The cities should just list all their public litter bins as geocaches. That way, the geocachers can have their fun, there is nothing left lying around spoiling beauty spots, and if they're lucky, they won't have to empty their bins so often.
I really don't see any decent reason for packing cell-phones with so many features
Many people carry around a phone and a PDA, and maybe some other stuff like MP3 players. The point is to put all this functionality into one box so your pockets/belt aren't stuffed with gadgets. It's more like a PDA with a built in phone than a phone with a built in PDA. If you don't see the need for this, it's because this kind of product is not developed for people like you - stick to a regular cell phone. That being said, this does seems like a really bad implementation - if the phone part does not work as well as a regular cell phone, it's hardly worth it.
The reason that CDs are sampled at 44.1kHz is because to sample a signal, you have to use a sample rate greater than twice the maximum frequency of the signal being sampled. It has nothing to do with stereo. Both stereo channels have to be sampled at this rate, or you end up with 2 11MHz signals which will sound bad to just about anyone. The point is that increasing the sampling rate will not increase the sound quality, because you can't hear the extra frequencies that you are recording. This also applies to harmonics.
Actually even 44.1kHz is overkill for audio recordings. The highest frequency that someone with excellent hearing can pick up is closer to 14kHz. CDs are capable of digitising frequencies up to ~22kHz. Increasing the bandwidth of the recording will not make it sound any better at all.
I've always thought that he chooses to speak english imperfectly with his grammar reflecting his native language, rather than speaking in his native language and relying on whatever translation technology allows star wars characters to understand wookies. Much in the same way as he chooses to hobble along with a walking stick most of the time, rather than using the force to get around.
If anyone questions why you're phone conversation has no time delay on it, tell them you're calling from your holiday home in Ireland or France
Even better, wait a couple of seconds before replying to anything they say, play a video of a foreign soap opera in the background, and hold a large saucepan in front of the phone to get a tinny echo.
The crushable, aluminum nose cone neatly and systematically collapses into itself, decelerating the vehicle to a stop. The capsule then falls on its side to end the mission
This is why I'm rooting for armadillo aerospace - if they win, the history videos of the future will show a fat, cheap looking rocket crashing head first into the ground then falling over. It's about time history got a little comic relief:o)
You're missing the point. You either have to accelerate the payload to the same velocity as the spaceship, in which case it will make it to the moon on it's own, or you just put it in the path of the space ship, and let the momentum of the spaceship accelerate it. In the latter case, the spaceship loses energy, and eventually crashes into either the moon or the earth. Either way, in order to keep the system working, you have to use the same amount of energy as you would to just send the payload to the moon on its own. There's no free lunch.
The cargo still has to be spaceworthy in order to get onto your transporters, you still need to get enough fuel into orbit to provide the kinetic energy to transport each piece of cargo to the moon. In addition, you have to get your huge spaceships into the required trajectory. So what is the point in the huge spaceships?
Biological display unit?
on
Ant Farm PC
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Does that mean it would be possible to manipulate them using electric fields? You could put a backplate on the ant farm with a matrix of electrodes. The ants would be attracted to the ones which were switched on. You could control it from a parallel port to have an ascii display composed of swarming ants. Not only would this be a cool hack, it would completely creep out anyone who saw it in action. IANAB - does anyone know if this would work?
Re:The technology smashes the crystal
on
Mastering Light
·
· Score: 2, Informative
even sound waves may wind up breaking the crystal
That's only a serious problem if they hit the resonant frequency of the crystal, or a multiple thereof. As long as they avoid this, it would have to be one serious sound wave, in which case a greater problem might be the neighbours:-)
More to the point...
on
Mastering Light
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Does this mean we'll finally be able to get X-Ray specs?
I have to wonder, though, whether this is a sensible approach to take. People can still write drivers for stuff even if they don't have the specs, and this has been done often for linux drivers. It's just a lot more difficult. Making it difficult isn't going to stop people from being able to do it. IMHO, they would be much better off providing the information, and prosecuting anybody abuses it - that way they don't have to deal with well meaning hackers who are accidentally broadcasting illegally while trying to figure out how the hardware works. Catching people who are broadcasting on illegal frequencies is not difficult - this is a problem which has been around for a long time. But like you say, it's just politics. Appearing to do the right thing is much more important than doing the right thing.
I think the point is you don't have to sit in front of your computer to use it - it's a bit like buying a cordless phone instead of a regular one. It's a niche market device, and frankly, I think it would make a lot more sense if it was cheap.
That depends on your interpretation of rescue. I my opinion, what they did was no more a "rescue" than collecting a pizza you ordered is a "rescue". So yes, the "rescue" part was faked, and my sig is not factually wrong until proven otherwise.
Rumours? Surely the reporters would have taken the trouble to question and investigate these rumours. So if a reporter prints a story based on evidence from two named sources you call it bad reporting and don't believe it, but on the other hand you are prepared to take unconfirmed reporting based on rumours from unspecified sources as the truth. Why do you even bother reading the news?
I said they're not lying in this particular instance
Actually what you originally said was that I was stupid because my sig pointed to a fabricated story, a claim which you can't offer any evidence to support aside from your own opinions. Fine they're your opinions, but it's my sig. If you don't like it, don't read my posts.
I wonder what the goal of creating such a "Fake" story would be?
Everybody loves a hero. It rallies support for the war, and captures eyeballs. If everyone is glued to their screens watching the Jessica Lynch drama unfold, they forget about the nasty stuff like stray bombs and dysentry. Watch the film "Wag the Dog" in which the protagonists pull off a disturbingly similar stunt.
The Pentagon is LEGALLY PROHIBITED from commenting on injuries to troops.
But the pentagon is not legally prohibited from releasing the raw footage of the incident. Why would they not do this?
Like the fact that the
BBC reporter didn't question the account of the Iraqi doctor responsible for her care?
He did - he gave the pentagon ample opportunity to refute the claims which they refused to do.
Would the fact that mistreatment of Lynch while a POW under his care would be enough to convict him of a war crime have ANY bearing on his account?
I don't remeber hearing any allegations of war crimes being committed. Oh, wait - he's muslim, he must be a war criminal.
If you think that pentagon never lies, you are deluding yourself. It's common knowledge that the media version of Gulf War I was a practically a complete fabrication. Many american journalists openly admitted to being knowingly misled as the true story later unfolded. If you believe they've suddenly decided to stop media management out of the goodness of their hearts, then I feel sorry for you.
Slashdot Mirror
The cities should just list all their public litter bins as geocaches. That way, the geocachers can have their fun, there is nothing left lying around spoiling beauty spots, and if they're lucky, they won't have to empty their bins so often.
Many people carry around a phone and a PDA, and maybe some other stuff like MP3 players. The point is to put all this functionality into one box so your pockets/belt aren't stuffed with gadgets. It's more like a PDA with a built in phone than a phone with a built in PDA. If you don't see the need for this, it's because this kind of product is not developed for people like you - stick to a regular cell phone. That being said, this does seems like a really bad implementation - if the phone part does not work as well as a regular cell phone, it's hardly worth it.
The reason that CDs are sampled at 44.1kHz is because to sample a signal, you have to use a sample rate greater than twice the maximum frequency of the signal being sampled. It has nothing to do with stereo. Both stereo channels have to be sampled at this rate, or you end up with 2 11MHz signals which will sound bad to just about anyone. The point is that increasing the sampling rate will not increase the sound quality, because you can't hear the extra frequencies that you are recording. This also applies to harmonics.
Actually even 44.1kHz is overkill for audio recordings. The highest frequency that someone with excellent hearing can pick up is closer to 14kHz. CDs are capable of digitising frequencies up to ~22kHz. Increasing the bandwidth of the recording will not make it sound any better at all.
...and one giant, angry, lovesick gorilla.
I've always thought that he chooses to speak english imperfectly with his grammar reflecting his native language, rather than speaking in his native language and relying on whatever translation technology allows star wars characters to understand wookies. Much in the same way as he chooses to hobble along with a walking stick most of the time, rather than using the force to get around.
Even better, wait a couple of seconds before replying to anything they say, play a video of a foreign soap opera in the background, and hold a large saucepan in front of the phone to get a tinny echo.
This brings to mind an interesting question - if the angle at which it hits the water is shallow enough, will it bounce off like a skimming stone?
This is why I'm rooting for armadillo aerospace - if they win, the history videos of the future will show a fat, cheap looking rocket crashing head first into the ground then falling over. It's about time history got a little comic relief :o)
You're missing the point. You either have to accelerate the payload to the same velocity as the spaceship, in which case it will make it to the moon on it's own, or you just put it in the path of the space ship, and let the momentum of the spaceship accelerate it. In the latter case, the spaceship loses energy, and eventually crashes into either the moon or the earth. Either way, in order to keep the system working, you have to use the same amount of energy as you would to just send the payload to the moon on its own. There's no free lunch.
The cargo still has to be spaceworthy in order to get onto your transporters, you still need to get enough fuel into orbit to provide the kinetic energy to transport each piece of cargo to the moon. In addition, you have to get your huge spaceships into the required trajectory. So what is the point in the huge spaceships?
Does that mean it would be possible to manipulate them using electric fields? You could put a backplate on the ant farm with a matrix of electrodes. The ants would be attracted to the ones which were switched on. You could control it from a parallel port to have an ascii display composed of swarming ants. Not only would this be a cool hack, it would completely creep out anyone who saw it in action. IANAB - does anyone know if this would work?
That's only a serious problem if they hit the resonant frequency of the crystal, or a multiple thereof. As long as they avoid this, it would have to be one serious sound wave, in which case a greater problem might be the neighbours :-)
Does this mean we'll finally be able to get X-Ray specs?
Just buy a really old one second hand and run an X server on it. All you really need is a 486 with >16M if the applications are running remotely.
I have to wonder, though, whether this is a sensible approach to take. People can still write drivers for stuff even if they don't have the specs, and this has been done often for linux drivers. It's just a lot more difficult. Making it difficult isn't going to stop people from being able to do it. IMHO, they would be much better off providing the information, and prosecuting anybody abuses it - that way they don't have to deal with well meaning hackers who are accidentally broadcasting illegally while trying to figure out how the hardware works. Catching people who are broadcasting on illegal frequencies is not difficult - this is a problem which has been around for a long time. But like you say, it's just politics. Appearing to do the right thing is much more important than doing the right thing.
I think the point is you don't have to sit in front of your computer to use it - it's a bit like buying a cordless phone instead of a regular one. It's a niche market device, and frankly, I think it would make a lot more sense if it was cheap.
When I read this article, it seemed strangely familiar. Then I realised it was exactly the same article which was posted over a year ago.
If that's your stance, you're hardly in a position to call my sig factually false, are you.
That depends on your interpretation of rescue. I my opinion, what they did was no more a "rescue" than collecting a pizza you ordered is a "rescue". So yes, the "rescue" part was faked, and my sig is not factually wrong until proven otherwise.
Rumours? Surely the reporters would have taken the trouble to question and investigate these rumours. So if a reporter prints a story based on evidence from two named sources you call it bad reporting and don't believe it, but on the other hand you are prepared to take unconfirmed reporting based on rumours from unspecified sources as the truth. Why do you even bother reading the news?
Actually what you originally said was that I was stupid because my sig pointed to a fabricated story, a claim which you can't offer any evidence to support aside from your own opinions. Fine they're your opinions, but it's my sig. If you don't like it, don't read my posts.
So how did the agency find out. was it...
Everybody loves a hero. It rallies support for the war, and captures eyeballs. If everyone is glued to their screens watching the Jessica Lynch drama unfold, they forget about the nasty stuff like stray bombs and dysentry. Watch the film "Wag the Dog" in which the protagonists pull off a disturbingly similar stunt.
But the pentagon is not legally prohibited from releasing the raw footage of the incident. Why would they not do this?
Like the fact that the BBC reporter didn't question the account of the Iraqi doctor responsible for her care?
He did - he gave the pentagon ample opportunity to refute the claims which they refused to do.
Would the fact that mistreatment of Lynch while a POW under his care would be enough to convict him of a war crime have ANY bearing on his account?
I don't remeber hearing any allegations of war crimes being committed. Oh, wait - he's muslim, he must be a war criminal.
If you think that pentagon never lies, you are deluding yourself. It's common knowledge that the media version of Gulf War I was a practically a complete fabrication. Many american journalists openly admitted to being knowingly misled as the true story later unfolded. If you believe they've suddenly decided to stop media management out of the goodness of their hearts, then I feel sorry for you.