I'm good with those. Really, I think those are not unrealistic values, if maybe a little low for the lunar trips. Either way, if a company can do it, while the $$ offered is probably minimal by comparison, its the competition and the science that are the point and science will benefit.
So they had some problems, and they need to repair a buckled part on the ship. I still think its an incredible success. We're talking about commercial flight in to space and the guy lived to tell about it. They've got to figure out what went wrong, but they've help put us a lot closer to our goal that we were.
To ignore that by letting a flaw or problem overshadow the achievement would be foolish. It is a great achievment and nothing less. There's work yet to be done, but what they've accomplished so far is worth a lot more than a $10 million prize.
See there's the difference. I'm not talking about 90 days. I won't disagree that initial quality on many American cars is quite good, often better than some Asian cars, where they slip is with time. The 2 or 3 year records for example.
Electricals are a pain, particularly with Ford (one I'm verrry familiar with). They've done a great job of running wires through the firewall without any sort of protection and they rub through causing shorts, among other things.
Don't tell me to not be snotty if you can't specify what you're talking about. We may very well both be right, but we're talking about different time frames. My interest is in a car lasting, if a car can last a good while with minimal problems then that's good engineering. Something I can honestly say I see more of with some of the Japanese makers.
Where did you get those specs from, because I've probably read all the same things you have and you've gotta consider all the different reports. And as the other guy said, what kind of report is this, what is the time span?
I never said the american cars haven't gotten a lot better than they were 20 years ago, but I also won't ignore the fact that I find some of your data a little curious. Provide a source, because I'm not buying that data, it goes completely against half of what is published in a number car review sources.
While American reliability is up, one of the biggest issues I still see with them is problems in the electrical systems. Are you providing those parts? You've left more questions than you have answers or truths.
Haha, so true. There is a bit of a point to the modern bumpers, they absorb force much better and I'm sure some design required for that is pricier, but the molded design also jacks the price up.
All is not lost yet for American carmakers, apparently over the past couple years they've actually improved a bit and beat out the european carmakers in average for reliability. Both are still behind the japanese/asian carmakers (strictly speaking in averages, buy a mitsubishi and hire a personal mechanic, not all are equal). Oh well.
drive better, drive safer, run better, and cost less
Then why is it the japanese car makers can do all this and make their cars last a hell of a lot longer? I'm not saying I like Japanese cars better, I don't want to start getting that whole mess going, but if you really look at it they can do all that and last a hell of a lot longer. My mother has a 96 Accord with 130K miles, ALL city, and it runs better than a 99 ford with 60k miles and a 2000 Chevy with 50k that I both drive a lot.
Amusingly enough more of the Honda is probably made in the US than either of the two "American" cars I just mentioned so in the end perhaps buying a Honda is better because it gives more blue collar guys jobs. Who knows, but I'm tired of the poor reliability, if the car can't even last 5 years without a laundry list of problems, electrical failures and issues with body integrity, it's a failure. And the american car makers are pumping out shit like that day after day.
So call this a flame, call it unrelated, but realistically the american car makers are losing face. Why has Toyota become the second largest car maker? Why are they catching up with GM? Why do Hondas last so long? Quality. And they can accomplish those 4 things you mentioned too. Sorry, but I don't buy your excuse. The american car makers used to build some of the best cars, but 20 years ago they became complacent and they haven't totally come around yet.
Agreed, it's not worth the effort. If the student is being disruptive that's one thing, but if they're not paying attention let them fail. There are plenty of classes I've been in where you might want to look something up online to back up or refute what the prof says. This is too much baby sitting for college. If a professor doesn't want things being used that's all they have to say.
I'm not sure what to think of this. I think the american car makers should work on making the existing products they build more reliable, rather than making them more complicated to build.
Either way, there's a lot of good uses for this stuff. I've seen some things about nanotech to create diamond hard coatings on plastic lenses. This could be used on glasses, cheap cameras, computer displays and all sorts of things.
I've thought about this kind of thing for use in laptops. Nanotechnology has been improving the conversion of heat to energy, and they work by being placed in a temperature differential (on a hot surface with cooler air surrounding it). If put in a laptop for example they could conceivably be located all over the place to provide power to things like fans and other smaller devices and overall help lengthen battery life some. We may never know how well it would work until someone tries it, but I bet it would be an interesting application in portable computers.
Yeah, I like to go camping to get away from all that crap. As much as I like technolog, and civilization is good, being out in the woods camping and relaxing is a cleansing experience in a sense.
The availability of better launch vehicles isn't the problem; the problem is getting NASA to swallow their pride and actually use the better launch vehicles.
Sure, you going to pay to have them built for NASA? NASA could take something off the shelf, but they've called on companies to come up with designs for shuttle replacements, however we're seeing history repeat itself.
Wonder about the quirks and flaws with the shuttle? The concept was there, but NASA was rushed, underfunded and generally in trouble with the government pushing it to hurry up. As much as people like to blame nasa and yell at them, they didn't have a whole lot of wiggle room. They still don't.
They're the bastard organization everyone wants to do great things, but they aren't able to realistically with the money and support they have.
This is becoming normal to me. Anything associated with the RIAA is officially defective. Is this the Suncomm software that could be bypassed by pressing shift (or turning of autorun)?
I've yet to find a CD I couldn't rip and put on my MP3 player, and the day I find one is the day I keep returning them as defective until the store runs out of stock. The music Nazis won't ruin my completely legal fun!
I love mozilla mail. I've been using it (and before it Netscape) for as long as I've been doing email. Great stable program, secure, and simple interface.
It can work, but you're going to spend about $5000 per doorway for a powerful enough reader, nevermind the cost of the tags. A tag around 2x3" will perform best, but where do you want to put that in a laptop? I've worked with smaller tags, like 1.5x1.5 inches, but their range tends to be considerably less (60-70% of the larger tags).
You'll probably be able to do something using those devices like they have in stores that set off alarms when someone leaves with something that hasn't been cleared. These, like many of the RFIDs (some of these aren't exacty what are called RFIDs these days) are passive, have no battery and work within a few feet of the reader (good for doorways). You'll spend several thousand though in addition to the tags, which will probably cost you around $4 or $5, which compared to the cost of a laptop isn't horrible.
It's perfectly viable, if not a little rough around the edges still. I'd look in to the good old fashioned security tag system stores use. The nice thing about RFID tags is you could tell which laptop is leaving, who owns it, etc because you could store all that info, but if you're just worried about them leaving the building period, go for the security systems.
It's called a lenticular image, if I'm understanding you correctly. That grooved piece of plastic on the surface is a lenticle (a type of lens basically) and it allows vertical (or horizontal but in this case vertical) strips to carry different information. You could turn the laptop 90 degrees and just see a mess.
While this may be hard for you to understand, most people (strange as it is) could care less what operating system or browser they use. All they know is how to accomplish their jobs using the tools they've been trained on, and most of them spent hours upon hours learning those tools.
Similarly true for graphic designers, photographers and other media folk (music, movie), however they tend to bring an attitude of what they use is best. This is commonly seen with the majority of these people that use Mac systems. Macs aren't bad, but they'll never accept they're not any better, or that they do something wrong. There's a certain elitist attitude, even though they hardly know anything about the system.
Disclaimer: I realize there are exceptions to this, but dealing with the media students at RIT, I can safely say that the demographic here largely supports this observation. So biznitchin!
Newer cameras are also giving the photographer more choices as far as saturation and tint, as well as the ability to output in sepia and black and white tones. I find the ability to see an image in black and white right after taking the shot a huge plus. Even though I have much greater control over color channels and digital filters for black and white images in Photoshop, my composition is best if I can see it when taking the shot.
That's just stupid. Why waste shooting time processing the image in the camera. Besides if you shoot B&W, sepia or whatever in camera, you cannot go back and revert to color. It is better to just always shoot in color and do conversions in photoshop, the capabilities are much greater and you have much more control. If you can't compose a B&W image because you can't see it in B&W, that's a user problem, not equipment.
I would like to see cameras have more features that cater to those of us who still love to shoot in black and white, such as digital color filters available during in camera processing.
He will find himself with very little support from other photographers for this statement. If anything digital can give more control with minimum work than film would, because you're limited to one kind of film, or the color filter you chose when shooting.
If you're new to the digital world that's not a bad read. It covers the basics, and explains some important issues (color balance, metering, etc). However it doesn't separate some marketing which sways people.
Constantly people will choose one camera over another based on things like how it segments the metering. While you can read over 1000 locations, there are plenty of instances where that means putting too much emphasis on point sources that deviate considerably from the rest of the image. I've seen situations where that can falter.
On the flip side the lower end cameras from Canon for example may meter off 21 regions, which effectively ignores those things, however if you're metering a more complex scene it can start to slip. Obviously a little user input can go a long way towards compensating for these failures from both types of systems. More regions however simply does not mean better. It's like the whole Mhz thing, it depends.
The issue with different sensor layouts is real. Fuji has the rotated array, Foveon is layered, Sony uses the Emerald filter, while most cameras are RGB with some exceptions. However an issue frequently ignored is sensor size. Sure, I can have a 2/3" 8mp sensor that might cost $200 (a la the new 8mp consumer cameras), or I can have an 8mp 1.4x sensor in a 1DMKII which probably costs nearly $2000. Clearly something is different, and it's not that one is CMOS and the other CCD, or that one's more expensive. Sensor size is everything, and if you've got two cameras with the same sensor size and comes in a 4mp and 5mp flavor, the 4mp camera may produce bigger enlargements with better quality simply due to the smoother, lower noise image. More isn't necessarily better, but it's hard to explain that to people.
Foveon confuses things by layering. They get better color resolution, but because X and Y pixel density is lower, they lose some spatial resolution capabilities in some ways. Overall however it performs well. SuperCCD isn't too different, just rotated.
The actual benefit from the SuperCCD technology is still questionable. The high range (low sensitivity pixels) are too small and are more prone to noise and other issues, even where the incoming light is plentiful. By creating these separate pixels the larger more sensitive pixel is now smaller than they used to be, resulting in potential (and from what I've see, real) increases in noise in the shadows.
In the end however, even if SuperCCD worked as advertised, it's only a temporary solution and non actively cooled chips produce better and better response characteristics, they'll approach the latitude of film (or even higher end scanning or single shot backs that are actively cooled) without the need to use pixels of different size.
that no technology is reliable and safe from their attacks
Inherent in society is a certain bit of stupidity, mixed with skill, it's a dangerous and irritating rash that itches on the skin of the sane.
Why does this need to be pointed out? Ohh, right, because asshats such as these guys or others will write viruses that will exploit this weakness just because they can. Ahh yes, personal entertainment at the expense of others, it's our God given right!
I'm really sick of this. Not only the tard that write the real viruses and whatnot, but that leads to the fact that there can be dipshits such as these guys to say "ohh look world, here's a vulnerability." Do they feel they're helping anyone any more than the writers of the actual malicious code?
Well it is cool, and probably will be an interesting device to play with but it just doesn't fit.
It's too big to be a PDA, it's too expensive to be thrown in your pocket and carried with you anyway. It's also going to take too long to boot up as someone mentioned. One nice thing about Palm and Pocket PCs is that they're always on practically. Push the power button and you're good to go.
I haven't seen much need for a crossover device like this in the US either. Laptops are popular, and seem to work as a form factor. This thing may be smaller but it doesn't have the power a laptop does.
What are you doing spending money to have a computer, or be online? If it's not your computer, why are you paying taxes instead of moving to africa and sharing your money with the poor?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm good with those. Really, I think those are not unrealistic values, if maybe a little low for the lunar trips. Either way, if a company can do it, while the $$ offered is probably minimal by comparison, its the competition and the science that are the point and science will benefit.
So they had some problems, and they need to repair a buckled part on the ship. I still think its an incredible success. We're talking about commercial flight in to space and the guy lived to tell about it. They've got to figure out what went wrong, but they've help put us a lot closer to our goal that we were.
To ignore that by letting a flaw or problem overshadow the achievement would be foolish. It is a great achievment and nothing less. There's work yet to be done, but what they've accomplished so far is worth a lot more than a $10 million prize.
I sure as hell hope this is optional. If I'm buying a BMW my sound requirements will probably exceed the middling sound quality of an iPod.
See there's the difference. I'm not talking about 90 days. I won't disagree that initial quality on many American cars is quite good, often better than some Asian cars, where they slip is with time. The 2 or 3 year records for example.
Electricals are a pain, particularly with Ford (one I'm verrry familiar with). They've done a great job of running wires through the firewall without any sort of protection and they rub through causing shorts, among other things.
Don't tell me to not be snotty if you can't specify what you're talking about. We may very well both be right, but we're talking about different time frames. My interest is in a car lasting, if a car can last a good while with minimal problems then that's good engineering. Something I can honestly say I see more of with some of the Japanese makers.
Where did you get those specs from, because I've probably read all the same things you have and you've gotta consider all the different reports. And as the other guy said, what kind of report is this, what is the time span?
I never said the american cars haven't gotten a lot better than they were 20 years ago, but I also won't ignore the fact that I find some of your data a little curious. Provide a source, because I'm not buying that data, it goes completely against half of what is published in a number car review sources.
While American reliability is up, one of the biggest issues I still see with them is problems in the electrical systems. Are you providing those parts? You've left more questions than you have answers or truths.
Haha, so true. There is a bit of a point to the modern bumpers, they absorb force much better and I'm sure some design required for that is pricier, but the molded design also jacks the price up.
All is not lost yet for American carmakers, apparently over the past couple years they've actually improved a bit and beat out the european carmakers in average for reliability. Both are still behind the japanese/asian carmakers (strictly speaking in averages, buy a mitsubishi and hire a personal mechanic, not all are equal). Oh well.
drive better, drive safer, run better, and cost less
Then why is it the japanese car makers can do all this and make their cars last a hell of a lot longer? I'm not saying I like Japanese cars better, I don't want to start getting that whole mess going, but if you really look at it they can do all that and last a hell of a lot longer. My mother has a 96 Accord with 130K miles, ALL city, and it runs better than a 99 ford with 60k miles and a 2000 Chevy with 50k that I both drive a lot.
Amusingly enough more of the Honda is probably made in the US than either of the two "American" cars I just mentioned so in the end perhaps buying a Honda is better because it gives more blue collar guys jobs. Who knows, but I'm tired of the poor reliability, if the car can't even last 5 years without a laundry list of problems, electrical failures and issues with body integrity, it's a failure. And the american car makers are pumping out shit like that day after day.
So call this a flame, call it unrelated, but realistically the american car makers are losing face. Why has Toyota become the second largest car maker? Why are they catching up with GM? Why do Hondas last so long? Quality. And they can accomplish those 4 things you mentioned too. Sorry, but I don't buy your excuse. The american car makers used to build some of the best cars, but 20 years ago they became complacent and they haven't totally come around yet.
Agreed, it's not worth the effort. If the student is being disruptive that's one thing, but if they're not paying attention let them fail. There are plenty of classes I've been in where you might want to look something up online to back up or refute what the prof says. This is too much baby sitting for college. If a professor doesn't want things being used that's all they have to say.
I'm not sure what to think of this. I think the american car makers should work on making the existing products they build more reliable, rather than making them more complicated to build.
Either way, there's a lot of good uses for this stuff. I've seen some things about nanotech to create diamond hard coatings on plastic lenses. This could be used on glasses, cheap cameras, computer displays and all sorts of things.
I've thought about this kind of thing for use in laptops. Nanotechnology has been improving the conversion of heat to energy, and they work by being placed in a temperature differential (on a hot surface with cooler air surrounding it). If put in a laptop for example they could conceivably be located all over the place to provide power to things like fans and other smaller devices and overall help lengthen battery life some. We may never know how well it would work until someone tries it, but I bet it would be an interesting application in portable computers.
Yeah, I like to go camping to get away from all that crap. As much as I like technolog, and civilization is good, being out in the woods camping and relaxing is a cleansing experience in a sense.
Prepares you for all the shiat when you get back.
The availability of better launch vehicles isn't the problem; the problem is getting NASA to swallow their pride and actually use the better launch vehicles.
Sure, you going to pay to have them built for NASA? NASA could take something off the shelf, but they've called on companies to come up with designs for shuttle replacements, however we're seeing history repeat itself.
Wonder about the quirks and flaws with the shuttle? The concept was there, but NASA was rushed, underfunded and generally in trouble with the government pushing it to hurry up. As much as people like to blame nasa and yell at them, they didn't have a whole lot of wiggle room. They still don't.
They're the bastard organization everyone wants to do great things, but they aren't able to realistically with the money and support they have.
Of should be off. Didn't see that when I checked for spelling. oopsie
This is becoming normal to me. Anything associated with the RIAA is officially defective. Is this the Suncomm software that could be bypassed by pressing shift (or turning of autorun)?
I've yet to find a CD I couldn't rip and put on my MP3 player, and the day I find one is the day I keep returning them as defective until the store runs out of stock. The music Nazis won't ruin my completely legal fun!
I wonder how long those SCSI drives would last running in the back of his car going down the road.
Methinks not long.
I love mozilla mail. I've been using it (and before it Netscape) for as long as I've been doing email. Great stable program, secure, and simple interface.
It can work, but you're going to spend about $5000 per doorway for a powerful enough reader, nevermind the cost of the tags. A tag around 2x3" will perform best, but where do you want to put that in a laptop? I've worked with smaller tags, like 1.5x1.5 inches, but their range tends to be considerably less (60-70% of the larger tags).
You'll probably be able to do something using those devices like they have in stores that set off alarms when someone leaves with something that hasn't been cleared. These, like many of the RFIDs (some of these aren't exacty what are called RFIDs these days) are passive, have no battery and work within a few feet of the reader (good for doorways). You'll spend several thousand though in addition to the tags, which will probably cost you around $4 or $5, which compared to the cost of a laptop isn't horrible.
It's perfectly viable, if not a little rough around the edges still. I'd look in to the good old fashioned security tag system stores use. The nice thing about RFID tags is you could tell which laptop is leaving, who owns it, etc because you could store all that info, but if you're just worried about them leaving the building period, go for the security systems.
It's called a lenticular image, if I'm understanding you correctly. That grooved piece of plastic on the surface is a lenticle (a type of lens basically) and it allows vertical (or horizontal but in this case vertical) strips to carry different information. You could turn the laptop 90 degrees and just see a mess.
While this may be hard for you to understand, most people (strange as it is) could care less what operating system or browser they use. All they know is how to accomplish their jobs using the tools they've been trained on, and most of them spent hours upon hours learning those tools.
Similarly true for graphic designers, photographers and other media folk (music, movie), however they tend to bring an attitude of what they use is best. This is commonly seen with the majority of these people that use Mac systems. Macs aren't bad, but they'll never accept they're not any better, or that they do something wrong. There's a certain elitist attitude, even though they hardly know anything about the system.
Disclaimer: I realize there are exceptions to this, but dealing with the media students at RIT, I can safely say that the demographic here largely supports this observation. So biznitchin!
Newer cameras are also giving the photographer more choices as far as saturation and tint, as well as the ability to output in sepia and black and white tones. I find the ability to see an image in black and white right after taking the shot a huge plus. Even though I have much greater control over color channels and digital filters for black and white images in Photoshop, my composition is best if I can see it when taking the shot.
That's just stupid. Why waste shooting time processing the image in the camera. Besides if you shoot B&W, sepia or whatever in camera, you cannot go back and revert to color. It is better to just always shoot in color and do conversions in photoshop, the capabilities are much greater and you have much more control. If you can't compose a B&W image because you can't see it in B&W, that's a user problem, not equipment.
I would like to see cameras have more features that cater to those of us who still love to shoot in black and white, such as digital color filters available during in camera processing.
He will find himself with very little support from other photographers for this statement. If anything digital can give more control with minimum work than film would, because you're limited to one kind of film, or the color filter you chose when shooting.
If you're new to the digital world that's not a bad read. It covers the basics, and explains some important issues (color balance, metering, etc). However it doesn't separate some marketing which sways people.
Constantly people will choose one camera over another based on things like how it segments the metering. While you can read over 1000 locations, there are plenty of instances where that means putting too much emphasis on point sources that deviate considerably from the rest of the image. I've seen situations where that can falter.
On the flip side the lower end cameras from Canon for example may meter off 21 regions, which effectively ignores those things, however if you're metering a more complex scene it can start to slip. Obviously a little user input can go a long way towards compensating for these failures from both types of systems. More regions however simply does not mean better. It's like the whole Mhz thing, it depends.
The issue with different sensor layouts is real. Fuji has the rotated array, Foveon is layered, Sony uses the Emerald filter, while most cameras are RGB with some exceptions. However an issue frequently ignored is sensor size. Sure, I can have a 2/3" 8mp sensor that might cost $200 (a la the new 8mp consumer cameras), or I can have an 8mp 1.4x sensor in a 1DMKII which probably costs nearly $2000. Clearly something is different, and it's not that one is CMOS and the other CCD, or that one's more expensive. Sensor size is everything, and if you've got two cameras with the same sensor size and comes in a 4mp and 5mp flavor, the 4mp camera may produce bigger enlargements with better quality simply due to the smoother, lower noise image. More isn't necessarily better, but it's hard to explain that to people.
Foveon confuses things by layering. They get better color resolution, but because X and Y pixel density is lower, they lose some spatial resolution capabilities in some ways. Overall however it performs well. SuperCCD isn't too different, just rotated.
The actual benefit from the SuperCCD technology is still questionable. The high range (low sensitivity pixels) are too small and are more prone to noise and other issues, even where the incoming light is plentiful. By creating these separate pixels the larger more sensitive pixel is now smaller than they used to be, resulting in potential (and from what I've see, real) increases in noise in the shadows.
In the end however, even if SuperCCD worked as advertised, it's only a temporary solution and non actively cooled chips produce better and better response characteristics, they'll approach the latitude of film (or even higher end scanning or single shot backs that are actively cooled) without the need to use pixels of different size.
that no technology is reliable and safe from their attacks
Inherent in society is a certain bit of stupidity, mixed with skill, it's a dangerous and irritating rash that itches on the skin of the sane.
Why does this need to be pointed out? Ohh, right, because asshats such as these guys or others will write viruses that will exploit this weakness just because they can. Ahh yes, personal entertainment at the expense of others, it's our God given right!
I'm really sick of this. Not only the tard that write the real viruses and whatnot, but that leads to the fact that there can be dipshits such as these guys to say "ohh look world, here's a vulnerability." Do they feel they're helping anyone any more than the writers of the actual malicious code?
Well it is cool, and probably will be an interesting device to play with but it just doesn't fit.
It's too big to be a PDA, it's too expensive to be thrown in your pocket and carried with you anyway. It's also going to take too long to boot up as someone mentioned. One nice thing about Palm and Pocket PCs is that they're always on practically. Push the power button and you're good to go.
I haven't seen much need for a crossover device like this in the US either. Laptops are popular, and seem to work as a form factor. This thing may be smaller but it doesn't have the power a laptop does.
What are you doing spending money to have a computer, or be online? If it's not your computer, why are you paying taxes instead of moving to africa and sharing your money with the poor?
Why, why!? Ohhh the humanity!