Do you drive with your windows down or the air-conditioner on a lot (it creates more drag or needs more energy to use)?
I've read that modern car air conditioning uses less energy than the additional aerodynamic drag created by driving with the windows open - although if the car is moving at low speed or sitting still then the economical choice is the windows, although they don't work as well to cool the interior of a car stopped or moving at low speed, unless it there is a good wind.
Air conditioning systems have undergone steady improvements in efficiency (cycling clutch, better temperature and pressure controls, variable displacement compressors, etc), whereas open windows (as a cooling device) have generally not been made more efficient.
How do you stop someone from fixing their car to constantly broadcast "DANGER: MOOSE AHEAD" or "EMERGENCY VEHICLE APPROACHING" so they can use it to get through traffic faster?
Ummmm... make it illegal to transmit false traffic data? Just like it's illegal in many jurisdictions to use those devices that signal to traffic lights that your car is an emergency vehicle so that the lights give you priority (unless your car is actually an emergency vehicle).
From a civil rights perspective, how is this any different from police car units patrolling your neighborhood?
Ummm... because police cars don't quietly glide above my fenced-in back yard and so can't see into it?
Normally, around here, the police would have to have "probable cause" (admittedly a low hurdle, but still something) in order to look in my back yard. If they can float around the neighborhood in an airship it seems they no longer need probable cause to look in my back yard, and I keep my best stuff there.
I'll preface this with "this is just my experience"...
I'm involved in a project to capture a library of technical documents to PDF (we've done 40,000 pages so far). The software being used is Acrobat Capture 3.0 on Windows 2000 running on a 3GHz P4. Once the documents have been through Acrobat Capture, we use Acrobat 5 to retouch them (strangely, later versions of Acrobat give you less control and less ability to fix problems in the documents - we actually downgraded from Acrobat 7 back to Acrobat 5).
Our pages are scanned at 600 DPI, 1 bit per pixel, using a Kodak i65 that automatically deskews the pages (a small amount of skew seems to confuse Acrobat Capture to no end, and if there is a graphic on the page you get aliased lines instead of clean, straight lines).
We've found that the error rate goes up when you drop to 300 DPI. Normal fax resolution is 100 x 200 DPI ("fine" is 200 x 200 DPI), so you can expect to have very poor performance at fax resolutions. Basically, Acrobat Capture acts like OCR'ing a fax image is a torture test for the OCR because it seems like there just aren't enough pixels to give the OCR engine enough hints about what it's looking at. I'd be more interested to find out how the Google OCR does with a clean page of Helvetica text.
Most of the problems we are now having is that we're into a very old set of documents (early 1940s) that were created using typewriters that apparently we're very well taken care of.
The person who is doing the work is using some macro software that has let him automate the process of fixing the text in Acrobat to some degree, but it's still slow going (average seems to be 100-200 pages per day).
Again, why would you be doing that in the first place? Your EVDO connection is going to be a bit slower than your normal Internet connection and certainly more expensive per month, so why even bother with it in the first place if heavy downloading is your thing?
Well, actually an "unlimited" EVDO connection from Sprint ($59.95 plus tax) is about the same price as Comcast's high-speed Internet service for users who don't also subscribe to cable tv. It's also advertised as "unlimited" - as in there is no limit, even though the fine print has some mushy language about overusing it.
Sure, it's slower (I don't think I'd want to do any heavy downloading with it if there was any alternative connection available), but it's advertised as not having any limit (at least until you read the fine print), but it's not really any more expensive than any other "broadband" connection, and you can use it anywhere there is service, not just at home or in the local coffee place. I don't use mine very much as my neighbors let me use their 802.11 network, but it has come in really handy for email and getting directions from google maps while sitting in the passenger seat of the car.
Direct injection's time will come, but I'd wait at least a decade for the industry to be ready to handle 1000psi gasoline rails.
Common rail diesel engines use rail pressures up to 1600 bar (23,200 psi), and normal hydraulic car brake systems (which the automakers have been reliably making for a long time now) can easily exceed 1000 psi on a regular basis. I don't see why 1000 psi for any other fluid system would be a problem.
We've been talking about VT since what, late 2005?
Hardly long enough for it to become part of an accepted vocabulary outside of a small set of interested parties.
Anyone who has been following CPU news knows what VT is. Anyone who isn't probably isn't interested in this story.
It'd be nice if one could find if the topic was of interest or not by reading the summary. Otherwise, what's the point of having the summary in the first place?
But whining and moaning about how an initialism wasn't explained for you is pretty pathetic. You could use acronymfinder, for example.
I wasn't whining or moaning. Acronym finder has 72 definitions for VT, some I can dismiss immediately, but not all. Making the reader research what the summary means is what's pathetic.
I agree with you in principle, but I find it surprising that you're a long-time computer person and didn't infer in a few seconds what VT stood for. It's a pretty hot topic.
You're joking, surely? Perhaps it's just me, since I have a real-world job, but it's not a hot topic where I am, although many things submitted to Slashdot are of great interest.
It could mean that you've watched television and played Zork.
Since you asked, I started programming computers in 1980. Electronics was a hobby for me starting in the late 1970s, and in high school I built a robot based on an Apple II+ motherboard programmed in 6502 assembly with a custom interface board I built myself, designed a keyboard encoder and a 4-bit ALU for other school projects. Last year I built a little board to decypher the signals from one of my car's transmission controller so I could watch as it commanded the transmission to shift gears on a set of LEDs integrated into the dash. Along the way I started in BASIC (yes, I know), learned Pascal, taught myself x86 assembly language, but now I mainly work in PHP and SQL.
What's so hard about typing "VT (virtualization technology)" once instead of just "VT"? Why make the reader reinvent the wheel, so to speak, when the editor could just tell us what they mean by "VT"? Maybe I've lived in the real world too long, but there's no reason to make things harder than they can be when it takes so little effort to make something understood.
Acronyms are a way in which like minded people can quickly and efficiently communicate; countless businesses, academic institutions and social groups freely use acronyms as part of an established and understood vocabulary.
Except that in this case "VT" is not part of an established and understood vocabulary.
Of course, we wouldn't ask that question because everyone knows what HP is already. Why's that? Because this is a tech orientated site, of course.
This isn't really a good comparison. Even people without a technology background know what "HP" stands for.
I've been involved with and around computers and electronics since the late 1970s, and today is the first day in a long time that I've encountered the abbreviation "VT". It means "Video Terminal", right? Or is it "Video Tape"?
It's AEP (accepted editorial practice, but you knew that already, right?) to put the meaning of an abbreviation in parentheses next to its first use in a journalism piece, so you're sure the reader understands what you're talking about - unless you're writing an abbreviation knowledge test.
Which in turn is why Americans complain about how weedy electric cookers are, and don't generally boil water with electric kettles: I can have 7.5KW into an electric cooker (30A, 240V) or 3KW into a kettle (13A, 240V), while Americans can't get 70A into a cooker.
Actually in the USA most electric stoves (cookers) are supplied with 220V AC circuits, these consist of two 120V legs 180 degrees out of phase and a neutral wire. Household stove circuits are often of 40A or 50A capacity at 220V, which translates to 80-100A at 120V. People (particularly American consumers) wouldn't stand for stoves that didn't cook. For most of the USA, it's simply cheaper to use natural gas as a heat source, and it's easy for a manufacturer to increase the heat output of a stove burner by using larger gas jet orifices in the appliance since the gas pipe supplying the stove is often capable of over 100,000 BTU/hr - not so easy for electric stoves that are inherently limited by the wiring.
Being from the UK myself and living in the USA since 1982, I think the electric kettle thing is more of a cultural thing than a practical one. Americans don't drink much hot tea, preferring coffee. It's much easier to get your coffee from an appliance designed to make coffee, than a general purpose water heater like a kettle. Some people have hot water (about 190 degrees F) dispensers on their kitchen sinks for making things like tea. Kettles take up a lot of room on the kitchen counter surface for what they do.
I don't know what the status of the RIAA is, but in many European countries, there is a single organization tasked with finding and prosecuting copyright violations. In other words, competition is prohibited by law. If the same is true of the RIAA, I don't see how they can be accused of anticompetitive practices.
Ok, I think this is a simple misunderstanding. I am not a lawyer, so if I get some of this wrong, someone correct me.
First, in the USA there is no one organization that is charged with finding and prosecuting copyright violations. Second, the anticompetitive behavior RIAA is accused of is not the prevention of others finding and prosecuting copyright violations, it is the protection of the sales pricing of recorded music, or working to eliminate competition in the recorded music distribution marketplace. Limewire could be viewed as an competitive recorded music distribution company - it is therefore in competition with the old music companies - the attempt by RIAA to stamp them out is anticompetitive.
Having an organization that works to protect pricing of a product is illegal in the USA. I work for a trade association (the members are companies that produce products for sale) and we have to be very careful that nobody even mentions product pricing at any of our meetings because of the antitrust laws here.
Shop equipment like saws, sanders and such have mounts for an exhaust to take away dust. You'd think that more photocopiers would have similar mounts to vent the ozone and gases from the inks.
Many of them have an activated charcoal ozone filter; I know because I've worked on laser printers and copiers and replaced a lot of these filters myself, although I seem to see fewer of them on newer models - I think the manufacturers have figured out how to make the printing process work with lower voltage coronas.
Ozone production is only a problem above a certain voltage; it's entirely possible to build an air ionizer (which this is) that doesn't produce very much ozone at all.
In climates where the ground freezes, you won't find many houses on slabs.
Untrue. I live in the Chicago area and there are a lot of townhouses and condos built on slabs around here and more being built all the time. Why? Because the ground under the house does not freeze; that only happens to the ground outside the house. Earth is a pretty good insulator.
What you won't see much of are houses built on ventilated crawlspaces. Those that are have vents that can be closed to keep the cold outside air out of the crawlspace during winter.
Except that you can alter a copy of the Bible and re-sell it without copying it.
You can't alter a copy of a DVD and re-sell the altered version without making a copy of the DVD. That's what they're selling, and they have no right to make it, but that's not even the issue here
If you wrote a book and had it published with your name on it, would you be happy to find out that someone else has scanned in your book, edited the text to change the meaning of it (because they didn't care for part of it) and then printed and sold copies of it?
If you were a photographer and sold copies of your pictures through a distributor, would you be happy to find out that the distributor digitally altered all of the copies they were selling? If you don't care about your art, maybe you would be happy with that, but movie people get into the business to tell stories and take a lot of time to edit the movie to tell the story - not to have some jerk alter the details of their stories because they can't deal with a naked body or a fight scene.
GSM interference with audio systems is well known, as the GSM system seems to use pulsed transmission that can be picked up by all kinds of audio gear. GSM seems to be much "noisier" than other systems that run in the same bands.
The question is, can GSM phones (using the 850, 900, 1800, or 1900 MHz bands) actually interfere with GPS, which is on a completely different frequency? Civil GPS is currently on 1575.42 MHz and 1227.60 MHz - far enough away from the cellphone frequency bands that any well-designed GPS reciever should not be bothered by GSM.
I doubt it.
Surely the output of all those cellphone towers and cellphones would cause trouble for land-based GPS recievers if this was actually an issue? (They don't)
They sure can interfere with poorly isolated audio equipment though.
Use the supercharger for low rpms and use the turbo for high rpms. With both you could probably eke out around a 40-50% improvement HP wise,
This is correct, and there are some vehicles out there that use both. Cars that come with twin turbochargers are based on a similar idea of using two smaller turbos instead of one large turbo because the two smaller turbos spin up and produce boost at lower engine speeds than a single larger turbo.
but you will get a drop in fuel econ tho due to more fuel being used during combustion. But diesel engines have a more efficient combustion over gasoline, so the fuel econ hit wouldnt be as bad.
Actually, you have this backwards. Forced induction (turbocharging or supercharging) makes an engine more efficient, not less. This is why virtually all large diesel engined vehicles are turbocharged or supercharged (and in a few cases, both). The turbocharger captures waste energy from the exhaust and leverages it to boost power not only by just burning more fuel, but by also raising the effective compression ratio of the engine.
Superchargers also increase the efficiency of the engine, however they suffer from mechanical losses and are not as efficient as turbochargers. The do have the benefit of being directly mechanically driven and so there is no delay before boost pressure begins to build - this makes the engine perform like a larger displacement engine, improving low RPM torque significantly.
If turbocharging actually reduced the efficiency of the diesel engine, you would not see turbochargers on long haul diesel trucks; they would simply have even larger displacement engines.
Gasoline engines also benefit from an increase in efficiency, if they can be run under boost for a significant portion of the time. Unfortunately because of the nature of how a passenger car is driven, the engine cannot be under boost a lot of the time so the turbo is usually just used for a performance boost, however there are a couple of old 1980s Buick Regals (3.8L V6 with a turbo) out there that have been carefully tuned by the owners and get almost unbelievable fuel economy on the highway (in the 40 MPG range).
It does require that you open the zip file and then run the movie file, but still, the problem is that the payload in the zip file looks so innocuous.
I have not tried it in Safari with "open safe downloads" off, however I just tried it again in Firefox and if you have it set to automatically open zip files and then you open the movie file, the calculator does appear. (my system is up to date according to Software Update too.
I think the real problem is that it's possible to disguise an attack as a quicktime movie file. The file "secunia.mov" appears to be a text file containing the following line:
I just tried the test with Firefox, and it doesn't appear to matter which browser you use. If you open the file after it downloads, the calculator app appears.
The only difference is that the default behavior in Safari is to automatically open downloaded files of certain trusted types.
Who wouldn't try clicking on a movie icon? I would think that most people would.
and mac users know that "right-click" is synonomous with "control-click". it's the same thing. in fact, isn't it silly that Windows users don't have the option to do that? (or, i don't know, maybe they do.)
Well, here's the thing - there are no one-button mice for Windows PCs, so there's no need to hold down a modifier key. Having two button mice right out of the box is far more convenient than control-clicking any day.
I've used every version of Windows, and the first Mac I used was a 128k back in the 1980s. When I got a G4 Powerbook I was frustrated by the lack of a right-click button - OS X is clearly designed in such a way that the machine needs to have one for more than the most casual use. Right clicking makes any number of common tasks faster and easier (copying and pasting for example, both of which can be done by right clicking in OS X as well as Windows)
I recently got a Powermac G5 quad and was glad to see the Apple Mighty Mouse in the box, however Apple's first attempt at a mouse that lets you right-click doesn't quite do it - it's as though it was designed by someone who never heard of right-clicking before; in order to right-click you have to remove all of your other fingers from the mouse which just doesn't make sense from a usability standpoint. The side squeeze buttons are great though, and I love the scroll ball. I'm hoping they come out with a software update that will fix the right-clicking.
If you wanted to, you could get in all 40 channels, decode all 40 of them in real time, output them as analog signals, modulate them to thier old frequencies and shove them down coax to people's TVs. It would be possible to do. Unfortunately, it is unlikely to be cost effective, since you'd need roughly 40 times the processing resources that a single-channel decoder would call for. 40 channels * 30 frames per second * 480 lines/frame * 640 pixels per line * 16 bits per pixel = 5.9 gigabits per second is a lot of data, and would need a lot of computing power.
Actually we already have business enterprises that do this type of thing quite profitably here in the USA and other countries. They're called cable television companies.
Once you amortize the cost of those 40 decoders over several users (say a few thousand or few hundred thousand), they're look quite cheap compared to the cost of maintaining the distribution wires.
That's why water heater tanks in the USA are required to have a temperature and pressure relief valve (commonly known as a T&P valve) - these valves are fitted at the water heater factory.
If the water temperature goes above a safe limit or the pressure exceeds a certain value the valve opens and dumps the hot water to the drain.
This prevents the water from ever reaching the boiling point and prevents the tank or plumbing from rupturing due to an overpressure situation.
No need for any open tanks in the attic or any other Rube Goldberg solutions. The valves are extremely reliable and inexpensive (about $10 US).
Slashdot Mirror
You let it happen when you empowered government to solve all your social problems.
Exsqueeze me, but when the heck did I do that.
Answer: I didn't.
By process of elimination, that means you did it.
Do you drive with your windows down or the air-conditioner on a lot (it creates more drag or needs more energy to use)?
I've read that modern car air conditioning uses less energy than the additional aerodynamic drag created by driving with the windows open - although if the car is moving at low speed or sitting still then the economical choice is the windows, although they don't work as well to cool the interior of a car stopped or moving at low speed, unless it there is a good wind.
Air conditioning systems have undergone steady improvements in efficiency (cycling clutch, better temperature and pressure controls, variable displacement compressors, etc), whereas open windows (as a cooling device) have generally not been made more efficient.
How do you stop someone from fixing their car to constantly broadcast "DANGER: MOOSE AHEAD" or "EMERGENCY VEHICLE APPROACHING" so they can use it to get through traffic faster?
Ummmm... make it illegal to transmit false traffic data? Just like it's illegal in many jurisdictions to use those devices that signal to traffic lights that your car is an emergency vehicle so that the lights give you priority (unless your car is actually an emergency vehicle).
Seems kinda obvious.
From a civil rights perspective, how is this any different from police car units patrolling your neighborhood?
Ummm... because police cars don't quietly glide above my fenced-in back yard and so can't see into it?
Normally, around here, the police would have to have "probable cause" (admittedly a low hurdle, but still something) in order to look in my back yard. If they can float around the neighborhood in an airship it seems they no longer need probable cause to look in my back yard, and I keep my best stuff there.
I'll preface this with "this is just my experience"...
I'm involved in a project to capture a library of technical documents to PDF (we've done 40,000 pages so far). The software being used is Acrobat Capture 3.0 on Windows 2000 running on a 3GHz P4. Once the documents have been through Acrobat Capture, we use Acrobat 5 to retouch them (strangely, later versions of Acrobat give you less control and less ability to fix problems in the documents - we actually downgraded from Acrobat 7 back to Acrobat 5).
Our pages are scanned at 600 DPI, 1 bit per pixel, using a Kodak i65 that automatically deskews the pages (a small amount of skew seems to confuse Acrobat Capture to no end, and if there is a graphic on the page you get aliased lines instead of clean, straight lines).
We've found that the error rate goes up when you drop to 300 DPI. Normal fax resolution is 100 x 200 DPI ("fine" is 200 x 200 DPI), so you can expect to have very poor performance at fax resolutions. Basically, Acrobat Capture acts like OCR'ing a fax image is a torture test for the OCR because it seems like there just aren't enough pixels to give the OCR engine enough hints about what it's looking at. I'd be more interested to find out how the Google OCR does with a clean page of Helvetica text.
Most of the problems we are now having is that we're into a very old set of documents (early 1940s) that were created using typewriters that apparently we're very well taken care of.
The person who is doing the work is using some macro software that has let him automate the process of fixing the text in Acrobat to some degree, but it's still slow going (average seems to be 100-200 pages per day).
Again, why would you be doing that in the first place? Your EVDO connection is going to be a bit slower than your normal Internet connection and certainly more expensive per month, so why even bother with it in the first place if heavy downloading is your thing?
Well, actually an "unlimited" EVDO connection from Sprint ($59.95 plus tax) is about the same price as Comcast's high-speed Internet service for users who don't also subscribe to cable tv. It's also advertised as "unlimited" - as in there is no limit, even though the fine print has some mushy language about overusing it.
Sure, it's slower (I don't think I'd want to do any heavy downloading with it if there was any alternative connection available), but it's advertised as not having any limit (at least until you read the fine print), but it's not really any more expensive than any other "broadband" connection, and you can use it anywhere there is service, not just at home or in the local coffee place. I don't use mine very much as my neighbors let me use their 802.11 network, but it has come in really handy for email and getting directions from google maps while sitting in the passenger seat of the car.
Direct injection's time will come, but I'd wait at least a decade for the industry to be ready to handle 1000psi gasoline rails.
Common rail diesel engines use rail pressures up to 1600 bar (23,200 psi), and normal hydraulic car brake systems (which the automakers have been reliably making for a long time now) can easily exceed 1000 psi on a regular basis. I don't see why 1000 psi for any other fluid system would be a problem.
We've been talking about VT since what, late 2005? Hardly long enough for it to become part of an accepted vocabulary outside of a small set of interested parties. Anyone who has been following CPU news knows what VT is. Anyone who isn't probably isn't interested in this story. It'd be nice if one could find if the topic was of interest or not by reading the summary. Otherwise, what's the point of having the summary in the first place? But whining and moaning about how an initialism wasn't explained for you is pretty pathetic. You could use acronymfinder, for example. I wasn't whining or moaning. Acronym finder has 72 definitions for VT, some I can dismiss immediately, but not all. Making the reader research what the summary means is what's pathetic.
I agree with you in principle, but I find it surprising that you're a long-time computer person and didn't infer in a few seconds what VT stood for. It's a pretty hot topic.
You're joking, surely? Perhaps it's just me, since I have a real-world job, but it's not a hot topic where I am, although many things submitted to Slashdot are of great interest.
It could mean that you've watched television and played Zork.
Since you asked, I started programming computers in 1980. Electronics was a hobby for me starting in the late 1970s, and in high school I built a robot based on an Apple II+ motherboard programmed in 6502 assembly with a custom interface board I built myself, designed a keyboard encoder and a 4-bit ALU for other school projects. Last year I built a little board to decypher the signals from one of my car's transmission controller so I could watch as it commanded the transmission to shift gears on a set of LEDs integrated into the dash. Along the way I started in BASIC (yes, I know), learned Pascal, taught myself x86 assembly language, but now I mainly work in PHP and SQL.
What's so hard about typing "VT (virtualization technology)" once instead of just "VT"? Why make the reader reinvent the wheel, so to speak, when the editor could just tell us what they mean by "VT"? Maybe I've lived in the real world too long, but there's no reason to make things harder than they can be when it takes so little effort to make something understood.
I used to love HP sauce. Can't find it in many places in the US.
Acronyms are a way in which like minded people can quickly and efficiently communicate; countless businesses, academic institutions and social groups freely use acronyms as part of an established and understood vocabulary.
Except that in this case "VT" is not part of an established and understood vocabulary.
Of course, we wouldn't ask that question because everyone knows what HP is already. Why's that? Because this is a tech orientated site, of course.
This isn't really a good comparison. Even people without a technology background know what "HP" stands for.
I've been involved with and around computers and electronics since the late 1970s, and today is the first day in a long time that I've encountered the abbreviation "VT". It means "Video Terminal", right? Or is it "Video Tape"?
It's AEP (accepted editorial practice, but you knew that already, right?) to put the meaning of an abbreviation in parentheses next to its first use in a journalism piece, so you're sure the reader understands what you're talking about - unless you're writing an abbreviation knowledge test.
Which in turn is why Americans complain about how weedy electric cookers are, and don't generally boil water with electric kettles: I can have 7.5KW into an electric cooker (30A, 240V) or 3KW into a kettle (13A, 240V), while Americans can't get 70A into a cooker.
Actually in the USA most electric stoves (cookers) are supplied with 220V AC circuits, these consist of two 120V legs 180 degrees out of phase and a neutral wire. Household stove circuits are often of 40A or 50A capacity at 220V, which translates to 80-100A at 120V. People (particularly American consumers) wouldn't stand for stoves that didn't cook. For most of the USA, it's simply cheaper to use natural gas as a heat source, and it's easy for a manufacturer to increase the heat output of a stove burner by using larger gas jet orifices in the appliance since the gas pipe supplying the stove is often capable of over 100,000 BTU/hr - not so easy for electric stoves that are inherently limited by the wiring.
Being from the UK myself and living in the USA since 1982, I think the electric kettle thing is more of a cultural thing than a practical one. Americans don't drink much hot tea, preferring coffee. It's much easier to get your coffee from an appliance designed to make coffee, than a general purpose water heater like a kettle. Some people have hot water (about 190 degrees F) dispensers on their kitchen sinks for making things like tea. Kettles take up a lot of room on the kitchen counter surface for what they do.
Rather than trying to get a high profile for their language, maybe they're trying to stamp it out and prevent it from spreading.
Maybe they see it as an inferior language that their ancestors saddled them with and they don't want others to have to bother with it.
Why else would they not want anyone else to use it?
I don't know what the status of the RIAA is, but in many European countries, there is a single organization tasked with finding and prosecuting copyright violations. In other words, competition is prohibited by law. If the same is true of the RIAA, I don't see how they can be accused of anticompetitive practices.
Ok, I think this is a simple misunderstanding. I am not a lawyer, so if I get some of this wrong, someone correct me.
First, in the USA there is no one organization that is charged with finding and prosecuting copyright violations. Second, the anticompetitive behavior RIAA is accused of is not the prevention of others finding and prosecuting copyright violations, it is the protection of the sales pricing of recorded music, or working to eliminate competition in the recorded music distribution marketplace. Limewire could be viewed as an competitive recorded music distribution company - it is therefore in competition with the old music companies - the attempt by RIAA to stamp them out is anticompetitive.
Having an organization that works to protect pricing of a product is illegal in the USA. I work for a trade association (the members are companies that produce products for sale) and we have to be very careful that nobody even mentions product pricing at any of our meetings because of the antitrust laws here.
Shop equipment like saws, sanders and such have mounts for an exhaust to take away dust. You'd think that more photocopiers would have similar mounts to vent the ozone and gases from the inks.
Many of them have an activated charcoal ozone filter; I know because I've worked on laser printers and copiers and replaced a lot of these filters myself, although I seem to see fewer of them on newer models - I think the manufacturers have figured out how to make the printing process work with lower voltage coronas.
Ozone production is only a problem above a certain voltage; it's entirely possible to build an air ionizer (which this is) that doesn't produce very much ozone at all.
In climates where the ground freezes, you won't find many houses on slabs.
Untrue. I live in the Chicago area and there are a lot of townhouses and condos built on slabs around here and more being built all the time. Why? Because the ground under the house does not freeze; that only happens to the ground outside the house. Earth is a pretty good insulator.
What you won't see much of are houses built on ventilated crawlspaces. Those that are have vents that can be closed to keep the cold outside air out of the crawlspace during winter.
You can't alter a copy of a DVD and re-sell the altered version without making a copy of the DVD. That's what they're selling, and they have no right to make it, but that's not even the issue here
If you wrote a book and had it published with your name on it, would you be happy to find out that someone else has scanned in your book, edited the text to change the meaning of it (because they didn't care for part of it) and then printed and sold copies of it?
If you were a photographer and sold copies of your pictures through a distributor, would you be happy to find out that the distributor digitally altered all of the copies they were selling? If you don't care about your art, maybe you would be happy with that, but movie people get into the business to tell stories and take a lot of time to edit the movie to tell the story - not to have some jerk alter the details of their stories because they can't deal with a naked body or a fight scene.
The question is, can GSM phones (using the 850, 900, 1800, or 1900 MHz bands) actually interfere with GPS, which is on a completely different frequency? Civil GPS is currently on 1575.42 MHz and 1227.60 MHz - far enough away from the cellphone frequency bands that any well-designed GPS reciever should not be bothered by GSM.
I doubt it.
Surely the output of all those cellphone towers and cellphones would cause trouble for land-based GPS recievers if this was actually an issue? (They don't)
They sure can interfere with poorly isolated audio equipment though.
This is correct, and there are some vehicles out there that use both. Cars that come with twin turbochargers are based on a similar idea of using two smaller turbos instead of one large turbo because the two smaller turbos spin up and produce boost at lower engine speeds than a single larger turbo.
but you will get a drop in fuel econ tho due to more fuel being used during combustion. But diesel engines have a more efficient combustion over gasoline, so the fuel econ hit wouldnt be as bad.
Actually, you have this backwards. Forced induction (turbocharging or supercharging) makes an engine more efficient, not less. This is why virtually all large diesel engined vehicles are turbocharged or supercharged (and in a few cases, both). The turbocharger captures waste energy from the exhaust and leverages it to boost power not only by just burning more fuel, but by also raising the effective compression ratio of the engine.
Superchargers also increase the efficiency of the engine, however they suffer from mechanical losses and are not as efficient as turbochargers. The do have the benefit of being directly mechanically driven and so there is no delay before boost pressure begins to build - this makes the engine perform like a larger displacement engine, improving low RPM torque significantly.
If turbocharging actually reduced the efficiency of the diesel engine, you would not see turbochargers on long haul diesel trucks; they would simply have even larger displacement engines.
Gasoline engines also benefit from an increase in efficiency, if they can be run under boost for a significant portion of the time. Unfortunately because of the nature of how a passenger car is driven, the engine cannot be under boost a lot of the time so the turbo is usually just used for a performance boost, however there are a couple of old 1980s Buick Regals (3.8L V6 with a turbo) out there that have been carefully tuned by the owners and get almost unbelievable fuel economy on the highway (in the 40 MPG range).
I have not tried it in Safari with "open safe downloads" off, however I just tried it again in Firefox and if you have it set to automatically open zip files and then you open the movie file, the calculator does appear. (my system is up to date according to Software Update too.
I think the real problem is that it's possible to disguise an attack as a quicktime movie file. The file "secunia.mov" appears to be a text file containing the following line:
/Applications/Calculator.app/Contents/MacOS /Calculator; exit
I guess my question would be why does it run when it's not actually a valid movie?
The only difference is that the default behavior in Safari is to automatically open downloaded files of certain trusted types.
Who wouldn't try clicking on a movie icon? I would think that most people would.
That's clearly not a solution.
Well, here's the thing - there are no one-button mice for Windows PCs, so there's no need to hold down a modifier key. Having two button mice right out of the box is far more convenient than control-clicking any day.
I've used every version of Windows, and the first Mac I used was a 128k back in the 1980s. When I got a G4 Powerbook I was frustrated by the lack of a right-click button - OS X is clearly designed in such a way that the machine needs to have one for more than the most casual use. Right clicking makes any number of common tasks faster and easier (copying and pasting for example, both of which can be done by right clicking in OS X as well as Windows)
I recently got a Powermac G5 quad and was glad to see the Apple Mighty Mouse in the box, however Apple's first attempt at a mouse that lets you right-click doesn't quite do it - it's as though it was designed by someone who never heard of right-clicking before; in order to right-click you have to remove all of your other fingers from the mouse which just doesn't make sense from a usability standpoint. The side squeeze buttons are great though, and I love the scroll ball. I'm hoping they come out with a software update that will fix the right-clicking.
Actually we already have business enterprises that do this type of thing quite profitably here in the USA and other countries. They're called cable television companies.
Once you amortize the cost of those 40 decoders over several users (say a few thousand or few hundred thousand), they're look quite cheap compared to the cost of maintaining the distribution wires.
If the water temperature goes above a safe limit or the pressure exceeds a certain value the valve opens and dumps the hot water to the drain.
This prevents the water from ever reaching the boiling point and prevents the tank or plumbing from rupturing due to an overpressure situation.
No need for any open tanks in the attic or any other Rube Goldberg solutions. The valves are extremely reliable and inexpensive (about $10 US).