I can see this as being an option for small video producers who'd like to create good looking slow-motion video. For instance, if you're a local producer of television commercials (or an independent filmmaker who shoots on video) and would like to record something in slow motion without resorting to a studdering sub-20fps image (from 30fps video) this might be an inexpensive alternative.
I've always wondered how half-speed video from football games looks so damn good. I assume they're using expensive double frame rate cameras. To mimic this effect cheaply would be handy.
Now the need for 1000fps plus... well, I'm not sure. Maybe science classes...
I assume you've already created a database that contains all the machines. Without trying to raise the ire of database purists, a spreadsheet would do nicely with one machine on each row. Enumerate the factors that are important as columns, like:
Does this machine work?
How frequently does it crash?
Does the machine behave erratically or consistently?
How important is the task it performs?
How often is it used?
How critical is it?
Are there other machines that perform the same task?
How much would an upgrade help its performance?
Would an upgrade be costly?
Is it adequate for the task to which its assigned?
Is the task it performs obsolete?
For each of these factors, assign a numerical value, say from 0-9 or 1-5 or something. Then, create a calculation that summarizes these factors into categories like:
Does this machine need to be updated?
Would replacement be more cost effective than upgrading?
How important is this machine?
How important is it to address changes to this machine?
The calculations should be a sum of each of the important factors where each is multiplied by a number (which may be positive, negative, or zero) indicating its importance. Multiply factors together only if you have hard units for categories (i.e. megabytes, or watts).
The summaries aren't intended to be compared to eachother, only to the same values for other machines. Sorting the list by the last factor, "how important is it to address changes to this machine?" will yield a list of the machines to examine first.
Of course, this is all speculation and is probably wrong. I've done assessments like this for other kinds of things and the temptation is to adjust the calculations so the results are as expected. I would try to avoid this, by examining any unusual cases and see if the calculation is working as you'd expect--consider both the outlying case and the calculation instead of just assuming the calculation is wrong.
... laugh while your coffee and TSP reports get cold...
Do you really mean Tandy Service Plans? I think you mean TPS--and while I'm here, I noticed you didn't put a cover sheet on yours. Did you get the memo?...
I've been telling people this for years, but now it's got an additional ring of truth: please put a condom on your mouse before inserting it in your vagina.
The problem is, ultimately, did the furnace fail to run when it's supposed to? So when should the furnace be on? How about when the temperature goes below 50 degrees Fahrenheit.
Ultimately, it would probably be most accurate to AND the following logic states: is the temperature below 50 degrees? Is the furnace off? However, one could assume that the temperature will never get below 55 degrees if the furnace is on, so we're left with a device that can determine when the temperature is below 50 degrees.
Let's see... how about the cheapest thermostat you can buy with the "turn the furnace on" switch tied to set a pin on the RS232 to a particular state... like maybe turn the carrier detect "on" if the temperature is low.
Low cost, high reliability, access to data from software is easy. Sounds like a good solution to me.
(By the way, I'm looking for something similar so I can determine the outdoor temperature for something like $20 instead of $200... and on a Mac and in AppleScript, just to make it really really difficult.)
I thought, "great... this will finally explain this 'open source' thingy completely." Unfortunately, I still have the same questions as when I started. I know it's kind of late in the game (i.e. this comment will probably get buried in the Slashdot world) but I thought I'd take a crack anyway.
Why is it called "open source?" To me, this means that the source code--the "source"--is available for review and use by anyone--hence, "open." The article seems to be comparing the waterfall model of software development with a colaborative model, calling the former "closed source" and the latter "open source."
I gather that there are some (most?) open-source projects have a licensing agreement that says that if you use the project as part of your own that you have to publish the source to the public. Is this true? I assume this is true in some cases, and if so, isn't it a pain to align all the licensing agreements (i.e. you can't use a project that requires published source code and a project that only provides binaries in your own project because the licensing conflicts, right?)
It seems that if the owner of a project publishes the source code for the project, they can't make money. Or, at least, they'll make less money... especially if they create some clever way of doing things that people will immediately "borrow" as soon as they see how it's done. Does this have anything to do with "open source?"
If you're a programmer, how do you make a living making open source programs? It seems they're all given away for free, so "no money in, no money out," right?
You are so lucky te be able to create a structure like that. My guess is that 99% of the development units around the world have the same programmers vs. managers ratio, but have a net result of managers dumping work & shit on the developers' head. A slashdot poll would no doubt result in 99% of us calling managers 'crap' and only 1% (or less) calling them 'useful for levelling the workload'
I propose we have a meeting to discuss creating a task force to explore this issue. Ultimately, I'd like to see a survey distributed to all the developers to determine how useful they think management really is. selderrr, could you head this up?
If a problem exists, we'll have a "Management Fair" to create a more positive work environment.
(It's remarkable how familiar and how alien that stuff sounds now that I've been laid off for a couple weeks. )
People seem to be commenting on some other article. It seems I can only see the introductory page. Maybe I'm a stupid grandpa, but there seems to be no "next page" link. The "printer friendly" version gives me just the one page too.
Then again, this wouldn't surprise me. This is after all, the New York Times, and not some source of journalistic excellence.
So how long before someone develops a cell phone that can be dunked in alcohol or run through the autoclave to sterilize it?
You can today!
I tried dunking mine in alcohol and it worked. The phone successfully entered the liquid and there was enough alcohol to completely submerge the phone.
I tried the autoclave too, and that worked too. The phone was placed in the autoclave and the autoclave was turned on then it ran through a full 10 minute sterilization cycle.
Yeah, just like the power grid... "Oh, the power grid is overloaded"... "the system is an antique"... "there will be blackouts in New York couple years like in California [in 2000.]"
And look: we did nothing, and nothing went wrong. Think of all that time and effort we could have saved in 1999 by doing nothing about Y2K.
2. Their heavy initial draw means they don't work with X-10 style remote controls
Actually, I think the problem is that its ballast causes a weird inductive load to appear which makes the X-10 module think you're turning on-and-off the device. You can snip the jumper that controls the "manual override sense" in the appliance modules which allows you to use CF bulbs. You can no longer toggle the power switch to get the device to come on (you've got to send an X-10 signal to turn on the module) but at least it works.
Hate to say it, but in this case, vigilante type action seems to have had the desired result
This got me to thinking. The thing I hate most about spam is that there is no way to contact the seller to let them know you're not interested--ever. When you annoy people and give them no power to respond, they'll eventually come after you and your kids. I'm always amazed to find that spammers don't know that people are angry about their behavior, but I figure they've never heard from someone who they sent a message to.
Maybe they just think their "customers" are the people who give them money... then what do you even call the people who receive the spam?
I guess I'm also amazed to think that nobody can come up with good legislation. Yes, we should be able to send messages anonymously--including business people--but the limit should be when that correspondence becomes harassment.
It's like if you put a sign in someone's yard--anonymously, without asking--and they tore it down, very few people would compain (at least not vehemently.) If you put ten signs in their yard every day for years, they'd probably kill you if they caught you. Is the answer to make a law banning putting a sign in someone's yard?
I think they went about fixing the problem in the wrong way: they should have sent back random times instead. Customers complain, Netgear is forced to fix the router, and the University of Wisconsin doesn't need to spend any money on it (other than serving incorrect times for a while.)
Man, it's a good thing you don't post your website or I'd DDoS your site with all my Mac friends! All zero of them, and zero is way bigger than minus infinity, let me tell you!
Slashdot Mirror
Is it because 2038 going to be just like 1970 all over again?
I've always wondered how half-speed video from football games looks so damn good. I assume they're using expensive double frame rate cameras. To mimic this effect cheaply would be handy.
Now the need for 1000fps plus ... well, I'm not sure. Maybe science classes ...
The last time I heard about someone putting a human organ into a sheep, it was a different kind of story entirely.
For each of these factors, assign a numerical value, say from 0-9 or 1-5 or something. Then, create a calculation that summarizes these factors into categories like:
The calculations should be a sum of each of the important factors where each is multiplied by a number (which may be positive, negative, or zero) indicating its importance. Multiply factors together only if you have hard units for categories (i.e. megabytes, or watts).
The summaries aren't intended to be compared to eachother, only to the same values for other machines. Sorting the list by the last factor, "how important is it to address changes to this machine?" will yield a list of the machines to examine first.
Of course, this is all speculation and is probably wrong. I've done assessments like this for other kinds of things and the temptation is to adjust the calculations so the results are as expected. I would try to avoid this, by examining any unusual cases and see if the calculation is working as you'd expect--consider both the outlying case and the calculation instead of just assuming the calculation is wrong.
I've been telling people this for years, but now it's got an additional ring of truth: please put a condom on your mouse before inserting it in your vagina.
Ultimately, it would probably be most accurate to AND the following logic states: is the temperature below 50 degrees? Is the furnace off? However, one could assume that the temperature will never get below 55 degrees if the furnace is on, so we're left with a device that can determine when the temperature is below 50 degrees.
Let's see ... how about the cheapest thermostat you can buy with the "turn the furnace on" switch tied to set a pin on the RS232 to a particular state ... like maybe turn the carrier detect "on" if the temperature is low.
Low cost, high reliability, access to data from software is easy. Sounds like a good solution to me.
(By the way, I'm looking for something similar so I can determine the outdoor temperature for something like $20 instead of $200 ... and on a Mac and in AppleScript, just to make it really really difficult.)
- Why is it called "open source?" To me, this means that the source code--the "source"--is available for review and use by anyone--hence, "open." The article seems to be comparing the waterfall model of software development with a colaborative model, calling the former "closed source" and the latter "open source."
- I gather that there are some (most?) open-source projects have a licensing agreement that says that if you use the project as part of your own that you have to publish the source to the public. Is this true? I assume this is true in some cases, and if so, isn't it a pain to align all the licensing agreements (i.e. you can't use a project that requires published source code and a project that only provides binaries in your own project because the licensing conflicts, right?)
- It seems that if the owner of a project publishes the source code for the project, they can't make money. Or, at least, they'll make less money
... especially if they create some clever way of doing things that people will immediately "borrow" as soon as they see how it's done. Does this have anything to do with "open source?"
- If you're a programmer, how do you make a living making open source programs? It seems they're all given away for free, so "no money in, no money out," right?
Thanks.I propose we have a meeting to discuss creating a task force to explore this issue. Ultimately, I'd like to see a survey distributed to all the developers to determine how useful they think management really is. selderrr, could you head this up?
If a problem exists, we'll have a "Management Fair" to create a more positive work environment.
(It's remarkable how familiar and how alien that stuff sounds now that I've been laid off for a couple weeks. )
Oh wait: that would have been actually useful. (What, nobody else remembers stiction?)
For things a little less realistic, there's also Half Bakery.
Then again, this wouldn't surprise me. This is after all, the New York Times, and not some source of journalistic excellence.
The answer:
In Microsoft Russia, software updates pull YOU!
You can today!
I tried dunking mine in alcohol and it worked. The phone successfully entered the liquid and there was enough alcohol to completely submerge the phone.
I tried the autoclave too, and that worked too. The phone was placed in the autoclave and the autoclave was turned on then it ran through a full 10 minute sterilization cycle.
No more bacteria on my phone!
And look: we did nothing, and nothing went wrong. Think of all that time and effort we could have saved in 1999 by doing nothing about Y2K.
Unfortunately, no ... thankfully
the 40-something Electrolux I have was impotent.
Dude, put the articles side-by-side and cross your eyes. You'll see it in 3D!
I'm pretty sure The Net with Sandra Bullock provided us with the first use of a 33-bit IP address.
A quick search of Google revealed http://x10ideas.com/articles/displayx10article.asp ?articleid=26.
This got me to thinking. The thing I hate most about spam is that there is no way to contact the seller to let them know you're not interested--ever. When you annoy people and give them no power to respond, they'll eventually come after you and your kids. I'm always amazed to find that spammers don't know that people are angry about their behavior, but I figure they've never heard from someone who they sent a message to.
Maybe they just think their "customers" are the people who give them money ... then what do you even call the people who receive the spam?
I guess I'm also amazed to think that nobody can come up with good legislation. Yes, we should be able to send messages anonymously--including business people--but the limit should be when that correspondence becomes harassment.
It's like if you put a sign in someone's yard--anonymously, without asking--and they tore it down, very few people would compain (at least not vehemently.) If you put ten signs in their yard every day for years, they'd probably kill you if they caught you. Is the answer to make a law banning putting a sign in someone's yard?
Plus, it makes for a lot more entertaining story.
Man, it's a good thing you don't post your website or I'd DDoS your site with all my Mac friends! All zero of them, and zero is way bigger than minus infinity, let me tell you!
(har har.)