Indeed. I'm an American, but I'm familiar with SI units. If I tell a friend that something is about two meters long, he's surprised, but he understands what I mean.
I've seen signs posted using metric dimensions (mainly boats, expressing lengths in meters) and somebody would scribble on the sign "This is America, we use feet here." Probably the same stubborn type that blames anything and everything on those "damned commie liberal pieces of shit."
Some argue that Imperial units work better, since things designed and built are built to nice round Imperial values. The point that I try to make (and fail at) is that if we used metric, things would STILL be designed to convenient increments. That 100-foot wall? Maybe only to 30 or 30.5 meters (not 30.48 meters necessarily). Eight-foot (not a nice increment of anything in itself already) ceiling? An extra 2.5 inches gets you to 2.5 meters. Instead of buying a gallon of milk, buy four liters instead.
I personally prefer metric, since it makes many conversions easier (1000 cc = 1 liter to me is easier remember and calculate instead of 231 cubic inches = 1 gallon) but in the end, it's a matter of what you are used to that ultimately determines what is easier.
But in a data centre you don't face the risk of drowning and/or perishing. Also, it's really easy to convince yourself that your setup works because you've carefully and methodically powered down each backup source individually, but it's near impossible to determine the stress that would be placed on a network by a power failure unless you simulate one.
Right...and that is the ultimate test, after you have tested and/or corrected the subsystems that support that final outcome. You also run this final test when you have time to recover from catastrophic failure. That was my point--you don't expect catastrophic failure because you already tested the smaller portions, but in case you do, you have the weekend to recover...not overnight.
The power going out on Wednesday is why you run your test on Friday--you test your protection to ensure that you can recover from a mid-week power failure by Thursday morning, but you don't run the actual test on Wednesday. You set your test up so that a catastrophic failure causes the least disruption.
When I was in the Navy, we would run drills in the same manner--our response was the same whether the sub was running deep and fast or slow and shallow, so why run the drills in the riskier situation of deep and fast, where a catastrophic failure in response to the drill could cause very bad problems very quickly?
Every reference I could find on the SD600 battery listed it as being 3x4x1, so a AAA would easily fit. What is the real size then? Why are you assuming 3 aaa's since 2 would already exceed the capacity of the SD600 battery? (1000 vs. 760mAh).
I don't have a ruler handy, but I got my dimensions based on taking the battery out of my SD600 and laying it on the desk next to a AAA cell. The SD600 battery is slightly thicker than one radius of the AAA sitting next to it. It is about 1-2 mm shorter than the AAA's body (not including the nub at the end of the cell), and three AAA cells wide.
I don't know why I assumed three AAA cells; perhaps it was because three were the same width as the SD600 battery and I went with that. Yes, 2 Li-ion AAA cells would do the trick, but there would still have to be concessions made in the camera design for the wider cells.
Looking at the Macbook, 7 groups of 3 would actually exceed the Macbook battery's capacity, no need for 8 groups.
My math showed that it would take slightly over 21 cells, so 7x3 would not provide the same energy. Are you using the 4.2V to calculate the energy content of a cell? If so, then yes, the 7x3 battery would be more than sufficient. You still need to design in the means of holding the cells, and the notebook would still need to be somewhat thicker to accommodate the AA cells. Putting a standard AA cell (I presume that AA alkaline is the same dimensions as AA Li-ion) next to my MBP, the notebook is only 1-2 mm thicker than one cell. The structure used to hold the cells would take up space, so the notebooks's dimensions would have to change.
Add to that the fact that the geometry of the cells has a limited set of physical arrangements, the form of the final device is somewhat restricted. You are correct that a lot of battery packs are just shrink-wrapped cells soldered together, but a lot of other packs are custom-shaped to fit the volumes allocated to them.
Two other examples to note: my iPod nano is thicker than a AAA cell, so that option is out. The portion of my Motorola RAZR that contains the battery is also thicker than a AAA cell, so that option would be out as well. As devices get larger though, then the standard cells start to become more of an option.
I suspect there is some marketing and customer research too: Joe Sixpack buys a camera that requires "AA Lithium cells" but only gets the "AA" part, and can't figure out why his camera doesn't work with new batteries. A Li-ion cell can't go below 2.5V (per Wikipedia) which is still a full volt above your standard alkaline cell, so a device using Li-ion cells will shut down (or not even start with insufficient voltage. Sure, the device could sense what cell is installed by checking the voltage, but that adds complexity to the device, especially if you want to try detecting a mix of alkaline and Li-ion cells (which I would not expect to be a good idea in the first place).
In reverse, You have a camera that uses standard alkaline AA cells but Joe just grabs the first pack of AA cells he sees on the shelf. He drops in cell that has twice the required voltage and his camera releases the magic smoke that makes it work.
There may be other factors that we haven't considered, like heat, weight, etc. Speaking only for myself, I'm not a battery design engineer so I wouldn't know all the design criteria that goes into battery selection.
I think we've both pointed out the pros and cons of each type battery packs. The pros of a standard-size cell are: more readily replaceable and potentially lower costs (volume production). The cons are limited geometries that would require extra structure to hold the cells and restrictions on device form to accommodate such structures.
Pros of custom-formed packs: fitted to fit the exact volume allocated, allowing for the desired device form. Cons: proprietary form fact
Perhaps, but perhaps not. I've also owned each generation of iPhone (and two different 3G units), but when I upgraded, the sale of the old one paid for at least 75% of the new one. In the case of the 3G-3GS, the 3G sale covered the upgrade entirely.
Looking at the battery for the SD600, a pair of standard CR10440 LiIon batteries would be smaller and last a bit longer (CR10440 is aaa sized).
Three AAA cells takes up a slightly larger area as the SD600 battery (I did a direct comparison on my desk right here) but the AAA battery (three cells) is also nearly twice as thick. A three-cell battery using the CR10440 in parallel (since the two batteries have almost the same voltage) would have 1500 mAh (500 mAh each in parallel) vs. the 760 mAh of the SD600 battery.
The trade-off is camera size. On either side of the battery is the SD card and the display controls, so there wouldn't be any room for the AAA cells unless the camera was made thicker.
So you are correct in that a battery made of AAA Li-ion cells would last longer (nearly twice as long in fact) and be slightly cheaper ($27 for the Canon battery on sale at Amazon.com) but the battery would also take up nearly twice the volume.
You point is well-taken, but my point still stands--it was a trade-off in size vs. battery interchangeability. Depending on what features you wanted in a camera, you can go with one with a proprietary battery or one with standard battery.
As far as interchangeabiliy goes...
If that was a common thing, you could easily get replacement batteries for your laptop at the drug or grocery store. You could interchange batteries between your still camera, video camera, laptop, flashlight, etc. etc. A charger that works on all of them would be $10-$15.
I'll use my MacBook Pro as an example, as I have the battery information readily available. Battery voltage is about 12.5V right now, fully charged, 10.76V when the battery is nearly empty. Battery capacity is about 5500 mAh fully charged. Fully charged, that means in contains about 247.5kJ of energy.
A single AA-size 3.6V nominal Li-ion cell with 900 mAh capacity contains about 11.7kJ of energy. To provide the same amount of energy, you would need over 21 CR14500-series cells. Your number also must be divisible by three, as three cells in series provides 10.8V-the minimum I've seen on my MBP. So you need 24 cells total. Eyeballing the AA cells I have here and comparing to my MBP, the battery volume is roughly the same, not taking into account the interconnections and moldings required to hold 24 cells in an 3x8 battery pack.
So you have 8 groups, three cells per group, to match the 13" MBP battery. 24 cells, at $4.50 sale price from the link given above (bulk price for 24 cells), is $108. The normal price of $7.95 means the cells come to $190.80, slightly less for bulk pricing. You also need to charge all 24 cells at once; you can't mix cells of differing charges, otherwise some cells will have to supply more current than others and potentially exceed their current rating. BTW, I neglected current rating in the discussion as I don't know what the current rating is for a Li-ion cell. It would have to be at least 300mA, as I've seen a peak of 2.4A on my battery and dividing that current over the 8 groups yields 300mA from each. I'm going to assume that each cell can handle 300mA.
Weight: I've seen similar cells at 21g each, but they also had lower (800mAh) capacities. Using 21g anyway, that is 0.047 pounds (rounding up a wee bit from 0.0462 for the extra capacity) per cell, or 1.13 pounds for the battery pack; again, that does not include the interconnecting wiring or holders. I don't know what the MBP battery weights, and I'm not pulling mine apart to check.
So to compare:
13" MBP battery: 247.5 kJ of energy, rated for 1000 charge cycles, and $129 for Apple to replace if it goes bad. Not user-replaceable. Internal connections all soldered together for reliability.
CR14500 battery pack: 280.8 kJ of energy (13% increase), rated at 600-800 charge cycles (20% fewer), similar
I can't see the need for special batteries for every single device. How is that progress? (And Apple and Logitech have one step stupider and made devices with irreplacable batteries).
As far as I can tell, the specialized batteries are used to maximize the power density in small, power-hungry devices.
Example: I have two digital cameras from Canon. The older one (A80) uses standard AA batteries. However, it is a bit larger and less capable than the newer one (SD600), which uses a special Li-Ion battery. If the SD600 were made to use AA batteries, then it would have to be a little bigger.
It's all an engineering/design trade-off. Standard cells mean more battery space and weight but readily available replacements. Custom batteries mean less weight and more power, but require special chargers.
Why not make standard, box-shaped cells to save space? You could do that, but the casing would have to be made stronger (leaving less volume for the energy storage chemicals) to prevent distortion of the casing. A cylinder is better able to redistribute forces around it, where a flat surface caves in or bows out. What about that boxy 9-volt battery? I saw one cracked open once; it was six 1.5v cylindrical cells in series. Again, a set of trade-offs: energy per unit volume vs. structural integrity.
I wish the 3rd parties in America were not so anemic. I also wish people would just vote 3rd party without being too concerned about WHICH 3rd party. At this point pretty much any new force in government would be good. It literally can't get worse.
I agree that the other parties need to be considered more by the voting public. I think a lot of people are seeing how the Republican and Democratic parties, as a whole, have both gone too far towards their extreme ends of the political spectrum and how the candidates represent the party and not the voters. I heard it said on Milwaukee radio in the last few months that conservative voters want leaders with (to paraphrase) "conservative values, not Republican values."
However, blindly voting for somebody just because they are not a Democrat or Republican is not a good idea. Any vote based solely on the political party without knowing the positions on the issues is an uninformed vote, and would not necessariy be better than what we have now, as you assert. Research the candidates; vote for the issues, not the party.
The non-mainstream parties can take lessons from the Obama presidential campaign in the use of technology and the communications channels it provides. Social networking is now the norm, not some fad to be poo-poohed, and it needs to be taken advantage of in order to communicate with a tech-saavy electorate that will be replacing the Baby Boomers in the coming years.
I agree with you on the paranoid term of the parent post, but have to admit that I also thought the title was a little (out of a lack of a better word) creepy at first; public participation is directed or controlled. It does have the tone of directing how citizens participate in government. Something like "Public Communications Coordinator" sounds more inviting, leaning more towards a tone of communications participation and partnership.
My father used to sit on the couch and whine, bitch and moan about politicians, but never once did he leave the house to tell anyone outside of it how he felt.
I say something similar about all the media talking heads that rattle on and on about how so-and-so is a lousy political leader, I keep saying we need to do this, everybody else is so wrong, yada yada yada...
"If you're so damn smart and so damn right and everybody else is so wrong, YOU put YOUR name on the ballot!"
Could I cut it? No, I'm not a programmer. Back in the day, IE was backed by Microsoft, yet the Mozilla line has flourished and grown to what it is today. If I recall correctly, it grew a lot before it had the backing of Google.
I'm puzzled by something...what is the obsession of beating Microsoft in the browser wars? I recall a time where FOSS stood for scratching an itch--coders creating software to get the job done. Why not just focus on making the best browser you can, with the features you want, and let the marketshare take care of itself. It reminds me of the line spoken by Odysseus in the movie "Troy": "Let Achilles fight for honor, let Agamemnon fight for power, and let the gods decide which man to glorify."
I see Apple in the same light. Why should Apple care about marketshare? I'd rather be a "niche" market (although I don't consider Apple as such), building a quality product at a healthy profit margin, than a mass-production company cranking out a gazillion low-margin, questionable-quality products. Size is not all it is cracked up to be sometimes.
"Is this a back-door effort to get ad-blocking out of Firefox?"
If that happens, it's time to relentlessly savage Firefox and do everything practical from a geek perspective to reduce its adoption. That would be a deliberate betrayal of the user base, because extensions are the only reason to use Firefox.
The makers of ANY software should know their users will turn on them in a heartbeat when they choose to screw up.
Or exercise some good ol' open source muscle and fork it. Isn't that supposed to be one of the benefits of open source? You aren't enslaved to a particular developer if a feature you want/need is dropped or not developed.
We all make grandiose statements about "security theater," how worthless new rules are going to be, vowing never to fly again, etc. etc etc...but how many of us take our comments beyond a Slashdot post? How many comments about knee-jerk reactions are knee-jerk posts? I'll admit to the same, having sworn off flying if at all possible and driving to my desired destinations.
I'm not saying "quit whining." Far from it--what is being said needs to be said, but it needs to be said in the proper forum. Contact the TSA, the airlines, and your Congressional representation. Tell them the same things (with a dash of proper grammar and spelling and a certain amount of decor, of course) that, as the flying (or former flying) public, you object to tax dollars being wasted on what is perceived to be ineffective security measures. Make it a voting issue when the next election comes rolling around. Let those who make the rules know that they are having an effect--a negative effect. Tell the airline about that road trip you took and how much more enjoyable it was without having to submit to a bunch of BS screening.
I'll grant you that the most you can hope for, as an individual, is some sort of form-letter response from your Congressional representation. The airlines won't care because, frankly, if you don't buy the ticket, somebody else will. The TSA won't care because, well, they don't have to care. (Yes, I'm a little cynical.) En masse, however, somebody, somewhere, might start to pay attention.
I'll take my own advice right now, and after reading up on the actual event and the ensuing rules changes, make it clear to my representation my position, and what I expect to be done about it. I ask direct questions, in hopes of getting something other than a form-letter response. That way if I get a canned response that doesn't address the question, I have a reason to ask it again.
I was thinking something similar. "You don't want your news sites to be easily found and accessible? OK. Just remember, if we can't find it, we can't pay you to read it if so inclined to do so."
You may find this hard to believe, but SOME of us don't redistribute movies ripped from DVD for personal use or use p2p or BitTorrent to get free copies of movies. Thanks to Handbrake and Apple TV, I've bought more DVDs in the last year or so than I would have otherwise. Digital downloads from the like of the iTunes Media Store (should be "Media" instead of "Music") usually don't hold a lot of appeal to me, as I like having physical media as a backup. I also like having my full movie collection available with a few clicks of a remote control. Your actions are contrary to my wants, therefore you risk losing my business.
By pursuing this path of litigation, tech-saavy users like myself with disposable income will find other uses for our money--uses that don't contribute to your bottom line.
!Love, Your Customers
On a more serious note--we have representation in Congress. I suggest contacting them and expressing concerns. I admit that sometimes it feels futile, but it can't hurt.
He said he's paying $100 a month on a yearly plan, not a hundred dollars a year.
Read the OP again...that is EXACTLY what he is saying. The OP paid $100 for a block of 1000 minutes. Those minutes will remain available for use for one year, after which they expire. The OP is NOT paying $100 each and every month.
If he only needs about 80 minutes/month, then he's on the right plan. Less than $10/month meets his needs; your plan would be the ripoff plan for his situation.
Add in all of these perks and break down the monthly rate by the number of minutes used and many Americans wind up paying around $0.02-$0.03 per minute for their cellular phones.
I agree that there's more that a simple cost/month comparison that needs to be made. On my last itemized bill I can find, I burned through over 1400 minutes. That month, the airtime cost me about 2.8 cents per minute ($40/1400 minutes). Of course light users are going to end up paying more per minute, as they don't use what they pay for and usually can't bank the unused airtime.
What I found interesting from the article was the usages considered "light" and "heavy." A light user only used 360 minutes per YEAR, or 30 minutes per month. Even on a $11/month plan (bottom range of monthly costs from the article), that is 36.6 cents per minute. A heavy user, using 1680 minutes per year or 140 minutes per month, on the most expensive plan ($53/month), paid 37.8 cents per month--MORE per minute than the light user! If you flip the numbers around and assume the cheapest plan for a heavy user, that is $11/140 minutes or 7.9 cent/minute.
I'm having trouble believing their definitions of "light" and "heavy" use are accurate. I can burn through their definition of "heavy" use in less than a week on a regular basis.
Slashdot Mirror
I've seen signs posted using metric dimensions (mainly boats, expressing lengths in meters) and somebody would scribble on the sign "This is America, we use feet here." Probably the same stubborn type that blames anything and everything on those "damned commie liberal pieces of shit."
Some argue that Imperial units work better, since things designed and built are built to nice round Imperial values. The point that I try to make (and fail at) is that if we used metric, things would STILL be designed to convenient increments. That 100-foot wall? Maybe only to 30 or 30.5 meters (not 30.48 meters necessarily). Eight-foot (not a nice increment of anything in itself already) ceiling? An extra 2.5 inches gets you to 2.5 meters. Instead of buying a gallon of milk, buy four liters instead.
I personally prefer metric, since it makes many conversions easier (1000 cc = 1 liter to me is easier remember and calculate instead of 231 cubic inches = 1 gallon) but in the end, it's a matter of what you are used to that ultimately determines what is easier.
Right...and that is the ultimate test, after you have tested and/or corrected the subsystems that support that final outcome. You also run this final test when you have time to recover from catastrophic failure. That was my point--you don't expect catastrophic failure because you already tested the smaller portions, but in case you do, you have the weekend to recover...not overnight.
The power going out on Wednesday is why you run your test on Friday--you test your protection to ensure that you can recover from a mid-week power failure by Thursday morning, but you don't run the actual test on Wednesday. You set your test up so that a catastrophic failure causes the least disruption.
When I was in the Navy, we would run drills in the same manner--our response was the same whether the sub was running deep and fast or slow and shallow, so why run the drills in the riskier situation of deep and fast, where a catastrophic failure in response to the drill could cause very bad problems very quickly?
I don't have a ruler handy, but I got my dimensions based on taking the battery out of my SD600 and laying it on the desk next to a AAA cell. The SD600 battery is slightly thicker than one radius of the AAA sitting next to it. It is about 1-2 mm shorter than the AAA's body (not including the nub at the end of the cell), and three AAA cells wide.
I don't know why I assumed three AAA cells; perhaps it was because three were the same width as the SD600 battery and I went with that. Yes, 2 Li-ion AAA cells would do the trick, but there would still have to be concessions made in the camera design for the wider cells.
My math showed that it would take slightly over 21 cells, so 7x3 would not provide the same energy. Are you using the 4.2V to calculate the energy content of a cell? If so, then yes, the 7x3 battery would be more than sufficient. You still need to design in the means of holding the cells, and the notebook would still need to be somewhat thicker to accommodate the AA cells. Putting a standard AA cell (I presume that AA alkaline is the same dimensions as AA Li-ion) next to my MBP, the notebook is only 1-2 mm thicker than one cell. The structure used to hold the cells would take up space, so the notebooks's dimensions would have to change.
Add to that the fact that the geometry of the cells has a limited set of physical arrangements, the form of the final device is somewhat restricted. You are correct that a lot of battery packs are just shrink-wrapped cells soldered together, but a lot of other packs are custom-shaped to fit the volumes allocated to them.
Two other examples to note: my iPod nano is thicker than a AAA cell, so that option is out. The portion of my Motorola RAZR that contains the battery is also thicker than a AAA cell, so that option would be out as well. As devices get larger though, then the standard cells start to become more of an option.
I suspect there is some marketing and customer research too: Joe Sixpack buys a camera that requires "AA Lithium cells" but only gets the "AA" part, and can't figure out why his camera doesn't work with new batteries. A Li-ion cell can't go below 2.5V (per Wikipedia) which is still a full volt above your standard alkaline cell, so a device using Li-ion cells will shut down (or not even start with insufficient voltage. Sure, the device could sense what cell is installed by checking the voltage, but that adds complexity to the device, especially if you want to try detecting a mix of alkaline and Li-ion cells (which I would not expect to be a good idea in the first place).
In reverse, You have a camera that uses standard alkaline AA cells but Joe just grabs the first pack of AA cells he sees on the shelf. He drops in cell that has twice the required voltage and his camera releases the magic smoke that makes it work.
There may be other factors that we haven't considered, like heat, weight, etc. Speaking only for myself, I'm not a battery design engineer so I wouldn't know all the design criteria that goes into battery selection.
I think we've both pointed out the pros and cons of each type battery packs. The pros of a standard-size cell are: more readily replaceable and potentially lower costs (volume production). The cons are limited geometries that would require extra structure to hold the cells and restrictions on device form to accommodate such structures.
Pros of custom-formed packs: fitted to fit the exact volume allocated, allowing for the desired device form. Cons: proprietary form fact
Perhaps, but perhaps not. I've also owned each generation of iPhone (and two different 3G units), but when I upgraded, the sale of the old one paid for at least 75% of the new one. In the case of the 3G-3GS, the 3G sale covered the upgrade entirely.
Three AAA cells takes up a slightly larger area as the SD600 battery (I did a direct comparison on my desk right here) but the AAA battery (three cells) is also nearly twice as thick. A three-cell battery using the CR10440 in parallel (since the two batteries have almost the same voltage) would have 1500 mAh (500 mAh each in parallel) vs. the 760 mAh of the SD600 battery.
The trade-off is camera size. On either side of the battery is the SD card and the display controls, so there wouldn't be any room for the AAA cells unless the camera was made thicker.
So you are correct in that a battery made of AAA Li-ion cells would last longer (nearly twice as long in fact) and be slightly cheaper ($27 for the Canon battery on sale at Amazon.com) but the battery would also take up nearly twice the volume.
You point is well-taken, but my point still stands--it was a trade-off in size vs. battery interchangeability. Depending on what features you wanted in a camera, you can go with one with a proprietary battery or one with standard battery.
As far as interchangeabiliy goes...
I'll use my MacBook Pro as an example, as I have the battery information readily available. Battery voltage is about 12.5V right now, fully charged, 10.76V when the battery is nearly empty. Battery capacity is about 5500 mAh fully charged. Fully charged, that means in contains about 247.5kJ of energy.
A single AA-size 3.6V nominal Li-ion cell with 900 mAh capacity contains about 11.7kJ of energy. To provide the same amount of energy, you would need over 21 CR14500-series cells. Your number also must be divisible by three, as three cells in series provides 10.8V-the minimum I've seen on my MBP. So you need 24 cells total. Eyeballing the AA cells I have here and comparing to my MBP, the battery volume is roughly the same, not taking into account the interconnections and moldings required to hold 24 cells in an 3x8 battery pack.
So you have 8 groups, three cells per group, to match the 13" MBP battery. 24 cells, at $4.50 sale price from the link given above (bulk price for 24 cells), is $108. The normal price of $7.95 means the cells come to $190.80, slightly less for bulk pricing. You also need to charge all 24 cells at once; you can't mix cells of differing charges, otherwise some cells will have to supply more current than others and potentially exceed their current rating. BTW, I neglected current rating in the discussion as I don't know what the current rating is for a Li-ion cell. It would have to be at least 300mA, as I've seen a peak of 2.4A on my battery and dividing that current over the 8 groups yields 300mA from each. I'm going to assume that each cell can handle 300mA.
Weight: I've seen similar cells at 21g each, but they also had lower (800mAh) capacities. Using 21g anyway, that is 0.047 pounds (rounding up a wee bit from 0.0462 for the extra capacity) per cell, or 1.13 pounds for the battery pack; again, that does not include the interconnecting wiring or holders. I don't know what the MBP battery weights, and I'm not pulling mine apart to check.
So to compare:
13" MBP battery: 247.5 kJ of energy, rated for 1000 charge cycles, and $129 for Apple to replace if it goes bad. Not user-replaceable. Internal connections all soldered together for reliability.
CR14500 battery pack: 280.8 kJ of energy (13% increase), rated at 600-800 charge cycles (20% fewer), similar
This is true, but the AAA might not have usable energy capacity before it would have to be recharged/replaced.
Australia needs to harden the f*** up!
As far as I can tell, the specialized batteries are used to maximize the power density in small, power-hungry devices.
Example: I have two digital cameras from Canon. The older one (A80) uses standard AA batteries. However, it is a bit larger and less capable than the newer one (SD600), which uses a special Li-Ion battery. If the SD600 were made to use AA batteries, then it would have to be a little bigger.
It's all an engineering/design trade-off. Standard cells mean more battery space and weight but readily available replacements. Custom batteries mean less weight and more power, but require special chargers.
Why not make standard, box-shaped cells to save space? You could do that, but the casing would have to be made stronger (leaving less volume for the energy storage chemicals) to prevent distortion of the casing. A cylinder is better able to redistribute forces around it, where a flat surface caves in or bows out. What about that boxy 9-volt battery? I saw one cracked open once; it was six 1.5v cylindrical cells in series. Again, a set of trade-offs: energy per unit volume vs. structural integrity.
Care to explain that? A longer half-life means the material is radioactive LONGER.
I agree that the other parties need to be considered more by the voting public. I think a lot of people are seeing how the Republican and Democratic parties, as a whole, have both gone too far towards their extreme ends of the political spectrum and how the candidates represent the party and not the voters. I heard it said on Milwaukee radio in the last few months that conservative voters want leaders with (to paraphrase) "conservative values, not Republican values."
However, blindly voting for somebody just because they are not a Democrat or Republican is not a good idea. Any vote based solely on the political party without knowing the positions on the issues is an uninformed vote, and would not necessariy be better than what we have now, as you assert. Research the candidates; vote for the issues, not the party.
The non-mainstream parties can take lessons from the Obama presidential campaign in the use of technology and the communications channels it provides. Social networking is now the norm, not some fad to be poo-poohed, and it needs to be taken advantage of in order to communicate with a tech-saavy electorate that will be replacing the Baby Boomers in the coming years.
I agree with you on the paranoid term of the parent post, but have to admit that I also thought the title was a little (out of a lack of a better word) creepy at first; public participation is directed or controlled. It does have the tone of directing how citizens participate in government. Something like "Public Communications Coordinator" sounds more inviting, leaning more towards a tone of communications participation and partnership.
I say something similar about all the media talking heads that rattle on and on about how so-and-so is a lousy political leader, I keep saying we need to do this, everybody else is so wrong, yada yada yada...
"If you're so damn smart and so damn right and everybody else is so wrong, YOU put YOUR name on the ballot!"
SafeDisc is why I use H&R Block TaxCut.
Could I cut it? No, I'm not a programmer. Back in the day, IE was backed by Microsoft, yet the Mozilla line has flourished and grown to what it is today. If I recall correctly, it grew a lot before it had the backing of Google.
I'm puzzled by something...what is the obsession of beating Microsoft in the browser wars? I recall a time where FOSS stood for scratching an itch--coders creating software to get the job done. Why not just focus on making the best browser you can, with the features you want, and let the marketshare take care of itself. It reminds me of the line spoken by Odysseus in the movie "Troy": "Let Achilles fight for honor, let Agamemnon fight for power, and let the gods decide which man to glorify."
I see Apple in the same light. Why should Apple care about marketshare? I'd rather be a "niche" market (although I don't consider Apple as such), building a quality product at a healthy profit margin, than a mass-production company cranking out a gazillion low-margin, questionable-quality products. Size is not all it is cracked up to be sometimes.
I
Or exercise some good ol' open source muscle and fork it. Isn't that supposed to be one of the benefits of open source? You aren't enslaved to a particular developer if a feature you want/need is dropped or not developed.
We all make grandiose statements about "security theater," how worthless new rules are going to be, vowing never to fly again, etc. etc etc...but how many of us take our comments beyond a Slashdot post? How many comments about knee-jerk reactions are knee-jerk posts? I'll admit to the same, having sworn off flying if at all possible and driving to my desired destinations.
I'm not saying "quit whining." Far from it--what is being said needs to be said, but it needs to be said in the proper forum. Contact the TSA, the airlines, and your Congressional representation. Tell them the same things (with a dash of proper grammar and spelling and a certain amount of decor, of course) that, as the flying (or former flying) public, you object to tax dollars being wasted on what is perceived to be ineffective security measures. Make it a voting issue when the next election comes rolling around. Let those who make the rules know that they are having an effect--a negative effect. Tell the airline about that road trip you took and how much more enjoyable it was without having to submit to a bunch of BS screening.
I'll grant you that the most you can hope for, as an individual, is some sort of form-letter response from your Congressional representation. The airlines won't care because, frankly, if you don't buy the ticket, somebody else will. The TSA won't care because, well, they don't have to care. (Yes, I'm a little cynical.) En masse, however, somebody, somewhere, might start to pay attention.
I'll take my own advice right now, and after reading up on the actual event and the ensuing rules changes, make it clear to my representation my position, and what I expect to be done about it. I ask direct questions, in hopes of getting something other than a form-letter response. That way if I get a canned response that doesn't address the question, I have a reason to ask it again.
My deep thought for the day.
Perhaps it a privacy concern between whomever owns the bag being scanned and other members of the public.
Buying laws...seems like that practice has been going on for years...
I was thinking something similar. "You don't want your news sites to be easily found and accessible? OK. Just remember, if we can't find it, we can't pay you to read it if so inclined to do so."
Dear MPAA,
You may find this hard to believe, but SOME of us don't redistribute movies ripped from DVD for personal use or use p2p or BitTorrent to get free copies of movies. Thanks to Handbrake and Apple TV, I've bought more DVDs in the last year or so than I would have otherwise. Digital downloads from the like of the iTunes Media Store (should be "Media" instead of "Music") usually don't hold a lot of appeal to me, as I like having physical media as a backup. I also like having my full movie collection available with a few clicks of a remote control. Your actions are contrary to my wants, therefore you risk losing my business.
By pursuing this path of litigation, tech-saavy users like myself with disposable income will find other uses for our money--uses that don't contribute to your bottom line.
!Love,
Your Customers
On a more serious note--we have representation in Congress. I suggest contacting them and expressing concerns. I admit that sometimes it feels futile, but it can't hurt.
Read the OP again...that is EXACTLY what he is saying. The OP paid $100 for a block of 1000 minutes. Those minutes will remain available for use for one year, after which they expire. The OP is NOT paying $100 each and every month.
If he only needs about 80 minutes/month, then he's on the right plan. Less than $10/month meets his needs; your plan would be the ripoff plan for his situation.
I agree that there's more that a simple cost/month comparison that needs to be made. On my last itemized bill I can find, I burned through over 1400 minutes. That month, the airtime cost me about 2.8 cents per minute ($40/1400 minutes). Of course light users are going to end up paying more per minute, as they don't use what they pay for and usually can't bank the unused airtime.
What I found interesting from the article was the usages considered "light" and "heavy." A light user only used 360 minutes per YEAR, or 30 minutes per month. Even on a $11/month plan (bottom range of monthly costs from the article), that is 36.6 cents per minute. A heavy user, using 1680 minutes per year or 140 minutes per month, on the most expensive plan ($53/month), paid 37.8 cents per month--MORE per minute than the light user! If you flip the numbers around and assume the cheapest plan for a heavy user, that is $11/140 minutes or 7.9 cent/minute.
I'm having trouble believing their definitions of "light" and "heavy" use are accurate. I can burn through their definition of "heavy" use in less than a week on a regular basis.
As does Platteville...at least, it did when I went there back in the late 90s. I would presume that it still does.