What a joke, you can build the same machine from off the shelf components available from Newegg for less than $450. Observe:
Case - Coolermaster ATC-620C - $108 Powersupply - Fortron FSP200SNV - $25 Motherboard - Via C3M266-L - $64 Processor - Intel Celeron 1.3GHz - $45 Hard Drive - Seagate 80Gb - $81 CDRW - MSI DragonWriter - $38 Memory - All Components 256MB DDR - $33 Tuner - ATI TV Wonder - $63
That's all that is in the Telly. Actually, this configuration should be somewhat faster than the C3 based telly. Most of the work is in the integrated Via motherboard. If you can buy the parts to build a superior pc for $457, iTV can probably build the Telly for $400 at most. Save your dimes if you want something like this, and build it yourself. Put MythTV on it and you have a great system.
While I can appreciate the work iTV has done on this product, $900 for this machine is highway robbery. Sure you pay for integration, but is that integration worth $500 to you? I think I'll pass and stick with DIY and open source.
Re:Price explained $899
on
New Linux PVR Box
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Some people may find that $899 is quite expensive. But if you look at the chassis, you'll notice it is a coolermaster atc-610 (or 620, don't remember). It's is one of the most expensive desktop case around. If you had to buy it new, you'll have to pay $200+ (at least where I live).
You can buy the Coolermaster ATC-610 on newegg.com for $148 or if you can live without an aluminum finish (black would probably look better in your AV rack anyway) you can buy the ATC-620 version for just $108. Plus power supply of course. I imagine that if they buy signifigant quantities of these cases, they would get a nice volume discount.
The $899 pricetag is a really rather high for this kind of hardware (a C3 processor??, please), but I guess you pay for the integration.
Regarding cost, I don't understand why they insist on having all of the components of the system in every voting booth at every polling station. Would it not be more cost efficient to have one "voting server" at each location and multiple, connected simple "voting terminals" for each booth. In this configuration the actual interfaces could be extremely cheap, little more than a touchscreen really. All of the work and expense would lie in a sealed box coded to accept input from only predetermined terminals.
As a physical check to all the electronic precision computers bring (har har har), I really think you should get a reciept listing your voting choices. I also think the voting machine should have a finger print reader to read the print on your pinkie finger, print it on your voting receipt in a 3d barcode, then discard the data. I say the pinkie finger because it seems like it would be the least useful fingerprint to authorities, should they rig the systems to record the print, while being accurate enough to ensure that the receipts people might later present in the event of a Floridian fiasco are valid.
As soon as someone other than the U.S. finds out how to put a powerful laser in a plane or satellite the age of aircraft carriers will be completely over.
That is assuming of course the level of stupidity of the government reaches the point that they would allow an enemy satellite with such capabilities to make it into orbit in the first place, or to allow said satellites to exist beyond the commencement of hostilities. The antisatellite missles are already in place.
And as far as a plane goes, I don't think the plane would last very long after it put its laser on the aircraft carrier. An airborne laser is never going to be powerful enough to slice through a huge aircraft carrier before it could figure out the position of the aircraft and shoot it down. It wouldn't be that hard to find the aircraft since it has to be within line of sight if it's using a laser. The same goes for a satellite.
No, I don't think lasers are going to be a serious threat to naval fleets. By the time they would have a capability to cause damage, the navy would already be well prepared to defend against it.
While this map may very well aid the fairer sex navigate the stars someday, we real men will do as we have for thousands of years...wander aimlessly claiming that we are not lost.
When you think about spam (in the electronic sense), what is it really? Yes, that's right, it is Commercial Unsolicited Mail. Now think about that...
If we were to use a traditional acronym, we would get C.U.M. I'm really not fond of the idea of complaining to my congressman that my inbox is full C.U.M. I don't want to see people on TV talking about how C.U.M. and the C.U.M'ers that send it are ruining the internet.
Though if Hormel is successful, I suppose we could say "Oh my god! Hormel turned my SPAM into CUM!"
Ok so I have no idea what I'm talking about, but if the gravity of the black hole is what determines the escape velocity, then if gravity is a wave wouldn't that mean that the speed of gravity caused by the singularity exceeds the speed of light.
Either that or gravity is instantaneous. Or light doesn't come out because it goes somewhere else.
It seems to me that all these designs are made for one thing alone, and that is to ferry astronauts back and forth to that other orbital albatross...the ISS. If they are never going to get any real science going on that damn thing I would much rather that they can the whole thing entirely. I would like to see NASA devote all the money that goes to the the shuttle, iss, and all the other NASA garbage to programs that will get humans out of Earth orbit and into the rest of the solar system.
NASA research programs are sitting on all sorts of interesting innovations and inventions. I think it would be great if some of those innovations got the kind of funding that would allow them to be realized on a useful scale. I want to see a nuclear powered rocket fly to far reaches of our solar system. I want to see some of the technology put to use in putting humans on Mars and a permanent settlement on the moon.
I'm tired of seeing tax dollars blown on orbital crap that can be done faster, better, and cheaper with robots and computers than by humans in flying tin cans when there are far more exciting possibilities for human exploration of space.
I you haven't ever seen it done before, fold a twenty in a certain way and there is a striking similarity in the image to what the burning WTC looked like. I suspect that in the next revision of the currency you will see nothing like that.
If you want to see this weird coincidence, go the following link and follow their instructions. Yes Yes the site is a little strange, but it is still rather interesting.
This stuff about quantum teleportation allowing particles to travel faster than light, but unable to carry information faster than light confuses me to know end. If the particle arrives at all, why couldn't that be the information in itself. Sort of like morse code...it's either there or its not. Although as I understand it, it could be there and not there at the same time.
Anyone care to explain why quantum teleportation is unable to carry information?
The article doesn't say how efficient this device is or how much energy it can capture, but if it is able to generate very much at all...why limit it to use in small time devices. If these could be made be made to work on a large scale, just think of all the things that vibrate all the time. Bridges, for example, vibrate everytime you drive over them, they even vibrate when no one is on them because of the wind passing over their surfaces. Imagine turning the golden gate bridge into a huge wind generator.
Powerlines, too, vibrate whenever wind blows. Imagine a self powering electric grid. Who needs wind farms? And if you do, just stretch some cables across a windy canyon and attach these vibration reclamation devices.
If these things work very well at all, I think it would be shortsighted to limit their use to small scale applications.
The various billionaires that support these sorts of projects are really just blowing their money. Sure it would be nice to be able to go and look and experience to some extent the history of SF, but wouldn't it be better to fund the creation of more and better SF for the future? Or better yet, to fund projects to convert some of that SF into something say...a little more real? I for one would love to see investment in the sort of extremely high risk, low short term return projects that can push the boundries of the human experience, maybe not today or even tomorrow, but in our future and the future of the generations ahead. Paul Allen should invest in making a Science Future instead of Science Fiction
I tend to disagree about China. In my opinion, while they are on the verge, China is not yet a superpower because they do not project major influence beyond their borders. They probably could, but they don't.
And further, while it would seem that China is destined to supplant the US and be THE superpower because of their growing economy, population, etc., a look at history casts their future world role in doubt. Several times throughout its history, China has been on the edge of the ability to reach out and grow into a world influencing power; but for one reason or another Chinese society collapses and they start all over again. I don't see why their current run-up to power should be any different, other than the fact that they have a huge chip on their shoulder because they feel like the power that got left behind.
Unfortunately, I don't think that the US will be able to maintain its superpower status far into the future if things continue on the path we are now on. Corporate greed and governmental corruption will be our downfall.
Assuming this was a real replicator (can make anything from basic materials), I believe the economy would not collapse but instead would shift so that there would only be three enterprises: energy production, raw material production, and replicator production (this would likely be small)
Saturnalia is celebrated over a week or two in Rome by temporarily dismisal from one's work or responsibilities to engage in vast feasting, sexual orgies, and general immorality.
Ah but the backroom porn companies with blondes in front of webcams have extremely low overhead. For all you know the models are street whores (and some of the ones I have seen surely are) working for $150 for a shoot. Probably the largest component of business overhead for such companies is the bandwidth and technical services to deliver their wares. And remember...there is a reason why most of the internet is porn. If it was not profitable, people would not do it.
Not quite. The initial targets in a nuclear exchange are, of course, the other guy's nukes. (what's the point of starting a nuclear war if you're going to get vaporized just like your enemy?) In this case, accuracy is *imperative*. Your target is the blast shield on the top of the enemy's missile silos and ~2m in diameter. If you miss even by a few feet, your 50megaton bomb digs a big hole in the ground but the silo survives, and you get nuked back. In the case of cities, accuracy isn't that important, but keep in mind that those are only secondary targets in any nuclear exchange.
While that is sound targeting logic, by the time the incoming missle arrives at the silo door, the missle that WAS in the silo had damn well already be on its way to it's target in the other nation. That's why we have have developed such extensive early warning systems.
What about using more than one antenna to emitt the microwaves in such a way that they either cancel each other out everywhere but at the target, or amplify at the target point. Would that allow you to move the drill bit further away from the material? Would it be possible to move the drilling point just by changing way the microwaves interact?
Well I think for anti-tank use, i don't think it would have to make a very big hole, or even a hole at all. All it needs to do is make a small hole of irregular shape, or even just weaken the armour in the impact location. If the armour loses its integrity in one spot, the area around that spot will fail if it is struck.
If this device could be made small/cheap enough, think of this in the end of a missle or bomb, softening it's target as it approaches. Or more reusable, this along side the targeting laser for laser guided bombs.
I have wondered, what happens when two equally sized black holes encounter one another. Do they merge into a single larger black hole? Do they tear each other apart? What would the outcome be?
This is really a pretty good idea from a television standpoint. The producers get not one, but two reality shows out of this one venture. First they get the story of cosmonauts in training, then they get the most unique reality show ever to be seen...a regular person living on a space station. What could compete with that? The only thing that suprises me about this is that it is not some American TV venture. I was not aware of such an interest in reality based tv show in Russia.
The door handles comment was really kind of shallow on his part. He fails to recognize that in reality, for some people, round door handles are impossible to use. Take for instance people with arthritis or other disabilities that result in reduced grip. Grasping a door knob to turn it can be painful at best, assuming it is possible at all.
This sort of oversight really shows the downfall of usability design dictated by a single person. That which is easy and convenient for one person, may be impossible or painful for another. A single person controlling design and function may be effecient, but that does not necessarily translate to better. It can also lead to insensitivity to the needs of those who do not conform to the ideal user the lead person has in mind.
This is such a bizarre regulation. I can't for the life of me understand why they would want the students to us XP Home in favor of 2000/NT. As others have said, the Home edition of XP is if anything less secure than Windows 2000, except for the fact that it excludes IIS. If i remember correctly, XP Home does not even support domain based networking instead using workgroups only.
I can't help but feel like there are other motives here than "securing the network." I don't think it's Linux cheerleading either. Linux is potentially a much much larger security risk when it's configured incorrectly.
Slashdot Mirror
What a joke, you can build the same machine from off the shelf components available from Newegg for less than $450. Observe:
Case - Coolermaster ATC-620C - $108
Powersupply - Fortron FSP200SNV - $25
Motherboard - Via C3M266-L - $64
Processor - Intel Celeron 1.3GHz - $45
Hard Drive - Seagate 80Gb - $81
CDRW - MSI DragonWriter - $38
Memory - All Components 256MB DDR - $33
Tuner - ATI TV Wonder - $63
That's all that is in the Telly. Actually, this configuration should be somewhat faster than the C3 based telly. Most of the work is in the integrated Via motherboard. If you can buy the parts to build a superior pc for $457, iTV can probably build the Telly for $400 at most. Save your dimes if you want something like this, and build it yourself. Put MythTV on it and you have a great system.
While I can appreciate the work iTV has done on this product, $900 for this machine is highway robbery. Sure you pay for integration, but is that integration worth $500 to you? I think I'll pass and stick with DIY and open source.
Some people may find that $899 is quite expensive. But if you look at the chassis, you'll notice it is a coolermaster atc-610 (or 620, don't remember). It's is one of the most expensive desktop case around. If you had to buy it new, you'll have to pay $200+ (at least where I live).
You can buy the Coolermaster ATC-610 on newegg.com for $148 or if you can live without an aluminum finish (black would probably look better in your AV rack anyway) you can buy the ATC-620 version for just $108. Plus power supply of course. I imagine that if they buy signifigant quantities of these cases, they would get a nice volume discount.
The $899 pricetag is a really rather high for this kind of hardware (a C3 processor??, please), but I guess you pay for the integration.
Regarding cost, I don't understand why they insist on having all of the components of the system in every voting booth at every polling station. Would it not be more cost efficient to have one "voting server" at each location and multiple, connected simple "voting terminals" for each booth. In this configuration the actual interfaces could be extremely cheap, little more than a touchscreen really. All of the work and expense would lie in a sealed box coded to accept input from only predetermined terminals.
As a physical check to all the electronic precision computers bring (har har har), I really think you should get a reciept listing your voting choices. I also think the voting machine should have a finger print reader to read the print on your pinkie finger, print it on your voting receipt in a 3d barcode, then discard the data. I say the pinkie finger because it seems like it would be the least useful fingerprint to authorities, should they rig the systems to record the print, while being accurate enough to ensure that the receipts people might later present in the event of a Floridian fiasco are valid.
As soon as someone other than the U.S. finds out how to put a powerful laser in a plane or satellite the age of aircraft carriers will be completely over.
That is assuming of course the level of stupidity of the government reaches the point that they would allow an enemy satellite with such capabilities to make it into orbit in the first place, or to allow said satellites to exist beyond the commencement of hostilities. The antisatellite missles are already in place.
And as far as a plane goes, I don't think the plane would last very long after it put its laser on the aircraft carrier. An airborne laser is never going to be powerful enough to slice through a huge aircraft carrier before it could figure out the position of the aircraft and shoot it down. It wouldn't be that hard to find the aircraft since it has to be within line of sight if it's using a laser. The same goes for a satellite.
No, I don't think lasers are going to be a serious threat to naval fleets. By the time they would have a capability to cause damage, the navy would already be well prepared to defend against it.
While this map may very well aid the fairer sex navigate the stars someday, we real men will do as we have for thousands of years...wander aimlessly claiming that we are not lost.
When you think about spam (in the electronic sense), what is it really? Yes, that's right, it is Commercial Unsolicited Mail. Now think about that...
If we were to use a traditional acronym, we would get C.U.M. I'm really not fond of the idea of complaining to my congressman that my inbox is full C.U.M. I don't want to see people on TV talking about how C.U.M. and the C.U.M'ers that send it are ruining the internet.
Though if Hormel is successful, I suppose we could say "Oh my god! Hormel turned my SPAM into CUM!"
Ok so I have no idea what I'm talking about, but if the gravity of the black hole is what determines the escape velocity, then if gravity is a wave wouldn't that mean that the speed of gravity caused by the singularity exceeds the speed of light.
Either that or gravity is instantaneous. Or light doesn't come out because it goes somewhere else.
Wake me when we have Transparent Aluminum!
It seems to me that all these designs are made for one thing alone, and that is to ferry astronauts back and forth to that other orbital albatross...the ISS. If they are never going to get any real science going on that damn thing I would much rather that they can the whole thing entirely. I would like to see NASA devote all the money that goes to the the shuttle, iss, and all the other NASA garbage to programs that will get humans out of Earth orbit and into the rest of the solar system.
NASA research programs are sitting on all sorts of interesting innovations and inventions. I think it would be great if some of those innovations got the kind of funding that would allow them to be realized on a useful scale. I want to see a nuclear powered rocket fly to far reaches of our solar system. I want to see some of the technology put to use in putting humans on Mars and a permanent settlement on the moon.
I'm tired of seeing tax dollars blown on orbital crap that can be done faster, better, and cheaper with robots and computers than by humans in flying tin cans when there are far more exciting possibilities for human exploration of space.
I you haven't ever seen it done before, fold a twenty in a certain way and there is a striking similarity in the image to what the burning WTC looked like. I suspect that in the next revision of the currency you will see nothing like that.
If you want to see this weird coincidence, go the following link and follow their instructions. Yes Yes the site is a little strange, but it is still rather interesting.
http://www.twin-towers.net/20_bill1.htm
This stuff about quantum teleportation allowing particles to travel faster than light, but unable to carry information faster than light confuses me to know end. If the particle arrives at all, why couldn't that be the information in itself. Sort of like morse code...it's either there or its not. Although as I understand it, it could be there and not there at the same time.
Anyone care to explain why quantum teleportation is unable to carry information?
The article doesn't say how efficient this device is or how much energy it can capture, but if it is able to generate very much at all...why limit it to use in small time devices. If these could be made be made to work on a large scale, just think of all the things that vibrate all the time. Bridges, for example, vibrate everytime you drive over them, they even vibrate when no one is on them because of the wind passing over their surfaces. Imagine turning the golden gate bridge into a huge wind generator.
Powerlines, too, vibrate whenever wind blows. Imagine a self powering electric grid. Who needs wind farms? And if you do, just stretch some cables across a windy canyon and attach these vibration reclamation devices.
If these things work very well at all, I think it would be shortsighted to limit their use to small scale applications.
The various billionaires that support these sorts of projects are really just blowing their money. Sure it would be nice to be able to go and look and experience to some extent the history of SF, but wouldn't it be better to fund the creation of more and better SF for the future? Or better yet, to fund projects to convert some of that SF into something say...a little more real? I for one would love to see investment in the sort of extremely high risk, low short term return projects that can push the boundries of the human experience, maybe not today or even tomorrow, but in our future and the future of the generations ahead. Paul Allen should invest in making a Science Future instead of Science Fiction
I tend to disagree about China. In my opinion, while they are on the verge, China is not yet a superpower because they do not project major influence beyond their borders. They probably could, but they don't.
And further, while it would seem that China is destined to supplant the US and be THE superpower because of their growing economy, population, etc., a look at history casts their future world role in doubt. Several times throughout its history, China has been on the edge of the ability to reach out and grow into a world influencing power; but for one reason or another Chinese society collapses and they start all over again. I don't see why their current run-up to power should be any different, other than the fact that they have a huge chip on their shoulder because they feel like the power that got left behind.
Unfortunately, I don't think that the US will be able to maintain its superpower status far into the future if things continue on the path we are now on. Corporate greed and governmental corruption will be our downfall.
Assuming this was a real replicator (can make anything from basic materials), I believe the economy would not collapse but instead would shift so that there would only be three enterprises: energy production, raw material production, and replicator production (this would likely be small)
Saturnalia is celebrated over a week or two in Rome by temporarily dismisal from one's work or responsibilities to engage in vast feasting, sexual orgies, and general immorality.
You say that like it's a bad thing...
Ah but the backroom porn companies with blondes in front of webcams have extremely low overhead. For all you know the models are street whores (and some of the ones I have seen surely are) working for $150 for a shoot. Probably the largest component of business overhead for such companies is the bandwidth and technical services to deliver their wares. And remember...there is a reason why most of the internet is porn. If it was not profitable, people would not do it.
Not quite. The initial targets in a nuclear exchange are, of course, the other guy's nukes. (what's the point of starting a nuclear war if you're going to get vaporized just like your enemy?) In this case, accuracy is *imperative*. Your target is the blast shield on the top of the enemy's missile silos and ~2m in diameter. If you miss even by a few feet, your 50megaton bomb digs a big hole in the ground but the silo survives, and you get nuked back. In the case of cities, accuracy isn't that important, but keep in mind that those are only secondary targets in any nuclear exchange.
While that is sound targeting logic, by the time the incoming missle arrives at the silo door, the missle that WAS in the silo had damn well already be on its way to it's target in the other nation. That's why we have have developed such extensive early warning systems.
A little birdie told me this,
current keyhole resolution: ~30cm or 1 inch (!)
Surely you mean 30mm. Or maybe NASA did the metric conversion for this too...
What about using more than one antenna to emitt the microwaves in such a way that they either cancel each other out everywhere but at the target, or amplify at the target point. Would that allow you to move the drill bit further away from the material? Would it be possible to move the drilling point just by changing way the microwaves interact?
Well I think for anti-tank use, i don't think it would have to make a very big hole, or even a hole at all. All it needs to do is make a small hole of irregular shape, or even just weaken the armour in the impact location. If the armour loses its integrity in one spot, the area around that spot will fail if it is struck.
If this device could be made small/cheap enough, think of this in the end of a missle or bomb, softening it's target as it approaches. Or more reusable, this along side the targeting laser for laser guided bombs.
I have wondered, what happens when two equally sized black holes encounter one another. Do they merge into a single larger black hole? Do they tear each other apart? What would the outcome be?
This is really a pretty good idea from a television standpoint. The producers get not one, but two reality shows out of this one venture. First they get the story of cosmonauts in training, then they get the most unique reality show ever to be seen...a regular person living on a space station. What could compete with that? The only thing that suprises me about this is that it is not some American TV venture. I was not aware of such an interest in reality based tv show in Russia.
The door handles comment was really kind of shallow on his part. He fails to recognize that in reality, for some people, round door handles are impossible to use. Take for instance people with arthritis or other disabilities that result in reduced grip. Grasping a door knob to turn it can be painful at best, assuming it is possible at all.
This sort of oversight really shows the downfall of usability design dictated by a single person. That which is easy and convenient for one person, may be impossible or painful for another. A single person controlling design and function may be effecient, but that does not necessarily translate to better. It can also lead to insensitivity to the needs of those who do not conform to the ideal user the lead person has in mind.
This is such a bizarre regulation. I can't for the life of me understand why they would want the students to us XP Home in favor of 2000/NT. As others have said, the Home edition of XP is if anything less secure than Windows 2000, except for the fact that it excludes IIS. If i remember correctly, XP Home does not even support domain based networking instead using workgroups only.
I can't help but feel like there are other motives here than "securing the network." I don't think it's Linux cheerleading either. Linux is potentially a much much larger security risk when it's configured incorrectly.