I've noticed that the Disney "widescreen" offerings are all 16:9 exactly. I personally wonder if this was indeed the theatre aspect ratio, or if they pan and scanning into 16:9 (as opposed to 4:3).
The menu system needs to have some progamability. If you've built current DVD menus, you know they are pretty dumb and pretty limited.
The ability to write some java code into menus to program behavior would be helpful. It would also make the DVD player capable of playing doing basic flash style video games. If you've ever seen the "games" included on some discs, you know they are pretty lame.
The original caddies were somewhat cumbersome. The DVD-RAM caddies are nicer. I kinda like the Blue-Ray Saucer style cartridges. Machines should be slot loaded and accept either a container or a bare disc.
BTW, I've never bought the argument of marginal extra cost for cartridges. After all, the most widespread successfull media in history was the 3.5" floppy. They all had cartridges and were ultimately less than $.10 a piece in volume.
* Size of media * Resolution/quality of media * Media options * Cheaper to produce and record than VHS
It will be difficult for a new DVD standard to duplicate the commercial success of current DVD. The only benefit I see is the capability to record HDTV.
Finally, a next gen DVD system should use disk cartridges. Current DVD media is too fragile.
It's probably impossible for one to understand what being pregnant is like unless they have been.
Likewise it's probably equally impossible for one to understand what ADD is unless you have it and have received good medication for it. It's not speculation or junk science. It's factual science based on controlled study.
the study paraphrased: The brands advertised in magazines that more youths read are the brands that more youths smoke.
So what? It rains more where people use umbrellas. Does this mean that when more people use umbrellas, this causes more rain?
Marketers have found that advertising leads to increased consumption. It's not a strange or bizarre questions. Camel didn't put out adverts for the sake of Lucky Strike.
I think your rain analogy is misplaced. Had they said, "Increased cancer rates are leading people to smoke", than your analogy would be on the spot.
This would suggest that this method of gauging infant mortality results in undercounts. The reason is simple. Infant mortality is ALWAYS higher amongst the poor.
Also, some of the newer electric bicycles put the motor in the hub.
Aha, this is the technology I need to make a two wheel drive mountain bike. This would make the bike more effective turning sharp corners and climbing steep hills.
It would also make for very easy shiftless continuously variable bike.
this is why bicyclists are absolutely rabid about wheel weight.
Cyclists are just plain obsessed about weight. They are obsessed because of the extra mass it takes to accellerate. They are doubly obsessed about the amount of weight they must push up hills.
Personally, I believe it's largely a bunch of rubbish. That is, the amount of money one spends to knock 2 pounds of your rig is disproportionate to the value you get. A poor craftsman blames his tools.
The weight of a bicycle wheel is nothing compared to the weight of the rider. The wheel weight won't affect the suspension on a bicycle.
Regarding the weight of wheels on a car. I get what your saying now and it makes sense. Some type of compensation is necessary in the suspension system.
I think your exagerating the difference in acceleration whith mass in the wheels. The biggest reason is the heaviest component of the engine (the copper coils) are fixed, they don't turn. Only the magnets lining the wheel hub turns.
To find the effective moment of inertia one should consider the the mass of the wheel's turning portion and the distance between the magnets and the outer edge of the tire (as opposed to from the center). The mechanical torque isn't applied from the center. It's applied on the magnets.
In this respect, much of the extra torque needed to turn a larger hub/wheel is effectively negated. The most efficient configuration would be the honda boy racer thin tire setup with large wheels.
You've replaced a VERY large engine and a drive train. You must provide a greater torque in order to accelerate the vehicle.
In the case of the wheel motor, the weight is simply transferred onto the wheel. Additionally, you have a large series of batteries.
If the ultimate weight of the small engine, wheel motor and battery combo is less then the large engine and drivetrain, does it matter much whether its in the wheel or on the chassis????
BTW, one benefit of this scheme is that you lower the effective center of gravity for the vehicle. There will be less body lean in corners. If the scheme works well, we might start seeing race cars take advantage of this principle. Certainly a sports car or minivan could take advantage of it.
One of the greatest gas savings of a hybrid is that it almost always runs the engine at it's most efficient RPM. It accomplishes this storing extra energy for when it's needed in the battery.
Well, you get all wheel drive as a bonus without including two separate drive trains and elaborate differential mechanisms. That's certainly a plus.
You also lose the weight of the drive train and the transmission. Speed is regulated by current.
You have 4 wheel regenerative breaking that doesn't apply a reverse torque on the drivetrain the way current systems do.
Anti-lock breaks and anti-skid systems become extremely easy as they can be applied by simple software routines. The anti-skid technology in such a vehicle could apply a regen brake on one wheel and an acceleration onto another.
Another big plus. Four wheel steering is also very easy to do. Such a system would also be useful for righting a skid.
Use run-flat tires that are now commercially available to consumers. I would assume that any tire in these vehicles would need thicker skins than the ones we currently use.
Of course the spare will be quite a bit heavier due to the motor weight and heavier tire.
You missed the point. None of your arguments really matter to someone who doesn't see the world and existance the way you do.
Yes, you are right. To people with no respect for the basic living mechanism that is earth, reason, pleading, begging, cadjoling will have no effect.
The nature of planetary science will always be one of reconstruction (of past climates) and simulation (of future ones). Any dipshit motherfucker that watches the Weather Channel can point out that such forecasts aren't 100% accurate. However, that same dipshit motherfucker will take an umbrella if they say it will rain.
So we have to ask ourselves what umbrella will mitigate the risk against global catastrophic climate change. It's certainly a lot more important then getting wet on friday.
Perhaps, but doubtful with current studies. Autism is just one of those things. Alzheimers is also an interesting thing that appears to be someone part of predispotion and people living longer and I haven't seen a single credible study that links mercury with ADD.
The concept derives simply from the observation that both Autism and ADD look like very light versions of Mad Hatter syndromes. Does the condition manifest itself in terms of degrees?? Or do you simply become a "Mad Hatter" overnight once you've reached the critical treshhold of exposure?
The idea that a biological effect is produced at some "critical threshold" is absolute nonsense. It's there, it just may not produced noticable symptoms.
What is necessary here is a measurement of how fast the body clears out muck. In the case of Mercury, it doesn't. This is not unique to humans. Fish are even better than humans at internalizing mercury. This is why pregnant women aren't supposed to eat fish from the great lakes.
I agree that CO2 is a much trickier subject because the earth has a natural ability to both process AND produce CO2. It is a greenhouse gas, no doubt. The science is VERY clear on that respect. The question is how much CO2 overwhelms the earths natural ability to process it (vegetation, mineral erosion).
The point is that your talking about something that is VERY DIFFICULT to know. In the absence of knowing EXACTLY what are the toxic levels of Mercury in our environment, prudence would dictate that we take reasonable steps to limit it's introduction.
You point out costs. But the old addage says that a ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. One must consider the financial impact in terms of medical care. You must also remember that an industry is effectively transfering the cost of waste disposal to individuals.
Instead, we could simply make the polluters responsible for disposal of their own waste.
I'll give you another excellent example, second hand smoke. I can appreciate that the evidence still is not definitive regarding the effects of second hand smoke. But lets take another approach to the issue remembering that we KNOW that cigarettes cause cancer in those who smoke them DIRECTLY.
Let's say that I ran around bars and restaurants spraying a substance called "Agent Y". Agent Y is slightly bad smelling. It gets into peoples hair and clothing and leaves a residual odor.
When confronted regarding my behavior, I claim that I spray Agent Y because I enjoy it. It calms my nerves and helps me unwind. When others point out the potential health effects of Agent Y, I point out that no one has PROVEN that second hand exposure to Agent Y has negative health effects.
Now, the likely response to Agent Y would be, why are you introducing something harmful. They don't KNOW whats in Agent Y. It hasn't been studied. It leaves an unpleasant odor and even becomes embedded in contact lenses.
So what, I say. I have a freedom to spray Agent Y. You haven't proven that it does anything bad. I will continue spraying Agent Y as a matter of constitutional liberty.
The fact is that cigarrettes are NOT regulated and we don't know 100% of whats in them. In some cases they add animal urine.
You cannot prove Agent Y is harmful at secondary levels of introduction. You might be able to prove that direct inhalation of Agent Y is harmful. But Agent Y remains as scientifically defenseable as cigarettes.
The question is, who holds the burden of proof??? Does the burden of proof lie with the polluter, or the receiver of pollution??? The fact that second hand cigarette smoke is acceptable is a mear social convention. If I ran around bars spraying an unknown solution, I would be arrested as a potential terrorist*.
So who bears the burden of showing that Agent Y is either benign or harmful?????
At the FDA, the polluter bears the burden. You must show that your product is both SAFE and EFFECTIVE at prescribed levels. Industrial emissions go through no such processes.
So, I would say that if the costs of scrubbing mercury out of power plant emissions is reasonable, that they should do it. Of course, we all have different definitions of what "reasonable" is.
Let's put it this way. How much will it cost to scrub mercury out of the environment once it is dispersed????? vs How much will it cost to scrub it from smokestacks?????
Clearly it is way cheaper to scrub it from the smokestacks. Now given that we KNOW mercury is toxic at relatively low levels... AND we know that mercury accumlates in the brain... AND we know that once it accumulates it is VERY difficult to get rid of it, isn't it a prudent measure to scrub the smokestacks and prevent and extra 100 tons of mercury dispersion every year????
If not, perhaps I should prepare some Agent Y for you.
Why is that? What I mean is, assuming your statement is true, why does the universe work that way? It's the one thing the God-believing will have over those who only believe in science; they can play the "why" game indefinately. At some point, science will get fed up and yell "Because it just does!"
While some scientists are concerned about the nature of creation, science could care less.
Science studies what is.
What I am addressing is the rhetorical nonsense of saying "I exist, therefore god must have meant it." The fact that we can think or feel is proof of nothing. If the universe had rules that didin't produce intelligent life, than it could not contemplate itself. That would not mean it did not exist.
As we look around our own solar system, we find that earth is indeed unique. Of course, if it wasn't unique, we couldn't comprehend it's uniqueness and the point would be mute. It's like mourning my existence had I been aborted. It's moot. I cannot mourn the occurence of my own non-existence.
Earth indeed unique as one of 9 planets. But the universe contains far more than nine, it likely contains a billion, billion stars. Each likely has one or more satellites that may contain life.
Even our seemingly lifeless brother Mars may yet contain sub-terranian bacterial life.
In the end, all I'm saying is don't jump to conclusions. If god did indeed give you a mind, I would think he implied for you to use it.
Slashdot Mirror
Well since 9GB of flash would probably cost a couple thousand dollars, it isn't time to switch.
You could probably do a 9GB HD on PC card for $300 or so. In a 2.5" format, it would cost less than $100.
Don't count on a switch to flash or HD as a distribution format anytime soon.
Though, look for MPEG-4 Hard Drive recorders to completely replace VCRs and supercede DVD set top recorders.
I've noticed that the Disney "widescreen" offerings are all 16:9 exactly. I personally wonder if this was indeed the theatre aspect ratio, or if they pan and scanning into 16:9 (as opposed to 4:3).
The irony is that it costs FAR less to produce a music CD than a movie. Music CDs should cost $5 apiece.
Perhaps the only way to get the record execs to stop gouging artists and consumers is the complete destruction of the music biz via mp3.
That's pretty lame. A set top HDTV tuner for an HDTV monitor costs about $300. Something definitely has to change for the changeover to happen.
The menu system needs to have some progamability. If you've built current DVD menus, you know they are pretty dumb and pretty limited.
The ability to write some java code into menus to program behavior would be helpful. It would also make the DVD player capable of playing doing basic flash style video games. If you've ever seen the "games" included on some discs, you know they are pretty lame.
The original caddies were somewhat cumbersome. The DVD-RAM caddies are nicer. I kinda like the Blue-Ray Saucer style cartridges. Machines should be slot loaded and accept either a container or a bare disc.
BTW, I've never bought the argument of marginal extra cost for cartridges. After all, the most widespread successfull media in history was the 3.5" floppy. They all had cartridges and were ultimately less than $.10 a piece in volume.
DVD +R and -R have a lot more in common than different. Even the +R "lossless link" stuff is a bit of a sham. Check out dvdr help for more info.
Ultimately, I think the +/- formats will merge the way the 56k modems did.
Sony is embracing the cartridge concept. Their new Play Station Portable will have a mini-dvd in a cartridge.
Portable Playstation
Their Blue-Ray disc has a similar UFO style protective DVD cartridge.
Blue Ray Recorder and cartridge
Benefits of DVD over VHS
* Size of media
* Resolution/quality of media
* Media options
* Cheaper to produce and record than VHS
It will be difficult for a new DVD standard to duplicate the commercial success of current DVD. The only benefit I see is the capability to record HDTV.
Finally, a next gen DVD system should use disk cartridges. Current DVD media is too fragile.
It's probably impossible for one to understand what being pregnant is like unless they have been.
Likewise it's probably equally impossible for one to understand what ADD is unless you have it and have received good medication for it. It's not speculation or junk science. It's factual science based on controlled study.
If you aren't actively consuming the stuff, identifiable amounts indicate that your body is unable to eliminate it faster than it's introduced.
In some cases (mercury) the body is simply unable to eliminate substances. They stick in the body.
the study paraphrased: The brands advertised in magazines that more youths read are the brands that more youths smoke.
So what? It rains more where people use umbrellas. Does this mean that when more people use umbrellas, this causes more rain?
Marketers have found that advertising leads to increased consumption. It's not a strange or bizarre questions. Camel didn't put out adverts for the sake of Lucky Strike.
I think your rain analogy is misplaced. Had they said, "Increased cancer rates are leading people to smoke", than your analogy would be on the spot.
This would suggest that this method of gauging infant mortality results in undercounts. The reason is simple. Infant mortality is ALWAYS higher amongst the poor.
Also, some of the newer electric bicycles put the motor in the hub.
Aha, this is the technology I need to make a two wheel drive mountain bike. This would make the bike more effective turning sharp corners and climbing steep hills.
It would also make for very easy shiftless continuously variable bike.
It's the Nickel-Cadmium batteries that are highly toxic.
this is why bicyclists are absolutely rabid about wheel weight.
Cyclists are just plain obsessed about weight. They are obsessed because of the extra mass it takes to accellerate. They are doubly obsessed about the amount of weight they must push up hills.
Personally, I believe it's largely a bunch of rubbish. That is, the amount of money one spends to knock 2 pounds of your rig is disproportionate to the value you get. A poor craftsman blames his tools.
The weight of a bicycle wheel is nothing compared to the weight of the rider. The wheel weight won't affect the suspension on a bicycle.
Regarding the weight of wheels on a car. I get what your saying now and it makes sense. Some type of compensation is necessary in the suspension system.
I think your exagerating the difference in acceleration whith mass in the wheels. The biggest reason is the heaviest component of the engine (the copper coils) are fixed, they don't turn. Only the magnets lining the wheel hub turns.
To find the effective moment of inertia one should consider the the mass of the wheel's turning portion and the distance between the magnets and the outer edge of the tire (as opposed to from the center). The mechanical torque isn't applied from the center. It's applied on the magnets.
In this respect, much of the extra torque needed to turn a larger hub/wheel is effectively negated. The most efficient configuration would be the honda boy racer thin tire setup with large wheels.
Does it really matter where the extra weight is.
You've replaced a VERY large engine and a drive train. You must provide a greater torque in order to accelerate the vehicle.
In the case of the wheel motor, the weight is simply transferred onto the wheel. Additionally, you have a large series of batteries.
If the ultimate weight of the small engine, wheel motor and battery combo is less then the large engine and drivetrain, does it matter much whether its in the wheel or on the chassis????
BTW, one benefit of this scheme is that you lower the effective center of gravity for the vehicle. There will be less body lean in corners. If the scheme works well, we might start seeing race cars take advantage of this principle. Certainly a sports car or minivan could take advantage of it.
Can you imagine the Hummer ad campaign when the release a vehicle that is more fuel efficient than a Toyota Echo?
;-)
Wasting gasoline is a birthright of Hummer owners. So no, I can't imagine it
One of the greatest gas savings of a hybrid is that it almost always runs the engine at it's most efficient RPM. It accomplishes this storing extra energy for when it's needed in the battery.
Well, you get all wheel drive as a bonus without including two separate drive trains and elaborate differential mechanisms. That's certainly a plus.
You also lose the weight of the drive train and the transmission. Speed is regulated by current.
You have 4 wheel regenerative breaking that doesn't apply a reverse torque on the drivetrain the way current systems do.
Anti-lock breaks and anti-skid systems become extremely easy as they can be applied by simple software routines. The anti-skid technology in such a vehicle could apply a regen brake on one wheel and an acceleration onto another.
Another big plus. Four wheel steering is also very easy to do. Such a system would also be useful for righting a skid.
Use run-flat tires that are now commercially available to consumers. I would assume that any tire in these vehicles would need thicker skins than the ones we currently use.
Of course the spare will be quite a bit heavier due to the motor weight and heavier tire.
You missed the point. None of your arguments really matter to someone who doesn't see the world and existance the way you do.
Yes, you are right. To people with no respect for the basic living mechanism that is earth, reason, pleading, begging, cadjoling will have no effect.
The nature of planetary science will always be one of reconstruction (of past climates) and simulation (of future ones). Any dipshit motherfucker that watches the Weather Channel can point out that such forecasts aren't 100% accurate. However, that same dipshit motherfucker will take an umbrella if they say it will rain.
So we have to ask ourselves what umbrella will mitigate the risk against global catastrophic climate change. It's certainly a lot more important then getting wet on friday.
Perhaps, but doubtful with current studies. Autism is just one of those things. Alzheimers is also an interesting thing that appears to be someone part of predispotion and people living longer and I haven't seen a single credible study that links mercury with ADD.
The concept derives simply from the observation that both Autism and ADD look like very light versions of Mad Hatter syndromes. Does the condition manifest itself in terms of degrees?? Or do you simply become a "Mad Hatter" overnight once you've reached the critical treshhold of exposure?
The idea that a biological effect is produced at some "critical threshold" is absolute nonsense. It's there, it just may not produced noticable symptoms.
What is necessary here is a measurement of how fast the body clears out muck. In the case of Mercury, it doesn't. This is not unique to humans. Fish are even better than humans at internalizing mercury. This is why pregnant women aren't supposed to eat fish from the great lakes.
I agree that CO2 is a much trickier subject because the earth has a natural ability to both process AND produce CO2. It is a greenhouse gas, no doubt. The science is VERY clear on that respect. The question is how much CO2 overwhelms the earths natural ability to process it (vegetation, mineral erosion).
The point is that your talking about something that is VERY DIFFICULT to know. In the absence of knowing EXACTLY what are the toxic levels of Mercury in our environment, prudence would dictate that we take reasonable steps to limit it's introduction.
... AND we know that mercury accumlates in the brain ... AND we know that once it accumulates it is VERY difficult to get rid of it, isn't it a prudent measure to scrub the smokestacks and prevent and extra 100 tons of mercury dispersion every year????
You point out costs. But the old addage says that a ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. One must consider the financial impact in terms of medical care. You must also remember that an industry is effectively transfering the cost of waste disposal to individuals.
Instead, we could simply make the polluters responsible for disposal of their own waste.
I'll give you another excellent example, second hand smoke. I can appreciate that the evidence still is not definitive regarding the effects of second hand smoke. But lets take another approach to the issue remembering that we KNOW that cigarettes cause cancer in those who smoke them DIRECTLY.
Let's say that I ran around bars and restaurants spraying a substance called "Agent Y". Agent Y is slightly bad smelling. It gets into peoples hair and clothing and leaves a residual odor.
When confronted regarding my behavior, I claim that I spray Agent Y because I enjoy it. It calms my nerves and helps me unwind. When others point out the potential health effects of Agent Y, I point out that no one has PROVEN that second hand exposure to Agent Y has negative health effects.
Now, the likely response to Agent Y would be, why are you introducing something harmful. They don't KNOW whats in Agent Y. It hasn't been studied. It leaves an unpleasant odor and even becomes embedded in contact lenses.
So what, I say. I have a freedom to spray Agent Y. You haven't proven that it does anything bad. I will continue spraying Agent Y as a matter of constitutional liberty.
The fact is that cigarrettes are NOT regulated and we don't know 100% of whats in them. In some cases they add animal urine.
You cannot prove Agent Y is harmful at secondary levels of introduction. You might be able to prove that direct inhalation of Agent Y is harmful. But Agent Y remains as scientifically defenseable as cigarettes.
The question is, who holds the burden of proof??? Does the burden of proof lie with the polluter, or the receiver of pollution??? The fact that second hand cigarette smoke is acceptable is a mear social convention. If I ran around bars spraying an unknown solution, I would be arrested as a potential terrorist*.
So who bears the burden of showing that Agent Y is either benign or harmful?????
At the FDA, the polluter bears the burden. You must show that your product is both SAFE and EFFECTIVE at prescribed levels. Industrial emissions go through no such processes.
So, I would say that if the costs of scrubbing mercury out of power plant emissions is reasonable, that they should do it. Of course, we all have different definitions of what "reasonable" is.
Let's put it this way. How much will it cost to scrub mercury out of the environment once it is dispersed????? vs How much will it cost to scrub it from smokestacks?????
Clearly it is way cheaper to scrub it from the smokestacks. Now given that we KNOW mercury is toxic at relatively low levels
If not, perhaps I should prepare some Agent Y for you.
Why is that? What I mean is, assuming your statement is true, why does the universe work that way? It's the one thing the God-believing will have over those who only believe in science; they can play the "why" game indefinately. At some point, science will get fed up and yell "Because it just does!"
While some scientists are concerned about the nature of creation, science could care less.
Science studies what is.
What I am addressing is the rhetorical nonsense of saying "I exist, therefore god must have meant it." The fact that we can think or feel is proof of nothing. If the universe had rules that didin't produce intelligent life, than it could not contemplate itself. That would not mean it did not exist.
As we look around our own solar system, we find that earth is indeed unique. Of course, if it wasn't unique, we couldn't comprehend it's uniqueness and the point would be mute. It's like mourning my existence had I been aborted. It's moot. I cannot mourn the occurence of my own non-existence.
Earth indeed unique as one of 9 planets. But the universe contains far more than nine, it likely contains a billion, billion stars. Each likely has one or more satellites that may contain life.
Even our seemingly lifeless brother Mars may yet contain sub-terranian bacterial life.
In the end, all I'm saying is don't jump to conclusions. If god did indeed give you a mind, I would think he implied for you to use it.