It depends on what kinds of queries you want to do. Heck if I know all the books my wife has bought, and vice versa (and the duplicates resulting from that).
If I'm researching something, I want to be able to search the tags on my titles. Sometimes I can't remember the author or the title of the book I'm looking for. I don't want to waste half an hour browsing my stacks for a specific book, which I might have even lent out to someone and forgotten about it, especially when I'm in the middle of a thought.
And 3500 books is no small amount, easily browseable in a subject. Unless you have vast stack space, a lot of those books will be boxed up in an attic or basement.
If you're going to be using the barcode scanner for the books, set up barcodes for each of your shelves, tape them to the shelf fronting.
Whenever you or your wife decide to move books around, scan the book, scan the new location. If you put the book back on the same shelf, no problem, no scanning.
There've got to be some cheap or free inventory management systems available that include this capability, though I'm not familiar with any, since I don't do inventory controls with my library (which explains the ~150 missing titles and my well-read friends and family).
You should also set up barcodes for borrowers, treat them as a location. I'm not saying you should tattoo a barcode on their forehead (though the idea does have its appeal), but keeping a sheet of borrower barcodes in your inventory binder or in a folder somewhere would help.
Well, first, they make no claim of being cheaper to mfr than traditional ICs.
Second, until it's scaled up, the price will be more expensive than traditional ICs. As you say, "it's cheaper to keep producing the same thing, than to re-tool to produce a different item."
So why retool to use these chips when standard chips will work fine for most applications?
Either way, you've got a rigid IC in a stretching layer, with the problems that entails. Unless they can make an IC that works even when stretched and contracted multiple times, in which case I think that's a bigger development than a transparent IC.
"Most IC's don't need to worry about heat... digital watches don't have heatsinks."
Digital watches' ICs also aren't sandwiched between two panes of low-heat-conductive material that sit in the hot sun, either. I dunno if the small amount of additional heat would cross some threshold, though -- but the article did point out that these ICs run much hotter than normal ICs (with the current tech, anyway).
The heat output of the chips is very relevant -- glass isn't the best conductor, and heat output will exacerbate ambient heat problems.
How about freezing in the winter? How will the chips deal with expansion and contraction, will they do so at the same rate as the glass, or are you asking for seasonal degradation of the chips?
I stated in my OP that I couldn't see a huge demand for these things except for niche products -- I referenced the past mispredictions in order to state that I could very well be wrong, and these things might be ubiquitous in a generation.
We should be so lucky. A company that produces TVs that last that long isn't maximizing its profits. My Sharp TV was bought the day of the Challenger explosion, and is on its last legs. I would have been happy if it had lasted 10 years, and would have bought another Sharp, most likely. Anecdotal, sure -- but Sharp lost a sale by making a good TV.
Consumer electronics are engineered to last only a couple/few years past the warranty period -- keep the customer just satisfied enough, while ensuring they are still buying those TVs.
Re: whether people consider them disposable -- well, lots of people are happy to pay $30 a month for their TV. After they've paid it off, they're quite happy to upgrade to a bigger, newer TV for $30 a month. And chances are, they'll need to within a year or two.
They looked translucent to me (of course, I have no idea how the slides were prepared in the pics, and whether they indicate the working product).
I'm also curious as to
I'm curious as to how much heat these suckers will generate -- the obvious 'transparent' uses would, I imagine, need them to be encased in glass or protective transparent cases. The windshield mentioned, for example -- how quickly would heat build to the point of damaging the IC?
My second question is why these ICs would be any better than opaque ICs for throwaway use? Are they cheaper to manufacture, even scaled to billions of chips? Aren't normal ICs pretty maskable with film coverings?
Don't get me wrong, I'm sure there are applications where this could be very useful, but I'm not sure that even if development is completed, there would ever be enough demand to make these useful for anything other than niche applications.
Then again, 512k should be enough memory for anyone, and there will never be a market for more than five computers in the US.
Huh? Taxpayers subsidize commercial software -- business expenses are tax-deduxtible, as long as they are related to some source of revenue. All this would do is even the playing field for open-source software development, whose expenses are not tax deductible since there are no direct revenues.
A current way to deduct expenses relating to F/OSS is to produce it as part of a 501(c)3, which is not easy to qualify for, set up, or maintain the status of if you're doing F/OSS development in your spare time without direct contributors to maintain your funding and spending levels for charity.
To directly address your comment, F/OSS is not in people's direct self-interest if they have a competitive disadvantage of having their expenses raised 15-50% due to their taxable status.
The interesting part is that the latin-derived names took over for the food versions in English of the other examples I listed, whereas (and yes, I knew the root when I posted earlier) the food version of sheep is not a latin derivative.
This suggests to me that lamb/mutton was not a preferred food among the Normans, which makes sense, considering that they came predominantly from lowlands -- not the more marginal terrain where sheep are more productive than cattle or hogs.
To me, it's a two-pronged participatory system. Vote for your beliefs (if you have the choice, many of us don't -- the two-party system has that effect). Then, mobilize people ("voters" to your elected officials) to convince your legislators to act the way you want.
You can't expect a politician to vote the way you want without letting them know, with a loud voice (i.e., with the support of many others) that their status is dependent upon how they vote on legislation -- which you point out. However, you miss the power of grassroots organization, and I think are a little naive in thinking that mobilizing others is not productive.
Selling advertising space online isn't what it used to be. Sometimes, the goal isn't even to get people to buy your products -- the goal is to learn more about what products consumers want.
The article describes a banner ad campaign that was used to determine demand for different food products in the preholiday run-up. This kind of market research is taking the place of (or augmenting, in some cases) traditional market research like telesurveys, focus groups, etc.
The problem as I see it is that we're getting even more LCD goods as a result. All the people who want the same products I want are blocking the research tools. Not to sound elitist, but when only morons are hit up by the market research, more products for morons are released.
This is one reason why we get crap films, crap television, crap music, etc rammed down our throats.
"I used to write letters to government officials when I was in high school, but that didn't accomplish much."
That you are aware of. It's hard to realize you are having an effect when there is no tangible evidence handed to you.
Just as important as educating the voting public is attempting to affect the decisions of our lawmakers. It does no good to educate the public if none of the public is telling the lawmakers how we want them to vote.
Removing someone from office because we didn't like their decisions is too late -- it's just a form of censure. You've got to get them before they pass laws you don't like.
I agree with your response to the OP, but I'd like to point out that letter-writing is more effective than you think, particularly in large numbers.
BTW, I've received non-generic responses from several legislators -- particularly on the local level, but heck, Sen. Bill Bradley called me at home to discuss a letter I'd written him (ages ago, of course). Plus, it was one of the first political letters I'd written.
And some of those local politicians may eventually move up the chain -- so building a relationship with them on the local level can be surprisingly effective.
And if more people become aware that there is a brewing problem with attrition of their rights, how is that a waste?
What's more beneficial to the bottom line of a popular movement -- one individual sending a letter, or one individual getting two people to send a letter? Or how about one individual making 1,000 people 0.2% more likely to write a letter?
Few people want to talk about civil liberties at the water cooler during their afternoon break. This game is interesting enough to be water-cooler fodder, which is a good thing -- raise awareness of the issue.
"Have you ever noticed that in the scheme of naming meat for the three big land animals is completely broke?
Hmm, I never considered chickens to be big land animals. Anyone know where I can pick up a side of chicken to store in my freezer?
Here's some more for you:
Cow (Bull,Steer/Cow,Heifer/Calf) = Beef = Boeuf ~ Bovine
Pig (Boar/Sow/Piglet,Shoat) = Pork ~ Porcine
Goat (Buck,Billy/Doe,Nanny/Kid) = chevon ~ Caprine
Sheep (Ram/Ewe/Lamb) = mutton/lamb ~ Ovine? Where the hell does that come from? Sheep don't even lay eggs.
Seems to me that Windows deserves the sheep label.
Hey mods,
I mark (OT) or (O/T) for posts that are offtopic to the main thread, I do this so no one wastes mod points on them (unless of course they want to reinforce the (OT) by modding it Off-topic). So maybe if you see comments with that in the subject line, it would be best to ignore them -- unless somehow it gets back ontopic.
Really, the parent of this post shouldn't have gotten a single positive mod.
It was intended only for the couple people involved in the grammar sub-thread.
"Do I have anything to hide? No . Am I doing anything illegal? Absolutely not. . Does that mean you have a right to see what is inside my mail, documents, files, data? Absolutely not!
Apparently you're forgetting that this still requires a warrant, which still requires probable cause. By all means, no warrant = don't touch my shit. But if there is probable cause to suspect that you've committed a crime involving those documents, then yes, law enforcement DOES have the right to see your personal stuff. Physical files or digital files, either way you are obliged to comply with a valid warrant.
So, go ahead and don't comply... I really don't mind that smoeone who doesn't abide by the rule of law (the foundation of society, btw) rots in jail. You have recourse, after all, if the search turns out to be unjustified, or if the information retrieved is used or disclosed inappropriately.
"When your "entire computer system" includes storage on Amazon, Google, etc, then where does "searching your entire computer system" stop?
It's a question of whether physical location applies to data, as well as ownership of the data. If you have leased storage space from someone whose hardware is at a different location, then they'll need to serve you with a separate warrant (if you have nominal ownership of the storage space and its contents) for the separate physical location. If the lessor retains nominal ownership of the location and its contents, then they must be served with the warrant (or asked to voluntarily comply, which is typically the case).
They can still seize the data, regardless of where it is located -- they'll need a new warrant, though, if the hardware is owned by a 3rd party.
Again, a straight parallel to the physical world. A suspect gets served a search warrant on suspicion of possession of CDS with intent to distribute. He gave his stash to his friend down the street to hold, and had a receipt in his sock drawer for storage space rental at Buddy's. Law enforcement can't search Buddy's place without a new warrant (limitation subject to hot pursuit exception, of course) -- but the new information gives them the basis for the new warrant. Alternatively, they could just walk over to Buddy's place and ask for permission to search -- which a lot of firms are quite happy to say "sure" since it's less expensive than dealing with a warrant, and less likely to implicate them in any wrongdoing.
Not to mention that it's extremely unwieldy to use an adverb in that situation. A better structure would have been:
One can hope that this acquisition won't adversely affect Alienware hardware and support.
(That is, if you're OK with the occasional split infinitive).
Too many verbs and modifiers in the original.
(I hope you're OK with this sentence fragment). (And I hope you're OK with my use of the abbreviation 'OK'). (And I hope you're OK with me beginning a sentence with a conjunction).
I think you're right, that it's partially an ego trip, but I also think Ebert is fully aware of how influential he is, and I can't help but think that his public comments are fully intended to have an effect.
In this case, though, I give him a solid two thumbs down, or one thumb up his...
Warrants are not that specific. Warrants can be issued for entire computer systems looking for one tidbit. Law enforcement is only allowed to use the information that is covered by the warrant, but the only way they can verify that you've provided the keys to all the relevant files is to have a blanket warrant for all keys, and then check each file to see if it is relevant.
Same as standard home search warrants -- they don't issue a warrant to just search your sock drawer, because you told them that's the only place you'd keep the contraband they're looking for.
Slashdot Mirror
It depends on what kinds of queries you want to do. Heck if I know all the books my wife has bought, and vice versa (and the duplicates resulting from that).
If I'm researching something, I want to be able to search the tags on my titles. Sometimes I can't remember the author or the title of the book I'm looking for. I don't want to waste half an hour browsing my stacks for a specific book, which I might have even lent out to someone and forgotten about it, especially when I'm in the middle of a thought.
And 3500 books is no small amount, easily browseable in a subject. Unless you have vast stack space, a lot of those books will be boxed up in an attic or basement.
If you're going to be using the barcode scanner for the books, set up barcodes for each of your shelves, tape them to the shelf fronting.
Whenever you or your wife decide to move books around, scan the book, scan the new location. If you put the book back on the same shelf, no problem, no scanning.
There've got to be some cheap or free inventory management systems available that include this capability, though I'm not familiar with any, since I don't do inventory controls with my library (which explains the ~150 missing titles and my well-read friends and family).
You should also set up barcodes for borrowers, treat them as a location. I'm not saying you should tattoo a barcode on their forehead (though the idea does have its appeal), but keeping a sheet of borrower barcodes in your inventory binder or in a folder somewhere would help.
Well, first, they make no claim of being cheaper to mfr than traditional ICs.
Second, until it's scaled up, the price will be more expensive than traditional ICs. As you say, "it's cheaper to keep producing the same thing, than to re-tool to produce a different item."
So why retool to use these chips when standard chips will work fine for most applications?
Either way, you've got a rigid IC in a stretching layer, with the problems that entails. Unless they can make an IC that works even when stretched and contracted multiple times, in which case I think that's a bigger development than a transparent IC.
"Most IC's don't need to worry about heat... digital watches don't have heatsinks."
Digital watches' ICs also aren't sandwiched between two panes of low-heat-conductive material that sit in the hot sun, either. I dunno if the small amount of additional heat would cross some threshold, though -- but the article did point out that these ICs run much hotter than normal ICs (with the current tech, anyway).
Yeah, I know... and if you were, it'd be OK, this is slashdot, after all. I just wasn't sure you realized why I referenced the predictions...
The heat output of the chips is very relevant -- glass isn't the best conductor, and heat output will exacerbate ambient heat problems.
How about freezing in the winter? How will the chips deal with expansion and contraction, will they do so at the same rate as the glass, or are you asking for seasonal degradation of the chips?
I stated in my OP that I couldn't see a huge demand for these things except for niche products -- I referenced the past mispredictions in order to state that I could very well be wrong, and these things might be ubiquitous in a generation.
"a good TV will last 10-20 years if not more"
We should be so lucky. A company that produces TVs that last that long isn't maximizing its profits. My Sharp TV was bought the day of the Challenger explosion, and is on its last legs. I would have been happy if it had lasted 10 years, and would have bought another Sharp, most likely. Anecdotal, sure -- but Sharp lost a sale by making a good TV.
Consumer electronics are engineered to last only a couple/few years past the warranty period -- keep the customer just satisfied enough, while ensuring they are still buying those TVs.
Re: whether people consider them disposable -- well, lots of people are happy to pay $30 a month for their TV. After they've paid it off, they're quite happy to upgrade to a bigger, newer TV for $30 a month. And chances are, they'll need to within a year or two.
They looked translucent to me (of course, I have no idea how the slides were prepared in the pics, and whether they indicate the working product).
I'm also curious as to
I'm curious as to how much heat these suckers will generate -- the obvious 'transparent' uses would, I imagine, need them to be encased in glass or protective transparent cases. The windshield mentioned, for example -- how quickly would heat build to the point of damaging the IC?
My second question is why these ICs would be any better than opaque ICs for throwaway use? Are they cheaper to manufacture, even scaled to billions of chips? Aren't normal ICs pretty maskable with film coverings?
Don't get me wrong, I'm sure there are applications where this could be very useful, but I'm not sure that even if development is completed, there would ever be enough demand to make these useful for anything other than niche applications.
Then again, 512k should be enough memory for anyone, and there will never be a market for more than five computers in the US.
Huh? Taxpayers subsidize commercial software -- business expenses are tax-deduxtible, as long as they are related to some source of revenue. All this would do is even the playing field for open-source software development, whose expenses are not tax deductible since there are no direct revenues.
A current way to deduct expenses relating to F/OSS is to produce it as part of a 501(c)3, which is not easy to qualify for, set up, or maintain the status of if you're doing F/OSS development in your spare time without direct contributors to maintain your funding and spending levels for charity.
To directly address your comment, F/OSS is not in people's direct self-interest if they have a competitive disadvantage of having their expenses raised 15-50% due to their taxable status.
The interesting part is that the latin-derived names took over for the food versions in English of the other examples I listed, whereas (and yes, I knew the root when I posted earlier) the food version of sheep is not a latin derivative.
This suggests to me that lamb/mutton was not a preferred food among the Normans, which makes sense, considering that they came predominantly from lowlands -- not the more marginal terrain where sheep are more productive than cattle or hogs.
To me, it's a two-pronged participatory system. Vote for your beliefs (if you have the choice, many of us don't -- the two-party system has that effect). Then, mobilize people ("voters" to your elected officials) to convince your legislators to act the way you want.
You can't expect a politician to vote the way you want without letting them know, with a loud voice (i.e., with the support of many others) that their status is dependent upon how they vote on legislation -- which you point out. However, you miss the power of grassroots organization, and I think are a little naive in thinking that mobilizing others is not productive.
Selling advertising space online isn't what it used to be. Sometimes, the goal isn't even to get people to buy your products -- the goal is to learn more about what products consumers want.
The article describes a banner ad campaign that was used to determine demand for different food products in the preholiday run-up. This kind of market research is taking the place of (or augmenting, in some cases) traditional market research like telesurveys, focus groups, etc.
The problem as I see it is that we're getting even more LCD goods as a result. All the people who want the same products I want are blocking the research tools. Not to sound elitist, but when only morons are hit up by the market research, more products for morons are released.
This is one reason why we get crap films, crap television, crap music, etc rammed down our throats.
"I used to write letters to government officials when I was in high school, but that didn't accomplish much."
That you are aware of. It's hard to realize you are having an effect when there is no tangible evidence handed to you.
Just as important as educating the voting public is attempting to affect the decisions of our lawmakers. It does no good to educate the public if none of the public is telling the lawmakers how we want them to vote.
Removing someone from office because we didn't like their decisions is too late -- it's just a form of censure. You've got to get them before they pass laws you don't like.
I agree with your response to the OP, but I'd like to point out that letter-writing is more effective than you think, particularly in large numbers.
BTW, I've received non-generic responses from several legislators -- particularly on the local level, but heck, Sen. Bill Bradley called me at home to discuss a letter I'd written him (ages ago, of course). Plus, it was one of the first political letters I'd written.
And some of those local politicians may eventually move up the chain -- so building a relationship with them on the local level can be surprisingly effective.
And if more people become aware that there is a brewing problem with attrition of their rights, how is that a waste?
What's more beneficial to the bottom line of a popular movement -- one individual sending a letter, or one individual getting two people to send a letter? Or how about one individual making 1,000 people 0.2% more likely to write a letter?
Few people want to talk about civil liberties at the water cooler during their afternoon break. This game is interesting enough to be water-cooler fodder, which is a good thing -- raise awareness of the issue.
"Have you ever noticed that in the scheme of naming meat for the three big land animals is completely broke?
Hmm, I never considered chickens to be big land animals. Anyone know where I can pick up a side of chicken to store in my freezer?
Here's some more for you:
Cow (Bull,Steer/Cow,Heifer/Calf) = Beef = Boeuf ~ Bovine
Pig (Boar/Sow/Piglet,Shoat) = Pork ~ Porcine
Goat (Buck,Billy/Doe,Nanny/Kid) = chevon ~ Caprine
Sheep (Ram/Ewe/Lamb) = mutton/lamb ~ Ovine? Where the hell does that come from? Sheep don't even lay eggs.
Seems to me that Windows deserves the sheep label.
G-Spots has already been claimed as the working title for Google's marital aide service.
I mean, we wouldn't want any confusion between that and G-Sports, would we?
Also, note that this service does not have Americans as its primary target market... so why use the English word "sport"? How about G-Deportes?
Hey mods, I mark (OT) or (O/T) for posts that are offtopic to the main thread, I do this so no one wastes mod points on them (unless of course they want to reinforce the (OT) by modding it Off-topic). So maybe if you see comments with that in the subject line, it would be best to ignore them -- unless somehow it gets back ontopic.
Really, the parent of this post shouldn't have gotten a single positive mod.
It was intended only for the couple people involved in the grammar sub-thread.
"Do I have anything to hide? No . Am I doing anything illegal? Absolutely not. . Does that mean you have a right to see what is inside my mail, documents, files, data? Absolutely not!
Apparently you're forgetting that this still requires a warrant, which still requires probable cause. By all means, no warrant = don't touch my shit. But if there is probable cause to suspect that you've committed a crime involving those documents, then yes, law enforcement DOES have the right to see your personal stuff. Physical files or digital files, either way you are obliged to comply with a valid warrant.
So, go ahead and don't comply... I really don't mind that smoeone who doesn't abide by the rule of law (the foundation of society, btw) rots in jail. You have recourse, after all, if the search turns out to be unjustified, or if the information retrieved is used or disclosed inappropriately.
"When your "entire computer system" includes storage on Amazon, Google, etc, then where does "searching your entire computer system" stop?
It's a question of whether physical location applies to data, as well as ownership of the data. If you have leased storage space from someone whose hardware is at a different location, then they'll need to serve you with a separate warrant (if you have nominal ownership of the storage space and its contents) for the separate physical location. If the lessor retains nominal ownership of the location and its contents, then they must be served with the warrant (or asked to voluntarily comply, which is typically the case).
They can still seize the data, regardless of where it is located -- they'll need a new warrant, though, if the hardware is owned by a 3rd party.
Again, a straight parallel to the physical world. A suspect gets served a search warrant on suspicion of possession of CDS with intent to distribute. He gave his stash to his friend down the street to hold, and had a receipt in his sock drawer for storage space rental at Buddy's. Law enforcement can't search Buddy's place without a new warrant (limitation subject to hot pursuit exception, of course) -- but the new information gives them the basis for the new warrant. Alternatively, they could just walk over to Buddy's place and ask for permission to search -- which a lot of firms are quite happy to say "sure" since it's less expensive than dealing with a warrant, and less likely to implicate them in any wrongdoing.
Not to mention that it's extremely unwieldy to use an adverb in that situation. A better structure would have been:
One can hope that this acquisition won't adversely affect Alienware hardware and support.
(That is, if you're OK with the occasional split infinitive).
Too many verbs and modifiers in the original.
(I hope you're OK with this sentence fragment).
(And I hope you're OK with my use of the abbreviation 'OK').
(And I hope you're OK with me beginning a sentence with a conjunction).
I think you're right, that it's partially an ego trip, but I also think Ebert is fully aware of how influential he is, and I can't help but think that his public comments are fully intended to have an effect.
In this case, though, I give him a solid two thumbs down, or one thumb up his...
Warrants are not that specific. Warrants can be issued for entire computer systems looking for one tidbit. Law enforcement is only allowed to use the information that is covered by the warrant, but the only way they can verify that you've provided the keys to all the relevant files is to have a blanket warrant for all keys, and then check each file to see if it is relevant.
Same as standard home search warrants -- they don't issue a warrant to just search your sock drawer, because you told them that's the only place you'd keep the contraband they're looking for.