The power factor of CFLs is around 50% which means that from an environmental point of view, they take twice the power that it says on the box. Just because it doesn't register on your personal wattmeter doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I think that is important in this discussion. I can see why the promoters of these lights don't want to talk about power factor, but I would have thought that there were some engineers on this forum who wouldn't let it pass so easily.
The guy in the video makes it sound like you would get the same "full spectrum" as you get from the sun. The problem is that the sun is on the other side of a huge filter called the atmosphere, and this lamp is on the same side as us. I don't think that his comparison is valid.
I wonder too about the UV output, something which is rarely talked about. High UV can be very good or very bad, depending on the application.
You forgot to mention the power factor. These lamps take twice as much power out of the system as you are paying for. You can't just multiply volts x amps unless the power factor is unity. In this case we have around 0.5 for the power factor. A 12 watt CFL would result in 24 watts load at the generator. So, if your calculation is correct, then CFLs would actually result in twice the mercury released into the environment.
It seems to me that if we want efficient lights (regardless of mercury) then we would not be using CFLs anyway. The regular old tubes are much more efficient. I think there is some kind of political undertone going on here. Remember too, that these lamps are manufactured in China and probably cause a lot of polution in the process.
It is, in fact, this lack of seriousness which is most dangerous. The word depression is just not used with any sort of consistency, even by the medical profession, who purport otherwise. I have a lot of experience with depression. I spent more than 5 years in bed with pain and fatigue beyond what most people can imagine. Two of those years I was taking SRIs and I can tell you that they're dangerous drugs. A number of times I ran out and went cold turkey. That is EXTREMELY depressing and frightening. Yes, I should have gone to my doctor to get the prescription renewed. No, I couldn't get out of bed or make a phone call. Stuck. That is one reason why MDs should not prescribe SRIs. They're simply not prepared to follow up and properly supervise the situation, even if they were qualified. It is often just a way to get you out of their office and get paid for the visit.
SRIs have their place. I've benefitted because I've been lucky to have the background to understand that they are not enough in themselves, and I have to have a (much) bigger plan. I think many people have been damaged by the irresponsible prescription of these drugs. Not only is there the danger of even deeper depression from stopping, but there are problems of nerve damage in some cases too. I'm still suffering from that several years later. There are wierd mental effects too, such as an inability to think or feel in certain ways. You become a different person. On the positive side, as this article hints at, one of the benefits of these drugs is that they can show you if you are really depressed or not. If you are, then the situation needs to be taken seriously.
These drugs are very strong and potentially damaging. People who take this lightly, including doctors, should consider the danger that someone could be in.
Having worked for some years in the cultural sector I have heard similar statemens before and there might be some truth in it. Many would say that TM only pretends to be on the public side. Complaining about scalpers could also be because it looks good to do so. I used to run a TicketMaster outlet and my impression was that they are mostly interested in their own profits, and not so genuinely concerned about the performers. Perhaps I am wrong.
Often small productions are actually hurt by their involvement with TM because they are charged too much for them to really afford. Struggling production companies certainly see a different side of TM. It is typically not possible to circumvent TM because of their stronghold on the venues. This is a market dominance situation much like with MicroSoft, the effect of which many people don't understand. My experience is pre online sales and maby a little out of date, but I suspect that things haven't gotten better.
I would also like to point out that the scalper "problem" is only with large commercial shows. Smaller shows should be so lucky. Also, for productions that don't do as well as expected, the scalpers can end up underwriting the show... much to TM's advantage.
Leaving the morality/ethics of scalping aside, I would suggest that anyone who has a problem getting tickets could instead support less popular acts. Perhaps something from your home town or neighbourhood.
I can understand how a young person might not include their mom in "humaninity", but just like the rest of us old farts, your mom probably started out using DOS. I know many people are not familiar with the command line, but I think you will find that a larger percentage of people over 50 find it quite logical. Old people are not nescesarily new to computers, even if they are not nurds.
Traditionally, people go to school to get educated. Educated people are a resource for the country. It is not good when we have people who have difficulty communicating with one another. Therefore we study english. The better we are at using english the better we can communicate and understand what others are saying. It is a tool.
Mathematics is also a tool. The more skills you have, the more you use. We all need to learn more. For example: there are people out there who have little understanding of statistics, yet every day they will hear statistics quoted but they won't understand what is really being said. These same people will also be required to vote, but they probably won't understand the issues. It is better for the country if people are educated to a higher level that we have now. Pardon me for saying it, but to call that "patently idiotic" is just being a troll. I'm sure you don't really mean it.
The "red cross" for use in war is with non specified proportions. The idea is that then no one can come back and say they fired at them because the proportions were not correct. J&J will no doubt have a fixed version. If you look at older pictures you will see how the red cross (non J&J) has been different at different times. Regarding the use of the cross for humanitarion purposes, the information from FOTW states: "1864 - The first-ever Geneva Convention was adopted: the red cross on a white ground was officially recognized as the distinctive sign of the medical services of armed forces." That is from before the establishment of the Red Cross as an orgasnization.
We should also remember that there are very many versions of this flag which have been used for a long time. The flag of England goes back to the 13th century and has been in continued use since. In fact this flag probably started as early as the 11th century. It is called the StGeorges cross and is also used as part of many other flags, typically in the canton but also in badges. More abstractly, it is a component of the Union Jack. John Cabot would have been flying a red cross when he first arrived on the american contintinent in 1497. The red cross is as English as english can be.
When it comes down to it, I don't think this case is going to be decided on a matter of prior art. That argument would obviously be reduculous. I think it's going to be a matter of public use and preception.
Oh great! Sites will now disable the back button or open in a new window, and have no clickable links. Seriously though, there is always going to be problems, and this is probably a better metric.
I also notice that there is no talk of environmental costs here. When you waste an old system you are throwing away a lot of energy. Fiber is great, and very fashionable, but we need to keep using everything we already have for as long as possible, otherwise we won't be able to afford to live on this planet for much longer.
I live in a (Canadian) ranching area and people drive mostly trucks or beaters but I've noticed a number of smart cars in the last year. They look really funny in this environment but people like them. Perhaps it's a refreshing change, I don't know. Around here, most people understand mechanics better than they can read or write. Was anyone else here put off by the first sentence on their home page: "Would you like reserve your very own new 2008 smart fortwo?" I'm sure their engineering is more professional.
To see what someone is looking at you have to look into their mind. The image formed on the retina is not very closely related to what you "see", and certainly not anything like what happens with a camera.
Our eyes normally move about, and what we respond to is the *change* in light and not the static image. The picture on the retina is actually similar to what you would get if you took your 35mm and held the shutter open while wildly moveing the camera around. The brain then computes an image based on the changing light patterns and past visual experience. An incredible computational feat, if you ask me.
An old experiment related to this places a small optical device on the pupil and, in consort with outboard equipment, an image is projected onto the retina in such a way that it stays in a fixed place while the eye does it's normal movements. The result is that the image dissapears in a short time. That is to say, we do not see still images, but only the change in light brought on by the eyes movement.
Also, people do not interpret what they see in the same way. Your personal image is *not* the same as someone else's. People see wildly different things while looking at the same image.
I am describing well documented science from the 60's. In the light of this, I wonder, how other readers interpret this story? It seems like it has it's uses, but what they are talking about doesn't make sense to me.
I'm glad you said that... and I wonder why the score is only one! I appreciate a good librarian and really don't think a robot or computer can be of much use for that.
A good friend of mine retired from the library system here a couple of years ago and I think that marked the end of an era for the central branch in our town. This man was in charge of botany and technology and actually knew those topics well, expecially botanty. It was common for people to bring plants by for identification. Not just "ordinary" plants but mosses and liverworts as well as nondescript fungi. This is probably a bit over the top as far as skill is concerned, and he won't be replaced easily... certainly not by a robot!
Even if it contains a virus, I think it is really the receivers call to decide what they want. I have sent emails which were clean, and had them deleted by the server because it did not like my header, claiming that it contained a virus. I find that kind of thing unacceptable. Your suggestion to put an entery in the header so the recipient can make the choice, is an excellent one.
However, many of us do not run machines which have the capability to even execute modern viruses. Typically users of the DOS line of OSes fall in this category. The last virus I had was Magellan, about 12 years ago. Why should I be forced to have anything to do with the current virus culture? I have asked people to send me examples of viruses so I can have a look but I never get them. I think censorship of any kind is bad.
I often make illegal copies of music that is not available any other way, and sometimes I copy music which I wrote myself and it would be a real drag to get dinged for that. Either way I hope they don't target photocopiers, I would sure hate to go back to using a pencil!
I honestly didn't know that this was a legitimate company. I have been plagued by something by that name opening several browsers when I enter some sites. I always just swear and click them away without bothering to read them. But one time it really got to me and I read everything in an effort to find a way to contact these people who were taking over my computer. I could find no contact of any kind, so I asumed it was not a legitimate company.
Wow! Was I surprised to see it talked about here! OK, so maby there is something entertaining about it, but does it have to be pushed in such a confusing and distasteful manner? OK... so I'm a newbie, that doesn't mean I don't have a right to use my computer as I wish, and when I wish. I shouldn't have to wait for some, less that ethical, company to finish what they want to do on my machine!.... or do I actually have to get used to this?
Yes! Why does no one talk about visual perception,
motor control, and psychology? Is there some
unwritten law which states that we must not talk
about the heart of the matter?
I personally have just moved to Linux and fully
intend to stick with it indefinately. I have used
DOS for many years and am switching for political
reasons as well as the lack of sound card drivers.
I always thought that the command line was a graphic.
It certainly is a visual phenomenom to me.
As a professional artist, I find the command line
suits me much better than the "windows" interface,
because it doesn't bombard me with tasteless colours
and shapes which are ofensive to me. I can easily
accept text because I've learn't to read it a long
time ago. The meaning of the colours and shapes
is a mystery to me. Since I don't understand them,
I'm asuming that either I am stupid, or the writer
of the program is mixed up or simply doesn't know
how to communicate visually.
Moving to Linux, I decided to use the GUI to help
me learn the system and get more comfortable with
it before I actually tried to tackle the complexity
of the UN*X command line. This has been EXTREMILY
difficult!
The reasons for this can be found in my particular
psychology and sensory perception. Although I have
Post Polio Syndrome and a touch of autism, I beleive
that there are many people with a similar sensory
and psychological disposition.
Here is what I have found difficult:
1. The scattering of information all over the
page, rather than in some neat order.
2. The need to visually follow the mouse pointer.
I am very poor at hand eye coordination, and
it is a mystery to me why it has to be an
essential part of using a computer.
3. The lack of regristration between the mouse
and the screen. I find it impossible to control
without watching the screen closely. The same
movent of the mouse does not land the pointer
in the same place every time. I rely heavily
on physical memory in order to function in
my daily life. Regular mice require me to learn
a skill set which is probably not even good
for me since it causes so much confusion.
I can do extremely acurate movements, such
as play a violin in tune, but I can't get
a mouse to work the same way. I am lost.
4. The lack of choices. The windows interface
is basically a multiple choice system. This
can be very confusing to some minds. I was
poor at that in school, prefering to simply
suply the right answer. The other problem
with multiple choice, is that they are not
presented in a simple to read list, but rather
scattered around. The third problem is that
they always leave out so many choices. They
are never complete! What's the use of something
which isn't finished? For example, three
different people who have been using my computer,
could find no way to write a file to a floppy in
my current distribution (debian). If there is
something to click on somewhere, three people
who have each been using computers for years,
could not find it.
These are just a few things which I thought were
relevant to this discussion. I do hope that the
entire computing community gets over this current
"fashion first" mentality and starts to consider
things from a more realistic perspective.
I agree that it is an amazing (and practical) system, but I think you hit the nail on the head when you said "Nominally, it's based on the overtone series". It is *very* nominal. In fact we often hear what we want to hear instead of what is physically there.
I too am a musician and have been immersed in the sound of equal temperment and the overtone series for as long as I can remember. Sometimes when I hear one of these modern "early music" performances where they try to use original temperment, I find it grates on my ears! This despite the fact that what they are playing follows the overtone series better than what I hear in my head. It is interesting to note that the effect is strongest with pieces that I know well.
I really think this guy should talk to some composers and perhaps look into the literature already published on this subject, instead of grasping at concepts just to get published. Of course the non technical review doesn't help either!
They still had imperial when I came to school in Canada (1957) but I always used metric for my own purposes anyway because I was lazy I guess.
What got my goat when Canada went metric is that they seemed to come up with their own slant and thus didn't really "internationalize". I see some odd units with which I'm not familiar. For example "mcg". Now what is that supposed to mean? I find too that the common household units from my childhood in Denmark (eg. deciliter) are not used here. Most foods are in grams and millilitres, which I think is an inappopiately small measure for things like sugar and flour which might explain why som many people use cups instead.
I think the problem is that many people just simply aren't interested in measureing things. I say that because I find that the people who don't want to switch to metric, usually don't really know any other system either. My fabourite trick question is:
What weighs more, a pound of gold, or a pound of feathers?
People generally can't answer that one because they are unaware of the fact that there are different systems in common use. A pound of feathers is, of course much heavier because gold is measured in troy, as opposed to avoidepois.
BTW, the stone is listed in my colliers American (USA) dictionary as about 14 pounds avoidepois. There is no mention of this not being in use in the USA where the dictionarey is printed and published. I think if you were to check the literature, you would find the word used a lot in the US. Mark Twain must have used it, no?
My general feeling though is that for most purposes, it doesn't really matter. especially since the calculator has become a personal item. Really, the many non metric systems are quite charming. The mixture of bases makes for entertaining arithmetic.
Slashdot Mirror
The power factor of CFLs is around 50% which means that from an environmental point of view, they take twice the power that it says on the box. Just because it doesn't register on your personal wattmeter doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I think that is important in this discussion. I can see why the promoters of these lights don't want to talk about power factor, but I would have thought that there were some engineers on this forum who wouldn't let it pass so easily.
Biofuels have always been economically viable. The question has always been economically viable to who?
The guy in the video makes it sound like you would get the same "full spectrum" as you get from the sun. The problem is that the sun is on the other side of a huge filter called the atmosphere, and this lamp is on the same side as us. I don't think that his comparison is valid.
I wonder too about the UV output, something which is rarely talked about. High UV can be very good or very bad, depending on the application.
You forgot to mention the power factor. These lamps take twice as much power out of the system as you are paying for. You can't just multiply volts x amps unless the power factor is unity. In this case we have around 0.5 for the power factor. A 12 watt CFL would result in 24 watts load at the generator. So, if your calculation is correct, then CFLs would actually result in twice the mercury released into the environment.
It seems to me that if we want efficient lights (regardless of mercury) then we would not be using CFLs anyway. The regular old tubes are much more efficient. I think there is some kind of political undertone going on here. Remember too, that these lamps are manufactured in China and probably cause a lot of polution in the process.
It is, in fact, this lack of seriousness which is most dangerous. The word depression is just not used with any sort of consistency, even by the medical profession, who purport otherwise. I have a lot of experience with depression. I spent more than 5 years in bed with pain and fatigue beyond what most people can imagine. Two of those years I was taking SRIs and I can tell you that they're dangerous drugs. A number of times I ran out and went cold turkey. That is EXTREMELY depressing and frightening. Yes, I should have gone to my doctor to get the prescription renewed. No, I couldn't get out of bed or make a phone call. Stuck. That is one reason why MDs should not prescribe SRIs. They're simply not prepared to follow up and properly supervise the situation, even if they were qualified. It is often just a way to get you out of their office and get paid for the visit.
SRIs have their place. I've benefitted because I've been lucky to have the background to understand that they are not enough in themselves, and I have to have a (much) bigger plan. I think many people have been damaged by the irresponsible prescription of these drugs. Not only is there the danger of even deeper depression from stopping, but there are problems of nerve damage in some cases too. I'm still suffering from that several years later. There are wierd mental effects too, such as an inability to think or feel in certain ways. You become a different person. On the positive side, as this article hints at, one of the benefits of these drugs is that they can show you if you are really depressed or not. If you are, then the situation needs to be taken seriously.
These drugs are very strong and potentially damaging. People who take this lightly, including doctors, should consider the danger that someone could be in.
Like separating out the cream. Now the cows just lie on their backs and the cream rises to the top.
Having worked for some years in the cultural sector I have heard similar statemens before and there might be some truth in it. Many would say that TM only pretends to be on the public side. Complaining about scalpers could also be because it looks good to do so. I used to run a TicketMaster outlet and my impression was that they are mostly interested in their own profits, and not so genuinely concerned about the performers. Perhaps I am wrong.
Often small productions are actually hurt by their involvement with TM because they are charged too much for them to really afford. Struggling production companies certainly see a different side of TM. It is typically not possible to circumvent TM because of their stronghold on the venues. This is a market dominance situation much like with MicroSoft, the effect of which many people don't understand. My experience is pre online sales and maby a little out of date, but I suspect that things haven't gotten better.
I would also like to point out that the scalper "problem" is only with large commercial shows. Smaller shows should be so lucky. Also, for productions that don't do as well as expected, the scalpers can end up underwriting the show... much to TM's advantage.
Leaving the morality/ethics of scalping aside, I would suggest that anyone who has a problem getting tickets could instead support less popular acts. Perhaps something from your home town or neighbourhood.
I can understand how a young person might not include their mom in "humaninity", but just like the rest of us old farts, your mom probably started out using DOS. I know many people are not familiar with the command line, but I think you will find that a larger percentage of people over 50 find it quite logical. Old people are not nescesarily new to computers, even if they are not nurds.
Traditionally, people go to school to get educated. Educated people are a resource for the country. It is not good when we have people who have difficulty communicating with one another. Therefore we study english. The better we are at using english the better we can communicate and understand what others are saying. It is a tool.
Mathematics is also a tool. The more skills you have, the more you use. We all need to learn more. For example: there are people out there who have little understanding of statistics, yet every day they will hear statistics quoted but they won't understand what is really being said. These same people will also be required to vote, but they probably won't understand the issues. It is better for the country if people are educated to a higher level that we have now. Pardon me for saying it, but to call that "patently idiotic" is just being a troll. I'm sure you don't really mean it.
The "red cross" for use in war is with non specified proportions. The idea is that then no one can come back and say they fired at them because the proportions were not correct. J&J will no doubt have a fixed version. If you look at older pictures you will see how the red cross (non J&J) has been different at different times. Regarding the use of the cross for humanitarion purposes, the information from FOTW states: "1864 - The first-ever Geneva Convention was adopted: the red cross on a white ground was officially recognized as the distinctive sign of the medical services of armed forces." That is from before the establishment of the Red Cross as an orgasnization.
We should also remember that there are very many versions of this flag which have been used for a long time. The flag of England goes back to the 13th century and has been in continued use since. In fact this flag probably started as early as the 11th century. It is called the StGeorges cross and is also used as part of many other flags, typically in the canton but also in badges. More abstractly, it is a component of the Union Jack. John Cabot would have been flying a red cross when he first arrived on the american contintinent in 1497. The red cross is as English as english can be.
When it comes down to it, I don't think this case is going to be decided on a matter of prior art. That argument would obviously be reduculous. I think it's going to be a matter of public use and preception.
Oh great! Sites will now disable the back button or open in a new window, and have no clickable links.
Seriously though, there is always going to be problems, and this is probably a better metric.
I also notice that there is no talk of environmental costs here. When you waste an old system you are throwing away a lot of energy. Fiber is great, and very fashionable, but we need to keep using everything we already have for as long as possible, otherwise we won't be able to afford to live on this planet for much longer.
This is the old story of the "sheep in wolf's clothing" ...
I live in a (Canadian) ranching area and people drive mostly trucks or beaters but I've noticed a number of smart cars in the last year. They look really funny in this environment but people like them. Perhaps it's a refreshing change, I don't know. Around here, most people understand mechanics better than they can read or write. Was anyone else here put off by the first sentence on their home page: "Would you like reserve your very own new 2008 smart fortwo?" I'm sure their engineering is more professional.
I sure hope I don't have to replace all the light swithches in the house.
To see what someone is looking at you have
to look into their mind. The image formed
on the retina is not very closely related
to what you "see", and certainly not anything
like what happens with a camera.
Our eyes normally move about, and what we
respond to is the *change* in light and
not the static image. The picture on the
retina is actually similar to what you would
get if you took your 35mm and held the
shutter open while wildly moveing the camera
around. The brain then computes an image
based on the changing light patterns and past
visual experience. An incredible computational
feat, if you ask me.
An old experiment related to this places
a small optical device on the pupil and, in
consort with outboard equipment, an image
is projected onto the retina in such a way
that it stays in a fixed place while the
eye does it's normal movements. The result
is that the image dissapears in a short
time. That is to say, we do not see still
images, but only the change in light brought
on by the eyes movement.
Also, people do not interpret what they see
in the same way. Your personal image is
*not* the same as someone else's. People
see wildly different things while looking
at the same image.
I am describing well documented science
from the 60's. In the light of this,
I wonder, how other readers interpret this
story? It seems like it has it's uses, but
what they are talking about doesn't make
sense to me.
I'm glad you said that ... and I wonder why the score is
... certainly not
only one! I appreciate a good librarian and really don't
think a robot or computer can be of much use for that.
A good friend of mine retired from the library system here
a couple of years ago and I think that marked the end
of an era for the central branch in our town. This man was
in charge of botany and technology and actually knew those
topics well, expecially botanty. It was common for people to
bring plants by for identification. Not just "ordinary" plants
but mosses and liverworts as well as nondescript fungi.
This is probably a bit over the top as far as skill is
concerned, and he won't be replaced easily
by a robot!
Even if it contains a virus, I think it is really the
receivers call to decide what they want. I have sent
emails which were clean, and had them deleted by the
server because it did not like my header, claiming that
it contained a virus. I find that kind of thing unacceptable.
Your suggestion to put an entery in the header so the
recipient can make the choice, is an excellent one.
However, many of us do not run machines which have
the capability to even execute modern viruses.
Typically users of the DOS line of OSes fall in this
category. The last virus I had was Magellan, about 12 years
ago. Why should I be forced to have anything to do with
the current virus culture? I have asked people to send me
examples of viruses so I can have a look but I never get
them. I think censorship of any kind is bad.
I often make illegal copies of music that is not available
any other way, and sometimes I copy music which I wrote
myself and it would be a real drag to get dinged for
that. Either way I hope they don't target photocopiers,
I would sure hate to go back to using a pencil!
I honestly didn't know that this was a legitimate company. I have been plagued by something by that name opening several browsers when I enter some sites. I always just swear and click them away without bothering to read them. But one time it really got to me and I read everything in an effort to find a way to contact these people who were taking over my computer. I could find no contact of any kind, so I asumed it was not a legitimate company.
... so I'm a newbie, that doesn't mean I don't have a right to use my computer as I wish, and when I wish. I shouldn't have to wait for some, less that ethical, company to finish what they want to do on my machine! .... or do I actually have to get used to this?
Wow! Was I surprised to see it talked about here! OK, so maby there is something entertaining about it, but does it have to be pushed in such a confusing and distasteful manner? OK
Yes! Why does no one talk about visual perception, motor control, and psychology? Is there some unwritten law which states that we must not talk about the heart of the matter? I personally have just moved to Linux and fully intend to stick with it indefinately. I have used DOS for many years and am switching for political reasons as well as the lack of sound card drivers. I always thought that the command line was a graphic. It certainly is a visual phenomenom to me. As a professional artist, I find the command line suits me much better than the "windows" interface, because it doesn't bombard me with tasteless colours and shapes which are ofensive to me. I can easily accept text because I've learn't to read it a long time ago. The meaning of the colours and shapes is a mystery to me. Since I don't understand them, I'm asuming that either I am stupid, or the writer of the program is mixed up or simply doesn't know how to communicate visually. Moving to Linux, I decided to use the GUI to help me learn the system and get more comfortable with it before I actually tried to tackle the complexity of the UN*X command line. This has been EXTREMILY difficult! The reasons for this can be found in my particular psychology and sensory perception. Although I have Post Polio Syndrome and a touch of autism, I beleive that there are many people with a similar sensory and psychological disposition. Here is what I have found difficult: 1. The scattering of information all over the page, rather than in some neat order. 2. The need to visually follow the mouse pointer. I am very poor at hand eye coordination, and it is a mystery to me why it has to be an essential part of using a computer. 3. The lack of regristration between the mouse and the screen. I find it impossible to control without watching the screen closely. The same movent of the mouse does not land the pointer in the same place every time. I rely heavily on physical memory in order to function in my daily life. Regular mice require me to learn a skill set which is probably not even good for me since it causes so much confusion. I can do extremely acurate movements, such as play a violin in tune, but I can't get a mouse to work the same way. I am lost. 4. The lack of choices. The windows interface is basically a multiple choice system. This can be very confusing to some minds. I was poor at that in school, prefering to simply suply the right answer. The other problem with multiple choice, is that they are not presented in a simple to read list, but rather scattered around. The third problem is that they always leave out so many choices. They are never complete! What's the use of something which isn't finished? For example, three different people who have been using my computer, could find no way to write a file to a floppy in my current distribution (debian). If there is something to click on somewhere, three people who have each been using computers for years, could not find it. These are just a few things which I thought were relevant to this discussion. I do hope that the entire computing community gets over this current "fashion first" mentality and starts to consider things from a more realistic perspective.
I wonder why this guy didn't just ask a musician about this stuff instead of wasting his time with pseudo science.
I agree. This guy seems to be lacking a bit of science. He's probably just looking to get points for publishing something.
I agree that it is an amazing (and practical) system, but I think you hit the nail on the head when you said "Nominally, it's based on the overtone series". It is *very* nominal. In fact we often hear what we want to hear instead of what is physically there.
I too am a musician and have been immersed in the sound of equal temperment and the overtone series for as long as I can remember. Sometimes when I hear one of these modern "early music" performances where they try to use original temperment, I find it grates on my ears! This despite the fact that what they are playing follows the overtone series better than what I hear in my head. It is interesting to note that the effect is strongest with pieces that I know well.
I really think this guy should talk to some composers and perhaps look into the literature already published on this subject, instead of grasping at concepts just to get published. Of course the non technical review doesn't help either!
They still had imperial when I came to school in Canada (1957) but I always used metric for my own purposes anyway because I was lazy I guess. What got my goat when Canada went metric is that they seemed to come up with their own slant and thus didn't really "internationalize". I see some odd units with which I'm not familiar. For example "mcg". Now what is that supposed to mean? I find too that the common household units from my childhood in Denmark (eg. deciliter) are not used here. Most foods are in grams and millilitres, which I think is an inappopiately small measure for things like sugar and flour which might explain why som many people use cups instead. I think the problem is that many people just simply aren't interested in measureing things. I say that because I find that the people who don't want to switch to metric, usually don't really know any other system either. My fabourite trick question is: What weighs more, a pound of gold, or a pound of feathers? People generally can't answer that one because they are unaware of the fact that there are different systems in common use. A pound of feathers is, of course much heavier because gold is measured in troy, as opposed to avoidepois. BTW, the stone is listed in my colliers American (USA) dictionary as about 14 pounds avoidepois. There is no mention of this not being in use in the USA where the dictionarey is printed and published. I think if you were to check the literature, you would find the word used a lot in the US. Mark Twain must have used it, no? My general feeling though is that for most purposes, it doesn't really matter. especially since the calculator has become a personal item. Really, the many non metric systems are quite charming. The mixture of bases makes for entertaining arithmetic.