(1) It's harder to *get at* the nuts an bolts now- there are far more layers of abstraction in the way.
(2) Back in the 70's and much of the 80's, home computers were owned by hobbyists, not Joe Sixpack, so most people involved were inclined towards curiosity about how shit worked. Now there still some - more on an absolute scale, but fewer percentage wise.
(3) Now it's possible to use a computer without knowing anything theoretical. Back then, it was not, so it was required that people were technical.
I'e been reading about all these neat projects about microcontrollers in the last few years and in the last month, I've gotten my new AVR dev board up and running, a fun first project on the breadboard, and I'm re-aquainting myself with C. What great fun it is to be back to programming "on the hardware" so-to-speak. I'm rediscovering just how really fast 4MHz can be. The day job/career has evolved more and more towards the business side of things and just no longer feels fascinating or even interesting in many ways. And when it is time to get into code, I'm not really learning new, clever, interesting ways to accomplish something, I'm learning yet another arbitrary framework or library - which I have to in order to keep up in the job market.
I also noticed that in the late 90's the answers to my typical "get to know you" questions when interviewing job candidates changed from "I've always been interested in electronics/computers/technology/science growing up" to "My high school counselor said there are good jobs in computers, so I took some classes ".
I've also noticed that people in the workforce are reluctant to apply themselves to learning office suites. Back in the DOS/Word Perfect days, people would take classes at night school to "learn computers" because it was becoming evident that they would need these skills in their jobs soon. Now I see that since most people haev computers with Windows at home, they all think they "know computers" but cannot find a file twice, can't map a network drive, and constantly go to a local expert rather than look in Help in their application.
Re:A Still More Glorious Dawn (of some sort)
on
Carl Sagan Sings
·
· Score: 1
Some people like to believe that our accomplishments mean something. The longer they or the follow-ons they enable endure, the better. If we wipe ourselves out all of that goes to zero instantly
Exactly my point, our "accomplishments" don't mean anything in the grand scale that those, like Hawking, should understand so well. Our accomplishments only mean something to ourselves. And if we're gone - either by natural means or by our own hand - there won't be anyone to know or care about it. People talk as if we have some impact on the universe and that our absence will be equally impactful - we don't even qualify as a blip.
If you believe none of that, shoot yourself in the head now. It's not like you'll exist to miss anything! If that doesn't strike you as a good idea, perhaps you will one day extrapolate your reasoning to the rest of humanity.
No, I'm not going to shoot myself in the head, I'm living my life now the best I can. I *do* have an impact in my local social and family circle. But really, not much beyond that. Extrapolated out, we do have an impact on our own existence and our extended human family, but not much beyond that.
Perhaps the great minds do see clearly a way around the crap that leads economists and leaders to spout platitudes about supply and demand and such while themselves suffering none of the ill effects. It is, after all illogical to claim the problems insoluble when we know that adequate resources exist (the supply) to meet the demand. Perhaps they hope that we can evolve beyond that without resorting to an ethically questionable extermination of those who can't or won't get with the program (before they proceed further with ethically challenged programs of war that could well exterminate everyone).
Then I suggest they use their great minds to solve the causes of self-destruction hear-and-now rather than try to solve the symptoms in some pie-in-the-sky far-off maybe-we'll-beat-the-odds future space utopia.
We don't even have a good *proposal* for long-term space survival (bio-environment, radiation protection, etc), let alone the ability to actually do it. It's pathetic that we sent some guys up to the moon in a relative tin-can and think that we're "space travelers" - some people have been mixing up their science fiction with their science. Just read up on how much lead, water, or voltage it takes to shield from inter-planetary radiation - that's going to be problem #1. The Apollo astronauts saw sparkles in their vision due to the radiation - even when their eyes were closed. And we're going to live how long out there? Then we're going to build a totally sustainable environment on a planet somewhere?
It looks to me like we need to solve the problems we have here now, first. But are we too entrenched in our social/economical/religious hang-ups to come out of it? If so, maybe we don't qualify for inter-planetary colonization - hence my original post regarding things turning out pretty much as they have.
Re:A Still More Glorious Dawn (of some sort)
on
Carl Sagan Sings
·
· Score: 0, Troll
Hawking has repeatedly stated that if we are to survive long term as a species, we will have to inhabit other worlds or at least colonize space
And I thought guys like this were supposed to be *smart* and understand the scope and scale of things universal. Why exactly, does the universe need or want us to survive? If the universe doesn't need us, why do *we* need us? Our likely eventual nuclear destruction won't even register as background noise. You know, if the LHC creates a black hole and sucks in the Earth and 7 billion people into in in a minute, I'm OK with that - really. Nobody will be around *not* to be OK with it.
So let's say that we do colonize space and/or other worlds. Why do these guys think that the "colonists" won't end up just like us in due time? Because they'll all be peaceful, collective "space hippies"? Puhhhleeze. How odd that incredibly intelligent people who study nature on the grandest of scales refuse to acklowledge nature's most basic laws such as supply-and-demand of limited resources which create greed, jealousy, crime, class separation, etc.
Drive a Malibu and a Belair into a lake and see who gets out before drowning. Chances are the Belair driver will survive, because it doesn't have electric windows. The electrics go almost imediately underwater and you can't roll down the windows and with the windows closed you can't open the doors because of the pressure.
1) And you think the electrics will go out "almost immediately" why? Can you provide any basis for your statement? I believe Mythbusters tested this an found that the electric windows will operate submerged for over an hour. Electricity would much rather travel through wires than water. Fresh water is a rather poor conductor by comparison. OK, salt water will conduct much better than fresh water so don't crash into the Dead Sea.
2) The newer car may be more airtight, lengthening the time for someone to gather their wits after impact and take some good breaths of air before they...
3)..break out a window and get virtually sucked out of the car along with the air or at least allow the car to fill so they can simply swim out. Newer cars have much thinner glass than older cars. Plus, auto glass is designed to be very strong against impacts from the outside but trades that for weakness in the other direction. Go to a junk yard sometime and wrap your knuckles solidly against the inside of a windshield and watch it crack easily. You won't be able to do that from the outside - maybe even with a rock.
Try putting the bad drive in the fridge for about 15 minutes. Sometimes it's a thermal expansion problem on the board or in a chip and you can get a few working minutes with the drive to copy files off. If that doesn't work, try the freezer. If that doesn't work, try some gentle heat with a hair dryer. If none of that works, you're back to the board swap or a professional recovery service.
If the fridge/freezer thing works, using a USB interface on the drive will buy you some more up time, as you don't waste "cool" time while the machine boots up before you start pulling files off.
As a very non-jumpy person who lived only about 4 miles from the epicenter of the 1994 Northridge 6.7 earthquake, I spent a month jumping at any sudden deep sound - a truck driving by or loud bassy music, for example. We slept in the living room for that month because another big one could strike and nobody wanted to be in the back of the house in the dark again. And we got frequent aftershocks that, even if they weren't strong shakers, set off the same sounds in the house as the big one.
So I can certainly understand a New Yorker's gut response to a sight like this. I don't know if I'd go home upon the sight, but I'd certainly start mentally prepping a plan to evacuate the building and consider where I'd go if something did happen. Maybe a good time to take a 15-minute break outside the building.
Most people are used to "soft" or "warm" light from incandescents -- low color temperature. Most early CFLs were "cool" or "daylight" -- high kelvin temperature.
I bought a 5000-degree Kelvin full-spectrum tri-phosphor "daylight" flourescent tube a few years ago and when I first used it, I didn't care for the "blue" or "welding arc" light. But one day I noticed daylight streaming into the hallway through the door and figured that I left the window shades open. But was surprised to find that the shades were closed and it was the "daylight" bulb supplying the light. From that point on I was convinced the light was not blue, per se, but was a matter of comparing it to incandescent light. I also took a critical look at photographs and noticed how much better colors look under the daylight bulb vs. "warm" bulbs regardless of intensity.
(Yes, I have to run the light with the shades closed during the day - the sunlight is way too bright to work at the computer)
On a related note, one of the developers of MIDI software for the ST was Charles Johnson, of Codehead Software (along with John Eidsvoog)
Now that's a blast from the past! I haven't heard those name in years! Those guys used to always come into the Atari & Amiga store I worked at (Logical Choice for Computing in North Hollywood, CA).
How do you know the guy isn't a total loser who's run up $20,000 in credit card debt with all the things he "had to have", essentially forcing his wife to become the authority that keeps him in check? I know of at least three other guys in this situation, two of whom are on their way to their *second* bankruptcies.
The Terrain Mapping Camera on board has a 5m resolution so even something as big as the LEM descent unit or the lunar rovers will only be 1 pixel in size.
My reason for not coasting? From what I understand, when the engine's turning above ~1,000 RPM, the throttle's at "idle" (no pressure on the pedal), and the transmission's in gear, then the fuel injectors shut off.
I suspect this isn't as universally true as it once was. My ScangaugeII shows near-idle level fuel consumption when the throttle is lifted in-gear at highway speeds in my 2006 Honda Civic EX. However, I used to race a 1991 Ford Escort GT (Mazda 1.8 16v motor) and with it's open and loud exhaust system, I could clearly hear injector cut-off below 2000 RPM on lift throttle. I suspect the difference may be emissions-related. Maybe pumping relatively "cool" air through the engine allows the catalyst to cool below its' effective temperature.
On how this affects hypermiling, since coasting in or out of gear consumes the same amount of fuel, I choose to coast out of gear since engine drag takes energy out of the system - I can coast in neutral on hills that aren't steep enough to maintain highway speeds in-gear or I can acheive higher speeds with consequently longer roll-out distances before I need engine power again.
And related to mileage-driving techniques in general...
I've managed 43mpg in my 38mpg-rated Civic on several drives between Los Angeles and Las Vegas. The most effective tactic is to drive behind large vehicles. Not drafting, per se, but choose to drive behind them as opposed to driving in clean air. You can feel how the air tugs at the car even at safe distances and stay in the sweet spot for maximum effect. Opening the sunroof a bit and sticking your fingers out, you can feel the difference. Spotting and/or anticipating traffic slow downs and coating to them is very effective, too.
I'll second on the Tungsten Carbide rings. I've had mine for about 18 months and it's still in pristine condition. There aren't even blemishes on the matte part where I'd expect there to be more-easily deformed fine structure. I also like the substantial weight of it.
"Materials, like tungsten carbide or ceramic, can only be removed by cracking them into pieces with standard vice grip-style locking pliers. Standard ring cutters will not work. Place vice grip-style locking pliers over ring and adjust the jaws to clamp lightly. Release and adjust tightener one-third turn and then clamp again. Repeat until a crack is heard, and then continue clamping in different positions until the hard material breaks away. Take care not to slide or rotate the cracked ring on the finger. If the ring contains an inlay of gold, the exposed gold can then be cut or clipped in the usual fashion."
Slashdot Mirror
I'll post about it after I finish streaming "Ow, my balls!" on my iPhone...
The new GM, same as the old GM.
... a Camry .
So busy coming up with the car of tomorrow, they never have a car to sell today.
Maybe GM needs to stop dreaming up laser-enhanced windshields and build... say
Although it gets to be a real bitch at 64-bits!
(1) It's harder to *get at* the nuts an bolts now- there are far more layers of abstraction in the way.
(2) Back in the 70's and much of the 80's, home computers were owned by hobbyists, not Joe Sixpack, so most people involved were inclined towards curiosity about how shit worked. Now there still some - more on an absolute scale, but fewer percentage wise.
(3) Now it's possible to use a computer without knowing anything theoretical. Back then, it was not, so it was required that people were technical.
I'e been reading about all these neat projects about microcontrollers in the last few years and in the last month, I've gotten my new AVR dev board up and running, a fun first project on the breadboard, and I'm re-aquainting myself with C. What great fun it is to be back to programming "on the hardware" so-to-speak. I'm rediscovering just how really fast 4MHz can be. The day job/career has evolved more and more towards the business side of things and just no longer feels fascinating or even interesting in many ways. And when it is time to get into code, I'm not really learning new, clever, interesting ways to accomplish something, I'm learning yet another arbitrary framework or library - which I have to in order to keep up in the job market.
I also noticed that in the late 90's the answers to my typical "get to know you" questions when interviewing job candidates changed from "I've always been interested in electronics/computers/technology/science growing up" to "My high school counselor said there are good jobs in computers, so I took some classes ".
I've also noticed that people in the workforce are reluctant to apply themselves to learning office suites. Back in the DOS/Word Perfect days, people would take classes at night school to "learn computers" because it was becoming evident that they would need these skills in their jobs soon. Now I see that since most people haev computers with Windows at home, they all think they "know computers" but cannot find a file twice, can't map a network drive, and constantly go to a local expert rather than look in Help in their application.
Some people like to believe that our accomplishments mean something. The longer they or the follow-ons they enable endure, the better. If we wipe ourselves out all of that goes to zero instantly
Exactly my point, our "accomplishments" don't mean anything in the grand scale that those, like Hawking, should understand so well. Our accomplishments only mean something to ourselves. And if we're gone - either by natural means or by our own hand - there won't be anyone to know or care about it. People talk as if we have some impact on the universe and that our absence will be equally impactful - we don't even qualify as a blip.
If you believe none of that, shoot yourself in the head now. It's not like you'll exist to miss anything! If that doesn't strike you as a good idea, perhaps you will one day extrapolate your reasoning to the rest of humanity.
No, I'm not going to shoot myself in the head, I'm living my life now the best I can. I *do* have an impact in my local social and family circle. But really, not much beyond that. Extrapolated out, we do have an impact on our own existence and our extended human family, but not much beyond that.
Perhaps the great minds do see clearly a way around the crap that leads economists and leaders to spout platitudes about supply and demand and such while themselves suffering none of the ill effects. It is, after all illogical to claim the problems insoluble when we know that adequate resources exist (the supply) to meet the demand. Perhaps they hope that we can evolve beyond that without resorting to an ethically questionable extermination of those who can't or won't get with the program (before they proceed further with ethically challenged programs of war that could well exterminate everyone).
Then I suggest they use their great minds to solve the causes of self-destruction hear-and-now rather than try to solve the symptoms in some pie-in-the-sky far-off maybe-we'll-beat-the-odds future space utopia.
We don't even have a good *proposal* for long-term space survival (bio-environment, radiation protection, etc), let alone the ability to actually do it. It's pathetic that we sent some guys up to the moon in a relative tin-can and think that we're "space travelers" - some people have been mixing up their science fiction with their science. Just read up on how much lead, water, or voltage it takes to shield from inter-planetary radiation - that's going to be problem #1. The Apollo astronauts saw sparkles in their vision due to the radiation - even when their eyes were closed. And we're going to live how long out there? Then we're going to build a totally sustainable environment on a planet somewhere?
It looks to me like we need to solve the problems we have here now, first. But are we too entrenched in our social/economical/religious hang-ups to come out of it? If so, maybe we don't qualify for inter-planetary colonization - hence my original post regarding things turning out pretty much as they have.
Hawking has repeatedly stated that if we are to survive long term as a species, we will have to inhabit other worlds or at least colonize space
And I thought guys like this were supposed to be *smart* and understand the scope and scale of things universal. Why exactly, does the universe need or want us to survive? If the universe doesn't need us, why do *we* need us? Our likely eventual nuclear destruction won't even register as background noise. You know, if the LHC creates a black hole and sucks in the Earth and 7 billion people into in in a minute, I'm OK with that - really. Nobody will be around *not* to be OK with it.
So let's say that we do colonize space and/or other worlds. Why do these guys think that the "colonists" won't end up just like us in due time? Because they'll all be peaceful, collective "space hippies"? Puhhhleeze. How odd that incredibly intelligent people who study nature on the grandest of scales refuse to acklowledge nature's most basic laws such as supply-and-demand of limited resources which create greed, jealousy, crime, class separation, etc.
Drive a Malibu and a Belair into a lake and see who gets out before drowning.
Chances are the Belair driver will survive, because it doesn't have electric windows. The electrics go almost imediately underwater and you can't roll down the windows and with the windows closed you can't open the doors because of the pressure.
1) And you think the electrics will go out "almost immediately" why? Can you provide any basis for your statement? I believe Mythbusters tested this an found that the electric windows will operate submerged for over an hour. Electricity would much rather travel through wires than water. Fresh water is a rather poor conductor by comparison. OK, salt water will conduct much better than fresh water so don't crash into the Dead Sea.
2) The newer car may be more airtight, lengthening the time for someone to gather their wits after impact and take some good breaths of air before they...
3) ..break out a window and get virtually sucked out of the car along with the air or at least allow the car to fill so they can simply swim out. Newer cars have much thinner glass than older cars. Plus, auto glass is designed to be very strong against impacts from the outside but trades that for weakness in the other direction. Go to a junk yard sometime and wrap your knuckles solidly against the inside of a windshield and watch it crack easily. You won't be able to do that from the outside - maybe even with a rock.
Try putting the bad drive in the fridge for about 15 minutes. Sometimes it's a thermal expansion problem on the board or in a chip and you can get a few working minutes with the drive to copy files off. If that doesn't work, try the freezer. If that doesn't work, try some gentle heat with a hair dryer. If none of that works, you're back to the board swap or a professional recovery service. If the fridge/freezer thing works, using a USB interface on the drive will buy you some more up time, as you don't waste "cool" time while the machine boots up before you start pulling files off.
As a very non-jumpy person who lived only about 4 miles from the epicenter of the 1994 Northridge 6.7 earthquake, I spent a month jumping at any sudden deep sound - a truck driving by or loud bassy music, for example. We slept in the living room for that month because another big one could strike and nobody wanted to be in the back of the house in the dark again. And we got frequent aftershocks that, even if they weren't strong shakers, set off the same sounds in the house as the big one.
So I can certainly understand a New Yorker's gut response to a sight like this. I don't know if I'd go home upon the sight, but I'd certainly start mentally prepping a plan to evacuate the building and consider where I'd go if something did happen. Maybe a good time to take a 15-minute break outside the building.
Obviously a masochist is doing a thorough job hunt.
Or a sadist in management looking to see what they can get away with.
The masochist says "Hurt me, hurt me" and the sadist say "No, I won't."
Most people are used to "soft" or "warm" light from incandescents -- low color temperature. Most early CFLs were "cool" or "daylight" -- high kelvin temperature.
I bought a 5000-degree Kelvin full-spectrum tri-phosphor "daylight" flourescent tube a few years ago and when I first used it, I didn't care for the "blue" or "welding arc" light. But one day I noticed daylight streaming into the hallway through the door and figured that I left the window shades open. But was surprised to find that the shades were closed and it was the "daylight" bulb supplying the light. From that point on I was convinced the light was not blue, per se, but was a matter of comparing it to incandescent light. I also took a critical look at photographs and noticed how much better colors look under the daylight bulb vs. "warm" bulbs regardless of intensity.
(Yes, I have to run the light with the shades closed during the day - the sunlight is way too bright to work at the computer)
On a related note, one of the developers of MIDI software for the ST was Charles Johnson, of Codehead Software (along with John Eidsvoog)
Now that's a blast from the past! I haven't heard those name in years! Those guys used to always come into the Atari & Amiga store I worked at (Logical Choice for Computing in North Hollywood, CA).
Collect the reward
And have your house raided and computer siezed the next week.
For anything else there's this neat thing called a fraction that people can use
That's what I say when it's 38 43/87ths C out!
Maybe the editors submitted a dupe of a dupe and set off an infinite Lupe^H^H^H oop?
How do you know the guy isn't a total loser who's run up $20,000 in credit card debt with all the things he "had to have", essentially forcing his wife to become the authority that keeps him in check? I know of at least three other guys in this situation, two of whom are on their way to their *second* bankruptcies.
Mod -1 Creepy?
Mod -1 Competition
...leave your cork on your fork.
I do with the epicyclic example argument that is yours take issue not.
The Terrain Mapping Camera on board has a 5m resolution so even something as big as the LEM descent unit or the lunar rovers will only be 1 pixel in size.
Big deal, I can do that:
.
...roughly half of them being below average, as the OP pointed out.
Thanks all for playing a rousing round of Pageant of Pedants.
No, they replaced it with "RAD"; they took the "I" right out of it.
It's all fun and games until someone loses an "I".
They have better throughput than half-duplex ethernet, which is about as useful as being better than avian carriers.
That depends - is the avian carrier African or European?
My reason for not coasting? From what I understand, when the engine's turning above ~1,000 RPM, the throttle's at "idle" (no pressure on the pedal), and the transmission's in gear, then the fuel injectors shut off.
I suspect this isn't as universally true as it once was. My ScangaugeII shows near-idle level fuel consumption when the throttle is lifted in-gear at highway speeds in my 2006 Honda Civic EX. However, I used to race a 1991 Ford Escort GT (Mazda 1.8 16v motor) and with it's open and loud exhaust system, I could clearly hear injector cut-off below 2000 RPM on lift throttle. I suspect the difference may be emissions-related. Maybe pumping relatively "cool" air through the engine allows the catalyst to cool below its' effective temperature.
On how this affects hypermiling, since coasting in or out of gear consumes the same amount of fuel, I choose to coast out of gear since engine drag takes energy out of the system - I can coast in neutral on hills that aren't steep enough to maintain highway speeds in-gear or I can acheive higher speeds with consequently longer roll-out distances before I need engine power again. And related to mileage-driving techniques in general... I've managed 43mpg in my 38mpg-rated Civic on several drives between Los Angeles and Las Vegas. The most effective tactic is to drive behind large vehicles. Not drafting, per se, but choose to drive behind them as opposed to driving in clean air. You can feel how the air tugs at the car even at safe distances and stay in the sweet spot for maximum effect. Opening the sunroof a bit and sticking your fingers out, you can feel the difference. Spotting and/or anticipating traffic slow downs and coating to them is very effective, too.
I'll second on the Tungsten Carbide rings. I've had mine for about 18 months and it's still in pristine condition. There aren't even blemishes on the matte part where I'd expect there to be more-easily deformed fine structure. I also like the substantial weight of it.
Also, there's a removal method (copied from http://www.titanium-jewelry.com/about-tungsten.html, the retailer where I got mine)
"Materials, like tungsten carbide or ceramic, can only be removed by cracking them into pieces with standard vice grip-style locking pliers. Standard ring cutters will not work. Place vice grip-style locking pliers over ring and adjust the jaws to clamp lightly. Release and adjust tightener one-third turn and then clamp again. Repeat until a crack is heard, and then continue clamping in different positions until the hard material breaks away. Take care not to slide or rotate the cracked ring on the finger. If the ring contains an inlay of gold, the exposed gold can then be cut or clipped in the usual fashion."