescent ballasts. Because of this, the lamp itself produces less heat.
Not trying to argue, but this is what I've done for almost 20 years. We work with engineers all over the globe on this, including testing light output levels via different ballasts and frequencies, and because the lights we use are temperature sensitive, we always measure and log ambient temperatures as part of testing procedures. Typically tens of degrees difference from one ballast type to another. Compared to the old choke ballasts, over 100 degrees surface difference in an HO (100w) system. Most of these ballasts didn't exist 10 years ago, so the technology is still relatively new. They have even quit making the magnetic and Triad ballasts for HO systems in the last two years because of these newer ballasts.
And you can get the CFLs for enclosures at any home improvement store. Sometimes they are enclosed in a plastic shield that looks like a light bulb, and will say "for enclosures" or similar. They even have them as the orange "bug light" style. Here is a whole page of them, starting under $4. They have been around for a while, but they are less common. Even my outdoor flood lights are actually encased CFLs of the same type, they just have the enclosure built into the unit.
My outdoor flood lights are notoriously slow to start, takes at least 5 minutes to get to full light in the winter, and two in the summer. Not a big deal for floods, which are on the second floor and a beast to replace so worth the slowness. But CFLs are slower in any place that is cold: garages, shops, etc. Regular tube style fluorescents seem to instant start fine, although they get brighter as they warm up as well, it is only the CFLs that really drag out going from 10% to 100% bright in the cold.
BTW fluorescent bulbs DO make heat... just not as much. So if you had a farm or something where you need heat, you could swap-out the 100 watt incandescent with a 100 watt CFL (equivalent to 400w incandescent) and get the same amount of heat. Or just use a tiny heater.
I'm pretty sure that a fluorescent that uses 100w will still generate significantly less heat because the newer electronic ballast design is so efficient. We manufacture with the newer style fluorescent ballasts with will ignite 3 to 6 100w lamps, and they get about 5 degrees F over ambient is all. We have devices that use 13 amps worth of these ballasts @ 120v (actual draw, not rated draw), and cool the whole enclosed system with a single 6 inch fan. Fulham makes them, they are the Workhorse series. I actually did an extensive lab test on the thermal output of them and privately published it on these using F71T12HO lamps, and now Fulham uses the results (without my permission....) to sell their stuff. It is a trip to grab a ballast that is powering 3x 100w lamps in your hand after it has been on for an hour, and have it be barely warm at all. Even the lamps themselves are significantly cooler. (In case you are a nerd, these ballasts output at over 100k hertz, whereas older electronics run at 20k hertz, and chokes run at 60hz, same as input.)
I would imagine that newer fluorescents, particularly the kind that are made for enclosures, use similar technology. The original CFLs, maybe not, but the newer more efficient ballasts actually cost less to make now so they are more likely to be used in the future.
So, Let the punishment fit the crime? Used to be that way in America, but now a CEO can illegally obtain a million dollars and get a 100,000 fine. Sounds like crime does pay, *IF* it is the right crime. In order to make crime worthwhile in the US, you must make sure to steal a LARGE sum of actual cash.
That needs to be revoked anyway. There are certain places where only an incandescent will work, where the light AND heat are needed. Pump houses are one example. Now I have to hook up a small heater once bulbs are no longer available, which are likely only available in larger wattages. Animal homes is another example.
I wonder if that is to include the incandescent IR lamps as well?
When has dumping a chemical into our biosphere such that it reaches many times the natural level been a good thing?
Based on a small slice of time, say the last 1% of time since the birth of earth (40 million years), can you please define "natural levels"? What about the last 1000 years makes this slice of time so special that only it is "normal" and everything else is an anomaly?
Now that we know the sun is trying to cool the earth, it is everyone's duty to go buy a SUV and leave the lights on in every room of the house. Please, think of the children!
I will be shocked if that doesn't happen. First a computer beats a champion in chess, but can he play flamenco style well enough to fool a panel of expert guitarists? Eventually, perhaps. 10 years? Hard to say. I still don't think musicians need to worry. DJ's did more to take jobs from working bands than anything else. O
ver the last 20-30 years, it seems people would rather hear an exact copy of a song they know than a good interpretation. No where near the amount of venues with live bands that there used to be. The average lifespan of a song and/or performer has also gotten shorter as the industry cranks out manufactured "stars" like a Pez dispenser, thanks to Autotune and other techno-goodies.
Good point, but it's still grossly out of proportion, considering 35'000 games cost a lot more than 24 songs.
Yea, but remember, when someone pirates something that doesn't mean they would have bought it had it not been available to download....oh wait, I just proved your point even more....
People who are SELLING counterfeit copies of games should be fined as it IS theft. The buyers actually traded dollars for the games (albeit at lower prices). Why the justice system wants to punish little old ladies for downloading Metalica is beyond me. It is simply another example of how our government and judicial system has gotten out of control.
Slashdot Mirror
FTA "Currently this service does not exist because the movie studios are concerned about protecting their content, and making sure that it cannot be stolen or used illegally."
No, obviously this isn't DRM, it is a technology to protect their rights to their digital content. Completely different. Not related. Nothing to see here, move along. Here, look at the monkey. Look at the silly monkey!
don't see why they would have such a "fake jackpot" option installed in a casino floor machine.
Many digital machines (not spinning reels) have a display mode that "simulates" a jackpot, because it catches your eye. It is basically a show put on by the machine, but it swaps into several display modes when no one is playing. This appears to be a stuck jackpot mode that is reset when the machine is opened or cleared, ie: a bug or stupid code left in.
So what? It still an experience to have, and up to the experiencee to add the meaning.
That is all fine and dandy, but if you read the actual summary, he clearly states:
I have access to a supposedly haunted house and been tempted to run a proper scientific investigation.
The point that I made is that you are wasting your time if you are trying to run a proper scientific investigation. You can't prove a negative, and we already have plenty of pseudoscience videos of ghost hunters on YouTube. If he wants to just go an have fun in a haunted house, then it he would have stated so, and it wouldn't be (ideally) posted on /.
In short, if he wants to do science, he *is* wasting his time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster
At this point, there has been enough claims without evidence to simply say "I don't think they exist, and you are free to show me evidence contrary", and then explore from that point. Going out to that town's resident "ghost house" on a whim to try to prove one thing or another isn't science. He might as well go to the ocean and prove there is or isn't sea monsters. In both instances, the net result won't be Science®, and isn't even good, interesting or unique pseudoscience.
If you actually RTFA, in all fairness, what they are accusing the man of IS cracking with the help of social engineering. This isn't some "tap the side of the box three times and put in two coins" trick, it requires getting an employee to open the machine, set an option that is usually NOT set, then using a precise set of button pushes, it creates a FALSE jackpot, which might have been put there for testing or display only, as the machine doesn't record it as a jackpot at all. The guy didn't even put a coin in the machine. It is a dishonest crack, with the intention of defrauding the casino. If he is doing what they say he is doing, then obviously he should be arrested and punished. It isn't "proof of concept" or white hat hacking, it is theft by fraud.
Lets not celebrate an (alleged) common criminal, even if he uses uncommon methods.
Dear Slashdot, I have family and friends that believe the Earth is 6,600 years old, what tools do I need to prove them right?
A bible and a frontal lobotomy. Of course, it only proves it to the one with the lobotomy.
You are correct, and this is demonstrated by the fact that the average keyboard is not that different than a typewriter from 100 years ago, in basic layout. With the exception of Windows keys (which come off easily using a screw driver...) a good keyboard still has a tactile feel that gives instant feedback to the user allowing them to speed along at a rate most comfortable to them. Screens that will create "click" sounds and other feedback will never compare because "feeling" with the ears is not the same as feeling with the fingers. You are never quite sure if you hit the right key. With a tactile keyboard, I know instantly if I hit the wrong key or didn't strike heavy enough.
Same thing with voice activated typing. Simply put, it both are distracting and interfere with the thought process, while typing can be done with confidence, almost subconsciously, allowing you to actually THINK about what you are typing just before you type it. Not such a big deal if you are inputing your name and address, but a huge deal if you are actually typing ideas as you come up with, or programming.
Exactly. That is why the humidity isn't such a problem the hotter it gets. Just because hotter air can hold more water, that doesn't magically make water appear. Instead the relative humidity goes down, reducing any possibility of condensation. Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_humidity for more info. If that still doesn't make sense, you will just have to trust the grown ups on this one.
Isn't this precisely what we learned in Nineteen Eighty Four, that you just simply rewrite history, and the new version is simply The Truth®? Of course, who ever is given the responsibility of rewriting history has all the power, and of course, it will be the government or The Party. Imagine that: "Freedom of speech? We've never had that, that would be too dangerous." and don't even think about Rights during the two minute Hate, else the Thought Police will come a knocking on your door.
I thought that hot things in cold climates didn't produce condensation, it was cold things in hot climates that did. Like your glass of ice tea, or the AC coils in your HVAC system. By definition, a hotter item will increase the ambient temperature directly around itself, which automatically lowers the humidity (dew point) which makes condensation impossible.
I meant it is drier than western Washington, but I think you get the picture...
That would makes sense, as it takes tons of heat to produce cold air, and simply using the existing cold air has a much lower carbon footprint (corporations don't really care, to them it means lower power bills). As for humidity, it should be lower inside the barn than outside, as the heat from the systems will still raise the temperature enough to drop the relative humidity to more reasonable levels. Probably still higher than optimal, but like you said, who cares if you are running cheap enough gear, you would replace it more often anyway.
Reading Wikipedia seems to indicate that it is much drier there than eastern Washington anyway. You could likely balance the humidity with the temperature, ie: if you want lower humidity, you vent less and put up with higher temps within the barn. If it is anything like Spokane, then the main humidity is in the winter, when the air is holding less water to start with and allowing the temp to go up (vent less) will do no harm, while dramatically dropping the humidity. There aren't a lot of places this would work, but this area might just fine.
I think falling hundreds of feet out of the sky would cause trauma.
Falling hundreds of feet could not cause trauma to the birds. The sudden stop at the end, however, will do the trick.
I guess my point is, if we all stopped driving cars and started using bicycles, how much would oil consumption in the US drop?
So 3 hours to work, 3 hours to get home every day? No thanks. Actually, it would take me longer since bikes are illegal on the interstate (80 of the 100 miles a day I drive). The average commute in the US is 16 miles, which would be an easy hour or more considering traffic stops, turns, etc. Its a nice thought, in a tree hugging way, but Americans aren't going to switch in significant numbers. They might drive less, but it won't be to bike that much more.
But to answer your question, http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_cons_psup_dc_nus_mbblpd_a.htm is a good place to start.
In 2009, we were down around 10% from our peak at 18,771,000 barrels per day total oil consumption (peak 2005, 20.8m). Around 9m barrels were for gasoline (not counting motor oil and other uses in cars), or just under half. 3.6m went to "Distillate Fuel Oil" (mainly diesel and a little for home heating oil I believe). Another 1.4m went to aviation. The rest goes to petrochemical, plastics, lubricants and other uses.
You might note that total oil consumption has dropped much more dramatically than gasoline consumption. My guess is that this is due to the gutting of manufacturing in the US. Total consumption is around 1998 levels, while current gasoline consumption is around 2003 levels, or down less than 3% of peak levels in 2006. Even the biggest recession since The Depression didn't change that much.
FTFS: "...why not the possibility of "peak travel" when a clear plateau has been reached?' "
They are saying a possibility of it being a peak, and clearly said the evidence points to a plateau right now. Would appear what they are doing is speculation, but they got the terms right.
It does go somewhere, it goes into producing photons of visible light instead of waste heat. I promise they really do generate different amounts of heat, not my magic but by physics. Keep in mind that in any electronics system, heat is "waste energy", ie: energy that was used to produce something besides "work". Whether it is a TV, a light bulb or a guitar amp. Many of the new ballast systems are in the 98%+ range. That doesn't account for heat at the lamp itself, but the higher frequencies (100k hertz vs 60 hertz) are able to excite the mercury atoms at a much lower power level than the original fluorescent ballasts. Because of this, the lamp itself produces less heat.
Not trying to argue, but this is what I've done for almost 20 years. We work with engineers all over the globe on this, including testing light output levels via different ballasts and frequencies, and because the lights we use are temperature sensitive, we always measure and log ambient temperatures as part of testing procedures. Typically tens of degrees difference from one ballast type to another. Compared to the old choke ballasts, over 100 degrees surface difference in an HO (100w) system. Most of these ballasts didn't exist 10 years ago, so the technology is still relatively new. They have even quit making the magnetic and Triad ballasts for HO systems in the last two years because of these newer ballasts.
And you can get the CFLs for enclosures at any home improvement store. Sometimes they are enclosed in a plastic shield that looks like a light bulb, and will say "for enclosures" or similar. They even have them as the orange "bug light" style. Here is a whole page of them, starting under $4. They have been around for a while, but they are less common. Even my outdoor flood lights are actually encased CFLs of the same type, they just have the enclosure built into the unit.
That reminds of the expression "The only reason chickens exist is that they are the only way for one egg to make another egg".
My outdoor flood lights are notoriously slow to start, takes at least 5 minutes to get to full light in the winter, and two in the summer. Not a big deal for floods, which are on the second floor and a beast to replace so worth the slowness. But CFLs are slower in any place that is cold: garages, shops, etc. Regular tube style fluorescents seem to instant start fine, although they get brighter as they warm up as well, it is only the CFLs that really drag out going from 10% to 100% bright in the cold.
BTW fluorescent bulbs DO make heat... just not as much. So if you had a farm or something where you need heat, you could swap-out the 100 watt incandescent with a 100 watt CFL (equivalent to 400w incandescent) and get the same amount of heat. Or just use a tiny heater.
I'm pretty sure that a fluorescent that uses 100w will still generate significantly less heat because the newer electronic ballast design is so efficient. We manufacture with the newer style fluorescent ballasts with will ignite 3 to 6 100w lamps, and they get about 5 degrees F over ambient is all. We have devices that use 13 amps worth of these ballasts @ 120v (actual draw, not rated draw), and cool the whole enclosed system with a single 6 inch fan. Fulham makes them, they are the Workhorse series. I actually did an extensive lab test on the thermal output of them and privately published it on these using F71T12HO lamps, and now Fulham uses the results (without my permission....) to sell their stuff. It is a trip to grab a ballast that is powering 3x 100w lamps in your hand after it has been on for an hour, and have it be barely warm at all. Even the lamps themselves are significantly cooler. (In case you are a nerd, these ballasts output at over 100k hertz, whereas older electronics run at 20k hertz, and chokes run at 60hz, same as input.)
I would imagine that newer fluorescents, particularly the kind that are made for enclosures, use similar technology. The original CFLs, maybe not, but the newer more efficient ballasts actually cost less to make now so they are more likely to be used in the future.
So, Let the punishment fit the crime? Used to be that way in America, but now a CEO can illegally obtain a million dollars and get a 100,000 fine. Sounds like crime does pay, *IF* it is the right crime. In order to make crime worthwhile in the US, you must make sure to steal a LARGE sum of actual cash.
That needs to be revoked anyway. There are certain places where only an incandescent will work, where the light AND heat are needed. Pump houses are one example. Now I have to hook up a small heater once bulbs are no longer available, which are likely only available in larger wattages. Animal homes is another example.
I wonder if that is to include the incandescent IR lamps as well?
When has dumping a chemical into our biosphere such that it reaches many times the natural level been a good thing?
Based on a small slice of time, say the last 1% of time since the birth of earth (40 million years), can you please define "natural levels"? What about the last 1000 years makes this slice of time so special that only it is "normal" and everything else is an anomaly?
Now that we know the sun is trying to cool the earth, it is everyone's duty to go buy a SUV and leave the lights on in every room of the house. Please, think of the children!
I will be shocked if that doesn't happen. First a computer beats a champion in chess, but can he play flamenco style well enough to fool a panel of expert guitarists? Eventually, perhaps. 10 years? Hard to say. I still don't think musicians need to worry. DJ's did more to take jobs from working bands than anything else. O
ver the last 20-30 years, it seems people would rather hear an exact copy of a song they know than a good interpretation. No where near the amount of venues with live bands that there used to be. The average lifespan of a song and/or performer has also gotten shorter as the industry cranks out manufactured "stars" like a Pez dispenser, thanks to Autotune and other techno-goodies.
Good point, but it's still grossly out of proportion, considering 35'000 games cost a lot more than 24 songs.
Yea, but remember, when someone pirates something that doesn't mean they would have bought it had it not been available to download....oh wait, I just proved your point even more....
People who are SELLING counterfeit copies of games should be fined as it IS theft. The buyers actually traded dollars for the games (albeit at lower prices). Why the justice system wants to punish little old ladies for downloading Metalica is beyond me. It is simply another example of how our government and judicial system has gotten out of control.