the standard battery is capable of maintaining a higher voltage at a certain current than the rechargeables
Quite the opposite. The reason NiMH rechargeables are so good in digital cameras is their ability to sustain high current demands (which bluetooth mice are not, but anyway). Normal alkaline batteries poop out quickly in digital cameras because they can't handle the high current demands. Lithiums are better but not better than current NiMH rechargeables. So, you are correct about current and voltage, but your presupposition about which is better at sustaining voltage is back to front.
But I couldn't tell you why; although it seems like you could tell me why with a bit of further thought.
Be sure to use standard (i.e. non-rechargeable) batteries though. the rechargeable battery voltage is just too low to be useful in this case. I don't think so.
I use rechargeable batteries in my Apple mouse and they last about 5 weeks between charges. I managed about 3 months out of the lithiums it came with and 1 month with cheap alkalines. The voltage from rechargeables is plenty to run the mouse.
The economics of this is clear. The lithium batteries cost more than the rechargeables and are only one use (as opposed to hundreds of uses). If you happen to have a digital camera then you invariably will always have some charged AAs around anyway so you don't even need to wait the hour or so it takes for the batteries to recharge.
(And you really need to bone up on your knowledge of rechargeables, they provide 1.2V for around 80% of their life because the voaltage discharge plateaus over most of their life. Standard non-rechargables start at 1.5V but they will spend over 60% of their life below 1.2V because the voltage they provide drops more or less linearly with use.)
Have you actually used a Cannon point and shoot camera? They have high shutter lag even with their new Digic-II processors. DSLRs are invariably faster than PS cameras. Sure, Cannon used to be woefully slow and now are merely painfully slow, but they remain slower than DSLRs.
Bully for you if you think you are getting the DSLR quality in Cannon PS cameras and the only difference is interchangeable lenses. The rest of the reality-based world will think otherwise though.
There is no difference. Pearlyrics which received a cease and desist letter was fundamentally a modified browser. All it did was find lyrics already on the web. No difference at all.
However, Google has slightly more money than the developer of Pearlyrics. It is also based in the US... stay tuned for more news at 9.
I think drugs are potentially less dangerous than microwaves, televisions, hair dryers and even computers can be to your health.
The reason they are less dangerous is because of the FDA - could you imagine industry regulated (i.e. unregulated) drugs being released on the market. Don't worry about fatal side-effects, they were approved by the industry body! Sure...
And, just FYI, we do have government oversight of every item you can buy. It is the wonderful world of consumer protection legislation and health and safety standards. You can not sell anything that is harmful - particularly to children. There are regular stories in Australia around Christmas time of kids toys imported from China that are taken off the shelves because they are a choking hazard or whatever. Same thing happens in the US.
If you have a problem with a company that charges your credit card incorrectly or fraudulently you talk to the company first, but you talk to your credit card issuer second and initiate a chargeback.
One of the main reasons people choose CDs over other formats of music distribution Maybe, but that's not what was said.
At most you might be able to say that:
One of the reasons people buy CDs (over other formats of music distribution) is to get the booklet with the lyrics.
Main reasons? To get the music, to get full audio quality, because it is compatible with practically all stereo systems - but have you ever heard of someone not buying a CD because the lyrics weren't included in the booklet?
Guess what, you can find the full lyrics for lots of songs right on the Warner/Chappell website.
You may not like my taste in music, but you have to admit that you can get the full lyrics for songs right from the horses mouth - with no payment whatsoever! They provide it all there in unencrypted,(sort of) easily searchable format right on the web.
I wonder if their free provision of the lyrics on the web creates any sort of legal issues if they wanted to enforce any sort of laws against ordinary consumers.
Compression in music normally refers to modifying the dynamic range of the sound. That is, if it ranges from 20dB to 80dB, compression can change that to 40db to 70db (say). Heavy compression is standard in TV ads and for music designed to be listened to in a noisy environment (e.g. radios in cars). Compression helps to lift the quieter passages above the background and can also curb the harshness of transient spikes in the volume.
You might want to distinguish between the howls of complaint from any business when foreign manufacturers sell goods cheaper than the business can themselves produce and the real concept of predatory pricing.
Predatory pricing does exist and is effective in the right circumstances to protect a monopoly and enhance profits. Thinly veiled trade protectionism also exists. Don't confuse the two - even if people sometimes try to talk about trade issues as predatory pricing.
In particular, predatory pricing can be a very useful tactic for a monopolist in network industries - such as those that Microsoft dominates.
In agreeing with you I will also argue that you typically require HIGHLY PAID and HIGHLY trained professionals to get these really nasty bugs.
If you have someone who is an amateur they are likely to make obvious mistakes which will cause obvious (but non-lethal) problems in the code and therefor - it won't pass the most basic of quality testing.
On the other hand, with highly paid professionals, they know how to write code that passes quality testing protocols. So, their work will more easily be put into production and out in the real world where it has a chance to seriously harm users when the subtle bug is discovered.
Much of science works by divining the presence of an unknown and invisible thing by looking for its effects. ID follows the same line of argument that we can divine the presence of God by looking at his effects - that is, creatures that could not have come into being naturally.
It's the same as with particle colliders or black holes. You can't observe some particles or black holes directly but you look for their effects (e.g. decay products or lensing or what have you)
Thus, you are wrong when you say "Science just can't address things we can't observe" and that on that basis "ID requires something we can't see. It isn't science." The observables in ID are living things and the physical laws just as they are in science.
you will never get the diversity of topics by hiring a group of "experts" to write an encyclopedia that you will get by opening it up to the general public
True. But you will never get quite the same diversity of smells as you will from rolling around in a pig sty compared to walking down the street. Your point?
Wikipedia usually doesn't work on popular or controversial articles. Ever heard of edit wars? Those controversies don't go away just because the article remains stable for a week or so. Instead, the losers in an edit war continue to try and white ant the article and you end up with a hollow shell of an article.
Given that your comment is modded informative I'll assume you aren't being sarcastic. But, come on, Wikipedia works because you can work out your differences on the question of which column to put a particular effect of marijuana in? That is about as useful as the movement of a comma in the article.
Care to talk about something controversial? What about the possibility that there are long term problems with mental health? The main article it links to Health issues and the effects of cannibis seems a reasonable article on a quick scan. But the summary in this article is "The findings of earlier studies purporting to demonstrate the effects of the drug are unreliable, as the studies were flawed, with strong bias and poor methodology." This comment has absolutely no references other than a link to 'Junk Science'. Furthermore, it does not reflect the contents of the main article at all. The main article states "There has not currently been enough scientific study of the drug's effects to come to a definite conclusion." (with respect to mental health effects) - it does not state that all the research pointing to negative effects was junk science. Thus, the summary is not a useful statement for a reference work - it is a point of view. Care to try and fix that one and put something reliable in rather than a point of view?
And thank god we have people who can play the game six-degrees of separation with such skill. You know they even list people that give presentations to organisations that they don't like? Say something that exxonsecrets.org doesn't like and on the list you go - I'm sure there's a connection there somewhere, it only needs to be who you talk to.
Care to actually talk about the science rather than playing vacuous ad hominem games?
Geogre Taylor's key quote, and the one that seemingly damns him in the eyes of exxonsecrets.org, is that he said the economic cost of Kyoto would be huge for insignificant climate gain. You know what... (shhh!) that's true. No sensible economist suggests that Kyoto is anything other than a politically driven public relations exercise which will have huge economic costs. (And just quietly, that is why practically no countries will actually implement the treaty, as opposed to signing the pretty piece of paper and sticking it on their wall, and meet their targets.)
I ignore and will block all ads unless I'm actually looking to buy something. Then I use Google to find out as much information on the product I'm looking for as possible. Even then, this will rarely come directly from the manufacturer or their website (except maybe for tech specs).
Because our corporate environment is such that blocking ads is not an option (IE6 - I love you), I have managed to achieve finding the close box at such a base, autonomous, nervous process that I rarely even know what the ad is for. If it moves over what I am trying to read I try to look past it and don't focus on the ad. Indeed, if I actually do notice what the ad is for it is generally a bad sign because I am so pissed off that I want to find out who to direct my anger at.
Thus, I block all ads to the limit of my technological ability. If it's not technologically possible, I make use of the inherent mental abilities humans (and particularly males) have to focus on the actual content and block out all extraneous distractions (wife, child, annoying flash animation...)
The problem with being so open minded that you want to acknowledge the potential for validity in all points of view is that you end up being completely vacuous - a problem which infects many areas of Wikipedia.
Your highly principled argument may be useful within the ivory tower of a philosophy department but in the real world it is useless. Does your philosophy provide any basis for forming opinions or making decisions when such are required? Surely if you applied your philosophy in full you would end up incapable of any action or holding any opinion.
Finally, your last paragraph is an argument that the forging of opinions in robust debate is a wonderful experience in itself. That suppression of the illogical, offensive, crude and offtopic would compromise the opinions so formed. Wrong. Slashdot comments, blogs and discussion boards have never, in my experience, ever changed anyone's point of view or opinion - in practice they exist to stoke (un)righteous indignation and reinforce belief in pre-existing opinions. Such is the nature of humanity and no injury results perforce we suppress the inane.
...but the DVD was really meant to be vapourware. You know, after you use it, the read laser turns the data layer to vapour and you can't use it again. What do you call vapourware vapourware? Vapidware?
That doesn't make it right, of course, but it does make it something to not bother worrying about
Actually, it makes it wrong in a fundamental way. You can check all the Ayn Rand quotes elsewhere in this discussion about one problem with it.
I guess I am different to you. I object strongly to things that are fundamentally wrong as a matter of principle. Not enforcing old laws that have been rendered irrelevant by the passage of time is one thing. But instituting new laws that they claim will not be enforced is an entirely different matter. What fundamentally is the point then? There is no good that can come of that and many bad things.
By way of counterpoint to Finland, we have similar copyright laws in Australia to those in the UK. There is practically no legal use for an iPod in Australia because there is no allowance for format-shifting, no allowance for fair use, and the record companies have blocked the launch of iTunes because they want more money. But, guess what, the government is actually conducting a review to see whether the laws should be updated to reflect the times by instituting a fair use provision. I'm not holding my breath, but at least this is moving in the right direction. The Finnish approach seems to be fundamentally flawed at the start - deliberately implementing a law that is not meant to be enforced. That's very troubling.
Oh, sorry, scratch that. That's not what I meant at all.
No! I am not a +5 Informative, nor was meant to be; Am a Slashdot poster, one that will do To swell a postcount, start a thread or two, Advise the noobs; no doubt, an easy tool, Deferential, glad to be of use, Politic, cautious, and meticulous; Full of high sentence, but a bit obtuse; At times, indeed, almost ridiculous-- Almost, at times, -1 Redundant.
Slashdot Mirror
My vision DID get better though
;)
Duh! That's because you stopped doing other things that make you go blind
How?
A CD is 700MB (give or take) where do you get 15GB from?
the standard battery is capable of maintaining a higher voltage at a certain current than the rechargeables
Quite the opposite. The reason NiMH rechargeables are so good in digital cameras is their ability to sustain high current demands (which bluetooth mice are not, but anyway). Normal alkaline batteries poop out quickly in digital cameras because they can't handle the high current demands. Lithiums are better but not better than current NiMH rechargeables. So, you are correct about current and voltage, but your presupposition about which is better at sustaining voltage is back to front.
But I couldn't tell you why; although it seems like you could tell me why with a bit of further thought.
Be sure to use standard (i.e. non-rechargeable) batteries though. the rechargeable battery voltage is just too low to be useful in this case.
I don't think so.
I use rechargeable batteries in my Apple mouse and they last about 5 weeks between charges. I managed about 3 months out of the lithiums it came with and 1 month with cheap alkalines. The voltage from rechargeables is plenty to run the mouse.
The economics of this is clear. The lithium batteries cost more than the rechargeables and are only one use (as opposed to hundreds of uses). If you happen to have a digital camera then you invariably will always have some charged AAs around anyway so you don't even need to wait the hour or so it takes for the batteries to recharge.
(And you really need to bone up on your knowledge of rechargeables, they provide 1.2V for around 80% of their life because the voaltage discharge plateaus over most of their life. Standard non-rechargables start at 1.5V but they will spend over 60% of their life below 1.2V because the voltage they provide drops more or less linearly with use.)
You are kidding right?
Have you actually used a Cannon point and shoot camera? They have high shutter lag even with their new Digic-II processors. DSLRs are invariably faster than PS cameras. Sure, Cannon used to be woefully slow and now are merely painfully slow, but they remain slower than DSLRs.
Bully for you if you think you are getting the DSLR quality in Cannon PS cameras and the only difference is interchangeable lenses. The rest of the reality-based world will think otherwise though.
In an entry added just hours earlier. Ahh, the power of Wikipedia!
Ahem, Warner/Chappel to sue Google.
There is no difference. Pearlyrics which received a cease and desist letter was fundamentally a modified browser. All it did was find lyrics already on the web. No difference at all.
However, Google has slightly more money than the developer of Pearlyrics. It is also based in the US... stay tuned for more news at 9.
I think drugs are potentially less dangerous than microwaves, televisions, hair dryers and even computers can be to your health.
The reason they are less dangerous is because of the FDA - could you imagine industry regulated (i.e. unregulated) drugs being released on the market. Don't worry about fatal side-effects, they were approved by the industry body! Sure...
And, just FYI, we do have government oversight of every item you can buy. It is the wonderful world of consumer protection legislation and health and safety standards. You can not sell anything that is harmful - particularly to children. There are regular stories in Australia around Christmas time of kids toys imported from China that are taken off the shelves because they are a choking hazard or whatever. Same thing happens in the US.
One word: Chargeback.
If you have a problem with a company that charges your credit card incorrectly or fraudulently you talk to the company first, but you talk to your credit card issuer second and initiate a chargeback.
One of the main reasons people choose CDs over other formats of music distribution
Maybe, but that's not what was said.
At most you might be able to say that:
One of the reasons people buy CDs (over other formats of music distribution) is to get the booklet with the lyrics.
Main reasons? To get the music, to get full audio quality, because it is compatible with practically all stereo systems - but have you ever heard of someone not buying a CD because the lyrics weren't included in the booklet?
Guess what, you can find the full lyrics for lots of songs right on the Warner/Chappell website.
You may not like my taste in music, but you have to admit that you can get the full lyrics for songs right from the horses mouth - with no payment whatsoever! They provide it all there in unencrypted,(sort of) easily searchable format right on the web.
I wonder if their free provision of the lyrics on the web creates any sort of legal issues if they wanted to enforce any sort of laws against ordinary consumers.
One of the main reasons people buy CDs is so they get the booklet inside that contains the lyrics
Umm, no. One of the main reasons people buy CDs is to listen to the music.
Compression in music normally refers to modifying the dynamic range of the sound. That is, if it ranges from 20dB to 80dB, compression can change that to 40db to 70db (say). Heavy compression is standard in TV ads and for music designed to be listened to in a noisy environment (e.g. radios in cars). Compression helps to lift the quieter passages above the background and can also curb the harshness of transient spikes in the volume.
You might want to distinguish between the howls of complaint from any business when foreign manufacturers sell goods cheaper than the business can themselves produce and the real concept of predatory pricing.
Predatory pricing does exist and is effective in the right circumstances to protect a monopoly and enhance profits. Thinly veiled trade protectionism also exists. Don't confuse the two - even if people sometimes try to talk about trade issues as predatory pricing.
In particular, predatory pricing can be a very useful tactic for a monopolist in network industries - such as those that Microsoft dominates.
In agreeing with you I will also argue that you typically require HIGHLY PAID and HIGHLY trained professionals to get these really nasty bugs.
If you have someone who is an amateur they are likely to make obvious mistakes which will cause obvious (but non-lethal) problems in the code and therefor - it won't pass the most basic of quality testing.
On the other hand, with highly paid professionals, they know how to write code that passes quality testing protocols. So, their work will more easily be put into production and out in the real world where it has a chance to seriously harm users when the subtle bug is discovered.
You may be right but your argument isn't.
Much of science works by divining the presence of an unknown and invisible thing by looking for its effects. ID follows the same line of argument that we can divine the presence of God by looking at his effects - that is, creatures that could not have come into being naturally.
It's the same as with particle colliders or black holes. You can't observe some particles or black holes directly but you look for their effects (e.g. decay products or lensing or what have you)
Thus, you are wrong when you say "Science just can't address things we can't observe" and that on that basis "ID requires something we can't see. It isn't science." The observables in ID are living things and the physical laws just as they are in science.
you will never get the diversity of topics by hiring a group of "experts" to write an encyclopedia that you will get by opening it up to the general public
True. But you will never get quite the same diversity of smells as you will from rolling around in a pig sty compared to walking down the street. Your point?
Bzzt!
Wikipedia usually doesn't work on popular or controversial articles. Ever heard of edit wars? Those controversies don't go away just because the article remains stable for a week or so. Instead, the losers in an edit war continue to try and white ant the article and you end up with a hollow shell of an article.
Given that your comment is modded informative I'll assume you aren't being sarcastic. But, come on, Wikipedia works because you can work out your differences on the question of which column to put a particular effect of marijuana in? That is about as useful as the movement of a comma in the article.
Care to talk about something controversial? What about the possibility that there are long term problems with mental health? The main article it links to Health issues and the effects of cannibis seems a reasonable article on a quick scan. But the summary in this article is "The findings of earlier studies purporting to demonstrate the effects of the drug are unreliable, as the studies were flawed, with strong bias and poor methodology." This comment has absolutely no references other than a link to 'Junk Science'. Furthermore, it does not reflect the contents of the main article at all. The main article states "There has not currently been enough scientific study of the drug's effects to come to a definite conclusion." (with respect to mental health effects) - it does not state that all the research pointing to negative effects was junk science. Thus, the summary is not a useful statement for a reference work - it is a point of view. Care to try and fix that one and put something reliable in rather than a point of view?
And thank god we have people who can play the game six-degrees of separation with such skill. You know they even list people that give presentations to organisations that they don't like? Say something that exxonsecrets.org doesn't like and on the list you go - I'm sure there's a connection there somewhere, it only needs to be who you talk to.
Care to actually talk about the science rather than playing vacuous ad hominem games?
Geogre Taylor's key quote, and the one that seemingly damns him in the eyes of exxonsecrets.org, is that he said the economic cost of Kyoto would be huge for insignificant climate gain. You know what... (shhh!) that's true. No sensible economist suggests that Kyoto is anything other than a politically driven public relations exercise which will have huge economic costs. (And just quietly, that is why practically no countries will actually implement the treaty, as opposed to signing the pretty piece of paper and sticking it on their wall, and meet their targets.)
I ignore and will block all ads unless I'm actually looking to buy something. Then I use Google to find out as much information on the product I'm looking for as possible. Even then, this will rarely come directly from the manufacturer or their website (except maybe for tech specs).
Because our corporate environment is such that blocking ads is not an option (IE6 - I love you), I have managed to achieve finding the close box at such a base, autonomous, nervous process that I rarely even know what the ad is for. If it moves over what I am trying to read I try to look past it and don't focus on the ad. Indeed, if I actually do notice what the ad is for it is generally a bad sign because I am so pissed off that I want to find out who to direct my anger at.
Thus, I block all ads to the limit of my technological ability. If it's not technologically possible, I make use of the inherent mental abilities humans (and particularly males) have to focus on the actual content and block out all extraneous distractions (wife, child, annoying flash animation...)
The problem with being so open minded that you want to acknowledge the potential for validity in all points of view is that you end up being completely vacuous - a problem which infects many areas of Wikipedia.
Your highly principled argument may be useful within the ivory tower of a philosophy department but in the real world it is useless. Does your philosophy provide any basis for forming opinions or making decisions when such are required? Surely if you applied your philosophy in full you would end up incapable of any action or holding any opinion.
Finally, your last paragraph is an argument that the forging of opinions in robust debate is a wonderful experience in itself. That suppression of the illogical, offensive, crude and offtopic would compromise the opinions so formed. Wrong. Slashdot comments, blogs and discussion boards have never, in my experience, ever changed anyone's point of view or opinion - in practice they exist to stoke (un)righteous indignation and reinforce belief in pre-existing opinions. Such is the nature of humanity and no injury results perforce we suppress the inane.
...but the DVD was really meant to be vapourware. You know, after you use it, the read laser turns the data layer to vapour and you can't use it again. What do you call vapourware vapourware? Vapidware?
That doesn't make it right, of course, but it does make it something to not bother worrying about
Actually, it makes it wrong in a fundamental way. You can check all the Ayn Rand quotes elsewhere in this discussion about one problem with it.
I guess I am different to you. I object strongly to things that are fundamentally wrong as a matter of principle. Not enforcing old laws that have been rendered irrelevant by the passage of time is one thing. But instituting new laws that they claim will not be enforced is an entirely different matter. What fundamentally is the point then? There is no good that can come of that and many bad things.
By way of counterpoint to Finland, we have similar copyright laws in Australia to those in the UK. There is practically no legal use for an iPod in Australia because there is no allowance for format-shifting, no allowance for fair use, and the record companies have blocked the launch of iTunes because they want more money. But, guess what, the government is actually conducting a review to see whether the laws should be updated to reflect the times by instituting a fair use provision. I'm not holding my breath, but at least this is moving in the right direction. The Finnish approach seems to be fundamentally flawed at the start - deliberately implementing a law that is not meant to be enforced. That's very troubling.
Oh, sorry, scratch that. That's not what I meant at all.
No! I am not a +5 Informative, nor was meant to be;
Am a Slashdot poster, one that will do
To swell a postcount, start a thread or two,
Advise the noobs; no doubt, an easy tool,
Deferential, glad to be of use,
Politic, cautious, and meticulous;
Full of high sentence, but a bit obtuse;
At times, indeed, almost ridiculous--
Almost, at times, -1 Redundant.