Perhaps we are going to be able to go back to multi-user computers. This would actually be a real benefit for many people. An AS/400 for the home, replacing all the boxes with a single central box again. Thin clients with wireless networking around the place. If a virus hits OS Instance 1, bring it down and fix it in the background while work is transferred to OS Instance 2. One user can crash and burn without anyone else knowing or caring. Load sharing means that the heavy and light users can peacefully coexist. And small businesses are going to love it. Life was easier in the 80s when they had a single Unix box and half a dozen dumb terminals. Life is going to be easier again when there's a single big reliable box with all the external connections and massive storage, and a few screens and keyboards around the place. No fun for case modders, but then for those of us who believe computing should be as ubiquitous as plumbing, and as unobtrusive, case modding is deeply sad.
I guess the European equivalent of the Shuttle program was the Anglo-French Concord(e) aircraft. Loads of national pride involved, and basically no-one liking to admit that it was fast but cramped, low payload, expensive to maintain and never covered development costs (the weasel expression "operating profit" was a giveaway.)
Just as with the Shuttle, a fatal (and much more lethal -113 people were killed) crash occurred as the result of a known weakness - easy projectile rupturing of fuel tanks.
Despite attempts to bring it back, the thing is finally going out of service. It's old technology, and it is always expensive to maintain small volume old technologies. Of course, there is no replacement supersonic passenger air travel. But it hardly matters. Long haul flight is now cheaper and more fuel efficient than ever before for "normal" passengers, and the thing that did not exist when Concorde was first built - efficient video conferencing and around the world networking - is now commonplace for urgent communications.
I think the analogy is worth pushing. Why is the Shuttle needed? The Russians have shown that bread and butter manned flight can be done relatively cheaply and more reliably with non-reusable rockets. The things that didn't exist when the Shuttle was first launched - really sophisticated, small robotics systems - are now commonplace.Eyes, ears and other sensors can be put on other solar system bodies using increasingly sophisticated remote robots. The development of miniaturised electronics and ion drives gives the enabling technologies for really interesting long range missions that would not be possible in manned versions for many years to come. So why keep the Shuttle flying at vast expense rather than do something new? Inertia?
It refers to the "Old" HP. And you mean sushimi, not sushi, an error which is a giveaway that you're misquoting.
The quote was, if they sold sushimi, they'd describe it as cold, dead, raw Japanese fish.
The point was, that HP was so good at engineering that they could sell things simply by describing them as they were. If the old HP made sushimi, it would have been superb sushimi.
Far from a criticism of the marketing department, it was a subtle comment on the "if a man build a better mousetrap...the world will beat a pathway to his door" theme.
And this thread is to a certain extent demonstrating this. Apple doesn't pay for product placement because, in Hollywood terms, they are perceived as making the better mousetrap. If HP's notebooks computers were still they best mousetraps, or Dell's, they wouldn't need to pay for product placement either.
It has never been "obvious" that the x86 architecture would take over the world. In the beginning it was an inferior design to the 68000 series. When Apple (quite correctly) decided to change architecture, it made a lot of sense to move to a design which expanded the register capability of the 68000 and was much cleaner than the x86, which was increasingly a series of kludges held together with string. It has only recently been apparent that Intel's sheer sales volume could keep it in the lead for technical capability, and now with the G5 even that is doubtful. Intel may well stay ahead for consumer applications but in the mathematical, statistical and database areas it isn't obvious that the x86 will stay ahead of the Power architecture. Apple's ability to leverage a cleaner processor architecture on a better regulated platform enables them to do more per development dollar than Intel/Microsoft.
Meanwhile, I continue to save up for the G5 Powerbook, when it comes...
The government really needs to stay out of promoting things one way or the other. However, while the government is being bought by commercial interests, and while the government does so much spending (on the military, infrastructure and bureaucracy), that isn't going to happen. Just by buying a huge system from one vendor, it promotes that vendor. Part of checks and balances is that the government should review the effects of such policies and purchasing, and inform its own procurement and policy staff where these may be having an adverse effect. If that's promoting, I am all for it.
If a single butterfly flapping its wings in the right place can start a hurricane (according to urban legend) surely all we need is to find that butterfly and model its brain. Butterfly brains are pretty small, a G5 dual processor Mac should be enough plus a few little electric motors to flap the butterfly wings.
Oh, wait, it seems we need the supercomputer to work out where to put the butterfly.
or perhaps the Tolkien estate. Isn't this a copyright infringement? Don't laugh. In a reverse version, some years back, Disney had to pay damages to the Bussmann company, who had registered "Tron" as a trademark, even though the film had nothing to do with electrical fusegear. The vague "electronic" connection was enough."
In fact there is supposed to be a paper about this though I have been unable to locate it.
One of the surprising conclusions is that on some routes the best time to arrive is just as a bus is leaving. There are a number of reasons for this. One is that the departing bus has reduced the queue length at the bus stop so you are more likely to get on the next bus. Another is that if the buses tend to group, in groups >= 3, if a bus is leaving the probability that it is not the last bus in the group is >0.5. If you arrive with no buses in sight, chances are you are in an inter-group period.
My favorite comment on the whole bus thing, however, came from a retired admiral who wrote a letter to the London Times: "Since the convoy system was introduced, not a single bus has been sunk by enemy action."
Actually, this makes sense for HP regardless of their standpoint on Linux. They get to see the reaction. People who can be bothered to turn up for a day meeting have more commitment than people who post rude things on/. (mea culpa.)
Community response favorable: Hey, we're HP, proud to be associated with SCO. Response strongly unfavorable: "Hey, we're HP. And here for your amusement is our performing monkey"
No it doesn't. The turbines are governed and drive through gearboxes, they put AC into the grid. If we had an efficient way of storing even quite small amounts of power, we wouldn't have the problems we now face. Batteries only hold minute amounts of power compared to generation capacity.
In fact the nearest thing I've seen to a "battery" for generation was in Scotland, where they have a system that can use excess power to pump water uphill, then use it for hydroelectric generation when required. You do need very special geography, but the ingredients - concrete and water - aren't very noxious.
I'm sorry, I don't think you've been asked to use 'tu'. And in view of your over-reaction to a minor typo, I think it's pretty clear that regardless of our length of association I don't think I would ever invite you to.
Re:Microwave the couch
on
NYT on RFID
·
· Score: 1
Why bother? Modify your microwave oven, fit a suitable horn to the magnetron output (made of tinfoil, what else?). Cheap and effective
No responsibility whatsoever taken for the smell of kidneys frying (yours)
I really don't see why this is modded insightful. It's actually possible to reference the clock of a computer, or any other clock, to the cesium standard because it is possible to make use of radio broadcasts referred to clocks based on that standard. So in theory you could measure the frequency of the microwave oven - the frequency, notice - in terms of the international standard.
The measurement you do in the microwave oven is a real-world measurement, i.e. of a displacement. If you have a real frequency and a real displacement, you can measure the speed of light in terms of your measured displacement and a time interval related tot he international standard.
Your comment that "refusing to accept c would be problematic" is invalid because, in fact, the experiment doesn't assume a value for the meter, or for c. You could compare your measured interval to anything convenient - using compasses, just like a Greek philosopher - and measure the speed of light in terms of a reference in your house. It would be a valid outcome of the experiment to measure the speed of light in teaspoons per cesium transition. It isn't a question of making up units: it is a question of deciding on the real world analog of the reference unit, whether it be a standard meter, standard kilogram, or standard sack of sugar. The international definition of the meter is handy if you have a suitable interferometer, but you can still only use it to produce a substandard by making marks on something, or counting interference fringes.
Anyway, why am I bothering? As I remind myself, this is/.
No, you thought wrong.
Speed of light approx 300 000 km/s = 3E8 m/s.
Actually, the easiest way to measure the speed of light is to measure the interval between the lights turning green and the first cab horn sounding during the morning rush hour in Manhattan, then measure the distance from the lights to the cab.
Neither original nor practical, but then I am tired and this is/.
In a proper physics experiment all the quantities that affect the result have to be measured. In this one the frequency of the microwaves is taken for granted, so it is not a proper experiment. Just reading the value off the label doesn;t count. All the experiment actually allows you to work out is the wavelength of the microwaves, which is not hugely interesting. So how do you measure the frequency?
You cannot do it by measuring the dimensions of the magnetron cavities, because the calculation of the frequency based on dimensions assumes the thing you are trying to work out - the speed of light. Frequency counters that go up to 2.5GHz are a bit difficult to come by in most homes. One possibility might be to extract some energy from the cavity using a suitable antenna and mix it with the clock signal from a 2.4 or 2.53GHz motherboard, then try and pick up the resulting beat signal using a short wave or VHF radio. However, I'm not at all sure how to get the signal out of the P4.
Has anybody got a better and reasonably practical method of measuring the frequency?
If Tie fighters had the acceleration of the Smart-1, Lucas Skywalker would have had nothing to fear. There's obviously some sort of competition on for the slowest flight to the Moon. The acceleration is even lower than that of the Smart car.
Yes, I do know why ion engines are a good idea. Just leave Star Wars out of this.
If it's the article I think, it's the same watts per square meter as a nuclear reactor - not the same thing at all. The point being that nuclear reactors run hot so as to produce steam, whereas the chip has to be cooled as close to ambient as possible, so it is relatively hard to do.
But power transistors have been able to produce more W/M^2 than reactors for a long time. Sounds scary, but not really that bad.
Clearly you haven't done any work with amateur rockets. Believe me, liftoff is relatively easy. So long as you can generate an initial combustion thrust greater than the weight of the vehicle, you get liftoff. It then starts to get difficult, as the equipment has to keep functioning despite heat buildup, vibrational effects on components, and changes in fuel levels in tanks. Also navigation becomes a pressing issue.
I think you are confusing liftoff of a rocket with takeoff of an aircraft, where sufficient lift has to be generated close to the ground, usually with a full fuel load, and at relatively low speeds.
Why make it AC? You make an intelligent point and if I had mod points I would mod it up. There are now several satellites in orbit intended for use by disaster relief agencies and charities. Why do charities and Third World countries have to do things amateurishly and expensively rather than use modern technology?
Nigeria has half the population of the US, and its "real" adjusted internal purchasing power income is probably bigger than small First World countries like Belgium or the Netherlands. But hey, that doesn't make for a "let's patronise the funny black people" story in ABC News.
The article has more spin than a British Government press release.
The motor worked except that, well actually it went badly wrong very soon after launch. Combustion gases went the wrong way and caused the engine to malfunction. Result: crash. Destruction of payload.
I guess the definition of success came from the people who defined "interception" of Scuds by Patriots in Gulf war 1 as meaning more or less that both missiles were in the air at the same time.
Meanwhile, relatively primitive Russian rockets continue very reliable and Ariane just put up another two comms satellites last night, plus the European moon mission which is aiming for some sort of record as the slowest trip to the Moon ever. Far from being an endorsement of private research versus NASA, it suggests that caution and extensive testing remains the norm in anything to do with rocketry. Even if the next flight is successful, I guess a huge amount of further work would be needed before anyone would risk a real commercial payload on a rocket using this nozzle technology.
I'm really impressed by this thing. Congratulations to the builders.
There is a great European tradition of mechanical devices like this, and it's good it is being kept up so creatively. Not to knock Disney, but some of these creations have a wonderful, slightly kitsch, homegrown quality that is lightyears from Hollywood production values. For people who like them, a great place to visit used to be St. Croix in the Swiss Jura. I haven't been there recently and don't know if the factory tours are still going, but the music boxes and the automata are geek paradise. Just the tiny machine tools that made the tiny screws were awesome. And if you wonder whether modern kids like this kind of stuff, their jaws drop. The only sounds to be heard during the automata demonstration were the demonstrator explaining in French, and a kind French visitor simultanously translating into English for the non-French speakers. Nearby is a museum of automata, which shows what some people got up to before home computing.
Other amazing things in the same tradition are the Christmas cribs on Malta and Gozo, some of which may also be running on Linux by now. The only problem in gaining a proper appreciation is fighting your way past German tourists with video cameras.
The picture in the article has to be misleading. Although a camera has adjacent color receptor sites, print color doesn't work like that at all. If the cells are adjacent, they can only produce an approximate gray. In the CMYK standard printing process, the ink markings superimpose, so grays are achieved with different sizes of black dots, and red is obtained by superimposing yellow (-blue) and magenta (-green). This means that instead of being adjacent as in the picture, the cells would have to be stacked. There would also need to be some way of ensuring that when the cells were partially colored, the upper colored areas were not directly over the ones below (or they would be obscured and only the top color would show.)
There may be some magical solution to this, but it looks to me as if color is very, very much more difficult than mono.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps we are going to be able to go back to multi-user computers. This would actually be a real benefit for many people. An AS/400 for the home, replacing all the boxes with a single central box again. Thin clients with wireless networking around the place. If a virus hits OS Instance 1, bring it down and fix it in the background while work is transferred to OS Instance 2. One user can crash and burn without anyone else knowing or caring. Load sharing means that the heavy and light users can peacefully coexist. And small businesses are going to love it. Life was easier in the 80s when they had a single Unix box and half a dozen dumb terminals. Life is going to be easier again when there's a single big reliable box with all the external connections and massive storage, and a few screens and keyboards around the place. No fun for case modders, but then for those of us who believe computing should be as ubiquitous as plumbing, and as unobtrusive, case modding is deeply sad.
Just as with the Shuttle, a fatal (and much more lethal -113 people were killed) crash occurred as the result of a known weakness - easy projectile rupturing of fuel tanks.
Despite attempts to bring it back, the thing is finally going out of service. It's old technology, and it is always expensive to maintain small volume old technologies. Of course, there is no replacement supersonic passenger air travel. But it hardly matters. Long haul flight is now cheaper and more fuel efficient than ever before for "normal" passengers, and the thing that did not exist when Concorde was first built - efficient video conferencing and around the world networking - is now commonplace for urgent communications.
I think the analogy is worth pushing. Why is the Shuttle needed? The Russians have shown that bread and butter manned flight can be done relatively cheaply and more reliably with non-reusable rockets. The things that didn't exist when the Shuttle was first launched - really sophisticated, small robotics systems - are now commonplace.Eyes, ears and other sensors can be put on other solar system bodies using increasingly sophisticated remote robots. The development of miniaturised electronics and ion drives gives the enabling technologies for really interesting long range missions that would not be possible in manned versions for many years to come. So why keep the Shuttle flying at vast expense rather than do something new? Inertia?
The quote was, if they sold sushimi, they'd describe it as cold, dead, raw Japanese fish.
The point was, that HP was so good at engineering that they could sell things simply by describing them as they were. If the old HP made sushimi, it would have been superb sushimi.
Far from a criticism of the marketing department, it was a subtle comment on the "if a man build a better mousetrap...the world will beat a pathway to his door" theme.
And this thread is to a certain extent demonstrating this. Apple doesn't pay for product placement because, in Hollywood terms, they are perceived as making the better mousetrap. If HP's notebooks computers were still they best mousetraps, or Dell's, they wouldn't need to pay for product placement either.
It has never been "obvious" that the x86 architecture would take over the world. In the beginning it was an inferior design to the 68000 series. When Apple (quite correctly) decided to change architecture, it made a lot of sense to move to a design which expanded the register capability of the 68000 and was much cleaner than the x86, which was increasingly a series of kludges held together with string. It has only recently been apparent that Intel's sheer sales volume could keep it in the lead for technical capability, and now with the G5 even that is doubtful. Intel may well stay ahead for consumer applications but in the mathematical, statistical and database areas it isn't obvious that the x86 will stay ahead of the Power architecture. Apple's ability to leverage a cleaner processor architecture on a better regulated platform enables them to do more per development dollar than Intel/Microsoft.
Meanwhile, I continue to save up for the G5 Powerbook, when it comes...
The government really needs to stay out of promoting things one way or the other.
However, while the government is being bought by commercial interests, and while the government does so much spending (on the military, infrastructure and bureaucracy), that isn't going to happen. Just by buying a huge system from one vendor, it promotes that vendor. Part of checks and balances is that the government should review the effects of such policies and purchasing, and inform its own procurement and policy staff where these may be having an adverse effect. If that's promoting, I am all for it.
Oh, wait, it seems we need the supercomputer to work out where to put the butterfly.
Since the term "trilogy" applied to a book in three volumes. Which describes LOTR. er, what part of this don't you understand?
or perhaps the Tolkien estate. Isn't this a copyright infringement? Don't laugh. In a reverse version, some years back, Disney had to pay damages to the Bussmann company, who had registered "Tron" as a trademark, even though the film had nothing to do with electrical fusegear. The vague "electronic" connection was enough."
One of the surprising conclusions is that on some routes the best time to arrive is just as a bus is leaving. There are a number of reasons for this. One is that the departing bus has reduced the queue length at the bus stop so you are more likely to get on the next bus. Another is that if the buses tend to group, in groups >= 3, if a bus is leaving the probability that it is not the last bus in the group is >0.5. If you arrive with no buses in sight, chances are you are in an inter-group period.
My favorite comment on the whole bus thing, however, came from a retired admiral who wrote a letter to the London Times: "Since the convoy system was introduced, not a single bus has been sunk by enemy action."
Community response favorable: Hey, we're HP, proud to be associated with SCO.
Response strongly unfavorable: "Hey, we're HP. And here for your amusement is our performing monkey"
In fact the nearest thing I've seen to a "battery" for generation was in Scotland, where they have a system that can use excess power to pump water uphill, then use it for hydroelectric generation when required. You do need very special geography, but the ingredients - concrete and water - aren't very noxious.
I'm sorry, I don't think you've been asked to use 'tu'. And in view of your over-reaction to a minor typo, I think it's pretty clear that regardless of our length of association I don't think I would ever invite you to.
No responsibility whatsoever taken for the smell of kidneys frying (yours)
The measurement you do in the microwave oven is a real-world measurement, i.e. of a displacement. If you have a real frequency and a real displacement, you can measure the speed of light in terms of your measured displacement and a time interval related tot he international standard.
Your comment that "refusing to accept c would be problematic" is invalid because, in fact, the experiment doesn't assume a value for the meter, or for c. You could compare your measured interval to anything convenient - using compasses, just like a Greek philosopher - and measure the speed of light in terms of a reference in your house. It would be a valid outcome of the experiment to measure the speed of light in teaspoons per cesium transition. It isn't a question of making up units: it is a question of deciding on the real world analog of the reference unit, whether it be a standard meter, standard kilogram, or standard sack of sugar. The international definition of the meter is handy if you have a suitable interferometer, but you can still only use it to produce a substandard by making marks on something, or counting interference fringes.
Anyway, why am I bothering? As I remind myself, this is /.
In the 80s my resume used to read:
Speed of light approx 300 000 km/s = 3E8 m/s.
Actually, the easiest way to measure the speed of light is to measure the interval between the lights turning green and the first cab horn sounding during the morning rush hour in Manhattan, then measure the distance from the lights to the cab.
Neither original nor practical, but then I am tired and this is /.
You cannot do it by measuring the dimensions of the magnetron cavities, because the calculation of the frequency based on dimensions assumes the thing you are trying to work out - the speed of light. Frequency counters that go up to 2.5GHz are a bit difficult to come by in most homes. One possibility might be to extract some energy from the cavity using a suitable antenna and mix it with the clock signal from a 2.4 or 2.53GHz motherboard, then try and pick up the resulting beat signal using a short wave or VHF radio. However, I'm not at all sure how to get the signal out of the P4.
Has anybody got a better and reasonably practical method of measuring the frequency?
Yes, I do know why ion engines are a good idea. Just leave Star Wars out of this.
But power transistors have been able to produce more W/M^2 than reactors for a long time. Sounds scary, but not really that bad.
I think you are confusing liftoff of a rocket with takeoff of an aircraft, where sufficient lift has to be generated close to the ground, usually with a full fuel load, and at relatively low speeds.
Nigeria has half the population of the US, and its "real" adjusted internal purchasing power income is probably bigger than small First World countries like Belgium or the Netherlands. But hey, that doesn't make for a "let's patronise the funny black people" story in ABC News.
The motor worked except that, well actually it went badly wrong very soon after launch. Combustion gases went the wrong way and caused the engine to malfunction.
Result: crash. Destruction of payload.
I guess the definition of success came from the people who defined "interception" of Scuds by Patriots in Gulf war 1 as meaning more or less that both missiles were in the air at the same time.
Meanwhile, relatively primitive Russian rockets continue very reliable and Ariane just put up another two comms satellites last night, plus the European moon mission which is aiming for some sort of record as the slowest trip to the Moon ever. Far from being an endorsement of private research versus NASA, it suggests that caution and extensive testing remains the norm in anything to do with rocketry. Even if the next flight is successful, I guess a huge amount of further work would be needed before anyone would risk a real commercial payload on a rocket using this nozzle technology.
Congratulations to the builders.
There is a great European tradition of mechanical devices like this, and it's good it is being kept up so creatively. Not to knock Disney, but some of these creations have a wonderful, slightly kitsch, homegrown quality that is lightyears from Hollywood production values. For people who like them, a great place to visit used to be St. Croix in the Swiss Jura. I haven't been there recently and don't know if the factory tours are still going, but the music boxes and the automata are geek paradise. Just the tiny machine tools that made the tiny screws were awesome. And if you wonder whether modern kids like this kind of stuff, their jaws drop. The only sounds to be heard during the automata demonstration were the demonstrator explaining in French, and a kind French visitor simultanously translating into English for the non-French speakers. Nearby is a museum of automata, which shows what some people got up to before home computing.
Other amazing things in the same tradition are the Christmas cribs on Malta and Gozo, some of which may also be running on Linux by now. The only problem in gaining a proper appreciation is fighting your way past German tourists with video cameras.
So how do you get 100% red? The maximum intensity of any primary color would be 33%.
There may be some magical solution to this, but it looks to me as if color is very, very much more difficult than mono.