I don't think the phone companies keep transcripts of you calls and probably don't keep track of who you are saying mean things about.
Besides, the mark of a true democracy is when the phone companies are given retroactive immunity by the group that is supposed to be keeping a check and balance on things.
print 'bottom of page';... where the content is changed with a GET variable, i.e. mylayout.php?page=mycontent I like this method better. You can do two requires, one that does form and input validation, before you start outputting HTML and another at the bottom that does the content.
switch($page){
case 1:
require($page.'_preproc.php');
break;
case 2:... }
switch($page){
case 1:
require($page.'_output.php');
break;
case 2:... } It's not pretty, but it is flexible. For some pages, I have no preprocessing and for others, the preprocessing may determine which page gets output at the bottom.
The only thing I don't like about PHP is that I haven't found an expert voice, along the lines of a Scott Myers for C++. I have a nagging feeling that something I have done has opened a big security hole and it's not going to be pretty if/when someone finds it.
And I see someone who desperately needs unanimity and consensus. If your beliefs are so fragile that they can not stand dissent, then you don't really have any beliefs, do you?
There's something inherently wrong with the statement "X will never work", which is what you've been saying. About a floor lamp.
I'm not going to appologize for keeping an open mind and waiting for all available evidence.
You want to berate me for being unscientific, when both of those things are necessary for good science.
My beef is with labeling something a fraud based on two second hand sources, neither of which turns out to be worth a damn. So kudos on being right, this time, about this thing.
I hope the original engineer continues to work on his design. I think it has merit. Does it live up to the hype? No. Can it be improved? Certainly. How about instead of having 50 pounds of dead weight, why not use those 50 pounds to help power the thing? 50 pounds of magnets, wires and rotating parts would be a better use of that weight. How about winding some springs when lifting the sled, kind of like a toy car?
Ooops, I did again. Ignore all of that last paragraph. It can't possibly work, ever. Cause you said so. Turn out the lights and go home, everyone. Again, congrats, bang up job, dude.
Gravia won second prize at the Greener Gadgets Design Competition, which was judged by representatives from Endgadget, IDEO & The Designers Accord, and Inhabitat. Which is more likely? A bunch of fucktarded engineers on slashdot figure out a major fraud by reading two dubious sources -OR- the judges from Endgadget, IDEO & The Designers Accord, and Inhabitat acutally tested the thing, saw it working and gave it the second prize at the Greener Gadgets Design Competition.
As fucktarded as you are, I can only but feel pity for your closed minded, egotism.
I think if this guy has figured out how to brake a 50 lbs weight so that it falls for 4 hours, that he can probably figure out how to wire up a light bulb to it.
Ignoring know-it-all assholes on slashdot is not the same thing as ignoring science, fucktard.
I'm not trying to start a flame war. This has been very educational and I admit that I shot from the hip.
Still, I'm willing to overlook the 'non-attributed' claims made in the article and on the web-site. In the words of Bill Cosby, 'the proof is in the pudding'. Lacking said pudding, I'll withhold making judgements.
Maybe it is impossible and vaporware or maybe the marketing is wrong.
I'm guessing (a), but there is really no way of knowing. The article and website are both poorly worded. Maybe the lamp diffuses the LEDs so much that they can produce more lumens then a 40 W bulb, since we're measuring footcandles over square feet. Looking at the thing, maybe that's part of their claim.
All I'm saying is give a geek a chance. If they're wrong, then hang them out to dry.
I have a flashlight that works by shaking it. I seriously doubt that this thing works for 1 minute. Does it run for 4 hours? Sounds like that would violate the laws of the known universe, according to the math patrol.
Maybe. That's a very cynical view and on a different day I would probably agree. Today I think it's a great idea. May not be pratical for everything and everyone, but nothing is.
It may be the spark that ignites some one elses imagination.
The article has it different then the web page. Whose to say which is right?
As many, many people, yourself included, have already pointed out, and tagged the story, the claim is impossible.
It could be that the inventor is lying and duped this design competition into giving him an award. It could also be that the guy isn't very good at splaining stuff. It could also be that inventor didn't have anything to do with either source. It could also be that the 4 hours was their goal and they didn't achieve it.
It could be a lot of things. Even the sentence you quote doesn't say that it runs for 4 hours on a single lifting, it just says it uses people power.
The guy isn't selling a perpetual motion machine. None of the calcualtions shown here invalidates the idea and I for one will withhold judgement until I see the damn thing for myself.
Lumens is not a unit of energy flow per time.
A LUMEN is equal to one foot-candle falling on one square foot of area I don't know what the guy who invented this thing means. I just don't think the slashdot math corp can immediately start taggin the story as vaporware and impossible. It's more likely that the reporter or the marketer didn't have a clue and got their description wrong.
A single raising of the lamp produces between 600 to 800 lumens. As you mention, that has nothing to do with the amount of time the lamp is used. However 600-800 lumens is equivalent to running a 40 watt bulb for 4 hours or between 150 and 200 lumens per hour. This lamp, the one under discussion, runs for some indeterminate amount of time during which it produces between 600 to 800 lumens.
Maybe it only runs for a minute, which would be like having 240 40 watt bulbs. Maybe it runs for 4 hours, which would be like having 1 40 watt bulb. Maybe the guy who invented this is a better engineer then marketer.
I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt at this point.
Good news, everyone. Your math skills are intact, but your reading needs some work.
The light output is 600-800 lumens which is roughly equal to a 40-watt incandescent bulb over a period of four hours. TFA doesn't claim that the Gravity Lamp runs for 4 hours, just says it produces as much light as a 40 watt bulb running for four hours.
This is not vaporware or impossible people. It's just a cool design and I hope this guy sells a boatload. I'd buy one if the price is right.
The light output will be 600-800 lumens - roughly equal to a 40-watt incandescent bulb over a period of four hours. The light output is 600-800 lumens which is roughly equal to a 40-watt incandescent bulb over a period of four hours. Doesn't say that the Gravity Lamp runs for 4 hours, just says it produces as much light as a 40 watt bulb running for four hours.
So, your math is okay but your reading skills are a bit off. I wonder if this is an example of the 'Group Think' mentioned a few days ago. One guy says 'Hey, the math is wonky' and everyone joins in.
But people performing legitimate surveillance show the list before they begin the wiretaps. They show it to a court, one target at a time, in a process called "getting a warrant." Except under FISA, they didn't have to, at least not for 2 weeks. Also, your presupposing that they didn't and that they broke the law, to which I say, 'Facts not in evidence' while shrugging at the jury.
The problem here is that under the prevailing theory, no one has standing. No one? How about PotUS, SCotUS and CotUS? Ever hear of them? How about the DNI, the FISA Court, the HCatNSA* and, since we're on slashdot, Skull & Bones? I'm pretty sure there is some oversight some where in there. I'm also pretty sure that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have access to 99.9% of our government secrets. I'm sure neither was shocked to learn that there have been a grand total of 3 waterboarding victims (oh the humanity) during the last 7 years. I'm pretty sure they also get updates on FISA activity.
but stuff that should be between me, myself, and I, and no one else Then why are you talking about it on the phone? Are you calling yourself?
The reason why SCOTUS refused the case is because the ACLU doesn't have standing. Those who are performing the wiretaps would be really, really stupid to show the list of those they are tapping to anyone else, especially a group on a fishing expedition to sue them.
If the wiretappers did show the list to the ACLU, the ACLU would sue them for doing the wiretaps. Then, they would sue them for releasing the information. Can't have the government leaking stuff like this even if it is because they filed a lawsuit and won.
Ya mean they're both equally fast on your fast machine.
I've used both on my slow laptop and eclipse takes far longer to do just about anything. I eventually ended up only using it to do testing* and did all my editing using something simple and fast. Don't get me wrong, I couldn't have finished the project without eclipse, but fast it wasn't.
*A lot of the handset makers release modules for eclipse that include testing and emulation.
This whole situation reminds me of Duty Call formations when I was in the Marines. Before putting into a port, they get all of the enlisted together and tell us what places not to visit. Sometimes we would take notes so we could get to these places faster.
Having a list of child pornography sites would seem to be a bad idea simply because now those sites are getting free advertising. Maybe they should think about encrypting the list or something.
So instead of spreading a patch or a signature file, you're going to release a 'good virus'. Sounds like marketing talk to me. How does your virus spread? By floppy or picture frame? Most LANs are connected to the Internet. The ones that aren't won't buy into your virii in the sky scheme.
Take your ball er bad idea a go home for all I care...
I didn't say "the tubes", I said over and again "the user's LAN".
And I said that the user doesn't need any knowledge of anything. I see that now. However, if it's safe for a LAN, why wouldn't it be safe for the tubes? Maybe because it isn't?
The "good virus" vendor knows what virus wrapper it's inoculating against, and what patches to put in the wrapper. There's a huge leap from writing a signature for some AV software to catch a virus and writing a "good virus" that patches the bug that the virus is exploiting, if it even is a bug and not some deeper problem. Not to mention, different versions of the same software/hardware requiring a completely different patch.
You can't just add 'Doesn't allow...' and 'Will do...' verbiage to your specs and say 'Problem solved'. That would just be too easy. "The 'good virus' will know what version of software X is in use and patch accordingly". Addint that clause doesn't make the problem go away, does it.
And if these devices are patched against the original bad version of a virus, clicking an infected email with it isn't going to do any harm. Only if it is exploiting a bug, not if it is say, an executable that installs a backdoor and starts inviting over all of its friends.
I changed my mind. Even in theory and even on private subnets, this idea is a bad idea. It would be easier and safer for the admin of the lan to push an updated AV signature file out then to release a 'good virus'.
Really, I don't know what you're talking about. Do you? Yes, I do. I could name drop some past employers, but that would be telling.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think the phone companies keep transcripts of you calls and probably don't keep track of who you are saying mean things about.
Besides, the mark of a true democracy is when the phone companies are given retroactive immunity by the group that is supposed to be keeping a check and balance on things.
According to my network news, any time someone goes off their meds a lot of innocent people get shot.
Maybe someone should do a study on that.
print 'top of page';
require($_GET['page'].'.html');
print 'bottom of page';
case 1:
require($page.'_preproc.php');
break;
case 2:
}
if($errors)
print 'top of page';
else {
print 'bad dog';
exit();
}
switch($page){
case 1:
require($page.'_output.php');
break;
case 2:
} It's not pretty, but it is flexible. For some pages, I have no preprocessing and for others, the preprocessing may determine which page gets output at the bottom.
The only thing I don't like about PHP is that I haven't found an expert voice, along the lines of a Scott Myers for C++. I have a nagging feeling that something I have done has opened a big security hole and it's not going to be pretty if/when someone finds it.
And I see someone who desperately needs unanimity and consensus. If your beliefs are so fragile that they can not stand dissent, then you don't really have any beliefs, do you?
There's something inherently wrong with the statement "X will never work", which is what you've been saying. About a floor lamp.
No, they just sing the IBM eating song. It has all of the necessary steps in the lyrics.
I'm not going to appologize for keeping an open mind and waiting for all available evidence.
You want to berate me for being unscientific, when both of those things are necessary for good science.
My beef is with labeling something a fraud based on two second hand sources, neither of which turns out to be worth a damn. So kudos on being right, this time, about this thing.
I hope the original engineer continues to work on his design. I think it has merit. Does it live up to the hype? No. Can it be improved? Certainly. How about instead of having 50 pounds of dead weight, why not use those 50 pounds to help power the thing? 50 pounds of magnets, wires and rotating parts would be a better use of that weight. How about winding some springs when lifting the sled, kind of like a toy car?
Ooops, I did again. Ignore all of that last paragraph. It can't possibly work, ever. Cause you said so. Turn out the lights and go home, everyone. Again, congrats, bang up job, dude.
As fucktarded as you are, I can only but feel pity for your closed minded, egotism.
Based on information from a sketchy article and a webpage setup by the design competition.
Science by bullying, brought to you by the mob on slashdot... Sorry, I'll stick to empirical evidence.
I think if this guy has figured out how to brake a 50 lbs weight so that it falls for 4 hours, that he can probably figure out how to wire up a light bulb to it.
Ignoring know-it-all assholes on slashdot is not the same thing as ignoring science, fucktard.
I'm not trying to start a flame war. This has been very educational and I admit that I shot from the hip.
Still, I'm willing to overlook the 'non-attributed' claims made in the article and on the web-site. In the words of Bill Cosby, 'the proof is in the pudding'. Lacking said pudding, I'll withhold making judgements.
Maybe it is impossible and vaporware or maybe the marketing is wrong.
I'm guessing (a), but there is really no way of knowing. The article and website are both poorly worded. Maybe the lamp diffuses the LEDs so much that they can produce more lumens then a 40 W bulb, since we're measuring footcandles over square feet. Looking at the thing, maybe that's part of their claim.
All I'm saying is give a geek a chance. If they're wrong, then hang them out to dry.
I have a flashlight that works by shaking it. I seriously doubt that this thing works for 1 minute. Does it run for 4 hours? Sounds like that would violate the laws of the known universe, according to the math patrol.
Maybe. That's a very cynical view and on a different day I would probably agree. Today I think it's a great idea. May not be pratical for everything and everyone, but nothing is.
It may be the spark that ignites some one elses imagination.
The article has it different then the web page. Whose to say which is right?
As many, many people, yourself included, have already pointed out, and tagged the story, the claim is impossible.
It could be that the inventor is lying and duped this design competition into giving him an award. It could also be that the guy isn't very good at splaining stuff. It could also be that inventor didn't have anything to do with either source. It could also be that the 4 hours was their goal and they didn't achieve it.
It could be a lot of things. Even the sentence you quote doesn't say that it runs for 4 hours on a single lifting, it just says it uses people power.
The guy isn't selling a perpetual motion machine. None of the calcualtions shown here invalidates the idea and I for one will withhold judgement until I see the damn thing for myself.
I'll walk you thru this again.
A single raising of the lamp produces between 600 to 800 lumens. As you mention, that has nothing to do with the amount of time the lamp is used. However 600-800 lumens is equivalent to running a 40 watt bulb for 4 hours or between 150 and 200 lumens per hour. This lamp, the one under discussion, runs for some indeterminate amount of time during which it produces between 600 to 800 lumens.
Maybe it only runs for a minute, which would be like having 240 40 watt bulbs. Maybe it runs for 4 hours, which would be like having 1 40 watt bulb. Maybe the guy who invented this is a better engineer then marketer.
I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt at this point.
The light output is 600-800 lumens which is roughly equal to a 40-watt incandescent bulb over a period of four hours. TFA doesn't claim that the Gravity Lamp runs for 4 hours, just says it produces as much light as a 40 watt bulb running for four hours.
This is not vaporware or impossible people. It's just a cool design and I hope this guy sells a boatload. I'd buy one if the price is right.
So, your math is okay but your reading skills are a bit off. I wonder if this is an example of the 'Group Think' mentioned a few days ago. One guy says 'Hey, the math is wonky' and everyone joins in.
*Head Cheese
It's not just start up time. I usually leave things running, but not eclipse.
The reason why SCOTUS refused the case is because the ACLU doesn't have standing. Those who are performing the wiretaps would be really, really stupid to show the list of those they are tapping to anyone else, especially a group on a fishing expedition to sue them.
If the wiretappers did show the list to the ACLU, the ACLU would sue them for doing the wiretaps. Then, they would sue them for releasing the information. Can't have the government leaking stuff like this even if it is because they filed a lawsuit and won.
Ya mean they're both equally fast on your fast machine.
I've used both on my slow laptop and eclipse takes far longer to do just about anything. I eventually ended up only using it to do testing* and did all my editing using something simple and fast. Don't get me wrong, I couldn't have finished the project without eclipse, but fast it wasn't.
*A lot of the handset makers release modules for eclipse that include testing and emulation.
This whole situation reminds me of Duty Call formations when I was in the Marines. Before putting into a port, they get all of the enlisted together and tell us what places not to visit. Sometimes we would take notes so we could get to these places faster.
Having a list of child pornography sites would seem to be a bad idea simply because now those sites are getting free advertising. Maybe they should think about encrypting the list or something.
So instead of spreading a patch or a signature file, you're going to release a 'good virus'. Sounds like marketing talk to me. How does your virus spread? By floppy or picture frame? Most LANs are connected to the Internet. The ones that aren't won't buy into your virii in the sky scheme.
Take your ball er bad idea a go home for all I care...
You can't just add 'Doesn't allow ...' and 'Will do ...' verbiage to your specs and say 'Problem solved'. That would just be too easy. "The 'good virus' will know what version of software X is in use and patch accordingly". Addint that clause doesn't make the problem go away, does it.
And if these devices are patched against the original bad version of a virus, clicking an infected email with it isn't going to do any harm. Only if it is exploiting a bug, not if it is say, an executable that installs a backdoor and starts inviting over all of its friends.I changed my mind. Even in theory and even on private subnets, this idea is a bad idea. It would be easier and safer for the admin of the lan to push an updated AV signature file out then to release a 'good virus'.
Really, I don't know what you're talking about. Do you? Yes, I do. I could name drop some past employers, but that would be telling.