Re:They should all work in 0gave to pay carefull a
on
RAID for Zero-G?
·
· Score: 1
Huh? That's strange...mine isn't. Mine are fluid..and BOY can you tell the difference...sooooo quiet. Have fluid bearings in my laptop(at home) and desktop (at work).
They should all work in 0gave to pay carefull atte
on
RAID for Zero-G?
·
· Score: 1
It's not like it's going to put any stress on them:) Fluid or ball bearings should work fine.
You will have to pay carefull attention to vibration and shock considerations though. Are you going to be accelerating quickly? If so, you will need some kind of packing that can handle a lot of displacement. For vibration, I would personally think it would be easiers to isolate each drive from the chasis using some kind of foam or something, and also cushion the rack. It would require much more work to get the rack isolated alone. As long as you don't have any high frequency vibrations getting to the parts, you should be good since the acceleration will be very low.
a lot more of those "priceless" pictures showing up on the net. Girls wearing nanotube clothes, only to have them explode off of them because they were too close to the camera flash.
I'vq noticed that too. It seems that the desktop LCD's usualy are MUCH more blurry too. Like on my laptop, and the one I'm using now, Each pixl is extremely clear and defined. On the desktops, they seem to blur funny. Setting the clock on them makes it worste or better, but still never to a point as clear as the laptops. Maybe it has to do with the analog interface that all the desktop LCD's I've seen have used.
One thing I like about the desktops is the HUGE vertical viewing angles. My laptop sucks in tis department. They are getting better though. Probably has to do with the backlights used, and the technique that the use to disperse the light all over behind the LCD.
"I often needed to see more of something to get a better understanding of it, and not need any extra detail."
If it's the same at all resolutions like the below quote, then how are you seeing more of it?
"For AutoCAD users the resolution only changes your workspace size (toolbars, menus, etc.) The drawing looks the same at 1280x960 and 1960x1600 on a 21' monitor."
Having higher resolution would mean you could see more detail though...such as if you had many verticle lines, you could zoom out a certan amount at 1600x1200 and still see each line...but if you did it with a lower res, you wouldn't be able to zoom out nearly as much and still be able to see each individual line.
My friend has one of their huge laptops...you right, they aren't meant to be carried around. They didn't even advertise his as a laptop, it was a portable desktop or something like that. They are probably targetting the same section of the market. His was cool though, had a wireless keyboard built in (just popped it out of the computer!).
If they don't obscure the images somehow, I don't see how people will accept this. I know I wouldn't want my future kids going through something like this.
I wonder if the example picture that they give has been modified in any way. If not, it seems that they could easily use some software algorithms to hide the picture of the body, leaving only the other stuff, or at least make it just an outline or a block figure looking body. Then, if they needed more detail, they could use a more detailed representation. I hope this wont pass over the publics head like so many other issues. I have contacted my local news channel many times for stories. They seem to not care. Maybe I should try a more direct apporach than email.:)
I don't see what causes the LCD's pixels to get "burnt in". If you look at how they work, it's just alligning the liquid crystal. The only possibility I can think of is the crystals getting stuck in position. I think it's just cheap displays. This is not the same as the burn in that actually happens to LCD projectors like seen on a previouse slashdot article (can't find, search engine is worthless). On the projectors, they have extremely bright lights with lots of heat and UV. The heat and UV breaks down the crystals which causes premanent damage. A normal LCD backlight wouldn't do this in a matter of hours, maybe many many years (from some UV).
And, the problem mentioned in the article doesn't seem to be "burn in" at all, since it doesn't seem to be permanent. If you look at the relavent Dell forum (whoever posted this should have), many people have gotten the images to go away by using the Mystic screensaver. Someone mentioned that it was just charge build up, and the screensaver could be getting rid of it. This would make MUCH more sense...cause I still see no way for actual burn in to happen. On a CRT, it's cause the phosphor on the screen breaks down...there's a lot of energy hitting the phosphor. Maybe they didn't make sure that the charge put on each of the pixels actually gets discharged. So, effectively, they are getting stuck in position.
I wonder whether it is black or white which causes the pixels to "fade."
Well, if your talking about the same "burn in" as they are, it would be neither. It seems that the screensaver fixes it by excersizing the pixels...so...you would want them to flash every once and a while:) But, since the voltage is applied to make the pixels black (that's why you can't see the numbers on a calculator when they're off), it would probably be better to leave them white if you were gunna leave them that way forever.
One of the big drawbacks of LCD's is that the backlight has a fairly limited life. Usually 3-6 thousand hours. You shouldn't be using a screen saver, since the backlight is still on. You should use something that just shuts your screen off after X minutes.
I never did understand screensavers...sure they keep burn in down, but your still displaying something on your screen, which does cause some burn in (just let it show the screen saver for 20 years!:). I never used them. I just used a screen blanker, even with the old CRT's.
from the videofocus website: http://www.salientstills.com/product/pro duct_intro.html
Increased editorial choice: VideoFOCUS digitizes every single frame. You choose exactly the right shot from a video sequence to capture the perfect moment.
So...just run it through video focus, make an avi with all the frames, add the original audio track, then compress them using some video compression...you have yourself a high res video!:)
I'm guessing something will look strange, like funny blurs, or background motion or something. Who knows. I don't think it would do good with fast moving objects in the video...probably blur it real bad.
There's a lot in outer space, but I read somewhere a long time ago, that it's about 1 molecule per square mile...so to make sure that you usually catch at least one molecule every mile, your collector would have to have a "mouth" that was one square mile in diameter.
At first, I couldn't believe that your statement that most of the power in the USA came from coal. but, from this
http://www.ornl.gov/ORNLReview/rev26-34/text/col ma in.html
Partly because of these concerns about radioactivity and the cost of containing it, the American public and electric utilities have preferred coal combustion as a power source. Today 52% of the capacity for generating electricity in the United States is fueled by coal, compared with 14.8% for nuclear energy. Although there are economic justifications for this preference, it is surprising for two reasons.
That's awfull! I didn't realise we used such dirty power!
I want something with quite a bit of angular momentum. I want to do experimens like putting a small one in my rc car with different orientations, to see how it reacts...and a big one for doing crazy stuff like, attach it to a pole...put a wheel on the pole...and push myself around on one wheel (this might require one that would be very heavy).
AHH! 180,000 volts!? The most I've ever been hit with was around 30,000. It made my hair stand up just like on the movies! Luckily, it was extremely low amperage (most of it was through some wood).
At 180,000V, I would think that something would have enough capacitance to build up a lethal charge. Good thing you didn't die!
How were you going to construct/cut the metal? I've been wanting to make a type of a gyroscope...but I don't know how I'm gunna cut the disk...or adjust it. Any recomendations? All I've thought of is a tire balancer, like those used at auto shops. The disc would be a 12" across at the most...maybe 1/2 to 1" thick.
You could just have seperate laser assemblies then. Each one would act independently, and burn (if four lasers) 1/4 of the CD. And, I know of many burners that can resume. Just look at the Phillips burners...that's what they do when there is an error. I think haveing many lasers is MUCH more feasible than having rotating lasers.
Well, an effective faradays cage can be made out of chicken wire. It doesn't take much to make a cage that will severely attenuate the signal.
Doing it in the cabin would be very expensive, cause they would have to tear all the panels off and make it look nice. They could make one real cheap in the cargo area.
From the article,
 False notification of unsafe conditions, e.g. incorrect baggage compartment smoke alarm warnings  Malfunction of aircraft systems  Interrupted communications due to noise in the flight crew headphones
The first seems like badly designed equipment that didn't go through some kind of radiated immunity testing. These could be fixed with a faradays cage made of screen over them. The last two seem like they be fixed by blocking interference from the cabin area.
It just seems to me like not much thought was put into interference when everything was designed. Maybe they figured, since they were way up in the sky, that they wouldn't be close enough to transmitters to have any bad effects. pfft.
I think this is funny...but is it really a good idea.
Cause seriously, it will take time away from tracking the real bad guy's...which could lead to disaster. I would hate to know that I was involved in making a terrorist not be stopped, possibly causing people to be killed.
There possibly are advantages for real bad guys. Once they were in this system, they would probably be ignored after they figured out that it was just the supervillainizer...letting the bad guy eventually do real bad things...doubt it.
No LCD's is probably because of their low refresh, and slow pixel times.
If you are showing half the frames half of the time, at 75Hz, that's only about 37 Hz per eyeball...that would be awfull. You would need 120 Hz to get 60 per eye...which is watchable...but still pretty awfull.
I work in EMC (Electromagnetic Compliance), so we have two semi anechoic chambers (they absorb radio waves). In the 3 meter chamber, even with the radio absorption material, we have measured around 30v/m from a source signal strength of only 3v/m. How is this done? Well, the waves bounce off the walls where, at certain points in the room, they construct and destruct. This causes areas with very large signal strengths and some with extremely small signal strengths. Now remember, these walls are made to absorb the radio waves and this still happens. Just imagine if the walls weren't designed to absorb any!
There was a study some time ago posted here on/. (can't find via search engine) about the use of cell phones in passenger trains cars, about how the signals could add up to above the regulated levels. The same thing can happen in an airplane, but most likely worste because of the smaller windows. Now, just imagine if there was a sensetive piece of equipment that happened to be in one of the places where the signals added up very high...you would have a problem. I can understand why they don't want them in there. They could fix them by protecting the equipment more, or isolating the cabin from the equipment (which would most likely isolate you from your phone's network), but this would cost a lot. If I were them, there would be no motive for me since the planes already have usable phones that don't interfere (and create income).
Slashdot Mirror
Huh? That's strange...mine isn't. Mine are fluid..and BOY can you tell the difference...sooooo quiet. Have fluid bearings in my laptop(at home) and desktop (at work).
It's not like it's going to put any stress on them :) Fluid or ball bearings should work fine.
You will have to pay carefull attention to vibration and shock considerations though. Are you going to be accelerating quickly? If so, you will need some kind of packing that can handle a lot of displacement. For vibration, I would personally think it would be easiers to isolate each drive from the chasis using some kind of foam or something, and also cushion the rack. It would require much more work to get the rack isolated alone. As long as you don't have any high frequency vibrations getting to the parts, you should be good since the acceleration will be very low.
sig is false in this case
a lot more of those "priceless" pictures showing up on the net. Girls wearing nanotube clothes, only to have them explode off of them because they were too close to the camera flash.
I'vq noticed that too. It seems that the desktop LCD's usualy are MUCH more blurry too. Like on my laptop, and the one I'm using now, Each pixl is extremely clear and defined. On the desktops, they seem to blur funny. Setting the clock on them makes it worste or better, but still never to a point as clear as the laptops. Maybe it has to do with the analog interface that all the desktop LCD's I've seen have used.
One thing I like about the desktops is the HUGE vertical viewing angles. My laptop sucks in tis department. They are getting better though. Probably has to do with the backlights used, and the technique that the use to disperse the light all over behind the LCD.
"I often needed to see more of something to get a better understanding of it, and not need any extra detail."
If it's the same at all resolutions like the below quote, then how are you seeing more of it?
"For AutoCAD users the resolution only changes your workspace size (toolbars, menus, etc.) The drawing looks the same at 1280x960 and 1960x1600 on a 21' monitor."
Having higher resolution would mean you could see more detail though...such as if you had many verticle lines, you could zoom out a certan amount at 1600x1200 and still see each line...but if you did it with a lower res, you wouldn't be able to zoom out nearly as much and still be able to see each individual line.
My friend has one of their huge laptops...you right, they aren't meant to be carried around. They didn't even advertise his as a laptop, it was a portable desktop or something like that. They are probably targetting the same section of the market. His was cool though, had a wireless keyboard built in (just popped it out of the computer!).
Would you have changed you purchase if you knew what you know now?
Yeah...it sucks to have lots of confusing buttons.
If they don't obscure the images somehow, I don't see how people will accept this. I know I wouldn't want my future kids going through something like this.
:)
I wonder if the example picture that they give has been modified in any way. If not, it seems that they could easily use some software algorithms to hide the picture of the body, leaving only the other stuff, or at least make it just an outline or a block figure looking body. Then, if they needed more detail, they could use a more detailed representation. I hope this wont pass over the publics head like so many other issues. I have contacted my local news channel many times for stories. They seem to not care. Maybe I should try a more direct apporach than email.
And, the problem mentioned in the article doesn't seem to be "burn in" at all, since it doesn't seem to be permanent. If you look at the relavent Dell forum (whoever posted this should have), many people have gotten the images to go away by using the Mystic screensaver. Someone mentioned that it was just charge build up, and the screensaver could be getting rid of it. This would make MUCH more sense...cause I still see no way for actual burn in to happen. On a CRT, it's cause the phosphor on the screen breaks down...there's a lot of energy hitting the phosphor. Maybe they didn't make sure that the charge put on each of the pixels actually gets discharged. So, effectively, they are getting stuck in position.
Well, if your talking about the same "burn in" as they are, it would be neither. It seems that the screensaver fixes it by excersizing the pixels...so...you would want them to flash every once and a while
One of the big drawbacks of LCD's is that the backlight has a fairly limited life. Usually 3-6 thousand hours. You shouldn't be using a screen saver, since the backlight is still on. You should use something that just shuts your screen off after X minutes.
:). I never used them. I just used a screen blanker, even with the old CRT's.
I never did understand screensavers...sure they keep burn in down, but your still displaying something on your screen, which does cause some burn in (just let it show the screen saver for 20 years!
http://www.salientstills.com/product/pr
So...just run it through video focus, make an avi with all the frames, add the original audio track, then compress them using some video compression...you have yourself a high res video!
I'm guessing something will look strange, like funny blurs, or background motion or something. Who knows. I don't think it would do good with fast moving objects in the video...probably blur it real bad.
It's worth a try though.
it's funny that you posting the correct link gets modded higher than the parent with the incorrect link.
your right...it was cubic mile...sorry. ;)
At first, I couldn't believe that your statement that most of the power in the USA came from coal.
but, from this
http://www.ornl.gov/ORNLReview/rev26-34/text/co
That's awfull! I didn't realise we used such dirty power!
I just want to view gyroscopic effects...
I want something with quite a bit of angular momentum.
I want to do experimens like putting a small one in my rc car with different orientations, to see how it reacts...and a big one for doing crazy stuff like, attach it to a pole...put a wheel on the pole...and push myself around on one wheel (this might require one that would be very heavy).
Mainly, I jsut wanna dick around...
Do you know any calculations?
AHH! 180,000 volts!? The most I've ever been hit with was around 30,000. It made my hair stand up just like on the movies! Luckily, it was extremely low amperage (most of it was through some wood).
At 180,000V, I would think that something would have enough capacitance to build up a lethal charge. Good thing you didn't die!
How were you going to construct/cut the metal?
I've been wanting to make a type of a gyroscope...but I don't know how I'm gunna cut the disk...or adjust it. Any recomendations? All I've thought of is a tire balancer, like those used at auto shops. The disc would be a 12" across at the most...maybe 1/2 to 1" thick.
You could just have seperate laser assemblies then. Each one would act independently, and burn (if four lasers) 1/4 of the CD. And, I know of many burners that can resume. Just look at the Phillips burners...that's what they do when there is an error. I think haveing many lasers is MUCH more feasible than having rotating lasers.
Doing it in the cabin would be very expensive, cause they would have to tear all the panels off and make it look nice. They could make one real cheap in the cargo area.
From the article,
The first seems like badly designed equipment that didn't go through some kind of radiated immunity testing. These could be fixed with a faradays cage made of screen over them. The last two seem like they be fixed by blocking interference from the cabin area.
It just seems to me like not much thought was put into interference when everything was designed. Maybe they figured, since they were way up in the sky, that they wouldn't be close enough to transmitters to have any bad effects. pfft.
I think this is funny...but is it really a good idea.
Cause seriously, it will take time away from tracking the real bad guy's...which could lead to disaster. I would hate to know that I was involved in making a terrorist not be stopped, possibly causing people to be killed.
There possibly are advantages for real bad guys. Once they were in this system, they would probably be ignored after they figured out that it was just the supervillainizer...letting the bad guy eventually do real bad things...doubt it.
So, it was a Boeing rocket that pushed them up there.
What, are you surprised? This was posted by Cliff.
No LCD's is probably because of their low refresh, and slow pixel times.
If you are showing half the frames half of the time, at 75Hz, that's only about 37 Hz per eyeball...that would be awfull. You would need 120 Hz to get 60 per eye...which is watchable...but still pretty awfull.
I work in EMC (Electromagnetic Compliance), so we have two semi anechoic chambers (they absorb radio waves). In the 3 meter chamber, even with the radio absorption material, we have measured around 30v/m from a source signal strength of only 3v/m. How is this done? Well, the waves bounce off the walls where, at certain points in the room, they construct and destruct. This causes areas with very large signal strengths and some with extremely small signal strengths. Now remember, these walls are made to absorb the radio waves and this still happens. Just imagine if the walls weren't designed to absorb any!
/. (can't find via search engine) about the use of cell phones in passenger trains cars, about how the signals could add up to above the regulated levels. The same thing can happen in an airplane, but most likely worste because of the smaller windows. Now, just imagine if there was a sensetive piece of equipment that happened to be in one of the places where the signals added up very high...you would have a problem. I can understand why they don't want them in there. They could fix them by protecting the equipment more, or isolating the cabin from the equipment (which would most likely isolate you from your phone's network), but this would cost a lot. If I were them, there would be no motive for me since the planes already have usable phones that don't interfere (and create income).
There was a study some time ago posted here on