unless, instead of the pixels turning off and then back on, they make a transition to the next colour without turning off, this could produce the same effect as with an LCD (perhaps with more blur). Correct me if I've got this wrong but an LCD turns the pixel off and then back on doesn't it? Hence we get the rising and falling reponse times. I might be wrong about that.
response time is different from refresh, i'll explain. If you take a normal LCD they usually have a 60Hz refresh and say 25-30ms response. What this means is that the LCD can show 60 different frams every second. However, the response time measures how long it takes for the LCD to change frames, the longer the time the longer the last image that was on the LCD is displayed, so if you have a high response time (25ms is considered normal but not good) then you will get "streaking" effects, where the previous frames overlap with the new frames. This can cause a horrible image and is very noticeable when the frames are very different e.g. fast motion graphics (films, games). Newer LCDs report a 16ms response, which makes streaking almost invisible in most cases. So you see, this is why I wanted to know what the response of the ink is.
Also you may be wondering about TVs and their response time, T.Vs and Monitors (CRT) don't have a response time (or more to the point its the same as the refresh) because on a CRT screen the previous frame is not remembered as the "pixels" on a CRT so to speak, need to be constatly energised to display anything, so the second that the cathode ray stops hitting the phosphor the image dissapears, thus no reponse time.
video images at more than 70 frames a second, twice the speed needed to produce smooth, cinematic motion
Thats all very well but what are the response times like? Practically all LCDs have a 60fps refresh time, but with a respone of 30ms or more, fast moving images would look horrid, leaving lots of streaks. The article doesn't mention the dot-pitch specs of these digital ink screens either, I'd like to see what sort of resolution and at what size these things could produce. If it had a fast enough reponse you could play Quake III on a 70ft screen!!!
It appears that *nix systems now have an exploit, where are all the people claiming "Linux has no exploits that need patching", showing how insecure Microsoft are?
Sobig and Blaster came and went and microsoft got bashed so damn much, when something like this happens to linux its like "oh shit happens, nevermind". And it's going to be harder to patch *nix systems than windows (don't say Windows update is hard to use and *nix is as easy, its not [most of the time, ignoring redcarpet ect])
SSH is probably the most used administration tool for *nix, probably the last thing people want an exploit in. Microsoft don't seem so on their own anymore.
How much does a cloud weigh?
ANSWER:
The weight of a cloud is the weight of its constituent water droplets or ice crystals. The liquid water content and the ice content (specifically ice crystals, clusters of ice crystals [snowflakes], sleet, or hail) are measured in grams per cubic meter of air (g/m3). (1,000 grams equals 2.2 pounds.) Instruments on aircraft have measured the water content of many different types of clouds. The following liquid water contents are characteristic:
-- small cumulus: 0.2-0.5 g/m3
-- larger cumulus: 0.5-1.0 g/m3
-- altocumulus/altostratus: 0.2-0.5 g/m3
-- stratus/stratocumulus: 0.1-0.5 g/m3
-- nimbostratus: 0.2-0.5 g/m3
In cumulonimbus (thunderstorm) clouds with very strong updrafts, liquid water contents can range as high as 5-15 g/m3.
In nonprecipitating clouds, droplets are numerous (hundreds per cubic centimeter [cm3]) and very tiny (perhaps 0.01 millimeter [mm] in diameter).
Despite their large numbers, the mass density of droplets in such clouds seldom reaches even 1 g/m3.
The ice content of cirrus clouds is even less, ranging typically between 0.05 and 0.50 g/m3. Cirrus clouds form at low temperatures, usually between -13 degrees F (-25 degrees C) and -76 degrees F (-60 degrees C). They consist of tiny, single crytals, whose concentration per cm3 is much lower than the concentration of droplets in warmer clouds.
Consider a cumulus cloud occupying a volume of one cubic kilometer (roughly 0.24 cubic mile)--not especially large as cumulus clouds go--and having an average liquid water content of 0.2 g/m3. The weight of this cloud would be 200,000 kilograms (440,000 pounds).
The condensed water in this cloud is enough to fill a large residential swimming pool. It is amazing that something this big and heavy can form from clear air within just a few minutes, but it is common in the atmosphere. A large thunderstorm could suspend 1,000 times more water (in the form of cloud droplets, rain, snow, and hail) than that found in a small cumulus cloud.
What keeps all this water weight suspended in the cumulus cloud? Indeed, why dont all clouds fall out of the sky? The reason is that updrafts suspend the cloud particles. In the case of the cumulus cloud, a typical drop radius is 0.01 mm. A drop this size falls at less than 0.5 centimeters per second (cm/s) in still air, so just the slightest updraft is sufficient to suspend droplets of this size.
Larger droplets fall faster. Drizzle droplets, for example, with radii ranging from 0.1 to 0.25 mm, fall at speeds of 100300 cm/s in still air. Strong updrafts of many meters per second are required to suspend raindrops or hail in a cloud.
Precipitation-sized particles, specifically those with radii greater than 0.1 mm, often fall from a cloud. Entering subsaturated air (where the relative humidity is less than 100 percent) below the cloud base, they evaporate during their downward journey, sometimes completely. The cloud itself can survive precipitation falling from its base provided that updrafts continue to promote condensation within the cloud. Downward air motion will quickly dissipate a cloud, for downward motion leads to compression of the air and an increase in temperature, which causes cloud droplets to evaporate.
Yep, innovation is always a good thing. However, companies shouldn't be forced into it. If a company is given a set amount of time to remove and re-design an element of their product that infringes a patent then they may be inclined to rush it or to hack something together so it works and not put the time or effort in that the inovation requires. I don't believe companies need that much of a kick in the ass to innovate, the fact that customers thrive on inovation and new products should be enough.
Patents also lead to features simply being removed, and not replaced, which sucks. I can see what you're saying but I believe there has to be a better way to encourage inovation rather than taking companies to court (which wastes money which could be used on R&D).
I think you have to remember that patents are actually very important, as long as they are used for the right reasons. i.e. A patent for a new toaster design that will revolutionise toasters is a good thing, because it ensures that a new company or a company that has put a lot of investment into a product gets the sales they deserve and someone else can't take their idea and capitalise on their research.
Obviosuly its good to have patents worldwide so that if an American company designs a product or a European company, they can sell the product not only in their continent but also in other countries without worrying about their product being ripped off, thus increasing the potential profit for the company in question.
where patents are bad is when a company makes a patent in order to prevent other companies from using a technology even though the company that owns the patent has no intention of making anything with it. Basically like registering an internet domain in order to stop another company getting it (so they have to buy it off you). Cheeky business and very annoying.
Why do all these companies make such a fuss about these patents, they aren't going to get any money, because if the company has the choice to just alter their software to avoid the patent then they will. All they are doing is slowing development of software and causing incompatabilities around the world. Basically making a mess of the current system which WORKS. How long to US patents last? It seems to long. Patents are forcing software to take steps backwards and not forward, I just hope the companies realise the potential damage they are doing before it becomes too late.
Just because this holds for humans doens't mean it will work with computers. All that it suggests is that having Viruses forces companies to produce patches.
I guess in the long run programmers will learn from virus outbreaks, how to prevent attacks and reduce secuirty risks. But mostly viruses exploit holes in code or mistakes that should have been sorted in the first place (the programmers know that a buffer underrun is bad, just having a virus expoit it doesn't mean they suddenly relalise how bad it is, they most likely missed it rather than didn't know how to prevent such a disaster in the first place).
This seems like a flimsey statement I'm not sure I agree with it.
first our server runs linux, and I administer it, but admintedly I don't have a gui installed, I guess with redhat its a lot easier to do things than in a shell, but even if you did stick a user with a nice gui they won't bother (lazy users) to setup crap, they just want it to work and not have to do anything, so really no matter how many wizards and guis you use the same problem exsists and it doesn't mean its the fault of the OS.
Equally shove a stupid windows user on a linux terminal and ask them to setup a decent firewall script, or download the latest patched kernel and just see how much fun they have. Just because people who use Windows are retards (running.pifs and.exes) doesn't mean its windows fault. In linux you have far more control over the system and can do far more damaging things, as its less restrictive than windows, so you can't say windows doesn't stop users being stupid because linux doesn't make an effort to either.
Its not Microsoft's fault, in XP when you install, the first thing it does it setup and Admin account, then ask you to setup "User" accounts which should be used, in place of admin. The only problem is that users who run Windows generally don't care for security, and so don't care about whether there an admin or not.
Funny how 95% of PC users have Windows, I wonder why a Virus writer would want to target Windows??!? Perhaps that is why so many exploits are found, because people are targeting it religously, start targeting Mac and Linux as much and see who is insecure!
Agreed, I would pay to download High quality music, with a decent bit rate and no distortion. But don't get me wrong I won't pay $0.99 a track like that M$ freak of a music site (which is America only anyway), I checked it out, most albums require you buy each track on the album seperately, come on who is going to pay $20 for a 20 track album, it costs that much or less in the shops?!? The whole point is you cut out the shop, thus apparently making it cheaper?
I'm just curious as to how much money the RIAA is spending on all these court battles (which they will be foreced into)! Maybe they should be spending that money on finding new Artists or reducing the cost of exsiting material? Perhaps even setting up their own "online" song distribution system (as theres obviously a market for it [iTunes etc])
Slashdot Mirror
unless, instead of the pixels turning off and then back on, they make a transition to the next colour without turning off, this could produce the same effect as with an LCD (perhaps with more blur). Correct me if I've got this wrong but an LCD turns the pixel off and then back on doesn't it? Hence we get the rising and falling reponse times. I might be wrong about that.
Thats what I meant, thanks :)
response time is different from refresh, i'll explain. If you take a normal LCD they usually have a 60Hz refresh and say 25-30ms response. What this means is that the LCD can show 60 different frams every second. However, the response time measures how long it takes for the LCD to change frames, the longer the time the longer the last image that was on the LCD is displayed, so if you have a high response time (25ms is considered normal but not good) then you will get "streaking" effects, where the previous frames overlap with the new frames. This can cause a horrible image and is very noticeable when the frames are very different e.g. fast motion graphics (films, games). Newer LCDs report a 16ms response, which makes streaking almost invisible in most cases. So you see, this is why I wanted to know what the response of the ink is.
Also you may be wondering about TVs and their response time, T.Vs and Monitors (CRT) don't have a response time (or more to the point its the same as the refresh) because on a CRT screen the previous frame is not remembered as the "pixels" on a CRT so to speak, need to be constatly energised to display anything, so the second that the cathode ray stops hitting the phosphor the image dissapears, thus no reponse time.
Combining 5mm pixel pitch, an RGB color model with 4096 colors, and a superior contrast ratio of 14:1
orthogonal read my mind
5mm dot pitch is HUGE! Not so hot.
video images at more than 70 frames a second, twice the speed needed to produce smooth, cinematic motion
Thats all very well but what are the response times like? Practically all LCDs have a 60fps refresh time, but with a respone of 30ms or more, fast moving images would look horrid, leaving lots of streaks. The article doesn't mention the dot-pitch specs of these digital ink screens either, I'd like to see what sort of resolution and at what size these things could produce. If it had a fast enough reponse you could play Quake III on a 70ft screen!!!
It appears that *nix systems now have an exploit, where are all the people claiming "Linux has no exploits that need patching", showing how insecure Microsoft are?
Sobig and Blaster came and went and microsoft got bashed so damn much, when something like this happens to linux its like "oh shit happens, nevermind". And it's going to be harder to patch *nix systems than windows (don't say Windows update is hard to use and *nix is as easy, its not [most of the time, ignoring redcarpet ect])
SSH is probably the most used administration tool for *nix, probably the last thing people want an exploit in. Microsoft don't seem so on their own anymore.
Not flamebait, just telling it how it is.
I've never met this person before.
How much does a cloud weigh? ANSWER: The weight of a cloud is the weight of its constituent water droplets or ice crystals. The liquid water content and the ice content (specifically ice crystals, clusters of ice crystals [snowflakes], sleet, or hail) are measured in grams per cubic meter of air (g/m3). (1,000 grams equals 2.2 pounds.) Instruments on aircraft have measured the water content of many different types of clouds. The following liquid water contents are characteristic: -- small cumulus: 0.2-0.5 g/m3 -- larger cumulus: 0.5-1.0 g/m3 -- altocumulus/altostratus: 0.2-0.5 g/m3 -- stratus /stratocumulus: 0.1-0.5 g/m3
-- nimbostratus: 0.2-0.5 g/m3
In cumulonimbus (thunderstorm) clouds with very strong updrafts, liquid water contents can range as high as 5-15 g/m3.
In nonprecipitating clouds, droplets are numerous (hundreds per cubic centimeter [cm3]) and very tiny (perhaps 0.01 millimeter [mm] in diameter).
Despite their large numbers, the mass density of droplets in such clouds seldom reaches even 1 g/m3.
The ice content of cirrus clouds is even less, ranging typically between 0.05 and 0.50 g/m3. Cirrus clouds form at low temperatures, usually between -13 degrees F (-25 degrees C) and -76 degrees F (-60 degrees C). They consist of tiny, single crytals, whose concentration per cm3 is much lower than the concentration of droplets in warmer clouds.
Consider a cumulus cloud occupying a volume of one cubic kilometer (roughly 0.24 cubic mile)--not especially large as cumulus clouds go--and having an average liquid water content of 0.2 g/m3. The weight of this cloud would be 200,000 kilograms (440,000 pounds).
The condensed water in this cloud is enough to fill a large residential swimming pool. It is amazing that something this big and heavy can form from clear air within just a few minutes, but it is common in the atmosphere. A large thunderstorm could suspend 1,000 times more water (in the form of cloud droplets, rain, snow, and hail) than that found in a small cumulus cloud.
What keeps all this water weight suspended in the cumulus cloud? Indeed, why dont all clouds fall out of the sky? The reason is that updrafts suspend the cloud particles. In the case of the cumulus cloud, a typical drop radius is 0.01 mm. A drop this size falls at less than 0.5 centimeters per second (cm/s) in still air, so just the slightest updraft is sufficient to suspend droplets of this size.
Larger droplets fall faster. Drizzle droplets, for example, with radii ranging from 0.1 to 0.25 mm, fall at speeds of 100300 cm/s in still air. Strong updrafts of many meters per second are required to suspend raindrops or hail in a cloud.
Precipitation-sized particles, specifically those with radii greater than 0.1 mm, often fall from a cloud. Entering subsaturated air (where the relative humidity is less than 100 percent) below the cloud base, they evaporate during their downward journey, sometimes completely. The cloud itself can survive precipitation falling from its base provided that updrafts continue to promote condensation within the cloud. Downward air motion will quickly dissipate a cloud, for downward motion leads to compression of the air and an increase in temperature, which causes cloud droplets to evaporate.
UK Based Book Exchange Very good, Very free.
Yep, innovation is always a good thing. However, companies shouldn't be forced into it. If a company is given a set amount of time to remove and re-design an element of their product that infringes a patent then they may be inclined to rush it or to hack something together so it works and not put the time or effort in that the inovation requires. I don't believe companies need that much of a kick in the ass to innovate, the fact that customers thrive on inovation and new products should be enough.
Patents also lead to features simply being removed, and not replaced, which sucks. I can see what you're saying but I believe there has to be a better way to encourage inovation rather than taking companies to court (which wastes money which could be used on R&D).
agreed, let it be said that someone needs to do something (perhaps the software users?).
I think you have to remember that patents are actually very important, as long as they are used for the right reasons. i.e. A patent for a new toaster design that will revolutionise toasters is a good thing, because it ensures that a new company or a company that has put a lot of investment into a product gets the sales they deserve and someone else can't take their idea and capitalise on their research.
Obviosuly its good to have patents worldwide so that if an American company designs a product or a European company, they can sell the product not only in their continent but also in other countries without worrying about their product being ripped off, thus increasing the potential profit for the company in question.
where patents are bad is when a company makes a patent in order to prevent other companies from using a technology even though the company that owns the patent has no intention of making anything with it. Basically like registering an internet domain in order to stop another company getting it (so they have to buy it off you). Cheeky business and very annoying.
Why do all these companies make such a fuss about these patents, they aren't going to get any money, because if the company has the choice to just alter their software to avoid the patent then they will. All they are doing is slowing development of software and causing incompatabilities around the world. Basically making a mess of the current system which WORKS. How long to US patents last? It seems to long. Patents are forcing software to take steps backwards and not forward, I just hope the companies realise the potential damage they are doing before it becomes too late.
Better? Or did I miss something. I admit my spelling and grammer does suck, too much Word.
Agreed, it's like asking when duke nukem forever will be realeased and expecting sensible answers.
Just because this holds for humans doens't mean it will work with computers. All that it suggests is that having Viruses forces companies to produce patches.
I guess in the long run programmers will learn from virus outbreaks, how to prevent attacks and reduce secuirty risks. But mostly viruses exploit holes in code or mistakes that should have been sorted in the first place (the programmers know that a buffer underrun is bad, just having a virus expoit it doesn't mean they suddenly relalise how bad it is, they most likely missed it rather than didn't know how to prevent such a disaster in the first place).
This seems like a flimsey statement I'm not sure I agree with it.
By default winxp enables the firewall on internet connections.
first our server runs linux, and I administer it, but admintedly I don't have a gui installed, I guess with redhat its a lot easier to do things than in a shell, but even if you did stick a user with a nice gui they won't bother (lazy users) to setup crap, they just want it to work and not have to do anything, so really no matter how many wizards and guis you use the same problem exsists and it doesn't mean its the fault of the OS.
Trolling and Flamebait are what you get if you make any kind of Windows Defence on ./ or balanced view, shame really.
Equally shove a stupid windows user on a linux terminal and ask them to setup a decent firewall script, or download the latest patched kernel and just see how much fun they have. Just because people who use Windows are retards (running .pifs and .exes) doesn't mean its windows fault. In linux you have far more control over the system and can do far more damaging things, as its less restrictive than windows, so you can't say windows doesn't stop users being stupid because linux doesn't make an effort to either.
Its not Microsoft's fault, in XP when you install, the first thing it does it setup and Admin account, then ask you to setup "User" accounts which should be used, in place of admin. The only problem is that users who run Windows generally don't care for security, and so don't care about whether there an admin or not.
Funny how 95% of PC users have Windows, I wonder why a Virus writer would want to target Windows??!? Perhaps that is why so many exploits are found, because people are targeting it religously, start targeting Mac and Linux as much and see who is insecure!
See above reply about paying for a quality music file: Here
Agreed, I would pay to download High quality music, with a decent bit rate and no distortion. But don't get me wrong I won't pay $0.99 a track like that M$ freak of a music site (which is America only anyway), I checked it out, most albums require you buy each track on the album seperately, come on who is going to pay $20 for a 20 track album, it costs that much or less in the shops?!? The whole point is you cut out the shop, thus apparently making it cheaper?
I'm just curious as to how much money the RIAA is spending on all these court battles (which they will be foreced into)! Maybe they should be spending that money on finding new Artists or reducing the cost of exsiting material? Perhaps even setting up their own "online" song distribution system (as theres obviously a market for it [iTunes etc])