You're ignoring the fact that that $8,000 Rolex is probably made of gold/platinum, with actual diamonds/whatever. You pay the insane prices for the quality of the watch as well as the name. So while the $80 counterfeit watch may look the same, it's only the same watch on a very superficial level. So yes, about $4,000 of the price is for the name alone, there is a very real difference between genuine and counterfeit goods.
Yes, but those sharp edges are due to it's crystalline structure. Using it as a ball bearing would likely cause small fractures in the sphere from load/friction, which would then create very abrasive projections and cracks. So while it is a perfect sphere, it isn't likely to stay that way for long. Silicon is pretty hard, but malleable it's not. That's why ball bearings last as long as they do-the steel's malleable enough to withstand the loads without shattering.
You do realize that, in the real world, these perfect spheres are, most likely, impossible to produce in large quantities. And, even if they do figure out how to mass-produce them, they'll wear out very quickly. They're made of silicon, for God's sake. Sand. Abrasive.
Something like this is useful in a laboratory setting, but useless in the real world. You have to strive to create the best tolerances with the materials you have, but lower-friction bearings are unlikely to result from perfect spheres. There'll be uses, don't get me wrong, but most of those uses will probably be in very high-precision test equipment, sensors for spacecraft, etc. Replacing all the bearings in, say, my car with ones using perfect spheres would probably increase the efficiency only negligibly. Other factors, such as aerodynamics, weight reduction, efficiency of the engine in producing power, etc. would give much greater efficiency gains, without the exacting precision necessary to create spheres that are perfect on an atomic level. So yeah, it's cool, but it isn't likely to find it's way into 'green' technology, since the precision required to produce then doesn't justify the efficiency gains. So please, before you toss the green buzzword onto everything, stop for a moment and think "Will ball bearings that are perfect spheres, on an atomic level, really matter in a manufacturing process that deals with tolerances of thousandths of inches? Nope."
Any decent electronics manufacturer washes *all* of their boards anyway, using special washers, to remove fluxes, debris, etc.(Yes, I know they have 'no-clean flux' available, but from what I have read it's likely to corrode circuitry anyway, albeit more slowly.) So hopefully your mobo, dvd player, etc. have already been through a 'dishwasher', one specifically designed for the purpose. Additionally, that waterfall you're thinking of is called wave soldering.
It's also interesting to point out how well they tie in their in-house apps with search, as opposed to the things they bought. It's handy, for example, to have a quick link to google maps when I do a search for, say, a local business. Youtube? It doesn't tie in with the rest of Google's products as seamlessly, and seems like a standalone site that Google just decided to invest in to make some $ (ie Murdoch and myspace). So yes, they do tend to muscle their way into a field MS style on occasion, but their most-useful services are invariably developed in-house.
I believe that in the close future, US will change to form mega cities to overcome the cost of oil. For example, Korea is very urbanized, meaning that people live heavily in and around the big cities forming megacities, especially around Seoul and Busan.
Yes, but you have to realize that the U.S. is a lot bigger and a lot less densely populated than korea. From cia.gov, the total population/total landmass for the two countries-
USA- 30.92 people per square km
South Korea- 499.93 people per square km
Korea is more densely populated that the U.S. because there are more people in a given amount of space. In NYC, for example, land is fairly unavailiable/expensive, so the population density is high. In most of the rest of the country, there's more room to spread out, so cities become these sprawling behemoths and public transportation becomes less and less viable. I agree with you that the US will probably move towards larger, more dense cities, but that will take decades. There's a lot of infrastructure that needs changed, and can't be changed overnight based on changing oil markets. In the interim, cars (but not necessarily fossil-fueled) are, many times, a necessity.
Well in exception to Old people in Korea
(BTW, elaborate "in korea, only old people drive cars" joke, or what?
Yes, but in Europe, mass transit is viable due to population density. I live in a larger midwestern city (Minneapolis) and even though we have buses, light rail, bike routes, etc.. mass transit still isn't really a viable option for most people. If I lost my car, I would lose my job and make $4 per hour less closer to my house. Fewer people in Europe need cars, but the US still has a lot of rural areas where the nearest town/job market is 25-30 miles away. That is why the US is being hit so hard. The infrastructure was designed based on the premise of inaffordable transportation, and can't be changed overnight. Thus, the people hit hardest by higher gas prices usually tend to live in areas where a car is a necessity, not a luxury.
Well, we've really already served our purpose here-time for us to move on and make room for the next monkeys. Any extra time we spend here is just mother nature gathering up more plastic. Once the oil runs out, so does the plastic...
Most consumer electronics have protective coatings. I don't know what you've been buying, but my consumer electronics aren't conformal coated. I wish they were, but I rarely see conformal coat on consumer products. Not on my LG cellphone, dvd player, computer motherboard, etc. In fact, the last time I saw conformal coat in a consumer application, it was a radioshack RC car I had bought intending to gut. It was pretty unnecessary, since it used cheap components and was poorly soldered, but I was a little impressed. In general, I rarely see conformal coated products, since it's just another, many times unnecessary, expense. The biggest exception seems to be automotive electronics, but those are designed for a much longer life.
Most likely, this problem isn't due to whiskers, but intermittent shorts. Patch cords, in general, get twisted around, plugged and unplugged often. Even if you're anal about storing them properly, all the flexing and movement in the connector from use is more likely to cause an failure. Unplugging it and plugging it back in will often move the connector termination and wires back into contact, "fixing" the problem. Sadly, this isn't something that's easy to detect, as the only practical solution is to replace/resolder cords that seem to fail often. In a studio environment, your patch cords are most likely moved around/jiggled enough that long whiskers don't have the opportunity to form, and a whisker isn't as likely to short a connector as it is a BGA. The joints are much farther apart, and assemblies with BGAs and such are typically much more stationary.
If that wasn't the aim of the project, then why on earth do they only seem to promote those "successes"? I don't see them talking about the kid in India who got a laptop, figured out how to use it, and lives in a country where computer-literacy can get him a job (and yes, I know India turned OLPC down, it's an example of a developing nation). Instead, all the articles and PR focus on these kids living in dirt-floored shanties with no running water who can now flame neighboring villagers on the internets. If those communities weren't the original target of the project, why are they promoting those situations? Why did they even give those kids the laptops in the first place, if they weren't the original aim?
Yes, but if you live in a rural village in a third world country, how much technology are you surrounded by? Yes, in the first world nations, not knowing how to use a computer is a serious hindrance in the work environment, even if you work at a fast food restaurant. But in the third world, especially in the most rural villages, the technology is, for the most part, primeval. Yes, they're being introduced to technology that is incredibly advanced, but how will this help them in their daily lives? They now know how to run a computer, but it's such a complex piece of technology. If you give someone a wheel, they'll eventually figure out how it works. An automobile is derived from so many other technological discoveries that it's function is inexplicable to people not familiar with it. The XO is an interesting toy, but knowing how to operate one won't really benefit most children in these communities. Knowledge of more sophisticated agricultural practices, or looms, or food storage techniques (canning, dehydration, etc.) would be of greater benefit. Yes, a few poster children will leave their villages, attend university on scholarship, and become scientists, doctors, lawyers, etc... but that involves leaving the village. It would be better if, instead of giving them laptops and teaching them skills that are useful in our culture, we would teach them skills that can make their lives better and improve the lives of the whole village. In the long run, it would help more people if, instead of giving them food or laptops, we would help to teach them the skills that have allowed our culture to create things like laptops.
Wait, you're talking about the Van's Warped Tour, right? As in Vans, the shoe manufacturer? The place with $3 bottles of water and $10 hot dogs? Sorry to break it to ya, but it's always been a moving musical advertisement. Just because Microsoft is involved doesn't increase the whore-ism level.
You didn't happen to notice that the damn thing's approximately the size of a postage stamp, did you? The point of the air is that's it's incredibly thin. This isn't designed to be the most powerful, feature-laden notebook out there, it's designed to be portable. For instance, Intel re-designed the processor to make it significantly smaller. Things like that don't come cheap; hence, Apple charges more for the device. Yes, it isn't as powerful as the Pro, but it's designed to complement Apple's other notebooks, not replace them. Buy the Pro if you want more power/features, buy the Air if you need an eensy notebook. It doesn't make sense for Apple to sell 3 different notebook models that are all essentially the same thing. One's cheaper, one's more powerful, and one's small. Pick one. Personally, I'm impressed that the Air's still cheaper than the competition, considering that: A) it's a Mac B) It's smaller (thinner) than comparable notebooks C) it's decently powerful and has good battery life. I wouldn't buy one for video/audio editing, but for web-browsing, e-mail, and text editing it's perfect. And, let's face it, that's all that most consumers use a computer for.
Okay, so I realise that this has the potential to be a new kind of drug (LSD, anyone), but what in the name of God is this doing on the front page of Slashdot. This isn't "News for Nerds", this is news for the guy who sells you pot.
OOOOh...so if I eat this fish, I'll feel like I have loose teeth...F****IN RAGE!!. It's an old meme, but seriously, slow news day, or what?
Motorola, SonyEricsson, LG? Give me a break. The UI on their phones is crap.
It depends on the phone, good sir. My LG VX3200 ahref=http://www.mobiledia.com/phones/lg/vx3200.htmlrel=url2html-30747http://www.mobiledia.com/phones/lg/vx3200.html> had the best mobile UI I've ever seen. The features you would actually use (alarm, SMS, phonebook) were easily navigable and fast. When I'm using a phone, I really don't stare at the UI and think "Oh, this is sooooo very pretty." I pull it out of my pocket, make a call or send a message, and put it away when I'm done. If I can use the most common features quickly, then I'm pretty damn satisfied with the user interface. I borrowed a friend's iPhone and, frankly, I hated the UI. Sure, it looks pretty as hell, but it takes too long to make a call/set an alarm/etc. If I just want to make a call, it's annoying to have to fumble through several screens to make a call.
So, while i would agree that while Motorola, LG, and co. don't have an undying commitment to ease of use, they have produced some phones with great user interfaces. Their commitment, which Apple wholeheartedly shares, is to the bottom line. Apple, as a company, doesn't care any more about it's users that, say, Microsoft. Apple has just realized that giving the user what they want (or, through marketing, convincing the user that the latest Apple product is what they really want) will make them more money. I'm not an anti-Apple troll, but I hate people who are convinced that Apple (and occasionally Google) can 'Do No Evil.' Apple is a corporation like any other, and there's nothing magical about either their products or their employees. They do make some great products, but so do many other companies.
Back in the day when only one parent worked out of the home, the other parent generally spent an equal amount of hours working in the home. (Cooking, cleaning, etc...) They had no, or very little, time for 'quality time'.
I call bullshit. Yes, housework does take up time, but not that much time. Even in a household where both parents work, cooking, cleaning, etc. still need to be done. If both adults are working, there is invariably less time for these tasks, but they still need to be done. So while people spend less time cooking, they still need to eat. Additionally, single-parent families, with the attendant reduced income, won't have enough excess money for cleaning services, restaurant food, etc. These tasks still need to be done, which means the parent(s) have significantly less time available to spend with their kids.
I don't want to feed such obvious flamebait by responding in kind.
It just makes me sad that there are people so lacking in any form of self-respect or dignity that they have to resort to trolling. This lonely person, conveniently hiding behind his mask of anonymity, has chosen to make remarks that he/she (most likely a he) knows will either disgust or anger nearly anyone who reads them. He isn't even expecting a response. It's enough for him to imagine the reactions of the people who read his comment and are momentarily offended. Once one stops to think about the tragedy of this desperate cry for attention, it's difficult to dismiss him as unimportant. The fact that, even in a place where it's always possible to make a new account and erase any past mistakes, the only way anyone will pay attention to him is if he is so blatantly offensive that anyone reading his comment is offended. Either that, or his sense of humor is so mal-adjusted that he would be amused if his own parents were brutally murdered. Tragic in either case.
You could vote for McCain and/or Giuliani in a Republican primary at this point, but as of the present moment it's Obama vs. Clinton vs. Biden vs. Dodd vs. Edwards vs. about 20 others.
(on a side note, does election season, like Christmas, seem to come earlier and get more bloated every 4 years?)
While I would also like to have more info on what his position is on copyright law, this is still an great thing. Things like this should be in the public domain. Not only is it important for people to watch these debates, but they also need to discuss them, both in their private lives and in public. This gives anyone the freedom to quote the original source, which should be a given in a democracy in matters concerning politics. It may not work out to Obama's advantage; there may be people who use what he said in the debates to discredit him. However, that would happen anyway. Now there will hopefully be a somewhat higher standard of evidence, because bloggers/unofficial journalists will be expected to quote from the original source, and maybe even provide the pertinent video footage. It's possible to take things out of context and twist the meaning of statements, but making the debates accessible to everyone can only make this more difficult.
Slashdot Mirror
You're ignoring the fact that that $8,000 Rolex is probably made of gold/platinum, with actual diamonds/whatever. You pay the insane prices for the quality of the watch as well as the name. So while the $80 counterfeit watch may look the same, it's only the same watch on a very superficial level. So yes, about $4,000 of the price is for the name alone, there is a very real difference between genuine and counterfeit goods.
Wow. Just wow.
Simple, move to Minneapolis. Yeah, it's in the midwest, but it's usually easier to ride your bike than deal with parking and traffic.
Yes, but those sharp edges are due to it's crystalline structure. Using it as a ball bearing would likely cause small fractures in the sphere from load/friction, which would then create very abrasive projections and cracks. So while it is a perfect sphere, it isn't likely to stay that way for long. Silicon is pretty hard, but malleable it's not. That's why ball bearings last as long as they do-the steel's malleable enough to withstand the loads without shattering.
You do realize that, in the real world, these perfect spheres are, most likely, impossible to produce in large quantities. And, even if they do figure out how to mass-produce them, they'll wear out very quickly. They're made of silicon, for God's sake. Sand. Abrasive.
Something like this is useful in a laboratory setting, but useless in the real world. You have to strive to create the best tolerances with the materials you have, but lower-friction bearings are unlikely to result from perfect spheres. There'll be uses, don't get me wrong, but most of those uses will probably be in very high-precision test equipment, sensors for spacecraft, etc. Replacing all the bearings in, say, my car with ones using perfect spheres would probably increase the efficiency only negligibly. Other factors, such as aerodynamics, weight reduction, efficiency of the engine in producing power, etc. would give much greater efficiency gains, without the exacting precision necessary to create spheres that are perfect on an atomic level. So yeah, it's cool, but it isn't likely to find it's way into 'green' technology, since the precision required to produce then doesn't justify the efficiency gains. So please, before you toss the green buzzword onto everything, stop for a moment and think "Will ball bearings that are perfect spheres, on an atomic level, really matter in a manufacturing process that deals with tolerances of thousandths of inches? Nope."
Any decent electronics manufacturer washes *all* of their boards anyway, using special washers, to remove fluxes, debris, etc.(Yes, I know they have 'no-clean flux' available, but from what I have read it's likely to corrode circuitry anyway, albeit more slowly.) So hopefully your mobo, dvd player, etc. have already been through a 'dishwasher', one specifically designed for the purpose. Additionally, that waterfall you're thinking of is called wave soldering.
It's also interesting to point out how well they tie in their in-house apps with search, as opposed to the things they bought. It's handy, for example, to have a quick link to google maps when I do a search for, say, a local business. Youtube? It doesn't tie in with the rest of Google's products as seamlessly, and seems like a standalone site that Google just decided to invest in to make some $ (ie Murdoch and myspace). So yes, they do tend to muscle their way into a field MS style on occasion, but their most-useful services are invariably developed in-house.
Yes, but you have to realize that the U.S. is a lot bigger and a lot less densely populated than korea. From cia.gov, the total population/total landmass for the two countries-
USA- 30.92 people per square km
South Korea- 499.93 people per square km
Korea is more densely populated that the U.S. because there are more people in a given amount of space. In NYC, for example, land is fairly unavailiable/expensive, so the population density is high. In most of the rest of the country, there's more room to spread out, so cities become these sprawling behemoths and public transportation becomes less and less viable. I agree with you that the US will probably move towards larger, more dense cities, but that will take decades. There's a lot of infrastructure that needs changed, and can't be changed overnight based on changing oil markets. In the interim, cars (but not necessarily fossil-fueled) are, many times, a necessity.
Well in exception to Old people in Korea(BTW, elaborate "in korea, only old people drive cars" joke, or what?
Yes, but in Europe, mass transit is viable due to population density. I live in a larger midwestern city (Minneapolis) and even though we have buses, light rail, bike routes, etc.. mass transit still isn't really a viable option for most people. If I lost my car, I would lose my job and make $4 per hour less closer to my house. Fewer people in Europe need cars, but the US still has a lot of rural areas where the nearest town/job market is 25-30 miles away. That is why the US is being hit so hard. The infrastructure was designed based on the premise of inaffordable transportation, and can't be changed overnight. Thus, the people hit hardest by higher gas prices usually tend to live in areas where a car is a necessity, not a luxury.
Well, we've really already served our purpose here-time for us to move on and make room for the next monkeys. Any extra time we spend here is just mother nature gathering up more plastic. Once the oil runs out, so does the plastic...
(r.i.p. carlin)
Most likely, this problem isn't due to whiskers, but intermittent shorts. Patch cords, in general, get twisted around, plugged and unplugged often. Even if you're anal about storing them properly, all the flexing and movement in the connector from use is more likely to cause an failure. Unplugging it and plugging it back in will often move the connector termination and wires back into contact, "fixing" the problem. Sadly, this isn't something that's easy to detect, as the only practical solution is to replace/resolder cords that seem to fail often. In a studio environment, your patch cords are most likely moved around/jiggled enough that long whiskers don't have the opportunity to form, and a whisker isn't as likely to short a connector as it is a BGA. The joints are much farther apart, and assemblies with BGAs and such are typically much more stationary.
If that wasn't the aim of the project, then why on earth do they only seem to promote those "successes"? I don't see them talking about the kid in India who got a laptop, figured out how to use it, and lives in a country where computer-literacy can get him a job (and yes, I know India turned OLPC down, it's an example of a developing nation). Instead, all the articles and PR focus on these kids living in dirt-floored shanties with no running water who can now flame neighboring villagers on the internets. If those communities weren't the original target of the project, why are they promoting those situations? Why did they even give those kids the laptops in the first place, if they weren't the original aim?
Yes, but if you live in a rural village in a third world country, how much technology are you surrounded by? Yes, in the first world nations, not knowing how to use a computer is a serious hindrance in the work environment, even if you work at a fast food restaurant. But in the third world, especially in the most rural villages, the technology is, for the most part, primeval. Yes, they're being introduced to technology that is incredibly advanced, but how will this help them in their daily lives? They now know how to run a computer, but it's such a complex piece of technology. If you give someone a wheel, they'll eventually figure out how it works. An automobile is derived from so many other technological discoveries that it's function is inexplicable to people not familiar with it. The XO is an interesting toy, but knowing how to operate one won't really benefit most children in these communities. Knowledge of more sophisticated agricultural practices, or looms, or food storage techniques (canning, dehydration, etc.) would be of greater benefit. Yes, a few poster children will leave their villages, attend university on scholarship, and become scientists, doctors, lawyers, etc... but that involves leaving the village. It would be better if, instead of giving them laptops and teaching them skills that are useful in our culture, we would teach them skills that can make their lives better and improve the lives of the whole village. In the long run, it would help more people if, instead of giving them food or laptops, we would help to teach them the skills that have allowed our culture to create things like laptops.
Warped tour? Corporate whore???
Wait, you're talking about the Van's Warped Tour, right? As in Vans, the shoe manufacturer? The place with $3 bottles of water and $10 hot dogs? Sorry to break it to ya, but it's always been a moving musical advertisement. Just because Microsoft is involved doesn't increase the whore-ism level.
Start smoking. It helps.
I give you the Lamborghini Murciélago, base price $313,000. Sexy, yes. Functional, hell no.
You didn't happen to notice that the damn thing's approximately the size of a postage stamp, did you? The point of the air is that's it's incredibly thin. This isn't designed to be the most powerful, feature-laden notebook out there, it's designed to be portable. For instance, Intel re-designed the processor to make it significantly smaller. Things like that don't come cheap; hence, Apple charges more for the device. Yes, it isn't as powerful as the Pro, but it's designed to complement Apple's other notebooks, not replace them. Buy the Pro if you want more power/features, buy the Air if you need an eensy notebook. It doesn't make sense for Apple to sell 3 different notebook models that are all essentially the same thing. One's cheaper, one's more powerful, and one's small. Pick one. Personally, I'm impressed that the Air's still cheaper than the competition, considering that: A) it's a Mac B) It's smaller (thinner) than comparable notebooks C) it's decently powerful and has good battery life. I wouldn't buy one for video/audio editing, but for web-browsing, e-mail, and text editing it's perfect. And, let's face it, that's all that most consumers use a computer for.
Okay, so I realise that this has the potential to be a new kind of drug (LSD, anyone), but what in the name of God is this doing on the front page of Slashdot. This isn't "News for Nerds", this is news for the guy who sells you pot.
OOOOh...so if I eat this fish, I'll feel like I have loose teeth...F****IN RAGE!!. It's an old meme, but seriously, slow news day, or what?
It depends on the phone, good sir. My LG VX3200 ahref=http://www.mobiledia.com/phones/lg/vx3200.htmlrel=url2html-30747http://www.mobiledia.com/phones/lg/vx3200.html> had the best mobile UI I've ever seen. The features you would actually use (alarm, SMS, phonebook) were easily navigable and fast. When I'm using a phone, I really don't stare at the UI and think "Oh, this is sooooo very pretty." I pull it out of my pocket, make a call or send a message, and put it away when I'm done. If I can use the most common features quickly, then I'm pretty damn satisfied with the user interface. I borrowed a friend's iPhone and, frankly, I hated the UI. Sure, it looks pretty as hell, but it takes too long to make a call/set an alarm/etc. If I just want to make a call, it's annoying to have to fumble through several screens to make a call.
So, while i would agree that while Motorola, LG, and co. don't have an undying commitment to ease of use, they have produced some phones with great user interfaces. Their commitment, which Apple wholeheartedly shares, is to the bottom line. Apple, as a company, doesn't care any more about it's users that, say, Microsoft. Apple has just realized that giving the user what they want (or, through marketing, convincing the user that the latest Apple product is what they really want) will make them more money. I'm not an anti-Apple troll, but I hate people who are convinced that Apple (and occasionally Google) can 'Do No Evil.' Apple is a corporation like any other, and there's nothing magical about either their products or their employees. They do make some great products, but so do many other companies.
I call bullshit. Yes, housework does take up time, but not that much time. Even in a household where both parents work, cooking, cleaning, etc. still need to be done. If both adults are working, there is invariably less time for these tasks, but they still need to be done. So while people spend less time cooking, they still need to eat. Additionally, single-parent families, with the attendant reduced income, won't have enough excess money for cleaning services, restaurant food, etc. These tasks still need to be done, which means the parent(s) have significantly less time available to spend with their kids.
Geez....It's in Soviet Russia, r-tard.
C'mon, get your /. memes right. It's only been around for, what, 3 years?
I don't want to feed such obvious flamebait by responding in kind.
It just makes me sad that there are people so lacking in any form of self-respect or dignity that they have to resort to trolling. This lonely person, conveniently hiding behind his mask of anonymity, has chosen to make remarks that he/she (most likely a he) knows will either disgust or anger nearly anyone who reads them. He isn't even expecting a response. It's enough for him to imagine the reactions of the people who read his comment and are momentarily offended. Once one stops to think about the tragedy of this desperate cry for attention, it's difficult to dismiss him as unimportant. The fact that, even in a place where it's always possible to make a new account and erase any past mistakes, the only way anyone will pay attention to him is if he is so blatantly offensive that anyone reading his comment is offended. Either that, or his sense of humor is so mal-adjusted that he would be amused if his own parents were brutally murdered. Tragic in either case.
DNC=Democratic National Convention.
You could vote for McCain and/or Giuliani in a Republican primary at this point, but as of the present moment it's Obama vs. Clinton vs. Biden vs. Dodd vs. Edwards vs. about 20 others.
(on a side note, does election season, like Christmas, seem to come earlier and get more bloated every 4 years?)
While I would also like to have more info on what his position is on copyright law, this is still an great thing. Things like this should be in the public domain. Not only is it important for people to watch these debates, but they also need to discuss them, both in their private lives and in public. This gives anyone the freedom to quote the original source, which should be a given in a democracy in matters concerning politics. It may not work out to Obama's advantage; there may be people who use what he said in the debates to discredit him. However, that would happen anyway. Now there will hopefully be a somewhat higher standard of evidence, because bloggers/unofficial journalists will be expected to quote from the original source, and maybe even provide the pertinent video footage. It's possible to take things out of context and twist the meaning of statements, but making the debates accessible to everyone can only make this more difficult.