There are trade-offs with every 3D printing process and stereolithography is no exception. But, some of the points you mentioned are not true about modern stereolithography or the Form 1.
In our case, the resin has almost zero smell (you've got to put your nose right up to it to smell anything) and is similar in toxicity to handling many household chemicals (think glues and paints). Our pricing on the material is on the order of half of what high end 3D printer companies charge ($150/liter vs $300/liter).
-Max
co-founder, Formlabs
and if it really bothers me some tape or some clear nail polish should fix it.
It is possible that clear nail polish will do very little to mitigate the problem. At those frequencies, capacitive coupling can be as good as a DC conducting path. The bumper adds a millimeter or so of space which reduces the capacitive coupling as compared to nail polish.
We have discovered alchemy. As others commenters have already pointed out, that's the whole point of this fast breeder reactor concept. Its a reactor that turns depleted Uranium (we have plenty) and nuclear reactor wastes into usable fuel.
Having a memory — RAM or disk — above 2^64, however, is not achievable in even in theory... 2^64 is only 100 times less, for example, than the estimated number of sand-grains on Earth.
I don't think its fair to say that it isn't even achievable in theory. If you could write a bit of data into every atom of a piece of silicon, 2^64 corresponds to 860 micrograms. I would start to agree that pushing much beyond 128bits is crazy as that puts us into the truly collosal range of cubic kilometers of memory Though there are things smaller than atoms...
That being said, even the most wildly optimistic projections about the rate of increase in memory would put such a piece of memory at least 20 or 30 years out.
It is an oft-repeated story that Einstein was bad at math as a child. This is completely false as any serious biography of Einstein has noted. If he was at all lacking in math as a child or young adult, it simply was because he was never a great mathematician. He struggled with math throughout his career in physics. I can't find a great reference right now, but here is one (http://www.abc.net.au/science/k2/moments/s1115185 .htm). Take out any recent biography on Einstein if you are really interested.
This update seems to have come relatively soon after the O(1) scheduler (about a year?) which is relatively quick for changes to really important low-level parts of an operating system. Does this mean that the Linux community was relatively unhappy with the O(1) scheduler which was touted as a very good thing at the time?
With battery technology, the higher the density, the higher the chances of uncontrolled energy release. When it's safe and fairly cheap, then I'll be really interested.
You know what has a really high energy density (on the order of 50-100 times that of a Li-ion battery)? Gasoline.
That's a tough problem because the easy way to solve it is to add a whitelist to the phishing filter, but that is just asking for security problems (think malware hijacking the whitelist). I guess they will actually just have to make the filter work...
Have a little more creativity. As the parent (and child) was trying to suggest, there are so many amazing ways that technology has surmounted so many previous "physics" barriers. How about this as a little potential example. You take your 2016 camera which has a measly 10 or 20 megapixels but incredibly processing power and storage and pan it over the fresco back and forth, not very carefully, and it's intelligent algorithms (and maybe built in accelerometers or other motion tracking) patch together what you are imaging into one large image.
Hell, that's a pretty boring extension of todays very real and practical technologies (I know a team at my university that is doing almost precisely that for aerial photography), why not turn the camera around while you are at it and image the room from a few different angles, get some other art work and sculptures and have the camera create an incredibly detailed, textured 3d model of the entire room?
Anyone who has seen the last, incredible 40 years of progress in technology would be pretty close-minded not to see "gigapixel" and more cameras in the next 10 or 15 years.
sounds like the grad student thing from a year ago
on
Hacking the Governator
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Is it really so bad for home users to have unsecured wireless networks? Personally, I intentionally leave my network unsecured to allow neighbors and passerbys to share. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, no? Perhaps I'm missing something, but aren't the security risks of having an unsecured wireless network about the same as a computer directly connected to the network (not through a router)? You should be running a firewall on each computer. As for the threat of someone using your connection to do illegal things, that is valid, but I don't think the likelihood of that is great, and if it does happen, would I really get in trouble? I find it hard to believe that I could be thrown in jail for computer fraud or something that I absolutely did not commit.
I don't mind this law much. At worst, its misleading. I think the government is mostly concerned with the last issue with unsecured networks that I mentioned. They don't want to be wrongly accusing John Taxpayer of download child pornography.
No, you are wrong. This is one of the most common misconceptions about economics. It's called the broken window fallacy. The problem with your argument is that those $15 million could have been spent elsewhere. Compare two possible situations: You pay $15M to go to space. Many engineers and technicians get a salary and you go to space. Or, you donate $15M to feed starving children in Africa. Many farmers, aid workers, whatever get a salary and thousands of children are fed properly. Pretty much anytime you do something with your money, people will get paid, but what you are paying them for will vary.
Anyway, this is not to say that I am against people paying such huge sums to go to space. There is definitley some value in getting people interested in space like this.
Actually, that is just a good example of people being very sloppy with their notation. You are correct in your calculations, but hide the units in GBps...GigaBYTES per second. Multiplying your number by 8 results in 48Gbps...GigaBits, which is far beyond even the fattest pipe between NY and Chicago on that map (at 10Gbps).
Good catch, but I wouldnt be surprised if my estimate was off by even more than 8 times. I just wanted to show that it was approximately possible. Additionally, I talked about buying all the pipes from one city. It wouldn't make much sense to discuss just buying one pipe from one city to another. I was just trying to show that that kind of bandwidth certainly exists.
Additionally, you are assuming that people would all watch at discreet intervals without overlapping too much and that nobody else would be using the Internet for any other purpose. In reality, there will already be a high traffic load and people will want the video in clumps. It is why people like Apple are offering downloadable video and not streaming. That way if it takes 2 hours to download a 1 hour show, at least you didn't have to sit through all of the pauses
Again, I mentioned that this is just one of the privately owned networks that makes up the internet (in this case Worldcom's) and I imagine its not very new as I'm pretty sure Worldcom is operating greater than 10Gbps links, so this would by no means saturate the internet. As for not evenly distributed traffic patterns, sure, but again, I'm just trying to gauge the scale.
The answer is probably that it just isn't as it seems. Even using some big numbers and assumptions, its not as bad as it seems. If the site sends 10 million users 50 MB of data each and spreads it out over a whole day, it comes to about 5.5 GBps continuously. Taking a look at this map, there are plenty of cities that offer that kind of bandwidth, and this is only one network (admittedly, the largest), and of course, the servers could (and almost certainly are) spread out over several locations. Further, the number of servers required is not great considering it is not unreasonable for a high end server to achieve 100's of MBps when serving static data like this. Of course, all these numbers are probably pretty far off (in reality, I'm sure the number of servers required scales terribly as you start to spend a lot of resources on load balancing and the fact that some sites serve huge libraries of content), but my point is that it is certainly reasonable.
That said, you do still bring up an interesting issue: even though these sites are certainly technically feasible, they are certainly extremely expensive (Go ask Worldcom how much they'd like to buy all of there connections to Los Angeles...). Unless we are reentering dot com days, Google, YouTube and there ilk must be expecting to make some serious ROI soon.
Is anyone else surprised at how Flash has become the new standard for video distribution? Google Video, YouTube, etc all use Flash for displaying video, mainly, i think, to reach the widest segment of the population. I wonder if Macromedia itself ever predicted that Flash's wide availability would become its selling point for streaming video. I think this is a bad trend because it is hiding more and more of the content from the browser. I would have liked to see W3C specify some formats and controls for video that browsers should support. Instead, multimedia on the web is taking browsers towards just being an extra frame around a Flash frame. W3C: We all like focus on the semantic web stuff, but you gotta get with times and get multimedia standardized too. SVG is just a small step in that direction.
From articles I read 3 or 4 years ago, I was under the impression that Web 2.0 technologies were mostly focused on adding semantic data to the web. Web 2.0 was supposed to enable increased machine interface to the web. It seems that this keyword has been reassigned to simply encompass any recent web technologies as the semantic information trend hasn't really yielded any big results yet (I think we can all agree that rss and such are having less impact on users than AJAX interfaces that everyone and their mother are adding to web apps. They really do change the user experience significantly, especially for novice users.)
With a 300GB capacity and 20Mbps tansfer rate, it would take 34 hours to read or write a single disk. Assuming they made a mistake in the transfer rate and its actually 20MBps (possible though unlikely considering HD-DVD drives are shipping with 35mbps, or ~4MBps rates), it would still take ~4 hours to transfer a disc. I can burn a 700MB CD in 5 minutes, and a 4.7GB DVD in 25 minutes.
a complete understanding of the basic physics and chemistry involved (neither of which we have yet)
I believe you are wrong and we already possess sufficient physical knowledge and have for years. As far as I understand it, the Schrödinger equation (and perhaps some other quantum mechanical theories) allows us to model the behavior of electrons completely. All the interactions involved in biochemistry are simply a result of electron behavior (nuclear reactions do not affect life significantly). This is not to say that there is not still work left to be done in the field as modelling at such a low level is probably impractical.
I don't know much about operating systems at all, but I do know that the Windows NT line of kernels are hybrid kernels, which are more modular than monolithic kernels like Linux. In fact, Linus famously argued for a monolithic kernel.
I've heard this before and I think it's likely a myth for some basic physics reasons. Polar bears appear white. That means they reflect most of the light that hits them. Now its conceivable that the hairs work only in certain directions, but if a polar bear looks mostly white at all angles, I am pretty sure that it is impossible the polar bear to be simultaneously absorbing any large percentage of the light. You can't get the best of both worlds, either you are white and camouflaged (with the snow) or black and use the sun to heat yourself.
A9 uses Google results http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A9.com. I haven't read the TOS, but its conceivable that they Google still tracks your searches and result choices via A9.
Slashdot Mirror
There are trade-offs with every 3D printing process and stereolithography is no exception. But, some of the points you mentioned are not true about modern stereolithography or the Form 1. In our case, the resin has almost zero smell (you've got to put your nose right up to it to smell anything) and is similar in toxicity to handling many household chemicals (think glues and paints). Our pricing on the material is on the order of half of what high end 3D printer companies charge ($150/liter vs $300/liter). -Max co-founder, Formlabs
and if it really bothers me some tape or some clear nail polish should fix it.
It is possible that clear nail polish will do very little to mitigate the problem. At those frequencies, capacitive coupling can be as good as a DC conducting path. The bumper adds a millimeter or so of space which reduces the capacitive coupling as compared to nail polish.
We have discovered alchemy. As others commenters have already pointed out, that's the whole point of this fast breeder reactor concept. Its a reactor that turns depleted Uranium (we have plenty) and nuclear reactor wastes into usable fuel.
Having a memory — RAM or disk — above 2^64, however, is not achievable in even in theory... 2^64 is only 100 times less, for example, than the estimated number of sand-grains on Earth.
I don't think its fair to say that it isn't even achievable in theory. If you could write a bit of data into every atom of a piece of silicon, 2^64 corresponds to 860 micrograms. I would start to agree that pushing much beyond 128bits is crazy as that puts us into the truly collosal range of cubic kilometers of memory Though there are things smaller than atoms...
That being said, even the most wildly optimistic projections about the rate of increase in memory would put such a piece of memory at least 20 or 30 years out.
You know, when you turn a seismogram into sound and speed it up, it sounds pretty much like rubbing two rocks against each other.
I'm very curious to hear this, do you have a link?
Thanks.
It is an oft-repeated story that Einstein was bad at math as a child. This is completely false as any serious biography of Einstein has noted. If he was at all lacking in math as a child or young adult, it simply was because he was never a great mathematician. He struggled with math throughout his career in physics. I can't find a great reference right now, but here is one (http://www.abc.net.au/science/k2/moments/s1115185 .htm). Take out any recent biography on Einstein if you are really interested.
This update seems to have come relatively soon after the O(1) scheduler (about a year?) which is relatively quick for changes to really important low-level parts of an operating system. Does this mean that the Linux community was relatively unhappy with the O(1) scheduler which was touted as a very good thing at the time?
It's simple economics. If you spend billions of dollars getting it there (they will), it's going to be worth it to spend more than $50,000 on it.
You know what has a really high energy density (on the order of 50-100 times that of a Li-ion battery)? Gasoline.
That's a tough problem because the easy way to solve it is to add a whitelist to the phishing filter, but that is just asking for security problems (think malware hijacking the whitelist). I guess they will actually just have to make the filter work...
Have a little more creativity. As the parent (and child) was trying to suggest, there are so many amazing ways that technology has surmounted so many previous "physics" barriers. How about this as a little potential example. You take your 2016 camera which has a measly 10 or 20 megapixels but incredibly processing power and storage and pan it over the fresco back and forth, not very carefully, and it's intelligent algorithms (and maybe built in accelerometers or other motion tracking) patch together what you are imaging into one large image.
Hell, that's a pretty boring extension of todays very real and practical technologies (I know a team at my university that is doing almost precisely that for aerial photography), why not turn the camera around while you are at it and image the room from a few different angles, get some other art work and sculptures and have the camera create an incredibly detailed, textured 3d model of the entire room?
Anyone who has seen the last, incredible 40 years of progress in technology would be pretty close-minded not to see "gigapixel" and more cameras in the next 10 or 15 years.
Anyone remember this? http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2005/03/08 /harvard_rejects_119_accused_of_hacking_1110274403 / Seems like the media supported the concept that it was hacking. Given, it required more work than in this case, but it was still a case of freely accessible URL.
Is it really so bad for home users to have unsecured wireless networks? Personally, I intentionally leave my network unsecured to allow neighbors and passerbys to share. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, no? Perhaps I'm missing something, but aren't the security risks of having an unsecured wireless network about the same as a computer directly connected to the network (not through a router)? You should be running a firewall on each computer. As for the threat of someone using your connection to do illegal things, that is valid, but I don't think the likelihood of that is great, and if it does happen, would I really get in trouble? I find it hard to believe that I could be thrown in jail for computer fraud or something that I absolutely did not commit.
I don't mind this law much. At worst, its misleading. I think the government is mostly concerned with the last issue with unsecured networks that I mentioned. They don't want to be wrongly accusing John Taxpayer of download child pornography.
No, you are wrong. This is one of the most common misconceptions about economics. It's called the broken window fallacy. The problem with your argument is that those $15 million could have been spent elsewhere. Compare two possible situations: You pay $15M to go to space. Many engineers and technicians get a salary and you go to space. Or, you donate $15M to feed starving children in Africa. Many farmers, aid workers, whatever get a salary and thousands of children are fed properly. Pretty much anytime you do something with your money, people will get paid, but what you are paying them for will vary.
Anyway, this is not to say that I am against people paying such huge sums to go to space. There is definitley some value in getting people interested in space like this.
Ah, great idea! But wait, that money will be going to the "music cartel" and the Slashbots say that they are bad too. It's hard being a zealot...
Good catch, but I wouldnt be surprised if my estimate was off by even more than 8 times. I just wanted to show that it was approximately possible. Additionally, I talked about buying all the pipes from one city. It wouldn't make much sense to discuss just buying one pipe from one city to another. I was just trying to show that that kind of bandwidth certainly exists.
Again, I mentioned that this is just one of the privately owned networks that makes up the internet (in this case Worldcom's) and I imagine its not very new as I'm pretty sure Worldcom is operating greater than 10Gbps links, so this would by no means saturate the internet. As for not evenly distributed traffic patterns, sure, but again, I'm just trying to gauge the scale.
The answer is probably that it just isn't as it seems. Even using some big numbers and assumptions, its not as bad as it seems. If the site sends 10 million users 50 MB of data each and spreads it out over a whole day, it comes to about 5.5 GBps continuously. Taking a look at this map, there are plenty of cities that offer that kind of bandwidth, and this is only one network (admittedly, the largest), and of course, the servers could (and almost certainly are) spread out over several locations. Further, the number of servers required is not great considering it is not unreasonable for a high end server to achieve 100's of MBps when serving static data like this. Of course, all these numbers are probably pretty far off (in reality, I'm sure the number of servers required scales terribly as you start to spend a lot of resources on load balancing and the fact that some sites serve huge libraries of content), but my point is that it is certainly reasonable.
That said, you do still bring up an interesting issue: even though these sites are certainly technically feasible, they are certainly extremely expensive (Go ask Worldcom how much they'd like to buy all of there connections to Los Angeles...). Unless we are reentering dot com days, Google, YouTube and there ilk must be expecting to make some serious ROI soon.
Is anyone else surprised at how Flash has become the new standard for video distribution? Google Video, YouTube, etc all use Flash for displaying video, mainly, i think, to reach the widest segment of the population. I wonder if Macromedia itself ever predicted that Flash's wide availability would become its selling point for streaming video. I think this is a bad trend because it is hiding more and more of the content from the browser. I would have liked to see W3C specify some formats and controls for video that browsers should support. Instead, multimedia on the web is taking browsers towards just being an extra frame around a Flash frame. W3C: We all like focus on the semantic web stuff, but you gotta get with times and get multimedia standardized too. SVG is just a small step in that direction.
From articles I read 3 or 4 years ago, I was under the impression that Web 2.0 technologies were mostly focused on adding semantic data to the web. Web 2.0 was supposed to enable increased machine interface to the web. It seems that this keyword has been reassigned to simply encompass any recent web technologies as the semantic information trend hasn't really yielded any big results yet (I think we can all agree that rss and such are having less impact on users than AJAX interfaces that everyone and their mother are adding to web apps. They really do change the user experience significantly, especially for novice users.)
With a 300GB capacity and 20Mbps tansfer rate, it would take 34 hours to read or write a single disk. Assuming they made a mistake in the transfer rate and its actually 20MBps (possible though unlikely considering HD-DVD drives are shipping with 35mbps, or ~4MBps rates), it would still take ~4 hours to transfer a disc. I can burn a 700MB CD in 5 minutes, and a 4.7GB DVD in 25 minutes.
I believe you are wrong and we already possess sufficient physical knowledge and have for years. As far as I understand it, the Schrödinger equation (and perhaps some other quantum mechanical theories) allows us to model the behavior of electrons completely. All the interactions involved in biochemistry are simply a result of electron behavior (nuclear reactions do not affect life significantly). This is not to say that there is not still work left to be done in the field as modelling at such a low level is probably impractical.
I don't know much about operating systems at all, but I do know that the Windows NT line of kernels are hybrid kernels, which are more modular than monolithic kernels like Linux. In fact, Linus famously argued for a monolithic kernel.
I've heard this before and I think it's likely a myth for some basic physics reasons. Polar bears appear white. That means they reflect most of the light that hits them. Now its conceivable that the hairs work only in certain directions, but if a polar bear looks mostly white at all angles, I am pretty sure that it is impossible the polar bear to be simultaneously absorbing any large percentage of the light. You can't get the best of both worlds, either you are white and camouflaged (with the snow) or black and use the sun to heat yourself.
A9 uses Google results http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A9.com. I haven't read the TOS, but its conceivable that they Google still tracks your searches and result choices via A9.