The ring is ~96 VAC (though this varies a bit), a free line is about 48 VDC, and an in-use line is about 50 VDC. See http://www.ee.washington.edu/circuit_archive/circu its/F_ASCII_Schem_Tel.html and http://www.epanorama.net/documents/surge/telesurge.html
It's a combination... all it takes is a tiny about, I think only a few millivolts, of potential arcoss your heart and it'll stop. The difference is how it gets there; a high enough voltage or current will do the trick (I don't know which has to be "higher", though such a comparson is inherantly nonsensical). However, I think the biggest thing, for AC current at least, is the frequency.
High frequencies go over the skin more than through your body and vice versa. Or maybe that's backwarks. But whatever.
A 19" LCD is still $900-$1000. You chopped $300 off, but the point that thoy cost a *lot* more still remains. And besides, a 21" CRT will usually give you ~20" viewable, not 19". (The price quoted is for a 19" Philips 180MT13P, the cheapest response from a pricewatch search for "LCD 1600x1200 except for an $800 planar monitor, which I've never heard of. I feel that this is a fair search as IMO running at less than 1600 on a monitor that size would have been a waste of your money. Of course, I ran 1024x768 and sometimes even 1280x1024 on a 14" in the past, so I may not be the best person to judge, but still.)
>>But when you go to 19', the difference is a lot smaller.
Not if you want 1600x1200 resolution. Low price on a "LCD 1600x1200" search (first actual monitor) on pricewatch? $800. First of a company i've heard of before? $910. My monitor when I got it a few months back? $250. Sure, $550-$650 is a lot smaller than $1000 ($1326-$360, the low prices for 21" LCD and CRTs that do 1600 res.), but the difference is still well over twice the price.
And FYI, after working with 1600x1200 resoltion, I ain't never working with less on my computer again, even if LCDs that do less are free. Well, then I might make a dual monitor setup. But other than than, no 1600 for me...
Most of those issues aren't as big as you seem to think on today's monitors. Take a walk around Circuit City or Best Buy or something and take a look. Of course, I run at 1600x1200 on a 19" monitor so LCDs of that caliber are really expensive, so I'm on a CRT.
Ah, but radiologists aren't as concerned with absolute color correction as they are with resolution I would bet... the top resolution monitors are LCDs. Artists however are more concerned with the color than ultra-high resolution.
I bought a CRT about 9 months ago, but even by today's standards of LCDs, that "slight increase in price" would be about $700. Taday's lowest price of a LCD that does 1600x1200 res: about $950 off pricewatch. My monitor when I bought it: $225. This is not just a "slight difference".
>>Talking to someone on a handsfree phone is no more distracting than talking to the person next to you.
Dunno if the studies someone else providid address this, but here are 3 reasons this is most certainly not true:
1. You have less information. Period. It's a cell phone call, so there's probably significant quality loss. Even land-line to land-line calls significantly degrade the quality. Result? You need to think more to figure out what they are saying.
2. Chances are better that the cell phone call is about business or another activithy that requires you to pay more attention than you would it nopmal chatter. Like most of the stuff my parents would talk about when we'd go on trips would be of the sort where you don't have to thing. Whereas when my dad would be talking on the cell phone he'd have to think through blueprints and stuff in order to anwser. Another level of concentration that was diverted away from where it should have been: the road.
3. The person in the car is also paying attention to what's going on. If, say, someone cuts in front of you and you have to slam on the breaks, the person you're talking to will probably shut up, allowing you to instantly go back to the road. The person at the other end of the line will continue on talking like nothing happened. Like it or not, it will take a moment for your concentration to switch back to the road.
Or what about the people whe pull up so far their entire car is last the stop line so you either have to walk practically it the lane of active traffic of go behind? I hate that... They should make it legal for peds to stay on the crosswalk by trampling over their car...
Also, if for example someone pull in to cut you off, the person in the car will probably shut op for a second, while the person on the phone will keep on yapping away.
Download the Optimoz mouse gestures plug-in if you want to see something you really can't live without... I find it like mouse scroll wheels; I try to use it even when in another browser.
back forward reload open a link in a new tab open a blank tab home (google) close window/tab view source and 4 user defined gestures that open frequented sites (including/.)
add the default click and right click for the context menu gives you 14 functions. Next time you find a 14 function mouse, you let me know, okay?
Not to mention gestures with the Optimoz plug-in. I got Mozilla to try this, and I swear it is by far and away the biggest reason I still use Mozilla. It becomes like a mouse wheel. You know if you have one on your mouse and you go use a computer that doesn't you still instinctively try to use it anyway? Same deal with gestures. I open IE for one of the sites that won't work in Mozilla and try to navigate back by dragging left.
(And mod my original post down while you're at it...)
Ooops... My memory was wrong then. The reasoning that the wording as a "tax" gets around the Berne Convention sounds shaky to me, thoguh I'd have to read it to find out (which I would really rather not do; legal documents are tangles of words).
"Subject to sections 107 through 121, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;...
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;"
Unless you want to present a crack-assed defense that uploading music is neither distributing it nor copying it, then you have no argument.
Slashdot Mirror
The ring is ~96 VAC (though this varies a bit), a free line is about 48 VDC, and an in-use line is about 50 VDC. See http://www.ee.washington.edu/circuit_archive/circu its/F_ASCII_Schem_Tel.html and http://www.epanorama.net/documents/surge/telesurge .html
Yes, but if you were holding a telephone and got shocked when it rung, would you sa "oh, that's normal"?
It's a combination... all it takes is a tiny about, I think only a few millivolts, of potential arcoss your heart and it'll stop. The difference is how it gets there; a high enough voltage or current will do the trick (I don't know which has to be "higher", though such a comparson is inherantly nonsensical). However, I think the biggest thing, for AC current at least, is the frequency.
High frequencies go over the skin more than through your body and vice versa. Or maybe that's backwarks. But whatever.
My point is that all three can be deadly.
It's an Office Space reference if you don't know... except the abount in question was $1 mil.
So maybe do 20,000 chicks at the same time?
A 19" LCD is still $900-$1000. You chopped $300 off, but the point that thoy cost a *lot* more still remains. And besides, a 21" CRT will usually give you ~20" viewable, not 19". (The price quoted is for a 19" Philips 180MT13P, the cheapest response from a pricewatch search for "LCD 1600x1200 except for an $800 planar monitor, which I've never heard of. I feel that this is a fair search as IMO running at less than 1600 on a monitor that size would have been a waste of your money. Of course, I ran 1024x768 and sometimes even 1280x1024 on a 14" in the past, so I may not be the best person to judge, but still.)
>>But when you go to 19', the difference is a lot smaller.
Not if you want 1600x1200 resolution. Low price on a "LCD 1600x1200" search (first actual monitor) on pricewatch? $800. First of a company i've heard of before? $910. My monitor when I got it a few months back? $250. Sure, $550-$650 is a lot smaller than $1000 ($1326-$360, the low prices for 21" LCD and CRTs that do 1600 res.), but the difference is still well over twice the price.
And FYI, after working with 1600x1200 resoltion, I ain't never working with less on my computer again, even if LCDs that do less are free. Well, then I might make a dual monitor setup. But other than than, no 1600 for me...
Most of those issues aren't as big as you seem to think on today's monitors. Take a walk around Circuit City or Best Buy or something and take a look. Of course, I run at 1600x1200 on a 19" monitor so LCDs of that caliber are really expensive, so I'm on a CRT.
Ah, but radiologists aren't as concerned with absolute color correction as they are with resolution I would bet... the top resolution monitors are LCDs. Artists however are more concerned with the color than ultra-high resolution.
I bought a CRT about 9 months ago, but even by today's standards of LCDs, that "slight increase in price" would be about $700. Taday's lowest price of a LCD that does 1600x1200 res: about $950 off pricewatch. My monitor when I bought it: $225. This is not just a "slight difference".
>>Talking to someone on a handsfree phone is no more distracting than talking to the person next to you.
Dunno if the studies someone else providid address this, but here are 3 reasons this is most certainly not true:
1. You have less information. Period. It's a cell phone call, so there's probably significant quality loss. Even land-line to land-line calls significantly degrade the quality. Result? You need to think more to figure out what they are saying.
2. Chances are better that the cell phone call is about business or another activithy that requires you to pay more attention than you would it nopmal chatter. Like most of the stuff my parents would talk about when we'd go on trips would be of the sort where you don't have to thing. Whereas when my dad would be talking on the cell phone he'd have to think through blueprints and stuff in order to anwser. Another level of concentration that was diverted away from where it should have been: the road.
3. The person in the car is also paying attention to what's going on. If, say, someone cuts in front of you and you have to slam on the breaks, the person you're talking to will probably shut up, allowing you to instantly go back to the road. The person at the other end of the line will continue on talking like nothing happened. Like it or not, it will take a moment for your concentration to switch back to the road.
Or what about the people whe pull up so far their entire car is last the stop line so you either have to walk practically it the lane of active traffic of go behind? I hate that... They should make it legal for peds to stay on the crosswalk by trampling over their car...
Also, if for example someone pull in to cut you off, the person in the car will probably shut op for a second, while the person on the phone will keep on yapping away.
This *is* a good point... Imagine the /.ing that sites would get if you didn't even have to go to any of the pages for it to try to load...
That's a problem with the browser's treatment of the method then, not the method itself.
Download the Optimoz mouse gestures plug-in if you want to see something you really can't live without... I find it like mouse scroll wheels; I try to use it even when in another browser.
Now now, they have your uses. For example, entertainment websites. (But they should provide alternatives...)
I have the following gestures I use all the time:
/.)
back
forward
reload
open a link in a new tab
open a blank tab
home (google)
close window/tab
view source
and 4 user defined gestures that open frequented sites (including
add the default click and right click for the context menu gives you 14 functions. Next time you find a 14 function mouse, you let me know, okay?
(Please? 0 brings up a good point that "features" can very easily get really annoying)
Though if it were off by default I don't think it would be sooo bad...
Think about phone systems. If someone you don't like calls you, can you sue for electronic trespass? Why should mail servers be any different?
Not to mention gestures with the Optimoz plug-in. I got Mozilla to try this, and I swear it is by far and away the biggest reason I still use Mozilla. It becomes like a mouse wheel. You know if you have one on your mouse and you go use a computer that doesn't you still instinctively try to use it anyway? Same deal with gestures. I open IE for one of the sites that won't work in Mozilla and try to navigate back by dragging left.
Require an authentication system of some sore that charges your account; if invalid, don't send it.
(And mod my original post down while you're at it...)
Ooops... My memory was wrong then. The reasoning that the wording as a "tax" gets around the Berne Convention sounds shaky to me, thoguh I'd have to read it to find out (which I would really rather not do; legal documents are tangles of words).
The 50 years is necessary so as to not run afoul of the Berne Convention. This requires that copyrights miust last 50 years without any registration.
http://www.mediageek.org/archives/000235.htmlt p://www.cdpage.com/Compact_Disc_Consulting/Opin ion/riaamisinfo.html
ht
Those are the best two I could find quickly.
BOTH.
...
See the USC Title 17, Sec. 106:
"Subject to sections 107 through 121, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;"
Unless you want to present a crack-assed defense that uploading music is neither distributing it nor copying it, then you have no argument.