I have a meizu m6, and there is no need to change the firmware, it plays all types of music (including OGG Vorbis), it's ergonomic and I don't need the video player, but it looks fine.
I think it's better to buy a good player than buy a bad one and try to hack it after
Do you have a five band parametric equalizer? Replaygain support? Last.FM logging? Crossfeed? (I'll assume you have crossfade). Dithering?
With the iPod Video it is suggested you boot into Apple firmware to watch videos. Rockbox does not support the Broadcomm video decoder, and thus must attempt to drive the large screen with CPU decoding. You will not get 24FPS in MPEG2 on the 320x240 screen with the iPod's 80Mhz processor. Most all other targets have a much better processor to screen size ratio and play video better.
Battery life of the 3.0 branch is ~80% of Apple stock on MP3. Should be even better with the daily builds, as MP3 decoding was split to run on both cores post feature-freeze. Rockbox performs (slightly) worse than the stock firmware (battery wise) only on the PP502x iPods. On all other targets Rockbox meets or (sometimes greatly) exceeds OF runtime.
Complete straw-man. I never claimed people were safer drivers than machines. I simply was thinking out loud about the possibility to compromise the safety of this sort of system.
Yes. 1. TFA: "In the system demonstrated today, sensors mounted under the bus measured the magnetic fields created from the roadway magnets, which were placed beneath the pavement surface 1 meter apart along the center of the lane." I'm assuming (but probably a safe one, UC Berkley is full of smart people) that the system has some pretty specific levels of acceptable differential in the magnetic field. Otherwise, any large magnet -- of which there are many in a large city -- would be able to modify its direction, intentional or not. And, seeing as it's a bus, the computer on-board probably has a course that it will accept, the magnets are just there to get it to exactly the right place so that loading/unloading time can be saved -- stops add up. 2. It doesn't replace a driver, it supplements one.
1 - See my bolding - I read the article and there in nothing in it to suggest this system is resistant to attack. 2 - From TFA:
In the E. 14th Street demonstration, the magnetic guidance system was only used to control the steering for the bus, but on test tracks it has been used for full vehicle control
It didn't replace a driver in this demonstration there is nothing said about its intended deployed use.
This is no different than the head of a hard drive traveling over the disk surface. The magnets can be in a coded pattern that is encrypted a certain way that would be robust enough to overcome possible interference, whether accidental or intentional.
With a bit-per-meter you simply do not have enough data density to do any sort of robust encryption.
Yes, there are always risks of sabotage or an accident but this is no different than the risks of our current roadways. What's to stop someone from spreading caltrops across the road and causing a massive accident? How about the accidental interference of an oil spill or a bridge support giving way?
1 - caltrops in pavement should not cause a massive accident. For evidence see police use of spike-strips to stop fleeing vehicles. Rarely do vehicles lose control under even the more catastrophic tire failure these hollow spikes cause as opposed to caltrops. 2 - Oil spills and bridge failures are not only more apparent than covert placement of magnets, they are also harder acts of sabotage to achieved w/o being caught.
But enough of the pedantic replies to your specifics, on your general claim that "this is no different than the risks of our current roadways" I will argue this is completely different than the risks of our current roadways. Current roadway systems rely on human drivers. A human driver can react in a much more flexible manner than any automated drive system. Whereas it appears this system would be easy to fake with the high tech equivalent of false road signs, no (few?) human would drive into a lake because a fake road sign told them to. Again, this is not just about new technologies creating security risks which previously didn't exist, but more so the new assumptions which frequently come with the adoption of said technologies creating newly viable attack vectors.
Or are you claiming that some kind of nonlinear interaction (not just the beats between frequencies, but the actual creation of NEW frequencies) is happening in your ears when you listen live, but would not happen the same way in the recording / playback apparatus? If it were true, that might be a reason to spend the money.
Either the new frequencies are audible (and thus sub 22 KHz) or they aren't. If the new frequencies are audible they can be reproduced by a 44.1 KHz CD.
Interference tones can't be "captured" because they exist only in the human ear when two tones in different tuning strike it at the same time.
I hate to break this to you, but you need to spit out the audiophile kool-aid.
Binaural beats do happen only in the human mind - but those are not what you were talking about. Interference beats, which are what you were talking about, happen when pressure waves in the air (get this) interfere. Perfectly capable of being picked up by a microphone.
While humans can't hear frequencies that high, they can hear the beats that are produced when those frequencies interfere with lower sounds
It works amazingly in concert, but is of course inaudible on CD.
Bogus. If the interference beats are in the audible range than they can be captured. When you capture the product of the high-frequency interference in the field you don't need to deliver said high-frequencies to the home.
Many American cities experimented with trash incineration, but found the costs were too high. PCB and heavy metal emissions were found to be near-impossible to control. How does Sweden address this?
Thank you for responding with numbers. I'm sick of these debates being (apparently) based on emotions when the data for the calculations are so easy to come by.
If we are to accept your calculation of 0.31 gallons gasoline equivalent (which is low)
My numbers are quite generous. What part is low? I assume a latitude of under 40 degrees, I assume no clouds, I assume 100% efficient hydrogen generation, I assume 100% of vehicle footprint covered by solar cells, I assume better than lab best solar cell technology, I assume perfect aiming of cells throughout day, I assume one works the eight hours perfectly framing solar max. Shit man, you would be lucky to get HALF the energy I quoted on any given day.
That's without mentioning the fact that you are producing energy *during* the commute not just while stopped.
I said 7 square meter footprint for Honda Accord, right? 200 watts per sq meter (50% cells) when aimed properly. 1.4KW of generation. Let me put this in terms you might grasp: That is about 1.9 horsepower. You are generating negligible amounts of energy. So little that so long as we are discussing this using my generous numbers, it is below the noise floor.
Stick $1000 in the bank, and every time you need gas, use only those savings. See how long it takes to run them out.
Stick your budget for gasoline in the bank, and it may not last long, but it is earning interest. Pay for this technology up-front and not only are you not earning interest, you're paying it.
Should we be a saving society or a spend spend spend society ? I am also reminded of a post a while ago on the subject of oil, where somebody pointed out the criminality of using oil to burn for fuel, when we could make much better use of complex hydrocarbons in manufacturing and new material science.
Straw man - my argument was clearly and narrowly aimed at the idea this supposed discovery would usher in solar-cars. I simply used gasoline as a metric because its energy density is often under appreciated, and its consumption rates are familiar to many people.
So at the very least, we must turn to hybrids, if only to save 2/3 of the gas we use for each trip.
What hybrid uses 1/3rd the gas of an equivalent size and class vehicle?
If we put the money saved on fuel in a savings account, it wouldn't take too long to cover those up front costs for a full solar electric vehicle, and the best part is, it would essentially be paid for from money we would have spent on gas anyway.
You apparently fail to grasp the idea of opportunity cost, much less the cost of money. Delaying an up-front cost is not the same as never paying said up-front cost.
I am not a fan of burning fossil-fuels in vehicles, but people (such as yourself apparently) need to do the math and learn why we still use hydrocarbons for transportation fuel.
Your numbers have to be off. This low of a main breaker would prevent the use of a vacuum cleaner and toaster at the same time. Forget about a refrigerator.
Hell a car equipped with a solar cell could just bake during the day to recharge itself and be ready to go for the commute home come 5pm.
People often fail to realize the great energy density of gasoline and the amount of solar energy which hits a small area (such as the footprint of a car.)
My Honda accord has a footprint of 7 square meters. IIRC the amount of solar energy reaching the Earth's surface at noon, at the equator is 1KW per square meter. Assume a 8 hour work day, 50% efficient solar panels (better than current best), 100% efficient splitting of water and 1KW per square meter all the working day long. That gives you 28 kilowatt hours worth of energy = 100,800,000 joules. A gallon of gasoline contains 130,000,000 joules. 0.71 gallons of gas.
A more realistic scenario taking into account actual insolation (not my wacky 1KW the entire 8 hours) and the latitude most car owners live at gives us more like 400 watts per square meter (assuming you tilt the panels appropriately), 50% efficiency, 8 hours = 11.2 kilowatt hours = 40,320,000 joules = 0.31 gallons of gasoline equivalent.
Not only are there not many drivers who could commute on such little energy, the economic value of such small amounts would take a long time to offset up-front costs of the system.
Greenpeace should pick their poison already, so to speak.
I'll take the continuation of gradual environmental change with its multiple solutions over widespread exposure to fast-acting poison, thank you very much.
That makes more sense. My back-of-the-envelope numbers were saying 100 square miles was off by a factor of 100. So your correction of 85x seems to click.
Solid point on the size of the test range. I did not do a good job at all of making myself clear. I was attempting to say the "dead zone" area directly affected by the blasts was peanuts and the "dead zone" area created by massive solar installations would be huge.
100 square miles = 258,998,811 square meters. At the equator at noon at 100% efficiency a square meter = 1KW. The average hourly electric consumption of the United States is 447,558,561 KW Source You will need enough panels to provide for peak load, not average load.
So, no. Far far far more than 100 square miles of solar panels will be needed.
First, the area of desert directly affected by the atomic bomb test is peanuts.
Second, much of the American southwest desert is very fragile. Large stretches of constantly shaded ground will kill the native (scrubby as it may be) vegetation, either leading to dead soil (Sahara) or encroachment of non-native plants. Either of these situations will lead to the disruption of the ecosystem in an area much larger than that the panels themselves occupy.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you have a five band parametric equalizer?
Replaygain support?
Last.FM logging?
Crossfeed? (I'll assume you have crossfade).
Dithering?
This is just the tip of the iceberg.
With the iPod Video it is suggested you boot into Apple firmware to watch videos. Rockbox does not support the Broadcomm video decoder, and thus must attempt to drive the large screen with CPU decoding. You will not get 24FPS in MPEG2 on the 320x240 screen with the iPod's 80Mhz processor.
Most all other targets have a much better processor to screen size ratio and play video better.
Battery life of the 3.0 branch is ~80% of Apple stock on MP3. Should be even better with the daily builds, as MP3 decoding was split to run on both cores post feature-freeze.
Rockbox performs (slightly) worse than the stock firmware (battery wise) only on the PP502x iPods. On all other targets Rockbox meets or (sometimes greatly) exceeds OF runtime.
Take your melamine pills and put your helmet on
Complete straw-man.
I never claimed people were safer drivers than machines.
I simply was thinking out loud about the possibility to compromise the safety of this sort of system.
1 - See my bolding - I read the article and there in nothing in it to suggest this system is resistant to attack.
2 - From TFA:
It didn't replace a driver in this demonstration there is nothing said about its intended deployed use.
With a bit-per-meter you simply do not have enough data density to do any sort of robust encryption.
1 - caltrops in pavement should not cause a massive accident. For evidence see police use of spike-strips to stop fleeing vehicles. Rarely do vehicles lose control under even the more catastrophic tire failure these hollow spikes cause as opposed to caltrops.
2 - Oil spills and bridge failures are not only more apparent than covert placement of magnets, they are also harder acts of sabotage to achieved w/o being caught.
But enough of the pedantic replies to your specifics, on your general claim that "this is no different than the risks of our current roadways" I will argue this is completely different than the risks of our current roadways.
Current roadway systems rely on human drivers. A human driver can react in a much more flexible manner than any automated drive system. Whereas it appears this system would be easy to fake with the high tech equivalent of false road signs, no (few?) human would drive into a lake because a fake road sign told them to. Again, this is not just about new technologies creating security risks which previously didn't exist, but more so the new assumptions which frequently come with the adoption of said technologies creating newly viable attack vectors.
But can it survive intentional sabotage?
Placing magnets on the surface of the pavement would not be hard to do.
Brutal.
Either the new frequencies are audible (and thus sub 22 KHz) or they aren't.
If the new frequencies are audible they can be reproduced by a 44.1 KHz CD.
I hate to break this to you, but you need to spit out the audiophile kool-aid.
Binaural beats do happen only in the human mind - but those are not what you were talking about. Interference beats, which are what you were talking about, happen when pressure waves in the air (get this) interfere.
Perfectly capable of being picked up by a microphone.
Bogus.
If the interference beats are in the audible range than they can be captured. When you capture the product of the high-frequency interference in the field you don't need to deliver said high-frequencies to the home.
Many American cities experimented with trash incineration, but found the costs were too high. PCB and heavy metal emissions were found to be near-impossible to control. How does Sweden address this?
Thank you for responding with numbers. I'm sick of these debates being (apparently) based on emotions when the data for the calculations are so easy to come by.
My numbers are quite generous. What part is low? I assume a latitude of under 40 degrees, I assume no clouds, I assume 100% efficient hydrogen generation, I assume 100% of vehicle footprint covered by solar cells, I assume better than lab best solar cell technology, I assume perfect aiming of cells throughout day, I assume one works the eight hours perfectly framing solar max. Shit man, you would be lucky to get HALF the energy I quoted on any given day.
I said 7 square meter footprint for Honda Accord, right? 200 watts per sq meter (50% cells) when aimed properly. 1.4KW of generation. Let me put this in terms you might grasp: That is about 1.9 horsepower. You are generating negligible amounts of energy. So little that so long as we are discussing this using my generous numbers, it is below the noise floor.
Stick your budget for gasoline in the bank, and it may not last long, but it is earning interest.
Pay for this technology up-front and not only are you not earning interest, you're paying it.
Straw man - my argument was clearly and narrowly aimed at the idea this supposed discovery would usher in solar-cars. I simply used gasoline as a metric because its energy density is often under appreciated, and its consumption rates are familiar to many people.
What hybrid uses 1/3rd the gas of an equivalent size and class vehicle?
You apparently fail to grasp the idea of opportunity cost, much less the cost of money. Delaying an up-front cost is not the same as never paying said up-front cost.
I am not a fan of burning fossil-fuels in vehicles, but people (such as yourself apparently) need to do the math and learn why we still use hydrocarbons for transportation fuel.
Your numbers have to be off. This low of a main breaker would prevent the use of a vacuum cleaner and toaster at the same time. Forget about a refrigerator.
The smallest house service panel I have ever seen (by far) was a 50 amp one. 50 amps X 240 volts (U.S. uses split-phase) = 12,000 watt service.
People often fail to realize the great energy density of gasoline and the amount of solar energy which hits a small area (such as the footprint of a car.)
My Honda accord has a footprint of 7 square meters.
IIRC the amount of solar energy reaching the Earth's surface at noon, at the equator is 1KW per square meter.
Assume a 8 hour work day, 50% efficient solar panels (better than current best), 100% efficient splitting of water and 1KW per square meter all the working day long.
That gives you 28 kilowatt hours worth of energy = 100,800,000 joules.
A gallon of gasoline contains 130,000,000 joules.
0.71 gallons of gas.
A more realistic scenario taking into account actual insolation (not my wacky 1KW the entire 8 hours) and the latitude most car owners live at gives us more like 400 watts per square meter (assuming you tilt the panels appropriately), 50% efficiency, 8 hours = 11.2 kilowatt hours = 40,320,000 joules = 0.31 gallons of gasoline equivalent.
Not only are there not many drivers who could commute on such little energy, the economic value of such small amounts would take a long time to offset up-front costs of the system.
If there's no issue, then there's no issue.
I'll take the continuation of gradual environmental change with its multiple solutions over widespread exposure to fast-acting poison, thank you very much.
That makes more sense. My back-of-the-envelope numbers were saying 100 square miles was off by a factor of 100. So your correction of 85x seems to click.
Solid point on the size of the test range. I did not do a good job at all of making myself clear. I was attempting to say the "dead zone" area directly affected by the blasts was peanuts and the "dead zone" area created by massive solar installations would be huge.
100 square miles = 258,998,811 square meters.
At the equator at noon at 100% efficiency a square meter = 1KW.
The average hourly electric consumption of the United States is 447,558,561 KW Source You will need enough panels to provide for peak load, not average load.
So, no. Far far far more than 100 square miles of solar panels will be needed.
First, the area of desert directly affected by the atomic bomb test is peanuts.
Second, much of the American southwest desert is very fragile. Large stretches of constantly shaded ground will kill the native (scrubby as it may be) vegetation, either leading to dead soil (Sahara) or encroachment of non-native plants. Either of these situations will lead to the disruption of the ecosystem in an area much larger than that the panels themselves occupy.
No, I meant my story was anecdotal.
That being said, none of the dozens of USB keys I use for work (FAT32) have suffered a single file loss.