Even if the luminous efficacy improves a 60 watt incandescent to that of a 100 watt bulb that still puts it around 29-30 lumens per watt, about 30% of a good fluorescent or LED light source.
This is a nice improvement for an inherently inefficient and quite dated technology, but hardly but hardly "super-efficient" in the larger sense of overall luminous efficacy.
Please note that "regained its independence from" != "a part of." The post you replied to never said that Mongolia was "a part of" the Soviet Union, but only asserted the well documented political and military alignment with the Soviet Union. You may recall a similar situation existed with Cuba.
When Chinese forces attacked Mongolia in 1919 to negate its independence from China, the Soviet Red Army helped Mongolia ward off the invasion. The Mongolian People's Republic was established in 1921 with Soviet influence.
Quaterdeck Mosaic. It is, afterall, what brought the web to the masses.
You do know that NCSA's Mosaic was the #1 choice on the top 10 list? And that all commercial versions of Mosaic were licensed by Spyglass, Inc., a company founded in 1990 to commercialize and support technologies from the National Center for Supercomputing Applications (NCSA) of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign? And that the original codebase for Internet Explorer was also code licensed from Spyglass?
I still use my old 1984 IBM Model M Keyboard. I will weep when/if that keyboard ever dies.
I also use a couple of IBM Model M keyboards. I'm typing this using the older one, made on Aug 26, 1987. And I still use one of my pair of US Robotics Dual Standard modems for sending and receiving faxes.
Good quality PC keyboards are perhaps the least deprecated of computer hardware, possibly followed by large screen monitors. But with the advent of high quality LCD monitors (8bpp or better, possibly with LED backlighting) I think my 21" CRT Sony G520 will soon be headed to the big recycling bin in the sky.
And the computer had a TURBO button on it to make it go faster.
The primary reason for the TURBO button on the old computers was to make it go SLOWER so you could play games with hard coded timing loops that ran too fast in "turbo" mode. Many early games tended to assume that all machines ran at the same speed (8088s at 4.77MHz, 80286s at 6MHz) and wouldn't work right on an overclocked machine. The turbo button would allow you to temporarily switch the computer to a lower speed where your games would work properly.
You must be talking about the part of the Recovery and Reinvestment Act known as the "Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act", AKA the "HITECH Act" or "HIT Act". My observations follow.
1. The bill authorizes money towards the development of a standardized data exchange infrastructure for electronic health records. This is as important a development as the historic adoption of Internet data exchange protocols. Many people die every day due to shockingly antiquated medical communications protocols and lapses.
2. Show me where in the bill the government makes itself the caretaker of your information. I want a citation. Because it doesn't do any such thing. It simply provides for the exchange of information.
3. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) already has very specific rules to ensure data security. There is no need to reinvent the wheel by reproducing those existing rules in the HITECH Act. They are compatible. The HITECH Act doesn't specify the implementation details. It just provides the mandate and framework for implementation.
4. Being a mandate and framework for implementation, BUT NOT A DETAILED IMPLEMENTATION PLAN, the bill does not specify whether standards will be "open" or "closed." And there is no reason to assume they will be either open or closed given the clear wording of the bill. Those details would be set by the HIT policy committee as described in section 3002.
Thus the solution to your concern is really simple: Fire the person who cannot work when "the blue e has moved" and fill the position with someone who can.
And if you are the IT Manager and the person you want fired is the VP of Sales who earns 4 times your salary and was responsible for generating $10 million in sales last year?
The individuals who do the actual inventing rarely make much money. It is the people who market the inventions and get ownership of the intellectual property rights who typically end up with most of the money. Any lawyer can confirm this. Sad but true.
The few inventors with the savvy and resources to fight off the charlatans and their lawyers and reap the fruits of their labors are a rare breed, and are becoming ever ever rarer with each passing day.
Nice try. But it's bogus...nothing but a couple of image files ( http://www.maximonline.com/maximusa/maxim_logo.jpg and http://www.maximonline.com/maximusa/maximcover.png ) overlaid over the map coordinates using Google Earth's Image Overlay feature. It's all clearly visible in the.kml placemarks file. If you bring up the placemark and uncheck the two overlays in "Places" you'll see nothing but dirt at those coordinates.
One last point regarding the question "Why don't they just call it "Windows XP: Second Edition" and be done with it?" I've read that many applications and device drivers written for previous versions of Windows may have trouble running under Vista...if they can run at all. This would indicate another reason not to call it Windows XP Second Edition: people would have the expectation that the new OS would be a simple enhancement to the existing Windows XP and would not have the expectation that their currently installed applications/device drivers would not be compatible. The new name would be an alert to more significant changes...and changed runtime requirements.
>With all the stuff MS has been pulling out of Vista over time, what's left to make it a new OS other than eye candy?
Much needed security improvements.
>Why don't they just call it "Windows XP: Second Edition" and be done with it?
Profit! New name => heightened consumer expectations => greater potential sales. And don't underestimate the selling power of eye candy/bling...it has always been an effective way to sell a new product to a technically illiterate consumer. Microsoft has always been very savvy on this point.
> And how often have we heard rumours of WinFS appearing in the next Windows OS?
Ever since Jim Allchin Microsoft announced Project Cairo in 1991. It was scheduled for release in 1994, and it was to include an object oriented file system similar to what is now referred to as WinFS. Now, 15 years later, these capabilities are STILL missing in action. Here's a chart showing Microsoft scheduled and actual ship dates.
Of course, in the mean time Microsoft has been chasing other innovations and their ever expanding appetites ever since that announcement...Internet connectivity and its related clients (www, mail, ftp, nntp...), security, improving stability, not to mention all the kinds of new hardware devices that had to be supported. Many of them were first supported by Windows.
Nonetheless, WinFS is one of the most obvious cases of Microsoft having "dropped the ball."
The name "Netscape" now carries no special weight. AOL would be better off trying to leverage their existing proprietary features (AIM, user logins and stored information, etc.) to integrate some new features into the services they provide and bring them to new consumer markets.
> I was with you up until you started talking about a third half of something.
You're obviously a member of the Factinista. The parent was speaking straight from the gut. You Slashdot Nerds clearly don't "get" the concept of truthiness. So sad....
> Don't forget to add the cost of maintaining a Ferrari in collector condition for forty years. That's probably a large multiple of the original price.
Ok, no problem.
Let's say I bought a brand new Ferrari 250 GT "Nembo" Spyder for $12,000 back in 1964, then like most owners kept it garaged and drove it mostly evenings and weekends. And let's say that over the years I'd also spend another $36,000 on repairs and servicing...three times its original purchase price.
After ten years parts would be difficult to get, so I'd mostly keep it in the garage under the car cover and take it out for an occasional rally. Let's forget the insurance since I'd be paying a good rate for any fast car, and since I'd mostly keep it garaged my agent would offer me a reasonable rate. Most of my recent maintenance would be cleaning and polishing my vintage toy, and possibly a tune up once a year, so let's throw in another $2,000 a year for that.
So, how much is my car worth now? If you clicked on the link above you'd already know the estimated value is between $675,000-$900,000. Even counting all my other costs I'd gladly take that appreciation any day of the week.
> Similarly, yes, 1960's Ferrari probably can't hold a candle to 1980's higher end Nissan - but the driver who can afford a Ferrari in 1960 has had 20 years of awesome enthusiast's driving and has likely bought 1980's Ferrari that Nissan's 1980 model still can't touch.
May I also point out that if you kept that 1960's Ferrari maintained and in good condition it would likely be worth MUCH MORE--even in inflation adjusted dollars--than you paid for it. It would be fun AND a good investment. This is almost never true for personal computer equipment.
> No, the reason is that the source material (e.g. the photographs) have way more information than can be displayed on a standard def television screen. Panning around a zoomed image is one way to show all the detail that's there.
Actually, the main reason is that 1) most TV viewers expect to see action rather than still images, and 2) a lot of Ken Burns's material either predates motion pictures OR was never captured on video media. It's common knowledge in the broadcast industry that most viewers are so conditioned to expect movement that they become irritated and bored by still images and tune them out. Burns simply employed "The Ken Burns Effect" to give still images the sense of movement and thereby hold the interest of the "patience impaired" subset of his audience.
>"I can't come up with anything else in the entire marketing world where marketers knowingly introduce a flawed or inadequate product [and] it helps grow your user base."
Try this formulation:
Marketers = Republican Party
Flawed or inadequate product = George W. Bush
User base = U.S. Voters
And guess what? The user base for flawed product Bush beta 1 DID grow, resulting in a greater user base for the subsequent Bush beta 2. I can't say whether this trend is going to continue.
> With that in mind I think they are referring to OS/9.
It was immediately obvious to me that they were talking about OS/9. They clearly weren't going to use an Apple operating system that has never been licensed for industrial use. Do you think anyone might have actually thought otherwise?
A critical advantage of the new battery technology is lifespan: "If you're going to implant these things, you want a (battery) lifetime of at least 10 years," said West, whose organosilicon batteries are projected to power tiny implantable devices for more than 12 years.
I presume that "10 year minimum lifetime" is the typical lifespan of the the receiver of the implantable device.
Slashdot Mirror
Last time I checked humans still had tailbones!
Even if the luminous efficacy improves a 60 watt incandescent to that of a 100 watt bulb that still puts it around 29-30 lumens per watt, about 30% of a good fluorescent or LED light source.
This is a nice improvement for an inherently inefficient and quite dated technology, but hardly but hardly "super-efficient" in the larger sense of overall luminous efficacy.
Utter bullshit. Mongolia was never a part of the Soviet Union. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongolian_People's_Republic
Please note that "regained its independence from" != "a part of." The post you replied to never said that Mongolia was "a part of" the Soviet Union, but only asserted the well documented political and military alignment with the Soviet Union. You may recall a similar situation existed with Cuba.
From Wikipedia:
When Chinese forces attacked Mongolia in 1919 to negate its independence from China, the Soviet Red Army helped Mongolia ward off the invasion. The Mongolian People's Republic was established in 1921 with Soviet influence.
Quaterdeck Mosaic. It is, afterall, what brought the web to the masses.
You do know that NCSA's Mosaic was the #1 choice on the top 10 list? And that all commercial versions of Mosaic were licensed by Spyglass, Inc., a company founded in 1990 to commercialize and support technologies from the National Center for Supercomputing Applications (NCSA) of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign? And that the original codebase for Internet Explorer was also code licensed from Spyglass?
I still use my old 1984 IBM Model M Keyboard. I will weep when/if that keyboard ever dies.
I also use a couple of IBM Model M keyboards. I'm typing this using the older one, made on Aug 26, 1987. And I still use one of my pair of US Robotics Dual Standard modems for sending and receiving faxes.
Good quality PC keyboards are perhaps the least deprecated of computer hardware, possibly followed by large screen monitors. But with the advent of high quality LCD monitors (8bpp or better, possibly with LED backlighting) I think my 21" CRT Sony G520 will soon be headed to the big recycling bin in the sky.
And the computer had a TURBO button on it to make it go faster.
The primary reason for the TURBO button on the old computers was to make it go SLOWER so you could play games with hard coded timing loops that ran too fast in "turbo" mode. Many early games tended to assume that all machines ran at the same speed (8088s at 4.77MHz, 80286s at 6MHz) and wouldn't work right on an overclocked machine. The turbo button would allow you to temporarily switch the computer to a lower speed where your games would work properly.
You must be talking about the part of the Recovery and Reinvestment Act known as the "Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act", AKA the "HITECH Act" or "HIT Act". My observations follow.
1. The bill authorizes money towards the development of a standardized data exchange infrastructure for electronic health records. This is as important a development as the historic adoption of Internet data exchange protocols. Many people die every day due to shockingly antiquated medical communications protocols and lapses.
2. Show me where in the bill the government makes itself the caretaker of your information. I want a citation. Because it doesn't do any such thing. It simply provides for the exchange of information.
3. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) already has very specific rules to ensure data security. There is no need to reinvent the wheel by reproducing those existing rules in the HITECH Act. They are compatible. The HITECH Act doesn't specify the implementation details. It just provides the mandate and framework for implementation.
4. Being a mandate and framework for implementation, BUT NOT A DETAILED IMPLEMENTATION PLAN, the bill does not specify whether standards will be "open" or "closed." And there is no reason to assume they will be either open or closed given the clear wording of the bill. Those details would be set by the HIT policy committee as described in section 3002.
Any more questions?
Thus the solution to your concern is really simple: Fire the person who cannot work when "the blue e has moved" and fill the position with someone who can.
And if you are the IT Manager and the person you want fired is the VP of Sales who earns 4 times your salary and was responsible for generating $10 million in sales last year?
Good luck getting that person fired.
PayPal should be making subprime loans?
NOBODY should be making subprime loans. That should have been an oxymoron.
The individuals who do the actual inventing rarely make much money. It is the people who market the inventions and get ownership of the intellectual property rights who typically end up with most of the money. Any lawyer can confirm this. Sad but true. The few inventors with the savvy and resources to fight off the charlatans and their lawyers and reap the fruits of their labors are a rare breed, and are becoming ever ever rarer with each passing day.
If the NPD Group really wants to shake things up they ought to offer free HD-DVD licenses.
Can you say Criminal Conspiracy?
I thought you could.
> Here:
g and http://www.maximonline.com/maximusa/maximcover.png ) overlaid over the map coordinates using Google Earth's Image Overlay feature. It's all clearly visible in the .kml placemarks file. If you bring up the placemark and uncheck the two overlays in "Places" you'll see nothing but dirt at those coordinates.
> http://cdn.maximonline.com/maximusa/index.html
Nice try. But it's bogus...nothing but a couple of image files ( http://www.maximonline.com/maximusa/maxim_logo.jp
One last point regarding the question "Why don't they just call it "Windows XP: Second Edition" and be done with it?" I've read that many applications and device drivers written for previous versions of Windows may have trouble running under Vista...if they can run at all. This would indicate another reason not to call it Windows XP Second Edition: people would have the expectation that the new OS would be a simple enhancement to the existing Windows XP and would not have the expectation that their currently installed applications/device drivers would not be compatible. The new name would be an alert to more significant changes...and changed runtime requirements.
>With all the stuff MS has been pulling out of Vista over time, what's left to make it a new OS other than eye candy?
Much needed security improvements.
>Why don't they just call it "Windows XP: Second Edition" and be done with it?
Profit!
New name => heightened consumer expectations => greater potential sales. And don't underestimate the selling power of eye candy/bling...it has always been an effective way to sell a new product to a technically illiterate consumer. Microsoft has always been very savvy on this point.
> And how often have we heard rumours of WinFS appearing in the next Windows OS?
Ever since Jim Allchin Microsoft announced Project Cairo in 1991. It was scheduled for release in 1994, and it was to include an object oriented file system similar to what is now referred to as WinFS. Now, 15 years later, these capabilities are STILL missing in action. Here's a chart showing Microsoft scheduled and actual ship dates.
Of course, in the mean time Microsoft has been chasing other innovations and their ever expanding appetites ever since that announcement...Internet connectivity and its related clients (www, mail, ftp, nntp...), security, improving stability, not to mention all the kinds of new hardware devices that had to be supported. Many of them were first supported by Windows.
Nonetheless, WinFS is one of the most obvious cases of Microsoft having "dropped the ball."
The name "Netscape" now carries no special weight. AOL would be better off trying to leverage their existing proprietary features (AIM, user logins and stored information, etc.) to integrate some new features into the services they provide and bring them to new consumer markets.
> I was with you up until you started talking about a third half of something.
You're obviously a member of the Factinista. The parent was speaking straight from the gut. You Slashdot Nerds clearly don't "get" the concept of truthiness. So sad....
> Don't forget to add the cost of maintaining a Ferrari in collector condition for forty years. That's probably a large multiple of the original price.
Ok, no problem.
Let's say I bought a brand new Ferrari 250 GT "Nembo" Spyder for $12,000 back in 1964, then like most owners kept it garaged and drove it mostly evenings and weekends. And let's say that over the years I'd also spend another $36,000 on repairs and servicing...three times its original purchase price.
After ten years parts would be difficult to get, so I'd mostly keep it in the garage under the car cover and take it out for an occasional rally. Let's forget the insurance since I'd be paying a good rate for any fast car, and since I'd mostly keep it garaged my agent would offer me a reasonable rate. Most of my recent maintenance would be cleaning and polishing my vintage toy, and possibly a tune up once a year, so let's throw in another $2,000 a year for that.
So, how much is my car worth now? If you clicked on the link above you'd already know the estimated value is between $675,000-$900,000. Even counting all my other costs I'd gladly take that appreciation any day of the week.
> Similarly, yes, 1960's Ferrari probably can't hold a candle to 1980's higher end Nissan - but the driver who can afford a Ferrari in 1960 has had 20 years of awesome enthusiast's driving and has likely bought 1980's Ferrari that Nissan's 1980 model still can't touch.
May I also point out that if you kept that 1960's Ferrari maintained and in good condition it would likely be worth MUCH MORE--even in inflation adjusted dollars--than you paid for it. It would be fun AND a good investment. This is almost never true for personal computer equipment.
> No, the reason is that the source material (e.g. the photographs) have way more information than can be displayed on a standard def television screen. Panning around a zoomed image is one way to show all the detail that's there.
Actually, the main reason is that 1) most TV viewers expect to see action rather than still images, and 2) a lot of Ken Burns's material either predates motion pictures OR was never captured on video media. It's common knowledge in the broadcast industry that most viewers are so conditioned to expect movement that they become irritated and bored by still images and tune them out. Burns simply employed "The Ken Burns Effect" to give still images the sense of movement and thereby hold the interest of the "patience impaired" subset of his audience.
Try this formulation:
And guess what? The user base for flawed product Bush beta 1 DID grow, resulting in a greater user base for the subsequent Bush beta 2. I can't say whether this trend is going to continue.
> With that in mind I think they are referring to OS/9.
It was immediately obvious to me that they were talking about OS/9. They clearly weren't going to use an Apple operating system that has never been licensed for industrial use. Do you think anyone might have actually thought otherwise?
Hey Tux, milk THIS!
From the article:
A critical advantage of the new battery technology is lifespan: "If you're going to implant these things, you want a (battery) lifetime of at least 10 years," said West, whose organosilicon batteries are projected to power tiny implantable devices for more than 12 years.
I presume that "10 year minimum lifetime" is the typical lifespan of the the receiver of the implantable device.