1) Get an old microwave 2.4ghz microwave 2) Break off all the shielding* 3) Put aluminum foil 'reflectos' out the front of it and aim at the walls where nothing is in the way* 4) Unground the unit* 5) Put it on a timer to turn on when you are away from home.*
Eventually you'll either burn the place down or put out so much interferance your neighbors will take their WAPs back.
*please note doing this is idiotic and you'd be a real moron to do it....
From this article: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/m i_m3165/is _n9_v24/ai_6987079... One drawback--the inability to spotweld aluminum -- is near a solution. Alcan International Ltd. assures that it soon will release a sheet-aluminum bonding material, which company officials say has achieved "commercially acceptable levels of performance" for structures that are equal to steel in stiffness, strength and crashworthiness.... But automakers don't shy away from the versatile material because of past failures. "With aluminum -- like anything else -- anytime you make changes you have some problems," says Richard V. Stumph, director of engineering for GM's Central Foundry Div. "We haven't shied away from it because of problems, but because of economic considerations. There's retooling, and aluminum has different mechanical properties than the materials it's displacing," all of which requires more engineering study, producing higher costs....
Other manufacturers (Sun, Rio, etc) have released product with a full set of 'features' that, when you go to use them, return a message such as "This feature not yet implemented".
At least there is some effort to tell people that these aren't up to snuff yet.
And wouldn't it just be a huge marketing blitz if everyone bought these and they pulled the Sun Microsystems "Oh, you mean you're going to make us support that feature? That'll cost ya..."
Sorry I'm a bit bitter at manufactures pulling this and I think it should be an outlawed business practice.
I know that feeling. At a certain company I used to work at some 95% were pulled off of everything else to work on OLED.
The problem is, of course, that no one would foot the bill for testing. So people would make a compound, coat it, test it for a couple of hours... but there were a million things that could have been done wrong to make the item fail. But they always expect OLEDs to behave like certain analog chemicals they've made.... and thus they never make any real progress.
You can do temporal dithering on an LCD to get your 'intermediate' value pixels somewhere in the middle of the two. I've seen it done on high end IBM LCD displays.
Also there is a limit to how small you can make an LCD and still have a sufficiently response time (also how large, too). OLEDs will not have this limitation.
Funny thing was every evening they would take down the panel and put up another one in it's place.
Literally they were driving the thing so hard it would burn out in less than 24 hours at the convention... my coworkers were laughing their ass off as they read the 'marketing specs' that this panel could 'provide'.
Please note- I used to work in this field about 1.3 years ago, until I was laid off. There may have been some revolutionary advances since then (not bloody likely, but I'll caveat it anyway).
The biggest issue right now with OLEDs is that there are two ways of creating the light- front emitting and back emitting. Either way you dice it you've got a non transparent ITO pad that cuts out your light- but Front Emitting fixes this by emitting thru the glass into your eyeballs.
Unfortunately, ITO is shiny... which means you have to knock down the glare to the point that it really looks black. That means - believe it or not- they use a polarizer! So 75% of the light generated by a pixel is 'wasted' burning thru a polarizer.
That also means they need 4x more brightness out of the little buggers, too.
There are additional technologies for mixing light and other ways of filtering. Some companies are getting around the small patterning issues by using 'white light' (like a laptop) and then slapping a CFA (colour filter array) over the surface to get your RGBs. Which once again gets you into the same issues as LCDs.
Give it time. The knowledge and technology is coming along (or at least was)...
Organic Chemistry is... chemistry involving carbon. That's the meaning of "Organic". Some hippies have co-opted the term to describe a variation on farming practices that would have left most of the world still doing the hunter/gatherer thing on the basis that it was 'better' for you than 15000 years of progress.
So whenever you hear the words "Organic" think like a Scientist, not an Astrologer.
Carbon fires are 'dirty' and thus feel 'hot'. A candle flame will feel warmer to your finger 2" from it (off the side) than an alcohol lamp- and thats all because of the amount of 'dirty carbon' in the flame.
And I never met the guy in person so I couldn't ask him, but my guess is it was a hot plant anyway (all the ones I worked in were uncomfortable save for the middle of the winter) and when you've got 2 layers of clothing on + clean suit (keep you clean)... ya might just not notice it.
A friend and coworker was describing a scene he witnessed at a plant that liquifies gasses. You figure out which one.
One of his coworkers was pushing a metal cart loaded with a test rig down an aisle. About halfway down there was a huge *whump* that echoed down the hall and the entire front half of the cart was in flames. The man wasn't seriously injured, even being so close to a tremendous fire.
A H2 pipeline had ruptured (H2 embrittlement I think he said) and was spewing a steady stream of the material in a jet across the walkway. Somehow it had caught fire and, since H2 burns colorless no one saw it.
I'm getting married in a few months. I don't want all her sex drive to go away, just a little bit of it. There are days she just won't stop- 5x a night and work is such a drag the next day... repeat over the week and I'm pulling (no pun intended) 120hr work weeks.
Are all women insatiable like this or did I just happen to hit the motherload?
Actually, if I had clipped the vehicle making the turn in front of me and then gotten into a further accident by dodging, the primary fault of the accident would fall on the person turning in front of me- since they *caused* the accident.
It's really wierd. I saved a life and am at fault. But by striking the vehicle (or clipping it) then I wouldn't have been at fault, even tho I caused the initial impact.
Don't ask me to explain it- I haven't had the lobotomy needed yet...
Actually, you are responsible for the accident by hitting the kid.
No, really- stop laughing!
I put the question to both law enforcement and insurance agents. A vehicle turned in front of me while I was going thru an intersection. to prevent my bumper from going thru the passenger door (And thus into the little girl staring at me with big, wide eyes) I dodged into on coming traffic. A perfect manueuver to save her life, but I was only lucky because oncoming traffic had the sense to dodge too: Imagine 'threading the needle' and you've got how that accident was going to look.
The conclusion of both insurance and law? If I didn't strike the vehicle making an illegal turn in front of me, I was responsible 100% for every injury that occurred thereafter.
Yes there was mitigating circumstances. Yes it wasn't my fault.
But in the eyes of the law, I was guilty.
So if you dodge a plane wreck and kill a person, you're guilty of failure to keep your vehicle under control... but I'd like to meet the DA that would prosecute you (so I can smack him/her).
I was attempting to point out that the taking of a life, unintentionally (you *are* in control of your vehicle and responsible for it at all times, right?) still will have a penalty associated with it. Civil or Otherwise (Federal? Doubt that). But there will still be a penalty... whether it be commuted or monetary.
And of course there is the whole civil court room suit of wrongful death....
Any *individual* life is priceless to said individual.
But if you, mr. Anonymous Coward (funny you should post that way) were to call me up and say "If you don't pay So-and-So 10 billion dollars by 10pm, he will kill me"... how much money do you think I'd pony up?
In general a life is valued at 1.3 million.
Yours, to you, is worth more. Mine, to me, is worth more. My fiancee's, to me, is worth more than mine. My sister's, to me, is worth more than mine. Your's, to me, isn't worth nearly so much.
Unless I know ya.;)
Exactly- the price of a human life is about 1.3mil
on
Feds Convict Warez Dealer
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
I remember reading up on a study on the highway speeds and how 75 vs 65 resulted in less fatalities...
When it was all done and concluded it worked out to be about 1.3 million (if memory serves) per life saved.
Unfortunately, the lack of speed cost society about 4.3 million per life (Very convoluted logic- I didn't follow it) due to increased time 'wasted' while commuting.
So... yes. There's a price for taking a life- and it should be small for a true accident (kid running out in front of a car from behind an SUV and with NO chance to stop)... but it should be high for a planned, premeditated execution (Peterson (I'm not getting into exactly *how* they reached that) for example).
And then you have money - theft of money almost ALWAYS gets a stiffer sentence than a violent crime... and if you steal in the process of a violent crime it becomes much more stiffer penalties.
I guess software piracy is like a flasher: Everyone says it's a victimless crime. But in reality everyone is hurt at some point... but man oh man, 15 years? Sigh.
In one case you've destroyed an individual- taken his/her dignity, the right to be safe, the very 'temple' of his/her body with a violent act such as rape.
In another, we have little bits of signal that have 'more' importance than the afore mentioned victim.
I have always been cynical and said everything comes down to money- religion, lawyers, corporations- it all revolves around that little dollar sign.
But when you hear about someone getting locked away for 15 years (sorry Kevin)... it's just another world.
Brownies were about 620 sized negatives- approximately 120 (6x6 cm) film formats today.
The film was processed on long glass tables that ran east/west at Kodak- huge skylights lit the room and 'printed' the image onto paper undeneath the film.
The film was scraped off the glass, destroyed, and the glass was used again.
And if you understand JPG you understand why you shouldn't use it. Unless it's an Extended Jpg (Kodak format) that allows for shiftable exposure.
After all, why shoot chrome when negatives have lattitude?
Slashdot Mirror
1) Get an old microwave 2.4ghz microwave
2) Break off all the shielding*
3) Put aluminum foil 'reflectos' out the front of it and aim at the walls where nothing is in the way*
4) Unground the unit*
5) Put it on a timer to turn on when you are away from home.*
Eventually you'll either burn the place down or put out so much interferance your neighbors will take their WAPs back.
*please note doing this is idiotic and you'd be a real moron to do it....
Really, the article says Hackers. Crackers break software.
I mean if you're going to rip the first line 'summary' from the article itself, why skimp on one word?
From this article:m i_m3165/is _n9_v24/ai_6987079 ... ... ...
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/
One drawback--the inability to spotweld aluminum -- is near a solution. Alcan International Ltd. assures that it soon will release a sheet-aluminum bonding material, which company officials say has achieved "commercially acceptable levels of performance" for structures that are equal to steel in stiffness, strength and crashworthiness.
But automakers don't shy away from the versatile material because of past failures. "With aluminum -- like anything else -- anytime you make changes you have some problems," says Richard V. Stumph, director of engineering for GM's Central Foundry Div. "We haven't shied away from it because of problems, but because of economic considerations. There's retooling, and aluminum has different mechanical properties than the materials it's displacing," all of which requires more engineering study, producing higher costs.
Other manufacturers (Sun, Rio, etc) have released product with a full set of 'features' that, when you go to use them, return a message such as "This feature not yet implemented".
At least there is some effort to tell people that these aren't up to snuff yet.
And wouldn't it just be a huge marketing blitz if everyone bought these and they pulled the Sun Microsystems "Oh, you mean you're going to make us support that feature? That'll cost ya..."
Sorry I'm a bit bitter at manufactures pulling this and I think it should be an outlawed business practice.
Yup!
:(
Unfortunately it just doesn't go the distance with lifetime
I remember doing that for grins and just not even spin coating it, heh.... 9 volt battery and poof- light!
Whoops my bad. I've already seen 4 different laptops that use OLED screens in them- course they are one-off replacements...
Kodak released a digital camera with an OLED and I believe professional one as well.
Cell phones have had OLEDs for some time.
Radio (car) manufacturers have had OLED displays as well.
Apple would be 4th place at best....
I know that feeling. At a certain company I used to work at some 95% were pulled off of everything else to work on OLED.
The problem is, of course, that no one would foot the bill for testing. So people would make a compound, coat it, test it for a couple of hours... but there were a million things that could have been done wrong to make the item fail. But they always expect OLEDs to behave like certain analog chemicals they've made.... and thus they never make any real progress.
You can do temporal dithering on an LCD to get your 'intermediate' value pixels somewhere in the middle of the two. I've seen it done on high end IBM LCD displays.
Also there is a limit to how small you can make an LCD and still have a sufficiently response time (also how large, too). OLEDs will not have this limitation.
They could have a very poor blue colour coordinate in order to get the desired luminance.
Blue has been a very sticky colour to work on requiring some pretty exotic materials.
I believe it was a 15" white OLED panel.
Funny thing was every evening they would take down the panel and put up another one in it's place.
Literally they were driving the thing so hard it would burn out in less than 24 hours at the convention... my coworkers were laughing their ass off as they read the 'marketing specs' that this panel could 'provide'.
emitters.
Please note- I used to work in this field about 1.3 years ago, until I was laid off. There may have been some revolutionary advances since then (not bloody likely, but I'll caveat it anyway).
The biggest issue right now with OLEDs is that there are two ways of creating the light- front emitting and back emitting. Either way you dice it you've got a non transparent ITO pad that cuts out your light- but Front Emitting fixes this by emitting thru the glass into your eyeballs.
Unfortunately, ITO is shiny... which means you have to knock down the glare to the point that it really looks black. That means - believe it or not- they use a polarizer! So 75% of the light generated by a pixel is 'wasted' burning thru a polarizer.
That also means they need 4x more brightness out of the little buggers, too.
There are additional technologies for mixing light and other ways of filtering. Some companies are getting around the small patterning issues by using 'white light' (like a laptop) and then slapping a CFA (colour filter array) over the surface to get your RGBs. Which once again gets you into the same issues as LCDs.
Give it time. The knowledge and technology is coming along (or at least was)...
Organic Chemistry is ... chemistry involving carbon. That's the meaning of "Organic". Some hippies have co-opted the term to describe a variation on farming practices that would have left most of the world still doing the hunter/gatherer thing on the basis that it was 'better' for you than 15000 years of progress.
So whenever you hear the words "Organic" think like a Scientist, not an Astrologer.
Carbon fires are 'dirty' and thus feel 'hot'. A candle flame will feel warmer to your finger 2" from it (off the side) than an alcohol lamp- and thats all because of the amount of 'dirty carbon' in the flame.
And I never met the guy in person so I couldn't ask him, but my guess is it was a hot plant anyway (all the ones I worked in were uncomfortable save for the middle of the winter) and when you've got 2 layers of clothing on + clean suit (keep you clean)... ya might just not notice it.
A friend and coworker was describing a scene he witnessed at a plant that liquifies gasses. You figure out which one.
One of his coworkers was pushing a metal cart loaded with a test rig down an aisle. About halfway down there was a huge *whump* that echoed down the hall and the entire front half of the cart was in flames. The man wasn't seriously injured, even being so close to a tremendous fire.
A H2 pipeline had ruptured (H2 embrittlement I think he said) and was spewing a steady stream of the material in a jet across the walkway. Somehow it had caught fire and, since H2 burns colorless no one saw it.
Had that cart not been there.... ouch.
.... she says she loses count after 5 ;-)
I'm getting married in a few months. I don't want all her sex drive to go away, just a little bit of it. There are days she just won't stop- 5x a night and work is such a drag the next day... repeat over the week and I'm pulling (no pun intended) 120hr work weeks.
Are all women insatiable like this or did I just happen to hit the motherload?
Actually, if I had clipped the vehicle making the turn in front of me and then gotten into a further accident by dodging, the primary fault of the accident would fall on the person turning in front of me- since they *caused* the accident.
It's really wierd. I saved a life and am at fault. But by striking the vehicle (or clipping it) then I wouldn't have been at fault, even tho I caused the initial impact.
Don't ask me to explain it- I haven't had the lobotomy needed yet...
Actually, you are responsible for the accident by hitting the kid.
No, really- stop laughing!
I put the question to both law enforcement and insurance agents. A vehicle turned in front of me while I was going thru an intersection. to prevent my bumper from going thru the passenger door (And thus into the little girl staring at me with big, wide eyes) I dodged into on coming traffic. A perfect manueuver to save her life, but I was only lucky because oncoming traffic had the sense to dodge too: Imagine 'threading the needle' and you've got how that accident was going to look.
The conclusion of both insurance and law? If I didn't strike the vehicle making an illegal turn in front of me, I was responsible 100% for every injury that occurred thereafter.
Yes there was mitigating circumstances. Yes it wasn't my fault.
But in the eyes of the law, I was guilty.
So if you dodge a plane wreck and kill a person, you're guilty of failure to keep your vehicle under control... but I'd like to meet the DA that would prosecute you (so I can smack him/her).
I was attempting to point out that the taking of a life, unintentionally (you *are* in control of your vehicle and responsible for it at all times, right?) still will have a penalty associated with it. Civil or Otherwise (Federal? Doubt that). But there will still be a penalty... whether it be commuted or monetary.
And of course there is the whole civil court room suit of wrongful death....
This was captured with my digital 'sideline' camera as I captured the individual frames on film.2 0.jpg
_ RPD_PPost_lut.jpg
http://www.gotsheep.com/~hirsch/Photos/DCP_0492_3
I've found the digital file but not the film that I scanned it from- blowing up eggs is MUCH more fun.
http://www.gotsheep.com/~hirsch/Photos/EGG_3_crop
(Slashdot is doing wierd things to the links- so you'll have to remove the %20's it's sticking in in the spaces)
Any *individual* life is priceless to said individual.
... how much money do you think I'd pony up?
;)
But if you, mr. Anonymous Coward (funny you should post that way) were to call me up and say "If you don't pay So-and-So 10 billion dollars by 10pm, he will kill me"
In general a life is valued at 1.3 million.
Yours, to you, is worth more. Mine, to me, is worth more. My fiancee's, to me, is worth more than mine. My sister's, to me, is worth more than mine. Your's, to me, isn't worth nearly so much.
Unless I know ya.
I remember reading up on a study on the highway speeds and how 75 vs 65 resulted in less fatalities...
... yes. There's a price for taking a life- and it should be small for a true accident (kid running out in front of a car from behind an SUV and with NO chance to stop) ... but it should be high for a planned, premeditated execution (Peterson (I'm not getting into exactly *how* they reached that) for example).
When it was all done and concluded it worked out to be about 1.3 million (if memory serves) per life saved.
Unfortunately, the lack of speed cost society about 4.3 million per life (Very convoluted logic- I didn't follow it) due to increased time 'wasted' while commuting.
So
And then you have money - theft of money almost ALWAYS gets a stiffer sentence than a violent crime... and if you steal in the process of a violent crime it becomes much more stiffer penalties.
I guess software piracy is like a flasher: Everyone says it's a victimless crime. But in reality everyone is hurt at some point... but man oh man, 15 years? Sigh.
... it's just scary.
... it's just another world.
In one case you've destroyed an individual- taken his/her dignity, the right to be safe, the very 'temple' of his/her body with a violent act such as rape.
In another, we have little bits of signal that have 'more' importance than the afore mentioned victim.
I have always been cynical and said everything comes down to money- religion, lawyers, corporations- it all revolves around that little dollar sign.
But when you hear about someone getting locked away for 15 years (sorry Kevin)
And it scares me.
110 film wasn't loaded in brownies.
Brownies were about 620 sized negatives- approximately 120 (6x6 cm) film formats today.
The film was processed on long glass tables that ran east/west at Kodak- huge skylights lit the room and 'printed' the image onto paper undeneath the film.
The film was scraped off the glass, destroyed, and the glass was used again.
And if you understand JPG you understand why you shouldn't use it. Unless it's an Extended Jpg (Kodak format) that allows for shiftable exposure.
After all, why shoot chrome when negatives have lattitude?