I got free "P4" cards a few months ago as replacements for my own boxes. I was in the process of moving and had disabled all of my boxes for about a month (I was too busy packing, moving, and unpacking to watch TV, even when they weren't packed up). There's no reason why DTV needs to charge for the new cards. If they're making it a requirement in order to use their (paid-for) service, charging customers for even more additional equipment is customer-service suicide. The fact that customers are already paying over $100 for each TV for the boxes is enough. The service itself should more than pay for the access cards and would be the breaking point for this border-line customer.
You're completely missing the point. The fact that they have the option to "start digging through a kernel to 'support' their system after 6 years" is a major selling point of Linux and open-source software, in general. Microsoft will never allow you to look into the code of Windows NT unless you sign a stack of NDA's higher than your office building and pay through the nose to do get the honor of signing your intellectual property rights away. If a particular system is hosting, say, e-mail using today's software in 6 years, I can assure you that whatever MS is currently offering will be end-of-lifed and left for dead in favor of their latest and greatest. At least you have the option to form your own internal support team if there's a problem with the Linux system in 6 years. With MS, you're stuck with their fixes on their timetable, if they even decide it's worth fixing to begin with.
Actually, most *good* GPS navigation units will automatically recalculate the route to your destination if you go off-course. My laptop/software/GPS combo will do this, but only after you tell it to "Recalculate from here." The system in my cousin's '01 Acura did this without any prompting at all. Just drive away from the traffic jam and see where it tells you to go.
What I'm waiting for, though, is vehicle manufacturers to start making HUD's standard equipment, and to integrate the navigation system to it. The only car that I'm currently aware of that even offers a HUD as standard equipment is the Corvette. I do remember some Pontiacs that had them a few years back, too. I'm not familiar enough with the european models to know if that's the case on the other side of the proverbial pond, but I'm pretty sure that there isn't any european manufacturer exporting any models with a HUD to the USA. And I don't think there's any asian import that offers a HUD, either. If there *are* other cars out there factory-equipped with a HUD, please let me know. I'm looking for one. (Obviously, it's not the only criteria I'm looking for in a car, but it'll have a big advantage to me.)
I'd love a reconfigurable HUD that shows the basics (tach, speedo, oil press/temp, coolant temp, etc.) and adds the navigation/stereo instructions, as well (turn left/right X.X mi/km ahead, on what street/road/hwy, stereo volume/station/CD Track/etc.) A fine-resolution matrix of vac-flouro dots should do the trick.
Anybody know of a DIY solution? I'm just too lazy to do a real search for it right now...
"There are interesting questions to be asked there..."
I agree: Would it be illegal to kill (turn off) such a computer? Would it be illegal to overclock with controlled substances?
In all seriousness, however, there are some pretty amazing things that could be done with a DNA-based computer. The fact that it is actually in base-4 rather than the traditional base-2 allows much more data to be stored along a given chain. (Yes, I'm aware that there are only 2 combinations of the 4 chemicals, but you can arrange either one "upside-down" to offer an additional 2 possible combinations per pair). Data density is relatively fixed as it's just about impossible to shrink DNA strands. Moore's Law won't apply to that facet of DNA computers.
It seems to me (and without reading the article) that the first major implementation of a DNA comptuer will be for large-scale storage. Processing the raw data will either require a new CPU that can handle "quads" (a value with 4 possibilities rather than 2) or a translation circuit to send data to a traditional binary CPU. Development of either of these solutions will be expensive and will probably first be seen in data storage warehouses as the processing power required in that environment is rather limited, anyway.
The potential for the immediate term isn't earth-shaking. Long-term development will probably change the way we use computers, though. Either way, it's very interesting and something that I'll be following in the years to come.
On a (somewhat) related note: Has anybody really inspected the packaging of wet-naps and seriously pondered *why* some things are printed there? Specifically, why there are *instructions* on some wet-naps? "Open packet and use." I mean, what happened that propted the requirement of instructions on a wet-nap!?
Every time I start feeling that I don't know enough about anything, I just remind myself that someone really does need instructions on wet-naps. Suddenly, I'll feel better about my place in the universe knowing that I'm not really the target for those instructions...
Expected or not, it should still be tested for. Yes, it's true that nobody has found the bug until it got into the wild as it's a pretty uncommon one. But it stands to reason that the people who will ultimately use the software will be able to find things that Microsoft missed in testing. It's analagous to a layered defense system. The coders looking at their own code are at level one and will find the vast majority of the major problems before it gets to testing. The Q/A team will be level 2 and will get the remainder of the major problems while helping to polish the software for release. The final level should be an internal testing lab with documented testing procedures that mirror everyday use specific to that company. If a bug makes it through all 3 levels of testing, one or more of the levels should make a change in policy so that such a bug cannot be slipped through again. Usually, a company (as an end-user) will implement this policy on it's own, regardless of what the software manufacturer/publisher does.
Obviously, the software industry isn't going to change for the better overnight. But as a corporate employee in IS/IT, it's my responsibility to mitigate the risks of doing business in the current computing environment. The best way to do that is to test-test-test and make the product fail (within reason). If I can't fail the product, it's generally safe for deployment on our internal systems. When bugs have been found that have also passed our own testing, it is either patched or disabled until a patch can be found. Of course, gray areas exist where we determine that the risk of doing nothing is lower than that of disabling the software (and the situation with Office 2000 seems to fit that category). But we always update our testing procedures to look for similar bugs so that we don't run into the same problem in the future. And while we don't have anyone currently using Office 2000, we'll definitely be on the lookout for this permanently from now on in other software packages.
Yes, MS should do it's own testing. But would you trust their testing with your large production envirionment? Would you trust anybody's testing? The answer should be, "no". The point I am trying to make is that any changes to a large working system/network needs to be viewed with a healthy dose of suspicion until it's been tested and proven to work with the environment it's going to be deployed in. Microsoft's testing can't tell you anything about that, which is why any IS/IT manager worth their salt implements a small testing lab that has a representational cross-section of all the systems on the network. As vast as MS's resources may or may not be, they would be unable to test every possible system and network configuration for problems. Not only would that be expensive, it would be time-consuming (which is even more expensive, as time=money). And then there's the possibility that MS's tests missed a crucial parameter on your network. The testing MS should be doing is *complementary* to, not a replacement for, your own testing.
I'm not saying that you'll find *every* problem when doing your own testing, but you do tend to find more than you let slip by. Preventing problems in the first place should be the primary goal of any IS/IT deparment in any organization, large or small. It should also be the written policy of every IS/IT department that any proposed changes to the production environment be tested and reviewed by the IS/IT staff. Problems that are solved before they get out of hand are most certainly less expensive (in terms of time and money) than just "firefighting" after problems arise. I speak from my own experiences on both sides of that fence.
As for the date issue, this is something that should have been caught by MS in their internal tests. Future-Date testing is pretty common, and either MS's QA team got sloppy or just doesn't care. Maybe a little of both. Lessons? 1: Avoid MS's sloppy products. 2: Be more careful in evaluating MS software if you can't avoid it altogether. Hopefully, even more of us will remember this lesson when next faced with this in a few months/weeks/days/hours.
The expected lifespan of just about any desktop computer system in the corporate environment is 5 years (you can only deduct 1/5 of the computer's cost each year). That has more to do with how the IRS allows companies to use computers as deductions and less about the actual technology and/or software. As we all know, the real-world lifespan of a computer is more like 2-3 years until either the technology is no longer cost effective to support or newer and faster systems are just less expensive to purchase. I agree with your comment, however. The manufacturer should be responsible for the reliability and quality (kwalitee?) of it's products, whether hardware or software.
More interesting, however, is why these companies haven't tested their upgrades prior to deployment. Surely a company with 80,000 comptuers has a few system on which to form a small testing environment behind an internal firewall? "Upgrades" from MS shouldn't be exempt from security and stability testing prior to deployment. And just because MS says it's a fix doesn't mean that it will work with your company's configurations. In reality, this should be a non-issue as proper testing would reveal any major problems. The fact that this *is* an issue should be a wake-up call to all IT managers and those above them that proper testing is required on *ALL* software and upgrades.
The installation restrictions of software depend heavily on what's stated in the licensing agreement that accompanies it. In the enterprise-level world, this is usually negotiated as a separate item and (usually) results in the purchaser providing a license server to enforce usage restrictions if they're not going to go the site/unlimited license or single/trial route. Other times, the software has a built-in checking mechanism to prevent multiple installations with the same serial number/registration from running on the same network, usually sent as a subnet broadcast. That's easily defeatable with a personal firewall/gateway router to isolate that system from broadcasting indiscriminately, and can't really handle well beyond a single subnet anyway, but most enterprise-sized companies have better control over their network than to let that happen on any sort of significant scale (BOFH notwithstanding).
My point is that multiple installations do not always directly correlate to multiple licenses. In dealing with corporate licensing, multiple additional installations might be allowed with the only caveat being that you can only run the number of installations you have licenses for at any given time. Although VS.Net might not be the best choice for most businesses, it is a business-level software package and would probably get the license-negotiation treatment if purchased at a large enough scale. Those of us buying software for personal or educational use are more limited in that we can either accept or decline the cookie-cutter license that's often too long to even bother to read. Usually, that means we can install one copy on one computer at any given time and keep a backup of the installation media should we need it at a later date. Again, this will depend heavily on the licensing agreement that accompanies the software, so read it carefully.
I'd be wary of using the version of VS.Net in question to begin with due to the lack of official license, but it's an interesting legal exercise to see how this turns out. There's no explicit license, as the information on the CD's seem to require. But there's an agreement made with a representative from the software manufacturer/publisher that says it's ok to use it for non-commercial purposes. Which takes precedence? And what about additional copies or installations for non-commercial purposes? There's no official license prohibiting that, but there is the verbal prohibition from the representative from the company that does. Hrm...
That old Dell P3/400 is probably more than a few months old, too, unlike your iBook. The power dissipation of modern processors is definitely higher than those of previous generations. However, the percentage of heat generated vs. the computing power of the CPU has definitely gotten better over time. If the CPU in your Dell laptop were manufactured using todays techniques and processes, it would either be much cooler than your iBook, or it would be much more powerful.
And heat pipes on laptops aren't anything new. My almost-new Dell I8200 has a heat pipe from the CPU to a small radiator and a set of variable-speed fans on the rear of the unit. The CPU and GPU temps read by a BIOS sensor determines the speed of the fans. Under normal idle conditions, the fans will rarely kick in and the unit stays pretty cool on its own. When there's any sort of load on the CPU and/or GPU, the fans will run almost continuously.
The heat of the CPU (a 1.8GHz P4m in my case) is pretty high, and the unit does get fairly hot to the touch. Unless there were a significant redesign of the entire laptop, I don't see how such a hot CPU could run reliably without the heat pipe and the pair of fans. The heat-pipe solution is interesting and works well, but it's far from perfect. Mainly, the cooling area (radiator) will need to be higher in elevation than the heat-absorbing area (CPU block). The principle behind this is simple: the fluid that's inside the heat pipe evaporates near the source of heat and rises to condense where the cooler is located. If the cooling area is located below the source of the heat, the efficiency goes way down and the heat tends to stay at the source.
There is a limit to how much return you get on progressively more expensive cables in the context of A/V eqipment. However, assuming a decent S/N ratio, there should be no reason why a Monster Cable branded RJ11 cable will perform better than a generic, unbranded one. The difference is really in the type of signal being transmitted.
On a modem line, the signal is a digital one. As previously stated, as long as there's a sufficiently high S/N ratio, there will be almost no signal loss and 100% of the data can be read. The same goes for generic vs. Monster Cable digital audio cables (coax and optical).
However, there *is* a difference that can be made in component interconnects and speaker wiring as any signal loss in a purely analog connection will be received by every component downstream of the source. At a certain point, however, there is a limit to how much you get back out of your cabling investment.
The cables that are provided with most mainstream components (Sony, Pioneer, Kenwood, etc.) will get the job done, and don't really hinder the sound quality all that much under normal circumstances. It would be a fairly good investment to buy the cheapest Monster Cable or other "upgraded" cable if you've got a hefty investment in both your components and your speaker system. Anything beyond that is probably overkill for 99% of the readership here, and the majority of the remaining 1% won't really be able to tell a difference in a double-blind comparison, anyway.
The recommendation I make to friends/family/customers/strangers the most is to upgrade your speaker cables. If you like listening to your system at anything lounder than background level, you *need* better speaker cable than what comes with systems, even boomboxes with detachable speakers and complete shelf systems. But you probably won't need the heavy, 8-gauge stuff that's available. Most system that pump out about 150w RMS per channel should have about 12- or 14-gauge on it. Monster Cable's XP line should be more than adequate, and isn't too expensive. Anything more than that, and you should probably be looking at 8-gauge, though.
All of this is assuming that you listen to music as a focus, rather than as a distraction. If your system is being used as background noise for whatever else you're doing, none of this is going to be noticeable. All of the above suggestions come from my own personal experince of over 10 years in home A/V system building (I've got 3 running at any given time, and a 4th is always being assembled to replace one of the existing 3: LR, MBR, and Basement Theater). In summary, if you feel the need to buy upgraded connections between your components, do so. But keep in mind that there really isn't any difference in the end-result if you go any higher than the first upgrade.
And before anyone gives me grief, there will always be someone that buys the best stuff available because they can. In their minds, they can hear the difference. And that's all that matters.
Oh, and there's a great site for comparing MP3 to Minidisc's ATRAC formats here.
I'm in (mostly) complete agreement. The drive through Nebraska is about as exciting as watching paint dry at 70+ MPH, so I can forsee a need for the passenger(s) to have something to do other than watch the flattest state go by outside the windows of a car. Once west of Nebraska, however, there's nothing but beautiful landscapes for the entire trip, and there's no need for further entertainment.
I, too, live in MN. Bloomington, MN, to be specific. About once every other year, my G/F-turned-fiance and I take a 2 week vacation out west to visit my family. I've got a cousin in Portland, OR, and the rest live in or around Los Angeles. Our route usually takes us on the northern trail of I-94 to I-90 until we reach the state of Washington. One stop we always make is in Bismarck so that we can visit the only members of her family that don't live in MN. The drive from Bismarck to Portland will take the better part of 20 hours, even at over 80 MPH, so we'll decide to make a random stop somewhere in-between. Those 2 days are ones I look forward to every time we take that trip. The scenery is breathtaking, and some of the twisty canyon roads through western Montana and the panhandle of Idaho makes driving so much more fun!
Then there's the drive along the river into Portland. If you can time it so that you're travelling in late July, you might get to see some of the jets fly through the canyon to Portland for their annual air-show.
The winding drive south along California's PCH (Pacific Coast Highway) is also really beautiful. Just be careful of those cliffs! (Last year, I let my fiance drive my new full-size pickup from San Francisco to L.A. and she kept wanting to put the vehicle on the shoulder of the road because she wasn't used to being so high up. Driving south, the ocean is on the right-hand side, the side she kept pushing the truck. She was still using her points of reference from her Saturn, which caused her to think that she was too close to the center of the road and made her "correct" the placement of the truck onto the very narrow shoulder. In some places, there's a 300 foot drop into the ocean. Yikes!)
Going from L.A. to Las Vegas was rather uneventful, but that was a good thing. Because we made the last trip in late July and early August, the temps in Death Valley can easily creep into the 110+ degree F range. The temp sensor I have in my truck (temp and compass in the ISRV mirror) hit 113. Signs along the road tell drivers to turn off their A/C to help ease the load on their cars so that they don't get stranded in the desert heat. I left mine on during that trip figuring that I had a truck that's meant to haul moderately heavy loads and deal with heat better than your average car. We were also hauling very little in the way of luggage, and everything fit into the back of the extended cab with enough room for me to see out the back window. Sure enough, we made it with no problems at all, A/C cranked up the entire way. If you get a chance, go see Hoover Dam. It's one thing to see it on TV. It's a completely different experience to see it in person. When looking at it, just remember that it's a man-made object all the way down. Someone (a lot of someones, really) actually *created* it from nothing at all. Ponder humanity, buy a t-shirt, go about your business and your trip.
Vegas through Colorado is also very pretty in the summertime. Lots more mountain roads, but fewer twisty canyon runs to appease the enthusiast driver.
During the entire trip, we had my new laptop tagging along: a dual-battery Dell I8200. I had purchased an auto/air adapter for it, but the computer wants more current than the adapter can provide. So the computer has a provision for this called "Battery Optimized" mode, where the system runs at a lower speed and consumes less electricity than it would otherwise. I can set the system to run full-tilt on battery, if needed, but we really didn't find the need to do so. Actually, it runs at 1.2GHz in the crippled mode and is more than fast enough to watch DVDs and run the GPS/mapping package we used to track our progress. The only thing we lacked was an internet connection, but we didn't really need that for most of the trip, either. I have more than 300 hours of music that I've ripped to MP3 (about 20GB worth of high-quality conversion of my CDs), we brought along about 20 DVD movies for the laptop in-car or at a hotel/motel, and the scenery outside and simple conversation kept us occupied for the entire trip.
In short, UNPLUG AND ENJOY THE DRIVE. You'll thank me later. Connect when you get to your destination if you must, but leave the on-the-road wireless broadband connections behind. You don't need it, and it spoils the road-trip experience.
Yes, you probably should go back to bed. Your comment about the space stuff got posted to the article about the eugenics/genetics/superpeople story. But I think that gives you a new/. battle-cry: "CROSS POST!"
Granted, it's heavy. Granted, it's flimsy. Granted, it sucks battery life. But it doesn't have to be a hot-plate. I've got FanGUI keeping the built-in fans running more often (and keeping things quite a bit cooler), but it only runs in Windows. However, since this was a "simple" hack into the values that the BIOS is using and overriding them with custom values, I can't imagine that such a solution would be that difficult under Linux. Unfortunately, I'm not much of a help as I don't run Linux. Heck, I don't even "code" (as long as you don't count script-coding). But I do know that it's pretty easy once you know where to look and what to look at.
But for a heavy, flimsy, battery sucker, it's a joy to use while on-the-go. It's a true desktop replacement machine, so don't mistake it for a lightweight system that hinders you until you're back to your powerhouse on your desk. 4+ hours of DVD watching using a 2nd battery in the removable media bay isn't that bad, especially if you're on a long commute/vacation. Besides, if you're going to be away from an AC outlet for more than 4+ hours (such as when you're in a car or on a cross-country or trans-oceanic flight), you should really have an auto/air adapter. The only thing I find lacking in this desktop replacement system is hard disk space and a decent pointing device.
The issue isn't with CRTs, but with flat-panel LCD displays. Of course a good CRT like the rebranded Sony you've got will run at 1600x1200 and look good.
I've got a 6-month-old Dell I8200 with the 15" UXGA panel on it. By definition, it will do 1600x1200. My 19" panel sitting on my desk (and most others in the stores) tend to cap at 1280x1024. The fact that they can cram a resolution of 1600x1200 into a 15" panel for the laptop and will only fit 1280x1024 into larger desktop displays seems a little backwards. As it is, I don't need to run at 1600x1200 on my small laptop screen, but I sure would like to run that on my larger desktop panel!
Does anyone know of a decent flat-panel display for the desktop that will do 1600x1200 and not break the bank (say, under $1200)?
On a related side note, I had one of the recalled APC UPS units (the BK350 and BK500). It was recalled for almost the exact same reasons: Component gets too hot, melts exterior casing (plastic) coating whatever it touches, and possibly starts a fire. (rhetorical) Is the reason computer parts like monitors and UPSs are running so hot because they are now required to run overclocked to keep pace with the insane speed of today's CPUs? (/rhetorical) Other than the bum capacitor theory being tossed about, I can't think of any other realistic reason for this. QA departments around the globe need to start re-evaluating their testing procedures if these products are getting out the door into customers' hands.
Actually, the effect would be rather moot. The article states that they were only able to mix oil and water after all other trace gasses and other non-water molecules were removed (summarized). Basically, they've got pure H2O to mix with oil. Once the mix reaches "normal" water, the oil will start to separate again and it's all back to business-as-usual.
After reading, I'm still very skeptical. I'm not saying it's impossible, but I do find it highly unlikely that this really works. And on a humorous note, why do they call it Mission:Impossible when, in episode after episode (or movie after movie), they succeed? Shouldn't that read "Mission:Improbable" or "Mission:Really-Hard"? At age 25, I don't believe anything is truely impossible. Some things are just sufficiently difficult to do that they *seem* impossible. However, someone (usually not myself) eventually figures "it" out, whatever "it" might be. So, in summary, I'm optimistically skeptical that they were really able to do this. Time will tell, though.
Re:Standing waves..
on
Soundless Music?
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
As the other reply mentions, you'll need parallel walls for standing waves to form. In addition, the wavelength is sufficiently large enough that everyone would have *some* experience.
As a practical experiment, you can try to get the same results by using a fairly large, consumer-available subwoofer in a small room. Mute any "main" speakers and play some sine-wave sweeps. No matter where you go in the room, you'll be able to hear the sound. However, due to the parallel walls, you're going to experience some standing waves in the room. This is most observable when you place the subwoofer near one corner of the room and you stand in the opposite corner.
It's interesting to note that when you place a loudspeaker closer to walls the low-frequency response seems to be more pronounced at the expense of spatial diffusion or "openness" in the higher frequencies (the sound seems to come from a point on the speaker rather than being more diffused around the speaker). That's why you should experiment with the placement of your own speakers so that you get the right sound from your system.
And isn't the military using something similar to this to achieve similar results? IIRC, the US military is experimenting with ultrasonic waves to induce pain and nausia for the purposes of non-lethal immobilization of an opponent. Maybe it was some radio frequencies. I don't exactly remember, and it's way too past my bedtime to go looking. Pretty cool all the way around, though.
That may be correct, but you're not seeing the full picture. (horrible pun is, indeed, intended)
A 19" non-HD TV will only set you back, what, $150? Maybe even just $120? A decent 19" monitor is about $200, now. That's not too far off in terms of price. But picture quality is *way* off.
That's not to say that your TV can't be a good computer monitor, however. The primary reason your TV looks like crap when you display anything from a computer on it is due to the way the signal is transferred from your video card to the TV. A standard TV's inputs were really only designed for large moving objects over a bandwidth-limited medium such as a multiplexed cable line or over-the-air broadcasts. Because of this, the overall bandwidth requirement is comparatively low. Small text is blurred because the signal going to your TV doesn't carry enough bandwidth to make a change on the scan-line quickly enough to make it as sharp as you'd like it. That's also the reason that you're generally only limited to 640x480 or so even though your video card is capable of so much more.
Your 19" computer monitor, on the other hand, has an input capable of carrying a single dot on a grid of 1600x1200 that's still very discernable. That's a lot of information wizzing through that 15-pin cable. But when you consider that the 15-pin connector is really a slightly more complex version of the 3-cable component video inputs on most HDTVs and almost all DVD players, it isn't difficult to understand why this is the case. If you can separate the signal such that each conductor only carries a portion of the signal (and some error-correcting stuff that will vary depending on what signal you're sending), you effectively gain potential resolution. On the typical 15-pin connector, there's a separate signal for each of red, green, and blue picture elements. There's also a grounding wire for each signal. There's synchronization signals on 2 or more wires with their own grounding wires, too.
The input on a non-HD TV must make due with only a single conductor and a single ground for *all* of this information. The RF input is even worse as it's carrying multiple channels of data multiplexed with the one that you really want. An HDTV uses either the 15-pin connector like that found on computer monitors or the 3-cable RCA connector common on most DVD players. (The 3-cable setup carries RGB on their own conductor with the HSync and VSync multiplexed across them. The other method multiplexes all of the signal and sync data across all three conductors. There's only 3 ground conductors in each method, those being the shielding on the cables) This makes the HDTV, effectively, a large computer monitor. The problem isn't with the quality of the tube, but rather the maximum ammount of information that can be transmitted to it. If you were able to bypass the traditional inputs on your typical TV set and send your signal *directly* to the picture tube, you'd get a picture that's similar to what you can get on your computer monitor. (BTW: Don't try that at home, kids. TVs and computer monitors have lots of high-voltage components in them that can kill you if you're not careful. Leave the insides of your TV alone.)
Some newer HDTV-ready units are already doubling as computer monitors at about $3500 and will easily display your computer signal at about 800x600. As for a large TV-only unit, a decentunit will run about $4k. Granted, that's much higher than you'd find a good computer monitor for, but you're not really going to be able to find a 50-plus inch monitor for anywhere close to that price. In addition, you've got inputs for your X-Box, Playstation2, progressive-scan DVD player, an HDTV satellite receiver, and anything else you want to throw at it. Your PC would be only one element in a home-entertainment package.
Back on topic, HDTV programming is still rather sparse for my taste. I'm on DirecTV and can only get a few channels with HDTV resolution. HBO has some content, and there's at least one PPV channel dedicated to it. But I'm waiting until there's more HDTV content from the more "regular" channels, such as Discovery Channel (currently in HD, but only for Dish Networks customers) and Speed Channel. The major network affiliates such as NBC, CBS, ABC, Fox, etc., don't have enough HD content available for me to justify an $800 purchase. My HDTV-ready big-screen will need to get by on 480p signals from my DVD player until I think there's enough HDTV content to buy that box.
Warning: I am not a lawyer. Nor am I anal. That said, let's continue...
It's been argued that the "backup" copy for "archival" use is the original media the software was shipped on because the working copy resides on your computer's hard disk. I've found this to be a rather weak arguement, but it apparently holds up pretty well when challenged (I don't have experience fighting this, so I don't know first-hand). It doesn't seem to violate the section of law that you cite.
I'm not trying to prove this point is correct because I don't believe it myself. However, I am just trying to shed a little light onto an area that, to my knowledge, nobody else has covered in this discussion. This point of view stinks, IMNSHO, and it should be addressed in further reviews of the copyright laws. Will it? Probably not.
Finding the reason *WHY* she put it in the oven to begin with might lead to deeper issues than just a crispy computer. We can speculate all we want about why she did what she did, and the various reasons can lead to different types of repairs that might be neccessary. But unless we ask her "why", we may never know what the original problem was, if any.
Did she (or someone else) spill liquid over the keyboard? Ok, we'll need to look for water damage or corrosion on some parts and replace them as needed.
Did she get confused about what was in the oven at the time (ie: did the recipe call for apples) or does she just store her computer in the oven and forgot to take it out before she turned her oven on? Ok, she's a nut-job and we're looking for any abnormal operating behavior, but we don't need to specifically look for water-damage.
In my 7+ years of IS/IT and PC repair, I've found that the immediate reason someone brings a computer to you is only the tip of the iceberg. More often than not, there's other underlying issues that led to them coming to you for help. And physicians *do* work this way. Your average car mechanic works this way, too. So does anybody else that repairs things for a living be it human, mechanical, or otherwise.
Next time you're at your local doctor's office for an injury, pay close attention to the questions they're asking you. I'd be willing to bet that they ask you how you did what you did, which will inevitably lead to you explaining why. The reason they do this is so that they understand what forces went into creating the injury. Often times, what's visible isn't the only problem that needs attention. If they didn't do this, other injuries may go untreated and they wouldn't be doing their jobs to "repair" you correctly.
The investigation of the source of a problem is just as important, if not more so, than the resolution of it. So, no, my analogy isn't flawed. Computer parts are less compex than human "parts", granted. And this situation clearly didn't require asking for a reason why she did what she did (as a repair probably wouldn't be cost effective). But computer parts (as well as some mechanical ones) can intermittently fail without giving other indicators that they're not working correctly. Hard drives come to mind, as do some memory chips. A slightly dirty connection on a PCI card will sometimes cause an otherwise perfectly working card to fail periodically. Testing the hardware shows no failures, but there's definitely a problem. Unless you are aware of the complete set of circumstances surrounding the issue, you would be unable to make an accurate diagnosis. Gathering as much information about the problem you've been hired to fix is important and cannot be considered "not minding [your] own business." It's "your business" as soon as you agree to repair the computer. Sharing personal, and possibly humiliating, information with others for entertainment, however, *is* not minding your own business.
Have you tried to flash the firmware on your Dell-supplied DVD-ROM drive? All firmware udpates supplied by Dell require a floppy disk to even extract the files. Open the.EXE file and all you get is a command-prompt window asking you for a floppy disk.
I use bootable CDs whenever possible, too. But Dell's way of doing things is backwards, though I can see why they're doing it. I've said in another post on this same topic that a clean environment is required to flash the firmware/BIOS so that a minimum of things have an opportunity to cause problems with the flashing process. Booting from a floppy disk that's designed by Dell is (almost) guaranteed to keep things as simple as possible. After all, they're the ones dictating the flashing environment on known hardware. They don't have to worry about any other programs causing a crash in mid-flash and ruining the hardware they're trying to fix.
I've thought about possible solutions, but the only feasable ones seems to be the floppy disk or a small, bootable ISO to burn to CD that does the same thing. As an alternative, MSI's Live Update feature works well in my other, homemade systems. Perhaps that might work better for them, but they've got all of their firmware coded to bootable floppies. They'll need to get that changed over to some other method before killing the floppy on their systems.
The F117A is called the Nighthawk. However, most pilots call it the "Wobblin' Gobblin" because it's aerodynamically unstable requiring computer-controlled corrections at a very high frequency while in-flight. Early tests didn't have the computer code particularly tweaked so the aircraft tended to shimmy around (wobble) quite a bit.
The shape of the aircraft is designed to reflect the majority of radio waves directly away from the source and the coating is designed to absorb the remaining radio frequencies, not light. But it does appear to be based on the same priciple as this super-black material. From what I understand of RAM (Radar Absorbing Material), there are small pockets on the surface that are designed to trap and scatter the radio waves until they've almost completely dissipated. The color of the material is rather arbitrary, as I've seen it painted in "desert-camo" in photos taken before it was made public (to hide it better against the sandy-colored ground in the desert where it was being tested). Just before being made public, it was painted black to hide better at night in the sky, which is it's intended primary operating time/environment. Making it even *more* black wouldn't make it much more "stealthy". If you're looking for IR signatures, the engine exhaust would probably be more of a giveaway even though it's cooled to about 800F or so. And because it's in the sky, a UV scan would probably be useless as space (the sky's background) is filled with UV. Blocking even more UV makes it a black mark on a light background.
I might have a use for this super-black material to coat the insides of my projection TV, as well as cover the windows during movie nights! Perhaps even using this on road signs in addition to the super-relective paint the DOT already uses can make road signs easier to see at night due to increased contrast and less glare. Oh, and telescopes, too. Kinda neat, overall.
Re:I'm more amazed....
on
Baked Apple
·
· Score: 1
Actually, if he's required to fix it, even if he's being paid for the job out of this (admittedtly stupid) woman's own pockets, he really needs to know what happened to it so he can determine if he's even able to make a repair.
Think about it for a minute. If you went to the doctor and asked him/her to "repair" your body (or mind, in some cases) without giving a description of what's wrong and how it happened, how can s/he do their jobs properly? The same situation applies with an automotive mechanic or a computer repair technician. If we fix only what we're able to see without any other information, the things that are hidden get missed.
I think your intentions were good but a little misguided, however. Her privacy needs to be extended beyond the repair technician. Sharing this story was slightly inappropriate (even though it is extremely funny just thinking about "Why?"). However, because the identity of this woman has been kept secret, her privacy has been retained. This is similar to doctors discuss their patients' issues amongst their peers without divulging names in order to get a different perspective, except that we're discussing the issue for purely entertaining reasons.
[Rant] On the flip-side, people stupid enough to put their $2500 laptop into a hot oven shouldn't be sheltered and protected. She deserves to be mocked and humiliated in the hopes that she'll stop being so stupid in the future. I can only wonder why so many stupid people have flourished in today's society and what we can do to resolve this situation. [/Rant]
Slashdot Mirror
I got free "P4" cards a few months ago as replacements for my own boxes. I was in the process of moving and had disabled all of my boxes for about a month (I was too busy packing, moving, and unpacking to watch TV, even when they weren't packed up). There's no reason why DTV needs to charge for the new cards. If they're making it a requirement in order to use their (paid-for) service, charging customers for even more additional equipment is customer-service suicide. The fact that customers are already paying over $100 for each TV for the boxes is enough. The service itself should more than pay for the access cards and would be the breaking point for this border-line customer.
You're completely missing the point. The fact that they have the option to "start digging through a kernel to 'support' their system after 6 years" is a major selling point of Linux and open-source software, in general. Microsoft will never allow you to look into the code of Windows NT unless you sign a stack of NDA's higher than your office building and pay through the nose to do get the honor of signing your intellectual property rights away. If a particular system is hosting, say, e-mail using today's software in 6 years, I can assure you that whatever MS is currently offering will be end-of-lifed and left for dead in favor of their latest and greatest. At least you have the option to form your own internal support team if there's a problem with the Linux system in 6 years. With MS, you're stuck with their fixes on their timetable, if they even decide it's worth fixing to begin with.
Actually, most *good* GPS navigation units will automatically recalculate the route to your destination if you go off-course. My laptop/software/GPS combo will do this, but only after you tell it to "Recalculate from here." The system in my cousin's '01 Acura did this without any prompting at all. Just drive away from the traffic jam and see where it tells you to go.
What I'm waiting for, though, is vehicle manufacturers to start making HUD's standard equipment, and to integrate the navigation system to it. The only car that I'm currently aware of that even offers a HUD as standard equipment is the Corvette. I do remember some Pontiacs that had them a few years back, too. I'm not familiar enough with the european models to know if that's the case on the other side of the proverbial pond, but I'm pretty sure that there isn't any european manufacturer exporting any models with a HUD to the USA. And I don't think there's any asian import that offers a HUD, either. If there *are* other cars out there factory-equipped with a HUD, please let me know. I'm looking for one. (Obviously, it's not the only criteria I'm looking for in a car, but it'll have a big advantage to me.)
I'd love a reconfigurable HUD that shows the basics (tach, speedo, oil press/temp, coolant temp, etc.) and adds the navigation/stereo instructions, as well (turn left/right X.X mi/km ahead, on what street/road/hwy, stereo volume/station/CD Track/etc.) A fine-resolution matrix of vac-flouro dots should do the trick.
Anybody know of a DIY solution? I'm just too lazy to do a real search for it right now...
It's part number 99-897, as I recall, and available only through the catalog. Just use your CueCat! Maybe they still have a few TRS-80s left, too...
"There are interesting questions to be asked there..."
I agree: Would it be illegal to kill (turn off) such a computer? Would it be illegal to overclock with controlled substances?
In all seriousness, however, there are some pretty amazing things that could be done with a DNA-based computer. The fact that it is actually in base-4 rather than the traditional base-2 allows much more data to be stored along a given chain. (Yes, I'm aware that there are only 2 combinations of the 4 chemicals, but you can arrange either one "upside-down" to offer an additional 2 possible combinations per pair). Data density is relatively fixed as it's just about impossible to shrink DNA strands. Moore's Law won't apply to that facet of DNA computers.
It seems to me (and without reading the article) that the first major implementation of a DNA comptuer will be for large-scale storage. Processing the raw data will either require a new CPU that can handle "quads" (a value with 4 possibilities rather than 2) or a translation circuit to send data to a traditional binary CPU. Development of either of these solutions will be expensive and will probably first be seen in data storage warehouses as the processing power required in that environment is rather limited, anyway.
The potential for the immediate term isn't earth-shaking. Long-term development will probably change the way we use computers, though. Either way, it's very interesting and something that I'll be following in the years to come.
On a (somewhat) related note: Has anybody really inspected the packaging of wet-naps and seriously pondered *why* some things are printed there? Specifically, why there are *instructions* on some wet-naps? "Open packet and use." I mean, what happened that propted the requirement of instructions on a wet-nap!?
Every time I start feeling that I don't know enough about anything, I just remind myself that someone really does need instructions on wet-naps. Suddenly, I'll feel better about my place in the universe knowing that I'm not really the target for those instructions...
Expected or not, it should still be tested for. Yes, it's true that nobody has found the bug until it got into the wild as it's a pretty uncommon one. But it stands to reason that the people who will ultimately use the software will be able to find things that Microsoft missed in testing. It's analagous to a layered defense system. The coders looking at their own code are at level one and will find the vast majority of the major problems before it gets to testing. The Q/A team will be level 2 and will get the remainder of the major problems while helping to polish the software for release. The final level should be an internal testing lab with documented testing procedures that mirror everyday use specific to that company. If a bug makes it through all 3 levels of testing, one or more of the levels should make a change in policy so that such a bug cannot be slipped through again. Usually, a company (as an end-user) will implement this policy on it's own, regardless of what the software manufacturer/publisher does.
Obviously, the software industry isn't going to change for the better overnight. But as a corporate employee in IS/IT, it's my responsibility to mitigate the risks of doing business in the current computing environment. The best way to do that is to test-test-test and make the product fail (within reason). If I can't fail the product, it's generally safe for deployment on our internal systems. When bugs have been found that have also passed our own testing, it is either patched or disabled until a patch can be found. Of course, gray areas exist where we determine that the risk of doing nothing is lower than that of disabling the software (and the situation with Office 2000 seems to fit that category). But we always update our testing procedures to look for similar bugs so that we don't run into the same problem in the future. And while we don't have anyone currently using Office 2000, we'll definitely be on the lookout for this permanently from now on in other software packages.
Yes, MS should do it's own testing. But would you trust their testing with your large production envirionment? Would you trust anybody's testing? The answer should be, "no". The point I am trying to make is that any changes to a large working system/network needs to be viewed with a healthy dose of suspicion until it's been tested and proven to work with the environment it's going to be deployed in. Microsoft's testing can't tell you anything about that, which is why any IS/IT manager worth their salt implements a small testing lab that has a representational cross-section of all the systems on the network. As vast as MS's resources may or may not be, they would be unable to test every possible system and network configuration for problems. Not only would that be expensive, it would be time-consuming (which is even more expensive, as time=money). And then there's the possibility that MS's tests missed a crucial parameter on your network. The testing MS should be doing is *complementary* to, not a replacement for, your own testing.
I'm not saying that you'll find *every* problem when doing your own testing, but you do tend to find more than you let slip by. Preventing problems in the first place should be the primary goal of any IS/IT deparment in any organization, large or small. It should also be the written policy of every IS/IT department that any proposed changes to the production environment be tested and reviewed by the IS/IT staff. Problems that are solved before they get out of hand are most certainly less expensive (in terms of time and money) than just "firefighting" after problems arise. I speak from my own experiences on both sides of that fence.
As for the date issue, this is something that should have been caught by MS in their internal tests. Future-Date testing is pretty common, and either MS's QA team got sloppy or just doesn't care. Maybe a little of both. Lessons? 1: Avoid MS's sloppy products. 2: Be more careful in evaluating MS software if you can't avoid it altogether. Hopefully, even more of us will remember this lesson when next faced with this in a few months/weeks/days/hours.
The expected lifespan of just about any desktop computer system in the corporate environment is 5 years (you can only deduct 1/5 of the computer's cost each year). That has more to do with how the IRS allows companies to use computers as deductions and less about the actual technology and/or software. As we all know, the real-world lifespan of a computer is more like 2-3 years until either the technology is no longer cost effective to support or newer and faster systems are just less expensive to purchase. I agree with your comment, however. The manufacturer should be responsible for the reliability and quality (kwalitee?) of it's products, whether hardware or software.
More interesting, however, is why these companies haven't tested their upgrades prior to deployment. Surely a company with 80,000 comptuers has a few system on which to form a small testing environment behind an internal firewall? "Upgrades" from MS shouldn't be exempt from security and stability testing prior to deployment. And just because MS says it's a fix doesn't mean that it will work with your company's configurations. In reality, this should be a non-issue as proper testing would reveal any major problems. The fact that this *is* an issue should be a wake-up call to all IT managers and those above them that proper testing is required on *ALL* software and upgrades.
Sheesh. Some people.
The installation restrictions of software depend heavily on what's stated in the licensing agreement that accompanies it. In the enterprise-level world, this is usually negotiated as a separate item and (usually) results in the purchaser providing a license server to enforce usage restrictions if they're not going to go the site/unlimited license or single/trial route. Other times, the software has a built-in checking mechanism to prevent multiple installations with the same serial number/registration from running on the same network, usually sent as a subnet broadcast. That's easily defeatable with a personal firewall/gateway router to isolate that system from broadcasting indiscriminately, and can't really handle well beyond a single subnet anyway, but most enterprise-sized companies have better control over their network than to let that happen on any sort of significant scale (BOFH notwithstanding).
.Net might not be the best choice for most businesses, it is a business-level software package and would probably get the license-negotiation treatment if purchased at a large enough scale. Those of us buying software for personal or educational use are more limited in that we can either accept or decline the cookie-cutter license that's often too long to even bother to read. Usually, that means we can install one copy on one computer at any given time and keep a backup of the installation media should we need it at a later date. Again, this will depend heavily on the licensing agreement that accompanies the software, so read it carefully.
.Net in question to begin with due to the lack of official license, but it's an interesting legal exercise to see how this turns out. There's no explicit license, as the information on the CD's seem to require. But there's an agreement made with a representative from the software manufacturer/publisher that says it's ok to use it for non-commercial purposes. Which takes precedence? And what about additional copies or installations for non-commercial purposes? There's no official license prohibiting that, but there is the verbal prohibition from the representative from the company that does. Hrm...
My point is that multiple installations do not always directly correlate to multiple licenses. In dealing with corporate licensing, multiple additional installations might be allowed with the only caveat being that you can only run the number of installations you have licenses for at any given time. Although VS
I'd be wary of using the version of VS
That old Dell P3/400 is probably more than a few months old, too, unlike your iBook. The power dissipation of modern processors is definitely higher than those of previous generations. However, the percentage of heat generated vs. the computing power of the CPU has definitely gotten better over time. If the CPU in your Dell laptop were manufactured using todays techniques and processes, it would either be much cooler than your iBook, or it would be much more powerful.
And heat pipes on laptops aren't anything new. My almost-new Dell I8200 has a heat pipe from the CPU to a small radiator and a set of variable-speed fans on the rear of the unit. The CPU and GPU temps read by a BIOS sensor determines the speed of the fans. Under normal idle conditions, the fans will rarely kick in and the unit stays pretty cool on its own. When there's any sort of load on the CPU and/or GPU, the fans will run almost continuously.
The heat of the CPU (a 1.8GHz P4m in my case) is pretty high, and the unit does get fairly hot to the touch. Unless there were a significant redesign of the entire laptop, I don't see how such a hot CPU could run reliably without the heat pipe and the pair of fans. The heat-pipe solution is interesting and works well, but it's far from perfect. Mainly, the cooling area (radiator) will need to be higher in elevation than the heat-absorbing area (CPU block). The principle behind this is simple: the fluid that's inside the heat pipe evaporates near the source of heat and rises to condense where the cooler is located. If the cooling area is located below the source of the heat, the efficiency goes way down and the heat tends to stay at the source.
There is a limit to how much return you get on progressively more expensive cables in the context of A/V eqipment. However, assuming a decent S/N ratio, there should be no reason why a Monster Cable branded RJ11 cable will perform better than a generic, unbranded one. The difference is really in the type of signal being transmitted.
On a modem line, the signal is a digital one. As previously stated, as long as there's a sufficiently high S/N ratio, there will be almost no signal loss and 100% of the data can be read. The same goes for generic vs. Monster Cable digital audio cables (coax and optical).
However, there *is* a difference that can be made in component interconnects and speaker wiring as any signal loss in a purely analog connection will be received by every component downstream of the source. At a certain point, however, there is a limit to how much you get back out of your cabling investment.
The cables that are provided with most mainstream components (Sony, Pioneer, Kenwood, etc.) will get the job done, and don't really hinder the sound quality all that much under normal circumstances. It would be a fairly good investment to buy the cheapest Monster Cable or other "upgraded" cable if you've got a hefty investment in both your components and your speaker system. Anything beyond that is probably overkill for 99% of the readership here, and the majority of the remaining 1% won't really be able to tell a difference in a double-blind comparison, anyway.
The recommendation I make to friends/family/customers/strangers the most is to upgrade your speaker cables. If you like listening to your system at anything lounder than background level, you *need* better speaker cable than what comes with systems, even boomboxes with detachable speakers and complete shelf systems. But you probably won't need the heavy, 8-gauge stuff that's available. Most system that pump out about 150w RMS per channel should have about 12- or 14-gauge on it. Monster Cable's XP line should be more than adequate, and isn't too expensive. Anything more than that, and you should probably be looking at 8-gauge, though.
All of this is assuming that you listen to music as a focus, rather than as a distraction. If your system is being used as background noise for whatever else you're doing, none of this is going to be noticeable. All of the above suggestions come from my own personal experince of over 10 years in home A/V system building (I've got 3 running at any given time, and a 4th is always being assembled to replace one of the existing 3: LR, MBR, and Basement Theater). In summary, if you feel the need to buy upgraded connections between your components, do so. But keep in mind that there really isn't any difference in the end-result if you go any higher than the first upgrade.
And before anyone gives me grief, there will always be someone that buys the best stuff available because they can. In their minds, they can hear the difference. And that's all that matters.
Oh, and there's a great site for comparing MP3 to Minidisc's ATRAC formats here.
I'm in (mostly) complete agreement. The drive through Nebraska is about as exciting as watching paint dry at 70+ MPH, so I can forsee a need for the passenger(s) to have something to do other than watch the flattest state go by outside the windows of a car. Once west of Nebraska, however, there's nothing but beautiful landscapes for the entire trip, and there's no need for further entertainment.
I, too, live in MN. Bloomington, MN, to be specific. About once every other year, my G/F-turned-fiance and I take a 2 week vacation out west to visit my family. I've got a cousin in Portland, OR, and the rest live in or around Los Angeles. Our route usually takes us on the northern trail of I-94 to I-90 until we reach the state of Washington. One stop we always make is in Bismarck so that we can visit the only members of her family that don't live in MN. The drive from Bismarck to Portland will take the better part of 20 hours, even at over 80 MPH, so we'll decide to make a random stop somewhere in-between. Those 2 days are ones I look forward to every time we take that trip. The scenery is breathtaking, and some of the twisty canyon roads through western Montana and the panhandle of Idaho makes driving so much more fun!
Then there's the drive along the river into Portland. If you can time it so that you're travelling in late July, you might get to see some of the jets fly through the canyon to Portland for their annual air-show.
The winding drive south along California's PCH (Pacific Coast Highway) is also really beautiful. Just be careful of those cliffs! (Last year, I let my fiance drive my new full-size pickup from San Francisco to L.A. and she kept wanting to put the vehicle on the shoulder of the road because she wasn't used to being so high up. Driving south, the ocean is on the right-hand side, the side she kept pushing the truck. She was still using her points of reference from her Saturn, which caused her to think that she was too close to the center of the road and made her "correct" the placement of the truck onto the very narrow shoulder. In some places, there's a 300 foot drop into the ocean. Yikes!)
Going from L.A. to Las Vegas was rather uneventful, but that was a good thing. Because we made the last trip in late July and early August, the temps in Death Valley can easily creep into the 110+ degree F range. The temp sensor I have in my truck (temp and compass in the ISRV mirror) hit 113. Signs along the road tell drivers to turn off their A/C to help ease the load on their cars so that they don't get stranded in the desert heat. I left mine on during that trip figuring that I had a truck that's meant to haul moderately heavy loads and deal with heat better than your average car. We were also hauling very little in the way of luggage, and everything fit into the back of the extended cab with enough room for me to see out the back window. Sure enough, we made it with no problems at all, A/C cranked up the entire way. If you get a chance, go see Hoover Dam. It's one thing to see it on TV. It's a completely different experience to see it in person. When looking at it, just remember that it's a man-made object all the way down. Someone (a lot of someones, really) actually *created* it from nothing at all. Ponder humanity, buy a t-shirt, go about your business and your trip.
Vegas through Colorado is also very pretty in the summertime. Lots more mountain roads, but fewer twisty canyon runs to appease the enthusiast driver.
During the entire trip, we had my new laptop tagging along: a dual-battery Dell I8200. I had purchased an auto/air adapter for it, but the computer wants more current than the adapter can provide. So the computer has a provision for this called "Battery Optimized" mode, where the system runs at a lower speed and consumes less electricity than it would otherwise. I can set the system to run full-tilt on battery, if needed, but we really didn't find the need to do so. Actually, it runs at 1.2GHz in the crippled mode and is more than fast enough to watch DVDs and run the GPS/mapping package we used to track our progress. The only thing we lacked was an internet connection, but we didn't really need that for most of the trip, either. I have more than 300 hours of music that I've ripped to MP3 (about 20GB worth of high-quality conversion of my CDs), we brought along about 20 DVD movies for the laptop in-car or at a hotel/motel, and the scenery outside and simple conversation kept us occupied for the entire trip.
In short, UNPLUG AND ENJOY THE DRIVE. You'll thank me later. Connect when you get to your destination if you must, but leave the on-the-road wireless broadband connections behind. You don't need it, and it spoils the road-trip experience.
Yes, you probably should go back to bed. Your comment about the space stuff got posted to the article about the eugenics/genetics/superpeople story. But I think that gives you a new /. battle-cry: "CROSS POST!"
Granted, it's heavy. Granted, it's flimsy. Granted, it sucks battery life. But it doesn't have to be a hot-plate. I've got FanGUI keeping the built-in fans running more often (and keeping things quite a bit cooler), but it only runs in Windows. However, since this was a "simple" hack into the values that the BIOS is using and overriding them with custom values, I can't imagine that such a solution would be that difficult under Linux. Unfortunately, I'm not much of a help as I don't run Linux. Heck, I don't even "code" (as long as you don't count script-coding). But I do know that it's pretty easy once you know where to look and what to look at.
But for a heavy, flimsy, battery sucker, it's a joy to use while on-the-go. It's a true desktop replacement machine, so don't mistake it for a lightweight system that hinders you until you're back to your powerhouse on your desk. 4+ hours of DVD watching using a 2nd battery in the removable media bay isn't that bad, especially if you're on a long commute/vacation. Besides, if you're going to be away from an AC outlet for more than 4+ hours (such as when you're in a car or on a cross-country or trans-oceanic flight), you should really have an auto/air adapter. The only thing I find lacking in this desktop replacement system is hard disk space and a decent pointing device.
The issue isn't with CRTs, but with flat-panel LCD displays. Of course a good CRT like the rebranded Sony you've got will run at 1600x1200 and look good.
I've got a 6-month-old Dell I8200 with the 15" UXGA panel on it. By definition, it will do 1600x1200. My 19" panel sitting on my desk (and most others in the stores) tend to cap at 1280x1024. The fact that they can cram a resolution of 1600x1200 into a 15" panel for the laptop and will only fit 1280x1024 into larger desktop displays seems a little backwards. As it is, I don't need to run at 1600x1200 on my small laptop screen, but I sure would like to run that on my larger desktop panel!
Does anyone know of a decent flat-panel display for the desktop that will do 1600x1200 and not break the bank (say, under $1200)?
I agree. What happened to you IBM?
On a related side note, I had one of the recalled APC UPS units (the BK350 and BK500). It was recalled for almost the exact same reasons: Component gets too hot, melts exterior casing (plastic) coating whatever it touches, and possibly starts a fire. (rhetorical) Is the reason computer parts like monitors and UPSs are running so hot because they are now required to run overclocked to keep pace with the insane speed of today's CPUs? (/rhetorical) Other than the bum capacitor theory being tossed about, I can't think of any other realistic reason for this. QA departments around the globe need to start re-evaluating their testing procedures if these products are getting out the door into customers' hands.
Actually, the effect would be rather moot. The article states that they were only able to mix oil and water after all other trace gasses and other non-water molecules were removed (summarized). Basically, they've got pure H2O to mix with oil. Once the mix reaches "normal" water, the oil will start to separate again and it's all back to business-as-usual.
After reading, I'm still very skeptical. I'm not saying it's impossible, but I do find it highly unlikely that this really works. And on a humorous note, why do they call it Mission:Impossible when, in episode after episode (or movie after movie), they succeed? Shouldn't that read "Mission:Improbable" or "Mission:Really-Hard"? At age 25, I don't believe anything is truely impossible. Some things are just sufficiently difficult to do that they *seem* impossible. However, someone (usually not myself) eventually figures "it" out, whatever "it" might be. So, in summary, I'm optimistically skeptical that they were really able to do this. Time will tell, though.
As the other reply mentions, you'll need parallel walls for standing waves to form. In addition, the wavelength is sufficiently large enough that everyone would have *some* experience.
As a practical experiment, you can try to get the same results by using a fairly large, consumer-available subwoofer in a small room. Mute any "main" speakers and play some sine-wave sweeps. No matter where you go in the room, you'll be able to hear the sound. However, due to the parallel walls, you're going to experience some standing waves in the room. This is most observable when you place the subwoofer near one corner of the room and you stand in the opposite corner.
It's interesting to note that when you place a loudspeaker closer to walls the low-frequency response seems to be more pronounced at the expense of spatial diffusion or "openness" in the higher frequencies (the sound seems to come from a point on the speaker rather than being more diffused around the speaker). That's why you should experiment with the placement of your own speakers so that you get the right sound from your system.
And isn't the military using something similar to this to achieve similar results? IIRC, the US military is experimenting with ultrasonic waves to induce pain and nausia for the purposes of non-lethal immobilization of an opponent. Maybe it was some radio frequencies. I don't exactly remember, and it's way too past my bedtime to go looking. Pretty cool all the way around, though.
That may be correct, but you're not seeing the full picture. (horrible pun is, indeed, intended)
A 19" non-HD TV will only set you back, what, $150? Maybe even just $120? A decent 19" monitor is about $200, now. That's not too far off in terms of price. But picture quality is *way* off.
That's not to say that your TV can't be a good computer monitor, however. The primary reason your TV looks like crap when you display anything from a computer on it is due to the way the signal is transferred from your video card to the TV. A standard TV's inputs were really only designed for large moving objects over a bandwidth-limited medium such as a multiplexed cable line or over-the-air broadcasts. Because of this, the overall bandwidth requirement is comparatively low. Small text is blurred because the signal going to your TV doesn't carry enough bandwidth to make a change on the scan-line quickly enough to make it as sharp as you'd like it. That's also the reason that you're generally only limited to 640x480 or so even though your video card is capable of so much more.
Your 19" computer monitor, on the other hand, has an input capable of carrying a single dot on a grid of 1600x1200 that's still very discernable. That's a lot of information wizzing through that 15-pin cable. But when you consider that the 15-pin connector is really a slightly more complex version of the 3-cable component video inputs on most HDTVs and almost all DVD players, it isn't difficult to understand why this is the case. If you can separate the signal such that each conductor only carries a portion of the signal (and some error-correcting stuff that will vary depending on what signal you're sending), you effectively gain potential resolution. On the typical 15-pin connector, there's a separate signal for each of red, green, and blue picture elements. There's also a grounding wire for each signal. There's synchronization signals on 2 or more wires with their own grounding wires, too.
The input on a non-HD TV must make due with only a single conductor and a single ground for *all* of this information. The RF input is even worse as it's carrying multiple channels of data multiplexed with the one that you really want. An HDTV uses either the 15-pin connector like that found on computer monitors or the 3-cable RCA connector common on most DVD players. (The 3-cable setup carries RGB on their own conductor with the HSync and VSync multiplexed across them. The other method multiplexes all of the signal and sync data across all three conductors. There's only 3 ground conductors in each method, those being the shielding on the cables) This makes the HDTV, effectively, a large computer monitor. The problem isn't with the quality of the tube, but rather the maximum ammount of information that can be transmitted to it. If you were able to bypass the traditional inputs on your typical TV set and send your signal *directly* to the picture tube, you'd get a picture that's similar to what you can get on your computer monitor. (BTW: Don't try that at home, kids. TVs and computer monitors have lots of high-voltage components in them that can kill you if you're not careful. Leave the insides of your TV alone.)
Some newer HDTV-ready units are already doubling as computer monitors at about $3500 and will easily display your computer signal at about 800x600. As for a large TV-only unit, a decent unit will run about $4k. Granted, that's much higher than you'd find a good computer monitor for, but you're not really going to be able to find a 50-plus inch monitor for anywhere close to that price. In addition, you've got inputs for your X-Box, Playstation2, progressive-scan DVD player, an HDTV satellite receiver, and anything else you want to throw at it. Your PC would be only one element in a home-entertainment package.
Back on topic, HDTV programming is still rather sparse for my taste. I'm on DirecTV and can only get a few channels with HDTV resolution. HBO has some content, and there's at least one PPV channel dedicated to it. But I'm waiting until there's more HDTV content from the more "regular" channels, such as Discovery Channel (currently in HD, but only for Dish Networks customers) and Speed Channel. The major network affiliates such as NBC, CBS, ABC, Fox, etc., don't have enough HD content available for me to justify an $800 purchase. My HDTV-ready big-screen will need to get by on 480p signals from my DVD player until I think there's enough HDTV content to buy that box.
Warning: I am not a lawyer. Nor am I anal. That said, let's continue...
It's been argued that the "backup" copy for "archival" use is the original media the software was shipped on because the working copy resides on your computer's hard disk. I've found this to be a rather weak arguement, but it apparently holds up pretty well when challenged (I don't have experience fighting this, so I don't know first-hand). It doesn't seem to violate the section of law that you cite.
I'm not trying to prove this point is correct because I don't believe it myself. However, I am just trying to shed a little light onto an area that, to my knowledge, nobody else has covered in this discussion. This point of view stinks, IMNSHO, and it should be addressed in further reviews of the copyright laws. Will it? Probably not.
Finding the reason *WHY* she put it in the oven to begin with might lead to deeper issues than just a crispy computer. We can speculate all we want about why she did what she did, and the various reasons can lead to different types of repairs that might be neccessary. But unless we ask her "why", we may never know what the original problem was, if any.
Did she (or someone else) spill liquid over the keyboard? Ok, we'll need to look for water damage or corrosion on some parts and replace them as needed.
Did she get confused about what was in the oven at the time (ie: did the recipe call for apples) or does she just store her computer in the oven and forgot to take it out before she turned her oven on? Ok, she's a nut-job and we're looking for any abnormal operating behavior, but we don't need to specifically look for water-damage.
In my 7+ years of IS/IT and PC repair, I've found that the immediate reason someone brings a computer to you is only the tip of the iceberg. More often than not, there's other underlying issues that led to them coming to you for help. And physicians *do* work this way. Your average car mechanic works this way, too. So does anybody else that repairs things for a living be it human, mechanical, or otherwise.
Next time you're at your local doctor's office for an injury, pay close attention to the questions they're asking you. I'd be willing to bet that they ask you how you did what you did, which will inevitably lead to you explaining why. The reason they do this is so that they understand what forces went into creating the injury. Often times, what's visible isn't the only problem that needs attention. If they didn't do this, other injuries may go untreated and they wouldn't be doing their jobs to "repair" you correctly.
The investigation of the source of a problem is just as important, if not more so, than the resolution of it. So, no, my analogy isn't flawed. Computer parts are less compex than human "parts", granted. And this situation clearly didn't require asking for a reason why she did what she did (as a repair probably wouldn't be cost effective). But computer parts (as well as some mechanical ones) can intermittently fail without giving other indicators that they're not working correctly. Hard drives come to mind, as do some memory chips. A slightly dirty connection on a PCI card will sometimes cause an otherwise perfectly working card to fail periodically. Testing the hardware shows no failures, but there's definitely a problem. Unless you are aware of the complete set of circumstances surrounding the issue, you would be unable to make an accurate diagnosis. Gathering as much information about the problem you've been hired to fix is important and cannot be considered "not minding [your] own business." It's "your business" as soon as you agree to repair the computer. Sharing personal, and possibly humiliating, information with others for entertainment, however, *is* not minding your own business.
Have you tried to flash the firmware on your Dell-supplied DVD-ROM drive? All firmware udpates supplied by Dell require a floppy disk to even extract the files. Open the .EXE file and all you get is a command-prompt window asking you for a floppy disk.
I use bootable CDs whenever possible, too. But Dell's way of doing things is backwards, though I can see why they're doing it. I've said in another post on this same topic that a clean environment is required to flash the firmware/BIOS so that a minimum of things have an opportunity to cause problems with the flashing process. Booting from a floppy disk that's designed by Dell is (almost) guaranteed to keep things as simple as possible. After all, they're the ones dictating the flashing environment on known hardware. They don't have to worry about any other programs causing a crash in mid-flash and ruining the hardware they're trying to fix.
I've thought about possible solutions, but the only feasable ones seems to be the floppy disk or a small, bootable ISO to burn to CD that does the same thing. As an alternative, MSI's Live Update feature works well in my other, homemade systems. Perhaps that might work better for them, but they've got all of their firmware coded to bootable floppies. They'll need to get that changed over to some other method before killing the floppy on their systems.
The F117A is called the Nighthawk. However, most pilots call it the "Wobblin' Gobblin" because it's aerodynamically unstable requiring computer-controlled corrections at a very high frequency while in-flight. Early tests didn't have the computer code particularly tweaked so the aircraft tended to shimmy around (wobble) quite a bit.
The shape of the aircraft is designed to reflect the majority of radio waves directly away from the source and the coating is designed to absorb the remaining radio frequencies, not light. But it does appear to be based on the same priciple as this super-black material. From what I understand of RAM (Radar Absorbing Material), there are small pockets on the surface that are designed to trap and scatter the radio waves until they've almost completely dissipated. The color of the material is rather arbitrary, as I've seen it painted in "desert-camo" in photos taken before it was made public (to hide it better against the sandy-colored ground in the desert where it was being tested). Just before being made public, it was painted black to hide better at night in the sky, which is it's intended primary operating time/environment. Making it even *more* black wouldn't make it much more "stealthy". If you're looking for IR signatures, the engine exhaust would probably be more of a giveaway even though it's cooled to about 800F or so. And because it's in the sky, a UV scan would probably be useless as space (the sky's background) is filled with UV. Blocking even more UV makes it a black mark on a light background.
I might have a use for this super-black material to coat the insides of my projection TV, as well as cover the windows during movie nights! Perhaps even using this on road signs in addition to the super-relective paint the DOT already uses can make road signs easier to see at night due to increased contrast and less glare. Oh, and telescopes, too. Kinda neat, overall.
Actually, if he's required to fix it, even if he's being paid for the job out of this (admittedtly stupid) woman's own pockets, he really needs to know what happened to it so he can determine if he's even able to make a repair.
Think about it for a minute. If you went to the doctor and asked him/her to "repair" your body (or mind, in some cases) without giving a description of what's wrong and how it happened, how can s/he do their jobs properly? The same situation applies with an automotive mechanic or a computer repair technician. If we fix only what we're able to see without any other information, the things that are hidden get missed.
I think your intentions were good but a little misguided, however. Her privacy needs to be extended beyond the repair technician. Sharing this story was slightly inappropriate (even though it is extremely funny just thinking about "Why?"). However, because the identity of this woman has been kept secret, her privacy has been retained. This is similar to doctors discuss their patients' issues amongst their peers without divulging names in order to get a different perspective, except that we're discussing the issue for purely entertaining reasons.
[Rant]
On the flip-side, people stupid enough to put their $2500 laptop into a hot oven shouldn't be sheltered and protected. She deserves to be mocked and humiliated in the hopes that she'll stop being so stupid in the future. I can only wonder why so many stupid people have flourished in today's society and what we can do to resolve this situation.
[/Rant]