I'm not entirely certain, but if I were to make an educated guess, I would say that this is because using LEDs for this purpose would make it prohibitively expensive, exactly the reason why OLEDs use 'plastic'-like structures, instead of silicon ones (which is what LEDs are made out of).
In other words, a backlight using LED-technology might last a long time, but it might not be nearly as cost-effective as current backlights.
In general, LCD displays are a joke when compared to CRTs. However, aside from the space-saving features and the 'futuristic' look of 'flat displays', LCDs do have one saving (literally) feature: power-usage.
The CRT you mentioned in your post uses probably around 150-200 Watt whenever it's on and displaying something. This, coupled with the generated heat (some 'broken' monitors are fixed by modding them to include a fan) are the reason why large CRTs can be called 'hot, power-hungry beasts'.
OLEDs supposedly have all the benefits of CRTs (excellent IQ, plenty of colors), as well as those of TFTs (small in size), while using less power than TFTs.
Only thing I haven't any solid data on is the likelihood of dead pixels with OLED displays, although it can be assumed that this will be far more rare than with TFTs, considering that the production process is far less complex.
"Last I've heard, OLEDs are rated for something like 1000 hours life."
That was a typo. The real number was 10,000 hours, and this is the time the blue component of an OLED display lasts before fading. The green and red components last about 20,000-30,000 hours. There is still a lot of improvement to be made in stabilizing the organic componenents of OLEDs, so expect those numbers to improve over time.
Also, don't forget that an LCD display last also about 10,000-15,000 hours, after which the backlight has to be replaced (usually about as, if not more expensive than buying a new display). CRTs don't last forever, either. After about 20,000 hours the brightness of a CRT will gradually degrade.
Considering that OLED is a relatively new technology it would be quite foolish to label it as being impractical/useless, since there is still a lot of room for improvement (we're looking at prototypes here!).
In the past few weeks I've installed SuSE 9.0 on a number of systems (PI 166 - Athlon 600) using the FTP install option. Assuming the system has at least 96 MB of RAM it's a breeze to install (using a temporary swap file gave many problems when I tried it).
Other than that, all hardware in those systems (ranging from proprietary OEM to self-build systems) was detected without issues. YAST is the best admin tool I've used with any distro (including Mandrake and RedHat (now Fedora)).
This (MSFT losing a significant part of its market share) matters because it would be the first time in many years that such a huge shift in the desktop market occurs.
I didn't imply in my post that this would directly benefit the end user, but only used it as an example of one of the potential effects of the success of a project like ReactOS.
But indeed, indirectly it would likely benefit end users.
Does MSFT even offer support for its products? I was under the impression that support to companies who went with a MSFT solution is provided virtually solely by third-party companies with no relation to MSFT.
Things are even worse for home-users (esp. OEM), who either have to rely on the helpdesk of the OEM they brought their PC from (e.g. Dell, HP), or subject themselves to the knowledge of family-members, friends, and similar.
With OSS OSs like Linux and *BSD there are many companies willing to offer support (IBM, RedHat, SuSE, etc.) and if that fails (or you don't want to buy/extend your support contract), there are tens of thousands of users out there who are willing (and able) to help you (or hit you with the 'RTFM'-bat).
As far as I can tell support for 'Windows' (ReactOS or similar) is likely to improve considerably if ReactOS or a similar project proves to be successful.
In regards to providing users with a single entity to blame, is there really a need for this with, or example, Linux? And even if there is, if a company buys a Linux solution from IBM, it can blame IBM if it fails to fullfil its obligations, and if IBM is not at fault, the company (or IBM) can submit a bug report to the developers and wait till the issue is resolved, or fix it themselves (especially an option for larger companies, who, coincidentially, have more to lose from software bugs and missing features in critical software).
"Seriously, I don't get it, if you make something new, you might as well try to do it different, or improve on what already exist, not simply clone something."
I think you fail to see the potential of this particular project.
If a project like ReactOS results in a viable drop-in replacement of Windows (NT, 2k, XP), while adding many of the benefits of OSS (e.g. Linux), it may ultimately end up destroying (a good part of) MSFT's market share of desktop OSs, as few companies and individuals will see the need to pay for 'Windows' (the OS). Imagine Walmart selling those cheap PCs again, but this time with ReactOS installed.
Certainly, Windows is a bad OS in too many ways (security-wise, as well as because of the messy API), but that doesn't mean that through a project like ReactOS we can't end up improving 'Windows'. And do what Linux has failed to do so far: take over the desktop OS market.
Or in other words, CPUs are a critical components of computer systems in a variety of markets, from embedded solutions, to servers and desktop PCs.
GPUs on the other hand are only a critical component in a small number of situations, like a gamer's desktop PC or a CAD workstation. Nobody cares about the GPU in a server or embedded system, which is why you'll find ancient S3 GPUs and similar in these types of systems.
So in a sense there are already power-efficient GPUs for systems that require them: the GPUs of around four, five generations back, many of which don't even require a heatsink.
"Does anyone know if plants have DNA? I am thinking that only animals have DNA, that plants have different structures like RNA or something. Sorry for my ignorance, I'm willing to read this online if someone can point me in the right direction to a site on the basics of plant biology without being too 'biochemical genetic engineering' (expert level) text. I've had HS bio, and college chem, and lots and lots and lots of physics, but that's it..."
All biological organisms use DNA. While early life forms are likely to have used RNA exclusively, DNA is used because it's very stable (from a biochemical point of view). Only some viruses contain a string of RNA instead of DNA.
If you put people in power for N years, they'll do everything in their power to get re-elected.
Certainly, there'll be some exceptions, but in general it's true that those who want to be the president (or whatever) of a country, state, company or other aren't there to improve things. They want it because, to them, it's a position that is preferable to (most) other positions in society.
Fortunately, SARS is very different from such a type of disease. It's neither very contagious (close physical contact is required), nor is it very effective: only about 8% of those infected die, usually those with an already weakened immune system, like children, old people and anyone already suffering (or recovering) from another disease.
It still sounds like an interesting article, though.
Sure, no one is going to ever read, let alone debug a Whitespace or Unlambda program's source code, but typing the source code in the first place is a bit harder in the case of Unlambda (only functions, no variables, a number of built-in functions which are used to create other functions which ultimately do the stuff you wanted to do).
The best thing about duplicate stories on/. are the nearly infinite amount of 'Dupe?'-posts which are posted even before the 'FP?!!!1'-posts.
I feel dirty now for even replying to a duplicate story =(
A quote from the summary:
on
Opencroquet
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
"Hardware is fast - really fast, but other than for booting Windows or playing Quake no one cares - nor can they really use it. We want to take advantage of this power curve to enable a richer experience."
Does anyone else here read this as 'expanding the software to fill the available space (CPU-cycles & memory bandwidth)'?
Instead of focusing on enabling 'a richer experience' let us focus first on what is wrong with the current 'solutions' we're using and realize that 'doing more with less' is more than just common sense.
Don't tell me you really think that an OS like Win2k/XP or *NIX/*BSD is the 'be all, end all' of running software on a computersystem. Heck, over 10 years we'll simply laugh at those archaic things we're using (including countless hardware devices), much like we look back at using punch cards.
In other words, nothing to see here. Wait until we realize the mistakes we've been making and start from scratch again.
Gotta love art-speak...
on
Server In A Fly
·
· Score: 5, Informative
In short, what the page is trying to make clear is that these guys put a tiny IC, capable of functioning as a webserver, together with a LED in a dead fly (with some more, identical cyberflies as backup).
The webserver (1K of space) shows a simple page, and the visitor of the page can turn the LED on/off.
Further, the 'surgery' on the fly had to be carried out within 24 hours after its death, or it would have become too brittle, though the author noted that it's possible to rejoin broken off legs &c. with some glue. Provided you can find the bodypart in question:)
The reason for this project? It's art, you insensitive clod!
"The fan only runs at full RPM when the card is doing a lot of 3d work. 2D stuff causes the fan to run a lot slower (not sure if it ever turns off completely tho)..."
From the [H]ard|OCP review:
"Using a decibel meter we tested the sound level of the GFFX at three feet away, directly in front of the exhaust vent. In 2D mode, the reading was 56dB."
I don't know about you, but I find 56 dB to be very noisy.
Therefore, unless there's a very good reason to do so, any non-natural method of reproducing is to be avoided.
So if you can't produce offspring the 'natural' way, but still feel the desire to raise a child, you can adopt a child which might otherwise have had a very miserable life.
The outright refusal of some people to adopt a child because a child carrying their own genes is 'so much more fun', or whichever pitiful excuse only provides proof for the theory that the behaviour of humans, too, is often regulated by our genes.
The (human) body as a way for the genes to exist. Your genes first.
Re:No reason to celebrate...
on
Euro DMCA Fails
·
· Score: 1
While reading the (current and past) restrictions placed on buying/playing audio, movies, etc., does anyone realize that doing the aforementioned things the _illegal_ way is so much easier?
If I get audio, movies, etc. from P2P, IRC, and so on, I can use it whatever way I want to use it, and I can still buy the CD/DVD/etc. in the shop.
If only the CDs weren't crippled with 'copy-protection', the DVDs encrypted and restricted to certain regios, not to mention the outrageous prices which are being asked for CDs in particular.
We, the customers, will eventually choose the _easiest_ way, which might not necessarily be the _legal_ way. And there's no way to stop this process as long as there's still a shred of freedom left.
"Is there a technical reason not to do so, or is it a philosophical one?"
DirectX is property of MSFT, enough said.
Anyway, I never understood why people would use DirectX unless they were certain they would never release the software for another platform than Windows. There are already a number of cross-platform solutions for audio, video, etc.
Examples include SDL, OpenGL, PortAudio and OpenSL.
Actually, individual neurons in the brain fire up to 200 times a second (200 Hz).
However, a (biolgical) neural network isn't hardware or software. It's both. It's a network build up out of simple elements, which together form logic circuits.
In a computer the hardware (the logic components) form a circuit which can be used to run software on. A neural network IS the software.
For this reason it's wrong to compare a computer with a neural network.
A neural network doesn't even have strictly defined areas which process certain kinds of data. Due to its adaptive nature, an unused part of the network will be taken up by bordering parts and used for different purposes. A person who loses a hand will have the part of his brain which was previously used to control this hand 'absorbed' by sections of the brain with totally different functions.
So in short, a computer is hardware, a neural network is software in a physical form.
Actually, you only have to learn 85 + 77 symbols (Katakana and Hiragana, respectively). Kanji is a bit superfluous IMHO, although it has its uses.
But the point is that Kanji isn't used as something seperate like Hiragana and Katakana, so learning Kanji isn't necessary if you wish to learn Japanese, and it's quite easy to pick up the few Kanji you need to use in daily life if you know how to spell them using Hiragana.
Through learning Japanese, I've come to prefer the simplicity and power of phonetical 'alphabets'. It's far more logical to use symbols to represent individual sounds, instead of... what? 26 symbols and the need for a 450 pages thick book full or rules just to get a basic grasp on the pronounciation of words made using those symbols?
It's obvious that you've never looked at our alphabet from the point of a native Japanese person.
Euh... how is it convenient to use a character set of near 2000, when 26 will suffice perfectly well to represent the range of sounds that can be created by the human vocal chords?
You don't know what you're talking about. Hiragana and Katakana are purely phonetical, meaning that every symbol has its own distinct pronounciation, whereas the pronounciation of Western words (among others) is never fully clear.
BTW, someone mentioned earlier that Kanji is spelled out using Katakana. This is wrong. All Kanji are spelled out using Hiragana, as becomes clear when taking a look at Furigana, which are simply Hiragana, and show the pronounciation of a character of Kanji.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not entirely certain, but if I were to make an educated guess, I would say that this is because using LEDs for this purpose would make it prohibitively expensive, exactly the reason why OLEDs use 'plastic'-like structures, instead of silicon ones (which is what LEDs are made out of).
In other words, a backlight using LED-technology might last a long time, but it might not be nearly as cost-effective as current backlights.
"I really dont see why LCD monitors are so hot."
In general, LCD displays are a joke when compared to CRTs. However, aside from the space-saving features and the 'futuristic' look of 'flat displays', LCDs do have one saving (literally) feature: power-usage.
The CRT you mentioned in your post uses probably around 150-200 Watt whenever it's on and displaying something. This, coupled with the generated heat (some 'broken' monitors are fixed by modding them to include a fan) are the reason why large CRTs can be called 'hot, power-hungry beasts'.
OLEDs supposedly have all the benefits of CRTs (excellent IQ, plenty of colors), as well as those of TFTs (small in size), while using less power than TFTs.
Only thing I haven't any solid data on is the likelihood of dead pixels with OLED displays, although it can be assumed that this will be far more rare than with TFTs, considering that the production process is far less complex.
"Last I've heard, OLEDs are rated for something like 1000 hours life."
That was a typo. The real number was 10,000 hours, and this is the time the blue component of an OLED display lasts before fading. The green and red components last about 20,000-30,000 hours. There is still a lot of improvement to be made in stabilizing the organic componenents of OLEDs, so expect those numbers to improve over time.
Also, don't forget that an LCD display last also about 10,000-15,000 hours, after which the backlight has to be replaced (usually about as, if not more expensive than buying a new display). CRTs don't last forever, either. After about 20,000 hours the brightness of a CRT will gradually degrade.
Considering that OLED is a relatively new technology it would be quite foolish to label it as being impractical/useless, since there is still a lot of room for improvement (we're looking at prototypes here!).
In the past few weeks I've installed SuSE 9.0 on a number of systems (PI 166 - Athlon 600) using the FTP install option. Assuming the system has at least 96 MB of RAM it's a breeze to install (using a temporary swap file gave many problems when I tried it).
Other than that, all hardware in those systems (ranging from proprietary OEM to self-build systems) was detected without issues. YAST is the best admin tool I've used with any distro (including Mandrake and RedHat (now Fedora)).
YMMV.
This (MSFT losing a significant part of its market share) matters because it would be the first time in many years that such a huge shift in the desktop market occurs.
I didn't imply in my post that this would directly benefit the end user, but only used it as an example of one of the potential effects of the success of a project like ReactOS.
But indeed, indirectly it would likely benefit end users.
Does MSFT even offer support for its products? I was under the impression that support to companies who went with a MSFT solution is provided virtually solely by third-party companies with no relation to MSFT.
Things are even worse for home-users (esp. OEM), who either have to rely on the helpdesk of the OEM they brought their PC from (e.g. Dell, HP), or subject themselves to the knowledge of family-members, friends, and similar.
With OSS OSs like Linux and *BSD there are many companies willing to offer support (IBM, RedHat, SuSE, etc.) and if that fails (or you don't want to buy/extend your support contract), there are tens of thousands of users out there who are willing (and able) to help you (or hit you with the 'RTFM'-bat).
As far as I can tell support for 'Windows' (ReactOS or similar) is likely to improve considerably if ReactOS or a similar project proves to be successful.
In regards to providing users with a single entity to blame, is there really a need for this with, or example, Linux? And even if there is, if a company buys a Linux solution from IBM, it can blame IBM if it fails to fullfil its obligations, and if IBM is not at fault, the company (or IBM) can submit a bug report to the developers and wait till the issue is resolved, or fix it themselves (especially an option for larger companies, who, coincidentially, have more to lose from software bugs and missing features in critical software).
"Seriously, I don't get it, if you make something new, you might as well try to do it different, or improve on what already exist, not simply clone something."
I think you fail to see the potential of this particular project.
If a project like ReactOS results in a viable drop-in replacement of Windows (NT, 2k, XP), while adding many of the benefits of OSS (e.g. Linux), it may ultimately end up destroying (a good part of) MSFT's market share of desktop OSs, as few companies and individuals will see the need to pay for 'Windows' (the OS). Imagine Walmart selling those cheap PCs again, but this time with ReactOS installed.
Certainly, Windows is a bad OS in too many ways (security-wise, as well as because of the messy API), but that doesn't mean that through a project like ReactOS we can't end up improving 'Windows'. And do what Linux has failed to do so far: take over the desktop OS market.
Or in other words, CPUs are a critical components of computer systems in a variety of markets, from embedded solutions, to servers and desktop PCs.
GPUs on the other hand are only a critical component in a small number of situations, like a gamer's desktop PC or a CAD workstation. Nobody cares about the GPU in a server or embedded system, which is why you'll find ancient S3 GPUs and similar in these types of systems.
So in a sense there are already power-efficient GPUs for systems that require them: the GPUs of around four, five generations back, many of which don't even require a heatsink.
You're kidding, right?
i d=747340.
All BTX does is cooling the CPU first, then letting the warmed up air circulate over the other components inside the case, shortening their lifespan.
Here's an interesting thread: http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?s=&thread
"Does anyone know if plants have DNA? I am thinking that only animals have DNA, that plants have different structures like RNA or something. Sorry for my ignorance, I'm willing to read this online if someone can point me in the right direction to a site on the basics of plant biology without being too 'biochemical genetic engineering' (expert level) text. I've had HS bio, and college chem, and lots and lots and lots of physics, but that's it..."
All biological organisms use DNA. While early life forms are likely to have used RNA exclusively, DNA is used because it's very stable (from a biochemical point of view). Only some viruses contain a string of RNA instead of DNA.
You might find this site interesting.
If you put people in power for N years, they'll do everything in their power to get re-elected.
Certainly, there'll be some exceptions, but in general it's true that those who want to be the president (or whatever) of a country, state, company or other aren't there to improve things. They want it because, to them, it's a position that is preferable to (most) other positions in society.
From the linked article:
;)
"By Robert Roy Britt Senior Science Writer
posted: 09:52 am ET
23 April 2002"
Then again, this might be an example of strong sources of gravity affecting time
[..] the disease was horrifically contagious.
Fortunately, SARS is very different from such a type of disease. It's neither very contagious (close physical contact is required), nor is it very effective: only about 8% of those infected die, usually those with an already weakened immune system, like children, old people and anyone already suffering (or recovering) from another disease.
It still sounds like an interesting article, though.
"I think the real question isn't "is this for real?" but rather "why, God why?""
That's pretty much the question I was asking myself after reading this page on Unlambda.
Sure, no one is going to ever read, let alone debug a Whitespace or Unlambda program's source code, but typing the source code in the first place is a bit harder in the case of Unlambda (only functions, no variables, a number of built-in functions which are used to create other functions which ultimately do the stuff you wanted to do).
The best thing about duplicate stories on /. are the nearly infinite amount of 'Dupe?'-posts which are posted even before the 'FP?!!!1'-posts.
I feel dirty now for even replying to a duplicate story =(
"Hardware is fast - really fast, but other than for booting Windows or playing Quake no one cares - nor can they really use it. We want to take advantage of this power curve to enable a richer experience."
Does anyone else here read this as 'expanding the software to fill the available space (CPU-cycles & memory bandwidth)'?
Instead of focusing on enabling 'a richer experience' let us focus first on what is wrong with the current 'solutions' we're using and realize that 'doing more with less' is more than just common sense.
Don't tell me you really think that an OS like Win2k/XP or *NIX/*BSD is the 'be all, end all' of running software on a computersystem. Heck, over 10 years we'll simply laugh at those archaic things we're using (including countless hardware devices), much like we look back at using punch cards.
In other words, nothing to see here. Wait until we realize the mistakes we've been making and start from scratch again.
In short, what the page is trying to make clear is that these guys put a tiny IC, capable of functioning as a webserver, together with a LED in a dead fly (with some more, identical cyberflies as backup).
:)
The webserver (1K of space) shows a simple page, and the visitor of the page can turn the LED on/off.
Further, the 'surgery' on the fly had to be carried out within 24 hours after its death, or it would have become too brittle, though the author noted that it's possible to rejoin broken off legs &c. with some glue. Provided you can find the bodypart in question
The reason for this project? It's art, you insensitive clod!
"The fan only runs at full RPM when the card is doing a lot of 3d work. 2D stuff causes the fan to run a lot slower (not sure if it ever turns off completely tho)..."
From the [H]ard|OCP review:
"Using a decibel meter we tested the sound level of the GFFX at three feet away, directly in front of the exhaust vent. In 2D mode, the reading was 56dB."
I don't know about you, but I find 56 dB to be very noisy.
There's no such thing as a right to reproduce.
Therefore, unless there's a very good reason to do so, any non-natural method of reproducing is to be avoided.
So if you can't produce offspring the 'natural' way, but still feel the desire to raise a child, you can adopt a child which might otherwise have had a very miserable life.
The outright refusal of some people to adopt a child because a child carrying their own genes is 'so much more fun', or whichever pitiful excuse only provides proof for the theory that the behaviour of humans, too, is often regulated by our genes.
The (human) body as a way for the genes to exist. Your genes first.
While reading the (current and past) restrictions placed on buying/playing audio, movies, etc., does anyone realize that doing the aforementioned things the _illegal_ way is so much easier?
If I get audio, movies, etc. from P2P, IRC, and so on, I can use it whatever way I want to use it, and I can still buy the CD/DVD/etc. in the shop.
If only the CDs weren't crippled with 'copy-protection', the DVDs encrypted and restricted to certain regios, not to mention the outrageous prices which are being asked for CDs in particular.
We, the customers, will eventually choose the _easiest_ way, which might not necessarily be the _legal_ way. And there's no way to stop this process as long as there's still a shred of freedom left.
"Is there a technical reason not to do so, or is it a philosophical one?"
DirectX is property of MSFT, enough said.
Anyway, I never understood why people would use DirectX unless they were certain they would never release the software for another platform than Windows. There are already a number of cross-platform solutions for audio, video, etc.
Examples include SDL, OpenGL, PortAudio and OpenSL.
Actually, individual neurons in the brain fire up to 200 times a second (200 Hz).
However, a (biolgical) neural network isn't hardware or software. It's both. It's a network build up out of simple elements, which together form logic circuits.
In a computer the hardware (the logic components) form a circuit which can be used to run software on. A neural network IS the software.
For this reason it's wrong to compare a computer with a neural network.
A neural network doesn't even have strictly defined areas which process certain kinds of data. Due to its adaptive nature, an unused part of the network will be taken up by bordering parts and used for different purposes. A person who loses a hand will have the part of his brain which was previously used to control this hand 'absorbed' by sections of the brain with totally different functions.
So in short, a computer is hardware, a neural network is software in a physical form.
I can't help noticing a similarity between copyrighted material on p2p, and porn on home video.
AKA porn.
Actually, you only have to learn 85 + 77 symbols (Katakana and Hiragana, respectively). Kanji is a bit superfluous IMHO, although it has its uses.
But the point is that Kanji isn't used as something seperate like Hiragana and Katakana, so learning Kanji isn't necessary if you wish to learn Japanese, and it's quite easy to pick up the few Kanji you need to use in daily life if you know how to spell them using Hiragana.
Through learning Japanese, I've come to prefer the simplicity and power of phonetical 'alphabets'. It's far more logical to use symbols to represent individual sounds, instead of... what? 26 symbols and the need for a 450 pages thick book full or rules just to get a basic grasp on the pronounciation of words made using those symbols?
It's obvious that you've never looked at our alphabet from the point of a native Japanese person.
Euh... how is it convenient to use a character set of near 2000, when 26 will suffice perfectly well to represent the range of sounds that can be created by the human vocal chords?
You don't know what you're talking about. Hiragana and Katakana are purely phonetical, meaning that every symbol has its own distinct pronounciation, whereas the pronounciation of Western words (among others) is never fully clear.
BTW, someone mentioned earlier that Kanji is spelled out using Katakana. This is wrong. All Kanji are spelled out using Hiragana, as becomes clear when taking a look at Furigana, which are simply Hiragana, and show the pronounciation of a character of Kanji.